Social Democrats 21.9% (+0.7%) Sweden Democrats 24.2% (-1.5%)
Slight move to Sweden Democrats on Betfair. I wouldn't be so bullish. YouGov is the only pollster with them leading, and their lead has been cut in half from 4.5% to 2.3%.
It may have been a fluke, but I think YouGov were the most accurate pollster at the previous election.
The lead overlooks the fact that even in the case of a Corbyn GE win, a minority of the Labour MPs and a tiny minority of the commons will be signed up to Corbynite politics. Therefore he either governs by tacking heavily toward the centre or is brought down by internal division and rebellion. Both of these are interesting scenarios.
If Labour falls short of a majority and needs the LibDems and/or nationalists, multiply the above.
I dont feel under siege. JRM does not represent the majority of conservative mps and has no majority for his extreme Brexit in the HOC thankfully
How can it be right that a Conservative MP is actively undermining the PM and her Cabinet in this way - why don't they take the whip away from him and arrange for his local party to de-select him?
Arrange for his local party to deselect him? That is not how the Conservative Party works. The deal is that we don’t get to set policy, but we do get to choose candidates from the centrally Approved List of Parliamentary Candidates (despite CCHQ’s best attempts to take that right away). I think that’s much more sensible than the alternative.
Didn't you miss a bit out?
That covers people from Soubry to Rees-Mogg. Most of the time we have a reasonable choice.
Labour have Chris Williamson and Dawn Butler.
Well, my point is, if any aspiring Tory candidate wrote to every Conservative constituency party chair telling them the PM's Brexit proposal is a sell-out, their chances of making it onto the Approved List of Parliamentary Candidates would be zero.
I dont feel under siege. JRM does not represent the majority of conservative mps and has no majority for his extreme Brexit in the HOC thankfully
How can it be right that a Conservative MP is actively undermining the PM and her Cabinet in this way - why don't they take the whip away from him and arrange for his local party to de-select him?
Come on Ben - what is with labour supporters that they always seen to demand deselection when their is a conflict of views
Blimey mate, if 'conflicting with my views' were the criteria I'd be clamouring for deselection of every Tory candidate! (Well maybe not Ken, Anna, Heidi and a handful of others.)
My point is, JRM is making a gross attempt to completely undermine your party's elected leader and PM - she must be livid!
Who elected her as leader?
Your MPs did.
No they didn't. She was the only candidate after Leadsom dropped out. MPs had no say.
What rubbish! Over 50% of tory MPs voted for May in the first ballot and over 60% in the 2nd ballot. Leadsome withdrew because she recognised she commanded too little support from MPs.
The struggle in the UK (and the USA) is between two major political philosophies - neo-liberalism and social democracy. Neo-liberalism has been the accepted approach since the Thatcher revolution in the eighties but more and more people here and in the US are angrily rejecting it in favour of a more left wing approach. A counter revolution has begun.
Corbyn articulates it here. Sanders and Warren articulate it in the US. But if it wasn't them, someone else would be articulating it. The spokespeople are not as important as the idea. Corbyn is popular because of his political philosophy and in spite of some negatives.
I don 't know whether Labour "moderates" reject Corbyn's approach because they disagree with his policies (which are popular) or because, like Blair, they think that the only way to power is to appeal to the centre with Tory-lite policies that do not overturn the current political approach. The same tension is present in the Democrats in the US. Just how big is the support for the counter revolution? Is it big enough to deliver power?
The most likely outcome of the next election is a minority Labour government, held in check to some extent by the other minor parties and some more right wing Labour MPs. It would be operating in the SM/CU but outside the political structures of the EU. I think it would have an extended honeymoon period and could lead to a majority Labour government in 2027.
Corbyn would step down by say 2024 to be succeeded by someone with a similar political philosophy. But Corbyn is not that important. It is the political counter revolutionary wave that is important. Labour moderates need to get on board or join the Tories.
Corbyn is no social democrat.
Pretty much every government since WWII has combined social democracy and economic liberalism. Corbyn proposes to break from that.
I'm not sure I'd class many of the Government's from 1945 to 1979 as economically liberal. I'd say a mixed economy. Eden/Macmillan were maybe a bit better. Heath junked it all in after barely a year in the early 70s.
I'll ask the question that should be asked of loyalists of all stripes: what would your side have to do to lose your support? If you hold your nose and continue to support now, what would have to happen for that to change?
My misgivings about Jeremy Corbyn. Are a fraction of my misgivings of Theresa May. Boris Johnson. Jeremy Hunt. Politicians come and go - the movement remains. What we stand for remains. Why we are needed remains.
Despite everything I think about Jeremy Corbyn I'd have him in Downing Street in a heartbeat over Theresa May. And last year I played a key role in a campaign which removed a Tory MP and installed a Labour MP. Its my party and has been as a member for 24 years and I remember lobbying school friends to lobby their parents in 1992 - I am a socialist and proud of it.
It's very hard to take your criticisms of Jeremy Corbyn at all seriously, in the light of that post.
The lead overlooks the fact that even in the case of a Corbyn GE win, a minority of the Labour MPs and a tiny minority of the commons will be signed up to Corbynite politics. Therefore he either governs by tacking heavily toward the centre or is brought down by internal division and rebellion. Both of these are interesting scenarios.
If Labour falls short of a majority and needs the LibDems and/or nationalists, multiply the above.
This is very true and points to the flaw in Richard N's otherwise plausible and interesting analysis. The next Labour government will not be enacting 'hard-left' policies. Moderate left maybe, as in the 2017 manifesto, but they won't get hard-left policies through parliament.
I'll ask the question that should be asked of loyalists of all stripes: what would your side have to do to lose your support? If you hold your nose and continue to support now, what would have to happen for that to change?
My misgivings about Jeremy Corbyn. Are a fraction of my misgivings of Theresa May. Boris Johnson. Jeremy Hunt. Politicians come and go - the movement remains. What we stand for remains. Why we are needed remains.
I still don't quite get this - yes, politicians do come and go, but party's, movements, do not stay the same, they don't simply 'remain'. That you feel Labour retains the core of that movement and is needed I totally get, but it seems simply incorrect to me to imply that a single political party will always remain the heart of a particular movement no matter who leads it or where the membership takes it. For all I don't like Corbyn I don't see that he has done more than ramp up elements of what the party seems to have stood for, it isn't unrecognizable as the same movement, so it makes sense that even people who don't like him are fighting within the party, or would still vote for it at least.
But 'the movement' remains is just plain wrong to me. Sure, it might - but the movement doesn't always stay in the same place. After all, plenty of people who now adore the Labour party spent years voting Green or SWP or something, because to them 'the movement' did not remain with Labour.
I think he's overplaying his hand but it's possible he sees his role as applying pressure from the Brexit right to ensure the UK gets the most flexible deal possible, which he might eventually vote for with reservations.
The lead overlooks the fact that even in the case of a Corbyn GE win, a minority of the Labour MPs and a tiny minority of the commons will be signed up to Corbynite politics. Therefore he either governs by tacking heavily toward the centre or is brought down by internal division and rebellion. Both of these are interesting scenarios.
If Labour falls short of a majority and needs the LibDems and/or nationalists, multiply the above.
This is very true and points to the flaw in Richard N's otherwise plausible and interesting analysis. The next Labour government will not be enacting 'hard-left' policies. Moderate left maybe, as in the 2017 manifesto, but they won't get hard-left policies through parliament.
You just cannot say that with certainty in this climate.
I dont feel under siege. JRM does not represent the majority of conservative mps and has no majority for his extreme Brexit in the HOC thankfully
How can it be right that a Conservative MP is actively undermining the PM and her Cabinet in this way - why don't they take the whip away from him and arrange for his local party to de-select him?
There have, and always will be, rebels. Party's almost always put up with them. Sometimes those rebels end up taking over the party.
I dont feel under siege. JRM does not represent the majority of conservative mps and has no majority for his extreme Brexit in the HOC thankfully
How can it be right that a Conservative MP is actively undermining the PM and her Cabinet in this way - why don't they take the whip away from him and arrange for his local party to de-select him?
Arrange for his local party to deselect him? That is not how the Conservative Party works. The deal is that we don’t get to set policy, but we do get to choose candidates from the centrally Approved List of Parliamentary Candidates (despite CCHQ’s best attempts to take that right away). I think that’s much more sensible than the alternative.
Didn't you miss a bit out?
That covers people from Soubry to Rees-Mogg. Most of the time we have a reasonable choice.
Labour have Chris Williamson and Dawn Butler.
Well, my point is, if any aspiring Tory candidate wrote to every Conservative constituency party chair telling them the PM's Brexit proposal is a sell-out, their chances of making it onto the Approved List of Parliamentary Candidates would be zero.
Dissent is permitted. Soubry et al are railing against Brexit on Twitter, as is their inalienable right. The electorate seems to have lost its distaste for parties fighting like ferrets in a sack.
I'll ask the question that should be asked of loyalists of all stripes: what would your side have to do to lose your support? If you hold your nose and continue to support now, what would have to happen for that to change?
My misgivings about Jeremy Corbyn. Are a fraction of my misgivings of Theresa May. Boris Johnson. Jeremy Hunt. Politicians come and go - the movement remains. What we stand for remains. Why we are needed remains.
I still don't quite get this - yes, politicians do come and go, but party's, movements, do not stay the same, they don't simply 'remain'. That you feel Labour retains the core of that movement and is needed I totally get, but it seems simply incorrect to me to imply that a single political party will always remain the heart of a particular movement no matter who leads it or where the membership takes it. For all I don't like Corbyn I don't see that he has done more than ramp up elements of what the party seems to have stood for, it isn't unrecognizable as the same movement, so it makes sense that even people who don't like him are fighting within the party, or would still vote for it at least.
But 'the movement' remains is just plain wrong to me. Sure, it might - but the movement doesn't always stay in the same place. After all, plenty of people who now adore the Labour party spent years voting Green or SWP or something, because to them 'the movement' did not remain with Labour.
Good post. A prime example of a party changing over the years is the way the Conservatives stopped wanting to 'conserve' anything very much at all and became radical neo-liberals in the Thatcher era.
I'll ask the question that should be asked of loyalists of all stripes: what would your side have to do to lose your support? If you hold your nose and continue to support now, what would have to happen for that to change?
My misgivings about Jeremy Corbyn. Are a fraction of my misgivings of Theresa May. Boris Johnson. Jeremy Hunt. Politicians come and go - the movement remains. What we stand for remains. Why we are needed remains.
Despite everything I think about Jeremy Corbyn I'd have him in Downing Street in a heartbeat over Theresa May. And last year I played a key role in a campaign which removed a Tory MP and installed a Labour MP. Its my party and has been as a member for 24 years and I remember lobbying school friends to lobby their parents in 1992 - I am a socialist and proud of it.
It's very hard to take your criticisms of Jeremy Corbyn at all seriously, in the light of that post.
My party, right or wrong.
How very Labour
Come on, you think that attitude is restricted to Labour? That stretches credibility.
That's one of what I would call political rather than partisan behaviours - the latter only apply to one side (to any significant degree at least), the former might apply to all, even if we can identify some as being worse, at a particular moment.
I'll ask the question that should be asked of loyalists of all stripes: what would your side have to do to lose your support? If you hold your nose and continue to support now, what would have to happen for that to change?
My misgivings about Jeremy Corbyn. Are a fraction of my misgivings of Theresa May. Boris Johnson. Jeremy Hunt. Politicians come and go - the movement remains. What we stand for remains. Why we are needed remains.
Despite everything I think about Jeremy Corbyn I'd have him in Downing Street in a heartbeat over Theresa May. And last year I played a key role in a campaign which removed a Tory MP and installed a Labour MP. Its my party and has been as a member for 24 years and I remember lobbying school friends to lobby their parents in 1992 - I am a socialist and proud of it.
It's very hard to take your criticisms of Jeremy Corbyn at all seriously, in the light of that post.
My party, right or wrong.
How very Labour
Come on, you think that attitude is restricted to Labour? That stretches credibility.
That's one of what I would call political rather than partisan behaviours - the latter only apply to one side (to any significant degree at least), the former might apply to all, even if we can identify some as being worse, at a particular moment.
Nope, but I do think Labour is very tribal. More so than either the Tories or the LDs.
I voted for our Welsh leader today and if she wins we will have a full slate of female leaders. TM, Ruth Davidson, Suzy Davies and across the water Arlene Foster
The struggle in the UK (and the USA) is between two major political philosophies - neo-liberalism and social democracy. Neo-liberalism has been the accepted approach since the Thatcher revolution in the eighties but more and more people here and in the US are angrily rejecting it in favour of a more left wing approach. A counter revolution has begun.
Corbyn articulates it here. Sanders and Warren articulate it in the US. But if it wasn't them, someone else would be articulating it. The spokespeople are not as important as the idea. Corbyn is popular because of his political philosophy and in spite of some negatives.
I don 't know whether Labour "moderates" reject Corbyn's approach because they disagree with his policies (which are popular) or because, like Blair, they think that the only way to power is to appeal to the centre with Tory-lite policies that do not overturn the current political approach. The same tension is present in the Democrats in the US. Just how big is the support for the counter revolution? Is it big enough to deliver power?
The most likely outcome of the next election is a minority Labour government, held in check to some extent by the other minor parties and some more right wing Labour MPs. It would be operating in the SM/CU but outside the political structures of the EU. I think it would have an extended honeymoon period and could lead to a majority Labour government in 2027.
Corbyn would step down by say 2024 to be succeeded by someone with a similar political philosophy. But Corbyn is not that important. It is the political counter revolutionary wave that is important. Labour moderates need to get on board or join the Tories.
Corbyn is no social democrat.
Pretty much every government since WWII has combined social democracy and economic liberalism. Corbyn proposes to break from that.
Neither are most Labour party members. We are socialists!
The struggle in the UK (and the USA) is between two major political philosophies - neo-liberalism and social democracy. Neo-liberalism has been the accepted approach since the Thatcher revolution in the eighties but more and more people here and in the US are angrily rejecting it in favour of a more left wing approach. A counter revolution has begun.
Corbyn articulates it here. Sanders and Warren articulate it in the US. But if it wasn't them, someone else would be articulating it. The spokespeople are not as important as the idea. Corbyn is popular because of his political philosophy and in spite of some negatives.
I don 't know whether Labour "moderates" reject Corbyn's approach because they disagree with his policies (which are popular) or because, like Blair, they think that the only way to power is to appeal to the centre with Tory-lite policies that do not overturn the current political approach. The same tension is present in the Democrats in the US. Just how big is the support for the counter revolution? Is it big enough to deliver power?
The most likely outcome of the next election is a minority Labour government, held in check to some extent by the other minor parties and some more right wing Labour MPs. It would be operating in the SM/CU but outside the political structures of the EU. I think it would have an extended honeymoon period and could lead to a majority Labour government in 2027.
Corbyn would step down by say 2024 to be succeeded by someone with a similar political philosophy. But Corbyn is not that important. It is the political counter revolutionary wave that is important. Labour moderates need to get on board or join the Tories.
Corbyn is no social democrat.
Pretty much every government since WWII has combined social democracy and economic liberalism. Corbyn proposes to break from that.
No they haven't. There was a political consensus from 1945 to 1980 that is similar to the policies that Corbyn is proposing. Thatcher overthrew that and a new concensus emerged (privatisation, reduced public spending etc) that has lasted until now but won't last much longer.
The struggle in the UK (and the USA) is between two major political philosophies - neo-liberalism and social democracy. Neo-liberalism has been the accepted approach since the Thatcher revolution in the eighties but more and more people here and in the US are angrily rejecting it in favour of a more left wing approach. A counter revolution has begun.
Corbyn articulates it here. Sanders and Warren articulate it in the US. But if it wasn't them, someone else would be articulating it. The spokespeople are not as important as the idea. Corbyn is popular because of his political philosophy and in spite of some negatives.
I don 't know whether Labour "moderates" reject Corbyn's approach because they disagree with his policies (which are popular) or because, like Blair, they think that the only way to power is to appeal to the centre with Tory-lite policies that do not overturn the current political approach. The same tension is present in the Democrats in the US. Just how big is the support for the counter revolution? Is it big enough to deliver power?
The most likely outcome of the next election is a minority Labour government, held in check to some extent by the other minor parties and some more right wing Labour MPs. It would be operating in the SM/CU but outside the political structures of the EU. I think it would have an extended honeymoon period and could lead to a majority Labour government in 2027.
Corbyn would step down by say 2024 to be succeeded by someone with a similar political philosophy. But Corbyn is not that important. It is the political counter revolutionary wave that is important. Labour moderates need to get on board or join the Tories.
Corbyn is no social democrat.
Pretty much every government since WWII has combined social democracy and economic liberalism. Corbyn proposes to break from that.
Neither are most Labour party members. We are socialists!
The lead overlooks the fact that even in the case of a Corbyn GE win, a minority of the Labour MPs and a tiny minority of the commons will be signed up to Corbynite politics. Therefore he either governs by tacking heavily toward the centre or is brought down by internal division and rebellion. Both of these are interesting scenarios.
If Labour falls short of a majority and needs the LibDems and/or nationalists, multiply the above.
This is very true and points to the flaw in Richard N's otherwise plausible and interesting analysis. The next Labour government will not be enacting 'hard-left' policies. Moderate left maybe, as in the 2017 manifesto, but they won't get hard-left policies through parliament.
You just cannot say that with certainty in this climate.
The only certain way is not to vote labour
Well that's certainly not certain - I could vote 'not Labour' and they still could get in!
Obviously nothing is 100% certain but I am very confident hard-left policies which are not in the manifesto will not get through parliament. If the next manifesto contained true 'hard-left' policies Labour would not win.
While in fairness I only know american politics from talk shows, the occasional news story and, of course, PB, Ted Cruz comes across as one of those instantly unlikable kind of people that makes you wonder how they rose so high. I presume he must, in fact, have decent qualities, particularly for his base, but still.
The lead overlooks the fact that even in the case of a Corbyn GE win, a minority of the Labour MPs and a tiny minority of the commons will be signed up to Corbynite politics. Therefore he either governs by tacking heavily toward the centre or is brought down by internal division and rebellion. Both of these are interesting scenarios.
If Labour falls short of a majority and needs the LibDems and/or nationalists, multiply the above.
This is very true and points to the flaw in Richard N's otherwise plausible and interesting analysis. The next Labour government will not be enacting 'hard-left' policies. Moderate left maybe, as in the 2017 manifesto, but they won't get hard-left policies through parliament.
You just cannot say that with certainty in this climate.
The only certain way is not to vote labour
Trying to score a Party point is poor substitute for analysis. Just because HY is out on the town is no excuse.
We see it already in Corbyn dropping his long-felt total opposition to Trident.
In the Tories the same process is in play with Mrs M's Chequers deal.
Social Democrats 21.9% (+0.7%) Sweden Democrats 24.2% (-1.5%)
Slight move to Sweden Democrats on Betfair. I wouldn't be so bullish. YouGov is the only pollster with them leading, and their lead has been cut in half from 4.5% to 2.3%.
It may have been a fluke, but I think YouGov were the most accurate pollster at the previous election.
I voted for our Welsh leader today and if she wins we will have a full slate of female leaders. TM, Ruth Davidson, Suzy Davies and across the water Arlene Foster
Counting the DUP as part of the Tory 'we'? I know they have an agreement, but steady on.
I dont feel under siege. JRM does not represent the majority of conservative mps and has no majority for his extreme Brexit in the HOC thankfully
How can it be right that a Conservative MP is actively undermining the PM and her Cabinet in this way - why don't they take the whip away from him and arrange for his local party to de-select him?
Come on Ben - what is with labour supporters that they always seen to demand deselection when their is a conflict of views
Deselection ? In the US , it's called Primaries and everyone thinks it is so democratic.
Speaking of Northern Ireland, are they even pretending they might get the assembly back together at some point still, or is everyone just ignoring the situation, I don't recall any announcements of 'Difficult, but progress is being made' or 'hope to resolve at some point' lately.
The lead overlooks the fact that even in the case of a Corbyn GE win, a minority of the Labour MPs and a tiny minority of the commons will be signed up to Corbynite politics. Therefore he either governs by tacking heavily toward the centre or is brought down by internal division and rebellion. Both of these are interesting scenarios.
If Labour falls short of a majority and needs the LibDems and/or nationalists, multiply the above.
This is very true and points to the flaw in Richard N's otherwise plausible and interesting analysis. The next Labour government will not be enacting 'hard-left' policies. Moderate left maybe, as in the 2017 manifesto, but they won't get hard-left policies through parliament.
You just cannot say that with certainty in this climate.
The only certain way is not to vote labour
Well that's certainly not certain - I could vote 'not Labour' and they still could get in!
Obviously nothing is 100% certain but I am very confident hard-left policies which are not in the manifesto will not get through parliament. If the next manifesto contained true 'hard-left' policies Labour would not win.
The struggle in the UK (and the USA) is between two major political philosophies - neo-liberalism and social democracy. Neo-liberalism has been the accepted approach since the Thatcher revolution in the eighties but more and more people here and in the US are angrily rejecting it in favour of a more left wing approach. A counter revolution has begun.
Corbyn articulates it here. Sanders and Warren articulate it in the US. But if it wasn't them, someone else would be articulating it. The spokespeople are not as important as the idea. Corbyn is popular because of his political philosophy and in spite of some negatives.
I don 't know whether Labour "moderates" reject Corbyn's approach because they disagree with his policies (which are popular) or because, like Blair, they think that the only way to power is to appeal to the centre with Tory-lite policies that do not overturn the current political approach. The same tension is present in the Democrats in the US. Just how big is the support for the counter revolution? Is it big enough to deliver power?
The most likely outcome of the next election is a minority Labour government, held in check to some extent by the other minor parties and some more right wing Labour MPs. It would be operating in the SM/CU but outside the political structures of the EU. I think it would have an extended honeymoon period and could lead to a majority Labour government in 2027.
Corbyn would step down by say 2024 to be succeeded by someone with a similar political philosophy. But Corbyn is not that important. It is the political counter revolutionary wave that is important. Labour moderates need to get on board or join the Tories.
Corbyn is no social democrat.
Pretty much every government since WWII has combined social democracy and economic liberalism. Corbyn proposes to break from that.
Neither are most Labour party members. We are socialists!
I voted for our Welsh leader today and if she wins we will have a full slate of female leaders. TM, Ruth Davidson, Suzy Davies and across the water Arlene Foster
Counting the DUP as part of the Tory 'we'? I know they have an agreement, but steady on.
I dont feel under siege. JRM does not represent the majority of conservative mps and has no majority for his extreme Brexit in the HOC thankfully
How can it be right that a Conservative MP is actively undermining the PM and her Cabinet in this way - why don't they take the whip away from him and arrange for his local party to de-select him?
Come on Ben - what is with labour supporters that they always seen to demand deselection when their is a conflict of views
Deselection ? In the US , it's called Primaries and everyone thinks it is so democratic.
Primaries are one of those things that I can see the benefits of, but the impact they seem to have in the US sometimes, the fear of facing such a challenge, seems counter productive much of the time.
Interestingly, that Democrat in Pennsylvania who won a district which had been heavily for Trump, was not chosen by a primary IIRC - I don't know the truth of the matter, but there were articles around that time suggesting the ability to much more carefully choose the candidate there helped.
The struggle in the UK (and the USA) is between two major political philosophies - neo-liberalism and social democracy. Neo-liberalism has been the accepted approach since the Thatcher revolution in the eighties but more and more people here and in the US are angrily rejecting it in favour of a more left wing approach. A counter revolution has begun.
Corbyn articulates it here. Sanders and Warren articulate it in the US. But if it wasn't them, someone else would be articulating it. The spokespeople are not as important as the idea. Corbyn is popular because of his political philosophy and in spite of some negatives.
I don 't know whether Labour "moderates" reject Corbyn's approach because they disagree with his policies (which are popular) or because, like Blair, they think that the only way to power is to appeal to the centre with Tory-lite policies that do not overturn the current political approach. The same tension is present in the Democrats in the US. Just how big is the support for the counter revolution? Is it big enough to deliver power?
The most likely outcome of the next election is a minority Labour government, held in check to some extent by the other minor parties and some more right wing Labour MPs. It would be operating in the SM/CU but outside the political structures of the EU. I think it would have an extended honeymoon period and could lead to a majority Labour government in 2027.
Corbyn would step down by say 2024 to be succeeded by someone with a similar political philosophy. But Corbyn is not that important. It is the political counter revolutionary wave that is important. Labour moderates need to get on board or join the Tories.
Corbyn is no social democrat.
Pretty much every government since WWII has combined social democracy and economic liberalism. Corbyn proposes to break from that.
Neither are most Labour party members. We are socialists!
The struggle in the UK (and the USA) is between two major political philosophies - neo-liberalism and social democracy. Neo-liberalism has been the accepted approach since the Thatcher revolution in the eighties but more and more people here and in the US are angrily rejecting it in favour of a more left wing approach. A counter revolution has begun.
Corbyn articulates it here. Sanders and Warren articulate it in the US. But if it wasn't them, someone else would be articulating it. The spokespeople are not as important as the idea. Corbyn is popular because of his political philosophy and in spite of some negatives.
I don 't know whether Labour "moderates" reject Corbyn's approach because they disagree with his policies (which are popular) or because, like Blair, they think that the only way to power is to appeal to the centre with Tory-lite policies that do not overturn the current political approach. The same tension is present in the Democrats in the US. Just how big is the support for the counter revolution? Is it big enough to deliver power?
The most likely outcome of the next election is a minority Labour government, held in check to some extent by the other minor parties and some more right wing Labour MPs. It would be operating in the SM/CU but outside the political structures of the EU. I think it would have an extended honeymoon period and could lead to a majority Labour government in 2027.
Corbyn would step down by say 2024 to be succeeded by someone with a similar political philosophy. But Corbyn is not that important. It is the political counter revolutionary wave that is important. Labour moderates need to get on board or join the Tories.
Corbyn is no social democrat.
Pretty much every government since WWII has combined social democracy and economic liberalism. Corbyn proposes to break from that.
Neither are most Labour party members. We are socialists!
Communists abound in Corbyns labour
And what's wrong with that ?
Fine - just say it publically that labour now represents the communist party and everyone will know their politics
The lead overlooks the fact that even in the case of a Corbyn GE win, a minority of the Labour MPs and a tiny minority of the commons will be signed up to Corbynite politics. Therefore he either governs by tacking heavily toward the centre or is brought down by internal division and rebellion. Both of these are interesting scenarios.
If Labour falls short of a majority and needs the LibDems and/or nationalists, multiply the above.
This is very true and points to the flaw in Richard N's otherwise plausible and interesting analysis. The next Labour government will not be enacting 'hard-left' policies. Moderate left maybe, as in the 2017 manifesto, but they won't get hard-left policies through parliament.
You just cannot say that with certainty in this climate.
The only certain way is not to vote labour
Well that's certainly not certain - I could vote 'not Labour' and they still could get in!
Obviously nothing is 100% certain but I am very confident hard-left policies which are not in the manifesto will not get through parliament. If the next manifesto contained true 'hard-left' policies Labour would not win.
Sky reporting eggs are now Venezeula's currency.
Better start raising chickens if Corbyn gets in
Filed alongside Hans Cristian Andersen, the brothers Grimm, and other fairytales designed to scare little children.
The lead overlooks the fact that even in the case of a Corbyn GE win, a minority of the Labour MPs and a tiny minority of the commons will be signed up to Corbynite politics. Therefore he either governs by tacking heavily toward the centre or is brought down by internal division and rebellion. Both of these are interesting scenarios.
If Labour falls short of a majority and needs the LibDems and/or nationalists, multiply the above.
This is very true and points to the flaw in Richard N's otherwise plausible and interesting analysis. The next Labour government will not be enacting 'hard-left' policies. Moderate left maybe, as in the 2017 manifesto, but they won't get hard-left policies through parliament.
You just cannot say that with certainty in this climate.
The only certain way is not to vote labour
Well that's certainly not certain - I could vote 'not Labour' and they still could get in!
Obviously nothing is 100% certain but I am very confident hard-left policies which are not in the manifesto will not get through parliament. If the next manifesto contained true 'hard-left' policies Labour would not win.
The struggle in the UK (and the USA) is between two major political philosophies - neo-liberalism and social democracy. Neo-liberalism has been the accepted approach since the Thatcher revolution in the eighties but more and more people here and in the US are angrily rejecting it in favour of a more left wing approach. A counter revolution has begun.
Corbyn articulates it here. Sanders and Warren articulate it in the US. But if it wasn't them, someone else would be articulating it. The spokespeople are not as important as the idea. Corbyn is popular because of his political philosophy and in spite of some negatives.
I don 't know whether Labour "moderates" reject Corbyn's approach because they disagree with his policies (which are popular) or because, like Blair, they think that the only way to power is to appeal to the centre with Tory-lite policies that do not overturn the current political approach. The same tension is present in the Democrats in the US. Just how big is the support for the counter revolution? Is it big enough to deliver power?
The most likely outcome of the next election is a minority Labour government, held in check to some extent by the other minor parties and some more right wing Labour MPs. It would be operating in the SM/CU but outside the political structures of the EU. I think it would have an extended honeymoon period and could lead to a majority Labour government in 2027.
Corbyn would step down by say 2024 to be succeeded by someone with a similar political philosophy. But Corbyn is not that important. It is the political counter revolutionary wave that is important. Labour moderates need to get on board or join the Tories.
Corbyn is no social democrat.
Pretty much every government since WWII has combined social democracy and economic liberalism. Corbyn proposes to break from that.
Neither are most Labour party members. We are socialists!
The struggle in the UK (and the USA) is between two major political philosophies - neo-liberalism and social democracy. Neo-liberalism has been the accepted approach since the Thatcher revolution in the eighties but more and more people here and in the US are angrily rejecting it in favour of a more left wing approach. A counter revolution has begun.
Corbyn articulates it here. Sanders and Warren articulate it in the US. But if it wasn't them, someone else would be articulating it. The spokespeople are not as important as the idea. Corbyn is popular because of his political philosophy and in spite of some negatives.
I don 't know whether Labour "moderates" reject Corbyn's approach because they disagree with his policies (which are popular) or because, like Blair, they think that the only way to power is to appeal to the centre with Tory-lite policies that do not overturn the current political approach. The same tension is present in the Democrats in the US. Just how big is the support for the counter revolution? Is it big enough to deliver power?
The most likely outcome of the next election is a minority Labour government, held in check to some extent by the other minor parties and some more right wing Labour MPs. It would be operating in the SM/CU but outside the political structures of the EU. I think it would have an extended honeymoon period and could lead to a majority Labour government in 2027.
Corbyn would step down by say 2024 to be succeeded by someone with a similar political philosophy. But Corbyn is not that important. It is the political counter revolutionary wave that is important. Labour moderates need to get on board or join the Tories.
Corbyn is no social democrat.
Pretty much every government since WWII has combined social democracy and economic liberalism. Corbyn proposes to break from that.
Neither are most Labour party members. We are socialists!
Communists abound in Corbyns labour
And what's wrong with that ?
Communism is regarded very poorly by the public, by and large
I voted for our Welsh leader today and if she wins we will have a full slate of female leaders. TM, Ruth Davidson, Suzy Davies and across the water Arlene Foster
Counting the DUP as part of the Tory 'we'? I know they have an agreement, but steady on.
Given the betting favourites for both the next LAB and LD leadership are woman then we could have a full slate.
The struggle in the UK (and the USA) is between two major political philosophies - neo-liberalism and social democracy. Neo-liberalism has been the accepted approach since the Thatcher revolution in the eighties but more and more people here and in the US are angrily rejecting it in favour of a more left wing approach. A counter revolution has begun.
Corbyn articulates it here. Sanders and Warren articulate it in the US. But if it wasn't them, someone else would be articulating it. The spokespeople are not as important as the idea. Corbyn is popular because of his political philosophy and in spite of some negatives.
I don 't know whether Labour "moderates" reject Corbyn's approach because they disagree with his policies (which are popular) or because, like Blair, they think that the only way to power is to appeal to the centre with Tory-lite policies that do not overturn the current political approach. The same tension is present in the Democrats in the US. Just how big is the support for the counter revolution? Is it big enough to deliver power?
The most likely outcome of the next election is a minority Labour government, held in check to some extent by the other minor parties and some more right wing Labour MPs. It would be operating in the SM/CU but outside the political structures of the EU. I think it would have an extended honeymoon period and could lead to a majority Labour government in 2027.
Corbyn would step down by say 2024 to be succeeded by someone with a similar political philosophy. But Corbyn is not that important. It is the political counter revolutionary wave that is important. Labour moderates need to get on board or join the Tories.
Corbyn is no social democrat.
Pretty much every government since WWII has combined social democracy and economic liberalism. Corbyn proposes to break from that.
Neither are most Labour party members. We are socialists!
Communists abound in Corbyns labour
And what's wrong with that ?
Fine - just say it publically that labour now represents the communist party and everyone will know their politics
No. There are some communists in the Labour Party just like there are some fascists and imperialists in the Tory party.
I voted for our Welsh leader today and if she wins we will have a full slate of female leaders. TM, Ruth Davidson, Suzy Davies and across the water Arlene Foster
Counting the DUP as part of the Tory 'we'? I know they have an agreement, but steady on.
Given the betting favourites for both the next LAB and LD leadership are woman then we could have a full slate.
Perhaps gender has something to do with May and Davidson polling better than any of the male contenders?
The struggle in the UK (and the USA) is between two major political philosophies - neo-liberalism and social democracy. Neo-liberalism has been the accepted approach since the Thatcher revolution in the eighties but more and more people here and in the US are angrily rejecting it in favour of a more left wing approach. A counter revolution has begun.
Corbyn articulates it here. Sanders and Warren articulate it in the US. But if it wasn't them, someone else would be articulating it. The spokespeople are not as important as the idea. Corbyn is popular because of his political philosophy and in spite of some negatives.
I don 't know whether Labour "moderates" reject Corbyn's approach because they disagree with his policies (which are popular) or because, like Blair, they think that the only way to power is to appeal to the centre with Tory-lite policies that do not overturn the current political approach. The same tension is present in the Democrats in the US. Just how big is the support for the counter revolution? Is it big enough to deliver power?
The most likely outcome of the next election is a minority Labour government, held in check to some extent by the other minor parties and some more right wing Labour MPs. It would be operating in the SM/CU but outside the political structures of the EU. I think it would have an extended honeymoon period and could lead to a majority Labour government in 2027.
Corbyn would step down by say 2024 to be succeeded by someone with a similar political philosophy. But Corbyn is not that important. It is the political counter revolutionary wave that is important. Labour moderates need to get on board or join the Tories.
Corbyn is no social democrat.
Pretty much every government since WWII has combined social democracy and economic liberalism. Corbyn proposes to break from that.
Neither are most Labour party members. We are socialists!
Communists abound in Corbyns labour
And what's wrong with that ?
The only thing Communism has been proved to achieve is killing tens of millions of Communists.
The lead overlooks the fact that even in the case of a Corbyn GE win, a minority of the Labour MPs and a tiny minority of the commons will be signed up to Corbynite politics. Therefore he either governs by tacking heavily toward the centre or is brought down by internal division and rebellion. Both of these are interesting scenarios.
If Labour falls short of a majority and needs the LibDems and/or nationalists, multiply the above.
This is very true and points to the flaw in Richard N's otherwise plausible and interesting analysis. The next Labour government will not be enacting 'hard-left' policies. Moderate left maybe, as in the 2017 manifesto, but they won't get hard-left policies through parliament.
You just cannot say that with certainty in this climate.
The only certain way is not to vote labour
Well that's certainly not certain - I could vote 'not Labour' and they still could get in!
Obviously nothing is 100% certain but I am very confident hard-left policies which are not in the manifesto will not get through parliament. If the next manifesto contained true 'hard-left' policies Labour would not win.
Sky reporting eggs are now Venezeula's currency.
Better start raising chickens if Corbyn gets in
Filed alongside Hans Cristian Andersen, the brothers Grimm, and other fairytales designed to scare little children.
But this is for real in Venezeula and Corbyn endorses its leaders
Ok, more than anything else, is social class even fixed? What if they think they are a different class to, say, their parents or what their background would imply? Do people even all know what class they are? There's supposed to be seven classes now after all.
Seriously though, does the story say what this plan would actually achieve? Presumably we'd find out upper middle class and upper class people are disproportionately represented, but for that matter the Tories would say being left wing is disproportionately represented, how does publishing social classes actually assist in removing the barriers that might stop people from other backgrounds breaking through?
Still, it beats talking about anti-semitism, and the media love talking about the media, so well played Corbyn.
Shall we start with the Labour leader and his media strategy director and associates?
Milne: son of BBC DG, educated at Winchester, Oxford, Economist mag and then Guardian.
Corbyn: Bought up in Yew Tree Manor, a 17th-century farmhouse, and attended a Grammar school.
Murray: Born ito Peter Drummond-Murray of Mastrick, a stockbroker and banker who was Slains Pursuivant. He was educated at Worth School, a Benedictine independent boarding school in Sussex.
I voted for our Welsh leader today and if she wins we will have a full slate of female leaders. TM, Ruth Davidson, Suzy Davies and across the water Arlene Foster
Counting the DUP as part of the Tory 'we'? I know they have an agreement, but steady on.
Given the betting favourites for both the next LAB and LD leadership are woman then we could have a full slate.
Perhaps gender has something to do with May and Davidson polling better than any of the male contenders?
The struggle in the UK (and the USA) is between two major political philosophies - neo-liberalism and social democracy. Neo-liberalism has been the accepted approach since the Thatcher revolution in the eighties but more and more people here and in the US are angrily rejecting it in favour of a more left wing approach. A counter revolution has begun.
Corbyn articulates it here. Sanders and Warren articulate it in the US. But if it wasn't them, someone else would be articulating it. The spokespeople are not as important as the idea. Corbyn is popular because of his political philosophy and in spite of some negatives.
I don 't know whether Labour "moderates" reject Corbyn's approach because they disagree with his policies (which are popular) or because, like Blair, they think that the only way to power is to appeal to the centre with Tory-lite policies that do not overturn the current political approach. The same tension is present in the Democrats in the US. Just how big is the support for the counter revolution? Is it big enough to deliver power?
The most likely outcome of the next election is a minority Labour government, held in check to some extent by the other minor parties and some more right wing Labour MPs. It would be operating in the SM/CU but outside the political structures of the EU. I think it would have an extended honeymoon period and could lead to a majority Labour government in 2027.
Corbyn would step down by say 2024 to be succeeded by someone with a similar political philosophy. But Corbyn is not that important. It is the political counter revolutionary wave that is important. Labour moderates need to get on board or join the Tories.
Corbyn is no social democrat.
Pretty much every government since WWII has combined social democracy and economic liberalism. Corbyn proposes to break from that.
Neither are most Labour party members. We are socialists!
Communists abound in Corbyns labour
And what's wrong with that ?
The only thing Communism has been proved to achieve is killing tens of millions of Communists.
I voted for our Welsh leader today and if she wins we will have a full slate of female leaders. TM, Ruth Davidson, Suzy Davies and across the water Arlene Foster
Counting the DUP as part of the Tory 'we'? I know they have an agreement, but steady on.
Given the betting favourites for both the next LAB and LD leadership are woman then we could have a full slate.
If the LDs move quickly could well be Corbyn the old, posh white guy is the last man standing.
The struggle in the UK (and the USA) is between two major political philosophies - neo-liberalism and social democracy. Neo-liberalism has been the accepted approach since the Thatcher revolution in the eighties but more and more people here and in the US are angrily rejecting it in favour of a more left wing approach. A counter revolution has begun.
Corbyn articulates it here. Sanders and Warren articulate it in the US. But if it wasn't them, someone else would be articulating it. The spokespeople are not as important as the idea. Corbyn is popular because of his political philosophy and in spite of some negatives.
I don 't know whether Labour "moderates" reject Corbyn's approach because they disagree with his policies (which are popular) or because, like Blair, they think that the only way to power is to appeal to the centre with Tory-lite policies that do not overturn the current political approach. The same tension is present in the Democrats in the US. Just how big is the support for the counter revolution? Is it big enough to deliver power?
The most likely outcome of the next election is a minority Labour government, held in check to some extent by the other minor parties and some more right wing Labour MPs. It would be operating in the SM/CU but outside the political structures of the EU. I think it would have an extended honeymoon period and could lead to a majority Labour government in 2027.
Corbyn would step down by say 2024 to be succeeded by someone with a similar political philosophy. But Corbyn is not that important. It is the political counter revolutionary wave that is important. Labour moderates need to get on board or join the Tories.
Corbyn is no social democrat.
Pretty much every government since WWII has combined social democracy and economic liberalism. Corbyn proposes to break from that.
Neither are most Labour party members. We are socialists!
Communists abound in Corbyns labour
And what's wrong with that ?
The only thing Communism has been proved to achieve is killing tens of millions of Communists.
I voted for our Welsh leader today and if she wins we will have a full slate of female leaders. TM, Ruth Davidson, Suzy Davies and across the water Arlene Foster
Counting the DUP as part of the Tory 'we'? I know they have an agreement, but steady on.
Given the betting favourites for both the next LAB and LD leadership are woman then we could have a full slate.
If the LDs move quickly could well be Corbyn the old, posh white guy is the last man standing.
I voted for our Welsh leader today and if she wins we will have a full slate of female leaders. TM, Ruth Davidson, Suzy Davies and across the water Arlene Foster
Counting the DUP as part of the Tory 'we'? I know they have an agreement, but steady on.
Given the betting favourites for both the next LAB and LD leadership are woman then we could have a full slate.
If the LDs move quickly could well be Corbyn the old, posh white guy is the last man standing.
Scottish labour is led by an Englishman
I figured Mike was talking just about UK wide parties (and like most of us ignoring UKIP) - Scottish LD leader also a man, and I don't even recall who is leading Welsh Labour.
He's also nuts but if that starts to be a bar on being a politician the cut in numbers in the Commons is going to have to go a whole lot further.
Chhuck him from the party. Chuck him off a metaphorical cliff. I don't really care.
He doesn't have the best interests of the party or the country at heart.
That's unfair. He has what he *thinks* is the best interests of the country at heart. He's wrong, of course, but that doesn't mean he isn't well intentioned.
He doesn't give a fig for the interests of the party
The lead overlooks the fact that even in the case of a Corbyn GE win, a minority of the Labour MPs and a tiny minority of the commons will be signed up to Corbynite politics. Therefore he either governs by tacking heavily toward the centre or is brought down by internal division and rebellion. Both of these are interesting scenarios.
If Labour falls short of a majority and needs the LibDems and/or nationalists, multiply the above.
This is very true and points to the flaw in Richard N's otherwise plausible and interesting analysis. The next Labour government will not be enacting 'hard-left' policies. Moderate left maybe, as in the 2017 manifesto, but they won't get hard-left policies through parliament.
You just cannot say that with certainty in this climate.
The only certain way is not to vote labour
Well that's certainly not certain - I could vote 'not Labour' and they still could get in!
Obviously nothing is 100% certain but I am very confident hard-left policies which are not in the manifesto will not get through parliament. If the next manifesto contained true 'hard-left' policies Labour would not win.
Sky reporting eggs are now Venezeula's currency.
Better start raising chickens if Corbyn gets in
Filed alongside Hans Cristian Andersen, the brothers Grimm, and other fairytales designed to scare little children.
But this is for real in Venezeula and Corbyn endorses its leaders
Do you seriously believe for one moment that a Labour government under Corbyn will lead to the UK needing to resort to using eggs as currency?!
I dont feel under siege. JRM does not represent the majority of conservative mps and has no majority for his extreme Brexit in the HOC thankfully
How can it be right that a Conservative MP is actively undermining the PM and her Cabinet in this way - why don't they take the whip away from him and arrange for his local party to de-select him?
Come on Ben - what is with labour supporters that they always seen to demand deselection when their is a conflict of views
Blimey mate, if 'conflicting with my views' were the criteria I'd be clamouring for deselection of every Tory candidate! (Well maybe not Ken, Anna, Heidi and a handful of others.)
My point is, JRM is making a gross attempt to completely undermine your party's elected leader and PM - she must be livid!
She and the majority of conservative mps but he is fighting a lost cause and in the end he will lose
Also JRM and Steve Baker have tweeted support for Barry Gardiner ruling out a peoples vote as Chuka slutters in his cornflakes
The lead overlooks the fact that even in the case of a Corbyn GE win, a minority of the Labour MPs and a tiny minority of the commons will be signed up to Corbynite politics. Therefore he either governs by tacking heavily toward the centre or is brought down by internal division and rebellion. Both of these are interesting scenarios.
If Labour falls short of a majority and needs the LibDems and/or nationalists, multiply the above.
This is very true and points to the flaw in Richard N's otherwise plausible and interesting analysis. The next Labour government will not be enacting 'hard-left' policies. Moderate left maybe, as in the 2017 manifesto, but they won't get hard-left policies through parliament.
You just cannot say that with certainty in this climate.
The only certain way is not to vote labour
Well that's certainly not certain - I could vote 'not Labour' and they still could get in!
Obviously nothing is 100% certain but I am very confident hard-left policies which are not in the manifesto will not get through parliament. If the next manifesto contained true 'hard-left' policies Labour would not win.
Sky reporting eggs are now Venezeula's currency.
Better start raising chickens if Corbyn gets in
Filed alongside Hans Cristian Andersen, the brothers Grimm, and other fairytales designed to scare little children.
But this is for real in Venezeula and Corbyn endorses its leaders
Do you seriously believe for one moment that a Labour government under Corbyn will lead to the UK needing to resort to using eggs as currency?!
No, but it's not a good sign that he thinks Venezuela is so great - it's not as though it only started going bad this year.
I voted for our Welsh leader today and if she wins we will have a full slate of female leaders. TM, Ruth Davidson, Suzy Davies and across the water Arlene Foster
Counting the DUP as part of the Tory 'we'? I know they have an agreement, but steady on.
Given the betting favourites for both the next LAB and LD leadership are woman then we could have a full slate.
BTW no chance for the Labour moderates in the current political climate. When times are tough people go to the extremes, always have done throughout history, always will......sadly.
I dont feel under siege. JRM does not represent the majority of conservative mps and has no majority for his extreme Brexit in the HOC thankfully
How can it be right that a Conservative MP is actively undermining the PM and her Cabinet in this way - why don't they take the whip away from him and arrange for his local party to de-select him?
Come on Ben - what is with labour supporters that they always seen to demand deselection when their is a conflict of views
Blimey mate, if 'conflicting with my views' were the criteria I'd be clamouring for deselection of every Tory candidate! (Well maybe not Ken, Anna, Heidi and a handful of others.)
My point is, JRM is making a gross attempt to completely undermine your party's elected leader and PM - she must be livid!
She and the majority of conservative mps but he is fighting a lost cause and in the end he will lose
Also JRM and Steve Baker have tweeted support for Barry Gardiner ruling out a peoples vote as Chuka slutters in his cornflakes
The lead overlooks the fact that even in the case of a Corbyn GE win, a minority of the Labour MPs and a tiny minority of the commons will be signed up to Corbynite politics. Therefore he either governs by tacking heavily toward the centre or is brought down by internal division and rebellion. Both of these are interesting scenarios.
If Labour falls short of a majority and needs the LibDems and/or nationalists, multiply the above.
This is very true and points to the flaw in Richard N's otherwise plausible and interesting analysis. The next Labour government will not be enacting 'hard-left' policies. Moderate left maybe, as in the 2017 manifesto, but they won't get hard-left policies through parliament.
You just cannot say that with certainty in this climate.
The only certain way is not to vote labour
Well that's certainly not certain - I could vote 'not Labour' and they still could get in!
Obviously nothing is 100% certain but I am very confident hard-left policies which are not in the manifesto will not get through parliament. If the next manifesto contained true 'hard-left' policies Labour would not win.
Sky reporting eggs are now Venezeula's currency.
Better start raising chickens if Corbyn gets in
Filed alongside Hans Cristian Andersen, the brothers Grimm, and other fairytales designed to scare little children.
But this is for real in Venezeula and Corbyn endorses its leaders
Do you seriously believe for one moment that a Labour government under Corbyn will lead to the UK needing to resort to using eggs as currency?!
If he had his way and destroyed capitalism anything could happen
The lead overlooks the fact that even in the case of a Corbyn GE win, a minority of the Labour MPs and a tiny minority of the commons will be signed up to Corbynite politics. Therefore he either governs by tacking heavily toward the centre or is brought down by internal division and rebellion. Both of these are interesting scenarios.
If Labour falls short of a majority and needs the LibDems and/or nationalists, multiply the above.
This is very true and points to the flaw in Richard N's otherwise plausible and interesting analysis. The next Labour government will not be enacting 'hard-left' policies. Moderate left maybe, as in the 2017 manifesto, but they won't get hard-left policies through parliament.
You just cannot say that with certainty in this climate.
The only certain way is not to vote labour
Well that's certainly not certain - I could vote 'not Labour' and they still could get in!
Obviously nothing is 100% certain but I am very confident hard-left policies which are not in the manifesto will not get through parliament. If the next manifesto contained true 'hard-left' policies Labour would not win.
Sky reporting eggs are now Venezeula's currency.
Better start raising chickens if Corbyn gets in
Filed alongside Hans Cristian Andersen, the brothers Grimm, and other fairytales designed to scare little children.
But this is for real in Venezeula and Corbyn endorses its leaders
Do you seriously believe for one moment that a Labour government under Corbyn will lead to the UK needing to resort to using eggs as currency?!
No, but it's not a good sign that he thinks Venezuela is so great - it's not as though it only started going bad this year.
Well, I agree with that. Much as I liked to policies proposed in last year's Labour manifesto, I didn't in the end vote Labour, partly due to my reservations about Corbyn's judgement and leadership skills - both of which I think are about as abysmal as May's.
The lead overlooks the fact that even in the case of a Corbyn GE win, a minority of the Labour MPs and a tiny minority of the commons will be signed up to Corbynite politics. Therefore he either governs by tacking heavily toward the centre or is brought down by internal division and rebellion. Both of these are interesting scenarios.
If Labour falls short of a majority and needs the LibDems and/or nationalists, multiply the above.
This is very true and points to the flaw in Richard N's otherwise plausible and interesting analysis. The next Labour government will not be enacting 'hard-left' policies. Moderate left maybe, as in the 2017 manifesto, but they won't get hard-left policies through parliament.
Yes, the first Corbyn government will be fine, but if re elected may become problematic.
Ok, more than anything else, is social class even fixed? What if they think they are a different class to, say, their parents or what their background would imply? Do people even all know what class they are? There's supposed to be seven classes now after all.
Seriously though, does the story say what this plan would actually achieve? Presumably we'd find out upper middle class and upper class people are disproportionately represented, but for that matter the Tories would say being left wing is disproportionately represented, how does publishing social classes actually assist in removing the barriers that might stop people from other backgrounds breaking through?
Still, it beats talking about anti-semitism, and the media love talking about the media, so well played Corbyn.
This will just be one more thing that the media will hit him with.
There is no definition of class that stands up to legal scrutiny. Any attempt to define one in statute is bound to fail.
Other than ancillary staff, the vast, vast, vast majority of BBC employees will fall under some form of 'middle claass' or higher by the very nature of their very secure, well paid roles in the public sector.
Or is he talking about where people started? In which case, WTF does that matter? None of us choose the family into which we are born. So why should we be judged against it?
It is an attempt to further undermine the freedom of the press and to put pressure on them not to hold Corbyn up to even basic scrutiny.
He's also nuts but if that starts to be a bar on being a politician the cut in numbers in the Commons is going to have to go a whole lot further.
Chhuck him from the party. Chuck him off a metaphorical cliff. I don't really care.
He doesn't have the best interests of the party or the country at heart.
That's unfair. He has what he *thinks* is the best interests of the country at heart. He's wrong, of course, but that doesn't mean he isn't well intentioned.
He doesn't give a fig for the interests of the party
Just ignore him, he doesn't have the votes in the Commons to make a blind bit of difference unless Corbyn's Labour side with him.
The lead overlooks the fact that even in the case of a Corbyn GE win, a minority of the Labour MPs and a tiny minority of the commons will be signed up to Corbynite politics. Therefore he either governs by tacking heavily toward the centre or is brought down by internal division and rebellion. Both of these are interesting scenarios.
If Labour falls short of a majority and needs the LibDems and/or nationalists, multiply the above.
This is very true and points to the flaw in Richard N's otherwise plausible and interesting analysis. The next Labour government will not be enacting 'hard-left' policies. Moderate left maybe, as in the 2017 manifesto, but they won't get hard-left policies through parliament.
You just cannot say that with certainty in this climate.
The only certain way is not to vote labour
Well that's certainly not certain - I could vote 'not Labour' and they still could get in!
Obviously nothing is 100% certain but I am very confident hard-left policies which are not in the manifesto will not get through parliament. If the next manifesto contained true 'hard-left' policies Labour would not win.
Sky reporting eggs are now Venezeula's currency.
Better start raising chickens if Corbyn gets in
Filed alongside Hans Cristian Andersen, the brothers Grimm, and other fairytales designed to scare little children.
But this is for real in Venezeula and Corbyn endorses its leaders
Do you seriously believe for one moment that a Labour government under Corbyn will lead to the UK needing to resort to using eggs as currency?!
If he had his way and destroyed capitalism anything could happen
He's also nuts but if that starts to be a bar on being a politician the cut in numbers in the Commons is going to have to go a whole lot further.
Chhuck him from the party. Chuck him off a metaphorical cliff. I don't really care.
He doesn't have the best interests of the party or the country at heart.
That's unfair. He has what he *thinks* is the best interests of the country at heart. He's wrong, of course, but that doesn't mean he isn't well intentioned.
He doesn't give a fig for the interests of the party
Just ignore him, he doesn't have the votes in the Commons to make a blind bit of difference unless Corbyn's Labour side with him.
Oh wait...
Corbyn's Labour won't support JRM's call for a no deal hard-Brexit.
But this is for real in Venezeula and Corbyn endorses its leaders
Do you seriously believe for one moment that a Labour government under Corbyn will lead to the UK needing to resort to using eggs as currency?!
He's just yolking!
I think it's a great idea. British consumers will be forced to be careful with their money. It puts a whole new complexion on the idea of juggling one's finances.
He's also nuts but if that starts to be a bar on being a politician the cut in numbers in the Commons is going to have to go a whole lot further.
Chhuck him from the party. Chuck him off a metaphorical cliff. I don't really care.
He doesn't have the best interests of the party or the country at heart.
That's unfair. He has what he *thinks* is the best interests of the country at heart. He's wrong, of course, but that doesn't mean he isn't well intentioned.
He doesn't give a fig for the interests of the party
Just ignore him, he doesn't have the votes in the Commons to make a blind bit of difference unless Corbyn's Labour side with him.
Oh wait...
Corbyn's Labour won't support JRM's call for a no deal hard-Brexit.
No, but they might sit on their hands at the crucial vote.
'Are you getting tips on genocide?' Just one of the tweets from Hunt's adoring followers below the line
iirc Kissinger favours moving more towards Russia in order to put pressure on China. So could be an interesting conversation.
I do recall a piece by him that essentially took the line that Ukraine should not have the free choice to decide if it wanted to be closer to the West or not (he did't put it that way of course, it was about how Ukraine should be non aligned, which amounts to the same thing, saying it shouldn't be able to decide what it wants - and yes, significant parts of it did't want to go West, I know) due to it provoking Russia in its sphere of influence (an odious term if ever there was one).
The lead overlooks the fact that even in the case of a Corbyn GE win, a minority of the Labour MPs and a tiny minority of the commons will be signed up to Corbynite politics. Therefore he either governs by tacking heavily toward the centre or is brought down by internal division and rebellion. Both of these are interesting scenarios.
If Labour falls short of a majority and needs the LibDems and/or nationalists, multiply the above.
Thanks for the comment, but I think I did address that, to some extent at least:
"Expectations from Labour supporters would be sky-high, but with hard-left policies damaging the economy, a front-bench team totally unsuited to government, and probably with the parliamentary chaos of a hung parliament..."
As you say, it's either internal division and rebellion, or he tacks to the centre (or both, of course). It's hard to see Corbyn and Seamus Milne tacking to the centre, but either way the result would be disillusionment and schism. I don't see that there's much consolation for the Labour moderates in that.
Kind of topic, I've seen some speculation that some Labour MPs will honest to goodness no fooling actually leave the party after Brexit, for realsies this time, but I don't quite understand the thinking - if Corbyn's Brexit stance is an issue why not take a stand beforehand, not afterwards?
It is the nature of leadership successions that the replacement is chosen to compensate for the failings of the outgoing leader. No leader in recent times in any major party has chosen their successor, or been replaced by their facsimile.
Jezzas successor is not likely to be either Corbynite, or from the ranks of New Labour, but will rather take a different line.
It is the nature of leadership successions that the replacement is chosen to compensate for the failings of the outgoing leader. No leader in recent times in any major party has chosen their successor, or been replaced by their facsimile.
Jezzas successor is not likely to be either Corbynite, or from the ranks of New Labour, but will rather take a different line.
In absolutely no way at all did Gordo compensate for Blair's failings.
Comments
If Labour falls short of a majority and needs the LibDems and/or nationalists, multiply the above.
How very Labour
But 'the movement' remains is just plain wrong to me. Sure, it might - but the movement doesn't always stay in the same place. After all, plenty of people who now adore the Labour party spent years voting Green or SWP or something, because to them 'the movement' did not remain with Labour.
I think he's overplaying his hand but it's possible he sees his role as applying pressure from the Brexit right to ensure the UK gets the most flexible deal possible, which he might eventually vote for with reservations.
The only certain way is not to vote labour
That's one of what I would call political rather than partisan behaviours - the latter only apply to one side (to any significant degree at least), the former might apply to all, even if we can identify some as being worse, at a particular moment.
FWIW I've taken the bets on Corbyn going in 2020 or 2021, which I think are value.
https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1032080665137881088
Obviously nothing is 100% certain but I am very confident hard-left policies which are not in the manifesto will not get through parliament. If the next manifesto contained true 'hard-left' policies Labour would not win.
We see it already in Corbyn dropping his long-felt total opposition to Trident.
In the Tories the same process is in play with Mrs M's Chequers deal.
Better start raising chickens if Corbyn gets in
https://twitter.com/stuartdhughes/status/1032372807097696257
Interestingly, that Democrat in Pennsylvania who won a district which had been heavily for Trump, was not chosen by a primary IIRC - I don't know the truth of the matter, but there were articles around that time suggesting the ability to much more carefully choose the candidate there helped.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/07/31/just-out-new-pb-polling-matters-poll-on-political-ideologies-systems/
And for good reason. Why it gets regarded as trendy I do not know.
No thanks.
Ok, more than anything else, is social class even fixed? What if they think they are a different class to, say, their parents or what their background would imply? Do people even all know what class they are? There's supposed to be seven classes now after all.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22007058
Seriously though, does the story say what this plan would actually achieve? Presumably we'd find out upper middle class and upper class people are disproportionately represented, but for that matter the Tories would say being left wing is disproportionately represented, how does publishing social classes actually assist in removing the barriers that might stop people from other backgrounds breaking through?
Still, it beats talking about anti-semitism, and the media love talking about the media, so well played Corbyn.
https://twitter.com/Jeremy_Hunt/status/1032360933824389120
Milne: son of BBC DG, educated at Winchester, Oxford, Economist mag and then Guardian.
Corbyn: Bought up in Yew Tree Manor, a 17th-century farmhouse, and attended a Grammar school.
Murray: Born ito Peter Drummond-Murray of Mastrick, a stockbroker and banker who was Slains Pursuivant. He was educated at Worth School, a Benedictine independent boarding school in Sussex.
I could go on. But you get the message.
He doesn't give a fig for the interests of the party
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zBKDJ2q3aI
BTW no chance for the Labour moderates in the current political climate. When times are tough people go to the extremes, always have done throughout history, always will......sadly.
What a choice, eh!
Still would be better than the Tories though.
There is no definition of class that stands up to legal scrutiny. Any attempt to define one in statute is bound to fail.
Other than ancillary staff, the vast, vast, vast majority of BBC employees will fall under some form of 'middle claass' or higher by the very nature of their very secure, well paid roles in the public sector.
Or is he talking about where people started? In which case, WTF does that matter? None of us choose the family into which we are born. So why should we be judged against it?
It is an attempt to further undermine the freedom of the press and to put pressure on them not to hold Corbyn up to even basic scrutiny.
As a ruse, it will fail.
Oh wait...
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1032239201113268224
And it is time to wish everyone a pleasant restful night
Good night folks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc4VxIWXX4w
"Expectations from Labour supporters would be sky-high, but with hard-left policies damaging the economy, a front-bench team totally unsuited to government, and probably with the parliamentary chaos of a hung parliament..."
As you say, it's either internal division and rebellion, or he tacks to the centre (or both, of course). It's hard to see Corbyn and Seamus Milne tacking to the centre, but either way the result would be disillusionment and schism. I don't see that there's much consolation for the Labour moderates in that.
What is designed to sound reasonable is in fact classic authoritarianism.
His idea for 'public interest' journalism is nothing of the sort - it is a blatant attempt to dictate the editorial agenda by him and his cronies.
It is nothing about improving the quality of the BBC and more about making it a tool for him and his fellow travellers to use for their own ends.
The BBC needs reform - absolutely. But this is not the way forward.
And vice-versa.
Jezzas successor is not likely to be either Corbynite, or from the ranks of New Labour, but will rather take a different line.