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 No leader in recent times in any major party has chosen their successor, or been replaced by their facsimile.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.
I don't know, I would have thought that from a Tory perspective Brown compensated for Blair's electoral failings.
If all of those who voted for the motion of no confidence in 2016 plus any of the new intake who agree that Corbyn is not fit to lead were to take a stand (just as they did before), they could break away and become the Official Opposition in a matter of hours.
Corbyn would immediately lose his status, his platform.
Yes, it would be turmoil and some unions would stay loyal to Corbyn but many would move over to the new party.
It would take a leader to do it - and therein lies the problem. Watson is probably best placed to lead initially and then hold an election very rapidly to select a new permanent LOTO.
If the platform was right, it would provoke a realignment more generally.
It is the only hope for Realist Labour MPs to act to save the idea of the Labour Party - even if that means sacrificing the name.
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.
And is a pre requisite for Eu membership and single market membership. If we want to trade anything deeper than a superficial free trade deal with Europe than it will still be prevented. The days of stuffing government owned business with workers to keep unemployment down, and paying them to do so and worrying a bit less about inflation is consigned to the history books. No western nation follows that economic model anymore.
'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.
Kissinger was always the master of realpolitik, in foreign policy and military terms there are only 2 real rivals to the USA, China and Russia, so playing Russia off against China, the stronger of the two, makes sense for the US
Interesting piece, but I suspect the author's membership of the Conservatives means he's not party to the psychology of Labour members' motives in the event of (another) Corbyn-led Labour defeat at a General Election, at which he'll be older, tired and probably less popular.
1994 marked the point at which Labour started getting serious about winning again after three successive defeats and so members began to trust the idea of a more centrist, reforming leader. I don't doubt that 2022 could mark another shift back towards the centre because it's not as if there is a competent hard-left successor waiting conveniently in the wings. McDonnell and Abbott won't be interested and have tried before. It wouldn't be inconceivable that the leader is once again someone from the soft-left.
Good first post, and welcome aboard. Irrespective of my personal views I think it is a problem for the left that the Corbyn leadership is only really cemented by three people: McDonnell, Abbott and Corbyn himself. When Corbyn goes (for whatever reason) neither of the others will stand. So the next leader will be somebody else.
But won't they be bound by the Corbyn agenda? Not really, because Corbyn's popularity in the party has so far been built on a popular social democratic manifesto (I don't know any centrist MPs who disliked it, and it had a pretty good reception in the public) plus a few trademark policies like nationalising the water industry. As others have observed, there really isn't a systematic left-wing programme on offer at the moment, so Corbyn's successor will have a fair amount of freedom of maneouvre, so long as they put their case in generally left-wing terms.
If I were McDonnell (who is more a detailed policy man than the others) I'd find this worrying. If I were a centrist I'd feel there's a fair chance of a centre-left next leader, though not one who has been rubbishing Corbyn. That iMO is why centrists are mostly just quietly plugging along.
On topic, if Corbyn loses again then eventually I think the members will mostly come around to someone electable; The standard arc of parties in opposition tends to be that they start out by indulging themselves, then eventually compromise with the voters when they get sick of losing. Arguably Labour would have done better if they'd started this process earlier, and they'd be closer to getting it out of their system.
If Corbyn somehow ends up as PM then he'll have a lot of practical, real-world constraints, and they'll need competent managers, so the centrists get back into power that way.
If all of those who voted for the motion of no confidence in 2016 plus any of the new intake who agree that Corbyn is not fit to lead were to take a stand (just as they did before), they could break away and become the Official Opposition in a matter of hours.
Corbyn would immediately lose his status, his platform.
Yes, it would be turmoil and some unions would stay loyal to Corbyn but many would move over to the new party.
It would take a leader to do it - and therein lies the problem. Watson is probably best placed to lead initially and then hold an election very rapidly to select a new permanent LOTO.
If the platform was right, it would provoke a realignment more generally.
It is the only hope for Realist Labour MPs to act to save the idea of the Labour Party - even if that means sacrificing the name.
The Lib Dems don't exactly have a glut of votes. Why would anybody try to form a new party muscling in on their desolate political space?
If all of those who voted for the motion of no confidence in 2016 plus any of the new intake who agree that Corbyn is not fit to lead were to take a stand (just as they did before), they could break away and become the Official Opposition in a matter of hours.
Corbyn would immediately lose his status, his platform.
Yes, it would be turmoil and some unions would stay loyal to Corbyn but many would move over to the new party.
It would take a leader to do it - and therein lies the problem. Watson is probably best placed to lead initially and then hold an election very rapidly to select a new permanent LOTO.
If the platform was right, it would provoke a realignment more generally.
It is the only hope for Realist Labour MPs to act to save the idea of the Labour Party - even if that means sacrificing the name.
The Lib Dems don't exactly have a glut of votes. Why would anybody try to form a new party muscling in on their desolate political space?
Because it wouldn't be a Lib Dem replacement. It would be taking the centre-left ground that was occupied by Labour before the parasitic takeover. The ground that won elections.
Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull is apparently likely to face yet another leadership challenge, after the one on Tuesday narrowly failed. Most of the Aussie pundits seem to think he'll resign shortly.
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
It's an organic, self replicating currency.
While we're stuck with bits of plastic. We're living in the dark ages compared to the Socialist Paradise of Venezuela.
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.
hunchman:
I asked you this the other day, but didn't get a response.
The ocean heat content numbers seem pretty solid evidence of warming to me. Plus, ocean temperature can be measured in two separate ways: thermal expansion and spot temperature checks (which are carried out both via sensors and ir cameras).
Now, this is very different to saying it's human caused, or going to continue, but the evidence for the planet having warmed in the last fifty years seems pretty clear. (Unless you have some links to why ocean heat content should not be trusted.)
I wonder if Mrs May (who knows Turnbull from Oxford) is taking any lessons from this.....while I don’t think “scorched earth” is her style, she hasn’t got where she has without some ruthlessness - and it might be giving Boris boosters pause for thought....
Andrew Bolt, the late night Sky News commentator and keen promoter of the Anyone-But-Turnbull camp, had just had a hernia live on air.
He’s furious Turnbull is fighting back.
Firstly, he’s angry that Turnbull is demanding to see a petition with 43 names before he convenes a special party-room meeting tomorrow.
“He made up that rule. There is no such rule. Absolutely none,” Bolt says.
Secondly, he’s angry that Turnbull has asked the solicitor general to consider whether Peter Dutton is eligible to sit in parliament.
“Again, this is him trying to kill off Peter Dutton’s challenge. The only way that Peter Dutton goes to the high court is if there parliament refers him.”
Thirdly, he doesn’t like that Turnbull’s digging his heels so that Scott Morrison gets time to challenge Dutton properly with serious numbers.
“Malcolm Turnbull, the most leftwing leader of the Liberal party for, I don’t know when, is trying to stop the Liberal Party from returning to its roots.
“It’s an utterly, utterly selfish and narcissistic move. His leadership is completely destroyed and he doesn’t care. He is staying on for as long as he can until he can nominate his preferred successor.
“I think it is a disaster. I have never seen such a selfish, damaging, suicidal kind of move from a man who’s only focus since the day he become prime minister was on himself.”
Bolt then reminded viewers that he wasn’t a member of the Liberal party.
The last time Sweden’s Social Democrats failed to come top in national elections, the first world war was just two months old.
No political force has dominated a European country quite like the centre-left party — but the era is coming to an end. In Sweden’s next election on September 9, the Social Democrats are almost certain to record their lowest share of the vote in more than a century and their record of heading the polls is under threat.
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.
Brown was perceived at the time as a more serious individual, and more Old Labour in his plans, while being much less interested in foreign military adventures.
Not a good choice as it turned out, but definitely a shift away from Blairism.
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.
Brown was perceived at the time as a more serious individual, and more Old Labour in his plans, while being much less interested in foreign military adventures.
Not a good choice as it turned out, but definitely a shift away from Blairism.
As a Conservative I thought “sensible Gordon” would make a refreshing change from failed world bestriding “statesman” (sic) Blair - while my Labour friends saw a divisive, devious but indecisive plotter who would split the party. The PLP showed commendable cohesion and discipline (something the Tories could learn from) - and in Brown’s immediate aftermath held together pretty well - but Brown’s purges of all potential challengers has left Labour in the sorry state it is today. They know Corbyn is completely unsuited for the job of PM but don’t remotely have replacements lined up....
Andrew Bolt, the late night Sky News commentator and keen promoter of the Anyone-But-Turnbull camp, had just had a hernia live on air.
He’s furious Turnbull is fighting back.
Firstly, he’s angry that Turnbull is demanding to see a petition with 43 names before he convenes a special party-room meeting tomorrow.
“He made up that rule. There is no such rule. Absolutely none,” Bolt says.
Secondly, he’s angry that Turnbull has asked the solicitor general to consider whether Peter Dutton is eligible to sit in parliament.
“Again, this is him trying to kill off Peter Dutton’s challenge. The only way that Peter Dutton goes to the high court is if there parliament refers him.”
Thirdly, he doesn’t like that Turnbull’s digging his heels so that Scott Morrison gets time to challenge Dutton properly with serious numbers.
“Malcolm Turnbull, the most leftwing leader of the Liberal party for, I don’t know when, is trying to stop the Liberal Party from returning to its roots.
“It’s an utterly, utterly selfish and narcissistic move. His leadership is completely destroyed and he doesn’t care. He is staying on for as long as he can until he can nominate his preferred successor.
“I think it is a disaster. I have never seen such a selfish, damaging, suicidal kind of move from a man who’s only focus since the day he become prime minister was on himself.”
Bolt then reminded viewers that he wasn’t a member of the Liberal party.
Most of this is a rant, although it is not unfair to say that Turnbull is all about Turnbull. He can hardly complain when he backstabbed Abbott. Turnbull is the classic elitist - thinks he should be PM because he is smart and rich and liberal, but had no idea what he wanted to do once he was in office. Seems unable to understand that looking good on TV is not actually enough once you are in charge.
All I can say is that this is as exciting and relevant as Australian politics gets. What is depressing is that neither party has any alternative leaders anywhere who will do any better. There are simply not enough MPs in Australia to allow either party to choose anyone except sycophants as candidates. So no new ideas and approaches ever come up. Coupled with three year parliaments and compulsory voting and AV there is no chance that the centre-right will ever be able to enact a reformist agenda. So they just behave like the pre-Thatcher Tories and follow Labour policies but dress it up slightly differently. It doesn't really matter who the Liberals choose as leader. Australia is all about 'entitlement'. People want more, so they will vote Labour.
You are lucky in the UK - real debate, real divisions between the parties and big life changing issues (Brexit) to discuss. No wonder I hang around here....
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.
Brown was perceived at the time as a more serious individual, and more Old Labour in his plans, while being much less interested in foreign military adventures.
Not a good choice as it turned out, but definitely a shift away from Blairism.
As a Conservative I thought “sensible Gordon” would make a refreshing change from failed world bestriding “statesman” (sic) Blair - while my Labour friends saw a divisive, devious but indecisive plotter who would split the party. The PLP showed commendable cohesion and discipline (something the Tories could learn from) - and in Brown’s immediate aftermath held together pretty well - but Brown’s purges of all potential challengers has left Labour in the sorry state it is today. They know Corbyn is completely unsuited for the job of PM but don’t remotely have replacements lined up....
An Aussie PM hasn't lasted more than 3 years in office since John Howard. Latest news is that Julie Bishop may be running.
Well she really should. Being a professional deputy leader after a while makes you look like you just don't back yourself. You can only see so many leaders murdered before people wonder if it is something to do with the Deputy!
She is probably most likely to help the Liberals in the polls. However, like all Australian politicians she doesn't really stand for anything except being in office and looking good on TV. I suspect she is the second coming of Julia Gillard (eg highly touted when people don't see much of you but actually useless when people pay attention). But what choices do we have?
I was listening to Roy Hattersley yesterday, I think it was TWAO , but Radio 4 for sure , and he said the Labour Party was in a worse state than even during the Militant era, and that's saying something.
Read online that the New Statesman's Stephen Bush reckons a split could happen.
I'll believe it when I see it. But now is the perfect time. Wibbling about the SDP is to draw the wrong lesson from history and discount the wildly different circumstances of today.
There's a lot of ground in the centre. The Lib Dems are nowhere. The large blue/red vote share is more about fear of The Other than endorsing either inept leader. If Sane Labour split away from the Loony Tunes front bench, and took a reasonable chunk of Labour's vote share with them, they'd soon find left (relatively) Conservative voters and probably a fair number of MPs moving in the same direction.
The alternative is to line up behind Jeremy "Whoops, I appear to have accidentally wandered into a service for the memory of some terrorists" Corbyn for PM. Which I think they'll probably end up doing.
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.
Brown was perceived at the time as a more serious individual, and more Old Labour in his plans, while being much less interested in foreign military adventures.
Not a good choice as it turned out, but definitely a shift away from Blairism.
As a Conservative I thought “sensible Gordon” would make a refreshing change from failed world bestriding “statesman” (sic) Blair - while my Labour friends saw a divisive, devious but indecisive plotter who would split the party. The PLP showed commendable cohesion and discipline (something the Tories could learn from) - and in Brown’s immediate aftermath held together pretty well - but Brown’s purges of all potential challengers has left Labour in the sorry state it is today. They know Corbyn is completely unsuited for the job of PM but don’t remotely have replacements lined up....
Tony Blair, on the other hand, had seen off Robin Cook and Mo Mowlam. Perhaps you have them confused.
Blair also had Cook & Mowlom in his Cabinet:
Brown said he was eager for a contest (a mistake Blair felt he had made in not beating Brown openly in 1994) but did his best to organise a "coronation". Potential rivals were undermined and over 300 Labour MPs lined up to nominate him. Within six months some were regretting it.
As the paper itself puts it: "Since the Mueller investigation began, the president's former campaign manager, former deputy campaign manager, former foreign policy aide, former national security adviser, and former lawyer have all either pleaded guilty or been found guilty of federal crimes. "
When you put it like that it's not a great record is it?
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.
Brown was perceived at the time as a more serious individual, and more Old Labour in his plans, while being much less interested in foreign military adventures.
Not a good choice as it turned out, but definitely a shift away from Blairism.
As a Conservative I thought “sensible Gordon” would make a refreshing change from failed world bestriding “statesman” (sic) Blair - while my Labour friends saw a divisive, devious but indecisive plotter who would split the party. The PLP showed commendable cohesion and discipline (something the Tories could learn from) - and in Brown’s immediate aftermath held together pretty well - but Brown’s purges of all potential challengers has left Labour in the sorry state it is today. They know Corbyn is completely unsuited for the job of PM but don’t remotely have replacements lined up....
Tony Blair, on the other hand, had seen off Robin Cook and Mo Mowlam. Perhaps you have them confused.
Blair also had Cook & Mowlom in his Cabinet:
Brown said he was eager for a contest (a mistake Blair felt he had made in not beating Brown openly in 1994) but did his best to organise a "coronation". Potential rivals were undermined and over 300 Labour MPs lined up to nominate him. Within six months some were regretting it.
The alternative is to line up behind Jeremy "Whoops, I appear to have accidentally wandered into a service for the memory of some terrorists - yet again" Corbyn for PM. Which I think they'll probably end up doing.
Fixed.
I do wonder what Vince has been saying in these new party meetings. Have the LibDems now admitted that their brand is so Ratnered, that they might as well throw their lot in with the New Crew? From nowhere to Official Opposition must have some attractions. (Although perhaps not if you looked to be successor top dog-fish in small pond.)
And I wonder if a Continuity LibDems would carry on buggering on like the old Liberals? We could see some big old ballot papers next time.
Conservative Party Anti Brexit Settlement Conservative Party Anna Mary Soubry Labour Party Spirit of Old Labour Party No, WE'RE the Spirit of the Old Labour Party Real Labour Party Real Labour Party with Co-operative Divvy Points Party We will NEVER split Labour Party Splitters!!!! Party Shiny New Centrist Party (with added SQUIRREL!!!!) Lib-Dems Buggering on Regardless Party Liberal Party UKIP (Who needs an) Official Monster Raving Loony Party
You are lucky in the UK - real debate, real divisions between the parties and big life changing issues (Brexit) to discuss. No wonder I hang around here....
The crossbench senator Derryn Hinch remembers the good old days, when we were, you know, a stable democracy. I’m still a sprightly 30, so I must confess that I have no idea what he’s talking about.
Hinch says:
I am old enough in this place to remember the days when we used to all laugh at the Italians. We said ‘how often they change their governments, how often they changed their leaders, what a stupid country that was and how irresponsible. What a lousy case of democracy.’
And now we will have tomorrow, it seems, an elected prime minister will not make it to his full term. A prime minister ... who was elected by the people and should serve his or her full term in government. And I am sorry it will not happen.
As the paper itself puts it: "Since the Mueller investigation began, the president's former campaign manager, former deputy campaign manager, former foreign policy aide, former national security adviser, and former lawyer have all either pleaded guilty or been found guilty of federal crimes. "
When you put it like that it's not a great record is it?
Only problem is Boston is a city where precisely zero voters support Trump, so it might be just a bit biased.
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.
Brown was perceived at the time as a more serious individual, and more Old Labour in his plans, while being much less interested in foreign military adventures.
Not a good choice as it turned out, but definitely a shift away from Blairism.
As a Conservative I thought “sensible Gordon” would make a refreshing change from failed world bestriding “statesman” (sic) Blair - while my Labour friends saw a divisive, devious but indecisive plotter who would split the party. The PLP showed commendable cohesion and discipline (something the Tories could learn from) - and in Brown’s immediate aftermath held together pretty well - but Brown’s purges of all potential challengers has left Labour in the sorry state it is today. They know Corbyn is completely unsuited for the job of PM but don’t remotely have replacements lined up....
Tony Blair, on the other hand, had seen off Robin Cook and Mo Mowlam. Perhaps you have them confused.
Blair also had Cook & Mowlom in his Cabinet:
Brown said he was eager for a contest (a mistake Blair felt he had made in not beating Brown openly in 1994) but did his best to organise a "coronation". Potential rivals were undermined and over 300 Labour MPs lined up to nominate him. Within six months some were regretting it.
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.
Brown was perceived at the time as a more serious individual, and more Old Labour in his plans, while being much less interested in foreign military adventures.
Not a good choice as it turned out, but definitely a shift away from Blairism.
As a Conservative I thought “sensible Gordon” would make a refreshing change from failed world bestriding “statesman” (sic) Blair - while my Labour friends saw a divisive, devious but indecisive plotter who would split the party. The PLP showed commendable cohesion and discipline (something the Tories could learn from) - and in Brown’s immediate aftermath held together pretty well - but Brown’s purges of all potential challengers has left Labour in the sorry state it is today. They know Corbyn is completely unsuited for the job of PM but don’t remotely have replacements lined up....
Perhaps if Brown hadn’t gone about his Coronation you’d have had a proper contest and would have better options than Corbyn & Abbott...
It had another effect too. Many senior figures in Labour blamed the lack of a leadership contest for their subsequent defeat, as it gave no opportunity for them to air their new ideas and get them adopted. They also felt it had stoked resentment among losers who developed a dolschstoss theory that they could have shown how popular they were else.
This logic led David Miliband to nominate Diane Abbott to 'broaden the debate.'
With that precedent set, Labour next artificially nominated some useless prat called Corbyn...
An interesting snippet from the article: "One Labour MP recently updated his mailing list to be compliant with the General Data Protection Regulation. He discovered that while his local party membership was at a record high of 300, 200 members had left since Corbyn took over as leader"
As the paper itself puts it: "Since the Mueller investigation began, the president's former campaign manager, former deputy campaign manager, former foreign policy aide, former national security adviser, and former lawyer have all either pleaded guilty or been found guilty of federal crimes. "
When you put it like that it's not a great record is it?
Only problem is Boston is a city where precisely zero voters support Trump, so it might be just a bit biased.
They were the only ones to hold out for Democrat McGovern in 1972 - when even his home state didn't vote for him! Spot Boston on the map:
An Aussie PM hasn't lasted more than 3 years in office since John Howard. Latest news is that Julie Bishop may be running.
Am I right in thinking that only one of them was chucked out by voters (Rudd II) rather than internal party politics?
I don’t follow Aussie politics but I’d be interested to understand why it’s so bloody for those at the top.
Mostly the systems. MPs can change the leader anytime they want - members have no say at all. And with three year parliaments there is never really enough time to recover from being unpopular.
AV doesn't help. It basically forces every election into a 52/48 split at worst. So it takes only tiny movements in sentiment to leave you facing an electoral wipeout. If your primary vote falls a few percent and preferences move against you, your party can easily lose 20-30 seats and when you only have 80 to start with that is a lot of MPs very worried about their futures. Australian politicians are basically like all the others - worried about their jobs and there are not enough in safe seats to provide any stability. So if the polls say you are going to lose, why not just shoot the leader and hope for the best? Nobody really cares about policies anyway.
As the paper itself puts it: "Since the Mueller investigation began, the president's former campaign manager, former deputy campaign manager, former foreign policy aide, former national security adviser, and former lawyer have all either pleaded guilty or been found guilty of federal crimes. "
When you put it like that it's not a great record is it?
Only problem is Boston is a city where precisely zero voters support Trump, so it might be just a bit biased.
Sigh.... are you saying that their newspaper is named after a liberal city means that they are incapable of objective analysis? Do you not agree that impeachment is now a serious possibility, albeit still unlikely?
Brown's ministries were stuffed with potential successors, such as David Miliband, Andy Burnham, James Purnell and Jack Straw. Not to mention his actual successor, Ed Miliband. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_ministry
James Purnell resigned after less than 2 years, calling on Brown to go too.
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.
Brown was perceived at the time as a more serious individual, and more Old Labour in his plans, while being much less interested in foreign military adventures.
Not a good choice as it turned out, but definitely a shift away from Blairism.
As a Conservative I thought “sensible Gordon” would make a refreshing change from failed world bestriding “statesman” (sic) Blair - while my Labour friends saw a divisive, devious but indecisive plotter who would split the party. The PLP showed commendable cohesion and discipline (something the Tories could learn from) - and in Brown’s immediate aftermath held together pretty well - but Brown’s purges of all potential challengers has left Labour in the sorry state it is today. They know Corbyn is completely unsuited for the job of PM but don’t remotely have replacements lined up....
As a Conservative I thought “sensible Gordon” would make a refreshing change from failed world bestriding “statesman” (sic) Blair - while my Labour friends saw a divisive, devious but indecisive plotter who would split the party. The PLP showed commendable cohesion and discipline (something the Tories could learn from) - and in Brown’s immediate aftermath held together pretty well - but Brown’s purges of all potential challengers has left Labour in the sorry state it is today. They know Corbyn is completely unsuited for the job of PM but don’t remotely have replacements lined up....
Tony Blair, on the other hand, had seen off Robin Cook and Mo Mowlam. Perhaps you have them confused.
Blair also had Cook & Mowlom in his Cabinet:
Brown said he was eager for a contest (a mistake Blair felt he had made in not beating Brown openly in 1994) but did his best to organise a "coronation". Potential rivals were undermined and over 300 Labour MPs lined up to nominate him. Within six months some were regretting it.
Perhaps if Brown hadn’t gone about his Coronation you’d have had a proper contest and would have better options than Corbyn & Abbott...
Blair had Cook and Mowlam in his cabinet until he didn't. That's the point.
Where are the “big beasts” of Brown’s Cabinet, with government experience, ready to lead Labour and the country?
I've already named some and given a link. You have swallowed either Blairite propaganda that challengers such as Mowlam and Cook who were axed by Blair were really demoted by Brown, or later CCHQ propaganda to the same effect. Brown's ministries were stuffed with potential successors, such as David Miliband, Andy Burnham, James Purnell and Jack Straw. Not to mention his actual successor, Ed Miliband. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_ministry
As the paper itself puts it: "Since the Mueller investigation began, the president's former campaign manager, former deputy campaign manager, former foreign policy aide, former national security adviser, and former lawyer have all either pleaded guilty or been found guilty of federal crimes. "
When you put it like that it's not a great record is it?
Only problem is Boston is a city where precisely zero voters support Trump, so it might be just a bit biased.
That doesn't make any of the indictments/convictions not true. His lawyer has now pleaded guilty to consipring with a candidate to breach electoral funding laws. I can see the impeach argument being a big issue in November and not just on the Democratic side. Mitt Romney was more than hinting as much yesterday.
I've got a modest bet on him being re-elected but things are getting difficult.
Is anyone else finding Vanilla behaving strangely this morning or is it just me? I have to click on quote about 4 times before it does anything, the autosave function seems to stick and I'm getting unaccountable double posts.
As the paper itself puts it: "Since the Mueller investigation began, the president's former campaign manager, former deputy campaign manager, former foreign policy aide, former national security adviser, and former lawyer have all either pleaded guilty or been found guilty of federal crimes. "
When you put it like that it's not a great record is it?
Only problem is Boston is a city where precisely zero voters support Trump, so it might be just a bit biased.
That doesn't make any of the indictments/convictions not true. His lawyer has now pleaded guilty to consipring with a candidate to breach electoral funding laws. I can see the impeach argument being a big issue in November and not just on the Democratic side. Mitt Romney was more than hinting as much yesterday.
I've got a modest bet on him being re-elected but things are getting difficult.
Now is probably a good time to back Trump for 2020.
Romney may be one, but who are the 15-20 other GOP senators who are going to vote for impeachment?
Brown's ministries were stuffed with potential successors, such as David Miliband, Andy Burnham, James Purnell and Jack Straw. Not to mention his actual successor, Ed Miliband. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_ministry
James Purnell resigned after less than 2 years, calling on Brown to go too.
Which rather proves my point. Brown's cabinet contained the plotters against Brown who used the staged resignation ploy which since then has also failed to be effective against Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May.
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.
Brown was perceived at the time as a more serious individual, and more Old Labour in his plans, while being much less interested in foreign military adventures.
Not a good choice as it turned out, but definitely a shift away from Blairism.
As a Conservative I thought “sensible Gordon” would make a refreshing change from failed world bestriding “statesman” (sic) Blair - while my Labour friends saw a divisive, devious but indecisive plotter who would split the party. The PLP showed commendable cohesion and discipline (something the Tories could learn from) - and in Brown’s immediate aftermath held together pretty well - but Brown’s purges of all potential challengers has left Labour in the sorry state it is today. They know Corbyn is completely unsuited for the job of PM but don’t remotely have replacements lined up....
Tony Blair, on the other hand, had seen off Robin Cook and Mo Mowlam. Perhaps you have them confused.
The Grim Reaper saw off Robin Cook and Mo Mowlam. And John Smith, to allow Blair the top job.
Grim Reaper = Blairite bastard......
The grim reaper did take Cook and Mowlam but not before Blair had sacked Cook as Foreign Secretary and Mowlam as Northern Ireland Secretary -- you may recall at the time many said Mowlam's days were numbered when she got a longer ovation than Blair at the party conference.
Is anyone else finding Vanilla behaving strangely this morning or is it just me? I have to click on quote about 4 times before it does anything, the autosave function seems to stick and I'm getting unaccountable double posts.
It does seem a bit sticky in the past half hour or so.
Is anyone else finding Vanilla behaving strangely this morning or is it just me? I have to click on quote about 4 times before it does anything, the autosave function seems to stick and I'm getting unaccountable double posts.
Brown's ministries were stuffed with potential successors, such as David Miliband, Andy Burnham, James Purnell and Jack Straw. Not to mention his actual successor, Ed Miliband. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_ministry
James Purnell resigned after less than 2 years, calling on Brown to go too.
Which rather proves my point. Brown's cabinet contained the plotters against Brown who used the staged resignation ploy which since then has also failed to be effective against Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May.
Purnell acted alone, nor did he see himself as a potential successor.
The key point is that there was no big figure with an independent base in the party in the cabinet. All the key figures held office at Brown's pleasure. That made them unable to stand up to him and was responsible for a great many policy cock-ups, starting with his flawed response to the expenses scandal.
There was nobody to be Brown to his Blair (sorry) or Heseltine to his Major. In that sense his government resembled the unipolar one of Neville Chamberlain, or perhaps Thatcher after Whitelaw's retirement.
Is anyone else finding Vanilla behaving strangely this morning or is it just me? I have to click on quote about 4 times before it does anything, the autosave function seems to stick and I'm getting unaccountable double posts.
As the paper itself puts it: "Since the Mueller investigation began, the president's former campaign manager, former deputy campaign manager, former foreign policy aide, former national security adviser, and former lawyer have all either pleaded guilty or been found guilty of federal crimes. "
When you put it like that it's not a great record is it?
Only problem is Boston is a city where precisely zero voters support Trump, so it might be just a bit biased.
That doesn't make any of the indictments/convictions not true. His lawyer has now pleaded guilty to consipring with a candidate to breach electoral funding laws. I can see the impeach argument being a big issue in November and not just on the Democratic side. Mitt Romney was more than hinting as much yesterday.
I've got a modest bet on him being re-elected but things are getting difficult.
Now is probably a good time to back Trump for 2020.
Romney may be one, but who are the 15-20 other GOP senators who are going to vote for impeachment?
John McCain would although he may not live long enough. I don't think that there is a lot of love between Trump and the Republican establishment.
I am more worried about my bet than I have been to date.
Is anyone else finding Vanilla behaving strangely this morning or is it just me? I have to click on quote about 4 times before it does anything, the autosave function seems to stick and I'm getting unaccountable double posts.
No idea.
Was that a rather involved joke or do you now have a better idea of what we're talking about?
Is anyone else finding Vanilla behaving strangely this morning or is it just me? I have to click on quote about 4 times before it does anything, the autosave function seems to stick and I'm getting unaccountable double posts.
I was finding that yesterday. When you tried to post something it went pale. Being an impatient sod I would click it again and then end up with a double post. For me, it actually seems a bit better today than yesterday.
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.
Brown was perceived at the time as a more serious individual, and more Old Labour in his plans, while being much less interested in foreign military adventures.
Not a good choice as it turned out, but definitely a shift away from Blairism.
As a Conservative I thought “sensible Gordon” would make a refreshing change from failed world bestriding “statesman” (sic) Blair - while my Labour friends saw a divisive, devious but indecisive plotter who would split the party. The PLP showed commendable cohesion and discipline (something the Tories could learn from) - and in Brown’s immediate aftermath held together pretty well - but Brown’s purges of all potential challengers has left Labour in the sorry state it is today. They know Corbyn is completely unsuited for the job of PM but don’t remotely have replacements lined up....
Tony Blair, on the other hand, had seen off Robin Cook and Mo Mowlam. Perhaps you have them confused.
The Grim Reaper saw off Robin Cook and Mo Mowlam. And John Smith, to allow Blair the top job.
Grim Reaper = Blairite bastard......
The grim reaper did take Cook and Mowlam but not before Blair had sacked Cook as Foreign Secretary and Mowlam as Northern Ireland Secretary -- you may recall at the time many said Mowlam's days were numbered when she got a longer ovation than Blair at the party conference.
If Cook hadn’t died....... after all he’d only be 72 now.
As the paper itself puts it: "Since the Mueller investigation began, the president's former campaign manager, former deputy campaign manager, former foreign policy aide, former national security adviser, and former lawyer have all either pleaded guilty or been found guilty of federal crimes. "
When you put it like that it's not a great record is it?
Only problem is Boston is a city where precisely zero voters support Trump, so it might be just a bit biased.
That doesn't make any of the indictments/convictions not true. His lawyer has now pleaded guilty to consipring with a candidate to breach electoral funding laws. I can see the impeach argument being a big issue in November and not just on the Democratic side. Mitt Romney was more than hinting as much yesterday.
I've got a modest bet on him being re-elected but things are getting difficult.
Now is probably a good time to back Trump for 2020.
Romney may be one, but who are the 15-20 other GOP senators who are going to vote for impeachment?
John McCain would although he may not live long enough. I don't think that there is a lot of love between Trump and the Republican establishment.
I am more worried about my bet than I have been to date.
It will likely come down to whether the GOP senators up for re-election in 2020 think they have a better chance of keeping their seats with Pence as president.
"Henry Belot (@Henry_Belot) Linda Reynolds says she no longer recognises her own party. "I do not recognise the values, I do not recognise the bullying and intimidation that has gone on". @politicsabc August 23, 2018"
Is anyone else finding Vanilla behaving strangely this morning or is it just me? I have to click on quote about 4 times before it does anything, the autosave function seems to stick and I'm getting unaccountable double posts.
I notice the spacing of characters and lines became smaller yesterday.
An interesting snippet from the article: "One Labour MP recently updated his mailing list to be compliant with the General Data Protection Regulation. He discovered that while his local party membership was at a record high of 300, 200 members had left since Corbyn took over as leader"
That's quite a turnover, but I suspect not that representative and surely not all down to Corbyn. Striking though that this MP clearly has very little idea who his local membership are.
Is anyone else finding Vanilla behaving strangely this morning or is it just me? I have to click on quote about 4 times before it does anything, the autosave function seems to stick and I'm getting unaccountable double posts.
I notice the spacing of characters and lines became smaller yesterday.
There's definitely a problem with spacing. Enormous spacing for no reason a lot of the time.
Brown's ministries were stuffed with potential successors, such as David Miliband, Andy Burnham, James Purnell and Jack Straw. Not to mention his actual successor, Ed Miliband. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_ministry
James Purnell resigned after less than 2 years, calling on Brown to go too.
Which rather proves my point. Brown's cabinet contained the plotters against Brown who used the staged resignation ploy which since then has also failed to be effective against Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May.
Purnell acted alone, nor did he see himself as a potential successor.
The key point is that there was no big figure with an independent base in the party in the cabinet. All the key figures held office at Brown's pleasure. That made them unable to stand up to him and was responsible for a great many policy cock-ups, starting with his flawed response to the expenses scandal.
There was nobody to be Brown to his Blair (sorry) or Heseltine to his Major. In that sense his government resembled the unipolar one of Neville Chamberlain, or perhaps Thatcher after Whitelaw's retirement.
Purnell's was the third Blairite resignation in a week, even if he claimed to be acting alone.
Comments
Corbyn would immediately lose his status, his platform.
Yes, it would be turmoil and some unions would stay loyal to Corbyn but many would move over to the new party.
It would take a leader to do it - and therein lies the problem. Watson is probably best placed to lead initially and then hold an election very rapidly to select a new permanent LOTO.
If the platform was right, it would provoke a realignment more generally.
It is the only hope for Realist Labour MPs to act to save the idea of the Labour Party - even if that means sacrificing the name.
The other politician who stands out is my shout for next-but-one Con Leader, Penny Mordaunt.
But won't they be bound by the Corbyn agenda? Not really, because Corbyn's popularity in the party has so far been built on a popular social democratic manifesto (I don't know any centrist MPs who disliked it, and it had a pretty good reception in the public) plus a few trademark policies like nationalising the water industry. As others have observed, there really isn't a systematic left-wing programme on offer at the moment, so Corbyn's successor will have a fair amount of freedom of maneouvre, so long as they put their case in generally left-wing terms.
If I were McDonnell (who is more a detailed policy man than the others) I'd find this worrying. If I were a centrist I'd feel there's a fair chance of a centre-left next leader, though not one who has been rubbishing Corbyn. That iMO is why centrists are mostly just quietly plugging along.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/World-Order-Reflections-Character-Nations/dp/0141979003
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/politics/trying-to-overthrow-trump-has-avenatti-misled-stormy-daniels/
https://twitter.com/wooferendum/status/1032251112911458304
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/german-politician-admits-lying-about-ethnicity-of-sex-attackers/
https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1031951231722381313
If Corbyn somehow ends up as PM then he'll have a lot of practical, real-world constraints, and they'll need competent managers, so the centrists get back into power that way.
Poodles, I suppose.
I've switched to the Weather Channel frotting themselves senseless over Hurricane Lane.
I need the other two west Wales branches, however.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-45278856
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1032431371728445441
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-meeting/eu-expects-delay-in-brexit-deal-beyond-october-target-idUKKCN1L61TD
While we're stuck with bits of plastic. We're living in the dark ages compared to the Socialist Paradise of Venezuela.
I asked you this the other day, but didn't get a response.
The ocean heat content numbers seem pretty solid evidence of warming to me. Plus, ocean temperature can be measured in two separate ways: thermal expansion and spot temperature checks (which are carried out both via sensors and ir cameras).
Now, this is very different to saying it's human caused, or going to continue, but the evidence for the planet having warmed in the last fifty years seems pretty clear. (Unless you have some links to why ocean heat content should not be trusted.)
https://twitter.com/TIME/status/1032459929578291200
https://www.theguardian.com/global/video/2018/aug/23/the-government-is-killing-itself-katharine-murphy-sums-up-spill-video?CMP=twt_gu
https://twitter.com/AP/status/1032467044049068033
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2018/aug/23/turnbull-dutton-liberal-canberra-chaos-spill
Andrew Bolt, the late night Sky News commentator and keen promoter of the Anyone-But-Turnbull camp, had just had a hernia live on air.
He’s furious Turnbull is fighting back.
Firstly, he’s angry that Turnbull is demanding to see a petition with 43 names before he convenes a special party-room meeting tomorrow.
“He made up that rule. There is no such rule. Absolutely none,” Bolt says.
Secondly, he’s angry that Turnbull has asked the solicitor general to consider whether Peter Dutton is eligible to sit in parliament.
“Again, this is him trying to kill off Peter Dutton’s challenge. The only way that Peter Dutton goes to the high court is if there parliament refers him.”
Thirdly, he doesn’t like that Turnbull’s digging his heels so that Scott Morrison gets time to challenge Dutton properly with serious numbers.
“Malcolm Turnbull, the most leftwing leader of the Liberal party for, I don’t know when, is trying to stop the Liberal Party from returning to its roots.
“It’s an utterly, utterly selfish and narcissistic move. His leadership is completely destroyed and he doesn’t care. He is staying on for as long as he can until he can nominate his preferred successor.
“I think it is a disaster. I have never seen such a selfish, damaging, suicidal kind of move from a man who’s only focus since the day he become prime minister was on himself.”
Bolt then reminded viewers that he wasn’t a member of the Liberal party.
The last time Sweden’s Social Democrats failed to come top in national elections, the first world war was just two months old.
No political force has dominated a European country quite like the centre-left party — but the era is coming to an end. In Sweden’s next election on September 9, the Social Democrats are almost certain to record their lowest share of the vote in more than a century and their record of heading the polls is under threat.
Not a good choice as it turned out, but definitely a shift away from Blairism.
One for fans of green energy:
https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2018/08/tidal-stream-prototype-generates-record-levels-of-electricity-off-the-orkney-coast/
All I can say is that this is as exciting and relevant as Australian politics gets. What is depressing is that neither party has any alternative leaders anywhere who will do any better. There are simply not enough MPs in Australia to allow either party to choose anyone except sycophants as candidates. So no new ideas and approaches ever come up. Coupled with three year parliaments and compulsory voting and AV there is no chance that the centre-right will ever be able to enact a reformist agenda. So they just behave like the pre-Thatcher Tories and follow Labour policies but dress it up slightly differently. It doesn't really matter who the Liberals choose as leader. Australia is all about 'entitlement'. People want more, so they will vote Labour.
You are lucky in the UK - real debate, real divisions between the parties and big life changing issues (Brexit) to discuss. No wonder I hang around here....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_ministry#27_June_2007_–_24_January_2008
Tony Blair, on the other hand, had seen off Robin Cook and Mo Mowlam. Perhaps you have them confused.
She is probably most likely to help the Liberals in the polls. However, like all Australian politicians she doesn't really stand for anything except being in office and looking good on TV. I suspect she is the second coming of Julia Gillard (eg highly touted when people don't see much of you but actually useless when people pay attention). But what choices do we have?
I was listening to Roy Hattersley yesterday, I think it was TWAO , but Radio 4 for sure , and he said the Labour Party was in a worse state than even during the Militant era, and that's saying something.
Read online that the New Statesman's Stephen Bush reckons a split could happen.
I'll believe it when I see it. But now is the perfect time. Wibbling about the SDP is to draw the wrong lesson from history and discount the wildly different circumstances of today.
There's a lot of ground in the centre. The Lib Dems are nowhere. The large blue/red vote share is more about fear of The Other than endorsing either inept leader. If Sane Labour split away from the Loony Tunes front bench, and took a reasonable chunk of Labour's vote share with them, they'd soon find left (relatively) Conservative voters and probably a fair number of MPs moving in the same direction.
The alternative is to line up behind Jeremy "Whoops, I appear to have accidentally wandered into a service for the memory of some terrorists" Corbyn for PM. Which I think they'll probably end up doing.
Brown said he was eager for a contest (a mistake Blair felt he had made in not beating Brown openly in 1994) but did his best to organise a "coronation". Potential rivals were undermined and over 300 Labour MPs lined up to nominate him. Within six months some were regretting it.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/may/10/general-election-2010-gordon-brown
Perhaps if Brown hadn’t gone about his Coronation you’d have had a proper contest and would have better options than Corbyn & Abbott...
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/08/21/the-beginning-end-trump-presidency/2c9HhJ7jA1s1HIUCG9bnHL/story.html?et_rid=710725355&s_campaign=weekinopinion:newsletter
As the paper itself puts it: "Since the Mueller investigation began, the president's former campaign manager, former deputy campaign manager, former foreign policy aide, former national security adviser, and former lawyer have all either pleaded guilty or been found guilty of federal crimes. "
When you put it like that it's not a great record is it?
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2018/aug/23/turnbull-dutton-liberal-canberra-chaos-spill
I do wonder what Vince has been saying in these new party meetings. Have the LibDems now admitted that their brand is so Ratnered, that they might as well throw their lot in with the New Crew? From nowhere to Official Opposition must have some attractions. (Although perhaps not if you looked to be successor top dog-fish in small pond.)
And I wonder if a Continuity LibDems would carry on buggering on like the old Liberals? We could see some big old ballot papers next time.
Conservative Party
Anti Brexit Settlement Conservative Party
Anna Mary Soubry
Labour Party
Spirit of Old Labour Party
No, WE'RE the Spirit of the Old Labour Party
Real Labour Party
Real Labour Party with Co-operative Divvy Points Party
We will NEVER split Labour Party
Splitters!!!! Party
Shiny New Centrist Party (with added SQUIRREL!!!!)
Lib-Dems Buggering on Regardless Party
Liberal Party
UKIP
(Who needs an) Official Monster Raving Loony Party
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/08/labour-party-split-inevitable-corbyn-MPs#amp
Hinch says:
I am old enough in this place to remember the days when we used to all laugh at the Italians. We said ‘how often they change their governments, how often they changed their leaders, what a stupid country that was and how irresponsible. What a lousy case of democracy.’
And now we will have tomorrow, it seems, an elected prime minister will not make it to his full term. A prime minister ... who was elected by the people and should serve his or her full term in government. And I am sorry it will not happen.
Grim Reaper = Blairite bastard......
This logic led David Miliband to nominate Diane Abbott to 'broaden the debate.'
With that precedent set, Labour next artificially nominated some useless prat called Corbyn...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1972
AV doesn't help. It basically forces every election into a 52/48 split at worst. So it takes only tiny movements in sentiment to leave you facing an electoral wipeout. If your primary vote falls a few percent and preferences move against you, your party can easily lose 20-30 seats and when you only have 80 to start with that is a lot of MPs very worried about their futures. Australian politicians are basically like all the others - worried about their jobs and there are not enough in safe seats to provide any stability. So if the polls say you are going to lose, why not just shoot the leader and hope for the best? Nobody really cares about policies anyway.
Also, Massachusetts has a Republican Governor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_ministry
I've got a modest bet on him being re-elected but things are getting difficult.
Romney may be one, but who are the 15-20 other GOP senators who are going to vote for impeachment?
Verified account @LadbrokesAuspol
29s30 seconds ago
MARKET MOVERS #libspill3
Peter Dutton
Was: $2.40 NOW ⬇️ $1.95
Julie Bishop
Was: $15 NOW ⬇️ $2.05
Scott Morrison
Was: $1.54 NOW ⬆️ $4
FULL MARKET: https://m.ladbrokes.com.au/sports/politics/australia/futures-outrights/australian-politics-federal/23450981 …
#auspol #libspill"
Trump: Hush payments came from me but were not a campaign violation
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45279047
The key point is that there was no big figure with an independent base in the party in the cabinet. All the key figures held office at Brown's pleasure. That made them unable to stand up to him and was responsible for a great many policy cock-ups, starting with his flawed response to the expenses scandal.
There was nobody to be Brown to his Blair (sorry) or Heseltine to his Major. In that sense his government resembled the unipolar one of Neville Chamberlain, or perhaps Thatcher after Whitelaw's retirement.
I am more worried about my bet than I have been to date.
Pause.
Ah, my coat.
Linda Reynolds says she no longer recognises her own party. "I do not recognise the values, I do not recognise the bullying and intimidation that has gone on".
@politicsabc
August 23, 2018"