Mike Gapes, a former chairman of the Commons foreign affairs committee, told fellow Labour MPs: “I am not prepared to support the racist antisemite. Period. It’s over for me.”
Responding to Mr Corbyn’s video in a WhatsApp message, Mr Gapes said that his personal “red line” had been crossed. All that remained was the timing of the announcement of his resignation, he said.
The MP for Ilford South refused to comment on what he said was a confidential communication. “It is painful. It is a horrible place to be and it can’t go on. Something has to change in the party or everyone has to make their own position, about where they stand. I am agonising with this every day.”
Just looking at the map. It certainly doesn't orient around London.
Although my recollections of Leicester aren't particularly pleasant.
They recently buried a child killer and terrorist in their cathedral with vast pomp and ceremony. I'm still rather exercised that in the eulogy he was described as 'a man of integrity,' which he certainly wasn't.
The unionists propaganda sheet spouts more guff. The Record is not even a comic hence losing most of its readership, they are almost down to Nazi bombers on the moon stage and the sooner they are bust the better.
Jeremy Hunt next Prime Minister nailed on and MPs will see Jezza Hunt has more talent and competence in his little finger than Boris has in his entire body.
The husband of British mother jailed in Iran Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe has said new Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt is their 'lucky charm' after her three-day release.
Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe, 40, was locked up in Tehran in April 2016 after being accused of spying on the Islamist regime and jailed for five years.
Her husband Richard, of north London, has fought an uphill battle and was overjoyed when she was released on a three-day furlough yesterday.
Speaking on TV this morning he credited the new Foreign Secretary with 'making strong noises' to get her released.
He said 'there was baggage' with his predecessor Boris Johnson, who was forced to apologise after he accidentally referred to the charity worker as a spy.
He told This Morning: 'The Government has been making some quite strong noises.
'Jeremy Hunt, the new foreign secretary was very clear yesterday in saying that this should be permanent, that she should be coming home and that she's innocent.
'That gives hope. But she's still in Iran. Until it's all over, it's not all over.'
But asked how much the new secretary of state has helped their situation, he replied: 'Before we had some baggage with the former foreign secretary. He then clearly tried to do his best. It got to a certain point but then it got to a lull.
'Then Jeremy Hunt has come in and he's been our lucky charm.
'He's made some strong noises. Obviously there's been work going on behind the scenes all along. So it's not to give him all the glory or equally his predecessor all the blame. It will have been battled.
'But I'm pleased with our Foreign Secretary at the moment.'
Just looking at the map. It certainly doesn't orient around London.
Although my recollections of Leicester aren't particularly pleasant.
They recently buried a child killer and terrorist in their cathedral with vast pomp and ceremony. I'm still rather exercised that in the eulogy he was described as 'a man of integrity,' which he certainly wasn't.
One man's terrorist is another man's etc.
In this particular case the crucial factor in his downfall was the fact pretty much his entire army abandoned him.
One commander, on being told that his son (held as hostage) would die if his troops did not advance, sent the quite astonishing reply, 'I have no wish to fight and I have other sons.'
The unionists propaganda sheet spouts more guff. The Record is not even a comic hence losing most of its readership, they are almost down to Nazi bombers on the moon stage and the sooner they are bust the better.
Malcolm
I think I must have misunderstood you yesterday. But I was very puzzled by this comment:
Were you actually saying Nicola Sturgeon is a Unionist? Because it wouldn't be totally surprising if she were given the mess she's making of the independence process, but it would be a startling admission.
Or was there some meaning my bleary eyes having feasted on Celtic beauty all day didn't get?
PBers may recall a couple of weeks ago there was a city list (would you be willing to move to X?) and I called it out as invalid due to the omission of York, which got rather more agreement than I was expecting.
That seems wrong to me. A map of average house prices would show where people actually want to live, and I suspect London would do a bit better.
The question is simply whether people like a City, not whether they want to live there.
I couldn't express an opinion on many of them, despite being fairly well travelled, though I suspect most of us could express an opinion on London. Except Morris Dancer.
I can't, unfortunately. OGH would take exception to the language I would use.
I had 6 years in London, as a student and junior doctor. I like many aspects and loathe other aspects. I always enjoy coming home to the sanity of the Midlands. London is no place to live with children.
Incidentally, at least two cities are missing from that list - Bangor and Llanelwy.
Edit - can't see Rochester either although I know there's some dispute as to whether it's a city. But Chelmsford is a pretty glaring omission.
Perth is missing.
And Casnewydd/Newport - although that's not perhaps a terribly surprising omission...
Edit - and Lancaster. Now that is a bad oversight.
The UK excluding Northern Ireland has 64 cities. So there are 7 cities missing from the list. That does not include Rochester which apparently ceased to be a city in 1998 due to the outgoing city council's failure to appoint charter trustees.
The missing cities appear to be Bangor, Chelmsford, Lancaster, Newport, Perth, St Asaph, Westminster. I can't say I am surprised that Westminster is missing but some of the others are surprising.
On topic, to break FPTP you need a support base that is geographically concentrated - as was early Labour's - or to achieve a dominant share of the vote - as did the SNP within Scotland.
The SDP's problem was always that it's appeal was broad rather than deep, and insofar as there was any concentration (being perjorative, in areas with lots of Waitrose shoppers), these tended to be seats already hard fought between active branches of the two main parties (like York, Cambridge, Oxford and north London).
The changing demographics of the country and the greater age/education basis of leave/Remain might offer somewhat more concentration today (although you could argue to what extent 'remain' is the right and sustainable long-term base for a new party?), but the biggest difference would be that it zooms in on mostly safe Labour seats, rather than marginals as before. The new party would therefore be head-to-head with Labour from the outset and would need to shatter its base in places like north London and university towns in order to secure at least a beachhead.
With respect, I think that's adopting all the mistakes the Lib Dems made - eschewing broad appeal in favour of limited targets, which is a dead-end street.
The SDP adventure has now entirely played itself out. It was an play in three acts.
Prologue: The Liberals won 12 seats in 1979. Act I: SDP split and 1980s - wide support but insufficient to break through in a big way. 20+ seats. Act II: 1990s, 2000s. Acceptance of third-party status; concentration on winning targets and letting support elsewhere decay, except for ad hoc tactical opportunities. Increase to 60+ seats. Act III: 2010s. The ultimately inevitable hung parliament exposed the strategic and tactical contradictions of the previous plan and brought support crashing down. Epoilogue: The Lib Dems won 12 seats in 2017.
For any new breakaway to work, they *have* to aspire to rise above third-party status and should aim to win *at least* 200 seats - or, realistically, 35%+ of the vote, which would bring those gains automatically.
That is possible, in my opinion. As I said in the article, the SDP consistently polled 40%+ in 1981/2 and politics is less tribal and more retail now than it was then. Against an internally split and drifting Tory party, and an extreme Labour, I could see an SDP2 doing at least that well initially. Whether they could sustain that would depend on the political skills of their leadership.
If the splitters are going to make this work I think that they would need a minimum of 50 MPs. They would bring some money with them and have enough representation to get questions at PMQs and on committees. Keeping a high profile would be one of the many challenges and that would help.
Incidentally, at least two cities are missing from that list - Bangor and Llanelwy.
Edit - can't see Rochester either although I know there's some dispute as to whether it's a city. But Chelmsford is a pretty glaring omission.
Perth is missing.
And Casnewydd/Newport - although that's not perhaps a terribly surprising omission...
Edit - and Lancaster. Now that is a bad oversight.
The UK excluding Northern Ireland has 64 cities. So there are 7 cities missing from the list. That does not include Rochester which apparently ceased to be a city in 1998 due to the outgoing city council's failure to appoint charter trustees.
The missing cities appear to be Bangor, Chelmsford, Lancaster, Newport, Perth, St Asaph, Westminster. I can't say I am surprised that Westminster is missing but some of the others are surprising.
Ah, thank you. Westminster is probably lumped in with London (which after all is technically in terms of its population the smallest city in England).
Though the number of Labour seats increased substantially in the 1920's, with the enfranchisement of working class men.
Sure, the Liberal splits helped the supplantation, but the working class enfranchisement helped in a big way too.
The working classes could vote from the 1880s. It was a householder franchise rather than a property franchise - renting a property was acceptable to have the vote for it. Two-thirds of men in England and Wales had the vote.
What did change in 1918 was that a large number of younger, more radical men were given the vote, where previously their fathers or even grandfathers would have had the family vote instead.
However, it was certainly not the only or even the most important factor in Labour's rise to the top.
Wasn't the franchise dependent on the rateable value?
Yes, but it didn't matter who was paying the rates. It didn't have to be the owner in other words.
The male franchise more than doubled in 1918 though. Presumably sons of householders and also those in the poorest housing below the threshold, and more Labour inclined.
Though the number of Labour seats increased substantially in the 1920's, with the enfranchisement of working class men.
Sure, the Liberal splits helped the supplantation, but the working class enfranchisement helped in a big way too.
The working classes could vote from the 1880s. It was a householder franchise rather than a property franchise - renting a property was acceptable to have the vote for it. Two-thirds of men in England and Wales had the vote.
What did change in 1918 was that a large number of younger, more radical men were given the vote, where previously their fathers or even grandfathers would have had the family vote instead.
However, it was certainly not the only or even the most important factor in Labour's rise to the top.
Wasn't the franchise dependent on the rateable value?
Yes, but it didn't matter who was paying the rates. It didn't have to be the owner in other words.
The male franchise more than doubled in 1918 though. Presumably sons of householders and also those in the poorest housing below the threshold, and more Labour inclined.
I think about 90% of Britons rented at that time.
It could not have 'more than doubled' as over half of men already had the vote. The electorate as a whole more than doubled but that was due to the inclusion of women.
On topic, to break FPTP you need a support base that is geographically concentrated - as was early Labour's - or to achieve a dominant share of the vote - as did the SNP within Scotland.
The SDP's problem was always that it's appeal was broad rather than deep, and insofar as there was any concentration (being perjorative, in areas with lots of Waitrose shoppers), these tended to be seats already hard fought between active branches of the two main parties (like York, Cambridge, Oxford and north London).
The changing demographics of the country and the greater age/education basis of leave/Remain might offer somewhat more concentration today (although you could argue to what extent 'remain' is the right and sustainable long-term base for a new party?), but the biggest difference would be that it zooms in on mostly safe Labour seats, rather than marginals as before. The new party would therefore be head-to-head with Labour from the outset and would need to shatter its base in places like north London and university towns in order to secure at least a beachhead.
With respect, I think that's adopting all the mistakes the Lib Dems made - eschewing broad appeal in favour of limited targets, which is a dead-end street.
The SDP adventure has now entirely played itself out. It was an play in three acts.
Prologue: The Liberals won 12 seats in 1979. Act I: SDP split and 1980s - wide support but insufficient to break through in a big way. 20+ seats. Act II: 1990s, 2000s. Acceptance of third-party status; concentration on winning targets and letting support elsewhere decay, except for ad hoc tactical opportunities. Increase to 60+ seats. Act III: 2010s. The ultimately inevitable hung parliament exposed the strategic and tactical contradictions of the previous plan and brought support crashing down. Epoilogue: The Lib Dems won 12 seats in 2017.
For any new breakaway to work, they *have* to aspire to rise above third-party status and should aim to win *at least* 200 seats - or, realistically, 35%+ of the vote, which would bring those gains automatically.
That is possible, in my opinion. As I said in the article, the SDP consistently polled 40%+ in 1981/2 and politics is less tribal and more retail now than it was then. Against an internally split and drifting Tory party, and an extreme Labour, I could see an SDP2 doing at least that well initially. Whether they could sustain that would depend on the political skills of their leadership.
The real obbstacle is to define a positive agenda, rather than merely be opposed to Corbynism and Moggism.
I think you could make the case that Corbyn is actually doing a decent job of selling himself to the wider public given his atrocious back story. Look at all the ammo his critics have got, yet somehow he is still in the game.
The unionists propaganda sheet spouts more guff. The Record is not even a comic hence losing most of its readership, they are almost down to Nazi bombers on the moon stage and the sooner they are bust the better.
Malcolm
I think I must have misunderstood you yesterday. But I was very puzzled by this comment:
Were you actually saying Nicola Sturgeon is a Unionist? Because it wouldn't be totally surprising if she were given the mess she's making of the independence process, but it would be a startling admission.
Or was there some meaning my bleary eyes having feasted on Celtic beauty all day didn't get?
I was referring to that turnip Farquharson, his only story is SNPBAD, it is no wonder all these papers in Scotland are going bankrupt given the donkeys they have as supposed journalists.
If the splitters are going to make this work I think that they would need a minimum of 50 MPs. They would bring some money with them and have enough representation to get questions at PMQs and on committees. Keeping a high profile would be one of the many challenges and that would help.
I imagine the dissenters are thinking the same things, and that's why nothing has, or will, happen - can any of us really see 50 MPs abandoning the emotional ties to the party, particularly when they will take few members with them since the members are reportedly still very happy with Corbyn? Not to mention they probably agree with a lot of Corbyn's domestic plans, and they see the worth in helping that rather than jumping ship.
A couple is easily portrayed as being a problem with those people not the party - no one seems to care that Woodcock and O'Mara have gone, albeit one was already practically independent and neither left over the Corbyn issue exactly - and even a dozen is a tiny faction of out of touch losers.
Though the number of Labour seats increased substantially in the 1920's, with the enfranchisement of working class men.
Sure, the Liberal splits helped the supplantation, but the working class enfranchisement helped in a big way too.
The working classes could vote from the 1880s. It was a householder franchise rather than a property franchise - renting a property was acceptable to have the vote for it. Two-thirds of men in England and Wales had the vote.
What did change in 1918 was that a large number of younger, more radical men were given the vote, where previously their fathers or even grandfathers would have had the family vote instead.
However, it was certainly not the only or even the most important factor in Labour's rise to the top.
Also, middle-class women gained the vote in 1918, which should, theoretically, have offset the male working-class vote to an extent. (I generalise both cases here but the gist is right, I think).
But my main point is that it doesn't really matter. The Conservatives have their roots in Pitt the Younger's coalition (the Tory Party of Queen Anne's day died out under the earlier Hanoverians). Parties respond to the expanding franchise. The party that refused Catholic votes or electoral reform would have withered to nothing by the 1850s had it not changed, but under Peel, Disraeli, Salisbury and Baldwin, it continually adopted and adapted to become the most successful party of the 20th century.
There is absolutely no reason why the Liberals could not have done the same and pushed Labour to the Marxist fringes. Lloyd George was perfectly placed in 1918 to smother Labour but for one fact: despite having impeccable radical credentials from before the war, and despite having led Britain to success (Ireland apart), the Liberals split. *That* was the problem; not Labour's existence as some kind of existential threat. The "Homes for heroes" programme was precisely the programme the Liberals should have run on after WWI. Had the party been united under him (which would also mean no coupon election), Labour could have reduced to a rump, tainted by Russia and pacifism, and the Liberals continued as a major party throughout the 1900s and beyond.
PBers may recall a couple of weeks ago there was a city list (would you be willing to move to X?) and I called it out as invalid due to the omission of York, which got rather more agreement than I was expecting.
I can't believe Guzz is at #29! It should have been demoted 20 places just for Boobs Disco where a lucky young sailor could get cock rot, stabbed and pissed on in one convenient location. They used to search for weapons on the way and give you one if you didn't have one.
The eye-popping one in that list of cities is Stoke-on-Trent.
Have you ever been there? 70pc leave in the referendum, maybe that's why you don't like it?
A pity Hartlepool isn't a City. It might have saved Bradford the ignominy of coming bottom
Why don't you come to live in Bradford Roger and bring the high standards of living with you,maybe you might set a trend with the liberal elite and experience real multiculturalism.
The unionists propaganda sheet spouts more guff. The Record is not even a comic hence losing most of its readership, they are almost down to Nazi bombers on the moon stage and the sooner they are bust the better.
Malcolm
I think I must have misunderstood you yesterday. But I was very puzzled by this comment:
Were you actually saying Nicola Sturgeon is a Unionist? Because it wouldn't be totally surprising if she were given the mess she's making of the independence process, but it would be a startling admission.
Or was there some meaning my bleary eyes having feasted on Celtic beauty all day didn't get?
I was referring to that turnip Farquharson, his only story is SNPBAD, it is no wonder all these papers in Scotland are going bankrupt given the donkeys they have as supposed journalists.
PS, good morning ydoethur
Ah. I see. I thought it was strange.
I think many dislike the SNP will be feasting on schadenfreude. Let's make no mistake, this is politically very bad news for them, whatever the outcome.
There's still a non-trivial chance that if Corbyn goes down next time the party can de-Corbynize, and apart from Brexit I'm not sure there's *that* much policy stuff that the moderates really dislike. So unless the left start doing wholesale purges, I don't think it's attractive for moderates to try to break away unless they think they might be able to win the *next* election. To do that they obviously need Tory support as well as Labour support, and quite a lot of it. (Snip)
So the important question is: Who are the soft Tory supporters who would switch to a hypothetical Centrist Dad Party, and what do they want?
The real issue for Labour, given the size and energy of its expanded membership, is how it happens. Any sort of MP coup would get the most horrendous backlash. The most likely route is some sort of Kinnock figure, elected from the left who then tacks the party back toward the centre. But even that precedent conjures up recollection of a lot of internal turmoil.
On the Tory side the turmoil arises if Brexit starts to go seriously pear shaped, with the conflict between those running for the lifeboats and those who believe the ship can carve clean through the iceberg.
I think there's quite a bit of precedent for somebody acceptably extreme to win the leadership then tack back to the centre to win the election. It's a pretty standard political manoeuver; Generally the membership will go with you once they get sick of losing. So viewed as just part of the normal cycle I don't think there's particularly a long-term problem for the moderates, as long as they don't get purged in the meantime.
But what there's less precedent for is this situation where both the main government and the main opposition are clearly incompetent and at the mercy of extremists, but the centre has totally evaporated. This becomes even more true if TMay gets knifed by somebody of a hard-brexit persuasion, and the economic results are not entirely to the voters' advantage.
In principle it feels plausible that there could be a lot of latent support for a reconstructed centre, maybe even enough to overcome the inherent hurdle of FPTP. But then when you start to ask who, how, what specific policies, what specific voters, I'm having a hard time seeing how you colour the picture in.
I am not convinced there is much real interest in Centrism. Otherwise the LDs would be polling rather better. Indeed there was a recent bit of polling showed that the perceived gap by voters was for an anti immigration party.
1. That has a lot to do with the Lib Dems' brand image, leadership and visibility. 2. The Lib Dems are not particularly centrist at the moment and are motivated more by ultra-Remainism than domestic concerns.
I think you could make the case that Corbyn is actually doing a decent job of selling himself to the wider public given his atrocious back story. Look at all the ammo his critics have got, yet somehow he is still in the game.
Absolutely. Labour did so much better than most thought in 2017 and despite all these stories are in with a good chance at worst of him being PM if he leads them into the next election. Much has been said lately about May's resilence, for better and for worse, and Corbyn's ability to soldier on is impressive, albeit he has the trump card, both in the sense he is a lot like Trump and that he has the power of the membership, which May does not have.
Also, middle-class women gained the vote in 1918, which should, theoretically, have offset the male working-class vote to an extent. (I generalise both cases here but the gist is right, I think).
But my main point is that it doesn't really matter. The Conservatives have their roots in Pitt the Younger's coalition (the Tory Party of Queen Anne's day died out under the earlier Hanoverians). Parties respond to the expanding franchise. The party that refused Catholic votes or electoral reform would have withered to nothing by the 1850s had it not changed, but under Peel, Disraeli, Salisbury and Baldwin, it continually adopted and adapted to become the most successful party of the 20th century.
There is absolutely no reason why the Liberals could not have done the same and pushed Labour to the Marxist fringes. Lloyd George was perfectly placed in 1918 to smother Labour but for one fact: despite having impeccable radical credentials from before the war, and despite having led Britain to success (Ireland apart), the Liberals split. *That* was the problem; not Labour's existence as some kind of existential threat. The "Homes for heroes" programme was precisely the programme the Liberals should have run on after WWI. Had the party been united under him (which would also mean no coupon election), Labour could have reduced to a rump, tainted by Russia and pacifism, and the Liberals continued as a major party throughout the 1900s and beyond.
One major point to remember.
The Liberal Party could not have been united under him in 1918.
Asquith was the party leader, and he refused to budge until 1926 despite two spells out of Parliament altogether.
Even if Asquith had stepped aside, there is no guarantee at that time it would have been Lloyd George or Haldane rather than Grey or McKenna who took the leadership (extraordinary though that claim may seem).
And even if the party had been united, it still might well have struggled. Don't forget, Bonar Law actually campaigned for Asquith in Fife, and an unofficial, uncouponed Unionist still took the seat.
There's still a non-trivial chance that if Corbyn goes down next time the party can de-Corbynize, and apart from Brexit I'm not sure there's *that* much policy stuff that the moderates really dislike. So unless the left start doing wholesale purges, I don't think it's attractive for moderates to try to break away unless they think they might be able to win the *next* election. To do that they obviously need Tory support as well as Labour support, and quite a lot of it. (Snip)
So the important question is: Who are the soft Tory supporters who would switch to a hypothetical Centrist Dad Party, and what do they want?
The real issue for Labour, given the size and energy of its expanded membership, is how it happens. Any sort of MP coup would get the most horrendous backlash. The most likely route is some sort of Kinnock figure, elected from the left who then tacks the party back toward the centre. But even that precedent conjures up recollection of a lot of internal turmoil.
On the Tory side the turmoil arises if Brexit starts to go seriously pear shaped, with the conflict between those running for the lifeboats and those who believe the ship can carve clean through the iceberg.
I think
But what there's less precedent for is this situation where both the main government and the main opposition are clearly incompetent and at the mercy of extremists, but the centre has totally evaporated. This becomes even more true if TMay gets knifed by somebody of a hard-brexit persuasion, and the economic results are not entirely to the voters' advantage.
In principle it feels plausible that there could be a lot of latent support for a reconstructed centre, maybe even enough to overcome the inherent hurdle of FPTP. But then when you start to ask who, how, what specific policies, what specific voters, I'm having a hard time seeing how you colour the picture in.
I am not convinced there is much real interest in Centrism. Otherwise the LDs would be polling rather better. Indeed there was a recent bit of polling showed that the perceived gap by voters was for an anti immigration party.
1. That has a lot to do with the Lib Dems' brand image, leadership and visibility. 2. The Lib Dems are not particularly centrist at the moment and are motivated more by ultra-Remainism than domestic concerns.
I agree, and would like to see Vince step down.
We LDs have our own problem of entryism. The membership has more than doubled in 2 years and that is almost entirely Brexit rejectionists who are not so interested in broader policy. I don't think this healthy, despite being a Remainer, member of 5 years duration and late convert to the #peoplesvote myself.
Jeremy Hunt next Prime Minister nailed on and MPs will see Jezza Hunt has more talent and competence in his little finger than Boris has in his entire body.
The husband of British mother jailed in Iran Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe has said new Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt is their 'lucky charm' after her three-day release.
Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe, 40, was locked up in Tehran in April 2016 after being accused of spying on the Islamist regime and jailed for five years.
Her husband Richard, of north London, has fought an uphill battle and was overjoyed when she was released on a three-day furlough yesterday.
Speaking on TV this morning he credited the new Foreign Secretary with 'making strong noises' to get her released.
He said 'there was baggage' with his predecessor Boris Johnson, who was forced to apologise after he accidentally referred to the charity worker as a spy.
He told This Morning: 'The Government has been making some quite strong noises.
'Jeremy Hunt, the new foreign secretary was very clear yesterday in saying that this should be permanent, that she should be coming home and that she's innocent.
'That gives hope. But she's still in Iran. Until it's all over, it's not all over.'
But asked how much the new secretary of state has helped their situation, he replied: 'Before we had some baggage with the former foreign secretary. He then clearly tried to do his best. It got to a certain point but then it got to a lull.
'Then Jeremy Hunt has come in and he's been our lucky charm.
'He's made some strong noises. Obviously there's been work going on behind the scenes all along. So it's not to give him all the glory or equally his predecessor all the blame. It will have been battled.
'But I'm pleased with our Foreign Secretary at the moment.'
The last point is particularly intriguing. This was a very big sample, yet YouGov had to apply serious weightings to its sample to get back to the referendum result. Possibilities:
1) YouGov’s panel is unbalanced. 2) Some Leave voters are forgetting or lying about how they voted. 3) Some Leave voters have become shy about their choice. 4) Some non-voters want to correct that retrospectively.
It hints that perhaps Remain’s lead might be a bit understated, as Leave voters might be finding different ways of concealing a change of mind.
At the time of the last referendum, a party dedicated to leaving the EU was polling 18-19%. Today it is not even quoted in the headline figures. For me, that context is quite important when considering the poll you cite. If you think the difference in UKIP polling is because Brexit is unpopular then it makes sense, if you think its because they have taken their foot off the pedal after Leave won, but would return in the event of a 2nd referendum, then current polling is less of an accurate indicator of how a 2nd referendum would play out, I would say.
Bradford bottom,well it doesn't help whenl 800/900 asylum seekers get dumped on the poor parts of the city which are already struggling and the number one city on the poll, also the better off white York take bugger all.
If you are looking for racism ,it's right there.
Yes agreed , it is easy to be a liberal on issues , living in in a city like York. There is no self apartheid in schools or areas of the city, due to the very limited immigration. Big employers in the past , such as Rowntree had policies of employing workers from families who had already lived here. There is no white flight areas in York , as it is so predominantly white.
Though the number of Labour seats increased substantially in the 1920's, with the enfranchisement of working class men.
Sure, the Liberal splits helped the supplantation, but the working class enfranchisement helped in a big way too.
The working classes could vote from the 1880s. It was a householder franchise rather than a property franchise - renting a property was acceptable to have the vote for it. Two-thirds of men in England and Wales had the vote.
What did change in 1918 was that a large number of younger, more radical men were given the vote, where previously their fathers or even grandfathers would have had the family vote instead.
However, it was certainly not the only or even the most important factor in Labour's rise to the top.
Also, middle-class women gained the vote in 1918, which should, theoretically, have offset the male working-class vote to an extent. (I generalise both cases here but the gist is right, I think).
But my main point is that it doesn't really matter. The Conservatives have their roots in Pitt the Younger's coalition (the Tory Party of Queen Anne's day died out under the earlier Hanoverians). Parties respond to the expanding franchise. The party that refused Catholic votes or electoral reform would have withered to nothing by the 1850s had it not changed, but under Peel, Disraeli, Salisbury and Baldwin, it continually adopted and adapted to become the most successful party of the 20th century.
There is absolutely no reason why the Liberals could not have done the same and pushed Labour to the Marxist fringes. Lloyd George was perfectly placed in 1918 to smother Labour but for one fact: despite having impeccable radical credentials from before the war, and despite having led Britain to success (Ireland apart), the Liberals split. *That* was the problem; not Labour's existence as some kind of existential threat. The "Homes for heroes" programme was precisely the programme the Liberals should have run on after WWI. Had the party been united under him (which would also mean no coupon election), Labour could have reduced to a rump, tainted by Russia and pacifism, and the Liberals continued as a major party throughout the 1900s and beyond.
Stanley Baldwin is the unsung hero of Toryism who successfully navigated the path from a Tory squirearchy to a mass middle class party. Quite a feat, but unnoticed because of its success.
If the splitters are going to make this work I think that they would need a minimum of 50 MPs. They would bring some money with them and have enough representation to get questions at PMQs and on committees. Keeping a high profile would be one of the many challenges and that would help.
I imagine the dissenters are thinking the same things, and that's why nothing has, or will, happen - can any of us really see 50 MPs abandoning the emotional ties to the party, particularly when they will take few members with them since the members are reportedly still very happy with Corbyn? Not to mention they probably agree with a lot of Corbyn's domestic plans, and they see the worth in helping that rather than jumping ship.
A couple is easily portrayed as being a problem with those people not the party - no one seems to care that Woodcock and O'Mara have gone, albeit one was already practically independent and neither left over the Corbyn issue exactly - and even a dozen is a tiny faction of out of touch losers.
Yes, having been through the SDP experience there is a critical mass to these things and a dozen doesn’t cut it.
They thrive on the criticism that would end the career of a normal politician because their offer and attraction is based on them not being a normal politician.
A positive from the Brexit vote is that it provided a marvellous opportunity for different parts of society to understand each others lives. The anger and frustration felt by some who wanted to maintain the status quo are the same emotions that motivated many to vote to Leave. It is probably the closest, outside of illness and bereavement, that comfortably off people will get to understanding what it is like to be genuinely powerless.
It strikes me as surprising that more people who voted to Remain don't pause for thought on what people's lives must be like to make them vote in a way that they find so distasteful, rather than dismiss them as bad people.
' It is the same snobbery that caused an eminent art critic to recently opine on Radio 4 that he hadn’t seen a few Caravaggios being shown off in a London exhibition – because they had been “hidden away in places like Hull and Preston”. They might as well have been on the moon, though he would no doubt have seen them had they been hung in Florence or Paris. '
Snobbery no doubt but there is a practical consideration that in London, Florence or Paris, they'd have been amongst lots of similar paintings as opposed to being scattered and isolated. It would be different if all the Caravaggios were in Preston rather than just one or two. Clustering is important for scholars and tourists alike, not just snobs on the wireless.
Clustering tends to go way past the point of diminishing returns.
Major art galleries have so many great works that it is impossible to fully appreciate most of them.
Likewise cultural centres have so many institutions that again few receive the appreciation they deserve.
Nor do the hoards of tourists such cities attract improve the experience.
Whereas seeing things in smaller or less renowned places is usually easier and you are more able to appreciate their worth.
I'd say that there are few major towns or cities in this country which don't have sufficient cultural / historic / scenic attractions to make them worth a visit.
And at rather lower cost than the well known tourist locations.
They thrive on the criticism that would end the career of a normal politician because their offer and attraction is based on them not being a normal politician.
The wackier they are, the stronger they get.
With their base maybe. Not with independents and those who already had doubts.
The leader in today's Times is damning for Corbyn. The 2017 election was an easy ride for him, as it was all about "trim May's majority". The next election will be all about "stop Corbyn".
They thrive on the criticism that would end the career of a normal politician because their offer and attraction is based on them not being a normal politician.
Mr. L/Mr. kle4, I agree but find it baffling and slightly pathetic that loyalty to a party, which is essentially just branding, trumps loyalty to ideals that should underpin said party.
You can't simultaneously bitch about Corbyn being an unacceptable anti-Semite whilst also proposing he become Prime Minister and expect to be taken seriously.
The last point is particularly intriguing. This was a very big sample, yet YouGov had to apply serious weightings to its sample to get back to the referendum result. Possibilities:
1) YouGov’s panel is unbalanced. 2) Some Leave voters are forgetting or lying about how they voted. 3) Some Leave voters have become shy about their choice. 4) Some non-voters want to correct that retrospectively.
It hints that perhaps Remain’s lead might be a bit understated, as Leave voters might be finding different ways of concealing a change of mind.
At the time of the last referendum, a party dedicated to leaving the EU was polling 18-19%. Today it is not even quoted in the headline figures. For me, that context is quite important when considering the poll you cite. If you think the difference in UKIP polling is because Brexit is unpopular then it makes sense, if you think its because they have taken their foot off the pedal after Leave won, but would return in the event of a 2nd referendum, then current polling is less of an accurate indicator of how a 2nd referendum would play out, I would say.
The other point missed about a second referendum is the campaign itself. Very little of the original Leave campaign can be reused as it has now been tested for two years and for the most part has been shown to be fictitious.
Remain as the vanquished have to do very little other than show that the public were sold a pup. If they can be persuaded that this is a completely fresh throw of the dice I suspect their win will be well into double figures.
They thrive on the criticism that would end the career of a normal politician because their offer and attraction is based on them not being a normal politician.
The wackier they are, the stronger they get.
With their base maybe. Not with independents and those who already had doubts.
The leader in today's Times is damning for Corbyn. The 2017 election was an easy ride for him, as it was all about "trim May's majority". The next election will be all about "stop Corbyn".
That would be a mistake if the goal is to stop Corbyn. He will feed on and gain strength from that.
It doesn't matter if the doubters and the independents don't vote or oppose him. Hell Trump showed you don't even need to get the most votes.
They thrive on the criticism that would end the career of a normal politician because their offer and attraction is based on them not being a normal politician.
The wackier they are, the stronger they get.
With their base maybe. Not with independents and those who already had doubts.
The leader in today's Times is damning for Corbyn. The 2017 election was an easy ride for him, as it was all about "trim May's majority". The next election will be all about "stop Corbyn".
That would be a mistake if the goal is to stop Corbyn. He will feed on and gain strength from that.
It doesn't matter if the doubters and the independents don't vote or oppose him. Hell Trump showed you don't even need to get the most votes.
The way Corbyn stacks up votes where he doesn' t need them, he can't win power without getting most votes.
A breakaway would need a likeable personality as leader - someone who can articulate a clear vision for the future. Someone who comes without baggage that can be pulled apart.
It isn't Chuka. It isn't Cooper. It isn't Kinnock. It isn't Starmer.
Watson walking would make him an interim leader and king/queen maker for whoever emerges from the chaos.
Luciana Berger and Sarah Champion have both stood their ground with a certain amount of integrity of late. I don't know if they have the political vision to become a credible leader. But they would offer something fresh - they would make people take notice.
Although having met Luciana when living up in Liverpool she is incredibly impressive in a way I didn't expect given the first time people heard of her it was a row about her allegedly being parachuted in. She's just a really nice, pleasant person, and yet someone who has shown balls of steel over Corbyn's vileness. I don't think people quite realise the level of abuse Jewish Labour MPs get. It would be enough to drive lesser people mad - and would, if he were decent and honourable, have led to a serious intervention years back from Corbyn over what is done in his name. She's got steely determination and very prepared to get her hands dirty by campaigning too. I think she hugely won over a lot of fairly sceptical Scousers and pre-Corbyn fought off the hard left in her constituency party.
I'm not sure the far right types who abuse (or go further) Labour women MPs really care what Corbyn thinks.
I don't know. Nick Griffin and David Duke both seem quite happy with what he's been saying.
They thrive on the criticism that would end the career of a normal politician because their offer and attraction is based on them not being a normal politician.
The wackier they are, the stronger they get.
With their base maybe. Not with independents and those who already had doubts.
The leader in today's Times is damning for Corbyn. The 2017 election was an easy ride for him, as it was all about "trim May's majority". The next election will be all about "stop Corbyn".
We heard all that in Easter 2017, that Jezzas terrorist links with Hamas and the IRA would destroy him, and the only question was whether May would have a 100 seat majority or 200.
What happened next?
Clearly many Britons are unpeturbed by his links to these groups. I think Jezza does spill over the line into anti-semitism because of his anti zionism, but cannot recall him making an anti-semetic comment in other contexts. Some of his supporters on the hard left are more broad brush.
Just looking at the map. It certainly doesn't orient around London.
Although my recollections of Leicester aren't particularly pleasant.
They recently buried a child killer and terrorist in their cathedral with vast pomp and ceremony. I'm still rather exercised that in the eulogy he was described as 'a man of integrity,' which he certainly wasn't.
But we know through Philippa Gregory that Lady Beaufort killed the Princes (and that the Woodvilles had magical powers).
Now while I applaud the thinking behind them they looked rather expensive which really isn't the point when it comes to making use of irregular produce.
On topic, to break FPTP you need a support base that is geographically concentrated - as was early Labour's - or to achieve a dominant share of the vote - as did the SNP within Scotland.
I'm not sure I'd say it was just their concentration of the vote in certain areas although it certainly helped. The First World War, the split in the Liberals, the loss of Ireland and the passivity of Baldwin were all significant, and without any one of them the other factors would probably have been moot.
In fact, the rather strange nature of the perfect storm that propelled Labour from fourth to first in just 18 years suggests dumb luck has a lot to do with it.
The other big thing that led to Labour breaking through was the expansion of the franchise, not just to women. The 1918 Representation of the People Act abolished the property qualification.
Redistribution of seats also hurt the Liberals. Rural Britain was still overrepresented prior to the 1918, with many small boroughs still dominated by Liberal professionals and gentry. 1918 saw a big redistribution in favour of the cities.
Just looking at the map. It certainly doesn't orient around London.
Although my recollections of Leicester aren't particularly pleasant.
They recently buried a child killer and terrorist in their cathedral with vast pomp and ceremony. I'm still rather exercised that in the eulogy he was described as 'a man of integrity,' which he certainly wasn't.
One man's terrorist is another man's etc.
In this particular case the crucial factor in his downfall was the fact pretty much his entire army abandoned him.
One commander, on being told that his son (held as hostage) would die if his troops did not advance, sent the quite astonishing reply, 'I have no wish to fight and I have other sons.'
Rather like Caterina Sforza, who when threatened with the execution of her sons, hauled up her skirt and said "I have the means of making new sons."
Corbyn is like Trump. They thrive on the criticism that would end the career of a normal politician because their offer and attraction is based on them not being a normal politician. The wackier they are, the stronger they get.
With their base maybe. Not with independents and those who already had doubts. The leader in today's Times is damning for Corbyn. The 2017 election was an easy ride for him, as it was all about "trim May's majority". The next election will be all about "stop Corbyn".
I don`t often agree with you, Mr Mark. But I think you are spot on there. I don`t think Mrs May will be aiming for a Tory dictatorship at the next election. This will have consequences for everybody.
Jewish woman asked police to intervene after she was called 'a piece of s***' at tense 'anti-Semitic' meeting hosted by Jeremy Corbyn in Parliament where speaker said 'Israel go to hell'
This is the moment police intervened at a Parliamentary meeting hosted by Jeremy Corbyn where Israel was described as 'evil' and a Jewish woman said she was called a 'piece of sh**'.
The unrest began when a British Jewish member of the audience complained that she had not been allowed to challenge the speakers' anti-Israel views. 'You're trying to shut everybody else up, in the house of commons that we fought for,' she said.
Corbyn refused to accept her questions and tried to close the meeting. Then it descended into chaos. On the video, one woman cries: 'The Holocaust issue, Jeremy. Why? Why do you do this? Why?' She then adds ironically, 'I like Jeremy Corbyn.'
On the panel were three politicians who were suspended from their parties on charges of anti-Semitism, including the former Labour peer Lord Ahmed, who blamed a Jewish conspiracy for his driving conviction.
The two other disgraced politicians were Jenny Tonge and David Ward, both of whom were expelled from the Liberal Democrats for allegedly anti-Semitic remarks.
A breakaway would need a likeable personality as leader - someone who can articulate a clear vision for the future. Someone who comes without baggage that can be pulled apart.
It isn't Chuka. It isn't Cooper. It isn't Kinnock. It isn't Starmer.
Watson walking would make him an interim leader and king/queen maker for whoever emerges from the chaos.
Luciana Berger and Sarah Champion have both stood their ground with a certain amount of integrity of late. I don't know if they have the political vision to become a credible leader. But they would offer something fresh - they would make people take notice.
Although having met Luciana when living up in Liverpool she is incredibly impressive in a way I didn't expect given the first time people heard of her it was a row about her allegedly being parachuted in. She's just a really nice, pleasant person, and yet someone who has shown balls of steel over Corbyn's vileness. I don't think people quite realise the level of abuse Jewish Labour MPs get. It would be enough to drive lesser people mad - and would, if he were decent and honourable, have led to a serious intervention years back from Corbyn over what is done in his name. She's got steely determination and very prepared to get her hands dirty by campaigning too. I think she hugely won over a lot of fairly sceptical Scousers and pre-Corbyn fought off the hard left in her constituency party.
I'm not sure the far right types who abuse (or go further) Labour women MPs really care what Corbyn thinks.
I don't know. Nick Griffin and David Duke both seem quite happy with what he's been saying.
I can't understand why.
The truth is:
Jeremy visits places anti-Semites visit; Jeremy speaks at places anti-Semites speak at; Jeremy joins groups which anti-Semites join; Jeremy supports causes anti-Semites support
A breakaway would need a likeable personality as leader - someone who can articulate a clear vision for the future. Someone who comes without baggage that can be pulled apart.
It isn't Chuka. It isn't Cooper. It isn't Kinnock. It isn't Starmer.
Watson walking would make him an interim leader and king/queen maker for whoever emerges from the chaos.
Luciana Berger and Sarah Champion have both stood their ground with a certain amount of integrity of late. I don't know if they have the political vision to become a credible leader. But they would offer something fresh - they would make people take notice.
Although having met Luciana when living up in Liverpool she is incredibly impressive in a way I didn't expect given the first time people heard of her it was a row about her allegedly being parachuted in. She's just a really nice, pleasant person, and yet someone who has shown balls of steel over Corbyn's vileness. I don't think people quite realise the level of abuse Jewish Labour MPs get. It would be enough to drive lesser people mad - and would, if he were decent and honourable, have led to a serious intervention years back from Corbyn over what is done in his name. She's got steely determination and very prepared to get her hands dirty by campaigning too. I think she hugely won over a lot of fairly sceptical Scousers and pre-Corbyn fought off the hard left in her constituency party.
I'm not sure the far right types who abuse (or go further) Labour women MPs really care what Corbyn thinks.
I don't know. Nick Griffin and David Duke both seem quite happy with what he's been saying.
I can't understand why.
The truth is:
Jeremy visits places anti-Semites visit; Jeremy speaks at places anti-Semites speak at; Jeremy joins groups which anti-Semites join; Jeremy supports causes anti-Semites support
and now finally
Jeremy uses language that anti-Semites use.
Smears...all smears....all taken out of context....he was there but wasn't involved....he used the word in the strict sense before it had been hijacked by antisemites.
They thrive on the criticism that would end the career of a normal politician because their offer and attraction is based on them not being a normal politician.
The wackier they are, the stronger they get.
With their base maybe. Not with independents and those who already had doubts.
The leader in today's Times is damning for Corbyn. The 2017 election was an easy ride for him, as it was all about "trim May's majority". The next election will be all about "stop Corbyn".
That would be a mistake if the goal is to stop Corbyn. He will feed on and gain strength from that.
It doesn't matter if the doubters and the independents don't vote or oppose him. Hell Trump showed you don't even need to get the most votes.
Agreed. Even though the tone of the complaints against Corbyn has actually hardened over the summer on this issue, I really do not see why so many seem to think it will make an appreciable difference. The issues still are not new. Ok, the triumphalist tone of the Tory campaign will not be repeated next time, but simple fact is people didn't care then or prioritised other issues, and I don't see why the hardening of tone against Corbyn personally will change that. Though I deride the constant leaking, I do think a split of even, say, a dozen MPs, could wound him a lot, but 1-2 or more people simply disliking him doesn't seem to be knocking most peoples' voting intention.
They thrive on the criticism that would end the career of a normal politician because their offer and attraction is based on them not being a normal politician.
The wackier they are, the stronger they get.
With their base maybe. Not with independents and those who already had doubts.
The leader in today's Times is damning for Corbyn. The 2017 election was an easy ride for him, as it was all about "trim May's majority". The next election will be all about "stop Corbyn".
That would be a mistake if the goal is to stop Corbyn. He will feed on and gain strength from that.
It doesn't matter if the doubters and the independents don't vote or oppose him. Hell Trump showed you don't even need to get the most votes.
The way Corbyn stacks up votes where he doesn' t need them, he can't win power without getting most votes.
They need £15bn to fund Crossrail 2 plus giving the Mayor powers to raise the other £15bn. Islington, Richmond and Wimbledon need a better rail service.
Plus of course funding a few Northern powerhouse improvements for the plebs up north. £100bn to save 10 minutes to Birmingham with a service that will have Heathrow Express style fares just doesn't seem a good use of cash.
While I cannot be definitive as I have not invested the time or energy to examine HS2 in detail, what I can say with confidence is they have not done a very good job of selling the benefits or giving the appearance of competence on it - I grant that NIMBY's and doomsayers always shout the loudest, but the overwhelming impression I have had on that project for years is that it was very badly planned, and is going to be hugely more expensive than intended.
They thrive on the criticism that would end the career of a normal politician because their offer and attraction is based on them not being a normal politician.
The wackier they are, the stronger they get.
With their base maybe. Not with independents and those who already had doubts.
The leader in today's Times is damning for Corbyn. The 2017 election was an easy ride for him, as it was all about "trim May's majority". The next election will be all about "stop Corbyn".
That would be a mistake if the goal is to stop Corbyn. He will feed on and gain strength from that.
It doesn't matter if the doubters and the independents don't vote or oppose him. Hell Trump showed you don't even need to get the most votes.
The way Corbyn stacks up votes where he doesn' t need them, he can't win power without getting most votes.
That's probably going to be the case, but there could be a very small window where he gets a minority govt but less votes than the Tories
Corbyn is like Trump. They thrive on the criticism that would end the career of a normal politician because their offer and attraction is based on them not being a normal politician. The wackier they are, the stronger they get.
With their base maybe. Not with independents and those who already had doubts. The leader in today's Times is damning for Corbyn. The 2017 election was an easy ride for him, as it was all about "trim May's majority". The next election will be all about "stop Corbyn".
I don`t often agree with you, Mr Mark. But I think you are spot on there. I don`t think Mrs May will be aiming for a Tory dictatorship at the next election. This will have consequences for everybody.
By the time of the next election (assuming we don't get an early one) Corbyn will have been Leader of the Opposition for 7 years (again, assuming he does not stand down or is taken down) - everything about him will be priced in, and if the poll ratings are looking good at that time I don't think a frantic, desperate cry of 'Stop this man' will resonate hugely well. Corbyn is a drag among some, and an impetus to vote Tory for others, but how many more of those will there be in 2022? How dangerous will people think he could be when he will have been Labour's prospective PM for 7 years, and voting intention suggests about as many are OK with that as are not now, let alone in 4 years time?
The eye-popping one in that list of cities is Stoke-on-Trent.
Have you ever been there? 70pc leave in the referendum, maybe that's why you don't like it?
A pity Hartlepool isn't a City. It might have saved Bradford the ignominy of coming bottom
Why don't you come to live in Bradford Roger and bring the high standards of living with you,maybe you might set a trend with the liberal elite and experience real multiculturalism.
I have been to the Science and Media museum in Bradford several times and it's excellent. For that alone I think it's position at the foot of the table is a travesty It's a surprising city in many ways. I haven't stayed there but even a short visit shows it's multiculturalism and the fine Victorian architecture. A good university and it would be up there with Liverpool.
They need £15bn to fund Crossrail 2 plus giving the Mayor powers to raise the other £15bn. Islington, Richmond and Wimbledon need a better rail service.
Plus of course funding a few Northern powerhouse improvements for the plebs up north. £100bn to save 10 minutes to Birmingham with a service that will have Heathrow Express style fares just doesn't seem a good use of cash.
For about the millionth time: it is not about journey times but capacity.
The trouble for HS2 is they sold it on journey times and this has proven to be its undoing.
I've always doubted it would ever be built as this country is now incapable of taking on large projects.
They thrive on the criticism that would end the career of a normal politician because their offer and attraction is based on them not being a normal politician.
The wackier they are, the stronger they get.
With their base maybe. Not with independents and those who already had doubts.
The leader in today's Times is damning for Corbyn. The 2017 election was an easy ride for him, as it was all about "trim May's majority". The next election will be all about "stop Corbyn".
That would be a mistake if the goal is to stop Corbyn. He will feed on and gain strength from that.
It doesn't matter if the doubters and the independents don't vote or oppose him. Hell Trump showed you don't even need to get the most votes.
The way Corbyn stacks up votes where he doesn' t need them, he can't win power without getting most votes.
That's probably going to be the case, but there could be a very small window where he gets a minority govt but less votes than the Tories
I don't know if it's a Corbyn problem, or a wider Labour problem, but they do run up more huge, useless, majorities than the Conservatives do. A good example is Merseyside, where Labour have won everything apart from Southport, but keep increasing their lead.
We’ll all still be arguing about HS2 when Heathrow’s new runways opens.
Sadly Britain’s attitude to infrastructure has changed last couple of decades from one of getting it done to one of excellive NIMBYism and of doing too little too late.
What was the last significant new infrastructure that we built - Channel Tunnel, M40?
Though the number of Labour seats increased substantially in the 1920's, with the enfranchisement of working class men.
Sure, the Liberal splits helped the supplantation, but the working class enfranchisement helped in a big way too.
The working classes could vote from the 1880s. It was a householder franchise rather than a property franchise - renting a property was acceptable to have the vote for it. Two-thirds of men in England and Wales had the vote.
What did change in 1918 was that a large number of younger, more radical men were given the vote, where previously their fathers or even grandfathers would have had the family vote instead.
However, it was certainly not the only or even the most important factor in Labour's rise to the top.
Also, middle-class women gained the vote in 1918, which should, theoretically, have offset the male working-class vote to an extent. (I generalise both cases here but the gist is right, I think).
But my main point is that it doesn't really matter. The Conservatives have their roots in Pitt the Younger's coalition (the Tory Party of Queen Anne's day died out under the earlier Hanoverians). Parties respond to the expanding franchise. The party that refused Catholic votes or electoral reform would have withered to nothing by the 1850s had it not changed, but under Peel, Disraeli, Salisbury and Baldwin, it continually adopted and adapted to become the most successful party of the 20th century.
There is absolutely no reason why the Liberals could not have done the same and pushed Labour to the Marxist fringes. Lloyd George was perfectly placed in 1918 to smother Labour but for one fact: despite having impeccable radical credentials from before the war, and despite having led Britain to success (Ireland apart), the Liberals split. *That* was the problem; not Labour's existence as some kind of existential threat. The "Homes for heroes" programme was precisely the programme the Liberals should have run on after WWI. Had the party been united under him (which would also mean no coupon election), Labour could have reduced to a rump, tainted by Russia and pacifism, and the Liberals continued as a major party throughout the 1900s and beyond.
Stanley Baldwin is the unsung hero of Toryism who successfully navigated the path from a Tory squirearchy to a mass middle class party. Quite a feat, but unnoticed because of its success.
Also because he screwed up in the 1930s on foreign policy, which has (as is often the case) become the dominant strand of popular history.
Incidentally, at least two cities are missing from that list - Bangor and Llanelwy.
Edit - can't see Rochester either although I know there's some dispute as to whether it's a city. But Chelmsford is a pretty glaring omission.
Perth is missing.
And Casnewydd/Newport - although that's not perhaps a terribly surprising omission...
Edit - and Lancaster. Now that is a bad oversight.
The UK excluding Northern Ireland has 64 cities. So there are 7 cities missing from the list. That does not include Rochester which apparently ceased to be a city in 1998 due to the outgoing city council's failure to appoint charter trustees.
The last point is particularly intriguing. This was a very big sample, yet YouGov had to apply serious weightings to its sample to get back to the referendum result. Possibilities:
1) YouGov’s panel is unbalanced. 2) Some Leave voters are forgetting or lying about how they voted. 3) Some Leave voters have become shy about their choice. 4) Some non-voters want to correct that retrospectively.
It hints that perhaps Remain’s lead might be a bit understated, as Leave voters might be finding different ways of concealing a change of mind.
At the time of the last referendum, a party dedicated to leaving the EU was polling 18-19%. Today it is not even quoted in the headline figures. For me, that context is quite important when considering the poll you cite. If you think the difference in UKIP polling is because Brexit is unpopular then it makes sense, if you think its because they have taken their foot off the pedal after Leave won, but would return in the event of a 2nd referendum, then current polling is less of an accurate indicator of how a 2nd referendum would play out, I would say.
The other point missed about a second referendum is the campaign itself. Very little of the original Leave campaign can be reused as it has now been tested for two years and for the most part has been shown to be fictitious.
Remain as the vanquished have to do very little other than show that the public were sold a pup. If they can be persuaded that this is a completely fresh throw of the dice I suspect their win will be well into double figures.
This was the ignorance of the remain side last time.
So we go back asking to rejoin umiliated with a worser deal like going fully in at some point and what that means for us with no answers for us leavers.
Political union does mean the United States of Europe.
The leave side have plenty to fight for my friend.
They thrive on the criticism that would end the career of a normal politician because their offer and attraction is based on them not being a normal politician.
The wackier they are, the stronger they get.
With their base maybe. Not with independents and those who already had doubts.
The leader in today's Times is damning for Corbyn. The 2017 election was an easy ride for him, as it was all about "trim May's majority". The next election will be all about "stop Corbyn".
That would be a mistake if the goal is to stop Corbyn. He will feed on and gain strength from that.
It doesn't matter if the doubters and the independents don't vote or oppose him. Hell Trump showed you don't even need to get the most votes.
The way Corbyn stacks up votes where he doesn' t need them, he can't win power without getting most votes.
That's probably going to be the case, but there could be a very small window where he gets a minority govt but less votes than the Tories
I don't know if it's a Corbyn problem, or a wider Labour problem, but they do run up more huge, useless, majorities than the Conservatives do. A good example is Merseyside, where Labour have won everything apart from Southport, but keep increasing their lead.
They do have Plaid, the SNP and Lucas who'll only ever support them though. That's more "friends" than the DUP.
They thrive on the criticism that would end the career of a normal politician because their offer and attraction is based on them not being a normal politician.
The wackier they are, the stronger they get.
With their base maybe. Not with independents and those who already had doubts.
The leader in today's Times is damning for Corbyn. The 2017 election was an easy ride for him, as it was all about "trim May's majority". The next election will be all about "stop Corbyn".
That would be a mistake if the goal is to stop Corbyn. He will feed on and gain strength from that.
It doesn't matter if the doubters and the independents don't vote or oppose him. Hell Trump showed you don't even need to get the most votes.
The way Corbyn stacks up votes where he doesn' t need them, he can't win power without getting most votes.
That's probably going to be the case, but there could be a very small window where he gets a minority govt but less votes than the Tories
I don't know if it's a Corbyn problem, or a wider Labour problem, but they do run up more huge, useless, majorities than the Conservatives do. A good example is Merseyside, where Labour have won everything apart from Southport, but keep increasing their lead.
I think that we are seeing a certain pattern of geographic polarisation of votes rather like the US urban rural divide. Merseyside may well be an exception in the North, being unusually Remain for a post Industrial seat, so less likely to buy into May's Brexit means Brexit.
On the other hand, I think there are quite a number more marginals than last time, and Loughborough as a Bellwether is now one once more. I was surprised to see Lab at 30% in leafy Harborough and Huntington though. Corbynism is undoubtably a minority sport in the Shires, but not irrelevant either.
Calling Unified National Swing dead is probably premature. It is a surprisingly good overall indicator.
They need £15bn to fund Crossrail 2 plus giving the Mayor powers to raise the other £15bn. Islington, Richmond and Wimbledon need a better rail service.
Plus of course funding a few Northern powerhouse improvements for the plebs up north. £100bn to save 10 minutes to Birmingham with a service that will have Heathrow Express style fares just doesn't seem a good use of cash.
For about the millionth time: it is not about journey times but capacity.
The trouble for HS2 is they sold it on journey times and this has proven to be its undoing.
I've always doubted it would ever be built as this country is now incapable of taking on large projects.
In my experience the capacity problems are on the suburban / commuter lines rather than on anything inter-city.
There doesn't seem to be any shortage of tickets to go from Leeds to London today for example:
Mr. F/Mr. Doethur, William Marshal's father, when the son was held by King Stephen as a hostage, replied he had the anvil and the hammer to forge more.
I do wonder if that general quote is sprayed about a bit.
They thrive on the criticism that would end the career of a normal politician because their offer and attraction is based on them not being a normal politician.
The wackier they are, the stronger they get.
With their base maybe. Not with independents and those who already had doubts.
The leader in today's Times is damning for Corbyn. The 2017 election was an easy ride for him, as it was all about "trim May's majority". The next election will be all about "stop Corbyn".
That would be a mistake if the go
The way Corbyn stacks up votes where he doesn' t need them, he can't win power without getting most votes.
That's probably going to be the case, but there could be a very small window where he gets a minority govt but less votes than the Tories
I don't know if it's a Corbyn
I think that we are seeing a certain pattern of geographic polarisation of votes rather like the US urban rural divide. Merseyside may well be an exception in the North, being unusually Remain for a post Industrial seat, so less likely to buy into May's Brexit means Brexit.
On the other hand, I think there are quite a number more marginals than last time, and Loughborough as a Bellwether is now one once more. I was surprised to see Lab at 30% in leafy Harborough and Huntington though. Corbynism is undoubtably a minority sport in the Shires, but not irrelevant either.
Calling Unified National Swing dead is probably premature. It is a surprisingly good overall indicator.
At the moment, there is a slight bias in favour of the Conservatives, in the system. If the two parties finish level-pegging, the Conservatives should be about 20 seats ahead of Labour (although, that would not be a large enough lead to govern). The Conservative vote is a bit more efficiently distributed than Labour's. Only Christchurch has a Conservative vote share of 70%, whereas 33 Labour seats have vote shares higher than 70%.
From 1997 to 2010, there was a huge bias in favour of Labour, reaching a peak in 2001. Labour would have been 110 seats ahead of the Conservatives, even if both parties had been level-pegging. Blair's real success was in getting votes where they mattered, rather than in winning a particularly big overall vote.
In places like Harborough, and other rural seats, Labour has basically regained the vote it had in the Fifties and Sixties, before they began voting tactically for Liberals.
They thrive on the criticism that would end the career of a normal politician because their offer and attraction is based on them not being a normal politician.
The wackier they are, the stronger they get.
With their base maybe. Not with independents and those who already had doubts.
The leader in today's Times is damning for Corbyn. The 2017 election was an easy ride for him, as it was all about "trim May's majority". The next election will be all about "stop Corbyn".
That would be a mistake if the goal is to stop Corbyn. He will feed on and gain strength from that.
It doesn't matter if the doubters and the independents don't vote or oppose him. Hell Trump showed you don't even need to get the most votes.
The way Corbyn stacks up votes where he doesn' t need them, he can't win power without getting most votes.
That's probably going to be the case, but there could be a very small window where he gets a minority govt but less votes than the Tories
I don't know if it's a Corbyn problem, or a wider Labour problem, but they do run up more huge, useless, majorities than the Conservatives do. A good example is Merseyside, where Labour have won everything apart from Southport, but keep increasing their lead.
They do have Plaid, the SNP and Lucas who'll only ever support them though. That's more "friends" than the DUP.
That's true, although I expect the SNP would not be the most reliable of allies.
Notably his final comment shows he either didn't understand her point or is deliberately misrepresenting as a suggestion he shouldn't comment on the media, when it seems more about how he is not a journalist, which presumably isn't in dispute, commenting about journalism as though he is one. He's a commentator and pundit, a media figure, but no journalist, that shouldn't upset him.
We LDs have our own problem of entryism. The membership has more than doubled in 2 years and that is almost entirely Brexit rejectionists who are not so interested in broader policy. I don't think this healthy, despite being a Remainer, member of 5 years duration and late convert to the #peoplesvote myself.
The problem the LDs face is they have a small number of people who are eligible to become party leader. And none of them really impress.
I really cannot see how my MP is even mentioned as being in contention. Moran has demonstrated no leadership potential that I can see. Yes, she could grow into the role - but I fail to see any depth to her. There is no sense of vision about her.
We’ll all still be arguing about HS2 when Heathrow’s new runways opens.
Sadly Britain’s attitude to infrastructure has changed last couple of decades from one of getting it done to one of excellive NIMBYism and of doing too little too late.
What was the last significant new infrastructure that we built - Channel Tunnel, M40?
The new rail line linking Oxford to Marylebone? Means I can be in Oxford in about 30mins from my front door.
For those who would argue with that being significant, if something that makes my life easier doesn’t count I don’t know what does.
They need £15bn to fund Crossrail 2 plus giving the Mayor powers to raise the other £15bn. Islington, Richmond and Wimbledon need a better rail service.
Plus of course funding a few Northern powerhouse improvements for the plebs up north. £100bn to save 10 minutes to Birmingham with a service that will have Heathrow Express style fares just doesn't seem a good use of cash.
For about the millionth time: it is not about journey times but capacity.
The trouble for HS2 is they sold it on journey times and this has proven to be its undoing.
I've always doubted it would ever be built as this country is now incapable of taking on large projects.
In my experience the capacity problems are on the suburban / commuter lines rather than on anything inter-city.
There doesn't seem to be any shortage of tickets to go from Leeds to London today for example:
I do wonder whether the extra costs in terms of engineering and energy consumption of High Speed Lines is justified in a compact country like ours. A new line from London to Birmingham stopping at Heathrow with a couple of new towns and intermediate stops may well be money better spent, and leave enough over to sort out Northern Rail.
We LDs have our own problem of entryism. The membership has more than doubled in 2 years and that is almost entirely Brexit rejectionists who are not so interested in broader policy. I don't think this healthy, despite being a Remainer, member of 5 years duration and late convert to the #peoplesvote myself.
The problem the LDs face is they have a small number of people who are eligible to become party leader. And none of them really impress.
I really cannot see how my MP is even mentioned as being in contention. Moran has demonstrated no leadership potential that I can see. Yes, she could grow into the role - but I fail to see any depth to her. There is no sense of vision about her.
Oh for the days of Charlie Kennedy at his best.
I liked how going for her not Swinson was described as skipping a generation in one piece. I know politically that's almost true as Swinson has been an MP for quite done time, with a gap, but they're very close in actual generation.
We’ll all still be arguing about HS2 when Heathrow’s new runways opens.
Sadly Britain’s attitude to infrastructure has changed last couple of decades from one of getting it done to one of excellive NIMBYism and of doing too little too late.
What was the last significant new infrastructure that we built - Channel Tunnel, M40?
Has this changed?
The U.K. is famous for its shit infrastructure, low R&D and capital expenditure, and pisspoor approach to technical education.
They were complaining about in the 1890s and we still haven’t done anything much about it.
We LDs have our own problem of entryism. The membership has more than doubled in 2 years and that is almost entirely Brexit rejectionists who are not so interested in broader policy. I don't think this healthy, despite being a Remainer, member of 5 years duration and late convert to the #peoplesvote myself.
The problem the LDs face is they have a small number of people who are eligible to become party leader. And none of them really impress.
I really cannot see how my MP is even mentioned as being in contention. Moran has demonstrated no leadership potential that I can see. Yes, she could grow into the role - but I fail to see any depth to her. There is no sense of vision about her.
Oh for the days of Charlie Kennedy at his best.
I liked how going for her not Swinson was described as skipping a generation in one piece. I know politically that's almost true as Swinson has been an MP for quite done time, with a gap, but they're very close in actual generation.
Swinson could have been leader by now if she had tried.
PBers may recall a couple of weeks ago there was a city list (would you be willing to move to X?) and I called it out as invalid due to the omission of York, which got rather more agreement than I was expecting.
I am truly flabbergasted that Gloucester is higher up that list than Bristol.
My guess is that some of the cities are being 'carried' by perceptions of the surrounding countryside. For example when you score 'Truro' I am sure many people would think 'Cornwall' and rate on the basis of living in the West Country, or at least 'if I lived in Truro rural Cornwall would be on my doorstep'. Like Gloucester, I don't recall Truro as an urban settlement being strikingly attractive.
I used to live in Monmouthshire, and Newport was considered by many to be the poster child for 'shithole'. My daughter lives there now and thinks it's great (though I feel her enthusiasm is overdone, like many cities, Newport is more of a curate's egg).
Notably his final comment shows he either didn't understand her point or is deliberately misrepresenting as a suggestion he shouldn't comment on the media, when it seems more about how he is not a journalist, which presumably isn't in dispute, commenting about journalism as though he is one. He's a commentator and pundit, a media figure, but no journalist, that shouldn't upset him.
I'd say we have reached the point where Jones should pack in opinion writing and stand as an actual candidate.
I know that "middle class" is a term of abuse for many people, but It always struck me that Owen Jones is very middle class indeed.
He is. Anyone who has two Oxford degrees and does all that media work has lost any right to be considered as working class.
Class baffles me. My family, on both sides are, on the face of it, impeccably working class. On my mother's side we're miners and steel workers from the Rhondda and Port Talbot, on my father's labourers, miners and metalworkers. My elder sister and I were the first to go to university. However, we'd none of us consider ourselves working class now, nor do I think of my 'working class roots' as having any cachet. We were just poor council house children.
They thrive on the criticism that would end the career of a normal politician because their offer and attraction is based on them not being a normal politician.
The wackier they are, the stronger they get.
With their base maybe.
That would be a mistake if the go
The way Corbyn stacks up votes where he doesn' t need them, he can't win power without getting most votes.
That's probably going to be the case, but there could be a very small window where he gets a minority govt but less votes than the Tories
I don't know if it's a Corbyn
I think that we are seeing a certain
Calling Unified National Swing dead is probably premature. It is a surprisingly good overall indicator.
At the moment, there is a slight bias in favour of the Conservatives, in the system. If the two parties finish level-pegging, the Conservatives should be about 20 seats ahead of Labour (although, that would not be a large enough lead to govern). The Conservative vote is a bit more efficiently distributed than Labour's. Only Christchurch has a Conservative vote share of 70%, whereas 33 Labour seats have vote shares higher than 70%.
From 1997 to 2010, there was a huge bias in favour of Labour, reaching a peak in 2001. Labour would have been 110 seats ahead of the Conservatives, even if both parties had been level-pegging. Blair's real success was in getting votes where they mattered, rather than in winning a particularly big overall vote.
In places like Harborough, and other rural seats, Labour has basically regained the vote it had in the Fifties and Sixties, before they began voting tactically for Liberals.
Harborough is an interesting example, and one I know well.
If we look at the 2017 election there was a 7.92% swing to Lab, up 15.4%, while the LDs dropped a little over a percent, most of the swing came from UKIP who dropped from 14.4% to 2.5%. How much of this was a direct switch and how much churn is uncertain.
If it were just Remaniacs then why go Corbyn rather than LD? The LDs are strong at the Oadby and Wigston end, controlling the council since 1991. The rest of the constituency is the posh villages and increasingly London commuter town of Market Harborough.
Harborough is not unique, and clearly Corbynism is not the anathema in shire England that some on PB opine.
They need £15bn to fund Crossrail 2 plus giving the Mayor powers to raise the other £15bn. Islington, Richmond and Wimbledon need a better rail service.
Plus of course funding a few Northern powerhouse improvements for the plebs up north. £100bn to save 10 minutes to Birmingham with a service that will have Heathrow Express style fares just doesn't seem a good use of cash.
For about the millionth time: it is not about journey times but capacity.
The trouble for HS2 is they sold it on journey times and this has proven to be its undoing.
I've always doubted it would ever be built as this country is now incapable of taking on large projects.
In my experience the capacity problems are on the suburban / commuter lines rather than on anything inter-city.
There doesn't seem to be any shortage of tickets to go from Leeds to London today for example:
I do wonder whether the extra costs in terms of engineering and energy consumption of High Speed Lines is justified in a compact country like ours. A new line from London to Birmingham stopping at Heathrow with a couple of new towns and intermediate stops may well be money better spent, and leave enough over to sort out Northern Rail.
The capacity issue isn't about today, it's about what is needed in 30 or 50 years time.
But, as I say, debating this is probably academic as we'll never build the thing. Once someone like Gove has decided this is something that could help his leadership campaigning then it is only a matter of time before it gets culled.
Be interesting though to see if there are the votes in Parliament to actually stop it now.
Notably his final comment shows he either didn't understand her point or is deliberately misrepresenting as a suggestion he shouldn't comment on the media, when it seems more about how he is not a journalist, which presumably isn't in dispute, commenting about journalism as though he is one. He's a commentator and pundit, a media figure, but no journalist, that shouldn't upset him.
I'd say we have reached the point where Jones should pack in opinion writing and stand as an actual candidate.
No.
We have reached the point where Jones should just pack up and keep his thoughts to himself. He has been given easy access to too many platforms and has too frequently gone without proper scrutiny.
He has never shown any desire to actually do anything constructive or positive. His entire raison d'etre has been to be negative.
We’ll all still be arguing about HS2 when Heathrow’s new runways opens.
Sadly Britain’s attitude to infrastructure has changed last couple of decades from one of getting it done to one of excellive NIMBYism and of doing too little too late.
What was the last significant new infrastructure that we built - Channel Tunnel, M40?
Has this changed?
The U.K. is famous for its shit infrastructure, low R&D and capital expenditure, and pisspoor approach to technical education.
They were complaining about in the 1890s and we still haven’t done anything much about it.
To be fair, we have built a motorway network since the 1890s.
Comments
Responding to Mr Corbyn’s video in a WhatsApp message, Mr Gapes said that his personal “red line” had been crossed. All that remained was the timing of the announcement of his resignation, he said.
The MP for Ilford South refused to comment on what he said was a confidential communication. “It is painful. It is a horrible place to be and it can’t go on. Something has to change in the party or everyone has to make their own position, about where they stand. I am agonising with this every day.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/far-right-comes-out-for-jeremy-corbyn-over-zionist-slur-as-ex-bnp-and-ku-klux-klan-chiefs-show-support-3p52gpq39
The husband of British mother jailed in Iran Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe has said new Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt is their 'lucky charm' after her three-day release.
Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe, 40, was locked up in Tehran in April 2016 after being accused of spying on the Islamist regime and jailed for five years.
Her husband Richard, of north London, has fought an uphill battle and was overjoyed when she was released on a three-day furlough yesterday.
Speaking on TV this morning he credited the new Foreign Secretary with 'making strong noises' to get her released.
He said 'there was baggage' with his predecessor Boris Johnson, who was forced to apologise after he accidentally referred to the charity worker as a spy.
He told This Morning: 'The Government has been making some quite strong noises.
'Jeremy Hunt, the new foreign secretary was very clear yesterday in saying that this should be permanent, that she should be coming home and that she's innocent.
'That gives hope. But she's still in Iran. Until it's all over, it's not all over.'
But asked how much the new secretary of state has helped their situation, he replied: 'Before we had some baggage with the former foreign secretary. He then clearly tried to do his best. It got to a certain point but then it got to a lull.
'Then Jeremy Hunt has come in and he's been our lucky charm.
'He's made some strong noises. Obviously there's been work going on behind the scenes all along. So it's not to give him all the glory or equally his predecessor all the blame. It will have been battled.
'But I'm pleased with our Foreign Secretary at the moment.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6094243/Richard-Ratcliffe-husband-jailed-Iran-Nazanin-Zaghari-Ratcliffe-praises-Jeremy-Hunt.html
One commander, on being told that his son (held as hostage) would die if his troops did not advance, sent the quite astonishing reply, 'I have no wish to fight and I have other sons.'
I think I must have misunderstood you yesterday. But I was very puzzled by this comment: Were you actually saying Nicola Sturgeon is a Unionist? Because it wouldn't be totally surprising if she were given the mess she's making of the independence process, but it would be a startling admission.
Or was there some meaning my bleary eyes having feasted on Celtic beauty all day didn't get?
An abscess on the face of The Smoke?
https://www.economist.com/blighty/2014/06/02/let-the-great-wen-get-greater-still
I had 6 years in London, as a student and junior doctor. I like many aspects and loathe other aspects. I always enjoy coming home to the sanity of the Midlands. London is no place to live with children.
The SDP adventure has now entirely played itself out. It was an play in three acts.
Prologue: The Liberals won 12 seats in 1979.
Act I: SDP split and 1980s - wide support but insufficient to break through in a big way. 20+ seats.
Act II: 1990s, 2000s. Acceptance of third-party status; concentration on winning targets and letting support elsewhere decay, except for ad hoc tactical opportunities. Increase to 60+ seats.
Act III: 2010s. The ultimately inevitable hung parliament exposed the strategic and tactical contradictions of the previous plan and brought support crashing down.
Epoilogue: The Lib Dems won 12 seats in 2017.
For any new breakaway to work, they *have* to aspire to rise above third-party status and should aim to win *at least* 200 seats - or, realistically, 35%+ of the vote, which would bring those gains automatically.
That is possible, in my opinion. As I said in the article, the SDP consistently polled 40%+ in 1981/2 and politics is less tribal and more retail now than it was then. Against an internally split and drifting Tory party, and an extreme Labour, I could see an SDP2 doing at least that well initially. Whether they could sustain that would depend on the political skills of their leadership.
I think about 90% of Britons rented at that time.
I think you could make the case that Corbyn is actually doing a decent job of selling himself to the wider public given his atrocious back story. Look at all the ammo his critics have got, yet somehow he is still in the game.
PS, good morning ydoethur
A couple is easily portrayed as being a problem with those people not the party - no one seems to care that Woodcock and O'Mara have gone, albeit one was already practically independent and neither left over the Corbyn issue exactly - and even a dozen is a tiny faction of out of touch losers.
But my main point is that it doesn't really matter. The Conservatives have their roots in Pitt the Younger's coalition (the Tory Party of Queen Anne's day died out under the earlier Hanoverians). Parties respond to the expanding franchise. The party that refused Catholic votes or electoral reform would have withered to nothing by the 1850s had it not changed, but under Peel, Disraeli, Salisbury and Baldwin, it continually adopted and adapted to become the most successful party of the 20th century.
There is absolutely no reason why the Liberals could not have done the same and pushed Labour to the Marxist fringes. Lloyd George was perfectly placed in 1918 to smother Labour but for one fact: despite having impeccable radical credentials from before the war, and despite having led Britain to success (Ireland apart), the Liberals split. *That* was the problem; not Labour's existence as some kind of existential threat. The "Homes for heroes" programme was precisely the programme the Liberals should have run on after WWI. Had the party been united under him (which would also mean no coupon election), Labour could have reduced to a rump, tainted by Russia and pacifism, and the Liberals continued as a major party throughout the 1900s and beyond.
I think many dislike the SNP will be feasting on schadenfreude. Let's make no mistake, this is politically very bad news for them, whatever the outcome.
PS bore da i chi hefyd!
2. The Lib Dems are not particularly centrist at the moment and are motivated more by ultra-Remainism than domestic concerns.
The Liberal Party could not have been united under him in 1918.
Asquith was the party leader, and he refused to budge until 1926 despite two spells out of Parliament altogether.
Even if Asquith had stepped aside, there is no guarantee at that time it would have been Lloyd George or Haldane rather than Grey or McKenna who took the leadership (extraordinary though that claim may seem).
And even if the party had been united, it still might well have struggled. Don't forget, Bonar Law actually campaigned for Asquith in Fife, and an unofficial, uncouponed Unionist still took the seat.
We LDs have our own problem of entryism. The membership has more than doubled in 2 years and that is almost entirely Brexit rejectionists who are not so interested in broader policy. I don't think this healthy, despite being a Remainer, member of 5 years duration and late convert to the #peoplesvote myself.
There is no self apartheid in schools or areas of the city, due to the very limited immigration.
Big employers in the past , such as Rowntree had policies of employing workers from families who had already lived here.
There is no white flight areas in York , as it is so predominantly white.
They thrive on the criticism that would end the career of a normal politician because their offer and attraction is based on them not being a normal politician.
The wackier they are, the stronger they get.
Major art galleries have so many great works that it is impossible to fully appreciate most of them.
Likewise cultural centres have so many institutions that again few receive the appreciation they deserve.
Nor do the hoards of tourists such cities attract improve the experience.
Whereas seeing things in smaller or less renowned places is usually easier and you are more able to appreciate their worth.
I'd say that there are few major towns or cities in this country which don't have sufficient cultural / historic / scenic attractions to make them worth a visit.
And at rather lower cost than the well known tourist locations.
The leader in today's Times is damning for Corbyn. The 2017 election was an easy ride for him, as it was all about "trim May's majority". The next election will be all about "stop Corbyn".
You can't simultaneously bitch about Corbyn being an unacceptable anti-Semite whilst also proposing he become Prime Minister and expect to be taken seriously.
Remain as the vanquished have to do very little other than show that the public were sold a pup. If they can be persuaded that this is a completely fresh throw of the dice I suspect their win will be well into double figures.
It doesn't matter if the doubters and the independents don't vote or oppose him. Hell Trump showed you don't even need to get the most votes.
What happened next?
Clearly many Britons are unpeturbed by his links to these groups. I think Jezza does spill over the line into anti-semitism because of his anti zionism, but cannot recall him making an anti-semetic comment in other contexts. Some of his supporters on the hard left are more broad brush.
But we know through Philippa Gregory that Lady Beaufort killed the Princes (and that the Woodvilles had magical powers).
https://www.imperfectproduce.com/
https://www.oddbox.co.uk/
https://www.wonkyvegboxes.co.uk/about
Now while I applaud the thinking behind them they looked rather expensive which really isn't the point when it comes to making use of irregular produce.
I don't think I've ever seen them before.
This is the moment police intervened at a Parliamentary meeting hosted by Jeremy Corbyn where Israel was described as 'evil' and a Jewish woman said she was called a 'piece of sh**'.
The unrest began when a British Jewish member of the audience complained that she had not been allowed to challenge the speakers' anti-Israel views. 'You're trying to shut everybody else up, in the house of commons that we fought for,' she said.
Corbyn refused to accept her questions and tried to close the meeting. Then it descended into chaos. On the video, one woman cries: 'The Holocaust issue, Jeremy. Why? Why do you do this? Why?' She then adds ironically, 'I like Jeremy Corbyn.'
On the panel were three politicians who were suspended from their parties on charges of anti-Semitism, including the former Labour peer Lord Ahmed, who blamed a Jewish conspiracy for his driving conviction.
The two other disgraced politicians were Jenny Tonge and David Ward, both of whom were expelled from the Liberal Democrats for allegedly anti-Semitic remarks.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6095217/Chaotic-moment-police-intervene-anti-Semitic-event-hosted-Corbyn-Parliament.html
Jeremy visits places anti-Semites visit;
Jeremy speaks at places anti-Semites speak at;
Jeremy joins groups which anti-Semites join;
Jeremy supports causes anti-Semites support
and now finally
Jeremy uses language that anti-Semites use.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-6096669/PETER-OBORNE-fear-new-cabinet-war-looming-100-billion-HS2-pipe-dream.html
But that's not important right now...
http://thenational.scot/comment/columnists/16598614.why-its-important-not-to-be-partisan-over-sexual-harassment-claims/
Plus of course funding a few Northern powerhouse improvements for the plebs up north. £100bn to save 10 minutes to Birmingham with a service that will have Heathrow Express style fares just doesn't seem a good use of cash.
This is brilliant. Working, regional journalist takes Owen Jones apart on his views on newspapers and reporters.
“I'm not run by a f***ing media mogul”.
https://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2018/news/regional-political-editor-to-national-columnist-you-are-not-a-journalist/
The trouble for HS2 is they sold it on journey times and this has proven to be its undoing.
I've always doubted it would ever be built as this country is now incapable of taking on large projects.
Sadly Britain’s attitude to infrastructure has changed last couple of decades from one of getting it done to one of excellive NIMBYism and of doing too little too late.
What was the last significant new infrastructure that we built - Channel Tunnel, M40?
So we go back asking to rejoin umiliated with a worser deal like going fully in at some point and what that means for us with no answers for us leavers.
Political union does mean the United States of Europe.
The leave side have plenty to fight for my friend.
On the other hand, I think there are quite a number more marginals than last time, and Loughborough as a Bellwether is now one once more. I was surprised to see Lab at 30% in leafy Harborough and Huntington though. Corbynism is undoubtably a minority sport in the Shires, but not irrelevant either.
Calling Unified National Swing dead is probably premature. It is a surprisingly good overall indicator.
There doesn't seem to be any shortage of tickets to go from Leeds to London today for example:
https://www.thetrainline.com/book/results?origin=f9bb57effd427a5ae77df10c1cd7b55eb5d67c2f&destination=12467098b25d58495241bae921c0f272e171c47f&outwardDate=2018-08-25T11:30:00&outwardDateType=departAfter&journeySearchType=single&passengers[]=1988-08-25&selectedOutward=c9Yl0cS//YD/1MaYmhZWfg==:wmUawiRDtpsUiV/3gxK2Yg==
I do wonder if that general quote is sprayed about a bit.
From 1997 to 2010, there was a huge bias in favour of Labour, reaching a peak in 2001. Labour would have been 110 seats ahead of the Conservatives, even if both parties had been level-pegging. Blair's real success was in getting votes where they mattered, rather than in winning a particularly big overall vote.
In places like Harborough, and other rural seats, Labour has basically regained the vote it had in the Fifties and Sixties, before they began voting tactically for Liberals.
I really cannot see how my MP is even mentioned as being in contention. Moran has demonstrated no leadership potential that I can see. Yes, she could grow into the role - but I fail to see any depth to her. There is no sense of vision about her.
Oh for the days of Charlie Kennedy at his best.
For those who would argue with that being significant, if something that makes my life easier doesn’t count I don’t know what does.
I do wonder whether the extra costs in terms of engineering and energy consumption of High Speed Lines is justified in a compact country like ours. A new line from London to Birmingham stopping at Heathrow with a couple of new towns and intermediate stops may well be money better spent, and leave enough over to sort out Northern Rail.
The U.K. is famous for its shit infrastructure, low R&D and capital expenditure, and pisspoor approach to technical education.
They were complaining about in the 1890s and we still haven’t done anything much about it.
https://twitter.com/thetimesIE/status/1033269011939819521
If we look at the 2017 election there was a 7.92% swing to Lab, up 15.4%, while the LDs dropped a little over a percent, most of the swing came from UKIP who dropped from 14.4% to 2.5%. How much of this was a direct switch and how much churn is uncertain.
If it were just Remaniacs then why go Corbyn rather than LD? The LDs are strong at the Oadby and Wigston end, controlling the council since 1991. The rest of the constituency is the posh villages and increasingly London commuter town of Market Harborough.
Harborough is not unique, and clearly Corbynism is not the anathema in shire England that some on PB opine.
But, as I say, debating this is probably academic as we'll never build the thing. Once someone like Gove has decided this is something that could help his leadership campaigning then it is only a matter of time before it gets culled.
Be interesting though to see if there are the votes in Parliament to actually stop it now.
https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1033032454121185280
We have reached the point where Jones should just pack up and keep his thoughts to himself. He has been given easy access to too many platforms and has too frequently gone without proper scrutiny.
He has never shown any desire to actually do anything constructive or positive. His entire raison d'etre has been to be negative.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6095217/Chaotic-moment-police-intervene-anti-Semitic-event-hosted-Corbyn-Parliament.html