You stay in that filth then you are tainted by it.
Spot on - I'm not sure we often agree [ although I may be muddling you with someone else] but this is completely correct. The majority of Labour MPs are tacitly supporting a leader they loathe and a party whose membership is now dominated in many areas by extremists from the far left whose views are basically the same as the current leadership. The UK could literally end up sleepwalking into a nightmare from which the wakening would be Venezuela! It really is time for them to act. If the Tories were led by Boris or worse my views on them would be similar.
I don't agree with this at all, of course (and I'm far from convinced that either of you would vote Labour with its current programme even if we were led by the Archangel Gabriel). But it does illustrate a basic issue which will inevitably come up. Are people seeking (re)selection as Labour candidates prepared to support a Labour government led by the current leadership, and, if so, with what caveats? I'm not sure that every centrist MP has yet decided what they think on that, and some are clearly torn, but they will need at selection time to be clear in their own minds and communicate their decision to their constituency parties.
If the answer is yes - while reserving the right to oppose any non-confidence issue that they consider too extreme - then I think virtually ALL of them will get reselected. If the answer is no, then with the best will in the world they cannot sensibly stand as Labour candidates: people who vote Labour are entitled to think they are helping elect a Labour government. What they do instead - form a new party, defect to serve under Vince or Theresa or Rees-Mogg or Boris, stand as independents, or retire is a separate issue and entirely a matter for them. Their decision should be respected and not abused, but it needs to be made.
I have zero respect for your views since you masqueraded as a Blairite for many years and have recently decided you were always a hard left Corbynite in reality.
The election night thread on here when Corbyn wins is going to be spectacular. A home counties version of Jonestown.
It certainly will be a night to remember on pb.
I wonder if perhaps some of these very monied people shrieking about “threats to the country" are more worried about threats to their share portfolios.
I think it is the complete package offered by Corbyn and McDonnell that they are worried about.
You stay in that filth then you are tainted by it.
Spot on - I'm not sure we often agree [ although I may be muddling you with someone else] but this is completely correct. The majority of Labour MPs are tacitly supporting a leader they loathe and a party whose membership is now dominated in many areas by extremists from the far left whose views are basically the same as the current leadership. The UK could literally end up sleepwalking into a nightmare from which the wakening would be Venezuela! It really is time for them to act. If the Tories were led by Boris or worse my views on them would be similar.
I don't agree with this at all, of course (and I'm far from convinced that either of you would vote Labour with its current programme even if we were led by the Archangel Gabriel). But it does illustrate a basic issue which will inevitably come up. Are people seeking (re)selection as Labour candidates prepared to support a Labour government led by the current leadership, and, if so, with what caveats? I'm not sure that every centrist MP has yet decided what they think on that, and some are clearly torn, but they will need at selection time to be clear in their own minds and communicate their decision to their constituency parties.
If the answer is yes - while reserving the right to oppose any non-confidence issue that they consider too extreme - then I think virtually ALL of them will get reselected. If the answer is no, then with the best will in the world they cannot sensibly stand as Labour candidates: people who vote Labour are entitled to think they are helping elect a Labour government. What they do instead - form a new party, defect to serve under Vince or Theresa or Rees-Mogg or Boris, stand as independents, or retire is a separate issue and entirely a matter for them. Their decision should be respected and not abused, but it needs to be made.
I have zero respect for your views since you masqueraded as a Blairite for many years and have recently decided you were always a hard left Corbynite in reality.
He's just loyal to the leadership, whoever that may be.
You stay in that filth then you are tainted by it.
Spot on - I'm not sure we often agree [ although I may be muddling you with someone else] but this is completely correct. The majority of Labour MPs are tacitly supporting a leader they loathe and a party whose membership is now dominated in many areas by extremists from the far left whose views are basically the same as the current leadership. The UK could literally end up sleepwalking into a nightmare from which the wakening would be Venezuela! It really is time for them to act. If the Tories were led by Boris or worse my views on them would be similar.
I don't agree with this at all, of course (and I'm far from convinced that either of you would vote Labour with its current programme even if we were led by the Archangel Gabriel). But it does illustrate a basic issue which will inevitably come up. Are people seeking (re)selection as Labour candidates prepared to support a Labour government led by the current leadership, and, if so, with what caveats? I'm not sure that every centrist MP has yet decided what they think on that, and some are clearly torn, but they will need at selection time to be clear in their own minds and communicate their decision to their constituency parties.
If the answer is yes - while reserving the right to oppose any non-confidence issue that they consider too extreme - then I think virtually ALL of them will get reselected. If the answer is no, then with the best will in the world they cannot sensibly stand as Labour candidates: people who vote Labour are entitled to think they are helping elect a Labour government. What they do instead - form a new party, defect to serve under Vince or Theresa or Rees-Mogg or Boris, stand as independents, or retire is a separate issue and entirely a matter for them. Their decision should be respected and not abused, but it needs to be made.
Your bracketed sentence shows the breath taking arrogance of those that support the Momentum Party (formally known as Labour). It is not dissimilar to the right wing of the Tory party. I have never voted Labour, but with the ever rightward movement of the Tory party I would happily see a Labour party led by a moderate leader take office, and would most definitely lend my vote.
I would probably never vote labour but would not vote for a Bojo led Tory party if the Labour party was back nearer to the centre.
The election night thread on here when Corbyn wins is going to be spectacular. A home counties version of Jonestown.
It certainly will be a night to remember on pb.
I wonder if perhaps some of these very monied people shrieking about “threats to the country" are more worried about threats to their share portfolios.
My share portfolio (Pension) should probably do well under Corbyn with the ensuing tanking value of sterling. It's the rest of my financial life that's the worry (& No I'm not "rich")
Look, obviously there should be rules about who is a member of a party, but at the end of the day, those members should be picking the people to represent them, not the other way around.
If a local branch of a party has a majority of its active members saying they don't like the party candidate / MP, then that party and candidate / MP is failing their members. What the hell is the point of joining a party if you don't get a say in the rep of that party?
I've said before and I'll say again, a primary system like the US has is equivalent to possible deselection of sitting MPs; every representative can be challenged from within and the membership decides. Yes, some people will not like the candidate who wins, but what other method works if you want a democratic interparty method of picking candidates?
Should sitting MPs be candidates for life until they lose a seat / resign on their own terms / do something that is sacking worthy? Or is it more healthy to say: every 4 years, in the year before a GE, we will have a democratic, internal process where every member of that branch has a right to vote for a candidate to be representative of the party and this branch of the party at the GE? Have x criteria for being a member who is allowed to vote (has been in the party x months, has not made a statement saying vote for some other party in x months, etc. etc.) to prevent "entryism" and have at it.
If a parliamentary candidate cannot win a vote of their party, keep their activists happy nor organise their internal reelection, maybe that's a sign they aren't very good at politics. Whereas, an MP who maybe explains to their local branch why they make votes / decisions / statements they disagree with, who has their finger on the pulse of their members and the locality, and can balance keeping both happy and winable suggests a better politician and a better representative of both the party AND the locality.
The issue in the US is that, with a binary choice, tribalism allows base politics. Here, even under FPTP, there are more options to go "actually, my choice is more nuanced, I won't vote for either of the big beasts coz they only represent their base, not me". If membership to a party means nothing it just breeds apathy and resentment.
Student loan finance accounting trickery at the treasury lol Switching to a system of fees and loans had "shifted nearly all higher education spending out of the deficit", in a way that "escapes scrutiny". For the 2017-18 cohort of students, the OBR forecasts that only 39% will be repaid - and 61% will be written off, at a cost of £28bn. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-45421621 Edit: Ah, that's how it's being done - financial timebomb for 30 years hence: "In terms of the government's reporting of its finances, the cost is kicked down the road and won't appear until debts begin to be written off after 30 years."
Labour MPs have a choice. Do they want to support an anti-Semite quasi-Marxist cult take office after they have been deselected, or do they take action now and remove this threat to our country from the positions as Leader of the Opposition
This (“anti-Semite quasi-marxist cult” ... “threat to our country”) really is hysterical nonsense. Were you in charge of the CCHQ twitter feed last time round?
If/when Corbyn becomes PM, I predict he will not do as much damage to our country as Blair.
In fact, I expect Corbyn with a constraining small majority won’t do much damage at all, and he will probably carry out a modest amount of good.
I don’t have high expectations for a Corbyn PM, but to describe him as “a threat to the country” is just raving.
No, he is a threat - a real threat.
He is. Any scenario where he becomes PM will be terrible. Whilst I understand the longing for a defeat of the Tories conniving with Islamo-Fascism and infantile totalitarian leftism cannot be justified. LP members (I used to be one) of goodwill need to act immediately.
I don’t see Joan Ryan as worth saving. I’d vote to de-select her.
(I have more time for Gavin Shuker).
I think deselections are a consequence of the membership and PLP being so out-of-kilter. They are therefore necessary.
Typical Corbynite, favours the views of a few hundred thousand Labour members over the views of several million Labour voters. Posts like this make me think that there's no hope for the party.
How wonderful pb is !! I have been accused of being a pbTory and a “typical Corbynite” in my time.
Some posters here have little sense of perspective.
Labour (or the Tories for that matter) can only be an effective party, if the membership & the Parliamentary Party are reasonably aligned.
This doesn’t mean “mass deselections”, but it does mean that MPs like Joan Ryan (who in any case will be over 67 by the next election, and has had a long innings) should make way for someone younger and more representative. I really don’t think that is unreasonable.
Isaac Barrow resigned the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics at Cambridge so that his younger and more able protege could hold it. It's intergenerational fairness. Joan should go on those grounds alone, to make the age distribution of Labour MPs more representative.
She should do a Barrow.
Last time I looked, Labour was the oldest party, as judged by its MPs. Yet its voting base is dominated by the young.
So this is all because Joan Ryan is getting on a bit.
As a wise former poster was known to say: "only on PB."
Student loan finance accounting trickery at the treasury lol Switching to a system of fees and loans had "shifted nearly all higher education spending out of the deficit", in a way that "escapes scrutiny". For the 2017-18 cohort of students, the OBR forecasts that only 39% will be repaid - and 61% will be written off, at a cost of £28bn. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-45421621
Perhaps a better number would be the fraction of the total amount distributed that is repaid, rather than the number of people completely repaying their debt.
You stay in that filth then you are tainted by it.
Spot on - I'm not sure we often agree [ although I may be muddling you with someone else] but this is completely correct. The majority of Labour MPs are tacitly supporting a leader they loathe and a party whose membership is now dominated in many areas by extremists from the far left whose views are basically the same as the current leadership. The UK could literally end up sleepwalking into a nightmare from which the wakening would be Venezuela! It really is time for them to act. If the Tories were led by Boris or worse my views on them would be similar.
I don't agree with this at all, of course (and I'm far from convinced that either of you would vote Labour with its current programme even if we were led by the Archangel Gabriel). But it does illustrate a basic issue which will inevitably come up. Are people seeking (re)selection as Labour candidates prepared to support a Labour government led by the current leadership, and, if so, with what caveats? I'm not sure that every centrist MP has yet decided what they think on that, and some are clearly torn, but they will need at selection time to be clear in their own minds and communicate their decision to their constituency parties.
If the answer is yes - while reserving the right to oppose any non-confidence issue that they consider too extreme - then I think virtually ALL of them will get reselected. If the answer is no, then with the best will in the world they cannot sensibly stand as Labour candidates: people who vote Labour are entitled to think they are helping elect a Labour government. What they do instead - form a new party, defect to serve under Vince or Theresa or Rees-Mogg or Boris, stand as independents, or retire is a separate issue and entirely a matter for them. Their decision should be respected and not abused, but it needs to be made.
I have zero respect for your views since you masqueraded as a Blairite for many years and have recently decided you were always a hard left Corbynite in reality.
He's just loyal to the leadership, whoever that may be.
Nick has always been open about his communist sympathies and belief in full blooded socialism - he was prepared to put up with Blair out of loyalty to the party but has always wanted a ‘proper socialist’ as leader
I don’t see Joan Ryan as worth saving. I’d vote to de-select her.
(I have more time for Gavin Shuker).
I think deselections are a consequence of the membership and PLP being so out-of-kilter. They are therefore necessary.
Typical Corbynite, favours the views of a few hundred thousand Labour members over the views of several million Labour voters. Posts like this make me think that there's no hope for the party.
I think the best hope must be for all the MPs who voted for no confidence in Corbyn to set up their own grouping. They rename the party The Parliamentary Labour Party and ask moderate Labour members to join. The rump Labour party can rebrand as Momentum.
The same thing may be necessary for the Tory party. I have nothing in common with Brexiters, they are economy crashers in the same way Corbyn is ,and large numbers (like Corbyn) are racists. The only real difference is their eyes swivel in the opposite direction.
I am starting to think that such a radical course of action is required. Split in the commons and appoint a leader in the commons. Challenge the Momentum wing to prop up the Tories.
Mr. Foremain, Mrs C, could you point me to anything comparable between May and Corbyn or the Conservatives and Labour in that regard?
Boris being an oaf (repeating, incidentally, a joke made by a Muslim woman in the Guardian) is not on a par with having Iran's state media livestream the deselection of an MP for not believing in the cult leader enough.
The lack of reporting, to either the potential victims or the police, threats of violence is also very worrying. "But Brexit!" isn't an argument to justify the very dark place of the Labour leadership, or the party generally.
To be honest Mr D, I don't think Mrs May is in anyway comparable to Corbyn. the worst that can be said of TMay is that she is not very competent, though time will tell on that one, as I think she might be finding her feet. My comparison was slightly mischievous.
I do think that there are strong comparisons between the reactionary right of the Tory party and nutters of the Labour variety. Those that get all red in the face and accuse Dominic Grieve and others of being traitors because they don't believe in Brexit (as you know I think there is a very good argument to say that Remain is a position of patriotism). These people and their ring leaders in some newspapers are very similar to those in Momentum, but they maybe are not as violent. Extremism is a major threat to our democracy. Those on the left and right, and the more moderate leavers or remainers need to be very vigilant
Student loan finance accounting trickery at the treasury lol Switching to a system of fees and loans had "shifted nearly all higher education spending out of the deficit", in a way that "escapes scrutiny". For the 2017-18 cohort of students, the OBR forecasts that only 39% will be repaid - and 61% will be written off, at a cost of £28bn. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-45421621
Perhaps a better number would be the fraction of the total amount distributed that is repaid, rather than the number of people completely repaying their debt.
Financial timebomb being created for 30 years hence as the loans are written off.
You stay in that filth then you are tainted by it.
Spot on - I'm not sure we often agree [ although I may be muddling you with someone else] but this is completely correct. The majority of Labour MPs are tacitly supporting a leader they loathe and a party whose membership is now dominated in many areas by extremists from the far left whose views are basically the same as the current leadership. The UK could literally end up sleepwalking into a nightmare from which the wakening would be Venezuela! It really is time for them to act. If the Tories were led by Boris or worse my views on them would be similar.
I don't agree with this at all, of course (and I'm far from convinced that either of you would vote Labour with its current programme even if we were led by the Archangel Gabriel). But it does illustrate a basic issue which will inevitably come up. Are people seeking (re)selection as Labour candidates prepared to support a Labour government led by the current leadership, and, if so, with what caveats? I'm not sure that every centrist MP has yet decided what they think on that, and some are clearly torn, but they will need at selection time to be clear in their own minds and communicate their decision to their constituency parties.
If the answer is yes - while reserving the right to oppose any non-confidence issue that they consider too extreme - then I think virtually ALL of them will get reselected. If the answer is no, then with the best will in the world they cannot sensibly stand as Labour candidates: people who vote Labour are entitled to think they are helping elect a Labour government. What they do instead - form a new party, defect to serve under Vince or Theresa or Rees-Mogg or Boris, stand as independents, or retire is a separate issue and entirely a matter for them. Their decision should be respected and not abused, but it needs to be made.
Your bracketed sentence shows the breath taking arrogance of those that support the Momentum Party (formally known as Labour). It is not dissimilar to the right wing of the Tory party. I have never voted Labour, but with the ever rightward movement of the Tory party I would happily see a Labour party led by a moderate leader take office, and would most definitely lend my vote.
Someone like Thornberry could command such a broad church despite being from Labour's soft left faction. The nutters who have taken over the party can command no such consensus, not now, not ever.
Mr. Foremain, the difference between the two positions you cite is that one is held by backbenchers for the Conservatives, the other is held by the Labour front bench.
Corbyn was himself just an idiot on the back benches for many years. Now he's determining policies and positions. Having Iranian state TV livestreaming the first step in deselecting an MP for not being loyal enough is rancid.
Labour MPs have a choice. Do they want to support an anti-Semite quasi-Marxist cult take office after they have been deselected, or do they take action now and remove this threat to our country from the positions as Leader of the Opposition
This (“anti-Semite quasi-marxist cult” ... “threat to our country”) really is hysterical nonsense. Were you in charge of the CCHQ twitter feed last time round?
If/when Corbyn becomes PM, I predict he will not do as much damage to our country as Blair.
In fact, I expect Corbyn with a constraining small majority won’t do much damage at all, and he will probably carry out a modest amount of good.
I don’t have high expectations for a Corbyn PM, but to describe him as “a threat to the country” is just raving.
He is a threat because, with him as Prime Minister, racists and anti-semites will feel empowered. Now of course you won't notice any of this. But the people who sense that their Prime Minister is someone ambivalent towards certain minorities, will feel emboldened to make their racism less covert, and this will mean that in turn other people will decide that they can do the same thing ("if the lefties can openly hate the Jews, why shouldn't we openly hate the blacks?" would be an understandable call from the right).
Again, I don't expect you to notice any of these things because you are probably neither black, nor a Jew, nor a member of a particularly put upon minority (and no I don't include the Welsh as one such) but its prospect is there nevertheless.
I don’t think Jeremy Corbyn is any more of an anti-Semite than Albert Einstein.
Einstein’s views of what should happen in Palestine (which are very thoroughly documented) are close to Corbyn’s views.
Einstein specifically compared the actions of some right-wing Israeli terror groups to the Nazis.
Your views on the Welsh are characteristically offensive. This is a country that is the poorest in Western Europe. Why is this?
By what right do you set yourself up as a spokesman for the oppressed, and an arbiter of who is oppressed or not ? Let the oppressed speak for themselves.
They certainly don’t need a monied, slandering Tory to speak false words on their behalf.
You have a right to your guesses on Jeremy Corbyn's anti-Semitism, but he was heard in his own words. Try swapping the word Zionist with Black and see how it sounds. I am in no doubt he is an anti-Semite. As such he is a racist. That is, in itself a threat to our cohesiveness as a society. He is also a threat to our national security through his inability to condemn Vladimir Putin, whom he clearly admires. If you don't think Putin is a threat to this country you are either working in a Kremlin troll farm or you are a naïve fool.
I'm starting to think that May will broker a moderate, relatively benign Brexit (directly with Barnier, largely ignoring the morons, clowns and unveiled racists that surround her), the economy will rally, and she'll fight the 2022 election, and win. I would rather that Labour got its act together, but there are no signs of that, alas.
Student loan finance accounting trickery at the treasury lol Switching to a system of fees and loans had "shifted nearly all higher education spending out of the deficit", in a way that "escapes scrutiny". For the 2017-18 cohort of students, the OBR forecasts that only 39% will be repaid - and 61% will be written off, at a cost of £28bn. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-45421621
Perhaps a better number would be the fraction of the total amount distributed that is repaid, rather than the number of people completely repaying their debt.
Financial timebomb being created for 30 years hence as the loans are written off.
Suspect the figures are skewed somewhat, since those paying the big bucks for tuition haven’t been in the workforce long. Another suspect number is the cost for 17/18 of £28bn, that implies they are loaning out close to £100bn a year.
I'm starting to think that May will broker a moderate, relatively benign Brexit (directly with Barnier, largely ignoring the morons, clowns and unveiled racists that surround her), the economy will rally, and she'll fight the 2022 election, and win. I would rather that Labour got its act together, but there are no signs of that, alas.
Mr. Foremain, the difference between the two positions you cite is that one is held by backbenchers for the Conservatives, the other is held by the Labour front bench.
Corbyn was himself just an idiot on the back benches for many years. Now he's determining policies and positions. Having Iranian state TV livestreaming the first step in deselecting an MP for not being loyal enough is rancid.
You make a valid point. It does not stop my concern for the direction of travel for a party that I have been a member for many years. I can tell you that it takes a lot of soul searching for someone who has held positions of responsibility within the Conservative party to say he would vote Labour if there a moderate leader in charge. It is only the Anti-Semite who is holding me back from popping my Labour cherry
I don’t see Joan Ryan as worth saving. I’d vote to de-select her.
(I have more time for Gavin Shuker).
I think deselections are a consequence of the membership and PLP being so out-of-kilter. They are therefore necessary.
Typical Corbynite, favours the views of a few hundred thousand Labour members over the views of several million Labour voters. Posts like this make me think that there's no hope for the party.
I think the best hope must be for all the MPs who voted for no confidence in Corbyn to set up their own grouping. They rename the party The Parliamentary Labour Party and ask moderate Labour members to join. The rump Labour party can rebrand as Momentum.
The same thing may be necessary for the Tory party. I have nothing in common with Brexiters, they are economy crashers in the same way Corbyn is ,and large numbers (like Corbyn) are racists. The only real difference is their eyes swivel in the opposite direction.
I am starting to think that such a radical course of action is required. Split in the commons and appoint a leader in the commons. Challenge the Momentum wing to prop up the Tories.
If more than half the Labour MPs form a new grouping, they’ll become the Opposition, with a pile of Short money and able to sideline Corbyn and friends in Parliament as the new group takes their seats on the front benches.
The question is do they have the balls to do it? The answer, so far, is no.
At what point will they realise that their party has left them and sees them as the enemy? Will it be when the boundaries pass thanks to a few Corbynite abstentions, or do they wait individually for their own show trial on Iranian TV?
I'm starting to think that May will broker a moderate, relatively benign Brexit (directly with Barnier, largely ignoring the morons, clowns and unveiled racists that surround her), the economy will rally, and she'll fight the 2022 election, and win. I would rather that Labour got its act together, but there are no signs of that, alas.
I am hopeful you are proved correct on all fronts.
I don’t see Joan Ryan as worth saving. I’d vote to de-select her.
(I have more time for Gavin Shuker).
I think deselections are a consequence of the membership and PLP being so out-of-kilter. They are therefore necessary.
Typical Corbynite, favours the views of a few hundred thousand Labour members over the views of several million Labour voters. Posts like this make me think that there's no hope for the party.
I think the best hope must be for all the MPs who voted for no confidence in Corbyn to set up their own grouping. They rename the party The Parliamentary Labour Party and ask moderate Labour members to join. The rump Labour party can rebrand as Momentum.
The same thing may be necessary for the Tory party. I have nothing in common with Brexiters, they are economy crashers in the same way Corbyn is ,and large numbers (like Corbyn) are racists. The only real difference is their eyes swivel in the opposite direction.
I am starting to think that such a radical course of action is required. Split in the commons and appoint a leader in the commons. Challenge the Momentum wing to prop up the Tories.
If more than half the Labour MPs form a new grouping, they’ll become the Opposition, with a pile of Short money and able to sideline Corbyn and friends in Parliament as the new group takes their seats on the front benches.
The question is do they have the balls to do it? The answer, so far, is no.
At what point will they realise that their party has left them and sees them as the enemy? Will it be when the boundaries pass thanks to a few Corbynite abstentions, or do they wait individually for their own show trial on Iranian TV?
It will be interesting if they just continue to call themselves the Labour Party. There would need to be a court case over the name.
The election night thread on here when Corbyn wins is going to be spectacular. A home counties version of Jonestown.
It certainly will be a night to remember on pb.
I wonder if perhaps some of these very monied people shrieking about “threats to the country" are more worried about threats to their share portfolios.
Any sensible, UK domiciled investor (and I'm sure that applies to all PB regulars) will be globally diversified. The UK economy tanking does little to affect our latter day remittance men, other than increasing the relative value of foreign earnings. It's the poor sods abroad with pensions/investment income in sterling who will pay the price for Chairman Jezza.
The election night thread on here when Corbyn wins is going to be spectacular. A home counties version of Jonestown.
It certainly will be a night to remember on pb.
I wonder if perhaps some of these very monied people shrieking about “threats to the country" are more worried about threats to their share portfolios.
Any sensible, UK domiciled investor (and I'm sure that applies to all PB regulars) will be globally diversified. The UK economy tanking does little to affect our latter day remittance men, other than increasing the relative value of foreign earnings. It's the poor sods abroad with pensions/investment income in sterling who will pay the price for Chairman Jezza.
65 Global-35 UK is my split. I feel that's about right !
You stay in that filth then you are tainted by it.
Spot on - I'm not sure we often agree [ although I may be muddling you with someone else] but this is completely correct. The majority of Labour MPs are tacitly supporting a leader they loathe and a party whose membership is now dominated in many areas by extremists from the far left whose views are basically the same as the current leadership. The UK could literally end up sleepwalking into a nightmare from which the wakening would be Venezuela! It really is time for them to act. If the Tories were led by Boris or worse my views on them would be similar.
I don't agree with this at all, of course (and I'm far from convinced that either of you would vote Labour with its current programme even if we were led by the Archangel Gabriel). But it does illustrate a basic issue which will inevitably come up. Are people seeking (re)selection as Labour candidates prepared to support a Labour government led by the current leadership, and, if so, with what caveats? I'm not sure that every centrist MP has yet decided what they think on that, and some are clearly torn, but they will need at selection time to be clear in their own minds and communicate their decision to their constituency parties.
If the answer is yes - while reserving the right to oppose any non-confidence issue that they consider too extreme - then I think virtually ALL of them will get reselected. If the answer is no, then with the best will in the world they cannot sensibly stand as Labour candidates: people who vote Labour are entitled to think they are helping elect a Labour government. What they do instead - form a new party, defect to serve under Vince or Theresa or Rees-Mogg or Boris, stand as independents, or retire is a separate issue and entirely a matter for them. Their decision should be respected and not abused, but it needs to be made.
I have zero respect for your views since you masqueraded as a Blairite for many years and have recently decided you were always a hard left Corbynite in reality.
He's just loyal to the leadership, whoever that may be.
Nick has always been open about his communist sympathies and belief in full blooded socialism - he was prepared to put up with Blair out of loyalty to the party but has always wanted a ‘proper socialist’ as leader
I hope that he has renounced any gold plated pension he has from his days working in the uber-capitalist pharmaceutical industry then. Perhaps not
I don’t see Joan Ryan as worth saving. I’d vote to de-select her.
(I have more time for Gavin Shuker).
I think deselections are a consequence of the membership and PLP being so out-of-kilter. They are therefore necessary.
Typical Corbynite, favours the views of a few hundred thousand Labour members over the views of several million Labour voters. Posts like this make me think that there's no hope for the party.
I think the best hope must be for all the MPs who voted for no confidence in Corbyn to set up their own grouping. They rename the party The Parliamentary Labour Party and ask moderate Labour members to join. The rump Labour party can rebrand as Momentum.
The same thing may be necessary for the Tory party. I have nothing in common with Brexiters, they are economy crashers in the same way Corbyn is ,and large numbers (like Corbyn) are racists. The only real difference is their eyes swivel in the opposite direction.
I am starting to think that such a radical course of action is required. Split in the commons and appoint a leader in the commons. Challenge the Momentum wing to prop up the Tories.
If more than half the Labour MPs form a new grouping, they’ll become the Opposition, with a pile of Short money and able to sideline Corbyn and friends in Parliament as the new group takes their seats on the front benches.
The question is do they have the balls to do it? The answer, so far, is no.
At what point will they realise that their party has left them and sees them as the enemy? Will it be when the boundaries pass thanks to a few Corbynite abstentions, or do they wait individually for their own show trial on Iranian TV?
The short money is a good point. If enough of them defected it would be pretty significant, and enough to properly establish themselves free from the shackles of the Momentum tyranny, whilst simultaneously denying Corbyn et al
Student loan finance accounting trickery at the treasury lol Switching to a system of fees and loans had "shifted nearly all higher education spending out of the deficit", in a way that "escapes scrutiny". For the 2017-18 cohort of students, the OBR forecasts that only 39% will be repaid - and 61% will be written off, at a cost of £28bn. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-45421621
Perhaps a better number would be the fraction of the total amount distributed that is repaid, rather than the number of people completely repaying their debt.
Financial timebomb being created for 30 years hence as the loans are written off.
Suspect the figures are skewed somewhat, since those paying the big bucks for tuition haven’t been in the workforce long. Another suspect number is the cost for 17/18 of £28bn, that implies they are loaning out close to £100bn a year.
Labour is an utter mess. You can debate who is to blame, but the leadership are clearly responsible for fixing it. That is what leadership is. Corbyn could solve this very easily, but he doesn't.
I'm not sure his resigning would fix it though.....
I don’t see Joan Ryan as worth saving. I’d vote to de-select her.
(I have more time for Gavin Shuker).
I think deselections are a consequence of the membership and PLP being so out-of-kilter. They are therefore necessary.
Typical Corbynite, favours the views of a few hundred thousand Labour members over the views of several million Labour voters. Posts like this make me think that there's no hope for the party.
I think the best hope must be for all the MPs who voted for no confidence in Corbyn to set up their own grouping. They rename the party The Parliamentary Labour Party and ask moderate Labour members to join. The rump Labour party can rebrand as Momentum.
The same thing may be necessary for the Tory party. I have nothing in common with Brexiters, they are economy crashers in the same way Corbyn is ,and large numbers (like Corbyn) are racists. The only real difference is their eyes swivel in the opposite direction.
What are the numbers? If > 50% of MPs are not Corbynites they could overnight form the Official Opposition and have a Leader of the Opposition. Corbyn would then be the leader of the 3rd or 4th party. They'd need money, but I hear that there's £50Million going begging. They'd need an electoral agreement with the LibDems. They'd need to support PR so that the realignment can be completed after the next election. Or they could be picked off one at a time.
They will be picked off one at a time as it is, though I fear they are going to sit there like doomed rabbits in headlights. I must say that I am quite surprised that Momentum have started this early. They would be much better off starting much closer to an election so that the moderates don't get a "nothing to lose" mindset, but then extremists are always impatient
The Labour Party Conference might be exciting for a change.
I don’t see Joan Ryan as worth saving. I’d vote to de-select her.
(I have more time for Gavin Shuker).
I think deselections are a consequence of the membership and PLP being so out-of-kilter. They are therefore necessary.
Typical Corbynite, favours the views of a few hundred thousand Labour members over the views of several million Labour voters. Posts like this make me think that there's no hope for the party.
I think the best hope must be for all the MPs who voted for no confidence in Corbyn to set up their own grouping. They rename the party The Parliamentary Labour Party and ask moderate Labour members to join. The rump Labour party can rebrand as Momentum.
The same thing may be necessary for the Tory party. I have nothing in common with Brexiters, they are economy crashers in the same way Corbyn is ,and large numbers (like Corbyn) are racists. The only real difference is their eyes swivel in the opposite direction.
I am starting to think that such a radical course of action is required. Split in the commons and appoint a leader in the commons. Challenge the Momentum wing to prop up the Tories.
If more than half the Labour MPs form a new grouping, they’ll become the Opposition, with a pile of Short money and able to sideline Corbyn and friends in Parliament as the new group takes their seats on the front benches.
The question is do they have the balls to do it? The answer, so far, is no.
At what point will they realise that their party has left them and sees them as the enemy? Will it be when the boundaries pass thanks to a few Corbynite abstentions, or do they wait individually for their own show trial on Iranian TV?
It will be interesting if they just continue to call themselves the Labour Party. There would need to be a court case over the name.
The Electoral Commission have strict rules about registration of party names*, it’s unlikely they’d be allowed to use anything with “Labour” in the name initially. A court would most likely see that the existing structures and entities were retained and in use by Corbyn’s party, so the breakaway group would need a new name.
*Remember the case of the Literal Democrat candidate?
I don’t see Joan Ryan as worth saving. I’d vote to de-select her.
(I have more time for Gavin Shuker).
I think deselections are a consequence of the membership and PLP being so out-of-kilter. They are therefore necessary.
Typical Corbynite, favours the views of a few hundred thousand Labour members over the views of several million Labour voters. Posts like this make me think that there's no hope for the party.
How wonderful pb is !! I have been accused of being a pbTory and a “typical Corbynite” in my time.
Some posters here have little sense of perspective.
Labour (or the Tories for that matter) can only be an effective party, if the membership & the Parliamentary Party are reasonably aligned.
This doesn’t mean “mass deselections”, but it does mean that MPs like Joan Ryan (who in any case will be over 67 by the next election, and has had a long innings) should make way for someone younger and more representative. I really don’t think that is unreasonable.
Isaac Barrow resigned the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics at Cambridge so that his younger and more able protege could hold it. It's intergenerational fairness. Joan should go on those grounds alone, to make the age distribution of Labour MPs more representative.
She should do a Barrow.
Last time I looked, Labour was the oldest party, as judged by its MPs. Yet its voting base is dominated by the young.
So this is all because Joan Ryan is getting on a bit.
As a wise former poster was known to say: "only on PB."
Labour - first they came for the Jews. then the old, then....
I don’t see Joan Ryan as worth saving. I’d vote to de-select her.
(I have more time for Gavin Shuker).
I think deselections are a consequence of the membership and PLP being so out-of-kilter. They are therefore necessary.
Typical Corbynite, favours the views of a few hundred thousand Labour members over the views of several million Labour voters. Posts like this make me think that there's no hope for the party.
How wonderful pb is !! I have been accused of being a pbTory and a “typical Corbynite” in my time.
Some posters here have little sense of perspective.
Labour (or the Tories for that matter) can only be an effective party, if the membership & the Parliamentary Party are reasonably aligned.
This doesn’t mean “mass deselections”, but it does mean that MPs like Joan Ryan (who in any case will be over 67 by the next election, and has had a long innings) should make way for someone younger and more representative. I really don’t think that is unreasonable.
Isaac Barrow resigned the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics at Cambridge so that his younger and more able protege could hold it. It's intergenerational fairness. Joan should go on those grounds alone, to make the age distribution of Labour MPs more representative.
She should do a Barrow.
Last time I looked, Labour was the oldest party, as judged by its MPs. Yet its voting base is dominated by the young.
So this is all because Joan Ryan is getting on a bit.
As a wise former poster was known to say: "only on PB."
Labour - first they came for the Jews. then the old, then....
The Electoral Commission have strict rules about registration of party names*, it’s unlikely they’d be allowed to use anything with “Labour” in the name initially. A court would most likely see that the existing structures and entities were retained and in use by Corbyn’s party, so the breakaway group would need a new name.
*Remember the case of the Literal Democrat candidate?
Yes but if they had the majority of the parliamentary seats that would be unprecedented, and they could claim they are the legitimate Parliamentary Labour Party. Corbyn would then be leader of the party outside parliament. It would then be an argument over what the definition of the party is under their rules, but seeing as it is Labour there, will almost certainly be loopholes that will be a lawyers joy. They would all be deselected at the next election but it would give them time to regroup
Nick has always been open about his communist sympathies and belief in full blooded socialism - he was prepared to put up with Blair out of loyalty to the party but has always wanted a ‘proper socialist’ as leader
I hope that he has renounced any gold plated pension he has from his days working in the uber-capitalist pharmaceutical industry then. Perhaps not
I don't have any pension from when I worked in industry. The company had a policy then that you merely got your contributions back with 3% interest if you left before retirement age. But in any case I'm fine with people trying to make their lives work in whatever the current system is.
Kingbongo isn't quite right - I liked the idea of communism 50 years ago and still think the basic idea of "from each according to ability, to each according to need" is the way to try to live in private life. But it (a) clearly wasn't working as a state principle and (b) got dictatorship thrown in, so I gave up on it, and settled for supporting socialism.
I supported Tony Blair because I felt there was so much that we all agreed needed doing on the social democratic agenda that we might as well get on with that and consider further steps later. By 2010 the list was running out, and I started looking for more.
I don’t see Joan Ryan as worth saving. I’d vote to de-select her.
(I have more time for Gavin Shuker).
I think deselections are a consequence of the membership and PLP being so out-of-kilter. They are therefore necessary.
Typical Corbynite, favours the views of a few hundred thousand Labour members over the views of several million Labour voters. Posts like this make me think that there's no hope for the party.
I think the best hope must be for all the MPs who voted for no confidence in Corbyn to set up their own grouping. They rename the party The Parliamentary Labour Party and ask moderate Labour members to join. The rump Labour party can rebrand as Momentum.
The same thing may be necessary for the Tory party. I have nothing in common with Brexiters, they are economy crashers in the same way Corbyn is ,and large numbers (like Corbyn) are racists. The only real difference is their eyes swivel in the opposite direction.
What are the numbers? If > 50% of MPs are not Corbynites they could overnight form the Official Opposition and have a Leader of the Opposition. Corbyn would then be the leader of the 3rd or 4th party. They'd need money, but I hear that there's £50Million going begging. They'd need an electoral agreement with the LibDems. They'd need to support PR so that the realignment can be completed after the next election. Or they could be picked off one at a time.
They will be picked off one at a time as it is, though I fear they are going to sit there like doomed rabbits in headlights. I must say that I am quite surprised that Momentum have started this early. They would be much better off starting much closer to an election so that the moderates don't get a "nothing to lose" mindset, but then extremists are always impatient
The Labour Party Conference might be exciting for a change.
All four party conferences are going to be absolute popcorn-fests this year, there’s serious fissures in all of them. I’m not sure I have enough.
Labour MPs have a choice. Do they want to support an anti-Semite quasi-Marxist cult take office after they have been deselected, or do they take action now and remove this threat to our country from the positions as Leader of the Opposition
This (“anti-Semite quasi-marxist cult” ... “threat to our country”) really is hysterical nonsense. Were you in charge of the CCHQ twitter feed last time round?
If/when Corbyn becomes PM, I predict he will not do as much damage to our country as Blair.
In fact, I expect Corbyn with a constraining small majority won’t do much damage at all, and he will probably carry out a modest amount of good.
I don’t have high expectations for a Corbyn PM, but to describe him as “a threat to the country” is just raving.
He is a threat because, with him as Prime Minister, racists and anti-semites will feel empowered. Now of course you won't notice any of this. But the people who sense that their Prime Minister is someone ambivalent towards certain minorities, will feel emboldened to make their racism less covert, and this will mean that in turn other people will decide that they can do the same thing ("if the lefties can openly hate the Jews, why shouldn't we openly hate the blacks?" would be an understandable call from the right).
Again, I don't expect you to notice any of these things because you are probably neither black, nor a Jew, nor a member of a particularly put upon minority (and no I don't include the Welsh as one such) but its prospect is there nevertheless.
I don’t think Jeremy Corbyn is any more of an anti-Semite than Albert Einstein.
Einstein’s views of what should happen in Palestine (which are very thoroughly documented) are close to Corbyn’s views.
Einstein specifically compared the actions of some right-wing Israeli terror groups to the Nazis.
Your views on the Welsh are characteristically offensive. This is a country that is the poorest in Western Europe. Why is this?
By what right do you set yourself up as a spokesman for the oppressed, and an arbiter of who is oppressed or not ? Let the oppressed speak for themselves.
They certainly don’t need a monied, slandering Tory to speak false words on their behalf.
You are rattled I see. Good. You should be.
Did I say that Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-Semite? Reading skills also lacking.
Incidentally, saw on the news that the apparent frontrunner in the Brazilian presidential election (unsure of name) got stabbed. Doesn't sound life-threatening, but still less than good.
I don’t see Joan Ryan as worth saving. I’d vote to de-select her.
(I have more time for Gavin Shuker).
I think deselections are a consequence of the membership and PLP being so out-of-kilter. They are therefore necessary.
Typical Corbynite, favours the views of a few hundred thousand Labour members over the views of several million Labour voters. Posts like this make me think that there's no hope for the party.
How wonderful pb is !! I have been accused of being a pbTory and a “typical Corbynite” in my time.
Some posters here have little sense of perspective.
Labour (or the Tories for that matter) can only be an effective party, if the membership & the Parliamentary Party are reasonably aligned.
This doesn’t mean “mass deselections”, but it does mean that MPs like Joan Ryan (who in any case will be over 67 by the next election, and has had a long innings) should make way for someone younger and more representative. I really don’t think that is unreasonable.
Isaac Barrow resigned the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics at Cambridge so that his younger and more able protege could hold it. It's intergenerational fairness. Joan should go on those grounds alone, to make the age distribution of Labour MPs more representative.
She should do a Barrow.
Last time I looked, Labour was the oldest party, as judged by its MPs. Yet its voting base is dominated by the young.
So this is all because Joan Ryan is getting on a bit.
As a wise former poster was known to say: "only on PB."
Labour - first they came for the Jews. then the old, then....
Ha! Neatly put.
Yes I thought of that poem only the other day, though in Niemoller's famous poem the first line is "first they came for the socialists", though of course that might be referring to the average Momentum fan getting overly excited at one of Jezza's speeches
I see that the same PM who appointed a clueless idiot as Defence Secretary also appointed a clueless idiot as Northern Ireland Secretary:
"I didn't understand things like when elections are fought for example in Northern Ireland - people who are nationalists don't vote for unionist parties and vice-versa."
I suppose it makes Tezzie look good in comparison.
The Electoral Commission have strict rules about registration of party names*, it’s unlikely they’d be allowed to use anything with “Labour” in the name initially. A court would most likely see that the existing structures and entities were retained and in use by Corbyn’s party, so the breakaway group would need a new name.
*Remember the case of the Literal Democrat candidate?
Yes but if they had the majority of the parliamentary seats that would be unprecedented, and they could claim they are the legitimate Parliamentary Labour Party. Corbyn would then be leader of the party outside parliament. It would then be an argument over what the definition of the party is under their rules, but seeing as it is Labour there, will almost certainly be loopholes that will be a lawyers joy. They would all be deselected at the next election but it would give them time to regroup
Nah - if that was the case I reckon we'd have already seen a split. Any breakaway group will need to have a separate identity and will start with zero funding, infrastructure, members etc. Not hard to see why it's so unappealing.
This is the Alistair Cook I know and love. Standing at the crease all days scoring a run an over. Facing everything forever.
Given a couple of chances, but let's be generous.
His 50 is the first scored by an opening batsman this series. Only two five match test series in history (I think) have seen a total of only three fifties scored by the openers from both sides...
I see that the same PM who appointed a clueless idiot as Defence Secretary also appointed a clueless idiot as Northern Ireland Secretary:
"I didn't understand things like when elections are fought for example in Northern Ireland - people who are nationalists don't vote for unionist parties and vice-versa."
I suppose it makes Tezzie look good in comparison.
I suppose the SDLP and Alliance fight over some votes..
No, because his position was just as I've suggested - support on issues of confidence and over 95% of votes, but opposition on selected issues. That's fine - nobody is well-served by clones. I voted against the Government 35 times myself, without ever feeling disloyal.
The Electoral Commission have strict rules about registration of party names*, it’s unlikely they’d be allowed to use anything with “Labour” in the name initially. A court would most likely see that the existing structures and entities were retained and in use by Corbyn’s party, so the breakaway group would need a new name.
*Remember the case of the Literal Democrat candidate?
Yes but if they had the majority of the parliamentary seats that would be unprecedented, and they could claim they are the legitimate Parliamentary Labour Party. Corbyn would then be leader of the party outside parliament. It would then be an argument over what the definition of the party is under their rules, but seeing as it is Labour there, will almost certainly be loopholes that will be a lawyers joy. They would all be deselected at the next election but it would give them time to regroup
They could certainly be treated as the second largest grouping in Parliament, but they would have to actually form a party to do so, rather than simply be a bunch of “Independent Labour” MPs. That’s probably the biggest sticking point to it, the rebels would have to actually leave the Labour Party - an organisation to which a lot of them have been members and served for decades - to Corbyn and his friends, starting from scratch to attract members and a database.
Nick has always been open about his communist sympathies and belief in full blooded socialism - he was prepared to put up with Blair out of loyalty to the party but has always wanted a ‘proper socialist’ as leader
I hope that he has renounced any gold plated pension he has from his days working in the uber-capitalist pharmaceutical industry then. Perhaps not
I don't have any pension from when I worked in industry. The company had a policy then that you merely got your contributions back with 3% interest if you left before retirement age. But in any case I'm fine with people trying to make their lives work in whatever the current system is.
Kingbongo isn't quite right - I liked the idea of communism 50 years ago and still think the basic idea of "from each according to ability, to each according to need" is the way to try to live in private life. But it (a) clearly wasn't working as a state principle and (b) got dictatorship thrown in, so I gave up on it, and settled for supporting socialism.
I supported Tony Blair because I felt there was so much that we all agreed needed doing on the social democratic agenda that we might as well get on with that and consider further steps later. By 2010 the list was running out, and I started looking for more.
You didn’t answer the point made by several of us asking if people such as @RochdalePioneers who believe that “their” Labour Party has been hijacked by the extreme left should leave the party.
I don’t see Joan Ryan as worth saving. I’d vote to de-select her.
(I have more time for Gavin Shuker).
I think deselections are a consequence of the membership and PLP being so out-of-kilter. They are therefore necessary.
Typical Corbynite, favours the views of a few hundred thousand Labour members over the views of several million Labour voters. Posts like this make me think that there's no hope for the party.
I think the best hope must be for all the MPs who voted for no confidence in Corbyn to set up their own grouping. They rename the party The Parliamentary Labour Party and ask moderate Labour members to join. The rump Labour party can rebrand as Momentum.
The same thing may be necessary for the Tory party. I have nothing in common with Brexiters, they are economy crashers in the same way Corbyn is ,and large numbers (like Corbyn) are racists. The only real difference is their eyes swivel in the opposite direction.
I am starting to think that such a radical course of action is required. Split in the commons and appoint a leader in the commons. Challenge the Momentum wing to prop up the Tories.
If more than half the Labour MPs form a new grouping, they’ll become the Opposition, with a pile of Short money and able to sideline Corbyn and friends in Parliament as the new group takes their seats on the front benches.
The question is do they have the balls to do it? The answer, so far, is no.
At what point will they realise that their party has left them and sees them as the enemy? Will it be when the boundaries pass thanks to a few Corbynite abstentions, or do they wait individually for their own show trial on Iranian TV?
It will be interesting if they just continue to call themselves the Labour Party. There would need to be a court case over the name.
The Electoral Commission have strict rules about registration of party names*, it’s unlikely they’d be allowed to use anything with “Labour” in the name initially. A court would most likely see that the existing structures and entities were retained and in use by Corbyn’s party, so the breakaway group would need a new name.
*Remember the case of the Literal Democrat candidate?
Losing the right for Corbyn to use the Labour name would be a huge blow. Unlikely, as even if the majority of MPs sat in the Hosue as Traditonal Labour or Co-Operative Labour* or whatever, the mass of the membership would presumably stay with Official Labour (although precisely how many would be interesting to see).
(*Provisional Labour would have a delicious irony though!)
I see that the same PM who appointed a clueless idiot as Defence Secretary also appointed a clueless idiot as Northern Ireland Secretary:
"I didn't understand things like when elections are fought for example in Northern Ireland - people who are nationalists don't vote for unionist parties and vice-versa."
I suppose it makes Tezzie look good in comparison.
Actually I've a sneaking respect for her. Politicians are not subject experts at any level, and are on dangerous ground if they try to use their expertise in portfolio, think Estelle Morris etc.
Even at council level, we're making multi-million pound decisions on highly technical issues and contracts, and the whole point of having professional officers is to give that expert advice and guidance to aid decision-making, as councillors are accountable amateurs. Most aren't so honest about their ignorance though.
How many of us knew what a customs union was 3 years ago?
Nick has always been open about his communist sympathies and belief in full blooded socialism - he was prepared to put up with Blair out of loyalty to the party but has always wanted a ‘proper socialist’ as leader
I hope that he has renounced any gold plated pension he has from his days working in the uber-capitalist pharmaceutical industry then. Perhaps not
I don't have any pension from when I worked in industry. The company had a policy then that you merely got your contributions back with 3% interest if you left before retirement age. But in any case I'm fine with people trying to make their lives work in whatever the current system is.
Kingbongo isn't quite right - I liked the idea of communism 50 years ago and still think the basic idea of "from each according to ability, to each according to need" is the way to try to live in private life. But it (a) clearly wasn't working as a state principle and (b) got dictatorship thrown in, so I gave up on it, and settled for supporting socialism.
I supported Tony Blair because I felt there was so much that we all agreed needed doing on the social democratic agenda that we might as well get on with that and consider further steps later. By 2010 the list was running out, and I started looking for more.
Thank you for that clarification. The self-justifying fluid approach to morality of the average lefty has always fascinated me. Take a handsome salary from the pharma industry while convincing oneself that one has to "work within the system". Reminds me of the final scene in Animal Farm.
Mr. Rentool, that's... remarkable. Or it should be.
On the other hand, we have politicians like May and Cooper who seem to think a magic algorithm or filter can be used to make the internet safe for kids/tedious for everyone.
It's that kind of idiocy that led to Labour introducing and the Coalition continuing the use of polygraphs on released paedophiles. [If any MP happens to be reading this, the polygraph is not a magic box that can detect lies. Stop using it. It doesn't work].
I think one factor that has thrown politics out of kilter is that many people voted Labour in 2017 simply because they saw it as a referendum on May/Brexit but don't back Corbyn's programme and wouldn't vote Labour again in a more typical election. The Labour extremists have misread the increase in vote share as an endorsement.
Wouldn't you expect such voters to have since transferred their support to another party, perhaps the LibDems, which polling suggests they haven't? Alternatively, if you think Brexit is still distorting the landscape (and you might well be right), won't it probably distort the next election too, as people ponder how to put the mess together?
You stay in that filth then you are tainted by it.
Spot on - I'm not sure we often agree [ although I may be muddling you with someone else] but this is completely correct. The majority of Labour MPs are tacitly supporting a leader they loathe and a party whose membership is now dominated in many areas by extremists from the far left whose views are basically the same as the current leadership. The UK could literally end up sleepwalking into a nightmare from which the wakening would be Venezuela! It really is time for them to act. If the Tories were led by Boris or worse my views on them would be similar.
I don't agree with this at all, of course (and I'm far from convinced that either of you would vote Labour with its current programme even if we were led by the Archangel Gabriel). But it does illustrate a basic issue which will inevitably come up. Are people seeking (re)selection as Labour candidates prepared to support a Labour government led by the current leadership, and, if so, with what caveats? I'm not sure that every centrist MP has yet decided what they think on that, and some are clearly torn, but they will need at selection time to be clear in their own minds and communicate their decision to their constituency parties.
If the answer is yes - while reserving the right to oppose any non-confidence issue that they consider too extreme - then I think virtually ALL of them will get reselected. If the answer is no, then with the best will in the world they cannot sensibly stand as Labour candidates: people who vote Labour are entitled to think they are helping elect a Labour government. What they do instead - form a new party, defect to serve under Vince or Theresa or Rees-Mogg or Boris, stand as independents, or retire is a separate issue and entirely a matter for them. Their decision should be respected and not abused, but it needs to be made.
Your bracketed sentence shows the breath taking arrogance of those that support the Momentum Party (formally known as Labour). It is not dissimilar to the right wing of the Tory party. I have never voted Labour, but with the ever rightward movement of the Tory party I would happily see a Labour party led by a moderate leader take office, and would most definitely lend my vote.
I would probably never vote labour but would not vote for a Bojo led Tory party if the Labour party was back nearer to the centre.
Mr. Foremain, the difference between the two positions you cite is that one is held by backbenchers for the Conservatives, the other is held by the Labour front bench.
Corbyn was himself just an idiot on the back benches for many years. Now he's determining policies and positions. Having Iranian state TV livestreaming the first step in deselecting an MP for not being loyal enough is rancid.
You make a valid point. It does not stop my concern for the direction of travel for a party that I have been a member for many years. I can tell you that it takes a lot of soul searching for someone who has held positions of responsibility within the Conservative party to say he would vote Labour if there a moderate leader in charge. It is only the Anti-Semite who is holding me back from popping my Labour cherry
So when Hague (Europe) and Howard (immigration )were the leaders of the cons,did you still vote conservative at the GE ?
I think one factor that has thrown politics out of kilter is that many people voted Labour in 2017 simply because they saw it as a referendum on May/Brexit but don't back Corbyn's programme and wouldn't vote Labour again in a more typical election. The Labour extremists have misread the increase in vote share as an endorsement.
Wouldn't you expect such voters to have since transferred their support to another party, perhaps the LibDems, which polling suggests they haven't? Alternatively, if you think Brexit is still distorting the landscape (and you might well be right), won't it probably distort the next election too, as people ponder how to put the mess together?
It is anyone's guess. My own view is that if Mrs May stays she won't make such a pigs ear of the next election campaign, and that if Labour want to have any chance of winning they should be streets ahead by now and they are not. At the last election many people voted against a Tory landslide. It is unlikely they will be so blasé at the thought of PM Corbyn, or so I hope!
Something for everyone in these rebellion % (On both sides) statistics: 97-01 Jeremy Corbyn Islington North Lab 8.7% John Martin McDonnell Hayes and Harlington Lab 7.0% Gwyneth Dunwoody Crewe and Nantwich Lab 6.5% Mr Tam Dalyell Linlithgow Lab 6.0%
01-05 Mr Paul Marsden Shrewsbury and Atcham whilst Lab 26.4% Jeremy Corbyn Islington North Lab 23.6% John Martin McDonnell Hayes and Harlington Lab 18.4% Mr Jamie Cann Ipswich Lab 18.2%
05-10 Kate Hoey Vauxhall Lab 25.2% Jeremy Corbyn Islington North Lab 25.1% John Martin McDonnell Hayes and Harlington Lab 24.9% Alan Simpson Nottingham South Lab 20.7%
10-15 Philip Hollobone Kettering Con 19.9% Philip Davies Shipley Con 19.6% Christopher Chope Christchurch Con 18.9% David Nuttall Bury North Con 17.0%
15-17 Philip Davies Shipley Con 10.6% Kate Hoey Vauxhall Lab 10.0% Frank Field Birkenhead Lab 8.0% Graham Stringer Blackley and Broughton Lab 7.7%
17+ Graham Stringer Blackley and Broughton Lab 36.9% Kate Hoey Vauxhall Lab 34.2% Frank Field Birkenhead Lab 28.8% Kenneth Clarke Rushcliffe Con 25.0%
I see that the same PM who appointed a clueless idiot as Defence Secretary also appointed a clueless idiot as Northern Ireland Secretary:
"I didn't understand things like when elections are fought for example in Northern Ireland - people who are nationalists don't vote for unionist parties and vice-versa."
I suppose it makes Tezzie look good in comparison.
Actually I've a sneaking respect for her. Politicians are not subject experts at any level, and are on dangerous ground if they try to use their expertise in portfolio, think Estelle Morris etc.
Even at council level, we're making multi-million pound decisions on highly technical issues and contracts, and the whole point of having professional officers is to give that expert advice and guidance to aid decision-making, as councillors are accountable amateurs. Most aren't so honest about their ignorance though.
How many of us knew what a customs union was 3 years ago?
I think very few people knew what a customs union was on 23rd June 2016, and not many more do now. It will probably be a similar number that know the difference between the ECJ and the ECHR
This is the Alistair Cook I know and love. Standing at the crease all days scoring a run an over. Facing everything forever.
Given a couple of chances, but let's be generous.
His 50 is the first scored by an opening batsman this series. Only two five match test series in history (I think) have seen a total of only three fifties scored by the openers from both sides...
This match takes my back to the 80s. Grinding through a day at 2.1 per over. Plenty of time to nip out for a beer and a fag without worrying you'd miss much.
Marvellous, jumpers for goalposts sticks for wickets, etc, etc.
The saddest thing is that the new centrist group or party comprised of rejected labour MP's will just be born of an unwanted circumstance, with no coherant policy or programme. It will be even less successful than the SDP, in that although the SDP failed as a political project, it had a legacy that still shapes British politics. The centrists greatest problem is that they keep interpreting the current political situation through the paradigm of the early 80's, when in reality we have a wholly different set of circumstances, that requires entirely new thinking. Yet the labour MP's appear to be incapable of this, and are trapped by a mixture of tribal loyalty, alt liberal discourse, and the brutal realities of the first past the post system. So they will all simply fade in to obscurity, the strange death of centrist Britain.
Mr. Foremain, the difference between the two positions you cite is that one is held by backbenchers for the Conservatives, the other is held by the Labour front bench.
Corbyn was himself just an idiot on the back benches for many years. Now he's determining policies and positions. Having Iranian state TV livestreaming the first step in deselecting an MP for not being loyal enough is rancid.
You make a valid point. It does not stop my concern for the direction of travel for a party that I have been a member for many years. I can tell you that it takes a lot of soul searching for someone who has held positions of responsibility within the Conservative party to say he would vote Labour if there a moderate leader in charge. It is only the Anti-Semite who is holding me back from popping my Labour cherry
So when Hague (Europe) and Howard (immigration )were the leaders of the cons,did you still vote conservative at the GE ?
The short money is a good point. If enough of them defected it would be pretty significant, and enough to properly establish themselves free from the shackles of the Momentum tyranny, whilst simultaneously denying Corbyn et al
I don't think that's right. The Short money is allocated on the basis of the number of seats a given party got at the last election. MPs who defect don't AFAIK take the dosh with them (for example, I don't think UKIP got any Short money when Carswell and Reckless defected, they only became eligible when Carswell regained his seat as a Kipper in 2015).
Admittedly this could presumably be changed by parliament (or the government?), but as things stand I believe the Short money would stay with Labour if there's a split.
Also, the new party or grouping couldn't nick the Labour name. [Edit: I see you've already pointed this out]
The saddest thing is that the new centrist group or party comprised of rejected labour MP's will just be born of an unwanted circumstance, with no coherant policy or programme. It will be even less successful than the SDP, in that although the SDP failed as a political project, it had a legacy that still shapes British politics. The centrists greatest problem is that they keep interpreting the current political situation through the paradigm of the early 80's, when in reality we have a wholly different set of circumstances, that requires entirely new thinking. Yet the labour MP's appear to be incapable of this, and are trapped by a mixture of tribal loyalty, alt liberal discourse, and the brutal realities of the first past the post system. So they will all simply fade in to obscurity, the strange death of centrist Britain.
There's only one game in town at the moment. A new party which said it would campaign for entry to the EEA (no matter how that might not be possible, as discussed on here) would I think have a chance.
The short money is a good point. If enough of them defected it would be pretty significant, and enough to properly establish themselves free from the shackles of the Momentum tyranny, whilst simultaneously denying Corbyn et al
I don't think that's right. The Short money is allocated on the basis of the number of seats a given party got at the last election. MPs who defect don't AFAIK take the dosh with them (for example, I don't think UKIP got any Short money when Carswell and Reckless defected, they only became eligible when Carswell regained his seat as a Kipper in 2015).
Admittedly this could presumably be changed by parliament (or the government?), but as things stand I believe the Short money would stay with Labour if there's a split.
Also, the new party or grouping couldn't nick the Labour name.
hmm, you might be right on that one, more is the pity. In my scenario they wouldn't be nicking the name. They would be arguing over who has the right to it, the parliamentary party or the extra-parliamentary party
The short money is a good point. If enough of them defected it would be pretty significant, and enough to properly establish themselves free from the shackles of the Momentum tyranny, whilst simultaneously denying Corbyn et al
I don't think that's right. The Short money is allocated on the basis of the number of seats a given party got at the last election. MPs who defect don't AFAIK take the dosh with them (for example, I don't think UKIP got any Short money when Carswell and Reckless defected, they only became eligible when Carswell regained his seat as a Kipper in 2015).
Admittedly this could presumably be changed by parliament (or the government?), but as things stand I believe the Short money would stay with Labour if there's a split.
Also, the new party or grouping couldn't nick the Labour name.
But the new party could become the official opposition (numbers permitting) - and with it the status, salary for the leader and the prominence in all key HoC events. Corbyn would not be on the front bench, he would be fighting the SNP for coverage.
It would be a huge blow to Corbyn, McDonnell et al
This is the Alistair Cook I know and love. Standing at the crease all days scoring a run an over. Facing everything forever.
Given a couple of chances, but let's be generous.
His 50 is the first scored by an opening batsman this series. Only two five match test series in history (I think) have seen a total of only three fifties scored by the openers from both sides...
This match takes my back to the 80s. Grinding through a day at 2.1 per over. Plenty of time to nip out for a beer and a fag without worrying you'd miss much.
Marvellous, jumpers for goalposts sticks for wickets, etc, etc.
The short money is a good point. If enough of them defected it would be pretty significant, and enough to properly establish themselves free from the shackles of the Momentum tyranny, whilst simultaneously denying Corbyn et al
I don't think that's right. The Short money is allocated on the basis of the number of seats a given party got at the last election. MPs who defect don't AFAIK take the dosh with them (for example, I don't think UKIP got any Short money when Carswell and Reckless defected, they only became eligible when Carswell regained his seat as a Kipper in 2015).
Admittedly this could presumably be changed by parliament (or the government?), but as things stand I believe the Short money would stay with Labour if there's a split.
Also, the new party or grouping couldn't nick the Labour name.
An amount of Short money (just under £1m) is set aside for the running of the LotO’s office. Do you think this wouldn’t be available to a new LotO if there wasn’t an interim election? Could the Speaker decide this or would Parliament need to vote on it? (Could be more popcorn!)
Student loan finance accounting trickery at the treasury lol Switching to a system of fees and loans had "shifted nearly all higher education spending out of the deficit", in a way that "escapes scrutiny". For the 2017-18 cohort of students, the OBR forecasts that only 39% will be repaid - and 61% will be written off, at a cost of £28bn. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-45421621
Perhaps a better number would be the fraction of the total amount distributed that is repaid, rather than the number of people completely repaying their debt.
Financial timebomb being created for 30 years hence as the loans are written off.
Suspect the figures are skewed somewhat, since those paying the big bucks for tuition haven’t been in the workforce long. Another suspect number is the cost for 17/18 of £28bn, that implies they are loaning out close to £100bn a year.
Mr. Foremain, the difference between the two positions you cite is that one is held by backbenchers for the Conservatives, the other is held by the Labour front bench.
Corbyn was himself just an idiot on the back benches for many years. Now he's determining policies and positions. Having Iranian state TV livestreaming the first step in deselecting an MP for not being loyal enough is rancid.
You make a valid point. It does not stop my concern for the direction of travel for a party that I have been a member for many years. I can tell you that it takes a lot of soul searching for someone who has held positions of responsibility within the Conservative party to say he would vote Labour if there a moderate leader in charge. It is only the Anti-Semite who is holding me back from popping my Labour cherry
So when Hague (Europe) and Howard (immigration )were the leaders of the cons,did you still vote conservative at the GE ?
I did
Wow,from the PC post you bring us on here,I had you down has a arch-blairite,thought you may have lent your vote then.
And I bet you voted for Cameron and his referendum promise didn't you.
The saddest thing is that the new centrist group or party comprised of rejected labour MP's will just be born of an unwanted circumstance, with no coherant policy or programme. It will be even less successful than the SDP, in that although the SDP failed as a political project, it had a legacy that still shapes British politics. The centrists greatest problem is that they keep interpreting the current political situation through the paradigm of the early 80's, when in reality we have a wholly different set of circumstances, that requires entirely new thinking. Yet the labour MP's appear to be incapable of this, and are trapped by a mixture of tribal loyalty, alt liberal discourse, and the brutal realities of the first past the post system. So they will all simply fade in to obscurity, the strange death of centrist Britain.
There's only one game in town at the moment. A new party which said it would campaign for entry to the EEA (no matter how that might not be possible, as discussed on here) would I think have a chance.
The conceptual problem here is that support for the EEA is unlikely to be concentrated in areas where most moderate labour MP's have their seats.
Mr. Foremain, the difference between the two positions you cite is that one is held by backbenchers for the Conservatives, the other is held by the Labour front bench.
Corbyn was himself just an idiot on the back benches for many years. Now he's determining policies and positions. Having Iranian state TV livestreaming the first step in deselecting an MP for not being loyal enough is rancid.
You make a valid point. It does not stop my concern for the direction of travel for a party that I have been a member for many years. I can tell you that it takes a lot of soul searching for someone who has held positions of responsibility within the Conservative party to say he would vote Labour if there a moderate leader in charge. It is only the Anti-Semite who is holding me back from popping my Labour cherry
So when Hague (Europe) and Howard (immigration )were the leaders of the cons,did you still vote conservative at the GE ?
I did
Wow,from the PC post you bring us on here,I had you down has a arch-blairite,thought you may have lent your vote then.
And I bet you voted for Cameron and his referendum promise didn't you.
In fairness, you probably consider anyone left of Tommy Johnson dangerously PC.
Are you still slagging your home town off every spare moment, yet still living there?
Student loan finance accounting trickery at the treasury lol Switching to a system of fees and loans had "shifted nearly all higher education spending out of the deficit", in a way that "escapes scrutiny". For the 2017-18 cohort of students, the OBR forecasts that only 39% will be repaid - and 61% will be written off, at a cost of £28bn. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-45421621
Perhaps a better number would be the fraction of the total amount distributed that is repaid, rather than the number of people completely repaying their debt.
Financial timebomb being created for 30 years hence as the loans are written off.
Suspect the figures are skewed somewhat, since those paying the big bucks for tuition haven’t been in the workforce long. Another suspect number is the cost for 17/18 of £28bn, that implies they are loaning out close to £100bn a year.
Thanks, Pulpstar. No wonder the government wanted to sell them off. .
But the only loans that have been sold off so far are Mickey mouse ones from before 2006 (Which includes yours truly) ! The discount for the post 2012 book will have to be huge.
Mr. Foremain, the difference between the two positions you cite is that one is held by backbenchers for the Conservatives, the other is held by the Labour front bench.
Corbyn was himself just an idiot on the back benches for many years. Now he's determining policies and positions. Having Iranian state TV livestreaming the first step in deselecting an MP for not being loyal enough is rancid.
You make a valid point. It does not stop my concern for the direction of travel for a party that I have been a member for many years. I can tell you that it takes a lot of soul searching for someone who has held positions of responsibility within the Conservative party to say he would vote Labour if there a moderate leader in charge. It is only the Anti-Semite who is holding me back from popping my Labour cherry
So when Hague (Europe) and Howard (immigration )were the leaders of the cons,did you still vote conservative at the GE ?
I did
Wow,from the PC post you bring us on here,I had you down has a arch-blairite,thought you may have lent your vote then.
And I bet you voted for Cameron and his referendum promise didn't you.
In fairness, you probably consider anyone left of Tommy Johnson dangerously PC.
Are you still slagging your home town off every spare moment, yet still living there?
The short money is a good point. If enough of them defected it would be pretty significant, and enough to properly establish themselves free from the shackles of the Momentum tyranny, whilst simultaneously denying Corbyn et al
I don't think that's right. The Short money is allocated on the basis of the number of seats a given party got at the last election. MPs who defect don't AFAIK take the dosh with them (for example, I don't think UKIP got any Short money when Carswell and Reckless defected, they only became eligible when Carswell regained his seat as a Kipper in 2015).
Admittedly this could presumably be changed by parliament (or the government?), but as things stand I believe the Short money would stay with Labour if there's a split.
Also, the new party or grouping couldn't nick the Labour name.
But the new party could become the official opposition (numbers permitting) - and with it the status, salary for the leader and the prominence in all key HoC events. Corbyn would not be on the front bench, he would be fighting the SNP for coverage.
It would be a huge blow to Corbyn, McDonnell et al
This idea has been mooted for a long time. It would have been better strategically do it immediately after Corbyn's election as leader. However, it would have meant killing the labour party, which of course they wouldn't do.
The short money is a good point. If enough of them defected it would be pretty significant, and enough to properly establish themselves free from the shackles of the Momentum tyranny, whilst simultaneously denying Corbyn et al
I don't think that's right. The Short money is allocated on the basis of the number of seats a given party got at the last election. MPs who defect don't AFAIK take the dosh with them (for example, I don't think UKIP got any Short money when Carswell and Reckless defected, they only became eligible when Carswell regained his seat as a Kipper in 2015).
Admittedly this could presumably be changed by parliament (or the government?), but as things stand I believe the Short money would stay with Labour if there's a split.
Also, the new party or grouping couldn't nick the Labour name.
An amount of Short money (just under £1m) is set aside for the running of the LotO’s office. Do you think this wouldn’t be available to a new LotO if there wasn’t an interim election? Could the Speaker decide this or would Parliament need to vote on it? (Could be more popcorn!)
Dunno. There's no precedent so I'm not sure anyone really knows.
FWIW, though, I think money would be the least of the problems of any putative new party. There are plenty of wealthy potential donors, and I imagine they could also raise a lot from small on-line donations.
I don’t see Joan Ryan as worth saving. I’d vote to de-select her.
(I have more time for Gavin Shuker).
I think deselections are a consequence of the membership and PLP being so out-of-kilter. They are therefore necessary.
Typical Corbynite, favours the views of a few hundred thousand Labour members over the views of several million Labour voters. Posts like this make me think that there's no hope for the party.
How wonderful pb is !! I have been accused of being a pbTory and a “typical Corbynite” in my time.
Some posters here have little sense of perspective.
Labour (or the Tories for that matter) can only be an effective party, if the membership & the Parliamentary Party are reasonably aligned.
This doesn’t mean “mass deselections”, but it does mean that MPs like Joan Ryan (who in any case will be over 67 by the next election, and has had a long innings) should make way for someone younger and more representative. I really don’t think that is unreasonable.
Isaac Barrow resigned the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics at Cambridge so that his younger and more able protege could hold it. It's intergenerational fairness. Joan should go on those grounds alone, to make the age distribution of Labour MPs more representative.
She should do a Barrow.
Last time I looked, Labour was the oldest party, as judged by its MPs. Yet its voting base is dominated by the young.
On that basis, do you think Corbyn (aged 69) and McDonnell (aged 66) should also be standing down?
I would say that the distribution of MPs should reflect the distribution of members & of voters. This is routinely accepted as a good thing in terms of gender balance and ethnicity.
I think, as intergenerational fairness is increasingly an important political theme, it will become increasingly important to get a better age balance.
It is bad for democracy that the MPs are so old, and particularly bad for the Labour Party as the young vote is skewed in their direction.
Very roughly, I think the centre of gravity of the Parliamentary Party should be at the centre of gravity of the Membership, accepting that both are broad churches.
I see no reason to mourn the loss of Joan Ryan, who in any case is a disreputable person (remember, the expenses scandal, and her reactions to it).
Comments
https://twitter.com/Mendelpol/status/1037393592782868485
It's the rest of my financial life that's the worry
If a local branch of a party has a majority of its active members saying they don't like the party candidate / MP, then that party and candidate / MP is failing their members. What the hell is the point of joining a party if you don't get a say in the rep of that party?
I've said before and I'll say again, a primary system like the US has is equivalent to possible deselection of sitting MPs; every representative can be challenged from within and the membership decides. Yes, some people will not like the candidate who wins, but what other method works if you want a democratic interparty method of picking candidates?
Should sitting MPs be candidates for life until they lose a seat / resign on their own terms / do something that is sacking worthy? Or is it more healthy to say: every 4 years, in the year before a GE, we will have a democratic, internal process where every member of that branch has a right to vote for a candidate to be representative of the party and this branch of the party at the GE? Have x criteria for being a member who is allowed to vote (has been in the party x months, has not made a statement saying vote for some other party in x months, etc. etc.) to prevent "entryism" and have at it.
If a parliamentary candidate cannot win a vote of their party, keep their activists happy nor organise their internal reelection, maybe that's a sign they aren't very good at politics. Whereas, an MP who maybe explains to their local branch why they make votes / decisions / statements they disagree with, who has their finger on the pulse of their members and the locality, and can balance keeping both happy and winable suggests a better politician and a better representative of both the party AND the locality.
The issue in the US is that, with a binary choice, tribalism allows base politics. Here, even under FPTP, there are more options to go "actually, my choice is more nuanced, I won't vote for either of the big beasts coz they only represent their base, not me". If membership to a party means nothing it just breeds apathy and resentment.
Switching to a system of fees and loans had "shifted nearly all higher education spending out of the deficit", in a way that "escapes scrutiny".
For the 2017-18 cohort of students, the OBR forecasts that only 39% will be repaid - and 61% will be written off, at a cost of £28bn.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-45421621
Edit: Ah, that's how it's being done - financial timebomb for 30 years hence: "In terms of the government's reporting of its finances, the cost is kicked down the road and won't appear until debts begin to be written off after 30 years."
As a wise former poster was known to say: "only on PB."
I do think that there are strong comparisons between the reactionary right of the Tory party and nutters of the Labour variety. Those that get all red in the face and accuse Dominic Grieve and others of being traitors because they don't believe in Brexit (as you know I think there is a very good argument to say that Remain is a position of patriotism). These people and their ring leaders in some newspapers are very similar to those in Momentum, but they maybe are not as violent. Extremism is a major threat to our democracy. Those on the left and right, and the more moderate leavers or remainers need to be very vigilant
Corbyn was himself just an idiot on the back benches for many years. Now he's determining policies and positions. Having Iranian state TV livestreaming the first step in deselecting an MP for not being loyal enough is rancid.
The question is do they have the balls to do it? The answer, so far, is no.
At what point will they realise that their party has left them and sees them as the enemy? Will it be when the boundaries pass thanks to a few Corbynite abstentions, or do they wait individually for their own show trial on Iranian TV?
https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN01079 pdf at the bottom has the full details.
But they need to act. Wibbling won't cut it.
*Remember the case of the Literal Democrat candidate?
*Remember the case of the Literal Democrat candidate?
Yes but if they had the majority of the parliamentary seats that would be unprecedented, and they could claim they are the legitimate Parliamentary Labour Party. Corbyn would then be leader of the party outside parliament. It would then be an argument over what the definition of the party is under their rules, but seeing as it is Labour there, will almost certainly be loopholes that will be a lawyers joy. They would all be deselected at the next election but it would give them time to regroup
Kingbongo isn't quite right - I liked the idea of communism 50 years ago and still think the basic idea of "from each according to ability, to each according to need" is the way to try to live in private life. But it (a) clearly wasn't working as a state principle and (b) got dictatorship thrown in, so I gave up on it, and settled for supporting socialism.
I supported Tony Blair because I felt there was so much that we all agreed needed doing on the social democratic agenda that we might as well get on with that and consider further steps later. By 2010 the list was running out, and I started looking for more.
I’m not sure I have enough.
Did I say that Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-Semite? Reading skills also lacking.
https://twitter.com/ragipsoylu/status/1038074165855772678?s=21
"I didn't understand things like when elections are fought for example in Northern Ireland - people who are nationalists don't vote for unionist parties and vice-versa."
I suppose it makes Tezzie look good in comparison.
His 50 is the first scored by an opening batsman this series.
Only two five match test series in history (I think) have seen a total of only three fifties scored by the openers from both sides...
(*Provisional Labour would have a delicious irony though!)
Even at council level, we're making multi-million pound decisions on highly technical issues and contracts, and the whole point of having professional officers is to give that expert advice and guidance to aid decision-making, as councillors are accountable amateurs. Most aren't so honest about their ignorance though.
How many of us knew what a customs union was 3 years ago?
On the other hand, we have politicians like May and Cooper who seem to think a magic algorithm or filter can be used to make the internet safe for kids/tedious for everyone.
It's that kind of idiocy that led to Labour introducing and the Coalition continuing the use of polygraphs on released paedophiles. [If any MP happens to be reading this, the polygraph is not a magic box that can detect lies. Stop using it. It doesn't work].
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-polygraph-work-of-science-fiction.html
https://twitter.com/JohnMannMP/status/1038067107886518274
97-01
Jeremy Corbyn Islington North Lab 8.7%
John Martin McDonnell Hayes and Harlington Lab 7.0%
Gwyneth Dunwoody Crewe and Nantwich Lab 6.5%
Mr Tam Dalyell Linlithgow Lab 6.0%
01-05
Mr Paul Marsden Shrewsbury and Atcham whilst Lab 26.4%
Jeremy Corbyn Islington North Lab 23.6%
John Martin McDonnell Hayes and Harlington Lab 18.4%
Mr Jamie Cann Ipswich Lab 18.2%
05-10
Kate Hoey Vauxhall Lab 25.2%
Jeremy Corbyn Islington North Lab 25.1%
John Martin McDonnell Hayes and Harlington Lab 24.9%
Alan Simpson Nottingham South Lab 20.7%
10-15
Philip Hollobone Kettering Con 19.9%
Philip Davies Shipley Con 19.6%
Christopher Chope Christchurch Con 18.9%
David Nuttall Bury North Con 17.0%
15-17
Philip Davies Shipley Con 10.6%
Kate Hoey Vauxhall Lab 10.0%
Frank Field Birkenhead Lab 8.0%
Graham Stringer Blackley and Broughton Lab 7.7%
17+
Graham Stringer Blackley and Broughton Lab 36.9%
Kate Hoey Vauxhall Lab 34.2%
Frank Field Birkenhead Lab 28.8%
Kenneth Clarke Rushcliffe Con 25.0%
Marvellous, jumpers for goalposts sticks for wickets, etc, etc.
The saddest thing is that the new centrist group or party comprised of rejected labour MP's will just be born of an unwanted circumstance, with no coherant policy or programme. It will be even less successful than the SDP, in that although the SDP failed as a political project, it had a legacy that still shapes British politics. The centrists greatest problem is that they keep interpreting the current political situation through the paradigm of the early 80's, when in reality we have a wholly different set of circumstances, that requires entirely new thinking. Yet the labour MP's appear to be incapable of this, and are trapped by a mixture of tribal loyalty, alt liberal discourse, and the brutal realities of the first past the post system. So they will all simply fade in to obscurity, the strange death of centrist Britain.
Admittedly this could presumably be changed by parliament (or the government?), but as things stand I believe the Short money would stay with Labour if there's a split.
Also, the new party or grouping couldn't nick the Labour name. [Edit: I see you've already pointed this out]
It would be a huge blow to Corbyn, McDonnell et al
Could the Speaker decide this or would Parliament need to vote on it?
(Could be more popcorn!)
And I bet you voted for Cameron and his referendum promise didn't you.
Are you still slagging your home town off every spare moment, yet still living there?
Followed rapidly by Root out for nought.
Edit: And Bairstow for nought.
FWIW, though, I think money would be the least of the problems of any putative new party. There are plenty of wealthy potential donors, and I imagine they could also raise a lot from small on-line donations.