In 1981 one Tory joined 26 Labour MPs when the SDP was launched, Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler. Could the same thing happen today? Anna Soubry would be the obvious candidate.
Sarah Wollaston and Heidi Allen have been the Conservatives on defection watch.
Terror attacks undertaken in the name of their religion by British Muslims on the wider British public of the UK are hardly going to engender a positive attitude towards people of that religion. Too right there is a lasting negative impact. Who are these incredulous people? It's like being surprised at a finding that "The Blitz has had a lasting negative impact on attiudes towards Nazis".
What you're implying, presumably, is that if there had been terrorist attacks by Jewish extremists, anti-semitism would be fine, just like prejudice against Muslims.
But where are these terrorist attacks by Jewish extremists? There is no equivalence - as well you know.
Equivalence is those on the left taking the view, "We'll hate the fuckers anyway, because they might bomb us, one day....because they are Jews and that is what they do."
There was a Channel 4 programme by Trevor Phillips a few years ago, maybe five, about attitudes amongst Muslims in the UK regarding things like gay marriage and Sharia law. Can't recall the figures off-hand, but there was a sizeable proportion whose views, frankly, were not in keeping with those of most people in the UK.
Might be uncomfortable to discuss. But there we are.
I'd be tempted to sign up. I'm TBH more interested on what they say about things other than Brexit.
Agreed. Key to all this, if anything happens at all is:
How many? Who? Any surprises? Will they actually set up something New? It's more of a clean break if they do that. What do they care about besides Brexit? What does it mean in terms of potential new elec tions? They still hate Tories but would they sit out any vote of no confidence to keep their jobs?
Well I hope it doesn't happen. We need a strong Labour Party.
But I have just heard Stephen Kinnock on the radio saying that he is sticking with Labour. That has to encourage people to leave it.
What woukd be best is some Tories jump at the same time. Both parties need to tear a split, I don't want one to cleave together from watching the other divide.
5 or so MPs is not really a split, more an inconvenience for Labour.
What will be interesting is whether they form a new SDP style party or become independents
The more telling thing is who other the coming days and months flock to them, Ex-MPs, Ex PMs? etc...
edit; and also if they start making a dent in opinion polls.
It is easy to dismiss 4 or 5 mps resigning the labour whip but I agree that the reaction to it by other politicians and the media may well snowball into something very serious for labour but also for a realignment in the main parties with a new movement progressing in the nation's opinion
There is no doubt that something is going to happen over the coming weeks amd months
5 or so MPs is not really a split, more an inconvenience for Labour.
What will be interesting is whether they form a new SDP style party or become independents
A really well-engineered split would have 2 new MPs a day for a couple of weeks. As Nick P has said, the timing looks very weird on this one.
It could be timed so there are defections every week until Brexit Day unless we have a 'People's Vote'
I expect they've been angling and hoping for a bigger initial group; hence all the false starts. But now hope that by jumping they'll be able to encourage others into the water later.
5 or so MPs is not really a split, more an inconvenience for Labour.
What will be interesting is whether they form a new SDP style party or become independents
A really well-engineered split would have 2 new MPs a day for a couple of weeks. As Nick P has said, the timing looks very weird on this one.
It could be timed so there are defections every week until Brexit Day unless we have a 'People's Vote'
I expect they've been angling and hoping for a bigger initial group; hence all the false starts. But now hope that by jumping they'll be able to encourage others into the water later.
A majority of voters sought radical change by voting Leave in 2016
The Leave campaign did not offer radical change. It went out of its way to claim all the stuff people liked would remain, and only "bad" things would change
A majority of voters sought radical change by voting Leave in 2016
The Leave campaign did not offer radical change. It went out of its way to claim all the stuff people liked would remain, and only "bad" things would change
I’m not getting into the never ending blame game of quarrelling about the campaign. Not everyone who voted Leave was seduced by a slogan, the vast majority had probably made their mind up before the campaign started.
What’s undeniable is that people voted for a radical change, and now that the change looks like being radical, the politicians are saying let’s not bother.
In 1981 one Tory joined 26 Labour MPs when the SDP was launched, Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler. Could the same thing happen today? Anna Soubry would be the obvious candidate.
Sarah Wollaston and Heidi Allen have been the Conservatives on defection watch.
For Heidi it would be more of a transfer to a new team than a defection:
It is because today I can sit on my hands no longer. My decision to become an MP is a very, very recent one.
It was the Tottenham riots of 2011 that shook me from my comfort zone. Night after night, my television showed me a country that was falling apart—my country—with social breakdown and an economy on the verge of collapse. I felt so strongly that I had to step forward and lend a hand.
Today, I feel that way again. So I picked a team—the blue team. I believed they were the party who could bring us back from the brink, and we have started to do that.
The grandstanding House of Commons Media Committee. Do they plan to do anything about lying/truth misrepresenting MPs and other politicians or is that deemed to be acceptable dishonesty?
There was a Channel 4 programme by Trevor Phillips a few years ago, maybe five, about attitudes amongst Muslims in the UK regarding things like gay marriage and Sharia law. Can't recall the figures off-hand, but there was a sizeable proportion whose views, frankly, were not in keeping with those of most people in the UK.
Might be uncomfortable to discuss. But there we are.
Surely all kinds of minority groups have views "not in keeping with those of most people in the UK"?
What’s undeniable is that people voted for a radical change
I am denying it.
It's true that we can't discern the motivation of 17.4M people individually, but I do not believe most of them thought radical change would result from their votes.
So how many Labour MPs are chewing their breakfast this morning, wondering with considerable reservation if they have made the right decision to stay put?
Perhaps an extra one or two might think sod it, nice day for a walk into Westminster, could drop in and see what the fuss is about....
Of course, the smart approach would be to have half a dozen or more staying under the radar until the event happens. Having briefed 4 or 5 leaving, double figures doing so would look like Labour were caught flat-footed.
A key question is whether they see this as the beginning of something enduring - either a new ongoing party or something that will with the LibDems morph into a new kind of centre party - or whether in reality its a temporary refuge from the Labour party which they hope to collapse back into some sort of sanity.
I would expect any decent journalist to push them on this from the off. And expect them to try and dodge being definitive.
Edit/ Partly depends on whether there is any sign of pulling people from other parties, I guess
What’s undeniable is that people voted for a radical change
I am denying it.
It's true that we can't discern the motivation of 17.4M people individually, but I do not believe most of them thought radical change would result from their votes.
Terror attacks undertaken in the name of their religion by British Muslims on the wider British public of the UK are hardly going to engender a positive attitude towards people of that religion. Too right there is a lasting negative impact. Who are these incredulous people? It's like being surprised at a finding that "The Blitz has had a lasting negative impact on attiudes towards Nazis".
It is a shit blatantly party-political point by Hope Not Hate. Otherwise we would have polling on the % impact of other parties' voters. What % of Labour voters had a lasting negative impact, eh?
They clearly have an agenda, to equate Tory = anti-Islam to mitigate Labour = anti-semitic. "Oh well, all parties have their problems." Bullshit in the general, bullshit in the specifics.
Marvellous. You have done with Moslems and terror attacks precisely what the far left does with the actions of the Israeli government and Jews.
5 or so MPs is not really a split, more an inconvenience for Labour.
What will be interesting is whether they form a new SDP style party or become independents
A really well-engineered split would have 2 new MPs a day for a couple of weeks. As Nick P has said, the timing looks very weird on this one.
It could be timed so there are defections every week until Brexit Day unless we have a 'People's Vote'
I come back to the point - you can't have a breakaway that is saying "We could no longer stay in an anti-semitic party because they wouldn't give us what we wanted on Brexit."
It's either about leaving an antisemitic party because it is instituionally anti-semitic - or it isn't.
Terror attacks undertaken in the name of their religion by British Muslims on the wider British public of the UK are hardly going to engender a positive attitude towards people of that religion. Too right there is a lasting negative impact. Who are these incredulous people? It's like being surprised at a finding that "The Blitz has had a lasting negative impact on attiudes towards Nazis".
It is a shit blatantly party-political point by Hope Not Hate. Otherwise we would have polling on the % impact of other parties' voters. What % of Labour voters had a lasting negative impact, eh?
They clearly have an agenda, to equate Tory = anti-Islam to mitigate Labour = anti-semitic. "Oh well, all parties have their problems." Bullshit in the general, bullshit in the specifics.
Marvellous. You have done with Moslems and terror attacks precisely what the far left does with the actions of the Israeli government and Jews.
Which is the nub of the matter. A lot of particularly the pensioner voters thought it would somehow be a return to the familiarity of times past, when the reality is that you cant turn the clock back in politics any more than life, and the transition will be a significant and radical wrench into the unknown.
Terror attacks undertaken in the name of their religion by British Muslims on the wider British public of the UK are hardly going to engender a positive attitude towards people of that religion. Too right there is a lasting negative impact. Who are these incredulous people? It's like being surprised at a finding that "The Blitz has had a lasting negative impact on attiudes towards Nazis".
It is a shit blatantly party-political point by Hope Not Hate. Otherwise we would have polling on the % impact of other parties' voters. What % of Labour voters had a lasting negative impact, eh?
They clearly have an agenda, to equate Tory = anti-Islam to mitigate Labour = anti-semitic. "Oh well, all parties have their problems." Bullshit in the general, bullshit in the specifics.
Marvellous. You have done with Moslems and terror attacks precisely what the far left does with the actions of the Israeli government and Jews.
A key question is whether they see this as the beginning of something enduring - either a new ongoing party or something that will with the LibDems morph into a new kind of centre party - or whether in reality its a temporary refuge from the Labour party which they hope to collapse back into some sort of sanity.
I would expect any decent journalist to push them on this from the off. And expect them to try and dodge being definitive.
Edit/ Partly depends on whether there is any sign of pulling people from other parties, I guess
5 or so MPs is not really a split, more an inconvenience for Labour.
What will be interesting is whether they form a new SDP style party or become independents
A really well-engineered split would have 2 new MPs a day for a couple of weeks. As Nick P has said, the timing looks very weird on this one.
It could be timed so there are defections every week until Brexit Day unless we have a 'People's Vote'
I come back to the point - you can't have a breakaway that is saying "We could no longer stay in an anti-semitic party because they wouldn't give us what we wanted on Brexit."
It's either about leaving an antisemitic party because it is instituionally anti-semitic - or it isn't.
No doubt they will put forward a whole range of issues for leaving including both anti Semitism and Brexit
Good morning, everyone. I wonder, could Sarah Wollaston hold her seat as an Independent if deselected. Or would she switch to the LD's? Historically they've been strong in that area.
Very unlikely I'd say. Her vote would split in all directions but the real Tories would get most of it. Brixham in particular is not going to vote for a fanatical remainer any time soon.
Unless the fact that the fishing industry is going be shafted rather than saved by Brexit has started to dawn on people.
This is one of those irregular facts that Sir Humphrey might recognise.
So what's the name for this new grouping I wonder?
Democrats? Progressives? Something arty-farty?
If I was them I'd keep "Labour" in there somewhere.
Not sure that is electorally permitted.
The Liberals are presumably allowed to stand against the Liberal Democrats, why not Democratic Labour against Labour?
I’m likely to be a supporter of this new party (if thats what it is) but any name with ‘democrat’ in it will just invite mockery, especially considering Brexit is going to be top of the list.
Terror attacks undertaken in the name of their religion by British Muslims on the wider British public of the UK are hardly going to engender a positive attitude towards people of that religion. Too right there is a lasting negative impact. Who are these incredulous people? It's like being surprised at a finding that "The Blitz has had a lasting negative impact on attiudes towards Nazis".
It is a shit blatantly party-political point by Hope Not Hate. Otherwise we would have polling on the % impact of other parties' voters. What % of Labour voters had a lasting negative impact, eh?
They clearly have an agenda, to equate Tory = anti-Islam to mitigate Labour = anti-semitic. "Oh well, all parties have their problems." Bullshit in the general, bullshit in the specifics.
Marvellous. You have done with Moslems and terror attacks precisely what the far left does with the actions of the Israeli government and Jews.
Yes, not even embarrassed to be Islamophobic.
And so we see that both major parties have their blind spot.
Good for them if they are finally doing it. Finally they've decided to make a stand about something they care about.
It may well be doomed and may well be unpopular, but that's not the point. Politics is about standing up for the things you passionately believe in. If you can't do that in your existing home, it's time to break away. Exitism is a lot more respectable than entryism.
Outside the street's on fire in a real death waltz Between what's flesh and what's fantasy And the poets down here don't write nothing at all They just stand back and let it all be And in the quick of a knife, they reach for their moment And try to make an honest stand But they wind up wounded, not even dead Tonight in Jungleland
There were terrorists attacks against British soldiers in Palestine by Jewish extremists in the late 1940s and these were unpopular then. Had they begun to target innocent civilians in the UK, they would received a similar response.to the IRA.
IS killed people, any people, because of their life-style of which they disapproved. Convert or die. All you can say in their defence is that it wasn't personal! they hated everyone else.
Hatred was the key and it's not the best way to make friends and influence people. As for 'you're no Muslim, bro', they were certainly more observant than the people who said this.
IS were extremists, no doubt, and deluded, but they still have sympathy in this country.
Good for them if they are finally doing it. Finally they've decided to make a stand about something they care about.
It may well be doomed and may well be unpopular, but that's not the point. Politics is about standing up for the things you passionately believe in. If you can't do that in your existing home, it's time to break away. Exitism is a lot more respectable than entryism.
Outside the street's on fire in a real death waltz Between what's flesh and what's fantasy And the poets down here don't write nothing at all They just stand back and let it all be And in the quick of a knife, they reach for their moment And try to make an honest stand But they wind up wounded, not even dead Tonight in Jungleland
And surely the current state of politics - even more febrile and broken than in 1981 - is the ideal time for change - even if ideal in this context means least bad, in terms of prospect of success?
5 or so MPs is not really a split, more an inconvenience for Labour.
What will be interesting is whether they form a new SDP style party or become independents
A really well-engineered split would have 2 new MPs a day for a couple of weeks. As Nick P has said, the timing looks very weird on this one.
Anyone still think this could be a damp squib?
It could just be Chukka and a handful of others calling a press conference to say they think Jeremy Corbyn is a bit of a wanker, and warning of consequences in future if he doesn’t change course.
So what's the name for this new grouping I wonder?
Democrats? Progressives? Something arty-farty?
If I was them I'd keep "Labour" in there somewhere.
Not sure that is electorally permitted.
The Liberals are presumably allowed to stand against the Liberal Democrats, why not Democratic Labour against Labour?
I’m likely to be a supporter of this new party (if thats what it is) but any name with ‘democrat’ in it will just invite mockery, especially considering Brexit is going to be top of the list.
There were terrorists attacks against British soldiers in Palestine by Jewish extremists in the late 1940s and these were unpopular then. Had they begun to target innocent civilians in the UK, they would received a similar response.to the IRA. .
Your point being what?
That blanket prejudice against Jewish and Irish people was reasonable when there was Jewish and Irish terrorism?
Good for them if they are finally doing it. Finally they've decided to make a stand about something they care about.
It may well be doomed and may well be unpopular, but that's not the point. Politics is about standing up for the things you passionately believe in. If you can't do that in your existing home, it's time to break away. Exitism is a lot more respectable than entryism.
Outside the street's on fire in a real death waltz Between what's flesh and what's fantasy And the poets down here don't write nothing at all They just stand back and let it all be And in the quick of a knife, they reach for their moment And try to make an honest stand But they wind up wounded, not even dead Tonight in Jungleland
And surely the current state of politics - even more febrile and broken than in 1981 - is the ideal time for change - even if ideal in this context means least bad, in terms of prospect of success?
Oh I think this will be a complete damp squib in the end. I doubt it will harm Labour's prospects, even. This is not the change that most voters are looking for.
Remember when Chuka was going to stand for leader and travelled to Swindon. He probably took one look at the place and thought never again am I coming to a provincial town for a PR stunt, I'm sticking to London.
This presumably isn't correct. If their plan is to target marginals, then their plan is to ensure that the Tories win the next election.
Their best hope of retaining their seats is surely to stand where they are already known/where Brexit is the most salient issue and Labour are popular.
5 or so MPs is not really a split, more an inconvenience for Labour.
What will be interesting is whether they form a new SDP style party or become independents
A really well-engineered split would have 2 new MPs a day for a couple of weeks. As Nick P has said, the timing looks very weird on this one.
Anyone still think this could be a damp squib?
It could just be Chukka and a handful of others calling a press conference to say they think Jeremy Corbyn is a bit of a wanker, and warning of consequences in future if he doesn’t change course.
And that’s it.
I'd not be surprised if that was the plan and that all the quitting rumours have forced them to quit as no one will take them seriously if they don't.
But even a damp squib woukd be something right now.
So what's the name for this new grouping I wonder?
Democrats? Progressives? Something arty-farty?
If I was them I'd keep "Labour" in there somewhere.
Not sure that is electorally permitted.
The Liberals are presumably allowed to stand against the Liberal Democrats, why not Democratic Labour against Labour?
I’m likely to be a supporter of this new party (if thats what it is) but any name with ‘democrat’ in it will just invite mockery, especially considering Brexit is going to be top of the list.
On topic, if there is a 'schism' and Leslie and Ummuna walk, can we call them the Wee Frees?
If you're using that analogy, there will be further fission with the wee Wee Frees and continuation Wee Frees splitting off (there may even be others).
Looking at the alleged impending split(s), I don't understand the timing in pure political terms. If say 4-5 Labour MPs and 2-3 Tory MPs say they're forming a new grouping or a new party, it'll be big news for a day or two, but it'll then get completely blotted out by the Return of Brexit next week. In two weeks' time most people would struggle to remember who it was that resigned.
By contrast, if they do it after the Brexit votes, they can claim it's partly a reaction to whatever they don't like about them, and it becomes part of the main story.
I'm not one of those who is virulent about party-changers - MPs evolve just like everyone else, as do their parties, and in a democracy we're all entitled to. It's the other side of the coin that MPs shouldn't assume they have a God-given right to represent their ;parties forever. But this just seems to me rather odd, and notably devoid of confirmed press leaks.
This presumably isn't correct. If their plan is to target marginals, then their plan is to ensure that the Tories win the next election.
Their best hope of winning seats is surely to stand where they are already known/where Brexit is the most salient issue and Labour are popular.
It makes sense if they are getting advice from Washington - the people there will think the people in the UK know what they are talking about, the MPs will think the people in Washington are experts and that joint misunderstanding will result in an insane plan that won't work...
Terror attacks undertaken in the name of their religion by British Muslims on the wider British public of the UK are hardly going to engender a positive attitude towards people of that religion. Too right there is a lasting negative impact. Who are these incredulous people? It's like being surprised at a finding that "The Blitz has had a lasting negative impact on attiudes towards Nazis".
It is a shit blatantly party-political point by Hope Not Hate. Otherwise we would have polling on the % impact of other parties' voters. What % of Labour voters had a lasting negative impact, eh?
They clearly have an agenda, to equate Tory = anti-Islam to mitigate Labour = anti-semitic. "Oh well, all parties have their problems." Bullshit in the general, bullshit in the specifics.
Marvellous. You have done with Moslems and terror attacks precisely what the far left does with the actions of the Israeli government and Jews.
Yes, not even embarrassed to be Islamophobic.
And so we see that both major parties have their blind spot.
What surprises me about the blind spot on the right is that there's such a simple test for it. Just replace "Muslim" and "Islam" by "Jew" and "Judaism" and ask yourself how it would sound. And perhaps for good measure, then ask what the tabloid reaction would be if it were said by a Labour politician.
Terror attacks undertaken in the name of their religion by British Muslims on the wider British public of the UK are hardly going to engender a positive attitude towards people of that religion. Too right there is a lasting negative impact. Who are these incredulous people? It's like being surprised at a finding that "The Blitz has had a lasting negative impact on attiudes towards Nazis".
It is a shit blatantly party-political point by Hope Not Hate. Otherwise we would have polling on the % impact of other parties' voters. What % of Labour voters had a lasting negative impact, eh?
They clearly have an agenda, to equate Tory = anti-Islam to mitigate Labour = anti-semitic. "Oh well, all parties have their problems." Bullshit in the general, bullshit in the specifics.
Marvellous. You have done with Moslems and terror attacks precisely what the far left does with the actions of the Israeli government and Jews.
Yes, not even embarrassed to be Islamophobic.
Never miss an opportunity to look like an idiot, do you?
5 or so MPs is not really a split, more an inconvenience for Labour.
What will be interesting is whether they form a new SDP style party or become independents
The more telling thing is who other the coming days and months flock to them, Ex-MPs, Ex PMs? etc...
edit; and also if they start making a dent in opinion polls.
It needs 20+ MPs to really make a dent in the polls
It depends if it is just Labour under a different name or something wider.
That requires some Tory defectors too and/or a deal with the Liberals as was the case with the SDP/Liberal Alliance
What would be sensible given FPTP is some sort of grown up deal along the lines advocated by the Greens - ideally including the Greens - with each of them accepting they simply aren't going to stand in every seat. The LibDem vote and organisation outside its targets has been driven down to such a level that it wont be a problem for them, and hopefully the new party wont have any trouble giving the LibDems and Greens a free run in their small numbers of target seats.
Assuming the new party comes out for PR - as surely they must - its the only way to avoid handing the next decade to the Tories.
So what's the name for this new grouping I wonder?
Democrats? Progressives? Something arty-farty?
If I was them I'd keep "Labour" in there somewhere.
Not sure that is electorally permitted.
The Liberals are presumably allowed to stand against the Liberal Democrats, why not Democratic Labour against Labour?
I’m likely to be a supporter of this new party (if thats what it is) but any name with ‘democrat’ in it will just invite mockery, especially considering Brexit is going to be top of the list.
‘People’ could be in there somewhere maybe?
If it's the 'People's Party' I'm going to vomit.
If Chuka is involved it could be ‘The Very Important People’s Party’
In 1981 one Tory joined 26 Labour MPs when the SDP was launched, Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler. Could the same thing happen today? Anna Soubry would be the obvious candidate.
Sarah Wollaston and Heidi Allen have been the Conservatives on defection watch.
For Heidi it would be more of a transfer to a new team than a defection:
It is because today I can sit on my hands no longer. My decision to become an MP is a very, very recent one.
It was the Tottenham riots of 2011 that shook me from my comfort zone. Night after night, my television showed me a country that was falling apart—my country—with social breakdown and an economy on the verge of collapse. I felt so strongly that I had to step forward and lend a hand.
Today, I feel that way again. So I picked a team—the blue team. I believed they were the party who could bring us back from the brink, and we have started to do that.
Wollaston and Allen I could see defecting. Their loyalty to the Conservatives is fairly recent and relatively transactional.
Funnily enough, not Soubry, as I think she identifies quite strongly with the party.
This is why I don't think they'll let No Deal happen. The resulting clusterfuck will be maybe 90% the inevitable result of what you're doing, 10% bad implementation. But it's not in anybody's interests to say that. Everybody not in the cabinet, regardless of party or faction, will be blaming everything that goes wrong on the incompetence of the people in the cabinet.
And there will be stuff going wrong, and getting blamed on the current ministers in charge, across every single government department. It doesn't matter what you're responsible for, if you're responsible for something when No Deal Brexit happens, it's going to be chaotic, and the chaos is going to somehow be your fault.
So what's the name for this new grouping I wonder?
Democrats? Progressives? Something arty-farty?
If I was them I'd keep "Labour" in there somewhere.
Not sure that is electorally permitted.
The Liberals are presumably allowed to stand against the Liberal Democrats, why not Democratic Labour against Labour?
I’m likely to be a supporter of this new party (if thats what it is) but any name with ‘democrat’ in it will just invite mockery, especially considering Brexit is going to be top of the list.
And using the word Labour won't be allowed as the important naming rule is don't cause confusion...
This presumably isn't correct. If their plan is to target marginals, then their plan is to ensure that the Tories win the next election.
Their best hope of retaining their seats is surely to stand where they are already known/where Brexit is the most salient issue and Labour are popular.
No. Tories need to win marginals too.
If its Chukka and 4/5 Labour MPs standing on an anti-Brexit platform... they are going to be taking Labour voters predominantly, not Tory votes. So they will make it much more likely that the Tories win those marginals.
If on the other hand, they stood against Kate Hoey in Vauxhall, well frankly they'd get plenty of Labour support and probably win the seat.
This presumably isn't correct. If their plan is to target marginals, then their plan is to ensure that the Tories win the next election.
Their best hope of winning seats is surely to stand where they are already known/where Brexit is the most salient issue and Labour are popular.
It does however avoid the humiliation of being rejected by their own home electorates. And their consultants may be advising them on where the best prospect seats are - just as the SDP was advised to target Lab/Tory marginal seats like York and Cambridge based on the demographics, leaving the Liberals to fight their traditional Home Counties long shot second places.
Mr. Chris, that's true. However, few are so virulent when it comes to wanting to curb free speech, or receive such a hands-off approach for reasons of 'cultural sensitivities', or form an ISIS type state.
If Muslims held views akin to hardline Christians (ie homosexuality is not merely ethically wrong but should be criminalised) then I think most people would just think they were old-fashioned and wrong. When people hold up banners calling for Death to the West in response to a cartoon, most people think that's a bit alarming.
Edited extra bit: to clarify: from memory, a significant (often majority) in the Trevor Phillips' programme didn't hold what we might call Sharia views, so I don't want to paint this as a single perspective from all British Muslims, just a sizeable view within that population.
Could still be as somebody said down below, Brexit is going badly, must stop it, Jezza is crap, BUT....this is a warning of the future if Jezza doesn't offer a second referendum, yadda yadda yadda.
So what's the name for this new grouping I wonder?
Democrats? Progressives? Something arty-farty?
If I was them I'd keep "Labour" in there somewhere.
Not sure that is electorally permitted.
The Liberals are presumably allowed to stand against the Liberal Democrats, why not Democratic Labour against Labour?
I’m likely to be a supporter of this new party (if thats what it is) but any name with ‘democrat’ in it will just invite mockery, especially considering Brexit is going to be top of the list.
And using the word Labour won't be allowed as the important naming rule is don't cause confusion...
How about the Large Anti Brexit Organised Union Response?
Terror attacks undertaken in the name of their religion by British Muslims on the wider British public of the UK are hardly going to engender a positive attitude towards people of that religion. Too right there is a lasting negative impact. Who are these incredulous people? It's like being surprised at a finding that "The Blitz has had a lasting negative impact on attiudes towards Nazis".
It is a shit blatantly party-political point by Hope Not Hate. Otherwise we would have polling on the % impact of other parties' voters. What % of Labour voters had a lasting negative impact, eh?
They clearly have an agenda, to equate Tory = anti-Islam to mitigate Labour = anti-semitic. "Oh well, all parties have their problems." Bullshit in the general, bullshit in the specifics.
Marvellous. You have done with Moslems and terror attacks precisely what the far left does with the actions of the Israeli government and Jews.
Yes, not even embarrassed to be Islamophobic.
And so we see that both major parties have their blind spot.
What surprises me about the blind spot on the right is that there's such a simple test for it. Just replace "Muslim" and "Islam" by "Jew" and "Judaism" and ask yourself how it would sound. And perhaps for good measure, then ask what the tabloid reaction would be if it were said by a Labour politician.
‘The 2017 terrorist attacks have had a lasting negative impact on attitudes towards British Jews’
Comments
Verified account @SkyNewsBreak
A group of Labour MPs will make an announcement later today about their future in the party
It's happening!!!
Equivalence is those on the left taking the view, "We'll hate the fuckers anyway, because they might bomb us, one day....because they are Jews and that is what they do."
Might be uncomfortable to discuss. But there we are.
How many?
Who? Any surprises?
Will they actually set up something New? It's more of a clean break if they do that.
What do they care about besides Brexit?
What does it mean in terms of potential new elec tions? They still hate Tories but would they sit out any vote of no confidence to keep their jobs?
There is no doubt that something is going to happen over the coming weeks amd months
Democrats? Progressives? Something arty-farty?
Perhaps it maybe The Sharp Suits. The Socialist Momentum Utopia GangSters.
What’s undeniable is that people voted for a radical change, and now that the change looks like being radical, the politicians are saying let’s not bother.
It is because today I can sit on my hands no longer. My decision to become an MP is a very, very recent one.
It was the Tottenham riots of 2011 that shook me from my comfort zone. Night after night, my television showed me a country that was falling apart—my country—with social breakdown and an economy on the verge of collapse. I felt so strongly that I had to step forward and lend a hand.
Today, I feel that way again. So I picked a team—the blue team. I believed they were the party who could bring us back from the brink, and we have started to do that.
Labour can survive Chuka’s departure without an existential threat
Jenkins, Owen, Williams and the other one* he isn’t
* (Although given that no one ever remembers the other one perhaps he is comparable to Chuka).
It's true that we can't discern the motivation of 17.4M people individually, but I do not believe most of them thought radical change would result from their votes.
Perhaps an extra one or two might think sod it, nice day for a walk into Westminster, could drop in and see what the fuss is about....
Of course, the smart approach would be to have half a dozen or more staying under the radar until the event happens. Having briefed 4 or 5 leaving, double figures doing so would look like Labour were caught flat-footed.
https://twitter.com/ChukaUmunna/status/1097040511607734272?s=19
Aren't the original MPs all London based..
https://project.wnyc.org/party-name-generator/#
and it suggested "Centrist Martyr Party".
I would expect any decent journalist to push them on this from the off. And expect them to try and dodge being definitive.
Edit/ Partly depends on whether there is any sign of pulling people from other parties, I guess
It's either about leaving an antisemitic party because it is instituionally anti-semitic - or it isn't.
You have Hilary Benn, Yvette Cooper and and um
It may well be doomed and may well be unpopular, but that's not the point. Politics is about standing up for the things you passionately believe in. If you can't do that in your existing home, it's time to break away. Exitism is a lot more respectable than entryism.
Outside the street's on fire in a real death waltz
Between what's flesh and what's fantasy
And the poets down here don't write nothing at all
They just stand back and let it all be
And in the quick of a knife, they reach for their moment
And try to make an honest stand
But they wind up wounded, not even dead
Tonight in Jungleland
There were terrorists attacks against British soldiers in Palestine by Jewish extremists in the late 1940s and these were unpopular then. Had they begun to target innocent civilians in the UK, they would received a similar response.to the IRA.
IS killed people, any people, because of their life-style of which they disapproved. Convert or die. All you can say in their defence is that it wasn't personal! they hated everyone else.
Hatred was the key and it's not the best way to make friends and influence people. As for 'you're no Muslim, bro', they were certainly more observant than the people who said this.
IS were extremists, no doubt, and deluded, but they still have sympathy in this country.
Will they dare actually have a new party though? If they go I'd not be surprised if they just sit together as an anti brexit alliance and that's it.
It could just be Chukka and a handful of others calling a press conference to say they think Jeremy Corbyn is a bit of a wanker, and warning of consequences in future if he doesn’t change course.
And that’s it.
Their best hope of winning seats is surely to stand where they are already known/where Brexit is the most salient issue and Labour are popular.
That blanket prejudice against Jewish and Irish people was reasonable when there was Jewish and Irish terrorism?
But even a damp squib woukd be something right now.
Looking at the alleged impending split(s), I don't understand the timing in pure political terms. If say 4-5 Labour MPs and 2-3 Tory MPs say they're forming a new grouping or a new party, it'll be big news for a day or two, but it'll then get completely blotted out by the Return of Brexit next week. In two weeks' time most people would struggle to remember who it was that resigned.
By contrast, if they do it after the Brexit votes, they can claim it's partly a reaction to whatever they don't like about them, and it becomes part of the main story.
I'm not one of those who is virulent about party-changers - MPs evolve just like everyone else, as do their parties, and in a democracy we're all entitled to. It's the other side of the coin that MPs shouldn't assume they have a God-given right to represent their ;parties forever. But this just seems to me rather odd, and notably devoid of confirmed press leaks.
Half the pol journos are away with their kids.
Assuming the new party comes out for PR - as surely they must - its the only way to avoid handing the next decade to the Tories.
Funnily enough, not Soubry, as I think she identifies quite strongly with the party.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1097405369582866434
If on the other hand, they stood against Kate Hoey in Vauxhall, well frankly they'd get plenty of Labour support and probably win the seat.
https://twitter.com/MrJGTodd/status/1097415304047673344
If Muslims held views akin to hardline Christians (ie homosexuality is not merely ethically wrong but should be criminalised) then I think most people would just think they were old-fashioned and wrong. When people hold up banners calling for Death to the West in response to a cartoon, most people think that's a bit alarming.
Edited extra bit: to clarify: from memory, a significant (often majority) in the Trevor Phillips' programme didn't hold what we might call Sharia views, so I don't want to paint this as a single perspective from all British Muslims, just a sizeable view within that population.
Yes, that would be absurd.