Watson's speech the day after the 9 left had the feel of a leader's speech, the speech he thought a leader ought to give.
He too has his own mandate and yet has been sidelined by Corbyn and co.
My guess is that Corbyn will ignore his challenge, get Charlie Falconer to reorganise the complaints procedure, point to that as evidence he is doing something, repeat ad nauseam how he is anti-racist, his mother was at Cable Street, blah, blah and continue as before.
The problems of the spread of anti-semitism within Labour arise because Corbyn is at its head. Anti-semitism within Labour did not start with him but he has enabled its spread because those who are anti-semites feel emboldened by his presence, think he shares their views and, crucially, feel that because they support him he is willing to overlook the anti-semitism.
Until he challenges himself and changes his approach and admits that he has on occasion done the wrong thing he will not be able to deal with this personally. Some people rise to the occasion and can move on from the worst of their past, learning from it and holding onto the best of it. The world is full of leaders who have done so. Corbyn is not one of those people. And, judging by his time as leader, he is not going to change now.
So Watson's challenge to Corbyn is one that Watson knows Corbyn cannot meet.
FPT: I'm unclear on how delaying the MV (yet again!) impacts on the other votes, most notably the Kyle amendment and the Cooper-Letwin one. Do they automatically get delayed as well, or are they separate? Does anyone have a definite answer to that?
What exactly does this mean, and what sanctions would be applied? At present we have umpteen policemen wasting ... oops ... spending heaven knows how much time policing speech on twitter and thought in people's heads, and it does not seem to have achieved very much.
Wasn't a major defence of Corbyn vis a vis the Hodge Dossier that most of the alleged antisemites were not in Labour? How will the Labour Party control people?
FPT: I'm unclear on how delaying the MV (yet again!) impacts on the other votes, most notably the Kyle amendment and the Cooper-Letwin one. Do they automatically get delayed as well, or are they separate? Does anyone have a definite answer to that?
To answer my own question, it looks as though there will a non-binding vote this week on a government motion (as yet unspecified, but presumably neutral), which MPs will be able to amend. So I think there may well be an opportunity for MPs to vote on non-binding amendments similar to or identical to the Cooper-Letwin and Kyle amendments.
Watson's speech the day after the 9 left had the feel of a leader's speech, the speech he thought a leader ought to give.
He too has his own mandate and yet has been sidelined by Corbyn and co.
My guess is that Corbyn will ignore his challenge, get Charlie Falconer to reorganise the complaints procedure, point to that as evidence he is doing something, repeat ad nauseam how he is anti-racist, his mother was at Cable Street, blah, blah and continue as before.
The problems of the spread of anti-semitism within Labour arise because Corbyn is at its head. Anti-semitism within Labour did not start with him but he has enabled its spread because those who are anti-semites feel emboldened by his presence, think he shares their views and, crucially, feel that because they support him he is willing to overlook the anti-semitism.
Until he challenges himself and changes his approach and admits that he has on occasion done the wrong thing he will not be able to deal with this personally. Some people rise to the occasion and can move on from the worst of their past, learning from it and holding onto the best of it. The world is full of leaders who have done so. Corbyn is not one of those people. And, judging by his time as leader, he is not going to change now.
So Watson's challenge to Corbyn is one that Watson knows Corbyn cannot meet.
Corbyn might publicly ignore it, but I would now expect moves of some kind against Watson. Corbyn doesn’t strike me as the type to forget a grudge - and neither are his devoted followers.
Blair’s defenestration was something of a dubious victory for the wider Labour Party?
Possibly. But Gordon Brown is a colossus by comparison with his successors, both as Labour leader and, with the possible exception of Cameron, as PM.
So, Watson pushed out Blair for a materially worse leader. He led the witch hunts on alleged paedophilia. Is the suggestion third time lucky because so for his judgment looks irredeemably poor.
FPT: I'm unclear on how delaying the MV (yet again!) impacts on the other votes, most notably the Kyle amendment and the Cooper-Letwin one. Do they automatically get delayed as well, or are they separate? Does anyone have a definite answer to that?
To answer my own question, it looks as though there will a non-binding vote this week on a government motion (as yet unspecified, but presumably neutral), which MPs will be able to amend. So I think there may well be an opportunity for MPs to vote on non-binding amendments similar to or identical to the Cooper-Letwin and Kyle amendments.
At which point May will presumably say 'Well that's interesting, but let's wait until the meaningful vote on the 12th before we do anything hasty.'
Watson's speech the day after the 9 left had the feel of a leader's speech, the speech he thought a leader ought to give.
He too has his own mandate and yet has been sidelined by Corbyn and co.
My guess is that Corbyn will ignore his challenge, get Charlie Falconer to reorganise the complaints procedure, point to that as evidence he is doing something, repeat ad nauseam how he is anti-racist, his mother was at Cable Street, blah, blah and continue as before.
The problems of the spread of anti-semitism within Labour arise because Corbyn is at its head. Anti-semitism within Labour did not start with him but he has enabled its spread because those who are anti-semites feel emboldened by his presence, think he shares their views and, crucially, feel that because they support him he is willing to overlook the anti-semitism.
Until he challenges himself and changes his approach and admits that he has on occasion done the wrong thing he will not be able to deal with this personally. Some people rise to the occasion and can move on from the worst of their past, learning from it and holding onto the best of it. The world is full of leaders who have done so. Corbyn is not one of those people. And, judging by his time as leader, he is not going to change now.
So Watson's challenge to Corbyn is one that Watson knows Corbyn cannot meet.
Corbyn might publicly ignore it, but I would now expect moves of some kind against Watson. Corbyn doesn’t strike me as the type to forget a grudge - and neither are his devoted followers.
This could be lining up to the Last Battle for save Labour.
If Watson is forced out by Momentum and Red Len, then expect Real Labour to be formed within hours and take dozens of MPs with it.
To answer my own question, it looks as though there will a non-binding vote this week on a government motion (as yet unspecified, but presumably neutral), which MPs will be able to amend. So I think there may well be an opportunity for MPs to vote on non-binding amendments similar to or identical to the Cooper-Letwin and Kyle amendments.
That is right.
And at least according to Robert Peston (and even though it's Pesto it does sound feasible to me) TM unofficially WANTS the Cooper amendment to pass.
Idea being twofold -
1) It ramps up the pressure on the ERG to vote for the Deal, knowing the alternative is a serious delay to Brexit and ultimately a much softer one or even Remain. The Olly Roberts bar-room 'indiscretion'.
2) It will mean that she can blame the opposition for forcing her to request an extension. Less humiliating for her, less damaging in the eyes of Tory leave members and voters.
A comment I have seen on UK polling site re the Delta poll- 'I am quite sceptical about this poll:
They have 35% of 18-24s voting CON, and only 2% voting LDM. Leave are only 4pts behind remain in London??? 35-54s are more pro-LAB than 25-34s. LDM on 6% without TIG included seems very low. 31% of LDM voters to vote leave?'
A comment I have seen on UK polling site re the Delta poll- 'I am quite sceptical about this poll:
They have 35% of 18-24s voting CON, and only 2% voting LDM. Leave are only 4pts behind remain in London??? 35-54s are more pro-LAB than 25-34s. LDM on 6% without TIG included seems very low. 31% of LDM voters to vote leave?'
My wife has just asked me what all this about pineapple on pizza is? !!!!! Calling TSE!!!
Apparently, she saw a debate about it on 'The Last Leg' TV show.
It is the greatest evil in the world.
If you wanted to know how we ended up with Brexit and Trump it all makes sense that it is the response from a vengeful God who hates his children putting pineapple on pizzas.
My wife has just asked me what all this about pineapple on pizza is? !!!!! Calling TSE!!!
Apparently, she saw a debate about it on 'The Last Leg' TV show.
It is the greatest evil in the world.
If you wanted to know how we ended up with Brexit and Trump it all makes sense that it is the response from a vengeful God who hates his children putting pineapple on pizzas.
We have twelve years to turn it around, or by then it will be too late.
My wife has just asked me what all this about pineapple on pizza is? !!!!! Calling TSE!!!
Apparently, she saw a debate about it on 'The Last Leg' TV show.
It is the greatest evil in the world.
If you wanted to know how we ended up with Brexit and Trump it all makes sense that it is the response from a vengeful God who hates his children putting pineapple on pizzas.
Do the producers of this TV show read this blog I wonder?
Blair’s defenestration was something of a dubious victory for the wider Labour Party?
Possibly. But Gordon Brown is a colossus by comparison with his successors, both as Labour leader and, with the possible exception of Cameron, as PM.
HUH,, Brown was a colossal disaster as PM.
I have a (possibly unique) view on this. I think Brown was a good PM (possibly a very good one) but a bad Chancellor (possibly a very bad one).
He was an abysmal PM, the worst in living memory. The main issue was that his character was a toxic combination of control-freakery and indecision. Every decision had to go via No 10, even minor departmental decisions, and they never came back because he had a whole room-full of pending decisions which he dithered over. He was verging on mental illness, TBH.
The only redeeming feature of his premiership was the superb but humiliating decision to call back his enemy Peter Mandleson to stop the rot, which Mandelson did very well. And fortunately Brown was too weak to chuck out Darling, which also helped a lot. But that was despite Brown, not because of him.
Blair’s defenestration was something of a dubious victory for the wider Labour Party?
Possibly. But Gordon Brown is a colossus by comparison with his successors, both as Labour leader and, with the possible exception of Cameron, as PM.
HUH,, Brown was a colossal disaster as PM.
I have a (possibly unique) view on this. I think Brown was a good PM (possibly a very good one) but a bad Chancellor (possibly a very bad one).
He was an abysmal PM, the worst in living memory. The main issue was that his character was a toxic combination of control-freakery and indecision. Every decision had to go via No 10, even minor departmental decisions, and they never came back because he had a whole room-full of pending decisions which he dithered over. He was verging on mental illness, TBH.
The only redeeming feature of his premiership was the superb decision to call back his enemy Peter Mandleson to stop the rot, which Mandelson did very well. And fortunately Brown was too weak to chuck out Darling, which also helped a lot. But that was despite Brown, not because of him.
Blair’s defenestration was something of a dubious victory for the wider Labour Party?
Possibly. But Gordon Brown is a colossus by comparison with his successors, both as Labour leader and, with the possible exception of Cameron, as PM.
HUH,, Brown was a colossal disaster as PM.
I have a (possibly unique) view on this. I think Brown was a good PM (possibly a very good one) but a bad Chancellor (possibly a very bad one).
He was an abysmal PM, the worst in living memory. The main issue was that his character was a toxic combination of control-freakery and indecision. Every decision had to go via No 10, even minor departmental decisions, and they never came back because he had a whole room-full of pending decisions which he dithered over. He was verging on mental illness, TBH.
The only redeeming feature of his premiership was the superb decision to call back his enemy Peter Mandleson to stop the rot, which Mandelson did very well. And fortunately Brown was too weak to chuck out Darling, which also helped a lot. But that was despite Brown, not because of him.
Yep - that sounds a fair summary
But still better than May. May doesn’t have the intellect of Brown, nor does she know - or have the ability - to call back her Mandelson.
A comment I have seen on UK polling site re the Delta poll- 'I am quite sceptical about this poll:
They have 35% of 18-24s voting CON, and only 2% voting LDM. Leave are only 4pts behind remain in London??? 35-54s are more pro-LAB than 25-34s. LDM on 6% without TIG included seems very low. 31% of LDM voters to vote leave?'
I see we are in full panic mode over a couple of polls desperately trying to rubbish them. Did you check the Scottish sub-samples for the Labour surge. And yet you claim to be a non-Labour voter. Yeah right.
Blair’s defenestration was something of a dubious victory for the wider Labour Party?
Possibly. But Gordon Brown is a colossus by comparison with his successors, both as Labour leader and, with the possible exception of Cameron, as PM.
HUH,, Brown was a colossal disaster as PM.
I have a (possibly unique) view on this. I think Brown was a good PM (possibly a very good one) but a bad Chancellor (possibly a very bad one).
He was an abysmal PM, the worst in living memory. The main issue was that his character was a toxic combination of control-freakery and indecision. Every decision had to go via No 10, even minor departmental decisions, and they never came back because he had a whole room-full of pending decisions which he dithered over. He was verging on mental illness, TBH.
The only redeeming feature of his premiership was the superb decision to call back his enemy Peter Mandleson to stop the rot, which Mandelson did very well. And fortunately Brown was too weak to chuck out Darling, which also helped a lot. But that was despite Brown, not because of him.
Yep - that sounds a fair summary
But still better than May. May doesn’t have the intellect of Brown, nor does she know - or have the ability - to call back her Mandelson.
Well Osborne, but yes agree on that, May hasn't got the guile to call back an enemy that could potentially help her out of the bind.
Blair’s defenestration was something of a dubious victory for the wider Labour Party?
Possibly. But Gordon Brown is a colossus by comparison with his successors, both as Labour leader and, with the possible exception of Cameron, as PM.
HUH,, Brown was a colossal disaster as PM.
I have a (possibly unique) view on this. I think Brown was a good PM (possibly a very good one) but a bad Chancellor (possibly a very bad one).
He was an abysmal PM, the worst in living memory. The main issue was that his character was a toxic combination of control-freakery and indecision. Every decision had to go via No 10, even minor departmental decisions, and they never came back because he had a whole room-full of pending decisions which he dithered over. He was verging on mental illness, TBH.
The only redeeming feature of his premiership was the superb but humiliating decision to call back his enemy Peter Mandleson to stop the rot, which Mandelson did very well. And fortunately Brown was too weak to chuck out Darling, which also helped a lot. But that was despite Brown, not because of him.
Your living memory appears not to stretch to David Cameron, who packed the government with chums and croneys, lost Europe and almost lost Scotland. Paxman was right: Cameron is the worst PM since Lord North.
He was an abysmal PM, the worst in living memory. The main issue was that his character was a toxic combination of control-freakery and indecision. Every decision had to go via No 10, even minor departmental decisions, and they never came back because he had a whole room-full of pending decisions which he dithered over. He was verging on mental illness, TBH.
The only redeeming feature of his premiership was the superb but humiliating decision to call back his enemy Peter Mandleson to stop the rot, which Mandelson did very well. And fortunately Brown was too weak to chuck out Darling, which also helped a lot. But that was despite Brown, not because of him.
TM has these same flaws but without the intellect.
DC was a vacuous PR poshboy who made the most disastrous mistake in British modern political history in calling and losing an In/Out EU referendum.
TB was a twitching zealot with a messiah complex who went mad in office and made the second most disastrous mistake in British modern political history in bullying through a decision to invade Iraq.
Conclusion?
If GB was abysmal as PM, we need a word for 'worse than abysmal' for every other one we have had since the very good egg John Major.
A comment I have seen on UK polling site re the Delta poll- 'I am quite sceptical about this poll:
They have 35% of 18-24s voting CON, and only 2% voting LDM. Leave are only 4pts behind remain in London??? 35-54s are more pro-LAB than 25-34s. LDM on 6% without TIG included seems very low. 31% of LDM voters to vote leave?'
I see we are in full panic mode over a couple of polls desperately trying to rubbish them. Did you check the Scottish sub-samples for the Labour surge. And yet you claim to be a non-Labour voter. Yeah right.
He was an abysmal PM, the worst in living memory. The main issue was that his character was a toxic combination of control-freakery and indecision. Every decision had to go via No 10, even minor departmental decisions, and they never came back because he had a whole room-full of pending decisions which he dithered over. He was verging on mental illness, TBH.
The only redeeming feature of his premiership was the superb but humiliating decision to call back his enemy Peter Mandleson to stop the rot, which Mandelson did very well. And fortunately Brown was too weak to chuck out Darling, which also helped a lot. But that was despite Brown, not because of him.
TM has these same flaws but without the intellect.
DC was a vacuous PR poshboy who made the most disastrous mistake in British modern political history in calling and losing an In/Out EU referendum.
TB was a twitching zealot with a messiah complex who went mad in office and made the second most disastrous mistake in British modern political history in bullying through a decision to invade Iraq.
Conclusion?
If GB was abysmal as PM, we need a word for 'worse than abysmal' for every other one we have had since the very good egg John Major.
TB and DC were fine in their first terms before falling to hubris.
JM looks better in retrospect, but the stench of decay of his party around him in the nineties is rather overwhelming. That is why the voters were so keen on change.
I agree that TM is like GB, but worse intellect and social skills.
A comment I have seen on UK polling site re the Delta poll- 'I am quite sceptical about this poll:
They have 35% of 18-24s voting CON, and only 2% voting LDM. Leave are only 4pts behind remain in London??? 35-54s are more pro-LAB than 25-34s. LDM on 6% without TIG included seems very low. 31% of LDM voters to vote leave?'
I see we are in full panic mode over a couple of polls desperately trying to rubbish them. Did you check the Scottish sub-samples for the Labour surge. And yet you claim to be a non-Labour voter. Yeah right.
Labour are dead in Scotland
Agreed - but you need to tell Justin who is in denial
Blair’s defenestration was something of a dubious victory for the wider Labour Party?
Possibly. But Gordon Brown is a colossus by comparison with his successors, both as Labour leader and, with the possible exception of Cameron, as PM.
HUH,, Brown was a colossal disaster as PM.
I have a (possibly unique) view on this. I think Brown was a good PM (possibly a very good one) but a bad Chancellor (possibly a very bad one).
He was a total disaster as PM, incapable of making any decision. The only things he did right was to bring back Mandelson to run his government for him and, after several threats, to leave Darling mainly alone so he could get on with it. I honestly expect it to be disclosed that he had a mental breakdown one day as PM. He seemed to stop being a feature in his own government not long after the crash.
Blair’s defenestration was something of a dubious victory for the wider Labour Party?
Possibly. But Gordon Brown is a colossus by comparison with his successors, both as Labour leader and, with the possible exception of Cameron, as PM.
HUH,, Brown was a colossal disaster as PM.
I have a (possibly unique) view on this. I think Brown was a good PM (possibly a very good one) but a bad Chancellor (possibly a very bad one).
He was an abysmal PM, the worst in living memory. The main issue was that his character was a toxic combination of control-freakery and indecision. Every decision had to go via No 10, even minor departmental decisions, and they never came back because he had a whole room-full of pending decisions which he dithered over. He was verging on mental illness, TBH.
The only redeeming feature of his premiership was the superb but humiliating decision to call back his enemy Peter Mandleson to stop the rot, which Mandelson did very well. And fortunately Brown was too weak to chuck out Darling, which also helped a lot. But that was despite Brown, not because of him.
I see on refreshing we are very much in agreement about this Richard.
I have to say that if May delays her MV once again any last vestiges of respect I have for her dogged determination will evaporate.
I appreciate that she is in a difficult position given the refusal of the House to vote for anything actually achievable but jeez, are we really going to go to the deadline of our departure date without knowing what the rules are going to be? If you were absolutely focused on achieving the most damage possible from the Brexit decision I really don't know what we would be doing differently. It is quite unforgivable for all concerned.
2. Will the departing indie's lead to the saving of the Labour Party, so killing themselves off?
3. Corbyn, Brexit, antisemitism obscures the fact that the Labour manifesto is absolute bollox and a far greater threat than Brexit might or might not be. Are Creasey, Mann, Watson et al staying on to campaign for McDonnell's pile of pooh? How about forgetting those barmy re-nationalizations and re-open a few libraries instead
"'Your face is like a shoe': Insulted by a woman of IS on the ground in Syria Sky's John Sparks says the terror group has lost most of its territory, but its fanatical ideology has not weakened. By John Sparks, news correspondent, in northern Syria"
Blair’s defenestration was something of a dubious victory for the wider Labour Party?
Possibly. But Gordon Brown is a colossus by comparison with his successors, both as Labour leader and, with the possible exception of Cameron, as PM.
HUH,, Brown was a colossal disaster as PM.
I have a (possibly unique) view on this. I think Brown was a good PM (possibly a very good one) but a bad Chancellor (possibly a very bad one).
He was an abysmal PM, the worst in living memory. The main issue was that his character was a toxic combination of control-freakery and indecision. Every decision had to go via No 10, even minor departmental decisions, and they never came back because he had a whole room-full of pending decisions which he dithered over. He was verging on mental illness, TBH.
The only redeeming feature of his premiership was the superb decision to call back his enemy Peter Mandleson to stop the rot, which Mandelson did very well. And fortunately Brown was too weak to chuck out Darling, which also helped a lot. But that was despite Brown, not because of him.
Yep - that sounds a fair summary
But still better than May. May doesn’t have the intellect of Brown, nor does she know - or have the ability - to call back her Mandelson.
As we seem to like historical analogies on PB, Theresa May seems to me to be like Charles I in combining intransigence with being totally untrustworthy. It's an unhealthy combination for a politician, as King Charles found to his cost.
Blair’s defenestration was something of a dubious victory for the wider Labour Party?
Possibly. But Gordon Brown is a colossus by comparison with his successors, both as Labour leader and, with the possible exception of Cameron, as PM.
HUH,, Brown was a colossal disaster as PM.
I have a (possibly unique) view on this. I think Brown was a good PM (possibly a very good one) but a bad Chancellor (possibly a very bad one).
He was a total disaster as PM, incapable of making any decision. The only things he did right was to bring back Mandelson to run his government for him and, after several threats, to leave Darling mainly alone so he could get on with it. I honestly expect it to be disclosed that he had a mental breakdown one day as PM. He seemed to stop being a feature in his own government not long after the crash.
Not the only thing he did right surely? All those Tory Unionists getting lachrymose over his save the Union speechifying would disagree.
A comment I have seen on UK polling site re the Delta poll- 'I am quite sceptical about this poll:
They have 35% of 18-24s voting CON, and only 2% voting LDM. Leave are only 4pts behind remain in London??? 35-54s are more pro-LAB than 25-34s. LDM on 6% without TIG included seems very low. 31% of LDM voters to vote leave?'
I see we are in full panic mode over a couple of polls desperately trying to rubbish them. Did you check the Scottish sub-samples for the Labour surge. And yet you claim to be a non-Labour voter. Yeah right.
"Corbynites should be concerned about Watson is doing this, and so publicly, anyone with an understanding of history knows Watson played a crucial role in the early departure of the great Satan Tony Blair. If Watson can help topple the three times general election winning leader he’ll be able to take down the general election loser that is Corbyn."
This argument might be a bit stronger if Watson hadn't already tried everything to get rid of Corbyn in 2016....and failed.
(For good measure, the following year, Watson then also tried and failed to oust Len McCluskey as Unite leader.)
A comment I have seen on UK polling site re the Delta poll- 'I am quite sceptical about this poll:
They have 35% of 18-24s voting CON, and only 2% voting LDM. Leave are only 4pts behind remain in London??? 35-54s are more pro-LAB than 25-34s. LDM on 6% without TIG included seems very low. 31% of LDM voters to vote leave?'
I see we are in full panic mode over a couple of polls desperately trying to rubbish them. Did you check the Scottish sub-samples for the Labour surge. And yet you claim to be a non-Labour voter. Yeah right.
Blair’s defenestration was something of a dubious victory for the wider Labour Party?
Possibly. But Gordon Brown is a colossus by comparison with his successors, both as Labour leader and, with the possible exception of Cameron, as PM.
HUH,, Brown was a colossal disaster as PM.
I have a (possibly unique) view on this. I think Brown was a good PM (possibly a very good one) but a bad Chancellor (possibly a very bad one).
He was an abysmal PM, the worst in living memory. The main issue was that his character was a toxic combination of control-freakery and indecision. Every decision had to go via No 10, even minor departmental decisions, and they never came back because he had a whole room-full of pending decisions which he dithered over. He was verging on mental illness, TBH.
The only redeeming feature of his premiership was the superb but humiliating decision to call back his enemy Peter Mandleson to stop the rot, which Mandelson did very well. And fortunately Brown was too weak to chuck out Darling, which also helped a lot. But that was despite Brown, not because of him.
I think Brown was an OK PM. He dealt promptly and reasonably well with the Credit Crunch heart attack and didn't do anything else either good or bad during his premiership. More than could be said for the incumbent, her predecessor, or indeed his own predecessor.
TB and DC were fine in their first terms before falling to hubris.
JM looks better in retrospect, but the stench of decay of his party around him in the nineties is rather overwhelming. That is why the voters were so keen on change.
I agree that TM is like GB, but worse intellect and social skills.
Agreed. Dave and Tone were pretty good until it went to their heads. Sir John is like 1970s pop music - better now than how it seemed at the time. And Mrs May has all the flaws of Gordon with none of the saving graces.
Needs to be taken with a grain of salt, because he thinks she has been deprived of her British citizenship under Section 40(4A) of the Act, which obviously isn't correct, because that applies only to those who are British by naturalisation.
A comment I have seen on UK polling site re the Delta poll- 'I am quite sceptical about this poll:
They have 35% of 18-24s voting CON, and only 2% voting LDM. Leave are only 4pts behind remain in London??? 35-54s are more pro-LAB than 25-34s. LDM on 6% without TIG included seems very low. 31% of LDM voters to vote leave?'
I see we are in full panic mode over a couple of polls desperately trying to rubbish them. Did you check the Scottish sub-samples for the Labour surge. And yet you claim to be a non-Labour voter. Yeah right.
Labour are dead in Scotland
Nobody told Justin124
Oh he was saying that in May 2017 when he dismissed suggestions that the SNP would fall below 50 seats.
Brown may have bought the snake oil but this is irrelevant to the crash which started, as the saying has it, in America.
It was Born In The USA but the culture and behaviour of the City was not irrelevant. Much of the derivatives activity that contributed was either originated or booked through here. The City became a Wall St mini-me and ran riot on Gordon's watch.
Blair’s defenestration was something of a dubious victory for the wider Labour Party?
Possibly. But Gordon Brown is a colossus by comparison with his successors, both as Labour leader and, with the possible exception of Cameron, as PM.
HUH,, Brown was a colossal disaster as PM.
I have a (possibly unique) view on this. I think Brown was a good PM (possibly a very good one) but a bad Chancellor (possibly a very bad one).
He was an abysmal PM, the worst in living memory. The main issue was that his character was a toxic combination of control-freakery and indecision. Every decision had to go via No 10, even minor departmental decisions, and they never came back because he had a whole room-full of pending decisions which he dithered over. He was verging on mental illness, TBH.
The only redeeming feature of his premiership was the superb decision to call back his enemy Peter Mandleson to stop the rot, which Mandelson did very well. And fortunately Brown was too weak to chuck out Darling, which also helped a lot. But that was despite Brown, not because of him.
Brown may have bought the snake oil but this is irrelevant to the crash which started, as the saying has it, in America.
It was Born In The USA but the culture and behaviour of the City was not irrelevant. Much of the derivatives activity that contributed was either originated or booked through here. The City became a Wall St mini-me and ran riot on Gordon's watch.
There are also two very good questions which no admirers of Brown seem able to answer:
1) Why were our banks so heavily exposed to the American sub-prime market, to the extent that we actually had the worst banking crisis in Europe (albeit as we were not in the Euro we had more financial leeway to mitigate the impact of it than Ireland, Spain or Italy);
2) Why had public sector net debt risen from 30% of GDP in 2000 to nearly 40% in 2007 (at a time when the economy was officially at least growing rapidly) if he was such a good manager of public finances?
All the advantages of the WA, without the small inconvenince of needing a vote. In practice much the same only we are in pretending to be out, rather than out pretending to be in. Dec 20 still at 32 on BFEx.
All the advantages of the WA, without the small inconvenince of needing a vote. In practice much the same only we are in pretending to be out, rather than out pretending to be in. Dec 20 still at 32 on BFEx.
It might enrage the ERG, but I should think the majority of MPs would jump at the chance of avoiding a difficult decision.
Brown may have bought the snake oil but this is irrelevant to the crash which started, as the saying has it, in America.
It was Born In The USA but the culture and behaviour of the City was not irrelevant. Much of the derivatives activity that contributed was either originated or booked through here. The City became a Wall St mini-me and ran riot on Gordon's watch.
That may be true but it did not cause the crash. The US Government's own enquiry did not blame Brown or the British government, although iirc it did mention Darling's pivotal decision to veto the rescue of Lehmans. I am inclined to take their word for it.
All the advantages of the WA, without the small inconvenince of needing a vote. In practice much the same only we are in pretending to be out, rather than out pretending to be in. Dec 20 still at 32 on BFEx.
Do MPs really need that long to make up their minds?
Brown may have bought the snake oil but this is irrelevant to the crash which started, as the saying has it, in America.
It was Born In The USA but the culture and behaviour of the City was not irrelevant. Much of the derivatives activity that contributed was either originated or booked through here. The City became a Wall St mini-me and ran riot on Gordon's watch.
There are also two very good questions which no admirers of Brown seem able to answer:
1) Why were our banks so heavily exposed to the American sub-prime market, to the extent that we actually had the worst banking crisis in Europe (albeit as we were not in the Euro we had more financial leeway to mitigate the impact of it than Ireland, Spain or Italy);
2) Why had public sector net debt risen from 30% of GDP in 2000 to nearly 40% in 2007 (at a time when the economy was officially at least growing rapidly) if he was such a good manager of public finances?
The first doesn't really have anything to do with Gordon Brown. If you want to blame any politician, I suppose Margaret Thatcher, who internationalised banking in the City, but that's a stretch too.
Brown may have bought the snake oil but this is irrelevant to the crash which started, as the saying has it, in America.
It was Born In The USA but the culture and behaviour of the City was not irrelevant. Much of the derivatives activity that contributed was either originated or booked through here. The City became a Wall St mini-me and ran riot on Gordon's watch.
There are also two very good questions which no admirers of Brown seem able to answer:
1) Why were our banks so heavily exposed to the American sub-prime market, to the extent that we actually had the worst banking crisis in Europe (albeit as we were not in the Euro we had more financial leeway to mitigate the impact of it than Ireland, Spain or Italy);
2) Why had public sector net debt risen from 30% of GDP in 2000 to nearly 40% in 2007 (at a time when the economy was officially at least growing rapidly) if he was such a good manager of public finances?
And that was at a time when household debt was soaring.
As were house prices, retail sales and the trade deficit.
While home ownership levels, industrial production and the stock market had all peaked around 2000.
You do know that in Scotland they mean the same !!!!!!
I confess I did not. So if that is true I have learnt something, which is always welcome.
I have also learned (courtesy of just now in curiosity googling 'Donkey' and 'Balloon') that there are such things as the two combined - i.e. Donkey Balloons.
Donkey Balloons are apparently "an advanced form of badgers testicles".
So assuming that they are also this in Scotland I suppose Malcolm could be back here very shortly with a sincere and credible assertion that Gordon Brown as PM was complete and utter Donkey Balloons.
"Corbynites should be concerned about Watson is doing this, and so publicly, anyone with an understanding of history knows Watson played a crucial role in the early departure of the great Satan Tony Blair. If Watson can help topple the three times general election winning leader he’ll be able to take down the general election loser that is Corbyn."
This argument might be a bit stronger if Watson hadn't already tried everything to get rid of Corbyn in 2016....and failed.
(For good measure, the following year, Watson then also tried and failed to oust Len McCluskey as Unite leader.)
How many MPs had just resigned from the party in 2016 in disgust at your leader's 'tolerance of anti-semitism and support for anti-semitic tropes?
A comment I have seen on UK polling site re the Delta poll- 'I am quite sceptical about this poll:
They have 35% of 18-24s voting CON, and only 2% voting LDM. Leave are only 4pts behind remain in London??? 35-54s are more pro-LAB than 25-34s. LDM on 6% without TIG included seems very low. 31% of LDM voters to vote leave?'
I see we are in full panic mode over a couple of polls desperately trying to rubbish them. Did you check the Scottish sub-samples for the Labour surge. And yet you claim to be a non-Labour voter. Yeah right.
Labour are dead in Scotland
Nobody told Justin124
Oh he was saying that in May 2017 when he dismissed suggestions that the SNP would fall below 50 seats.
That was then, this is now.
Name any poster who lives in Scotland or knows Scotland who do not agree labour is over in Scotland, especially now
A comment I have seen on UK polling site re the Delta poll- 'I am quite sceptical about this poll:
They have 35% of 18-24s voting CON, and only 2% voting LDM. Leave are only 4pts behind remain in London??? 35-54s are more pro-LAB than 25-34s. LDM on 6% without TIG included seems very low. 31% of LDM voters to vote leave?'
I see we are in full panic mode over a couple of polls desperately trying to rubbish them. Did you check the Scottish sub-samples for the Labour surge. And yet you claim to be a non-Labour voter. Yeah right.
Labour are dead in Scotland
Nobody told Justin124
Oh he was saying that in May 2017 when he dismissed suggestions that the SNP would fall below 50 seats.
Brown may have bought the snake oil but this is irrelevant to the crash which started, as the saying has it, in America.
It was Born In The USA but the culture and behaviour of the City was not irrelevant. Much of the derivatives activity that contributed was either originated or booked through here. The City became a Wall St mini-me and ran riot on Gordon's watch.
There are also two very good questions which no admirers of Brown seem able to answer:
1) Why were our banks so heavily exposed to the American sub-prime market, to the extent that we actually had the worst banking crisis in Europe (albeit as we were not in the Euro we had more financial leeway to mitigate the impact of it than Ireland, Spain or Italy);
2) Why had public sector net debt risen from 30% of GDP in 2000 to nearly 40% in 2007 (at a time when the economy was officially at least growing rapidly) if he was such a good manager of public finances?
The first doesn't really have anything to do with Gordon Brown. If you want to blame any politician, I suppose Margaret Thatcher, who internationalised banking in the City, but that's a stretch too.
The second criticism is valid IMO.
I disagree. A big problem was that our banks were chronically under-capitalised, or using worthless collateral in place of capital, and that was at least partly because of Brown's (and Darling's, it should be noted) infamous 'tripartite system' of regulation. Of course, Thatcher's liberalisation set the parameters, but Brown's meddling can't be overlooked.
"Corbynites should be concerned about Watson is doing this, and so publicly, anyone with an understanding of history knows Watson played a crucial role in the early departure of the great Satan Tony Blair. If Watson can help topple the three times general election winning leader he’ll be able to take down the general election loser that is Corbyn."
This argument might be a bit stronger if Watson hadn't already tried everything to get rid of Corbyn in 2016....and failed.
(For good measure, the following year, Watson then also tried and failed to oust Len McCluskey as Unite leader.)
Watson's actions are a response to the jubilation with which the resignation of 9 Labour MPs have been greeted by the far left and the failure of Corbyn et al to heed Watson's warning to change course. Should those warnings continue to go unheeded, there remains the very real prospect of Watson leading much larger numbers out of the Labour party than we have seen hitherto.
You do know that in Scotland they mean the same !!!!!!
I confess I did not. So if that is true I have learnt something, which is always welcome.
I have also learned (courtesy of just now in curiosity googling 'Donkey' and 'Balloon') that there are such things as the two combined - i.e. Donkey Balloons.
Donkey Balloons are apparently "an advanced form of badgers testicles".
So assuming that they are also this in Scotland I suppose Malcolm could be back here very shortly with a sincere and credible assertion that Gordon Brown as PM was complete and utter Donkey Balloons.
I am sorry, I was having you on - bit naughty for me - like running 'through wheat fields' !!!
All the advantages of the WA, without the small inconvenince of needing a vote. In practice much the same only we are in pretending to be out, rather than out pretending to be in. Dec 20 still at 32 on BFEx.
I’m curious why the EU is in favour of this. The people we will end up sending to the European Parliament will make UKIP look like the WI.
It will also be extremely damaging to the Tory Party’s standing in the opinion polls. Surely May knows that?
A fascinating intervention by Watson. But why has he done it, and why now? I can see three broad possibilities:
1) He desperately wants Corbyn to sort out the problems and heal the divisions, and so has helpfully spelled out for him exactly what he needs to do in order to manage this.
2) He knows Corbyn can't and/or won't comply, and so is laying cover for a leadership challenge.
3) As in 2), but he intends to bring matters to a head, quickly, so that he can then lead either a mass exodus to TIG, or a separate party altogether.
@TSE seems to have gone mostly for 2) in the thread header. As has @Cyclefree, upthread.
My guess would be 3) with some 1) thrown in as wishful thinking. I suspect he knows he can't beat the cult on social media, although he may believe he's the one person who can, based on the fact that he won the Deputy Leader position under similar OMOV rules and his links to the unions.
A comment I have seen on UK polling site re the Delta poll- 'I am quite sceptical about this poll:
They have 35% of 18-24s voting CON, and only 2% voting LDM. Leave are only 4pts behind remain in London??? 35-54s are more pro-LAB than 25-34s. LDM on 6% without TIG included seems very low. 31% of LDM voters to vote leave?'
I see we are in full panic mode over a couple of polls desperately trying to rubbish them. Did you check the Scottish sub-samples for the Labour surge. And yet you claim to be a non-Labour voter. Yeah right.
Labour are dead in Scotland
Nobody told Justin124
Oh he was saying that in May 2017 when he dismissed suggestions that the SNP would fall below 50 seats.
A comment I have seen on UK polling site re the Delta poll- 'I am quite sceptical about this poll:
They have 35% of 18-24s voting CON, and only 2% voting LDM. Leave are only 4pts behind remain in London??? 35-54s are more pro-LAB than 25-34s. LDM on 6% without TIG included seems very low. 31% of LDM voters to vote leave?'
I see we are in full panic mode over a couple of polls desperately trying to rubbish them. Did you check the Scottish sub-samples for the Labour surge. And yet you claim to be a non-Labour voter. Yeah right.
Labour are dead in Scotland
Nobody told Justin124
Oh he was saying that in May 2017 when he dismissed suggestions that the SNP would fall below 50 seats.
Ah you mean when there were the big Tory gains.
Indeed - which I predicted - and significant Labour gains which exceeded my expectations there.
Comments
Sandbach next out the door?
.....and be replaced by Chris Williamson.
He too has his own mandate and yet has been sidelined by Corbyn and co.
My guess is that Corbyn will ignore his challenge, get Charlie Falconer to reorganise the complaints procedure, point to that as evidence he is doing something, repeat ad nauseam how he is anti-racist, his mother was at Cable Street, blah, blah and continue as before.
The problems of the spread of anti-semitism within Labour arise because Corbyn is at its head. Anti-semitism within Labour did not start with him but he has enabled its spread because those who are anti-semites feel emboldened by his presence, think he shares their views and, crucially, feel that because they support him he is willing to overlook the anti-semitism.
Until he challenges himself and changes his approach and admits that he has on occasion done the wrong thing he will not be able to deal with this personally. Some people rise to the occasion and can move on from the worst of their past, learning from it and holding onto the best of it. The world is full of leaders who have done so. Corbyn is not one of those people. And, judging by his time as leader, he is not going to change now.
So Watson's challenge to Corbyn is one that Watson knows Corbyn cannot meet.
What exactly does this mean, and what sanctions would be applied? At present we have umpteen policemen wasting ... oops ... spending heaven knows how much time policing speech on twitter and thought in people's heads, and it does not seem to have achieved very much.
Wasn't a major defence of Corbyn vis a vis the Hodge Dossier that most of the alleged antisemites were not in Labour? How will the Labour Party control people?
deleted
Westminster voting projection, turnout adjusted:
CON: 44% (+1)
LAB: 37% (-)
LIB: 8% (-2)
UKP: 3% (-)
GRN: 2% (-1)
@OpiniumResearch, 20–22 Feb
Changes with 13–15 Feb
It looks a bit odd,however, that UKIP jump to 7% when TIG is mentioned!
If Watson is forced out by Momentum and Red Len, then expect Real Labour to be formed within hours and take dozens of MPs with it.
Apparently, she saw a debate about it on 'The Last Leg' TV show.
And at least according to Robert Peston (and even though it's Pesto it does sound feasible to me) TM unofficially WANTS the Cooper amendment to pass.
Idea being twofold -
1) It ramps up the pressure on the ERG to vote for the Deal, knowing the alternative is a serious delay to Brexit and ultimately a much softer one or even Remain. The Olly Roberts bar-room 'indiscretion'.
2) It will mean that she can blame the opposition for forcing her to request an extension. Less humiliating for her, less damaging in the eyes of Tory leave members and voters.
'I am quite sceptical about this poll:
They have 35% of 18-24s voting CON, and only 2% voting LDM.
Leave are only 4pts behind remain in London???
35-54s are more pro-LAB than 25-34s.
LDM on 6% without TIG included seems very low.
31% of LDM voters to vote leave?'
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/02/theresa-may-has-picked-the-day-on-which-brexit-will-live-or-die/
Corbyn: I condemn all types of pizza toppings.
This would not be happening if Pizza Hut was nationalised, and that is what a Labour government led by Jeremy Corbyn will delivery.
Watson organised an incompetent coup with his stooges, Simon and Bryant. They couldn’t even remove a mortally wounded Blair.
Given a choice between Corby and Watson, I would choose Corby.
Gordon Brown - overrated Chancellor, underrated PM.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2016/06/27/how-britain-voted
As for the rest of those points, this is why pollsters weight polls.
If you wanted to know how we ended up with Brexit and Trump it all makes sense that it is the response from a vengeful God who hates his children putting pineapple on pizzas.
I see even as chancellor you are making excuses for him.
"the big boys made him do it"
who can forget "gulags for slags"
and
"British jobs for British workers"
The only redeeming feature of his premiership was the superb but humiliating decision to call back his enemy Peter Mandleson to stop the rot, which Mandelson did very well. And fortunately Brown was too weak to chuck out Darling, which also helped a lot. But that was despite Brown, not because of him.
Another one to watch?
May doesn’t have the intellect of Brown, nor does she know - or have the ability - to call back her Mandelson.
DC was a vacuous PR poshboy who made the most disastrous mistake in British modern political history in calling and losing an In/Out EU referendum.
TB was a twitching zealot with a messiah complex who went mad in office and made the second most disastrous mistake in British modern political history in bullying through a decision to invade Iraq.
Conclusion?
If GB was abysmal as PM, we need a word for 'worse than abysmal' for every other one we have had since the very good egg John Major.
And I too am slightly upset to find that I now have to share it with you.
Still, I bet there are other ways in which we are both of us unique.
I quite like Owen Jones, for example.
JM looks better in retrospect, but the stench of decay of his party around him in the nineties is rather overwhelming. That is why the voters were so keen on change.
I agree that TM is like GB, but worse intellect and social skills.
Gulags sound like more the sort of fate lined up for Watson right now.
I appreciate that she is in a difficult position given the refusal of the House to vote for anything actually achievable but jeez, are we really going to go to the deadline of our departure date without knowing what the rules are going to be? If you were absolutely focused on achieving the most damage possible from the Brexit decision I really don't know what we would be doing differently. It is quite unforgivable for all concerned.
2. Will the departing indie's lead to the saving of the Labour Party, so killing themselves off?
3. Corbyn, Brexit, antisemitism obscures the fact that the Labour manifesto is absolute bollox and a far greater threat than Brexit might or might not be. Are Creasey, Mann, Watson et al staying on to campaign for McDonnell's pile of pooh? How about forgetting those barmy re-nationalizations and re-open a few libraries instead
Sky's John Sparks says the terror group has lost most of its territory, but its fanatical ideology has not weakened.
By John Sparks, news correspondent, in northern Syria"
https://news.sky.com/story/women-and-children-of-is-living-on-weeds-and-mouldy-bread-in-syria-11646505
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8283198.stm
This argument might be a bit stronger if Watson hadn't already tried everything to get rid of Corbyn in 2016....and failed.
(For good measure, the following year, Watson then also tried and failed to oust Len McCluskey as Unite leader.)
You know somebody else who had a clever idea about hostels for single mothers...
More seriously, I don't think I ever heard of that one. Batshit crazy. Especially the packaging of it.
https://bdnews24.com/bangladesh/2019/02/20/britain-is-acting-against-its-own-law-on-isis-bride-shamima-bangladesh-pms-aide
Needs to be taken with a grain of salt, because he thinks she has been deprived of her British citizenship under Section 40(4A) of the Act, which obviously isn't correct, because that applies only to those who are British by naturalisation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8om47yrSZSI
1) Why were our banks so heavily exposed to the American sub-prime market, to the extent that we actually had the worst banking crisis in Europe (albeit as we were not in the Euro we had more financial leeway to mitigate the impact of it than Ireland, Spain or Italy);
2) Why had public sector net debt risen from 30% of GDP in 2000 to nearly 40% in 2007 (at a time when the economy was officially at least growing rapidly) if he was such a good manager of public finances?
EU Is Said to Mull 21-Month Delay If May Can't Get Brexit Done https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-24/eu-is-said-to-mull-idea-of-proposing-brexit-extension-to-2021
All the advantages of the WA, without the small inconvenince of needing a vote. In practice much the same only we are in pretending to be out, rather than out pretending to be in. Dec 20 still at 32 on BFEx.
The lowpoint was Mandelson having a long discussion about Peppa Pig in the middle of a press conference.
The second criticism is valid IMO.
As were house prices, retail sales and the trade deficit.
While home ownership levels, industrial production and the stock market had all peaked around 2000.
I have also learned (courtesy of just now in curiosity googling 'Donkey' and 'Balloon') that there are such things as the two combined - i.e. Donkey Balloons.
Donkey Balloons are apparently "an advanced form of badgers testicles".
So assuming that they are also this in Scotland I suppose Malcolm could be back here very shortly with a sincere and credible assertion that Gordon Brown as PM was complete and utter Donkey Balloons.
Name any poster who lives in Scotland or knows Scotland who do not agree labour is over in Scotland, especially now
Bloody fools.
It will also be extremely damaging to the Tory Party’s standing in the opinion polls. Surely May knows that?
1) He desperately wants Corbyn to sort out the problems and heal the divisions, and so has helpfully spelled out for him exactly what he needs to do in order to manage this.
2) He knows Corbyn can't and/or won't comply, and so is laying cover for a leadership challenge.
3) As in 2), but he intends to bring matters to a head, quickly, so that he can then lead either a mass exodus to TIG, or a separate party altogether.
@TSE seems to have gone mostly for 2) in the thread header. As has @Cyclefree, upthread.
My guess would be 3) with some 1) thrown in as wishful thinking. I suspect he knows he can't beat the cult on social media, although he may believe he's the one person who can, based on the fact that he won the Deputy Leader position under similar OMOV rules and his links to the unions.