It took Labour 13 years for centrists to regain control of the party after Foot was elected in 1980 and Militant gained influence
No, it took 3 years. Foot was elected leader in 1980, he left office in 1983, to be succeeded by Kinnock.
It took the SDP much longer to break the mould. In fact we're still waiting.
(I note it is acknowledged Tories who are so enthusiastic about the Labour moderates splitting. I wonder why ... I wonder why)
Kinnock was not a centrist but a leftwinger, Hattersley was the centrist candidate in 1983 albeit he became Kinnock's Deputy and it took years for Kinnock to drive out Militant.
It was not until John Smith beat Brian Gould for the leadership and introduced OMOV that centrists took control again of course driving home that control when Blair won in 1994 after Smith's and removed Clause 4 from the party's constitution. Plus in many respects New Labour was the child of the SDP
I don't think you are reading this right.
For sure, Corby has propelled the centre of gravity of the Labour party leftwards. Corby's successor will be more leftwing than Blair (not difficult).
The question for Tom Watson (who after all is comparable to Kinnock in political positioning) is more about power.
Can he achieve power in the Party and the Country more quickly by waiting for Corby to go, or by setting up Labour Mark II ?
Tbh, the answer to that question is a no brainer. Watson won't jump.
Many of the Labour TIGgers are either about to retire or were about to be deselected. They had no future in the Labour Party. (Chuka is the obvious exception).
The Tory TIGgers IMO will live to regret their actions.
Interesting Rachel Sylvester article in the Times on May’s rather unedifying treatment of Amber Rudd.
A minister who was and is an ultra loyalist, despite her differences on policy, is being treated as as traitor within.
This is why there exists Cabinet Collective Responsibility in Cabinet over matters of policy.
Rudd is free to disagree and make her point to the PM privately, but if she wants to openly disagree in public with the government line then she should resign to do so.
I really doubt that Theresa May wants three Cabinet ministers to resign over her Brexit policy just now.
Indeed not, but right now they’re inside the tent and pissing in.
I’m pretty sure that at almost any other time, such ministers would have had a call from No 10 reminding them of collective responsibility. It’s shows the tightrope that the PM is walking, that she’s unable to have them resign.
Collective Cabinet responsibility applies to Prime Ministers as well. If she wants the Cabinet to have a united line, she needs to try agreeing one. Right at the moment, she consciously isn't, and that leaves a gap for others to seek to fill.
It took Labour 13 years for centrists to regain control of the party after Foot was elected in 1980 and Militant gained influence
No, it took 3 years. Foot was elected leader in 1980, he left office in 1983, to be succeeded by Kinnock.
It took the SDP much longer to break the mould. In fact we're still waiting.
(I note it is acknowledged Tories who are so enthusiastic about the Labour moderates splitting. I wonder why ... I wonder why)
Just because they'd be happy doesn't mean it's not also a good idea. If the only reason someone wont split is because of hatred for another what a depressing situation that is.
I hope they both split more, but I think Watson and co have seen off the Tiggers. Those that are left see it as a fight to have.
I wondered this morning when listening to Dame Margaret Hodge whether to fulfil her aims you wouldn't need the entire staff of Carter Ruck's full time.
She pointed to the 'shocking' case of of the Labour Party official who thought the anti semitic mural shouldn't be destroyed yet was only given a warning.
It reminded me how quickly we have forgotten the lessons of the 'We Are Charlie' movement which swept the world a couple of years ago.
I assume he's using code for 'it'll be an extension and we shall try again'
Jeremy Hunt has said some stupid things but I'll give him a pass on this. What exactly is he supposed to be saying right now that is meaningful, loyal and constructive?
Is ChickenLicken the first Governor in the Dem race ?
There must be a vote base for a non DC candidate.
The second - the Governor of Washington (Jay something) is also standing. (On a platform that's all about climate change. Because if you don't have a job, the thing you're most worried about is melting sea ice.)
Isn't employment in the States at a record high?
No, unemployment is at a record low. The absolute employment rate is still well down from the record, though it has had a huge improvement in the last year and a bit since Trump's tax cut.
I assume he's using code for 'it'll be an extension and we shall try again'
Jeremy Hunt has said some stupid things but I'll give him a pass on this. What exactly is he supposed to be saying right now that is meaningful, loyal and constructive?
If he has nothing meaningful to say he should say nothing. Its not as though they have a problem avoiding questions.
But really I'm just mad because we're about to blunder on further because MPs seem about to refuse every option again as they still refuse to actually face up to things and make a call, and his words seem to encapsulate that by having no plan.
I assume he's using code for 'it'll be an extension and we shall try again'
Jeremy Hunt has said some stupid things but I'll give him a pass on this. What exactly is he supposed to be saying right now that is meaningful, loyal and constructive?
If he has nothing meaningful to say he should say nothing. Its not as though they have a problem avoiding questions.
Isn't that exactly what he did, except using words? The alternative is to have government ministers refuse to appear for interview, which would be worse.
The problem is not what Jeremy Hunt said. The problem is the mess that the government is in.
I assume he's using code for 'it'll be an extension and we shall try again'
Jeremy Hunt has said some stupid things but I'll give him a pass on this. What exactly is he supposed to be saying right now that is meaningful, loyal and constructive?
If he has nothing meaningful to say he should say nothing. Its not as though they have a problem avoiding questions.
Isn't that exactly what he did, except using words? The alternative is to have government ministers refuse to appear for interview, which would be worse.
The problem is not what Jeremy Hunt said. The problem is the mess that the government is in.
Yes - I've added an addendum to that effect. His words were an illustration of that.
I’m of the view that all religious teaching should end in schools, there should be no faith schools, and religion should be treated as a humanities subject only, like history or geography. I have never grasped why treating - and teaching - as fact something for which there is not any supporting evidence can be morally, socially or financially justified.
Ending faith schools is displacement activity, if you have secular schools dominated by people who take their religion very seriously.
Funny, I take science very seriously. And more to the point am utterly bored with having to sit through exactly the same work of fiction for every school Christmas play. I know what happens, I’ve seen the show year after year. My wife tells me not to say anything for fear of offending religious people.
I'm sure the average faith school takes science very seriously, as well. And being bored for the sake of the children is a part of every adult's life.
Disagree on both points. Faith is counter to science. Having children and learning with them is generally a joy. The school introduces boredom, needlessly.
It took Labour 13 years for centrists to regain control of the party after Foot was elected in 1980 and Militant gained influence
No, it took 3 years. Foot was elected leader in 1980, he left office in 1983, to be succeeded by Kinnock.
It took the SDP much longer to break the mould. In fact we're still waiting.
(I note it is acknowledged Tories who are so enthusiastic about the Labour moderates splitting. I wonder why ... I wonder why)
Just because they'd be happy doesn't mean it's not also a good idea. If the only reason someone wont split is because of hatred for another what a depressing situation that is.
I hope they both split more, but I think Watson and co have seen off the Tiggers. Those that are left see it as a fight to have.
Maybe a fight which they all but know will be lost and which will help eventually prepare the ground for a much bigger split.
The case for a split is that Labour is confirmed irredemably as an extremist party and as such its electoral destiny will follow the path trod earlier by the Parti Communiste Francaise.
...but I am still very happy for you to be Prime Minister.
Corbyn is shit. But so is May. At least a Corbyn government wouldn't have that international laughing stock Grayling in government, or continuing to kick the poor sick and dying for fun.
...but I am still very happy for you to be Prime Minister.
Corbyn is shit. But so is May. At least a Corbyn government wouldn't have that international laughing stock Grayling in government, or continuing to kick the poor sick and dying for fun.
I’m of the view that all religious teaching should end in schools, there should be no faith schools, and religion should be treated as a humanities subject only, like history or geography. I have never grasped why treating - and teaching - as fact something for which there is not any supporting evidence can be morally, socially or financially justified.
Have you some examples of where that policy has been implemented and successful?
It sounds rather kneejerk, to me, never mind the problems of definition.
If you tried, what I think would happen would be the development of after-school and weekend-schools teaching religion, as existed extensively amongst eg Mosques in eg the 1980s. For all I know they still exist - and that may still exist for all I know.
If you played the same game with more integrated religions the effect could be similar.
...but I am still very happy for you to be Prime Minister.
Corbyn is shit. But so is May. At least a Corbyn government wouldn't have that international laughing stock Grayling in government, or continuing to kick the poor sick and dying for fun.
That's fine, but it makes moral criticism of Corbyn hollow, and its that which many are trying to do whole still officially backing him.
...but I am still very happy for you to be Prime Minister.
Corbyn is shit. But so is May. At least a Corbyn government wouldn't have that international laughing stock Grayling in government, or continuing to kick the poor sick and dying for fun.
That's a very good point. The Conservative's USP has always been competence, albeit that they didn't really deserve it. There's no way it will survive Brexit. The objection to Labour has always been that they mean well but don't really know what they are doing. If the choice is between a nice guy who nonetheless can't get anything done and competent bastard, it's a tough decision. But who wants an incompetent bastard?
I’m of the view that all religious teaching should end in schools, there should be no faith schools, and religion should be treated as a humanities subject only, like history or geography. I have never grasped why treating - and teaching - as fact something for which there is not any supporting evidence can be morally, socially or financially justified.
Ending faith schools is displacement activity, if you have secular schools dominated by people who take their religion very seriously.
Funny, I take science very seriously. And more to the point am utterly bored with having to sit through exactly the same work of fiction for every school Christmas play. I know what happens, I’ve seen the show year after year. My wife tells me not to say anything for fear of offending religious people.
I'm sure the average faith school takes science very seriously, as well. And being bored for the sake of the children is a part of every adult's life.
Disagree on both points. Faith is counter to science. Having children and learning with them is generally a joy. The school introduces boredom, needlessly.
Ah, the PB atheists are out lecturing about what religious people think about science.
...but I am still very happy for you to be Prime Minister.
Corbyn is shit. But so is May. At least a Corbyn government wouldn't have that international laughing stock Grayling in government, or continuing to kick the poor sick and dying for fun.
I suppose in these difficult times for the Labour Party it must give you great comfort to fire up a few of the "Tory baby eater" slogans.
It took Labour 13 years for centrists to regain control of the party after Foot was elected in 1980 and Militant gained influence
No, it took 3 years. Foot was elected leader in 1980, he left office in 1983, to be succeeded by Kinnock.
It took the SDP much longer to break the mould. In fact we're still waiting.
(I note it is acknowledged Tories who are so enthusiastic about the Labour moderates splitting. I wonder why ... I wonder why)
Kinnock was not a centrist but a leftwinger, Hattersley was the centrist candidate in 1983 albeit he became Kinnock's Deputy and it took years for Kinnock to drive out Militant.
It was not until John Smith beat Brian Gould for the leadership and introduced OMOV that centrists took control again of course driving home that control when Blair won in 1994 after Smith's and removed Clause 4 from the party's constitution. Plus in many respects New Labour was the child of the SDP
I don't think you are reading this right.
For sure, Corby has propelled the centre of gravity of the Labour party leftwards. Corby's successor will be more leftwing than Blair (not difficult).
The question for Tom Watson (who after all is comparable to Kinnock in political positioning) is more about power.
Can he achieve power in the Party and the Country more quickly by waiting for Corby to go, or by setting up Labour Mark II ?
Tbh, the answer to that question is a no brainer. Watson won't jump.
Many of the Labour TIGgers are either about to retire or were about to be deselected. They had no future in the Labour Party. (Chuka is the obvious exception).
The Tory TIGgers IMO will live to regret their actions.
Without the SDP being founded and paving the way for New Labour, Labour may have taken even longer to get back to power after 1980
Imagine the furore if a subset of parents wanted to take their children out of a school because it's teaching their children about Islam.
Plenty of EDL type parents would have no problem with that
The difference is Given polling has suggested the majority of UK Muslims 52% support making homosexuality illegal (compared to only 5% of the wider population) and only 18% agreed it should be legal (the remaining 30% 'had no opinion'?) surely this needs to be tackled via education. If that is not happening how will those views change?
Its quite one thing to morally disapprove of someone else's life choices or sexual orientation - quite another to think they should be locked up because of them!
Homosexuality is illegal in the likes of Iran and Saudi Arabia and Sudan which are Muslim majority, the same poll also had 39% agree that “wives should always obey their husbands”, compared with 5% of the country as a whole. Two-thirds (66%) did say they completely condemned people who took part in stoning adulterers, and a further 13% condemned them to some extent, so 21% backed stoning adulterers. Nearly a third (31%) thought it was acceptable for a British Muslim man to have more than one wife, compared with 8% of the wider population.
The Muslim year currently is 1441 and in some respects many Islamic nations are where we were at that time on the Gregorian Calendar
The current Jewish year is 5779, but the Jewish view towards homosexuality is also similar to that of Islam. It is codified in Leviticus chapters 18 and 20, where such practices are defined as an abomination and deserving of the ultimate penalty of death.
Much of the hostility to Jews and Muslims is because they have different moral values and beliefs that are an anathema to current Western attitudes. The parents in Birmingham were doing what they think is best for their children, and have every right to stop them being inculcated with what they believe are decadent ideas.
Not when they live in a non Muslim country. I am extremely relaxed about Muslims or any other religion coming to settle in the UK. But they have to obey the laws and cultural mores of the country they are settling in. I expect no less when I live or work in an Islamic country even when I feel their laws or customs are wrong.
I'm sure Lady Warsi would consider that (and other comments on this topic) as evidence of Islamophobia.
It is still the case that it is easier to wait for Corby to lose control of the party (as he will, because the pendulum always swings back) than to set up a completely new party.
I always wondered what I would have done if I had been born and lived in East Germany (or another Soviet satellite) in the 1970s. Would I have tried to be a hero and cross the Wall?
The correct thing to do (we can now see) is to have waited. In 1989, the GDR collapsed.
The TIGgers have scaled the Wall. Good luck to them, but most likely they will be shot down by the border guards or bleed to death in the barbed wire.
The best thing for Labour moderates to do is wait. The Wall will come down anyhow.
If there is a GE this year (not unlikely), they may not have to wait too long.
To take your analogy: Corbyn's Labour is East Germany - what is the USSR that is going to collapse to make his domino fall too? There is none.
A nearer parallel might be the Khmer Rouge's Cambodia. A truly bat-shit crazy restarting of the clock to year zero. Nothing that went before had any merit. Party faithful horribly purged for not being quite faithful enough, implemented by thuggish and intensely stupid enforcers. Eventually pushed out of power by factionalism and death - with a helping hand from outside forces....
...but I am still very happy for you to be Prime Minister.
Corbyn is shit. But so is May. At least a Corbyn government wouldn't have that international laughing stock Grayling in government, or continuing to kick the poor sick and dying for fun.
I couldn’t read the original report (no subs). As far as I can tell, Amber has been no more rebellious than any other Minister and as Meeks has pointed out, the PM has deliberately? left a vacuum for others to fill.
But, what are the briefings No.10 are supposed to have made?
Well done @Black_Rook - good to see someone calling out those homophobic parents in Birmingham and the damning silence that has followed. Hat tip also to @Cyclefree for being supportive
I guess the problem with gay people is that we’re stuck on about 2% of the population. Ken Livingstone and George Galloway made the simple calculation that they can appeal to a much larger (and growing) constituency by throwing us under the bus. Literally no MPs have spoken up for gay people on this issue - just a load of handwaving and saying that ‘consultation’ is required.
No consultation is required at all. If these parents want to take their children out of school because it’s teaching their children that gay people are normal and that there is no need to hate or fear them, they can pay for their own schools.
I know nothing about the story except your post.
IMV no school - private or not - should be teaching that gay people should be hated or feared.
Or, critically, treated with anything other than equality and respect.
Yes. But I was on the tube so had to send when I had reception...
The party has form under The JC when it comes to data. I emailed THE PARTY to register for information on several leadership candidates in 2015. And then for several years received emails from Jeremy for Labour Ltd (Trading as Momemtum) who claimed I had given permission. The Corbyn machine simply stole data on a wholesale basis (as revealed in that Dispatches undercover film a couple of years ago).
So now they have a problem. They need someone seen as serious and competent so they hire a former Lord Chancellor. His first step is to highlight that Formby is either a liar or incompetent when it comes to GDPR - either way she shows how she is a political stooge first and Chief Exec leading a party organisation second.
Falconer then goes straight for the jugular - show me the emails. Except that they can't. Sounds like a decent number will freely interchange Labour/Momentum/Unite email addresses for Labour business (after all, whats the difference...?). He will push. They will show him a few. Then he will quit.
Which leads to the purpose of the exercise. Hire a leading Blairite. Have him dig a little, make him quit claiming sklulduggery, then denounce him and anyone who ever voted Labour as a Tory stooge spreading LIES and FAKE NEWS about the Beloved JC. Falconer has been set up as Proof that there is a dirty Smear Campaign against poor The Jeremy proving once and for all that a deep level network of influence is at work. I have no doubt that Lord Levy's name will be thrown around on Facebook as it always is when cultists try and show they aren't anti-semitic.
How can you say anything positive about Lord Levy that moght offset a claim of anti-semitism? The guy’s a drege
It took Labour 13 years for centrists to regain control of the party after Foot was elected in 1980 and Militant gained influence
No, it took 3 years. Foot was elected leader in 1980, he left office in 1983, to be succeeded by Kinnock.
It took the SDP much longer to break the mould. In fact we're still waiting.
(I note it is acknowledged Tories who are so enthusiastic about the Labour moderates splitting. I wonder why ... I wonder why)
Kinnock was not a centrist but a leftwinger, Hattersley was the centrist candidate in 1983 albeit he became Kinnock's Deputy and it took years for Kinnock to drive out Militant.
It was not until John Smith beat Brian Gould for the leadership and introduced OMOV that centrists took control again of course driving home that control when Blair won in 1994 after Smith's and removed Clause 4 from the party's constitution. Plus in many respects New Labour was the child of the SDP
I don't think you are reading this right.
For sure, Corby has propelled the centre of gravity of the Labour party leftwards. Corby's successor will be more leftwing than Blair (not difficult).
The question for Tom Watson (who after all is comparable to Kinnock in political positioning) is more about power.
Can he achieve power in the Party and the Country more quickly by waiting for Corby to go, or by setting up Labour Mark II ?
Tbh, the answer to that question is a no brainer. Watson won't jump.
Many of the Labour TIGgers are either about to retire or were about to be deselected. They had no future in the Labour Party. (Chuka is the obvious exception).
The Tory TIGgers IMO will live to regret their actions.
I’m of the view that all religious teaching should end in schools, there should be no faith schools, and religion should be treated as a humanities subject only, like history or geography. I have never grasped why treating - and teaching - as fact something for which there is not any supporting evidence can be morally, socially or financially justified.
Ending faith schools is displacement activity, if you have secular schools dominated by people who take their religion very seriously.
Funny, I take science very seriously. And more to the point am utterly bored with having to sit through exactly the same work of fiction for every school Christmas play. I know what happens, I’ve seen the show year after year. My wife tells me not to say anything for fear of offending religious people.
I'm sure the average faith school takes science very seriously, as well. And being bored for the sake of the children is a part of every adult's life.
Disagree on both points. Faith is counter to science. Having children and learning with them is generally a joy. The school introduces boredom, needlessly.
No it’s not. Science answers “how” and faith “why”.
I’m of the view that all religious teaching should end in schools, there should be no faith schools, and religion should be treated as a humanities subject only, like history or geography. I have never grasped why treating - and teaching - as fact something for which there is not any supporting evidence can be morally, socially or financially justified.
Ending faith schools is displacement activity, if you have secular schools dominated by people who take their religion very seriously.
Funny, I take science very seriously. And more to the point am utterly bored with having to sit through exactly the same work of fiction for every school Christmas play. I know what happens, I’ve seen the show year after year. My wife tells me not to say anything for fear of offending religious people.
Don't tell her I said this, but your wife is quite right. All the kids have worked hard getting their lines and dressing gowns and tea towels and gold and frankinstein and myhrr right, and all the mums and dads are there to watch them. Your 'well I don't believe in baby jesus' interjection would rightly be greeted with public consternation at a school nativity, in the same way that my 'but none of the founding fathers were rappers!' rant would lead to a somewhat curtailed night at the Vic.
And your wife agrees with mine that we should keep our so-called 'scientific' view on radioactive spider bites to ourselves, too.
My only acting credit to date was as one of the Three Wise Men, the who offered myrrh. I was only 7
The same for me. We sang 'We three kings of Orient are, one in a taxi, one in a car, one on a scooter, blowing his hooter, going to Lockwood Bar.' ( A local placename).
Comments
I assume he's using code for 'it'll be an extension and we shall try again'
For sure, Corby has propelled the centre of gravity of the Labour party leftwards. Corby's successor will be more leftwing than Blair (not difficult).
The question for Tom Watson (who after all is comparable to Kinnock in political positioning) is more about power.
Can he achieve power in the Party and the Country more quickly by waiting for Corby to go, or by setting up Labour Mark II ?
Tbh, the answer to that question is a no brainer. Watson won't jump.
Many of the Labour TIGgers are either about to retire or were about to be deselected. They had no future in the Labour Party. (Chuka is the obvious exception).
The Tory TIGgers IMO will live to regret their actions.
I hope they both split more, but I think Watson and co have seen off the Tiggers. Those that are left see it as a fight to have.
She pointed to the 'shocking' case of of the Labour Party official who thought the anti semitic mural shouldn't be destroyed yet was only given a warning.
It reminded me how quickly we have forgotten the lessons of the 'We Are Charlie' movement which swept the world a couple of years ago.
But really I'm just mad because we're about to blunder on further because MPs seem about to refuse every option again as they still refuse to actually face up to things and make a call, and his words seem to encapsulate that by having no plan.
The problem is not what Jeremy Hunt said. The problem is the mess that the government is in.
"OMG there won't be a deal and we will all inevitably dyeeee" is one of the early Chicken-Licken Remain-o-Tropes. (Since we were talking about Nandos)
The case for a split is that Labour is confirmed irredemably as an extremist party and as such its electoral destiny will follow the path trod earlier by the Parti Communiste Francaise.
It sounds rather kneejerk, to me, never mind the problems of definition.
If you tried, what I think would happen would be the development of after-school and weekend-schools teaching religion, as existed extensively amongst eg Mosques in eg the 1980s. For all I know they still exist - and that may still exist for all I know.
If you played the same game with more integrated religions the effect could be similar.
Would not help your cause?
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/05/hillary-clinton-2020-1203219
It must be Tuesday.
A nearer parallel might be the Khmer Rouge's Cambodia. A truly bat-shit crazy restarting of the clock to year zero. Nothing that went before had any merit. Party faithful horribly purged for not being quite faithful enough, implemented by thuggish and intensely stupid enforcers. Eventually pushed out of power by factionalism and death - with a helping hand from outside forces....
As far as I can tell, Amber has been no more rebellious than any other Minister and as Meeks has pointed out, the PM has deliberately? left a vacuum for others to fill.
But, what are the briefings No.10 are supposed to have made?