Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB’s huge post-Corbyn increase in members has had almost no i
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB’s huge post-Corbyn increase in members has had almost no impact on the number of council seats being contested
One of the things that Corbynistas always take great pride in is the number of members who have been attracted to the party since Corbyn’s victory in the 2015 leadership election. With a reported 500k+ the red team is four or five times bigger than the blue one.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1115254301415309312
No mention of how many time he and the ERG have voted with the Marxists thus far.... and of course some ERGs floating about voting against the Govt with said Marxist in a future confidence vote too
And they are indeed among the angriest again that Brexit might be super soft or over.
Look at this from Welsh Labour:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-politics-47853418
“Hitler had the right idea, anyone got any gas canisters”, facebooked Cllr Bob Murray.
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1115222724287266818
I have the Lib Dems contesting 53% (4476 out of 8374) which is up from 46% in 2015.
This is an excellent database from the Elections Centre, giving all the results from 1973 onwards.
http://www.electionscentre.co.uk/?page_id=3755
e.g.
1. Is a 1 member rural district ward being given the same weighting as a 3 member suburban ward?
2. Where Labour are fighting in a 3 member Tory ward with 1 or 2 candidates, is that counted as only partial contestation?
Whichever way you count it in Districts is likely to give a low number even when a Labour candidate is available to a high percentage of voters.
If you don't field a full slate, you're letting an opponent get in by default.
Jon Snow: Ofcom investigates 'white people' remark at Brexit rally
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47856058
Snow comment was bloody stupid (and offensive) and clearly Farage didn't mean go beat him up. It is totally standard language to talk about "attacking" a political opponent.
As to pass it will presumably need most Tory MPs to back it.
The ERG attacking the Brexit deal before it was even published dented its credibility in the eyes of the public and made it difficult for the government to unite around a positive selling message
The ERG attacking the deal gave remainers a free pass to do likewise without (just) being accused of not wanting Brexit. And made the Labour opposition's position in voting against easier to justify.
The ERG attacking the deal gave Labour leavers less reason to so do, particularly when it became obvious that it would be heavily defeated. Breaking with your colleagues to make your mark on history by voting a Brexit deal through is one thing; a futile rebellion to reduce a big government defeat is another. Plenty of commentators including Alan Johnson on last week's TW have said that a larger bloc of Labour MPs was ready to back the deal.
And their stubborn refusal to compromise with reality has tarnished the entire project and exposed their futile intransigence and relentless whinging negativity to a much wider audience. If the people who wanted Brexit won't vote for it, what's the point?
Edit/ and of course their own PM lost a lot of credibility and political capital around the world after chalking up such historic Commons defeats.
Maybe MPs have come back after the weekend and realised this is becoming an existential crisis for the Conservative party.
Francois is a berk. May is incompetent. Corbyn is incompetent. None of that affects the basic arguments around the EU and staying in or going. There's a perfectly reasonable debate to be had, with legitimate views for and against. There is also a plethora of dingbats wibbling inanely.
Good afternoon, everybody.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1115265436361330694?s=21
It remains ironic that if the SNP had won their referendum, Scotland would be out of the EU and England, Wales, and Northern Ireland would be in.
What could possibly go wrong?
A- time moves on and things change and
B- politically agreement is not achieving what many want, which is to end this not agree it
What is the procedure for changing the procedure for changing the leader?
But, even if you did, the possession of a working brain might suggest that you should not post it on Facebook.
https://twitter.com/matt_dathan/status/1115268113778528257
If we ultimately end up Remaining, the anti-deal Leavers can take pretty much the entire responsibility imho if the swing voter is a Lexiter other than Kate Hoey.
Not nearly on the same scale.
He might have guaranteed flaccid Brexit or no Brexit at all.
The man deserves a peerage.
David Davis will negotiate us an awesome Anglo-German trade deal.
1. The Opposition - the clue is in the name.
2. The DUP - the clue is in the name.
3. The ERG - utterly nuts to vote down Brexit in the name of a mythical pure version of it.
4. The Grievers - voting against their own govt AND the Ref, and lying about the reason.
And I agreed with the basic premise that May should have been removed before then.
Whilst I'm at it, your records should include my excellent tips on Button with the 2009 title at 70/1, and Verstappen to win the 2016 Spanish Grand Prix at 250/1, quite possibly the PB record for longest winning tip.
And my new book, Crown of Blood, came out a couple of days ago, so ensure you've acquired your own copy.
Therefore, the ERG should be placed some way below the bottom of the list.
(Edit: IMHO)
So if I was in the ERG or DUP, I'd say "let's crash out and next week we'll ask for re-negotiation of the previous WA which. with backstop items resolved, the Conservative Govenrment will get through the Commons and we can talk trade - over to you, Liam"
Or that, no actually, they don't need us more than we need them?
Calais-Dover is REALLY important