So the only major mainstream Party (excluding neo-fascists) in the British Isles never to have had a woman as leader will be The Labour Party. Should this be the reason to drop Mr Thicky?
Even the political wing of the EDL have had a woman leader.
> @Andy_Cooke said: > With Tories tied to the sinking ship of Brexit, Layla is safe in Oxford West for the foreseeable, and many seats in the region around become in play for the LibDems. > > In theory the boundary changes would make "Oxford North & Abingdon" less safe for the Lib Dems. > > In practice the Lib Dems are advancing sufficiently in Oxfordshire that I think she'll be safe whatever happens... unless the new Lib Dem administrations in the districts foul up unwinding the Local Plans and the party suffers accordingly. No pressure @Andy_Cooke > > As it happens, my patch is one of the areas (the one to the south)that would shift into OxNAb.(Marcham, Drayton, and Sutton Courtenay). From canvassing reports, I can say she's very popular around here on the doorstep (people bringing her up positively unprompted) and I think having her endorsement on my leaflets helped me. We did get three of the best results in the Vale (which was, itself, a very good result overall), and much though my ego would like to ascribe that to myself, I have to think that the view of Layla helped considerably. > > We had swings in our favour of 16.5%, 25.0%, and 43.3% respectively in those three wards.
Perhaps a residual Asquithian vote in Sutton Courtenay!
> @OblitusSumMe said: > > @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > In a strange way I think she sees it as her duty to complete Brexit but also to prevent Boris and other no deal Brexiteers taking over > > > > The party just need to get the WDA over the line and move on with a leadership contest > > > > The sooner the better > > There comes a time when the most useful thing a person can do is to stand aside and allow other people to take over. May has seemingly given up trying to convince people to back the withdrawal agreement. It will not pass while she is PM. > > It is over.
The withdrawal agreement will not pass whoever is PM.
So the only major mainstream Party (excluding neo-fascists) in the British Isles never to have had a woman as leader will be The Labour Party. Should this be the reason to drop Mr Thicky?
Even the political wing of the EDL have had a woman leader.
> @stodge said: > In my view, Steel should have resigned from the Party. But failing that, Steel made a staggering error of judgment which has brought the party into disrepute. If the LibDems take that view, as well, that should be grounds for expulsion. The idea they CAN'T do so is staggering. > > You're probably right about Steel resigning - as an aside, his reputation inside the Party was well and truly trashed by the merger negotiations of 1988-89 and the appalling initial policy document he and McLennan put out. > > There's a wider question here - if you are in a political party and you hear an allegation about a fellow member that is serious but non-political in content, is it not the case that IF said member denies it, the Party can do very little. You may believe the allegation but unless you have proof (and that would imply a successful prosecution in a court) I don't see what action can be taken. > > Expelling a member on the basis of unproven charges seems draconian yet the seriousness of the allegations against Smith were such that questions had to be asked. If we have a judicial system which says "innocent until proven guilty" should Parties expel members purely on the basis of allegation? > > I'm not defending Smith or Steel - the party's behaviour in this matter was reprehensible and I in no way condone it but I'm forced to wonder how it is within parties - if you are a good party member, to what extent does what you do outside the Party matter? Yes, if there is a proven allegation in court, a Party can and should (and I suspect does) take action but where there is only the allegation, what then?
Deciding who can and can't stand for a party is not something that need be held to a criminal standard of proof, any more than employing someone is.
If Steel had reason to believe the allegations - and he said he did, didn't he - then that evidence should have been adequate. These things should be at most balance-of-probabilities and arguably, on a protective basis, not even that.
People do not have an inalienable right to membership of a given party, nor to represent them at an election.
So the only major mainstream Party (excluding neo-fascists) in the British Isles never to have had a woman as leader will be The Labour Party. Should this be the reason to drop Mr Thicky?
Even the political wing of the EDL have had a woman leader.
> @TheScreamingEagles said: > So the only major mainstream Party (excluding neo-fascists) in the British Isles never to have had a woman as leader will be The Labour Party. Should this be the reason to drop Mr Thicky? > > Even the political wing of the EDL have had a woman leader.
Oh yes, I had forgotten about her. Did El Duce Nige choke on his English breakfast when he realised the new "leader" of Faragist Party V1 was female and had her removed after only 3 days, or was some other reason given?
> @williamglenn said: > So the only major mainstream Party (excluding neo-fascists) in the British Isles never to have had a woman as leader will be The Labour Party. Should this be the reason to drop Mr Thicky? > > Even the political wing of the EDL have had a woman leader. > > > > > Two I believe > > For less than a month combined perhaps?
Never sure whether to laugh or puke when I see that picture.
I always thought the Jeremy Kyle show was dreadful and tasteless from the first time I saw it, but at one time you were almost regarded as an "enemy of the people" if you expressed such an opinion.
So the only major mainstream Party (excluding neo-fascists) in the British Isles never to have had a woman as leader will be The Labour Party. Should this be the reason to drop Mr Thicky?
Even the political wing of the EDL have had a woman leader.
In my view, Steel should have resigned from the Party. But failing that, Steel made a staggering error of judgment which has brought the party into disrepute. If the LibDems take that view, as well, that should be grounds for expulsion. The idea they CAN'T do so is staggering.
You're probably right about Steel resigning - as an aside, his reputation inside the Party was well and truly trashed by the merger negotiations of 1988-89 and the appalling initial policy document he and McLennan put out.
There's a wider question here - if you are in a political party and you hear an allegation about a fellow member that is serious but non-political in content, is it not the case that IF said member denies it, the Party can do very little. You may believe the allegation but unless you have proof (and that would imply a successful prosecution in a court) I don't see what action can be taken.
Expelling a member on the basis of unproven charges seems draconian yet the seriousness of the allegations against Smith were such that questions had to be asked. If we have a judicial system which says "innocent until proven guilty" should Parties expel members purely on the basis of allegation?
I'm not defending Smith or Steel - the party's behaviour in this matter was reprehensible and I in no way condone it but I'm forced to wonder how it is within parties - if you are a good party member, to what extent does what you do outside the Party matter? Yes, if there is a proven allegation in court, a Party can and should (and I suspect does) take action but where there is only the allegation, what then?
Isn’t the answer that the allegations against Smith should have been referred to the authorities not ignored?
Also, people can and are disciplined or otherwise suffer adverse consequences even if they are not criminally charged or convicted. Organisations can adopt different standards and burdens of proof to the criminal courts. These are not easy matters to assess and it may well be that the rule book at the time was inadequate. But I suspect that the reason action was not taken was not an insufficiency of rules but a lack of will, a feeling that Smith was too important, an unwillingness to believe children etc.
Sometimes, brutal as it may sound, it may be necessary to ask someone to stand aside temporarily, for the sake of the organization’s reputation etc. There are no easy answers here but whatever the right and wrongs of what was done in the past a clear message about the party's expectations for the future should have been sent out. (See also my other post upthread.)
> @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > @OblitusSumMe said: > > > @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > > In a strange way I think she sees it as her duty to complete Brexit but also to prevent Boris and other no deal Brexiteers taking over > > > > > > The party just need to get the WDA over the line and move on with a leadership contest > > > > > > The sooner the better > > > > There comes a time when the most useful thing a person can do is to stand aside and allow other people to take over. May has seemingly given up trying to convince people to back the withdrawal agreement. It will not pass while she is PM. > > > > It is over. > > It is not over by a long way but I do want TM to accept her succession contest as soon as the EU elections are over at the end of the month. As a loyal supporter of TM even I am seeking her to pass on the task
But where does a majority come from to pass an Implementation Bill for her Withdrawal Agreement? And how?
> @Nigel_Foremain said: > So the only major mainstream Party (excluding neo-fascists) in the British Isles never to have had a woman as leader will be The Labour Party. Should this be the reason to drop Mr Thicky?
> > > In a strange way I think she sees it as her duty to complete Brexit but also to prevent Boris and other no deal Brexiteers taking over
> > >
> > > The party just need to get the WDA over the line and move on with a leadership contest
> > >
> > > The sooner the better
> >
> > There comes a time when the most useful thing a person can do is to stand aside and allow other people to take over. May has seemingly given up trying to convince people to back the withdrawal agreement. It will not pass while she is PM.
> >
> > It is over.
>
> It is not over by a long way but I do want TM to accept her succession contest as soon as the EU elections are over at the end of the month. As a loyal supporter of TM even I am seeking her to pass on the task
But where does a majority come from to pass an Implementation Bill for her Withdrawal Agreement? And how?
Dont you think if The Brexit Party win well at the Euros, win Peterborough, then start to poll high 20s consistently, waverers might vote for it for fear of their seats?
> @isam said: > > @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > > > @OblitusSumMe said: > > > > > @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > > > > In a strange way I think she sees it as her duty to complete Brexit but also to prevent Boris and other no deal Brexiteers taking over > > > > > > > > > > The party just need to get the WDA over the line and move on with a leadership contest > > > > > > > > > > The sooner the better > > > > > > > > There comes a time when the most useful thing a person can do is to stand aside and allow other people to take over. May has seemingly given up trying to convince people to back the withdrawal agreement. It will not pass while she is PM. > > > > > > > > It is over. > > > > > > It is not over by a long way but I do want TM to accept her succession contest as soon as the EU elections are over at the end of the month. As a loyal supporter of TM even I am seeking her to pass on the task > > > > But where does a majority come from to pass an Implementation Bill for her Withdrawal Agreement? And how? > > Dont you think if The Brexit Party win well at the Euros, win Peterborough, then start to poll high 20s consistently, waverers might vote for it for fear of their seats?
No, I'm afraid not. The 'waverers', as you put it - the swing voters, more accurately - are the hardcore Eurosceptics who believe that the WA is far too soft. The rest of the Con MPs voted for it last time. A big Brexit Party vote will only confirm not only the hold-out rebels but also a lot of other ERG and softer Eurosceptics in that opinion. They'll be wrong - the issue is the lack of Brexit, not the nature of the WA - but they'll do it all the same.
> @AlastairMeeks said: > > @Nigel_Foremain said: > > So the only major mainstream Party (excluding neo-fascists) in the British Isles never to have had a woman as leader will be The Labour Party. Should this be the reason to drop Mr Thicky? > > The Labour Party has had two women leaders.
They don't count: they weren't elected as such.
No woman has ever beaten a man in a Labour leadership election.
No, I'm afraid not. The 'waverers', as you put it - the swing voters, more accurately - are the hardcore Eurosceptics who believe that the WA is far too soft. The rest of the Con MPs voted for it last time. A big Brexit Party vote will only confirm not only the hold-out rebels but also a lot of other ERG and softer Eurosceptics in that opinion. They'll be wrong - the issue is the lack of Brexit, not the nature of the WA - but they'll do it all the same.
Sorry, I meant Labour MPs who said they'd implement Brexit but voted against the deal. I never really looked at who they are or if there are enough of them to be honest.
Do you think a good showing over the next month or so by TBP makes Brexit more, or less, likely? I thought it would make Revoke/2nd ref almost impossible
> @isam said: > Dont you think if The Brexit Party win well at the Euros, win Peterborough, then start to poll high 20s consistently, waverers might vote for it for fear of their seats?
The Brexit Party is opposed to the Withdrawal Agreement. If they do well it will only embolden more ERG MPs to oppose it again. What then does a Labour MP have to gain in voting for it, if it will still fail, and if they will lose votes to the Brexit Party for voting for the backstop too?
> @isam said: > > > > No, I'm afraid not. The 'waverers', as you put it - the swing voters, more accurately - are the hardcore Eurosceptics who believe that the WA is far too soft. The rest of the Con MPs voted for it last time. A big Brexit Party vote will only confirm not only the hold-out rebels but also a lot of other ERG and softer Eurosceptics in that opinion. They'll be wrong - the issue is the lack of Brexit, not the nature of the WA - but they'll do it all the same. > > Sorry, I meant Labour MPs who said they'd implement Brexit but voted against the deal. I never really looked at who they are or if there are enough of them to be honest. > > Do you think a good showing over the next month or so by TBP makes Brexit more, or less, likely? I thought it would make Revoke/2nd ref almost impossible
The risk is that politics becomes increasingly polarised between militant Remainers (LD + CUK + G + Nats) vs militant Leavers (BRX + UKIP + ERG) and that each of these blocks is worth about 30% of the electorate.
Then you end up with a Remain vs No Deal referendum, which is going to lead to long-term issues.
In the old days, there would have been enough Labour Leavers who would have seen passing the WA as the right thing to do for the good of the country. But instead, even leavers such Kate Hoey voted against it. Labour Leavers (such as Corbyn, Jeremy), by and large, think that the sight of the Conservative Party tearing itself apart is worth a Bad (or indeed no) Brexit.
> > So the only major mainstream Party (excluding neo-fascists) in the British Isles never to have had a woman as leader will be The Labour Party. Should this be the reason to drop Mr Thicky?
>
> The Labour Party has had two women leaders.
They don't count: they weren't elected as such.
No woman has ever beaten a man in a Labour leadership election.
By the same token, the Conservative party members have never voted for a woman.
> @Nigel_Foremain said: > So the only major mainstream Party (excluding neo-fascists) in the British Isles never to have had a woman as leader will be The Labour Party. Should this be the reason to drop Mr Thicky?
No Corbyn like all good captains is going down with his ship. Also, isn't 'mainstream' being somewhat economical with the actualitaire?
The risk is that politics becomes increasingly polarised between militant Remainers (LD + CUK + G + Nats) vs militant Leavers (BRX + UKIP + ERG) and that each of these blocks is worth about 30% of the electorate.
Then you end up with a Remain vs No Deal referendum, which is going to lead to long-term issues.
In the old days, there would have been enough Labour Leavers who would have seen passing the WA as the right thing to do for the good of the country. But instead, even leavers such Kate Hoey voted against it. Labour Leavers (such as Corbyn, Jeremy), by and large, think that the sight of the Conservative Party tearing itself apart is worth a Bad (or indeed no) Brexit.
> @AndyJS said: > O/T > I always thought the Jeremy Kyle show was dreadful and tasteless from the first time I saw it, but at one time you were almost regarded as an "enemy of the people" if you expressed such an opinion.
Country will be an immeasurably better place without it.
Can think of few policies (not even from Labour) that would have as benign an impact as the passing away of this TV programme.
> @isam said: > Kind, gentle, progressive, compassionate politics from the editor of The New European. Imagine he’s talking about your Parents or Grandparents
Yes but he isn't. He is talking about Faragists, so they might look old and friendly but they are actually nasty and selfish.
> @isam said: > Dont you think if The Brexit Party win well at the Euros, win Peterborough, then start to poll high 20s consistently, waverers might vote for it for fear of their seats?
Scottish Labour, the Scottish Lib Dems, and the Scottish Conservatives oppose an independence referendum, despite the SNP's dominance. Sometimes politicians stuck to their guns despite a wall of public opinion. Signpost politicians deserve our respect even if we disagree with them. Weathervane politicians, less so.
> @david_herdson said: > > @AlastairMeeks said: > > > @Nigel_Foremain said: > > > So the only major mainstream Party (excluding neo-fascists) in the British Isles never to have had a woman as leader will be The Labour Party. Should this be the reason to drop Mr Thicky? > > > > The Labour Party has had two women leaders. > > They don't count: they weren't elected as such. > > No woman has ever beaten a man in a Labour leadership election.
> Dont you think if The Brexit Party win well at the Euros, win Peterborough, then start to poll high 20s consistently, waverers might vote for it for fear of their seats?
The Brexit Party is opposed to the Withdrawal Agreement. If they do well it will only embolden more ERG MPs to oppose it again. What then does a Labour MP have to gain in voting for it, if it will still fail, and if they will lose votes to the Brexit Party for voting for the backstop too?
Quite. The local and EU elections will be used by both sides to claim that their position has been vindicated. The BP will get up to 30% - so no dealers will say this means there is support for their position. Parties opposed to no deal (in which we must include Labour) will get between 50 and 60%, so remainers will say no deal must continue to be off the agenda. Parties opposed to Brexit altogether will get perhaps 25% so second referendum advocates will claim support for their position, especially since everyone knows that many in Labour also support that position. Parties in favour of the deal (the Tories) will do very badly.
The impasse is deepening and no solution is yet in sight.
> @isam said: > Kind, gentle, progressive, compassionate politics from the editor of The New European. Imagine he’s talking about your Parents or Grandparents
The New European is one of those cult newspapers like The Watchtower.
> Isn’t the answer that the allegations against Smith should have been referred to the authorities not ignored? > > Also, people can and are disciplined or otherwise suffer adverse consequences even if they are not criminally charged or convicted. Organisations can adopt different standards and burdens of proof to the criminal courts. These are not easy matters to assess and it may well be that the rule book at the time was inadequate. But I suspect that the reason action was not taken was not an insufficiency of rules but a lack of will, a feeling that Smith was too important, an unwillingness to believe children etc. > > Sometimes, brutal as it may sound, it may be necessary to ask someone to stand aside temporarily, for the sake of the organization’s reputation etc. There are no easy answers here but whatever the right and wrongs of what was done in the past a clear message about the party's expectations for the future should have been sent out. (See also my other post upthread.)
On the first point, my understanding is that the authorities had already investigated. Steel's only source of information seems to have been Smith telling him about the investigation; for reasons he's not AFAIK said, he didn't believe he was innocent, but there's no indication that Steel had obtained additional information to report to the authorities.
If I suspect without evidence that someone I know has committed a crime (perhaps I think he looks shifty when talking about the allegation, or laughs inappropriately about being cleared), I'm not sure I should take any action. I would however probably refrain from positive action such as approving a knighthood for him, and I would seek to have as little to do with him as possible. But even these steps seem dodgy if I have no evidence at all except a vague impression. It's difficult, don't you think?
Today's news that Swinson is likely to be leader is unexpectedly shifting the dial for me... Away from the Lib Dems. I was poised to vote for them in this election, but the truth is I just can't stand her. I think she's the best choice for the LDs, and she's objectively impressive. But she gets under my skin and I don't know why. Swinging back towards Green for the EUs, but still really don't know.
While I think it will be good for the LDs that Swinson has a clear(ish) run, they need to beware the ides of May (Theresa that is). Who showed us the danger of electing a leader without a proper debate.
Moran would have been a better candidate if she hadn't have walloped her bf, which could also too easily have become ammo to undermine her (humorously or otherwise).
> @anothernick said: > > @isam said: > > > Dont you think if The Brexit Party win well at the Euros, win Peterborough, then start to poll high 20s consistently, waverers might vote for it for fear of their seats? > > The Brexit Party is opposed to the Withdrawal Agreement. If they do well it will only embolden more ERG MPs to oppose it again. What then does a Labour MP have to gain in voting for it, if it will still fail, and if they will lose votes to the Brexit Party for voting for the backstop too? > > Quite. The local and EU elections will be used by both sides to claim that their position has been vindicated. The BP will get up to 30% - so no dealers will say this means there is support for their position. Parties opposed to no deal (in which we must include Labour) will get between 50 and 60%, so remainers will say no deal must continue to be off the agenda. Parties opposed to Brexit altogether will get perhaps 25% so second referendum advocates will claim support for their position, especially since everyone knows that many in Labour also support that position. Parties in favour of the deal (the Tories) will do very badly. > > The impasse is deepening and no solution is yet in sight. ___________________________________________________________________ Could pro-EU parties even get 30% between them, if the internationalists who care about EU membership get off their backsides and the Bollocks to Brexit slogan continues to get noticed?
6.1M signatures for Revoke is 10x the number who signed the No Deal petition. It seems at least 'somewhat significant' to me.
> @rural_voter said: > > @anothernick said: > > > @isam said: > > > > > Dont you think if The Brexit Party win well at the Euros, win Peterborough, then start to poll high 20s consistently, waverers might vote for it for fear of their seats? > > > > The Brexit Party is opposed to the Withdrawal Agreement. If they do well it will only embolden more ERG MPs to oppose it again. What then does a Labour MP have to gain in voting for it, if it will still fail, and if they will lose votes to the Brexit Party for voting for the backstop too? > > > > Quite. The local and EU elections will be used by both sides to claim that their position has been vindicated. The BP will get up to 30% - so no dealers will say this means there is support for their position. Parties opposed to no deal (in which we must include Labour) will get between 50 and 60%, so remainers will say no deal must continue to be off the agenda. Parties opposed to Brexit altogether will get perhaps 25% so second referendum advocates will claim support for their position, especially since everyone knows that many in Labour also support that position. Parties in favour of the deal (the Tories) will do very badly. > > > > The impasse is deepening and no solution is yet in sight. > ___________________________________________________________________ > Could pro-EU parties even get 30% between them, if the internationalists who care about EU membership get off their backsides and the Bollocks to Brexit slogan continues to get noticed? > > 6.1M signatures for Revoke is 10x the number who signed the No Deal petition. It seems at least 'somewhat significant' to me.
Yes. There are easily 6m+ voters who favour a No Deal Brexit.
I always thought the Jeremy Kyle show was dreadful and tasteless from the first time I saw it, but at one time you were almost regarded as an "enemy of the people" if you expressed such an opinion.
Also O/T there is no reason to ban Jeremy Kyle type stuff, but organisations like ITV should use editorial judgement as if they were normal members of a mature civilised community and go nowhere near it. The rest of us are entitled to make our own judgements about the qualities of organisations willing to make money out of it, such as ITV, or to advertise on it and act accordingly.
> @Nigel_Foremain said: > > @isam said: > > Kind, gentle, progressive, compassionate politics from the editor of The New European. Imagine he’s talking about your Parents or Grandparents > > Yes but he isn't. He is talking about Faragists, so they might look old and friendly but they are actually nasty and selfish.
> > Dont you think if The Brexit Party win well at the Euros, win Peterborough, then start to poll high 20s consistently, waverers might vote for it for fear of their seats?
>
> The Brexit Party is opposed to the Withdrawal Agreement. If they do well it will only embolden more ERG MPs to oppose it again. What then does a Labour MP have to gain in voting for it, if it will still fail, and if they will lose votes to the Brexit Party for voting for the backstop too?
>
> Quite. The local and EU elections will be used by both sides to claim that their position has been vindicated. The BP will get up to 30% - so no dealers will say this means there is support for their position. Parties opposed to no deal (in which we must include Labour) will get between 50 and 60%, so remainers will say no deal must continue to be off the agenda. Parties opposed to Brexit altogether will get perhaps 25% so second referendum advocates will claim support for their position, especially since everyone knows that many in Labour also support that position. Parties in favour of the deal (the Tories) will do very badly.
>
> The impasse is deepening and no solution is yet in sight.
Could pro-EU parties even get 30% between them, if the internationalists who care about EU membership get off their backsides and the Bollocks to Brexit slogan continues to get noticed?
6.1M signatures for Revoke is 10x the number who signed the No Deal petition. It seems at least 'somewhat significant' to me.
-------------------------------------
Quite possibly. And IMHO Labour is pro Brexit in name only, both Starmer and McDonnell have accepted that they can't get a deal through the party without a second referendum, which in reality puts Labour much closer to the remain position then either Labour or the other remain parties wish to admit.
> > > Dont you think if The Brexit Party win well at the Euros, win Peterborough, then start to poll high 20s consistently, waverers might vote for it for fear of their seats?
> >
> > The Brexit Party is opposed to the Withdrawal Agreement. If they do well it will only embolden more ERG MPs to oppose it again. What then does a Labour MP have to gain in voting for it, if it will still fail, and if they will lose votes to the Brexit Party for voting for the backstop too?
> >
> > Quite. The local and EU elections will be used by both sides to claim that their position has been vindicated. The BP will get up to 30% - so no dealers will say this means there is support for their position. Parties opposed to no deal (in which we must include Labour) will get between 50 and 60%, so remainers will say no deal must continue to be off the agenda. Parties opposed to Brexit altogether will get perhaps 25% so second referendum advocates will claim support for their position, especially since everyone knows that many in Labour also support that position. Parties in favour of the deal (the Tories) will do very badly.
> >
> > The impasse is deepening and no solution is yet in sight.
> Could pro-EU parties even get 30% between them, if the internationalists who care about EU membership get off their backsides and the Bollocks to Brexit slogan continues to get noticed?
>
> 6.1M signatures for Revoke is 10x the number who signed the No Deal petition. It seems at least 'somewhat significant' to me.
Yes. There are easily 6m+ voters who favour a No Deal Brexit.
Probably my most important insight over the last couple of years was this one:
> @Ploppikins said: > While I think it will be good for the LDs that Swinson has a clear(ish) run, they need to beware the ides of May (Theresa that is). Who showed us the danger of electing a leader without a proper debate. > > Moran would have been a better candidate if she hadn't have walloped her bf, which could also too easily have become ammo to undermine her (humorously or otherwise).
Jo 'MacWaspi' Swinson then. Not a very positive outcome. Wooden and something of a one trick pony. Tainted by the coalition, too. Of course, if they had Any sense Chuk would quickly merge into the Lib Dems and put Heidi up. A much better choice.
> > > Dont you think if The Brexit Party win well at the Euros, win Peterborough, then start to poll high 20s consistently, waverers might vote for it for fear of their seats?
> >
> > The Brexit Party is opposed to the Withdrawal Agreement. If they do well it will only embolden more ERG MPs to oppose it again. What then does a Labour MP have to gain in voting for it, if it will still fail, and if they will lose votes to the Brexit Party for voting for the backstop too?
> >
> > Quite. The local and EU elections will be used by both sides to claim that their position has been vindicated. The BP will get up to 30% - so no dealers will say this means there is support for their position. Parties opposed to no deal (in which we must include Labour) will get between 50 and 60%, so remainers will say no deal must continue to be off the agenda. Parties opposed to Brexit altogether will get perhaps 25% so second referendum advocates will claim support for their position, especially since everyone knows that many in Labour also support that position. Parties in favour of the deal (the Tories) will do very badly.
> >
> > The impasse is deepening and no solution is yet in sight.
> Could pro-EU parties even get 30% between them, if the internationalists who care about EU membership get off their backsides and the Bollocks to Brexit slogan continues to get noticed?
>
> 6.1M signatures for Revoke is 10x the number who signed the No Deal petition. It seems at least 'somewhat significant' to me.
Yes. There are easily 6m+ voters who favour a No Deal Brexit.
Probably my most important insight over the last couple of years was this one:
I made the point a few weeks ago. Brexit now. for millions of people, is like a gang initiation where the new member has to cut themselves with a blade or somesuch. The action may seem futile even self damaging, but if you don't do it, you;ll never get the respect of the others. MP's seem to think that bond of trust doesn't matter, maybe it does, maybe it dont, we'll see
> @Fenman said: > > @Ploppikins said: > > While I think it will be good for the LDs that Swinson has a clear(ish) run, they need to beware the ides of May (Theresa that is). Who showed us the danger of electing a leader without a proper debate. > > > > Moran would have been a better candidate if she hadn't have walloped her bf, which could also too easily have become ammo to undermine her (humorously or otherwise). > > Jo 'MacWaspi' Swinson then. Not a very positive outcome. Wooden and something of a one trick pony. Tainted by the coalition, too. Of course, if they had Any sense Chuk would quickly merge into the Lib Dems and put Heidi up. A much better choice.
You're assuming Change UK would have agency in any merger. I doubt it. The Lib Dems would be calling the shots at this rate.
If I suspect without evidence that someone I know has committed a crime (perhaps I think he looks shifty when talking about the allegation, or laughs inappropriately about being cleared), I'm not sure I should take any action. I would however probably refrain from positive action such as approving a knighthood for him, and I would seek to have as little to do with him as possible. But even these steps seem dodgy if I have no evidence at all except a vague impression. It's difficult, don't you think?
That's exactly where I am, Nick. Thanks for the response.
Interesting events in Surrey, currently. I underatdn there are "discussions" in Waverley around a Farnham Residents/LD Coalition to run the council while in Guildford the LDs are making a nonsense of their success in my view.
It seems they want to form a minority but with only 17 they risk being outvoted by the combined R$GV and GGG groupings with 19. The latter want to share power but the LD leader, who supported the much maligned local plan, isn't keen.
Comments
> With Tories tied to the sinking ship of Brexit, Layla is safe in Oxford West for the foreseeable, and many seats in the region around become in play for the LibDems.
>
> In theory the boundary changes would make "Oxford North & Abingdon" less safe for the Lib Dems.
>
> In practice the Lib Dems are advancing sufficiently in Oxfordshire that I think she'll be safe whatever happens... unless the new Lib Dem administrations in the districts foul up unwinding the Local Plans and the party suffers accordingly. No pressure @Andy_Cooke
>
> As it happens, my patch is one of the areas (the one to the south)that would shift into OxNAb.(Marcham, Drayton, and Sutton Courtenay). From canvassing reports, I can say she's very popular around here on the doorstep (people bringing her up positively unprompted) and I think having her endorsement on my leaflets helped me. We did get three of the best results in the Vale (which was, itself, a very good result overall), and much though my ego would like to ascribe that to myself, I have to think that the view of Layla helped considerably.
>
> We had swings in our favour of 16.5%, 25.0%, and 43.3% respectively in those three wards.
Perhaps a residual Asquithian vote in Sutton Courtenay!
> > @Big_G_NorthWales said:
> > In a strange way I think she sees it as her duty to complete Brexit but also to prevent Boris and other no deal Brexiteers taking over
> >
> > The party just need to get the WDA over the line and move on with a leadership contest
> >
> > The sooner the better
>
> There comes a time when the most useful thing a person can do is to stand aside and allow other people to take over. May has seemingly given up trying to convince people to back the withdrawal agreement. It will not pass while she is PM.
>
> It is over.
The withdrawal agreement will not pass whoever is PM.
For less than a month combined perhaps?
> In my view, Steel should have resigned from the Party. But failing that, Steel made a staggering error of judgment which has brought the party into disrepute. If the LibDems take that view, as well, that should be grounds for expulsion. The idea they CAN'T do so is staggering.
>
> You're probably right about Steel resigning - as an aside, his reputation inside the Party was well and truly trashed by the merger negotiations of 1988-89 and the appalling initial policy document he and McLennan put out.
>
> There's a wider question here - if you are in a political party and you hear an allegation about a fellow member that is serious but non-political in content, is it not the case that IF said member denies it, the Party can do very little. You may believe the allegation but unless you have proof (and that would imply a successful prosecution in a court) I don't see what action can be taken.
>
> Expelling a member on the basis of unproven charges seems draconian yet the seriousness of the allegations against Smith were such that questions had to be asked. If we have a judicial system which says "innocent until proven guilty" should Parties expel members purely on the basis of allegation?
>
> I'm not defending Smith or Steel - the party's behaviour in this matter was reprehensible and I in no way condone it but I'm forced to wonder how it is within parties - if you are a good party member, to what extent does what you do outside the Party matter? Yes, if there is a proven allegation in court, a Party can and should (and I suspect does) take action but where there is only the allegation, what then?
Deciding who can and can't stand for a party is not something that need be held to a criminal standard of proof, any more than employing someone is.
If Steel had reason to believe the allegations - and he said he did, didn't he - then that evidence should have been adequate. These things should be at most balance-of-probabilities and arguably, on a protective basis, not even that.
People do not have an inalienable right to membership of a given party, nor to represent them at an election.
> So the only major mainstream Party (excluding neo-fascists) in the British Isles never to have had a woman as leader will be The Labour Party. Should this be the reason to drop Mr Thicky?
>
> Even the political wing of the EDL have had a woman leader.
Oh yes, I had forgotten about her. Did El Duce Nige choke on his English breakfast when he realised the new "leader" of Faragist Party V1 was female and had her removed after only 3 days, or was some other reason given?
> So the only major mainstream Party (excluding neo-fascists) in the British Isles never to have had a woman as leader will be The Labour Party. Should this be the reason to drop Mr Thicky?
>
> Even the political wing of the EDL have had a woman leader.
>
>
>
>
> Two I believe
>
> For less than a month combined perhaps?
Never sure whether to laugh or puke when I see that picture.
I always thought the Jeremy Kyle show was dreadful and tasteless from the first time I saw it, but at one time you were almost regarded as an "enemy of the people" if you expressed such an opinion.
Also, people can and are disciplined or otherwise suffer adverse consequences even if they are not criminally charged or convicted. Organisations can adopt different standards and burdens of proof to the criminal courts. These are not easy matters to assess and it may well be that the rule book at the time was inadequate. But I suspect that the reason action was not taken was not an insufficiency of rules but a lack of will, a feeling that Smith was too important, an unwillingness to believe children etc.
Sometimes, brutal as it may sound, it may be necessary to ask someone to stand aside temporarily, for the sake of the organization’s reputation etc. There are no easy answers here but whatever the right and wrongs of what was done in the past a clear message about the party's expectations for the future should have been sent out. (See also my other post upthread.)
> > @OblitusSumMe said:
> > > @Big_G_NorthWales said:
> > > In a strange way I think she sees it as her duty to complete Brexit but also to prevent Boris and other no deal Brexiteers taking over
> > >
> > > The party just need to get the WDA over the line and move on with a leadership contest
> > >
> > > The sooner the better
> >
> > There comes a time when the most useful thing a person can do is to stand aside and allow other people to take over. May has seemingly given up trying to convince people to back the withdrawal agreement. It will not pass while she is PM.
> >
> > It is over.
>
> It is not over by a long way but I do want TM to accept her succession contest as soon as the EU elections are over at the end of the month. As a loyal supporter of TM even I am seeking her to pass on the task
But where does a majority come from to pass an Implementation Bill for her Withdrawal Agreement? And how?
> So the only major mainstream Party (excluding neo-fascists) in the British Isles never to have had a woman as leader will be The Labour Party. Should this be the reason to drop Mr Thicky?
The Labour Party has had two women leaders.
> > @Big_G_NorthWales said:
>
> > > @OblitusSumMe said:
>
> > > > @Big_G_NorthWales said:
>
> > > > In a strange way I think she sees it as her duty to complete Brexit but also to prevent Boris and other no deal Brexiteers taking over
>
> > > >
>
> > > > The party just need to get the WDA over the line and move on with a leadership contest
>
> > > >
>
> > > > The sooner the better
>
> > >
>
> > > There comes a time when the most useful thing a person can do is to stand aside and allow other people to take over. May has seemingly given up trying to convince people to back the withdrawal agreement. It will not pass while she is PM.
>
> > >
>
> > > It is over.
>
> >
>
> > It is not over by a long way but I do want TM to accept her succession contest as soon as the EU elections are over at the end of the month. As a loyal supporter of TM even I am seeking her to pass on the task
>
>
>
> But where does a majority come from to pass an Implementation Bill for her Withdrawal Agreement? And how?
>
> Dont you think if The Brexit Party win well at the Euros, win Peterborough, then start to poll high 20s consistently, waverers might vote for it for fear of their seats?
No, I'm afraid not. The 'waverers', as you put it - the swing voters, more accurately - are the hardcore Eurosceptics who believe that the WA is far too soft. The rest of the Con MPs voted for it last time. A big Brexit Party vote will only confirm not only the hold-out rebels but also a lot of other ERG and softer Eurosceptics in that opinion. They'll be wrong - the issue is the lack of Brexit, not the nature of the WA - but they'll do it all the same.
> > @Nigel_Foremain said:
> > So the only major mainstream Party (excluding neo-fascists) in the British Isles never to have had a woman as leader will be The Labour Party. Should this be the reason to drop Mr Thicky?
>
> The Labour Party has had two women leaders.
They don't count: they weren't elected as such.
No woman has ever beaten a man in a Labour leadership election.
Do you think a good showing over the next month or so by TBP makes Brexit more, or less, likely? I thought it would make Revoke/2nd ref almost impossible
> Dont you think if The Brexit Party win well at the Euros, win Peterborough, then start to poll high 20s consistently, waverers might vote for it for fear of their seats?
The Brexit Party is opposed to the Withdrawal Agreement. If they do well it will only embolden more ERG MPs to oppose it again. What then does a Labour MP have to gain in voting for it, if it will still fail, and if they will lose votes to the Brexit Party for voting for the backstop too?
https://twitter.com/thejuicemedia/status/1128076681422336000
> >
>
> No, I'm afraid not. The 'waverers', as you put it - the swing voters, more accurately - are the hardcore Eurosceptics who believe that the WA is far too soft. The rest of the Con MPs voted for it last time. A big Brexit Party vote will only confirm not only the hold-out rebels but also a lot of other ERG and softer Eurosceptics in that opinion. They'll be wrong - the issue is the lack of Brexit, not the nature of the WA - but they'll do it all the same.
>
> Sorry, I meant Labour MPs who said they'd implement Brexit but voted against the deal. I never really looked at who they are or if there are enough of them to be honest.
>
> Do you think a good showing over the next month or so by TBP makes Brexit more, or less, likely? I thought it would make Revoke/2nd ref almost impossible
The risk is that politics becomes increasingly polarised between militant Remainers (LD + CUK + G + Nats) vs militant Leavers (BRX + UKIP + ERG) and that each of these blocks is worth about 30% of the electorate.
Then you end up with a Remain vs No Deal referendum, which is going to lead to long-term issues.
In the old days, there would have been enough Labour Leavers who would have seen passing the WA as the right thing to do for the good of the country. But instead, even leavers such Kate Hoey voted against it. Labour Leavers (such as Corbyn, Jeremy), by and large, think that the sight of the Conservative Party tearing itself apart is worth a Bad (or indeed no) Brexit.
> Something from Australia for TSE's mythical AV thread (warning - contains swearing):
>
> https://twitter.com/thejuicemedia/status/1128076681422336000
I don't believe the Australian Government made that video.
> So the only major mainstream Party (excluding neo-fascists) in the British Isles never to have had a woman as leader will be The Labour Party. Should this be the reason to drop Mr Thicky?
No Corbyn like all good captains is going down with his ship. Also, isn't 'mainstream' being somewhat economical with the actualitaire?
Robert you are the top boy of the site, please set an example and use http://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/discussion/7595/politicalbetting-com-blog-archive-jo-swinson-moves-to-a-69-chance-in-the-ld-leadership-betting#latest
It is so much better. Easier to use and read.
> O/T
> I always thought the Jeremy Kyle show was dreadful and tasteless from the first time I saw it, but at one time you were almost regarded as an "enemy of the people" if you expressed such an opinion.
Country will be an immeasurably better place without it.
Can think of few policies (not even from Labour) that would have as benign an impact as the passing away of this TV programme.
> Kind, gentle, progressive, compassionate politics from the editor of The New European. Imagine he’s talking about your Parents or Grandparents
Yes but he isn't. He is talking about Faragists, so they might look old and friendly but they are actually nasty and selfish.
> Dont you think if The Brexit Party win well at the Euros, win Peterborough, then start to poll high 20s consistently, waverers might vote for it for fear of their seats?
Scottish Labour, the Scottish Lib Dems, and the Scottish Conservatives oppose an independence referendum, despite the SNP's dominance. Sometimes politicians stuck to their guns despite a wall of public opinion. Signpost politicians deserve our respect even if we disagree with them. Weathervane politicians, less so.
PS - Did you see my posts at the end of this thread in response to you?
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/05/13/the-con-lab-polling-misery-continues/
> > @AlastairMeeks said:
> > > @Nigel_Foremain said:
> > > So the only major mainstream Party (excluding neo-fascists) in the British Isles never to have had a woman as leader will be The Labour Party. Should this be the reason to drop Mr Thicky?
> >
> > The Labour Party has had two women leaders.
>
> They don't count: they weren't elected as such.
>
> No woman has ever beaten a man in a Labour leadership election.
Unlike the Conservative Party? Er, no.
The impasse is deepening and no solution is yet in sight.
> Kind, gentle, progressive, compassionate politics from the editor of The New European. Imagine he’s talking about your Parents or Grandparents
The New European is one of those cult newspapers like The Watchtower.
> Isn’t the answer that the allegations against Smith should have been referred to the authorities not ignored?
>
> Also, people can and are disciplined or otherwise suffer adverse consequences even if they are not criminally charged or convicted. Organisations can adopt different standards and burdens of proof to the criminal courts. These are not easy matters to assess and it may well be that the rule book at the time was inadequate. But I suspect that the reason action was not taken was not an insufficiency of rules but a lack of will, a feeling that Smith was too important, an unwillingness to believe children etc.
>
> Sometimes, brutal as it may sound, it may be necessary to ask someone to stand aside temporarily, for the sake of the organization’s reputation etc. There are no easy answers here but whatever the right and wrongs of what was done in the past a clear message about the party's expectations for the future should have been sent out. (See also my other post upthread.)
On the first point, my understanding is that the authorities had already investigated. Steel's only source of information seems to have been Smith telling him about the investigation; for reasons he's not AFAIK said, he didn't believe he was innocent, but there's no indication that Steel had obtained additional information to report to the authorities.
If I suspect without evidence that someone I know has committed a crime (perhaps I think he looks shifty when talking about the allegation, or laughs inappropriately about being cleared), I'm not sure I should take any action. I would however probably refrain from positive action such as approving a knighthood for him, and I would seek to have as little to do with him as possible. But even these steps seem dodgy if I have no evidence at all except a vague impression. It's difficult, don't you think?
Away from the Lib Dems. I was poised to vote for them in this election, but the truth is I just can't stand her.
I think she's the best choice for the LDs, and she's objectively impressive. But she gets under my skin and I don't know why.
Swinging back towards Green for the EUs, but still really don't know.
Moran would have been a better candidate if she hadn't have walloped her bf, which could also too easily have become ammo to undermine her (humorously or otherwise).
> > @isam said:
>
> > Dont you think if The Brexit Party win well at the Euros, win Peterborough, then start to poll high 20s consistently, waverers might vote for it for fear of their seats?
>
> The Brexit Party is opposed to the Withdrawal Agreement. If they do well it will only embolden more ERG MPs to oppose it again. What then does a Labour MP have to gain in voting for it, if it will still fail, and if they will lose votes to the Brexit Party for voting for the backstop too?
>
> Quite. The local and EU elections will be used by both sides to claim that their position has been vindicated. The BP will get up to 30% - so no dealers will say this means there is support for their position. Parties opposed to no deal (in which we must include Labour) will get between 50 and 60%, so remainers will say no deal must continue to be off the agenda. Parties opposed to Brexit altogether will get perhaps 25% so second referendum advocates will claim support for their position, especially since everyone knows that many in Labour also support that position. Parties in favour of the deal (the Tories) will do very badly.
>
> The impasse is deepening and no solution is yet in sight.
___________________________________________________________________
Could pro-EU parties even get 30% between them, if the internationalists who care about EU membership get off their backsides and the Bollocks to Brexit slogan continues to get noticed?
6.1M signatures for Revoke is 10x the number who signed the No Deal petition. It seems at least 'somewhat significant' to me.
> > @anothernick said:
> > > @isam said:
> >
> > > Dont you think if The Brexit Party win well at the Euros, win Peterborough, then start to poll high 20s consistently, waverers might vote for it for fear of their seats?
> >
> > The Brexit Party is opposed to the Withdrawal Agreement. If they do well it will only embolden more ERG MPs to oppose it again. What then does a Labour MP have to gain in voting for it, if it will still fail, and if they will lose votes to the Brexit Party for voting for the backstop too?
> >
> > Quite. The local and EU elections will be used by both sides to claim that their position has been vindicated. The BP will get up to 30% - so no dealers will say this means there is support for their position. Parties opposed to no deal (in which we must include Labour) will get between 50 and 60%, so remainers will say no deal must continue to be off the agenda. Parties opposed to Brexit altogether will get perhaps 25% so second referendum advocates will claim support for their position, especially since everyone knows that many in Labour also support that position. Parties in favour of the deal (the Tories) will do very badly.
> >
> > The impasse is deepening and no solution is yet in sight.
> ___________________________________________________________________
> Could pro-EU parties even get 30% between them, if the internationalists who care about EU membership get off their backsides and the Bollocks to Brexit slogan continues to get noticed?
>
> 6.1M signatures for Revoke is 10x the number who signed the No Deal petition. It seems at least 'somewhat significant' to me.
Yes. There are easily 6m+ voters who favour a No Deal Brexit.
> > @isam said:
> > Kind, gentle, progressive, compassionate politics from the editor of The New European. Imagine he’s talking about your Parents or Grandparents
>
> Yes but he isn't. He is talking about Faragists, so they might look old and friendly but they are actually nasty and selfish.
'Faragists'. Is this a new thing now?
Quite possibly. And IMHO Labour is pro Brexit in name only, both Starmer and McDonnell have accepted that they can't get a deal through the party without a second referendum, which in reality puts Labour much closer to the remain position then either Labour or the other remain parties wish to admit.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/08/08/those-whom-the-gods-wish-to-destroy-what-happens-next-now-that-britain-has-gone-mad/
> While I think it will be good for the LDs that Swinson has a clear(ish) run, they need to beware the ides of May (Theresa that is). Who showed us the danger of electing a leader without a proper debate.
>
> Moran would have been a better candidate if she hadn't have walloped her bf, which could also too easily have become ammo to undermine her (humorously or otherwise).
Jo 'MacWaspi' Swinson then. Not a very positive outcome. Wooden and something of a one trick pony. Tainted by the coalition, too. Of course, if they had Any sense Chuk would quickly merge into the Lib Dems and put Heidi up. A much better choice.
> > @Ploppikins said:
> > While I think it will be good for the LDs that Swinson has a clear(ish) run, they need to beware the ides of May (Theresa that is). Who showed us the danger of electing a leader without a proper debate.
> >
> > Moran would have been a better candidate if she hadn't have walloped her bf, which could also too easily have become ammo to undermine her (humorously or otherwise).
>
> Jo 'MacWaspi' Swinson then. Not a very positive outcome. Wooden and something of a one trick pony. Tainted by the coalition, too. Of course, if they had Any sense Chuk would quickly merge into the Lib Dems and put Heidi up. A much better choice.
You're assuming Change UK would have agency in any merger. I doubt it. The Lib Dems would be calling the shots at this rate.
Interesting events in Surrey, currently. I underatdn there are "discussions" in Waverley around a Farnham Residents/LD Coalition to run the council while in Guildford the LDs are making a nonsense of their success in my view.
It seems they want to form a minority but with only 17 they risk being outvoted by the combined R$GV and GGG groupings with 19. The latter want to share power but the LD leader, who supported the much maligned local plan, isn't keen.