Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The hurricane on Labour’s horizon
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The hurricane on Labour’s horizon
As Labour gathers for its annual attempt to spread a veneer of forced goodwill over ruthless power-plays, rather like a Game of Thrones family Christmas, they ought to be asking a rather different introspective question than ‘how does Momentum increase its control?’. They should be asking ‘how do we get out of this disastrous polling position?’. They almost certainly won’t.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
(I'm guessing a collective shrug of the shoulders.)
That would certainly be a more *rational* move on the left's part; They don't have a guarantee that one of their guys will win a leadership election now, but it's better than waiting until after their approach loses another election. And although they don't seem very interested in the whole "beating the Tories" aspect of things, I'm sure on balance they'd rather win the next GE than lose it.
But that is exactly what will happen this time. Brexit bores most people. They are sick and tired of it. Yes, Labour will lose some voters on the edges: arch remainers and arch leavers.
But the next General Election will NOT be about Brexit. This may seem incredible to those caught up in the Westminster political frenzy. But the election will be about domestic issues.
And that's why Labour will perform better than current polling. The landing zone for bets is between 25-30%. (It's even worth a flutter that they poll above 30%.)
Don't get sucked into the 'Labour is dead' meme. It's rubbish. And I write that as a LibDem member.
The rest of this is just on the situation in general and not a reply to @Freggles
Not to continue with the whole cynicism thing...
But on Watson and the shock around the situation.
Watson undermines/fights the party, its members and the leadership. This is cheered on here, which is fair enough. I similarly enjoyed say Anna Soubry's work when she was still a Conservative. What seems a little cynical is the shock and horror that people in the party aren't a fan of this approach.
Personally I've thought for a while we should have another deputy leadership contest, we contested the leaders position which was selected in 2015 again since, why not the deputy leadership which was originally done at the same time?
Haven't found a source to confirm but I've seen a few times a few variations on this quote floating around from Watson deputy leadership campaign "I'll fully support the elected leader if you vote for me as dpt leader." He has pretty much done the opposite.
(got a pic of his leadership booklet https://twitter.com/UKDemockery/status/1175204745692241921 "Whoever the new leader is, I will back them 100%"
To go back to my point about contesting the position again I think Watson has proved it isn't an essential/important position. All it seems to do is give him a bigger platform for attacking the party. In the short term if we have got an election campaign coming up soon (seems very likely) we almost certainly haven't got time for a contest for the position, not if it took as long as last time.
There can be an argument about how much damage Watson could do being left in position versus how much damage removing him would do. No idea if this is accurate (from random tweet, link below) A Momentum source said: "We just can’t afford to go into an election with a deputy leader set on wrecking Labour’s chances."
https://twitter.com/SkyeCitySeries/status/1175147724611686400
There is also the democratic aspect, the deputy leader is chosen by Labour members and Labour members don't want him as deputy leader, should he be forced on them and would people feel the same way if Labour members wanted rid of Corbyn as leader?
The cynic in me says no, not a chance.
BREAKING WIND NEWS
Happy days ....
Pppffftt .... Oh that's better. Always better out than in when on PB.
A legend in his own mind.
They should ditch Starmer and Thornberry next.
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1174073470487027716?s=21
If the Tories do a Burger King Corbyn I'm calling dibs on it now.
Australia 12 : 14 Fiji .. HT
I was with Watson on that one because of the people I knew whose judgement I trusted that believed there was something very big and very sinister there. I remain unconvinced that it was all smoke and no fire. Rightly or wrongly I take the view that all we know about the case now that we didn't know before is that Beech is a liar, and the police conducted the case very poorly indeed.
I suspect we will never be able to say much more than that.
"Only the weak ones...."
Aye, things have settled down a bit. I do think Labour may exceed expectations due to tribal loyalty and Corbyn firing up the base during a campaign. But we'll see.
That rather implies it comes to end when a Deal is struck, or we leave with No Deal. There may be a lot of voters that think that, and wish it were the case, but there wouldn't be many on here that buy that because those of us that follow politics closely know that when we leave, with or without a deal, that is only the beginning.
The only resolution that really kills Brexit stone dead is Revoke, but as we are all aware, that carries other considerable risks.
Or indeed @Peter_the_Punter and RuPaul in the same room ....
The futures bright, the futures red*.
*Watermelon style in a green cover!
Edit: Also well done to Corbyn for managing to speak so close to a noisy crowd...
How would you feel if you were the target of such slurs, the person spreading them proved to be a liar, and yet people still believed them? If your career and family were affected by them still?
On what basis do the people you know and trust believe there was something very big and sinister there?
It's hard to see him making a comeback, but that will have as much to do with the prevailing mood in the Labour Party as with Beech.
And now this is how he is repaid.
Hur hur hur.
I'd like to know what happened to the snuff film, and the dossier prepared by a now-deceased Tory MP. If they were mythical, and there was no other incriminating evidence, I'd like to know why the police were unable to establish as much without slurring the names of many public figures.
Not an unreasonable wish, is it?
Many of them will be Momentum supporters who've attended specifically to hear him speak.
I don’t have any insight into those two particular things, so I can’t help you with them.
It will be interesting if Jezza makes an appearance at the next #PeoplesVote March. Now that it is his policy, why would he not show? Usually he seems to be washing his hair that day.
Watson was quite a hit at the last one, six months ahead of the Labour Party taking up the policy. Such prescience for someone so hated by the left...
In the current climate, no pun intended, with the transactional nature of the electorate, they could rake the votes in and get polling up to 10-15%.
Instead, they have one leader I've never heard of - Jonathan Bartley, but he appears to spend just as much time being a drummer for his UK Blues band as he does in politics - and another Siân Berry who's less visible than Caroline Lucas.
They seem just as interested (if not more interested) in being absolutists about equality, pacifism and atheism than they are in fighting climate change, and are largely absent from the stage.
Proving a negative -that something doesn't exist - is rather difficult. It's even harder to prove that something *never* existed. And then you add in the political aspect, where people will use such slurs and rumours to their advantage.
Again, I refer you to the McApline mess. A man had his name sullied for decades just because he shared a name with an abuser. Political opponents made use of it, even though it was all utter crud. His name was only cleared when the media did a terrible job and repeated the rumours publicly.
Such crimes are hideous, and anyone committing them - from whatever party or background - should rot in the deepest pits of Hell. But likewise, that means that accusing someone of them should also be done cautiously, especially when you aren't involved - and especially when there may be nasty political motivations for the slurs.
Again, I ask how the people you know are so certain there is truth behind the rumours?
What you're seeing here is the absolute core who still adulate him. Most at that rally are (still) professional protesters, as you can tell from the non-so subtle presence of socialist workers placards and old-skool CND logos on the flanks.
How would you feel if you were a prominent figure, and someone abused their position to make such slurs about you - especially if you didn't have the capability / prominence to respond?
To be tediously pedantic, 28% would have to count as equal to 28.3% in this context, as it
would to 27.7%. The simple reason for this is that virtually no pollster ever releases its headline figures in decimals.
I think the Green Party remains suspicious of strong leaders. Too often that means autocrats controlled by shadowy advisors, as we see in a couple of other parties. Such power is intrinsically corrupting.
The accusations were by and large against the rich and powerful, who had considerable means of recourse. If they had been made against someone like me, without such resources, I would have been dependent on the police to conduct their investigations properly, and been confident the truth would out.
If they based their inquiries mainly if not solely on a single testimony from a troubled man, I would have been disappointed.
2015 was the aftermath of the Indy ref. Whilst the Unionist vote was fragmented the disappointed Nationalists and independence voters, many of whom were not traditional voters at all, vented their frustration with 50% of the vote being massively over rewarded by FPTP. It's not difficult to see Brexit parallels. If we leave the disappointed 48% may well be capable of being mobilised behind Swinson's message. If we don't leave TBP could do very well in Labour seats. Either way the middle of the road policies of Labour on Brexit risk them becoming road kill.
Amongst very strong competition, he struck me as one of the stupidest MPs of his generation.
It would be about as valuable as a dossier compiled by Chris Grayling.
Everybody else just thinks "wankers...." and gets on with letting Jeremy Corbyn be heard - and getting crushingly low personal polling by doing so.
https://twitter.com/_Hydrofish/status/1174816570549395457?s=19
As do those who like the LibDem approach.
Labour is united around a gooey soggy mess of getting a renegotiated Brexit deal that they won't then vote for.
Unity, Comrades!
I still don't believe this myself but I was in a very small minority. The overwhelming expectation is for the Court to find that this prorogation is both justiciable and wrongful.
If not I'd guess because it would be seen as a remain rally rather than just a second referendum rally. The EU flags are not there to represent "let's make an informed choice about going with a Brexit deal we can see the terms and conditions of or rejecting that and sticking with the status quo" and most people there marching aren't waiting to see what the alternative to remain would be in the referendum.
Which is fair enough but it paints it more as a bollocks to Brexit rally than a 2nd referendum rally.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/09/intelligence-whistleblower-trump-dni-ukraine.html
It’s pretty clear that Trump was using the power of the presidency illicitly to encourage investigations of the family of his likely opponent in the next Presidential election.
The Justice Department, which is supposed to be responsible to all three branches of government, seems to be acting as Trump’s personal fiefdom.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/20/trump-allies-jolt-into-action-to-deflect-ukraine-whistleblower-scandal-1506882
https://twitter.com/benatipsosmori/status/1175151164343685120?s=19
Say a rumour is started than person Z committed a hideous act. It may be true or false.
*) Person A tells person B and C about the rumour - it doesn't matter if A started the rumour.
*) B & C in turn tell D to M.
*) The rumour thrives because person Z is famous, and some people don't like him for whatever reason.
*) Then, ten years later, person A dies.
*) Another ten years on, a police investigation is started. They can track the rumours back as far as person A, but B, C and many others can say how *certain* they are that he was telling the truth. Some will add: "And they got to him!"
A rumour has developed a reality. It then becomes very difficult for the police to investigate fact from fiction.
In the case of people like Saville, it took his death for the truth - or something approximating it - to come out. In the case of McAlpine, it was the bravery of an abused man saying it *wasn't* the accused man.
I am sure some innocent people were unfairly slurred, and that is wrong, but they were not defenceless, vulnerable people and they were able to obtain redress where it was due. Had the police investigations been conducted properly, the damage would have been far less, and probably negligible.
I don't ask you to believe that Watson's suspicions were justified, nor mine. All I ask is that like me you keep an open mind. The investigation folded. Those accused are innocent, and will remain so until proved otherwise. Those that had concerns were let down by the investigations, as were the victims of the suspicion.
I think that's reasonable enough.
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1175303333998977024
I don't know much about McAlpine, but from what I read he was wronged.
Saville's employers don't come out that case very well, and it's easy to think the truth would have come out a lot quicker if they had acted professionally, as well as responsibly.
I don't think the truth about the snuff film or the dossier will ever be established, nor will we learn why the police focued on the evidence of just one one mane, Carl Beech, to the exclusion of others and more objective evidence.
The cases are all different.
As for the police investigation, see my previous post as to how rumours can get legs.
"I am sure some innocent people were unfairly slurred, and that is wrong, but they were not defenceless, vulnerable people and they were able to obtain redress where it was due. "
Again, I refer you to the McAlpine case. He was slurred for decades, and his ability to get redress was extremely limited until the BBC did something stupid.
If the truth of the rumours about the snuff film or dossier will ever be established, why give them any weight? Why give them weight? Because you like the idea that they exist?
I had my suspicions, and aired them on here from time to time - carefully though, because although I trusted my sources I'd never seen any objective evidence myself. The police investigation folded. I accept the accused are innocent. I am left dissatisfied however because those investigations were so narow, and inept.
So I keep an open mind. Fairy nuff.
I also feel that the governments case has been damaged by their actions and especially the over robust rejection of the justiciability of the case, in terms, it's f*ck all to do with you. An approach that clearly raised the eyebrow more than a quarter of an inch (Copyright - D Cameron) of many of the Supreme Court Justices.
Here's a question.
What was the name of the Labour Shadow Cabinet Minister who was interviewed under caution during Operation Midland?
I'm guessing you don't know. In fact, you might even be surprised to learn there was one. Apart from one report in the Independent - since purged from their website after they realised they might have accidentally given enough details to identify the suspect - there was no reporting of it.
Yet Watson must have known. He must have sat in the Shadow Cabinet with this person. And yet he seems curiously reticent about identifying them.
Moreover, as an aside I have never heard him criticise Corbyn for assisting in the coverup of sexual abuse in Islington by members of the Labour Party - which Corbyn knew about, and did not care about.
Your defence would possibly be valid if Watson was a fearless seeker after truth without favour. But he isn't. He was somebody looking to exploit what I can only describe as an appalling situation that nobody comes out of well for partisan advantage. That is disgusting and he deserves all our opprobrium.
I suspect there were historic nonces in politics, though not the ones named. I have a lot of scepticism about the level of evidence in these cases though. Nearly impossible to be reliable either way.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hayman_(diplomat)
The reality is that cases more than forty years old, particularly of this nature, are exceptionally difficult to investigate conclusively - and as you say, proving a negative in these circumstances yet more difficult.
I heard about them from a number of sources, including some friends whose views I trusted and still do. I didn't just buy what I was told, I asked my own questions and formed my own judgements, cautiously.
I was surprised when the case collapsed, and disappointed that it threw no light on the film and the dossier, amongst other things. If it had investiagated them and dismissed them as myths, I would have been totally happy. As it is, I just have to accept, as most reasonabe people would, that they may have existed but we will never know.
It's unsatisfactory, but it's about as much as one can say.
I said before that anything but the triangulation - prorogation IS within legal scope and this particular one is NOT unlawful - would amaze me.
This is no longer true. It would now merely surprise me. It would cause me to lift perhaps 'a quarter of an eyebrow'.
On the other matters, I can't comment.