Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The hurricane on Labour’s horizon

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited September 2019 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.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.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • First to withstand the winds.
  • Given overnight news, a question for Labour might be how many divisions Tom Watson has? If the move against him happens, what will the reaction within Labour be - especially the moderates.

    (I'm guessing a collective shrug of the shoulders.)
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    edited September 2019
    Does Labour agree with DH? It does seem odd that as the country might be facing an election, Labour is indulging in organisational shenanigans. Was Charles (or his mysterious informant) right? It does look like Momentum has half an eye on the next leadership contest rather than a general election.
  • Given overnight news, a question for Labour might be how many divisions Tom Watson has? If the move against him happens, what will the reaction within Labour be - especially the moderates.

    (I'm guessing a collective shrug of the shoulders.)

    Probably. The same is pretty much true of the Conservative reaction to slinging out various elder statesmen, or the American GOP reaction to Trump.
  • Does Labour agree with DH? It does seem odd that as the country might be facing an election, Labour is indulging in organisational shenanigans. Was Charles (or his mysterious informant) right? It does look like Momentum has half an eye on the next leadership contest rather than a general election.

    The more interesting possibility is that they're planning to replace Corbyn *before* the next election. Get a new leader, then get a GE during the bounce; That was presumably Boris Johnson's plan, and it would have been a good plan, had Corbyn not had a veto on it.

    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.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    Tom Watson did himself no favours over his appalling misjudgement on the Carl Beach ('Nick') case. He lost himself a lot of natural allies in midstream and many others who question his judgement. His lack of contrition and apology reflects very poorly on him indeed.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    edited September 2019
    On the thread header, the Achilles heel I'm afraid is the killer line, 'had the effect of dragging the election debate onto domestic policy where Corbyn was far more comfortable.'

    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.

  • Given overnight news, a question for Labour might be how many divisions Tom Watson has? If the move against him happens, what will the reaction within Labour be - especially the moderates.

    (I'm guessing a collective shrug of the shoulders.)

    Probably. The same is pretty much true of the Conservative reaction to slinging out various elder statesmen, or the American GOP reaction to Trump.
    Lots of Conservatives on here are now ex-Conservatives ...
  • On the thread header, the Achilles heel I'm afraid is the killer line, 'had the effect of dragging the election debate onto domestic policy where Corbyn was far more comfortable.'

    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.

    But, if people are really bored with Brexit, how does Labour's policy of "let's drag out Brexit even longer" cut through against "let's just leave" or "let's just remain" from the other parties?
  • Tom Watson did himself no favours over his appalling misjudgement on the Carl Beach ('Nick') case. He lost himself a lot of natural allies in midstream and many others who question his judgement. His lack of contrition and apology reflects very poorly on him indeed.

    Oh, indeed. He's a ****. However, he's also a canny political operator, and had a Brexit view that may command considerable support within the party's ranks.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    Curse of the new thread!
    Freggles said:

    The times has an interview with McDonnell in which he rules out taking over and says the next leader should be a woman. FYI.

    There was a lot of complaining about the fact Corbyn was not a woman, the cynic in me said a lot of it was actually because they wanted someone else in charge. Would be just reward for my cynical nature to be proven right if it wasn't a woman and many of the same people weren't bothered...

    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.




  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    PB has also been a regular purveyor of wind and thrives to this day. Indeed at one time we had our own :

    BREAKING WIND NEWS

    Happy days .... :sunglasses:

    Pppffftt .... Oh that's better. Always better out than in when on PB.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Tom Watson is Labours Phil Hammond.

    A legend in his own mind.

    They should ditch Starmer and Thornberry next.
  • TGOHF said:

    Tom Watson is Labours Phil Hammond.

    A legend in his own mind.

    They should ditch Starmer and Thornberry next.

    Your avatar of chicken Boris looks more like Jeremy Corbyn imo.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    TGOHF said:

    Tom Watson is Labours Phil Hammond.

    A legend in his own mind.

    They should ditch Starmer and Thornberry next.

    They're liked in the party and work towards defeating the Tories rather than Labour, Thornberry seems to mess up explaining the Brexit position in the interests of painting herself/the party as remain as possible but that is fairly minor. The only reason I can see to actively dislike Starmer would be if you were very strong in favour of Brexit and blamed him for the shift which does not apply to the overwhelming majority of members. TBH generally happy for people in the party to disagree on policy, it is when it crosses over to active sabotage most members have a problem.

  • Given overnight news, a question for Labour might be how many divisions Tom Watson has? If the move against him happens, what will the reaction within Labour be - especially the moderates.

    (I'm guessing a collective shrug of the shoulders.)

    Probably. The same is pretty much true of the Conservative reaction to slinging out various elder statesmen, or the American GOP reaction to Trump.
    Lots of Conservatives on here are now ex-Conservatives ...
    That's more or less the point. There has been no action against Boris, or Trump. For most people, there is not much they can do to affect change at the top. Like Mr Micawber, they hope something will turn up. That is all they can do. Those who can act, choose not to.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    The putsch is on for Labour.. Get rid of anybody centre left and the Party will slowly die .. Watson is an awful person , his judgment correctly questioned by Mysticrose but to get rid of him spells the start of the death of Labour as we know it. Who is next?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 37,395
    edited September 2019
    David is spot on. If 13 million people had voted for Jeremy Corbyn and Socialism in 2017, Labour would not now be trailing a Tory party that has lost close to a quarter of its support over the last two years. And if Labour members genuinely wanted to defeat the Tories they would be demanding a new leader. Labour maybe has one more chance to be relevant and that will come when Corbyn finally steps down. If members once again choose a leader from the far left - and why wouldn’t they? - then it’s all over. And good riddance it will be too.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840

    TGOHF said:

    Tom Watson is Labours Phil Hammond.

    A legend in his own mind.

    They should ditch Starmer and Thornberry next.

    Your avatar of chicken Boris looks more like Jeremy Corbyn imo.
    I'm a fan, just jealous he got in there first...

    If the Tories do a Burger King Corbyn I'm calling dibs on it now.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Rugby World Cup

    Australia 12 : 14 Fiji .. HT
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,620
    JackW said:

    PB has also been a regular purveyor of wind and thrives to this day. Indeed at one time we had our own :

    BREAKING WIND NEWS

    Happy days .... :sunglasses:

    Pppffftt .... Oh that's better. Always better out than in when on PB.

    Good to hear your ARSE is in fine fettle, is it coming out of retirement?

  • Tom Watson did himself no favours over his appalling misjudgement on the Carl Beach ('Nick') case. He lost himself a lot of natural allies in midstream and many others who question his judgement. His lack of contrition and apology reflects very poorly on him indeed.

    Count me amongst those showing a lack of contrition and refusal to apologise.

    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.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,042

    Given overnight news, a question for Labour might be how many divisions Tom Watson has? If the move against him happens, what will the reaction within Labour be - especially the moderates.

    (I'm guessing a collective shrug of the shoulders.)

    Probably. The same is pretty much true of the Conservative reaction to slinging out various elder statesmen, or the American GOP reaction to Trump.
    Lots of Conservatives on here are now ex-Conservatives ...
    As Brendan Behan said when told each hangover killed a million brain cells:

    "Only the weak ones...."
  • Good morning, everyone.

    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.
  • On the thread header, the Achilles heel I'm afraid is the killer line, 'had the effect of dragging the election debate onto domestic policy where Corbyn was far more comfortable.'

    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.

    What makes you think the next GE won't be about Brexit?

    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.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    edited September 2019
    Foxy said:

    JackW said:

    PB has also been a regular purveyor of wind and thrives to this day. Indeed at one time we had our own :

    BREAKING WIND NEWS

    Happy days .... :sunglasses:

    Pppffftt .... Oh that's better. Always better out than in when on PB.

    Good to hear your ARSE is in fine fettle, is it coming out of retirement?

    Sadly not .... My ARSE is enjoying a contented retirement and many overseas sojourns, where it has noted that @SeanT and @Byronic have been sighted. Although like the Labour Party and common sense never in the same room at the same time .... :wink:

    Or indeed @Peter_the_Punter and RuPaul in the same room .... :astonished:
  • FlannerFlanner Posts: 357



    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 precisely why Labour will do worse than the polls. Domestic issue no 1 for most people is that Corbyn's a tosser and that under his leadership no Labour policy can be trusted.
    The only people, apart from Leave Momentumites, who disagree are those LD activists still hurting from the damage they suffered from Labour in 2015 and 2017.


  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    edited September 2019
    https://twitter.com/liamyoung/status/1175044656675135490

    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...
  • Tom Watson did himself no favours over his appalling misjudgement on the Carl Beach ('Nick') case. He lost himself a lot of natural allies in midstream and many others who question his judgement. His lack of contrition and apology reflects very poorly on him indeed.

    Count me amongst those showing a lack of contrition and refusal to apologise.

    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.
    That's a fairly disgusting point of view to hold IMO.

    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?
  • Tom Watson did himself no favours over his appalling misjudgement on the Carl Beach ('Nick') case. He lost himself a lot of natural allies in midstream and many others who question his judgement. His lack of contrition and apology reflects very poorly on him indeed.

    Oh, indeed. He's a ****. However, he's also a canny political operator, and had a Brexit view that may command considerable support within the party's ranks.
    He's not a ****. He was shafted good and proper on the Beech business, and you could say he shouldn't have allowed that to happen, but his concerns were genuine and if the police investigation had been even half competent he would never have been hung out to dry.

    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.
  • I thought tactical voting might make it tough for the Tories to win the next election. After the move against Watson I no longer think that! They’ll walk it.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,042

    Tom Watson did himself no favours over his appalling misjudgement on the Carl Beach ('Nick') case. He lost himself a lot of natural allies in midstream and many others who question his judgement. His lack of contrition and apology reflects very poorly on him indeed.

    Oh, indeed. He's a ****. However, he's also a canny political operator, and had a Brexit view that may command considerable support within the party's ranks.
    Yes, Watson is a ****. But he's a Labour ****, through and through. His Nonce-finder General routine was really only aimed at finding TORY nonces, to discredit the Tories.

    And now this is how he is repaid.

    Hur hur hur.
  • Tom Watson did himself no favours over his appalling misjudgement on the Carl Beach ('Nick') case. He lost himself a lot of natural allies in midstream and many others who question his judgement. His lack of contrition and apology reflects very poorly on him indeed.

    Count me amongst those showing a lack of contrition and refusal to apologise.

    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.
    That's a fairly disgusting point of view to hold IMO.

    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?
    I'd be pretty disgusted if I was the victim of an incompetent and tendentious investigation.

    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?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,620
    JackW said:

    Foxy said:

    JackW said:

    PB has also been a regular purveyor of wind and thrives to this day. Indeed at one time we had our own :

    BREAKING WIND NEWS

    Happy days .... :sunglasses:

    Pppffftt .... Oh that's better. Always better out than in when on PB.

    Good to hear your ARSE is in fine fettle, is it coming out of retirement?

    Sadly not .... My ARSE is enjoying a contented retirement and many overseas sojourns, where it has noted that @SeanT and @Byronic have been sighted. Although like the Labour Party and common sense never in the same room at the same time .... :wink:

    Or indeed @Peter_the_Punter and RuPaul in the same room .... :astonished:
    Tis a pity that such an oracle should keep its concil...
  • https://twitter.com/liamyoung/status/1175044656675135490

    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...

    That's absolutely his core audience.

    Many of them will be Momentum supporters who've attended specifically to hear him speak.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,286

    Tom Watson did himself no favours over his appalling misjudgement on the Carl Beach ('Nick') case. He lost himself a lot of natural allies in midstream and many others who question his judgement. His lack of contrition and apology reflects very poorly on him indeed.

    Count me amongst those showing a lack of contrition and refusal to apologise.

    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.
    That's a fairly disgusting point of view to hold IMO.

    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?
    I'd be pretty disgusted if I was the victim of an incompetent and tendentious investigation.

    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?
    There is a lengthy - and extremely damning - report into the police investigation, which you might read to see if there’s any hint in there. What is clear from it is the absence of even the most basic investigative integrity.
    I don’t have any insight into those two particular things, so I can’t help you with them.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,620

    https://twitter.com/liamyoung/status/1175044656675135490

    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...

    Jezza seems to manage a better public appearance than BoZo ever did.

    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...
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,176
    edited September 2019
    I should also add that if the Green Party weren't utter incompetent muppets, and appointed a single leader that actually pulled their finger out, they should be doing the speeches to crowds like that.

    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.
  • I'd be pretty disgusted if I was the victim of an incompetent and tendentious investigation.

    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?

    My goodness, you are digging yourself deeper into a stinking midden.

    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?
  • https://twitter.com/liamyoung/status/1175044656675135490

    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...

    That's absolutely his core audience.

    Many of them will be Momentum supporters who've attended specifically to hear him speak.

    Far too young to be Momentum supporters.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,286

    Given overnight news, a question for Labour might be how many divisions Tom Watson has? If the move against him happens, what will the reaction within Labour be - especially the moderates.

    (I'm guessing a collective shrug of the shoulders.)

    Probably. The same is pretty much true of the Conservative reaction to slinging out various elder statesmen, or the American GOP reaction to Trump.
    Lots of Conservatives on here are now ex-Conservatives ...
    As Brendan Behan said when told each hangover killed a million brain cells:

    "Only the weak ones...."
    And he drank himself to a premature death.
  • Foxy said:

    https://twitter.com/liamyoung/status/1175044656675135490

    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...

    Jezza seems to manage a better public appearance than BoZo ever did.

    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...
    He won't make an appearance at that and, if he did, he'd likely be heckled.

    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.
  • Tom Watson did himself no favours over his appalling misjudgement on the Carl Beach ('Nick') case. He lost himself a lot of natural allies in midstream and many others who question his judgement. His lack of contrition and apology reflects very poorly on him indeed.

    Oh, indeed. He's a ****. However, he's also a canny political operator, and had a Brexit view that may command considerable support within the party's ranks.
    He's not a ****. He was shafted good and proper on the Beech business, and you could say he shouldn't have allowed that to happen, but his concerns were genuine and if the police investigation had been even half competent he would never have been hung out to dry.

    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.
    He used his position to slur innocent people - and we can only say they are innocent - in parliament.

    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?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,042
    Nigelb said:

    Given overnight news, a question for Labour might be how many divisions Tom Watson has? If the move against him happens, what will the reaction within Labour be - especially the moderates.

    (I'm guessing a collective shrug of the shoulders.)

    Probably. The same is pretty much true of the Conservative reaction to slinging out various elder statesmen, or the American GOP reaction to Trump.
    Lots of Conservatives on here are now ex-Conservatives ...
    As Brendan Behan said when told each hangover killed a million brain cells:

    "Only the weak ones...."
    And he drank himself to a premature death.
    He also had an IRA honour guard at his funeral, so you can only stretch the metaphor so far.....
  • I think this article rather misses the point in Labour terms. Of course, this being a political betting site, the main interest will always be the result of the looming election and David is probably right about that, but that's not the main threat to Labour. There's a battle looming over who takes over after Corbyn. Momentum don't have particularly strong candidates available and they're taking steps to try to ensure they win. If they do, that may well be the end of Labour as a serious party.
  • "carried out this month put Labour between 21% and 28% (inclusive). Even the best of these is slightly below what Labour polled in 1983, when their GB share was 28.3%"

    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.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,620
    edited September 2019

    I should also add that if the Green Party weren't utter incompetent muppets, and appointed a single leader that actually pulled their finger out, they should be doing the speeches to crowds like that.

    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 - 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.

    Caroline Lucas also addressed the climate strikers yesterday. The difficulty for the Greens is that other parties have gone pretty green too. Green politics is now mainstream.

    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.
  • Tom Watson did himself no favours over his appalling misjudgement on the Carl Beach ('Nick') case. He lost himself a lot of natural allies in midstream and many others who question his judgement. His lack of contrition and apology reflects very poorly on him indeed.

    Oh, indeed. He's a ****. However, he's also a canny political operator, and had a Brexit view that may command considerable support within the party's ranks.
    He's not a ****. He was shafted good and proper on the Beech business, and you could say he shouldn't have allowed that to happen, but his concerns were genuine and if the police investigation had been even half competent he would never have been hung out to dry.

    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.
    He used his position to slur innocent people - and we can only say they are innocent - in parliament.

    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?
    Yes, he should have been more sure of his ground. If he was basing his accusations on a flimsy investigation, he's at fault.

    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.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    The upside for Labour is all the talk of infighting has stopped people talking about their ludicrous Brexit stance for a few hours
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    edited September 2019
    Foxy said:

    https://twitter.com/liamyoung/status/1175044656675135490

    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...

    Jezza seems to manage a better public appearance than BoZo ever did.

    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...
    They also cheered Soubry and other MPs who nobody would call left wing, the cheering was for a 2nd referendum not being left wing.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,328
    In 2015 the Scottish Labour party went from a dominant phalanx of 40 MPs who had played a very full role in the development and organisation of the party to 1. They have never come close to recovering. As David says, when change comes it can come swiftly. Having Corbyn as leader is a disastrous self indulgence at a time of great turmoil. The price could be heavy indeed.

    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.
  • Scott_P said:
    The one thing guaranteed to make Labour even more of a laughing stock than getting rid of Tom Watson now would be not to do it. If Jeremy’s cacked his pants, he’s not going to be forgiven by the Stalinists who went to bed to dream sweet dreams of purge.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,864



    I'd like to know what happened to the snuff film, and the dossier prepared by a now-deceased Tory MP.

    Surely you are not putting your faith in a dossier compiled by Geoffrey Dickens?

    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.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,042
    edited September 2019
    Foxy said:

    https://twitter.com/liamyoung/status/1175044656675135490

    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...

    Jezza seems to manage a better public appearance than BoZo ever did.
    Because it is asymmetric warfare by the Left. Only those on the Left get wired up with a hidden mic to harangue the PM in a hospital. Or travel to Luxembourg with loudhailers to drown him out. Or run around lobbing milkshakes.

    Everybody else just thinks "wankers...." and gets on with letting Jeremy Corbyn be heard - and getting crushingly low personal polling by doing so.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,620

    Foxy said:

    https://twitter.com/liamyoung/status/1175044656675135490

    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...

    Jezza seems to manage a better public appearance than BoZo ever did.

    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...
    They also cheered Soubry and other MPs who nobody would call left wing, the cheering was for a 2nd referendum not being left wing.
    Well, as a second referendum is now Corbyns policy, why would he not show at the Oct 19 March to support it?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,620

    Foxy said:

    https://twitter.com/liamyoung/status/1175044656675135490

    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...

    Jezza seems to manage a better public appearance than BoZo ever did.
    Because it is asymmetric warfare by the Left. Only those on the Left get wired up with a hidden mic to harangue the PM in a hospital. Or travel to Luxembourg with loudhailers to drown him out. Or run around lobbing milkshakes.

    Everybody else just thinks "wankers...." and gets on with letting Jeremy Corbyn be heard - and getting crushingly low personal polling by doing so.
    Wired up? Do you have any evidence of that or are you doing a Carl Beech?

    https://twitter.com/_Hydrofish/status/1174816570549395457?s=19
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,042
    Scott_P said:
    Getting truer by the day, as the Labour Leavers just desert them.

    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!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,328
    In passing the talk in the steamie in Parliament House yesterday was a very buoyant mood in the Joanna Cherry camp and a very downbeat feeling in the government camp. The consensus was that the Supremes would not have spent nearly so long discussing remedies and the form of the order that they might make if they were not intending to do so. The feeling was that the Justices might be feeling the hand of history on their shoulder as one dishonest politician might once have said.

    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.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    https://twitter.com/liamyoung/status/1175044656675135490

    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...

    Jezza seems to manage a better public appearance than BoZo ever did.

    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...
    They also cheered Soubry and other MPs who nobody would call left wing, the cheering was for a 2nd referendum not being left wing.
    Well, as a second referendum is now Corbyns policy, why would he not show at the Oct 19 March to support it?
    TBH I don't know if he is or isn't.

    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.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,286
    This is shaping up to be a defining clash between Trump and Congress:
    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
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,620
    In other news, how common is BoZo's optimism?

    https://twitter.com/benatipsosmori/status/1175151164343685120?s=19
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,048
    edited September 2019

    Yes, he should have been more sure of his ground. If he was basing his accusations on a flimsy investigation, he's at fault.

    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.

    AIUI, it is more complex than that - particularly with very historic cases against famous people.

    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'd be pretty disgusted if I was the victim of an incompetent and tendentious investigation.

    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?

    My goodness, you are digging yourself deeper into a stinking midden.

    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?
    They are not certain, and neither am I. If any of us had the evidence, we would hand it over to the police, after taking numerous copies first. I have never seen the snuff film which was rumoured to exist, nor the dossier which the MP allegedly kept. Obviously a negative is hard to prove but if they never existed, a police statement that the matter had been investigated and no evidence of eithe found would have sufficed to kill any rumours. Instead they appear to have relied almost entirely on Beech. That is absurdly incompetent.

    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.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,767
    Foxy said:

    In other news, how common is BoZo's optimism?

    https://twitter.com/benatipsosmori/status/1175151164343685120?s=19

    Brazilian's are surprisingly optimistic.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    I'd be pretty disgusted if I was the victim of an incompetent and tendentious investigation.

    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?

    My goodness, you are digging yourself deeper into a stinking midden.

    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?
    They are not certain, and neither am I. If any of us had the evidence, we would hand it over to the police, after taking numerous copies first. I have never seen the snuff film which was rumoured to exist, nor the dossier which the MP allegedly kept. Obviously a negative is hard to prove but if they never existed, a police statement that the matter had been investigated and no evidence of eithe found would have sufficed to kill any rumours. Instead they appear to have relied almost entirely on Beech. That is absurdly incompetent.

    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.
    Did the allegations pre date Beech coming forward?
  • Yes, he should have been more sure of his ground. If he was basing his accusations on a flimsy investigation, he's at fault.

    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.

    AIUI, it is more complex than that - particularly with very historic cases against famous people.

    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.
    Each case is different.

    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.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,048
    edited September 2019

    hey are not certain, and neither am I. If any of us had the evidence, we would hand it over to the police, after taking numerous copies first. I have never seen the snuff film which was rumoured to exist, nor the dossier which the MP allegedly kept. Obviously a negative is hard to prove but if they never existed, a police statement that the matter had been investigated and no evidence of eithe found would have sufficed to kill any rumours. Instead they appear to have relied almost entirely on Beech. That is absurdly incompetent.

    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.

    I do have an open mind. What I don't do is *assume* guilt based on rumours and conspiracy theories, or do a nod-nod, wink-wink approach to them, as you seem to.

    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.
  • Yes, he should have been more sure of his ground. If he was basing his accusations on a flimsy investigation, he's at fault.

    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.

    AIUI, it is more complex than that - particularly with very historic cases against famous people.

    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.
    Each case is different.

    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.
    You should read up on the McAlpine case - and indeed, the Saville one as well.

    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?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855
  • I do have an open mind. What I don't do is *assume* guilt based on rumours and conspiracy theories, or do a nod-nod, wink-wink approach to them, as you seem to.

    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.
    But I have not assumed guilt, JJ.

    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.
  • The risk of an irreversible collapse looks greater for the Conservatives than for Labour. Labour has some redoubts that would survive even enormous swings. The Conservatives’ vote is more evenly spread and more vulnerable to an adverse swing.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    DavidL said:

    In passing the talk in the steamie in Parliament House yesterday was a very buoyant mood in the Joanna Cherry camp and a very downbeat feeling in the government camp. The consensus was that the Supremes would not have spent nearly so long discussing remedies and the form of the order that they might make if they were not intending to do so. The feeling was that the Justices might be feeling the hand of history on their shoulder as one dishonest politician might once have said.

    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.

    As I noted yesterday David, I tend to the former view. From time to time the hand of history nudges the judiciary to a settled view on constitutional issues.

    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.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,767

    The risk of an irreversible collapse looks greater for the Conservatives than for Labour. Labour has some redoubts that would survive even enormous swings. The Conservatives’ vote is more evenly spread and more vulnerable to an adverse swing.

    There will always be Bootle. :)
  • The government has done everything it can to lose its case before the Supreme Court. Will that effort be enough?
  • Flanner said:



    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 precisely why Labour will do worse than the polls. Domestic issue no 1 for most people is that Corbyn's a tosser and that under his leadership no Labour policy can be trusted.
    The only people, apart from Leave Momentumites, who disagree are those LD activists still hurting from the damage they suffered from Labour in 2015 and 2017.


    Block quotes are a nightmare, aren't they? You've managed to reference me without actually mentioning what I posted.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855
    @Peter_the_Punter

    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.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    Scott_P said:
    The plans are delusional which explains why Villiers thinks they’re great .
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 37,446
    DavidL said:

    In passing the talk in the steamie in Parliament House yesterday was a very buoyant mood in the Joanna Cherry camp and a very downbeat feeling in the government camp. The consensus was that the Supremes would not have spent nearly so long discussing remedies and the form of the order that they might make if they were not intending to do so. The feeling was that the Justices might be feeling the hand of history on their shoulder as one dishonest politician might once have said.

    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.

    Boris is going down David, you will have to accept it
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,620
    nichomar said:

    I'd be pretty disgusted if I was the victim of an incompetent and tendentious investigation.

    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?

    My goodness, you are digging yourself deeper into a stinking midden.

    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?
    They are not certain, and neither am I. If any of us had the

    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.
    Did the allegations pre date Beech coming forward?
    I think they did, and Beech just exploited the rumours. A lot of us expressed surprise at the time that the Police were taking it so seriously.

    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.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,286

    Yes, he should have been more sure of his ground. If he was basing his accusations on a flimsy investigation, he's at fault.

    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.

    AIUI, it is more complex than that - particularly with very historic cases against famous people.

    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.
    Each case is different.

    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.
    You should read up on the McAlpine case - and indeed, the Saville one as well.

    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?
    There was at least one case in the ‘dossier’ with something behind it:
    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.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 11,232
    edited September 2019

    Yes, he should have been more sure of his ground. If he was basing his accusations on a flimsy investigation, he's at fault.

    Tve been disappointed.

    AIUI, it is more complex than that - particularly with very historic cases against famous people.

    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.
    Each case is different.

    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.
    You should read up on the McAlpine case - and indeed, the Saville one as well.

    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?
    No, that's unfair, JJ. I'm not mischievious or desperate. I give them the weight I think they merit.

    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.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855
    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    In passing the talk in the steamie in Parliament House yesterday was a very buoyant mood in the Joanna Cherry camp and a very downbeat feeling in the government camp. The consensus was that the Supremes would not have spent nearly so long discussing remedies and the form of the order that they might make if they were not intending to do so. The feeling was that the Justices might be feeling the hand of history on their shoulder as one dishonest politician might once have said.

    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.

    Boris is going down David, you will have to accept it
    A reverse of the more usual process where somebody goes down on Boris...
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,220

    The government has done everything it can to lose its case before the Supreme Court. Will that effort be enough?

    Yes, played a blinder. Huge odds against pulling off a defeat but it looks very possible.

    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'.
  • FenmanFenman Posts: 1,046
    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    In other news, how common is BoZo's optimism?

    https://twitter.com/benatipsosmori/status/1175151164343685120?s=19

    Brazilian's are surprisingly optimistic.
    They always are. Their favourite saying is that Brazil is the country of the future and it always will be.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    DavidL said:

    In passing the talk in the steamie in Parliament House yesterday was a very buoyant mood in the Joanna Cherry camp and a very downbeat feeling in the government camp. The consensus was that the Supremes would not have spent nearly so long discussing remedies and the form of the order that they might make if they were not intending to do so. The feeling was that the Justices might be feeling the hand of history on their shoulder as one dishonest politician might once have said.

    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.

    I will be happy as long as they say the matter is justiciable. If they fail to do that I would be very shocked. However in terms lawful v unlawful I still think it’s impossible to forecast regardless of the time the judges spent on remedy.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 37,446
    ydoethur said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    In passing the talk in the steamie in Parliament House yesterday was a very buoyant mood in the Joanna Cherry camp and a very downbeat feeling in the government camp. The consensus was that the Supremes would not have spent nearly so long discussing remedies and the form of the order that they might make if they were not intending to do so. The feeling was that the Justices might be feeling the hand of history on their shoulder as one dishonest politician might once have said.

    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.

    Boris is going down David, you will have to accept it
    A reverse of the more usual process where somebody goes down on Boris...
    ydoethur said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    In passing the talk in the steamie in Parliament House yesterday was a very buoyant mood in the Joanna Cherry camp and a very downbeat feeling in the government camp. The consensus was that the Supremes would not have spent nearly so long discussing remedies and the form of the order that they might make if they were not intending to do so. The feeling was that the Justices might be feeling the hand of history on their shoulder as one dishonest politician might once have said.

    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.

    Boris is going down David, you will have to accept it
    A reverse of the more usual process where somebody goes down on Boris...
    ydoethur said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    In passing the talk in the steamie in Parliament House yesterday was a very buoyant mood in the Joanna Cherry camp and a very downbeat feeling in the government camp. The consensus was that the Supremes would not have spent nearly so long discussing remedies and the form of the order that they might make if they were not intending to do so. The feeling was that the Justices might be feeling the hand of history on their shoulder as one dishonest politician might once have said.

    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.

    Boris is going down David, you will have to accept it
    A reverse of the more usual process where somebody goes down on Boris...
    ydoethur, too far , nearly bringing my toast up.
  • ydoethur said:

    @Peter_the_Punter

    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 can only speak of the Beech investigation, of which I know a little. On that, I would cut Watson some slack.

    On the other matters, I can't comment.
  • Is there any evidence that the Queen did, in fact, raise a quarter of an eyebrow during the Sindy campaign?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,286
    malcolmg said:

    ydoethur said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    In passing the talk in the steamie in Parliament House yesterday was a very buoyant mood in the Joanna Cherry camp and a very downbeat feeling in the government camp. The consensus was that the Supremes would not have spent nearly so long discussing remedies and the form of the order that they might make if they were not intending to do so. The feeling was that the Justices might be feeling the hand of history on their shoulder as one dishonest politician might once have said.

    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.

    Boris is going down David, you will have to accept it
    A reverse of the more usual process where somebody goes down on Boris...
    ydoethur said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    In passing the talk in the steamie in Parliament House yesterday was a very buoyant mood in the Joanna Cherry camp and a very downbeat feeling in the government camp. The consensus was that the Supremes would not have spent nearly so long discussing remedies and the form of the order that they might make if they were not intending to do so.

    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.

    Boris is going down David, you will have to accept it
    A reverse of the more usual process where somebody goes down on Boris...
    ydoethur said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    In passing the talk in the steamie in Parliament House yesterday was a very buoyant mood in the Joanna Cherry camp and a very downbeat feeling in the government camp. The consensus was that the Supremes would not have spent nearly so long discussing remedies and the form of the order that they might make if they were not intending to do so. The feeling was that the Justices might be feeling the hand of history on their shoulder as one dishonest politician might once have said.

    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.

    Boris is going down David, you will have to accept it
    A reverse of the more usual process where somebody goes down on Boris...
    ydoethur, too far , nearly bringing my toast up.
    Three times, too.
  • Dr. Foxy, a lot of that pessimism will be hard Remainers fearing leaving the EU *and* hard Leavers fearing we're going to leave in name only.

  • No, that's unfair, JJ. I'm not mischievious or desperate. I give them the weight I think they merit.

    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.

    You trust your friends and their judgement. Fair enough. But do you know the basis on which they are forming their views? Do they have genuine inside information on the case, or are connected with it, or are they just at the same level you and I are?
This discussion has been closed.