Aw, dont tell me they'll chicken out? It's like firing a starting pistol, the hostile intent has been declared so no take back. I'll admire Corbyn if he bald facedly lies and says he backs Watson to defuse this
TBH Corbyn doesn't usually do confrontation it wouldn't be surprising if he hadn't been behind it but no point turning back IMO, same complaints and press either way just with Tom Watson still as deputy.
I absolutely believe he might not have been behind it. I dont think hes incapable - he has become a bit harder and flintier in the last 4 years - but I'd agree about pushing on. They are going to be a happy family if it doesnt happen?
If the alternative was Labour all working together for a Labour victory I think the vast majority would back it. The bollocks of swinging from attacking the leadership with both barrels to applause from media commentators and various opponents to hurt cries of unity and why aren't we concentrating on the Tories anytime there are consequences to undermining the party is just annoying.
Yes they have an issue with Watson but is now really the time to cause this drama .
The Lib Dems must think Christmas has come early .
The only Liberal Democrat disappointed this morning is Jo Swinson's husband. He must be wondering how he can possibly hope to make her sex life as exciting and dramatic as the politics.
Lmao ! Very funny . Does anyone in the Labour NEC realize what a gift this will be to the press and the Lib Dems . It’s like they operate in a bubble .
I don't think I've come across that last bit before. That makes the scenario of passive denial a bit less convincing.
That said as noted upthread Geoffrey Dickens was, to put it mildly, highly eccentric and that was why nobody listened to him. You can understand why Corbyn would be miffed at interfering in his constituency. But it's a bit unfortunate that Corbyn effectively called him a liar when he was telling the truth.
I totally agree with you incidentally that Hodge is the one who bears the most direct responsibility, but just because her record is worse doesn't give Corbyn a hospital pass.
I agree on the last point but he was probably no worse than a lot of others who were told about child abuse problems eg in Rotherham or elsewhere and who did nothing or the bare minimum. (Snip)
Or the Catholic Church. Or the Church of England - etc, etc. Different problems, similar root causes.
This story sadly hasn't been more widely discussed:
There was such a home near me until it was closed recently. The kids were left to run riot, most were city kids from Birmingham, dumped in suburban Leicestershire, and completely out of control. There was no effective supervision, in a rented house and the police were there every day.
I had some sympathy for the kids, who were getting a rotten start to adult life, but as glad as the next when it was closed. It was a racket, with Birmingham Council paying several thousand pounds a week for each to a cynical dodgy profiteering company. The directors should have been barred from working with children, and prosecuted for misuse of public funds.
They did something similar in Aber as well. There was somebody living in a rented house near me who had been relocated because Birmingham had paid several thousand for Ceredigion County Council to take her after she made the city too hot to hold her. I found this out when I saw her kicking somebody in the head and was called as a witness at her trial.
Birmingham don't seem to set standards for good governance when it comes to dealing with their social problems - but then again they are pretty formidable.
If some Labour members are disgruntled with Watson and think he should be challenged, fine. I'm open to suggestions on how a deputy leadership contest could be triggered without necessarily having 20% of MPs nominate a rival candidate. But to abolish a position which has existed since the 1920's, just to get rid off Tom Watson and potentially cause a split in the Labour party weeks away from a GE, is both incredibly nasty and incredibly stupid. I really can't see how any Corbynista can credibly defend this.
BBC quotes Watson as saying Corbyn has the power to stop this. Thats it then isn't it? Corbyn doesnt like confrontation as theJezziah states, so he'll fold and everyone pretends good old Jeremy reined in momentum.
On momentum generally, if being a part of it is more crucial than being labour generally, then as with the ERG are they even truly of the main party? Which are they more loyal to?
If we are going on my character assessment he doesn't tend to seek confrontation but he doesn't run away from it if it comes to him, for example the 2016 leadership election. Although TBH I'm not sure what he'll do here.
Good morning everybody. A fascinating day ahead with the Watson whack penned in. I don't expect just tweets this time but 'active' tweets, possibly with emojis. The labour party is about to split rubbish is just that, with an election possibly weeks away there is no time to form another party and have it registered with the electoral commission. Unless of course they take over Change UK........
Never sure what status the Co-operative Party has with the EC. Anyone know? They have 37 Labour MPs according to their website.
How many defections will follow and where will they defect to is the interesting question. I can't imagine the Lib Dems even at their most inviting would want Watson. His craving for publicity would seem to be a good match but the number that have backfired makes him a risk not worth taking.
If some Labour members are disgruntled with Watson and think he should be challenged, fine. I'm open to suggestions on how a deputy leadership contest could be triggered without necessarily having 20% of MPs nominate a rival candidate. But to abolish a position which has existed since the 1920's, just to get rid off Tom Watson and potentially cause a split in the Labour party weeks away from a GE, is both incredibly nasty and incredibly stupid. I really can't see how any Corbynista can credibly defend this.
It has always existed (or for a long time) isn't in and of itself a good reason IMO. Regardless of Watson or not, even if we got someone in who wouldn't undermine the party it is hard to see the role as that necessary. It isn't obvious what should be being done in the role that isn't whilst Watson freewheels his own positions, aside from being a pro Labour voice with a title.
The argument IMO is whether it is more damaging to leave Watson in place with a platform to do damage.
Doesnt seem like many labour people are supportive of the Watson move, and the leadership didn't know about it. While I dont see what is gained from pulling it and posting nice now it is in the open, surely that means they are not going to proceed?
Good morning everybody. A fascinating day ahead with the Watson whack penned in. I don't expect just tweets this time but 'active' tweets, possibly with emojis. The labour party is about to split rubbish is just that, with an election possibly weeks away there is no time to form another party and have it registered with the electoral commission. Unless of course they take over Change UK........
Never sure what status the Co-operative Party has with the EC. Anyone know? They have 37 Labour MPs according to their website.
A possible vehicle?
Thst was suggested during some previous Corbyn strife I believe, so maybe?
I think it fair to say that Weimar Germany was a ferment of interesting ideas. Indeed Such was the proliferation of radicalism in art, design, performing arts and politics that it provoked a lot of support for the reactionaries wanting to suppress such ideas.
We have just passed the centenary of the Weimar Republic. Its first years were blighted by the great inflation, but it was soon looking really quite successful until the 1929 crash, mass unemployment and rise to power of Hitler. A really fork in the road, and how different Europe would be if the Nazis had remained an irritant rather than a government. Would we and other Europeans still have an Empire for example? A fascinating alternative history beckons.
And violence. Do not forget violence.
Why was it called the Weimar Republic? Because Berlin was in a state of open warfare between different armed groups so the constitutional convention had to meet in Weimar.
I'm not sure I agree about 24-29, incidentally. Inflation had come down but not gone away, just as the issues around the economy had not. Moreover even with Stresemann's influence the government was hopelessly divided, unstable and corrupt, especially after Hindenburg's election. But it was undoubtedly a major cultural centre and probably a fascinating and exciting place to visit if you had money.
Have you ever read Walter Laqueur's Weimar: A Cultural History or Peter Gay's Weimar Culture: The Outsider as Insider? I think you would enjoy both.
It is coming across such recommendations that makes PB visits worthwhile. Weimar is one of the many lacunae in the patchwork of my historical semi-ignorance. I shall enjoy repairing that.
Worth reading Sebastian Haffner’s memoir of that time - “Defying Hitler” - which is very good on the “boiled frog” syndrome, applicable to our times as well.
And the book and film “Mephisto” are well worth it too, particularly the film with a superlative performance by Klaus-Maria Brandauer.
BBC quotes Watson as saying Corbyn has the power to stop this. Thats it then isn't it? Corbyn doesnt like confrontation as theJezziah states, so he'll fold and everyone pretends good old Jeremy reined in momentum.
On momentum generally, if being a part of it is more crucial than being labour generally, then as with the ERG are they even truly of the main party? Which are they more loyal to?
If we are going on my character assessment he doesn't tend to seek confrontation but he doesn't run away from it if it comes to him, for example the 2016 leadership election. Although TBH I'm not sure what he'll do here.
I suspect he will try a 'put it to the people' approach - so let a vote happen and say that it was clearly the will of conference...
I don't think I've come across that last bit before. That makes the scenario of passive denial a bit less convincing.
That said as noted upthread Geoffrey Dickens was, to put it mildly, highly eccentric and that was why nobody listened to him. You can understand why Corbyn would be miffed at interfering in his constituency. But it's a bit unfortunate that Corbyn effectively called him a liar when he was telling the truth.
I totally agree with you incidentally that Hodge is the one who bears the most direct responsibility, but just because her record is worse doesn't give Corbyn a hospital pass.
I agree on the last point but he was probably no worse than a lot of others who were told about child abuse problems eg in Rotherham or elsewhere and who did nothing or the bare minimum. (Snip)
Or the Catholic Church. Or the Church of England - etc, etc. Different problems, similar root causes.
This story sadly hasn't been more widely discussed:
There was such a home near me until it was closed recently. The kids were left to run riot, most were city kids from Birmingham, dumped in
They did something similar in Aber as well. There was somebody living in a rented house near me who had been relocated because Birmingham had paid several thousand for Ceredigion County Council to take her after she made the city too hot to hold her. I found this out when I saw her kicking somebody in the head and was called as a witness at her trial.
Birmingham don't seem to set standards for good governance when it comes to dealing with their social problems - but then again they are pretty formidable.
I can't help but feel that proper investment in Social Services for teenagers like this will save a fortune in prison costs in the long run. Even if it only turned around half of them it would be a bargain.
Time to get active. An interesting early kick off for Leicester today, and Spurs poor recent away form in the PL is something to be optimistic about. Maddison centrally please Mr Rogers, he is not a winger!
If some Labour members are disgruntled with Watson and think he should be challenged, fine. I'm open to suggestions on how a deputy leadership contest could be triggered without necessarily having 20% of MPs nominate a rival candidate. But to abolish a position which has existed since the 1920's, just to get rid off Tom Watson and potentially cause a split in the Labour party weeks away from a GE, is both incredibly nasty and incredibly stupid. I really can't see how any Corbynista can credibly defend this.
It has always existed (or for a long time) isn't in and of itself a good reason IMO. Regardless of Watson or not, even if we got someone in who wouldn't undermine the party it is hard to see the role as that necessary. It isn't obvious what should be being done in the role that isn't whilst Watson freewheels his own positions, aside from being a pro Labour voice with a title.
The argument IMO is whether it is more damaging to leave Watson in place with a platform to do damage.
If this was about getting rid of an unnecessary position, why did the same individuals behind this stunt previously try and introduce a female deputy leader position last year? There Damascene conversion on the merits of there being some kind of deputy leader is certainly convenient.
The urgency around the need to remove Watson. Perhaps Corbyn is going This week. The process: 1. Remove Watson 2. Corbyn steps down with immediate effect 3. Immediate need for new leader because election 4. Wrong-Daily proposed from the floor. Appointed by show of hands
Yes it bins the rule book. But that's what conference can do. 2hats more, it would be spun as the will of the membership because conference delegates are representatives of the membership elected to make decisions at conference
Tories: “Omigod we’re in trouble. The ERG are still threatening to rebel, we’ve chucked out a couple of former chancellors and voters don’t like divided parties - especially with a niche opponent breathing down our necks with a clear message on a key policy. We’re under fire for playing fast and loose with the constitution and our PMs are trying to outdo each other in the “pissing off the Queen” stakes. We could have a tricky conference”
Labour: “Hold. My. Beer. All of the beer. And get another pint in while you’re at it. We have serious work to do”
The urgency around the need to remove Watson. Perhaps Corbyn is going This week. The process: 1. Remove Watson 2. Corbyn steps down with immediate effect 3. Immediate need for new leader because election 4. Wrong-Daily proposed from the floor. Appointed by show of hands
Yes it bins the rule book. But that's what conference can do. 2hats more, it would be spun as the will of the membership because conference delegates are representatives of the membership elected to make decisions at conference
You missed off step 5... the complete fracturing of the Labour movement
Are people crying out for opposition to the tories? We've got plenty of opposition to them regardless of what internal party games labour are playing. I assume he means effective opposition.
The urgency around the need to remove Watson. Perhaps Corbyn is going This week. The process: 1. Remove Watson 2. Corbyn steps down with immediate effect 3. Immediate need for new leader because election 4. Wrong-Daily proposed from the floor. Appointed by show of hands
Yes it bins the rule book. But that's what conference can do. 2hats more, it would be spun as the will of the membership because conference delegates are representatives of the membership elected to make decisions at conference
How many MPs would Wrong-Bailey command if that happened? Not even LotO?
I just cannot begin to see who she appeals to in the wider electorate. Many will think her a hopeless deluded fool. She certainly gives htat impression in the edia interviews I've seen her give. Those who might be prepared to give her a hearing are much more likely to be convinced by Jo Swinson, I would have thought.
Good morning everybody. A fascinating day ahead with the Watson whack penned in. I don't expect just tweets this time but 'active' tweets, possibly with emojis. The labour party is about to split rubbish is just that, with an election possibly weeks away there is no time to form another party and have it registered with the electoral commission. Unless of course they take over Change UK........
Never sure what status the Co-operative Party has with the EC. Anyone know? They have 37 Labour MPs according to their website.
A possible vehicle?
Thst was suggested during some previous Corbyn strife I believe, so maybe?
I wasn't sad to quit the Labour Party. I was sad that in quitting I also had to quit the Co-op Party. If the latter decoupled it's affiliation from Labour and ran alone it could be a vehicle, but little point onboarding MPs who aren't co-operators to turn the party from being the political representation of the Co-op Movement into a Labour protest party
The urgency around the need to remove Watson. Perhaps Corbyn is going This week. The process: 1. Remove Watson 2. Corbyn steps down with immediate effect 3. Immediate need for new leader because election 4. Wrong-Daily proposed from the floor. Appointed by show of hands
Yes it bins the rule book. But that's what conference can do. 2hats more, it would be spun as the will of the membership because conference delegates are representatives of the membership elected to make decisions at conference
Possibly. Also shows a distinct lack of learning around the question of whether “Will of the People” equals “wise, well thought-out policy-making”.
Wasn't it mentioned quite a lot of times that people didn't want to deselect everyone?
Alison McGovern something to do with Progress, very much on the right of the party got reselected in Liverpool, Liverpool is pretty much as left as it comes.
Might it be instead that the right wing press alleging about plans to deselect vast swathes of the party were wrong?
I'm sure you can find someone who want to deselect 200+ MPs in Labour, you can probably find another Labour member who would want Kate Hoey in charge of the party (surely there must be one I assume) but there was never the numbers to deselect everyone. The few who many would have wanted gone left the party anyway.
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.
My mother spent a lot of time with Starmer when he was DPP and she was Chair of Chairs.
He’s not a fit and proper person to be Prime Minister or even in Cabinet
The urgency around the need to remove Watson. Perhaps Corbyn is going This week. The process: 1. Remove Watson 2. Corbyn steps down with immediate effect 3. Immediate need for new leader because election 4. Wrong-Daily proposed from the floor. Appointed by show of hands
Yes it bins the rule book. But that's what conference can do. 2hats more, it would be spun as the will of the membership because conference delegates are representatives of the membership elected to make decisions at conference
How many MPs would Wrong-Bailey command if that happened? Not even LotO?
I just cannot begin to see who she appeals to in the wider electorate. Many will think her a hopeless deluded fool. She certainly gives htat impression in the edia interviews I've seen her give. Those who might be prepared to give her a hearing are much more likely to be convinced by Jo Swinson, I would have thought.
What does it matter how many MPs she has left? Any who leave were Tory traitors and the whole point here of their mentality is that the years of Labour government were a betrayal as they were basically the Tories.
The aim is simple - True Socialism. No compromise, no wavering, no realpolitik. If people don't elect them to power even better, that way the glaring holes in their logic don't get tested in office. We all know that should a Corbyn government happen the zealots would be accusing him of selling out. Probably within weeks
For me, it's nothing to do with appearance - there's a wind farm very near me on an old airfield site, and I'v got zero problem with ti (although it was controversial locally). Ditto the ones on farmland in the Fens, or offshore.
The ones I am against - in general - are the upland ones, in areas of wilderness, especially in Scotland. To make the farms they need to create heavy duty haul roads across the moors (much more significant than Landrover tracks), then power lines to them. The traces of these will not be removed, even if the turbines are.
Worse, we're already seeing that the developments are being used as excuses for further development as well.
There is precious little wilderness left. Let's leave it as wilderness.
Most places people identify as "wilderness" are anything but. From sheep-grazed deserts to ecocidal grouse moors, there is very little primordial land left on Britain. I don't know where you live, but there is a strong probability that however wild you think it is, it's nothing like it would have been 3000 years ago.
The thing that really gets to me is the pervasive fiction that rural is the same as natural. Almost everywhere you go on these islands is formed by humanity's designs or accidents. The addition of a wind farm on some blasted upland hill almost never alters something natural. Take a look at an aerial view of Whitelee: you have a patchwork of open ground and plantation trees in the area. Which is natural? Probably neither; though I don't know for sure, probably 3000 years ago this was all forest or temperate rainforest. Now, it's scrubby wet moorland and rows of pine. It's not natural, none of it is.
So Jezza is going to "abolish" weirdo peado obsessive Tom Watson!
Stalin would be proud...
Listen, I'm no fan of Watson or Labour in general, but calling him a "peado" obsessive is really quite off. I've noticed you do it several times, so you're clearly trying to make it a "thing", but just don't.
If some Labour members are disgruntled with Watson and think he should be challenged, fine. I'm open to suggestions on how a deputy leadership contest could be triggered without necessarily having 20% of MPs nominate a rival candidate. But to abolish a position which has existed since the 1920's, just to get rid off Tom Watson and potentially cause a split in the Labour party weeks away from a GE, is both incredibly nasty and incredibly stupid. I really can't see how any Corbynista can credibly defend this.
It has always existed (or for a long time) isn't in and of itself a good reason IMO. Regardless of Watson or not, even if we got someone in who wouldn't undermine the party it is hard to see the role as that necessary. It isn't obvious what should be being done in the role that isn't whilst Watson freewheels his own positions, aside from being a pro Labour voice with a title.
The argument IMO is whether it is more damaging to leave Watson in place with a platform to do damage.
If this was about getting rid of an unnecessary position, why did the same individuals behind this stunt previously try and introduce a female deputy leader position last year? There Damascene conversion on the merits of there being some kind of deputy leader is certainly convenient.
To dilute the damage the current holder of the position is doing.
If deputy leader becomes a platform to attack the party then having 2 dilutes that platform, removing the position removes it altogether.
The urgency around the need to remove Watson. Perhaps Corbyn is going This week. The process: 1. Remove Watson 2. Corbyn steps down with immediate effect 3. Immediate need for new leader because election 4. Wrong-Daily proposed from the floor. Appointed by show of hands
Yes it bins the rule book. But that's what conference can do. 2hats more, it would be spun as the will of the membership because conference delegates are representatives of the membership elected to make decisions at conference
How many MPs would Wrong-Bailey command if that happened? Not even LotO?
I just cannot begin to see who she appeals to in the wider electorate. Many will think her a hopeless deluded fool. She certainly gives htat impression in the edia interviews I've seen her give. Those who might be prepared to give her a hearing are much more likely to be convinced by Jo Swinson, I would have thought.
What does it matter how many MPs she has left? Any who leave were Tory traitors and the whole point here of their mentality is that the years of Labour government were a betrayal as they were basically the Tories.
The aim is simple - True Socialism. No compromise, no wavering, no realpolitik. If people don't elect them to power even better, that way the glaring holes in their logic don't get tested in office. We all know that should a Corbyn government happen the zealots would be accusing him of selling out. Probably within weeks
Which is all fine and dandy except that Corbyn and his cult do not represent True Socialism. They never have.
So Jezza is going to "abolish" weirdo peado obsessive Tom Watson!
Stalin would be proud...
Listen, I'm no fan of Watson or Labour in general, but calling him a "peado" obsessive is really quite off. I've noticed you do it several times, so you're clearly trying to make it a "thing", but just don't.
Watson's role in Dolphin Square/Brittan/Proctor/Made-Up Allegations case is deeply troubling for many people. He appointed himself almost sole arbiter of this sort of thing for a while - possibly because he genuinely believed what was alleged or possibly just to boost his own profile. Either way, he cannot (and should not be allowed to) get away with his behaviour on this issue.
Most of the regulars on this site may be classed as "political anoraks" and sometimes we lose sight of how "normal people" think. I have known my wife since 1975 and although she dutifully votes in every election (sometimes reluctantly) I have never in all those years known her initiate a political discussion or make a comment. So I was interested that in the last three weeks I have heard her, quite unprompted , ask a number of friends and relatives whether they are going to vote lib dem, and indicating that that's what she will be doing. And everyone I have heard her asking has said that they would (including a cousin who has just joined, having never been a member of any political party). Things have never been more volatile
Were you on the planet at the time, she spoke at Crathie church and said explicitly that Scotland should think carefully etc. She well and truly poked her nose in and they also issued crap about how she may not agree to be Queen of Scotland. Bunch of arseholes.
Seem to recall she went a bit further than that. Memory could be playing tricks but I remember her surprising people by bursting into some Celine Dion -
"Don't say what you're about to say Look back before you leave my life Be sure before you close that door Before you roll those dice Baby think twice"
If some Labour members are disgruntled with Watson and think he should be challenged, fine. I'm open to suggestions on how a deputy leadership contest could be triggered without necessarily having 20% of MPs nominate a rival candidate. But to abolish a position which has existed since the 1920's, just to get rid off Tom Watson and potentially cause a split in the Labour party weeks away from a GE, is both incredibly nasty and incredibly stupid. I really can't see how any Corbynista can credibly defend this.
It has always existed (or for a long time) isn't in and of itself a good reason IMO. Regardless of Watson or not, even if we got someone in who wouldn't undermine the party it is hard to see the role as that necessary. It isn't obvious what should be being done in the role that isn't whilst Watson freewheels his own positions, aside from being a pro Labour voice with a title.
The argument IMO is whether it is more damaging to leave Watson in place with a platform to do damage.
If this was about getting rid of an unnecessary position, why did the same individuals behind this stunt previously try and introduce a female deputy leader position last year? There Damascene conversion on the merits of there being some kind of deputy leader is certainly convenient.
Kinda agree with Jezziah on the wisdom of having a second directly-elected position in an election decoupled from the leadership.
Party members (in at least two parties) have shown courage and imagination in choosing leaders they like the look of, without the blindest care whether they could win an election. They’re spoiling themselves somewhat in giving themselves a second pick, with the ability to choose someone who hates the first guy and all he stands for.
If you’re going to have a deputy, it needs either a “joint ticket” election, or just to be a shadow cabinet appointment.
(And I say that as someone who’s closer to Watson than Corbyn.
Very fudgey, allows some hope for at the very least diluting his platform if not replacing him. I can see the logic in it I guess.
It could end up with some sort of rainbow alliance of 'deputies' - elected because of their skin colour/sexual orientation/gender identity/other - rather than because they are genuinely popular within the party or have any skills to bring to the table. Classic identity politics of the most divisive sort.
The Corbyn motion is not him pulling back. Instead of immediate abolition it's now a review on the basis that the role be replaced by someone who is a woman pledging fealty to Corbyn. It's the same outcome.
So, well done Labour. Unnecessarily brought arguments to the fore and yet achieved absolutely nothing. Remind us again why anyone should vote for you to be a competent government?
Wonder if we’ll see any more defections this week.
No, but they do sound interesting. I shall look them up.
I am not suggesting that Weimar was smooth sailing, indeed few democracies in Europe were between the wars. I do wonder if Stresemann had not died so young, then perhaps he could have kept the Nazis out of power.
Indeed, Appeasment would have been a great policy if Stresemann was in charge, a logical development from his negotiations in the 1920's. Chamberlain and Halifax made the fatal error of thinking Hitler as reasonable as him.
I'll answer your question. No. It wasn't Hitler that killed Weimar. It died under Hindenburg. Check out how often the Reichstag met in the period 1930-32. And ultimately it was Oskar Hindenburg that put the Nazis in power when six months of patience might have seen the danger point pass.
On the other point you raise, I think I'm right in saying of all the new democracies in Europe formed after 1918 by 1936 only Czechoslovakia and Ireland remained democratic. And Czechoslovakia of course was overrrun by the Nazis in 1938-39.
You have to admire the way Ireland - which started out even less propitiously than most of the others - became a functioning and effective democracy and spurned at least one attempt to turn into a quasi-Fascist dictatorship. I'm never sure whether that's a tribute to the Irish people or the remarkable integrity and courage of William T. Cosgrave (or both, of course).
The oft-overlooked issue here is the instability of the system of nation-states. In short, they don't work. Europe slid seamlessly from empire to war to integration, and frankly, those are still our choices. One of the most infuriating thing of recent months is the way in which Nigel Farage has complained -- unchallenged -- the the EU is "trying to destroy the system of nation states". GOOD! It doesn't work. It never has done! When Britain (yes, Britain), France, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands (plus others) were denuded of their empires but were not party to a regional organisation, the result was utter destruction. When politics is national but economics is international, dangerous policy tensions build up.
To anybody who wants to recreate a time of European nation states, I ask you a simple question: when did that ever work?
For me, it's nothing to do with appearance - there's a wind farm very near me on an old airfield site, and I'v got zero problem with ti (although it was controversial locally). Ditto the ones on farmland in the Fens, or offshore.
The ones I am against - in general - are the upland ones, in areas of wilderness, especially in Scotland. To make the farms they need to create heavy duty haul roads across the moors (much more significant than Landrover tracks), then power lines to them. The traces of these will not be removed, even if the turbines are.
Worse, we're already seeing that the developments are being used as excuses for further development as well.
There is precious little wilderness left. Let's leave it as wilderness.
Most places people identify as "wilderness" are anything but. From sheep-grazed deserts to ecocidal grouse moors, there is very little primordial land left on Britain. I don't know where you live, but there is a strong probability that however wild you think it is, it's nothing like it would have been 3000 years ago.
The thing that really gets to me is the pervasive fiction that rural is the same as natural. Almost everywhere you go on these islands is formed by humanity's designs or accidents. The addition of a wind farm on some blasted upland hill almost never alters something natural. Take a look at an aerial view of Whitelee: you have a patchwork of open ground and plantation trees in the area. Which is natural? Probably neither; though I don't know for sure, probably 3000 years ago this was all forest or temperate rainforest. Now, it's scrubby wet moorland and rows of pine. It's not natural, none of it is.
Oddly enough, i mostly agree, and have made similar points in the past. However, ecologists and environmentalists may well disagree with you about the preciousness of our uplands, and especially the peat uplands.
So, well done Labour. Unnecessarily brought arguments to the fore and yet achieved absolutely nothing. Remind us again why anyone should vote for you to be a competent government?
Wonder if we’ll see any more defections this week.
TBH I do wonder sometimes if Corbyn should actually be more Stalinist and less conciliatory, if he had taken the Cummings approach from the start would Labour be in a much better position now?
Trying to work and negotiate with people who just want to beat you no matter what isn't just impossible it is actively sabotaging your own chances by even trying.
So Jezza is going to "abolish" weirdo peado obsessive Tom Watson!
Stalin would be proud...
Listen, I'm no fan of Watson or Labour in general, but calling him a "peado" obsessive is really quite off. I've noticed you do it several times, so you're clearly trying to make it a "thing", but just don't.
Watson's role in Dolphin Square/Brittan/Proctor/Made-Up Allegations case is deeply troubling for many people. He appointed himself almost sole arbiter of this sort of thing for a while - possibly because he genuinely believed what was alleged or possibly just to boost his own profile. Either way, he cannot (and should not be allowed to) get away with his behaviour on this issue.
Yes, I understand the issue, and your summary is a good critique. I'd add that politicians shouldn't involve themselves in criminal proceedings in general. Such is Watson's foolishness. But calling someone a "peado" obsessive strides well past that sensible criticism and firmly into some pretty libellous interpretations. GIN is being either very careless or pretty underhand, and the fact that he's done it more than once leads me to worry it's the latter.
So Jezza is going to "abolish" weirdo peado obsessive Tom Watson!
Stalin would be proud...
Listen, I'm no fan of Watson or Labour in general, but calling him a "peado" obsessive is really quite off. I've noticed you do it several times, so you're clearly trying to make it a "thing", but just don't.
Watson's role in Dolphin Square/Brittan/Proctor/Made-Up Allegations case is deeply troubling for many people. He appointed himself almost sole arbiter of this sort of thing for a while - possibly because he genuinely believed what was alleged or possibly just to boost his own profile. Either way, he cannot (and should not be allowed to) get away with his behaviour on this issue.
Its funny how the nonce-finder general was all over the cases with alleged Tory involvement, but MIA when it was his own party. A bit like phone hacking with Murdoch papers, but very little interest in the Mirror.
The big problem with the new NEC motion is that it is predicated on the belief that the Deputy is there to support the Leader - rather than being another senior representative of the membership.
It is easy to live in a bubble and only talk to the people who agree with you all the time. Corbyn loves it. Always has. Always will.
But that is not how leadership works. Having deputy/ies there just to support the leader would damage the balance that has long existed at the top of the Labour movement.
But that is what they want - and what, unless the party collapses before then, they will get.
Watson could break up the Party this week and take away LOTO status from Corbyn. But he won't. He should. But he won't.
I'm making exactly this point to several Labour MPs. Their seething anger will hardly have been assuaged now that the immediate abolition of Watson has been prorogued into a later abolition of Watson for his replacement with a woman pledging fealty (put your money on Dawn fucking Butler).
The idea that this bunch of fucktards be put anywhere near the levers of power is a sick joke. Yes, I know that Cummings is currently running the country and that is also sick, but two wrongs don't suddenly make a right.
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.
We've discussed your confusion about this before, it was Margaret Hodge who was leader of the council which looked after the homes. Corbyn was the MP for the area and nothing to do with with the management of the them.
Or is this some kind of parody Tom Watson thing you are doing where you accuse your opponents without proof?
You are correct that it is Margaret Hodge who should be castigated about what went on in Islington’s childrens homes while she was Leader of the Council.
I believe that a separate allegation was made that Corbyn as the local MP was told about some of the allegations but did not pursue them or raise them. I don’t know whether that is true or whether he did raise and accepted the answers he was given . But he was not responsible for the management of the homes. Hodge deserves a whole heap of criticism for her behaviour not just while the abuse was going on but for the way she libelled one of the survivors afterwards and had to publicly apologise to him.
For me, it's nothing to do with appearance - there's a wind farm very near me on an old airfield site, and I'v got zero problem with ti (although it was controversial locally). Ditto the ones on farmland in the Fens, or offshore.
The ones I am against - in general - are the upland ones, in areas of wilderness, especially in Scotland. To make the farms they need to create heavy duty haul roads across the moors (much more significant than Landrover tracks), then power lines to them. The traces of these will not be removed, even if the turbines are.
Worse, we're already seeing that the developments are being used as excuses for further development as well.
There is precious little wilderness left. Let's leave it as wilderness.
Most places people identify as "wilderness" are anything but. From sheep-grazed deserts to ecocidal grouse moors, there is very little primordial land left on Britain. I don't know where you live, but there is a strong probability that however wild you think it is, it's nothing like it would have been 3000 years ago.
The thing that really gets to me is the pervasive fiction that rural is the same as natural. Almost everywhere you go on these islands is formed by humanity's designs or accidents. The addition of a wind farm on some blasted upland hill almost never alters something natural. Take a look at an aerial view of Whitelee: you have a patchwork of open ground and plantation trees in the area. Which is natural? Probably neither; though I don't know for sure, probably 3000 years ago this was all forest or temperate rainforest. Now, it's scrubby wet moorland and rows of pine. It's not natural, none of it is.
Oddly enough, i mostly agree, and have made similar points in the past. However, ecologists and environmentalists may well disagree with you about the preciousness of our uplands, and especially the peat uplands.
There is considerable disagreement in environmental circles about these issues. Reading George Monbiot's website is instructive because he's often found taking on some of the organisations that see themselves as stewards of the "natural" environment.
The Corbyn motion is not him pulling back. Instead of immediate abolition it's now a review on the basis that the role be replaced by someone who is a woman pledging fealty to Corbyn. It's the same outcome.
Presumably implemented at a time of the Leader's choosing, out of the glare of the conference spotlight.
A very sound analysis from David. The only caveat I would add is that Labour faces a much smaller polling deficit than at the beginning of the 2017 campaign. Moreover, Yougov had Labour on 23% when May called the election.
I should be heading to Barra today, but difficult family circumstances have kept me closer to home. Pissed off though, very pissed off.... I love my jaunts to the Outer Hebs.
It wasn't Tim Farron wasting media exposure but the media obsession with it. The increasing BME vote, and BJ has no credit in the bank with Muslims, massively helps offsets Labour's outcomes.
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.
My mother spent a lot of time with Starmer when he was DPP and she was Chair of Chairs.
He’s not a fit and proper person to be Prime Minister or even in Cabinet
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.
Totally agree with that - indeed I can see Labour polling circa 35%.
I should be heading to Barra today, but difficult family circumstances have kept me closer to home. Pissed off though, very pissed off.... I love my jaunts to the Outer Hebs.
Yes, I read that this morning, but couldn't shake the feeling of implausibility. When Labour members won't even vote for Corbyn, why would bankers? Surely they're going to stay put with the Tories or break Lib Dem?
I should be heading to Barra today, but difficult family circumstances have kept me closer to home. Pissed off though, very pissed off.... I love my jaunts to the Outer Hebs.
Still, good news for the folks of Barra
The curry house (according to The Guardian, one of the 50 best in the country) will miss my custom......
For me, it's nothing to do with appearance - there's a wind farm very near me on an old airfield site, and I'v got zero problem with ti (although it was controversial locally). Ditto the ones on farmland in the Fens, or offshore.
The ones I am against - in general - are the upland ones, in areas of wilderness, especially in Scotland. To make the farms they need to create heavy duty haul roads across the moors (much more significant than Landrover tracks), then power lines to them. The traces of these will not be removed, even if the turbines are.
Worse, we're already seeing that the developments are being used as excuses for further development as well.
There is precious little wilderness left. Let's leave it as wilderness.
Most places people identify as "wilderness" are anything but. From sheep-grazed deserts to ecocidal grouse moors, there is very little primordial land left on Britain. I don't know where you live, but there is a strong probability that however wild you think it is, it's nothing like it would have been 3000 years ago.
The thing that really gets to me is the pervasive fiction that rural is the same as natural. Almost everywhere you go on these islands is formed by humanity's designs or accidents. The addition of a wind farm on some blasted upland hill almost never alters something natural. Take a look at an aerial view of Whitelee: you have a patchwork of open ground and plantation trees in the area. Which is natural? Probably neither; though I don't know for sure, probably 3000 years ago this was all forest or temperate rainforest. Now, it's scrubby wet moorland and rows of pine. It's not natural, none of it is.
Oddly enough, i mostly agree, and have made similar points in the past. However, ecologists and environmentalists may well disagree with you about the preciousness of our uplands, and especially the peat uplands.
There is considerable disagreement in environmental circles about these issues. Reading George Monbiot's website is instructive because he's often found taking on some of the organisations that see themselves as stewards of the "natural" environment.
I am not (ahem) Monbiot's biggest fan.
But this whole argument gets rather complicated. Firstly, vast swathes of the country were covered by ice up to 10-20,000 years ago, and therefore 'natural' is rather new geologically speaking - and would have varied over time anyway.
Secondly, yours is an argument for no area to be protected, because it is essentially valueless. I have spent lots of time on the moors and hills (although not as much as I'd like, or as extensively) and IMV it is well worth protecting, and a valuable landscape.
Lab draft of Brexit policy, negotiate a new treaty within 3 months then a referendum in 3 months and not declaring if remain or Brexit until after a GE Genius
I think the reality is if you want to stop Brexit you need to vote Labour to help them get a majority , although I like the Lib Dems a Revoke without a referendum is very polarizing . Even though they’re not going to win an election how on earth would an arrangement work between them and Labour if the latter didn’t get a majority .
A soft Brexit v Remain is really helpful to the latter as even many Leavers would rather stay in with a say in things rather than have no say .
Although many arch Leavers in the Tory party might think they can win a general election before Brexit , there are no guarantees .
Do they risk everything and vote down a deal or vote for that and get Brexit over the line even with a likely backstop renamed to sound better.
Although Labours policy is a fudge , it’s a damage limitation exercise and tries to keep both sides on board .
But this whole argument gets rather complicated. Firstly, vast swathes of the country were covered by ice up to 10-20,000 years ago, and therefore 'natural' is rather new geologically speaking - and would have varied over time anyway.
Secondly, yours is an argument for no area to be protected, because it is essentially valueless. I have spent lots of time on the moors and hills (although not as much as I'd like, or as extensively) and IMV it is well worth protecting, and a valuable landscape.
You are, of course, welcome to differ.
Sure, and my point was not to say "Monbiot is right", but merely to point out that view differ in environmental circles. I certainly don't agree that no area should be protected. But the kind of landscape where I've seen wind farms tends to be two a penny, so even if I were to accept their presence spoiled something, it's not like it's spoiling something unique in most cases. There would be a difference in placing turbines all over the hill that hosts the Uffington White Horse and placing turbines all over another, otherwise identical hill in Oxfordshire. I love walking in the uplands as well. My favourite way to spend a day.
So Jezza is going to "abolish" weirdo peado obsessive Tom Watson!
Stalin would be proud...
Listen, I'm no fan of Watson or Labour in general, but calling him a "peado" obsessive is really quite off. I've noticed you do it several times, so you're clearly trying to make it a "thing", but just don't.
Watson's role in Dolphin Square/Brittan/Proctor/Made-Up Allegations case is deeply troubling for many people. He appointed himself almost sole arbiter of this sort of thing for a while - possibly because he genuinely believed what was alleged or possibly just to boost his own profile. Either way, he cannot (and should not be allowed to) get away with his behaviour on this issue.
Yes, I understand the issue, and your summary is a good critique. I'd add that politicians shouldn't involve themselves in criminal proceedings in general. Such is Watson's foolishness. But calling someone a "peado" obsessive strides well past that sensible criticism and firmly into some pretty libellous interpretations. GIN is being either very careless or pretty underhand, and the fact that he's done it more than once leads me to worry it's the latter.
Comments
Birmingham don't seem to set standards for good governance when it comes to dealing with their social problems - but then again they are pretty formidable.
A possible vehicle?
The argument IMO is whether it is more damaging to leave Watson in place with a platform to do damage.
So Jezza is going to "abolish" weirdo peado obsessive Tom Watson!
Stalin would be proud...
And the book and film “Mephisto” are well worth it too, particularly the film with a superlative performance by Klaus-Maria Brandauer.
Time to get active. An interesting early kick off for Leicester today, and Spurs poor recent away form in the PL is something to be optimistic about. Maddison centrally please Mr Rogers, he is not a winger!
You meant Defcon 1, muppet!
1. Remove Watson
2. Corbyn steps down with immediate effect
3. Immediate need for new leader because election
4. Wrong-Daily proposed from the floor. Appointed by show of hands
Yes it bins the rule book. But that's what conference can do. 2hats more, it would be spun as the will of the membership because conference delegates are representatives of the membership elected to make decisions at conference
For both tweets.
Labour: “Hold. My. Beer. All of the beer. And get another pint in while you’re at it. We have serious work to do”
I just cannot begin to see who she appeals to in the wider electorate. Many will think her a hopeless deluded fool. She certainly gives htat impression in the edia interviews I've seen her give. Those who might be prepared to give her a hearing are much more likely to be convinced by Jo Swinson, I would have thought.
Alison McGovern something to do with Progress, very much on the right of the party got reselected in Liverpool, Liverpool is pretty much as left as it comes.
Might it be instead that the right wing press alleging about plans to deselect vast swathes of the party were wrong?
I'm sure you can find someone who want to deselect 200+ MPs in Labour, you can probably find another Labour member who would want Kate Hoey in charge of the party (surely there must be one I assume) but there was never the numbers to deselect everyone. The few who many would have wanted gone left the party anyway.
He’s not a fit and proper person to be Prime Minister or even in Cabinet
It’s amazing how a bit of distance makes events obscure. Are Labour really doing this? Self-Immolating in public? Sad and bizarre.
The aim is simple - True Socialism. No compromise, no wavering, no realpolitik. If people don't elect them to power even better, that way the glaring holes in their logic don't get tested in office. We all know that should a Corbyn government happen the zealots would be accusing him of selling out. Probably within weeks
The thing that really gets to me is the pervasive fiction that rural is the same as natural. Almost everywhere you go on these islands is formed by humanity's designs or accidents. The addition of a wind farm on some blasted upland hill almost never alters something natural.
Take a look at an aerial view of Whitelee: you have a patchwork of open ground and plantation trees in the area. Which is natural? Probably neither; though I don't know for sure, probably 3000 years ago this was all forest or temperate rainforest. Now, it's scrubby wet moorland and rows of pine. It's not natural, none of it is.
If deputy leader becomes a platform to attack the party then having 2 dilutes that platform, removing the position removes it altogether.
If he is ousted as deputy, perhaps he'll consider challenging Corbyn...
So I was interested that in the last three weeks I have heard her, quite unprompted , ask a number of friends and relatives whether they are going to vote lib dem, and indicating that that's what she will be doing. And everyone I have heard her asking has said that they would (including a cousin who has just joined, having never been a member of any political party).
Things have never been more volatile
"Don't say what you're about to say
Look back before you leave my life
Be sure before you close that door
Before you roll those dice
Baby think twice"
Nice voice too, for a nonagenerian.
Party members (in at least two parties) have shown courage and imagination in choosing leaders they like the look of, without the blindest care whether they could win an election. They’re spoiling themselves somewhat in giving themselves a second pick, with the ability to choose someone who hates the first guy and all he stands for.
If you’re going to have a deputy, it needs either a “joint ticket” election, or just to be a shadow cabinet appointment.
(And I say that as someone who’s closer to Watson than Corbyn.
Wonder if we’ll see any more defections this week.
One of the most infuriating thing of recent months is the way in which Nigel Farage has complained -- unchallenged -- the the EU is "trying to destroy the system of nation states". GOOD! It doesn't work. It never has done!
When Britain (yes, Britain), France, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands (plus others) were denuded of their empires but were not party to a regional organisation, the result was utter destruction. When politics is national but economics is international, dangerous policy tensions build up.
To anybody who wants to recreate a time of European nation states, I ask you a simple question: when did that ever work?
However, ecologists and environmentalists may well disagree with you about the preciousness of our uplands, and especially the peat uplands.
Trying to work and negotiate with people who just want to beat you no matter what isn't just impossible it is actively sabotaging your own chances by even trying.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1175343908978659334
But calling someone a "peado" obsessive strides well past that sensible criticism and firmly into some pretty libellous interpretations. GIN is being either very careless or pretty underhand, and the fact that he's done it more than once leads me to worry it's the latter.
It is easy to live in a bubble and only talk to the people who agree with you all the time. Corbyn loves it. Always has. Always will.
But that is not how leadership works. Having deputy/ies there just to support the leader would damage the balance that has long existed at the top of the Labour movement.
But that is what they want - and what, unless the party collapses before then, they will get.
Watson could break up the Party this week and take away LOTO status from Corbyn. But he won't. He should. But he won't.
The idea that this bunch of fucktards be put anywhere near the levers of power is a sick joke. Yes, I know that Cummings is currently running the country and that is also sick, but two wrongs don't suddenly make a right.
My dilemma is what I do about it...
But before the election.
Certainly a differing perspective.
But this whole argument gets rather complicated. Firstly, vast swathes of the country were covered by ice up to 10-20,000 years ago, and therefore 'natural' is rather new geologically speaking - and would have varied over time anyway.
Secondly, yours is an argument for no area to be protected, because it is essentially valueless. I have spent lots of time on the moors and hills (although not as much as I'd like, or as extensively) and IMV it is well worth protecting, and a valuable landscape.
You are, of course, welcome to differ.
Genius
Note for the weekend: qualifying's on at 2pm but I think the race is an hour earlier than the usual time, starting at 1.10pm.
Lol and what's more, lol
Hahahahaha.
A soft Brexit v Remain is really helpful to the latter as even many Leavers would rather stay in with a say in things rather than have no say .
Although many arch Leavers in the Tory party might think they can win a general election before Brexit , there are no guarantees .
Do they risk everything and vote down a deal or vote for that and get Brexit over the line even with a likely backstop renamed to sound better.
Although Labours policy is a fudge , it’s a damage limitation exercise and tries to keep both sides on board .
I certainly don't agree that no area should be protected. But the kind of landscape where I've seen wind farms tends to be two a penny, so even if I were to accept their presence spoiled something, it's not like it's spoiling something unique in most cases. There would be a difference in placing turbines all over the hill that hosts the Uffington White Horse and placing turbines all over another, otherwise identical hill in Oxfordshire.
I love walking in the uplands as well. My favourite way to spend a day.
He was rather obsessive about paedophiles.
Quiet now though, which is remarkable.