I reckon Craig McKinley when we sell Gibraltar off to Spain.
Boris would be toppled as Tory leader in 5 minutes if he even contemplated that
Toppled by who? Even if we accept the Falklands has some totemic value to older Conservatives, why should a party now so careless about breaking up the United Kingdom go to the wall to retain Gibraltar?
The Tories made clear in their manifesto they would ban indyref2 in Scotland so of course no compromise with Spain over Gibraltar.
Gibraltar is also over 90% pro UK unlike Northern Ireland which is 50 50 at best
The Tories also said that putting a border in the Irish Sea was nothing a Tory PM would ever do.
It's touching that you still believe him.
You may have missed a post recently wherein I said that I thought (and think) your work on behalf of the Cons and your comments on here giving your views were admirable. It and they was and were. But c'mon, we Remainers know the score with BoJo. He is 1,000,000 times better than the alternative but he is still a lying sleazeball.
Looking through constituency results I'm actually coming to the conclusion that Brexit was a bigger issue than Corbyn.
Rotherham, 14376 Labour votes. Even with a sub Foot leader that's scarcely believable.
My working understanding is that where Labour lost seats, it was mostly about Brexit & that once the Conservatives had gone all in for Brexit that was probably inevitable. The problem for Labour was that they didn’t make equivalent gains in Remain constituencies, and /that/ is down to Corbyn.
(Corbyn also drove losses in the north too, but Brexit was the bigger influence.)
I reckon Craig McKinley when we sell Gibraltar off to Spain.
Boris would be toppled as Tory leader in 5 minutes if he even contemplated that
Toppled by who? Even if we accept the Falklands has some totemic value to older Conservatives, why should a party now so careless about breaking up the United Kingdom go to the wall to retain Gibraltar?
The Tories made clear in their manifesto they would ban indyref2 in Scotland so of course no compromise with Spain over Gibraltar.
Gibraltar is also over 90% pro UK unlike Northern Ireland which is 50 50 at best
The Tories also said that putting a border in the Irish Sea was nothing a Tory PM would ever do.
It's touching that you still believe him.
You may have missed a post recently wherein I said that I thought (and think) your work on behalf of the Cons and your comments on here giving your views were admirable. It and they was and were. But c'mon, we Remainers know the score with BoJo. He is 1,000,000 times better than the alternative but he is still a lying sleazeball.
Given the DUP no longer have a majority of Northern Ireland seats and only 43% of Northern Irish voters voted for Unionist parties last week compared to 54% of Scots, Boris was right to avoid a hard border with the Republic of Ireland that would have only hastened pressure for reunification.
Thankyou for the first half of your other comments
Thornberry standing. Horray! Time to get the flags out!
To me, she epitomises what has gone wrong with the Labour Party. She'll be below RLB on my ballot - if she gets that far.
I agree but for me RLB will still be last. Johnson will be very confident of winning in 2024 with either of them there for different reasons. So it comes down to whether you want the cult to consolidate its grip in the meantime, or not.
RLB would be Labour's IDS, no hugely negative reaction but no positive reaction either, in fact some would probably fail to even recognise she was Labour leader
The parallel with IDS fails, not least because unlike the Tories, my lot never gets rid of our failing leaders until they have lost at least one election.
Thornberry would be a disaster, but I'd reluctantly vote for her over RLB as well. There is no hope for Labour until it's been wretched from the grasp of Jon Lansman and Len McCluskey.
Looking through constituency results I'm actually coming to the conclusion that Brexit was a bigger issue than Corbyn.
Rotherham, 14376 Labour votes. Even with a sub Foot leader that's scarcely believable.
My working understanding is that where Labour lost seats, it was mostly about Brexit & that once the Conservatives had gone all in for Brexit that was probably inevitable. The problem for Labour was that they didn’t make equivalent gains in Remain constituencies, and /that/ is down to Corbyn.
(Corbyn also drove losses in the north too, but Brexit was the bigger influence.)
Any counter-arguments to the above?
Yes, the LDs won more 2017 Tory Remainers than Corbyn Labour
Thornberry would be a disaster, but I'd reluctantly vote for her over RLB as well. There is no hope for Labour until it's been wretched from the grasp of Jon Lansman and Len McCluskey.
Are you a member? If so what's your view of the mood of other members, and their desire for a Continuity Corbyn candidate?
No. She was a bad Home Secretary, a cowardly Remain campaigner, and a ludicrously bad PM. Leave her to tend to the good citizens of Maidenhead, which she will do assiduously and well.
Thornberry standing. Horray! Time to get the flags out!
To me, she epitomises what has gone wrong with the Labour Party. She'll be below RLB on my ballot - if she gets that far.
I agree but for me RLB will still be last. Johnson will be very confident of winning in 2024 with either of them there for different reasons. So it comes down to whether you want the cult to consolidate its grip in the meantime, or not.
RLB would be Labour's IDS, no hugely negative reaction but no positive reaction either, in fact some would probably fail to even recognise she was Labour leader
The parallel with IDS fails, not least because unlike the Tories, my lot never gets rid of our failing leaders until they have lost at least one election.
Though IDS probably would have done as well as Howard in 2005
I reckon Craig McKinley when we sell Gibraltar off to Spain.
Boris would be toppled as Tory leader in 5 minutes if he even contemplated that
Toppled by who? Even if we accept the Falklands has some totemic value to older Conservatives, why should a party now so careless about breaking up the United Kingdom go to the wall to retain Gibraltar?
The Tories made clear in their manifesto they would ban indyref2 in Scotland so of course no compromise with Spain over Gibraltar.
Gibraltar is also over 90% pro UK unlike Northern Ireland which is 50 50 at best
The Tories also said that putting a border in the Irish Sea was nothing a Tory PM would ever do.
It's touching that you still believe him.
You may have missed a post recently wherein I said that I thought (and think) your work on behalf of the Cons and your comments on here giving your views were admirable. It and they was and were. But c'mon, we Remainers know the score with BoJo. He is 1,000,000 times better than the alternative but he is still a lying sleazeball.
Given the DUP no longer have a majority of Northern Ireland seats and only 43% of Northern Irish voters voted for Unionist parties last week compared to 54% of Scots, Boris was right to avoid a hard border with the Republic of Ireland that would have only hastened pressure for reunification.
Thankyou for the first half of your other comments
He has put a border in the Irish Sea which sees a clear pathway towards reunification. It is something he said, and I quote, "no Tory PM would ever do". And he did it.
There is a confrontational path to a united Ireland (a hard border with the Republic, for example), and a regulatory and de facto path to a united Ireland (a border in the Irish Sea treating the island of Ireland as one entity). Boris opted for the latter.
I was talking to my Dad about it yesterday and said when you think about it now, it seems utterly ridiculous that anyone thought the UK would elect a teetotal, vegetarian, who doesn't like the Queen, wouldn't want to have nuclear weapons, supported the IRA etc... People want to see something of themselves in their leader I think, Corbyn just has too many niche views to be electable
I reckon Craig McKinley when we sell Gibraltar off to Spain.
Boris would be toppled as Tory leader in 5 minutes if he even contemplated that
Toppled by who? Even if we accept the Falklands has some totemic value to older Conservatives, why should a party now so careless about breaking up the United Kingdom go to the wall to retain Gibraltar?
The Tories made clear in their manifesto they would ban indyref2 in Scotland so of course no compromise with Spain over Gibraltar.
Gibraltar is also over 90% pro UK unlike Northern Ireland which is 50 50 at best
The Tories also said that putting a border in the Irish Sea was nothing a Tory PM would ever do.
It's touching that you still believe him.
You may have missed a post recently wherein I said that I thought (and think) your work on behalf of the Cons and your comments on here giving your views were admirable. It and they was and were. But c'mon, we Remainers know the score with BoJo. He is 1,000,000 times better than the alternative but he is still a lying sleazeball.
Given the DUP no longer have a majority of Northern Ireland seats and only 43% of Northern Irish voters voted for Unionist parties last week compared to 54% of Scots, Boris was right to avoid a hard border with the Republic of Ireland that would have only hastened pressure for reunification.
Thankyou for the first half of your other comments
He has put a border in the Irish Sea which sees a clear pathway towards reunification. It is something he said, and I quote, "no Tory PM would ever do". And he did it.
There is a confrontational path to a united Ireland (a hard border with the Republic, for example), and a regulatory and de facto path to a united Ireland (a border in the Irish Sea treating the island of Ireland as one entity). Boris opted for the latter.
The median Northern Ireland voter votes Alliance now and they back the Union so long as a hard border with the Republic of Ireland is avoided, thus yet again Boris has saved Brexit and the Union
Couple of days ago I posted some calcs on 1st time incumbency for the 28 seats Lab gained from Con in 2017 (Retained half of them and drop in share of vote roughly half of average for those that missed it). Just looked at the 6 seats that Con gained from Lab in 2017 and wow!! Average increase of Con vote in these seats was 11.3%, and 12.7% if you exclude Trudy Harrison who probably got most of her bounce in Copeland after the By-Election win. Will be very difficult for Lab to get back all the 50 seats they've just lost to Con if those new MP's work their constituencies hard.
In a negotiation it is normal, indeed required, to lie.
Union : our members won't accept less than 5%. Cost of living, you made lots of profit last year, etc
Employer:we can't go above 3%. Trading conditions not good etc
So when they agree on 4% do we berate both sides for lying? I think not.
Boris has simply made an opening gambit that he wants out by 31 Dec. That can be changed in if necessary (simply by passing another act of Parliament).
It simply is not possible to conduct a negotiation without lying.
I'm not sure that's true. The statement "Here are my red lines. If you do not meet them I will walk away" would seem to be a counter-example.
I was talking to my Dad about it yesterday and said when you think about it now, it seems utterly ridiculous that anyone thought the UK would elect a teetotal, vegetarian, who doesn't like the Queen, wouldn't want to have nuclear weapons, supported the IRA etc... People want to see something of themselves in their leader I think, Corbyn just has too many niche views to be electable
Yeah, not so much marmite as a kale and anchovy smoothie. Only actually contemplated by extremists who pretend it really actually honestly is the best thing ever, when everyone else can clearly see its vile.
If only someone had been pointed out his flaws for the last four years.
For what it's worth, my parents thought he was a dim and dangerous man, but not as dangerous as McDonnell.
I reckon Craig McKinley when we sell Gibraltar off to Spain.
Boris would be toppled as Tory leader in 5 minutes if he even contemplated that
Toppled by who? Even if we accept the Falklands has some totemic value to older Conservatives, why should a party now so careless about breaking up the United Kingdom go to the wall to retain Gibraltar?
The Tories made clear in their manifesto they would ban indyref2 in Scotland so of course no compromise with Spain over Gibraltar.
Gibraltar is also over 90% pro UK unlike Northern Ireland which is 50 50 at best
The Tories also said that putting a border in the Irish Sea was nothing a Tory PM would ever do.
It's touching that you still believe him.
You may have missed a post rec
Given the DUP no longer have a majority of Northern Ireland seats and only 43% of Northern Irish voters voted for Unionist parties last week compared to 54% of Scots, Boris was right to avoid a hard border with the Republic of Ireland that would have only hastened pressure for reunification.
Thankyou for the first half of your other comments
He has put a border in the Irish Sea which sees a clear pathway towards reunification. It is something he said, and I quote, "no Tory PM would ever do". And he did it.
There is a confrontational path to a united Ireland (a hard border with the Republic, for example), and a regulatory and de facto path to a united Ireland (a border in the Irish Sea treating the island of Ireland as one entity). Boris opted for the latter.
The median Northern Ireland voter votes Alliance now and they back the Union so long as a hard border with the Republic of Ireland is avoided, thus yet again Boris has saved Brexit and the Union
He has put a border between the island of Ireland and Great Britain. The DUP has been betrayed. What do the DUP want? To maintain Northern Ireland as a part of the United Kingdom. Boris said he would do this but then created a border in the Irish Sea. The DUP wouldn't feel betrayed if he had saved the Union. He has set out a clear pathway to a united Ireland. So no, he hasn't saved the Union. Quite the opposite.
Thornberry would be a disaster, but I'd reluctantly vote for her over RLB as well. There is no hope for Labour until it's been wretched from the grasp of Jon Lansman and Len McCluskey.
Are you a member? If so what's your view of the mood of other members, and their desire for a Continuity Corbyn candidate?
Honestly? My suspicion is that if Pidcock had retained her seat, or if Rayner had decided to run for the leadership, one of those two would be the next Labour leader. But with RLB running as the Corbynite candidate, those of us who are sane actually have a chance of getting our party back. I think a number of members who voted for Corbyn aren't particularly enthused by RLB, and are actually open to other candidates. I went on a socialist walking group the weekend, full of Corbynista academic types. And while I got the impression hard-core Corbynistas would vote for her, they weren't that impressed by her at all. If that's the case amongst the true believers - which would be her core support - I honestly think it's possible a non-Corbynite candidate can beat her.
Looking through constituency results I'm actually coming to the conclusion that Brexit was a bigger issue than Corbyn.
Rotherham, 14376 Labour votes. Even with a sub Foot leader that's scarcely believable.
I don't think you can separate out Brexit from attitudes to Corbyn generally. 2017 Labour Leavers had a far more unfavourable view of Corbyn personally than did 2017 Labour Remainers. Paradoxically that's in spite of Corbyn being a well known Eurosceptic. 2017 Labour voters who most object to everything that Corbyn stood for just happened to be the type of (older, traditional working class) 2017 Labour voter most likely to have voted Leave.
e.g. Opinium final poll 2017 Labour Remainers: 60% approved of Corbyn, 21% disapproved 2017 Labour Leavers: 36% approved of Corbyn, 48% disapproved
I reckon Craig McKinley when we sell Gibraltar off to Spain.
Boris would be toppled as Tory leader in 5 minutes if he even contemplated that
Toppled by who? Even if we accept the Falklands has some totemic value to older Conservatives, why should a party now so careless about breaking up the United Kingdom go to the wall to retain Gibraltar?
The Tories made clear in their manifesto they would ban indyref2 in Scotland so of course no compromise with Spain over Gibraltar.
Gibraltar is also over 90% pro UK unlike Northern Ireland which is 50 50 at best
The Tories also said that putting a border in the Irish Sea was nothing a Tory PM would ever do.
It's touching that you still believe him.
You may have missed a post recently wherein I said that I thought (and think) your work on behalf of the Cons and your comments on here giving your views were admirable. It and they was and were. But c'mon, we Remainers know the score with BoJo. He is 1,000,000 times better than the alternative but he is still a lying sleazeball.
Given the DUP no longer have a majority of Northern Ireland seats and only 43% of Northern Irish voters voted for Unionist parties last week compared to 54% of Scots, Boris was right to avoid a hard border with the Republic of Ireland that would have only hastened pressure for reunification.
Thankyou for the first half of your other comments
He has put a border in the Irish Sea which sees a clear pathway towards reunification. It is something he said, and I quote, "no Tory PM would ever do". And he did it.
There is a confrontational path to a united Ireland (a hard border with the Republic, for example), and a regulatory and de facto path to a united Ireland (a border in the Irish Sea treating the island of Ireland as one entity). Boris opted for the latter.
The median Northern Ireland voter votes Alliance now and they back the Union so long as a hard border with the Republic of Ireland is avoided, thus yet again Boris has saved Brexit and the Union
It is invidious to state that "a hard border with the Republic has been avoided" without mentioning the Irish Sea border.
I reckon Craig McKinley when we sell Gibraltar off to Spain.
Boris would be toppled as Tory leader in 5 minutes if he even contemplated that
Toppled by who? Even if we accept the Falklands has some totemic value to older Conservatives, why should a party now so careless about breaking up the United Kingdom go to the wall to retain Gibraltar?
The Tories made clear in their manifesto they would ban indyref2 in Scotland so of course no compromise with Spain over Gibraltar.
Gibraltar is also over 90% pro UK unlike Northern Ireland which is 50 50 at best
The Tories also said that putting a border in the Irish Sea was nothing a Tory PM would ever do.
It's touching that you still believe him.
You may have missed a post recently wherein I said that I thought (and think) your work on behalf of the Cons and your comments on here giving your views were admirable. It and they was and were. But c'mon, we Remainers know the score with BoJo. He is 1,000,000 times better than the alternative but he is still a lying sleazeball.
Given the DUP no longer have a majority of Northern Ireland seats and only 43% of Northern Irish voters voted for Unionist parties last week compared to 54% of Scots, Boris was right to avoid a hard border with the Republic of Ireland that would have only hastened pressure for reunification.
Thankyou for the first half of your other comments
He has put a border in the Irish Sea which sees a clear pathway towards reunification. It is something he said, and I quote, "no Tory PM would ever do". And he did it.
There is a confrontational path to a united Ireland (a hard border with the Republic, for example), and a regulatory and de facto path to a united Ireland (a border in the Irish Sea treating the island of Ireland as one entity). Boris opted for the latter.
The median Northern Ireland voter votes Alliance now and they back the Union so long as a hard border with the Republic of Ireland is avoided, thus yet again Boris has saved Brexit and the Union
It is invidious to state that "a hard border with the Republic has been avoided" without mentioning the Irish Sea border.
Or is it the "Celtic Sea"? I forget which one is which.
Emily Thornberry has declared she is entering the race to succeed Jeremy Corbyn, revealing she warned the Labour leadership that backing a Brexit election would be an “act of catastrophic political folly”.
I reckon Craig McKinley when we sell Gibraltar off to Spain.
Boris would be toppled as Tory leader in 5 minutes if he even contemplated that
Toppled by who? Even if we accept the Falklands has some totemic value to older Conservatives, why should a party now so careless about breaking up the United Kingdom go to the wall to retain Gibraltar?
The Tories made clear in their manifesto they would ban indyref2 in Scotland so of course no compromise with Spain over Gibraltar.
Gibraltar is also over 90% pro UK unlike Northern Ireland which is 50 50 at best
The Tories also said that putting a border in the Irish Sea was nothing a Tory PM would ever do.
It's touching that you still believe him.
You may have missed a post rec
Given the DUP no longer have a majority of Northern Ireland seats y hastened pressure for reunification.
Thankyou for the first half of your other comments
He has put a border in the Irish Sea which sees a clear pathway towards reunification. It is something he said, and I quote, "no Tory PM would ever do". And he or the latter.
The median Northern Ireland voter votes Alliance now and they back the Union so long as a hard border with the Republic of Ireland is avoided, thus yet again Boris has saved Brexit and the Union
He has put a border between the island of Ireland and Great Britain. The DUP has been betrayed. What do the DUP want? To maintain Northern Ireland as a part of the United Kingdom. Boris said he would do this but then created a border in the Irish Sea. The DUP wouldn't feel betrayed if he had saved the Union. He has set out a clear pathway to a united Ireland. So no, he hasn't saved the Union. Quite the opposite.
Nope, utterly wrong yet again.
The DUP are a minority party in Northern Ireland now representing just 8 out of 18 NI seats.
The choice was thus either a hard border with the Republic of Ireland leading inevitably to Irish reunification with perhaps the DUP declaring UDI in Antrim or else what Boris has done keeping the UK together in the only way the majority of Northern Ireland voters would accept ie avoiding a hard border with the Republic of Ireland and thus also protecting the Good Friday Agreement.
There is no longer a Unionist majority in Northern Ireland, that is fact, there is still in Scotland
Thornberry would be a disaster, but I'd reluctantly vote for her over RLB as well. There is no hope for Labour until it's been wretched from the grasp of Jon Lansman and Len McCluskey.
Are you a member? If so what's your view of the mood of other members, and their desire for a Continuity Corbyn candidate?
Honestly? My suspicion is that if Pidcock had retained her seat, or if Rayner had decided to run for the leadership, one of those two would be the next Labour leader. But with RLB running as the Corbynite candidate, those of us who are sane actually have a chance of getting our party back. I think a number of members who voted for Corbyn aren't particularly enthused by RLB, and are actually open to other candidates. I went on a socialist walking group the weekend, full of Corbynista academic types. And while I got the impression hard-core Corbynistas would vote for her, they weren't that impressed by her at all. If that's the case amongst the true believers - which would be her core support - I honestly think it's possible a non-Corbynite candidate can beat her.
If I may ask, apart from presumably Highgate Cemetery, where does a socialist walking group walk?
In a negotiation it is normal, indeed required, to lie.
Union : our members won't accept less than 5%. Cost of living, you made lots of profit last year, etc
Employer:we can't go above 3%. Trading conditions not good etc
So when they agree on 4% do we berate both sides for lying? I think not.
Boris has simply made an opening gambit that he wants out by 31 Dec. That can be changed in if necessary (simply by passing another act of Parliament).
It simply is not possible to conduct a negotiation without lying.
You clearly know very little about professional negotiation, or else you are very out of date. Lying is not necessary in negotiation, indeed it is often counter productive. It is preferable that the other side thinks you have different options that you might exercise. That is absolutely not the same as lying.
I reckon Craig McKinley when we sell Gibraltar off to Spain.
Boris would be toppled as Tory leader in 5 minutes if he even contemplated that
Toppled by who? Even if we accept the Falklands has some totemic value to older Conservatives, why should a party now so careless about breaking up the United Kingdom go to the wall to retain Gibraltar?
The Tories made clear in their manifesto they would ban indyref2 in Scotland so of course no compromise with Spain over Gibraltar.
Gibraltar is also over 90% pro UK unlike Northern Ireland which is 50 50 at best
The Tories also said that putting a border in the Irish Sea was nothing a Tory PM would ever do.
It's touching that you still believe him.
You may have missed a post recently wherein I said that I thought (and think) your work on behalf of the Cons and your comments on here giving your views were admirable. It and they was and were. But c'mon, we Remainers know the score with BoJo. He is 1,000,000 times better than the alternative but he is still a lying sleazeball.
Given the DUP no longer have a majority of Northern Ireland seats and only 43% of Northern Irish voters voted for Unionist parties last week compared to 54% of Scots, Boris was right to avoid a hard border with the Republic of Ireland that would have only hastened pressure for reunification.
Thankyou for the first half of your other comments
He has put a border in the Irish Sea which sees a clear pathway towards reunification. It is something he said, and I quote, "no Tory PM would ever do". And he did it.
There is a confrontational path to a united Ireland (a hard border with the Republic, for example), and a regulatory and de facto path to a united Ireland (a border in the Irish Sea treating the island of Ireland as one entity). Boris opted for the latter.
The median Northern Ireland voter votes Alliance now and they back the Union so long as a hard border with the Republic of Ireland is avoided, thus yet again Boris has saved Brexit and the Union
I still think that N Ireland could rejoin the EU in its own right, as a separate State, albeit with HMQ as Head of State. Like other Commonwealth members.
I was talking to my Dad about it yesterday and said when you think about it now, it seems utterly ridiculous that anyone thought the UK would elect a teetotal, vegetarian, who doesn't like the Queen, wouldn't want to have nuclear weapons, supported the IRA etc... People want to see something of themselves in their leader I think, Corbyn just has too many niche views to be electable
A third of the electorate disagreed with you. And if Boris had less charisma, it could have been more.
On the point about leadership vs Brexit vs economic policy - not sure how you can separate those. The leadership decided the economic policy and fudged the Brexit policy. Also Brexit is a matter of economics. So the poll seems flawed to me.
Thornberry would be a disaster, but I'd reluctantly vote for her over RLB as well. There is no hope for Labour until it's been wretched from the grasp of Jon Lansman and Len McCluskey.
Are you a member? If so what's your view of the mood of other members, and their desire for a Continuity Corbyn candidate?
Honestly? My suspicion is that if Pidcock had retained her seat, or if Rayner had decided to run for the leadership, one of those two would be the next Labour leader. But with RLB running as the Corbynite candidate, those of us who are sane actually have a chance of getting our party back. I think a number of members who voted for Corbyn aren't particularly enthused by RLB, and are actually open to other candidates. I went on a socialist walking group the weekend, full of Corbynista academic types. And while I got the impression hard-core Corbynistas would vote for her, they weren't that impressed by her at all. If that's the case amongst the true believers - which would be her core support - I honestly think it's possible a non-Corbynite candidate can beat her.
If I may ask, apart from presumably Highgate Cemetery, where does a socialist walking group walk?
Thornberry would be a disaster, but I'd reluctantly vote for her over RLB as well. There is no hope for Labour until it's been wretched from the grasp of Jon Lansman and Len McCluskey.
Are you a member? If so what's your view of the mood of other members, and their desire for a Continuity Corbyn candidate?
Honestly? My suspicion is that if Pidcock had retained her seat, or if Rayner had decided to run for the leadership, one of those two would be the next Labour leader. But with RLB running as the Corbynite candidate, those of us who are sane actually have a chance of getting our party back. I think a number of members who voted for Corbyn aren't particularly enthused by RLB, and are actually open to other candidates. I went on a socialist walking group the weekend, full of Corbynista academic types. And while I got the impression hard-core Corbynistas would vote for her, they weren't that impressed by her at all. If that's the case amongst the true believers - which would be her core support - I honestly think it's possible a non-Corbynite candidate can beat her.
love the idea of a "socialist walking group". Sounds like something out of Monty Python. "After you brother, er sister..."
Thornberry would be a disaster, but I'd reluctantly vote for her over RLB as well. There is no hope for Labour until it's been wretched from the grasp of Jon Lansman and Len McCluskey.
Are you a member? If so what's your view of the mood of other members, and their desire for a Continuity Corbyn candidate?
Honestly? My suspicion is that if Pidcock had retained her seat, or if Rayner had decided to run for the leadership, one of those two would be the next Labour leader. But with RLB running as the Corbynite candidate, those of us who are sane actually have a chance of getting our party back. I think a number of members who voted for Corbyn aren't particularly enthused by RLB, and are actually open to other candidates. I went on a socialist walking group the weekend, full of Corbynista academic types. And while I got the impression hard-core Corbynistas would vote for her, they weren't that impressed by her at all. If that's the case amongst the true believers - which would be her core support - I honestly think it's possible a non-Corbynite candidate can beat her.
If I may ask, apart from presumably Highgate Cemetery, where does a socialist walking group walk?
Bits of the countryside where there was some kind of mining history. I live in Durham, so there's obviously plenty of that around here.
Emily Thornberry has declared she is entering the race to succeed Jeremy Corbyn, revealing she warned the Labour leadership that backing a Brexit election would be an “act of catastrophic political folly”.
Thornberry would be a disaster, but I'd reluctantly vote for her over RLB as well. There is no hope for Labour until it's been wretched from the grasp of Jon Lansman and Len McCluskey.
Are you a member? If so what's your view of the mood of other members, and their desire for a Continuity Corbyn candidate?
Honestly? My suspicion is that if Pidcock had retained her seat, or if Rayner had decided to run for the leadership, one of those two would be the next Labour leader. But with RLB running as the Corbynite candidate, those of us who are sane actually have a chance of getting our party back. I think a number of members who voted for Corbyn aren't particularly enthused by RLB, and are actually open to other candidates. I went on a socialist walking group the weekend, full of Corbynista academic types. And while I got the impression hard-core Corbynistas would vote for her, they weren't that impressed by her at all. If that's the case amongst the true believers - which would be her core support - I honestly think it's possible a non-Corbynite candidate can beat her.
If I may ask, apart from presumably Highgate Cemetery, where does a socialist walking group walk?
Bits of the countryside where there was some kind of mining history. I live in Durham, so there's obviously plenty of that around here.
If I remember the plot of "The Stand" correctly, I'm not sure somebody called "Randall Flagg" should speak so lightly about walking...
I was talking to my Dad about it yesterday and said when you think about it now, it seems utterly ridiculous that anyone thought the UK would elect a teetotal, vegetarian, who doesn't like the Queen, wouldn't want to have nuclear weapons, supported the IRA etc... People want to see something of themselves in their leader I think, Corbyn just has too many niche views to be electable
Yeah, not so much marmite as a kale and anchovy smoothie. Only actually contemplated by extremists who pretend it really actually honestly is the best thing ever, when everyone else can clearly see its vile.
If only someone had been pointed out his flaws for the last four years.
For what it's worth, my parents thought he was a dim and dangerous man, but not as dangerous as McDonnell.
For all the shenanigans over Brexit the core Tory message remains undimmed: a well-managed, mixed economy is the only way to pay for better public services. In the Blair-Brown-Miliband years this was Labour's core message, too, and elections were about the most plausible economic custodian. Because of the Brown-Miliband electoral failures Corbyn was able to saddle the Labour Party with a smorgasbord of implausible, uncosted and essentially incompatible knee-jerk policies.
At the moment the Labour leadership election is beginning to look like an institution fighting for survival without actually knowing what its purpose is. If it want to survive it can only have one direction: to challenge the Tories on the basis of economic competence. A leader who wants to do something different will fail like Corbyn. A leader who tries to exude competence without conviction will fail like Miliband.
The DUP are a minority party in Northern Ireland now representing just 8 out of 18 NI seats.
The choice was thus either a hard border with the Republic of Ireland leading inevitably to Irish reunification with perhaps the DUP declaring UDI in Antrim or else what Boris has done keeping the UK together in the only way the majority of Northern Ireland voters would accept ie avoiding a hard border with the Republic of Ireland and thus also protecting the Good Friday Agreement.
There is no longer a Unionist majority in Northern Ireland, that is fact, there is still in Scotland
Sadly and despite your no doubt entertaining trip to see the sights of Antrim and talk to the Bushmills sales reps, you have not gained an understanding of Northern Ireland.
You also get the terminology wrong. By putting a border down the Irish Sea, something he said "no Tory PM" would ever do, and which even Theresa May didn't dare attempt, he is keeping Great Britain, not the United Kingdom together. He is lumping in Northern Ireland, regulatorily, with the Republic and that means a path to reunification.
I'm not sure whether you are just trying to prove my point by saying there is no Unionist majority in Northern Ireland, or whether you are also agreeing with the ERG that the Union is over?
What Boris has done, cheered on by the ERG and pretend Tories like yourself, is to endanger the Union.
Thornberry would be a disaster, but I'd reluctantly vote for her over RLB as well. There is no hope for Labour until it's been wretched from the grasp of Jon Lansman and Len McCluskey.
Are you a member? If so what's your view of the mood of other members, and their desire for a Continuity Corbyn candidate?
Honestly? My suspicion is that if Pidcock had retained her seat, or if Rayner had decided to run for the leadership, one of those two would be the next Labour leader. But with RLB running as the Corbynite candidate, those of us who are sane actually have a chance of getting our party back. I think a number of members who voted for Corbyn aren't particularly enthused by RLB, and are actually open to other candidates. I went on a socialist walking group the weekend, full of Corbynista academic types. And while I got the impression hard-core Corbynistas would vote for her, they weren't that impressed by her at all. If that's the case amongst the true believers - which would be her core support - I honestly think it's possible a non-Corbynite candidate can beat her.
love the idea of a "socialist walking group". Sounds like something out of Monty Python. "After you brother, er sister..."
In a negotiation it is normal, indeed required, to lie.
Union : our members won't accept less than 5%. Cost of living, you made lots of profit last year, etc
Employer:we can't go above 3%. Trading conditions not good etc
So when they agree on 4% do we berate both sides for lying? I think not.
Boris has simply made an opening gambit that he wants out by 31 Dec. That can be changed in if necessary (simply by passing another act of Parliament).
It simply is not possible to conduct a negotiation without lying.
It's not possible to negotiate well without convincing the other side that your red lines really are set in stone. You may need to lie to do that, but if you really are prepared to follow through, you won't. The best negotiators have to be prepared to lie, and we shouldn't hold that against them. However, it doesn't mean that they are lying.
Thornberry would be a disaster, but I'd reluctantly vote for her over RLB as well. There is no hope for Labour until it's been wretched from the grasp of Jon Lansman and Len McCluskey.
Are you a member? If so what's your view of the mood of other members, and their desire for a Continuity Corbyn candidate?
Honestly? My suspicion is that if Pidcock had retained her seat, or if Rayner had decided to run for the leadership, one of those two would be the next Labour leader. But with RLB running as the Corbynite candidate, those of us who are sane actually have a chance of getting our party back. I think a number of members who voted for Corbyn aren't particularly enthused by RLB, and are actually open to other candidates. I went on a socialist walking group the weekend, full of Corbynista academic types. And while I got the impression hard-core Corbynistas would vote for her, they weren't that impressed by her at all. If that's the case amongst the true believers - which would be her core support - I honestly think it's possible a non-Corbynite candidate can beat her.
If I may ask, apart from presumably Highgate Cemetery, where does a socialist walking group walk?
Bits of the countryside where there was some kind of mining history. I live in Durham, so there's obviously plenty of that around here.
Thornberry would be a disaster, but I'd reluctantly vote for her over RLB as well. There is no hope for Labour until it's been wretched from the grasp of Jon Lansman and Len McCluskey.
Are you a member? If so what's your view of the mood of other members, and their desire for a Continuity Corbyn candidate?
Honestly? My suspicion is that if Pidcock had retained her seat, or if Rayner had decided to run for the leadership, one of those two would be the next Labour leader. But with RLB running as the Corbynite candidate, those of us who are sane actually have a chance of getting our party back. I think a number of members who voted for Corbyn aren't particularly enthused by RLB, and are actually open to other candidates. I went on a socialist walking group the weekend, full of Corbynista academic types. And while I got the impression hard-core Corbynistas would vote for her, they weren't that impressed by her at all. If that's the case amongst the true believers - which would be her core support - I honestly think it's possible a non-Corbynite candidate can beat her.
If I may ask, apart from presumably Highgate Cemetery, where does a socialist walking group walk?
Kinder Scout.
Wasn't there a similar thing along some bits of coastline?
I reckon Craig McKinley when we sell Gibraltar off to Spain.
Boris would be toppled as Tory leader in 5 minutes if he even contemplated that
T
T
Gibraltar is also over 90% pro UK unlike Northern Ireland which is 50 50 at best
The Tories also said that putting a border in the Irish Sea was nothing a Tory PM would ever do.
It's touching that you still believe him.
You may have missed a post recently wherein I said that I thought (and think) your work on behalf of the Cons and your comments on here giving your views were admirable. It and they was and were. But c'mon, we Remainers know the score with BoJo. He is 1,000,000 times better than the alternative but he is still a lying sleazeball.
Given the DUP no longer have a majority of Northern Ireland seats and only 43% of Northern Irish voters voted for Unionist parties last week compared to 54% of Scots, Boris was right to avoid a hard border with the Republic of Ireland that would have only hastened pressure for reunification.
Thankyou for the first half of your other comments
He has put a border in the Irish Sea which sees a clear pathway towards reunification. It is something he said, and I quote, "no Tory PM would ever do". And he did it.
There is a confrontational path to a united Ireland (a hard border with the Republic, for example), and a regulatory and de facto path to a united Ireland (a border in the Irish Sea treating the island of Ireland as one entity). Boris opted for the latter.
What is the peaceful path to reunification, if indeed that’s what is desired?
I don’t see 30-40% of the population (especially the ultra Unionist hardcore) taking it lying down even if 55% of the NI electorate for it. Hell, even calling a border poll risks restarting violence.
It would also increase the population of the RoI by a third, which would have to pay to both secure it and subsidise it, and it would create at least 60 extra seats in the Dail that would be fractiously dictated by the sectarian nature of NI politics, but also hold the balance of power in their STV system.
Just what exactly is in it for Eire?
This is one of those things that they’re in favour of in theory, but the present arrangements suit them very well in practice.
Discussion on radio yesterday that there was a lot of feedback on doorsteps that Jo Swinson was too young to be PM. Argument was put that she isn't actually that young but she just looks and comes across as young.
I do wonder if exactly the same thing is going to be thought about RLB. And that it could well stop her becoming leader, let alone PM.
I know everyone says Labour membership are now all Corbynites but Owen Smith got 40% and he was a very weak candidate. Add in that Lab has now lost twice under Corbyn and I think even left wing members are going to look hard at electability.
We'll have to see how RLB is perceived but I think it's quite likely she is not going to come across as having the necessary maturity and gravitas. The contrast with Starmer is going to be very obvious.
Thornberry would be a disaster, but I'd reluctantly vote for her over RLB as well. There is no hope for Labour until it's been wretched from the grasp of Jon Lansman and Len McCluskey.
Are you a member? If so what's your view of the mood of other members, and their desire for a Continuity Corbyn candidate?
Honestly? My suspicion is that if Pidcock had retained her seat, or if Rayner had decided to run for the leadership, one of those two would be the next Labour leader. But with RLB running as the Corbynite candidate, those of us who are sane actually have a chance of getting our party back. I think a number of members who voted for Corbyn aren't particularly enthused by RLB, and are actually open to other candidates. I went on a socialist walking group the weekend, full of Corbynista academic types. And while I got the impression hard-core Corbynistas would vote for her, they weren't that impressed by her at all. If that's the case amongst the true believers - which would be her core support - I honestly think it's possible a non-Corbynite candidate can beat her.
If I may ask, apart from presumably Highgate Cemetery, where does a socialist walking group walk?
Kinder Scout.
Wasn't there a similar thing along some bits of coastline?
You could also add the Tolpuddle Village Trail and the Diggers' Trail.
I reckon Craig McKinley when we sell Gibraltar off to Spain.
Boris would be toppled as Tory leader in 5 minutes if he even contemplated that
Toppled by who? Even if we accept the Falklands has some totemic value to older Conservatives, why should a party now so careless about breaking up the United Kingdom go to the wall to retain Gibraltar?
The Tories made clear in their manifesto they would ban indyref2 in Scotland so of course no compromise with Spain over Gibraltar.
Gibraltar is also over 90% pro UK unlike Northern Ireland which is 50 50 at best
Those troops sent in to Catalonia need to be redeployed somewhere...
I was talking to my Dad about it yesterday and said when you think about it now, it seems utterly ridiculous that anyone thought the UK would elect a teetotal, vegetarian, who doesn't like the Queen, wouldn't want to have nuclear weapons, supported the IRA etc... People want to see something of themselves in their leader I think, Corbyn just has too many niche views to be electable
A third of the electorate disagreed with you. And if Boris had less charisma, it could have been more.
On the point about leadership vs Brexit vs economic policy - not sure how you can separate those. The leadership decided the economic policy and fudged the Brexit policy. Also Brexit is a matter of economics. So the poll seems flawed to me.
I think leadership is a proxy word for leader, which means Corbyn, which means the character of Corbyn and what he represents, as opposed to the strategies of the Labour Party leadership. You can be revolted most by Brexit (either the idea of it or the idea of not doing it) , revolted most by the idea of nationalising everything etc, or revolted most by the idea of a weak leader, a leader who won't sing the anthem, who hates Israel etc.
Of course I think this is flattering the brexit numbers somewhat, I think that probably was a bigger issue for more than 17%, it's just that the issues of Corbyn himself also enraged brexiteers even more than that.
The positive for Labour here is that Brexit is unlikely to be a live issue next time, and so they can be smart and elect a leader who rejects everything there is to do with Corbyn the character. No more weasel words on shooting terrorists, zero tolerance on anti semitism, etc etc. They can do this while keeping fairly left-wing economically (but stick to a 2017 style manifesto not a 2019 scattergun one). This is why it simply must not be RLB, although it most likely will be.
What is the peaceful path to reunification, if indeed that’s what is desired?
I don’t see 30-40% of the population (especially the ultra Unionist hardcore) taking it lying down even if 55% of the NI electorate for it. Hell, even calling a border poll risks restarting violence.
It would also increase the population of the RoI by a third, which would have to pay to both secure it and subsidise it, and it would create at least 60 extra seats in the Dail that would be fractiously dictated by the sectarian nature of NI politics, but also hold the balance of power in their STV system.
Just what exactly is in it for Eire?
This is one of those things that they’re in favour of in theory, but the present arrangements suit them very well in practice.
Well if you start with the status quo ante then there was a lot of cross-border cooperation and many bodies that, as a result of the Belfast Agreement, came into being which eroded the hard lines of difference between the Republic and the North. The peaceful path is to align more and more elements North and South such that apart from that hardcore you mention (and they aren't going anywhere), it becomes more and more accepted that there is no distinction between the two. Obviously, to anyone remotely able to analyse this, the UK, of all places, treating the island of Ireland as a unitary region aids that greatly.
I was talking to my Dad about it yesterday and said when you think about it now, it seems utterly ridiculous that anyone thought the UK would elect a teetotal, vegetarian, who doesn't like the Queen, wouldn't want to have nuclear weapons, supported the IRA etc... People want to see something of themselves in their leader I think, Corbyn just has too many niche views to be electable
A third of the electorate disagreed with you. And if Boris had less charisma, it could have been more.
On the point about leadership vs Brexit vs economic policy - not sure how you can separate those. The leadership decided the economic policy and fudged the Brexit policy. Also Brexit is a matter of economics. So the poll seems flawed to me.
I think leadership is a proxy word for leader, which means Corbyn, which means the character of Corbyn and what he represents, as opposed to the strategies of the Labour Party leadership. You can be revolted most by Brexit (either the idea of it or the idea of not doing it) , revolted most by the idea of nationalising everything etc, or revolted most by the idea of a weak leader, a leader who won't sing the anthem, who hates Israel etc.
Of course I think this is flattering the brexit numbers somewhat, I think that probably was a bigger issue for more than 17%, it's just that the issues of Corbyn himself also enraged brexiteers even more than that.
The positive for Labour here is that Brexit is unlikely to be a live issue next time, and so they can be smart and elect a leader who rejects everything there is to do with Corbyn the character. No more weasel words on shooting terrorists, zero tolerance on anti semitism, etc etc. They can do this while keeping fairly left-wing economically (but stick to a 2017 style manifesto not a 2019 scattergun one). This is why it simply must not be RLB, although it most likely will be.
I was talking to my Dad about it yesterday and said when you think about it now, it seems utterly ridiculous that anyone thought the UK would elect a teetotal, vegetarian, who doesn't like the Queen, wouldn't want to have nuclear weapons, supported the IRA etc... People want to see something of themselves in their leader I think, Corbyn just has too many niche views to be electable
A third of the electorate disagreed with you. And if Boris had less charisma, it could have been more.
On the point about leadership vs Brexit vs economic policy - not sure how you can separate those. The leadership decided the economic policy and fudged the Brexit policy. Also Brexit is a matter of economics. So the poll seems flawed to me.
Loads of those 43% are never going to vote for Corbyn anyway. Plenty of the 17% would happily tick the Labour box and barely notice who the leader was if they didn't think their vote to leave the EU was going to be gerrymandered away.
Thornberry would be a disaster, but I'd reluctantly vote for her over RLB as well. There is no hope for Labour until it's been wretched from the grasp of Jon Lansman and Len McCluskey.
Are you a member? If so what's your view of the mood of other members, and their desire for a Continuity Corbyn candidate?
Honestly? My suspicion is that if Pidcock had retained her seat, or if Rayner had decided to run for the leadership, one of those two would be the next Labour leader. But with RLB running as the Corbynite candidate, those of us who are sane actually have a chance of getting our party back. I think a number of members who voted for Corbyn aren't particularly enthused by RLB, and are actually open to other candidates. I went on a socialist walking group the weekend, full of Corbynista academic types. And while I got the impression hard-core Corbynistas would vote for her, they weren't that impressed by her at all. If that's the case amongst the true believers - which would be her core support - I honestly think it's possible a non-Corbynite candidate can beat her.
If I may ask, apart from presumably Highgate Cemetery, where does a socialist walking group walk?
Kinder Scout.
Wasn't there a similar thing along some bits of coastline?
You could also add the Tolpuddle Village Trail and the Diggers' Trail.
Borrowdale, up in the Lakes. Although the more vitriolic socialist may prefer Cross Fell, over in the Pennines.
In betting news, the BBC has just announced 'Bet365 boss Denise Coates has received a £323m payday, confirming her position as the UK's best paid executive.'
You mean she received a dividend on her shares which is in her role as shareholder not her pay as an executive
Discussion on radio yesterday that there was a lot of feedback on doorsteps that Jo Swinson was too young to be PM. Argument was put that she isn't actually that young but she just looks and comes across as young.
I do wonder if exactly the same thing is going to be thought about RLB. And that it could well stop her becoming leader, let alone PM.
I know everyone says Labour membership are now all Corbynites but Owen Smith got 40% and he was a very weak candidate. Add in that Lab has now lost twice under Corbyn and I think even left wing members are going to look hard at electability.
We'll have to see how RLB is perceived but I think it's quite likely she is not going to come across as having the necessary maturity and gravitas. The contrast with Starmer is going to be very obvious.
Agree with you on RLB. By contrast, my wife and I watched Nandy on Newsnight last night and were very impressed.
If Nandy can keep her head down a bit, and let Thornberry and Starmer do the heavy lifting of attacking Corbyn to draw the flak of Momentum, then I think that Nandy has the potential to come through the middle as the "unity" candidate.
Thornberry would be a disaster, but I'd reluctantly vote for her over RLB as well. There is no hope for Labour until it's been wretched from the grasp of Jon Lansman and Len McCluskey.
Are you a member? If so what's your view of the mood of other members, and their desire for a Continuity Corbyn candidate?
Honestly? My suspicion is that if Pidcock had retained her seat, or if Rayner had decided to run for the leadership, one of those two would be the next Labour leader. But with RLB running as the Corbynite candidate, those of us who are sane actually have a chance of getting our party back. I think a number of members who voted for Corbyn aren't particularly enthused by RLB, and are actually open to other candidates. I went on a socialist walking group the weekend, full of Corbynista academic types. And while I got the impression hard-core Corbynistas would vote for her, they weren't that impressed by her at all. If that's the case amongst the true believers - which would be her core support - I honestly think it's possible a non-Corbynite candidate can beat her.
If I may ask, apart from presumably Highgate Cemetery, where does a socialist walking group walk?
Kinder Scout.
Wasn't there a similar thing along some bits of coastline?
You could also add the Tolpuddle Village Trail and the Diggers' Trail.
Borrowdale, up in the Lakes. Although the more vitriolic socialist may prefer Cross Fell, over in the Pennines.
Regarding graduates from working class backgrounds, I wonder whether the fact that they are more successful, academically and financially, than their parents creates a feeling of guilt, and that living far away from their home town for post Uni career is handy as it means they escape the tension that exists between them and the non graduate working class they left behind, which includes their families.
It would explain why they feel the need to double down on their roots despite choosing to live far away from them, and why they have little concept of what it is like to live as the people they grew up with still do, and maybe why people at the extremes of the class system have more in common with each other electorally than they do with those in between them
In betting news, the BBC has just announced 'Bet365 boss Denise Coates has received a £323m payday, confirming her position as the UK's best paid executive.'
You mean she received a dividend on her shares which is in her role as shareholder not her pay as an executive
Mostly pay, according to the report (£277m, with the rest in dividends, unless the report is wrong). This has been reported in previous years and I don't have a problem with it - in fact I assume that taking the majority as salary is far from the most tax-efficient approach.
Regarding graduates from working class backgrounds, I wonder whether the fact that they are more successful, academically and financially, than their parents creates a feeling of guilt, and that living far away from their home town for post Uni career is handy as it means they escape the tension that exists between them and the non graduate working class they left behind, which includes their families.
It would explain why they feel the need to double down on their roots despite choosing to live far away from them, and why they have little concept of what it is like to live as the people they grew up with still do, and maybe why people at the extremes of the class system have more in common with each other electorally than they do with those in between them
Sounds convoluted tbh. I would have thought the parents would be absolutely delighted.
Regarding graduates from working class backgrounds, I wonder whether the fact that they are more successful, academically and financially, than their parents creates a feeling of guilt, and that living far away from their home town for post Uni career is handy as it means they escape the tension that exists between them and the non graduate working class they left behind, which includes their families.
It would explain why they feel the need to double down on their roots despite choosing to live far away from them, and why they have little concept of what it is like to live as the people they grew up with still do, and maybe why people at the extremes of the class system have more in common with each other electorally than they do with those in between them
Hmmm. Sounds like the topic for a Social Science PhD.
I certainly had a disconnect from my wider family, but not a feeling of guilt. Certainly something to give more thought to.
Regarding graduates from working class backgrounds, I wonder whether the fact that they are more successful, academically and financially, than their parents creates a feeling of guilt, and that living far away from their home town for post Uni career is handy as it means they escape the tension that exists between them and the non graduate working class they left behind, which includes their families.
It would explain why they feel the need to double down on their roots despite choosing to live far away from them, and why they have little concept of what it is like to live as the people they grew up with still do, and maybe why people at the extremes of the class system have more in common with each other electorally than they do with those in between them
Hmmm. Sounds like the topic for a Social Science PhD.
I certainly had a disconnect from my wider family, but not a feeling of guilt. Certainly something to give more thought to.
You mean you went to university when, after Eton, they wanted you to take over the estate?
Emily Thornberry has declared she is entering the race to succeed Jeremy Corbyn, revealing she warned the Labour leadership that backing a Brexit election would be an “act of catastrophic political folly”.
Thornberry must know she has no chance. Can only think she is trying to keep a top job in the next Shadow Cabinet.
And how is her suing a former colleague going to help her chances?
Why would you want to be part of this shitshow in any case? She hardly distinguished herself as Shadow FS.
Not suing could be seen as admitting it was true. It was her suing that made me think she was planning to run actually.
She’s just threatening to sue / consulting lawyers
Smart move to keep the issue 'live' and in everyone's minds as she campaigns*. It will strike people as true given her previous comments (e.g. the flag thing), and by the time it's resolved - even in her favour - the damage is done.
Thornberry would be a disaster, but I'd reluctantly vote for her over RLB as well. There is no hope for Labour until it's been wretched from the grasp of Jon Lansman and Len McCluskey.
Are you a member? If so what's your view of the mood of other members, and their desire for a Continuity Corbyn candidate?
Honestly? My suspicion is that if Pidcock had retained her seat, or if Rayner had decided to run for the leadership, one of those two would be the next Labour leader. But with RLB running as the Corbynite candidate, those of us who are sane actually have a chance of getting our party back. I think a number of members who voted for Corbyn aren't particularly enthused by RLB, and are actually open to other candidates. I went on a socialist walking group the weekend, full of Corbynista academic types. And while I got the impression hard-core Corbynistas would vote for her, they weren't that impressed by her at all. If that's the case amongst the true believers - which would be her core support - I honestly think it's possible a non-Corbynite candidate can beat her.
If I may ask, apart from presumably Highgate Cemetery, where does a socialist walking group walk?
And how po-faced and serious are the conversations?
Thornberry must know she has no chance. Can only think she is trying to keep a top job in the next Shadow Cabinet.
And how is her suing a former colleague going to help her chances?
Why would you want to be part of this shitshow in any case? She hardly distinguished herself as Shadow FS.
Not suing could be seen as admitting it was true. It was her suing that made me think she was planning to run actually.
She’s just threatening to sue / consulting lawyers
Smart move to keep the issue 'live' and in everyone's minds as she campaigns*. It will strike people as true given her previous comments (e.g. the flag thing), and by the time it's resolved - even in her favour - the damage is done.
*this is sarcasm
She should sue Jess Phillips as well, for good measure. Her ratings would skyrocket.
Bet365 is an astounding success story. Just imagine the revenues it could generate for the treasury if it was to gain access to the US market
Our diplomats and civil servants couldnt even get our gambling industry sustained access to the EU markets when the law and single market was on its side. Good luck with expecting any widespread access in the even more protectionist US.
Regarding graduates from working class backgrounds, I wonder whether the fact that they are more successful, academically and financially, than their parents creates a feeling of guilt, and that living far away from their home town for post Uni career is handy as it means they escape the tension that exists between them and the non graduate working class they left behind, which includes their families.
It would explain why they feel the need to double down on their roots despite choosing to live far away from them, and why they have little concept of what it is like to live as the people they grew up with still do, and maybe why people at the extremes of the class system have more in common with each other electorally than they do with those in between them
Hmmph.
(Do you really not know any working-class graduates? I will never get over the social mix of this site... )
Ok, answering your questions. * Guilt? No. Pride? Yes. My parents were well aware of the burdens of being poor and that whole working-class-escaoe thing was a big thing when their contemporaries had way too much industrial injuries/deaths. We've forgotten how dangerous it is to be poor. * Choosing to live far away? It's more a case of "you go where the jobs are". Your choices are only as good as your options. * Little concept to live as the others still do? As I've mentioned before it's a big family (siblings, uncles, aunties, cousins, nieces, nephews,... well over thirty and rising) so they let you know about stuff, no probs, oh Gods do they let you know. Xmas is a scrum in my Dad's house, it's only small.. * Why do upper have more in common with the lower than the middle? That's easy: Darwinian competition. Dogs don't compete with cats, they compete with other dogs to prey upon the cats. Cats don't compete with dogs, they compete with other cats to survive the dogs. He upper do not overlap with the lower and there is no competition, so no conflict. But the lower middle class compete with the upper working class, and the upper middle class compete with the lower upper class. Hence the conflict.
Regarding graduates from working class backgrounds, I wonder whether the fact that they are more successful, academically and financially, than their parents creates a feeling of guilt, and that living far away from their home town for post Uni career is handy as it means they escape the tension that exists between them and the non graduate working class they left behind, which includes their families.
It would explain why they feel the need to double down on their roots despite choosing to live far away from them, and why they have little concept of what it is like to live as the people they grew up with still do, and maybe why people at the extremes of the class system have more in common with each other electorally than they do with those in between them
Hmmm. Sounds like the topic for a Social Science PhD.
I certainly had a disconnect from my wider family, but not a feeling of guilt. Certainly something to give more thought to.
You mean you went to university when, after Eton, they wanted you to take over the estate?
When I worked in Windsor we used to have a squash club that used the courts at Eton school.
So yes, I have been to Eton. And I did live on estate. A Council estate.
Regarding graduates from working class backgrounds, I wonder whether the fact that they are more successful, academically and financially, than their parents creates a feeling of guilt, and that living far away from their home town for post Uni career is handy as it means they escape the tension that exists between them and the non graduate working class they left behind, which includes their families.
It would explain why they feel the need to double down on their roots despite choosing to live far away from them, and why they have little concept of what it is like to live as the people they grew up with still do, and maybe why people at the extremes of the class system have more in common with each other electorally than they do with those in between them
Hmmph.
(Do you really not know any working-class graduates? I will never get over the social mix of this site... )
Ok, answering your questions. * Guilt? No. Pride? Yes. My parents were well aware of the burdens of being poor and that whole working-class-escaoe thing was a big thing when their contemporaries had way too much industrial injuries/deaths. We've forgotten how dangerous it is to be poor. * Choosing to live far away? It's more a case of "you go where the jobs are". Your choices are only as good as your options. * Little concept to live as the others still do? As I've mentioned before it's a big family (siblings, uncles, aunties, cousins, nieces, nephews,... well over thirty and rising) so they let you know about stuff, no probs, oh Gods do they let you know. Xmas is a scrum in my Dad's house, it's only small.. * Why do upper have more in common with the lower than the middle? That's easy: Darwinian competition. Dogs don't compete with cats, they compete with other dogs to prey upon the cats. Cats don't compete with dogs, they compete with other cats to survive the dogs. He upper do not overlap with the lower and there is no competition, so no conflict. But the lower middle class compete with the upper working class, and the upper middle class compete with the lower upper class. Hence the conflict.
Ha well I would expect working class graduates to pooh pooh my theory!! Although one has emailed to say they agree
Where did I say I didn't know any by the way? I know loads although there are none in my close circle
In betting news, the BBC has just announced 'Bet365 boss Denise Coates has received a £323m payday, confirming her position as the UK's best paid executive.'
You mean she received a dividend on her shares which is in her role as shareholder not her pay as an executive
Well, sure. But part of her role as an executive is to hold shares, to ensure her interests are aligned with those of the other shareholders. It's all very confusing.
Regarding graduates from working class backgrounds, I wonder whether the fact that they are more successful, academically and financially, than their parents creates a feeling of guilt, and that living far away from their home town for post Uni career is handy as it means they escape the tension that exists between them and the non graduate working class they left behind, which includes their families.
It would explain why they feel the need to double down on their roots despite choosing to live far away from them, and why they have little concept of what it is like to live as the people they grew up with still do, and maybe why people at the extremes of the class system have more in common with each other electorally than they do with those in between them
Hmmm. Sounds like the topic for a Social Science PhD.
I certainly had a disconnect from my wider family, but not a feeling of guilt. Certainly something to give more thought to.
You mean you went to university when, after Eton, they wanted you to take over the estate?
When I worked in Windsor we used to have a squash club that used the courts at Eton school.
So yes, I have been to Eton. And I did live on estate. A Council estate.
How very Eton Rifles....
"and some of the kids said they'll be back next week." You?
(Do you really not know any working-class graduates? I will never get over the social mix of this site... )
Ok, answering your questions. * Guilt? No. Pride? Yes. My parents were well aware of the burdens of being poor and that whole working-class-escaoe thing was a big thing when their contemporaries had way too much industrial injuries/deaths. We've forgotten how dangerous it is to be poor. * Choosing to live far away? It's more a case of "you go where the jobs are". Your choices are only as good as your options. * Little concept to live as the others still do? As I've mentioned before it's a big family (siblings, uncles, aunties, cousins, nieces, nephews,... well over thirty and rising) so they let you know about stuff, no probs, oh Gods do they let you know. Xmas is a scrum in my Dad's house, it's only small.. * Why do upper have more in common with the lower than the middle? That's easy: Darwinian competition. Dogs don't compete with cats, they compete with other dogs to prey upon the cats. Cats don't compete with dogs, they compete with other cats to survive the dogs. He upper do not overlap with the lower and there is no competition, so no conflict. But the lower middle class compete with the upper working class, and the upper middle class compete with the lower upper class. Hence the conflict.
When will this country's ridiculous obsession with class end?
It doesn't matter where you came from, all that matters is where you're going.
As my old prep school master said 'those with class, never mention class' which is a good maxim, which is why you'll never catch me banging on about class, especially my own.
I was talking to my Dad about it yesterday and said when you think about it now, it seems utterly ridiculous that anyone thought the UK would elect a teetotal, vegetarian, who doesn't like the Queen, wouldn't want to have nuclear weapons, supported the IRA etc... People want to see something of themselves in their leader I think, Corbyn just has too many niche views to be electable
A third of the electorate disagreed with you. And if Boris had less charisma, it could have been more.
On the point about leadership vs Brexit vs economic policy - not sure how you can separate those. The leadership decided the economic policy and fudged the Brexit policy. Also Brexit is a matter of economics. So the poll seems flawed to me.
The drivers of Brexit are not economics, they are cultural.
(Do you really not know any working-class graduates? I will never get over the social mix of this site... )
Ok, answering your questions. * Guilt? No. Pride? Yes. My parents were well aware of the burdens of being poor and that whole working-class-escaoe thing was a big thing when their contemporaries had way too much industrial injuries/deaths. We've forgotten how dangerous it is to be poor. * Choosing to live far away? It's more a case of "you go where the jobs are". Your choices are only as good as your options. * Little concept to live as the others still do? As I've mentioned before it's a big family (siblings, uncles, aunties, cousins, nieces, nephews,... well over thirty and rising) so they let you know about stuff, no probs, oh Gods do they let you know. Xmas is a scrum in my Dad's house, it's only small.. * Why do upper have more in common with the lower than the middle? That's easy: Darwinian competition. Dogs don't compete with cats, they compete with other dogs to prey upon the cats. Cats don't compete with dogs, they compete with other cats to survive the dogs. He upper do not overlap with the lower and there is no competition, so no conflict. But the lower middle class compete with the upper working class, and the upper middle class compete with the lower upper class. Hence the conflict.
When will this country's ridiculous obsession with class end?
It doesn't matter where you came from, all that matters is where you're going.
As my old prep school master said 'those with class, never mention class' which is a good maxim, which is why you'll never catch me banging on about class, especially my own.
Well there was an election last week, where people of a certain class, whose families never vote for a particular party, did so for the first time. And there are politicians from a rival party striving to appear to be seen as part of that class in order to be able to represent them, so I wondered why they are unconvincing.
Looks like the field is going to be pretty big which will lead to low 1st preference scores across the board but on balance I think that makes it harder for RLB as she won't be transfer friendly.
eg Cooper 1st prefs will go Nandy 2nd pref and vice versa.
(Do you really not know any working-class graduates? I will never get over the social mix of this site... )
Ok, answering your questions. * Guilt? No. Pride? Yes. My parents were well aware of the burdens of being poor and that whole working-class-escaoe thing was a big thing when their contemporaries had way too much industrial injuries/deaths. We've forgotten how dangerous it is to be poor. * Choosing to live far away? It's more a case of "you go where the jobs are". Your choices are only as good as your options. * Little concept to live as the others still do? As I've mentioned before it's a big family (siblings, uncles, aunties, cousins, nieces, nephews,... well over thirty and rising) so they let you know about stuff, no probs, oh Gods do they let you know. Xmas is a scrum in my Dad's house, it's only small.. * Why do upper have more in common with the lower than the middle? That's easy: Darwinian competition. Dogs don't compete with cats, they compete with other dogs to prey upon the cats. Cats don't compete with dogs, they compete with other cats to survive the dogs. He upper do not overlap with the lower and there is no competition, so no conflict. But the lower middle class compete with the upper working class, and the upper middle class compete with the lower upper class. Hence the conflict.
When will this country's ridiculous obsession with class end?
It doesn't matter where you came from, all that matters is where you're going.
As my old prep school master said 'those with class, never mention class' which is a good maxim, which is why you'll never catch me banging on about class, especially my own.
Well there was an election last week, where people of a certain class, whose families never vote for a particular party, did so for the first time. And there are politicians from a rival party striving to appear to be seen as part of that class in order to be able to represent them, so I wondered why they are unconvincing.
I don't think referring to "working class" takes us forward in any meaningful way. Socio-economic class could help more and then we could try to define which strata we are talking about.
(Do you really not know any working-class graduates? I will never get over the social mix of this site... )
Ok, answering your questions. * Guilt? No. Pride? Yes. My parents were well aware of the burdens of being poor and that whole working-class-escaoe thing was a big thing when their contemporaries had way too much industrial injuries/deaths. We've forgotten how dangerous it is to be poor. * Choosing to live far away? It's more a case of "you go where the jobs are". Your choices are only as good as your options. * Little concept to live as the others still do? As I've mentioned before it's a big family (siblings, uncles, aunties, cousins, nieces, nephews,... well over thirty and rising) so they let you know about stuff, no probs, oh Gods do they let you know. Xmas is a scrum in my Dad's house, it's only small.. * Why do upper have more in common with the lower than the middle? That's easy: Darwinian competition. Dogs don't compete with cats, they compete with other dogs to prey upon the cats. Cats don't compete with dogs, they compete with other cats to survive the dogs. He upper do not overlap with the lower and there is no competition, so no conflict. But the lower middle class compete with the upper working class, and the upper middle class compete with the lower upper class. Hence the conflict.
When will this country's ridiculous obsession with class end?
It doesn't matter where you came from, all that matters is where you're going.
As my old prep school master said 'those with class, never mention class' which is a good maxim, which is why you'll never catch me banging on about class, especially my own.
(Do you really not know any working-class graduates? I will never get over the social mix of this site... )
Ok, answering your questions. * Guilt? No. Pride? Yes. My parents were well aware of the burdens of being poor and that whole working-class-escaoe thing was a big thing when their contemporaries had way too much industrial injuries/deaths. We've forgotten how dangerous it is to be poor. * Choosing to live far away? It's more a case of "you go where the jobs are". Your choices are only as good as your options. * Little concept to live as the others still do? As I've mentioned before it's a big family (siblings, uncles, aunties, cousins, nieces, nephews,... well over thirty and rising) so they let you know about stuff, no probs, oh Gods do they let you know. Xmas is a scrum in my Dad's house, it's only small.. * Why do upper have more in common with the lower than the middle? That's easy: Darwinian competition. Dogs don't compete with cats, they compete with other dogs to prey upon the cats. Cats don't compete with dogs, they compete with other cats to survive the dogs. He upper do not overlap with the lower and there is no competition, so no conflict. But the lower middle class compete with the upper working class, and the upper middle class compete with the lower upper class. Hence the conflict.
When will this country's ridiculous obsession with class end?
It doesn't matter where you came from, all that matters is where you're going.
As my old prep school master said 'those with class, never mention class' which is a good maxim, which is why you'll never catch me banging on about class, especially my own.
Well said. It is a totally outmoded concept. Utterly ridiculous and it continues to hold some people, and the country back. I don't care if your father was a duke or a milkman. The family you were born into is a lottery. I do care about how you conduct yourself and whether you are a decent individual with a strong moral compass. Additionally, the school or university that someone went to is of little or no consequence.
Comments
It's touching that you still believe him.
You may have missed a post recently wherein I said that I thought (and think) your work on behalf of the Cons and your comments on here giving your views were admirable. It and they was and were. But c'mon, we Remainers know the score with BoJo. He is 1,000,000 times better than the alternative but he is still a lying sleazeball.
(Corbyn also drove losses in the north too, but Brexit was the bigger influence.)
Any counter-arguments to the above?
Thankyou for the first half of your other comments
https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/1207288133278150658
There is a confrontational path to a united Ireland (a hard border with the Republic, for example), and a regulatory and de facto path to a united Ireland (a border in the Irish Sea treating the island of Ireland as one entity). Boris opted for the latter.
Just looked at the 6 seats that Con gained from Lab in 2017 and wow!!
Average increase of Con vote in these seats was 11.3%, and 12.7% if you exclude Trudy Harrison who probably got most of her bounce in Copeland after the By-Election win.
Will be very difficult for Lab to get back all the 50 seats they've just lost to Con if those new MP's work their constituencies hard.
If only someone had been pointed out his flaws for the last four years.
For what it's worth, my parents thought he was a dim and dangerous man, but not as dangerous as McDonnell.
I went on a socialist walking group the weekend, full of Corbynista academic types. And while I got the impression hard-core Corbynistas would vote for her, they weren't that impressed by her at all. If that's the case amongst the true believers - which would be her core support - I honestly think it's possible a non-Corbynite candidate can beat her.
e.g. Opinium final poll
2017 Labour Remainers: 60% approved of Corbyn, 21% disapproved
2017 Labour Leavers: 36% approved of Corbyn, 48% disapproved
https://www.opinium.co.uk/political-polling-10th-december-2019/
See Table 6
That turned out well...
The DUP are a minority party in Northern Ireland now representing just 8 out of 18 NI seats.
The choice was thus either a hard border with the Republic of Ireland leading inevitably to Irish reunification with perhaps the DUP declaring UDI in Antrim or else what Boris has done keeping the UK together in the only way the majority of Northern Ireland voters would accept ie avoiding a hard border with the Republic of Ireland and thus also protecting the Good Friday Agreement.
There is no longer a Unionist majority in Northern Ireland, that is fact, there is still in Scotland
On the point about leadership vs Brexit vs economic policy - not sure how you can separate those. The leadership decided the economic policy and fudged the Brexit policy. Also Brexit is a matter of economics. So the poll seems flawed to me.
At the moment the Labour leadership election is beginning to look like an institution fighting for survival without actually knowing what its purpose is. If it want to survive it can only have one direction: to challenge the Tories on the basis of economic competence. A leader who wants to do something different will fail like Corbyn. A leader who tries to exude competence without conviction will fail like Miliband.
You also get the terminology wrong. By putting a border down the Irish Sea, something he said "no Tory PM" would ever do, and which even Theresa May didn't dare attempt, he is keeping Great Britain, not the United Kingdom together. He is lumping in Northern Ireland, regulatorily, with the Republic and that means a path to reunification.
I'm not sure whether you are just trying to prove my point by saying there is no Unionist majority in Northern Ireland, or whether you are also agreeing with the ERG that the Union is over?
What Boris has done, cheered on by the ERG and pretend Tories like yourself, is to endanger the Union.
I don’t see 30-40% of the population (especially the ultra Unionist hardcore) taking it lying down even if 55% of the NI electorate for it. Hell, even calling a border poll risks restarting violence.
It would also increase the population of the
RoI by a third, which would have to pay to both secure it and subsidise it, and it would create at least 60 extra seats in the Dail that would be fractiously dictated by the sectarian nature of NI politics, but also hold the balance of power in their STV system.
Just what exactly is in it for Eire?
This is one of those things that they’re in favour of in theory, but the present arrangements suit them very well in practice.
I do wonder if exactly the same thing is going to be thought about RLB. And that it could well stop her becoming leader, let alone PM.
I know everyone says Labour membership are now all Corbynites but Owen Smith got 40% and he was a very weak candidate. Add in that Lab has now lost twice under Corbyn and I think even left wing members are going to look hard at electability.
We'll have to see how RLB is perceived but I think it's quite likely she is not going to come across as having the necessary maturity and gravitas. The contrast with Starmer is going to be very obvious.
My dad used to read the Daily Mail. Something to do while manning the picket line to bring down Heath's government.
Of course I think this is flattering the brexit numbers somewhat, I think that probably was a bigger issue for more than 17%, it's just that the issues of Corbyn himself also enraged brexiteers even more than that.
The positive for Labour here is that Brexit is unlikely to be a live issue next time, and so they can be smart and elect a leader who rejects everything there is to do with Corbyn the character. No more weasel words on shooting terrorists, zero tolerance on anti semitism, etc etc. They can do this while keeping fairly left-wing economically (but stick to a 2017 style manifesto not a 2019 scattergun one). This is why it simply must not be RLB, although it most likely will be.
Yup.
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/lisa-nandy-labour-leader-voters-considering-running-1344493
If Nandy can keep her head down a bit, and let Thornberry and Starmer do the heavy lifting of attacking Corbyn to draw the flak of Momentum, then I think that Nandy has the potential to come through the middle as the "unity" candidate.
https://twitter.com/TheStaggers/status/1207300938765078529?s=20
https://twitter.com/gsoh31/status/1207284018091311104?s=20
It would explain why they feel the need to double down on their roots despite choosing to live far away from them, and why they have little concept of what it is like to live as the people they grew up with still do, and maybe why people at the extremes of the class system have more in common with each other electorally than they do with those in between them
I certainly had a disconnect from my wider family, but not a feeling of guilt. Certainly something to give more thought to.
*this is sarcasm
how could so many working class male bigots have roared a young woman on to breaking a glass ceiling?
It's (For electoral purposes) expunged the ghost of Thatcher in England's old coalfields. Seismic.
And to every one of the WWC putting up a cross of St. George with BORIS written across the centre of it.
(Do you really not know any working-class graduates? I will never get over the social mix of this site...
Ok, answering your questions.
* Guilt? No. Pride? Yes. My parents were well aware of the burdens of being poor and that whole working-class-escaoe thing was a big thing when their contemporaries had way too much industrial injuries/deaths. We've forgotten how dangerous it is to be poor.
* Choosing to live far away? It's more a case of "you go where the jobs are". Your choices are only as good as your options.
* Little concept to live as the others still do? As I've mentioned before it's a big family (siblings, uncles, aunties, cousins, nieces, nephews,... well over thirty and rising) so they let you know about stuff, no probs, oh Gods do they let you know. Xmas is a scrum in my Dad's house, it's only small..
* Why do upper have more in common with the lower than the middle? That's easy: Darwinian competition. Dogs don't compete with cats, they compete with other dogs to prey upon the cats. Cats don't compete with dogs, they compete with other cats to survive the dogs. He upper do not overlap with the lower and there is no competition, so no conflict. But the lower middle class compete with the upper working class, and the upper middle class compete with the lower upper class. Hence the conflict.
So yes, I have been to Eton. And I did live on estate. A Council estate.
Where did I say I didn't know any by the way? I know loads although there are none in my close circle
"and some of the kids said they'll be back next week." You?
It doesn't matter where you came from, all that matters is where you're going.
As my old prep school master said 'those with class, never mention class' which is a good maxim, which is why you'll never catch me banging on about class, especially my own.
https://twitter.com/Alfie_Baron/status/1207237252931305472?s=20
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18108825.wings-scotland-permanently-banned-twitter-violations-hateful-conduct-policy/
eg Cooper 1st prefs will go Nandy 2nd pref and vice versa.