Worth saying again - much of Corbyn’s support was personal, not political. Labour members liked him as an individual, while leaders always get a lot of loyalty.
Nandy is steaming out on BF in resposne to this poll, which I guess makes sense. Starmer in, RLB out. Interestingly Phillips is slightly out too.
What price was Corbyn 4 weeks after Ed quit ?
Probably still 100/1 until at least the MPs ballot closed. But the fact that huge changes sometimes happen doesn't mean they will every time. All else being equal you'd rather start at the top than the bottom.
Worth saying again - much of Corbyn’s support was personal, not political. Labour members liked him as an individual, while leaders always get a lot of loyalty.
It's obvious there are big question marks about her amongst Corbynites.
But their dilemma is whether it's worth switching to someone else - and the problem they have is there is no hard left candidate who has the necessary personal qualities to win that Corbyn had.
I think the only person who could do it is McDonnell - if they can't get him to change his mind then they've probably lost the leadership.
If the right to catch fish in British waters is a glittering enough prize to other countries that it is worth abandoning a trade agreement for, I fail to see how the best thing a hapless British fisherman could do with that right is sell it. The proverb about giving a man a fish seems apt here.
Whether those big companies you mention end up owning a big piece of the British fishing industry, is not my area of expertise. It would not be unlike the Scotch whisky industry if that were the case. At least the people who caught and processed the fish would be employed in the UK.
So your priority is to maximise employment in the British fishing and processing industry. That's a comprehensible goal.
But again, it's not that simple. To go back to my original example (six or so posts ago...) Imagine that my British fisherman doesn't own a boat, but leases it from a Spanish company. Not complicated. What if it's a "wet lease" where he's renting it with a (foreign) crew? Now he's just a British owner of a quota using a foreign vessel to do the fishing for him. We could ban these kind of things. And we could insist on all fish caught in British waters being landed at British ports. And being processed in the UK. But if we do that, then we're raising the costs of British fish, because we're restricting how they're treated. Are we going to compensate for this by imposing tariffs on fish coming in from other parts of the world?
The wrinkle here is that we export and import different types of fish, so the tariffs may not be necessary.
I also suspect that our negotiators won't care all that much, beyond its function as a chip on the table.
Rachel Wolf (Boris adviser) has an article in the Telegraph about what BoJo and Dom have planned for the Civil Service. Seems to be regular exams to test competence, more STEM Grads (17% at present) and no job hopping every 18 months to avoid being held to account (if the task is FUBAR it is "there is the door time.")
So, a politicised Civil Service to go with a politicised judiciary. After all it works so well in the USA.
How is insisting on competence politicising the civil service?
It all depends on how you define and assess competence. If that means following the party line then it is politicisation. If telling the minister that their plans are based on errors means the sack, then ditto.
It is all part of the apparatus of an authoritarian state, and disregard of British tradition and practice.
So no grounds for the assertion of politicising the civil service.
If politicians get to decide who to hire and fire as Civil Servants, then it is politicised. Ditto Judges.
Tories would be unwise to set precedents that they wouldn't want an opposition leader to similarly exercise.
Do you seriously believe that McDonnell, Milne, and Lansman wouldn't have politicised the CS in ten seconds flat if they managed to seize power, precedent or no precedent? Better to get there first, in my view.
Conversely you might, y'know, just...not do that. See that bad thing that somebody bad wants to do? Well, that's not an excuse to do it first. It's a reason to not do it.
It's obvious there are big question marks about her amongst Corbynites.
But their dilemma is whether it's worth switching to someone else - and the problem they have is there is no hard left candidate who has the necessary personal qualities to win that Corbyn had.
I think the only person who could do it is McDonnell - if they can't get him to change his mind then they've probably lost the leadership.
There's a tendency in all losing parties to go for the opposite of what one had before. We lost with a fiery radical? Time for sober competence. McDonnell would have been interesting - a leftie with a competent manner - but I think he genuinely doesn't want it, and might not fit the current mood.
I don't think Starmer quite has it in the bag yet - he needs to be tested in the campaign, and no doubt there's some media story that he was once seen chatting with Pol Pot or something. But it's probably his to lose.
It's obvious there are big question marks about her amongst Corbynites.
But their dilemma is whether it's worth switching to someone else - and the problem they have is there is no hard left candidate who has the necessary personal qualities to win that Corbyn had.
I think the only person who could do it is McDonnell - if they can't get him to change his mind then they've probably lost the leadership.
It's obvious there are big question marks about her amongst Corbynites.
But their dilemma is whether it's worth switching to someone else - and the problem they have is there is no hard left candidate who has the necessary personal qualities to win that Corbyn had.
I think the only person who could do it is McDonnell - if they can't get him to change his mind then they've probably lost the leadership.
There's a tendency in all losing parties to go for the opposite of what one had before. We lost with a fiery radical? Time for sober competence. McDonnell would have been interesting - a leftie with a competent manner - but I think he genuinely doesn't want it, and might not fit the current mood.
I don't think Starmer quite has it in the bag yet - he needs to be tested in the campaign, and no doubt there's some media story that he was once seen chatting with Pol Pot or something. But it's probably his to lose.
NO You lost with Corbyn, someone totally unsuited to be Prime Minister, who was accompanied by some serious nasty people like Milne and McDonnell (lets not forget his video of wanting to seize the levers of power by force) with a set of policies that were completely unworkable and without the funds to do it. Corbyn was absolutely loathed on the doorstep. "Fiery Radical" is just a euphemism to cover up for was really on offer,
Comments
FINAL ROUND AFTER EVERYONE ELSE KNOCKED OUT:
Starmer 61
Long-Bailey 39
I do think some of the radical edge on policy will survive though. Hopefully in a less 1970s wrapper.
Starmer 1.73 (was approx. 2.8)
RLB 4.7 (was approx. 3.7)
Nandy 15.5 (was 10)
Cooper 19
Phillips 20
Remember RLB was odds on just after the GE.
It's obvious there are big question marks about her amongst Corbynites.
But their dilemma is whether it's worth switching to someone else - and the problem they have is there is no hard left candidate who has the necessary personal qualities to win that Corbyn had.
I think the only person who could do it is McDonnell - if they can't get him to change his mind then they've probably lost the leadership.
I also suspect that our negotiators won't care all that much, beyond its function as a chip on the table.
NEW THREAD
I don't think Starmer quite has it in the bag yet - he needs to be tested in the campaign, and no doubt there's some media story that he was once seen chatting with Pol Pot or something. But it's probably his to lose.
"Fiery Radical" is just a euphemism to cover up for was really on offer,