52 Labour MPs have now declared - Starmer 18 Phillips 12 Long Bailey 11 Nandy 7 Lewis 3 Thornberry 1
Over a quarter of the electorate. Margin of error?
Lewis and Thornberry can give up.
Yes. Thornberry hasn`t one backed yet according to Guido.
Phillips has racked 14 up so far. I`m surprised.
Jess is the only one who I think can beat Boris. If they are smart enough to pick her, I'll have to revisit my 2024 prediction. Starmer is nice enough but I don't think he's got the stones for a fight. Thornberry does but she shat the bed with the flags. Everybody else is meh.
Jess seems nice, but she doesn't have the brains. The next Labour leader needs to have gravitas and intelligence, and exude that as a foil to the clownish Tory leader, that I think people will quickly tire of. Starmer has those things, Jess Phillips does not.
If it was too long and you did not read it, hence tldr, how do you know it says that? And how do you react when people summarise your points so simplistically based on your 2016 position? With grace?
Now, that being said I think the idea the LDs should have just accepted things right from the start would have been wrong, but theres question of if their escalation and mono focus in fact helped much. If it did, not as much as hoped.
Trust me, I'm very used to people reading whatever they like into what I write.
After all the helpful comments from the usual suspects earlier, perhaps the view of someone who actually has a vote in the LD leadership election may be of interest (or it may not).
The Party's problems don't really start or end with the leader unlike Labour's. The core problem is the message not the messenger and even in his New Year message Sir Ed was still talking about "stopping Brexit".
The Party has to grow up and realise the battle is lost - whether we like it or not, the 2016 Referendum result, for all its imperfections, was still a reasonably free and fair vote (and certainly more so than in many other countries). The Party should have taken it on the chin then and there and accepted the will of the people was to leave the EU.
The method and manner of departure was of course not specified and there would be many who would argue for a close and positive relationship post-membership especially in terms of trade but also politically. By abdicating the field to the "hard" Brexiteers, the LDs have made a more distant, antagonistic and economically difficult relationship more likely.
That's the past - I would now support a candidate willing to say the unsayable in terms of our EU membership. Yes, we can argue to rejoin one day once we have left (perfectly credible once we know the terms on which the UK could rejoin) but unless it unravels at once (very unlikely) it only seems fair to give life outside the EU a fair crack of the whip.
Johnson's centralising social democratic tendencies do provide plenty of ground for effective opposition - there will be no problem which can't be solved by throwing money at it and indeed I see Javid and I hear Brown and even David Owen in terms of the belief that Government can and must do anything and everything.
For those of us interested in a proper devolution of power and responsibility down to existing local authorities combined with sound financial management going forward, there are angles of attack aplenty which can be built on.
Snip
In truth, no one will be much interested in the LDs for the foreseeable future - the task is to convert the vote increases in key areas into local campaigning which will bear fruit when the Johnson Government hits its mid-term trough.
Afternoon Stodge,
Thanks for your thoughts and I hope your vision of the LD comes to pass, It would give me grate happiness to be able to vote for that at the next GE:
'a proper devolution of power and responsibility down to existing local authorities combined with sound financial management'
Music to my ears, there was a reasonable amount of good stuff in the LD manifesto, hopefully one day that can replace Labour as one of the top two party. But sadly I can not support while the BREXIT obsession is still ongoing within the party.
52 Labour MPs have now declared - Starmer 18 Phillips 12 Long Bailey 11 Nandy 7 Lewis 3 Thornberry 1
Over a quarter of the electorate. Margin of error?
Lewis and Thornberry can give up.
Yes. Thornberry hasn`t one backed yet according to Guido.
Phillips has racked 14 up so far. I`m surprised.
Jess is the only one who I think can beat Boris. If they are smart enough to pick her, I'll have to revisit my 2024 prediction. Starmer is nice enough but I don't think he's got the stones for a fight. Thornberry does but she shat the bed with the flags. Everybody else is meh.
Jess seems nice, but she doesn't have the brains. The next Labour leader needs to have gravitas and intelligence, and exude that as a foil to the clownish Tory leader, that I think people will quickly tire of. Starmer has those things, Jess Phillips does not.
I would say that the next leader has to inspire confidence and have a personality. Starmer has a veneer of competence - but is not inspirational and has very little personality.
Phillips has plenty of personality. But I don't see her as a policy creator.
I am not sure who has the right blend - certainly none of the current declared candidates.
So The Guardian loses the plot even more than usual today, trying to equivocate the recipients of one of the most generous welfare systems in the world with terrorists.
It’s not quite the woman wanking the dolphin, but it’s pretty close to Peak Guardian.
Since IDS was an even more enthusiastic proponent of intervention in Iraq than Blair and softened up the Tory party for its supine acquiescence with Gulf War II, I think it can safely be said that he's a thoroughly nasty man whose actions had caused unnecessary deaths.
Or alternatively he's a thoroughly decent man whose view at the time of the risks of action versus no action was different from your hindsight.
Really, that was an exceptionally unpleasant post of yours.
Odwas. I think IDS is an exceptionally unpleasant man, and there's always grim entertainment to be had seeing Tories break off from their excoriation of Blair and his criminal responsibility in Iraq for several choruses of 'nothing to do with us guv'.
Having now seen the clip of RLB defending Corbyn, it is even worse than the tweet suggested.
It is, as ever with this clique, the fault of the media for attacking Corbyn and of the Labour establishment for not having a better rebuttal unit to defend him.
So nothing to do with the massive flaws in Corbyn's record at all.
She is utterly deluded.
Guaranteed to win then if the membership is still as blinkered as it appears to have been over the past few years.
These people seem to think if only the "mainstream media" hadn't slandered Jezza (who is a visionary and saint) that they would have won the election easily, and that all those seats lost in the North of England and Midlands will come back at the next election. I think it's equally as likely that they are facing another "Scotland" and that they can lose more seats at future elections, and be almost driven out of areas they once considered to be the Labour heartlands.
52 Labour MPs have now declared - Starmer 18 Phillips 12 Long Bailey 11 Nandy 7 Lewis 3 Thornberry 1
Over a quarter of the electorate. Margin of error?
Lewis and Thornberry can give up.
Yes. Thornberry hasn`t one backed yet according to Guido.
Phillips has racked 14 up so far. I`m surprised.
Jess is the only one who I think can beat Boris. If they are smart enough to pick her, I'll have to revisit my 2024 prediction. Starmer is nice enough but I don't think he's got the stones for a fight. Thornberry does but she shat the bed with the flags. Everybody else is meh.
Jess seems nice, but she doesn't have the brains. The next Labour leader needs to have gravitas and intelligence, and exude that as a foil to the clownish Tory leader, that I think people will quickly tire of. Starmer has those things, Jess Phillips does not.
I would say that the next leader has to inspire confidence and have a personality. Starmer has a veneer of competence - but is not inspirational and has very little personality.
Phillips has plenty of personality. But I don't see her as a policy creator.
I am not sure who has the right blend - certainly none of the current declared candidates.
Starmer has as much personality as John Major had - and rather more gravitas.
As for Labour, plenty of comment on the individual contenders but a key point to remember is most political parties are like super-tankers - they don't turn quickly or easily. Those expecting denunciation of Corbyn and all he stood for a month after a defeat are being foolish and don't understand how politics works.
Kinnock had to wait two years before denouncing Militant and it's going to be baby steps for the next Labour leader seeking to re-position the party as the objective is not to trigger a schism but to take the membership on a journey and the first step is going to be the hardest.
I don't even know if Keir Starmer, Lisa Nandy or any of the others has a clear destination apart from getting back into Government. This comes in two stages - stage one is being an effective Opposition which may not sound easy with just 203 MPs but it's about amendments to legislation which can cause division in Tory ranks. The second stage is more obvious and more difficult - Labour remains, for all that happened last month, the only realistic alternative Government but translating the arithmetic into a concept which disillusioned Conservatives will support is the big challenge.
I am not sure that the comparison with Kinnock is entirely valid here. His predecessor - Michael Foot - had been elected by the PLP in November 1980. In no sense was he foisted on MPs by an Electoral College or mass membership vote. No attempt was ever made to No Confidence Foot - despite his obviously limited appeal to the wider electorate. Moreover, Labour's policy position in 1983 was well to the left of where it has been under Corbyn. Claims to the contrary to a large extent reflect how far Labour had moved to the Right during the New Labour years. Labour's 2019 manifesto can reasonably be criticised for its scatter gun approach , but in essence was probably less left wing than the 1974 manifestos.
Surely the wider point is that in the 1970s and 1980s Britain still had a huge base of manual workers in industry that needed representing, and they were the bedrock of the labour party. Pretty moderate and socially conservative.
That base dooesn't exist any more, and neither do (often ex-shop floor) representatives. Its a middle class party now.
tldr: Leaver believes that the Lib Dems should give up their USP that appeals to non-Leavers.
There's no point having a USP that is obsolete. Whether you or I like it or not, the Conservatives won last month with a clear majority to take us out of the EU. I do share the concerns of many that Boris is perhaps thinking of taking us out without a Deal at the end of the year and it remains to be seen just how many of his side will back that position if and when we get to that point.
That's a question for another day - trying to "stop" Brexit now is impossible given the Parliamentary numbers.
I think it would have been smart politics to have accepted the result in 2016 and campaigned for BINO once the WA was passed and allowed the fissures in the Conservative Party to work through.
52 Labour MPs have now declared - Starmer 18 Phillips 12 Long Bailey 11 Nandy 7 Lewis 3 Thornberry 1
Over a quarter of the electorate. Margin of error?
Lewis and Thornberry can give up.
Yes. Thornberry hasn`t one backed yet according to Guido.
Phillips has racked 14 up so far. I`m surprised.
Jess is the only one who I think can beat Boris. If they are smart enough to pick her, I'll have to revisit my 2024 prediction. Starmer is nice enough but I don't think he's got the stones for a fight. Thornberry does but she shat the bed with the flags. Everybody else is meh.
Jess seems nice, but she doesn't have the brains. The next Labour leader needs to have gravitas and intelligence, and exude that as a foil to the clownish Tory leader, that I think people will quickly tire of. Starmer has those things, Jess Phillips does not.
I would say that the next leader has to inspire confidence and have a personality. Starmer has a veneer of competence - but is not inspirational and has very little personality.
Phillips has plenty of personality. But I don't see her as a policy creator.
I am not sure who has the right blend - certainly none of the current declared candidates.
Starmer has as much personality as John Major had - and rather more gravitas.
After all the helpful comments from the usual suspects earlier, perhaps the view of someone who actually has a vote in the LD leadership election may be of interest (or it may not).
The Party's problems don't really start or end with the leader unlike Labour's. The core problem is the message not the messenger and even in his New Year message Sir Ed was still talking about "stopping Brexit".
The Party has to grow up and realise the battle is lost - whether we like it or not, the 2016 Referendum result, for all its imperfections, was still a reasonably free and fair vote (and certainly more so than in many other countries). The Party should have taken it on the chin then and there and accepted the will of the people was to leave the EU.
The method and manner of departure was of course not specified and there would be many who would argue for a close and positive relationship post-membership especially in terms of trade but also politically. By abdicating the field to the "hard" Brexiteers, the LDs have made a more distant, antagonistic and economically difficult relationship more likely.
That's the past - I would now support a candidate willing to say the unsayable in terms of our EU membership. Yes, we can argue to rejoin one day once we have left (perfectly credible once we know the terms on which the UK could rejoin) but unless it unravels at once (very unlikely) it only seems fair to give life outside the EU a fair crack
I agree that Ed Davey is wrong to be so hardline on Remain. The problem is that there are too many hardcore Remainers who have joined not the Lib Dems, but the anti-Brexit party. That ship has sailed and the party needs to move to a more nuanced position. Advocating EEA would be the best start, and let's see how things develop. In practice though, culture war doesn't end in compromise.
I will still vote for Ed Davey. Not least because the other candidates haven't moved on yet. Ed is a good media performer, and while not as fresh as Layla is more solidly grounded. More than likely He will be the only party leader with any gravitas by the end of the year, at least in England.
tldr: Leaver believes that the Lib Dems should give up their USP that appeals to non-Leavers.
There's no point having a USP that is obsolete. Whether you or I like it or not, the Conservatives won last month with a clear majority to take us out of the EU. I do share the concerns of many that Boris is perhaps thinking of taking us out without a Deal at the end of the year and it remains to be seen just how many of his side will back that position if and when we get to that point.
That's a question for another day - trying to "stop" Brexit now is impossible given the Parliamentary numbers.
I think it would have been smart politics to have accepted the result in 2016 and campaigned for BINO once the WA was passed and allowed the fissures in the Conservative Party to work through.
There's a world of difference between accepting that Brexit is going to happen and accepting that it should be embraced.
The Lib Dems should be positioning themselves as the consistently pro-EU force of British politics, consistently arguing for closer co-operation and integration at every stage. They will have plenty of opportunities to point out the drawbacks of life in the freezer.
52 Labour MPs have now declared - Starmer 18 Phillips 12 Long Bailey 11 Nandy 7 Lewis 3 Thornberry 1
Over a quarter of the electorate. Margin of error?
Lewis and Thornberry can give up.
Yes. Thornberry hasn`t one backed yet according to Guido.
Phillips has racked 14 up so far. I`m surprised.
Jess is the only one who I think can beat Boris. If they are smart enough to pick her, I'll have to revisit my 2024 prediction. Starmer is nice enough but I don't think he's got the stones for a fight. Thornberry does but she shat the bed with the flags. Everybody else is meh.
Jess seems nice, but she doesn't have the brains. The next Labour leader needs to have gravitas and intelligence, and exude that as a foil to the clownish Tory leader, that I think people will quickly tire of. Starmer has those things, Jess Phillips does not.
I would say that the next leader has to inspire confidence and have a personality. Starmer has a veneer of competence - but is not inspirational and has very little personality.
Phillips has plenty of personality. But I don't see her as a policy creator.
I am not sure who has the right blend - certainly none of the current declared candidates.
Starmer has as much personality as John Major had - and rather more gravitas.
Starmer oozes elite. Major was grey but there was something authentically ordinary about him.
Starmer is the epitome of the metropolitan elite -a technocrat, a high flying lawyer. Not a man of the people. Not someone you would want to chat to over coffee or in the pub.
Thanks for your thoughts and I hope your vision of the LD comes to pass, It would give me grate happiness to be able to vote for that at the next GE:
'a proper devolution of power and responsibility down to existing local authorities combined with sound financial management'
Music to my ears, there was a reasonable amount of good stuff in the LD manifesto, hopefully one day that can replace Labour as one of the top two party. But sadly I can not support while the BREXIT obsession is still ongoing within the party.
Thank you for the kind word, my friend.
Strangely, I thought the 2019 LD Manifesto was, Brexit aside, a strong policy programme with plenty of good ideas which Johnson's Conservatives can steal and implement.
So The Guardian loses the plot even more than usual today, trying to equivocate the recipients of one of the most generous welfare systems in the world with terrorists.
It’s not quite the woman wanking the dolphin, but it’s pretty close to Peak Guardian.
Since IDS was an even more enthusiastic proponent of intervention in Iraq than Blair and softened up the Tory party for its supine acquiescence with Gulf War II, I think it can safely be said that he's a thoroughly nasty man whose actions had caused unnecessary deaths.
Or alternatively he's a thoroughly decent man whose view at the time of the risks of action versus no action was different from your hindsight.
Really, that was an exceptionally unpleasant post of yours.
Odwas. I think IDS is an exceptionally unpleasant man, and there's always grim entertainment to be had seeing Tories break off from their excoriation of Blair and his criminal responsibility in Iraq for several choruses of 'nothing to do with us guv'.
Actually he's not an unpleasant man at all, quite the opposite. Have you ever met him? Quite apart from anything else, in common with just a few politicians such as Frank Field and Jon Cruddas, he has taken enormous trouble to try to understand how people get trapped in poverty, long-term unemployment and mental illness. It's one thing to disagree with his conclusions (although I expect he knows a lot more about the problems than you do), but it is pure unvarnished prejudice, of which you should be thoroughly ashamed, to impugn his character.
On the specific point of Iraq, yes he was in favour of military action, although we'll never know how much he was influenced by the Blair government's deliberate misinformation. So were many other decent men and women, of all parties, in both the US and the UK.
52 Labour MPs have now declared - Starmer 18 Phillips 12 Long Bailey 11 Nandy 7 Lewis 3 Thornberry 1
Over a quarter of the electorate. Margin of error?
Lewis and Thornberry can give up.
Yes. Thornberry hasn`t one backed yet according to Guido.
Phillips has racked 14 up so far. I`m surprised.
Jess is the only one who I think can beat Boris. If they are smart enough to pick her, I'll have to revisit my 2024 prediction. Starmer is nice enough but I don't think he's got the stones for a fight. Thornberry does but she shat the bed with the flags. Everybody else is meh.
Jess seems nice, but she doesn't have the brains. The next Labour leader needs to have gravitas and intelligence, and exude that as a foil to the clownish Tory leader, that I think people will quickly tire of. Starmer has those things, Jess Phillips does not.
I would say that the next leader has to inspire confidence and have a personality. Starmer has a veneer of competence - but is not inspirational and has very little personality.
Phillips has plenty of personality. But I don't see her as a policy creator.
I am not sure who has the right blend - certainly none of the current declared candidates.
Starmer has as much personality as John Major had - and rather more gravitas.
Starmer oozes elite. Major was grey but there was something authentically ordinary about him.
Starmer is the epitome of the metropolitan elite -a technocrat, a high flying lawyer. Not a man of the people. Not someone you would want to chat to over coffee or in the pub.
Certainly Starmer has risen well from rather more humble origins, but hasn't forgotten them. I think he would be a good Shadow Foreign Sec for Jess.
So The Guardian loses the plot even more than usual today, trying to equivocate the recipients of one of the most generous welfare systems in the world with terrorists.
It’s not quite the woman wanking the dolphin, but it’s pretty close to Peak Guardian.
Since IDS was an even more enthusiastic proponent of intervention in Iraq than Blair and softened up the Tory party for its supine acquiescence with Gulf War II, I think it can safely be said that he's a thoroughly nasty man whose actions had caused unnecessary deaths.
Or alternatively he's a thoroughly decent man whose view at the time of the risks of action versus no action was different from your hindsight.
Really, that was an exceptionally unpleasant post of yours.
Odwas. I think IDS is an exceptionally unpleasant man, and there's always grim entertainment to be had seeing Tories break off from their excoriation of Blair and his criminal responsibility in Iraq for several choruses of 'nothing to do with us guv'.
As for Labour, plenty of comment on the individual contenders but a key point to remember is most political parties are like super-tankers - they don't turn quickly or easily. Those expecting denunciation of Corbyn and all he stood for a month after a defeat are being foolish and don't understand how politics works.
Kinnock had to wait two years before denouncing Militant and it's going to be baby steps for the next Labour leader seeking to re-position the party as the objective is not to trigger a schism but to take the membership on a journey and the first step is going to be the hardest.
I don't even know if Keir Starmer, Lisa Nandy or any of the others has a clear destination apart from getting back into Government. This comes in two stages - stage one is being an effective Opposition which may not sound easy with just 203 MPs but it's about amendments to legislation which can cause division in Tory ranks. The second stage is more obvious and more difficult - Labour remains, for all that happened last month, the only realistic alternative Government but translating the arithmetic into a concept which disillusioned Conservatives will support is the big challenge.
I am not sure that the comparison with Kinnock is entirely valid here. His predecessor - Michael Foot - had been elected by the PLP in November 1980. In no sense was he foisted on MPs by an Electoral College or mass membership vote. No attempt was ever made to No Confidence Foot - despite his obviously limited appeal to the wider electorate. Moreover, Labour's policy position in 1983 was well to the left of where it has been under Corbyn. Claims to the contrary to a large extent reflect how far Labour had moved to the Right during the New Labour years. Labour's 2019 manifesto can reasonably be criticised for its scatter gun approach , but in essence was probably less left wing than the 1974 manifestos.
Surely the wider point is that in the 1970s and 1980s Britain still had a huge base of manual workers in industry that needed representing, and they were the bedrock of the labour party. Pretty moderate and socially conservative.
That base dooesn't exist any more, and neither do (often ex-shop floor) representatives. Its a middle class party now.
The decline in the manual labour force is certainly not a recent development in that it was smaller in the 1970s when compared with the 1930s and 40s. Labour has indeed become much more middle class - and perhaps partly explains how in a bad year electorally, it was still able to win seats such as Warwick & Leamington, Bedford , Canterbury plus a string of seats along the South Coast. Very different to 1983 and 1987.
If it was too long and you did not read it, hence tldr, how do you know it says that? And how do you react when people summarise your points so simplistically based on your 2016 position? With grace?
Now, that being said I think the idea the LDs should have just accepted things right from the start would have been wrong, but theres question of if their escalation and mono focus in fact helped much. If it did, not as much as hoped.
Trust me, I'm very used to people reading whatever they like into what I write.
There's a world of difference between accepting that Brexit is going to happen and accepting that it should be embraced.
The Lib Dems should be positioning themselves as the consistently pro-EU force of British politics, consistently arguing for closer co-operation and integration at every stage. They will have plenty of opportunities to point out the drawbacks of life in the freezer.
I think that's what I was arguing - BINO writ large. It's a perfectly credible position which would command a deal of support. However, that starts from accepting the 2016 Referendum result - had the Party done that and advocated a BINO relationship I think we'd have done better.
The other problem was whatever the laws of "revoke if we win a majority", there was little or no response to the question of what would happen if a second referendum were held and LEAVE prevailed again. There was a sense (which I detected) the Party would not accept such a vote and that's just plain wrong.
Democracy isn't fair or easy - some days you get to be the pigeon, most days you get to be the statue.
Thanks for your thoughts and I hope your vision of the LD comes to pass, It would give me grate happiness to be able to vote for that at the next GE:
'a proper devolution of power and responsibility down to existing local authorities combined with sound financial management'
Music to my ears, there was a reasonable amount of good stuff in the LD manifesto, hopefully one day that can replace Labour as one of the top two party. But sadly I can not support while the BREXIT obsession is still ongoing within the party.
Thank you for the kind word, my friend.
Strangely, I thought the 2019 LD Manifesto was, Brexit aside, a strong policy programme with plenty of good ideas which Johnson's Conservatives can steal and implement.
I don't think they will though. What we know of Cummings is that he hates Local Authorities even more than the Civil Service. I would not expect services to be accountable to democratic local bodies.
So The Guardian loses the plot even more than usual today, trying to equivocate the recipients of one of the most generous welfare systems in the world with terrorists.
It’s not quite the woman wanking the dolphin, but it’s pretty close to Peak Guardian.
Since IDS was an even more enthusiastic proponent of intervention in Iraq than Blair and softened up the Tory party for its supine acquiescence with Gulf War II, I think it can safely be said that he's a thoroughly nasty man whose actions had caused unnecessary deaths.
Or alternatively he's a thoroughly decent man whose view at the time of the risks of action versus no action was different from your hindsight.
Really, that was an exceptionally unpleasant post of yours.
Odwas. I think IDS is an exceptionally unpleasant man, and there's always grim entertainment to be had seeing Tories break off from their excoriation of Blair and his criminal responsibility in Iraq for several choruses of 'nothing to do with us guv'.
Actually he's not an unpleasant man at all, quite the opposite. Have you ever met him? Quite apart from anything else, in common with just a few politicians such as Frank Field and Jon Cruddas, he has taken enormous trouble to try to understand how people get trapped in poverty, long-term unemployment and mental illness. It's one thing to disagree with his conclusions (although I expect he knows a lot more about the problems than you do), but it is pure unvarnished prejudice, of which you should be thoroughly ashamed, to impugn his character.
On the specific point of Iraq, yes he was in favour of military action, although we'll never know how much he was influenced by the Blair government's deliberate misinformation. So were many other decent men and women, of all parties, in both the US and the UK.
Yes, we'll never know.
'In November 2001, he was one of the first politicians to call for an invasion of Iraq and held talks in Washington, DC, with senior US officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice and Paul Wolfowitz'
'Tories on Iraq' is one of the signature pieces in my ever expanding collection of hypocrisies.
After all the helpful comments from the usual suspects earlier, perhaps the view of someone who actually has a vote in the LD leadership election may be of interest (or it may not).
The Party's problems don't really start or end with the leader unlike Labour's. The core problem is the message not the messenger and even in his New Year message Sir Ed was still talking about "stopping Brexit".
The Party has to grow up and realise the battle is lost - whether we like it or not, the 2016 Referendum result, for all its imperfections, was still a reasonably free and fair vote (and certainly more so than in many other countries). The Party should have taken it on the chin then and there and accepted the will of the people was to leave the EU.
The method and manner of departure was of course not specified and there would be many who would argue for a close and positive relationship post-membership especially in terms of trade but also politically. By abdicating the field to the "hard" Brexiteers, the LDs have made a more distant, antagonistic and economically difficult relationship more likely.
That's the past - I would now support a candidate willing to say the unsayable in terms of our EU membership. Yes, we can argue to rejoin one day once we have left (perfectly credible once we know the terms on which the UK could rejoin) but unless it unravels at once (very unlikely) it only seems fair to give life outside the EU a fair crack
I agree that Ed Davey is wrong to be so hardline on Remain. The problem is that there are too many hardcore Remainers who have joined not the Lib Dems, but the anti-Brexit party. That ship has sailed and the party needs to move to a more nuanced position. Advocating EEA would be the best start, and let's see how things develop. In practice though, culture war doesn't end in compromise.
I will still vote for Ed Davey. Not least because the other candidates haven't moved on yet. Ed is a good media performer, and while not as fresh as Layla is more solidly grounded. More than likely He will be the only party leader with any gravitas by the end of the year, at least in England.
As a member the last thing we need is an election. Ed should lead in the commons, Pack should sort out the organization and Chukka should be given a role in the wider country. We can come back to who runs what in two years time.
There's a world of difference between accepting that Brexit is going to happen and accepting that it should be embraced.
The Lib Dems should be positioning themselves as the consistently pro-EU force of British politics, consistently arguing for closer co-operation and integration at every stage. They will have plenty of opportunities to point out the drawbacks of life in the freezer.
I think that's what I was arguing - BINO writ large. It's a perfectly credible position which would command a deal of support. However, that starts from accepting the 2016 Referendum result - had the Party done that and advocated a BINO relationship I think we'd have done better.
The other problem was whatever the laws of "revoke if we win a majority", there was little or no response to the question of what would happen if a second referendum were held and LEAVE prevailed again. There was a sense (which I detected) the Party would not accept such a vote and that's just plain wrong.
Democracy isn't fair or easy - some days you get to be the pigeon, most days you get to be the statue.
But the Lib Dems should emphatically not give up on rejoining. They need to approach it on a salami basis, pointing out successive absurdities of the death cult and the harm that life in the freezer does to the country. The long term aspiration should absolutely be rejoining, not trying to make the best of a noxious and harmful decision.
A leadership contest with Jess Phillips involved is going to be a lot more fun than the previous ones.
Yes, but, more importantly, it will kill me betting-wise. I`m green on all the others.
Good for you. My book is a disaster!
I can't see Jess Phillips winning, as Nick P pointed out earlier today there is just too much dislike of her amongst party members because she had the temerity to say a few true things about Corbyn, and without mincing her words.
A leadership contest with Jess Phillips involved is going to be a lot more fun than the previous ones.
Yes, but, more importantly, it will kill me betting-wise. I`m green on all the others.
Good for you. My book is a disaster!
I can't see Jess Phillips winning, as Nick P pointed out earlier today there is just too much dislike of her amongst party members because she had the temerity to say a few true things about Corbyn, and without mincing her words.
I suspect she will do enough to scare a lot of members to consolidate around Starmer.
So The Guardian loses the plot even more than usual today, trying to equivocate the recipients of one of the most generous welfare systems in the world with terrorists.
It’s not quite the woman wanking the dolphin, but it’s pretty close to Peak Guardian.
Since IDS was an even more enthusiastic proponent of intervention in Iraq than Blair and softened up the Tory party for its supine acquiescence with Gulf War II, I think it can safely be said that he's a thoroughly nasty man whose actions had caused unnecessary deaths.
Or alternatively he's a thoroughly decent man whose view at the time of the risks of action versus no action was different from your hindsight.
Really, that was an exceptionally unpleasant post of yours.
Odwas. I think IDS is an exceptionally unpleasant man, and there's always grim entertainment to be had seeing Tories break off from their excoriation of Blair and his criminal responsibility in Iraq for several choruses of 'nothing to do with us guv'.
Actually he's not an unpleasant man at all, quite the opposite. Have you ever met him? Quite apart from anything else, in common with just a few politicians such as Frank Field and Jon Cruddas, he has taken enormous trouble to try to understand how people get trapped in poverty, long-term unemployment and mental illness. It's one thing to disagree with his conclusions (although I expect he knows a lot more about the problems than you do), but it is pure unvarnished prejudice, of which you should be thoroughly ashamed, to impugn his character.
On the specific point of Iraq, yes he was in favour of military action, although we'll never know how much he was influenced by the Blair government's deliberate misinformation. So were many other decent men and women, of all parties, in both the US and the UK.
I agree overall, except I understand that Duncan Smith said at the time that he had been 'warning about Iraq for years' or similar, so I don't think we can blame Blair for his stance. But being a convinced proponent of the war shows he was lacking in judgement, not lacking in character though.
'In November 2001, he was one of the first politicians to call for an invasion of Iraq and held talks in Washington, DC, with senior US officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice and Paul Wolfowitz'
'Tories on Iraq' is one of the signature pieces in my growing collection of hypocrisies.
So he shouldn't have held talks with Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice and Paul Wolfowitz to try to help inform his view? Is that really your position? Just talking to senior US officials makes him a bad person?
I think it would have been smart politics to have accepted the result in 2016 and campaigned for BINO once the WA was passed and allowed the fissures in the Conservative Party to work through.
Would have been even smarter politics for Labour to join you doing so.
Starmer oozes elite. Major was grey but there was something authentically ordinary about him.
Starmer is the epitome of the metropolitan elite -a technocrat, a high flying lawyer. Not a man of the people. Not someone you would want to chat to over coffee or in the pub.
I bow to a cuter and more subtle spoofist than I could ever hope to be. 👏
There's a world of difference between accepting that Brexit is going to happen and accepting that it should be embraced.
The Lib Dems should be positioning themselves as the consistently pro-EU force of British politics, consistently arguing for closer co-operation and integration at every stage. They will have plenty of opportunities to point out the drawbacks of life in the freezer.
I think that's what I was arguing - BINO writ large. It's a perfectly credible position which would command a deal of support. However, that starts from accepting the 2016 Referendum result - had the Party done that and advocated a BINO relationship I think we'd have done better.
The other problem was whatever the laws of "revoke if we win a majority", there was little or no response to the question of what would happen if a second referendum were held and LEAVE prevailed again. There was a sense (which I detected) the Party would not accept such a vote and that's just plain wrong.
Democracy isn't fair or easy - some days you get to be the pigeon, most days you get to be the statue.
But the Lib Dems should emphatically not give up on rejoining. They need to approach it on a salami basis, pointing out successive absurdities of the death cult and the harm that life in the freezer does to the country. The long term aspiration should absolutely be rejoining, not trying to make the best of a noxious and harmful decision.
Realistically , rejoining is unlikely to be an option this side of 2030. Gradual reconvergence is more likely - with a future non-Tory Government seeking to renegotiate any Deal arrived at by Johnson.
So The Guardian loses the plot even more than usual today, trying to equivocate the recipients of one of the most generous welfare systems in the world with terrorists.
It’s not quite the woman wanking the dolphin, but it’s pretty close to Peak Guardian.
Since IDS was an even more enthusiastic proponent of intervention in Iraq than Blair and softened up the Tory party for its supine acquiescence with Gulf War II, I think it can safely be said that he's a thoroughly nasty man whose actions had caused unnecessary deaths.
Or alternatively he's a thoroughly decent man whose view at the time of the risks of action versus no action was different from your hindsight.
Really, that was an exceptionally unpleasant post of yours.
Odwas. I think IDS is an exceptionally unpleasant man, and there's always grim entertainment to be had seeing Tories break off from their excoriation of Blair and his criminal responsibility in Iraq for several choruses of 'nothing to do with us guv'.
The dodgy dossier was 100% Labour`s.
And the highest percentage of any parliamentary party to be suckered by it was ...?
I agree overall, except I understand that Duncan Smith said at the time that he had been 'warning about Iraq for years' or similar, so I don't think we can blame Blair for his stance. But being a convinced proponent of the war shows he was lacking in judgement, not lacking in character though.
Well, warning about Iraq for years was pretty reasonable - on that particular point he was dead right. It would have been much better if the West had heeded the warnings much earlier.
If it was too long and you did not read it, hence tldr, how do you know it says that? And how do you react when people summarise your points so simplistically based on your 2016 position? With grace?
Now, that being said I think the idea the LDs should have just accepted things right from the start would have been wrong, but theres question of if their escalation and mono focus in fact helped much. If it did, not as much as hoped.
Trust me, I'm very used to people reading whatever they like into what I write.
I feel sure you are very used to reading whatever you like into other peoples posts to suit your own position. Its very tim-esque actually
I agree overall, except I understand that Duncan Smith said at the time that he had been 'warning about Iraq for years' or similar, so I don't think we can blame Blair for his stance. But being a convinced proponent of the war shows he was lacking in judgement, not lacking in character though.
Well, warning about Iraq for years was pretty reasonable - on that particular point he was dead right. It would have been much better if the West had heeded the warnings much earlier.
Blair can be blames for his stance on WMD, it was pretty clear they did not exist, and Hans Blix said as much and wanted more time to double check elsewhere.... of cours G. Bush junior(in every sense of the word) did not want to wait lest Blix was proved correct, hence they attacked.
After all the helpful comments from the usual suspects earlier, perhaps the view of someone who actually has a vote in the LD leadership election may be of interest (or it may not).
The Party's problems don't really start or end with the leader unlike Labour's. The core problem is the message not the messenger and even in his New Year message Sir Ed was still talking about "stopping Brexit".
The Party has to grow up and realise the battle is lost - whether we like it or not, the 2016 Referendum result, for all its imperfections, was still a reasonably free and fair vote (and certainly more so than in many other countries). The Party should have taken it on the chin then and there and accepted the will of the people was to leave the EU.
The method and manner of departure was of course not specified and there would be many who would argue for a close and positive relationship post-membership especially in terms of trade but also politically. By abdicating the field to the "hard" Brexiteers, the LDs have made a more distant, antagonistic and economically difficult relationship more likely.
That's the past - I would now support a candidate willing to say the unsayable in terms of our EU membership. Yes, we can argue to rejoin one day once we have left (perfectly credible once we know the terms on which the UK could rejoin) but unless it unravels at once (very unlikely) it only seems fair to give life outside the EU a fair crack
I agree that Ed Davey is wrong to be so hardline on Remain. The problem is that there are too many hardcore Remainers who have joined not the Lib Dems, but the anti-Brexit party. That ship has sailed and the party needs to move to a more nuanced position. Advocating EEA would be the best start, and let's see how things develop. In practice though, culture war doesn't end in compromise.
I will still vote for Ed Davey. Not least because the other candidates haven't moved on yet. Ed is a good media performer, and while not as fresh as Layla is more solidly grounded. More than likely He will be the only party leader with any gravitas by the end of the year, at least in England.
As a member the last thing we need is an election. Ed should lead in the commons, Pack should sort out the organization and Chukka should be given a role in the wider country. We can come back to who runs what in two years time.
An election is most useful if there is a genuine difference to be decided on policy. I would be happy with Ed carrying on as Interim leader for some time, with no rush about it. I think a diversity of faces would be welcome, and it is best to let wounds heal a bit before deciding a new direction.
I agree overall, except I understand that Duncan Smith said at the time that he had been 'warning about Iraq for years' or similar, so I don't think we can blame Blair for his stance. But being a convinced proponent of the war shows he was lacking in judgement, not lacking in character though.
Well, warning about Iraq for years was pretty reasonable - on that particular point he was dead right. It would have been much better if the West had heeded the warnings much earlier.
Just think, if only they'd listened to IDS they might have stopped 9/11.
After all the helpful comments from the usual suspects earlier, perhaps the view of someone who actually has a vote in the LD leadership election may be of interest (or it may not).
The Party's problems don't really start or end with the leader unlike Labour's. The core problem is the message not the messenger and even in his New Year message Sir Ed was still talking about "stopping Brexit".
The Party has to grow up and realise the battle is lost - whether we like it or not, the 2016 Referendum result, for all its imperfections, was still a reasonably free and fair vote (and certainly more so than in many other countries). The Party should have taken it on the chin then and there and accepted the will of the people was to leave the EU.
The method and manner of departure was of course not specified and there would be many who would argue for a close and positive relationship post-membership especially in terms of trade but also politically. By abdicating the field to the "hard" Brexiteers, the LDs have made a more distant, antagonistic and economically difficult relationship more likely.
That's the past - I would now support a candidate willing to say the unsayable in terms of our EU membership. Yes, we can argue to rejoin one day once we have left (perfectly credible once we know the terms on which the UK could rejoin) but unless it unravels at once (very unlikely) it only seems fair to give life outside the EU a fair crack
I agree that Ed Davey is wrong to be so hardline on Remain. The problem is that there are too many hardcore Remainers who have joined not the Lib Dems, but the anti-Brexit party. That ship has sailed and the party needs to move to a more nuanced position. Advocating EEA would be the best start, and let's see how things develop. In practice though, culture war doesn't end in compromise.
I will still vote for Ed Davey. Not least because the other candidates haven't moved on yet. Ed is a good media performer, and while not as fresh as Layla is more solidly grounded. More than likely He will be the only party leader with any gravitas by the end of the year, at least in England.
EAA and a CU now, then rejoin 'when the time is right', would be OK.
I agree overall, except I understand that Duncan Smith said at the time that he had been 'warning about Iraq for years' or similar, so I don't think we can blame Blair for his stance. But being a convinced proponent of the war shows he was lacking in judgement, not lacking in character though.
Well, warning about Iraq for years was pretty reasonable - on that particular point he was dead right. It would have been much better if the West had heeded the warnings much earlier.
Just think, if only they'd listened to IDS they might have stopped 9/11.
Now you are just being stupid.
But if more people had listened to warnings about Saddam, it might have saved Kurdish children from being gassed and the Marsh Arabs from being near wiped-out. Maybe you don't care about them?
Starmer at least has a grasp on international and constitutional law.
Assuming you're praying for RLB to win the leadership? If you the want candidate who is most likely to cause/not prevent Scottish independence out of the available options, she's the one you want.
Nope, I’m a Starmer man.
While it is amusing when our opponents pick total turkeys (Corbyn, Johnson, May, Leonard, Murphy, Lamont, McConnell, Dugdale, Alexander, Rennie, Swinson, Clegg etc ad infinitum), it is not in the interests of the Scottish nation. In order to dissolve the Union in a mutually beneficial fashion it is in all our interests to have competent, intelligent leaders in Edinburgh and London; and Dublin, Belfast, Cardiff, Brussels, Washington etc.
I may be wrong, but Starmer strikes me as having good potential. RLB is just another total turkey.
After all the helpful comments from the usual suspects earlier, perhaps the view of someone who actually has a vote in the LD leadership election may be of interest (or it may not).
The Party's problems don't really start or end with the leader unlike Labour's. The core problem is the message not the messenger and even in his New Year message Sir Ed was still talking about "stopping Brexit".
The Party has to grow up and realise the battle is lost - whether we like it or not, the 2016 Referendum result, for all its imperfections, was still a reasonably free and fair vote (and certainly more so than in many other countries). The Party should have taken it on the chin then and there and accepted the will of the people was to leave the EU.
The method and manner of departure was of course not specified and there would be many who would argue for a close and positive relationship post-membership especially in terms of trade but also politically. By abdicating the field to the "hard" Brexiteers, the LDs have made a more distant, antagonistic and economically difficult relationship more likely.
That's the past - I would now support a candidate willing to say the unsayable in terms of our EU membership. Yes, we can argue to rejoin one day once we have left (perfectly credible once we know the terms on which the UK could rejoin) but unless it unravels at once (very unlikely) it only seems fair to give life outside the EU a fair crack
I agree that Ed Davey is wrong to be so hardline on Remain. The problem is that there are too many hardcore Remainers who have joined not the Lib Dems, but the anti-Brexit party. That ship has sailed and the party needs to move to a more nuanced position. Advocating EEA would be the best start, and let's see how things develop. In practice though, culture war doesn't end in compromise.
I will still vote for Ed Davey. Not least because the other candidates haven't moved on yet. Ed is a good media performer, and while not as fresh as Layla is more solidly grounded. More than likely He will be the only party leader with any gravitas by the end of the year, at least in England.
EAA and a CU now, then rejoin 'when the time is right', would be OK.
That would be a quite pointless position. The Lib Dems are not in a position to demand either. Why opt for demanding something that only a handful of niche Leavers want?
So The Guardian loses the plot even more than usual today, trying to equivocate the recipients of one of the most generous welfare systems in the world with terrorists.
It’s not quite the woman wanking the dolphin, but it’s pretty close to Peak Guardian.
Since IDS was an even more enthusiastic proponent of intervention in Iraq than Blair and softened up the Tory party for its supine acquiescence with Gulf War II, I think it can safely be said that he's a thoroughly nasty man whose actions had caused unnecessary deaths.
Or alternatively he's a thoroughly decent man whose view at the time of the risks of action versus no action was different from your hindsight.
Really, that was an exceptionally unpleasant post of yours.
Odwas. I think IDS is an exceptionally unpleasant man, and there's always grim entertainment to be had seeing Tories break off from their excoriation of Blair and his criminal responsibility in Iraq for several choruses of 'nothing to do with us guv'.
The dodgy dossier was 100% Labour`s.
And the highest percentage of any parliamentary party to be suckered by it was ...?
After all the helpful comments from the usual suspects earlier, perhaps the view of someone who actually has a vote in the LD leadership election may be of interest (or it may not).
The Party's problems don't really start or end with the leader unlike Labour's. The core problem is the message not the messenger and even in his New Year message Sir Ed was still talking about "stopping Brexit".
The Party has to grow up and realise the battle is lost - whether we like it or not, the 2016 Referendum result, for all its imperfections, was still a reasonably free and fair vote (and certainly more so than in many other countries). The Party should have taken it on the chin then and there and accepted the will of the people was to leave the EU.
The method and manner of departure was of course not specified and there would be many who would argue for a close and positive relationship post-membership especially in terms of trade but also politically. By abdicating the field to the "hard" Brexiteers, the LDs have made a more distant, antagonistic and economically difficult relationship more likely.
That's the past - I would now support a candidate willing to say the unsayable in terms of our EU membership. Yes, we can argue to rejoin one day once we have left (perfectly credible once we know the terms on which the UK could rejoin) but unless it unravels at once (very unlikely) it only seems fair to give life outside the EU a fair crack
I agree that Ed Davey is wrong to be so hardline on Remain. The problem is that there are too many hardcore Remainers who have joined not the Lib Dems, but the anti-Brexit party. That ship has sailed and the party needs to move to a more nuanced position. Advocating EEA would be the best start, and let's see how things develop. In practice though, culture war doesn't end in compromise.
I will still vote for Ed Davey. Not least because the other candidates haven't moved on yet. Ed is a good media performer, and while not as fresh as Layla is more solidly grounded. More than likely He will be the only party leader with any gravitas by the end of the year, at least in England.
EAA and a CU now, then rejoin 'when the time is right', would be OK.
That would be a quite pointless position. The Lib Dems are not in a position to demand either. Why opt for demanding something that only a handful of niche Leavers want?
You look increasingly like Neil Tennant in your profile pictures.
I think it will be a Leicester vs Man City Final. Man U may get something tonight but are so patchy that anything could happen.
Leicester will put out a strong first team tommorow. We are secure in the CL spots, so will field strong teams in both cups. Vardy is fine, but we have thin cover defensively.
So The Guardian loses the plot even more than usual today, trying to equivocate the recipients of one of the most generous welfare systems in the world with terrorists.
It’s not quite the woman wanking the dolphin, but it’s pretty close to Peak Guardian.
Since IDS was an even more enthusiastic proponent of intervention in Iraq than Blair and softened up the Tory party for its supine acquiescence with Gulf War II, I think it can safely be said that he's a thoroughly nasty man whose actions had caused unnecessary deaths.
Or alternatively he's a thoroughly decent man whose view at the time of the risks of action versus no action was different from your hindsight.
Really, that was an exceptionally unpleasant post of yours.
Odwas. I think IDS is an exceptionally unpleasant man, and there's always grim entertainment to be had seeing Tories break off from their excoriation of Blair and his criminal responsibility in Iraq for several choruses of 'nothing to do with us guv'.
Actually he's not an unpleasant man at all, quite the opposite. Have you ever met him? Quite apart from anything else, in common with just a few politicians such as Frank Field and Jon Cruddas, he has taken enormous trouble to try to understand how people get trapped in poverty, long-term unemployment and mental illness. It's one thing to disagree with his conclusions (although I expect he knows a lot more about the problems than you do), but it is pure unvarnished prejudice, of which you should be thoroughly ashamed, to impugn his character.
On the specific point of Iraq, yes he was in favour of military action, although we'll never know how much he was influenced by the Blair government's deliberate misinformation. So were many other decent men and women, of all parties, in both the US and the UK.
Indeed and a popular and hardworking local MP to boot, which is why despite Labour and Momentum throwing everything, including hundreds of activists every weekend and even Hugh Grant to try and topple him, he held Chingford and Woodford Green last month
52 Labour MPs have now declared - Starmer 18 Phillips 12 Long Bailey 11 Nandy 7 Lewis 3 Thornberry 1
That's including the candidates nominating themselves, right? So Ms Thornberry hasn't actually got any backing at all so far?
To be fair one saw some unlikely MPs standing for leader of the Conservatives. They might argue (unconvincingly to reasonably convincingly) that standing helped frame the debate and/or give options. Looking at the list above though, what can (or will) Lewis or Thornberry say which will make the MPs (and ultimately the Labour electorate) say, “that’s interesting” and lay down a marker for their future ambition? What is “Lewisism” or “Thornberryism”?
For those convinced that Johnson will retain the northern seats at the next GE, I think you may be disappointed. You might discover that Michael Hesseltine did an amazing job in inner city transformation. Not sure it won a single Tory vote though. The recent election was an anti-Corbyn vote, and those areas hated Corbyn. Provided Labour don't choose someone almost as unelectable as Corbyn (which is possible), the red wall will magically rebuild itself at the next GE. I hope those new shiny Tory MPs have an alternative career plan for 2025!
Many of those strong Leave northern seats cast a pro Boris, pro Brexit vote, not just anti Corbyn, they had huge pro Tory swings.
It was Remain and soft Leave seats in London and the South which mainly stayed Tory because of Corbyn but might give Starmer or Davey a look
So The Guardian loses the plot even more than usual today, trying to equivocate the recipients of one of the most generous welfare systems in the world with terrorists.
It’s not quite the woman wanking the dolphin, but it’s pretty close to Peak Guardian.
Since IDS was an even more enthusiastic proponent of intervention in Iraq than Blair and softened up the Tory party for its supine acquiescence with Gulf War II, I think it can safely be said that he's a thoroughly nasty man whose actions had caused unnecessary deaths.
Or alternatively he's a thoroughly decent man whose view at the time of the risks of action versus no action was different from your hindsight.
Really, that was an exceptionally unpleasant post of yours.
After all the helpful comments from the usual suspects earlier, perhaps the view of someone who actually has a vote in the LD leadership election may be of interest (or it may not).
The Party's problems don't really start or end with the leader unlike Labour's. The core problem is the message not the messenger and even in his New Year message Sir Ed was still talking about "stopping Brexit".
The Party has to grow up and realise the battle is lost - whether we like it or not, the 2016 Referendum result, for all its imperfections, was still a reasonably free and fair vote (and certainly more so than in many other countries). The Party should have taken it on the chin then and there and accepted the will of the people was to leave the EU.
The method and manner of departure was of course not specified and there would be many who would argue for a close and positive relationship post-membership especially in terms of trade but also politically. By abdicating the field to the "hard" Brexiteers, the LDs have made a more distant, antagonistic and economically difficult relationship more likely.
That's the past - I would now support a candidate willing to say the unsayable in terms of our EU membership. Yes, we can argue to rejoin one day once we have left (perfectly credible once we know the terms on which the UK could rejoin) but unless it unravels at once (very unlikely) it only seems fair to give life outside the EU a fair crack
I agree that Ed Davey is wrong to be so hardline on Remain. The problem is that there are too many hardcore Remainers who have joined not the Lib Dems, but the anti-Brexit party. That ship has sailed and the party needs to move to a more nuanced position. Advocating EEA would be the best start, and let's see how things develop. In practice though, culture war doesn't end in compromise.
I will still vote for Ed Davey. Not least because the other candidates haven't moved on yet. Ed is a good media performer, and while not as fresh as Layla is more solidly grounded. More than likely He will be the only party leader with any gravitas by the end of the year, at least in England.
EAA and a CU now, then rejoin 'when the time is right', would be OK.
That would be a quite pointless position. The Lib Dems are not in a position to demand either. Why opt for demanding something that only a handful of niche Leavers want?
Because a hard Brexit has worse consequences for the population of the UK than even leaving and settling for a Norway-type position.
But the Lib Dems should emphatically not give up on rejoining. They need to approach it on a salami basis, pointing out successive absurdities of the death cult and the harm that life in the freezer does to the country. The long term aspiration should absolutely be rejoining, not trying to make the best of a noxious and harmful decision.
I'm sure that will be the LD - and possibly Labour - position in due course. But for now it is necessary to wish the old girl Happy Birthday.
52 Labour MPs have now declared - Starmer 18 Phillips 12 Long Bailey 11 Nandy 7 Lewis 3 Thornberry 1
That's including the candidates nominating themselves, right? So Ms Thornberry hasn't actually got any backing at all so far?
To be fair one saw some unlikely MPs standing for leader of the Conservatives. They might argue (unconvincingly to reasonably convincingly) that standing helped frame the debate and/or give options. Looking at the list above though, what can (or will) Lewis or Thornberry say which will make the MPs (and ultimately the Labour electorate) say, “that’s interesting” and lay down a marker for their future ambition? What is “Lewisism” or “Thornberryism”?
"Thornberryism" has already been defined as sneering metropolitan condescension, towards those too thick to understand the error of ther ways, so why even bother to engage.
52 Labour MPs have now declared - Starmer 18 Phillips 12 Long Bailey 11 Nandy 7 Lewis 3 Thornberry 1
That's including the candidates nominating themselves, right? So Ms Thornberry hasn't actually got any backing at all so far?
To be fair one saw some unlikely MPs standing for leader of the Conservatives. They might argue (unconvincingly to reasonably convincingly) that standing helped frame the debate and/or give options. Looking at the list above though, what can (or will) Lewis or Thornberry say which will make the MPs (and ultimately the Labour electorate) say, “that’s interesting” and lay down a marker for their future ambition? What is “Lewisism” or “Thornberryism”?
Actually Clive Lewis has been saying some distinctive things, although I don't think anyone is taking any notice.
After all the helpful comments from the usual suspects earlier, perhaps the view of someone who actually has a vote in the LD leadership election may be of interest (or it may not).
The Party's problems don't really start or end with the leader unlike Labour's. The core problem is the message not the messenger and even in his New Year message Sir Ed was still talking about "stopping Brexit".
The Party has to grow up and realise the battle is lost - whether we like it or not, the 2016 Referendum result, for all its imperfections, was still a reasonably free and fair vote (and certainly more so than in many other countries). The Party should have taken it on the chin then and there and accepted the will of the people was to leave the EU.
The method and manner of departure was of course not specified and there would be many who would argue for a close and positive relationship post-membership especially in terms of trade but also politically. By abdicating the field to the "hard" Brexiteers, the LDs have made a more distant, antagonistic and economically difficult relationship more likely.
That's the past - I would now support a candidate willing to say the unsayable in terms of our EU membership. Yes, we can argue to rejoin one day once we have left (perfectly credible once we know the terms on which the UK could rejoin) but unless it unravels at once (very unlikely) it only seems fair to give life outside the EU a fair crack
I agree that Ed Davey is wrong to be so hardline on Remain. The problem is that there are too many hardcore Remainers who have joined not the Lib Dems, but the anti-Brexit party. That ship has sailed and the party needs to move to a more nuanced position. Advocating EEA would be the best start, and let's see how things develop. In practice though, culture war doesn't end in compromise.
I will still vote for Ed Davey. Not least because the other candidates haven't moved on yet. Ed is a good media performer, and while not as fresh as Layla is more solidly grounded. More than likely He will be the only party leader with any gravitas by the end of the year, at least in England.
EAA and a CU now, then rejoin 'when the time is right', would be OK.
That would be a quite pointless position. The Lib Dems are not in a position to demand either. Why opt for demanding something that only a handful of niche Leavers want?
Because a hard Brexit has worse consequences for the population of the UK than even leaving and settling for a Norway-type position.
No one wants Norway. The Lib Dems have no agency ton secure it. The only reason for settling for half a loaf is if it is on offer. It isn’t.
After all the helpful comments from the usual suspects earlier, perhaps the view of someone who actually has a vote in the LD leadership election may be of interest (or it may not).
The Party's problems don't really start or end with the leader unlike Labour's. The core problem is the message not the messenger and even in his New Year message Sir Ed was still talking about "stopping Brexit".
The Party has to grow up and realise the battle is lost - whether we like it or not, the 2016 Referendum result, for all its imperfections, was still a reasonably free and fair vote (and certainly more so than in many other countries). The Party should have taken it on the chin then and there and accepted the will of the people was to leave the EU.
The method and manner of departure was of course not specified and there would be many who would argue for a close and positive relationship post-membership especially in terms of trade but also politically. By abdicating the field to the "hard" Brexiteers, the LDs have made a more distant, antagonistic and economically difficult relationship more likely.
That's the past - I would now support a candidate willing to say the unsayable in terms of our EU membership. Yes, we can argue to rejoin one day once we have left (perfectly credible once we know the terms on which the UK could rejoin) but unless it unravels at once (very unlikely) it only seems fair to give life outside the EU a fair crack
I agree that Ed Davey is wrong to be so hardline on Remain. The problem is that there are too many hardcore Remainers who have joined not the Lib Dems, but the anti-Brexit party. That ship has sailed and the party needs to move to a more nuanced position. Advocating EEA would be the best start, and let's see how things develop. In practice though, culture war doesn't end in compromise.
I will still vote for Ed Davey. Not least because the other candidates haven't moved on yet. Ed is a good media performer, and while not as fresh as Layla is more solidly grounded. More than likely He will be the only party leader with any gravitas by the end of the year, at least in England.
EAA and a CU now, then rejoin 'when the time is right', would be OK.
That would be a quite pointless position. The Lib Dems are not in a position to demand either. Why opt for demanding something that only a handful of niche Leavers want?
You look increasingly like Neil Tennant in your profile pictures.
After all the helpful comments from the usual suspects earlier, perhaps the view of someone who actually has a vote in the LD leadership election may be of interest (or it may not).
The Party's problems don't really start or end with the leader unlike Labour's. The core problem is the message not the messenger and even in his New Year message Sir Ed was still talking about "stopping Brexit".
The Party has to grow up and realise the battle is lost - whether we like it or not, the 2016 Referendum result, for all its imperfections, was still a reasonably free and fair vote (and certainly more so than in many other countries). The Party should have taken it on the chin then and there and accepted the will of the people was to leave the EU.
The method and manner of departure was of course not specified and there would be many who would argue for a close and positive relationship post-membership especially in terms of trade but also politically. By abdicating the field to the "hard" Brexiteers, the LDs have made a more distant, antagonistic and economically difficult relationship more likely.
That's the past - I would now support a candidate willing to say the unsayable in terms of our EU membership. Yes, we can argue to rejoin one day once we have left (perfectly credible once we know the terms on which the UK could rejoin) but unless it unravels at once (very unlikely) it only seems fair to give life outside the EU a fair crack
I agree that Ed Davey is wrong to be so hardline on Remain. The problem is that there are too many hardcore Remainers who have joined not the Lib Dems, but the anti-Brexit party. That ship has sailed and the party needs to move to a more nuanced position. Advocating EEA would be the best start, and let's see how things develop. In practice though, culture war doesn't end in compromise.
I will still vote for Ed Davey. Not least because the other candidates haven't moved on yet. Ed is a good media performer, and while not as fresh as Layla is more solidly grounded. More than likely He will be the only party leader with any gravitas by the end of the year, at least in England.
EAA and a CU now, then rejoin 'when the time is right', would be OK.
That would be a quite pointless position. The Lib Dems are not in a position to demand either. Why opt for demanding something that only a handful of niche Leavers want?
You look increasingly like Neil Tennant in your profile pictures.
It’s a sin.
His greater sin is Being Boring.....
As long as we don’t have to suffer his Domino Dancing..
Indeed and a popular and hardworking local MP to boot, which is why despite Labour and Momentum throwing everything, including hundreds of activists every weekend and even Hugh Grant to try and topple him, he held Chingford and Woodford Green last month
My brother knows IDS well and is of the opinion that he is a rather ghastly individual. And my bro is a relaxed and tolerant sort. It's unusual for him to come out with stuff like that. When he met "Boris", for example, he told me that he was very easy to talk to.
Actually he's not an unpleasant man at all, quite the opposite. Have you ever met him? Quite apart from anything else, in common with just a few politicians such as Frank Field and Jon Cruddas, he has taken enormous trouble to try to understand how people get trapped in poverty, long-term unemployment and mental illness. It's one thing to disagree with his conclusions (although I expect he knows a lot more about the problems than you do), but it is pure unvarnished prejudice, of which you should be thoroughly ashamed, to impugn his character.
On the specific point of Iraq, yes he was in favour of military action, although we'll never know how much he was influenced by the Blair government's deliberate misinformation. So were many other decent men and women, of all parties, in both the US and the UK.
Really? We had had time by 2003 to work out what a liar Blair was, and I think that should read "decent, but not overly bright."
Additionally I find this very credible:
THE Prime Minister encouraged Charles Kennedy to be more critical of America’s response to the September 11 terrorist attacks because he found the unquestioning support of Iain Duncan Smith unhelpful when negotiating with President Bush.
He was so contemptuous of the former Conservative leader’s uncritical support for the War on Terror that he dubbed him “Little Sir Echo”.
In private conversations he described the staunch backing of the Opposition as unhelpful to his talks with Mr Bush.
The disclosure is further confirmation that Mr Blair was anxious to restrict military action to the Taleban in Afghanistan after September 11, although some in the US Administration were pushing for immediate action against Iraq.
The Times has learnt that Mr Blair made overtures to Charles Kennedy to…
Duncan Smith should have remembered that the duty of an opposition is to oppose, and that to be conservative is to belief firmly in due process - if the rules say you wait for Blix to report, you bloody wait for Blix to report.
Actually he's not an unpleasant man at all, quite the opposite. Have you ever met him? Quite apart from anything else, in common with just a few politicians such as Frank Field and Jon Cruddas, he has taken enormous trouble to try to understand how people get trapped in poverty, long-term unemployment and mental illness. It's one thing to disagree with his conclusions (although I expect he knows a lot more about the problems than you do), but it is pure unvarnished prejudice, of which you should be thoroughly ashamed, to impugn his character.
On the specific point of Iraq, yes he was in favour of military action, although we'll never know how much he was influenced by the Blair government's deliberate misinformation. So were many other decent men and women, of all parties, in both the US and the UK.
The problem with IDS isn't that he's synonymous with Universal Credit - which, in principle, is a thoroughly sensible idea. It's that somehow an otherwise sane initiative has become inseparable from a cluster of mean-spirited add-ons (like delayed payment), and he's either been too stupid to realise the damage they do or too weak in government to brush them away. I suspect it's a mixture of the two.
The truth is that, as leader, he really wasn't very good and as a lead minister on a sensible policy he turned it from a sane piece of useful technocracy into a left-wing hate object. A more skilled politician would have got the policy defanged - though whether anyone could have managed that with Osborne in full "shaft the poor" mode is debatable
After all the helpful comments from the usual suspects earlier, perhaps the view of someone who actually has a vote in the LD leadership election may be of interest (or it may not).
The Party's problems don't really start or end with the leader unlike Labour's. The core problem is the message not the messenger and even in his New Year message Sir Ed was still talking about "stopping Brexit".
The Party has to grow up and realise the battle is lost - whether we like it or not, the 2016 Referendum result, for all its imperfections, was still a reasonably free and fair vote (and certainly more so than in many other countries). The Party should have taken it on the chin then and there and accepted the will of the people was to leave the EU.
The method and manner of departure was of course not specified and there would be many who would argue for a close and positive relationship post-membership especially in terms of trade but also politically. By abdicating the field to the "hard" Brexiteers, the LDs have made a more distant, antagonistic and economically difficult relationship more likely.
That's the past - I would now support a candidate willing to say the unsayable in terms of our EU membership. Yes, we can argue to rejoin one day once we have left (perfectly credible once we know the terms on which the UK could rejoin) but unless it unravels at once (very unlikely) it only seems fair to give life outside the EU a fair crack
I agree that Ed Davey is wrong to be so hardline on Remain. The
I will still vote for Ed Davey. Not least because the other candidates haven't moved on yet. Ed is a good media performer, and while not as fresh as Layla is more solidly grounded. More than likely He will be the only party leader with any gravitas by the end of the year, at least in England.
EAA and a CU now, then rejoin 'when the time is right', would be OK.
That would be a quite pointless position. The Lib Dems are not in a position to demand either. Why opt for demanding something that only a handful of niche Leavers want?
Because a hard Brexit has worse consequences for the population of the UK than even leaving and settling for a Norway-type position.
No one wants Norway. The Lib Dems have no agency ton secure it. The only reason for settling for half a loaf is if it is on offer. It isn’t.
Since the election both Starmer and leading LDs like Moran habe abandoned Remain in the short term for a Norway style 'closest possible relationship with the EU' post Brexit.
After the Boris landslide returning to the EU is likely off the menu for at least a generation
I think it will be a Leicester vs Man City Final. Man U may get something tonight but are so patchy that anything could happen.
Leicester will put out a strong first team tommorow. We are secure in the CL spots, so will field strong teams in both cups. Vardy is fine, but we have thin cover defensively.
Indeed and a popular and hardworking local MP to boot, which is why despite Labour and Momentum throwing everything, including hundreds of activists every weekend and even Hugh Grant to try and topple him, he held Chingford and Woodford Green last month
My brother knows IDS well and is of the opinion that he is a rather ghastly individual. And my bro is a relaxed and tolerant sort. It's unusual for him to come out with stuff like that. When he met "Boris", for example, he told me that he was very easy to talk to.
Well I have met IDS several times and he is a perfectly decent man who works hard for his constituents even if he lacks the charisma of Boris.
That was why he was re elected despite a ferocious Labour campaign to topple him
The problem with IDS isn't that he's synonymous with Universal Credit - which, in principle, is a thoroughly sensible idea. It's that somehow an otherwise sane initiative has become inseparable from a cluster of mean-spirited add-ons (like delayed payment), and he's either been too stupid to realise the damage they do or too weak in government to brush them away. I suspect it's a mixture of the two.
The truth is that, as leader, he really wasn't very good and as a lead minister on a sensible policy he turned it from a sane piece of useful technocracy into a left-wing hate object. A more skilled politician would have got the policy defanged - though whether anyone could have managed that with Osborne in full "shaft the poor" mode is debatable
On the first point, he resigned because he felt Universal Credit couldn't work with the budget Osborne was allocating to his department, which seems pretty honourable to me.
Of course, yes, he was absolutely useless as a leader. But that doesn't make him a bad man.
I have to say I find that interview infuriating. Jeremy Corbyn raises a string of good points, none of which the interviewer engages with.
Jeremy Corbyn is history. From this point he is of interest only for the points he has to make. Those of us that believe he is fatally compromised morally need not spend more time on that aspect: that argument has ended.
The interviewer should instead have explored the valid points Jeremy Corbyn raises.
Well I have met IDS several times and he is a perfectly decent man, who works hard for his constituents even if he lacks the charisma of Boris.
That was why he was re elected despite a ferocious Labour campaign to topple him
OK, but I'm hardly going to take your word over my brother.
As it happens, TV wise, I've never minded IDS that much. He has a certain dogged low-wattage earnestness which appeals. There are far worse in the Tory menagerie.
I have to say I find that interview infuriating. Jeremy Corbyn raises a string of good points, none of which the interviewer engages with.
Jeremy Corbyn is history. From this point he is of interest only for the points he has to make. Those of us that believe he is fatally compromised morally need not spend more time on that aspect: that argument has ended.
The interviewer should instead have explored the valid points Jeremy Corbyn raises.
Corbyn is hiding behind his view of International Law. He was asked a simple question and refused to answer it.
His responses show, in part, why he isn't trusted on such matters.
Jess Philips has an interesting syntax. I remember on election night being struck by her repeated used of the word 'listical' - meaning, ir seems, of or pertaining to a list. To be fair she had been awake for 48 hours straight by this point.
Indeed and a popular and hardworking local MP to boot, which is why despite Labour and Momentum throwing everything, including hundreds of activists every weekend and even Hugh Grant to try and topple him, he held Chingford and Woodford Green last month
My brother knows IDS well and is of the opinion that he is a rather ghastly individual. And my bro is a relaxed and tolerant sort. It's unusual for him to come out with stuff like that. When he met "Boris", for example, he told me that he was very easy to talk to.
Well I have met IDS several times and he is a perfectly decent man who works hard for his constituents even if he lacks the charisma of Boris.
That was why he was re elected despite a ferocious Labour campaign to topple him
This "I know him personally and..." stuff is of very little help or relevance in judging the public acts of a public figure. It would be of some value if you had known him intimately for decades but without forming any bond with him which would preclude you from betraying any weakness of his to a bunch of internet randomers, and if you had a power of detecting and discounting hypocrisy which actually, nobody does.
The problem with IDS isn't that he's synonymous with Universal Credit - which, in principle, is a thoroughly sensible idea. It's that somehow an otherwise sane initiative has become inseparable from a cluster of mean-spirited add-ons (like delayed payment), and he's either been too stupid to realise the damage they do or too weak in government to brush them away. I suspect it's a mixture of the two.
The truth is that, as leader, he really wasn't very good and as a lead minister on a sensible policy he turned it from a sane piece of useful technocracy into a left-wing hate object. A more skilled politician would have got the policy defanged - though whether anyone could have managed that with Osborne in full "shaft the poor" mode is debatable
On the first point, he resigned because he felt Universal Credit couldn't work with the budget Osborne was allocating to his department, which seems pretty honourable to me.
Of course, yes, he was absolutely useless as a leader. But that doesn't make him a bad man.
The Tories actually polled better under IDS than under Hague, even if he was never going to beat Blair
Indeed and a popular and hardworking local MP to boot, which is why despite Labour and Momentum throwing everything, including hundreds of activists every weekend and even Hugh Grant to try and topple him, he held Chingford and Woodford Green last month
My brother knows IDS well and is of the opinion that he is a rather ghastly individual. And my bro is a relaxed and tolerant sort. It's unusual for him to come out with stuff like that. When he met "Boris", for example, he told me that he was very easy to talk to.
Well I have met IDS several times and he is a perfectly decent man who works hard for his constituents even if he lacks the charisma of Boris.
That was why he was re elected despite a ferocious Labour campaign to topple him
This "I know him personally and..." stuff is of very little help or relevance in judging the public acts of a public figure. It would be of some value if you had known him intimately for decades but without forming any bond with him which would preclude you from betraying any weakness of his to a bunch of internet randomers, and if you had a power of detecting and discounting hypocrisy which actually, nobody does.
And it would be of value if leftwingers with ideological axes to grind against IDS did not use that to malign his character
52 Labour MPs have now declared - Starmer 18 Phillips 12 Long Bailey 11 Nandy 7 Lewis 3 Thornberry 1
Over a quarter of the electorate. Margin of error?
Lewis and Thornberry can give up.
Surprisingly high returns for Jess. She might actually make the ballot at this rate (I wasn’t expecting her to).
If following MPs nominations the CLPs are restricted to a choice between only 4 potential leaders, it would I think increase the chances of one or both of Nandy and Phillips reaching the 5% of CLPs nomination threshold to get onto the members ballot.
And in turn, having Phillips there on the members ballot to act as a hate figure for the far left might be quite helpful to Starmer, distracting their fire and allowing him to present himself as a candidate able to unify both wings. I also think that a number of Labour members wanting a woman leader would be more inclined to put Starmer as 2nd/3rd preference ahead of RLB, if they could still vote for Phillips or Nandy as their 1st preference.
I have to say I find that interview infuriating. Jeremy Corbyn raises a string of good points, none of which the interviewer engages with.
Jeremy Corbyn is history. From this point he is of interest only for the points he has to make. Those of us that believe he is fatally compromised morally need not spend more time on that aspect: that argument has ended.
The interviewer should instead have explored the valid points Jeremy Corbyn raises.
Corbyn is hiding behind his view of International Law. He was asked a simple question and refused to answer it.
His responses show, in part, why he isn't trusted on such matters.
Let’s assume that you’re right on all points. So what? He’s history.
So the only interesting thing are his points. They should have been properly discussed. Because they are of great interest in their own right.
I have to say I find that interview infuriating. Jeremy Corbyn raises a string of good points, none of which the interviewer engages with.
Jeremy Corbyn is history. From this point he is of interest only for the points he has to make. Those of us that believe he is fatally compromised morally need not spend more time on that aspect: that argument has ended.
The interviewer should instead have explored the valid points Jeremy Corbyn raises.
Perhaps they would have if he had not doggedly avoided the thrust of the main question - by doing so, the interviewer tried to pin him down and ignored the other things Corbyn was saying. If he'd addressed that point, while making the rest of his points, perhaps the interviewer would have then spent time on follow ups rather than reasking the same thing.
It's not certain they would have, interviewers and politicians share blame for how poor most interviews are through delibate evasion and obfuscation or an interviewer on the hunt for a gotcha headline, but since the interviewer is the one asking questions, it would seem to be up to the politician to figure out how to get their point across whilst not giving the interviewer the impression they are ignoring the question to make their own point, since that will only encourage the interviewer to become hostile.
I have to say I find that interview infuriating. Jeremy Corbyn raises a string of good points, none of which the interviewer engages with.
Jeremy Corbyn is history. From this point he is of interest only for the points he has to make. Those of us that believe he is fatally compromised morally need not spend more time on that aspect: that argument has ended.
The interviewer should instead have explored the valid points Jeremy Corbyn raises.
Corbyn is hiding behind his view of International Law. He was asked a simple question and refused to answer it.
His responses show, in part, why he isn't trusted on such matters.
Let’s assume that you’re right on all points. So what? He’s history.
Comments
Thanks for your thoughts and I hope your vision of the LD comes to pass, It would give me grate happiness to be able to vote for that at the next GE:
'a proper devolution of power and responsibility down to existing local authorities combined with sound financial management'
Music to my ears,
Phillips has plenty of personality. But I don't see her as a policy creator.
I am not sure who has the right blend - certainly none of the current declared candidates.
I think IDS is an exceptionally unpleasant man, and there's always grim entertainment to be had seeing Tories break off from their excoriation of Blair and his criminal responsibility in Iraq for several choruses of 'nothing to do with us guv'.
That base dooesn't exist any more, and neither do (often ex-shop floor) representatives. Its a middle class party now.
That's a question for another day - trying to "stop" Brexit now is impossible given the Parliamentary numbers.
I think it would have been smart politics to have accepted the result in 2016 and campaigned for BINO once the WA was passed and allowed the fissures in the Conservative Party to work through.
I will still vote for Ed Davey. Not least because the other candidates haven't moved on yet. Ed is a good media performer, and while not as fresh as Layla is more solidly grounded. More than likely He will be the only party leader with any gravitas by the end of the year, at least in England.
The Lib Dems should be positioning themselves as the consistently pro-EU force of British politics, consistently arguing for closer co-operation and integration at every stage. They will have plenty of opportunities to point out the drawbacks of life in the freezer.
Starmer is the epitome of the metropolitan elite -a technocrat, a high flying lawyer. Not a man of the people. Not someone you would want to chat to over coffee or in the pub.
Strangely, I thought the 2019 LD Manifesto was, Brexit aside, a strong policy programme with plenty of good ideas which Johnson's Conservatives can steal and implement.
On the specific point of Iraq, yes he was in favour of military action, although we'll never know how much he was influenced by the Blair government's deliberate misinformation. So were many other decent men and women, of all parties, in both the US and the UK.
The other problem was whatever the laws of "revoke if we win a majority", there was little or no response to the question of what would happen if a second referendum were held and LEAVE prevailed again. There was a sense (which I detected) the Party would not accept such a vote and that's just plain wrong.
Democracy isn't fair or easy - some days you get to be the pigeon, most days you get to be the statue.
'In November 2001, he was one of the first politicians to call for an invasion of Iraq and held talks in Washington, DC, with senior US officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice and Paul Wolfowitz'
'Tories on Iraq' is one of the signature pieces in my ever expanding collection of hypocrisies.
I can't see Jess Phillips winning, as Nick P pointed out earlier today there is just too much dislike of her amongst party members because she had the temerity to say a few true things about Corbyn, and without mincing her words.
https://twitter.com/NatashaC/status/1214604006317838336
The hypocrisy is entirely yours.
👏
But if more people had listened to warnings about Saddam, it might have saved Kurdish children from being gassed and the Marsh Arabs from being near wiped-out. Maybe you don't care about them?
While it is amusing when our opponents pick total turkeys (Corbyn, Johnson, May, Leonard, Murphy, Lamont, McConnell, Dugdale, Alexander, Rennie, Swinson, Clegg etc ad infinitum), it is not in the interests of the Scottish nation. In order to dissolve the Union in a mutually beneficial fashion it is in all our interests to have competent, intelligent leaders in Edinburgh and London; and Dublin, Belfast, Cardiff, Brussels, Washington etc.
I may be wrong, but Starmer strikes me as having good potential. RLB is just another total turkey.
It’s a sin.
I think it will be a Leicester vs Man City Final. Man U may get something tonight but are so patchy that anything could happen.
Leicester will put out a strong first team tommorow. We are secure in the CL spots, so will field strong teams in both cups. Vardy is fine, but we have thin cover defensively.
It was Remain and soft Leave seats in London and the South which mainly stayed Tory because of Corbyn but might give Starmer or Davey a look
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1214617148917727232
Is it a term for an exotic form of congress?
Additionally I find this very credible:
THE Prime Minister encouraged Charles Kennedy to be more critical of America’s response to the September 11 terrorist attacks because he found the unquestioning support of Iain Duncan Smith unhelpful when negotiating with President Bush.
He was so contemptuous of the former Conservative leader’s uncritical support for the War on Terror that he dubbed him “Little Sir Echo”.
In private conversations he described the staunch backing of the Opposition as unhelpful to his talks with Mr Bush.
The disclosure is further confirmation that Mr Blair was anxious to restrict military action to the Taleban in Afghanistan after September 11, although some in the US Administration were pushing for immediate action against Iraq.
The Times has learnt that Mr Blair made overtures to Charles Kennedy to…
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/blair-scorned-tory-little-sir-echo-support-for-war-krzx20hl0pp
Duncan Smith should have remembered that the duty of an opposition is to oppose, and that to be conservative is to belief firmly in due process - if the rules say you wait for Blix to report, you bloody wait for Blix to report.
The truth is that, as leader, he really wasn't very good and as a lead minister on a sensible policy he turned it from a sane piece of useful technocracy into a left-wing hate object. A more skilled politician would have got the policy defanged - though whether anyone could have managed that with Osborne in full "shaft the poor" mode is debatable
After the Boris landslide returning to the EU is likely off the menu for at least a generation
That was why he was re elected despite a ferocious Labour campaign to topple him
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1214619621443211265
There is the minor objection that I’m not an MP. Or a Lib Dem.
Of course, yes, he was absolutely useless as a leader. But that doesn't make him a bad man.
Jeremy Corbyn is history. From this point he is of interest only for the points he has to make. Those of us that believe he is fatally compromised morally need not spend more time on that aspect: that argument has ended.
The interviewer should instead have explored the valid points Jeremy Corbyn raises.
Once a friend of Iran, always a friend of Iran
As it happens, TV wise, I've never minded IDS that much. He has a certain dogged low-wattage earnestness which appeals. There are far worse in the Tory menagerie.
His responses show, in part, why he isn't trusted on such matters.
To be fair she had been awake for 48 hours straight by this point.
Stephen Clements (Former Radio Presenter) has sadly passed away at the age of 47.
https://twitter.com/wjcchippy92/status/1214555029438259200
And in turn, having Phillips there on the members ballot to act as a hate figure for the far left might be quite helpful to Starmer, distracting their fire and allowing him to present himself as a candidate able to unify both wings. I also think that a number of Labour members wanting a woman leader would be more inclined to put Starmer as 2nd/3rd preference ahead of RLB, if they could still vote for Phillips or Nandy as their 1st preference.
So the only interesting thing are his points. They should have been properly discussed. Because they are of great interest in their own right.
It's not certain they would have, interviewers and politicians share blame for how poor most interviews are through delibate evasion and obfuscation or an interviewer on the hunt for a gotcha headline, but since the interviewer is the one asking questions, it would seem to be up to the politician to figure out how to get their point across whilst not giving the interviewer the impression they are ignoring the question to make their own point, since that will only encourage the interviewer to become hostile.
https://twitter.com/johnmcdonnellMP/status/1214608892853968903?s=20
But, I’m hesitating. I fear this will end in Schadenbetfred.