If so, and I'm sceptical as to how checks won't be required, how's Boris going to get out of this when the time comes? Hope everyone has forgotten/doesn't notice? Use a definition a 'checks' no one was previously familiar with? Blame the Irish?
Can anyone convince me that RLB is not a massive lay at 5.5 (or thereabouts)?
Her price is coming in as the Unite nomination meeting progresses. So wait a bit until she inevitably gets the Unite nomination, then lay her at better odds.
If so, and I'm sceptical as to how checks won't be required, how's Boris going to get out of this when the time comes? Hope everyone has forgotten/doesn't notice? Use a definition a 'checks' no one was previously familiar with? Blame the Irish?
I think it's quite straightforward. Traders will have to fill in the forms. No-one will check them and no-one will check the goods in transit. What's not to like?
Star Alliance is a go! Unsurprisingly I wasn't the only one irritated with BA. That's a huge corporate account with regular flights to Asia and North America plus personal flights of everyone eligible to use their own executive club number. The girl who books our flights is doing the numbers but the cost to BA looks about £30-35k per month in business flights from the company plus the people who switch their personal flights as well.
Woman not 'girl' you sexist twat.
Lol, you go and call her "woman" and I'll just stand by and watch. You know fuck all about fuck all as usual.
Mock outrage. An annoying and worrying trend. The need to "correct" people in this way is, of course, impolite in itself - I`m sure you, MaxPB, were saddened by the jibe (even if only temporarily).
If so, and I'm sceptical as to how checks won't be required, how's Boris going to get out of this when the time comes? Hope everyone has forgotten/doesn't notice? Use a definition a 'checks' no one was previously familiar with? Blame the Irish?
The simplest option is to continue to say there are no checks and to either simply deny or to say what is put in place aren't checks and don't count.
I must admit I find the confusion on his strategy a bit odd given he's had this situation repeatedly and always done the same thing. The head of the UK statistical authority wrote to him about the £350m line and he just repeated it. Likewise with a bunch of other things.
"Dude" has no place in banter over here. Although it's marginally better than "Chief". Best to steer away from all that sort of thing, IMO, even "pal" or "mate". About the only one I don't mind hearing - or even saying myself - is "big boy". That can be just about OK, depending.
Star Alliance is a go! Unsurprisingly I wasn't the only one irritated with BA. That's a huge corporate account with regular flights to Asia and North America plus personal flights of everyone eligible to use their own executive club number. The girl who books our flights is doing the numbers but the cost to BA looks about £30-35k per month in business flights from the company plus the people who switch their personal flights as well.
Woman not 'girl' you sexist twat.
Lol, you go and call her "woman" and I'll just stand by and watch. You know fuck all about fuck all as usual.
Normally guys who aggressively ‘pick up’ others on words like that turn out to be a bit of a secret chauvinist themselves, so I wouldn’t worry too much about it.
Can anyone convince me that RLB is not a massive lay at 5.5 (or thereabouts)?
I am not trying to convince you, but I'd be wary of the fact that all the people with the down on her are desperate for Corbyn's Labour to be consigned to the dustbin
That said, someone I know who is a Corbyn fan, and a shrewd gambler, reckons she can probably only win if she wins the first round, so I would like to see prices on that
Isam, my underestanding is that there are no "rounds" as such. Maybe I`m wrong?
I think that the members only vote once, ranking their preferences. There is no opportunity for further campaigning between eliminations. If RLB won on first preferences but failed to get over or near 50% then she will not IMO win because the lion`s share of the second prefs from whoever came third would likely go to whoever came second.
Therefore, if my logic holds, if RLB gets around 35% of first prefs (as I expect), she has no chance of winning the contest.
I think I`ve understood the process correctly, but please correct me if I have something wrong.
Nope. It’s looking more and more like a two house race between Starmer and Nandy.
Yes. RLB will get few prefs so as @isam says you may as well back her at longer odds to win on the 1st ballot. Better to just lay her in the main market, though, since she is not winning.
Nandy can do it but to do so she has to beat RLB for 2nd with Starmer not too close to 50. It's a long shot but it can happen.
"Dude" has no place in banter over here. Although it's marginally better than "Chief". Best to steer away from all that sort of thing, IMO, even "pal" or "mate". About the only one I don't mind hearing - or even saying myself - is "big boy". That can be just about OK, depending.
Well yes ... depending.
Being called "big boy" when I was last in the Admiral Duncan in Old Compton Street by a six foot guy in a leather trousers was rather concerning. Whereas being called "big boy" by my wife is most welcome (though only ever heard in jest).
Lisa Nandy is the only Labour candidate who doesn’t scare me: a right-wing Tory.
Now, I’m savvy enough to recognise she’s actually quite left-wing, and I very much doubt I’d enjoy her period in office, but if that’s how I’m feeling viscerally now it’d be enough to have a real shot at winning a GE.
This is if we go with the strategy of winning by convincing lots of moderates and apoliticals to vote Lib Dem because they do not fear us anymore. Winning in this case meaning largest party in a hung parliament.
It might be the best pragmatic approach but it's hardly inspiring.
Lisa Nandy is the only Labour candidate who doesn’t scare me: a right-wing Tory.
Now, I’m savvy enough to recognise she’s actually quite left-wing, and I very much doubt I’d enjoy her period in office, but if that’s how I’m feeling viscerally now it’d be enough to have a real shot at winning a GE.
Isn't this positivity purely because you fancy her?
Lisa Nandy is the only Labour candidate who doesn’t scare me: a right-wing Tory.
Now, I’m savvy enough to recognise she’s actually quite left-wing, and I very much doubt I’d enjoy her period in office, but if that’s how I’m feeling viscerally now it’d be enough to have a real shot at winning a GE.
Isn't this positivity purely because you fancy her?
Isam, my underestanding is that there are no "rounds" as such. Maybe I`m wrong?
I think that the members only vote once, ranking their preferences. There is no opportunity for further campaigning between eliminations. If RLB won on first preferences but failed to get over or near 50% then she will not IMO win because the lion`s share of the second prefs from whoever came third would likely go to whoever came second.
Therefore, if my logic holds, if RLB gets around 35% of first prefs (as I expect), she has no chance of winning the contest.
I think I`ve understood the process correctly, but please correct me if I have something wrong.
You're right but the computer will do iterative "rounds" - and the data will be available - so it would be possible to make a market on somebody winning (i.e. getting over 50%) in the 1st "round".
"Dude" has no place in banter over here. Although it's marginally better than "Chief". Best to steer away from all that sort of thing, IMO, even "pal" or "mate". About the only one I don't mind hearing - or even saying myself - is "big boy". That can be just about OK, depending.
Well yes ... depending.
Being called "big boy" when I was last in the Admiral Duncan in Old Compton Street by a six foot guy in a leather trousers was rather concerning. Whereas being called "big boy" by my wife is most welcome (though only ever heard in jest).
She could just be referring to the train? Yes, there is a historic steam engine called a "Big Boy"
Lisa Nandy is the only Labour candidate who doesn’t scare me: a right-wing Tory.
Now, I’m savvy enough to recognise she’s actually quite left-wing, and I very much doubt I’d enjoy her period in office, but if that’s how I’m feeling viscerally now it’d be enough to have a real shot at winning a GE.
This is if we go with the strategy of winning by convincing lots of moderates and apoliticals to vote Lib Dem because they do not fear us anymore. Winning in this case meaning largest party in a hung parliament.
It might be the best pragmatic approach but it's hardly inspiring.
Look at what the Tories have achieved for their side since ending up the largest party in a hung Parliament 10 years ago...
"Dude" has no place in banter over here. Although it's marginally better than "Chief". Best to steer away from all that sort of thing, IMO, even "pal" or "mate". About the only one I don't mind hearing - or even saying myself - is "big boy". That can be just about OK, depending.
If so, and I'm sceptical as to how checks won't be required, how's Boris going to get out of this when the time comes? Hope everyone has forgotten/doesn't notice? Use a definition a 'checks' no one was previously familiar with? Blame the Irish?
"Dude" has no place in banter over here. Although it's marginally better than "Chief". Best to steer away from all that sort of thing, IMO, even "pal" or "mate". About the only one I don't mind hearing - or even saying myself - is "big boy". That can be just about OK, depending.
Well yes ... depending.
Being called "big boy" when I was last in the Admiral Duncan in Old Compton Street by a six foot guy in a leather trousers was rather concerning. Whereas being called "big boy" by my wife is most welcome (though only ever heard in jest).
She could just be referring to the train? Yes, there is a historic steam engine called a "Big Boy"
"Dude" has no place in banter over here. Although it's marginally better than "Chief". Best to steer away from all that sort of thing, IMO, even "pal" or "mate". About the only one I don't mind hearing - or even saying myself - is "big boy". That can be just about OK, depending.
SeanT Byronic uses "dude" from time to time...
Depending on intonation, it can be a term of approbation.
Isam, my underestanding is that there are no "rounds" as such. Maybe I`m wrong?
I think that the members only vote once, ranking their preferences. There is no opportunity for further campaigning between eliminations. If RLB won on first preferences but failed to get over or near 50% then she will not IMO win because the lion`s share of the second prefs from whoever came third would likely go to whoever came second.
Therefore, if my logic holds, if RLB gets around 35% of first prefs (as I expect), she has no chance of winning the contest.
I think I`ve understood the process correctly, but please correct me if I have something wrong.
You're right but the computer will do iterative "rounds" - and the data will be available - so it would be possible to make a market on somebody winning (i.e. getting over 50%) in the 1st "round".
It's an AV vote, so one round of voting but as many rounds of counting as are necessary for someone to get over 50%. They'll publish the full results, so yes it should be possible to bet on the round totals or order of elimination.
"Dude" has no place in banter over here. Although it's marginally better than "Chief". Best to steer away from all that sort of thing, IMO, even "pal" or "mate". About the only one I don't mind hearing - or even saying myself - is "big boy". That can be just about OK, depending.
Well yes ... depending.
Being called "big boy" when I was last in the Admiral Duncan in Old Compton Street by a six foot guy in a leather trousers was rather concerning. Whereas being called "big boy" by my wife is most welcome (though only ever heard in jest).
She could just be referring to the train? Yes, there is a historic steam engine called a "Big Boy"
I find myself saying "darling" - a real luvvy! At least I don't call my female acquaintances "little baby".
Yes, Graham Norton might be a big star and favourite for next Bond but I can't see that "little baby" thing taking off. It's creepy.
I think you mean James Norton, not Graham. He would be at least more of a Roger Moore type Bond than Elba or Madden who would be similar to Craig in style
"Dude" has no place in banter over here. Although it's marginally better than "Chief". Best to steer away from all that sort of thing, IMO, even "pal" or "mate". About the only one I don't mind hearing - or even saying myself - is "big boy". That can be just about OK, depending.
All that really matters is whether the term used is motivated by genuine or faux friendliness.
Star Alliance is a go! Unsurprisingly I wasn't the only one irritated with BA. That's a huge corporate account with regular flights to Asia and North America plus personal flights of everyone eligible to use their own executive club number. The girl who books our flights is doing the numbers but the cost to BA looks about £30-35k per month in business flights from the company plus the people who switch their personal flights as well.
Woman not 'girl' you sexist twat.
Lol, you go and call her "woman" and I'll just stand by and watch. You know fuck all about fuck all as usual.
The comment was in reference to your third person usage, so your reply displays a sore ignorance of basic grammar...
Lisa Nandy is the only Labour candidate who doesn’t scare me: a right-wing Tory.
Now, I’m savvy enough to recognise she’s actually quite left-wing, and I very much doubt I’d enjoy her period in office, but if that’s how I’m feeling viscerally now it’d be enough to have a real shot at winning a GE.
Starmer doesn't scare me either, certainly not like Corbyn or Long Bailey would and he also at least has some gravitas unlike Nandy
Surely there weren't any Remainers clinging to the dream they might block Brexit?
I think the line is ‘we always thought this would happen, and on the EU’s terms” and they’ve now moved on to putting on their football colours again ready to cheer the EU on from the sidelines during the next phase of the negotiations.
Which is going to lead to the EU having the (over)confidence not to back down on issues the government politically can't accept, leading to a much more distant relationship. Remainers have shot ourselves in the foot consistently throughout this process. All the while insisting on moral superiority which blinds us to the fact we keep losing. It is like the Corbynites.
Lisa Nandy is the only Labour candidate who doesn’t scare me: a right-wing Tory.
Now, I’m savvy enough to recognise she’s actually quite left-wing, and I very much doubt I’d enjoy her period in office, but if that’s how I’m feeling viscerally now it’d be enough to have a real shot at winning a GE.
This is if we go with the strategy of winning by convincing lots of moderates and apoliticals to vote Lib Dem because they do not fear us anymore. Winning in this case meaning largest party in a hung parliament.
It might be the best pragmatic approach but it's hardly inspiring.
Even if Labour matched the 96 seat gains Cameron got in 2010 at the next general election, which would also be after 13+ years in opposition, they would still not get a majority as like Cameron they would be starting on barely more than 200 seats so would need the LDs backing to form a Government, also as Cameron did
Being called "big boy" when I was last in the Admiral Duncan in Old Compton Street by a six foot guy in a leather trousers was rather concerning. Whereas being called "big boy" by my wife is most welcome (though only ever heard in jest).
That is creative but it sets up so many reply options that I find myself oddly paralyzed. Thus - albeit with a trace of regret - we move on.
If so, and I'm sceptical as to how checks won't be required, how's Boris going to get out of this when the time comes? Hope everyone has forgotten/doesn't notice? Use a definition a 'checks' no one was previously familiar with? Blame the Irish?
Those checks will be hard treaty obligations once the Withdrawal Agreement is signed. Johnson either has no intention of implementing his treaty or he is lying to the people of Northern Ireland and the UK about what he's signed up to. It will go badly either way.
Look at what the Tories have achieved for their side since ending up the largest party in a hung Parliament 10 years ago...
Yes, but with a freakish chain of events. It might well be that a lurch back to "tinkerism" is the only way to stop the electoral rot but I am not convinced of that. With Brexit out of the equation the next GE will be a whole different ballgame.
Lisa Nandy is the only Labour candidate who doesn’t scare me: a right-wing Tory.
Now, I’m savvy enough to recognise she’s actually quite left-wing, and I very much doubt I’d enjoy her period in office, but if that’s how I’m feeling viscerally now it’d be enough to have a real shot at winning a GE.
This is if we go with the strategy of winning by convincing lots of moderates and apoliticals to vote Lib Dem because they do not fear us anymore. Winning in this case meaning largest party in a hung parliament.
It might be the best pragmatic approach but it's hardly inspiring.
I see what you mean. But for me, the fact that people on the right don't loathe her as much as they do other candidates, despite the fact that she is probably left of Starmer, Thornberry and Phillips, is a happy by-product of what I think is morally good about her. That is, her willingness to engage constructively with her opponents, without compromising on Labour's principles, rather than simply shout at them or ignore them.
One here, someone on the right tried to dismiss her by saying something like "Nandy's platform is that we should be nicer to the working class when we tell them that they're wrong". Of course that's not true, but someone who ran on such a platform would probably get my second preference, behind Nandy.
As a gesture of solidarity I am not only banning the use of plastic bags but in addition making every effort within reason and where practicable to avoid bombing and machine gunning families with small children.
Look at what the Tories have achieved for their side since ending up the largest party in a hung Parliament 10 years ago...
Yes, but with a freakish chain of events. It might well be that a lurch back to "tinkerism" is the only way to stop the electoral rot but I am not convinced of that. With Brexit out of the equation the next GE will be a whole different ballgame.
Indeed. Many natural Tories will return from the LibDems.....
As a gesture of solidarity I am not only banning the use of plastic bags but in addition making every effort within reason and where practicable to avoid bombing and machine gunning families with small children.
I'm still not convinced. You said nothing about protecting rare trees.
I think you mean James Norton, not Graham. He would be at least more of a Roger Moore type Bond than Elba or Madden who would be similar to Craig in style
Yes, my mistake, I was typing in Waitrose. Graham Norton as Bond? As if.
Agree that (James) Norton would be smoother than the average Bond. And I think he would be good too. But Idris Elba, for me, would be the best choice.
Even if Labour matched the 96 seat gains Cameron got in 2010 at the next general election, which would also be after 13+ years in opposition, they would still not get a majority as like Cameron they would be starting on barely more than 200 seats so would need the LDs backing to form a Government, also as Cameron did
Lisa Nandy is the only Labour candidate who doesn’t scare me: a right-wing Tory.
Now, I’m savvy enough to recognise she’s actually quite left-wing, and I very much doubt I’d enjoy her period in office, but if that’s how I’m feeling viscerally now it’d be enough to have a real shot at winning a GE.
This is if we go with the strategy of winning by convincing lots of moderates and apoliticals to vote Lib Dem because they do not fear us anymore. Winning in this case meaning largest party in a hung parliament.
It might be the best pragmatic approach but it's hardly inspiring.
I see what you mean. But for me, the fact that people on the right don't loathe her as much as they do other candidates, despite the fact that she is probably left of Starmer, Thornberry and Phillips, is a happy by-product of what I think is morally good about her. That is, her willingness to engage constructively with her opponents, without compromising on Labour's principles, rather than simply shout at them or ignore them.
One here, someone on the right tried to dismiss her by saying something like "Nandy's platform is that we should be nicer to the working class when we tell them that they're wrong". Of course that's not true, but someone who ran on such a platform would probably get my second preference, behind Nandy.
Stating the obvious - but is it obvious to the Labour membership? - their winning candidate has to win votes in large numbers from: Labour abstainers, Tories, voters who now vote Tory because there is then no risk of being kissed by Laura Pidcock but used to vote Labour, SNP voters, LDs, people over 50, people over 60, people over 75 and so on. Without all of these they can't win the 120+ seats they need. And they need to keep most of the extraordinary coalition of axe grinders, payroll vote and shroud wavers who vote Labour now.
Is there any effort by Labour to find out who the voters they must win want? I don't think the fact that Jess P has already dropped out is the best possible sign.
I think you mean James Norton, not Graham. He would be at least more of a Roger Moore type Bond than Elba or Madden who would be similar to Craig in style
Yes, my mistake, I was typing in Waitrose. Graham Norton as Bond? As if.
Agree that (James) Norton would be smoother than the average Bond. And I think he would be good too. But Idris Elba, for me, would be the best choice.
Idris Elba is only 4 years younger than Dan Craig. In SPECTRE, Dan Craig was already looking like the love interest's dad......and that was five years ago.
Regarding the claim in the thread header: "What is clear is that those constituencies which nominated Corbyn in both 2015 and 2016 are sticking with with his chosen successor Long-Bailey while those that didn’t nominate in the last two leadership elections or went with candidates other than Corbyn are getting behind Starmer or Nandy."
However, having done the maths comparing current with 2016 nominations, I think the picture is far more bleak for RLB than the header suggests. She has picked up only 15% of the nominations in the constituencies that went for Corbyn in 2016. So there has indeed been a big change of heart since 2016 amongst those attending nomination meetings, and I can't see any obvious reason why that trend wouldn't be replicated in the wider membership.
The data: Of the 20 constituencies which nominated Corbyn in 2016, 13 have nominated Starmer, 3 RLB, 2 Nandy and 2 Thornberry. Of the 25 which didn't nominate at all in 2016, 16 nominated Starmer, 4 RLB, 4 Nandy, 1 Thornberry. Of the 4 which nominated Smith in 2016, 3 nominated Starmer, 1 Nandy.
What's this about Mrs Bucket and her kids school being a selective (not) comprehensive one. All I caught on R5 early this morning was her going full on "yes, but no, but yes, but I defend my right to trample over everybody else for my kids".
All that really matters is whether the term used is motivated by genuine or faux friendliness.
That is the main thing, I agree.
But caveat. There are people out there who get familiar and friendly at a point in time which is quite a bit sooner than the recipient (of it) is comfortable with.
This is where one of the most important human qualities - empathy - hopefully comes into play and a suitable distance is restored.
As a gesture of solidarity I am not only banning the use of plastic bags but in addition making every effort within reason and where practicable to avoid bombing and machine gunning families with small children.
I'm still not convinced. You said nothing about protecting rare trees.
Would a promise not to blow up Kew Gardens suffice?
"In 2015, Michael Cockerell documented their relationship when, after retiring early for undisclosed reasons, Bercow abandoned the tradition of hosting a retirement do for Rogers. Choosing instead to host a rock concert in Speaker’s House…"
And Bercow now has the balls to complain about how the government isn't following the traditions of the House.
Lisa Nandy is the only Labour candidate who doesn’t scare me: a right-wing Tory.
Now, I’m savvy enough to recognise she’s actually quite left-wing, and I very much doubt I’d enjoy her period in office, but if that’s how I’m feeling viscerally now it’d be enough to have a real shot at winning a GE.
This is if we go with the strategy of winning by convincing lots of moderates and apoliticals to vote Lib Dem because they do not fear us anymore. Winning in this case meaning largest party in a hung parliament.
It might be the best pragmatic approach but it's hardly inspiring.
I see what you mean. But for me, the fact that people on the right don't loathe her as much as they do other candidates, despite the fact that she is probably left of Starmer, Thornberry and Phillips, is a happy by-product of what I think is morally good about her. That is, her willingness to engage constructively with her opponents, without compromising on Labour's principles, rather than simply shout at them or ignore them.
One here, someone on the right tried to dismiss her by saying something like "Nandy's platform is that we should be nicer to the working class when we tell them that they're wrong". Of course that's not true, but someone who ran on such a platform would probably get my second preference, behind Nandy.
Stating the obvious - but is it obvious to the Labour membership? - their winning candidate has to win votes in large numbers from: Labour abstainers, Tories, voters who now vote Tory because there is then no risk of being kissed by Laura Pidcock but used to vote Labour, SNP voters, LDs, people over 50, people over 60, people over 75 and so on. Without all of these they can't win the 120+ seats they need. And they need to keep most of the extraordinary coalition of axe grinders, payroll vote and shroud wavers who vote Labour now.
Is there any effort by Labour to find out who the voters they must win want? I don't think the fact that Jess P has already dropped out is the best possible sign.
You forgot anti-semites in Labour's coalition. Lose them and they have to find a new cohort to replace them.
Star Alliance is a go! Unsurprisingly I wasn't the only one irritated with BA. That's a huge corporate account with regular flights to Asia and North America plus personal flights of everyone eligible to use their own executive club number. The girl who books our flights is doing the numbers but the cost to BA looks about £30-35k per month in business flights from the company plus the people who switch their personal flights as well.
Woman not 'girl' you sexist twat.
Inyeresting question .. when does a girl.become a woman.?
And then, where does "lass" fit in?
Anywhere above Sheffield and below Gretna I imagine (though it is also used in the Doric in Scotland).
(Stealing Ricky Gervis joke) at least when they set up a streaming service all the luuvies can point to their green credentials when they sign up for their channel.
Regarding the claim in the thread header: "What is clear is that those constituencies which nominated Corbyn in both 2015 and 2016 are sticking with with his chosen successor Long-Bailey while those that didn’t nominate in the last two leadership elections or went with candidates other than Corbyn are getting behind Starmer or Nandy."
However, having done the maths comparing current with 2016 nominations, I think the picture is far more bleak for RLB than the header suggests. She has picked up only 15% of the nominations in the constituencies that went for Corbyn in 2016. So there has indeed been a big change of heart since 2016 amongst those attending nomination meetings, and I can't see any obvious reason why that trend wouldn't be replicated in the wider membership.
The data: Of the 20 constituencies which nominated Corbyn in 2016, 13 have nominated Starmer, 3 RLB, 2 Nandy and 2 Thornberry. Of the 25 which didn't nominate at all in 2016, 16 nominated Starmer, 4 RLB, 4 Nandy, 1 Thornberry. Of the 4 which nominated Smith in 2016, 3 nominated Starmer, 1 Nandy.
Doesnt the fact that only 20 constituencies nominated Corbyn (out of 600 odd?) and he won, make that data less meaningful than it might appear?
These Momentumites and their fellow travellers have redefined the word Socialist. Basically, unless you spent 30 years in the SWP before joining Labour in 2016, you aren't a Socialist.
As a gesture of solidarity I am not only banning the use of plastic bags but in addition making every effort within reason and where practicable to avoid bombing and machine gunning families with small children.
These Momentumites and their fellow travellers have redefined the word Socialist. Basically, unless you spent 30 years in the SWP before joining Labour in 2016, you aren't a Socialist.
You clearly should just f##k off and join the Tories ;-)
Lisa Nandy is the only Labour candidate who doesn’t scare me: a right-wing Tory.
Now, I’m savvy enough to recognise she’s actually quite left-wing, and I very much doubt I’d enjoy her period in office, but if that’s how I’m feeling viscerally now it’d be enough to have a real shot at winning a GE.
This is if we go with the strategy of winning by convincing lots of moderates and apoliticals to vote Lib Dem because they do not fear us anymore. Winning in this case meaning largest party in a hung parliament.
It might be the best pragmatic approach but it's hardly inspiring.
I see what you mean. But for me, the fact that people on the right don't loathe her as much as they do other candidates, despite the fact that she is probably left of Starmer, Thornberry and Phillips, is a happy by-product of what I think is morally good about her. That is, her willingness to engage constructively with her opponents, without compromising on Labour's principles, rather than simply shout at them or ignore them.
One here, someone on the right tried to dismiss her by saying something like "Nandy's platform is that we should be nicer to the working class when we tell them that they're wrong". Of course that's not true, but someone who ran on such a platform would probably get my second preference, behind Nandy.
Stating the obvious - but is it obvious to the Labour membership? - their winning candidate has to win votes in large numbers from: Labour abstainers, Tories, voters who now vote Tory because there is then no risk of being kissed by Laura Pidcock but used to vote Labour, SNP voters, LDs, people over 50, people over 60, people over 75 and so on. Without all of these they can't win the 120+ seats they need. And they need to keep most of the extraordinary coalition of axe grinders, payroll vote and shroud wavers who vote Labour now.
Is there any effort by Labour to find out who the voters they must win want? I don't think the fact that Jess P has already dropped out is the best possible sign.
I sometimes watch the FT's Youtube channel. The comments included the remark that Phillips may be moderately left-wing but adopts the pragmatic position that without being the government - or even a minority govt with SNP support - you can do almost nothing to improve the lot of those you represent.
When the executive has a majority of 80, the House of Lords has more power to change government legislation than Labour backbenchers do.
I think you mean James Norton, not Graham. He would be at least more of a Roger Moore type Bond than Elba or Madden who would be similar to Craig in style
Yes, my mistake, I was typing in Waitrose. Graham Norton as Bond? As if.
Agree that (James) Norton would be smoother than the average Bond. And I think he would be good too. But Idris Elba, for me, would be the best choice.
Lisa Nandy is the only Labour candidate who doesn’t scare me: a right-wing Tory.
Now, I’m savvy enough to recognise she’s actually quite left-wing, and I very much doubt I’d enjoy her period in office, but if that’s how I’m feeling viscerally now it’d be enough to have a real shot at winning a GE.
This is if we go with the strategy of winning by convincing lots of moderates and apoliticals to vote Lib Dem because they do not fear us anymore. Winning in this case meaning largest party in a hung parliament.
It might be the best pragmatic approach but it's hardly inspiring.
I see what you mean. But for me, the fact that people on the right don't loathe her as much as they do other candidates, despite the fact that she is probably left of Starmer, Thornberry and Phillips, is a happy by-product of what I think is morally good about her. That is, her willingness to engage constructively with her opponents, without compromising on Labour's principles, rather than simply shout at them or ignore them.
One here, someone on the right tried to dismiss her by saying something like "Nandy's platform is that we should be nicer to the working class when we tell them that they're wrong". Of course that's not true, but someone who ran on such a platform would probably get my second preference, behind Nandy.
Stating the obvious - but is it obvious to the Labour membership? - their winning candidate has to win votes in large numbers from: Labour abstainers, Tories, voters who now vote Tory because there is then no risk of being kissed by Laura Pidcock but used to vote Labour, SNP voters, LDs, people over 50, people over 60, people over 75 and so on. Without all of these they can't win the 120+ seats they need. And they need to keep most of the extraordinary coalition of axe grinders, payroll vote and shroud wavers who vote Labour now.
Is there any effort by Labour to find out who the voters they must win want? I don't think the fact that Jess P has already dropped out is the best possible sign.
Stating the obvious - but is it obvious to the Labour membership? - their winning candidate has to win votes in large numbers from: Labour abstainers, Tories, voters who now vote Tory because there is then no risk of being kissed by Laura Pidcock but used to vote Labour, SNP voters, LDs, people over 50, people over 60, people over 75 and so on. Without all of these they can't win the 120+ seats they need. And they need to keep most of the extraordinary coalition of axe grinders, payroll vote and shroud wavers who vote Labour now.
Is there any effort by Labour to find out who the voters they must win want? I don't think the fact that Jess P has already dropped out is the best possible sign.
I'm not well placed to answer that question as I've only been in the Labour party for a little over a month, but I am unaware of such research within the party, and I agree that this is crazy. There's an ongoing enquiry into the causes of the election defeat, but unfortunately this isn't informing the leadership contest. Anyway, explaining the defeat is not the same thing as understanding what changes need to be made.
Fortunately, other organisations are doing research. There's the well known Channel 4 focus group, but that's a very small sample size fed very short soundbites (very hard to be fair to the candidates there), and I am sceptical about it even though it agrees with my pre-conceived ideas. Hopefully, there'll be more to come. But the Labour party shouldn't be relying on the media to do their job for them.
Lisa Nandy is the only Labour candidate who doesn’t scare me: a right-wing Tory.
Now, I’m savvy enough to recognise she’s actually quite left-wing, and I very much doubt I’d enjoy her period in office, but if that’s how I’m feeling viscerally now it’d be enough to have a real shot at winning a GE.
This is if we go with the strategy of winning by convincing lots of moderates and apoliticals to vote Lib Dem because they do not fear us anymore. Winning in this case meaning largest party in a hung parliament.
It might be the best pragmatic approach but it's hardly inspiring.
I see what you mean. But for me, the fact that people on the right don't loathe her as much as they do other candidates, despite the fact that she is probably left of Starmer, Thornberry and Phillips, is a happy by-product of what I think is morally good about her. That is, her willingness to engage constructively with her opponents, without compromising on Labour's principles, rather than simply shout at them or ignore them.
One here, someone on the right tried to dismiss her by saying something like "Nandy's platform is that we should be nicer to the working class when we tell them that they're wrong". Of course that's not true, but someone who ran on such a platform would probably get my second preference, behind Nandy.
Stating the obvious - but is it obvious to the Labour membership? - their winning candidate has to win votes in large numbers from: Labour abstainers, Tories, voters who now vote Tory because there is then no risk of being kissed by Laura Pidcock but used to vote Labour, SNP voters, LDs, people over 50, people over 60, people over 75 and so on. Without all of these they can't win the 120+ seats they need. And they need to keep most of the extraordinary coalition of axe grinders, payroll vote and shroud wavers who vote Labour now.
Is there any effort by Labour to find out who the voters they must win want? I don't think the fact that Jess P has already dropped out is the best possible sign.
I see what you mean. But for me, the fact that people on the right don't loathe her as much as they do other candidates, despite the fact that she is probably left of Starmer, Thornberry and Phillips, is a happy by-product of what I think is morally good about her. That is, her willingness to engage constructively with her opponents, without compromising on Labour's principles, rather than simply shout at them or ignore them.
One here, someone on the right tried to dismiss her by saying something like "Nandy's platform is that we should be nicer to the working class when we tell them that they're wrong". Of course that's not true, but someone who ran on such a platform would probably get my second preference, behind Nandy.
Yes, the fewer voters repelled the better, so long as there remains at least some ambition to transform not tinker. Nandy is IMO a riskier choice than Starmer but the electoral upside is perhaps bigger under her. I'm Nandy/Starmer in that order atm.
Those lost WWC voters? The task IMO is to make them feel that Labour is "their" party again whilst keeping the focus on economic rather than identity issues. Very difficult for obvious reasons, but Nandy might have the best chance of succeeding in this.
These Momentumites and their fellow travellers have redefined the word Socialist. Basically, unless you spent 30 years in the SWP before joining Labour in 2016, you aren't a Socialist.
I am sure PB's very own Eeyore will be along in a moment to put you right :-)
What ARE the Remoaners going to do if Brexit turns out..... OK??
I really fear for them. They have now built entire careers, mindsets and lives out of Brexit being a terrific shit-show. They've gone so over the top it will be very difficult to row back.
Any evidence is useful, but name-recognition is going to be such an overwhelming factor here that it's really hard to interpret. Research on this needs to involve exposing the people being polled to the candidates.
I am sure PB's very own Eeyore will be along in a moment to put you right :-)
What ARE the Remoaners going to do if Brexit turns out..... OK??
I really fear for them. They have now built entire careers, mindsets and lives out of Brexit being a terrific shit-show. They've gone so over the top it will be very difficult to row back.
Of course they could still be right....
It's fine. They will never accept any objective measure of what constitutes "OK".
I am sure PB's very own Eeyore will be along in a moment to put you right :-)
What ARE the Remoaners going to do if Brexit turns out..... OK??
I really fear for them. They have now built entire careers, mindsets and lives out of Brexit being a terrific shit-show. They've gone so over the top it will be very difficult to row back.
Any evidence is useful, but name-recognition is going to be such an overwhelming factor here that it's really hard to interpret. Research on this needs to involve exposing the people being polled to the candidates.
There is also the small matter that the polling was conducted light years ago, that is before Christmas. It is bizarre that BMG have sat on it for this long.
Any evidence is useful, but name-recognition is going to be such an overwhelming factor here that it's really hard to interpret. Research on this needs to involve exposing the people being polled to the candidates.
There is also the small matter that the polling was conducted light years ago, that is before Christmas. It is bizarre that BMG have sat on it for this long.
These Momentumites and their fellow travellers have redefined the word Socialist. Basically, unless you spent 30 years in the SWP before joining Labour in 2016, you aren't a Socialist.
Aiui Momentum and the SWP ex-Militant trots are not the same thing and at times diametrically opposite.
I am sure PB's very own Eeyore will be along in a moment to put you right :-)
What ARE the Remoaners going to do if Brexit turns out..... OK??
I really fear for them. They have now built entire careers, mindsets and lives out of Brexit being a terrific shit-show. They've gone so over the top it will be very difficult to row back.
Of course they could still be right....
My opinion has always been that the prophets predicting the end of the world stuff are wrong, but it doesn't mean that it won't be very challenging.
We are all most certain to swap one load of red tape for another set, if that turns out to be better, worse or the same but for different reasons , we won't know for 20-30 years.
Despite all the huffing and puffing, underlying all of this is that there is a mutual benefits for the UK and EU to continue to trade and ultimately that will drive towards a fudge that the UK can say we have left and the EU can say see we punished them for leaving.
The UK does have a big advantage that we a stable society, (at least in the short term) avoided the threat of mad far leftist anti-business types running the country, top class universities, and strong enforcement of laws. All of which makes the UK an attractive place to invest in.
I think in 25 years we will probably bemoaning many aspects of various trade deals we have signed up to, while still being a leading world economy (albeit China being the dominant power rather than US or EU).
One thing I am certain of is if we had stayed a vote for Remain wasn't a vote for the status quo. If we had remained, 25 years down the line, it would be ever closer union / alignment etc. Now that might be advantageous against the might of China, or it might hamper those trying to be nimble to an even more globalized world economy.
I think you mean James Norton, not Graham. He would be at least more of a Roger Moore type Bond than Elba or Madden who would be similar to Craig in style
Yes, my mistake, I was typing in Waitrose. Graham Norton as Bond? As if.
Agree that (James) Norton would be smoother than the average Bond. And I think he would be good too. But Idris Elba, for me, would be the best choice.
Idris Elba is only 4 years younger than Dan Craig. In SPECTRE, Dan Craig was already looking like the love interest's dad......and that was five years ago.
Yes, he’s missed his moment, I think. Graham Norton would be an inspired piece of diversity casting - and it would finally be half way credible when Bond gets the bad guy chatting in detail about his fiendish plans...
Regarding the claim in the thread header: "What is clear is that those constituencies which nominated Corbyn in both 2015 and 2016 are sticking with with his chosen successor Long-Bailey while those that didn’t nominate in the last two leadership elections or went with candidates other than Corbyn are getting behind Starmer or Nandy."
However, having done the maths comparing current with 2016 nominations, I think the picture is far more bleak for RLB than the header suggests. She has picked up only 15% of the nominations in the constituencies that went for Corbyn in 2016. So there has indeed been a big change of heart since 2016 amongst those attending nomination meetings, and I can't see any obvious reason why that trend wouldn't be replicated in the wider membership.
The data: Of the 20 constituencies which nominated Corbyn in 2016, 13 have nominated Starmer, 3 RLB, 2 Nandy and 2 Thornberry. Of the 25 which didn't nominate at all in 2016, 16 nominated Starmer, 4 RLB, 4 Nandy, 1 Thornberry. Of the 4 which nominated Smith in 2016, 3 nominated Starmer, 1 Nandy.
Doesnt the fact that only 20 constituencies nominated Corbyn (out of 600 odd?) and he won, make that data less meaningful than it might appear?
No - you are misinterpreting what those figures represent. The 20 which nominated Corbyn are out of the 49 which have so far made nominations. The trend is clear.
Comments
So don't give up on it.
(For the seventies telly fans amongst us.)
I must admit I find the confusion on his strategy a bit odd given he's had this situation repeatedly and always done the same thing. The head of the UK statistical authority wrote to him about the £350m line and he just repeated it. Likewise with a bunch of other things.
I think that the members only vote once, ranking their preferences. There is no opportunity for further campaigning between eliminations. If RLB won on first preferences but failed to get over or near 50% then she will not IMO win because the lion`s share of the second prefs from whoever came third would likely go to whoever came second.
Therefore, if my logic holds, if RLB gets around 35% of first prefs (as I expect), she has no chance of winning the contest.
I think I`ve understood the process correctly, but please correct me if I have something wrong.
Nandy can do it but to do so she has to beat RLB for 2nd with Starmer not too close to 50. It's a long shot but it can happen.
So I price this - Starmer 1/5, Nandy 5/1.
Top Table Wages.
Being called "big boy" when I was last in the Admiral Duncan in Old Compton Street by a six foot guy in a leather trousers was rather concerning. Whereas being called "big boy" by my wife is most welcome (though only ever heard in jest).
It might be the best pragmatic approach but it's hardly inspiring.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Pacific_Big_Boy
https://order-order.com/2020/01/24/bercows-bullying-chief-clerk-well-known/
https://twitter.com/YuanPotts/status/1220681535243931650
One here, someone on the right tried to dismiss her by saying something like "Nandy's platform is that we should be nicer to the working class when we tell them that they're wrong". Of course that's not true, but someone who ran on such a platform would probably get my second preference, behind Nandy.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/23/opinion/joe-biden-2020.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
"It’s the 947th case in which we see that every second you spend on Twitter detracts from your knowledge of American politics"
Agree that (James) Norton would be smoother than the average Bond. And I think he would be good too. But Idris Elba, for me, would be the best choice.
Is there any effort by Labour to find out who the voters they must win want? I don't think the fact that Jess P has already dropped out is the best possible sign.
"What is clear is that those constituencies which nominated Corbyn in both 2015 and 2016 are sticking with with his chosen successor Long-Bailey while those that didn’t nominate in the last two leadership elections or went with candidates other than Corbyn are getting behind Starmer or Nandy."
However, having done the maths comparing current with 2016 nominations, I think the picture is far more bleak for RLB than the header suggests. She has picked up only 15% of the nominations in the constituencies that went for Corbyn in 2016. So there has indeed been a big change of heart since 2016 amongst those attending nomination meetings, and I can't see any obvious reason why that trend wouldn't be replicated in the wider membership.
The data:
Of the 20 constituencies which nominated Corbyn in 2016, 13 have nominated Starmer, 3 RLB, 2 Nandy and 2 Thornberry.
Of the 25 which didn't nominate at all in 2016, 16 nominated Starmer, 4 RLB, 4 Nandy, 1 Thornberry.
Of the 4 which nominated Smith in 2016, 3 nominated Starmer, 1 Nandy.
It came across as peak Bucket woman.
But caveat. There are people out there who get familiar and friendly at a point in time which is quite a bit sooner than the recipient (of it) is comfortable with.
This is where one of the most important human qualities - empathy - hopefully comes into play and a suitable distance is restored.
And Bercow now has the balls to complain about how the government isn't following the traditions of the House.
Like, I dunno - Jews?
I have £50 riding on either version happening!
When the executive has a majority of 80, the House of Lords has more power to change government legislation than Labour backbenchers do.
https://twitter.com/BellRibeiroAddy/status/1220676024129728513
https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1209434602718343169?s=20
https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1209437884589236224?s=20
https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1209436183115288576?s=20
whatever?
Anyways, the UK economy is motoring again
https://www.ft.com/content/b68f2e22-3e7b-11ea-b232-000f4477fbca
Fortunately, other organisations are doing research. There's the well known Channel 4 focus group, but that's a very small sample size fed very short soundbites (very hard to be fair to the candidates there), and I am sceptical about it even though it agrees with my pre-conceived ideas. Hopefully, there'll be more to come. But the Labour party shouldn't be relying on the media to do their job for them.
Encouraging......
Those lost WWC voters? The task IMO is to make them feel that Labour is "their" party again whilst keeping the focus on economic rather than identity issues. Very difficult for obvious reasons, but Nandy might have the best chance of succeeding in this.
I really fear for them. They have now built entire careers, mindsets and lives out of Brexit being a terrific shit-show. They've gone so over the top it will be very difficult to row back.
Of course they could still be right....
But...
He's only on 19%.
That's an extraordinarily open race.
We are all most certain to swap one load of red tape for another set, if that turns out to be better, worse or the same but for different reasons , we won't know for 20-30 years.
Despite all the huffing and puffing, underlying all of this is that there is a mutual benefits for the UK and EU to continue to trade and ultimately that will drive towards a fudge that the UK can say we have left and the EU can say see we punished them for leaving.
The UK does have a big advantage that we a stable society, (at least in the short term) avoided the threat of mad far leftist anti-business types running the country, top class universities, and strong enforcement of laws. All of which makes the UK an attractive place to invest in.
I think in 25 years we will probably bemoaning many aspects of various trade deals we have signed up to, while still being a leading world economy (albeit China being the dominant power rather than US or EU).
One thing I am certain of is if we had stayed a vote for Remain wasn't a vote for the status quo. If we had remained, 25 years down the line, it would be ever closer union / alignment etc. Now that might be advantageous against the might of China, or it might hamper those trying to be nimble to an even more globalized world economy.
Graham Norton would be an inspired piece of diversity casting - and it would finally be half way credible when Bond gets the bad guy chatting in detail about his fiendish plans...
I thought you were serious about having a £50 bet on it.
How many water miles are there between Isle of man and Cumbria?