No Starmer can't aim for minority government. It's a huge turn off for voters. He needs to make his pitch as a majority PM, which means destroying the Lib Dems and winning back seats in Scotland.
Unfortunately, so far the evidence is that he's too bland to do either.
There were also several seats won by Labour in 1997 from third place in 1992 - Hastings& Rye - Conway - Falmouth & Camborne come to mind. In 2017 Labour managed to do that at Portsmouth South whilst becoming the main Tory contender at Southport. Carshalton & Wallington has future potential for Labour - the seat was a Tory/Labour marginal in the 1970s.
Neither Cameron nor May sought an arrangement with UKIP or the BXP to gain a majority despite the siren calls by many on the right to do so. They instead made their rival irrelevant to the point that in the latter case they couldn't even be bothered to stand candidates.
If the new LD leader can't find a reason for the party to be relevant the LOTO shouldn't gift them a reason.
Why are all the Tory posters so far afraid that the Lib Dems might come to some kind of arrangement with the Lbour Party?
Could it be that they realise that the FPTP voting system will fail the Conservatives if the other parties all gang up against them?
Their real worry should be that our crooked voting system actually gets replaced.
The Tories would be relying on Labour breaking their promises and flunking reform, as they did last time.
Labour would be absolutely insane to get rid of FPTP, the left would fracture into about 20 different parties within 10 years. It would remove their status as the UK's second party very quickly. The only party that might gain from "reform" of voting is the Lib Dems neither Labour nor the Tories will, but Labour will lose a lot more than the Tories.
Both labour and the tories would. Under proportional, Nigel Farage MP would be the king maker.
This is simply not true. They were bad I. The rust belt but were reasonable elsewhere.
Pure gamblers are backing Biden. Trump backers seem to be a collection of those 'worried' about his getting a second term; 'spurs bettors'; journalists who can't wait to say "I told you so" when he wins and polemicists who are desperate to write a narrative that there's a latent Trump majority lurking in the US. Hillary was a dreadful candidate and she got very close. Joe Biden is much more popular than she ever was.
No Starmer can't aim for minority government. It's a huge turn off for voters. He needs to make his pitch as a majority PM, which means destroying the Lib Dems and winning back seats in Scotland.
Unfortunately, so far the evidence is that he's too bland to do either.
There were also several seats won by Labour in 1997 from third place in 1992 - Hastings& Rye - Conway - Falmouth & Camborne come to mind. In 2017 Labour managed to do that at Portsmouth South whilst becoming the main Tory contender at Southport. Carshalton & Wallington has future potential for Labour - the seat was a Tory/Labour marginal in the 1970s.
Bristol West dethroning cabinet Minister William Waldegrave is another.
Does Rebecca Long-Bailey agree that the solution to the world's ills is to destroy capitalism?
Jews first then capitalism.
This is a disgusting comment. Get a grip man.
Long Bailey is a disgusting anti-Semite and that Starmer kept her in his Shadow Cabinet speaks volumes. She should have been sent packing with Burgon and the rest of the barnacles in the Labour Party.
You said that Rebecca Long Bailey wishes to see the destruction of the world's Jewry. That was crass and offensive in the extreme and you really ought to ask for the post to be deleted. Please reflect on this. If having done so, you still cannot see a problem with it, I despair of you.
I despair of anti-Semites and there's no doubt that both Corbyn and Long Bailey are those.
That Starmer was prepared to serve under one and to keep the services of the latter shows why Labour is still not fit for office.
Rather than criticise me for maybe exaggerating the extent of Long Bailey's anti-Semitism maybe deal with the real issue and call for her to go?
Starmer "squishing" the Lib Dems would just give seats to the Conservatives, and therefore make a Labour government less likely:
Twickenham: LD 56%, Con 34%, Lab 9% Bath: LD 47%, Con 36%, Lab 15% Kingston & Surbiton: LD 51%, Con 34%, Lab 11% Oxford West & Abingdon: LD 53%, Con 38%, Lab 7% Richmond Park: LD 53%, Con 41%, Lab 5% St Albans: LD 50%, Con 39%, Lab 9%
Labour did hold St Albans 1997 - 2005, so it is reasonable to assume that much of the LD vote comes from anti-Tory Labour voters. A similar story re- Bath - though Labour has never won there despite coming very close in 1966.
Or he needs to squish the LDs like a bug. Make them an irrelevant protest party and portray himself as the only viable alternative.
Swindon played into that role nicely. If Moran wins she looks likely to continue that course.
The point is that the Tories need to lose seats that Labour can not win, however transformative Starmer turns out to be. This is of course because very many actual and potential LD voters prefer the Tories to Labour, particularly in those southern seats.
The LibDems disappearing won’t change that.
No they don't. Labour plus SNP can easily get a majority between them.
Not so easily, and certainly not in one go.
Why not?
They currently have 250 seats between them. 326 needed for an absolute majority without third parties like LDs getting involved, so 71 gains which is fewer than half the gains Blair achieved and fewer gains than Cameron achieved in 2010.
The LDs 11 seats and half a dozen prime target seats are quite frankly an irrelevance. It puts them in the same league as the DUP. Maybe look at them if the stars align and land perfectly but otherwise just get on with the day job and ignore them.
Does Rebecca Long-Bailey agree that the solution to the world's ills is to destroy capitalism?
Jews first then capitalism.
This is a disgusting comment. Get a grip man.
Long Bailey is a disgusting anti-Semite and that Starmer kept her in his Shadow Cabinet speaks volumes. She should have been sent packing with Burgon and the rest of the barnacles in the Labour Party.
You said that Rebecca Long Bailey wishes to see the destruction of the world's Jewry. That was crass and offensive in the extreme and you really ought to ask for the post to be deleted. Please reflect on this. If having done so, you still cannot see a problem with it, I despair of you.
The only thing that matters is whether it is true or not. Is it?
It's OK to post nonsensical absurdities in a spirit of benign whimsy - you should try a bit of that yourself sometimes - but it is not OK to fling around palpably ludicrous accusations of Rebecca Long Bailey yearning for a 21st century genocide of the Jews to complete the unfinished business of others.
That's a first on here and imo it should also be a last.
Starmer "squishing" the Lib Dems would just give seats to the Conservatives, and therefore make a Labour government less likely:
Twickenham: LD 56%, Con 34%, Lab 9% Bath: LD 47%, Con 36%, Lab 15% Kingston & Surbiton: LD 51%, Con 34%, Lab 11% Oxford West & Abingdon: LD 53%, Con 38%, Lab 7% Richmond Park: LD 53%, Con 41%, Lab 5% St Albans: LD 50%, Con 39%, Lab 9%
Indeed. There isn't much electorally Labour can do about the LDs. Other than Sheffield Hallam they aren't in competition anywhere I can think of as far as Westminster that is. Edit. See @HYUFD has made the point with more facts as always...
Labour could reasonably expect to recover in Finchley & Golders Green and Coties of London & Westminster next time. Possibly also true of Wimbledon - though that was a narrow LD 'miss' in 2019and probably makes it more difficult for Labour to be back in serious contention.
We all seem to be quite down on people who clean toilets don't we? Toilet cleaning - tee hee. I am not sure why. Not only is it a vital job, it's a job which you can indeed do badly, indifferently, well, or superbly. You can also if you feel so inclined, take on another cleaner, and another, and build a multi-million pound facilities management empire - it's been done.
That is one example of aspiration and it's a good one. But what about working instead to bring down the system that has brought you to such a sorry pass? Is this not aspiration too?
If I wasn't clear before, let me be so now - I am rejecting the rather patronising notion that being a cleaner is 'a sorry pass'. I also don't see how the fall of capitalism will lead to the role of toilet cleaner being eliminated - unless society is going to collapse so quickly we'll all be digging holes in the ground instead.
Automation. It's the "luxury communism for all" thing that Ash Sarkar has as her twitter strapline. Used to be followed by "fucks like a champion" but this has gone now. As has Toby Young's "Classical Liberal". His now says "President of the Free Speech Union."
But, yes, a great point you make about low paid jobs often having a value in excess of their paltry remuneration. I agree with this very strongly. I also believe the opposite - that high paid jobs often have remuneration in excess of their value.
Automated toilet cleaning, if and when it becomes widespread, will be a by-product of capitalism, not communism.
But can capitalism deal with the consequences of a vast amount of surplus labour? Or will this require something rather different?
So what should the LibDem strategy be? That will decide whether they can work with Labour, the Tories or go it alone. A small party under FPTP needs a popular but not too popular selling point. If it's too popular, one of the big parties will steal it. The policy or policies should also be regionally based - getting 20% of the vote in every constituency won't get you any seats, but getting all the vote in a fifth of the constituencies makes you a power to be reckoned with.
I can think of five possibilities:
- the party of the Celtic fringe. This policy is regionally based, and builds on LibDem strength in the Highlands and Cornwall (though not Wales). But it's not obvious what policies this implies. And the number of seats at stake isn't that large. - the party of voting reform. Definitely a distinctive policy, and might be beneficial to their political fortunes, but as I say to someone else below, I can't see it ever being a popular mass cause in England. Also, I doubt if the support for it is regionally concentrated - the party of rejoin. Maybe, but I don't detect a huge appetite to undertake years more debate about Europe. Anyway we'd probably have to join the Euro. Also, LibDem support amongst rejoiners is probably pretty high already. - the party of the English suburbs and small towns. Certainly regionally based, but confronting the Conservatives here would be challenging, to say the least. Why wouldn't people who don't like the Tories there simply vote Labour? - the party of woke. Possible. Regionally based but difficult as it would involve challenging the mighty Labour machine in big cities and university towns. Also needs some very difficult judgements determining what is PC and what is not. Muslims or trans vs feminists? etc. And, of course, might split the vote on the left and let the Tories in.
I don't know if anyone else more sympathetic to the yellows than me can think of a better strategy for their new leader. But I don't think sucking up to Starmer is the whole, or even a partial, answer.
Does Rebecca Long-Bailey agree that the solution to the world's ills is to destroy capitalism?
Jews first then capitalism.
This is a disgusting comment. Get a grip man.
Long Bailey is a disgusting anti-Semite and that Starmer kept her in his Shadow Cabinet speaks volumes. She should have been sent packing with Burgon and the rest of the barnacles in the Labour Party.
You said that Rebecca Long Bailey wishes to see the destruction of the world's Jewry. That was crass and offensive in the extreme and you really ought to ask for the post to be deleted. Please reflect on this. If having done so, you still cannot see a problem with it, I despair of you.
I despair of anti-Semites and there's no doubt that both Corbyn and Long Bailey are those.
That Starmer was prepared to serve under one and to keep the services of the latter shows why Labour is still not fit for office.
Rather than criticise me for maybe exaggerating the extent of Long Bailey's anti-Semitism maybe deal with the real issue and call for her to go?
You were arguing with me only a few weeks ago that nothing short of a criminal conviction was a resigning/sacking matter!
Sure it is whatever the impotent whinging of the LOTO says.
Its frankly absurd for the Starmer to be majoring on something as petty and meaningless as Jenrick when there are allegations there is a serious assault on our constitution and the Magna Carta coming. Why is Starmer whinging about Jenrick and not banging on about the importance of the right of trial by jury. Its not as if he's lacking legal expertise to speak on this matter but instead he's playing to NIMBYs in Tower Hamlets, its disgraceful priorities.
Cyclefree would make an infinitely better LOTO than Starmer. I don't always agree with her but she's got smart priorities.
We all seem to be quite down on people who clean toilets don't we? Toilet cleaning - tee hee. I am not sure why. Not only is it a vital job, it's a job which you can indeed do badly, indifferently, well, or superbly. You can also if you feel so inclined, take on another cleaner, and another, and build a multi-million pound facilities management empire - it's been done.
That is one example of aspiration and it's a good one. But what about working instead to bring down the system that has brought you to such a sorry pass? Is this not aspiration too?
If I wasn't clear before, let me be so now - I am rejecting the rather patronising notion that being a cleaner is 'a sorry pass'. I also don't see how the fall of capitalism will lead to the role of toilet cleaner being eliminated - unless society is going to collapse so quickly we'll all be digging holes in the ground instead.
Automation. It's the "luxury communism for all" thing that Ash Sarkar has as her twitter strapline. Used to be followed by "fucks like a champion" but this has gone now. As has Toby Young's "Classical Liberal". His now says "President of the Free Speech Union."
But, yes, a great point you make about low paid jobs often having a value in excess of their paltry remuneration. I agree with this very strongly. I also believe the opposite - that high paid jobs often have remuneration in excess of their value.
Universal Basic income solves this conundrum I think.
I think this might well be coming under the next Labour government.
Does Rebecca Long-Bailey agree that the solution to the world's ills is to destroy capitalism?
Jews first then capitalism.
This is a disgusting comment. Get a grip man.
Long Bailey is a disgusting anti-Semite and that Starmer kept her in his Shadow Cabinet speaks volumes. She should have been sent packing with Burgon and the rest of the barnacles in the Labour Party.
You said that Rebecca Long Bailey wishes to see the destruction of the world's Jewry. That was crass and offensive in the extreme and you really ought to ask for the post to be deleted. Please reflect on this. If having done so, you still cannot see a problem with it, I despair of you.
The only thing that matters is whether it is true or not. Is it?
It's OK to post nonsensical absurdities in a spirit of benign whimsy - you should try a bit of that yourself sometimes - but it is not OK to fling around palpably ludicrous accusations of Rebecca Long Bailey yearning for a 21st century genocide of the Jews to complete the unfinished business of others.
That's a first on here and imo it should also be a last.
....er.....so there is no evidence that RLB wishes to see the destruction of the world's jewry, in anything she has said or done
Does Rebecca Long-Bailey agree that the solution to the world's ills is to destroy capitalism?
Jews first then capitalism.
This is a disgusting comment. Get a grip man.
Long Bailey is a disgusting anti-Semite and that Starmer kept her in his Shadow Cabinet speaks volumes. She should have been sent packing with Burgon and the rest of the barnacles in the Labour Party.
You said that Rebecca Long Bailey wishes to see the destruction of the world's Jewry. That was crass and offensive in the extreme and you really ought to ask for the post to be deleted. Please reflect on this. If having done so, you still cannot see a problem with it, I despair of you.
I despair of anti-Semites and there's no doubt that both Corbyn and Long Bailey are those.
That Starmer was prepared to serve under one and to keep the services of the latter shows why Labour is still not fit for office.
Rather than criticise me for maybe exaggerating the extent of Long Bailey's anti-Semitism maybe deal with the real issue and call for her to go?
You were arguing with me only a few weeks ago that nothing short of a criminal conviction was a resigning/sacking matter!
For allegations of impropriety perhaps, so long as you agree with someones politics and intentions.
Antisemitism is another matter entirely, its not about alleged trivial impropriety it is a serious matter of policy and beliefs - like believing in the Magna Carta. I could not in good faith want an antisemite to be PM, or knowingly and willingly keep an antisemite in my Shadow Cabinet if I were LOTO. Because those beliefs are not compatible and that is a fundamental issue of principle not an impropriety.
I wouldn't expect the Labour Party to keep a Shadow Health Secretary who called for the NHS to abolished and us to move to an American healthcare system either. Principles matter.
Sure it is whatever the impotent whinging of the LOTO says.
Its frankly absurd for the Starmer to be majoring on something as petty and meaningless as Jenrick when there are allegations there is a serious assault on our constitution and the Magna Carta coming. Why is Starmer whinging about Jenrick and not banging on about the importance of the right of trial by jury. Its not as if he's lacking legal expertise to speak on this matter but instead he's playing to NIMBYs in Tower Hamlets, its disgraceful priorities.
Cyclefree would make an infinitely better LOTO than Starmer. I don't always agree with her but she's got smart priorities.
Yes that trial by jury thing is very important, and should deeply concern people on here of all political colours.
We all seem to be quite down on people who clean toilets don't we? Toilet cleaning - tee hee. I am not sure why. Not only is it a vital job, it's a job which you can indeed do badly, indifferently, well, or superbly. You can also if you feel so inclined, take on another cleaner, and another, and build a multi-million pound facilities management empire - it's been done.
That is one example of aspiration and it's a good one. But what about working instead to bring down the system that has brought you to such a sorry pass? Is this not aspiration too?
If I wasn't clear before, let me be so now - I am rejecting the rather patronising notion that being a cleaner is 'a sorry pass'. I also don't see how the fall of capitalism will lead to the role of toilet cleaner being eliminated - unless society is going to collapse so quickly we'll all be digging holes in the ground instead.
Automation. It's the "luxury communism for all" thing that Ash Sarkar has as her twitter strapline. Used to be followed by "fucks like a champion" but this has gone now. As has Toby Young's "Classical Liberal". His now says "President of the Free Speech Union."
But, yes, a great point you make about low paid jobs often having a value in excess of their paltry remuneration. I agree with this very strongly. I also believe the opposite - that high paid jobs often have remuneration in excess of their value.
Automated toilet cleaning, if and when it becomes widespread, will be a by-product of capitalism, not communism.
But can capitalism deal with the consequences of a vast amount of surplus labour? Or will this require something rather different?
Yes it can. It has done for hundreds of years.
There is no such thing as a deficit or surplus of labour.
Any questions to Starmer as to whether his adoption of the BLM pose makes it difficult to criticise violence stemming from that movement? I can imagine Farage or Boris would be quizzed if they were foolish enough to do the the same for a far right equivalent
Any questions to Starmer as to whether his adoption of the BLM pose makes it difficult to criticise violence stemming from that movement? I can imagine Farage or Boris would be quizzed if they were foolish enough to do the the same for a far right equivalent
No because the pose was a decent one of showing respect no different to Boris joining clap for carers. Kudos to Starmer for doing the right thing there - and I'm no Labour partisan.
Does Rebecca Long-Bailey agree that the solution to the world's ills is to destroy capitalism?
Jews first then capitalism.
This is a disgusting comment. Get a grip man.
Long Bailey is a disgusting anti-Semite and that Starmer kept her in his Shadow Cabinet speaks volumes. She should have been sent packing with Burgon and the rest of the barnacles in the Labour Party.
You said that Rebecca Long Bailey wishes to see the destruction of the world's Jewry. That was crass and offensive in the extreme and you really ought to ask for the post to be deleted. Please reflect on this. If having done so, you still cannot see a problem with it, I despair of you.
The only thing that matters is whether it is true or not. Is it?
It's OK to post nonsensical absurdities in a spirit of benign whimsy - you should try a bit of that yourself sometimes - but it is not OK to fling around palpably ludicrous accusations of Rebecca Long Bailey yearning for a 21st century genocide of the Jews to complete the unfinished business of others.
That's a first on here and imo it should also be a last.
....er.....so there is no evidence that RLB wishes to see the destruction of the world's jewry, in anything she has said or done
Fine. Then its not fair to accuse her of such.
Spot on. Although "not fair" is imo understating a trifle.
Any questions to Starmer as to whether his adoption of the BLM pose makes it difficult to criticise violence stemming from that movement? I can imagine Farage or Boris would be quizzed if they were foolish enough to do the the same for a far right equivalent
No because the pose was a decent one of showing respect no different to Boris joining clap for carers. Kudos to Starmer for doing the right thing there - and I'm no Labour partisan.
He's been hooked in by the mob for a cheap stunt, and now kneels, in Showaddywaddy garb, alongside the havoc they cause...
Does Rebecca Long-Bailey agree that the solution to the world's ills is to destroy capitalism?
Jews first then capitalism.
This is a disgusting comment. Get a grip man.
Long Bailey is a disgusting anti-Semite and that Starmer kept her in his Shadow Cabinet speaks volumes. She should have been sent packing with Burgon and the rest of the barnacles in the Labour Party.
You said that Rebecca Long Bailey wishes to see the destruction of the world's Jewry. That was crass and offensive in the extreme and you really ought to ask for the post to be deleted. Please reflect on this. If having done so, you still cannot see a problem with it, I despair of you.
The only thing that matters is whether it is true or not. Is it?
It's OK to post nonsensical absurdities in a spirit of benign whimsy - you should try a bit of that yourself sometimes - but it is not OK to fling around palpably ludicrous accusations of Rebecca Long Bailey yearning for a 21st century genocide of the Jews to complete the unfinished business of others.
That's a first on here and imo it should also be a last.
....er.....so there is no evidence that RLB wishes to see the destruction of the world's jewry, in anything she has said or done
Fine. Then its not fair to accuse her of such.
Spot on. Although "not fair" is imo understating a trifle.
Yes I thought that when I wrote it. 'deeply unfair'
This is simply not true. They were bad I. The rust belt but were reasonable elsewhere.
Pure gamblers are backing Biden. Trump backers seem to be a collection of those 'worried' about his getting a second term; 'spurs bettors'; journalists who can't wait to say "I told you so" when he wins and polemicists who are desperate to write a narrative that there's a latent Trump majority lurking in the US. Hillary was a dreadful candidate and she got very close. Joe Biden is much more popular than she ever was.
Biden currently has a net -1.6 favorable/unfavorable average on RCP There's a graph of Hillary Clinton's ratings here: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/clinton_favorableunfavorable-1131.html She was above +30 in 2013 when she was Secretary of State. She only started getting unpopular when she started running for president. I wonder why...
Does Rebecca Long-Bailey agree that the solution to the world's ills is to destroy capitalism?
Jews first then capitalism.
This is a disgusting comment. Get a grip man.
Long Bailey is a disgusting anti-Semite and that Starmer kept her in his Shadow Cabinet speaks volumes. She should have been sent packing with Burgon and the rest of the barnacles in the Labour Party.
You said that Rebecca Long Bailey wishes to see the destruction of the world's Jewry. That was crass and offensive in the extreme and you really ought to ask for the post to be deleted. Please reflect on this. If having done so, you still cannot see a problem with it, I despair of you.
I despair of anti-Semites and there's no doubt that both Corbyn and Long Bailey are those.
That Starmer was prepared to serve under one and to keep the services of the latter shows why Labour is still not fit for office.
Rather than criticise me for maybe exaggerating the extent of Long Bailey's anti-Semitism maybe deal with the real issue and call for her to go?
You were arguing with me only a few weeks ago that nothing short of a criminal conviction was a resigning/sacking matter!
For allegations of impropriety perhaps, so long as you agree with someones politics and intentions.
Antisemitism is another matter entirely, its not about alleged trivial impropriety it is a serious matter of policy and beliefs - like believing in the Magna Carta. I could not in good faith want an antisemite to be PM, or knowingly and willingly keep an antisemite in my Shadow Cabinet if I were LOTO. Because those beliefs are not compatible and that is a fundamental issue of principle not an impropriety.
I wouldn't expect the Labour Party to keep a Shadow Health Secretary who called for the NHS to abolished and us to move to an American healthcare system either. Principles matter.
If Principles matter, how about bypassing due process after seating next to someone who paid £12,000 a head to your political party to lobby you about a planning application.
We all seem to be quite down on people who clean toilets don't we? Toilet cleaning - tee hee. I am not sure why. Not only is it a vital job, it's a job which you can indeed do badly, indifferently, well, or superbly. You can also if you feel so inclined, take on another cleaner, and another, and build a multi-million pound facilities management empire - it's been done.
That is one example of aspiration and it's a good one. But what about working instead to bring down the system that has brought you to such a sorry pass? Is this not aspiration too?
If I wasn't clear before, let me be so now - I am rejecting the rather patronising notion that being a cleaner is 'a sorry pass'. I also don't see how the fall of capitalism will lead to the role of toilet cleaner being eliminated - unless society is going to collapse so quickly we'll all be digging holes in the ground instead.
Automation. It's the "luxury communism for all" thing that Ash Sarkar has as her twitter strapline. Used to be followed by "fucks like a champion" but this has gone now. As has Toby Young's "Classical Liberal". His now says "President of the Free Speech Union."
But, yes, a great point you make about low paid jobs often having a value in excess of their paltry remuneration. I agree with this very strongly. I also believe the opposite - that high paid jobs often have remuneration in excess of their value.
Automated toilet cleaning, if and when it becomes widespread, will be a by-product of capitalism, not communism.
But can capitalism deal with the consequences of a vast amount of surplus labour? Or will this require something rather different?
Yes it can. It has done for hundreds of years.
There is no such thing as a deficit or surplus of labour.
Does Rebecca Long-Bailey agree that the solution to the world's ills is to destroy capitalism?
Jews first then capitalism.
This is a disgusting comment. Get a grip man.
Long Bailey is a disgusting anti-Semite and that Starmer kept her in his Shadow Cabinet speaks volumes. She should have been sent packing with Burgon and the rest of the barnacles in the Labour Party.
You said that Rebecca Long Bailey wishes to see the destruction of the world's Jewry. That was crass and offensive in the extreme and you really ought to ask for the post to be deleted. Please reflect on this. If having done so, you still cannot see a problem with it, I despair of you.
I despair of anti-Semites and there's no doubt that both Corbyn and Long Bailey are those.
That Starmer was prepared to serve under one and to keep the services of the latter shows why Labour is still not fit for office.
Rather than criticise me for maybe exaggerating the extent of Long Bailey's anti-Semitism maybe deal with the real issue and call for her to go?
You were arguing with me only a few weeks ago that nothing short of a criminal conviction was a resigning/sacking matter!
For allegations of impropriety perhaps, so long as you agree with someones politics and intentions.
Antisemitism is another matter entirely, its not about alleged trivial impropriety it is a serious matter of policy and beliefs - like believing in the Magna Carta. I could not in good faith want an antisemite to be PM, or knowingly and willingly keep an antisemite in my Shadow Cabinet if I were LOTO. Because those beliefs are not compatible and that is a fundamental issue of principle not an impropriety.
I wouldn't expect the Labour Party to keep a Shadow Health Secretary who called for the NHS to abolished and us to move to an American healthcare system either. Principles matter.
If Principles matter, how about bypassing due process after seating next to someone who paid £12,000 a head to your political party to lobby you about a planning application.
My principle is that houses should be built and Jenrick did the right thing. I oppose NIMBYism and Jenrick's decision should have been defended and implemented. I regret though understand why his decision was rescinded.
This is simply not true. They were bad I. The rust belt but were reasonable elsewhere.
Pure gamblers are backing Biden. Trump backers seem to be a collection of those 'worried' about his getting a second term; 'spurs bettors'; journalists who can't wait to say "I told you so" when he wins and polemicists who are desperate to write a narrative that there's a latent Trump majority lurking in the US. Hillary was a dreadful candidate and she got very close. Joe Biden is much more popular than she ever was.
I really hope you're right. 'Spurs bettors'?
At what price is Trump worth a bet? It feels to me that there's no value in Biden below 1.5 or so.
We all seem to be quite down on people who clean toilets don't we? Toilet cleaning - tee hee. I am not sure why. Not only is it a vital job, it's a job which you can indeed do badly, indifferently, well, or superbly. You can also if you feel so inclined, take on another cleaner, and another, and build a multi-million pound facilities management empire - it's been done.
That is one example of aspiration and it's a good one. But what about working instead to bring down the system that has brought you to such a sorry pass? Is this not aspiration too?
If I wasn't clear before, let me be so now - I am rejecting the rather patronising notion that being a cleaner is 'a sorry pass'. I also don't see how the fall of capitalism will lead to the role of toilet cleaner being eliminated - unless society is going to collapse so quickly we'll all be digging holes in the ground instead.
Automation. It's the "luxury communism for all" thing that Ash Sarkar has as her twitter strapline. Used to be followed by "fucks like a champion" but this has gone now. As has Toby Young's "Classical Liberal". His now says "President of the Free Speech Union."
But, yes, a great point you make about low paid jobs often having a value in excess of their paltry remuneration. I agree with this very strongly. I also believe the opposite - that high paid jobs often have remuneration in excess of their value.
Automated toilet cleaning, if and when it becomes widespread, will be a by-product of capitalism, not communism.
But can capitalism deal with the consequences of a vast amount of surplus labour? Or will this require something rather different?
Yes it can. It has done for hundreds of years.
There is no such thing as a deficit or surplus of labour.
Indeed, unless Starmer gets a Blair 1997 style swing of over 10% he will not get an overall majority so to become PM he would likely need the support of 30 odd LD MPs if they pick up some Tory seats in London and the South.
In which case Davey could become Clegg to Starmer's Cameron
Even then I actually don't think it's enough - Starmer needs to either win seats that Labour never had or find a way back in Scotland.
While personally Boris is crap I really cannot see how Labour wins a majority next time round. Even if the Lib Dems had 30 odd seats the 2 parties together still won't have enough.
I think Starmer's ceiling is 260-280 seats at the next election although I can see Labour playing that scenario as a minority gvt to their own advantage.
Starmer "squishing" the Lib Dems would just give seats to the Conservatives, and therefore make a Labour government less likely:
Twickenham: LD 56%, Con 34%, Lab 9% Bath: LD 47%, Con 36%, Lab 15% Kingston & Surbiton: LD 51%, Con 34%, Lab 11% Oxford West & Abingdon: LD 53%, Con 38%, Lab 7% Richmond Park: LD 53%, Con 41%, Lab 5% St Albans: LD 50%, Con 39%, Lab 9%
Labour did hold St Albans 1997 - 2005, so it is reasonable to assume that much of the LD vote comes from anti-Tory Labour voters. A similar story re- Bath - though Labour has never won there despite coming very close in 1966.
Starmer "squishing" the Lib Dems would just give seats to the Conservatives, and therefore make a Labour government less likely:
Twickenham: LD 56%, Con 34%, Lab 9% Bath: LD 47%, Con 36%, Lab 15% Kingston & Surbiton: LD 51%, Con 34%, Lab 11% Oxford West & Abingdon: LD 53%, Con 38%, Lab 7% Richmond Park: LD 53%, Con 41%, Lab 5% St Albans: LD 50%, Con 39%, Lab 9%
Indeed. There isn't much electorally Labour can do about the LDs. Other than Sheffield Hallam they aren't in competition anywhere I can think of as far as Westminster that is. Edit. See @HYUFD has made the point with more facts as always...
Labour could reasonably expect to recover in Finchley & Golders Green and Coties of London & Westminster next time. Possibly also true of Wimbledon - though that was a narrow LD 'miss' in 2019and probably makes it more difficult for Labour to be back in serious contention.
I think Cities of London and Westminster is a more feasible target for Labour (although still a major long shot) than Finchley and Golders Green TBH (probably the only credible Labour target from 3rd place) as I think Berger is a lot more likely to appeal to the Jewish Tory remain vote directly which solidly stuck with the Tories in 2019. I can also see Labour being a lot more relaxed next time about giving her a free run as they'll be too busy in Chipping Barnet and Hendon and there is bad blood with Umunna.
Any questions to Starmer as to whether his adoption of the BLM pose makes it difficult to criticise violence stemming from that movement? I can imagine Farage or Boris would be quizzed if they were foolish enough to do the the same for a far right equivalent
No because the pose was a decent one of showing respect no different to Boris joining clap for carers. Kudos to Starmer for doing the right thing there - and I'm no Labour partisan.
He's been hooked in by the mob for a cheap stunt, and now kneels, in Showaddywaddy garb, alongside the havoc they cause...
Kudos to him. I respect him for joining in with a peaceful signal of respect, its a shame the PM did not do the same thing.
Anyone causing havoc has nothing to do with kneeling.
We all seem to be quite down on people who clean toilets don't we? Toilet cleaning - tee hee. I am not sure why. Not only is it a vital job, it's a job which you can indeed do badly, indifferently, well, or superbly. You can also if you feel so inclined, take on another cleaner, and another, and build a multi-million pound facilities management empire - it's been done.
That is one example of aspiration and it's a good one. But what about working instead to bring down the system that has brought you to such a sorry pass? Is this not aspiration too?
If I wasn't clear before, let me be so now - I am rejecting the rather patronising notion that being a cleaner is 'a sorry pass'. I also don't see how the fall of capitalism will lead to the role of toilet cleaner being eliminated - unless society is going to collapse so quickly we'll all be digging holes in the ground instead.
Automation. It's the "luxury communism for all" thing that Ash Sarkar has as her twitter strapline. Used to be followed by "fucks like a champion" but this has gone now. As has Toby Young's "Classical Liberal". His now says "President of the Free Speech Union."
But, yes, a great point you make about low paid jobs often having a value in excess of their paltry remuneration. I agree with this very strongly. I also believe the opposite - that high paid jobs often have remuneration in excess of their value.
Automated toilet cleaning, if and when it becomes widespread, will be a by-product of capitalism, not communism.
But can capitalism deal with the consequences of a vast amount of surplus labour? Or will this require something rather different?
I'm always rather sceptical about the idea of automation creating vast swathes of unemployable people.
It's long been the case that advances in technology mean that an activity that used to employ thousands can be done by a handful of people and machines. But new activities and new jobs spring up.
I do, of course, get the point that this tends to exacerbate inequalities between those who provide the land and capital, and those who provide the labour. I also feel immense sympathy for the 50-something year olds particularly who suddenly have the rug pulled from under them when employment in an industry slumps. My point is simply that I am not convinced by the more extreme view that something radically new is happening requiring the replacement rather than evolution of the economic system.
Any questions to Starmer as to whether his adoption of the BLM pose makes it difficult to criticise violence stemming from that movement? I can imagine Farage or Boris would be quizzed if they were foolish enough to do the the same for a far right equivalent
No because the pose was a decent one of showing respect no different to Boris joining clap for carers. Kudos to Starmer for doing the right thing there - and I'm no Labour partisan.
He's been hooked in by the mob for a cheap stunt, and now kneels, in Showaddywaddy garb, alongside the havoc they cause...
Kudos to him. I respect him for joining in with a peaceful signal of respect, its a shame the PM did not do the same thing.
Anyone causing havoc has nothing to do with kneeling.
This is simply not true. They were bad I. The rust belt but were reasonable elsewhere.
Pure gamblers are backing Biden. Trump backers seem to be a collection of those 'worried' about his getting a second term; 'spurs bettors'; journalists who can't wait to say "I told you so" when he wins and polemicists who are desperate to write a narrative that there's a latent Trump majority lurking in the US. Hillary was a dreadful candidate and she got very close. Joe Biden is much more popular than she ever was.
Biden currently has a net -1.6 favorable/unfavorable average on RCP There's a graph of Hillary Clinton's ratings here: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/clinton_favorableunfavorable-1131.html She was above +30 in 2013 when she was Secretary of State. She only started getting unpopular when she started running for president. I wonder why...
The comparative favourable numbers (Trump/Clinton vs Trump/Biden) look a little different, though ? And Biden has 'started running'.
Latest battleground states' polls are interesting;
We all seem to be quite down on people who clean toilets don't we? Toilet cleaning - tee hee. I am not sure why. Not only is it a vital job, it's a job which you can indeed do badly, indifferently, well, or superbly. You can also if you feel so inclined, take on another cleaner, and another, and build a multi-million pound facilities management empire - it's been done.
That is one example of aspiration and it's a good one. But what about working instead to bring down the system that has brought you to such a sorry pass? Is this not aspiration too?
If I wasn't clear before, let me be so now - I am rejecting the rather patronising notion that being a cleaner is 'a sorry pass'. I also don't see how the fall of capitalism will lead to the role of toilet cleaner being eliminated - unless society is going to collapse so quickly we'll all be digging holes in the ground instead.
Automation. It's the "luxury communism for all" thing that Ash Sarkar has as her twitter strapline. Used to be followed by "fucks like a champion" but this has gone now. As has Toby Young's "Classical Liberal". His now says "President of the Free Speech Union."
But, yes, a great point you make about low paid jobs often having a value in excess of their paltry remuneration. I agree with this very strongly. I also believe the opposite - that high paid jobs often have remuneration in excess of their value.
Automated toilet cleaning, if and when it becomes widespread, will be a by-product of capitalism, not communism.
But can capitalism deal with the consequences of a vast amount of surplus labour? Or will this require something rather different?
It has managed to deal with the loss of Ale tunners, Ankle beaters, Apparitors, Arkwrights, and Amblers, and that's just a selection from 'A'. http://sites.rootsweb.com/~usgwkidz/oldjobs.htm
This is simply not true. They were bad I. The rust belt but were reasonable elsewhere.
Pure gamblers are backing Biden. Trump backers seem to be a collection of those 'worried' about his getting a second term; 'spurs bettors'; journalists who can't wait to say "I told you so" when he wins and polemicists who are desperate to write a narrative that there's a latent Trump majority lurking in the US. Hillary was a dreadful candidate and she got very close. Joe Biden is much more popular than she ever was.
I really hope you're right. 'Spurs bettors'?
At what price is Trump worth a bet? It feels to me that there's no value in Biden below 1.5 or so.
Fatalists. Spurs fans who always bet against Spurs because we know we're always 2 minutes away from disaster.
Maxine Peake is a bit like the WLM people. It may be factually correct, but you have to ask why is it being highlighted?
That's quite a good point.
It depends on the history of the person highlighting it (I don't know who Maxine Peake is). I think where policing is seen as hostile by communities, isn't it noteworthy if a country that has expertise in occupying land with a hostile population is training the police? Say if the Royal Ulster Constabulary was trained by the Israeli military?
Indeed, unless Starmer gets a Blair 1997 style swing of over 10% he will not get an overall majority so to become PM he would likely need the support of 30 odd LD MPs if they pick up some Tory seats in London and the South.
In which case Davey could become Clegg to Starmer's Cameron
Even then I actually don't think it's enough - Starmer needs to either win seats that Labour never had or find a way back in Scotland.
While personally Boris is crap I really cannot see how Labour wins a majority next time round. Even if the Lib Dems had 30 odd seats the 2 parties together still won't have enough.
I think Starmer's ceiling is 260-280 seats at the next election although I can see Labour playing that scenario as a minority gvt to their own advantage.
Starmer "squishing" the Lib Dems would just give seats to the Conservatives, and therefore make a Labour government less likely:
Twickenham: LD 56%, Con 34%, Lab 9% Bath: LD 47%, Con 36%, Lab 15% Kingston & Surbiton: LD 51%, Con 34%, Lab 11% Oxford West & Abingdon: LD 53%, Con 38%, Lab 7% Richmond Park: LD 53%, Con 41%, Lab 5% St Albans: LD 50%, Con 39%, Lab 9%
Labour did hold St Albans 1997 - 2005, so it is reasonable to assume that much of the LD vote comes from anti-Tory Labour voters. A similar story re- Bath - though Labour has never won there despite coming very close in 1966.
Starmer "squishing" the Lib Dems would just give seats to the Conservatives, and therefore make a Labour government less likely:
Twickenham: LD 56%, Con 34%, Lab 9% Bath: LD 47%, Con 36%, Lab 15% Kingston & Surbiton: LD 51%, Con 34%, Lab 11% Oxford West & Abingdon: LD 53%, Con 38%, Lab 7% Richmond Park: LD 53%, Con 41%, Lab 5% St Albans: LD 50%, Con 39%, Lab 9%
Indeed. There isn't much electorally Labour can do about the LDs. Other than Sheffield Hallam they aren't in competition anywhere I can think of as far as Westminster that is. Edit. See @HYUFD has made the point with more facts as always...
Labour could reasonably expect to recover in Finchley & Golders Green and Coties of London & Westminster next time. Possibly also true of Wimbledon - though that was a narrow LD 'miss' in 2019and probably makes it more difficult for Labour to be back in serious contention.
I think Cities of London and Westminster is a more feasible target for Labour (although still a major long shot) than Finchley and Golders Green TBH (probably the only credible Labour target from 3rd place) as I think Berger is a lot more likely to appeal to the Jewish Tory remain vote directly which solidly stuck with the Tories in 2019. I can also see Labour being a lot more relaxed next time about giving her a free run as they'll be too busy in Chipping Barnet and Hendon and there is bad blood with Umunna.
Labour has never won Cities of London and Westminster which is 14th on the LD target list but only 75th on the Labour target list while Finchley and Golders Green is 17th on the LD target list and only 117th on the Labour target list
Biden is clearing 50%. Hillary never did. Biden, flawed as he is, speaks to the soul of America. And that's why he'll win.
Trump never cleared 50% either. In fact, more Americans voted for Hillary.
Although Biden’s victory margins in New England, the East Coast Mason-Dixon area and California will almost certainly be so large they would make Saddam Hussein blink, if he tops 50% nationwide it is very hard to see a Trump winning.
But - early days. We’ve written Trump off before and lived to regret it.
Any questions to Starmer as to whether his adoption of the BLM pose makes it difficult to criticise violence stemming from that movement? I can imagine Farage or Boris would be quizzed if they were foolish enough to do the the same for a far right equivalent
No because the pose was a decent one of showing respect no different to Boris joining clap for carers. Kudos to Starmer for doing the right thing there - and I'm no Labour partisan.
He's been hooked in by the mob for a cheap stunt, and now kneels, in Showaddywaddy garb, alongside the havoc they cause...
Kudos to him. I respect him for joining in with a peaceful signal of respect, its a shame the PM did not do the same thing.
Anyone causing havoc has nothing to do with kneeling.
Oh no, of course not
Absolutely of course not.
What you are trying to argue is no different to suggesting that joining in with clap for carers makes you liable for the actions of Dr Harold Shipman or Dr Manish Shah.
Does Rebecca Long-Bailey agree that the solution to the world's ills is to destroy capitalism?
Jews first then capitalism.
This is a disgusting comment. Get a grip man.
Long Bailey is a disgusting anti-Semite and that Starmer kept her in his Shadow Cabinet speaks volumes. She should have been sent packing with Burgon and the rest of the barnacles in the Labour Party.
You said that Rebecca Long Bailey wishes to see the destruction of the world's Jewry. That was crass and offensive in the extreme and you really ought to ask for the post to be deleted. Please reflect on this. If having done so, you still cannot see a problem with it, I despair of you.
I despair of anti-Semites and there's no doubt that both Corbyn and Long Bailey are those.
That Starmer was prepared to serve under one and to keep the services of the latter shows why Labour is still not fit for office.
Rather than criticise me for maybe exaggerating the extent of Long Bailey's anti-Semitism maybe deal with the real issue and call for her to go?
"maybe exaggerating"
needs to be replaced with -
"hyperbolizing beyond all reason and bounds of decency, such as to render the comment an abuse of free speech and thus unsuitable for any subsequent debate to be based upon it"
We all seem to be quite down on people who clean toilets don't we? Toilet cleaning - tee hee. I am not sure why. Not only is it a vital job, it's a job which you can indeed do badly, indifferently, well, or superbly. You can also if you feel so inclined, take on another cleaner, and another, and build a multi-million pound facilities management empire - it's been done.
That is one example of aspiration and it's a good one. But what about working instead to bring down the system that has brought you to such a sorry pass? Is this not aspiration too?
If I wasn't clear before, let me be so now - I am rejecting the rather patronising notion that being a cleaner is 'a sorry pass'. I also don't see how the fall of capitalism will lead to the role of toilet cleaner being eliminated - unless society is going to collapse so quickly we'll all be digging holes in the ground instead.
Automation. It's the "luxury communism for all" thing that Ash Sarkar has as her twitter strapline. Used to be followed by "fucks like a champion" but this has gone now. As has Toby Young's "Classical Liberal". His now says "President of the Free Speech Union."
But, yes, a great point you make about low paid jobs often having a value in excess of their paltry remuneration. I agree with this very strongly. I also believe the opposite - that high paid jobs often have remuneration in excess of their value.
Universal Basic income solves this conundrum I think.
I think this might well be coming under the next Labour government.
Unless automation leads to mass redundancies and loss or permanent and full time jobs I cannot see a UBI as realistic as it is too costly. If however that does occur a robot tax is likely to fund it (of course if the effects of the lockdown lead to permanent job losses as furlough ends that could also accelerate its introduction)
I'm sure the new leader, Davey or the other one, will explain to me the point of the LibDems post-Brexit, but I can't see one at present.
They have to be more than just a none of the above party to get beyond a tiny rump of support.
Ending the voting system that returns 95% of seats in a country to a party that won only 50% of the vote would ge a good start.
I think they've learned the lessons from the total failure of the last attempt to change the voting system in this country.
Voting reform will never be more than a minority issue in England, I'm afraid.
How about if Labour woke up to the fact that (post SNP rise in Scotland) proportional representation is now to their advantage.
But the moment they do well enough under FPTP to be in a position to implement it, it won't be.
Anyway, even if they turn out to love it, you won't get voters to see it as important. The voting system doesn't rate in the top dozen or so issues that voters mention to pollsters.
And of course there are lots of positive arguments for FPTP.
Or he needs to squish the LDs like a bug. Make them an irrelevant protest party and portray himself as the only viable alternative.
Swindon played into that role nicely. If Moran wins she looks likely to continue that course.
The point is that the Tories need to lose seats that Labour can not win, however transformative Starmer turns out to be. This is of course because very many actual and potential LD voters prefer the Tories to Labour, particularly in those southern seats.
The LibDems disappearing won’t change that.
No they don't. Labour plus SNP can easily get a majority between them.
Not so easily, and certainly not in one go.
Why not?
They currently have 250 seats between them. 326 needed for an absolute majority without third parties like LDs getting involved, so 71 gains which is fewer than half the gains Blair achieved and fewer gains than Cameron achieved in 2010.
The LDs 11 seats and half a dozen prime target seats are quite frankly an irrelevance. It puts them in the same league as the DUP. Maybe look at them if the stars align and land perfectly but otherwise just get on with the day job and ignore them.
Starmer would certainly prefer to gain 20 or so SNP seats, alongside 70 to 80 gains from the Tories and see the LDs gain 20 Tory seats for a Labour-LD Majority than have to rely on the SNP to become PM
Any questions to Starmer as to whether his adoption of the BLM pose makes it difficult to criticise violence stemming from that movement? I can imagine Farage or Boris would be quizzed if they were foolish enough to do the the same for a far right equivalent
No because the pose was a decent one of showing respect no different to Boris joining clap for carers. Kudos to Starmer for doing the right thing there - and I'm no Labour partisan.
He's been hooked in by the mob for a cheap stunt, and now kneels, in Showaddywaddy garb, alongside the havoc they cause...
Kudos to him. I respect him for joining in with a peaceful signal of respect, its a shame the PM did not do the same thing.
Anyone causing havoc has nothing to do with kneeling.
Oh no, of course not
Absolutely of course not.
What you are trying to argue is no different to suggesting that joining in with clap for carers makes you liable for the actions of Dr Harold Shipman or Dr Manish Shah.
No, it's nothing like that at all, but we'll leave it there.
This is simply not true. They were bad I. The rust belt but were reasonable elsewhere.
Pure gamblers are backing Biden. Trump backers seem to be a collection of those 'worried' about his getting a second term; 'spurs bettors'; journalists who can't wait to say "I told you so" when he wins and polemicists who are desperate to write a narrative that there's a latent Trump majority lurking in the US. Hillary was a dreadful candidate and she got very close. Joe Biden is much more popular than she ever was.
Biden currently has a net -1.6 favorable/unfavorable average on RCP There's a graph of Hillary Clinton's ratings here: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/clinton_favorableunfavorable-1131.html She was above +30 in 2013 when she was Secretary of State. She only started getting unpopular when she started running for president. I wonder why...
The comparative favourable numbers (Trump/Clinton vs Trump/Biden) look a little different, though ? And Biden has 'started running'.
Latest battleground states' polls are interesting;
Yes, I think, and hope, that Biden is in a better position than Clinton was. But Clinton was definitely sometimes much more popular than Biden is now. Biden also has the same electoral college problem: he is polling better nationally than in the states he needs to win (except currently Michigan where he is polling the same).
Also, I sometimes think there is a bit of circularity going on: Clinton lost to Trump because she was a terrible candidate. We know she was a terrible candidate because she lost to Trump.
Does Rebecca Long-Bailey agree that the solution to the world's ills is to destroy capitalism?
Jews first then capitalism.
This is a disgusting comment. Get a grip man.
Long Bailey is a disgusting anti-Semite and that Starmer kept her in his Shadow Cabinet speaks volumes. She should have been sent packing with Burgon and the rest of the barnacles in the Labour Party.
You said that Rebecca Long Bailey wishes to see the destruction of the world's Jewry. That was crass and offensive in the extreme and you really ought to ask for the post to be deleted. Please reflect on this. If having done so, you still cannot see a problem with it, I despair of you.
I despair of anti-Semites and there's no doubt that both Corbyn and Long Bailey are those.
That Starmer was prepared to serve under one and to keep the services of the latter shows why Labour is still not fit for office.
Rather than criticise me for maybe exaggerating the extent of Long Bailey's anti-Semitism maybe deal with the real issue and call for her to go?
You were arguing with me only a few weeks ago that nothing short of a criminal conviction was a resigning/sacking matter!
For allegations of impropriety perhaps, so long as you agree with someones politics and intentions.
Antisemitism is another matter entirely, its not about alleged trivial impropriety it is a serious matter of policy and beliefs - like believing in the Magna Carta. I could not in good faith want an antisemite to be PM, or knowingly and willingly keep an antisemite in my Shadow Cabinet if I were LOTO. Because those beliefs are not compatible and that is a fundamental issue of principle not an impropriety.
I wouldn't expect the Labour Party to keep a Shadow Health Secretary who called for the NHS to abolished and us to move to an American healthcare system either. Principles matter.
I tend to agree with you on RLB, although others are right to point out you've grossly overstated your case. I see why Starmer feels he has to have her, but would much rather he didn't.
However, you are pretty clearly being inconsistent on when someone should and should not go. The point I made to you over Cummings stands. These political jobs aren't akin to employment as many of us know it where one has or should have various protections meaning you're only summarily dismissed in very limited and specific circumstances. If a political appointee is no longer the right person to be doing the job - whether because they are not that good at it, or because they have become an embarrassing distraction due to past statements or current conduct, or simply because you have someone better in mind - it's cheerio. Everyone knows that going in.
Any questions to Starmer as to whether his adoption of the BLM pose makes it difficult to criticise violence stemming from that movement? I can imagine Farage or Boris would be quizzed if they were foolish enough to do the the same for a far right equivalent
No because the pose was a decent one of showing respect no different to Boris joining clap for carers. Kudos to Starmer for doing the right thing there - and I'm no Labour partisan.
He's been hooked in by the mob for a cheap stunt, and now kneels, in Showaddywaddy garb, alongside the havoc they cause...
Kudos to him. I respect him for joining in with a peaceful signal of respect, its a shame the PM did not do the same thing.
Anyone causing havoc has nothing to do with kneeling.
Oh no, of course not
Absolutely of course not.
What you are trying to argue is no different to suggesting that joining in with clap for carers makes you liable for the actions of Dr Harold Shipman or Dr Manish Shah.
No, it's nothing like that at all, but we'll leave it there.
Its entirely like that.
Carers and those supporting black lives matter are trying to do the right thing. Signalling your support is reasonable.
Some commit crimes and go too far under the name of the NHS/BLM but they are a criminal minority.
Any questions to Starmer as to whether his adoption of the BLM pose makes it difficult to criticise violence stemming from that movement? I can imagine Farage or Boris would be quizzed if they were foolish enough to do the the same for a far right equivalent
There is no far right equivalent. The far right is the far right. I have explained this till I'm blue in the face. No equivalence. Every time the false equivalence is made the far right notches a little victory and the spirits of all people of sound mind and good character are lowered.
Indeed, unless Starmer gets a Blair 1997 style swing of over 10% he will not get an overall majority so to become PM he would likely need the support of 30 odd LD MPs if they pick up some Tory seats in London and the South.
In which case Davey could become Clegg to Starmer's Cameron
Even then I actually don't think it's enough - Starmer needs to either win seats that Labour never had or find a way back in Scotland.
While personally Boris is crap I really cannot see how Labour wins a majority next time round. Even if the Lib Dems had 30 odd seats the 2 parties together still won't have enough.
I think Starmer's ceiling is 260-280 seats at the next election although I can see Labour playing that scenario as a minority gvt to their own advantage.
Starmer "squishing" the Lib Dems would just give seats to the Conservatives, and therefore make a Labour government less likely:
Twickenham: LD 56%, Con 34%, Lab 9% Bath: LD 47%, Con 36%, Lab 15% Kingston & Surbiton: LD 51%, Con 34%, Lab 11% Oxford West & Abingdon: LD 53%, Con 38%, Lab 7% Richmond Park: LD 53%, Con 41%, Lab 5% St Albans: LD 50%, Con 39%, Lab 9%
Labour did hold St Albans 1997 - 2005, so it is reasonable to assume that much of the LD vote comes from anti-Tory Labour voters. A similar story re- Bath - though Labour has never won there despite coming very close in 1966.
Starmer "squishing" the Lib Dems would just give seats to the Conservatives, and therefore make a Labour government less likely:
Twickenham: LD 56%, Con 34%, Lab 9% Bath: LD 47%, Con 36%, Lab 15% Kingston & Surbiton: LD 51%, Con 34%, Lab 11% Oxford West & Abingdon: LD 53%, Con 38%, Lab 7% Richmond Park: LD 53%, Con 41%, Lab 5% St Albans: LD 50%, Con 39%, Lab 9%
Indeed. There isn't much electorally Labour can do about the LDs. Other than Sheffield Hallam they aren't in competition anywhere I can think of as far as Westminster that is. Edit. See @HYUFD has made the point with more facts as always...
Labour could reasonably expect to recover in Finchley & Golders Green and Coties of London & Westminster next time. Possibly also true of Wimbledon - though that was a narrow LD 'miss' in 2019and probably makes it more difficult for Labour to be back in serious contention.
I think Cities of London and Westminster is a more feasible target for Labour (although still a major long shot) than Finchley and Golders Green TBH (probably the only credible Labour target from 3rd place) as I think Berger is a lot more likely to appeal to the Jewish Tory remain vote directly which solidly stuck with the Tories in 2019. I can also see Labour being a lot more relaxed next time about giving her a free run as they'll be too busy in Chipping Barnet and Hendon and there is bad blood with Umunna.
I disagree re-Finchley & Golders Green and will be surprised if Labour is not at least a good second place there next time. The Labour vote did not collapse in 2019 and I expect Starmer's response to have effectively defused - indeed reversed - the Anti- Semitic factor. Berger will be less significant in 2024 if she stands , and there is no prospect of Labour giving the LDs a free run in a seat it held from 1997 - 2005 and where it has usually been the strongest anti-Tory party.
Any questions to Starmer as to whether his adoption of the BLM pose makes it difficult to criticise violence stemming from that movement? I can imagine Farage or Boris would be quizzed if they were foolish enough to do the the same for a far right equivalent
No because the pose was a decent one of showing respect no different to Boris joining clap for carers. Kudos to Starmer for doing the right thing there - and I'm no Labour partisan.
He's been hooked in by the mob for a cheap stunt, and now kneels, in Showaddywaddy garb, alongside the havoc they cause...
Kudos to him. I respect him for joining in with a peaceful signal of respect, its a shame the PM did not do the same thing.
Anyone causing havoc has nothing to do with kneeling.
Oh no, of course not
Absolutely of course not.
What you are trying to argue is no different to suggesting that joining in with clap for carers makes you liable for the actions of Dr Harold Shipman or Dr Manish Shah.
No, it's nothing like that at all, but we'll leave it there.
Do you support the Burnley supporter who arranged for the banner " white lives matter " to be flown over the football ground ? As the football players were taking the knee.
Any questions to Starmer as to whether his adoption of the BLM pose makes it difficult to criticise violence stemming from that movement? I can imagine Farage or Boris would be quizzed if they were foolish enough to do the the same for a far right equivalent
No because the pose was a decent one of showing respect no different to Boris joining clap for carers. Kudos to Starmer for doing the right thing there - and I'm no Labour partisan.
He's been hooked in by the mob for a cheap stunt, and now kneels, in Showaddywaddy garb, alongside the havoc they cause...
Kudos to him. I respect him for joining in with a peaceful signal of respect, its a shame the PM did not do the same thing.
Anyone causing havoc has nothing to do with kneeling.
Oh no, of course not
Absolutely of course not.
What you are trying to argue is no different to suggesting that joining in with clap for carers makes you liable for the actions of Dr Harold Shipman or Dr Manish Shah.
No, it's nothing like that at all, but we'll leave it there.
Its entirely like that.
Carers and those supporting black lives matter are trying to do the right thing. Signalling your support is reasonable.
Some commit crimes and go too far under the name of the NHS/BLM but they are a criminal minority.
A little bit more vocal condemnation of the minority wouldn't go a miss.
Does Rebecca Long-Bailey agree that the solution to the world's ills is to destroy capitalism?
Jews first then capitalism.
This is a disgusting comment. Get a grip man.
Long Bailey is a disgusting anti-Semite and that Starmer kept her in his Shadow Cabinet speaks volumes. She should have been sent packing with Burgon and the rest of the barnacles in the Labour Party.
You said that Rebecca Long Bailey wishes to see the destruction of the world's Jewry. That was crass and offensive in the extreme and you really ought to ask for the post to be deleted. Please reflect on this. If having done so, you still cannot see a problem with it, I despair of you.
I despair of anti-Semites and there's no doubt that both Corbyn and Long Bailey are those.
That Starmer was prepared to serve under one and to keep the services of the latter shows why Labour is still not fit for office.
Rather than criticise me for maybe exaggerating the extent of Long Bailey's anti-Semitism maybe deal with the real issue and call for her to go?
You were arguing with me only a few weeks ago that nothing short of a criminal conviction was a resigning/sacking matter!
For allegations of impropriety perhaps, so long as you agree with someones politics and intentions.
Antisemitism is another matter entirely, its not about alleged trivial impropriety it is a serious matter of policy and beliefs - like believing in the Magna Carta. I could not in good faith want an antisemite to be PM, or knowingly and willingly keep an antisemite in my Shadow Cabinet if I were LOTO. Because those beliefs are not compatible and that is a fundamental issue of principle not an impropriety.
I wouldn't expect the Labour Party to keep a Shadow Health Secretary who called for the NHS to abolished and us to move to an American healthcare system either. Principles matter.
I tend to agree with you on RLB, although others are right to point out you've grossly overstated your case. I see why Starmer feels he has to have her, but would much rather he didn't.
However, you are pretty clearly being inconsistent on when someone should and should not go. The point I made to you over Cummings stands. These political jobs aren't akin to employment as many of us know it where one has or should have various protections meaning you're only summarily dismissed in very limited and specific circumstances. If a political appointee is no longer the right person to be doing the job - whether because they are not that good at it, or because they have become an embarrassing distraction due to past statements or current conduct, or simply because you have someone better in mind - it's cheerio. Everyone knows that going in.
I agree with that. But I think that what Cummings allegedly did wrong was trivially unimportant, a media hysteria that would (and did) blow over and he should stay or go based upon whether he is good or bad for the job. The circumstances of Cummings trip are never going to happen again either.
I'm saying that what RLB believes is extremely important for her suitability, Her issue of antisemitism has returned time and time and time again. If she gets into office she will still be an antisemite.
This is simply not true. They were bad I. The rust belt but were reasonable elsewhere.
Pure gamblers are backing Biden. Trump backers seem to be a collection of those 'worried' about his getting a second term; 'spurs bettors'; journalists who can't wait to say "I told you so" when he wins and polemicists who are desperate to write a narrative that there's a latent Trump majority lurking in the US. Hillary was a dreadful candidate and she got very close. Joe Biden is much more popular than she ever was.
Biden currently has a net -1.6 favorable/unfavorable average on RCP There's a graph of Hillary Clinton's ratings here: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/clinton_favorableunfavorable-1131.html She was above +30 in 2013 when she was Secretary of State. She only started getting unpopular when she started running for president. I wonder why...
The comparative favourable numbers (Trump/Clinton vs Trump/Biden) look a little different, though ? And Biden has 'started running'.
Latest battleground states' polls are interesting;
Yes, I think, and hope, that Biden is in a better position than Clinton was. But Clinton was definitely sometimes much more popular than Biden is now. Biden also has the same electoral college problem: he is polling better nationally than in the states he needs to win (except currently Michigan where he is polling the same).
Also, I sometimes think there is a bit of circularity going on: Clinton lost to Trump because she was a terrible candidate. We know she was a terrible candidate because she lost to Trump.
No. Way back in 2008 shrewd observers were saying she would be a death pill for the Dems:
Any questions to Starmer as to whether his adoption of the BLM pose makes it difficult to criticise violence stemming from that movement? I can imagine Farage or Boris would be quizzed if they were foolish enough to do the the same for a far right equivalent
There is no far right equivalent. The far right is the far right. I have explained this till I'm blue in the face. No equivalence. Every time the false equivalence is made the far right notches a little victory and the spirits of all people of sound mind and good character are lowered.
There is no difference between the far left and the far right. They are two cheeks of the same arse and I oppose them both equally.
Does Rebecca Long-Bailey agree that the solution to the world's ills is to destroy capitalism?
Jews first then capitalism.
This is a disgusting comment. Get a grip man.
Long Bailey is a disgusting anti-Semite and that Starmer kept her in his Shadow Cabinet speaks volumes. She should have been sent packing with Burgon and the rest of the barnacles in the Labour Party.
You said that Rebecca Long Bailey wishes to see the destruction of the world's Jewry. That was crass and offensive in the extreme and you really ought to ask for the post to be deleted. Please reflect on this. If having done so, you still cannot see a problem with it, I despair of you.
I despair of anti-Semites and there's no doubt that both Corbyn and Long Bailey are those.
That Starmer was prepared to serve under one and to keep the services of the latter shows why Labour is still not fit for office.
Rather than criticise me for maybe exaggerating the extent of Long Bailey's anti-Semitism maybe deal with the real issue and call for her to go?
You were arguing with me only a few weeks ago that nothing short of a criminal conviction was a resigning/sacking matter!
For allegations of impropriety perhaps, so long as you agree with someones politics and intentions.
Antisemitism is another matter entirely, its not about alleged trivial impropriety it is a serious matter of policy and beliefs - like believing in the Magna Carta. I could not in good faith want an antisemite to be PM, or knowingly and willingly keep an antisemite in my Shadow Cabinet if I were LOTO. Because those beliefs are not compatible and that is a fundamental issue of principle not an impropriety.
I wouldn't expect the Labour Party to keep a Shadow Health Secretary who called for the NHS to abolished and us to move to an American healthcare system either. Principles matter.
I tend to agree with you on RLB, although others are right to point out you've grossly overstated your case. I see why Starmer feels he has to have her, but would much rather he didn't.
However, you are pretty clearly being inconsistent on when someone should and should not go. The point I made to you over Cummings stands. These political jobs aren't akin to employment as many of us know it where one has or should have various protections meaning you're only summarily dismissed in very limited and specific circumstances. If a political appointee is no longer the right person to be doing the job - whether because they are not that good at it, or because they have become an embarrassing distraction due to past statements or current conduct, or simply because you have someone better in mind - it's cheerio. Everyone knows that going in.
I agree with that. But I think that what Cummings allegedly did wrong was trivially unimportant, a media hysteria that would (and did) blow over and he should stay or go based upon whether he is good or bad for the job. The circumstances of Cummings trip are never going to happen again either.
I'm saying that what RLB believes is extremely important for her suitability, Her issue of antisemitism has returned time and time and time again. If she gets into office she will still be an antisemite.
Repeatedly breaking quarantine is ‘trivially unimportant?’
Any questions to Starmer as to whether his adoption of the BLM pose makes it difficult to criticise violence stemming from that movement? I can imagine Farage or Boris would be quizzed if they were foolish enough to do the the same for a far right equivalent
There is no far right equivalent. The far right is the far right. I have explained this till I'm blue in the face. No equivalence. Every time the false equivalence is made the far right notches a little victory and the spirits of all people of sound mind and good character are lowered.
The far right equivalent would be the BNP rebranding itself 'Don't Abuse Teenage Girls', then Boris or Farage posing in solidarity with them as racists bash up muslims
This is simply not true. They were bad I. The rust belt but were reasonable elsewhere.
Pure gamblers are backing Biden. Trump backers seem to be a collection of those 'worried' about his getting a second term; 'spurs bettors'; journalists who can't wait to say "I told you so" when he wins and polemicists who are desperate to write a narrative that there's a latent Trump majority lurking in the US. Hillary was a dreadful candidate and she got very close. Joe Biden is much more popular than she ever was.
Biden currently has a net -1.6 favorable/unfavorable average on RCP There's a graph of Hillary Clinton's ratings here: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/clinton_favorableunfavorable-1131.html She was above +30 in 2013 when she was Secretary of State. She only started getting unpopular when she started running for president. I wonder why...
The comparative favourable numbers (Trump/Clinton vs Trump/Biden) look a little different, though ? And Biden has 'started running'.
Latest battleground states' polls are interesting;
Yes, I think, and hope, that Biden is in a better position than Clinton was. But Clinton was definitely sometimes much more popular than Biden is now. Biden also has the same electoral college problem: he is polling better nationally than in the states he needs to win (except currently Michigan where he is polling the same).
Also, I sometimes think there is a bit of circularity going on: Clinton lost to Trump because she was a terrible candidate. We know she was a terrible candidate because she lost to Trump.
I think Clinton would beat Trump if she were running this time round, though It might be closer.
Does Rebecca Long-Bailey agree that the solution to the world's ills is to destroy capitalism?
Jews first then capitalism.
This is a disgusting comment. Get a grip man.
Long Bailey is a disgusting anti-Semite and that Starmer kept her in his Shadow Cabinet speaks volumes. She should have been sent packing with Burgon and the rest of the barnacles in the Labour Party.
You said that Rebecca Long Bailey wishes to see the destruction of the world's Jewry. That was crass and offensive in the extreme and you really ought to ask for the post to be deleted. Please reflect on this. If having done so, you still cannot see a problem with it, I despair of you.
I despair of anti-Semites and there's no doubt that both Corbyn and Long Bailey are those.
That Starmer was prepared to serve under one and to keep the services of the latter shows why Labour is still not fit for office.
Rather than criticise me for maybe exaggerating the extent of Long Bailey's anti-Semitism maybe deal with the real issue and call for her to go?
You were arguing with me only a few weeks ago that nothing short of a criminal conviction was a resigning/sacking matter!
For allegations of impropriety perhaps, so long as you agree with someones politics and intentions.
Antisemitism is another matter entirely, its not about alleged trivial impropriety it is a serious matter of policy and beliefs - like believing in the Magna Carta. I could not in good faith want an antisemite to be PM, or knowingly and willingly keep an antisemite in my Shadow Cabinet if I were LOTO. Because those beliefs are not compatible and that is a fundamental issue of principle not an impropriety.
I wouldn't expect the Labour Party to keep a Shadow Health Secretary who called for the NHS to abolished and us to move to an American healthcare system either. Principles matter.
I tend to agree with you on RLB, although others are right to point out you've grossly overstated your case. I see why Starmer feels he has to have her, but would much rather he didn't.
However, you are pretty clearly being inconsistent on when someone should and should not go. The point I made to you over Cummings stands. These political jobs aren't akin to employment as many of us know it where one has or should have various protections meaning you're only summarily dismissed in very limited and specific circumstances. If a political appointee is no longer the right person to be doing the job - whether because they are not that good at it, or because they have become an embarrassing distraction due to past statements or current conduct, or simply because you have someone better in mind - it's cheerio. Everyone knows that going in.
I agree with that. But I think that what Cummings allegedly did wrong was trivially unimportant, a media hysteria that would (and did) blow over and he should stay or go based upon whether he is good or bad for the job. The circumstances of Cummings trip are never going to happen again either.
I'm saying that what RLB believes is extremely important for her suitability, Her issue of antisemitism has returned time and time and time again. If she gets into office she will still be an antisemite.
Repeatedly breaking quarantine is ‘trivially unimportant?’
He was cleared by the Police for the initial trip that started the witchhunt, only the Barnhard Castle trip allegedly broke the rules.
Any questions to Starmer as to whether his adoption of the BLM pose makes it difficult to criticise violence stemming from that movement? I can imagine Farage or Boris would be quizzed if they were foolish enough to do the the same for a far right equivalent
There is no far right equivalent. The far right is the far right. I have explained this till I'm blue in the face. No equivalence. Every time the false equivalence is made the far right notches a little victory and the spirits of all people of sound mind and good character are lowered.
The far right equivalent would be the BNP rebranding itself 'Don't abuse teenage girls'
I would oppose the abuse of teenage girls even if the BNP did that.
If Labour govern it will be as a minority with deals vote by vote
Which would still make Davey or Moran and Blackford as powerful under a Starmer government as Arlene Foster was under May and Clegg was under Cameron from 2010 to 2015
If Labour govern it will be as a minority with deals vote by vote
Which would still make Davey or Moran and Blackford as powerful under a Starmer government as Arlene Foster was under May and Clegg was under Cameron from 2010 to 2015
Only if the chips fell perfectly.
If Starmer gains the same number of seats as Cameron did in 2010 he only needs deal with one of them.
If Starmer gainst the same number of seats as Blair did in 1997 he needn't deal with either of them.
Sure it is whatever the impotent whinging of the LOTO says.
Its frankly absurd for the Starmer to be majoring on something as petty and meaningless as Jenrick when there are allegations there is a serious assault on our constitution and the Magna Carta coming. Why is Starmer whinging about Jenrick and not banging on about the importance of the right of trial by jury. Its not as if he's lacking legal expertise to speak on this matter but instead he's playing to NIMBYs in Tower Hamlets, its disgraceful priorities.
Cyclefree would make an infinitely better LOTO than Starmer. I don't always agree with her but she's got smart priorities.
Indeed, unless Starmer gets a Blair 1997 style swing of over 10% he will not get an overall majority so to become PM he would likely need the support of 30 odd LD MPs if they pick up some Tory seats in London and the South.
In which case Davey could become Clegg to Starmer's Cameron
Even then I actually don't think it's enough - Starmer needs to either win seats that Labour never had or find a way back in Scotland.
While personally Boris is crap I really cannot see how Labour wins a majority next time round. Even if the Lib Dems had 30 odd seats the 2 parties together still won't have enough.
I think Starmer's ceiling is 260-280 seats at the next election although I can see Labour playing that scenario as a minority gvt to their own advantage.
Starmer "squishing" the Lib Dems would just give seats to the Conservatives, and therefore make a Labour government less likely:
Twickenham: LD 56%, Con 34%, Lab 9% Bath: LD 47%, Con 36%, Lab 15% Kingston & Surbiton: LD 51%, Con 34%, Lab 11% Oxford West & Abingdon: LD 53%, Con 38%, Lab 7% Richmond Park: LD 53%, Con 41%, Lab 5% St Albans: LD 50%, Con 39%, Lab 9%
Labour did hold St Albans 1997 - 2005, so it is reasonable to assume that much of the LD vote comes from anti-Tory Labour voters. A similar story re- Bath - though Labour has never won there despite coming very close in 1966.
Starmer "squishing" the Lib Dems would just give seats to the Conservatives, and therefore make a Labour government less likely:
Twickenham: LD 56%, Con 34%, Lab 9% Bath: LD 47%, Con 36%, Lab 15% Kingston & Surbiton: LD 51%, Con 34%, Lab 11% Oxford West & Abingdon: LD 53%, Con 38%, Lab 7% Richmond Park: LD 53%, Con 41%, Lab 5% St Albans: LD 50%, Con 39%, Lab 9%
Indeed. There isn't much electorally Labour can do about the LDs. Other than Sheffield Hallam they aren't in competition anywhere I can think of as far as Westminster that is. Edit. See @HYUFD has made the point with more facts as always...
Labour could reasonably expect to recover in Finchley & Golders Green and Coties of London & Westminster next time. Possibly also true of Wimbledon - though that was a narrow LD 'miss' in 2019and probably makes it more difficult for Labour to be back in serious contention.
I think Cities of London and Westminster is a more feasible target for Labour (although still a major long shot) than Finchley and Golders Green TBH (probably the only credible Labour target from 3rd place) as I think Berger is a lot more likely to appeal to the Jewish Tory remain vote directly which solidly stuck with the Tories in 2019. I can also see Labour being a lot more relaxed next time about giving her a free run as they'll be too busy in Chipping Barnet and Hendon and there is bad blood with Umunna.
Labour has never won Cities of London and Westminster which is 14th on the LD target list but only 75th on the Labour target list while Finchley and Golders Green is 17th on the LD target list and only 117th on the Labour target list
As we saw at GE2019 the party in second place at the previous election is in a much better position to argue for the anti-CON vote.
Indeed, unless Starmer gets a Blair 1997 style swing of over 10% he will not get an overall majority so to become PM he would likely need the support of 30 odd LD MPs if they pick up some Tory seats in London and the South.
In which case Davey could become Clegg to Starmer's Cameron
Even then I actually don't think it's enough - Starmer needs to either win seats that Labour never had or find a way back in Scotland.
While personally Boris is crap I really cannot see how Labour wins a majority next time round. Even if the Lib Dems had 30 odd seats the 2 parties together still won't have enough.
I think Starmer's ceiling is 260-280 seats at the next election although I can see Labour playing that scenario as a minority gvt to their own advantage.
Starmer "squishing" the Lib Dems would just give seats to the Conservatives, and therefore make a Labour government less likely:
Twickenham: LD 56%, Con 34%, Lab 9% Bath: LD 47%, Con 36%, Lab 15% Kingston & Surbiton: LD 51%, Con 34%, Lab 11% Oxford West & Abingdon: LD 53%, Con 38%, Lab 7% Richmond Park: LD 53%, Con 41%, Lab 5% St Albans: LD 50%, Con 39%, Lab 9%
Labour did hold St Albans 1997 - 2005, so it is reasonable to assume that much of the LD vote comes from anti-Tory Labour voters. A similar story re- Bath - though Labour has never won there despite coming very close in 1966.
Starmer "squishing" the Lib Dems would just give seats to the Conservatives, and therefore make a Labour government less likely:
Twickenham: LD 56%, Con 34%, Lab 9% Bath: LD 47%, Con 36%, Lab 15% Kingston & Surbiton: LD 51%, Con 34%, Lab 11% Oxford West & Abingdon: LD 53%, Con 38%, Lab 7% Richmond Park: LD 53%, Con 41%, Lab 5% St Albans: LD 50%, Con 39%, Lab 9%
Indeed. There isn't much electorally Labour can do about the LDs. Other than Sheffield Hallam they aren't in competition anywhere I can think of as far as Westminster that is. Edit. See @HYUFD has made the point with more facts as always...
Labour could reasonably expect to recover in Finchley & Golders Green and Coties of London & Westminster next time. Possibly also true of Wimbledon - though that was a narrow LD 'miss' in 2019and probably makes it more difficult for Labour to be back in serious contention.
I think Cities of London and Westminster is a more feasible target for Labour (although still a major long shot) than Finchley and Golders Green TBH (probably the only credible Labour target from 3rd place) as I think Berger is a lot more likely to appeal to the Jewish Tory remain vote directly which solidly stuck with the Tories in 2019. I can also see Labour being a lot more relaxed next time about giving her a free run as they'll be too busy in Chipping Barnet and Hendon and there is bad blood with Umunna.
I also believe Labour has the potential to recover in Scotland. If the party polls 40% across GB , I would expect to see circa 30% in Scotland.If in 2024, the GB polls are suggesting a serious prospect of Labour turfing out the Tories, I will be surprised if Scotland declined to 'join the party' - with many SNP voters switching back to Labour.
Any questions to Starmer as to whether his adoption of the BLM pose makes it difficult to criticise violence stemming from that movement? I can imagine Farage or Boris would be quizzed if they were foolish enough to do the the same for a far right equivalent
There is no far right equivalent. The far right is the far right. I have explained this till I'm blue in the face. No equivalence. Every time the false equivalence is made the far right notches a little victory and the spirits of all people of sound mind and good character are lowered.
The far right equivalent would be the BNP rebranding itself 'Don't abuse teenage girls'
I would oppose the abuse of teenage girls even if the BNP did that.
Almost everyone would. But mainstream politicians would be ill advised to pose in solidarity with the BNPs new slogan whilst BNP voters bash up muslims
Does Rebecca Long-Bailey agree that the solution to the world's ills is to destroy capitalism?
Jews first then capitalism.
This is a disgusting comment. Get a grip man.
Long Bailey is a disgusting anti-Semite and that Starmer kept her in his Shadow Cabinet speaks volumes. She should have been sent packing with Burgon and the rest of the barnacles in the Labour Party.
You said that Rebecca Long Bailey wishes to see the destruction of the world's Jewry. That was crass and offensive in the extreme and you really ought to ask for the post to be deleted. Please reflect on this. If having done so, you still cannot see a problem with it, I despair of you.
I despair of anti-Semites and there's no doubt that both Corbyn and Long Bailey are those.
That Starmer was prepared to serve under one and to keep the services of the latter shows why Labour is still not fit for office.
Rather than criticise me for maybe exaggerating the extent of Long Bailey's anti-Semitism maybe deal with the real issue and call for her to go?
You were arguing with me only a few weeks ago that nothing short of a criminal conviction was a resigning/sacking matter!
For allegations of impropriety perhaps, so long as you agree with someones politics and intentions.
Antisemitism is another matter entirely, its not about alleged trivial impropriety it is a serious matter of policy and beliefs - like believing in the Magna Carta. I could not in good faith want an antisemite to be PM, or knowingly and willingly keep an antisemite in my Shadow Cabinet if I were LOTO. Because those beliefs are not compatible and that is a fundamental issue of principle not an impropriety.
I wouldn't expect the Labour Party to keep a Shadow Health Secretary who called for the NHS to abolished and us to move to an American healthcare system either. Principles matter.
I tend to agree with you on RLB, although others are right to point out you've grossly overstated your case. I see why Starmer feels he has to have her, but would much rather he didn't.
However, you are pretty clearly being inconsistent on when someone should and should not go. The point I made to you over Cummings stands. These political jobs aren't akin to employment as many of us know it where one has or should have various protections meaning you're only summarily dismissed in very limited and specific circumstances. If a political appointee is no longer the right person to be doing the job - whether because they are not that good at it, or because they have become an embarrassing distraction due to past statements or current conduct, or simply because you have someone better in mind - it's cheerio. Everyone knows that going in.
I agree with that. But I think that what Cummings allegedly did wrong was trivially unimportant, a media hysteria that would (and did) blow over and he should stay or go based upon whether he is good or bad for the job. The circumstances of Cummings trip are never going to happen again either.
I'm saying that what RLB believes is extremely important for her suitability, Her issue of antisemitism has returned time and time and time again. If she gets into office she will still be an antisemite.
Repeatedly breaking quarantine is ‘trivially unimportant?’
He was cleared by the Police for the initial trip that started the witchhunt, only the Barnhard Castle trip allegedly broke the rules.
That is a very generous interpretation of what they said. Effectively, they said there was insufficient evidence to pursue a case, as intention was part of the law and his explanation, even though ludicrous, could not be disproved.
They made it very clear that he had acted contrary to government guidance.
Maxine Peake is a bit like the WLM people. It may be factually correct, but you have to ask why is it being highlighted?
That's quite a good point.
It depends on the history of the person highlighting it (I don't know who Maxine Peake is). I think where policing is seen as hostile by communities, isn't it noteworthy if a country that has expertise in occupying land with a hostile population is training the police? Say if the Royal Ulster Constabulary was trained by the Israeli military?
Yes, it's interesting and relevant. And to cry "antisemitism!" as a knee jerk response to any criticism of Israel is (i) pathetic and (ii) an attempt to close down valid debate. But the point the other way is when people (other than Palestinians) rant about Israel to such an extent that one has no choice but to suspect a degree of antisemitism.
Similar example. Immigration. It is wrong to shout "racist!" at somebody simply for being concerned about immigration. But if somebody bangs on and on and on about immigration, almost to the exclusion of all else, then one has to suspect racism is in there somewhere and probably lots of it.
Maxine Peake is a bit like the WLM people. It may be factually correct, but you have to ask why is it being highlighted?
That's quite a good point.
It depends on the history of the person highlighting it (I don't know who Maxine Peake is). I think where policing is seen as hostile by communities, isn't it noteworthy if a country that has expertise in occupying land with a hostile population is training the police? Say if the Royal Ulster Constabulary was trained by the Israeli military?
Yes, it's hard to think of what could justify American police officials getting a significant amount of training in Israel, considering the recent history of the two countries. Nevertheless, Peake's comments were crass and probably false, and even if she'd been more careful with her wording, it would have been suspicious coming from her.
From 2010-2015 Clegg and the Lib Dems were important not because of Cameron and Clegg coming to an arrangement before 2010 but because that was the result of the Parliamentary arithmetic.
However the seats fall the parties will adapt. If Starmer is in a position to (and needs to) reach an agreement with other parties then he can do so after the election, just as Cameron did in 2010. Before then though he simply needs to try and win as many seats as he can - and he's starting off in a better position arguably than Cameron started with (8 fewer seats but a natural ally who wants to see him in office holding 48 more).
Does Rebecca Long-Bailey agree that the solution to the world's ills is to destroy capitalism?
Jews first then capitalism.
This is a disgusting comment. Get a grip man.
Long Bailey is a disgusting anti-Semite and that Starmer kept her in his Shadow Cabinet speaks volumes. She should have been sent packing with Burgon and the rest of the barnacles in the Labour Party.
You said that Rebecca Long Bailey wishes to see the destruction of the world's Jewry. That was crass and offensive in the extreme and you really ought to ask for the post to be deleted. Please reflect on this. If having done so, you still cannot see a problem with it, I despair of you.
I despair of anti-Semites and there's no doubt that both Corbyn and Long Bailey are those.
That Starmer was prepared to serve under one and to keep the services of the latter shows why Labour is still not fit for office.
Rather than criticise me for maybe exaggerating the extent of Long Bailey's anti-Semitism maybe deal with the real issue and call for her to go?
You were arguing with me only a few weeks ago that nothing short of a criminal conviction was a resigning/sacking matter!
For allegations of impropriety perhaps, so long as you agree with someones politics and intentions.
Antisemitism is another matter entirely, its not about alleged trivial impropriety it is a serious matter of policy and beliefs - like believing in the Magna Carta. I could not in good faith want an antisemite to be PM, or knowingly and willingly keep an antisemite in my Shadow Cabinet if I were LOTO. Because those beliefs are not compatible and that is a fundamental issue of principle not an impropriety.
I wouldn't expect the Labour Party to keep a Shadow Health Secretary who called for the NHS to abolished and us to move to an American healthcare system either. Principles matter.
I tend to agree with you on RLB, although others are right to point out you've grossly overstated your case. I see why Starmer feels he has to have her, but would much rather he didn't.
However, you are pretty clearly being inconsistent on when someone should and should not go. The point I made to you over Cummings stands. These political jobs aren't akin to employment as many of us know it where one has or should have various protections meaning you're only summarily dismissed in very limited and specific circumstances. If a political appointee is no longer the right person to be doing the job - whether because they are not that good at it, or because they have become an embarrassing distraction due to past statements or current conduct, or simply because you have someone better in mind - it's cheerio. Everyone knows that going in.
I agree with that. But I think that what Cummings allegedly did wrong was trivially unimportant, a media hysteria that would (and did) blow over and he should stay or go based upon whether he is good or bad for the job. The circumstances of Cummings trip are never going to happen again either.
I'm saying that what RLB believes is extremely important for her suitability, Her issue of antisemitism has returned time and time and time again. If she gets into office she will still be an antisemite.
Repeatedly breaking quarantine is ‘trivially unimportant?’
He was cleared by the Police for the initial trip that started the witchhunt, only the Barnhard Castle trip allegedly broke the rules.
I'd say that the only breach (and a fairly serious one) was the going into the workplace before Durham when there were symptoms in the household aiui.
I'm not convinced that Barnard Castle breached anything, unless there is some detail that I missed.
Sure it is whatever the impotent whinging of the LOTO says.
Its frankly absurd for the Starmer to be majoring on something as petty and meaningless as Jenrick when there are allegations there is a serious assault on our constitution and the Magna Carta coming. Why is Starmer whinging about Jenrick and not banging on about the importance of the right of trial by jury. Its not as if he's lacking legal expertise to speak on this matter but instead he's playing to NIMBYs in Tower Hamlets, its disgraceful priorities.
Cyclefree would make an infinitely better LOTO than Starmer. I don't always agree with her but she's got smart priorities.
Any questions to Starmer as to whether his adoption of the BLM pose makes it difficult to criticise violence stemming from that movement? I can imagine Farage or Boris would be quizzed if they were foolish enough to do the the same for a far right equivalent
There is no far right equivalent. The far right is the far right. I have explained this till I'm blue in the face. No equivalence. Every time the false equivalence is made the far right notches a little victory and the spirits of all people of sound mind and good character are lowered.
The far right equivalent would be the BNP rebranding itself 'Don't abuse teenage girls'
I would oppose the abuse of teenage girls even if the BNP did that.
But you wouldn't necessarily post a photograph of yourself on social media adopting their pose. You might be concerned that the impression would be given that you supported the organisation in its entirety.
Sure it is whatever the impotent whinging of the LOTO says.
Its frankly absurd for the Starmer to be majoring on something as petty and meaningless as Jenrick when there are allegations there is a serious assault on our constitution and the Magna Carta coming. Why is Starmer whinging about Jenrick and not banging on about the importance of the right of trial by jury. Its not as if he's lacking legal expertise to speak on this matter but instead he's playing to NIMBYs in Tower Hamlets, its disgraceful priorities.
Cyclefree would make an infinitely better LOTO than Starmer. I don't always agree with her but she's got smart priorities.
Indeed, unless Starmer gets a Blair 1997 style swing of over 10% he will not get an overall majority so to become PM he would likely need the support of 30 odd LD MPs if they pick up some Tory seats in London and the South.
In which case Davey could become Clegg to Starmer's Cameron
Even then I actually don't think it's enough - Starmer needs to either win seats that Labour never had or find a way back in Scotland.
While personally Boris is crap I really cannot see how Labour wins a majority next time round. Even if the Lib Dems had 30 odd seats the 2 parties together still won't have enough.
I think Starmer's ceiling is 260-280 seats at the next election although I can see Labour playing that scenario as a minority gvt to their own advantage.
Starmer "squishing" the Lib Dems would just give seats to the Conservatives, and therefore make a Labour government less likely:
Twickenham: LD 56%, Con 34%, Lab 9% Bath: LD 47%, Con 36%, Lab 15% Kingston & Surbiton: LD 51%, Con 34%, Lab 11% Oxford West & Abingdon: LD 53%, Con 38%, Lab 7% Richmond Park: LD 53%, Con 41%, Lab 5% St Albans: LD 50%, Con 39%, Lab 9%
Labour did hold St Albans 1997 - 2005, so it is reasonable to assume that much of the LD vote comes from anti-Tory Labour voters. A similar story re- Bath - though Labour has never won there despite coming very close in 1966.
Starmer "squishing" the Lib Dems would just give seats to the Conservatives, and therefore make a Labour government less likely:
Twickenham: LD 56%, Con 34%, Lab 9% Bath: LD 47%, Con 36%, Lab 15% Kingston & Surbiton: LD 51%, Con 34%, Lab 11% Oxford West & Abingdon: LD 53%, Con 38%, Lab 7% Richmond Park: LD 53%, Con 41%, Lab 5% St Albans: LD 50%, Con 39%, Lab 9%
Indeed. There isn't much electorally Labour can do about the LDs. Other than Sheffield Hallam they aren't in competition anywhere I can think of as far as Westminster that is. Edit. See @HYUFD has made the point with more facts as always...
Labour could reasonably expect to recover in Finchley & Golders Green and Coties of London & Westminster next time. Possibly also true of Wimbledon - though that was a narrow LD 'miss' in 2019and probably makes it more difficult for Labour to be back in serious contention.
I think Cities of London and Westminster is a more feasible target for Labour (although still a major long shot) than Finchley and Golders Green TBH (probably the only credible Labour target from 3rd place) as I think Berger is a lot more likely to appeal to the Jewish Tory remain vote directly which solidly stuck with the Tories in 2019. I can also see Labour being a lot more relaxed next time about giving her a free run as they'll be too busy in Chipping Barnet and Hendon and there is bad blood with Umunna.
Labour has never won Cities of London and Westminster which is 14th on the LD target list but only 75th on the Labour target list while Finchley and Golders Green is 17th on the LD target list and only 117th on the Labour target list
As we saw at GE2019 the party in second place at the previous election is in a much better position to argue for the anti-CON vote.
But on that basis the LD would not have managed second place in either seat in 2019 - given that Labour was the clear runner up in both in 2017.There were very local factors at work there which I do not expect to be relevant in 2024. Labour should recover second place in both seats - and might win Finchley & Golders Green.
I wonder in what % of trials the judge privately disagrees with the verdict of the jury?
20% maybe?
Doesn't mean the judge is right though. Having been on a jury and been impressed at how seriously it took its duty I am a big fan of jury trials, they are a cornerstone of our justice system.
Certainly not arguing for a different system. Can't really think of a better one. I was just wondering how often the judge thinks "Oh, wow. Wasn't expecting that." Is it hardly at all - like 5% or so - or is it quite often, e.g. 15% 20% type thing?
I have never been called. A pity since I would like to do it - although not on a gory one.
I had the weirdest jury experience - I was visiting another city for the day and was approached by a policeman outside the county court and pressganged on the spot to join a jury to make up the numbers. I didn't even know that was possible.
I would not have thought so either. Although this can happen with witnesses for a wedding and it's not so far from that.
Re jury duty, my ideal would be to pull off a Henry Fonda, the lone "not guilty" hold-out against 11 people jumping to the conclusion that the dodgy looking geezer in the dock had dun it, who slowly but surely turns them all around with quiet, remorseless logic.
I am not suitable to serve, in other words.
I thought of doing a reverse Fonda. I was the ony guilty verdict and wondered if I could turn the other 11 around but it was a trivial case and I decided not to bother.
Really? You were 1 against 11? Gosh. That is uncomfortable.
I was two against ten. A late night punch up in a kebab shop. The evidence clearly pointed to guilty as charged but the rest of the jury clearly thought the case had been brought for bad reasons, that there was some blame on all sides (both probably true) and gave little weight to the police evidence.
At the time I was annoyed at having spent a whole week and arriving at the wrong answer. Looking back I am more sanguine and quite possibly the jury had a point in disregarding the strict technical question we were supposed to be answering and reaching a conclusion on wider grounds.
That's certainly one of the traditional defences of juries. They have the power and the right to look past the technicalities and take a broader view. I think I am right in saying that a lot of advances in our statutes are due to the reluctance of juries to convict where the punishment plainly didn't fit the crime. (Theft of bread and hands chopped off come to mind.)
Personally however I would convict anyone found in the vicinity of a kebab shop.
You clearly have not visited the correct type of kebab shop! There was a kebab wagon in a layby in Purton Road, just off Delta Business Park in Swindon who did one of the best donner kebabs with extra chilies and raw onions...... MMMmmmmmmmmmm!!!
Not only do you frequent Kebab shops, BC, but you admit to being in Swindon.
Have you no shame?
Oi! What's wrong with Swindon?
Nothing, its a lovely town...to drive past on the motorway.
Jenrick is absolubtely bubble stuff. Cummings was different, that had cut through - real cut through. There's not millions of us who can't get pp for a big housing development out there. There are and were millions who have their movement restricted right now. Going back to Jenrick it'll be one of those stories a minimal amount of people notice in the press.
From 2010-2015 Clegg and the Lib Dems were important not because of Cameron and Clegg coming to an arrangement before 2010 but because that was the result of the Parliamentary arithmetic.
However the seats fall the parties will adapt. If Starmer is in a position to (and needs to) reach an agreement with other parties then he can do so after the election, just as Cameron did in 2010. Before then though he simply needs to try and win as many seats as he can - and he's starting off in a better position arguably than Cameron started with (8 fewer seats but a natural ally who wants to see him in office holding 48 more).
Just because the SNP prefer Starmer to Boris does not make them an ally of Labour, the Scottish LDs and Scottish Labour are closer to each other than the SNP who they both despise.
The Tories did indeed have 210 seats on a notional basis after boundary changes by the 2010 election, Labour now only have 202
Sure it is whatever the impotent whinging of the LOTO says.
Its frankly absurd for the Starmer to be majoring on something as petty and meaningless as Jenrick when there are allegations there is a serious assault on our constitution and the Magna Carta coming. Why is Starmer whinging about Jenrick and not banging on about the importance of the right of trial by jury. Its not as if he's lacking legal expertise to speak on this matter but instead he's playing to NIMBYs in Tower Hamlets, its disgraceful priorities.
Cyclefree would make an infinitely better LOTO than Starmer. I don't always agree with her but she's got smart priorities.
Comments
Hillary was a dreadful candidate and she got very close. Joe Biden is much more popular than she ever was.
That Starmer was prepared to serve under one and to keep the services of the latter shows why Labour is still not fit for office.
Rather than criticise me for maybe exaggerating the extent of Long Bailey's anti-Semitism maybe deal with the real issue and call for her to go?
Voting reform will never be more than a minority issue in England, I'm afraid.
They currently have 250 seats between them. 326 needed for an absolute majority without third parties like LDs getting involved, so 71 gains which is fewer than half the gains Blair achieved and fewer gains than Cameron achieved in 2010.
The LDs 11 seats and half a dozen prime target seats are quite frankly an irrelevance. It puts them in the same league as the DUP. Maybe look at them if the stars align and land perfectly but otherwise just get on with the day job and ignore them.
That's a first on here and imo it should also be a last.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1276124558811168768
I can think of five possibilities:
- the party of the Celtic fringe. This policy is regionally based, and builds on LibDem strength in the Highlands and Cornwall (though not Wales). But it's not obvious what policies this implies. And the number of seats at stake isn't that large.
- the party of voting reform. Definitely a distinctive policy, and might be beneficial to their political fortunes, but as I say to someone else below, I can't see it ever being a popular mass cause in England. Also, I doubt if the support for it is regionally concentrated
- the party of rejoin. Maybe, but I don't detect a huge appetite to undertake years more debate about Europe. Anyway we'd probably have to join the Euro. Also, LibDem support amongst rejoiners is probably pretty high already.
- the party of the English suburbs and small towns. Certainly regionally based, but confronting the Conservatives here would be challenging, to say the least. Why wouldn't people who don't like the Tories there simply vote Labour?
- the party of woke. Possible. Regionally based but difficult as it would involve challenging the mighty Labour machine in big cities and university towns. Also needs some very difficult judgements determining what is PC and what is not. Muslims or trans vs feminists? etc. And, of course, might split the vote on the left and let the Tories in.
I don't know if anyone else more sympathetic to the yellows than me can think of a better strategy for their new leader. But I don't think sucking up to Starmer is the whole, or even a partial, answer.
Its frankly absurd for the Starmer to be majoring on something as petty and meaningless as Jenrick when there are allegations there is a serious assault on our constitution and the Magna Carta coming. Why is Starmer whinging about Jenrick and not banging on about the importance of the right of trial by jury. Its not as if he's lacking legal expertise to speak on this matter but instead he's playing to NIMBYs in Tower Hamlets, its disgraceful priorities.
Cyclefree would make an infinitely better LOTO than Starmer. I don't always agree with her but she's got smart priorities.
Fine. Then its not fair to accuse her of such.
Antisemitism is another matter entirely, its not about alleged trivial impropriety it is a serious matter of policy and beliefs - like believing in the Magna Carta. I could not in good faith want an antisemite to be PM, or knowingly and willingly keep an antisemite in my Shadow Cabinet if I were LOTO. Because those beliefs are not compatible and that is a fundamental issue of principle not an impropriety.
I wouldn't expect the Labour Party to keep a Shadow Health Secretary who called for the NHS to abolished and us to move to an American healthcare system either. Principles matter.
There is no such thing as a deficit or surplus of labour.
There's a graph of Hillary Clinton's ratings here:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/clinton_favorableunfavorable-1131.html
She was above +30 in 2013 when she was Secretary of State.
She only started getting unpopular when she started running for president. I wonder why...
'Spurs bettors'?
At what price is Trump worth a bet?
It feels to me that there's no value in Biden below 1.5 or so.
I think Cities of London and Westminster is a more feasible target for Labour (although still a major long shot) than Finchley and Golders Green TBH (probably the only credible Labour target from 3rd place) as I think Berger is a lot more likely to appeal to the Jewish Tory remain vote directly which solidly stuck with the Tories in 2019. I can also see Labour being a lot more relaxed next time about giving her a free run as they'll be too busy in Chipping Barnet and Hendon and there is bad blood with Umunna.
Anyone causing havoc has nothing to do with kneeling.
It's long been the case that advances in technology mean that an activity that used to employ thousands can be done by a handful of people and machines. But new activities and new jobs spring up.
I do, of course, get the point that this tends to exacerbate inequalities between those who provide the land and capital, and those who provide the labour. I also feel immense sympathy for the 50-something year olds particularly who suddenly have the rug pulled from under them when employment in an industry slumps. My point is simply that I am not convinced by the more extreme view that something radically new is happening requiring the replacement rather than evolution of the economic system.
Latest battleground states' polls are interesting;
The former vice president is ahead of Trump by an average of 9 percentage points in the pivotal swing states.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/25/joe-biden-leads-key-battlegrounds-339374
A big jump in orders for durable goods, and a big fall for stockpiles of retail goods, but unemployment still very grim. V. grim.
http://sites.rootsweb.com/~usgwkidz/oldjobs.htm
But - early days. We’ve written Trump off before and lived to regret it.
What you are trying to argue is no different to suggesting that joining in with clap for carers makes you liable for the actions of Dr Harold Shipman or Dr Manish Shah.
needs to be replaced with -
"hyperbolizing beyond all reason and bounds of decency, such as to render the comment an abuse of free speech and thus unsuitable for any subsequent debate to be based upon it"
We can then return to the fray.
Anyway, even if they turn out to love it, you won't get voters to see it as important. The voting system doesn't rate in the top dozen or so issues that voters mention to pollsters.
And of course there are lots of positive arguments for FPTP.
Also, I sometimes think there is a bit of circularity going on: Clinton lost to Trump because she was a terrible candidate. We know she was a terrible candidate because she lost to Trump.
However, you are pretty clearly being inconsistent on when someone should and should not go. The point I made to you over Cummings stands. These political jobs aren't akin to employment as many of us know it where one has or should have various protections meaning you're only summarily dismissed in very limited and specific circumstances. If a political appointee is no longer the right person to be doing the job - whether because they are not that good at it, or because they have become an embarrassing distraction due to past statements or current conduct, or simply because you have someone better in mind - it's cheerio. Everyone knows that going in.
Carers and those supporting black lives matter are trying to do the right thing. Signalling your support is reasonable.
Some commit crimes and go too far under the name of the NHS/BLM but they are a criminal minority.
https://twitter.com/iansco/status/1276110477442113536
I'm saying that what RLB believes is extremely important for her suitability, Her issue of antisemitism has returned time and time and time again. If she gets into office she will still be an antisemite.
http://paullinford.blogspot.com/2008/01/us-elections.html
What 2016 proved was not that she was a terrible candidate, but that she was an even worse candidate than we realised.
What was that again about having experts on juries in fraud trials? 😌
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1276085667261485056?s=20
Juries must stay. No ifs, no buts.
If Starmer gains the same number of seats as Cameron did in 2010 he only needs deal with one of them.
If Starmer gainst the same number of seats as Blair did in 1997 he needn't deal with either of them.
They made it very clear that he had acted contrary to government guidance.
Similar example. Immigration. It is wrong to shout "racist!" at somebody simply for being concerned about immigration. But if somebody bangs on and on and on about immigration, almost to the exclusion of all else, then one has to suspect racism is in there somewhere and probably lots of it.
However the seats fall the parties will adapt. If Starmer is in a position to (and needs to) reach an agreement with other parties then he can do so after the election, just as Cameron did in 2010. Before then though he simply needs to try and win as many seats as he can - and he's starting off in a better position arguably than Cameron started with (8 fewer seats but a natural ally who wants to see him in office holding 48 more).
I'm not convinced that Barnard Castle breached anything, unless there is some detail that I missed.
Even the Telegraph is raising concerns - https://twitter.com/elsie2127/status/1275970112219201536?s=21.
Shameful that Starmer did not raise it at PMQ’s yesterday. If the former head of the CPS can’t see the importance of this change, what hope is there.
Going back to Jenrick it'll be one of those stories a minimal amount of people notice in the press.
The Tories did indeed have 210 seats on a notional basis after boundary changes by the 2010 election, Labour now only have 202
Headline : 55
7 days : 53
Yesterday : 6