Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Where Eagle dares after Tom Watson’s Union discussions fail

1678911

Comments

  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Tweet from OGH:

    "What Leadsom urgently needs is a skilled media manager whose advice she will take. At moment her operation making Seamus Milne look smart"

    twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/751836849191194624
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,716

    Have I had one to many, or, if Leadsom wins and Corbyn stays are we headed to an unprecedented government of national unity?

    That would be the logical thing, although I suspect the party brands still have a few years left in them.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,983
    edited July 2016
    deleted!!!!
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,983
    SeanT said:

    Soames is grotesque
    That story was from 22 May, when clearly everyone was getting a bit tense.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3603246/Winston-Churchill-s-grandson-MP-Nicholas-Soames-tells-fellow-Tory-MP-F-c-party-s-civil-war-deepens.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,234
    edited July 2016

    I see there is a big Orange Order meeting planned, so are the Union flags for that?

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/harthill-drivers-warned-delays-orangemen-8355841.amp?client=ms-android-hms-tef-gb#
    Harthill, Yorkshire
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited July 2016
    And yet, after all this, I have STILL not heard a single argument about why Angela Eagle would be more electable than Corbyn is.

    And no, a trite line like "my toenail clippings would be more electable than Corbyn" doesn't count -- that statement could still be true even without being an answer to my question, as both the toenails and Corbyn would be more electable than Eagle.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,772
    kle4 said:

    I would not say nobody thinks she has the ability. But the point remains, if the fear is the members will pick an insane choice, then it is the MP's job to make sure they don't get presented with that choice in the first place. Either they don't think she is an insane choice, or a large chunk of their MPs are insane, or they are incompetent/think she has no chance.

    Well the problem with that is that everyone said tactical voting wasn't allowed.

    To do as you say would require explicit tactical voting - or some kind of AV vote - ie May would have qualified for the Final and then all MPs would vote again separately on Leadsom v Gove to pick the 2nd Finalist.
  • OUTOUT Posts: 569
    RodCrosby said:

    breaking: Dallas Police HQ on lockdown, surrounded by SWAT teams, after receipt of a city-wide threat against police from a "known group"...

    Let's see how open carry gets on in this atmosphere.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    MikeL said:

    Well that's exactly what happened in 2003 - the only difference being MPs waited two years to avoid it looking so blatant.

    And would it collapse - most of the members aren't active in any way - so their absence wouldn't actually matter in the slightest. My Mum's a member - she pays her sub and goes to one or two coffee mornings per year. The majority of members do the same.

    Of course that may appear unkind, but it is the reality.
    As a matter of interest what is the turnout percent for Tory leadership ballots of the members?
  • ToryJimToryJim Posts: 4,192
    @edmundintokyo
    Referendum set destination but not route.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 65,548
    Prescott says Iraq war was illegal.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 59,400
    viewcode said:

    Britain (I think this predates the UKGBI, so "Britain" not the "UK") has never defaulted on a loan. As the old joke goes, it doesn't have to: it just continually devalues the currency... :(

    That's not true: we unilaterally extended the term of some bonds in the early 1930s, while would be very definitely be considered a default.
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651
    Main story on the BBC website at the moment is: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36756878

    "John Prescott: Ex-deputy PM says Iraq War was illegal"

    He's written a piece for the Sunday Mirror which has grabbed that paper's front page, it seems.

    Chilcot reverberates a bit more. I do wonder what effect this is going to have on the current Labour shenanigans. I do wonder if the main rival to Corbyn is going to end up coming from those fresh faces "untainted" by the Iraq vote.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 59,400

    We keep saying the break up of the labour party but what about the tories -

    https://twitter.com/Stewart4Pboro/status/751901422560706560

    (If you can see my Stewart jackson tweet because I bloody can't ;-) )

    Stewart used to post on pb :)

    Come back!
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 121,674

    Main story on the BBC website at the moment is: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36756878

    "John Prescott: Ex-deputy PM says Iraq War was illegal"

    He's written a piece for the Sunday Mirror which has grabbed that paper's front page, it seems.

    Chilcot reverberates a bit more. I do wonder what effect this is going to have on the current Labour shenanigans. I do wonder if the main rival to Corbyn is going to end up coming from those fresh faces "untainted" by the Iraq vote.

    They might go for a heavyweight who didn't vote for Iraq.

    Step forward Ed Miliband.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 65,548

    The only one strong and brave enough to go over the parapet. That in itself puts her head and shoulders above her colleagues.
    :+1:
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091

    They might go for a heavyweight who didn't vote for Iraq.

    Step forward Ed Miliband.
    Well, he does look like Obama when compared with Angela Eagle.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,845
    Danny565 said:

    And yet, after all this, I have STILL not heard a single argument about why Angela Eagle would be more electable than Corbyn is.

    And no, a trite line like "my toenail clippings would be more electable than Corbyn" doesn't count -- that statement could still be true even without being an answer to my question, as both the toenails and Corbyn would be more electable than Eagle.

    That's because she isn't.

    She has no talent or skill. She has been promoted for what she is not what she can do.

    She won't beat him - so the point about electoral appeal is rather lost.

    Remember that just nine months ago she came fourth in the race for Deputy Leader IIRC - that is hardly someone who resonates with any electorate.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,716
    edited July 2016
    Danny565 said:

    And yet, after all this, I have STILL not heard a single argument about why Angela Eagle would be more electable than Corbyn is.

    1) The Tories wouldn't be able to persuade undecided voters that she supports terrorists
    2) She doesn't come across as if she intends to reinstate the Winter of Discontent
    3) She could probably put together a halfway-competent media team
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    rcs1000 said:

    Stewart used to post on pb :)

    Come back!
    Yep,what fun post we could have from him,I don't think he would hold back ;-)
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 24,295
    rcs1000 said:

    That's not true: we unilaterally extended the term of some bonds in the early 1930s, while would be very definitely be considered a default.
    I did not know that: thank you.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,772
    edited July 2016

    As a matter of interest what is the turnout percent for Tory leadership ballots of the members?
    Sorry - don't know.

    Wiki says 199,000 actually voted in 2005 - but no turnout %, nor the size of the electorate, is given.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)_leadership_election,_2005
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 65,548
    Danny565 said:

    Well, he does look like Obama when compared with Angela Eagle.
    "They might go for a heavyweight who didn't vote for Iraq."

    Ed Balls? I do hope so, dragging things back to betting, I am on at 60/1
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,594
    MikeL said:

    Well the problem with that is that everyone said tactical voting wasn't allowed.

    To do as you say would require explicit tactical voting - or some kind of AV vote - ie May would have qualified for the Final and then all MPs would vote again separately on Leadsom v Gove to pick the 2nd Finalist.
    It's a secret ballot, they could cast votes as they chose - if enough thought Leadsom would be a disaster they could have voted accordingly, no one would know for certain it was tactical. And what does that even mean anyway? There were 3 candidates besides May and Leadsom, and assuming all votes were genuine, the MPs thought Gove and Fox at least were worse (Crabb didn't give them a chance to decide if he was a worse choice). So we have proof Leadsom was deemed more suitable than at least 2 other candidates in the party. That being the case, why couldn't she be suitable to the MPs, even though she was not the first preference of the majority of them? Clearly there were worse options.
  • ToryJimToryJim Posts: 4,192
    Interesting in the Times article that they have quotes from Vote Leave hammering Leadsom

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/leadsoms-enemies-stick-the-knife-in-g0psn6s73

    Behind paywall obviously.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091

    1) The Tories wouldn't be able to persuade undecided voters that she supports terrorists
    2) She doesn't come across as if she intends to reinstate the Winter of Discontent
    3) She could probably put together a halfway-competent media team
    Her media team would be people who were full-square behind the doomed Remain campaign -- that doesn't strike me as people who are very competent or very good at reading the public mood.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,845

    They might go for a heavyweight who didn't vote for Iraq.

    Step forward Ed Miliband.
    It is rather hard to vote for anything when you weren't an MP at the time of the vote...
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Prescott [in the Sunday Mirror]: Blair forced us into an illegal war...
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,716
    Danny565 said:

    Her media team would be people who were full-square behind the doomed Remain campaign -- that doesn't strike me as people who are very competent or very good at reading the public mood.
    Possibly, that's certainly the weakest argument of the three.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091

    "They might go for a heavyweight who didn't vote for Iraq."

    Ed Balls? I do hope so, dragging things back to betting, I am on at 60/1
    Doubt it -- as far as I know, Balls is the main person blamed by the membership for losing the last election for Labour, due to his forcing of a pro-austerity stance (feelings towards EdM are more mixed, I think).
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,780

    In fairness a PM who thinks Brexit was a bad idea is likely to try to backslide, so if you voted for it you wouldn't be mad to want somebody who agrees with the policy they're supposed to be implementing. After all, wasn't that the reason Cameron gave for resigning in the first place?

    That said, I think it says something about the Brexit case that all the MPs who supported it have turned out to be either untrustworthy backstabbing chancers or mad as a box of frogs.
    A PM opposed to Brexit (i.e. May) may well be perceived as wanting to backslide when they go into negotiations. The sort of deal the UK can secure will depend on how resolute we are.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,772
    edited July 2016
    Ed Miliband or Harriet Harman would be the most sensible person to be Labour leader at the moment - roughly in the centre of the party and more presentable and credible with the electorate than any other options.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,845

    1) The Tories wouldn't be able to persuade undecided voters that she supports terrorists
    2) She doesn't come across as if she intends to reinstate the Winter of Discontent
    3) She could probably put together a halfway-competent media team
    On point 3, she has hardly managed herself well over the past two weeks. Announcements of announcements that just don't happen. That is not an appearance of competence or drive.

    She might not appear to support terrorists or want to give over control to the Unions, but she has never once demonstrated the ability to lead. Not even close.

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,852
    RodCrosby said:

    Prescott [in the Sunday Mirror]: Blair forced us into an illegal war...

    If Leadsom is going to use the Trump playbook she could point out that May voted for the war too.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 65,548

    That's because she isn't.

    She has no talent or skill. She has been promoted for what she is not what she can do.

    She won't beat him - so the point about electoral appeal is rather lost.

    Remember that just nine months ago she came fourth in the race for Deputy Leader IIRC - that is hardly someone who resonates with any electorate.
    Well, there are two ways of viewing this: a) she is stalking horse, so it doesn't matter if she can't sit on a toilet the right way around (Trade Mark: Rowen Atkinson) or b) Nobody but nobody is crappier than Jezza, and therefore the unions will wake up smelly the coffee and finally get a grip and swing the vote to save the party.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 59,400

    Yep,what fun post we could have from him,I don't think he would hold back ;-)
    Favourite MP or ex MP pb posters?

    Yvette Cooper
    Louise Mensch
    John Hemming
    Nick Palmer
    Stewart Jackson
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 65,548
    Danny565 said:

    Doubt it -- as far as I know, Balls is the main person blamed by the membership for losing the last election for Labour, due to his forcing of a pro-austerity stance (feelings towards EdM are more mixed, I think).
    More bonkers. Ed Balls spent months and months saying that austerity was the wrong thing to do and then, under extreme pressure from another Ed and his team of idiots, backtracked.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 65,548
    RodCrosby said:

    Prescott [in the Sunday Mirror]: Blair forced us into an illegal war...

    It never crossed Prescott's mind to resign, like, er, Robin Cook did?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 121,674

    It is rather hard to vote for anything when you weren't an MP at the time of the vote...
    Shush, some of us are on at 200/1 on Ed Miliband as next Labour leader.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    rcs1000 said:

    Favourite MP or ex MP pb posters?

    Yvette Cooper
    Louise Mensch
    John Hemming
    Nick Palmer
    Stewart Jackson
    Denis MacShane ?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 65,548
    rcs1000 said:

    Favourite MP or ex MP pb posters?

    Yvette Cooper
    Louise Mensch
    John Hemming
    Nick Palmer
    Stewart Jackson
    Louise Mensch? This was before the twitter addiction phase? I doubt she'd have time to post here now.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 59,400

    A PM opposed to Brexit (i.e. May) may well be perceived as wanting to backslide when they go into negotiations. The sort of deal the UK can secure will depend on how resolute we are.
    Isn't that true only to a point?

    Someone who goes in with unrealistic expectations could find us crashing out to WTO status with no other trade deals arranged on day 720.

    The problem we have is that there is no fall back position.

    Yes, yes: China, the US, etc. etc. etc. all want deals with us. Of course they do. But they want them on their terms. (Obviously.) Go read the deals between the US and Australia, or between China and Switzerland. They were - to put it mildly - one sided.

    How one sided would our deal be if we had no other options, and our entire trade negotiating team was camped out in Brussels?
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651
    edited July 2016
    rcs1000 said:

    That's not true: we unilaterally extended the term of some bonds in the early 1930s, while would be very definitely be considered a default.
    Is this quite true?

    Neville Chamberlain changed the coupon on some War Loans from 5% to 3.5%, on a vaguely voluntary basis but I believe this would these days be classified as a default. (Link is to Hansard.)

    And in my Cambridge Economic History of Modern Europe: Volume 2, 1870 to the Present, it states that "In the wake of the end of the end to German reparations in August 1932, France and Britain declared default on their inter-allied war debt to the USA (December 1932)". I believe this was related to the Lausanne Conference but this isn't detailed in my text. My understanding is that the British and French had basically been using the German reparations to pay off their loans to the USA.

    Can't recall any unilateral bond extensions, do you have any details? Or was that the manner in which the inter-allied loans was defaulted on (again, this isn't detailed in my text)?
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,760
    rcs1000 said:

    Stewart used to post on pb :)

    Come back!
    He's bang on. I get the impression Soubry and Boles are more interested in becoming celebrities than running the country.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 59,400

    Is this quite true?

    Neville Chamberlain changed the coupon on some War Loans from 5% to 3.5%, on a vaguely voluntary basis but I believe this would these days be classified as a default. (Link is to Hansard.)

    And in my Cambridge Economic History of Modern Europe: Volume 2, 1870 to the Present, it states that "In the wake of the end of the end to German reparations in August 1932, France and Britain declared default on their inter-allied war debt to the USA (December 1932)". I believe this was related to the Lausanne Conference but this isn't detailed in my text. My understanding is that the British and French had basically been using the German reparations to pay off their loans to the USA.

    Can't recall any unilateral bond extensions, do you have any details? Or was that the manner in which the inter-allied loans was defaulted on (again, this isn't detailed in my text)?
    Yes.

    Both those events happened in 1932. The UK WW1 loans were publicly traded in the US and we unilaterally extended the term. Yes, the proximate cause was the fact that Germany wasn't repaying us. (A classic example, by the way, of local optima worsening the system optima.)

    In the case of the 1917 War Loan, there was the agreement of creditors, but it was undoubtedly a modification of loan terms. A default in other words.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 24,295
    @John_M , @PlatoSaid

    I have now read the Institute of Government and Electoral Commission links you posted today/yesterday. Interesting, thank you
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,553
    edited July 2016
    Have any Tory MPs said they will leave the party if May wins?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,062

    Have any Tory MPs said they will leave the party if May wins?

    Bill Cash?
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651
    edited July 2016
    rcs1000 said:

    Yes.

    Both those events happened in 1932. The UK WW1 loans were publicly traded in the US and we unilaterally extended the term. Yes, the proximate cause was the fact that Germany wasn't repaying us. (A classic example, by the way, of local optima worsening the system optima.)

    In the case of the 1917 War Loan, there was the agreement of creditors, but it was undoubtedly a modification of loan terms. A default in other words.
    Cheers. Nice to fill a hole.

    I love my Cambridge Economic History but it's often a bit "big picture" - the finer historical details tend be skipped over in favour of talking about things from a systemic point of view.

    Any pointers for anything else to read on this kind of stuff? (I would quite like something that reads more like a history text - with due consideration of historic personages involved in decision making, for instance - rather than one written more as an economic text.)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,062
    MikeL said:

    Ed Miliband or Harriet Harman would be the most sensible person to be Labour leader at the moment - roughly in the centre of the party and more presentable and credible with the electorate than any other options.

    Ed Miliband? He was the second worst Labour leader since the War
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,780
    rcs1000 said:

    Isn't that true only to a point?

    Someone who goes in with unrealistic expectations could find us crashing out to WTO status with no other trade deals arranged on day 720.

    The problem we have is that there is no fall back position.

    Yes, yes: China, the US, etc. etc. etc. all want deals with us. Of course they do. But they want them on their terms. (Obviously.) Go read the deals between the US and Australia, or between China and Switzerland. They were - to put it mildly - one sided.

    How one sided would our deal be if we had no other options, and our entire trade negotiating team was camped out in Brussels?
    Of course you have to be realistic. But that's very different to going into negotiations perceived as being very willing to roll over and agree to what you are on record as wanting to happen all along.

    Our negotiating position is strong. £290bn of imports from the EU compared to £222bn of exports to the EU. £13bn of annual gross contributions to the EU budget, with about £4bn being given back to spend on terms the EU controls. For all the bluster, the EU has much more to lose than the UK. That doesn't mean being unrealistic, so while the hand is strong we have to be careful not to overplay it. However, that is very different from being prepared to roll over and accept something near identical to what we have now.

  • ArtistArtist Posts: 1,893
    Danny565 said:

    And yet, after all this, I have STILL not heard a single argument about why Angela Eagle would be more electable than Corbyn is.

    And no, a trite line like "my toenail clippings would be more electable than Corbyn" doesn't count -- that statement could still be true even without being an answer to my question, as both the toenails and Corbyn would be more electable than Eagle.


    She has experience of running a department
    She'd likely be perceived more competent.
    She'd have a much, much stronger Shadow Cabinet.
    She's much more personable.
    She's a better speaker in the House of Commons
    She has a working class background and is not from Islington.
    She'd stand on a more sensible platform to put to the electorate.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,062
    Artist said:


    She has experience of running a department
    She'd likely be perceived more competent.
    She'd have a much, much stronger Shadow Cabinet.
    She's much more personable.
    She's a better speaker in the House of Commons
    She has a working class background and is not from Islington.
    She'd stand on a more sensible platform to put to the electorate.
    Indeed Howard was ideologically little different from IDS but more competent by some distance
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    And another one......

    The Duchess of York is set to launch an extraordinary multi-million-pound legal battle against the former owners of the News of the World - six years after the newspaper published footage of her apparently offering access to Prince Andrew for cash. The sting - filmed and published in 2010 - appeared to show the former Royal accepting a £27,000 cash deposit from an undercover reporter as part of a £500,000 deal to be introduced to the Prince, then a UK trade envoy.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3682675/Debt-ridden-Fergie-Rupert-Murdoch-s-paper-millions-Prince-Andrew-sting.html
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 53,674
    HYUFD said:

    Ed Miliband? He was the second worst Labour leader since the War
    No, he was the best prime minister we never had:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/11/milifan-prime-minister-ed-miliband
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 24,295

    Our negotiating position is strong... £13bn of annual gross contributions to the EU budget, with about £4bn being given back to spend on terms the EU controls.

    Since that money is now going to stop or (under EEA) be severely curtailed, you can't count it as a negotiation plus.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,845
    Artist said:


    She has experience of running a department
    She'd likely be perceived more competent.
    She'd have a much, much stronger Shadow Cabinet.
    She's much more personable.
    She's a better speaker in the House of Commons
    She has a working class background and is not from Islington.
    She'd stand on a more sensible platform to put to the electorate.
    She was a junior minister under Brown (and briefly under Blair before being sacked)- she has never run a department.

    Competence is something that has to be demonstrated - and so far we have no real evidence of this.

    Her Commons performances have been better than Corbyn's - but that is a pretty low bar.

    I really don't think she offers quality leadership to Labour in this time of peril. All she offers is not being Jezza. And that shouldn't be enough.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited July 2016
    Artist said:


    She has experience of running a department
    She'd likely be perceived more competent.
    She'd have a much, much stronger Shadow Cabinet.
    She's much more personable.
    She's a better speaker in the House of Commons
    She has a working class background and is not from Islington.
    She'd stand on a more sensible platform to put to the electorate.
    Experience of running a department is irrelevant, on recent evidence; the two last successful Opposition leaders had no previous ministerial experience at all.

    Doubt she'd be perceived as more competent -- unfair as it may be, she comes across as a complete lightweight in media interviews, and she just doesn't pass the "blink test" of imagining her as PM any more than Corbyn does.

    She wouldn't have a much stronger Shadow Cabinet -- virtually all of the PLP are useless. Having the likes of Kendall, Umunna and Hunt back, giving a repeat of their carcrash media appearances in the 2015 election, doesn't exactly seem like an asset.

    I don't think she's more personable at all -- if anything, that's one of the few redeeming features Corbyn has in the public eye ("I wouldn't want him as prime minister, but atleast he seems like a nice and normal guy"), whereas Eagle comes across as very irritable.

    I'll grant you she's better in the Commons, but I'm sceptical of how much weight Joe Public places in PMQs performances anyway

    You say it would be a "sensible platform", but it would be very similar to the platform the Remain Campaign just stood on - a platform which was BEATEN. Corbyn obviously doesn't have a great sense of public opinion, but atleast he managed to win and beat the Tories in the May local elections (albeit an unspectacular win), whereas Remain LOST their contest despite having far more institutional advantages. An Eagle platform might get more plaudits from "the experts" than a Corbyn platform would, but the referendum showed how much difference "the experts" make in elections.

    The bottom line is, there is more recent evidence of a platform closer to Corbyn winning electoral contests, than there is of a "centrist" platform like Angela Eagle's winning (not least in the EU Referendum).
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    It never crossed Prescott's mind to resign, like, er, Robin Cook did?
    Isn't Prescott talking with the benefit of hindsight -- and not saying he knew at the time?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Nick Boles denies he might leave the Tories:

    https://twitter.com/NickBolesMP/status/751899588781539328
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,062
    PeterC said:

    It's going to be immensely difficult. Try selling EEA / EFTA in Sunderland or West Bromwich.
    Why should Sunderland and West Bromwich determine the country's future? Both voted Leave by significantly more than the national average and neither are exactly hotbeds of prosperity, they have nothing to lose from zero immigration and no single market.
    The wealthy Home Counties do though and if seats there which voted narrowly Leave can be persuaded to back the EEA and EFTA then you have a majority of the country if you add them to the 48% who voted Remain
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,845

    Isn't Prescott talking with the benefit of hindsight -- and not saying he knew at the time?
    The problem with these voices claiming that the war was illegal is that they are not international lawyers and the Chilcot report was explicit in not considering the issue of legality because they were not qualified to do so.

    Amazing how many International Law experts have appeared on various Labour benches over the past days.

    Prescott doesn't have the background to comment as to the legality of the actions of his government - he simply lacks the knowledge or skills to make that call.

    His opinion counts for nothing.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    AndyJS said:

    Nick Boles denies he might leave the Tories:

    https://twitter.com/NickBolesMP/status/751899588781539328

    Well to be fair , there's not much going on at the moment so a little bit of embellishment on a very quiet news day may be understandable?
  • Of course you have to be realistic. But that's very different to going into negotiations perceived as being very willing to roll over and agree to what you are on record as wanting to happen all along.

    Our negotiating position is strong. £290bn of imports from the EU compared to £222bn of exports to the EU. £13bn of annual gross contributions to the EU budget, with about £4bn being given back to spend on terms the EU controls. For all the bluster, the EU has much more to lose than the UK. That doesn't mean being unrealistic, so while the hand is strong we have to be careful not to overplay it. However, that is very different from being prepared to roll over and accept something near identical to what we have now.

    Surely it is the value of exports as a proportion of total exports that is important rather than the absolute numerical value. As a proportion of total exports, the UK must export far more to the EU (about 40%, I believe) than vice versa (20% ish?). This means that it is we who have the weaker hand rather than the EU, and I'm sure they must be fully aware of this.
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    rcs1000 said:

    Favourite MP or ex MP pb posters?

    Yvette Cooper
    Louise Mensch
    John Hemming
    Nick Palmer
    Stewart Jackson
    What about ex, ex MP?

    (Only kidding).
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    The problem with these voices claiming that the war was illegal is that they are not international lawyers and the Chilcot report was explicit in not considering the issue of legality because they were not qualified to do so.

    Amazing how many International Law experts have appeared on various Labour benches over the past days.

    Prescott doesn't have the background to comment as to the legality of the actions of his government - he simply lacks the knowledge or skills to make that call.

    His opinion counts for nothing.
    Was it Kissinger who once asked, "by what legality?" But in any case, to concentrate on that narrow point is surely to miss the thrust of Prescott's criticism of Blair, the way he ran Cabinet generally and in particular the move to war.
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,320

    She was a junior minister under Brown (and briefly under Blair before being sacked)- she has never run a department.

    Competence is something that has to be demonstrated - and so far we have no real evidence of this.

    Her Commons performances have been better than Corbyn's - but that is a pretty low bar.

    I really don't think she offers quality leadership to Labour in this time of peril. All she offers is not being Jezza. And that shouldn't be enough.
    What if Eagle ran as a stalking horse among PLP to unseat Corbyn, then got the backing of PLP to tightened up Leadership contest rules before calling another wider contest among membership at time of her choosing before next GE? It would then be typically ironic of the Labour party if they chose to elect yet another male Leader after none of them had the cojones to step up to the plate when the party really needed it?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,636

    She was a junior minister under Brown (and briefly under Blair before being sacked)- she has never run a department.

    Competence is something that has to be demonstrated - and so far we have no real evidence of this.

    Her Commons performances have been better than Corbyn's - but that is a pretty low bar.

    I really don't think she offers quality leadership to Labour in this time of peril. All she offers is not being Jezza. And that shouldn't be enough.
    Agreed- that shouldn't be enough. She also has an unfortunate quote about there being no financial crisis... that won't exactly help on economic confidence.

    If MPs are going to go through a painful and divisive leadership election- for it to be worth it- whoever is running needs to be a *significant* upgrade on electability compared to Corbyn. Otherwise whatever small gain there is- will just be outweighed by the division and rancour the campaign will cause.

    Not sure who fits the bill then. Dan Jarvis?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,234
    @Danny565 For the PLP to put forward someone who voted for the Iraq war, even as a stalking horse is one of the less insightful political moves of our time...
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,845

    Was it Kissinger who once asked, "by what legality?" But in any case, to concentrate on that narrow point is surely to miss the thrust of Prescott's criticism of Blair, the way he ran Cabinet generally and in particular the move to war.
    Prescott was Deputy PM - he had the opportunity to question/challenge - and what did he do?

    He is just trying to distance himself - I have no respect for his posturing on this.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,772
    edited July 2016
    fitalass said:

    What if Eagle ran as a stalking horse among PLP to unseat Corbyn, then got the backing of PLP to tightened up Leadership contest rules before calling another wider contest among membership at time of her choosing before next GE? It would then be typically ironic of the Labour party if they chose to elect yet another male Leader after none of them had the cojones to step up to the plate when the party really needed it?
    fitalass - do you have any views on how Scottish Con members are likely to vote in the leadership election.

    I heard one report that 10% of Con members are in Scotland so they are a significant part of the electorate.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,845
    rkrkrk said:

    Agreed- that shouldn't be enough. She also has an unfortunate quote about there being no financial crisis... that won't exactly help on economic confidence.

    If MPs are going to go through a painful and divisive leadership election- for it to be worth it- whoever is running needs to be a *significant* upgrade on electability compared to Corbyn. Otherwise whatever small gain there is- will just be outweighed by the division and rancour the campaign will cause.

    Not sure who fits the bill then. Dan Jarvis?
    Jarvis is an utter blank. He can act as a wonderful screen onto which people can project all their hopes.

    He needs to be tested before he is a credible leader of any party. A good back story is just not enough.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,845
    fitalass said:

    What if Eagle ran as a stalking horse among PLP to unseat Corbyn, then got the backing of PLP to tightened up Leadership contest rules before calling another wider contest among membership at time of her choosing before next GE? It would then be typically ironic of the Labour party if they chose to elect yet another male Leader after none of them had the cojones to step up to the plate when the party really needed it?
    She needs to beat Corbyn and that isn't looking likely. And getting new leadership rules requires rule changes that go beyond the PLP. I don't see Momentum making that easy for her.

    If she really had got the balls to act, she would have done so before now. Her weakness has been fatally exposed. Momentum have had 2 more weeks in which to plan and sign up members.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,062
    rkrkrk said:

    Agreed- that shouldn't be enough. She also has an unfortunate quote about there being no financial crisis... that won't exactly help on economic confidence.

    If MPs are going to go through a painful and divisive leadership election- for it to be worth it- whoever is running needs to be a *significant* upgrade on electability compared to Corbyn. Otherwise whatever small gain there is- will just be outweighed by the division and rancour the campaign will cause.

    Not sure who fits the bill then. Dan Jarvis?
    Why? Anyone who is half sane and competent would be an improvement on Corbyn. Labour has no chance of winning the next election, it just needs someone who at least can do the job of being leader of the opposition not a Marxist sect. After they lose the next election then would be the time to bring on a presentable moderate like Dan Jarvis or Chuka Umunna, the latter of course also opposed the Iraq War
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,636
    HYUFD said:

    Why? Anyone who is half sane and competent would be an improvement on Corbyn. Labour has no chance of winning the next election, it just needs someone who at least can do the job of being leader of the opposition not a Marxist sect. After they lose the next election then would be the time to bring on a presentable moderate like Dan Jarvis or Chuka Umunna, the latter of course also opposed the Iraq War
    I think this is the sort of exaggeration that Danny565 was talking about.

    Also- you may be prepared to write off the next general election as impossible for Labour to win. But given we don't know when it will be or who the Tory leader will be or even who the Labour leader will be- I think there's a bit more uncertainty...

    Of course if you want to offer me 2500-1 on Labour winning the next general election I'm very happy to take you up on it! :)
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,234
    Chuka needs to realise that noone particularly cares if he lived the high life or is a friend of Dorothy.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,062
    edited July 2016
    Danny565 said:

    Experience of running a department is irrelevant, on recent evidence; the two last successful Opposition leaders had no previous ministerial experience at all.

    Doubt she'd be perceived as more competent -- unfair as it may be, she comes across as a complete lightweight in media interviews, and she just doesn't pass the "blink test" of imagining her as PM any more than Corbyn does.

    She wouldn't have a much stronger Shadow Cabinet -- virtually all of the PLP are useless. Having the likes of Kendall, Umunna and Hunt back, giving a repeat of their carcrash media appearances in the 2015 election, doesn't exactly seem like an asset.

    I don't think she's more personable at all -- if anything, that's one of the few redeeming features Corbyn has in the public eye ("I wouldn't want him as prime minister, but atleast he seems like a nice and normal guy"), whereas Eagle comes across as very irritable.

    I'll grant you she's better in the Commons, but I'm sceptical of how much weight Joe Public places in PMQs performances anyway

    You say it would be a "sensible platform", but it would be very similar to the platform the Remain Campaign just stood on - a platform which was BEATEN. Corbyn obviously doesn't have a great sense of public opinion, but atleast he managed to win and beat the Tories in the May local elections (albeit an unspectacular win), whereas Remain LOST their contest despite having far more institutional advantages. An Eagle platform might get more plaudits from "the experts" than a Corbyn platform would, but the referendum showed how much difference "the experts" make in elections.

    The bottom line is, there is more recent evidence of a platform closer to Corbyn winning electoral contests, than there is of a "centrist" platform like Angela Eagle's winning (not least in the EU Referendum).
    Corbyn had one of the worst local election performances of an opposition leader in modern times, even Hague and Ed Miliband did better and Labour only won London because of Sadiq Khan who kept as much distance from Corbyn as possible. Corbyn also backed Remain but in such an inept and uncommitted fashion he might as well not have backed it at all and he played his part in the Remain defeat too. He is generally polling no better than Ed Miliband did last May and in some cases clearly worse, he adds nothing to Labour other than ideological purity and the average swing voter would not trust him to organise a village fete let alone run the country, what have they got to lose by dumping him?
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,845
    Pulpstar said:

    Chuka needs to realise that noone particularly cares if he lived the high life or is a friend of Dorothy.

    It is hard to see the wood for the trees when you live so far into Narnia
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,636



    Jarvis is an utter blank. He can act as a wonderful screen onto which people can project all their hopes.

    He needs to be tested before he is a credible leader of any party. A good back story is just not enough.

    Yes I agree- not seen enough of him to know where he stands or how effective he could be. The back story would be a big advantage though- would be able to close down foreign policy/being tough etc. as an issue following Corbyn.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    The first Australian division has been declared, Mallee in Victoria:

    http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionPage-20499-224.htm
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/09/snp-mep-scotland-should-get-special-eu-deal-because-uk-not-a-cou/

    Someone please tell the SNP that Scotland is only a region in the eyes of the E.U.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    rkrkrk said:

    Yes I agree- not seen enough of him to know where he stands or how effective he could be. The back story would be a big advantage though- would be able to close down foreign policy/being tough etc. as an issue following Corbyn.
    Would it, though? Andrea Leadsom's time in the City does not seem to have closed down many questions. CCHQ would google swiftboating the day after Jarvis was elected.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,845
    nunu said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/09/snp-mep-scotland-should-get-special-eu-deal-because-uk-not-a-cou/

    Someone please tell the SNP that Scotland is only a region in the eyes of the E.U.

    It is often best not to trouble the SNP with facts - they don't like them.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,062
    edited July 2016
    rkrkrk said:

    I think this is the sort of exaggeration that Danny565 was talking about.

    Also- you may be prepared to write off the next general election as impossible for Labour to win. But given we don't know when it will be or who the Tory leader will be or even who the Labour leader will be- I think there's a bit more uncertainty...

    Of course if you want to offer me 2500-1 on Labour winning the next general election I'm very happy to take you up on it! :)
    No it is no exaggeration, if Labour does not get rid of Corbyn and he leads them into the next election there is a very real chance the party ceases to exist and never wins another election again. The Tories faced a similar scenario under IDS but correctly dispatched him and even IDS was better than Corbyn. In the present circumstances there may not be a certain Tory victory at the next election but given Labour's present leadership I would say the LDs or even UKIP would make a more plausible alternative government than Labour under him
  • ArtistArtist Posts: 1,893
    edited July 2016
    Danny565 said:

    You say it would be a "sensible platform", but it would be very similar to the platform the Remain Campaign just stood on - a platform which was BEATEN. Corbyn obviously doesn't have a great sense of public opinion, but atleast he managed to win and beat the Tories in the May local elections (albeit an unspectacular win), whereas Remain LOST their contest despite having far more institutional advantages. An Eagle platform might get more plaudits from "the experts" than a Corbyn platform would, but the referendum showed how much difference "the experts" make in elections.

    The bottom line is, there is more recent evidence of a platform closer to Corbyn winning electoral contests, than there is of a "centrist" platform like Angela Eagle's winning (not least in the EU Referendum).


    The dynamics are totally different between a First Past the Post General Election and a referendum. If Labour had offered a return to sovereign rule and cuts to immigraton, all under a nationalistic banner against a centre ground Tory party at last years election of course they would have won.

    But in reality the difference between parties in a General Elections under FPTP are nowhere near as large. Instead it's a binary choice for government between two parties fighting to win over the same narrow group of voters. That's why factors such as perceived economic competence and Prime Minister choice become so important.

    UKIP showed last May how difficult it is to turn scattered anti-establishment feeling into parliamentary seats under FPTP. If anything the local elections confirmed worries about Corbyn where votes were stacked up in Metropolitan/University seats, yet Labour went backwards in the vital region of the Midlands.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    rkrkrk said:

    Agreed- that shouldn't be enough. She also has an unfortunate quote about there being no financial crisis... that won't exactly help on economic confidence.

    If MPs are going to go through a painful and divisive leadership election- for it to be worth it- whoever is running needs to be a *significant* upgrade on electability compared to Corbyn. Otherwise whatever small gain there is- will just be outweighed by the division and rancour the campaign will cause.

    Not sure who fits the bill then. Dan Jarvis?
    There's probably no-one, in truth, who can beat Corbyn under the existing rules, although the best chance might have been a woman (Eagle, not included).

    After the ludicrous decision to shortlist two women for the Tory leadership - degrading, predictably, into an irrelevant catfight within hours - Labour can hardly pick a woman leader now...

    White Van Man would just think "Jeez, what's in any of this for me?", and look elsewhere for a depository for his vote.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,636

    Would it, though? Andrea Leadsom's time in the City does not seem to have closed down many questions. CCHQ would google swiftboating the day after Jarvis was elected.
    I think we can trust CCHQ not to stoop to such underhand tactics because... well... um... okay you may have a point!
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    HYUFD said:

    No it is no exaggeration, if Labour does not get rid of Corbyn and he leads them into the next election there is a very real chance the party ceases to exist and never wins another election again. The Tories faced a similar scenario under IDS but correctly dispatched him and even IDS was better than Corbyn. In the present circumstances there may not be a certain Tory victory at the next election but given Labour's present leadership I would say the LDs or even UKIP would make a more plausible alternative government than Labour under him
    IDS actually did quite well at the ballot box; MPs panicked because Blair crushed him at PMQs every week, but there is no real evidence the Conservative Party would have been wiped out or that Howard delivered a better result than IDS would have done at GE 2005.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,234
    RodCrosby said:

    There's probably no-one, in truth, who can beat Corbyn under the existing rules, although the best chance might have been a woman (Eagle, not included).

    After the ludicrous decision to shortlist two women for the Tory leadership - degrading, predictably, into an irrelevant catfight within hours - Labour can hardly pick a woman leader now...

    White Van Man would just think "Jeez, what's in any of this for me?", and look elsewhere for a depository for his vote.
    Still holding out hopes for Mary Creagh :) ?
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,320
    edited July 2016
    "She needs to beat Corbyn and that isn't looking likely. And getting new leadership rules requires rule changes that go beyond the PLP. I don't see Momentum making that easy for her.

    If she really had got the balls to act, she would have done so before now. Her weakness has been fatally exposed. Momentum have had 2 more weeks in which to plan and sign up members."

    @oxfordsimon I am just musing out loud about an alternative to the very clear weakness or effectiveness of the whole PLP, and not just Angela Eagles over the last two weeks. Absolutely agree about the what a tough task changing the Labour Leadership rules would be, but not impossible if Eagles with backing of majority of PLP can finally get Corbyn to resign rather than split the party even further. She can then seek the full backing of the PLP to become Leader without a contest right now.

    It is interesting that Burnham has stuck with Corbyn by staying in Shadow Cabinet when so many others in PLP resigned. Burnham really is the Labour Boris Johnson when it come to putting his personal ambitions before those of his party, obviously has an eye on appealing to the very Corbyn supporters in membership should others in party force him to go. I just cannot see him ever getting the backing of the wider PLP now as a result.

    We have Corbyn interviewed by Marr, then followed by the Andrew Neil interview with Angela Eagles later this morning. That Corbyn has gone for Marr rather than Neil revealing, but suspect Eagles interview will be more significant. After the original Eagle briefings of a Leadership challenge came to nothing, and with some saying that it was dead in the water by last Thursday. Now clear briefings it is on again, but has that got something to with this equally significant political development tweeted by Andrew Neil earlier on Saturday?

    Twitter
    Andrew Neil ‏@afneil 11h11 hours ago
    When friends fall out: Len McCluskey says Tom Watson not meeting re Corbyn "act of sabotage fraught with peril for the future of the party"
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Pulpstar said:

    Still holding out hopes for Mary Creagh :) ?
    She once seemed a rational choice, to enable Labour to move forward from this mess, with plenty of positives going for her.

    The fly in the ointment is she would now be guaranteed to be facing another woman, which I can't see working for at least 50% of the voters...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,062

    IDS actually did quite well at the ballot box; MPs panicked because Blair crushed him at PMQs every week, but there is no real evidence the Conservative Party would have been wiped out or that Howard delivered a better result than IDS would have done at GE 2005.
    No and Labour under Corbyn would probably not get wiped out either but in the IDS years the Tories were not really the main party of opposition, that was the LDs, just as in the Corbyn years Labour are not really the main party of opposition, that is UKIP and the SNP. Goodnight
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,320

    It is often best not to trouble the SNP with facts - they don't like them.
    So true!! :)
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Excellent news:

    "Solar power has hit new record highs in the UK, providing almost a quarter of the country's electricity at one point last month, analysis shows.
    The solar industry estimates the country now has almost 12 gigawatts (GW) of solar panels, on homes, offices, warehouses, schools and other buildings and in solar farms - enough to power the equivalent of 3.8 million homes.
    New analysis by MyGridGB for the Solar Trade Association (STA) shows that solar power hit a new peak of meeting 23.9% of demand in the early afternoon on June 5."

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-3672902/Solar-power-sees-record-high-June.html
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    I see the Telegraph is in full Woman's Weekly supportive mode for Mrs May:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/09/the-oxford-romance-that-has-guided-theresa-may-from-tragedy-to-t/

    (Actually, having known the people involved, I'd say the report is pretty accurate...)
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737

    I see the Telegraph is in full Woman's Weekly supportive mode for Mrs May:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/09/the-oxford-romance-that-has-guided-theresa-may-from-tragedy-to-t/

    (Actually, having known the people involved, I'd say the report is pretty accurate...)

    Any word on when we're going to move away from Kinder, Küche, Kirche, and begin a proper debate on what either of these candidates (if any) have to offer the country in its hour of need?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,852


    (Actually, having known the people involved, I'd say the report is pretty accurate...)

    You knew Benazir Bhutto?
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737

    You knew Benazir Bhutto?
    Used to hang around with her father...
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    RodCrosby said:

    Any word on when we're going to move away from Kinder, Küche, Kirche, and begin a proper debate on what either of these candidates (if any) have to offer the country in its hour of need?
    Like the publication of Angela's tax return?
This discussion has been closed.