politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Keiran Pedley on why Jeremy Corbyn should not automatically
Comments
-
Probably because Government accounting was stuck in the dark ages (largely still is).Mortimer said:
I suggest you read about Major's motivation for rail privatisation - I can't remember what is was (was it the cost of gilts?) exactly but there were serious reasons why railway infrastructure couldn't get the investment it needed as a state vehicle.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
The source of the money is the same - you and I the taxpayer.Mortimer said:
Sure, sure - but it didn't; and wasn't the main reason for privatisation the recognition that investment was required but not forthcoming with BR a state vehicle?Paul_Bedfordshire said:
If BR had had the £5 billion a year subsidy that this lot get rather than the less than one billion a year they got things would have been somewhat different.Mortimer said:
I don't really get the desire for railway nationalisation. The railways are so much better than when I was younger. More timely, better furnished, lots of cheap advance tickets available. More competition, not less, is surely the answer...DaveDave said:
Nationalisation is banned under EU law. It won't be post Brexit.Mortimer said:
Nationalisation and then rolling over to the unions?surbiton said:
Nationalisation of Southern Trains is the answer. Corbyn is the man.JohnO said:
What do we want - Southern TrainsAndyJS said:"'Desperate' commuters on Southern trains are considering a fare strike and will hold a demonstration at Victoria station tomorrow in a "show of anger".
Hundreds of people have expressed an interest in the rush hour demonstration, scheduled for 5.30pm, claiming lives are being "ruined" by the company's service."
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/southern-railway-desperate-commuters-to-hold-victoria-station-protest-a3292251.html
When do we want it - 18.00, calling at Clapham Jct, East Croydon, Redhill and Gatwick Airport
Edit: that said, my experiences of Southern are less positive. Too big a network?
No, privatisation was so they could do to the railways what they did to the coal mines. However the TOCs were good at selling the product, passenger numbers went up and the government and the road lobby to their utter horror realised that the rail lobby which had vanished in 1948 upon nationalisation - giving the road lobby free rein - had been reborn and was back with a venegence.
0 -
My main concern, and I'm going to be voting for her, is that she has presided over record immigration despite manifesto commitments/ambitions to limit it. And at the same time apparently not instituted any of the steps that might be needed to limit it...alex. said:
The Tory party in the country may be largely unchanged. There you have your partial explanation for why membership numbers are a fraction of what they were in its heyday.Concanvasser said:One of my most deeply held beliefs is that the British people have not really changed nearly as much as the liberal metro commentariat would have us believe. The Tory party in the country is especially untouched by the vagaries of modernisation.
We Conservatives are being offered a choice between someone who likes us, our values and believes we can win with them and someone who seems to think our Blairite opponents still hold all the trump cards and that our best chance lies in aping them.
But May, a Blairite clone? Based on what? The "nasty party" speech? That's just ridiculous.0 -
Idiotic French TV editors again, almost missing a goal while showing replays.0
-
0
-
Sean never really gets banned - just sent to the drunk tank once in a whilePaul_Bedfordshire said:Time for someone to open a book on how long before Sean gets himself banned again....
0 -
http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2016/07/nick-boles-we-modernisers-arent-repeat-arent-quitting-the-party-were-staying-put-and-weve-so-much-more-to-do-within-it.html#idc-cover
Nick Boles going down like a cup of cold sick on Conhome.0 -
Is Casino Royale around at the moment? Am missing his posts...0
-
Russia were pisspoor. Made England look good. Hosts for the World Cup....SeanT said:0 -
Top class rugby players all care more about their country than their club. That isn't true in many countries in football: England obviously, but the same disease appears in other countries. Germany and Brazil are the notable exceptions.SeanT said:Thought: top level international rugby is nearly always more exciting, pumped and tension-fuelled than football.
Just at the top, mind.0 -
And such delightful fans. It'll be a true festival of football in 2018.foxinsoxuk said:
Russia were pisspoor. Made England look good. Hosts for the World Cup....SeanT said:0 -
I was and attended a dinner with fellow former members of Warwick Uni Tories last night at the RAC Club, including the Tory candidate for Merthyr Tydfil at the last election and a Scottish New York banker who paid for most of the drinks but I have not been active for years and voted LD at the last general election. However I recently registered as a supporter and have now rejoined the party and would be happy with May. On the Labour side as you can gather I quite like the look of Chuka but personally would still vote for MayMortimer said:
HY - genuinely interrstdd, what are your political views at the moment? Don't I recall you being, at some point, a Tory activist?HYUFD said:
Labour lost 18 seats and their 31% voteshare was risiblebigjohnowls said:
The English Locals saw LAB gain seats compared to EICIPMs high point of 2012.HYUFD said:
May's local elections, where Labour got just 31% of the vote and lost seats, was one of the worst cDanny565 said:
If the existing membership have turned against Corbyn, then why do the "moderates" apparently not think they could beat him if he was on the ballot?Wulfrun_Phil said:
"The PLP trying to rig leadership elections and to split the party for their own egos". Your perspective, not mine. I think that Neil Kinnock had a better take on it, as has Keiran Pedley above.Danny565 said:
Corbyn voters are by no means limited to just the "post GE intake". And Labour members who are Corbyn-sceptic, but who will nonetheless be outraged at the PLP trying to rig leadership elections and to split the party for their own egos, will go even deeper into the long-term membership base.Wulfrun_Phil said:
The ground troops won't by and large be affected, since very few of the post GE intake care for proper campaigning with the public at large as opposed to resolutionary socialism and groupthink on social media. Nor will it be the end of the world e....Danny565 said:
So they WANT to lose more than half the membership??kle4 said:I suppose the thinking behind keeping Corbyn off the ballot is it might cause an exodus of lefty members (presuming the non far lefties who also voted for him are more prepared to stick around), rather than force the MPs to potentially have to leave if they challenge him and fail (given their actions have gone far beyond usual challenges)?
Where exactly do they think their ground troops and money is going to come from?
Agreed that wasnt the media n0 -
I disagree Sean - I'd say pretty much any rugby match is more exciting than it's football equivalent. For so much of football, nothing of any importance to the outcome happens. Football basically relies on people really caring who wins. Contrast to say, tennis, where people happily turn up without knowing who they will be watching: their joy is in seeing the sport, not backing one side. (I personally can't get gripped by tennis either, but that's just me).SeanT said:Thought: top level international rugby is nearly always more exciting, pumped and tension-fuelled than football.
Just at the top, mind.0 -
I understand that some people equate traditional Tories with Corbyn voters. I think they are mistaken. If we put in Andrea we get a PM and government straight away with a fair chance of maintaining that state of affairs till 2020. I like Jezza and will vote to keep him if given the chance again for my existing £3 stake however he was always a play thing. Voting Andrea is about putting someone straight into No 10.0
-
His status is to be decided by the NEC on Tuesday.Mortimer said:
Surely that would have to go to arbitration?SquareRoot said:Has anyone asked the question about who would contend to lead a breakaway Labour/SDP party?
Any update from Charlie Falconer?0 -
Quite. Scary, isn't it?Concanvasser said:I understand that some people equate traditional Tories with Corbyn voters. I think they are mistaken. If we put in Andrea we get a PM and government straight away with a fair chance of maintaining that state of affairs till 2020. I like Jezza and will vote to keep him if given the chance again for my existing £3 stake however he was always a play thing. Voting Andrea is about putting someone straight into No 10.
0 -
Then they probably wouldn't have had the best campaign, would they?MarqueeMark said:
LabourLeave had the best campaign. If only Corbyn had fronted it - he could have owned the result, and told a vast swathe of the unconnected and disaffected that he represented their worries....John_M said:It was interesting to read the arguments on LabourLeave.
It just shows how strange and diverse motivations were during EUref that people like me, Charles, Sean and Plato were on the same side as the leader of ASLEF.0 -
His last post was on 29th June:Mortimer said:Is Casino Royale around at the moment? Am missing his posts...
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/06/29/sdp2-is-a-real-possibility-within-4-months/0 -
I agree, though I think Chuka is more likely to win in 2025 than 2020.Paristonda said:In all this talk about Labour losing their northern WWC seats to UKIP if they go with a Chuka type candidate, there are two things to consider:
1) Did Northern Labour Voters actually break for Leave in massive numbers, or was it actually the case that former Non-Voters plus UKIP swung Sunderland etc?
2) How sure can we be that those same people will turnout at a GE and vote UKIP?
I think in reality Labour's northern seats are safer than we assume. I would hazard a guess that they are already close to core vote in those seats, it's just that the opposition is split between UKIP and and Non-Voters so Labour win regardless.
Labour needs to take seats off of Tories. A seat won from a Tory is +2 for Labour (+1 Labour, -1 Tory), a seat won from a lib dem or SNP is only +1 for Labour (+1 Labour, 0 Tory).
They need old Blair-now Cameron seats. Corbyn can't do that, a Chuka type could, in 2020 the tories will be the 10 year incumbent government, presiding most likely over a brexit recession, with a PM far less charismatic than DC was. 2020 is there for the taking.0 -
Russia is all about the fans, not the football.foxinsoxuk said:
Russia were pisspoor. Made England look good. Hosts for the World Cup....SeanT said:0 -
Glad to hear you're back in the fold!HYUFD said:
I was and attended a dinner with fellow former members of Warwick Uni Tories last night at the RAC Club, including the Tory candidate for Merthyr Tydfil at the last election and a Scottish New York banker who paid for most of the drinks but I have not been active for years and voted LD at the last general election. However I recently registered as a supporter and have now rejoined the party and would be happy with May. On the Labour side as you can gather I quite like the look of Chuka but personally would still vote for MayMortimer said:
HY - genuinely interrstdd, what are your political views at the moment? Don't I recall you being, at some point, a Tory activist?HYUFD said:
Labour lost 18 seats and their 31% voteshare was risiblebigjohnowls said:
The English Locals saw LAB gain seats compared to EICIPMs high point of 2012.HYUFD said:
May's local elections, where Labour got just 31% of the vote and lost seats, was one of the worst cDanny565 said:
If the existing membership have turned against Corbyn, then why do the "moderates" apparently not think they could beat him if he was on the ballot?Wulfrun_Phil said:
"The PLP trying to rig leadership elections and to split the party for their own egos". Your perspective, not mine. I think that Neil Kinnock had a better take on it, as has Keiran Pedley above.Danny565 said:
Corbyn voters are by no means limited to just the "post GE intake". And Labour members who are Corbyn-sceptic, but who will nonetheless be outraged at the PLP trying to rig leadership elections and to split the party for their own egos, will go even deeper into the long-term membership base.Wulfrun_Phil said:
The ground troops won't by and large be affected, since very few of the post GE intake care for proper campaigning with the public at large as opposed to resolutionary socialism and groupthink on social media. Nor will it be the end of the world e....Danny565 said:
So they WANT to lose more than half the membership??kle4 said:I suppose the thinking behind keeping Corbyn off the ballot is it might cause an exodus of lefty members (presuming the non far lefties who also voted for him are more prepared to stick around), rather than force the MPs to potentially have to leave if they challenge him and fail (given their actions have gone far beyond usual challenges)?
Where exactly do they think their ground troops and money is going to come from?
Agreed that wasnt the media n0 -
Admittedly I live in Paris so I'm no expert on Labour in the north! I'd certainly agree that Labour is a party on life support around there, but all parties have a floor, and I don't see how Labour's floor can drop much lower than 2015 - Miliband offered nothing special, UKIP was at a peak, and we have voted to leave the EU (I caveat my earlier post by saying that a Chuka type needs to accept we are leaving the EU, otherwise yes I could see a big UKIP vote). If we accept leaving the EU, I think UKIP still seem too 'amateur' to be seen as a party of government, and will struggle to sweep significant seats in the north.eek said:
Can I ask you where you live? Trust me, as someone who lives up North, Labour is a goner around here. The only reason they win is inertia and the lack of another party to vote for...Paristonda said:In all this talk about Labour losing their northern WWC seats to UKIP if they go with a Chuka type candidate, there are two things to consider:
1) Did Northern Labour Voters actually break for Leave in massive numbers, or was it actually the case that former Non-Voters plus UKIP swung Sunderland etc?
2) How sure can we be that those same people will turnout at a GE and vote UKIP?
I think in reality Labour's northern seats are safer than we assume. I would hazard a guess that they are already close to core vote in those seats, it's just that the opposition is split between UKIP and and Non-Voters so Labour win regardless.
Labour needs to take seats off of Tories. A seat won from a Tory is +2 for Labour (+1 Labour, -1 Tory), a seat won from a lib dem or SNP is only +1 for Labour (+1 Labour, 0 Tory).
They need old Blair-now Cameron seats. Corbyn can't do that, a Chuka type could, in 2020 the tories will be the 10 year incumbent government, presiding most likely over a brexit recession, with a PM far less charismatic than DC was. 2020 is there for the taking.
UKIP are perfectly positioned to be that other party....
Additionally, there's no guarantee that UKIP will choose a UKIP leader that could appeal there, Paul Nuttall has dropped out, and a Diane James type is more likely to appeal to Tory seats in the south.0 -
I can well believe he is a breath of fresh air compared to some leaders. But I have severe doubts he is as transformative as his most radical supporters think. He's not immune to spouting meaningless guff like any other politician for example.SouthamObserver said:
The idea that Jeremy Corbyn is not a career politician who does not speak in jargon is an intriguing one. How old is he, how long has he been an MP and what did he do before that?Danny565 said:
Call it defeatism if you want, but I think it's realism. Corbyn IS shite, but, after hearing from people just how AWFULLY the Remain campaign was perceived, I do genuinely believe he would do better in a general election than any of these "moderates" who, like Remain, would just be career politicians speaking in jargon, pushing forward the same old tired "steady as she goes" message.alex. said:
Anyone who does not limit the extent of options to their Shadow ministerial team to around 50 MPs would do better. Trying to argue that it doesn't matter if Corbyn is shite, everyone else would be shiter is just defeatism. Would you use the same argument if he emerged from the next election with 130 MPs?Danny565 said:
Stalking horse for who? Which specific candidate would perform better in a general election than Corbyn would?Monty said:
Eagle is obviously a stalking horse. Surely, you can see that?surbiton said:
And, the person who will beat the Tories is a wet lettuce ? You must be joking !Monty said:
Because they are entirely different electorates. The sea of hard-left entryists and £3 Tory idiots (step forward several PB posters) will re-elect Corbyn as they have no interest in Labour winning elections. The country wants a reasonable alternative to Conservatives. Labour's problem in a nutshell.Danny565 said:Regardless of what technicalities can be found for Corbyn to be kept off the ballot, the bottom line is:
If Angela Eagle (or any other "moderate") thinks she can't even beat CORBYN in an election, how the hell is she going to have a chance against a far more formidable opponent in the Tories at the next General Election??
"Corbyn is not doing well" is not the same thing as "there is someone else available who would do better than Corbyn".0 -
France v. Germany was goodThreeQuidder said:
As was Wales v. Belgium
0 -
Potentially. If May cannot convince people she can do that though, even if she can, Leadsom can really hit home hard.nunu said:
We need controls on immigration even if it means a classic British fudge, as long as low skilled migration is controlled most of the country will be happy.kle4 said:
She may well do so.SeanT said:
No. We'll enter EEA and everyone can stay where they are. Unless the mad Leadsom wins.surbiton said:
So, the 800k will go back ? How will I get my Polish bread ?SeanT said:
From my reading of European websites, the Poles are amongst the most sympathetic to Brexit.HaroldO said:
I am spending Xmas in Poland, fully expect to be cross questioned by everyone I meet as to why we voted Brexit.SeanT said:
Yes indeed. I have several dinners and lunches with some Swiss dudes and dudettes, quite high up in the tourism industry.HYUFD said:
Mind you you are at least going to a non-EU nation and one of our future likely partners in EFTA, would be interesting to see if, as a Brit, you get a warm welcome, I hope so!SeanT said:You bastard LEAVE voters. Just booked a hire car for my trip to Switzerland tomorrow
Jeepers. The £.
Pffffff!!
Will be fascinating to get their take on Brexit. In my experience, so far, Europeans are deeply intrigued by what we've done - in good and bad ways.
I may just stay drunk the entire time.0 -
-
Indeed, with Corbyn and UKIP as the alternative I am firmly backMortimer said:
Glad to hear you're back in the fold!HYUFD said:
I was and attended a dinner with fellow former members of Warwick Uni Tories last night at the RAC Club, including the Tory candidate for Merthyr Tydfil at the last election and a Scottish New York banker who paid for most of the drinks but I have not been active for years and voted LD at the last general election. However I recently registered as a supporter and have now rejoined the party and would be happy with May. On the Labour side as you can gather I quite like the look of Chuka but personally would still vote for MayMortimer said:
HY - genuinely interrstdd, what are your political views at the moment? Don't I recall you being, at some point, a Tory activist?HYUFD said:
Labour lost 18 seats and their 31% voteshare was risiblebigjohnowls said:
The English Locals saw LAB gain seats compared to EICIPMs high point of 2012.HYUFD said:
May's local elections, where Labour got just 31% of the vote and lost seats, was one of the worst cDanny565 said:
If the existing membership have turned against Corbyn, then why do the "moderates" apparently not think they could beat him if he was on the ballot?Wulfrun_Phil said:
"The PLDanny565 said:
Corbyn voters are by no means limited to just the "post GE intake". And Labour members who are Corbyn-sce.Wulfrun_Phil said:
The ground troops won't by and large be affected, since very few of the post GE intake care for proper campaigning with the public at large as opposed to resolutionary socialism and groupthink on social media. Nor will it be the end of the world e....Danny565 said:
So they WANT to lose more than half the membership??kle4 said:I suppose the thinking behind keeping Corbyn off the ballot is it might cause an exodus of lefty members (presuming the non far lefties who also voted for him are more prepared to stick around), rather than force the MPs to potentially have to leave if they challenge him and fail (given their actions have gone far beyond usual challenges)?
Where exactly do they think their ground troops and money is going to come from?
Agreed that wasnt the media n0 -
His interview this morning was full of repeated lines that had been carefully prepared for him so he could appear reasonable. It was classic meaningless guff.kle4 said:
I can well believe he is a breath of fresh air compared to some leaders. But I have severe doubts he is as transformative as his most radical supporters think. He's not immune to spouting meaningless guff like any other politician for example.SouthamObserver said:
The idea that Jeremy Corbyn is not a career politician who does not speak in jargon is an intriguing one. How old is he, how long has he been an MP and what did he do before that?Danny565 said:
Call it defeatism if you want, but I think it's realism. Corbyn IS shite, but, after hearing from people just how AWFULLY the Remain campaign was perceived, I do genuinely believe he would do better in a general election than any of these "moderates" who, like Remain, would just be career politicians speaking in jargon, pushing forward the same old tired "steady as she goes" message.alex. said:
Anyone who does not limit the extent of options to their Shadow ministerial team to around 50 MPs would do better. Trying to argue that it doesn't matter if Corbyn is shite, everyone else would be shiter is just defeatism. Would you use the same argument if he emerged from the next election with 130 MPs?Danny565 said:
Stalking horse for who? Which specific candidate would perform better in a general election than Corbyn would?Monty said:
Eagle is obviously a stalking horse. Surely, you can see that?surbiton said:
And, the person who will beat the Tories is a wet lettuce ? You must be joking !Monty said:
Because they are entirely different electorates. The sea of hard-left entryists and £3 Tory idiots (step forward several PB posters) will re-elect Corbyn as they have no interest in Labour winning elections. The country wants a reasonable alternative to Conservatives. Labour's problem in a nutshell.Danny565 said:Regardless of what technicalities can be found for Corbyn to be kept off the ballot, the bottom line is:
If Angela Eagle (or any other "moderate") thinks she can't even beat CORBYN in an election, how the hell is she going to have a chance against a far more formidable opponent in the Tories at the next General Election??
"Corbyn is not doing well" is not the same thing as "there is someone else available who would do better than Corbyn".0 -
I think there will be moves at the NEC to get rid of the ridiculous £3 entryists.Concanvasser said:I understand that some people equate traditional Tories with Corbyn voters. I think they are mistaken. If we put in Andrea we get a PM and government straight away with a fair chance of maintaining that state of affairs till 2020. I like Jezza and will vote to keep him if given the chance again for my existing £3 stake however he was always a play thing. Voting Andrea is about putting someone straight into No 10.
Please vote for the untested CV embellisher with wacky policies.
I could do with a laugh.
0 -
But it isnt getting private investment now. Just three times as much state investment?alex. said:
Probably because Government accounting was stuck in the dark ages (largely still is).Mortimer said:
I suggest you read about Major's motivation for rail privatisation - I can't remember what is was (was it the cost of gilts?) exactly but there were serious reasons why railway infrastructure couldn't get the investment it needed as a state vehicle.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
The source of the money is the same - you and I the taxpayer.Mortimer said:
Sure, sure - but it didn't; and wasn't the main reason for privatisation the recognition that investment was required but not forthcoming with BR a state vehicle?Paul_Bedfordshire said:
If BR had had the £5 billion a year subsidy that this lot get rather than the less than one billion a year they got things would have been somewhat different.Mortimer said:
I don't really get the desire for railway nationalisation. The railways are so much better than when I was younger. More timely, better furnished, lots of cheap advance tickets available. More competition, not less, is surely the answer...DaveDave said:
Nationalisation is banned under EU law. It won't be post Brexit.Mortimer said:
Nationalisation and then rolling over to the unions?surbiton said:
Nationalisation of Southern Trains is the answer. Corbyn is the man.JohnO said:
What do we want - Southern TrainsAndyJS said:"'Desperate' commuters on Southern trains are considering a fare strike and will hold a demonstration at Victoria station tomorrow in a "show of anger".
Hundreds of people have expressed an interest in the rush hour demonstration, scheduled for 5.30pm, claiming lives are being "ruined" by the company's service."
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/southern-railway-desperate-commuters-to-hold-victoria-station-protest-a3292251.html
When do we want it - 18.00, calling at Clapham Jct, East Croydon, Redhill and Gatwick Airport
Edit: that said, my experiences of Southern are less positive. Too big a network?
No, privatisation was so they could do to the railways what they did to the coal mines. However the TOCs were good at selling the product, passenger numbers went up and the government and the road lobby to their utter horror realised that the rail lobby which had vanished in 1948 upon nationalisation - giving the road lobby free rein - had been reborn and was back with a venegence.0 -
Please, can the captains/managers just agree that the end of the 90, we go straight to penalties? 30 minutes of fannying around as people wonder about what number penalty they will be taking adds nothing to the spectacle.0
-
Personally I hate penalties. They are not football.MarqueeMark said:Please, can the captains/managers just agree that the end of the 90, we go straight to penalties? 30 minutes of fannying around as people wonder about what number penalty they will be taking adds nothing to the spectacle.
0 -
I think Kevin is entirely wrong. I'm not yet committed to vote for any candidate, since I'd like to give space for the candidates to say what they stand for and I do see the difficulties in the current situation. But I would not bother to take part in an election where the currently elected leader was excluded. I'd see the result as illegitimate and would not regard the winner as the party leader. I suspect most members would feel the same. A winning challenge is one thing. A non-contest is something else, and ould merely shift the battle into further rounds in the NEC and the conference.
It would also fail to address the basic issue: does the party accept that it's time to change from Corbyn to a new leader? The challengers can only hope to win in any real sense if they actually *win the vote*.0 -
Just what I was thinking. It didn't work after 90 why should it work after 120?MarqueeMark said:Please, can the captains/managers just agree that the end of the 90, we go straight to penalties? 30 minutes of fannying around as people wonder about what number penalty they will be taking adds nothing to the spectacle.
0 -
Maybe it should be decided by shots on goal.TOPPING said:
Just what I was thinking. It didn't work after 90 why should it work after 120?MarqueeMark said:Please, can the captains/managers just agree that the end of the 90, we go straight to penalties? 30 minutes of fannying around as people wonder about what number penalty they will be taking adds nothing to the spectacle.
0 -
@georgeeaton: Labour NEC members tell me they think they can keep Corbyn off the ballot - if vote is secret.0
-
What is the current make-up of the NEC? Who has replaced The Eagle?Scott_P said:@georgeeaton: Labour NEC members tell me they think they can keep Corbyn off the ballot - if vote is secret.
0 -
No but you a) have to have a result and b) can't keep playing until the players keel over from exhaustion. So penalties is a reasonable way to break a deadlock.Monty said:
Personally I hate penalties. They are not football.MarqueeMark said:Please, can the captains/managers just agree that the end of the 90, we go straight to penalties? 30 minutes of fannying around as people wonder about what number penalty they will be taking adds nothing to the spectacle.
0 -
Disagree. The leader must have the support of the MPs. This is a parliamentary democracy after all. If the prospective leader can't muster enough parliamentary support they shouldn't be on the ballot otherwise it leads to ridiculous situations like we have at the moment with an isolated leader and a split divided party.NickPalmer said:I think Kevin is entirely wrong. I'm not yet committed to vote for any candidate, since I'd like to give space for the candidates to say what they stand for and I do see the difficulties in the current situation. But I would not bother to take part in an election where the currently elected leader was excluded. I'd see the result as illegitimate and would not regard the winner as the party leader. I suspect most members would feel the same. A winning challenge is one thing. A non-contest is something else, and ould merely shift the battle into further rounds in the NEC and the conference.
It would also fail to address the basic issue: does the party accept that it's time to change from Corbyn to a new leader? The challengers can only hope to win in any real sense if they actually *win the vote*.
0 -
I know nothing about football, but if it's a draw after 90 minutes why not send the goalkeepers off?0
-
-
Captains wouldn't choose to anyway. Players hate penalties apart from goalkeepers.TOPPING said:
Just what I was thinking. It didn't work after 90 why should it work after 120?MarqueeMark said:Please, can the captains/managers just agree that the end of the 90, we go straight to penalties? 30 minutes of fannying around as people wonder about what number penalty they will be taking adds nothing to the spectacle.
0 -
Reduce number of players playing. Every five minutes, a player has to go off on each side. Game stretched. First goal wins.AndyJS said:
Maybe it should be decided by shots on goal.TOPPING said:
Just what I was thinking. It didn't work after 90 why should it work after 120?MarqueeMark said:Please, can the captains/managers just agree that the end of the 90, we go straight to penalties? 30 minutes of fannying around as people wonder about what number penalty they will be taking adds nothing to the spectacle.
0 -
They should start the game with penalties. Then we'd know who had the advantage during the game.ToryJim said:
No but you a) have to have a result and b) can't keep playing until the players keel over from exhaustion. So penalties is a reasonable way to break a deadlock.Monty said:
Personally I hate penalties. They are not football.MarqueeMark said:Please, can the captains/managers just agree that the end of the 90, we go straight to penalties? 30 minutes of fannying around as people wonder about what number penalty they will be taking adds nothing to the spectacle.
0 -
I think if they succeed in keeping him off the ballot there will be problems. If they let him on the ballot there will be problems. It seems to me there is no way this ends well or cleanly.Scott_P said:@georgeeaton: Labour NEC members tell me they think they can keep Corbyn off the ballot - if vote is secret.
0 -
Completely agree.Jobabob said:
Reduce number of players playing. Every five minutes, a player has to go off on each side. Game stretched. First goal wins.AndyJS said:
Maybe it should be decided by shots on goal.TOPPING said:
Just what I was thinking. It didn't work after 90 why should it work after 120?MarqueeMark said:Please, can the captains/managers just agree that the end of the 90, we go straight to penalties? 30 minutes of fannying around as people wonder about what number penalty they will be taking adds nothing to the spectacle.
0 -
Interesting article:
"Help! I’m falling out of the middle class
I earn less than the median income, and far less than my parents. I should never have followed my dreams
Henry Jeffreys"
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/07/help-im-falling-out-of-the-middle-class/0 -
Agreed. This is a mess of their own making. The fall-out from the Corbyn experiment will have long-lasting damage.ToryJim said:
I think if they succeed in keeping him off the ballot there will be problems. If they let him on the ballot there will be problems. It seems to me there is no way this ends well or cleanly.Scott_P said:@georgeeaton: Labour NEC members tell me they think they can keep Corbyn off the ballot - if vote is secret.
If you select the nuclear option, you have to live with the damage.0 -
Better by the team with fewer cards. It would keep games clean.AndyJS said:
Maybe it should be decided by shots on goal.TOPPING said:
Just what I was thinking. It didn't work after 90 why should it work after 120?MarqueeMark said:Please, can the captains/managers just agree that the end of the 90, we go straight to penalties? 30 minutes of fannying around as people wonder about what number penalty they will be taking adds nothing to the spectacle.
0 -
But then the team who won on penalties would just have 11 men in their box!tlg86 said:
They should start the game with penalties. Then we'd know who had the advantage during the game.ToryJim said:
No but you a) have to have a result and b) can't keep playing until the players keel over from exhaustion. So penalties is a reasonable way to break a deadlock.Monty said:
Personally I hate penalties. They are not football.MarqueeMark said:Please, can the captains/managers just agree that the end of the 90, we go straight to penalties? 30 minutes of fannying around as people wonder about what number penalty they will be taking adds nothing to the spectacle.
0 -
Nick P is surely on the money when he says a non contest (where Jez is excluded ) will be seen as illegitimate. If they are that sure Jez is a dud then defeat him openly.0
-
Robert's been a very naughty boy
Casino Royale is on holiday0 -
And if all the players get sent off before a goal is scored?Jobabob said:
Reduce number of players playing. Every five minutes, a player has to go off on each side. Game stretched. First goal wins.AndyJS said:
Maybe it should be decided by shots on goal.TOPPING said:
Just what I was thinking. It didn't work after 90 why should it work after 120?MarqueeMark said:Please, can the captains/managers just agree that the end of the 90, we go straight to penalties? 30 minutes of fannying around as people wonder about what number penalty they will be taking adds nothing to the spectacle.
0 -
But Labour members need to decide whether Labour exists to win power via Parliament or for other reasons. That's what all this is about now. Either they support Corbyn, and opt for Labour not being a political party that aspires to win power, or they side with the PLP because they believe that it is. This is not a decision that can be ducked forever.Monty said:
Disagree. The leader must have the support of the MPs. This is a parliamentary democracy after all. If the prospective leader can't muster enough parliamentary support they shouldn't be on the ballot otherwise it leads to ridiculous situations like we have at the moment with an isolated leader and a split divided party.NickPalmer said:I think Kevin is entirely wrong. I'm not yet committed to vote for any candidate, since I'd like to give space for the candidates to say what they stand for and I do see the difficulties in the current situation. But I would not bother to take part in an election where the currently elected leader was excluded. I'd see the result as illegitimate and would not regard the winner as the party leader. I suspect most members would feel the same. A winning challenge is one thing. A non-contest is something else, and ould merely shift the battle into further rounds in the NEC and the conference.
It would also fail to address the basic issue: does the party accept that it's time to change from Corbyn to a new leader? The challengers can only hope to win in any real sense if they actually *win the vote*.
0 -
No, that would be awful. Teams need midfielders willing to get the occasional card.foxinsoxuk said:
Better by the team with fewer cards. It would keep games clean.AndyJS said:
Maybe it should be decided by shots on goal.TOPPING said:
Just what I was thinking. It didn't work after 90 why should it work after 120?MarqueeMark said:Please, can the captains/managers just agree that the end of the 90, we go straight to penalties? 30 minutes of fannying around as people wonder about what number penalty they will be taking adds nothing to the spectacle.
0 -
Corbyn would tell his people not to take part. The result would be a North Korean level of comical - and Corbyn still stands up at PMQs.Concanvasser said:Nick P is surely on the money when he says a non contest (where Jez is excluded ) will be seen as illegitimate. If they are that sure Jez is a dud then defeat him openly.
0 -
@TelePolitics: 'I've been under attack, it's been shattering': Andrea Leadsom apologises to Theresa May over motherhood comments… https://t.co/my2eexP2yN0
-
I think Nick is right about the politics here, however the disputed wording of the rules is interpreted.NickPalmer said:I think Kevin is entirely wrong. I'm not yet committed to vote for any candidate, since I'd like to give space for the candidates to say what they stand for and I do see the difficulties in the current situation. But I would not bother to take part in an election where the currently elected leader was excluded. I'd see the result as illegitimate and would not regard the winner as the party leader. I suspect most members would feel the same. A winning challenge is one thing. A non-contest is something else, and ould merely shift the battle into further rounds in the NEC and the conference.
It would also fail to address the basic issue: does the party accept that it's time to change from Corbyn to a new leader? The challengers can only hope to win in any real sense if they actually *win the vote*.
But, putting yourself in the shoes of a 'plotter', the strong possibility that the contest might be seen as illegitimate has to be balanced against the alternative, namely that Corbyn gets re-elected. It's a choice between a civil war where your side ends up holding the reins of power and the other side are left fuming and dispossessed, or a civil war where your side loses and has no choice but to split off and form another party - an option which many
see as tantamount to political suicide. There are no good options.
0 -
Exactly. What japes it was for Labour MPs to nominate Jezza. Oh. He won? Well that is a harsh lesson to learn.oxfordsimon said:
Agreed. This is a mess of their own making. The fall-out from the Corbyn experiment will have long-lasting damage.ToryJim said:
I think if they succeed in keeping him off the ballot there will be problems. If they let him on the ballot there will be problems. It seems to me there is no way this ends well or cleanly.Scott_P said:@georgeeaton: Labour NEC members tell me they think they can keep Corbyn off the ballot - if vote is secret.
If you select the nuclear option, you have to live with the damage.0 -
I agree. Corbyn needs to be sent packing in a fair fight. If he wins again it is extinction time for any hopes of government.Concanvasser said:Nick P is surely on the money when he says a non contest (where Jez is excluded ) will be seen as illegitimate. If they are that sure Jez is a dud then defeat him openly.
0 -
It depends, though. If the result is that a lot of hard left entryists up sticks and join the Greens then it's hardly a tragedy. However, Labour does need to decide what it is and the sooner the better.Concanvasser said:Nick P is surely on the money when he says a non contest (where Jez is excluded ) will be seen as illegitimate. If they are that sure Jez is a dud then defeat him openly.
0 -
If that had been her first reaction this would have been the ultimate non-story.Scott_P said:@TelePolitics: 'I've been under attack, it's been shattering': Andrea Leadsom apologises to Theresa May over motherhood comments… https://t.co/my2eexP2yN
0 -
Only one answer to that. I think we have enough pressure groups already and I have a visceral hatred of the mindset that elections are unimportant.SouthamObserver said:
But Labour members need to decide whether Labour exists to win power via Parliament or for other reasons. That's what all this is about now. Either they support Corbyn, and opt for Labour not being a political party that aspires to win power, or they side with the PLP because they believe that it is. This is not a decision that can be ducked forever.Monty said:
Disagree. The leader must have the support of the MPs. This is a parliamentary democracy after all. If the prospective leader can't muster enough parliamentary support they shouldn't be on the ballot otherwise it leads to ridiculous situations like we have at the moment with an isolated leader and a split divided party.NickPalmer said:I think Kevin is entirely wrong. I'm not yet committed to vote for any candidate, since I'd like to give space for the candidates to say what they stand for and I do see the difficulties in the current situation. But I would not bother to take part in an election where the currently elected leader was excluded. I'd see the result as illegitimate and would not regard the winner as the party leader. I suspect most members would feel the same. A winning challenge is one thing. A non-contest is something else, and ould merely shift the battle into further rounds in the NEC and the conference.
It would also fail to address the basic issue: does the party accept that it's time to change from Corbyn to a new leader? The challengers can only hope to win in any real sense if they actually *win the vote*.
This may well be the end of the Labour Party. If so, then so be it. Something else will emerge. Nature abhors a vacuum.
And do we have a vacuum currently.0 -
Interesting but he lives in London which has a significantly higher average income and cost of living than the nation as a whole and is an arts graduate which explains his situation a little. If he moved out to Kent or Essex he would get more bang for his buck and could still commute to the big city for work and leisureAndyJS said:Interesting article:
"Help! I’m falling out of the middle class
I earn less than the median income, and far less than my parents. I should never have followed my dreams
Henry Jeffreys"
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/07/help-im-falling-out-of-the-middle-class/
0 -
1 vs 1 is the minimum!Paristonda said:
And if all the players get sent off before a goal is scored?Jobabob said:
Reduce number of players playing. Every five minutes, a player has to go off on each side. Game stretched. First goal wins.AndyJS said:
Maybe it should be decided by shots on goal.TOPPING said:
Just what I was thinking. It didn't work after 90 why should it work after 120?MarqueeMark said:Please, can the captains/managers just agree that the end of the 90, we go straight to penalties? 30 minutes of fannying around as people wonder about what number penalty they will be taking adds nothing to the spectacle.
0 -
Maybe, but that would only last as long as the game was level. It would have the same effect as away goals being settled in the second leg - i.e. one team has a half goal advantage.MarqueeMark said:
But then the team who won on penalties would just have 11 men in their box!tlg86 said:
They should start the game with penalties. Then we'd know who had the advantage during the game.ToryJim said:
No but you a) have to have a result and b) can't keep playing until the players keel over from exhaustion. So penalties is a reasonable way to break a deadlock.Monty said:
Personally I hate penalties. They are not football.MarqueeMark said:Please, can the captains/managers just agree that the end of the 90, we go straight to penalties? 30 minutes of fannying around as people wonder about what number penalty they will be taking adds nothing to the spectacle.
0 -
Tory party rules don't require the Leader to be on the ballot. In fact the Leader is explicitly excluded. What is it specifically that makes such an outcome "illegitimate"?0
-
There is a case to be made that if a player is sent off, that is an automatic penalty up for the other side....foxinsoxuk said:
Better by the team with fewer cards. It would keep games clean.AndyJS said:
Maybe it should be decided by shots on goal.TOPPING said:
Just what I was thinking. It didn't work after 90 why should it work after 120?MarqueeMark said:Please, can the captains/managers just agree that the end of the 90, we go straight to penalties? 30 minutes of fannying around as people wonder about what number penalty they will be taking adds nothing to the spectacle.
0 -
He's lost a vote of no confidence. He should have gone weeks ago. Now no holds are barred.foxinsoxuk said:
I agree. Corbyn needs to be sent packing in a fair fight. If he wins again it is extinction time for any hopes of government.Concanvasser said:Nick P is surely on the money when he says a non contest (where Jez is excluded ) will be seen as illegitimate. If they are that sure Jez is a dud then defeat him openly.
0 -
0
-
1998 World Cup had the "Golden Goal" - the team wot scores first in extra time wins!MarqueeMark said:Please, can the captains/managers just agree that the end of the 90, we go straight to penalties? 30 minutes of fannying around as people wonder about what number penalty they will be taking adds nothing to the spectacle.
0 -
Yet hard right supporters like yourself aren't even prepared to join the party as there is mo inspiring Blairite candidateSouthamObserver said:
It depends, though. If the result is that a lot of hard left entryists up sticks and join the Greens then it's hardly a tragedy. However, Labour does need to decide what it is and the sooner the better.Concanvasser said:Nick P is surely on the money when he says a non contest (where Jez is excluded ) will be seen as illegitimate. If they are that sure Jez is a dud then defeat him openly.
0 -
How about number of corners?foxinsoxuk said:
Better by the team with fewer cards. It would keep games clean.AndyJS said:
Maybe it should be decided by shots on goal.TOPPING said:
Just what I was thinking. It didn't work after 90 why should it work after 120?MarqueeMark said:Please, can the captains/managers just agree that the end of the 90, we go straight to penalties? 30 minutes of fannying around as people wonder about what number penalty they will be taking adds nothing to the spectacle.
0 -
I completely agree.Monty said:
Only one answer to that. I think we have enough pressure groups already and I have a visceral hatred of the mindset that elections are unimportant.SouthamObserver said:
But Labour members need to decide whether Labour exists to win power via Parliament or for other reasons. That's what all this is about now. Either they support Corbyn, and opt for Labour not being a political party that aspires to win power, or they side with the PLP because they believe that it is. This is not a decision that can be ducked forever.Monty said:
Disagree. The leader must have the support of the MPs. This is a parliamentary democracy after all. If the prospective leader can't muster enough parliamentary support they shouldn't be on the ballot otherwise it leads to ridiculous situations like we have at the moment with an isolated leader and a split divided party.NickPalmer said:I think Kevin is entirely wrong. I'm not yet committed to vote for any candidate, since I'd like to give space for the candidates to say what they stand for and I do see the difficulties in the current situation. But I would not bother to take part in an election where the currently elected leader was excluded. I'd see the result as illegitimate and would not regard the winner as the party leader. I suspect most members would feel the same. A winning challenge is one thing. A non-contest is something else, and ould merely shift the battle into further rounds in the NEC and the conference.
It would also fail to address the basic issue: does the party accept that it's time to change from Corbyn to a new leader? The challengers can only hope to win in any real sense if they actually *win the vote*.
This may well be the end of the Labour Party. If so, then so be it. Something else will emerge. Nature abhors a vacuum.
And do we have a vacuum currently.
0 -
You can't play with fewer than seven. Law 3(1).Paristonda said:
And if all the players get sent off before a goal is scored?Jobabob said:
Reduce number of players playing. Every five minutes, a player has to go off on each side. Game stretched. First goal wins.AndyJS said:
Maybe it should be decided by shots on goal.TOPPING said:
Just what I was thinking. It didn't work after 90 why should it work after 120?MarqueeMark said:Please, can the captains/managers just agree that the end of the 90, we go straight to penalties? 30 minutes of fannying around as people wonder about what number penalty they will be taking adds nothing to the spectacle.
0 -
Lovely training-ground free kick from Portugal....0
-
GOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAL!0
-
PORTUGAL!!!!!!0
-
Portugal score.0
-
Portugal score!0
-
Huzzah for our oldest ally.0
-
Careful what you wish for.Jobabob said:
He's lost a vote of no confidence. He should have gone weeks ago. Now no holds are barred.foxinsoxuk said:
I agree. Corbyn needs to be sent packing in a fair fight. If he wins again it is extinction time for any hopes of government.Concanvasser said:Nick P is surely on the money when he says a non contest (where Jez is excluded ) will be seen as illegitimate. If they are that sure Jez is a dud then defeat him openly.
0 -
Excellent goal.
Should be an interesting few minutes now.0 -
Always good to see the French lose.0
-
If they are going to try to kill Corbyn off on a procedure which isn't even clear, then they risk leaving the door open to McDonnell, who might have a shot at the nomination.ToryJim said:
I think if they succeed in keeping him off the ballot there will be problems. If they let him on the ballot there will be problems. It seems to me there is no way this ends well or cleanly.Scott_P said:@georgeeaton: Labour NEC members tell me they think they can keep Corbyn off the ballot - if vote is secret.
That would be just as bad, like voting in Ernst Rohm.0 -
It was awful. Both teams were terrified of conceding and played extremely defensively.Sunil_Prasannan said:
1998 World Cup had the "Golden Goal" - the team wot scores first in extra time wins!MarqueeMark said:Please, can the captains/managers just agree that the end of the 90, we go straight to penalties? 30 minutes of fannying around as people wonder about what number penalty they will be taking adds nothing to the spectacle.
0 -
Though Eagle beat McDonnell in the last members' poll, even if she was trailing CorbynY0kel said:
If they are going to try to kill Corbyn off on a procedure which isn't even clear, then they risk leaving the door open to McDonnell, who might have a shot at the nomination.ToryJim said:
I think if they succeed in keeping him off the ballot there will be problems. If they let him on the ballot there will be problems. It seems to me there is no way this ends well or cleanly.Scott_P said:@georgeeaton: Labour NEC members tell me they think they can keep Corbyn off the ballot - if vote is secret.
That would be just as bad, like voting in Ernst Rohm.0 -
Except Hitler killed Rohm in 1934, during the Night of the Long Knives.Y0kel said:
If they are going to try to kill Corbyn off on a procedure which isn't even clear, then they risk leaving the door open to McDonnell, who might have a shot at the nomination.ToryJim said:
I think if they succeed in keeping him off the ballot there will be problems. If they let him on the ballot there will be problems. It seems to me there is no way this ends well or cleanly.Scott_P said:@georgeeaton: Labour NEC members tell me they think they can keep Corbyn off the ballot - if vote is secret.
That would be just as bad, like voting in Ernst Rohm.0 -
Joined last week and now a proud member with the North Leamington CLP :-)bigjohnowls said:
Yet hard right supporters like yourself aren't even prepared to join the party as there is mo inspiring Blairite candidateSouthamObserver said:
It depends, though. If the result is that a lot of hard left entryists up sticks and join the Greens then it's hardly a tragedy. However, Labour does need to decide what it is and the sooner the better.Concanvasser said:Nick P is surely on the money when he says a non contest (where Jez is excluded ) will be seen as illegitimate. If they are that sure Jez is a dud then defeat him openly.
This is not about Corbyn anymore. It's about what Labour should be: a protest movement for its members or a parliamentary party that prioritises winning power.
0 -
I would vote McDonnell ahead of Eagle.HYUFD said:
Though Eagle beat McDonnell in the last members' poll, even if she was trailing CorbynY0kel said:
If they are going to try to kill Corbyn off on a procedure which isn't even clear, then they risk leaving the door open to McDonnell, who might have a shot at the nomination.ToryJim said:
I think if they succeed in keeping him off the ballot there will be problems. If they let him on the ballot there will be problems. It seems to me there is no way this ends well or cleanly.Scott_P said:@georgeeaton: Labour NEC members tell me they think they can keep Corbyn off the ballot - if vote is secret.
That would be just as bad, like voting in Ernst Rohm.0 -
Y0kel said:
If they are going to try to kill Corbyn off on a procedure which isn't even clear, then they risk leaving the door open to McDonnell, who might have a shot at the nominations.ToryJim said:
I think if they succeed in keeping him off the ballot there will be problems. If they let him on the ballot there will be problems. It seems to me there is no way this ends well or cleanly.Scott_P said:@georgeeaton: Labour NEC members tell me they think they can keep Corbyn off the ballot - if vote is secret.
That would be just as bad, like voting in Ernst Rohm.0 -
It's got more detail on it than May released though (for the one year that's covered).SouthamObserver said:
I tend to agree with Rod on this. It's all irrelevant to someone's suitability for the job.0 -
The rules are clear on where McDonnell stands: he would definitely need the requisite number of nominations to run.Y0kel said:
If they are going to try to kill Corbyn off on a procedure which isn't even clear, then they risk leaving the door open to McDonnell, who might have a shot at the nomination.ToryJim said:
I think if they succeed in keeping him off the ballot there will be problems. If they let him on the ballot there will be problems. It seems to me there is no way this ends well or cleanly.Scott_P said:@georgeeaton: Labour NEC members tell me they think they can keep Corbyn off the ballot - if vote is secret.
That would be just as bad, like voting in Ernst Rohm.
0 -
Great to have you on board. I've been a member for over 20 years. Considered leaving when Corbyn became leader.SouthamObserver said:
Joined last week and now a proud member with the North Leamington CLP :-)bigjohnowls said:
Yet hard right supporters like yourself aren't even prepared to join the party as there is mo inspiring Blairite candidateSouthamObserver said:
It depends, though. If the result is that a lot of hard left entryists up sticks and join the Greens then it's hardly a tragedy. However, Labour does need to decide what it is and the sooner the better.Concanvasser said:Nick P is surely on the money when he says a non contest (where Jez is excluded ) will be seen as illegitimate. If they are that sure Jez is a dud then defeat him openly.
This is not about Corbyn anymore. It's about what Labour should be: a protest movement for its members or a parliamentary party that prioritises winning power.0
