LOL The plan by some on the NEC to keep Jezza off the nomination in a secret ballot has fallen at the first hurdle as it was pointed out that in order for this method to be adopted it would require a majority to agree by show of hands.
A French question: if someone's a noble of X (assuming it doesn't start with a vowel or H), then is it du Placename if masculine, and de la Placename if feminine?
Not seen de la, seen de as in Marquis de Sade. Not sure rules regarding du, de and de la etc
There is the de la Pole clan who were very prominent at one time - though I am not sure that they were strictly French.
Mr. Jim, cheers. (I got around this before by having the place name start with an H, but I think it might look suspicious if I have half a dozen noblemen all of whom come from cities that start with H...).
Mr. Abroad, sorry, I should've been clearer. When I said masculine/feminine, I meant the place name's gender, not the person's.
Mr. Jonathan, looking at it from a Conservative Party political perspective, it's certainly arguable that not holding an election makes more sense than calling one. Labour's going through some serious woe now. An election would force them to pretend to be friends. Not calling one means the bloodletting continues.
A classic example of 'don't interrupt your enemy when he's in the middle of making a mistake'?
We can only really speculate on Andrea's reasons for dropping out.
Whether or not May is the person for the job, the way the establishment candidate is being crowned should make anyone who cares about living in a democracy very uneasy.
Not all that uneasy about it. After all, we're not in a presidential democracy (much though various PMs have tried to make it so). Saying that, a snap GE would be nice, perhaps once Labour has sorted themselves out.
You're not uneasy because you got the result you wanted. That misses the wood for the trees.
We should have a general election, even more so no that Theresa has not won any direct membership election. It was a mistake for Brown not to call one, and I believe Theresa criticised him for it at the time. She needs her own mandate.
Brown's mistake was to give huge hints he was about to call one and then backed out.
There is no reason to have a GE. We live in a Parliamentary democracy and the PM can be changed at any time by the governing party.
May has said 'No' and from all we read about her, that'll be the end of the matter.
Heck, this is pb.com. Whatever a Labour PM does is wrong, whatever a Tory one does is right.
The polling evidence does suggest that the electorate took a dim view of Brown's Duke of York impression in 2007.
I imagine Labour in reality don't really want an election. The Lib Dems stand to gain from one as 'remainer' sentiment is still strong, but will get weaker as more and more people accept the result/get over the EU vote. If Labour were serious about wanting a GE they should quote May's own words back at her during her first PMQs "He has no democratic mandate".
If there was an election right now I would expect mild Lib Dem gains, SNP perhaps taking the remaining three seats in Scotland, and May winning a decent majority at the expense of labour (I doubt a landslide though, I think Labour is currently close to its floor already). It would be in her interest to call one.
"Jeremy Corbyn promised to make Labour leaders face mandatory elections every year to avoid the party struggling with a 'personality' leader.
He said it would "bring back democracy into the Labour Party and the Labour movement."
But the embattled Labour leader seems to have radically changed his mind since he unexpectedly became leader of the party last September."
Right now i think jeremy would love to face an election, but others are trying to prevent him from doing so.
Correct. In fact if the PLP demand had been annual leadership elections they'd have had a deal in 10 seconds.
Only if he was automatically on the ballot. Otherwise, no deal.
It seems odd to me that a former MP cannot understand how untenable Corbyn's position is with the PLP.
Them's the rules. Either
i) the Labour Party is utterly incompetent in drafting its own rules, or ii) the current scenario was contemplated with equanimity, and the PLP are supposed to knuckle-under whoever the mass membership chooses as leader [or piss off].
I frankly don't buy i).
You only have to speak to a lawyer to know that many carefully considered contracts still omit to deal with unlikely (but plausible) scenarios.
I still don't buy it. I've drafted and amended constitutions for organisations, and successfully gone to court to enforce them... This is a political party, where who gets the leadership is probably the single most important issue.
You don't have to be a mathematical genius to understand that 15% support could equate to the other 85% viewing you as less acceptable than anthrax...
"Jeremy Corbyn promised to make Labour leaders face mandatory elections every year to avoid the party struggling with a 'personality' leader.
He said it would "bring back democracy into the Labour Party and the Labour movement."
But the embattled Labour leader seems to have radically changed his mind since he unexpectedly became leader of the party last September."
Right now i think jeremy would love to face an election, but others are trying to prevent him from doing so.
Correct. In fact if the PLP demand had been annual leadership elections they'd have had a deal in 10 seconds.
Only if he was automatically on the ballot. Otherwise, no deal.
It seems odd to me that a former MP cannot understand how untenable Corbyn's position is with the PLP.
Yes it is extraordinary. Nick was one of the best posters on here. He now seems to have caught Corbynitus.
Bobajob was also much better than this Jobabob person who is driven by hatred of Corbyn!!
I'm the same guy. I don't hate Corbyn. I have no personal issue with him. I hate what is happening to the party, what he and his acolytes are doing to it. The far left is wantonly destroying a great party of state.
A French question: if someone's a noble of X (assuming it doesn't start with a vowel or H), then is it du Placename if masculine, and de la Placename if feminine?
I think just de: duc de richelieu, prince de galles, marquis de sade.
"Jeremy Corbyn promised to make Labour leaders face mandatory elections every year to avoid the party struggling with a 'personality' leader.
He said it would "bring back democracy into the Labour Party and the Labour movement."
But the embattled Labour leader seems to have radically changed his mind since he unexpectedly became leader of the party last September."
Right now i think jeremy would love to face an election, but others are trying to prevent him from doing so.
Correct. In fact if the PLP demand had been annual leadership elections they'd have had a deal in 10 seconds.
Only if he was automatically on the ballot. Otherwise, no deal.
It seems odd to me that a former MP cannot understand how untenable Corbyn's position is with the PLP.
Yes it is extraordinary. Nick was one of the best posters on here. He now seems to have caught Corbynitus.
Bobajob was also much better than this Jobabob person who is driven by hatred of Corbyn!!
I'm the same guy. I don't hate Corbyn. I have no personal issue with him. I hate what is happening to the party, what he and his acolytes are doing to it. The far left is wantonly destroying a great party of state.
And not by accident, either. Corbyn and his IMG-based supporters do not believe in "parliamentary socialism" and are looking forward to taking "direct action". Their model is the Provisional IRA.
There are very few scenarios where Labour can survive this catastrophe . A snap election is one of them.
That's what I've been thinking. If Theresa went early (and she won't), that would surely focus Labour minds and either get them to rally round Corbyn (who I think will shore up the Labour vote in many places EdM couldn't reach, even if he repels in more affluent Tory held marginals) or come together around an alternative without a prolonged contest.
Better to let Theresa get on with the job of sorting out Brexit, whilst the Labour Party plunges deeper into internecine warfare and irrelevance.
"Jeremy Corbyn promised to make Labour leaders face mandatory elections every year to avoid the party struggling with a 'personality' leader.
He said it would "bring back democracy into the Labour Party and the Labour movement."
But the embattled Labour leader seems to have radically changed his mind since he unexpectedly became leader of the party last September."
Right now i think jeremy would love to face an election, but others are trying to prevent him from doing so.
The requirement for a sufficient number of nominations is of itself part of the election. Corbyn dismisses the PLP as their having no particular legitimacy outside of simply being part of the Labour movement as a whole - yet if so, why are nominations from them, and only from them - given a special place in the process? Precisely because they do in fact have a special place.
From the Collins review, which was the template for Miliband's rules reforms:
"in recognition of the fact that the leader of the Labour Party has a special duty to head the Parliamentary Labour Party in Westminster, MPs will retain the responsibility of deciding the final shortlist of candidates that will be put to the ballot. MEPs, who previously had a share of the MPs’ section of the college, will be able to publish supporting nominations but these will not count towards the formal nominating process. To ensure that all candidates who are put to the ballot command a substantial body of support in the PLP, the threshold for nominations to secure a position on the shortlist should be raised from 12.5 per cent to 15 per cent of House of Commons members of the PLP. "
Is that in their rules now then or merely a proposal?
The quote comes from the document which put forward proposals.
The threshold was raised from 12.5% to 15% for nominations in an open contest, in line with the Collins Review, so we have to assume that the rationale put forward was accepted, although there must have been some pushback from MEPs as, contrary to the proposals, they maintained their nominating rights.
Voting for or against someone based on gender or other demographics is not very appealing. Politicians should be judged by the content of their heads, not the contents of their trousers.
"Jeremy Corbyn promised to make Labour leaders face mandatory elections every year to avoid the party struggling with a 'personality' leader.
He said it would "bring back democracy into the Labour Party and the Labour movement."
But the embattled Labour leader seems to have radically changed his mind since he unexpectedly became leader of the party last September."
Right now i think jeremy would love to face an election, but others are trying to prevent him from doing so.
Correct. In fact if the PLP demand had been annual leadership elections they'd have had a deal in 10 seconds.
Only if he was automatically on the ballot. Otherwise, no deal.
It seems odd to me that a former MP cannot understand how untenable Corbyn's position is with the PLP.
Yes it is extraordinary. Nick was one of the best posters on here. He now seems to have caught Corbynitus.
Bobajob was also much better than this Jobabob person who is driven by hatred of Corbyn!!
I'm the same guy. I don't hate Corbyn. I have no personal issue with him. I hate what is happening to the party, what he and his acolytes are doing to it. The far left is wantonly destroying a great party of state.
If Corbyn was allowed to carry on, and the Labour party ran its natural course in taking a beating at the 2020 Election, he would stand down. I then think a new Labour leader could take over and Labour would have a shot at 2025.
As is - a loss at the 2020 GE can and will be blamed on the PLP giving a disunited front, which means the 2025 GE is also lost.
Best to take a hammering in 2020 with Corbyn in charge for Labour.
Mr. Eagles, Osborne probably requires a Conservative defeat in 2020. Otherwise, you're looking at 2025, which means both him hanging around for nine years *and* having enough clout to win, and tying your money up for a decade.
[If May calls an election soon, it'd be 2021, unless there's a shock defeat].
Voting for or against someone based on gender or other demographics is not very appealing. Politicians should be judged by the content of their heads, not the contents of their trousers.
This is classic group think from that part of the left. You don't select someone for what they can do, for what talents they have, for what they have achieved and can achieve. You select them for what they are. for what they 'represent'
This tick box/diversity culture is what has allow the Eagles to 'rise' to the top of Labour without ever having demonstrated real political or presentational skill.
Mr. Eagles, Osborne probably requires a Conservative defeat in 2020. Otherwise, you're looking at 2025, which means both him hanging around for nine years *and* having enough clout to win, and tying your money up for a decade.
[If May calls an election soon, it'd be 2021, unless there's a shock defeat].
Osborne's still a young man, in 2025 he'll still be younger than when Margaret Thatcher became PM.
I've also asked Graham to add Dominic Raab to the list.
A French question: if someone's a noble of X (assuming it doesn't start with a vowel or H), then is it du Placename if masculine, and de la Placename if feminine?
I think just de: duc de richelieu, prince de galles, marquis de sade.
Madame [Comtesse] du Barry...
I think there is a le Barry, where she was comtesse of. The duke of le Mans would equally be the duc du Mans, without altering the general rule (if it is one, I am no Francophone).
Initial thoughts about the May cabinet - which I am putting out now in the hope that you will have forgotten them when they all turn out wrong.
Chancellor - Philip Hammond. Currently foreign sec. Although a Remainer, and therefore toxic to some of the Leave ultras, seen as a steady technocrat for the challenging economic times ahead.
Possible alternative for the de facto number two in government: Justine Greening. She is close to May (if anyone is). Seen as having been highly competent as chief sec to Treasury, transport, and international development (where she is now). Symbolism of appointing lesbian to such a top job would be powerful.
Minister for Brexit. New post. Arguably as powerful as Chancellor, given that economic and social fate of the nation rests on how skillfully we manage our withdrawal from EU and what kind of continuing relationship we can negotiate with it. Hot favourite for this is Leaver Chris Grayling - current leader of House.
Possible alternative. David Davis. Super bright Leaver. Out of government since 1990s. Professional troublemaker so not loved by all.
Foreign secretary. Controversial choice would be George Osborne - the biggest beast in the Tory party but a hugely divisive character (loathed by many Leavers in particular). If job was focused on what he is currently doing, currently negotiating trade deals for post Brexit world, it could be his.
Alternative. Liam Fox. The intellectual in the Leavers' camp, but perhaps a bit too neo-con for May.
Is that comment about Fox particularly barbed....?
I'd just like to put a short post up explaining why I'm not going to be around much for quite a while.
At the weekend my other half had a very bad fall. He had to have a blood clot removed from the brain and a large piece of his skull removed. He remains in critical care, though he has made some progress. It is going to be a long road ahead. As a result, my responsibilities lie elsewhere for the foreseeable future.
I wish you all well, and I mean all, and I will be dropping by from time to time to see what's going on. Apologies if I don't reply to messages - any rudeness on this occasion will be accidental.
Except he's already passed that nomination stage and been elected and Labour rules don't provide for a way to eject a leader, only a way of securing challengers.
The wording of the Collins report is important because it nails the claim of Corbyn and the hard left generally that he should carry on despite having lost all support from his parliamentary party. It shows that the intention when the new system was designed was to ensure that the leader should at least be able to count on a substantive pool of parliamentary support if not necessarily a majority. My point is that the Collins report wording confirms that he has no moral authority to carry on having lost a vote of confidence by such an overwhelming margin. He should resign and if he wishes to run again would then be subject to the same 15% threshold as before - this time he wouldn't get into single figures.
Of course, you're right, the rules don't force him to resign and may well be interpreted in such a way that an almost total lack of support amongst MPs is insufficient to prevent him continuing. But the point of Collins is that it refutes his claim to moral authority in ignoring Labour MPs.
That all said, it is just possible that if it does go to court, and there is argument about the meaning of ambiguous clauses, then the clear intention behind the Collins Report could also inform the judge's decision.
Mr. Eagles, Osborne probably requires a Conservative defeat in 2020. Otherwise, you're looking at 2025, which means both him hanging around for nine years *and* having enough clout to win, and tying your money up for a decade.
[If May calls an election soon, it'd be 2021, unless there's a shock defeat].
Osborne's still a young man, in 2025 he'll still be younger than when Margaret Thatcher became PM.
I've also asked Graham to add Dominic Raab to the list.
Osborne's age is irrelevant, he's soiled goods. A perfect example of treating people on the way up because you meet them coming back down. Nasty piece of work.
I'd just like to put a short post up explaining why I'm not going to be around much for quite a while.
At the weekend my other half had a very bad fall. He had to have a blood clot removed from the brain and a large piece of his skull removed. He remains in critical care, though he has made some progress. It is going to be a long road ahead. As a result, my responsibilities lie elsewhere for the foreseeable future.
I wish you all well, and I mean all, and I will be dropping by from time to time to see what's going on. Apologies if I don't reply to messages - any rudeness on this occasion will be accidental.
I'd just like to put a short post up explaining why I'm not going to be around much for quite a while.
At the weekend my other half had a very bad fall. He had to have a blood clot removed from the brain and a large piece of his skull removed. He remains in critical care, though he has made some progress. It is going to be a long road ahead. As a result, my responsibilities lie elsewhere for the foreseeable future.
I wish you all well, and I mean all, and I will be dropping by from time to time to see what's going on. Apologies if I don't reply to messages - any rudeness on this occasion will be accidental.
Ohheck. Hope he makes a full recovery and take care
Voting for or against someone based on gender or other demographics is not very appealing. Politicians should be judged by the content of their heads, not the contents of their trousers.
This is classic group think from that part of the left. You don't select someone for what they can do, for what talents they have, for what they have achieved and can achieve. You select them for what they are. for what they 'represent'
This tick box/diversity culture is what has allow the Eagles to 'rise' to the top of Labour without ever having demonstrated real political or presentational skill.
On the other hand, you might argue: the more black MPs, the fewer race riots. Just for the sake of argument...
I'd just like to put a short post up explaining why I'm not going to be around much for quite a while.
At the weekend my other half had a very bad fall. He had to have a blood clot removed from the brain and a large piece of his skull removed. He remains in critical care, though he has made some progress. It is going to be a long road ahead. As a result, my responsibilities lie elsewhere for the foreseeable future.
I wish you all well, and I mean all, and I will be dropping by from time to time to see what's going on. Apologies if I don't reply to messages - any rudeness on this occasion will be accidental.
So sorry to hear that. I hope he makes good progress in the coming days and weeks - and remember to look after yourself as well. He will need you to be strong - so care of yourself too.
Voting for or against someone based on gender or other demographics is not very appealing. Politicians should be judged by the content of their heads, not the contents of their trousers.
This is classic group think from that part of the left. You don't select someone for what they can do, for what talents they have, for what they have achieved and can achieve. You select them for what they are. for what they 'represent'
This tick box/diversity culture is what has allow the Eagles to 'rise' to the top of Labour without ever having demonstrated real political or presentational skill.
On the other hand, you might argue: the more black MPs, the fewer race riots. Just for the sake of argument...
I don't think you can find any evidence to support that argument at all.
Having a diverse Commons is fantastic - as long as everyone is there on merit. Selected and elected because they were genuinely talented and able to represent all of their constituents brilliantly on a day to day basis
I'd just like to put a short post up explaining why I'm not going to be around much for quite a while.
At the weekend my other half had a very bad fall. He had to have a blood clot removed from the brain and a large piece of his skull removed. He remains in critical care, though he has made some progress. It is going to be a long road ahead. As a result, my responsibilities lie elsewhere for the foreseeable future.
I wish you all well, and I mean all, and I will be dropping by from time to time to see what's going on. Apologies if I don't reply to messages - any rudeness on this occasion will be accidental.
This is terrible news, and you have my deepest sympathies. Both yourself and your partner will be in my thoughts.
Voting for or against someone based on gender or other demographics is not very appealing. Politicians should be judged by the content of their heads, not the contents of their trousers.
This is classic group think from that part of the left. You don't select someone for what they can do, for what talents they have, for what they have achieved and can achieve. You select them for what they are. for what they 'represent'
This tick box/diversity culture is what has allow the Eagles to 'rise' to the top of Labour without ever having demonstrated real political or presentational skill.
On the other hand, you might argue: the more black MPs, the fewer race riots. Just for the sake of argument...
I don't think you can find any evidence to support that argument at all.
Having a diverse Commons is fantastic - as long as everyone is there on merit. Selected and elected because they were genuinely talented and able to represent all of their constituents brilliantly on a day to day basis
Part of the "merit" of an MP should be in engaging with a section of the community either as a public servant and/or to increase their party's support. Nothing wrong with that.
Voting for or against someone based on gender or other demographics is not very appealing. Politicians should be judged by the content of their heads, not the contents of their trousers.
This is classic group think from that part of the left. You don't select someone for what they can do, for what talents they have, for what they have achieved and can achieve. You select them for what they are. for what they 'represent'
This tick box/diversity culture is what has allow the Eagles to 'rise' to the top of Labour without ever having demonstrated real political or presentational skill.
On the other hand, you might argue: the more black MPs, the fewer race riots. Just for the sake of argument...
Indeed but they need to have become MPs in the same way as the Tories have produced two women prime minister - because they are the best candidate not becoz they is black innit. Sadly all too often in the past we have seen people pushed into posts beyond their abilty due to the latter consideration trumping the former.
We need more Clive Lloyds and Trevor McDonalds basically. People whom are respected for their expertise and abilty and their skin colour is incidental.
“those seeking high office must expect the highest levels of scrutiny”
Indeed, I wonder for how many of the new social media generation, their future political aspirations may already be over? – On a lighter note, scanning the front pages this morning a couple of things stuck out, only the Guardian bothers reporting the Labour leadership launch yesterday on their front page, and even that’s reduced to a small square in the top left-hand corner where the 2 for I adds normally go; there’s a metaphor there somewhere? – Also Andrew Pierce for the Mail reporting on Leadsom's campaign goes with, ‘the accidental candidate’ – a PB lurker unmasked perhaps?
I think people can overlook youthful nonsense provided the candidate is honest about it. What did for Leadsom was her failure to be honest about her experience. By bigging it up into something more than it was, it diminished her actual achievements. And be honest with yourself about what your strengths and weaknesses really are. Anyone going for a top job (any job, really) needs to be able to answer the question: "Why should I pick you?". Leadsom couldn't answer that question hence all the motherhood nonsense. That's the lesson to be learned. Oh - and judgment matters.
The lesson for the electorate is to stop seeing politicians as Messiahs. If you invest too much hope into a candidate you will be disappointed. A more realistic expectation of what can be done will likely lead to better - because more realistic - outcomes.
We've had too much of this recently: Blair, then Obama, Boris, Corbyn - then briefly Leadsom. It's pathetic.
A period of boring competence and not fucking things up - or not too badly - would be a welcome change.
I would say the requirements for a London airport are:
- Convenient location The most important requirement. Transport is there to get you from where you are to where you want to go. Some place in the back of beyond isn't good enough. This airport should be close to London and well placed to serve the southern half of the UK. This suggests a location close to London and to the North West of it. Heathrow is close to London and well located for southern part of the UK; Gatwick is poorly located; Boris Island is close to London but otherwise in the most inconvenient place possible. Luton is further out than Heathrow but otherwise very well located. However ...
- Flat terrain Luton is hilly. The other options are fine.
- Least disruption to build A Heathrow expansion will have the least disruption because most of it is already in place. Gatwick is OK too. Boris Island is new build and means the most disruption.
- Best infrastructure Roads and transport links. Largely in place at Heathrow. Nothing at all at Boris Island.
- Least cost/risk Boris Island requires the airport and all infrastructure to built from scratch and is by far the most expensive and riskiest project.
- Noise Airplanes landing at Heathrow fly over London. Heathrow is the noisiest option; Gatwick better; Boris Island the least noise.
Heathrow wins on all points except noise. That's largely because it is already in place. This suggests a deal to me. Runways don't make noise; airplanes do. So Heathrow gets the extra runway(s) but has to commit to a measurable and significant noise reduction programme. There are several things they can do, some of which cost money, but that's the price they pay for the expansion. The deal is sold to Londoners as an enabler. You get less noise in exchange for the additional runways. Surely that's better than talking about options that will never happen while the noise never gets less.
I've spent most of the last couple of years criticising Cameron's tories, I'm content (smug actually) that my consistent observations about him were proven correct. But its time to move on and I'll reserve judgement on May until she has time to assert herself, or not.
In the meantime I'll turn my sights to the easily ridiculed Labour Party. If we think they are bad under Corbyn, Eagle will kick him into a cocked hat, she has absolutely no redeeming features. There is every chance she will become leader of the opposition, people called Cameron lucky, May won't believe her lucky stars.
We can only really speculate on Andrea's reasons for dropping out.
Whether or not May is the person for the job, the way the establishment candidate is being crowned should make anyone who cares about living in a democracy very uneasy.
Not all that uneasy about it. After all, we're not in a presidential democracy (much though various PMs have tried to make it so). Saying that, a snap GE would be nice, perhaps once Labour has sorted themselves out.
You're not uneasy because you got the result you wanted. That misses the wood for the trees.
We should have a general election, even more so no that Theresa has not won any direct membership election. It was a mistake for Brown not to call one, and I believe Theresa criticised him for it at the time. She needs her own mandate.
Brown's mistake was to give huge hints he was about to call one and then backed out.
There is no reason to have a GE. We live in a Parliamentary democracy and the PM can be changed at any time by the governing party.
May has said 'No' and from all we read about her, that'll be the end of the matter.
She'll regret it if she doesn't increase her majority while she has a chance.
This would reintroduce uncertainty about one issue where certainly has suddenly blossomed and would signal that party was more important than country,. She won't do it,
May can help keep Corbyn in a job, as can the right wing press. As long as he is in charge of Labour she'll feel comfortable of increasingly her majority at any point further down the line. She'll also get an easy going over at PMQs rather than facing someone with teeth.
I'd just like to put a short post up explaining why I'm not going to be around much for quite a while.
At the weekend my other half had a very bad fall. He had to have a blood clot removed from the brain and a large piece of his skull removed. He remains in critical care, though he has made some progress. It is going to be a long road ahead. As a result, my responsibilities lie elsewhere for the foreseeable future.
I wish you all well, and I mean all, and I will be dropping by from time to time to see what's going on. Apologies if I don't reply to messages - any rudeness on this occasion will be accidental.
Extremely sorry to hear this news Mr Meeks. All the best for the road ahead.
I'd just like to put a short post up explaining why I'm not going to be around much for quite a while.
At the weekend my other half had a very bad fall. He had to have a blood clot removed from the brain and a large piece of his skull removed. He remains in critical care, though he has made some progress. It is going to be a long road ahead. As a result, my responsibilities lie elsewhere for the foreseeable future.
I wish you all well, and I mean all, and I will be dropping by from time to time to see what's going on. Apologies if I don't reply to messages - any rudeness on this occasion will be accidental.
Bloody hell, hope he gets well soon and you're back here posting about independence for London sooner rather than later.
Voting for or against someone based on gender or other demographics is not very appealing. Politicians should be judged by the content of their heads, not the contents of their trousers.
This is classic group think from that part of the left. You don't select someone for what they can do, for what talents they have, for what they have achieved and can achieve. You select them for what they are. for what they 'represent'
This tick box/diversity culture is what has allow the Eagles to 'rise' to the top of Labour without ever having demonstrated real political or presentational skill.
On the other hand, you might argue: the more black MPs, the fewer race riots. Just for the sake of argument...
I don't think you can find any evidence to support that argument at all.
Having a diverse Commons is fantastic - as long as everyone is there on merit. Selected and elected because they were genuinely talented and able to represent all of their constituents brilliantly on a day to day basis
Part of the "merit" of an MP should be in engaging with a section of the community either as a public servant and/or to increase their party's support. Nothing wrong with that.
But the MP is there to represent all of their constituents - not just one sector.
Select on the basis of merit - not tick box diversity targets.
I'd just like to put a short post up explaining why I'm not going to be around much for quite a while.
At the weekend my other half had a very bad fall. He had to have a blood clot removed from the brain and a large piece of his skull removed. He remains in critical care, though he has made some progress. It is going to be a long road ahead. As a result, my responsibilities lie elsewhere for the foreseeable future.
I wish you all well, and I mean all, and I will be dropping by from time to time to see what's going on. Apologies if I don't reply to messages - any rudeness on this occasion will be accidental.
remember to look after yourself as well. He will need you to be strong - so care of yourself too.
Except he's already passed that nomination stage and been elected and Labour rules don't provide for a way to eject a leader, only a way of securing challengers.
The wording of the Collins report is important because it nails the claim of Corbyn and the hard left generally that he should carry on despite having lost all support from his parliamentary party. It shows that the intention when the new system was designed was to ensure that the leader should at least be able to count on a substantive pool of parliamentary support if not necessarily a majority. My point is that the Collins report wording confirms that he has no moral authority to carry on having lost a vote of confidence by such an overwhelming margin. He should resign and if he wishes to run again would then be subject to the same 15% threshold as before - this time he wouldn't get into single figures.
Of course, you're right, the rules don't force him to resign and may well be interpreted in such a way that an almost total lack of support amongst MPs is insufficient to prevent him continuing. But the point of Collins is that it refutes his claim to moral authority in ignoring Labour MPs.
That all said, it is just possible that if it does go to court, and there is argument about the meaning of ambiguous clauses, then the clear intention behind the Collins Report could also inform the judge's decision.
You're just theorizing... A judge could equally find the rules are clear, evisage the current scenario, and all that is required is for a challenger to find 20% [Corbyn auto on the ballot], and the matter is given back to the mass membership for determination.
Hardly an unreasonable or bizarre procedure, on the face of it...
Farron is spouting rubbish again on Sky about his perceived need for a General Election. Talking about a country electing a PM - which is something that just doesn't happen in our system.
When a party leader just doesn't understand the basics of our constitution, he really should be considering his position.
Voting for or against someone based on gender or other demographics is not very appealing. Politicians should be judged by the content of their heads, not the contents of their trousers.
This is classic group think from that part of the left. You don't select someone for what they can do, for what talents they have, for what they have achieved and can achieve. You select them for what they are. for what they 'represent'
This tick box/diversity culture is what has allow the Eagles to 'rise' to the top of Labour without ever having demonstrated real political or presentational skill.
On the other hand, you might argue: the more black MPs, the fewer race riots. Just for the sake of argument...
I don't think you can find any evidence to support that argument at all.
Having a diverse Commons is fantastic - as long as everyone is there on merit. Selected and elected because they were genuinely talented and able to represent all of their constituents brilliantly on a day to day basis
Part of the "merit" of an MP should be in engaging with a section of the community either as a public servant and/or to increase their party's support. Nothing wrong with that.
But the MP is there to represent all of their constituents - not just one sector.
Select on the basis of merit - not tick box diversity targets.
Many of them are already represented.
It's obvious that some parts of the population are less engaged with politics as it is and there is nothing wrong with wanting to engage those people and bring them into the politic process.
There are very few scenarios where Labour can survive this catastrophe . A snap election is one of them.
That's what I've been thinking. If Theresa went early (and she won't), that would surely focus Labour minds and either get them to rally round Corbyn (who I think will shore up the Labour vote in many places EdM couldn't reach, even if he repels in more affluent Tory held marginals) or come together around an alternative without a prolonged contest.
Better to let Theresa get on with the job of sorting out Brexit, whilst the Labour Party plunges deeper into internecine warfare and irrelevance.
I agree that a snap election could allow Labour to survive, but for different reasons. It would be a disasterous result for Labour, down to 150 seats tops of whom all would be members of the current PLP. Corbyn would then be exposed as a busted flush, and no doubt while trying to hold on still enough of the membership would have turned against him for him to go. A split would be averted.
I'm pretty sure that May will hold off for at least 12 months to give Labour enough rope to tear itself and split if Corbyn does prevail, at which point she's still got the option of going for a GE if the portents look good electorally to deliver a 100+ majority.
It seems odd to me that a former MP cannot understand how untenable Corbyn's position is with the PLP.
Yes it is extraordinary. Nick was one of the best posters on here. He now seems to have caught Corbynitus.
In general, I think the site benefits from having a range of opinions put forward in a friendly and reasonably rational way, in the same way that we benefit from having David Kendrick and Richard Tyndall putting the view of not totally enchanted Kippers. Apart from anything else, I have a certain personal commitment to Jeremy, from long acquaintance and a very strong preference for his issue-oriented, level-headed style of politics.
In reply to rottenborough, I think that having been an MP inculcates a realistic view of the PLP - not nasty, not fanatical, but also not superior beings. Most are primarily concerned with holding their seats and promoting particular issues that they care about. I don't think that entitles them to a decisive role in deciding the direction and leadership of the party, or that (as you've suggested) a commitment to parliamentary democracy implies that MPs must decide internal party leadership.
I'm not even sure that they'd say that themselves. They are for the most part simply expressing honest worry that the causes that they favour won't flourish under Jeremy. It's an understandable view and they're entitled to put it as one consideration in the leadership election. But ultimately the members should decide (taking into account what the alternative candidates are like and how far they'd flourish), and it would be just silly evasion of the issue if one side weren't allowed to put up their candidate.
I'd just like to put a short post up explaining why I'm not going to be around much for quite a while.
At the weekend my other half had a very bad fall. He had to have a blood clot removed from the brain and a large piece of his skull removed. He remains in critical care, though he has made some progress. It is going to be a long road ahead. As a result, my responsibilities lie elsewhere for the foreseeable future.
I wish you all well, and I mean all, and I will be dropping by from time to time to see what's going on. Apologies if I don't reply to messages - any rudeness on this occasion will be accidental.
Sorry to hear that. Wishing you both strength for the times ahead.
Farron is spouting rubbish again on Sky about his perceived need for a General Election. Talking about a country electing a PM - which is something that just doesn't happen in our system.
When a party leader just doesn't understand the basics of our constitution, he really should be considering his position.
There are very few scenarios where Labour can survive this catastrophe . A snap election is one of them.
They may want the EU issue resolved first. How would Labour go into an election on the EU issue? Saying they want to stay in on the basis of a referendum victory built on lies? That could put some of their seats at risk. Plenty of Tories voted to remain of course, so in theory would they be split too? I'm not sure though. They'll probably hang together.
@AlastairMeeks Sorry for your partner's health, get well soon. I have parents in the last stage of life, one in hospital now for 4+ weeks and the other went in for a few days last week. Luckily they were on same floor of hospital in opposite wards.
Voting for or against someone based on gender or other demographics is not very appealing. Politicians should be judged by the content of their heads, not the contents of their trousers.
This is classic group think from that part of the left. You don't select someone for what they can do, for what talents they have, for what they have achieved and can achieve. You select them for what they are. for what they 'represent'
This tick box/diversity culture is what has allow the Eagles to 'rise' to the top of Labour without ever having demonstrated real political or presentational skill.
On the other hand, you might argue: the more black MPs, the fewer race riots. Just for the sake of argument...
I don't think you can find any evidence to support that argument at all.
Having a diverse Commons is fantastic - as long as everyone is there on merit. Selected and elected because they were genuinely talented and able to represent all of their constituents brilliantly on a day to day basis
Part of the "merit" of an MP should be in engaging with a section of the community either as a public servant and/or to increase their party's support. Nothing wrong with that.
But the MP is there to represent all of their constituents - not just one sector.
Select on the basis of merit - not tick box diversity targets.
Many of them are already represented.
It's obvious that some parts of the population are less engaged with politics as it is and there is nothing wrong with wanting to engage those people and bring them into the politic process.
It's a type of merit.
I am not arguing against the idea of having a broad base of backgrounds for our elected representatives. I am, however, against having people selected for what they are rather than that talents and skills they can bring to the role.
The tick box culture weakens our public life and actually fails to serve the communities it is supposed to help.
Farron is spouting rubbish again on Sky about his perceived need for a General Election. Talking about a country electing a PM - which is something that just doesn't happen in our system.
When a party leader just doesn't understand the basics of our constitution, he really should be considering his position.
He's just being a LD/opportunist - a path back to relevancy has appeared.
I'd just like to put a short post up explaining why I'm not going to be around much for quite a while.
At the weekend my other half had a very bad fall. He had to have a blood clot removed from the brain and a large piece of his skull removed. He remains in critical care, though he has made some progress. It is going to be a long road ahead. As a result, my responsibilities lie elsewhere for the foreseeable future.
I wish you all well, and I mean all, and I will be dropping by from time to time to see what's going on. Apologies if I don't reply to messages - any rudeness on this occasion will be accidental.
Wow. Very much hope all gets better as soon as possible. Best wishes to you both.
Farron is spouting rubbish again on Sky about his perceived need for a General Election. Talking about a country electing a PM - which is something that just doesn't happen in our system.
When a party leader just doesn't understand the basics of our constitution, he really should be considering his position.
The difference is that it was the Lib Dems that were the architects of fixed term parliaments. Good to see that NIck Clegg has lost none of his talent for political hypocrisy.
Farron is spouting rubbish again on Sky about his perceived need for a General Election. Talking about a country electing a PM - which is something that just doesn't happen in our system.
When a party leader just doesn't understand the basics of our constitution, he really should be considering his position.
Farron is spouting rubbish again on Sky about his perceived need for a General Election. Talking about a country electing a PM - which is something that just doesn't happen in our system.
When a party leader just doesn't understand the basics of our constitution, he really should be considering his position.
Farron is simply saying exactly what May said about Gordon Brown when he became PM in 2007 . Strange that you think our new PM was then spouting rubbish .
I'd just like to put a short post up explaining why I'm not going to be around much for quite a while.
At the weekend my other half had a very bad fall. He had to have a blood clot removed from the brain and a large piece of his skull removed. He remains in critical care, though he has made some progress. It is going to be a long road ahead. As a result, my responsibilities lie elsewhere for the foreseeable future.
I wish you all well, and I mean all, and I will be dropping by from time to time to see what's going on. Apologies if I don't reply to messages - any rudeness on this occasion will be accidental.
Good morning all.
Terribly sorry to hear this Alastair. Having been through an analogous experience in 2014 I can well imagine how you're feeling. Best wishes to you, and all my hopes for a full and rapid recovery for your better half.
Except he's already passed that nomination stage and been elected and Labour rules don't provide for a way to eject a leader, only a way of securing challengers.
The wording of the Collins report is important because it nails the claim of Corbyn and the hard left generally that he should carry on despite having lost all support from his parliamentary party. It shows that the intention when the new system was designed was to ensure that the leader should at least be able to count on a substantive pool of parliamentary support if not necessarily a majority. My point is that the Collins report wording confirms that he has no moral authority to carry on having lost a vote of confidence by such an overwhelming margin. He should resign and if he wishes to run again would then be subject to the same 15% threshold as before - this time he wouldn't get into single figures.
Of course, you're right, the rules don't force him to resign and may well be interpreted in such a way that an almost total lack of support amongst MPs is insufficient to prevent him continuing. But the point of Collins is that it refutes his claim to moral authority in ignoring Labour MPs.
That all said, it is just possible that if it does go to court, and there is argument about the meaning of ambiguous clauses, then the clear intention behind the Collins Report could also inform the judge's decision.
You're just theorizing... A judge could equally find the rules are clear, evisage the current scenario, and all that is required is for a challenger to find 20% [Corbyn auto on the ballot], and the matter is given back to the mass membership for determination.
Hardly an unreasonable or bizarre procedure, on the face of it...
Yes, on the matter of how it would be interpreted in court, I am. All I'm saying is that I'm pretty sure that the wording on the rationale for the PLP's role set out in the Collins Report would form part of the evidence presented. Whether the judge would decide to take any account of the intention behind the rules is another matter.
Mr. Simon, whilst I agree, the right is not immune to such daftness (see Baroness Warsi).
Warsi is and was an aberration... and thankfully pretty rare on the right. On the left, it is endemic.
Blimey, Cameron's been gone less than, well, actually he's not quite gone yet but already his A-list of new candidates has been air-brushed from history.
Gauntlet, meet the floor. The international tribunal has ruled against China's dotted line in the South China Sea. How they react to this ruling is a test of how much China are willing to play by international rules.
The FTPA has a clause for a supermajority in the house to override itself (Was it 2/3rds ?) - with Labour seemingly for it, it could be passed and in view of the extraordinary political circumstances at the moment, Tim's position is entirely justified.
The one person who probably doesn't want a GE right now is Corbyn...
The calling for an early election thing is just what opposition parties do in situations like this. They did it with Brown. They did it with Major. Of course they'll do it with May.
It seems odd to me that a former MP cannot understand how untenable Corbyn's position is with the PLP.
Yes it is extraordinary. Nick was one of the best posters on here. He now seems to have caught Corbynitus.
In general, I think the site benefits from having a range of opinions put forward in a friendly and reasonably rational way, in the same way that we benefit from having David Kendrick and Richard Tyndall putting the view of not totally enchanted Kippers. Apart from anything else, I have a certain personal commitment to Jeremy, from long acquaintance and a very strong preference for his issue-oriented, level-headed style of politics.
In reply to rottenborough, I think that having been an MP inculcates a realistic view of the PLP - not nasty, not fanatical, but also not superior beings. Most are primarily concerned with holding their seats and promoting particular issues that they care about. I don't think that entitles them to a decisive role in deciding the direction and leadership of the party, or that (as you've suggested) a commitment to parliamentary democracy implies that MPs must decide internal party leadership.
I'm not even sure that they'd say that themselves. They are for the most part simply expressing honest worry that the causes that they favour won't flourish under Jeremy. It's an understandable view and they're entitled to put it as one consideration in the leadership election. But ultimately the members should decide (taking into account what the alternative candidates are like and how far they'd flourish), and it would be just silly evasion of the issue if one side weren't allowed to put up their candidate.
I would agree with this.
I think (whilst some of Jeremy’s supporters may be aggressive), Jeremy himself is not and always comes across as courteous & pleasant. I don’t agree with all of Jeremy’s views, but I do agree with some them.
I think -- at a personal level -- a lot of people basically think Jeremy is likeable (even if they don’t think he is PM material).
Jeremy has already been handed a rough deal from the PLP. I think excluding him from the ballot would crystallize the unfairness for many.
A ballot in which Jeremy is defeated by a candidate with vision and inspiration is the only way back for the Labour Party, given where it is.
I do think there are such candidates among the PLP (but not Eagle or Smith; and certainly not Kendall, Burnham and Cooper).
The airport commission report into future capacity around London is hugely flawed. It is designed to recommend Heathrow. It ignores environmental costs and as already stated the fees required to fund it's vast cost. A cost which does not include much in the way of transport improvements.
Heathrow is already a air quality failure area. The combination of the tow existing runways, the M4 and M25 makes for a noxious brew, you'd have to bury the M4 and build air scrubbers to compensate for an additional runway and that would just leave things as bad as they are now.
There is too much development surrounding Heathrow, which attracts lots of traffic.
The cost is too high. BA does not want to pay the proposed fees and would rather develop Dublin as a second hub for UK flights.
The transport solutions are below par and what they propose they expect central government to pick up the tab.
Then we get to the noise issue and the idea it's no big deal to subject an extra 750,000 people to heavy noise pollution and expect no political blow back.
Plus when BA did buy BMI and has launched long haul flights, it's the extra flights to secondary cities in the USA, like Las Vegas or Austin that have made the money not flops like CHengdu and forget India as Emirates dominates that market now.
It's also inconvenient that for the last 10 years the number of business travellers through Heathrow have declined while it's long haul leisure that has grown rapidly.
Gatwick is cheaper, quicker and less damaging. If Heathrow is really important to BA, it should be allowed to buy out the other airlines and let one of the other air alliances base themselves at Gaywick.
A French question: if someone's a noble of X (assuming it doesn't start with a vowel or H), then is it du Placename if masculine, and de la Placename if feminine?
If the place name has an article it would be du or de la, otherwise just de. So a Countess of Le Havre would be Comtesse du Havre; a Marquis of La Rochelle would be Marquis de la Rochelle. But it is the Duc d'Orleans
It seems odd to me that a former MP cannot understand how untenable Corbyn's position is with the PLP.
Yes it is extraordinary. Nick was one of the best posters on here. He now seems to have caught Corbynitus.
In general, I think the site benefits from having a range of opinions put forward in a friendly and reasonably rational way, in the same way that we benefit from having David Kendrick and Richard Tyndall putting the view of not totally enchanted Kippers. Apart from anything else, I have a certain personal commitment to Jeremy, from long acquaintance and a very strong preference for his issue-oriented, level-headed style of politics.
In reply to rottenborough, I think that having been an MP inculcates a realistic view of the PLP - not nasty, not fanatical, but also not superior beings. Most are primarily concerned with holding their seats and promoting particular issues that they care about. I don't think that entitles them to a decisive role in deciding the direction and leadership of the party, or that (as you've suggested) a commitment to parliamentary democracy implies that MPs must decide internal party leadership.
I'm not even sure that they'd say that themselves. They are for the most part simply expressing honest worry that the causes that they favour won't flourish under Jeremy. It's an understandable view and they're entitled to put it as one consideration in the leadership election. But ultimately the members should decide (taking into account what the alternative candidates are like and how far they'd flourish), and it would be just silly evasion of the issue if one side weren't allowed to put up their candidate.
Totally agree that the site benefits from range of opinions, that's one of its great attractions.
I guess we'll have to agree to differ over MPs role in leadership. I can't see how on earth a leader can be LOTO in Parliament if a vast chunk of his own MPs don't want him/her to be to the point where they all resign their posts. My point and opinion was its just not tenable, it really isn't.
I'd just like to put a short post up explaining why I'm not going to be around much for quite a while.
At the weekend my other half had a very bad fall. He had to have a blood clot removed from the brain and a large piece of his skull removed. He remains in critical care, though he has made some progress. It is going to be a long road ahead. As a result, my responsibilities lie elsewhere for the foreseeable future.
I wish you all well, and I mean all, and I will be dropping by from time to time to see what's going on. Apologies if I don't reply to messages - any rudeness on this occasion will be accidental.
The airport commission report into future capacity around London is hugely flawed. It is designed to recommend Heathrow. It ignores environmental costs and as already stated the fees required to fund it's vast cost. A cost which does not include much in the way of transport improvements.
Heathrow is already a air quality failure area. The combination of the tow existing runways, the M4 and M25 makes for a noxious brew, you'd have to bury the M4 and build air scrubbers to compensate for an additional runway and that would just leave things as bad as they are now.
There is too much development surrounding Heathrow, which attracts lots of traffic.
The cost is too high. BA does not want to pay the proposed fees and would rather develop Dublin as a second hub for UK flights.
The transport solutions are below par and what they propose they expect central government to pick up the tab.
Then we get to the noise issue and the idea it's no big deal to subject an extra 750,000 people to heavy noise pollution and expect no political blow back.
Plus when BA did buy BMI and has launched long haul flights, it's the extra flights to secondary cities in the USA, like Las Vegas or Austin that have made the money not flops like CHengdu and forget India as Emirates dominates that market now.
It's also inconvenient that for the last 10 years the number of business travellers through Heathrow have declined while it's long haul leisure that has grown rapidly.
Gatwick is cheaper, quicker and less damaging. If Heathrow is really important to BA, it should be allowed to buy out the other airlines and let one of the other air alliances base themselves at Gaywick.
Farron is spouting rubbish again on Sky about his perceived need for a General Election. Talking about a country electing a PM - which is something that just doesn't happen in our system.
When a party leader just doesn't understand the basics of our constitution, he really should be considering his position.
Farron is spouting rubbish again on Sky about his perceived need for a General Election. Talking about a country electing a PM - which is something that just doesn't happen in our system.
When a party leader just doesn't understand the basics of our constitution, he really should be considering his position.
The difference is that it was the Lib Dems that were the architects of fixed term parliaments. Good to see that NIck Clegg has lost none of his talent for political hypocrisy.
I'd just like to put a short post up explaining why I'm not going to be around much for quite a while.
At the weekend my other half had a very bad fall. He had to have a blood clot removed from the brain and a large piece of his skull removed. He remains in critical care, though he has made some progress. It is going to be a long road ahead. As a result, my responsibilities lie elsewhere for the foreseeable future.
I wish you all well, and I mean all, and I will be dropping by from time to time to see what's going on. Apologies if I don't reply to messages - any rudeness on this occasion will be accidental.
Very sorry to hear that. Best wishes to both of you.
And good morning to this sub-section of the UK from sunny Belfast, where the mix of smoking remnants and bad playing flute bands assaults the ears and nose.
I'm beginning to wonder whether Smith's candidature is part designed to have and a legitimacy one for this plan to boot Corbyn out. Both him and Eagle are left-wing enough so aren't going to frighten the horses who, whilst they feel Corbyn is being a bit hard done by, know rightly that the man isn't going to get power.
Given a choice of two alternatives does that not increase the danger of slices of Corbyn's support being whittled away?
It seems odd to me that a former MP cannot understand how untenable Corbyn's position is with the PLP.
Yes it is extraordinary. Nick was one of the best posters on here. He now seems to have caught Corbynitus.
In reply to rottenborough, I think that having been an MP inculcates a realistic view of the PLP - not nasty, not fanatical, but also not superior beings. Most are primarily concerned with holding their seats and promoting particular issues that they care about. I don't think that entitles them to a decisive role in deciding the direction and leadership of the party, or that (as you've suggested) a commitment to parliamentary democracy implies that MPs must decide internal party leadership.
I'm not even sure that they'd say that themselves. They are for the most part simply expressing honest worry that the causes that they favour won't flourish under Jeremy. It's an understandable view and they're entitled to put it as one consideration in the leadership election. But ultimately the members should decide (taking into account what the alternative candidates are like and how far they'd flourish), and it would be just silly evasion of the issue if one side weren't allowed to put up their candidate.
I would agree with this.
I think (whilst some of Jeremy’s supporters may be aggressive), Jeremy himself is not and always comes across as courteous & pleasant. I don’t agree with all of Jeremy’s views, but I do agree with some them.
I think -- at a personal level -- a lot of people basically think Jeremy is likeable (even if they don’t think he is PM material).
Jeremy has already been handed a rough deal from the PLP. I think excluding him from the ballot would crystalline the unfairness for many.
A ballot in which Jeremy is defeated by a candidate with vision and inspiration is the only way back for the Labour Party, given where it is.
I do think there are such candidates among the PLP (but not Eagle or Smith; and certainly not Kendall, Burnham and Cooper).
I don't have a dog in the fight, apart from being a member of the public, oh and Cons Party member also, but...
I disagree!
Jezza's principle of my enemy's enemy is my friend has put him into the same company as many horrible, vile people. It shows at the very best a lack of judgement, and at worst, well, we all know what it shows.
There is no way the favourite uncle persona should be allowed to mask his deeply held beliefs which, if one looks at his fellow ideological travellers, and in the absence of a heartfelt mea culpa, are thoroughly repugnant.
Comments
Err ....
That's it ....
Much as we mock him, Andy Burnham has actually played a smart game by accepting the will of the Labour party membership.
His loyalty will be rewarded
Mr. Abroad, sorry, I should've been clearer. When I said masculine/feminine, I meant the place name's gender, not the person's.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/columnists/2007/08/theresa-may-m-3.html
If there was an election right now I would expect mild Lib Dem gains, SNP perhaps taking the remaining three seats in Scotland, and May winning a decent majority at the expense of labour (I doubt a landslide though, I think Labour is currently close to its floor already). It would be in her interest to call one.
You don't have to be a mathematical genius to understand that 15% support could equate to the other 85% viewing you as less acceptable than anthrax...
Clinton 46 .. Trump 32
https://icitizen.com/insights/oregon-poll-results-june-2016/
One might also say that epitomised May's leadership campaign. [Keep Calm and Don't Implode].
Better to let Theresa get on with the job of sorting out Brexit, whilst the Labour Party plunges deeper into internecine warfare and irrelevance.
Boris is the 10/1 favourite, still a lay
Osborne at 20/1, I'm tempted
http://sports.williamhill.com/bet/en-gb/betting/g/5527117/Next+Party+Leader+Betting.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36770627
Voting for or against someone based on gender or other demographics is not very appealing. Politicians should be judged by the content of their heads, not the contents of their trousers.
As is - a loss at the 2020 GE can and will be blamed on the PLP giving a disunited front, which means the 2025 GE is also lost.
Best to take a hammering in 2020 with Corbyn in charge for Labour.
[If May calls an election soon, it'd be 2021, unless there's a shock defeat].
This tick box/diversity culture is what has allow the Eagles to 'rise' to the top of Labour without ever having demonstrated real political or presentational skill.
I've also asked Graham to add Dominic Raab to the list.
Initial thoughts about the May cabinet - which I am putting out now in the hope that you will have forgotten them when they all turn out wrong.
Chancellor - Philip Hammond. Currently foreign sec. Although a Remainer, and therefore toxic to some of the Leave ultras, seen as a steady technocrat for the challenging economic times ahead.
Possible alternative for the de facto number two in government: Justine Greening. She is close to May (if anyone is). Seen as having been highly competent as chief sec to Treasury, transport, and international development (where she is now). Symbolism of appointing lesbian to such a top job would be powerful.
Minister for Brexit. New post. Arguably as powerful as Chancellor, given that economic and social fate of the nation rests on how skillfully we manage our withdrawal from EU and what kind of continuing relationship we can negotiate with it. Hot favourite for this is Leaver Chris Grayling - current leader of House.
Possible alternative. David Davis. Super bright Leaver. Out of government since 1990s. Professional troublemaker so not loved by all.
Foreign secretary. Controversial choice would be George Osborne - the biggest beast in the Tory party but a hugely divisive character (loathed by many Leavers in particular). If job was focused on what he is currently doing, currently negotiating trade deals for post Brexit world, it could be his.
Alternative. Liam Fox. The intellectual in the Leavers' camp, but perhaps a bit too neo-con for May.
Is that comment about Fox particularly barbed....?
https://www.facebook.com/pestonitv/
At the weekend my other half had a very bad fall. He had to have a blood clot removed from the brain and a large piece of his skull removed. He remains in critical care, though he has made some progress. It is going to be a long road ahead. As a result, my responsibilities lie elsewhere for the foreseeable future.
I wish you all well, and I mean all, and I will be dropping by from time to time to see what's going on. Apologies if I don't reply to messages - any rudeness on this occasion will be accidental.
Wrong again. Never a good strategy to deliberately consign oneself to defeat.
Of course, you're right, the rules don't force him to resign and may well be interpreted in such a way that an almost total lack of support amongst MPs is insufficient to prevent him continuing. But the point of Collins is that it refutes his claim to moral authority in ignoring Labour MPs.
That all said, it is just possible that if it does go to court, and there is argument about the meaning of ambiguous clauses, then the clear intention behind the Collins Report could also inform the judge's decision.
This looks about right to me - so no bet as I'm in this one by proxy (Shape of Lab leadership book) already.
Having a diverse Commons is fantastic - as long as everyone is there on merit. Selected and elected because they were genuinely talented and able to represent all of their constituents brilliantly on a day to day basis
We need more Clive Lloyds and Trevor McDonalds basically. People whom are respected for their expertise and abilty and their skin colour is incidental.
The lesson for the electorate is to stop seeing politicians as Messiahs. If you invest too much hope into a candidate you will be disappointed. A more realistic expectation of what can be done will likely lead to better - because more realistic - outcomes.
We've had too much of this recently: Blair, then Obama, Boris, Corbyn - then briefly Leadsom. It's pathetic.
A period of boring competence and not fucking things up - or not too badly - would be a welcome change.
- Convenient location The most important requirement. Transport is there to get you from where you are to where you want to go. Some place in the back of beyond isn't good enough. This airport should be close to London and well placed to serve the southern half of the UK. This suggests a location close to London and to the North West of it. Heathrow is close to London and well located for southern part of the UK; Gatwick is poorly located; Boris Island is close to London but otherwise in the most inconvenient place possible. Luton is further out than Heathrow but otherwise very well located. However ...
- Flat terrain Luton is hilly. The other options are fine.
- Least disruption to build A Heathrow expansion will have the least disruption because most of it is already in place. Gatwick is OK too. Boris Island is new build and means the most disruption.
- Best infrastructure Roads and transport links. Largely in place at Heathrow. Nothing at all at Boris Island.
- Least cost/risk Boris Island requires the airport and all infrastructure to built from scratch and is by far the most expensive and riskiest project.
- Noise Airplanes landing at Heathrow fly over London. Heathrow is the noisiest option; Gatwick better; Boris Island the least noise.
Heathrow wins on all points except noise. That's largely because it is already in place. This suggests a deal to me. Runways don't make noise; airplanes do. So Heathrow gets the extra runway(s) but has to commit to a measurable and significant noise reduction programme. There are several things they can do, some of which cost money, but that's the price they pay for the expansion. The deal is sold to Londoners as an enabler. You get less noise in exchange for the additional runways. Surely that's better than talking about options that will never happen while the noise never gets less.
In the meantime I'll turn my sights to the easily ridiculed Labour Party. If we think they are bad under Corbyn, Eagle will kick him into a cocked hat, she has absolutely no redeeming features. There is every chance she will become leader of the opposition, people called Cameron lucky, May won't believe her lucky stars.
Select on the basis of merit - not tick box diversity targets.
Next PM is the market that settles tommorow.
There is still a finite chance that T May is not the next PM.
Hardly an unreasonable or bizarre procedure, on the face of it...
When a party leader just doesn't understand the basics of our constitution, he really should be considering his position.
It's obvious that some parts of the population are less engaged with politics as it is and there is nothing wrong with wanting to engage those people and bring them into the politic process.
It's a type of merit.
I'm pretty sure that May will hold off for at least 12 months to give Labour enough rope to tear itself and split if Corbyn does prevail, at which point she's still got the option of going for a GE if the portents look good electorally to deliver a 100+ majority.
In reply to rottenborough, I think that having been an MP inculcates a realistic view of the PLP - not nasty, not fanatical, but also not superior beings. Most are primarily concerned with holding their seats and promoting particular issues that they care about. I don't think that entitles them to a decisive role in deciding the direction and leadership of the party, or that (as you've suggested) a commitment to parliamentary democracy implies that MPs must decide internal party leadership.
I'm not even sure that they'd say that themselves. They are for the most part simply expressing honest worry that the causes that they favour won't flourish under Jeremy. It's an understandable view and they're entitled to put it as one consideration in the leadership election. But ultimately the members should decide (taking into account what the alternative candidates are like and how far they'd flourish), and it would be just silly evasion of the issue if one side weren't allowed to put up their candidate.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/opposition-parties-call-for-early-general-election-following-theresa-may-coronation-a7130896.html
The tick box culture weakens our public life and actually fails to serve the communities it is supposed to help.
https://twitter.com/aishagani/status/752793966530195456
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/man-gave-us-fixed-term-parliaments-now-trying-away/
We don't have an opposition.
Terribly sorry to hear this Alastair. Having been through an analogous experience in 2014 I can well imagine how you're feeling. Best wishes to you, and all my hopes for a full and rapid recovery for your better half.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-36771749
The one person who probably doesn't want a GE right now is Corbyn...
I think (whilst some of Jeremy’s supporters may be aggressive), Jeremy himself is not and always comes across as courteous & pleasant. I don’t agree with all of Jeremy’s views, but I do agree with some them.
I think -- at a personal level -- a lot of people basically think Jeremy is likeable (even if they don’t think he is PM material).
Jeremy has already been handed a rough deal from the PLP. I think excluding him from the ballot would crystallize the unfairness for many.
A ballot in which Jeremy is defeated by a candidate with vision and inspiration is the only way back for the Labour Party, given where it is.
I do think there are such candidates among the PLP (but not Eagle or Smith; and certainly not Kendall, Burnham and Cooper).
Heathrow is already a air quality failure area. The combination of the tow existing runways, the M4 and M25 makes for a noxious brew, you'd have to bury the M4 and build air scrubbers to compensate for an additional runway and that would just leave things as bad as they are now.
There is too much development surrounding Heathrow, which attracts lots of traffic.
The cost is too high. BA does not want to pay the proposed fees and would rather develop Dublin as a second hub for UK flights.
The transport solutions are below par and what they propose they expect central government to pick up the tab.
Then we get to the noise issue and the idea it's no big deal to subject an extra 750,000 people to heavy noise pollution and expect no political blow back.
Plus when BA did buy BMI and has launched long haul flights, it's the extra flights to secondary cities in the USA, like Las Vegas or Austin that have made the money not flops like CHengdu and forget India as Emirates dominates that market now.
It's also inconvenient that for the last 10 years the number of business travellers through Heathrow have declined while it's long haul leisure that has grown rapidly.
Gatwick is cheaper, quicker and less damaging. If Heathrow is really important to BA, it should be allowed to buy out the other airlines and let one of the other air alliances base themselves at Gaywick.
I guess we'll have to agree to differ over MPs role in leadership. I can't see how on earth a leader can be LOTO in Parliament if a vast chunk of his own MPs don't want him/her to be to the point where they all resign their posts. My point and opinion was its just not tenable, it really isn't.
Must be eyeing up Edinburgh South...
Mind you it's not far from Brighton...
Mr. 43, merci, that's very helpful
I'm beginning to wonder whether Smith's candidature is part designed to have and a legitimacy one for this plan to boot Corbyn out. Both him and Eagle are left-wing enough so aren't going to frighten the horses who, whilst they feel Corbyn is being a bit hard done by, know rightly that the man isn't going to get power.
Given a choice of two alternatives does that not increase the danger of slices of Corbyn's support being whittled away?
I disagree!
Jezza's principle of my enemy's enemy is my friend has put him into the same company as many horrible, vile people. It shows at the very best a lack of judgement, and at worst, well, we all know what it shows.
There is no way the favourite uncle persona should be allowed to mask his deeply held beliefs which, if one looks at his fellow ideological travellers, and in the absence of a heartfelt mea culpa, are thoroughly repugnant.