politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How do you solve a problem like Jeremy Corbyn and his dire polling?
Speaking as a Tory, every time I remember that Jeremy Corbyn is likely to be Labour leader at the next general election my reaction is similar to every time I remember that there’s a mineral called cummingtonite, it makes me laugh way too much.
Labour MPs should form a new party -- would that be like the SDP or like Tories defecting to UKIP? Neither of those was very successful in the long run.
That bet could be rather ambiguous - what if the MPs use the existing Co-Operative Party as their vehicle of choice, as has been suggested here before? Defections to the LDs wouldn't count either, and surely Farron has a couple of those lined up for Conference season if Corbyn's going nowhere?
Labour MPs should form a new party -- would that be like the SDP or like Tories defecting to UKIP? Neither of those was very successful in the long run.
An SDP scenario, I think that's fairly obvious, when has an MP joining another party ever been considered as forming a new party.
Do these protestors morons not understand that a family lives in that house, and several more families live in the street, or is nothing now unjustifiable under the new gentler, kinder politics of 2016?
The current lot of Labour MPs have pretty much shown themselves to be light on charisma and statue. I don't see them leading the people to the promised land of the centre-left. Their party is like a McDonalds franchise on one of the busiest corners in town. A bit dire, really,.but it gets the foot traffic solely on name recognition.
Do these protestors morons not understand that a family lives in that house, and several more families live in the street, or is nothing now unjustifiable under the new gentler, kinder politics of 2016?
From the Mail, it appears that counter-protesters may have been the real problem: It turned violent when a number of men, chanting their support for Mr Johnson, waded into the group.
Labour MPs should form a new party -- would that be like the SDP or like Tories defecting to UKIP? Neither of those was very successful in the long run.
An SDP scenario, I think that's fairly obvious, when has an MP joining another party ever been considered as forming a new party.
It doesn't matter. Both failed. That's the point.
Edit:obviously for the bet it makes a difference. Otherwise, it's the same thing which is why it will not happen.
First past the post is the killer argument against.
The likelist scenario for a new party is not an active split, but the wave of deselections that will follow Corbyn's victory in September. The deselected MPs will sit together until the next GE.
That said, if most of the PLP does walk away, do they walk away with most of Labour's Short money? This could be an enticing possibility.
The ENTIRE Labour party (including Corbyn) could move to the "New Democrats", offer exactly the same policies as now - and yet any one of us here standing under the Labour banner (With zip policies) would win in about a hundred seats.
This is the rebels problem the "Labour" brand is a massive massive brand name.
Australia and the USA have the TTP trade deal which can be pulled off the shelf and adapted as a bilateral UK deal with the minimum of tippex. The trouble is that TTP by some accounts is an American stitch-up, and even if not, might be incompatible with any deal we hope to negotiate with the rump EU. Of course, in the real world, trade will continue in the absence of a deal (as now) so front or back of the queue was not the killer argument Remain hoped.
The ENTIRE Labour party (including Corbyn) could move to the "New Democrats", offer exactly the same policies as now - and yet any one of us here standing under the Labour banner (With zip policies) would win in about a hundred seats.
This is the rebels problem the "Labour" brand is a massive massive brand name.
What they need to do is to adopt the name 'real Labour' and relentlessly refer to the Corbynist rump as 'momentum Labour'.
Australia and the USA have the TTP trade deal which can be pulled off the shelf and adapted as a bilateral UK deal with the minimum of tippex. The trouble is that TTP by some accounts is an American stitch-up, and even if not, might be incompatible with any deal we hope to negotiate with the rump EU. Of course, in the real world, trade will continue in the absence of a deal (as now) so front or back of the queue was not the killer argument Remain hoped.
Trade deals are easy to do if one side dictates the terms - see Iceland and China.
First past the post is the killer argument against.
The likelist scenario for a new party is not an active split, but the wave of deselections that will follow Corbyn's victory in September. The deselected MPs will sit together until the next GE.
That said, if most of the PLP does walk away, do they walk away with most of Labour's Short money? This could be an enticing possibility.
Surely they defecting MPs need to do so *before* the deselections become reality, to maintain credibility rather than looking like a bunch of crybabies?
Short money will indeed follow the MPs, but only if they are members of a party extant or new - some informal grouping of Indy Labour MPs won't cut it.
The goal surely has to be to get more than half of the Lab MPs to join the new party, that way they become the Official Opposition in Parliament, with a huge amount of Short money, relegating Corbyn's party to sit with the SNP on the back benches.
The ENTIRE Labour party (including Corbyn) could move to the "New Democrats", offer exactly the same policies as now - and yet any one of us here standing under the Labour banner (With zip policies) would win in about a hundred seats.
This is the rebels problem the "Labour" brand is a massive massive brand name.
What they need to do is to adopt the name 'real Labour' and relentlessly refer to the Corbynist rump as 'momentum Labour'.
Both correct about the name and the brand. Given that we now have official registration of party names (thanks to the Literal Democrats), the chance of the Electoral Commission accepting a name with "Labour" in the title must be slim. This is absolutely the biggest challenge for any new party and will be fought hard by both sides.
The ENTIRE Labour party (including Corbyn) could move to the "New Democrats", offer exactly the same policies as now - and yet any one of us here standing under the Labour banner (With zip policies) would win in about a hundred seats.
This is the rebels problem the "Labour" brand is a massive massive brand name.
What they need to do is to adopt the name 'real Labour' and relentlessly refer to the Corbynist rump as 'momentum Labour'.
Indeed. However, I can see the arguments already as to which Labour group should be higher up on the Ballot paper and alphabetical order already puts Momentum Labour on top.
I suspect then the new name chosen will be more like AAA Real Labour. This resolves the ballot paper issue as well as working equally well for Yellow pages and Thompson local.
What I'd like to see is a poll of Labour Party members on why they're in the Party. (Be a sight more use than a "damning indictment" from an avowed Tory.) TSE forgets that Labour's three victories under Blair were seen by its members as defeats for their principles. (Which, as a Tory, he would despise.)
I suspect (i) that such a poll would be rejected in toto by many Labour members and that (ii) a significant proportion of those members were formerly in one or another Trotskyist sect. Certainly that was true of JC's supporters in the Hornsey CLP in the 1970s.
The ENTIRE Labour party (including Corbyn) could move to the "New Democrats", offer exactly the same policies as now - and yet any one of us here standing under the Labour banner (With zip policies) would win in about a hundred seats.
This is the rebels problem the "Labour" brand is a massive massive brand name.
What they need to do is to adopt the name 'real Labour' and relentlessly refer to the Corbynist rump as 'momentum Labour'.
Both correct about the name and the brand. Given that we now have official registration of party names (thanks to the Literal Democrats), the chance of the Electoral Commission accepting a name with "Labour" in the title must be slim. This is absolutely the biggest challenge for any new party and will be fought hard by both sides.
The other option, although even if possible it would not be easy, is to expel Corbyn and his tiny handful of supporters from the Labour Parliamenrary Party and let him form his new party elsewhere.
However, with the normal option of withdrawing the whip not open to them, the logistics of such a move would be a nightmare.
Australia and the USA have the TTP trade deal which can be pulled off the shelf and adapted as a bilateral UK deal with the minimum of tippex. The trouble is that TTP by some accounts is an American stitch-up, and even if not, might be incompatible with any deal we hope to negotiate with the rump EU. Of course, in the real world, trade will continue in the absence of a deal (as now) so front or back of the queue was not the killer argument Remain hoped.
It's quite possible the TPP as is won't pass, there's too many objections to it and to an outsider it looks like a one sided stitch up by large US businesses.
However, if the UK were to join as a party to it, the non-US countries would have a lot more weight behind them and might be able to strike a better deal. It might be worth our new SoS for Trade exploring this avenue, but not at the expense of smaller trade deals with the other Commonwealth countries.
The ENTIRE Labour party (including Corbyn) could move to the "New Democrats", offer exactly the same policies as now - and yet any one of us here standing under the Labour banner (With zip policies) would win in about a hundred seats.
This is the rebels problem the "Labour" brand is a massive massive brand name.
What they need to do is to adopt the name 'real Labour' and relentlessly refer to the Corbynist rump as 'momentum Labour'.
Both correct about the name and the brand. Given that we now have official registration of party names (thanks to the Literal Democrats), the chance of the Electoral Commission accepting a name with "Labour" in the title must be slim. This is absolutely the biggest challenge for any new party and will be fought hard by both sides.
Corbyns lot could call themselves "Militant Tendency" I suppose? Or the breakaway moderates could call themselves Tories?
The ENTIRE Labour party (including Corbyn) could move to the "New Democrats", offer exactly the same policies as now - and yet any one of us here standing under the Labour banner (With zip policies) would win in about a hundred seats.
This is the rebels problem the "Labour" brand is a massive massive brand name.
What they need to do is to adopt the name 'real Labour' and relentlessly refer to the Corbynist rump as 'momentum Labour'.
Both correct about the name and the brand. Given that we now have official registration of party names (thanks to the Literal Democrats), the chance of the Electoral Commission accepting a name with "Labour" in the title must be slim. This is absolutely the biggest challenge for any new party and will be fought hard by both sides.
The other option, although even if possible it would not be easy, is to expel Corbyn and his tiny handful of supporters from the Labour Parliamenrary Party and let him form his new party elsewhere.
However, with the normal option of withdrawing the whip not open to them, the logistics of such a move would be a nightmare.
Is that not what the PLP have been trying, badly, to do for a few weeks now?
First past the post is the killer argument against.
The likelist scenario for a new party is not an active split, but the wave of deselections that will follow Corbyn's victory in September. The deselected MPs will sit together until the next GE.
That said, if most of the PLP does walk away, do they walk away with most of Labour's Short money? This could be an enticing possibility.
If they get deselected then why shouldn't they form an SDP style party?
Without deselection the PLP may decide that the least worst option is to let Corbynism face its inevitable defeat at the ballot box and then to pick up the pieces afterwards like Kinnock did in 84. With deselection though, there will be no pieces to pick up if you've been ejected, there is nothing left to lose in defecting.
The ENTIRE Labour party (including Corbyn) could move to the "New Democrats", offer exactly the same policies as now - and yet any one of us here standing under the Labour banner (With zip policies) would win in about a hundred seats.
This is the rebels problem the "Labour" brand is a massive massive brand name.
What they need to do is to adopt the name 'real Labour' and relentlessly refer to the Corbynist rump as 'momentum Labour'.
Both correct about the name and the brand. Given that we now have official registration of party names (thanks to the Literal Democrats), the chance of the Electoral Commission accepting a name with "Labour" in the title must be slim. This is absolutely the biggest challenge for any new party and will be fought hard by both sides.
The other option, although even if possible it would not be easy, is to expel Corbyn and his tiny handful of supporters from the Labour Parliamenrary Party and let him form his new party elsewhere.
However, with the normal option of withdrawing the whip not open to them, the logistics of such a move would be a nightmare.
Is that not what the PLP have been trying, badly, to do for a few weeks now?
No, they've been trying to remove him from the leadership while not splitting the party. The odds of that being successful are about he same as the odds of England winning tomorrow at Lord's.
The ENTIRE Labour party (including Corbyn) could move to the "New Democrats", offer exactly the same policies as now - and yet any one of us here standing under the Labour banner (With zip policies) would win in about a hundred seats.
This is the rebels problem the "Labour" brand is a massive massive brand name.
What they need to do is to adopt the name 'real Labour' and relentlessly refer to the Corbynist rump as 'momentum Labour'.
That happened in 31 but the law Labour passed after the 97 election will make that impossible wouldn't it?
The ENTIRE Labour party (including Corbyn) could move to the "New Democrats", offer exactly the same policies as now - and yet any one of us here standing under the Labour banner (With zip policies) would win in about a hundred seats.
This is the rebels problem the "Labour" brand is a massive massive brand name.
What they need to do is to adopt the name 'real Labour' and relentlessly refer to the Corbynist rump as 'momentum Labour'.
Both correct about the name and the brand. Given that we now have official registration of party names (thanks to the Literal Democrats), the chance of the Electoral Commission accepting a name with "Labour" in the title must be slim. This is absolutely the biggest challenge for any new party and will be fought hard by both sides.
The other option, although even if possible it would not be easy, is to expel Corbyn and his tiny handful of supporters from the Labour Parliamenrary Party and let him form his new party elsewhere.
However, with the normal option of withdrawing the whip not open to them, the logistics of such a move would be a nightmare.
Is that not what the PLP have been trying, badly, to do for a few weeks now?
Yup However moving from Corbyn to Eagle is basically "jumping from the trying man into the dire"
The ENTIRE Labour party (including Corbyn) could move to the "New Democrats", offer exactly the same policies as now - and yet any one of us here standing under the Labour banner (With zip policies) would win in about a hundred seats.
This is the rebels problem the "Labour" brand is a massive massive brand name.
What they need to do is to adopt the name 'real Labour' and relentlessly refer to the Corbynist rump as 'momentum Labour'.
Both correct about the name and the brand. Given that we now have official registration of party names (thanks to the Literal Democrats), the chance of the Electoral Commission accepting a name with "Labour" in the title must be slim. This is absolutely the biggest challenge for any new party and will be fought hard by both sides.
The other option, although even if possible it would not be easy, is to expel Corbyn and his tiny handful of supporters from the Labour Parliamenrary Party and let him form his new party elsewhere.
However, with the normal option of withdrawing the whip not open to them, the logistics of such a move would be a nightmare.
Is that not what the PLP have been trying, badly, to do for a few weeks now?
Yup However moving from Corbyn to Eagle is basically "jumping from the trying man into the dire"
Disagree - Eagle (or Smith) may lose as badly as Corbyn, maybe even worse, but they would preserve the primacy of the PLP. If Labour is ever to recover that is absolutely vital.
Amongst other things, I was wondering how they managed to identify and then sack over 2000 judges before the dust from the falling masonry had even settled on this 6 hour "coup"?
Amongst other things, I was wondering how they managed to identify and then sack over 2000 judges before the dust from the falling masonry had even settled on this 6 hour "coup"?
It did all happen rather too quickly, didn't it? At best, Erdogan's men got wind of the coup and played along while being fed intelligence from inside the plot...
Amongst other things, I was wondering how they managed to identify and then sack over 2000 judges before the dust from the falling masonry had even settled on this 6 hour "coup"?
The ENTIRE Labour party (including Corbyn) could move to the "New Democrats", offer exactly the same policies as now - and yet any one of us here standing under the Labour banner (With zip policies) would win in about a hundred seats.
This is the rebels problem the "Labour" brand is a massive massive brand name.
What they need to do is to adopt the name 'real Labour' and relentlessly refer to the Corbynist rump as 'momentum Labour'.
Both correct about the name and the brand. Given that we now have official registration of party names (thanks to the Literal Democrats), the chance of the Electoral Commission accepting a name with "Labour" in the title must be slim. This is absolutely the biggest challenge for any new party and will be fought hard by both sides.
The other option, although even if possible it would not be easy, is to expel Corbyn and his tiny handful of supporters from the Labour Parliamenrary Party and let him form his new party elsewhere.
However, with the normal option of withdrawing the whip not open to them, the logistics of such a move would be a nightmare.
Is that not what the PLP have been trying, badly, to do for a few weeks now?
Yup However moving from Corbyn to Eagle is basically "jumping from the trying man into the dire"
Disagree - Eagle (or Smith) may lose as badly as Corbyn, maybe even worse, but they would preserve the primacy of the PLP. If Labour is ever to recover that is absolutely vital.
Primacy of the PLP may be worthless when all the other parties claim that the PLP would always be a hairs breadth away from a similar militant take over?
The ENTIRE Labour party (including Corbyn) could move to the "New Democrats", offer exactly the same policies as now - and yet any one of us here standing under the Labour banner (With zip policies) would win in about a hundred seats.
This is the rebels problem the "Labour" brand is a massive massive brand name.
What they need to do is to adopt the name 'real Labour' and relentlessly refer to the Corbynist rump as 'momentum Labour'.
Both correct about the name and the brand. Given that we now have official registration of party names (thanks to the Literal Democrats), the chance of the Electoral Commission accepting a name with "Labour" in the title must be slim. This is absolutely the biggest challenge for any new party and will be fought hard by both sides.
The other option, although even if possible it would not be easy, is to expel Corbyn and his tiny handful of supporters from the Labour Parliamenrary Party and let him form his new party elsewhere.
However, with the normal option of withdrawing the whip not open to them, the logistics of such a move would be a nightmare.
Is that not what the PLP have been trying, badly, to do for a few weeks now?
No, they've been trying to remove him from the leadership while not splitting the party. The odds of that being successful are about he same as the odds of England winning tomorrow at Lord's.
Evens then?
Remarkably Betfair have Pakistan at 2 and England at 2.02 for the match, with the draw out at 100 for those who laid it earlier! Annoyingly I'm on holiday with the in-laws, will try and sneak off tomorrow for a couple of hours to watch the conclusion.
You've really got to stop calling Corbyn supporters 'Trots', Joff. It makes you look petty and ridiculous. There's probably about 10,000 'Trots' in the whole country. The vast majority of Corbyn's hundreds of thousands of party supporters, including myself, are perfectly normal middle-of-the-road Labour folk who are sick of vacuous middle management careerists mouthing empty platitudes and taking the party into meaningless oblivion. Whenever I see people talk about him in positive terms at meetings it's just boring middle-aged mums, earnest students, teachers, young professionals, all sorts of bog standard people.
You've really got to stop calling Corbyn supporters 'Trots', Joff. It makes you look petty and ridiculous. There's probably about 10,000 'Trots' in the whole country. The vast majority of Corbyn's hundreds of thousands of party supporters, including myself, are perfectly normal middle-of-the-road Labour folk who are sick of vacuous middle management careerists mouthing empty platitudes and taking the party into meaningless oblivion. Whenever I see people talk about him in positive terms at meetings it's just boring middle-aged mums, earnest students, teachers, young professionals, all sorts of bog standard people.
Yes, it's offensive to call Corbyn supporters Trots ... Southam should apologise to all Trots for that unfair association.
On topic, it's hard to disagree with Alastair Meeks that there is betting value in backing the "any other" option for most seats at the next GE.
I don't think a new split Labour party (progressives?) would get the most seats at the GE, but they would probably come second, which makes the c.20/1 on offer value.
Mrs May, it seems, needed little persuading. At 9.50am on Thursday, Downing Street aides called Mr Gove, who was in his ministry, to a meeting in the new Prime Minister’s oak-panelled rooms in the House of Commons with 20 minutes’ notice.
It did not last long. “There is not going to be room for you,” Mrs May told Mr Gove. “I have been talking to colleagues and the importance of loyalty is something on people’s minds.”
She did not want him in her new Cabinet because colleagues were warning he could not be trusted.
“I’m not saying there is no way back or that you’ll never serve in my government,” Mrs May added, “but it would perhaps help if you could demonstrate that loyalty from the back benches.” Mr Gove, as always, was scrupulously polite.
“Thank you very much, Prime Minister,” he said, before turning on his heels. He had been in her office for as little as two minutes.
As for the initial premise, May is currently a cipher on which anyone can hang an antidote to their post-Brexit anxieties. I was almost sucked in by her collegiate lefty mood music myself, until I remembered that every Conservative leader says the same thing to begin with. Jeremy is publicly in the middle of a titanic struggle with the majority of his parliamentary party.
The first of these factors at least is liable to change very rapidly, as I'm sure the more honest of people here will agree. As for Corbyn, removing Corbyn won't remove the causes of Corbyn. A struggle for renewal of the Labour party is afoot, with or without him. Until that struggle is resolved Labour will always do badly in these kind of very narrowly focused and essentially point-missing polls.
Even I've been surprised at how many countries have expressed an interest in doing a trade deal with us, and just how fast. It's barely been 3 weeks.
One can only conclude that a major part of the attraction a lot of the world had in doing trade deals with the EU is precisely because the UK was in it.
I wonder what this hypothetical new party would be for, exactly? Would it be "Blair-Brown-Millibandite?" "The sort-of -Social-Democrats" ? "The nice-progressive - middle-class party"?
I don't think these numbers could really be better for May.
She is pushing some serious buttons amongst the electorate.
The number are meaningless. She hasnt done anything yet, except say a load of lefty-sounding stuff which isn't going to happen.
Oh, they're not meaningless. First impressions matter. If these numbers had been dire for May, that'd mean something too. She is giving the impression of a strong, tough, and slightly ruthless leader who has a plan, and knows what she's doing. That counts.
Re: the politics: that's in the eye of the beholder. My parents are very much on the Conservative Right, and loved her first Downing Street statement.
I don't think these numbers could really be better for May.
She is pushing some serious buttons amongst the electorate.
The number are meaningless. She hasnt done anything yet, except say a load of lefty-sounding stuff which isn't going to happen.
Something tells me that had these numbers been for a leftie PM then I am sure they would not have been meaningless but trumpeted far and wide as a wholehearted country wide support of the incoming PM. All except those "boring mums" of course.
I don't think these numbers could really be better for May.
She is pushing some serious buttons amongst the electorate.
The number are meaningless. She hasnt done anything yet, except say a load of lefty-sounding stuff which isn't going to happen.
Oh, they're not meaningless. First impressions matter. If these numbers had been dire for May, that'd mean something too. She is giving the impression of a strong, tough, and slightly ruthless leader who has a plan, and knows what she's doing. That counts.
Re: the politics: that's in the eye of the beholder. My parents are very much on the Conservative Right, and loved her first Downing Street statement.
I wonder what this hypothetical new party would be for, exactly? Would it be "Blair-Brown-Millibandite?" "The sort-of -Social-Democrats" ? "The nice-progressive - middle-class party"?
"Careerists who can't bring themselves to kowtow to Tories"
Corbyn, with his Internationalist credentials, is a Trot. He walks like a Trot, he talks like a Trot, and you can almost see the ice-pick embedded in his head.
His supporters are a varied bunch. Some are economically left-wing but socially conservative (splitters), some are Militant Tendency, some are SWP and some are just anti-Tory.
The Internationalist agenda is what will cause failure at a General Election.
Even I've been surprised at how many countries have expressed an interest in doing a trade deal with us, and just how fast. It's barely been 3 weeks.
One can only conclude that a major part of the attraction a lot of the world had in doing trade deals with the EU is precisely because the UK was in it.
The next few weeks will see the evaporation of those calling for another referendum as trade deals materialise to our advantage. At the same time the ghastly EU will unravel before our eyes.
I don't think these numbers could really be better for May.
She is pushing some serious buttons amongst the electorate.
The number are meaningless. She hasnt done anything yet, except say a load of lefty-sounding stuff which isn't going to happen.
Oh, they're not meaningless. First impressions matter. If these numbers had been dire for May, that'd mean something too. She is giving the impression of a strong, tough, and slightly ruthless leader who has a plan, and knows what she's doing. That counts.
Re: the politics: that's in the eye of the beholder. My parents are very much on the Conservative Right, and loved her first Downing Street statement.
They thought it was Thatcherite.
Your parents are not very clued-up, politically.
That's unpleasant. It was very Thatcherite (the reality) as opposed to "Thatcherite" (the myth). Very "where there is discord ..."
I don't think these numbers could really be better for May.
She is pushing some serious buttons amongst the electorate.
The number are meaningless. She hasnt done anything yet, except say a load of lefty-sounding stuff which isn't going to happen.
Oh, they're not meaningless. First impressions matter. If these numbers had been dire for May, that'd mean something too. She is giving the impression of a strong, tough, and slightly ruthless leader who has a plan, and knows what she's doing. That counts.
Re: the politics: that's in the eye of the beholder. My parents are very much on the Conservative Right, and loved her first Downing Street statement.
They thought it was Thatcherite.
You are proving my point admirably. At present she is a cipher on which everyone can project their own hopes in this tumultuous time, this will change, rapidly, once she starts having to do stuff.
Primacy of the PLP may be worthless when all the other parties claim that the PLP would always be a hairs breadth away from a similar militant take over?
All the other parties can claim what they like; it is not likely to have much salience. We've seen unsuccessful election campaigns based on similar premises in the past.
There are two other problems with primacy of the PLP though, at least as things stand. First is that the current PLP apparently has no idea what it wants aside from Jeremy Corbyn's retirement. There is nothing on policy, and no alternative leader more charismatic than Corbyn has been identified.
The irony is that the current mess follows the degradation of the party in the country pursued by New Labour, with SpAds parachuted into safe seats. and the removal of policy-making and election of the shadow cabinet from the party. Concentrating power in the hands of the leader only seems like a good idea when you are the leader.
So now Labour has, thanks to New Labour, a PLP dominated by charisma-free middle-class graduates with no connection to their constituency parties, let alone their constituents, and who have no experience of campaigning or persuasion because they've never needed to fight to get selected or elected, and who have never been asked their views on any policy. Not to mention an all-powerful leader's office whose current occupant is one J Corbyn, PC MP. Heart of stone.
(That the Conservatives have or had similar problems is neither here nor there.)
The timing of the PLP Chicken Coup was clearly designed to influence Chilcot.Evidence from Loughborough Uni and from Angela Eagle's own words show the EUref was just a device to deflect from the real purpose,Chilcot and Blair's reputation. Had they waited another year,they just might have won the day.All their impatience has achieved is a stiffening of the Corbyn vote,as a result of which JC is going nowhere.
On topic, it's hard to disagree with Alastair Meeks that there is betting value in backing the "any other" option for most seats at the next GE.
I don't think a new split Labour party (progressives?) would get the most seats at the GE, but they would probably come second, which makes the c.20/1 on offer value.
It is quite possible that the votes which many expected to go to UKIP in the North, might go to PD, Most of these votes are basically annoyed at the Labour Party. Most will not vote Tory.
If a viable PD came up, it is possible that these voters together with many who still would have voted Labour could tip into a few PD's winning a few seats.
I still believe a split would result in a Tory majority of about 100 -150. I am also assuming PDs will include LDs or will have arrangements with them. Anna Soubry could be a PD.
Even I've been surprised at how many countries have expressed an interest in doing a trade deal with us, and just how fast. It's barely been 3 weeks.
One can only conclude that a major part of the attraction a lot of the world had in doing trade deals with the EU is precisely because the UK was in it.
I believe India was first out of the traps within 48 hours.
Yet, but, even.........we were told we couldn't do deals without the EU. We would be at the back of the queueline queue, a punishment budget would be needed and we would return to the Stone Age with our BMWs being towed down weed infested motorways by donkeys to the local witch doctors cave surgery.
That bet could be rather ambiguous - what if the MPs use the existing Co-Operative Party as their vehicle of choice, as has been suggested here before? Defections to the LDs wouldn't count either, and surely Farron has a couple of those lined up for Conference season if Corbyn's going nowhere?
If there's an MP staring certain deselection in the face, it has to be a distinct possibility.
On topic, it's hard to disagree with Alastair Meeks that there is betting value in backing the "any other" option for most seats at the next GE.
I don't think a new split Labour party (progressives?) would get the most seats at the GE, but they would probably come second, which makes the c.20/1 on offer value.
It is quite possible that the votes which many expected to go to UKIP in the North, might go to PD, Most of these votes are basically annoyed at the Labour Party. Most will not vote Tory.
If a viable PD came up, it is possible that these voters together with many who still would have voted Labour could tip into a few PD's winning a few seats.
I still believe a split would result in a Tory majority of about 100 -150. I am also assuming PDs will include LDs or will have arrangements with them. Anna Soubry could be a PD.
The formation of a new party costs an enormous amount of money, Ukip have been bankrolled by a handful of wealthy people for years, 1 MP. The unions fund labour, a breakaway party will need to find a way to raise £millions, no idea how they'll do it.
Even I've been surprised at how many countries have expressed an interest in doing a trade deal with us, and just how fast. It's barely been 3 weeks.
One can only conclude that a major part of the attraction a lot of the world had in doing trade deals with the EU is precisely because the UK was in it.
I believe India was first out of the traps within 48 hours.
Yet, but, even.........we were told we couldn't do deals without the EU. We would be at the back of the queue line queue, a punishment budget would be needed and we would return to the Stone Age with our BMWs being towed down weed infested motorways by donkeys to the local witch doctors cave surgery.
BMW can still sell here with a 10% duty imposed on them. Which other car would you buy ? Mercedes, Audi........oh, they are German too !
I am not going to change to Qashqai ! Nissan might close in 5 years anyway, going to Drogheda.
At present she is a cipher on which everyone can project their own hopes in this tumultuous time, this will change, rapidly, once she starts having to do stuff.
This is precisely how Corbyn is killing the Labour Party
Corbyn is against imperialism, except when the imperialist is Milne’s Russia. He wants to stop Trident but said we should still spend billions building worthless submarines without nuclear warheads to keep the unions happy. The cowardice of it all is shameful. But consider the political advantages. Three-quarters of Labour members are middle class and just over half have a degree. A practical programme of redistribution would not only hurt the super-rich but them too. Large numbers would hurt enough to think again about giving Corbyn support. Instead of asking them to bear pain, the 21st-century far left allows them to enjoy socialism without tears. Contrary to Stalin’s apologists, it maintains you can make an omelette without breaking eggs.
Anyone can be against austerity and poverty, spin and the Westminster bubble, the bankers and the corporations, if there is no price to pay. Students can project their hopes on to the blank slate Corbyn offers them. Old soixante-huitards and the militants of the Thatcher era can refight the battles of their youth as painlessly as the Sealed Knot refights the Civil War. Wykehamist Marxists can stand shoulder to shoulder with exhibitionist celebrities; wild intellectuals with the justifiably furious shop stewards.
Corbyn, with his Internationalist credentials, is a Trot. He walks like a Trot, he talks like a Trot, and you can almost see the ice-pick embedded in his head.
His supporters are a varied bunch. Some are economically left-wing but socially conservative (splitters), some are Militant Tendency, some are SWP and some are just anti-Tory.
The Internationalist agenda is what will cause failure at a General Election.
Of course Jez could always form a government of all the Trots. He could use the acronym GOAT.
Australia and the USA have the TTP trade deal which can be pulled off the shelf and adapted as a bilateral UK deal with the minimum of tippex. The trouble is that TTP by some accounts is an American stitch-up, and even if not, might be incompatible with any deal we hope to negotiate with the rump EU. Of course, in the real world, trade will continue in the absence of a deal (as now) so front or back of the queue was not the killer argument Remain hoped.
The US would just offer us the TPP off the shelf. It contains a couple of provisions that we might not like, mind.
Firstly, the ISDS tribunals are American and are in secret. Secondly, you are treaty bound to keep your IP laws in step with the US. So, it is definitely an abrogation of sovereignty - albeit not to EU levels.
The ENTIRE Labour party (including Corbyn) could move to the "New Democrats", offer exactly the same policies as now - and yet any one of us here standing under the Labour banner (With zip policies) would win in about a hundred seats.
This is the rebels problem the "Labour" brand is a massive massive brand name.
What they need to do is to adopt the name 'real Labour' and relentlessly refer to the Corbynist rump as 'momentum Labour'.
That happened in 31 but the law Labour passed after the 97 election will make that impossible wouldn't it?
MacDonald was expelled from Labour in 1931 so in that case it was the aberrant leader and his followers left without a party.
The current lot of Labour MPs have pretty much shown themselves to be light on charisma and statue. I don't see them leading the people to the promised land of the centre-left. Their party is like a McDonalds franchise on one of the busiest corners in town. A bit dire, really,.but it gets the foot traffic solely on name recognition.
I don't think these numbers could really be better for May.
She is pushing some serious buttons amongst the electorate.
The number are meaningless. She hasnt done anything yet, except say a load of lefty-sounding stuff which isn't going to happen.
Oh, they're not meaningless. First impressions matter. If these numbers had been dire for May, that'd mean something too. She is giving the impression of a strong, tough, and slightly ruthless leader who has a plan, and knows what she's doing. That counts.
Re: the politics: that's in the eye of the beholder. My parents are very much on the Conservative Right, and loved her first Downing Street statement.
They thought it was Thatcherite.
Your parents are not very clued-up, politically.
Quite a rude remark TBH but the consolation is I can smell your fear from here.
Australia and the USA have the TTP trade deal which can be pulled off the shelf and adapted as a bilateral UK deal with the minimum of tippex. The trouble is that TTP by some accounts is an American stitch-up, and even if not, might be incompatible with any deal we hope to negotiate with the rump EU. Of course, in the real world, trade will continue in the absence of a deal (as now) so front or back of the queue was not the killer argument Remain hoped.
It's quite possible the TPP as is won't pass, there's too many objections to it and to an outsider it looks like a one sided stitch up by large US businesses.
However, if the UK were to join as a party to it, the non-US countries would have a lot more weight behind them and might be able to strike a better deal. It might be worth our new SoS for Trade exploring this avenue, but not at the expense of smaller trade deals with the other Commonwealth countries.
The TPP is not like EFTA or EEA, which is a multi-party agreement. Instead it is a number of (similar but not identical) bilateral treaties. So, we would probably need to take one of the most similar of these (Australia?) and copy it with a few changes.
Furthermore, Japan takes 50% more US exports than the UK, and South Korea takes the same amount, so it's not clear what the rationale would be for giving us better treatment than either of those guys.
Australia and the USA have the TTP trade deal which can be pulled off the shelf and adapted as a bilateral UK deal with the minimum of tippex. The trouble is that TTP by some accounts is an American stitch-up, and even if not, might be incompatible with any deal we hope to negotiate with the rump EU. Of course, in the real world, trade will continue in the absence of a deal (as now) so front or back of the queue was not the killer argument Remain hoped.
The US would just offer us the TPP off the shelf. It contains a couple of provisions that we might not like, mind.
Firstly, the ISDS tribunals are American and are in secret. Secondly, you are treaty bound to keep your IP laws in step with the US. So, it is definitely an abrogation of sovereignty - albeit not to EU levels.
I asked a while back, but you didn't reply so don't know if you saw the message, but don't we tend to keep IP laws in step anyway? Isn't that a modern 21st century thing that is pretty global?
I can't realistically imagine a major divergence happening between us whether we sign TPP or not.
Primacy of the PLP may be worthless when all the other parties claim that the PLP would always be a hairs breadth away from a similar militant take over?
All the other parties can claim what they like; it is not likely to have much salience. We've seen unsuccessful election campaigns based on similar premises in the past.
There are two other problems with primacy of the PLP though, at least as things stand. First is that the current PLP apparently has no idea what it wants aside from Jeremy Corbyn's retirement. There is nothing on policy, and no alternative leader more charismatic than Corbyn has been identified.
The irony is that the current mess follows the degradation of the party in the country pursued by New Labour, with SpAds parachuted into safe seats. and the removal of policy-making and election of the shadow cabinet from the party. Concentrating power in the hands of the leader only seems like a good idea when you are the leader.
So now Labour has, thanks to New Labour, a PLP dominated by charisma-free middle-class graduates with no connection to their constituency parties, let alone their constituents, and who have no experience of campaigning or persuasion because they've never needed to fight to get selected or elected, and who have never been asked their views on any policy. Not to mention an all-powerful leader's office whose current occupant is one J Corbyn, PC MP. Heart of stone.
(That the Conservatives have or had similar problems is neither here nor there.)
Replying to one's own post is surely the first sign of madness but I wonder if the route to compromise lies in re-empowering the party. Many Corbyn supporters, even if not the man himself, might settle for the return of shadow cabinet elections, and a greater role for conference in policy decisions, and CLPs in selecting candidates (even if from a choice limited in some way).
Not really my area, but my understanding is that their judiciary/legal system has an interesting and innovative approach to the concept of intellectual property.
At present she is a cipher on which everyone can project their own hopes in this tumultuous time, this will change, rapidly, once she starts having to do stuff.
This is precisely how Corbyn is killing the Labour Party
Corbyn is against imperialism, except when the imperialist is Milne’s Russia. He wants to stop Trident but said we should still spend billions building worthless submarines without nuclear warheads to keep the unions happy. The cowardice of it all is shameful. But consider the political advantages. Three-quarters of Labour members are middle class and just over half have a degree. A practical programme of redistribution would not only hurt the super-rich but them too. Large numbers would hurt enough to think again about giving Corbyn support. Instead of asking them to bear pain, the 21st-century far left allows them to enjoy socialism without tears. Contrary to Stalin’s apologists, it maintains you can make an omelette without breaking eggs.
Anyone can be against austerity and poverty, spin and the Westminster bubble, the bankers and the corporations, if there is no price to pay. Students can project their hopes on to the blank slate Corbyn offers them. Old soixante-huitards and the militants of the Thatcher era can refight the battles of their youth as painlessly as the Sealed Knot refights the Civil War. Wykehamist Marxists can stand shoulder to shoulder with exhibitionist celebrities; wild intellectuals with the justifiably furious shop stewards.
The ENTIRE Labour party (including Corbyn) could move to the "New Democrats", offer exactly the same policies as now - and yet any one of us here standing under the Labour banner (With zip policies) would win in about a hundred seats.
This is the rebels problem the "Labour" brand is a massive massive brand name.
What they need to do is to adopt the name 'real Labour' and relentlessly refer to the Corbynist rump as 'momentum Labour'.
That happened in 31 but the law Labour passed after the 97 election will make that impossible wouldn't it?
MacDonald was expelled from Labour in 1931 so in that case it was the aberrant leader and his followers left without a party.
But in 1931 we had Ramsay MacDonald's National Labour competing against Arthur Henderson's Labour. Meanwhile we had the Liberal National Party, the Liberal Party and Independent Liberal.
As there was no restriction then on party names it was possible for a party to split and both claim to be Labour or Liberal etc
Under the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998 would that have been possible?
Even I've been surprised at how many countries have expressed an interest in doing a trade deal with us, and just how fast. It's barely been 3 weeks.
One can only conclude that a major part of the attraction a lot of the world had in doing trade deals with the EU is precisely because the UK was in it.
The next few weeks will see the evaporation of those calling for another referendum as trade deals materialise to our advantage. At the same time the ghastly EU will unravel before our eyes.
It's more than 3mb (zipped), and contains more than 30 chapters. Furthermore, there are another 16 side letters relating to TPP, and which total at least another megabyte.
The TPP negotiations started in 2008, and it is still not in force.
Even I've been surprised at how many countries have expressed an interest in doing a trade deal with us, and just how fast. It's barely been 3 weeks.
One can only conclude that a major part of the attraction a lot of the world had in doing trade deals with the EU is precisely because the UK was in it.
I'd always considered our value within the EU as that of an anchor tenant - particularly so for the US et al.
The ENTIRE Labour party (including Corbyn) could move to the "New Democrats", offer exactly the same policies as now - and yet any one of us here standing under the Labour banner (With zip policies) would win in about a hundred seats.
This is the rebels problem the "Labour" brand is a massive massive brand name.
What they need to do is to adopt the name 'real Labour' and relentlessly refer to the Corbynist rump as 'momentum Labour'.
Indeed. However, I can see the arguments already as to which Labour group should be higher up on the Ballot paper and alphabetical order already puts Momentum Labour on top.
I suspect then the new name chosen will be more like AAA Real Labour. This resolves the ballot paper issue as well as working equally well for Yellow pages and Thompson local.
Amongst other things, I was wondering how they managed to identify and then sack over 2000 judges before the dust from the falling masonry had even settled on this 6 hour "coup"?
One reason why the "coup" may well have been staged by Erdogan himself.
I don't think so, though I might be wrong. Erdogan would know very well who the troublesome judges are (whether Gulenists or Kemalists (secularists)), and have the lists ready to go.
It's hardly unprecedented in recent Turkish history.
Australia and the USA have the TTP trade deal which can be pulled off the shelf and adapted as a bilateral UK deal with the minimum of tippex. The trouble is that TTP by some accounts is an American stitch-up, and even if not, might be incompatible with any deal we hope to negotiate with the rump EU. Of course, in the real world, trade will continue in the absence of a deal (as now) so front or back of the queue was not the killer argument Remain hoped.
The US would just offer us the TPP off the shelf. It contains a couple of provisions that we might not like, mind.
Firstly, the ISDS tribunals are American and are in secret. Secondly, you are treaty bound to keep your IP laws in step with the US. So, it is definitely an abrogation of sovereignty - albeit not to EU levels.
I asked a while back, but you didn't reply so don't know if you saw the message, but don't we tend to keep IP laws in step anyway? Isn't that a modern 21st century thing that is pretty global?
I can't realistically imagine a major divergence happening between us whether we sign TPP or not.
There is some commonality, mostly related to the 1996 World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty. But there are significant differences.
Take the issue of copyright of broadcasts; currently in the UK we're at 50 years, and the US is at 95 years. If we signed up to the TPP, not only would we be required to change that to 95 years, but if the US Congress voted to change it (say) 120 years, we would be required to pass a law changing our term too. So, in the areas of intellectual property, it's like the EU - except that we don't get any say at all.
The ENTIRE Labour party (including Corbyn) could move to the "New Democrats", offer exactly the same policies as now - and yet any one of us here standing under the Labour banner (With zip policies) would win in about a hundred seats.
This is the rebels problem the "Labour" brand is a massive massive brand name.
Yes. It's floor of support us incredible. Inthe absence of some able to seize the opportunity as tbe SNP did, it woukd clung on. It seems incredible they will not split but I remain confident they won't. I still think Corbyn will, now he can say he would have been on the ballot and won, find a successor instead and the rebels will eagerly fall into line.
The rebels seem just as emotionally invested in the labour brand than Corbyn's core support. More so in fact, given his core includes SWP and others of that ilk - they'll be very glad to be be able to give a new leader a chance even if it's Effectively Corbyn in a nicer suit. Anything to avoid facing up to their party's mass ember ship seeming implacably opposed to them.
Australia and the USA have the TTP trade deal which can be pulled off the shelf and adapted as a bilateral UK deal with the minimum of tippex. The trouble is that TTP by some accounts is an American stitch-up, and even if not, might be incompatible with any deal we hope to negotiate with the rump EU. Of course, in the real world, trade will continue in the absence of a deal (as now) so front or back of the queue was not the killer argument Remain hoped.
The US would just offer us the TPP off the shelf. It contains a couple of provisions that we might not like, mind.
Firstly, the ISDS tribunals are American and are in secret. Secondly, you are treaty bound to keep your IP laws in step with the US. So, it is definitely an abrogation of sovereignty - albeit not to EU levels.
Yes. Ironically the best argument for staying in the EU was to resist American trade terms and fight for a better deal in TTIP. The risk is that we now rush to accept any proposals at all, however one-sided, because the British Establishment does not understand the realpolitik of so-called free markets. Indeed, the original cases for joining the EC and then ERM were that terms *would* be harmful to Britain but would in the long term by some unspecified mechanism turn us into Germany.
It's like a divorce. Brexit is generally miserable, but now we're free! A relationship with Australia AND with America.It will be more fun and just as good!
The free trade effort is largely displacement PR. We need the agreements, given that we are leaving the EU anyway. We are unlikely to end up with a set of agreements that is significantly better for us than what we would have had anyway as a member of the EU. And none of this is a substitute for the one relationship that we MUST get right, which is with the EU.
If the USA and the EU do eventually sort out TTIP, we probably would want to be a part of it. Multilateral is much better than bilateral if you can get it. Which is a big part of the problem with Brexit.
Australia and the USA have the TTP trade deal which can be pulled off the shelf and adapted as a bilateral UK deal with the minimum of tippex. The trouble is that TTP by some accounts is an American stitch-up, and even if not, might be incompatible with any deal we hope to negotiate with the rump EU. Of course, in the real world, trade will continue in the absence of a deal (as now) so front or back of the queue was not the killer argument Remain hoped.
The US would just offer us the TPP off the shelf. It contains a couple of provisions that we might not like, mind.
Firstly, the ISDS tribunals are American and are in secret. Secondly, you are treaty bound to keep your IP laws in step with the US. So, it is definitely an abrogation of sovereignty - albeit not to EU levels.
I asked a while back, but you didn't reply so don't know if you saw the message, but don't we tend to keep IP laws in step anyway? Isn't that a modern 21st century thing that is pretty global?
I can't realistically imagine a major divergence happening between us whether we sign TPP or not.
There is some commonality, mostly related to the 1996 World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty. But there are significant differences.
Take the issue of copyright of broadcasts; currently in the UK we're at 50 years, and the US is at 95 years. If we signed up to the TPP, not only would we be required to change that to 95 years, but if the US Congress voted to change it (say) 120 years, we would be required to pass a law changing our term too. So, in the areas of intellectual property, it's like the EU - except that we don't get any say at all.
I expect the US will vote to change it to 120 or more, then 150 then so on to infinite they're not going to let Mickey Mouse run out of copyright.
Comments
Oh, and a good morning to all.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3693938/Boris-s-hi-viz-line-Gang-100-protesters-march-Johnson-s-house-chant-slogans-assault-police-officers.html
Do these protestors morons not understand that a family lives in that house, and several more families live in the street, or is nothing now unjustifiable under the new gentler, kinder politics of 2016?
Edit:obviously for the bet it makes a difference. Otherwise, it's the same thing which is why it will not happen.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/16/theresa-may-plans-for-brexit-trade-deals-with-the-usa-and-austra/
The likelist scenario for a new party is not an active split, but the wave of deselections that will follow Corbyn's victory in September. The deselected MPs will sit together until the next GE.
That said, if most of the PLP does walk away, do they walk away with most of Labour's Short money? This could be an enticing possibility.
This is the rebels problem the "Labour" brand is a massive massive brand name.
May I be first to coin the PB phrase
ELEElection -- " Extinction Level Event Election" or ......ELEE for short.
Short money will indeed follow the MPs, but only if they are members of a party extant or new - some informal grouping of Indy Labour MPs won't cut it.
The goal surely has to be to get more than half of the Lab MPs to join the new party, that way they become the Official Opposition in Parliament, with a huge amount of Short money, relegating Corbyn's party to sit with the SNP on the back benches.
I suspect then the new name chosen will be more like AAA Real Labour. This resolves the ballot paper issue as well as working equally well for Yellow pages and Thompson local.
I suspect (i) that such a poll would be rejected in toto by many Labour members and that (ii) a significant proportion of those members were formerly in one or another Trotskyist sect. Certainly that was true of JC's supporters in the Hornsey CLP in the 1970s.
However, with the normal option of withdrawing the whip not open to them, the logistics of such a move would be a nightmare.
However, if the UK were to join as a party to it, the non-US countries would have a lot more weight behind them and might be able to strike a better deal. It might be worth our new SoS for Trade exploring this avenue, but not at the expense of smaller trade deals with the other Commonwealth countries.
https://twitter.com/theobertram/status/754558930022457344
Without deselection the PLP may decide that the least worst option is to let Corbynism face its inevitable defeat at the ballot box and then to pick up the pieces afterwards like Kinnock did in 84. With deselection though, there will be no pieces to pick up if you've been ejected, there is nothing left to lose in defecting.
However moving from Corbyn to Eagle is basically "jumping from the trying man into the dire"
Amongst other things, I was wondering how they managed to identify and then sack over 2000 judges before the dust from the falling masonry had even settled on this 6 hour "coup"?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3693729/Did-Erdogan-STAGE-coup-based-Turkish-cleric-facing-extradition-botched-rebellion-claims-president-orchestrated-plot-justify-clampdown-civil-rights.html
Remarkably Betfair have Pakistan at 2 and England at 2.02 for the match, with the draw out at 100 for those who laid it earlier! Annoyingly I'm on holiday with the in-laws, will try and sneak off tomorrow for a couple of hours to watch the conclusion.
She is pushing some serious buttons amongst the electorate.
I don't think a new split Labour party (progressives?) would get the most seats at the GE, but they would probably come second, which makes the c.20/1 on offer value.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/16/theresa-mays-day-of-the-long-knives--two-minutesin-no-10and-mich/
Mrs May, it seems, needed little persuading. At 9.50am on Thursday, Downing Street aides called Mr Gove, who was in his ministry, to a meeting in the new Prime Minister’s oak-panelled rooms in the House of Commons with 20 minutes’ notice.
It did not last long. “There is not going to be room for you,” Mrs May told Mr Gove. “I have been talking to colleagues and the importance of loyalty is something on people’s minds.”
She did not want him in her new Cabinet because colleagues were warning he could not be trusted.
“I’m not saying there is no way back or that you’ll never serve in my government,” Mrs May added, “but it would perhaps help if you could demonstrate that loyalty from the back benches.” Mr Gove, as always, was scrupulously polite.
“Thank you very much, Prime Minister,” he said, before turning on his heels. He had been in her office for as little as two minutes.
Jeremy is publicly in the middle of a titanic struggle with the majority of his parliamentary party.
The first of these factors at least is liable to change very rapidly, as I'm sure the more honest of people here will agree. As for Corbyn, removing Corbyn won't remove the causes of Corbyn. A struggle for renewal of the Labour party is afoot, with or without him. Until that struggle is resolved Labour will always do badly in these kind of very narrowly focused and essentially point-missing polls.
One can only conclude that a major part of the attraction a lot of the world had in doing trade deals with the EU is precisely because the UK was in it.
Mr. Royale, is that a Betfair tip Mr. Meeks is pointing to?
Would it be "Blair-Brown-Millibandite?" "The sort-of -Social-Democrats" ? "The nice-progressive - middle-class party"?
Re: the politics: that's in the eye of the beholder. My parents are very much on the Conservative Right, and loved her first Downing Street statement.
They thought it was Thatcherite.
The situation with Corbyn is stark :
No Change No Chance.
It's something you have to build up over time. Stake/money available too small to do much else.
Corbyn, with his Internationalist credentials, is a Trot. He walks like a Trot, he talks like a Trot, and you can almost see the ice-pick embedded in his head.
His supporters are a varied bunch. Some are economically left-wing but socially conservative (splitters), some are Militant Tendency, some are SWP and some are just anti-Tory.
The Internationalist agenda is what will cause failure at a General Election.
There are two other problems with primacy of the PLP though, at least as things stand. First is that the current PLP apparently has no idea what it wants aside from Jeremy Corbyn's retirement. There is nothing on policy, and no alternative leader more charismatic than Corbyn has been identified.
The irony is that the current mess follows the degradation of the party in the country pursued by New Labour, with SpAds parachuted into safe seats. and the removal of policy-making and election of the shadow cabinet from the party. Concentrating power in the hands of the leader only seems like a good idea when you are the leader.
So now Labour has, thanks to New Labour, a PLP dominated by charisma-free middle-class graduates with no connection to their constituency parties, let alone their constituents, and who have no experience of campaigning or persuasion because they've never needed to fight to get selected or elected, and who have never been asked their views on any policy. Not to mention an all-powerful leader's office whose current occupant is one J Corbyn, PC MP. Heart of stone.
(That the Conservatives have or had similar problems is neither here nor there.)
Any Other is down to 19.5, so I think I'll leave it.
Had they waited another year,they just might have won the day.All their impatience has achieved is a stiffening of the Corbyn vote,as a result of which JC is going nowhere.
If a viable PD came up, it is possible that these voters together with many who still would have voted Labour could tip into a few PD's winning a few seats.
I still believe a split would result in a Tory majority of about 100 -150. I am also assuming PDs will include LDs or will have arrangements with them. Anna Soubry could be a PD.
Yet, but, even.........we were told we couldn't do deals without the EU. We would be at the back of the
queuelinequeue, a punishment budget would be needed and we would return to the Stone Age with our BMWs being towed down weed infested motorways by donkeys to the local witch doctorscavesurgery.Ideological lefties always ignore reality.
I am not going to change to Qashqai ! Nissan might close in 5 years anyway, going to Drogheda.
Corbyn is against imperialism, except when the imperialist is Milne’s Russia. He wants to stop Trident but said we should still spend billions building worthless submarines without nuclear warheads to keep the unions happy. The cowardice of it all is shameful. But consider the political advantages. Three-quarters of Labour members are middle class and just over half have a degree. A practical programme of redistribution would not only hurt the super-rich but them too. Large numbers would hurt enough to think again about giving Corbyn support. Instead of asking them to bear pain, the 21st-century far left allows them to enjoy socialism without tears. Contrary to Stalin’s apologists, it maintains you can make an omelette without breaking eggs.
Anyone can be against austerity and poverty, spin and the Westminster bubble, the bankers and the corporations, if there is no price to pay. Students can project their hopes on to the blank slate Corbyn offers them. Old soixante-huitards and the militants of the Thatcher era can refight the battles of their youth as painlessly as the Sealed Knot refights the Civil War. Wykehamist Marxists can stand shoulder to shoulder with exhibitionist celebrities; wild intellectuals with the justifiably furious shop stewards.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/16/corbynism-sounds-death-knell-for-labour
Firstly, the ISDS tribunals are American and are in secret. Secondly, you are treaty bound to keep your IP laws in step with the US. So, it is definitely an abrogation of sovereignty - albeit not to EU levels.
Furthermore, Japan takes 50% more US exports than the UK, and South Korea takes the same amount, so it's not clear what the rationale would be for giving us better treatment than either of those guys.
I can't realistically imagine a major divergence happening between us whether we sign TPP or not.
Not really my area, but my understanding is that their judiciary/legal system has an interesting and innovative approach to the concept of intellectual property.
As there was no restriction then on party names it was possible for a party to split and both claim to be Labour or Liberal etc
Under the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998 would that have been possible?
The zip file of the New Zealand-US version of TPP is available here: http://www.mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-agreement/transpacific/TPP-text/TPP_All-Chapters.zip
It's more than 3mb (zipped), and contains more than 30 chapters.
Furthermore, there are another 16 side letters relating to TPP, and which total at least another megabyte.
The TPP negotiations started in 2008, and it is still not in force.
Two more arrests in Nice apparently
Turkey
2725 judges detained. Fast work *cough*
It's hardly unprecedented in recent Turkish history.
Take the issue of copyright of broadcasts; currently in the UK we're at 50 years, and the US is at 95 years. If we signed up to the TPP, not only would we be required to change that to 95 years, but if the US Congress voted to change it (say) 120 years, we would be required to pass a law changing our term too. So, in the areas of intellectual property, it's like the EU - except that we don't get any say at all.
The rebels seem just as emotionally invested in the labour brand than Corbyn's core support. More so in fact, given his core includes SWP and others of that ilk - they'll be very glad to be be able to give a new leader a chance even if it's Effectively Corbyn in a nicer suit. Anything to avoid facing up to their party's mass ember ship seeming implacably opposed to them.
The free trade effort is largely displacement PR. We need the agreements, given that we are leaving the EU anyway. We are unlikely to end up with a set of agreements that is significantly better for us than what we would have had anyway as a member of the EU. And none of this is a substitute for the one relationship that we MUST get right, which is with the EU.
If the USA and the EU do eventually sort out TTIP, we probably would want to be a part of it. Multilateral is much better than bilateral if you can get it. Which is a big part of the problem with Brexit.