I'm curious to what extent you think your final analysis would apply if Corbyn won only very narrowly. That would be "progress" from just a year ago (ho-ho) and might incentivise those "fighting for the party they love" to dig in rather than quit, might it not?
Yes, it probably would, and you're right that for those opposed to the Momentum project, a narrow Corbyn win would persuade quite a few to keep battling on in the prospect of pulling things round - though it would also embolden the Corbyn supporters and flag up the threat to their position so there'd probably be an increase in the intensity of their own actions too.
The net result would be trench warfare for months (at least), followed by victory and a purge / voluntary exile one way or the other.
Mr. Alex, a 50% quota for women, but not men, in the name of equality is drunken madness.
It was a joke MD, not a comment on the policy! Of course one could also point out that it is not really "equality" anyway, since the reality is that it is not 2 from 4, but 2 from 3, since the leader is pre-determined. It would mean that a male leader and a female leader would be choosing from different talent pools.
I simply have this difficulty accepting people unprecedentedly attack someone out of fear of their success and not because they think they are a disaster. I suppose the two can be similar if the fear is if succcessful he woukd be a disaster.
Corbyn is not entirely without appeal, I've said before if the Tories have a poor leader and the country is not doing great in 2020, he might even have had a shot. Not a great one, but a shot. But when even very poor leaders seem to have done better than him, I struggle to see the answer s being peope were afraid of how great he woukd be rather than that he is as bad as others think.
The fear of sucess under Corbyn comes from his opponents (I wouldn't label them all as Blairites, but some would appear to be equally at home if sitting on the Tory benches) who would find it anathema to be in a Party in government led by someone with Corbyns more left wing views.
If Corbyn wins where does that leave Labour moderates? They will then have played every card they have
They haven't really played every card.
They're planning to challenge him again in 2017 & possibly 2018.
That will be too late.
Firstly, the profile of the party is changing, with former members leaving and new ones joining, both of which are shifts in Corbyn's favour.
Following on from that, as the party membership shifts, so it's likely will control of the NEC, big conference votes and CLPs. That will be crucial for rule changes and (de-)selections.
Also, can Labour moderates really afford another year or two like this last one, and then however long it takes to sort out the mess? Even if the were to wrest back control, what would they be taking control of?
We might well be looking at just a matter of months, though the 'one more chance' principle is always a temptation to those faced with two bad options and the chance to delay. Even so, the choice may well become stark quite quickly.
What would Corbyn/Momentum have to do to take control of the NEC?
To actually take control they need guaranteed support from more than Unite on the union side. At the moment they have some sympathy, but no more. I sense that a lot will depend on how this leadership campaign is fought and on how Corbyn's winning majority is constructed. If he wins as a result of full member votes, as well as those that have paid the £25, he will be in a far stronger position than if he just wins on the back of the £25ers. The problem that Corbyn's opponents have is that the unions are now dominated by the hard left because so few union members take part in their internal elections.
If you were going to build a party of the centre left from scratch, you would not build it as the Labour party is built. Its structure reflects a world that no longer exists. A split makes sense logically, until you look at the voting system. Then it only makes sense if, like the Corbynistas, you do not see Labour primarily as a Parliamentary party.
*This* is the core of it. You are absolutely right. Corbyn's greatest failing is his ultramontanism. He's not radical he's a paleoconservative. Britain's Left architecture is utterly, utterly divorced from what it would look like if you were setting it up rationally from scratch. But the entire Corbyn project is a necropolis cult ( like the vast majority of Brexiters. ). It's not radical it's about a religious form of cultural grief focusing on cult activity around the redundant symbols.
An extremely good and concise post. But what can be done about it?
The fear of sucess under Corbyn comes from his opponents (I wouldn't label them all as Blairites, but some would appear to be equally at home if sitting on the Tory benches) who would find it anathema to be in a Party in government led by someone with Corbyns more left wing views.
One of the accusations at his opponents is they would sacrifice principle in order to win, but you are saying they woukd not be willing to sacrifice their principle to win under Corbyn? It's more respectful than either side is to each other, but it still seems more probable they fear they cannot win under him, and after they thought that but tried anyway with ed m, now they just wo t try at all.
This is just to make Owen Smith look bad? Corbyn is not mad he's bad
@grvlx001: Corbyn will elaborate his plan to scrap tax relief scheme for drugs research by pharma companies - McDonnell #r4today
and kill a leading British industry? Imagine you're a pharma executive hearing this today. That the opposing party that could possibly win power (and if you're based abroad you might not know of their political crapness so assime they actually have a chance) wants to make it harder to do research in Britain.
This sadest part is France is most likely to get the investment instead.
Many of his ideas do now resonate in the county more than in parliament. Especially spending billions on trident. Any fair minded person would agree it deserves another look and a fair minded debate. However the debate is used for political advantage by all sides, rather than what is best for our defense in this century not the last. Also it seems his argument or rather John Mcdonell`s about debt and deficit, has become main stream. Without his input the PLP would be agonising about how to follow George Osborne and be getting into surplus by 2020. Liz Kendall on this week looked embarrassed, when the SNP spokesman said the PLP undermined him constantly from day 1.
I simply have this difficulty accepting people unprecedentedly attack someone out of fear of their success and not because they think they are a disaster. I suppose the two can be similar if the fear is if succcessful he woukd be a disaster.
Corbyn is not entirely without appeal, I've said before if the Tories have a poor leader and the country is not doing great in 2020, he might even have had a shot. Not a great one, but a shot. But when even very poor leaders seem to have done better than him, I struggle to see the answer s being peope were afraid of how great he woukd be rather than that he is as bad as others think.
The fear of sucess under Corbyn comes from his opponents (I wouldn't label them all as Blairites, but some would appear to be equally at home if sitting on the Tory benches) who would find it anathema to be in a Party in government led by someone with Corbyns more left wing views.
Sorry, still trying to get the hang of this formatting. My previous reply was hidden
What would Corbyn/Momentum have to do to take control of the NEC?
To actually take control they need guaranteed support from more than Unite on the union side. At the moment they have some sympathy, but no more. I sense that a lot will depend on how this leadership campaign is fought and on how Corbyn's winning majority is constructed. If he wins as a result of full member votes, as well as those that have paid the £25, he will be in a far stronger position than if he just wins on the back of the £25ers. The problem that Corbyn's opponents have is that the unions are now dominated by the hard left because so few union members take part in their internal elections.
If you were going to build a party of the centre left from scratch, you would not build it as the Labour party is built. Its structure reflects a world that no longer exists. A split makes sense logically, until you look at the voting system. Then it only makes sense if, like the Corbynistas, you do not see Labour primarily as a Parliamentary party.
At worst a landslide defeat in 2020 would see Corbyn go. The hard left would then be excluded from the subsequent leadership election as they could and should have been in 2015. The moderates would then have the leadership back but that would not do anything about the hard left character of the membership.
Your second point is absolutely right; I'm less convinced by the first.
Suppose matters do drag on to 2020 with Corbyn in charge and suppose - not unreasonably in those circumstances - Labour does very badly, winning 150 seats on new boundaries (which is roughly what the Conservatives ended up with in 1997/2001, in a larger parliament). With no MEPs by then, the nominating threshold - assuming no rule changes - would be 23 MPs. The Momentum Group, if we can call it that, should be able to muster that kind of total given that there will be open seats due to MPs retiring due to age, and selections on new boundaries and with the changed membership.
Corbyn can't dictate the NEC's make-up. There are seats reserved for different parts of the party, the unions and affiliates. Over time, he could get a firm grip on it, but he may well not. Unite, for example is fully on board, but it is less clear that the other unions are.
Again, once Corbyn consolidates his position the picture will change, those wavering affiliates will look at the victory and get back on board.
I'm a problem solver, which is why I'm a fairly good analyst. I see no way to resolve Labour's membership and Labour's voters. The current cohabitation must end with one side as a winner and the other as a loser, the solution must therefore be for the losing side to take up the mantle of the centre left (or hard left if Corbyn loses) outside of the Labour structure.
The middle way doesn't seem to exist here as there is no candidate who can carry the party and the members.
Luckily Corbyn is not forever nothing ever is, it just feels like it at the time. The Labour movement is bigger than just one man. You would have been saying the same if you had lived in 1931, nobody then could foresee. 1945.
Only PR for GE will destroy the Conservatives and Labour, and in my opinion it would be a good thing , but its not going to happen.
Many of his ideas do now resonate in the county more than in parliament. Especially spending billions on trident. Any fair minded person would agree it deserves another look and a fair minded debate. However the debate is used for political advantage by all sides, rather than what is best for our defense in this century not the last. Also it seems his argument or rather John Mcdonell`s about debt and deficit, has become main stream. Without his input the PLP would be agonising about how to follow George Osborne and be getting into surplus by 2020. Liz Kendall on this week looked embarrassed, when the SNP spokesman said the PLP undermined him constantly from day 1.
Just because the debate on trident was political does not mean it was not also debated fairly. I happen to not be a fan of trident, but the issue has been debated many many times and a decision needed to be made, asking more time to debate it more was nothing more than the equivalent of nimby 'needs more consultation' arguments. Pointless delaying which would also have been political.
When the Mighty Leader takes supreme power, we will not need grubby private companies to extort money from the sick. The drugs needed will grow on the Pharma trees planted amongst the Magic Money trees. Have faith, has not the Jessiah (thanks, Mr Dancer) already announced it?
When the Mighty Leader takes supreme power, we will not need grubby private companies to extort money from the sick. The drugs needed will grow on the Pharma trees planted amongst the Magic Money trees. Have faith, has not the Jessiah (thanks, Mr Dancer) already announced it?
I can't help being struck by the ironic parallels between the current war going on inside Labour and the Trident vote last week.
The majority of Labour MP's voted in favour of keeping a nuclear deterrent,claiming that it made nuclear war less likely because nobody would be mad enough to press the button first because it would result in MAD (Mutally Assurred Destruction)
Many of those same MP's have set the Party on a course to destroy itself by pushing the nuclear button of mass resignations, a no confidence vote and a leadership challenge. It is a war that neither side can win.
The moral of all this is that it is ok to argue that neither side will use the nuclear option, because of MAD. However that argument falls flat on it's face if one side is so determined to achieve their aims at any cost and the other side feels that ideologically they have right on their side.
That misunderstands either the nuclear deterrent or Labour's current position. The deterrent works because countries have a second-strike capability: the capacity to withstand an all-out assault (militarily) and deliver a response. In other words, no matter what an enemy might do, they'd still be annihilated.
Labour is almost in the opposite position, with both sides having *no* second strike capacity - which is a profoundly destabilising situation, encouraging both to launch before the other side does.
Corbyn can't dictate the NEC's make-up. There are seats reserved for different parts of the party, the unions and affiliates. Over time, he could get a firm grip on it, but he may well not. Unite, for example is fully on board, but it is less clear that the other unions are.
Again, once Corbyn consolidates his position the picture will change, those wavering affiliates will look at the victory and get back on board.
I'm a problem solver, which is why I'm a fairly good analyst. I see no way to resolve Labour's membership and Labour's voters. The current cohabitation must end with one side as a winner and the other as a loser, the solution must therefore be for the losing side to take up the mantle of the centre left (or hard left if Corbyn loses) outside of the Labour structure.
The middle way doesn't seem to exist here as there is no candidate who can carry the party and the members.
Luckily Corbyn is not forever nothing ever is, it just feels like it at the time. The Labour movement is bigger than just one man. You would have been saying the same if you had lived in 1931, nobody then could foresee. 1945.
Only PR for GE will destroy the Conservatives and Labour, and in my opinion it would be a good thing , but its not going to happen.
Like Labour and Scotland.
There is no SNP equivalent in England. UKIP are making a go of it, but aren't there yet, and may never be as inscotland in the absence of labour only the SNP were strong. In England the Tories cannot win in many places but they're still better than SCon and Sld were.
When the Mighty Leader takes supreme power, we will not need grubby private companies to extort money from the sick. The drugs needed will grow on the Pharma trees planted amongst the Magic Money trees. Have faith, has not the Jessiah (thanks, Mr Dancer) already announced it?
JC is the way, the truth and the light.
He seems to have a bit of an inconsistent approach to how Labour party policy should be determined.
Mr. Eagles, capitalist medicines aren't needed. The purifying fires of socialism will burn away the pestilence unleashed by corporate greed!
Locusts? Did she say anything about plagues of locusts Mr Morris? Ever since the Brexit vote I have been rather concerned you see as Mrs Moses has been dreadfully worried about her runner beans and radishes n'all.
I can't help being struck by the ironic parallels between the current war going on inside Labour and the Trident vote last week.
The majority of Labour MP's voted in favour of keeping a nuclear deterrent,claiming that it made nuclear war less likely because nobody would be mad enough to press the button first because it would result in MAD (Mutally Assurred Destruction)
Many of those same MP's have set the Party on a course to destroy itself by pushing the nuclear button of mass resignations, a no confidence vote and a leadership challenge. It is a war that neither side can win.
The moral of all this is that it is ok to argue that neither side will use the nuclear option, because of MAD. However that argument falls flat on it's face if one side is so determined to achieve their aims at any cost and the other side feels that ideologically they have right on their side.
That misunderstands either the nuclear deterrent or Labour's current position. The deterrent works because countries have a second-strike capability: the capacity to withstand an all-out assault (militarily) and deliver a response. In other words, no matter what an enemy might do, they'd still be annihilated.
Labour is almost in the opposite position, with both sides having *no* second strike capacity - which is a profoundly destabilising situation, encouraging both to launch before the other side does.
Isn't Corbyn's refusal to stand down when faced with a no confidence vote of 172 of his own MP's a second strike capacity of a sort? After all, it's his refusal to budge which has led to this leadership election and what many regard as inevitable armageddon for the Labour Party
Corbyn can't dictate the NEC's make-up. There are seats reserved for different parts of the party, the unions and affiliates. Over time, he could get a firm grip on it, but he may well not. Unite, for example is fully on board, but it is less clear that the other unions are.
Again, once Corbyn consolidates his position the picture will change, those wavering affiliates will look at the victory and get back on board.
I'm a problem solver, which is why I'm a fairly good analyst. I see no way to resolve Labour's membership and Labour's voters. The current cohabitation must end with one side as a winner and the other as a loser, the solution must therefore be for the losing side to take up the mantle of the centre left (or hard left if Corbyn loses) outside of the Labour structure.
The middle way doesn't seem to exist here as there is no candidate who can carry the party and the members.
That's exactly how I see it, with the addition that I don't think a cohabitation situation - where the victorious side tolerates the continued presence of the losing one - is sustainable.
One aspect of that is that rule changes will be needed either way. For Corbyn, he needs to amend the selection processes and the leadership nomination rules; those against him also need to amend the leadership rules but in their case, to rid themselves of the supporters.
Corbyn can't dictate the NEC's make-up. There are seats reserved for different parts of the party, the unions and affiliates. Over time, he could get a firm grip on it, but he may well not. Unite, for example is fully on board, but it is less clear that the other unions are.
Again, once Corbyn consolidates his position the picture will change, those wavering affiliates will look at the victory and get back on board.
I'm a problem solver, which is why I'm a fairly good analyst. I see no way to resolve Labour's membership and Labour's voters. The current cohabitation must end with one side as a winner and the other as a loser, the solution must therefore be for the losing side to take up the mantle of the centre left (or hard left if Corbyn loses) outside of the Labour structure.
The middle way doesn't seem to exist here as there is no candidate who can carry the party and the members.
Luckily Corbyn is not forever nothing ever is, it just feels like it at the time. The Labour movement is bigger than just one man. You would have been saying the same if you had lived in 1931, nobody then could foresee. 1945.
Only PR for GE will destroy the Conservatives and Labour, and in my opinion it would be a good thing , but its not going to happen.
1945 only happened because of Lloyd George's prostate.
The authorities are now at the stage of not being honest with the public.
That has been common here for a while ( years even) where for example ethnicity has not been mentioned in events that are shall we say are sensitive. "We are looking for some men" doesn't quite cut it to ensure rapid capture.
I see one at least calls him a hypocrite and a liar. Amazing he'll probably stick around too, but there you go. I mean, I get sticking in a party that is emotionally dear to you even if the leader is anathema to you, but when the members repeatedly back that same leader, how can you pretend it is still the place for you? We shall find out.
Corbyn can't dictate the NEC's make-up. There are seats reserved for different parts of the party, the unions and affiliates. Over time, he could get a firm grip on it, but he may well not. Unite, for example is fully on board, but it is less clear that the other unions are.
Again, once Corbyn consolidates his position the picture will change, those wavering affiliates will look at the victory and get back on board.
I'm a problem solver, which is why I'm a fairly good analyst. I see no way to resolve Labour's membership and Labour's voters. The current cohabitation must end with one side as a winner and the other as a loser, the solution must therefore be for the losing side to take up the mantle of the centre left (or hard left if Corbyn loses) outside of the Labour structure.
The middle way doesn't seem to exist here as there is no candidate who can carry the party and the members.
That's exactly how I see it, with the addition that I don't think a cohabitation situation - where the victorious side tolerates the continued presence of the losing one - is sustainable.
One aspect of that is that rule changes will be needed either way. For Corbyn, he needs to amend the selection processes and the leadership nomination rules; those against him also need to amend the leadership rules but in their case, to rid themselves of the supporters.
The Labour brand is so strong that it can withstand an unbelievable amount of abuse. Look at both the local election and bye-election results. Sure, they're not showing gains for Labour. But they're not cataclysmic either---Labour are not losing support.
There is no appetite for another political party. UKIP illustrate the point. Even after a fierce and frightening campaign by the entire establishment, and the black swan event of Jo Cox's assination, 52% voted for UKIP's only policy. Without all that, Brexit would likely have won 65-35. And yet UKIP struggle to win 20% in parliamentary elections.
I see one at least calls him a hypocrite and a liar. Amazing he'll probably stick around too, but there you go. I mean, I get sticking in a party that is emotionally dear to you even if the leader is anathema to you, but when the members repeatedly back that same leader, how can you pretend it is still the place for you? We shall find out.
But they're not (necessarily) the 'members' are they? That is the nub of the whole problem for Labour. They can't decide what it means to be a member. And many are not members of the Labour Party but members of the Corbyn party.
Stupid strategy, probably comes from McDonnell, he has a nasty vindictive streak in him. Corbyn does not need to come up with new policies to win this. Anything he comes up with will be used against him. He has a massive advantage in support at the moment.
No point in going all out for goals if you are 2-0 up, if you leave your defence exposed and risk letting the other team back into the game.
The authorities are now at the stage of not being honest with the public.
That has been common here for a while ( years even) where for example ethnicity has not been mentioned in events that are shall we say are sensitive. "We are looking for some men" doesn't quite cut it to ensure rapid capture.
We all recognise the "code" now...when it is some men or something similarly vague it is 99% certain what they mean.
First, I thought Corbyn wanted to take us back to the 60s with nationalisation. Then I thought he wanted to take us back to the 19th century with his tacit approval of misogyny and sexism. Now it appears he wants to take us back to pre-Enlightenment days with his views on private sector medical research.
He's the anti-terminator. He's been sent by the past to destroy the Labour party of the present.
Corbyn can't dictate the NEC's make-up. There are seats reserved for different parts of the party, the unions and affiliates. Over time, he could get a firm grip on it, but he may well not. Unite, for example is fully on board, but it is less clear that the other unions are.
Again, once Corbyn consolidates his position the picture will change, those wavering affiliates will look at the victory and get back on board.
I'm a problem solver, which is why I'm a fairly good analyst. I see no way to resolve Labour's membership and Labour's voters. The current cohabitation must end with one side as a winner and the other as a loser, the solution must therefore be for the losing side to take up the mantle of the centre left (or hard left if Corbyn loses) outside of the Labour structure.
The middle way doesn't seem to exist here as there is no candidate who can carry the party and the members.
That's exactly how I see it, with the addition that I don't think a cohabitation situation - where the victorious side tolerates the continued presence of the losing one - is sustainable.
One aspect of that is that rule changes will be needed either way. For Corbyn, he needs to amend the selection processes and the leadership nomination rules; those against him also need to amend the leadership rules but in their case, to rid themselves of the supporters.
The Labour brand is so strong that it can withstand an unbelievable amount of abuse. Look at both the local election and bye-election results. Sure, they're not showing gains for Labour. But they're not cataclysmic either---Labour are not losing support.
There is no appetite for another political party. UKIP illustrate the point. Even after a fierce and frightening campaign by the entire establishment, and the black swan event of Jo Cox's assination, 52% voted for UKIP's only policy. Without all that, Brexit would likely have won 65-35. And yet UKIP struggle to win 20% in parliamentary elections.
Yes, but every past general election has had two parties actually trying to win.
It's going to take a General Election wipe-out to convince these legions of naive Corbyn kiddies that they're not going to sweep gloriously to power. Anything else (coup, split) will leave them feeling robbed, and provide them with someone to deflect the blame onto.
At which point, they will become disillusioned and fall away. Then the Labour Party will finally have a chance to begin to rebuild itself.
That's a very good article, David. Very many thanks. I am so grateful to all PBers who can achieve dispassionate appraisals of events 'in another camp'.
It's going to take a General Election wipe-out to convince these legions of naive Corbyn kiddies that they're not going to sweep gloriously to power. Anything else (coup, split) will leave them feeling robbed, and provide them with someone to deflect the blame onto.
At which point, they will become disillusioned and fall away. Then the Labour Party will finally have a chance to begin to rebuild itself.
Problem is that if it takes until 2020 for a GE , the labour party might have been taken over by the nutters. For the goodnfnthe country we need a functioning sensible opposition, the worry is we might end up with permanent loony opposition instead.
I see one at least calls him a hypocrite and a liar. Amazing he'll probably stick around too, but there you go. I mean, I get sticking in a party that is emotionally dear to you even if the leader is anathema to you, but when the members repeatedly back that same leader, how can you pretend it is still the place for you? We shall find out.
But they're not (necessarily) the 'members' are they? That is the nub of the whole problem for Labour. They can't decide what it means to be a member. And many are not members of the Labour Party but members of the Corbyn party.
Well at present they are formally members of the Labour Party and likely to remain so for some while, so the distinction is pretty irrelevant if they keep getting their man or someone just like him in place - I suspect only after a GE defeat might the rest of the members who, let's not forget, also backed Corbyn, change their minds, and that's another hope that means MPs will be going nowhere.
Morning. The UK tourist industry should have a good summer, which will help both GDP and Balance of Payments figures.
Additionally given the weak pound British people will be taking fewer oversees holidays. Could be worth £4-6bn to the UK economy.
Alternatively people will do what it takes to still go abroad for their holiday and cut back on other things.
Given the option of giving up your annual holiday in the sun for a likely rain-sodden British holiday "resort" or delaying getting the new sofa you were going to get, I know which I would opt for.
UK is fine for a short break but the most miserable holidays I have ever spent have been in the UK and I won't be repeating the experience voluntarily time soon.
I was always of the opinion that Corbyn's victory last year would be good for Labour in the long term, as they were clearly unelectable and need Corbyn to destroy the party so that something else could rise, phoenix like, from the ashes. I think the party is well on the way the way down the destruction path but the phoenix has had a think and prefers the ashes.
Corbyn can't dictate the NEC's make-up. There are seats reserved for different parts of the party, the unions and affiliates. Over time, he could get a firm grip on it, but he may well not. Unite, for example is fully on board, but it is less clear that the other unions are.
Again, once Corbyn consolidates his position the picture will change, those wavering affiliates will look at the victory and get back on board.
I'm a problem solver, which is why I'm a fairly good analyst. I see no way to resolve Labour's membership and Labour's voters. The current cohabitation must end with one side as a winner and the other as a loser, the solution must therefore be for the losing side to take up the mantle of the centre left (or hard left if Corbyn loses) outside of the Labour structure.
The middle way doesn't seem to exist here as there is no candidate who can carry the party and the members.
That's exactly how I see it, with the addition that I don't think a cohabitation situation - where the victorious side tolerates the continued presence of the losing one - is sustainable.
One aspect of that is that rule changes will be needed either way. For Corbyn, he needs to amend the selection processes and the leadership nomination rules; those against him also need to amend the leadership rules but in their case, to rid themselves of the supporters.
The Labour brand is so strong that it can withstand an unbelievable amount of abuse. Look at both the local election and bye-election results. Sure, they're not showing gains for Labour. But they're not cataclysmic either---Labour are not losing support.
There is no appetite for another political party. UKIP illustrate the point. Even after a fierce and frightening campaign by the entire establishment, and the black swan event of Jo Cox's assination, 52% voted for UKIP's only policy. Without all that, Brexit would likely have won 65-35. And yet UKIP struggle to win 20% in parliamentary elections.
Yes, but every past general election has had two parties actually trying to win.
So will the next one - a thread the other day showed figures that Labour members think they will win under Corbyn - a slender majority of them, to be sure, but they think they will win, and the rest will probably still try to make it happen.
The theory of masive boom for UK tourist industry is a little flawed. Firstly holidaying in UK is incredibly expensive & the weather always unpredictable.
They had Simon Calder (travel bod) on the radio a couple of weeks talking about this & he said even when we got basically parity of pound / euro a few years ago there wasn't a significant change in holiday trends.
First, I thought Corbyn wanted to take us back to the 60s with nationalisation. Then I thought he wanted to take us back to the 19th century with his tacit approval of misogyny and sexism. Now it appears he wants to take us back to pre-Enlightenment days with his views on private sector medical research.
He's the anti-terminator. He's been sent by the past to destroy the Labour party of the present.
I was just looking at on old Red Dwarf episode, what is it about this segment that brings to mind a meeting of the Shadow Cabinet ? www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WgUktfdDy4
It's going to take a General Election wipe-out to convince these legions of naive Corbyn kiddies that they're not going to sweep gloriously to power. Anything else (coup, split) will leave them feeling robbed, and provide them with someone to deflect the blame onto.
At which point, they will become disillusioned and fall away. Then the Labour Party will finally have a chance to begin to rebuild itself.
You overestimate Labour's membership.
Remember it was their inability to accept the result of the last General Election that lead to Corbyn in the first place.
Corbyn can't dictate the NEC's make-up. There are seats reserved for different parts of the party, the unions and affiliates. Over time, he could get a firm grip on it, but he may well not. Unite, for example is fully on board, but it is less clear that the other unions are.
Again, once Corbyn consolidates his position the picture will change, those wavering affiliates will look at the victory and get back on board.
I'm a problem solver, which is why I'm a fairly good analyst. I see no way to resolve Labour's membership and Labour's voters. The current cohabitation must end with one side as a winner and the other as a loser, the solution must therefore be for the losing side to take up the mantle of the centre left (or hard left if Corbyn loses) outside of the Labour structure.
The middle way doesn't seem to exist here as there is no candidate who can carry the party and the members.
That's exactly how I see it, with the addition that I don't think a cohabitation situation - where the victorious side tolerates the continued presence of the losing one - is sustainable.
One aspect of that is that rule changes will be needed either way. For Corbyn, he needs to amend the selection processes and the leadership nomination rules; those against him also need to amend the leadership rules but in their case, to rid themselves of the supporters.
Corbyn needs support to change the rules. This new pharma wheeze designed to discomfit Smith would - if ever enacted - have the practical effect of putting a lot of Unite members out of work. That's two places now where Corbyn policies woul cost Unite members their jobs. McCluskey needs the hard left on his side to stay in place, but only because most Unite members do not vote in union elections. But if Corbyn continues to advocate policies that are directly against their interests Unite members may just notice their leader is supporting him.
There are many moving parts in the Labour party and to get them all working together is a tough job. A lot of rebel MPs will conclude that Corbyn cannot last forever and that while he is in power there will be enough checks and balances there to keep him from seizing complete control. A split under FPTP remains the bigger risk.
It's going to take a General Election wipe-out to convince these legions of naive Corbyn kiddies that they're not going to sweep gloriously to power. Anything else (coup, split) will leave them feeling robbed, and provide them with someone to deflect the blame onto.
At which point, they will become disillusioned and fall away. Then the Labour Party will finally have a chance to begin to rebuild itself.
Problem is that if it takes until 2020 for a GE , the labour party might have been taken over by the nutters. For the goodnfnthe country we need a functioning sensible opposition, the worry is we might end up with permanent loony opposition instead.
Sensible moderate-left voters will still need somewhere to go though. Something, be it SDP2, LibDems, or a restored Labour, will fill that ecological niche.
But you're right that we're probably talking about after GE2020, and until then, it's the loonies.
The fact they thought they needed a vow like that suggests they thought they were losing.
They knew they were losing for some time. Hence David Cameron's impromptu lectern address in 10 Downing Street.
I can't recall where I saw it, but they were very worried by people like me (as they put it 'middle aged people with no skin in the game'). That worry was likely misplaced; none of us anticipated how many DNVers would put down their philosophy books, cancel their fine art classes and poetry readings in order to vote.
It's going to take a General Election wipe-out to convince these legions of naive Corbyn kiddies that they're not going to sweep gloriously to power. Anything else (coup, split) will leave them feeling robbed, and provide them with someone to deflect the blame onto.
At which point, they will become disillusioned and fall away. Then the Labour Party will finally have a chance to begin to rebuild itself.
You overestimate Labour's membership.
Remember it was their inability to accept the result of the last General Election that lead to Corbyn in the first place.
They are absolutely convinced they're going to win. No amount of telling them will convince them otherwise. Only actually getting defeated, heavily, will prove it to them.
I think at that point, enough of the newbie, wet behind the ears Momentum types will fall away, such that sensible people will be able to take the reins again.
I do love the rhythm of an English summer. Henley, Ascot and Wimbledon. Then the annual Labour leadership contest. This year the result is already in. Jezza won by a landslide. His supporters are rejoicing. DUCE -they cry. Don't Unseat Corbyn Early. So, as Summer turns to Autumn and children return to school think of the delights that the new season will bring us on PB. 172 by elections, daily leaks to the Guardian of the incompetence of Jezza and the bullying by his coterie. Len Mc Luskey producing evidence of MI5 influence. What a joy for those days of falling leaves and bonfires. Politics has never been such fun.
The fact they thought they needed a vow like that suggests they thought they were losing.
They knew they were losing for some time. Hence David Cameron's impromptu lectern address in 10 Downing Street.
I can't recall where I saw it, but they were very worried by people like me (as they put it 'middle aged people with no skin in the game'). That worry was likely misplaced; none of us anticipated how many DNVers would put down their philosophy books, cancel their fine art classes and poetry readings in order to vote.
Good pont. I think that was pointed out at the time on here.
It I'll take two elections to get near Corbyn. The first defeat, as posters have already pointed out, will be blamed on disloyalty within the party the second... Might make people more aware of the hopelessness so it will be the third that may? see Labour any where near a majority now. 2030??
In the interim the only way they will get Jez out of that office will be like this.........
It's going to take a General Election wipe-out to convince these legions of naive Corbyn kiddies that they're not going to sweep gloriously to power. Anything else (coup, split) will leave them feeling robbed, and provide them with someone to deflect the blame onto.
At which point, they will become disillusioned and fall away. Then the Labour Party will finally have a chance to begin to rebuild itself.
You overestimate Labour's membership.
Remember it was their inability to accept the result of the last General Election that lead to Corbyn in the first place.
They are absolutely convinced they're going to win. No amount of telling them will convince them otherwise. Only actually getting defeated, heavily, will prove it to them.
I think at that point, enough of the newbie, wet behind the ears Momentum types will fall away, such that sensible people will be able to take the reins again.
Not even sure that works if there is a credible excuse that can be pointed at. It will just be another "one more heave comrades!" because the MPs were disloyal, or the NEC were playing silly buggers, or the sky was the wrong shade of blue!
The only way this works is if everyone plays ball with the Jessiah with at least moderate (if synthetic) enthusiasm, let him do it his way in every respect, so that he has to completely own the defeat when it comes.
The fact they thought they needed a vow like that suggests they thought they were losing.
They knew they were losing for some time. Hence David Cameron's impromptu lectern address in 10 Downing Street.
For most of that statement we were all anticipating a resignation announcement. In the end the odd timing meant it didn't even get much coverage on the news so it had no effect.
I wonder if he'd resigned in advance of the vote it would have been enough to swing the vote? We could by now have had new PM Theresa May enjoying a honeymoon with none of the foreboding Brexit negotiations to deal with.
The theory of masive boom for UK tourist industry is a little flawed. Firstly holidaying in UK is incredibly expensive & the weather always unpredictable.
They had Simon Calder (travel bod) on the radio a couple of weeks talking about this & he said even when we got basically parity of pound / euro a few years ago there wasn't a significant change in holiday trends.
Surely its the USD exchange rate that will drive UK tourism?
Both USA citizens to the UK, and UK citizens staying home rather than going to Florida.
It's going to take a General Election wipe-out to convince these legions of naive Corbyn kiddies that they're not going to sweep gloriously to power. Anything else (coup, split) will leave them feeling robbed, and provide them with someone to deflect the blame onto.
At which point, they will become disillusioned and fall away. Then the Labour Party will finally have a chance to begin to rebuild itself.
You overestimate Labour's membership.
Remember it was their inability to accept the result of the last General Election that lead to Corbyn in the first place.
They are absolutely convinced they're going to win. No amount of telling them will convince them otherwise. Only actually getting defeated, heavily, will prove it to them.
I think at that point, enough of the newbie, wet behind the ears Momentum types will fall away, such that sensible people will be able to take the reins again.
Not even sure that works if there is a credible excuse that can be pointed at. It will just be another "one more heave comrades!" because the MPs were disloyal, or the NEC were playing silly buggers, or the sky was the wrong shade of blue!
The only way this works is if everyone plays ball with the Jessiah with at least moderate (if synthetic) enthusiasm, let him do it his way in every respect, so that he has to completely own the defeat when it comes.
Once you have bought into the essential lie that the electorate is both ignorant and gullible, you are home free. You never have to introspect, never have to learn. The other side lied, therefore you lost. If only the sheeple would open their eyes! If only the MPs had been even more full-throated in their support. If only the Tory press hadn't vilified St Jezz. And so on and so forth.
I'd assert that we've lost our ability to deal with, or even comprehend, fanaticism in all its guises. How do you argue with or persuade people who are not only irrational, but proud of it?
I was just looking at on old Red Dwarf episode, what is it about this segment that brings to mind a meeting of the Shadow Cabinet ? www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WgUktfdDy4
It's going to take a General Election wipe-out to convince these legions of naive Corbyn kiddies that they're not going to sweep gloriously to power. Anything else (coup, split) will leave them feeling robbed, and provide them with someone to deflect the blame onto.
At which point, they will become disillusioned and fall away. Then the Labour Party will finally have a chance to begin to rebuild itself.
You overestimate Labour's membership.
Remember it was their inability to accept the result of the last General Election that lead to Corbyn in the first place.
They are absolutely convinced they're going to win. No amount of telling them will convince them otherwise. Only actually getting defeated, heavily, will prove it to them.
I think at that point, enough of the newbie, wet behind the ears Momentum types will fall away, such that sensible people will be able to take the reins again.
Not even sure that works if there is a credible excuse that can be pointed at. It will just be another "one more heave comrades!" because the MPs were disloyal, or the NEC were playing silly buggers, or the sky was the wrong shade of blue!
The only way this works is if everyone plays ball with the Jessiah with at least moderate (if synthetic) enthusiasm, let him do it his way in every respect, so that he has to completely own the defeat when it comes.
Once you have bought into the essential lie that the electorate is both ignorant and gullible, you are home free. You never have to introspect, never have to learn. The other side lied, therefore you lost. If only the sheeple would open their eyes! If only the MPs had been even more full-throated in their support. If only the Tory press hadn't vilified St Jezz. And so on and so forth.
I'd assert that we've lost our ability to deal with, or even comprehend, fanaticism in all its guises. How do you argue with or persuade people who are not only irrational, but proud of it?
The theory of masive boom for UK tourist industry is a little flawed. Firstly holidaying in UK is incredibly expensive & the weather always unpredictable.
They had Simon Calder (travel bod) on the radio a couple of weeks talking about this & he said even when we got basically parity of pound / euro a few years ago there wasn't a significant change in holiday trends.
Surely its the USD exchange rate that will drive UK tourism?
Both USA citizens to the UK, and UK citizens staying home rather than going to Florida.
Calder said that again when £/$ was bad, Brits didn't really change their holiday plans. As for foreigners coming to UK, I can see that, as usually it is very very expensive for them.
The authorities are now at the stage of not being honest with the public.
The print edition of the Telegraph (from 9pm yesterday?) has reports of the shooter shouting "f'ing foreigners" and "I'm German", while the current details is of an iranian immigrant to Germany.
Corbyn can't dictate the NEC's make-up. There are seats reserved for different parts of the party, the unions and affiliates. Over time, he could get a firm grip on it, but he may well not. Unite, for example is fully on board, but it is less clear that the other unions are.
Again, once Corbyn consolidates his position the picture will change, those wavering affiliates will look at the victory and get back on board.
I'm a problem solver, which is why I'm a fairly good analyst. I see no way to resolve Labour's membership and Labour's voters. The current cohabitation must end with one side as a winner and the other as a loser, the solution must therefore be for the losing side to take up the mantle of the centre left (or hard left if Corbyn loses) outside of the Labour structure.
The middle way doesn't seem to exist here as there is no candidate who can carry the party and the members.
That's exactly how I see it, with the addition that I don't think a cohabitation situation - where the victorious side tolerates the continued presence of the losing one - is sustainable.
One aspect of that is that rule changes will be needed either way. For Corbyn, he needs to amend the selection processes and the leadership nomination rules; those against him also need to amend the leadership rules but in their case, to rid themselves of the supporters.
Corbyn needs support to change the rules. This new pharma wheeze designed to discomfit Smith would - if ever enacted - have the practical effect of putting a lot of Unite members out of work. That's two places now where Corbyn policies woul cost Unite members their jobs. McCluskey needs the hard left on his side to stay in place, but only because most Unite members do not vote in union elections. But if Corbyn continues to advocate policies that are directly against their interests Unite members may just notice their leader is supporting him.
There are many moving parts in the Labour party and to get them all working together is a tough job. A lot of rebel MPs will conclude that Corbyn cannot last forever and that while he is in power there will be enough checks and balances there to keep him from seizing complete control. A split under FPTP remains the bigger risk.
Agreed.
However all any other party has to do is point out Labour are a hairs breadth of being seized again and as such this is a huge risk to the country. They then roll off some of the unbelievable things that have occurred since Jez has taken over combine that with what happened between 97 and 2010.
TBH a split would probably be the least of their problems and might actually be beneficial to allow one side at least a chance at power sometime in the next 50 years......
The authorities are now at the stage of not being honest with the public.
The print edition of the Telegraph (from 9pm yesterday?) has reports of the shooter shouting "f'ing foreigners" and "I'm German", while the current details is of an iranian immigrant to Germany.
I think the context is important. I believe he shouted this because of abuse being directed at him. I believe it is suggested that those arguing with him might be of Turkish descent hence the I'm German / f#king Turks caught on camera.
There are also reports of the god is the greatest pronouncement as he started the killing.
It's going to take a General Election wipe-out to convince these legions of naive Corbyn kiddies that they're not going to sweep gloriously to power. Anything else (coup, split) will leave them feeling robbed, and provide them with someone to deflect the blame onto.
At which point, they will become disillusioned and fall away. Then the Labour Party will finally have a chance to begin to rebuild itself.
You overestimate Labour's membership.
Remember it was their inability to accept the result of the last General Election that lead to Corbyn in the first place.
They are absolutely convinced they're going to win. No amount of telling them will convince them otherwise. Only actually getting defeated, heavily, will prove it to them.
I think at that point, enough of the newbie, wet behind the ears Momentum types will fall away, such that sensible people will be able to take the reins again.
Not even sure that works if there is a credible excuse that can be pointed at. It will just be another "one more heave comrades!" because the MPs were disloyal, or the NEC were playing silly buggers, or the sky was the wrong shade of blue!
The only way this works is if everyone plays ball with the Jessiah with at least moderate (if synthetic) enthusiasm, let him do it his way in every respect, so that he has to completely own the defeat when it comes.
Once you have bought into the essential lie that the electorate is both ignorant and gullible, you are home free. You never have to introspect, never have to learn. The other side lied, therefore you lost. If only the sheeple would open their eyes! If only the MPs had been even more full-throated in their support. If only the Tory press hadn't vilified St Jezz. And so on and so forth.
I'd assert that we've lost our ability to deal with, or even comprehend, fanaticism in all its guises. How do you argue with or persuade people who are not only irrational, but proud of it?
That's a bit of a counsel of despair!
There are moderate left voters who need someone to vote for. There is a niche. Probably still quite a big one. Evolution will provide something to fill it. If Labour can't sort themselves out, someone else will step in.
Corbyn as the anti Terminator sent from the past to destroy the present. Labour as a Pheonix that refuses to Ressurect as it prefer the ashes. There have been some fantastic images offered on this thread ! Bravo !
M15 was also a secret motorway in east London (Sunil territory)
Originally the North Circular between the M11 and A13 was going to be a Motorway, the M15.
However part of it was actually built and opened and signed as M11 between junction 4 and the Redbridge roundabout. However the M11 actually was going to swing west at junction 4 where the road flares and join what is now the A12 . This was never built and part of the stretch of "M11" from junctions 4 to 3 (Redbridge Roundabout) was actually and legally the M15.
Alas when the North circular was built it was downgraded to A road and became part of the A406.
The authorities are now at the stage of not being honest with the public.
The print edition of the Telegraph (from 9pm yesterday?) has reports of the shooter shouting "f'ing foreigners" and "I'm German", while the current details is of an iranian immigrant to Germany.
German media are describing the culprit as 1st generation German/Iranian, and while the authorities are down playing the attack as an isolated incident by an 18 year old, it has also announced that a full Security Council meeting was held at 2am this morning. – Opinion at home is that things do not tally.
Mr. Gin, it was his own damned fault. A proper renegotiation would've gotten an easy Remain win.
Mr. Bedfordshire, imagine working hard, becoming an MI5 spy, looking forward to protecting the nation from terrorism and enemy spies, only to discover you've been lumbered being mean to Labour backbenchers to discredit Jeremy Corbyn.
On Tourism the posts on a modest economic boost are completely correct. However I don't believe Leave voters in Sunderland thought they were voting for more Chinese shoppers buying luxury goods on Oxford St and only being able to afford Blackpool not Benidorm themselves.
I can't help being struck by the ironic parallels between the current war going on inside Labour and the Trident vote last week.
The majority of Labour MP's voted in favour of keeping a nuclear deterrent,claiming that it made nuclear war less likely because nobody would be mad enough to press the button first because it would result in MAD (Mutally Assurred Destruction)
Many of those same MP's have set the Party on a course to destroy itself by pushing the nuclear button of mass resignations, a no confidence vote and a leadership challenge. It is a war that neither side can win.
The moral of all this is that it is ok to argue that neither side will use the nuclear option, because of MAD. However that argument falls flat on it's face if one side is so determined to achieve their aims at any cost and the other side feels that ideologically they have right on their side.
That misunderstands either the nuclear deterrent or Labour's current position. The deterrent works because countries have a second-strike capability: the capacity to withstand an all-out assault (militarily) and deliver a response. In other words, no matter what an enemy might do, they'd still be annihilated.
Labour is almost in the opposite position, with both sides having *no* second strike capacity - which is a profoundly destabilising situation, encouraging both to launch before the other side does.
Isn't Corbyn's refusal to stand down when faced with a no confidence vote of 172 of his own MP's a second strike capacity of a sort? After all, it's his refusal to budge which has led to this leadership election and what many regard as inevitable armageddon for the Labour Party
I'd take the VoNC as a conventional strike rather than a nuclear one; it's politics as normal, if a fairly extreme version. Going nuclear is the attempt to drive out opponents from the party entirely.
On Tourism the posts on a modest economic boost are completely correct. However I don't believe Leave voters in Sunderland thought they were voting for more Chinese shoppers buying luxury goods on Oxford St and only being able to afford Blackpool not Benidorm themselves.
Poor mackems....not only that they have David Moyes as their new manager!
Corbyn can't dictate the NEC's make-up. There are seats reserved for different parts of the party, the unions and affiliates. Over time, he could get a firm grip on it, but he may well not. Unite, for example is fully on board, but it is less clear that the other unions are.
Again, once Corbyn consolidates his position the picture will change, those wavering affiliates will look at the victory and get back on board.
I'm a problem solver, which is why I'm a fairly good analyst. I see no way to resolve Labour's membership and Labour's voters. The current cohabitation must end with one side as a winner and the other as a loser, the solution must therefore be for the losing side to take up the mantle of the centre left (or hard left if Corbyn loses) outside of the Labour structure.
The middle way doesn't seem to exist here as there is no candidate who can carry the party and the members.
That's exactly how I see it, with the addition that I don't think a cohabitation situation - where the victorious side tolerates the continued presence of the losing one - is sustainable.
One aspect of that is that rule changes will be needed either way. For Corbyn, he needs to amend the selection processes and the leadership nomination rules; those against him also need to amend the leadership rules but in their case, to rid themselves of the supporters.
The Labour brand is so strong that it can withstand an unbelievable amount of abuse. Look at both the local election and bye-election results. Sure, they're not showing gains for Labour. But they're not cataclysmic either---Labour are not losing support.
There is no appetite for another political party. UKIP illustrate the point. Even after a fierce and frightening campaign by the entire establishment, and the black swan event of Jo Cox's assination, 52% voted for UKIP's only policy. Without all that, Brexit would likely have won 65-35. And yet UKIP struggle to win 20% in parliamentary elections.
I don't think the Labour brand is all that strong. They've lost places like Scotland, Newcastle, Sheffield, Liverpool and in the Valleys in the last 10 years. True, they've won some of them back but that's because of the weakness of those that took them rather than Labour's strength. It's a party running largely on momentum, though I agree that we shouldn't underestimate how strong that momentum is.
All the same, no party has a divine right to exist.
Corbyn can't dictate the NEC's make-up. There are seats reserved for different parts of the party, the unions and affiliates. Over time, he could get a firm grip on it, but he may well not. Unite, for example is fully on board, but it is less clear that the other unions are.
Again, once Corbyn consolidates his position the picture will change, those wavering affiliates will look at the victory and get back on board.
I'm a problem solver, which is why I'm a fairly good analyst. I see no way to resolve Labour's membership and Labour's voters. The current cohabitation must end with one side as a winner and the other as a loser, the solution must therefore be for the losing side to take up the mantle of the centre left (or hard left if Corbyn loses) outside of the Labour structure.
The middle way doesn't seem to exist here as there is no candidate who can carry the party and the members.
That's exactly how I see it, with the addition that I don't think a cohabitation situation - where the victorious side tolerates the continued presence of the losing one - is sustainable.
One aspect of that is that rule changes will be needed either way. For Corbyn, he needs to amend the selection processes and the leadership nomination rules; those against him also need to amend the leadership rules but in their case, to rid themselves of the supporters.
Corbyn needs support to change the rules. This new pharma wheeze designed to discomfit Smith would - if ever enacted - have the practical effect of putting a lot of Unite members out of work. That's two places now where Corbyn policies woul cost Unite members their jobs. McCluskey needs the hard left on his side to stay in place, but only because most Unite members do not vote in union elections. But if Corbyn continues to advocate policies that are directly against their interests Unite members may just notice their leader is supporting him.
There are many moving parts in the Labour party and to get them all working together is a tough job. A lot of rebel MPs will conclude that Corbyn cannot last forever and that while he is in power there will be enough checks and balances there to keep him from seizing complete control. A split under FPTP remains the bigger risk.
Big Len will continue to back Corbyn despite the current tactical stance on pharmaceutical research because he knows that - as with the EURef - Corbyn can be bullied by the unions into changing his policy (or at least, neutering it), when the chips are down.
I think Labour are resilient in the sense that they can probably rely on 25% of the vote no matter what happens. But that means they'd be down to 150 seats, less than half the number needed to win.
Comments
The net result would be trench warfare for months (at least), followed by victory and a purge / voluntary exile one way or the other.
They're planning to challenge him again in 2017 & possibly 2018.
That will be too late.
Firstly, the profile of the party is changing, with former members leaving and new ones joining, both of which are shifts in Corbyn's favour.
Following on from that, as the party membership shifts, so it's likely will control of the NEC, big conference votes and CLPs. That will be crucial for rule changes and (de-)selections.
Also, can Labour moderates really afford another year or two like this last one, and then however long it takes to sort out the mess? Even if the were to wrest back control, what would they be taking control of?
We might well be looking at just a matter of months, though the 'one more chance' principle is always a temptation to those faced with two bad options and the chance to delay. Even so, the choice may well become stark quite quickly.
This sadest part is France is most likely to get the investment instead.
Many of his ideas do now resonate in the county more than in parliament.
Especially spending billions on trident.
Any fair minded person would agree it deserves another look and a fair minded debate.
However the debate is used for political advantage by all sides, rather than what is best for our defense in this century not the last.
Also it seems his argument or rather John Mcdonell`s about debt and deficit, has become main stream.
Without his input the PLP would be agonising about how to follow George Osborne and be getting into surplus by 2020.
Liz Kendall on this week looked embarrassed, when the SNP spokesman said the PLP undermined him constantly from day 1.
The authorities are now at the stage of not being honest with the public.
Suppose matters do drag on to 2020 with Corbyn in charge and suppose - not unreasonably in those circumstances - Labour does very badly, winning 150 seats on new boundaries (which is roughly what the Conservatives ended up with in 1997/2001, in a larger parliament). With no MEPs by then, the nominating threshold - assuming no rule changes - would be 23 MPs. The Momentum Group, if we can call it that, should be able to muster that kind of total given that there will be open seats due to MPs retiring due to age, and selections on new boundaries and with the changed membership.
"and kill a leading British industry?"
When the Mighty Leader takes supreme power, we will not need grubby private companies to extort money from the sick. The drugs needed will grow on the Pharma trees planted amongst the Magic Money trees. Have faith, has not the Jessiah (thanks, Mr Dancer) already announced it?
In other, better news it looks like the loons at Copenhagen Suborbitals are on target for another launch attempt today.
Labour is almost in the opposite position, with both sides having *no* second strike capacity - which is a profoundly destabilising situation, encouraging both to launch before the other side does.
One aspect of that is that rule changes will be needed either way. For Corbyn, he needs to amend the selection processes and the leadership nomination rules; those against him also need to amend the leadership rules but in their case, to rid themselves of the supporters.
We shall find out.
There is no appetite for another political party. UKIP illustrate the point. Even after a fierce and frightening campaign by the entire establishment, and the black swan event of Jo Cox's assination, 52% voted for UKIP's only policy. Without all that, Brexit would likely have won 65-35. And yet UKIP struggle to win 20% in parliamentary elections.
No point in going all out for goals if you are 2-0 up, if you leave your defence exposed and risk letting the other team back into the game.
Mr. Y0kel, able to say any more?
Must admit, that sort of thing did cross my mind the other day, given what happened with the media earlier in the year.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-36873632
Interesting...
First, I thought Corbyn wanted to take us back to the 60s with nationalisation. Then I thought he wanted to take us back to the 19th century with his tacit approval of misogyny and sexism. Now it appears he wants to take us back to pre-Enlightenment days with his views on private sector medical research.
He's the anti-terminator. He's been sent by the past to destroy the Labour party of the present.
At which point, they will become disillusioned and fall away. Then the Labour Party will finally have a chance to begin to rebuild itself.
And good morning, everyone.
Given the option of giving up your annual holiday in the sun for a likely rain-sodden British holiday "resort" or delaying getting the new sofa you were going to get, I know which I would opt for.
UK is fine for a short break but the most miserable holidays I have ever spent have been in the UK and I won't be repeating the experience voluntarily time soon.
They had Simon Calder (travel bod) on the radio a couple of weeks talking about this & he said even when we got basically parity of pound / euro a few years ago there wasn't a significant change in holiday trends.
You can't imagine Philip Hammond ever being given higher prominence than the French President.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WgUktfdDy4
Remember it was their inability to accept the result of the last General Election that lead to Corbyn in the first place.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36865791
There are many moving parts in the Labour party and to get them all working together is a tough job. A lot of rebel MPs will conclude that Corbyn cannot last forever and that while he is in power there will be enough checks and balances there to keep him from seizing complete control. A split under FPTP remains the bigger risk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KE0njnZXyY
But you're right that we're probably talking about after GE2020, and until then, it's the loonies.
I can't recall where I saw it, but they were very worried by people like me (as they put it 'middle aged people with no skin in the game'). That worry was likely misplaced; none of us anticipated how many DNVers would put down their philosophy books, cancel their fine art classes and poetry readings in order to vote.
I think at that point, enough of the newbie, wet behind the ears Momentum types will fall away, such that sensible people will be able to take the reins again.
172 by elections, daily leaks to the Guardian of the incompetence of Jezza and the bullying by his coterie. Len Mc Luskey producing evidence of MI5 influence. What a joy for those days of falling leaves and bonfires. Politics has never been such fun.
"I think the party is well on the way the way down the destruction path but the phoenix has had a think and prefers the ashes."
And I can't blame it.
In the interim the only way they will get Jez out of that office will be like this.........
http://youtu.be/G1IayQ9MAl4
The only way this works is if everyone plays ball with the Jessiah with at least moderate (if synthetic) enthusiasm, let him do it his way in every respect, so that he has to completely own the defeat when it comes.
I wonder if he'd resigned in advance of the vote it would have been enough to swing the vote? We could by now have had new PM Theresa May enjoying a honeymoon with none of the foreboding Brexit negotiations to deal with.
Both USA citizens to the UK, and UK citizens staying home rather than going to Florida.
I'd assert that we've lost our ability to deal with, or even comprehend, fanaticism in all its guises. How do you argue with or persuade people who are not only irrational, but proud of it?
Edited extra bit: Mr. kle4, Brittas Empire was good too. For some reason it's never repeated...
However all any other party has to do is point out Labour are a hairs breadth of being seized again and as such this is a huge risk to the country. They then roll off some of the unbelievable things that have occurred since Jez has taken over combine that with what happened between 97 and 2010.
TBH a split would probably be the least of their problems and might actually be beneficial to allow one side at least a chance at power sometime in the next 50 years......
There are also reports of the god is the greatest pronouncement as he started the killing.
There are moderate left voters who need someone to vote for. There is a niche. Probably still quite a big one. Evolution will provide something to fill it. If Labour can't sort themselves out, someone else will step in.
Edited extra bit: might just be his seat.
Originally the North Circular between the M11 and A13 was going to be a Motorway, the M15.
However part of it was actually built and opened and signed as M11 between junction 4 and the Redbridge roundabout. However the M11 actually was going to swing west at junction 4 where the road flares and join what is now the A12 . This was never built and part of the stretch of "M11" from junctions 4 to 3 (Redbridge Roundabout) was actually and legally the M15.
Alas when the North circular was built it was downgraded to A road and became part of the A406.
If they have not infiltrated all the political parties to some extent then they are, frankly, not doing their job properly.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36865791
Mr. Bedfordshire, imagine working hard, becoming an MI5 spy, looking forward to protecting the nation from terrorism and enemy spies, only to discover you've been lumbered being mean to Labour backbenchers to discredit Jeremy Corbyn.
All the same, no party has a divine right to exist.