politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » What would really make Corbyn invincible is doing better th
Options
Comments
-
Yep, Jeremy and his public school mates certainly reflect the aspirations and concerns of working class voters. Solidarity with Cuba, comrade :-Dbigjohnowls said:
Old Lab voters have gone to UKIP.JackW said:
As opposed to a Jezza led Labour that would be great for all .... except Labour.bigjohnowls said:A return to New Labour would be great for UKIP in Northern seats
I'm not quite sure what level of delusion the Labour party has reached. A simple psychotic break or a more permanent level of madness. What we do know is they have reached doolally central.
Corbyn takes party back to its roots of being on the side of WWC
Aren't the workers sweet, Seamas?
0 -
New Labour policies will NEVER win a GE again.nunu said:
That's not where elections are won or lost tho, its the marginals that matter, where they are behind 14% apparently.bigjohnowls said:Is Corbyn going to lead Labour to huge losses in its heartlands? I don't think so, well not unless he does something really stupid or TM does something really clever.
In fact New Lab do worse in Northern heartlands like Chesterfield
Its Tory Lite so whats the point0 -
Ok, thank you. I think that "residual loyalty" is going to be considerably higher. I also think that, as we saw with the Referendum, there are an awful lot of people who have feck all and so promises (threats?) of economic armageddon are just meaningless. In fact a change in the established order might be seen as beneficial.Tissue_Price said:
He is 6% behind at a point where Ed Miliband was 6% ahead. His own MPs don't back him. His support for the IRA has barely registered with Middle England yet. [It will.] There'll probably be a splintering or a split in his party. His supporters are mostly revolutionaries or middle-class champagne socialists. A reconfigured UKIP are a much bigger threat to Labour than the Tories.HurstLlama said:
I am keen to hear your rationale for that argument, Mr. Price, because I for one don't see any evidence for it.Tissue_Price said:
It won't be a 2.5% swing if Corbyn is still in charge. It will be a total massacre.HurstLlama said:
Thanks, young Darth Eagles, that is the sort of number I was thinking about. As a prediction I doubt it will be accurate and at the moment I can't see a swing from Lab to Con. Lab to UKIP, Lab to Greens, even Lab to LD (or, most likely, Lab to stay at home), yes fine but not Lab to Con.TheScreamingEagles said:
On a 2.5% swing away from Labour to Con, the Tories would gain 19 seatsHurstLlama said:How many current labour seats are actual marginals, that is to say where a modest swing away from Labour would cause them to be lost? I would guess, not many.
So, whilst Corbyn will probably not win the GE in 2020, he probably won't lose too many seats either.
Be that as it may, should such a loss happen I cannot see it upsetting Corbyn or his supporters.
Mr. Speedy, up thread suggest that at the next GE Labour will take 31% of the vote. I think that is a little too high and 28% is more likely, but we are quibbling over very small percentages.
Is Corbyn going to lead Labour to huge losses in its heartlands? I don't think so, well not unless he does something really stupid or TM does something really clever.
Basically, why would more than 10% of the country vote for him to be Prime Minister? He'd probably make low 20s out of residual loyalty to the Labour brand.
Labour on 28% (maybe a bit more) doesn't seem unreasonable to me as things stand. Of course there is a long way to go - maybe TM will do good, or she could cock it up.0 -
There could be a few UKIP wins, but the bigger danger is letting Tories in through a split Lab/UKIP vote. Incumbency could also be an issue with the boundary changes and reselections.SouthamObserver said:
Northern Labour supporters are itching to vote in a party led by a pro-IRA Trot from Islington who supports unlimited immigration, scrapping trident and abolishing the monarchy. If they can't have that they'll vote for a Thatcherite party instead :-Dbigjohnowls said:
A return to New Labour would be great for UKIP in Northern seatsHurstLlama said:
It would be nice if some party did come through to represent the people Labour have forgotten and the Conservatives don't give a toss about. I don't see it happening, though.GIN1138 said:
Unless UKIP do something spectacular in the north?HurstLlama said:How many current labour seats are actual marginals, that is to say where a modest swing away from Labour would cause them to be lost? I would guess, not many.
So, whilst Corbyn will probably not win the GE in 2020, he probably won't lose too many seats either.
BTW a very good lead article yesterday, I am still catching up on holiday.0 -
Who is suggesting a return to New Labour?bigjohnowls said:
New Labour policies will NEVER win a GE again.nunu said:
That's not where elections are won or lost tho, its the marginals that matter, where they are behind 14% apparently.bigjohnowls said:Is Corbyn going to lead Labour to huge losses in its heartlands? I don't think so, well not unless he does something really stupid or TM does something really clever.
In fact New Lab do worse in Northern heartlands like Chesterfield
Its Tory Lite so whats the point
0 -
If you think the WWC will offset Corbyn's loses elsewhere, if he can even manage to attract the former which I doubt, then I suggest you simply sign up lock, stock and barrel with the other electoral lemmings in the Labour party and enjoy the ride off the cliff.bigjohnowls said:Old Lab voters have gone to UKIP.
Corbyn takes party back to its roots of being on the side of WWC
The only treatment for your severe malady is successive clobbering at general elections.
0 -
Quite a few of PLPSouthamObserver said:
Who is proposing a return to New Labour?bigjohnowls said:
As good a chance if not better than a return to New Labour thoughFreggles said:
Jeremy Corbyn Will Never Be Prime Ministerbigjohnowls said:Tonights YG JICISILOTO
Jeremy Corbyn
56%
Owen Smith
34%
:: YouGov polled 1,019 Labour members between Friday and Monday. All those polled had joined Labour before the start of 2016.0 -
And look at all the 'No TPP' signs in the audience! When half the Democratic activists support one of the main policy platforms of the opposing candidate it can't auger well for them.Speedy said:The Democratic delegates aren't buying the excuses, they are booing and disrupting speeches all the time:
0 -
If that is the case, why are Corbyn supporters disproportionatley well-off and based in the South East? Why is it not the WWC that are coming out to support him?bigjohnowls said:
Old Lab voters have gone to UKIP.JackW said:
As opposed to a Jezza led Labour that would be great for all .... except Labour.bigjohnowls said:A return to New Labour would be great for UKIP in Northern seats
I'm not quite sure what level of delusion the Labour party has reached. A simple psychotic break or a more permanent level of madness. What we do know is they have reached doolally central.
Corbyn takes party back to its roots of being on the side of WWC0 -
By fighting the last war, you and your man Jez are guaranteeing 20 years of Tory ultra. Thanks.bigjohnowls said:
New Labour policies will NEVER win a GE again.nunu said:
That's not where elections are won or lost tho, its the marginals that matter, where they are behind 14% apparently.bigjohnowls said:Is Corbyn going to lead Labour to huge losses in its heartlands? I don't think so, well not unless he does something really stupid or TM does something really clever.
In fact New Lab do worse in Northern heartlands like Chesterfield
Its Tory Lite so whats the point0 -
Not true we just think a radical alternative has a better chance than a return to Tory LiteJonathan said:Corbyn supporters would rather defeat Blairites* than Tories.
* Definition: a Labour voter who does not like St Jez.0 -
It's just nonsense, of course, but saves having to engage with the reality, which is that Corbyn will lead Labour to electoral catastrophe. The good news is that once that happens he'll be off and the hard left will have no-one to replace him. Then the grown-ups can get on with the job of restoring sanity. It'll take years though.Jonathan said:Corbyn supporters would rather defeat Blairites* than Tories.
* Definition: a Labour voter who does not like St Jez.
0 -
I dont think they are.brokenwheel said:
If that is the case, why are Corbyn supporters disproportionatley well-off and based in the South East? Why is it not the WWC that are coming out to support him?bigjohnowls said:
Old Lab voters have gone to UKIP.JackW said:
As opposed to a Jezza led Labour that would be great for all .... except Labour.bigjohnowls said:A return to New Labour would be great for UKIP in Northern seats
I'm not quite sure what level of delusion the Labour party has reached. A simple psychotic break or a more permanent level of madness. What we do know is they have reached doolally central.
Corbyn takes party back to its roots of being on the side of WWC
What evidence do you have for that0 -
Nope - they are supporting Smith, who is clearly not a Blairite. In fact, were he to win he would be further to the left than just about any leader Labour has ever had.bigjohnowls said:
Quite a few of PLPSouthamObserver said:
Who is proposing a return to New Labour?bigjohnowls said:
As good a chance if not better than a return to New Labour thoughFreggles said:
Jeremy Corbyn Will Never Be Prime Ministerbigjohnowls said:Tonights YG JICISILOTO
Jeremy Corbyn
56%
Owen Smith
34%
:: YouGov polled 1,019 Labour members between Friday and Monday. All those polled had joined Labour before the start of 2016.
0 -
And why wouldn't Blairites* defect to the Tories? Both voters and MPs. If I were a youngish Blairite* MP I reckon I'd get far more influence over the direction of the country over the next 25 years by defecting and strengthening the Tories' left wing than by hanging about with Jez or going for SDP2.Jonathan said:Corbyn supporters would rather defeat Blairites* than Tories.
* Definition: a Labour voter who does not like St Jez.0 -
Corbyn is not radical, he spouts nostalgic drivel from a golden age that never was.bigjohnowls said:
Not true we just think a radical alternative has a better chance than a return to Tory LiteJonathan said:Corbyn supporters would rather defeat Blairites* than Tories.
* Definition: a Labour voter who does not like St Jez.0 -
What war?Jonathan said:
By fighting the last war, you and your man Jez are guaranteeing 20 years of Tory ultra. Thanks.bigjohnowls said:
New Labour policies will NEVER win a GE again.nunu said:
That's not where elections are won or lost tho, its the marginals that matter, where they are behind 14% apparently.bigjohnowls said:Is Corbyn going to lead Labour to huge losses in its heartlands? I don't think so, well not unless he does something really stupid or TM does something really clever.
In fact New Lab do worse in Northern heartlands like Chesterfield
Its Tory Lite so whats the point
Old Labour Policies are very popular in my neck of the woods.
Smith agrees with Corbyns policies he says.
Who do you want as leader Tony Blair0 -
More accurately a source close to the donor is quoted as saying that his legal team is saying that there is at least a50/50 chance of that. There really, really isn't. If the NEC had got it wrong and said that Corbyn was a challenger under the rules a court might have left the error stand, but the chances of it overturning the correct decision are nil.Scott_P said:@tnewtondunn: A Labour donor has “at least a 50/50 chance” of forcing Jeremy Corbyn off the leadership ballot in court tomorrow; https://t.co/NGWNiQQ8sX
If i am wrong I will make a point of coming back and admitting complete numptihood.0 -
The DNC live stream is unbelievable.
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..."
Crowd - "Booooooo!"0 -
Its not just the policies (which would be a losing strategy), its that he is a terrible communicator and incompetent, just look at how he lost the vote on £3quidders.bigjohnowls said:
New Labour policies will NEVER win a GE again.nunu said:
That's not where elections are won or lost tho, its the marginals that matter, where they are behind 14% apparently.bigjohnowls said:Is Corbyn going to lead Labour to huge losses in its heartlands? I don't think so, well not unless he does something really stupid or TM does something really clever.
In fact New Lab do worse in Northern heartlands like Chesterfield
Its Tory Lite so whats the point
Buy he will win 200 seats so Labour will survive.0 -
If the PLP do not get behind Corbyn we will never know if he lost due to Labour divisions though will weSouthamObserver said:
It's just nonsense, of course, but saves having to engage with the reality, which is that Corbyn will lead Labour to electoral catastrophe. The good news is that once that happens he'll be off and the hard left will have no-one to replace him. Then the grown-ups can get on with the job of restoring sanity. It'll take years though.Jonathan said:Corbyn supporters would rather defeat Blairites* than Tories.
* Definition: a Labour voter who does not like St Jez.0 -
I suspect the big Labour losses will be in current Tory/Labour marginals, rather than in Northern heartlands. With Corbyn in charge I would not want to be a Labour MP with a majority of less than 5,000. UKIP is a long, long way from being a threat IMO. It needs a whole set of new policies to challenge Labour. Immigration alone will not do it.Sandpit said:
There could be a few UKIP wins, but the bigger danger is letting Tories in through a split Lab/UKIP vote. Incumbency could also be an issue with the boundary changes and reselections.SouthamObserver said:
Northern Labour supporters are itching to vote in a party led by a pro-IRA Trot from Islington who supports unlimited immigration, scrapping trident and abolishing the monarchy. If they can't have that they'll vote for a Thatcherite party instead :-Dbigjohnowls said:
A return to New Labour would be great for UKIP in Northern seatsHurstLlama said:
It would be nice if some party did come through to represent the people Labour have forgotten and the Conservatives don't give a toss about. I don't see it happening, though.GIN1138 said:
Unless UKIP do something spectacular in the north?HurstLlama said:How many current labour seats are actual marginals, that is to say where a modest swing away from Labour would cause them to be lost? I would guess, not many.
So, whilst Corbyn will probably not win the GE in 2020, he probably won't lose too many seats either.
BTW a very good lead article yesterday, I am still catching up on holiday.
0 -
#BREAKING #Japan Number of dead rises to 19 and more than 50 injured in handicapped facility after knife attack in #sagamihara
One man with a knife
0 -
Idiots, if they let Trump win they will be hounded until the end of their days.williamglenn said:The DNC live stream is unbelievable.
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..."
Crowd - "Booooooo!"0 -
You're almost certainly right. From reading the rule as written it could possibly be ambiguous about the leader needing votes, but it's a big stretch to saying that he definitely needs them when that's not what is written down at all.Ishmael_X said:
More accurately a source close to the donor is quoted as saying that his legal team is saying that there is at least a50/50 chance of that. There really, really isn't. If the NEC had got it wrong and said that Corbyn was a challenger under the rules a court might have left the error stand, but the chances of it overturning the correct decision are nil.Scott_P said:@tnewtondunn: A Labour donor has “at least a 50/50 chance” of forcing Jeremy Corbyn off the leadership ballot in court tomorrow; https://t.co/NGWNiQQ8sX
If i am wrong I will make a point of coming back and admitting complete numptihood.0 -
Still on the floor of #DNCinPHL @BernieSanders supporters boo at every mention of @HillaryClinton's name. @ABCPolitics0
-
Well, it is your party, and I am sure you know it better than I do. However, I think you are being unduly pessimistic. I have seen or heard no real evidence that Labour will lose very many seats (if any) at the nest GE. Furthermore suppose Labour do lose, maybe, Darth Eagles' 20 or so why would that force Corbyn out. He hasn't resigned when the majority of his MPs pointed and laughed at him, why should having a few less of them matter?SouthamObserver said:
It's just nonsense, of course, but saves having to engage with the reality, which is that Corbyn will lead Labour to electoral catastrophe. The good news is that once that happens he'll be off and the hard left will have no-one to replace him. Then the grown-ups can get on with the job of restoring sanity. It'll take years though.Jonathan said:Corbyn supporters would rather defeat Blairites* than Tories.
* Definition: a Labour voter who does not like St Jez.
Isn't the real issue who the unions will tolerate? And the unions are a whole sack of snakes, with more infighting than you could shake a stick at.
Anyway, it is your Party.0 -
The problem is deeper from a presentational view, you have thousands of people inside the stadium booing and heckling everytime the name "Hillary" is mentioned.williamglenn said:
And look at all the 'No TPP' signs in the audience! When half the Democratic activists support one of the main policy platforms of the opposing candidate it can't auger well for them.Speedy said:The Democratic delegates aren't buying the excuses, they are booing and disrupting speeches all the time:
And from a deeper political view, the new email scandal delegitimizes Hillary in that it proved she didn't win a fair contest, that it was rigged in her favour.
Trump never had that problem, he won the nomination fair and square, and he also has Pence to keep the internal opposition happy and in line, Tim Kaine can't do that for Hillary.
So Hillary lacks democratic legitimacy for her nomination, lacks a VP to make a credible case to her internal opponents, and she will face 4 days non-stop of booing and heckling from her own party delegates in front of national TV amidst a party scandal.
Looks grim for Hillary at this point, messing up the VP and the Convention is a big blow.0 -
Danny Baker
Are you across current events? Here's a test: Can you name more Ninja Turtles than Labour's current shadow cabinet?0 -
I'm going to be honest, this is the reason I've not really backed Corbyn any more than I haveSandpit said:
You're almost certainly right. From reading the rule as written it could possibly be ambiguous about the leader needing votes, but it's a big stretch to saying that he definitely needs them when that's not what is written down at all.Ishmael_X said:
More accurately a source close to the donor is quoted as saying that his legal team is saying that there is at least a50/50 chance of that. There really, really isn't. If the NEC had got it wrong and said that Corbyn was a challenger under the rules a court might have left the error stand, but the chances of it overturning the correct decision are nil.Scott_P said:@tnewtondunn: A Labour donor has “at least a 50/50 chance” of forcing Jeremy Corbyn off the leadership ballot in court tomorrow; https://t.co/NGWNiQQ8sX
If i am wrong I will make a point of coming back and admitting complete numptihood.
#Worriedgambler0 -
The PLP want to have the best chance of winning the highest possible number of seats and, unlike Corbyn, they speak to non-Labour voters. Election results and poll since Corbyn too charge have been abysmal, he is not collegiate, does not believe in the primacy of Parliament and has no interest in Labour getting into government. Apart from that - and the support for the IRA and Hamas - he's great :-Dbigjohnowls said:
If the PLP do not get behind Corbyn we will never know if he lost due to Labour divisions though will weSouthamObserver said:
It's just nonsense, of course, but saves having to engage with the reality, which is that Corbyn will lead Labour to electoral catastrophe. The good news is that once that happens he'll be off and the hard left will have no-one to replace him. Then the grown-ups can get on with the job of restoring sanity. It'll take years though.Jonathan said:Corbyn supporters would rather defeat Blairites* than Tories.
* Definition: a Labour voter who does not like St Jez.
0 -
I want someone who approaches the next GE as if it was 2020, not 1997 or 1983. Not Blair, not new Labour, not Corbyn, not retro old Labour. Something of the now, capable of forming a coalition capable of governing in the interests of all of us let down by Tories.bigjohnowls said:
What war?Jonathan said:
By fighting the last war, you and your man Jez are guaranteeing 20 years of Tory ultra. Thanks.bigjohnowls said:
New Labour policies will NEVER win a GE again.nunu said:
That's not where elections are won or lost tho, its the marginals that matter, where they are behind 14% apparently.bigjohnowls said:Is Corbyn going to lead Labour to huge losses in its heartlands? I don't think so, well not unless he does something really stupid or TM does something really clever.
In fact New Lab do worse in Northern heartlands like Chesterfield
Its Tory Lite so whats the point
Old Labour Policies are very popular in my neck of the woods.
Smith agrees with Corbyns policies he says.
Who do you want as leader Tony Blair
All academic though, Corbyn has done so much damage I doubt anyone could win. Will take a miracle to recover from this.0 -
There's Trump's next ad filming itself.PlatoSaid said:Still on the floor of #DNCinPHL @BernieSanders supporters boo at every mention of @HillaryClinton's name. @ABCPolitics
0 -
Which non Labour voters were the PLP speaking to in 2010 and 2015 and why did they lose and lose.SouthamObserver said:
The PLP want to have the best chance of winning the highest possible number of seats and, unlike Corbyn, they speak to non-Labour voters. Election results and poll since Corbyn too charge have been abysmal, he is not collegiate, does not believe in the primacy of Parliament and has no interest in Labour getting into government. Apart from that - and the support for the IRA and Hamas - he's great :-Dbigjohnowls said:
If the PLP do not get behind Corbyn we will never know if he lost due to Labour divisions though will weSouthamObserver said:
It's just nonsense, of course, but saves having to engage with the reality, which is that Corbyn will lead Labour to electoral catastrophe. The good news is that once that happens he'll be off and the hard left will have no-one to replace him. Then the grown-ups can get on with the job of restoring sanity. It'll take years though.Jonathan said:Corbyn supporters would rather defeat Blairites* than Tories.
* Definition: a Labour voter who does not like St Jez.
Complete myth that PLP are in touch with those likely to be persuaded to vote Labour, They are more remote than Old Labour0 -
Sanders supporters are Corbyn supporters in disguise, they don't care about winning just purity.Thrak said:
Idiots, if they let Trump win they will be hounded until the end of their days.williamglenn said:The DNC live stream is unbelievable.
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..."
Crowd - "Booooooo!"
Anyone still think this is going to be a walk over?0 -
Just when you thought they were pulling it together, a speaker causes more division through calling for less division...0
-
And I don't think people appreciate how much the current polls are disguising how many votes he is likely to shed during the course of a General Election campaign. It'll be a catastrophe.SouthamObserver said:
The PLP want to have the best chance of winning the highest possible number of seats and, unlike Corbyn, they speak to non-Labour voters. Election results and poll since Corbyn too charge have been abysmal, he is not collegiate, does not believe in the primacy of Parliament and has no interest in Labour getting into government. Apart from that - and the support for the IRA and Hamas - he's great :-Dbigjohnowls said:
If the PLP do not get behind Corbyn we will never know if he lost due to Labour divisions though will weSouthamObserver said:
It's just nonsense, of course, but saves having to engage with the reality, which is that Corbyn will lead Labour to electoral catastrophe. The good news is that once that happens he'll be off and the hard left will have no-one to replace him. Then the grown-ups can get on with the job of restoring sanity. It'll take years though.Jonathan said:Corbyn supporters would rather defeat Blairites* than Tories.
* Definition: a Labour voter who does not like St Jez.
0 -
That will be his excuse for sure . A figleaf to keep the myth alive. As leader this is on him. He is accountable.bigjohnowls said:
If the PLP do not get behind Corbyn we will never know if he lost due to Labour divisions though will weSouthamObserver said:
It's just nonsense, of course, but saves having to engage with the reality, which is that Corbyn will lead Labour to electoral catastrophe. The good news is that once that happens he'll be off and the hard left will have no-one to replace him. Then the grown-ups can get on with the job of restoring sanity. It'll take years though.Jonathan said:Corbyn supporters would rather defeat Blairites* than Tories.
* Definition: a Labour voter who does not like St Jez.0 -
And something Trump anticipated is that by endorsing Hillary, Bernie Sanders is delegitimising himself as the leader of his own movement. Hillary must have complacently assumed that his endorsement was all it would take to ensure party unity.Speedy said:Looks grim for Hillary at this point, messing up the VP and the Convention is a big blow.
0 -
Old Labour policies include maintaining an independent nuclear deterrent and restrictions on immigration. I am all for the Labour party of Wilson, Callsghan and Healey. Corbyn isn't. He hated that party.bigjohnowls said:
What war?Jonathan said:
By fighting the last war, you and your man Jez are guaranteeing 20 years of Tory ultra. Thanks.bigjohnowls said:
New Labour policies will NEVER win a GE again.nunu said:
That's not where elections are won or lost tho, its the marginals that matter, where they are behind 14% apparently.bigjohnowls said:Is Corbyn going to lead Labour to huge losses in its heartlands? I don't think so, well not unless he does something really stupid or TM does something really clever.
In fact New Lab do worse in Northern heartlands like Chesterfield
Its Tory Lite so whats the point
Old Labour Policies are very popular in my neck of the woods.
Smith agrees with Corbyns policies he says.
Who do you want as leader Tony Blair
0 -
The problem is why in the name of God did they nominate the only person who can lose to Trump ?Thrak said:
Idiots, if they let Trump win they will be hounded until the end of their days.williamglenn said:The DNC live stream is unbelievable.
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..."
Crowd - "Booooooo!"
And why in the name of everything holy did they rig the primaries in her favour ?
And why did she pick someone for VP with even less respect among her internal opponents than her ?
Why why why ?0 -
I am agog, Mr. Owls, what are we talking about here? A return of clause 4 perhaps? A prices and incomes policy? HMG deciding where factories can open, what materials they may use and what labour than can employ? British bases in Cyrenaica?bigjohnowls said:
...Jonathan said:
By fighting the last war, you and your man Jez are guaranteeing 20 years of Tory ultra. Thanks.bigjohnowls said:
New Labour policies will NEVER win a GE again.nunu said:
That's not where elections are won or lost tho, its the marginals that matter, where they are behind 14% apparently.bigjohnowls said:Is Corbyn going to lead Labour to huge losses in its heartlands? I don't think so, well not unless he does something really stupid or TM does something really clever.
In fact New Lab do worse in Northern heartlands like Chesterfield
Its Tory Lite so whats the point
Old Labour Policies are very popular in my neck of the woods.
...
What actual Old Labour Policies do you want to see back?
0 -
Corbyn isnt radical. He is the most conservative backward looking leader Labour has had.0
-
I'd have voted for Attlee.SouthamObserver said:
Old Labour policies include maintaining an independent nuclear deterrent and restrictions on immigration. I am all for the Labour party of Wilson, Callsghan and Healey. Corbyn isn't. He hated that party.bigjohnowls said:
What war?Jonathan said:
By fighting the last war, you and your man Jez are guaranteeing 20 years of Tory ultra. Thanks.bigjohnowls said:
New Labour policies will NEVER win a GE again.nunu said:
That's not where elections are won or lost tho, its the marginals that matter, where they are behind 14% apparently.bigjohnowls said:Is Corbyn going to lead Labour to huge losses in its heartlands? I don't think so, well not unless he does something really stupid or TM does something really clever.
In fact New Lab do worse in Northern heartlands like Chesterfield
Its Tory Lite so whats the point
Old Labour Policies are very popular in my neck of the woods.
Smith agrees with Corbyns policies he says.
Who do you want as leader Tony Blair0 -
To be fair if 1997 to 2010 was Tory lite then the right wing / centre right of the political spectrum has been effectively in power since 1979. That means left wing policies have been soundly rejected by the electorate for close on 40 years. Consider also The Labour Party in 1979 lost the election because of similar but less extreme policies than now being proposed that had failed in practice.bigjohnowls said:
Not true we just think a radical alternative has a better chance than a return to Tory LiteJonathan said:Corbyn supporters would rather defeat Blairites* than Tories.
* Definition: a Labour voter who does not like St Jez.
Don't you think you might just be doing something wrong?0 -
They lost because Labour had a crap leader. But compared to Corbyn Ed is a collosus. He could, at least, construct a shadow cabinet. He also did a lot better than Corbyn in real elections.bigjohnowls said:
Which non Labour voters were the PLP speaking to in 2010 and 2015 and why did they lose and lose.SouthamObserver said:
The PLP want to have the best chance of winning the highest possible number of seats and, unlike Corbyn, they speak to non-Labour voters. Election results and poll since Corbyn too charge have been abysmal, he is not collegiate, does not believe in the primacy of Parliament and has no interest in Labour getting into government. Apart from that - and the support for the IRA and Hamas - he's great :-Dbigjohnowls said:
If the PLP do not get behind Corbyn we will never know if he lost due to Labour divisions though will weSouthamObserver said:
It's just nonsense, of course, but saves having to engage with the reality, which is that Corbyn will lead Labour to electoral catastrophe. The good news is that once that happens he'll be off and the hard left will have no-one to replace him. Then the grown-ups can get on with the job of restoring sanity. It'll take years though.Jonathan said:Corbyn supporters would rather defeat Blairites* than Tories.
* Definition: a Labour voter who does not like St Jez.
Complete myth that PLP are in touch with those likely to be persuaded to vote Labour, They are more remote than Old Labour
https://medium.com/@rob_francis/labour-leadership-2-the-unelectability-of-corbyn-25b867245c23#.b14das4cm
0 -
Are we sure the YouGov (Corbyn 56, Smith 34) is actually a new poll?
It looks very similar if not identical to a poll from last week.0 -
Attlee was radical. He didn't hark back to 30 year old policies.John_M said:
I'd have voted for Attlee.SouthamObserver said:
Old Labour policies include maintaining an independent nuclear deterrent and restrictions on immigration. I am all for the Labour party of Wilson, Callsghan and Healey. Corbyn isn't. He hated that party.bigjohnowls said:
What war?Jonathan said:
By fighting the last war, you and your man Jez are guaranteeing 20 years of Tory ultra. Thanks.bigjohnowls said:
New Labour policies will NEVER win a GE again.nunu said:
That's not where elections are won or lost tho, its the marginals that matter, where they are behind 14% apparently.bigjohnowls said:Is Corbyn going to lead Labour to huge losses in its heartlands? I don't think so, well not unless he does something really stupid or TM does something really clever.
In fact New Lab do worse in Northern heartlands like Chesterfield
Its Tory Lite so whats the point
Old Labour Policies are very popular in my neck of the woods.
Smith agrees with Corbyns policies he says.
Who do you want as leader Tony Blair0 -
Look at Sanders' fans and see why, these people need to be faced down, they are anarchists and hard line leftists, they have no place in a mainstream party. Labour might have let these people take over but at least the Democrats haven't ceded power to them.Speedy said:
The problem is why in the name of God did they nominate the only person who can lose to Trump ?Thrak said:
Idiots, if they let Trump win they will be hounded until the end of their days.williamglenn said:The DNC live stream is unbelievable.
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..."
Crowd - "Booooooo!"
And why in the name of everything holy did they rig the primaries in her favour ?
And why did she pick someone for VP with even less respect among her internal opponents than her ?
Why why why ?0 -
The issue is that Hillary doesn't have a democratic mandate to be the nominee, the new email scandal just pulled the rug under her on that.williamglenn said:
And something Trump anticipated is that by endorsing Hillary, Bernie Sanders is delegitimising himself as the leader of his own movement. Hillary must have complacently assumed that his endorsement was all it would take to ensure party unity.Speedy said:Looks grim for Hillary at this point, messing up the VP and the Convention is a big blow.
No matter what Sanders says or does people will never believe Hillary got the nomination legitimately.0 -
Robby Mook saying that the RNC was much worse than the DNC.
Wonder what he's smoking?0 -
She won millions more votes. What else can she have done?Speedy said:
The issue is that Hillary doesn't have a democratic mandate to be the nominee, the new email scandal just pulled the rug under her on that.williamglenn said:
And something Trump anticipated is that by endorsing Hillary, Bernie Sanders is delegitimising himself as the leader of his own movement. Hillary must have complacently assumed that his endorsement was all it would take to ensure party unity.Speedy said:Looks grim for Hillary at this point, messing up the VP and the Convention is a big blow.
No matter what Sanders says or does people will never believe Hillary got the nomination legitimately.0 -
He did you know, Mr. Jonathan, see the cabinet papers. Attlee was very much first among equals as a PM and he went along with some "empire" stuff that was very much 1870s let alone thirty year old policies. My mention of Cyrenaica was not by accident.Jonathan said:
Attlee was radical. He didn't hark back to 30 year old policies.John_M said:
I'd have voted for Attlee.SouthamObserver said:
Old Labour policies include maintaining an independent nuclear deterrent and restrictions on immigration. I am all for the Labour party of Wilson, Callsghan and Healey. Corbyn isn't. He hated that party.bigjohnowls said:
What war?Jonathan said:
By fighting the last war, you and your man Jez are guaranteeing 20 years of Tory ultra. Thanks.bigjohnowls said:
New Labour policies will NEVER win a GE again.nunu said:
That's not where elections are won or lost tho, its the marginals that matter, where they are behind 14% apparently.bigjohnowls said:Is Corbyn going to lead Labour to huge losses in its heartlands? I don't think so, well not unless he does something really stupid or TM does something really clever.
In fact New Lab do worse in Northern heartlands like Chesterfield
Its Tory Lite so whats the point
Old Labour Policies are very popular in my neck of the woods.
Smith agrees with Corbyns policies he says.
Who do you want as leader Tony Blair0 -
Yes, but he enabled Corbyn. Both intellectually and, crucially, electorally. When the time comes to write "The Strange Death of Labour England" then Ed Miliband will be fingered as the prime culprit. Jeremy Corbyn is what he is; nobody should be surprised at what he's doing.SouthamObserver said:They lost because Labour had a crap leader. But compared to Corbyn Ed is a collosus. He could, at least, construct a shadow cabinet. He also did a lot better than Corbyn in real elections.
0 -
That surely has to be unprecedented at a nomination convention. If their own supporters can't get behind the nominee then what chance the country as a whole voting for a Clinton presidency?williamglenn said:The DNC live stream is unbelievable.
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..."
Crowd - "Booooooo!"0 -
Can all the nutters please stop killing people!
Attack On Disabled Centre In Japan Kills 19
http://news.sky.com/story/attack-on-disabled-centre-in-japan-kills-19-105127070 -
They got 46% in the primaries despite being rigged against them.Thrak said:
Look at Sanders' fans and see why, these people need to be faced down, they are anarchists and hard line leftists, they have no place in a mainstream party. Labour might have let these people take over but at least the Democrats haven't ceded power to them.Speedy said:
The problem is why in the name of God did they nominate the only person who can lose to Trump ?Thrak said:
Idiots, if they let Trump win they will be hounded until the end of their days.williamglenn said:The DNC live stream is unbelievable.
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..."
Crowd - "Booooooo!"
And why in the name of everything holy did they rig the primaries in her favour ?
And why did she pick someone for VP with even less respect among her internal opponents than her ?
Why why why ?
Do you really think the Democrats can afford to lose even a small share of those people in a presidential election, and with so many 3rd parties ?
That's suicide, it's what destroyed the LD's, you can't eject your entire party voter core.0 -
Let's not forget the protests and marches taking place outside the convention hall.Moses_ said:
That surely has to be unprecedented at a nomination convention. If their own supporters can't get behind the nominee then what chance the country as a whole voting for a Clinton presidency?williamglenn said:The DNC live stream is unbelievable.
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..."
Crowd - "Booooooo!"
It's almost 100 degrees in Philly today. That won't help calm things.0 -
Have you seen the footage from some of the caucuses?Thrak said:
She won millions more votes. What else can she have done?Speedy said:
The issue is that Hillary doesn't have a democratic mandate to be the nominee, the new email scandal just pulled the rug under her on that.williamglenn said:
And something Trump anticipated is that by endorsing Hillary, Bernie Sanders is delegitimising himself as the leader of his own movement. Hillary must have complacently assumed that his endorsement was all it would take to ensure party unity.Speedy said:Looks grim for Hillary at this point, messing up the VP and the Convention is a big blow.
No matter what Sanders says or does people will never believe Hillary got the nomination legitimately.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/15/chaos_at_nevada_democratic_convention_dnc_leaders_flee_building_as_sanders_supporters_demand_recount.html0 -
https://twitter.com/NickCohen4/status/757690893247938561Thrak said:
Idiots, if they let Trump win they will be hounded until the end of their days.williamglenn said:The DNC live stream is unbelievable.
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..."
Crowd - "Booooooo!"
Narcissistic doesn't even begin to describe it.0 -
Sure, but Attlee welfare state was radical, fresh, new, neon and space age and delivered in a background of post war austerity.HurstLlama said:
He did you know, Mr. Jonathan, see the cabinet papers. Attlee was very much first among equals as a PM and he went along with some "empire" stuff that was very much 1870s let alone thirty year old policies. My mention of Cyrenaica was not by accident.Jonathan said:
Attlee was radical. He didn't hark back to 30 year old policies.John_M said:
I'd have voted for Attlee.SouthamObserver said:
Old Labour policies include maintaining an independent nuclear deterrent and restrictions on immigration. I am all for the Labour party of Wilson, Callsghan and Healey. Corbyn isn't. He hated that party.bigjohnowls said:
What war?Jonathan said:
By fighting the last war, you and your man Jez are guaranteeing 20 years of Tory ultra. Thanks.bigjohnowls said:
New Labour policies will NEVER win a GE again.nunu said:
That's not where elections are won or lost tho, its the marginals that matter, where they are behind 14% apparently.bigjohnowls said:Is Corbyn going to lead Labour to huge losses in its heartlands? I don't think so, well not unless he does something really stupid or TM does something really clever.
In fact New Lab do worse in Northern heartlands like Chesterfield
Its Tory Lite so whats the point
Old Labour Policies are very popular in my neck of the woods.
Smith agrees with Corbyns policies he says.
Who do you want as leader Tony Blair
That's what Labour is about. The future.0 -
RAF Marham Attacker Headbutted By Victim
http://news.sky.com/story/raf-marham-attacker-headbutted-by-victim-10512325
Good lad.0 -
Like the Corbyn cult it's all about them.Tissue_Price said:
https://twitter.com/NickCohen4/status/757690893247938561Thrak said:
Idiots, if they let Trump win they will be hounded until the end of their days.williamglenn said:The DNC live stream is unbelievable.
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..."
Crowd - "Booooooo!"
Narcissistic doesn't even begin to describe it.
0 -
They are booing elderly blacks talking about civil rights and the minimum wage, there is something very strange about these people.SouthamObserver said:
Like the Corbyn cult it's all about them.Tissue_Price said:
https://twitter.com/NickCohen4/status/757690893247938561Thrak said:
Idiots, if they let Trump win they will be hounded until the end of their days.williamglenn said:The DNC live stream is unbelievable.
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..."
Crowd - "Booooooo!"
Narcissistic doesn't even begin to describe it.0 -
Reading the last thread I can't believe some think AAs will start shifting towards Trump. I think some are underestimating just how much that demographic dislikes Trump.0
-
Most of the 'Never Hillary' Sanders supporters probably voted Green or did not vote in 2012Speedy said:
They got 46% in the primaries despite being rigged against them.Thrak said:
Look at Sanders' fans and see why, these people need to be faced down, they are anarchists and hard line leftists, they have no place in a mainstream party. Labour might have let these people take over but at least the Democrats haven't ceded power to them.Speedy said:
The problem is why in the name of God did they nominate the only person who can lose to Trump ?Thrak said:
Idiots, if they let Trump win they will be hounded until the end of their days.williamglenn said:The DNC live stream is unbelievable.
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..."
Crowd - "Booooooo!"
And why in the name of everything holy did they rig the primaries in her favour ?
And why did she pick someone for VP with even less respect among her internal opponents than her ?
Why why why ?
Do you really think the Democrats can afford to lose even a small share of those people in a presidential election, and with so many 3rd parties ?
That's suicide, it's what destroyed the LD's, you can't eject your entire party voter core.0 -
Yep, that's fair comment. Ed started all this. Corbyn is just so utterly, tediously, depressingly predictable.Tissue_Price said:
Yes, but he enabled Corbyn. Both intellectually and, crucially, electorally. When the time comes to write "The Strange Death of Labour England" then Ed Miliband will be fingered as the prime culprit. Jeremy Corbyn is what he is; nobody should be surprised at what he's doing.SouthamObserver said:They lost because Labour had a crap leader. But compared to Corbyn Ed is a collosus. He could, at least, construct a shadow cabinet. He also did a lot better than Corbyn in real elections.
0 -
They aren't the core, they are entryists.Speedy said:
They got 46% in the primaries despite being rigged against them.Thrak said:
Look at Sanders' fans and see why, these people need to be faced down, they are anarchists and hard line leftists, they have no place in a mainstream party. Labour might have let these people take over but at least the Democrats haven't ceded power to them.Speedy said:
The problem is why in the name of God did they nominate the only person who can lose to Trump ?Thrak said:
Idiots, if they let Trump win they will be hounded until the end of their days.williamglenn said:The DNC live stream is unbelievable.
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..."
Crowd - "Booooooo!"
And why in the name of everything holy did they rig the primaries in her favour ?
And why did she pick someone for VP with even less respect among her internal opponents than her ?
Why why why ?
Do you really think the Democrats can afford to lose even a small share of those people in a presidential election, and with so many 3rd parties ?
That's suicide, it's what destroyed the LD's, you can't eject your entire party voter core.0 -
You try to build a campaign that can govern the country without making rash and self-harming promises to placate the implacatable, otherwise you end up winning but with a Cameron, Brexit-style sh*tshow. Observe, for instance, how little Trump has actually promised to Republicans: the bravado conceals a lot of vagueness!Speedy said:
The problem is why in the name of God did they nominate the only person who can lose to Trump ?Thrak said:
Idiots, if they let Trump win they will be hounded until the end of their days.williamglenn said:The DNC live stream is unbelievable.
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..."
Crowd - "Booooooo!"
And why in the name of everything holy did they rig the primaries in her favour ?
And why did she pick someone for VP with even less respect among her internal opponents than her ?
Why why why ?0 -
Because when you have professional politicians dominating they are everything as part of the game - They look for ways to cheat rather than competeSpeedy said:
The problem is why in the name of God did they nominate the only person who can lose to Trump ?Thrak said:
Idiots, if they let Trump win they will be hounded until the end of their days.williamglenn said:The DNC live stream is unbelievable.
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..."
Crowd - "Booooooo!"
And why in the name of everything holy did they rig the primaries in her favour ?
And why did she pick someone for VP with even less respect among her internal opponents than her ?
Why why why ?0 -
It's not about that, it's about how much they loved Obama. Especially in turnout terms.The_Apocalypse said:Reading the last thread I can't believe some think AAs will start shifting towards Trump. I think some are underestimating just how much that demographic dislikes Trump.
Regardless, Trump's path to victory isn't really through ethnic minorities, though of course every vote helps.0 -
They'll succeed at some point, only a matter of time.FrancisUrquhart said:RAF Marham Attacker Headbutted By Victim
http://news.sky.com/story/raf-marham-attacker-headbutted-by-victim-10512325
Good lad.0 -
Trump must be lapping this up. She is going to get torn to utter shreds during the debates.Speedy said:
The problem is deeper from a presentational view, you have thousands of people inside the stadium booing and heckling everytime the name "Hillary" is mentioned.williamglenn said:
And look at all the 'No TPP' signs in the audience! When half the Democratic activists support one of the main policy platforms of the opposing candidate it can't auger well for them.Speedy said:The Democratic delegates aren't buying the excuses, they are booing and disrupting speeches all the time:
And from a deeper political view, the new email scandal delegitimizes Hillary in that it proved she didn't win a fair contest, that it was rigged in her favour.
Trump never had that problem, he won the nomination fair and square, and he also has Pence to keep the internal opposition happy and in line, Tim Kaine can't do that for Hillary.
So Hillary lacks democratic legitimacy for her nomination, lacks a VP to make a credible case to her internal opponents, and she will face 4 days non-stop of booing and heckling from her own party delegates in front of national TV amidst a party scandal.
Looks grim for Hillary at this point, messing up the VP and the Convention is a big blow.
Clinton = Dead duck walking.0 -
Yet to have an interesting idea IMO. Despite 33 years in parliament he hasn't changed his mind once as far as I can see.SouthamObserver said:
Yep, that's fair comment. Ed started all this. Corbyn is just so utterly, tediously, depressingly predictable.Tissue_Price said:
Yes, but he enabled Corbyn. Both intellectually and, crucially, electorally. When the time comes to write "The Strange Death of Labour England" then Ed Miliband will be fingered as the prime culprit. Jeremy Corbyn is what he is; nobody should be surprised at what he's doing.SouthamObserver said:They lost because Labour had a crap leader. But compared to Corbyn Ed is a collosus. He could, at least, construct a shadow cabinet. He also did a lot better than Corbyn in real elections.
0 -
Smith doing well on Newsnight
Agree with him on MND, NHS, taxes, immigration.
But I just don't trust him to not change his mind again like he has on MND, NHS private sector involvement and immigration.0 -
Report - the DNC paid online trolls to push back against Sanders supporters. DNC has not denied.0
-
It's not unprecedented, in modern times it happened once.Moses_ said:
That surely has to be unprecedented at a nomination convention. If their own supporters can't get behind the nominee then what chance the country as a whole voting for a Clinton presidency?williamglenn said:The DNC live stream is unbelievable.
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..."
Crowd - "Booooooo!"
The 1968 Democratic Convention.
The primaries were rigged in favour of Humphrey and the delegates rioted when he was nominated, it was the last time until today that the legitimacy of the nominee was questioned.
The division led to a spectacular election loss for the Democrats and a victory for Nixon.
Sometimes history does repeat itself like a farce the second time.
HYUFD would love the Trump=Nixon, Hillary=Humphrey comparison.0 -
Ouch! John Oliver goes for Boris, to an American audience.
https://youtu.be/9uWAdJFhBK40 -
Changing your mind is a good thing. It's called learning.bigjohnowls said:Smith doing well on Newsnight
Agree with him on MND, NHS, taxes, immigration.
But I just don't trust him to not change his mind again like he has on MND, NHS private sector involvement and immigration.0 -
"the new email scandal delegitimizes Hillary in that it proved she didn't win a fair contest"
Lol, is this the latest Kremlin talking point? The primaries were not a judo bout with the winner determined by a panel, Clinton won millions of votes more than Sanders!0 -
Tbh, I think the prospect of Trump as President will motivate them to turn out.Tissue_Price said:
It's not about that, it's about how much they loved Obama. Especially in turnout terms.The_Apocalypse said:Reading the last thread I can't believe some think AAs will start shifting towards Trump. I think some are underestimating just how much that demographic dislikes Trump.
Regardless, Trump's path to victory isn't really through ethnic minorities, though of course every vote helps.0 -
Didn't you hear it was all a terrible misunderstanding by two blokes called Arthur & his minder Terry...brokenwheel said:
They'll succeed at some point, only a matter of time.FrancisUrquhart said:RAF Marham Attacker Headbutted By Victim
http://news.sky.com/story/raf-marham-attacker-headbutted-by-victim-10512325
Good lad.
On serious note, unfortunately I agree.0 -
Just think back one week -
DWS was on all the talk shows saying that if Reince Priebus needed an extra chairman to keep order she was in Cleveland offering to help. She even tweeted the offer.
Now she is dismissed ignominiously0 -
John Oliver is a comedian, right? If so, who gives a fuck?Sandpit said:Ouch! John Oliver goes for Boris, to an American audience.
https://youtu.be/9uWAdJFhBK40 -
I love that show. Especially now that the Daily Show is without Jon Stewart *sigh*.Sandpit said:Ouch! John Oliver goes for Boris, to an American audience.
https://youtu.be/9uWAdJFhBK40 -
You'll like this one.FrancisUrquhart said:
Didn't you hear it was all a terrible misunderstanding by two blokes called Arthur & his minder Terry...brokenwheel said:
They'll succeed at some point, only a matter of time.FrancisUrquhart said:RAF Marham Attacker Headbutted By Victim
http://news.sky.com/story/raf-marham-attacker-headbutted-by-victim-10512325
Good lad.
The lead article on Der Spiegel is headlined "Attacker from Ansbach: I never saw Mohammed praying"
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/anschlag-in-ansbach-attentaeter-wurde-rambo-genannt-a-1104628.html0 -
RealClearPolitics polling average — Trump ahead for the first time, by 0.2%.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/0 -
Yes - and I do think he's a rather good media performer. Fluent, clear answers to questions. Which atleast puts him a step above the Liz Kendalls and Tristram Hunts of the world, who not only had the wrong principles, they were uncharismatic and utterly useless at even giving a decent TV appearance.bigjohnowls said:Smith doing well on Newsnight
Agree with him on MND, NHS, taxes, immigration.
But I just don't trust him to not change his mind again like he has on MND, NHS private sector involvement and immigration.
However, I'm still yet to be convinced that Smith (and more importantly, the many New Labour MPs who WOULD play an influential part if he wins the leadership) actually has a vague clue how to appeal to the public. As Hillary Clinton is showing, and the Remain campaign and Scottish Labour certainly showed, the Establishment/Status Quo politicians are proving pretty bad at actually winning elections right now.
Much as Southam Observer may scoff, my head right now is still saying Corbyn is actually the more electable candidate -- my mind's still open, but I'll need some sign that Smith is not just going to model his strategy on the Remain Campaign to be convinced.0 -
Trump is not Nixon, Hillary is. Nixon also lost a bruising primary battle to Reagan in 1968 and like Sanders, Reagan was more popular with the party base than the nominee. Nixon, like Hillary, had also narrowly lost a presidential campaign eight years earlier to a more charismatic candidate and Nixon would probably have lost to Bobby Kennedy had he been his opponent and not Humphrey just as Hillary would probably have lost to Rubio had he been her opponent not Trump. Hillary is dislikeable but ruthless and highly intelligent like Nixon, Trump is a populist rabble rouser.Speedy said:
It's not unprecedented, in modern times it happened once.Moses_ said:
That surely has to be unprecedented at a nomination convention. If their own supporters can't get behind the nominee then what chance the country as a whole voting for a Clinton presidency?williamglenn said:The DNC live stream is unbelievable.
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..."
Crowd - "Booooooo!"
The 1968 Democratic Convention.
The primaries were rigged in favour of Humphrey and the delegates rioted when he was nominated, it was the last time until today that the legitimacy of the nominee was questioned.
The division led to a spectacular election loss for the Democrats and a victory for Nixon.
Sometimes history does repeat itself like a farce the second time.
HYUFD would love the Trump=Nixon, Hillary=Humphrey comparison.
The one similarity Trump has to Nixon is his convention speech, which with its focus on law and order and national security was very similar to that Nixon gave in 1968. Otherwise Trump is Wallace and this election is really Nixon v Wallace0 -
He did have his nose ahead briefly after securing the nomination before Hillary unleashed a barrage of negative advertising.AndyJS said:RealClearPolitics polling average — Trump ahead for the first time, by 0.2%.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/0 -
You won't believe this -
spokesman - Hillary sees her Thursday speech to the convention as a chance to reintroduce herself to the American people.
I've lost count how many this comes to.0 -
Corbyn seems to have changed his mind on invoking Article 50 three times so far. He's also changed his mind on pharma R&D since learning that Smith once worked for Pfizer. He's firm on his support for the IRA and the Iranian regime though.Jonathan said:
Changing your mind is a good thing. It's called learning.bigjohnowls said:Smith doing well on Newsnight
Agree with him on MND, NHS, taxes, immigration.
But I just don't trust him to not change his mind again like he has on MND, NHS private sector involvement and immigration.
0 -
Utter Chaos at Nevada convention....williamglenn said:
Have you seen the footage from some of the caucuses?Thrak said:
She won millions more votes. What else can she have done?Speedy said:
The issue is that Hillary doesn't have a democratic mandate to be the nominee, the new email scandal just pulled the rug under her on that.williamglenn said:
And something Trump anticipated is that by endorsing Hillary, Bernie Sanders is delegitimising himself as the leader of his own movement. Hillary must have complacently assumed that his endorsement was all it would take to ensure party unity.Speedy said:Looks grim for Hillary at this point, messing up the VP and the Convention is a big blow.
No matter what Sanders says or does people will never believe Hillary got the nomination legitimately.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/15/chaos_at_nevada_democratic_convention_dnc_leaders_flee_building_as_sanders_supporters_demand_recount.html
Rachel Avery
Rachel Avery – @rachelaveryy
The ignored the vote, turned lights off, turn sound WAY up. Truly bullshit. Ignoring our voices0 -
Eventually they'll figure out that this is basic tradecraft. Western intelligence services are looking for 'the journey'. If they don't go on the journey we're screwed in terms of prevention. Given you can now become radicalised in the comfort of your own home, I don't envy the security services' task.williamglenn said:
You'll like this one.FrancisUrquhart said:
Didn't you hear it was all a terrible misunderstanding by two blokes called Arthur & his minder Terry...brokenwheel said:
They'll succeed at some point, only a matter of time.FrancisUrquhart said:RAF Marham Attacker Headbutted By Victim
http://news.sky.com/story/raf-marham-attacker-headbutted-by-victim-10512325
Good lad.
The lead article on Der Spiegel is headlined "Attacker from Ansbach: I never saw Mohammed praying"
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/anschlag-in-ansbach-attentaeter-wurde-rambo-genannt-a-1104628.html0 -
He is also highly intelligent.HYUFD said:
Trump is not Nixon, Hillary is. Nixon also lost a bruising primary battle to Reagan in 1968 and like Sanders, Reagan was more popular with the party base than the nominee. Nixon, like Hillary, had also narrowly lost a presidential campaign eight years earlier to a more charismatic candidate and Nixon would probably have lost to Bobby Kennedy had he been his opponent and not Humphrey just as Hillary would probably have lost to Rubio had he been her opponent not Trump. Hillary is dislikeable but ruthless and highly intelligent like Nixon, Trump is a populist rabble rouserSpeedy said:
It's not unprecedented, in modern times it happened once.Moses_ said:
That surely has to be unprecedented at a nomination convention. If their own supporters can't get behind the nominee then what chance the country as a whole voting for a Clinton presidency?williamglenn said:The DNC live stream is unbelievable.
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..."
Crowd - "Booooooo!"
The 1968 Democratic Convention.
The primaries were rigged in favour of Humphrey and the delegates rioted when he was nominated, it was the last time until today that the legitimacy of the nominee was questioned.
The division led to a spectacular election loss for the Democrats and a victory for Nixon.
Sometimes history does repeat itself like a farce the second time.
HYUFD would love the Trump=Nixon, Hillary=Humphrey comparison.
0 -
Neither candidate is electable, but one wants to purge the parliamentary party to remove the kind of people who could win Nuneaton and North Warwickshire as opposed to Islington, rendering it unelectable for much longer.Danny565 said:
Yes - and I do think he's a rather good media performer. Fluent, clear answers to questions. Which atleast puts him a step above the Liz Kendalls and Tristram Hunts of the world, who not only had the wrong principles, they were uncharismatic and utterly useless at even giving a decent TV appearance.bigjohnowls said:Smith doing well on Newsnight
Agree with him on MND, NHS, taxes, immigration.
But I just don't trust him to not change his mind again like he has on MND, NHS private sector involvement and immigration.
However, I'm still yet to be convinced that Smith (and more importantly, the many New Labour MPs who WOULD play an influential part if he wins the leadership) actually has a vague clue how to appeal to the public. As Hillary Clinton is showing, and the Remain campaign certainly showed, the Establishment/Status Quo politicians are proving pretty bad at actually winning elections right now.
Much as Southam Observer may scoff, my head right now is still saying Corbyn is actually the more electable candidate -- my mind's still open, but I'll need some sign that Smith is not just going to model his strategy on the Remain Campaign to be convinced.0
This discussion has been closed.