politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The PLP indicate that they expect Corbyn to win and that th
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The PLP indicate that they expect Corbyn to win and that they won’t split
The Sunday Times reports the “party within a party” framework will be based on the Socialist Campaign Group of MPs, which counts Mr Corbyn as a member.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Truly is the OmniShambles Games.
"You agreed with the government proposal that union members be granted five extra days' holiday a year? How dare you, you evil fascist tory scum."
Etc,etc.
Compare the crowd.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9Wlp1sTnoY
Because there aren't enough referenda in the world, and we enjoy them so much when they do happen, perhaps in future the Games should only be held where a majority of the host nation has voted in favour of having them?
Got to order industrial quantities of popcorn
This is putting the mask of choice on the face of cowardice.
Being inside the tent and pissing in it does no-one any favours. Get behind Corbyn, or split. Is the name of Labour worth more than the values of Labour?
Stop pussyfooting about!
Yes, a split party will be hammered. You're already bloody split.
I don't want the Conservatives to cruise seamlessly to victory because Labour MPs are so damned incompetent. We need a sane opposition.
Oafs.
"P.S. The German word for stockpile/hoard - hamstern - always amuses me."
I presume this is the origin of the word hamper as in picnic hamper.
Though sometimes, I think players in one sport could learn tactics from players in another. American Football players use rugby's lateral pass far too infrequently IMO.
My guess is that falls into the valuing lost assets (field position) more than gained assets. Strange, though, in a sport where winning is everything.
It looks a lot like a split to me and one where there is a whisker of a chance for the splitters to keep the Labour brand name in future. I suspect Corbynistas would prefer that they split 'properly' to form SDP2 - which is presumably exactly why they'll just do what is being mooted above. Kind of sneaky actually.
Live with it.
UKIP had the money and activists to do far better. They, again, spread themselves so thin they got nothing. Lots of second places in the north *might* be the basis for future success, if they stop cocking up their own leadership contest.
As for Labour, a big enough split automatically gets them Official Opposition status, and all the perks of media time and short money that comes with it.
Mr. Patrick, if it works.
Your sneaky point, which is otherwise sound, relies on the PLP getting something right.
I refer my honourable friend to the last 12 months.
I might be wrong. I hope I am. But expecting the PLP to bugger things up seems a pretty safe bet these days.
It'll be published in the next three weeks.
Guerrilla warfare combined with letting Corbyn stew in his own ineptitude will, they'll believe, be enough. The problem will be keeping discipline within their own ranks. To operate effectively, they'll really need at the minimum a chief whip and probably a leader and shadow shadow cabinet. Are they prepared to be that organised and if so, who will they agree on as the leader?
Labour MPs staying as Labour and refusing to work with their elected leader. Who are the public going to be voting for?
If you vote Labour, you could get Corbyn as PM - which is something that won't work for the Labour MPs who won't work with him.
So you have no way of voting for and getting 'moderate' Labour.
The change to Shadow Cabinet rules - as far as I understand that side of the previous Labour rules - would not alter who would get jobs in a future Labour government. So again that doesn't work.
This is a fudge that doesn't work.
The Co-operative Party is ideally set up for a proper split. If they could get the numbers, they would become the official opposition, get all the money and prestige that brings - and avoid many of the pitfalls that follow from setting up something from scratch.
But setting up a party-within-a-party does nothing to serve the interests of future voters who still would be faced with a Corbyn for PM option.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3751106/PETER-HITCHENS-Gold-synchronised-sunburn-self-delusion-goes-to.html
Still, as long as your party benefits from the current arrangement then that's fine obviously.
The system is not fit for purpose. More and more people are realising that fact.
SNP 1.5 million votes = 56 MP's
and a majority on 37% share of the vote! Ofcourse you like it when your side is winning but imagine Milliband got a majority with 37%?
You would hate it.
You also (inadvertently) trigger one of my perpetual bugbears: people are *very* bad at assessing risk. Small problems over long periods are as important as brief big problems. Nobody is predicting a huge*1 spoke in inflation, but smaller increases over decades are equally bad. After the 70's oil spike, it took the UK Government twenty years to bring it back down. Once it gets into the system, inflation is very difficult to get out
I believe you are/were a Times writer. There was an article in there yesterday about how devaluing the currency prefigures a fall from power. I assume you have a Times subscription, and you can find it here: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cleopatra-central-banker-of-egypt-has-a-lesson-for-us-zgqtknd22
*1: define "huge"...
Odd, that.
Strangely, people weren't too fussed about it.
Sounds like a good idea as long as they can maintain discipline.
An interesting observation about 4th down play though, I'd noticed it from casual watching (only watch in January!) that teams were always risk averse in that situation, preferring a punt or FG attempt over a two year rush for 1st down.
PR is not a good system for electing MPs to a parliamentary democracy. None of the systems I have seen proposed retain a strong local representative element combined with a way of voting that is easy for voters to understand.
But I believe in democracy first and foremost. It's a lazy argument to suggest that those of us who want electoral reform are doing it for selfish reasons.
The risks of not doing it are far greater to our democracy.
We were promised Armageddon. It did not happen. Sure, there are still other smaller risks, and they might (stress might) add up to something big. But they are qualitatively different than Armageddon.
Corbyn imploding will not stop Momentum. Momentum can use their money and muscle to reshape Labour on a daily basis - entrenching their control.
Any new Leadership election system will be one designed by Momentum to serve their ends.
It will take more than one defeat to persuade the membership to vote for someone who might have a realistic chance of power.
Nothing about a Co-operative Party within Labour will stop any of this.
Brilliant!
Certain coaches, particularly those with a very high opinion of their own defence, are more adventurous in their use of 4th down. Personally, I think successful use of 4th down is just about the best way to break the morale of the opposing defence.
*Orders popcorn in bulk in advance, hoping for a discount*
China
USA
USSR/CIS/Russia
E Germany
Romania*
GB
* 1984 games, which USSR and E Germany boycotted.
GB has got Gold medals in the biggest number of different sports 16.
US has only 13 different sports and China 10.
Its only because things like swimming, divingand altletics have such absurd numbers of medals compared with other sports, that the US has more Golds than us.Equivalent of giving out different golf medals for 3,6,9,12, 15 and 18 hole rounds.
29 out of the US 43 medals were in Swimming and Athletics alone.China had 7 in diving.
It also makes a nonsense of Hitchens comparing us to East Germany in his column today. He noted that the state identified sports with weak competition and ruthlessly funded and trained to make them look good.
Actually that is the US and China. We had no state funding just voluntary donations via the lottery and succeeded in a hugely diverse number of sports. Brilliant all round performance for the Brexit Games.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
That is before it isn't public money and also they aren't considering what value does having Olympic medalist have for various sports, for participation in sport etc etc etc e.g. Without the funding Team GB cyclists to be based in Manchester, what would happen to the velodrome there? How many people's jobs exist because of elite athletes?
Labour MPs lose the leadership to Corbyn so they plot to get rid of him.
Then they resign on mass to force him out. That fails.
So they put up a useless candidate against him.
He loses so they form a party within a party.
Politics aside there is nothing about their conduct which merits respect never mind success.
Also interesting is despite the fact that the UK Sport funding formula is brutal, and based explicitly on demonstrating success in the most ruthless competitive arena ever invented, some people are using is as an example of "the Government picking winners"
Winning elections is not part of the Corbynista plan.