politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour’s TINA* nightmare.

Second like Labour - if they're lucky.

Poor Tina.

That Clive Lewis moment summed up the clusterfeck the modern day Labour party is.

Sixth like labour, if they are unlucky. Or if there is any justice in the world.

Edit/ disappointed to see a post from the shameless Mr Brind!

Pulpstar said:

Hold on a minute, where's Don's mea-culpa for calling the contest so wrong ?

There was no calling involved, it was just dishonest spin.

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/780739070695763968
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/780740088049311746

@skysarahjane: #SamAllardyce
Is there an England manager with a shorter tenure than 1 game...on the flip side if he goes is there one with a 100% record?

IanB2 said:

Pulpstar said:

Hold on a minute, where's Don's mea-culpa for calling the contest so wrong ?

There was no calling involved, it was just dishonest spin.

I'm not just talking about the overall result either, the "Saving Labour" narrative he spun that post GE members would get Smith over the line; the 'low turnout' volte farce on the day as to why he now thought Corbyn had won (Turnout was high amongst all groups)

etc etc

Via the Guardian

Chico Flores is having the last laugh on Twitter over the Sam Allardyce affair. Back in 2013 the former Swansea defender was laughed at by Allardyce, who was then West Ham manager, when the player went down rather dramatically after a clash with the Hammers’ Carlton Cole. This morning Flores couldn’t help but have a dig.


https://twitter.com/ChicoFlores12/status/780729209081724928?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

I can't help feeling that the Labour refuseniks, having shot themselves in the foot twice already with their mass resignation, which achieved nothing, and their leadership challenge, which achieved less than nothing, are heading straight into a third humiliation with this new offensive in the Labour civil war.

Richard_Nabavi said:

I can't help feeling that the Labour refuseniks, having shot themselves in the foot twice already with their mass resignation which achieved nothing and their leadership challenge, which achieved less than nothing, are heading straight into a third humiliation with this new offensive in the Labour civil war.

They have 3 options

1. Sit tight and get deselected

2. Sit tight and get voted out

3. Fight on, to another glorious defeat

619 said:

Alistair said:

AndyJS said:

Trump is apparently claiming his microphone wasn't working properly last night.

Also, criticising a woman for gaining weight. So presidential, much pivoting to centre, wow.

And saying that he was really nice for not brining up Bill Clintons affairs.

Where is his parade???

interestingly, Clinton and her superpacs have 4 tv adds out based on the debate. Trump has none...

And Trump's line in the next debate, as he mentioned last night briefly, will be that he sees no need to go down the old nasty politics route of wasting his supporters' cash on a constant stream of negative advertising.

TheScreamingEagles said:

MAJOR AND IMPORTANT US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION NEWS

Katy Perry goes nude for Hillary Clinton as US presidential election race heats up

Perry, 31, has publicly endorsed the democratic nominee on multiple occasions in the past

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/katy-perry-goes-nude-hillary-clinton-us-presidential-election-race-heats-1583522

Nude for Hillary or Bill?

If the challenges aren’t being met, and the polling remains disastrous, then it will be time to consider somebody else better placed to communicate radical ideas in a way that convinces and inspires, perhaps from the new intake of MPs

They can't. The left is stuck with Corbyn, as is Labour as a whole, because the PLP have no obligation to bow to the expanded membership's desires and nominate anyone from the left, whether it be McDonnell, Lewis, Raynor or whoever. Deny them the nominations and suddenly the party is back under the moderates' control. Until and unless the leadership rules are changed, TINA to Corbyn.

Of course, the membership would be up in arms if they were denied a candidate but what are they going to do? Deselect? Not that easily done. Resign en mass? The MPs will wave them goodbye. Protest? it'd be ignored.

Perhaps the leadership nomination rules will be changed (personally, I'd have thought that switching to CLP nominations rather than MPs would be more in keeping with the philosophy of a 'members' party') but if so, it won't be for at least a year and more likely two.

But while Corbyn is a disaster as leader, it's not just down to his failings. Kinnock was a step up from what Benn would have been in 1987 but he was still unelectable because of his policies. Any candidate from left of Miliband will still struggle for the same reason that he did: where's the money coming from?

No problem with antisemitism in the Labour party...they did a report and everything...

Jewish activist is HECKLED at Labour conference as he slams the party for becoming an unsafe place for Jews

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3809609/Jewish-activist-HECKLED-Labour-conference-slams-party-unsafe-place-Jews.html

Scott_P said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

I can't help feeling that the Labour refuseniks, having shot themselves in the foot twice already with their mass resignation which achieved nothing and their leadership challenge, which achieved less than nothing, are heading straight into a third humiliation with this new offensive in the Labour civil war.

They have 3 options

1. Sit tight and get deselected

2. Sit tight and get voted out

3. Fight on, to another glorious defeat

There is a 4th option, related to 2. They could go back to their constituency and spend the next three years working it like a dog. Get the personal vote back. Do stuff for everyone. Ensure voters know you are not a Corbynista and have no interest in that stuff. Knock on doors relentlessly, dealing with local issues etc.

In a nutshell, try and buck the tsunami that is coming and be one of those left standing.

FrancisUrquhart said:

No problem with antisemitism in the Labour party...they did a report and everything...

Jewish activist is HECKLED at Labour conference as he slams the party for becoming an unsafe place for Jews

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3809609/Jewish-activist-HECKLED-Labour-conference-slams-party-unsafe-place-Jews.html

There is a beautiful irony in that situation, though

david_herdson said:

If the challenges aren’t being met, and the polling remains disastrous, then it will be time to consider somebody else better placed to communicate radical ideas in a way that convinces and inspires, perhaps from the new intake of MPs

They can't. The left is stuck with Corbyn, as is Labour as a whole, because the PLP have no obligation to bow to the expanded membership's desires and nominate anyone from the left, whether it be McDonnell, Lewis, Raynor or whoever. Deny them the nominations and suddenly the party is back under the moderates' control. Until and unless the leadership rules are changed, TINA to Corbyn.

Of course, the membership would be up in arms if they were denied a candidate but what are they going to do? Deselect? Not that easily done. Resign en mass? The MPs will wave them goodbye. Protest? it'd be ignored.

Perhaps the leadership nomination rules will be changed (personally, I'd have thought that switching to CLP nominations rather than MPs would be more in keeping with the philosophy of a 'members' party') but if so, it won't be for at least a year and more likely two.

But while Corbyn is a disaster as leader, it's not just down to his failings. Kinnock was a step up from what Benn would have been in 1987 but he was still unelectable because of his policies. Any candidate from left of Miliband will still struggle for the same reason that he did: where's the money coming from?

Well this highlights what Momentum's strategy should be: ensure they have sufficient MPs that there will always be enough to nominate a candidate from the far left. If Momentum are co-ordinated and strategic in their approach, therefore, we should expect deselections where Momentum are strong enough to get their candidate in place (rather than where MPs are conspicuously critical).

Scott_P said:

@skysarahjane: #SamAllardyce
Is there an England manager with a shorter tenure than 1 game...on the flip side if he goes is there one with a 100% record?

Howard Wilkinson?

I doubt that Corbyn will want to bring back Shadow Cabinet elections - they would clearly provide a mechanism for sceptics in the PLP to encircle him and attempt to limit his freedom of manoeuvre - but in any event it isn't going to help the party to address its fundamental crisis of credibility. The large majority of MPs who expressed no confidence in the leader cannot credibly recommend the election of a Labour Government (and, by extension, themselves as Labour MPs) to the country. And anybody who has resigned from a shadow ministerial position in protest, and then gone crawling back after Corbyn's re-election, will also have to explain why they made such a serious misjudgement - and risk the accusation from the Momentum tendency, the Tories and the wider public alike of being liars, who are suppressing their true opinions for the sake of preferment and to try to save themselves from deselection.

It is the most horrendous bind, and I cannot see how the MPs can possibly escape from it. If they believe that the leader is both incompetent and immovable (AND have publicly declared him to be so,) then they cannot go limping on for years as Labour politicians, and into a General Election where they will have to advise voters to install him as Prime Minister, without being accused both of lying, and of taking the public for fools. The only moral and credible options they have are to resign from Labour and defect to another party, sit as independents, or give up altogether.

And I wouldn't bank on the Trident issue having been settled either.

TheScreamingEagles said:

david_herdson said:

Scott_P said:

@skysarahjane: #SamAllardyce
Is there an England manager with a shorter tenure than 1 game...on the flip side if he goes is there one with a 100% record?

Howard Wilkinson?

Sgt Wilko managed England for two matches

Damn. Close though.

david_herdson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

david_herdson said:

Scott_P said:

@skysarahjane: #SamAllardyce
Is there an England manager with a shorter tenure than 1 game...on the flip side if he goes is there one with a 100% record?

Howard Wilkinson?

Sgt Wilko managed England for two matches

Damn. Close though.

Peter Taylor is the only one I can think of who could rival Sam Allardyce.

"Frank Luntz's debate focus group proves that Hillary Clinton crushed it

Frank Luntz is the conservative message guru who gave us “death tax”, among other right-wing tropes. He ran a focus group tonight for CBS, and it unambiguously proved that Hillary Clinton absolutely crushed it tonight."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/9/26/1574733/-Frank-Luntz-s-debate-focus-group-proves-that-Hillary-Clinton-crushed-it

AlastairMeeks said:

Sam Allardyce looks set to become the Paul McGann of England managers.

You mean the fans will adore him, wish he had more opportunities, and do a lot of audiobooks?

619 said:

Sandpit said:

619 said:

Alistair said:

AndyJS said:

Trump is apparently claiming his microphone wasn't working properly last night.

Also, criticising a woman for gaining weight. So presidential, much pivoting to centre, wow.

And saying that he was really nice for not brining up Bill Clintons affairs.

Where is his parade???

interestingly, Clinton and her superpacs have 4 tv adds out based on the debate. Trump has none...

And Trump's line in the next debate, as he mentioned last night briefly, will be that he sees no need to go down the old nasty politics route of wasting his supporters' cash on negative advertising.

And Clinton's reply 'he'd rather waste his charity's cash on self portraits and paying of his legal bills'. I don't think Trump would be best served going that road...

That would be such a rubbish line from him. If you donate money to a campaign, you do it so the candidate campaigns...

And Trump will say he is going to campaign positively, to MAGA, while Crooked Hillary has nothing positive to say about what she will do for millions of disadvantaged Americans, only what she can do for her millionaire supporters. Or words to that effect.

Trump is doing a good job of biting his tongue, we all know he can do nasty very well as we've been watching him for years.

I'm still waiting for a Republican PAC to do the House of Cards spoof trailer, starring the Clintons. They must be holding it back for the last couple of weeks.

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/780739070695763968
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/780740088049311746

Given the Tories have a majority in Parliament, several Labour MPs, Carswell and the DUP backed Brexit what difference does it make?

Cookie said:

AlastairMeeks said:

What does Jeremy Corbyn want from the rebel MPs? He won't expect their enthusiastic support and in reality bridges have been far too efficiently burned for them credibly to give him anything more than acquiescence.

But does he really need even that? It would suit his faction rather well if Labour did badly after a few years of infighting because the defeat could be convincingly blamed on the holdouts, enabling a purge in earnest. So he doesn't need to extend olive branches. In victory, he should be uncompromising.

Jeez, what a gloomy prognosis. Those of us hoping that the current incarnation of the Labour Party would die quickly and be replaced by something better look set to be disappointed. Labour seems to be determined to spend the next 10-15 years in a long, slow, noisy, agonising decline to pointless irrelevance.

Who says Labour will ever come back? The Far Left is constitutionally incapable of compromise with the electorate, and its supporters are perfectly content to protest noisily rather than govern. It means that they can blame the Tories for everything, and never have to compromise their principles when faced with the difficulties of the highest office.

The Conservatives are very likely to be in control at Westminster for a long time, and when they are finally removed it will probably be by a new force.

The problem with Corbyn is not his non-existent or useless leadership skills. That is part of it. It is that his political world view - and the policies which flow from that - are so utterly repellent and malign.

Put it this way, would the anti-Semitism issues we are seeing in Labour now no longer be a problem if Corbyn were a good manager and able to run his Shadow Cabinet meetings efficiently?

SeanT said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/780739070695763968
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/780740088049311746

Given the Tories have a majority in Parliament, several Labour MPs, Carswell and the DUP backed Brexit what difference does it make?

No difference at all. Labour is now committed to accepting Brexit. The Tories have a membership base which yearns for Brexit.

Voting down Brexit would be political suicide for either party. It's just not going to happen. This is displacement activity for people still in grieving denial.

Exactly, UKIP would win a landslide at the next general election if Parliament prevented Article 50 being invoked

SeanT said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/780739070695763968
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/780740088049311746

Given the Tories have a majority in Parliament, several Labour MPs, Carswell and the DUP backed Brexit what difference does it make?

No difference at all. Labour is now committed to accepting Brexit. The Tories have a membership base which yearns for Brexit.

Voting down Brexit would be political suicide for either party. It's just not going to happen. This is displacement activity for people still in grieving denial.

There'll never been anything as definitive as voting down Brexit. If the government doesn't have its act together on the negotiating strategy or objectives then voting against prematurely invoking Article 50 can be sold as something quite different.

AndyJS said:

"Frank Luntz's debate focus group proves that Hillary Clinton crushed it

Frank Luntz is the conservative message guru who gave us “death tax”, among other right-wing tropes. He ran a focus group tonight for CBS, and it unambiguously proved that Hillary Clinton absolutely crushed it tonight."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/9/26/1574733/-Frank-Luntz-s-debate-focus-group-proves-that-Hillary-Clinton-crushed-it

Frank Luntz, Oct. 2012.

"Thanks to your bookies, this American is preparing to make a lot of money. If the British public currently think Barack Obama is coasting to victory in the Nov. 6 election, they are gravely mistaken. Mitt Romney can win this election. No doubt about it. And it will be because of the first presidential debate on October 3 — a battle of ideas and ideologies that changed American politics as we know it. That day, Romney came to fight and Obama became his punching bag."

Skip Lunch.

weejonnie said:

NB - Although we won't have the results of the debate in the polling for a week - we should be able to see trends developing in the daily 7-day running polls relatively quickly.

(Even if the LA Times model is flawed, it should still pick up trends.)

TBH I think the question is not 'Did Clinton win the debate - which was a gimmee based on location, moderator and audience' but "Did Trump outperform expectations". After all if Man City played Forest Green then you would expect them to win - but Forest Green supporters might be happy to lose 3-0 when most people would have expected 7-0 or 8-0.

Not sure I understand your point on "location, moderator and audience"?

Location has zero impact on debate performance. Obama beat McCain at a debate held in Mississippi from memory, hardly a liberal bastion.

Cyclefree said:

The problem with Corbyn is not his non-existent or useless leadership skills. That is part of it. It is that his political world view - and the policies which flow from that - are so utterly repellent and malign.

Put it this way, would the anti-Semitism issues we are seeing in Labour now no longer be a problem if Corbyn were a good manager and able to run his Shadow Cabinet meetings efficiently?

This is my problem with the so-called moderates. They argue that "Jeremy can't lead us back to power" when what really should be saying is "Jeremy and his allies shouldn't be allowed anywhere near government."

tlg86 said:

Cyclefree said:

The problem with Corbyn is not his non-existent or useless leadership skills. That is part of it. It is that his political world view - and the policies which flow from that - are so utterly repellent and malign.

Put it this way, would the anti-Semitism issues we are seeing in Labour now no longer be a problem if Corbyn were a good manager and able to run his Shadow Cabinet meetings efficiently?

This is my problem with the so-called moderates. They argue that "Jeremy can't lead us back to power" when what really should be saying is "Jeremy and his allies shouldn't be allowed anywhere near government."

"Jeremy and his allies shouldn't be allowed anywhere near government," isn't a message you can push while sitting in the same party.

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/780739070695763968
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/780740088049311746

Given the Tories have a majority in Parliament, several Labour MPs, Carswell and the DUP backed BREXIT what difference does it make?

Because

i) Remain doesn't have a majority in the House of Commons

ii) Neither Remain or The Tories have a majority in the House of Lords

That, with the delay, makes the world of difference.

If the House of Lords try and block it not only will the Commons overrule them after a year but the calls for an elected second chamber would be deafening!

CarlottaVance said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Why would the UK have anything to say about an EU army? None of our business as far as I'm concerned.

It is if it undermines NATO, the cornerstone of our defence.....

Nope, still none of our business.

david_herdson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

david_herdson said:

Scott_P said:

@skysarahjane: #SamAllardyce
Is there an England manager with a shorter tenure than 1 game...on the flip side if he goes is there one with a 100% record?

Howard Wilkinson?

Sgt Wilko managed England for two matches

Damn. Close though.

Wilkinson strictly managed England for one game, twice.

Richard_Nabavi said:

I can't help feeling that the Labour refuseniks, having shot themselves in the foot twice already with their mass resignation, which achieved nothing, and their leadership challenge, which achieved less than nothing, are heading straight into a third humiliation with this new offensive in the Labour civil war.

They will be humiliated because they have no strategy, bloody awful tactics, nothing substantive to offer and are not prepared to say that Corbyn is awful because of what he thinks. Criticising Corbyn for his leadership skills is like criticizing Stalin for his dress sense.

williamglenn said:

tlg86 said:

Cyclefree said:

The problem with Corbyn is not his non-existent or useless leadership skills. That is part of it. It is that his political world view - and the policies which flow from that - are so utterly repellent and malign.

Put it this way, would the anti-Semitism issues we are seeing in Labour now no longer be a problem if Corbyn were a good manager and able to run his Shadow Cabinet meetings efficiently?

This is my problem with the so-called moderates. They argue that "Jeremy can't lead us back to power" when what really should be saying is "Jeremy and his allies shouldn't be allowed anywhere near government."

"Jeremy and his allies shouldn't be allowed anywhere near government," isn't a message you can push while sitting in the same party.

I appreciate that it seems a bit hypocritical to have tolerated Corbyn and McDonnell's presence in the PLP for the last how ever many years, but they need to start thinking about the consequences of staying in the same party as them now they have taken it over. They're lucky that the media isn't trying to tar them with the same brush.

Any news on Allardyce..

Cyclefree said:

The problem with Corbyn is not his non-existent or useless leadership skills. That is part of it. It is that his political world view - and the policies which flow from that - are so utterly repellent and malign.

Put it this way, would the anti-Semitism issues we are seeing in Labour now no longer be a problem if Corbyn were a good manager and able to run his Shadow Cabinet meetings efficiently?

Indeed. Jezza's political world view sees the US, UK and the Jews as the (class) enemy. Nothing to do with any leadership skills.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Black_Rook said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/780739070695763968
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/780740088049311746

Given the Tories have a majority in Parliament, several Labour MPs, Carswell and the DUP backed Brexit what difference does it make?

Three words: House. Of. Lords.

Two Words...Parliament Act

34 words...If any elected or appointed member of the Houses of Parliament think they are going to be funny and try to vote down Brexit then they will rightly unleash constitutional and perhaps civic hell.

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/780739070695763968
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/780740088049311746

Given the Tories have a majority in Parliament, several Labour MPs, Carswell and the DUP backed Brexit what difference does it make?

Indeed, especially as a bunch of labour MPs in constituencies where ukip was breathing down their neck will "respect the will of the electorate".

VR developers turn against Oculus Rift over founder’s pro-Trump support

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/27/vr-developers-oculus-rift-pro-trump-support

tlg86 said:

williamglenn said:

tlg86 said:

Cyclefree said:

The problem with Corbyn is not his non-existent or useless leadership skills. That is part of it. It is that his political world view - and the policies which flow from that - are so utterly repellent and malign.

Put it this way, would the anti-Semitism issues we are seeing in Labour now no longer be a problem if Corbyn were a good manager and able to run his Shadow Cabinet meetings efficiently?

This is my problem with the so-called moderates. They argue that "Jeremy can't lead us back to power" when what really should be saying is "Jeremy and his allies shouldn't be allowed anywhere near government."

"Jeremy and his allies shouldn't be allowed anywhere near government," isn't a message you can push while sitting in the same party.

I appreciate that it seems a bit hypocritical to have tolerated Corbyn and McDonnell's presence in the PLP for the last how ever many years, but they need to start thinking about the consequences of staying in the same party as them now they have taken it over. They're lucky that the media isn't trying to tar them with the same brush.

The longer they stay the more likely it is to happen. That's the risk they run. The repeated cries for Jeremy to do something about this are, frankly, pathetic. He is part of the problem not the solution. The fish rots from the head. The toxin which has entered Labour's body has been in Jeremy's for years.

And never mind the media, the greater risk the voters will start tarring them with the same brush.

Labour MPs need to start finding their moral compasses. They need to start using their consciences. A clean conscience, behaving like a morally decent person are (to me anyway) more important than a fake unity based around toleration of or turning a blind eye to morally reprehensible behavior.

SeanT said:

No it can't. The Tory party will go into meltdown if A50 is not triggered by the end of 2017. After that, it's two years. Theresa May knows this; she will trigger.

This is a waste of everyone's time, and as they waste time, Remainers are letting the argument between Hard Brexit and Soft Brexit go uncontested, making Hard Brexit more likely. Stupid.

It's worse than a waste of time. Brexit is tricky enough as it is, without introducing yet another factor complicating the timescales and introducing yet more uncertainty. Theresa May absolutely needs the power to pull the trigger at the moment she judges optimal.

MTimT said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Why would the UK have anything to say about an EU army? None of our business as far as I'm concerned.

It is if it undermines NATO, the cornerstone of our defence.....

Nope, still none of our business.

It is plenty of our business to have a view on it, and to express that view. That we are in no position to impose our view is not the same as none of our business.

And while we are still paying into the EU budget, it's absolutely our right to get involved in the discussions.

SeanT said:

williamglenn said:

SeanT said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/780739070695763968
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/780740088049311746

Given the Tories have a majority in Parliament, several Labour MPs, Carswell and the DUP backed Brexit what difference does it make?

No difference at all. Labour is now committed to accepting Brexit. The Tories have a membership base which yearns for Brexit.

Voting down Brexit would be political suicide for either party. It's just not going to happen. This is displacement activity for people still in grieving denial.

There'll never been anything as definitive as voting down Brexit. If the government doesn't have its act together on the negotiating strategy or objectives then voting against prematurely invoking Article 50 can be sold as something quite different.

No it can't. The Tory party will go into meltdown if A50 is not triggered by the end of 2017. After that, it's two years. Theresa May knows this; she will trigger.

This is a waste of everyone's time, and as they waste time, Remainers are letting the argument between Hard Brexit and Soft Brexit go uncontested, making Hard Brexit more likely. Stupid.

We're not allowed a running commentary (why?). The three stooges are in charge of it, two of whom are Hard Brexiteers (and one of which is a solipsistic loon).

In exactly what way are Remainers letting anything go tested or uncontested?Every time something happens (usually a positive economic indicator determined at five minutes after midnight on June 23rd) then the overwhelming chorus is: "see, Brexit is a success." Every time an institution, Lloyds, say, explains the extra costs that Brexit could involve, the chorus says: "fear mongering...so what...it's only Lloyds.."

The reality is that the line in the sand will be immigration and border controls. That is the starting point and any economic gain or damage limitation will be contingent upon how pragmatic or generous or convinced the EU27 are with our position on immigration set in stone.

MTimT said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Why would the UK have anything to say about an EU army? None of our business as far as I'm concerned.

It is if it undermines NATO, the cornerstone of our defence.....

Nope, still none of our business.

It is plenty of our business to have a view on it, and to express that view. That we are in no position to impose our view is not the same as none of our business.

Michael Fallon appears to be just going through the motions today: "We oppose a common EU defence policy" and "It's not just about us, you know", It doesn't look like he is devoting any serious firepower to this issue. I guess there is no point pissing off the people you will deal with on a tricky Brexit negotiation if you are not going to stop the common defence policy going ahead anyway.