Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A Labour view of the party’s looming electoral disaster
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A Labour view of the party’s looming electoral disaster
I have a soft spot for Lib Dem peer Dick Taverne even though I cut my teeth as a Labour Party press officer trying to end his political career.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Edit: censored myself.
Fortunately for Mrs May she, unlike Harold Wilson, does not have Jack Jones and Hugh Scanlon to appease.
Mrs Beckett by the way lent her nomination to Corbyn didn't she? So that suggestion looks like turning out to be the worst thing he ever did for the Labour Party.
How do other countries cope. Are these officers (men and women) all super efficiently trained? I suggest that we could manage. We choose not to, so its always a surprise when we see police guns on the streets whereas we never blink about it when we are overseas.
Anyway no more time. Have a good night.
bobajobPB said:
"The PB Tories, and Sean, and - bizarrely - Cyclefree seem to have take leave of their senses today.
Corbyn is shite. He is a deluded old trot. But he has sod all to do with Manchester. Linking him with it because of the pro-IRA comments he has made in the distant past is utterly stupid, either from the media, or the Tory party itself.
May is going to win big anyway. Don't worry."
I have not linked Corbyn with Manchester.
I do question - and did so long before yesterday's tragedy - his judgment and, in particular, his judgment in thinking Abbott is fit to be Home Secretary.
I have said ever since he was a candidate for the Labour leadership that he lacks a moral compass. My views on him have not changed because of Manchester.
It is entirely legitimate to ask of a candidate for PM whether his previously expressed views and actions and failures to act - especially for someone whose USP is meant to be his consistently held principles - show him to have the right character and judgment for PM, especially with regard to security issues.
murali_s said:
RobD said:
bobajobPB said:
"For crying out loud. I am on here dissing the boring, entitled, anti-meritocratic monarchy as "Britain's richest welfare recipients", from time to time. I guess you want to strap on the jack boots Rob and march me to the scaffold (at the Tower, naturally) ?
That's fine, but Abbott is in the record wishing for the defeat of the British, and victory for the IRA.
FFS Does anyone take Abbott seriously? She's significantly out of her depth. Can't stand that woman!"
She is the official Opposition's candidate for Home Secretary, the person who would be in charge of those services charged with protecting us from events such as Manchester and Westminster and 7/7, agencies she has publicly sneered at.
I am not as sanguine as you are at that prospect, even if she is an idiot.
And it worries me that so many want to go soft on a party and its leader who think that this is at all acceptable. All this talk of good taste is cover for fear that the frankly childish and morally repulsive decisions made by the Labour party are going to have some light shed on them, not before time.
But then there's the general election. There should also be general agreement that neither the terror attack nor the government's welcome response to it should be allowed to influence the election result. Do not play party politics with the need to protect this country. What to do? What comes to mind is that Jeremy Corbyn and Tim Farron should be invited to join an inner cabinet with an anti-terror remit right now, on the understanding that they and Theresa May will stay members of it regardless of the election result.
Labour chose him knowing his historical support for terrorists - and however assiduously he tries to re-write history - that's not going away.
One could justifiably make the same point about Hollande, without convincing anyone that he was a useful leader in other respects.
Cyclefree does make some pertinent points about Corbyn/Abbott, though.
If only those who voted him their leader - twice - had listened to those who warned that having such people in the leadership would cause problems for what used to be a decent party. If only.
US leak of Manchester attacker's name strikes new blow to intelligence sharing
Naming of Salman Abedi by ‘US officials’ hours before it was announced by UK authorities is latest in series of leaks that may damage credibility with allies
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/23/trump-administration-manchester-bomber-name-leak
Although I'm not sure its demonstrated the Trump administration was directly leaking information, clearly some in the government believe its ok.....
"Abedi was known to the security services but was not part of any active investigation or regarded as a high risk..."
So was the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/23/its-no-easy-job-to-capture-the-nations-mood-but-the-pm-did-it-well
Cheers Don, up to your usual standard…
This reads a little odd.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/23/mike-pence-rally-louisiana-238742
The Tories won the 1959 election after Suez with a majority of nearly 100. Blair won in 2005 with a majority of over 60. Not one of his three successors has even come close to winning an election. That leaves Neville Chamberlain as the sole legitimate example - and it is worth pointing out that he still remained party leader until he died (or three weeks before, anyway). Ironically it was his father's Tariff Reform Campaign that destroyed the Unionists in 1906.
The real problem is that while disillusionment with May will quickly set in, it's hard to see many people turning back to the even more discredited and incompetent Labour Party. I think that's at the root of Brind's whistling to keep his spirits up.
Why couldn't SO have done something incisive and intelligent rather than OGH publishing this vacuous and unhelpful rubbish?
The pain of the families must be unbearable. And there is so little consolation any of us can give them beyond the knowledge that all decent people of goodwill are thinking of them.
https://twitter.com/tonysheps/status/867097592932569089
Anyone would think he was a normal politician or something - one who really does want to win. The Marx he currently most resembles is Groucho.
Your other points... Not sure if he has ever said he is a pacifist? Do you have a link?
On Europe - definitely been a shift but he has moved from opposed to lukewarm support.
Sort of the opposite of TM who moved from lukewarm support to opposed.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/05/22/trump_to_israelis_we_just_got_back_from_the_middle_east.html
The UAE elite's support (funding, weapons, training) for very unpleasant groups in Libya, Syria etc makes the gesture rather cynical in my opinion
http://news.sky.com/video/are-you-a-pacifist-labour-leader-speaks-to-sky-10345100
As to Farron he's irrelevant
The big questions now are how many potential replacements will hang on, and whether they can do anything to correct the malaise or whether Brown will turn out to be a British Hollande.
(As for optimism, listing possible Labour gains sounds like extreme optimism to me!)
Her extremely well judged remarks yesterday don't change that. She has been given an opportunity to refocus her campaign, to get back to the core message that she is the only option for serious government of this country despite her limitations. I think that will save a campaign that was heading off the rails at an alarming rate but people won't forget the ineptitude she has shown. And nor should they.
As for Labour their self indulgence in twice choosing a leader who is not fit to lead the country has come home to roost in the worst way imaginable. But May has reminded their supporters that they are not alone in making mistakes. With a competent and credible leader they would have been very much in contention at this election and they will do better than they deserve. What they do after that will determine whether we have a vacancy for the role of alternative government.
I do work in the construction industry though.
Labour is a sad parody of itself. A party of self interested middle class virtue signallers who claim to care about the poor but are focussed on as many middle class privileges and advantages as they can glean from the system, whatever the cost.
I'm stuggling to understand why you'd want Farron and Corbyn in an inner cabinet to defeat terrorism? If it's just to take away May's advantage brought about by the event in Manchester I can see some logic but I'm sure a better handicap system can be worked out. Wouldn't you have to invite Nuttall and Sturgeon and Wood and Adams too?
well, I can't see the government losing this one.
In a couple of weeks, Theresa May is going to be asking the country to back her or sack her.
Her hard coalition of Brexiteers, 50+'s & C2DE's, combined with soft remainers voting for competence and the bloody-hell-not-Corbyn!stas may well mean she gets over 50%.
Even 60%+ isn't inconceivable.
After her fantastic speech yesterday morning, I bought Con seats on the spreads @ 388 & weighted my betfair positions in favour of a 150+ majority. As I did after the euref - some of the winnings (if there are any!) will get donated to charity.
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/08/07/the-idea-that-jeremy-corbyn-laid-the-foundations-for-peace-in-northern-ireland-is-total-fantasy/
"Spend time with today's Muslim schoolkids, as I have, and you'll find they are mostly very aware of the challenge their generation faces of reconciling the 'modern' western ideals they assimilate at school with the more 'traditional' values imported by their parents. As with other waves of immigrants our country has assimilated over the generations, the problem is not with the generality but with the particular socio-economic and geo-political reasons that allow radical islamism to appeal to a small minority of the disaffected."
An example of the muddle-headed thinking which so bedevils our efforts to prevent radicalisation. The parents of these youngsters, even the grandparents, are often British citizens born and brought up in this country so the questions to be asked are why it is that they are “importing” “traditional” values, what exactly what those values are and whether they are compatible with Western values.
The larger point is whether communities with a strong credal culture can happily co-exist in a secular society and democracy. See this - http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/01/29/angels-and-fools-cyclefree-on-trumps-latest-executive-order/.
When that credal culture is one a significant part of which seems both aggressive and brittle, when there have been for the last 40 years at least, particularly so in the last decade, winds of an aggressive intolerant fundamentalism blowing through it, when there has been a culture of multiculturalism which has refused to contemplate the possibility that not all cultures may be equally worthwhile and has impeded the sort of integration necessary, when the countries where that credal culture originated and is predominant have largely been economic, social and political failures, it is not entirely surprising that radical islamism appeals to some. But the reasons are not just socio-economic or geo-political. Culture and religion also matter. Just because they don’t matter to us doesn’t mean that they don’t matter – a great deal – to others.
It must hugely pain decent Muslims that their religion is so often associated with violence. But, painful as it may be to hear this, there has not been a sufficient or a sufficiently strong firewall between peaceful non-aggressive Islam and the sort of Islam, apparently based on the Koran and the life of Mohammed and his early warriors (see the recent Tom Holland documentary on ISIS) which appears to animate the radicals. Some hard questions need to be asked by and of Muslims themselves about why this is so and what needs to be done to build a much more effective firewall. Saying that these terrorists don’t represent true Islam feels like saying what people would like to be true not what appears to be true, for some anyway. Something much more effective needs doing to strengthen the Muslim body against the virus which is harming it. And others, as we see all too often. Sadly.
IMO it's clear that Corbyn is pretty anti war and sets a much higher threshold for using military force than most other politicians. Now he is leader and subject to a lot more scrutiny he is belatedly realising it's his responsibility to try and shape how the media sees him rather than just answer questions as he would in a pub with old friends.
That interview is a great example of some philosophical musing that is hard for papers to summarise and report. But he has since been very clear that he thinks war can be justifiable.
One thing to be noted about the perpetrator, like many terrorists in recent years - he was a cannabis user. The LD manifesto commitment to legalising marijuana is downright dangerous.
Con ...... 371
Lab ....... 196
SNP ......... 49
LibDem ... 12
N.I. ......... 18
Plaid ......... 3
Greens ...... 1
Total ..... 650
Con Maj ... 92
We're clearly not going to have a prize money competition this time. Nevertheless it would be good if OGH were able to organise a contest to enable a consensus PB.com view of the outcome to be arrived at.
We don't know how the extra Tory votes will stack up but we have a pretty good idea that Labour will do better in certain places like London.
Mr. F, surely the public will be reassured by having 300 million more police on the streets if Diane Abbott becomes Home Secretary?
On-topic: Mr. Brind, not heartened at all by Labour's surge in the polls?
So clearly he's not a pacifist.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/04/24/theresa-may-better-prime-minister-david-cameron/
My pub lunch will be in sunny Cheshunt though.