politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why the Corbynite candidate might not win the Scottish Labour

Second, like the tier of European football Arsenal will be playing this season.

As with all Leadership contests I am leaving this well alone due to my rubbishness at picking the winner.

My post disappeared. The International Olympic Committee has nothing on this place.

I suggested that I am tempted to put a few quid on Jackie Baillie, simply because the other 2 are so awful. She is not exactly the sharpest tool in the box herself but compared to the invisible man and the empty suit she is a colossus (and that is not a weightest comment, honest).

Must confess, I know little to nothing about the candidates. Who are the runners and riders?
Understand it won't compare to the UKIP line up for entertainment!

dixiedean said:

Must confess, I know little to nothing about the candidates. Who are the runners and riders?
Understand it won't compare to the UKIP line up for entertainment!

I've updated the header with this link.

https://leftfootforward.org/2017/08/who-will-replace-kezia-dugdale-scottish-labour-leadership-runners-riders/

TheScreamingEagles said:

dixiedean said:

Must confess, I know little to nothing about the candidates. Who are the runners and riders?
Understand it won't compare to the UKIP line up for entertainment!

I've updated the header with this link.

https://leftfootforward.org/2017/08/who-will-replace-kezia-dugdale-scottish-labour-leadership-runners-riders/

Thank you. Remarkable speedy and efficient service!

The Scottish political centre is to the left of the English and Welsh centre. For this reason I wouldn't read too much into the first result.

The findings from YouGov show that Scottish Labour members are more centrists than those in the rest of Britain

Nah, the centre of gravity is just much more leftwing nord des lignes.

It would be interesting if Jenny Marra stood. I had quite a lot of dealings with her in the referendum campaign. She was an excellent organiser, a really hard worker (unlike, say, the sitting Labour MP in Dundee West at the time) and very personable. We agreed on a surprisingly wide range of matters. She has kept up a reasonable profile in relation to health matters in the press, particularly in the Courier. She has been good at holding the SNP government to account although it is increasingly a target rich environment.

I do recall a debate where she seemed a little outclassed by both Nicola and Ruth but that is fairly normal for Scottish politicians. She would need to toughen up a bit.

I suspect that even if TSE is right about the membership she is too much of a centrist to win. She was the organiser of Jim Murphy's leadership campaign. I can't see her having a lot in common with Corbynites but she is a rare talent in the party.

The look on Kezia's face as Corbyn holds forth in that photo is really quite amusing.

Sarwar is still associated with the Scottish Labour that was destroyed and he's probably a step down from Dugdale. His last ditch attempts to champion Corbyn are also incredibly transparent and part of what people hate about politicians. There must be a better choice for the centrists.

It doesn't feel like the left are putting forward their best candidate either, surely Neil Findlay or Rowley would have been a much easier sell than an unknown Yorkshireman.

Ishmael_Z said:

MTimT said:

A fascinating article about how rising CO2 levels are adversely affecting the ratio of carbs to essential nutrients in all the vegetables we grow:

http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrients-carbon-dioxide-000511?lo=ap_a1

I guess it makes sense - fast growing and larger varietals both always seem to have less taste.

Very interesting. And how amazing that "the Smithsonian Institution also happens to have hundreds of samples of goldenrod [a weed], dating back to 1842", and that that turned out to be a useful thing to have.

Not just a weed, about the biggest single contributor to pollen-based allergies in these parts.

@JasonGroves1: Tories sound resigned to losing votes on pay cap and tuition fees. MPs not being whipped to turn up. Sources say neither vote binding

@JohnRentoul: @JasonGroves1 Tories sensibly retreating rather than be defeated after DUP say its 10 MPs will vote for Labour motions.

Scott_P said:

@JasonGroves1: Tories sound resigned to losing votes on pay cap and tuition fees. MPs not being whipped to turn up. Sources say neither vote binding

@JohnRentoul: @JasonGroves1 Tories sensibly retreating rather than be defeated after DUP say its 10 MPs will vote for Labour motions.

Tories best abstaining

MTimT said:

Ishmael_Z said:

MTimT said:

A fascinating article about how rising CO2 levels are adversely affecting the ratio of carbs to essential nutrients in all the vegetables we grow:

http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrients-carbon-dioxide-000511?lo=ap_a1

I guess it makes sense - fast growing and larger varietals both always seem to have less taste.

Very interesting. And how amazing that "the Smithsonian Institution also happens to have hundreds of samples of goldenrod [a weed], dating back to 1842", and that that turned out to be a useful thing to have.

Not just a weed, about the biggest single contributor to pollen-based allergies in these parts.

Goldenrod often is inaccurately said to cause hay fever in humans.[6] The pollen causing this allergic reaction is produced mainly by ragweed (Ambrosia sp.), blooming at the same time as the goldenrod and pollinated by wind. Goldenrod pollen is too heavy and sticky to be blown far from the flowers, and is pollinated mainly by insects.[6] Frequent handling of goldenrod and other flowers, however, can cause allergic reactions, sometimes irritating enough to force florists to change occupation.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldenrod

Sunil_Prasannan said:

MTimT said:

Ishmael_Z said:

MTimT said:

A fascinating article about how rising CO2 levels are adversely affecting the ratio of carbs to essential nutrients in all the vegetables we grow:

http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrients-carbon-dioxide-000511?lo=ap_a1

I guess it makes sense - fast growing and larger varietals both always seem to have less taste.

Very interesting. And how amazing that "the Smithsonian Institution also happens to have hundreds of samples of goldenrod [a weed], dating back to 1842", and that that turned out to be a useful thing to have.

Not just a weed, about the biggest single contributor to pollen-based allergies in these parts.

Goldenrod often is inaccurately said to cause hay fever in humans.[6] The pollen causing this allergic reaction is produced mainly by ragweed (Ambrosia sp.), blooming at the same time as the goldenrod and pollinated by wind. Goldenrod pollen is too heavy and sticky to be blown far from the flowers, and is pollinated mainly by insects.[6] Frequent handling of goldenrod and other flowers, however, can cause allergic reactions, sometimes irritating enough to force florists to change occupation.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldenrod

Well, you learn something every day ...

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Surely this gif is what's needed on multiple PB occasions.... just seen it.

https://twitter.com/Rosball/status/907965227580436480

Which digit do you think?

The whole of the HOC agrees with me re NHS pay.

No need for a Division even!!

Jonathan Ashworth‏Verified account @JonAshworth 18m18 minutes ago
More
.@houseofcommons just unanimously approved @UKLabour motion to end NHS pay cap. Victory for campaigners

Paul Waugh‏Verified account @paulwaugh 60m60 minutes ago
More
Blimey. Govt really bottled it and handed Labour victory on Opposition Day motion calling for NHS pay rise.

bigjohnowls said:

Jonathan Ashworth‏Verified account @JonAshworth 18m18 minutes ago
More
.@houseofcommons just unanimously approved @UKLabour motion to end NHS pay cap. Victory for campaigners

So exactly where is the money for pay rises going to come from?

Ishmael_Z said:

MTimT said:

Clearly, I'm procrastinating today ... Reading interesting articles rather than finishing the first draft of a chapter due a week ago ...

Here's another great article - on the coming wave of anti-trust legislation in the US against the tech giants

https://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/theres-blood-in-the-water-in-silicon-valley?utm_term=.noP4wmjzl#.waGqObDBE

The trouble is the pesky free market doing the opposite of what it is meant to do. We all use google as search engine by choice, and the synergies from then using android phones and gmail and chrome are fantastic, and what the market wants - monopoly in breadth and in depth. And none of us wants to remember which friends use facebook vs myspace vs othersite, the system works precisely because facebook has no competitors.

And anti-trust doesn't have much of a history of succeeding.

https://xkcd.com/1118/

Not arguing on the issues - I agree that in economics there are lots of natural monopolies (pretty much all networks). And I agree that regulation of monopolies, or worse, natural monopoly busting, has had poor results with many unintended consequences.

I just found the rapidly changing and coalescing political environment interesting.

MTimT said:

Ishmael_Z said:

MTimT said:

Clearly, I'm procrastinating today ... Reading interesting articles rather than finishing the first draft of a chapter due a week ago ...

Here's another great article - on the coming wave of anti-trust legislation in the US against the tech giants

https://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/theres-blood-in-the-water-in-silicon-valley?utm_term=.noP4wmjzl#.waGqObDBE

The trouble is the pesky free market doing the opposite of what it is meant to do. We all use google as search engine by choice, and the synergies from then using android phones and gmail and chrome are fantastic, and what the market wants - monopoly in breadth and in depth. And none of us wants to remember which friends use facebook vs myspace vs othersite, the system works precisely because facebook has no competitors.

And anti-trust doesn't have much of a history of succeeding.

https://xkcd.com/1118/

Not arguing on the issues - I agree that in economics there are lots of natural monopolies (pretty much all networks). And I agree that regulation of monopolies, or worse, natural monopoly busting, has had poor results with many unintended consequences.

I just found the rapidly changing and coalescing political environment interesting.

Why it is supposed to be good for the consumer to have to subscribe to both Sky and BT to watch football is something I have yet to work out. All competition seems to have done is massively increase the fees paid to the EPL so that both are more expensive than they otherwise would be.

Pulpstar said:

DavidL said:

eek said:

bigjohnowls said:

Jonathan Ashworth‏Verified account @JonAshworth 18m18 minutes ago
More
.@houseofcommons just unanimously approved @UKLabour motion to end NHS pay cap. Victory for campaigners

So exactly where is the money for pay rises going to come from?

Just sack a few staff, ideally managers.

Rejig the automatic pay increases.

Maybe we could look at the pensions paid to former staff. I am sure @bigjohnowls would approve of that.

The NHS in E&W employs about 1.5m people so if you assumed that they were all paid the same an additional 4% increase would mean the headcount would need to be reduced by 60K to stay within budget. Of course, in reality, any job losses are likely to be focussed on those who actually do the work rather than sitting in offices having meetings so that number may be nearly doubled.

Or we can just print some more I suppose.

DavidL said:

TOPPING said:

DavidL said:

MTimT said:

Ishmael_Z said:

MTimT said:

Clearly, I'm procrastinating today ... Reading interesting articles rather than finishing the first draft of a chapter due a week ago ...

Here's another great article - on the coming wave of anti-trust legislation in the US against the tech giants

https://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/theres-blood-in-the-water-in-silicon-valley?utm_term=.noP4wmjzl#.waGqObDBE

The trouble is the pesky free market doing the opposite of what it is meant to do. We all use google as search engine by choice, and the synergies from then using android phones and gmail and chrome are fantastic, and what the market wants - monopoly in breadth and in depth. And none of us wants to remember which friends use facebook vs myspace vs othersite, the system works precisely because facebook has no competitors.

And anti-trust doesn't have much of a history of succeeding.

https://xkcd.com/1118/

Not arguing on the issues - I agree that in economics there are lots of natural monopolies (pretty much all networks). And I agree that regulation of monopolies, or worse, natural monopoly busting, has had poor results with many unintended consequences.

I just found the rapidly changing and coalescing political environment interesting.

Why it is supposed to be good for the consumer to have to subscribe to both Sky and BT to watch football is something I have yet to work out. All competition seems to have done is massively increase the fees paid to the EPL so that both are more expensive than they otherwise would be.

directory enquiries...

It's enough to turn anyone into a rabid Corbynite nationaliser.

I honestly cannot remember the last time I used it. It is so much easier to just google now it has got complicated.

Agree but those f***ing irritating two blokes are on our screens for a reason (same as rose sellers on motorway crossings) - if it didn't work they wouldn't be there.

Check this out from wiki:

"Calls to 118 118 are charged £8.98 per call plus £4.49 per minute (after 60 seconds) including VAT (tariff code SC087) plus the access charge set by the caller's landline or mobile phone provider."

I would imagine old people still use them or some service similar. But of course the value is not the directory enquiries, eye-watering charges as they may be, but the brand. They have now launched 118 118 Money and presumably could diversify to home grocery delivery or anything else they fancied.

But to the original point - govt directory enquiries cost 40p before the service was "liberalised".

DavidL said:

TOPPING said:

DavidL said:

TOPPING said:

DavidL said:

MTimT said:

Ishmael_Z said:

MTimT said:

Clearly, I'm procrastinating today ... Reading interesting articles rather than finishing the first draft of a chapter due a week ago ...

Here's another great article - on the coming wave of anti-trust legislation in the US against the tech giants



The trouble is the pesky free market doing the opposite of what it is meant to do. We all use google as search engine by choice, and the synergies from then using android phones and gmail and chrome are fantastic, and what the market wants - monopoly in breadth and in depth. And none of us wants to remember which friends use facebook vs myspace vs othersite, the system works precisely because facebook has no competitors.

And anti-trust doesn't have much of a history of succeeding.

https://xkcd.com/1118/

Not arguing on the issues - I agree that in economics there are lots of natural monopolies (pretty much all networks). And I agree that regulation of monopolies, or worse, natural monopoly busting, has had poor results with many unintended consequences.

I just found the rapidly changing and coalescing political environment interesting.

Why it is supposed to be good for the consumer to have to subscribe to both Sky and BT to watch football is something I have yet to work out. All competition seems to have done is massively increase the fees paid to the EPL so that both are more expensive than they otherwise would be.

directory enquiries...

It's enough to turn anyone into a rabid Corbynite nationaliser.

I honestly cannot remember the last time I used it. It is so much easier to just google now it has got complicated.

Agree but those f***ing irritating two blokes are on our screens for a reason (same as rose sellers on motorway crossings) - if it didn't work they wouldn't be there.

Check this out from wiki:

"Calls to 118 118 are charged £8.98 per call plus £4.49 per minute (after 60 seconds) including VAT (tariff code SC087) plus the access charge set by the caller's landline or mobile phone provider."

I would imagine old people still use them or some service similar. But of course the value is not the directory enquiries, eye-watering charges as they may be, but the brand. They have now launched 118 118 Money and presumably could diversify to home grocery delivery or anything else they fancied.

But to the original point - govt directory enquiries cost 40p before the service was "liberalised".

Wow. Never, ever again.

In the City underwriting fees were fixed at 2.25% The MMC steamed in to break up the cartel - fees went up to 4%

NickPalmer said:

DavidL said:

I thought that Labour had contrived a meaningful vote on university fees which could actually stop the increase of £250 coming into effect. Is that not the case? Was it more gesture politics?

The Commons authorities (to general surprise) ruled that the motion, like the one on thre NHS pay cap, was non-binding, so the Tories are simply boycotting the motions and will ignore them.

It's called taking back democratic control. Or something.

Aren't OpDay motions always non-binding? I don't think the opposition can propose spending measures can they anyway? Only amend government proposals

And in other news: Paris awarded 2024 Olympics and LA awarded 2028 Olympics

Charles said:

NickPalmer said:

DavidL said:

I thought that Labour had contrived a meaningful vote on university fees which could actually stop the increase of £250 coming into effect. Is that not the case? Was it more gesture politics?

The Commons authorities (to general surprise) ruled that the motion, like the one on thre NHS pay cap, was non-binding, so the Tories are simply boycotting the motions and will ignore them.

It's called taking back democratic control. Or something.

Aren't OpDay motions always non-binding? I don't think the opposition can propose spending measures can they anyway? Only amend government proposals

I'm not up on the details, but a form of motion was selected which has up to now been thought to be binding, apparently, and is now ruled not to be binding.

In general it seems undesirable that the Government can ignore the will of Parliament, whatever the form that it's expressed - it's another indication of the weak position of a minority government, but they ought to need to find allies or accept the view of the majority, rather than just shrug it off.

Serious question - Why are Conservatives such horrible people?

Osborne's latest rant that he won't rest until Theresa May is "cut up in pieces in his freezer" is just the latest in a long line of seriously bitter and angry Tories that we've seen over the years (Heath, Hezza, Fatch, etc.)

I mean sure Labour and Lib-Dems have their fall out but can anybody seriously think of a leading Labour and Lib-Dem MP or former MP that would make such a violently malevolent comment about an enemy as Osborne's about May?

Ali Campbell maybe? But not many others...

They Tories are a nasty, nasty bunch aren't they?

not_on_fire said:

NickPalmer said:

Charles said:

NickPalmer said:

DavidL said:

I thought that Labour had contrived a meaningful vote on university fees which could actually stop the increase of £250 coming into effect. Is that not the case? Was it more gesture politics?

The Commons authorities (to general surprise) ruled that the motion, like the one on thre NHS pay cap, was non-binding, so the Tories are simply boycotting the motions and will ignore them.

It's called taking back democratic control. Or something.

Aren't OpDay motions always non-binding? I don't think the opposition can propose spending measures can they anyway? Only amend government proposals

I'm not up on the details, but a form of motion was selected which has up to now been thought to be binding, apparently, and is now ruled not to be binding.

In general it seems undesirable that the Government can ignore the will of Parliament, whatever the form that it's expressed - it's another indication of the weak position of a minority government, but they ought to need to find allies or accept the view of the majority, rather than just shrug it off.

Agreed - I'd always thought the purpose of Parliament was to pass laws that the majority of MPs voted for. Surely for those purposes a "Government" is just an artificial construct of at least 326 MPs who agree to always vote the same way.

Nick, do you know who are the "Commons authorities"? My response would depend on whether they are political appointments or whether they are constitutional/legal advisers.

Mexicanpete said:

GIN1138 said:

Serious question - Why are Conservatives such horrible people?

Osborne's latest rant that he won't rest until Theresa May is "cut up in pieces in his freezer" is just the latest in a long line of seriously bitter and angry Tories that we've seen over the years (Heath, Hezza, Fatch, etc.)

I mean sure Labour and Lib-Dems have their fall out but can anybody seriously think of a leading Labour and Lib-Dem MP or former MP that would make such a violently malevolent comment about an enemy as Osborne's about May?

Ali Campbell maybe? But not many others...

They Tories are a nasty, nasty bunch aren't they?

Corbyn on Blair???

Corbyn would never be violently nasty about an enemy...

Big_G_NorthWales said:

GIN1138 said:

Serious question - Why are Conservatives such horrible people?

Osborne's latest rant that he won't rest until Theresa May is "cut up in pieces in his freezer" is just the latest in a long line of seriously bitter and angry Tories that we've seen over the years (Heath, Hezza, Fatch, etc.)

I mean sure Labour and Lib-Dems have their fall out but can anybody seriously think of a leading Labour and Lib-Dem MP or former MP that would make such a violently malevolent comment about an enemy as Osborne's about May?

Ali Campbell maybe? But not many others...

They Tories are a nasty, nasty bunch aren't they?

I hope no one considers me nasty.

Definitely not BG!

not_on_fire said:

Agreed - I'd always thought the purpose of Parliament was to pass laws that the majority of MPs voted for. Surely for those purposes a "Government" is just an artificial construct of at least 326 MPs who agree to always vote the same way.

I presume* the issue is that no legislation was created by the vote. It is the legislation that is binding, not the vote. This motion therefore is non-binding in the same way as the Brexit referendum was non-binding. Nevertheless the Opposition has the moral authority to beat up the government for not respecting parliament.

I believe the last lost Opposition debate was by the 2009 Labour Government who were shamed by the vote into providing UK residence for ex-Gurkha soldiers.

* I am absolutely not a constitutional lawyer.

not_on_fire said:

NickPalmer said:

Charles said:

NickPalmer said:

DavidL said:

I thought that Labour had contrived a meaningful vote on university fees which could actually stop the increase of £250 coming into effect. Is that not the case? Was it more gesture politics?

The Commons authorities (to general surprise) ruled that the motion, like the one on thre NHS pay cap, was non-binding, so the Tories are simply boycotting the motions and will ignore them.

It's called taking back democratic control. Or something.

Aren't OpDay motions always non-binding? I don't think the opposition can propose spending measures can they anyway? Only amend government proposals

I'm not up on the details, but a form of motion was selected which has up to now been thought to be binding, apparently, and is now ruled not to be binding.

In general it seems undesirable that the Government can ignore the will of Parliament, whatever the form that it's expressed - it's another indication of the weak position of a minority government, but they ought to need to find allies or accept the view of the majority, rather than just shrug it off.

Agreed - I'd always thought the purpose of Parliament was to pass laws that the majority of MPs voted for. Surely for those purposes a "Government" is just an artificial construct of at least 326 MPs who agree to always vote the same way.

Yrp. I thought Parliament was supposed to be the ultimate authority which the Government answer to. If they vote for something then it should mean something.

GIN1138 said:

Serious question - Why are Conservatives such horrible people?

Osborne's latest rant that he won't rest until Theresa May is "cut up in pieces in his freezer" is just the latest in a long line of seriously bitter and angry Tories that we've seen over the years (Heath, Hezza, Fatch, etc.)

I mean sure Labour and Lib-Dems have their fall out but can anybody seriously think of a leading Labour and Lib-Dem MP or former MP that would make such a violently malevolent comment about an enemy as Osborne's about May?

Ali Campbell maybe? But not many others...

They Tories are a nasty, nasty bunch aren't they?

He has be reading too much TSE

TSE - my personal experience too tells me you should never underestimate a former public schoolboy with a Yorkshire accent, though in my case I'm told it's a mid-Atlantic one.

FF43 said:

David_Evershed said:

NickPalmer said:

Charles said:

NickPalmer said:

DavidL said:

I thought that Labour had contrived a meaningful vote on university fees which could actually stop the increase of £250 coming into effect. Is that not the case? Was it more gesture politics?

The Commons authorities (to general surprise) ruled that the motion, like the one on thre NHS pay cap, was non-binding, so the Tories are simply boycotting the motions and will ignore them.

It's called taking back democratic control. Or something.

Aren't OpDay motions always non-binding? I don't think the opposition can propose spending measures can they anyway? Only amend government proposals

I'm not up on the details, but a form of motion was selected which has up to now been thought to be binding, apparently, and is now ruled not to be binding.

In general it seems undesirable that the Government can ignore the will of Parliament, whatever the form that it's expressed - it's another indication of the weak position of a minority government, but they ought to need to find allies or accept the view of the majority, rather than just shrug it off.

It is Catch 22.

If the vote were binding then the opposition would not win it.

It is only because it is non binding that they can win.

I don't think that's the case. It depends on the whim of the DUP whether the government can win ANY vote. The government bribed the DUP with a billion of taxpayer money entered into an arrangement with the DUP for them to support certain bits of legislation.

They can win any vote on Brexit, budget or confidence. Anything else is up to DUP. This has betting implications. When Brexit is over, the government will have to negotiate to get any other business through. The chances of this lasting to 2022 receded today I feel.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

GIN1138 said:

Serious question - Why are Conservatives such horrible people?

Osborne's latest rant that he won't rest until Theresa May is "cut up in pieces in his freezer" is just the latest in a long line of seriously bitter and angry Tories that we've seen over the years (Heath, Hezza, Fatch, etc.)

I mean sure Labour and Lib-Dems have their fall out but can anybody seriously think of a leading Labour and Lib-Dem MP or former MP that would make such a violently malevolent comment about an enemy as Osborne's about May?

Ali Campbell maybe? But not many others...

They Tories are a nasty, nasty bunch aren't they?

I hope no one considers me nasty. However, George Osborne has turned not only nasty but downright disgracefull. He is acting like a spoilt toff who has been jilted and it is not a pretty sight.

You can object to Theresa May as much as you like but he is now becoming threatening. Very sad and as a BBC presenter has just said it must be hurting Theresa May but it is now damaging him much more

And Liverpool 1 down

My experience otf tories in local government is that many are nasty. They believe they have a god given right to be in control but when they lose thpet turn nasty, frustrating the new adminisyration as best they can. As the tory leader of the opposition group told ne "your plans are brilliant but if we let you implement them we'll be ot of power ,for a generation" to them regaining contro was more important than serving the people who elected them

AnneJGP said:

Nick, do you know who are the "Commons authorities"? My response would depend on whether they are political appointments or whether they are constitutional/legal advisers.

I believe it's the Speaker and his advisers.

Mexicanpete said:

GIN1138 said:

Serious question - Why are Conservatives such horrible people?

Osborne's latest rant that he won't rest until Theresa May is "cut up in pieces in his freezer" is just the latest in a long line of seriously bitter and angry Tories that we've seen over the years (Heath, Hezza, Fatch, etc.)

I mean sure Labour and Lib-Dems have their fall out but can anybody seriously think of a leading Labour and Lib-Dem MP or former MP that would make such a violently malevolent comment about an enemy as Osborne's about May?

Ali Campbell maybe? But not many others...

They Tories are a nasty, nasty bunch aren't they?

Corbyn on Blair???

Of course not. Corbyn wouldn't even say he wished Blair (or indeed May or even Farage) would have a sleepless night: he thinks it's inappropriate to wish ill on anyone (I've heard him shut up an anti-Trump crowd by saying there's good in everyone), and a distraction from persuading people on the issues.

Lots of Labour MPs would be less restrained about rivals, though Osborne's remark (though presumably supposed to be a joke) does stand out. Danczuk is the closest parallel I can think of, when he was a Labour MP. But most Tories wouldn't go that far either.

dixiedean said:

Sean_F said:

GIN1138 said:

Serious question - Why are Conservatives such horrible people?

Osborne's latest rant that he won't rest until Theresa May is "cut up in pieces in his freezer" is just the latest in a long line of seriously bitter and angry Tories that we've seen over the years (Heath, Hezza, Fatch, etc.)

I mean sure Labour and Lib-Dems have their fall out but can anybody seriously think of a leading Labour and Lib-Dem MP or former MP that would make such a violently malevolent comment about an enemy as Osborne's about May?

Ali Campbell maybe? But not many others...

They Tories are a nasty, nasty bunch aren't they?

The extreme left are very nasty, but most Labour people are (in my experience) quite pleasant.

Most Tories are as well, but there some who are obsessively factional. They think they have a God-given right to rule, and hate the opposing faction who keep them out of office.

A fair and accurate summary from my experience. There are also some nasties on both sides who are perfectly lovely people except when it comes to politics.

I have to say that I have no experience of the labour party but they probably think the same way in some areas

NickPalmer said:

Mexicanpete said:

GIN1138 said:

Serious question - Why are Conservatives such horrible people?

Osborne's latest rant that he won't rest until Theresa May is "cut up in pieces in his freezer" is just the latest in a long line of seriously bitter and angry Tories that we've seen over the years (Heath, Hezza, Fatch, etc.)

I mean sure Labour and Lib-Dems have their fall out but can anybody seriously think of a leading Labour and Lib-Dem MP or former MP that would make such a violently malevolent comment about an enemy as Osborne's about May?

Ali Campbell maybe? But not many others...

They Tories are a nasty, nasty bunch aren't they?

Corbyn on Blair???

Of course not. Corbyn wouldn't even say he wished Blair (or indeed May or even Farage) would have a sleepless night: he thinks it's inappropriate to wish ill on anyone (I've heard him shut up an anti-Trump crowd by saying there's good in everyone), and a distraction from persuading people on the issues.

Lots of Labour MPs would be less restrained about rivals, though Osborne's remark (though presumably supposed to be a joke) does stand out. Danczuk is the closest parallel I can think of, when he was a Labour MP. But most Tories wouldn't go that far either.

Osborne seems to be one of those people whose life would just seem empty, were it not for the hate and spite he directs to those he believes have wronged him.

DavidL said:

In the first week of champions league fixtures English clubs currently have a goal difference of 18-2. Remarkable.

And for Scottish teams that stat is 0-5.

Sean_F said:

NickPalmer said:

Mexicanpete said:

GIN1138 said:

Serious question - Why are Conservatives such horrible people?

Osborne's latest rant that he won't rest until Theresa May is "cut up in pieces in his freezer" is just the latest in a long line of seriously bitter and angry Tories that we've seen over the years (Heath, Hezza, Fatch, etc.)

I mean sure Labour and Lib-Dems have their fall out but can anybody seriously think of a leading Labour and Lib-Dem MP or former MP that would make such a violently malevolent comment about an enemy as Osborne's about May?

Ali Campbell maybe? But not many others...

They Tories are a nasty, nasty bunch aren't they?

Corbyn on Blair???

Of course not. Corbyn wouldn't even say he wished Blair (or indeed May or even Farage) would have a sleepless night: he thinks it's inappropriate to wish ill on anyone (I've heard him shut up an anti-Trump crowd by saying there's good in everyone), and a distraction from persuading people on the issues.

Lots of Labour MPs would be less restrained about rivals, though Osborne's remark (though presumably supposed to be a joke) does stand out. Danczuk is the closest parallel I can think of, when he was a Labour MP. But most Tories wouldn't go that far either.

Osborne seems to be one of those people whose life would just seem empty, were it not for the hate and spite he directs to those he believes have wronged him.

It says an awful lot about him.

Monksfield said:

Sean_F said:

NickPalmer said:

Mexicanpete said:

GIN1138 said:

Serious question - Why are Conservatives such horrible people?

Osborne's latest rant that he won't rest until Theresa May is "cut up in pieces in his freezer" is just the latest in a long line of seriously bitter and angry Tories that we've seen over the years (Heath, Hezza, Fatch, etc.)

I mean sure Labour and Lib-Dems have their fall out but can anybody seriously think of a leading Labour and Lib-Dem MP or former MP that would make such a violently malevolent comment about an enemy as Osborne's about May?

Ali Campbell maybe? But not many others...

They Tories are a nasty, nasty bunch aren't they?

Corbyn on Blair???

Of course not. Corbyn wouldn't even say he wished Blair (or indeed May or even Farage) would have a sleepless night: he thinks it's inappropriate to wish ill on anyone (I've heard him shut up an anti-Trump crowd by saying there's good in everyone), and a distraction from persuading people on the issues.

Lots of Labour MPs would be less restrained about rivals, though Osborne's remark (though presumably supposed to be a joke) does stand out. Danczuk is the closest parallel I can think of, when he was a Labour MP. But most Tories wouldn't go that far either.

Osborne seems to be one of those people whose life would just seem empty, were it not for the hate and spite he directs to those he believes have wronged him.

He was treated very shittily by Theresa.

We're all treated shittily by someone, during our lifetimes. Most of us aren't bitter and obsessive about it.