politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB’s GE17 candidate selection process makes it look amateuris
Comments
-
Wannacry was based on one of our own hacks developed in house by GCHQ/NSA. The decision was made not to patch - to leave our own systems vulnerable. That the tools got leaked is an outright disaster. It was only a matter of time before they'd be weaponised.TheScreamingEagles said:
You do realise the Foreign Secretary is responsible for GCHQ and not the Home Secretary?Pong said:
It could have been prevented if the former home secretary and current prime minister had done her job properly.Pong said:
Nope.FrancisUrquhart said:NHS trusts were left vulnerable in a major ransomware attack in May because cyber-security recommendations were not followed, a government report has said.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41753022
WannaCry was almost exclusively a GCHQ/NSA f*ckup.
That she's appointed a replacement home secretary who doesn't even understand encryption indicates how far up sh*t creek we are.
The tories are a serious threat to national security.
The govt knew the tools had been leaked several months before Wannacry hit.
The leak had immediate - and expensive - implications right across government.
Just saying *the NHS woz warned* is a complete cop out.0 -
In general, that might be true. But someone with even a modicum of awareness at Labour's national campaign team should have known that Hallam was not a usual case.TheScreamingEagles said:
He was selected start of May and around that time Labour were around 18% behind in the polls, some had Labour further behind.rkrkrk said:
yes i thought that strange also.swing_voter said:I dont buy the idea that Labour didnt view Sheffield Hallam as winnable at the start of 2017......Clegg had only held on in 2015 by a few thousand and that was as DPM and Party leader, the seat was winnable long before 2017 and its not as though Sheffield/South Yorks was full of marginals for Labour to fight. I am amazed that he was just parachuted in to such a high profile seat that was more than winnable. Thats not to say Clegg's defeat was not a surprise but it was hardly a 20,000 vote collapse, there is more to this, perhaps Sheffield Labour were busy worrying abour trees?
possibly labour expectations were just very very low in 2017... they didn't really expect to be gaining seats.
So when he was selected as the Labour candidate the perception was Labour was in for a shellacking on June 8th, (net) seat gains weren’t on the agenda for them.
1. It is student-heavy. Not all of it by any means but a good deal more so than the national average.
2. The main fight was against the Lib Dems, not the Tories - and the Lib Dems were also at best treading water at an all-time low, and had only a small majority.
3. Clegg received tactical Tory votes in 2015 when he was in coalition with the government. It wasn't at all obvious that these would be forthcoming again in a seat that the Tories had held in the past and despite current local weakness, should reasonably aspire to hold again, particularly given the national polling at the time. Labour had a chance of coming through the middle (or round the left-hand side) and winning with only 35% or so.
Even if the final result had been the 18-20 point leads the Tories were racking up in late April, this was a seat that Labour might have gained - indeed, it might have been the only seat they gained outside of Scotland.0 -
Do you have a link from a reputable source/link that it was developed by GCHQ?Pong said:
Wannacry was based on one of our own hacks developed in house by GCHQ/NSA. The decision was made not to patch - to leave our own systems vulnerable. That the tools got leaked is an outright disaster. It was only a matter of time before they'd be weaponised.TheScreamingEagles said:
You do realise the Foreign Secretary is responsible for GCHQ and not the Home Secretary?Pong said:
It could have been prevented if the former home secretary and current prime minister had done her job properly.Pong said:
Nope.FrancisUrquhart said:NHS trusts were left vulnerable in a major ransomware attack in May because cyber-security recommendations were not followed, a government report has said.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41753022
WannaCry was almost exclusively a GCHQ/NSA f*ckup.
That she's appointed a replacement home secretary who doesn't even understand encryption indicates how far up sh*t creek we are.
The tories are a serious threat to national security.
The leak had immediate - and expensive - implications right across government.
Just saying *the NHS woz warned* is a complete cop out.0 -
I wouldn't read too much into that. There were still plenty of Tory candidates selected who'd only gone through emergency approvals after the election was called. We were already nearly two years into the 2015 parliament. Reasonable preparedness for the scheduled 2020 election required candidates in target seats to be in place sooner rather than later and getting a shift on with candidate selection was a sensible move to that end.DecrepitJohnL said:As an aside, should we not remember that CCHQ brought forward its candidate selection before the general election that allegedly took the party by surprise?
0 -
As opposed to Diane Abbott, who has a PhD in applied mathematics and has written papers on encryption?Pong said:
Damage to the NHS could have been avoided if the former home secretary and current prime minister had done her job properly.Pong said:
Nope.FrancisUrquhart said:NHS trusts were left vulnerable in a major ransomware attack in May because cyber-security recommendations were not followed, a government report has said.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41753022
WannaCry was almost exclusively a GCHQ/NSA f*ckup.
That she's appointed a replacement home secretary who doesn't even understand encryption indicates how far up sh*t creek we are.
The tories are a serious threat to national security.0 -
One of the odd things about Abbott is that as a young woman, she clearly was extremely bright; people from her background do not get to Cambridge for any other reason. Who knows where that intelligence went?Sandpit said:
As opposed to Diane Abbott, who has a PhD in applied mathematics and has written papers on encryption?Pong said:
Damage to the NHS could have been avoided if the former home secretary and current prime minister had done her job properly.Pong said:
Nope.FrancisUrquhart said:NHS trusts were left vulnerable in a major ransomware attack in May because cyber-security recommendations were not followed, a government report has said.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41753022
WannaCry was almost exclusively a GCHQ/NSA f*ckup.
That she's appointed a replacement home secretary who doesn't even understand encryption indicates how far up sh*t creek we are.
The tories are a serious threat to national security.0 -
Jared is a pretty useless git. Classic case of donkey in a rosette getting swept to office due to unexpected shift in political weather. We had some similar rather poorly vetted candidates elected for the SNP in 2015 in their landslide.david_herdson said:
In general, that might be true. But someone with even a modicum of awareness at Labour's national campaign team should have known that Hallam was not a usual case.TheScreamingEagles said:
He was selected start of May and around that time Labour were around 18% behind in the polls, some had Labour further behind.rkrkrk said:
yes i thought that strange also.swing_voter said:I dont buy the idea that Labour didnt view Sheffield Hallam as winnable at the start of 2017......Clegg had only held on in 2015 by a few thousand and that was as DPM and Party leader, the seat was winnable long before 2017 and its not as though Sheffield/South Yorks was full of marginals for Labour to fight. I am amazed that he was just parachuted in to such a high profile seat that was more than winnable. Thats not to say Clegg's defeat was not a surprise but it was hardly a 20,000 vote collapse, there is more to this, perhaps Sheffield Labour were busy worrying abour trees?
possibly labour expectations were just very very low in 2017... they didn't really expect to be gaining seats.
So when he was selected as the Labour candidate the perception was Labour was in for a shellacking on June 8th, (net) seat gains weren’t on the agenda for them.
1. It is student-heavy. Not all of it by any means but a good deal more so than the national average.
2. The main fight was against the Lib Dems, not the Tories - and the Lib Dems were also at best treading water at an all-time low, and had only a small majority.
3. Clegg received tactical Tory votes in 2015 when he was in coalition with the government. It wasn't at all obvious that these would be forthcoming again in a seat that the Tories had held in the past and despite current local weakness, should reasonably aspire to hold again, particularly given the national polling at the time. Labour had a chance of coming through the middle (or round the left-hand side) and winning with only 35% or so.
Even if the final result had been the 18-20 point leads the Tories were racking up in late April, this was a seat that Labour might have gained - indeed, it might have been the only seat they gained outside of Scotland.
The question is, should candidates be vetted so much that we are left only with the anodyne?
0 -
O'Mara is clearly an arse. To compare his attitude to women with dinosaurs is plainly very unfair on the latter. But does anyone else find the current hysteria just a tad OTT? The Sun, of all publications, having an attack of the vapours because someone said something deeply unpleasant registered pretty high on my hypocrisy scale.
It's difficult to have any sympathy for O'Mara but this is another illustration of why arseholes like him are the sort of people we end up with in public life and, god help us, ruling us. What normal person would want to risk a tabloid lynching in the course of their employment?0 -
It will make Sheffield Hallam a good three way fight in 2018/19/20 etc......0
-
Common sense is not, I understand, a requiste for Oxbridge. And, TBH, I suspect she’s not as well as she should be, given her position.david_herdson said:
One of the odd things about Abbott is that as a young woman, she clearly was extremely bright; people from her background do not get to Cambridge for any other reason. Who knows where that intelligence went?Sandpit said:
As opposed to Diane Abbott, who has a PhD in applied mathematics and has written papers on encryption?Pong said:
Damage to the NHS could have been avoided if the former home secretary and current prime minister had done her job properly.Pong said:
Nope.FrancisUrquhart said:NHS trusts were left vulnerable in a major ransomware attack in May because cyber-security recommendations were not followed, a government report has said.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41753022
WannaCry was almost exclusively a GCHQ/NSA f*ckup.
That she's appointed a replacement home secretary who doesn't even understand encryption indicates how far up sh*t creek we are.
The tories are a serious threat to national security.0 -
On topic, surely the main parties have a central list of approved candidates for emergencies such as a short-notice election, or local constituency parties can find one of their own such as a councillor or party official to stand?
Selecting someone they clearly didn’t know just sounds bonkers. But then we remember back to the shambles of the past couple of years in Corbyn’s Labour, before the election was called.0 -
I agree, then he said thisDavidL said:O'Mara is clearly an arse. To compare his attitude to women with dinosaurs is plainly very unfair on the latter. But does anyone else find the current hysteria just a tad OTT? The Sun, of all publications, having an attack of the vapours because someone said something deeply unpleasant registered pretty high on my hypocrisy scale.
It's difficult to have any sympathy for O'Mara but this is another illustration of why arseholes like him are the sort of people we end up with in public life and, god help us, ruling us. What normal person would want to risk a tabloid lynching in the course of their employment?
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/9227756811420016640 -
If this has been posted before, apologies, but in the Guardian’s report on the JFK papers is a note that 'A reporter on the UK’s Cambridge Evening News received an anonymous call telling him to ring the US embassy for some big news, 25 minutes before the assassination of JFK, according to a memo from a deputy director of the CIA to the director of the FBI.’
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/27/jfk-documents-what-we-have-learned-so-far
Odd, if a co-incidence.0 -
She was certainly bright, whether one finds her politics appealing or not. I think her health issues are significant. She is a longstanding friend and supporter of Jezza, so retains her place really due to his reciprocal loyalty to her. This is a laudable trait in Jezza in large part, but now he is more secure and should encourage her to step back from the front line for her own health.david_herdson said:
One of the odd things about Abbott is that as a young woman, she clearly was extremely bright; people from her background do not get to Cambridge for any other reason. Who knows where that intelligence went?Sandpit said:
As opposed to Diane Abbott, who has a PhD in applied mathematics and has written papers on encryption?Pong said:
Damage to the NHS could have been avoided if the former home secretary and current prime minister had done her job properly.Pong said:
Nope.FrancisUrquhart said:NHS trusts were left vulnerable in a major ransomware attack in May because cyber-security recommendations were not followed, a government report has said.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41753022
WannaCry was almost exclusively a GCHQ/NSA f*ckup.
That she's appointed a replacement home secretary who doesn't even understand encryption indicates how far up sh*t creek we are.
The tories are a serious threat to national security.0 -
That's just another demonstration of his stupidity and Labour holier than thou arrogance. If stupidity is going to be a bar to being an MP then the House will need to be a lot smaller than 600 next time out.TheScreamingEagles said:
I agree, then he said thisDavidL said:O'Mara is clearly an arse. To compare his attitude to women with dinosaurs is plainly very unfair on the latter. But does anyone else find the current hysteria just a tad OTT? The Sun, of all publications, having an attack of the vapours because someone said something deeply unpleasant registered pretty high on my hypocrisy scale.
It's difficult to have any sympathy for O'Mara but this is another illustration of why arseholes like him are the sort of people we end up with in public life and, god help us, ruling us. What normal person would want to risk a tabloid lynching in the course of their employment?
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/9227756811420016640 -
The JFK files are utterly fascinating to read through.OldKingCole said:If this has been posted before, apologies, but in the Guardian’s report on the JFK papers is a note that 'A reporter on the UK’s Cambridge Evening News received an anonymous call telling him to ring the US embassy for some big news, 25 minutes before the assassination of JFK, according to a memo from a deputy director of the CIA to the director of the FBI.’
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/27/jfk-documents-what-we-have-learned-so-far
Odd, if a co-incidence.
There might even be enough there for the US news networks to leave Trump alone for a day or two...0 -
Read Ready Player One by Erenst Cline for a good wallow in 80's video cultureviewcode said:
Oh dear god, we're doing arcade game nostalgia. OK, let's get it over with...TwistedFireStopper said:That too. The arcade version had 2 uzi machine pistols on the cabinet. Pure class! My favourite games were Commando and Choplifter. Proper video games with limited lives and saves. None of the modern restarting where you died malarkey. If you were crap, you never got more than a couple of minutes for your 10p!
Asteroids, Battlezone, Missile Command, Tempest, Star Wars, Marble Madness, Gamesmaster, snarky mention of "purple joystick"...
0 -
No, we shouldn't, and there might be a thread in that. On the other hand, as you say, Jared is a useless, lazy, unpleasant man who not only held bigoted views in his youth but appears to still hold them now. Now, that shouldn't be a bar to election - extremist parties are a vital part of a democracy and enable voters to safely let off steam while flagging up to the mainstream problems that need addressing - but you'd think it should be a bar to standing for a mainstream party.foxinsoxuk said:
Jared is a pretty useless git. Classic case of donkey in a rosette getting swept to office due to unexpected shift in political weather. We had some similar rather poorly vetted candidates elected for the SNP in 2015 in their landslide.david_herdson said:
In general, that might be true. But someone with even a modicum of awareness at Labour's national campaign team should have known that Hallam was not a usual case.TheScreamingEagles said:
He was selected start of May and around that time Labour were around 18% behind in the polls, some had Labour further behind.rkrkrk said:
yes i thought that strange also.
possibly labour expectations were just very very low in 2017... they didn't really expect to be gaining seats.
So when he was selected as the Labour candidate the perception was Labour was in for a shellacking on June 8th, (net) seat gains weren’t on the agenda for them.
1. It is student-heavy. Not all of it by any means but a good deal more so than the national average.
2. The main fight was against the Lib Dems, not the Tories - and the Lib Dems were also at best treading water at an all-time low, and had only a small majority.
3. Clegg received tactical Tory votes in 2015 when he was in coalition with the government. It wasn't at all obvious that these would be forthcoming again in a seat that the Tories had held in the past and despite current local weakness, should reasonably aspire to hold again, particularly given the national polling at the time. Labour had a chance of coming through the middle (or round the left-hand side) and winning with only 35% or so.
Even if the final result had been the 18-20 point leads the Tories were racking up in late April, this was a seat that Labour might have gained - indeed, it might have been the only seat they gained outside of Scotland.
The question is, should candidates be vetted so much that we are left only with the anodyne?0 -
Jezza believes in the rights of local constituencies to choose their candidates. He has made very little effort to parachute in supporters into safe seats, unlike New Labour. For example in both Copeland and Stoke he allowed and campaigned with locally chosen candidates who each had vocally opposed him in the recent past.Sandpit said:On topic, surely the main parties have a central list of approved candidates for emergencies such as a short-notice election, or local constituency parties can find one of their own such as a councillor or party official to stand?
Selecting someone they clearly didn’t know just sounds bonkers. But then we remember back to the shambles of the past couple of years in Corbyn’s Labour, before the election was called.
As far as I can tell, this is very much one of his core unshakeable beliefs. He trusts the local parties more than he trusts the central party. His is very much a grassroots approach. The upside of this is that he captures and enthuses the activists in a way that is alien to other leaders, the downside is that in 650 parties there are bound to be a few bad apples that get through.
This faith in the grass roots of the Labour movement is why there simply has not been a centrally driven purge of the centrists as some PB Tories predict, via reselections etc.0 -
I am sure that is a complete coincidence.Sandpit said:
The JFK files are utterly fascinating to read through.OldKingCole said:If this has been posted before, apologies, but in the Guardian’s report on the JFK papers is a note that 'A reporter on the UK’s Cambridge Evening News received an anonymous call telling him to ring the US embassy for some big news, 25 minutes before the assassination of JFK, according to a memo from a deputy director of the CIA to the director of the FBI.’
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/27/jfk-documents-what-we-have-learned-so-far
Odd, if a co-incidence.
There might even be enough there for the US news networks to leave Trump alone for a day or two...0 -
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/14/latest_shadow_brokers_data_dump/TheScreamingEagles said:
Do you have a link from a reputable source/link that it was developed by GCHQ?Pong said:
Wannacry was based on one of our own hacks developed in house by GCHQ/NSA. The decision was made not to patch - to leave our own systems vulnerable. That the tools got leaked is an outright disaster. It was only a matter of time before they'd be weaponised.TheScreamingEagles said:
You do realise the Foreign Secretary is responsible for GCHQ and not the Home Secretary?Pong said:
It could have been prevented if the former home secretary and current prime minister had done her job properly.Pong said:
Nope.FrancisUrquhart said:NHS trusts were left vulnerable in a major ransomware attack in May because cyber-security recommendations were not followed, a government report has said.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41753022
WannaCry was almost exclusively a GCHQ/NSA f*ckup.
That she's appointed a replacement home secretary who doesn't even understand encryption indicates how far up sh*t creek we are.
The tories are a serious threat to national security.
The leak had immediate - and expensive - implications right across government.
Just saying *the NHS woz warned* is a complete cop out.0 -
Nowhere in that article does it say that GCHQ was involved let alone developed it.Pong said:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/14/latest_shadow_brokers_data_dump/TheScreamingEagles said:
Do you have a link from a reputable source/link that it was developed by GCHQ?Pong said:
Wannacry was based on one of our own hacks developed in house by GCHQ/NSA. The decision was made not to patch - to leave our own systems vulnerable. That the tools got leaked is an outright disaster. It was only a matter of time before they'd be weaponised.TheScreamingEagles said:
You do realise the Foreign Secretary is responsible for GCHQ and not the Home Secretary?Pong said:
It could have been prevented if the former home secretary and current prime minister had done her job properly.Pong said:
Nope.FrancisUrquhart said:NHS trusts were left vulnerable in a major ransomware attack in May because cyber-security recommendations were not followed, a government report has said.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41753022
WannaCry was almost exclusively a GCHQ/NSA f*ckup.
That she's appointed a replacement home secretary who doesn't even understand encryption indicates how far up sh*t creek we are.
The tories are a serious threat to national security.
The leak had immediate - and expensive - implications right across government.
Just saying *the NHS woz warned* is a complete cop out.
So far you've not produced any proof in your allegation that GCHQ developed Wannacry in house.0 -
But not half as odd as phoning a local English newspaper to tip them off about a story which hadn't happened, about which the US embassy wouldn't be able to comment (or if you really take the conspiracy theory, might have knowledge of but certainly wouldn't admit), and which would be widely known about very shortly through normal media coverage, which would provide more reliable and probably quicker information.OldKingCole said:If this has been posted before, apologies, but in the Guardian’s report on the JFK papers is a note that 'A reporter on the UK’s Cambridge Evening News received an anonymous call telling him to ring the US embassy for some big news, 25 minutes before the assassination of JFK, according to a memo from a deputy director of the CIA to the director of the FBI.’
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/27/jfk-documents-what-we-have-learned-so-far
Odd, if a co-incidence.0 -
@BBCr4today: "I will do everything in my power to alleviate the pain but the economic facts are that there are no winners in Brexit" says @alexstubb #EIB0
-
I am sure that I have told this story before but in the days before the internet the British army used a series of open mikes around the world to let everyone know if a bomb had gone off somewhere. On the day of the assassination my dad was on duty in the south of England entertaining himself with the latest Bob Dylan LP.
When word of the assassination came through the network went berserk. It was not just the Russians who feared that the Americans would respond with a nuclear strike. The fact that it was established very early on that Oswald had spent considerable time in the USSR didn't exactly smooth things over.0 -
On the plus side, the Discovery channel will not be short of programming ideas for the next few years.0
-
Except that the process was the complete opposite of the one you describe. Labour was unique in having a system of centrally imposed candidates in GE2017. In this constituency, all the parties had to find new candidates as our MP decided to retire. The Tories, Lib Dems and Greens all managed to hold emergency meetings of local members from which a candidate was selected. Labour didn't. The procedures for emergency selections by members for by-elections were discarded. The final selection was made by the same national panels drawing up the shortlists. So the "bad apples" you describe didn't get through selections involving local parties, they got through a process over which local parties had no say whatsoever.foxinsoxuk said:
Jezza believes in the rights of local constituencies to choose their candidates. He has made very little effort to parachute in supporters into safe seats, unlike New Labour. For example in both Copeland and Stoke he allowed and campaigned with locally chosen candidates who each had vocally opposed him in the recent past.Sandpit said:On topic, surely the main parties have a central list of approved candidates for emergencies such as a short-notice election, or local constituency parties can find one of their own such as a councillor or party official to stand?
Selecting someone they clearly didn’t know just sounds bonkers. But then we remember back to the shambles of the past couple of years in Corbyn’s Labour, before the election was called.
As far as I can tell, this is very much one of his core unshakeable beliefs. He trusts the local parties more than he trusts the central party. His is very much a grassroots approach. The upside of this is that he captures and enthuses the activists in a way that is alien to other leaders, the downside is that in 650 parties there are bound to be a few bad apples that get through.
This faith in the grass roots of the Labour movement is why there simply has not been a centrally driven purge of the centrists as some PB Tories predict, via reselections etc.0 -
Good morning, everyone.
Mr. L, could be wrong but I read on Twitter (ahem) that the JFK file release had been scheduled for years and it just happens to come on Trump's watch.
On-topic: o comrades! What dark days are these when a man who possesses the finest virtue of all, love and loyalty for the Supreme Leader, can have his name tarnished and reputation ruined for mere utterances of days long since (mostly) passed regarding some anonymous members of the proletariat?0 -
From my reading of public sources, it most likely originated from the NSA head of the hydra.TheScreamingEagles said:
Nowhere in that article does it say that GCHQ was involved let alone developed it.Pong said:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/14/latest_shadow_brokers_data_dump/TheScreamingEagles said:
Do you have a link from a reputable source/link that it was developed by GCHQ?Pong said:
Wannacry was based on one of our own hacks developed in house by GCHQ/NSA. The decision was made not to patch - to leave our own systems vulnerable. That the tools got leaked is an outright disaster. It was only a matter of time before they'd be weaponised.TheScreamingEagles said:
You do realise the Foreign Secretary is responsible for GCHQ and not the Home Secretary?Pong said:
It could have been prevented if the former home secretary and current prime minister had done her job properly.Pong said:
Nope.FrancisUrquhart said:NHS trusts were left vulnerable in a major ransomware attack in May because cyber-security recommendations were not followed, a government report has said.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41753022
WannaCry was almost exclusively a GCHQ/NSA f*ckup.
That she's appointed a replacement home secretary who doesn't even understand encryption indicates how far up sh*t creek we are.
The tories are a serious threat to national security.
The leak had immediate - and expensive - implications right across government.
Just saying *the NHS woz warned* is a complete cop out.
So far you've not produced any proof in your allegation that GCHQ developed Wannacry in house.
You understand how the NSA/GCHQ relationship works, right?0 -
To develop my theme further:foxinsoxuk said:
Jezza believes in the rights of local constituencies to choose their candidates. He has made very little effort to parachute in supporters into safe seats, unlike New Labour. For example in both Copeland and Stoke he allowed and campaigned with locally chosen candidates who each had vocally opposed him in the recent past.Sandpit said:On topic, surely the main parties have a central list of approved candidates for emergencies such as a short-notice election, or local constituency parties can find one of their own such as a councillor or party official to stand?
Selecting someone they clearly didn’t know just sounds bonkers. But then we remember back to the shambles of the past couple of years in Corbyn’s Labour, before the election was called.
As far as I can tell, this is very much one of his core unshakeable beliefs. He trusts the local parties more than he trusts the central party. His is very much a grassroots approach. The upside of this is that he captures and enthuses the activists in a way that is alien to other leaders, the downside is that in 650 parties there are bound to be a few bad apples that get through.
This faith in the grass roots of the Labour movement is why there simply has not been a centrally driven purge of the centrists as some PB Tories predict, via reselections etc.
To understand the political phenomenon of Corbynism, we should study the history of the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy, which Jezza has been involved with from the beginning.
http://www.clpd.org.uk
The CLPD is undoubtedly more left wing than the average Labour voter, but the appeal of Corbyn to the CLP is not just his politics, but also that he has a genuine commitment to strengthen the role of individual members within the party, and over issues like selection in particular. It is one reason that he will not easily be replaced by another left winger chosen by a few. He needs to be replaced by someone equally committed to grass roots activism.
The atrophying Tory party should take note. The route to increase membership is to give some purpose and power to being a member.0 -
Maybe it could be worse for you too. My MP has also hit the local and national headlines for the wrong reasons, enough to also become the subject of discussion at PMQs.TheScreamingEagles said:Just remember next time you complain about your MP, it could be worse and remember Jared O'Mara is my MP.
0 -
So you're not able to provide any evidence for your assertion.Pong said:
From my reading of public sources, it most likely originated from the NSA head of the hydra.TheScreamingEagles said:
Nowhere in that article does it say that GCHQ was involved let alone developed it.Pong said:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/14/latest_shadow_brokers_data_dump/TheScreamingEagles said:
Do you have a link from a reputable source/link that it was developed by GCHQ?Pong said:
Wannacry was based on one of our own hacks developed in house by GCHQ/NSA. The decision was made not to patch - to leave our own systems vulnerable. That the tools got leaked is an outright disaster. It was only a matter of time before they'd be weaponised.TheScreamingEagles said:
You do realise the Foreign Secretary is responsible for GCHQ and not the Home Secretary?Pong said:
It could have been prevented if the former home secretary and current prime minister had done her job properly.Pong said:
Nope.FrancisUrquhart said:NHS trusts were left vulnerable in a major ransomware attack in May because cyber-security recommendations were not followed, a government report has said.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41753022
WannaCry was almost exclusively a GCHQ/NSA f*ckup.
That she's appointed a replacement home secretary who doesn't even understand encryption indicates how far up sh*t creek we are.
The tories are a serious threat to national security.
The leak had immediate - and expensive - implications right across government.
Just saying *the NHS woz warned* is a complete cop out.
So far you've not produced any proof in your allegation that GCHQ developed Wannacry in house.
You understand how the NSA/GCHQ relationship works, right?
Any chance of you posting your LinkedIn showing your work at say GCHQ, SIS DI, or any other UK intelligence/security service?0 -
Labour was hovering around half the Tory vote in the polling. Just abouy everybody on here was expecting heavy losses across the board. Only in hindsight is it a winnable seat.swing_voter said:I dont buy the idea that Labour didnt view Sheffield Hallam as winnable at the start of 2017......Clegg had only held on in 2015 by a few thousand and that was as DPM and Party leader, the seat was winnable long before 2017 and its not as though Sheffield/South Yorks was full of marginals for Labour to fight. I am amazed that he was just parachuted in to such a high profile seat that was more than winnable. Thats not to say Clegg's defeat was not a surprise but it was hardly a 20,000 vote collapse, there is more to this, perhaps Sheffield Labour were busy worrying abour trees?
0 -
Very important figures, particularly the top two lines. If Brexit doesn't happen, 25-30% of the voting electorate will feel angry and betrayed. They won't be staying in the mainstream and that kind of share in a 3+ party system may hold a balance of power, depending on how the vote split.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
Mr. Eagles, 'unsurprised' polls a bit higher than I might've expected, with 1:14 Remain and 1:7 Leave voters opting for that.
Rather telling of the times that the top two responses (massively disproportionately split) are 'betrayed' and 'relieved'.0 -
Wulfrun_Phil says the process in 2017 was the opposite you described though, so with respect to the pair of you and with no wish to antagonise on a Friday morning, either he's dead wrong or you were just shilling for Corbyn there.foxinsoxuk said:
To develop my theme further:foxinsoxuk said:
Jezza believes in the rights of local constituencies to choose their candidates. He has made very little effort to parachute in supporters into safe seats, unlike New Labour. For example in both Copeland and Stoke he allowed and campaigned with locally chosen candidates who each had vocally opposed him in the recent past.Sandpit said:On topic, surely the main parties have a central list of approved candidates for emergencies such as a short-notice election, or local constituency parties can find one of their own such as a councillor or party official to stand?
Selecting someone they clearly didn’t know just sounds bonkers. But then we remember back to the shambles of the past couple of years in Corbyn’s Labour, before the election was called.
As far as I can tell, this is very much one of his core unshakeable beliefs. He trusts the local parties more than he trusts the central party. His is very much a grassroots approach. The upside of this is that he captures and enthuses the activists in a way that is alien to other leaders, the downside is that in 650 parties there are bound to be a few bad apples that get through.
This faith in the grass roots of the Labour movement is why there simply has not been a centrally driven purge of the centrists as some PB Tories predict, via reselections etc.
To understand the political phenomenon of Corbynism, we should study the history of the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy, which Jezza has been involved with from the beginning.
http://www.clpd.org.uk
The CLPD is undoubtedly more left wing than the average Labour voter, but the appeal of Corbyn to the CLP is not just his politics, but also that he has a genuine commitment to strengthen the role of individual members within the party, and over issues like selection in particular. It is one reason that he will not easily be replaced by another left winger chosen by a few. He needs to be replaced by someone equally committed to grass roots activism.
The atrophying Tory party should take note. The route to increase membership is to give some purpose and power to being a member.
Nor that he doesn't believe in letting locks choose usually, I believe by elections show he dor, but if Wulfrun_Phil was right, and I don't know, thus wasn't a case which woukd illustrate that.0 -
Well he'd been standing in local elections for a while, so I guess he was known as 'one of their own'. Does the PPC vetting process usually detect messageboard posts and what they've said in nightclubs?Sandpit said:On topic, surely the main parties have a central list of approved candidates for emergencies such as a short-notice election, or local constituency parties can find one of their own such as a councillor or party official to stand?
Selecting someone they clearly didn’t know just sounds bonkers. But then we remember back to the shambles of the past couple of years in Corbyn’s Labour, before the election was called.0 -
Nah. Hallam was always different for reasons I pointed out at 7:13.Winstanley said:
Labour was hovering around half the Tory vote in the polling. Just abouy everybody on here was expecting heavy losses across the board. Only in hindsight is it a winnable seat.swing_voter said:I dont buy the idea that Labour didnt view Sheffield Hallam as winnable at the start of 2017......Clegg had only held on in 2015 by a few thousand and that was as DPM and Party leader, the seat was winnable long before 2017 and its not as though Sheffield/South Yorks was full of marginals for Labour to fight. I am amazed that he was just parachuted in to such a high profile seat that was more than winnable. Thats not to say Clegg's defeat was not a surprise but it was hardly a 20,000 vote collapse, there is more to this, perhaps Sheffield Labour were busy worrying abour trees?
0 -
Interesting that more leave voters would be unsurprised by a reversal than remain ones.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, 'unsurprised' polls a bit higher than I might've expected, with 1:14 Remain and 1:7 Leave voters opting for that.
Rather telling of the times that the top two responses (massively disproportionately split) are 'betrayed' and 'relieved'.0 -
Labour was hovering around half the Tory vote in the polling. Just abouy everybody on here was expecting heavy losses across the board. Only in hindsight is it a winnable seat.
No, not in hindsight - Clegg only just held on in 2015
the Tory vote was going up therefore Clegg was in trouble. As it was, he only had a majority of 2 and a bit thousand in 2015...this seat was clearly winnable - I suggest the most winnable seat for Labour in South Yorkshire - so the Party had no excuses for a pixxpoor process0 -
TSE THE EVIDENCE IS ALL IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.TheScreamingEagles said:
So you're not able to provide any evidence for your assertion.Pong said:
From my reading of public sources, it most likely originated from the NSA head of the hydra.TheScreamingEagles said:
Nowhere in that article does it say that GCHQ was involved let alone developed it.Pong said:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/14/latest_shadow_brokers_data_dump/TheScreamingEagles said:
Do you have a link from a reputable source/link that it was developed by GCHQ?Pong said:
Wannacry was based on one of our own hacks developed in house by GCHQ/NSA. The decision was made not to patch - to leave our own systems vulnerable. That the tools got leaked is an outright disaster. It was only a matter of time before they'd be weaponised.TheScreamingEagles said:
You do realise the Foreign Secretary is responsible for GCHQ and not the Home Secretary?Pong said:
It could have been prevented if the former home secretary and current prime minister had done her job properly.Pong said:
Nope.FrancisUrquhart said:NHS trusts were left vulnerable in a major ransomware attack in May because cyber-security recommendations were not followed, a government report has said.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41753022
WannaCry was almost exclusively a GCHQ/NSA f*ckup.
That she's appointed a replacement home secretary who doesn't even understand encryption indicates how far up sh*t creek we are.
The tories are a serious threat to national security.
The leak had immediate - and expensive - implications right across government.
Just saying *the NHS woz warned* is a complete cop out.
So far you've not produced any proof in your allegation that GCHQ developed Wannacry in house.
You understand how the NSA/GCHQ relationship works, right?
Any chance of you posting your LinkedIn showing your work at say GCHQ, SIS DI, or any other UK intelligence/security service?0 -
That is a lot of angry and betrayed Leave voters potentially heading for UKIP then if Brexit does not happen or to more sinister parties on the far right.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
Mr. kle4, given what's happened with various EU votes, such as the Lisbon one being promised and then not happening, cynicism is perhaps, ahem, unsurprising.
It is still plausible we might remain. But as Mr. Herdson says above, that would lead to a massive shake-up in politics.0 -
No, not in hindsight - Clegg only just held on in 2015swing_voter said:
Labour was hovering around half the Tory vote in the polling. Just abouy everybody on here was expecting heavy losses across the board. Only in hindsight is it a winnable seat.
the Tory vote was going up therefore Clegg was in trouble. As it was, he only had a majority of 2 and a bit thousand in 2015...this seat was clearly winnable - I suggest the most winnable seat for Labour in South Yorkshire - so the Party had no excuses for a pixxpoor process
Sheffield Hallam was the only seat in South Yorkshire that Labour didn't hold.
Not the most winnable seat for Labour in South Yorkshire the only winnable seat.0 -
So post it please.Pong said:
TSE THE EVIDENCE IS ALL IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.TheScreamingEagles said:
So you're not able to provide any evidence for your assertion.Pong said:
From my reading of public sources, it most likely originated from the NSA head of the hydra.TheScreamingEagles said:
Nowhere in that article does it say that GCHQ was involved let alone developed it.Pong said:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/14/latest_shadow_brokers_data_dump/TheScreamingEagles said:
Do you have a link from a reputable source/link that it was developed by GCHQ?Pong said:
Wannacry was based on one of our own hacks developed in house by GCHQ/NSA. The decision was made not to patch - to leave our own systems vulnerable. That the tools got leaked is an outright disaster. It was only a matter of time before they'd be weaponised.TheScreamingEagles said:
You do realise the Foreign Secretary is responsible for GCHQ and not the Home Secretary?Pong said:
It could have been prevented if the former home secretary and current prime minister had done her job properly.Pong said:
Nope.FrancisUrquhart said:NHS trusts were left vulnerable in a major ransomware attack in May because cyber-security recommendations were not followed, a government report has said.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41753022
WannaCry was almost exclusively a GCHQ/NSA f*ckup.
That she's appointed a replacement home secretary who doesn't even understand encryption indicates how far up sh*t creek we are.
The tories are a serious threat to national security.
The leak had immediate - and expensive - implications right across government.
Just saying *the NHS woz warned* is a complete cop out.
So far you've not produced any proof in your allegation that GCHQ developed Wannacry in house.
You understand how the NSA/GCHQ relationship works, right?
Any chance of you posting your LinkedIn showing your work at say GCHQ, SIS DI, or any other UK intelligence/security service?0 -
That would be some very in depth vetting. It seems most are agreed you cannot hold all youthful indiscretions against someone even if you could find them, and in most cases it would take an unreasonable level of effort to find such. But I guess even in an emergency the party needs to trawl the twitter fees and Facebook at least, and meet the person face to face at least once. Omara might be a surprisingly charming and articulate person, I don't know, but reports make him seem such an are you'd hope a single meeting at leat has the chance to raise red flags, and perhaps the need to expend resources to do more in depth vetting.Winstanley said:
Well he'd been standing in local elections for a while, so I guess he was known as 'one of their own'. Does the PPC vetting process usually detect messageboard posts and what they've said in nightclubs?Sandpit said:On topic, surely the main parties have a central list of approved candidates for emergencies such as a short-notice election, or local constituency parties can find one of their own such as a councillor or party official to stand?
Selecting someone they clearly didn’t know just sounds bonkers. But then we remember back to the shambles of the past couple of years in Corbyn’s Labour, before the election was called.0 -
https://betting.betfair.com/politics/general-election-2017/sheffield-hallam-constituency-betting-odds-general-election-2017-300517-136.html?amp=1david_herdson said:
Nah. Hallam was always different for reasons I pointed out at 7:13.Winstanley said:
Labour was hovering around half the Tory vote in the polling. Just abouy everybody on here was expecting heavy losses across the board. Only in hindsight is it a winnable seat.swing_voter said:I dont buy the idea that Labour didnt view Sheffield Hallam as winnable at the start of 2017......Clegg had only held on in 2015 by a few thousand and that was as DPM and Party leader, the seat was winnable long before 2017 and its not as though Sheffield/South Yorks was full of marginals for Labour to fight. I am amazed that he was just parachuted in to such a high profile seat that was more than winnable. Thats not to say Clegg's defeat was not a surprise but it was hardly a 20,000 vote collapse, there is more to this, perhaps Sheffield Labour were busy worrying abour trees?
At the start of the campaign Clegg was 1/200 to win.0 -
Even the way you've referred to it wasn't as evidence though. You just said it most likely was developed by the nsa ergo it was gchqs fault too because of the way they work. I'm prepared to believe a lot about both those organisations, but your own accusations toward them don't seem to be that confident.Pong said:
TSE THE EVIDENCE IS ALL IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.TheScreamingEagles said:
So you're not able to provide any evidence for your assertion.Pong said:
From my reading of public sources, it most likely originated from the NSA head of the hydra.TheScreamingEagles said:
Nowhere in that article does it say that GCHQ was involved let alone developed it.Pong said:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/14/latest_shadow_brokers_data_dump/TheScreamingEagles said:
Do you have a link from a reputable source/link that it was developed by GCHQ?Pong said:
Wannacry was based on one of our own hacks developed in house by GCHQ/NSA. The decision was made not to patch - to leave our own systems vulnerable. That the tools got leaked is an outright disaster. It was only a matter of time before they'd be weaponised.TheScreamingEagles said:
You do realise the Foreign Secretary is responsible for GCHQ and not the Home Secretary?Pong said:
It could have been prevented if the former home secretary and current prime minister had done her job properly.Pong said:
Nope.FrancisUrquhart said:NHS trusts were left vulnerable in a major ransomware attack in May because cyber-security recommendations were not followed, a government report has said.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41753022
WannaCry was almost exclusively a GCHQ/NSA f*ckup.
That she's appointed a replacement home secretary who doesn't even understand encryption indicates how far up sh*t creek we are.
The tories are a serious threat to national security.
The leak had immediate - and expensive - implications right across government.
Just saying *the NHS woz warned* is a complete cop out.
So far you've not produced any proof in your allegation that GCHQ developed Wannacry in house.
You understand how the NSA/GCHQ relationship works, right?
Any chance of you posting your LinkedIn showing your work at say GCHQ, SIS DI, or any other UK intelligence/security service?0 -
And even if the party managers had somehow acquired more foresight than the rest of the political world, they still had to find someone willing to throw their hat into the ring for what looked to everyone at the time as a doomed project. How many great candidates are there willing to put themselves through that?Winstanley said:
Labour was hovering around half the Tory vote in the polling. Just abouy everybody on here was expecting heavy losses across the board. Only in hindsight is it a winnable seat.swing_voter said:I dont buy the idea that Labour didnt view Sheffield Hallam as winnable at the start of 2017......Clegg had only held on in 2015 by a few thousand and that was as DPM and Party leader, the seat was winnable long before 2017 and its not as though Sheffield/South Yorks was full of marginals for Labour to fight. I am amazed that he was just parachuted in to such a high profile seat that was more than winnable. Thats not to say Clegg's defeat was not a surprise but it was hardly a 20,000 vote collapse, there is more to this, perhaps Sheffield Labour were busy worrying abour trees?
0 -
Tory members now have the final say on the next leader (provides like Leadsom one of the final 2 does not withdraw) and local candidates and are the pool for local council candidates and also get invites to social events with party figures. Though I agree conference needs to give them a broader say certainly.foxinsoxuk said:
To develop my theme further:foxinsoxuk said:
Jezza believes in the rights of local constituencies to choose their candidates. He has made very little effort to parachute in supporters into safe seats, unlike New Labour. For example in both Copeland and Stoke he allowed and campaigned with locally chosen candidates who each had vocally opposed him in the recent past.Sandpit said:On topic, surely the main parties have a central list of approved candidates for emergencies such as a short-notice election, or local constituency parties can find one of their own such as a councillor or party official to stand?
Selecting someone they clearly didn’t know just sounds bonkers. But then we remember back to the shambles of the past couple of years in Corbyn’s Labour, before the election was called.
As far as I can tell, this is very much one of his core unshakeable beliefs. He trusts the local parties more than he trusts the central party. His is very much a grassroots approach. The upside of this is that he captures and enthuses the activists in a way that is alien to other leaders, the downside is that in 650 parties there are bound to be a few bad apples that get through.
This faith in the grass roots of the Labour movement is why there simply has not been a centrally driven purge of the centrists as some PB Tories predict, via reselections etc.
To understand the political phenomenon of Corbynism, we should study the history of the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy, which Jezza has been involved with from the beginning.
http://www.clpd.org.uk
The CLPD is undoubtedly more left wing than the average Labour voter, but the appeal of Corbyn to the CLP is not just his politics, but also that he has a genuine commitment to strengthen the role of individual members within the party, and over issues like selection in particular. It is one reason that he will not easily be replaced by another left winger chosen by a few. He needs to be replaced by someone equally committed to grass roots activism.
The atrophying Tory party should take note. The route to increase membership is to give some purpose and power to being a member.0 -
My commiserations on the worst autocorrect catastrophe since one of my students couldn't persuade his computer to recognise the word 'Cnut'.kle4 said:Nor that he doesn't believe in letting locks choose usually, I believe by elections show he dor, but if Wulfrun_Phil was right, and I don't know, thus wasn't a case which woukd illustrate that.
0 -
No, it probably won't and can't. However, its rarely the case that the sort of reports that have come out in respect of O'Mara are a complete surprise to those who've known the person in question for any length of time and whose opinion ought to be canvassed by a central approvals unit.Winstanley said:
Well he'd been standing in local elections for a while, so I guess he was known as 'one of their own'. Does the PPC vetting process usually detect messageboard posts and what they've said in nightclubs?Sandpit said:On topic, surely the main parties have a central list of approved candidates for emergencies such as a short-notice election, or local constituency parties can find one of their own such as a councillor or party official to stand?
Selecting someone they clearly didn’t know just sounds bonkers. But then we remember back to the shambles of the past couple of years in Corbyn’s Labour, before the election was called.0 -
The latest Virginia poll finishing yesterday had Northam, the Democrat, leading Gillespie, the Republic an, by 7%.rcs1000 said:
If the Republicans gain Virginia, that will be a great result for them.MTimT said:
There was a poll out yesterday with Gillespie up 8. Surprised me, particularly with the way VA has been trending.viewcode said:
I noticed this a week or two ago. The Republican candidate in Virginia is Edrcs1000 said:It's quiet tonight.
Let's spice things up.
There are two gubernatorial races in the US this November, New Jersey (where Chris Christie is time limited) and Virginia (ditto for Terry McAuliffe).
New Jersey: I would be staggered if the Dems didn't take it at a canter.
Virginia is a much harder call. I'd reckon the Dems will hold it, but it'll probably be very close.
Any one else have a view?
Gillespie. His vote has been creeping up over the past few months and PaddyPower has him at 5/2, in from 3/1 a few weeks ago http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/us-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=3768456
If I had world enough and time, I'd do a proper Bayesian workup (which would involve me looking up "Bayesian workup" - it's been a while... ) with polls in similar states and previous polls. But I don't, so I'm reduced to running my finger down the Wikipedia table and drawing graphs. So please take this with a big pinch of salt. But 5/2 does seem like value in this case
FWIW, both sides are flooding the TV ad market with nasty negative attack ads (for both Governor and Attorney General votes). Hard to say which is the more effective - I have no liking for either candidate, but Gillespie has one ad that verges on the Willy Horton - accusing Northam of supporting the automatic restoration of rights of child sex offenders. Maybe that is what is boosting his number or, more likely, depressing Northam's.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_gubernatorial_election,_20170 -
Great candidates? Perhaps not many. But most seats easily manage to find people without not only this flawed background - everyone has done stupid crap when younger - but one who still behaves that way and self righteously puts their foot in it as they seek to justify themselves. (I'm still baffled why he choSE to say tories are unlikely to be able to go on the necessary journey with their actions and beliefs as he has, and so should probably resign - it makes any defence he comes up with suspect as he is a hypocrit who thinks he gets a pass but others don't deserve one)Recidivist said:
And even if the party managers had somehow acquired more foresight than the rest of the political world, they still had to find someone willing to throw their hat into the ring for what looked to everyone at the time as a doomed project. How many great candidates are there willing to put themselves through that?Winstanley said:
Labour was hovering around half the Tory vote in the polling. Just abouy everybody on here was expecting heavy losses across the board. Only in hindsight is it a winnable seat.swing_voter said:I dont buy the idea that Labour didnt view Sheffield Hallam as winnable at the start of 2017......Clegg had only held on in 2015 by a few thousand and that was as DPM and Party leader, the seat was winnable long before 2017 and its not as though Sheffield/South Yorks was full of marginals for Labour to fight. I am amazed that he was just parachuted in to such a high profile seat that was more than winnable. Thats not to say Clegg's defeat was not a surprise but it was hardly a 20,000 vote collapse, there is more to this, perhaps Sheffield Labour were busy worrying abour trees?
0 -
Absurd odds for a party which had suffered the collapse it did in 2015 and where there were good reasons to think the local candidate had only clung on for local reasons that no longer applied.Winstanley said:
https://betting.betfair.com/politics/general-election-2017/sheffield-hallam-constituency-betting-odds-general-election-2017-300517-136.html?amp=1david_herdson said:
Nah. Hallam was always different for reasons I pointed out at 7:13.Winstanley said:
Labour was hovering around half the Tory vote in the polling. Just abouy everybody on here was expecting heavy losses across the board. Only in hindsight is it a winnable seat.swing_voter said:I dont buy the idea that Labour didnt view Sheffield Hallam as winnable at the start of 2017......Clegg had only held on in 2015 by a few thousand and that was as DPM and Party leader, the seat was winnable long before 2017 and its not as though Sheffield/South Yorks was full of marginals for Labour to fight. I am amazed that he was just parachuted in to such a high profile seat that was more than winnable. Thats not to say Clegg's defeat was not a surprise but it was hardly a 20,000 vote collapse, there is more to this, perhaps Sheffield Labour were busy worrying abour trees?
At the start of the campaign Clegg was 1/200 to win.
Apart from anything else, a UNS based on polls at the start of the campaign would have made the seat very winnable for the Tories, never mind Labour.0 -
Why was the previous Labour candidate not picked? Oliver Coppard still seems active in Sheffield Labour.Recidivist said:
And even if the party managers had somehow acquired more foresight than the rest of the political world, they still had to find someone willing to throw their hat into the ring for what looked to everyone at the time as a doomed project. How many great candidates are there willing to put themselves through that?Winstanley said:
Labour was hovering around half the Tory vote in the polling. Just abouy everybody on here was expecting heavy losses across the board. Only in hindsight is it a winnable seat.swing_voter said:I dont buy the idea that Labour didnt view Sheffield Hallam as winnable at the start of 2017......Clegg had only held on in 2015 by a few thousand and that was as DPM and Party leader, the seat was winnable long before 2017 and its not as though Sheffield/South Yorks was full of marginals for Labour to fight. I am amazed that he was just parachuted in to such a high profile seat that was more than winnable. Thats not to say Clegg's defeat was not a surprise but it was hardly a 20,000 vote collapse, there is more to this, perhaps Sheffield Labour were busy worrying abour trees?
0 -
Perhaps that's why his name can also be spelled Canute.ydoethur said:
My commiserations on the worst autocorrect catastrophe since one of my students couldn't persuade his computer to recognise the word 'Cnut'.kle4 said:Nor that he doesn't believe in letting locks choose usually, I believe by elections show he dor, but if Wulfrun_Phil was right, and I don't know, thus wasn't a case which woukd illustrate that.
0 -
I am no longer a LP member, and Wulfrun_Phil is, so I am sure he is right about his seat, and possibly too in Sheffield Hallam. I think the snapbelection caused a few cut corners in order to get candidates in place, but it does not seem to have been a systematic attempt to parachute in favoured candidates (though there may have been a few exceptions, and recall one in Liverpool). It seems more just general sloppiness at the beginning.kle4 said:
Wulfrun_Phil says the process in 2017 was the opposite you described though, so with respect to the pair of you and with no wish to antagonise on a Friday morning, either he's dead wrong or you were just shilling for Corbyn there.foxinsoxuk said:
To develop my theme further:foxinsoxuk said:
Jezza believes in theSandpit said:On topic, surely the main parties have a central list of approved candidates for emergencies such as a short-notice election, or local constituency parties can find one of their own such as a councillor or party official to stand?
Selecting someone they clearly didn’t know just sounds bonkers. But then we remember back to the shambles of the past couple of years in Corbyn’s Labour, before the election was called.
To understand the political phenomenon of Corbynism, we should study the history of the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy, which Jezza has been involved with from the beginning.
http://www.clpd.org.uk
The CLPD is undoubtedly more left wing than the average Labour voter, but the appeal of Corbyn to the CLP is not just his politics, but also that he has a genuine commitment to strengthen the role of individual members within the party, and over issues like selection in particular. It is one reason that he will not easily be replaced by another left winger chosen by a few. He needs to be replaced by someone equally committed to grass roots activism.
The atrophying Tory party should take note. The route to increase membership is to give some purpose and power to being a member.
Nor that he doesn't believe in letting locks choose usually, I believe by elections show he dor, but if Wulfrun_Phil was right, and I don't know, thus wasn't a case which woukd illustrate that.
Initially the LP campaign (as @ydoethur was saying the other day) was chaotic. The impressive thing was how quickly the grassroots got organised, helped by the established union structures and the sheer numbers of enthused activists. It was a scratch campaign, but a highly effective one.
Overall, I do see Jezza as genuinely committed to CLP activism and internal party democracy.0 -
Indeed - I struggle to type on a phone, and that's a lot of errors even for me. I mistype would so much it doesn't even autocorrect it though, just leaves it as woukd.ydoethur said:
My commiserations on the worst autocorrect catastrophe since one of my students couldn't persuade his computer to recognise the word 'Cnut'.kle4 said:Nor that he doesn't believe in letting locks choose usually, I believe by elections show he dor, but if Wulfrun_Phil was right, and I don't know, thus wasn't a case which woukd illustrate that.
0 -
Behaviour in CLP meetings and when out doorknocking is hardly going to be the same as when he's pissed in a club with the lads or at home on his computer feeling anonymous.david_herdson said:
No, it probably won't and can't. However, its rarely the case that the sort of reports that have come out in respect of O'Mara are a complete surprise to those who've known the person in question for any length of time and whose opinion ought to be canvassed by a central approvals unit.Winstanley said:
Well he'd been standing in local elections for a while, so I guess he was known as 'one of their own'. Does the PPC vetting process usually detect messageboard posts and what they've said in nightclubs?Sandpit said:On topic, surely the main parties have a central list of approved candidates for emergencies such as a short-notice election, or local constituency parties can find one of their own such as a councillor or party official to stand?
Selecting someone they clearly didn’t know just sounds bonkers. But then we remember back to the shambles of the past couple of years in Corbyn’s Labour, before the election was called.0 -
Perhaps Momentum decreed he did not show enough commitment to the Dear Leader, whereas O'Mara backed Corbyn in the 2015 leadership election.ydoethur said:
Why was the previous Labour candidate not picked? Oliver Coppard still seems active in Sheffield Labour.Recidivist said:
And even if the party managers had somehow acquired more foresight than the rest of the political world, they still had to find someone willing to throw their hat into the ring for what looked to everyone at the time as a doomed project. How many great candidates are there willing to put themselves through that?Winstanley said:
Labour was hovering around half the Tory vote in the polling. Just abouy everybody on here was expecting heavy losses across the board. Only in hindsight is it a winnable seat.swing_voter said:I dont buy the idea that Labour didnt view Sheffield Hallam as winnable at the start of 2017......Clegg had only held on in 2015 by a few thousand and that was as DPM and Party leader, the seat was winnable long before 2017 and its not as though Sheffield/South Yorks was full of marginals for Labour to fight. I am amazed that he was just parachuted in to such a high profile seat that was more than winnable. Thats not to say Clegg's defeat was not a surprise but it was hardly a 20,000 vote collapse, there is more to this, perhaps Sheffield Labour were busy worrying abour trees?
0 -
I would be both disappointed and unsurprised.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, 'unsurprised' polls a bit higher than I might've expected, with 1:14 Remain and 1:7 Leave voters opting for that.
Rather telling of the times that the top two responses (massively disproportionately split) are 'betrayed' and 'relieved'.0 -
I see Australia's dual citizenship rules have been clarified and multiple elected reps have lost their seats. Seems a harshly interpreted law since apparently some didn't know they held dual citizenship, bit there you go.0
-
They didn't need a great candidate; they just needed someone who wasn't an embarrassment. A boring local councillor with a proven dedication to his or her local constituents and tolerable media skills would have been adequate.Recidivist said:
And even if the party managers had somehow acquired more foresight than the rest of the political world, they still had to find someone willing to throw their hat into the ring for what looked to everyone at the time as a doomed project. How many great candidates are there willing to put themselves through that?Winstanley said:
Labour was hovering around half the Tory vote in the polling. Just abouy everybody on here was expecting heavy losses across the board. Only in hindsight is it a winnable seat.swing_voter said:I dont buy the idea that Labour didnt view Sheffield Hallam as winnable at the start of 2017......Clegg had only held on in 2015 by a few thousand and that was as DPM and Party leader, the seat was winnable long before 2017 and its not as though Sheffield/South Yorks was full of marginals for Labour to fight. I am amazed that he was just parachuted in to such a high profile seat that was more than winnable. Thats not to say Clegg's defeat was not a surprise but it was hardly a 20,000 vote collapse, there is more to this, perhaps Sheffield Labour were busy worrying abour trees?
0 -
If I were into smut, there is a highly unfortunate double meaning to that sentence in light of his revelations.Winstanley said:
Behaviour in CLP meetings and when out doorknocking is hardly going to be the same as when he's pissed in a club with the lads or at home on his computer feeling anonymous.david_herdson said:
No, it probably won't and can't. However, its rarely the case that the sort of reports that have come out in respect of O'Mara are a complete surprise to those who've known the person in question for any length of time and whose opinion ought to be canvassed by a central approvals unit.Winstanley said:
Well he'd been standing in local elections for a while, so I guess he was known as 'one of their own'. Does the PPC vetting process usually detect messageboard posts and what they've said in nightclubs?Sandpit said:On topic, surely the main parties have a central list of approved candidates for emergencies such as a short-notice election, or local constituency parties can find one of their own such as a councillor or party official to stand?
Selecting someone they clearly didn’t know just sounds bonkers. But then we remember back to the shambles of the past couple of years in Corbyn’s Labour, before the election was called.
Fortunately of course I am not not into smut or innuendo.0 -
Certainly, but experienced vettors you'd hope in taking soundings and even basic checks would get some warning signals. But perhaps the man compartmentalises very well, and us a whole other person out if the club.Winstanley said:
Behaviour in CLP meetings and when out doorknocking is hardly going to be the same as when he's pissed in a club with the lads or at home on his computer feeling anonymous.david_herdson said:
No, it probably won't and can't. However, its rarely the case that the sort of reports that have come out in respect of O'Mara are a complete surprise to those who've known the person in question for any length of time and whose opinion ought to be canvassed by a central approvals unit.Winstanley said:
Well he'd been standing in local elections for a while, so I guess he was known as 'one of their own'. Does the PPC vetting process usually detect messageboard posts and what they've said in nightclubs?Sandpit said:On topic, surely the main parties have a central list of approved candidates for emergencies such as a short-notice election, or local constituency parties can find one of their own such as a councillor or party official to stand?
Selecting someone they clearly didn’t know just sounds bonkers. But then we remember back to the shambles of the past couple of years in Corbyn’s Labour, before the election was called.0 -
I am very disappointed that my own party did not have a leadership contest. Cable would probably have won, but there did need to be discussion over direction. That was ignored. I would have voted Lamb again if he had stood. His Brexit policy is more nuanced, and his wider policies much more coherent for a revival of the LDs.HYUFD said:
Tory members now have the final say on the next leader (provides like Leadsom one of the final 2 does not withdraw) and local candidates and are the pool for local council candidates and also get invites to social events with party figures. Though I agree conference needs to give them a broader say certainly.foxinsoxuk said:
To develop my theme further:foxinsoxuk said:
Jezza believes in the rights of local constituencies to choose their candidates. He has made very little effort to parachute in supporters into safe seats, unlike New Labour. For example in both Copeland and Stoke he allowed and campaigned with locally chosen candidates who each had vocally opposed him in the recent past.Sandpit said:On topic, surely the main parties have a central list of approved candidates for emergencies such as a short-notice election, or local constituency parties can find one of their own such as a councillor or party official to stand?
Selecting someone they clearly didn’t know just sounds bonkers. But then we remember back to the shambles of the past couple of years in Corbyn’s Labour, before the election was called.
As far as I can tell, this is very much one of his core unshakeable beliefs. He trusts the local parties more than he trusts the central party. His is very much a grassroots approach. The upside of this is that he captures and enthuses the activists in a way that is alien to other leaders, the downside is that in 650 parties there are bound to be a few bad apples that get through.
This faith in the grass roots of the Labour movement is why there simply has not been a centrally driven purge of the centrists as some PB Tories predict, via reselections etc.
To understand the political phenomenon of Corbynism, we should study the history of the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy, which Jezza has been involved with from the beginning.
http://www.clpd.org.uk
The
0 -
Obviously it won't be exactly the same but I doubt that someone with his lack of awareness keeps the shields up continually among colleagues, particularly among ones he thinks of as friends.Winstanley said:
Behaviour in CLP meetings and when out doorknocking is hardly going to be the same as when he's pissed in a club with the lads or at home on his computer feeling anonymous.david_herdson said:
No, it probably won't and can't. However, its rarely the case that the sort of reports that have come out in respect of O'Mara are a complete surprise to those who've known the person in question for any length of time and whose opinion ought to be canvassed by a central approvals unit.Winstanley said:
Well he'd been standing in local elections for a while, so I guess he was known as 'one of their own'. Does the PPC vetting process usually detect messageboard posts and what they've said in nightclubs?Sandpit said:On topic, surely the main parties have a central list of approved candidates for emergencies such as a short-notice election, or local constituency parties can find one of their own such as a councillor or party official to stand?
Selecting someone they clearly didn’t know just sounds bonkers. But then we remember back to the shambles of the past couple of years in Corbyn’s Labour, before the election was called.0 -
Hindsight. Look at the discussions on Sheffield Hallam running up to the election: http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/sheffieldhallam/comment-page-40/#commentsdavid_herdson said:
Absurd odds for a party which had suffered the collapse it did in 2015 and where there were good reasons to think the local candidate had only clung on for local reasons that no longer applied.Winstanley said:
https://betting.betfair.com/politics/general-election-2017/sheffield-hallam-constituency-betting-odds-general-election-2017-300517-136.html?amp=1david_herdson said:
Nah. Hallam was always different for reasons I pointed out at 7:13.Winstanley said:
Labour was hovering around half the Tory vote in the polling. Just abouy everybody on here was expecting heavy losses across the board. Only in hindsight is it a winnable seat.swing_voter said:I dont buy the idea that Labour didnt view Sheffield Hallam as winnable at the start of 2017......Clegg had only held on in 2015 by a few thousand and that was as DPM and Party leader, the seat was winnable long before 2017 and its not as though Sheffield/South Yorks was full of marginals for Labour to fight. I am amazed that he was just parachuted in to such a high profile seat that was more than winnable. Thats not to say Clegg's defeat was not a surprise but it was hardly a 20,000 vote collapse, there is more to this, perhaps Sheffield Labour were busy worrying abour trees?
At the start of the campaign Clegg was 1/200 to win.
Apart from anything else, a UNS based on polls at the start of the campaign would have made the seat very winnable for the Tories, never mind Labour.
Considering the students weren't about, it wasn't such a target for Lab as 2015, Labour's national polling, the expected Remainer boost for Clegg, etc. It's very easy to find signs now that Labour had a chance in Sheffield Hallam. They weren't what we were all thinking about at the time.0 -
I did tip Con gain Sheffield Hallam on the after morning after the locals.david_herdson said:
Absurd odds for a party which had suffered the collapse it did in 2015 and where there were good reasons to think the local candidate had only clung on for local reasons that no longer applied.Winstanley said:
https://betting.betfair.com/politics/general-election-2017/sheffield-hallam-constituency-betting-odds-general-election-2017-300517-136.html?amp=1david_herdson said:
Nah. Hallam was always different for reasons I pointed out at 7:13.Winstanley said:
Labour was hovering around half the Tory vote in the polling. Just abouy everybody on here was expecting heavy losses across the board. Only in hindsight is it a winnable seat.swing_voter said:I dont buy the idea that Labour didnt view Sheffield Hallam as winnable at the start of 2017......Clegg had only held on in 2015 by a few thousand and that was as DPM and Party leader, the seat was winnable long before 2017 and its not as though Sheffield/South Yorks was full of marginals for Labour to fight. I am amazed that he was just parachuted in to such a high profile seat that was more than winnable. Thats not to say Clegg's defeat was not a surprise but it was hardly a 20,000 vote collapse, there is more to this, perhaps Sheffield Labour were busy worrying abour trees?
At the start of the campaign Clegg was 1/200 to win.
Apart from anything else, a UNS based on polls at the start of the campaign would have made the seat very winnable for the Tories, never mind Labour.0 -
O'Mara does not seem particularlly left wing (indeed his recent remarks very much out of keeping with snowflake liberalism!) and he denied being supported by Momentum.HYUFD said:
Perhaps Momentum decreed he did not show enough commitment to the Dear Leader, whereas O'Mara backed Corbyn in the 2015 leadership election.ydoethur said:
Why was the previous Labour candidate not picked? Oliver Coppard still seems active in Sheffield Labour.Recidivist said:
And even if the party managers had somehow acquired more foresight than the rest of the political world, they still had to find someone willing to throw their hat into the ring for what looked to everyone at the time as a doomed project. How many great candidates are there willing to put themselves through that?Winstanley said:
Labour was hovering around half the Tory vote in the polling. Just abouy everybody on here was expecting heavy losses across the board. Only in hindsight is it a winnable seat.swing_voter said:I dont buy the idea that Labour didnt view Sheffield Hallam as winnable at the start of 2017......Clegg had only held on in 2015 by a few thousand and that was as DPM and Party leader, the seat was winnable long before 2017 and its not as though Sheffield/South Yorks was full of marginals for Labour to fight. I am amazed that he was just parachuted in to such a high profile seat that was more than winnable. Thats not to say Clegg's defeat was not a surprise but it was hardly a 20,000 vote collapse, there is more to this, perhaps Sheffield Labour were busy worrying abour trees?
We do come back to the issue: Should all candidates be vetted and groomed so that they all look and sound like an anodyne boyband from a TV talent show?0 -
This is a rather intriguing story:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/new-zealand-new-prime-minister-jacinda-ardern-capitalism-blatant-failure-a8012656.html
If she's starting as she means to go on, expect trouble, quickly, in New Zealand.0 -
I suspect this will happen more and more.foxinsoxuk said:
O'Mara does not seem particularlly left wing (indeed his recent remarks very much out of keeping with snowflake liberalism!) and he denied being supported by Momentum.HYUFD said:
Perhaps Momentum decreed he did not show enough commitment to the Dear Leader, whereas O'Mara backed Corbyn in the 2015 leadership election.ydoethur said:
Why was the previous Labour candidate not picked? Oliver Coppard still seems active in Sheffield Labour.Recidivist said:
And even if the party managers had somehow acquired more foresight than the rest of the political world, they still had to find someone willing to throw their hat into the ring for what looked to everyone at the time as a doomed project. How many great candidates are there willing to put themselves through that?Winstanley said:
Labour was hovering around half the Tory vote in the polling. Just abouy everybody on here was expecting heavy losses across the board. Only in hindsight is it a winnable seat.swing_voter said:I dont buy the idea that Labour didnt view Sheffield Hallam as winnable at the start of 2017......Clegg had only held on in 2015 by a few thousand and that was as DPM and Party leader, the seat was winnable long before 2017 and its not as though Sheffield/South Yorks was full of marginals for Labour to fight. I am amazed that he was just parachuted in to such a high profile seat that was more than winnable. Thats not to say Clegg's defeat was not a surprise but it was hardly a 20,000 vote collapse, there is more to this, perhaps Sheffield Labour were busy worrying abour trees?
We do come back to the issue: Should all candidates be vetted and groomed so that they all look and sound like an anodyne boyband from a TV talent show?
I think it was the New Statesman that pointed out that O'Mara is the first wave of the digital/social media generation.
Someone like Nick Clegg, David Cameron, Ed Miliband, and Theresa May never really had the opportunity to make comments on social media before they became MPs.0 -
The same kinds of comments and worse will be thrown about by thousands of lads on the town tonight, who will go to work on Monday among people who have no idea.david_herdson said:
Obviously it won't be exactly the same but I doubt that someone with his lack of awareness keeps the shields up continually among colleagues, particularly among ones he thinks of as friends.Winstanley said:
Behaviour in CLP meetings and when out doorknocking is hardly going to be the same as when he's pissed in a club with the lads or at home on his computer feeling anonymous.david_herdson said:
No, it probably won't and can't. However, its rarely the case that the sort of reports that have come out in respect of O'Mara are a complete surprise to those who've known the person in question for any length of time and whose opinion ought to be canvassed by a central approvals unit.Winstanley said:
Well he'd been standing in local elections for a while, so I guess he was known as 'one of their own'. Does the PPC vetting process usually detect messageboard posts and what they've said in nightclubs?Sandpit said:On topic, surely the main parties have a central list of approved candidates for emergencies such as a short-notice election, or local constituency parties can find one of their own such as a councillor or party official to stand?
Selecting someone they clearly didn’t know just sounds bonkers. But then we remember back to the shambles of the past couple of years in Corbyn’s Labour, before the election was called.0 -
Sheffield Hallam goes on to July - 14th July this year. It has one of the latest term finishes of any university.Winstanley said:
Considering the students weren't about, it wasn't such a target for Lab as 2015, Labour's national polling, the expected Remainer boost for Clegg, etc.
Sheffield itself was 10th June so a large number of students probably were still there.
Labour may not have realised that, but if so that just underlines how shambolic and incompetent their campaign really was.0 -
Those are not the only 2 options and there would be no more than minor issues were he not seemingly the same person as when he made old comments, only more self righteous. The recent stuff might be hard to find too, but someone locally surely knew him and a process could have picked up on that.foxinsoxuk said:
O'Mara does not seem particularlly left wing (indeed his recent remarks very much out of keeping with snowflake liberalism!) and he denied being supported by Momentum.HYUFD said:
Perhaps Momentum decreed he did not show enough commitment to the Dear Leader, whereas O'Mara backed Corbyn in the 2015 leadership election.ydoethur said:
Why was the previous Labour candidate not picked? Oliver Coppard still seems active in Sheffield Labour.Recidivist said:
And even if the party managers had somehow acquired more foresight than the rest of the political world, they still had to find someone willing to throw their hat into the ring for what looked to everyone at the time as a doomed project. How many great candidates are there willing to put themselves through that?Winstanley said:
Labour was hovering around half the Tory vote in the polling. Just abouy everybody on here was expecting heavy losses across the board. Only in hindsight is it a winnable seat.swing_voter said:I dont buy the idea that Labour didnt view Sheffield Hallam as winnable at the start of 2017......Clegg had only held on in 2015 by a few thousand and that was as DPM and Party leader, the seat was winnable long before 2017 and its not as though Sheffield/South Yorks was full of marginals for Labour to fight. I am amazed that he was just parachuted in to such a high profile seat that was more than winnable. Thats not to say Clegg's defeat was not a surprise but it was hardly a 20,000 vote collapse, there is more to this, perhaps Sheffield Labour were busy worrying abour trees?
We do come back to the issue: Should all candidates be vetted and groomed so that they all look and sound like an anodyne boyband from a TV talent show?0 -
Deleted. I didn't read the chart properly.
Comment I would make is that there is a relatively higher proportion of reasonable people in the Remain camp. Some Leavers are reasonable though.0 -
Wait, liberal national, liberal and national liberal? Confusing. Like the Lib Dem party of Japan, i think they used to fight the liberals and the Democrats?TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
In hindsight not a bad result for Labour imo - got rid of much of the moribund PLP and allowed in the 1945 generation. A good cull in the HoC can be healthy...TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
Mr. Eagles, I think people generally will be forgiving of online comments made in the teens, or maybe early 20s. But when people are older, less so.0
-
Last one is National Labourkle4 said:
Wait, liberal national, liberal and national liberal? Confusing. Like the Lib Dem party of Japan, i think they used to fight the liberals and the Democrats?TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
The only election since 1928 where one party got over 50% of the vote.TheScreamingEagles said:
Also both the greatest number of seats for one party in any election, ever, and the largest majority for any government (551-65, 386, until the Samuelite Liberals quit the government and returned to opposition).
I do hope we never have a debacle that again. It ended up OK - not brilliant, but OK - but had someone more forceful than Baldwin and Macdonald been in charge I hate to think what could have happened (imagine Moseley or Cripps with that kind of majority).0 -
There's nothing on that page that suggests that Hallam was a 1/200 certainty. Probably no more than 1/3 going on the chatter there (and the LD odds implied by the quoted Labour odds on the page would have been a good deal longer than that).Winstanley said:
Hindsight. Look at the discussions on Sheffield Hallam running up to the election: http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/sheffieldhallam/comment-page-40/#commentsdavid_herdson said:
Absurd odds for a party which had suffered the collapse it did in 2015 and where there were good reasons to think the local candidate had only clung on for local reasons that no longer applied.Winstanley said:
https://betting.betfair.com/politics/general-election-2017/sheffield-hallam-constituency-betting-odds-general-election-2017-300517-136.html?amp=1david_herdson said:
Nah. Hallam was always different for reasons I pointed out at 7:13.Winstanley said:
Labour was hovering around half the Tory vote in the polling. Just abouy everybody on here was expecting heavy losses across the board. Only in hindsight is it a winnable seat.swing_voter said:I dont buy the idea that Labour didnt view Sheffield Hallam as winnable at the start of 2017......Clegg had only held on in 2015 by a few thousand and that was as DPM and Party leader, the seat was winnable long before 2017 and its not as though Sheffield/South Yorks was full of marginals for Labour to fight. I am amazed that he was just parachuted in to such a high profile seat that was more than winnable. Thats not to say Clegg's defeat was not a surprise but it was hardly a 20,000 vote collapse, there is more to this, perhaps Sheffield Labour were busy worrying abour trees?
At the start of the campaign Clegg was 1/200 to win.
Apart from anything else, a UNS based on polls at the start of the campaign would have made the seat very winnable for the Tories, never mind Labour.
Considering the students weren't about, it wasn't such a target for Lab as 2015, Labour's national polling, the expected Remainer boost for Clegg, etc. It's very easy to find signs now that Labour had a chance in Sheffield Hallam. They weren't what we were all thinking about at the time.0 -
Spoke like a true Momento - it's not power that matters, it's purity of thought...Winstanley said:
In hindsight not a bad result for Labour imo - got rid of much of the moribund PLP and allowed in the 1945 generation. A good cull in the HoC can be healthy...TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
Or unless it's in their interests to be outraged, which is the big thing I think. We're less forgiving for opponents.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, I think people generally will be forgiving of online comments made in the teens, or maybe early 20s. But when people are older, less so.
0 -
I'm not in Momentum, sounds too much like a Lynx advert to me.Mortimer said:
Spoke like a true Momento - it's not power that matters, it's purity of thought...Winstanley said:
In hindsight not a bad result for Labour imo - got rid of much of the moribund PLP and allowed in the 1945 generation. A good cull in the HoC can be healthy...TheScreamingEagles said:
But really, after 1929-31 - the PLP needed a crisis.0 -
Indeed so. All parties need to work on thier vetting practices for Parliamentary candidates, to include online activity and meeting with friends, colleagues and family.kle4 said:
That would be some very in depth vetting. It seems most are agreed you cannot hold all youthful indiscretions against someone even if you could find them, and in most cases it would take an unreasonable level of effort to find such. But I guess even in an emergency the party needs to trawl the twitter fees and Facebook at least, and meet the person face to face at least once. Omara might be a surprisingly charming and articulate person, I don't know, but reports make him seem such an are you'd hope a single meeting at leat has the chance to raise red flags, and perhaps the need to expend resources to do more in depth vetting.Winstanley said:
Well he'd been standing in local elections for a while, so I guess he was known as 'one of their own'. Does the PPC vetting process usually detect messageboard posts and what they've said in nightclubs?Sandpit said:On topic, surely the main parties have a central list of approved candidates for emergencies such as a short-notice election, or local constituency parties can find one of their own such as a councillor or party official to stand?
Selecting someone they clearly didn’t know just sounds bonkers. But then we remember back to the shambles of the past couple of years in Corbyn’s Labour, before the election was called.
I agree with Dr Foxinsox that we shouldn’t end up with a Parliament full of drones, but this guy still hasn’t made his maiden speech, hasn’t held a constituency surgery and has clearly upset someone enough that they’ve gone to Guido with a dossier.0 -
Mr. Winstanley, yeah. Alas.0
-
The quoted odds changed as the campaign unfolded. At the moment O'Mara was selected Labour was 50/1 and Clegg 1/200. Most of the comments insist on it being a LD hold, with an increased majority even as Labour clawed back ground. It's easy to forget what a shock Clegg losing was on the night.david_herdson said:
There's nothing on that page that suggests that Hallam was a 1/200 certainty. Probably no more than 1/3 going on the chatter there (and the LD odds implied by the quoted Labour odds on the page would have been a good deal longer than that).Winstanley said:
Hindsight. Look at the discussions on Sheffield Hallam running up to the election: http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/sheffieldhallam/comment-page-40/#commentsdavid_herdson said:
Absurd odds for a party which had suffered the collapse it did in 2015 and where there were good reasons to think the local candidate had only clung on for local reasons that no longer applied.Winstanley said:
https://betting.betfair.com/politics/general-election-2017/sheffield-hallam-constituency-betting-odds-general-election-2017-300517-136.html?amp=1david_herdson said:
Nah. Hallam was always different for reasons I pointed out at 7:13.Winstanley said:
Labour was hovering around half the Tory vote in the polling. Just abouy everybody on here was expecting heavy losses across the board. Only in hindsight is it a winnable seat.swing_voter said:I dont buy the idea that Labour didnt view Sheffield Hallam as winnable at the start of 2017......Clegg had only held on in 2015 by a few thousand and that was as DPM and Party leader, the seat was winnable long before 2017 and its not as though Sheffield/South Yorks was full of marginals for Labour to fight. I am amazed that he was just parachuted in to such a high profile seat that was more than winnable. Thats not to say Clegg's defeat was not a surprise but it was hardly a 20,000 vote collapse, there is more to this, perhaps Sheffield Labour were busy worrying abour trees?
At the start of the campaign Clegg was 1/200 to win.
Apart from anything else, a UNS based on polls at the start of the campaign would have made the seat very winnable for the Tories, never mind Labour.
Considering the students weren't about, it wasn't such a target for Lab as 2015, Labour's national polling, the expected Remainer boost for Clegg, etc. It's very easy to find signs now that Labour had a chance in Sheffield Hallam. They weren't what we were all thinking about at the time.0 -
Basically they split three ways:kle4 said:
Wait, liberal national, liberal and national liberal? Confusing. Like the Lib Dem party of Japan, i think they used to fight the liberals and the Democrats?TheScreamingEagles said:
1) A group willing to consider tariffs, led by former HS and AG Sir John a Simon, which wanted an electoral pact with the Conservatives and repudiated the party's pro-Labour stance;
2) A core group based on the traditional structures, supportive of free trade and committed to working with any party that could provide stable government - as the official leader, Lloyd George was ill at key moments this was led more or less by accident in 1931 by Sir Herbert Samuel, former Home Secretary and Commissioner for Palestine;
3) A third group led by Lloyd George, which consisted of him, his son Gwilym, daughter Megan and a random cousin whose name I forget, which split off in a fit of pique because Samuel didn't consult him on every little detail.
Most of the Liberal seats in 1931 and 1935 were held in pacts with the Conservatives - when that was withdrawn from the Samuelite faction in 1935 17 of the 31 lost their seats including Samuel himself and Isaac Foot. The National Liberals of course remained officially a separate party until 1965, but they never (or at least so far as I am aware) faced Conservative opposition in elections. There were exceptions - Clement Davies rejoined the Liberals and was party leader from 1945-1956, while Gwilym Lloyd George ultimately joined the Conservatives and became Home Secretary in the 1950s.
So 1931 was the last time until certainly 1976 and arguably 1997 that the Liberals played a significant role in British politics. It is not difficult to see why!0 -
There can be a whole heap of individual bits of evidence for years before something prompts a pooling of information: cf. Weinstein, Savile. People are afraid of making a fuss, afraid of being disbelieved and afraid of those in power (an as MP O'Mara is powerful in local terms).kle4 said:
Those are not the only 2 options and there would be no more than minor issues were he not seemingly the same person as when he made old comments, only more self righteous. The recent stuff might be hard to find too, but someone locally surely knew him and a process could have picked up on that.foxinsoxuk said:
O'Mara does not seem particularlly left wing (indeed his recent remarks very much out of keeping with snowflake liberalism!) and he denied being supported by Momentum.HYUFD said:
Perhaps Momentum decreed he did not show enough commitment to the Dear Leader, whereas O'Mara backed Corbyn in the 2015 leadership election.ydoethur said:
Why was the previous Labour candidate not picked? Oliver Coppard still seems active in Sheffield Labour.Recidivist said:
And even if the party managers had somehow acquired more foresight than the rest of the political world, they still had to find someone willing to throw their hat into the ring for what looked to everyone at the time as a doomed project. How many great candidates are there willing to put themselves through that?Winstanley said:
Labour was hovering around half the Tory vote in the polling. Just abouy everybody on here was expecting heavy losses across the board. Only in hindsight is it a winnable seat.swing_voter said:I dont buy the idea that Labour didnt view Sheffield Hallam as winnable at the start of 2017......Clegg had only held on in 2015 by a few thousand and that was as DPM and Party leader, the seat was winnable long before 2017 and its not as though Sheffield/South Yorks was full of marginals for Labour to fight. I am amazed that he was just parachuted in to such a high profile seat that was more than winnable. Thats not to say Clegg's defeat was not a surprise but it was hardly a 20,000 vote collapse, there is more to this, perhaps Sheffield Labour were busy worrying abour trees?
We do come back to the issue: Should all candidates be vetted and groomed so that they all look and sound like an anodyne boyband from a TV talent show?0 -
Cable was the heavyweight the LDs wanted for their pro single market stance although Lamb would have broadened their approach but the minor parties are still being squeezed.foxinsoxuk said:
I am very disappointed that my own party did not have a leadership contest. Cable would probably have won, but there did need to be discussion over direction. That was ignored. I would have voted Lamb again if he had stood. His Brexit policy is more nuanced, and his wider policies much more coherent for a revival of the LDs.HYUFD said:
Tory members now have the final say on the next leader (provides like Leadsom one of the final 2 does not withdraw) and local candidates and are the pool for local council candidates and also get invites to social events with party figures. Though I agree conference needs to give them a broader say certainly.foxinsoxuk said:
To develop my theme further:foxinsoxuk said:
Jezza believes in the rights of local constituencies to choose their candidates. He has made very little effort to parachute in supporters into safe seats, unlike New Labour. For example in both Copeland and Stoke he allowed and campaigned with locally chosen candidates who each had vocally opposed him in the recent past.Sandpit said:On topic, surely the main parties have a central list of approved candidates for emergencies such as a short-notice election, or local constituency parties can find one of their own such as a councillor or party official to stand?
Selecting someone they clearly didn’t know just sounds bonkers. But then we remember back to the shambles of the past couple of years in Corbyn’s Labour, before the election was called.
As far as I can tell, this is very much one of his core unshakeable beliefs. He trusts the local parties more than he trusts the central party. His is very much a grassroots approach. The upside of this is that he captures and enthuses the activists in a way that is alien to other leaders, the downside is that in 650 parties there are bound to be a few bad apples that get through.
This faith in the grass roots of the Labour movement is why there simply has not been a centrally driven purge of the centrists as some PB Tories predict, via reselections etc.
To understand the political phenomenon of Corbynism, we should study the history of the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy, which Jezza has been involved with from the beginning.
http://www.clpd.org.uk
The0 -
I called a lot of people c*nts on Usenet back when I was 17.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, I think people generally will be forgiving of online comments made in the teens, or maybe early 20s. But when people are older, less so.
I stand by every comment.0 -
I have said before she is Corbyn in a skirt.ydoethur said:This is a rather intriguing story:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/new-zealand-new-prime-minister-jacinda-ardern-capitalism-blatant-failure-a8012656.html
If she's starting as she means to go on, expect trouble, quickly, in New Zealand.0 -
A sage assessment.foxinsoxuk said:
I am very disappointed that my own party did not have a leadership contest. Cable would probably have won, but there did need to be discussion over direction. That was ignored. I would have voted Lamb again if he had stood. His Brexit policy is more nuanced, and his wider policies much more coherent for a revival of the LDs.HYUFD said:
Tory members now have the final say on the next leader (provides like Leadsom one of the final 2 does not withdraw) and local candidates and are the pool for local council candidates and also get invites to social events with party figures. Though I agree conference needs to give them a broader say certainly.foxinsoxuk said:
To develop my theme further:foxinsoxuk said:
Jezza believes in the rights of local constituencies to choose their candidates. He has made very little effort to parachute in supporters into safe seats, unlike New Labour. For example in both Copeland and Stoke he allowed and campaigned with locally chosen candidates who each had vocally opposed him in the recent past.Sandpit said:On topic, surely the main parties have a central list of approved candidates for emergencies such as a short-notice election, or local constituency parties can find one of their own such as a councillor or party official to stand?
Selecting someone they clearly didn’t know just sounds bonkers. But then we remember back to the shambles of the past couple of years in Corbyn’s Labour, before the election was called.
As far as I can tell, this is very much one of his core unshakeable beliefs. He trusts the local parties more than he trusts the central party. His is very much a grassroots approach. The upside of this is that he captures and enthuses the activists in a way that is alien to other leaders, the downside is that in 650 parties there are bound to be a few bad apples that get through.
This faith in the grass roots of the Labour movement is why there simply has not been a centrally driven purge of the centrists as some PB Tories predict, via reselections etc.
To understand the political phenomenon of Corbynism, we should study the history of the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy, which Jezza has been involved with from the beginning.
http://www.clpd.org.uk
The
I suspect Cable will need to be replaced in a post-Brexit world.0 -
Maybe not every post.Alistair said:
I called a lot of people c*nts on Usenet back when I was 17.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, I think people generally will be forgiving of online comments made in the teens, or maybe early 20s. But when people are older, less so.
I stand by every comment.0 -
Technically true but the National coalition also won over 50% of the vote in 1935 and should really be counted as one electoral force because (unlike in 1931) it was clear that the National Liberals and National Labour had split irretrievably from their parent parties, and that the alliance was more than just a temporary solution to a current crisis. We don't count SDP and Liberal figures separately for 1983 or 1987.ydoethur said:
The only election since 1928 where one party got over 50% of the vote.TheScreamingEagles said:
Also both the greatest number of seats for one party in any election, ever, and the largest majority for any government (551-65, 386, until the Samuelite Liberals quit the government and returned to opposition).
I do hope we never have a debacle that again. It ended up OK - not brilliant, but OK - but had someone more forceful than Baldwin and Macdonald been in charge I hate to think what could have happened (imagine Moseley or Cripps with that kind of majority).0 -
Meanwhile, suspicions are raised that Vettel's personality is beginning to be affected by his team mate:
https://twitter.com/sebvettelnews/status/9224202370222284800
