politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » After long periods heading the “next PM” betting punters are m
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » After long periods heading the “next PM” betting punters are moving away from Corbyn
Betdata.io
Comments
-
There are two main drivers to this market as Mike says.
If you think that TMay will stand down prior to the next election (which will depend on when that is) then Tories look the right horse.
If you think she will lead the Cons into the next election, then you have to ask yourself if Corbyn would beat her.
I am not convinced this market should be drifting for Corbyn. May looks a bit (a bit) more secure whereas Salisbury only speaks to whether Corbyn would defeat her at a re-run of last year's election.0 -
42% of Tory members want May to lead the party into the next general election according to a new Conservative Home poll, though 47% still want her to step down before the next general election.
Only 8% want May to step down as Tory leader now
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/04/support-for-may-leading-the-conservatives-into-the-next-election-hits-its-highest-total-yet.html0 -
Who or what is the grey line which peaks at >20% and then falls away to nothing?0
-
Or the yellow line?Ishmael_Z said:Who or what is the grey line which peaks at >20% and then falls away to nothing?
Guessing one of those lines might be George Osborne who's no longer an MP.0 -
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/980393367464022016
Who knew the middle classes were so stuffed full of Stalinist anti-semites?0 -
Even 70% of pre-2015 members believe Corbyn is doing well.rottenborough said:0 -
Grey is David Davis, [edit2: yellow is Hammond. or maybe vice-versa]Philip_Thompson said:
Or the yellow line?Ishmael_Z said:Who or what is the grey line which peaks at >20% and then falls away to nothing?
Guessing one of those lines might be George Osborne who's no longer an MP.0 -
Theuniondivvie said:
FPTIshmael_Z said:
I did check, and thought I was the most likely candidate. Happy Easter.Theuniondivvie said:
You'll have to get over this thing that posts are all about YOU.Ishmael_Z said:
Cracking point, except that I said nothing about the loathsome Bojo , I don't believe roger is Jewish, and I really am genuinely against antisemitism and death camps and stuff, if you can believe such a thing.Theuniondivvie said:The seamless way that PB can go from fudging Bojo's racist terminology to getting all sanctimonious on the ass of a Jewish person recounting a joke is almost..ALMOST..impressive.
Same to you.
By the bye, on the basis of several thing Roger has mentioned in the past, I'd assumed he was Jewish. Since I tend to think of that as mostly a positive, I hadn't really thought much more about it. If it's not the case apologies to him, no one likes an identity thrust upon them.0 -
LOL, I was thinking the same as well.Theuniondivvie said:The seamless way that PB can go from fudging Bojo's racist terminology to getting all sanctimonious on the ass of a Jewish person recounting a joke is almost..ALMOST..impressive.
0 -
"Top Labour donor Sir David Garrard quits party over anti-Semitism row
Sir David Garrard has donated about £1.5m since 2003, but says the party he had supported "no longer exists"."
https://news.sky.com/story/top-labour-donor-sir-david-garrard-quits-party-over-anti-semitism-row-113123520 -
Phil Wilson, Labour MP for Sedgefield:
"Labour is a political party, not a cult."
(https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-labour-party-antisemitism-criticism-a8283666.html)
I think you mean "was" Phil, sorry to say.
0 -
Well, who can blame him. Who would want to be associated with all this?AndyJS said:"Top Labour donor Sir David Garrard quits party over anti-Semitism row
Sir David Garrard has donated about £1.5m since 2003, but says the party he had supported "no longer exists"."
https://news.sky.com/story/top-labour-donor-sir-david-garrard-quits-party-over-anti-semitism-row-113123520 -
That's the extent of the headbangers in the party.HYUFD said:
Only 8% want May to step down as Tory leader now
8%.
0 -
Rentoul suggests that means the pre-2015 non-corbynites have left.The_Apocalypse said:
Even 70% of pre-2015 members believe Corbyn is doing well.rottenborough said:0 -
Tbh, I don’t really buy into his suggestion. Many pre 2015 members voted for Corbyn to be leader in the first place.rottenborough said:
Rentoul suggests that means the pre-2015 non-corbynites have left.The_Apocalypse said:
Even 70% of pre-2015 members believe Corbyn is doing well.rottenborough said:0 -
I think the stats mean there must be an element to which those people that voted ABC have left the party since.The_Apocalypse said:
Tbh, I don’t really buy into his suggestion. Many pre 2015 members voted for Corbyn to be leader in the first place.rottenborough said:
Rentoul suggests that means the pre-2015 non-corbynites have left.The_Apocalypse said:
Even 70% of pre-2015 members believe Corbyn is doing well.rottenborough said:0 -
Statistically, the vast majority of Labour members who think Corbyn is handling his job and this issue very well.rottenborough said:
Well, who can blame him. Who would want to be associated with all this?AndyJS said:"Top Labour donor Sir David Garrard quits party over anti-Semitism row
Sir David Garrard has donated about £1.5m since 2003, but says the party he had supported "no longer exists"."
https://news.sky.com/story/top-labour-donor-sir-david-garrard-quits-party-over-anti-semitism-row-113123520 -
How many of them think "the issue" is a fiction invented to damage the great leader?kle4 said:
Statistically, the vast majority of Labour members who think Corbyn is handling his job and this issue very well.rottenborough said:
Well, who can blame him. Who would want to be associated with all this?AndyJS said:"Top Labour donor Sir David Garrard quits party over anti-Semitism row
Sir David Garrard has donated about £1.5m since 2003, but says the party he had supported "no longer exists"."
https://news.sky.com/story/top-labour-donor-sir-david-garrard-quits-party-over-anti-semitism-row-113123520 -
Hard to say. Some, no doubt, but since Corbyn himself says it is a problem, I can only presume that most think that acknowledgement by him was a sufficient response, pending future action.ReggieCide said:
How many of them think "the issue" is a fiction invented to damage the great leader?kle4 said:
Statistically, the vast majority of Labour members who think Corbyn is handling his job and this issue very well.rottenborough said:
Well, who can blame him. Who would want to be associated with all this?AndyJS said:"Top Labour donor Sir David Garrard quits party over anti-Semitism row
Sir David Garrard has donated about £1.5m since 2003, but says the party he had supported "no longer exists"."
https://news.sky.com/story/top-labour-donor-sir-david-garrard-quits-party-over-anti-semitism-row-113123520 -
"Labour Party 'not connected'" to Labour for Jeremy, huh.0
-
Of course Labour voters are not the same as Labour members - I am far more interested in seeing polling as to how current and past Labour voters view the situation.kle4 said:
Statistically, the vast majority of Labour members who think Corbyn is handling his job and this issue very well.rottenborough said:
Well, who can blame him. Who would want to be associated with all this?AndyJS said:"Top Labour donor Sir David Garrard quits party over anti-Semitism row
Sir David Garrard has donated about £1.5m since 2003, but says the party he had supported "no longer exists"."
https://news.sky.com/story/top-labour-donor-sir-david-garrard-quits-party-over-anti-semitism-row-11312352
I suspect it will be significantly different.0 -
https://skwawkbox.org/2018/04/01/times-claims-19-lab-members-recognise-antisemitism-their-own-numbers-say-96/ 77% according to this , think the extent of anti semitism is been deliberately exaggerated to damage Corbyn and stifle critism of the state of Israel.They are quoting Sam Coates of the times and you gov.0
-
Voted ABC? I’m a bit confused by what you mean there, I’m afraid....TheWhiteRabbit said:
I think the stats mean there must be an element to which those people that voted ABC have left the party since.The_Apocalypse said:
Tbh, I don’t really buy into his suggestion. Many pre 2015 members voted for Corbyn to be leader in the first place.rottenborough said:
Rentoul suggests that means the pre-2015 non-corbynites have left.The_Apocalypse said:
Even 70% of pre-2015 members believe Corbyn is doing well.rottenborough said:0 -
Does anyone actually read skwarkbox and believe anything they print?Yorkcity said:https://skwawkbox.org/2018/04/01/times-claims-19-lab-members-recognise-antisemitism-their-own-numbers-say-96/ 77% according to this , think the extent of anti semitism is been deliberately exaggerated to damage Corbyn and stifle critism of the state of Israel.They are quoting Sam Coates of the times and you gov.
0 -
FPT with apologies for the delayed response. Thought I'd posted before I went out.
I think, from the LGO's report, that the independent social worker only looked at the third set of accusations. I certainly hope that is the case. I would have serious doubts about a social worker who concluded that there was no evidence of abuse when faced with three independent reports of his behaviour. Of course, it is possible that they concluded that swearing at patients, etc., was not abuse, but I hope not. Unfortunately this report is not available so we don't know exactly what it said.ydoethur said:I haven't read the full report. However, what is peculiar about this case is that there was an outside review which dismissed the allegations, and the council overruled that and upheld the complaint. Speaking as somebody else who is heavily involved in safeguarding, that strikes me as to say the least rather odd.
It is also perhaps important to remember that the role of the LGO is to ensure process is followed. They found it was not.
https://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/politics/exclusive-husband-of-south-shields-mp-branded-perpetrator-of-elder-abuse-after-care-probe-1-9078881
Edit - and the council are resisting the findings and refusing to pay the compensation, which I would also point out is to put it mildly a little unusual and may see them get into nasty trouble. That doesn't suggest it is purely about safeguarding.
It is not as unusual as you think for a council to ignore the LGO's findings. The LGO only makes recommendations. Councils don't have to follow them. There are many cases of councils refusing to comply with LGO recommendations. The council won't get into any trouble. And, to be honest, I am not surprised they don't want to pay compensation for procedural errors when dismissing someone for safeguarding concerns that appear to be valid.
I note, by the way, that Mr Lewell-Buck's lawyer recommended that he go to the LGO rather than go to tribunal for unfair dismissal. To me, that speaks volumes.
0 -
cult members.oxfordsimon said:
Does anyone actually read skwarkbox and believe anything they print?Yorkcity said:https://skwawkbox.org/2018/04/01/times-claims-19-lab-members-recognise-antisemitism-their-own-numbers-say-96/ 77% according to this , think the extent of anti semitism is been deliberately exaggerated to damage Corbyn and stifle critism of the state of Israel.They are quoting Sam Coates of the times and you gov.
Edit: To take one example:
https://twitter.com/DerbyChrisW/status/980374043395272704
0 -
They did , I voted for Andy Burnham as I was entitled to a vote as a member of Unison.Not been a Labour member.However I personally would have felt more comfortable with him as Leader.I find it hard to believe he would have done any better last June .I also voted for him in 2010.The we will cut a bit less had seen its course , with Milliband , even though May seems to like the Ed Balls agenda now.The_Apocalypse said:
Tbh, I don’t really buy into his suggestion. Many pre 2015 members voted for Corbyn to be leader in the first place.rottenborough said:
Rentoul suggests that means the pre-2015 non-corbynites have left.The_Apocalypse said:
Even 70% of pre-2015 members believe Corbyn is doing well.rottenborough said:0 -
Williamson is a ridiculously offensive waste of bandwidthrottenborough said:
cult members.oxfordsimon said:
Does anyone actually read skwarkbox and believe anything they print?Yorkcity said:https://skwawkbox.org/2018/04/01/times-claims-19-lab-members-recognise-antisemitism-their-own-numbers-say-96/ 77% according to this , think the extent of anti semitism is been deliberately exaggerated to damage Corbyn and stifle critism of the state of Israel.They are quoting Sam Coates of the times and you gov.
Edit: To take one example:
https://twitter.com/DerbyChrisW/status/9803740433952727040 -
This comment of his is typical: "With solidarity we'll defeat the haters."oxfordsimon said:
Williamson is a ridiculously offensive waste of bandwidthrottenborough said:
cult members.oxfordsimon said:
Does anyone actually read skwarkbox and believe anything they print?Yorkcity said:https://skwawkbox.org/2018/04/01/times-claims-19-lab-members-recognise-antisemitism-their-own-numbers-say-96/ 77% according to this , think the extent of anti semitism is been deliberately exaggerated to damage Corbyn and stifle critism of the state of Israel.They are quoting Sam Coates of the times and you gov.
Edit: To take one example:
https://twitter.com/DerbyChrisW/status/980374043395272704
Haters being anyone who doesn't actually agree that Jezza is the second coming.0 -
Well they are quoting Sam Coates of the times and you gov are they wrong about this poll ?oxfordsimon said:
Does anyone actually read skwarkbox and believe anything they print?Yorkcity said:https://skwawkbox.org/2018/04/01/times-claims-19-lab-members-recognise-antisemitism-their-own-numbers-say-96/ 77% according to this , think the extent of anti semitism is been deliberately exaggerated to damage Corbyn and stifle critism of the state of Israel.They are quoting Sam Coates of the times and you gov.
0 -
Williamson does a good job however of showing us what living under a Corbyn government will be like, if you happen not to agree he should be PM.
0 -
Oh FFSYorkcity said:
Well they are quoting Sam Coates of the times and you gov are they wrong about this poll ?oxfordsimon said:
Does anyone actually read skwarkbox and believe anything they print?Yorkcity said:https://skwawkbox.org/2018/04/01/times-claims-19-lab-members-recognise-antisemitism-their-own-numbers-say-96/ 77% according to this , think the extent of anti semitism is been deliberately exaggerated to damage Corbyn and stifle critism of the state of Israel.They are quoting Sam Coates of the times and you gov.
0 -
Anyone but Corbyn: Burnham, Cooper, Kendall.The_Apocalypse said:
Voted ABC? I’m a bit confused by what you mean there, I’m afraid....TheWhiteRabbit said:
I think the stats mean there must be an element to which those people that voted ABC have left the party since.The_Apocalypse said:
Tbh, I don’t really buy into his suggestion. Many pre 2015 members voted for Corbyn to be leader in the first place.rottenborough said:
Rentoul suggests that means the pre-2015 non-corbynites have left.The_Apocalypse said:
Even 70% of pre-2015 members believe Corbyn is doing well.rottenborough said:0 -
They certainly are.Yorkcity said:
Well they are quoting Sam Coates of the times and you gov are they wrong about this poll ?oxfordsimon said:
Does anyone actually read skwarkbox and believe anything they print?Yorkcity said:https://skwawkbox.org/2018/04/01/times-claims-19-lab-members-recognise-antisemitism-their-own-numbers-say-96/ 77% according to this , think the extent of anti semitism is been deliberately exaggerated to damage Corbyn and stifle critism of the state of Israel.They are quoting Sam Coates of the times and you gov.
66 % thought anti-semitism was a genuine problem in Labour. That divided into 19% who simply thought it was a genuine problem, and 47% who thought it was being used to undermine Corbyn and deflect criticism from Israel.
A further 30% thought there was no problem, but that it was being used to undermine Corbyn and deflect criticism from Israel.
FPT I thought Roger's joke was a decent one. As he says, Jewish humour is often self-mocking.0 -
It's likely that a fair few people who voted for both Blair and David Miliband for the Labour leadership also voted for Corbyn in both 2015 and 2016.The_Apocalypse said:
Tbh, I don’t really buy into his suggestion. Many pre 2015 members voted for Corbyn to be leader in the first place.rottenborough said:
Rentoul suggests that means the pre-2015 non-corbynites have left.The_Apocalypse said:
Even 70% of pre-2015 members believe Corbyn is doing well.rottenborough said:0 -
Full dataset from YouGov LAB members poll is here
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/a1lnfhilsh/TimesResults_180329_LabourMembers_W.pdf0 -
The betting in the chart above is very dependent on whether you think May will be replaced by another Conservative BEFORE the next election. Most of the movement is away from Johnson and towards Ress-Mogg.
Personally I would put Corbyn ahead of the other favourites in a very poor pool. I could tolerate Hunt or Rudd, if you overlook her dodgy business dealings.0 -
Anyone But Corbyn?The_Apocalypse said:
Voted ABC? I’m a bit confused by what you mean there, I’m afraid....TheWhiteRabbit said:
I think the stats mean there must be an element to which those people that voted ABC have left the party since.The_Apocalypse said:
Tbh, I don’t really buy into his suggestion. Many pre 2015 members voted for Corbyn to be leader in the first place.rottenborough said:
Rentoul suggests that means the pre-2015 non-corbynites have left.The_Apocalypse said:
Even 70% of pre-2015 members believe Corbyn is doing well.rottenborough said:
Labour is very London and relatively youth dominated of course these days - but these classifications are about employment and education not wealth. You can be AB - and rent - and actually have less wealth and earn less than a C2 or even a D who owns their own home. A builder or plumber will often be better paid than many so called qualified professionals in office type jobs these days.
0 -
I’ve just worked out the result of the Craig Mackinlay trial is expected whilst you’re on holiday.MikeSmithson said:Full dataset from YouGov LAB members poll is here
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/a1lnfhilsh/TimesResults_180329_LabourMembers_W.pdf0 -
Does #antisemitegate mean JC has had to keep his stupid trap shut about the recent shenanigans in Gaza? Normally he’d be all over that.0
-
Yah.Dura_Ace said:Does #antisemitegate mean JC has had to keep his stupid trap shut about the recent shenanigans in Gaza? Normally he’d be all over that.
Obviously the Israelis are behind the smears against Corbyn for this very reason.
Perhaps I should tell the cult this.0 -
https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/980047907213717510?s=19Dura_Ace said:Does #antisemitegate mean JC has had to keep his stupid trap shut about the recent shenanigans in Gaza? Normally he’d be all over that.
0 -
They're very cunning.TheScreamingEagles said:
Yah.Dura_Ace said:Does #antisemitegate mean JC has had to keep his stupid trap shut about the recent shenanigans in Gaza? Normally he’d be all over that.
Obviously the Israelis are behind the smears against Corbyn for this very reason.
Perhaps I should tell the cult this.0 -
Hasn't stopped him calling for Israel to stand down.Dura_Ace said:Does #antisemitegate mean JC has had to keep his stupid trap shut about the recent shenanigans in Gaza? Normally he’d be all over that.
No mention of any suggestion that Hamas should behave differently.0 -
I'm sure that those who lost family members in Gaza will be relieved to hear that it was merely 'shenanigans'.Dura_Ace said:Does #antisemitegate mean JC has had to keep his stupid trap shut about the recent shenanigans in Gaza? Normally he’d be all over that.
0 -
Perhaps all these anti Semite Corbynites have been unduly influenced by the Nazi past of the Queen and her family.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2015/07/18/europe/uk-queen-nazi-salute-footage/index.html0 -
Dismissing the MSM, another similarity with the Trump crowd. Although not quite as bonkers as Trump wanting the Washington Post to register as a lobbyist.rottenborough said:
cult members.oxfordsimon said:
Does anyone actually read skwarkbox and believe anything they print?Yorkcity said:https://skwawkbox.org/2018/04/01/times-claims-19-lab-members-recognise-antisemitism-their-own-numbers-say-96/ 77% according to this , think the extent of anti semitism is been deliberately exaggerated to damage Corbyn and stifle critism of the state of Israel.They are quoting Sam Coates of the times and you gov.
Edit: To take one example:
https://twitter.com/DerbyChrisW/status/9803740433952727040 -
Is this an April Fool's? Not even sure I understand the implications of this.
https://twitter.com/iainjwatson/status/980437247798497281
0 -
By civilians does he include the hamas military wing that hamas have admitted where present and killed?Foxy said:
https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/980047907213717510?s=19Dura_Ace said:Does #antisemitegate mean JC has had to keep his stupid trap shut about the recent shenanigans in Gaza? Normally he’d be all over that.
0 -
It's just the PLP sub group - not the party itself.Pauly said:Is this an April Fool's? Not even sure I understand the implications of this.
https://twitter.com/iainjwatson/status/9804372477984972810 -
-
Good afternoon, everyone.
Clearly, a Hunt-Mordaunt duel is in the national interest.0 -
I have no idea, just this was Jezzas tweet on the subject.FrancisUrquhart said:
By civilians does he include the hamas military wing that hamas have admitted where present and killed?Foxy said:
https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/980047907213717510?s=19Dura_Ace said:Does #antisemitegate mean JC has had to keep his stupid trap shut about the recent shenanigans in Gaza? Normally he’d be all over that.
0 -
-
0
-
April fools?Floater said:0 -
Remarkable how many good lays there are in that field.0
-
Something I am certain boris has said more than once....IanB2 said:Remarkable how many good lays there are in that field.
0 -
Translation: I'm so angry with how the Party is now led that I'm going to...er...well, to hell with you, I'm going to resign from a sub-committee.Daniel said:
It's just the PLP sub group - not the party itself.Pauly said:Is this an April Fool's? Not even sure I understand the implications of this.
https://twitter.com/iainjwatson/status/9804372477984972810 -
-
Happy Easter to all.
Perhaps at this time we might remember some of those oppressed in the Middle East - https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12076/iraq-christians-disappeared. Prince Charles was right to raise their plight.
It is so sad to think that Christianity might vanish from the place of its birth.0 -
@prh47bridge
I think you're misreading the LGO report.
It was into whether the council followed its own safeguarding procedures. It couldn't rule on the truth or falsehood of those allegations because they were made to organisations outside its remit. Moreover, a tribunal could hardly be convened for wrongful dismissal because he had left the employ of the organisations in question before the allegations were made. These charges came to light only when Simon Buck was denied a university place.
It also states, remarkably, that the only allegation that was investigated by an outside professional was dismissed, but that the council still decided it had happened. That strikes me as quite extraordinary.
Normally I would agree with you that three independent witnesses reporting similar behaviour is to say the least suggestive, but there are not - there appears to be one substantiated albeit quite minor charge of neglect, and a number of other allegations, none of them amounting to safeguarding concerns but rather professional misconduct that are unproven but the council is adamant for unknown reasons are true. This is compounded by the fact that in the LGO's view, there was a failure to follow the council's own procedure at every single stage of the investigation.
Now we have the council not disputing the LGO's findings, but refusing to pay because they are standing by the results of their meetings rather than of the independent investigations. You couldn't make this up. You are right about the LGO's powers, which surprises me, but I can see this going all the way to the High Court.
I have to say, this stinks. Something is clearly wrong here and in the absence of further evidence a vendetta/conspiracy looks possible, to put it no more strongly than that.0 -
Wonder if Cambridge analytica have a copy?rottenborough said:0 -
Message to Labour MPs:
"the last remaining option is to remove Corbyn and his acolytes the only way you can: by forming a new parliamentary grouping, the Progressive Labour Party. Sign up enough MPs to dwarf the SNP and you’ll get some short money to tide you over until private donors can be tapped."
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/the-question-labour-moderates-must-ask-themselves/0 -
FrancisUrquhart said:
Wonder if Cambridge analytica have a copy?rottenborough said:
0 -
I knew that was Stephen Daisley even before clicking the link.rottenborough said:Message to Labour MPs:
"the last remaining option is to remove Corbyn and his acolytes the only way you can: by forming a new parliamentary grouping, the Progressive Labour Party. Sign up enough MPs to dwarf the SNP and you’ll get some short money to tide you over until private donors can be tapped."
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/the-question-labour-moderates-must-ask-themselves/
Stephen Bush just called him out on this on twitter:
https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/9804352374937149440 -
What's this, then?FrancisUrquhart said:
Wonder if Cambridge analytica have a copy?rottenborough said:
https://en-gb.facebook.com/JeremyCorbynMP/0 -
I don't think they could call themselves that, can't remember where I read it but there is something about similar names not being allowed. They could use the name Progress or something. Trouble is I think they struggle to get north of 50 MPs, be enough to replace the SNP as the 3rd party though. At least until an election.rottenborough said:Message to Labour MPs:
"the last remaining option is to remove Corbyn and his acolytes the only way you can: by forming a new parliamentary grouping, the Progressive Labour Party. Sign up enough MPs to dwarf the SNP and you’ll get some short money to tide you over until private donors can be tapped."
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/the-question-labour-moderates-must-ask-themselves/0 -
The murder rate in London is higher than New York City for the first time according to the Sunday Times.0
-
Electoral Commission wont allow similar names. But if they aren't actually planning to stand in an election then maybe wouldn't matter. I don't know.TheJezziah said:
I don't think they could call themselves that, can't remember where I read it but there is something about similar names not being allowed. They could use the name Progress or something. Trouble is I think they struggle to get north of 50 MPs, be enough to replace the SNP as the 3rd party though. At least until an election.rottenborough said:Message to Labour MPs:
"the last remaining option is to remove Corbyn and his acolytes the only way you can: by forming a new parliamentary grouping, the Progressive Labour Party. Sign up enough MPs to dwarf the SNP and you’ll get some short money to tide you over until private donors can be tapped."
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/the-question-labour-moderates-must-ask-themselves/0 -
It won't from Jerusalem or Bethlehem, there is a significant Christian presence in both the Israeli and Palestinian Authority areasCyclefree said:Happy Easter to all.
Perhaps at this time we might remember some of those oppressed in the Middle East - https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12076/iraq-christians-disappeared. Prince Charles was right to raise their plight.
It is so sad to think that Christianity might vanish from the place of its birth.0 -
There were 172 rebels at one time and there are 80 plus committed remain labour MP's. 42 signed the letter to Corbyn protesting over anti semetic issues so it does not take a lot of imagination that if there are 50 who absolutely leave that number could grow in excess of 100TheJezziah said:
I don't think they could call themselves that, can't remember where I read it but there is something about similar names not being allowed. They could use the name Progress or something. Trouble is I think they struggle to get north of 50 MPs, be enough to replace the SNP as the 3rd party though. At least until an election.rottenborough said:Message to Labour MPs:
"the last remaining option is to remove Corbyn and his acolytes the only way you can: by forming a new parliamentary grouping, the Progressive Labour Party. Sign up enough MPs to dwarf the SNP and you’ll get some short money to tide you over until private donors can be tapped."
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/the-question-labour-moderates-must-ask-themselves/0 -
A few comments on Corbyn:-
1. When Corbyn first became a candidate for leader, quite a few raised concerns for precisely the reasons which have become evident in recent days - and were roundly poo-poohed. We were told not to be silly and that Corbyn could not be blamed for whom he happened to be standing next to. Well, as we’ve seen (and as some of us said at the time) he did not “happen” to stand by these people. He chose to do so.
2. The risks for Labour now are two-fold:-
- that more is uncovered which relates to Corbyn directly: what he may have said or done in the past.
- that there is some violence or atrocity and that there are not many degrees of separation between the perpetrators and the Labour leadership. I fervently hope this does not happen.
It is sad, very sad, that Labour should have come to this.
What is also very worrying that some should be sanguine at the prospect of Holocaust deniers being given a free pass. Quite apart from questions of moral decency, these are people who deny facts - provable facts - and to have such people anywhere near public policy is very worrying.0 -
Well CA were seeking to target probable leave voters!FrancisUrquhart said:
Wonder if Cambridge analytica have a copy?rottenborough said:0 -
Looks like he’s made the whole thing private while he sorts out the mess. Sensible idea, albeit long overdue.rottenborough said:0 -
I didn't say the LGO ruled on truth or falsehood of the allegations. It did, however, specifically find that there was no vendetta against him or his wife. You are right that he left and was not dismissed - my mistake. However, two of the three allegations were made and investigated whilst he was still employed. The final allegation came after he left but came to light when the care agency for whom he had worked asked him to attend a meeting to discuss care standards, not when he was denied the university place he had previously been awarded. The allegations were put to him at that meeting. The university's decision to remove him from the course was separate from the council's, although it was clearly based on the same information. The NHS Trust also decided against Mr Buck based on this information.ydoethur said:@prh47bridge
I think you're misreading the LGO report.
I find the words the LGO used about the independent social worker's report interesting. They say the social worker found no evidence of abuse and therefore neglect could not be substantiated. That isn't the same as saying they found all the allegations made by Mr C's family unproven. But there isn't much point speculating about this report. All three agencies involved (the council, the NHS Trust and the university) had access to this report and all three appear to have concluded that the incidents happened.
I am surprised you think that swearing at care home patients and their families is not a safeguarding concern, this being the common element in all three allegations. Without going into details, I know for a fact that care homes where I live would regard this as a significant safeguarding issue.
Yes, there were some failures to follow procedure but it is not clear that these in any way affected the outcome.
Judicial review would be the next step if Mr Buck wishes to take it further. I would be surprised if his lawyer advises him to go down that route. I doubt it would get him anywhere. If he did I think the council may be ordered to pay him the £400 awarded by the LGO, although that is not certain, but there is a reasonable chance the court would decide he should bear his own legal costs, which would wipe out the award.0 -
There has to be an irony in that Corbyn has set so much store on social media but it is now devouring himSandpit said:
Looks like he’s made the whole thing private while he sorts out the mess. Sensible idea, albeit long overdue.rottenborough said:0 -
Labour have had the same problem as the Republicans. They became so disillusioned in opposition they backed whoever was most anti-their enemy regardless of the magnitude of his flaws.Cyclefree said:A few comments on Corbyn:-
1. When Corbyn first became a candidate for leader, quite a few raised concerns for precisely the reasons which have become evident in recent days - and were roundly poo-poohed. We were told not to be silly and that Corbyn could not be blamed for whom he happened to be standing next to. Well, as we’ve seen (and as some of us said at the time) he did not “happen” to stand by these people. He chose to do so.
2. The risks for Labour now are two-fold:-
- that more is uncovered which relates to Corbyn directly: what he may have said or done in the past.
- that there is some violence or atrocity and that there are not many degrees of separation between the perpetrators and the Labour leadership. I fervently hope this does not happen.
It is sad, very sad, that Labour should have come to this.
What is also very worrying that some should be sanguine at the prospect of Holocaust deniers being given a free pass. Quite apart from questions of moral decency, these are people who deny facts - provable facts - and to have such people anywhere near public policy is very worrying.0 -
Obviously difficult to know what some of them are really thinking but I couldn't see it getting anywhere near the 172, certainly some of those went with the flow on the assumption he would be gone, as probably best evidenced by one of them quickly coming back, rather than necessarily a complete inability to work with him and indeed some would have worried that he was an electoral liability, which will be gone now.Big_G_NorthWales said:
There were 172 rebels at one time and there are 80 plus committed remain labour MP's. 42 signed the letter to Corbyn protesting over anti semetic issues so it does not take a lot of imagination that if there are 50 who absolutely leave that number could grow in excess of 100TheJezziah said:
I don't think they could call themselves that, can't remember where I read it but there is something about similar names not being allowed. They could use the name Progress or something. Trouble is I think they struggle to get north of 50 MPs, be enough to replace the SNP as the 3rd party though. At least until an election.rottenborough said:Message to Labour MPs:
"the last remaining option is to remove Corbyn and his acolytes the only way you can: by forming a new parliamentary grouping, the Progressive Labour Party. Sign up enough MPs to dwarf the SNP and you’ll get some short money to tide you over until private donors can be tapped."
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/the-question-labour-moderates-must-ask-themselves/
I was imagining over 50, or lets say less than 60 as a higher end figure already, even if the core decided to split off (so the split is already on) I couldn't really see it going much further without big shifts in public opinion to give them more confidence. It looks at the moment as if this new party would do pretty badly come election time, which would happen eventually, and that would put some off who might want to leave and would be tempted if a group split off.0 -
They are now, clearly, a far left party from the leader to the party managers to the membership. The MPs are the odd ones out, but they are so willing to keep their heads down they may as well be. They think keeping their heads down and something might turn up in office. The example of Trump shows that is not the case.Floater said:0 -
Who is denying the Holocaust ? I wish someone would name them, their position , then surely it could be dealt with with If they are members of the party , they should be thrown out.Cyclefree said:A few comments on Corbyn:-
1. When Corbyn first became a candidate for leader, quite a few raised concerns for precisely the reasons which have become evident in recent days - and were roundly poo-poohed. We were told not to be silly and that Corbyn could not be blamed for whom he happened to be standing next to. Well, as we’ve seen (and as some of us said at the time) he did not “happen” to stand by these people. He chose to do so.
2. The risks for Labour now are two-fold:-
- that more is uncovered which relates to Corbyn directly: what he may have said or done in the past.
- that there is some violence or atrocity and that there are not many degrees of separation between the perpetrators and the Labour leadership. I fervently hope this does not happen.
It is sad, very sad, that Labour should have come to this.
What is also very worrying that some should be sanguine at the prospect of Holocaust deniers being given a free pass. Quite apart from questions of moral decency, these are people who deny facts - provable facts - and to have such people anywhere near public policy is very worrying.0 -
I think Labour members went for a mix of the left wing candidate and the one who presented a vision. If I remember rightly the Tories were quite happy with the choice of Corbyn and a few joined to vote for him as well. To say he was picked to wind Tories up or for his hatred of Tories is pretty much a complete rewriting of history.Elliot said:
Labour have had the same problem as the Republicans. They became so disillusioned in opposition they backed whoever was most anti-their enemy regardless of the magnitude of his flaws.Cyclefree said:A few comments on Corbyn:-
1. When Corbyn first became a candidate for leader, quite a few raised concerns for precisely the reasons which have become evident in recent days - and were roundly poo-poohed. We were told not to be silly and that Corbyn could not be blamed for whom he happened to be standing next to. Well, as we’ve seen (and as some of us said at the time) he did not “happen” to stand by these people. He chose to do so.
2. The risks for Labour now are two-fold:-
- that more is uncovered which relates to Corbyn directly: what he may have said or done in the past.
- that there is some violence or atrocity and that there are not many degrees of separation between the perpetrators and the Labour leadership. I fervently hope this does not happen.
It is sad, very sad, that Labour should have come to this.
What is also very worrying that some should be sanguine at the prospect of Holocaust deniers being given a free pass. Quite apart from questions of moral decency, these are people who deny facts - provable facts - and to have such people anywhere near public policy is very worrying.0 -
You make good points but if the split happens it needs to be sufficient to be credible and with a leader who could provide a 'Macron' effect and attract substantial sponsorship to allow it to establish itself before the next election circa 2022.TheJezziah said:
Obviously difficult to know what some of them are really thinking but I couldn't see it getting anywhere near the 172, certainly some of those went with the flow on the assumption he would be gone, as probably best evidenced by one of them quickly coming back, rather than necessarily a complete inability to work with him and indeed some would have worried that he was an electoral liability, which will be gone now.Big_G_NorthWales said:
There were 172 rebels at one time and there are 80 plus committed remain labour MP's. 42 signed the letter to Corbyn protesting over anti semetic issues so it does not take a lot of imagination that if there are 50 who absolutely leave that number could grow in excess of 100TheJezziah said:
I don't think they could call themselves that, can't remember where I read it but there is something about similar names not being allowed. They could use the name Progress or something. Trouble is I think they struggle to get north of 50 MPs, be enough to replace the SNP as the 3rd party though. At least until an election.rottenborough said:Message to Labour MPs:
"the last remaining option is to remove Corbyn and his acolytes the only way you can: by forming a new parliamentary grouping, the Progressive Labour Party. Sign up enough MPs to dwarf the SNP and you’ll get some short money to tide you over until private donors can be tapped."
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/the-question-labour-moderates-must-ask-themselves/
I was imagining over 50, or lets say less than 60 as a higher end figure already, even if the core decided to split off (so the split is already on) I couldn't really see it going much further without big shifts in public opinion to give them more confidence. It looks at the moment as if this new party would do pretty badly come election time, which would happen eventually, and that would put some off who might want to leave and would be tempted if a group split off.
It does seem unlikely but each day seems to be a bad news day, especially for Corbyn, and the media seem to be in full pursuit0 -
Alan Bull for starters, prospective Labour councillor.Yorkcity said:
Who is denying the Holocaust ? I wish someone would name them, their position , then surely it could be dealt with with If they are members of the party , they should be thrown out.Cyclefree said:A few comments on Corbyn:-
1. When Corbyn first became a candidate for leader, quite a few raised concerns for precisely the reasons which have become evident in recent days - and were roundly poo-poohed. We were told not to be silly and that Corbyn could not be blamed for whom he happened to be standing next to. Well, as we’ve seen (and as some of us said at the time) he did not “happen” to stand by these people. He chose to do so.
2. The risks for Labour now are two-fold:-
- that more is uncovered which relates to Corbyn directly: what he may have said or done in the past.
- that there is some violence or atrocity and that there are not many degrees of separation between the perpetrators and the Labour leadership. I fervently hope this does not happen.
It is sad, very sad, that Labour should have come to this.
What is also very worrying that some should be sanguine at the prospect of Holocaust deniers being given a free pass. Quite apart from questions of moral decency, these are people who deny facts - provable facts - and to have such people anywhere near public policy is very worrying.
http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/labour-alan-bull-council-holocaust-hoax/
It is because of this Christine Shawcroft had to resign.0 -
You are correct there was many conservatives on here , celebrating when he was first elected Labour leader, whatever they say now.TheJezziah said:
I think Labour members went for a mix of the left wing candidate and the one who presented a vision. If I remember rightly the Tories were quite happy with the choice of Corbyn and a few joined to vote for him as well. To say he was picked to wind Tories up or for his hatred of Tories is pretty much a complete rewriting of history.Elliot said:
Labour have had the same problem as the Republicans. They became so disillusioned in opposition they backed whoever was most anti-their enemy regardless of the magnitude of his flaws.Cyclefree said:A few comments on Corbyn:-
1. When Corbyn first became a candidate for leader, quite a few raised concerns for precisely the reasons which have become evident in recent days - and were roundly poo-poohed. We were told not to be silly and that Corbyn could not be blamed for whom he happened to be standing next to. Well, as we’ve seen (and as some of us said at the time) he did not “happen” to stand by these people. He chose to do so.
2. The risks for Labour now are two-fold:-
- that more is uncovered which relates to Corbyn directly: what he may have said or done in the past.
- that there is some violence or atrocity and that there are not many degrees of separation between the perpetrators and the Labour leadership. I fervently hope this does not happen.
It is sad, very sad, that Labour should have come to this.
What is also very worrying that some should be sanguine at the prospect of Holocaust deniers being given a free pass. Quite apart from questions of moral decency, these are people who deny facts - provable facts - and to have such people anywhere near public policy is very worrying.0 -
I think he was looking for the ones being given a free pass for it.TheScreamingEagles said:
Alan Bull for starters, prospective Labour councillor.Yorkcity said:
Who is denying the Holocaust ? I wish someone would name them, their position , then surely it could be dealt with with If they are members of the party , they should be thrown out.Cyclefree said:A few comments on Corbyn:-
1. When Corbyn first became a candidate for leader, quite a few raised concerns for precisely the reasons which have become evident in recent days - and were roundly poo-poohed. We were told not to be silly and that Corbyn could not be blamed for whom he happened to be standing next to. Well, as we’ve seen (and as some of us said at the time) he did not “happen” to stand by these people. He chose to do so.
2. The risks for Labour now are two-fold:-
- that more is uncovered which relates to Corbyn directly: what he may have said or done in the past.
- that there is some violence or atrocity and that there are not many degrees of separation between the perpetrators and the Labour leadership. I fervently hope this does not happen.
It is sad, very sad, that Labour should have come to this.
What is also very worrying that some should be sanguine at the prospect of Holocaust deniers being given a free pass. Quite apart from questions of moral decency, these are people who deny facts - provable facts - and to have such people anywhere near public policy is very worrying.
http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/labour-alan-bull-council-holocaust-hoax/
It is because of this Christine Shawcroft had to resign.0 -
I don’t think that’s Labour’s issue. Corbyn got elected not because of what he what he was against but what was for. I remember that leadership campaign in 2015, and where he was effective in setting out his vision and what he believed in, the other candidates were not. As someone mentioned in a thread yesterday, there are differences between Labour moderates in 1990s - who actually had a vision/policy ideas - and Labour moderates today, who are lacking in that department.Elliot said:
Labour have had the same problem as the Republicans. They became so disillusioned in opposition they backed whoever was most anti-their enemy regardless of the magnitude of his flaws.Cyclefree said:A few comments on Corbyn:-
1. When Corbyn first became a candidate for leader, quite a few raised concerns for precisely the reasons which have become evident in recent days - and were roundly poo-poohed. We were told not to be silly and that Corbyn could not be blamed for whom he happened to be standing next to. Well, as we’ve seen (and as some of us said at the time) he did not “happen” to stand by these people. He chose to do so.
2. The risks for Labour now are two-fold:-
- that more is uncovered which relates to Corbyn directly: what he may have said or done in the past.
- that there is some violence or atrocity and that there are not many degrees of separation between the perpetrators and the Labour leadership. I fervently hope this does not happen.
It is sad, very sad, that Labour should have come to this.
What is also very worrying that some should be sanguine at the prospect of Holocaust deniers being given a free pass. Quite apart from questions of moral decency, these are people who deny facts - provable facts - and to have such people anywhere near public policy is very worrying.0 -
He wasn't picked to "wind up" Tories. He was picked because he was the most implacably opposed to them. Even your talk about "vision" says this. You redefine "vision" to be limited to only things which were wholesale rejections of everything supposedly "Tory". The social democracy visions of people like Cooper or Burnham just didn't count because it wasn't sufficiently rejections of "neoliberalism" (aka anything dealing with the flaws of 1970s style socialism).TheJezziah said:
I think Labour members went for a mix of the left wing candidate and the one who presented a vision. If I remember rightly the Tories were quite happy with the choice of Corbyn and a few joined to vote for him as well. To say he was picked to wind Tories up or for his hatred of Tories is pretty much a complete rewriting of history.Elliot said:
Labour have had the same problem as the Republicans. They became so disillusioned in opposition they backed whoever was most anti-their enemy regardless of the magnitude of his flaws.Cyclefree said:A few comments on Corbyn:-
1. When Corbyn first became a candidate for leader, quite a few raised concerns for precisely the reasons which have become evident in recent days - and were roundly poo-poohed. We were told not to be silly and that Corbyn could not be blamed for whom he happened to be standing next to. Well, as we’ve seen (and as some of us said at the time) he did not “happen” to stand by these people. He chose to do so.
2. The risks for Labour now are two-fold:-
- that more is uncovered which relates to Corbyn directly: what he may have said or done in the past.
- that there is some violence or atrocity and that there are not many degrees of separation between the perpetrators and the Labour leadership. I fervently hope this does not happen.
It is sad, very sad, that Labour should have come to this.
What is also very worrying that some should be sanguine at the prospect of Holocaust deniers being given a free pass. Quite apart from questions of moral decency, these are people who deny facts - provable facts - and to have such people anywhere near public policy is very worrying.0 -
This site was literally in celebration mode in September 2015 when he won. We knew how problematic Corbyn was even back then, the difference is Tories on this site thought he guaranteed them years in power so were happy for him to be leader. Now we know that Corbyn could win in 2022 and it’s a different story.Yorkcity said:
You are correct there was many conservatives on here , celebrating when he was first elected Labour leader, whatever they say now.TheJezziah said:
I think Labour members went for a mix of the left wing candidate and the one who presented a vision. If I remember rightly the Tories were quite happy with the choice of Corbyn and a few joined to vote for him as well. To say he was picked to wind Tories up or for his hatred of Tories is pretty much a complete rewriting of history.Elliot said:
Labour have had the same problem as the Republicans. They became so disillusioned in opposition they backed whoever was most anti-their enemy regardless of the magnitude of his flaws.Cyclefree said:A few comments on Corbyn:-
1. When Corbyn first became a candidate for leader, quite a few raised concerns for precisely the reasons which have become evident in recent days - and were roundly poo-poohed. We were told not to be silly and that Corbyn could not be blamed for whom he happened to be standing next to. Well, as we’ve seen (and as some of us said at the time) he did not “happen” to stand by these people. He chose to do so.
2. The risks for Labour now are two-fold:-
- that more is uncovered which relates to Corbyn directly: what he may have said or done in the past.
- that there is some violence or atrocity and that there are not many degrees of separation between the perpetrators and the Labour leadership. I fervently hope this does not happen.
It is sad, very sad, that Labour should have come to this.
What is also very worrying that some should be sanguine at the prospect of Holocaust deniers being given a free pass. Quite apart from questions of moral decency, these are people who deny facts - provable facts - and to have such people anywhere near public policy is very worrying.0 -
Is Hugo Lloris a vampire, he appears to be scared of crosses.0
-
A leader is probably one of the important factors as you somewhat allude to with Macron, I think a lot of the talk about David Miliband coming back was due to the lack of good leaders for the centre faction. They need something about them to avoid the same trap the Lib Dems fell into at the last election, stopping Brexit alone seems a tricky one as Corbyn is popular in many of the places remain did best.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You make good points but if the split happens it needs to be sufficient to be credible and with a leader who could provide a 'Macron' effect and attract substantial sponsorship to allow it to establish itself before the next election circa 2022.TheJezziah said:Big_G_NorthWales said:TheJezziah said:Message to Labour MPs:
"the last remaining option is to remove Corbyn and his acolytes the only way you can: by forming a new parliamentary grouping, the Progressive Labour Party. Sign up enough MPs to dwarf the SNP and you’ll get some short money to tide you over until private donors can be tapped."
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/the-question-labour-moderates-must-ask-themselves/
It does seem unlikely but each day seems to be a bad news day, especially for Corbyn, and the media seem to be in full pursuit
It isn't impossible but I think events would need to really play in the central factions favour and a leader emerges from among them that could get serious traction with the public.0 -
Well Apocalypse who doesn't even like Corbyn made a similar point regarding vision so I'm not sure the charge really sticks. Although there is certainly nothing wrong with Labour picking a candidate who pushes left wing ideas. Certainly the charge the parties had become too similar and there was no real choice probably wasn't good for democracy considering they are both probably the only realistic winners.Elliot said:
He wasn't picked to "wind up" Tories. He was picked because he was the most implacably opposed to them. Even your talk about "vision" says this. You redefine "vision" to be limited to only things which were wholesale rejections of everything supposedly "Tory". The social democracy visions of people like Cooper or Burnham just didn't count because it wasn't sufficiently rejections of "neoliberalism" (aka anything dealing with the flaws of 1970s style socialism).TheJezziah said:
I think Labour members went for a mix of the left wing candidate and the one who presented a vision. If I remember rightly the Tories were quite happy with the choice of Corbyn and a few joined to vote for him as well. To say he was picked to wind Tories up or for his hatred of Tories is pretty much a complete rewriting of history.Elliot said:
Labour have had the same problem as the Republicans. They became so disillusioned in opposition they backed whoever was most anti-their enemy regardless of the magnitude of his flaws.Cyclefree said:A few comments on Corbyn:-
1. When Corbyn first became a candidate for leader, quite a few raised concerns for precisely the reasons which have become evident in recent days - and were roundly poo-poohed. We were told not to be silly and that Corbyn could not be blamed for whom he happened to be standing next to. Well, as we’ve seen (and as some of us said at the time) he did not “happen” to stand by these people. He chose to do so.
2. The risks for Labour now are two-fold:-
- that more is uncovered which relates to Corbyn directly: what he may have said or done in the past.
- that there is some violence or atrocity and that there are not many degrees of separation between the perpetrators and the Labour leadership. I fervently hope this does not happen.
It is sad, very sad, that Labour should have come to this.
What is also very worrying that some should be sanguine at the prospect of Holocaust deniers being given a free pass. Quite apart from questions of moral decency, these are people who deny facts - provable facts - and to have such people anywhere near public policy is very worrying.0 -
Liz Kendall got the support of under 5% of the 2015 membership. A Blairite candidate would barely trouble the scorers these days.TheJezziah said:
A leader is probably one of the important factors as you somewhat allude to with Macron, I think a lot of the talk about David Miliband coming back was due to the lack of good leaders for the centre faction. They need something about them to avoid the same trap the Lib Dems fell into at the last election, stopping Brexit alone seems a tricky one as Corbyn is popular in many of the places remain did best.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You make good points but if the split happens it needs to be sufficient to be credible and with a leader who could provide a 'Macron' effect and attract substantial sponsorship to allow it to establish itself before the next election circa 2022.TheJezziah said:Big_G_NorthWales said:TheJezziah said:Message to Labour MPs:
"the last remaining option is to remove Corbyn and his acolytes the only way you can: by forming a new parliamentary grouping, the Progressive Labour Party. Sign up enough MPs to dwarf the SNP and you’ll get some short money to tide you over until private donors can be tapped."
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/the-question-labour-moderates-must-ask-themselves/
It does seem unlikely but each day seems to be a bad news day, especially for Corbyn, and the media seem to be in full pursuit
It isn't impossible but I think events would need to really play in the central factions favour and a leader emerges from among them that could get serious traction with the public.
My hope is that the next leader will be a unifying figure from the soft left with charisma, dynamism and a plan for government.0 -
-
I feel Ed was given a rough time by some of those to the right of him whereas the next leader should find them much more ready to compromise!SandyRentool said:
Liz Kendall got the support of under 5% of the 2015 membership. A Blairite candidate would barely trouble the scorers these days.TheJezziah said:
A leader is probably one of the important factors as you somewhat allude to with Macron, I think a lot of the talk about David Miliband coming back was due to the lack of good leaders for the centre faction. They need something about them to avoid the same trap the Lib Dems fell into at the last election, stopping Brexit alone seems a tricky one as Corbyn is popular in many of the places remain did best.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You make good points but if the split happens it needs to be sufficient to be credible and with a leader who could provide a 'Macron' effect and attract substantial sponsorship to allow it to establish itself before the next election circa 2022.TheJezziah said:Big_G_NorthWales said:TheJezziah said:Message to Labour MPs:
"the last remaining option is to remove Corbyn and his acolytes the only way you can: by forming a new parliamentary grouping, the Progressive Labour Party. Sign up enough MPs to dwarf the SNP and you’ll get some short money to tide you over until private donors can be tapped."
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/the-question-labour-moderates-must-ask-themselves/
It does seem unlikely but each day seems to be a bad news day, especially for Corbyn, and the media seem to be in full pursuit
It isn't impossible but I think events would need to really play in the central factions favour and a leader emerges from among them that could get serious traction with the public.
My hope is that the next leader will be a unifying figure from the soft left with charisma, dynamism and a plan for government.
A few of the ones that come to mind could use some time aside from Emily Thornberry.
0 -
Thing is, there is no clearly defined "centre faction" in Labour. It is divided between liberal Blairites such as Umunna and Bradshaw and old school right-wingers (in Labour terms) such as Watson, Burnham and Flint.TheJezziah said:
A leader is probably one of the important factors as you somewhat allude to with Macron, I think a lot of the talk about David Miliband coming back was due to the lack of good leaders for the centre faction. They need something about them to avoid the same trap the Lib Dems fell into at the last election, stopping Brexit alone seems a tricky one as Corbyn is popular in many of the places remain did best.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You make good points but if the split happens it needs to be sufficient to be credible and with a leader who could provide a 'Macron' effect and attract substantial sponsorship to allow it to establish itself before the next election circa 2022.TheJezziah said:Big_G_NorthWales said:TheJezziah said:Message to Labour MPs:
"the last remaining option is to remove Corbyn and his acolytes the only way you can: by forming a new parliamentary grouping, the Progressive Labour Party. Sign up enough MPs to dwarf the SNP and you’ll get some short money to tide you over until private donors can be tapped."
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/the-question-labour-moderates-must-ask-themselves/
It does seem unlikely but each day seems to be a bad news day, especially for Corbyn, and the media seem to be in full pursuit
It isn't impossible but I think events would need to really play in the central factions favour and a leader emerges from among them that could get serious traction with the public.0 -
Yes very true , they nearly crapped themselves when that exit poll came out.However in my opinion it was the best result , as it knocked them out of their complacent stupor.The_Apocalypse said:
This site was literally in celebration mode in September 2015 when he won. We knew how problematic Corbyn was even back then, the difference is Tories on this site thought he guaranteed them years in power so were happy for him to be leader. Now we know that Corbyn could win in 2022 and it’s a different story.Yorkcity said:
You are correct there was many conservatives on here , celebrating when he was first elected Labour leader, whatever they say now.TheJezziah said:
I think Labour members went for a mix of the left wing candidate and the one who presented a vision. If I remember rightly the Tories were quite happy with the choice of Corbyn and a few joined to vote for him as well. To say he was picked to wind Tories up or for his hatred of Tories is pretty much a complete rewriting of history.Elliot said:
Labour have had the same problem as the Republicans. They became so disillusioned in opposition they backed whoever was most anti-their enemy regardless of the magnitude of his flaws.Cyclefree said:A few comments on Corbyn:-
1. When Corbyn first became a candidate for leader, quite a few raised concerns for precisely the reasons which have become evident in recent days - and were roundly poo-poohed. We were told not to be silly and that Corbyn could not be blamed for whom he happened to be standing next to. Well, as we’ve seen (and as some of us said at the time) he did not “happen” to stand by these people. He chose to do so.
2. The risks for Labour now are two-fold:-
- that more is uncovered which relates to Corbyn directly: what he may have said or done in the past.
- that there is some violence or atrocity and that there are not many degrees of separation between the perpetrators and the Labour leadership. I fervently hope this does not happen.
It is sad, very sad, that Labour should have come to this.
What is also very worrying that some should be sanguine at the prospect of Holocaust deniers being given a free pass. Quite apart from questions of moral decency, these are people who deny facts - provable facts - and to have such people anywhere near public policy is very worrying.0 -
There is an irony there.rottenborough said:
This comment of his is typical: "With solidarity we'll defeat the haters."oxfordsimon said:
Williamson is a ridiculously offensive waste of bandwidthrottenborough said:
cult members.oxfordsimon said:
Does anyone actually read skwarkbox and believe anything they print?Yorkcity said:https://skwawkbox.org/2018/04/01/times-claims-19-lab-members-recognise-antisemitism-their-own-numbers-say-96/ 77% according to this , think the extent of anti semitism is been deliberately exaggerated to damage Corbyn and stifle critism of the state of Israel.They are quoting Sam Coates of the times and you gov.
Edit: To take one example:
https://twitter.com/DerbyChrisW/status/980374043395272704
Haters being anyone who doesn't actually agree that Jezza is the second coming.
Just look at the hatred they unleash on line on opponents.0
