Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB’s leadership rules will limit the number of nominees and c

124678

Comments

  • JamesP said:

    Conservative overall majority 1.37 on Betfair now. Haven't seen it lower.

    You will!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 39,128

    The Tories have to be very careful with pushing this Russian angle, and I suspect are limiting it slightly more than their press for that reason, because they know how easy it is for this to shift the agenda back to the Russia report.

    Yes when told I need to be wary of Russian meddling in the election, my first thought was why cant we see the Russia report! How else am I supposed to be wary?
    Purdah. The Government machinery doesn't publish anything remotely political in the middle of an election campaign.
  • kle4 said:

    Nicola not doing too well by the looks of it

    Scottish Independence voting intention:

    No: 56% (+5)
    Yes: 44% (-5)

    via @YouGov, 03 - 06 Dec
    Chgs. w/ Sep

    Started further back than that last time. But I'd prefer that direction. The fundamental problem closed the last thread in that for the foreseeable future the issue wont go away If a huge chunk continue to want it but cannot quite get a majority.
    I have a close relationship with all things Scots and can say with some degree of confidence they will not vote for independence. Apart from close family ties across the UK it is inconceivable that the Scots would want a border from Berwick to Carlisle, lose their navy shipbuilding contracts, lose RAF Lossiemouth, surrender their fishing to Brussels, see RBS locate to London and interrupt their 60% trade with the rest of the UK for their much smaller trade with the EU


    But if they can dictate highly favorable trade terms on that 60% because they are part of a much larger and more powerful trading block (the EU) that's a rather different matter, isn't it?
  • Sandpit said:

    The Tories have to be very careful with pushing this Russian angle, and I suspect are limiting it slightly more than their press for that reason, because they know how easy it is for this to shift the agenda back to the Russia report.

    Yes when told I need to be wary of Russian meddling in the election, my first thought was why cant we see the Russia report! How else am I supposed to be wary?
    Purdah. The Government machinery doesn't publish anything remotely political in the middle of an election campaign.
    I dont need the party spin, all reasonable commentators said it should have been published by now.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 40,121
    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Looks like the story this weekend is Russian interference in the election on the side of labour

    Russian interference on the side of the Tories, by leaking Labour a document and then ensuring that it came to light, you mean?

    The Russians would have supported BXP and Farage had they stood any chance of making waves. Now the far right disruptors of the EU and the settled order in Europe are back within the Conservatives, obviously Putin wants Bozo to win. As per Trump.
    I think Putin just wants to sow chaos amongst his enemies. While clearly BoZo does this, Jezza may also suffice.

    Putin has certainly played a blinder the last few years, as the Russia report will probably show.
    The one being supressed by the Tories!

    Across Europe (and indeed the US), Russia is supporting the right to disrupt the established order. And supports Brexit. The last thing Russia would want is Labour opening up a route to remain. Hence they have set Labour up good and proper.
  • Sandpit said:

    The Tories have to be very careful with pushing this Russian angle, and I suspect are limiting it slightly more than their press for that reason, because they know how easy it is for this to shift the agenda back to the Russia report.

    Yes when told I need to be wary of Russian meddling in the election, my first thought was why cant we see the Russia report! How else am I supposed to be wary?
    Purdah. The Government machinery doesn't publish anything remotely political in the middle of an election campaign.
    This was not the reason the report was not published *before* the campaign, however.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 75,513
    edited December 2019
    DeClare said:

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I have to say, while David has written an excellent thread as usual, what a depressing prospect for the country. A shower of complete non-entities with the exception of Angela Rayner who has an impressive back story. Hopefully if Boris secures a 69+ majority and completes the boundary changes and seat reductions, Labour Will find a 2023 election beyond them. I am assuming the FTPA will be repealed.

    While I'm completely on board with equalising constituency sizes (although I'd probably go for +/- 7.5% rather than 2.5%), I'm not convinced of the rationale behind 600 seats.
    Surely any number of seats is pretty arbitrary? Most countries have fewer but is the work directly comparable, what other democratic institutions exist in those places at other levels etc? What number is right?

    Boundaries need updating and so long as it's by an independent body than genuine gerrymandering cannot happen easily. The parameters is trickier.

    What I hope is that parties are not competing to propose the most changes to benefit themselves .
    We have fewer politicians overall than most democracies, because we don't have the raft of levels of government and plethora of town/commune/county/city mayors and officials etc.
    Quite. So high numbers of mps can indeed be justified, but 600 or 650 or 560 etc, theres no way of saying which is right
    The US manages with 435 members of the 'House' plus 100 senators, we're much smaller so why do we need 650 plus untold peers?
    I would reduce the number to 600 to start with a longer term aim of 500 and I would ease the workload by getting rid of anachronisms like walking through lobbies to vote in favour of giving each member a hand held device and they can simply press a button.
    I'm told that there isn't even enough room on the benches for every member to have a seat when large numbers of MPs are present and that's ridiculous.
    The US has state legislators as well with considerable power, its apples and oranges as our structures are very different. They even elect judges and coroners in many states. And even if were not different who is to say they are exemplars we should follow?

    I've stated I'd be happy with 500 like you, but the arguments about how many are needed, and whether we need a fundamental change in power representation across this country first, get messy fast.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 4,460
    Sandpit said:

    OllyT said:

    OT Am I right in assuming that having used the £3 instant voting membership scheme to take over the Labour Party that the hard left have now closed that scheme? I ask as an ex-member who would rejoin in order to vote for the leader but could not remain a member with Corbyn and co in charge.

    The scheme remains the same, but the price is determined by I think the NEC when the election is called. For the 2016 leadership election, they set that price at £20 rather than £3 - the same price as a standard membership and reducing significantly the numbers signing up.
    Thanks for that - they will put it up to £1000!
  • melcfmelcf Posts: 166

    melcf said:

    Looks like Grimsby is turning blue, some change that would be. Several reasons but seems like it
    Scunthorpe still red at the miment
    Lincoln still red, thanks largely to the Tories central Hq for re selecting a rejected prik
    Wrexham and Vale of Clwyd, confusing signals but I would be foolish, to call it Tory yet

    Grimsby needs to go blue. Then when Brexit fails to revive the fishing industry, or anything else much for that matter, Labour won't be blamed for it.
    Not sure whom to blame. This place has been solid labour for ages and it's done no good for them. Someone aptly called it 'politics of poverty ' People are angry and there is a sense of hopelessness around, magnified by austerity. Brexit was also a means to throw a flaming Molotov cocktail at the establishment.
    Sadly neither labour nor brexit nor etonian Johnson wil help these poeple
    I've been there last week, after two years and the place has definitely gone further downhill. Some people, including kids, looked real malnourished, made me feel sad. Rather than contributing to food banks and volunteering, I spend my time infront of the computer, trying to find the best bet!! So we're no different
  • IanB2 said:

    Looks like the story this weekend is Russian interference in the election on the side of labour

    Russian interference on the side of the Tories, by leaking Labour a document and then ensuring that it came to light, you mean?

    The Russians would have supported BXP and Farage had they stood any chance of making waves. Now the far right disruptors of the EU and the settled order in Europe are back within the Conservatives, obviously Putin wants Bozo to win. As per Trump.
    Not according to Sky's Russia correspondent who is covering Corbyn's campaign. She gives credence to Russian interference as Putin wants Corbyn in no 10 and is not surprised over their interference in the release of the trade papers

    And with respect I think she knows more about the subject than you do
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,687
    edited December 2019
    kinabalu said:

    Labour Leadership -

    My view. The party will stay Left but will conform to the rule that you replace a leader with their diametric opposite. They will go for someone who is everything Corbyn was not, and furthermore who is not anything that Corbyn was. He was - and still is for that matter - an elderly middle class man rooted in North London. Thus the new leader will be a young working class woman from the North. Which means one of Rayner, Long Bailey, Pidcock. It is the last named who has the X factor. She will lose her seat if there is a "blue wave" north of Watford Gap - something I fear is verging on the probable - but assuming this does not happen and she stands, I think she wins.

    Two caveats. She is very young and inexperienced and thus might opt instead for deputy leader. In which case I have no strong view on who will keep the seat warm until she's ready to sit on it - that sounded wrong but never mind. The other caveat is if the party do NOT keep faith with the left radicalism of the Corbyn years. What if a thrashing next week causes a lurch back to timid centrism? This is easy. If that happens there is a particular person who I cannot see past. She's smart. She's capable and tough. She's been around but still has plenty of zip. Yvette Cooper.

    Pidcock is not working class, but I agree she is the continuity Corbyn candiate. Long Bailey is McDonnell's choice and so can be expected to be a lot more pragmatic. If elected, you would probably see her building a shadow front bench that reflects all wings of the party and puts much less focus on foreign affairs, especially the middle east and Latin America! I think it will be her v Starmer because I think David is totally wrong about Starmer's appeal among CLPs. It's worth remembering that not a single sitting Labour MP was deselected, despite multiple attempts by the far left in multiple constituencies.

    Labour has undoubtedly moved left and is very unlikely to tack back to the centre. However, I do not think the membership has embraced Marxism. Instead, it has embraced delusion - and has to its eternal shame chosen to ignore things that should never have been ignored. Corbyn, uniquely and utterly bizareely, has made Labour members feel good about themselves. That's why they have backed him so strongly. A lot of his support is personal, not ideological.

    All that said, I do not expect Corbyn to resign. He will keep going - precisely because there is no far left candidate currently who could be guaranteed to win an election to replace him. If there is to be a Labour leadership election, it will be as a chellenge to him. If he stands, that means that Long Bailey, Pidcock and co will not.

  • PBModeratorPBModerator Posts: 656
    edited December 2019
    @melcf - please do not post things that are potentially libelous.
  • DeClare said:

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I have to say, while David has written an excellent thread as usual, what a depressing prospect for the country. A shower of complete non-entities with the exception of Angela Rayner who has an impressive back story. Hopefully if Boris secures a 69+ majority and completes the boundary changes and seat reductions, Labour Will find a 2023 election beyond them. I am assuming the FTPA will be repealed.

    While I'm completely on board with equalising constituency sizes (although I'd probably go for +/- 7.5% rather than 2.5%), I'm not convinced of the rationale behind 600 seats.
    Surely any number of seats is pretty arbitrary? Most countries have fewer but is the work directly comparable, what other democratic institutions exist in those places at other levels etc? What number is right?

    Boundaries need updating and so long as it's by an independent body than genuine gerrymandering cannot happen easily. The parameters is trickier.

    What I hope is that parties are not competing to propose the most changes to benefit themselves .
    We have fewer politicians overall than most democracies, because we don't have the raft of levels of government and plethora of town/commune/county/city mayors and officials etc.
    Quite. So high numbers of mps can indeed be justified, but 600 or 650 or 560 etc, theres no way of saying which is right
    The US manages with 435 members of the 'House' plus 100 senators, we're much smaller so why do we need 650 plus untold peers?
    I would reduce the number to 600 to start with a longer term aim of 500 and I would ease the workload by getting rid of anachronisms like walking through lobbies to vote in favour of giving each member a hand held device and they can simply press a button.
    I'm told that there isn't even enough room on the benches for every member to have a seat when large numbers of MPs are present and that's ridiculous.
    I might be not be some big fancy us constitutional lawyer, but... the US senate and house are only responsible for those things determined by the constitution.

    “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    Much of what we understand as the big stuff is done at a state level in the USA, not the federal level.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 39,128
    OllyT said:

    Sandpit said:

    OllyT said:

    OT Am I right in assuming that having used the £3 instant voting membership scheme to take over the Labour Party that the hard left have now closed that scheme? I ask as an ex-member who would rejoin in order to vote for the leader but could not remain a member with Corbyn and co in charge.

    The scheme remains the same, but the price is determined by I think the NEC when the election is called. For the 2016 leadership election, they set that price at £20 rather than £3 - the same price as a standard membership and reducing significantly the numbers signing up.
    Thanks for that - they will put it up to £1000!
    Lol maybe. I really hope that Labour manage to sort themselves out though.

    If nothing else we need a good Opposition to hold the government to account, and for many of us an alternative government to vote for when the incumbents screw up or run out of steam - as will inevitably happen at some point.
  • The Tories have to be very careful with pushing this Russian angle, and I suspect are limiting it slightly more than their press for that reason, because they know how easy it is for this to shift the agenda back to the Russia report.

    This angle is not being pushed by the conservatives.

    It is Reddit who are making the connections and it is the lead story on Sky
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 18,865
    Morning PB on the final Mega Polling Saturday of the general election campaign. :D
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 29,011
    edited December 2019
    DeClare said:

    The US manages with 435 members of the 'House' plus 100 senators, we're much smaller so why do we need 650 plus untold peers?
    I would reduce the number to 600 to start with a longer term aim of 500 and I would ease the workload by getting rid of anachronisms like walking through lobbies to vote in favour of giving each member a hand held device and they can simply press a button.
    I'm told that there isn't even enough room on the benches for every member to have a seat when large numbers of MPs are present and that's ridiculous.

    If it is true that vast tracts of our laws are made in Brussels our MPs will be faced with a massively expanded workload once we have left the EU. We will therefore need more of them not less. The question is how many more. The public will probably not swallow much of an increase so this makes things difficult.
  • The Tories here seem to pick and choose which stories will be known about based on the likely impact on the Labour Party.
  • Sandpit said:

    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I have to say, while David has written an excellent thread as usual, what a depressing prospect for the country. A shower of complete non-entities with the exception of Angela Rayner who has an impressive back story. Hopefully if Boris secures a 69+ majority and completes the boundary changes and seat reductions, Labour Will find a 2023 election beyond them. I am assuming the FTPA will be repealed.

    While I'm completely on board with equalising constituency sizes (although I'd probably go for +/- 7.5% rather than 2.5%), I'm not convinced of the rationale behind 600 seats.
    Surely any number of seats is pretty arbitrary? Most countries have fewer but is the work directly comparable, what other democratic institutions exist in those places at other levels etc? What number is right?

    Boundaries need updating and so long as it's by an independent body than genuine gerrymandering cannot happen easily. The parameters is trickier.

    What I hope is that parties are not competing to propose the most changes to benefit themselves .
    The overall number is very important in relation to the number of MPs given government jobs and therefore subject to collective responsibility.

    I'd be fine with reducing the number of MPs if you also placed in law a reasonable limit on the size of the Executive. If the Executive needs to be large because we've centralised so much governance, then the legislature from which it is drawn needs to be large too.
    Alternatively we can devolve a substantial number of the powers accumulated by the EU and central government over the years, back down to the counties and cities.
    You’ve been reading the Tory manifesto. Combined authorities with devolved power are coming to every area of England...
  • IanB2 said:

    Looks like the story this weekend is Russian interference in the election on the side of labour

    Russian interference on the side of the Tories, by leaking Labour a document and then ensuring that it came to light, you mean?

    The Russians would have supported BXP and Farage had they stood any chance of making waves. Now the far right disruptors of the EU and the settled order in Europe are back within the Conservatives, obviously Putin wants Bozo to win. As per Trump.
    Not according to Sky's Russia correspondent who is covering Corbyn's campaign. She gives credence to Russian interference as Putin wants Corbyn in no 10 and is not surprised over their interference in the release of the trade papers

    And with respect I think she knows more about the subject than you do

    Putin wins with either Corbyn or Johnson in Downing Street. What he wants is chaos, division and the UK out of the EU. He is getting it.

  • nunu2nunu2 Posts: 1,453

    nunu2 said:

    Alistair said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Jonathan said:

    PB posts are a goldmine

    June 2 2017. Con Majority an 80% chance

    June 5 2017 HYUFD was predicting a 50-100 seat Tory majority

    A PB prediction contest at this point is a useful reference point when judging future posts.

    I have been too busy with work and church commitments these last few weeks to form a distinctive view, but broadly think the polling will be accurate this time with the Tories on 360 or so seats.

    I am still predicting a low turnout though. There is little enthusiasm out there.
    I've given up making predictions. The data is confusing and in any case the plausible conclusions are too depressing. Whichever side wins there will be a racist with a track record of supporting violence who thinks the truth is for losers as PM.

    But if I had to point to a figure, I would say Tory majority of around 30. Could easily be wildly wrong either way though. If Labour are 15 points behind in Wrexham while 4 points ahead in Wales something very weird and unpredictable is happening - or the polls are total bs again.
    Last time people couldn’t predict the result after the polls had closed and the exit poll was published.
    Yes, people got wildly over excited by early declarations in safe Labour seats that showed swing to the Tories and declared it would be a landslide and Curtice was wrong.

    But as result after result matched the YouGov MRP people should have wised up faster.
    I said there will be hung Parliament.

    I am now saying Tory landslide
    Why ?
    No tory manifesto bombshell, corbyn has not closed the leadership ratings gap, this is the brexit election and all that entails for regional voting, 9-13% leads, Corbyn ratings amongst youth is dire and many young people genuinely believe the climate crisis is going to mean the end of the world in a few years, the Green vote will be surprisingly sticky, libdems are nowhere so the south is safe, Tories will hold on in Scotland, Labour promises have gone too far, tories outperforming in the likes of Wrexham and Workington the new marginals, etc etc.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,315
    GIN1138 said:

    Morning PB on the final Mega Polling Saturday of the general election campaign. :D

    Are you ready, GIN? :o
  • melcf said:

    I know a lot of people have money and personal interests in a Tory landslide. Hence I come across as a party pooper, if I post anything contrary to that dream.
    I still feel this election is too close to call. The tories may sneak in by 10-20 seats. Anywhere from 305-335. My reasoning
    1) Bojo has harped mostly on Brexit, which is great. However, in the background of 10 years of austerity, specially in the north, it's not a killer.
    2) Polls missing the surge in young people registering and keen to vote, mostly labour. I would take this as around 5-10%
    3) Polls again missing or underrepresenting ethnics and other minorities, who are now nearly 20%
    4) Winter weather, specially in the North, may affect the turnout among the elderly, mostly staunch Tories and Brexiters. Not a significant amount but even 2-5% decrease can make a huge diff in many seats
    4) Brexit party will do well in some seats, denying Tories victories. My estimate , around 5-15 seats, eg Vale of Clywd
    5) Tactical voting by LibDems and Green, specially Greens towards Labour, making a difference in 10-20 seats
    Please do correct me on any of the above

    Corbyn
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 18,865
    RobD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Morning PB on the final Mega Polling Saturday of the general election campaign. :D

    Are you ready, GIN? :o
    I was born ready! :D
  • Russia clearly want Johnson to be the leader, that's why they have spent so much money funding his party.

    **Puts tinfoil hat on**

    They intentionally leaked the document so that Labour would release it and they could then link Russia to Labour.

    **Takes tinfoil hat off**

    Labour found the document on Reddit like many of us did and were clueless about the origin. But I ask again: is it not in the national interest this was known about?

    Because I'm sure many of you thought the anti-Semitism leaks were in the national interest - and many of those were literally stolen from a private server by ex members of staff. In my line of work, if I did that I'd be in court.
  • A possible wild card are the 3m people who have registered to vote. If they are the people kicked off by the Tories (and they were - go ask the Electoral Commission) then perhaps we swing more towards a 2017 style result.

    But what if they are the 2016 I never voted but voted for Brexit non-voters? Who have listened to "get Brexit done" and have re-registered (having been kicked off by the Tories) so that they can vote again for Brexit?

    If the former, then the story of the night will be Labour electing Momentumite "people" into the seats they have been parachuted into such as Bassetlaw. If the latter the story of the night will be Labour getting routed in seats they have held since the Danelaw.
  • https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/1202969395242426370/photo/1

    According to this, most Tory voters who might change their mind, would go to Labour? But I thought there were no Tory to Labour switchers?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,315

    Russia clearly want Johnson to be the leader, that's why they have spent so much money funding his party.

    **Puts tinfoil hat on**

    They intentionally leaked the document so that Labour would release it and they could then link Russia to Labour.

    **Takes tinfoil hat off**

    Labour found the document on Reddit like many of us did and were clueless about the origin. But I ask again: is it not in the national interest this was known about?

    Because I'm sure many of you thought the anti-Semitism leaks were in the national interest - and many of those were literally stolen from a private server by ex members of staff. In my line of work, if I did that I'd be in court.

    Doesn't it sound a bit weird to you that a national political party found a sensitive government paper on reddit? That alone should be ringing alarm bells that it isn't a normal leak.
  • kle4 said:

    Nicola not doing too well by the looks of it

    Scottish Independence voting intention:

    No: 56% (+5)
    Yes: 44% (-5)

    via @YouGov, 03 - 06 Dec
    Chgs. w/ Sep

    Started further back than that last time. But I'd prefer that direction. The fundamental problem closed the last thread in that for the foreseeable future the issue wont go away If a huge chunk continue to want it but cannot quite get a majority.
    I have a close relationship with all things Scots and can say with some degree of confidence they will not vote for independence. Apart from close family ties across the UK it is inconceivable that the Scots would want a border from Berwick to Carlisle, lose their navy shipbuilding contracts, lose RAF Lossiemouth, surrender their fishing to Brussels, see RBS locate to London and interrupt their 60% trade with the rest of the UK for their much smaller trade with the EU


    But if they can dictate highly favorable trade terms on that 60% because they are part of a much larger and more powerful trading block (the EU) that's a rather different matter, isn't it?
    Not at all. The trade with the EU is small compared to the UK and for many reasons the Scots will not break the union in the foreseable future. The reason the SNP are so popular is they are seen as being the party of government and have replaced labour

    I have family members who are SNP supporters but vote conservative in a GE to preserve the union
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 75,513

    Sandpit said:

    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I have to say, while David has written an excellent thread as usual, what a depressing prospect for the country. A shower of complete non-entities with the exception of Angela Rayner who has an impressive back story. Hopefully if Boris secures a 69+ majority and completes the boundary changes and seat reductions, Labour Will find a 2023 election beyond them. I am assuming the FTPA will be repealed.

    While I'm completely on board with equalising constituency sizes (although I'd probably go for +/- 7.5% rather than 2.5%), I'm not convinced of the rationale behind 600 seats.
    Surely any number of seats is pretty arbitrary? Most countries have fewer but is the work directly comparable, what other democratic institutions exist in those places at other levels etc? What number is right?

    Boundaries need updating and so long as it's by an independent body than genuine gerrymandering cannot happen easily. The parameters is trickier.

    What I hope is that parties are not competing to propose the most changes to benefit themselves .
    The overall number is very important in relation to the number of MPs given government jobs and therefore subject to collective responsibility.

    I'd be fine with reducing the number of MPs if you also placed in law a reasonable limit on the size of the Executive. If the Executive needs to be large because we've centralised so much governance, then the legislature from which it is drawn needs to be large too.
    Alternatively we can devolve a substantial number of the powers accumulated by the EU and central government over the years, back down to the counties and cities.
    You’ve been reading the Tory manifesto. Combined authorities with devolved power are coming to every area of England...
    Hopefully not in as crap a way as presently.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,315

    A possible wild card are the 3m people who have registered to vote. If they are the people kicked off by the Tories (and they were - go ask the Electoral Commission) then perhaps we swing more towards a 2017 style result.

    But what if they are the 2016 I never voted but voted for Brexit non-voters? Who have listened to "get Brexit done" and have re-registered (having been kicked off by the Tories) so that they can vote again for Brexit?

    If the former, then the story of the night will be Labour electing Momentumite "people" into the seats they have been parachuted into such as Bassetlaw. If the latter the story of the night will be Labour getting routed in seats they have held since the Danelaw.

    What I'd like to know is how many of those 3m weren't on the register before. I suspect less than half, maybe a lot less.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 17,089
    JamesP said:

    Conservative overall majority 1.37 on Betfair now. Haven't seen it lower.

    It's pretty much what you'd expect the closer we get to polling day with the polling average staying the same.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 13,751
    Sandpit said:

    Here comes the promised onslaught of Tory social media spending. :+1:
    Harry Cole is a cockend of the highest order.
  • Foxy said:

    kinabalu said:

    There are alternatives to left radicalism and timid centrism. Lets see some radical and different centre left. Lets see Jess Phillips.

    I could go with her if she demonstrates some good policy grasp and a little more interest in ideology.
    Jess Phillips or Angela Rayner look to me to be the only ones capable of doing a Neil Kinnock on the Trots and dragging Labour back to electability. That is a battle that needs passion, credibility but also solid Labour roots.
    Both of those names sound like good strong choices to me. I never used to rate Rayner but I think she has improved and she has an impressive backstory.
  • The Tories have to be very careful with pushing this Russian angle, and I suspect are limiting it slightly more than their press for that reason, because they know how easy it is for this to shift the agenda back to the Russia report.

    This angle is not being pushed by the conservatives.

    It is Reddit who are making the connections and it is the lead story on Sky
    First I heard of it was Nicky Morgan telling me to be wary of Russian interference on Sky News. Obvious thought was I am wary but not allowed to know the details because its being blocked by the PM.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 29,011
    edited December 2019

    It is her lack of taking sides on ideology that makes her appealing to the floating voters. When Labour are ideoligical they lose as far left is not the view of the country. She clearly has a passion for improving the lives of people, and understands how to communicate in the social media era. With good people around her she could be a formidable LOTO.

    Yes, I don't mean that she ought to lose her USP and become ideological. Just that you do IMO need your ideas to be grounded in an intellectually coherent vision of the big picture change you are seeking to promote. For me, up to now, Jess has not given that impression. She is a strong personal brand - good - but I'd like to see some wonk added to that.
  • argyllrsargyllrs Posts: 155
    Can anyone see a safer bet (albeit only 4% return) than Betfair Tories most seats.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 39,128

    Sandpit said:

    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I have to say, while David has written an excellent thread as usual, what a depressing prospect for the country. A shower of complete non-entities with the exception of Angela Rayner who has an impressive back story. Hopefully if Boris secures a 69+ majority and completes the boundary changes and seat reductions, Labour Will find a 2023 election beyond them. I am assuming the FTPA will be repealed.

    While I'm completely on board with equalising constituency sizes (although I'd probably go for +/- 7.5% rather than 2.5%), I'm not convinced of the rationale behind 600 seats.
    Surely any number of seats is pretty arbitrary? Most countries have fewer but is the work directly comparable, what other democratic institutions exist in those places at other levels etc? What number is right?

    Boundaries need updating and so long as it's by an independent body than genuine gerrymandering cannot happen easily. The parameters is trickier.

    What I hope is that parties are not competing to propose the most changes to benefit themselves .
    The overall number is very important in relation to the number of MPs given government jobs and therefore subject to collective responsibility.

    I'd be fine with reducing the number of MPs if you also placed in law a reasonable limit on the size of the Executive. If the Executive needs to be large because we've centralised so much governance, then the legislature from which it is drawn needs to be large too.
    Alternatively we can devolve a substantial number of the powers accumulated by the EU and central government over the years, back down to the counties and cities.
    You’ve been reading the Tory manifesto. Combined authorities with devolved power are coming to every area of England...
    I like your screen name! Hopefully what we see is the proverbial Northern Powerhouse on steroids, with free zones and ports as Johnson mentioned at last night's debates - real incentives for companies to invest in areas that have become run down and forgotten by governments for generations.
  • glwglw Posts: 8,336
    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Looks like the story this weekend is Russian interference in the election on the side of labour

    Russian interference on the side of the Tories, by leaking Labour a document and then ensuring that it came to light, you mean?

    The Russians would have supported BXP and Farage had they stood any chance of making waves. Now the far right disruptors of the EU and the settled order in Europe are back within the Conservatives, obviously Putin wants Bozo to win. As per Trump.
    I think Putin just wants to sow chaos amongst his enemies. While clearly BoZo does this, Jezza may also suffice.

    Putin has certainly played a blinder the last few years, as the Russia report will probably show.
    The one being supressed by the Tories!

    Across Europe (and indeed the US), Russia is supporting the right to disrupt the established order. And supports Brexit. The last thing Russia would want is Labour opening up a route to remain. Hence they have set Labour up good and proper.
    That's really inaccurate. The Russian motive is not so much to back a side, but to cause disruption. So the Russians get involved in almost all elections, and back all sides of an issue, the more extreme/disruptive they are, the better.

    You shouldn't be thinking "whose side are the Russians on?" The Russian side is Russia. Their goal is to spread distrust in liberal democracy and its institutions, and to do so by sowing distrust in those instituions by flooding the media, and in particular social media, with so much nonsense that the public no longer trusts politicians, policitcal parties, goverment, or the regular media. It seems to be working very well for the Russians so far.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 39,128
    edited December 2019

    IanB2 said:

    Looks like the story this weekend is Russian interference in the election on the side of labour

    Russian interference on the side of the Tories, by leaking Labour a document and then ensuring that it came to light, you mean?

    The Russians would have supported BXP and Farage had they stood any chance of making waves. Now the far right disruptors of the EU and the settled order in Europe are back within the Conservatives, obviously Putin wants Bozo to win. As per Trump.
    Not according to Sky's Russia correspondent who is covering Corbyn's campaign. She gives credence to Russian interference as Putin wants Corbyn in no 10 and is not surprised over their interference in the release of the trade papers

    And with respect I think she knows more about the subject than you do

    Putin wins with either Corbyn or Johnson in Downing Street. What he wants is chaos, division and the UK out of the EU. He is getting it.
    The only thing he would prefer is more years of uncertainty over EU membership.
  • RobD said:

    Russia clearly want Johnson to be the leader, that's why they have spent so much money funding his party.

    **Puts tinfoil hat on**

    They intentionally leaked the document so that Labour would release it and they could then link Russia to Labour.

    **Takes tinfoil hat off**

    Labour found the document on Reddit like many of us did and were clueless about the origin. But I ask again: is it not in the national interest this was known about?

    Because I'm sure many of you thought the anti-Semitism leaks were in the national interest - and many of those were literally stolen from a private server by ex members of staff. In my line of work, if I did that I'd be in court.

    Doesn't it sound a bit weird to you that a national political party found a sensitive government paper on reddit? That alone should be ringing alarm bells that it isn't a normal leak.
    That should be investigated, I completely agree with you. But are you saying it wasn't right for Labour to publicise it?

    If the document was leaked, that's a Government failing, not a Labour one. Labour publicising something that had already been leaked is not something they can be blamed for - they believed it was in the public interest.

    Just like the anti-Semitism stuff was leaked as I said above. This reeks of double standards as usual.
  • Russia clearly want Johnson to be the leader, that's why they have spent so much money funding his party.

    **Puts tinfoil hat on**

    They intentionally leaked the document so that Labour would release it and they could then link Russia to Labour.

    **Takes tinfoil hat off**

    Labour found the document on Reddit like many of us did and were clueless about the origin. But I ask again: is it not in the national interest this was known about?

    Because I'm sure many of you thought the anti-Semitism leaks were in the national interest - and many of those were literally stolen from a private server by ex members of staff. In my line of work, if I did that I'd be in court.

    The point you have been ignoring in all of this is that the Cambridge team who have traced back the origins of the documents that were placed on Reddit have said that Secondary Infektion who do this are known, not for just placing stolen documents online, but for altering them before they do so as a means of maximising damage. Or for simply making them up entirely.

    So it is not the fact that Labour took some documents of unknown provenance off a dodgy internet site and promoted them as damning evidence that is the problem. It is the fact that there is every possibility these documents have already been altered to be more damaging. That completely undermines any credibility that either they, or Labour, have in this instance.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 16,604
    I'm in Scotland and my narrator in the video has a Scottish accent. Is it an English accent for those in England, and a Welsh for those in Wales?
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 2,798


    It's actually a very good message. Nothing at all about the benefits of Brexit - because it's not aimed at shoring up the base of committed Leave voters, it's aimed at the large mass of people in the middle who are actually not that bothered one way or another. The slogan is "Get Brexit Done", but the real message is "Vote for us and we'll make the whole bloody thing just go away." An awful lot of voters who are not strongly committed on this issue believe that the decision has been made and want the politicians to get it over with and move on. That's why Boris Johnson didn't take a knock in the polls for failing to die in a ditch - he's successfully pinned the blame on Parliament, a strategy which this advert builds upon.

    I suggest that those who make (very serious and entirely valid) points about the future relationship are missing something of fundamental importance. If we get a Tory majority on Thursday then, once the legal and constitutional fact of Brexit has been enacted, the union flag has been taken down outside the Berlaymont building and the UK MEPs have received their P45s, the vast bulk of the electorate (especially in England and Wales, where nearly all the Tory MPs are returned from) will indeed consider the job done, and will demand that politicians move on to matters of more pressing domestic concern. They'll want crime, hospitals and housing sorting.

    Very few voters understand the minutiae of trade negotiations and even fewer really care about them. So long as Parliament doesn't spend the entire time concocting endless procedural manoeuvres and arguing the toss - which, with a majority Government back in control of the order paper, it most assuredly won't - then they'll be content to let the politicians crack on with it. And if, at the back end of 2020, the future settlement isn't concluded (as the sceptics insist, and they're probably correct) then Boris Johnson will almost certainly go back on his word again and agree an extension to the transition period, whilst the UK and EU keep thrashing out the details. Most voters won't be interested in the negotiations and they think he's a liar already, so that's unlikely to do him much in the way of reputational damage.

    ...

    I think you're right.

    The message here is "aren't you bloody sick of it all? Give us a majority and we will make it all go away." And as you say, the implication is once it is done we can get back to the things you care about. Like schools and hospitals.

    Far from being a core vote strategy, it is a strategy designed to reach out to undecideds and people who are less politically engaged. While also keeping hardcore brexiteers on side.

    It's a smart ad.

    It is amusing, though, to think how in the space of three years we have gone from the much vaunted sunlit uplands we were promised to "let's just bloody get it done now" like any other unpleasant task that promises little reward.
  • Russia clearly want Johnson to be the leader, that's why they have spent so much money funding his party.

    **Puts tinfoil hat on**

    They intentionally leaked the document so that Labour would release it and they could then link Russia to Labour.

    **Takes tinfoil hat off**

    Labour found the document on Reddit like many of us did and were clueless about the origin. But I ask again: is it not in the national interest this was known about?

    Because I'm sure many of you thought the anti-Semitism leaks were in the national interest - and many of those were literally stolen from a private server by ex members of staff. In my line of work, if I did that I'd be in court.

    The point you have been ignoring in all of this is that the Cambridge team who have traced back the origins of the documents that were placed on Reddit have said that Secondary Infektion who do this are known, not for just placing stolen documents online, but for altering them before they do so as a means of maximising damage. Or for simply making them up entirely.

    So it is not the fact that Labour took some documents of unknown provenance off a dodgy internet site and promoted them as damning evidence that is the problem. It is the fact that there is every possibility these documents have already been altered to be more damaging. That completely undermines any credibility that either they, or Labour, have in this instance.
    This document was certified as authentic by the Government, it has not been modified.
  • kinabalu said:

    It is her lack of taking sides on ideology that makes her appealing to the floating voters. When Labour are ideoligical they lose as far left is not the view of the country. She clearly has a passion for improving the lives of people, and understands how to communicate in the social media era. With good people around her she could be a formidable LOTO.

    Yes, I don't mean that she ought to lose her USP and become ideological. Just that you do IMO need your ideas to be grounded in an intellectually coherent vision of the big picture change you are seeking to promote. For me, up to now, Jess has not given that impression. She is a strong personal brand - good - but I'd like to see some wonk added to that.
    Yes I agree it is unclear what policies Labour would have under her leadership. I think she would delegate and listen to people around her. For me that is a plus rather than a negative and think she would be flexible enough to balance the views of the party with the views of floating voters. When Labour do that they have a good shout at winning.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 29,011
    Foxy said:

    Jess Phillips or Angela Rayner look to me to be the only ones capable of doing a Neil Kinnock on the Trots and dragging Labour back to electability. That is a battle that needs passion, credibility but also solid Labour roots.

    Both possibles, I agree. I think we need a purge of the cranky stuff (and people) but I hope that we do not ditch the radicalism. IMO this election will be lost due to Brexit and to Corbyn's lack of simpatico with the WWC. I think an election CAN be won from the left next time.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,315

    RobD said:

    Russia clearly want Johnson to be the leader, that's why they have spent so much money funding his party.

    **Puts tinfoil hat on**

    They intentionally leaked the document so that Labour would release it and they could then link Russia to Labour.

    **Takes tinfoil hat off**

    Labour found the document on Reddit like many of us did and were clueless about the origin. But I ask again: is it not in the national interest this was known about?

    Because I'm sure many of you thought the anti-Semitism leaks were in the national interest - and many of those were literally stolen from a private server by ex members of staff. In my line of work, if I did that I'd be in court.

    Doesn't it sound a bit weird to you that a national political party found a sensitive government paper on reddit? That alone should be ringing alarm bells that it isn't a normal leak.
    That should be investigated, I completely agree with you. But are you saying it wasn't right for Labour to publicise it?

    If the document was leaked, that's a Government failing, not a Labour one. Labour publicising something that had already been leaked is not something they can be blamed for - they believed it was in the public interest.

    Just like the anti-Semitism stuff was leaked as I said above. This reeks of double standards as usual.
    I think it shows that Labour should have investigated where it came from first, rather than taking it at face value. Leaked reports are typically not posted via reddit!
  • Russia clearly want Johnson to be the leader, that's why they have spent so much money funding his party.

    **Puts tinfoil hat on**

    They intentionally leaked the document so that Labour would release it and they could then link Russia to Labour.

    **Takes tinfoil hat off**

    Labour found the document on Reddit like many of us did and were clueless about the origin. But I ask again: is it not in the national interest this was known about?

    Because I'm sure many of you thought the anti-Semitism leaks were in the national interest - and many of those were literally stolen from a private server by ex members of staff. In my line of work, if I did that I'd be in court.

    The point you have been ignoring in all of this is that the Cambridge team who have traced back the origins of the documents that were placed on Reddit have said that Secondary Infektion who do this are known, not for just placing stolen documents online, but for altering them before they do so as a means of maximising damage. Or for simply making them up entirely.

    So it is not the fact that Labour took some documents of unknown provenance off a dodgy internet site and promoted them as damning evidence that is the problem. It is the fact that there is every possibility these documents have already been altered to be more damaging. That completely undermines any credibility that either they, or Labour, have in this instance.
    This document was certified as authentic by the Government, it has not been modified.
    When? I have seen no admission that the document is real and unaltered.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 3,791
    edited December 2019

    A possible wild card are the 3m people who have registered to vote. If they are the people kicked off by the Tories (and they were - go ask the Electoral Commission) then perhaps we swing more towards a 2017 style result.

    But what if they are the 2016 I never voted but voted for Brexit non-voters? Who have listened to "get Brexit done" and have re-registered (having been kicked off by the Tories) so that they can vote again for Brexit?

    If the former, then the story of the night will be Labour electing Momentumite "people" into the seats they have been parachuted into such as Bassetlaw. If the latter the story of the night will be Labour getting routed in seats they have held since the Danelaw.

    A lot of that 3 million will be people who applied to register but were already on the register either at their current or a previous address. A major flaw in the current registration system is that there is no way online of knowing whether you are on the register at a given address. People apply to register if they are not sure if they have been deleted or where they move home and are already registered somewhere else. I think there is some evidence out there that about half those registering to vote in previous elections were found to be already registered somewhere.

    One feature that helped Labour in 2017 was that in many parts of the country there were local elections just before the GE, for example a mayoral election here in the West Midlands. So unusually, people became aware in time that they weren't registered. That proved very useful to Labour as a wake up call in time for them to get on the register at the GE. However, that isn't a factor in play this time.
  • argyllrsargyllrs Posts: 155

    Foxy said:

    kinabalu said:

    There are alternatives to left radicalism and timid centrism. Lets see some radical and different centre left. Lets see Jess Phillips.

    I could go with her if she demonstrates some good policy grasp and a little more interest in ideology.
    Jess Phillips or Angela Rayner look to me to be the only ones capable of doing a Neil Kinnock on the Trots and dragging Labour back to electability. That is a battle that needs passion, credibility but also solid Labour roots.
    Both of those names sound like good strong choices to me. I never used to rate Rayner but I think she has improved and she has an impressive backstory.
    Two of three I like the most. Just cannot see them as leaders just yet. Lisa Nandy is the other one I like that comes across well, if she could prove herself in an election contest I think she may be a good leader.
    With all three are they Machiavellian enough to do whats needed to win.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,315

    Russia clearly want Johnson to be the leader, that's why they have spent so much money funding his party.

    **Puts tinfoil hat on**

    They intentionally leaked the document so that Labour would release it and they could then link Russia to Labour.

    **Takes tinfoil hat off**

    Labour found the document on Reddit like many of us did and were clueless about the origin. But I ask again: is it not in the national interest this was known about?

    Because I'm sure many of you thought the anti-Semitism leaks were in the national interest - and many of those were literally stolen from a private server by ex members of staff. In my line of work, if I did that I'd be in court.

    The point you have been ignoring in all of this is that the Cambridge team who have traced back the origins of the documents that were placed on Reddit have said that Secondary Infektion who do this are known, not for just placing stolen documents online, but for altering them before they do so as a means of maximising damage. Or for simply making them up entirely.

    So it is not the fact that Labour took some documents of unknown provenance off a dodgy internet site and promoted them as damning evidence that is the problem. It is the fact that there is every possibility these documents have already been altered to be more damaging. That completely undermines any credibility that either they, or Labour, have in this instance.
    This document was certified as authentic by the Government, it has not been modified.
    Did they say that, or did they just stay quiet to let Labour shoot themselves in the foot?
  • nunu2nunu2 Posts: 1,453
    People rather have free food than pay for it.

    Suprise suprise
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,315

    I'm in Scotland and my narrator in the video has a Scottish accent. Is it an English accent for those in England, and a Welsh for those in Wales?

    Scottish too, so I don't think it's that localised.
  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Russia clearly want Johnson to be the leader, that's why they have spent so much money funding his party.

    **Puts tinfoil hat on**

    They intentionally leaked the document so that Labour would release it and they could then link Russia to Labour.

    **Takes tinfoil hat off**

    Labour found the document on Reddit like many of us did and were clueless about the origin. But I ask again: is it not in the national interest this was known about?

    Because I'm sure many of you thought the anti-Semitism leaks were in the national interest - and many of those were literally stolen from a private server by ex members of staff. In my line of work, if I did that I'd be in court.

    Doesn't it sound a bit weird to you that a national political party found a sensitive government paper on reddit? That alone should be ringing alarm bells that it isn't a normal leak.
    That should be investigated, I completely agree with you. But are you saying it wasn't right for Labour to publicise it?

    If the document was leaked, that's a Government failing, not a Labour one. Labour publicising something that had already been leaked is not something they can be blamed for - they believed it was in the public interest.

    Just like the anti-Semitism stuff was leaked as I said above. This reeks of double standards as usual.
    I think it shows that Labour should have investigated where it came from first, rather than taking it at face value. Leaked reports are typically not posted via reddit!
    How do you know they didn't? The Government have already said it is an authentic document.

    I'm not arguing against an investigation, let's have the Russia report and we can include this in that - I notice this point I raised was ignored - but I am arguing against this document being in the national interest. It evidently was and is authentic. If it was leaked that's a Government failing.
  • glwglw Posts: 8,336
    edited December 2019
    RobD said:

    Doesn't it sound a bit weird to you that a national political party found a sensitive government paper on reddit? That alone should be ringing alarm bells that it isn't a normal leak.

    Exactly, it wasn't a normal leak — normally something that would be passed to a journalist who would protect the source — it was dumped, and the leaker(s) then tried to drum up interest by contacting the usual suspects. It was the same modus operandi as an earlier disinformation campaign which attracted investigators and the journalist at Reuters. All reddit have done is confirmed that the report was probably correct.
  • RobD said:

    Russia clearly want Johnson to be the leader, that's why they have spent so much money funding his party.

    **Puts tinfoil hat on**

    They intentionally leaked the document so that Labour would release it and they could then link Russia to Labour.

    **Takes tinfoil hat off**

    Labour found the document on Reddit like many of us did and were clueless about the origin. But I ask again: is it not in the national interest this was known about?

    Because I'm sure many of you thought the anti-Semitism leaks were in the national interest - and many of those were literally stolen from a private server by ex members of staff. In my line of work, if I did that I'd be in court.

    The point you have been ignoring in all of this is that the Cambridge team who have traced back the origins of the documents that were placed on Reddit have said that Secondary Infektion who do this are known, not for just placing stolen documents online, but for altering them before they do so as a means of maximising damage. Or for simply making them up entirely.

    So it is not the fact that Labour took some documents of unknown provenance off a dodgy internet site and promoted them as damning evidence that is the problem. It is the fact that there is every possibility these documents have already been altered to be more damaging. That completely undermines any credibility that either they, or Labour, have in this instance.
    This document was certified as authentic by the Government, it has not been modified.
    Did they say that, or did they just stay quiet to let Labour shoot themselves in the foot?
    Well at least you acknowledge it's about political ends then as opposed to actually caring about security. Respect your honesty.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,315

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Russia clearly want Johnson to be the leader, that's why they have spent so much money funding his party.

    **Puts tinfoil hat on**

    They intentionally leaked the document so that Labour would release it and they could then link Russia to Labour.

    **Takes tinfoil hat off**

    Labour found the document on Reddit like many of us did and were clueless about the origin. But I ask again: is it not in the national interest this was known about?

    Because I'm sure many of you thought the anti-Semitism leaks were in the national interest - and many of those were literally stolen from a private server by ex members of staff. In my line of work, if I did that I'd be in court.

    Doesn't it sound a bit weird to you that a national political party found a sensitive government paper on reddit? That alone should be ringing alarm bells that it isn't a normal leak.
    That should be investigated, I completely agree with you. But are you saying it wasn't right for Labour to publicise it?

    If the document was leaked, that's a Government failing, not a Labour one. Labour publicising something that had already been leaked is not something they can be blamed for - they believed it was in the public interest.

    Just like the anti-Semitism stuff was leaked as I said above. This reeks of double standards as usual.
    I think it shows that Labour should have investigated where it came from first, rather than taking it at face value. Leaked reports are typically not posted via reddit!
    How do you know they didn't? The Government have already said it is an authentic document.

    I'm not arguing against an investigation, let's have the Russia report and we can include this in that - I notice this point I raised was ignored - but I am arguing against this document being in the national interest. It evidently was and is authentic. If it was leaked that's a Government failing.
    Given they published a PDF they found on reddit I am going to go out on a limb and say they didn't investigate it. That's just not the way sensitive papers are leaked.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,272
    edited December 2019

    Russia clearly want Johnson to be the leader, that's why they have spent so much money funding his party.

    **Puts tinfoil hat on**

    They intentionally leaked the document so that Labour would release it and they could then link Russia to Labour.

    **Takes tinfoil hat off**

    Labour found the document on Reddit like many of us did and were clueless about the origin. But I ask again: is it not in the national interest this was known about?

    Because I'm sure many of you thought the anti-Semitism leaks were in the national interest - and many of those were literally stolen from a private server by ex members of staff. In my line of work, if I did that I'd be in court.

    The point you have been ignoring in all of this is that the Cambridge team who have traced back the origins of the documents that were placed on Reddit have said that Secondary Infektion who do this are known, not for just placing stolen documents online, but for altering them before they do so as a means of maximising damage. Or for simply making them up entirely.

    So it is not the fact that Labour took some documents of unknown provenance off a dodgy internet site and promoted them as damning evidence that is the problem. It is the fact that there is every possibility these documents have already been altered to be more damaging. That completely undermines any credibility that either they, or Labour, have in this instance.
    This document was certified as authentic by the Government, it has not been modified.
    You really do need to read the posts properly before commenting especially the last paragraph
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 26,128
    edited December 2019

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Russia clearly want Johnson to be the leader, that's why they have spent so much money funding his party.

    **Puts tinfoil hat on**

    They intentionally leaked the document so that Labour would release it and they could then link Russia to Labour.

    **Takes tinfoil hat off**

    Labour found the document on Reddit like many of us did and were clueless about the origin. But I ask again: is it not in the national interest this was known about?

    Because I'm sure many of you thought the anti-Semitism leaks were in the national interest - and many of those were literally stolen from a private server by ex members of staff. In my line of work, if I did that I'd be in court.

    Doesn't it sound a bit weird to you that a national political party found a sensitive government paper on reddit? That alone should be ringing alarm bells that it isn't a normal leak.
    That should be investigated, I completely agree with you. But are you saying it wasn't right for Labour to publicise it?

    If the document was leaked, that's a Government failing, not a Labour one. Labour publicising something that had already been leaked is not something they can be blamed for - they believed it was in the public interest.

    Just like the anti-Semitism stuff was leaked as I said above. This reeks of double standards as usual.
    I think it shows that Labour should have investigated where it came from first, rather than taking it at face value. Leaked reports are typically not posted via reddit!
    How do you know they didn't? The Government have already said it is an authentic document.

    I'm not arguing against an investigation, let's have the Russia report and we can include this in that - I notice this point I raised was ignored - but I am arguing against this document being in the national interest. It evidently was and is authentic. If it was leaked that's a Government failing.
    You are repeating acclaim without providing evidence. When did the Government confirm it was an unaltered copy of their trade discussions?
  • glw said:

    RobD said:

    Doesn't it sound a bit weird to you that a national political party found a sensitive government paper on reddit? That alone should be ringing alarm bells that it isn't a normal leak.

    Exactly, it wasn't a normal leak — normally something that would be passed to a journalist who would protect the source — it was dumped, and the leaker(s) then tried to drum up interest by contacting the usual suspects. It was the same modus operandi as an earlier disinformation campaign which attracted investigators and the journalist at Reuters. All reddit have done is confirmed that the report was probably correct.
    Again...I'm not arguing against that being the case, or an investigation being done into it.

    What I am arguing against is this document being in the public interest and us being able to see it. Labour publicised it and now we know about it, I think that was the right thing to do. Leaking it in the first place, was not - but the Government needs to investigate why that happened.

    Why don't they release the Russia report too?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,315

    RobD said:

    Russia clearly want Johnson to be the leader, that's why they have spent so much money funding his party.

    **Puts tinfoil hat on**

    They intentionally leaked the document so that Labour would release it and they could then link Russia to Labour.

    **Takes tinfoil hat off**

    Labour found the document on Reddit like many of us did and were clueless about the origin. But I ask again: is it not in the national interest this was known about?

    Because I'm sure many of you thought the anti-Semitism leaks were in the national interest - and many of those were literally stolen from a private server by ex members of staff. In my line of work, if I did that I'd be in court.

    The point you have been ignoring in all of this is that the Cambridge team who have traced back the origins of the documents that were placed on Reddit have said that Secondary Infektion who do this are known, not for just placing stolen documents online, but for altering them before they do so as a means of maximising damage. Or for simply making them up entirely.

    So it is not the fact that Labour took some documents of unknown provenance off a dodgy internet site and promoted them as damning evidence that is the problem. It is the fact that there is every possibility these documents have already been altered to be more damaging. That completely undermines any credibility that either they, or Labour, have in this instance.
    This document was certified as authentic by the Government, it has not been modified.
    Did they say that, or did they just stay quiet to let Labour shoot themselves in the foot?
    Well at least you acknowledge it's about political ends then as opposed to actually caring about security. Respect your honesty.
    Of course it's about politics. Why do you think Labour went so heavily on these papers in the first place?
  • The future is:

    DICK BURGON

    Bring on the burgon.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 39,128
    edited December 2019
    What would you do, abolish them?

    I always thought the Labour were in favour of charity, and helping those who fall on hard times?
  • A possible wild card are the 3m people who have registered to vote. If they are the people kicked off by the Tories (and they were - go ask the Electoral Commission) then perhaps we swing more towards a 2017 style result.

    But what if they are the 2016 I never voted but voted for Brexit non-voters? Who have listened to "get Brexit done" and have re-registered (having been kicked off by the Tories) so that they can vote again for Brexit?

    If the former, then the story of the night will be Labour electing Momentumite "people" into the seats they have been parachuted into such as Bassetlaw. If the latter the story of the night will be Labour getting routed in seats they have held since the Danelaw.

    A lot of that 3 million will be people who applied to register but were already on the register either at their current or a previous address. A major flaw in the current registration system is that there is no way online of knowing whether you are on the register at a given address. People apply to register if they are not sure if they have been deleted or where they move home and are already registered somewhere else. I think there is some evidence out there that about half those registering to vote in previous elections were found to be already registered somewhere.

    One feature that helped Labour in 2017 was that in many parts of the country there were local elections just before the GE, for example a mayoral election here in the West Midlands. So unusually, people became aware in time that they weren't registered. That proved very useful to Labour as a wake up call in time for them to get on the register at the GE. However, that isn't a factor in play this time.
    Saw a stat the other day that 35-40% were duplicate registrations from people unsure if they had already registered (including me, as I had moved house and couldn't remember if I had done it).

    The fact that there is no way of checking if you had already registered is a pain.

    Anyway, I can assure you that I am unlikely to form a Youthquake in Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 16,604
    edited December 2019
    RobD said:

    I'm in Scotland and my narrator in the video has a Scottish accent. Is it an English accent for those in England, and a Welsh for those in Wales?

    Scottish too, so I don't think it's that localised.
    Then that's an interesting decision in itself. It's known as a very trustworthy accent, but is it fanciful to imagine that the Tories also did this because they're hopeful in Scotland?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 29,011
    @SouthamObserver

    Do you think Pidcock is likely to stand for Deputy Leader instead?
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Russia clearly want Johnson to be the leader, that's why they have spent so much money funding his party.

    **Puts tinfoil hat on**

    They intentionally leaked the document so that Labour would release it and they could then link Russia to Labour.

    **Takes tinfoil hat off**

    Labour found the document on Reddit like many of us did and were clueless about the origin. But I ask again: is it not in the national interest this was known about?

    Because I'm sure many of you thought the anti-Semitism leaks were in the national interest - and many of those were literally stolen from a private server by ex members of staff. In my line of work, if I did that I'd be in court.

    Doesn't it sound a bit weird to you that a national political party found a sensitive government paper on reddit? That alone should be ringing alarm bells that it isn't a normal leak.
    That should be investigated, I completely agree with you. But are you saying it wasn't right for Labour to publicise it?

    If the document was leaked, that's a Government failing, not a Labour one. Labour publicising something that had already been leaked is not something they can be blamed for - they believed it was in the public interest.

    Just like the anti-Semitism stuff was leaked as I said above. This reeks of double standards as usual.
    I think it shows that Labour should have investigated where it came from first, rather than taking it at face value. Leaked reports are typically not posted via reddit!
    How do you know they didn't? The Government have already said it is an authentic document.

    I'm not arguing against an investigation, let's have the Russia report and we can include this in that - I notice this point I raised was ignored - but I am arguing against this document being in the national interest. It evidently was and is authentic. If it was leaked that's a Government failing.
    You are repeating acclaim without providing evidence. When did the Government confirm it was an unaltered copy of their trade discussions?
    When did they confirm that it was a fake ? I would have thought they would have used that line when they were first published .

    If the government is so concerned about Russian interference they should have published the Russian Report and helped the public to guard against it. So clearly they’re not bothered .
  • StockyStocky Posts: 8,158
    Just catching up, and on topic: Excellent article by Herdson.

    I`m surprised he doesn`t mention Pidcock.

    Also, is Thornberry "in" sufficiently with the unions to have a chance?
  • DeClareDeClare Posts: 483
    edited December 2019

    https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/1202969395242426370/photo/1

    According to this, most Tory voters who might change their mind, would go to Labour? But I thought there were no Tory to Labour switchers?

    They are people who normally vote Labour but on this occasion are prepared to vote Tory, although they want to retain the option that hey might still vote Labour after all if something turns up.
    Hardly any would be people who normally vote Tory but who might on this occasion vote Labour unless they are very staunch remainers in constituencies where the Lib/Dems have no chance or staunch unionists in Scotland, city areas like Glasgow for example would be very unlikely to elect a Tory MP and Labour are best placed for unionist votes against the SNP.

  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905



    *snip*

    I have family members who are SNP supporters but vote conservative in a GE to preserve the union

    The problem with that attitude is that if people keep electing SNP Governments in Edinburgh then of course they're going to leverage their Parliamentary mandate to demand further independence referendums. Westminster then has to choose between denying the right of Scotland to have another referendum (which will provoke an enormous amount of screaming about holding the country captive and flouting the democratic will) or letting it go ahead (in which case we end up having to go through this over and over and over again, until the Scottish Government obtains the result that it wants.)

    Why the rest of the country should be obliged to tolerate this state of affairs I do not know. It is as if the UK had voted to stay in the EU, and then made Nigel Farage the Prime Minister two years later. The EU27 have had to put up with quite enough, what with our Parliament being unable to conclude and vote through a Withdrawal Agreement in more than three years - so can you imagine how much worse it would be for them if we were doing the Brexit hokey cokey over and over again every electoral cycle, until the British Government could talk a majority of the people into giving it what it wanted?

    This is the entire problem. Scottish voters keep putting their nationalists into power and then refusing to let them implement the key plank of their policy platform, so Scotland is stuck endlessly dancing the Indyref hokey cokey (and so, by extension, is the remainder of the UK.) Until the Scottish electorate either throws the SNP out or votes for independence, no progress can be made.
  • glwglw Posts: 8,336

    Again...I'm not arguing against that being the case, or an investigation being done into it.

    What I am arguing against is this document being in the public interest and us being able to see it. Labour publicised it and now we know about it, I think that was the right thing to do. Leaking it in the first place, was not - but the Government needs to investigate why that happened.

    Why don't they release the Russia report too?

    You are jumping to conclusions by assuming it was even leaked, it could well have been hacked, as has happened before with Russian disinformation campaigns, but we don't actually know yet. I suspect that there are investigations running right now.
  • TudorRoseTudorRose Posts: 1,662
    RobD said:

    A possible wild card are the 3m people who have registered to vote. If they are the people kicked off by the Tories (and they were - go ask the Electoral Commission) then perhaps we swing more towards a 2017 style result.

    But what if they are the 2016 I never voted but voted for Brexit non-voters? Who have listened to "get Brexit done" and have re-registered (having been kicked off by the Tories) so that they can vote again for Brexit?

    If the former, then the story of the night will be Labour electing Momentumite "people" into the seats they have been parachuted into such as Bassetlaw. If the latter the story of the night will be Labour getting routed in seats they have held since the Danelaw.

    What I'd like to know is how many of those 3m weren't on the register before. I suspect less than half, maybe a lot less.
    From the (admittedly very limited) data that was posted on here a couple of days ago about Yorkshire constituencies the difference in the size of the electorate from 2017 is negligible.
  • glw said:

    Again...I'm not arguing against that being the case, or an investigation being done into it.

    What I am arguing against is this document being in the public interest and us being able to see it. Labour publicised it and now we know about it, I think that was the right thing to do. Leaking it in the first place, was not - but the Government needs to investigate why that happened.

    Why don't they release the Russia report too?

    You are jumping to conclusions by assuming it was even leaked, it could well have been hacked, as has happened before with Russian disinformation campaigns, but we don't actually know yet. I suspect that there are investigations running right now.
    Good - that's exactly what is needed.

    Also release the Russia report, we need full transparency.
  • Sandpit said:

    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I have to say, while David has written an excellent thread as usual, what a depressing prospect for the country. A shower of complete non-entities with the exception of Angela Rayner who has an impressive back story. Hopefully if Boris secures a 69+ majority and completes the boundary changes and seat reductions, Labour Will find a 2023 election beyond them. I am assuming the FTPA will be repealed.

    While I'm completely on board with equalising constituency sizes (although I'd probably go for +/- 7.5% rather than 2.5%), I'm not convinced of the rationale behind 600 seats.
    Surely any number of seats is pretty arbitrary? Most countries have fewer but is the work directly comparable, what other democratic institutions exist in those places at other levels etc? What number is right?

    Boundaries need updating and so long as it's by an independent body than genuine gerrymandering cannot happen easily. The parameters is trickier.

    What I hope is that parties are not competing to propose the most changes to benefit themselves .
    The overall number is very important in relation to the number of MPs given government jobs and therefore subject to collective responsibility.

    I'd be fine with reducing the number of MPs if you also placed in law a reasonable limit on the size of the Executive. If the Executive needs to be large because we've centralised so much governance, then the legislature from which it is drawn needs to be large too.
    Alternatively we can devolve a substantial number of the powers accumulated by the EU and central government over the years, back down to the counties and cities.
    I'm in favour of that, but you have to do that first and cut the number of MPs afterwards (or in tandem). It's no good cutting the number of MPs and then forgetting to devolve power.
  • The future is:

    DICK BURGON

    Bring on the burgon.

    It would be AMAZING.

    However, everyone thought Corbyn would be hilarious, and it has been a binfire that has even the most ardent PB Tory wanting him gone. It isn't healthy for the main opposition party to be in this state.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,315
    TudorRose said:

    RobD said:

    A possible wild card are the 3m people who have registered to vote. If they are the people kicked off by the Tories (and they were - go ask the Electoral Commission) then perhaps we swing more towards a 2017 style result.

    But what if they are the 2016 I never voted but voted for Brexit non-voters? Who have listened to "get Brexit done" and have re-registered (having been kicked off by the Tories) so that they can vote again for Brexit?

    If the former, then the story of the night will be Labour electing Momentumite "people" into the seats they have been parachuted into such as Bassetlaw. If the latter the story of the night will be Labour getting routed in seats they have held since the Danelaw.

    What I'd like to know is how many of those 3m weren't on the register before. I suspect less than half, maybe a lot less.
    From the (admittedly very limited) data that was posted on here a couple of days ago about Yorkshire constituencies the difference in the size of the electorate from 2017 is negligible.
    I wish the numbers would specify which are renewals and which are genuinely new. The latter number will be a lot smaller, and it would end all the hyperventilation on here in the days running up to the registration deadline.
  • DeClare said:

    https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/1202969395242426370/photo/1

    According to this, most Tory voters who might change their mind, would go to Labour? But I thought there were no Tory to Labour switchers?

    They are people who normally vote Labour but on this occasion are prepared to vote Tory, although they want to retain the option that hey might still vote Labour after all if something turns up.
    Hardly any would be people who normally vote Tory but who might on this occasion vote Labour unless they are very staunch remainers in constituencies where the Lib/Dems have no chance or staunch unionists in Scotland, cities areas like Glasgow for example would be very unlikely to elect a Tory MP and Labour are best placed for unionist votes against the SNP.

    Conservative supporters in this context I took to be historical ones, not those who voted Labour before and have switched to the Tories now. Although your point makes sense.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 16,604



    *snip*

    I have family members who are SNP supporters but vote conservative in a GE to preserve the union

    The problem with that attitude is that if people keep electing SNP Governments in Edinburgh then of course they're going to leverage their Parliamentary mandate to demand further independence referendums. Westminster then has to choose between denying the right of Scotland to have another referendum (which will provoke an enormous amount of screaming about holding the country captive and flouting the democratic will) or letting it go ahead (in which case we end up having to go through this over and over and over again, until the Scottish Government obtains the result that it wants.)

    Why the rest of the country should be obliged to tolerate this state of affairs I do not know. It is as if the UK had voted to stay in the EU, and then made Nigel Farage the Prime Minister two years later. The EU27 have had to put up with quite enough, what with our Parliament being unable to conclude and vote through a Withdrawal Agreement in more than three years - so can you imagine how much worse it would be for them if we were doing the Brexit hokey cokey over and over again every electoral cycle, until the British Government could talk a majority of the people into giving it what it wanted?

    This is the entire problem. Scottish voters keep putting their nationalists into power and then refusing to let them implement the key plank of their policy platform, so Scotland is stuck endlessly dancing the Indyref hokey cokey (and so, by extension, is the remainder of the UK.) Until the Scottish electorate either throws the SNP out or votes for independence, no progress can be made.
    Actually it's rather sensible by the Scottish public, as would be the Farage scenario you describe in its own way. You remain in the organisation but ensure aggressive defence of your area's interest within it. The trouble comes, as you say, when that party gets too obsessed with leaving (rather than what they should be doing - obtaining wins - see Arlene), that's when they need an electoral setback. And the SNP may be heading for such a setback.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 48,797
    Somebody upthread was talking about age groups and how they break for the Tories.

    It is worth remembering this will vary substantially by area. Round here the Labour members are all ex-miners past retirement age. Some of them were handing out leaflets in Cannock Market this morning and not one was under seventy. Meanwhile those of working age are mostly non-graduates working in light industry. Anecdotal evidence suggests they are breaking for the Tories. This probably goes a long way to explain Labour’s apparent collapse in the Midlands.

    It was also a sad day for me in Cannock Market as I find Cannock’s last butcher and last greengrocer (separate shops) have both closed. Never went into the greengrocer’s because it wasn’t very good, but I will miss the butcher a lot. He was a very nice guy, in his seventies, did good quality meat at very reasonable prices (both cheaper and better quality than the local supermarkets) and knew the names of all his customers. Always a smile and a question. I gather he’s ill, so he can’t continue. Must have been sudden as he looked fine last Saturday. Hope it’s not disastrous.

    And on a personal level, it means I will now shop more often in Lichfield or Brewood.
  • Re them being fake, why didn't the Government say so? Instead they insisted the NHS was on the table.

    That's a non-denial denial. I took that to mean the documents are legitimate.

    The Government could easily come out now and call them fake, that would be back of the net stuff for them surely, with just days to go. And yet, silence.

    Of course it's all hypocrisy anyway, they're sitting on a report into Russian interference.
  • glw said:

    Again...I'm not arguing against that being the case, or an investigation being done into it.

    What I am arguing against is this document being in the public interest and us being able to see it. Labour publicised it and now we know about it, I think that was the right thing to do. Leaking it in the first place, was not - but the Government needs to investigate why that happened.

    Why don't they release the Russia report too?

    You are jumping to conclusions by assuming it was even leaked, it could well have been hacked, as has happened before with Russian disinformation campaigns, but we don't actually know yet. I suspect that there are investigations running right now.

    It may have been hacked, but what it lays out is pretty much exactlky what all business groups in Northern Ireland have been identifying as the major flaws in Johnson's agreement since it was published.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,412
    edited December 2019
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I have to say, while David has written an excellent thread as usual, what a depressing prospect for the country. A shower of complete non-entities with the exception of Angela Rayner who has an impressive back story. Hopefully if Boris secures a 69+ majority and completes the boundary changes and seat reductions, Labour Will find a 2023 election beyond them. I am assuming the FTPA will be repealed.

    While I'm completely on board with equalising constituency sizes (although I'd probably go for +/- 7.5% rather than 2.5%), I'm not convinced of the rationale behind 600 seats.
    Surely any number of seats is pretty arbitrary? Most countries have fewer but is the work directly comparable, what other democratic institutions exist in those places at other levels etc? What number is right?

    Boundaries need updating and so long as it's by an independent body than genuine gerrymandering cannot happen easily. The parameters is trickier.

    What I hope is that parties are not competing to propose the most changes to benefit themselves .
    The overall number is very important in relation to the number of MPs given government jobs and therefore subject to collective responsibility.

    I'd be fine with reducing the number of MPs if you also placed in law a reasonable limit on the size of the Executive. If the Executive needs to be large because we've centralised so much governance, then the legislature from which it is drawn needs to be large too.
    Alternatively we can devolve a substantial number of the powers accumulated by the EU and central government over the years, back down to the counties and cities.
    You’ve been reading the Tory manifesto. Combined authorities with devolved power are coming to every area of England...
    I like your screen name! Hopefully what we see is the proverbial Northern Powerhouse on steroids, with free zones and ports as Johnson mentioned at last night's debates - real incentives for companies to invest in areas that have become run down and forgotten by governments for generations.
    indeed there are 80 Free ports across the EU, though we did abolish our ones in 2012:

    https://twitter.com/BBCRealityCheck/status/1203053772123131904?s=20
  • melcfmelcf Posts: 166

    @melcf - please do not post things that are potentially libelous.

    Such as? Please do clarify, have quite a few posts
  • kinabalu said:

    @SouthamObserver

    Do you think Pidcock is likely to stand for Deputy Leader instead?

    I think it has to be Long Bailey or Pidcock for the leadership, I don't think both can run. Given that. I'd excpect Long Bailey to get the nod. Unless Corbyn contests any challenge against him. Then it would have to be the pair of them slugging it out to be the far left candidate for the deputy slot.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,315
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 6,357

    RobD said:

    I'm in Scotland and my narrator in the video has a Scottish accent. Is it an English accent for those in England, and a Welsh for those in Wales?

    Scottish too, so I don't think it's that localised.
    Then that's an interesting decision in itself. It's known as a very trustworthy accent, but is it fanciful to imagine that the Tories also did this because they're hopeful in Scotland?
    Zadok the Priest - appealing to an older generation that remembers the 1953 coronation? Surely that cohort is in the bag.
  • melcf said:

    @melcf - please do not post things that are potentially libelous.

    Such as? Please do clarify, have quite a few posts
    The one that I deleted regarding Boris.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 48,797

    kinabalu said:

    @SouthamObserver

    Do you think Pidcock is likely to stand for Deputy Leader instead?

    I think it has to be Long Bailey or Pidcock for the leadership, I don't think both can run. Given that. I'd excpect Long Bailey to get the nod. Unless Corbyn contests any challenge against him. Then it would have to be the pair of them slugging it out to be the far left candidate for the deputy slot.
    Rebecca Long Bailey would be a truly dreadful choice as leader. She is rude, arrogant, lazy and not very bright.

    She would however be a considerably less awful choice than Pidcock.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,315

    Re them being fake, why didn't the Government say so? Instead they insisted the NHS was on the table.

    That's a non-denial denial. I took that to mean the documents are legitimate.

    The Government could easily come out now and call them fake, that would be back of the net stuff for them surely, with just days to go. And yet, silence.

    Of course it's all hypocrisy anyway, they're sitting on a report into Russian interference.

    You saw the reaction of the left to Channel 4 effectively saying their own coverage was fake? They wouldn't believe it for a second.
  • Is everyone ready for Mega Polling Saturday? Wonder if it will be as wild a ride as 2017.
  • TudorRoseTudorRose Posts: 1,662
    Small print alert; this appears to be US data.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Just an observation on Rebecca Long-Bailey as successor. Labour would be well advised to look at how the public not only didn't take to Jo Swinson this election -they actively took against her. Long-Bailey has that ability in spades. he more you see of her, the more annoying she becomes. And the more unconvincing she sounds on having answers to today's problems.

    Why are you helping Labour?

    ...unless you are trying to fake them into thinking “the Tories recommend we don’t appoint her do they must really fear her...

    Clever

    🤫
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 48,797
    TudorRose said:

    Small print alert; this appears to be US data.
    When you say this, do you mean the data is from the United States, or the data is u/s?

    Or both, of course...
  • TudorRoseTudorRose Posts: 1,662
    ydoethur said:

    TudorRose said:

    Small print alert; this appears to be US data.
    When you say this, do you mean the data is from the United States, or the data is u/s?

    Or both, of course...
    The first; the data shows the share of US wealth held.
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 19,432
    edited December 2019
    RobD said:

    Re them being fake, why didn't the Government say so? Instead they insisted the NHS was on the table.

    That's a non-denial denial. I took that to mean the documents are legitimate.

    The Government could easily come out now and call them fake, that would be back of the net stuff for them surely, with just days to go. And yet, silence.

    Of course it's all hypocrisy anyway, they're sitting on a report into Russian interference.

    You saw the reaction of the left to Channel 4 effectively saying their own coverage was fake? They wouldn't believe it for a second.
    What does that have to do with anything? If the Government came out and said they were fake, I'd believe them, provided they properly cited the reasons why, or if not because on grounds of national security, that would be convincing.

    Probably wouldn't convince the Labour Party faithful but it would kill the story for the centre ground. So the fact they haven't to me indicates they are real and the Tories know it.

    What other weirdos on the left choose to do is up to them.
This discussion has been closed.