politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Let us not forget how much Corbyn contributed to Johnson’s GE2

First!

Phil Collins in The Times this morning is scathing on Corbyn, but he could just as easily be writing about BoZo

The chaos of the Corbyn leadership is what happens if you take the most stupid person in the building and put him in charge. Public life can only bear so much stupidity. Bereft of intellectual weight, with nothing much in his head and painfully conscious of the deficiency, Mr Corbyn’s options were to lean heavily on unctuous self-righteousness or, when that failed, to lash out. Unable to provide good reasons, or any reasons, for his decisions, he simply acted with erratic impunity and got instantly testy if anyone questioned his authority. He was always a rather pathetic figure, if briefly quite a dangerous one. Meanwhile his entourage of sycophants, the Milnes, Murphys and McCluskeys, went out to argue for a man they always regarded as a useful idiot.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/starmer-must-finish-off-corbyn-to-show-he-means-business-xnlz35pvx

One of the less pleasant tasks of the spring was to clean out the rat infested garden shed, and disinfect the garden furniture within. Cleaning out the stain of anti-semitism from the Labour party is a similar unpleasant task, but Starmer does seem to be getting on with that essential job. Corbynites who attack him as a result are true enemies of the party.

ydoethur said:

‘He twice led the party to two successive general election defeats?’

I hate to be pedantic* but that makes four election defeats.

*That is possibly the most unconvincing lie in the history of PB.

Edit - ah, I see it’s been corrected on the main site.

That was a mistake which was corrected

Foxy said:

Some interesting figures in the ONS thread here on retail. Bouncing back well in some sectors.

https://twitter.com/ONS/status/1286542503777361920?s=09

Good news for once

July will be interesting

Foxy said:

Some interesting figures in the ONS thread here on retail. Bouncing back well in some sectors.

https://twitter.com/ONS/status/1286542503777361920?s=09

Boris will no doubt claim it is "V-shaped for victory...."

Foxy said:

One of the less pleasant tasks of the spring was to clean out the rat infested garden shed, and disinfect the garden furniture within. Cleaning out the stain of anti-semitism from the Labour party is a similar unpleasant task, but Starmer does seem to be getting on with that essential job. Corbynites who attack him as a result are true enemies of the party.

Corbynites are not just true enemies of the labour party but the country as well

Had Starmer led labour instead of Corbyn I have little doubt that we would have remained in the single market at the very least

It is clear Corbyn and his fellow supporting mps just have to have the whip removed otherwise Starmer will be so compromised his attempts to turn labour round will be in disarray

Decisively act on Corbyn and it will be a game changer

Foxy said:

One of the less pleasant tasks of the spring was to clean out the rat infested garden shed, and disinfect the garden furniture within. Cleaning out the stain of anti-semitism from the Labour party is a similar unpleasant task, but Starmer does seem to be getting on with that essential job. Corbynites who attack him as a result are true enemies of the party.

Still not going to sit comfortably when there is a lingering smell of rat piss, are you? It's going to need more than Dettol and sunlight...

I can verify on my account as a historical Lib Dem voter and someone who voted remain that i voted Tory in 2019 GE out of a) fear of Corbyn b)dismay at the way that Lib Dem leadership appeared not to care about cheating 17 million people out of a Brexit (however stupid) winning Referendum vote.

ydoethur said:

BJO posted a belated comment two threads ago saying that sources in Islington CLP have been told Corbyn is to lose the whip.

Leaving aside the fact he is now doubling down on his mindless racism, surely he deserves expulsion for the blatant defiance of Starmer, which effectively includes calling the new Labour leader a liar?

Strategically for Starmer it would be better just to carry on and let Corbyn self-destruct as he discredits himself further. In doing so he'll splinter the far left further. On Tuesday it was noticeable how some of Corbyn's former allies were distancing themselves from his defiance - for example John Lansman and James Mills, his former adviser. The next step in the saga is to watch from the sidelines as Corbyn is sued by John Ware and to await the EHRC report. No need for Starmer to overreach himself by setting up Corbyn as a martyr at this point. Better to wait and take stock later.

I agree 100% with this article: "Keir Starmer doesn’t need to lift a finger as Corbyn’s Left discredits itself"

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/keir-starmer-jeremy-corbyn-hard-left-antisemitism-whistleblowers-561470

Wulfrun_Phil said:

On Tuesday it was noticeable how some of Corbyn's former allies were distancing themselves from his defiance - for example John Lansman

Lansman also settled

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1286248825175277569

rottenborough said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

One of the less pleasant tasks of the spring was to clean out the rat infested garden shed, and disinfect the garden furniture within. Cleaning out the stain of anti-semitism from the Labour party is a similar unpleasant task, but Starmer does seem to be getting on with that essential job. Corbynites who attack him as a result are true enemies of the party.

Corbynites are not just true enemies of the labour party but the country as well

Had Starmer led labour instead of Corbyn I have little doubt that we would have remained in the single market at the very least

It is clear Corbyn and his fellow supporting mps just have to have the whip removed otherwise Starmer will be so compromised his attempts to turn labour round will be in disarray

Decisively act on Corbyn and it will be a game changer

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/07/23/jeremy-corbyn-accused-unleashing-wave-legal-claims-against-labour/

Labour to be be bankrupted?

Perhaps Corbyn, Murphy, Milne and McCluskey could buy back what is left for £10 and return it to its former glory like the Phoenix Four did for MG Rover.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Labour have written to Ofcom asking for an urgent review into RT's licence to broadcast inthe UK

You could not have conceived that 6 months ago

Not sure why tbh. It is blatant propaganda but the idea that it genuinely influences people is a bit of a stretch. Maybe the odd Salmonista but no one even vaguely sensible.

nichomar said:

Given the possibility of a left wing breakaway from the Labour Party, probably including MP’s, does anyone know the likely impact on overall voting intentions? The right wing split involving the SDP ensured Tory domination for a good few years, is it not likely a left split would have the same impact? It’s interesting that our most ardent tories are the keenest for the split to happen after all even if it only took 5-10% of the vote it ensures Tory victory.

I'm sure they would rather the Tories won than Starmer.

NerysHughes said:

So @rcs1000 mentioned last night that mask wearing in LA shops was 100% and has been for ages. Good to see that its working well.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-07-23/california-records-most-coronavirus-deaths-in-a-day-as-fatalities-pass-8-000

https://deadline.com/2020/07/los-angeles-county-coronavirus-update-covid-19-on-track-to-become-second-leading-cause-of-death-in-l-a-says-health-director-1202992258/

Judging by similar posts from rcs over recent weeks, it would appear that the circles he moves in aren't very representative of the state.

MaxPB said:

Recovery looking decidedly more V shaped than many were secretly hoping (no one on here, of course).

Uk may end up being 'W' shaped then, as No Deal lunacy brings economy to grinding halt next Winter.

MaxPB said:

You're not so secretly hoping I guess, Scott.

I am a realist. Hope has nothing to do with it

rottenborough said:

MaxPB said:

Recovery looking decidedly more V shaped than many were secretly hoping (no one on here, of course).

Uk may end up being 'W' shaped then, as No Deal lunacy brings economy to grinding halt next Winter.

I don't think there will be no deal. It's all set up for a late night summit in September where both sides give some ground, we agree to a minimum enforceable LPF, they agree to some kind of fish concession.

This is all still the phoney war IMO.

nichomar said:

Given the possibility of a left wing breakaway from the Labour Party, probably including MP’s...

Labour couldn't be lucky enough to lose both Burgon AND Russell-Moyle to defection, could they?

NerysHughes said:

So @rcs1000 mentioned last night that mask wearing in LA shops was 100% and has been for ages. Good to see that its working well.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-07-23/california-records-most-coronavirus-deaths-in-a-day-as-fatalities-pass-8-000

https://deadline.com/2020/07/los-angeles-county-coronavirus-update-covid-19-on-track-to-become-second-leading-cause-of-death-in-l-a-says-health-director-1202992258/

The take up of masks is likely a reaction to the surge in cases rather than a cause. Time will tell.

In any event, shops aren’t the only places virus spreads...

https://twitter.com/DKThomp/status/1286320775423840256

https://twitter.com/JakeAnbinder/status/1286360892460933121

MarqueeMark said:

rottenborough said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

One of the less pleasant tasks of the spring was to clean out the rat infested garden shed, and disinfect the garden furniture within. Cleaning out the stain of anti-semitism from the Labour party is a similar unpleasant task, but Starmer does seem to be getting on with that essential job. Corbynites who attack him as a result are true enemies of the party.

Corbynites are not just true enemies of the labour party but the country as well

Had Starmer led labour instead of Corbyn I have little doubt that we would have remained in the single market at the very least

It is clear Corbyn and his fellow supporting mps just have to have the whip removed otherwise Starmer will be so compromised his attempts to turn labour round will be in disarray

Decisively act on Corbyn and it will be a game changer

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/07/23/jeremy-corbyn-accused-unleashing-wave-legal-claims-against-labour/

Labour to be be bankrupted?

Labour going bankrupt and Starmer heading a shiny new Phoenix Party freed of its Ratnerisation would probably be the best outcome for the centre-Left. Napalm, not Domestos.

Maybe a reverse takeover by the LDs.

Really check: When have the Labour Party NOT been on the verge of bankruptcy?

rottenborough said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

One of the less pleasant tasks of the spring was to clean out the rat infested garden shed, and disinfect the garden furniture within. Cleaning out the stain of anti-semitism from the Labour party is a similar unpleasant task, but Starmer does seem to be getting on with that essential job. Corbynites who attack him as a result are true enemies of the party.

Corbynites are not just true enemies of the labour party but the country as well

Had Starmer led labour instead of Corbyn I have little doubt that we would have remained in the single market at the very least

It is clear Corbyn and his fellow supporting mps just have to have the whip removed otherwise Starmer will be so compromised his attempts to turn labour round will be in disarray

Decisively act on Corbyn and it will be a game changer

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/07/23/jeremy-corbyn-accused-unleashing-wave-legal-claims-against-labour/

Labour to be be bankrupted?

This possibility was raised some time ago but also some on the NEC, including Corbyn, could see hundreds of claims against them personally if the ECHR finds against them

Specifically on the LPF, if our position holds for all trade negotiations then the UK will be a nation with no trade deals. That's why I'm sure it is posturing and brinkmanship so when we do agree to set a minimum standard as part of the treaty with the EU it feels like a big win for the EU. Trade deals, big ones like this especially, always include legally enforceable minimum standards on state aid and tender processes not being used as a tool of state subsidy.

If our position on no LPF commitment holds then it will be a no deal, the EU will, rightly IMO, refuse to deal with the UK. The issue is that they want a 10/10 LPF commitment and we're asking for 0/10. My guess is that we'll end up somewhere between 4-7/10 and both sides will call it a win.

peter_from_putney said:

Another major factor contributing towards Boris' GE 2019 victory (or Johnson as OGH now insists on referring to him) was the absolutely dismal showing by the LibDems, resulting from their very undemocratic stance of refusing to accept the Brexit referendum result and instead committing themselves to a second referendum, presumably in the hope of securing the "right" answer.
The Great British Public were having none of that and the political career of Jo Swinson was destroyed after just a few short months as the party's leader.

Swinson increased the LD popular vote significantly, but was poorly rewarded under FPTP

DavidL said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

ydoethur said:

BJO posted a belated comment two threads ago saying that sources in Islington CLP have been told Corbyn is to lose the whip.

Leaving aside the fact he is now doubling down on his mindless racism, surely he deserves expulsion for the blatant defiance of Starmer, which effectively includes calling the new Labour leader a liar?

Strategically for Starmer it would be better just to carry on and let Corbyn self-destruct as he discredits himself further. In doing so he'll splinter the far left further. On Tuesday it was noticeable how some of Corbyn's former allies were distancing themselves from his defiance - for example John Lansman and James Mills, his former adviser. The next step in the saga is to watch from the sidelines as Corbyn is sued by John Ware and to await the EHRC report. No need for Starmer to overreach himself by setting up Corbyn as a martyr at this point. Better to wait and take stock later.

I agree 100% with this article: "Keir Starmer doesn’t need to lift a finger as Corbyn’s Left discredits itself"

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/keir-starmer-jeremy-corbyn-hard-left-antisemitism-whistleblowers-561470

I disagree. If SKS is to really drive home his message at PMQs that Labour is under new management he needs to act against Corbyn and his cronies. Merely sitting and watching their disgraceful performances is not enough. I do agree that the EHRC report is likely to be the optimal point but do Labour not already have a draft of that?

It's a draft, so it's great for planning tactics but it's better to wait for the final report before publicly acting on them (the draft isn't final and might change)

MaxPB said:

Specifically on the LPF, if our position holds for all trade negotiations then the UK will be a nation with no trade deals. That's why I'm sure it is posturing and brinkmanship so when we do agree to set a minimum standard as part of the treaty with the EU it feels like a big win for the EU. Trade deals, big ones like this especially, always include legally enforceable minimum standards on state aid and tender processes not being used as a tool of state subsidy.

If our position on no LPF commitment holds then it will be a no deal, the EU will, rightly IMO, refuse to deal with the UK. The issue is that they want a 10/10 LPF commitment and we're asking for 0/10. My guess is that we'll end up somewhere between 4-7/10 and both sides will call it a win.

The State aid is the tricky bit, especially in a time of Covid. The EU themselves seem to have (rightly) ripped up the rule book in this time of crisis and we need to be able to do the same. Standards, whether electrical safety or financial regulation is much less of an issue.

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

Specifically on the LPF, if our position holds for all trade negotiations then the UK will be a nation with no trade deals. That's why I'm sure it is posturing and brinkmanship so when we do agree to set a minimum standard as part of the treaty with the EU it feels like a big win for the EU. Trade deals, big ones like this especially, always include legally enforceable minimum standards on state aid and tender processes not being used as a tool of state subsidy.

If our position on no LPF commitment holds then it will be a no deal, the EU will, rightly IMO, refuse to deal with the UK. The issue is that they want a 10/10 LPF commitment and we're asking for 0/10. My guess is that we'll end up somewhere between 4-7/10 and both sides will call it a win.

The State aid is the tricky bit, especially in a time of Covid. The EU themselves seem to have (rightly) ripped up the rule book in this time of crisis and we need to be able to do the same. Standards, whether electrical safety or financial regulation is much less of an issue.

The EU has standards when it comes to financial regulation?

Big_G_NorthWales said:

rottenborough said:

MaxPB said:

Recovery looking decidedly more V shaped than many were secretly hoping (no one on here, of course).

Uk may end up being 'W' shaped then, as No Deal lunacy brings economy to grinding halt next Winter.

I am not convinced on a no deal after yesterday's briefings.

It does seem as if it is expected a deal will be done by October by some in Europe

I very much hope you are right.

Philip_Thompson said:

Without meaning to be disrespectful Sky currently doing a report from America showing pictures of a woman who has lost her two children, aged 20 and 22, while showing pictures. Clearly both extremely, extremely obese.

Given the obesity rates in the USA and how rampant the virus is getting there it does seem odd that death rates there don't seem to be rising as much as they did here when we were at our peak. Has treatment gotten much better in the past two months or is something else going on?

Can the poor (who are likely to be the overwhelming majority of people getting Covid) pay for testing and hospital care?

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

Specifically on the LPF, if our position holds for all trade negotiations then the UK will be a nation with no trade deals. That's why I'm sure it is posturing and brinkmanship so when we do agree to set a minimum standard as part of the treaty with the EU it feels like a big win for the EU. Trade deals, big ones like this especially, always include legally enforceable minimum standards on state aid and tender processes not being used as a tool of state subsidy.

If our position on no LPF commitment holds then it will be a no deal, the EU will, rightly IMO, refuse to deal with the UK. The issue is that they want a 10/10 LPF commitment and we're asking for 0/10. My guess is that we'll end up somewhere between 4-7/10 and both sides will call it a win.

The State aid is the tricky bit, especially in a time of Covid. The EU themselves seem to have (rightly) ripped up the rule book in this time of crisis and we need to be able to do the same. Standards, whether electrical safety or financial regulation is much less of an issue.

Every trade deal will have emergency get out clauses in extremis. I don't see why the UK-EU deal wouldn't. In fact I'm pretty sure both sides will insist on very specific rules where both sides can temporarily break the rules without consequences and for how long. Additionally, the agreement works in both directions, just as we'd need to uphold whatever is in the treaty, the EU would as well so if we both break it, it's better that both sides are forgiven than damned.

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

Specifically on the LPF, if our position holds for all trade negotiations then the UK will be a nation with no trade deals. That's why I'm sure it is posturing and brinkmanship so when we do agree to set a minimum standard as part of the treaty with the EU it feels like a big win for the EU. Trade deals, big ones like this especially, always include legally enforceable minimum standards on state aid and tender processes not being used as a tool of state subsidy.

If our position on no LPF commitment holds then it will be a no deal, the EU will, rightly IMO, refuse to deal with the UK. The issue is that they want a 10/10 LPF commitment and we're asking for 0/10. My guess is that we'll end up somewhere between 4-7/10 and both sides will call it a win.

The State aid is the tricky bit, especially in a time of Covid. The EU themselves seem to have (rightly) ripped up the rule book in this time of crisis and we need to be able to do the same. Standards, whether electrical safety or financial regulation is much less of an issue.

The EU has standards when it comes to financial regulation?

Well, they mainly use ours tbh. An EU financial regulatory system without substantial input from London is quite hard to imagine. One of my favourite bits was when the previous governor resorted to a picture book to show EU countries what they still needed to do if they were to have access to London's services after Brexit.

ydoethur said:

MarqueeMark said:

nichomar said:

Given the possibility of a left wing breakaway from the Labour Party, probably including MP’s...

Labour couldn't be lucky enough to lose both Burgon AND Russell-Moyle to defection, could they?

Just imagine a party of the far left led by Burgon backed up by Russell Moyle.

It would be a huge gain to national life.

After all, comedy of that class doesn’t come round too often.

If looking for comedy gold, it might not quite be the motherlode but the current Labour MP's quotes about Corbyn are going to be a rich seam to mine...

MaxPB said:

Specifically on the LPF, if our position holds for all trade negotiations then the UK will be a nation with no trade deals. That's why I'm sure it is posturing and brinkmanship so when we do agree to set a minimum standard as part of the treaty with the EU it feels like a big win for the EU. Trade deals, big ones like this especially, always include legally enforceable minimum standards on state aid and tender processes not being used as a tool of state subsidy.

If our position on no LPF commitment holds then it will be a no deal, the EU will, rightly IMO, refuse to deal with the UK. The issue is that they want a 10/10 LPF commitment and we're asking for 0/10. My guess is that we'll end up somewhere between 4-7/10 and both sides will call it a win.

I don't think that's entirely fair Max. We aren't asking for no LPF.

The UK position on LPF is that we agree there should be an LPF but it should be a standard LPF provision. In particular we are advocating the LPF found in the CETA agreement.

I see no reason if we want an LPF found in other agreements that we can't make other agreements. That's the point.

The EU are rejecting the LPF in past agreements and are claiming that all past agreements ratified are not a precedent to go on and the only precedence that applies is their interpretation of the Political Declaration and what they take that to mean.

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

Specifically on the LPF, if our position holds for all trade negotiations then the UK will be a nation with no trade deals. That's why I'm sure it is posturing and brinkmanship so when we do agree to set a minimum standard as part of the treaty with the EU it feels like a big win for the EU. Trade deals, big ones like this especially, always include legally enforceable minimum standards on state aid and tender processes not being used as a tool of state subsidy.

If our position on no LPF commitment holds then it will be a no deal, the EU will, rightly IMO, refuse to deal with the UK. The issue is that they want a 10/10 LPF commitment and we're asking for 0/10. My guess is that we'll end up somewhere between 4-7/10 and both sides will call it a win.

The State aid is the tricky bit, especially in a time of Covid. The EU themselves seem to have (rightly) ripped up the rule book in this time of crisis and we need to be able to do the same. Standards, whether electrical safety or financial regulation is much less of an issue.

Every trade deal will have emergency get out clauses in extremis. I don't see why the UK-EU deal wouldn't. In fact I'm pretty sure both sides will insist on very specific rules where both sides can temporarily break the rules without consequences and for how long. Additionally, the agreement works in both directions, just as we'd need to uphold whatever is in the treaty, the EU would as well so if we both break it, it's better that both sides are forgiven than damned.

I don't disagree. It is just that negotiating what is meant by "extremis" and "temporary" is where the agreement will be difficult.

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Specifically on the LPF, if our position holds for all trade negotiations then the UK will be a nation with no trade deals. That's why I'm sure it is posturing and brinkmanship so when we do agree to set a minimum standard as part of the treaty with the EU it feels like a big win for the EU. Trade deals, big ones like this especially, always include legally enforceable minimum standards on state aid and tender processes not being used as a tool of state subsidy.

If our position on no LPF commitment holds then it will be a no deal, the EU will, rightly IMO, refuse to deal with the UK. The issue is that they want a 10/10 LPF commitment and we're asking for 0/10. My guess is that we'll end up somewhere between 4-7/10 and both sides will call it a win.

I don't think that's entirely fair Max. We aren't asking for no LPF.

The UK position on LPF is that we agree there should be an LPF but it should be a standard LPF provision. In particular we are advocating the LPF found in the CETA agreement.

I see no reason if we want an LPF found in other agreements that we can't make other agreements. That's the point.

The EU are rejecting the LPF in past agreements and are claiming that all past agreements ratified are not a precedent to go on and the only precedence that applies is their interpretation of the Political Declaration and what they take that to mean.

No, our current position is to make no commitment to a LPF as per government policy. It's a logical 0/10 position to take when the opposing side are at the 10/10 position.

HYUFD said:

Clearly Corbyn was a factor but then he was also a factor in 2017 too, delivering Brexit was the key change from 2017 to 2019

I suspect that there will be much ink spilled in future years over whether the 2017 result was because of Corbyn or in spite of Corbyn.

I think the true answer varies according to where you live. In the north of England and Wales I would hypothesise ‘in spite of;’ in the south of England, the Midlands (to a lesser extent) and Scotland I would say ‘because of.’

But those are in themselves gross generalisations.

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Specifically on the LPF, if our position holds for all trade negotiations then the UK will be a nation with no trade deals. That's why I'm sure it is posturing and brinkmanship so when we do agree to set a minimum standard as part of the treaty with the EU it feels like a big win for the EU. Trade deals, big ones like this especially, always include legally enforceable minimum standards on state aid and tender processes not being used as a tool of state subsidy.

If our position on no LPF commitment holds then it will be a no deal, the EU will, rightly IMO, refuse to deal with the UK. The issue is that they want a 10/10 LPF commitment and we're asking for 0/10. My guess is that we'll end up somewhere between 4-7/10 and both sides will call it a win.

I don't think that's entirely fair Max. We aren't asking for no LPF.

The UK position on LPF is that we agree there should be an LPF but it should be a standard LPF provision. In particular we are advocating the LPF found in the CETA agreement.

I see no reason if we want an LPF found in other agreements that we can't make other agreements. That's the point.

The EU are rejecting the LPF in past agreements and are claiming that all past agreements ratified are not a precedent to go on and the only precedence that applies is their interpretation of the Political Declaration and what they take that to mean.

No, our current position is to make no commitment to a LPF as per government policy. It's a logical 0/10 position to take when the opposing side are at the 10/10 position.

It must have changed then as we were suggesting Canada's precedence.

But yes if we have dug in at the other extreme due to their intransigence then it is presumably to be able to meet in the middle (about where we started) and not an intention to die in the ditch for nothing.

BluestBlue said:

ydoethur said:

MarqueeMark said:

ydoethur said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

ydoethur said:

BJO posted a belated comment two threads ago saying that sources in Islington CLP have been told Corbyn is to lose the whip.

Leaving aside the fact he is now doubling down on his mindless racism, surely he deserves expulsion for the blatant defiance of Starmer, which effectively includes calling the new Labour leader a liar?

Strategically for Starmer it would be better just to carry on and let Corbyn self-destruct as he discredits himself further. In doing so he'll splinter the far left further. On Tuesday it was noticeable how some of Corbyn's former allies were distancing themselves from his defiance - for example John Lansman and James Mills, his former adviser. The next step in the saga is to watch from the sidelines as Corbyn is sued by John Ware and to await the EHRC report. No need for Starmer to overreach himself by setting up Corbyn as a martyr at this point. Better to wait and take stock later.

I agree 100% with this article: "Keir Starmer doesn’t need to lift a finger as Corbyn’s Left discredits itself"

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/keir-starmer-jeremy-corbyn-hard-left-antisemitism-whistleblowers-561470

Possibly in terms of party management. I don’t think it would be better in terms of overall appeal to the electorate.

Yes, expelling Corbyn on the grounds he’s a bully and an unreconstructed racist would be a gesture. After all, he now has no power so he looks like what he always was - a sad, pathetic failure of very limited ability focussed on a discredited philosophy and out to do favours for his mates while spewing bile at everyone and everything he sees as the enemy.

But Starmer has shown a willingness to use gestures on this point, and it would be an important one. He would be saying, clearly and unequivocally, that he will not tolerate racists and bullies in the Labour Party any longer. I personally think, speaking purely anecdotally as a swing voter, that is important.

Labour's problem is that "a sad, pathetic failure of very limited ability focussed on a discredited philosophy and out to do favours for his mates while spewing bile at everyone and everything he sees as the enemy" sums up many voters' view of the Labour Party itself, not just Corbyn.

Which is why Starmer's polling is so far ahead of his Party.

Which is another very good argument for having a massive purge. If Burgon, Long Bailey, Sultana etc say they cannot stay in Labour because it no longer matches their views, that will help to correct the impression.

Purgin' Burgon? Long-Walk-Off-A-Short-Pier-Bailey? Sultana losing her raisin d'être?

Well, if they purge Burgon they will have one of their larger Dicks.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Clearly Corbyn was a factor but then he was also a factor in 2017 too, delivering Brexit was the key change from 2017 to 2019

Sorry but Corbyn was the principal driver as evidenced by many polls and even just common sense

Brexit was the second issue, and add both together equals an 80 seat majority

I very much doubt that result or those circumstances will ever be repeated

The other thing to remember is that a very large number of dud (Pidcock) or superannuated (Skinner) MPs have now lost their seats. Seats that in some cases they were parachuted into against the wishes of the constituency party and then more or less ignored.

So next time in those seats there will be younger, more ambitious and probably more determined candidates under no illusion that they can take voters for granted.

Will that help Labour retake them? Possibly, although it has to be said the example of Mansfield, which has a dud Tory MP whose majority skyrocketed, isn’t encouraging for Labour.

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

Specifically on the LPF, if our position holds for all trade negotiations then the UK will be a nation with no trade deals. That's why I'm sure it is posturing and brinkmanship so when we do agree to set a minimum standard as part of the treaty with the EU it feels like a big win for the EU. Trade deals, big ones like this especially, always include legally enforceable minimum standards on state aid and tender processes not being used as a tool of state subsidy.

If our position on no LPF commitment holds then it will be a no deal, the EU will, rightly IMO, refuse to deal with the UK. The issue is that they want a 10/10 LPF commitment and we're asking for 0/10. My guess is that we'll end up somewhere between 4-7/10 and both sides will call it a win.

The State aid is the tricky bit, especially in a time of Covid. The EU themselves seem to have (rightly) ripped up the rule book in this time of crisis and we need to be able to do the same. Standards, whether electrical safety or financial regulation is much less of an issue.

Every trade deal will have emergency get out clauses in extremis. I don't see why the UK-EU deal wouldn't. In fact I'm pretty sure both sides will insist on very specific rules where both sides can temporarily break the rules without consequences and for how long. Additionally, the agreement works in both directions, just as we'd need to uphold whatever is in the treaty, the EU would as well so if we both break it, it's better that both sides are forgiven than damned.

I don't disagree. It is just that negotiating what is meant by "extremis" and "temporary" is where the agreement will be difficult.

That will be for the arbitration court to decide. As I said, if both sides break the rules neither would take it to arbitration. Would the EU want to be in a position where their €750bn fund is ruled illegal under the trade treaty or the arbitrator outlines specific areas the money can't be spent etc...? I doubt it.

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Clearly Corbyn was a factor but then he was also a factor in 2017 too, delivering Brexit was the key change from 2017 to 2019

Sorry but Corbyn was the principal driver as evidenced by many polls and even just common sense

Brexit was the second issue, and add both together equals an 80 seat majority

I very much doubt that result or those circumstances will ever be repeated

The other thing to remember is that a very large number of dud (Pidcock) or superannuated (Skinner) MPs have now lost their seats. Seats that in some cases they were parachuted into against the wishes of the constituency party and then more or less ignored.

So next time in those seats there will be younger, more ambitious and probably more determined candidates under no illusion that they can take voters for granted.

Will that help Labour retake them? Possibly, although it has to be said the example of Mansfield, which has a dud Tory MP whose majority skyrocketed, isn’t encouraging for Labour.

For a lot of the northern seats Labour is being punished for their running of local councils that had their budgets destroyed by Austerity and Osbourne changing the rules on council tax...

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/OlafStorbeck/status/1286552312081797122

If you will insist on riding around on a steel relic of a bygone age...

eek said:

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Clearly Corbyn was a factor but then he was also a factor in 2017 too, delivering Brexit was the key change from 2017 to 2019

Sorry but Corbyn was the principal driver as evidenced by many polls and even just common sense

Brexit was the second issue, and add both together equals an 80 seat majority

I very much doubt that result or those circumstances will ever be repeated

The other thing to remember is that a very large number of dud (Pidcock) or superannuated (Skinner) MPs have now lost their seats. Seats that in some cases they were parachuted into against the wishes of the constituency party and then more or less ignored.

So next time in those seats there will be younger, more ambitious and probably more determined candidates under no illusion that they can take voters for granted.

Will that help Labour retake them? Possibly, although it has to be said the example of Mansfield, which has a dud Tory MP whose majority skyrocketed, isn’t encouraging for Labour.

For a lot of the northern seats Labour is being punished for their running of local councils that had their budgets destroyed by Austerity and Osbourne changing the rules on council tax...

True.

But - to take the most egregious example - how did the voters in County Durham feel when their MP spent part of her time on maternity leave, part of it jetting off to Italy for a romantic break with her boyfriend and missing a crucial vote on Universal Credit as a result, part of her time shouting, screaming and raging at various rallies around the country, and feck all time at her constituency duties?

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

Specifically on the LPF, if our position holds for all trade negotiations then the UK will be a nation with no trade deals. That's why I'm sure it is posturing and brinkmanship so when we do agree to set a minimum standard as part of the treaty with the EU it feels like a big win for the EU. Trade deals, big ones like this especially, always include legally enforceable minimum standards on state aid and tender processes not being used as a tool of state subsidy.

If our position on no LPF commitment holds then it will be a no deal, the EU will, rightly IMO, refuse to deal with the UK. The issue is that they want a 10/10 LPF commitment and we're asking for 0/10. My guess is that we'll end up somewhere between 4-7/10 and both sides will call it a win.

The State aid is the tricky bit, especially in a time of Covid. The EU themselves seem to have (rightly) ripped up the rule book in this time of crisis and we need to be able to do the same. Standards, whether electrical safety or financial regulation is much less of an issue.

Every trade deal will have emergency get out clauses in extremis. I don't see why the UK-EU deal wouldn't. In fact I'm pretty sure both sides will insist on very specific rules where both sides can temporarily break the rules without consequences and for how long. Additionally, the agreement works in both directions, just as we'd need to uphold whatever is in the treaty, the EU would as well so if we both break it, it's better that both sides are forgiven than damned.

I don't disagree. It is just that negotiating what is meant by "extremis" and "temporary" is where the agreement will be difficult.

That will be for the arbitration court to decide. As I said, if both sides break the rules neither would take it to arbitration. Would the EU want to be in a position where their €750bn fund is ruled illegal under the trade treaty or the arbitrator outlines specific areas the money can't be spent etc...? I doubt it.

The arbitration court determines the question by reference to the rules that the parties have agreed. That is why agreeing them is difficult.

The 750bn euro agreement seems to me to have been somewhat oversold. More than half of it is loans. Why the EU Commission is borrowing money when none of the MS are having any real difficulty in doing so in the market (unlike 2009) is not clear to me but it was presumably driven by the urge to establish the principle of joint and several debt.

The details of the grants is still to be agreed and may prove difficult in the cases of Hungary and Poland in particular. But the interest payments on the debt will force increases in future EU budgets so it was a win for the Ever closer Union brigade. Whether it actually helps their economy to any material extent is incidental to that purpose.

Foxy said:

peter_from_putney said:

Another major factor contributing towards Boris' GE 2019 victory (or Johnson as OGH now insists on referring to him) was the absolutely dismal showing by the LibDems, resulting from their very undemocratic stance of refusing to accept the Brexit referendum result and instead committing themselves to a second referendum, presumably in the hope of securing the "right" answer.
The Great British Public were having none of that and the political career of Jo Swinson was destroyed after just a few short months as the party's leader.

Swinson increased the LD popular vote significantly, but was poorly rewarded under FPTP

So was May, and it doesnt save her reputation.

StuartDickson said:

ydoethur said:

BJO posted a belated comment two threads ago saying that sources in Islington CLP have been told Corbyn is to lose the whip.

Leaving aside the fact he is now doubling down on his mindless racism, surely he deserves expulsion for the blatant defiance of Starmer, which effectively includes calling the new Labour leader a liar?

Kicking Corbyn out the party would be a master stroke. Would send a crystal clear message to the electorate. Next target Tony Blair.

.... but Starmer is New Tony (hopefully without added Iraq).

Philip_Thompson said:

Scott_xP said:

BoZo begging letter

https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1286563803564576769

Begging letter?

Are you new to this whole politics malarkey? Parties are always emailing their lists asking for fundraising. Would you have been so snarkey to Cameron? I doubt it.

Dont american presidents spend most of their time fundraising? Our politicians are probably hard working by comparison.

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

Specifically on the LPF, if our position holds for all trade negotiations then the UK will be a nation with no trade deals. That's why I'm sure it is posturing and brinkmanship so when we do agree to set a minimum standard as part of the treaty with the EU it feels like a big win for the EU. Trade deals, big ones like this especially, always include legally enforceable minimum standards on state aid and tender processes not being used as a tool of state subsidy.

If our position on no LPF commitment holds then it will be a no deal, the EU will, rightly IMO, refuse to deal with the UK. The issue is that they want a 10/10 LPF commitment and we're asking for 0/10. My guess is that we'll end up somewhere between 4-7/10 and both sides will call it a win.

The State aid is the tricky bit, especially in a time of Covid. The EU themselves seem to have (rightly) ripped up the rule book in this time of crisis and we need to be able to do the same. Standards, whether electrical safety or financial regulation is much less of an issue.

The EU has standards when it comes to financial regulation?

LOL!

For god's sake man don't let @TSE hear you. You might as well have said that pineapple on pizza should be mandatory.

MiFID is your friend, here (or not!!).