politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The shadow cabinet reshuffle is becoming interesting

Dair said:

AndyJS said:

The backlash begins:

twitter.com/DrJackMonroe/status/643195043445125120?lang=en-gb

Monroe is a Green now.

However, it does indicate how likely Corbyn is to attract Green returners - basically he isn't going to.

Speedy said:

AndyJS said:

The backlash begins:

twitter.com/DrJackMonroe/status/643195043445125120?lang=en-gb

To all my defence, Jack is a male name.
I really didn't knew she was a woman.

HYUFD said:

Dair said:

AndyJS said:

The backlash begins:

twitter.com/DrJackMonroe/status/643195043445125120?lang=en-gb

Monroe is a Green now.

However, it does indicate how likely Corbyn is to attract Green returners - basically he isn't going to.

A Comres poll recently showed the only group likely to switch to Corbyn in significant numbers would be Green voters

surbiton said:

alex. said:

It might actually be the case that Corbyn is going to appoint a shadow Defence Secretary who is strongly in favour of Trident Renewal. We're moving on from parallel realities.

Will this Parliament actually take any decision on Trident or will it be fobbed off yet again ? The last Parliament kicked it into the long grass.

Speedy said:

Eat that Ms.Monroe:

FabianWomen'sNetwork ‏@FabianWomen 1m1 minute ago United Kingdom
Many congratulations to @GloriaDePiero for her new role as Shadow Secretary for Defence.

So Woodcock shadow Works and Pensions.

Goodnight.

Speedy said:

So with Gloria de Pierro as shadow defence secretary and John Woodcock as shadow works and pensions we can go to bed.

JEO said:

EPG said:

JEO said:

If the Blairites were to form a new party they would forever get rid of the union link which has always provided the infrastructure for the hard Left to come back.

And forever get rid of the £££££££.

That's why it won't happen, instead they will wait out Corbyn even if it takes five years. There are no City hedgies waiting to back Labour - even New Labour. Money is power and the unions are the main source apart from people with lots of it.

I don't think the money makes up for the liability of 60% of the party voting for a leadership of terrorist sympathisers.

surbiton said:

alex. said:

It might actually be the case that Corbyn is going to appoint a shadow Defence Secretary who is strongly in favour of Trident Renewal. We're moving on from parallel realities.

Will this Parliament actually take any decision on Trident or will it be fobbed off yet again ? The last Parliament kicked it into the long grass.

Tissue_Price said:

MyBurningEars said:

Tissue_Price said:

surbiton said:

So, you suggest, 60% of the Party's voices [ whether correct or not ] should be ignored ? Maybe , professional politicians can't get their head round it.

They shouldn't be ignored. They should be made to leave.

That's even harder than breaking the "union link". How on earth do you break the "membership link"?

Replace their leader in a coup with a coronation, wait for them all to eff off to the Greens or TUSC. It's already been done successfully this century, though UKIP were the lucky recipients that time.

alex. said:

Dair said:

Speedy said:

Eat that Ms.Monroe:

FabianWomen'sNetwork ‏@FabianWomen 1m1 minute ago United Kingdom
Many congratulations to @GloriaDePiero for her new role as Shadow Secretary for Defence.

So Woodcock shadow Works and Pensions.

Goodnight.

W T F

Seriously, this is more W T F than Lucy Powell.

She's on the board of PROGRESS.

He's the Chair! Not sure where that leaves opposition to the Welfare bill!

Dair said:

alex. said:

Dair said:

Speedy said:

Eat that Ms.Monroe:

FabianWomen'sNetwork ‏@FabianWomen 1m1 minute ago United Kingdom
Many congratulations to @GloriaDePiero for her new role as Shadow Secretary for Defence.

So Woodcock shadow Works and Pensions.

Goodnight.

W T F

Seriously, this is more W T F than Lucy Powell.

She's on the board of PROGRESS.

He's the Chair! Not sure where that leaves opposition to the Welfare bill!

No, I mean She. Gloria de Piero is on the board of Progress (under Woodcock who still isn't confirmed).

JonathanD said:

kle4 said:

surbiton said:

RobD said:

After canceling Marr, and now Today, what are the odds he wont appear at PMQs?

Cam must be pinching himself.

He could and should make a statement out of PMQs.

He should ask:

1. That the PM must give a straight answer to a straight question. No evasion.

2. The Mob culture must end from all sides.

The Tories and the Speaker will almost certainly refuse. Corbyn will say he will not participate then.

The idea that the shouting and jeering is hugely popular with the public is actually misplaced. The public also wants to hear a clear answer to a clear question.

The PMQ did not start with Magna Carta or 1832. It only started in the 50s. So no great tradition.

Won't work. Even when straight answers are given, oppositions don't acknowledge them (granted, they are rare), so it's an impossible demand to fulfill.

"Ed Miliband staked everything on his opening question: would the Prime Minister rule out raising VAT? Having asked it, the Labour leader sat down, confidently awaiting his opponent’s stumbling, circuitous, tellingly evasive answer. After all, there was no way Mr Cameron was going to say yes.

“Yes,” said Mr Cameron.

The look on Mr Miliband’s face. It was as if an eagle had swooped out of the sky and swiped the sandwich from his hands.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/pmqs/11494579/PMQs-sketch-David-Cameron-drops-Ed-Miliband-into-a-VAT-of-gunge.html

Dair said:

HYUFD said:

Dair said:

AndyJS said:

The backlash begins:

twitter.com/DrJackMonroe/status/643195043445125120?lang=en-gb

Monroe is a Green now.

However, it does indicate how likely Corbyn is to attract Green returners - basically he isn't going to.

A Comres poll recently showed the only group likely to switch to Corbyn in significant numbers would be Green voters

Not so long ago you were predicting that a Corbyn win would be drawing everyone back to Labour. I think it's time you faced up to the truth - your beloved Labour Party is dead.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

tyson said:

Ed was crap and will never be Prime Minister. Jeremy will never be prime minister.

I don't think Labour will ever pick as crap a leader as Ed Miliband. Jeremy is not crap. He's not Ed, he's not IDS or Hague, or Gordon Brown- a rogues gallery of crappy leaders. Jeremy is just unelectable. A subtle but important difference.

Huzzah- the tennis is about to start

Sunil_Prasannan said:

GIN1138 said:

bigjohnowls said:

The most common comment I got canvassing was they are all the same.

Not now clear water between Tories and a more equal society is on offer while ever Corbyn remains.

Lets see if Labour are wiped out or gain ground as a result of the clear water.

PB Tories are 100% certain the public will not like Jezza policies.

I am not sure which way this will go.

Time will tell.

Are we getting the first rumblings of:

JCICIPM Vs JCWNBPM?

No, if it was EICIPM, then it should really be just JICIPM (or JWNBPM, if you prefer!).

No, Jezza is IDS and I predict he will be replaced by Hilary Benn, the new Shadow Foreign Secretary, in 2 or 3 years time, much as IDS was replaced by his Shadow Chancellor, Michael Howard

The same Michael Howard wot lost in 2005?

KentRising said:

JonathanD said:

kle4 said:

surbiton said:

RobD said:

After canceling Marr, and now Today, what are the odds he wont appear at PMQs?

Cam must be pinching himself.

He could and should make a statement out of PMQs.

He should ask:

1. That the PM must give a straight answer to a straight question. No evasion.

2. The Mob culture must end from all sides.

The Tories and the Speaker will almost certainly refuse. Corbyn will say he will not participate then.

The idea that the shouting and jeering is hugely popular with the public is actually misplaced. The public also wants to hear a clear answer to a clear question.

The PMQ did not start with Magna Carta or 1832. It only started in the 50s. So no great tradition.

Won't work. Even when straight answers are given, oppositions don't acknowledge them (granted, they are rare), so it's an impossible demand to fulfill.

"Ed Miliband staked everything on his opening question: would the Prime Minister rule out raising VAT? Having asked it, the Labour leader sat down, confidently awaiting his opponent’s stumbling, circuitous, tellingly evasive answer. After all, there was no way Mr Cameron was going to say yes.

“Yes,” said Mr Cameron.

The look on Mr Miliband’s face. It was as if an eagle had swooped out of the sky and swiped the sandwich from his hands.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/pmqs/11494579/PMQs-sketch-David-Cameron-drops-Ed-Miliband-into-a-VAT-of-gunge.html

Even those days of Miliband being torn a new one at PMQs seem like halycon days for Labour compared to now. Two months out from a GE and at at least level in the polls, Miliband upping his game. Things were looking promising. I mean, Ed Balls, next to Mili there, seems like a sensible chap and a political and intellectual heavyweight in comparison to the new shadow cabinet.

MyBurningEars said:

Going back my earlier hypothetical.

The 3 main assets of a party are its parliamentary seats, its organisational nous, and its grassroots membership. Finances will tend to follow those with a prospect of power.

If you reach the stage where your mass membership have become a net negative, so much so that you're better off shot of them, then from the MPs' point of view they've already got the seats anyway. A Corbynified Labour organisation will likely have purged a lot of party workers, aside from all those who are already quitting and heading out into wonkland. So the organisational brains could probably be re-recruited fairly easily.

If there is an "unstoppable force vs immovable object" aspect to what's going on, then forming the New Democrats isn't an unthinkable option, and doesn't really require more MPs than a party coup would. However, it does require them to be even more totally committed and to take more of a risk, so while I don't expect it to happen, the prospect becomes more likely in the event that they all have their backs to the wall. The "600 seat redrawing", and the prospect of having to get support from local membership to find a seat, might just be enough to provoke a split. In that situation many MPs are stuffed if they stick with Labour even if they do strike first to get rid of Corbyn, unless they can get the more extreme elements of the membership to leave almost immediately.

TheScreamingEagles said:

900 comments in less than four hours.

Busiest Sunday night in PB history.

Moses_ said:

Sky news paper review
Tessa Jowell says she would not accept a place in JC team

EPG said:

I don't think one can just dismiss finances as a meaningless flagellum attached to the fun bits of politics. Part of the Conservatives' edge over Labour in 2015 came from their larger financial backing that enabled clever but expensive tactics like the Team 2015 bussing safe-seat volunteers to marginal constituencies, not to mention the micro-targetted real-life and Facebook ads. So cash helps and, as the unions' decision has shown, cash doesn't just follow the most obvious winner but it instead comes with conditions or at least expectations. The Tristramites would begin with £0 and approximately one trade union of any meaningful size willing to contribute to increase that fund. Labour would easily outspend the Tristramites with union backing. Why take the risk when you can wait two years for a coup, or five years for the unions to face the music and back moderates like they always used to do?

AndyJS said:

Federer v Djokovic gets under way after rain delay:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/tennis/34067072

EPG said:

MyBurningEars said:

Going back my earlier hypothetical.

The 3 main assets of a party are its parliamentary seats, its organisational nous, and its grassroots membership. Finances will tend to follow those with a prospect of power.

If you reach the stage where your mass membership have become a net negative, so much so that you're better off shot of them, then from the MPs' point of view they've already got the seats anyway. A Corbynified Labour organisation will likely have purged a lot of party workers, aside from all those who are already quitting and heading out into wonkland. So the organisational brains could probably be re-recruited fairly easily.

If there is an "unstoppable force vs immovable object" aspect to what's going on, then forming the New Democrats isn't an unthinkable option, and doesn't really require more MPs than a party coup would. However, it does require them to be even more totally committed and to take more of a risk, so while I don't expect it to happen, the prospect becomes more likely in the event that they all have their backs to the wall. The "600 seat redrawing", and the prospect of having to get support from local membership to find a seat, might just be enough to provoke a split. In that situation many MPs are stuffed if they stick with Labour even if they do strike first to get rid of Corbyn, unless they can get the more extreme elements of the membership to leave almost immediately.

I don't think one can just dismiss finances as a meaningless flagellum attached to the fun bits of politics. Part of the Conservatives' edge over Labour in 2015 came from their larger financial backing that enabled clever but expensive tactics like the Team 2015 bussing safe-seat volunteers to marginal constituencies, not to mention the micro-targetted real-life and Facebook ads. So cash helps and, as the unions' decision has shown, cash doesn't just follow the most obvious winner but it instead comes with conditions or at least expectations. The Tristramites would begin with £0 and approximately one trade union of any meaningful size willing to contribute to increase that fund. Labour would easily outspend the Tristramites with union backing. Why take the risk when you can wait two years for a coup, or five years for the unions to face the music and back moderates like they always used to do?

MikeL said:

Telegraph says Corbyn will join Privy Council.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

AndyJS said:

Federer v Djokovic gets under way after rain delay:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/tennis/34067072

Djokovic takes first set 6-4.