politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Seasonal greetings from Marf and Ratty who’ll be returning

Tim_B said:

taffys said:

''The baggage we don't know about belongs to Clinton - the Clinton Global Initiative and Clinton Foundation. Charity Navigator will not touch them and there are issues with foreign donations when Hillary was SOS and Bill made speeches abroad.''

Given Bill Clinton's relations with female workers whilst in government, I fail to see how Hillary can cast Trump as anti-female and get away with it.

I am completely unable to see any connection or relevance between what I said and your reply. I did not mention or infer anything about females or Trump.

HYUFD said:

Wanderer said:

I think predictions of Labour disaster will run ahead of reality and allow him to beat expectations. His supporters will say, "Jeremy is awesome! He kept most of our seats and this was his first try."

Yet he won't keep most of the seats, Rallings and Thrasher are already predicting he will lose at least 200!

FPT: They are defending 1200, I think, so R&T are predicting they will hold most.

Of course, in reality it's absurd to describe any loss of local seats as anything other than terrible for the Opposition, but I'm starting to think that no one will go bankrupt by overestimating the delusions of Corbynistas.

HYUFD said:

Good picture but not quite sure why we needed to move to a new thread about a rat and a bauble?

To cheer up the socialists?

HYUFD said:

surbiton said:

I think if Corbyn sacks Benn and the Eagles, he will be fully justified. If they want to carp from the side lines, they should have done what Cooper and 4% Kendall did - not join the shadow cabinet.

Corbyn is stronger now than 3 months back. He does not need Been and the Eagles.

I doubt he will sack them just move them and it is a sign of a weak leader that he cannot include capable candidates in his top team because they do not agree with him on every issue

I agree about that too, though I'm not sure they will accept demotion. What's in it for them?

But certainly it's part of the art of political leadership to keep your best performers onside.

Wanderer said:

HYUFD said:

Wanderer said:

I think predictions of Labour disaster will run ahead of reality and allow him to beat expectations. His supporters will say, "Jeremy is awesome! He kept most of our seats and this was his first try."

Yet he won't keep most of the seats, Rallings and Thrasher are already predicting he will lose at least 200!

FPT: They are defending 1200, I think, so R&T are predicting they will hold most.

Of course, in reality it's absurd to describe any loss of local seats as anything other than terrible for the Opposition, but I'm starting to think that no one will go bankrupt by overestimating the delusions of Corbynistas.

A loss of 200 would be terrible, but it would probably be explained away.

Wanderer said:

HYUFD said:

surbiton said:

I think if Corbyn sacks Benn and the Eagles, he will be fully justified. If they want to carp from the side lines, they should have done what Cooper and 4% Kendall did - not join the shadow cabinet.

Corbyn is stronger now than 3 months back. He does not need Been and the Eagles.

I doubt he will sack them just move them and it is a sign of a weak leader that he cannot include capable candidates in his top team because they do not agree with him on every issue

I agree about that too, though I'm not sure they will accept demotion. What's in it for them?

But certainly it's part of the art of political leadership to keep your best performers onside.

If Benn is sensible and he is, he will accept a demotion which means he remains in the top team and the frontline and can present himself as loyal while the very act of demotion after his brilliant Commons speech makes him the natural successor if there is ever a move against Corbyn

FPT

Mr Surbiton said, "Including 2013, 9 of the 10 warmest years in the 134-year period of record have occurred in the 21st century. Only one year during the 20th century—1998—was warmer than 2013."

To which I would respond, "Yes and?"

For most of the 11th and 12th centuries England was warm but regularly lashed with torrential rain storms, and no doubt lots of floods, which caused frequent famine. At the start of the thirteenth century the climate changed and temperatures in England became milder, the weather wetter but without the tempests of the previous 200 years. As a result the English vineyards disappeared, but so did the incidence of famine. In fact England suffered no famine between 1220 and 1315 and as a result had the fastest period of population growth and general prosperity in our history.

No doubt there were people in the early 1200s writing about this terrible climate change and how it was wiping out traditional industries and would undoubtedly lead to the destruction of civilization if not the planet - the English character has not changed that much in 800 years.

HYUFD said:

Good picture but not quite sure why we needed to move to a new thread about a rat and a bauble?

used up all your festive spirit then

HYUFD said:

Wanderer said:

HYUFD said:

surbiton said:

I think if Corbyn sacks Benn and the Eagles, he will be fully justified. If they want to carp from the side lines, they should have done what Cooper and 4% Kendall did - not join the shadow cabinet.

Corbyn is stronger now than 3 months back. He does not need Been and the Eagles.

I doubt he will sack them just move them and it is a sign of a weak leader that he cannot include capable candidates in his top team because they do not agree with him on every issue

I agree about that too, though I'm not sure they will accept demotion. What's in it for them?

But certainly it's part of the art of political leadership to keep your best performers onside.

If Benn is sensible and he is, he will accept a demotion which means he remains in the top team and the frontline and can present himself as loyal while the very act of demotion after his brilliant Commons speech makes him the natural successor if there is ever a move against Corbyn

Fair enough. It does make a certain sense for Benn to play along.

Not sure about the Eagles. Maria, in particular, seems to have had one humiliation after another visited on her and would actually gain in stature by saying "Enough!"

Best news of the year. 2016 will be better with Marf.

Wanderer said:

HYUFD said:

Wanderer said:

HYUFD said:

Wanderer said:

I think predictions of Labour disaster will run ahead of reality and allow him to beat expectations. His supporters will say, "Jeremy is awesome! He kept most of our seats and this was his first try."

Yet he won't keep most of the seats, Rallings and Thrasher are already predicting he will lose at least 200!

FPT: They are defending 1200, I think, so R&T are predicting they will hold most.

Of course, in reality it's absurd to describe any loss of local seats as anything other than terrible for the Opposition, but I'm starting to think that no one will go bankrupt by overestimating the delusions of Corbynistas.

Unless Labour lose Islington the Corbynistas will always delude themselves into thinking he is carrying them in triumph, it is how Labour MPs start to see events that will be key

Unless the membership changes its view the MPs are relatively impotent, though? (I'm eliding "Corbynistas" with "membership" which is dodgy, I confess.)

Tory MPs replaced IDS without even consulting the members

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

HYUFD said:

Good picture but not quite sure why we needed to move to a new thread about a rat and a bauble?

To cheer up the socialists?

Well the rat would probably make a better Labour leader than Corbyn, true!

certainly streets ahead of Benn

Benn is not designed to appeal to dyed in the wool nats

Without any reference to Scottish voting , he is another Labour nonentity, a champagne socialist who will bend to any view , no principles and less talent.
Useless and a guarantee that labour are doomed for at least a generation till they get this kind of rubbish out of the system.

Wanderer said:

HYUFD said:

Wanderer said:

HYUFD said:

surbiton said:

I think if Corbyn sacks Benn and the Eagles, he will be fully justified. If they want to carp from the side lines, they should have done what Cooper and 4% Kendall did - not join the shadow cabinet.

Corbyn is stronger now than 3 months back. He does not need Been and the Eagles.

I doubt he will sack them just move them and it is a sign of a weak leader that he cannot include capable candidates in his top team because they do not agree with him on every issue

I agree about that too, though I'm not sure they will accept demotion. What's in it for them?

But certainly it's part of the art of political leadership to keep your best performers onside.

If Benn is sensible and he is, he will accept a demotion which means he remains in the top team and the frontline and can present himself as loyal while the very act of demotion after his brilliant Commons speech makes him the natural successor if there is ever a move against Corbyn

Fair enough. It does make a certain sense for Benn to play along.

Not sure about the Eagles. Maria, in particular, seems to have had one humiliation after another visited on her and would actually gain in stature by saying "Enough!"

She could become another focus of dissent on the backbenches but as her voting record is similar to Benn's they represent the same strand of opinion

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

HYUFD said:

Good picture but not quite sure why we needed to move to a new thread about a rat and a bauble?

To cheer up the socialists?

Well the rat would probably make a better Labour leader than Corbyn, true!

certainly streets ahead of Benn

Benn is not designed to appeal to dyed in the wool nats

Without any reference to Scottish voting , he is another Labour nonentity, a champagne socialist who will bend to any view , no principles and less talent.
Useless and a guarantee that labour are doomed for at least a generation till they get this kind of rubbish out of the system.

His speech in the Commons alone shows he certainly has talent and he is certainly less of a champagne socialist than Salmond and actually lives a relatively austere lifestyle.

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

Good picture but not quite sure why we needed to move to a new thread about a rat and a bauble?

used up all your festive spirit then

Festive Spirit or not and Boxing Day finished yesterday, there are limits to how much you can discuss the significance of a rat and a Christmas decoration

Why not just continue the previous discussions, the whole point is to welcome back Maff and that is a good thing for pb.

Can do that at the bottom of a thread

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

Wanderer said:

HYUFD said:

Wanderer said:

HYUFD said:

surbiton said:

I think if Corbyn sacks Benn and the Eagles, he will be fully justified. If they want to carp from the side lines, they should have done what Cooper and 4% Kendall did - not join the shadow cabinet.

Corbyn is stronger now than 3 months back. He does not need Been and the Eagles.

I doubt he will sack them just move them and it is a sign of a weak leader that he cannot include capable candidates in his top team because they do not agree with him on every issue

I agree about that too, though I'm not sure they will accept demotion. What's in it for them?

But certainly it's part of the art of political leadership to keep your best performers onside.

If Benn is sensible and he is, he will accept a demotion which means he remains in the top team and the frontline and can present himself as loyal while the very act of demotion after his brilliant Commons speech makes him the natural successor if there is ever a move against Corbyn

Fair enough. It does make a certain sense for Benn to play along.

Not sure about the Eagles. Maria, in particular, seems to have had one humiliation after another visited on her and would actually gain in stature by saying "Enough!"

She could become another focus of dissent on the backbenches but as her voting record is similar to Benn's they represent the same strand of opinion

Both useless whingers , they will never amount to anything, too lily livered and lacking principles. They did not even have enough backbone to refuse cabinet jobs, their greed was more important than their principles.

Both stuck to their principles on ISIS despite Corbyn's opposition and these were Shadow Cabinet jobs which carry no extra pay, not Cabinet jobs

Hillary Clinton has accused Trump of having "a penchant for sexism".

Given her husband's record I think that's unwise.

This is in response to Trump saying that Bill had the same penchant after Hillary said she'd 'let him out' to campaign.

This will run and run.

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

Wanderer said:

HYUFD said:

Wanderer said:

HYUFD said:

surbiton said:

I think if Corbyn sacks Benn and the Eagles, he will be fully justified. If they want to carp from the side lines, they should have done what Cooper and 4% Kendall did - not join the shadow cabinet.

Corbyn is stronger now than 3 months back. He does not need Been and the Eagles.

I doubt he will sack them just move them and it is a sign of a weak leader that he cannot include capable candidates in his top team because they do not agree with him on every issue

I agree about that too, though I'm not sure they will accept demotion. What's in it for them?

But certainly it's part of the art of political leadership to keep your best performers onside.

If Benn is sensible and he is, he will accept a demotion which means he remains in the top team and the frontline and can present himself as loyal while the very act of demotion after his brilliant Commons speech makes him the natural successor if there is ever a move against Corbyn

Fair enough. It does make a certain sense for Benn to play along.

Not sure about the Eagles. Maria, in particular, seems to have had one humiliation after another visited on her and would actually gain in stature by saying "Enough!"

She could become another focus of dissent on the backbenches but as her voting record is similar to Benn's they represent the same strand of opinion

Both useless whingers , they will never amount to anything, too lily livered and lacking principles. They did not even have enough backbone to refuse cabinet jobs, their greed was more important than their principles.

Greed, Mr. G.? Surely not - the shadow cabinet are not paid posts. Lust I think is the word you are after. Lust for the verisimilitude of power, for being on TV, of having people think their opinions matter, and maybe a few first class jollies to foreign climes.

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

Wanderer said:

HYUFD said:

Wanderer said:

HYUFD said:

surbiton said:

I think if Corbyn sacks Benn and the Eagles, he will be fully justified. If they want to carp from the side lines, they should have done what Cooper and 4% Kendall did - not join the shadow cabinet.

Corbyn is stronger now than 3 months back. He does not need Been and the Eagles.

I doubt he will sack them just move them and it is a sign of a weak leader that he cannot include capable candidates in his top team because they do not agree with him on every issue

I agree about that too, though I'm not sure they will accept demotion. What's in it for them?

But certainly it's part of the art of political leadership to keep your best performers onside.

If Benn is sensible and he is, he will accept a demotion which means he remains in the top team and the frontline and can present himself as loyal while the very act of demotion after his brilliant Commons speech makes him the natural successor if there is ever a move against Corbyn

Fair enough. It does make a certain sense for Benn to play along.

Not sure about the Eagles. Maria, in particular, seems to have had one humiliation after another visited on her and would actually gain in stature by saying "Enough!"

She could become another focus of dissent on the backbenches but as her voting record is similar to Benn's they represent the same strand of opinion

Both useless whingers , they will never amount to anything, too lily livered and lacking principles. They did not even have enough backbone to refuse cabinet jobs, their greed was more important than their principles.

Do the Shadow Cabinet get paid? I thought only the Leader of the Opposition got an actual salary.

Regardless, this reshuffle is a good sign. Corbyn needs a team that actually backs him, and that will insulates those who are demoted from any fallout that, one would expect, will result when his united team does even worse (if they do well, then heavens help us), so good for Labour too. They will have been loyal (to a point - they were willing to serve out of tribal loyalty at least), but shoved aside anyway, unlike those who refused to serve.

HurstLlama said:

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

Wanderer said:

HYUFD said:

Wanderer said:

HYUFD said:

surbiton said:

I think if Corbyn sacks Benn and the Eagles, he will be fully justified. If they want to carp from the side lines, they should have done what Cooper and 4% Kendall did - not join the shadow cabinet.

Corbyn is stronger now than 3 months back. He does not need Been and the Eagles.

I doubt he will sack them just move them and it is a sign of a weak leader that he cannot include capable candidates in his top team because they do not agree with him on every issue

I agree about that too, though I'm not sure they will accept demotion. What's in it for them?

But certainly it's part of the art of political leadership to keep your best performers onside.

If Benn is sensible and he is, he will accept a demotion which means he remains in the top team and the frontline and can present himself as loyal while the very act of demotion after his brilliant Commons speech makes him the natural successor if there is ever a move against Corbyn

Fair enough. It does make a certain sense for Benn to play along.

Not sure about the Eagles. Maria, in particular, seems to have had one humiliation after another visited on her and would actually gain in stature by saying "Enough!"

She could become another focus of dissent on the backbenches but as her voting record is similar to Benn's they represent the same strand of opinion

Both useless whingers , they will never amount to anything, too lily livered and lacking principles. They did not even have enough backbone to refuse cabinet jobs, their greed was more important than their principles.

Greed, Mr. G.? Surely not - the shadow cabinet are not paid posts. Lust I think is the word you are after. Lust for the verisimilitude of power, for being on TV, of having people think their opinions matter, and maybe a few first class jollies to foreign climes.

Afternoon Hurst, you could call it lust or future greed, they are looking to feather their own nests. Neither have shown any talent , I doubt they could run a bath. The dire lack of any talent is the real Labour issue rather than Corbyn , he is just the symptom of how poor the remainder of them really are.
Hard to see Labour doing anything till thy get rid of these two and their ilk, it is unfortunate that Corbyn is not up to a cull of the dead wood. Now is the time to do it and hope some new talent surfaces by the next election, not as if they have much to beat.

@HurstLlama

the verisimilitude of power

almost Churchillian. A wonderful phrase.

Rolls off the tongue even more than Applebee's Out House Chicken.

It's actually Brew House Chicken, but that doesn't sound as good.

But man it tastes great!

HYUFD said:

Good picture but not quite sure why we needed to move to a new thread about a rat and a bauble?

Harsh truth is that "we" under the line are an insignificant part of PB's readership.

Cyclefree said:

Wanderer said:

HYUFD said:

Wanderer said:

HYUFD said:

surbiton said:

I think if Corbyn sacks Benn and the Eagles, he will be fully justified. If they want to carp from the side lines, they should have done what Cooper and 4% Kendall did - not join the shadow cabinet.

Corbyn is stronger now than 3 months back. He does not need Been and the Eagles.

I doubt he will sack them just move them and it is a sign of a weak leader that he cannot include capable candidates in his top team because they do not agree with him on every issue

I agree about that too, though I'm not sure they will accept demotion. What's in it for them?

But certainly it's part of the art of political leadership to keep your best performers onside.

If Benn is sensible and he is, he will accept a demotion which means he remains in the top team and the frontline and can present himself as loyal while the very act of demotion after his brilliant Commons speech makes him the natural successor if there is ever a move against Corbyn

Fair enough. It does make a certain sense for Benn to play along.

Not sure about the Eagles. Maria, in particular, seems to have had one humiliation after another visited on her and would actually gain in stature by saying "Enough!"

Hello all - I don't see why accepting humiliation is a good thing. Saying it will position them better for the future strikes me as delusional, frankly.

There's a difference between being a son of a bitch and OUR son of a bitch.

HYUFD said:

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

Wanderer said:

Unless the membership changes its view the MPs are relatively impotent, though? (I'm eliding "Corbynistas" with "membership" which is dodgy, I confess.)

Tory MPs replaced IDS without even consulting the members

Only because (1) potential leadership candidates held back so as for only Howard to be nominated, (2) MPs did likewise, avoiding a token gesture candidate, (3) the rules provided for a two-stage process, with a no-confidence vote and then a leadership election, and (4) having been no confidenced, the rules also prevented IDS from standing.

The situation with Labour is completely different. If there were a challenge to Corbyn, it's probable that he would go on the ballot without the need for nominations given the make-up of the NEC who would rule on the interpretation; and even if he were required to actively gain the nominations, he'd probably get them for much the same reason that he did first time round (and also because MPs would now be under more pressure from activists in their party to ensure he was on the ballot / they got their say).

Ken Clarke and David Davis at one point did consider running but eventually held back, Clarke partly because he lacked the numbers. As the recent Times report showed Labour lawyers have said that if a challenger was nominated and Corbyn failed to get the nominations himself he needed he would not get on the ballot, former nominees like Field and Beckett have said they will not nominate him again. In any case as any challenge would only be launched if Labour lost a seat to UKIP in a by-election in all probability and continued to trail in the polls Labour MPs are not going to go on a kamikaze mission and give Corbyn the nominations he needs to scrape over the line!

We may have to disagree on this. While some MPs like Beckett and Field wouldn't nominate him (assuming he does need nominations - lawyers are as economists in giving different opinions), I'd be surprised their numbers couldn't be made up. Two main reasons: firstly, some will say that he needs to be seen to be beaten and that as such the membership has to remove him (or put another way, it's invalid for MPs to remove him without the assent of the membership); secondly, some will view favourably the change in spirit in the party that his leadership has brought about. Add to that that some will feel activist pressure re nominations in the constituencies, particularly where there will or may be new boundaries, and I suspect Corbyn would get the numbers.

As for Labour's performance, yes, a challenge will have to be based on poor results but results can always be viewed in more than one way and underperformance explained away by local factors or whatever - it's all too easy for the wish to father the thought.

EPG said:

HYUFD said:

Good picture but not quite sure why we needed to move to a new thread about a rat and a bauble?

Harsh truth is that "we" under the line are an insignificant part of PB's readership.

Yes well I doubt even 'lurkers' come to this site specifically to see drawings of festive rodents, well drawn though they no doubt are!!

Rubio leads Clinton in the RealClearPolitics polling averages:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com

AndyJS said:

Rubio leads Clinton in the RealClearPolitics polling averages:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com

Yes, but Rubio trails both Trump and Cruz with GOP voters, who are now acting like Labour members in putting ideology before electability

surbiton said:

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

Wanderer said:

Unless the membership changes its view the MPs are relatively impotent, though? (I'm eliding "Corbynistas" with "membership" which is dodgy, I confess.)

Tory MPs replaced IDS without even consulting the members

The situation with Labour is completely different. If there were a challenge to Corbyn, it's probable that he would go on the ballot without the need for nominations given the make-up of the NEC who would rule on the interpretation; and even if he were required to actively gain the nominations, he'd probably get them for much the same reason that he did first time round (and also because MPs would now be under more pressure from activists in their party to ensure he was on the ballot / they got their say).

Ken Clarke and David Davis at one point did consider running but eventually held back, Clarke partly because he lacked the numbers. As the recent Times report showed Labour lawyers have said that if a challenger was nominated and Corbyn failed to get the nominations himself he needed he would not get on the ballot, former nominees like Field and Beckett have said they will not nominate

We may have to disagree on this. While some MPs like Beckett and Field wouldn't nominate him (assuming he does need nominations - lawyers are as economists in giving different opinions), I'd be surprised their numbers couldn't be made up. Two main reasons: firstly, some will say that he needs to be seen to be beaten and that as such the membership has to remove him (or put another way, it's invalid for MPs to remove him without the assent of the membership); secondly, some will view favourably the change in spirit in the party that his leadership has brought about. Add to that that some will feel activist pressure re nominations in the constituencies, particularly where there will or may be new boundaries, and I suspect Corbyn would get the numbers.

As for Labour's performance, yes, a challenge will have to be based on poor results but results can always be viewed in more than one way and underperformance explained away by local factors or whatever - it's all too easy for the wish to father the thought.

Corbyn will get the numbers needed to get the nominations. The situation is totally different now. Many of the current shadow cabinet and junior position holders will nominate him for a start. I reckon he will get 60 - 80 nominations today.

Today yes, if and when Labour starts losing by-elections to UKIP it may be a different story altogether

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

Wanderer said:

Unless the membership changes its view the MPs are relatively impotent, though? (I'm eliding "Corbynistas" with "membership" which is dodgy, I confess.)

Tory MPs replaced IDS without even consulting the members

Only because (1) potential leadership candidates held back so as for only Howard to be nominated, (2) MPs did likewise, avoiding a token gesture candidate, (3) the rules provided for a two-stage process, with a no-confidence vote and then a leadership election, and (4) having been no confidenced, the rules also prevented IDS from standing.

The situation with Labour is complete

Ken Clarke and Dav

We may have to disagree on this. While some MPs like Beckett and Field wouldn't nominate him (assuming he does need nominations - lawyers are as economists in giving different opinions), I'd be surprised their numbers couldn't be made up. Two main reasons: firstly, some will say that he needs to be seen to be beaten and that as such the membership has to remove him (or put another way, it's invalid for MPs to remove him without the assent of the membership); secondly, some will view favourably the change in spirit in the party that his leadership has brought about. Add to that that some will feel activist pressure re nominations in the constituencies, particularly where there will or may be new boundaries, and I suspect Corbyn would get the numbers.

As for Labour's performance, yes, a challenge will have to be based on poor results but results can always be viewed in more than one way and underperformance explained away by local factors or whatever - it's all too easy for the wish to father the thought.

The membership is now made up largely of Trotskyite entryists, even if Corbyn only looks likely to hold Islington they will still back him so there is no point even launching a challenge if existing members are consulted. If Labour starts losing seats to UKIP there is no way that can be looked upon favourably and activisits opinion will have to be disregarded and while activists may be able to spin a poor performance away MPs are not turkeys voting for Christmas and are not going to vote to lose their own seats! After all it was when the Tories came third in the Brent East by-election that Tory backbenchers finally turned on IDS!

Tim_B said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

HYUFD said:

Good picture but not quite sure why we needed to move to a new thread about a rat and a bauble?

Harsh truth is that "we" under the line are an insignificant part of PB's readership.

Yes well I doubt even 'lurkers' come to this site specifically to see drawings of festive rodents, well drawn though they no doubt are!!

I am a lurker and I love festive rodents and baubles!

Well technically not as you post frequently but I am sure there is a site for 'Rats at Christmas' if you are so inclined!

HYUFD said:

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

Wanderer said:

HYUFD said:

surbiton said:

I think if Corbyn sacks Benn and the Eagles, he will be fully justified. If they want to carp from the side lines, they should have done what Cooper and 4% Kendall did - not join the shadow cabinet.

Corbyn is stronger now than 3 months back. He does not need Been and the Eagles.

I doubt he will sack them just move them and it is a sign of a weak leader that he cannot include capable candidates in his top team because they do not agree with him on every issue

I agree about that too, though I'm not sure they will accept demotion. What's in it for them?

But certainly it's part of the art of political leadership to keep your best performers onside.

If Benn is sensible and he is, he will accept a demotion which means he remains in the top team and the frontline and can present himself as loyal while the very act of demotion after his brilliant Commons speech makes him the natural successor if there is ever a move against Corbyn

If he accepts a demotion once, what's to stop Corbyn from demoting him again later? He has clearly been a success in his job and if Corbyn wants to move him down for tactical reasons then he'd be better going into exile on the backbenches, from where he could more effectively critique the government without needing to pay lipservice to collective responsibility.

Because a frontbench role, no matter what it is, gives him the platform and seniority to remain the natural alternative to Corbyn, something the backbenches does not

Not necessarily. Heseltine was able to effectively act as the obvious counter to Thatcher out of office, and to speak on any subject he chose, whereas a cabinet (or shadow cabinet) minister is constrained by the nature of their brief, as well as by the demands of collective responsibility. Churchill in the 1930s is an even better example. Holding office is useful but isn't necessary if the individual in question has already ticked that box.

Tim_B said:

HYUFD said:

Tim_B said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

HYUFD said:

Good picture but not quite sure why we needed to move to a new thread about a rat and a bauble?

Harsh truth is that "we" under the line are an insignificant part of PB's readership.

Yes well I doubt even 'lurkers' come to this site specifically to see drawings of festive rodents, well drawn though they no doubt are!!

I am a lurker and I love festive rodents and baubles!

Well technically not as you post frequently but I am sure there is a site for 'Rats at Christmas' if you are so inclined!

It's my evil twin Skippy who posts frequently.

My German Shepherd Heidi takes care of the rodents but she is a sweetheart.

I am completely innocent.

Will take your word for it

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

Wanderer said:

HYUFD said:

surbiton said:

I think if Corbyn sacks Benn and the Eagles, he will be fully justified. If they want to carp from the side lines, they should have done what Cooper and 4% Kendall did - not join the shadow cabinet.

Corbyn is stronger now than 3 months back. He does not need Been and the Eagles.

I doubt he will sack them just move them and it is a sign of a weak leader that he cannot include capable candidates in his top team because they do not agree with him on every issue

I agree about that too, though I'm not sure they will accept demotion. What's in it for them?

But certainly it's part of the art of political leadership to keep your best performers onside.

If Benn is sensible and he is, he will accept a demotion which means he remains in the top team and the frontline and can present himself as loyal while the very act of demotion after his brilliant Commons speech makes him the natural successor if there is ever a move against Corbyn

If he accepts a demotion once, what's to stop Corbyn from demoting him again later? He has clearly been a success in his job and if Corbyn wants to move him down for tactical reasons then he'd be better going into exile on the backbenches, from where he could more effectively critique the government without needing to pay lipservice to collective responsibility.

Because a frontbench role, no matter what it is, gives him the platform and seniority to remain the natural alternative to Corbyn, something the backbenches does not

Not necessarily. Heseltine was able to effectively act as the obvious counter to Thatcher out of office, and to speak on any subject he chose, whereas a cabinet (or shadow cabinet) minister is constrained by the nature of their brief, as well as by the demands of collective responsibility. Churchill in the 1930s is an even better example. Holding office is useful but isn't necessary if the individual in question has already ticked that box.

Churchill technically came back as First Lord of the Admiralty before he replaced Chamberlain as Tory leader and PM

malcolmg said:

Afternoon Hurst, you could call it lust or future greed, they are looking to feather their own nests. Neither have shown any talent , I doubt they could run a bath. The dire lack of any talent is the real Labour issue rather than Corbyn , he is just the symptom of how poor the remainder of them really are.
Hard to see Labour doing anything till thy get rid of these two and their ilk, it is unfortunate that Corbyn is not up to a cull of the dead wood. Now is the time to do it and hope some new talent surfaces by the next election, not as if they have much to beat.

The dire lack of talent is not something that afflicts Labour alone. The actual government Front Bench, never mind its shadow, does not exactly sparkle.

On a happy note, my boy bought me a bottle of the 16 year-old Jura for Christmas. I have had the Jura before but not that one - I have to say I am impressed (and me an Islay fan of many years standing).

blackburn63 said:

HYUFD said:

surbiton said:

HYUFD said:

surbiton said:

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

Wanderer said:

Unless the membership changes its view the MPs are relatively impotent, though? (I'm eliding "Corbynistas" with "membership" which is dodgy, I confess.)

Tory MPs replaced IDS without even consulting the members

The situation with Labour is completely different. If there were a challenge to Corbyn, it's probable that he would go on the ballot without the need for nominations given the make-up of the NEC who would rule on the interpretation; and even if he were required to actively gain the nominations, he'd probably get them for much the same reason that he did first time round (and also because MPs would now be under more pressure from activists in their party to ensure he was on the ballot / they got their say).

Ken Clarke and David Davis at one point did consider running but eventually held back, Clarke partly because he lacked the numbers. As the recent Times report showed Labour lawyers have said that if a challenger was nominated and Corbyn failed to get the nominations himself he needed he would not get on the ballot, former nominees like Field and Beckett have said they will not nominate

We may have to disagree on this. While some MPs like Beckett and Field wouldn't nominate him (assuming he does need nominations - lawyers are as economists in giving different opin

As for Labour's performance, yes, a challenge will have to be based on poor results but results can always be viewed in more than one way and underperformance explained away by local factors or whatever - it's all too easy for the wish to father the thought.

Corbyn will get the numbers needed to get the nominations. The situation is totally different now. Many of the current shadow cabinet and junior position holders will nominate him for a start. I reckon he will get 60 - 80 nominations today.

Today yes, if and when Labour starts losing by-elections to UKIP it may be a different story altogether

To UKIP ? Where did that come from ?

Just as the the Iraq War saw the LDs win several by-elections so I think UKIP will start to win by-elections as EU ref begins to loom

Not a chance. I'm a committed kipper but as it stands we don't have an earthly of winning a by election. No resources, no infrastructure, no money, we've even lost our message.

It is all about publicity and having the right white working class seat come up, once EU ref comes forward the news will be nothing but Europe and immigration

surbiton said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

FPT


malcolmg said:

"Too much concrete and tarmac nowadays and building has been done on floodplains etc , usual politicians that have caused the issues looking for short term gains."

Absolutely. The torrential rain in Cumbria earlier in the month was a record but only by a few percent. The real issue is exactly as you say. Building on both flood plain and water run off areas, reducing tree cover which allows soils to wash away and failing to maintain water courses - both by government, local authorities and private individuals.

Yes, that has certainly contributed. But we have what we have. Are we going to demolish these houses ? Are we going to uncarpet the roads and car parks ?

What we need to do now is find ways to mitigate what we have already done and stop doing any more of it. Replacing roads and car parks with porous materials that allow water to flow away is a start. Reinstating upland woodland and water meadows which allow controlled flooding will also help. Banning building on flood plains and anywhere that will damage the drainage system. Insisting landowners and authorities maintain water courses and drainage under the threat of prosecution.

Basically stop blaming the weather and start taking respopnsibility for our own actins and dealing with what we have done.

Re floods and dredging http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/flooding-cause-government-would-keep-10580092

HYUFD said:

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

Wanderer said:

HYUFD said:

surbiton said:

I think if Corbyn sacks Benn and the Eagles, he will be fully justified. If they want to carp from the side lines, they should have done what Cooper and 4% Kendall did - not join the shadow cabinet.

Corbyn is stronger now than 3 months back. He does not need Been and the Eagles.

I doubt he will sack them just move them and it is a sign of a weak leader that he cannot include capable candidates in his top team because they do not agree with him on every issue

I agree about that too, though I'm not sure they will accept demotion. What's in it for them?

But certainly it's part of the art of political leadership to keep your best performers onside.

If Benn is sensible and he is, he will accept a demotion which means he remains in the top team and the frontline and can present himself as loyal while the very act of demotion after his brilliant Commons speech makes him the natural successor if there is ever a move against Corbyn

If he accepts a demotion once, what's to stop Corbyn from demoting him again later? He has clearly been a success in his job and if Corbyn wants to move him down for tactical reasons then he'd be better going into exile on the backbenches, from where he could more effectively critique the government without needing to pay lipservice to collective responsibility.

Because a frontbench role, no matter what it is, gives him the platform and seniority to remain the natural alternative to Corbyn, something the backbenches does not

Not necessarily. Heseltine was able to effectively act as the obvious counter to Thatcher out of office, and to speak on any subject he chose, whereas a cabinet (or shadow cabinet) minister is constrained by the nature of their brief, as well as by the demands of collective responsibility. Churchill in the 1930s is an even better example. Holding office is useful but isn't necessary if the individual in question has already ticked that box.

Churchill technically came back as First Lord of the Admiralty before he replaced Chamberlain as Tory leader and PM

He did, but had Chamberlain not invited him back, he'd still probably have become PM in 1940, though his actions in the Norway debate would have been interesting given the potential conflict of interest!

HurstLlama said:

malcolmg said:

Afternoon Hurst, you could call it lust or future greed, they are looking to feather their own nests. Neither have shown any talent , I doubt they could run a bath. The dire lack of any talent is the real Labour issue rather than Corbyn , he is just the symptom of how poor the remainder of them really are.
Hard to see Labour doing anything till thy get rid of these two and their ilk, it is unfortunate that Corbyn is not up to a cull of the dead wood. Now is the time to do it and hope some new talent surfaces by the next election, not as if they have much to beat.

The dire lack of talent is not something that afflicts Labour alone. The actual government Front Bench, never mind its shadow, does not exactly sparkle.

On a happy note, my boy bought me a bottle of the 16 year-old Jura for Christmas. I have had the Jura before but not that one - I have to say I am impressed (and me an Islay fan of many years standing).

Hurst, sounds very pleasant. I got a set of Arran 12 year old miniatures which look nice. It has not been going long, mid 90's , so will be interesting to try.

surbiton said:

Plato_Says said:

Re floods and dredging http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/flooding-cause-government-would-keep-10580092

The EU is also liable for the rains. Hell, it is so powerful that we should stay in it.

Bit of a silly post. The point is the EU required us to stop dredging rivers, something that had been done for centuries.

surbiton said:

Corbyn will get the numbers needed to get the nominations. The situation is totally different now. Many of the current shadow cabinet and junior position holders will nominate him for a start. I reckon he will get 60 - 80 nominations today.

I think that is exactly right. One way or another, Corbyn will be on the ballot if he wants to be.

Someone - I think Stephen Bush - summed this up the other day:

* The only candidate who can replace Corbyn against his will is one who can beat Corbyn in a ballot of the membership.

* There is no such candidate in the PLP.

Conclusion: Corbyn will go when he chooses. Concerning when that will be, I thought the most significant line in the recent Independent article that trails these sackings was one that said that, after Oldham, Corbyn thinks he can win the election and become Prime Minister. I think we can safely say:

* While he thinks that he won't resign.

* He won't stop thinking that easily. That kind of thought is hard to dislodge.

For which reason, I think Corbyn will neither resign nor be ousted before 2020.

Harry Cole
Two conflicting press releases about correct response to floods in two hours from Shadow Chancellor and shadow Defra.

MyBurningEars said:

I posted something very similar last night.

As far as I can see, if Benn goes, he goes all the way down.

One reason I'm somewhat sceptical there will be a very long knife is that Corbyn seems short of talent - Labour aren't bursting with it anyway, but to find "serious" politicians who are also sympathetic to his cause (even if not in 100% agreement with it) is tricky. Finding politicians of public stature will be even harder for him, and with the Foreign brief, and a couple of others, I think that's important if he wants his party to look like a genuine and credible government-in-waiting. I don't think the office maketh the stature - Diane Abbott would be widely publicly perceived as overpromoted if she was installed as Benn's replacement (and even should he think that's unfair on her, it ought to be a consideration that weighs on Corbyn's mind).

I love the cautious understatement in your post. Yes, the Labour benches are not bursting with talent.

Thing is, Corbyn's assessment may differ from ours. If he thought John McDonnell could be a credible shadow chancellor then why not Diane Abbott as shadow foreign secretary?

blackburn63 said:

Not a chance. I'm a committed kipper but as it stands we don't have an earthly of winning a by election. No resources, no infrastructure, no money, we've even lost our message.

Re-reading Rod's thread from May 2014, the references to the UKIP position that was going to get them multiple MPs holding the balance of power this year was interesting. UKIP believed only they could force an In/Out Referendum. Being proven wrong that Cameron would never, ever deliver that referendum really does seem to have taken the wind out of UKIP's sails.