politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The internal squabbles in Mr. Corbyn’s Labour – part 105

TheScreamingEagles said:

Danny565 said:

Pulpstar said:

HYUFD said:

Gratis Marketing Nevada

Trump 33%
Cruz 20%
Rubio 11%
https://politicalwire.com/2015/12/29/trump-leads-in-nevada/

Isn't Nevada around about 5th or 6th in the GOP race ?

How is Rubio still the favourite, when there's like NO state where he's ahead in the polls??

Idiots/visionaries/shrewd punters like me are laying Trump thinking, nah, the GOP/America won't be that flipping daft.

Are you green on Mr Cruz ?

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Danny565 said:

Pulpstar said:

HYUFD said:

Gratis Marketing Nevada

Trump 33%
Cruz 20%
Rubio 11%
https://politicalwire.com/2015/12/29/trump-leads-in-nevada/

Isn't Nevada around about 5th or 6th in the GOP race ?

How is Rubio still the favourite, when there's like NO state where he's ahead in the polls??

Idiots/visionaries/shrewd punters like me are laying Trump thinking, nah, the GOP/America won't be that flipping daft.

Are you green on Mr Cruz ?

Yes

Moses_ said:

On topic

Jeremy Corbyn's hard Left supporters have drawn up 'Stalinist' plans to seize control of the Labour party and purge moderate MPs.
A detailed blueprint for how his allies will try to oust internal critics, take over policy-making, and hold a Mao-style programme of 'political education activity' has been seen by the Daily Mail.
Entitled 'Taking control of the Party', it is understood to have been written by Jon Lansman, a veteran of the Militant battles in the 1980s who is now a director of the Corbyn supporters organisation Momentum
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3378067/Hard-Left-s-Stalinist-plot-seize-control-Labour-Detailed-blueprint-Corbyn-s-supporters-try-oust-critics-policy-making-hold-Mao-style-political-education-activity-programme.html#ixzz3vkctoj96

Mmmm... surprised that is not a headline in the Mirror.

RodCrosby said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RodCrosby said:

MikeSmithson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Dair said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

murali_s said:

Philip_Thompson said:

murali_s said:

Sean_F said:

First Past the Post traps them in the Labour Party.

Just shows what a truly crap system First Past the Post is. 95% of the World use something better but we in the UK choose to use this archaic and undemocratic system.

We are both stupid and backward...

Bullshit. More people vote using FPTP than ANY other system.

For now maybe because of a few "large" countries but the tide is turning against FPTP - in 50 years time it will probably be extinct.

It is in essence a VERY undemocratic system.

No its not. It a system designed to elect a representative for a defined constituency who is then sent forward to a legislature on behalf of that constituency.

People do not vote for candidates They vote for parties.



It should also ensure that you cannot win absolute power without a plurality of votes, which FPTP makes possible and any other system makes impossible.

Wrong both legally and constitutionally.

As on almost every other issue you are, yet again, wrong.

Well said Richard. We vote for individuals not parties - maybe Dair's SNP, certainly as it is now run with dissent not possible, is an exception!

But it's crap. If it were true, how come only 19% can name their MP?

They vote for Cameron/Tories, etc, and whoever is on the closed list of one in a demographically advantageous constituency gets elected by the coattails effect [well 90% of the time].

People can spend literally their whole lives casting meaningless ballots, which might only become meaningful if they choose to move, or the boundary commissioners latch on to some unusual squiggle.

That is outrageous.

Names are published on the ballot papers for each constituency.

People look for the "Labour" brand or logo, etc. then scratch their mark.

And for every 1% of swing ,13 buggers get turfed out, and 13 buggers get swept in (more or less) in the tiny number of seats where the demographic balance is tight enough to put the outcome in question...

Independents by definition have no brand or logo.

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

HYUFD said:

Gratis Marketing Nevada

Trump 33%
Cruz 20%
Rubio 11%
https://politicalwire.com/2015/12/29/trump-leads-in-nevada/

Isn't Nevada around about 5th or 6th in the GOP race ?

It is 4th I believe after Iowa, NH and SC and the last state before Super Tuesday

Many commentators are not calling it Super Tuesday any more. It's now the S.E.C. Primary because it's mainly states which have collegiate teams in the South Eastern Conference, plus VT and MA, plus a couple of caucus states.

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/sec-primary-everything-you-need-to-know/npCdd/

Dair said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Dair said:

RobD said:

Late to the party with @Dair saying England didn't exist until 1999, and only after that in some NHS bodies. Aren't we forgetting the Church of England?

The Established church in England and Wales? It is not an English institution hence the last Anti-Pope of the CoE was Welsh.

ER..... Neither the Province of York nor Canterbury covers Wales!

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dioceses_of_Church_of_England.svg

Never knew that. The wiki article is interesting and the link seems quite strangely set up as if clergy of the Church in Wales are part of the Church of England but clergy of the Church of England are not part of the Church in Wales.

However, as the Diocese of York includes a separate country, outside the United Kingdom, my point stands. The CoE is not an English institution.

You are getting muddled between the Anglican Communion (which is headed by ++Cantab in his capacity as the senior Anglican Bishop in the world) and the Church of England, which is headed by ++Cantab in his capacity as the senior Bishop of the Province of Canterbury.

The CofE is English. The Anglican Communion (often wrongly called the Anglican Church) is not.

For everyone with a big Trump red, you've got until Nate Silver starts pondering whether he can actually do it - betting sentiment will shift then.

TheScreamingEagles said:

SeanT said:

Y0kel said:

And in the quest for ideological purity the seeds for defeat are sown.

Good luck Labour, you will need it.

The weird thing is that the Corbynites - i.e. Milne and McDonnell and all these Marxist, IRA-loving, Islamofascist shits - must really believe that they have a chance of power. Take over Labour, somehow convince the people to vote for Islamist Trotskyism, job done.

If they didn't believe they had a chance, they'd be enjoying much more relaxing lives opining in the Guardian, getting ovations at Stop the War ISIS-fundraising drinks parties, etc. No need for this stress.

Odd. Do they really think they can do it?

AntifrankAlastair Meeks explained it a few months ago

Jeremy Corbyn has been lucky once, surfing a wave of insurgency that no one had guessed was brewing. He is looking to make Labour a hard left party off the back of that luck and has every chance of succeeding. And then the hard left can wait, making their case until circumstances mean that the public look elsewhere from the Conservatives and, they hope, to them, whether that be in 2020, 2025 or 2030. Once the hard left reach government, they will need no further luck.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/10/10/antifrank-says-corbyns-strategy-is-we-only-have-to-be-lucky-once/

In the words of blackadder there's only one problem with that theory - it's bollocks.

SeanT said:

Y0kel said:

And in the quest for ideological purity the seeds for defeat are sown.

Good luck Labour, you will need it.

The weird thing is that the Corbynites - i.e. Milne and McDonnell and all these Marxist, IRA-loving, Islamofascist shits - must really believe that they have a chance of power. Take over Labour, somehow convince the people to vote for Islamist Trotskyism, job done.

If they didn't believe they had a chance, they'd be enjoying much more relaxing lives opining in the Guardian, getting ovations at Stop the War ISIS-fundraising drinks parties, etc. No need for this stress.

Odd. Do they really think they can do it?

Yes, I think they do.

I think they think they can batten onto the Labour brand and with luck scrape into power at some point. And then they are home free.

Moses_ said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

@georgeeaton: Look out for Labour reshuffle intervention on @TheStaggers at 7:30am tomorrow.

What the F is a "reshuffle intervention"?

Someone is going to give their opinion/thoughts on the potential reshuffle Jez is going to make.

Rumours include replacing Hilary Benn with Diane Abbott

Indy have her as a front runner... And the Stafford one safe and cosy. The Comments are interesting though. Looks like Labour are going into 2016 in full on Kamikaze mode.

"Diane Abbott is favourite to land the job of shadow Foreign Secretary, with Mr Corbyn keen to ensure at least one of the four top jobs goes to a woman. The shadow Chancellor is secure in his place, so either Andy Burnham, the shadow Home Secretary, or Mr Benn will have to go. Mr Burnham, however, is understood to be safe – as long as he is happy to remain.

“He’s done a good job; we don’t have any complaints,” one senior source said."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-to-dismiss-disloyal-shadow-ministers-in-new-year-reshuffle-a6786956.html

This is not so much re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic but more like washing the flag and polishing the portholes.

Who passes for a 'senior source' in the Labour Party these days?

Not wishing to be controversial but isn't Maria Eagles a woman, and isn't Defence (and First Secretary of State) a topjob?

MikeSmithson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Wrong both legally and constitutionally. Whatever you might like it to be under the law we vote for an individual representative. It is the reason our MPs can cross the floor. And long may it continue. Any move towards giving parties more representation in the voting system simply increases the power of the parties over our elected representatives and reduces democratic accountability.

As on almost every other issue you are, yet again, wrong.

Well said Richard. We vote for individuals not parties - maybe Dair's SNP, certainly as it is now run with dissent not possible, is an exception!

Really?

When did you last vote for a Liberal Democrat (outside of "vote swapping") in a general election?:

Virtually no-one votes for a candidate, the entire basis of the UK system is set up to deliver undemocratic government based on (highly gerrymandered) constituencies offering the dominant parties their power.

People claiming to vote for candidates and not parties is risible.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RodCrosby said:

People look for the "Labour" brand or logo, etc. then scratch their mark.

And for every 1% of swing ,13 buggers get turfed out, and 13 buggers get swept in (more or less) in the tiny number of seats where the demographic balance is tight enough to put the outcome in question...

Independents by definition have no brand or logo.

There are four independents in the House of Commons, all four of them were first elected on a party ticket. The last time any constituency returned an independent who first stood as an independent was 1997 and that was a very, very unique set of circumstances.

There are no metrics to suggest people vote for candidates. None. Every metric we have absolutely and definitely shows that the electorate votes for parties.

Oliver Letwin isn't really being asked to apologise for something he did or said 30 years ago, is he?

Cyclefree said:

flightpath01 said:

Moses_ said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

@georgeeaton: Look out for Labour reshuffle intervention on @TheStaggers at 7:30am tomorrow.

What the F is a "reshuffle intervention"?

Someone is going to give their opinion/thoughts on the potential reshuffle Jez is going to make.

Rumours include replacing Hilary Benn with Diane Abbott

Indy have her as a front runner... And the Stafford one safe and cosy. The Comments are interesting though. Looks like Labour are going into 2016 in full on Kamikaze mode.

"Diane Abbott is favourite to land the job of shadow Foreign Secretary, with Mr Corbyn keen to ensure at least one of the four top jobs goes to a woman. The shadow Chancellor is secure in his place, so either Andy Burnham, the shadow Home Secretary, or Mr Benn will have to go. Mr Burnham, however, is understood to be safe – as long as he is happy to remain.

“He’s done a good job; we don’t have any complaints,” one senior source said."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-to-dismiss-disloyal-shadow-ministers-in-new-year-reshuffle-a6786956.html

This is not so much re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic but more like washing the flag and polishing the portholes.

Who passes for a 'senior source' in the Labour Party these days?

Not wishing to be controversial but isn't Maria Eagles a woman, and isn't Defence (and First Secretary of State) a topjob?

Yes she is and yes it is but she does not agree with Jeremy and that is the acid test. Burnham has done a good job because he has done nothing at all and has not opened his mouth.

Thanks for that. I should add my remarks were somewhat rhetorical.

Dair said:

MikeSmithson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Wrong both legally and constitutionally. Whatever you might like it to be under the law we vote for an individual representative. It is the reason our MPs can cross the floor. And long may it continue. Any move towards giving parties more representation in the voting system simply increases the power of the parties over our elected representatives and reduces democratic accountability.

As on almost every other issue you are, yet again, wrong.

Well said Richard. We vote for individuals not parties - maybe Dair's SNP, certainly as it is now run with dissent not possible, is an exception!

Really?

When did you last vote for a Liberal Democrat (outside of "vote swapping") in a general election?:

Virtually no-one votes for a candidate, the entire basis of the UK system is set up to deliver undemocratic government based on (highly gerrymandered) constituencies offering the dominant parties their power.

People claiming to vote for candidates and not parties is risible.

What is risible is your basic understanding of everything from the electoral system to the basic makeup of the countries of the British Isles. I am wondering if there is any subject on which you cannot display abject ignorance.

MaxPB said:

Dair said:

MikeSmithson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Wrong both legally and constitutionally. Whatever you might like it to be under the law we vote for an individual representative. It is the reason our MPs can cross the floor. And long may it continue. Any move towards giving parties more representation in the voting system simply increases the power of the parties over our elected representatives and reduces democratic accountability.

As on almost every other issue you are, yet again, wrong.

Well said Richard. We vote for individuals not parties - maybe Dair's SNP, certainly as it is now run with dissent not possible, is an exception!

Really?

When did you last vote for a Liberal Democrat (outside of "vote swapping") in a general election?:

Virtually no-one votes for a candidate, the entire basis of the UK system is set up to deliver undemocratic government based on (highly gerrymandered) constituencies offering the dominant parties their power.

People claiming to vote for candidates and not parties is risible.

Mike specifically swapped his vote to try and make sure Vince Cable didn't get booted. Not any Lib Dem, Vince Cable specifically iirc. If that's not voting for a candidate then I'm not sure what is.

And the Liberal candidate in Luton (is that right, this is from memory) was utterly irrelevant. If I remember the discussion, the offer was for ANY Liberal candidate in a Liberal marginal, not Vince Cable.

You're undermined by your own argument.

viewcode said:

I'll make this fast 'cos OGH doesn't like me talking about film grosses, but some of you may remember me saying that Star Wars VII had to gross over $1.5bill worldwide to justify Disney's $4bill purchase of the franchise? It just passed $1bill globally after eleven days and will presumably beat Avatar's all-time record of $2.7bill by the end of its run. Holy sheeeet...

I, personally, think it will beat Avatar. But I have also read some reasonably well argued reasons why it won't. Avatar was (like Titanic) a very resilient film which didn't follow the normal box office patterns. Some commentators like the usually reliable John Campea still think it;s an outside bet that Episode 7 will make it.

It is likely to face a backlash (albeit weaker than Phantom Menace) and once the fanbois and fangrrls stop watching it every couple of days it could fall fast.

Avatar was genuinely something no-one had ever seen before, which I think helped it hugely. Episode 7 is a remake, pretty much everyone has seen it before, scene for scene.

Watching ski jumping from Oberstdorf. The last jumper had the unfortunate name of Andreas Wank - and he's leading it.

Tim_B said:

Cyclefree said:

SeanT said:

Tykejohnno said:

I know I've given Letwin some sh!t over the years but this guy is a walking disaster ;-) more the fool of Cameron keeping the idiot on ;-)

Also responsible for the poll tax. Classic example of an intellectual upper class twit, with lots of brains and not an ounce of common sense.

It is possible, you know, that some of what he says about family breakdown and the effect on young black men of being brought up in fatherless families may have some truth in it and may also have had something to do with what happened.

That's the Republican view here too. The Democrats are less inclined to accept it (you can't say bad things about black people - it's racist) and want more social spending and many want a return to affirmative action. Classic identity politics on their part as it's one of their constituencies.

I said it because it was based on my own limited observation. It was not intended as a party political point. It occurred to me then what an advantage I had in having two firm but loving parents. The youths - not much younger than me - were not bad kids, not untalented but largely uneducated and unparented and left to fend for themselves at 16 or so. Add to that all sorts of other issues: racism, a lack of opportunities particularly for those with poor education and a criminal record, a recession etc and no wonder rioting ensued. But there was certainly a lack of morality on the part of the parents, the adults who failed in their most basic duty to their children, in the same way that happens to some white kids. We do no-one any favours by pretending that how children are brought up when young does not affect their chances later. A baby is for life, not just for Xmas. Family breakdown is the single most important risk factor for child abuse. We obsess about the latter but refuse to make the connection with our own actions or inactions as adults. It's no bloody use getting soppy about children and then refusing to accept that wanting to do the best for them involves making some sacrifices and putting some restraints on our own behaviour as adults and parents.

Sorry to sound so moralistic about it but sometimes moral judgments need to be made and when those who are harmed are the vulnerable then it's about bloody time we made some moral judgments instead of asking for stupid pretend apologies.

SeanT said:

Cyclefree said:

SeanT said:

Tykejohnno said:

I know I've given Letwin some sh!t over the years but this guy is a walking disaster ;-) more the fool of Cameron keeping the idiot on ;-)

Also responsible for the poll tax. Classic example of an intellectual upper class twit, with lots of brains and not an ounce of common sense.

It is possible, you know, that some of what he says about family breakdown and the effect on young black men of being brought up in fatherless families may have some truth in it and may also have had something to do with what happened.

I worked in a law centre in North Ken in the early 80's and many of my clients were fatherless black kids, in and out of care, with neglectful families and with more knowledge of their social worker than of their actual father. They fell into gangs, out of school, into petty and not so petty crime and felt aggrieved at lots of things. It did not take much as a group to get them rioting, however charming they could be on an individual level. They were let down. They thought they were let down by the system but in truth those who had let them down years before were their own parents who brought children into the world and could not or would not stick around consistently to parent their children properly.

No, I agree with some of Letwin's analysis, in fact much of it is logically undeniable.

I just think he's a prat. And seriously over-promoted as a politician, despite his brains. He should be hidden away in laboratories, and his *interesting* ideas handled with extreme care.

He is largely hidden away. This is about something he said 30 years ago! What stupid stuff were you or I saying then?

If telling the truth, even part of it, is treated as an "interesting" idea to be handled with care, no wonder we have problems. We can deny stuff for a long time but reality will eventually find us and bite us on the arse.

Tim_B said:

HYUFD said:

Tim_B said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

HYUFD said:

Gratis Marketing Nevada

Trump 33%
Cruz 20%
Rubio 11%
https://politicalwire.com/2015/12/29/trump-leads-in-nevada/

Isn't Nevada around about 5th or 6th in the GOP race ?

It is 4th I believe after Iowa, NH and SC and the last state before Super Tuesday

Many commentators are not calling it Super Tuesday any more. It's now the S.E.C. Primary because it's mainly states which have collegiate teams in the South Eastern Conference, plus VT and MA, plus a couple of caucus states.

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/sec-primary-everything-you-need-to-know/npCdd/

Whatever you call it is still the first big batch of states to vote, Nevada is the last of the early states

Indeed but the content has changed substantially. Largely the influence of the Georgia Secretary of State.

Indeed but the early states remain the same apart from Florida

Cyclefree said:

Tim_B said:

Cyclefree said:

SeanT said:

Tykejohnno said:

I know I've given Letwin some sh!t over the years but this guy is a walking disaster ;-) more the fool of Cameron keeping the idiot on ;-)

Also responsible for the poll tax. Classic example of an intellectual upper class twit, with lots of brains and not an ounce of common sense.

It is possible, you know, that some of what he says about family breakdown and the effect on young black men of being brought up in fatherless families may have some truth in it and may also have had something to do with what happened.

That's the Republican view here too. The Democrats are less inclined to accept it (you can't say bad things about black people - it's racist) and want more social spending and many want a return to affirmative action. Classic identity politics on their part as it's one of their constituencies.

I said it because it was based on my own limited observation. It was not intended as a party political point. It occurred to me then what an advantage I had in having two firm but loving parents. The youths - not much younger than me - were not bad kids, not untalented but largely uneducated and unparented and left to fend for themselves at 16 or so. Add to that all sorts of other issues: racism, a lack of opportunities particularly for those with poor education and a criminal record, a recession etc and no wonder rioting ensued. But there was certainly a lack of morality on the part of the parents, the adults who failed in their most basic duty to their children, in the same way that happens to some white kids. We do no-one any favours by pretending that how children are brought up when young does not affect their chances later. A baby is for life, not just for Xmas. Family breakdown is the single most important risk factor for child abuse. We obsess about the latter but refuse to make the connection with our own actions or inactions as adults. It's no bloody use getting soppy about children and then refusing to accept that wanting to do the best for them involves making some sacrifices and putting some restraints on our own behaviour as adults and parents.

Sorry to sound so moralistic about it but sometimes moral judgments need to be made and when those who are harmed are the vulnerable then it's about bloody time we made some moral judgments instead of asking for stupid pretend apologies.

Do you think they wanted their children to grow up as immoral leeches on PBs' taxes, or were there perhaps other factors preventing them from raising children easily?

On the not really a coincidence front, a media outlet in Morocco claimed that a number of intelligence agencies in Europe and North Africa were alerted to a possible plot for multi national attacks by IS sympathisers on New Years Eve.

Not too many hours after, the Belgians pick up a couple of people on suspicion of planning just such a New Years Eve attack. No sign of weapons though.

This is both fortunate and unfortunate, as the story is that IS would like to do something with some home brew sarin. In practical terms this is a difficult to deploy substance despite its mass kill reputation and in a hand spread situation will need good thinking and luck to get a real big result with.

There has been some notable improvement in human intelligence take from IS recently and if stories are correct, the US has caught itself a decent fish. Certainly IS has been trying hard to clamp down on its overall operational security, in particular comms security, within eastern Syria, where it is clear they less secure from strikes on mid and high ranking figures.

Tim_B said:

Watching ski jumping from Oberstdorf. The last jumper had the unfortunate name of Andreas Wank - and he's leading it.

The best Wank carries for a huge distance.

Dair said:

Tim_B said:

Watching ski jumping from Oberstdorf. The last jumper had the unfortunate name of Andreas Wank - and he's leading it.

The best Wank carries for a huge distance.

I shall refrain from asking how you would know this

- or is it because Bill Clinton splashed out on Monica Lewinsky's dress?

SeanT said:

This is our so-called ally Turkey, quietly but busily exporting Islamism into Kosovo, Europe.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-l-phillips/turkeys-islamist-agenda-i_b_8891634.html


When are we going to stop pretending that Turkey is an ally and admit that it is at best, a neighbour, and at worst, an historic enemy - and that good fences = good neighbours.

You do know the point of the poem is that the wall falls down every winter and the neighbors get on better when they are collaborating on repairing the wall and working together than when they are separated by the wall?