Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Jeremy Corbyn cannot afford to lose trade union support ove

SystemSystem Posts: 11,686
edited January 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Jeremy Corbyn cannot afford to lose trade union support over Trident – it could be his undoing

Despite a difficult few days, Jeremy Corbyn seems to have emerged from last week’s reshuffle stronger than ever. He may not have got the Shadow Cabinet that he really wanted but piece by piece the Labour leader is shaping the party’s top team in his own image.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • Options
    Spurs - 1st!!
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,307
    Looks like I was way too pessimistic about overly generous referees. Wow.
  • Options
    Man U should just be given a goal head-start in any game.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,307

    Man U should just be given a goal head-start in any game.

    Lord no. You think LVG plays dull boring football now? Imagine if we had a lead to defend. 6-3-1 formation would look daring.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,850
    Completely O/T but I've just seen the new PETA campaign " this is what the rest of your wool coat looks like" featuring a skinned, blood-spattered lamb.

    They've clearly never seen a sheep shorn.
  • Options
    Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    FPT
    Sandpit said:

    Tim_B said:

    Sandpit said:

    taffys said:

    That was my thinking. One of two things. Either:

    1. Someone has emails *from* her or forwarded to them that should clearly be classified or show evidence of something illegal.

    or

    2. Someone comes forward from the time of Bill's impeachment with evidence that she did something she shouldn't have done, like paid someone to go away.

    As an IT guy the whole email thing is still completely implausible - there's no way there's not backups somewhere.

    It would be really easy for the republicans to campaign with a poster of Kevin Spacey and Robin Wright from House of Cards, with the Clintons' heads photoshopped on. That could be poisonous to Hilary.
    It's #1.

    The FBI has found something like 1500 emails with classified material in them, some of it Top Secret. That is ongoing.

    The investigation has now expanded into 'public corruption' laws. The FBI are investigating the issuance of contracts by State at her time there, and contributions to the Clinton Foundation from foreign governments plus speaking fees paid to Bill at that time.

    The reason there are no backups is that the Clintons asked for them to be destroyed.
    Interesting. I guess it would be a complete co-incidence if Bill Clinton got very well paid for a speech in a country that then went on to benefit from State Aid, for example...

    Can you comment on how the US law would work if a backup tape somehow found its way into the Fox News newsroom. Maybe a bag with a million dollars in cash 'disappeared' from Fox at around the same time. Would they be allowed to do anything with it, or would men in dark glasses start arresting executives until they gave up their source? How free is the US press in a post-Snowden world?
    If a backup tape did arrive at Fox, once they realized what it was they would immediately call the Feds - it contains much classified material, unauthorized possession of which is a criminal offense.

    Let's be quite clear - they have her bang to rights on the emails with classified information, somewhere between 1350-1500. The reason for expanding the investigation and involving the Clinton Foundation is presumably because of stuff from the emails. This is potentially dangerous for her as the foundation is not set up like a charity, so much so that Charity Navigator refuses to rate it, as it's hard to track the money.

    The FBI is not political. Director Comey is a straight shooter, as is AG Lynch. They will take their time, and will not move to indict unless their case is absolutely bullet proof.

    If Comey and Lynch move to indict and the WH stops it - that will have serious implications. Obama is very unpopular with the FBI already.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,266
    Sean_F said:

    Completely O/T but I've just seen the new PETA campaign " this is what the rest of your wool coat looks like" featuring a skinned, blood-spattered lamb.

    They've clearly never seen a sheep shorn.

    Or understood that shearing a sheep is indeed necessary to maintaining a healthy, even coat of wool and a healthy skin. But be fair, most of them have probably never even seen an animal.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,898
    Sean_F said:

    Completely O/T but I've just seen the new PETA campaign " this is what the rest of your wool coat looks like" featuring a skinned, blood-spattered lamb.

    They've clearly never seen a sheep shorn.

    Are they confusing sheepskin coats with wooly jumpers? Most of the sheepskin would end up on the butcher's floor anyway.
  • Options
    taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Never thought I'd see the day when Len was viewed as a moderating influence...
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,898
    edited January 2016
    Tim_B said:

    FPT

    Sandpit said:

    Tim_B said:

    Sandpit said:

    taffys said:

    That was my thinking. One of two things. Either:

    1. Someone has emails *from* her or forwarded to them that should clearly be classified or show evidence of something illegal.

    or

    2. Someone comes forward from the time of Bill's impeachment with evidence that she did something she shouldn't have done, like paid someone to go away.

    As an IT guy the whole email thing is still completely implausible - there's no way there's not backups somewhere.
    .
    It's #1.

    The FBI has found something like 1500 emails with classified material in them, some of it Top Secret. That is ongoing.

    The investigation has now expanded into 'public corruption' laws. The FBI are investigating the issuance of contracts by State at her time there, and contributions to the Clinton Foundation from foreign governments plus speaking fees paid to Bill at that time.

    The reason there are no backups is that the Clintons asked for them to be destroyed.
    Interesting. I guess it would be a complete co-incidence if Bill Clinton got very well paid for a speech in a country that then went on to benefit from State Aid, for example...

    Can you comment on how the US law would work if a backup tape somehow found its way into the Fox News newsroom. Maybe a bag with a million dollars in cash 'disappeared' from Fox at around the same time. Would they be allowed to do anything with it, or would men in dark glasses start arresting executives until they gave up their source? How free is the US press in a post-Snowden world?
    If a backup tape did arrive at Fox, once they realized what it was they would immediately call the Feds - it contains much classified material, unauthorized possession of which is a criminal offense.

    Let's be quite clear - they have her bang to rights on the emails with classified information, somewhere between 1350-1500. The reason for expanding the investigation and involving the Clinton Foundation is presumably because of stuff from the emails. This is potentially dangerous for her as the foundation is not set up like a charity, so much so that Charity Navigator refuses to rate it, as it's hard to track the money.

    The FBI is not political. Director Comey is a straight shooter, as is AG Lynch. They will take their time, and will not move to indict unless their case is absolutely bullet proof.

    If Comey and Lynch move to indict and the WH stops it - that will have serious implications. Obama is very unpopular with the FBI already.
    Informative, thanks :+1:
    The Feds or AG wouldn't be told to sit on their hands until after the election by the WH, surely?
    That would lead to a challenge of the election itself if HRC won it, the Republicans would go absolutely ballistic!
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,307
    Whatever their own political views spending millions of their members hard earned on a party led by someone who makes Ed look good must make the Union leaders pause. Combine that with the current Trade Union bill going through Parliament and the desire for a party and leadership which actually has a chance must be strong.

    It just might be the case that the nuclear deterrent is useful in moving the Party into the right direction.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,011
    PPP Iowa

    GOP
    Trump 28%
    Cruz 26%
    Rubio 13%
    Carson 8%
    Bush 6%

    Democratic
    Clinton 46%
    Sanders 40%
    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_IA_11216.pdf
  • Options
    Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,059
    edited January 2016
    On topic - outrage as unions seek to replace democratically elected political leader with a huge mandate....
  • Options
    TomsToms Posts: 2,478
    edited January 2016
    Yes, this is looks like a tension between the wallet and politics.
    Do GMB and UNITE have definite deadlines, or even the machinery, for a formal policy statement about Trident?
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited January 2016
    HYUFD said:

    PPP Iowa

    GOP
    Trump 28%
    Cruz 26%
    Rubio 13%
    Carson 8%
    Bush 6%

    Democratic
    Clinton 46%
    Sanders 40%
    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_IA_11216.pdf

    Quinnipiac for Iowa is big too:

    http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/iowa/release-detail?ReleaseID=2314

    Sanders 49 +9
    Hillary 44 -7

    The wind is blowing in Sanders sail, average today 7.5 points up in Iowa.

  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited January 2016
    World has definitely when Uncle Len is the one saying come on Jez be reasonable.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,362
    Sean_F said:

    Completely O/T but I've just seen the new PETA campaign " this is what the rest of your wool coat looks like" featuring a skinned, blood-spattered lamb.

    They've clearly never seen a sheep shorn.

    Lol!

    I'm having belly pork this evening. Yum.
  • Options
    Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    Sandpit said:

    Tim_B said:

    FPT

    Sandpit said:

    Tim_B said:

    Sandpit said:

    taffys said:

    It's #1.

    The FBI has found something like 1500 emails with classified material in them, some of it Top Secret. That is ongoing.

    The investigation has now expanded into 'public corruption' laws. The FBI are investigating the issuance of contracts by State at her time there, and contributions to the Clinton Foundation from foreign governments plus speaking fees paid to Bill at that time.

    The reason there are no backups is that the Clintons asked for them to be destroyed.
    Interesting. I guess it would be a complete co-incidence if Bill Clinton got very well paid for a speech in a country that then went on to benefit from State Aid, for example...

    Can you comment on how the US law would work if a backup tape somehow found its way into the Fox News newsroom. Maybe a bag with a million dollars in cash 'disappeared' from Fox at around the same time. Would they be allowed to do anything with it, or would men in dark glasses start arresting executives until they gave up their source? How free is the US press in a post-Snowden world?
    If a backup tape did arrive at Fox, once they realized what it was they would immediately call the Feds - it contains much classified material, unauthorized possession of which is a criminal offense.

    Let's be quite clear - they have her bang to rights on the emails with classified information, somewhere between 1350-1500. The reason for expanding the investigation and involving the Clinton Foundation is presumably because of stuff from the emails. This is potentially dangerous for her as the foundation is not set up like a charity, so much so that Charity Navigator refuses to rate it, as it's hard to track the money.

    The FBI is not political. Director Comey is a straight shooter, as is AG Lynch. They will take their time, and will not move to indict unless their case is absolutely bullet proof.

    If Comey and Lynch move to indict and the WH stops it - that will have serious implications. Obama is very unpopular with the FBI already.
    Informative, thanks :+1:
    The Feds or AG wouldn't be told to sit on their hands until after the election by the WH, surely?
    That would lead to a challenge of the election itself if HRC won it, the Republicans would go absolutely ballistic!
    If the WH tried to do that it would be leaked immediately. That's a plain miscarriage of justice.
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited January 2016
    Trident is not a priority for the majority of voters, including me.
    I'm a supporter of nuclear weapons, but since the cold war is over it's not my priority in defence matters.

    That's the problem with people trying to make it an issue for votes, people are not interested over Trident, I can't understand why Corbyn and anti-Corbyn's think it is.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,011
    edited January 2016
    Speedy said:

    HYUFD said:

    PPP Iowa

    GOP
    Trump 28%
    Cruz 26%
    Rubio 13%
    Carson 8%
    Bush 6%

    Democratic
    Clinton 46%
    Sanders 40%
    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_IA_11216.pdf

    Quinnipiac for Iowa is big too:

    http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/iowa/release-detail?ReleaseID=2314

    Sanders 49 +9
    Hillary 44 -7

    The wind is blowing in Sanders sail, average today 7.5 points up in Iowa.

    PPP Iowa General Election


    Clinton 41% Rubio 46%
    Clinton 42% Trump 42%
    Clinton 42% Cruz 45%
    Clinton 42% Carson 46%
    Clinton 40% Bush 43%

    Sanders 47% Bush 39%
    Sanders 44% Carson 40%
    Sanders 45% Cruz 42%
    Sanders 43% Rubio 42%
    Sanders 47% Trump 42%
    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_IA_11216.pdf
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Great post from Keiran Pedley. This is important.

    I can't see Jeremy Corbyn backing down. This could be a huge fist fight.
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    HYUFD said:

    Speedy said:

    HYUFD said:

    PPP Iowa

    GOP
    Trump 28%
    Cruz 26%
    Rubio 13%
    Carson 8%
    Bush 6%

    Democratic
    Clinton 46%
    Sanders 40%
    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_IA_11216.pdf

    Quinnipiac for Iowa is big too:

    http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/iowa/release-detail?ReleaseID=2314

    Sanders 49 +9
    Hillary 44 -7

    The wind is blowing in Sanders sail, average today 7.5 points up in Iowa.

    PPP Iowa General Election


    Clinton 41% Rubio 46%
    Clinton 42% Trump 42%
    Clinton 42% Cruz 45%
    Clinton 42% Carson 46%
    Clinton 40% Bush 43%

    Sanders 47% Bush 39%
    Sanders 44% Carson 40%
    Sanders 45% Cruz 42%
    Sanders 43% Rubio 42%
    Sanders 47% Trump 42%
    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_IA_11216.pdf
    Sanders is more electable than Hillary, fact.
    Trump must go easy on Hillary or pray for Bloomberg to run and split the DNC vote.
  • Options
    Sean_F said:

    Completely O/T but I've just seen the new PETA campaign " this is what the rest of your wool coat looks like" featuring a skinned, blood-spattered lamb.

    They've clearly never seen a sheep shorn.

    They are proper bonkers that lot. I once had a conservation with a supporter where I asked if it would be acceptable if one owned a single cow & milked by hand for subsistence & was basically told still basically raping a cow...
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100

    Great post from Keiran Pedley. This is important.

    I can't see Jeremy Corbyn backing down. This could be a huge fist fight.

    For me I can't understand why they think there is any appeal in this marginal issue almost 30 years since the cold war ended.
    Perhaps because I'm a bread and butter kind of voter.
  • Options
    Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669

    Sean_F said:

    Completely O/T but I've just seen the new PETA campaign " this is what the rest of your wool coat looks like" featuring a skinned, blood-spattered lamb.

    They've clearly never seen a sheep shorn.

    They are proper bonkers that lot. I once had a conservation with a supporter where I asked if it would be acceptable if one owned a single cow & milked by hand for subsistence & was basically told still basically raping a cow...
    It's udder nonsense ;)
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited January 2016
    @HYUFD

    The 2016 presidential election looks more and more like a choice between a Socialist and a Populist.
  • Options
    Tim_B said:

    Sean_F said:

    Completely O/T but I've just seen the new PETA campaign " this is what the rest of your wool coat looks like" featuring a skinned, blood-spattered lamb.

    They've clearly never seen a sheep shorn.

    They are proper bonkers that lot. I once had a conservation with a supporter where I asked if it would be acceptable if one owned a single cow & milked by hand for subsistence & was basically told still basically raping a cow...
    It's udder nonsense ;)
    LOL...I did nearly said, but plants have feelings to as they were drinking their soya latte...
  • Options
    Speedy said:

    @HYUFD

    The 2016 presidential election looks more and more like a choice between a Socialist and a Populist.

    That is probably the kindest way of putting that match up.
  • Options
    Speedy said:

    Great post from Keiran Pedley. This is important.

    I can't see Jeremy Corbyn backing down. This could be a huge fist fight.

    For me I can't understand why they think there is any appeal in this marginal issue almost 30 years since the cold war ended.
    Perhaps because I'm a bread and butter kind of voter.
    It only adds to the impression that Corbyn will play fast and lose with our defences and in this uncertain World that is a huge vote loser
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Speedy said:

    Great post from Keiran Pedley. This is important.

    I can't see Jeremy Corbyn backing down. This could be a huge fist fight.

    For me I can't understand why they think there is any appeal in this marginal issue almost 30 years since the cold war ended.
    Perhaps because I'm a bread and butter kind of voter.
    Jeremy Corbyn probably regards support for Trident as an affront to his conscience. The unions are worried about the threat to jobs.
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,340
    Speedy said:

    Trident is not a priority for the majority of voters, including me.
    I'm a supporter of nuclear weapons, but since the cold war is over it's not my priority in defence matters.

    That's the problem with people trying to make it an issue for votes, people are not interested over Trident, I can't understand why Corbyn and anti-Corbyn's think it is.

    There's something in that. It's why we need to get it sorted soon, rather than have it monopolise the autumn conference. Like a Government, a significantly changed Opposition needs to get the controversial stuff done quickly.
  • Options
    Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    Another unfortunate piece of timing for Hillary - the Benghazi movie '13 Hours' opens this week.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,011
    Speedy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Speedy said:

    HYUFD said:

    PPP Iowa

    GOP
    Trump 28%
    Cruz 26%
    Rubio 13%
    Carson 8%
    Bush 6%

    Democratic
    Clinton 46%
    Sanders 40%
    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_IA_11216.pdf

    Quinnipiac for Iowa is big too:

    http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/iowa/release-detail?ReleaseID=2314

    Sanders 49 +9
    Hillary 44 -7

    The wind is blowing in Sanders sail, average today 7.5 points up in Iowa.

    PPP Iowa General Election


    Clinton 41% Rubio 46%
    Clinton 42% Trump 42%
    Clinton 42% Cruz 45%
    Clinton 42% Carson 46%
    Clinton 40% Bush 43%

    Sanders 47% Bush 39%
    Sanders 44% Carson 40%
    Sanders 45% Cruz 42%
    Sanders 43% Rubio 42%
    Sanders 47% Trump 42%
    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_IA_11216.pdf
    Sanders is more electable than Hillary, fact.
    Trump must go easy on Hillary or pray for Bloomberg to run and split the DNC vote.
    At the moment that seems the case, Bloomberg would win some moderate Republicans too, not just centrist Democrats so I don't think that would be enough to overturn a 5% Sanders lead over Trump
  • Options
    taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''For me I can't understand why they think there is any appeal in this marginal issue almost 30 years since the cold war ended.''

    Nuclear weapons is all about being able to p8ss in the tall grass with the big dogs.
  • Options
    Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Whilst I agree Trident in itself is not a big issue for voters, the problem is it plays into the negative perceptions people already have about Corbyn on issues like this (I don't think people think he's an "evil terrorist sympathiser", but they do think he's dangerously naive and would, even with the best intentions, leave the country vulnerable to attack).
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,031
    Off-topic: an interesting piece on the problems facing Saudi Arabia, and a prince-who-might-be-king who is looking towards some limited reforms:

    http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21685467-muhammad-bin-salman-gambles-intervention-abroad-and-radical-economic-change-home

    And an interview:
    http://www.economist.com/saudi_interview

    So it looks like they're doing a China: keep the political and social fabric in place, whilst overhauling the economy. Unfortunately for them, it's probably two decade too late.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,011
    Tim_B said:

    Another unfortunate piece of timing for Hillary - the Benghazi movie '13 Hours' opens this week.

    Be careful what you wish for, you may torpedo Hillary only to end up with President Sanders!
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @MrTCHarris: Why doesn't Len McCluskey just go and join the Tories? https://t.co/rLmdoLXKNF
  • Options
    Sean_F said:

    Completely O/T but I've just seen the new PETA campaign " this is what the rest of your wool coat looks like" featuring a skinned, blood-spattered lamb.

    They've clearly never seen a sheep shorn.

    That 'new' PETA campaign is actually from April 2015, is Australian and is aimed at ill-treatment of sheep during shearing rather than suggesting sheep have to be skinned to obtain wool.

    Minor details I know.
  • Options
    Great piece Keiran.

    This has all the makings of a Mexican stand off.

    What a world we live in when the the trade unions are seen as the voice of moderation.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,477
    edited January 2016
    Lord Lawson trolls the Nats in a way that PB thread header writers wish they could

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYjEicyW8AItY1r.jpg
  • Options
    HYUFD said:
    Who says ISIS are a death cult?
  • Options

    Lord Lawson trolls the Nats in a way that only PB thread header writers wish they could

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYjEicyW8AItY1r.jpg

    Sounds more like he's trolling Wee Willie 'destroying the United Kingdom ' Hague.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,969

    Lord Lawson trolls the Nats in a way that PB thread header writers wish they could

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYjEicyW8AItY1r.jpg

    Cameron having two lumps of sugar rather than one represents a material change.... ;)
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,477
    edited January 2016
    RobD said:

    Lord Lawson trolls the Nats in a way that PB thread header writers wish they could

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYjEicyW8AItY1r.jpg

    Cameron having two lumps of sugar rather than one represents a material change.... ;)
    I had a Tunnocks tea cake tonight.

    Taste so much better since they became British.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    I had a Tunnocks tea cake tonight.

    Taste so much better since they became British.

    @TenaciousTory: #BoycottTunnocks going well in Edinburgh ... Sold Out
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Who says Pete Wishart is the stupidest MP at Westminster?

    @johnpmcdermott: Peter Wishart on Evel, 2014: “An issue that the Scottish people could not care less about”. 1/2

    @johnpmcdermott: Peter Wishart on Evel, 2016: "nothing has infuriated the scottish people more than ... english votes for english laws" 2/2
  • Options

    RobD said:

    Lord Lawson trolls the Nats in a way that PB thread header writers wish they could

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYjEicyW8AItY1r.jpg

    Cameron having two lumps of sugar rather than one represents a material change.... ;)
    I had a Tunnocks tea cake tonight.

    Taste so much better since they became British.
    I had a pack of six last week - spread across two days :)
  • Options
    EPGEPG Posts: 6,013
    HYUFD said:

    Speedy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Speedy said:

    HYUFD said:

    PPP Iowa

    GOP
    Trump 28%
    Cruz 26%
    Rubio 13%
    Carson 8%
    Bush 6%

    Democratic
    Clinton 46%
    Sanders 40%
    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_IA_11216.pdf

    Quinnipiac for Iowa is big too:

    http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/iowa/release-detail?ReleaseID=2314

    Sanders 49 +9
    Hillary 44 -7

    The wind is blowing in Sanders sail, average today 7.5 points up in Iowa.

    PPP Iowa General Election


    Clinton 41% Rubio 46%
    Clinton 42% Trump 42%
    Clinton 42% Cruz 45%
    Clinton 42% Carson 46%
    Clinton 40% Bush 43%

    Sanders 47% Bush 39%
    Sanders 44% Carson 40%
    Sanders 45% Cruz 42%
    Sanders 43% Rubio 42%
    Sanders 47% Trump 42%
    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_IA_11216.pdf
    Sanders is more electable than Hillary, fact.
    Trump must go easy on Hillary or pray for Bloomberg to run and split the DNC vote.
    At the moment that seems the case, Bloomberg would win some moderate Republicans too, not just centrist Democrats so I don't think that would be enough to overturn a 5% Sanders lead over Trump
    Moderate Republicans are in fact the main support base for Mr Trump
    Because if you are moderate in the Republican Party, it probably means you are economic centre or populist but interested in the identity politics he espouses
  • Options
    HYUFD said:
    "You have failed me for the last time, Admiral!" - Darth Vader in Empire Strikes Back (Star Wars Episode V).
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,011

    HYUFD said:
    Who says ISIS are a death cult?
    Hopefully this will set a trend and they will end up exterminating themselves
  • Options
    EPGEPG Posts: 6,013

    Great piece Keiran.

    This has all the makings of a Mexican stand off.

    What a world we live in when the the trade unions are seen as the voice of moderation.

    Not at all. It is a return to the entire history of the Labour Party pre-94
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,011
    EPG said:

    HYUFD said:

    Speedy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Speedy said:

    HYUFD said:

    PPP Iowa

    GOP
    Trump 28%
    Cruz 26%
    Rubio 13%
    Carson 8%
    Bush 6%

    Democratic
    Clinton 46%
    Sanders 40%
    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_IA_11216.pdf

    Quinnipiac for Iowa is big too:

    http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/iowa/release-detail?ReleaseID=2314

    Sanders 49 +9
    Hillary 44 -7

    The wind is blowing in Sanders sail, average today 7.5 points up in Iowa.

    PPP Iowa General Election


    Clinton 41% Rubio 46%
    Clinton 42% Trump 42%
    Clinton 42% Cruz 45%
    Clinton 42% Carson 46%
    Clinton 40% Bush 43%

    Sanders 47% Bush 39%
    Sanders 44% Carson 40%
    Sanders 45% Cruz 42%
    Sanders 43% Rubio 42%
    Sanders 47% Trump 42%
    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_IA_11216.pdf
    Sanders is more electable than Hillary, fact.
    Trump must go easy on Hillary or pray for Bloomberg to run and split the DNC vote.
    At the moment that seems the case, Bloomberg would win some moderate Republicans too, not just centrist Democrats so I don't think that would be enough to overturn a 5% Sanders lead over Trump
    Moderate Republicans are in fact the main support base for Mr Trump
    Because if you are moderate in the Republican Party, it probably means you are economic centre or populist but interested in the identity politics he espouses
    You are talking about the median Republican voter, ideologically more moderate Republicans ie country club types, wealthy suburbanites, fiscally conservative but not intrinsically anti immigration, may well be tempted by Bloomberg
  • Options
    EPGEPG Posts: 6,013
    Scott_P said:

    Who says Pete Wishart is the stupidest MP at Westminster?

    @johnpmcdermott: Peter Wishart on Evel, 2014: “An issue that the Scottish people could not care less about”. 1/2

    @johnpmcdermott: Peter Wishart on Evel, 2016: "nothing has infuriated the scottish people more than ... english votes for english laws" 2/2

    Did anything politically change in Scotland between 2014 and 2016?
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    EPG said:

    Did anything politically change in Scotland between 2014 and 2016?

    The separatists got gubbed.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,477
    edited January 2016
    EPG said:

    Great piece Keiran.

    This has all the makings of a Mexican stand off.

    What a world we live in when the the trade unions are seen as the voice of moderation.

    Not at all. It is a return to the entire history of the Labour Party pre-94
    I disagree. If the trade unions had been voice of moderation in 1978, then Jim Callaghan might well have won the 1979 general election, and we'd have had no Thatcherism
  • Options
    EPGEPG Posts: 6,013
    HYUFD said:

    EPG said:

    HYUFD said:

    Speedy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Speedy said:

    HYUFD said:

    PPP Iowa

    GOP
    Trump 28%
    Cruz 26%
    Rubio 13%
    Carson 8%
    Bush 6%

    Democratic
    Clinton 46%
    Sanders 40%
    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_IA_11216.pdf

    Quinnipiac for Iowa is big too:

    http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/iowa/release-detail?ReleaseID=2314

    Sanders 49 +9
    Hillary 44 -7

    The wind is blowing in Sanders sail, average today 7.5 points up in Iowa.

    PPP Iowa General Election


    Clinton 41% Rubio 46%
    Clinton 42% Trump 42%
    Clinton 42% Cruz 45%
    Clinton 42% Carson 46%
    Clinton 40% Bush 43%

    Sanders 47% Bush 39%
    Sanders 44% Carson 40%
    Sanders 45% Cruz 42%
    Sanders 43% Rubio 42%
    Sanders 47% Trump 42%
    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_IA_11216.pdf
    Sanders is more electable than Hillary, fact.
    Trump must go easy on Hillary or pray for Bloomberg to run and split the DNC vote.
    At the moment that seems the case, Bloomberg would win some moderate Republicans too, not just centrist Democrats so I don't think that would be enough to overturn a 5% Sanders lead over Trump
    Moderate Republicans are in fact the main support base for Mr Trump
    Because if you are moderate in the Republican Party, it probably means you are economic centre or populist but interested in the identity politics he espouses
    You are talking about the median Republican voter, ideologically more moderate Republicans ie country club types, wealthy suburbanites, fiscally conservative but not intrinsically anti immigration, may well be tempted by Bloomberg
    I think the polling evidence is that moderate Republicans favour Trump more than conservative Republicans.
    In fact, I think the very strongest support comes from self-identified Democrats who vote in Republican primaries elections (which is possible in some states - these people tend to be blue-collar white voters in red states).
  • Options
    EPGEPG Posts: 6,013
    Scott_P said:

    EPG said:

    Did anything politically change in Scotland between 2014 and 2016?

    The separatists got gubbed.
    They did yeah, that's why there's a Conservative Holyrood Majority 2016 Nailed On. It's the funniest definition of gubbed I've seen, what should the normal level of separatism from the UK be if four-in-nine is pathetically low?
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,011

    HYUFD said:
    "You have failed me for the last time, Admiral!" - Darth Vader in Empire Strikes Back (Star Wars Episode V).
    Times ten!
  • Options
    EPG said:

    Scott_P said:

    EPG said:

    Did anything politically change in Scotland between 2014 and 2016?

    The separatists got gubbed.
    They did yeah, that's why there's a Conservative Holyrood Majority 2016 Nailed On. It's the funniest definition of gubbed I've seen, what should the normal level of separatism from the UK be if four-in-nine is pathetically low?
    Over 50% in the referendum is what it was meant to be. Failure is failure.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    Failure is failure.

    Not to the Zoomers! Failure last time was their greatest success, apparently...
  • Options
    AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,869
    EPG said:

    Scott_P said:

    EPG said:

    Did anything politically change in Scotland between 2014 and 2016?

    The separatists got gubbed.
    They did yeah, that's why there's a Conservative Holyrood Majority 2016 Nailed On. It's the funniest definition of gubbed I've seen, what should the normal level of separatism from the UK be if four-in-nine is pathetically low?
    Ahem. The UK wasn't asked.

    Pardon me butting in, couldn't resist.
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    EPG said:

    Scott_P said:

    Who says Pete Wishart is the stupidest MP at Westminster?

    @johnpmcdermott: Peter Wishart on Evel, 2014: “An issue that the Scottish people could not care less about”. 1/2

    @johnpmcdermott: Peter Wishart on Evel, 2016: "nothing has infuriated the scottish people more than ... english votes for english laws" 2/2

    Did anything politically change in Scotland between 2014 and 2016?
    if EVEL infuriates the Jocks then its a job well done.
  • Options
    EPGEPG Posts: 6,013
    Scott_P said:

    Failure is failure.

    Not to the Zoomers! Failure last time was their greatest success, apparently...
    This is the level of analysis I would expect from a Guidosphere retweeting machine
    The probability of medium-term Scottish exit from UK was higher at end of 2014 than at beginning of 2014 never mind the impact of GE2015
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    if EVEL infuriates the Jocks then its a job well done.

    Scots couldn't care less

    Oh, wait, they have never been more infuriated...
  • Options

    RobD said:

    Lord Lawson trolls the Nats in a way that PB thread header writers wish they could

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYjEicyW8AItY1r.jpg

    Cameron having two lumps of sugar rather than one represents a material change.... ;)
    I had a Tunnocks tea cake tonight.

    Taste so much better since they became British.
    More British than you'll ever be, hell they're more english than you.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    EPG said:

    The probability of medium-term Scottish exit from UK was higher at end of 2014 than at beginning of 2014

    The Zoomers were wrong last time. They are not in better shape now.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,011
    EPG said:

    HYUFD said:

    EPG said:

    HYUFD said:

    Speedy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Speedy said:

    HYUFD said:

    PPP Iowa

    GOP
    Trump 28%
    Cruz 26%
    Rubio 13%
    Carson 8%
    Bush 6%

    Democratic
    Clinton 46%
    Sanders 40%
    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_IA_11216.pdf

    Quinnipiac for Iowa is big too:

    http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/iowa/release-detail?ReleaseID=2314

    Sanders 49 +9
    Hillary 44 -7

    The wind is blowing in Sanders sail, average today 7.5 points up in Iowa.

    PPP Iowa General Election


    Clinton 41% Rubio 46%
    Clinton 42% Trump 42%
    Clinton 42% Cruz 45%
    Clinton 42% Carson 46%
    Clinton 40% Bush 43%

    Sanders 47% Bush 39%
    Sanders 44% Carson 40%
    Sanders 45% Cruz 42%
    Sanders 43% Rubio 42%
    Sanders 47% Trump 42%
    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_IA_11216.pdf
    Sanders is more electable than Hillary, fact.
    Trump must go easy on Hillary or pray for Bloomberg to run and split the DNC vote.
    At the moment that seems the case, Bloomberg would win some moderate Republicans too, not just centrist Democrats so I don't think that would be enough to overturn a 5% Sanders lead over Trump
    Moderate Republicans are in fact the main support base for Mr Trump
    Because if you are moderate in the Republican Party, it probably means you are economic centre or populist but interested in the identity politics he espouses
    You are talking about the median Republican voter, ideologically more moderate Republicans ie country club types, wealthy suburbanites, fiscally conservative but not intrinsically anti immigration, may well be tempted by Bloomberg
    I think the polling evidence is that moderate Republicans favour Trump more than conservative Republicans.
    In fact, I think the very strongest support comes from self-identified Democrats who vote in Republican primaries elections (which is possible in some states - these people tend to be blue-collar white voters in red states).
    White working class Democrats are often conservative and often vote Republican at the Presidential level, they are not moderates
  • Options
    PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138

    If the trade unions had been voice of moderation in 1978, then Jim Callaghan might well have won the 1979 general election, and we'd have had no Thatcherism

    Not ofter I agree with you, Mr Eagles, but I do on this one. The Labour Government under Jim Callaghan, was one of the best this country has known. The only policies they could implement - during the Lib-Lab pact - were Labour policies that were approved by the Liberals. Most of the time, they just governed quietly, without too much change.

    The total idiots were those of the far left of the Labour Party plus the Trade Union leaders, who thought there was still a red-blooded Socialist government in office, and behaved accordingly. Hence the Winter of Discontent, and the consequent advent of the Thatcher government.

    History could have been very different. But the idiots on the Far Left of the Labour Party understand little and always ruin everything. And History repeats itself.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,311
    so if Trident, say, didn't involve jobs would Len be for or against?

    The depressing thing is that in those calculations there seems to be no room for concerns about national security.

    Enough to make me think he is a beer and sandwiches-eating surrender monkey, if his support for a strategic defence programme is only contingent upon how many jobs it provides for his members.

    Off to the tower for him.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited January 2016
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    Who says ISIS are a death cult?
    Hopefully this will set a trend and they will end up exterminating themselves
    The only concern is they continue to get a flood of new recruits to replace those they kill. We have already had reports that those that control ISIS already use recruits from certain parts of the world as cannon fodder, with the justification that they are lesser because they aren't direct descendants. While other are not used for suicide bombing etc. It could be they are massively racist or it could be that they are keeping those that are more useful to them more out of the fire line, or most likely both.
  • Options
    Chris Patten proves that he's a top egg

    Oxford will not rewrite history says Oxford Chancellor, Lord Patten, #RhodesMustNotFall

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYjR8WQW8AY-ug3.jpg
  • Options
    watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    I see Standard Chartered have made predictions that oil could fall to $10 a barrel.

    Imagine if the McLemmings had followed Alec and Nicola over the cliff of independence. The Arc of Prosperity, would be the U Bend of Bankruptcy.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,312
    edited January 2016
    Scott_P said:

    EPG said:

    Did anything politically change in Scotland between 2014 and 2016?

    The separatists got gubbed.
    "The Separatists have been "taken care of", my master!" - Darth Vader in Revenge of the Sith (Star Wars Episode III).
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419
    On topic, I don't think a lost Trident vote would be critical for Corbyn. He'd still say he wouldn't use it.
  • Options
    Chris_AChris_A Posts: 1,237
    Scott_P said:

    Who says Pete Wishart is the stupidest MP at Westminster?

    @johnpmcdermott: Peter Wishart on Evel, 2014: “An issue that the Scottish people could not care less about”. 1/2

    @johnpmcdermott: Peter Wishart on Evel, 2016: "nothing has infuriated the scottish people more than ... english votes for english laws" 2/2

    Well there's 55 others equally as stupid to choose from.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,850
    HYUFD said:

    EPG said:

    HYUFD said:

    EPG said:

    HYUFD said:

    Speedy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Speedy said:

    HYUFD said:

    PPP Iowa

    GOP
    Trump 28%
    Cruz 26%
    Rubio 13%
    Carson 8%
    Bush 6%

    Democratic
    Clinton 46%
    Sanders 40%
    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_IA_11216.pdf

    Quinnipiac for Iowa is big too:

    http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/iowa/release-detail?ReleaseID=2314

    Sanders 49 +9
    Hillary 44 -7

    The wind is blowing in Sanders sail, average today 7.5 points up in Iowa.

    PPP Iowa General Election


    Clinton 41% Rubio 46%
    Clinton 42% Trump 42%
    Clinton 42% Cruz 45%
    Clinton 42% Carson 46%
    Clinton 40% Bush 43%

    Sanders 47% Bush 39%
    Sanders 44% Carson 40%
    Sanders 45% Cruz 42%
    Sanders 43% Rubio 42%
    Sanders 47% Trump 42%
    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_IA_11216.pdf
    Sanders is more electable than Hillary, fact.
    Trump must go easy on Hillary or pray for Bloomberg to run and split the DNC vote.
    At the moment that seems the case, Bloomberg would win some moderate Republicans too, not just centrist Democrats so I don't think that would be enough to overturn a 5% Sanders lead over Trump
    Moderate Republicans are in fact the main support base for Mr Trump
    Because if you are moderate in the Republican Party, it probably means you are economic centre or populist but interested in the identity politics he espouses
    You are talking about the median Republican voter, ideologically more moderate Republicans ie country club types, wealthy suburbanites, fiscally conservative but not intrinsically anti immigration, may well be tempted by Bloomberg
    I think the polling evidence is that moderate Republicans favour Trump more than conservative Republicans.
    In fact, I think the very strongest support comes from self-identified Democrats who vote in Republican primaries elections (which is possible in some states - these people tend to be blue-collar white voters in red states).
    White working class Democrats are often conservative and often vote Republican at the Presidential level, they are not moderates
    It depends what is meant by "moderates". They're probably well to the Left of the Republican establishment on economics, not devoutly religious, but are fired up about immigration and national security issues.

    My understanding is that Trump doesn't poll so strongly with the voters who are more ideologically conservative (who would favour Cruz).
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,462
    He just needs to tell them he'd preserve the jobs. Not difficult.
  • Options
    Chris_AChris_A Posts: 1,237
    Speedy said:

    Great post from Keiran Pedley. This is important.

    I can't see Jeremy Corbyn backing down. This could be a huge fist fight.

    For me I can't understand why they think there is any appeal in this marginal issue almost 30 years since the cold war ended.
    Perhaps because I'm a bread and butter kind of voter.
    Because the £30 billion could be far, far better spent elsewhere if not first on defence equipment that will actually be useful and be used.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,311

    On topic, I don't think a lost Trident vote would be critical for Corbyn. He'd still say he wouldn't use it.

    Yes I could see how that would be ok for him: vote for a party that would spend £100bn on something they wouldn't use.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607

    Chris Patten proves that he's a top egg

    Oxford will not rewrite history says Oxford Chancellor, Lord Patten, #RhodesMustNotFall

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYjR8WQW8AY-ug3.jpg

    They should put the plaque back as well. Bloody vandals.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,850
    So what lies behind the sudden swing to Sanders?
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607
    Sean_F said:

    So what lies behind the sudden swing to Sanders?

    Could be Hilary's emails. Seems to be getting a lot of airtime in the US, or more radical Dems think Trump will get the nomination so they are free to put up their extreme leftist up to oppose him.
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    What the hell is wrong with the US Armed forces these days, have they been poisoned by Obama politics?
    https://twitter.com/AJENews/status/687032116635373568
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    On topic: I don't see how France is any safer than Germany.
  • Options
    MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,288
    Whatever you think about Trident it's completely bizarre to decide it's future based on jobs.

    Suppose we spent £5 billion per year employing people to count lamp-posts (or some other pointless activity).

    Would we say we must carry on counting lamp-posts because if we don't it'll cost jobs?

    The answer is that if an activity has no purpose it should be stopped and resources redirected to something which does have a purpose.

    Now I personally think Trident is worthwhile - but that is a separate issue.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,850
    MaxPB said:

    Sean_F said:

    So what lies behind the sudden swing to Sanders?

    Could be Hilary's emails. Seems to be getting a lot of airtime in the US, or more radical Dems think Trump will get the nomination so they are free to put up their extreme leftist up to oppose him.
    Sanders v Trump would produce a lot of pretty odd results, State by State.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    Sean_F said:

    MaxPB said:

    Sean_F said:

    So what lies behind the sudden swing to Sanders?

    Could be Hilary's emails. Seems to be getting a lot of airtime in the US, or more radical Dems think Trump will get the nomination so they are free to put up their extreme leftist up to oppose him.
    Sanders v Trump would produce a lot of pretty odd results, State by State.
    Ind Gain New York & California being amongst them.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,311
    MikeK said:

    What the hell is wrong with the US Armed forces these days, have they been poisoned by Obama politics?
    https://twitter.com/AJENews/status/687032116635373568

    might give some enlightenment

    foreignpolicy.com/2016/01/12/obamas-failed-command-military-state-of-the-union/
  • Options
    WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    Very interesting indeed.

    I think the doctors' have the upper hand at present. It must be an unwelcome development for them, however, that Labour has decided to stick its nose in. Labour supporters will be almost unanimous in backing the strike anyway. The appearance of John McDonnell on picket lines will not attract any support but may repel centrists and conservatives.

    I'm very struck by your point that Hunt's colleagues will expect some show of resistance from him. It's true of course but I'd somewhat lost sight of that amidst the excitement. In the end this is just another public sector strike and no government wants to be seen to be a push-over, so he has to resist to some extent, yet not have the public conclude he is gambling their lives in a display of pointless intransigence. Tricky.

    Hunt strikes me as a clever politician but not a potential Prime Minister. Against Corbyn though ....
  • Options
    WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838

    He just needs to tell them he'd preserve the jobs. Not difficult.

    He's said something like that but they don't believe him. Being believed can be very difficult.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607
    Pulpstar said:

    On topic: I don't see how France is any safer than Germany.

    Of course they are, so are we. Both by virtue of our permanent UNSC seats and vetoes. Germany has no such power despite having a larger economy and population than either of us. Part of the reason the EU is so desperate to integrate the EU foreign policy and military objectives is so they can take over two seats on the UNSC giving the likes of Germany and other EU nations a say where they previously didn't have one.

    Our nation is kept safe by having a nuclear deterrent, of that I'm sure. Even the most recent poll showed that the public would be in favour of retaliating against a nuclear strike with one of our own, the will of the people and the resolve of the governments lets rogue countries like Iran and Pakistan know that we won't be cowed by any threats.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607

    He just needs to tell them he'd preserve the jobs. Not difficult.

    What would those people do? Dig holes and fill them back up?
  • Options
    WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    On topic, the strangest thing of all is that Labour should bang its head into the wall on Trident when it has no say in the matter and won't until it gets back into government. People talk as they are deciding whether to renew Trident. They are not. They are deciding whether, hypothetically, they would if they happened to be in power.

    The answer is to kick the issue into the very long grass.
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
This discussion has been closed.