Undefined discussion subject.

Options
System
System Posts: 12,578
edited January 2016 in General

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • MP_SE
    MP_SE Posts: 3,642
    First.
  • dr_spyn
    dr_spyn Posts: 11,311
    second.

    Another odd submarine design.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_X1
  • dr_spyn
    dr_spyn Posts: 11,311
    Two more years in the slow death of The Labour Party.

    The World at One ‏@BBCWorldatOne 15m15 minutes ago
    McCluskey says Corbyn has 2-3 years to prove himself as Labour leader

  • SimonStClare
    SimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    4. Miliband was judged to be not as strong a leader as David Cameron. - or David Miliband...
  • madasafish
    madasafish Posts: 659
    I read Corbyn's interview. My reaction was it was April 1st..

    He's thick and unsuited to politics.
  • MonikerDiCanio
    MonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    So Thatcher's leadership ratings were better than Sunny Jim's. I've often read on PB that they weren't.
    Corbyn's ratings are neither calamitous nor cataclysmic, they're slightly above par for a Labour offering. Better than Foot, Kinnock, Brown, Miliband and late Blair but worse than prime Blair.
  • CornishBlue
    CornishBlue Posts: 840
    edited January 2016
    flightpath01 said:

    CornishBlue said:

    richardDodd said:

    Cornish Blue..Why don't we just apply to become another American state..stop all this EU nonsense

    Or - and here's a radical thought - perhaps the world's 5th largest economy could be an independent, sovereign state, with its own nuclear deterrent and main security alliances being that of NATO membership and close working with the other 4 Anglo-Saxon nations (the US, Canada, Australia, NZ), together with free trade arrangements (which don't boil over into political union..) with whichever nations or blocs who fancy having one..?

    Radical stuff. *rolls eyes*
    I'm not sure where you get anglo saxon from.
    The USA is a mass immigration country with I would guess a strictly limited anglo saxon content.
    Canada is not that much different and has a large immigrant community, thats before you get to its French component.
    Your suggestion of Australia NZ holds more water but Australia has a growing local immigrant population and is on the opposite side of the world with its own distinct outlook.
    All are quite clearly English Speaking of course but all I would suggest have quite different cultures. Australia is a fine country but it does have a history of a distinct British antipathy. I do not want to start a new hare running and can only be brief, but its really a bit fanciful to think that these 4 otherwise fine but widely spread countries offer serious alternative trading and security alliances beyond the treaties we have with them already and which are shared with others.
    Wow. Not sure where to begin tearing this to shreds. Perhaps I could start with how Anglo-Saxon is a term used to describe the culture of government, work ethic, economics, etc and not the genetic make-up of people.

    Also suggest you and others look up Five Eyes or UKUSA:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement

    et al...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement#See_also
  • david_herdson
    david_herdson Posts: 18,357
    MonikerDiCanio said:

    So Thatcher's leadership ratings were better than Sunny Jim's. I've often read on PB that they weren't.
    Corbyn's ratings are neither calamitous nor cataclysmic, they're slightly above par for a Labour offering. Better than Foot, Kinnock, Brown, Miliband and late Blair but worse than prime Blair.

    Seriously? Corbyn's ratings are catastrophic. Fewer than half of Labour's 2015 GE voters believe he would make a good PM (ComRes, yesterday). And that's from a dismally low Labour score, never mind floating voters.
  • RodCrosby
    RodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    It seems to me that unless Labour can either crush the SNP or change the voting system they are finished as a party of government for the foreseeable future.
  • Plato_Says
    Plato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Think these sums it up

    Len McLuskey says scrapping ban on sympathy strikes etc outlined by Jeremy Corbyn "music to my ears" @bbc5live

    Lucy Fisher
    Well that was the best Marr interview in long while - lots of gear for us politics journos working today: 2ndary strikes; Trident; Falkands

    Dan Hodges
    Return to secondary picketing. Keep trident subs but not their weapons. Do deal on Falklands. Understand Isis "strong points". Vote Labour.
  • Malmesbury
    Malmesbury Posts: 55,723
    dr_spyn said:

    second.

    Another odd submarine design.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_X1

    Of all the cruiser submarines actually built, X1 was probably the least ridiculous - then again, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Narwhal_(SS-167) actually did useful things in a war.

    My favourite K class story - the Captain who telephoned his First Lieutenant in the bows: "I say, Number One, my end is diving: what the hell is your end doing?
  • Plato_Says
    Plato_Says Posts: 11,822
    ICYMI

    First on CNN: The Pentagon releases a video of the U.S. bombing "millions" in #ISIS cash https://t.co/1fcyWu8gui https://t.co/VlpfwrQNBP
  • Scott_P
    Scott_P Posts: 51,453
    @Maomentum_: Title of the 2020 manifesto: "Fighting yesterday's battles the day after tomorrow". https://t.co/rGjSkFuk2z
  • SquareRoot
    SquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    dr_spyn said:

    Two more years in the slow death of The Labour Party.

    The World at One ‏@BBCWorldatOne 15m15 minutes ago
    McCluskey says Corbyn has 2-3 years to prove himself as Labour leader

    McCluskey must have masochistic tendencies
  • TCPoliticalBetting
    TCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    madasafish said:

    I read Corbyn's interview. My reaction was it was April 1st..
    He's thick and unsuited to politics.

    John Prescott thought he did well. Enough said?
    With the boundary changes and expected loss of seats under Corbynistas, the musical chairs game for Labour MPs will have 230 MPs chasing 120 to 150 safe seats.
  • Omnium
    Omnium Posts: 11,763
    madasafish said:

    I read Corbyn's interview. My reaction was it was April 1st..

    He's thick and unsuited to politics.

    I wouldn't trust him to sweep up either.
  • Wanderer
    Wanderer Posts: 3,838
    RodCrosby said:

    It seems to me that unless Labour can either crush the SNP or change the voting system they are finished as a party of government for the foreseeable future.

    I've been thinking that.

    The only way round it might be if the Labour leader were seen as a much stronger character than the SNP's. Awkward.
  • TCPoliticalBetting
    TCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    RodCrosby said:

    It seems to me that unless Labour can either crush the SNP or change the voting system they are finished as a party of government for the foreseeable future.

    This would be an ideal set of conditions for an alternative leftie party to step forward and make major gains in England & Wales. Yet the Lib Dems are not making any headway.
  • Plato_Says
    Plato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Falkland Islands
    Should Jeremy Corbyn be given to Argentina? #Falklands
  • Scott_P
    Scott_P Posts: 51,453
    Plato_Says said:

    Falkland Islands
    Should Jeremy Corbyn be given to Argentina? #Falklands

    Is there a petition?
  • Wanderer
    Wanderer Posts: 3,838
    TCPoliticalBetting said:

    RodCrosby said:

    It seems to me that unless Labour can either crush the SNP or change the voting system they are finished as a party of government for the foreseeable future.

    This would be an ideal set of conditions for an alternative leftie party to step forward and make major gains in England & Wales. Yet the Lib Dems are not making any headway.
    Opportunity for the Greens? They'd need to act more like a real party though.
  • Wanderer
    Wanderer Posts: 3,838
    Plato_Says said:

    Falkland Islands
    Should Jeremy Corbyn be given to Argentina? #Falklands

    Would he get a veto or would he just be consulted?
  • DecrepitJohnL
    DecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    MonikerDiCanio said:

    So Thatcher's leadership ratings were better than Sunny Jim's. I've often read on PB that they weren't.

    Callaghan was miles ahead on best PM ratings. Here is a handy graph from some fellow called Smithson.
    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/03/26/the-maggie-thatcher-1979-experience-why-leader-and-best-pm-ratings-are-not-necessarily-the-best-guide-to-how-people-will-vote/
  • Sandpit
    Sandpit Posts: 56,045
    dr_spyn said:

    Two more years in the slow death of The Labour Party.

    The World at One ‏@BBCWorldatOne 15m15 minutes ago
    McCluskey says Corbyn has 2-3 years to prove himself as Labour leader

    Another day, another Labour car crash.

    For how much longer can the moderate MPs seriously remain in Corbyn's party? Will the likes of Dan Jarvis and John Woodcock be happy to stand on a platform of unilateral disarmament?
  • Plato_Says
    Plato_Says Posts: 11,822
    We need 5 email addresses for that.
    Scott_P said:

    Plato_Says said:

    Falkland Islands
    Should Jeremy Corbyn be given to Argentina? #Falklands

    Is there a petition?
  • Sandpit
    Sandpit Posts: 56,045
    Mr @TheScreamingEagles, if you're reading this please can you leave Anfield five minutes early, as Liverpool need to get a goal!
  • kle4
    kle4 Posts: 99,113
    edited January 2016
    So this might mean that Corbyn’s left wing policies might not be a voter loser as assumed.

    Not necessarily, no. And that gives Corbynites hope. However if those policies are inextricably linked with extreme views or incompetence, then people might like some of the ideas but still vote against the people proposing it.
  • Wanderer
    Wanderer Posts: 3,838
    kle4 said:

    So this might mean that Corbyn’s left wing policies might not be a voter loser as assumed.

    Not necessarily, no. And that gives Corbynites hope. However if those policies are inextricably linked with extreme views or incompetence, then people might like some of the ideas but still vote against the people proposing it.

    Actually we know that renationalisation of utilities is popular, provided the cost isn't mentioned. There's plenty of polling on that. The rub is presenting it as part of a coherent package and seeming credible on the economy at the same time.

    Other policies like unilateral nuclear disarmament certainly are unpopular.
  • Scott_P
    Scott_P Posts: 51,453
    @CJTerry: Stop the War press releases. https://t.co/va2j4eVApE
  • Scott_P
    Scott_P Posts: 51,453
    @stephenkb: Just catching up. Short of giving the finger to the camera, difficult to see how Corbyn's Marr interview could have gone worse.
  • felix
    felix Posts: 15,180
    There seems to have been no responses from any Labour MPs to their leader's latest pronouncements. As a Tory that is most encouraging. They seem to be acquiescing to the destruction of their party. It is true that the polls aren't moving much but;

    1 How reliable are they in finding the Tory top?
    2 How many would actually turn out for Labour on the day?
    3 Where would Labour do well ... and would it be anywhere near where they need to do well?
    4. What is the age profile of the remaining Labour voters?

    I'm sure there are many more questions for which the answers will not be good for the Jerabims.
  • Sandpit
    Sandpit Posts: 56,045
    Wanderer said:

    kle4 said:

    So this might mean that Corbyn’s left wing policies might not be a voter loser as assumed.

    Not necessarily, no. And that gives Corbynites hope. However if those policies are inextricably linked with extreme views or incompetence, then people might like some of the ideas but still vote against the people proposing it.

    Actually we know that renationalisation of utilities is popular, provided the cost isn't mentioned. There's plenty of polling on that. The rub is presenting it as part of a coherent package and seeming credible on the economy at the same time.

    Other policies like unilateral nuclear disarmament certainly are unpopular.
    Supporters of nationalisation of utilities need to explain how it would work in practice. Will they be arbitrarily confiscating the assets of several top 100 companies invested in mainly by pension funds, or will they be borrowing hundreds of billions of pounds to buy out the shareholders?
  • Scott_P
    Scott_P Posts: 51,453
    Sandpit said:

    Will they be arbitrarily confiscating the assets of several top 100 companies invested in mainly by pension funds, or will they be borrowing hundreds of billions of pounds to buy out the shareholders?

    Buy the shareholders out with printed money, thus devaluing pension funds at the same time
  • Wanderer
    Wanderer Posts: 3,838
    Sandpit said:

    Wanderer said:

    kle4 said:

    So this might mean that Corbyn’s left wing policies might not be a voter loser as assumed.

    Not necessarily, no. And that gives Corbynites hope. However if those policies are inextricably linked with extreme views or incompetence, then people might like some of the ideas but still vote against the people proposing it.

    Actually we know that renationalisation of utilities is popular, provided the cost isn't mentioned. There's plenty of polling on that. The rub is presenting it as part of a coherent package and seeming credible on the economy at the same time.

    Other policies like unilateral nuclear disarmament certainly are unpopular.
    Supporters of nationalisation of utilities need to explain how it would work in practice. Will they be arbitrarily confiscating the assets of several top 100 companies invested in mainly by pension funds, or will they be borrowing hundreds of billions of pounds to buy out the shareholders?
    Yes, that's why I qualified it with "provided the cost isn't mentioned". Iirc the polls I've seen on it just asked "should X be taken into public ownership" without getting into the gory details.
  • Sean_F
    Sean_F Posts: 39,132
    With Corbyn as leader in 2020, I think Labour would be looking at c.210 seats.
  • Sandpit
    Sandpit Posts: 56,045
    Scott_P said:

    Sandpit said:

    Will they be arbitrarily confiscating the assets of several top 100 companies invested in mainly by pension funds, or will they be borrowing hundreds of billions of pounds to buy out the shareholders?

    Buy the shareholders out with printed money, thus devaluing pension funds at the same time
    The scary thing is that you wouldn't actually put it past them to do just that.
  • Sean_F
    Sean_F Posts: 39,132
    kle4 said:

    So this might mean that Corbyn’s left wing policies might not be a voter loser as assumed.

    Not necessarily, no. And that gives Corbynites hope. However if those policies are inextricably linked with extreme views or incompetence, then people might like some of the ideas but still vote against the people proposing it.

    Some left wing economic policies are popular. But, left wing defence and security policies are decidedly unpopular, as is legalising secondary strike action.
  • Wanderer
    Wanderer Posts: 3,838
    felix said:

    There seems to have been no responses from any Labour MPs to their leader's latest pronouncements. As a Tory that is most encouraging. They seem to be acquiescing to the destruction of their party. It is true that the polls aren't moving much but;

    1 How reliable are they in finding the Tory top?
    2 How many would actually turn out for Labour on the day?
    3 Where would Labour do well ... and would it be anywhere near where they need to do well?
    4. What is the age profile of the remaining Labour voters?

    I'm sure there are many more questions for which the answers will not be good for the Jerabims.

    I'm inclined to take the polling at face value. Corbyn has had no honeymoon and it looks very bad for 2020. However Labour's support isn't collapsing entirely, at least not yet.

    We should factor in that floods and the doctors' strike haven't been good for the Government (ok, I assume that).
  • Moses_
    Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    The only sensible explanation for Corbys utterly spectacular clusterfeck multi vehicle pile, before plummeting over a cliff and dropping right through a baby milk factory is that his brain must have been hacked. The only other explanation, that he actually believes what he says, is far to surreal for consideration by anyone of a normal disposition.
  • Wanderer
    Wanderer Posts: 3,838
    Sean_F said:

    With Corbyn as leader in 2020, I think Labour would be looking at c.210 seats.

    Is that out of 600 or 650?
  • david_herdson
    david_herdson Posts: 18,357
    RodCrosby said:

    It seems to me that unless Labour can either crush the SNP or change the voting system they are finished as a party of government for the foreseeable future.

    What difference would changing the voting system make? Who would Labour ally with under PR? It may well only be FPTP that's holding Labour together.
  • kle4
    kle4 Posts: 99,113
    Moses_ said:

    The only sensible explanation for Corbys utterly spectacular clusterfeck multi vehicle pile, before plummeting over a cliff and dropping right through a baby milk factory is that his brain must have been hacked. The only other explanation, that he actually believes what he says, is far to surreal for consideration by anyone of a normal disposition.

    I'm sure he believes it all, and there will be times when he really is just phrasing it badly and taken out of context (though given he is supposed to be a great communicator that is ceasing to hold water), but he even mentioned in the Independent interview regretting poor phrasing making a gift to his opponents, but he doesn't seemed to have learned to modulate his language or tone on issues he knows will provoke a storm.
  • MattW
    MattW Posts: 28,302
    edited January 2016
    I have to admit I'm beginning to enjoy Citizen Corbyn as a political sideshow.

    I'm sure there's a caravan near Mount Hooton road next to the Nottingham Goosefair where he could compete with all the original "Gypsy Rose-Lee"s. It fits in quite nicely just after the Labour Party conference in the first (iirc) week of October.

    All it needs now is for him to address Parliament in a squirrel suit.
  • MarkHopkins
    MarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    Left wing policies are often popular, at least initially.

    The consequences of enacting them, not so much.
  • Sean_F
    Sean_F Posts: 39,132
    Wanderer said:

    Sean_F said:

    With Corbyn as leader in 2020, I think Labour would be looking at c.210 seats.

    Is that out of 600 or 650?
    650. With 600, it would be more like 190.
  • oxfordsimon
    oxfordsimon Posts: 5,845
    We have to remember that Corbyn has spent his adult life coming up with ideas with absolutely no hope of ever being in a position of having to implement them.

    He has never had to take a decision that really matters.

    He has lived in a bubble, surrounding himself with people who are going to reinforce his ideas.

    That is not training for leadership. He is fully entitled to hold the positions he does - but he seems to lack the critical skills necessary to understand that they don't add up to a credible platform for government.

    That self-delusion is dangerous.
  • justin124
    justin124 Posts: 11,527
    edited January 2016
    The ultra Tory optimists on here might like to look at:
    1. The % party vote shares at the 2001 election
    2. The % party vote shares shown by the polls some 8 months later - ie February 2002
    3. The % party vote shares at the following election in 2005.
    How much better are the Tories really performing today compared with Labour in Feb 2002?
  • Scott_P
    Scott_P Posts: 51,453
    oxfordsimon said:

    they don't add up to a credible platform for government.

    What are you talking about? They are more than credible for the government of Venezuela
  • Scott_P
    Scott_P Posts: 51,453
    justin124 said:

    shown by the polls

    Let me stop you right there...
  • RodCrosby
    RodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    david_herdson said:

    RodCrosby said:

    It seems to me that unless Labour can either crush the SNP or change the voting system they are finished as a party of government for the foreseeable future.

    What difference would changing the voting system make? Who would Labour ally with under PR? It may well only be FPTP that's holding Labour together.
    Well, Yes, but changing the voting system would lead to re-alignment among all parties, and almost certainly rule out a majority for any single one. Whichever faction inherited the "Labour" trademark could conceivably find itself in coalition at some point.

    Whereas, under FPTP, unless Labour find themselves an SNP-slayer, middle and southern England will remain solidly Tory.
  • oxfordsimon
    oxfordsimon Posts: 5,845
    Scott_P said:

    oxfordsimon said:

    they don't add up to a credible platform for government.

    What are you talking about? They are more than credible for the government of Venezuela
    Ah yes. The Government that declared a state of economic emergency just 2 days. We really should be following their example
  • RodCrosby
    RodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Wanderer said:

    Sean_F said:

    With Corbyn as leader in 2020, I think Labour would be looking at c.210 seats.

    Is that out of 600 or 650?
    The 2015 estimate on the new boundaries is 202 out of 600.

    So Corbyn is realistically looking at 180-190, at the moment.
  • dr_spyn
    dr_spyn Posts: 11,311
    If Labour fail to retake seats in Scotland, how would they offset that failure in England and Wales? The local government by-elections don't appear to show a huge surge in support for Labour.
  • Moses_
    Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    Did they ever locate the Ed stone by the way. That really should be in a museum or something.
  • Scott_P
    Scott_P Posts: 51,453
    Moses_ said:

    Did they ever locate the Ed stone by the way. That really should be in a museum or something.

    It's not as antiquated as Corbyn
  • oxfordsimon
    oxfordsimon Posts: 5,845
    RodCrosby said:

    Wanderer said:

    Sean_F said:

    With Corbyn as leader in 2020, I think Labour would be looking at c.210 seats.

    Is that out of 600 or 650?
    The 2015 estimate on the new boundaries is 202 out of 600.

    So Corbyn is realistically looking at 180-190, at the moment.
    And I don't think his theme tune is currently 'The Only Way is Up'....
  • CornishBlue
    CornishBlue Posts: 840
    edited January 2016
    justin124 said:

    The ultra Tory optimists on here might like to look at:
    1. The % party vote shares at the 2001 election
    2. The % party vote shares shown by the polls some 8 months later - ie February 2002
    3. The % party vote shares at the following election in 2005.
    How much better are the Tories really performing today compared with Labour in Feb 2002?

    These sorts of comparisons are just not worth making.
  • malcolmg
    malcolmg Posts: 44,523
    CornishBlue said:

    justin124 said:

    The ultra Tory optimists on here might like to look at:
    1. The % party vote shares at the 2001 election
    2. The % party vote shares shown by the polls some 8 months later - ie February 2002
    3. The % party vote shares at the following election in 2005.
    How much better are the Tories really performing today compared with Labour in Feb 2002?

    These sorts of comparisons are just not worth making.
    People will be well sick of the Nasties long before that
  • Omnium
    Omnium Posts: 11,763
    Scott_P said:

    Moses_ said:

    Did they ever locate the Ed stone by the way. That really should be in a museum or something.

    It's not as antiquated as Corbyn
    It's on the terrace of David Milliband's Penthouse .
  • Wanderer
    Wanderer Posts: 3,838
    justin124 said:

    The ultra Tory optimists on here might like to look at:
    1. The % party vote shares at the 2001 election
    2. The % party vote shares shown by the polls some 8 months later - ie February 2002
    3. The % party vote shares at the following election in 2005.
    How much better are the Tories really performing today compared with Labour in Feb 2002?

    Labour did invade Iraq and the Tories did depose IDS in the meantime though.

    If Labour replace Corbyn then it changes things, of course. Possibly a lot.
  • Scott_P
    Scott_P Posts: 51,453
    @portraitinflesh: Don't worry, Corbyn will stop them paying dividends to their shareholders. https://t.co/cRBW5Wx3o6
  • Scott_P
    Scott_P Posts: 51,453
    Wanderer said:

    If Labour replace Corbyn

    ...and monkeys might fly out of my butt
  • Theuniondivvie
    Theuniondivvie Posts: 44,327
    RodCrosby said:

    david_herdson said:

    RodCrosby said:

    It seems to me that unless Labour can either crush the SNP or change the voting system they are finished as a party of government for the foreseeable future.

    What difference would changing the voting system make? Who would Labour ally with under PR? It may well only be FPTP that's holding Labour together.
    Well, Yes, but changing the voting system would lead to re-alignment among all parties, and almost certainly rule out a majority for any single one. Whichever faction inherited the "Labour" trademark could conceivably find itself in coalition at some point.

    Whereas, under FPTP, unless Labour find themselves an SNP-slayer, middle and southern England will remain solidly Tory.
    Unless there's a sudden surge in attachment to Britishness north of the border, an SNP-slaying Labour would have to be in some sense 'standing up for Scotland'. Not sure how that will ever square with middle and southern England.
  • Wanderer
    Wanderer Posts: 3,838
    Scott_P said:

    Wanderer said:

    If Labour replace Corbyn

    ...and monkeys might fly out of my butt
    They might though. I can list the reasons they won't as well as anyone but still, they might.

    (I'm talking about monkeys flying out of your arse ofc.)
  • Scott_P
    Scott_P Posts: 51,453
    @hopisen: @jonlansman @lukeakehurst That is the greatest tweet I've seen from you yet. I was going to try to respond, but it stands alone

    This is the tweet

    @jonlansman: @lukeakehurst I have always admired your honesty, Luke, but you seem not to realise how factional and immoderate you are
  • Scott_P
    Scott_P Posts: 51,453
    Theuniondivvie said:

    Unless there's a sudden surge in attachment to Britishness north of the border, an SNP-slaying Labour would have to be in some sense 'standing up for Scotland'. Not sure how that will ever square with middle and southern England.

    Ironically they could campaign on a platform of FFA

    The pitch to middle England is stop the Scottish scroungers. The pitch to Scotland is the entire SNP playbook. Would be fun to see the SNP campaigning on "too wee, too poor" for FFA
  • Wanderer
    Wanderer Posts: 3,838
    edited January 2016
    Theuniondivvie said:

    RodCrosby said:

    david_herdson said:

    RodCrosby said:

    It seems to me that unless Labour can either crush the SNP or change the voting system they are finished as a party of government for the foreseeable future.

    What difference would changing the voting system make? Who would Labour ally with under PR? It may well only be FPTP that's holding Labour together.
    Well, Yes, but changing the voting system would lead to re-alignment among all parties, and almost certainly rule out a majority for any single one. Whichever faction inherited the "Labour" trademark could conceivably find itself in coalition at some point.

    Whereas, under FPTP, unless Labour find themselves an SNP-slayer, middle and southern England will remain solidly Tory.
    Unless there's a sudden surge in attachment to Britishness north of the border, an SNP-slaying Labour would have to be in some sense 'standing up for Scotland'. Not sure how that will ever square with middle and southern England.
    I think that a standing-up-for-Scotland-within-the-Union party wouldn't be viewed with the same suspicion down here. The angst about the SNP is with having a party governing the country that wants the country to cease to exist. Obviously there's no sign of such a Unionist party getting anywhere fast in Scotland.

    Also, bluntly, what we've seen is a reaction to Alex Salmond's personality. He doesn't play well in England (then again, he hasn't made that his life's mission). Not sure how Sturgeon's personality plays into it. My impression is that she is viewed more favourably in England than Salmond.

    I think it's not *impossible* that in the future, with different Labour and SNP leaders, the English would be less on-edge about it.

    Thing is, the SNP is really not bothered is it? If anything, all this stuff must be good for the SNP north of the border?
  • Sean_F
    Sean_F Posts: 39,132
    dr_spyn said:

    If Labour fail to retake seats in Scotland, how would they offset that failure in England and Wales? The local government by-elections don't appear to show a huge surge in support for Labour.

    Brighton Kemptown, Croydon Central, perhaps Sheffield Hallam are the only gains (on current boundaries) I could see Labour making under Corbyn. They'd be offset by losing seats like Chester, NE Derbysire, Newcastle under Lyme, Ealing Acton, Darlington, Hartlepool, Wirral West, Barrow in Furness, Halifax, etc.
  • RodCrosby
    RodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    malcolmg said:

    CornishBlue said:

    justin124 said:

    The ultra Tory optimists on here might like to look at:
    1. The % party vote shares at the 2001 election
    2. The % party vote shares shown by the polls some 8 months later - ie February 2002
    3. The % party vote shares at the following election in 2005.
    How much better are the Tories really performing today compared with Labour in Feb 2002?

    These sorts of comparisons are just not worth making.
    People will be well sick of the Nasties long before that
    They get a chance for a makeover before facing the voters again in 2020, which usually helps, and the message will be "It's either us, or crazy, Commie Corbyn propped up by the Caledonian secessionists."

    Middle England will really be finely-balanced over that one...
  • Wanderer
    Wanderer Posts: 3,838
    Sean_F said:

    dr_spyn said:

    If Labour fail to retake seats in Scotland, how would they offset that failure in England and Wales? The local government by-elections don't appear to show a huge surge in support for Labour.

    Brighton Kemptown, Croydon Central, perhaps Sheffield Hallam are the only gains (on current boundaries) I could see Labour making under Corbyn. They'd be offset by losing seats like Chester, NE Derbysire, Newcastle under Lyme, Ealing Acton, Darlington, Hartlepool, Wirral West, Barrow in Furness, Halifax, etc.
    Are you underestimating Hartlepool by any chance?
  • Fysics_Teacher
    Fysics_Teacher Posts: 6,303
    edited January 2016
    On topic a bit:
    Does anybody else think that the word 'myth' in Margaret Beckett's point one is part of the problem Labour has: they are telling the electorate that they were wrong? It feels like the Tory approach under Hague and IDS and it didn't work then.

    Edited for punctuation.
  • Scott_P
    Scott_P Posts: 51,453
    Wanderer said:

    Also, bluntly, what we've seen is a reaction to Alex Salmond's personality. He doesn't play well in England

    Oh, come now. He doesn't play well in Scotland either.

    There is a reasonable argument to be made that he alone is responsible for losing the referendum

    Shame...
  • JosiasJessop
    JosiasJessop Posts: 46,250
    Fysics_Teacher said:

    On topic a bit:
    Does anybody else think that the word 'myth' in Margaret Beckett's point one is part of the problem Labour has: they are telling the electorate that they were wrong? It feels like the Tory approach under Hague and IDS and it didn't work then.

    Hague and IDS were saying that New Labour, and particularly Blair, were bad 'uns, and that the electorate should not have voted for them.

    The odd thing is that the Conservatives have tempered that view, whilst Labour have embraced it, to the extent of applying it to some of their own MPs ...
  • Scott_P
    Scott_P Posts: 51,453
    Fysics_Teacher said:

    On topic a bit:
    Does anybody else think that the word 'myth' in Margaret Beckett's point one is part of the problem Labour has: they are telling the electorate that they were wrong? It feels like the Tory approach under Hague and IDS and it didn't work then.

    Edited for punctuation.

    @robfordmancs: @election_data Labour lost the election due to insufficient sympathy for legitimate claims of Argentine nationalists #beckettreport
  • Sean_F
    Sean_F Posts: 39,132
    Wanderer said:

    Sean_F said:

    dr_spyn said:

    If Labour fail to retake seats in Scotland, how would they offset that failure in England and Wales? The local government by-elections don't appear to show a huge surge in support for Labour.

    Brighton Kemptown, Croydon Central, perhaps Sheffield Hallam are the only gains (on current boundaries) I could see Labour making under Corbyn. They'd be offset by losing seats like Chester, NE Derbysire, Newcastle under Lyme, Ealing Acton, Darlington, Hartlepool, Wirral West, Barrow in Furness, Halifax, etc.
    Are you underestimating Hartlepool by any chance?
    I think UKIP could win Hartlepool, with Corbyn leading Labour.
  • david_herdson
    david_herdson Posts: 18,357
    RodCrosby said:

    david_herdson said:

    RodCrosby said:

    It seems to me that unless Labour can either crush the SNP or change the voting system they are finished as a party of government for the foreseeable future.

    What difference would changing the voting system make? Who would Labour ally with under PR? It may well only be FPTP that's holding Labour together.
    Well, Yes, but changing the voting system would lead to re-alignment among all parties, and almost certainly rule out a majority for any single one. Whichever faction inherited the "Labour" trademark could conceivably find itself in coalition at some point.

    Whereas, under FPTP, unless Labour find themselves an SNP-slayer, middle and southern England will remain solidly Tory.
    The realignment point is absolutely valid but Labour's only options as coalition partners are the Lib Dems, Greens and nationalists. Even allowing for churn moving from FPTP to PR, I don't see how they'd get to 50% unless you add UKIP into the mix, which Labour wouldn't be willing to do (nor would UKIP, I suspect).
  • rcs1000
    rcs1000 Posts: 60,714
    I wonder if @Lovinputin1983 would like to comment on this article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/12103602/America-to-investigate-Russian-meddling-in-EU.html
  • Moses_
    Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    I presume this is one of the "strong points" Corbyn was referring to this morning on Marr in regard to IS?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3403505/Horrific-moment-ISIS-throw-man-building-hands-feet-tied-accused-gay.html
  • foxinsoxuk
    foxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Sean_F said:

    Wanderer said:

    Sean_F said:

    dr_spyn said:

    If Labour fail to retake seats in Scotland, how would they offset that failure in England and Wales? The local government by-elections don't appear to show a huge surge in support for Labour.

    Brighton Kemptown, Croydon Central, perhaps Sheffield Hallam are the only gains (on current boundaries) I could see Labour making under Corbyn. They'd be offset by losing seats like Chester, NE Derbysire, Newcastle under Lyme, Ealing Acton, Darlington, Hartlepool, Wirral West, Barrow in Furness, Halifax, etc.
    Are you underestimating Hartlepool by any chance?
    I think UKIP could win Hartlepool, with Corbyn leading Labour.
    One of 102 gains?
  • williamglenn
    williamglenn Posts: 56,289
    Sean_F said:

    Wanderer said:

    Sean_F said:

    dr_spyn said:

    If Labour fail to retake seats in Scotland, how would they offset that failure in England and Wales? The local government by-elections don't appear to show a huge surge in support for Labour.

    Brighton Kemptown, Croydon Central, perhaps Sheffield Hallam are the only gains (on current boundaries) I could see Labour making under Corbyn. They'd be offset by losing seats like Chester, NE Derbysire, Newcastle under Lyme, Ealing Acton, Darlington, Hartlepool, Wirral West, Barrow in Furness, Halifax, etc.
    Are you underestimating Hartlepool by any chance?
    I think UKIP could win Hartlepool, with Corbyn leading Labour.
    The guacamole belt isn't natural UKIP territory.
  • Fysics_Teacher
    Fysics_Teacher Posts: 6,303
    JosiasJessop said:

    Fysics_Teacher said:

    On topic a bit:
    Does anybody else think that the word 'myth' in Margaret Beckett's point one is part of the problem Labour has: they are telling the electorate that they were wrong? It feels like the Tory approach under Hague and IDS and it didn't work then.

    Hague and IDS were saying that New Labour, and particularly Blair, were bad 'uns, and that the electorate should not have voted for them.

    The odd thing is that the Conservatives have tempered that view, whilst Labour have embraced it, to the extent of applying it to some of their own MPs ...
    Although I am a bit of a party loyalist, in hindsight I probably agree with the observation ( and I can't remember who made it) that the British electorate rarely get it wrong.

  • Sean_F
    Sean_F Posts: 39,132
    foxinsoxuk said:

    Sean_F said:

    Wanderer said:

    Sean_F said:

    dr_spyn said:

    If Labour fail to retake seats in Scotland, how would they offset that failure in England and Wales? The local government by-elections don't appear to show a huge surge in support for Labour.

    Brighton Kemptown, Croydon Central, perhaps Sheffield Hallam are the only gains (on current boundaries) I could see Labour making under Corbyn. They'd be offset by losing seats like Chester, NE Derbysire, Newcastle under Lyme, Ealing Acton, Darlington, Hartlepool, Wirral West, Barrow in Furness, Halifax, etc.
    Are you underestimating Hartlepool by any chance?
    I think UKIP could win Hartlepool, with Corbyn leading Labour.
    One of 102 gains?
    No. The Labour vote has fallen from 59% in 2001 to 36% in 2015. The UKIP vote has risen from zero to 28%, over the same period.
  • foxinsoxuk
    foxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Scott_P said:

    Wanderer said:

    Also, bluntly, what we've seen is a reaction to Alex Salmond's personality. He doesn't play well in England

    Oh, come now. He doesn't play well in Scotland either.

    There is a reasonable argument to be made that he alone is responsible for losing the referendum

    Shame...
    It may have been closer with Nicola Sturgeon but probably the same result.

    I think that Salmond took things as far as he could, a bit like Farage has with the kippers.
  • Pulpstar
    Pulpstar Posts: 79,813
    edited January 2016
    Nice article from Mr Meeks, it's persuaded me to take the probably still decent value 7-10 on Khan at 888 Sport for a ton (Better than Betfair).

    Also 4-6 Labour at bookies worth a sniff.

    @Foxinsoxuk Was out in Leicester last night at the Railwaymen's club followed by firebug -> 'The Basement' - was a good night. :)
  • alex.
    alex. Posts: 4,658
    edited January 2016
    Fysics_Teacher said:

    On topic a bit:
    Does anybody else think that the word 'myth' in Margaret Beckett's point one is part of the problem Labour has: they are telling the electorate that they were wrong? It feels like the Tory approach under Hague and IDS and it didn't work then.

    Edited for punctuation.

    Perhaps just as importantly it continues to misrepresent the charge against them ie. not that they were responsible for the economic crash (although there is an argument that they were a contributor as it was partly a consequence of the lax regulatory regime that they set up), but that they placed us in a very bad position to withstand the economic crash once it happened. It is even possible to hold the latter view whilst giving them credit for their specific immediate actions at the time (I think many people feel that Alistair Darling was quite a good Chancellor even if Brown tried to take the mantle of "saving the world").
  • alex.
    alex. Posts: 4,658
    Fysics_Teacher said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Fysics_Teacher said:

    On topic a bit:
    Does anybody else think that the word 'myth' in Margaret Beckett's point one is part of the problem Labour has: they are telling the electorate that they were wrong? It feels like the Tory approach under Hague and IDS and it didn't work then.

    Hague and IDS were saying that New Labour, and particularly Blair, were bad 'uns, and that the electorate should not have voted for them.

    The odd thing is that the Conservatives have tempered that view, whilst Labour have embraced it, to the extent of applying it to some of their own MPs ...
    Although I am a bit of a party loyalist, in hindsight I probably agree with the observation ( and I can't remember who made it) that the British electorate rarely get it wrong.

    I thought it was actually Tony Benn!
  • foxinsoxuk
    foxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Pulpstar said:

    Nice article from Mr Meeks, it's persuaded me to take the probably still decent value 7-10 on Khan at 888 Sport for a ton (Better than Betfair).

    Also 4-6 Labour at bookies worth a sniff.

    @Foxinsoxuk Was out in Leicester last night at the Railwaymen's club followed by firebug -> 'The Basement' - was a good night. :)

    I was out in Birmingham at Villa Park. It was a game of two halves.

    They are going to have the finest stadium in the Championship. A draw is no good to them. It put us top though...
  • Wanderer
    Wanderer Posts: 3,838
    Sean_F said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    Sean_F said:

    Wanderer said:

    Sean_F said:

    dr_spyn said:

    If Labour fail to retake seats in Scotland, how would they offset that failure in England and Wales? The local government by-elections don't appear to show a huge surge in support for Labour.

    Brighton Kemptown, Croydon Central, perhaps Sheffield Hallam are the only gains (on current boundaries) I could see Labour making under Corbyn. They'd be offset by losing seats like Chester, NE Derbysire, Newcastle under Lyme, Ealing Acton, Darlington, Hartlepool, Wirral West, Barrow in Furness, Halifax, etc.
    Are you underestimating Hartlepool by any chance?
    I think UKIP could win Hartlepool, with Corbyn leading Labour.
    One of 102 gains?
    No. The Labour vote has fallen from 59% in 2001 to 36% in 2015. The UKIP vote has risen from zero to 28%, over the same period.
    It's the highpoint of 2001 that I'm referring to:
    https://youtu.be/v0Z6ODjfj2I?t=4m3s
  • Fysics_Teacher
    Fysics_Teacher Posts: 6,303
    alex. said:

    Fysics_Teacher said:

    On topic a bit:
    Does anybody else think that the word 'myth' in Margaret Beckett's point one is part of the problem Labour has: they are telling the electorate that they were wrong? It feels like the Tory approach under Hague and IDS and it didn't work then.

    Edited for punctuation.

    Perhaps just as importantly it continues to misrepresent the charge against them ie. not that they were responsible for the economic crash (although there is an argument that they were a contributor as it was partly a consequence of the lax regulatory regime that they set up), but that they placed us in a very bad position to withstand the economic crash once it happened. It is even possible to hold the latter view whilst giving them credit for their specific immediate actions at the time (I think many people feel that Alistair Darling was quite a good Chancellor even if Brown tried to take the mantle of "saving the world").
    Good point. I can see why they try to change the accusation, but I'm not sure it will work.

    For the avoidance of doubt, I think that they didn't cause the crash but they did put us in a bad position when it happened because Brown thought that 'it will be different this time'.

  • Theuniondivvie
    Theuniondivvie Posts: 44,327
    edited January 2016
    Wanderer said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    RodCrosby said:

    david_herdson said:

    RodCrosby said:

    It seems to me that unless Labour can either crush the SNP or change the voting system they are finished as a party of government for the foreseeable future.

    What difference would changing the voting system make? Who would Labour ally with under PR? It may well only be FPTP that's holding Labour together.
    Well, Yes, but changing the voting system would lead to re-alignment among all parties, and almost certainly rule out a majority for any single one. Whichever faction inherited the "Labour" trademark could conceivably find itself in coalition at some point.

    Whereas, under FPTP, unless Labour find themselves an SNP-slayer, middle and southern England will remain solidly Tory.
    Unless there's a sudden surge in attachment to Britishness north of the border, an SNP-slaying Labour would have to be in some sense 'standing up for Scotland'. Not sure how that will ever square with middle and southern England.
    I think that a standing-up-for-Scotland-within-the-Union party wouldn't be viewed with the same suspicion down here. The angst about the SNP is with having a party governing the country that wants the country to cease to exist. Obviously there's no sign of such a Unionist party getting anywhere fast in Scotland.
    Maybe, but as we see from some selective memories on here, the current 'constitutional mess' is apparently all the fault of Blair & Labour gifting devolution to the pesky Jocks. I think there's always been an unease about Labour's Scottish loyalties, even within Labour.
    Wanderer said:


    Also, bluntly, what we've seen is a reaction to Alex Salmond's personality. He doesn't play well in England (then again, he hasn't made that his life's mission). Not sure how Sturgeon's personality plays into it. My impression is that she is viewed more favourably in England than Salmond.

    I think it's not *impossible* that in the future, with different Labour and SNP leaders, the English would be less on-edge about it.

    I'd hesitate to make assumptions but I guess Sturgeon is more palatable to the English electorate. However as long as the SNP exists, the breaking up the UK meme will also. After all the Conservatives didn't scruple to put Ed in Sturgeon's pocket as well as Salmond's.
    Wanderer said:


    Thing is, the SNP is really not bothered is it? If anything, all this stuff must be good for the SNP north of the border?

    True!
  • Fysics_Teacher
    Fysics_Teacher Posts: 6,303
    alex. said:

    Fysics_Teacher said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Fysics_Teacher said:

    On topic a bit:
    Does anybody else think that the word 'myth' in Margaret Beckett's point one is part of the problem Labour has: they are telling the electorate that they were wrong? It feels like the Tory approach under Hague and IDS and it didn't work then.

    Hague and IDS were saying that New Labour, and particularly Blair, were bad 'uns, and that the electorate should not have voted for them.

    The odd thing is that the Conservatives have tempered that view, whilst Labour have embraced it, to the extent of applying it to some of their own MPs ...
    Although I am a bit of a party loyalist, in hindsight I probably agree with the observation ( and I can't remember who made it) that the British electorate rarely get it wrong.

    I thought it was actually Tony Benn!
    That's great!

  • Pulpstar
    Pulpstar Posts: 79,813
    foxinsoxuk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Nice article from Mr Meeks, it's persuaded me to take the probably still decent value 7-10 on Khan at 888 Sport for a ton (Better than Betfair).

    Also 4-6 Labour at bookies worth a sniff.

    @Foxinsoxuk Was out in Leicester last night at the Railwaymen's club followed by firebug -> 'The Basement' - was a good night. :)

    I was out in Birmingham at Villa Park. It was a game of two halves.

    They are going to have the finest stadium in the Championship. A draw is no good to them. It put us top though...
    Largest capacity stadium, but the Ricoh is a nicer stadium :)
  • malcolmg
    malcolmg Posts: 44,523
    Theuniondivvie said:

    RodCrosby said:

    david_herdson said:

    RodCrosby said:

    It seems to me that unless Labour can either crush the SNP or change the voting system they are finished as a party of government for the foreseeable future.

    What difference would changing the voting system make? Who would Labour ally with under PR? It may well only be FPTP that's holding Labour together.
    Well, Yes, but changing the voting system would lead to re-alignment among all parties, and almost certainly rule out a majority for any single one. Whichever faction inherited the "Labour" trademark could conceivably find itself in coalition at some point.

    Whereas, under FPTP, unless Labour find themselves an SNP-slayer, middle and southern England will remain solidly Tory.
    Unless there's a sudden surge in attachment to Britishness north of the border, an SNP-slaying Labour would have to be in some sense 'standing up for Scotland'. Not sure how that will ever square with middle and southern England.
    Be a massive change if Labour even thought about standing up for Scotland
  • alex.
    alex. Posts: 4,658
    Fysics_Teacher said:

    alex. said:

    Fysics_Teacher said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Fysics_Teacher said:

    On topic a bit:
    Does anybody else think that the word 'myth' in Margaret Beckett's point one is part of the problem Labour has: they are telling the electorate that they were wrong? It feels like the Tory approach under Hague and IDS and it didn't work then.

    Hague and IDS were saying that New Labour, and particularly Blair, were bad 'uns, and that the electorate should not have voted for them.

    The odd thing is that the Conservatives have tempered that view, whilst Labour have embraced it, to the extent of applying it to some of their own MPs ...
    Although I am a bit of a party loyalist, in hindsight I probably agree with the observation ( and I can't remember who made it) that the British electorate rarely get it wrong.

    I thought it was actually Tony Benn!
    That's great!

    I wouldn't put my house on it though...
  • DecrepitJohnL
    DecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Fysics_Teacher said:

    On topic a bit:
    Does anybody else think that the word 'myth' in Margaret Beckett's point one is part of the problem Labour has: they are telling the electorate that they were wrong? It feels like the Tory approach under Hague and IDS and it didn't work then.

    Edited for punctuation.

    No but the problem was that to make a complex case needed all five years from 2010 to 2015 and not the one word "no" that Ed Miliband gave it in a pre-election debate.
  • malcolmg
    malcolmg Posts: 44,523
    Scott_P said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Unless there's a sudden surge in attachment to Britishness north of the border, an SNP-slaying Labour would have to be in some sense 'standing up for Scotland'. Not sure how that will ever square with middle and southern England.

    Ironically they could campaign on a platform of FFA

    The pitch to middle England is stop the Scottish scroungers. The pitch to Scotland is the entire SNP playbook. Would be fun to see the SNP campaigning on "too wee, too poor" for FFA
    LOL, yes that would go down great in Scotland for sure
  • Wanderer
    Wanderer Posts: 3,838
    edited January 2016
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Fysics_Teacher said:

    On topic a bit:
    Does anybody else think that the word 'myth' in Margaret Beckett's point one is part of the problem Labour has: they are telling the electorate that they were wrong? It feels like the Tory approach under Hague and IDS and it didn't work then.

    Edited for punctuation.

    No but the problem was that to make a complex case needed all five years from 2010 to 2015 and not the one word "no" that Ed Miliband gave it in a pre-election debate.
    I wonder how the answer he had prepared to give would have been received (in which he talks around the subject before saying no at the end).

    Edit: but yes, the whole thing needed addressing much earlier.
  • HYUFD
    HYUFD Posts: 128,924
    Yes, as Mike's excellent graph shows in most general elections the leading of the winning party had a comfortable lead. The two exceptions were 1979 and 2005 when Callaghan and Thatcher and Blair and Howard were pretty evenly matched but in both cases the leading party leader still won, albeit by a relatively narrow margin
  • malcolmg
    malcolmg Posts: 44,523
    Wanderer said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    RodCrosby said:

    david_herdson said:

    RodCrosby said:

    It seems to me that unless Labour can either crush the SNP or change the voting system they are finished as a party of government for the foreseeable future.

    What difference would changing the voting system make? Who would Labour ally with under PR? It may well only be FPTP that's holding Labour together.
    Well, Yes, but changing the voting system would lead to re-alignment among all parties, and almost certainly rule out a majority for any single one. Whichever faction inherited the "Labour" trademark could conceivably find itself in coalition at some point.

    Whereas, under FPTP, unless Labour find themselves an SNP-slayer, middle and southern England will remain solidly Tory.
    Unless there's a sudden surge in attachment to Britishness north of the border, an SNP-slaying Labour would have to be in some sense 'standing up for Scotland'. Not sure how that will ever square with middle and southern England.
    I think that a standing-up-for-Scotland-within-the-Union party wouldn't be viewed with the same suspicion down here. The angst about the SNP is with having a party governing the country that wants the country to cease to exist. Obviously there's no sign of such a Unionist party getting anywhere fast in Scotland.

    Also, bluntly, what we've seen is a reaction to Alex Salmond's personality. He doesn't play well in England (then again, he hasn't made that his life's mission). Not sure how Sturgeon's personality plays into it. My impression is that she is viewed more favourably in England than Salmond.

    I think it's not *impossible* that in the future, with different Labour and SNP leaders, the English would be less on-edge about it.

    Thing is, the SNP is really not bothered is it? If anything, all this stuff must be good for the SNP north of the border?
    problem is that means we have the same ars* licking labour party we have now , they don't support Scotland, they have no coherent Scottish policiues and are as popular as the Tories. They will stay that way until they become a Scottish party and not a bunch of useless sockpuppets.
  • weejonnie
    weejonnie Posts: 3,820
    TCPoliticalBetting said:

    madasafish said:

    I read Corbyn's interview. My reaction was it was April 1st..
    He's thick and unsuited to politics.

    John Prescott thought he did well. Enough said?
    With the boundary changes and expected loss of seats under Corbynistas, the musical chairs game for Labour MPs will have 230 MPs chasing 120 to 150 safe seats.
    An ideal scenario for the extreme left wingers/ union favourites to be allocated the safest seats and the Blairites the not so safe ones.

    Two people will be laughing- Corbyn and ???? leader of the Conservative party.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories