Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour: The party that’s too weak to win but too strong to die

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited January 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour: The party that’s too weak to win but too strong to die

LAB – too weak to win too strong to die. Excellent Fabian Soc report in Guardianhttps://t.co/kqq033vWHk

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,706
    The left are in power at the moment in Canada and Greece, in both cases led by charismatic young leaders. When Labour get a leader again who looks and sounds a bit more like Blair or Obama they will return to power, as long as they persist in thinking a leader who looks and acts like a tramp will gain the confidence of the public to be PM it is hardly surprising they will continue to lose
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786
    HYUFD said:

    The left are in power at the moment in Canada and Greece, in both cases led by charismatic young leaders. When Labour get a leader again who looks and sounds a bit more like Blair or Obama they will return to power, as long as they persist in thinking a leader who looks and acts like a tramp will gain the confidence of the public to be PM it is hardly surprising they will continue to lose

    So you're saying Labour should pick Jess Phillips? :)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,706
    Jess Phillips is a poor woman's version of Kathy Burke, no, interesting character though she is. Clive Lewis or Chuka Umunna would be better bets but Corbyn has to be defeated at a general election first and Labour willing to come to its sense
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,092
    In today's Telegraph Charles Moore reckons the 11 Supreme Court judges are currently split 7 to 4 in favour of parliamentary legislation to trigger Article 50. Is there any betting on this particular score?
  • isamisam Posts: 40,721
    "Mr Corbyn, would you like to distance yourself from these remarks..."

    https://twitter.com/piers_corbyn/status/815818811924430849
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    edited January 2017
    HYUFD said:

    The left are in power at the moment in Canada and Greece, in both cases led by charismatic young leaders. When Labour get a leader again who looks and sounds a bit more like Blair or Obama they will return to power, as long as they persist in thinking a leader who looks and acts like a tramp will gain the confidence of the public to be PM it is hardly surprising they will continue to lose

    There is no one Greek in power in Greece. Tsipras is just the authorised beggar.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786
    geoffw said:

    In today's Telegraph Charles Moore reckons the 11 Supreme Court judges are currently split 7 to 4 in favour of parliamentary legislation to trigger Article 50. Is there any betting on this particular score?

    Is he just regurgitating this speculation from last month?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/10/supreme-court-brexit-appeal-judges-heading-split-7-4-decision/
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,706
    chestnut Regardless he took Syriza from nothing to become the governing party of Greece
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,092

    geoffw said:

    In today's Telegraph Charles Moore reckons the 11 Supreme Court judges are currently split 7 to 4 in favour of parliamentary legislation to trigger Article 50. Is there any betting on this particular score?

    Is he just regurgitating this speculation from last month?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/10/supreme-court-brexit-appeal-judges-heading-split-7-4-decision/
    He says it is what he currently hears from his "secret sources in the legal profession". But bearing in mind that earlier report it seems as if not much has changed.
  • These questions, and many others, will be answered on the next episode of Soap.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 4,555
    I agree with the thrust of the thread. An electable leader would help the Socialists to a limited extent, but would probably not win Scotland back, and they would have to be amazing to make much of an impact in Middle England.

    But there is no sign of the Cons or UKIP winning, in that PB cliche, Bootle.

    "My main caveat is that we are in such a period of uncertainty that we really have no idea what the world is [presumably will] be like"

    Isn't that always the case? Events, dear boy...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,706
    Blair won Middle England 3 times, if the mood is there for change there will be change but only if a palatable alternative is offered
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766
    Labour has many problems: it needs to have a vision of Brexit (no matter how unrealistic) that it can claim as its own, and it can accuse the Tories of failing to deliver on.

    But even that sucks, somewhat. It leaves the die hard Remainers as LibDem fodder.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited January 2017
    A man has died after being shot by police during a "pre-planned operation" near a motorway.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-38492953

    Have the IPCC / CSP ruled on what they are going to do with the officer that shot the guy helping the Turkish mafia lot break out of court?
  • Well well well
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    May is a very lucky PM indeed.
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238
    isam said:

    "Mr Corbyn, would you like to distance yourself from these remarks..."

    https://twitter.com/piers_corbyn/status/815818811924430849

    It's the company he keeps. :smiley:
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    isam said:

    "Mr Corbyn, would you like to distance yourself from these remarks..."

    https://twitter.com/piers_corbyn/status/815818811924430849

    Those views are much more common than you think.........
  • Just f##k off you massive grouch...

    Dentists call to end 'workplace cake culture'

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38491414
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Fabian thinks Labour should ally with the SNP? Remind me, what was the Tory smear about Labour being in someone's pocket at the last election?
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852
    edited January 2017

    Fabian thinks Labour should ally with the SNP? Remind me, what was the Tory smear about Labour being in someone's pocket at the last election?

    image

    image
  • I agree Tory approach to the right wing press when support for SNP was implied was brilliant.

    Labour had the chance to say that of course they would support SNP on social policies they would never side with Tories but their fear and the anti Scot campaign aimed at Little Englanders meant they even voted with Tories for austerity as a sort of Tory lite option.
    They slipped between cracks on voters needs. In Scotland their core base has gone, In England it is gone in the south of England save perhaps Bristol West and of course ethnic parts of London.

    Had Labour simply admitted internally that SNP were unbeatable in Scotland and said they would take on the evil Tories on job cuts and tax dodges for their mates they might have stood a chance. Now floating on a raft with a very slow puncture and no paddle to get back to shore. Dugdale speeches remains the same. Stuck in reverse. In tandem with Tories on local councils in an attempt to keep SNP out on welfare and health issues whilst Tories fly the Union Jack and call Labour soft on the Union. Finding a labour pollie to criticise Tories in Scotland is hard. No wonder Davidson is doing OK. Does not even mention Conservatives on the party literature anymore. The Ruth Davidson team etc....

    Those that imagine themselves to be English not British will not return to the Labour fold, I suspect the Fabians are right in many regards. A mea culpa on all the cock ups from Iraq to supporting Tories is needed as the MP's appear to be in it for themselves not their constituents these days. Those that see themselves as British not English are all they have to aim for now. Mainly Remain, perhaps 70% of the 24%, with the 30% Leave soft to another party in many seats in preferential voting.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Geek entrepreneurs decry the lack of support for British technology start-ups at CES (Consumer Electronics Show, the leading showcase for 3-d toasters and self-driving fridges).

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38469141

    We have fewer companies attending CES than Taiwan, and provide less government support than Israel. The DIT (prop: Liam Fox) says something or other and Matt Hancock from DCLG might stop by for half a day. An unnamed minister is quoted as saying there is a problem getting approval to travel to Las Vegas.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Morning all.

    I take it quasi-federal multi-party politics is the new Fabian society buzz phrase for old school electoral pacts. After getting shafted time and time again by Labour, do minor parties still fall for such rubbish?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    Geek entrepreneurs decry the lack of support for British technology start-ups at CES (Consumer Electronics Show, the leading showcase for 3-d toasters and self-driving fridges).

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38469141

    We have fewer companies attending CES than Taiwan, and provide less government support than Israel. The DIT (prop: Liam Fox) says something or other and Matt Hancock from DCLG might stop by for half a day. An unnamed minister is quoted as saying there is a problem getting approval to travel to Las Vegas.

    Yet Germany has even fewer attendees than us: 39 compared to 55.

    I've never been to CES, so my comments should be seen accordingly. However I do know a fair few small tech startups. I'm unsure that helping (i.e. paying) for small tech companies to go to CES is the best funding the government can be giving them.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,715

    Geek entrepreneurs decry the lack of support for British technology start-ups at CES (Consumer Electronics Show, the leading showcase for 3-d toasters and self-driving fridges).

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38469141

    We have fewer companies attending CES than Taiwan, and provide less government support than Israel. The DIT (prop: Liam Fox) says something or other and Matt Hancock from DCLG might stop by for half a day. An unnamed minister is quoted as saying there is a problem getting approval to travel to Las Vegas.

    Muslim geekss and entrepreneurs?
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    Geek entrepreneurs decry the lack of support for British technology start-ups at CES (Consumer Electronics Show, the leading showcase for 3-d toasters and self-driving fridges).

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38469141

    We have fewer companies attending CES than Taiwan, and provide less government support than Israel. The DIT (prop: Liam Fox) says something or other and Matt Hancock from DCLG might stop by for half a day. An unnamed minister is quoted as saying there is a problem getting approval to travel to Las Vegas.

    Yet Germany has even fewer attendees than us: 39 compared to 55.

    I've never been to CES, so my comments should be seen accordingly. However I do know a fair few small tech startups. I'm unsure that helping (i.e. paying) for small tech companies to go to CES is the best funding the government can be giving them.
    You may be right. These governments, on the other hand ... At this year's show, there are French, Ukrainian, Czech, Saudi Arabian, Dutch, Israeli, New Zealand and US stands organised by government-backed agencies to promote local talent.

    The other frightening thing is the implication of the unnamed minister's remarks that more support would have been forthcoming but the DIT was scared of headlines about Las Vegas (or possibly headlines about expense claims for Las Vegas).
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,879

    Geek entrepreneurs decry the lack of support for British technology start-ups at CES (Consumer Electronics Show, the leading showcase for 3-d toasters and self-driving fridges).

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38469141

    We have fewer companies attending CES than Taiwan, and provide less government support than Israel. The DIT (prop: Liam Fox) says something or other and Matt Hancock from DCLG might stop by for half a day. An unnamed minister is quoted as saying there is a problem getting approval to travel to Las Vegas.

    Yet Germany has even fewer attendees than us: 39 compared to 55.

    I've never been to CES, so my comments should be seen accordingly. However I do know a fair few small tech startups. I'm unsure that helping (i.e. paying) for small tech companies to go to CES is the best funding the government can be giving them.
    You may be right. These governments, on the other hand ... At this year's show, there are French, Ukrainian, Czech, Saudi Arabian, Dutch, Israeli, New Zealand and US stands organised by government-backed agencies to promote local talent.

    The other frightening thing is the implication of the unnamed minister's remarks that more support would have been forthcoming but the DIT was scared of headlines about Las Vegas (or possibly headlines about expense claims for Las Vegas).
    You don't think the press would have been unhappy about a Minister going to Vegas? Or you think he should just ignore them?

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,951
    edited January 2017
    rcs1000 said:

    Labour has many problems: it needs to have a vision of Brexit (no matter how unrealistic) that it can claim as its own, and it can accuse the Tories of failing to deliver on.

    But even that sucks, somewhat. It leaves the die hard Remainers as LibDem fodder.

    Except, the concept of "Remainers" dies once Article 50 is triggered. Politically, Theresa May - and arguably the UK - just HAS to Leave after that. The idea of crawling back to Brussels to be re-admitted would be a political earthquake that would dwarf the voters' notions of Black Wednesday, Suez, Chamberlain's "peace" with Hitler. As a country, we would be forced to wear the blue gimp-suit with yellow stars on it. To be Juncker's foot stool at banquets. There to be tasered by the other 27, just to watch us writhe, for their pleasure...

    Remainers will be dead. They will have to be replaced with the far different - and rarer - beast, the Rejoiner. Lead by Tim Farron, the man who would happily wear that blue and yellow-starred gimp-suit....
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    Geek entrepreneurs decry the lack of support for British technology start-ups at CES (Consumer Electronics Show, the leading showcase for 3-d toasters and self-driving fridges).

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38469141

    We have fewer companies attending CES than Taiwan, and provide less government support than Israel. The DIT (prop: Liam Fox) says something or other and Matt Hancock from DCLG might stop by for half a day. An unnamed minister is quoted as saying there is a problem getting approval to travel to Las Vegas.

    Yet Germany has even fewer attendees than us: 39 compared to 55.

    I've never been to CES, so my comments should be seen accordingly. However I do know a fair few small tech startups. I'm unsure that helping (i.e. paying) for small tech companies to go to CES is the best funding the government can be giving them.
    You may be right. These governments, on the other hand ... At this year's show, there are French, Ukrainian, Czech, Saudi Arabian, Dutch, Israeli, New Zealand and US stands organised by government-backed agencies to promote local talent.

    The other frightening thing is the implication of the unnamed minister's remarks that more support would have been forthcoming but the DIT was scared of headlines about Las Vegas (or possibly headlines about expense claims for Las Vegas).
    Those governments enjoy paying for civil servants to go on very enjoyable junkets to Las Vegas?

    I can imagine the reaction of some on here if they did send lots of people: "Oh My God! The government's wasting lots of money sending people to Las Vegas. Why don't they just reduce the taxation levels for startups / increase incentives for new companies / do something else we can criticise?

    I'm not an expert on CES. But I'm unconvinced that spending lots of money helping UK startups to attend CES is the best way the government can be helping them.

    Perhaps others (RCS?) can give another perspective,
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,879

    Morning all.

    I take it quasi-federal multi-party politics is the new Fabian society buzz phrase for old school electoral pacts. After getting shafted time and time again by Labour, do minor parties still fall for such rubbish?

    How have the minor parties been shafted by Labour? The SNP have done rather well by Labour... And the Lib Dems were surely shafted by the Tories?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,835
    geoffw said:

    In today's Telegraph Charles Moore reckons the 11 Supreme Court judges are currently split 7 to 4 in favour of parliamentary legislation to trigger Article 50. Is there any betting on this particular score?

    Genuinely how does he know ?

    The sc judges seem like the last people to go leaking to the press to me.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,951
    Pulpstar said:

    geoffw said:

    In today's Telegraph Charles Moore reckons the 11 Supreme Court judges are currently split 7 to 4 in favour of parliamentary legislation to trigger Article 50. Is there any betting on this particular score?

    Genuinely how does he know ?

    The sc judges seem like the last people to go leaking to the press to me.
    Their other halves, on the other hand...?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,715
    rkrkrk said:

    Geek entrepreneurs decry the lack of support for British technology start-ups at CES (Consumer Electronics Show, the leading showcase for 3-d toasters and self-driving fridges).

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38469141

    We have fewer companies attending CES than Taiwan, and provide less government support than Israel. The DIT (prop: Liam Fox) says something or other and Matt Hancock from DCLG might stop by for half a day. An unnamed minister is quoted as saying there is a problem getting approval to travel to Las Vegas.

    Yet Germany has even fewer attendees than us: 39 compared to 55.

    I've never been to CES, so my comments should be seen accordingly. However I do know a fair few small tech startups. I'm unsure that helping (i.e. paying) for small tech companies to go to CES is the best funding the government can be giving them.
    You may be right. These governments, on the other hand ... At this year's show, there are French, Ukrainian, Czech, Saudi Arabian, Dutch, Israeli, New Zealand and US stands organised by government-backed agencies to promote local talent.

    The other frightening thing is the implication of the unnamed minister's remarks that more support would have been forthcoming but the DIT was scared of headlines about Las Vegas (or possibly headlines about expense claims for Las Vegas).
    You don't think the press would have been unhappy about a Minister going to Vegas? Or you think he should just ignore them?

    It’s a big show. Have a look at http://www.techradar.com/news/ces-dates-news-reviews-and-videos. I know that’s a geek site, but it seems a pity if, when we NEED to get on with exporting, and we are big in the games world, and I think the drones world, HMG appears to be standing back.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,747
    As I have said before the problem that Labour faces in 2020 is not that they will lose but they lose so badly that even winning 100 additional seats in 2025 does not make them the largest party.

    We are already seeing their very modest pool of talent depleted by the likes of Kahn and Burnham leaving Parliament to find winnable posts at the Mayoral level where they can actually do something. Is the likes of Chukka going to hang around for more than another decade in the vague hope of a serious job in 2030? I have my doubts.

    Labour also need to ponder the harsh lessons of Scotland. If they do not offer a credible alternative government someone else will. The "too strong to die" meme only requires this to become wishful thinking. At the moment that alternative is not particularly obvious in England but it is unlikely that situation will remain indefinitely.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    Geek entrepreneurs decry the lack of support for British technology start-ups at CES (Consumer Electronics Show, the leading showcase for 3-d toasters and self-driving fridges).

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38469141

    We have fewer companies attending CES than Taiwan, and provide less government support than Israel. The DIT (prop: Liam Fox) says something or other and Matt Hancock from DCLG might stop by for half a day. An unnamed minister is quoted as saying there is a problem getting approval to travel to Las Vegas.

    Yet Germany has even fewer attendees than us: 39 compared to 55.

    I've never been to CES, so my comments should be seen accordingly. However I do know a fair few small tech startups. I'm unsure that helping (i.e. paying) for small tech companies to go to CES is the best funding the government can be giving them.
    You may be right. These governments, on the other hand ... At this year's show, there are French, Ukrainian, Czech, Saudi Arabian, Dutch, Israeli, New Zealand and US stands organised by government-backed agencies to promote local talent.

    The other frightening thing is the implication of the unnamed minister's remarks that more support would have been forthcoming but the DIT was scared of headlines about Las Vegas (or possibly headlines about expense claims for Las Vegas).
    Those governments enjoy paying for civil servants to go on very enjoyable junkets to Las Vegas?

    I can imagine the reaction of some on here if they did send lots of people: "Oh My God! The government's wasting lots of money sending people to Las Vegas. Why don't they just reduce the taxation levels for startups / increase incentives for new companies / do something else we can criticise?

    I'm not an expert on CES. But I'm unconvinced that spending lots of money helping UK startups to attend CES is the best way the government can be helping them.

    Perhaps others (RCS?) can give another perspective,
    Yes, that is the point. The government is afraid of adverse press reaction to the name Las Vegas.

    On funding there is a straw man. First, it would not take "lots of money" and second, I think the complaint is about wider support and not cheap air tickets. It does not have to be the best support or indeed the only support. We do not have the same protectionism as the United States or Russian governments, for instance. Perhaps we should, or perhaps they should not.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,747
    Pulpstar said:

    geoffw said:

    In today's Telegraph Charles Moore reckons the 11 Supreme Court judges are currently split 7 to 4 in favour of parliamentary legislation to trigger Article 50. Is there any betting on this particular score?

    Genuinely how does he know ?

    The sc judges seem like the last people to go leaking to the press to me.
    There are a lot of people involved in the iterative process by which their judgments are drafted and revised seeking a consensus so it is not impossible that there is a leak but I have my doubts.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    Geek entrepreneurs decry the lack of support for British technology start-ups at CES (Consumer Electronics Show, the leading showcase for 3-d toasters and self-driving fridges).

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38469141

    We have fewer companies attending CES than Taiwan, and provide less government support than Israel. The DIT (prop: Liam Fox) says something or other and Matt Hancock from DCLG might stop by for half a day. An unnamed minister is quoted as saying there is a problem getting approval to travel to Las Vegas.

    Yet Germany has even fewer attendees than us: 39 compared to 55.

    I've never been to CES, so my comments should be seen accordingly. However I do know a fair few small tech startups. I'm unsure that helping (i.e. paying) for small tech companies to go to CES is the best funding the government can be giving them.
    You may be right. These governments, on the other hand ... At this year's show, there are French, Ukrainian, Czech, Saudi Arabian, Dutch, Israeli, New Zealand and US stands organised by government-backed agencies to promote local talent.

    The other frightening thing is the implication of the unnamed minister's remarks that more support would have been forthcoming but the DIT was scared of headlines about Las Vegas (or possibly headlines about expense claims for Las Vegas).
    Those governments enjoy paying for civil servants to go on very enjoyable junkets to Las Vegas?

    I can imagine the reaction of some on here if they did send lots of people: "Oh My God! The government's wasting lots of money sending people to Las Vegas. Why don't they just reduce the taxation levels for startups / increase incentives for new companies / do something else we can criticise?

    I'm not an expert on CES. But I'm unconvinced that spending lots of money helping UK startups to attend CES is the best way the government can be helping them.

    Perhaps others (RCS?) can give another perspective,
    CES is dying anyway. 8 years ago at the height of the format war I went and it was amazing. Today the interesting stuff happens at private events.
  • Predictably enough the report - full of pesky things ,ikea facts and mathematics - is being seen as attacking the leader over on Facebook party forums. Apparently the Fabians Society is right wing...

    We're not too string to die...
  • DavidL said:

    As I have said before the problem that Labour faces in 2020 is not that they will lose but they lose so badly that even winning 100 additional seats in 2025 does not make them the largest party.

    We are already seeing their very modest pool of talent depleted by the likes of Kahn and Burnham leaving Parliament to find winnable posts at the Mayoral level where they can actually do something. Is the likes of Chukka going to hang around for more than another decade in the vague hope of a serious job in 2030? I have my doubts.

    Labour also need to ponder the harsh lessons of Scotland. If they do not offer a credible alternative government someone else will. The "too strong to die" meme only requires this to become wishful thinking. At the moment that alternative is not particularly obvious in England but it is unlikely that situation will remain indefinitely.

    Why is it unlikely? Consider the Japanese Socialist Party - too weak to win, too strong to come third for two if not three generations.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,724
    It's the 3rd, and that means it's back to school. Thank you all for your company over the holidays but I am now going to take another break from PB as we are due an inspection and I need to be putting all my energy into preparing for that.

    Hope you have a great 2017 and with luck will be back before Easter.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,724

    Predictably enough the report - full of pesky things ,ikea facts and mathematics - is being seen as attacking the leader over on Facebook party forums. Apparently the Fabians Society is right wing...

    We're not too string to die...

    Labour is a mess, as I imagine you feel much more strongly and painfully than I do.

    With luck, by the time I return it will have started the path back towards credibility.
  • timmotimmo Posts: 1,469

    Geek entrepreneurs decry the lack of support for British technology start-ups at CES (Consumer Electronics Show, the leading showcase for 3-d toasters and self-driving fridges).

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38469141

    We have fewer companies attending CES than Taiwan, and provide less government support than Israel. The DIT (prop: Liam Fox) says something or other and Matt Hancock from DCLG might stop by for half a day. An unnamed minister is quoted as saying there is a problem getting approval to travel to Las Vegas.

    Yet Germany has even fewer attendees than us: 39 compared to 55.

    I've never been to CES, so my comments should be seen accordingly. However I do know a fair few small tech startups. I'm unsure that helping (i.e. paying) for small tech companies to go to CES is the best funding the government can be giving them.
    You may be right. These governments, on the other hand ... At this year's show, there are French, Ukrainian, Czech, Saudi Arabian, Dutch, Israeli, New Zealand and US stands organised by government-backed agencies to promote local talent.

    The other frightening thing is the implication of the unnamed minister's remarks that more support would have been forthcoming but the DIT was scared of headlines about Las Vegas (or possibly headlines about expense claims for Las Vegas).
    Those governments enjoy paying for civil servants to go on very enjoyable junkets to Las Vegas?

    I can imagine the reaction of some on here if they did send lots of people: "Oh My God! The government's wasting lots of money sending people to Las Vegas. Why don't they just reduce the taxation levels for startups / increase incentives for new companies / do something else we can criticise?

    I'm not an expert on CES. But I'm unconvinced that spending lots of money helping UK startups to attend CES is the best way the government can be helping them.

    Perhaps others (RCS?) can give another perspective,
    The junket which nearly all local authorities tend to go now and which is a real jolly is MPIM in Nice/Cannes.
    LAs spend 000s on attending to promote their own asset base or indeed to look for property to invest in. At the same time they are wined,dined and generally treat it as an extra holiday for the year.
  • Geek entrepreneurs decry the lack of support for British technology start-ups at CES (Consumer Electronics Show, the leading showcase for 3-d toasters and self-driving fridges).

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38469141

    We have fewer companies attending CES than Taiwan, and provide less government support than Israel. The DIT (prop: Liam Fox) says something or other and Matt Hancock from DCLG might stop by for half a day. An unnamed minister is quoted as saying there is a problem getting approval to travel to Las Vegas.

    Yet Germany has even fewer attendees than us: 39 compared to 55.

    I've never been to CES, so my comments should be seen accordingly. However I do know a fair few small tech startups. I'm unsure that helping (i.e. paying) for small tech companies to go to CES is the best funding the government can be giving them.
    You may be right. talent.

    The other frightening thing is the implication of the unnamed minister's remarks that more support would have been forthcoming but the DIT was scared of headlines about Las Vegas (or possibly headlines about expense claims for Las Vegas).
    Those governments enjoy paying for civil servants to go on very enjoyable junkets to Las Vegas?

    I can imagine the reaction of some on here if they did send lots of people: "Oh My God! The government's wasting lots of money sending people to Las Vegas. Why don't they just reduce the taxation levels for startups / increase incentives for new companies / do something else we can criticise?

    I'm not an expert on CES. But I'm unconvinced that spending lots of money helping UK startups to attend CES is the best way the government can be helping them.

    Perhaps others (RCS?) can give another perspective,
    Yes, that is the point. The government is afraid of adverse press reaction to the name Las Vegas.

    On funding there is a straw man. First, it would not take "lots of money" and second, I think the complaint is about wider support and not cheap air tickets. It does not have to be the best support or indeed the only support. We do not have the same protectionism as the United States or Russian governments, for instance. Perhaps we should, or perhaps they should not.
    The resentment is surely against civil servants and their certainty of getting a pay packet next month and a pension for life.

    Always remember the irregular verb: I slog my guts out, you have a cushy number and they are, to all intents
    & purposes, thieves and fraudsters. Whoever any of us are.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,715
    edited January 2017
    ydoethur said:

    It's the 3rd, and that means it's back to school. Thank you all for your company over the holidays but I am now going to take another break from PB as we are due an inspection and I need to be putting all my energy into preparing for that.

    Hope you have a great 2017 and with luck will be back before Easter.

    I don’t suppose you’ll have time to see this but thank you very much for your contributions. Always measured and sensible.
    Hope the inspection goes well and look forward to your return.
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789
    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    geoffw said:

    In today's Telegraph Charles Moore reckons the 11 Supreme Court judges are currently split 7 to 4 in favour of parliamentary legislation to trigger Article 50. Is there any betting on this particular score?

    Genuinely how does he know ?

    The sc judges seem like the last people to go leaking to the press to me.
    There are a lot of people involved in the iterative process by which their judgments are drafted and revised seeking a consensus so it is not impossible that there is a leak but I have my doubts.
    A leak of the thoughts of every SC member. Really?
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789
    timmo said:

    Geek entrepreneurs decry the lack of support for British technology start-ups at CES (Consumer Electronics Show, the leading showcase for 3-d toasters and self-driving fridges).

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38469141

    We have fewer companies attending CES than Taiwan, and provide less government support than Israel. The DIT (prop: Liam Fox) says something or other and Matt Hancock from DCLG might stop by for half a day. An unnamed minister is quoted as saying there is a problem getting approval to travel to Las Vegas.

    Yet Germany has even fewer attendees than us: 39 compared to 55.

    I've never been to CES, so my comments should be seen accordingly. However I do know a fair few small tech startups. I'm unsure that helping (i.e. paying) for small tech companies to go to CES is the best funding the government can be giving them.
    You may be right. These governments, on the other hand ... At this year's show, there are French, Ukrainian, Czech, Saudi Arabian, Dutch, Israeli, New Zealand and US stands organised by government-backed agencies to promote local talent.

    The other frightening thing is the implication of the unnamed minister's remarks that more support would have been forthcoming but the DIT was scared of headlines about Las Vegas (or possibly headlines about expense claims for Las Vegas).
    Those governments enjoy paying for civil servants to go on very enjoyable junkets to Las Vegas?

    I can imagine the reaction of some on here if they did send lots of people: "Oh My God! The government's wasting lots of money sending people to Las Vegas. Why don't they just reduce the taxation levels for startups / increase incentives for new companies / do something else we can criticise?

    I'm not an expert on CES. But I'm unconvinced that spending lots of money helping UK startups to attend CES is the best way the government can be helping them.

    Perhaps others (RCS?) can give another perspective,
    The junket which nearly all local authorities tend to go now and which is a real jolly is MPIM in Nice/Cannes.
    LAs spend 000s on attending to promote their own asset base or indeed to look for property to invest in. At the same time they are wined,dined and generally treat it as an extra holiday for the year.
    Ah yes, MIPIM. It toned down a little for a few years but it is, substantially a jolly with an expensive stand promoting the delights of unlikely places - invest in Dushanbe, guaranteed little torture, Runcon the place to be, Middlesbrough, it's Abu Dhabi on the Tees, that sort of thing.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,261
    Another EU variable: will Tusk survive the opposition of his own country's government? Or are they so disliked by other countries that it will actually strengthen him?

    http://www.euractiv.com/section/elections/news/polish-fm-calls-tusk-icon-of-evil-and-stupidity/?nl_ref=27963009

    On topic, I do think Labour badly needs a narrative to push - anti-austerity is too vague and too much shared by other parties (even the Tories these days), and nuance on the EU is not in demand. The most serious recent poll finding is that most people can't think of anything that Labour has campaigned for in the last year. That is, in my opinion, worse than being associated with a controversial cause - one can win people round to something, but not to a vacuum. Labour actually needs to be more outspokenly radical rather than try to reassure people that we're not that radical, honest - people won't buy us as a centrist party at the moment, but there is a market for cut-the-crap politics. In particular, I think that we need to be either clearly Remain/Rejoin or clearly Accept Brexit.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,879
    http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/02/politics/office-of-congressional-ethics-oversight-of-ethics-committee-amendment/

    Interesting that republicans did this in defiance of Paul Ryan.
    Hard not to think that some corrupt politicians will be able to get off the hook because of this.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,747
    matt said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    geoffw said:

    In today's Telegraph Charles Moore reckons the 11 Supreme Court judges are currently split 7 to 4 in favour of parliamentary legislation to trigger Article 50. Is there any betting on this particular score?

    Genuinely how does he know ?

    The sc judges seem like the last people to go leaking to the press to me.
    There are a lot of people involved in the iterative process by which their judgments are drafted and revised seeking a consensus so it is not impossible that there is a leak but I have my doubts.
    A leak of the thoughts of every SC member. Really?
    That would not be necessary. If there are 2 principal drafts being circulated and there was an indication of who was signing up to each one then that would be sufficient. So 1 person with access to the drafts would be sufficient. But I still think it is unlikely.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,879

    Another EU variable: will Tusk survive the opposition of his own country's government? Or are they so disliked by other countries that it will actually strengthen him?

    http://www.euractiv.com/section/elections/news/polish-fm-calls-tusk-icon-of-evil-and-stupidity/?nl_ref=27963009

    On topic, I do think Labour badly needs a narrative to push - anti-austerity is too vague and too much shared by other parties (even the Tories these days), and nuance on the EU is not in demand. The most serious recent poll finding is that most people can't think of anything that Labour has campaigned for in the last year. That is, in my opinion, worse than being associated with a controversial cause - one can win people round to something, but not to a vacuum. Labour actually needs to be more outspokenly radical rather than try to reassure people that we're not that radical, honest - people won't buy us as a centrist party at the moment, but there is a market for cut-the-crap politics. In particular, I think that we need to be either clearly Remain/Rejoin or clearly Accept Brexit.

    If May makes a mess of Brexit... Then I think current nuanced position will be strong.

    Remain/rejoin will just be a rehash of the refendum... We can brexit better than you could be persuasive if it's clear tat May has bungled it.

    Of course if she makes a success of it... Then Labour would be screwed under either option.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Another EU variable: will Tusk survive the opposition of his own country's government? Or are they so disliked by other countries that it will actually strengthen him?

    http://www.euractiv.com/section/elections/news/polish-fm-calls-tusk-icon-of-evil-and-stupidity/?nl_ref=27963009

    On topic, I do think Labour badly needs a narrative to push - anti-austerity is too vague and too much shared by other parties (even the Tories these days), and nuance on the EU is not in demand. The most serious recent poll finding is that most people can't think of anything that Labour has campaigned for in the last year. That is, in my opinion, worse than being associated with a controversial cause - one can win people round to something, but not to a vacuum. Labour actually needs to be more outspokenly radical rather than try to reassure people that we're not that radical, honest - people won't buy us as a centrist party at the moment, but there is a market for cut-the-crap politics. In particular, I think that we need to be either clearly Remain/Rejoin or clearly Accept Brexit.

    I think that Goldilocks Brexit (not too hard or too soft) should be Labours aim. Protection of workers rights, restrictions on immigration via residency tests for benefits etc, and the ability to intervene in support of British businesses could be a vote winner, and a clear contrast to the capitalists Brexit. Labour should listen to Gisella on the subject.

  • Hmmm

    The Left do not have the existential crisis which hit the Right in 1997. Then some right of centre voters were totally disenfranchised - those who came to be UKIP voters, and all the left of centre parties ganged up on the Conservatives with the intention of killing them outright.

    The lack of self-awareness with the Lib Dems never ceases to amaze me. The informal carve-up that never was whereby the Lib Dems were effectively given a free run at formerly and now safe Conservative seats will not be forgotten by us Conservatives.

    Hague thought the 2010 Coalition was suicidal for the LDs and told Fionn that on the evening of the pact. So did I for that matter although I thought reducing them to 30 seats would be Nivarnah.

    So, it might take three election cycles for the left to sort themselves out. But they will do. The test of the right will be to use that 13 to 15 years to embed reform so the next Blair is less able to wreak havoc than the last one.

    Those who are not of a Conservative disposition might choke on their cornflakes but the election of Blair led to the most extremist hard left government this country has ever had to face.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    rkrkrk said:

    http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/02/politics/office-of-congressional-ethics-oversight-of-ethics-committee-amendment/

    Interesting that republicans did this in defiance of Paul Ryan.
    Hard not to think that some corrupt politicians will be able to get off the hook because of this.

    Ryan may be discovering what his predecessor, John Boehner, found: that (partly as an ironic side-effect of gerrymandering) the House Republicans are ungovernable. President Trump might find out in a few weeks' time.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,747

    Another EU variable: will Tusk survive the opposition of his own country's government? Or are they so disliked by other countries that it will actually strengthen him?

    http://www.euractiv.com/section/elections/news/polish-fm-calls-tusk-icon-of-evil-and-stupidity/?nl_ref=27963009

    On topic, I do think Labour badly needs a narrative to push - anti-austerity is too vague and too much shared by other parties (even the Tories these days), and nuance on the EU is not in demand. The most serious recent poll finding is that most people can't think of anything that Labour has campaigned for in the last year. That is, in my opinion, worse than being associated with a controversial cause - one can win people round to something, but not to a vacuum. Labour actually needs to be more outspokenly radical rather than try to reassure people that we're not that radical, honest - people won't buy us as a centrist party at the moment, but there is a market for cut-the-crap politics. In particular, I think that we need to be either clearly Remain/Rejoin or clearly Accept Brexit.

    I think Labour need to think ahead. By the next election Brexit will have happened. It will either perceived to be a success (in which case Labour are in deep trouble) or a failure or, more likely, a bit of both.

    I think Labour need to do some thinking about what sort of relationship we want with the EU after Brexit. It is important to appreciate that any deal on Brexit is not immutable and it would be possible for the government of the day to seek to change it. If the deal the government has done does not include membership of the single market is that something Labour wants? Where does it think the job risks are greatest and where is it going to get traction with the population at large?

    The line surely has to be, yes the UK voted for Brexit but they didn't vote for this and it would be better if we did that. But they need some idea of what "that" is. So far, there seems very little thought being given to this.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    matt said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    geoffw said:

    In today's Telegraph Charles Moore reckons the 11 Supreme Court judges are currently split 7 to 4 in favour of parliamentary legislation to trigger Article 50. Is there any betting on this particular score?

    Genuinely how does he know ?

    The sc judges seem like the last people to go leaking to the press to me.
    There are a lot of people involved in the iterative process by which their judgments are drafted and revised seeking a consensus so it is not impossible that there is a leak but I have my doubts.
    A leak of the thoughts of every SC member. Really?
    Would the majority and minority drafts have the names of the judges on the top?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    If it's only Jezza and his small band of followers keeping Lab from making a serious challenge I believe his hold is weaker than perhaps is imagined.

    Apols can't remember who made an excellent post yesterday pointing out that it is at the moment of least expectation of change, of a catalyst for change least envisaged, that change often happens.

    Meanwhile locally Cons take the Lab effort for granted at their peril.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,670
    edited January 2017
    rcs1000 said:

    Labour has many problems: it needs to have a vision of Brexit (no matter how unrealistic) that it can claim as its own, and it can accuse the Tories of failing to deliver on.

    But even that sucks, somewhat. It leaves the die hard Remainers as LibDem fodder.

    The Tories don't have a clue on it so why would Labour need to be any different
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,747

    Hmmm

    The test of the right will be to use that 13 to 15 years to embed reform so the next Blair is less able to wreak havoc than the last one.

    Those who are not of a Conservative disposition might choke on their cornflakes but the election of Blair led to the most extremist hard left government this country has ever had to face.

    Sorry, I read this twice and are still struggling to work out what you are talking about. What was "extremist" about New Labour? Did they look to nationalise the pillars of production? Did they seek to overturn the Thatcherite Trade Union reforms? Did they seek to eliminate private education or healthcare? Did they seek to soak the rich with penal taxes? Absolutely not.

    The Labour government was incompetent and inept with very little idea of what to do with the power they were given but to describe them as "the most extremist hard left government this country has ever had to face" seems simply bizarre. Were you not around in the 60s or 70s?
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    Dr Fox,

    "Goldilocks Brexit" is a pointless goal for the Labour party. It's obviously desirable but that's the problem. It's Motherhood and apple pie and it's what everyone wants. I doubt if anyone will argue against it. But it's in no one's gift, and the voters' know that.

    Mrs May has an advantage. She was a Remainer and so is hardly likely to be arguing for a hard Brexit anyway.

    Labour's problem is that it's irrelevant. It's restricted to jumping up and down at the back and heckling. Somehow it needs to grit its teeth and position itself as a constructive critic, offering useful advice. It goes against all the tenets of politics so it won't.

    The LDs have a definite position but they'll struggle to shake off the accusations of being anti-democratic. They don't need to as they're aiming for a niche position, but Labour are still seeking power.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,670
    rkrkrk said:

    Morning all.

    I take it quasi-federal multi-party politics is the new Fabian society buzz phrase for old school electoral pacts. After getting shafted time and time again by Labour, do minor parties still fall for such rubbish?

    How have the minor parties been shafted by Labour? The SNP have done rather well by Labour... And the Lib Dems were surely shafted by the Tories?
    Lib Dems shafted themselves , shifty liars never go down well when they are doing it in public.
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852
    TOPPING said:

    If it's only Jezza and his small band of followers keeping Lab from making a serious challenge I believe his hold is weaker than perhaps is imagined.

    Apols can't remember who made an excellent post yesterday pointing out that it is at the moment of least expectation of change, of a catalyst for change least envisaged, that change often happens.

    Meanwhile locally Cons take the Lab effort for granted at their peril.

    Surely its not the size of his band of brothers (and sisters) that provides his security, its his complete dominance amongst the voters in the voluntary party and his army of leftie clicktivists.
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852
    edited January 2017
    DavidL said:

    Hmmm

    The test of the right will be to use that 13 to 15 years to embed reform so the next Blair is less able to wreak havoc than the last one.

    Those who are not of a Conservative disposition might choke on their cornflakes but the election of Blair led to the most extremist hard left government this country has ever had to face.

    Sorry, I read this twice and are still struggling to work out what you are talking about. What was "extremist" about New Labour? Did they look to nationalise the pillars of production? Did they seek to overturn the Thatcherite Trade Union reforms? Did they seek to eliminate private education or healthcare? Did they seek to soak the rich with penal taxes? Absolutely not.

    The Labour government was incompetent and inept with very little idea of what to do with the power they were given but to describe them as "the most extremist hard left government this country has ever had to face" seems simply bizarre. Were you not around in the 60s or 70s?
    Nothing is extreme about Blair, Blair facilitated Corbyn by being too centrist, too slimy, too warlike, and arguably, too successful, for the tastes of most members. It started the push to the left, and the "one most heave brothers" mentality that means the membership came to believe the answer to the electorate rejecting Miliband was Corbyn. Corbyn's successor and fellow hard left flame carrier will be waiting in the wings at the next "time for a change" election.
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 1,082
    View_from_cumbria - im afraid you cant come out with statements like that which even the frothing PB Tories will disagree with (they are constantly banging on about how a real labour government hasnt won an election in fifty years or something) and expect us to take your prognostications on Copeland seriously, unfortunately.
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 1,082
    As for Piers Corbyn and the suggestion that Qatar has funded both Clinton and Isis - the rest of the stuff the guy comes out with there might be a bit off the wall but this is incontrovertible fact.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    Dr Fox,

    How can Labour be constructive in the EU negotiations?

    Agree that Brexit will proceed (without any but ... but ....buts). Put forward Gisella Stuart as the spokesperson for Labour, then they can emphasise workers' rights. Make it a joint enterprise for the UK and offer to show a united front in Europe.

    It won't happen and they'll remain in limbo, too involved in self-destruction.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    JWisemann said:

    View_from_cumbria - im afraid you cant come out with statements like that which even the frothing PB Tories will disagree with (they are constantly banging on about how a real labour government hasnt won an election in fifty years or something) and expect us to take your prognostications on Copeland seriously, unfortunately.

    Where's TSE and his number of years since election victory bar chart? I seem to recall Labour was quite a lot higher than the "New Labour (War Criminal)" party :p
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    If it's only Jezza and his small band of followers keeping Lab from making a serious challenge I believe his hold is weaker than perhaps is imagined.

    Apols can't remember who made an excellent post yesterday pointing out that it is at the moment of least expectation of change, of a catalyst for change least envisaged, that change often happens.

    Meanwhile locally Cons take the Lab effort for granted at their peril.

    Surely its not the size of his band of brothers (and sisters) that provides his security, its his complete dominance amongst the voters in the voluntary party and his army of leftie clicktivists.
    True but at some point sanity will break out, and sensible leadership candidates will be placed in front of them.

    What will they do? Not sure. Head off back to apathy or protest or some such.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    edited January 2017
    When it comes to elections, voters don't have that much choice. Labour are so far to the left with a bonkers leader with a terrible backstory that they are unelectable. The LD's.. I nor anyone else(IMHO) have any idea what any of their policies are bar being very pro EU, which is running against the BREXIT vote. and otherwise are the natural protest vote. UKIP's bolt is shot.. What's left? Minor parties, abstain or vote for the party of the centre.. its not rocket science.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,340
    edited January 2017

    When it comes to elections, voters don't have that much choice. Labour are so far to the left with a bonkers leader with a terrible backstory that they are unelectable. The LD's.. I nor anyone else(IMHO) have any idea what any of their policies are bar being very pro EU, which is running against the BREXIT vote. and otherwise are the natural protest vote. UKIP's bolt is shot.. What's left? Minor parties, abstain or vote for the party of the centre.. its not rocket science.

    I wonder if we are headed for an Irish-style distribution of power, with one large centrist party (Tories/FF) against lots of smaller parties, united only by their dislike of the large party.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401

    Hmmm

    The Left do not have the existential crisis which hit the Right in 1997. Then some right of centre voters were totally disenfranchised - those who came to be UKIP voters, and all the left of centre parties ganged up on the Conservatives with the intention of killing them outright.

    The lack of self-awareness with the Lib Dems never ceases to amaze me. The informal carve-up that never was whereby the Lib Dems were effectively given a free run at formerly and now safe Conservative seats will not be forgotten by us Conservatives.

    Hague thought the 2010 Coalition was suicidal for the LDs and told Fionn that on the evening of the pact. So did I for that matter although I thought reducing them to 30 seats would be Nivarnah.

    So, it might take three election cycles for the left to sort themselves out. But they will do. The test of the right will be to use that 13 to 15 years to embed reform so the next Blair is less able to wreak havoc than the last one.

    Those who are not of a Conservative disposition might choke on their cornflakes but the election of Blair led to the most extremist hard left government this country has ever had to face.

    Seriously? I think Mr Attlee might have something to say about that.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535
    MaxPB said:

    CES is dying anyway. 8 years ago at the height of the format war I went and it was amazing. Today the interesting stuff happens at private events.

    That's true for the biggest companies — it's a long time since the likes of Apple or Microsoft announced anything interesting at someone else's event — but smaller companies still need to be at trade shows.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    glw said:

    MaxPB said:

    CES is dying anyway. 8 years ago at the height of the format war I went and it was amazing. Today the interesting stuff happens at private events.

    That's true for the biggest companies — it's a long time since the likes of Apple or Microsoft announced anything interesting at someone else's event — but smaller companies still need to be at trade shows.
    Even for start ups there are much better events than CES.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    When it comes to elections, voters don't have that much choice. Labour are so far to the left with a bonkers leader with a terrible backstory that they are unelectable. The LD's.. I nor anyone else(IMHO) have any idea what any of their policies are bar being very pro EU, which is running against the BREXIT vote. and otherwise are the natural protest vote. UKIP's bolt is shot.. What's left? Minor parties, abstain or vote for the party of the centre.. its not rocket science.

    I wonder if we are headed for an Irish-style distribution of power, with one large centrist party (Tories/FF) against lots of smaller parties, united only by their dislike of the large party.
    I don't see how that works with FPTP. One party on 40% vs four parties on 15% each would result in an absolutely huge majority.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401

    Fabian thinks Labour should ally with the SNP? Remind me, what was the Tory smear about Labour being in someone's pocket at the last election?

    Don't smears have to be untrue?

    If a party can't win an outright majority then it must by definition be reliant on the votes of minor parties. Alex Salmond was more than clear during the election on how he saw his party's role in a hung parliament. Formaling the relationship beforehand just makes that campaigning all the easier (as well as undermining Labour even more in Scotland and the Lib Dem target seats).

    In fact, were Labour to accept the 'the SNP are part of our coalition' argument, it's difficult to see how they could ever be relevant in Scotland again, because that UK-wide assertion would play counter to their first objective at Holyrood level: becoming the official opposition again. More likely, with the Tories establishing themselves as the second party, it would push those who value class-based division over nationism/unionism to the SNP as the better bet to 'keep the Tories out (or at least, to keep pressure on them)'.

    This May is likely to see another huge blow to Scottish Labour, will which already be reeling from the psychological, financial and organisational blows of losing so many MPs. If they do poll only around 15% in the local elections - where the leaked internal report put them - they'll very probably lose more than half their councillors in a day.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786
    Good morning.

    I see Michael Gove has been peddling lying propaganda again. What does he think's in it for him?
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 2,038

    Hmmm

    The Left do not have the existential crisis which hit the Right in 1997. Then some right of centre voters were totally disenfranchised - those who came to be UKIP voters, and all the left of centre parties ganged up on the Conservatives with the intention of killing them outright.

    The lack of self-awareness with the Lib Dems never ceases to amaze me. The informal carve-up that never was whereby the Lib Dems were effectively given a free run at formerly and now safe Conservative seats will not be forgotten by us Conservatives.

    Hague thought the 2010 Coalition was suicidal for the LDs and told Fionn that on the evening of the pact. So did I for that matter although I thought reducing them to 30 seats would be Nivarnah.

    So, it might take three election cycles for the left to sort themselves out. But they will do. The test of the right will be to use that 13 to 15 years to embed reform so the next Blair is less able to wreak havoc than the last one.

    Those who are not of a Conservative disposition might choke on their cornflakes but the election of Blair led to the most extremist hard left government this country has ever had to face.

    Seriously? I think Mr Attlee might have something to say about that.
    So might Heath, Churchill, Macmillan and Wilson. Remember the Prices and Incomes Board, Marketing Boards, National Economic Plan, exchange controls or 83-98% top tax rates?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Good morning, everyone.

    It does seem incredible that Corbyn might contest the 2020 election.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    Fabian thinks Labour should ally with the SNP? Remind me, what was the Tory smear about Labour being in someone's pocket at the last election?

    Don't smears have to be untrue?

    Were the Conservatives in Nick Clegg's pocket between 2010 and 2015 ?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401

    Hmmm

    The Left do not have the existential crisis which hit the Right in 1997. Then some right of centre voters were totally disenfranchised - those who came to be UKIP voters, and all the left of centre parties ganged up on the Conservatives with the intention of killing them outright.

    The lack of self-awareness with the Lib Dems never ceases to amaze me. The informal carve-up that never was whereby the Lib Dems were effectively given a free run at formerly and now safe Conservative seats will not be forgotten by us Conservatives.

    Hague thought the 2010 Coalition was suicidal for the LDs and told Fionn that on the evening of the pact. So did I for that matter although I thought reducing them to 30 seats would be Nivarnah.

    So, it might take three election cycles for the left to sort themselves out. But they will do. The test of the right will be to use that 13 to 15 years to embed reform so the next Blair is less able to wreak havoc than the last one.

    [snip]

    I'd add that there was no 'existential crisis of the Right' in 1997. At worst, there was an existential crisis for the Conservative Party, as Blair accepted the majority of the Tory settlement on the economy and public services. Sure, there were differences - constitutional reform, for example - but as long as Blair and Brown sat firmly on the centre ground (and even the centre-right), as they did in 1997-9, there did exist the question as to what the Party was *for* (as opposed to against), even as the (centre-)Right stood victorious ideologically.

    However, unlike Labour now, there was no real alternative to the Conservatives on the right-of-centre, other than the most Blairite fringe of Labour and a few Lib Dems near the centre, the then-tiny UKIP and the extremist BNP. The majority of the Tories' ground was unchallenged and enabled them to retreat to a safe zone while it awaited more propitious times. Labour, now, by contrast, has several middle-sized parties competing for virtually every vote it currently has. Its one advantage is, as the Fabians point out, that inertia still works powerfully in its favour. For now.
  • Bottom line is the left seems to have run out of anything useful to say. Polling follows that. In a Brexited, globalised, Islamifying, indebted, divided world what are they offering that anybody is interested in buying?
  • The problem with @NickPalmer's prescription is that the electorate has made up its mind about the Labour leader and there is nothing that he can say or do that will change that. He is what he was on the day he took the reins: unelectable and, therefore, irrelevant to the national discourse. That makes the party as a whole irrelevant. The way back for Labour is long and hard, but it is doable. However, the process will not begin before the unions pull the trigger on Jeremy. There is still some time to wait for that to happen, but happen it will.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786
    Labour voters think Corbyn would be worse than May in Brexit negotiations.

    https://twitter.com/skydata/status/816211920994832384
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 1,082
    edited January 2017
    I love the way people are still blithely quoting opinion polls left right and centre as though the last year or two hadnt happened.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Wisemann, it's an interesting problem. How to view the polls: a rough guide? Pretty much useless?

    And should patterns be drawn from them in that here and in the US, it's been the left that's been over-estimated.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Patrick said:

    Bottom line is the left seems to have run out of anything useful to say. Polling follows that. In a Brexited, globalised, Islamifying, indebted, divided world what are they offering that anybody is interested in buying?

    When you're reduced to arguing about transgender toilets...
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,879

    The problem with @NickPalmer's prescription is that the electorate has made up its mind about the Labour leader and there is nothing that he can say or do that will change that. He is what he was on the day he took the reins: unelectable and, therefore, irrelevant to the national discourse. That makes the party as a whole irrelevant. The way back for Labour is long and hard, but it is doable. However, the process will not begin before the unions pull the trigger on Jeremy. There is still some time to wait for that to happen, but happen it will.

    I've seen this asserted before... But do you think the unions can topple Corbyn?

    I think in both leadership elections Corbyn won by enough he didn't need the union vote?

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766
    Re CES: I am utterly overjoyed that I am not going to be there this year.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401

    Hmmm

    The Left do not have the existential crisis which hit the Right in 1997. Then some right of centre voters were totally disenfranchised - those who came to be UKIP voters, and all the left of centre parties ganged up on the Conservatives with the intention of killing them outright.

    The lack of self-awareness with the Lib Dems never ceases to amaze me. The informal carve-up that never was whereby the Lib Dems were effectively given a free run at formerly and now safe Conservative seats will not be forgotten by us Conservatives.

    Hague thought the 2010 Coalition was suicidal for the LDs and told Fionn that on the evening of the pact. So did I for that matter although I thought reducing them to 30 seats would be Nivarnah.

    So, it might take three election cycles for the left to sort themselves out. But they will do. The test of the right will be to use that 13 to 15 years to embed reform so the next Blair is less able to wreak havoc than the last one.

    Those who are not of a Conservative disposition might choke on their cornflakes but the election of Blair led to the most extremist hard left government this country has ever had to face.

    Seriously? I think Mr Attlee might have something to say about that.
    So might Heath, Churchill, Macmillan and Wilson. Remember the Prices and Incomes Board, Marketing Boards, National Economic Plan, exchange controls or 83-98% top tax rates?
    In terms of absolute position, very true. Indeed, the policies for most of Thatcher's premiership, were well to the left of those of Blair. However, I'm not sure that absolute position is the best measure alone. Some account - probably a greater degree of the comparison - has to be about direction of travel. On that basis, none of the four you mention made a substantial shift in the nation's direction. Heath wanted to but failed; the rest just tweaked (unless you count Churchill in wartime, which really was a near-command state).
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766
    Re CES

    These days, the biggest role of CES is to get big buyers (like Best Buy, and Curry's) together with no-name Chinese OEMs, so that they can decide on what TV is going to be their own brand model for the next Christmas season.
  • @rkrkrk - the NEC decides the rules of the Labour party. All it will take is for Unite to change its position on Corbyn and the current impasse there will end and an anti-Corbyn majority will exist, with no hope of it being altered. At that point, the hard left has lost.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,755
    @JWiseman polls can be wrong, but not by enough to convert 24% into an election-winning score.

    And Labour's performance in secondary elections suggests the party would struggle to hit 30% in a general election.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    rcs1000 said:

    Re CES: I am utterly overjoyed that I am not going to be there this year.

    I stopped going as soon as I left Sony. On your later post, it is also about big brands like Sony and Samsung connecting with ODMs for low end product manufacturing.
  • Labour voters think Corbyn would be worse than May in Brexit negotiations.

    https://twitter.com/skydata/status/816211920994832384

    I think you could have helpfully inserted an 'only slightly' there.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    The problem with @NickPalmer's prescription is that the electorate has made up its mind about the Labour leader and there is nothing that he can say or do that will change that. He is what he was on the day he took the reins: unelectable and, therefore, irrelevant to the national discourse. That makes the party as a whole irrelevant. The way back for Labour is long and hard, but it is doable. However, the process will not begin before the unions pull the trigger on Jeremy. There is still some time to wait for that to happen, but happen it will.

    At least Nick Palmer mentioned policy. The problem for the anyone-but-Jezza wing of the Labour Party is that they are, so far as we can tell from the last two or three leadership elections, philosophically bankrupt. As Nick says, it is hard to win support for a policy vacuum. Vote Labour and win a microwave failed for Ed Miliband.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    Absolutely massive manufacturing PMI. 56.1 vs 53.4 expected, extremely positive data all around. New orders up, overseas demand up, an increase in the work backlog, an increase in employment, price pressures easing slightly.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    On topic -- in case no-one has linked to the Fabian Society report:
    http://www.fabians.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Stuck-Fabian-Society-analysis-paper.pdf
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. JohnL, free owls for everyone!

    Mr. rkrkrk, just finished the initial pass at a couple of family trees for inclusion with the print edition. I suspect this is the case, but you just meant Penmere/Esden, yes?
This discussion has been closed.