Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Senator Elizabeth Warren becomes the fourth Democrat to occupy

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited August 7 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Senator Elizabeth Warren becomes the fourth Democrat to occupy the WH2020 nomination favourite slot

Since the Democratic WH2020 nomination betting opened there have now been four different contenders who have occupied the betting favourite slot on the Betfair exchange. First it was Senator Bernie Sanders, the 77 year old from Vermont, then ex-VP Jo Biden, 76,  who has had two stints there.  After her impressive performance in the first debate Senator Kamala Harris took over only to see her betting position decline sharply after a lacklustre second debate appearance last week

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,006
    edited August 7
    First. They have several candidates for the Democrat nomination that I find very appealing. All are far better than the recent Tory field.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 30,697
    OT - David Herdson’s resignation from the Tories has been noticed ...
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 26,075
    A rare occasion when I've been fleeter of foot than OGH. I was touting Elizabeth Warren in May when her odds were in the high teens.

    I don't think she'll eventually get the nod, mind.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,536
    Fourth like Labour
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,025
    edited August 7
    Fifth like Fifth rate Boris Johnson! :smiley:
  • steve_garnersteve_garner Posts: 896

    OT - David Herdson’s resignation from the Tories has been noticed ...

    If Mary Creagh wanted to leave with a deal she should have voted for the only one on offer.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 23,218
    edited August 7
    Elizabeth Warren's odds were bizarrely long for quite a while, given her positioning and the fact that she got going early with a well-organised campaign. I got on at an average 22.92, which provides some useful greenspace for my book.

    The current 3.85-3.9 looks to me as though the market has gone too far in the opposite direction. Time to lay the favourite again, methinks.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,025
    I see the DT is on full Boris-Pravda mode! 'We're taking over' if Boris Johnson loses no confidence vote:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/08/07/john-mcdonnell-threatens-march-palace-tell-queen-taking-boris1/
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 25,861
    PClipp said:

    First. They have several candidates for the Democrat nomination that I find very appealing. All are far better than the recent Tory field.

    And yet, they will all fail to get the top job.

    Unlike Boris.
  • PeterMannionPeterMannion Posts: 426

    PClipp said:

    First. They have several candidates for the Democrat nomination that I find very appealing. All are far better than the recent Tory field.

    And yet, they will all fail to get the top job.

    Unlike Boris.
    Did Boris get the top job?

    Just as well you added that last line...
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 5,883
    Serious point, not a whinge, but why the obsession with US Politics? I realise there is a large betting market, with a huge Dem field, providing plenty of betting opportunities. Get that bit. But people seem to already be au fait with the platforms, discussing VP picks, and watching debates and stuff. And more familiar with the faces than many in the UK Cabinet. Do other countries watch with such avid interest? And, if not, is this part of our obsession with all things American, and by extension a factor in our semi-detached attitude to Europe?
    It isn't the first Primary for 6 months! Meanwhile, there is an election in Canada soon. Australia had one, with almost no interest until a few days before.
    I'll pay attention when the voting starts and not before. That takes a bloody age in itself.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 9,988
    edited August 7
    FPT:

    Foxy said:

    Gabs2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Have I missed something?

    Warren is now BF fav for Dems.

    3.9

    Her new farm policy seems to have gone down well. I think she will be the candidate.



    Who would be her VP? Buttigieg? Booker?
    I have no idea, but it is an astute move politically to try to buy off American farmers hit by the Trump Trade War. It brings loads of the Midwest back into contention.
    Really? Will the good old boys in Macey's Rib Joint in PA be voting for a wonk?

    And wait till Trump tears into the Medicare For All plan.

    Us NHS users can't see the issue, but taking millions of US employee private health insurance policies away from people is going to cause independent voters to get nervous.

    Trump vs Warren at debates would be the contest of the century but I fear she will lose the GE.
    Sure, the hard-core Trumpites are not going to switch, but there are lots of working poor in the small US towns in hard times. Not easy to get them all back, but they may well favour Warrens left wing populism over Trump Trade War. A lot of those farm states were fairly finely balanced. It doesn't take a lot of switchers to flip a state like Wisconsin.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 27,689
    "Monsters, men and magic: why feminists turned to witchcraft to oppose Trump"

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/aug/07/monsters-men-magic-trump-awoke-angry-feminist-witches
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 25,227

    OT - David Herdson’s resignation from the Tories has been noticed ...

    Indeed they have:

  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,025

    OT - David Herdson’s resignation from the Tories has been noticed ...

    If Mary Creagh wanted to leave with a deal she should have voted for the only one on offer.
    If Brexiteer Tory MPs thought the 17.4M mandate should be obeyed and was the only mandate that should ever be taken note of then why did so many Brexiteer Tory MPs not support Brexit? It was their Government and their wish to Leave the EU, it is not up to opposition MPs to support Government policies. Opposition, does that word mean anything to you?
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,025

    PClipp said:

    First. They have several candidates for the Democrat nomination that I find very appealing. All are far better than the recent Tory field.

    And yet, they will all fail to get the top job.

    Unlike Boris.
    It is one thing to get the top job but keeping it is another question! :smiley:
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 5,883
    edited August 7

    I see the DT is on full Boris-Pravda mode! 'We're taking over' if Boris Johnson loses no confidence vote:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/08/07/john-mcdonnell-threatens-march-palace-tell-queen-taking-boris1/

    It has been for some time. The Times seems to be following suit. More noticeably, however, the tabloids seem to have lost all interest in Boris boosting. There has been little politics on the front pages lately. At least that is my impression.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 23,218
    dixiedean said:

    Serious point, not a whinge, but why the obsession with US Politics? I realise there is a large betting market, with a huge Dem field, providing plenty of betting opportunities. Get that bit. But people seem to already be au fait with the platforms, discussing VP picks, and watching debates and stuff. And more familiar with the faces than many in the UK Cabinet. Do other countries watch with such avid interest? And, if not, is this part of our obsession with all things American, and by extension a factor in our semi-detached attitude to Europe?
    It isn't the first Primary for 6 months! Meanwhile, there is an election in Canada soon. Australia had one, with almost no interest until a few days before.
    I'll pay attention when the voting starts and not before. That takes a bloody age in itself.

    The US presidential elections are amongst the biggest opportunities in political betting, where it's hard to find markets with much liquidity - we only get one or two a year, and sometimes not even that. To bet successfully in this market, you ideally want to start early, both in order to come up to speed, and in order to stake out some useful trading positions (of which betting on Elizabeth Warren has already been a prime example).
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 53,576

    A rare occasion when I've been fleeter of foot than OGH. I was touting Elizabeth Warren in May when her odds were in the high teens.

    I don't think she'll eventually get the nod, mind.

    Warren's chances are overrated at 25%, but I'm in a nice green position on her (Most recently a small layer).

    I note her implied presidency odds are now 2.3 when they were previously 2.1. Something to keep an eye on for everyone.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 25,861

    PClipp said:

    First. They have several candidates for the Democrat nomination that I find very appealing. All are far better than the recent Tory field.

    And yet, they will all fail to get the top job.

    Unlike Boris.
    Did Boris get the top job?

    Just as well you added that last line...
    The bookies say he did.

    Against the expectations of those writing headers here.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 11,636
    edited August 7
    dixiedean said:

    Do other countries watch with such avid interest? And, if not, is this part of our obsession with all things American, and by extension a factor in our semi-detached attitude to Europe?

    This may be distorted by spending too much time on crypto-twitter but I would say educated people from developed countries are now following US politics quite closely. It's a common shared cultural thing, you follow your own country's politics and US politics.

    It's also a really interesting, long-running betting event because of the way the primaries work.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 27,689
    Weeping is a bit extreme for missing a flight in my opinion.
  • surbiton19surbiton19 Posts: 723
    edited August 7
    Foxy said:

    FPT:

    Foxy said:

    Gabs2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Have I missed something?

    Warren is now BF fav for Dems.

    3.9

    Her new farm policy seems to have gone down well. I think she will be the candidate.



    Who would be her VP? Buttigieg? Booker?
    I have no idea, but it is an astute move politically to try to buy off American farmers hit by the Trump Trade War. It brings loads of the Midwest back into contention.
    Really? Will the good old boys in Macey's Rib Joint in PA be voting for a wonk?

    And wait till Trump tears into the Medicare For All plan.

    Us NHS users can't see the issue, but taking millions of US employee private health insurance policies away from people is going to cause independent voters to get nervous.

    Trump vs Warren at debates would be the contest of the century but I fear she will lose the GE.
    Sure, the hard-core Trumpites are not going to switch, but there are lots of working poor in the small US towns in hard times. Not easy to get them all back, but they may well favour Warrens left wing populism over Trump Trade War. A lot of those farm states were fairly finely balanced. It doesn't take a lot of switchers to flip a state like Wisconsin.
    Or, Iowa. The HoR numbers in 2018 were quite remarkable.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 23,218
    O/T The Labour row over John McDonnell's remarks on IndyRef2 is bizarre. What is going on? Surely it wouldn't have been hard to come up some flim-flam to keep options open on this? It looks as though McDonnell - previously very disciplined - has gone rogue.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,025
    dixiedean said:

    I see the DT is on full Boris-Pravda mode! 'We're taking over' if Boris Johnson loses no confidence vote:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/08/07/john-mcdonnell-threatens-march-palace-tell-queen-taking-boris1/

    It has been for some time. The Times seems to be following suit. More noticeably, however, the tabloids seem to have lost all interest in Boris boosting. There has been little politics on the front pages lately. At least that is my impression.
    I monitor the media and I disagree. The Brexit supporting media are in full boosting Boris and the Tories mode. An example was a push poll in the Daily Express last weekend asking how many people would now vote for Boris instead of the Brexit party. They followed it up the following day to reinforce the message of Back Boris and not Farage in the 'forthcoming election'. Stories about who will be living in Downing Street and their past lives were all in the tabloids. It may not seem immediately political but it is and its to sell the present Government and boosts the incumbent's poll ratings.

    I have seen it all before and over several Governments of different colours Labour/Coalition/Tory and the present crock of shit. I think it is brainwashing and the joke is people actually pay money to get brain washed and don't realise they are being manipulated! I see right through it all...
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 18,826
    dixiedean said:

    I see the DT is on full Boris-Pravda mode! 'We're taking over' if Boris Johnson loses no confidence vote:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/08/07/john-mcdonnell-threatens-march-palace-tell-queen-taking-boris1/

    It has been for some time. The Times seems to be following suit. More noticeably, however, the tabloids seem to have lost all interest in Boris boosting. There has been little politics on the front pages lately. At least that is my impression.
    I suspect there is an element of keeping their powder dry. They may be rags but the people writing them are not stupid... or rather they are very cunning. They know that no one who buys a tabloid is really going to be much interested in the debates about what might happen in a month's time. They will wait until just before Parliament returns and then ratchet it all up again. Much more effective.

    The broadsheets will concentrate on it not least because they need stuff to fill their pages and even the Telegraph still seems to draw the line at 'Made in Chelsea'.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 22,743

    O/T The Labour row over John McDonnell's remarks on IndyRef2 is bizarre. What is going on? Surely it wouldn't have been hard to come up some flim-flam to keep options open on this? It looks as though McDonnell - previously very disciplined - has gone rogue.

    Is it rogue? Or is it kite flying?

    He does seem to lead the path on a few issues then Corbyn follows.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 20,945

    OT - David Herdson’s resignation from the Tories has been noticed ...

    One chaps virtue signal is another woman’s big pointy arrow towards useful idiot..
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 23,218

    O/T The Labour row over John McDonnell's remarks on IndyRef2 is bizarre. What is going on? Surely it wouldn't have been hard to come up some flim-flam to keep options open on this? It looks as though McDonnell - previously very disciplined - has gone rogue.

    Is it rogue? Or is it kite flying?

    He does seem to lead the path on a few issues then Corbyn follows.
    It seems a very odd kite to fly, especially since he doesn't seem to have warned the SLab leader that he was about to do so.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 7,726
    edited August 7

    O/T The Labour row over John McDonnell's remarks on IndyRef2 is bizarre. What is going on? Surely it wouldn't have been hard to come up some flim-flam to keep options open on this? It looks as though McDonnell - previously very disciplined - has gone rogue.

    Isn't his position essentially Cameron's position? (From before 2014)

    If Scottish voters elect a majority of representatives on a platform for another referendum and those representatives vote for that in Holyrood then he would not stand in their way. (With the change of the word "a" to "another")
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 13,630
    TGOHF said:

    OT - David Herdson’s resignation from the Tories has been noticed ...

    One chaps virtue signal is another woman’s big pointy arrow towards useful idiot..
    Holding your hand up there ?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 5,883

    dixiedean said:

    I see the DT is on full Boris-Pravda mode! 'We're taking over' if Boris Johnson loses no confidence vote:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/08/07/john-mcdonnell-threatens-march-palace-tell-queen-taking-boris1/

    It has been for some time. The Times seems to be following suit. More noticeably, however, the tabloids seem to have lost all interest in Boris boosting. There has been little politics on the front pages lately. At least that is my impression.
    I monitor the media and I disagree. The Brexit supporting media are in full boosting Boris and the Tories mode. An example was a push poll in the Daily Express last weekend asking how many people would now vote for Boris instead of the Brexit party. They followed it up the following day to reinforce the message of Back Boris and not Farage in the 'forthcoming election'. Stories about who will be living in Downing Street and their past lives were all in the tabloids. It may not seem immediately political but it is and its to sell the present Government and boosts the incumbent's poll ratings.

    I have seen it all before and over several Governments of different colours Labour/Coalition/Tory and the present crock of shit. I think it is brainwashing and the joke is people actually pay money to get brain washed and don't realise they are being manipulated! I see right through it all...
    Interesting. I never buy a newspaper, but do scan the front pages in the shop. I doubt many under 50 do. However, that might explain the age approval ratings FPT. You can see Boris' satisfaction equate with the demographics of those who might take a daily newspaper.
    My kids don't even have TVs. They've never bought a newspaper in their lives. They never even consider taking a free one.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 59,526
    As of this week I think the likeliest Democratic ticket will be Warren - O'Rourke but still a long way to go
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 25,227
    TGOHF said:

    OT - David Herdson’s resignation from the Tories has been noticed ...

    One chaps virtue signal is another woman’s big pointy arrow towards useful idiot..
    When is she resigning over the "revolutionary ideology" that has taken the Lab party over?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 18,826

    O/T The Labour row over John McDonnell's remarks on IndyRef2 is bizarre. What is going on? Surely it wouldn't have been hard to come up some flim-flam to keep options open on this? It looks as though McDonnell - previously very disciplined - has gone rogue.

    Isn't his position essentially Cameron's position? (From before 2014)

    If Scottish voters elect a majority of representatives on a platform for another referendum and those representatives vote for that in Holyrood then he would not stand in their way. (With the change of the word "a" to "another")
    It strikes me as a perfectly reasonable position.

    But say it very quietly as some people on here think we should be thrown in jail for entertaining such seditious thoughts.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 18,826
    How can he be the canary when he voted Remain?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 23,218

    O/T The Labour row over John McDonnell's remarks on IndyRef2 is bizarre. What is going on? Surely it wouldn't have been hard to come up some flim-flam to keep options open on this? It looks as though McDonnell - previously very disciplined - has gone rogue.

    Isn't his position essentially Cameron's position? (From before 2014)

    If Scottish voters elect a majority of representatives on a platform for another referendum and those representatives vote for that in Holyrood then he would not stand in their way. (With the change of the word "a" to "another")
    There's a big difference between Cameron's position for a once-in-a-generation referendum, and supporting holding another referendum just a few years later. However, my point wasn't about the merits or justification of the idea, but about the politics, and the timing. Why provoke a completely unnecessary row and alienate your own Scottish party? And why now? Surely this was a sleeping dog which could have been left snoring in the corner.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 18,826

    O/T The Labour row over John McDonnell's remarks on IndyRef2 is bizarre. What is going on? Surely it wouldn't have been hard to come up some flim-flam to keep options open on this? It looks as though McDonnell - previously very disciplined - has gone rogue.

    Isn't his position essentially Cameron's position? (From before 2014)

    If Scottish voters elect a majority of representatives on a platform for another referendum and those representatives vote for that in Holyrood then he would not stand in their way. (With the change of the word "a" to "another")
    There's a big difference between Cameron's position for a once-in-a-generation referendum, and supporting holding another referendum just a few years later. However, my point wasn't about the merits or justification of the idea, but about the politics, and the timing. Why provoke a completely unnecessary row and alienate your own Scottish party? And why now? Surely this was a sleeping dog which could have been left snoring in the corner.
    Well according to all those Remain politicians before the Brexit referendum, that was supposed to be a once in a generation or once in a lifetime choice. Of course that only applies until they lose and then they want us all to forget about that.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 23,218

    O/T The Labour row over John McDonnell's remarks on IndyRef2 is bizarre. What is going on? Surely it wouldn't have been hard to come up some flim-flam to keep options open on this? It looks as though McDonnell - previously very disciplined - has gone rogue.

    Isn't his position essentially Cameron's position? (From before 2014)

    If Scottish voters elect a majority of representatives on a platform for another referendum and those representatives vote for that in Holyrood then he would not stand in their way. (With the change of the word "a" to "another")
    There's a big difference between Cameron's position for a once-in-a-generation referendum, and supporting holding another referendum just a few years later. However, my point wasn't about the merits or justification of the idea, but about the politics, and the timing. Why provoke a completely unnecessary row and alienate your own Scottish party? And why now? Surely this was a sleeping dog which could have been left snoring in the corner.
    Well according to all those Remain politicians before the Brexit referendum, that was supposed to be a once in a generation or once in a lifetime choice. Of course that only applies until they lose and then they want us all to forget about that.
    What's that got to do with my point?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 5,883

    O/T The Labour row over John McDonnell's remarks on IndyRef2 is bizarre. What is going on? Surely it wouldn't have been hard to come up some flim-flam to keep options open on this? It looks as though McDonnell - previously very disciplined - has gone rogue.

    Isn't his position essentially Cameron's position? (From before 2014)

    If Scottish voters elect a majority of representatives on a platform for another referendum and those representatives vote for that in Holyrood then he would not stand in their way. (With the change of the word "a" to "another")
    It strikes me as a perfectly reasonable position.

    But say it very quietly as some people on here think we should be thrown in jail for entertaining such seditious thoughts.
    It is a good deal more logical than the LD position. Which is

    Brexit. People may have changed their mind, so we MUST have a re-vote cos we think you got it wrong.
    Scotland. People may have changed their mind, so we MUSTN'T have a re-vote cos we think you were spot on first time.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 25,227
    So, fields of burning cows as well as lambs.

    That GE aint gonna win itself you know.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 11,801

    O/T The Labour row over John McDonnell's remarks on IndyRef2 is bizarre. What is going on? Surely it wouldn't have been hard to come up some flim-flam to keep options open on this? It looks as though McDonnell - previously very disciplined - has gone rogue.

    Isn't his position essentially Cameron's position? (From before 2014)

    If Scottish voters elect a majority of representatives on a platform for another referendum and those representatives vote for that in Holyrood then he would not stand in their way. (With the change of the word "a" to "another")
    There's a big difference between Cameron's position for a once-in-a-generation referendum, and supporting holding another referendum just a few years later. However, my point wasn't about the merits or justification of the idea, but about the politics, and the timing. Why provoke a completely unnecessary row and alienate your own Scottish party? And why now? Surely this was a sleeping dog which could have been left snoring in the corner.
    Absolutely right. We're having a war of the Svengalis. McDonnell versus Cummings. Two less attractive characters are difficult to imagine and both seem to be making almost childlike unforced errors
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 25,227
    Jeremy Corbyn vs the Corbynista! Labour leader’s Brexit Party election opponent is an anti-war ex-Marxist who said Israel’s treatment of Palestinians is racist and voted for the veteran left-winger in 2017

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7322691/Jeremy-Corbyn-vs-Corbynista-Labour-leaders-Brexit-Party-opponent-anti-war-ex-Marxist.html
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 5,883
    The Marxlst wing of Farage's happy band is a curious, and seemingly growing faction. What could they possibly see in a Party with no membership, no internal democracy and nothing to unite it but blind devotion to the leader and his impractical, idealistic and financially reckless plans?
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 4,607

    Jeremy Corbyn vs the Corbynista! Labour leader’s Brexit Party election opponent is an anti-war ex-Marxist who said Israel’s treatment of Palestinians is racist and voted for the veteran left-winger in 2017

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7322691/Jeremy-Corbyn-vs-Corbynista-Labour-leaders-Brexit-Party-opponent-anti-war-ex-Marxist.html

    James Heartfield? Presumably this is the same guy - one of Brendan's RCP crowd:

    https://www.spiked-online.com/author/james-heartfield/
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 29,960

    How can he be the canary when he voted Remain?
    Because he was so committed and adamant that it must be delivered. If he has lost faith because of what it's done to the Tory party, the losers' consent is all but gone.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 11,801
    TGOHF said:

    OT - David Herdson’s resignation from the Tories has been noticed ...

    One chaps virtue signal is another woman’s big pointy arrow towards useful idiot..
    You just get more charming as the day gets older..
  • RogerRoger Posts: 11,801
    Bravo! My favourite politician and a future PM if the rubbish would just stand aside for a while.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 1,816

    OT - David Herdson’s resignation from the Tories has been noticed ...

    If Mary Creagh wanted to leave with a deal she should have voted for the only one on offer.
    "If you wanted a sandwich, you should have eaten this shit sandwich which is the only one we made for you"
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 25,227
    edited August 7

    Jeremy Corbyn vs the Corbynista! Labour leader’s Brexit Party election opponent is an anti-war ex-Marxist who said Israel’s treatment of Palestinians is racist and voted for the veteran left-winger in 2017

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7322691/Jeremy-Corbyn-vs-Corbynista-Labour-leaders-Brexit-Party-opponent-anti-war-ex-Marxist.html

    James Heartfield? Presumably this is the same guy - one of Brendan's RCP crowd:

    https://www.spiked-online.com/author/james-heartfield/
    I believe so. Seems to be a few RCP getting into BXP.

    Orders from Moscow?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 5,883

    O/T The Labour row over John McDonnell's remarks on IndyRef2 is bizarre. What is going on? Surely it wouldn't have been hard to come up some flim-flam to keep options open on this? It looks as though McDonnell - previously very disciplined - has gone rogue.

    Isn't his position essentially Cameron's position? (From before 2014)

    If Scottish voters elect a majority of representatives on a platform for another referendum and those representatives vote for that in Holyrood then he would not stand in their way. (With the change of the word "a" to "another")
    There's a big difference between Cameron's position for a once-in-a-generation referendum, and supporting holding another referendum just a few years later. However, my point wasn't about the merits or justification of the idea, but about the politics, and the timing. Why provoke a completely unnecessary row and alienate your own Scottish party? And why now? Surely this was a sleeping dog which could have been left snoring in the corner.
    A wild stab at explaining it...Labour has given up on SLAB, concluding they are useless. No prospect of gains. Serious prospect of losing MPs. Along comes Swinson, a Scot, threatening to take away even more votes. The Unionist side is a crowded field. Shift to an ambivalent position.
    Say you don't HAVE to vote SNP to get Indyref 2. Positioning for both VONC, and next Holyrood election. Have a go at soft pro-Indy votes instead?
    I said it was a wild stab.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 20,945
    This is hilarious - the queens of the grazing political class putting out the bunting for those joining them on planet dither.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 29,960
    edited August 7

    Jeremy Corbyn vs the Corbynista! Labour leader’s Brexit Party election opponent is an anti-war ex-Marxist who said Israel’s treatment of Palestinians is racist and voted for the veteran left-winger in 2017

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7322691/Jeremy-Corbyn-vs-Corbynista-Labour-leaders-Brexit-Party-opponent-anti-war-ex-Marxist.html

    James Heartfield? Presumably this is the same guy - one of Brendan's RCP crowd:

    https://www.spiked-online.com/author/james-heartfield/
    I believe so. Seems to be a few RCP getting into BXP.

    Orders from Moscow?
    RCP people pop up all over the place when it comes to Brexit. The Brussels correspondent for the Times, Bruno Waterfield, was a member and has said he thinks the EU should be abolished.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 7,726

    O/T The Labour row over John McDonnell's remarks on IndyRef2 is bizarre. What is going on? Surely it wouldn't have been hard to come up some flim-flam to keep options open on this? It looks as though McDonnell - previously very disciplined - has gone rogue.

    Isn't his position essentially Cameron's position? (From before 2014)

    If Scottish voters elect a majority of representatives on a platform for another referendum and those representatives vote for that in Holyrood then he would not stand in their way. (With the change of the word "a" to "another")
    There's a big difference between Cameron's position for a once-in-a-generation referendum, and supporting holding another referendum just a few years later. However, my point wasn't about the merits or justification of the idea, but about the politics, and the timing. Why provoke a completely unnecessary row and alienate your own Scottish party? And why now? Surely this was a sleeping dog which could have been left snoring in the corner.
    The timing seems obvious to me: clear out any obstacles to the SNP providing support to Corbyn in a confidence vote in September or October.

    Will it be the Lib Dems they try to reassure next?

    As an aside, I don't think it's fair to characterise his position as supporting another referendum. He's simply saying he wouldn't override the will of the Holyrood Parliament.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 13,630

    O/T The Labour row over John McDonnell's remarks on IndyRef2 is bizarre. What is going on? Surely it wouldn't have been hard to come up some flim-flam to keep options open on this? It looks as though McDonnell - previously very disciplined - has gone rogue.

    Isn't his position essentially Cameron's position? (From before 2014)

    If Scottish voters elect a majority of representatives on a platform for another referendum and those representatives vote for that in Holyrood then he would not stand in their way. (With the change of the word "a" to "another")
    There's a big difference between Cameron's position for a once-in-a-generation referendum, and supporting holding another referendum just a few years later. However, my point wasn't about the merits or justification of the idea, but about the politics, and the timing. Why provoke a completely unnecessary row and alienate your own Scottish party? And why now? Surely this was a sleeping dog which could have been left snoring in the corner.
    The timing seems obvious to me: clear out any obstacles to the SNP providing support to Corbyn in a confidence vote in September or October.

    Will it be the Lib Dems they try to reassure next?

    As an aside, I don't think it's fair to characterise his position as supporting another referendum. He's simply saying he wouldn't override the will of the Holyrood Parliament.
    There is a ‘no No Deal’ majority in the Commons, but I think it unlikely that there is a majority prepared to instal Corbyn in No.10, even on a temporary basis.

    This article suggests that there isn’t going to be a majority for anyone else, either, which is why the opposition are scrabbling around for more arcane ways in which to prevent no deal:
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/07/new-rebel-bid-to-halt-no-deal-brexit-amid-fury-at-pms-enforcer

    The loathing of Cummings - by many supposedly on his side - shines through.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 1,120

    O/T The Labour row over John McDonnell's remarks on IndyRef2 is bizarre. What is going on? Surely it wouldn't have been hard to come up some flim-flam to keep options open on this? It looks as though McDonnell - previously very disciplined - has gone rogue.

    Isn't his position essentially Cameron's position? (From before 2014)

    If Scottish voters elect a majority of representatives on a platform for another referendum and those representatives vote for that in Holyrood then he would not stand in their way. (With the change of the word "a" to "another")
    There's a big difference between Cameron's position for a once-in-a-generation referendum, and supporting holding another referendum just a few years later. However, my point wasn't about the merits or justification of the idea, but about the politics, and the timing. Why provoke a completely unnecessary row and alienate your own Scottish party? And why now? Surely this was a sleeping dog which could have been left snoring in the corner.
    The timing seems obvious to me: clear out any obstacles to the SNP providing support to Corbyn in a confidence vote in September or October.

    Will it be the Lib Dems they try to reassure next?

    As an aside, I don't think it's fair to characterise his position as supporting another referendum. He's simply saying he wouldn't override the will of the Holyrood Parliament.
    Given whom the Lib Dems have recently elected as their leader, it seems plausible that allowing SindyRef2 might now be a red line for them.

    Maybe Corbyn's done a deal with Davey to have Swinson removed from above him via the back door?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 18,826

    How can he be the canary when he voted Remain?
    Because he was so committed and adamant that it must be delivered. If he has lost faith because of what it's done to the Tory party, the losers' consent is all but gone.
    Desperate spinning there William. As I said at the end of the last thread,. one can be pro-Brexit and anti-Boris. Indeed I said a couple of days ago myself that if the only way Boris can deliver Brexit is by breaking the law then that is unacceptable. It doesn't make me any less dedicated to Brexit. It just means it has to be done legally.

    I didn't want Boris for PM and I think he will be bad for the country. But that doesn't change my view on Brexit one iota.
  • ZephyrZephyr Posts: 309
    dixiedean said:

    The Marxlst wing of Farage's happy band is a curious, and seemingly growing faction. What could they possibly see in a Party with no membership, no internal democracy and nothing to unite it but blind devotion to the leader and his impractical, idealistic and financially reckless plans?
    It’s not curious or strange at all.
    Mick Hume used to edit a magazine called Living Marxism that was pure Libertarianism from cover to cover. The Marxists and the Libertarians travel together. That’s the real Marxists not the lefty’s in Labour so lazily called Marxist or Communist, the Labour Party is and effectively always has been just another conservative party. How many Labour election wins, how much power, yet the House of Lords still stands, the voting system still the same serving vested interests of the political establishment whilst many millions of votes are rendered meaningless resulting in no representation. The monarch still head of state. What has Labour ever done remotely Marxist or communist?
    What is so educational about everything that’s happened to U.K. politics in recent years is how you can now clearly understand how Hitlers Third Reich came together. The conservative party’s, like Labour and the Tory's have been for so long, we’re swept aside in a toxic and sinister atmosphere.
    There’s posts today, excited ones from politicians, celebrating Herdsons decision. Those politicians are wrong, ignorant to what is really going on and of how sad and regressive and dangerous such resignations are. Am I alone? Can you not feel how toxic and sinister the atmosphere is becoming?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 18,826
    Zephyr said:

    dixiedean said:

    The Marxlst wing of Farage's happy band is a curious, and seemingly growing faction. What could they possibly see in a Party with no membership, no internal democracy and nothing to unite it but blind devotion to the leader and his impractical, idealistic and financially reckless plans?
    It’s not curious or strange at all.
    Mick Hume used to edit a magazine called Living Marxism that was pure Libertarianism from cover to cover. The Marxists and the Libertarians travel together. That’s the real Marxists not the lefty’s in Labour so lazily called Marxist or Communist, the Labour Party is and effectively always has been just another conservative party. How many Labour election wins, how much power, yet the House of Lords still stands, the voting system still the same serving vested interests of the political establishment whilst many millions of votes are rendered meaningless resulting in no representation. The monarch still head of state. What has Labour ever done remotely Marxist or communist?
    What is so educational about everything that’s happened to U.K. politics in recent years is how you can now clearly understand how Hitlers Third Reich came together. The conservative party’s, like Labour and the Tory's have been for so long, we’re swept aside in a toxic and sinister atmosphere.
    There’s posts today, excited ones from politicians, celebrating Herdsons decision. Those politicians are wrong, ignorant to what is really going on and of how sad and regressive and dangerous such resignations are. Am I alone? Can you not feel how toxic and sinister the atmosphere is becoming?
    No.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 2,060
    Foxy said:

    FPT:

    Foxy said:

    Gabs2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Have I missed something?

    Warren is now BF fav for Dems.

    3.9

    Her new farm policy seems to have gone down well. I think she will be the candidate.



    Who would be her VP? Buttigieg? Booker?
    I have no idea, but it is an astute move politically to try to buy off American farmers hit by the Trump Trade War. It brings loads of the Midwest back into contention.
    Really? Will the good old boys in Macey's Rib Joint in PA be voting for a wonk?

    And wait till Trump tears into the Medicare For All plan.

    Us NHS users can't see the issue, but taking millions of US employee private health insurance policies away from people is going to cause independent voters to get nervous.

    Trump vs Warren at debates would be the contest of the century but I fear she will lose the GE.
    Sure, the hard-core Trumpites are not going to switch, but there are lots of working poor in the small US towns in hard times. Not easy to get them all back, but they may well favour Warrens left wing populism over Trump Trade War. A lot of those farm states were fairly finely balanced. It doesn't take a lot of switchers to flip a state like Wisconsin.
    Anecdata but some of my wife's relatives are really beginning to be hurt by healthcare. One is having trouble paying for her vital medication, even though she's insured. Another is finding that her insured health costs are taking up over half her gross monthly income.

    Now these are good New England Irish Catholics who wouldn't p*** on Trump if he was on fire, but they are blue-collar, barely-managing people. A lot of Trump's supporters are in a similar situation and he needs to retain them.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 11,636
    edited August 7
    Nigelb said:


    This article suggests that there isn’t going to be a majority for anyone else, either, which is why the opposition are scrabbling around for more arcane ways in which to prevent no deal:
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/07/new-rebel-bid-to-halt-no-deal-brexit-amid-fury-at-pms-enforcer

    I don't think that's clear yet either way, but obviously it could easily go pear-shaped and Tory rebels would prefer it if they could do the same job by binding Boris.

    The cross-party rebels are returning to ways to block no-deal in law partly because Labour has made it clear it could not support a national unity government formed in the wake of a no-confidence vote.The party would prefer to push for a general election or minority Labour administration led by Jeremy Corbyn as opposed to supporting a compromise candidate such as Yvette Cooper or Ken Clarke.

    I mean, obviously they'd *prefer* an early GE or Jeremy Corbyn as PM. But that's not the question. The question is more like one of these:

    1) If rebel Tories agreed to vote against their party in a confidence vote, but only on the condition that Labour support a time-limited grandee-led GoNAfaE, would Labour agree to the deal?

    2) Alternatively, if a VONC passed, and then the Commons had a vote *rejecting* Jeremy Corbyn as PM, would the Labour leadership agree to instead back a GoNAfaE led by somebody else, or would they leave Boris in place and let it all burn?

    3) If the Labour leadership's answer to (2) was to support the grandee, would they be able to bring their leave-supporting MPs with them?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 5,883

    Zephyr said:

    dixiedean said:

    The Marxlst wing of Farage's happy band is a curious, and seemingly growing faction. What could they possibly see in a Party with no membership, no internal democracy and nothing to unite it but blind devotion to the leader and his impractical, idealistic and financially reckless plans?
    It’s not curious or strange at all.
    Mick Hume used to edit a magazine called Living Marxism that was pure Libertarianism from cover to cover. The Marxists and the Libertarians travel together. That’s the real Marxists not the lefty’s in Labour so lazily called Marxist or Communist, the Labour Party is and effectively always has been just another conservative party. How many Labour election wins, how much power, yet the House of Lords still stands, the voting system still the same serving vested interests of the political establishment whilst many millions of votes are rendered meaningless resulting in no representation. The monarch still head of state. What has Labour ever done remotely Marxist or communist?
    What is so educational about everything that’s happened to U.K. politics in recent years is how you can now clearly understand how Hitlers Third Reich came together. The conservative party’s, like Labour and the Tory's have been for so long, we’re swept aside in a toxic and sinister atmosphere.
    There’s posts today, excited ones from politicians, celebrating Herdsons decision. Those politicians are wrong, ignorant to what is really going on and of how sad and regressive and dangerous such resignations are. Am I alone? Can you not feel how toxic and sinister the atmosphere is becoming?
    No.
    Succinct. I was going to try to unpick that...
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 1,120

    Nigelb said:


    This article suggests that there isn’t going to be a majority for anyone else, either, which is why the opposition are scrabbling around for more arcane ways in which to prevent no deal:
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/07/new-rebel-bid-to-halt-no-deal-brexit-amid-fury-at-pms-enforcer

    I don't think that's clear yet either way, but obviously it could easily go pear-shaped and Tory rebels would prefer it if they could do the same job by binding Boris.

    The cross-party rebels are returning to ways to block no-deal in law partly because Labour has made it clear it could not support a national unity government formed in the wake of a no-confidence vote.The party would prefer to push for a general election or minority Labour administration led by Jeremy Corbyn as opposed to supporting a compromise candidate such as Yvette Cooper or Ken Clarke.

    I mean, obviously they'd *prefer* an early GE or Jeremy Corbyn as PM. But that's not the question. The question is more like one of these:

    1) If rebel Tories agreed to vote against their party in a confidence vote, but only on the condition that Labour support a time-limited grandee-led GoNAfaE, would Labour agree to the deal?

    2) Alternatively, if a VONC passed, and then the Commons had a vote *rejecting* Jeremy Corbyn as PM, would the Labour leadership agree to instead back a GoNAfaE led by somebody else, or would they leave Boris in place and let it all burn?

    3) If the Labour leadership's answer to (2) was to support the grandee, would they be able to bring their leave-supporting MPs with them?
    I think it's pretty clear, isn't it?
    1) No
    2) Let it burn
    3) N/A, but probably No

    Corbyn doesn't really do compromise: that's sort of his USP. How do you explain to the enraged Twitter mob of Labour members why Yvette Cooper is suddenly PM and somehow that's democratic? I just don't see how the Labour leadership can implicitly agree with the Tory rebels assertion that even No Deal would be preferable to a Corbyn government.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 11,636
    edited August 7
    Endillion said:


    I think it's pretty clear, isn't it?
    1) No
    2) Let it burn
    3) N/A, but probably No

    Corbyn doesn't really do compromise: that's sort of his USP. How do you explain to the enraged Twitter mob of Labour members why Yvette Cooper is suddenly PM and somehow that's democratic? I just don't see how the Labour leadership can implicitly agree with the Tory rebels assertion that even No Deal would be preferable to a Corbyn government.

    It's more likely to be why Kenneth Clarke or John Major is suddenly PM. Corbyn can't let them put up a Labour MP for fear that they run away with the ball.

    How does he explain that to Labour members? Well, they just STOPPED NO DEAL! And they've got a GENERAL ELECTION! HOORAY!

    I think at least in the case of (1) that's easier to explain than why they've just crashed out of the EU when they could have prevented it, and left a right-wing Tory government in power, potentially until 2022, when they could have removed it and got a general election.
  • Gabs2Gabs2 Posts: 152
    Nigelb said:

    O/T The Labour row over John McDonnell's remarks on IndyRef2 is bizarre. What is going on? Surely it wouldn't have been hard to come up some flim-flam to keep options open on this? It looks as though McDonnell - previously very disciplined - has gone rogue.

    Isn't his position essentially Cameron's position? (From before 2014)

    If Scottish voters elect a majority of representatives on a platform for another referendum and those representatives vote for that in Holyrood then he would not stand in their way. (With the change of the word "a" to "another")
    There's a big difference between Cameron's position for a once-in-a-generation referendum, and supporting holding another referendum just a few years later. However, my point wasn't about the merits or justification of the idea, but about the politics, and the timing. Why provoke a completely unnecessary row and alienate your own Scottish party? And why now? Surely this was a sleeping dog which could have been left snoring in the corner.
    The timing seems obvious to me: clear out any obstacles to the SNP providing support to Corbyn in a confidence vote in September or October.

    Will it be the Lib Dems they try to reassure next?

    As an aside, I don't think it's fair to characterise his position as supporting another referendum. He's simply saying he wouldn't override the will of the Holyrood Parliament.
    There is a ‘no No Deal’ majority in the Commons, but I think it unlikely that there is a majority prepared to instal Corbyn in No.10, even on a temporary basis.

    This article suggests that there isn’t going to be a majority for anyone else, either, which is why the opposition are scrabbling around for more arcane ways in which to prevent no deal:
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/07/new-rebel-bid-to-halt-no-deal-brexit-amid-fury-at-pms-enforcer

    The loathing of Cummings - by many supposedly on his side - shines through.
    If only Remain MPs had spent this much effort on building a unified position on what deal they would be prepared to support.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 26,338
    HYUFD said:

    As of this week I think the likeliest Democratic ticket will be Warren - O'Rourke but still a long way to go

    I think O'Rourke is a great call for VP.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 1,120

    Endillion said:


    I think it's pretty clear, isn't it?
    1) No
    2) Let it burn
    3) N/A, but probably No

    Corbyn doesn't really do compromise: that's sort of his USP. How do you explain to the enraged Twitter mob of Labour members why Yvette Cooper is suddenly PM and somehow that's democratic? I just don't see how the Labour leadership can implicitly agree with the Tory rebels assertion that even No Deal would be preferable to a Corbyn government.

    It's more likely to be why Kenneth Clarke or John Major is suddenly PM. Corbyn can't let them put up a Labour MP for fear that they run away with the ball.

    How does he explain that to Labour members? Well, they just STOPPED NO DEAL! And they've got a GENERAL ELECTION! HOORAY!

    I think at least in the case of (1) that's easier to explain than why they've just crashed out of the EU when they could have prevented it, and left a right-wing Tory government in power, potentially until 2022, when they could have removed it and got a general election.
    He won't even talk to Tory MPs on principle; now he's going to vote for one as Prime Minister, and whip his MPs to do likewise? Well, I'll believe that when I see it. We joke on here about Blairites being as bad as Tories in the eyes of the left, but Corbyn enabling Ken Clarke rather than pushing himself forward really would be quite some betrayal as far as his supporters are concerned. And not an easy thing to explain to supporters on doorsteps in the forthcoming general elections, never mind floating voters: there's a reason why politicians tend not to act in the national interest, and it's because they rarely get rewarded for it.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 11,636
    Endillion said:


    He won't even talk to Tory MPs on principle; now he's going to vote for one as Prime Minister, and whip his MPs to do likewise? Well, I'll believe that when I see it. We joke on here about Blairites being as bad as Tories in the eyes of the left, but Corbyn enabling Ken Clarke rather than pushing himself forward really would be quite some betrayal as far as his supporters are concerned. And not an easy thing to explain to supporters on doorsteps in the forthcoming general elections, never mind floating voters: there's a reason why politicians tend not to act in the national interest, and it's because they rarely get rewarded for it.

    There's no "rather than pushing himself forward". Of course he'd push himself forward. That's the first thing he'd do, and that's the only option you'll hear him entertain in public until the gears start to actually mesh.

    The question is whether that option having been defeated and/or clearly shown to be unavailable, he'd support a caretaker Tory for the limited purpose of getting an extension and calling election, or whether he'd keep the current Tory government in place.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 1,120

    Endillion said:


    He won't even talk to Tory MPs on principle; now he's going to vote for one as Prime Minister, and whip his MPs to do likewise? Well, I'll believe that when I see it. We joke on here about Blairites being as bad as Tories in the eyes of the left, but Corbyn enabling Ken Clarke rather than pushing himself forward really would be quite some betrayal as far as his supporters are concerned. And not an easy thing to explain to supporters on doorsteps in the forthcoming general elections, never mind floating voters: there's a reason why politicians tend not to act in the national interest, and it's because they rarely get rewarded for it.

    There's no "rather than pushing himself forward". Of course he'd push himself forward. That's the first thing he'd do, and that's the only option you'll hear him entertain in public until the gears start to actually mesh.

    The question is whether that option having been defeated and/or clearly shown to be unavailable, he'd support a caretaker Tory for the limited purpose of getting an extension and calling election, or whether he'd keep the current Tory government in place.
    Yeah, I get that. I'm just trying to shortcut to the likely public perception of the outcomes, as assumed by Milne & Co. My guess is, it would be seen as a colossal betrayal and everyone around Corbyn knows that.

    I'm just curious what actions Corbyn has ever taken to make you believe a compromise deal is even possible? It just feels like he wins either way if he doesn't deal, either through a chaotic Tory sponsored No Deal, or by getting into Downing Street. Dealing just has so much more potential downside for him.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 26,338

    Endillion said:


    He won't even talk to Tory MPs on principle; now he's going to vote for one as Prime Minister, and whip his MPs to do likewise? Well, I'll believe that when I see it. We joke on here about Blairites being as bad as Tories in the eyes of the left, but Corbyn enabling Ken Clarke rather than pushing himself forward really would be quite some betrayal as far as his supporters are concerned. And not an easy thing to explain to supporters on doorsteps in the forthcoming general elections, never mind floating voters: there's a reason why politicians tend not to act in the national interest, and it's because they rarely get rewarded for it.

    There's no "rather than pushing himself forward". Of course he'd push himself forward. That's the first thing he'd do, and that's the only option you'll hear him entertain in public until the gears start to actually mesh.

    The question is whether that option having been defeated and/or clearly shown to be unavailable, he'd support a caretaker Tory for the limited purpose of getting an extension and calling election, or whether he'd keep the current Tory government in place.
    Indeed, for 10 days he'd say "Only me, only me, only me"

    And then on the eleventh day he has a choice:

    - be seen as an enabler of a Tory No Deal Brexit by Metropolitan Remainers. (But hopefully not piss off voters in Leave seats, and allow the Tories to collect most of the blame for any problems that ocurred during No Deal Brexit )

    - allow some random caretaker figure (Caroline Lucas? Ken Clarke?) to be PM for an afternoon to ask for an extension. Which might be seen as a betrayal... but it also keeps the Tory Civil War going.

    The biggest danger to Corbyn is allow Tory No Deal Brexit to happen... but then it all goes OK. Because then he gets dumped by Metropolitan Remainers, while the Tories get the credit from Leavers of all stripes.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 5,883
    Gabs2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    O/T The Labour row over John McDonnell's remarks on IndyRef2 is bizarre. What is going on? Surely it wouldn't have been hard to come up some flim-flam to keep options open on this? It looks as though McDonnell - previously very disciplined - has gone rogue.

    Isn't his position essentially Cameron's position? (From before 2014)

    If Scottish voters elect a majority of representatives on a platform for another referendum and those representatives vote for that in Holyrood then he would not stand in their way. (With the change of the word "a" to "another")
    There's a big difference between Cameron's position for a once-in-a-generation referendum, and supporting holding another referendum just a few years later. However, my point wasn't about the merits or justification of the idea, but about the politics, and the timing. Why provoke a completely unnecessary row and alienate your own Scottish party? And why now? Surely this was a sleeping dog which could have been left snoring in the corner.
    The timing seems obvious to me: clear out any obstacles to the SNP providing support to Corbyn in a confidence vote in September or October.

    Will it be the Lib Dems they try to reassure next?

    As an aside, I don't think it's fair to characterise his position as supporting another referendum. He's simply saying he wouldn't override the will of the Holyrood Parliament.
    There is a ‘no No Deal’ majority in the Commons, but I think it unlikely that there is a majority prepared to instal Corbyn in No.10, even on a temporary basis.

    This article suggests that there isn’t going to be a majority for anyone else, either, which is why the opposition are scrabbling around for more arcane ways in which to prevent no deal:
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/07/new-rebel-bid-to-halt-no-deal-brexit-amid-fury-at-pms-enforcer

    The loathing of Cummings - by many supposedly on his side - shines through.
    If only Remain MPs had spent this much effort on building a unified position on what deal they would be prepared to support.
    Err. Remain MPs don't support leaving. QED.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 3,741
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    As of this week I think the likeliest Democratic ticket will be Warren - O'Rourke but still a long way to go

    I think O'Rourke is a great call for VP.
    Warren - Harris would be revolutionary and thereby energising. A similar situation was pithily described as the "Two Twat Ticket" by Selina Meyer in Veep.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 1,120
    dixiedean said:

    Gabs2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    O/T The Labour row over John McDonnell's remarks on IndyRef2 is bizarre. What is going on? Surely it wouldn't have been hard to come up some flim-flam to keep options open on this? It looks as though McDonnell - previously very disciplined - has gone rogue.

    Isn't his position essentially Cameron's position? (From before 2014)

    If Scottish voters elect a majority of representatives on a platform for another referendum and those representatives vote for that in Holyrood then he would not stand in their way. (With the change of the word "a" to "another")
    There's a big difference between Cameron's position for a once-in-a-generation referendum, and supporting holding another referendum just a few years later. However, my point wasn't about the merits or justification of the idea, but about the politics, and the timing. Why provoke a completely unnecessary row and alienate your own Scottish party? And why now? Surely this was a sleeping dog which could have been left snoring in the corner.
    The timing seems obvious to me: clear out any obstacles to the SNP providing support to Corbyn in a confidence vote in September or October.

    Will it be the Lib Dems they try to reassure next?

    As an aside, I don't think it's fair to characterise his position as supporting another referendum. He's simply saying he wouldn't override the will of the Holyrood Parliament.
    There is a ‘no No Deal’ majority in the Commons, but I think it unlikely that there is a majority prepared to instal Corbyn in No.10, even on a temporary basis.

    This article suggests that there isn’t going to be a majority for anyone else, either, which is why the opposition are scrabbling around for more arcane ways in which to prevent no deal:
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/07/new-rebel-bid-to-halt-no-deal-brexit-amid-fury-at-pms-enforcer

    The loathing of Cummings - by many supposedly on his side - shines through.
    If only Remain MPs had spent this much effort on building a unified position on what deal they would be prepared to support.
    Err. Remain MPs don't support leaving. QED.
    Yes, we've noticed. That's why we're heading for No Deal. Which is the point he's making.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 3,210
    I'm hopeful about Bernie, but Warren seems like the more likely not-Biden candidate at the moment. I'd be extremely surprised if it was Harris or Buttigeig
  • Gabs2Gabs2 Posts: 152
    Endillion said:

    dixiedean said:

    Gabs2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    O/T The Labour row over John McDonnell's remarks on IndyRef2 is bizarre. What is going on? Surely it wouldn't have been hard to come up some flim-flam to keep options open on this? It looks as though McDonnell - previously very disciplined - has gone rogue.

    Isn't his position essentially Cameron's position? (From before 2014)

    If Scottish voters elect a majority of representatives on a platform for another referendum and those representatives vote for that in Holyrood then he would not stand in their way. (With the change of the word "a" to "another")
    There's a big difference between Cameron's position for a once-in-a-generation referendum, and supporting holding another referendum just a few years later. However, my point wasn't about the merits or justification of the idea, but about the politics, and the timing. Why provoke a completely unnecessary row and alienate your own Scottish party? And why now? Surely this was a sleeping dog which could have been left snoring in the corner.
    The timing seems obvious to me: clear out any obstacles to the SNP providing support to Corbyn in a confidence vote in September or October.

    Will it be the Lib Dems they try to reassure next?

    As an aside, I don't think it's fair to characterise his position as supporting another referendum. He's simply saying he wouldn't override the will of the Holyrood Parliament.
    There is a ‘no No Deal’ majority in the Commons, but I think it unlikely that there is a majority prepared to instal Corbyn in No.10, even on a temporary basis.

    This article suggests that there isn’t going to be a majority for anyone else, either, which is why the opposition are scrabbling around for more arcane ways in which to prevent no deal:
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/07/new-rebel-bid-to-halt-no-deal-brexit-amid-fury-at-pms-enforcer

    The loathing of Cummings - by many supposedly on his side - shines through.
    If only Remain MPs had spent this much effort on building a unified position on what deal they would be prepared to support.
    Err. Remain MPs don't support leaving. QED.
    Yes, we've noticed. That's why we're heading for No Deal. Which is the point he's making.
    Exactly. They voted to Leave and then voted against the deal three times. If they had only concertedly got behind EEA membership and Customs Union we would have had a smooth transition out and could have rejoined in a few years. They are as much to blame as the Brexit extremists.
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 215
    edited August 8
    If you want a good laugh read this:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/22/david-cameron-ridicules-boris-johnsons-second-referendum-idea

    It's one of the top 10 most read politics articles on the Guardian website today, despite being three years old. Probably because of stuff like:

    "David Cameron has vented his frustration at Boris Johnson over Europe, as he ridiculed the mayor of London over his apparent call for a second EU referendum and came close to accusing him of backing a vote to leave to boost his chances of one day leading the Conservative party."

    and:

    "The suggestion by the London mayor shows the influence of Dominic Cummings, the Vote Leave campaign director and former special adviser to Michael Gove, who has suggested that Cameron should use a leave vote to demand better terms from the EU."

    PS I can't post on here unless I go via the Vanilla website. Is it just me?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 29,960
    Gabs2 said:

    Endillion said:

    dixiedean said:

    Err. Remain MPs don't support leaving. QED.

    Yes, we've noticed. That's why we're heading for No Deal. Which is the point he's making.
    Exactly. They voted to Leave and then voted against the deal three times. If they had only concertedly got behind EEA membership and Customs Union we would have had a smooth transition out and could have rejoined in a few years. They are as much to blame as the Brexit extremists.
    This is revisionism. Staying in the single market and customs union was repeatedly advocated by such MPs and denounced by Brexiteers as not leaving.

  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 5,441
    edited August 8
    dixiedean said:

    Serious point, not a whinge, but why the obsession with US Politics? I realise there is a large betting market, with a huge Dem field, providing plenty of betting opportunities. Get that bit. But people seem to already be au fait with the platforms, discussing VP picks, and watching debates and stuff. And more familiar with the faces than many in the UK Cabinet. Do other countries watch with such avid interest? And, if not, is this part of our obsession with all things American, and by extension a factor in our semi-detached attitude to Europe?
    It isn't the first Primary for 6 months! Meanwhile, there is an election in Canada soon. Australia had one, with almost no interest until a few days before.
    I'll pay attention when the voting starts and not before. That takes a bloody age in itself.

    Of the three current biggest betting markets based on published data on Betfair two are the Democratic nomination and the overall WH2020 winner. This has almost been a constant over the years in spite of the turbulence in UK politics.

    Outside of elections and leadership contest there are few really active UK betting markets.

    The site was set up in 2004 primarily then because of that year's White House race
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 11,636
    Endillion said:


    Yeah, I get that. I'm just trying to shortcut to the likely public perception of the outcomes, as assumed by Milne & Co. My guess is, it would be seen as a colossal betrayal and everyone around Corbyn knows that.

    I'm just curious what actions Corbyn has ever taken to make you believe a compromise deal is even possible? It just feels like he wins either way if he doesn't deal, either through a chaotic Tory sponsored No Deal, or by getting into Downing Street. Dealing just has so much more potential downside for him.

    1) Caroline Lucas put down a motion like this [*]:

    This house
    - Has no confidence in the Prime Minister, who has turned out to be a total fucking maniac
    - Notes that Ken Clarke is less of a maniac, and has promised to stablilize the situation and call an election at an appropriate time in the near future
    - Humbly requests that Her Majesty name him Prime Minister as quickly as possible before Boris bollockses things up even worse

    2) 5 Tories tweet that they will vote for this motion, but won't support a VONC without the Clarke part clearly established

    3) Labour move amend this to delete "Ken Clarke" and substitute "Jeremy Corbyn"

    4) Motion is to amend defeated

    5) ???

    Does Corbyn really vote this down? It's not even a matter of *negotiating* with the Tories: He gets an extension and an election to implement his party's policy, all he has to do is vote down the government...

    * Specific language and procedural details may vary
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 1,120

    Endillion said:


    Yeah, I get that. I'm just trying to shortcut to the likely public perception of the outcomes, as assumed by Milne & Co. My guess is, it would be seen as a colossal betrayal and everyone around Corbyn knows that.

    I'm just curious what actions Corbyn has ever taken to make you believe a compromise deal is even possible? It just feels like he wins either way if he doesn't deal, either through a chaotic Tory sponsored No Deal, or by getting into Downing Street. Dealing just has so much more potential downside for him.

    1) Caroline Lucas put down a motion like this [*]:

    This house
    - Has no confidence in the Prime Minister, who has turned out to be a total fucking maniac
    - Notes that Ken Clarke is less of a maniac, and has promised to stablilize the situation and call an election at an appropriate time in the near future
    - Humbly requests that Her Majesty name him Prime Minister as quickly as possible before Boris bollockses things up even worse

    2) 5 Tories tweet that they will vote for this motion, but won't support a VONC without the Clarke part clearly established

    3) Labour move amend this to delete "Ken Clarke" and substitute "Jeremy Corbyn"

    4) Motion is to amend defeated

    5) ???

    Does Corbyn really vote this down? It's not even a matter of *negotiating* with the Tories: He gets an extension and an election to implement his party's policy, all he has to do is vote down the government...

    * Specific language and procedural details may vary
    We're very far out into unchartered territory here, but, as I understand it, Bercow has to rule the whole thing inadmissible or whatever since the FTPA is clear as to what constitutes a VoNC motion. I note your footnote, but in this case I think the specific language can't actually vary. I'm sure Grieve will come up with something, but god knows what at this stage.

    Also yes I think even then Corbyn votes it down. As per my previous post: it's a game where he wins either way and his opponents can only choose between immediate and deferred defeat. I'm sure he'll find a reason why: claiming he doesn't trust Johnson to resign, saying he needs a guarantee the election will be before such and such date, that it's plain undemocratic, etc.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 1,274
    CatMan said:

    PS I can't post on here unless I go via the Vanilla website. Is it just me?

    Nope. Exactly the same here. Totally impossible to use the actual PB website. I’ve tried all the fixes suggested by helpful PBers over many weeks, and have now given up. There seems to be some massive, fundamental flaw in how the site is constructed that all browsers simply hate.

    The vanilla website seems to work fine, so I suppose I’ll just have to get used to it. But I daren’t even press the “read the full story” link because the browser goes mental again, so I’m afraid I only see the first few sentences of articles, which is fine for certain writers, but you really need to read the whole thing to appreciate a Herdson, Cyclefree, Palmer or Antifrank piece.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 1,274
    dixiedean said:

    O/T The Labour row over John McDonnell's remarks on IndyRef2 is bizarre. What is going on? Surely it wouldn't have been hard to come up some flim-flam to keep options open on this? It looks as though McDonnell - previously very disciplined - has gone rogue.

    Isn't his position essentially Cameron's position? (From before 2014)

    If Scottish voters elect a majority of representatives on a platform for another referendum and those representatives vote for that in Holyrood then he would not stand in their way. (With the change of the word "a" to "another")
    There's a big difference between Cameron's position for a once-in-a-generation referendum, and supporting holding another referendum just a few years later. However, my point wasn't about the merits or justification of the idea, but about the politics, and the timing. Why provoke a completely unnecessary row and alienate your own Scottish party? And why now? Surely this was a sleeping dog which could have been left snoring in the corner.
    A wild stab at explaining it...Labour has given up on SLAB, concluding they are useless. No prospect of gains. Serious prospect of losing MPs. Along comes Swinson, a Scot, threatening to take away even more votes. The Unionist side is a crowded field. Shift to an ambivalent position.
    Say you don't HAVE to vote SNP to get Indyref 2. Positioning for both VONC, and next Holyrood election. Have a go at soft pro-Indy votes instead?
    I said it was a wild stab.
    Astute.

    The signs are modest, but they are there: Labour is moving slowly but steadily away from the rampant British nationalism of Better Together and towards adopting a pretty-much neutral position on Scottish independence. Folk like Ian Murray know it and are incandescent.

    It is even a trend (even more modest) within Lib Dem circles.

    Better Together is now recognised as a Tory plot, and a huge elephant trap into which Miliband and Clegg allowed their weak/daft Scottish branches to be lured into. The error will not be repeated. British nationalism is alive and well within Tory hearts, but Labour have lost the appetite for it.

    I suspect the travails of Labour’s sister-party in Madrid, vis a vis Catalonia has alerted wiser heads. Madrid has dug itself into a hole and it is going to be one hell of a job getting out of it. Not dissimilar to the vindictive partition of Ireland and subsequent periods of Direct Rule, which is still haunting English politics a century later. An error of huge and then-unforeseen importance.

    SLab, or parts of SLab, can kick and scream all it likes, but with 40% of its supporters backing independence it’ll have to dial down the Union Jackery one way or another.
  • ZephyrZephyr Posts: 309
    dixiedean said:

    Zephyr said:

    dixiedean said:

    The Marxlst wing of Farage's happy band is a curious, and seemingly growing faction. What could they possibly see in a Party with no membership, no internal democracy and nothing to unite it but blind devotion to the leader and his impractical, idealistic and financially reckless plans?
    It’s not curious or strange at all.
    Mick Hume used to edit a magazine called Living Marxism that was pure Libertarianism from cover to cover. The Marxists and the Libertarians travel together. That’s the real Marxists not the lefty’s in Labour so lazily called Marxist or Communist, the Labour Party is and effectively always has been just another conservative party. How many Labour election wins, how much power, yet the House of Lords still stands, the voting system still the same serving vested interests of the political establishment whilst many millions of votes are rendered meaningless resulting in no representation. The monarch still head of state. What has Labour ever done remotely Marxist or communist?
    What is so educational about everything that’s happened to U.K. politics in recent years is how you can now clearly understand how Hitlers Third Reich came together. The conservative party’s, like Labour and the Tory's have been for so long, we’re swept aside in a toxic and sinister atmosphere.
    There’s posts today, excited ones from politicians, celebrating Herdsons decision. Those politicians are wrong, ignorant to what is really going on and of how sad and regressive and dangerous such resignations are. Am I alone? Can you not feel how toxic and sinister the atmosphere is becoming?
    No.
    Succinct. I was going to try to unpick that...
    Unpick? You mean respun? There’s nothing that can’t be respun.
    But the truth is, from baldrick to Herdson, resigning because the leadership of party, and policy direction is “wacko” is sad. But not just sad, democratically dangerous.
    If you want succinct herdson is saying the Conservative party is not being conservative. And I am saying we rely on the Tory and Labour parties sharing power and not to give in to voters and “change stuff”, to keep us a conservative country locked in a fake quarrel that’s apparently between left and right.
    Voters are goats on the other side of the bridge.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 1,274
    Zephyr said:

    dixiedean said:

    The Marxlst wing of Farage's happy band is a curious, and seemingly growing faction. What could they possibly see in a Party with no membership, no internal democracy and nothing to unite it but blind devotion to the leader and his impractical, idealistic and financially reckless plans?
    It’s not curious or strange at all.
    Mick Hume used to edit a magazine called Living Marxism that was pure Libertarianism from cover to cover. The Marxists and the Libertarians travel together. That’s the real Marxists not the lefty’s in Labour so lazily called Marxist or Communist, the Labour Party is and effectively always has been just another conservative party. How many Labour election wins, how much power, yet the House of Lords still stands, the voting system still the same serving vested interests of the political establishment whilst many millions of votes are rendered meaningless resulting in no representation. The monarch still head of state. What has Labour ever done remotely Marxist or communist?
    What is so educational about everything that’s happened to U.K. politics in recent years is how you can now clearly understand how Hitlers Third Reich came together. The conservative party’s, like Labour and the Tory's have been for so long, we’re swept aside in a toxic and sinister atmosphere.
    There’s posts today, excited ones from politicians, celebrating Herdsons decision. Those politicians are wrong, ignorant to what is really going on and of how sad and regressive and dangerous such resignations are. Am I alone? Can you not feel how toxic and sinister the atmosphere is becoming?
    I’m in Sicily at the moment, and therefore a bit Italy focussed, but I’ve been doing some research on the rise of Mussolini and early Italian fascism and I’d say the current dynamics and personalities of leading players in English politics is far more reminiscent of the early Mussolini period (1915-21) rather than the early corresponding movements north of the Alps, which took a lot longer to come to fruition. The English revolution is happening fast. The degeneration is short and sharp.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 24,388
    PClipp said:

    First. They have several candidates for the Democrat nomination that I find very appealing. All are far better than the recent Tory field.

    But are the candidates for the California House Majority Leader better than the recent Tory field?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 24,388

    Gabs2 said:

    Endillion said:

    dixiedean said:

    Err. Remain MPs don't support leaving. QED.

    Yes, we've noticed. That's why we're heading for No Deal. Which is the point he's making.
    Exactly. They voted to Leave and then voted against the deal three times. If they had only concertedly got behind EEA membership and Customs Union we would have had a smooth transition out and could have rejoined in a few years. They are as much to blame as the Brexit extremists.
    This is revisionism. Staying in the single market and customs union was repeatedly advocated by such MPs and denounced by Brexiteers as not leaving.

    18 months too late
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 24,388

    Endillion said:


    Yeah, I get that. I'm just trying to shortcut to the likely public perception of the outcomes, as assumed by Milne & Co. My guess is, it would be seen as a colossal betrayal and everyone around Corbyn knows that.

    I'm just curious what actions Corbyn has ever taken to make you believe a compromise deal is even possible? It just feels like he wins either way if he doesn't deal, either through a chaotic Tory sponsored No Deal, or by getting into Downing Street. Dealing just has so much more potential downside for him.

    1) Caroline Lucas put down a motion like this [*]:

    This house
    - Has no confidence in the Prime Minister, who has turned out to be a total fucking maniac
    - Notes that Ken Clarke is less of a maniac, and has promised to stablilize the situation and call an election at an appropriate time in the near future
    - Humbly requests that Her Majesty name him Prime Minister as quickly as possible before Boris bollockses things up even worse

    2) 5 Tories tweet that they will vote for this motion, but won't support a VONC without the Clarke part clearly established

    3) Labour move amend this to delete "Ken Clarke" and substitute "Jeremy Corbyn"

    4) Motion is to amend defeated

    5) ???

    Does Corbyn really vote this down? It's not even a matter of *negotiating* with the Tories: He gets an extension and an election to implement his party's policy, all he has to do is vote down the government...

    * Specific language and procedural details may vary
    It doesn’t get automatic priority over government business unless Corbyn puts the motion down
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 24,388

    dixiedean said:

    O/T The Labour row over John McDonnell's remarks on IndyRef2 is bizarre. What is going on? Surely it wouldn't have been hard to come up some flim-flam to keep options open on this? It looks as though McDonnell - previously very disciplined - has gone rogue.

    Isn't his position essentially Cameron's position? (From before 2014)

    If Scottish voters elect a majority )
    There's a big difference between Cameron's position for a once-in-a-generation referendum, and supporting holding another referendum just a few years later. However, my point wasn't about the merits or justification of the idea, but about the politics, and the timing. Why provoke a completely unnecessary row and alienate your own Scottish party? And why now? Surely this was a sleeping dog which could have been left snoring in the corner.
    A wild stab at explaining it...Labour has given up on SLAB, concluding they are useless. No prospect of gains. Serious prospect of losing MPs. Along comes Swinson, a Scot, threatening to take away even more votes. The Unionist side is a crowded field. Shift to an ambivalent position.
    Say you don't HAVE to vote SNP to get Indyref 2. Positioning for both VONC, and next Holyrood election. Have a go at soft pro-Indy votes instead?
    I said it was a wild stab.
    Astute.

    The signs are modest, but they are there: Labour is moving slowly but steadily away from the rampant British nationalism of Better Together and towards adopting a pretty-much neutral position on Scottish independence. Folk like Ian Murray know it and are incandescent.

    It is even a trend (even more modest) within Lib Dem circles.

    Better Together is now recognised as a Tory plot, and a huge elephant trap into which Miliband and Clegg allowed their weak/daft Scottish branches to be lured into. The error will not be repeated. British nationalism is alive and well within Tory hearts, but Labour have lost the appetite for it.

    I suspect the travails of Labour’s sister-party in Madrid, vis a vis Catalonia has alerted wiser heads. Madrid has dug itself into a hole and it is going to be one hell of a job getting out of it. Not dissimilar to the vindictive partition of Ireland and subsequent periods of Direct Rule, which is still haunting English politics a century later. An error of huge and then-unforeseen importance.

    SLab, or parts of SLab, can kick and scream all it likes, but with 40% of its supporters backing independence it’ll have to dial down the Union Jackery one way or another.
    Partition of Ireland was not vindictive.

    A terrible mistake, yes, but not vindictive
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 11,636
    edited August 8
    Charles said:


    It doesn’t get automatic priority over government business unless Corbyn puts the motion down

    I don't think they need automatic priority of government business, they just need the ability to have a vote some time before Exit Day. If they needed Corbyn to then put down his own motion of the appropriate form then they could - once you've passed "informally, we have no confidence in the government but would have confidence in X instead", you've pretty much proved that you've got the votes for "formally, we have no confidence in the government".
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 24,388

    Charles said:


    It doesn’t get automatic priority over government business unless Corbyn puts the motion down

    I don't think they need automatic priority of government business, they just need the ability to have a vote some time before Exit Day. If they needed Corbyn to then put down his own motion of the appropriate form then they could - once you've passed "informally, we have no confidence in the government but would have confidence in X instead", you've pretty much proved that you've got the votes for "formally, we have no confidence in the government".
    Why would Corbyn do that?

    (And by not “automatic priority” the reality is it won’t be debated.)
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 11,636
    Charles said:


    Why would Corbyn do that?

    Why would Corbyn put down a formal VONC the next day? To bring down the government and get a general election.
This discussion has been closed.