Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The practical guide to centre-left schisms

2456

Comments

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,839

    Pulpstar said:

    So I'm the only PBer not voting in the Labour leadership election?

    Not for the first time I feel like a Nun in a whorehouse.

    You still have 13 minutes to register :D
    I've just written the weekend thread about how Corbyn becomes Prime Minister in 2020.

    I'm not going to tempt fate by voting for him
    I have to say I do feel absolubtely filthy giving Labour £3 !!
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    So I'm the only PBer not voting in the Labour leadership election?

    Not for the first time I feel like a Nun in a whorehouse.

    You still have 13 minutes to register :D
    I've just written the weekend thread about how Corbyn becomes Prime Minister in 2020.

    I'm not going to tempt fate by voting for him
    I have to say I do feel absolubtely filthy giving Labour £3 !!
    Fear not, they'll waste more than that checking you out.

    BTW did you declare that you had a direct financial interest in the outcome :) ?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited August 2015
    Three glorious minutes to go to register to vote, comrades.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Tick Tock - only 3 mins left... :smiley:
  • Danny565 said:

    Good luck to Chuka and Kendall trying to hold their seats under a Conservative label (or a label like "Liberal Unionists" which is specifically affiliated with the Tories). I doubt they have particularly high personal votes which would allow them to carry over a significant amount of tribal Labour voters over with them.

    In the past, the main parties have tended to find defectors a seat somewhere else, e.g. Shaun Woodward and his butler going off to St Helens
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    That has to be one of the funniest/most inappropriate seats to be handed.

    Tristram in Stoke Central comes a close second.

    Danny565 said:

    Good luck to Chuka and Kendall trying to hold their seats under a Conservative label (or a label like "Liberal Unionists" which is specifically affiliated with the Tories). I doubt they have particularly high personal votes which would allow them to carry over a significant amount of tribal Labour voters over with them.

    In the past, the main parties have tended to find defectors a seat somewhere else, e.g. Shaun Woodward and his butler going off to St Helens
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091

    Danny565 said:

    Good luck to Chuka and Kendall trying to hold their seats under a Conservative label. I doubt they have particularly high personal votes which would allow them to carry over a significant amount of tribal Labour voters over with them.

    Any patriotic lion defecting to the Tories won't have to resign and fight a by-election.

    Austerity and all that jazz, so no needs for a costly by election.

    Any traitorous pig dog defecting from the Tories has to fight a by election because the Tories won a mandate in May and they are repudiating that mandate.
    Carswell has set a precedent though, and isn't there recall procedures in place now which could be triggered by unhappy Labour voters in their constituencies if they defected?

    IMO, of all the likely defectors, the only one who would have a chance of holding their seat as a Tory is John Woodcock.
  • JackW said:



    Not for the first time I feel like a Nun in a whorehouse.

    You feel the need to go disguised ?!?

    Yes after my last time in a whorehouse.

    The previous time after the lady had rendered services I told her

    'I'm that good you should be paying me'

    She then invited her pimp to rearrange my face if I didn't pay up.

    Hard to believe I've been accused of lacking self confidence isn't it?
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    edited August 2015
    ''Tristram in Stoke Central comes a close second. ''

    a prediction for 2020 if Corbyn wins?
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Who's he?
    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    Good luck to Chuka and Kendall trying to hold their seats under a Conservative label. I doubt they have particularly high personal votes which would allow them to carry over a significant amount of tribal Labour voters over with them.

    Any patriotic lion defecting to the Tories won't have to resign and fight a by-election.

    Austerity and all that jazz, so no needs for a costly by election.

    Any traitorous pig dog defecting from the Tories has to fight a by election because the Tories won a mandate in May and they are repudiating that mandate.
    Carswell has set a precedent though, and isn't there recall procedures in place now which could be triggered by unhappy Labour voters in their constituencies if they defected?

    IMO, of all the likely defectors, the only one who would have a chance of holding their seat as a Tory is John Woodcock.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,909
    edited August 2015
    Plato said:

    Tick Tock - only 3 mins left... :smiley:

    I thought the deadline was 3 hours ago! :open_mouth: :
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    1982 by-elections footage that I uploaded recently, including Jenkins winning in Hillhead:

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVKIFfwWRg8
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    Good luck to Chuka and Kendall trying to hold their seats under a Conservative label. I doubt they have particularly high personal votes which would allow them to carry over a significant amount of tribal Labour voters over with them.

    Any patriotic lion defecting to the Tories won't have to resign and fight a by-election.

    Austerity and all that jazz, so no needs for a costly by election.

    Any traitorous pig dog defecting from the Tories has to fight a by election because the Tories won a mandate in May and they are repudiating that mandate.
    Carswell has set a precedent though, and isn't there recall procedures in place now which could be triggered by unhappy Labour voters in their constituencies if they defected?

    IMO, of all the likely defectors, the only one who would have a chance of holding their seat as a Tory is John Woodcock.
    Couldn't any defector argue with more justice than usual that the party had abandoned the platform on which they had been elected rather than the other way around?
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited August 2015

    Plato said:

    Tick Tock - only 3 mins left... :smiley:

    I thought the deadline was 3 hours ago! :open_mouth: :
    Last minute Corbynytes trying to vote crashed the system so they extended it by 3 hours.
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    " That experience, however, resulted in the [Liberal Democrats] being nearly wiped out in the 2015 election. They look unlikely to be significant political players again any time soon."

    Unless Corbyn wins the Labour leadership, in which case the Lib Dems will have a huge empty space to move into. All it takes is a convenient by-election in a safe Labour seat, and hey presto, it's like Eastbourne 1990 all over again. The Lib Dem victory in Eastbourne happened despite the Lib Dems being at a low level in the national opinion polls.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    :smiley:
    taffys said:

    ''Tristram in Stoke Central comes a close second. ''

    a prediction for 2020 if Corbyn wins?

  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,042
    Cyclefree said:

    JEO said:

    Mortimer said:

    Roger said:

    Bob

    "My only worry is that Corbs may prove massively more popular with the wider electorate than anyone ever envisaged....."

    I was introduced to an 86 year old woman in a cafe this morning with a strong German/Austrian accent. She came to the UK from Vienna in '48 and regaled me with stories of how the Austrians were worse than the Germans and how to this day they're still racists who refuse to accept their history.

    She felt great affection for the English. For their friendliness and lack of corruption. She also hated the Tories with a passion almost equalling her loathing for her ex compatriots. She joined the Lib Dems because of Blair and has stuffed envelopes for them when required ever since.

    She said if Corbyn won the leadership she would rejoin Labour and die happy!

    It almost tempted me to pay my £3

    Shame that she didn't recognise:

    - it was a Tory administration that declared war on Germany
    - it was a Tory PM who won the war
    - the majority of her years of living in England have been under Tory rule

    I'd be pretty thankful to the Tories in that situation.

    Quite. It was the Jeremy Corbyn's of this world that were trying get on with Germany by appealing to the Nazis better nature. Just as the man himself does with Chavez and Hamas.
    Hamas are just an armed group. Terrorists, revolutionaries, insurgents, freedom fighters - the designation is entirely subjective. Most of the groups we support in Syria are worse - and those are the nicer ones.

    The designation is subjective but there's a clear difference between groups which are driven to use violence in an oppressive regime that offers no alternative but are willing to talk if that alternative is offered, and groups which use violence as a means of imposing a settlement on a people.
    No there isn't. The degree to which a regime is oppressive is also entirely subjective.
    What utter rubbish.
    It's not utter rubbish at all. We would consider armed attacks upon the Bahraini, Saudi, or Qatari regimes that could or could not harm civilians to be terrorist attacks. We would consider similar attacks on the current Syrian or previous Libyan regimes to be acts of revolution. There's no objective difference in repression (except that the Syrian regime is considerably less oppressive). The language of terrorism is geopolitical aims dressed up as moral outrage.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Pulpstar said:

    Charles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The question of the day is do I register for Jezza .... ?

    I've just registered. Will support Kendall, as the best option for the country, and probably Jezza #2 as if it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well It were done quickly.

    In my view Burnham or Cooper would resolve nothing; in 2020 we will be where we are today, and Labour still won't be an effective opposition.
    I've registered too - may well go with that option myself ;)
    My order too. I suspect Kendall will be first out, but a strong showing will help the fightback. And at least I am a former Labour member!; could see myself back under a suitable leader!
  • Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    Good luck to Chuka and Kendall trying to hold their seats under a Conservative label. I doubt they have particularly high personal votes which would allow them to carry over a significant amount of tribal Labour voters over with them.

    Any patriotic lion defecting to the Tories won't have to resign and fight a by-election.

    Austerity and all that jazz, so no needs for a costly by election.

    Any traitorous pig dog defecting from the Tories has to fight a by election because the Tories won a mandate in May and they are repudiating that mandate.
    Carswell has set a precedent though, and isn't there recall procedures in place now which could be triggered by unhappy Labour voters in their constituencies if they defected?

    IMO, of all the likely defectors, the only one who would have a chance of holding their seat as a Tory is John Woodcock.
    The legislation is here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/25/pdfs/ukpga_20150025_en.pdf

    From skimming it as far as I can tell, the only 3 situations recall applies to is if an MP has a criminal conviction, if they have been suspended from the house or if they have been caught fiddling expenses.

    Nothing in there about defections as I can see.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,262

    What is the relationship between the Co-operative Party and Labour? Why do some MPs describe themselves as "Labour Co-op"?

    The Co-operative Party is a separate body which has a working agreement with Labour: the Co-op doesn't put up candidates against Labour, and Labour doesn't object to candidates identifying with both. MPs who do so will be motivated by a stronger than average belief that the way forward for industry is to encourage more co-operative enterprises (also, the Co-op may help out a bit with nominations and campaign contributions).

    I'm a member of both but didn't seek the Co-op label as I couldn't honestly say I was much involved with that side of things and would really only have been doing it for the possible support.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Icarus said:

    JackW said:

    GIN1138 said:

    WOW! 150 years of center left splits and JackW remember's it all! :O

    I confess to some disappointment that this otherwise excellent piece by @Antifrank only concerns itself with recent living memory for some of the more vintage members of PB.

    And whilst musing on vintage members last night Mrs JackW emitted a little memory sigh at the current Fiat 500 "little blue pill" TV advert and then cast a longing glance a moi. :blush:

    You should have upgraded to the Fiat 600 - the seats reclined. And then we got a couple of 850 coupes!!!

    Welcome back Jack - Whilst you have been away the Liberals have been keeping their heads down but I am worried that the Labour Party might just be thinking of growing a pair and actually take over from us as the Radical Party.
    I just knew I could rely on you to provide an entirely unbiased and "Focused" appreciation.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    A cunning piece, Mr. Antifrank. I wonder if the iconoclasts and iconodules of the Eastern Roman Empire would also be an apt historical comparison.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @SamCoatesTimes: Jeremy Corbyn is in third in Bassetlaw says John Mann on Sky now. Says London joiners "are representative of very little in society" (gulp)
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091

    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    Good luck to Chuka and Kendall trying to hold their seats under a Conservative label. I doubt they have particularly high personal votes which would allow them to carry over a significant amount of tribal Labour voters over with them.

    Any patriotic lion defecting to the Tories won't have to resign and fight a by-election.

    Austerity and all that jazz, so no needs for a costly by election.

    Any traitorous pig dog defecting from the Tories has to fight a by election because the Tories won a mandate in May and they are repudiating that mandate.
    Carswell has set a precedent though, and isn't there recall procedures in place now which could be triggered by unhappy Labour voters in their constituencies if they defected?

    IMO, of all the likely defectors, the only one who would have a chance of holding their seat as a Tory is John Woodcock.
    The legislation is here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/25/pdfs/ukpga_20150025_en.pdf

    From skimming it as far as I can tell, the only 3 situations recall applies to is if an MP has a criminal conviction, if they have been suspended from the house or if they have been caught fiddling expenses.

    Nothing in there about defections as I can see.
    Thanks!

    How unsatisfactory though. Switching party allegiances should surely be one of the main triggers.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    John Mann MP: there'll be no split, but whoever wins will have to prove they're a "winner"... to remain as Labour leader.

    He then went on to list all the elections in 2016.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    Good luck to Chuka and Kendall trying to hold their seats under a Conservative label. I doubt they have particularly high personal votes which would allow them to carry over a significant amount of tribal Labour voters over with them.

    Any patriotic lion defecting to the Tories won't have to resign and fight a by-election.

    Austerity and all that jazz, so no needs for a costly by election.

    Any traitorous pig dog defecting from the Tories has to fight a by election because the Tories won a mandate in May and they are repudiating that mandate.
    Carswell has set a precedent though, and isn't there recall procedures in place now which could be triggered by unhappy Labour voters in their constituencies if they defected?

    IMO, of all the likely defectors, the only one who would have a chance of holding their seat as a Tory is John Woodcock.
    The legislation is here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/25/pdfs/ukpga_20150025_en.pdf

    From skimming it as far as I can tell, the only 3 situations recall applies to is if an MP has a criminal conviction, if they have been suspended from the house or if they have been caught fiddling expenses.

    Nothing in there about defections as I can see.
    Thanks!

    How unsatisfactory though. Switching party allegiances should surely be one of the main triggers.

    Why? You vote for the person, not the party.

  • @stvharry: Registration to vote in the #labourleadership is now closed. The Die is Cast
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited August 2015

    @stvharry: Registration to vote in the #labourleadership is now closed. The Die is Cast

    We now enter Phase 3 of the ‘AnyonebutCorbyn’ campaign. Fire up the shredding machines.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,839

    JackW said:



    Not for the first time I feel like a Nun in a whorehouse.

    You feel the need to go disguised ?!?

    Yes after my last time in a whorehouse.

    The previous time after the lady had rendered services I told her

    'I'm that good you should be paying me'

    She then invited her pimp to rearrange my face if I didn't pay up.

    Hard to believe I've been accused of lacking self confidence isn't it?
    I once visited a brothel with a couple of friends, we played pool (Well me and John did) whilst our other friend used the 'services' provided. The pimp looked a strong type.
  • So are labour going to cross the Rubicon and elect JC
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Sure, there’s a respectable case for more public spending. But it is sad that this is what the left, even on its own terms, has come to: vote for us and the government will spend more and run more stuff (or don’t vote for us, we don’t care).

    In place of a vision, the left is against stuff. It’s against austerity. It’s against Tories – though mysteriously uninterested in unseating them – and it’s definitely against Tony Blair. This last is why the word “Blairites” has featured so ubiquitously in the election, despite there being so few of them, and despite the ones that do exist refusing to accept the label.

    Blairites figure in Labour’s mythology the same way immigrants do in Ukip’s: as a metonym for multiple ills. Ukip does best in areas of the country where the are very few immigrants. Similarly, the Labour party, having purged itself of Blairites, talks about little else.
    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/08/blairites-have-forgotten-how-win
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    What is the relationship between the Co-operative Party and Labour? Why do some MPs describe themselves as "Labour Co-op"?

    The Co-operative Party is a separate body which has a working agreement with Labour: the Co-op doesn't put up candidates against Labour, and Labour doesn't object to candidates identifying with both. MPs who do so will be motivated by a stronger than average belief that the way forward for industry is to encourage more co-operative enterprises (also, the Co-op may help out a bit with nominations and campaign contributions).

    I'm a member of both but didn't seek the Co-op label as I couldn't honestly say I was much involved with that side of things and would really only have been doing it for the possible support.
    Good afternoon young Nick.

    I noted your post this morning indicating that you've moved on from seeking election to the Commons. Good luck in your future endeavours.

    If you have the time might you post an overview of how you saw the final days of the election in Broxtowe ?

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    A Very British Brothel is very amusing docu http://www.channel4.com/programmes/a-very-british-brothel
    Pulpstar said:

    JackW said:



    Not for the first time I feel like a Nun in a whorehouse.

    You feel the need to go disguised ?!?

    Yes after my last time in a whorehouse.

    The previous time after the lady had rendered services I told her

    'I'm that good you should be paying me'

    She then invited her pimp to rearrange my face if I didn't pay up.

    Hard to believe I've been accused of lacking self confidence isn't it?
    I once visited a brothel with a couple of friends, we played pool (Well me and John did) whilst our other friend used the 'services' provided. The pimp looked a strong type.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    A by-election in Stoke-on-Trent Central would be interesting if Tristram decides to throw in the towel.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    A great line there.
    Scott_P said:

    Sure, there’s a respectable case for more public spending. But it is sad that this is what the left, even on its own terms, has come to: vote for us and the government will spend more and run more stuff (or don’t vote for us, we don’t care).

    In place of a vision, the left is against stuff. It’s against austerity. It’s against Tories – though mysteriously uninterested in unseating them – and it’s definitely against Tony Blair. This last is why the word “Blairites” has featured so ubiquitously in the election, despite there being so few of them, and despite the ones that do exist refusing to accept the label.

    Blairites figure in Labour’s mythology the same way immigrants do in Ukip’s: as a metonym for multiple ills. Ukip does best in areas of the country where the are very few immigrants. Similarly, the Labour party, having purged itself of Blairites, talks about little else.
    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/08/blairites-have-forgotten-how-win

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    edited August 2015
    Danny565 said:

    Good luck to Chuka and Kendall trying to hold their seats under a Conservative label (or a label like "Liberal Unionists" which is specifically affiliated with the Tories). I doubt they have particularly high personal votes which would allow them to carry over a significant amount of tribal Labour voters over with them.

    As Cameron's predecessor in Witney showed, defectors probably get nice safe seats elsewhere I believe, were that unlikely scenario ever to occur. The presumed pressure to resign and fight a by-election a la the UKIP examples would be tough, but presumably survivable.

    Edit: Oops, about 20 minutes behind events.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,839
    Plato said:

    A Very British Brothel is very amusing docu http://www.channel4.com/programmes/a-very-british-brothel

    Pulpstar said:

    JackW said:



    Not for the first time I feel like a Nun in a whorehouse.

    You feel the need to go disguised ?!?

    Yes after my last time in a whorehouse.

    The previous time after the lady had rendered services I told her

    'I'm that good you should be paying me'

    She then invited her pimp to rearrange my face if I didn't pay up.

    Hard to believe I've been accused of lacking self confidence isn't it?
    I once visited a brothel with a couple of friends, we played pool (Well me and John did) whilst our other friend used the 'services' provided. The pimp looked a strong type.
    Hmm it didn't seem massively British, more an EU freedom of movement exercise iirc.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Eagles, so you think Corbyn will become leader but not last a year?
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    A by-election in Stoke-on-Trent Central would be interesting if Tristram decides to throw in the towel.

    I bet Tristram would get on famously with David Cameron, if he doesn;t already. Inner circle material
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,753
    Fantastic.

    I for one had never heard of the Adullamites, despite supposedly studying that period in school.

    The SDP story was somewhat closer to my heart. At the time it seemed inevitable that it was going to replace the Labour party with a centre left party that cared about both people and economics. It's failure is a salutary lesson although the Labour party is massively weaker now than it was then (as indeed are all the parties except the SNP and UKIP).

    The problem I see is that raised by one of yesterday's threads. The Corbyn/Labour support is concentrated in the Cities and has about 180 safe seats. This leaves very little room for another centre left party unless the Tories veer wildly to the right again. Under Cameron and Osborne they have been doing the opposite.
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492

    watford30 said:

    isam said:

    The Labour Party was set up to fight for the rights of the English working class. A hundred years on they are chiefly responsible for that group having their wages undercut or being put on the dole by cheap migrant labour while the party uses free market philosophy to justify it. In addition, the working class then have their socially conservative thoughts reclassified as bigotry by those who were meant to be on their side. That's why the Labour Party is in pieces


    UKIP should be seizing the opportunity to get these people on board, whilst Labour are in disarray. But they're not. Whatever became of Farage?
    How do you know they're not? Carswell and Reckless both came out of the blue.
    I don't think they are, because I'm on their mailing list and I haven't had any emails about it that I recall. But I think it's all to the good, Labour supporters are being barraged by communication at the moment, now's not a good time to start firing UKIP messages at them too.
    I'm not sure the ukip MO is to blanket email labour MPs inviting them to jump ship
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    isam said:

    The Labour Party was set up to fight for the rights of the English working class. A hundred years on they are chiefly responsible for that group having their wages undercut or being put on the dole by cheap migrant labour while the party uses free market philosophy to justify it. In addition, the working class then have their socially conservative thoughts reclassified as bigotry by those who were meant to be on their side. That's why the Labour Party is in pieces


    Well put,these modern labour politicians have it in they head that we must be the world labour party.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    What is the relationship between the Co-operative Party and Labour? Why do some MPs describe themselves as "Labour Co-op"?

    The Co-operative Party is a separate body which has a working agreement with Labour: the Co-op doesn't put up candidates against Labour, and Labour doesn't object to candidates identifying with both. MPs who do so will be motivated by a stronger than average belief that the way forward for industry is to encourage more co-operative enterprises (also, the Co-op may help out a bit with nominations and campaign contributions).

    I'm a member of both but didn't seek the Co-op label as I couldn't honestly say I was much involved with that side of things and would really only have been doing it for the possible support.
    That really sounds like a confusing and circular arrangement. They're not really separate, it seems, given they have such an agreement with Labour, so it appears to just be like a club for particular Labour members, but why does that need a 'separate' party label, it's just like someone being on a particular wing of a party just slightly more formalised?


  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    Plato said:

    A great line there.

    Scott_P said:

    Sure, there’s a respectable case for more public spending. But it is sad that this is what the left, even on its own terms, has come to: vote for us and the government will spend more and run more stuff (or don’t vote for us, we don’t care).

    In place of a vision, the left is against stuff. It’s against austerity. It’s against Tories – though mysteriously uninterested in unseating them – and it’s definitely against Tony Blair. This last is why the word “Blairites” has featured so ubiquitously in the election, despite there being so few of them, and despite the ones that do exist refusing to accept the label.

    Blairites figure in Labour’s mythology the same way immigrants do in Ukip’s: as a metonym for multiple ills. Ukip does best in areas of the country where the are very few immigrants. Similarly, the Labour party, having purged itself of Blairites, talks about little else.
    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/08/blairites-have-forgotten-how-win


    But it's not true in the UKIP case. Once you account for demographics and income levels, UKIP do better in London than most places. Every time this fact about UKIP is used to claim this idea that it's people less exposed to immigration that vote UKIP, it is dismantled. Yet it is used again and again and again. It's almost as the left exists in a bubble where they do not hear arguments that go against established beliefs. I guess that explains why Jeremy Corbyn is about to become Labour leader.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,839

    Mr. Eagles, so you think Corbyn will become leader but not last a year?

    A second Labour election would be a wondrous thing.

    I fully intend to 'do my bit' to try and make it happen providing Corbyn gets in.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,080
    JEO said:

    Reading that article about Tessa Jowell's new advertising policy, it describes banned images showing 'unrealistic bodies' for women? Would she also ban the same for male bodies that would need three years of a dedicated bodybuilding program? Which female bodies in adverts is she talking about? If it's the beach body advert, it was merely a woman of healthy BMI and a moderate exercise regime. Are we now at the stage where public policy sees the results of a healthy diet and biweekly exercise as 'unrealistic'?

    Love the reply from the ad bod:

    "Ian Twinn, of the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers, also objected saying it was "not clear" what Dame Tessa meant by "sexist", adding: "Is she asking for obesity to be normalised?""
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Danny565 said:

    Good luck to Chuka and Kendall trying to hold their seats under a Conservative label (or a label like "Liberal Unionists" which is specifically affiliated with the Tories). I doubt they have particularly high personal votes which would allow them to carry over a significant amount of tribal Labour voters over with them.

    Leicester West has quite a large LD, Kipper and Tory vote. Not that safe for Labour, winnable but academic. Kendall will be part of the fightback.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,387

    watford30 said:

    isam said:

    The Labour Party was set up to fight for the rights of the English working class. A hundred years on they are chiefly responsible for that group having their wages undercut or being put on the dole by cheap migrant labour while the party uses free market philosophy to justify it. In addition, the working class then have their socially conservative thoughts reclassified as bigotry by those who were meant to be on their side. That's why the Labour Party is in pieces


    UKIP should be seizing the opportunity to get these people on board, whilst Labour are in disarray. But they're not. Whatever became of Farage?
    How do you know they're not? Carswell and Reckless both came out of the blue.
    I don't think they are, because I'm on their mailing list and I haven't had any emails about it that I recall. But I think it's all to the good, Labour supporters are being barraged by communication at the moment, now's not a good time to start firing UKIP messages at them too.
    I'm not sure the ukip MO is to blanket email labour MPs inviting them to jump ship
    I don't think the proposal was to blanket Labour MPs, but Labour voters.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091

    Danny565 said:

    Good luck to Chuka and Kendall trying to hold their seats under a Conservative label (or a label like "Liberal Unionists" which is specifically affiliated with the Tories). I doubt they have particularly high personal votes which would allow them to carry over a significant amount of tribal Labour voters over with them.

    Leicester West has quite a large LD, Kipper and Tory vote. Not that safe for Labour, winnable but academic. Kendall will be part of the fightback.
    Not safe for Labour necessarily, it could be won by a third party, but surely off-limits for the Tories (or any new group affiliated with the Tories)?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    AndyJS said:
    The headline doesn't match the story.

    That said, Simon Danczuk is being reckless in his opposition to Jeremy Corbyn. He's going to find it hard to eat sufficient humble pie to make it easy for him to remain within the Labour whip if Jeremy Corbyn gets elected.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited August 2015
    Scott_P: it's interesting how columnists keep repeating the thing about UKIP supporters not living in the areas with the greatest immigrants as if this were evidence of their lack of logic on the subject of immigration when in fact it's supremely logical for people who are against immigration to see that it is happening elsewhere and to not want it to happen in their area. If you're against something, you don't wait for it to happen in your area and then make a fuss about it — you try and do something about it before it happens in your area.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    kle4 said:

    JEO said:

    Reading that article about Tessa Jowell's new advertising policy, it describes banned images showing 'unrealistic bodies' for women? Would she also ban the same for male bodies that would need three years of a dedicated bodybuilding program? Which female bodies in adverts is she talking about? If it's the beach body advert, it was merely a woman of healthy BMI and a moderate exercise regime. Are we now at the stage where public policy sees the results of a healthy diet and biweekly exercise as 'unrealistic'?

    Please tell me they won't ban super attractive people from TV shows on the basis that most people cannot attain that standard, and so it is unrealistic! I guess it only applies to advertising?

    Silly stuff. Advertisters aren't allowed to entice us, shame us, or whatever? Why is potentially causing offence to some individuals, who must surely be hyper-sensitive, require the banning of such things from everyone, rather than if it is bad for business (by actually being offensive) it just failing as a campaign?

    kle4 said:

    JEO said:


    Silly stuff. Advertisters aren't allowed to entice us, shame us, or whatever? Why is potentially causing offence to some individuals, who must surely be hyper-sensitive, require the banning of such things from everyone, rather than if it is bad for business (by actually being offensive) it just failing as a campaign?

    kle4 said:

    JEO said:

    Please tell me they won't ban super attractive people from TV shows on the basis that most people cannot attain that standard, and so it is unrealistic! I guess it only applies to advertising?

    Silly stuff. Advertisters aren't allowed to entice us, shame us, or whatever? Why is potentially causing offence to some individuals, who must surely be hyper-sensitive, require the banning of such things from everyone, rather than if it is bad for business (by actually being offensive) it just failing as a campaign?
    Totally agree (and sorry for misunderstanding you in the previous thread). And not just silly but dangerous - being overweight is symptomatic of a health problem. As are most things traditionally regarded as 'ugly'. In my opinion, some people are extremely blessed, and some are plainer, but ugliness is a sign of ill health, and for that reason should not be seen as the 'new average' as many seem to be pushing for.


    Being ugly is a sign of illness!? Really?? What twaddle.


  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Exactly. Then again White Flight isn't happening either...
    AndyJS said:

    Scott_P: it's interesting how columnists keep repeating the thing about UKIP supporters not living in the areas with the greatest immigrants as if this were evidence of their lack of logic on the subject of immigration when in fact it's supremely logical for people who are against immigration to see that it is happening elsewhere and to not want it to happen in their area. If you're against something, you don't wait for it to happen in your area and then make a fuss about it — you try and do something about it before it happens in your area.

  • ArtistArtist Posts: 1,882
    The Blairites have Dan Jarvis who has positioned himself well to be the next Labour leader and the next contest could be in as little as two or three years. They'll continue to bide their time
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    I feel rather sorry for him, I can't help feeling his personal circumstances are colouring his commonsense - leading to rather a lot of outbursts/oversharing.
    antifrank said:

    AndyJS said:
    The headline doesn't match the story.

    That said, Simon Danczuk is being reckless in his opposition to Jeremy Corbyn. He's going to find it hard to eat sufficient humble pie to make it easy for him to remain within the Labour whip if Jeremy Corbyn gets elected.
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    AndyJS said:
    Well this will be entertaining. Full out civil war, as the Labour Party implodes.
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    JEO said:

    Reading that article about Tessa Jowell's new advertising policy, it describes banned images showing 'unrealistic bodies' for women? Would she also ban the same for male bodies that would need three years of a dedicated bodybuilding program? Which female bodies in adverts is she talking about? If it's the beach body advert, it was merely a woman of healthy BMI and a moderate exercise regime. Are we now at the stage where public policy sees the results of a healthy diet and biweekly exercise as 'unrealistic'?

    Please tell me they won't ban super attractive people from TV shows on the basis that most people cannot attain that standard, and so it is unrealistic! I guess it only applies to advertising?

    Silly stuff. Advertisters aren't allowed to entice us, shame us, or whatever? Why is potentially causing offence to some individuals, who must surely be hyper-sensitive, require the banning of such things from everyone, rather than if it is bad for business (by actually being offensive) it just failing as a campaign?

    kle4 said:

    JEO said:


    Silly stuff. Advertisters aren't allowed to entice us, shame us, or whatever? Why is potentially causing offence to some individuals, who must surely be hyper-sensitive, require the banning of such things from everyone, rather than if it is bad for business (by actually being offensive) it just failing as a campaign?

    kle4 said:

    JEO said:

    Please tell me they won't ban super attractive people from TV shows on the basis that most people cannot attain that standard, and so it is unrealistic! I guess it only applies to advertising?

    Silly stuff. Advertisters aren't allowed to entice us, shame us, or whatever? Why is potentially causing offence to some individuals, who must surely be hyper-sensitive, require the banning of such things from everyone, rather than if it is bad for business (by actually being offensive) it just failing as a campaign?
    Totally agree (and sorry for misunderstanding you in the previous thread). And not just silly but dangerous - being overweight is symptomatic of a health problem. As are most things traditionally regarded as 'ugly'. In my opinion, some people are extremely blessed, and some are plainer, but ugliness is a sign of ill health, and for that reason should not be seen as the 'new average' as many seem to be pushing for.


    Being ugly is a sign of illness!? Really?? What twaddle.


    It's a Russian 'thing'.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Danczuk should try to memorize his own party's leadership rules...
  • Mr. Eagles, so you think Corbyn will become leader but not last a year?

    That's one aspect I'm looking at.

    Like Caesar, I think Corbyn's legacy might last for centuries and Corbyn's surname becomes a byword for awesome leaders and Kings.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Eagles, kings? You sure about that? :p
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,755
    AndyJS said:

    Scott_P: it's interesting how columnists keep repeating the thing about UKIP supporters not living in the areas with the greatest immigrants as if this were evidence of their lack of logic on the subject of immigration when in fact it's supremely logical for people who are against immigration to see that it is happening elsewhere and to not want it to happen in their area. If you're against something, you don't wait for it to happen in your area and then make a fuss about it — you try and do something about it before it happens in your area.

    People who don't like high levels of immigration tend to move out of areas where there are high levels of immigration. That leaves the immigrants and people who welcome high levels of immigration, who, strangely enough, tend not to vote UKIP.
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492

    watford30 said:

    isam said:

    The Labour Party was set up to fight for the rights of the English working class. A hundred years on they are chiefly responsible for that group having their wages undercut or being put on the dole by cheap migrant labour while the party uses free market philosophy to justify it. In addition, the working class then have their socially conservative thoughts reclassified as bigotry by those who were meant to be on their side. That's why the Labour Party is in pieces


    UKIP should be seizing the opportunity to get these people on board, whilst Labour are in disarray. But they're not. Whatever became of Farage?
    How do you know they're not? Carswell and Reckless both came out of the blue.
    I don't think they are, because I'm on their mailing list and I haven't had any emails about it that I recall. But I think it's all to the good, Labour supporters are being barraged by communication at the moment, now's not a good time to start firing UKIP messages at them too.
    I'm not sure the ukip MO is to blanket email labour MPs inviting them to jump ship
    I don't think the proposal was to blanket Labour MPs, but Labour voters.
    No it was about MP defections, can't see it myself.

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    Mr. Eagles, so you think Corbyn will become leader but not last a year?

    That's one aspect I'm looking at.

    Like Caesar, I think Corbyn's legacy might last for centuries and Corbyn's surname becomes a byword for awesome leaders and Kings.
    If you went the other way on the subject, you might want to reference 69AD.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,755
    antifrank said:

    Mr. Eagles, so you think Corbyn will become leader but not last a year?

    That's one aspect I'm looking at.

    Like Caesar, I think Corbyn's legacy might last for centuries and Corbyn's surname becomes a byword for awesome leaders and Kings.
    If you went the other way on the subject, you might want to reference 69AD.
    Or 238 AD.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,721
    Sean_F said:

    AndyJS said:

    Scott_P: it's interesting how columnists keep repeating the thing about UKIP supporters not living in the areas with the greatest immigrants as if this were evidence of their lack of logic on the subject of immigration when in fact it's supremely logical for people who are against immigration to see that it is happening elsewhere and to not want it to happen in their area. If you're against something, you don't wait for it to happen in your area and then make a fuss about it — you try and do something about it before it happens in your area.

    People who don't like high levels of immigration tend to move out of areas where there are high levels of immigration. That leaves the immigrants and people who welcome high levels of immigration, who, strangely enough, tend not to vote UKIP.
    Well put

    Its interesting to see Conservatives peddle the ridiculously easily refutable nonsense that tim used to try and mislead people with.

    Look at the demographic in West Ham, East Ham & Barking, then look at the UKIP vote in Dagenham & Rainham, Hornchurch & Upminster, & Thurrock
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. F, Maximinus was a damned fool. I do wonder how things would've gone had Alexander Severus survived.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,839
    Sean_F said:

    antifrank said:

    Mr. Eagles, so you think Corbyn will become leader but not last a year?

    That's one aspect I'm looking at.

    Like Caesar, I think Corbyn's legacy might last for centuries and Corbyn's surname becomes a byword for awesome leaders and Kings.
    If you went the other way on the subject, you might want to reference 69AD.
    Or 238 AD.
    Could be more 37 AD for Labour this...
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    On Jowell:

    How is the advert sexist? There's a shirtless bloke ad too. That's maximum sexual equality.

    Unless she's arguing that the girl not being topless is sexist.
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    (Two threads ago)

    What does "JICBALHHPEITCBWIWHWNBPM" mean?
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    edited August 2015
    ''The Blairites have Dan Jarvis who has positioned himself well to be the next Labour leader and the next contest could be in as little as two or three years. They'll continue to bide their time.''

    It's not that simple. For those two or three years the Blairites will have to toe the party line. That means defending Corbyn and his nonsense in front of press, on the doorstep. Stuff they don;t believe in and will have to row back on dramatically if Corbyn is deposed.

    Some will I guess, some won't.
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    edited August 2015

    watford30 said:

    isam said:

    The Labour Party was set up to fight for the rights of the English working class. A hundred years on they are chiefly responsible for that group having their wages undercut or being put on the dole by cheap migrant labour while the party uses free market philosophy to justify it. In addition, the working class then have their socially conservative thoughts reclassified as bigotry by those who were meant to be on their side. That's why the Labour Party is in pieces


    UKIP should be seizing the opportunity to get these people on board, whilst Labour are in disarray. But they're not. Whatever became of Farage?
    How do you know they're not? Carswell and Reckless both came out of the blue.
    I don't think they are, because I'm on their mailing list and I haven't had any emails about it that I recall. But I think it's all to the good, Labour supporters are being barraged by communication at the moment, now's not a good time to start firing UKIP messages at them too.
    I'm not sure the ukip MO is to blanket email labour MPs inviting them to jump ship
    I don't think the proposal was to blanket Labour MPs, but Labour voters.
    No it was about MP defections, can't see it myself.

    My proposal was for UKIP to take advantage of the chaos and get disaffected Labour WWC voters on board.

    I can't see too many of them embracing Corbyn's 'let the immigrants in, and boot NATO out' policies.

  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,387
    JohnLoony said:

    (Two threads ago)

    What does "JICBALHHPEITCBWIWHWNBPM" mean?

    It stands for

    "The Last Thing This Site Needs is A Ludicrous Acronym That New Posters and Lurkers Can't Understand and Even If You Think You are Being Ironic You are Not".
  • antifrank said:

    Mr. Eagles, so you think Corbyn will become leader but not last a year?

    That's one aspect I'm looking at.

    Like Caesar, I think Corbyn's legacy might last for centuries and Corbyn's surname becomes a byword for awesome leaders and Kings.
    If you went the other way on the subject, you might want to reference 69AD.
    That's the last line of my piece.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    It stands for

    "The Last Thing This Site Needs is A Ludicrous Acronym That New Posters and Lurkers Can't Understand and Even If You Think You are Being Ironic You are Not".

    Or NAMBLA (H/T The Daily Show)
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,460

    So are labour going to cross the Rubicon and elect JC

    Or disappear into the Teutoburger Wald.
  • madasafishmadasafish Posts: 659

    Mr. Eagles, so you think Corbyn will become leader but not last a year?

    I suspect he'll find the sudden stress of being Leader at the age of 67 - a far more demanding and high profile job - very tiring.. On the other hand he might surprise everyone and like it.

    My guess is he'll retire from ill health..
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Madasafish, Antigonus Monopthalmus did his best work in his sixties and seventies.

    Admittedly, his career ended when he got javelined to death at the Battle of Ipsus, but all political careers end in failure.
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    watford30 said:

    watford30 said:

    isam said:

    The Labour Party was set up to fight for the rights of the English working class. A hundred years on they are chiefly responsible for that group having their wages undercut or being put on the dole by cheap migrant labour while the party uses free market philosophy to justify it. In addition, the working class then have their socially conservative thoughts reclassified as bigotry by those who were meant to be on their side. That's why the Labour Party is in pieces


    UKIP should be seizing the opportunity to get these people on board, whilst Labour are in disarray. But they're not. Whatever became of Farage?
    How do you know they're not? Carswell and Reckless both came out of the blue.
    I don't think they are, because I'm on their mailing list and I haven't had any emails about it that I recall. But I think it's all to the good, Labour supporters are being barraged by communication at the moment, now's not a good time to start firing UKIP messages at them too.
    I'm not sure the ukip MO is to blanket email labour MPs inviting them to jump ship
    I don't think the proposal was to blanket Labour MPs, but Labour voters.
    No it was about MP defections, can't see it myself.

    My proposal was for UKIP to take advantage of the chaos and get disaffected Labour WWC voters on board.

    I can't see too many of them embracing Corbyn's 'let the immigrants in, and boot NATO out' policies.

    Yes I agree. Not sure what ukip are cooking up tbh, the EU vote is centre stage, difficult to plan beyond that.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Oh FFS

    @SamCoatesTimes: Breaking - the 3 non-Corbyn campaigns getting together to write a letter of complaint to Labour HQ about unfairness at process
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. P, the unfairness being their own incompetence?

    Corbyn wouldn't be on the ballot without the other 3's supporters backing him.
  • The opening line to my piece.

    Jeremy Corbyn becoming Labour leader would be the strangest political appointment since Caligula appointed Incitatus a Senator
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Sean_F said:

    AndyJS said:

    Scott_P: it's interesting how columnists keep repeating the thing about UKIP supporters not living in the areas with the greatest immigrants as if this were evidence of their lack of logic on the subject of immigration when in fact it's supremely logical for people who are against immigration to see that it is happening elsewhere and to not want it to happen in their area. If you're against something, you don't wait for it to happen in your area and then make a fuss about it — you try and do something about it before it happens in your area.

    People who don't like high levels of immigration tend to move out of areas where there are high levels of immigration. That leaves the immigrants and people who welcome high levels of immigration, who, strangely enough, tend not to vote UKIP.
    There may well be an element of "White flight" to Essex, but it does not account for the strong kipper support in Sunderland for example. There is no single explanation for the rise of the kippers.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Scott_P said:

    Oh FFS

    @SamCoatesTimes: Breaking - the 3 non-Corbyn campaigns getting together to write a letter of complaint to Labour HQ about unfairness at process

    If it is all scrapped will my stake on HH payout? I do hope so...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,728

    The opening line to my piece.

    Jeremy Corbyn becoming Labour leader would be the strangest political appointment since Caligula appointed Incitatus a Senator

    TSE, it would be entirely consistent and appropriate though. They are both naysayers and they are both covered in hair. However, Incitatus was no doubt well groomed on a daily basis.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    The opening line to my piece.

    Jeremy Corbyn becoming Labour leader would be the strangest political appointment since Caligula appointed Incitatus a Senator

    Does that make Owen Jones the horse whisperer?
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited August 2015
    Hillary Clinton trailing Bernie "America's Corbyn" Sanders in New Hampshire poll:

    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/12/new-poll-bernie-sanders-ahead-hillary-clinton-new-hampshire
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Scott_P said:

    Oh FFS

    @SamCoatesTimes: Breaking - the 3 non-Corbyn campaigns getting together to write a letter of complaint to Labour HQ about unfairness at process

    Sounds like sour grapes – and again, far too late in the day to start moaning now. #morons
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Incitatus was rubbish compared to Bucephalus.
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    edited August 2015
    Scott_P said:

    Oh FFS

    @SamCoatesTimes: Breaking - the 3 non-Corbyn campaigns getting together to write a letter of complaint to Labour HQ about unfairness at process

    Ha Ha.

    'Dear Labour, it's not fair. Because we're going to lose, using a system under which we were happy to win.'

    Well, if they want to drive a few more voters towards Corbyn...
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    ydoethur said:

    The opening line to my piece.

    Jeremy Corbyn becoming Labour leader would be the strangest political appointment since Caligula appointed Incitatus a Senator

    TSE, it would be entirely consistent and appropriate though. They are both naysayers and they are both covered in hair. However, Incitatus was no doubt well groomed on a daily basis.
    No doubt there will be others jockeying for position!
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,839
    I've just had a text thanking me for signing up as a Labour supporter :D
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,715
    Danny565 said:

    Hillary Clinton trailing Bernie "America's Corbyn" Sanders in New Hampshire poll:

    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/12/new-poll-bernie-sanders-ahead-hillary-clinton-new-hampshire

    Sanders vs Trump.

    That would be fun!
  • antifrank said:

    The opening line to my piece.

    Jeremy Corbyn becoming Labour leader would be the strangest political appointment since Caligula appointed Incitatus a Senator

    Does that make Owen Jones the horse whisperer?
    That should be the basis of your next thread
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited August 2015
    Scott_P said:

    Oh FFS

    @SamCoatesTimes: Breaking - the 3 non-Corbyn campaigns getting together to write a letter of complaint to Labour HQ about unfairness at process

    So the 1.5 or so on Corbyn is indeed good value. Nice to have it confirmed.
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    edited August 2015
    Scott_P said:

    Oh FFS

    @SamCoatesTimes: Breaking - the 3 non-Corbyn campaigns getting together to write a letter of complaint to Labour HQ about unfairness at process

    Just the kind of childish petulance I'd expect from those three losers. pathetic.
  • Chris123Chris123 Posts: 174
    edited August 2015
    This is turning into a farce:
    Labour will order infiltrators' votes to be removed even after they've been cast in the leadership election, party sources have revealed.

    The party will carry on vetting people right up until the September 10 voting deadline to stop 'stooges' and 'entryists' taking over the race.

    Insiders say that means they will tell independent vote-counters to strip out individual ballots if they suspect foul play - for example if a Tory stooge mocks Labour by posting their paper on Twitter.

    Sources insist the content of the votes themselves will remain anonymous, but say each ballot paper will still be linked to a voter's name.

    That means although Labour won't know how someone has voted, Electoral Reform Services Ltd (ERS), which is organising the vote, can trace their ballot.

    A Labour source told Mirror Online: "No ballot paper will go to someone who's not been verified, but the verification process goes on.

    "We have big lists and we're constantly improving and updating those lists, and things may emerge once someone's received their ballot.

    "We can then cancel their ballots. ERS will anonymise them but will be able to refer to the number that's been generated and remove them."
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/labour-remove-infiltrators-votes-after-6240207

    Basically this has become one big job-creation scheme for 78 people who are supposed to be "conducting" these checks.

    But these numbers are staggering:
    As of yesterday 444,000 people had put down their names for the leadership ballot - just 194,000 of whom were Labour members before the election.

    They're made up of 282,000 paid-up members, 92,000 union affiliates and 70,000 registered supporters who've paid a £3 fee.

    It's thought that number will have risen far higher by the extended registration deadline of 3pm today.
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/labour-remove-infiltrators-votes-after-6240207

    This means that Corbyn now has even more support than he had in the last YouGov poll given the higher propensity of new entrants to vote for him and unless Andy and Yvette pull a rabbit out of their hat, the entire verification exercise is a complete waste of time. A classic make-work scheme in true Labour style to herald the beginning of the Corbyn era.
Sign In or Register to comment.