Mr. Mark, I do wonder what happens, though, if the SNP win an outright majority in Holyrood with an explicit manifesto commitment to seeking a second referendum, which is then passed by the Scottish Parliament.
.. it would be *slightly* more persuasive than Derbyshire declaring itself a Nuclear Free Zone, or Utah declaring that the moon belongs to Joseph Smith, but not very much.
Ultra Vires.
They will become Austerity Free Zones....
Israel-free zones if some of Jez's friends have their way too.
Its taken a while but I think the penny is beginning to drop - Len and the mob DON'T CARE THAT JC CANT WIN...
Oh but he can! One just has to wait patiently for the electorate to slip free from their chains of false consciousness.
That's the real fear: he might win. Look at the SNP, or Ken and Boris in London, or across the Atlantic at President Obama and Donald Trump. Positive messages attract voters and enthuse supporters. Bland platitudes fashioned into sterile sound-bites by focus group-led triangulators do not.
All this, Mr Dancer, when the Conservatives could not even muster 25% of the electorate to support them! You must believe that there is a God in Heaven, and that he is a Tory!
Not a Tory, PClipp - but she is English, certainly. Compare and contrast, Alastair Campbell : "we don't do God". God : "We don't do politics"
Apropos Theresa Jowell's witterings a couple of days ago about the "are you beach body ready?" advert and her attempt in passing to reduce the nett fitness and health of the nation. Which party had the following in a recent manifesto
Help protect children and young people from developing negative body images by regulating airbrushing in adverts.
and how does one regulate airbrushing, its almost as incoherent as Cameron's internet policies.
It'll end with all beautiful and/or slim people wearing burkas or paper bag + fat suits.
I can't believe what a whiny, over-sensitive population we're breeding in these isles. Clearly a sign that I'm growing old .
On topic, with the ashes secured, Corbyn to be anointed loony-in-chief of Labour, all I really want now is another indyref (but a successful one this time) and I can die happy.
It is really an extension of the policy of being prosecuted if you speak your mind on certain matters. Also that you can get fined by councils/schools etc if you infringe their own manufactured policy. So in such an environment, there is a subtle pressure to report others - so you almost protect yourself and build up brownie points with the 'authorities'.
Reminds me so much of the time that I spent in East Germany. I would like to see a return to the times when only only magistrates could impose a fine and laws were tighter and more transparent.
About 6 weeks ago, I and my sons went to plant flowers on my parent's grave which we do twice yearly, as my mother had requested before she died. (it does have under-sown bulbs for the Spring). However whilst the village church still has a healthy congregation, the care of its large and historic churchyard has been taken over by the LA.
We were approached by a council workman, who questioned what we were doing. The council had removed the watering cans from near the outside tap and had removed the bin for dead flowers. He said that the churchyard was now public property and we could not change its appearance. So we took his identity and the next week I had a very 'interesting' conversation with the chair of the council on the rights of grave-owners.
When I was on the PCC of a small village church in Herefordshire a few years back, this subject came up. Apparently, when a ground is 'closed' for new burials (i.e. can't take any more) its care and maintenance is automatically transferred to the relevant LA, whatever the status of the church. Although our graveyard was full, and there was a new graveyard (across the road) we decided not to hand it over to the LA precisely because they were such a shockingly lazy and inept bunch of jobsworths who couldn't be bothered to cut the grass properly, and the churchwarden felt he would rather give up one afternoon a month to look after it himself.
So the church in question may have missed a trick there by declaring it closed - but if they had no alternative graveyard, they may not have had a choice.
Jeremy Corbyn has set out his plan to contain and marginalise MPs who oppose his drive to make Labour more left-wing.
In the most detailed explanation to date of how he intends to run the party, the hard-left candidate said he was preparing to mobilise his new army of supporters by giving them many more votes on policy and party direction. According to a pamphlet for the Fabian Society to be published today, they would be pitted against the party’s representatives in Westminster, many of whom are hostile to his objectives.
It doesn't sound especially sinister to me. The MPs who have aligned themselves with the New Labour concept can't really expect to carry on as if nothing has happened. The whole USP of New Labour was electability. If you fail to get win an election twice, what is exactly is the point?
Indeed I'll go further. The new Labour Party structure has opened up participation in the party. At the moment Corbyn is the only one in a position to take advantage of it - given his peculiar situation having distanced himself from the leadership but having a lot of links with people in the party as a result of decades of campaigning on just about everything. The shear numbers signing up mean they simply can't all be left wing purists.
I think clearing out a bit of dead wood and starting afresh is exactly what Labour needs to do. The far left will do better out of this than their numbers merit initially, but a big problem in politics is the people who have 30 years in the Commons followed by another 30 in the Lords and who simply go to seed. If the Labour Party breaks with that, that will be a good thing.
I'm sick to death of people pulling the 25% (or less) figure as if registered voters who don't vote matter. If you don't vote - you don't matter. And I'm not even a tory.
OT: On the subject of the oil price collapsing, this report assesses the impact on UK Trade and doesn't even consider a scenario below $50 oil. http://www.pwc.co.uk/en_uk/uk/assets/pdf/ukeo-oil-prices-march-2015.pdf Clearly the supply glut is worse than many could have ever anticipated (even as recent as march this year) and could have potentially severe geopolitical consequences. Especially if it is a sustained low price.
We have most of the oil majors (and minors) as clients, but as the low price of oil affects their profits, also it is putting pressure on our cash flow. They are holding back on many new explorations or field developments, unless political pressure obliges them to progress in fear of losing field rights. Also many new oil deposits are in more remote locations which ups the cost of E & P.
Another consequence of this low price is that it puts pressure on the economic competitiveness of renewable energy.
If there is too much oil then there is too much oil and thus no need at the moment to go wasting money exploring for more. When supply becomes more limited then the explorations will start as the price rises again. People need to live with these awkward facts of life.
I do and I think Sturgeon also wanted it as well. It was the best possible option to ensure the next referendum and the correct result. Labour in power would have given them a great chance to comeback in Scotland, whereas illegitimate Tory rule by one useless dodo MP and a few enobled lackies , slashing and burning welfare and doing Scotland down is the perfect recipe for SNP and a disaster for any likely Labour fightback. They are now seen as the Tories little helpers.
An interesting post MalcolmG, but it leaves one potentially very awkward question unanswered. If you are right, does that not mean that Nicola Sturgeon perjured herself when she denied to the electoral court over the Nikileaks farce that she wanted a Tory majority?
Because if she did, does not rather ease the pressure on Alistair Carmichael, bearing in mind that the key plank of the SNP thrust against him was not the impropriety of the leak itself (which was improper and which he has admitted was improper) but that the information was forged (which incidentally it does not appear to have been, or at least, not deliberately) and place it fairly and squarely on her instead?
I thought at the time she was at least most unwise to deny what as you say is politically obvious...but until now I hadn't come across any SNP activist willing to come out and make that direct claim.
So much for the MSM not going for Corbyn - the Daily Telegraph in particular seems intent on destroying him. As far as I can tell Corbyn barley mentions his competitors and certainly isn't wasting much of his time responding to Labour Party "grandees" who are carpet bombing the MSM and Twitter with their attacks. It will be interesting to see upcoming polls on Corbyn's electability, now that he is the clear frontrunner - my sense is a number of folks could be in for a rude awakening.
On the face of it Corbyn seems to have established an SNP like anti-establishment movement from within the Labour party - without anyone noticing and it's only taken him a month. The parallels between the rise of Corbyn and the SNP are interesting:
- Establishment gnashing and wailing - for this purpose the ABC candidates are establishment figures. - MSM demonization by virtually every single political commentator. - Corbyn BAD being roared on Twitter by all and sundry. - Constant harping back to the past for glimmers of hope which might explain away Corbynisim.
Should Corbyn win how many Labour MPs will seek to defect or set up a new party? - very few would have the guts to go as they would come under immediate pressure to stand down and face a bi election and would quite likely lose. So for all of the Labour establishment MPs bluster amplified by their MSM buddies, I think they would just retreat to the backbenches and start planning their futures outside of politics.
The venom against anyone seen to deviate from Jezziah's teachings is really rather WTF.
It's all so hate filled. The Left is infamous for its ability to factionise - but this descent into name-calling is remarkably quick.
As that Indy piece noted, it may not be Jezza who wants this - but his disciples are in full throat and almost out of control. He's no Sturgeon either when it comes to using force of personality to say Pack It In.
And I can't see Red Len stopping it either - his chief of staff is apparently a member of CPGB.
OT: On the subject of the oil price collapsing, this report assesses the impact on UK Trade and doesn't even consider a scenario below $50 oil. http://www.pwc.co.uk/en_uk/uk/assets/pdf/ukeo-oil-prices-march-2015.pdf Clearly the supply glut is worse than many could have ever anticipated (even as recent as march this year) and could have potentially severe geopolitical consequences. Especially if it is a sustained low price.
We have most of the oil majors (and minors) as clients, but as the low price of oil affects their profits, also it is putting pressure on our cash flow. They are holding back on many new explorations or field developments, unless political pressure obliges them to progress in fear of losing field rights. Also many new oil deposits are in more remote locations which ups the cost of E & P.
Another consequence of this low price is that it puts pressure on the economic competitiveness of renewable energy.
If there is too much oil then there is too much oil and thus no need at the moment to go wasting money exploring for more. When supply becomes more limited then the explorations will start as the price rises again. People need to live with these awkward facts of life.
Yes but a lot of new oil is in developing countries who want it exploited to generate revenue for their country. Also you have the case of the Arctic with Russia wanting to claim as much as it can - it would be quite difficult to remove a Russian oil rig.
I'm sick to death of people pulling the 25% (or less) figure as if registered voters who don't vote matter. If you don't vote - you don't matter. And I'm not even a tory.
Ah, but what if they vote next time? That's what happened in Scotland.
I'm sick to death of people pulling the 25% (or less) figure as if registered voters who don't vote matter. If you don't vote - you don't matter. And I'm not even a tory.
Ah, but what if they vote next time? That's what happened in Scotland.
Ah wise one, you are indeed correct. My main gripe is when people use it to question the electoral legitimacy however, which is a different context.
I do and I think Sturgeon also wanted it as well. It was the best possible option to ensure the next referendum and the correct result. Labour in power would have given them a great chance to comeback in Scotland, whereas illegitimate Tory rule by one useless dodo MP and a few enobled lackies , slashing and burning welfare and doing Scotland down is the perfect recipe for SNP and a disaster for any likely Labour fightback. They are now seen as the Tories little helpers.
An interesting post MalcolmG, but it leaves one potentially very awkward question unanswered. If you are right, does that not mean that Nicola Sturgeon perjured herself when she denied to the electoral court over the Nikileaks farce that she wanted a Tory majority?
Because if she did, does not rather ease the pressure on Alistair Carmichael, bearing in mind that the key plank of the SNP thrust against him was not the impropriety of the leak itself (which was improper and which he has admitted was improper) but that the information was forged (which incidentally it does not appear to have been, or at least, not deliberately) and place it fairly and squarely on her instead?
I thought at the time she was at least most unwise to deny what as you say is politically obvious...but until now I hadn't come across any SNP activist willing to come out and make that direct claim.
Wasn't the denial that she said it to the French ambassador? It's easy enough to believe she did want a Tory majority (or didn't mind), but even if that was the case, would she say it to that person, and so was the claim of her saying it in that context true?
Andy Burnham can attack Corbyn because it's not an "attack" it's a "critique". If there's one thing I've learnt during this contest it's that Burnham is the most greasy politician of all four on offer. He twists and turns depending on the dynamic of the day, with blatant disregard for what he's said earlier, even in the very same campaign.
Listened yesterday tea-time, to Corbyn emphasising that criticising opponents in not his methodology - he only focuses on policies. Hm, if you remove your opponents by some form of disqualification/not adhering to certain rules, then you have no need to criticise them - a bit like a return to Militant or those UK Communist parties.
I'm sick to death of people pulling the 25% (or less) figure as if registered voters who don't vote matter. If you don't vote - you don't matter. And I'm not even a tory.
Ah, but what if they vote next time? That's what happened in Scotland.
Was turnout in Scotland massively above rUK? I believe it was 5% higher or so? That could make a difference in many places, no question. Relying on it happening is risky though.
The Conservatives won a shock majority, Labour were crushed, the Lib Dems swept away to the verge of oblivion, and UKIP went backwards. Whilst the Conservatives having more Scottish seats than Labour would've amused, I don't think the blues have much room for complaint regarding how the year's gone so far.
Wasn't the denial that she said it to the French ambassador? It's easy enough to believe she did want a Tory majority (or didn't mind), but even if that was the case, would she say it to that person, and so was the claim of her saying it in that context true?
My memory is that she denied both, along the lines of 'I didn't say that to the ambassador, because it isn't true, I do not want a Tory majority.'
As I say, I thought that was rather a reckless thing to say. But I could have misunderstood - I was very busy at the time and didn't have a lot of chance to investigate in depth.
Wasn't the denial that she said it to the French ambassador? It's easy enough to believe she did want a Tory majority (or didn't mind), but even if that was the case, would she say it to that person, and so was the claim of her saying it in that context true?
She has to deny saying she wanted a Tory Government because she was busy telling the zoomers they would "lock the Tories out"
Andy Burnham can attack Corbyn because it's not an "attack" it's a "critique". If there's one thing I've learnt during this contest it's that Burnham is the most greasy politician of all four on offer. He twists and turns depending on the dynamic of the day, with blatant disregard for what he's said earlier, even in the very same campaign.
The Shadow Cabinet Minister who said Andy Burnham is Ed Miliband with a Scouse accent got it spot on
Wasn't the denial that she said it to the French ambassador? It's easy enough to believe she did want a Tory majority (or didn't mind), but even if that was the case, would she say it to that person, and so was the claim of her saying it in that context true?
My memory is that she denied both, along the lines of 'I didn't say that to the ambassador, because it isn't true, I do not want a Tory majority.'
As I say, I thought that was rather a reckless thing to say. But I could have misunderstood - I was very busy at the time and didn't have a lot of chance to investigate in depth.
I think that she could easily hold both views. As an individual, she probably doesn't want a Tory majority as it is far away from her ideal 'socialist' approach to Government. Equally, it is almost certainly the most helpful thing for her party in the short term.
The venom against anyone seen to deviate from Jezziah's teachings is really rather WTF.
It's all so hate filled. The Left is infamous for its ability to factionise - but this descent into name-calling is remarkably quick.
As that Indy piece noted, it may not be Jezza who wants this - but his disciples are in full throat and almost out of control. He's no Sturgeon either when it comes to using force of personality to say Pack It In.
And I can't see Red Len stopping it either - his chief of staff is apparently a member of CPGB.
Of course, they could take the very capitalist path - and stop buying it....
I am looking forward to the point when the Lefty gobshites break into various factions, each decrying the other as Tories.
Then we will all be Tories....
The name calling is interesting really. It is certainly true that some people might support Tory policies until they find out it is a Tory policy, and the reverse is true as well - some people will support an idea until they find out it is a Labour idea (or perhaps criticise it until it is also adopted by the Tories). However, there doesn't seem the same level of automatic name calling for the 'wrong' side - that is, for some people, anyone saying something they don't like is labelled a Tory (as we've just seen, even JC is not immune), showing that for those people, Tory just means bad, it isn't an ideology or party. So it's curious that although there are people with similar tendencies on the other side, there isn't a single label that is automatically thrown out. I know some people use socialist as that label, but it doesn't seem as prevalent, I think as a 'scary' label it is not as potent as it once was.
Andy Burnham can attack Corbyn because it's not an "attack" it's a "critique". If there's one thing I've learnt during this contest it's that Burnham is the most greasy politician of all four on offer. He twists and turns depending on the dynamic of the day, with blatant disregard for what he's said earlier, even in the very same campaign.
The Shadow Cabinet Minister who said Andy Burnham is Ed Miliband with a Scouse accent got it spot on
I think that's harsh on Ed Miliband. At least he had some semblance of backbone. (cf taking on his brother)
Andy Burnham can attack Corbyn because it's not an "attack" it's a "critique". If there's one thing I've learnt during this contest it's that Burnham is the most greasy politician of all four on offer. He twists and turns depending on the dynamic of the day, with blatant disregard for what he's said earlier, even in the very same campaign.
The Shadow Cabinet Minister who said Andy Burnham is Ed Miliband with a Scouse accent got it spot on
You clearly undervalue the greatest accent on the planet. It appeals well with the female demographic
I'm all for helping working class people buy their own homes, but we have a problem that many of the people with council houses are actually very wealthy because no-one is ever kicked out of a council home. They then benefit from a government give away, where a small minority get effectively given tens of thousands pounds by the taxpayer.
I would much prefer a system where wealthy council house tenants don't qualify for renewals, and sell-offs are done on the open market. Revenue raised can then be used for all first time buyers of limited means to get a discount, regardless of whether they are lucky enough to have had a grandparent in a council house.
As an individual, she probably doesn't want a Tory majority as it is far away from her ideal 'socialist' approach to Government. Equally, it is almost certainly the most helpful thing for her party in the short term.
Which, again according to a very skimpy reading of the reports, is exactly what she was accused of saying and denied having said because she would never think it.
Of course, MalcolmG is not Nicola Sturgeon, so it's hardly a smoking gun. But it would be embarrassing for the SNP were evidence in support of his views to be uncovered.
Andy Burnham can attack Corbyn because it's not an "attack" it's a "critique". If there's one thing I've learnt during this contest it's that Burnham is the most greasy politician of all four on offer. He twists and turns depending on the dynamic of the day, with blatant disregard for what he's said earlier, even in the very same campaign.
The Shadow Cabinet Minister who said Andy Burnham is Ed Miliband with a Scouse accent got it spot on
I think that's harsh on Ed Miliband. At least he had some semblance of backbone. (cf taking on his brother)
Nah. He stabbed his brother in the back which allowed the Tories to paint him as untrustworthy.
Andy Burnham can attack Corbyn because it's not an "attack" it's a "critique". If there's one thing I've learnt during this contest it's that Burnham is the most greasy politician of all four on offer. He twists and turns depending on the dynamic of the day, with blatant disregard for what he's said earlier, even in the very same campaign.
The Shadow Cabinet Minister who said Andy Burnham is Ed Miliband with a Scouse accent got it spot on
You clearly undervalue the greatest accent on the planet. It appeals well with the female demographic
The venom against anyone seen to deviate from Jezziah's teachings is really rather WTF.
It's all so hate filled. The Left is infamous for its ability to factionise - but this descent into name-calling is remarkably quick.
As that Indy piece noted, it may not be Jezza who wants this - but his disciples are in full throat and almost out of control. He's no Sturgeon either when it comes to using force of personality to say Pack It In.
And I can't see Red Len stopping it either - his chief of staff is apparently a member of CPGB.
Of course, they could take the very capitalist path - and stop buying it....
I am looking forward to the point when the Lefty gobshites break into various factions, each decrying the other as Tories.
Then we will all be Tories....
The name calling is interesting really. It is certainly true that some people might support Tory policies until they find out it is a Tory policy, and the reverse is true as well - some people will support an idea until they find out it is a Labour idea (or perhaps criticise it until it is also adopted by the Tories). However, there doesn't seem the same level of automatic name calling for the 'wrong' side - that is, for some people, anyone saying something they don't like is labelled a Tory (as we've just seen, even JC is not immune), showing that for those people, Tory just means bad, it isn't an ideology or party. So it's curious that although there are people with similar tendencies on the other side, there isn't a single label that is automatically thrown out. I know some people use socialist as that label, but it doesn't seem as prevalent, I think as a 'scary' label it is not as potent as it once was.
Eddie Mair once stitched up Ming Campbell by reeling off half a dozen policies, and when he said, yes, he agreed with them, was told they were all BNP policies!
The New Puritism emanating from Corbynistas will provide great entertainment for those of us BBQing babies this Bank Holiday.
For fellow Labourites who knocked on doors only three months ago - it must be coming as quite a shock.
I'm trying to recall if Blairites/New Labour tried to deselect political rivals? I can't think of any examples.
Removing team mates who disagree the moment you get your mitts on the tiller, seems rather unattractive and fundamentalist. First they came for the Blairites...
The New Puritism emanating from Corbynistas will provide great entertainment for those of us BBQing babies this Bank Holiday.
For fellow Labourites who knocked on doors only three months ago - it must be coming as quite a shock.
I'm trying to recall if Blairites/New Labour tried to deselect political rivals? I can't think of any examples.
Removing team mates who disagree the moment you get your mitts on the tiller, seems rather unattractive and fundamentalist. First they came for the Blairites...
The venom against anyone seen to deviate from Jezziah's teachings is really rather WTF.
It's all so hate filled. The Left is infamous for its ability to factionise - but this descent into name-calling is remarkably quick.
Mind you I am enjoying seeing people who regularly demonise Tories receiving the same treatment from what is supposed to be their own side.
Ken Livingstone and Rhodri Morgan were both blocked from running for the leadership of London and Welsh Labour respectively, although that's not quite a deselection.
Listened yesterday tea-time, to Corbyn emphasising that criticising opponents in not his methodology - he only focuses on policies. Hm, if you remove your opponents by some form of disqualification/not adhering to certain rules, then you have no need to criticise them - a bit like a return to Militant or those UK Communist parties.
Andy Burnham can attack Corbyn because it's not an "attack" it's a "critique". If there's one thing I've learnt during this contest it's that Burnham is the most greasy politician of all four on offer. He twists and turns depending on the dynamic of the day, with blatant disregard for what he's said earlier, even in the very same campaign.
The Shadow Cabinet Minister who said Andy Burnham is Ed Miliband with a Scouse accent got it spot on
You clearly undervalue the greatest accent on the planet. It appeals well with the female demographic
Primrose Hill Drone? Don't forget Ed's conquests..
and then for the ex-Blairites - clearly Plato you are in line for a re-education course somewhere on a cold and remote island - your name must be on the list!!
The New Puritism emanating from Corbynistas will provide great entertainment for those of us BBQing babies this Bank Holiday.
For fellow Labourites who knocked on doors only three months ago - it must be coming as quite a shock.
I'm trying to recall if Blairites/New Labour tried to deselect political rivals? I can't think of any examples.
Removing team mates who disagree the moment you get your mitts on the tiller, seems rather unattractive and fundamentalist. First they came for the Blairites...
@patrickwintour: Conservative Home back Yvette Cooper "In the absence of anyone else, she will have to do". Great campaign slogan. http://t.co/IoASUrUNLJ
I'm all for helping working class people buy their own homes, but we have a problem that many of the people with council houses are actually very wealthy because no-one is ever kicked out of a council home. They then benefit from a government give away, where a small minority get effectively given tens of thousands pounds by the taxpayer.
I would much prefer a system where wealthy council house tenants don't qualify for renewals, and sell-offs are done on the open market. Revenue raised can then be used for all first time buyers of limited means to get a discount, regardless of whether they are lucky enough to have had a grandparent in a council house.
It'll happen all over again with housing association properties.
Most EU immigrants don't get close to council houses; instead they rent rooms in former council houses now owned by buy-to-let landlords. That's certainly the story across London.
The venom against anyone seen to deviate from Jezziah's teachings is really rather WTF.
It's all so hate filled. The Left is infamous for its ability to factionise - but this descent into name-calling is remarkably quick.
As that Indy piece noted, it may not be Jezza who wants this - but his disciples are in full throat and almost out of control. He's no Sturgeon either when it comes to using force of personality to say Pack It In.
And I can't see Red Len stopping it either - his chief of staff is apparently a member of CPGB.
Of course, they could take the very capitalist path - and stop buying it....
I am looking forward to the point when the Lefty gobshites break into various factions, each decrying the other as Tories.
Then we will all be Tories....
The name calling is interesting really. It is certainly true that some people might support Tory policies until they find out it is a Tory policy, and the reverse is true as well - some people will support an idea until they find out it is a Labour idea (or perhaps criticise it until it is also adopted by the Tories). However, there doesn't seem the same level of automatic name calling for the 'wrong' side - that is, for some people, anyone saying something they don't like is labelled a Tory (as we've just seen, even JC is not immune), showing that for those people, Tory just means bad, it isn't an ideology or party. So it's curious that although there are people with similar tendencies on the other side, there isn't a single label that is automatically thrown out. I know some people use socialist as that label, but it doesn't seem as prevalent, I think as a 'scary' label it is not as potent as it once was.
Mr. Financier, lower costs in Poland are one theory I've heard for why The Witcher 3, made by a relatively small studio, is a triple A, top class game.
Janner fails to show at Westminster Mags Court. Defence arguing he would be prepared to appear by live video link. Magistrates refuse, and suggest proceedings are moved to Wood Green...
On the face of it Corbyn seems to have established an SNP like anti-establishment movement from within the Labour party - without anyone noticing and it's only taken him a month. The parallels between the rise of Corbyn and the SNP are interesting:
- Establishment gnashing and wailing - for this purpose the ABC candidates are establishment figures. - MSM demonization by virtually every single political commentator. - Corbyn BAD being roared on Twitter by all and sundry. - Constant harping back to the past for glimmers of hope which might explain away Corbynisim.
Perceptive post. The Corbyn insurrection is remarkably like the SNP, Syriza, Podemos and (to a lesser extent) Sanders surges - they all reflect a sense of "At last there's a chance to break from the deadly consensus of despair." It is not entirely a left-wing thing, which should give the Tories pause as they celebrate - just as UKIP started on the far right but started to appeal to WWC voters, this sort of anti-establishment campaign appeals across the spectrum merely by its flavour.
Corbyn makes a good ambassador for it, because he's not a ranter like Scargill and seems devoid of personal ambition and greed (another common feature with e.g. Tsipras, who still benefits hugely from not being part of the comfortable and in Greece even corrupt old elite). But it's not primarily about him, which is why criticisms that he once was polite about Gerry Adams etc. miss the mark.
The main reason why I'm personally being swayed is that I think this needs to be allowed to play itself out - a result where Cooper won with 51% after transfers from everyone in the ABC spectrum would be profoundly unsatisfactory. Just as the SNP surge will show whether there are practical limits to Scottish nationalism, the Corbyn surge will show what can be achieved from a populist left movement. It's not what Labour has in recent years been about, but really the problem about Labour in recent years (since ca. 2005) is that we haven't been about very much in particular, except being anti-Tory and vaguely benevolent.
There is no doubt there are some very powerful people behind Jeremy Corbyn and in some respect he is just a "front man."
Andy Burnham has been a Blairite, Brownite and now appears to be a Corbynite.
Yvette Cooper just leaves me cold. I hate it when women play the "feminist card." I also think it is counterproductive.
Liz Kendall is a complete lightweight. She has no "presence" and looks and sounds like a "Head Prefect." I could can't imagine her taking on David Cameron at PMQ's.
The real story is nonce-finder general, Brownite/Unite thug, Tom Watson. I don't know how long JC will last but I expect Tom Watson will become Labour leader before the next election. Mr McCluskey will then have complete control and what's left of the Labour party.
The tories would be completely mad to underestimate what is going on.
I found it all fascinating at first, but now I am getting completely bored with the whole thing. It seems to have been going on forever. There are so many other important stories out there, that are not getting any attention.
I got into an argument with someone over neo-liberal. I merely asked them to define it. If its a government, how can we tell? Put some numbers onto it, so we can look at a country and make a judgment based on facts.
Labour will be submitting its “resignation letter to the British people as a serious party of government” if it elects Jeremy Corbyn as leader, Liz Kendall said on Friday.
Kendall, in an interview on the BBC argued that Corbyn – the leftwinger who has become the surprise runaway favourite in the party’s election – was advocating policies that would lead to certain electoral defeat for Labour.
“He [Corbyn] is not offering anything new. His programme isn’t new, it’s exactly the same as it was in the 1980s and we’ll get the same result,” said Kendall, who is seen as the most Blairite of the four leadership contenders and on course to come last, according to the polls.
“I don’t want to see Labour submit our resignation letter to the British people as a serious party of government.”
Janner fails to show at Westminster Mags Court. Defence arguing he would be prepared to appear by live video link. Magistrates refuse, and suggest proceedings are moved to Wood Green...
I'm glad about that. This court process seems to me to be highly abusive.
I believe that most of Europe has statutes of limitations on alleged offences that are 30 or 50 years old - for good reasons.
But I'm not sure if it is a good thing for him personally, though.
The 'authorities' seem committed to their chosen path.
On the face of it Corbyn seems to have established an SNP like anti-establishment movement from within the Labour party - without anyone noticing and it's only taken him a month. The parallels between the rise of Corbyn and the SNP are interesting:
- Establishment gnashing and wailing - for this purpose the ABC candidates are establishment figures. - MSM demonization by virtually every single political commentator. - Corbyn BAD being roared on Twitter by all and sundry. - Constant harping back to the past for glimmers of hope which might explain away Corbynisim.
Perceptive post. The Corbyn insurrection is remarkably like the SNP, Syriza, Podemos and (to a lesser extent) Sanders surges - they all reflect a sense of "At last there's a chance to break from the deadly consensus of despair." It is not entirely a left-wing thing, which should give the Tories pause as they celebrate - just as UKIP started on the far right but started to appeal to WWC voters, this sort of anti-establishment campaign appeals across the spectrum merely by its flavour.
Corbyn makes a good ambassador for it, because he's not a ranter like Scargill and seems devoid of personal ambition and greed (another common feature with e.g. Tsipras, who still benefits hugely from not being part of the comfortable and in Greece even corrupt old elite). But it's not primarily about him, which is why criticisms that he once was polite about Gerry Adams etc. miss the mark.
The main reason why I'm personally being swayed is that I think this needs to be allowed to play itself out - a result where Cooper won with 51% after transfers from everyone in the ABC spectrum would be profoundly unsatisfactory. Just as the SNP surge will show whether there are practical limits to Scottish nationalism, the Corbyn surge will show what can be achieved from a populist left movement. It's not what Labour has in recent years been about, but really the problem about Labour in recent years (since ca. 2005) is that we haven't been about very much in particular, except being anti-Tory and vaguely benevolent.
Yep, let's experiment with a leader who consorts with anti-semites and terrorists, who has no concept of loyalty, believes in printing money to fund infrastructure projects, wants to reopen mines and whose prominent supporters want to purge dissenting voices from the party. Not sure how that can possibly go wrong if you're not bothered about perpetual Tory rule.
The New Puritism emanating from Corbynistas will provide great entertainment for those of us BBQing babies this Bank Holiday.
For fellow Labourites who knocked on doors only three months ago - it must be coming as quite a shock.
I'm trying to recall if Blairites/New Labour tried to deselect political rivals? I can't think of any examples.
Removing team mates who disagree the moment you get your mitts on the tiller, seems rather unattractive and fundamentalist. First they came for the Blairites...
The venom against anyone seen to deviate from Jezziah's teachings is really rather WTF.
It's all so hate filled. The Left is infamous for its ability to factionise - but this descent into name-calling is remarkably quick.
Mind you I am enjoying seeing people who regularly demonise Tories receiving the same treatment from what is supposed to be their own side.
Ken Livingstone and Rhodri Morgan were both blocked from running for the leadership of London and Welsh Labour respectively, although that's not quite a deselection.
Two questions you'd know more about than me, Nick:
I can't imagine deselections of existing MPs are very likely, though of course many unhappy with the direction of the party might simply stand down. But should Labour do well at the next election (a clear possibility under any leader, should the EU referendum derail the Tory party) then there will be a wave of new MPs.
(1) If the mood of the party membership, given its new composition, has now swung to the left, is it likely that a lot of the new PPCs are going to be rather to the left of the current parliamentary party? I think candidates competing for a PPC position are going to inclined to at least sound a bit leftier to their constituency parties than they would have done last parliament.
(2) Labour's central apparatus has long been influential in finding a seat for its favoured sons and daughters (ex-spads etc). How much would a new leader (or for that matter, new deputy leader) be able to influence that process to get some fellow-travellers into parliament?
Doubt it. The trigger ballots have been around for years and only involve full members. In practice it's extremely difficult to persuade members to remove the familiar local MP as candidate, even when as in some cases there was quite a good reason to consider it.
The policy-making issue is more real - Corbyn clearly intends to democratise the process with more meaningful consultations, which will be popular with members but will add delay. I'm not sure that MPs feel that they are especially involved themselves at present though - sadly, the normal way as an MP for finding out about a new policy that the leader had thought up was reading about it in the Guardian.
On the face of it Corbyn seems to have established an SNP like anti-establishment movement from within the Labour party - without anyone noticing and it's only taken him a month. The parallels between the rise of Corbyn and the SNP are interesting:
- Establishment gnashing and wailing - for this purpose the ABC candidates are establishment figures. - MSM demonization by virtually every single political commentator. - Corbyn BAD being roared on Twitter by all and sundry. - Constant harping back to the past for glimmers of hope which might explain away Corbynisim.
Perceptive post. The Corbyn insurrection is remarkably like the SNP, Syriza, Podemos and (to a lesser extent) Sanders surges - they all reflect a sense of "At last there's a chance to break from the deadly consensus of despair." It is not entirely a left-wing thing, which should give the Tories pause as they celebrate - just as UKIP started on the far right but started to appeal to WWC voters, this sort of anti-establishment campaign appeals across the spectrum merely by its flavour.
Corbyn makes a good ambassador for it, because he's not a ranter like Scargill and seems devoid of personal ambition and greed (another common feature with e.g. Tsipras, who still benefits hugely from not being part of the comfortable and in Greece even corrupt old elite). But it's not primarily about him, which is why criticisms that he once was polite about Gerry Adams etc. miss the mark.
The main reason why I'm personally being swayed is that I think this needs to be allowed to play itself out - a result where Cooper won with 51% after transfers from everyone in the ABC spectrum would be profoundly unsatisfactory. Just as the SNP surge will show whether there are practical limits to Scottish nationalism, the Corbyn surge will show what can be achieved from a populist left movement. It's not what Labour has in recent years been about, but really the problem about Labour in recent years (since ca. 2005) is that we haven't been about very much in particular, except being anti-Tory and vaguely benevolent.
Where does this leave the average anti-Tory voter while the Labour party 'plays out' this surge? LibDems revival?
Nick P said, "but really the problem about Labour in recent years (since ca. 2005) is that we haven't been about very much in particular, except being anti-Tory and vaguely benevolent."
The main tragedy for the 3 amigos (or not very amigo) is that they do not seem to have moved on from there. Whereas Corbyn has released lots of policies in a very friendly and non-confrontational manner - with people pleased to see a positive approach - not realising where it might lead. After all Hitler built the autobahns and Mussolini made the trains run on time.
and then for the ex-Blairites - clearly Plato you are in line for a re-education course somewhere on a cold and remote island - your name must be on the list!!
The New Puritism emanating from Corbynistas will provide great entertainment for those of us BBQing babies this Bank Holiday.
For fellow Labourites who knocked on doors only three months ago - it must be coming as quite a shock.
I'm trying to recall if Blairites/New Labour tried to deselect political rivals? I can't think of any examples.
Removing team mates who disagree the moment you get your mitts on the tiller, seems rather unattractive and fundamentalist. First they came for the Blairites...
Janner fails to show at Westminster Mags Court. Defence arguing he would be prepared to appear by live video link. Magistrates refuse, and suggest proceedings are moved to Wood Green...
What is the normal procedure for someone who is unfit to stand trial? Do they have to appear in court at least once. I can't help feeling that the DPP is compensating massively for past failures in this case.
Corbyn makes a good ambassador for it, because he's not a ranter like Scargill and seems devoid of personal ambition and greed (another common feature with e.g. Tsipras, who still benefits hugely from not being part of the comfortable and in Greece even corrupt old elite). But it's not primarily about him, which is why criticisms that he once was polite about Gerry Adams etc. miss the mark.
It's your party so you're entitled to do what you like.
But you're making a serious mistake if you believe this. Neither the Conservatives nor the newspapers have got started on this. The general public (as opposed to the Labour party electorate) haven't picked up too much about Jeremy Corbyn. And he has so much history that can be drip fed to the public in bite-sized portions.
Don't you worry that your opponents are so quiet right now? They're staying quiet for a very good reason.
It's all a bit reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain boasting that Mr Hitler missed the bus.
The moment that the New Labour leadership realised it had lost control of the party.
When Corbyn becomes Labour leader, and moves to restrict the influence of the 90% of the PLP who don't support him, what's to stop them forming New Labour and leaving Corbyn and his fellow travellers behind (with the unions)?
Janner fails to show at Westminster Mags Court. Defence arguing he would be prepared to appear by live video link. Magistrates refuse, and suggest proceedings are moved to Wood Green...
What is the normal procedure for someone who is unfit to stand trial? Do they have to appear in court at least once. I can't help feeling that the DPP is compensating massively for past failures in this case.
The New Puritism emanating from Corbynistas will provide great entertainment for those of us BBQing babies this Bank Holiday.
For fellow Labourites who knocked on doors only three months ago - it must be coming as quite a shock.
I'm trying to recall if Blairites/New Labour tried to deselect political rivals? I can't think of any examples.
Removing team mates who disagree the moment you get your mitts on the tiller, seems rather unattractive and fundamentalist. First they came for the Blairites...
The venom against anyone seen to deviate from Jezziah's teachings is really rather WTF.
It's all so hate filled. The Left is infamous for its ability to factionise - but this descent into name-calling is remarkably quick.
Mind you I am enjoying seeing people who regularly demonise Tories receiving the same treatment from what is supposed to be their own side.
Ken Livingstone and Rhodri Morgan were both blocked from running for the leadership of London and Welsh Labour respectively, although that's not quite a deselection.
Appallingly inept politics though.
Morgan's main claim to fame was being turning up late when the Queen opened the Royal Welsh Show on year.
Janner fails to show at Westminster Mags Court. Defence arguing he would be prepared to appear by live video link. Magistrates refuse, and suggest proceedings are moved to Wood Green...
What is the normal procedure for someone who is unfit to stand trial? Do they have to appear in court at least once. I can't help feeling that the DPP is compensating massively for past failures in this case.
Corbyn makes a good ambassador for it, because he's not a ranter like Scargill and seems devoid of personal ambition and greed (another common feature with e.g. Tsipras, who still benefits hugely from not being part of the comfortable and in Greece even corrupt old elite). But it's not primarily about him, which is why criticisms that he once was polite about Gerry Adams etc. miss the mark.
It's your party so you're entitled to do what you like.
But you're making a serious mistake if you believe this. Neither the Conservatives nor the newspapers have got started on this. The general public (as opposed to the Labour party electorate) haven't picked up too much about Jeremy Corbyn. And he has so much history that can be drip fed to the public in bite-sized portions.
Don't you worry that your opponents are so quiet right now? They're staying quiet for a very good reason.
It's all a bit reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain boasting that Mr Hitler missed the bus.
I imagine Nick's self-delusion is exquisite from a Tory perspective.
I think most of the political commentators just produce "clickbait" articles about the SNP/Scotland and now Corbyn - with eye catching headlines and often contradictory content - in an average day the SNP can be described as a Cult, a fascist party, ultra left wing, centre left, socialist, nationalist, tartan Tories, a chameleon party, anti-austerity, austerity-lite etc. Corbyn is now being subject to the same approach, sadly the commentators have not learned any lessons from the SNP's rise and are just going to drive forward Corbynisim.
During GE2015 the main message from the SNP from day one of the campaign was, vote SNP to ensure Scotland's interests are best protected at Westminster - deluded fools many on this site believe we are - but it really was that simple. I know the commentators need to come out with pseudo intellectual sounding articles to try and explain the rise of the SNP, these guys are just trying to earn a crust. A typical example from Kenny this morning - more stupid voters drivel:
Comments
Who did the voters trust on the economy a few months ago?
Compare and contrast,
Alastair Campbell : "we don't do God".
God : "We don't do politics"
I can't believe what a whiny, over-sensitive population we're breeding in these isles. Clearly a sign that I'm growing old
On topic, with the ashes secured, Corbyn to be anointed loony-in-chief of Labour, all I really want now is another indyref (but a successful one this time) and I can die happy.
It is really an extension of the policy of being prosecuted if you speak your mind on certain matters. Also that you can get fined by councils/schools etc if you infringe their own manufactured policy. So in such an environment, there is a subtle pressure to report others - so you almost protect yourself and build up brownie points with the 'authorities'.
Reminds me so much of the time that I spent in East Germany. I would like to see a return to the times when only only magistrates could impose a fine and laws were tighter and more transparent.
So the church in question may have missed a trick there by declaring it closed - but if they had no alternative graveyard, they may not have had a choice.
@rosschawkins: Yesterday Burnham said those attacking Corbyn were misreading the mood of the party
It doesn't sound especially sinister to me. The MPs who have aligned themselves with the New Labour concept can't really expect to carry on as if nothing has happened. The whole USP of New Labour was electability. If you fail to get win an election twice, what is exactly is the point?
Indeed I'll go further. The new Labour Party structure has opened up participation in the party. At the moment Corbyn is the only one in a position to take advantage of it - given his peculiar situation having distanced himself from the leadership but having a lot of links with people in the party as a result of decades of campaigning on just about everything. The shear numbers signing up mean they simply can't all be left wing purists.
I think clearing out a bit of dead wood and starting afresh is exactly what Labour needs to do. The far left will do better out of this than their numbers merit initially, but a big problem in politics is the people who have 30 years in the Commons followed by another 30 in the Lords and who simply go to seed. If the Labour Party breaks with that, that will be a good thing.
If you don't vote - you don't matter.
And I'm not even a tory.
Because if she did, does not rather ease the pressure on Alistair Carmichael, bearing in mind that the key plank of the SNP thrust against him was not the impropriety of the leak itself (which was improper and which he has admitted was improper) but that the information was forged (which incidentally it does not appear to have been, or at least, not deliberately) and place it fairly and squarely on her instead?
I thought at the time she was at least most unwise to deny what as you say is politically obvious...but until now I hadn't come across any SNP activist willing to come out and make that direct claim.
On the face of it Corbyn seems to have established an SNP like anti-establishment movement from within the Labour party - without anyone noticing and it's only taken him a month. The parallels between the rise of Corbyn and the SNP are interesting:
- Establishment gnashing and wailing - for this purpose the ABC candidates are establishment figures.
- MSM demonization by virtually every single political commentator.
- Corbyn BAD being roared on Twitter by all and sundry.
- Constant harping back to the past for glimmers of hope which might explain away Corbynisim.
Should Corbyn win how many Labour MPs will seek to defect or set up a new party? - very few would have the guts to go as they would come under immediate pressure to stand down and face a bi election and would quite likely lose. So for all of the Labour establishment MPs bluster amplified by their MSM buddies, I think they would just retreat to the backbenches and start planning their futures outside of politics.
Feels most peculiar to defend Burnham.
It's all so hate filled. The Left is infamous for its ability to factionise - but this descent into name-calling is remarkably quick.
As that Indy piece noted, it may not be Jezza who wants this - but his disciples are in full throat and almost out of control. He's no Sturgeon either when it comes to using force of personality to say Pack It In.
And I can't see Red Len stopping it either - his chief of staff is apparently a member of CPGB.
Baldwin's retort was, 'I would prefer to have a second class intellect than a second class character.'
The problem with Burnham is he appears to have both.
Mr. Eagles, it'll be a hat banquet.
As I say, I thought that was rather a reckless thing to say. But I could have misunderstood - I was very busy at the time and didn't have a lot of chance to investigate in depth.
The leadership contest could be going very differently if Balls had held his seat.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/right-to-buy-40-of-homes-sold-under-government-scheme-are-being-let-out-privately-10454796.html
I'm all for helping working class people buy their own homes, but we have a problem that many of the people with council houses are actually very wealthy because no-one is ever kicked out of a council home. They then benefit from a government give away, where a small minority get effectively given tens of thousands pounds by the taxpayer.
I would much prefer a system where wealthy council house tenants don't qualify for renewals, and sell-offs are done on the open market. Revenue raised can then be used for all first time buyers of limited means to get a discount, regardless of whether they are lucky enough to have had a grandparent in a council house.
Of course, MalcolmG is not Nicola Sturgeon, so it's hardly a smoking gun. But it would be embarrassing for the SNP were evidence in support of his views to be uncovered.
For fellow Labourites who knocked on doors only three months ago - it must be coming as quite a shock.
I'm trying to recall if Blairites/New Labour tried to deselect political rivals? I can't think of any examples.
Removing team mates who disagree the moment you get your mitts on the tiller, seems rather unattractive and fundamentalist. First they came for the Blairites...
We have just been awarded a contract with UK RWEnpower - when upon reading the fine print found that all invoices have to be sent to Poland!!
Appallingly inept politics though.
"But it was MY turn. You PROMISED...."
Most EU immigrants don't get close to council houses; instead they rent rooms in former council houses now owned by buy-to-let landlords. That's certainly the story across London.
The country and party would never elect someone who has in all likelihood fellated Ed Balls.
And on that note, goodbye.
I still don't know. I see from Phil Collins in The Times that he's also in the dark.
@LizforLeader: #tourgb #teamliz 1st stop Manchester http://t.co/yjCwtkTCga
(Phrase copyright Gordon Brown, c. 2003.)
Corbyn makes a good ambassador for it, because he's not a ranter like Scargill and seems devoid of personal ambition and greed (another common feature with e.g. Tsipras, who still benefits hugely from not being part of the comfortable and in Greece even corrupt old elite). But it's not primarily about him, which is why criticisms that he once was polite about Gerry Adams etc. miss the mark.
The main reason why I'm personally being swayed is that I think this needs to be allowed to play itself out - a result where Cooper won with 51% after transfers from everyone in the ABC spectrum would be profoundly unsatisfactory. Just as the SNP surge will show whether there are practical limits to Scottish nationalism, the Corbyn surge will show what can be achieved from a populist left movement. It's not what Labour has in recent years been about, but really the problem about Labour in recent years (since ca. 2005) is that we haven't been about very much in particular, except being anti-Tory and vaguely benevolent.
Andy Burnham has been a Blairite, Brownite and now appears to be a Corbynite.
Yvette Cooper just leaves me cold. I hate it when women play the "feminist card." I also think it is counterproductive.
Liz Kendall is a complete lightweight. She has no "presence" and looks and sounds like a "Head Prefect." I could can't imagine her taking on David Cameron at PMQ's.
The real story is nonce-finder general, Brownite/Unite thug, Tom Watson. I don't know how long JC will last but I expect Tom Watson will become Labour leader before the next election. Mr McCluskey will then have complete control and what's left of the Labour party.
The tories would be completely mad to underestimate what is going on.
I found it all fascinating at first, but now I am getting completely bored with the whole thing. It seems to have been going on forever. There are so many other important stories out there, that are not getting any attention.
http://order-order.com/2015/08/11/bbc-uses-echr-to-block-release-of-spin-bill/
That seemed to make them angrier.
Highlight of her campaign so far TBH
I believe that most of Europe has statutes of limitations on alleged offences that are 30 or 50 years old - for good reasons.
But I'm not sure if it is a good thing for him personally, though.
The 'authorities' seem committed to their chosen path.
@Ms Plato
On planet leftist Neoliberals are where the Reds used to be under the bed.
Breathtaking self-indulgence.
IIRC After being thrown out of Labour, Ken ran as an indy - won and then Tony said he should come back to Labour after all.
Didn't know about Morgan - he always seemed a very sensible sort of chap.
I can't imagine deselections of existing MPs are very likely, though of course many unhappy with the direction of the party might simply stand down. But should Labour do well at the next election (a clear possibility under any leader, should the EU referendum derail the Tory party) then there will be a wave of new MPs.
(1) If the mood of the party membership, given its new composition, has now swung to the left, is it likely that a lot of the new PPCs are going to be rather to the left of the current parliamentary party? I think candidates competing for a PPC position are going to inclined to at least sound a bit leftier to their constituency parties than they would have done last parliament.
(2) Labour's central apparatus has long been influential in finding a seat for its favoured sons and daughters (ex-spads etc). How much would a new leader (or for that matter, new deputy leader) be able to influence that process to get some fellow-travellers into parliament?
The moment that the New Labour leadership realised it had lost control of the party.
The main tragedy for the 3 amigos (or not very amigo) is that they do not seem to have moved on from there. Whereas Corbyn has released lots of policies in a very friendly and non-confrontational manner - with people pleased to see a positive approach - not realising where it might lead. After all Hitler built the autobahns and Mussolini made the trains run on time.
But you're making a serious mistake if you believe this. Neither the Conservatives nor the newspapers have got started on this. The general public (as opposed to the Labour party electorate) haven't picked up too much about Jeremy Corbyn. And he has so much history that can be drip fed to the public in bite-sized portions.
Don't you worry that your opponents are so quiet right now? They're staying quiet for a very good reason.
It's all a bit reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain boasting that Mr Hitler missed the bus.
During GE2015 the main message from the SNP from day one of the campaign was, vote SNP to ensure Scotland's interests are best protected at Westminster - deluded fools many on this site believe we are - but it really was that simple. I know the commentators need to come out with pseudo intellectual sounding articles to try and explain the rise of the SNP, these guys are just trying to earn a crust. A typical example from Kenny this morning - more stupid voters drivel:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/article4527184.ece