It's an epic fall from grace. I still can't get my head around the SNP having their slot at PMQs.
I can't recall the last time I saw or heard from one of them on the TV. Just gone. Not a single mention of their conference either. I've just done a YouGov that asked me to rate a few of them which reminded me that they still exist.
This "new politics" is great fun. Corbyn is his own man, will follow his own agenda, won't get pushed around by the Party machine or the press...
Jeremy Corbyn, the new Labour leader, has pulled out of a planned appearance at the annual Stop the War coalition conference, his final as chairman of the group.
Corbyn has been a leading member of the group for more than a decade and had been expected to deliver a speech at the meeting on Saturday.
A spokesman for Corbyn, who a week ago won a landslide victory in the Labour leadership contest, said he was unable to attend because of his busy schedule.
“His diary is now obviously very busy and today he is preparing for Labour party conference,” the spokesman said.
What a load of tendentious fraff. Do you not sometimes look in the mirror and think 'is this really the best use of my short time on this planet, copying and pasting weak propaganda?'
So he will be attending as chairman of the Stop The War group?
For comparison the first poll after IDS was elected Tory leader on 13th September 2001 was by ICM on 16th September and had the Tories on 29% with Labour on 46% and the LDs 20%, I would expect Corbyn's Labour to be in similar territory. We shall see tonight http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-2001-2005
It's an epic fall from grace. I still can't get my head around the SNP having their slot at PMQs.
I can't recall the last time I saw or heard from one of them on the TV. Just gone. Not a single mention of their conference either. I've just done a YouGov that asked me to rate a few of them which reminded me that they still exist.
Conservatives the party of the young? Tommorow belongs to me...
Given history, I can understand why Labour are reluctant to deselect MPs even when they are getting on a bit. But I wonder if that is the real reason for their current malaise? In the seventies and eighties Labour politicians always seemed a bit brighter on average than their competition, but that has slipped in recent years.
It may simply be that because Labour have had net seat losses in every election since 1997 that there has been too little space for new blood to come through. The post expenses purge in 2010 allowed for some but overall Labour MPs seem to like holding on until the bitter end.
That would make sense If Labour MPs were proportionately older (since no young blood but lots of old safe seats) but then the Tories should have the old safe seats plus young blood.
However its not just proportionately that Labour has more old MPs but in absolute terms too.
Labour has 66/232 (28.4%) over 60 while the Tories have 48/330 (14.5%) over 60.
It's an epic fall from grace. I still can't get my head around the SNP having their slot at PMQs.
I can't recall the last time I saw or heard from one of them on the TV. Just gone. Not a single mention of their conference either. I've just done a YouGov that asked me to rate a few of them which reminded me that they still exist.
I said that if process wasn't properly followed there should be a retrial.
I don't doubt that being in battle is a stressful situation but soldiers are trained for that and do know their rules of engagement. From the reports, it sounds as if his team are not contesting whether he committed a crime, just what that crime was.
We cannot simply ignore rules of war and of engagement simply because battle is hard, any more than because the soldier in question happened to be wearing a British uniform. That is the road to justifying - or at least excusing away - any behaviour.
However the rules of engagement are a total bollocks today.
So basically anything goes then?
If the Rules of Engagement of today were used in WW2, the allies would have lost the war.
HRA and elf and safety would have done for us.
Very clearly, the British and US armed forces could not have fought WWII in the way that they did, according to today's military standards. British and US battle commanders who tried to take Japanese soldiers prisoner, in Burma or the Pacific, found that many of the prisoners would turn on them. So, quite often, they'd decide there was no point in trying to take prisoners. That would be considered a war crime today. As would the carpet-bombing of German or Japanese cities. But if we did have to fight such a war today, we'd likely abandon today's standards.
You are looking back to what was total war. Even in ww1 the German navy shelled coastal towns indiscriminately. This goes back to the ACW where Sherman destroyed the ability of the southern hinterland to supply the confederate armies and also to prevent any enemy army subsisting as it tried to pursue him. We pursued a similar policy in South Africa c1900.
Generally, I'd regard the behaviour of the US and British armed forces in WWII as being the benchmark for what one can expect from decent soldiers.
Well, the British (and Commonwealth) anyway.
One of the problems the American army has is that it has rarely needed to fight limited wars, nor do long term peacekeeping, such as Britain did within the empire. That's left a legacy of a tolerance and perhaps enthusiasm for a higher level of violence. I'm also wary of armies that are out on a moral crusade, as it implies the enemy are evil and worth less.
Rcs1000, I'm waiting at a GP surgery walkin clinic. Because I can never get through during their limited periods they take appointments. Why are GPs allowed to limit how many appointments they take? .... We should force all GPs to take appointments at all times, to publish the length of the waiting list and to scrap catchment areas. ...
Ironically, GPs are the most private bit of the NHS: quasi-independent small businesses in competition with each other, whose patients can switch between them, taking their funding with them. The ironic part is that GPs are what the free market fans in both parties complain about most. Either the market is not a panacea for delivering what is wanted, or it works perfectly for the majority. Or both. ..
One part of the problem is that the central NHS has allocated smaller % of the budget to the GP service. The doctors in training have taken the hint and fewer are becoming GPs (you do wonder why there are no set GP training slots). It needs a little more money allocated to the GP service and more would become GPs. Having more would make the market work much much better as we could transfer to the more responsive GP setups. Add in a reform of the customer ratings systems through apps etc and then we start to view GPs like any service - one where we choose who to use.
There are specific GP traing posts, though many are unfilled:
Paying more is not the simple answer. The reasons that so few graduates want to go into GP (or indeed many hospital specialities like Accident and Emergency or Psychiatry) are more complex. Addressing the reasons why GP's retire early, burn out or emigrate is not an overnight job. Tackling unreasonable patient demands is as nessecary as tackling unreasonable government demands.Resilient GP has a few here:
Thanks for the link. It indirectly answered my earlier question...9 to 11 years to train a GP. The examples of timewasting and stupidity are horrifying. I can't think of a simple, effective solution, other than introducing a numpty tax. Oh, if I could only change the world.
A simple charge to see a GP, with the usual safeguards and exemptions, would get rid of a lot of the unnecessary appointments that take up a GPs time.
I lean a bit to that but the problem with that Doctor "research" is that it has no statistically useful findings. A simple piece of MR software available free would have answered that. What % of time of the 200 doctors is taken up by these things? 30%, 20%, 10%, 1%, or 0.1%?
It's an epic fall from grace. I still can't get my head around the SNP having their slot at PMQs.
I can't recall the last time I saw or heard from one of them on the TV. Just gone. Not a single mention of their conference either. I've just done a YouGov that asked me to rate a few of them which reminded me that they still exist.
Anyone remember the Lib Dems? They start their Conference today. Presumably TSE we will have a few threads dedicated to analysing/remembering them?
Alistair Carmichael has been regularly featured on the news since GE2015.
The Lib Dems need a defection.
Seriously, scrap other funding and just love-bomb Labour centrists.
With the precedent being set that if you jump ship, you stand in a by election, how many seats are there where they aren't down to donkey with a red rosette country. It would be an enormous risk to take.
It's an epic fall from grace. I still can't get my head around the SNP having their slot at PMQs.
I can't recall the last time I saw or heard from one of them on the TV. Just gone. Not a single mention of their conference either. I've just done a YouGov that asked me to rate a few of them which reminded me that they still exist.
Anyone remember the Lib Dems? They start their Conference today. Presumably TSE we will have a few threads dedicated to analysing/remembering them?
I think there has been amongst many a complacent assumption that the Lib Dems will recover at the next election. I think its as likely they'll have less than 8 MPs as it is they'll have more. They're barely a party at all now let alone a major party.
Two party politics has resumed in England with 1 party in Scotland. The Lib Dems are history.
It's an epic fall from grace. I still can't get my head around the SNP having their slot at PMQs.
I can't recall the last time I saw or heard from one of them on the TV. Just gone. Not a single mention of their conference either. I've just done a YouGov that asked me to rate a few of them which reminded me that they still exist.
Anyone remember the Lib Dems? They start their Conference today. Presumably TSE we will have a few threads dedicated to analysing/remembering them?
Alistair Carmichael has been regularly featured on the news since GE2015.
The Lib Dems need a defection.
Seriously, scrap other funding and just love-bomb Labour centrists.
With the precedent being set that if you jump ship, you stand in a by election, how many seats are there where they aren't down to red rosette country. It would be an enormous risk to take.
Yes. They wouldn't want to hold a by-election. There's a political cost, so the LibDems should emphasise personal reasons for jumping ship - not get on with the leadership etc.
It's an epic fall from grace. I still can't get my head around the SNP having their slot at PMQs.
I can't recall the last time I saw or heard from one of them on the TV. Just gone. Not a single mention of their conference either. I've just done a YouGov that asked me to rate a few of them which reminded me that they still exist.
Sadly BBC Parliament seems not to have much coverage of the LD conference, but we can at least hope for some decent coverage on Sunday Politics of this epic event:
Paddy A plans to unseat Ally C from the top LDDJ slot with some bangin' choons!
Lib Dem conference? When is it due to be held?
In a broom closet somewhere...
Actually it's in the usual conference centre in Bournemouth and as of 11.00am there are 2388 registered delegates - the most in the history of the party.
Sadly BBC Parliament seems not to have much coverage of the LD conference, but we can at least hope for some decent coverage on Sunday Politics of this epic event:
Paddy A plans to unseat Ally C from the top LDDJ slot with some bangin' choons!
Lib Dem conference? When is it due to be held?
In a broom closet somewhere...
Actually it's in the usual conference centre in Bournemouth and as of 11.00am there are 2388 registered delegates - the most in the history of the party.
Have they transported every Lib Dem voter left in the country down then?
This "new politics" is great fun. Corbyn is his own man, will follow his own agenda, won't get pushed around by the Party machine or the press...
Jeremy Corbyn, the new Labour leader, has pulled out of a planned appearance at the annual Stop the War coalition conference, his final as chairman of the group.
Corbyn has been a leading member of the group for more than a decade and had been expected to deliver a speech at the meeting on Saturday.
A spokesman for Corbyn, who a week ago won a landslide victory in the Labour leadership contest, said he was unable to attend because of his busy schedule.
“His diary is now obviously very busy and today he is preparing for Labour party conference,” the spokesman said.
What a load of tendentious fraff. Do you not sometimes look in the mirror and think 'is this really the best use of my short time on this planet, copying and pasting weak propaganda?'
Actually you are wrong in every possible respect. Corbyn's politics are known, and its all pretty nasty stuff, By not attending the Stop the War rally as he has previously done for 10 yrs it tells you something more about the man . Hiding what is known, and that his behaviour is duplicitous. it needs to be exposed , in the same way McDonnell apologising for what we know to be absolutely true about him cuts no ice and likewise needs to be exposed .
These people are dangerous, and voters need warning about them. Dave and co were right to call it as it is with their early advertisements. Expect more of the same.
It's an epic fall from grace. I still can't get my head around the SNP having their slot at PMQs.
I can't recall the last time I saw or heard from one of them on the TV. Just gone. Not a single mention of their conference either. I've just done a YouGov that asked me to rate a few of them which reminded me that they still exist.
This "new politics" is great fun. Corbyn is his own man, will follow his own agenda, won't get pushed around by the Party machine or the press...
Jeremy Corbyn, the new Labour leader, has pulled out of a planned appearance at the annual Stop the War coalition conference, his final as chairman of the group.
Corbyn has been a leading member of the group for more than a decade and had been expected to deliver a speech at the meeting on Saturday.
A spokesman for Corbyn, who a week ago won a landslide victory in the Labour leadership contest, said he was unable to attend because of his busy schedule.
“His diary is now obviously very busy and today he is preparing for Labour party conference,” the spokesman said.
What a load of tendentious fraff. Do you not sometimes look in the mirror and think 'is this really the best use of my short time on this planet, copying and pasting weak propaganda?'
Actually you are wrong in every possible respect. Corbyn's politics are known, and its all pretty nasty stuff, By not attending the Stop the War rally as he has previously done for 10 yrs it tells you something more about the man . Hiding what is known, and that his behaviour is duplicitous. it needs to be exposed , in the same way McDonnell apologising for what we know to be absolutely true about him cuts no ice and likewise needs to be exposed .
These people are dangerous, and voters need warning about them. Dave and co were right to call it as it is with their early advertisements. Expect more of the same.
... And of course the obvious thing to do is expand UK nurse traing, and the number of postgraduate medical training places, but the Tories have reduced these. Joined up thinking? It doesn't seem so!
Creating internal demand increases the quality of supply; who the feck do you work for? The quality of your service is defined by tick-boxes and smug-comments...?
It's an epic fall from grace. I still can't get my head around the SNP having their slot at PMQs.
I can't recall the last time I saw or heard from one of them on the TV. Just gone. Not a single mention of their conference either. I've just done a YouGov that asked me to rate a few of them which reminded me that they still exist.
Anyone remember the Lib Dems? They start their Conference today. Presumably TSE we will have a few threads dedicated to analysing/remembering them?
Alistair Carmichael has been regularly featured on the news since GE2015.
The Lib Dems need a defection.
Seriously, scrap other funding and just love-bomb Labour centrists.
It's a prisoners game.
If a significant number defected - at least 80 - then overall those 80 and the Liberals would be in the best position for the next election. But the chances of this are effectively zero.
So for any potential defector they would have to meet a pretty unlikely series of qualifiers. Not only being a centrist but being in a seat where the Liberal vote did not collapse and being inclined to accept the tag of a defector. They'd also have to accept the risk that what *might* be a job for life as a Labour MP, could become a job for a couple of years with no safety net - the Liberals just don't have enough paid employees any more and they don't even have the additional safety net option of MEPs which at least UKIP can offer.
There just isn't enough of an attraction for any Labour MPs to defect to the Liberals.
This "new politics" is great fun. Corbyn is his own man, will follow his own agenda, won't get pushed around by the Party machine or the press...
Jeremy Corbyn, the new Labour leader, has pulled out of a planned appearance at the annual Stop the War coalition conference, his final as chairman of the group.
Corbyn has been a leading member of the group for more than a decade and had been expected to deliver a speech at the meeting on Saturday.
A spokesman for Corbyn, who a week ago won a landslide victory in the Labour leadership contest, said he was unable to attend because of his busy schedule.
“His diary is now obviously very busy and today he is preparing for Labour party conference,” the spokesman said.
What a load of tendentious fraff. Do you not sometimes look in the mirror and think 'is this really the best use of my short time on this planet, copying and pasting weak propaganda?'
Actually you are wrong in every possible respect. Corbyn's politics are known, and its all pretty nasty stuff, By not attending the Stop the War rally as he has previously done for 10 yrs it tells you something more about the man . Hiding what is known, and that his behaviour is duplicitous. it needs to be exposed , in the same way McDonnell apologising for what we know to be absolutely true about him cuts no ice and likewise needs to be exposed .
These people are dangerous, and voters need warning about them. Dave and co were right to call it as it is with their early advertisements. Expect more of the same.
At the current rate of change, by Corbyn's leaders speech he will be advocating privatising the NHS, feeding welfare babies to bankers and bombing Calais.
This "new politics" is great fun. Corbyn is his own man, will follow his own agenda, won't get pushed around by the Party machine or the press...
Jeremy Corbyn, the new Labour leader, has pulled out of a planned appearance at the annual Stop the War coalition conference, his final as chairman of the group.
Corbyn has been a leading member of the group for more than a decade and had been expected to deliver a speech at the meeting on Saturday.
A spokesman for Corbyn, who a week ago won a landslide victory in the Labour leadership contest, said he was unable to attend because of his busy schedule.
“His diary is now obviously very busy and today he is preparing for Labour party conference,” the spokesman said.
What a load of tendentious fraff. Do you not sometimes look in the mirror and think 'is this really the best use of my short time on this planet, copying and pasting weak propaganda?'
Actually you are wrong in every possible respect. Corbyn's politics are known, and its all pretty nasty stuff, By not attending the Stop the War rally as he has previously done for 10 yrs it tells you something more about the man . Hiding what is known, and that his behaviour is duplicitous. it needs to be exposed , in the same way McDonnell apologising for what we know to be absolutely true about him cuts no ice and likewise needs to be exposed .
These people are dangerous, and voters need warning about them. Dave and co were right to call it as it is with their early advertisements. Expect more of the same.
Has he? He still opposes airstrikes on ISIS, still wants to raise income tax on the rich, still wants to oppose welfare cuts and austerity and is still sceptical about the EU even if he will not oppose it outright. Even IDS moderated his positions a little as leader, focusing on social justice etc, it made little difference as the first impression had already been made
Sadly BBC Parliament seems not to have much coverage of the LD conference, but we can at least hope for some decent coverage on Sunday Politics of this epic event:
Paddy A plans to unseat Ally C from the top LDDJ slot with some bangin' choons!
Lib Dem conference? When is it due to be held?
In a broom closet somewhere...
Actually it's in the usual conference centre in Bournemouth and as of 11.00am there are 2388 registered delegates - the most in the history of the party.
Have they transported every Lib Dem voter left in the country down then?
They currently have somewhat more than 60k members, I see.
Blackman, is a murderer and received an appropriate sentence. I know in your opinion that killing an unarmed prisoner was ok in this case because he was an Afghan, but most people don't agree.
Tip: Never expose your "ethnicity" on your selve. Comparing Sgt Blackman with your common-or-garden "ethnic" killer in your 'home'-city - unless it is a warzone full of pumped-up adrenalin - says more about you then him.
Involuntary-manslaughter and dishonarble-dismal would have been sufficient. Your 'attacks' based upon bigotry make you the joke that we know....
Sadly BBC Parliament seems not to have much coverage of the LD conference, but we can at least hope for some decent coverage on Sunday Politics of this epic event:
Paddy A plans to unseat Ally C from the top LDDJ slot with some bangin' choons!
Lib Dem conference? When is it due to be held?
In a broom closet somewhere...
Actually it's in the usual conference centre in Bournemouth and as of 11.00am there are 2388 registered delegates - the most in the history of the party.
This "new politics" is great fun. Corbyn is his own man, will follow his own agenda, won't get pushed around by the Party machine or the press...
Jeremy Corbyn, the new Labour leader, has pulled out of a planned appearance at the annual Stop the War coalition conference, his final as chairman of the group.
Corbyn has been a leading member of the group for more than a decade and had been expected to deliver a speech at the meeting on Saturday.
A spokesman for Corbyn, who a week ago won a landslide victory in the Labour leadership contest, said he was unable to attend because of his busy schedule.
“His diary is now obviously very busy and today he is preparing for Labour party conference,” the spokesman said.
What a load of tendentious fraff. Do you not sometimes look in the mirror and think 'is this really the best use of my short time on this planet, copying and pasting weak propaganda?'
Actually you are wrong in every possible respect. Corbyn's politics are known, and its all pretty nasty stuff, By not attending the Stop the War rally as he has previously done for 10 yrs it tells you something more about the man . Hiding what is known, and that his behaviour is duplicitous. it needs to be exposed , in the same way McDonnell apologising for what we know to be absolutely true about him cuts no ice and likewise needs to be exposed .
These people are dangerous, and voters need warning about them. Dave and co were right to call it as it is with their early advertisements. Expect more of the same.
Has he? He still opposes airstrikes on ISIS, still wants to raise income tax on the rich, still wants to oppose welfare cuts and austerity and is still sceptical about the EU even if he will not oppose it outright. Even IDS moderated his positions a little as leader, focusing on social justice etc, it made little difference as the first impression had already been made
The Times article @flightpath01 mentioned about the disarray of Team Corbyn is fascinating reading.
Apparently his PR person didn't have her contract renewed last Sunday, so no one had the expertise to field calls about the House of Horrors in his wardrobe.
Then Labour HQ staffers discovered that Corbyn's friends/allies were handed jobs they wanted to apply for [and they know zip about how PLP works], then Rosie Winterton outmaneuvered Corbyn by getting her moderate favourites into key ministerial roles [inc Heidi Alexander].
One insider said moderates had effectively *kettled* Corbyn to knobble him. And Team Corbyn have a serious paranoia problem - frankly it sounds well founded. They are out to get him.
This "new politics" is great fun. Corbyn is his own man, will follow his own agenda, won't get pushed around by the Party machine or the press...
Jeremy Corbyn, the new Labour leader, has pulled out of a planned appearance at the annual Stop the War coalition conference, his final as chairman of the group.
Corbyn has been a leading member of the group for more than a decade and had been expected to deliver a speech at the meeting on Saturday.
A spokesman for Corbyn, who a week ago won a landslide victory in the Labour leadership contest, said he was unable to attend because of his busy schedule.
“His diary is now obviously very busy and today he is preparing for Labour party conference,” the spokesman said.
What a load of tendentious fraff. Do you not sometimes look in the mirror and think 'is this really the best use of my short time on this planet, copying and pasting weak propaganda?'
snip
At the current rate of change, by Corbyn's leaders speech he will be advocating privatising the NHS, feeding welfare babies to bankers and bombing Calais.
Blackman, is a murderer and received an appropriate sentence. I know in your opinion that killing an unarmed prisoner was ok in this case because he was an Afghan, but most people don't agree.
Tip: Never expose your "ethnicity" on your selve. Comparing Sgt Blackman with your common-or-garden "ethnic" killer in your 'home'-city - unless it is a warzone full of pumped-up adrenalin - says more about you then him.
Involuntary-manslaughter and dishonarble-dismal would have been sufficient. Your 'attacks' based upon bigotry make you the joke that we know....
This "new politics" is great fun. Corbyn is his own man, will follow his own agenda, won't get pushed around by the Party machine or the press...
Jeremy Corbyn, the new Labour leader, has pulled out of a planned appearance at the annual Stop the War coalition conference, his final as chairman of the group.
Corbyn has been a leading member of the group for more than a decade and had been expected to deliver a speech at the meeting on Saturday.
A spokesman for Corbyn, who a week ago won a landslide victory in the Labour leadership contest, said he was unable to attend because of his busy schedule.
“His diary is now obviously very busy and today he is preparing for Labour party conference,” the spokesman said.
What a load of tendentious fraff. Do you not sometimes look in the mirror and think 'is this really the best use of my short time on this planet, copying and pasting weak propaganda?'
These people are dangerous, and voters need warning about them. Dave and co were right to call it as it is with their early advertisements. Expect more of the same.
Has he? He still opposes airstrikes on ISIS, still wants to raise income tax on the rich, still wants to oppose welfare cuts and austerity and is still sceptical about the EU even if he will not oppose it outright. Even IDS moderated his positions a little as leader, focusing on social justice etc, it made little difference as the first impression had already been made
Unbelievable this man is leader of the Labour party.
It would be astonishing if it were true, but it isn't, so it isn't.
It looks like the Sun are sticking with it on the strength of an extract from Hansard. They are trying to force him out to deny it. Whether they have more to come, who knows.
If due process has not been followed then he should face a retrial. However, his statement, recorded and in a calm, measured voice that he had "just broken the Geneva Convention" should be all the evidence needed to convict him for murder again.
As I understnad it, those who are arguing that a miscarriage of justice has occurred say that the man was already dead, or that the soldier thought he was already dead, and that the statement about "breaking the Geneva Convention" referred to the mistreatment of an enemy corpse, rather than the killing of a PoW.
Also, I'm beginning to feel that the City is slowly coming around to the anti-EU view. Their refusal to give up their dream of making Paris or Frankfurt more powerful than London is definitely losing them a lot of support that they would otherwise have. A few key decisions that have gone against us have also pushed the Leave argument.
Also, I'm beginning to feel that the City is slowly coming around to the anti-EU view. Their refusal to give up their dream of making Paris or Frankfurt more powerful than London is definitely losing them a lot of support that they would otherwise have. A few key decisions that have gone against us have also pushed the Leave argument.
It may simply be that because Labour have had net seat losses in every election since 1997 that there has been too little space for new blood to come through. The post expenses purge in 2010 allowed for some but overall Labour MPs seem to like holding on until the bitter end.
I think that's right. We're as sentimental about MPs as about leaders, so deselection is very rare. I know several very talented people who would have liked to get seats, but vacanacies were few and there was nearly always a local insider nurtured by the departing MP, which is natural enough but not necessarily the best way of recruiting top talent. Also, the lack of clear idealistic vision at the top hasn't encouraged an influx until now - I like Miliband but I wouldn't say he was setting out a New Jerusalem that brilliant people in other walks of life would give up their careers to pursue.
That said, there's a good deal of solid competence there. It's hard to spot the charismatic ones as the landscape has been dominated by Blair and Brown for too long, but people like Creasy and Jarvis are becoming evident and I'd expect them to gain in prominence.
Also, I'm beginning to feel that the City is slowly coming around to the anti-EU view. Their refusal to give up their dream of making Paris or Frankfurt more powerful than London is definitely losing them a lot of support that they would otherwise have. A few key decisions that have gone against us have also pushed the Leave argument.
Which key decisions are you thinking of?
Financial transactions tax, refusal of the full EU passport, idiot regulations.
On the FTT it would actually be better for us to be outside and, with the US, go via the WTO route than try and fight it within the EU, they will just impose it via QMV.
Unbelievable this man is leader of the Labour party.
It would be astonishing if it were true, but it isn't, so it isn't.
It looks like the Sun are sticking with it on the strength of an extract from Hansard. They are trying to force him out to deny it. Whether they have more to come, who knows.
The Times article @flightpath01 mentioned about the disarray of Team Corbyn is fascinating reading.
Apparently his PR person didn't have her contract renewed last Sunday, so no one had the expertise to field calls about the House of Horrors in his wardrobe.
Then Labour HQ staffers discovered that Corbyn's friends/allies were handed jobs they wanted to apply for [and they know zip about how PLP works], then Rosie Winterton outmaneuvered Corbyn by getting her moderate favourites into key ministerial roles [inc Heidi Alexander].
One insider said moderates had effectively *kettled* Corbyn to knobble him. And Team Corbyn have a serious paranoia problem - frankly it sounds well founded. They are out to get him.
And what will be left of his *principles* by the end of Week 2?
Jeremy Corbyn, the new Labour leader, has pulled out of a planned appearance at the annual Stop the War coalition conference, his final as chairman of the group.
What a load of tendentious fraff. Do you not sometimes look in the mirror and think 'is this really the best use of my short time on this planet, copying and pasting weak propaganda?'
snip
I did think it mighty odd that Tony Blair's former flat-mate got a role in a Corbyn Cabinet. Things that make you go "Hmmmmmmmm..." I suppose it was quite easy to tell Jeremy that "we have called around - and only x is prepared to do the job..."
Very clearly, the British and US armed forces could not have fought WWII in the way that they did, according to today's military standards. British and US battle commanders who tried to take Japanese soldiers prisoner, in Burma or the Pacific, found that many of the prisoners would turn on them. So, quite often, they'd decide there was no point in trying to take prisoners. That would be considered a war crime today. As would the carpet-bombing of German or Japanese cities. But if we did have to fight such a war today, we'd likely abandon today's standards.
You are looking back to what was total war. Even in ww1 the German navy shelled coastal towns indiscriminately. This goes back to the ACW where Sherman destroyed the ability of the southern hinterland to supply the confederate armies and also to prevent any enemy army subsisting as it tried to pursue him. We pursued a similar policy in South Africa c1900.
Generally, I'd regard the behaviour of the US and British armed forces in WWII as being the benchmark for what one can expect from decent soldiers.
I think reasonable efforts were made from the top, but I come from a military family and I gather that under pressure things were not as ideal as we'd wish from our armchairs. Being taken prisoner was pretty much a lottery in the west on both sides - you might get treated well, or not. In the east you were lucky even to survive on either side.
O/T - I'm going to see "Our Country's Good" on Tuesday - has anyone else seen it?
If due process has not been followed then he should face a retrial. However, his statement, recorded and in a calm, measured voice that he had "just broken the Geneva Convention" should be all the evidence needed to convict him for murder again.
As I understnad it, those who are arguing that a miscarriage of justice has occurred say that the man was already dead, or that the soldier thought he was already dead, and that the statement about "breaking the Geneva Convention" referred to the mistreatment of an enemy corpse, rather than the killing of a PoW.
The court martial clearly did not believe that or he would not have been convicted of murder. The minimum sentence period for killing someone with a firearm in England is 30 years. He got 10, reduced by the Court of Appeal to 8. To be frank I really don't see this coming down even if his conviction were reduced to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility (for which there may be a case).
It is very easy to feel sorry for him but this was a terrible crime. The moral of the story is, unfortunately, switch the bloody camera off.
Re: Workers from outside the EC. A simple solution that other countries use. It is called charging for work permits. £10,000 a year as the starting point and higher amounts for various levels. Employers will then have an incentive to hire and train more Brits where they cannot get from the EC.
I'm in favour of any solution, as long as it's a free market one. (As this is.)
The problem with market solutions is that they don't include externalities. So for example, the Firm will not have to pay for the individual in retirement. And the Firm will not factor in the benefit of the immigrant that accrues to other firms if he leaves them after gaining citizenship.
Nah: Just a heavy burden. Have you seen the size of XMP's Annuities?
That said: You do come across poorly. I tend to read/comprehend posts (hence my intervention today). Whatever the greivence - surely - it can be helped by talking to a professional (and where is Schmukie)...?
Not all people are blinkered: Only those who chose to remain so. Do not think all criticism is serious or futile.
The singer in that Spitting Image version was a boy from my own school (Trinity School, Croydon). I can't remember his name off-hand but the producers asked for someone from the renowned Trinity Boys Choir. He had to have his hair dyed blond for the purpose.
If due process has not been followed then he should face a retrial. However, his statement, recorded and in a calm, measured voice that he had "just broken the Geneva Convention" should be all the evidence needed to convict him for murder again.
As I understnad it, those who are arguing that a miscarriage of justice has occurred say that the man was already dead, or that the soldier thought he was already dead, and that the statement about "breaking the Geneva Convention" referred to the mistreatment of an enemy corpse, rather than the killing of a PoW.
The court martial clearly did not believe that or he would not have been convicted of murder. The minimum sentence period for killing someone with a firearm in England is 30 years. He got 10, reduced by the Court of Appeal to 8. To be frank I really don't see this coming down even if his conviction were reduced to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility (for which there may be a case).
It is very easy to feel sorry for him but this was a terrible crime. The moral of the story is, unfortunately, switch the bloody camera off.
How about a moral of the story being don't bloody shoot PoWs?
This isn't some johnny-come-lately new and silly rule. Not shooting PoWs has been the law since at at least 1929, before WWII.
Intriguing development: the UKIP-like Danish People's Party (which has previously opposed taking any refugees) has proposed that Denmark should offer to take quarter of a million refugees, on condition that it's understood that they are not permanently settled and will be returned to their home countries when peace breaks out. The DFP is still getting stick for xenophobia in not wanting the refugees to stay, but it's a reasonably constructive suggestion whic hreflects the marked shift in Danish polls in favour of helping refugees.
Cameron won a majority of 12, while smaller than Major's majority of 21 in 1992 and Churchill's majority of 16 in 1951, it is unlikely that Corbyn and Farron will be winning Tory seats in by-elections as Blair and Ashdown did. The DUP and UUP will also be strongly behind Cameron in any confidence vote given the alternative is Corbyn who they loathe. Cameron's majority is larger than Wilson's majority of 3 in October 1974 and 4 in 1964 as well as the 5 seat majority Attlee won in 1950.
The only way I see the majority disappearing is, as David suggests, EU ref produces a narrow IN and a further 10 or so hardline Eurosceptic Tories defect to UKIP
I strongly suspect that when by-elections do occur there will be substantial swings against the Government - probably a good deal higher than implied by national polls.
Maybe, but they will be to UKIP in Tory seats, not Corbyn's Labour or Farron's LDs, much as by-election swings in Labour seats in the IDS/Howard years went to the LDs
That depends on the type of Tory seat. In Tory/Labour marginals I would expect swings to Labour to occur.
Intriguing development: the UKIP-like Danish People's Party (which has previously opposed taking any refugees) has proposed that Denmark should offer to take quarter of a million refugees, on condition that it's understood that they are not permanently settled and will be returned to their home countries when peace breaks out. The DFP is still getting stick for xenophobia in not wanting the refugees to stay, but it's a reasonably constructive suggestion whic hreflects the marked shift in Danish polls in favour of helping refugees.
Yet more plastic Danes hey Dr Sven 'flip-flop' Palmer? Is Wodger now in charge of your PR/Pension fund?
If due process has not been followed then he should face a retrial. However, his statement, recorded and in a calm, measured voice that he had "just broken the Geneva Convention" should be all the evidence needed to convict him for murder again.
As I understnad it, those who are arguing that a miscarriage of justice has occurred say that the man was already dead, or that the soldier thought he was already dead, and that the statement about "breaking the Geneva Convention" referred to the mistreatment of an enemy corpse, rather than the killing of a PoW.
The court martial clearly did not believe that or he would not have been convicted of murder. The minimum sentence period for killing someone with a firearm in England is 30 years. He got 10, reduced by the Court of Appeal to 8. To be frank I really don't see this coming down even if his conviction were reduced to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility (for which there may be a case).
It is very easy to feel sorry for him but this was a terrible crime. The moral of the story is, unfortunately, switch the bloody camera off.
How about a moral of the story being don't bloody shoot PoWs?
This isn't some johnny-come-lately new and silly rule. Not shooting PoWs has been the law since at at least 1929, before WWII.
Without making excuses for what he did the taliban is not a regular army opposition. His commander had been blown up and his limbs hung in the trees. They take no prisoners unless you are extremely unlucky.
As I say no excuses but certainly some understanding of the pressure he was under.
Cameron won a majority of 12, while smaller than Major's majority of 21 in 1992 and Churchill's majority of 16 in 1951, it is unlikely that Corbyn and Farron will be winning Tory seats in by-elections as Blair and Ashdown did. The DUP and UUP will also be strongly behind Cameron in any confidence vote given the alternative is Corbyn who they loathe. Cameron's majority is larger than Wilson's majority of 3 in October 1974 and 4 in 1964 as well as the 5 seat majority Attlee won in 1950.
The only way I see the majority disappearing is, as David suggests, EU ref produces a narrow IN and a further 10 or so hardline Eurosceptic Tories defect to UKIP
I strongly suspect that when by-elections do occur there will be substantial swings against the Government - probably a good deal higher than implied by national polls.
Maybe, but they will be to UKIP in Tory seats, not Corbyn's Labour or Farron's LDs, much as by-election swings in Labour seats in the IDS/Howard years went to the LDs
That depends on the type of Tory seat. In Tory/Labour marginals I would expect swings to Labour to occur.
No way, there could well be swings to the Tories under Corbyn or at best little change. The big gainers will be UKIP in all seats outside the inner cities and Scotland
Unbelievable this man is leader of the Labour party.
It would be astonishing if it were true, but it isn't, so it isn't.
It looks like the Sun are sticking with it on the strength of an extract from Hansard. They are trying to force him out to deny it. Whether they have more to come, who knows.
How many people did he have to phone before appointing a Lord convicted of malicious damage sufficiently serious to earn jail time? There is scraping the barrel and turning it upside down and seeing what crawls out.
Cameron won a majority of 12, while smaller than Major's majority of 21 in 1992 and Churchill's majority of 16 in 1951, it is unlikely that Corbyn and Farron will be winning Tory seats in by-elections as Blair and Ashdown did. The DUP and UUP will also be strongly behind Cameron in any confidence vote given the alternative is Corbyn who they loathe. Cameron's majority is larger than Wilson's majority of 3 in October 1974 and 4 in 1964 as well as the 5 seat majority Attlee won in 1950.
The only way I see the majority disappearing is, as David suggests, EU ref produces a narrow IN and a further 10 or so hardline Eurosceptic Tories defect to UKIP
I strongly suspect that when by-elections do occur there will be substantial swings against the Government - probably a good deal higher than implied by national polls.
Maybe, but they will be to UKIP in Tory seats, not Corbyn's Labour or Farron's LDs, much as by-election swings in Labour seats in the IDS/Howard years went to the LDs
That depends on the type of Tory seat. In Tory/Labour marginals I would expect swings to Labour to occur.
No way, there could well be swings to the Tories under Corbyn or at best little change. The big gainers will be UKIP in all seats outside the inner cities and Scotland
I think people will look at Corbyn and if they had misgivings about Miliband, they will postiviely shit themselves about the prospect of Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn. Why would you take the risk of voting UKIP and allowing him in? No, I think Corbyn is bad news for the prospects of UKIP making any ground against the Tories.
I concede they could hurt Labour. But enough will go directly from Labour to Tory to smother any advance.
This "new politics" is great fun. Corbyn is his own man, will follow his own agenda, won't get pushed around by the Party machine or the press...
Jeremy Corbyn, the new Labour leader, has pulled out of a planned appearance at the annual Stop the War coalition conference, his final as chairman of the group.
Corbyn has been a leading member of the group for more than a decade and had been expected to deliver a speech at the meeting on Saturday.
A spokesman for Corbyn, who a week ago won a landslide victory in the Labour leadership contest, said he was unable to attend because of his busy schedule.
“His diary is now obviously very busy and today he is preparing for Labour party conference,” the spokesman said.
What a load of tendentious fraff. Do you not sometimes look in the mirror and think 'is this really the best use of my short time on this planet, copying and pasting weak propaganda?'
Actually you are wrong in every possible respect. Corbyn's politics are known, and its all pretty nasty stuff, By not attending the Stop the War rally as he has previously done for 10 yrs it tells you something more about the man . Hiding what is known, and that his behaviour is duplicitous. it needs to be exposed , in the same way McDonnell apologising for what we know to be absolutely true about him cuts no ice and likewise needs to be exposed .
These people are dangerous, and voters need warning about them. Dave and co were right to call it as it is with their early advertisements. Expect more of the same.
At the current rate of change, by Corbyn's leaders speech he will be advocating privatising the NHS, feeding welfare babies to bankers and bombingUsing Trident on Calais.
Cameron has had an unbelievably lucky time as PM, able to deflect blame to the libs, after winning a surprise majority against dreadful opposition he has been presented with the gift that is Corbyn. The EU will pose far greater problems and I think (and sincerely hope) he won't cope well. The mood of the general public is completely different to that of parliament where I'd guess 90% of MPs would vote IN. The 10% will cause real problems for Cameron, more importantly the electorate look at the news and without staging demonstrations are quietly very worried.
Cameron's best hope is to hold the referendum ASAP, OUT becomes more likely all the time. He'll know if that occurs his career and legacy are in tatters and people make mistakes under pressure.
Thanks. Cameron has been lucky although to no small effect do you make your own luck, or at least make the most of what you're handed. Many people thought that failing to obtain a majority in 2010 would bring him down within months.
But the EU is an issue that can't just be waved away. How to make the most of that when the rest of the continent isn't interested? One possibility is to come up with a solution in which they would be interested; which does address the issues of the Eurozone and migration. But the inevitable logic of that is more centralisation, not less.
All the same, with Corbyn having been dragged firmly into the In camp, that leaves a lot of ambivalent Labour and ex-Labour voters for UKIP to go at initially during the referendum campaign.
From a Conservative Party point of view, there is a good case for Cameron to resign shortly after the referendum whichever way it goes, and for the new leader to seek an immediate mandate, particularly if Corbyn still heads Labour.
But if he stood down he would be labelled a liar - and his successor would be tarnished.
Only by people who'd do that sort of thing anyway. It will be easy enough to find a reason. If he loses the referendum, he should probably resign anyway.
People didn't hold it against Wilson that he went in 1976, nor against the Conservatives in 1992 that Thatcher was replaced. It would, however, be critical to ensure that the right replacement is selected. Assuming he's not forced out by events, his successor should look continuity rather than coup.
But Wilson had not committed himself in 1974 to serving a full five year term. Neither had Thatcher in 1987.
The singer in that Spitting Image version was a boy from my own school (Trinity School, Croydon). I can't remember his name off-hand but the producers asked for someone from the renowned Trinity Boys Choir. He had to have his hair dyed blond for the purpose.
Cameron won a majority of 12, while smaller than Major's majority of 21 in 1992 and Churchill's majority of 16 in 1951, it is unlikely that Corbyn and Farron will be winning Tory seats in by-elections as Blair and Ashdown did. The DUP and UUP will also be strongly behind Cameron in any confidence vote given the alternative is Corbyn who they loathe. Cameron's majority is larger than Wilson's majority of 3 in October 1974 and 4 in 1964 as well as the 5 seat majority Attlee won in 1950.
The only way I see the majority disappearing is, as David suggests, EU ref produces a narrow IN and a further 10 or so hardline Eurosceptic Tories defect to UKIP
I strongly suspect that when by-elections do occur there will be substantial swings against the Government - probably a good deal higher than implied by national polls.
Maybe, but they will be to UKIP in Tory seats, not Corbyn's Labour or Farron's LDs, much as by-election swings in Labour seats in the IDS/Howard years went to the LDs
That depends on the type of Tory seat. In Tory/Labour marginals I would expect swings to Labour to occur.
No way, there could well be swings to the Tories under Corbyn or at best little change. The big gainers will be UKIP in all seats outside the inner cities and Scotland
I disagree. If the Labour vote increases by 3% with the Tories dropping 12% - mainly to UKIP - that would still represent a 7.5% swing from Tory to Labour. I could certainly imagine that happening.
Cameron won a majority of 12, while smaller than Major's majority of 21 in 1992 and Churchill's majority of 16 in 1951, it is unlikely that Corbyn and Farron will be winning Tory seats in by-elections as Blair and Ashdown did. The DUP and UUP will also be strongly behind Cameron in any confidence vote given the alternative is Corbyn who they loathe. Cameron's majority is larger than Wilson's majority of 3 in October 1974 and 4 in 1964 as well as the 5 seat majority Attlee won in 1950.
The only way I see the majority disappearing is, as David suggests, EU ref produces a narrow IN and a further 10 or so hardline Eurosceptic Tories defect to UKIP
I strongly suspect that when by-elections do occur there will be substantial swings against the Government - probably a good deal higher than implied by national polls.
Maybe, but they will be to UKIP in Tory seats, not Corbyn's Labour or Farron's LDs, much as by-election swings in Labour seats in the IDS/Howard years went to the LDs
That depends on the type of Tory seat. In Tory/Labour marginals I would expect swings to Labour to occur.
No way, there could well be swings to the Tories under Corbyn or at best little change. The big gainers will be UKIP in all seats outside the inner cities and Scotland
I think people will look at Corbyn and if they had misgivings about Miliband, they will postiviely shit themselves about the prospect of Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn. Why would you take the risk of voting UKIP and allowing him in? No, I think Corbyn is bad news for the prospects of UKIP making any ground against the Tories.
I concede they could hurt Labour. But enough will go directly from Labour to Tory to smother any advance.
Working class Labour voters will be unlikely to switch to the Tories, they could to UKIP given Corbyn's pro immigration views. EU ref will also boost the UKIP cause too. Tory voters in 2015 will largely stick with the Tories, at least until EU ref if Corbyn is ousted by then, it was Labour to UKIP movement I was talking about
If due process has not been followed then he should face a retrial. However, his statement, recorded and in a calm, measured voice that he had "just broken the Geneva Convention" should be all the evidence needed to convict him for murder again.
As I understnad it, those who are arguing that a miscarriage of justice has occurred say that the man was already dead, or that the soldier thought he was already dead, and that the statement about "breaking the Geneva Convention" referred to the mistreatment of an enemy corpse, rather than the killing of a PoW.
The court martial clearly did not believe that or he would not have been convicted of murder. The minimum sentence period for killing someone with a firearm in England is 30 years. He got 10, reduced by the Court of Appeal to 8. To be frank I really don't see this coming down even if his conviction were reduced to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility (for which there may be a case).
It is very easy to feel sorry for him but this was a terrible crime. The moral of the story is, unfortunately, switch the bloody camera off.
How about a moral of the story being don't bloody shoot PoWs?
This isn't some johnny-come-lately new and silly rule. Not shooting PoWs has been the law since at at least 1929, before WWII.
Without making excuses for what he did the taliban is not a regular army opposition. His commander had been blown up and his limbs hung in the trees. They take no prisoners unless you are extremely unlucky.
As I say no excuses but certainly some understanding of the pressure he was under.
Absolutely there are pressures and that could be a defence, in regular law you may have an argument for along the lines but the idea that no wrong was done or that the camera should be off as the answer is concerning.
If due process has not been followed then he should face a retrial. However, his statement, recorded and in a calm, measured voice that he had "just broken the Geneva Convention" should be all the evidence needed to convict him for murder again.
As I understnad it, those who are arguing that a miscarriage of justice has occurred say that the man was already dead, or that the soldier thought he was already dead, and that the statement about "breaking the Geneva Convention" referred to the mistreatment of an enemy corpse, rather than the killing of a PoW.
The court martial clearly did not believe that or he would not have been convicted of murder. The minimum sentence period for killing someone with a firearm in England is 30 years. He got 10, reduced by the Court of Appeal to 8. To be frank I really don't see this coming down even if his conviction were reduced to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility (for which there may be a case).
It is very easy to feel sorry for him but this was a terrible crime. The moral of the story is, unfortunately, switch the bloody camera off.
How about a moral of the story being don't bloody shoot PoWs?
This isn't some johnny-come-lately new and silly rule. Not shooting PoWs has been the law since at at least 1929, before WWII.
Without making excuses for what he did the taliban is not a regular army opposition. His commander had been blown up and his limbs hung in the trees. They take no prisoners unless you are extremely unlucky.
As I say no excuses but certainly some understanding of the pressure he was under.
Absolutely there are pressures and that could be a defence, in regular law you may have an argument for along the lines but the idea that no wrong was done or that the camera should be off as the answer is concerning.
I never said that. I said it was a terrible crime. And it was. I thank the Lord (or I would if I wasn't an atheist ) that I will never see or have to bear what he bore. The law is the easy bit of this.
Unbelievable this man is leader of the Labour party.
It would be astonishing if it were true, but it isn't, so it isn't.
It looks like the Sun are sticking with it on the strength of an extract from Hansard. They are trying to force him out to deny it. Whether they have more to come, who knows.
How many people did he have to phone before appointing a Lord convicted of malicious damage sufficiently serious to earn jail time? There is scraping the barrel and turning it upside down and seeing what crawls out.
Unbelievable this man is leader of the Labour party.
It would be astonishing if it were true, but it isn't, so it isn't.
It looks like the Sun are sticking with it on the strength of an extract from Hansard. They are trying to force him out to deny it. Whether they have more to come, who knows.
How many people did he have to phone before appointing a Lord convicted of malicious damage sufficiently serious to earn jail time? There is scraping the barrel and turning it upside down and seeing what crawls out.
I know. Justice is particularly concerning. Gove is a very clever man but has been known to go off on one.
If due process has not been followed then he should face a retrial. However, his statement, recorded and in a calm, measured voice that he had "just broken the Geneva Convention" should be all the evidence needed to convict him for murder again.
As I understnad it, those who are arguing that a miscarriage of justice has occurred say that the man was already dead, or that the soldier thought he was already dead, and that the statement about "breaking the Geneva Convention" referred to the mistreatment of an enemy corpse, rather than the killing of a PoW.
The court martial clearly did not believe that or he would not have been convicted of murder. The minimum sentence period for killing someone with a firearm in England is 30 years. He got 10, reduced by the Court of Appeal to 8. To be frank I really don't see this coming down even if his conviction were reduced to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility (for which there may be a case).
It is very easy to feel sorry for him but this was a terrible crime. The moral of the story is, unfortunately, switch the bloody camera off.
How about a moral of the story being don't bloody shoot PoWs?
This isn't some johnny-come-lately new and silly rule. Not shooting PoWs has been the law since at at least 1929, before WWII.
Without making excuses for what he did the taliban is not a regular army opposition. His commander had been blown up and his limbs hung in the trees. They take no prisoners unless you are extremely unlucky.
As I say no excuses but certainly some understanding of the pressure he was under.
Absolutely there are pressures and that could be a defence, in regular law you may have an argument for along the lines but the idea that no wrong was done or that the camera should be off as the answer is concerning.
I never said that. I said it was a terrible crime. And it was. I thank the Lord (or I would if I wasn't an atheist ) that I will never see or have to bear what he bore. The law is the easy bit of this.
Cameron has had an unbelievably lucky time as PM, able to deflect blame to the libs, after winning a surprise majority against dreadful opposition he has been presented with the gift that is Corbyn. The EU will pose far greater problems and I think (and sincerely hope) he won't cope well. The mood of the general public is completely different to that of parliament where I'd guess 90% of MPs would vote IN. The 10% will cause real problems for Cameron, more importantly the electorate look at the news and without staging demonstrations are quietly very worried.
Cameron's best hope is to hold the referendum ASAP, OUT becomes more likely all the time. He'll know if that occurs his career and legacy are in tatters and people make mistakes under pressure.
Thanks. Cameron has been lucky although to no small effect do you make your own luck, or at least make the most of what you're handed. Many people thought that failing to obtain a majority in 2010 would bring him down within months.
But the EU is an issue that can't just be waved away. How to make the most of that when the rest of the continent isn't interested? One possibility is to come up with a solution in which they would be interested; which does address the issues of the Eurozone and migration. But the inevitable logic of that is more centralisation, not less.
All the same, with Corbyn having been dragged firmly into the In camp, that leaves a lot of ambivalent Labour and ex-Labour voters for UKIP to go at initially during the referendum campaign.
From a Conservative Party point of view, there is a good case for Cameron to resign shortly after the referendum whichever way it goes, and for the new leader to seek an immediate mandate, particularly if Corbyn still heads Labour.
But if he stood down he would be labelled a liar - and his successor would be tarnished.
Only by people who'd do that sort of thing anyway. It will be easy enough to find a reason. If he loses the referendum, he should probably resign anyway.
People didn't hold it against Wilson that he went in 1976, nor against the Conservatives in 1992 that Thatcher was replaced. It would, however, be critical to ensure that the right replacement is selected. Assuming he's not forced out by events, his successor should look continuity rather than coup.
But Wilson had not committed himself in 1974 to serving a full five year term. Neither had Thatcher in 1987.
Blair did before 2005 though. No-one cared. They might have cared about Brown being a bit loopy but they'd have done that whether he became PM in 2007 or 2009.
who'd do that sort of thing anyway. It will be easy enough to find a reason. If he loses the referendum, he should probably resign anyway.
People didn't hold it against Wilson that he went in 1976, nor against the Conservatives in 1992 that Thatcher was replaced. It would, however, be critical to ensure that the right replacement is selected. Assuming he's not forced out by events, his successor should look continuity rather than coup.
But Wilson had not committed himself in 1974 to serving a full five year term. Neither had Thatcher in 1987.
Who's going to care? Cameron will have gone so can't be judged. Reasonable people care as much about the future and economics or health or whichever policy issue than whether or not an ex PM served five years.
Incidentally I'm pretty sure Blair made the same pledge but was gone after two. At which point people were judging Brown more than Blair.
Cameron won a majority of 12, while smaller than Major's majority of 21 in 1992 and Churchill's majority of 16 in 1951, it is unlikely that Corbyn and Farron will be winning Tory seats in by-elections as Blair and Ashdown did. The DUP and UUP will also be strongly behind Cameron in any confidence vote given the alternative is Corbyn who they loathe. Cameron's majority is larger than Wilson's majority of 3 in October 1974 and 4 in 1964 as well as the 5 seat majority Attlee won in 1950.
The only way I see the majority disappearing is, as David suggests, EU ref produces a narrow IN and a further 10 or so hardline Eurosceptic Tories defect to UKIP
I strongly suspect that when by-elections do occur there will be substantial swings against the Government - probably a good deal higher than implied by national polls.
Maybe, but they will be to UKIP in Tory seats, not Corbyn's Labour or Farron's LDs, much as by-election swings in Labour seats in the IDS/Howard years went to the LDs
That depends on the type of Tory seat. In Tory/Labour marginals I would expect swings to Labour to occur.
No way, there could well be swings to the Tories under Corbyn or at best little change. The big gainers will be UKIP in all seats outside the inner cities and Scotland
I disagree. If the Labour vote increases by 3% with the Tories dropping 12% - mainly to UKIP - that would still represent a 7.5% swing from Tory to Labour. I could certainly imagine that happening.
Under Corbyn Labour would be lucky to match the 30% Miliband got let alone see an increase. There will certainly be no movement from the Tories to UKIP until EU ref and even then it would probably be about 5% at most, leaving the Tories still ahead of Labour
Cameron won a majority of 12, while smaller than Major's majority of 21 in 1992 and Churchill's majority of 16 in 1951, it is unlikely that Corbyn and Farron will be winning Tory seats in by-elections as Blair and Ashdown did. The DUP and UUP will also be strongly behind Cameron in any confidence vote given the alternative is Corbyn who they loathe. Cameron's majority is larger than Wilson's majority of 3 in October 1974 and 4 in 1964 as well as the 5 seat majority Attlee won in 1950.
The only way I see the majority disappearing is, as David suggests, EU ref produces a narrow IN and a further 10 or so hardline Eurosceptic Tories defect to UKIP
I strongly suspect that when by-elections do occur there will be substantial swings against the Government - probably a good deal higher than implied by national polls.
Maybe, but they will be to UKIP in Tory seats, not Corbyn's Labour or Farron's LDs, much as by-election swings in Labour seats in the IDS/Howard years went to the LDs
That depends on the type of Tory seat. In Tory/Labour marginals I would expect swings to Labour to occur.
No way, there could well be swings to the Tories under Corbyn or at best little change. The big gainers will be UKIP in all seats outside the inner cities and Scotland
I think people will look at Corbyn and if they had misgivings about Miliband, they will postiviely shit themselves about the prospect of Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn. Why would you take the risk of voting UKIP and allowing him in? No, I think Corbyn is bad news for the prospects of UKIP making any ground against the Tories.
I concede they could hurt Labour. But enough will go directly from Labour to Tory to smother any advance.
Working class Labour voters will be unlikely to switch to the Tories, they could to UKIP given Corbyn's pro immigration views. EU ref will also boost the UKIP cause too. Tory voters in 2015 will largely stick with the Tories, at least until EU ref if Corbyn is ousted by then, it was Labour to UKIP movement I was talking about
In 5 years time, it is possible - no more than that - that those who have gone from Minimum Wage to Living Wage will have seen a material rise in disposable income - and might be prepared to believe that the Tories are now the party to look out for the working poor...
Are there any markets to bet on seats at the next election? Under Corbyn Labour will be lucky to get 170 IMO. I'd be curious what the market line would be.
I suppose it's difficult to have a market on that thought until after the boundaries change due to the seat reductions.
Cameron won a majority of 12, while smaller than Major's majority of 21 in 1992 and Churchill's majority of 16 in 1951, it is unlikely that Corbyn and Farron will be winning Tory seats in by-elections as Blair and Ashdown did. The DUP and UUP will also be strongly behind Cameron in any confidence vote given the alternative is Corbyn who they loathe. Cameron's majority is larger than Wilson's majority of 3 in October 1974 and 4 in 1964 as well as the 5 seat majority Attlee won in 1950.
The only way I see the majority disappearing is, as David suggests, EU ref produces a narrow IN and a further 10 or so hardline Eurosceptic Tories defect to UKIP
I strongly suspect that when by-elections do occur there will be substantial swings against the Government - probably a good deal higher than implied by national polls.
Maybe, but they will be to UKIP in Tory seats, not Corbyn's Labour or Farron's LDs, much as by-election swings in Labour seats in the IDS/Howard years went to the LDs
That depends on the type of Tory seat. In Tory/Labour marginals I would expect swings to Labour to occur.
No way, there could well be swings to the Tories under Corbyn or at best little change. The big gainers will be UKIP in all seats outside the inner cities and Scotland
I think people will look at Corbyn and if they had misgivings about Miliband, they will postiviely shit themselves about the prospect of Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn. Why would you take the risk of voting UKIP and allowing him in? No, I think Corbyn is bad news for the prospects of UKIP making any ground against the Tories.
I concede they could hurt Labour. But enough will go directly from Labour to Tory to smother any advance.
In a by-election, the question of who is going to be PM is not all that relevant so it's likely that by mid-term there'll be Con-Lab swings in them. Some might be technical swings, resulting from both parties losing votes to UKIP, say, but a technical swing can still deliver a marginal.
Intriguing development: the UKIP-like Danish People's Party (which has previously opposed taking any refugees) has proposed that Denmark should offer to take quarter of a million refugees, on condition that it's understood that they are not permanently settled and will be returned to their home countries when peace breaks out. The DFP is still getting stick for xenophobia in not wanting the refugees to stay, but it's a reasonably constructive suggestion whic hreflects the marked shift in Danish polls in favour of helping refugees.
Not on the condition that it's "understood" but that it's "guaranteed". They know full well that guarantee can not be made.
Cameron won a majority of 12, while smaller than Major's majority of 21 in 1992 and Churchill's majority of 16 in 1951, it is unlikely that Corbyn and Farron will be winning Tory seats in by-elections as Blair and Ashdown did. The DUP and UUP will also be strongly behind Cameron in any confidence vote given the alternative is Corbyn who they loathe. Cameron's majority is larger than Wilson's majority of 3 in October 1974 and 4 in 1964 as well as the 5 seat majority Attlee won in 1950.
The only way I see the majority disappearing is, as David suggests, EU ref produces a narrow IN and a further 10 or so hardline Eurosceptic Tories defect to UKIP
I strongly suspect that when by-elections do occur there will be substantial swings against the Government - probably a good deal higher than implied by national polls.
Maybe, but they will be to UKIP in Tory seats, not Corbyn's Labour or Farron's LDs, much as by-election swings in Labour seats in the IDS/Howard years went to the LDs
That depends on the type of Tory seat. In Tory/Labour marginals I would expect swings to Labour to occur.
No way, there could well be swings to the Tories under Corbyn or at best little change. The big gainers will be UKIP in all seats outside the inner cities and Scotland
I disagree. If the Labour vote increases by 3% with the Tories dropping 12% - mainly to UKIP - that would still represent a 7.5% swing from Tory to Labour. I could certainly imagine that happening.
There's not a shred of evidence from local by-elections of any swing from Con to UKIP. I see little likelihood of any swing from Con to Lab in a by-election when the key feature will be Corbyn/Mc Donnell as potential PM/CoE if Cameron falls.
Cameron won a majority of 12, while smaller than Major's majority of 21 in 1992 and Churchill's majority of 16 in 1951, it is unlikely that Corbyn and Farron will be winning Tory seats in by-elections as Blair and Ashdown did. The DUP and UUP will also be strongly behind Cameron in any confidence vote given the alternative is Corbyn who they loathe. Cameron's majority is larger than Wilson's majority of 3 in October 1974 and 4 in 1964 as well as the 5 seat majority Attlee won in 1950.
The only way I see the majority disappearing is, as David suggests, EU ref produces a narrow IN and a further 10 or so hardline Eurosceptic Tories defect to UKIP
I strongly suspect that when by-elections do occur there will be substantial swings against the Government - probably a good deal higher than implied by national polls.
Maybe, but they will be to UKIP in Tory seats, not Corbyn's Labour or Farron's LDs, much as by-election swings in Labour seats in the IDS/Howard years went to the LDs
That depends on the type of Tory seat. In Tory/Labour marginals I would expect swings to Labour to occur.
No way, there could well be swings to the Tories under Corbyn or at best little change. The big gainers will be UKIP in all seats outside the inner cities and Scotland
I think people will look at Corbyn and if they had misgivings about Miliband, they will postiviely shit themselves about the prospect of Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn. Why would you take the risk of voting UKIP and allowing him in? No, I think Corbyn is bad news for the prospects of UKIP making any ground against the Tories.
I concede they could hurt Labour. But enough will go directly from Labour to Tory to smother any advance.
In a by-election, the question of who is going to be PM is not all that relevant so it's likely that by mid-term there'll be Con-Lab swings in them. Some might be technical swings, resulting from both parties losing votes to UKIP, say, but a technical swing can still deliver a marginal.
It'll be different come the general election.
Err - with a small majority the cons can paint any by-election they are defending as potentially handing power to Corbyn.
The alternative explanation is that Corbyn is following the correct line of the (hardline orthodox Stalinist) Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist), which is against Scottish independence, rather than that of the (wishy-washy eclectic post-Hoxhaist quasi-Stalinist) Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist) which supports Scottish independence.
Cameron won a majority of 12, while smaller than Major's majority of 21 in 1992 and Churchill's majority of 16 in 1951, it is unlikely that Corbyn and Farron will be winning Tory seats in by-elections as Blair and Ashdown did. The DUP and UUP will also be strongly behind Cameron in any confidence vote given the alternative is Corbyn who they loathe. Cameron's majority is larger than Wilson's majority of 3 in October 1974 and 4 in 1964 as well as the 5 seat majority Attlee won in 1950.
The only way I see the majority disappearing is, as David suggests, EU ref produces a narrow IN and a further 10 or so hardline Eurosceptic Tories defect to UKIP
I strongly suspect that when by-elections do occur there will be substantial swings against the Government - probably a good deal higher than implied by national polls.
Maybe, but they will be to UKIP in Tory seats, not Corbyn's Labour or Farron's LDs, much as by-election swings in Labour seats in the IDS/Howard years went to the LDs
That depends on the type of Tory seat. In Tory/Labour marginals I would expect swings to Labour to occur.
No way, there could well be swings to the Tories under Corbyn or at best little change. The big gainers will be UKIP in all seats outside the inner cities and Scotland
I think people will look at Corbyn and if they had misgivings about Miliband, they will postiviely shit themselves about the prospect of Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn. Why would you take the risk of voting UKIP and allowing him in? No, I think Corbyn is bad news for the prospects of UKIP making any ground against the Tories.
I concede they could hurt Labour. But enough will go directly from Labour to Tory to smother any advance.
In a by-election, the question of who is going to be PM is not all that relevant so it's likely that by mid-term there'll be Con-Lab swings in them. Some might be technical swings, resulting from both parties losing votes to UKIP, say, but a technical swing can still deliver a marginal.
Cameron won a majority of 12, while smaller than Major's majority of 21 in 1992 and Churchill's majority of 16 in 1951, it is unlikely that Corbyn and Farron will be winning Tory seats in by-elections as Blair and Ashdown did. The DUP and UUP will also be strongly behind Cameron in any confidence vote given the alternative is Corbyn who they loathe. Cameron's majority is larger than Wilson's majority of 3 in October 1974 and 4 in 1964 as well as the 5 seat majority Attlee won in 1950.
The only way I see the majority disappearing is, as David suggests, EU ref produces a narrow IN and a further 10 or so hardline Eurosceptic Tories defect to UKIP
I strongly suspect that when by-elections do occur there will be substantial swings against the Government - probably a good deal higher than implied by national polls.
Maybe, but they will be to UKIP in Tory seats, not Corbyn's Labour or Farron's LDs, much as by-election swings in Labour seats in the IDS/Howard years went to the LDs
That depends on the type of Tory seat. In Tory/Labour marginals I would expect swings to Labour to occur.
No way, there could well be swings to the Tories under Corbyn or at best little change. The big gainers will be UKIP in all seats outside the inner cities and Scotland
I disagree. If the Labour vote increases by 3% with the Tories dropping 12% - mainly to UKIP - that would still represent a 7.5% swing from Tory to Labour. I could certainly imagine that happening.
Under Corbyn Labour would be lucky to match the 30% Miliband got let alone see an increase. There will certainly be no movement from the Tories to UKIP until EU ref and even then it would probably be about 5% at most, leaving the Tories still ahead of Labour
By-elections often develop a momentum of their own usually to the disadvantage of the incumbent government. Many of the assumptions re- Corbyn will become redundant if the economy goes 'tits up' so trashing Osborne's reputation. A good chance of that by 2018.
It's an epic fall from grace. I still can't get my head around the SNP having their slot at PMQs.
I can't recall the last time I saw or heard from one of them on the TV. Just gone. Not a single mention of their conference either. I've just done a YouGov that asked me to rate a few of them which reminded me that they still exist.
Anyone remember the Lib Dems? They start their Conference today. Presumably TSE we will have a few threads dedicated to analysing/remembering them?
Alistair Carmichael has been regularly featured on the news since GE2015.
The Lib Dems need a defection.
Seriously, scrap other funding and just love-bomb Labour centrists.
It's a prisoners game.
If a significant number defected - at least 80 - then overall those 80 and the Liberals would be in the best position for the next election. But the chances of this are effectively zero.
So for any potential defector they would have to meet a pretty unlikely series of qualifiers. Not only being a centrist but being in a seat where the Liberal vote did not collapse and being inclined to accept the tag of a defector. They'd also have to accept the risk that what *might* be a job for life as a Labour MP, could become a job for a couple of years with no safety net - the Liberals just don't have enough paid employees any more and they don't even have the additional safety net option of MEPs which at least UKIP can offer.
There just isn't enough of an attraction for any Labour MPs to defect to the Liberals.
That is a very good analysis. I wonder if that is the reasoning that the SDP was started rather than just join the Liberals en masse? You can only succeed by replacing the Labour Party completely.
If due process has not been followed then he should face a retrial. However, his statement, recorded and in a calm, measured voice that he had "just broken the Geneva Convention" should be all the evidence needed to convict him for murder again.
As I understnad it, those who are arguing that a miscarriage of justice has occurred say that the man was already dead, or that the soldier thought he was already dead, and that the statement about "breaking the Geneva Convention" referred to the mistreatment of an enemy corpse, rather than the killing of a PoW.
The court martial clearly did not believe that or he would not have been convicted of murder. The minimum sentence period for killing someone with a firearm in England is 30 years. He got 10, reduced by the Court of Appeal to 8. To be frank I really don't see this coming down even if his conviction were reduced to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility (for which there may be a case).
It is very easy to feel sorry for him but this was a terrible crime. The moral of the story is, unfortunately, switch the bloody camera off.
How about a moral of the story being don't bloody shoot PoWs?
This isn't some johnny-come-lately new and silly rule. Not shooting PoWs has been the law since at at least 1929, before WWII.
And capital punishment was abolished in the 1960s yet the British government now imposes the death penalty on British citizens in Syria and without a trial.
These are very tangled morality webs but one thing I'm sure of is that the poor blokes on the front line will be held to a more severe level of judgement than those making decisions from the safety of Whitehall.
Cameron won a majority of 12, while smaller than Major's majority of 21 in 1992 and Churchill's majority of 16 in 1951, it is unlikely that Corbyn and Farron will be winning Tory seats in by-elections as Blair and Ashdown did. The DUP and UUP will also be strongly behind Cameron in any confidence vote given the alternative is Corbyn who they loathe. Cameron's majority is larger than Wilson's majority of 3 in October 1974 and 4 in 1964 as well as the 5 seat majority Attlee won in 1950.
The only way I see the majority disappearing is, as David suggests, EU ref produces a narrow IN and a further 10 or so hardline Eurosceptic Tories defect to UKIP
I strongly suspect that when by-elections do occur there will be substantial swings against the Government - probably a good deal higher than implied by national polls.
Maybe, but they will be to UKIP in Tory seats, not Corbyn's Labour or Farron's LDs, much as by-election swings in Labour seats in the IDS/Howard years went to the LDs
That depends on the type of Tory seat. In Tory/Labour marginals I would expect swings to Labour to occur.
No way, there could well be swings to the Tories under Corbyn or at best little change. The big gainers will be UKIP in all seats outside the inner cities and Scotland
I think people will look at Corbyn and if they had misgivings about Miliband, they will postiviely shit themselves about the prospect of Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn. Why would you take the risk of voting UKIP and allowing him in? No, I think Corbyn is bad news for the prospects of UKIP making any ground against the Tories.
I concede they could hurt Labour. But enough will go directly from Labour to Tory to smother any advance.
Working class Labour voters will be unlikely to switch to the Tories, they could to UKIP given Corbyn's pro immigration views. EU ref will also boost the UKIP cause too. Tory voters in 2015 will largely stick with the Tories, at least until EU ref if Corbyn is ousted by then, it was Labour to UKIP movement I was talking about
In 5 years time, it is possible - no more than that - that those who have gone from Minimum Wage to Living Wage will have seen a material rise in disposable income - and might be prepared to believe that the Tories are now the party to look out for the working poor...
Working class Labour voters will switch between Labour and UKIP, culturally they are unlikely ever to vote Tory
Sadly BBC Parliament seems not to have much coverage of the LD conference, but we can at least hope for some decent coverage on Sunday Politics of this epic event:
Cameron won a majority of 12, while smaller than Major's majority of 21 in 1992 and Churchill's majority of 16 in 1951, it is unlikely that Corbyn and Farron will be winning Tory seats in by-elections as Blair and Ashdown did. The DUP and UUP will also be strongly behind Cameron in any confidence vote given the alternative is Corbyn who they loathe. Cameron's majority is larger than Wilson's majority of 3 in October 1974 and 4 in 1964 as well as the 5 seat majority Attlee won in 1950.
The only way I see the majority disappearing is, as David suggests, EU ref produces a narrow IN and a further 10 or so hardline Eurosceptic Tories defect to UKIP
I strongly suspect that when by-elections do occur there will be substantial swings against the Government - probably a good deal higher than implied by national polls.
Maybe, but they will be to UKIP in Tory seats, not Corbyn's Labour or Farron's LDs, much as by-election swings in Labour seats in the IDS/Howard years went to the LDs
That depends on the type of Tory seat. In Tory/Labour marginals I would expect swings to Labour to occur.
No way, there could well be swings to the Tories under Corbyn or at best little change. The big gainers will be UKIP in all seats outside the inner cities and Scotland
I disagree. If the Labour vote increases by 3% with the Tories dropping 12% - mainly to UKIP - that would still represent a 7.5% swing from Tory to Labour. I could certainly imagine that happening.
Under Corbyn Labour would be lucky to match the 30% Miliband got let alone see an increase. There will certainly be no movement from the Tories to UKIP until EU ref and even then it would probably be about 5% at most, leaving the Tories still ahead of Labour
By-elections often develop a momentum of their own usually to the disadvantage of the incumbent government. Many of the assumptions re- Corbyn will become redundant if the economy goes 'tits up' so trashing Osborne's reputation. A good chance of that by 2018.
The economy is growing, after the recession Labour left
Cameron won a majority of 12, while smaller than Major's majority of 21 in 1992 and Churchill's majority of 16 in 1951, it is unlikely that Corbyn and Farron will be winning Tory seats in by-elections as Blair and Ashdown did. The DUP and UUP will also be strongly behind Cameron in any confidence vote given the alternative is Corbyn who they loathe. Cameron's majority is larger than Wilson's majority of 3 in October 1974 and 4 in 1964 as well as the 5 seat majority Attlee won in 1950.
The only way I see the majority disappearing is, as David suggests, EU ref produces a narrow IN and a further 10 or so hardline Eurosceptic Tories defect to UKIP
I strongly suspect that when by-elections do occur there will be substantial swings against the Government - probably a good deal higher than implied by national polls.
Maybe, but they will be to UKIP in Tory seats, not Corbyn's Labour or Farron's LDs, much as by-election swings in Labour seats in the IDS/Howard years went to the LDs
That depends on the type of Tory seat. In Tory/Labour marginals I would expect swings to Labour to occur.
No way, there could well be swings to the Tories under Corbyn or at best little change. The big gainers will be UKIP in all seats outside the inner cities and Scotland
I disagree. If the Labour vote increases by 3% with the Tories dropping 12% - mainly to UKIP - that would still represent a 7.5% swing from Tory to Labour. I could certainly imagine that happening.
Under Corbyn Labour would be lucky to match the 30% Miliband got let alone see an increase. There will certainly be no movement from the Tories to UKIP until EU ref and even then it would probably be about 5% at most, leaving the Tories still ahead of Labour
By-elections often develop a momentum of their own usually to the disadvantage of the incumbent government. Many of the assumptions re- Corbyn will become redundant if the economy goes 'tits up' so trashing Osborne's reputation. A good chance of that by 2018.
The economy is growing, after the recession Labour left
The economy was growing when Labour left office - it now appears to be slowing.
In 5 years time, it is possible - no more than that - that those who have gone from Minimum Wage to Living Wage will have seen a material rise in disposable income - and might be prepared to believe that the Tories are now the party to look out for the working poor...
It depends on whether the WC do find that the 'living wage' is indeed a 'living wage' and have that disposable income. In any case, the trouble for the Conservatives in Labour's Northern heartlands has always been a brand issue; one created in the 1980s, that has since refused to budge.
Under Corbyn Labour would be lucky to match the 30% Miliband got let alone see an increase. There will certainly be no movement from the Tories to UKIP until EU ref and even then it would probably be about 5% at most, leaving the Tories still ahead of Labour
By-elections often develop a momentum of their own usually to the disadvantage of the incumbent government. Many of the assumptions re- Corbyn will become redundant if the economy goes 'tits up' so trashing Osborne's reputation. A good chance of that by 2018.
The economy is growing, after the recession Labour left
The economy was growing when Labour left office - it now appears to be slowing.
'The economy was growing when labour left office'???????
You mean after the man that clamed he had abolished 'boom and bust' delivered the closest thing to a depression since the 1930s! That the UK was particularly venerable because the amount of debt that he had built up even in the good years! He had managed to create the impression that things where not getting much worse by throwing more borrowed money at things like the car scrapage scheme!!!
'it now appears to be slowing'??????
40,000 new jobs where crated in the last quarter, that is very healthy, not as much as in the last few years, but that is because as the pool of unemployed people empties, there are less scope to crate more jobs. instead the principle indicator is now pay, which is growing at 2.9% again very healthily.
After the damage inflicted by Mr Browns, 'no boom and bust' neo-depression, pay and living standards are now returning to where they should be.
Comments
Betting PostPut this up now because the odds shifted rapidly and don't want to delay.
Hamilton, pole, 3.55, hedge at 1.1. Vettel, pole, 2.56, hedged 1.1.
So he will be attending as chairman of the Stop The War group?
Is that your complaint?
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-2001-2005
Seriously, scrap other funding and just love-bomb Labour centrists.
However its not just proportionately that Labour has more old MPs but in absolute terms too.
Labour has 66/232 (28.4%) over 60 while the Tories have 48/330 (14.5%) over 60.
That's a considerable difference.
One of the problems the American army has is that it has rarely needed to fight limited wars, nor do long term peacekeeping, such as Britain did within the empire. That's left a legacy of a tolerance and perhaps enthusiasm for a higher level of violence. I'm also wary of armies that are out on a moral crusade, as it implies the enemy are evil and worth less.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/singapore-pre-qualifying.html
Two party politics has resumed in England with 1 party in Scotland. The Lib Dems are history.
Actually you are wrong in every possible respect.
Corbyn's politics are known, and its all pretty nasty stuff, By not attending the Stop the War rally as he has previously done for 10 yrs it tells you something more about the man . Hiding what is known, and that his behaviour is duplicitous. it needs to be exposed , in the same way McDonnell apologising for what we know to be absolutely true about him cuts no ice and likewise needs to be exposed .
These people are dangerous, and voters need warning about them. Dave and co were right to call it as it is with their early advertisements. Expect more of the same.
If I were a Corbynista, I'd be wondering WTF was going on. He's folded on almost everything he campaigned on. Actually you are wrong in every possible respect.
Corbyn's politics are known, and its all pretty nasty stuff, By not attending the Stop the War rally as he has previously done for 10 yrs it tells you something more about the man . Hiding what is known, and that his behaviour is duplicitous. it needs to be exposed , in the same way McDonnell apologising for what we know to be absolutely true about him cuts no ice and likewise needs to be exposed .
These people are dangerous, and voters need warning about them. Dave and co were right to call it as it is with their early advertisements. Expect more of the same.
:avoid-leicester-nhs:
If a significant number defected - at least 80 - then overall those 80 and the Liberals would be in the best position for the next election. But the chances of this are effectively zero.
So for any potential defector they would have to meet a pretty unlikely series of qualifiers. Not only being a centrist but being in a seat where the Liberal vote did not collapse and being inclined to accept the tag of a defector. They'd also have to accept the risk that what *might* be a job for life as a Labour MP, could become a job for a couple of years with no safety net - the Liberals just don't have enough paid employees any more and they don't even have the additional safety net option of MEPs which at least UKIP can offer.
There just isn't enough of an attraction for any Labour MPs to defect to the Liberals.
At the current rate of change, by Corbyn's leaders speech he will be advocating privatising the NHS, feeding welfare babies to bankers and bombing Calais.
If not then the coppers should get their money in advance. The Liberals still owe Police Scotland £800,000.
Has he? He still opposes airstrikes on ISIS, still wants to raise income tax on the rich, still wants to oppose welfare cuts and austerity and is still sceptical about the EU even if he will not oppose it outright. Even IDS moderated his positions a little as leader, focusing on social justice etc, it made little difference as the first impression had already been made
In any case a Corbyn spokesman has said “His diary is now obviously very busy and today he is preparing for Labour party conference,” the spokesman said. “He has made a clear commitment that he will find time to attend an event with Stop the War later in the future. He is still very much committed.”
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/19/jeremy-corbyn-pulls-out-stop-the-war-coalition-conference
Involuntary-manslaughter and dishonarble-dismal would have been sufficient. Your 'attacks' based upon bigotry make you the joke that we know....
In any case a Corbyn spokesman has said “His diary is now obviously very busy and today he is preparing for Labour party conference,” the spokesman said. “He has made a clear commitment that he will find time to attend an event with Stop the War later in the future. He is still very much committed.”
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/19/jeremy-corbyn-pulls-out-stop-the-war-coalition-conference
OK HYUFD..
You are on notice to tell when he attends the next STW rally.
Apparently his PR person didn't have her contract renewed last Sunday, so no one had the expertise to field calls about the House of Horrors in his wardrobe.
Then Labour HQ staffers discovered that Corbyn's friends/allies were handed jobs they wanted to apply for [and they know zip about how PLP works], then Rosie Winterton outmaneuvered Corbyn by getting her moderate favourites into key ministerial roles [inc Heidi Alexander].
One insider said moderates had effectively *kettled* Corbyn to knobble him. And Team Corbyn have a serious paranoia problem - frankly it sounds well founded. They are out to get him.
It sounds chaotic and most amusing. At the current rate of change, by Corbyn's leaders speech he will be advocating privatising the NHS, feeding welfare babies to bankers and bombing Calais.
You are on notice to tell when he attends the next STW rally.
Will keep an eye out, his spokesman has said he will
That said, there's a good deal of solid competence there. It's hard to spot the charismatic ones as the landscape has been dominated by Blair and Brown for too long, but people like Creasy and Jarvis are becoming evident and I'd expect them to gain in prominence.
On the FTT it would actually be better for us to be outside and, with the US, go via the WTO route than try and fight it within the EU, they will just impose it via QMV.
I did think it mighty odd that Tony Blair's former flat-mate got a role in a Corbyn Cabinet. Things that make you go "Hmmmmmmmm..." I suppose it was quite easy to tell Jeremy that "we have called around - and only x is prepared to do the job..."
O/T - I'm going to see "Our Country's Good" on Tuesday - has anyone else seen it?
It is very easy to feel sorry for him but this was a terrible crime. The moral of the story is, unfortunately, switch the bloody camera off.
That said: You do come across poorly. I tend to read/comprehend posts (hence my intervention today). Whatever the greivence - surely - it can be helped by talking to a professional (and where is Schmukie)...?
Not all people are blinkered: Only those who chose to remain so. Do not think all criticism is serious or futile.
This isn't some johnny-come-lately new and silly rule. Not shooting PoWs has been the law since at at least 1929, before WWII.
Jeremy Corbyn has lost the support of 37 per cent of Labour party voters, new poll reveals after his shaky first week as leader"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11876480/One-in-five-Labour-voters-more-likely-to-defect-to-Tories-after-Corbyn-victory-poll-finds.html
As I say no excuses but certainly some understanding of the pressure he was under.
I concede they could hurt Labour. But enough will go directly from Labour to Tory to smother any advance.
Minor clarification....hope you don't mind....
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-harper-debate-1.3233785
https://twitter.com/agilinsky/status/632960791629721600
And great win for the Georgians!* Historically do they not replace the Scots (within Engerlisch pecking order)...?
* Sorry Tonga: This is RFU!
Incidentally I'm pretty sure Blair made the same pledge but was gone after two. At which point people were judging Brown more than Blair.
I suppose it's difficult to have a market on that thought until after the boundaries change due to the seat reductions.
It'll be different come the general election.
The Brent East by-election in September 2003 saw Labour down 29%, the Tories down 2% and the LDs up 28% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_East_by-election,_2003
Replace the LDs with UKIP and I expect a similar pattern in forthcoming by-elections
These are very tangled morality webs but one thing I'm sure of is that the poor blokes on the front line will be held to a more severe level of judgement than those making decisions from the safety of Whitehall.
new thread
Under Corbyn Labour would be lucky to match the 30% Miliband got let alone see an increase. There will certainly be no movement from the Tories to UKIP until EU ref and even then it would probably be about 5% at most, leaving the Tories still ahead of Labour
By-elections often develop a momentum of their own usually to the disadvantage of the incumbent government. Many of the assumptions re- Corbyn will become redundant if the economy goes 'tits up' so trashing Osborne's reputation. A good chance of that by 2018.
The economy is growing, after the recession Labour left
The economy was growing when Labour left office - it now appears to be slowing.
'The economy was growing when labour left office'???????
You mean after the man that clamed he had abolished 'boom and bust' delivered the closest thing to a depression since the 1930s! That the UK was particularly venerable because the amount of debt that he had built up even in the good years! He had managed to create the impression that things where not getting much worse by throwing more borrowed money at things like the car scrapage scheme!!!
'it now appears to be slowing'??????
40,000 new jobs where crated in the last quarter, that is very healthy, not as much as in the last few years, but that is because as the pool of unemployed people empties, there are less scope to crate more jobs. instead the principle indicator is now pay, which is growing at 2.9% again very healthily.
After the damage inflicted by Mr Browns, 'no boom and bust' neo-depression, pay and living standards are now returning to where they should be.