Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As the national polls show LAB’s plight getting worse party

13

Comments

  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    Jonathan said:

    Mr. Jonathan, we've got a deficit that needs to end, and less than a year since an election the unelected peers (for the first time, I believe) voted down a financial measure because Farron wants to act like an obnoxious oaf to try and provoke Lords reform.

    Suppose Corbyn resigns today, Stella Creasy becomes leader, and she wins the next election.

    And the Conservative peers vote down her finance measures. Will you nod and remark on what a jolly good thing it is?

    Conventions are there for a reason (such as the idea top police and military personnel should not enter into the political sphere). Labour were quick to shriek when the general recently, and wrongly, made a political foray.

    Mr. Root, the last 30s or so of that should've been on the news.

    Get over it. It was bad policy.
    No. It is sensible policy. Tax credits limiting people to 16 hours of Labour (in my world I call that Monday) is disgusting policy.

    We need to get away from this idea that people can only gain from government policy.

  • Mr. Jonathan, whether it's good or bad is irrelevant. The role of a revising chamber is not to give thumbs up or down to finance measures like a Roman emperor determining a gladiator's fate.
  • Jonathan said:

    Mr. Jonathan, we've got a deficit that needs to end, and less than a year since an election the unelected peers (for the first time, I believe) voted down a financial measure because Farron wants to act like an obnoxious oaf to try and provoke Lords reform.

    Suppose Corbyn resigns today, Stella Creasy becomes leader, and she wins the next election.

    And the Conservative peers vote down her finance measures. Will you nod and remark on what a jolly good thing it is?

    Conventions are there for a reason (such as the idea top police and military personnel should not enter into the political sphere). Labour were quick to shriek when the general recently, and wrongly, made a political foray.

    Mr. Root, the last 30s or so of that should've been on the news.

    Get over it. It was bad policy.
    It was very sensible policy. It was bad tactics, I'll give you that. Hopefully Osborne will reintroduce the measure in the next Finance Bill, though I'm not holding my breath.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Ed Conway has a very interesting piece on the spending review and the implications of ring-fencing and targets for Osborne. Not a lot of wiggle room esp in light of the Lords farting about with welfare changes. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4621722.ece
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    Critics here underestimate the extent to which members like being led by a socialist idealist. We've had 20 years of dogged loyalty to leaders who focused primarily on getting elected and made whatever compromises they felt necessary (Tony positively liked some of the compromises and is therefore a bit different, but the effect was similar). Being led by someone who expresses the sort of things that made us want to join is refreshing.

    The absence of an alternative who has a clear path to victory over the Tories makes the choice easy. If such an alternative appeared, people would consider it, but at present the choice is someone who speaks for us and...not very much. Certainly I am not minded ever to vote for one of the people who are indulging in whinging and sniping without a coherent idea of their own, and I suspect others feel the same.

    FWIW my current Broxtowe blog has so far had a 100% positive response, including from non-Labour people, though I assume that people who are actively hostile have drifted off (http://www.nickpalmer.org.uk/should-we-join-the-war-in-syria/ ).
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    edited November 2015
    Miss Plato, find it hard to take Conway seriously after he spent a Budget day interview with the Chancellor repeatedly asking if he'd ever gone second class by train.

    Shame there aren't more journalists like Andrew Neil and Tim Marshall (damned shame he left Sky).

    Edited extra bit: Mr. Palmer, and who decided on dogged loyalty? Nobody made Labour be mindlessly loyal. It was a choice members made themselves.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    Although most Labour Party members may remain supportive of Corbyn (because of his personality and some of his policies?), I don't believe most Labour Party members would be supportive of the hard left taking over the party. That is quite different. I think the hard left would meet heavy resistance and they don't have long.

  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited November 2015

    Good morning, everyone.

    Forgot those numbers, it's the PLP and their competence/cowardice that matters.

    Speaking of Corbyn, was nice to see some footage of politicians speaking in the Commons at ten last night, except that Cameron's reply to Corbyn should've been shown. The Leader of the Opposition was lauding the idea of abolishing the armed forces in August, and the Shadow Chancellor wanted to disband MI5 and disarm the police. In the context of Defence and anti-terrorism, these things are rather pertinent.

    and in case you missed it.. [snip]
    Morning all.

    The video of a shabby and dejected Jeremy Corbyn at yesterday DR, abandoned by his front bench to face the PM alone was a rather sad affair imho – he’s spent the past 30 years surrounding himself with likeminded activists, loonies and acolytes and I suspect is somewhat shocked to find there’s a differing opinion out in the real world and rather traumatised when confronted by it every day in his own party and the HoC.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Jonathan said:

    Mr. Jonathan, we've got a deficit that needs to end, and less than a year since an election the unelected peers (for the first time, I believe) voted down a financial measure because Farron wants to act like an obnoxious oaf to try and provoke Lords reform.

    Suppose Corbyn resigns today, Stella Creasy becomes leader, and she wins the next election.

    And the Conservative peers vote down her finance measures. Will you nod and remark on what a jolly good thing it is?

    Conventions are there for a reason (such as the idea top police and military personnel should not enter into the political sphere). Labour were quick to shriek when the general recently, and wrongly, made a political foray.

    Mr. Root, the last 30s or so of that should've been on the news.

    Get over it. It was bad policy.
    It was very sensible policy. It was bad tactics, I'll give you that. Hopefully Osborne will reintroduce the measure in the next Finance Bill, though I'm not holding my breath.
    Come off it. The policy was akin to a circus trapeze act being too disorganised to put the safety net up before a jump and thinking afterwards was just as effective.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Conway was a plank there - but his stuff in The Times is really very interesting. He takes a helicopter view of what's going on and I'm not detecting any bleed through of his personal politics.

    I feel I've learned something after reading them.

    Miss Plato, find it hard to take Conway seriously after he spent a Budget day interview with the Chancellor repeatedly asking if he'd ever gone second class by train.

    Shame there aren't more journalists like Andrew Neil and Tim Marshall (damned shame he left Sky).

    Edited extra bit: Mr. Palmer, and who decided on dogged loyalty? Nobody made Labour be mindlessly loyal. It was a choice members made themselves.

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited November 2015

    Critics here underestimate the extent to which members like being led by a socialist idealist. We've had 20 years of dogged loyalty to leaders who focused primarily on getting elected and made whatever compromises they felt necessary (Tony positively liked some of the compromises and is therefore a bit different, but the effect was similar). Being led by someone who expresses the sort of things that made us want to join is refreshing.

    The absence of an alternative who has a clear path to victory over the Tories makes the choice easy. If such an alternative appeared, people would consider it, but at present the choice is someone who speaks for us and...not very much. Certainly I am not minded ever to vote for one of the people who are indulging in whinging and sniping without a coherent idea of their own, and I suspect others feel the same.

    FWIW my current Broxtowe blog has so far had a 100% positive response, including from non-Labour people, though I assume that people who are actively hostile have drifted off (http://www.nickpalmer.org.uk/should-we-join-the-war-in-syria/ ).

    So you have moved on from the years of wanting to get elected.

    At least you are clear about it, Nick. But surely that makes you a pressure group, not a political party.

    What about the people who want a centre-left government? Where would you advise them to go?
  • Jonathan said:

    Corbyn is the left's Farage. The key difference is that he is operating inside a major party.

    Not for long if he carries on as he is.

    Farage took UKIP from a genuinely fringe party, polling 1% or so, to being able to credibly claim that they're the country's third political force. Obviously, having only one MP counts against them on that score but their 3.9m votes at the GE, combined with their EP election win in 2014, weighs in their favour.

    By contrast, Labour is going backwards under Corbyn and is starting from an already weak position.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    He disappeared into his jacket shoulders yesterday - he seemed to get visibly smaller the longer it went on. I can't think of a suitable word to describe the look on his face.

    Good morning, everyone.

    Forgot those numbers, it's the PLP and their competence/cowardice that matters.

    Speaking of Corbyn, was nice to see some footage of politicians speaking in the Commons at ten last night, except that Cameron's reply to Corbyn should've been shown. The Leader of the Opposition was lauding the idea of abolishing the armed forces in August, and the Shadow Chancellor wanted to disband MI5 and disarm the police. In the context of Defence and anti-terrorism, these things are rather pertinent.

    and in case you missed it.. [snip]
    Morning all.

    The video of a shabby and dejected Jeremy Corbyn at yesterday DR, abandoned by his front bench to face the PM alone was a rather sad affair imho – he’s spent the past 30 years surrounding himself with likeminded activists, loonies and acolytes and I suspect is somewhat shocked to find there’s a differing opinion out in the real world and rather traumatised when confronted by it every day in his own party and the HoC.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    Seems strange to see the papers focusing on Natalie McGarry when Kezia Dugdale still doesn't seem to have answered her own questions about a missing £10k

    http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/police-probe-missing-10-000-from-labour-party-coffers-1-3907487
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492

    Even defeat wont stop Corbyn and co. They are as delusional as its possible to be.

    Frankly this joke opposition had already run its course but its determined to keep rolling along.

    What I worry about isn't Corbyn, its another poll tax type fiasco as a result of over confidence and zero opposition.

    That fiasco will be the EU, events are completely overtaking this govt. The tories have had a wonderful summer, reality is about to hit home.

  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    Sky news is reporting NHS to get an extra 6 billion in the next year as a front load and it looks like they were saying an additional 10 billion a year above inflation up to 2020. That's on top of what they have already received and funding being entirely ring fenced etc.

    If they can't manage with that then the whole system should be ripped up and rebuilt in another form. The usual suspects will still moan though.
  • Miss Plato, don't read the Times, so perhaps you're right.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    What we do appear to divine is that this huge positive for Corbyn within Labour voters isn't being perversely influenced by Tories who are delighted by Jezza.

    DavidL said:

    For me, there are a range of possibilities from this polling.
    .

    I'm not. A government is greatly assisted by a competent opposition asking hard questions and making relevant points. The SNP are making a better fist of that at the moment than the Labour party.


    Corbyn is not getting his comeuppance, he is getting more than he ever dreamed possible.

    The SWP and Respect people - and I would watch what people like Livingstone and others are doing behind the scenes - will be taking control of the Labour party machinery. That is what matters because it means that even if Corbyn goes they get their men in charge, not just of the fancy front bench stuff, but of the policies and the rules and the selection procedures etc. And once in it takes a lot of hard graft to get them out. Ask Kinnock.

    Which is why MPs will give him two years and then have to nominate Hilary Benn to replace him unopposed
    I agree with all that - except that I think it will be one year and he will go of his own accord.

    The crunch will come when review groups set up by the NEC come up with policies on defence that he cannot accept. He will do the honourable thing and resign in 2016, probably after the May elections. I really don't think he wants to lead the party into the next election and the battering he is getting will be confirming this in his mind.
    I am not sure he will resign after all IDS did not though agree on the outcome
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979

    Mr. Jonathan, whether it's good or bad is irrelevant. The role of a revising chamber is not to give thumbs up or down to finance measures like a Roman emperor determining a gladiator's fate.

    It is not the job of the Government to try to bypass the Commons (little debate, no amendments) by using a Statutary Instrument that is designed for uncontentious rule changes and minor legislation to pass highly contentious changes to tax credits, and then complain when the Lords reject it - which they are completely entitled to do as it was not a Bill.

    The backbenchers in the Common, and those who value parliamentary democracy, should be more upset with the Government (Osborne in particular) than with the Lords for undermining well established democratic processes.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Moses_ said:

    Sky news is reporting NHS to get an extra 6 billion in the next year as a front load and it looks like they were saying an additional 10 billion a year above inflation up to 2020. That's on top of what they have already received and funding being entirely ring fenced etc.

    If they can't manage with that then the whole system should be ripped up and rebuilt in another form. The usual suspects will still moan though.

    It's another move in the strike saga. If they strike, and there is a "crisis". they can't blame funding
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    edited November 2015
    Plane shot down was Russian and Russians claim it was over Syria the entire flight. The two crew ejected
    Sky news
  • Dair said:

    Seems strange to see the papers focusing on Natalie McGarry when Kezia Dugdale still doesn't seem to have answered her own questions about a missing £10k

    http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/police-probe-missing-10-000-from-labour-party-coffers-1-3907487

    There is no apparent suggestion that Kezia Dugdale was involved in that £10,000 going missing. While we are told that initial inquiries into the missing money at Women For Independence are focussing on Natalie McGarry.

    Glad to be of assistance.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited November 2015

    Critics here underestimate the extent to which members like being led by a socialist idealist. We've had 20 years of dogged loyalty to leaders who focused primarily on getting elected and made whatever compromises they felt necessary (Tony positively liked some of the compromises and is therefore a bit different, but the effect was similar). Being led by someone who expresses the sort of things that made us want to join is refreshing.

    The absence of an alternative who has a clear path to victory over the Tories makes the choice easy. If such an alternative appeared, people would consider it, but at present the choice is someone who speaks for us and...not very much. Certainly I am not minded ever to vote for one of the people who are indulging in whinging and sniping without a coherent idea of their own, and I suspect others feel the same.

    FWIW my current Broxtowe blog has so far had a 100% positive response, including from non-Labour people, though I assume that people who are actively hostile have drifted off (http://www.nickpalmer.org.uk/should-we-join-the-war-in-syria/ ).

    A lot of Tory members liked being led by a right-wing Eurosceptic like IDS but it did them little good in the polls either
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492

    Critics here underestimate the extent to which members like being led by a socialist idealist. We've had 20 years of dogged loyalty to leaders who focused primarily on getting elected and made whatever compromises they felt necessary (Tony positively liked some of the compromises and is therefore a bit different, but the effect was similar). Being led by someone who expresses the sort of things that made us want to join is refreshing.

    The absence of an alternative who has a clear path to victory over the Tories makes the choice easy. If such an alternative appeared, people would consider it, but at present the choice is someone who speaks for us and...not very much. Certainly I am not minded ever to vote for one of the people who are indulging in whinging and sniping without a coherent idea of their own, and I suspect others feel the same.

    FWIW my current Broxtowe blog has so far had a 100% positive response, including from non-Labour people, though I assume that people who are actively hostile have drifted off (http://www.nickpalmer.org.uk/should-we-join-the-war-in-syria/ ).

    Good for you Nick, I hope Corbyn starts a momentum towards people standing up for what they believe rather than this ghastly fashion of agreeing with everyone.

    The Labour party should show the footage of Cameron being towed along by huskies, that was when it dawned on me what a fraud the man is.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    edited November 2015

    Critics here underestimate the extent to which members like being led by a socialist idealist. We've had 20 years of dogged loyalty to leaders who focused primarily on getting elected and made whatever compromises they felt necessary (Tony positively liked some of the compromises and is therefore a bit different, but the effect was similar). Being led by someone who expresses the sort of things that made us want to join is refreshing.

    I was inspired to join by Kinnock providing opposition to Thatcherite ideologues on the right and Bennite ideologues on the left. I stayed with Labour as Smith and Blair got Labour for govt. Ultimately Blair and Brown, unlike any leader since the 70s (or since) actually made a difference to real people.

    That is what I want. That is what I am very happy to be loyal to. I am not alone. A return to 80's style ideology offers nothing.
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    MikeK said:
    Well they might, but not without mentioning "the far right" and "neo Nazis"
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108

    Dair said:

    Seems strange to see the papers focusing on Natalie McGarry when Kezia Dugdale still doesn't seem to have answered her own questions about a missing £10k

    http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/police-probe-missing-10-000-from-labour-party-coffers-1-3907487

    There is no apparent suggestion that Kezia Dugdale was involved in that £10,000 going missing. While we are told that initial inquiries into the missing money at Women For Independence are focussing on Natalie McGarry.

    Glad to be of assistance.
    Who is telling you that inquiries are focusing on Natalie McGarry?

    Have Police Scotland decided to change the long standing (and expected) policy of not revealing the details of ongoing investigations in the press? Or are Alan Roden and Crichton Torquil just making crap up in a vain attempt to discredit the SNP?

    If the former, then there is an urgent need for a police investigation as to who is leaking information to the papers and potentially undermining a criminal prosecution by the Fiscal.
  • Mr. Moses, if they get captured by ISIS, that will not especially endear Turkey to Russia.

    Mr. Barnesian, I think there's some validity in that. I think a Bill would've been better. But given the choice between the unelected throwing out a finance measure from a freshly elected government or the measure passing in such a manner, I'd always go for the latter.

    Ultimately, the people will get the chance to vote the other way if they want to, and could back Labour to resurrect the policy. The Lords cannot be removed, hence why they should, indeed must, be a revising chamber, not a rival to the Commons.

    Worth noting Farron stated in an interview around the time of his party conference that he was happy to ignore the Salisbury Convention to make trouble for the government. The man's a muppet, and this is about posturing, playing to his base over Lords reform rather than any matter of principle.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,279
    BBC Breaking News ‏@BBCBreaking 6m6 minutes ago
    Warplane apparently shot down by Turkish jets in Syria was Russian, officials in Moscow say http://bbc.in/1Npk3n4
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    MikeK said:
    Well they might, but not without mentioning "the far right" and "neo Nazis"
    Seriously guys: how many marches of - say - 5,000 people in Spain, Portugal, etc on any topic get mentioned whatsoever?
  • Dair said:

    Dair said:

    Seems strange to see the papers focusing on Natalie McGarry when Kezia Dugdale still doesn't seem to have answered her own questions about a missing £10k

    http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/police-probe-missing-10-000-from-labour-party-coffers-1-3907487

    There is no apparent suggestion that Kezia Dugdale was involved in that £10,000 going missing. While we are told that initial inquiries into the missing money at Women For Independence are focussing on Natalie McGarry.

    Glad to be of assistance.
    Who is telling you that inquiries are focusing on Natalie McGarry?

    Have Police Scotland decided to change the long standing (and expected) policy of not revealing the details of ongoing investigations in the press? Or are Alan Roden and Crichton Torquil just making crap up in a vain attempt to discredit the SNP?

    If the former, then there is an urgent need for a police investigation as to who is leaking information to the papers and potentially undermining a criminal prosecution by the Fiscal.
    You could do your own research, but here you go:

    http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/snp-mp-centre-police-probe-6885561
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/23/snp-mp-natalie-mcgarry-missing-donations-claim

    Don't worry, you've probably only got a few hours to defend Natalie McGarry mindlessly and relentlessly, then once she's suspended you can do your ridiculous schtick of pretending that she's nothing to do with the SNP.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    Moses_ said:

    Plane shot down was Russian and Russians claim it was over Syria the entire flight. The two crew ejected
    Sky news

    Could be very serious.

    Hope the crew is alright.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited November 2015
    HYUFD said:

    Critics here underestimate the extent to which members like being led by a socialist idealist. We've had 20 years of dogged loyalty to leaders who focused primarily on getting elected and made whatever compromises they felt necessary (Tony positively liked some of the compromises and is therefore a bit different, but the effect was similar). Being led by someone who expresses the sort of things that made us want to join is refreshing.

    The absence of an alternative who has a clear path to victory over the Tories makes the choice easy. If such an alternative appeared, people would consider it, but at present the choice is someone who speaks for us and...not very much. Certainly I am not minded ever to vote for one of the people who are indulging in whinging and sniping without a coherent idea of their own, and I suspect others feel the same.

    FWIW my current Broxtowe blog has so far had a 100% positive response, including from non-Labour people, though I assume that people who are actively hostile have drifted off (http://www.nickpalmer.org.uk/should-we-join-the-war-in-syria/ ).

    A lot of Tory members liked being led by a right-wing Eurosceptic like IDS but it did them little good in the polls either
    Of course where Nick is also wrong (how long do you have?) is that he continues to see the struggle in terms of hard left/right choices.

    It is comfort food for the failed political classes and NPXMPX2 is their willing fool.

    He notes that he is not minded to vote for any of the other candidates but those other candidates are or were doing the most challenging job that Lab MPs have at the moment: trying to define what the Labour Party should stand for in a post-polemical political world where change is more at the margin (more/less state here, less/more redistribution there) than between central political philosophies.

    NPXMPX2 is a bright enough guy. I'm sure other Jezza supporters are too. But they have retreated back into a comfort zone that is entirely without utility in getting a change of government.

    And that, and because in so doing they are letting down the millions of Labour supporters who do understand the nuances of today's political contests, is why they should be ashamed of themselves.
  • Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Mr. Jonathan, we've got a deficit that needs to end, and less than a year since an election the unelected peers (for the first time, I believe) voted down a financial measure because Farron wants to act like an obnoxious oaf to try and provoke Lords reform.

    Suppose Corbyn resigns today, Stella Creasy becomes leader, and she wins the next election.

    And the Conservative peers vote down her finance measures. Will you nod and remark on what a jolly good thing it is?

    Conventions are there for a reason (such as the idea top police and military personnel should not enter into the political sphere). Labour were quick to shriek when the general recently, and wrongly, made a political foray.

    Mr. Root, the last 30s or so of that should've been on the news.

    Get over it. It was bad policy.
    It was very sensible policy. It was bad tactics, I'll give you that. Hopefully Osborne will reintroduce the measure in the next Finance Bill, though I'm not holding my breath.
    Come off it. The policy was akin to a circus trapeze act being too disorganised to put the safety net up before a jump and thinking afterwards was just as effective.
    That's not policy; that's tactics, which I've already said were poor. I assume you know the difference so are simply trying to score political points rather than debate the substantive issue.
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    rcs1000 said:

    MikeK said:
    Well they might, but not without mentioning "the far right" and "neo Nazis"
    Seriously guys: how many marches of - say - 5,000 people in Spain, Portugal, etc on any topic get mentioned whatsoever?
    No idea. In Dresden there were 10000+ and the rallies take place weekly.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Dair said:

    Who is telling you that inquiries are focusing on Natalie McGarry?

    Here's a clue

    https://twitter.com/drscottthinks/status/669050912585990145
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    TOPPING said:



    What about the people who want a centre-left government? Where would you advise them to go?

    I'd advise them to work on a centre-left programme which combines a good chance of electability with features that those of us on the centre-left would find attractive. I think there is a centrist wodge of members who would seriously consider that. But if the choice is "something you like that probably won't win" and "nothing in particular that probably won't win", option 1 has a walkover.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108

    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    Seems strange to see the papers focusing on Natalie McGarry when Kezia Dugdale still doesn't seem to have answered her own questions about a missing £10k

    http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/police-probe-missing-10-000-from-labour-party-coffers-1-3907487

    There is no apparent suggestion that Kezia Dugdale was involved in that £10,000 going missing. While we are told that initial inquiries into the missing money at Women For Independence are focussing on Natalie McGarry.

    Glad to be of assistance.
    Who is telling you that inquiries are focusing on Natalie McGarry?

    Have Police Scotland decided to change the long standing (and expected) policy of not revealing the details of ongoing investigations in the press? Or are Alan Roden and Crichton Torquil just making crap up in a vain attempt to discredit the SNP?

    If the former, then there is an urgent need for a police investigation as to who is leaking information to the papers and potentially undermining a criminal prosecution by the Fiscal.
    You could do your own research, but here you go:

    http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/snp-mp-centre-police-probe-6885561
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/23/snp-mp-natalie-mcgarry-missing-donations-claim

    Don't worry, you've probably only got a few hours to defend Natalie McGarry mindlessly and relentlessly, then once she's suspended you can do your ridiculous schtick of pretending that she's nothing to do with the SNP.
    You can reference all the unsubstantiated newspaper claims from SNP opponents you want. There remains no difference between the cases, except one is widely covered and the other has been swept under the carpet.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Mr. Jonathan, we've got a deficit that needs to end, and less than a year since an election the unelected peers (for the first time, I believe) voted down a financial measure because Farron wants to act like an obnoxious oaf to try and provoke Lords reform.

    Suppose Corbyn resigns today, Stella Creasy becomes leader, and she wins the next election.

    And the Conservative peers vote down her finance measures. Will you nod and remark on what a jolly good thing it is?

    Conventions are there for a reason (such as the idea top police and military personnel should not enter into the political sphere). Labour were quick to shriek when the general recently, and wrongly, made a political foray.

    Mr. Root, the last 30s or so of that should've been on the news.

    Get over it. It was bad policy.
    It was very sensible policy. It was bad tactics, I'll give you that. Hopefully Osborne will reintroduce the measure in the next Finance Bill, though I'm not holding my breath.
    Come off it. The policy was akin to a circus trapeze act being too disorganised to put the safety net up before a jump and thinking afterwards was just as effective.
    Two words.

    Personal allowance.

    Might be worth familiarising yourself with it....

  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    edited November 2015
    rcs1000 said:

    Moses_ said:

    Plane shot down was Russian and Russians claim it was over Syria the entire flight. The two crew ejected
    Sky news

    Could be very serious.

    Hope the crew is alright.
    Times like this I start to wonder what game Turkey is playing....
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    rcs1000 said:

    Moses_ said:

    Plane shot down was Russian and Russians claim it was over Syria the entire flight. The two crew ejected
    Sky news

    Could be very serious.

    Hope the crew is alright.
    rcs1000 said:

    Moses_ said:

    Plane shot down was Russian and Russians claim it was over Syria the entire flight. The two crew ejected
    Sky news

    Could be very serious.

    Hope the crew is alright.
    Was always the big concern really. Plane was an SU24 apparently and reports indicate that it was warned ten times it was violating Turkish air space. No news on pilots as yet who ejected.
    Sky news
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    edited November 2015
    dr_spyn said:

    BBC Breaking News ‏@BBCBreaking 6m6 minutes ago
    Warplane apparently shot down by Turkish jets in Syria was Russian, officials in Moscow say http://bbc.in/1Npk3n4

    BBC video footage shows plane coming straight down in Latakia province, which is in Syria. So presumably it was shot down in Syrian airspace.

    The downside scenario is that the Russians retaliate against Turkey and Turkey asks for support from Nato. Not a good scenario.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Mr. Jonathan, we've got a deficit that needs to end, and less than a year since an election the unelected peers (for the first time, I believe) voted down a financial measure because Farron wants to act like an obnoxious oaf to try and provoke Lords reform.

    Suppose Corbyn resigns today, Stella Creasy becomes leader, and she wins the next election.

    And the Conservative peers vote down her finance measures. Will you nod and remark on what a jolly good thing it is?

    Conventions are there for a reason (such as the idea top police and military personnel should not enter into the political sphere). Labour were quick to shriek when the general recently, and wrongly, made a political foray.

    Mr. Root, the last 30s or so of that should've been on the news.

    Get over it. It was bad policy.
    It was very sensible policy. It was bad tactics, I'll give you that. Hopefully Osborne will reintroduce the measure in the next Finance Bill, though I'm not holding my breath.
    Come off it. The policy was akin to a circus trapeze act being too disorganised to put the safety net up before a jump and thinking afterwards was just as effective.
    That's not policy; that's tactics, which I've already said were poor. I assume you know the difference so are simply trying to score political points rather than debate the substantive issue.
    Semantics. The substantive issue is that the govt got something wrong, the Lords were justified to ask them to look again. It's a sign of our parliament actually working for once and should be celebrated.
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492

    TOPPING said:



    What about the people who want a centre-left government? Where would you advise them to go?

    I'd advise them to work on a centre-left programme which combines a good chance of electability with features that those of us on the centre-left would find attractive. I think there is a centrist wodge of members who would seriously consider that. But if the choice is "something you like that probably won't win" and "nothing in particular that probably won't win", option 1 has a walkover.
    Well said again Nick, I can't think of anything you and I would agree on politically, but isn't that the point?

    The theme on here appears to be:

    Let's say what we have to say to get elected, it doesn't really matter what it is.

    Its no wonder turnout is so low, Corbyn has engaged people, he should be applauded.

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:



    What about the people who want a centre-left government? Where would you advise them to go?

    I'd advise them to work on a centre-left programme which combines a good chance of electability with features that those of us on the centre-left would find attractive. I think there is a centrist wodge of members who would seriously consider that. But if the choice is "something you like that probably won't win" and "nothing in particular that probably won't win", option 1 has a walkover.
    but that approach is what gets called "red tories/tory-lite".

    You could have had that with the electon of anyone but Jezza.

    Supporting "something you like that probably won't win" apart from being an admission of defeat, takes you out of the serious political debate and into pressure group status.

    (I think that is a position that UKIP occupies also.)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    rcs1000 said:

    MikeK said:
    Well they might, but not without mentioning "the far right" and "neo Nazis"
    Seriously guys: how many marches of - say - 5,000 people in Spain, Portugal, etc on any topic get mentioned whatsoever?
    No idea. In Dresden there were 10000+ and the rallies take place weekly.

    OK. 10,000 people.

    Spain had massive anti-austerity demonstrations last year: literally 250,000 people in the streets of Barcelona.

    It was barely mentioned in the UK.

    Foreign demonstrations - of even 10,000 people - are simply not news.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Seen elsewhere - subtitles at Sky went awry yesterday when they showed the second line as “halibut be thy name”.

    Very loaves and fishes.
  • Mr. Jonathan, you're happy for the Salisbury Convention to be discarded then, and for the Lords to feel it has the right to vote down finance measures?
  • Dair said:

    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    Seems strange to see the papers focusing on Natalie McGarry when Kezia Dugdale still doesn't seem to have answered her own questions about a missing £10k

    http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/police-probe-missing-10-000-from-labour-party-coffers-1-3907487

    There is no apparent suggestion that Kezia Dugdale was involved in that £10,000 going missing. While we are told that initial inquiries into the missing money at Women For Independence are focussing on Natalie McGarry.

    Glad to be of assistance.
    Who is telling you that inquiries are focusing on Natalie McGarry?

    Have Police Scotland decided to change the long standing (and expected) policy of not revealing the details of ongoing investigations in the press? Or are Alan Roden and Crichton Torquil just making crap up in a vain attempt to discredit the SNP?

    If the former, then there is an urgent need for a police investigation as to who is leaking information to the papers and potentially undermining a criminal prosecution by the Fiscal.
    You could do your own research, but here you go:

    http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/snp-mp-centre-police-probe-6885561
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/23/snp-mp-natalie-mcgarry-missing-donations-claim

    Don't worry, you've probably only got a few hours to defend Natalie McGarry mindlessly and relentlessly, then once she's suspended you can do your ridiculous schtick of pretending that she's nothing to do with the SNP.
    You can reference all the unsubstantiated newspaper claims from SNP opponents you want. There remains no difference between the cases, except one is widely covered and the other has been swept under the carpet.
    Interesting line of defence. Don't worry, you'll only have a few hours to have to embarrass yourself with such nonsense. Then you can embarrass yourself with a completely different nonsense.
  • HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    What we do appear to divine is that this huge positive for Corbyn within Labour voters isn't being perversely influenced by Tories who are delighted by Jezza.

    DavidL said:

    For me, there are a range of possibilities from this polling.

    Firstly, and most likely, the average Labour voter is pretty loyal and not that interested in the details of what is currently going on...........

    Secondly, as Tom suggests down thread, the Labour party is simply full of mad people. .......

    Thirdly, Yougov internet polling is unreliable and based upon unrepresentative samples .......

    I'm not. A government is greatly assisted by a competent opposition asking hard questions and making relevant points. The SNP are making a better fist of that at the moment than the Labour party.

    Corbyn is getting his comeuppance for a deluded, self indulgent life wasted by finding fault in everything that his country has done and finding virtue in everyone who opposes it, no matter how evil, barbaric or contrary to our values they might be.

    We no longer have public stocks but the Front Bench of the House of Commons will do. Such sad, pathetic and delusional thinking deserves the kind of mockery and humiliation that it received yesterday. But it does mean we do not have a meaningful opposition. And that is not a good thing.

    Corbyn is not getting his comeuppance, he is getting more than he ever dreamed possible.

    The SWP and Respect people - and I would watch what people like Livingstone and others are doing behind the scenes - will be taking control of the Labour party machinery. That is what matters because it means that even if Corbyn goes they get their men in charge, not just of the fancy front bench stuff, but of the policies and the rules and the selection procedures etc. And once in it takes a lot of hard graft to get them out. Ask Kinnock.

    Which is why MPs will give him two years and then have to nominate Hilary Benn to replace him unopposed
    Benn will not get voted unopposed. The membership will put enough pressure on a few MPs to get a hard left candidate, such as Mcdonnell or Trickett, selected as well. The membership can then defeat Benn. For the MPs to act they have to do it quickly and even if they did, it may already be too late.
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:



    What about the people who want a centre-left government? Where would you advise them to go?

    I'd advise them to work on a centre-left programme which combines a good chance of electability with features that those of us on the centre-left would find attractive. I think there is a centrist wodge of members who would seriously consider that. But if the choice is "something you like that probably won't win" and "nothing in particular that probably won't win", option 1 has a walkover.
    but that approach is what gets called "red tories/tory-lite".

    You could have had that with the electon of anyone but Jezza.

    Supporting "something you like that probably won't win" apart from being an admission of defeat, takes you out of the serious political debate and into pressure group status.

    (I think that is a position that UKIP occupies also.)
    The position Ukip occupies is 4m people agreeing with their message, not unquestioningly voting for the party you always have done.

    Megalomania is the new politics.

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited November 2015

    TOPPING said:



    What about the people who want a centre-left government? Where would you advise them to go?

    I'd advise them to work on a centre-left programme which combines a good chance of electability with features that those of us on the centre-left would find attractive. I think there is a centrist wodge of members who would seriously consider that. But if the choice is "something you like that probably won't win" and "nothing in particular that probably won't win", option 1 has a walkover.
    Well said again Nick, I can't think of anything you and I would agree on politically, but isn't that the point?

    The theme on here appears to be:

    Let's say what we have to say to get elected, it doesn't really matter what it is.

    Its no wonder turnout is so low, Corbyn has engaged people, he should be applauded.

    Do you quite understand how politics works?

    There are these things called governments. They formuate and enact policy and change the country with these policies for better of worse. It was, up until Jezza's election, the aim of the Labour Party to form a government.

    It no longer is, as admitted/pointed out by Nick.

    So that puts the Labour Party, the Labour Party into the category of pressure groups - Stop the War, Countryside Alliance, UKIP, Free Owls for All, etc.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Mortimer said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Moses_ said:

    Plane shot down was Russian and Russians claim it was over Syria the entire flight. The two crew ejected
    Sky news

    Could be very serious.

    Hope the crew is alright.
    Times like this I start to wonder what game Turkey is playing....
    Or the Russians are playing, if they've encroached into Turkish airspace again.

    http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151005/1028036764/russia-turkey-airspace-border-violation.html

    We'll have to wait to see what happened If the Russian plane did go into Turkish airspace, then it seems Russian pilots make many mistakes, and there are many 'misunderstandings'.

    If Turkey shot it down without the Russian plane going into Turkish airspace, they've got a lot of questions to answer.
  • TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:



    What about the people who want a centre-left government? Where would you advise them to go?

    I'd advise them to work on a centre-left programme which combines a good chance of electability with features that those of us on the centre-left would find attractive. I think there is a centrist wodge of members who would seriously consider that. But if the choice is "something you like that probably won't win" and "nothing in particular that probably won't win", option 1 has a walkover.
    but that approach is what gets called "red tories/tory-lite".

    You could have had that with the electon of anyone but Jezza.

    Supporting "something you like that probably won't win" apart from being an admission of defeat, takes you out of the serious political debate and into pressure group status.

    (I think that is a position that UKIP occupies also.)
    The position Ukip occupies is 4m people agreeing with their message, not unquestioningly voting for the party you always have done.

    Megalomania is the new politics.

    4M people voted for them, not the same thing as 4M people agreeing with their message.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Mr. Jonathan, you're happy for the Salisbury Convention to be discarded then, and for the Lords to feel it has the right to vote down finance measures?

    The Salisbury Convention is to the Lords, what paracetamol is to the flu. It might make you feel better temporarily, but it doesn't fix the underlying problem.
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MikeK said:
    Well they might, but not without mentioning "the far right" and "neo Nazis"
    Seriously guys: how many marches of - say - 5,000 people in Spain, Portugal, etc on any topic get mentioned whatsoever?
    No idea. In Dresden there were 10000+ and the rallies take place weekly.

    OK. 10,000 people.

    Spain had massive anti-austerity demonstrations last year: literally 250,000 people in the streets of Barcelona.

    It was barely mentioned in the UK.

    Foreign demonstrations - of even 10,000 people - are simply not news.
    That's a fair point but it's news for Merkel, she's from East Germany, and consequently impacts on us as she rethinks her immigration policy, which she will undoubtedly have to.

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:



    What about the people who want a centre-left government? Where would you advise them to go?

    I'd advise them to work on a centre-left programme which combines a good chance of electability with features that those of us on the centre-left would find attractive. I think there is a centrist wodge of members who would seriously consider that. But if the choice is "something you like that probably won't win" and "nothing in particular that probably won't win", option 1 has a walkover.
    but that approach is what gets called "red tories/tory-lite".

    You could have had that with the electon of anyone but Jezza.

    Supporting "something you like that probably won't win" apart from being an admission of defeat, takes you out of the serious political debate and into pressure group status.

    (I think that is a position that UKIP occupies also.)
    The position Ukip occupies is 4m people agreeing with their message, not unquestioningly voting for the party you always have done.

    Megalomania is the new politics.

    Yes but all they have is their very narrow and singular message. That puts them into pressure group category.
  • TOPPING said:


    but that approach is what gets called "red tories/tory-lite".

    it wouldn't be that hard to formulate "Corbyn without the foreign/defence policy bits", would it? Might well be popular
  • On topic, essential reading from Stephen Bush:

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2015/11/new-poll-shows-jeremy-corbyn-going-nowhere

    Summary: the disaffected MPs are currently stuffed.
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:



    What about the people who want a centre-left government? Where would you advise them to go?

    I'd advise them to work on a centre-left programme which combines a good chance of electability with features that those of us on the centre-left would find attractive. I think there is a centrist wodge of members who would seriously consider that. But if the choice is "something you like that probably won't win" and "nothing in particular that probably won't win", option 1 has a walkover.
    but that approach is what gets called "red tories/tory-lite".

    You could have had that with the electon of anyone but Jezza.

    Supporting "something you like that probably won't win" apart from being an admission of defeat, takes you out of the serious political debate and into pressure group status.

    (I think that is a position that UKIP occupies also.)
    The position Ukip occupies is 4m people agreeing with their message, not unquestioningly voting for the party you always have done.

    Megalomania is the new politics.

    Yes but all they have is their very narrow and singular message. That puts them into pressure group category.
    Your message seems to be that not enough people agree with you so there's no point. It seems the tories crave a one party state.

  • Dair said:

    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    Seems strange to see the papers focusing on Natalie McGarry when Kezia Dugdale still doesn't seem to have answered her own questions about a missing £10k

    http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/police-probe-missing-10-000-from-labour-party-coffers-1-3907487

    There is no apparent suggestion that Kezia Dugdale was involved in that £10,000 going missing. While we are told that initial inquiries into the missing money at Women For Independence are focussing on Natalie McGarry.

    Glad to be of assistance.
    Who is telling you that inquiries are focusing on Natalie McGarry?

    Have Police Scotland decided to change the long standing (and expected) policy of not revealing the details of ongoing investigations in the press? Or are Alan Roden and Crichton Torquil just making crap up in a vain attempt to discredit the SNP?

    If the former, then there is an urgent need for a police investigation as to who is leaking information to the papers and potentially undermining a criminal prosecution by the Fiscal.
    You could do your own research, but here you go:

    http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/snp-mp-centre-police-probe-6885561
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/23/snp-mp-natalie-mcgarry-missing-donations-claim

    Don't worry, you've probably only got a few hours to defend Natalie McGarry mindlessly and relentlessly, then once she's suspended you can do your ridiculous schtick of pretending that she's nothing to do with the SNP.
    You can reference all the unsubstantiated newspaper claims from SNP opponents you want. There remains no difference between the cases, except one is widely covered and the other has been swept under the carpet.
    Another Unionist rag:

    SNP MP Natalie McGarry is at the centre of a police investigation into money that has gone missing from the accounts of Women For Independence (WFI).

    The National understands that a five-figure sum between £30,000 and £40,000, made up of donations by supporters of the group, cannot be accounted for.


    http://www.thenational.scot/news/snp-mp-natalie-mcgarry-at-centre-of-probe-into-missing-women-for-independence-donations.10376
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:


    but that approach is what gets called "red tories/tory-lite".

    it wouldn't be that hard to formulate "Corbyn without the foreign/defence policy bits", would it? Might well be popular
    Well of course we have been too focused on that bit (which, as Chuka says, is the sine qua non of a government) to look at any other policies in such depth.

    Oh there's nationalising stuff also, isn't there. The railways causes much debate but isn't there power also? We saw how well a milder version of that did for Ed.

    And that's just the stuff that stuck in my mind.
  • Mr. Jonathan, so you *are* happy for the Lords to vote down finance measures put through by the recently elected government.

    Fair enough. It's blatantly anti-democratic, but there we are.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    Jonathan

    "Corbyn is in his honeymoon."

    His lovemaking seems to have disturbed the other guests.....talking of which why isn't "Tory Sex Scandal Moves Closer to No 10' receiving any attention?
  • Mr. Roger, it's getting some, but not dominating the headlines because the Opposition is led by a man whose first response to a terrorist atrocity was to say he wasn't happy about shoot to kill as a policy for dealing with terrorists, and whose Shadow Chancellor wants to disband MI5.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    Barnesian said:

    dr_spyn said:

    BBC Breaking News ‏@BBCBreaking 6m6 minutes ago
    Warplane apparently shot down by Turkish jets in Syria was Russian, officials in Moscow say http://bbc.in/1Npk3n4

    BBC video footage shows plane coming straight down in Latakia province, which is in Syria. So presumably it was shot down in Syrian airspace.

    The downside scenario is that the Russians retaliate against Turkey and Turkey asks for support from Nato. Not a good scenario.
    Russians already claiming they can prove it was in Syrian airspace throughout. Turkey maintaining it was in Turkish airspace and warned up to 10 times and were ignored.

    Sky news has just reported that the Turkish PM has instructed defence minister to contact the UN and also NATO.

    Hope the Turks are right on this one general view at the moment is they are.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Mr. Jonathan, so you *are* happy for the Lords to vote down finance measures put through by the recently elected government.

    Fair enough. It's blatantly anti-democratic, but there we are.

    The Lords, an appointed chamber, undemocratic? Who'd have thunk it!
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,279
    Roger said:

    Jonathan

    "Corbyn is in his honeymoon."

    His lovemaking seems to have disturbed the other guests.....talking of which why isn't "Tory Sex Scandal Moves Closer to No 10' receiving any attention?

    It might have done, had there been a credible opposition to step in.
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    Roger said:

    Jonathan

    "Corbyn is in his honeymoon."

    His lovemaking seems to have disturbed the other guests.....talking of which why isn't "Tory Sex Scandal Moves Closer to No 10' receiving any attention?

    Read a funny article in the Guardian this morning claiming that no Labour MP had ever been involved in a prostitution scandal.

    They believe sex should be free at the point of delivery!

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    Mortimer said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Moses_ said:

    Plane shot down was Russian and Russians claim it was over Syria the entire flight. The two crew ejected
    Sky news

    Could be very serious.

    Hope the crew is alright.
    Times like this I start to wonder what game Turkey is playing....
    Or the Russians are playing, if they've encroached into Turkish airspace again.

    http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151005/1028036764/russia-turkey-airspace-border-violation.html

    We'll have to wait to see what happened If the Russian plane did go into Turkish airspace, then it seems Russian pilots make many mistakes, and there are many 'misunderstandings'.

    If Turkey shot it down without the Russian plane going into Turkish airspace, they've got a lot of questions to answer.
    Turkey appears to have moved it's "airspace" 5 miles over the border into Syria.
  • Mr. Roger, it's getting some, but not dominating the headlines because the Opposition is led by a man whose first response to a terrorist atrocity was to say he wasn't happy about shoot to kill as a policy for dealing with terrorists, and whose Shadow Chancellor wants to disband MI5.

    Plus because it has nothing to do really with 'No10'.

    Also it seems Putin's war room, for all of its TV monitors, is not so good with its sat nav.
  • Critics here underestimate the extent to which members like being led by a socialist idealist. We've had 20 years of dogged loyalty to leaders who focused primarily on getting elected and made whatever compromises they felt necessary (Tony positively liked some of the compromises and is therefore a bit different, but the effect was similar). Being led by someone who expresses the sort of things that made us want to join is refreshing.
    ).

    Dan Hodges ✔ @DPJHodges
    Turkey shoots down Russian jet. This calls for the human rights advisors.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    edited November 2015
    Does Seward not count? Well, if you squint, he's only a Lord...

    And what about the one who was photo'd by the NOTW in the HoC with his lady friend?

    Roger said:

    Jonathan

    "Corbyn is in his honeymoon."

    His lovemaking seems to have disturbed the other guests.....talking of which why isn't "Tory Sex Scandal Moves Closer to No 10' receiving any attention?

    Read a funny article in the Guardian this morning claiming that no Labour MP had ever been involved in a prostitution scandal.

    They believe sex should be free at the point of delivery!

  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    Moses_ said:

    Barnesian said:

    dr_spyn said:

    BBC Breaking News ‏@BBCBreaking 6m6 minutes ago
    Warplane apparently shot down by Turkish jets in Syria was Russian, officials in Moscow say http://bbc.in/1Npk3n4

    BBC video footage shows plane coming straight down in Latakia province, which is in Syria. So presumably it was shot down in Syrian airspace.

    The downside scenario is that the Russians retaliate against Turkey and Turkey asks for support from Nato. Not a good scenario.
    Russians already claiming they can prove it was in Syrian airspace throughout. Turkey maintaining it was in Turkish airspace and warned up to 10 times and were ignored.

    Sky news has just reported that the Turkish PM has instructed defence minister to contact the UN and also NATO.

    Hope the Turks are right on this one general view at the moment is they are.
    I hope the Turks are wrong on this and are shown unequivically to be in the wrong. They won't then get UN or NATO support and may reconsider their strategy - though I won't hold my breath on that.
  • TOPPING said:



    Well of course we have been too focused on that bit (which, as Chuka says, is the sine qua non of a government) to look at any other policies in such depth.

    Oh there's nationalising stuff also, isn't there. The railways causes much debate but isn't there power also? We saw how well a milder version of that did for Ed.

    if i remember correctly, nationalizing railways is not so unpopular with tory voters.

    much easier to sell, anyway, than nuanced talk about international law
  • Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Mr. Jonathan, we've got a deficit that needs to end, and less than a year since an election the unelected peers (for the first time, I believe) voted down a financial measure because Farron wants to act like an obnoxious oaf to try and provoke Lords reform.

    Suppose Corbyn resigns today, Stella Creasy becomes leader, and she wins the next election.

    And the Conservative peers vote down her finance measures. Will you nod and remark on what a jolly good thing it is?

    Conventions are there for a reason (such as the idea top police and military personnel should not enter into the political sphere). Labour were quick to shriek when the general recently, and wrongly, made a political foray.

    Mr. Root, the last 30s or so of that should've been on the news.

    Get over it. It was bad policy.
    It was very sensible policy. It was bad tactics, I'll give you that. Hopefully Osborne will reintroduce the measure in the next Finance Bill, though I'm not holding my breath.
    Come off it. The policy was akin to a circus trapeze act being too disorganised to put the safety net up before a jump and thinking afterwards was just as effective.
    That's not policy; that's tactics, which I've already said were poor. I assume you know the difference so are simply trying to score political points rather than debate the substantive issue.
    Semantics. The substantive issue is that the govt got something wrong, the Lords were justified to ask them to look again. It's a sign of our parliament actually working for once and should be celebrated.
    It's not semantics and I don't accept the gevernment did get anything wrong. It was Labour and the Lib Dems using their clout in the Lords, which in the Lib Dems' case is based solely on election results from 2010 and earlier, to block a policy that derived directly from a commitment made in the government's manifesto. You might not like the policy but that's a different issue.

    Now, I accept that the Lords had the right to block it, purely on the basis of how it was introduced. A change of that nature should really come through a Finance Bill.

    Where you and I might agree is on reform of the Lords. If the Upper House is to play a stronger role - and I think it should - then it needs a better mandate than the current one has on which to do so.
  • Mr. Jonathan, you tinker.

    A revising chamber is not the same thing as a chamber vying for power with the elected government. Appointments allow those with great expertise, who might not otherwise enter politics, to put their particular knowledge to great use for the country, providing top scrutiny for specific areas (science, for example).

    The Lords, by convention, do not have the right to throw out finance measures.

    The very lack of democracy means that the chamber is there to revise. Its appointed composition also makes it naturally subordinate to the Commons.

    Except for when the Lib Dems have a hissyfit and Labour decides it's happy for the Salisbury Convention to be thrown out and the principle that the Lords can vote down finance measures to be established, of course.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,279
    @roger Labour MPs weren't rallying round to help out Corbyn yesterday. The brand is tarnished beyond redemption, is this the Ratner moment?

    https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/669061680798826496

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:



    What about the people who want a centre-left government? Where would you advise them to go?

    I'd advise them to work on a centre-left programme which combines a good chance of electability with features that those of us on the centre-left would find attractive. I think there is a centrist wodge of members who would seriously consider that. But if the choice is "something you like that probably won't win" and "nothing in particular that probably won't win", option 1 has a walkover.
    but that approach is what gets called "red tories/tory-lite".

    You could have had that with the electon of anyone but Jezza.

    Supporting "something you like that probably won't win" apart from being an admission of defeat, takes you out of the serious political debate and into pressure group status.

    (I think that is a position that UKIP occupies also.)
    The position Ukip occupies is 4m people agreeing with their message, not unquestioningly voting for the party you always have done.

    Megalomania is the new politics.

    Yes but all they have is their very narrow and singular message. That puts them into pressure group category.
    Your message seems to be that not enough people agree with you so there's no point. It seems the tories crave a one party state.

    Not at all. If you had read my posts previously (dear god I wouldn't wish that on anyone) you would see that I have plenty of sympathy for UKIP but that theirs is a long game, say 20-30 years. If they are serious. Political parties have to start somewhere.

    The difference with Lab is that there are plenty of hard left parties that have been going these past 30 years and they don't seem to have turned themselves into mainstream (ie geting voted for, ie "popular") parties. But Jezza wants to replicate those parties.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    Here is the cause of the "misunderstandings":

    Turkey has maintained a buffer zone five miles inside Syria since June 2012, when a Syrian air defense missile shot down a Turkish fighter plane that had strayed into Syrian airspace. Under revised rules of engagement put in effect then, the Turkish air force would evaluate any target coming within five miles of the Turkish border as an enemy and act accordingly.

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Critics here underestimate the extent to which members like being led by a socialist idealist. We've had 20 years of dogged loyalty to leaders who focused primarily on getting elected and made whatever compromises they felt necessary (Tony positively liked some of the compromises and is therefore a bit different, but the effect was similar). Being led by someone who expresses the sort of things that made us want to join is refreshing.
    ).

    Dan Hodges ✔ @DPJHodges
    Turkey shoots down Russian jet. This calls for the human rights advisors.
    Technically it probably calls for diplomats. Hopefully not a military escalation.
  • Roger said:

    ....talking of which why isn't "Tory Sex Scandal Moves Closer to No 10' receiving any attention?

    Its a good old fashioned scandal - sex and drugs and alcohol and abuse of power by senior people with younger (presumably much more) attractive ones......but as others have observed, Seamus Milne is doing a sterling media operation on behalf of the Tory Labour Party.....
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,279
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,279
    edited November 2015
    Sam Coates Times ‏@SamCoatesTimes 1m1 minute ago
    YouGov found of the 38% of Lab members/supporters etc that want Corbyn gone before election, no consensus candidate
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 2,973

    On topic, essential reading from Stephen Bush:

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2015/11/new-poll-shows-jeremy-corbyn-going-nowhere

    Summary: the disaffected MPs are currently stuffed.

    That is grim. The Labour party is surely about to be wiped out electorally in every election over the next few years and the answer is that there is no answer and no way to remove him. It's going to have to be a split - like the SDP- because Labour haven't got a hope in hell otherwise.
  • Dr. Spyn, if that's the actual result and Corbyn's still there in 2020, UKIP stand a good chance of taking the seat at the General Election.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    edited November 2015

    Where you and I might agree is on reform of the Lords. If the Upper House is to play a stronger role - and I think it should - then it needs a better mandate than the current one has on which to do so.

    Indeed I wholeheartedly agree, which is a good note to end our little discussion. :-)
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    From the Stephen Bush piece - totally agree.
    That means that a “Stop Jeremy” candidate will have to be a) able to, in the words of one insider, “unite the party from Lisa Nandy [on the soft left] to Wes Streeting [on the right]”. b) secure an electoral result that was, if nothing else, no worse than the 2015 election, and c) defeat Jeremy Corbyn among members.

    You might as well add d) be able to transmute iron to gold or e) feed 5,000 with just five loaves and two fish. No politician with those qualities exists within the parliamentary Labour party. Corbyn is going nowhere, which means that if a reckoning is on its way, it is the Labour leader’s opponents who will be the worse off.
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:



    What about the people who want a centre-left government? Where would you advise them to go?

    I'd advise them to work on a centre-left programme which combines a good chance of electability with features that those of us on the centre-left would find attractive. I think there is a centrist wodge of members who would seriously consider that. But if the choice is "something you like that probably won't win" and "nothing in particular that probably won't win", option 1 has a walkover.
    but that approach is what gets called "red tories/tory-lite".

    You could have had that with the electon of anyone but Jezza.

    Supporting "something you like that probably won't win" apart from being an admission of defeat, takes you out of the serious political debate and into pressure group status.

    (I think that is a position that UKIP occupies also.)
    The position Ukip occupies is 4m people agreeing with their message, not unquestioningly voting for the party you always have done.

    Megalomania is the new politics.

    Yes but all they have is their very narrow and singular message. That puts them into pressure group category.
    Your message seems to be that not enough people agree with you so there's no point. It seems the tories crave a one party state.

    Not at all. If you had read my posts previously (dear god I wouldn't wish that on anyone) you would see that I have plenty of sympathy for UKIP but that theirs is a long game, say 20-30 years. If they are serious. Political parties have to start somewhere.

    The difference with Lab is that there are plenty of hard left parties that have been going these past 30 years and they don't seem to have turned themselves into mainstream (ie geting voted for, ie "popular") parties. But Jezza wants to replicate those parties.
    But its not just Corbyn is it, he was elected by Labour members. I find the Corbyn discussion on here curious, the myopia of tories who simply can't conceive that anybody sees life differently from them.

    I happen to think he's a nutjob, but the people who count ie labour supporters, like him.

  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:



    What about the people who want a centre-left government? Where would you advise them to go?

    I'd advise them to work on a centre-left programme which combines a good chance of electability with features that those of us on the centre-left would find attractive. I think there is a centrist wodge of members who would seriously consider that. But if the choice is "something you like that probably won't win" and "nothing in particular that probably won't win", option 1 has a walkover.
    but that approach is what gets called "red tories/tory-lite".

    You could have had that with the electon of anyone but Jezza.

    Supporting "something you like that probably won't win" apart from being an admission of defeat, takes you out of the serious political debate and into pressure group status.

    (I think that is a position that UKIP occupies also.)
    The position Ukip occupies is 4m people agreeing with their message, not unquestioningly voting for the party you always have done.

    Megalomania is the new politics.

    Yes but all they have is their very narrow and singular message. That puts them into pressure group category.
    Your message seems to be that not enough people agree with you so there's no point. It seems the tories crave a one party state.

    Not at all. If you had read my posts previously (dear god I wouldn't wish that on anyone) you would see that I have plenty of sympathy for UKIP but that theirs is a long game, say 20-30 years. If they are serious. Political parties have to start somewhere.

    The difference with Lab is that there are plenty of hard left parties that have been going these past 30 years and they don't seem to have turned themselves into mainstream (ie geting voted for, ie "popular") parties. But Jezza wants to replicate those parties.
    Blair had a one party state for over 10 years. Funny there were no concerns then ?
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    Pulpstar said:

    Here is the cause of the "misunderstandings":

    Turkey has maintained a buffer zone five miles inside Syria since June 2012, when a Syrian air defense missile shot down a Turkish fighter plane that had strayed into Syrian airspace. Under revised rules of engagement put in effect then, the Turkish air force would evaluate any target coming within five miles of the Turkish border as an enemy and act accordingly.

    Presumably Syria and it's Russian defender would be equally justified in revisng its rule of engagement to evaluate any target coming within five miles of the Syrian border (including Turkish planes in Turkish airspace) and act accordingly.

    NATO and Russia should jointly insist that Turkey changes its rules of engagement.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Mortimer said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Moses_ said:

    Plane shot down was Russian and Russians claim it was over Syria the entire flight. The two crew ejected
    Sky news

    Could be very serious.

    Hope the crew is alright.
    Times like this I start to wonder what game Turkey is playing....
    Or the Russians are playing, if they've encroached into Turkish airspace again.

    http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151005/1028036764/russia-turkey-airspace-border-violation.html

    We'll have to wait to see what happened If the Russian plane did go into Turkish airspace, then it seems Russian pilots make many mistakes, and there are many 'misunderstandings'.

    If Turkey shot it down without the Russian plane going into Turkish airspace, they've got a lot of questions to answer.
    Turkey appears to have moved it's "airspace" 5 miles over the border into Syria.
    Turkey did that a few years ago. The 'Turkmen' rebels are Chinese Uyghur Jihadis Turkey smuggled into northern Syria.

    http://atimes.com/2015/11/turkey-gets-toehold-on-syrian-territory-finally/

    Turkey is in real trouble now and is on its own, any attempt to involve us or NATO will be both ignored on the grounds of common sense/national interest as well as having no basis in law or treaty. Another good reason for us not to involve ourselves further in Syria.
  • Morning all,

    What a poll! Some form of collective madness has taken hold of Labour. This is like some kind of weird electoral suicide cult. Even if you believe in hard left policies, and I at least agree that the deficit is not as big a problem as Osborne makes out, Corbyn is clearly not up to the basic demands of the job.

    Will they still be backing him when 100s of Lab councillors lose their seats in May?
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341

    Yep - that is the prize. Corbyn will try to hold on so that he can engineer the complete hard left takeover of Labour.

    The most efficient way of wholly achieving that outcome is to lead Labour to a calamitous general election defeat.

    Once people lose the habit of voting Labour, many will never return.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    dr_spyn said:

    Sam Coates Times ‏@SamCoatesTimes 1m1 minute ago
    YouGov found of the 38% of Lab members/supporters etc that want Corbyn gone before election, no consensus candidate

    Does Ed Miliband feel the hand of destiny on his shoulder?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:



    What about the people who want a centre-left government? Where would you advise them to go?

    I'd advise them to work on a centre-left programme which combines a good chance of electability with features that those of us on the centre-left would find attractive. I think there is a centrist wodge of members who would seriously consider that. But if the choice is "something you like that probably won't win" and "nothing in particular that probably won't win", option 1 has a walkover.
    but that approach is what gets called "red tories/tory-lite".

    You could have had that with the electon of anyone but Jezza.

    Supporting "something you like that probably won't win" apart from being an admission of defeat, takes you out of the serious political debate and into pressure group status.

    (I think that is a position that UKIP occupies also.)
    The position Ukip occupies is 4m people agreeing with their message, not unquestioningly voting for the party you always have done.

    Megalomania is the new politics.

    Yes but all they have is their very narrow and singular message. That puts them into pressure group category.
    Your message seems to be that not enough people agree with you so there's no point. It seems the tories crave a one party state.

    Not at all. If you had read my posts previously (dear god I wouldn't wish that on anyone) you would see that I have plenty of sympathy for UKIP but that theirs is a long game, say 20-30 years. If they are serious. Political parties have to start somewhere.

    The difference with Lab is that there are plenty of hard left parties that have been going these past 30 years and they don't seem to have turned themselves into mainstream (ie geting voted for, ie "popular") parties. But Jezza wants to replicate those parties.
    But its not just Corbyn is it, he was elected by Labour members. I find the Corbyn discussion on here curious, the myopia of tories who simply can't conceive that anybody sees life differently from them.

    I happen to think he's a nutjob, but the people who count ie labour supporters, like him.

    Not my point. I see exactly why people like him. You only need to spend 1.8 seconds on CiF to see that. And good luck to them and him.

    My point is that he ain't going to get elected and that is a shame for centre-left erstwhile supporters of the Labour Party.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    Re Turkey: the difficulty for the EU here is that they need Turkey to stop the flow of refugees... or the EU are are going to have to start manning the Eastern borders.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    Pulpstar said:

    Here is the cause of the "misunderstandings":

    Turkey has maintained a buffer zone five miles inside Syria since June 2012, when a Syrian air defense missile shot down a Turkish fighter plane that had strayed into Syrian airspace. Under revised rules of engagement put in effect then, the Turkish air force would evaluate any target coming within five miles of the Turkish border as an enemy and act accordingly.

    Isn't this a bit shaky legally?

    The Russians are there on a "legitimate" police action at the request of the "legitimate" Syrian Government. The Turkish exclusion zone, outside of any declared conflict wouldn't appear to be enforceable at all.
This discussion has been closed.