One thought on Labour: they have a liquorice allsort problem.
Four layers, each contrasting with those either side: leadership at war with MPs, MPs at war with the membership, and the membership unrepresentative of the voters; each driving, or attempting to drive, the others away.
If Labour retain 80% of their support in Oldham it might not be enough to win. They polled 54.8% at the general election and 43.8% could easily be a losing percentage in this particular contest.
I don't think it would. That would only leave a maximum of 12.4% for Con, LD, Grn and MRLP combined. I really don't see those dropping below a combined 15% and probably it'll be higher.
I know I'm out of step with most people in thinking the Tories will get around 7%, the LDs 3.5% and the Greens 1.5%.
I think 5% for LD+Grn is probably about right but I'd bank on at least 10% Con.
One thought on Labour: they have a liquorice allsort problem.
Four layers, each contrasting with those either side: leadership at war with MPs, MPs at war with the membership, and the membership unrepresentative of the voters; each driving, or attempting to drive, the others away.
That's a neat summary. Each bloc has a larger bloc downstream that it can't deal with.
WRT Runciman, he loved Byzantium, and hated the Fourth Crusaders for sacking Constantinople (rightly so.). But, he adopted a strange my enemy's enemy is my friend attitude towards Islam.
At what point does the Labour leadership's support for terrorism mean that the government has to consider making the Labour Party a proscribed organisation?
Many would argue that supporting Apartheid South Africa was tantamount to supporting terrorism. Plenty of Tories have done that over the years.
Opposing South African sanctions = support for terrorism is a bit of a stretch.
Particularly when Mandela pleaded guilty to terrorism at his trial. Some (including himself) would no doubt argue that his terrorism was justified given the lack of civil rights blacks had and the oppressive nature of the regime but it was terrorism all the same and to argue otherwise is to mythologise.
Unless he decides to step down of his own accord I don't think Corbyn can be removed until next Autumn.
2017 is still my bet for the coup
If were to be done were best to be done quickly. If enough shadow cabinet ministers resign and enough MPs refuse to serve then we will see Dianne Abbott as Foreign Secretary. How Pythonesque can this Labour leadership go?
If Labour retain 80% of their support in Oldham it might not be enough to win. They polled 54.8% at the general election and 43.8% could easily be a losing percentage in this particular contest.
I don't think it would. That would only leave a maximum of 12.4% for Con, LD, Grn and MRLP combined. I really don't see those dropping below a combined 15% and probably it'll be higher.
I know I'm out of step with most people in thinking the Tories will get around 7%, the LDs 3.5% and the Greens 1.5%.
I think 5% for LD+Grn is probably about right but I'd bank on at least 10% Con.
Looking at Heywood & Middleton, the Tory vote dropped from 12,528 at the 2010 general election to 3,496 at the 2014 by-election. Applying that to Oldham West & Royton, the Tory vote would drop from 8,187 to 2,285 which with a 40% turnout would be around 7% or just over.
Unless he decides to step down of his own accord I don't think Corbyn can be removed until next Autumn.
2017 is still my bet for the coup
If were to be done were best to be done quickly. If enough shadow cabinet ministers resign and enough MPs refuse to serve then we will see Dianne Abbott as Foreign Secretary. How Pythonesque can this Labour leadership go?
Abbott Shadow Foreign Secretary, McDonnell Shadow Chancellor, Dennis Skinner Shadow Home Secretary, David Lammy Justice Secretary, Cat Smith Defence
At what point does the Labour leadership's support for terrorism mean that the government has to consider making the Labour Party a proscribed organisation?
Many would argue that supporting Apartheid South Africa was tantamount to supporting terrorism. Plenty of Tories have done that over the years.
Opposing South African sanctions = support for terrorism is a bit of a stretch.
Particularly when Mandela pleaded guilty to terrorism at his trial. Some (including himself) would no doubt argue that his terrorism was justified given the lack of civil rights blacks had and the oppressive nature of the regime but it was terrorism all the same and to argue otherwise is to mythologise.
What are the circumstances under which violent resistance is justified?
I had a conversation with a Labour peer who had been campaigning in Oldham; he told me it all came down to whether UKIP could get enough votes out on election day, to counter the near criminal electoral fraud that Labour were perpetrating amongst the South East Asian vote in the constituency.
He also said the UKIP candidate was a useless drunk, but that he might still win.
@gabyhinsliff: *nerd point* Syria vote row is basically abt what MPs are for; representatives or delegates? Shd they put country/ party/ constituency 1st?
Unfortunately for Labour, heavy rain is forecast virtually every day from now until and including polling day in Oldham, including 60mph winds on Sunday:
I had a conversation with a Labour peer who had been campaigning in Oldham; he told me it all came down to whether UKIP could get enough votes out on election day, to counter the near criminal electoral fraud that Labour were perpetrating amongst the South East Asian vote in the constituency.
He also said the UKIP candidate was a useless drunk, but that he might still win.
I've seen this idea on here a couple of times that the Tories don't want UKIP to win Oldham. Rubbish.
If UKIP win Oldham then they shift their limited resources toward capturing white working class seats in the North of England; seats that the Tories will never win. In doing so they abandon coastal seats in the south (Tory held) that have been there focus until now. That leaves the Suoth of England to the Tories while Labour and UKIP battle it out for the North. Tories would rather have an opposition to the right of them than to the left.
Unfortunately for Labour, heavy rain is forecast virtually every day from now until and including polling day in Oldham, including 60mph winds on Sunday:
I had a conversation with a Labour peer who had been campaigning in Oldham; he told me it all came down to whether UKIP could get enough votes out on election day, to counter the near criminal electoral fraud that Labour were perpetrating amongst the South East Asian vote in the constituency.
He also said the UKIP candidate was a useless drunk, but that he might still win.
But the fraud has been perpetrated already; postal votes.
I have elaborated on my earlier comment here about Oldham West & Royton and posted it on my own blog. In a shameless attempt to boost my hit count, here's the link:
Unfortunately for Labour, heavy rain is forecast virtually every day from now until and including polling day in Oldham, including 60mph winds on Sunday:
I had a conversation with a Labour peer who had been campaigning in Oldham; he told me it all came down to whether UKIP could get enough votes out on election day, to counter the near criminal electoral fraud that Labour were perpetrating amongst the South East Asian vote in the constituency.
He also said the UKIP candidate was a useless drunk, but that he might still win.
But the fraud has been perpetrated already; postal votes.
It's time they were consigned to the dustbin of history.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 12m12 minutes ago .@CllrJimMcMahon handled John Sweeney curveballs (on JC, LK + Syria) with more wit + nous than most MPs with yrs of experience. #Newsnight
Looks like Labour have got a strong local candidate (and not a parachuted in SPAD)
Do we know who the person was who got Corbyn over the minimum number with minutes to go? The have a heavy burden to carry...
Apropos of nothing, my wife's son lives with the daughter of one of the Corbyn nominees.
I'd have thought the first to do so while making clear it was not in support of the man himself would carry just as much of the burden by being the first to, in effect, declare that the process they had all agreed to was stupid and that securing a broad debate was more important than ensuring a minimum level of parliamentary support (a fair position to hold, had the party not chosen the process which focused on the latter rather than the former) for any new leader.
At what point does the Labour leadership's support for terrorism mean that the government has to consider making the Labour Party a proscribed organisation?
Many would argue that supporting Apartheid South Africa was tantamount to supporting terrorism. Plenty of Tories have done that over the years.
Opposing South African sanctions = support for terrorism is a bit of a stretch.
Particularly when Mandela pleaded guilty to terrorism at his trial. Some (including himself) would no doubt argue that his terrorism was justified given the lack of civil rights blacks had and the oppressive nature of the regime but it was terrorism all the same and to argue otherwise is to mythologise.
What are the circumstances under which violent resistance is justified?
I think St. Thomas Aquinas set it out pretty well.
1. Is the use of violence less of an evil than the evil that is being perpetrated?
2. Is the use of violence a last resort, when peaceful methods of resistance have produced no result?
3, Does the use of violence have a reasonable prospect of success?
4. If 1-3 apply, are the methods that you use to perpetrate violence justified?
There is no point the UK being involved in striking IS unless its going to bring proper resources. If its a similar situation to the RAF involvement in Iraq where a single or two Tornados seem to pop out once a day , its not going to add anything effective even as a component of an alliance of countries.
The French Defence Minister seemed to think we had 'proper resources'.....
@gabyhinsliff: *nerd point* Syria vote row is basically abt what MPs are for; representatives or delegates? Shd they put country/ party/ constituency 1st?
Actually, it is more subtle than that. Should they put their own views, their local party member views or their wider constituency voters views first?
At what point does the Labour leadership's support for terrorism mean that the government has to consider making the Labour Party a proscribed organisation?
Many would argue that supporting Apartheid South Africa was tantamount to supporting terrorism. Plenty of Tories have done that over the years.
Opposing South African sanctions = support for terrorism is a bit of a stretch.
Particularly when Mandela pleaded guilty to terrorism at his trial. Some (including himself) would no doubt argue that his terrorism was justified given the lack of civil rights blacks had and the oppressive nature of the regime but it was terrorism all the same and to argue otherwise is to mythologise.
What are the circumstances under which violent resistance is justified?
I had a conversation with a Labour peer who had been campaigning in Oldham; he told me it all came down to whether UKIP could get enough votes out on election day, to counter the near criminal electoral fraud that Labour were perpetrating amongst the South East Asian vote in the constituency.
He also said the UKIP candidate was a useless drunk, but that he might still win.
Pls elaborate on "near criminal electoral fraud" if you can.
Actually, it is more subtle than that. Should they put their own views, their local party member views or their wider constituency voters views first?
The Newsnight debate was fascinating.
NUS member (Corbyn backer) who said MPs must vote members views (no bombing)
Labour MP who said the PLP needed a collective stance on war, whether that be for or against
Phil Collins who said it would be "unprecedented and remarkable" if a shadow foreign or defence secretary voted against a leadership whip on a question of war without resigning
@timothy_stanley: 1962. The Cuban Missile Crisis. And John Kennedy writes to all Democrats to say "I'd like to hear your views on what I should do..." #Corbyn
Corbyn's supporters will simply respond with 'If you don't like the elected leader, leave the party and we'll replace you'. Labour are screwed.
Labour MPs will simply oust the leader before they get a chance and impose their own choice a la Michael Howard, all it needs is a by election loss to UKIP to provide the catalyst
Actually, it is more subtle than that. Should they put their own views, their local party member views or their wider constituency voters views first?
The Newsnight debate was fascinating.
NUS member (Corbyn backer) who said MPs must vote members views (no bombing)
Labour MP who said the PLP needed a collective stance on war, whether that be for or against
Phil Collins who said it would be "unprecedented and remarkable" if a shadow foreign or defence secretary voted against a leadership whip on a question of war without resigning
I think Collins is right. But we are in new territory -- or is that "the new politics"?
What a clusterf****. Malcolm Tucker would not be able to find words.
It's probably just a coincidence but both of the MPs calling for Corbyn to resign, Spellar and Mactaggart, represent constituencies with two of the highest Sikh populations in the country: Slough (10.6%) and Warley (12.3%).
@gabyhinsliff: *nerd point* Syria vote row is basically abt what MPs are for; representatives or delegates? Shd they put country/ party/ constituency 1st?
Actually, it is more subtle than that. Should they put their own views, their local party member views or their wider constituency voters views first?
Their duty is clearly to represent their constituents and their own consciences. Not the views of a self-selected bunch of activists.
Actually, it is more subtle than that. Should they put their own views, their local party member views or their wider constituency voters views first?
The Newsnight debate was fascinating.
NUS member (Corbyn backer) who said MPs must vote members views (no bombing)
Labour MP who said the PLP needed a collective stance on war, whether that be for or against
Phil Collins who said it would be "unprecedented and remarkable" if a shadow foreign or defence secretary voted against a leadership whip on a question of war without resigning
Apols if posted before - but from Allegra Stratton:
Corbyn appealing directly to members for views on Syria with online poll to "undercut" views of shadow cabinet. Just gone out to members now
I've been told often this is how Corbyn will run Labour - plebiscites to show members with him even if parli party not. First signs tonight
I've seen Corbyn message to Labour members. Makes clear he's opposed and wants their views by "start of next week". Corbynistas V Cabinet
Lab folk furious about tonight's Corbyn poll of members: "Cynical attempt to circumvent majority of the public who MPs actually represent."
Another source says "this might be last straw". Feeling that Corbyn wants to run party from membership. RIP representative Labour democracy
Actually, it is more subtle than that. Should they put their own views, their local party member views or their wider constituency voters views first?
The Newsnight debate was fascinating.
NUS member (Corbyn backer) who said MPs must vote members views (no bombing)
Labour MP who said the PLP needed a collective stance on war, whether that be for or against
Phil Collins who said it would be "unprecedented and remarkable" if a shadow foreign or defence secretary voted against a leadership whip on a question of war without resigning
Apols if posted before - but from Allegra Stratton:
Corbyn appealing directly to members for views on Syria with online poll to "undercut" views of shadow cabinet. Just gone out to members now
I've been told often this is how Corbyn will run Labour - plebiscites to show members with him even if parli party not. First signs tonight
I've seen Corbyn message to Labour members. Makes clear he's opposed and wants their views by "start of next week". Corbynistas V Cabinet
Lab folk furious about tonight's Corbyn poll of members: "Cynical attempt to circumvent majority of the public who MPs actually represent."
Another source says "this might be last straw". Feeling that Corbyn wants to run party from membership. RIP representative Labour democracy
I get the feeling we're going to be seeing a lot of 'last straws'.
Actually, it is more subtle than that. Should they put their own views, their local party member views or their wider constituency voters views first?
The Newsnight debate was fascinating.
NUS member (Corbyn backer) who said MPs must vote members views (no bombing)
Labour MP who said the PLP needed a collective stance on war, whether that be for or against
Phil Collins who said it would be "unprecedented and remarkable" if a shadow foreign or defence secretary voted against a leadership whip on a question of war without resigning
More to the point, is Phil planning to release a new album?
At what point does the Labour leadership's support for terrorism mean that the government has to consider making the Labour Party a proscribed organisation?
Many would argue that supporting Apartheid South Africa was tantamount to supporting terrorism. Plenty of Tories have done that over the years.
Opposing South African sanctions = support for terrorism is a bit of a stretch.
Particularly when Mandela pleaded guilty to terrorism at his trial. Some (including himself) would no doubt argue that his terrorism was justified given the lack of civil rights blacks had and the oppressive nature of the regime but it was terrorism all the same and to argue otherwise is to mythologise.
What are the circumstances under which violent resistance is justified?
Ken Livingstone stated last night on BBC Question Time that the 7/7 bombers committed their acts of terror in London in 2005 in protest at the Iraq invasion. Words cannot describe how let down I felt by a man for whom I have voted for in the past and rallied behind against the invasion of Iraq.....
He seemed to be suggesting that if you were affected by the Iraq war, and you are grieving, you get a free pass to propagate any message you like as well as act on it – even if it leads to terrorism.
I had a conversation with a Labour peer who had been campaigning in Oldham; he told me it all came down to whether UKIP could get enough votes out on election day, to counter the near criminal electoral fraud that Labour were perpetrating amongst the South East Asian vote in the constituency.
He also said the UKIP candidate was a useless drunk, but that he might still win.
I am grateful Chip Kelly will not be coaching the Eagles next season
And the Cowboys will not be in the Superbowl...
I don't think it's official yet, but it does seem that Charles Edward Kelly and the Eagles will be parting company. In the offseason he got personnel control, so this is a self-inflicted wound.
It's mathematically possible Dallas could make the playoffs but if I was a fan I would doubt it. Yesterday's game was not an impressive performance and Romo was hurt again.
Actually, it is more subtle than that. Should they put their own views, their local party member views or their wider constituency voters views first?
The Newsnight debate was fascinating.
NUS member (Corbyn backer) who said MPs must vote members views (no bombing)
Labour MP who said the PLP needed a collective stance on war, whether that be for or against
Phil Collins who said it would be "unprecedented and remarkable" if a shadow foreign or defence secretary voted against a leadership whip on a question of war without resigning
More to the point, is Phil planning to release a new album?
Canvassers on the doorstep ahead of next week’s Oldham byelection report incredulity among past Labour voters at the antics of the men at the top. As for the voters of middle England, some of whom at least will have to find Labour acceptable if the party is ever to return to government, the current leadership is all but urging them to stay away.
So when MPs or other Labour voices condemn Corbyn and his team, their chief motive is not ideological disagreement. It is their hardening conviction that, with each daily misstep, the ruling circle is making Labour unelectable and turning the Tories’ lease on Downing Street into a freehold.
That’s what they speak about privately. That’s what gets the veins bulging in their neck. Their belief that Labour is guaranteeing the Tories at least 10 more years in office: after which the NHS, the welfare state, the BBC, the country itself, will be unrecognisable.
Regarding the question of the reported conflicting legal advice on whether Labour MPs could stitch up a contest to exclude Corbyn following a challenge, there are two big obstacles. The first has already been mentioned: even if it could be done, the politics of it would be awful, the cries of 'betrayal' would make this an epic split of Labour as bad as 1931.
The second problem is that the initial ruling on the exact rules would surely be made by the NEC. As we saw today with the refenestration of Andrew Fisher, the entryists have already grabbed control of the NEC, so the ruling would be in the favour of the Corbyn camp. That would leave the anti-Corbyn camp in the invidious position of having to go to court to try to overturn the NEC ruling - never a good position to be in, and I suspect one which would be bound to fail. Courts are going to be extremely reluctant to interfere in an internal party matter.
3/4 Oldham voters had a negative view of Corbyn on BBC News at 10
Bah, what are they going to do about it? Not vote in Labour?
Surprising as it may seem Oldham voters are not sheep and can pick up a pencil and put an x in a box which is not next to the name of the Labour candidate!
Might that have something to do with one box on the ballot paper saying "Labour"?
49 29 is not 2 to 1 that would be 58 29 and there is little difference between 49 29 and 44 35 that cannot be accounted for by their being different pollsters in both cases Corbyn is going against public opinion and that of Labour voters
There's quite a lot of doubt out there, I think, and it wouldn't be healthy if Parliament pretended to be hugely in favour. People were in favour of Iraq according to the polls just before we decided on that but it was quite shallow and shifted away quickly. An air war is less intensely controversial since British casualties are likely to be very small if any - but equally it'll be difficult to show any concrete benefits. Corbyn should stick to his guns since it's clearly what he believes and he may well be proved right. It's interesting that every around him is urging a free vote, and I guess that's the most likely.
The French president has called on MPs to back UK air strikes in Syria, following the terror attacks in Paris earlier this month.
President Hollande thanked the UK for its support in the wake of the attacks and said he hoped MPs would back David Cameron's case for military action.
Unless he decides to step down of his own accord I don't think Corbyn can be removed until next Autumn.
2017 is still my bet for the coup
If were to be done were best to be done quickly. If enough shadow cabinet ministers resign and enough MPs refuse to serve then we will see Dianne Abbott as Foreign Secretary. How Pythonesque can this Labour leadership go?
Abbott Shadow Foreign Secretary, McDonnell Shadow Chancellor, Dennis Skinner Shadow Home Secretary, David Lammy Justice Secretary, Cat Smith Defence
At what point does the Labour leadership's support for terrorism mean that the government has to consider making the Labour Party a proscribed organisation?
Many would argue that supporting Apartheid South Africa was tantamount to supporting terrorism. Plenty of Tories have done that over the years.
Opposing South African sanctions = support for terrorism is a bit of a stretch.
Particularly when Mandela pleaded guilty to terrorism at his trial. Some (including himself) would no doubt argue that his terrorism was justified given the lack of civil rights blacks had and the oppressive nature of the regime but it was terrorism all the same and to argue otherwise is to mythologise.
What are the circumstances under which violent resistance is justified?
Lack of recourse to the ballot box is a sine qua non, coupled with severe repression. Hard to be precise.
49 29 is not 2 to 1 that would be 58 29 and there is little difference between 49 29 and 44 35 that cannot be accounted for by their being different pollsters in both cases Corbyn is going against public opinion and that of Labour voters
There's quite a lot of doubt out there, I think, and it wouldn't be healthy if Parliament pretended to be hugely in favour. People were in favour of Iraq according to the polls just before we decided on that but it was quite shallow and shifted away quickly. An air war is less intensely controversial since British casualties are likely to be very small if any - but equally it'll be difficult to show any concrete benefits. Corbyn should stick to his guns since it's clearly what he believes and he may well be proved right. It's interesting that every around him is urging a free vote, and I guess that's the most likely.
They supported Iraq with a UN mandate though I agree strikes will need to co-ordinate with ground forces
Unless he decides to step down of his own accord I don't think Corbyn can be removed until next Autumn.
2017 is still my bet for the coup
If were to be done were best to be done quickly. Ih shadow cabinet ministers resign and enough MPs refuse to serve then we will see Dianne Abbott as Foreign Secretary. How Pythonesque can this Labour leadership go?
Abbott Shadow Foreign Secretary, McDonnell Shadow Chancellor, Dennis Skinner Shadow Home Secretary, David Lammy Justice Secretary, Cat Smith Defence
Comments
Four layers, each contrasting with those either side: leadership at war with MPs, MPs at war with the membership, and the membership unrepresentative of the voters; each driving, or attempting to drive, the others away.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/06/who-nominated-who-2015-labour-leadership-election
How Pythonesque can this Labour leadership go?
Was this Labour's best day of the week?
He also said the UKIP candidate was a useless drunk, but that he might still win.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/2641022
"'People are very close to having the door slammed in their face': Labour tales from the by-election doorstep
Some Labour moderates now believe a Ukip win in Oldham West and Royton next Thursday would be for the best - because it could force a leadership coup"
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/people-very-close-having-door-10515372
If UKIP win Oldham then they shift their limited resources toward capturing white working class seats in the North of England; seats that the Tories will never win. In doing so they abandon coastal seats in the south (Tory held) that have been there focus until now. That leaves the Suoth of England to the Tories while Labour and UKIP battle it out for the North. Tories would rather have an opposition to the right of them than to the left.
http://www.kenbell.info/2015/11/labour-is-almost-certain-to-win-oldham.html
http://www.grm.co.uk/
Apropos of nothing, my wife's son lives with the daughter of one of the Corbyn nominees.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 12m12 minutes ago
.@CllrJimMcMahon handled John Sweeney curveballs (on JC, LK + Syria) with more wit + nous than most MPs with yrs of experience. #Newsnight
Looks like Labour have got a strong local candidate (and not a parachuted in SPAD)
Stunning news.
1. Is the use of violence less of an evil than the evil that is being perpetrated?
2. Is the use of violence a last resort, when peaceful methods of resistance have produced no result?
3, Does the use of violence have a reasonable prospect of success?
4. If 1-3 apply, are the methods that you use to perpetrate violence justified?
NUS member (Corbyn backer) who said MPs must vote members views (no bombing)
Labour MP who said the PLP needed a collective stance on war, whether that be for or against
Phil Collins who said it would be "unprecedented and remarkable" if a shadow foreign or defence secretary voted against a leadership whip on a question of war without resigning
What a clusterf****. Malcolm Tucker would not be able to find words.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/corbyn-s-success-is-down-to-one-man-now-what-was-his-name-10450633.html
Corbyn appealing directly to members for views on Syria with online poll to "undercut" views of shadow cabinet. Just gone out to members now
I've been told often this is how Corbyn will run Labour - plebiscites to show members with him even if parli party not. First signs tonight
I've seen Corbyn message to Labour members. Makes clear he's opposed and wants their views by "start of next week". Corbynistas V Cabinet
Lab folk furious about tonight's Corbyn poll of members: "Cynical attempt to circumvent majority of the public who MPs actually represent."
Another source says "this might be last straw". Feeling that Corbyn wants to run party from membership. RIP representative Labour democracy
Good night all.
Every track is called "I told you so"
He has been recording them ever since Tony Blair stepped down
I am grateful Chip Kelly will not be coaching the Eagles next season
And the Cowboys will not be in the Superbowl...
Ken Livingstone stated last night on BBC Question Time that the 7/7 bombers committed their acts of terror in London in 2005 in protest at the Iraq invasion. Words cannot describe how let down I felt by a man for whom I have voted for in the past and rallied behind against the invasion of Iraq.....
He seemed to be suggesting that if you were affected by the Iraq war, and you are grieving, you get a free pass to propagate any message you like as well as act on it – even if it leads to terrorism.
http://leftfootforward.org/2015/11/hijacking-the-iraq-war-to-justify-extremism/
It's mathematically possible Dallas could make the playoffs but if I was a fan I would doubt it. Yesterday's game was not an impressive performance and Romo was hurt again.
Canvassers on the doorstep ahead of next week’s Oldham byelection report incredulity among past Labour voters at the antics of the men at the top. As for the voters of middle England, some of whom at least will have to find Labour acceptable if the party is ever to return to government, the current leadership is all but urging them to stay away.
So when MPs or other Labour voices condemn Corbyn and his team, their chief motive is not ideological disagreement. It is their hardening conviction that, with each daily misstep, the ruling circle is making Labour unelectable and turning the Tories’ lease on Downing Street into a freehold.
That’s what they speak about privately. That’s what gets the veins bulging in their neck. Their belief that Labour is guaranteeing the Tories at least 10 more years in office: after which the NHS, the welfare state, the BBC, the country itself, will be unrecognisable.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/27/misstep-corbyn-terror-mao-labour-alienating-supporters
The second problem is that the initial ruling on the exact rules would surely be made by the NEC. As we saw today with the refenestration of Andrew Fisher, the entryists have already grabbed control of the NEC, so the ruling would be in the favour of the Corbyn camp. That would leave the anti-Corbyn camp in the invidious position of having to go to court to try to overturn the NEC ruling - never a good position to be in, and I suspect one which would be bound to fail. Courts are going to be extremely reluctant to interfere in an internal party matter.
(Its a Planned Parenthood site)
However, if John Bickley does win, UKIP will have a tricky problem, because he and Douglas Carswell are unlikely to agree on very much.
President Hollande thanked the UK for its support in the wake of the attacks and said he hoped MPs would back David Cameron's case for military action.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34945224
Jeremy knows better......
New Thread New Thread