Do we really believe that though? UKIP's support would be much more patchy and with new boundaries playing a part, I could see Labour dropping a good deal further than those figures suggest. In fact, I'm toying with writing a Labocalypse thread for next weekend, depending on how Oldham turns out.
Is a rough guide. I expect FPTP will break down in those circumstances. I suspect the Tories might benefit more than UKIP in that scenario.
Tissue Price said it could be like Scotland all over again for Labour.
Labocalypse will occur when the Labour motorvoters decide that another party can replace Labour as the NotTheToryParty party. If/when that actually happens, the collapse will be very sudden, I think. Though not as extreme as in Scotland.
I'm starting to think Labour really might lose this. It would not be astonishing if their vote collapsed entirely and UKIP won on a very low turnout.
They won't. Labour can be assured of a decent postal vote so if UKIP are to take it then they'll need to get the votes rather than rely on Labour abstentions.
In other words the postal vote is a fraud and a scandal that shouldn't be allowed in a democratic voting system.
I don't understand this charade about Turkish accession to the EU.
Every country has a veto on new accessions. It is literally inconceivable that Austria, for one, would ever agree to Turkish EU membership. The Austrians remember the Gates of Vienna. Polls consistently show 70-80% of Austrians would vote down Turkish accession, and every Austrian politician knows this.
Then there's Cyprus, Greece, Croatia and Bulgaria to persuade.
And the French won't be too keen.
It's never going to happen, and surely all sides are cognisant of the facts, so why do the politicians enact this elaborate pantomime?
Its about showing the Turks who is prepared to treat them as friends and equals.
I don't understand this charade about Turkish accession to the EU.
Every country has a veto on new accessions. It is literally inconceivable that Austria, for one, would ever agree to Turkish EU membership. The Austrians remember the Gates of Vienna. Polls consistently show 70-80% of Austrians would vote down Turkish accession, and every Austrian politician knows this.
Then there's Cyprus, Greece, Croatia and Bulgaria to persuade.
And the French won't be too keen.
It's never going to happen, and surely all sides are cognisant of the facts, so why do the politicians enact this elaborate pantomime?
Because this is what the EU has become; a dangerous pantomime staffed by unelected charlatans.
So, on a quick straw poll of PB's finest, whose political views range pretty much across the whole spectrum (though maybe a bit short on the left - probably not yet home from Evensong) nobody expects Labour to lose in Oldham this week. "Labour holds with a reduced majority" is the most likely headline and not one that is going to cause any big waves.
I don't 'expect' Labour to lose but it's well within the range of possibilities. Put it this way: it wouldn't surprise me if it happens.
It would be a wake up call for Labour. The problem is, the leadership, party members and union backers seem not to care.
Unison has now stuck their heads up and said Corbyn is not going anywhere. Quite a number of MPs are sponsored by Unison of course and would they dare to go against the sponsors? Based on the present situation even if Labour should lose the seat then I cannot see at this point this would hasten the departure of the present Leader.
It really is a dire position for a moderate to be in to be honest. The only way back is likely to be the formation of an entirely new centre left party more aligned with LibDems.
I've already spoken to one Corbynite friend (I've several, but this one is quite politically attuned), who's comment on the possibility of Labour losing was "strange things happen at by-elections". I suspect this one would be written off to 'racist Oldham voters', with a nod to the BNP's 16% in 2001.
There will always be an excuse, be it the voters, the media or the Tories.
I wonder at what point they would finally accept that things were not going the way they planned. Would that moment already be past the point of no return. Perhaps they are in going to remain in denial and consider it will turn for them? Perhaps next time..keep up the good work etc.
I am surprised a little that we have not heard from the more moderates except for one or two. Mrs Cooper, Hattie etc seemed to have disappeared entirely from the scene. It is as if they were never there. Perhaps they are drowned out in the general mayhem but seriously what can they be thinking of the present position as they approach this by election. They cannot sit there in silence indefinitely ...or can they?
Worth noting that turnout was just average in 2015 in Oldham (60%). Some of the door-slammers will be abstainers past and future. Do we know what the PV turnout has been so far, ideally compared with last time?
The weather Thursday there looks cold but dry, but I'm not sure who that helps.
I don't understand this charade about Turkish accession to the EU.
Every country has a veto on new accessions. It is literally inconceivable that Austria, for one, would ever agree to Turkish EU membership. The Austrians remember the Gates of Vienna. Polls consistently show 70-80% of Austrians would vote down Turkish accession, and every Austrian politician knows this.
Then there's Cyprus, Greece, Croatia and Bulgaria to persuade.
And the French won't be too keen.
It's never going to happen, and surely all sides are cognisant of the facts, so why do the politicians enact this elaborate pantomime?
To keep Turkey from sliding further eastwards politically.
Not only is there the problem you mention; there is also the issue that Turkey's progress to meeting the requirements to join the EU has been glacial (then again, those requirements were (ahem) reduced for some other recent members). So no, short of a massive world event they won't be joining in the next two decades, if ever.
But the charade enables us to win concessions from them, and them from us. And the more they deal with us, the less they'll deal with people we'd prefer them not to.
And to some extent, it may make Erdogan and the other groups pause a little.
Worth noting that turnout was just average in 2015 in Oldham (60%). Some of the door-slammers will be abstainers past and future. Do we know what the PV turnout has been so far, ideally compared with last time?
The weather Thursday there looks cold but dry, but I'm not sure who that helps.
On Topic: What a f***ing surprise. A shambolic divisive pacifist incompetent leader isn't going down well with normal voters. I've come to the realisation that it would be better for the party to split formally if necessary than tolerate this idiot any longer. It's appalling for British democracy not to have a serious opposition. Corbynites won't listen to it though. I seriously believe Labour could lose the next ten General Elections and they still wouldn't change their minds. They are electorally retarded and always will be.
Corbyn's victory was a Liberal coup. I'm a Liberal so I like the guy. I'm sure I would've liked George Lansbury too. But the fact that middle-class Liberals like me like your leader isn't going to help Labour win any elections, except perhaps in Islington or Withington.
I don't understand this charade about Turkish accession to the EU.
Every country has a veto on new accessions. It is literally inconceivable that Austria, for one, would ever agree to Turkish EU membership. The Austrians remember the Gates of Vienna. Polls consistently show 70-80% of Austrians would vote down Turkish accession, and every Austrian politician knows this.
Then there's Cyprus, Greece, Croatia and Bulgaria to persuade.
And the French won't be too keen.
It's never going to happen, and surely all sides are cognisant of the facts, so why do the politicians enact this elaborate pantomime?
Its about showing the Turks who is prepared to treat them as friends and equals.
I cannot see the Turkish resorts filling up with bookings this year, from either the EU or the Russkis.
I don't understand this charade about Turkish accession to the EU.
Every country has a veto on new accessions. It is literally inconceivable that Austria, for one, would ever agree to Turkish EU membership. The Austrians remember the Gates of Vienna. Polls consistently show 70-80% of Austrians would vote down Turkish accession, and every Austrian politician knows this.
Then there's Cyprus, Greece, Croatia and Bulgaria to persuade.
And the French won't be too keen.
It's never going to happen, and surely all sides are cognisant of the facts, so why do the politicians enact this elaborate pantomime?
I don't understand why Turkish politicians would instigate reforms to gain EU membership when there are a large number of countries who will veto their entry. I wouldn't be surprised if there is some sort of fudge lined up.
I don't understand this charade about Turkish accession to the EU.
Every country has a veto on new accessions. It is literally inconceivable that Austria, for one, would ever agree to Turkish EU membership. The Austrians remember the Gates of Vienna. Polls consistently show 70-80% of Austrians would vote down Turkish accession, and every Austrian politician knows this.
Then there's Cyprus, Greece, Croatia and Bulgaria to persuade.
And the French won't be too keen.
It's never going to happen, and surely all sides are cognisant of the facts, so why do the politicians enact this elaborate pantomime?
So, on a quick straw poll of PB's finest, whose political views range pretty much across the whole spectrum (though maybe a bit short on the left - probably not yet home from Evensong) nobody expects Labour to lose in Oldham this week. "Labour holds with a reduced majority" is the most likely headline and not one that is going to cause any big waves.
I don't 'expect' Labour to lose but it's well within the range of possibilities. Put it this way: it wouldn't surprise me if it happens.
It would be a wake up call for Labour. The problem is, the leadership, party members and union backers seem not to care.
Unison has now stuck their heads up and said Corbyn is not going anywhere. Quite a number of MPs are sponsored by Unison of course and would they dare to go against the sponsors? Based on the present situation even if Labour should lose the seat then I cannot see at this point this would hasten the departure of the present Leader.
It really is a dire position for a moderate to be in to be honest. The only way back is likely to be the formation of an entirely new centre left party more aligned with LibDems.
1. There are no £££££ for a new moderate party 2. The moderate people who knock on doors would be at best split across the two parties. The Corbynistas would of course remain. So lacking both cash and bodies. But cash more important 3. If it had a chance at power PB would still hate it
Corbyn's victory was a Liberal coup. I'm a Liberal so I like the guy. I'm sure I would've liked George Lansbury too. But the fact that middle-class Liberals like me like your leader isn't going to help Labour win any elections, except perhaps in Islington or Withington.
Corbyn a Liberal ?!?!?! - that could only be seed by somebody who has no idea what Liberal means.
Liberal: Of and pertaining to freedom.
Corbyn is the most illiberal MP I know of. He has made a career from calling for the power of the state to be increased, and thus individuals freedoms to be removed.
I don't understand this charade about Turkish accession to the EU.
Every country has a veto on new accessions. It is literally inconceivable that Austria, for one, would ever agree to Turkish EU membership. The Austrians remember the Gates of Vienna. Polls consistently show 70-80% of Austrians would vote down Turkish accession, and every Austrian politician knows this.
Then there's Cyprus, Greece, Croatia and Bulgaria to persuade.
And the French won't be too keen.
It's never going to happen, and surely all sides are cognisant of the facts, so why do the politicians enact this elaborate pantomime?
Turkey will receive structural funds and funding for institutional improvement Turkey may also gain reputation from EU accreditation for the parts of its bureaucracy related to the acquis communautaire I agree that it is kabuki and that neither EU nor Erdogan wants accession
Do we really believe that though? UKIP's support would be much more patchy and with new boundaries playing a part, I could see Labour dropping a good deal further than those figures suggest. In fact, I'm toying with writing a Labocalypse thread for next weekend, depending on how Oldham turns out.
Turkey will receive structural funds and funding for institutional improvement Turkey may also gain reputation from EU accreditation for the parts of its bureaucracy related to the acquis communautaire I agree that it is kabuki and that neither EU nor Erdogan wants accession
Britain might see it as a trial run for a status of associate member without free movement. Everyone would be perfectly happy with Turkey being part of the single market for trade, investment, standardised wine glasses, common rules for car safety, etc. But whether other EU countries wouild want to open this new form of association is pretty doubtful - not least because of the precedent for Britain. Instead, what we'll tend to see is Turkey agreeing to join standardisation in specific areas. As a translator I'm starting to see the phrase "Imports from a Member State, a signatory to the EEA agreement, or Turkey" here and there in official documents.
Telegraph headline 'Activist group linked to Jeremy Corbyn has accounts closed amid fears it may be funding terrorism'. You couldn't make this stuff up.
I read on Twitter that the Russians are now hitting every vehicle that moves between Turkey and ISIS-land. Not just oil trucks or Toyotas full of insurgents - everything. The Russians aren't happy with Johnny Turk.
Transfer Sources @TransferSources · 25m25 minutes ago The Russian government have banned Russian clubs from signing Turkish players in the upcoming January transfer window.
So, on a quick straw poll of PB's finest, whose political views range pretty much across the whole spectrum (though maybe a bit short on the left - probably not yet home from Evensong) nobody expects Labour to lose in Oldham this week. "Labour holds with a reduced majority" is the most likely headline and not one that is going to cause any big waves.
Evensong .. tut tut.. Advent Carol service dear boy! and excellent it was too.
It'd be a blessing in disguise for Labour to lose Oldham, IMHO.
As for the whole universities/Corbyn/left-wing discussion in the previous thread, the most balanced opinions, tend to be somewhere in the centre as opposed to the right of British politics. Corbyn is a disaster, but Cameron, Osborne, and the Conservative Party aren't absolutely amazing either. In fact, looking at this whole Clarke scandal, there is something rather dark and disturbing at the heart of the Conservative Party.
All parties have this sort of thing in them, and it is disingenuous to say otherwise. In fact, any large organisation does.
The scandal is not in having such people, for they can rarely be detected beforehand; it is in the way you mishandle allegations. And Labour or the Lib Dems don't have an exemplary record in that either.
It's made worse by the fact that political parties rely on volunteers, who are hard to vet and hard to keep motivated. If you get a keen one, it can be hard to control them fully as they know they are unpaid, and yet they can be incredibly productive.
But in this case, giving Clarke a second chance seems to have been a fairly disastrous decision.
Why is it tantamount to a crime to criticise the Conservative Party on PB?
I didn't say 'no other party/organisation' has bad people in it. If anything, I've spent most of my time on PB being critical of all three/four of the major political parties. Just as the Rennard Scandal proved the LDs weren't the cosy, equality-supporting liberals they purported to be, the Clarke scandal reveals equally unpleasant things regarding the Conservative Party. If you want to know why I highlighted the Conservative Party, instead of all of the big three it's because (a. it's a recent story (b. the Conservative Party, until the Osborne budget has been treated as pretty much untouchable on PB.
On Topic: What a f***ing surprise. A shambolic divisive pacifist incompetent leader isn't going down well with normal voters. I've come to the realisation that it would be better for the party to split formally if necessary than tolerate this idiot any longer. It's appalling for British democracy not to have a serious opposition. Corbynites won't listen to it though. I seriously believe Labour could lose the next ten General Elections and they still wouldn't change their minds. They are electorally retarded and always will be.
The only people who like Corbyn are academics, students, public sector workers and Muslims he is loathed by the City, Jews, the traditional working class, most of the middle class who work in the private sector and the military ie basically everywhere outside inner London, Manchester and a few other major cities
Telegraph headline 'Activist group linked to Jeremy Corbyn has accounts closed amid fears it may be funding terrorism'. You couldn't make this stuff up.
Closed by the fascist Tory scum bastards at The Co-operative Bank no less.
Do we trust the Turkish to do as they say? Would this be the same Turkey who waved through loads of would be Jahadists on their way to Syria?
What a waste of time and money. Hopefully that money comes from Schengen nations. We need to be putting sanctions on Turkey, not helping them out right now. Germany have a lot to answer for.
Who gives a shit what the Yanks want..What the EU does not need is access and free movement throughout the EU for another 70 million Muslims..
Leaders of EU countries. They have to give a shit. USA is their boss.
Ever heard of Zbigniew Brzezinski? Anyone who is interested in foreign affairs should do. An expatriate Pole who is the father of the current US foreign policy doctrine (and who's son advises the current administration).
His 'geostrategy for Eurasia' has a lot of answers for those confused by: -why our leaders are so desperate to keep us in the EU no matter what -why they are in favour of Turkey joining the EU no matter what -what the US is trying to do vis a vis Russia http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1254548/posts
- "Europe is America's essential geopolitical bridgehead in Eurasia. America's stake in democratic Europe is enormous. Unlike America's links with Japan, NATO entrenches American political influence and military power on the Eurasian mainland. With the allied European nations still highly dependent on U.S. protection, any expansion of Europe's political scope is automatically an expansion of U.S. influence. Conversely, the United States' ability to project influence and power in Eurasia relies on close transatlantic ties.
A wider Europe and an enlarged NATO will serve the short-term and longer-term interests of U.S. policy. A larger Europe will expand the range of American influence without simultaneously creating a Europe so politically integrated that it could challenge the United States on matters of geopolitical importance, particularly in the Middle East. A politically defined Europe is also essential to Russia's assimilation into a system of global cooperation."
Anyone trying to male sense of these issues is flying blind without being aware of this 'grand plan'. We're just pawns in the game. In fact the UK personally is so little of a consideration we're not even mentioned.
So, on a quick straw poll of PB's finest, whose political views range pretty much across the whole spectrum (though maybe a bit short on the left - probably not yet home from Evensong) nobody expects Labour to lose in Oldham this week. "Labour holds with a reduced majority" is the most likely headline and not one that is going to cause any big waves.
I don't 'expect' Labour to lose but it's well within the range of possibilities. Put it this way: it wouldn't surprise me if it happens.
It would be a wake up call for Labour. The problem is, the leadership, party members and union backers seem not to care.
Unison has now stuck their heads up and said Corbyn is not going anywhere. Quite a number of MPs are sponsored by Unison of course and would they dare to go against the sponsors? Based on the present situation even if Labour should lose the seat then I cannot see at this point this would hasten the departure of the present Leader.
It really is a dire position for a moderate to be in to be honest. The only way back is likely to be the formation of an entirely new centre left party more aligned with LibDems.
1. There are no £££££ for a new moderate party 2. The moderate people who knock on doors would be at best split across the two parties. The Corbynistas would of course remain. So lacking both cash and bodies. But cash more important 3. If it had a chance at power PB would still hate it
I'm not so certain.
1) The official labour party are set to lose most of there funding with the new Trade Union bill. and it is a lot easer for a new party to raise funds on the internet than it has ever been. 2) membership may be patchy at the start, but there are some that would come out of loyalty to individual MPs, some who would come out of horror at the Corbyn supporters, and a lot of Ex LibDems out their who left because of the LibDem/Con coalition, who might join. 3) If over 117 (I think) MPs where to leave and join the new party it would instantly become the official Oppression. and with that it would get to lead at PMQs and plenty of media coverage.
I don't think it will happen, the MPs don't have the guts, but if they did I think this time (unlike the SDP) it could work.
It'd be a blessing in disguise for Labour to lose Oldham, IMHO.
As for the whole universities/Corbyn/left-wing discussion in the previous thread, the most balanced opinions, tend to be somewhere in the centre as opposed to the right of British politics. Corbyn is a disaster, but Cameron, Osborne, and the Conservative Party aren't absolutely amazing either. In fact, looking at this whole Clarke scandal, there is something rather dark and disturbing at the heart of the Conservative Party.
All parties have this sort of thing in them, and it is disingenuous to say otherwise. In fact, any large organisation does.
The scandal is not in having such people, for they can rarely be detected beforehand; it is in the way you mishandle allegations. And Labour or the Lib Dems don't have an exemplary record in that either.
It's made worse by the fact that political parties rely on volunteers, who are hard to vet and hard to keep motivated. If you get a keen one, it can be hard to control them fully as they know they are unpaid, and yet they can be incredibly productive.
But in this case, giving Clarke a second chance seems to have been a fairly disastrous decision.
Why is it tantamount to a crime to criticise the Conservative Party on PB?
I didn't say 'no other party/organisation' has bad people in it. If anything, I've spent most of my time on PB being critical of all three/four of the major political parties. Just as the Rennard Scandal proved the LDs weren't the cosy, equality-supporting liberals they purported to be, the Clarke scandal reveals equally unpleasant things regarding the Conservative Party. If you want to know why I highlighted the Conservative Party, instead of all of the big three it's because (a. it's a recent story (b. the Conservative Party, until the Osborne budget has been treated as pretty much untouchable on PB.
You just have to be persistent - this government and its party will certainly provide plenty of reasons to criticize.
You could count the Cameron and Osborne fans on one hand at times during the last parliament. The surprise GE win and dearth of credible Labour opposition has upset the natural order is all.
We've even heard the Tories won't be torn to pieces like they once would have feared over the EU referendum, but I find that hard to believe - they'll be blood on the floor from an online Tory war then I feel, and you can bet the non-Cameroons will be out in force then criticising the party's direction and leadership.
I read on Twitter that the Russians are now hitting every vehicle that moves between Turkey and ISIS-land. Not just oil trucks or Toyotas full of insurgents - everything. The Russians aren't happy with Johnny Turk.
Sounds a reasonable plan. Of course the Russians and Turks have plenty of previous:
It'd be a blessing in disguise for Labour to lose Oldham, IMHO.
As for the whole universities/Corbyn/left-wing discussion in the previous thread, the most balanced opinions, tend to be somewhere in the centre as opposed to the right of British politics. Corbyn is a disaster, but Cameron, Osborne, and the Conservative Party aren't absolutely amazing either. In fact, looking at this whole Clarke scandal, there is something rather dark and disturbing at the heart of the Conservative Party.
All parties have this sort of thing in them, and it is disingenuous to say otherwise. In fact, any large organisation does.
The scandal is not in having such people, for they can rarely be detected beforehand; it is in the way you mishandle allegations. And Labour or the Lib Dems don't have an exemplary record in that either.
It's made worse by the fact that political parties rely on volunteers, who are hard to vet and hard to keep motivated. If you get a keen one, it can be hard to control them fully as they know they are unpaid, and yet they can be incredibly productive.
But in this case, giving Clarke a second chance seems to have been a fairly disastrous decision.
Why is it tantamount to a crime to criticise the Conservative Party on PB?
I didn't say 'no other party/organisation' has bad people in it. If anything, I've spent most of my time on PB being critical of all three/four of the major political parties. Just as the Rennard Scandal proved the LDs weren't the cosy, equality-supporting liberals they purported to be, the Clarke scandal reveals equally unpleasant things regarding the Conservative Party. If you want to know why I highlighted the Conservative Party, instead of all of the big three it's because (a. it's a recent story (b. the Conservative Party, until the Osborne budget has been treated as pretty much untouchable on PB.
It isn't - if that was your reading of Mr JJ's post, I'd hazard you've misinterpreted it.
Incidentally, I may be biased, but when you suggest any party has something 'dark and sinister' you do sound rather partisan....
He sounds too sensible to do so, but it would be funny if the Labour chap won and immediately said how terrible Corbyn and McDonnell were. It would make the party responses more interesting to read at least.
Why is it tantamount to a crime to criticise the Conservative Party on PB?
I didn't say 'no other party/organisation' has bad people in it. If anything, I've spent most of my time on PB being critical of all three/four of the major political parties. Just as the Rennard Scandal proved the LDs weren't the cosy, equality-supporting liberals they purported to be, the Clarke scandal reveals equally unpleasant things regarding the Conservative Party. If you want to know why I highlighted the Conservative Party, instead of all of the big three it's because (a. it's a recent story (b. the Conservative Party, until the Osborne budget has been treated as pretty much untouchable on PB.
You didn't say no other party organisation has bad people in it; you just mentioned one party as having a black heart. And that's why I bit: there are too many party loyalists who cover their eyes and ears and pretend because the people around them are politically sound, they must be nice people. Unlike their opponents who are, of course, wrong in every possible way. And that's one of the reasons these scandals happen. 'Good' people who ignore and cover-up allegations are not good.
I'm glad you're not one of them, and I'm sorry that I insinuated otherwise.
You may have noticed that there has not been much defence of Clarke or the Conservatives on this issue on here.
I've been banging on about the need for proper party processes to deal with complaints since before the Rennard scandal, and I want all parties to both institute and stick to them. It's quite shocking that it appears none of them do (from the time of the Rennard scandal, at least).
I'd been hoping that when this issue came up as part of the Rennard scandal it would cause them to tighten ship - ISTR a Labour minister was embarrassed when she could not say what Labour's process was. In the case of the Conservatives at least, they have not.
It just shows that political parties are not professional organisations.
It'd be a blessing in disguise for Labour to lose Oldham, IMHO.
As for the whole universities/Corbyn/left-wing discussion in the previous thread, the most balanced opinions, tend to be somewhere in the centre as opposed to the right of British politics. Corbyn is a disaster, but Cameron, Osborne, and the Conservative Party aren't absolutely amazing either. In fact, looking at this whole Clarke scandal, there is something rather dark and disturbing at the heart of the Conservative Party.
You're over-reacting.
There was one very unpleasant individual who abused his position. He's been banned for life from the party.
There was one man who demonstrated poor judgement in allowing him back into the fold after he had been cast out the first time. That individual has now been resigned.
Is there anyone else who you think is dark and disturbing?
Or would you prefer a party that tolerates someone who behaves inappropriately towards junior (female) colleagues and then promotes him to a very senior post? Or a party that tolerates anti-semitism? Or a party that wants to 'make white folks angry'?
The puzzling thing about the desire to bomb Syria is that almost all attacks by ISIS have been carried out by people from the country attacked.
But no one seems to mention this much...
It's like having a disease and eliminating one of the causes rather than trying to cure it, like a lung cancer sufferer giving up smoking but not treating the cancer
You do both.
Treating the cancer but not addressing the cause is pretty pointless
I read on Twitter that the Russians are now hitting every vehicle that moves between Turkey and ISIS-land. Not just oil trucks or Toyotas full of insurgents - everything. The Russians aren't happy with Johnny Turk.
Transfer Sources @TransferSources · 25m25 minutes ago The Russian government have banned Russian clubs from signing Turkish players in the upcoming January transfer window.
For real?
I have to confess that admiring Russia, even - to an extent - Putin's Russia - is my geopolitical guilty pleasure, the equivalent of the Phil Collins CD hidden in the car.
It'd be a blessing in disguise for Labour to lose Oldham, IMHO.
As for the whole universities/Corbyn/left-wing discussion in the previous thread, the most balanced opinions, tend to be somewhere in the centre as opposed to the right of British politics. Corbyn is a disaster, but Cameron, Osborne, and the Conservative Party aren't absolutely amazing either. In fact, looking at this whole Clarke scandal, there is something rather dark and disturbing at the heart of the Conservative Party.
All parties have this sort of thing in them, and it is disingenuous to say otherwise. In fact, any large organisation does.
The scandal is not in having such people, for they can rarely be detected beforehand; it is in the way you mishandle allegations. And Labour or the Lib Dems don't have an exemplary record in that either.
It's made worse by the fact that political parties rely on volunteers, who are hard to vet and hard to keep motivated. If you get a keen one, it can be hard to control them fully as they know they are unpaid, and yet they can be incredibly productive.
But in this case, giving Clarke a second chance seems to have been a fairly disastrous decision.
Why is it tantamount to a crime to criticise the Conservative Party on PB?
The puzzling thing about the desire to bomb Syria is that almost all attacks by ISIS have been carried out by people from the country attacked.
But no one seems to mention this much...
It's like having a disease and eliminating one of the causes rather than trying to cure it, like a lung cancer sufferer giving up smoking but not treating the cancer
You do both. Treating the cancer but not addressing the cause is pretty pointless
The bombers and gunmen get their orders and training and equipment from overseas.
On the current Tory party troubles, Shapps seems like a bit of a dick anyway, fairly or not, so showing poor judgement seems like something people would expect of him, and has it been suggested the whole internal machine reflects the troubling accusations about the Clarke business? If it is, I feel like the story hasn't gained much traction as of yet and will need to run on and claim more senior people, Feldman presumably, before it starts to hit the party itself.
With these sorts of things it's the cumulative effect that gets a party in the end I feel. If there is something rotten in the organization itself, rather than some individuals within it, it feels like it will end up being one scandal after another until it all becomes too much. I was only a child in the 90s, but was it like that with the Tories and sex scandals once? You still see jokes about that sort of thing, so I presume they had a real problem back in the day.
It'd be a blessing in disguise for Labour to lose Oldham, IMHO.
As for the whole universities/Corbyn/left-wing discussion in the previous thread, the most balanced opinions, tend to be somewhere in the centre as opposed to the right of British politics. Corbyn is a disaster, but Cameron, Osborne, and the Conservative Party aren't absolutely amazing either. In fact, looking at this whole Clarke scandal, there is something rather dark and disturbing at the heart of the Conservative Party.
You're over-reacting.
There was one very unpleasant individual who abused his position. He's been banned for life from the party.
There was one man who demonstrated poor judgement in allowing him back into the fold after he had been cast out the first time. That individual has now been resigned.
Is there anyone else who you think is dark and disturbing?
Or would you prefer a party that tolerates someone who behaves inappropriately towards junior (female) colleagues and then promotes him to a very senior post? Or a party that tolerates anti-semitism? Or a party that wants to 'make white folks angry'?
Charles, it's not just about letting Clarke back into the fold: in some ways that could be seen as admirable. It's that if you do let someone back into the fold, you keep them on a tight leash until you can be sure you trust them. That is especially true when that person will have contact with volunteers and members of the public. You also ensure that any allegations against them are acted on properly and fairly to all parties.
It looks as though that did not happen here (although Clarke should also get a fair hearing now as well), and that's why serious questions need to be answered.
Why is it tantamount to a crime to criticise the Conservative Party on PB? ....
It isn't. I do it a lot and if it were I should know about it by now. Of course you'll get one or two Conservative Party stalwarts pop up, the people who just cannot comprehend that someone could think that Cameron could ever be wrong. However if you criticise Labour you will get the same and to criticise the LibDems is to invite the wrath of OGH himself.
It'd be a blessing in disguise for Labour to lose Oldham, IMHO.
As for the whole universities/Corbyn/left-wing discussion in the previous thread, the most balanced opinions, tend to be somewhere in the centre as opposed to the right of British politics. Corbyn is a disaster, but Cameron, Osborne, and the Conservative Party aren't absolutely amazing either. In fact, looking at this whole Clarke scandal, there is something rather dark and disturbing at the heart of the Conservative Party.
You're over-reacting.
There was one very unpleasant individual who abused his position. He's been banned for life from the party.
There was one man who demonstrated poor judgement in allowing him back into the fold after he had been cast out the first time. That individual has now been resigned.
Is there anyone else who you think is dark and disturbing?
Or would you prefer a party that tolerates someone who behaves inappropriately towards junior (female) colleagues and then promotes him to a very senior post? Or a party that tolerates anti-semitism? Or a party that wants to 'make white folks angry'?
Rennard resigned recently at the request of Tim Farron.
More about the IHH - evidently bread baking isn't their only skill.
'In 1996, Israel shut down a regional office of the IHH led by Suleiman Gibarieh for paying bounties to the families of dead terrorists. [2] In 1998, IHH was temporarily shut down after Turkish police found bombs in its office. [1] [3] Turkish investigations of IHH ended after the 2002 election of the Muslim Brotherhood front Justice and Development Party (AKP). In 2008, Israel banned the IHH as one of 26 alleged Muslim Brotherhood financial front groups in the "Union of Good" led by Yusuf Qaradawi. [4] The Netherlands outlawed the local branch of the IHH in 2011. [5]
Jean-Louis Brugiere described the IHH as "a type of cover-up in order to obtain forged documents and also to obtain different forms of infiltration for Mujahideen in combat. And also to go and gather these Mujahideen. And finally, one of the last responsibilities that they had was also to be involved with weapons trafficing." Brugiere also alleged that the Millennium bomb plotters had made several phone calls to the IHH office in Istanbul. Mehmet Kose was the director of IHH in 2000-2002. [2]' http://ppia.wikia.com/wiki/IHH_(Turkish_NGO)
Labour should win this. My interest is whether we Lib Dems hold our deposit.
Surely a tough ask, given the lack of headway seemingly made since May, low turnout and any tactical considerations. The problem is clearly being ignored as a viable option from now on, and I'm struggling to think of scenarios where they can demonstrate that they remain viable and relevant, other than examples they don't want, like a by-election in Orkney or something.
Saw Farron on HIGNFY, about the longest stretch of time I'd seem him. He seemed a fairly likable chap.
I don't understand this charade about Turkish accession to the EU.
Every country has a veto on new accessions. It is literally inconceivable that Austria, for one, would ever agree to Turkish EU membership. The Austrians remember the Gates of Vienna. Polls consistently show 70-80% of Austrians would vote down Turkish accession, and every Austrian politician knows this.
Then there's Cyprus, Greece, Croatia and Bulgaria to persuade.
And the French won't be too keen.
It's never going to happen, and surely all sides are cognisant of the facts, so why do the politicians enact this elaborate pantomime?
USA wants it.
Bollocks.
A lot of the reason why Turkey drifted towards the Middle East is because for 20 years the US and Europe fought over whose sphere of influence Turkey should be part of.
Why is it tantamount to a crime to criticise the Conservative Party on PB? ....
However if you criticise Labour you will get the same
Depends on how you criticise Labour - plenty of Labour or former Labour people happy for criticism of Corbynlabour.
One thing I liked to do on the Telegraph was disagree with UKIP, which I often do, but also make a point about how I want them to do well, which I also do on the basis of more parties doing better - as the typical response to any perceived anti-UKIP point was to hurl insults, it was fun to see responses when I'd made as clear as possible I favour them doing well.
You just have to be persistent - this government and its party will certainly provide plenty of reasons to criticize.
You could count the Cameron and Osborne fans on one hand at times during the last parliament. The surprise GE win and dearth of credible Labour opposition has upset the natural order is all.
We've even heard the Tories won't be torn to pieces like they once would have feared over the EU referendum, but I find that hard to believe - they'll be blood on the floor from an online Tory war then I feel, and you can bet the non-Cameroons will be out in force then criticising the party's direction and leadership.
Agreed. I think the surprise GE result has really changed things. I was on PB during the GE, and although there were always more right-wing voices than left-wing (or centrist) ones, I didn't get the feeling people were constantly predisposed to defend Cameron and Osborne, no matter what.
@Mortimer I don't agree calling any party 'dark or sinister' is being biased. Sometimes, things occur within parties that makes it a legitimate criticism.
@JosiasJessop I agree with a lot of what you said there. I'm sorry if I came off badly. What I've found troubling, is not so much that anyone ha defended Clarke (as you say, no one has), but that at times I feel the story has been somewhat dismissed because it may not have much of an impact of Tory VI. I don't think it will, but it should still be in the best interests of all political parties, to create a safe working environment for all. It's people like Clarke that put you off politics.
@Charles See my previous post - you'll see why highlighted the Conservative party, instead of other political parties in my post. You'll find that I don't really prefer any political party right now; they are all different kinds of awful. And given that Clarke's behaviour went on for sometime, this is not merely a problem confined to a single individual but the culture that allowed his behaviour go on.
More about the IHH - evidently bread baking isn't their only skill.
'In 1996, Israel shut down a regional office of the IHH led by Suleiman Gibarieh for paying bounties to the families of dead terrorists. [2] In 1998, IHH was temporarily shut down after Turkish police found bombs in its office. [1] [3] Turkish investigations of IHH ended after the 2002 election of the Muslim Brotherhood front Justice and Development Party (AKP). In 2008, Israel banned the IHH as one of 26 alleged Muslim Brotherhood financial front groups in the "Union of Good" led by Yusuf Qaradawi. [4] The Netherlands outlawed the local branch of the IHH in 2011. [5]
Jean-Louis Brugiere described the IHH as "a type of cover-up in order to obtain forged documents and also to obtain different forms of infiltration for Mujahideen in combat. And also to go and gather these Mujahideen. And finally, one of the last responsibilities that they had was also to be involved with weapons trafficing." Brugiere also alleged that the Millennium bomb plotters had made several phone calls to the IHH office in Istanbul. Mehmet Kose was the director of IHH in 2000-2002. [2]' http://ppia.wikia.com/wiki/IHH_(Turkish_NGO)
Probably spend a lot of time making cakes for Afghan weddings too...
1) The official labour party are set to lose most of there funding with the new Trade Union bill. and it is a lot easer for a new party to raise funds on the internet than it has ever been. 2) membership may be patchy at the start, but there are some that would come out of loyalty to individual MPs, some who would come out of horror at the Corbyn supporters, and a lot of Ex LibDems out their who left because of the LibDem/Con coalition, who might join. 3) If over 117 (I think) MPs where to leave and join the new party it would instantly become the official Oppression. and with that it would get to lead at PMQs and plenty of media coverage.
I don't think it will happen, the MPs don't have the guts, but if they did I think this time (unlike the SDP) it could work.
1. Crowdfunding's never going to beat hedgies or even fettered unions. With no membership base they would need patrons like Sainsbury. Big business funding is viewed less benignly on the centre-left nowadays 2. I agree but there will not be a national movement that can challenge for government, so you can write them off immediately as a political force in national debate 3. Exactly - a party with 117 MPs and aspiring to win 200 seats from nowhere is a losing game, a massive head without a body. I don't disagree that Labour too would be crippled in such a scenario
The puzzling thing about the desire to bomb Syria is that almost all attacks by ISIS have been carried out by people from the country attacked.
But no one seems to mention this much...
It's like having a disease and eliminating one of the causes rather than trying to cure it, like a lung cancer sufferer giving up smoking but not treating the cancer
You do both.
Treating the cancer but not addressing the cause is pretty pointless
Yes I agree, but it seems to me we are addressing one of the causes but not the cancer
You just have to be persistent - this government and its party will certainly provide plenty of reasons to criticize.
You could count the Cameron and Osborne fans on one hand at times during the last parliament. The surprise GE win and dearth of credible Labour opposition has upset the natural order is all.
We've even heard the Tories won't be torn to pieces like they once would have feared over the EU referendum, but I find that hard to believe - they'll be blood on the floor from an online Tory war then I feel, and you can bet the non-Cameroons will be out in force then criticising the party's direction and leadership.
Agreed. I think the surprise GE result has really changed things. I was on PB during the GE, and although there were always more right-wing voices than left-wing (or centrist) ones, I didn't get the feeling people were constantly predisposed to defend Cameron and Osborne, no matter what.
With Osborne in particular I think things can turn very quickly, as we saw with criticism of him on Tax credits - either that they were bad, or bad politically at least, or that they were good and he backtracked - as he lacks the generally decent or at least neutral view many public have of Cameron (I'm of the view his biggest positives as a leader is most people don't see him as a threat, so attempts to label him as some malevolent Tory figure didn't work), so when a recession hits, or the figures turn, he'll suddenly find himself friendless in the commentariat at least, and relying on party support*.
Cameron I think, having passed the biggest test he needed to and being on the way out, may get away from seeing opinion turn against him until after he is gone, depending on if the economy goes to crap under him or not.
*Hmm, a bit like Corbyn, that, come to think of it.
Why is it tantamount to a crime to criticise the Conservative Party on PB? ....
It isn't. I do it a lot and if it were I should know about it by now. Of course you'll get one or two Conservative Party stalwarts pop up, the people who just cannot comprehend that someone could think that Cameron could ever be wrong. However if you criticise Labour you will get the same and to criticise the LibDems is to invite the wrath of OGH himself.
I don't agree criticism of Labour invites the same reaction. Practically everyone here bar about 1 or 2 people, all agree with criticism of Corbyn etc. and really anything to the left of Tony Blair. Likewise, with criticism towards the LDs - it's only really OGH who defends them on PB. Criticism of the Conservative party, and more generally the centre-right is far more divisive.
'The EU has agreed to pay Turkey 3 billion euros for stopping the refugee flow. The one that their abetting of ISIS has done more than anyone else to create.'
Hmm Rutte's comparison of the EU with the decaying Roman Empire may have been more accurate than he supposed
It'd be a blessing in disguise for Labour to lose Oldham, IMHO.
As for the whole universities/Corbyn/left-wing discussion in the previous thread, the most balanced opinions, tend to be somewhere in the centre as opposed to the right of British politics. Corbyn is a disaster, but Cameron, Osborne, and the Conservative Party aren't absolutely amazing either. In fact, looking at this whole Clarke scandal, there is something rather dark and disturbing at the heart of the Conservative Party.
All parties have this sort of thing in them, and it is disingenuous to say otherwise. In fact, any large organisation does.
The scandal is not in having such people, for they can rarely be detected beforehand; it is in the way you mishandle allegations. And Labour or the Lib Dems don't have an exemplary record in that either.
It's made worse by the fact that political parties rely on volunteers, who are hard to vet and hard to keep motivated. If you get a keen one, it can be hard to control them fully as they know they are unpaid, and yet they can be incredibly productive.
But in this case, giving Clarke a second chance seems to have been a fairly disastrous decision.
Why is it tantamount to a crime to criticise the Conservative Party on PB?
I don't understand this charade about Turkish accession to the EU.
Every country has a veto on new accessions. It is literally inconceivable that Austria, for one, would ever agree to Turkish EU membership. The Austrians remember the Gates of Vienna. Polls consistently show 70-80% of Austrians would vote down Turkish accession, and every Austrian politician knows this.
Then there's Cyprus, Greece, Croatia and Bulgaria to persuade.
And the French won't be too keen.
It's never going to happen, and surely all sides are cognisant of the facts, so why do the politicians enact this elaborate pantomime?
To keep Turkey from sliding further eastwards politically.
Not only is there the problem you mention; there is also the issue that Turkey's progress to meeting the requirements to join the EU has been glacial (then again, those requirements were (ahem) reduced for some other recent members). So no, short of a massive world event they won't be joining in the next two decades, if ever.
But the charade enables us to win concessions from them, and them from us. And the more they deal with us, the less they'll deal with people we'd prefer them not to.
And to some extent, it may make Erdogan and the other groups pause a little.
Yes I would agree with that as a broad sensible opinion. Not many other sensible opinions around on this board at the moment.
Probably should. Having the party leadership at odds with MPs generally is one thing, but if the even shadow cabinet cannot agree a position on something without flaming rows (and more importantly, rows which make it into the press), maybe it's best to have an unfettered Corbynite shadow cabinet, and if he collapses the contagion to cut out is identified without ambiguity of who was there for the party only, who was working against him from the inside.
On the current Tory party troubles, Shapps seems like a bit of a dick anyway, fairly or not, so showing poor judgement seems like something people would expect of him, and has it been suggested the whole internal machine reflects the troubling accusations about the Clarke business? If it is, I feel like the story hasn't gained much traction as of yet and will need to run on and claim more senior people, Feldman presumably, before it starts to hit the party itself.
With these sorts of things it's the cumulative effect that gets a party in the end I feel. If there is something rotten in the organization itself, rather than some individuals within it, it feels like it will end up being one scandal after another until it all becomes too much. I was only a child in the 90s, but was it like that with the Tories and sex scandals once? You still see jokes about that sort of thing, so I presume they had a real problem back in the day.
The frustrating thing about the 'back to basics' campaign is that the Mail decided to interpret it as a moral crusade for "Victorian values" (which it absolutely wasn't - my aunt came up with the idea and was horrified at how it was presented) and then the NotW used it as a hook for as many sex scandals as they could find in their drawers
It'd be a blessing in disguise for Labour to lose Oldham, IMHO.
As for the whole universities/Corbyn/left-wing discussion in the previous thread, the most balanced opinions, tend to be somewhere in the centre as opposed to the right of British politics. Corbyn is a disaster, but Cameron, Osborne, and the Conservative Party aren't absolutely amazing either. In fact, looking at this whole Clarke scandal, there is something rather dark and disturbing at the heart of the Conservative Party.
You're over-reacting.
There was one very unpleasant individual who abused his position. He's been banned for life from the party.
There was one man who demonstrated poor judgement in allowing him back into the fold after he had been cast out the first time. That individual has now been resigned.
Is there anyone else who you think is dark and disturbing?
Or would you prefer a party that tolerates someone who behaves inappropriately towards junior (female) colleagues and then promotes him to a very senior post? Or a party that tolerates anti-semitism? Or a party that wants to 'make white folks angry'?
Charles, it's not just about letting Clarke back into the fold: in some ways that could be seen as admirable. It's that if you do let someone back into the fold, you keep them on a tight leash until you can be sure you trust them. That is especially true when that person will have contact with volunteers and members of the public. You also ensure that any allegations against them are acted on properly and fairly to all parties.
It looks as though that did not happen here (although Clarke should also get a fair hearing now as well), and that's why serious questions need to be answered.
Sure - but most of that, I'd suggest would fall into Shapps area of responsibility. It was him who created a semi-detached agency that he could run as his fiefdom.
More about the IHH - evidently bread baking isn't their only skill.
'In 1996, Israel shut down a regional office of the IHH led by Suleiman Gibarieh for paying bounties to the families of dead terrorists. [2] In 1998, IHH was temporarily shut down after Turkish police found bombs in its office. [1] [3] Turkish investigations of IHH ended after the 2002 election of the Muslim Brotherhood front Justice and Development Party (AKP). In 2008, Israel banned the IHH as one of 26 alleged Muslim Brotherhood financial front groups in the "Union of Good" led by Yusuf Qaradawi. [4] The Netherlands outlawed the local branch of the IHH in 2011. [5]
Jean-Louis Brugiere described the IHH as "a type of cover-up in order to obtain forged documents and also to obtain different forms of infiltration for Mujahideen in combat. And also to go and gather these Mujahideen. And finally, one of the last responsibilities that they had was also to be involved with weapons trafficing." Brugiere also alleged that the Millennium bomb plotters had made several phone calls to the IHH office in Istanbul. Mehmet Kose was the director of IHH in 2000-2002. [2]' http://ppia.wikia.com/wiki/IHH_(Turkish_NGO)
As always everyone, beware of Luckyguy and his 'sources'.
@b_judah: On an Oldham street I asked 100 people - who is Jeremy Corbyn? 42 never heard of him. 29 responses negative. 13 pro. https://t.co/VEWbnHwyyS
If the 42 who don't know who he is vote Labour, job done. If they don't vote, who knows...
Given all the media coverage then 42 not knowing him must be a concern for democracy in this country as well as the apparent lack of engagement in the political process of nearly half of the electorate asked in that sample?
It'd be a blessing in disguise for Labour to lose Oldham, IMHO.
As for the whole universities/Corbyn/left-wing discussion in the previous thread, the most balanced opinions, tend to be somewhere in the centre as opposed to the right of British politics. Corbyn is a disaster, but Cameron, Osborne, and the Conservative Party aren't absolutely amazing either. In fact, looking at this whole Clarke scandal, there is something rather dark and disturbing at the heart of the Conservative Party.
You're over-reacting.
There was one very unpleasant individual who abused his position. He's been banned for life from the party.
There was one man who demonstrated poor judgement in allowing him back into the fold after he had been cast out the first time. That individual has now been resigned.
Is there anyone else who you think is dark and disturbing?
Or would you prefer a party that tolerates someone who behaves inappropriately towards junior (female) colleagues and then promotes him to a very senior post? Or a party that tolerates anti-semitism? Or a party that wants to 'make white folks angry'?
Rennard resigned recently at the request of Tim Farron.
Yes, he did. But only after a few days of bad press. And he was elected to the federal executive only a few days before he was forced to quit.
Basically, the LibDems were happy to whitewash him, promote him and cast him overboard when the going got too hot. In the Tory case it appears that Shapps made a poor decision - no one questioned it - pressure mounted inside the party and from the media and he was ultimately cast out.
So the only fundamental difference is that it was poor judgement from one individual/lack of oversight vs a poor decision by a wider group within the LD party (the federal executive electorate)
I don't understand this charade about Turkish accession to the EU.
Every country has a veto on new accessions. It is literally inconceivable that Austria, for one, would ever agree to Turkish EU membership. The Austrians remember the Gates of Vienna. Polls consistently show 70-80% of Austrians would vote down Turkish accession, and every Austrian politician knows this.
Then there's Cyprus, Greece, Croatia and Bulgaria to persuade.
And the French won't be too keen.
It's never going to happen, and surely all sides are cognisant of the facts, so why do the politicians enact this elaborate pantomime?
USA wants it.
Bollocks.
A lot of the reason why Turkey drifted towards the Middle East is because for 20 years the US and Europe fought over whose sphere of influence Turkey should be part of.
Bollocks right back to you. Anyone who fails to appreciate the control the US exerts over national and supranational organisations within its sphere is being startlingly naive.
Here's 'Geostrategy for Eurasia' on the topic:
'America should use its influence in Europe to encourage Turkey's eventual admission to the EU, and make a point of tre-ating Turkey as a European state, provided internal Turkish politics do not take a dramatically Islamist turn. Regular consultations with Ankara regarding the future of the Caspian Sea basin and Central Asia would foster Turkey's sense of strategic partnership with the United States. America should also support Turkish aspirations to have a pipeline from Baku, Azerbaijan, to Ceyhan on its own Mediterranean coast serve as a major outlet for the Caspian sea basin energy reserves.'
You just have to be persistent - this government and its party will certainly provide plenty of reasons to criticize.
You could count the Cameron and Osborne fans on one hand at times during the last parliament. The surprise GE win and dearth of credible Labour opposition has upset the natural order is all.
We've even heard the Tories won't be torn to pieces like they once would have feared over the EU referendum, but I find that hard to believe - they'll be blood on the floor from an online Tory war then I feel, and you can bet the non-Cameroons will be out in force then criticising the party's direction and leadership.
Agreed. I think the surprise GE result has really changed things. I was on PB during the GE, and although there were always more right-wing voices than left-wing (or centrist) ones, I didn't get the feeling people were constantly predisposed to defend Cameron and Osborne, no matter what.
With Osborne in particular I think things can turn very quickly, as we saw with criticism of him on Tax credits - either that they were bad, or bad politically at least, or that they were good and he backtracked - as he lacks the generally decent or at least neutral view many public have of Cameron (I'm of the view his biggest positives as a leader is most people don't see him as a threat, so attempts to label him as some malevolent Tory figure didn't work), so when a recession hits, or the figures turn, he'll suddenly find himself friendless in the commentariat at least, and relying on party support*.
Cameron I think, having passed the biggest test he needed to and being on the way out, may get away from seeing opinion turn against him until after he is gone, depending on if the economy goes to crap under him or not.
*Hmm, a bit like Corbyn, that, come to think of it.
I think Cameron's greatest success is that he does not conform to many people's 'idea' of what a 'nasty' Tory looks like. He comes across as fairy amiable, not massively ideological, and approachable. Whereas Osborne - even if has more socially liberal views than Cameron on certain subjects (e.g. abortion), conforms to the 'nasty' Tory stereotype.
I think the poo will hit the fan come 2018, for Osborne. His budget very much seems about preserving his reputation now, to get elected as Tory leader.
Why do say that about Corbyn? While I don't think Corbyn comes across as unpleasant, he has no leadership skills at all, and does not look like a statesmen. However, I think the Labour party would be less of a freakshow if McDonnell wasn't his Shadow Chancellor.
Why is it tantamount to a crime to criticise the Conservative Party on PB?
It's fine if you do it from the Right.
I loved reading about how Cameron was really a LD (again, this was on the Telegraph some time ago). There are some angry people on the right out there, who were probably lining up on GE night ready to explain why Cameron being a woolly liberal cost them another election, who are biding their time until they are better able to challenge him, no question. I think Lord Tebbit for one was very annoyed, he'd been banging the drum for how terrible Cameron was for ages.
You just have to be persistent - this government and its party will certainly provide plenty of reasons to criticize.
You could count the Cameron and Osborne fans on one hand at times during the last parliament. The surprise GE win and dearth of credible Labour opposition has upset the natural order is all.
We've even heard the Tories won't be torn to pieces like they once would have feared over the EU referendum, but I find that hard to believe - they'll be blood on the floor from an online Tory war then I feel, and you can bet the non-Cameroons will be out in force then criticising the party's direction and leadership.
Agreed. I think the surprise GE result has really changed things. I was on PB during the GE, and although there were always more right-wing voices than left-wing (or centrist) ones, I didn't get the feeling people were constantly predisposed to defend Cameron and Osborne, no matter what.
With O of it.
Why do say that about Corbyn? While I don't think Corbyn comes across as unpleasant, he has no leadership skills at all, and does not look like a statesmen.
Purely in the sense he has no or few friends among political pundits, and is reliant on the support of party members to keep him going. If the economy goes south, Osborne has no love from the pundits either I suspect, so would be reliant on party members to maintain his leadership bid and power, although in his case it would be MPs more than rank and file.
I don't understand this charade about Turkish accession to the EU.
Every country has a veto on new accessions. It is literally inconceivable that Austria, for one, would ever agree to Turkish EU membership. The Austrians remember the Gates of Vienna. Polls consistently show 70-80% of Austrians would vote down Turkish accession, and every Austrian politician knows this.
Then there's Cyprus, Greece, Croatia and Bulgaria to persuade.
And the French won't be too keen.
It's never going to happen, and surely all sides are cognisant of the facts, so why do the politicians enact this elaborate pantomime?
USA wants it.
Bollocks.
A lot of the reason why Turkey drifted towards the Middle East is because for 20 years the US and Europe fought over whose sphere of influence Turkey should be part of.
Bollocks right back to you. Anyone who fails to appreciate the control the US exerts over national and supranational organisations within its sphere is being startlingly naive.
Why is it tantamount to a crime to criticise the Conservative Party on PB? ....
It isn't. I do it a lot and if it were I should know about it by now. Of course you'll get one or two Conservative Party stalwarts pop up, the people who just cannot comprehend that someone could think that Cameron could ever be wrong. However if you criticise Labour you will get the same and to criticise the LibDems is to invite the wrath of OGH himself.
I don't agree criticism of Labour invites the same reaction. Practically everyone here bar about 1 or 2 people, all agree with criticism of Corbyn etc. and really anything to the left of Tony Blair. Likewise, with criticism towards the LDs - it's only really OGH who defends them on PB. Criticism of the Conservative party, and more generally the centre-right is far more divisive.
Just sometimes, when there is something so obviously flawed as someone or 'somefew' who has cosied up to all sorts of nasties in the name of 'principles' for several decades taking the leadership of HM Opposition, there is general consensus on here.
There was similar consensus that Ed was a bit lame - the debate was if he would be PM or not.
I don't think ANYONE here would have expected IDS to win a general election. I voted for him and I couldn't see it.....
It isn't a sign of somewhere being biased - it is a sign of broad agreement, and if there is broad agreement here, of all places, it should be heeded.
I don't understand this charade about Turkish accession to the EU.
Every country has a veto on new accessions. It is literally inconceivable that Austria, for one, would ever agree to Turkish EU membership. The Austrians remember the Gates of Vienna. Polls consistently show 70-80% of Austrians would vote down Turkish accession, and every Austrian politician knows this.
Then there's Cyprus, Greece, Croatia and Bulgaria to persuade.
And the French won't be too keen.
It's never going to happen, and surely all sides are cognisant of the facts, so why do the politicians enact this elaborate pantomime?
USA wants it.
Bollocks.
A lot of the reason why Turkey drifted towards the Middle East is because for 20 years the US and Europe fought over whose sphere of influence Turkey should be part of.
Bollocks right back to you. Anyone who fails to appreciate the control the US exerts over national and supranational organisations within its sphere is being startlingly naive.
Comments
http://www.abetterperspective.co.uk/
We know Alex Salmond reads PB and we don't want to give him ideas on how to split up the United Kingdom.
I am surprised a little that we have not heard from the more moderates except for one or two. Mrs Cooper, Hattie etc seemed to have disappeared entirely from the scene. It is as if they were never there. Perhaps they are drowned out in the general mayhem but seriously what can they be thinking of the present position as they approach this by election. They cannot sit there in silence indefinitely ...or can they?
The weather Thursday there looks cold but dry, but I'm not sure who that helps.
Not only is there the problem you mention; there is also the issue that Turkey's progress to meeting the requirements to join the EU has been glacial (then again, those requirements were (ahem) reduced for some other recent members). So no, short of a massive world event they won't be joining in the next two decades, if ever.
But the charade enables us to win concessions from them, and them from us. And the more they deal with us, the less they'll deal with people we'd prefer them not to.
And to some extent, it may make Erdogan and the other groups pause a little.
boom boom
https://twitter.com/IsraelHatzolah/status/671050497424519169
What a f***ing surprise. A shambolic divisive pacifist incompetent leader isn't going down well with normal voters.
I've come to the realisation that it would be better for the party to split formally if necessary than tolerate this idiot any longer.
It's appalling for British democracy not to have a serious opposition.
Corbynites won't listen to it though. I seriously believe Labour could lose the next ten General Elections and they still wouldn't change their minds. They are electorally retarded and always will be.
2. The moderate people who knock on doors would be at best split across the two parties. The Corbynistas would of course remain. So lacking both cash and bodies. But cash more important
3. If it had a chance at power PB would still hate it
Liberal: Of and pertaining to freedom.
Corbyn is the most illiberal MP I know of. He has made a career from calling for the power of the state to be increased, and thus individuals freedoms to be removed.
Turkey may also gain reputation from EU accreditation for the parts of its bureaucracy related to the acquis communautaire
I agree that it is kabuki and that neither EU nor Erdogan wants accession
Labour by 3000.
The Russian government have banned Russian clubs from signing Turkish players in the upcoming January transfer window.
For real?
I didn't say 'no other party/organisation' has bad people in it. If anything, I've spent most of my time on PB being critical of all three/four of the major political parties. Just as the Rennard Scandal proved the LDs weren't the cosy, equality-supporting liberals they purported to be, the Clarke scandal reveals equally unpleasant things regarding the Conservative Party. If you want to know why I highlighted the Conservative Party, instead of all of the big three it's because (a. it's a recent story (b. the Conservative Party, until the Osborne budget has been treated as pretty much untouchable on PB.
Ever heard of Zbigniew Brzezinski? Anyone who is interested in foreign affairs should do. An expatriate Pole who is the father of the current US foreign policy doctrine (and who's son advises the current administration).
His 'geostrategy for Eurasia' has a lot of answers for those confused by:
-why our leaders are so desperate to keep us in the EU no matter what
-why they are in favour of Turkey joining the EU no matter what
-what the US is trying to do vis a vis Russia
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1254548/posts
- "Europe is America's essential geopolitical bridgehead in Eurasia. America's stake in democratic Europe is enormous. Unlike America's links with Japan, NATO entrenches American political influence and military power on the Eurasian mainland. With the allied European nations still highly dependent on U.S. protection, any expansion of Europe's political scope is automatically an expansion of U.S. influence. Conversely, the United States' ability to project influence and power in Eurasia relies on close transatlantic ties.
A wider Europe and an enlarged NATO will serve the short-term and longer-term interests of U.S. policy. A larger Europe will expand the range of American influence without simultaneously creating a Europe so politically integrated that it could challenge the United States on matters of geopolitical importance, particularly in the Middle East. A politically defined Europe is also essential to Russia's assimilation into a system of global cooperation."
Anyone trying to male sense of these issues is flying blind without being aware of this 'grand plan'. We're just pawns in the game. In fact the UK personally is so little of a consideration we're not even mentioned.
1) The official labour party are set to lose most of there funding with the new Trade Union bill. and it is a lot easer for a new party to raise funds on the internet than it has ever been.
2) membership may be patchy at the start, but there are some that would come out of loyalty to individual MPs, some who would come out of horror at the Corbyn supporters, and a lot of Ex LibDems out their who left because of the LibDem/Con coalition, who might join.
3) If over 117 (I think) MPs where to leave and join the new party it would instantly become the official Oppression. and with that it would get to lead at PMQs and plenty of media coverage.
I don't think it will happen, the MPs don't have the guts, but if they did I think this time (unlike the SDP) it could work.
You could count the Cameron and Osborne fans on one hand at times during the last parliament. The surprise GE win and dearth of credible Labour opposition has upset the natural order is all.
We've even heard the Tories won't be torn to pieces like they once would have feared over the EU referendum, but I find that hard to believe - they'll be blood on the floor from an online Tory war then I feel, and you can bet the non-Cameroons will be out in force then criticising the party's direction and leadership.
http://youtu.be/Lv6M2omQ__U
Incidentally, I may be biased, but when you suggest any party has something 'dark and sinister' you do sound rather partisan....
Therefore a large number of voters in Oldham are part of an "evil force", according to him.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/12023806/Ukip-is-an-evil-force-John-McDonnell-says-as-Oldham-West-by-election-race-tightens.html
I'm glad you're not one of them, and I'm sorry that I insinuated otherwise.
You may have noticed that there has not been much defence of Clarke or the Conservatives on this issue on here.
I've been banging on about the need for proper party processes to deal with complaints since before the Rennard scandal, and I want all parties to both institute and stick to them. It's quite shocking that it appears none of them do (from the time of the Rennard scandal, at least).
I'd been hoping that when this issue came up as part of the Rennard scandal it would cause them to tighten ship - ISTR a Labour minister was embarrassed when she could not say what Labour's process was. In the case of the Conservatives at least, they have not.
It just shows that political parties are not professional organisations.
There was one very unpleasant individual who abused his position. He's been banned for life from the party.
There was one man who demonstrated poor judgement in allowing him back into the fold after he had been cast out the first time. That individual has now been resigned.
Is there anyone else who you think is dark and disturbing?
Or would you prefer a party that tolerates someone who behaves inappropriately towards junior (female) colleagues and then promotes him to a very senior post? Or a party that tolerates anti-semitism? Or a party that wants to 'make white folks angry'?
Treating the cancer but not addressing the cause is pretty pointless
Oh, hi Josias
With these sorts of things it's the cumulative effect that gets a party in the end I feel. If there is something rotten in the organization itself, rather than some individuals within it, it feels like it will end up being one scandal after another until it all becomes too much. I was only a child in the 90s, but was it like that with the Tories and sex scandals once? You still see jokes about that sort of thing, so I presume they had a real problem back in the day.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-29/eu-reaches-deal-turkey-will-pay-€3-billion-stem-refuge-outflow-relax-visa-requrement
It looks as though that did not happen here (although Clarke should also get a fair hearing now as well), and that's why serious questions need to be answered.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/17/tim-farron-urges-lord-rennard-to-step-down-from-lib-dem-executive
'In 1996, Israel shut down a regional office of the IHH led by Suleiman Gibarieh for paying bounties to the families of dead terrorists. [2] In 1998, IHH was temporarily shut down after Turkish police found bombs in its office. [1] [3] Turkish investigations of IHH ended after the 2002 election of the Muslim Brotherhood front Justice and Development Party (AKP). In 2008, Israel banned the IHH as one of 26 alleged Muslim Brotherhood financial front groups in the "Union of Good" led by Yusuf Qaradawi. [4] The Netherlands outlawed the local branch of the IHH in 2011. [5]
Jean-Louis Brugiere described the IHH as "a type of cover-up in order to obtain forged documents and also to obtain different forms of infiltration for Mujahideen in combat. And also to go and gather these Mujahideen. And finally, one of the last responsibilities that they had was also to be involved with weapons trafficing." Brugiere also alleged that the Millennium bomb plotters had made several phone calls to the IHH office in Istanbul. Mehmet Kose was the director of IHH in 2000-2002. [2]'
http://ppia.wikia.com/wiki/IHH_(Turkish_NGO)
Saw Farron on HIGNFY, about the longest stretch of time I'd seem him. He seemed a fairly likable chap.
A lot of the reason why Turkey drifted towards the Middle East is because for 20 years the US and Europe fought over whose sphere of influence Turkey should be part of.
One thing I liked to do on the Telegraph was disagree with UKIP, which I often do, but also make a point about how I want them to do well, which I also do on the basis of more parties doing better - as the typical response to any perceived anti-UKIP point was to hurl insults, it was fun to see responses when I'd made as clear as possible I favour them doing well.
If the 42 who don't know who he is vote Labour, job done. If they don't vote, who knows...
@Mortimer I don't agree calling any party 'dark or sinister' is being biased. Sometimes, things occur within parties that makes it a legitimate criticism.
@JosiasJessop I agree with a lot of what you said there. I'm sorry if I came off badly. What I've found troubling, is not so much that anyone ha defended Clarke (as you say, no one has), but that at times I feel the story has been somewhat dismissed because it may not have much of an impact of Tory VI. I don't think it will, but it should still be in the best interests of all political parties, to create a safe working environment for all. It's people like Clarke that put you off politics.
@Charles See my previous post - you'll see why highlighted the Conservative party, instead of other political parties in my post. You'll find that I don't really prefer any political party right now; they are all different kinds of awful. And given that Clarke's behaviour went on for sometime, this is not merely a problem confined to a single individual but the culture that allowed his behaviour go on.
2. I agree but there will not be a national movement that can challenge for government, so you can write them off immediately as a political force in national debate
3. Exactly - a party with 117 MPs and aspiring to win 200 seats from nowhere is a losing game, a massive head without a body. I don't disagree that Labour too would be crippled in such a scenario
https://twitter.com/LBC/status/671075671800545280
Cameron I think, having passed the biggest test he needed to and being on the way out, may get away from seeing opinion turn against him until after he is gone, depending on if the economy goes to crap under him or not.
*Hmm, a bit like Corbyn, that, come to think of it.
Telegraph having a go at Abbess.
Hmm Rutte's comparison of the EU with the decaying Roman Empire may have been more accurate than he supposed
Not many other sensible opinions around on this board at the moment.
In this case, arch conspiracy theorist Alex Jones' site.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones_(radio_host)
For a saner and more balanced view on IHH, its work and its controversies, see Wiki at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IHH_(Turkish_NGO)
Offer also open to any other reputable PB'er.
Basically, the LibDems were happy to whitewash him, promote him and cast him overboard when the going got too hot. In the Tory case it appears that Shapps made a poor decision - no one questioned it - pressure mounted inside the party and from the media and he was ultimately cast out.
So the only fundamental difference is that it was poor judgement from one individual/lack of oversight vs a poor decision by a wider group within the LD party (the federal executive electorate)
Here's 'Geostrategy for Eurasia' on the topic:
'America should use its influence in Europe to encourage Turkey's eventual admission to the EU, and make a point of tre-ating Turkey as a European state, provided internal Turkish politics do not take a dramatically Islamist turn. Regular consultations with Ankara regarding the future of the Caspian Sea basin and Central Asia would foster Turkey's sense of strategic partnership with the United States. America should also support Turkish aspirations to have a pipeline from Baku, Azerbaijan, to Ceyhan on its own Mediterranean coast serve as a major outlet for the Caspian sea basin energy reserves.'
I think the poo will hit the fan come 2018, for Osborne. His budget very much seems about preserving his reputation now, to get elected as Tory leader.
Why do say that about Corbyn? While I don't think Corbyn comes across as unpleasant, he has no leadership skills at all, and does not look like a statesmen. However, I think the Labour party would be less of a freakshow if McDonnell wasn't his Shadow Chancellor.
But enjoy yourself.
There was similar consensus that Ed was a bit lame - the debate was if he would be PM or not.
I don't think ANYONE here would have expected IDS to win a general election. I voted for him and I couldn't see it.....
It isn't a sign of somewhere being biased - it is a sign of broad agreement, and if there is broad agreement here, of all places, it should be heeded.