Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn has clearly won – the big question is the size of hi

1235

Comments

  • Difficult to oppose the Britannia nonsense. #1 £100m doesn't even register on the normal scale of government waste. #2 There would no doubt be a posh boat at the end of it so it sort of passes the Ronseal test in a way much government waste doesn't. And the best argument against it, that's a ludicrous diversion from the national task ahead of us, is the most abstract and challenging one. It seems voters are in the mood for Bread and Circuses. Or at least Circuses where they see Bread taken away from people they don't like. I doubt it's worth spending political capital fighting it to be honest.

    Though tbf it looks like the lucky old breadless may have TWO tv productions about making bread (and associated baked items).
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    From the FT: "Figures from the Office of National Statistics show overseas tourist visits to the UK rose 2 per cent in the first month after the Brexit vote, with holidaymakers spending £1.79bn in the month, up from the £1.77bn in June."

    I'm slightly surprised that there was not more of an increase in July, especially as one would expect that July should be a big month for tourism. I'd also like to see the y-o-y figures.

    I'd also like to see how much Britons spent overseas YoY. That figure should be down.
    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/leisureandtourism/bulletins/overseastravelandtourism/provisionalresultsforjuly2016

    +2% in July

    Although as holidays are mostly booked in advance, I would expect there to be a bigger impact in 2017 than immediately.

    Skiing next year is going to be very expensive.
    Yes, well this weekend my gf and I are going to Bath instead of Ticino, not really to save money but it seems like a good time to do it.
    Is it because you're investigating potential Liberal Democrat gains in 2020?
    There is skiing in Bath?
    http://www.dayoutwiththekids.co.uk/family-fun/Mendip_Snowsport_Centre/6261
  • Mr. Submarine, an interesting question.

    I wonder if York/Yorkshire is still benefiting from the excellent opening of the Tour de France a few years ago.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    From the FT: "Figures from the Office of National Statistics show overseas tourist visits to the UK rose 2 per cent in the first month after the Brexit vote, with holidaymakers spending £1.79bn in the month, up from the £1.77bn in June."

    I'm slightly surprised that there was not more of an increase in July, especially as one would expect that July should be a big month for tourism. I'd also like to see the y-o-y figures.

    I'd also like to see how much Britons spent overseas YoY. That figure should be down.
    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/leisureandtourism/bulletins/overseastravelandtourism/provisionalresultsforjuly2016

    +2% in July

    Although as holidays are mostly booked in advance, I would expect there to be a bigger impact in 2017 than immediately.

    Skiing next year is going to be very expensive.
    Yes, well this weekend my gf and I are going to Bath instead of Ticino, not really to save money but it seems like a good time to do it.
    Is it because you're investigating potential Liberal Democrat gains in 2020?
    No, because my gf's mother decided to use their family's holiday home this very weekend. That's despite having informed her and my gf's two uncles/aunts that we'd be using it this weekend. Decided it wasn't worth the hassle of rebooking flights so we cancelled and are going to Bath, where there is no chance of running into her.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383

    Good Friday all round

    Mrs BJ finally gets her Op with spinal chord almost completely severed today.

    6hrs on the table went in an hour ago.

    20% chance of being paralysed/incontinent for life(which is 100% chance without the op)

    60% chance of stopping her getting worse ie walk a few paces not incontinent.

    20% chance of some reasonable recovery.

    On a less important note, The Messiah is reborn tomorrow

    Fingers crossed for you both, sounds scary.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    Good luck, BJO! Really hope everything goes to well. :)
  • rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Question:

    Does anyone on here actually believe that a hard Brexit (by which I mean no access to the single market beyond WTO rules) is advantageous for the UK.

    Never mind whether the politics tend that way -- by itself, does anyone think it the best destination? And if so, why?

    The only advantage to that would be speed and negotiating from the outside, we could probably come a mutual dropping of tariffs on goods immediately, but not NTBs and customs clearance which would have to be done from the outside.

    It would also allow us to unilaterally impose our own immigration system and categorise all migration on the same level rather than privileging EU migration as we currently do or may continue to do after any deal.

    The main advantage would be getting out of the customs union very quickly which would enable bilateral tariff elimination with nations such as Australia, Canada, NZ, Japan, SK, SA and others as a precursor to full free trading agreements. While we are locked in negotiations with the EU under A50 that is not going to be possible as all of our trade negotiators will be working on the EU deal.

    So there are advantages, but I think the uncertainty for businesses would be to vast and it would drag on the economy for a very long time until we rebalance the economy.
    Clearly the most sensible solution for both us and the EU would be for us to rapidly agree a time limited EEA (with restrictions on FoM), say a treaty with a five or seven year term.

    We could then work with the EU on a permanent deal, while simultaneously entering into agreements with other countries (Canada, Australia, etc.). Business would be able to gradually adjust, rather than there being an abrupt imposition of tariffs and other limitations on trade.

    And because the EEA agreement was time limited, the hard Brexiters couldn't argue that we were staying in the EU by the back door.

    The advantage to the EU would be that it would minimise disruption for them too.
    This sounds like the obvious solution, doesn't it? Basically stay in the EU in all but name, but with limited voting rights, and with the announced intention of negotiating something different. What the government can do is make a lot of noise about how hard the Brexit will be once they get to the "something different" phase, which they afford to be very hard-line about, as this part will be conducted at elected-House-of-Lords speed.
  • Good Friday all round

    Mrs BJ finally gets her Op with spinal chord almost completely severed today.

    6hrs on the table went in an hour ago.

    20% chance of being paralysed/incontinent for life(which is 100% chance without the op)

    60% chance of stopping her getting worse ie walk a few paces not incontinent.

    20% chance of some reasonable recovery.

    On a less important note, The Messiah is reborn tomorrow

    I will keep Mrs BJ in my thoughts and prayers today. I can't imagine the stress involved for both of you. Take care if you can.
  • Mr. Max, man's oldest enemy: the mother-in-law.

    [Ok, not technically an in-law yet, but close].

    Old joke, but for those who haven't heard it: what's the difference between outlaws and inlaws?

    Outlaws are wanted.
  • Best of wishes to BJO and Mrs BJO.
  • Good Friday all round

    Mrs BJ finally gets her Op with spinal chord almost completely severed today.

    6hrs on the table went in an hour ago.

    20% chance of being paralysed/incontinent for life(which is 100% chance without the op)

    60% chance of stopping her getting worse ie walk a few paces not incontinent.

    20% chance of some reasonable recovery.

    On a less important note, The Messiah is reborn tomorrow

    Tough day. Good luck for you and Mrs BJ.
  • Good Friday all round

    Mrs BJ finally gets her Op with spinal chord almost completely severed today.

    6hrs on the table went in an hour ago.

    20% chance of being paralysed/incontinent for life(which is 100% chance without the op)

    60% chance of stopping her getting worse ie walk a few paces not incontinent.

    20% chance of some reasonable recovery.

    On a less important note, The Messiah is reborn tomorrow

    Very best wishes.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    How can any language usage be declared a myth? That assumes that there is an ultimate authority which supports other usages. My understanding of "myth" is that it is a story told over the ages which survives because it is useful in explaining to people who they are and what is expected of them.

    Describing it as a myth may have been, ironically, not a very clear way of describing it. As Alistair pointed out, it's a matter of documented use of the words over centuries and keeping a universal distinction. The belief it has been a rule kept to firmly is simply false, even if people think it should be kept, so getting angry at people for being 'wrong' is both pointless and unfair, since it has been widespread and accepted to not use the rule for centuries.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,725
    Back to the waiting area for me.

    Thanks everyone for the best wishes
  • rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Question:

    Does anyone on here actually believe that a hard Brexit (by which I mean no access to the single market beyond WTO rules) is advantageous for the UK.

    Never mind whether the politics tend that way -- by itself, does anyone think it the best destination? And if so, why?

    The only advantage to that would be speed and negotiating from the outside, we could probably come a mutual dropping of tariffs on goods immediately, but not NTBs and customs clearance which would have to be done from the outside.

    It would also allow us to unilaterally impose our own immigration system and categorise all migration on the same level rather than privileging EU migration as we currently do or may continue to do after any deal.

    The main advantage would be getting out of the customs union very quickly which would enable bilateral tariff elimination with nations such as Australia, Canada, NZ, Japan, SK, SA and others as a precursor to full free trading agreements. While we are locked in negotiations with the EU under A50 that is not going to be possible as all of our trade negotiators will be working on the EU deal.

    So there are advantages, but I think the uncertainty for businesses would be to vast and it would drag on the economy for a very long time until we rebalance the economy.
    Clearly the most sensible solution for both us and the EU would be for us to rapidly agree a time limited EEA (with restrictions on FoM), say a treaty with a five or seven year term.

    We could then work with the EU on a permanent deal, while simultaneously entering into agreements with other countries (Canada, Australia, etc.). Business would be able to gradually adjust, rather than there being an abrupt imposition of tariffs and other limitations on trade.

    And because the EEA agreement was time limited, the hard Brexiters couldn't argue that we were staying in the EU by the back door.

    The advantage to the EU would be that it would minimise disruption for them too.
    This sounds like the obvious solution, doesn't it? Basically stay in the EU in all but name, but with limited voting rights, and with the announced intention of negotiating something different. What the government can do is make a lot of noise about how hard the Brexit will be once they get to the "something different" phase, which they afford to be very hard-line about, as this part will be conducted at elected-House-of-Lords speed.
    Good idea.
    I wish we still had Spitting Image. Seeing the headbangers (Ken Clarke's word not mine!) arguing about hard vs. soft Brexit would be hilarious.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094
    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    From the FT: "Figures from the Office of National Statistics show overseas tourist visits to the UK rose 2 per cent in the first month after the Brexit vote, with holidaymakers spending £1.79bn in the month, up from the £1.77bn in June."

    I'm slightly surprised that there was not more of an increase in July, especially as one would expect that July should be a big month for tourism. I'd also like to see the y-o-y figures.

    I'd also like to see how much Britons spent overseas YoY. That figure should be down.
    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/leisureandtourism/bulletins/overseastravelandtourism/provisionalresultsforjuly2016

    +2% in July

    Although as holidays are mostly booked in advance, I would expect there to be a bigger impact in 2017 than immediately.

    Skiing next year is going to be very expensive.
    Yes, well this weekend my gf and I are going to Bath instead of Ticino, not really to save money but it seems like a good time to do it.
    Is it because you're investigating potential Liberal Democrat gains in 2020?
    There is skiing in Bath?
    http://www.dayoutwiththekids.co.uk/family-fun/Mendip_Snowsport_Centre/6261
    Lol. And wow.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383

    Mr. Max, man's oldest enemy: the mother-in-law.

    [Ok, not technically an in-law yet, but close].

    Old joke, but for those who haven't heard it: what's the difference between outlaws and inlaws?

    Outlaws are wanted.

    :lol:
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    Essexit said:

    Allerdale

    Lab 40.7% plus 5.8%
    LDem 29.4% plus 20,0%
    Con 25.9% minus 19.3%
    UKIP 4,0% plus 4.0%

    If the BBC doesn't lead with this all day tomorrow it will be irrefutable evidence of the Zionist MSM's anti-Corbyn campaign.
    LibDems splitting the vote to let Corbyn's lot in?
    Conservatives splitting the vote to let Corbyn's lot in as they were 3rd
    Nah - the LibDems started 3rd. If the 19% that moved from Con to LD had stayed with Con they would have beaten Labour.
  • Back to the waiting area for me.

    Thanks everyone for the best wishes

    Wishing you and your family all the best.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Good Friday all round

    Mrs BJ finally gets her Op with spinal chord almost completely severed today.

    6hrs on the table went in an hour ago.

    20% chance of being paralysed/incontinent for life(which is 100% chance without the op)

    60% chance of stopping her getting worse ie walk a few paces not incontinent.

    20% chance of some reasonable recovery.

    On a less important note, The Messiah is reborn tomorrow

    Good luck to your wife today. Thoughts and prayers to her and your whole family.
  • Good Friday all round

    Mrs BJ finally gets her Op with spinal chord almost completely severed today.

    6hrs on the table went in an hour ago.

    20% chance of being paralysed/incontinent for life(which is 100% chance without the op)

    60% chance of stopping her getting worse ie walk a few paces not incontinent.

    20% chance of some reasonable recovery.

    On a less important note, The Messiah is reborn tomorrow

    Very best wishes to you, your wife and family BJO.
  • Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    MaxPB said:

    Theresa May has helped lift support for the Conservative party in Wales to its highest level for six years. This is the stand-out finding from the latest Welsh Political Barometer poll, the first opinion poll to be conducted in Wales since the change of Prime Minister.

    http://www.itv.com/news/wales/2016-09-23/owen-smith-less-popular-in-wales-than-jeremy-corbyn-as-tories-cut-labours-lead/

    Owen whatshisface is less popular in Wales than Jez. Perfect candidate from a Tory point of view. So useless that he has legitimised Corbyn's leadership with an even bigger mandate from the members.
    Agent Smith sent to the rescue of Agent Corbyn?

    :)

    Argclu would have polled better than Smith, surely?
    The only viable alternative to Corbyn before 2020 remains John McDonnell in my view
    What scenario do you have in mind?

    On current rules if Corbyn somehow vacates his post (death,resignation) , the PLP will nominate candidates. JMcD will not get the votes. Corbyn didn't this time.

    If Corbyn is challenged again, why would JMcD enter the race?
    Key point there is current rules. Corbyn is likely not going to step down until he has control over NEC, and can change the leadership election rules to reduce nominations threshold to 5% for example. Anyway, the PLP would be wise to accept JMcD in place of Corbyn. He would stand a better chance in 2020 as he could at least be taken more seriously, even if his ideas are ultimately likely to prove too unpalatable.

    It's difficult to see how Corbyn will be able to take control of the NEC anytime soon. The way it looks to be set up now and into the future means he is going to have great difficulty changing rules in his favour or preventing rule changes that work against him. If McCluskey loses to a moderate candidate in the Unison leadership election (unlikely, but possible), then Corbyn is finished.

    SO, I've sure you've said before, so I'm probably asking you to repeat yourself which is probably unfair, but given that 'the party' is now pretty much behind Corbyn in terms of the membership and that he is now what Labour is, how can you really remain a labour supporter in any way shape or form?

    For now, yes, as I still see a way out of this,. If the NEC flips far left then it is game over and I'm gone. As it is, though, if Corbyn leads Labour into the 2020 election I won't vote for the party.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Mr. Max, man's oldest enemy: the mother-in-law.

    [Ok, not technically an in-law yet, but close].

    Old joke, but for those who haven't heard it: what's the difference between outlaws and inlaws?

    Outlaws are wanted.

    I have the best mother in law, we've never had a row - I don't understand a word she says, and she doesn't understand a word I say ;)
  • rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Question:

    Does anyone on here actually believe that a hard Brexit (by which I mean no access to the single market beyond WTO rules) is advantageous for the UK.

    Never mind whether the politics tend that way -- by itself, does anyone think it the best destination? And if so, why?

    The only advantage to that would be speed and negotiating from the outside, we could probably come a mutual dropping of tariffs on goods immediately, but not NTBs and customs clearance which would have to be done from the outside.

    It would also allow us to unilaterally impose our own immigration system and categorise all migration on the same level rather than privileging EU migration as we currently do or may continue to do after any deal.

    The main advantage would be getting out of the customs union very quickly which would enable bilateral tariff elimination with nations such as Australia, Canada, NZ, Japan, SK, SA and others as a precursor to full free trading agreements. While we are locked in negotiations with the EU under A50 that is not going to be possible as all of our trade negotiators will be working on the EU deal.

    So there are advantages, but I think the uncertainty for businesses would be to vast and it would drag on the economy for a very long time until we rebalance the economy.
    Clearly the most sensible solution for both us and the EU would be for us to rapidly agree a time limited EEA (with restrictions on FoM), say a treaty with a five or seven year term.

    We could then work with the EU on a permanent deal, while simultaneously entering into agreements with other countries (Canada, Australia, etc.). Business would be able to gradually adjust, rather than there being an abrupt imposition of tariffs and other limitations on trade.

    And because the EEA agreement was time limited, the hard Brexiters couldn't argue that we were staying in the EU by the back door.

    The advantage to the EU would be that it would minimise disruption for them too.
    This sounds like the obvious solution, doesn't it? Basically stay in the EU in all but name, but with limited voting rights, and with the announced intention of negotiating something different. What the government can do is make a lot of noise about how hard the Brexit will be once they get to the "something different" phase, which they afford to be very hard-line about, as this part will be conducted at elected-House-of-Lords speed.
    Ok so no-one willing to argue standalone merits of hard Brexit.

    If one assumes some form of Brexit is now fait accompli, then perhaps we are all relatively aligned on destination, but differ on tactics.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Question:

    Does anyone on here actually believe that a hard Brexit (by which I mean no access to the single market beyond WTO rules) is advantageous for the UK.

    Never mind whether the politics tend that way -- by itself, does anyone think it the best destination? And if so, why?

    The only advantage to that would be speed and negotiating from the outside, we could probably come a mutual dropping of tariffs on goods immediately, but not NTBs and customs clearance which would have to be done from the outside.

    It would also allow us to unilaterally impose our own immigration system and categorise all migration on the same level rather than privileging EU migration as we currently do or may continue to do after any deal.

    The main advantage would be getting out of the customs union very quickly which would enable bilateral tariff elimination with nations such as Australia, Canada, NZ, Japan, SK, SA and others as a precursor to full free trading agreements. While we are locked in negotiations with the EU under A50 that is not going to be possible as all of our trade negotiators will be working on the EU deal.

    So there are advantages, but I think the uncertainty for businesses would be to vast and it would drag on the economy for a very long time until we rebalance the economy.
    Clearly the most sensible solution for both us and the EU would be for us to rapidly agree a time limited EEA (with restrictions on FoM), say a treaty with a five or seven year term.

    We could then work with the EU on a permanent deal, while simultaneously entering into agreements with other countries (Canada, Australia, etc.). Business would be able to gradually adjust, rather than there being an abrupt imposition of tariffs and other limitations on trade.

    And because the EEA agreement was time limited, the hard Brexiters couldn't argue that we were staying in the EU by the back door.

    The advantage to the EU would be that it would minimise disruption for them too.
    That would undoubtedly be the best way forward, and is probably what we would do if the negotiations were being conducted by businessmen rather than politicians on both sides.

    Unfortunately, the negotiations are being done by politicians, who in some cases seem happy to cut off their nose to spite their face.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,265
    Thanks also to IanB2 for the very helpful advice. I don't want to spam the site with my travel plans, but if anyone can advise further to nickmp1 at aol dot com I'd be very grateful. We're staying at Ca' Bragadin Carabba, Castello 6041 - Campo S.Marina, Venice, VE, 30122 Italy. Southam's tip to take a water bus across the lagoon from San Marco airport sounds good, but does that get us anywhere near where we're staying?
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,092
    Hard Brexit as opposed to Soft (and Cuddly) Brexit I suppose.
    Or maybe Fuzzy Brexit.
    Do Leavers use the term "Hard Brexit"?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    From the FT: "Figures from the Office of National Statistics show overseas tourist visits to the UK rose 2 per cent in the first month after the Brexit vote, with holidaymakers spending £1.79bn in the month, up from the £1.77bn in June."

    I'm slightly surprised that there was not more of an increase in July, especially as one would expect that July should be a big month for tourism. I'd also like to see the y-o-y figures.

    I'd also like to see how much Britons spent overseas YoY. That figure should be down.
    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/leisureandtourism/bulletins/overseastravelandtourism/provisionalresultsforjuly2016

    +2% in July

    Although as holidays are mostly booked in advance, I would expect there to be a bigger impact in 2017 than immediately.

    Skiing next year is going to be very expensive.
    Yes, well this weekend my gf and I are going to Bath instead of Ticino, not really to save money but it seems like a good time to do it.
    Is it because you're investigating potential Liberal Democrat gains in 2020?
    There is skiing in Bath?
    There is skiing everywhere these days. I can see this place out of my window right now!
    https://www.theplaymania.com/skidubai
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 1,545

    Good Friday all round

    Mrs BJ finally gets her Op with spinal chord almost completely severed today.

    6hrs on the table went in an hour ago.

    20% chance of being paralysed/incontinent for life(which is 100% chance without the op)

    60% chance of stopping her getting worse ie walk a few paces not incontinent.

    20% chance of some reasonable recovery.

    On a less important note, The Messiah is reborn tomorrow

    Puts all our bickering into perspective. Take care and we are rooting for you both.
  • ... Southam's tip to take a water bus across the lagoon from San Marco airport sounds good, but does that get us anywhere near where we're staying?

    It's an absolute must-do. It's especially memorable at night.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    The only advantage to that would be speed and negotiating from the outside, we could probably come a mutual dropping of tariffs on goods immediately, but not NTBs and customs clearance which would have to be done from the outside.

    It would also allow us to unilaterally impose our own immigration system and categorise all migration on the same level rather than privileging EU migration as we currently do or may continue to do after any deal.

    The main advantage would be getting out of the customs union very quickly which would enable bilateral tariff elimination with nations such as Australia, Canada, NZ, Japan, SK, SA and others as a precursor to full free trading agreements. While we are locked in negotiations with the EU under A50 that is not going to be possible as all of our trade negotiators will be working on the EU deal.

    So there are advantages, but I think the uncertainty for businesses would be to vast and it would drag on the economy for a very long time until we rebalance the economy.
    Clearly the most sensible solution for both us and the EU would be for us to rapidly agree a time limited EEA (with restrictions on FoM), say a treaty with a five or seven year term.

    We could then work with the EU on a permanent deal, while simultaneously entering into agreements with other countries (Canada, Australia, etc.). Business would be able to gradually adjust, rather than there being an abrupt imposition of tariffs and other limitations on trade.

    And because the EEA agreement was time limited, the hard Brexiters couldn't argue that we were staying in the EU by the back door.

    The advantage to the EU would be that it would minimise disruption for them too.
    This sounds like the obvious solution, doesn't it? Basically stay in the EU in all but name, but with limited voting rights, and with the announced intention of negotiating something different. What the government can do is make a lot of noise about how hard the Brexit will be once they get to the "something different" phase, which they afford to be very hard-line about, as this part will be conducted at elected-House-of-Lords speed.
    Ok so no-one willing to argue standalone merits of hard Brexit.

    If one assumes some form of Brexit is now fait accompli, then perhaps we are all relatively aligned on destination, but differ on tactics.
    The standalone merits of hard Brexit are the certainty of outcome, and the opportunity to get on with talking to the rest of the world, as against the uncertainty of extended negotiations with our European neighbours, all of whom have their own, different, agendas.
  • Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    MaxPB said:

    Theresa May has helped lift support for the Conservative party in Wales to its highest level for six years. This is the stand-out finding from the latest Welsh Political Barometer poll, the first opinion poll to be conducted in Wales since the change of Prime Minister.

    http://www.itv.com/news/wales/2016-09-23/owen-smith-less-popular-in-wales-than-jeremy-corbyn-as-tories-cut-labours-lead/

    Owen whatshisface is less popular in Wales than Jez. Perfect candidate from a Tory point of view. So useless that he has legitimised Corbyn's leadership with an even bigger mandate from the members.
    Agent Smith sent to the rescue of Agent Corbyn?

    :)

    Argclu would have polled better than Smith, surely?
    The only viable alternative to Corbyn before 2020 remains John McDonnell in my view
    What scenario do you have in mind?

    On current rules if Corbyn somehow vacates his post (death,resignation) , the PLP will nominate candidates. JMcD will not get the votes. Corbyn didn't this time.

    If Corbyn is challenged again, why would JMcD enter the race?
    Key point there is current rules. Corbyn is likely not going to step down until he has control over NEC, and can change the leadership election rules to reduce nominations threshold to 5% for example. Anyway, the PLP would be wise to accept JMcD in place of Corbyn. He would stand a better chance in 2020 as he could at least be taken more seriously, even if his ideas are ultimately likely to prove too unpalatable.

    SO, I've sure you've said before, so I'm probably asking you to repeat yourself which is probably unfair, but given that 'the party' is now pretty much behind Corbyn in terms of the membership and that he is now what Labour is, how can you really remain a labour supporter in any way shape or form?

    For now, yes, as I still see a way out of this,. If the NEC flips far left then it is game over and I'm gone. As it is, though, if Corbyn leads Labour into the 2020 election I won't vote for the party.

    Thanks for replying. At least you (as a voter) have that luxury of just 'not supporting' labour.

    I'm not how MPs can do the same. How can they actively support or even campaign for Corbyn's labour with what they've already said. They'll just be seen as being insincere (at best).
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    @bigjohnowls

    Hope all goes well today. Best wishes.
  • tlg86 said:

    The one I have trouble with is talking about organisations as singular entities. I can't say Arsenal is fourth in the league, I have to say Arsenal are fourth in the league, even though I know it is wrong to do so.

    Surely 'Arsenal are fourth within the league' would assuage your concerns. As in 'are fourth amongst twenty'.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    edited September 2016
    Sandpit said:

    The standalone merits of hard Brexit are the certainty of outcome, and the opportunity to get on with talking to the rest of the world, as against the uncertainty of extended negotiations with our European neighbours, all of whom have their own, different, agendas.

    But even if Hard Brexit is the preferred destination (by which I mean no trade deal at all with the EU, which I think is madness...), we would still be best off getting there as a series of steps over a period of five to ten years, rather than going cold turkey.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    Best of luck to Mr. & Mrs Owls, praying for you both.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094
    edited September 2016

    Thanks also to IanB2 for the very helpful advice. I don't want to spam the site with my travel plans, but if anyone can advise further to nickmp1 at aol dot com I'd be very grateful. We're staying at Ca' Bragadin Carabba, Castello 6041 - Campo S.Marina, Venice, VE, 30122 Italy. Southam's tip to take a water bus across the lagoon from San Marco airport sounds good, but does that get us anywhere near where we're staying?

    The airport water bus chugs across the lagoon (a similar experience to the Burano trip I recommend) and drops you in various places depending on which line you get.

    The info you need is here:

    http://www.alilaguna.it/en

    For a central Castello address the quickest is to get off at Fondamente Nuove and walk through the backstreets, best make sure you have a map handy if you do that, as Venice is notioriously easy to get lost in on foot, even with a map. Alternatively if you get the Orange Line you may as well stay on round to Rialto - not really any nearer your base but probably an easier place to find it from, at least initially, and there are more crowds so more people to ask if you get lost. Plus you get the bonus of a longer introduction to Venice as the ferry goes round and into the Grand Canal.

    Edit/ I see you can even buy both tickets and passes online now, which is relatively new

    Edit/ the Venice food and fish markets are just across the bridge from where you are, and recommended for sights/people etc.
  • Hope it goes well today BJO.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    The standalone merits of hard Brexit are the certainty of outcome, and the opportunity to get on with talking to the rest of the world, as against the uncertainty of extended negotiations with our European neighbours, all of whom have their own, different, agendas.

    But even if Hard Brexit is the preferred destination (by which I mean no trade deal at all with the EU, which I think is madness...), we would still be best off getting there as a series of steps over a period of five to ten years, rather than going cold turkey.
    I agree, the preferred outcome would be for a series of smaller steps to be made, rather than the Big Bang approach, I was replying to Mr @Gardenwalker's suggestion that no-one has stated the merits of the hard exit.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,785
    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    It's difficult to see how Corbyn will be able to take control of the NEC anytime soon. The way it looks to be set up now and into the future means he is going to have great difficulty changing rules in his favour or preventing rule changes that work against him.
    SO, I've sure you've said before, so I'm probably asking you to repeat yourself which is probably unfair, but given that 'the party' is now pretty much behind Corbyn in terms of the membership and that he is now what Labour is, how can you really remain a labour supporter in any way shape or form?
    Kendall's answer to that question says she's wrestling with her loyalty to the Party, as an organisation she joined a couple of decades ago and has given a lot of her life to supporting.

    There will be 172 MPs thinking pretty much the same over the weekend, the question is how many of them will actually make the jump. The only defection that works needs to be of more than half the MPs, to make the new entity the official Opposition in Parliament and relegate Corbyn's Labour to the back benches. Do the moderates have it in them to jump, I'm not sure.
    For all that talk of defections and new parties excites us on here - I have wildly speculated enough on what possibilities there might be - the proper consideration of all this is to take a longer-term view of how a left of centre policy agenda can be most effectively put into practice. Labour have been the vehicle for doing that for a long time, and it is this as much as political positioning that drives Labour being the party of choice for a substantial majority of social democrats. Moving the steering wheel onto another less powerful vehicle, an SDP2 or the LibDems, does not yet look any quicker a way to drive the agenda than does fixing the dodgy steering on the existing vehicle, even if all that can be done at the moment is prevent the transmission systems (from the NEC down to local parties), being adjusted so that they match up with the dodgy steering. It has even brought people like Southam back in.

    If and when that is not prevented, that will be when the rate of defections increases. It remains to be seen whether the alternative metro mayor route out, another thing I suggested as a way of rebuilding the centre and which Andy Burnham has actually done well to take, survives the exit of Osborne or whether Manchester will end up as an isolated example.
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024

    Sean_F said:

    Alistair said:

    AndyJS said:


    Trump is going to lose votes compared to Romney in all the places that don't matter, like Utah and Vermont. On the other hand he's going to pick up votes where needed in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan.

    Looking at the demographics of voter registration (which US states are ludicrously generous with) there has been no surge of white registration, things are in trend for Pew's prediction of the least white electorate ever.

    With no increase in non-voter participation Trump is reliant on flipping Dem voters. Dem voters who were turned out by Obama's clinical GOTV operation and need to be turned out by Trump's anemic operation that has never targeted them before.

    If going into election day a sate is polling 50/50 I'm going to call it for Clinton on the strength of the GOTV.
    Trump's vote seems more efficiently distributed than Romney's but PA still looks solid for Clinton.
    IIRC PA has been more Dem than the USA as a whole in every election from 1952 onwards.

    The only state to so do so.
    Alistar do you have a link that shows U.S voter registration by race (not just party) thanx.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    edited September 2016
    Sandpit said:


    That would undoubtedly be the best way forward, and is probably what we would do if the negotiations were being conducted by businessmen rather than politicians on both sides.

    Unfortunately, the negotiations are being done by politicians, who in some cases seem happy to cut off their nose to spite their face.

    Not sure how businesses would gradually adjust. There would be one set of changes for the first deal, albeit quite small ones, then another set of presumably much larger changes for the final deal (assuming it ever happened which I doubt). So two lots of change costs, twice the energy expended and no gradual shift.

    What I would expect to happen should we go down Mr. Robert's route is that we would end up in a Norway style situation which really would be a bad outcome for a country and economy of our size.

  • Ok so no-one willing to argue standalone merits of hard Brexit.

    If one assumes some form of Brexit is now fait accompli, then perhaps we are all relatively aligned on destination, but differ on tactics.

    I wouldn't quite assume some form of Brexit yet, but it's likely.

    When it comes to the actual nature of Brexit the main parties are in the same box that they were over EU membership, ie there's a very motivated minority of their support base that wants something, and a larger part with some sympathy for it, but they think giving it to them would damage the things that most of the rest of their support base really want.

    The strategy to deal with it has always been to fudge, stall and occasionally grandstand, or if the worst comes to the worst hold a referendum. Telling the base you think they're wrong is generally unpopular with the base, which is why it's generally left to people who are no longer part of the government.
  • Whatever the margin of Corbyn's victory, no Labour MP will want to stand against him next year with the disunity that comes with it and the disruption of hustings round the country and the cost to the Labour party.

    I doubt enough MPs would be prepared to support a further hostile challenge. Apart from it being pointless there is also the risk of being de-selected by their constituency party.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664

    Back to the waiting area for me.

    Thanks everyone for the best wishes

    Very best from me too
  • Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    The standalone merits of hard Brexit are the certainty of outcome, and the opportunity to get on with talking to the rest of the world, as against the uncertainty of extended negotiations with our European neighbours, all of whom have their own, different, agendas.

    But even if Hard Brexit is the preferred destination (by which I mean no trade deal at all with the EU, which I think is madness...), we would still be best off getting there as a series of steps over a period of five to ten years, rather than going cold turkey.
    I agree, the preferred outcome would be for a series of smaller steps to be made, rather than the Big Bang approach, I was replying to Mr @Gardenwalker's suggestion that no-one has stated the merits of the hard exit.

    No being in the single market custom's union means we can make our own trade deals with non EU countries like USA, India, China, Indonesia and Brazil.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    edited September 2016
    There is no moral dilemma for Labour MPs. They were elected as Labour MPs. They should stay and campaign as Labour MPs. It's a broad church. No less broad than when Corbyn was a backbench MP.

    WRT the Commons, Corbyn should expect no less loyalty that he showed successive Labour leaders.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094
    Pro_Rata said:

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    It's difficult to see how Corbyn will be able to take control of the NEC anytime soon. The way it looks to be set up now and into the future means he is going to have great difficulty changing rules in his favour or preventing rule changes that work against him.
    SO, I've sure you've said before, so I'm probably asking you to repeat yourself which is probably unfair, but given that 'the party' is now pretty much behind Corbyn in terms of the membership and that he is now what Labour is, how can you really remain a labour supporter in any way shape or form?
    Kendall's answer to that question says .
    For all that talk of defections and new parties excites us on here - I have wildly speculated enough on what possibilities there might be - the proper consideration of all this is to take a longer-term view of how a left of centre policy agenda can be most effectively put into practice. Labour have been the vehicle for doing that for a long time, and it is this as much as political positioning that drives Labour being the party of choice for a substantial majority of social democrats. Moving the steering wheel onto another less powerful vehicle,. It has even brought people like Southam back in.

    If and when that is not prevented, that will be when the rate of defections increases. It remains to be seen whether the alternative metro mayor route out, another thing I suggested as a way of rebuilding the centre and which Andy Burnham has actually done well to take, survives the exit of Osborne or whether Manchester will end up as an isolated example.
    In electoral terms a switch en masse to the LibDems would actually be a better way of taking the Tories down, as the LibDem vote is ideally spread to win Tory seats, and there are many seats the LibDems could win that Labour never will. But the LD vote is just way too low to be electorally effective in doing so right now. Labour's trouble is the flip side of their FPTP ' lifejacket' - having a concentrated vote means they don't sink too far in terms of seats with a low vote, but need to rise very high to win alone, especially without Scotland.

    The trouble, of course, is that any such realignment would take time and be fraught with Labour's death throws, meanwhile the Tories get to rule unchallenged,
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921

    Good Friday all round

    Mrs BJ finally gets her Op with spinal chord almost completely severed today.

    6hrs on the table went in an hour ago.

    20% chance of being paralysed/incontinent for life(which is 100% chance without the op)

    60% chance of stopping her getting worse ie walk a few paces not incontinent.

    20% chance of some reasonable recovery.

    On a less important note, The Messiah is reborn tomorrow

    Hoping for the best outcome BJO!
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    IanB2 said:


    In electoral terms a switch en masse to the LibDems would actually be a better way of taking the Tories down, as the LibDem vote is ideally spread to win Tory seats, and there are many seats the LibDems could win that Labour never will. But the LD vote is just way too low to be electorally effective in doing so right now. Labour's trouble is the flip side of their FPTP ' lifejacket' - having a concentrated vote means they don't sink too far in terms of seats with a low vote, but need to rise very high to win alone, especially without Scotland.

    The trouble, of course, is that any such realignment would take time and be fraught with Labour's death throws, meanwhile the Tories get to rule unchallenged,

    With 239 seats and 30% of the vote today, Labour is still by far the best bet if you want an alternative to the Tories.
  • Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    The standalone merits of hard Brexit are the certainty of outcome, and the opportunity to get on with talking to the rest of the world, as against the uncertainty of extended negotiations with our European neighbours, all of whom have their own, different, agendas.

    But even if Hard Brexit is the preferred destination (by which I mean no trade deal at all with the EU, which I think is madness...), we would still be best off getting there as a series of steps over a period of five to ten years, rather than going cold turkey.
    I agree, the preferred outcome would be for a series of smaller steps to be made, rather than the Big Bang approach, I was replying to Mr @Gardenwalker's suggestion that no-one has stated the merits of the hard exit.

    No being in the single market custom's union means we can make our own trade deals with non EU countries like USA, India, China, Indonesia and Brazil.
    I can see that the clarity, and immediate freedom to negotiate with the US etc are the merits of a full, hard Brexit.

    But it seems no-one here would recommend it as their preferred outcome.

    Most here want access to the single market, which I take to mean ability to trade on the same terms as EU members, but not in the actual customs union.

    With control on FOM.

    Perhaps after a transitional arrangements.

    In return I imagine we will sacrifice passporting, and continue paying some subs.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    The standalone merits of hard Brexit are the certainty of outcome, and the opportunity to get on with talking to the rest of the world, as against the uncertainty of extended negotiations with our European neighbours, all of whom have their own, different, agendas.

    But even if Hard Brexit is the preferred destination (by which I mean no trade deal at all with the EU, which I think is madness...), we would still be best off getting there as a series of steps over a period of five to ten years, rather than going cold turkey.
    I agree, the preferred outcome would be for a series of smaller steps to be made, rather than the Big Bang approach, I was replying to Mr @Gardenwalker's suggestion that no-one has stated the merits of the hard exit.

    No being in the single market custom's union means we can make our own trade deals with non EU countries like USA, India, China, Indonesia and Brazil.
    The customs union and the single market are different things. Norway is not a member of the customs union, but is in the single market. Turkey is in the customs union, but not the single market.
  • Mortimer said:

    Good Friday all round

    Mrs BJ finally gets her Op with spinal chord almost completely severed today.

    6hrs on the table went in an hour ago.

    20% chance of being paralysed/incontinent for life(which is 100% chance without the op)

    60% chance of stopping her getting worse ie walk a few paces not incontinent.

    20% chance of some reasonable recovery.

    On a less important note, The Messiah is reborn tomorrow

    Hoping for the best outcome BJO!
    Best wishes to both of you and for a successful outcome
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,265
    Crossing every finger for your lady and you, BJO - must be agonising but hope it really works out.



  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094
    Jonathan said:

    IanB2 said:


    In electoral terms a switch en masse to the LibDems would actually be a better way of taking the Tories down, as the LibDem vote is ideally spread to win Tory seats, and there are many seats the LibDems could win that Labour never will. But the LD vote is just way too low to be electorally effective in doing so right now. Labour's trouble is the flip side of their FPTP ' lifejacket' - having a concentrated vote means they don't sink too far in terms of seats with a low vote, but need to rise very high to win alone, especially without Scotland.

    The trouble, of course, is that any such realignment would take time and be fraught with Labour's death throws, meanwhile the Tories get to rule unchallenged,

    With 239 seats and 30% of the vote today, Labour is still by far the best bet if you want an alternative to the Tories.
    Only if they can win. Which they can't.
  • JobabobJobabob Posts: 3,807

    Good Friday all round

    Mrs BJ finally gets her Op with spinal chord almost completely severed today.

    6hrs on the table went in an hour ago.

    20% chance of being paralysed/incontinent for life(which is 100% chance without the op)

    60% chance of stopping her getting worse ie walk a few paces not incontinent.

    20% chance of some reasonable recovery.

    On a less important note, The Messiah is reborn tomorrow

    Best wishes to both of you.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,265
    Jonathan said:

    There is no moral dilemma for Labour MPs. They were elected as Labour MPs. They should stay and campaign as Labour MPs. It's a broad church. No less broad than when Corbyn was a backbench MP.

    WRT the Commons, Corbyn should expect no less loyalty that he showed successive Labour leaders.

    I think he'd actually settle for that as a fair deal - vote against leadership policy when you feel you need to, but don't slag them off. Obviously will give rise to questions in 2020 about who stands for what, but a lot can happen in 4 years.
  • @NickPalmer
    Do pack waterproof footwear.
    Perhaps it's obvious, but large parts of Venice actually flood up to the shins.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664

    tlg86 said:

    The one I have trouble with is talking about organisations as singular entities. I can't say Arsenal is fourth in the league, I have to say Arsenal are fourth in the league, even though I know it is wrong to do so.

    Surely 'Arsenal are fourth within the league' would assuage your concerns. As in 'are fourth amongst twenty'.
    Steven Pinker, The Language Instinct 1994 p. 51: "'My bank are awful', by the way, is grammatical in British, though not American English".
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Theo K
    AfD gaining 2 points to all-time high 16%, after (again) promising a referendum for Germany's membership in the EU. https://t.co/n1YEuQMYRx
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    Jonathan said:

    IanB2 said:


    In electoral terms a switch en masse to the LibDems would actually be a better way of taking the Tories down, as the LibDem vote is ideally spread to win Tory seats, and there are many seats the LibDems could win that Labour never will. But the LD vote is just way too low to be electorally effective in doing so right now. Labour's trouble is the flip side of their FPTP ' lifejacket' - having a concentrated vote means they don't sink too far in terms of seats with a low vote, but need to rise very high to win alone, especially without Scotland.

    The trouble, of course, is that any such realignment would take time and be fraught with Labour's death throws, meanwhile the Tories get to rule unchallenged,

    With 239 seats and 30% of the vote today, Labour is still by far the best bet if you want an alternative to the Tories.
    Parties aiming only for opposition rather than government see support collapse. C/f Lib Dems.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    edited September 2016
    Jonathan said:

    There is no moral dilemma for Labour MPs. They were elected as Labour MPs. They should stay and campaign as Labour MPs. It's a broad church. No less broad than when Corbyn was a backbench MP.

    WRT the Commons, Corbyn should expect no less loyalty that he showed successive Labour leaders.

    Is there not a contradiction between the sentiments expressed in your two paragraphs? The first seems to suggest that Labour MPs have a duty to support their leader in the policies he wants to put forward. The second suggests that they should be free to campaign for different policies than those that their leader espouses.

    A broad church Labour maybe but goodness knows how it can be an effective party let alone opposition if MPs and Leadership are not in step.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,785
    Ishmael_X said:

    Back to the waiting area for me.

    Thanks everyone for the best wishes

    Very best from me too
    Add my best wishes to that too.
  • IanB2 said:

    Thanks also to IanB2 for the very helpful advice. I don't want to spam the site with my travel plans, but if anyone can advise further to nickmp1 at aol dot com I'd be very grateful. We're staying at Ca' Bragadin Carabba, Castello 6041 - Campo S.Marina, Venice, VE, 30122 Italy. Southam's tip to take a water bus across the lagoon from San Marco airport sounds good, but does that get us anywhere near where we're staying?

    The airport water bus chugs across the lagoon (a similar experience to the Burano trip I recommend) and drops you in various places depending on which line you get.

    The info you need is here:

    http://www.alilaguna.it/en

    For a central Castello address the quickest is to get off at Fondamente Nuove and walk through the backstreets, best make sure you have a map handy if you do that, as Venice is notioriously easy to get lost in on foot, even with a map. Alternatively if you get the Orange Line you may as well stay on round to Rialto - not really any nearer your base but probably an easier place to find it from, at least initially, and there are more crowds so more people to ask if you get lost. Plus you get the bonus of a longer introduction to Venice as the ferry goes round and into the Grand Canal.

    Edit/ I see you can even buy both tickets and passes online now, which is relatively new

    Edit/ the Venice food and fish markets are just across the bridge from where you are, and recommended for sights/people etc.

    Yep - first time I went to Venice I got off the water bus from the airport and realised I had absolutely no idea how to get to the hotel. It was night time and no-one was around. Very, very luckily a couple of locals were out walking their dog and saved me. Otherwise I might still be looking now.

    As I remember it, all the streets are called Calle - like the Spanish - not the Italian Via.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    edited September 2016

    Jonathan said:

    There is no moral dilemma for Labour MPs. They were elected as Labour MPs. They should stay and campaign as Labour MPs. It's a broad church. No less broad than when Corbyn was a backbench MP.

    WRT the Commons, Corbyn should expect no less loyalty that he showed successive Labour leaders.

    I think he'd actually settle for that as a fair deal - vote against leadership policy when you feel you need to, but don't slag them off. Obviously will give rise to questions in 2020 about who stands for what, but a lot can happen in 4 years.

    More intriguingly, on occasions we may well see the leadership vote against Labour policy.

  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    edited September 2016

    Given the RoI a new Royal yacht seems a no brainer to me.

    Probably something that May could do that Cameron could not: I think this has always been about politics not economics.


    The UK could do with a few more gun boats.

    It's never a good look when you have more admirals than ships.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098

    @NickPalmer
    Do pack waterproof footwear.
    Perhaps it's obvious, but large parts of Venice actually flood up to the shins.

    To quote a well known comedian, "In another country a flooded city that stank of shit would be regarded as a disaster, not some fecking jewel in the crown"
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Number Cruncher
    YouGov/ITV/Cardiff Uni (Wales Westminster):

    CON 29 (+6)
    LAB 35 (+1)
    LD 7 (-1)
    UKIP 14 (-2)
    PC 13 (-3)

    Dates 18th-21st September
    N=1,001
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,265
    IanB2 said:



    In electoral terms a switch en masse to the LibDems would actually be a better way of taking the Tories down, as the LibDem vote is ideally spread to win Tory seats, and there are many seats the LibDems could win that Labour never will. But the LD vote is just way too low to be electorally effective in doing so right now. Labour's trouble is the flip side of their FPTP ' lifejacket' - having a concentrated vote means they don't sink too far in terms of seats with a low vote, but need to rise very high to win alone, especially without Scotland.

    The trouble, of course, is that any such realignment would take time and be fraught with Labour's death throws, meanwhile the Tories get to rule unchallenged,

    It's now pretty obvious that the best way forward for everyone left of centre is some form of PR, so we can have a centre-left party (or two, if the LibDems stay separate) and a further-left party like virtually every other European country, and they can work together when electoral maths dictate. However, getting into government to deliver it is the challenge. I'd think that any kind of deal between Lab/LDs/Greens would focus around that point. Unlike the past, the Labour leadership will see clear advantages, but it also gives a survival option for heirs to Blair - Cameron in the same party as Liz Kendall, maybe?

    There are still hardline FPTPers around (John Mann is one, I think), but I don't think they've got the energy to fight for it in the last ditch with so much else going on.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,725
    Labour Party info apparently that @jeremycorbyn is on 65%; Gordon Brown calls on people to respect the election
  • IanB2 said:

    Thanks also to IanB2 for the very helpful advice. I don't want to spam the site with my travel plans, but if anyone can advise further to nickmp1 at aol dot com I'd be very grateful. We're staying at Ca' Bragadin Carabba, Castello 6041 - Campo S.Marina, Venice, VE, 30122 Italy. Southam's tip to take a water bus across the lagoon from San Marco airport sounds good, but does that get us anywhere near where we're staying?

    The airport water bus chugs across the lagoon (a similar experience to the Burano trip I recommend) and drops you in various places depending on which line you get.

    The info you need is here:

    http://www.alilaguna.it/en

    For a central Castello address the quickest is to get off at Fondamente Nuove and walk through the backstreets, best make sure you have a map handy if you do that, as Venice is notioriously easy to get lost in on foot, even with a map. Alternatively if you get the Orange Line you may as well stay on round to Rialto - not really any nearer your base but probably an easier place to find it from, at least initially, and there are more crowds so more people to ask if you get lost. Plus you get the bonus of a longer introduction to Venice as the ferry goes round and into the Grand Canal.

    Edit/ I see you can even buy both tickets and passes online now, which is relatively new

    Edit/ the Venice food and fish markets are just across the bridge from where you are, and recommended for sights/people etc.

    Yep - first time I went to Venice I got off the water bus from the airport and realised I had absolutely no idea how to get to the hotel. It was night time and no-one was around. Very, very luckily a couple of locals were out walking their dog and saved me. Otherwise I might still be looking now.

    As I remember it, all the streets are called Calle - like the Spanish - not the Italian Via.

    In the dead of a wintry night, in a deserted Venetian dead end - there is no scarier city on earth.
  • Jonathan said:

    There is no moral dilemma for Labour MPs. They were elected as Labour MPs. They should stay and campaign as Labour MPs. It's a broad church. No less broad than when Corbyn was a backbench MP.

    WRT the Commons, Corbyn should expect no less loyalty that he showed successive Labour leaders.

    Is there not a contradiction between the sentiments expressed in your two paragraphs? The first seems to suggest that Labour MPs have a duty to support their leader in the policies he wants to put forward. The second suggests that they should be free to campaign for different policies than those that their leader espouses.

    A broad church Labour maybe but goodness knows how it can be an effective party let alone opposition if MPs and Leadership are not in step.
    At some point the next election manifesto will have to be drafted. A set of measures and policies which all labour candidates should be signing up for.

    Good luck with that....
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,547


    Ok so no-one willing to argue standalone merits of hard Brexit.

    If one assumes some form of Brexit is now fait accompli, then perhaps we are all relatively aligned on destination, but differ on tactics.

    I wouldn't quite assume some form of Brexit yet, but it's likely.

    When it comes to the actual nature of Brexit the main parties are in the same box that they were over EU membership, ie there's a very motivated minority of their support base that wants something, and a larger part with some sympathy for it, but they think giving it to them would damage the things that most of the rest of their support base really want.

    The strategy to deal with it has always been to fudge, stall and occasionally grandstand, or if the worst comes to the worst hold a referendum. Telling the base you think they're wrong is generally unpopular with the base, which is why it's generally left to people who are no longer part of the government.
    It's a mess, but I guess messes are there to be dealt with. How do we respect the vote while limiting the damage, when half the population think it's sunlit uplands with no damage to be limited and the other half are pissed off by the whole thing anyway? The options as I see them are:

    (1) Fudge, ie EEA. No EEA+; no EEA-. Which means FOM as at present, otherwise it won't be the EEA. Respecting the vote would be the fact that we are no longer members of the EU, which on the narrow definition is what we voted for. We may be able to place a marker to say we expect to move to something else later. This would be a very hard political sell in the UK and I am not sure our EEA/EU partners would be up for the fudge either

    (2) Minimal deal. Use the Article 50 two year period to fix a minimal deal on the non controversial items: eg no tariffs on machinery and chemicals and a couple of other bits and pieces. Attempt a common WTO line on agricultural tariff quotas and perhaps a FTA that includes agricultural products. We then exit. Nothing on services, but adopting EU standards may partially save our bacon as long as we don't aggravate them too much. Not a great option, really, but I think it achievable.

    (3) Hotel California, ie comprehensive agreement with the EU before leave. Almost certainly will get bogged down in the mud and everyone will be very frustrated.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    Mortimer said:

    Jonathan said:

    IanB2 said:


    In electoral terms a switch en masse to the LibDems would actually be a better way of taking the Tories down, as the LibDem vote is ideally spread to win Tory seats, and there are many seats the LibDems could win that Labour never will. But the LD vote is just way too low to be electorally effective in doing so right now. Labour's trouble is the flip side of their FPTP ' lifejacket' - having a concentrated vote means they don't sink too far in terms of seats with a low vote, but need to rise very high to win alone, especially without Scotland.

    The trouble, of course, is that any such realignment would take time and be fraught with Labour's death throws, meanwhile the Tories get to rule unchallenged,

    With 239 seats and 30% of the vote today, Labour is still by far the best bet if you want an alternative to the Tories.
    Parties aiming only for opposition rather than government see support collapse. C/f Lib Dems.
    You maybe correct, but if there is no reasonable alternative government where does that leave democracy?

    Personally, I think that the exercise of power based on a multi-party democracy under the universal franchise is doomed and will be gone in my son's lifetime (he is 23).
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    edited September 2016

    Sandpit said:


    That would undoubtedly be the best way forward, and is probably what we would do if the negotiations were being conducted by businessmen rather than politicians on both sides.

    Unfortunately, the negotiations are being done by politicians, who in some cases seem happy to cut off their nose to spite their face.

    Not sure how businesses would gradually adjust. There would be one set of changes for the first deal, albeit quite small ones, then another set of presumably much larger changes for the final deal (assuming it ever happened which I doubt). So two lots of change costs, twice the energy expended and no gradual shift.

    What I would expect to happen should we go down Mr. Robert's route is that we would end up in a Norway style situation which really would be a bad outcome for a country and economy of our size.
    Well, businesses often enter into multi-year contracts. In some, like energy, you might commit for as long as 20 years. But in things like automotive, you'll likely enter into a contract for the sales life of a model. Furthermore, even for people who don't have long-term contracts, there will be preferred supplier lists, based on evaluation of product quality and price.

    If you give someone notice, they have time to realise that (say) sourcing something from Germany in 2019 they will need to add x% for the tariff, but something from Canada will incur no tariff. If you don't give them notice, they will need to source the higher priced product until they find a replacement.

    Business is quite good at dealing with change - when it sees the change coming.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    The standalone merits of hard Brexit are the certainty of outcome, and the opportunity to get on with talking to the rest of the world, as against the uncertainty of extended negotiations with our European neighbours, all of whom have their own, different, agendas.

    But even if Hard Brexit is the preferred destination (by which I mean no trade deal at all with the EU, which I think is madness...), we would still be best off getting there as a series of steps over a period of five to ten years, rather than going cold turkey.
    I agree, the preferred outcome would be for a series of smaller steps to be made, rather than the Big Bang approach, I was replying to Mr @Gardenwalker's suggestion that no-one has stated the merits of the hard exit.

    No being in the single market custom's union means we can make our own trade deals with non EU countries like USA, India, China, Indonesia and Brazil.
    The customs union and the single market are different things. Norway is not a member of the customs union, but is in the single market. Turkey is in the customs union, but not the single market.
    The Uk does not want to be in the customs union because that prevents negotiating trade deals with the rest of the world.

    The UK does not want to be in the single market because that means still contributing around £200m a week to the EU.

    So the UK does not want to be in either the single market or the EU customs union.
  • IanB2 said:



    In electoral terms a switch en masse to the LibDems would actually be a better way of taking the Tories down, as the LibDem vote is ideally spread to win Tory seats, and there are many seats the LibDems could win that Labour never will. But the LD vote is just way too low to be electorally effective in doing so right now. Labour's trouble is the flip side of their FPTP ' lifejacket' - having a concentrated vote means they don't sink too far in terms of seats with a low vote, but need to rise very high to win alone, especially without Scotland.

    The trouble, of course, is that any such realignment would take time and be fraught with Labour's death throws, meanwhile the Tories get to rule unchallenged,

    It's now pretty obvious that the best way forward for everyone left of centre is some form of PR, so we can have a centre-left party (or two, if the LibDems stay separate) and a further-left party like virtually every other European country, and they can work together when electoral maths dictate. However, getting into government to deliver it is the challenge. I'd think that any kind of deal between Lab/LDs/Greens would focus around that point. Unlike the past, the Labour leadership will see clear advantages, but it also gives a survival option for heirs to Blair - Cameron in the same party as Liz Kendall, maybe?

    There are still hardline FPTPers around (John Mann is one, I think), but I don't think they've got the energy to fight for it in the last ditch with so much else going on.
    It's good to see a Labour ex-MP espousing PR (hopefilly STV?) and apologies if you always have. What are the chances of getting it into the next Labour manifesto?
    Others on here have expressed surprise that the LibDems are still in single figures in the opinion polls when they are getting 20% to 30% swings in by-elections. It is a puzzle, could it be that the polls haven't caught up yet?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    edited September 2016

    IanB2 said:



    In electoral terms a switch en masse to the LibDems would actually be a better way of taking the Tories down, as the LibDem vote is ideally spread to win Tory seats, and there are many seats the LibDems could win that Labour never will. But the LD vote is just way too low to be electorally effective in doing so right now. Labour's trouble is the flip side of their FPTP ' lifejacket' - having a concentrated vote means they don't sink too far in terms of seats with a low vote, but need to rise very high to win alone, especially without Scotland.

    The trouble, of course, is that any such realignment would take time and be fraught with Labour's death throws, meanwhile the Tories get to rule unchallenged,

    It's now pretty obvious that the best way forward for everyone left of centre is some form of PR, so we can have a centre-left party (or two, if the LibDems stay separate) and a further-left party like virtually every other European country, and they can work together when electoral maths dictate. However, getting into government to deliver it is the challenge. I'd think that any kind of deal between Lab/LDs/Greens would focus around that point. Unlike the past, the Labour leadership will see clear advantages, but it also gives a survival option for heirs to Blair - Cameron in the same party as Liz Kendall, maybe?

    There are still hardline FPTPers around (John Mann is one, I think), but I don't think they've got the energy to fight for it in the last ditch with so much else going on.
    I think PR is off the agenda until the Conservatives are next out of power. By which time the successor government will have mysteriously lost interest.

    For the effect PR might have on the UK, look to NZ, which moved from FTP to "MMP" in the 90s.

    Although there a certainly more viewpoints in parliament, and the UKIP equivalent (NZ First) not so easily ignored, the overall effect has been pretty limited.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094

    IanB2 said:

    Thanks also to IanB2 for the very helpful advice. I don't want to spam the site with my travel plans, but if anyone can advise further to nickmp1 at aol dot com I'd be very grateful. We're staying at Ca' Bragadin Carabba, Castello 6041 - Campo S.Marina, Venice, VE, 30122 Italy. Southam's tip to take a water bus across the lagoon from San Marco airport sounds good, but does that get us anywhere near where we're staying?

    The airport water bus chugs across the lagoon (a similar experience to the Burano trip I recommend) and drops you in various places depending on which line you get.

    The info you need is here:

    http://www.alilaguna.it/en

    For a central Castello address the quickest is to get off at Fondamente Nuove and walk through the backstreets, best make sure you have a map handy if you do that, as Venice is notioriously easy to get lost in on foot, even with a map. Alternatively if you get the Orange Line you may as well stay on round to Rialto - not really any nearer your base but probably an easier place to find it from, at least initially, and there are more crowds so more people to ask if you get lost. Plus you get the bonus of a longer introduction to Venice as the ferry goes round and into the Grand Canal.

    Edit/ I see you can even buy both tickets and passes online now, which is relatively new

    Edit/ the Venice food and fish markets are just across the bridge from where you are, and recommended for sights/people etc.

    Yep - first time I went to Venice I got off the water bus from the airport and realised I had absolutely no idea how to get to the hotel. It was night time and no-one was around. Very, very luckily a couple of locals were out walking their dog and saved me. Otherwise I might still be looking now.

    As I remember it, all the streets are called Calle - like the Spanish - not the Italian Via.

    In the dead of a wintry night, in a deserted Venetian dead end - there is no scarier city on earth.
    Yes - Venice is delightful spring and autumn, hot and stinky in the summer, and foggy and fetid in winter.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    edited September 2016
    Paul Sykes 2p

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/22/get-brexit-right-and-ill-be-a-tory-again-betray-it-and-youll-see/

    I left the Conservatives in 1992. I had been a member for 20 years, throughout much of a career which began with scrapping buses and ended up creating 175,000 jobs. I worked my way up from the bottom with the party. Millions of us did, following Margaret Thatcher.

    But when John Major started fudging on the Maastricht treaty on the single currency, I told him I had to go. Since then this has country has stumbled on with the EU disaster through the Blair and Cameron eras. Until now.

    Brexit means everything to me. After I left the Conservatives, I spent millions on campaigns to end the influence of the unelected bureaucracy in Brussels over this great nation. In 2004 I met Nigel Farage and supported Ukip in the European elections that year. Nigel was the master communicator we needed, a man of passion, drive and bravery. That year we won 12 seats. In 2014 we won 24 seats, beating Labour and the Conservatives. That forced David Cameron to hold the EU referendum.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    The standalone merits of hard Brexit are the certainty of outcome, and the opportunity to get on with talking to the rest of the world, as against the uncertainty of extended negotiations with our European neighbours, all of whom have their own, different, agendas.

    But even if Hard Brexit is the preferred destination (by which I mean no trade deal at all with the EU, which I think is madness...), we would still be best off getting there as a series of steps over a period of five to ten years, rather than going cold turkey.
    I agree, the preferred outcome would be for a series of smaller steps to be made, rather than the Big Bang approach, I was replying to Mr @Gardenwalker's suggestion that no-one has stated the merits of the hard exit.

    No being in the single market custom's union means we can make our own trade deals with non EU countries like USA, India, China, Indonesia and Brazil.
    The customs union and the single market are different things. Norway is not a member of the customs union, but is in the single market. Turkey is in the customs union, but not the single market.
    The Uk does not want to be in the customs union because that prevents negotiating trade deals with the rest of the world.

    The UK does not want to be in the single market because that means still contributing around £200m a week to the EU.

    So the UK does not want to be in either the single market or the EU customs union.
    When you say "The UK", you mean "David Evershed".

    But, where's your source for £200m/week? That's more than the current net contribution to the EU budget.

    If the UK paid the same as the Swiss do, who are members of the single market in goods, and have a series of treaties regarding services, the number would be less than £2bn per year. Which is less than one fifth of your number.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094
    edited September 2016

    IanB2 said:



    In electoral terms a switch en masse to the LibDems would actually be a better way of taking the Tories down, as the LibDem vote is ideally spread to win Tory seats, and there are many seats the LibDems could win that Labour never will. But the LD vote is just way too low to be electorally effective in doing so right now. Labour's trouble is the flip side of their FPTP ' lifejacket' - having a concentrated vote means they don't sink too far in terms of seats with a low vote, but need to rise very high to win alone, especially without Scotland.

    The trouble, of course, is that any such realignment would take time and be fraught with Labour's death throws, meanwhile the Tories get to rule unchallenged,

    It's now pretty obvious that the best way forward for everyone left of centre is some form of PR, so we can have a centre-left party (or two, if the LibDems stay separate) and a further-left party like virtually every other European country, and they can work together when electoral maths dictate. However, getting into government to deliver it is the challenge. I'd think that any kind of deal between Lab/LDs/Greens would focus around that point. Unlike the past, the Labour leadership will see clear advantages, but it also gives a survival option for heirs to Blair - Cameron in the same party as Liz Kendall, maybe?

    There are still hardline FPTPers around (John Mann is one, I think), but I don't think they've got the energy to fight for it in the last ditch with so much else going on.
    With respect, Nick, that has all been obvious for decades - and was obvious to Labour, too, prior to 1997. Just a shame that it sadly became less obvious to Labour when the moment to actually do something about it came and then went.

    edit/ and my reading of Corbyn is that he is close to Mann on this one? The ultra-safe seats of FTPT, where the MP is effectively chosen by the Labour constituency committee, is how the hard left survives in British politics.
  • PlatoSaid said:

    Paul Sykes 2p

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/22/get-brexit-right-and-ill-be-a-tory-again-betray-it-and-youll-see/

    I left the Conservatives in 1992. I had been a member for 20 years, throughout much of a career which began with scrapping buses and ended up creating 175,000 jobs. I worked my way up from the bottom with the party. Millions of us did, following Margaret Thatcher.

    But when John Major started fudging on the Maastricht treaty on the single currency, I told him I had to go. Since then this has country has stumbled on with the EU disaster through the Blair and Cameron eras. Until now.

    Brexit means everything to me. After I left the Conservatives, I spent millions on campaigns to end the influence of the unelected bureaucracy in Brussels over this great nation. In 2004 I met Nigel Farage and supported Ukip in the European elections that year. Nigel was the master communicator we needed, a man of passion, drive and bravery. That year we won 12 seats. In 2014 we won 24 seats, beating Labour and the Conservatives. That forced David Cameron to hold the EU referendum.

    I guess the unelected millionaire doesn't do irony:
    " I spent millions on campaigns to end the influence of the unelected bureaucracy"
  • Teignmouth Central (Teignbridge) result:
    LDEM: 51.1% (+28.3)
    CON: 29.8% (-12.6)
    UKIP: 11.6% (+11.6)
    LAB: 7.5% (-8.7)

    Lib Dem gain from Con
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    The standalone merits of hard Brexit are the certainty of outcome, and the opportunity to get on with talking to the rest of the world, as against the uncertainty of extended negotiations with our European neighbours, all of whom have their own, different, agendas.

    But even if Hard Brexit is the preferred destination (by which I mean no trade deal at all with the EU, which I think is madness...), we would still be best off getting there as a series of steps over a period of five to ten years, rather than going cold turkey.
    I agree, the preferred outcome would be for a series of smaller steps to be made, rather than the Big Bang approach, I was replying to Mr @Gardenwalker's suggestion that no-one has stated the merits of the hard exit.

    No being in the single market custom's union means we can make our own trade deals with non EU countries like USA, India, China, Indonesia and Brazil.
    If we are in the customs union then we're pretty much still in the EU. We need the ability to make our own trade deals as a priority.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,265
    edited September 2016

    Jonathan said:

    There is no moral dilemma for Labour MPs. They were elected as Labour MPs. They should stay and campaign as Labour MPs. It's a broad church. No less broad than when Corbyn was a backbench MP.

    WRT the Commons, Corbyn should expect no less loyalty that he showed successive Labour leaders.

    Is there not a contradiction between the sentiments expressed in your two paragraphs? The first seems to suggest that Labour MPs have a duty to support their leader in the policies he wants to put forward. The second suggests that they should be free to campaign for different policies than those that their leader espouses.

    A broad church Labour maybe but goodness knows how it can be an effective party let alone opposition if MPs and Leadership are not in step.
    I've never known a time when lots of Labour MPs didn't disagree with the policies advocated by the leadership. Throughout the 13 years in Government, the process was one of continuous haggling - I don't like policy X, what changes are you willing to make to persuade me vote for it? If it appeared that the vote would be lost if the rebellion was substantial, the bargaining would be more intense (a lot of Corbyn's rebellions were on issues where the Government had comfortable majorities with Tory support).

    Example: in 1997, Labour decided to abolish the single parent premium, which gave extra benefits to single parents (because they struggle to be able to work at all), on the grounds that it sent the wrong signalout marriage. I said I wasn't happy, because this is one of the poorest groups in society. I saw the Minister and the Whips, as did lots of other MPs, and we were told "We can't give details now but we will promise that single parents will not be worse off".

    I went along with that, and lo and behold the Budget raised child benefit, so that single parents lost the bonus but got the same amount anyway. It's part of government, and not in my view a disreputable process - it's adjusting to take account of MPs. I'm sure it happens today under the Tories.
  • PR is the excrement of Satan.
  • FF43 said:


    Ok so no-one willing to argue standalone merits of hard Brexit.

    If one assumes some form of Brexit is now fait accompli, then perhaps we are all relatively aligned on destination, but differ on tactics.

    I wouldn't quite assume some form of Brexit yet, but it's likely.

    When it comes to the actual nature of Brexit the main parties are in the same box that they were over EU membership, ie there's a very motivated minority of their support base that wants something, and a larger part with some sympathy for it, but they think giving it to them would damage the things that most of the rest of their support base really want.

    The strategy to deal with it has always been to fudge, stall and occasionally grandstand, or if the worst comes to the worst hold a referendum. Telling the base you think they're wrong is generally unpopular with the base, which is why it's generally left to people who are no longer part of the government.
    It's a mess, but I guess messes are there to be dealt with. How do we respect the vote while limiting the damage, when half the population think it's sunlit uplands with no damage to be limited and the other half are pissed off by the whole thing anyway? The options as I see them are:

    (1) Fudge, ie EEA. No EEA+; no EEA-. Which means FOM as at present, otherwise it won't be the EEA. Respecting the vote would be the fact that we are no longer members of the EU, which on the narrow definition is what we voted for. We may be able to place a marker to say we expect to move to something else later. This would be a very hard political sell in the UK and I am not sure our EEA/EU partners would be up for the fudge either

    (2) Minimal deal. Use the Article 50 two year period to fix a minimal deal on the non controversial items: eg no tariffs on machinery and chemicals and a couple of other bits and pieces. Attempt a common WTO line on agricultural tariff quotas and perhaps a FTA that includes agricultural products. We then exit. Nothing on services, but adopting EU standards may partially save our bacon as long as we don't aggravate them too much. Not a great option, really, but I think it achievable.

    (3) Hotel California, ie comprehensive agreement with the EU before leave. Almost certainly will get bogged down in the mud and everyone will be very frustrated.
    (4) Don't leave, stall indefinitely
  • PR is the excrement of Satan.

    Link?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094

    @NickPalmer
    Do pack waterproof footwear.
    Perhaps it's obvious, but large parts of Venice actually flood up to the shins.

    Not so much in summer. Out of the peak season the tides tend to be higher (I think because of the alignment/distances of the moon and sun in winter, but you'd have to check this with Mr Carswell). They do put duckboards down to keep the main pedestrian routes open, but back alleys are waterlogged at high tide. They publish timetables and maps, and sound sirens as high tides approach, so there's lots of info to use to be prepared.
  • PR is the excrement of Satan.

    I know a little of NZ politics (my avatar is a former NZ PM). It hasn't been the disaster I thought it might, but it's certainly increased the power of the central parties v local electorates for candidate selection.

    Especially for Labour.

    And the general standard of parliamentarian has probably fallen because the talent pool of third parties is pretty shoddy.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    IanB2 said:



    In electoral terms a switch en masse to the LibDems would actually be a better way of taking the Tories down, as the LibDem vote is ideally spread to win Tory seats, and there are many seats the LibDems could win that Labour never will. But the LD vote is just way too low to be electorally effective in doing so right now. Labour's trouble is the flip side of their FPTP ' lifejacket' - having a concentrated vote means they don't sink too far in terms of seats with a low vote, but need to rise very high to win alone, especially without Scotland.

    The trouble, of course, is that any such realignment would take time and be fraught with Labour's death throws, meanwhile the Tories get to rule unchallenged,

    It's now pretty obvious that the best way forward for everyone left of centre is some form of PR, so we can have a centre-left party (or two, if the LibDems stay separate) and a further-left party like virtually every other European country, and they can work together when electoral maths dictate. However, getting into government to deliver it is the challenge. I'd think that any kind of deal between Lab/LDs/Greens would focus around that point. Unlike the past, the Labour leadership will see clear advantages, but it also gives a survival option for heirs to Blair - Cameron in the same party as Liz Kendall, maybe?

    There are still hardline FPTPers around (John Mann is one, I think), but I don't think they've got the energy to fight for it in the last ditch with so much else going on.
    I think PR is off the agenda until the Conservatives are next out of power. By which time the successor government will have mysteriously lost interest.

    For the effect PR might have on the UK, look to NZ, which moved from FTP to "MMP" in the 90s.

    Although there a certainly more viewpoints in parliament, and the UKIP equivalent (NZ First) not so easily ignored, the overall effect has been pretty limited.
    It was a huge mistake for Labour not to implement PR when it had the chance. It would avoided the mess it got itself in the second half of the 97-10 period. The party and the country would be in a better state today.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,265

    @NickPalmer
    Do pack waterproof footwear.
    Perhaps it's obvious, but large parts of Venice actually flood up to the shins.

    To quote a well known comedian, "In another country a flooded city that stank of shit would be regarded as a disaster, not some fecking jewel in the crown"
    Lol - PB is so encouraging.
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138

    IanB2 said:

    In electoral terms a switch en masse to the LibDems would actually be a better way of taking the Tories down, as the LibDem vote is ideally spread to win Tory seats, and there are many seats the LibDems could win that Labour never will. But the LD vote is just way too low to be electorally effective in doing so right now. Labour's trouble is the flip side of their FPTP ' lifejacket' - having a concentrated vote means they don't sink too far in terms of seats with a low vote, but need to rise very high to win alone, especially without Scotland.

    The trouble, of course, is that any such realignment would take time and be fraught with Labour's death throws, meanwhile the Tories get to rule unchallenged,

    It's now pretty obvious that the best way forward for everyone left of centre is some form of PR, so we can have a centre-left party (or two, if the LibDems stay separate) and a further-left party like virtually every other European country, and they can work together when electoral maths dictate. However, getting into government to deliver it is the challenge. I'd think that any kind of deal between Lab/LDs/Greens would focus around that point. Unlike the past, the Labour leadership will see clear advantages, but it also gives a survival option for heirs to Blair - Cameron in the same party as Liz Kendall, maybe?.
    It's good to see a Labour ex-MP espousing PR (hopefilly STV?) and apologies if you always have. What are the chances of getting it into the next Labour manifesto?
    Others on here have expressed surprise that the LibDems are still in single figures in the opinion polls when they are getting 20% to 30% swings in by-elections. It is a puzzle, could it be that the polls haven't caught up yet?
    There is not much point in having a policy in a manifesto, if the MPs are against it, Mr Song.

    The Labour manifesto for 2010 included a proposal for AV, and I suspect that is the reason why Nick Clegg went for that instead of proper reform in the shape of STV.

    But the Labour die-hards campaigned against it, and Mr Milliband sabotaged it from within - even though he himself drew up that particular Labour manifesto.

    The problem is that you cannot trust the Labour Party - individuals maybe, sometimes - but not as a whole.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    PR would almost certainly lock in a right of centre government for longer than FPTP unless Labour stop messing around with socialism, the latest minority fads and become, once again, a centrist party looking out for the working people of Britain.

    As far as I can see, PR just allows for the Labourite People's Front and the People's Front of Labour to indulge their pet ideologies whilst ignoring the responsibilities of opposition.

    Opposition requires understanding the rules of power, some vague level of unity and being in touch with the public. To be honest, neither faction in Labour manage those three adequately at he moment. A new Blair, for example, would almost certainly be a soft leaver.
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    edited September 2016
    Lib Dem gain Hadleigh Suffolk CC from Conservatives

    LDem 642 36.2% plus 12.0%
    Con 460 25.9% minus 5.6%
    Lab 397 22.4% plus 5.8%
    UKIP 204 11.5% minus 11.3%
    Green 70 3.9% minus 1.0%

    Conservatives lose overall control of Suffolk CC
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    FF43 said:


    Ok so no-one willing to argue standalone merits of hard Brexit.

    If one assumes some form of Brexit is now fait accompli, then perhaps we are all relatively aligned on destination, but differ on tactics.

    I wouldn't quite assume some form of Brexit yet, but it's likely.

    When it comes to the actual nature of Brexit the main parties are in the same box that they were over EU membership, ie there's a very motivated minority of their support base that wants something, and a larger part with some sympathy for it, but they think giving it to them would damage the things that most of the rest of their support base really want.

    The strategy to deal with it has always been to fudge, stall and occasionally grandstand, or if the worst comes to the worst hold a referendum. Telling the base you think they're wrong is generally unpopular with the base, which is why it's generally left to people who are no longer part of the government.
    It's a mess, but I guess messes are there to be dealt with. How do we respect the vote while limiting the damage, when half the population think it's sunlit uplands with no damage to be limited and the other half are pissed off by the whole thing anyway? The options as I see them are:

    (1) Fudge, ie EEA. No EEA+; no EEA-. Which means FOM as at present, otherwise it won't be the EEA. Respecting the vote would be the fact that we are no longer members of the EU, which on the narrow definition is what we voted for. We may be able to place a marker to say we expect to move to something else later. This would be a very hard political sell in the UK and I am not sure our EEA/EU partners would be up for the fudge either

    (2) Minimal deal. Use the Article 50 two year period to fix a minimal deal on the non controversial items: eg no tariffs on machinery and chemicals and a couple of other bits and pieces. Attempt a common WTO line on agricultural tariff quotas and perhaps a FTA that includes agricultural products. We then exit. Nothing on services, but adopting EU standards may partially save our bacon as long as we don't aggravate them too much. Not a great option, really, but I think it achievable.

    (3) Hotel California, ie comprehensive agreement with the EU before leave. Almost certainly will get bogged down in the mud and everyone will be very frustrated.
    Sign a five year EEA(+/-) deal with the EU that expires on 1 Jan 2022. Use the intervening time to (a) negotiate with with other countries, and (b) negotiatate with the EU.

    It's the only option that makes any sense.
  • Jonathan said:

    There is no moral dilemma for Labour MPs. They were elected as Labour MPs. They should stay and campaign as Labour MPs. It's a broad church. No less broad than when Corbyn was a backbench MP.

    WRT the Commons, Corbyn should expect no less loyalty that he showed successive Labour leaders.

    Is there not a contradiction between the sentiments expressed in your two paragraphs? The first seems to suggest that Labour MPs have a duty to support their leader in the policies he wants to put forward. The second suggests that they should be free to campaign for different policies than those that their leader espouses.

    A broad church Labour maybe but goodness knows how it can be an effective party let alone opposition if MPs and Leadership are not in step.
    I've never known a time when lots of Labour MPs didn't disagree with the policies advocated by the leadership. Throughout the 13 years in Government, the process was one of continuous haggling - I don't like policy X, what changes are you willing to make to persuade me vote for it? If it appeared that the vote would be lost if the rebellion was substantial, the bargaining would be more intense (a lot of Corbyn's rebellions were on issues where the Government had comfortable majorities with Tory support).

    Example: in 1997, Labour decided to abolish the single parent premium, which gave extra benefits to single parents (because they struggle to be able to work at all), on the grounds that it sent the wrong signalout marriage. I said I wasn't happy, because this is one of the poorest groups in society. I saw the Minister and the Whips, as did lots of other MPs, and we were told "We can't give details now but we will promise that single parents will not be worse off".

    I went along with that, and lo and behold the Budget raised child benefit, so that single parents lost the bonus but got the same amount anyway. It's part of government, and not in my view a disreputable process - it's adjusting to take account of MPs. I'm sure it happens today under the Tories.

    One of Corbyn's problems has been his inability to haggle and to engage with MPs. He put himself in a bunker on day one and did not emerge. He has shown no willingness to compromise on policy or even to talk to shadow ministers he appointed about it. There are too many people who did seek to make the Corbyn shadow front bench work saying the same thing about the complete dysfunctionality of his leadership for them to be dismissed. And it won't change.
  • Mr. Palmer, Mr. Llama's comment reminded me of a Patrick Kielty joke about Irish stupidity.

    Something like: People say the Irish are stupid. But look at terrorism. When an Irishman blew himself up with a bomb it was a ****ing mistake, but these fundamentalist terrorists are doing it on purpose!

    Mr. Walker, so, merely the phlegm of Beelzebub, then? :p
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,265
    IanB2 said:



    edit/ and my reading of Corbyn is that he is close to Mann on this one? The ultra-safe seats of FTPT, where the MP is effectively chosen by the Labour constituency committee, is how the hard left survives in British politics.

    Corbyn would have no problem whatever in Islington on any kind of election system. I've canvassed lots of Tories who vote for him! Granted, that might not be true of every leftie (or indeed other) MP.

    Thanks again for the Venice tips!
This discussion has been closed.