Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour’s TINA* nightmare.

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited September 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour’s TINA* nightmare.

It’s International Peace Day and I’m in the strange position, for me, of defending Jeremy Corbyn. My audience is someone who ought to be a natural Corbynista – a veteran campaigner for peace and international development.

Read the full story here


«1345678

Comments

  • First!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 22,164
    Second like Labour - if they're lucky.
  • "Implemented in the right spirit...."
    Is that at all likely?
  • Poor Tina.

    That Clive Lewis moment summed up the clusterfeck the modern day Labour party is.
  • MAJOR AND IMPORTANT US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION NEWS

    Katy Perry goes nude for Hillary Clinton as US presidential election race heats up

    Perry, 31, has publicly endorsed the democratic nominee on multiple occasions in the past

    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/katy-perry-goes-nude-hillary-clinton-us-presidential-election-race-heats-1583522
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 18,347
    edited September 2016
    Sixth like labour, if they are unlucky. Or if there is any justice in the world.

    Edit/ disappointed to see a post from the shameless Mr Brind!
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 52,295
    Hold on a minute, where's Don's mea-culpa for calling the contest so wrong ?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 18,347
    Pulpstar said:

    Hold on a minute, where's Don's mea-culpa for calling the contest so wrong ?

    There was no calling involved, it was just dishonest spin.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 26,746
    Trump is apparently claiming his microphone wasn't working properly last night.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 11,037
    AndyJS said:

    Trump is apparently claiming his microphone wasn't working properly last night.

    Also, criticising a woman for gaining weight. So presidential, much pivoting to centre, wow.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 46,323
    @skysarahjane: #SamAllardyce
    Is there an England manager with a shorter tenure than 1 game...on the flip side if he goes is there one with a 100% record?
  • AndyJS said:

    Trump is apparently claiming his microphone wasn't working properly last night.

    Fails the sniff test.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 52,295
    IanB2 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Hold on a minute, where's Don's mea-culpa for calling the contest so wrong ?

    There was no calling involved, it was just dishonest spin.
    I'm not just talking about the overall result either, the "Saving Labour" narrative he spun that post GE members would get Smith over the line; the 'low turnout' volte farce on the day as to why he now thought Corbyn had won (Turnout was high amongst all groups)

    etc etc
  • What does Jeremy Corbyn want from the rebel MPs? He won't expect their enthusiastic support and in reality bridges have been far too efficiently burned for them credibly to give him anything more than acquiescence.

    But does he really need even that? It would suit his faction rather well if Labour did badly after a few years of infighting because the defeat could be convincingly blamed on the holdouts, enabling a purge in earnest. So he doesn't need to extend olive branches. In victory, he should be uncompromising.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 75,086
    edited September 2016
    Via the Guardian

    Chico Flores is having the last laugh on Twitter over the Sam Allardyce affair. Back in 2013 the former Swansea defender was laughed at by Allardyce, who was then West Ham manager, when the player went down rather dramatically after a clash with the Hammers’ Carlton Cole. This morning Flores couldn’t help but have a dig.


  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 46,323
    Fair warning

    Do not play the "Labour in Power" drinking game during Sadiq Khan's speech...
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 20,563
    Only a weak leader wouldn't appoint his own shadow cabinet.

  • 619619 Posts: 1,784
    Alistair said:

    AndyJS said:

    Trump is apparently claiming his microphone wasn't working properly last night.

    Also, criticising a woman for gaining weight. So presidential, much pivoting to centre, wow.
    And saying that he was really nice for not brining up Bill Clintons affairs.

    Where is his parade???

    interestingly, Clinton and her superpacs have 4 tv adds out based on the debate. Trump has none...
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 22,668
    edited September 2016
    I can't help feeling that the Labour refuseniks, having shot themselves in the foot twice already with their mass resignation, which achieved nothing, and their leadership challenge, which achieved less than nothing, are heading straight into a third humiliation with this new offensive in the Labour civil war.
  • This is funny:

    " “It was an awesome night for Democrats,” said DNC member Robert Zimmerman, as he headed out of the debate space Monday night. “There’ll be no bedwetting for 12 hours.” "


    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-democrats-debate-228760?lo=ap_c1
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 46,323

    I can't help feeling that the Labour refuseniks, having shot themselves in the foot twice already with their mass resignation which achieved nothing and their leadership challenge, which achieved less than nothing, are heading straight into a third humiliation with this new offensive in the Labour civil war.

    They have 3 options

    1. Sit tight and get deselected

    2. Sit tight and get voted out

    3. Fight on, to another glorious defeat
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 6,963
    Of course, as soon as I post, New Thread.

    FPT @ Mr Cole and Mr Llama

    I never wonder that question (about doing science at school). I wonder why we couldn't do as many subjects as we liked at school. But then I remember - ah, yes! No computers and no internet, having to rely on teachers for information and libraries for books. I have never regretted studying science formally and filling in the gaps of arts, languages and history myself. And making learning a life-long hobby.

    Now thanks to Cookie and Hurstllama I have two more books to clutter the house for the effort of just two clicks of the trackpad. I am particularly looking forward to the Oppenheimer book - my (American) wife is constantly telling me how all the British/Irish are genetically identical and we are silly to hang on to our home country identities.

    BTW and FWIW, for those interested in anecdotal evidence of a US citizen's response to the debate, the wife (who is anyone but Trump) fell asleep after 40 minutes, was surprised Trump held it together and hated Hillary more after the debate than before. One element in Hillary's favour - she intends to vote Johnson, unless it's close, in which case she will hold her nose and vote Hillary.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 22,164
    edited September 2016
    619 said:

    Alistair said:

    AndyJS said:

    Trump is apparently claiming his microphone wasn't working properly last night.

    Also, criticising a woman for gaining weight. So presidential, much pivoting to centre, wow.
    And saying that he was really nice for not brining up Bill Clintons affairs.

    Where is his parade???

    interestingly, Clinton and her superpacs have 4 tv adds out based on the debate. Trump has none...
    And Trump's line in the next debate, as he mentioned last night briefly, will be that he sees no need to go down the old nasty politics route of wasting his supporters' cash on a constant stream of negative advertising.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 1,059

    What does Jeremy Corbyn want from the rebel MPs? He won't expect their enthusiastic support and in reality bridges have been far too efficiently burned for them credibly to give him anything more than acquiescence.

    But does he really need even that? It would suit his faction rather well if Labour did badly after a few years of infighting because the defeat could be convincingly blamed on the holdouts, enabling a purge in earnest. So he doesn't need to extend olive branches. In victory, he should be uncompromising.

    Jeez, what a gloomy prognosis. Those of us hoping that the current incarnation of the Labour Party would die quickly and be replaced by something better look set to be disappointed. Labour seems to be determined to spend the next 10-15 years in a long, slow, noisy, agonising decline to pointless irrelevance.
  • MAJOR AND IMPORTANT US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION NEWS

    Katy Perry goes nude for Hillary Clinton as US presidential election race heats up

    Perry, 31, has publicly endorsed the democratic nominee on multiple occasions in the past

    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/katy-perry-goes-nude-hillary-clinton-us-presidential-election-race-heats-1583522

    Nude for Hillary or Bill?
  • I still have a headache from watching the three monkeys sling poo for 90 minutes.
  • If the challenges aren’t being met, and the polling remains disastrous, then it will be time to consider somebody else better placed to communicate radical ideas in a way that convinces and inspires, perhaps from the new intake of MPs

    They can't. The left is stuck with Corbyn, as is Labour as a whole, because the PLP have no obligation to bow to the expanded membership's desires and nominate anyone from the left, whether it be McDonnell, Lewis, Raynor or whoever. Deny them the nominations and suddenly the party is back under the moderates' control. Until and unless the leadership rules are changed, TINA to Corbyn.

    Of course, the membership would be up in arms if they were denied a candidate but what are they going to do? Deselect? Not that easily done. Resign en mass? The MPs will wave them goodbye. Protest? it'd be ignored.

    Perhaps the leadership nomination rules will be changed (personally, I'd have thought that switching to CLP nominations rather than MPs would be more in keeping with the philosophy of a 'members' party') but if so, it won't be for at least a year and more likely two.

    But while Corbyn is a disaster as leader, it's not just down to his failings. Kinnock was a step up from what Benn would have been in 1987 but he was still unelectable because of his policies. Any candidate from left of Miliband will still struggle for the same reason that he did: where's the money coming from?
  • @brokenwheel I don't think there's any doubt that Bill kissed a girl and he liked it.
  • No problem with antisemitism in the Labour party...they did a report and everything...

    Jewish activist is HECKLED at Labour conference as he slams the party for becoming an unsafe place for Jews

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3809609/Jewish-activist-HECKLED-Labour-conference-slams-party-unsafe-place-Jews.html
  • 619 said:

    Alistair said:

    AndyJS said:

    Trump is apparently claiming his microphone wasn't working properly last night.

    Also, criticising a woman for gaining weight. So presidential, much pivoting to centre, wow.
    And saying that he was really nice for not brining up Bill Clintons affairs.

    Where is his parade???

    interestingly, Clinton and her superpacs have 4 tv adds out based on the debate. Trump has none...
    Clinton throwing money at the problem. Spin and lipstick.
  • Scott_P said:

    I can't help feeling that the Labour refuseniks, having shot themselves in the foot twice already with their mass resignation which achieved nothing and their leadership challenge, which achieved less than nothing, are heading straight into a third humiliation with this new offensive in the Labour civil war.

    They have 3 options

    1. Sit tight and get deselected

    2. Sit tight and get voted out

    3. Fight on, to another glorious defeat
    There is a 4th option, related to 2. They could go back to their constituency and spend the next three years working it like a dog. Get the personal vote back. Do stuff for everyone. Ensure voters know you are not a Corbynista and have no interest in that stuff. Knock on doors relentlessly, dealing with local issues etc.

    In a nutshell, try and buck the tsunami that is coming and be one of those left standing.
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784
    Sandpit said:

    619 said:

    Alistair said:

    AndyJS said:

    Trump is apparently claiming his microphone wasn't working properly last night.

    Also, criticising a woman for gaining weight. So presidential, much pivoting to centre, wow.
    And saying that he was really nice for not brining up Bill Clintons affairs.

    Where is his parade???

    interestingly, Clinton and her superpacs have 4 tv adds out based on the debate. Trump has none...
    And Trump's line in the next debate, as he mentioned last night briefly, will be that he sees no need to go down the old nasty politics route of wasting his supporters' cash on negative advertising.
    And Clinton's reply 'he'd rather waste his charity's cash on self portraits and paying of his legal bills'. I don't think Trump would be best served going that road...

    That would be such a rubbish line from him. If you donate money to a campaign, you do it so the candidate campaigns...
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 52,295
    Scott_P said:

    I can't help feeling that the Labour refuseniks, having shot themselves in the foot twice already with their mass resignation which achieved nothing and their leadership challenge, which achieved less than nothing, are heading straight into a third humiliation with this new offensive in the Labour civil war.

    They have 3 options

    1. Sit tight and get deselected

    2. Sit tight and get voted out

    3. Fight on, to another glorious defeat
    I think big Sam is going to sit tight and wait for the payout.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 6,963

    No problem with antisemitism in the Labour party...they did a report and everything...

    Jewish activist is HECKLED at Labour conference as he slams the party for becoming an unsafe place for Jews

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3809609/Jewish-activist-HECKLED-Labour-conference-slams-party-unsafe-place-Jews.html

    There is a beautiful irony in that situation, though
  • CookieCookie Posts: 1,059

    If the challenges aren’t being met, and the polling remains disastrous, then it will be time to consider somebody else better placed to communicate radical ideas in a way that convinces and inspires, perhaps from the new intake of MPs

    They can't. The left is stuck with Corbyn, as is Labour as a whole, because the PLP have no obligation to bow to the expanded membership's desires and nominate anyone from the left, whether it be McDonnell, Lewis, Raynor or whoever. Deny them the nominations and suddenly the party is back under the moderates' control. Until and unless the leadership rules are changed, TINA to Corbyn.

    Of course, the membership would be up in arms if they were denied a candidate but what are they going to do? Deselect? Not that easily done. Resign en mass? The MPs will wave them goodbye. Protest? it'd be ignored.

    Perhaps the leadership nomination rules will be changed (personally, I'd have thought that switching to CLP nominations rather than MPs would be more in keeping with the philosophy of a 'members' party') but if so, it won't be for at least a year and more likely two.

    But while Corbyn is a disaster as leader, it's not just down to his failings. Kinnock was a step up from what Benn would have been in 1987 but he was still unelectable because of his policies. Any candidate from left of Miliband will still struggle for the same reason that he did: where's the money coming from?

    Well this highlights what Momentum's strategy should be: ensure they have sufficient MPs that there will always be enough to nominate a candidate from the far left. If Momentum are co-ordinated and strategic in their approach, therefore, we should expect deselections where Momentum are strong enough to get their candidate in place (rather than where MPs are conspicuously critical).
  • MTimT said:

    No problem with antisemitism in the Labour party...they did a report and everything...

    Jewish activist is HECKLED at Labour conference as he slams the party for becoming an unsafe place for Jews

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3809609/Jewish-activist-HECKLED-Labour-conference-slams-party-unsafe-place-Jews.html

    There is a beautiful irony in that situation, though
    They need a safe space where they don't have to face accusations of anti-semitism. It's no wonder they were triggered into heckling.
  • Scott_P said:

    @skysarahjane: #SamAllardyce
    Is there an England manager with a shorter tenure than 1 game...on the flip side if he goes is there one with a 100% record?

    Howard Wilkinson?
  • Scott_P said:

    @skysarahjane: #SamAllardyce
    Is there an England manager with a shorter tenure than 1 game...on the flip side if he goes is there one with a 100% record?

    Howard Wilkinson?
    Sgt Wilko managed England for two matches
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 2,863
    I doubt that Corbyn will want to bring back Shadow Cabinet elections - they would clearly provide a mechanism for sceptics in the PLP to encircle him and attempt to limit his freedom of manoeuvre - but in any event it isn't going to help the party to address its fundamental crisis of credibility. The large majority of MPs who expressed no confidence in the leader cannot credibly recommend the election of a Labour Government (and, by extension, themselves as Labour MPs) to the country. And anybody who has resigned from a shadow ministerial position in protest, and then gone crawling back after Corbyn's re-election, will also have to explain why they made such a serious misjudgement - and risk the accusation from the Momentum tendency, the Tories and the wider public alike of being liars, who are suppressing their true opinions for the sake of preferment and to try to save themselves from deselection.

    It is the most horrendous bind, and I cannot see how the MPs can possibly escape from it. If they believe that the leader is both incompetent and immovable (AND have publicly declared him to be so,) then they cannot go limping on for years as Labour politicians, and into a General Election where they will have to advise voters to install him as Prime Minister, without being accused both of lying, and of taking the public for fools. The only moral and credible options they have are to resign from Labour and defect to another party, sit as independents, or give up altogether.

    And I wouldn't bank on the Trident issue having been settled either.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 55,481
    So Clive Lewis backs Trident, so Lewis is a Tory too now then? Even more evidence the Corbyn and McDonnell show is now the only one in town from a Labour perspective
  • Scott_P said:

    @skysarahjane: #SamAllardyce
    Is there an England manager with a shorter tenure than 1 game...on the flip side if he goes is there one with a 100% record?

    Howard Wilkinson?
    Sgt Wilko managed England for two matches
    Damn. Close though.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 55,481
    Pulpstar said:

    Scott_P said:

    I can't help feeling that the Labour refuseniks, having shot themselves in the foot twice already with their mass resignation which achieved nothing and their leadership challenge, which achieved less than nothing, are heading straight into a third humiliation with this new offensive in the Labour civil war.

    They have 3 options

    1. Sit tight and get deselected

    2. Sit tight and get voted out

    3. Fight on, to another glorious defeat
    I think big Sam is going to sit tight and wait for the payout.
    Sam Allerdyce has a 100% win record so far as England manager so if he is sacked now he could arguably be listed as one of the best England managers ever ironically!
  • Scott_P said:

    @skysarahjane: #SamAllardyce
    Is there an England manager with a shorter tenure than 1 game...on the flip side if he goes is there one with a 100% record?

    Howard Wilkinson?
    Sgt Wilko managed England for two matches
    Damn. Close though.
    Peter Taylor is the only one I can think of who could rival Sam Allardyce.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 25,049
    edited September 2016
    Sam Allardyce looks set to become the Paul McGann of England managers.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 26,746
    edited September 2016
    "Frank Luntz's debate focus group proves that Hillary Clinton crushed it

    Frank Luntz is the conservative message guru who gave us “death tax”, among other right-wing tropes. He ran a focus group tonight for CBS, and it unambiguously proved that Hillary Clinton absolutely crushed it tonight."


    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/9/26/1574733/-Frank-Luntz-s-debate-focus-group-proves-that-Hillary-Clinton-crushed-it
  • Two reasons there'll be no shadow cabinet elections:
    1. No hard left candidates would be voted in.
    2. The shadow cabinet gets NEC seats.
  • Sam Allardyce looks set to become the Paul McGann of England managers.

    You mean the fans will adore him, wish he had more opportunities, and do a lot of audiobooks?
  • Re Big Sam...from a time when Panorama did proper undercover programmes.

    Panorama - Undercover: Football's Dirty Secrets (2006)

    http://www.peterjpotts.com/Video_Pages/BBC/BBC_P_Football.html
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 22,164
    619 said:

    Sandpit said:

    619 said:

    Alistair said:

    AndyJS said:

    Trump is apparently claiming his microphone wasn't working properly last night.

    Also, criticising a woman for gaining weight. So presidential, much pivoting to centre, wow.
    And saying that he was really nice for not brining up Bill Clintons affairs.

    Where is his parade???

    interestingly, Clinton and her superpacs have 4 tv adds out based on the debate. Trump has none...
    And Trump's line in the next debate, as he mentioned last night briefly, will be that he sees no need to go down the old nasty politics route of wasting his supporters' cash on negative advertising.
    And Clinton's reply 'he'd rather waste his charity's cash on self portraits and paying of his legal bills'. I don't think Trump would be best served going that road...

    That would be such a rubbish line from him. If you donate money to a campaign, you do it so the candidate campaigns...
    And Trump will say he is going to campaign positively, to MAGA, while Crooked Hillary has nothing positive to say about what she will do for millions of disadvantaged Americans, only what she can do for her millionaire supporters. Or words to that effect.

    Trump is doing a good job of biting his tongue, we all know he can do nasty very well as we've been watching him for years.

    I'm still waiting for a Republican PAC to do the House of Cards spoof trailer, starring the Clintons. They must be holding it back for the last couple of weeks.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 22,164
    edited September 2016

    Two reasons there'll be no shadow cabinet elections:
    1. No hard left candidates would be voted in.
    2. The shadow cabinet gets NEC seats.

    3. It would be seen as Corbyn capitulating to the moderate MPs in their demands. Corbyn thinks that it should be the other way round, with the MPs showing the right level of deference to the mandate of the leader.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 55,481
    edited September 2016
    Given the Tories have a majority in Parliament, several Labour MPs, Carswell and the DUP backed Brexit what difference does it make?
  • HYUFD said:

    Given the Tories have a majority in Parliament, several Labour MPs, Carswell and the DUP backed BREXIT what difference does it make?
    Because

    i) Remain doesn't have a majority in the House of Commons

    ii) Neither Remain or The Tories have a majority in the House of Lords

    That, with the delay, makes the world of difference.
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784
    Sandpit said:

    619 said:

    Sandpit said:

    619 said:

    Alistair said:

    AndyJS said:

    Trump is apparently claiming his microphone wasn't working properly last night.

    Also, criticising a woman for gaining weight. So presidential, much pivoting to centre, wow.
    And saying that he was really nice for not brining up Bill Clintons affairs.

    Where is his parade???

    interestingly, Clinton and her superpacs have 4 tv adds out based on the debate. Trump has none...
    And Trump's line in the next debate, as he mentioned last night briefly, will be that he sees no need to go down the old nasty politics route of wasting his supporters' cash on negative advertising.
    And Clinton's reply 'he'd rather waste his charity's cash on self portraits and paying of his legal bills'. I don't think Trump would be best served going that road...



    Trump is doing a good job of biting his tongue, we all know he can do nasty very well as we've been watching him for years.

    Yeah, I think about what a nice guy he is when he goes around calling women fat.

    He choked last night. He may do better at the other debates ( though that would require him preparing)

    One republican pollster said on CNN just now that he thought it was a worse performance than Sarah Palin's!
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 18,013

    No problem with antisemitism in the Labour party...they did a report and everything...

    Jewish activist is HECKLED at Labour conference as he slams the party for becoming an unsafe place for Jews

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3809609/Jewish-activist-HECKLED-Labour-conference-slams-party-unsafe-place-Jews.html

    well tbf it sounds (dear god thank heaven I am not there) that it was another jewish person who did the heckling and the speech got a standing ovation.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 2,863
    Cookie said:

    What does Jeremy Corbyn want from the rebel MPs? He won't expect their enthusiastic support and in reality bridges have been far too efficiently burned for them credibly to give him anything more than acquiescence.

    But does he really need even that? It would suit his faction rather well if Labour did badly after a few years of infighting because the defeat could be convincingly blamed on the holdouts, enabling a purge in earnest. So he doesn't need to extend olive branches. In victory, he should be uncompromising.

    Jeez, what a gloomy prognosis. Those of us hoping that the current incarnation of the Labour Party would die quickly and be replaced by something better look set to be disappointed. Labour seems to be determined to spend the next 10-15 years in a long, slow, noisy, agonising decline to pointless irrelevance.
    Who says Labour will ever come back? The Far Left is constitutionally incapable of compromise with the electorate, and its supporters are perfectly content to protest noisily rather than govern. It means that they can blame the Tories for everything, and never have to compromise their principles when faced with the difficulties of the highest office.

    The Conservatives are very likely to be in control at Westminster for a long time, and when they are finally removed it will probably be by a new force.
  • weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    NB - Although we won't have the results of the debate in the polling for a week - we should be able to see trends developing in the daily 7-day running polls relatively quickly.

    (Even if the LA Times model is flawed, it should still pick up trends.)

    TBH I think the question is not 'Did Clinton win the debate - which was a gimmee based on location, moderator and audience' but "Did Trump outperform expectations". After all if Man City played Forest Green then you would expect them to win - but Forest Green supporters might be happy to lose 3-0 when most people would have expected 7-0 or 8-0.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 14,003
    edited September 2016
    The problem with Corbyn is not his non-existent or useless leadership skills. That is part of it. It is that his political world view - and the policies which flow from that - are so utterly repellent and malign.

    Put it this way, would the anti-Semitism issues we are seeing in Labour now no longer be a problem if Corbyn were a good manager and able to run his Shadow Cabinet meetings efficiently?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 18,013
    Scott_P said:

    I can't help feeling that the Labour refuseniks, having shot themselves in the foot twice already with their mass resignation which achieved nothing and their leadership challenge, which achieved less than nothing, are heading straight into a third humiliation with this new offensive in the Labour civil war.

    They have 3 options

    1. Sit tight and get deselected

    2. Sit tight and get voted out

    3. Fight on, to another glorious defeat
    Ergo: 4. split.

    If Nige can take a potentially hopeless party full of Fs, Ls, and CRs to 4m votes, then surely Chuka or whoever can lead SDP2 to something significant.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 55,481
    SeanT said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given the Tories have a majority in Parliament, several Labour MPs, Carswell and the DUP backed Brexit what difference does it make?
    No difference at all. Labour is now committed to accepting Brexit. The Tories have a membership base which yearns for Brexit.

    Voting down Brexit would be political suicide for either party. It's just not going to happen. This is displacement activity for people still in grieving denial.
    Exactly, UKIP would win a landslide at the next general election if Parliament prevented Article 50 being invoked
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 2,863
    HYUFD said:

    Given the Tories have a majority in Parliament, several Labour MPs, Carswell and the DUP backed Brexit what difference does it make?
    Three words: House. Of. Lords.
  • SeanT said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given the Tories have a majority in Parliament, several Labour MPs, Carswell and the DUP backed Brexit what difference does it make?
    No difference at all. Labour is now committed to accepting Brexit. The Tories have a membership base which yearns for Brexit.

    Voting down Brexit would be political suicide for either party. It's just not going to happen. This is displacement activity for people still in grieving denial.
    There'll never been anything as definitive as voting down Brexit. If the government doesn't have its act together on the negotiating strategy or objectives then voting against prematurely invoking Article 50 can be sold as something quite different.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 52,295
    I'll give both Hillary and Trump credit on one point.

    They're both far superior candidates to Owen Smith.
  • AndyJS said:

    "Frank Luntz's debate focus group proves that Hillary Clinton crushed it

    Frank Luntz is the conservative message guru who gave us “death tax”, among other right-wing tropes. He ran a focus group tonight for CBS, and it unambiguously proved that Hillary Clinton absolutely crushed it tonight."


    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/9/26/1574733/-Frank-Luntz-s-debate-focus-group-proves-that-Hillary-Clinton-crushed-it

    Frank Luntz, Oct. 2012.

    "Thanks to your bookies, this American is preparing to make a lot of money. If the British public currently think Barack Obama is coasting to victory in the Nov. 6 election, they are gravely mistaken. Mitt Romney can win this election. No doubt about it. And it will be because of the first presidential debate on October 3 — a battle of ideas and ideologies that changed American politics as we know it. That day, Romney came to fight and Obama became his punching bag."

    Skip Lunch.
  • HYUFD said:

    Given the Tories have a majority in Parliament, several Labour MPs, Carswell and the DUP backed Brexit what difference does it make?
    Three words: House. Of. Lords.
    Two Words...Parliament Act
  • weejonnie said:

    NB - Although we won't have the results of the debate in the polling for a week - we should be able to see trends developing in the daily 7-day running polls relatively quickly.

    (Even if the LA Times model is flawed, it should still pick up trends.)

    TBH I think the question is not 'Did Clinton win the debate - which was a gimmee based on location, moderator and audience' but "Did Trump outperform expectations". After all if Man City played Forest Green then you would expect them to win - but Forest Green supporters might be happy to lose 3-0 when most people would have expected 7-0 or 8-0.

    Not sure I understand your point on "location, moderator and audience"?

    Location has zero impact on debate performance. Obama beat McCain at a debate held in Mississippi from memory, hardly a liberal bastion.
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784
    weejonnie said:

    NB - Although we won't have the results of the debate in the polling for a week - we should be able to see trends developing in the daily 7-day running polls relatively quickly.

    (Even if the LA Times model is flawed, it should still pick up trends.)

    TBH I think the question is not 'Did Clinton win the debate - which was a gimmee based on location, moderator and audience' but "Did Trump outperform expectations". After all if Man City played Forest Green then you would expect them to win - but Forest Green supporters might be happy to lose 3-0 when most people would have expected 7-0 or 8-0.

    That has moved from +4 Trump to +3, so small move.

    Why is everyone having a go at the moderator? he's a card carrying republican and respected journalist!

    And the audience ( as it is for these things) were 50/50 from each party.

    Anyway, we will find out in a few days
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 10,836
    Cyclefree said:

    The problem with Corbyn is not his non-existent or useless leadership skills. That is part of it. It is that his political world view - and the policies which flow from that - are so utterly repellent and malign.

    Put it this way, would the anti-Semitism issues we are seeing in Labour now no longer be a problem if Corbyn were a good manager and able to run his Shadow Cabinet meetings efficiently?

    This is my problem with the so-called moderates. They argue that "Jeremy can't lead us back to power" when what really should be saying is "Jeremy and his allies shouldn't be allowed anywhere near government."
  • HYUFD said:

    Given the Tories have a majority in Parliament, several Labour MPs, Carswell and the DUP backed Brexit what difference does it make?
    Practically, as regards brexit: none. Constitutionally, it's of some significance for future issues where the government has traditionally had executive authority.
  • tlg86 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    The problem with Corbyn is not his non-existent or useless leadership skills. That is part of it. It is that his political world view - and the policies which flow from that - are so utterly repellent and malign.

    Put it this way, would the anti-Semitism issues we are seeing in Labour now no longer be a problem if Corbyn were a good manager and able to run his Shadow Cabinet meetings efficiently?

    This is my problem with the so-called moderates. They argue that "Jeremy can't lead us back to power" when what really should be saying is "Jeremy and his allies shouldn't be allowed anywhere near government."
    "Jeremy and his allies shouldn't be allowed anywhere near government," isn't a message you can push while sitting in the same party.
  • weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820

    HYUFD said:

    Given the Tories have a majority in Parliament, several Labour MPs, Carswell and the DUP backed Brexit what difference does it make?
    Three words: House. Of. Lords.
    Two Words...Parliament Act
    One word ... Referendum
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 55,481

    HYUFD said:

    Given the Tories have a majority in Parliament, several Labour MPs, Carswell and the DUP backed BREXIT what difference does it make?
    Because

    i) Remain doesn't have a majority in the House of Commons

    ii) Neither Remain or The Tories have a majority in the House of Lords

    That, with the delay, makes the world of difference.
    If the House of Lords try and block it not only will the Commons overrule them after a year but the calls for an elected second chamber would be deafening!
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 30,336
    edited September 2016

    Allardyce, who was then West Ham manager,

    I'm officially fearful for West Ham's chances this season :(
  • Why would the UK have anything to say about an EU army? None of our business as far as I'm concerned.

    It is if it undermines NATO, the cornerstone of our defence.....
    Nope, still none of our business.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 34,390
    edited September 2016
    619 said:

    weejonnie said:

    NB - Although we won't have the results of the debate in the polling for a week - we should be able to see trends developing in the daily 7-day running polls relatively quickly.

    (Even if the LA Times model is flawed, it should still pick up trends.)

    TBH I think the question is not 'Did Clinton win the debate - which was a gimmee based on location, moderator and audience' but "Did Trump outperform expectations". After all if Man City played Forest Green then you would expect them to win - but Forest Green supporters might be happy to lose 3-0 when most people would have expected 7-0 or 8-0.

    That has moved from +4 Trump to +3, so small move.

    Why is everyone having a go at the moderator? he's a card carrying republican and respected journalist!

    And the audience ( as it is for these things) were 50/50 from each party.

    Anyway, we will find out in a few days
    I can't stand Trump, but the moderator was definitely biased against Trump. He might be a registered republican, but we know loads of GOP "establishment" hate Trump.

    He brought up all secondary questions that were Trump's "weaknesses", the racist and sexist stuff, the birther stuff and his tax returns. Total fair to ask.

    But to Clinton...nothing...Trump had to scream EMAILS...nothing on Clinton Foundation...etc etc etc.

    Both are so covered in shit you could do a 3 x 90 minute debates just on their lies and scandals.
  • Scott_P said:

    @skysarahjane: #SamAllardyce
    Is there an England manager with a shorter tenure than 1 game...on the flip side if he goes is there one with a 100% record?

    Howard Wilkinson?
    Sgt Wilko managed England for two matches
    Damn. Close though.
    Wilkinson strictly managed England for one game, twice.
  • Anyone know how the SaveLabour campaign turned out. – Still too close to call?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 14,003

    I can't help feeling that the Labour refuseniks, having shot themselves in the foot twice already with their mass resignation, which achieved nothing, and their leadership challenge, which achieved less than nothing, are heading straight into a third humiliation with this new offensive in the Labour civil war.

    They will be humiliated because they have no strategy, bloody awful tactics, nothing substantive to offer and are not prepared to say that Corbyn is awful because of what he thinks. Criticising Corbyn for his leadership skills is like criticizing Stalin for his dress sense.

  • Why would the UK have anything to say about an EU army? None of our business as far as I'm concerned.

    It is if it undermines NATO, the cornerstone of our defence.....
    Nope, still none of our business.
    At least you're consistent. Brexit doesn't mean continuing to have a veto over the internal politics of the EU. We're giving up influence that will come back to bite us at some point.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 10,836

    tlg86 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    The problem with Corbyn is not his non-existent or useless leadership skills. That is part of it. It is that his political world view - and the policies which flow from that - are so utterly repellent and malign.

    Put it this way, would the anti-Semitism issues we are seeing in Labour now no longer be a problem if Corbyn were a good manager and able to run his Shadow Cabinet meetings efficiently?

    This is my problem with the so-called moderates. They argue that "Jeremy can't lead us back to power" when what really should be saying is "Jeremy and his allies shouldn't be allowed anywhere near government."
    "Jeremy and his allies shouldn't be allowed anywhere near government," isn't a message you can push while sitting in the same party.
    I appreciate that it seems a bit hypocritical to have tolerated Corbyn and McDonnell's presence in the PLP for the last how ever many years, but they need to start thinking about the consequences of staying in the same party as them now they have taken it over. They're lucky that the media isn't trying to tar them with the same brush.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 14,003

    tlg86 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    The problem with Corbyn is not his non-existent or useless leadership skills. That is part of it. It is that his political world view - and the policies which flow from that - are so utterly repellent and malign.

    Put it this way, would the anti-Semitism issues we are seeing in Labour now no longer be a problem if Corbyn were a good manager and able to run his Shadow Cabinet meetings efficiently?

    This is my problem with the so-called moderates. They argue that "Jeremy can't lead us back to power" when what really should be saying is "Jeremy and his allies shouldn't be allowed anywhere near government."
    "Jeremy and his allies shouldn't be allowed anywhere near government," isn't a message you can push while sitting in the same party.
    It's the only honest thing to say though. If they're not prepared to be honest with themselves why should we believe a word they say?
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 6,566
    Any news on Allardyce..
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 55,481

    Why would the UK have anything to say about an EU army? None of our business as far as I'm concerned.

    It is if it undermines NATO, the cornerstone of our defence.....
    Nope, still none of our business.
    Agree there, we are no longer in the EU so an EU army is not our affair and may reflect Europe putting more effort into looking after its own backyard
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 18,013
    edited September 2016
    Cyclefree said:

    The problem with Corbyn is not his non-existent or useless leadership skills. That is part of it. It is that his political world view - and the policies which flow from that - are so utterly repellent and malign.

    Put it this way, would the anti-Semitism issues we are seeing in Labour now no longer be a problem if Corbyn were a good manager and able to run his Shadow Cabinet meetings efficiently?

    Indeed. Jezza's political world view sees the US, UK and the Jews as the (class) enemy. Nothing to do with any leadership skills.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 6,963

    Why would the UK have anything to say about an EU army? None of our business as far as I'm concerned.

    It is if it undermines NATO, the cornerstone of our defence.....
    Nope, still none of our business.
    It is plenty of our business to have a view on it, and to express that view. That we are in no position to impose our view is not the same as none of our business.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 18,013
    edited September 2016

    HYUFD said:

    Given the Tories have a majority in Parliament, several Labour MPs, Carswell and the DUP backed Brexit what difference does it make?
    Three words: House. Of. Lords.
    Two Words...Parliament Act
    34 words...If any elected or appointed member of the Houses of Parliament think they are going to be funny and try to vote down Brexit then they will rightly unleash constitutional and perhaps civic hell.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 55,481

    HYUFD said:

    Given the Tories have a majority in Parliament, several Labour MPs, Carswell and the DUP backed Brexit what difference does it make?
    Practically, as regards brexit: none. Constitutionally, it's of some significance for future issues where the government has traditionally had executive authority.
    Maybe but the net effect will almost certainly be the same unless Parliament wants to giftwrap UKIP an early Christmas present
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 25,455
    HYUFD said:

    Given the Tories have a majority in Parliament, several Labour MPs, Carswell and the DUP backed Brexit what difference does it make?
    Indeed, especially as a bunch of labour MPs in constituencies where ukip was breathing down their neck will "respect the will of the electorate".
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784

    619 said:

    weejonnie said:

    NB - Although we won't have the results of the debate in the polling for a week - we should be able to see trends developing in the daily 7-day running polls relatively quickly.

    (Even if the LA Times model is flawed, it should still pick up trends.)

    TBH I think the question is not 'Did Clinton win the debate - which was a gimmee based on location, moderator and audience' but "Did Trump outperform expectations". After all if Man City played Forest Green then you would expect them to win - but Forest Green supporters might be happy to lose 3-0 when most people would have expected 7-0 or 8-0.

    That has moved from +4 Trump to +3, so small move.

    Why is everyone having a go at the moderator? he's a card carrying republican and respected journalist!

    And the audience ( as it is for these things) were 50/50 from each party.

    Anyway, we will find out in a few days
    I can't stand Trump, but the moderator was definitely biased against Trump. He might be a registered republican, but we know loads of GOP "establishment" hate Trump.

    He brought up all secondary questions that were Trump's "weaknesses", the racist and sexist stuff, the birther stuff and his tax returns. Total fair to ask.

    But to Clinton...nothing...Trump had to scream EMAILS...nothing on Clinton Foundation...etc etc etc.

    Both are so covered in shit you could do a 3 x 90 minute debates just on their lies and scandals.
    I think Jon Oliver put it best. Clinton has two main scandals ( Clinton foundation and emails)

    If your talking foundations, I think it's fair to say Trump's is 100 times more corrupt than anything the Clinton foundation is accused ( most of which seems to be conjecture)

    If you are talking emails, that's bad put not illegal and just a bit careless. And if the issue is transparency, then I'm not sure Trump can compare...
  • VR developers turn against Oculus Rift over founder’s pro-Trump support

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/27/vr-developers-oculus-rift-pro-trump-support
  • Cyclefree said:

    They will be humiliated because they have no strategy, bloody awful tactics, nothing substantive to offer and are not prepared to say that Corbyn is awful because of what he thinks. Criticising Corbyn for his leadership skills is like criticizing Stalin for his dress sense.

    They also have another big (and related) problem - no leader. That's why they ended up putting forward Owen Smith.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 14,003
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    The problem with Corbyn is not his non-existent or useless leadership skills. That is part of it. It is that his political world view - and the policies which flow from that - are so utterly repellent and malign.

    Put it this way, would the anti-Semitism issues we are seeing in Labour now no longer be a problem if Corbyn were a good manager and able to run his Shadow Cabinet meetings efficiently?

    This is my problem with the so-called moderates. They argue that "Jeremy can't lead us back to power" when what really should be saying is "Jeremy and his allies shouldn't be allowed anywhere near government."
    "Jeremy and his allies shouldn't be allowed anywhere near government," isn't a message you can push while sitting in the same party.
    I appreciate that it seems a bit hypocritical to have tolerated Corbyn and McDonnell's presence in the PLP for the last how ever many years, but they need to start thinking about the consequences of staying in the same party as them now they have taken it over. They're lucky that the media isn't trying to tar them with the same brush.
    The longer they stay the more likely it is to happen. That's the risk they run. The repeated cries for Jeremy to do something about this are, frankly, pathetic. He is part of the problem not the solution. The fish rots from the head. The toxin which has entered Labour's body has been in Jeremy's for years.

    And never mind the media, the greater risk the voters will start tarring them with the same brush.

    Labour MPs need to start finding their moral compasses. They need to start using their consciences. A clean conscience, behaving like a morally decent person are (to me anyway) more important than a fake unity based around toleration of or turning a blind eye to morally reprehensible behavior.

  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 6,963
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given the Tories have a majority in Parliament, several Labour MPs, Carswell and the DUP backed Brexit what difference does it make?
    Indeed, especially as a bunch of labour MPs in constituencies where ukip was breathing down their neck will "respect the will of the electorate".
    LOL. Brexit might well be official Labour Party policy by the time the issue is relevant.
  • SeanT said:

    No it can't. The Tory party will go into meltdown if A50 is not triggered by the end of 2017. After that, it's two years. Theresa May knows this; she will trigger.

    This is a waste of everyone's time, and as they waste time, Remainers are letting the argument between Hard Brexit and Soft Brexit go uncontested, making Hard Brexit more likely. Stupid.

    It's worse than a waste of time. Brexit is tricky enough as it is, without introducing yet another factor complicating the timescales and introducing yet more uncertainty. Theresa May absolutely needs the power to pull the trigger at the moment she judges optimal.
  • A50 this will probably go straight to the Supreme Court after the High Court judgement. Both sides are likely to appeal an adverse ruling.

    If there is a pro parliament judgement in the Supreme Court then I would think it would be more likely to have a snap general election to provide additional pressure on parliament.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 22,164
    MTimT said:

    Why would the UK have anything to say about an EU army? None of our business as far as I'm concerned.

    It is if it undermines NATO, the cornerstone of our defence.....
    Nope, still none of our business.
    It is plenty of our business to have a view on it, and to express that view. That we are in no position to impose our view is not the same as none of our business.
    And while we are still paying into the EU budget, it's absolutely our right to get involved in the discussions.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 34,390
    edited September 2016
    619 said:

    619 said:

    weejonnie said:

    NB - Although we won't have the results of the debate in the polling for a week - we should be able to see trends developing in the daily 7-day running polls relatively quickly.

    (Even if the LA Times model is flawed, it should still pick up trends.)

    TBH I think the question is not 'Did Clinton win the debate - which was a gimmee based on location, moderator and audience' but "Did Trump outperform expectations". After all if Man City played Forest Green then you would expect them to win - but Forest Green supporters might be happy to lose 3-0 when most people would have expected 7-0 or 8-0.

    That has moved from +4 Trump to +3, so small move.

    Why is everyone having a go at the moderator? he's a card carrying republican and respected journalist!

    And the audience ( as it is for these things) were 50/50 from each party.

    Anyway, we will find out in a few days
    I can't stand Trump, but the moderator was definitely biased against Trump. He might be a registered republican, but we know loads of GOP "establishment" hate Trump.

    He brought up all secondary questions that were Trump's "weaknesses", the racist and sexist stuff, the birther stuff and his tax returns. Total fair to ask.

    But to Clinton...nothing...Trump had to scream EMAILS...nothing on Clinton Foundation...etc etc etc.

    Both are so covered in shit you could do a 3 x 90 minute debates just on their lies and scandals.
    I think Jon Oliver put it best. Clinton has two main scandals ( Clinton foundation and emails)

    If your talking foundations, I think it's fair to say Trump's is 100 times more corrupt than anything the Clinton foundation is accused ( most of which seems to be conjecture)

    If you are talking emails, that's bad put not illegal and just a bit careless. And if the issue is transparency, then I'm not sure Trump can compare...
    Jon Oliver most definitely didn't say "that's bad put not illegal and just a bit careless". He mocked Clinton for claiming that.

    I personally take issue with Trump Foundation is worse than Clinton Foundation. One is accused of stuff like buying paintings with the charity money which they then keep (certainly bad), Clinton Foundation is accused of something on a much much bigger scale.

    There are also lots of other Clinton lies and scandals. IMO both are totally unsuitable to be candidates for POTUS and in previous years if either had ran against a normal opponent the level of dirt would sink them.

    My point was if you are going to bring up valid stuff about Trump in the form of a question (which I actually don't think the moderator should do, leave it to the candidates to do that), you have to do it to both.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 18,013
    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given the Tories have a majority in Parliament, several Labour MPs, Carswell and the DUP backed Brexit what difference does it make?
    No difference at all. Labour is now committed to accepting Brexit. The Tories have a membership base which yearns for Brexit.

    Voting down Brexit would be political suicide for either party. It's just not going to happen. This is displacement activity for people still in grieving denial.
    There'll never been anything as definitive as voting down Brexit. If the government doesn't have its act together on the negotiating strategy or objectives then voting against prematurely invoking Article 50 can be sold as something quite different.
    No it can't. The Tory party will go into meltdown if A50 is not triggered by the end of 2017. After that, it's two years. Theresa May knows this; she will trigger.

    This is a waste of everyone's time, and as they waste time, Remainers are letting the argument between Hard Brexit and Soft Brexit go uncontested, making Hard Brexit more likely. Stupid.
    We're not allowed a running commentary (why?). The three stooges are in charge of it, two of whom are Hard Brexiteers (and one of which is a solipsistic loon).

    In exactly what way are Remainers letting anything go tested or uncontested?Every time something happens (usually a positive economic indicator determined at five minutes after midnight on June 23rd) then the overwhelming chorus is: "see, Brexit is a success." Every time an institution, Lloyds, say, explains the extra costs that Brexit could involve, the chorus says: "fear mongering...so what...it's only Lloyds.."

    The reality is that the line in the sand will be immigration and border controls. That is the starting point and any economic gain or damage limitation will be contingent upon how pragmatic or generous or convinced the EU27 are with our position on immigration set in stone.
  • Cyclefree said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    The problem with Corbyn is not his non-existent or useless leadership skills. That is part of it. It is that his political world view - and the policies which flow from that - are so utterly repellent and malign.

    Put it this way, would the anti-Semitism issues we are seeing in Labour now no longer be a problem if Corbyn were a good manager and able to run his Shadow Cabinet meetings efficiently?

    This is my problem with the so-called moderates. They argue that "Jeremy can't lead us back to power" when what really should be saying is "Jeremy and his allies shouldn't be allowed anywhere near government."
    "Jeremy and his allies shouldn't be allowed anywhere near government," isn't a message you can push while sitting in the same party.
    I appreciate that it seems a bit hypocritical to have tolerated Corbyn and McDonnell's presence in the PLP for the last how ever many years, but they need to start thinking about the consequences of staying in the same party as them now they have taken it over. They're lucky that the media isn't trying to tar them with the same brush.
    The fish rots from the head. The toxin which has entered Labour's body has been in Jeremy's for years.
    I thought Sean explained the other day that actually the Labour Party is a big fat stupid cockroach that rots from the thoracic ganglia when parasitized by a commiewasp.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 8,649
    MTimT said:

    Why would the UK have anything to say about an EU army? None of our business as far as I'm concerned.

    It is if it undermines NATO, the cornerstone of our defence.....
    Nope, still none of our business.
    It is plenty of our business to have a view on it, and to express that view. That we are in no position to impose our view is not the same as none of our business.
    Michael Fallon appears to be just going through the motions today: "We oppose a common EU defence policy" and "It's not just about us, you know", It doesn't look like he is devoting any serious firepower to this issue. I guess there is no point pissing off the people you will deal with on a tricky Brexit negotiation if you are not going to stop the common defence policy going ahead anyway.
This discussion has been closed.