Surely the big issue is that you are smearing Pakistan by suggesting it is a place of exceptional homophobic intolerance and full of thugs incapable of controlling their actions. One could suggest your slur is racist and probably islamophobic.
It's not as bad as Russia when it comes to homophobia, or Bermuda, or Northern Ireland.
I'm not sure Pakistan has ever had a 'Save Pakistan from Sodomy' campaign.
Though he would most likely not be the only gay in the village:
There are a number of MPs who also retain their council seats - at least for a period. There are many, many councillors who hold seats at Parish, Borough and County level at the same time.
It is surely up to the voters to decide whether the level of commitment being offered is acceptable by their representatives.
In the south, the "twin hats" as they are generally known, are Conservatives who sit on both County and Borough/District Councils. It isn't always an easy situation for Officers who have to put proposals to County Members knowing they are also District/Borough Members.
Certainly when local Government re-organisation was on the agenda, sensible proposals from Officers were blocked by Members trying to defend the status quo. I struggle to defend the current two-tier arrangements - if you were starting from scratch, you wouldn't have the absurd split of function you have where the rubbish is collected by one set of Councils and taken to waste sites run by a different local Government tier.
So how long this time before he has to take something down because M'learned friends have sent him a letter/email?
Then put it back up again after they amplify the 'outing' many times over with personal statements and direct links to the PM?
If you think outing someone without their consent is acceptable then there's no hope for you.
If you think accusing a former partner of something based on personal advice given and expecting the relationship to remain a secret you've led a very protected life.
Nah.
His central defence is he was providing advice to his partner. You can't make that defence without stating the nature of the relationship.
Do you think the right to privacy should prevent an accused party from mounting a defence? If so, then I am troubled that you are a lawyer.
He knew that his ex partner had relatives in Pakistan where such news can be life ending news.
There's ways of rebutting it without outing him.
'We were very good friends, and I'm sorry his recollection is wrong, I expected better from someone who I considered a very close friend'
Very close friend =/= partner when it comes to advice.
The man has a right to conduct a defence as he sees fit and without constraint.
Mind you, someone needs to explain to me why the Queen is always called The Duke of Normandy, and not the Duchess of Normandy.
Is this some bizarre joke by The Collaborator Channel Islands?
Because she has the body of a weak, feeble woman; but the heart and stomach of a king, and of a King of England too. She is also Duke of Lancaster.
Well the Lancastrians are weird.
I'll take the Duke of Lancaster over the Duke of York any day.
Unfortunately for him, the Duke of Lancaster was comprehensively unable to take the Duke of York on pretty much any day, with the dazzling exception of the Battle of Wakefield.
Pretty much every other major battle in the Wars of the Roses - First St Albans, Northampton, Towton, Barnet and Tewkesbury - the Lancastrians got their arses handed to them.
They still won, though...
Bosworth was the only one that mattered in the end.
Technically of course there were two Dukes of York. It is also the case that in many of the battles of the Wars of the Roses neither Duke was present - Blore Heath, Hexham, Edgecote Moor, Sandwich for example.
So how long this time before he has to take something down because M'learned friends have sent him a letter/email?
Then put it back up again after they amplify the 'outing' many times over with personal statements and direct links to the PM?
If you think outing someone without their consent is acceptable then there's no hope for you.
If you think accusing a former partner of something based on personal advice given and expecting the relationship to remain a secret you've led a very protected life.
Nah.
His central defence is he was providing advice to his partner. You can't make that defence without stating the nature of the relationship.
Do you think the right to privacy should prevent an accused party from mounting a defence? If so, then I am troubled that you are a lawyer.
He knew that his ex partner had relatives in Pakistan where such news can be life ending news.
There's ways of rebutting it without outing him.
'We were very good friends, and I'm sorry his recollection is wrong, I expected better from someone who I considered a very close friend'
Very close friend =/= partner when it comes to advice.
The man has a right to conduct a defence as he sees fit and without constraint.
I've read the comments on the previous thread & am interested in the MP/Mayoral predicament of Dan Jarvis. Can anyone explain to me why individual parties should decide their own rules on this, rather than having one constitutional set of rules regardless of party?
People have caused by-elections just to make a point, I think it's not really for the law to decide which ones are justified and which not, and therefore who else should pay for it.
There are a number of MPs who also retain their council seats - at least for a period. There are many, many councillors who hold seats at Parish, Borough and County level at the same time.
It is surely up to the voters to decide whether the level of commitment being offered is acceptable by their representatives.
Jarvis seems a diligent sort of chap - I think he can handle a dual role for a while. Labour's manoeuvres on this are clearly an attempt to dislodge a potential threat rather than any desire for constitutional clarity.
If Labour mess this up, as they appear to be doing. Jarvis could end up as a rallying point in the Commons.
I am on the other side of this. If the new Mayors are to mean anything other than a sinecure, then they should be full time. If Jarvis wants to leave the Commons to do it, like Burnham or Khan, or Leicesters own Peter Soulsby have done, then he should. I don't think this is a new rule.
I think it comes down to individual choice. Labour threatening one of their own MPs over this is sending the wrong message entirely.
Changing the rules part way through the process is just not democratic.
Jarvis stood making his intentions very clear. He was duly selected. Then the rules were changed. No wonder people are narked.
Like I said, Burnham, Khan, Soulsby and a number of others all resigned as MPs so as to become Mayors. Seems sensible to me.
Livingstone didn't - and being first mayor of London is absolutely a far bigger job then mayor of South Yorkshire
So it is one rule for a close ally of Corbyn and different for everyone else?
So how long this time before he has to take something down because M'learned friends have sent him a letter/email?
Then put it back up again after they amplify the 'outing' many times over with personal statements and direct links to the PM?
If you think outing someone without their consent is acceptable then there's no hope for you.
If you think accusing a former partner of something based on personal advice given and expecting the relationship to remain a secret you've led a very protected life.
Nah.
His central defence is he was providing advice to his partner. You can't make that defence without stating the nature of the relationship.
Do you think the right to privacy should prevent an accused party from mounting a defence? If so, then I am troubled that you are a lawyer.
He knew that his ex partner had relatives in Pakistan where such news can be life ending news.
There's ways of rebutting it without outing him.
'We were very good friends, and I'm sorry his recollection is wrong, I expected better from someone who I considered a very close friend'
Very close friend =/= partner when it comes to advice.
The man has a right to conduct a defence as he sees fit and without constraint.
Mind you, someone needs to explain to me why the Queen is always called The Duke of Normandy, and not the Duchess of Normandy.
Is this some bizarre joke by The Collaborator Channel Islands?
Because she has the body of a weak, feeble woman; but the heart and stomach of a king, and of a King of England too. She is also Duke of Lancaster.
Well the Lancastrians are weird.
I'll take the Duke of Lancaster over the Duke of York any day.
Unfortunately for him, the Duke of Lancaster was comprehensively unable to take the Duke of York on pretty much any day, with the dazzling exception of the Battle of Wakefield.
Pretty much every other major battle in the Wars of the Roses - First St Albans, Northampton, Towton, Barnet and Tewkesbury - the Lancastrians got their arses handed to them.
They still won, though...
Bosworth was the only one that mattered in the end.
Bosworth was not a battle of the Wars of the Roses, although it is sometimes lumped in with them, nor was Henry Duke of Lancaster, nor, with the exception of Oxford, were his senior commanders Lancastrians.
So how long this time before he has to take something down because M'learned friends have sent him a letter/email?
Then put it back up again after they amplify the 'outing' many times over with personal statements and direct links to the PM?
If you think outing someone without their consent is acceptable then there's no hope for you.
If you think accusing a former partner of something based on personal advice given and expecting the relationship to remain a secret you've led a very protected life.
Nah.
His central defence is he was providing advice to his partner. You can't make that defence without stating the nature of the relationship.
Do you think the right to privacy should prevent an accused party from mounting a defence? If so, then I am troubled that you are a lawyer.
He knew that his ex partner had relatives in Pakistan where such news can be life ending news.
There's ways of rebutting it without outing him.
'We were very good friends, and I'm sorry his recollection is wrong, I expected better from someone who I considered a very close friend'
Very close friend =/= partner when it comes to advice.
The man has a right to conduct a defence as he sees fit and without constraint.
Whistleblowers are ordinarily protected from victimisation. Stephen Parkinson was not entitled to out someone in response to whistleblowing (he could of course make a fuller explanation privately to his employer). He should be sacked.
However, the Prime Minister has a well-documented track record of tolerating juniors being abusive to others. Her acceptance of such appalling behaviour speaks volumes about her.
Did Parkinson know, or should he have known, that he was outing Sanni?
Mind you, someone needs to explain to me why the Queen is always called The Duke of Normandy, and not the Duchess of Normandy.
Is this some bizarre joke by The Collaborator Channel Islands?
Because she has the body of a weak, feeble woman; but the heart and stomach of a king, and of a King of England too. She is also Duke of Lancaster.
Well the Lancastrians are weird.
I'll take the Duke of Lancaster over the Duke of York any day.
Unfortunately for him, the Duke of Lancaster was comprehensively unable to take the Duke of York on pretty much any day, with the dazzling exception of the Battle of Wakefield.
Pretty much every other major battle in the Wars of the Roses - First St Albans, Northampton, Towton, Barnet and Tewkesbury - the Lancastrians got their arses handed to them.
They still won, though...
Bosworth was the only one that mattered in the end.
Technically of course there were two Dukes of York. It is also the case that in many of the battles of the Wars of the Roses neither Duke was present - Blore Heath, Hexham, Edgecote Moor, Sandwich for example.
No - although Edward twice claimed the title (in 1461 and 1471) it had been attainted and he was not able to inherit it.
Or were you referring to Prince Richard, the younger of the two princes in the Tower?
So how long this time before he has to take something down because M'learned friends have sent him a letter/email?
Then put it back up again after they amplify the 'outing' many times over with personal statements and direct links to the PM?
If you think outing someone without their consent is acceptable then there's no hope for you.
If you think accusing a former partner of something based on personal advice given and expecting the relationship to remain a secret you've led a very protected life.
Nah.
His central defence is he was providing advice to his partner. You can't make that defence without stating the nature of the relationship.
Do you think the right to privacy should prevent an accused party from mounting a defence? If so, then I am troubled that you are a lawyer.
He knew that his ex partner had relatives in Pakistan where such news can be life ending news.
There's ways of rebutting it without outing him.
'We were very good friends, and I'm sorry his recollection is wrong, I expected better from someone who I considered a very close friend'
Very close friend =/= partner when it comes to advice.
The man has a right to conduct a defence as he sees fit and without constraint.
Whistleblowers are ordinarily protected from victimisation. Stephen Parkinson was not entitled to out someone in response to whistleblowing (he could of course make a fuller explanation privately to his employer). He should be sacked.
However, the Prime Minister has a well-documented track record of tolerating juniors being abusive to others. Her acceptance of such appalling behaviour speaks volumes about her.
Did Parkinson know, or should he have known, that he was outing Sanni?
If they’d been dating for 18 months he would surely have known whether his partner was out to his mother.
So how long this time before he has to take something down because M'learned friends have sent him a letter/email?
Then put it back up again after they amplify the 'outing' many times over with personal statements and direct links to the PM?
If you think outing someone without their consent is acceptable then there's no hope for you.
If you think accusing a former partner of something based on personal advice given and expecting the relationship to remain a secret you've led a very protected life.
Nah.
His central defence is he was providing advice to his partner. You can't make that defence without stating the nature of the relationship.
Do you think the right to privacy should prevent an accused party from mounting a defence? If so, then I am troubled that you are a lawyer.
He knew that his ex partner had relatives in Pakistan where such news can be life ending news.
There's ways of rebutting it without outing him.
'We were very good friends, and I'm sorry his recollection is wrong, I expected better from someone who I considered a very close friend'
Very close friend =/= partner when it comes to advice.
The man has a right to conduct a defence as he sees fit and without constraint.
Whistleblowers are ordinarily protected from victimisation. Stephen Parkinson was not entitled to out someone in response to whistleblowing (he could of course make a fuller explanation privately to his employer). He should be sacked.
However, the Prime Minister has a well-documented track record of tolerating juniors being abusive to others. Her acceptance of such appalling behaviour speaks volumes about her.
Did Parkinson know, or should he have known, that he was outing Sanni?
If they’d been dating for 18 months he would surely have known whether his partner was out to his mother.
Assumption there that he knew he had a mother. Not all relationships are honest about family matters.
If they’d been dating for 18 months he would surely have known whether his partner was out to his mother.
I think this whole 'outing' thing is nonsense. If you have secrets that are known and you don't want more widely known then more fool you should you make yourself a person of interest.
It is of course shabby for anyone else to be bandying about the secrets of others, but at times it's justified.
(PS I edited out all of the preceding - Alistair was clearly responding to a long conversation)
I've read the comments on the previous thread & am interested in the MP/Mayoral predicament of Dan Jarvis. Can anyone explain to me why individual parties should decide their own rules on this, rather than having one constitutional set of rules regardless of party?
People have caused by-elections just to make a point, I think it's not really for the law to decide which ones are justified and which not, and therefore who else should pay for it.
There are a number of MPs who also retain
Jarvis seems a diligent sort of chap - I think he can handle a dual role for a while. Labour's manoeuvres on this are clearly an attempt to dislodge a potential threat rather than any desire for constitutional clarity.
If Labour mess this up, as they appear to be doing. Jarvis could end up as a rallying point in the Commons.
I am on the other side of this. If the new Mayors are to mean anything other than a sinecure, then they should be full time. If Jarvis wants to leave the Commons to do it, like Burnham or Khan, or Leicesters own Peter Soulsby have done, then he should. I don't think this is a new rule.
I think it comes down to individual choice. Labour threatening one of their own MPs over this is sending the wrong message entirely.
Changing the rules part way through the process is just not democratic.
Jarvis stood making his intentions very clear. He was duly selected. Then the rules were changed. No wonder people are narked.
Like I said, Burnham, Khan, Soulsby and a number of others all resigned as MPs so as to become Mayors. Seems sensible to me.
Livingstone didn't - and being first mayor of London is absolutely a far bigger job then mayor of South Yorkshire
So it is one rule for a close ally of Corbyn and different for everyone else?
I think it a good rule to follow, whoever wrote it.
Soulsby resigned when he stood for Mayor a long time before Corbyns leadership, and of course Ken was the first ever of the new style mayors 2 decades ago. He stood down as an MP shortly after too.
If elected Mayors are to be our preferred form of devolved government in England* then it is important to be a distinct distance from Westminster.
*I had some misgivings, but it has certainly been a success here in Leicester. Soulsby has done a lot to improve and redevelop the city, and will be remembered favourably for a long time.
I've read the comments on the previous thread & am interested in the MP/Mayoral predicament of Dan Jarvis. Can anyone explain to me why individual parties should decide their own rules on this, rather than having one constitutional set of rules regardless of party?
People have caused by-elections just to make a point, I think it's not really for the law to decide which ones are justified and which not, and therefore who else should pay for it.
There are a number of MPs who also retain
Jarvis seems a diligent sort of chap - I think he can handle a dual role for a while. Labour's manoeuvres on this are clearly an attempt to dislodge a potential threat rather than any desire for constitutional clarity.
If Labour mess this up, as they appear to be doing. Jarvis could end up as a rallying point in the Commons.
I am on the other side of this. If the new Mayors are to mean anything other than a sinecure, then they should be full time. If Jarvis wants to leave the Commons to do it, like Burnham or Khan, or Leicesters own Peter Soulsby have done, then he should. I don't think this is a new rule.
I think it comes down to individual choice. Labour threatening one of their own MPs over this is sending the wrong message entirely.
Changing the rules part way through the process is just not democratic.
Jarvis stood making his intentions very clear. He was duly selected. Then the rules were changed. No wonder people are narked.
Like I said, Burnham, Khan, Soulsby and a number of others all resigned as MPs so as to become Mayors. Seems sensible to me.
Livingstone didn't - and being first mayor of London is absolutely a far bigger job then mayor of South Yorkshire
So it is one rule for a close ally of Corbyn and different for everyone else?
I think it a good rule to follow, whoever wrote it.
Soulsby resigned when he stood for Mayor a long time before Corbyns leadership, and of course Ken was the first ever of the new style mayors 2 decades ago. He stood down as an MP shortly after too.
If elected Mayors are to be our preferred form of devolved government in England* then it is important to be a distinct distance from Westminster.
*I had some misgivings, but it has certainly been a success here in Leicester. Soulsby has done a lot to improve and redevelop the city, and will be remembered favourably for a long time.
Nah, Ken remained as an MP over a year after he was elected Mayor of London.
So how long this time before he has to take something down because M'learned friends have sent him a letter/email?
Then put it back up again after they amplify the 'outing' many times over with personal statements and direct links to the PM?
If you think outing someone without their consent is acceptable then there's no hope for you.
If you think accusing a former partner of something based on personal advice given and expecting the relationship to remain a secret you've led a very protected life.
Nah.
Do you think the right to privacy should prevent an accused party from mounting a defence? If so, then I am troubled that you are a lawyer.
He knew that his ex partner had relatives in Pakistan where such news can
'We were very good friends, and I'm sorry his recollection is wrong, I expectedclose friend'
Very close friend =/= partner when it comes to advice.
The man has a right to conduct a defence as he sees fit and without constraint.
Whistleblowers are ordinarily protected from victimisation. Stephen Parkinson was not entitled to out someone in response to whistleblowing (he could of co
However, the Prime Minister has a well-documented track record of tolerating juniors being abusive to others. Her acceptancemes about her.
Did Parkinson know, or should he have known, that he was outing Sanni?
If they’d been dating for 18 months he would surely have known whether his partner was out to his mother.
If there is a more irrelevant subject than a grown mans inability to be honest with his family being discussed on a message board then god help the poor sods on there.
This whole farrango is just a load of chaff thrown up by a bunch of bad losers and vested interests who see their gravy train coming to a halt.
The guy “loves the boaby” - so he can’t vacation on the Costa del Karachi for a bit. Boo hoo. The ninny’s wanting another person to lose their job and career because he defended himself from a smear should get a life.
Hard to see that would be much more than an empty gesture, quite frankly. He's more or less divorced from the Labour Party now. Corbyn would probably indeed be glad to see the back of him.
If he crossed the floor - and worse, fought Barrow in a by-election and held it - that would be an absolutely shattering blow for Corbyn, but it also seems most unlikely.
I think it a good rule to follow, whoever wrote it.
Soulsby resigned when he stood for Mayor a long time before Corbyns leadership, and of course Ken was the first ever of the new style mayors 2 decades ago. He stood down as an MP shortly after too.
If elected Mayors are to be our preferred form of devolved government in England* then it is important to be a distinct distance from Westminster.
*I had some misgivings, but it has certainly been a success here in Leicester. Soulsby has done a lot to improve and redevelop the city, and will be remembered favourably for a long time.
Ken stayed on as MP for over a year - so that isn't that short a time period.
What is the difference between being an MP and a Mayor at the same time and being an MP and a Cabinet (or sub-cabinet) Minister?
Both scenarios essentially mean that you have two jobs - one looking after your constituents and representing them in Parliament and the other with your new added responsibilities that take you away from Parliament for extended periods to work elsewhere.
I can't see much difference - other than geography. And with modern technology, distance isn't what it was.
Hard to see that would be much more than an empty gesture, quite frankly. He's more or less divorced from the Labour Party now. Corbyn would probably indeed be glad to see the back of him.
If he crossed the floor - and worse, fought Barrow in a by-election and held it - that would be an absolutely shattering blow for Corbyn, but it also seems most unlikely.
Hard to see that would be much more than an empty gesture, quite frankly. He's more or less divorced from the Labour Party now. Corbyn would probably indeed be glad to see the back of him.
If he crossed the floor - and worse, fought Barrow in a by-election and held it - that would be an absolutely shattering blow for Corbyn, but it also seems most unlikely.
The time for this has long passed. All the 'moderate' labour MP's are de facto redundant. I saw Chuka Umana's latest video on Brexit got four likes after 23 hours on Facebook.
Corbyn will now pass rule changes, and that will be the end of most of them. There is no way that being an MP should be a job for life. No other job is.
Hard to see that would be much more than an empty gesture, quite frankly. He's more or less divorced from the Labour Party now. Corbyn would probably indeed be glad to see the back of him.
If he crossed the floor - and worse, fought Barrow in a by-election and held it - that would be an absolutely shattering blow for Corbyn, but it also seems most unlikely.
The time for this has long passed. All the 'moderate' labour MP's are de facto redundant. I saw Chuka Umana's latest video on Brexit got four likes after 23 hours on Facebook.
Corbyn will now pass rule changes, and that will be the end of most of them. There is no way that being an MP should be a job for life. No other job is.
Jeremy Corbyn, 69 this year and still going, would appear to disagree with you. And I don't imagine Skinner, Macdonnell or Flynn are going to be targets either.
Are you saying that this is all irrelevant, or that all Labour MPs should now cross the floor or resign their seats?
Hard to see that would be much more than an empty gesture, quite frankly. He's more or less divorced from the Labour Party now. Corbyn would probably indeed be glad to see the back of him.
If he crossed the floor - and worse, fought Barrow in a by-election and held it - that would be an absolutely shattering blow for Corbyn, but it also seems most unlikely.
Agreed. Hard to see him crossing the floor, near impossible even, and I don't see him fighting a by-election - a close seat which seems to have been trending Tory, maybe he wins, or maybe he loses mostly likely to a Tory, no one will care why he caused that.
Still, whether one agrees with his version of Labour or Corbyn's, if he does do this at least for once someone will have decided there was a line which even their tribalism could not cross. Granted, only after his election, but still.
Gauke may have misjudged but I’m struggling to see why it’s a resignation offence.
This seems to be trial by pitchfork to me.
100% agreed. The rule of the mob is the modern day disease. I hope Gauke hangs on.
Given the origins of the phrase I doubt rule of the mob is a modern day disease. But I know what you mean in the modern context. Only my wallet wants Gauke to resign, I don't think taking the decision he did with the advice he had, even if he turned out to be wrong, is worthy of resignation.
Hard to see that would be much more than an empty gesture, quite frankly. He's more or less divorced from the Labour Party now. Corbyn would probably indeed be glad to see the back of him.
If he crossed the floor - and worse, fought Barrow in a by-election and held it - that would be an absolutely shattering blow for Corbyn, but it also seems most unlikely.
Agreed. Hard to see him crossing the floor, near impossible even, and I don't see him fighting a by-election - a close seat which seems to have been trending Tory, maybe he wins, or maybe he loses mostly likely to a Tory, no one will care why he caused that.
Still, whether one agrees with his version of Labour or Corbyn's, if he does do this at least for once someone will have decided there was a line which even their tribalism could not cross. Granted, only after his election, but still.
I think there is a reasonable chance he would hold Barrow as a Tory. He only needs a few hundred votes to go with him (including the tiny handful of Lib Dem and Green votes that might be squeezed).
I just don't see him doing it. He isn't a Tory and disagrees with them on many things. Also, it would unleash the nastiest of the Jezziah's supporters. He would need round the clock police protection for a start, possibly for life.
Gauke may have misjudged but I’m struggling to see why it’s a resignation offence.
This seems to be trial by pitchfork to me.
100% agreed. The rule of the mob is the modern day disease. I hope Gauke hangs on.
Given the origins of the phrase I doubt rule of the mob is a modern day disease. But I know what you mean in the modern context. Only my wallet wants Gauke to resign, I don't think taking the decision he did with the advice he had, even if he turned out to be wrong, is worthy of resignation.
Lord Saye and Sele, murdered by Jack Cade in 1450, or Simon of Sudbury in 1381 would certainly agree with you!
Hard to see that would be much more than an empty gesture, quite frankly. He's more or less divorced from the Labour Party now. Corbyn would probably indeed be glad to see the back of him.
If he crossed the floor - and worse, fought Barrow in a by-election and held it - that would be an absolutely shattering blow for Corbyn, but it also seems most unlikely.
Being "divorced from Labour" doesn't make him a Conservative or a Lib Dem for that matter. He can sit as an Independent if he wishes or do what Dick Taverne did - resign his seat and win it as an Independent beating BOTH Labour and Conservative candidates.
The latter would be wonderful but he will probably claim he hasn't left Labour, Labour has left him so there's room for him to return in a post-Corbyn Party.
He is clearly trying to work out his post-Westminster career. Even if he wanted to stay on, he is likely to be deselected - so why not make as much noise as possible on the way out?
Hard to see that would be much more than an empty gesture, quite frankly. He's more or less divorced from the Labour Party now. Corbyn would probably indeed be glad to see the back of him.
If he crossed the floor - and worse, fought Barrow in a by-election and held it - that would be an absolutely shattering blow for Corbyn, but it also seems most unlikely.
Being "divorced from Labour" doesn't make him a Conservative or a Lib Dem for that matter. He can sit as an Independent if he wishes or do what Dick Taverne did - resign his seat and win it as an Independent beating BOTH Labour and Conservative candidates.
The latter would be wonderful but he will probably claim he hasn't left Labour, Labour has left him so there's room for him to return in a post-Corbyn Party.
One thing's for sure, if he doesn't do it now having trailed it, he will look very silly. I'm not dismissing how hard it would be to resign the whip, even if as would be likely he intends to vote the same way Labour would in most cases, but what would be the purpose of hinting that you might? Corbyn's not going to rein himself in, it is highly unlikely others are going to publicly start saying 'We're with you on this, John' so it isn't to test the response, and I think we know the party members aren't going to follow en masse if others did join him.
He is clearly trying to work out his post-Westminster career. Even if he wanted to stay on, he is likely to be deselected - so why not make as much noise as possible on the way out?
Why do you think he will be deselected? I don't think we have seen any sign of this despite all the hot air.
Worth noting that he probably only held the seat due to the Jezzagasm. There were swings against him in 2010 and 2015, but he gained 4.5% under Corbyn.
Do we think that on reading that Milne will be a. quaking in his boots or b. laughing his socks off at the impotence of his opponents?
I think the answer is in the question. And Woodcock is the boldest of the rebels!
There’s an Easter break coming up. There’s going to be a huge amount of soul-searching by moderate Labour MPs over the break. And I suspect a lot of conversations between them.
Hard to see that would be much more than an empty gesture, quite frankly. He's more or less divorced from the Labour Party now. Corbyn would probably indeed be glad to see the back of him.
If he crossed the floor - and worse, fought Barrow in a by-election and held it - that would be an absolutely shattering blow for Corbyn, but it also seems most unlikely.
The time for this has long passed. All the 'moderate' labour MP's are de facto redundant. I saw Chuka Umana's latest video on Brexit got four likes after 23 hours on Facebook.
Corbyn will now pass rule changes, and that will be the end of most of them. There is no way that being an MP should be a job for life. No other job is.
Jeremy Corbyn, 69 this year and still going, would appear to disagree with you. And I don't imagine Skinner, Macdonnell or Flynn are going to be targets either.
Are you saying that this is all irrelevant, or that all Labour MPs should now cross the floor or resign their seats?
The difference is that these MP's are now largely irrelevant. They are irrelevant to the overwhelming majority of labour party members, and estranged and distrusted by the leadership. The world has changed, and they are left standing still.
They needed to do an SDP2 at some point in late 2015, and die with honour. Instead, they just tried to undermine Corbyn and force him out, using the apparatus of the Labour party.
But the strategy didn't work. It failed completely. They are now just hovering around on death row.
He is clearly trying to work out his post-Westminster career. Even if he wanted to stay on, he is likely to be deselected - so why not make as much noise as possible on the way out?
Why do you think he will be deselected? I don't think we have seen any sign of this despite all the hot air.
Worth noting that he probably only held the seat due to the Jezzagasm. There were swings against him in 2010 and 2015, but he gained 4.5% under Corbyn.
His majority has dropped to just 209 - he may have gained last year - but the Tory in second place gained more. It was still a small swing against him.
I think his constant anti-Corbyn positions make him a likely candidate for deselection. There are plenty of deselection moves going on at council level round the country - they will extend to MPs sooner rather than later.
He is unlikely to be an MP after the next election under current circumstances.
Do we think that on reading that Milne will be a. quaking in his boots or b. laughing his socks off at the impotence of his opponents?
I think the answer is in the question. And Woodcock is the boldest of the rebels!
There’s an Easter break coming up. There’s going to be a huge amount of soul-searching by moderate Labour MPs over the break. And I suspect a lot of conversations between them.
I don’t rule out an Easter Uprising.
You are suggesting they will be Dublin down on their current course of timidity, ineptitude and failure?
Hard to see that would be much more than an empty gesture, quite frankly. He's more or less divorced from the Labour Party now. Corbyn would probably indeed be glad to see the back of him.
If he crossed the floor - and worse, fought Barrow in a by-election and held it - that would be an absolutely shattering blow for Corbyn, but it also seems most unlikely.
The time for this has long passed. All the 'moderate' labour MP's are de facto redundant. I saw Chuka Umana's latest video on Brexit got four likes after 23 hours on Facebook.
Corbyn will now pass rule changes, and that will be the end of most of them. There is no way that being an MP should be a job for life. No other job is.
Jeremy Corbyn, 69 this year and still going, would appear to disagree with you. And I don't imagine Skinner, Macdonnell or Flynn are going to be targets either.
Are you saying that this is all irrelevant, or that all Labour MPs should now cross the floor or resign their seats?
The difference is that these MP's are now largely irrelevant. They are irrelevant to the overwhelming majority of labour party members, and estranged and distrusted by the leadership. The world has changed, and they are left standing still.
They needed to do an SDP2 at some point in late 2015, and die with honour. Instead, they just tried to undermine Corbyn and force him out, using the apparatus of the Labour party.
But the strategy didn't work. It failed completely. They are now just hovering around on death row.
He is clearly trying to work out his post-Westminster career. Even if he wanted to stay on, he is likely to be deselected - so why not make as much noise as possible on the way out?
Why do you think he will be deselected? I don't think we have seen any sign of this despite all the hot air.
Worth noting that he probably only held the seat due to the Jezzagasm. There were swings against him in 2010 and 2015, but he gained 4.5% under Corbyn.
That was an amazing result in Barrow considering the usual difficulties the local Labour MP faces with the nuclear industry. I for one had it down as a nailed on Tory gain last time. I still have nightmares now about being so out on the final result under 10 months ago.
I think it a good rule to follow, whoever wrote it.
Soulsby resigned when he stood for Mayor a long time before Corbyns leadership, and of course Ken was the first ever of the new style mayors 2 decades ago. He stood down as an MP shortly after too.
If elected Mayors are to be our preferred form of devolved government in England* then it is important to be a distinct distance from Westminster.
*I had some misgivings, but it has certainly been a success here in Leicester. Soulsby has done a lot to improve and redevelop the city, and will be remembered favourably for a long time.
Ken stayed on as MP for over a year - so that isn't that short a time period.
What is the difference between being an MP and a Mayor at the same time and being an MP and a Cabinet (or sub-cabinet) Minister?
Both scenarios essentially mean that you have two jobs - one looking after your constituents and representing them in Parliament and the other with your new added responsibilities that take you away from Parliament for extended periods to work elsewhere.
I can't see much difference - other than geography. And with modern technology, distance isn't what it was.
Technically speaking, distance has remained exactly what it was...,
He is clearly trying to work out his post-Westminster career. Even if he wanted to stay on, he is likely to be deselected - so why not make as much noise as possible on the way out?
Why do you think he will be deselected? I don't think we have seen any sign of this despite all the hot air.
Worth noting that he probably only held the seat due to the Jezzagasm. There were swings against him in 2010 and 2015, but he gained 4.5% under Corbyn.
His majority has dropped to just 209 - he may have gained last year - but the Tory in second place gained more. It was still a small swing against him.
I think his constant anti-Corbyn positions make him a likely candidate for deselection. There are plenty of deselection moves going on at council level round the country - they will extend to MPs sooner rather than later.
He is unlikely to be an MP after the next election under current circumstances.
I am pretty sure a Corbynista would however have lost Barrow. Trident alone would have been a killer.
Even without Woodcock - although personal vote is not the force it was - it is worth remembering Labour lost Copeland, on paper a much safer seat for them, and couldn't regain it, even though their candidate was hardly a Corbyn loyalist either. If they deselect him I suspect they will come to regret it.
Do we think that on reading that Milne will be a. quaking in his boots or b. laughing his socks off at the impotence of his opponents?
I think the answer is in the question. And Woodcock is the boldest of the rebels!
There’s an Easter break coming up. There’s going to be a huge amount of soul-searching by moderate Labour MPs over the break. And I suspect a lot of conversations between them.
I don’t rule out an Easter Uprising.
We've heard that talk a million times before. They're a supine inert bunch. I'd love an uprising, but I don't think its likely to happen any time soon.
Hard to see that would be much more than an empty gesture, quite frankly. He's more or less divorced from the Labour Party now. Corbyn would probably indeed be glad to see the back of him.
If he crossed the floor - and worse, fought Barrow in a by-election and held it - that would be an absolutely shattering blow for Corbyn, but it also seems most unlikely.
The time for this has long passed. All the 'moderate' labour MP's are de facto redundant. I saw Chuka Umana's latest video on Brexit got four likes after 23 hours on Facebook.
Corbyn will now pass rule changes, and that will be the end of most of them. There is no way that being an MP should be a job for life. No other job is.
Jeremy Corbyn, 69 this year and still going, would appear to disagree with you. And I don't imagine Skinner, Macdonnell or Flynn are going to be targets either.
Are you saying that this is all irrelevant, or that all Labour MPs should now cross the floor or resign their seats?
The difference is that these MP's are now largely irrelevant. They are irrelevant to the overwhelming majority of labour party members, and estranged and distrusted by the leadership. The world has changed, and they are left standing still.
That's probably true, but the point remains that people don't really have a problem with MPs having a job for life. They have a problem with MPs they dislike having a job for life.
Hard to see that would be much more than an empty gesture, quite frankly. He's more or less divorced from the Labour Party now. Corbyn would probably indeed be glad to see the back of him.
If he crossed the floor - and worse, fought Barrow in a by-election and held it - that would be an absolutely shattering blow for Corbyn, but it also seems most unlikely.
The time for this has long passed. All the 'moderate' labour MP's are de facto redundant. I saw Chuka Umana's latest video on Brexit got four likes after 23 hours on Facebook.
Corbyn will now pass rule changes, and that will be the end of most of them. There is no way that being an MP should be a job for life. No other job is.
Jeremy Corbyn, 69 this year and still going, would appear to disagree with you. And I don't imagine Skinner, Macdonnell or Flynn are going to be targets either.
Are you saying that this is all irrelevant, or that all Labour MPs should now cross the floor or resign their seats?
The difference is that these MP's are now largely irrelevant. They are irrelevant to the overwhelming majority of labour party members, and estranged and distrusted by the leadership. The world has changed, and they are left standing still.
They needed to do an SDP2 at some point in late 2015, and die with honour. Instead, they just tried to undermine Corbyn and force him out, using the apparatus of the Labour party.
But the strategy didn't work. It failed completely. They are now just hovering around on death row.
Gauke was stupid not to challenge it, I remember many of us said so at the time.
I think the bigger issue is the malign effect of the civil service on ministers, they are far too negative. It's always about what isn't possible and scaring the minister away from actually trying to make the country better, either by keeping a horrific rapist locked up or by reforming the education sector and making it fit for purpose as Gove tried to do.
Hard to see that would be much more than an empty gesture, quite frankly. He's more or less divorced from the Labour Party now. Corbyn would probably indeed be glad to see the back of him.
If he crossed the floor - and worse, fought Barrow in a by-election and held it - that would be an absolutely shattering blow for Corbyn, but it also seems most unlikely.
The time for this has long passed. All the 'moderate' labour MP's are de facto redundant. I saw Chuka Umana's latest video on Brexit got four likes after 23 hours on Facebook.
Corbyn will now pass rule changes, and that will be the end of most of them. There is no way that being an MP should be a job for life. No other job is.
Jeremy Corbyn, 69 this year and still going, would appear to disagree with you. And I don't imagine Skinner, Macdonnell or Flynn are going to be targets either.
Are you saying that this is all irrelevant, or that all Labour MPs should now cross the floor or resign their seats?
The difference is that these MP's are now largely irrelevant. They are irrelevant to the overwhelming majority of labour party members, and estranged and distrusted by the leadership. The world has changed, and they are left standing still.
They needed to do an SDP2 at some point in late 2015, and die with honour. Instead, they just tried to undermine Corbyn and force him out, using the apparatus of the Labour party.
But the strategy didn't work. It failed completely. They are now just hovering around on death row.
More like deselection row (after Bob Dylan)
They're painting the passports blue...
Good on Woodcock, if its true. At last someone might have had the guts to make a stand.
Hard to see that would be much more than an empty gesture, quite frankly. He's more or less divorced from the Labour Party now. Corbyn would probably indeed be glad to see the back of him.
If he crossed the floor - and worse, fought Barrow in a by-election and held it - that would be an absolutely shattering blow for Corbyn, but it also seems most unlikely.
The time for this has long passed. All the 'moderate' labour MP's are de facto redundant. I saw Chuka Umana's latest video on Brexit got four likes after 23 hours on Facebook.
Corbyn will now pass rule changes, and that will be the end of most of them. There is no way that being an MP should be a job for life. No other job is.
Jeremy Corbyn, 69 this year and still going, would appear to disagree with you. And I don't imagine Skinner, Macdonnell or Flynn are going to be targets either.
Are you saying that this is all irrelevant, or that all Labour MPs should now cross the floor or resign their seats?
The difference is that these MP's are now largely irrelevant. They are irrelevant to the overwhelming majority of labour party members, and estranged and distrusted by the leadership. The world has changed, and they are left standing still.
They needed to do an SDP2 at some point in late 2015, and die with honour. Instead, they just tried to undermine Corbyn and force him out, using the apparatus of the Labour party.
But the strategy didn't work. It failed completely. They are now just hovering around on death row.
More like deselection row (after Bob Dylan)
They're painting the passports blue...
Good on Woodcock, if its true. At last someone might have had the guts to make a stand.
I think it a good rule to follow, whoever wrote it.
Soulsby resigned when he stood for Mayor a long time before Corbyns leadership, and of course Ken was the first ever of the new style mayors 2 decades ago. He stood down as an MP shortly after too.
If elected Mayors are to be our preferred form of devolved government in England* then it is important to be a distinct distance from Westminster.
*I had some misgivings, but it has certainly been a success here in Leicester. Soulsby has done a lot to improve and redevelop the city, and will be remembered favourably for a long time.
Ken stayed on as MP for over a year - so that isn't that short a time period.
What is the difference between being an MP and a Mayor at the same time and being an MP and a Cabinet (or sub-cabinet) Minister?
Both scenarios essentially mean that you have two jobs - one looking after your constituents and representing them in Parliament and the other with your new added responsibilities that take you away from Parliament for extended periods to work elsewhere.
I can't see much difference - other than geography. And with modern technology, distance isn't what it was.
Technically speaking, distance has remained exactly what it was...,
Most people often fail to realize that length has no meaning in the Geneal Theory of Relativity. In Einstein's own words, GTR is a theory only of 'space-time coincidences'. That means all measurement can only be local (at an event) . This destroys the notion of length and time co-ordinates as observables. They only emerge as observables in flat (trivial) space-times.
Hard to see that would be much more than an empty gesture, quite frankly. He's more or less divorced from the Labour Party now. Corbyn would probably indeed be glad to see the back of him.
If he crossed the floor - and worse, fought Barrow in a by-election and held it - that would be an absolutely shattering blow for Corbyn, but it also seems most unlikely.
The time for this has long passed. All the 'moderate' labour MP's are de facto redundant. I saw Chuka Umana's latest video on Brexit got four likes after 23 hours on Facebook.
Corbyn will now pass rule changes, and that will be the end of most of them. There is no way that being an MP should be a job for life. No other job is.
Jeremy Corbyn, 69 this year and still going, would appear to disagree with you. And I don't imagine Skinner, Macdonnell or Flynn are going to be targets either.
Are you saying that this is all irrelevant, or that all Labour MPs should now cross the floor or resign their seats?
The difference is that these MP's are now largely irrelevant. They are irrelevant to the overwhelming majority of labour party members, and estranged and distrusted by the leadership. The world has changed, and they are left standing still.
They needed to do an SDP2 at some point in late 2015, and die with honour. Instead, they just tried to undermine Corbyn and force him out, using the apparatus of the Labour party.
But the strategy didn't work. It failed completely. They are now just hovering around on death row.
More like deselection row (after Bob Dylan)
They're painting the passports blue...
Good on Woodcock, if its true. At last someone might have had the guts to make a stand.
I think you mean Woodstock.
By the time we got to Woodcock, we were half a million strong....
Mr. Eagles, isn't that because French inheritance couldn't pass through a female line? That's why they denied the legitimacy of Edward III's claim to the French throne. [Well, the official reason, anyway].
Not sure why the Duke of Lancaster title should be likewise, though.
I thought it was the other way around - they invented that rule to both (1) deny Edward III as the only grandson of Philip IV the throne and (2) to exclude Philip's other ostensible grandchild, the Queen of Navarre, about whose legitimacy there were very real doubts after her mother was caught in flagrante delicto with one of her husband's servants.
A little unfair to say that they invented it for the occasion; rather they adopted what was an ancient tradition for their convenience in excluding the English from the succession (and more or less stuck with it): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salic_law
On resigning the whip, I see that not including the Speaker there are currently 5 Independent MPs at the moment.
Although only one intentionally so.
I take it you are not including Caroline Lucas in that list, and your one is Sylvia Hermon?
Yes indeed.
I am interested to see her majority was slashed in 2017 and she only has a majority of 1208 now. With the DUP in second, and SF the SDLP getting a combined 2.4% in the seat (and that with SF increasing their share), that is one strong Unionist seat.
The NI Conservatives even almost held their deposit in 2015.
Gauke was stupid not to challenge it, I remember many of us said so at the time.
I think the bigger issue is the malign effect of the civil service on ministers, they are far too negative. It's always about what isn't possible and scaring the minister away from actually trying to make the country better, either by keeping a horrific rapist locked up or by reforming the education sector and making it fit for purpose as Gove tried to do.
If he JR'd the decision, it would have amounted to the politicisation of the Justice system. If you have Ministers intervening in individual cases, where does it end? Civil servants are just explaining the implications of their decisions. I think Gauke made the right call. In this case, the problem appears to be with the sentencing in the first place.
Gauke was stupid not to challenge it, I remember many of us said so at the time.
I think the bigger issue is the malign effect of the civil service on ministers, they are far too negative. It's always about what isn't possible and scaring the minister away from actually trying to make the country better, either by keeping a horrific rapist locked up or by reforming the education sector and making it fit for purpose as Gove tried to do.
If he JR'd the decision, it would have amounted to the politicisation of the Justice system. If you have Ministers intervening in individual cases, where does it end? Civil servants are just explaining the implications of their decisions. I think Gauke made the right call. In this case, the problem appears to be with the sentencing in the first place.
If the legal advice had been it was felt there was something legally or procedurally wrong with the decision and there was a decent prospect of success, then his JR'ing it would have been sound, even if in part motivated by headlines. But certainly given the advice he had, it was not an unreasonable decision not to do so.
Gauke was stupid not to challenge it, I remember many of us said so at the time.
I think the bigger issue is the malign effect of the civil service on ministers, they are far too negative. It's always about what isn't possible and scaring the minister away from actually trying to make the country better, either by keeping a horrific rapist locked up or by reforming the education sector and making it fit for purpose as Gove tried to do.
If he JR'd the decision, it would have amounted to the politicisation of the Justice system. If you have Ministers intervening in individual cases, where does it end? Civil servants are just explaining the implications of their decisions. I think Gauke made the right call. In this case, the problem appears to be with the sentencing in the first place.
If the legal advice had been it was felt there was something legally or procedurally wrong with the decision and there was a decent prospect of success, then his JR'ing it would have been sound, even if in part motivated by headlines. But certainly given the advice he had, it was not an unreasonable decision not to do so.
And it has all worked out anyway.
Indeed.
If he had pursued a JR and lost - then he would have been in a far worse position. The legal advice looks pretty nuanced to me and I can see why that judgement call was made.
Far better to maintain the separation of the Parole Board and DoJ
Gauke was stupid not to challenge it, I remember many of us said so at the time.
I think the bigger issue is the malign effect of the civil service on ministers, they are far too negative. It's always about what isn't possible and scaring the minister away from actually trying to make the country better, either by keeping a horrific rapist locked up or by reforming the education sector and making it fit for purpose as Gove tried to do.
If he JR'd the decision, it would have amounted to the politicisation of the Justice system. If you have Ministers intervening in individual cases, where does it end? Civil servants are just explaining the implications of their decisions. I think Gauke made the right call. In this case, the problem appears to be with the sentencing in the first place.
If the legal advice had been it was felt there was something legally or procedurally wrong with the decision and there was a decent prospect of success, then his JR'ing it would have been sound, even if in part motivated by headlines. But certainly given the advice he had, it was not an unreasonable decision not to do so.
And it has all worked out anyway.
It hasn't quite worked out, because now the parole board need to make the decision again. It is difficult to see how they can do this in an independent way.
On resigning the whip, I see that not including the Speaker there are currently 5 Independent MPs at the moment.
Although only one intentionally so.
I take it you are not including Caroline Lucas in that list, and your one is Sylvia Hermon?
Yes indeed.
I am interested to see her majority was slashed in 2017 and she only has a majority of 1208 now. With the DUP in second, and SF the SDLP getting a combined 2.4% in the seat (and that with SF increasing their share), that is one strong Unionist seat.
The NI Conservatives even almost held their deposit in 2015.
However, the Catholic population is 13.5%, suggesting Lady S takes some cross community support (a good thing), IMO.
Gauke was stupid not to challenge it, I remember many of us said so at the time.
I think the bigger issue is the malign effect of the civil service on ministers, they are far too negative. It's always about what isn't possible and scaring the minister away from actually trying to make the country better, either by keeping a horrific rapist locked up or by reforming the education sector and making it fit for purpose as Gove tried to do.
If he JR'd the decision, it would have amounted to the politicisation of the Justice system. If you have Ministers intervening in individual cases, where does it end? Civil servants are just explaining the implications of their decisions. I think Gauke made the right call. In this case, the problem appears to be with the sentencing in the first place.
If the legal advice had been it was felt there was something legally or procedurally wrong with the decision and there was a decent prospect of success, then his JR'ing it would have been sound, even if in part motivated by headlines. But certainly given the advice he had, it was not an unreasonable decision not to do so.
And it has all worked out anyway.
It hasn't quite worked out, because now the parole board need to make the decision again. It is difficult to see how they can do this in an independent way.
By that logic no-one should have JR's the decision, when as the judges have determined it was flawed and thus the JR was entirely justified. By that logic whenever a JR results in a decision going back to the determining body to redo it, they could not do so.
It may well be difficult for the parole board to take the decision. But as we have now had a judgement that the original decision was flawed, I fail to see how asking the board to do it again and properly this time, is worse than leaving in place a decision which was so flawed a court overturned it.
Comments
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2342217/Pakistan-internet-users-Google-searches-gay-sex-despite-worlds-homophobic-countries.html
Certainly when local Government re-organisation was on the agenda, sensible proposals from Officers were blocked by Members trying to defend the status quo. I struggle to defend the current two-tier arrangements - if you were starting from scratch, you wouldn't have the absurd split of function you have where the rubbish is collected by one set of Councils and taken to waste sites run by a different local Government tier.
https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/977891317568196609
So it is one rule for a close ally of Corbyn and different for everyone else?
Or were you referring to Prince Richard, the younger of the two princes in the Tower?
If they’d been dating for 18 months he would surely have known whether his partner was out to his mother.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/94017/excl-labour-mp-john-woodcock-planning-resign-party
Assumption there that he knew he had a mother.
Not all relationships are honest about family matters.
It is of course shabby for anyone else to be bandying about the secrets of others, but at times it's justified.
(PS I edited out all of the preceding - Alistair was clearly responding to a long conversation)
Soulsby resigned when he stood for Mayor a long time before Corbyns leadership, and of course Ken was the first ever of the new style mayors 2 decades ago. He stood down as an MP shortly after too.
If elected Mayors are to be our preferred form of devolved government in England* then it is important to be a distinct distance from Westminster.
*I had some misgivings, but it has certainly been a success here in Leicester. Soulsby has done a lot to improve and redevelop the city, and will be remembered favourably for a long time.
If there is a more irrelevant subject than a grown mans inability to be honest with his family being discussed on a message board then god help the poor sods on there.
This whole farrango is just a load of chaff thrown up by a bunch of bad losers and vested interests who see their gravy train coming to a halt.
The guy “loves the boaby” - so he can’t vacation on the Costa del Karachi for a bit. Boo hoo. The ninny’s wanting another person to lose their job and career because he defended himself from a smear should get a life.
If he crossed the floor - and worse, fought Barrow in a by-election and held it - that would be an absolutely shattering blow for Corbyn, but it also seems most unlikely.
What is the difference between being an MP and a Mayor at the same time and being an MP and a Cabinet (or sub-cabinet) Minister?
Both scenarios essentially mean that you have two jobs - one looking after your constituents and representing them in Parliament and the other with your new added responsibilities that take you away from Parliament for extended periods to work elsewhere.
I can't see much difference - other than geography. And with modern technology, distance isn't what it was.
Corbyn will now pass rule changes, and that will be the end of most of them. There is no way that being an MP should be a job for life. No other job is.
Are you saying that this is all irrelevant, or that all Labour MPs should now cross the floor or resign their seats?
Still, whether one agrees with his version of Labour or Corbyn's, if he does do this at least for once someone will have decided there was a line which even their tribalism could not cross. Granted, only after his election, but still.
I just don't see him doing it. He isn't a Tory and disagrees with them on many things. Also, it would unleash the nastiest of the Jezziah's supporters. He would need round the clock police protection for a start, possibly for life.
The latter would be wonderful but he will probably claim he hasn't left Labour, Labour has left him so there's room for him to return in a post-Corbyn Party.
He is clearly trying to work out his post-Westminster career. Even if he wanted to stay on, he is likely to be deselected - so why not make as much noise as possible on the way out?
Worth noting that he probably only held the seat due to the Jezzagasm. There were swings against him in 2010 and 2015, but he gained 4.5% under Corbyn.
I don’t rule out an Easter Uprising.
We've all done it, at least years ago we could.
They needed to do an SDP2 at some point in late 2015, and die with honour. Instead, they just tried to undermine Corbyn and force him out, using the apparatus of the Labour party.
But the strategy didn't work. It failed completely. They are now just hovering around on death row.
I think his constant anti-Corbyn positions make him a likely candidate for deselection. There are plenty of deselection moves going on at council level round the country - they will extend to MPs sooner rather than later.
He is unlikely to be an MP after the next election under current circumstances.
Even without Woodcock - although personal vote is not the force it was - it is worth remembering Labour lost Copeland, on paper a much safer seat for them, and couldn't regain it, even though their candidate was hardly a Corbyn loyalist either. If they deselect him I suspect they will come to regret it.
I think the bigger issue is the malign effect of the civil service on ministers, they are far too negative. It's always about what isn't possible and scaring the minister away from actually trying to make the country better, either by keeping a horrific rapist locked up or by reforming the education sector and making it fit for purpose as Gove tried to do.
Partisanship is a hell of a drug.
It costs all of 20p to buy a kg of British carrots:
https://groceries.asda.com/product/carrots/asda-growers-selection-carrots/30240
Although only one intentionally so.
Most people often fail to realize that length has no meaning in the Geneal Theory of Relativity. In Einstein's own words, GTR is a theory only of 'space-time coincidences'. That means all measurement can only be local (at an event) . This destroys the notion of length and time co-ordinates as observables. They only emerge as observables in flat (trivial) space-times.
Physics eh!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salic_law
I am interested to see her majority was slashed in 2017 and she only has a majority of 1208 now. With the DUP in second, and SF the SDLP getting a combined 2.4% in the seat (and that with SF increasing their share), that is one strong Unionist seat.
The NI Conservatives even almost held their deposit in 2015.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/979083061651542017
And it has all worked out anyway.
Highest level of nerve agent on Skripal's front door
Their home was the first place they came in contact with the nerve agent
Sam Coates Times
Verified account @SamCoatesTimes
17m17 minutes ago
Latest YouGov voting intention - here at 10pm
If he had pursued a JR and lost - then he would have been in a far worse position. The legal advice looks pretty nuanced to me and I can see why that judgement call was made.
Far better to maintain the separation of the Parole Board and DoJ
It was a really stressful time for me.
No wonder they lost to a bus.
Crazy
It may well be difficult for the parole board to take the decision. But as we have now had a judgement that the original decision was flawed, I fail to see how asking the board to do it again and properly this time, is worse than leaving in place a decision which was so flawed a court overturned it.