Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » After long periods heading the “next PM” betting punters are m

SystemSystem Posts: 6,199
edited April 1 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » After long periods heading the “next PM” betting punters are moving away from Corbyn

Betdata.io

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,597
    edited April 1
    There are two main drivers to this market as Mike says.

    If you think that TMay will stand down prior to the next election (which will depend on when that is) then Tories look the right horse.

    If you think she will lead the Cons into the next election, then you have to ask yourself if Corbyn would beat her.

    I am not convinced this market should be drifting for Corbyn. May looks a bit (a bit) more secure whereas Salisbury only speaks to whether Corbyn would defeat her at a re-run of last year's election.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,824
    edited April 1
    42% of Tory members want May to lead the party into the next general election according to a new Conservative Home poll, though 47% still want her to step down before the next general election.

    Only 8% want May to step down as Tory leader now

    https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/04/support-for-may-leading-the-conservatives-into-the-next-election-hits-its-highest-total-yet.html
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,556
    Who or what is the grey line which peaks at >20% and then falls away to nothing?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 13,817
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Who or what is the grey line which peaks at >20% and then falls away to nothing?

    Or the yellow line?

    Guessing one of those lines might be George Osborne who's no longer an MP.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,202


    Who knew the middle classes were so stuffed full of Stalinist anti-semites?
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,281
    Even 70% of pre-2015 members believe Corbyn is doing well.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,597
    edited April 1

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Who or what is the grey line which peaks at >20% and then falls away to nothing?

    Or the yellow line?

    Guessing one of those lines might be George Osborne who's no longer an MP.
    Grey is David Davis, [edit2: yellow is Hammond. or maybe vice-versa]
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 11,801
    edited April 1

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    The seamless way that PB can go from fudging Bojo's racist terminology to getting all sanctimonious on the ass of a Jewish person recounting a joke is almost..ALMOST..impressive.

    Cracking point, except that I said nothing about the loathsome Bojo , I don't believe roger is Jewish, and I really am genuinely against antisemitism and death camps and stuff, if you can believe such a thing.
    You'll have to get over this thing that posts are all about YOU.
    I did check, and thought I was the most likely candidate. Happy Easter.
    FPT

    Same to you.

    By the bye, on the basis of several thing Roger has mentioned in the past, I'd assumed he was Jewish. Since I tend to think of that as mostly a positive, I hadn't really thought much more about it. If it's not the case apologies to him, no one likes an identity thrust upon them.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,281

    The seamless way that PB can go from fudging Bojo's racist terminology to getting all sanctimonious on the ass of a Jewish person recounting a joke is almost..ALMOST..impressive.

    LOL, I was thinking the same as well.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 22,462
    "Top Labour donor Sir David Garrard quits party over anti-Semitism row

    Sir David Garrard has donated about £1.5m since 2003, but says the party he had supported "no longer exists"."


    https://news.sky.com/story/top-labour-donor-sir-david-garrard-quits-party-over-anti-semitism-row-11312352
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,202
    edited April 1
    Phil Wilson, Labour MP for Sedgefield:

    "Labour is a political party, not a cult."

    (https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-labour-party-antisemitism-criticism-a8283666.html)


    I think you mean "was" Phil, sorry to say.



  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,202
    AndyJS said:

    "Top Labour donor Sir David Garrard quits party over anti-Semitism row

    Sir David Garrard has donated about £1.5m since 2003, but says the party he had supported "no longer exists"."


    https://news.sky.com/story/top-labour-donor-sir-david-garrard-quits-party-over-anti-semitism-row-11312352

    Well, who can blame him. Who would want to be associated with all this?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,151
    HYUFD said:


    Only 8% want May to step down as Tory leader now

    That's the extent of the headbangers in the party.

    8%.

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,202

    Even 70% of pre-2015 members believe Corbyn is doing well.
    Rentoul suggests that means the pre-2015 non-corbynites have left.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,281

    Even 70% of pre-2015 members believe Corbyn is doing well.
    Rentoul suggests that means the pre-2015 non-corbynites have left.
    Tbh, I don’t really buy into his suggestion. Many pre 2015 members voted for Corbyn to be leader in the first place.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,597

    Even 70% of pre-2015 members believe Corbyn is doing well.
    Rentoul suggests that means the pre-2015 non-corbynites have left.
    Tbh, I don’t really buy into his suggestion. Many pre 2015 members voted for Corbyn to be leader in the first place.
    I think the stats mean there must be an element to which those people that voted ABC have left the party since.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,765

    AndyJS said:

    "Top Labour donor Sir David Garrard quits party over anti-Semitism row

    Sir David Garrard has donated about £1.5m since 2003, but says the party he had supported "no longer exists"."


    https://news.sky.com/story/top-labour-donor-sir-david-garrard-quits-party-over-anti-semitism-row-11312352

    Well, who can blame him. Who would want to be associated with all this?
    Statistically, the vast majority of Labour members who think Corbyn is handling his job and this issue very well.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 2,664
    kle4 said:

    AndyJS said:

    "Top Labour donor Sir David Garrard quits party over anti-Semitism row

    Sir David Garrard has donated about £1.5m since 2003, but says the party he had supported "no longer exists"."


    https://news.sky.com/story/top-labour-donor-sir-david-garrard-quits-party-over-anti-semitism-row-11312352

    Well, who can blame him. Who would want to be associated with all this?
    Statistically, the vast majority of Labour members who think Corbyn is handling his job and this issue very well.
    How many of them think "the issue" is a fiction invented to damage the great leader?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,765

    kle4 said:

    AndyJS said:

    "Top Labour donor Sir David Garrard quits party over anti-Semitism row

    Sir David Garrard has donated about £1.5m since 2003, but says the party he had supported "no longer exists"."


    https://news.sky.com/story/top-labour-donor-sir-david-garrard-quits-party-over-anti-semitism-row-11312352

    Well, who can blame him. Who would want to be associated with all this?
    Statistically, the vast majority of Labour members who think Corbyn is handling his job and this issue very well.
    How many of them think "the issue" is a fiction invented to damage the great leader?
    Hard to say. Some, no doubt, but since Corbyn himself says it is a problem, I can only presume that most think that acknowledgement by him was a sufficient response, pending future action.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,597
    "Labour Party 'not connected'" to Labour for Jeremy, huh.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 3,640
    kle4 said:

    AndyJS said:

    "Top Labour donor Sir David Garrard quits party over anti-Semitism row

    Sir David Garrard has donated about £1.5m since 2003, but says the party he had supported "no longer exists"."


    https://news.sky.com/story/top-labour-donor-sir-david-garrard-quits-party-over-anti-semitism-row-11312352

    Well, who can blame him. Who would want to be associated with all this?
    Statistically, the vast majority of Labour members who think Corbyn is handling his job and this issue very well.
    Of course Labour voters are not the same as Labour members - I am far more interested in seeing polling as to how current and past Labour voters view the situation.

    I suspect it will be significantly different.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 3,357
    https://skwawkbox.org/2018/04/01/times-claims-19-lab-members-recognise-antisemitism-their-own-numbers-say-96/ 77% according to this , think the extent of anti semitism is been deliberately exaggerated to damage Corbyn and stifle critism of the state of Israel.They are quoting Sam Coates of the times and you gov.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,281

    Even 70% of pre-2015 members believe Corbyn is doing well.
    Rentoul suggests that means the pre-2015 non-corbynites have left.
    Tbh, I don’t really buy into his suggestion. Many pre 2015 members voted for Corbyn to be leader in the first place.
    I think the stats mean there must be an element to which those people that voted ABC have left the party since.
    Voted ABC? I’m a bit confused by what you mean there, I’m afraid....
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 3,640
    Yorkcity said:

    https://skwawkbox.org/2018/04/01/times-claims-19-lab-members-recognise-antisemitism-their-own-numbers-say-96/ 77% according to this , think the extent of anti semitism is been deliberately exaggerated to damage Corbyn and stifle critism of the state of Israel.They are quoting Sam Coates of the times and you gov.

    Does anyone actually read skwarkbox and believe anything they print?
  • prh47bridgeprh47bridge Posts: 220
    FPT with apologies for the delayed response. Thought I'd posted before I went out.
    ydoethur said:

    I haven't read the full report. However, what is peculiar about this case is that there was an outside review which dismissed the allegations, and the council overruled that and upheld the complaint. Speaking as somebody else who is heavily involved in safeguarding, that strikes me as to say the least rather odd.

    It is also perhaps important to remember that the role of the LGO is to ensure process is followed. They found it was not.

    https://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/politics/exclusive-husband-of-south-shields-mp-branded-perpetrator-of-elder-abuse-after-care-probe-1-9078881

    Edit - and the council are resisting the findings and refusing to pay the compensation, which I would also point out is to put it mildly a little unusual and may see them get into nasty trouble. That doesn't suggest it is purely about safeguarding.

    I think, from the LGO's report, that the independent social worker only looked at the third set of accusations. I certainly hope that is the case. I would have serious doubts about a social worker who concluded that there was no evidence of abuse when faced with three independent reports of his behaviour. Of course, it is possible that they concluded that swearing at patients, etc., was not abuse, but I hope not. Unfortunately this report is not available so we don't know exactly what it said.

    It is not as unusual as you think for a council to ignore the LGO's findings. The LGO only makes recommendations. Councils don't have to follow them. There are many cases of councils refusing to comply with LGO recommendations. The council won't get into any trouble. And, to be honest, I am not surprised they don't want to pay compensation for procedural errors when dismissing someone for safeguarding concerns that appear to be valid.

    I note, by the way, that Mr Lewell-Buck's lawyer recommended that he go to the LGO rather than go to tribunal for unfair dismissal. To me, that speaks volumes.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,202
    edited April 1

    Yorkcity said:

    https://skwawkbox.org/2018/04/01/times-claims-19-lab-members-recognise-antisemitism-their-own-numbers-say-96/ 77% according to this , think the extent of anti semitism is been deliberately exaggerated to damage Corbyn and stifle critism of the state of Israel.They are quoting Sam Coates of the times and you gov.

    Does anyone actually read skwarkbox and believe anything they print?
    cult members.

    Edit: To take one example:



  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 3,357

    Even 70% of pre-2015 members believe Corbyn is doing well.
    Rentoul suggests that means the pre-2015 non-corbynites have left.
    Tbh, I don’t really buy into his suggestion. Many pre 2015 members voted for Corbyn to be leader in the first place.
    They did , I voted for Andy Burnham as I was entitled to a vote as a member of Unison.Not been a Labour member.However I personally would have felt more comfortable with him as Leader.I find it hard to believe he would have done any better last June .I also voted for him in 2010.The we will cut a bit less had seen its course , with Milliband , even though May seems to like the Ed Balls agenda now.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 3,640

    Yorkcity said:

    https://skwawkbox.org/2018/04/01/times-claims-19-lab-members-recognise-antisemitism-their-own-numbers-say-96/ 77% according to this , think the extent of anti semitism is been deliberately exaggerated to damage Corbyn and stifle critism of the state of Israel.They are quoting Sam Coates of the times and you gov.

    Does anyone actually read skwarkbox and believe anything they print?
    cult members.

    Edit: To take one example:



    Williamson is a ridiculously offensive waste of bandwidth
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,202

    Yorkcity said:

    https://skwawkbox.org/2018/04/01/times-claims-19-lab-members-recognise-antisemitism-their-own-numbers-say-96/ 77% according to this , think the extent of anti semitism is been deliberately exaggerated to damage Corbyn and stifle critism of the state of Israel.They are quoting Sam Coates of the times and you gov.

    Does anyone actually read skwarkbox and believe anything they print?
    cult members.

    Edit: To take one example:



    Williamson is a ridiculously offensive waste of bandwidth
    This comment of his is typical: "With solidarity we'll defeat the haters."

    Haters being anyone who doesn't actually agree that Jezza is the second coming.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 3,357

    Yorkcity said:

    https://skwawkbox.org/2018/04/01/times-claims-19-lab-members-recognise-antisemitism-their-own-numbers-say-96/ 77% according to this , think the extent of anti semitism is been deliberately exaggerated to damage Corbyn and stifle critism of the state of Israel.They are quoting Sam Coates of the times and you gov.

    Does anyone actually read skwarkbox and believe anything they print?
    Well they are quoting Sam Coates of the times and you gov are they wrong about this poll ?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,202
    Williamson does a good job however of showing us what living under a Corbyn government will be like, if you happen not to agree he should be PM.

  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 3,640
    Yorkcity said:

    Yorkcity said:

    https://skwawkbox.org/2018/04/01/times-claims-19-lab-members-recognise-antisemitism-their-own-numbers-say-96/ 77% according to this , think the extent of anti semitism is been deliberately exaggerated to damage Corbyn and stifle critism of the state of Israel.They are quoting Sam Coates of the times and you gov.

    Does anyone actually read skwarkbox and believe anything they print?
    Well they are quoting Sam Coates of the times and you gov are they wrong about this poll ?
    Oh FFS
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,597

    Even 70% of pre-2015 members believe Corbyn is doing well.
    Rentoul suggests that means the pre-2015 non-corbynites have left.
    Tbh, I don’t really buy into his suggestion. Many pre 2015 members voted for Corbyn to be leader in the first place.
    I think the stats mean there must be an element to which those people that voted ABC have left the party since.
    Voted ABC? I’m a bit confused by what you mean there, I’m afraid....
    Anyone but Corbyn: Burnham, Cooper, Kendall.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,956
    Yorkcity said:

    Yorkcity said:

    https://skwawkbox.org/2018/04/01/times-claims-19-lab-members-recognise-antisemitism-their-own-numbers-say-96/ 77% according to this , think the extent of anti semitism is been deliberately exaggerated to damage Corbyn and stifle critism of the state of Israel.They are quoting Sam Coates of the times and you gov.

    Does anyone actually read skwarkbox and believe anything they print?
    Well they are quoting Sam Coates of the times and you gov are they wrong about this poll ?
    They certainly are.

    66 % thought anti-semitism was a genuine problem in Labour. That divided into 19% who simply thought it was a genuine problem, and 47% who thought it was being used to undermine Corbyn and deflect criticism from Israel.

    A further 30% thought there was no problem, but that it was being used to undermine Corbyn and deflect criticism from Israel.

    FPT I thought Roger's joke was a decent one. As he says, Jewish humour is often self-mocking.
  • JSpringJSpring Posts: 43

    Even 70% of pre-2015 members believe Corbyn is doing well.
    Rentoul suggests that means the pre-2015 non-corbynites have left.
    Tbh, I don’t really buy into his suggestion. Many pre 2015 members voted for Corbyn to be leader in the first place.
    It's likely that a fair few people who voted for both Blair and David Miliband for the Labour leadership also voted for Corbyn in both 2015 and 2016.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,870
    The betting in the chart above is very dependent on whether you think May will be replaced by another Conservative BEFORE the next election. Most of the movement is away from Johnson and towards Ress-Mogg.

    Personally I would put Corbyn ahead of the other favourites in a very poor pool. I could tolerate Hunt or Rudd, if you overlook her dodgy business dealings.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 1,046
    edited April 1

    Even 70% of pre-2015 members believe Corbyn is doing well.
    Rentoul suggests that means the pre-2015 non-corbynites have left.
    Tbh, I don’t really buy into his suggestion. Many pre 2015 members voted for Corbyn to be leader in the first place.
    I think the stats mean there must be an element to which those people that voted ABC have left the party since.
    Voted ABC? I’m a bit confused by what you mean there, I’m afraid....
    Anyone But Corbyn?

    Labour is very London and relatively youth dominated of course these days - but these classifications are about employment and education not wealth. You can be AB - and rent - and actually have less wealth and earn less than a C2 or even a D who owns their own home. A builder or plumber will often be better paid than many so called qualified professionals in office type jobs these days.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 66,923
    I’ve just worked out the result of the Craig Mackinlay trial is expected whilst you’re on holiday.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 1,785
    Does #antisemitegate mean JC has had to keep his stupid trap shut about the recent shenanigans in Gaza? Normally he’d be all over that.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 66,923
    Dura_Ace said:

    Does #antisemitegate mean JC has had to keep his stupid trap shut about the recent shenanigans in Gaza? Normally he’d be all over that.

    Yah.

    Obviously the Israelis are behind the smears against Corbyn for this very reason.

    Perhaps I should tell the cult this.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 3,020
    Dura_Ace said:

    Does #antisemitegate mean JC has had to keep his stupid trap shut about the recent shenanigans in Gaza? Normally he’d be all over that.

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,956

    Dura_Ace said:

    Does #antisemitegate mean JC has had to keep his stupid trap shut about the recent shenanigans in Gaza? Normally he’d be all over that.

    Yah.

    Obviously the Israelis are behind the smears against Corbyn for this very reason.

    Perhaps I should tell the cult this.
    They're very cunning.
  • oldpoliticsoldpolitics Posts: 268
    Dura_Ace said:

    Does #antisemitegate mean JC has had to keep his stupid trap shut about the recent shenanigans in Gaza? Normally he’d be all over that.

    Hasn't stopped him calling for Israel to stand down.

    No mention of any suggestion that Hamas should behave differently.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,385
    Dura_Ace said:

    Does #antisemitegate mean JC has had to keep his stupid trap shut about the recent shenanigans in Gaza? Normally he’d be all over that.

    I'm sure that those who lost family members in Gaza will be relieved to hear that it was merely 'shenanigans'.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 66,923
    edited April 1
    Perhaps all these anti Semite Corbynites have been unduly influenced by the Nazi past of the Queen and her family.

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2015/07/18/europe/uk-queen-nazi-salute-footage/index.html
  • glwglw Posts: 4,316

    Yorkcity said:

    https://skwawkbox.org/2018/04/01/times-claims-19-lab-members-recognise-antisemitism-their-own-numbers-say-96/ 77% according to this , think the extent of anti semitism is been deliberately exaggerated to damage Corbyn and stifle critism of the state of Israel.They are quoting Sam Coates of the times and you gov.

    Does anyone actually read skwarkbox and believe anything they print?
    cult members.

    Edit: To take one example:



    Dismissing the MSM, another similarity with the Trump crowd. Although not quite as bonkers as Trump wanting the Washington Post to register as a lobbyist.
  • PaulyPauly Posts: 860
    Is this an April Fool's? Not even sure I understand the implications of this.


  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 28,974
    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Does #antisemitegate mean JC has had to keep his stupid trap shut about the recent shenanigans in Gaza? Normally he’d be all over that.

    By civilians does he include the hamas military wing that hamas have admitted where present and killed?
  • DanielDaniel Posts: 157
    Pauly said:

    Is this an April Fool's? Not even sure I understand the implications of this.


    It's just the PLP sub group - not the party itself.
  • PaulyPauly Posts: 860
    edited April 1
    Daniel said:

    Pauly said:

    Is this an April Fool's? Not even sure I understand the implications of this.

    ttps://twitter.com/iainjwatson/status/980437247798497281

    It's just the PLP sub group - not the party itself.
    Yeah but are they really having another infight now? It's the Easter break fgs...
  • DanielDaniel Posts: 157
    Pauly said:


    Yeah but are they really having another infight now? It's the Easter break fgs...

    It's nothing new. There has been several problems, especially over transgender rights, in the last few months.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,759
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Clearly, a Hunt-Mordaunt duel is in the national interest.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 3,020

    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Does #antisemitegate mean JC has had to keep his stupid trap shut about the recent shenanigans in Gaza? Normally he’d be all over that.

    By civilians does he include the hamas military wing that hamas have admitted where present and killed?
    I have no idea, just this was Jezzas tweet on the subject.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 5,698
    No fecking kidding

    Moved from wrong headed to actively dangerous
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 10,019
    Remarkable how many good lays there are in that field.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 28,974
    IanB2 said:

    Remarkable how many good lays there are in that field.

    Something I am certain boris has said more than once....
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,202
    Daniel said:

    Pauly said:

    Is this an April Fool's? Not even sure I understand the implications of this.


    It's just the PLP sub group - not the party itself.
    Translation: I'm so angry with how the Party is now led that I'm going to...er...well, to hell with you, I'm going to resign from a sub-committee.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 10,238
    Happy Easter to all.

    Perhaps at this time we might remember some of those oppressed in the Middle East - https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12076/iraq-christians-disappeared. Prince Charles was right to raise their plight.

    It is so sad to think that Christianity might vanish from the place of its birth.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,679
    edited April 1
    @prh47bridge

    I think you're misreading the LGO report.

    It was into whether the council followed its own safeguarding procedures. It couldn't rule on the truth or falsehood of those allegations because they were made to organisations outside its remit. Moreover, a tribunal could hardly be convened for wrongful dismissal because he had left the employ of the organisations in question before the allegations were made. These charges came to light only when Simon Buck was denied a university place.

    It also states, remarkably, that the only allegation that was investigated by an outside professional was dismissed, but that the council still decided it had happened. That strikes me as quite extraordinary.

    Normally I would agree with you that three independent witnesses reporting similar behaviour is to say the least suggestive, but there are not - there appears to be one substantiated albeit quite minor charge of neglect, and a number of other allegations, none of them amounting to safeguarding concerns but rather professional misconduct that are unproven but the council is adamant for unknown reasons are true. This is compounded by the fact that in the LGO's view, there was a failure to follow the council's own procedure at every single stage of the investigation.

    Now we have the council not disputing the LGO's findings, but refusing to pay because they are standing by the results of their meetings rather than of the independent investigations. You couldn't make this up. You are right about the LGO's powers, which surprises me, but I can see this going all the way to the High Court.

    I have to say, this stinks. Something is clearly wrong here and in the absence of further evidence a vendetta/conspiracy looks possible, to put it no more strongly than that.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,202
    Message to Labour MPs:

    "the last remaining option is to remove Corbyn and his acolytes the only way you can: by forming a new parliamentary grouping, the Progressive Labour Party. Sign up enough MPs to dwarf the SNP and you’ll get some short money to tide you over until private donors can be tapped."

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/the-question-labour-moderates-must-ask-themselves/
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,281
    edited April 1

    Message to Labour MPs:

    "the last remaining option is to remove Corbyn and his acolytes the only way you can: by forming a new parliamentary grouping, the Progressive Labour Party. Sign up enough MPs to dwarf the SNP and you’ll get some short money to tide you over until private donors can be tapped."

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/the-question-labour-moderates-must-ask-themselves/

    I knew that was Stephen Daisley even before clicking the link.

    Stephen Bush just called him out on this on twitter:

  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 964

    Message to Labour MPs:

    "the last remaining option is to remove Corbyn and his acolytes the only way you can: by forming a new parliamentary grouping, the Progressive Labour Party. Sign up enough MPs to dwarf the SNP and you’ll get some short money to tide you over until private donors can be tapped."

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/the-question-labour-moderates-must-ask-themselves/

    I don't think they could call themselves that, can't remember where I read it but there is something about similar names not being allowed. They could use the name Progress or something. Trouble is I think they struggle to get north of 50 MPs, be enough to replace the SNP as the 3rd party though. At least until an election.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 22,462
    The murder rate in London is higher than New York City for the first time according to the Sunday Times.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,202

    Message to Labour MPs:

    "the last remaining option is to remove Corbyn and his acolytes the only way you can: by forming a new parliamentary grouping, the Progressive Labour Party. Sign up enough MPs to dwarf the SNP and you’ll get some short money to tide you over until private donors can be tapped."

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/the-question-labour-moderates-must-ask-themselves/

    I don't think they could call themselves that, can't remember where I read it but there is something about similar names not being allowed. They could use the name Progress or something. Trouble is I think they struggle to get north of 50 MPs, be enough to replace the SNP as the 3rd party though. At least until an election.
    Electoral Commission wont allow similar names. But if they aren't actually planning to stand in an election then maybe wouldn't matter. I don't know.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,824
    Cyclefree said:

    Happy Easter to all.

    Perhaps at this time we might remember some of those oppressed in the Middle East - https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12076/iraq-christians-disappeared. Prince Charles was right to raise their plight.

    It is so sad to think that Christianity might vanish from the place of its birth.

    It won't from Jerusalem or Bethlehem, there is a significant Christian presence in both the Israeli and Palestinian Authority areas
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,591

    Message to Labour MPs:

    "the last remaining option is to remove Corbyn and his acolytes the only way you can: by forming a new parliamentary grouping, the Progressive Labour Party. Sign up enough MPs to dwarf the SNP and you’ll get some short money to tide you over until private donors can be tapped."

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/the-question-labour-moderates-must-ask-themselves/

    I don't think they could call themselves that, can't remember where I read it but there is something about similar names not being allowed. They could use the name Progress or something. Trouble is I think they struggle to get north of 50 MPs, be enough to replace the SNP as the 3rd party though. At least until an election.
    There were 172 rebels at one time and there are 80 plus committed remain labour MP's. 42 signed the letter to Corbyn protesting over anti semetic issues so it does not take a lot of imagination that if there are 50 who absolutely leave that number could grow in excess of 100
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 10,238
    edited April 1
    A few comments on Corbyn:-

    1. When Corbyn first became a candidate for leader, quite a few raised concerns for precisely the reasons which have become evident in recent days - and were roundly poo-poohed. We were told not to be silly and that Corbyn could not be blamed for whom he happened to be standing next to. Well, as we’ve seen (and as some of us said at the time) he did not “happen” to stand by these people. He chose to do so.

    2. The risks for Labour now are two-fold:-

    - that more is uncovered which relates to Corbyn directly: what he may have said or done in the past.
    - that there is some violence or atrocity and that there are not many degrees of separation between the perpetrators and the Labour leadership. I fervently hope this does not happen.

    It is sad, very sad, that Labour should have come to this.

    What is also very worrying that some should be sanguine at the prospect of Holocaust deniers being given a free pass. Quite apart from questions of moral decency, these are people who deny facts - provable facts - and to have such people anywhere near public policy is very worrying.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 1,046
    edited April 1
    Well CA were seeking to target probable leave voters!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,609
    Looks like he’s made the whole thing private while he sorts out the mess. Sensible idea, albeit long overdue.
  • prh47bridgeprh47bridge Posts: 220
    ydoethur said:

    @prh47bridge

    I think you're misreading the LGO report.

    I didn't say the LGO ruled on truth or falsehood of the allegations. It did, however, specifically find that there was no vendetta against him or his wife. You are right that he left and was not dismissed - my mistake. However, two of the three allegations were made and investigated whilst he was still employed. The final allegation came after he left but came to light when the care agency for whom he had worked asked him to attend a meeting to discuss care standards, not when he was denied the university place he had previously been awarded. The allegations were put to him at that meeting. The university's decision to remove him from the course was separate from the council's, although it was clearly based on the same information. The NHS Trust also decided against Mr Buck based on this information.

    I find the words the LGO used about the independent social worker's report interesting. They say the social worker found no evidence of abuse and therefore neglect could not be substantiated. That isn't the same as saying they found all the allegations made by Mr C's family unproven. But there isn't much point speculating about this report. All three agencies involved (the council, the NHS Trust and the university) had access to this report and all three appear to have concluded that the incidents happened.

    I am surprised you think that swearing at care home patients and their families is not a safeguarding concern, this being the common element in all three allegations. Without going into details, I know for a fact that care homes where I live would regard this as a significant safeguarding issue.

    Yes, there were some failures to follow procedure but it is not clear that these in any way affected the outcome.

    Judicial review would be the next step if Mr Buck wishes to take it further. I would be surprised if his lawyer advises him to go down that route. I doubt it would get him anywhere. If he did I think the council may be ordered to pay him the £400 awarded by the LGO, although that is not certain, but there is a reasonable chance the court would decide he should bear his own legal costs, which would wipe out the award.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,591
    Sandpit said:

    Looks like he’s made the whole thing private while he sorts out the mess. Sensible idea, albeit long overdue.
    There has to be an irony in that Corbyn has set so much store on social media but it is now devouring him
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,489
    Cyclefree said:

    A few comments on Corbyn:-

    1. When Corbyn first became a candidate for leader, quite a few raised concerns for precisely the reasons which have become evident in recent days - and were roundly poo-poohed. We were told not to be silly and that Corbyn could not be blamed for whom he happened to be standing next to. Well, as we’ve seen (and as some of us said at the time) he did not “happen” to stand by these people. He chose to do so.

    2. The risks for Labour now are two-fold:-

    - that more is uncovered which relates to Corbyn directly: what he may have said or done in the past.
    - that there is some violence or atrocity and that there are not many degrees of separation between the perpetrators and the Labour leadership. I fervently hope this does not happen.

    It is sad, very sad, that Labour should have come to this.

    What is also very worrying that some should be sanguine at the prospect of Holocaust deniers being given a free pass. Quite apart from questions of moral decency, these are people who deny facts - provable facts - and to have such people anywhere near public policy is very worrying.

    Labour have had the same problem as the Republicans. They became so disillusioned in opposition they backed whoever was most anti-their enemy regardless of the magnitude of his flaws.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 964

    Message to Labour MPs:

    "the last remaining option is to remove Corbyn and his acolytes the only way you can: by forming a new parliamentary grouping, the Progressive Labour Party. Sign up enough MPs to dwarf the SNP and you’ll get some short money to tide you over until private donors can be tapped."

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/the-question-labour-moderates-must-ask-themselves/

    I don't think they could call themselves that, can't remember where I read it but there is something about similar names not being allowed. They could use the name Progress or something. Trouble is I think they struggle to get north of 50 MPs, be enough to replace the SNP as the 3rd party though. At least until an election.
    There were 172 rebels at one time and there are 80 plus committed remain labour MP's. 42 signed the letter to Corbyn protesting over anti semetic issues so it does not take a lot of imagination that if there are 50 who absolutely leave that number could grow in excess of 100
    Obviously difficult to know what some of them are really thinking but I couldn't see it getting anywhere near the 172, certainly some of those went with the flow on the assumption he would be gone, as probably best evidenced by one of them quickly coming back, rather than necessarily a complete inability to work with him and indeed some would have worried that he was an electoral liability, which will be gone now.

    I was imagining over 50, or lets say less than 60 as a higher end figure already, even if the core decided to split off (so the split is already on) I couldn't really see it going much further without big shifts in public opinion to give them more confidence. It looks at the moment as if this new party would do pretty badly come election time, which would happen eventually, and that would put some off who might want to leave and would be tempted if a group split off.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,489
    Floater said:

    No fecking kidding

    Moved from wrong headed to actively dangerous
    They are now, clearly, a far left party from the leader to the party managers to the membership. The MPs are the odd ones out, but they are so willing to keep their heads down they may as well be. They think keeping their heads down and something might turn up in office. The example of Trump shows that is not the case.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 3,357
    Cyclefree said:

    A few comments on Corbyn:-

    1. When Corbyn first became a candidate for leader, quite a few raised concerns for precisely the reasons which have become evident in recent days - and were roundly poo-poohed. We were told not to be silly and that Corbyn could not be blamed for whom he happened to be standing next to. Well, as we’ve seen (and as some of us said at the time) he did not “happen” to stand by these people. He chose to do so.

    2. The risks for Labour now are two-fold:-

    - that more is uncovered which relates to Corbyn directly: what he may have said or done in the past.
    - that there is some violence or atrocity and that there are not many degrees of separation between the perpetrators and the Labour leadership. I fervently hope this does not happen.

    It is sad, very sad, that Labour should have come to this.

    What is also very worrying that some should be sanguine at the prospect of Holocaust deniers being given a free pass. Quite apart from questions of moral decency, these are people who deny facts - provable facts - and to have such people anywhere near public policy is very worrying.

    Who is denying the Holocaust ? I wish someone would name them, their position , then surely it could be dealt with with If they are members of the party , they should be thrown out.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 964
    Elliot said:

    Cyclefree said:

    A few comments on Corbyn:-

    1. When Corbyn first became a candidate for leader, quite a few raised concerns for precisely the reasons which have become evident in recent days - and were roundly poo-poohed. We were told not to be silly and that Corbyn could not be blamed for whom he happened to be standing next to. Well, as we’ve seen (and as some of us said at the time) he did not “happen” to stand by these people. He chose to do so.

    2. The risks for Labour now are two-fold:-

    - that more is uncovered which relates to Corbyn directly: what he may have said or done in the past.
    - that there is some violence or atrocity and that there are not many degrees of separation between the perpetrators and the Labour leadership. I fervently hope this does not happen.

    It is sad, very sad, that Labour should have come to this.

    What is also very worrying that some should be sanguine at the prospect of Holocaust deniers being given a free pass. Quite apart from questions of moral decency, these are people who deny facts - provable facts - and to have such people anywhere near public policy is very worrying.

    Labour have had the same problem as the Republicans. They became so disillusioned in opposition they backed whoever was most anti-their enemy regardless of the magnitude of his flaws.
    I think Labour members went for a mix of the left wing candidate and the one who presented a vision. If I remember rightly the Tories were quite happy with the choice of Corbyn and a few joined to vote for him as well. To say he was picked to wind Tories up or for his hatred of Tories is pretty much a complete rewriting of history.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,591

    Message to Labour MPs:

    "the last remaining option is to remove Corbyn and his acolytes the only way you can: by forming a new parliamentary grouping, the Progressive Labour Party. Sign up enough MPs to dwarf the SNP and you’ll get some short money to tide you over until private donors can be tapped."

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/the-question-labour-moderates-must-ask-themselves/

    I don't think they could call themselves that, can't remember where I read it but there is something about similar names not being allowed. They could use the name Progress or something. Trouble is I think they struggle to get north of 50 MPs, be enough to replace the SNP as the 3rd party though. At least until an election.
    There were 172 rebels at one time and there are 80 plus committed remain labour MP's. 42 signed the letter to Corbyn protesting over anti semetic issues so it does not take a lot of imagination that if there are 50 who absolutely leave that number could grow in excess of 100
    Obviously difficult to know what some of them are really thinking but I couldn't see it getting anywhere near the 172, certainly some of those went with the flow on the assumption he would be gone, as probably best evidenced by one of them quickly coming back, rather than necessarily a complete inability to work with him and indeed some would have worried that he was an electoral liability, which will be gone now.

    I was imagining over 50, or lets say less than 60 as a higher end figure already, even if the core decided to split off (so the split is already on) I couldn't really see it going much further without big shifts in public opinion to give them more confidence. It looks at the moment as if this new party would do pretty badly come election time, which would happen eventually, and that would put some off who might want to leave and would be tempted if a group split off.
    You make good points but if the split happens it needs to be sufficient to be credible and with a leader who could provide a 'Macron' effect and attract substantial sponsorship to allow it to establish itself before the next election circa 2022.

    It does seem unlikely but each day seems to be a bad news day, especially for Corbyn, and the media seem to be in full pursuit
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 66,923
    Yorkcity said:

    Cyclefree said:

    A few comments on Corbyn:-

    1. When Corbyn first became a candidate for leader, quite a few raised concerns for precisely the reasons which have become evident in recent days - and were roundly poo-poohed. We were told not to be silly and that Corbyn could not be blamed for whom he happened to be standing next to. Well, as we’ve seen (and as some of us said at the time) he did not “happen” to stand by these people. He chose to do so.

    2. The risks for Labour now are two-fold:-

    - that more is uncovered which relates to Corbyn directly: what he may have said or done in the past.
    - that there is some violence or atrocity and that there are not many degrees of separation between the perpetrators and the Labour leadership. I fervently hope this does not happen.

    It is sad, very sad, that Labour should have come to this.

    What is also very worrying that some should be sanguine at the prospect of Holocaust deniers being given a free pass. Quite apart from questions of moral decency, these are people who deny facts - provable facts - and to have such people anywhere near public policy is very worrying.

    Who is denying the Holocaust ? I wish someone would name them, their position , then surely it could be dealt with with If they are members of the party , they should be thrown out.
    Alan Bull for starters, prospective Labour councillor.

    http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/labour-alan-bull-council-holocaust-hoax/

    It is because of this Christine Shawcroft had to resign.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 3,357

    Elliot said:

    Cyclefree said:

    A few comments on Corbyn:-

    1. When Corbyn first became a candidate for leader, quite a few raised concerns for precisely the reasons which have become evident in recent days - and were roundly poo-poohed. We were told not to be silly and that Corbyn could not be blamed for whom he happened to be standing next to. Well, as we’ve seen (and as some of us said at the time) he did not “happen” to stand by these people. He chose to do so.

    2. The risks for Labour now are two-fold:-

    - that more is uncovered which relates to Corbyn directly: what he may have said or done in the past.
    - that there is some violence or atrocity and that there are not many degrees of separation between the perpetrators and the Labour leadership. I fervently hope this does not happen.

    It is sad, very sad, that Labour should have come to this.

    What is also very worrying that some should be sanguine at the prospect of Holocaust deniers being given a free pass. Quite apart from questions of moral decency, these are people who deny facts - provable facts - and to have such people anywhere near public policy is very worrying.

    Labour have had the same problem as the Republicans. They became so disillusioned in opposition they backed whoever was most anti-their enemy regardless of the magnitude of his flaws.
    I think Labour members went for a mix of the left wing candidate and the one who presented a vision. If I remember rightly the Tories were quite happy with the choice of Corbyn and a few joined to vote for him as well. To say he was picked to wind Tories up or for his hatred of Tories is pretty much a complete rewriting of history.
    You are correct there was many conservatives on here , celebrating when he was first elected Labour leader, whatever they say now.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 964

    Yorkcity said:

    Cyclefree said:

    A few comments on Corbyn:-

    1. When Corbyn first became a candidate for leader, quite a few raised concerns for precisely the reasons which have become evident in recent days - and were roundly poo-poohed. We were told not to be silly and that Corbyn could not be blamed for whom he happened to be standing next to. Well, as we’ve seen (and as some of us said at the time) he did not “happen” to stand by these people. He chose to do so.

    2. The risks for Labour now are two-fold:-

    - that more is uncovered which relates to Corbyn directly: what he may have said or done in the past.
    - that there is some violence or atrocity and that there are not many degrees of separation between the perpetrators and the Labour leadership. I fervently hope this does not happen.

    It is sad, very sad, that Labour should have come to this.

    What is also very worrying that some should be sanguine at the prospect of Holocaust deniers being given a free pass. Quite apart from questions of moral decency, these are people who deny facts - provable facts - and to have such people anywhere near public policy is very worrying.

    Who is denying the Holocaust ? I wish someone would name them, their position , then surely it could be dealt with with If they are members of the party , they should be thrown out.
    Alan Bull for starters, prospective Labour councillor.

    http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/labour-alan-bull-council-holocaust-hoax/

    It is because of this Christine Shawcroft had to resign.
    I think he was looking for the ones being given a free pass for it.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,281
    Elliot said:

    Cyclefree said:

    A few comments on Corbyn:-

    1. When Corbyn first became a candidate for leader, quite a few raised concerns for precisely the reasons which have become evident in recent days - and were roundly poo-poohed. We were told not to be silly and that Corbyn could not be blamed for whom he happened to be standing next to. Well, as we’ve seen (and as some of us said at the time) he did not “happen” to stand by these people. He chose to do so.

    2. The risks for Labour now are two-fold:-

    - that more is uncovered which relates to Corbyn directly: what he may have said or done in the past.
    - that there is some violence or atrocity and that there are not many degrees of separation between the perpetrators and the Labour leadership. I fervently hope this does not happen.

    It is sad, very sad, that Labour should have come to this.

    What is also very worrying that some should be sanguine at the prospect of Holocaust deniers being given a free pass. Quite apart from questions of moral decency, these are people who deny facts - provable facts - and to have such people anywhere near public policy is very worrying.

    Labour have had the same problem as the Republicans. They became so disillusioned in opposition they backed whoever was most anti-their enemy regardless of the magnitude of his flaws.
    I don’t think that’s Labour’s issue. Corbyn got elected not because of what he what he was against but what was for. I remember that leadership campaign in 2015, and where he was effective in setting out his vision and what he believed in, the other candidates were not. As someone mentioned in a thread yesterday, there are differences between Labour moderates in 1990s - who actually had a vision/policy ideas - and Labour moderates today, who are lacking in that department.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,489

    Elliot said:

    Cyclefree said:

    A few comments on Corbyn:-

    1. When Corbyn first became a candidate for leader, quite a few raised concerns for precisely the reasons which have become evident in recent days - and were roundly poo-poohed. We were told not to be silly and that Corbyn could not be blamed for whom he happened to be standing next to. Well, as we’ve seen (and as some of us said at the time) he did not “happen” to stand by these people. He chose to do so.

    2. The risks for Labour now are two-fold:-

    - that more is uncovered which relates to Corbyn directly: what he may have said or done in the past.
    - that there is some violence or atrocity and that there are not many degrees of separation between the perpetrators and the Labour leadership. I fervently hope this does not happen.

    It is sad, very sad, that Labour should have come to this.

    What is also very worrying that some should be sanguine at the prospect of Holocaust deniers being given a free pass. Quite apart from questions of moral decency, these are people who deny facts - provable facts - and to have such people anywhere near public policy is very worrying.

    Labour have had the same problem as the Republicans. They became so disillusioned in opposition they backed whoever was most anti-their enemy regardless of the magnitude of his flaws.
    I think Labour members went for a mix of the left wing candidate and the one who presented a vision. If I remember rightly the Tories were quite happy with the choice of Corbyn and a few joined to vote for him as well. To say he was picked to wind Tories up or for his hatred of Tories is pretty much a complete rewriting of history.
    He wasn't picked to "wind up" Tories. He was picked because he was the most implacably opposed to them. Even your talk about "vision" says this. You redefine "vision" to be limited to only things which were wholesale rejections of everything supposedly "Tory". The social democracy visions of people like Cooper or Burnham just didn't count because it wasn't sufficiently rejections of "neoliberalism" (aka anything dealing with the flaws of 1970s style socialism).
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,281
    Yorkcity said:

    Elliot said:

    Cyclefree said:

    A few comments on Corbyn:-

    1. When Corbyn first became a candidate for leader, quite a few raised concerns for precisely the reasons which have become evident in recent days - and were roundly poo-poohed. We were told not to be silly and that Corbyn could not be blamed for whom he happened to be standing next to. Well, as we’ve seen (and as some of us said at the time) he did not “happen” to stand by these people. He chose to do so.

    2. The risks for Labour now are two-fold:-

    - that more is uncovered which relates to Corbyn directly: what he may have said or done in the past.
    - that there is some violence or atrocity and that there are not many degrees of separation between the perpetrators and the Labour leadership. I fervently hope this does not happen.

    It is sad, very sad, that Labour should have come to this.

    What is also very worrying that some should be sanguine at the prospect of Holocaust deniers being given a free pass. Quite apart from questions of moral decency, these are people who deny facts - provable facts - and to have such people anywhere near public policy is very worrying.

    Labour have had the same problem as the Republicans. They became so disillusioned in opposition they backed whoever was most anti-their enemy regardless of the magnitude of his flaws.
    I think Labour members went for a mix of the left wing candidate and the one who presented a vision. If I remember rightly the Tories were quite happy with the choice of Corbyn and a few joined to vote for him as well. To say he was picked to wind Tories up or for his hatred of Tories is pretty much a complete rewriting of history.
    You are correct there was many conservatives on here , celebrating when he was first elected Labour leader, whatever they say now.
    This site was literally in celebration mode in September 2015 when he won. We knew how problematic Corbyn was even back then, the difference is Tories on this site thought he guaranteed them years in power so were happy for him to be leader. Now we know that Corbyn could win in 2022 and it’s a different story.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 66,923
    Is Hugo Lloris a vampire, he appears to be scared of crosses.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 964
    edited April 1

    Message to Labour MPs:

    "the last remaining option is to remove Corbyn and his acolytes the only way you can: by forming a new parliamentary grouping, the Progressive Labour Party. Sign up enough MPs to dwarf the SNP and you’ll get some short money to tide you over until private donors can be tapped."

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/the-question-labour-moderates-must-ask-themselves/

    You make good points but if the split happens it needs to be sufficient to be credible and with a leader who could provide a 'Macron' effect and attract substantial sponsorship to allow it to establish itself before the next election circa 2022.

    It does seem unlikely but each day seems to be a bad news day, especially for Corbyn, and the media seem to be in full pursuit
    A leader is probably one of the important factors as you somewhat allude to with Macron, I think a lot of the talk about David Miliband coming back was due to the lack of good leaders for the centre faction. They need something about them to avoid the same trap the Lib Dems fell into at the last election, stopping Brexit alone seems a tricky one as Corbyn is popular in many of the places remain did best.

    It isn't impossible but I think events would need to really play in the central factions favour and a leader emerges from among them that could get serious traction with the public.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 964
    Elliot said:

    Elliot said:

    Cyclefree said:

    A few comments on Corbyn:-

    1. When Corbyn first became a candidate for leader, quite a few raised concerns for precisely the reasons which have become evident in recent days - and were roundly poo-poohed. We were told not to be silly and that Corbyn could not be blamed for whom he happened to be standing next to. Well, as we’ve seen (and as some of us said at the time) he did not “happen” to stand by these people. He chose to do so.

    2. The risks for Labour now are two-fold:-

    - that more is uncovered which relates to Corbyn directly: what he may have said or done in the past.
    - that there is some violence or atrocity and that there are not many degrees of separation between the perpetrators and the Labour leadership. I fervently hope this does not happen.

    It is sad, very sad, that Labour should have come to this.

    What is also very worrying that some should be sanguine at the prospect of Holocaust deniers being given a free pass. Quite apart from questions of moral decency, these are people who deny facts - provable facts - and to have such people anywhere near public policy is very worrying.

    Labour have had the same problem as the Republicans. They became so disillusioned in opposition they backed whoever was most anti-their enemy regardless of the magnitude of his flaws.
    I think Labour members went for a mix of the left wing candidate and the one who presented a vision. If I remember rightly the Tories were quite happy with the choice of Corbyn and a few joined to vote for him as well. To say he was picked to wind Tories up or for his hatred of Tories is pretty much a complete rewriting of history.
    He wasn't picked to "wind up" Tories. He was picked because he was the most implacably opposed to them. Even your talk about "vision" says this. You redefine "vision" to be limited to only things which were wholesale rejections of everything supposedly "Tory". The social democracy visions of people like Cooper or Burnham just didn't count because it wasn't sufficiently rejections of "neoliberalism" (aka anything dealing with the flaws of 1970s style socialism).
    Well Apocalypse who doesn't even like Corbyn made a similar point regarding vision so I'm not sure the charge really sticks. Although there is certainly nothing wrong with Labour picking a candidate who pushes left wing ideas. Certainly the charge the parties had become too similar and there was no real choice probably wasn't good for democracy considering they are both probably the only realistic winners.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,385

    Message to Labour MPs:

    "the last remaining option is to remove Corbyn and his acolytes the only way you can: by forming a new parliamentary grouping, the Progressive Labour Party. Sign up enough MPs to dwarf the SNP and you’ll get some short money to tide you over until private donors can be tapped."

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/the-question-labour-moderates-must-ask-themselves/

    You make good points but if the split happens it needs to be sufficient to be credible and with a leader who could provide a 'Macron' effect and attract substantial sponsorship to allow it to establish itself before the next election circa 2022.

    It does seem unlikely but each day seems to be a bad news day, especially for Corbyn, and the media seem to be in full pursuit
    A leader is probably one of the important factors as you somewhat allude to with Macron, I think a lot of the talk about David Miliband coming back was due to the lack of good leaders for the centre faction. They need something about them to avoid the same trap the Lib Dems fell into at the last election, stopping Brexit alone seems a tricky one as Corbyn is popular in many of the places remain did best.

    It isn't impossible but I think events would need to really play in the central factions favour and a leader emerges from among them that could get serious traction with the public.
    Liz Kendall got the support of under 5% of the 2015 membership. A Blairite candidate would barely trouble the scorers these days.

    My hope is that the next leader will be a unifying figure from the soft left with charisma, dynamism and a plan for government.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 964

    Message to Labour MPs:

    "the last remaining option is to remove Corbyn and his acolytes the only way you can: by forming a new parliamentary grouping, the Progressive Labour Party. Sign up enough MPs to dwarf the SNP and you’ll get some short money to tide you over until private donors can be tapped."

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/the-question-labour-moderates-must-ask-themselves/

    You make good points but if the split happens it needs to be sufficient to be credible and with a leader who could provide a 'Macron' effect and attract substantial sponsorship to allow it to establish itself before the next election circa 2022.

    It does seem unlikely but each day seems to be a bad news day, especially for Corbyn, and the media seem to be in full pursuit
    A leader is probably one of the important factors as you somewhat allude to with Macron, I think a lot of the talk about David Miliband coming back was due to the lack of good leaders for the centre faction. They need something about them to avoid the same trap the Lib Dems fell into at the last election, stopping Brexit alone seems a tricky one as Corbyn is popular in many of the places remain did best.

    It isn't impossible but I think events would need to really play in the central factions favour and a leader emerges from among them that could get serious traction with the public.
    Liz Kendall got the support of under 5% of the 2015 membership. A Blairite candidate would barely trouble the scorers these days.

    My hope is that the next leader will be a unifying figure from the soft left with charisma, dynamism and a plan for government.
    I feel Ed was given a rough time by some of those to the right of him whereas the next leader should find them much more ready to compromise!

    A few of the ones that come to mind could use some time aside from Emily Thornberry.

  • JSpringJSpring Posts: 43

    Message to Labour MPs:

    "the last remaining option is to remove Corbyn and his acolytes the only way you can: by forming a new parliamentary grouping, the Progressive Labour Party. Sign up enough MPs to dwarf the SNP and you’ll get some short money to tide you over until private donors can be tapped."

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/the-question-labour-moderates-must-ask-themselves/

    You make good points but if the split happens it needs to be sufficient to be credible and with a leader who could provide a 'Macron' effect and attract substantial sponsorship to allow it to establish itself before the next election circa 2022.

    It does seem unlikely but each day seems to be a bad news day, especially for Corbyn, and the media seem to be in full pursuit
    A leader is probably one of the important factors as you somewhat allude to with Macron, I think a lot of the talk about David Miliband coming back was due to the lack of good leaders for the centre faction. They need something about them to avoid the same trap the Lib Dems fell into at the last election, stopping Brexit alone seems a tricky one as Corbyn is popular in many of the places remain did best.

    It isn't impossible but I think events would need to really play in the central factions favour and a leader emerges from among them that could get serious traction with the public.
    Thing is, there is no clearly defined "centre faction" in Labour. It is divided between liberal Blairites such as Umunna and Bradshaw and old school right-wingers (in Labour terms) such as Watson, Burnham and Flint.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 3,357

    Yorkcity said:

    Elliot said:

    Cyclefree said:

    A few comments on Corbyn:-

    1. When Corbyn first became a candidate for leader, quite a few raised concerns for precisely the reasons which have become evident in recent days - and were roundly poo-poohed. We were told not to be silly and that Corbyn could not be blamed for whom he happened to be standing next to. Well, as we’ve seen (and as some of us said at the time) he did not “happen” to stand by these people. He chose to do so.

    2. The risks for Labour now are two-fold:-

    - that more is uncovered which relates to Corbyn directly: what he may have said or done in the past.
    - that there is some violence or atrocity and that there are not many degrees of separation between the perpetrators and the Labour leadership. I fervently hope this does not happen.

    It is sad, very sad, that Labour should have come to this.

    What is also very worrying that some should be sanguine at the prospect of Holocaust deniers being given a free pass. Quite apart from questions of moral decency, these are people who deny facts - provable facts - and to have such people anywhere near public policy is very worrying.

    Labour have had the same problem as the Republicans. They became so disillusioned in opposition they backed whoever was most anti-their enemy regardless of the magnitude of his flaws.
    I think Labour members went for a mix of the left wing candidate and the one who presented a vision. If I remember rightly the Tories were quite happy with the choice of Corbyn and a few joined to vote for him as well. To say he was picked to wind Tories up or for his hatred of Tories is pretty much a complete rewriting of history.
    You are correct there was many conservatives on here , celebrating when he was first elected Labour leader, whatever they say now.
    This site was literally in celebration mode in September 2015 when he won. We knew how problematic Corbyn was even back then, the difference is Tories on this site thought he guaranteed them years in power so were happy for him to be leader. Now we know that Corbyn could win in 2022 and it’s a different story.
    Yes very true , they nearly crapped themselves when that exit poll came out.However in my opinion it was the best result , as it knocked them out of their complacent stupor.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 5,698

    Yorkcity said:

    https://skwawkbox.org/2018/04/01/times-claims-19-lab-members-recognise-antisemitism-their-own-numbers-say-96/ 77% according to this , think the extent of anti semitism is been deliberately exaggerated to damage Corbyn and stifle critism of the state of Israel.They are quoting Sam Coates of the times and you gov.

    Does anyone actually read skwarkbox and believe anything they print?
    cult members.

    Edit: To take one example:



    Williamson is a ridiculously offensive waste of bandwidth
    This comment of his is typical: "With solidarity we'll defeat the haters."

    Haters being anyone who doesn't actually agree that Jezza is the second coming.
    There is an irony there.

    Just look at the hatred they unleash on line on opponents.
This discussion has been closed.