A top down party built by millionaires has less chance of success than those of us seeking to change the Labour party from within. It’s a fool’s errand and will have no impact whatsoever.
I just want to know if they are looking to take on an experienced analyst. Might get paid to explain how FPTP works for 4 years.
Since the plan, such as it exists, seems to not directly try for sitting MP defections, and if the leader of a new group were to be ex-tory or ex-labour it would immediately be seen as being just for that group, a complete political unknown might even be a better option to Front things, famous and charismatic but not obviously one or the other. God knows who fits the bill.
I hope something does happen, it would be interesting, but as noted we are not France and Macron, and even Macron the reality is not Macron the legend of what he achieved, which was still hugely impressive but not quite what some people think.
A top down party built by millionaires has less chance of success than those of us seeking to change the Labour party from within. It’s a fool’s errand and will have no impact whatsoever.
I just want to know if they are looking to take on an experienced analyst. Might get paid to explain how FPTP works for 4 years.
Does that matter? Whether it’s sbout the same, more or even less action needs taking, and either way other parties would be advised to be scouring their memberships to see what level if problem they have as well.
Since the plan, such as it exists, seems to not directly try for sitting MP defections, and if the leader of a new group were to be ex-tory or ex-labour it would immediately be seen as being just for that group, a complete political unknown might even be a better option to Front things, famous and charismatic but not obviously one or the other. God knows who fits the bill.
I hope something does happen, it would be interesting, but as noted we are not France and Macron, and even Macron the reality is not Macron the legend of what he achieved, which was still hugely impressive but not quite what some people think.
And I see that 38degrees has a petition for Boris Johnson to be sacked after his Porton Down 'lie'.
My flabber is well and truly ghasted. The UK is attacked, and they focus the blame on ... us.
To be fair you can think that Russia did it, we should respond, Boris lied* and Boris should be fired.
*You might think things from he lied, he exaggerated the truth for effect, he's a bumbling idiot who just says things. (Snip)
That's not the impression the petition gives.
I'm bemused you see Boris as a 'bumbling idiot', yet seem to like your dear leader. Corbyn just bumbles from one thing to another, yet the devout don't treat his utterances to the same degree of scrutiny?
To be fair I've only read your assessment of the petition. For whatever reason you have to admit Boris said something untrue, which people can (especially if there is advantage) label as lying.
I didn't say I saw him as that just that people might think that. I might say clown, think I heard somewhere Boris described himself as that, I think he has a cleverly built personality which has worked well for him, not sure if that is what leads him to say stupid thing occasionally. Although in this case I think he was just overstating the case for the sake of making it look better.
No I don't think Corbyn is a bumbling idiot, yes I realise it may be shocking that I don't find left wing views crazy. He can go on something of a mumble during his speeches sometimes you could say? Although it is generally about the message for me and his speeches do seem to go down well with other people as well.
A top down party built by millionaires has less chance of success than those of us seeking to change the Labour party from within. It’s a fool’s errand and will have no impact whatsoever.
I just want to know if they are looking to take on an experienced analyst. Might get paid to explain how FPTP works for 4 years.
Ooh that’s a good idea. Given they’ve got £50m to spunk on their vanity project, shouldn’t we all be looking to get involved with them!
Russia has slammed the Queen for downing gin, wine and champagne every day in a 'fake news' propaganda blast against the UK.Senator Aleksey Pushkov, an ally of President Vladimir Putin , said the monarch treats drinking like a "ceremony" while Prime Minster Theresa May has a brandy habit. The politician claimed tell-tale mannerisms reveal the pair as 'unpleasant' heavy drinkers.
Since the plan, such as it exists, seems to not directly try for sitting MP defections, and if the leader of a new group were to be ex-tory or ex-labour it would immediately be seen as being just for that group, a complete political unknown might even be a better option to Front things, famous and charismatic but not obviously one or the other. God knows who fits the bill.
Off the top of my head: David Beckham, (Mel+Sue), Jamie Oliver or Brian Cox?
Actually I can sort of imagine Brian Cox doing it... he's quite pro-EU I think...
”Next up, a group of entrepreneurs with serious money to fund a new enterprise are clustered around Simon Franks, a former Labour donor. They hover in the background, are much discussed and are in touch with the “centrist dads” in the Liberal Democrats and on the moderate wing of Labour. But will they pounce? And what would be their electoral strategy in a country where first past the post makes even a successful national insurgency, with good headline poll figures, an extreme long shot at general elections? Vince Cable, Lib Dem leader, who is struggling to get his own party off life support, says he was invited to lead them but declined because they offered “the kind of ideology-free, technocratic, authoritarian centrism that would be more at home in, say, Singapore”.”
Google a selection of the text to get past the firewall. Being turned down by Vince cable is not a good look (and parenthetically lol at his reason for spurning them *not* being on the lines of ”i already have a credible party to run”).
The idea that their first thought was to ask Vince to do it suggests a shaky grasp of the state of British politics. That would instantly label the new party as a LibDem front with a leader who for whatever reason is not doing well. And in fact he's right, the LibDems are more credinle than this project would be.
That these money men have very little grasp of how to set up a party, or even a platform which might appeal to the wider public seems fairly clear. What it does indicate, though, is that in the unlikely event of a leader with the necessary nous and charisma appearing, the resource question for a new party of the centre isn't an insurmountable hurdle.
Since the plan, such as it exists, seems to not directly try for sitting MP defections, and if the leader of a new group were to be ex-tory or ex-labour it would immediately be seen as being just for that group, a complete political unknown might even be a better option to Front things, famous and charismatic but not obviously one or the other. God knows who fits the bill.
Off the top of my head: David Beckham, (Mel+Sue), Jamie Oliver or Brian Cox?
Actually I can sort of imagine Brian Cox doing it... he's quite pro-EU I think...
Russia has slammed the Queen for downing gin, wine and champagne every day in a 'fake news' propaganda blast against the UK.Senator Aleksey Pushkov, an ally of President Vladimir Putin , said the monarch treats drinking like a "ceremony" while Prime Minster Theresa May has a brandy habit. The politician claimed tell-tale mannerisms reveal the pair as 'unpleasant' heavy drinkers.
Well, we know she does have a Dubonnet and gin before settling down to watch the Daily Politics....
Wasn’t that her Mum’s tipple.
With the serious prospect of having to have weekly visits from Jezza for a lecture on inherited wealth and the rise of the proletariat in a few years time, anyone would be on the sauce.
”Next up, a group of entrepreneurs with serious money to fund a new enterprise are clustered around Simon Franks, a former Labour donor. They hover in the background, are much discussed and are in touch with the “centrist dads” in the Liberal Democrats and on the moderate wing of Labour. But will they pounce? And what would be their electoral strategy in a country where first past the post makes even a successful national insurgency, with good headline poll figures, an extreme long shot at general elections? Vince Cable, Lib Dem leader, who is struggling to get his own party off life support, says he was invited to lead them but declined because they offered “the kind of ideology-free, technocratic, authoritarian centrism that would be more at home in, say, Singapore”.”
Google a selection of the text to get past the firewall. Being turned down by Vince cable is not a good look (and parenthetically lol at his reason for spurning them *not* being on the lines of ”i already have a credible party to run”).
The idea that their first thought was to ask Vince to do it suggests a shaky grasp of the state of British politics. That would instantly label the new party as a LibDem front with a leader who for whatever reason is not doing well. And in fact he's right, the LibDems are more credinle than this project would be.
That these money men have very little grasp of how to set up a party, or even a platform which might appeal to the wider public seems fairly clear. What it does indicate, though, is that in the unlikely event of a leader with the necessary nous and charisma appearing, the resource question for a new party of the centre isn't an insurmountable hurdle.
I'm not sure. They were prepared to limit immigration and increase taxes on the rich, which suggests they are more clued up than the existing centre left and centre right.
Tories are loving being able to focus on Russia rather than their own major inadequacies and ineptness as normal. Great for them having "a big boy did it and ran away" to hide behind.
Since the plan, such as it exists, seems to not directly try for sitting MP defections, and if the leader of a new group were to be ex-tory or ex-labour it would immediately be seen as being just for that group, a complete political unknown might even be a better option to Front things, famous and charismatic but not obviously one or the other. God knows who fits the bill.
Off the top of my head: David Beckham, (Mel+Sue), Jamie Oliver or Brian Cox?
Actually I can sort of imagine Brian Cox doing it... he's quite pro-EU I think...
Unfortunately the problem with it being a political unknown who is famous and charismatic is first why would they want to do it as they would have to totally change careers, and second if they cared enough to do so they were probably outspoken in a very blunt way that most politicians aren’t, and probably have tons of comments on record which would undermine them with large sections of the electorate they would need to get on board.
No, for a strong third party of centrists we really need the LDs back. Problem there is I don’t know if they are centrists anymore, as lots seemed to want to be labour lite, but they still aren’t forgiven for going into coalition, and other than the EU I’m not sure what their key focus is. I remember their manifesto being well presented, but bugger me if I can recall mist detail, apart from social care funding.
Russia has slammed the Queen for downing gin, wine and champagne every day in a 'fake news' propaganda blast against the UK.Senator Aleksey Pushkov, an ally of President Vladimir Putin , said the monarch treats drinking like a "ceremony" while Prime Minster Theresa May has a brandy habit. The politician claimed tell-tale mannerisms reveal the pair as 'unpleasant' heavy drinkers.
And I see that 38degrees has a petition for Boris Johnson to be sacked after his Porton Down 'lie'.
My flabber is well and truly ghasted. The UK is attacked, and they focus the blame on ... us.
To be fair you can think that Russia did it, we should respond, Boris lied* and Boris should be fired.
*You might think things from he lied, he exaggerated the truth for effect, he's a bumbling idiot who just says things. (Snip)
That's not the impression the petition gives.
I'm bemused you see Boris as a 'bumbling idiot', yet seem to like your dear leader. Corbyn just bumbles from one thing to another, yet the devout don't treat his utterances to the same degree of scrutiny?
To be fair I've only read your assessment of the petition. For whatever reason you have to admit Boris said something untrue, which people can (especially if there is advantage) label as lying.
I didn't say I saw him as that just that people might think that. I might say clown, think I heard somewhere Boris described himself as that, I think he has a cleverly built personality which has worked well for him, not sure if that is what leads him to say stupid thing occasionally. Although in this case I think he was just overstating the case for the sake of making it look better.
No I don't think Corbyn is a bumbling idiot, yes I realise it may be shocking that I don't find left wing views crazy. He can go on something of a mumble during his speeches sometimes you could say? Although it is generally about the message for me and his speeches do seem to go down well with other people as well.
It's nothing to do if he mumbles or not: it's the way he isn't really in control of, or willing to yield to, events. This whole antisemitic mess is one of his own making: the Chakrabarti inquiry is widely seen as a whitewash, and he put incompetent non-entities in positions of power in the party just because they are politically reliable - how else to explain Shawcroft? He created the environment that allowed the current scandal to fester. He could have taken control, but did not.
It's always bemusing when people accuse characters in other parties of things, yet ignore them in their own. And for the record, I've criticised Boris plenty of times on here (Garden Bridge etc), but think he has handled this attack on us well.
Chuka Umunna clearly fancies himself as the British Macron but as the article suggests given the difficulties of getting a third party into contention for power under FPTP he is unlikely to leave Labpur unless moves are either made to deselect him or Corbyn loses the next general election and either stays Labour leader or a Corbynista is elected to succeed him
Tories are loving being able to focus on Russia rather than their own major inadequacies and ineptness as normal. Great for them having "a big boy did it and ran away" to hide behind.
I don’t think anyone is loving this Russia situation, even if it does mean alternate headlines for awhile. Particularly as all problems still exist so it’s not even relief.
It sounds like this new outfit is trying to kickstart a movement rather than found a new party. Unusually it would be a movement with a broad range of ideas rather than a single issue. It's an interesting idea because nobody much is operating in this space, including the Lib Dems.
Further on liberalism. I would identify George Osborne and Ed Miliband as liberals. Even though they are in different parties and have different political aims they share common values such as internationalism.and the importance of Adam Smith's "invisible hand". The key fact though is that they are both effectively ex-politicians and out of sorts with their parties.
It sounds like this new outfit is trying to kickstart a movement rather than found a new party. Unusually it would be a movement with a broad range of ideas rather than a single issue. It's an interesting idea because nobody much is operating in this space, including the Lib Dems.
Further on liberalism. I would identify George Osborne and Ed Miliband as liberals. Even though they are in different parties and have different political aims they share common values such as internationalism.and the importance of Adam Smith's "invisible hand". The key fact though is that they are both effectively ex-politicians and out of sorts with their parties.
Did you mean Ed Miliband or David? Not sure Ed is fully on board with Adam Smith imho.
Tories are loving being able to focus on Russia rather than their own major inadequacies and ineptness as normal. Great for them having "a big boy did it and ran away" to hide behind.
I don’t think anyone is loving this Russia situation, even if it does mean alternate headlines for awhile. Particularly as all problems still exist so it’s not even relief.
Indeed. It was hardly something that Britain decided to do, it was forced upon us as half a city centre got cordened off and we had to call in the army to decontaminate it.
I see the justice secretary quoted in the sun (via the bbc online review) as saying he thought long and hard over the Worboys case and won’t be standing down. Damn it. He right not to, but Itd have been my most profitable bet if he left.
And I see that 38degrees has a petition for Boris Johnson to be sacked after his Porton Down 'lie'.
My flabber is well and truly ghasted. The UK is attacked, and they focus the blame on ... us.
To be fair you can think that Russia did it, we should respond, Boris lied* and Boris should be fired.
*You might think things from he lied, he exaggerated the truth for effect, he's a bumbling idiot who just says things. (Snip)
That's not the impression the petition gives.
I'm bemused you see Boris as a 'bumbling idiot', yet seem to like your dear leader. Corbyn just bumbles from one thing to another, yet the devout don't treat his utterances to the same degree of scrutiny?
To be fair I've only read your assessment of the petition. For whatever reason you have to admit Boris said something untrue, which people can (especially if there is advantage) label as lying.
I didn't say I saw him as that just that people might think that. I might say clown, think I heard somewhere Boris described himself as that, I think he has a cleverly built personality which has worked well for him, not sure if that is what leads him to say stupid thing occasionally. Although in this case I think he was just overstating the case for the sake of making it look better.
No I don't think Corbyn is a bumbling idiot, yes I realise it may be shocking that I don't find left wing views crazy. He can go on something of a mumble during his speeches sometimes you could say? Although it is generally about the message for me and his speeches do seem to go down well with other people as well.
It's nothing to do if he mumbles or not: it's the way he isn't really in control of, or willing to yield to, events. This whole antisemitic mess is one of his own making: the Chakrabarti inquiry is widely seen as a whitewash, and he put incompetent non-entities in positions of power in the party just because they are politically reliable - how else to explain Shawcroft? He created the environment that allowed the current scandal to fester. He could have taken control, but did not.
It's always bemusing when people accuse characters in other parties of things, yet ignore them in their own. And for the record, I've criticised Boris plenty of times on here (Garden Bridge etc), but think he has handled this attack on us well.
Yes lying through his teeth is the British way for sure. You Tory fanboys are easily pleased when you think that government ministers blatantly lying to the public is handling a crisis well. Is it any Surprise England (sic UK ) is at the bottom of the 3rd division. Stupid compliant Donkeys led by loathsome lying Donkeys
It sounds like this new outfit is trying to kickstart a movement rather than found a new party. Unusually it would be a movement with a broad range of ideas rather than a single issue. It's an interesting idea because nobody much is operating in this space, including the Lib Dems.
Further on liberalism. I would identify George Osborne and Ed Miliband as liberals. Even though they are in different parties and have different political aims they share common values such as internationalism.and the importance of Adam Smith's "invisible hand". The key fact though is that they are both effectively ex-politicians and out of sorts with their parties.
No wonder none of your posts make any sense. You think Ed Miliband is a liberal.
Tories are loving being able to focus on Russia rather than their own major inadequacies and ineptness as normal. Great for them having "a big boy did it and ran away" to hide behind.
I don’t think anyone is loving this Russia situation, even if it does mean alternate headlines for awhile. Particularly as all problems still exist so it’s not even relief.
Fake Tory news, makes Trump look like an angel. It keeps focus off the uselessness of the government. It is temporary , reality will hit back soon.
Let's be frank, this "new party" has not been spawned out of a fear of PM Corbyn; it has been spawned by fear of Brexit. As Brexit will have happened by the time this new party has even got its socks on, I suspect much of the enthusiasm/£50m will have already dissipated.
One presumes it will have to take a markedly pro-EU stance. So another bald man enters the fray for the comb....yawn.
You think Brexit comes to an end on March 29 next year? We're leaving into a limbo. A limbo which does actually have to resolved through treaty. That treaty will determine in hard legal terms whether we get the arrangement and do exactly what we are told or we don't have much of an arrangement with anyone, including the EU. All of this will take time and will be argued over.
If you want a bad regime to commit even worse crimes, then carry on appeasing it.
Whose going round Putins to party? England.
Who's, Putin's, we have achieved an outstanding level of support where it matters in achieving a united diplomatic response over Salisbury. A boycott would need to attract the voluntary support of the country, the FA, the players and world's nations (each of which would have to sell the idea to their own citizens and teams) with a real risk of failure with any of those. Risk/reward wise a non starter at this stage. OTOH if we keep our powder dry, there is always the threat that we could do it later, and that should help keep Russia in order till July, because - I agree - a successful boycott would be hugely damaging to Putin.
Yes lying through his teeth is the British way for sure. You Tory fanboys are easily pleased when you think that government ministers blatantly lying to the public is handling a crisis well. Is it any Surprise England (sic UK ) is at the bottom of the 3rd division. Stupid compliant Donkeys led by loathsome lying Donkeys
THE quango meant to help [Scottish] firms succeed was blasted — for having no business plan.
Scottish Enterprise has not published its strategy for the next 12 months, even though the new tax year started on Friday.
As I recollect, the moment the SDP crystallised is when some Labour MPs finally realised that boundary changes would leave them without seats.
E.g., the safe Labour seat of Abertillery was abolished for the 1983 election, there were 3 Labour MPs chasing two new safe Labour seats, the gooseberry (Jeffrey Thomas) missed out & joined the SDP.
Generally, MPs think they are really loved, so it is only when they are pushed that the join a new party.
The Tories, if they were smart, should push the boundary changes through after Brexit.
The real gain for them is not the sprinkling of extra seats, but the likely carnage that will ensue as some Labour heavies find they are unloved.
Just think what will happen when Aberavon gets abolished and "working class, man of the Valleys" Stephen Kinnock find he has no seat.
It's nothing to do if he mumbles or not: it's the way he isn't really in control of, or willing to yield to, events. This whole antisemitic mess is one of his own making: the Chakrabarti inquiry is widely seen as a whitewash, and he put incompetent non-entities in positions of power in the party just because they are politically reliable - how else to explain Shawcroft? He created the environment that allowed the current scandal to fester. He could have taken control, but did not.
It's always bemusing when people accuse characters in other parties of things, yet ignore them in their own. And for the record, I've criticised Boris plenty of times on here (Garden Bridge etc), but think he has handled this attack on us well.
I'm not sure what exactly I accused him of that you disagree with so much that you are bemused. I made a list of things people might have thought about what Boris said being a lie with variations on what they might have meant.
I said myself he has a cleverly built personality, I did also mention clown which I heard someone say he described himself as, which I would point out to be he entertains people with silly things. Please tell me which bit is massively disagreeable?
As for not yielding to events I prefer that, he shouldn't let the media set the tone for him. If he did he would be out already.
The report was originally welcomed I'm not sure I really care what the media make of it.
If you want to see incompetent non-entities you should have seen some of the people we had before. One of the advantages to getting the new general secretary in is to deal with the various disciplinary cases. The system and many of the people involved were in place before Corbyn, there weren't Corbyn's appointments. If you are blaming the people who created the environment you might want to look at some of the people who have been in charge for years rather than someone who has only recently had an element of control over the party. It might have escaped your notice but there has been a bit of a backlash to Corbyn taking over in some different areas of Labour.
I realise Shawcroft sending an e-mail has now become the source of all the problems in the Labour party but to be honest Guido and various media outlets are going to write negative stuff about the Labour party whatever Corbyn does. It isn't as if we have had years of positive headlines about Corbyn before this. The only thing he could do to satisfy many of them is if he actually stepped down and let someone more right wing take over.
That isn't actually taking control at all. Although as mentioned in the paragraph two up he has thankfully taken control now in other ways that will hopefully get cases dealt with sooner and the Chakrabarti recommendations fully implemented.
Seats: Conservative 13 (no change), Labour 13 (+6), Lib Dem 4 (no change) and SNP 29 (-6)
However, there is no change in how Scots would vote in a second independence referendum since the last Panelbase poll, with 43% for “yes” and 57% for “no”.
A total of 58% do not want one in the next few years, while 17% favour a new referendum while the UK is negotiating to leave the EU and 25% want one when the UK has finished negotiating to leave the EU.
Fewer expect Scotland to become independent than at any time since the May 2015 UK election. The poll finds 27% (-2%) expect Scotland to become independent within the next five to ten years, while 19% (-1%) think it will happen but not for at least 10 or 15 years. A further 11% (+1%) expect it, but not for at least 20 or 30 years, and 30% (-2%) do not expect independence at any point in the next few decades.
As I recollect, the moment the SDP crystallised is when some Labour MPs finally realised that boundary changes would leave them without seats.
E.g., the safe Labour seat of Abertillery was abolished for the 1983 election, there were 3 Labour MPs chasing two new safe Labour seats, the gooseberry (Jeffrey Thomas) missed out & joined the SDP.
Generally, MPs think they are really loved, so it is only when they are pushed that the join a new party.
The Tories, if they were smart, should push the boundary changes through after Brexit.
The real gain for them is not the sprinkling of extra seats, but the likely carnage that will ensue as some Labour heavies find they are unloved.
Just think what will happen when Aberavon gets abolished and "working class, man of the Valleys" Stephen Kinnock find he has no seat.
The vote to accept or reject the boundary changes is in October. It should be very near the vote to accept the EU deal.
Some younger voters who seemed to swing to Labour last June seem willing to back Labour at Westminster, but not Holyrood, with 11% who voted Labour in 2017 saying they would vote SNP in a Holyrood election, whereas only 1% would make that switch in a Westminster contest.
Sir John Curtice (pbuh) says
“Support remains high enough for the independence flame still to be burning, but not strongly enough for the SNP to contemplate another ballot any time soon,”
Finally.
Scottish attitudes to Brexit show little sign of change, with 63% saying they would vote for the UK to remain in the EU compared with 37% who support withdrawal — almost unchanged from the 62% against 38% result in 2016.
Seats: Conservative 13 (no change), Labour 13 (+6), Lib Dem 4 (no change) and SNP 29 (-6)
However, there is no change in how Scots would vote in a second independence referendum since the last Panelbase poll, with 43% for “yes” and 57% for “no”.
Looks like no new indyref anytime soon especially as the Holyrood figures for that poll have the SNP falling from 46% at the last Scottish Parliament elections to 40% now which would mean a Unionist majority at Holyrood
As I recollect, the moment the SDP crystallised is when some Labour MPs finally realised that boundary changes would leave them without seats.
E.g., the safe Labour seat of Abertillery was abolished for the 1983 election, there were 3 Labour MPs chasing two new safe Labour seats, the gooseberry (Jeffrey Thomas) missed out & joined the SDP.
Generally, MPs think they are really loved, so it is only when they are pushed that the join a new party.
The Tories, if they were smart, should push the boundary changes through after Brexit.
The real gain for them is not the sprinkling of extra seats, but the likely carnage that will ensue as some Labour heavies find they are unloved.
Just think what will happen when Aberavon gets abolished and "working class, man of the Valleys" Stephen Kinnock find he has no seat.
The vote to accept or reject the boundary changes is in October. It should be very near the vote to accept the EU deal.
Final version will be out in September, but the boundary people now expect very few changes:
As I recollect, the moment the SDP crystallised is when some Labour MPs finally realised that boundary changes would leave them without seats.
E.g., the safe Labour seat of Abertillery was abolished for the 1983 election, there were 3 Labour MPs chasing two new safe Labour seats, the gooseberry (Jeffrey Thomas) missed out & joined the SDP.
Generally, MPs think they are really loved, so it is only when they are pushed that the join a new party.
The Tories, if they were smart, should push the boundary changes through after Brexit.
The real gain for them is not the sprinkling of extra seats, but the likely carnage that will ensue as some Labour heavies find they are unloved.
Just think what will happen when Aberavon gets abolished and "working class, man of the Valleys" Stephen Kinnock find he has no seat.
The vote to accept or reject the boundary changes is in October. It should be very near the vote to accept the EU deal.
Final version will be out in September, but the boundary people now expect very few changes:
Mr. B, your comment reminds me of the night of the referendum results, when men in the City had commissioned exit polls and blithely thought Remain had it in the bag.
I said myself he has a cleverly built personality, I did also mention clown which massively disagreeable?
As for not yielding to events I prefer that, he shouldn't let the media set the tone for him. If he did he would be out already.
The report was originally welcomed I'm not sure I really care what the media make of it.
If you want to see incompetent non-entities you should have seen some of the people we had before. One of the advantages to getting the new general secretary in is to deal with the various disciplinary cases. The system and many of the people involved were in place before Corbyn, there weren't Corbyn's appointments. If you are blaming the people who created the environment you might want to look at some of the people who have been in charge for years rather than someone who has only recently had an element of control over the party. It might have escaped your notice but there has been a bit of a backlash to Corbyn taking over in some different areas of Labour.
I realise Shawcroft sending an e-mail has now become the source of all the problems in the Labour party but to be honest Guido and various media outlets are going to write negative stuff about the Labour party whatever Corbyn does. It isn't as if we have had years of positive headlines about Corbyn before this. The only thing he could do to satisfy many of them is if he actually stepped down and let someone more right wing take over.
That isn't actually taking control at all. Although as mentioned in the paragraph two up he has thankfully taken control now in other ways that will hopefully get cases dealt with sooner and the Chakrabarti recommendations fully implemented.
Wait, they didn’t fully implement her recommendations? Why not, what was in them that couldn’t have happened already?
On the shawcroft point, yes it is the case opponents will always find something to complain about and won’t be satisfied. So what? If a problem is found to exist, and it has been ackniwledged, it needs dealing with, it doesn’t matter that guido will still complain, some of the things he brought up were still genuine issues. And shawcrofts defence of herself was that she was a moron who didn’t actually look at a case before defending someone...then proved she was insincere in any regret by going against Corbyn himself and saying the whole row was about attacking Corbyn.
Of course a party should not act to satisfy external opponents, that’s impossible and illogical. But I do not know what you are even saying about shawcroft by bemoaning guido and co. What has that got to do with anything? He cannot create issues, at best he can spin things, and her case was not spin, since she stood down due to incompetence.
As I recollect, the moment the SDP crystallised is when some Labour MPs finally realised that boundary changes would leave them without seats.
E.g., the safe Labour seat of Abertillery was abolished for the 1983 election, there were 3 Labour MPs chasing two new safe Labour seats, the gooseberry (Jeffrey Thomas) missed out & joined the SDP.
Generally, MPs think they are really loved, so it is only when they are pushed that the join a new party.
The Tories, if they were smart, should push the boundary changes through after Brexit.
The real gain for them is not the sprinkling of extra seats, but the likely carnage that will ensue as some Labour heavies find they are unloved.
Just think what will happen when Aberavon gets abolished and "working class, man of the Valleys" Stephen Kinnock find he has no seat.
The vote to accept or reject the boundary changes is in October. It should be very near the vote to accept the EU deal.
Final version will be out in September, but the boundary people now expect very few changes:
Yes. Foreign affairs is a murky business, and people condemning Juncker should have known every nation will have congratulated soneone unpleasant at sone point.
Yes. Foreign affairs is a murky business, and people condemning Juncker should have known every nation will have congratulated soneone unpleasant at sone point.
So I wouldn't criticise Netanyahu for congratulating Putin - I can see why the Israelis would want to be diplomatic with Putin.
What I don't get is, why did Juncker feel the need to do so?
As I recollect, the moment the SDP crystallised is when some Labour MPs finally realised that boundary changes would leave them without seats.
E.g., the safe Labour seat of Abertillery was abolished for the 1983 election, there were 3 Labour MPs chasing two new safe Labour seats, the gooseberry (Jeffrey Thomas) missed out & joined the SDP.
Generally, MPs think they are really loved, so it is only when they are pushed that the join a new party.
The Tories, if they were smart, should push the boundary changes through after Brexit.
The real gain for them is not the sprinkling of extra seats, but the likely carnage that will ensue as some Labour heavies find they are unloved.
Just think what will happen when Aberavon gets abolished and "working class, man of the Valleys" Stephen Kinnock find he has no seat.
Actually Stephen Kinnock would be pretty much the perfect leader for this centrist party idea from a position on the political spectrum point of view. I am not sure he has the right character to pull it off though.
If it was my £50M, I'd go for a party with limited aims and a declared intention to fold up when those aims were achieved. Along the lines ' when the UK is back in the EU and both parties have accepted that fact, we will leave the scene'. That gives pro-EU Labour and Tory voters a pass for supporting someone else. It also allows them to play the tactic which I was always expecting UKIP to use of only standing against incumbents whose views they don't like.
Seats: Conservative 13 (no change), Labour 13 (+6), Lib Dem 4 (no change) and SNP 29 (-6)
However, there is no change in how Scots would vote in a second independence referendum since the last Panelbase poll, with 43% for “yes” and 57% for “no”.
Looks like no new indyref anytime soon especially as the Holyrood figures for that poll have the SNP falling from 46% at the last Scottish Parliament elections to 40% now which would mean a Unionist majority at Holyrood
Anything that stops the screeching of First Minister Sturgeon has to be welcomed.
Did I miss the Egyptians murdering someone in EU territory, shooting down an airliner full of EU citizens and being highly likely suspect in the use of a nerve agent on a released Egyptian spy? Or is the case not remotely comparable?
Mr. Eagles, it's true Egypt isn't democratic or free. It's also true that it's an ally, the alternative to military dictatorship is probably a toss-up between chaos or Islamic theocracy, and Sisi hasn't used chemical weapons on British soil.
The two cases are only comparable in a superficial and meaningless way.
As I recollect, the moment the SDP crystallised is when some Labour MPs finally realised that boundary changes would leave them without seats.
E.g., the safe Labour seat of Abertillery was abolished for the 1983 election, there were 3 Labour MPs chasing two new safe Labour seats, the gooseberry (Jeffrey Thomas) missed out & joined the SDP.
Generally, MPs think they are really loved, so it is only when they are pushed that the join a new party.
The Tories, if they were smart, should push the boundary changes through after Brexit.
The real gain for them is not the sprinkling of extra seats, but the likely carnage that will ensue as some Labour heavies find they are unloved.
Just think what will happen when Aberavon gets abolished and "working class, man of the Valleys" Stephen Kinnock find he has no seat.
Actually Stephen Kinnock would be pretty much the perfect leader for this centrist party idea from a position on the political spectrum point of view. I am not sure he has the right character to pull it off though.
If it was my £50M, I'd go for a party with limited aims and a declared intention to fold up when those aims were achieved. Along the lines ' when the UK is back in the EU and both parties have accepted that fact, we will leave the scene'. That gives pro-EU Labour and Tory voters a pass for supporting someone else. It also allows them to play the tactic which I was always expecting UKIP to use of only standing against incumbents whose views they don't like.
That would be too much of a niche Market, I think, and would mean they were competing with Lib Dems and Greens for the same voters.
Yes. Foreign affairs is a murky business, and people condemning Juncker should have known every nation will have congratulated soneone unpleasant at sone point.
So I wouldn't criticise Netanyahu for congratulating Putin - I can see why the Israelis would want to be diplomatic with Putin.
What I don't get is, why did Juncker feel the need to do so?
Why would Netanyahu in particular have to congratulate Putin?
Actually Stephen Kinnock would be pretty much the perfect leader for this centrist party idea from a position on the political spectrum point of view. I am not sure he has the right character to pull it off though.
If it was my £50M, I'd go for a party with limited aims and a declared intention to fold up when those aims were achieved. Along the lines ' when the UK is back in the EU and both parties have accepted that fact, we will leave the scene'. That gives pro-EU Labour and Tory voters a pass for supporting someone else. It also allows them to play the tactic which I was always expecting UKIP to use of only standing against incumbents whose views they don't like.
Stephen Kinnock is not even the best politician in his own household.
Seats: Conservative 13 (no change), Labour 13 (+6), Lib Dem 4 (no change) and SNP 29 (-6)
However, there is no change in how Scots would vote in a second independence referendum since the last Panelbase poll, with 43% for “yes” and 57% for “no”.
That would see the SNP no longer holding the majority of the Scottish seats, which would take some wind out their sails.
As I recollect, the moment the SDP crystallised is when some Labour MPs finally realised that boundary changes would leave them without seats.
E.g., the safe Labour seat of Abertillery was abolished for the 1983 election, there were 3 Labour MPs chasing two new safe Labour seats, the gooseberry (Jeffrey Thomas) missed out & joined the SDP.
Generally, MPs think they are really loved, so it is only when they are pushed that the join a new party.
The Tories, if they were smart, should push the boundary changes through after Brexit.
The real gain for them is not the sprinkling of extra seats, but the likely carnage that will ensue as some Labour heavies find they are unloved.
Just think what will happen when Aberavon gets abolished and "working class, man of the Valleys" Stephen Kinnock find he has no seat.
Actually Stephen Kinnock would be pretty much the perfect leader for this centrist party idea from a position on the political spectrum point of view. I am not sure he has the right character to pull it off though.
If it was my £50M, I'd go for a party with limited aims and a declared intention to fold up when those aims were achieved. Along the lines ' when the UK is back in the EU and both parties have accepted that fact, we will leave the scene'. That gives pro-EU Labour and Tory voters a pass for supporting someone else. It also allows them to play the tactic which I was always expecting UKIP to use of only standing against incumbents whose views they don't like.
That would be too much of a niche Market, I think, and would mean they were competing with Lib Dems and Greens for the same voters.
Anyone who thinks there’s going to be any general appetite for keeping EU membership as a live political issue for the next decade is I think very much mistaken. There’s no more than 10% who are interested in that, and the LDs have 7% at the moment.
Juncker wrote congratulations on your re-election while May, did not, despite what @hackneylad said - focussing instead on "democratic transition" and "term limits".....
Seats: Conservative 13 (no change), Labour 13 (+6), Lib Dem 4 (no change) and SNP 29 (-6)
However, there is no change in how Scots would vote in a second independence referendum since the last Panelbase poll, with 43% for “yes” and 57% for “no”.
That would see the SNP no longer holding the majority of the Scottish seats, which would take some wind out their sails.
Yeah, look at all that influence that we had when we had 56 out of 59 seats.
Actually Stephen Kinnock would be pretty much the perfect leader for this centrist party idea from a position on the political spectrum point of view. I am not sure he has the right character to pull it off though.
If it was my £50M, I'd go for a party with limited aims and a declared intention to fold up when those aims were achieved. Along the lines ' when the UK is back in the EU and both parties have accepted that fact, we will leave the scene'. That gives pro-EU Labour and Tory voters a pass for supporting someone else. It also allows them to play the tactic which I was always expecting UKIP to use of only standing against incumbents whose views they don't like.
Stephen Kinnock is not even the best politician in his own household.
His wife may be the person you are looking for.
Fourth best politician in his own family, after his wife and both his parents?
As I recollect, the moment the SDP crystallised is when some Labour MPs finally realised that boundary changes would leave them without seats.
E.g., the safe Labour seat of Abertillery was abolished for the 1983 election, there were 3 Labour MPs chasing two new safe Labour seats, the gooseberry (Jeffrey Thomas) missed out & joined the SDP.
Generally, MPs think they are really loved, so it is only when they are pushed that the join a new party.
The Tories, if they were smart, should push the boundary changes through after Brexit.
The real gain for them is not the sprinkling of extra seats, but the likely carnage that will ensue as some Labour heavies find they are unloved.
Just think what will happen when Aberavon gets abolished and "working class, man of the Valleys" Stephen Kinnock find he has no seat.
Actually Stephen Kinnock would be pretty much the perfect leader for this centrist party idea from a position on the political spectrum point of view. I am not sure he has the right character to pull it off though.
If it was my £50M, I'd go for a party with limited aims and a declared intention to fold up when those aims were achieved. Along the lines ' when the UK is back in the EU and both parties have accepted that fact, we will leave the scene'. That gives pro-EU Labour and Tory voters a pass for supporting someone else. It also allows them to play the tactic which I was always expecting UKIP to use of only standing against incumbents whose views they don't like.
That would be too much of a niche Market, I think, and would mean they were competing with Lib Dems and Greens for the same voters.
Anyone who thinks there’s going to be any general appetite for keeping EU membership as a live political issue for the next decade is I think very much mistaken. There’s no more than 10% who are interested in that, and the LDs have 7% at the moment.
Agreed.
And if the likely leader is from the Antifrank, highly affluent, finger-wagging wing ("you're all xenophobes, the whole pack of you") of Remainer-dom, I suspect even 3 % is tough ask.
A new party, if successful, would be an existential threat to the Conservatives, Labour and the Lib Dems just as UKIP turned out to be.
Thus the tendency to, as someone once said "strangle it at birth".
I was in the Liberal Party when the SDP launched - though primarily a schism from Labour, it also attracted some Conservatives but, more importantly, the vast majority of new SDP members came from no political party.
The truth is it's going to be very difficult for any new party to emerge as a serious challenger once the initial froth is past. UKIP of course never challenged seriously at either local or Parliamentary level and one wonders what would have happened had Cameron not acceded to the idea of a referendum. He gave UKIP their prize and 23/6/16 destroyed it.
What is the new party going to be about ? If I was going to create a new party, I'd be arguing for tax cuts, mandatory health insurance, reductions in public spending across the board except for defence and foreign trade missions, making pensioners who work pay NI. The Stodge party would emphasise fiscal conservatism but social liberalism (there's not a big enough constituency for a truly social conservative party) while perhaps doing more to protect rural England in terms of looking at different solutions for the provision of affordable housing for locals.
In other words, to paraphrase the old ad, the new party has to "reach the parts other parties cannot reach". The fallacy about this "gap in the centre" is that it exists - in truth, it doesn't. Both Labour and the Conservatives have tried to become so broad as to cross into the centre - May has been assiduous in claiming to represent everyone (impossible of course).
The corollary of that is in trying to be something to everyone you finish up being nothing to anyone. That's a lesson the LDs learned the hard way. The Conservatives and Labour enjoy a symbiotic existence - they need each other. Killing off one will kill off the other. Once Conservative voters realise that the alternative isn't a Labour Government, the question then becomes why vote Conservative ? The same is true of Labour.
This mutual dependency allows the two parties to do and say almost anything as we've seen in recent times without it seriously challenging their existence. Both parties are fractious coalitions which hang together out of self-preservation and/or fear of the alternative.
More than anything else, the new party is going to need some luck - a defection or several, a nice parliamentary by-election or two and locally group defections and a string of by-election wins with time to build strong local bases before the 2019 local round and a further breakthrough.
Actually Stephen Kinnock would be pretty much the perfect leader for this centrist party idea from a position on the political spectrum point of view. I am not sure he has the right character to pull it off though.
If it was my £50M, I'd go for a party with limited aims and a declared intention to fold up when those aims were achieved. Along the lines ' when the UK is back in the EU and both parties have accepted that fact, we will leave the scene'. That gives pro-EU Labour and Tory voters a pass for supporting someone else. It also allows them to play the tactic which I was always expecting UKIP to use of only standing against incumbents whose views they don't like.
Stephen Kinnock is not even the best politician in his own household.
His wife may be the person you are looking for.
Fourth best politician in his own family, after his wife and both his parents?
It sounds like this new outfit is trying to kickstart a movement rather than found a new party. Unusually it would be a movement with a broad range of ideas rather than a single issue. It's an interesting idea because nobody much is operating in this space, including the Lib Dems.
Further on liberalism. I would identify George Osborne and Ed Miliband as liberals. Even though they are in different parties and have different political aims they share common values such as internationalism.and the importance of Adam Smith's "invisible hand". The key fact though is that they are both effectively ex-politicians and out of sorts with their parties.
Did you mean Ed Miliband or David? Not sure Ed is fully on board with Adam Smith imho.
What I mean is that it isn't just the Lib Dems centre ground that is untended right now. The liberal wings of the two main parties are atrophies too. There's a big space this movement could spread into. Whether it actually achieves anything is another matter. It's a vacuum and there is potential.
On Brexit. Any sensible evaluation will show Britain having a worse arrangement after leaving the EU than before, on Leave rhetoric as much as on Remain rhetoric. This movement could exploit that, as long as they are intelligent about it and don't go on about second referendums and the like.
Yes. Foreign affairs is a murky business, and people condemning Juncker should have known every nation will have congratulated soneone unpleasant at sone point.
So I wouldn't criticise Netanyahu for congratulating Putin - I can see why the Israelis would want to be diplomatic with Putin.
What I don't get is, why did Juncker feel the need to do so?
Why would Netanyahu in particular have to congratulate Putin?
A new party, if successful, would be an existential threat to the Conservatives, Labour and the Lib Dems just as UKIP turned out to be.
Slightly over-egging the chances of the new party, don't you think?
Not at all. The SDP came very close to challenging Labour and the Conservatives. The collapse of the Conservative vote in the Greenwich by-election showed what could happen to the party's vote once its voters realised Labour weren't going to be the beneficiaries if they deserted the Tories.
I also said, if you bothered to read what I actually said instead of firing off a half-baked response, "if successful".
Comments
Whose going round Putins to party? England.
Hope the £50m doesn’t get spent before next March..
I hope something does happen, it would be interesting, but as noted we are not France and Macron, and even Macron the reality is not Macron the legend of what he achieved, which was still hugely impressive but not quite what some people think.
I didn't say I saw him as that just that people might think that. I might say clown, think I heard somewhere Boris described himself as that, I think he has a cleverly built personality which has worked well for him, not sure if that is what leads him to say stupid thing occasionally. Although in this case I think he was just overstating the case for the sake of making it look better.
No I don't think Corbyn is a bumbling idiot, yes I realise it may be shocking that I don't find left wing views crazy. He can go on something of a mumble during his speeches sometimes you could say? Although it is generally about the message for me and his speeches do seem to go down well with other people as well.
The leader who could square this circle is Tony Blair.
David Beckham, (Mel+Sue), Jamie Oliver or Brian Cox?
Actually I can sort of imagine Brian Cox doing it... he's quite pro-EU I think...
It is going to be interesting to see what the Jezza and his Cult say about Syria this morning.
What it does indicate, though, is that in the unlikely event of a leader with the necessary nous and charisma appearing, the resource question for a new party of the centre isn't an insurmountable hurdle.
https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/982897333623910400
No, for a strong third party of centrists we really need the LDs back. Problem there is I don’t know if they are centrists anymore, as lots seemed to want to be labour lite, but they still aren’t forgiven for going into coalition, and other than the EU I’m not sure what their key focus is. I remember their manifesto being well presented, but bugger me if I can recall mist detail, apart from social care funding.
It's always bemusing when people accuse characters in other parties of things, yet ignore them in their own. And for the record, I've criticised Boris plenty of times on here (Garden Bridge etc), but think he has handled this attack on us well.
Further on liberalism. I would identify George Osborne and Ed Miliband as liberals. Even though they are in different parties and have different political aims they share common values such as internationalism.and the importance of Adam Smith's "invisible hand". The key fact though is that they are both effectively ex-politicians and out of sorts with their parties.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/the-experiment-to-deliver-letters-by-rocket-in-the-hebrides-1-4563476
Scottish Enterprise has not published its strategy for the next 12 months, even though the new tax year started on Friday.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/2472416/scottish-enterprise-no-business-plan/
E.g., the safe Labour seat of Abertillery was abolished for the 1983 election, there were 3 Labour MPs chasing two new safe Labour seats, the gooseberry (Jeffrey Thomas) missed out & joined the SDP.
Generally, MPs think they are really loved, so it is only when they are pushed that the join a new party.
The Tories, if they were smart, should push the boundary changes through after Brexit.
The real gain for them is not the sprinkling of extra seats, but the likely carnage that will ensue as some Labour heavies find they are unloved.
Just think what will happen when Aberavon gets abolished and "working class, man of the Valleys" Stephen Kinnock find he has no seat.
I said myself he has a cleverly built personality, I did also mention clown which I heard someone say he described himself as, which I would point out to be he entertains people with silly things. Please tell me which bit is massively disagreeable?
As for not yielding to events I prefer that, he shouldn't let the media set the tone for him. If he did he would be out already.
The report was originally welcomed I'm not sure I really care what the media make of it.
If you want to see incompetent non-entities you should have seen some of the people we had before. One of the advantages to getting the new general secretary in is to deal with the various disciplinary cases. The system and many of the people involved were in place before Corbyn, there weren't Corbyn's appointments. If you are blaming the people who created the environment you might want to look at some of the people who have been in charge for years rather than someone who has only recently had an element of control over the party. It might have escaped your notice but there has been a bit of a backlash to Corbyn taking over in some different areas of Labour.
I realise Shawcroft sending an e-mail has now become the source of all the problems in the Labour party but to be honest Guido and various media outlets are going to write negative stuff about the Labour party whatever Corbyn does. It isn't as if we have had years of positive headlines about Corbyn before this. The only thing he could do to satisfy many of them is if he actually stepped down and let someone more right wing take over.
That isn't actually taking control at all. Although as mentioned in the paragraph two up he has thankfully taken control now in other ways that will hopefully get cases dealt with sooner and the Chakrabarti recommendations fully implemented.
Westminster (changes since September)
SNP 36% (-5%)
Con 28% (+1%)
Lab 27% (+3%),
Lib Dems 6% (nc)
Greens 2%(nc)
Seats: Conservative 13 (no change), Labour 13 (+6), Lib Dem 4 (no change) and SNP 29 (-6)
However, there is no change in how Scots would vote in a second independence referendum since the last Panelbase poll, with 43% for “yes” and 57% for “no”.
A total of 58% do not want one in the next few years, while 17% favour a new referendum while the UK is negotiating to leave the EU and 25% want one when the UK has finished negotiating to leave the EU.
Fewer expect Scotland to become independent than at any time since the May 2015 UK election. The poll finds 27% (-2%) expect Scotland to become independent within the next five to ten years, while 19% (-1%) think it will happen but not for at least 10 or 15 years. A further 11% (+1%) expect it, but not for at least 20 or 30 years, and 30% (-2%) do not expect independence at any point in the next few decades.
SNP 40% (-2%),
Con 28% (nc)
Lab 22% (nc)
LD 6% (nc)
Greens 3% (+1)
List figures not published
Some younger voters who seemed to swing to Labour last June seem willing to back Labour at Westminster, but not Holyrood, with 11% who voted Labour in 2017 saying they would vote SNP in a Holyrood election, whereas only 1% would make that switch in a Westminster contest.
Sir John Curtice (pbuh) says
“Support remains high enough for the independence flame still to be burning, but not strongly enough for the SNP to contemplate another ballot any time soon,”
Finally.
Scottish attitudes to Brexit show little sign of change, with 63% saying they would vote for the UK to remain in the EU compared with 37% who support withdrawal — almost unchanged from the 62% against 38% result in 2016.
https://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/after-the-revised-proposals-what-happens-now/
On the shawcroft point, yes it is the case opponents will always find something to complain about and won’t be satisfied. So what? If a problem is found to exist, and it has been ackniwledged, it needs dealing with, it doesn’t matter that guido will still complain, some of the things he brought up were still genuine issues. And shawcrofts defence of herself was that she was a moron who didn’t actually look at a case before defending someone...then proved she was insincere in any regret by going against Corbyn himself and saying the whole row was about attacking Corbyn.
Of course a party should not act to satisfy external opponents, that’s impossible and illogical. But I do not know what you are even saying about shawcroft by bemoaning guido and co. What has that got to do with anything? He cannot create issues, at best he can spin things, and her case was not spin, since she stood down due to incompetence.
https://twitter.com/hackneylad/status/981841685037617153
http://www.deltapoll.co.uk/polls/is-anti-semitism-widespread-within-the-labour-party
What I don't get is, why did Juncker feel the need to do so?
If it was my £50M, I'd go for a party with limited aims and a declared intention to fold up when those aims were achieved. Along the lines ' when the UK is back in the EU and both parties have accepted that fact, we will leave the scene'. That gives pro-EU Labour and Tory voters a pass for supporting someone else. It also allows them to play the tactic which I was always expecting UKIP to use of only standing against incumbents whose views they don't like.
The two cases are only comparable in a superficial and meaningless way.
https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/981449441134678016
His wife may be the person you are looking for.
And if the likely leader is from the Antifrank, highly affluent, finger-wagging wing ("you're all xenophobes, the whole pack of you") of Remainer-dom, I suspect even 3 % is tough ask.
Probably it will poll below the OMRLP.
A new party, if successful, would be an existential threat to the Conservatives, Labour and the Lib Dems just as UKIP turned out to be.
Thus the tendency to, as someone once said "strangle it at birth".
I was in the Liberal Party when the SDP launched - though primarily a schism from Labour, it also attracted some Conservatives but, more importantly, the vast majority of new SDP members came from no political party.
The truth is it's going to be very difficult for any new party to emerge as a serious challenger once the initial froth is past. UKIP of course never challenged seriously at either local or Parliamentary level and one wonders what would have happened had Cameron not acceded to the idea of a referendum. He gave UKIP their prize and 23/6/16 destroyed it.
What is the new party going to be about ? If I was going to create a new party, I'd be arguing for tax cuts, mandatory health insurance, reductions in public spending across the board except for defence and foreign trade missions, making pensioners who work pay NI. The Stodge party would emphasise fiscal conservatism but social liberalism (there's not a big enough constituency for a truly social conservative party) while perhaps doing more to protect rural England in terms of looking at different solutions for the provision of affordable housing for locals.
In other words, to paraphrase the old ad, the new party has to "reach the parts other parties cannot reach". The fallacy about this "gap in the centre" is that it exists - in truth, it doesn't. Both Labour and the Conservatives have tried to become so broad as to cross into the centre - May has been assiduous in claiming to represent everyone (impossible of course).
The corollary of that is in trying to be something to everyone you finish up being nothing to anyone. That's a lesson the LDs learned the hard way. The Conservatives and Labour enjoy a symbiotic existence - they need each other. Killing off one will kill off the other. Once Conservative voters realise that the alternative isn't a Labour Government, the question then becomes why vote Conservative ? The same is true of Labour.
This mutual dependency allows the two parties to do and say almost anything as we've seen in recent times without it seriously challenging their existence. Both parties are fractious coalitions which hang together out of self-preservation and/or fear of the alternative.
More than anything else, the new party is going to need some luck - a defection or several, a nice parliamentary by-election or two and locally group defections and a string of by-election wins with time to build strong local bases before the 2019 local round and a further breakthrough.
Talk is cheap.
https://twitter.com/WikiGuido/status/982915344372289536
Mason should sue.....
On Brexit. Any sensible evaluation will show Britain having a worse arrangement after leaving the EU than before, on Leave rhetoric as much as on Remain rhetoric. This movement could exploit that, as long as they are intelligent about it and don't go on about second referendums and the like.
' David Davis's former chief of staff to launch new political party to 'reverse Brexit with no second referendum' '
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-davis-aide-launch-new-political-party-reverse-brexit-second-referendum-james-chapman-the-a7895411.html
'I'M TO BLAME' Justice Secretary David Gauke admits he was to blame for the John Worboys parole shambles which almost saw the rapist walked free
Resign!
I also said, if you bothered to read what I actually said instead of firing off a half-baked response, "if successful".