Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Starmer edges up further in new YouGov leadership poll

2

Comments

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:


    There is no racist and sexist humiliation other than her determination to play the victim card then go off and make a shed load of money having raised her profile on the back of the Royal brand

    On two unrelated issues, I see we've failed to stop the cuts in Central Line services which will be coming in on the 26th.

    You were also commenting on two-tier local Government - there are many models out there ranging from Cornwall via Cheshire to Northamptonshire. Assuming Essex would become a unitary council in any re-organisation is misguided - there are other options available.
    Khan does not care about Essex as it is outside his patch, do no surprise there.

    The question was whether Epping Forest District Council would be replaced by a unitary authority, that could be at county level or just over multiple district councils
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961
    edited January 2020

    If she sits in the witness box v Assoc News she will be eviscerated by the opposition QC. "So, why did your friends plant all these negative stories with the press against X and Y in the royal family?"

    The Mail journalists will know all the gory details and times of where and when it was done by who.

    The one I find fascinating is the William bullying Harry story. That REALLY fired up the brothers, such that they put out a joint statement denying it ahead of the Sandringham Pow-wow.

    Subsequent to that, Meghan wasn't included by skype in the pow-wow as had been planned.

    Now, who might have been the source of that bullying story I wonder?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited January 2020
    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Not to be underestimated: Lisa Nandy was caught by Nick Robinson today expressing her scepticism for the monarchy on live radio.

    That’s two Labour leadership candidates who’ve put a question mark over it now. Even Jeremy Corbyn (although he didn’t sing the national careless about it.

    Agreed, Prince Andrew needs to be driven into the wilderness so far he has to tunnel through permafrost to get within 1000 light years of Balmoral.

    Harry and Meghan need to be reconciled.

    This is the most perilous time for the monarchy since Diana’s death. It’s possibly ghter of a coal miner, god bless her. William chose well.
    Tom Bradby’s article in the Sunday Times last weekend was chilling.

    Meghan has basically threatened to go on the record accusing mily in an increasingly diverse Britain she’d risk actively turning a chunk of the country against them.
    Yes. To be brutal and cold, and in terms of pure realpolitik (I want the monarchy to victim status. The trouble is, right now, billions do. So let her have her way. It is the only way. She will tarnish quite quickly.

    That leaves Harry. Poor Harry. Ah, god. It is sad.
    Even Meghan's own father is about to testify against her, she would do on
    I think Sean’s advice to give her enough rope to hang herself is better.
    Or just treat her like a decent human being and sod the Queen and her army of self-preserving courtiers?
    If she trashes the Royal family in a tv interview after all the perks she has had from them she is not a decent human being and what goes around comes around
    She should tolerate racist and sexist humiliation because of "perks"?

    You are ridiculous.
    There is no racist and sexist humiliation other than her determination to play the victim card then go off and make a shed load of money having raised her profile on the back of the Royal brand
    You have no way of knowing that. If you automatically rule it out, when we are talking about a family ruled by Philip "slitty eyes" D of E and including Andrew D of Y, there must be some rather questionable prejudices at work.
    It was more the media she was complaining about but regardless I am sure Philip and Andrew have said nothing racial to her, she should be grateful she went from a C list nobody to an A list somebody purely on the back of her entry into the Royal family
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,572
    IshmaelZ said:

    nico67 said:

    It’s ridiculous for some in Labour to blame their defeat on their policy of a second EU vote .

    Given the membership is overwhelmingly pro EU and Labour voters in all polls would stay in the EU by a huge margin just what planet do those people inhabit who keep peddling the fantasy that the second vote ruined their election chances .

    They’re now trying to trash Keir Starmer when the reality is Corbyn was the main problem together with the manifesto .

    yougov says otherwise. Labour voters abandoned Labour because of Corbyn first, Brexit second, policy (manifesto) third.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7826295/Voters-ditched-Labour-Jeremy-Corbyns-leadership-neutral-Brexit-stance-poll-says.html
    The distinction is a false one. The problem was Corbynism and what he stood for, as embodied in the manifesto, so it's quite difficult to distinguish between the two. What should not be a matter of dispute is that Brexit was secondary.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    £300 to back Nandy at 15... if that YouGov is anywhere near accurate, how can she be even a 6% chance?
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,745
    HYUFD said:


    The question was whether Epping Forest District Council would be replaced by a unitary authority, that could be at county level or just over multiple district councils

    I think in Dorset a number of district councils have merged to achieve cost and efficiency savings.

    Surrey for instance still has a County Council and eleven District and Borough Councils. It's fair to say relations between the County and some of the Districts (even where Conservatives run both Councils) are and haven't always been cordial.

  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    HYUFD said:

    Byronic said:

    Starmer is going to be the Labour Michael Howard

    This is good news, for Labour, as RLB would have been IDS

    I doubt Michael Howard did much better than IDS would have done in 2005, he got 33%, the Tories were on 34% in the final Yougov before IDS was ousted. It was Cameron who got the Tories in the 35 to 40% range May and Boris then built on.

    It is not impossible however to imagine Starmer becoming PM after the next general election in coalition with the Les if, as this poll suggests, he does win the Labour membership vote. It is hard to see how RLB could beat Boris however, Remain voting Tories might consider Starmer in a way they did not Corbyn and would not Long Bailey and they also would be more likely to risk voting LD.


    Tories should avoid complacency if Starmer wins
    I think you are correct. It is not difficult to see Labour polling 38% - 40% under Starmer. If that happens the party will also perk up in Scotland.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    nico67 said:

    It’s ridiculous for some in Labour to blame their defeat on their policy of a second EU vote .

    Given the membership is overwhelmingly pro EU and Labour voters in all polls would stay in the EU by a huge margin just what planet do those people inhabit who keep peddling the fantasy that the second vote ruined their election chances .

    They’re now trying to trash Keir Starmer when the reality is Corbyn was the main problem together with the manifesto .

    yougov says otherwise. Labour voters abandoned Labour because of Corbyn first, Brexit second, policy (manifesto) third.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7826295/Voters-ditched-Labour-Jeremy-Corbyns-leadership-neutral-Brexit-stance-poll-says.html
    The distinction is a false one. The problem was Corbynism and what he stood for, as embodied in the manifesto, so it's quite difficult to distinguish between the two. What should not be a matter of dispute is that Brexit was secondary.
    No it isn't. Jeremy Corbyn/leadership naturally means him, not his policies, and it certainly means that when his policies is expressly offered as an alternative. Yes, brexit was secondary to that, but that doesn't mean it didn't determine the outcome.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    HYUFD said:



    It was more the media she was complaining about but regardless I am sure Philip and Andrew have said nothing racial to her, she should be grateful she went from a C list nobody to an A list somebody purely on the back of her entry into the Royal family

    Your view of how social interactions work is thoroughly frightening.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,547
    edited January 2020
    At the risk of stereotyping my fellow commentators, I am picking up that the more rightwing Leaver types on this forum are very negative towards Meghan Markle and the less right wing Remainer types are more sympathetic towards her.

    Is that a thing generally?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    edited January 2020
    HYUFD said:

    If you are a paid employee of an organisation, then leave it and trash it in the media then your former employee can sue you and trash your reputation in court

    Well then, that remedy exists for the Royal Family.

    My issue is your "decent human being" line. It just seems like a gross overreaction.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited January 2020
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    If you are a paid employee of an organisation, then leave it and trash it in the media then your former employee can sue you and trash your reputation in court

    Well then, that remedy exists for the Royal Family.

    My issue is your "decent human being" line. It just seems like a gross overreaction.
    The original statement I responded to was 'Or just treat her like a decent human being and sod the Queen and her army of self-preserving courtiers? '

    If you trash the royal family in the media after getting expensive properties, private flights, chauffeur driven cars from them and a taxpayer funded wedding you are clearly not a decent human being and deserve everything you get, the way she has treated her father is hardly exemplary either, she also dumped a previous partner by text and seems to have cut half of Harry's friends from his life.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    ydoethur said:

    Byronic said:

    Starmer is going to be the Labour Michael Howard

    This is good news, for Labour, as RLB would have been IDS

    Jeremy Corbyn was the Labour IDS. RLB would be the Labour Clement Davies.
    Keir Starmer is the Labour Keir Starmer
    Worse, he might end up being Labour's Theresa May: a superficially prime-ministerial candidate chosen to provide reassurance in a time of crisis, but who turns out to be a charisma vacuum who's not quite up to it.
    Oh, I'm sure that's right.

    But he's also a lot less frightening than Jeremy Corbyn. Don't underestimate just how toxic Corbyn was.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    FF43 said:

    Byronic said:

    FF43 said:

    Byronic said:

    FF43 said:

    Byronic said:

    No, it really wouldn’t. The UK is going for a Canada type deal with the EU. Or even lighter than that,

    Will the EU be able to force Canada to turn off face recog tech used in Canada by Canadians on Canadians? No, of course not.

    The EU is a “regulatory superpower” but it isn’t an omnipotent global hegemon

    To explain a bit more. (This is related to my day job). The key thing for the EU is that individuals can sue can get a data adequacy assessment then data can flow freely to it. But you are obliged to fully meet EU DP standards. Canada, which has strict DP regs does have an EU data adequacy agreement, which in theory would mean Toronto Council couldn't send data any more freely to the UK than Berlin can.
    Data flows betwixt and between the UK and the EU will dwindle
    They will. It should also be said that the EU isn't straining at the bit to accord data adequacy to the UK. But above all this is going to cause HUGE problems for UK companies that process any EU personal information, whether it's customers they are selling to, Fintech, AI, web sales. marketing.
    Yep. I’ve been reading up. I confess I hadn’t realised just how intrusive the EU has become in its regulation overseas.. Classic imperialism

    It’s only made me more Brexity.

    Mark Carney is right. We do not want to endure their terrible regulation. It will be painful but we are better off self governing, and exploiting the EU’s many flaws.
    As far as data is concerned, I expect to see three silos: (1) China that effectively doesn't allow any of its data outside the country; (2) The EU and possibly associated countries such as Japan, Canada and eventually the UK; (3) the US, which currently has lax DP rules but could tighten up.

    AI will almost certainly drive to greater data regulation. I think the UK will want to be in a silo. It might just choose the US silo rather than the EU one. Problem though is the EU should be a bigger market for the UK generally than the US and the US can be at least as protectionist as the EU.
    California is soon to pass some data protection laws that make GDPR look sane. And because pretty much every American company has customers in California, it effectively has nationwide impact. (And potentially global.)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    ydoethur said:

    Byronic said:

    ydoethur said:

    Byronic said:

    Starmer is going to be the Labour Michael Howard

    This is good news, for Labour, as RLB would have been IDS

    Jeremy Corbyn was the Labour IDS. RLB would be the Labour Clement Davies.
    Whoosh over my head I’m afraid! Clement Davies?!
    There you are, that’s a statement of how effective he was as party leader:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Davies
    I hadn't realised that (a) he was an alcoholic, and (b) his alcoholism was sufficiently severe that he was hospitalised for two of the three general elections he fought.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,344
    edited January 2020

    Not to be underestimated: Lisa Nandy was caught by Nick Robinson today expressing her scepticism for the monarchy on live radio.

    That’s two Labour leadership candidates who’ve put a question mark over it now. Even Jeremy Corbyn (although he didn’t sing the national anthem) didn’t do that.

    If I were the palace or the government I’d be really concerned about this.

    If support for the monarchy starts to become politicised down values lines then it could be in serious trouble. It won’t take much more bad behaviour for a question mark over the whole institution to gather a head of steam.

    The Queen understands this - and it explains why she’s moving heaven and earth to pacify Meghan Markle, who’s a loaded bomb who’s threatened to self-detonate - but I’m note sure other members of her family do, or if they do they’re far too careless about it.

    The monarchy is a genetic lottery - Lizzie was generally acceptable but we could have ended up with Handy Andy. Sooner or later, we’ll get a rotten egg.
    Didn't we get one in the 1930s, complete with fascist sympathies?!

    He abdicated in 1936 due to his love life but it seems to have been a lot of trouble and he had to be paid for Balmoral and Sandringham which were his personal property. It changed the line of succession too.
    It didn't change the line of succession. Edward had no children. If he had been king our current monarch would have become queen thereafter and up to this very day. The line of succession has been interfered with lots of times but not on this occasion.

  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,572
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    nico67 said:

    It’s ridiculous for some in Labour to blame their defeat on their policy of a second EU vote .

    Given the membership is overwhelmingly pro EU and Labour voters in all polls would stay in the EU by a huge margin just what planet do those people inhabit who keep peddling the fantasy that the second vote ruined their election chances .

    They’re now trying to trash Keir Starmer when the reality is Corbyn was the main problem together with the manifesto .

    yougov says otherwise. Labour voters abandoned Labour because of Corbyn first, Brexit second, policy (manifesto) third.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7826295/Voters-ditched-Labour-Jeremy-Corbyns-leadership-neutral-Brexit-stance-poll-says.html
    The distinction is a false one. The problem was Corbynism and what he stood for, as embodied in the manifesto, so it's quite difficult to distinguish between the two. What should not be a matter of dispute is that Brexit was secondary.
    No it isn't. Jeremy Corbyn/leadership naturally means him, not his policies, and it certainly means that when his policies is expressly offered as an alternative. Yes, brexit was secondary to that, but that doesn't mean it didn't determine the outcome.
    You're kidding yourself. Still in denial.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,344
    edited January 2020

    Just came across RLB live speech in Manchester and I have to query whether labour are even remotely serious in considering her as leader. She came over to me as someone who is wholly unsuitable for any serious political office, sounding like she has just left school and would be an utter disaster

    She makes Starmer look prime ministerial in comparison and to be honest I have little confidence he will succeed, especially in the northern areas

    Labour are in a mess and how they think they can recover 123 seats for a majority of 1 in 2024 is beyond me

    I think RLB is a decent person but in this context absolutely out of her depth and the extreme left are daft to adopt her. The fact that the far left have no plausible or electorally attractive candidate says a lot. RLB increases the chance of the membership feeling they have no choice but to go for a candidate who could at least get them in sight of electability, so she could be a significant accidental player in Labour's survival. And survival is the word. Another Corbyn and it is existential crisis time.

  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    edited January 2020
    FF43 said:

    At the risk of stereotyping my fellow commentators, I am picking up that the more rightwing Leaver types on this forum are very negative towards Meghan Markle and the less right wing Remainer types are more sympathetic towards her.

    Is that a thing generally?

    It's the thick racist stereotype again isn't it?

    EDIT I'm not being sarcastic. I'm supporting you.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    If you are a paid employee of an organisation, then leave it and trash it in the media then your former employee can sue you and trash your reputation in court

    Well then, that remedy exists for the Royal Family.

    My issue is your "decent human being" line. It just seems like a gross overreaction.
    The original statement I responded to was 'Or just treat her like a decent human being and sod the Queen and her army of self-preserving courtiers? '

    If you trash the royal family in the media after getting expensive properties, private flights, chauffeur driven cars from them and a taxpayer funded wedding you are clearly not a decent human being and deserve everything you get, the way she has treated her father is hardly exemplary either, she also dumped a previous partner by text and seems to have cut half of Harry's friends from his life.
    I think the first action of every wife is to cut out half her husbands friends!

    But more seriously, if it turned out that (say) the Prince of Wales ate babies, should the fact that she had received generous financial help mean she should support him regardless?
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,620
    FF43 said:

    At the risk of stereotyping my fellow commentators, I am picking up that the more rightwing Leaver types on this forum are very negative towards Meghan Markle and the less right wing Remainer types are more sympathetic towards her.

    Is that a thing generally?

    I suspect lots of the PB Tories don’t like her because she is leftwing. It’s probably as simple as that really.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    nico67 said:

    It’s ridiculous for some in Labour to blame their defeat on their policy of a second EU vote .

    Given the membership is overwhelmingly pro EU and Labour voters in all polls would stay in the EU by a huge margin just what planet do those people inhabit who keep peddling the fantasy that the second vote ruined their election chances .

    They’re now trying to trash Keir Starmer when the reality is Corbyn was the main problem together with the manifesto .

    yougov says otherwise. Labour voters abandoned Labour because of Corbyn first, Brexit second, policy (manifesto) third.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7826295/Voters-ditched-Labour-Jeremy-Corbyns-leadership-neutral-Brexit-stance-poll-says.html
    The distinction is a false one. The problem was Corbynism and what he stood for, as embodied in the manifesto, so it's quite difficult to distinguish between the two. What should not be a matter of dispute is that Brexit was secondary.
    No it isn't. Jeremy Corbyn/leadership naturally means him, not his policies, and it certainly means that when his policies is expressly offered as an alternative. Yes, brexit was secondary to that, but that doesn't mean it didn't determine the outcome.
    You're kidding yourself. Still in denial.
    What am I meant to be denying? I am not a Labour party member or voter and never have been. I am just stating what seems to me entirely obvious, as well as being borne out by the polling I quoted.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,344
    Barnesian said:

    FF43 said:

    At the risk of stereotyping my fellow commentators, I am picking up that the more rightwing Leaver types on this forum are very negative towards Meghan Markle and the less right wing Remainer types are more sympathetic towards her.

    Is that a thing generally?

    It's the thick racist stereotype again isn't it?

    EDIT I'm not being sarcastic. I'm supporting you.
    It's going to be a thing generally. Eg, most but not all leavers are centre right not centre left, more CRs than CLs are very warm towards the monarchy, and are more likely to see MM and Harry as some sort of threat to the Burkean order of things. HM the Queen, William and Kate etc represent continuity, MM and Harry represent change. Etc etc. My own feeling is that it is much much less to do with race than culture and celeb issues.

  • IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Not to be underestimated: Lisa Nandy was caught by Nick Robinson today expressing her scepticism for the monarchy on live radio.

    That’s two Labour leadership candidates who’ve put a question mark over it now. Even Jeremy Corbyn (although he didn’t sing the national careless about it.

    Agreed, Prince Andrew needs to be driven into the wilderness so far he has to tunnel through permafrost to get within 1000 light years of Balmoral.

    Harry and Meghan need to be reconciled.

    This is the most perilous time for the monarchy since Diana’s death. It’s possibly worse, with two hideous crises: Meghan and Andrew: at once. Add in the death of the Queen in the near future, and the much less popular Charles taking the throne? Eeeek

    Luckily Kate is an absolute treasure. Impeccable. Beautiful. Loyal. Not a foot wrong. She will make a great queen, given a chance, Grand daughter of a coal miner, god bless her. William chose well.
    Tom Bradby’s article in the Sunday Times last weekend was chilling.

    Meghan has basically threatened to go on the record accusing mily in an increasingly diverse Britain she’d risk actively turning a chunk of the country against them.
    Yes. To be brutal and cold, and in terms of pure realpolitik (I want the monarchy to survive, as I think it is a genuinely amazing asset for brand Britain) what the Queen/Charles need to do it this: buy time

    Give Meghan enough rope to slightly throttle herself, in a genteel way. Let her go off and earn money and do Hollywood voiceovers and endorse yoga tampons and the rest. As her looks fade, and her ambitiion (greed?) becomes clear, public sympathy will dwindle, quickly


    That leaves Harry. Poor Harry. Ah, god. It is sad.
    Even Meghan's own father is about to testify against her, she would do on
    I think Sean’s advice to give her enough rope to hang herself is better.
    Or just treat her like a decent human being and sod the Queen and her army of self-preserving courtiers?
    If she trashes the Royal family in a tv interview after all the perks she has had from them she is not a decent human being and what goes around comes around
    She should tolerate racist and sexist humiliation because of "perks"?

    You are ridiculous.
    Is she racist against her white father by not allowing him to see baby Archie?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    If you are a paid employee of an organisation, then leave it and trash it in the media then your former employee can sue you and trash your reputation in court

    Well then, that remedy exists for the Royal Family.

    My issue is your "decent human being" line. It just seems like a gross overreaction.
    The original statement I responded to was 'Or just treat her like a decent human being and sod the Queen and her army of self-preserving courtiers? '

    If you trash the royal family in the media after getting expensive properties, private flights, chauffeur driven cars from them and a taxpayer funded wedding you are clearly not a decent human being and deserve everything you get, the way she has treated her father is hardly exemplary either, she also dumped a previous partner by text and seems to have cut half of Harry's friends from his life.
    I think the first action of every wife is to cut out half her husbands friends!

    But more seriously, if it turned out that (say) the Prince of Wales ate babies, should the fact that she had received generous financial help mean she should support him regardless?
    On the basis she was a royal and owed the family loyalty yes, though if that were the case I doubt he would stay Prince of Wales too long anyway
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    algarkirk said:

    Barnesian said:

    FF43 said:

    At the risk of stereotyping my fellow commentators, I am picking up that the more rightwing Leaver types on this forum are very negative towards Meghan Markle and the less right wing Remainer types are more sympathetic towards her.

    Is that a thing generally?

    It's the thick racist stereotype again isn't it?

    EDIT I'm not being sarcastic. I'm supporting you.
    It's going to be a thing generally. Eg, most but not all leavers are centre right not centre left, more CRs than CLs are very warm towards the monarchy, and are more likely to see MM and Harry as some sort of threat to the Burkean order of things. HM the Queen, William and Kate etc represent continuity, MM and Harry represent change. Etc etc. My own feeling is that it is much much less to do with race than culture and celeb issues.

    I had not problem with MM and Harry when they were within the royal family, change or not, now they are distancing themselves from it however it is a different matter, especially if they try and trash the brand which made them or still expect some public funds with few royal duties in return
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    If you are a paid employee of an organisation, then leave it and trash it in the media then your former employee can sue you and trash your reputation in court

    Well then, that remedy exists for the Royal Family.

    My issue is your "decent human being" line. It just seems like a gross overreaction.
    The original statement I responded to was 'Or just treat her like a decent human being and sod the Queen and her army of self-preserving courtiers? '

    If you trash the royal family in the media after getting expensive properties, private flights, chauffeur driven cars from them and a taxpayer funded wedding you are clearly not a decent human being and deserve everything you get, the way she has treated her father is hardly exemplary either, she also dumped a previous partner by text and seems to have cut half of Harry's friends from his life.
    I think the first action of every wife is to cut out half her husbands friends!

    But more seriously, if it turned out that (say) the Prince of Wales ate babies, should the fact that she had received generous financial help mean she should support him regardless?
    On the basis she was a royal and owed the family loyalty yes, though if that were the case I doubt he would stay Prince of Wales too long anyway
    For the record, I have a great deal of respect for Charles - I was just trying to think of the most ridiculous example I could.

    I worry that loyalty has become more important than reality.
  • algarkirk said:

    Just came across RLB live speech in Manchester and I have to query whether labour are even remotely serious in considering her as leader. She came over to me as someone who is wholly unsuitable for any serious political office, sounding like she has just left school and would be an utter disaster

    She makes Starmer look prime ministerial in comparison and to be honest I have little confidence he will succeed, especially in the northern areas

    Labour are in a mess and how they think they can recover 123 seats for a majority of 1 in 2024 is beyond me

    I think RLB is a decent person but in this context absolutely out of her depth and the extreme left are daft to adopt her. The fact that the far left have no plausible or electorally attractive candidate says a lot. RLB increases the chance of the membership feeling they have no choice but to go for a candidate who could at least get them in sight of electability, so she could be a significant accidental player in Labour's survival. And survival is the word. Another Corbyn and it is existential crisis time.

    She is Jo Swinson Mk II
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Not to be underestimated: Lisa Nandy was caught by Nick Robinson today expressing her scepticism for the monarchy on live radio.

    That’s two Labour leadership candidates who’ve put a question mark over it now. Even Jeremy Corbyn (although he didn’t sing the national careless about it.

    Agreed, Prince Andrew needs to be driven into the wilderness so far he has to tunnel through permafrost to get within 1000 light years of Balmoral.

    Harry and Meghan need to be reconciled.

    This is the most perilous time for the monarchy since Diana’s death. It’s possibly worse, with two hideous crises: Meghan and Andrew: at once. Add in the death of the Queen in the near future, and the much less popular Charles taking the throne? Eeeek

    Luckily Kate is an absolute treasure. Impeccable. Beautiful. Loyal. Not a foot wrong. She will make a great queen, given a chance, Grand daughter of a coal miner, god bless her. William chose well.
    Tom Bradby’s article in the Sunday Times last weekend was chilling.

    Meghan has basically threatened to go on the record accusing mily in an increasingly diverse Britain she’d risk actively turning a chunk of the country against them.
    Yes. To be brutal and cold, and in terms of pure realpolitik (I want the monarchy to survive, as I think it is a genuinely amazing asset for brand Britain) what the Queen/Charles need to do it this: buy time

    Give Meghan enough rope to slightly throttle herself, in a genteel way. Let her go off and earn money and do Hollywood voiceovers and endorse yoga tampons and the rest. As her looks fade, and her ambitiion (greed?) becomes clear, public sympathy will dwindle, quickly


    That leaves Harry. Poor Harry. Ah, god. It is sad.
    Even Meghan's own father is about to testify against her, she would do on
    I think Sean’s advice to give her enough rope to hang herself is better.
    Or just treat her like a decent human being and sod the Queen and her army of self-preserving courtiers?
    If she trashes the Royal family in a tv interview after all the perks she has had from them she is not a decent human being and what goes around comes around
    She should tolerate racist and sexist humiliation because of "perks"?

    You are ridiculous.
    Is she racist against her white father by not allowing him to see baby Archie?
    Dunno.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961

    algarkirk said:

    Just came across RLB live speech in Manchester and I have to query whether labour are even remotely serious in considering her as leader. She came over to me as someone who is wholly unsuitable for any serious political office, sounding like she has just left school and would be an utter disaster

    She makes Starmer look prime ministerial in comparison and to be honest I have little confidence he will succeed, especially in the northern areas

    Labour are in a mess and how they think they can recover 123 seats for a majority of 1 in 2024 is beyond me

    I think RLB is a decent person but in this context absolutely out of her depth and the extreme left are daft to adopt her. The fact that the far left have no plausible or electorally attractive candidate says a lot. RLB increases the chance of the membership feeling they have no choice but to go for a candidate who could at least get them in sight of electability, so she could be a significant accidental player in Labour's survival. And survival is the word. Another Corbyn and it is existential crisis time.

    She is Jo Swinson Mk II
    To be fair, she has better dress sense....
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    algarkirk said:

    Just came across RLB live speech in Manchester and I have to query whether labour are even remotely serious in considering her as leader. She came over to me as someone who is wholly unsuitable for any serious political office, sounding like she has just left school and would be an utter disaster

    She makes Starmer look prime ministerial in comparison and to be honest I have little confidence he will succeed, especially in the northern areas

    Labour are in a mess and how they think they can recover 123 seats for a majority of 1 in 2024 is beyond me

    I think RLB is a decent person but in this context absolutely out of her depth and the extreme left are daft to adopt her. The fact that the far left have no plausible or electorally attractive candidate says a lot. RLB increases the chance of the membership feeling they have no choice but to go for a candidate who could at least get them in sight of electability, so she could be a significant accidental player in Labour's survival. And survival is the word. Another Corbyn and it is existential crisis time.

    She is Jo Swinson Mk II
    You think she'd oversee a 50% increase in the Labour vote share?
  • ChameleonChameleon Posts: 3,886
    As a reluctant remainer, there's very little chance of rejoin winning a referendum. As for the GE thing, unless there's a remarkable consolidation of central and left-wing parties, I can't ever see that happening either, and it'd fundamentally undemocratic to abandon the clear precedent of referenda on substantial changes with our relationship with the EU.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Not to be underestimated: Lisa Nandy was caught by Nick Robinson today expressing her scepticism for the monarchy on live radio.

    That’s two Labour leadership candidates who’ve put a question mark over it now. Even Jeremy Corbyn (although he didn’t sing the national careless about it.

    Agreed, Prince Andrew needs to be driven into the wilderness so far he has to tunnel through permafrost to get within 1000 light years of Balmoral.

    Harry and Meghan need to be reconciled.

    This is the most perilous time for the monarchy since Diana’s death. It’s possibly worse, with two hideous crises: Meghan and Andrew: at once. Add in the death of the Queen in the near future, and the much less popular Charles taking the throne? Eeeek

    Luckily Kate is an absolute treasure. Impeccable. Beautiful. Loyal. Not a foot wrong. She will make a great queen, given a chance, Grand daughter of a coal miner, god bless her. William chose well.
    Tom Bradby’s article in the Sunday Times last weekend was chilling.

    Meghan has basically threatened to go on the record accusing mily in an increasingly diverse Britain she’d risk actively turning a chunk of the country against them.
    Yes. To be brutal and cold, and in terms of pure realpolitik (I want the monarchy to survive, as I think it is a genuinely amazing asset for brand Britain) what the Queen/Charles need to do it this: buy time

    Give Meghan enough rope to slightly throttle herself, in a genteel way. Let her go off and earn money and do Hollywood voiceovers and endorse yoga tampons and the rest. As her looks fade, and her ambitiion (greed?) becomes clear, public sympathy will dwindle, quickly


    That leaves Harry. Poor Harry. Ah, god. It is sad.
    Even Meghan's own father is about to testify against her, she would do on
    I think Sean’s advice to give her enough rope to hang herself is better.
    Or just treat her like a decent human being and sod the Queen and her army of self-preserving courtiers?
    If she trashes the Royal family in a tv interview after all the perks she has had from them she is not a decent human being and what goes around comes around
    She should tolerate racist and sexist humiliation because of "perks"?

    You are ridiculous.
    Is she racist against her white father by not allowing him to see baby Archie?
    Dunno.
    Just nasty then?
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    algarkirk said:

    Barnesian said:

    FF43 said:

    At the risk of stereotyping my fellow commentators, I am picking up that the more rightwing Leaver types on this forum are very negative towards Meghan Markle and the less right wing Remainer types are more sympathetic towards her.

    Is that a thing generally?

    It's the thick racist stereotype again isn't it?

    EDIT I'm not being sarcastic. I'm supporting you.
    It's going to be a thing generally. Eg, most but not all leavers are centre right not centre left, more CRs than CLs are very warm towards the monarchy, and are more likely to see MM and Harry as some sort of threat to the Burkean order of things. HM the Queen, William and Kate etc represent continuity, MM and Harry represent change. Etc etc. My own feeling is that it is much much less to do with race than culture and celeb issues.

    Well argued. You could be right. May not be racist. But when you see the Daily Mail treatment of Kate v Meghan on their wedding flowers or baby bump you do have to wonder what they are pandering to. It's really hurtful and disgusting. No wonder Meghan and Harry are upset and are trying to rationalise what's going on.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,344
    HYUFD said:

    algarkirk said:

    Barnesian said:

    FF43 said:

    At the risk of stereotyping my fellow commentators, I am picking up that the more rightwing Leaver types on this forum are very negative towards Meghan Markle and the less right wing Remainer types are more sympathetic towards her.

    Is that a thing generally?

    It's the thick racist stereotype again isn't it?

    EDIT I'm not being sarcastic. I'm supporting you.
    It's going to be a thing generally. Eg, most but not all leavers are centre right not centre left, more CRs than CLs are very warm towards the monarchy, and are more likely to see MM and Harry as some sort of threat to the Burkean order of things. HM the Queen, William and Kate etc represent continuity, MM and Harry represent change. Etc etc. My own feeling is that it is much much less to do with race than culture and celeb issues.

    I had not problem with MM and Harry when they were within the royal family, change or not, now they are distancing themselves from it however it is a different matter, especially if they try and trash the brand which made them or still expect some public funds with few royal duties in return
    Agree. Change and development has to be from within. For a 1,200 year old institution it is amazingly popular, and if there were serious examination of the alternatives (voting between Presidents Farage, Blair and Duncan-Smith anyone?) it could only increase in popularity. The danger is always going to be self destruction from within. The hangers on have not been helping much recently.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    Chameleon said:

    As a reluctant remainer, there's very little chance of rejoin winning a referendum. As for the GE thing, unless there's a remarkable consolidation of central and left-wing parties, I can't ever see that happening either, and it'd fundamentally undemocratic to abandon the clear precedent of referenda on substantial changes with our relationship with the EU.
    I agree, the UK will not rejoin the EU in my lifetime.

    Even if Brexit turns out to be a massive failure, we will still not rejoin. We have chosen our path, and we will follow it.
  • rcs1000 said:

    algarkirk said:

    Just came across RLB live speech in Manchester and I have to query whether labour are even remotely serious in considering her as leader. She came over to me as someone who is wholly unsuitable for any serious political office, sounding like she has just left school and would be an utter disaster

    She makes Starmer look prime ministerial in comparison and to be honest I have little confidence he will succeed, especially in the northern areas

    Labour are in a mess and how they think they can recover 123 seats for a majority of 1 in 2024 is beyond me

    I think RLB is a decent person but in this context absolutely out of her depth and the extreme left are daft to adopt her. The fact that the far left have no plausible or electorally attractive candidate says a lot. RLB increases the chance of the membership feeling they have no choice but to go for a candidate who could at least get them in sight of electability, so she could be a significant accidental player in Labour's survival. And survival is the word. Another Corbyn and it is existential crisis time.

    She is Jo Swinson Mk II
    You think she'd oversee a 50% increase in the Labour vote share?
    I refer you to our Big G:

    "She came over to me as someone who is wholly unsuitable for any serious political office, sounding like she has just left school and would be an utter disaster."
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,344
    Barnesian said:

    algarkirk said:

    Barnesian said:

    FF43 said:

    At the risk of stereotyping my fellow commentators, I am picking up that the more rightwing Leaver types on this forum are very negative towards Meghan Markle and the less right wing Remainer types are more sympathetic towards her.

    Is that a thing generally?

    It's the thick racist stereotype again isn't it?

    EDIT I'm not being sarcastic. I'm supporting you.
    It's going to be a thing generally. Eg, most but not all leavers are centre right not centre left, more CRs than CLs are very warm towards the monarchy, and are more likely to see MM and Harry as some sort of threat to the Burkean order of things. HM the Queen, William and Kate etc represent continuity, MM and Harry represent change. Etc etc. My own feeling is that it is much much less to do with race than culture and celeb issues.

    Well argued. You could be right. May not be racist. But when you see the Daily Mail treatment of Kate v Meghan on their wedding flowers or baby bump you do have to wonder what they are pandering to. It's really hurtful and disgusting. No wonder Meghan and Harry are upset and are trying to rationalise what's going on.
    IMHO it isn't possible seriously to follow popular culture - like the Daily Mail - and remain sane. (But who now remembers the hateful coverage about Diana up to the morning of her death?)

  • glwglw Posts: 9,535
    edited January 2020
    rcs1000 said:

    Chameleon said:

    As a reluctant remainer, there's very little chance of rejoin winning a referendum. As for the GE thing, unless there's a remarkable consolidation of central and left-wing parties, I can't ever see that happening either, and it'd fundamentally undemocratic to abandon the clear precedent of referenda on substantial changes with our relationship with the EU.
    I agree, the UK will not rejoin the EU in my lifetime.

    Even if Brexit turns out to be a massive failure, we will still not rejoin. We have chosen our path, and we will follow it.
    Given time it won't even be a question of rejoining the EU as is, it will involve joining a full-fledged federal state.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    edited January 2020
    algarkirk said:

    Barnesian said:

    algarkirk said:

    Barnesian said:

    FF43 said:

    At the risk of stereotyping my fellow commentators, I am picking up that the more rightwing Leaver types on this forum are very negative towards Meghan Markle and the less right wing Remainer types are more sympathetic towards her.

    Is that a thing generally?

    It's the thick racist stereotype again isn't it?

    EDIT I'm not being sarcastic. I'm supporting you.
    It's going to be a thing generally. Eg, most but not all leavers are centre right not centre left, more CRs than CLs are very warm towards the monarchy, and are more likely to see MM and Harry as some sort of threat to the Burkean order of things. HM the Queen, William and Kate etc represent continuity, MM and Harry represent change. Etc etc. My own feeling is that it is much much less to do with race than culture and celeb issues.

    Well argued. You could be right. May not be racist. But when you see the Daily Mail treatment of Kate v Meghan on their wedding flowers or baby bump you do have to wonder what they are pandering to. It's really hurtful and disgusting. No wonder Meghan and Harry are upset and are trying to rationalise what's going on.
    IMHO it isn't possible seriously to follow popular culture - like the Daily Mail - and remain sane. (But who now remembers the hateful coverage about Diana up to the morning of her death?)

    Quite. I really really feel for Harry. He was 12 years old when he lost his mother.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Why would having one of our legislative chambers outside of London make a difference? I know everyone wants to not be seen as London centric, but I really don't understand the benefits of moving our parliament out of our capital and largest city, and definitely not moving only half of it. What would we do with the other half of the Palace of Westminster?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082
    FF43 said:

    At the risk of stereotyping my fellow commentators, I am picking up that the more rightwing Leaver types on this forum are very negative towards Meghan Markle and the less right wing Remainer types are more sympathetic towards her.

    Is that a thing generally?

    It is indeed. Pick your side in Bride wars:

    https://twitter.com/helenlewis/status/1217733056229933056?s=19
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Foxy said:

    FF43 said:

    At the risk of stereotyping my fellow commentators, I am picking up that the more rightwing Leaver types on this forum are very negative towards Meghan Markle and the less right wing Remainer types are more sympathetic towards her.

    Is that a thing generally?

    It is indeed. Pick your side in Bride wars:

    https://twitter.com/helenlewis/status/1217733056229933056?s=19
    And like most such battles, its unnecessary and silly but real.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Not to be underestimated: Lisa Nandy was caught by Nick Robinson today expressing her scepticism for the monarchy on live radio.

    That’s two Labour leadership candidates who’ve put a question mark over it now. Even Jeremy Corbyn (although he didn’t sing the national careless about it.

    Agreed, Prince Andrew needs to be driven into the wilderness so far he has to tunnel through permafrost to get within 1000 light years of Balmoral.

    Harry and Meghan need to be reconciled.

    This is the most perilous time for the monarchy since Diana’s death. It’s possibly worse, with two hideous crises: Meghan and Andrew: at once. Add in the death of the Queen in the near future, and the much less popular Charles taking the throne? Eeeek

    Luckily Kate is an absolute treasure. Impeccable. Beautiful. Loyal. Not a foot wrong. She will make a great queen, given a chance, Grand daughter of a coal miner, god bless her. William chose well.
    Tom Bradby’s article in the Sunday Times last weekend was chilling.

    Meghan has basically threatened to go on the record accusing mily in an increasingly diverse Britain she’d risk actively turning a chunk of the country against them.
    Yes. To be brutal and cold,


    That leaves Harry. Poor Harry. Ah, god. It is sad.
    Even Meghan's own father is about to testify against her, she would do on
    I think Sean’s advice to give her enough rope to hang herself is better.
    Or just treat her like a decent human being and sod the Queen and her army of self-preserving courtiers?
    If she trashes the Royal family in a tv interview after all the perks she has had from them she is not a decent human being and what goes around comes around
    She should tolerate racist and sexist humiliation because of "perks"?

    You are ridiculous.
    Is she racist against her white father by not allowing him to see baby Archie?
    Meghan is clearly quite estranged from her family, and for some years even before her marriage. From what we have seen of them, I can see why.

    Perhaps however it is not a coincidence that those that romance into the Royal Family are serially driven out over the years. Meghan, Diana, Fergie, Camilla (first time round), Lord Snowden, Peter Townsend etc.

    Maybe, just maybe, the problem is the senior Royals, not the incomers.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,688
    rcs1000 said:

    algarkirk said:

    Just came across RLB live speech in Manchester and I have to query whether labour are even remotely serious in considering her as leader. She came over to me as someone who is wholly unsuitable for any serious political office, sounding like she has just left school and would be an utter disaster

    She makes Starmer look prime ministerial in comparison and to be honest I have little confidence he will succeed, especially in the northern areas

    Labour are in a mess and how they think they can recover 123 seats for a majority of 1 in 2024 is beyond me

    I think RLB is a decent person but in this context absolutely out of her depth and the extreme left are daft to adopt her. The fact that the far left have no plausible or electorally attractive candidate says a lot. RLB increases the chance of the membership feeling they have no choice but to go for a candidate who could at least get them in sight of electability, so she could be a significant accidental player in Labour's survival. And survival is the word. Another Corbyn and it is existential crisis time.

    She is Jo Swinson Mk II
    You think she'd oversee a 50% increase in the Labour vote share?
    Perhaps it's more that the original career beckons.
  • Foxy said:

    FF43 said:

    At the risk of stereotyping my fellow commentators, I am picking up that the more rightwing Leaver types on this forum are very negative towards Meghan Markle and the less right wing Remainer types are more sympathetic towards her.

    Is that a thing generally?

    It is indeed. Pick your side in Bride wars:

    https://twitter.com/helenlewis/status/1217733056229933056?s=19
    Did Kate prevent her father from seeing his grandchild?
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,688
    kle4 said:

    Why would having one of our legislative chambers outside of London make a difference? I know everyone wants to not be seen as London centric, but I really don't understand the benefits of moving our parliament out of our capital and largest city, and definitely not moving only half of it. What would we do with the other half of the Palace of Westminster?
    It's pointless crap. RLB is a complete idiot. She's massively improving over time, but we can't wait quite so long.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:


    Agreed, Prince Andrew needs to be driven into the wilderness so far he has to tunnel through permafrost to get within 1000 light years of Balmoral.

    Harry and Meghan need to be reconciled.

    This is the most perilous time for the monarchy since Diana’s death. It’s possibly worse, with two hideous crises: Meghan and Andrew: at once. Add in the death of the Queen in the near future, and the much less popular Charles taking the throne? Eeeek

    Luckily Kate is an absolute treasure. Impeccable. Beautiful. Loyal. Not a foot wrong. She will make a great queen, given a chance, Grand daughter of a coal miner, god bless her. William chose well.

    Tom Bradby’s article in the Sunday Times last weekend was chilling.

    Meghan has basically threatened to go on the record accusing mily in an increasingly diverse Britain she’d risk actively turning a chunk of the country against them.
    Yes. To be brutal and cold,


    That leaves Harry. Poor Harry. Ah, god. It is sad.
    Even Meghan's own father is about to testify against her, she would do on
    I think Sean’s advice to give her enough rope to hang herself is better.
    Or just treat her like a decent human being and sod the Queen and her army of self-preserving courtiers?
    If she trashes the Royal family in a tv interview after all the perks she has had from them she is not a decent human being and what goes around comes around
    She should tolerate racist and sexist humiliation because of "perks"?

    You are ridiculous.
    Is she racist against her white father by not allowing him to see baby Archie?
    Meghan is clearly quite estranged from her family, and for some years even before her marriage. From what we have seen of them, I can see why.

    Perhaps however it is not a coincidence that those that romance into the Royal Family are serially driven out over the years. Meghan, Diana, Fergie, Camilla (first time round), Lord Snowden, Peter Townsend etc.

    Maybe, just maybe, the problem is the senior Royals, not the incomers.
    Peter Townsend was in a relationship with a Royal???
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082
    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:


    Agreed, Prince Andrew needs to be driven into the wilderness so far he has to tunnel through permafrost to get within 1000 light years of Balmoral.

    Harry and Meghan need to be reconciled.

    This is the most perilous time for the monarchy since Diana’s death. It’s possibly worse, with two hideous crises: Meghan and Andrew: at once. Add in the death of the Queen in the near future, and the much less popular Charles taking the throne? Eeeek

    Luckily Kate is an absolute treasure. Impeccable. Beautiful. Loyal. Not a foot wrong. She will make a great queen, given a chance, Grand daughter of a coal miner, god bless her. William chose well.

    Tom Bradby’s article in the Sunday Times last weekend was chilling.

    Meghan has basically threatened to go on the record accusing mily in an increasingly diverse Britain she’d risk actively turning a chunk of the country against them.
    Yes. To be brutal and cold,


    That leaves Harry. Poor Harry. Ah, god. It is sad.
    Even Meghan's own father is about to testify against her, she would do on
    I think Sean’s advice to give her enough rope to hang herself is better.
    Or just treat her like a decent human being and sod the Queen and her army of self-preserving courtiers?
    If she trashes the Royal family in a tv interview after all the perks she has had from them she is not a decent human being and what goes around comes around
    She should tolerate racist and sexist humiliation because of "perks"?

    You are ridiculous.
    Is she racist against her white father by not allowing him to see baby Archie?
    Meghan is clearly quite estranged from her family, and for some years even before her marriage. From what we have seen of them, I can see why.

    Perhaps however it is not a coincidence that those that romance into the Royal Family are serially driven out over the years. Meghan, Diana, Fergie, Camilla (first time round), Lord Snowden, Peter Townsend etc.

    Maybe, just maybe, the problem is the senior Royals, not the incomers.
    Peter Townsend was in a relationship with a Royal???
    The other one:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Townsend_(RAF_officer)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Omnium said:

    kle4 said:

    Why would having one of our legislative chambers outside of London make a difference? I know everyone wants to not be seen as London centric, but I really don't understand the benefits of moving our parliament out of our capital and largest city, and definitely not moving only half of it. What would we do with the other half of the Palace of Westminster?
    It's pointless crap. RLB is a complete idiot. She's massively improving over time, but we can't wait quite so long.
    I could at least understand a suggestion of abolishing the Lords and replacing with a Senate or nothing at all, and of a suggestion to move parliament out of London, though I don't see the point - but it looks like a strange, unconvincing half measure proposal, a constitutional version of the Corbynite Brexit policy.
    Foxy said:
    If I were not bored to tears by The Crown perhaps I'd have known that.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094

    rcs1000 said:

    algarkirk said:

    Just came across RLB live speech in Manchester and I have to query whether labour are even remotely serious in considering her as leader. She came over to me as someone who is wholly unsuitable for any serious political office, sounding like she has just left school and would be an utter disaster

    She makes Starmer look prime ministerial in comparison and to be honest I have little confidence he will succeed, especially in the northern areas

    Labour are in a mess and how they think they can recover 123 seats for a majority of 1 in 2024 is beyond me

    I think RLB is a decent person but in this context absolutely out of her depth and the extreme left are daft to adopt her. The fact that the far left have no plausible or electorally attractive candidate says a lot. RLB increases the chance of the membership feeling they have no choice but to go for a candidate who could at least get them in sight of electability, so she could be a significant accidental player in Labour's survival. And survival is the word. Another Corbyn and it is existential crisis time.

    She is Jo Swinson Mk II
    You think she'd oversee a 50% increase in the Labour vote share?
    I refer you to our Big G:

    "She came over to me as someone who is wholly unsuitable for any serious political office, sounding like she has just left school and would be an utter disaster."
    He used to say things like that about a prominent Tory, once upon a time.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,279
    The burning issue in Salford is moving the House of Lords out of London.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,620
    “If someone had told me I’d be standing here in 2020 saying I was going to be leader of the Labour Party and the next Prime Minister I’d have thought they had stumbled out of the Haçienda having taken one or two illicit substances.”

    Fair play to RLB, that’s a decent line.
  • Barnesian said:

    FF43 said:

    At the risk of stereotyping my fellow commentators, I am picking up that the more rightwing Leaver types on this forum are very negative towards Meghan Markle and the less right wing Remainer types are more sympathetic towards her.

    Is that a thing generally?

    It's the thick racist stereotype again isn't it?

    EDIT I'm not being sarcastic. I'm supporting you.
    Not all thickies are racist, but most racists are thickies
  • rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:


    Agreed, Prince Andrew needs to be driven into the wilderness so far he has to tunnel through permafrost to get within 1000 light years of Balmoral.

    Harry and Meghan need to be reconciled.

    This is the most perilous time for the monarchy since Diana’s death. It’s possibly worse, with two hideous crises: Meghan and Andrew: at once. Add in the death of the Queen in the near future, and the much less popular Charles taking the throne? Eeeek

    Luckily Kate is an absolute treasure. Impeccable. Beautiful. Loyal. Not a foot wrong. She will make a great queen, given a chance, Grand daughter of a coal miner, god bless her. William chose well.

    Tom Bradby’s article in the Sunday Times last weekend was chilling.

    Meghan has basically threatened to go on the record accusing mily in an increasingly diverse Britain she’d risk actively turning a chunk of the country against them.
    Yes. To be brutal and cold,


    That leaves Harry. Poor Harry. Ah, god. It is sad.
    Even Meghan's own father is about to testify against her, she would do on
    I think Sean’s advice to give her enough rope to hang herself is better.
    Or just treat her like a decent human being and sod the Queen and her army of self-preserving courtiers?
    If she trashes the Royal family in a tv interview after all the perks she has had from them she is not a decent human being and what goes around comes around
    She should tolerate racist and sexist humiliation because of "perks"?

    You are ridiculous.
    Is she racist against her white father by not allowing him to see baby Archie?
    Meghan is clearly quite estranged from her family, and for some years even before her marriage. From what we have seen of them, I can see why.

    Perhaps however it is not a coincidence that those that romance into the Royal Family are serially driven out over the years. Meghan, Diana, Fergie, Camilla (first time round), Lord Snowden, Peter Townsend etc.

    Maybe, just maybe, the problem is the senior Royals, not the incomers.
    Peter Townsend was in a relationship with a Royal???
    He might have a simlar internet search history to at least one royal.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:
    /blockquote>

    Perhaps however it is not a coincidence that those that romance into the Royal Family are serially driven out over the years. Meghan, Diana, Fergie, Camilla (first time round), Lord Snowden, Peter Townsend etc.

    Maybe, just maybe, the problem is the senior Royals, not the incomers.
    You can equally pick a much larger number of people who have joined the Royal Family very successfully over the years. (Think of Edward’s wife or Kate or the spouses of Anne’s children or the Queen Mum or the Kents, Gloucesters etc.) Some of your examples don’t support your point. Snowdon remained a great favourite of the Royals and behaved like an absolute shit towards Margaret. She could have had Townsend but wanted royal titles more.

    I am wary of accepting the spin we are being spun. Neither Meghan nor Harry are children. Harry has had no real role since leaving the army and clearly wants out. Nothing wrong with that and his wife - who would have had no understanding of English life or the Royals role in it - clearly shares his views. The only issue is how to make the break in a way that gives them what they want without harming our Head of State - and without them taking advantage of their royal status in a “have cake/eat cake” way.

    For their own sake I hope they don’t go down the tacky celebrity route, though I fear they will. They would also be well advised not to get into revenge interviews. It will only trash their reputation and risks more stories coming out about their own behaviour - especially if they start making accusations against staff and former friends.

    The brutal reality for them is that they are minor royals who will become even more so as the years pass. They can do something useful with their lives if they want. I hope they do. Harry has charisma and charm and Meghan a bit of oomph and a mind of her own.

    But flogging Sussex-themed chocolate and hanging around in Hollywood to be paraded as show ponies by those who buy celebrities (actresses don’t appear at all these events because they have been invited by friends but because they are paid to do so - basically you pimp yourself out by turning up in ever more revealing clothes so that some rich git can bask in your reflected glory) sounds even worse than royal life to me. But what do I know.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,676

    FF43 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Not to be underestimated: Lisa Nandy was caught by Nick Robinson today expressing her scepticism for the monarchy on live radio.

    That’s two Labour leadership candidates who’ve put a question mark over it now. Even Jeremy Corbyn (although he didn’t sing the national anthem) didn’t do that.

    If I were the palace or the government I’d be really concerned about this.

    If support for the monarchy starts to become politicised down values lines then it could be in serious trouble. It won’t take much more bad behaviour for a question mark over the whole institution to gather a head of steam.

    The Queen understands this - and it explains why she’s moving heaven and earth to pacify Meghan Markle, who’s a loaded bomb who’s threatened to self-detonate - but I’m note sure other members of her family do, or if they do they’re far too careless about it.

    So incompetent they don't deserve to survive. They could have given Meghan everything she wanted in the guise of a slimming down of the monarchy and a consequent demotion, and simultaneously seen off the appalling Andrew and his porcine spawn, after the Andrew tv interview.
    A bit of empathy wouldn't have gone amiss. Clearly Harry and Meghan's setup wasn't working out. Why couldn't they have said, let's discuss it and see if we can get something that works.
    They did. The Queen and Duke of Edinburgh were working on this well before their ‘newsflash’.

    They’ve bent over backwards to help Meghan and Harry fit in.
    Exactly , she is a cuckoo in the nest, typical full of themselves stupid self seeking American.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,572

    “If someone had told me I’d be standing here in 2020 saying I was going to be leader of the Labour Party and the next Prime Minister I’d have thought they had stumbled out of the Haçienda having taken one or two illicit substances.”

    Fair play to RLB, that’s a decent line.

    She's not going to be the next Prime Minister.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,676
    FF43 said:

    At the risk of stereotyping my fellow commentators, I am picking up that the more rightwing Leaver types on this forum are very negative towards Meghan Markle and the less right wing Remainer types are more sympathetic towards her.

    Is that a thing generally?

    I don't give a monkeys chuff for her or Harry, a pair of hypocritical freeloaders.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043

    “If someone had told me I’d be standing here in 2020 saying I was going to be leader of the Labour Party and the next Prime Minister I’d have thought they had stumbled out of the Haçienda having taken one or two illicit substances.”

    Fair play to RLB, that’s a decent line.

    She's not going to be the next Prime Minister.
    The Hacienda closed in 1997. She was 18.

    So just about possible I suppose.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043
    edited January 2020
    Gabs3 said:
    So this is how the Labour party ends. Not with a bang, but with a load of TV screens reading 'our path to power'.

    Has there ever been a more disingenuous slogan?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082
    @Cyclefree

    That's the point. The Royal Family seem to be much more willing to accept traditional wives, not independent women with minds of their own.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961

    “If someone had told me I’d be standing here in 2020 saying I was going to be leader of the Labour Party and the next Prime Minister I’d have thought they had stumbled out of the Haçienda having taken one or two illicit substances.”

    Fair play to RLB, that’s a decent line.

    She's not going to be the next Prime Minister.
    Not unless 14 million take illicit substances too....
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,768

    “If someone had told me I’d be standing here in 2020 saying I was going to be leader of the Labour Party and the next Prime Minister I’d have thought they had stumbled out of the Haçienda having taken one or two illicit substances.”

    Fair play to RLB, that’s a decent line.

    Given she has no chance of being the next PM, it’s probably accurate too.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,768
    She will be a grape leader, but has no hope of raisin her party’s fortunes.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043
    RBL was introduced by a new MP who apparently can't wait to celebrate Blair's death.

    Strangely she is not a right wing Tory but Labour.

    She was 4 when Blair won a landslide for Labour and ended 18 years of opposition.

    She attended a Birmingham grammar school.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 11,184

    Barnesian said:

    FF43 said:

    At the risk of stereotyping my fellow commentators, I am picking up that the more rightwing Leaver types on this forum are very negative towards Meghan Markle and the less right wing Remainer types are more sympathetic towards her.

    Is that a thing generally?

    It's the thick racist stereotype again isn't it?

    EDIT I'm not being sarcastic. I'm supporting you.
    Not all thickies are racist, but most racists are thickies
    Back to FF43's point: it's because of the Queen. In Leaverstan You Do Not Fuck With The Queen. In Leaverstan the monacrhists are on the queen's side, and the republicans are don't cares are not on the side of some actress/duchess who they hadn't heard of two years ago - these people are not really won around by 'working towards financial independence'. Thus, she has united all of Leaverstan against her.
    Many Leaverstan royalists were very happy to support her when they married, by the way. They watched her on telly and they waved little flags and were delighted for their happiness. But Leaverstan royalists welcomed her to the royal family in the hope that she would behave like an ideal princess, like her sister-in-law-in-law. Not in the hope that she would 'shake things up'. In the view of royalists, things didn't much need shaking up.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,584
    malcolmg said:

    FF43 said:

    At the risk of stereotyping my fellow commentators, I am picking up that the more rightwing Leaver types on this forum are very negative towards Meghan Markle and the less right wing Remainer types are more sympathetic towards her.

    Is that a thing generally?

    I don't give a monkeys chuff for her or Harry, a pair of hypocritical freeloaders.
    The second half of that sentence rather gives the lie to the first...
  • I am going to confidently predict Starmer will win and the journey of Labour becoming an electable force will now begin again.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043
    ydoethur said:

    She will be a grape leader, but has no hope of raisin her party’s fortunes.


    Apparently the woman on the right is the next Prime Minister.

    Will Labour's membership wake up from their dreaming?
  • eggegg Posts: 1,749
    ydoethur said:

    She will be a grape leader, but has no hope of raisin her party’s fortunes.
    Not rating her currant chances.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,768

    RBL was introduced by a new MP who apparently can't wait to celebrate Blair's death.

    Strangely she is not a right wing Tory but Labour.

    She was 4 when Blair won a landslide for Labour and ended 18 years of opposition.

    She attended a Birmingham grammar school.

    She’s also very racist and clearly not very bright:

    https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/exclusive-labour-parliamentary-candidate-said-she-would-celebrate-deaths-of-blair-netanyahu-1.491027
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043
    Then again, maybe some in the left are waking up:

    https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1218230475652829186
  • Then again, maybe some in the left are waking up:

    https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1218230475652829186

    We have, we want a Labour Government not a Labour protest movement.
  • eggegg Posts: 1,749
    isam said:

    I don't support the ban for that. Some sort of fine and suspended ban would have been smarter.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,768
    edited January 2020
    egg said:

    isam said:

    I don't support the ban for that. Some sort of fine and suspended ban would have been smarter.
    He wasn’t banned for that. He was banned for repeated poor behaviour over a pattern of two years.

    Just as nobody gets banned for doing 36 in a 30 limit, but get caught doing it four times in three years and you will get a ban.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 11,184
    edited January 2020
    Foxy said:

    @Cyclefree

    That's the point. The Royal Family seem to be much more willing to accept traditional wives, not independent women with minds of their own.

    It's not a woman thing, though, is it? It would be just the same if a daughter of a monarch married someone with a mind of his own. None of the royal family are allowed to have minds of their own.
    Actually, they are: they're not just allowed to speak them. Remember the fuss when the Prince of Wales deigned to express a fairly unsurprising opinion on a subject as anodyne as architecture? Speaking their minds in any way a) alienates people, b) makes use of a platform many are not really sure they should have, and c) takes away the magic. If you're going to have an opinion, it genuinely has to be as uncontroversial and watertight as 'it's good for young people to get some healthy exercise in the outdoors'.
    I say this as an uncommitted republican who privately agrees with the PoW's views on architecture but am uncomfortable with him having a position to express it.

    The really admirable thing about the queen is that she betrays almost no trace of ego whatsoever. There is alsways a flurry of excitement when some rumour of a personal view on a matter emerges, but no-one is really sure. It's astonishing, and admirable, and has almost no paralell anywhere else in the world; possibly it is unique in history. She makes the monarchy work the only way it possibly can, and she has been doing this job for far longer than most of us have been alive. It's astonishing. But once the royal family (and there is a blurred line now with how far out the royal family stops - but it must overlap at least to some extent with where the civil list stops) starts speaking its mind, you start to raise questions over whether this is in fact the job of an elected politician, and whether therefore we ought to come up with some other system for a head of state.
  • eggegg Posts: 1,749
    isam said:

    £300 to back Nandy at 15... if that YouGov is anywhere near accurate, how can she be even a 6% chance?

    Because we dont seem to know how labour leadership elections are going to go at this stage? No. We knew Corbyn had the mo long before the polling did. Lisa doesn’t win on her ideology but the conviction in her voice.
  • eggegg Posts: 1,749
    ydoethur said:

    egg said:

    isam said:

    I don't support the ban for that. Some sort of fine and suspended ban would have been smarter.
    He wasn’t banned for that. He was banned for repeated poor behaviour over a pattern of two years.

    Just as nobody gets banned for doing 36 in a 30 limit, but get caught doing it four times in three years and you will get a ban.
    He touched Smith in a confrontation?
  • eggegg Posts: 1,749

    Then again, maybe some in the left are waking up:

    https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1218230475652829186

    We have, we want a Labour Government not a Labour protest movement.

    Man backs man over women? And you present it as ideology?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043
    "We are not beaten"

    Stirrings of life from the 170/1 outsider.

    https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/1218243800046473217
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043
    egg said:

    Then again, maybe some in the left are waking up:

    https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1218230475652829186

    We have, we want a Labour Government not a Labour protest movement.

    Man backs man over women? And you present it as ideology?
    You are Shami and I claim my £5 :smiley:
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,768
    edited January 2020
    egg said:

    ydoethur said:

    egg said:

    isam said:

    I don't support the ban for that. Some sort of fine and suspended ban would have been smarter.
    He wasn’t banned for that. He was banned for repeated poor behaviour over a pattern of two years.

    Just as nobody gets banned for doing 36 in a 30 limit, but get caught doing it four times in three years and you will get a ban.
    He touched Smith in a confrontation?
    He was originally accused of deliberately hitting Smith while celebrating his wicket, which would have led to an instant ban. He appealed, and it was downgraded to the same level as this one. But given that was the third time he had been warned about his behaviour, for him to do it again was, to put it mildly, foolish.

    The irony is if he hadn’t appealed that decision he wouldn’t have got a ban now.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 11,184
    edited January 2020
    isam said:
    Cricket has a problem with uncricketly behaviour, and I don't believe that 'getting in someone's head' should be part of the game. But what Rabada did seemed to fall well short of anything needing censure.

    On a more cheerful note, England now appear to have a top 6 batting line up! I can't remember being as happy with England's batting line-up since about 2005. The more remarkable thing is that it appears to have turned around so quickly. It seems only a few months since the top 6 was Joe Root at 4, and Ben Stokes somewhere, and some other blokes.

    edit: just seen ydeothur's comment about him being banned for persistent minor infringements. Fair enough.
  • eggegg Posts: 1,749

    "We are not beaten"

    Stirrings of life from the 170/1 outsider.

    https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/1218243800046473217

    Thornberry’ s pitch in one sentence;
    Right. Mate. Yeah you mate. Who wants a bruising?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,768

    "We are not beaten"

    Stirrings of life from the 170/1 outsider.

    https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/1218243800046473217

    Which estate was this? An earl’s or a baron’s estate, or just an ordinary country estate?

    (Yes, this is a joke.)
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,676
    Oh Dear Carlotta must have missed this one,
    Costs double for stalled Liverpool and Birmingham hospitals, report finds
    The Royal Liverpool Hospital is due to open five years late and to cost more than £1bn to build and maintain.

    And the Midland Metropolitan Hospital in Smethwick is due to cost at least £998m, some £300m more than expected.
    However, there were "particularly significant risks" of further cost increases and delays, as there were still "some issues which are not yet resolved", warned auditors.
  • RandallFlaggRandallFlagg Posts: 1,151
    Mid Fife and Glenrothes CLP nominates Starmer for the leadership. It really doesn't look like Phillips' Scottish strategy has worked at all.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,676
    Nigelb said:

    malcolmg said:

    FF43 said:

    At the risk of stereotyping my fellow commentators, I am picking up that the more rightwing Leaver types on this forum are very negative towards Meghan Markle and the less right wing Remainer types are more sympathetic towards her.

    Is that a thing generally?

    I don't give a monkeys chuff for her or Harry, a pair of hypocritical freeloaders.
    The second half of that sentence rather gives the lie to the first...
    Eh!
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    kle4 said:

    Why would having one of our legislative chambers outside of London make a difference? I know everyone wants to not be seen as London centric, but I really don't understand the benefits of moving our parliament out of our capital and largest city, and definitely not moving only half of it. What would we do with the other half of the Palace of Westminster?
    The only way something like that would make sense would be if the House of Commons became the English parliament, and the new senate was a union parliament somewhere else to make the union look less like a London-centric empire.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,768

    Mid Fife and Glenrothes CLP nominates Starmer for the leadership. It really doesn't look like Phillips' Scottish strategy has worked at all.

    Sounds like she would make at least a typical Labour leader...
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518
    You would have thought that at some point some intelligent politician would notice that constitutional reform has caused the country little but grief since 1997 and it might be worth concentrating on other things. Rather than half baked ideas for complete overhaul of the House of Lords which would overshadow all else for the years whilst the constitutional implications are worked through whilst a viable alternative is worked out, followed by a period when no legislation can be passed whilstthe new body is being constituted, which will then be seen to have far greater legitimacy as a “blocking” chamber once elected, at a time when the Government is likely to suffer from midterm unpopularity.

    Perhaps in the currently unlikely event that a left wing government is in power with sufficient strength to undertake such reforms, they might feel that they could put that power to more productive use...
  • egg said:

    ydoethur said:

    She will be a grape leader, but has no hope of raisin her party’s fortunes.
    Not rating her currant chances.
    She's still having a wine.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 11,184
    malcolmg said:

    FF43 said:

    At the risk of stereotyping my fellow commentators, I am picking up that the more rightwing Leaver types on this forum are very negative towards Meghan Markle and the less right wing Remainer types are more sympathetic towards her.

    Is that a thing generally?

    I don't give a monkeys chuff for her or Harry, a pair of hypocritical freeloaders.
    Fun to find a subject I agree with Malcom on!
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Foxy said:

    @Cyclefree

    That's the point. The Royal Family seem to be much more willing to accept traditional wives, not independent women with minds of their own.

    Not just women. Prince Philip faced exactly the same problem. If you don’t like or want it then don’t bloody join. But if you do accept that that there are downsides to the privileges you get.

    I question the claim that she was not accepted. She was seen as a breath of fresh air. Invited to Sandringham after the engagement. Harry was given a role with the Commonwealth and Meghan made a great play of weaving that into her wedding dress. HMQ made a very public point of inviting her to to a joint engagement very early on, a privilege not granted to Kate or Fergie or Edward’s wife. She made well regarded speeches in the 3 overseas tours they made; she was given patronages which played to her strengths (the National Theatre, for instance).

    Of course the RF is more traditional than most society. But she should have been made aware of that by Harry and having decided to marry into the family then the accommodation is made on both sides. It is pretty arrogant for one recent and junior member to think that they either should or could change it to suit them, especially when they are utterly unimportant in terms of the succession. And it is pretty bloody traditional to have a baby within the first year of marriage.

    Let them have a private and happy life. And stop bothering us with their tiresome psychodramas.

    And they’d be well advised to settle the claim brought against the Mail PDQ. That has the potential to backfire hugely on them. Disclosure of how often “friends” of the couple have briefed the press on their behalf is exactly what I’d look forward to were I the lawyer advising the paper.
This discussion has been closed.