Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Let us not forget how much Corbyn contributed to Johnson’s GE2

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited July 24 in General
imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Let us not forget how much Corbyn contributed to Johnson’s GE2019 victory

This week’s out of court settlement of the case between the LAB party and some of its former employees has put the spotlight once again on former leader Corbyn who twice led to the party to two successive general election defeats. The decision by Corbyn himself to attack the party over this is a reflection that Labour’s internal wars are ongoing.

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 908
    First!
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 4,542
    Phil Collins in The Times this morning is scathing on Corbyn, but he could just as easily be writing about BoZo

    The chaos of the Corbyn leadership is what happens if you take the most stupid person in the building and put him in charge. Public life can only bear so much stupidity. Bereft of intellectual weight, with nothing much in his head and painfully conscious of the deficiency, Mr Corbyn’s options were to lean heavily on unctuous self-righteousness or, when that failed, to lash out. Unable to provide good reasons, or any reasons, for his decisions, he simply acted with erratic impunity and got instantly testy if anyone questioned his authority. He was always a rather pathetic figure, if briefly quite a dangerous one. Meanwhile his entourage of sycophants, the Milnes, Murphys and McCluskeys, went out to argue for a man they always regarded as a useful idiot.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/starmer-must-finish-off-corbyn-to-show-he-means-business-xnlz35pvx
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 16,902
    Some interesting figures in the ONS thread here on retail. Bouncing back well in some sectors.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 16,902
    One of the less pleasant tasks of the spring was to clean out the rat infested garden shed, and disinfect the garden furniture within. Cleaning out the stain of anti-semitism from the Labour party is a similar unpleasant task, but Starmer does seem to be getting on with that essential job. Corbynites who attack him as a result are true enemies of the party.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 30,103
    edited July 24
    ‘He twice led the party to two successive general election defeats?’

    I hate to be pedantic* but that makes four election defeats.

    *That is possibly the most unconvincing lie in the history of PB.

    Edit - ah, I see it’s been corrected on the main site.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 6,205
    ydoethur said:

    ‘He twice led the party to two successive general election defeats?’

    I hate to be pedantic* but that makes four election defeats.

    *That is possibly the most unconvincing lie in the history of PB.

    Edit - ah, I see it’s been corrected on the main site.

    That was a mistake which was corrected
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 30,103
    edited July 24
    BJO posted a belated comment two threads ago saying that sources in Islington CLP have been told Corbyn is to lose the whip.

    Leaving aside the fact he is now doubling down on his mindless racism, surely he deserves expulsion for the blatant defiance of Starmer, which effectively includes calling the new Labour leader a liar?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 34,369
    Foxy said:

    Some interesting figures in the ONS thread here on retail. Bouncing back well in some sectors.

    Good news for once

    July will be interesting
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 34,832
    Foxy said:

    Some interesting figures in the ONS thread here on retail. Bouncing back well in some sectors.

    Boris will no doubt claim it is "V-shaped for victory...."
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 34,832
    ydoethur said:


    *That is possibly the most unconvincing lie in the history of PB.

    Still some way to go in order to beat the alter egos of SeanT claiming they are not he.....
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 34,369
    Foxy said:

    One of the less pleasant tasks of the spring was to clean out the rat infested garden shed, and disinfect the garden furniture within. Cleaning out the stain of anti-semitism from the Labour party is a similar unpleasant task, but Starmer does seem to be getting on with that essential job. Corbynites who attack him as a result are true enemies of the party.

    Corbynites are not just true enemies of the labour party but the country as well

    Had Starmer led labour instead of Corbyn I have little doubt that we would have remained in the single market at the very least

    It is clear Corbyn and his fellow supporting mps just have to have the whip removed otherwise Starmer will be so compromised his attempts to turn labour round will be in disarray

    Decisively act on Corbyn and it will be a game changer
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 34,832
    Foxy said:

    One of the less pleasant tasks of the spring was to clean out the rat infested garden shed, and disinfect the garden furniture within. Cleaning out the stain of anti-semitism from the Labour party is a similar unpleasant task, but Starmer does seem to be getting on with that essential job. Corbynites who attack him as a result are true enemies of the party.

    Still not going to sit comfortably when there is a lingering smell of rat piss, are you? It's going to need more than Dettol and sunlight...
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 34,369
    Labour have written to Ofcom asking for an urgent review into RT's licence to broadcast inthe UK

    You could not have conceived that 6 months ago
  • MetatronMetatron Posts: 130
    I can verify on my account as a historical Lib Dem voter and someone who voted remain that i voted Tory in 2019 GE out of a) fear of Corbyn b)dismay at the way that Lib Dem leadership appeared not to care about cheating 17 million people out of a Brexit (however stupid) winning Referendum vote.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 34,309

    Foxy said:

    One of the less pleasant tasks of the spring was to clean out the rat infested garden shed, and disinfect the garden furniture within. Cleaning out the stain of anti-semitism from the Labour party is a similar unpleasant task, but Starmer does seem to be getting on with that essential job. Corbynites who attack him as a result are true enemies of the party.

    Corbynites are not just true enemies of the labour party but the country as well

    Had Starmer led labour instead of Corbyn I have little doubt that we would have remained in the single market at the very least

    It is clear Corbyn and his fellow supporting mps just have to have the whip removed otherwise Starmer will be so compromised his attempts to turn labour round will be in disarray

    Decisively act on Corbyn and it will be a game changer
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/07/23/jeremy-corbyn-accused-unleashing-wave-legal-claims-against-labour/

    Labour to be be bankrupted?
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 2,981
    ydoethur said:

    BJO posted a belated comment two threads ago saying that sources in Islington CLP have been told Corbyn is to lose the whip.

    Leaving aside the fact he is now doubling down on his mindless racism, surely he deserves expulsion for the blatant defiance of Starmer, which effectively includes calling the new Labour leader a liar?

    Strategically for Starmer it would be better just to carry on and let Corbyn self-destruct as he discredits himself further. In doing so he'll splinter the far left further. On Tuesday it was noticeable how some of Corbyn's former allies were distancing themselves from his defiance - for example John Lansman and James Mills, his former adviser. The next step in the saga is to watch from the sidelines as Corbyn is sued by John Ware and to await the EHRC report. No need for Starmer to overreach himself by setting up Corbyn as a martyr at this point. Better to wait and take stock later.

    I agree 100% with this article: "Keir Starmer doesn’t need to lift a finger as Corbyn’s Left discredits itself"

    https://inews.co.uk/opinion/keir-starmer-jeremy-corbyn-hard-left-antisemitism-whistleblowers-561470
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 5,106

    Foxy said:

    One of the less pleasant tasks of the spring was to clean out the rat infested garden shed, and disinfect the garden furniture within. Cleaning out the stain of anti-semitism from the Labour party is a similar unpleasant task, but Starmer does seem to be getting on with that essential job. Corbynites who attack him as a result are true enemies of the party.

    Still not going to sit comfortably when there is a lingering smell of rat piss, are you? It's going to need more than Dettol and sunlight...
    I don't know. Dousing Corbyn, McCluskey and Dr Fox's shed down, inside and out, with neat thick bleach should resolve the problem permanently.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 4,542

    On Tuesday it was noticeable how some of Corbyn's former allies were distancing themselves from his defiance - for example John Lansman

    Lansman also settled

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 31,660

    ydoethur said:

    BJO posted a belated comment two threads ago saying that sources in Islington CLP have been told Corbyn is to lose the whip.

    Leaving aside the fact he is now doubling down on his mindless racism, surely he deserves expulsion for the blatant defiance of Starmer, which effectively includes calling the new Labour leader a liar?

    Strategically for Starmer it would be better just to carry on and let Corbyn self-destruct as he discredits himself further. In doing so he'll splinter the far left further. On Tuesday it was noticeable how some of Corbyn's former allies were distancing themselves from his defiance - for example John Lansman and James Mills, his former adviser. The next step in the saga is to watch from the sidelines as Corbyn is sued by John Ware and to await the EHRC report. No need for Starmer to overreach himself by setting up Corbyn as a martyr at this point. Better to wait and take stock later.

    I agree 100% with this article: "Keir Starmer doesn’t need to lift a finger as Corbyn’s Left discredits itself"

    https://inews.co.uk/opinion/keir-starmer-jeremy-corbyn-hard-left-antisemitism-whistleblowers-561470
    I disagree. If SKS is to really drive home his message at PMQs that Labour is under new management he needs to act against Corbyn and his cronies. Merely sitting and watching their disgraceful performances is not enough. I do agree that the EHRC report is likely to be the optimal point but do Labour not already have a draft of that?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 5,106

    Foxy said:

    One of the less pleasant tasks of the spring was to clean out the rat infested garden shed, and disinfect the garden furniture within. Cleaning out the stain of anti-semitism from the Labour party is a similar unpleasant task, but Starmer does seem to be getting on with that essential job. Corbynites who attack him as a result are true enemies of the party.

    Corbynites are not just true enemies of the labour party but the country as well

    Had Starmer led labour instead of Corbyn I have little doubt that we would have remained in the single market at the very least

    It is clear Corbyn and his fellow supporting mps just have to have the whip removed otherwise Starmer will be so compromised his attempts to turn labour round will be in disarray

    Decisively act on Corbyn and it will be a game changer
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/07/23/jeremy-corbyn-accused-unleashing-wave-legal-claims-against-labour/

    Labour to be be bankrupted?
    Perhaps Corbyn, Murphy, Milne and McCluskey could buy back what is left for £10 and return it to its former glory like the Phoenix Four did for MG Rover.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 5,809
    Given the possibility of a left wing breakaway from the Labour Party, probably including MP’s, does anyone know the likely impact on overall voting intentions? The right wing split involving the SDP ensured Tory domination for a good few years, is it not likely a left split would have the same impact? It’s interesting that our most ardent tories are the keenest for the split to happen after all even if it only took 5-10% of the vote it ensures Tory victory.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 31,660

    Labour have written to Ofcom asking for an urgent review into RT's licence to broadcast inthe UK

    You could not have conceived that 6 months ago

    Not sure why tbh. It is blatant propaganda but the idea that it genuinely influences people is a bit of a stretch. Maybe the odd Salmonista but no one even vaguely sensible.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 20,282
    Recovery looking decidedly more V shaped than many were secretly hoping (no one on here, of course).
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 34,832

    Foxy said:

    One of the less pleasant tasks of the spring was to clean out the rat infested garden shed, and disinfect the garden furniture within. Cleaning out the stain of anti-semitism from the Labour party is a similar unpleasant task, but Starmer does seem to be getting on with that essential job. Corbynites who attack him as a result are true enemies of the party.

    Corbynites are not just true enemies of the labour party but the country as well

    Had Starmer led labour instead of Corbyn I have little doubt that we would have remained in the single market at the very least

    It is clear Corbyn and his fellow supporting mps just have to have the whip removed otherwise Starmer will be so compromised his attempts to turn labour round will be in disarray

    Decisively act on Corbyn and it will be a game changer
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/07/23/jeremy-corbyn-accused-unleashing-wave-legal-claims-against-labour/

    Labour to be be bankrupted?
    Labour going bankrupt and Starmer heading a shiny new Phoenix Party freed of its Ratnerisation would probably be the best outcome for the centre-Left. Napalm, not Domestos.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 34,309
    nichomar said:

    Given the possibility of a left wing breakaway from the Labour Party, probably including MP’s, does anyone know the likely impact on overall voting intentions? The right wing split involving the SDP ensured Tory domination for a good few years, is it not likely a left split would have the same impact? It’s interesting that our most ardent tories are the keenest for the split to happen after all even if it only took 5-10% of the vote it ensures Tory victory.

    I'm sure they would rather the Tories won than Starmer.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 4,542
    MaxPB said:

    Recovery looking decidedly more V shaped than many were secretly hoping (no one on here, of course).

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 27,168
    Judging by similar posts from rcs over recent weeks, it would appear that the circles he moves in aren't very representative of the state.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 20,282
    edited July 24
    Scott_xP said:

    MaxPB said:

    Recovery looking decidedly more V shaped than many were secretly hoping (no one on here, of course).

    You're not so secretly hoping I guess, Scott.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 34,309
    MaxPB said:

    Recovery looking decidedly more V shaped than many were secretly hoping (no one on here, of course).

    Uk may end up being 'W' shaped then, as No Deal lunacy brings economy to grinding halt next Winter.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 31,660
    nichomar said:

    Given the possibility of a left wing breakaway from the Labour Party, probably including MP’s, does anyone know the likely impact on overall voting intentions? The right wing split involving the SDP ensured Tory domination for a good few years, is it not likely a left split would have the same impact? It’s interesting that our most ardent tories are the keenest for the split to happen after all even if it only took 5-10% of the vote it ensures Tory victory.

    No more that the right wing split of UKIP seriously impeded the Tories. These people are a lunatic fringe (like UKIP) and tolerating them loses more votes in the centre than they have as OGH's thread header and the graphic referred to downthread shows.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 4,542
    MaxPB said:

    You're not so secretly hoping I guess, Scott.

    I am a realist. Hope has nothing to do with it
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 20,282

    MaxPB said:

    Recovery looking decidedly more V shaped than many were secretly hoping (no one on here, of course).

    Uk may end up being 'W' shaped then, as No Deal lunacy brings economy to grinding halt next Winter.
    I don't think there will be no deal. It's all set up for a late night summit in September where both sides give some ground, we agree to a minimum enforceable LPF, they agree to some kind of fish concession.

    This is all still the phoney war IMO.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 34,832
    nichomar said:

    Given the possibility of a left wing breakaway from the Labour Party, probably including MP’s...

    Labour couldn't be lucky enough to lose both Burgon AND Russell-Moyle to defection, could they?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 34,832

    MaxPB said:

    Recovery looking decidedly more V shaped than many were secretly hoping (no one on here, of course).

    Uk may end up being 'W' shaped then, as No Deal lunacy brings economy to grinding halt next Winter.
    No doubt some on here will say it is Dubya-shaped....
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 23,049
    The take up of masks is likely a reaction to the surge in cases rather than a cause. Time will tell.

    In any event, shops aren’t the only places virus spreads...



  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 2,069
    MaxPB said:

    Scott_xP said:

    MaxPB said:

    Recovery looking decidedly more V shaped than many were secretly hoping (no one on here, of course).

    You're not so secretly hoping I guess, Scott.
    What's the livelihood of the nation versus the opportunity to post bitter little retweets?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 5,106

    Foxy said:

    One of the less pleasant tasks of the spring was to clean out the rat infested garden shed, and disinfect the garden furniture within. Cleaning out the stain of anti-semitism from the Labour party is a similar unpleasant task, but Starmer does seem to be getting on with that essential job. Corbynites who attack him as a result are true enemies of the party.

    Corbynites are not just true enemies of the labour party but the country as well

    Had Starmer led labour instead of Corbyn I have little doubt that we would have remained in the single market at the very least

    It is clear Corbyn and his fellow supporting mps just have to have the whip removed otherwise Starmer will be so compromised his attempts to turn labour round will be in disarray

    Decisively act on Corbyn and it will be a game changer
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/07/23/jeremy-corbyn-accused-unleashing-wave-legal-claims-against-labour/

    Labour to be be bankrupted?
    Labour going bankrupt and Starmer heading a shiny new Phoenix Party freed of its Ratnerisation would probably be the best outcome for the centre-Left. Napalm, not Domestos.
    Maybe a reverse takeover by the LDs.

    Really check: When have the Labour Party NOT been on the verge of bankruptcy?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 34,369

    Foxy said:

    One of the less pleasant tasks of the spring was to clean out the rat infested garden shed, and disinfect the garden furniture within. Cleaning out the stain of anti-semitism from the Labour party is a similar unpleasant task, but Starmer does seem to be getting on with that essential job. Corbynites who attack him as a result are true enemies of the party.

    Corbynites are not just true enemies of the labour party but the country as well

    Had Starmer led labour instead of Corbyn I have little doubt that we would have remained in the single market at the very least

    It is clear Corbyn and his fellow supporting mps just have to have the whip removed otherwise Starmer will be so compromised his attempts to turn labour round will be in disarray

    Decisively act on Corbyn and it will be a game changer
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/07/23/jeremy-corbyn-accused-unleashing-wave-legal-claims-against-labour/

    Labour to be be bankrupted?
    This possibility was raised some time ago but also some on the NEC, including Corbyn, could see hundreds of claims against them personally if the ECHR finds against them
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 37,085
    Scott_xP said:
    Begging letter?

    Are you new to this whole politics malarkey? Parties are always emailing their lists asking for fundraising. Would you have been so snarkey to Cameron? I doubt it.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 30,103
    edited July 24

    ydoethur said:

    BJO posted a belated comment two threads ago saying that sources in Islington CLP have been told Corbyn is to lose the whip.

    Leaving aside the fact he is now doubling down on his mindless racism, surely he deserves expulsion for the blatant defiance of Starmer, which effectively includes calling the new Labour leader a liar?

    Strategically for Starmer it would be better just to carry on and let Corbyn self-destruct as he discredits himself further. In doing so he'll splinter the far left further. On Tuesday it was noticeable how some of Corbyn's former allies were distancing themselves from his defiance - for example John Lansman and James Mills, his former adviser. The next step in the saga is to watch from the sidelines as Corbyn is sued by John Ware and to await the EHRC report. No need for Starmer to overreach himself by setting up Corbyn as a martyr at this point. Better to wait and take stock later.

    I agree 100% with this article: "Keir Starmer doesn’t need to lift a finger as Corbyn’s Left discredits itself"

    https://inews.co.uk/opinion/keir-starmer-jeremy-corbyn-hard-left-antisemitism-whistleblowers-561470
    Possibly in terms of party management. I don’t think it would be better in terms of overall appeal to the electorate.

    Yes, expelling Corbyn on the grounds he’s a bully and an unreconstructed racist would be a gesture. After all, he now has no power so he looks like what he always was - a sad, pathetic failure of very limited ability focussed on a discredited philosophy and out to do favours for his mates while spewing bile at everyone and everything he sees as the enemy.

    But Starmer has shown a willingness to use gestures on this point, and it would be an important one. He would be saying, clearly and unequivocally, that he will not tolerate racists and bullies in the Labour Party any longer. I personally think, speaking purely anecdotally as a swing voter, that is important.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 20,282
    Specifically on the LPF, if our position holds for all trade negotiations then the UK will be a nation with no trade deals. That's why I'm sure it is posturing and brinkmanship so when we do agree to set a minimum standard as part of the treaty with the EU it feels like a big win for the EU. Trade deals, big ones like this especially, always include legally enforceable minimum standards on state aid and tender processes not being used as a tool of state subsidy.

    If our position on no LPF commitment holds then it will be a no deal, the EU will, rightly IMO, refuse to deal with the UK. The issue is that they want a 10/10 LPF commitment and we're asking for 0/10. My guess is that we'll end up somewhere between 4-7/10 and both sides will call it a win.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 30,103

    nichomar said:

    Given the possibility of a left wing breakaway from the Labour Party, probably including MP’s...

    Labour couldn't be lucky enough to lose both Burgon AND Russell-Moyle to defection, could they?
    Just imagine a party of the far left led by Burgon backed up by Russell Moyle.

    It would be a huge gain to national life.

    After all, comedy of that class doesn’t come round too often.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 34,369

    MaxPB said:

    Recovery looking decidedly more V shaped than many were secretly hoping (no one on here, of course).

    Uk may end up being 'W' shaped then, as No Deal lunacy brings economy to grinding halt next Winter.
    I am not convinced on a no deal after yesterday's briefings.

    It does seem as if it is expected a deal will be done by October by some in Europe
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 16,902

    Another major factor contributing towards Boris' GE 2019 victory (or Johnson as OGH now insists on referring to him) was the absolutely dismal showing by the LibDems, resulting from their very undemocratic stance of refusing to accept the Brexit referendum result and instead committing themselves to a second referendum, presumably in the hope of securing the "right" answer.
    The Great British Public were having none of that and the political career of Jo Swinson was destroyed after just a few short months as the party's leader.

    Swinson increased the LD popular vote significantly, but was poorly rewarded under FPTP
  • eekeek Posts: 8,645
    edited July 24
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    BJO posted a belated comment two threads ago saying that sources in Islington CLP have been told Corbyn is to lose the whip.

    Leaving aside the fact he is now doubling down on his mindless racism, surely he deserves expulsion for the blatant defiance of Starmer, which effectively includes calling the new Labour leader a liar?

    Strategically for Starmer it would be better just to carry on and let Corbyn self-destruct as he discredits himself further. In doing so he'll splinter the far left further. On Tuesday it was noticeable how some of Corbyn's former allies were distancing themselves from his defiance - for example John Lansman and James Mills, his former adviser. The next step in the saga is to watch from the sidelines as Corbyn is sued by John Ware and to await the EHRC report. No need for Starmer to overreach himself by setting up Corbyn as a martyr at this point. Better to wait and take stock later.

    I agree 100% with this article: "Keir Starmer doesn’t need to lift a finger as Corbyn’s Left discredits itself"

    https://inews.co.uk/opinion/keir-starmer-jeremy-corbyn-hard-left-antisemitism-whistleblowers-561470
    I disagree. If SKS is to really drive home his message at PMQs that Labour is under new management he needs to act against Corbyn and his cronies. Merely sitting and watching their disgraceful performances is not enough. I do agree that the EHRC report is likely to be the optimal point but do Labour not already have a draft of that?
    It's a draft, so it's great for planning tactics but it's better to wait for the final report before publicly acting on them (the draft isn't final and might change)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 30,103

    Foxy said:

    One of the less pleasant tasks of the spring was to clean out the rat infested garden shed, and disinfect the garden furniture within. Cleaning out the stain of anti-semitism from the Labour party is a similar unpleasant task, but Starmer does seem to be getting on with that essential job. Corbynites who attack him as a result are true enemies of the party.

    Corbynites are not just true enemies of the labour party but the country as well

    Had Starmer led labour instead of Corbyn I have little doubt that we would have remained in the single market at the very least

    It is clear Corbyn and his fellow supporting mps just have to have the whip removed otherwise Starmer will be so compromised his attempts to turn labour round will be in disarray

    Decisively act on Corbyn and it will be a game changer
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/07/23/jeremy-corbyn-accused-unleashing-wave-legal-claims-against-labour/

    Labour to be be bankrupted?
    Labour going bankrupt and Starmer heading a shiny new Phoenix Party freed of its Ratnerisation would probably be the best outcome for the centre-Left. Napalm, not Domestos.
    Maybe a reverse takeover by the LDs.

    Really check: When have the Labour Party NOT been on the verge of bankruptcy?
    When Len McCluskey was using his members’ funds to pay all their bills.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 31,660
    MaxPB said:

    Specifically on the LPF, if our position holds for all trade negotiations then the UK will be a nation with no trade deals. That's why I'm sure it is posturing and brinkmanship so when we do agree to set a minimum standard as part of the treaty with the EU it feels like a big win for the EU. Trade deals, big ones like this especially, always include legally enforceable minimum standards on state aid and tender processes not being used as a tool of state subsidy.

    If our position on no LPF commitment holds then it will be a no deal, the EU will, rightly IMO, refuse to deal with the UK. The issue is that they want a 10/10 LPF commitment and we're asking for 0/10. My guess is that we'll end up somewhere between 4-7/10 and both sides will call it a win.

    The State aid is the tricky bit, especially in a time of Covid. The EU themselves seem to have (rightly) ripped up the rule book in this time of crisis and we need to be able to do the same. Standards, whether electrical safety or financial regulation is much less of an issue.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 34,369
    Scott_xP said:
    Nonsense, we are still in the EU

    More likely covid related
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 30,103
    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    Specifically on the LPF, if our position holds for all trade negotiations then the UK will be a nation with no trade deals. That's why I'm sure it is posturing and brinkmanship so when we do agree to set a minimum standard as part of the treaty with the EU it feels like a big win for the EU. Trade deals, big ones like this especially, always include legally enforceable minimum standards on state aid and tender processes not being used as a tool of state subsidy.

    If our position on no LPF commitment holds then it will be a no deal, the EU will, rightly IMO, refuse to deal with the UK. The issue is that they want a 10/10 LPF commitment and we're asking for 0/10. My guess is that we'll end up somewhere between 4-7/10 and both sides will call it a win.

    The State aid is the tricky bit, especially in a time of Covid. The EU themselves seem to have (rightly) ripped up the rule book in this time of crisis and we need to be able to do the same. Standards, whether electrical safety or financial regulation is much less of an issue.
    The EU has standards when it comes to financial regulation?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 37,085
    Without meaning to be disrespectful Sky currently doing a report from America showing pictures of a woman who has lost her two children, aged 20 and 22, while showing pictures. Clearly both extremely, extremely obese.

    Given the obesity rates in the USA and how rampant the virus is getting there it does seem odd that death rates there don't seem to be rising as much as they did here when we were at our peak. Has treatment gotten much better in the past two months or is something else going on?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 34,309

    MaxPB said:

    Recovery looking decidedly more V shaped than many were secretly hoping (no one on here, of course).

    Uk may end up being 'W' shaped then, as No Deal lunacy brings economy to grinding halt next Winter.
    I am not convinced on a no deal after yesterday's briefings.

    It does seem as if it is expected a deal will be done by October by some in Europe
    I very much hope you are right.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 34,832
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    BJO posted a belated comment two threads ago saying that sources in Islington CLP have been told Corbyn is to lose the whip.

    Leaving aside the fact he is now doubling down on his mindless racism, surely he deserves expulsion for the blatant defiance of Starmer, which effectively includes calling the new Labour leader a liar?

    Strategically for Starmer it would be better just to carry on and let Corbyn self-destruct as he discredits himself further. In doing so he'll splinter the far left further. On Tuesday it was noticeable how some of Corbyn's former allies were distancing themselves from his defiance - for example John Lansman and James Mills, his former adviser. The next step in the saga is to watch from the sidelines as Corbyn is sued by John Ware and to await the EHRC report. No need for Starmer to overreach himself by setting up Corbyn as a martyr at this point. Better to wait and take stock later.

    I agree 100% with this article: "Keir Starmer doesn’t need to lift a finger as Corbyn’s Left discredits itself"

    https://inews.co.uk/opinion/keir-starmer-jeremy-corbyn-hard-left-antisemitism-whistleblowers-561470
    Possibly in terms of party management. I don’t think it would be better in terms of overall appeal to the electorate.

    Yes, expelling Corbyn on the grounds he’s a bully and an unreconstructed racist would be a gesture. After all, he now has no power so he looks like what he always was - a sad, pathetic failure of very limited ability focussed on a discredited philosophy and out to do favours for his mates while spewing bile at everyone and everything he sees as the enemy.

    But Starmer has shown a willingness to use gestures on this point, and it would be an important one. He would be saying, clearly and unequivocally, that he will not tolerate racists and bullies in the Labour Party any longer. I personally think, speaking purely anecdotally as a swing voter, that is important.
    Labour's problem is that "a sad, pathetic failure of very limited ability focussed on a discredited philosophy and out to do favours for his mates while spewing bile at everyone and everything he sees as the enemy" sums up many voters' view of the Labour Party itself, not just Corbyn.

    Which is why Starmer's polling is so far ahead of his Party.
  • eekeek Posts: 8,645

    Without meaning to be disrespectful Sky currently doing a report from America showing pictures of a woman who has lost her two children, aged 20 and 22, while showing pictures. Clearly both extremely, extremely obese.

    Given the obesity rates in the USA and how rampant the virus is getting there it does seem odd that death rates there don't seem to be rising as much as they did here when we were at our peak. Has treatment gotten much better in the past two months or is something else going on?

    Can the poor (who are likely to be the overwhelming majority of people getting Covid) pay for testing and hospital care?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 37,085
    ydoethur said:

    nichomar said:

    Given the possibility of a left wing breakaway from the Labour Party, probably including MP’s...

    Labour couldn't be lucky enough to lose both Burgon AND Russell-Moyle to defection, could they?
    Just imagine a party of the far left led by Burgon backed up by Russell Moyle.

    It would be a huge gain to national life.

    After all, comedy of that class doesn’t come round too often.
    You don't watch enough Channel 4 then. That party would be considered mainstream for them.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 20,282
    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    Specifically on the LPF, if our position holds for all trade negotiations then the UK will be a nation with no trade deals. That's why I'm sure it is posturing and brinkmanship so when we do agree to set a minimum standard as part of the treaty with the EU it feels like a big win for the EU. Trade deals, big ones like this especially, always include legally enforceable minimum standards on state aid and tender processes not being used as a tool of state subsidy.

    If our position on no LPF commitment holds then it will be a no deal, the EU will, rightly IMO, refuse to deal with the UK. The issue is that they want a 10/10 LPF commitment and we're asking for 0/10. My guess is that we'll end up somewhere between 4-7/10 and both sides will call it a win.

    The State aid is the tricky bit, especially in a time of Covid. The EU themselves seem to have (rightly) ripped up the rule book in this time of crisis and we need to be able to do the same. Standards, whether electrical safety or financial regulation is much less of an issue.
    Every trade deal will have emergency get out clauses in extremis. I don't see why the UK-EU deal wouldn't. In fact I'm pretty sure both sides will insist on very specific rules where both sides can temporarily break the rules without consequences and for how long. Additionally, the agreement works in both directions, just as we'd need to uphold whatever is in the treaty, the EU would as well so if we both break it, it's better that both sides are forgiven than damned.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 30,103

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    BJO posted a belated comment two threads ago saying that sources in Islington CLP have been told Corbyn is to lose the whip.

    Leaving aside the fact he is now doubling down on his mindless racism, surely he deserves expulsion for the blatant defiance of Starmer, which effectively includes calling the new Labour leader a liar?

    Strategically for Starmer it would be better just to carry on and let Corbyn self-destruct as he discredits himself further. In doing so he'll splinter the far left further. On Tuesday it was noticeable how some of Corbyn's former allies were distancing themselves from his defiance - for example John Lansman and James Mills, his former adviser. The next step in the saga is to watch from the sidelines as Corbyn is sued by John Ware and to await the EHRC report. No need for Starmer to overreach himself by setting up Corbyn as a martyr at this point. Better to wait and take stock later.

    I agree 100% with this article: "Keir Starmer doesn’t need to lift a finger as Corbyn’s Left discredits itself"

    https://inews.co.uk/opinion/keir-starmer-jeremy-corbyn-hard-left-antisemitism-whistleblowers-561470
    Possibly in terms of party management. I don’t think it would be better in terms of overall appeal to the electorate.

    Yes, expelling Corbyn on the grounds he’s a bully and an unreconstructed racist would be a gesture. After all, he now has no power so he looks like what he always was - a sad, pathetic failure of very limited ability focussed on a discredited philosophy and out to do favours for his mates while spewing bile at everyone and everything he sees as the enemy.

    But Starmer has shown a willingness to use gestures on this point, and it would be an important one. He would be saying, clearly and unequivocally, that he will not tolerate racists and bullies in the Labour Party any longer. I personally think, speaking purely anecdotally as a swing voter, that is important.
    Labour's problem is that "a sad, pathetic failure of very limited ability focussed on a discredited philosophy and out to do favours for his mates while spewing bile at everyone and everything he sees as the enemy" sums up many voters' view of the Labour Party itself, not just Corbyn.

    Which is why Starmer's polling is so far ahead of his Party.
    Which is another very good argument for having a massive purge. If Burgon, Long Bailey, Sultana etc say they cannot stay in Labour because it no longer matches their views, that will help to correct the impression.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 31,660
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    Specifically on the LPF, if our position holds for all trade negotiations then the UK will be a nation with no trade deals. That's why I'm sure it is posturing and brinkmanship so when we do agree to set a minimum standard as part of the treaty with the EU it feels like a big win for the EU. Trade deals, big ones like this especially, always include legally enforceable minimum standards on state aid and tender processes not being used as a tool of state subsidy.

    If our position on no LPF commitment holds then it will be a no deal, the EU will, rightly IMO, refuse to deal with the UK. The issue is that they want a 10/10 LPF commitment and we're asking for 0/10. My guess is that we'll end up somewhere between 4-7/10 and both sides will call it a win.

    The State aid is the tricky bit, especially in a time of Covid. The EU themselves seem to have (rightly) ripped up the rule book in this time of crisis and we need to be able to do the same. Standards, whether electrical safety or financial regulation is much less of an issue.
    The EU has standards when it comes to financial regulation?
    Well, they mainly use ours tbh. An EU financial regulatory system without substantial input from London is quite hard to imagine. One of my favourite bits was when the previous governor resorted to a picture book to show EU countries what they still needed to do if they were to have access to London's services after Brexit.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 30,103

    ydoethur said:

    nichomar said:

    Given the possibility of a left wing breakaway from the Labour Party, probably including MP’s...

    Labour couldn't be lucky enough to lose both Burgon AND Russell-Moyle to defection, could they?
    Just imagine a party of the far left led by Burgon backed up by Russell Moyle.

    It would be a huge gain to national life.

    After all, comedy of that class doesn’t come round too often.
    You don't watch enough Channel 4 then. That party would be considered mainstream for them.
    8 out of 10 Cats Meets Richard Burgon?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 34,832
    ydoethur said:

    nichomar said:

    Given the possibility of a left wing breakaway from the Labour Party, probably including MP’s...

    Labour couldn't be lucky enough to lose both Burgon AND Russell-Moyle to defection, could they?
    Just imagine a party of the far left led by Burgon backed up by Russell Moyle.

    It would be a huge gain to national life.

    After all, comedy of that class doesn’t come round too often.
    If looking for comedy gold, it might not quite be the motherlode but the current Labour MP's quotes about Corbyn are going to be a rich seam to mine...
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 31,660
    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    BJO posted a belated comment two threads ago saying that sources in Islington CLP have been told Corbyn is to lose the whip.

    Leaving aside the fact he is now doubling down on his mindless racism, surely he deserves expulsion for the blatant defiance of Starmer, which effectively includes calling the new Labour leader a liar?

    Strategically for Starmer it would be better just to carry on and let Corbyn self-destruct as he discredits himself further. In doing so he'll splinter the far left further. On Tuesday it was noticeable how some of Corbyn's former allies were distancing themselves from his defiance - for example John Lansman and James Mills, his former adviser. The next step in the saga is to watch from the sidelines as Corbyn is sued by John Ware and to await the EHRC report. No need for Starmer to overreach himself by setting up Corbyn as a martyr at this point. Better to wait and take stock later.

    I agree 100% with this article: "Keir Starmer doesn’t need to lift a finger as Corbyn’s Left discredits itself"

    https://inews.co.uk/opinion/keir-starmer-jeremy-corbyn-hard-left-antisemitism-whistleblowers-561470
    I disagree. If SKS is to really drive home his message at PMQs that Labour is under new management he needs to act against Corbyn and his cronies. Merely sitting and watching their disgraceful performances is not enough. I do agree that the EHRC report is likely to be the optimal point but do Labour not already have a draft of that?
    It's a draft, so it's great for planning tactics but it's better to wait for the final report before publicly acting on them (the draft isn't final and might change)
    Agreed. Its all working out rather well for SKS at the moment.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 37,085
    MaxPB said:

    Specifically on the LPF, if our position holds for all trade negotiations then the UK will be a nation with no trade deals. That's why I'm sure it is posturing and brinkmanship so when we do agree to set a minimum standard as part of the treaty with the EU it feels like a big win for the EU. Trade deals, big ones like this especially, always include legally enforceable minimum standards on state aid and tender processes not being used as a tool of state subsidy.

    If our position on no LPF commitment holds then it will be a no deal, the EU will, rightly IMO, refuse to deal with the UK. The issue is that they want a 10/10 LPF commitment and we're asking for 0/10. My guess is that we'll end up somewhere between 4-7/10 and both sides will call it a win.

    I don't think that's entirely fair Max. We aren't asking for no LPF.

    The UK position on LPF is that we agree there should be an LPF but it should be a standard LPF provision. In particular we are advocating the LPF found in the CETA agreement.

    I see no reason if we want an LPF found in other agreements that we can't make other agreements. That's the point.

    The EU are rejecting the LPF in past agreements and are claiming that all past agreements ratified are not a precedent to go on and the only precedence that applies is their interpretation of the Political Declaration and what they take that to mean.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 5,809

    ydoethur said:

    nichomar said:

    Given the possibility of a left wing breakaway from the Labour Party, probably including MP’s...

    Labour couldn't be lucky enough to lose both Burgon AND Russell-Moyle to defection, could they?
    Just imagine a party of the far left led by Burgon backed up by Russell Moyle.

    It would be a huge gain to national life.

    After all, comedy of that class doesn’t come round too often.
    You don't watch enough Channel 4 then. That party would be considered mainstream for them.
    Ch4 news is often the best by far when doing real investigative journalism.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 31,660
    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    Specifically on the LPF, if our position holds for all trade negotiations then the UK will be a nation with no trade deals. That's why I'm sure it is posturing and brinkmanship so when we do agree to set a minimum standard as part of the treaty with the EU it feels like a big win for the EU. Trade deals, big ones like this especially, always include legally enforceable minimum standards on state aid and tender processes not being used as a tool of state subsidy.

    If our position on no LPF commitment holds then it will be a no deal, the EU will, rightly IMO, refuse to deal with the UK. The issue is that they want a 10/10 LPF commitment and we're asking for 0/10. My guess is that we'll end up somewhere between 4-7/10 and both sides will call it a win.

    The State aid is the tricky bit, especially in a time of Covid. The EU themselves seem to have (rightly) ripped up the rule book in this time of crisis and we need to be able to do the same. Standards, whether electrical safety or financial regulation is much less of an issue.
    Every trade deal will have emergency get out clauses in extremis. I don't see why the UK-EU deal wouldn't. In fact I'm pretty sure both sides will insist on very specific rules where both sides can temporarily break the rules without consequences and for how long. Additionally, the agreement works in both directions, just as we'd need to uphold whatever is in the treaty, the EU would as well so if we both break it, it's better that both sides are forgiven than damned.
    I don't disagree. It is just that negotiating what is meant by "extremis" and "temporary" is where the agreement will be difficult.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 74,050
    Clearly Corbyn was a factor but then he was also a factor in 2017 too, delivering Brexit was the key change from 2017 to 2019
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 20,282

    MaxPB said:

    Specifically on the LPF, if our position holds for all trade negotiations then the UK will be a nation with no trade deals. That's why I'm sure it is posturing and brinkmanship so when we do agree to set a minimum standard as part of the treaty with the EU it feels like a big win for the EU. Trade deals, big ones like this especially, always include legally enforceable minimum standards on state aid and tender processes not being used as a tool of state subsidy.

    If our position on no LPF commitment holds then it will be a no deal, the EU will, rightly IMO, refuse to deal with the UK. The issue is that they want a 10/10 LPF commitment and we're asking for 0/10. My guess is that we'll end up somewhere between 4-7/10 and both sides will call it a win.

    I don't think that's entirely fair Max. We aren't asking for no LPF.

    The UK position on LPF is that we agree there should be an LPF but it should be a standard LPF provision. In particular we are advocating the LPF found in the CETA agreement.

    I see no reason if we want an LPF found in other agreements that we can't make other agreements. That's the point.

    The EU are rejecting the LPF in past agreements and are claiming that all past agreements ratified are not a precedent to go on and the only precedence that applies is their interpretation of the Political Declaration and what they take that to mean.
    No, our current position is to make no commitment to a LPF as per government policy. It's a logical 0/10 position to take when the opposing side are at the 10/10 position.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 2,069
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    BJO posted a belated comment two threads ago saying that sources in Islington CLP have been told Corbyn is to lose the whip.

    Leaving aside the fact he is now doubling down on his mindless racism, surely he deserves expulsion for the blatant defiance of Starmer, which effectively includes calling the new Labour leader a liar?

    Strategically for Starmer it would be better just to carry on and let Corbyn self-destruct as he discredits himself further. In doing so he'll splinter the far left further. On Tuesday it was noticeable how some of Corbyn's former allies were distancing themselves from his defiance - for example John Lansman and James Mills, his former adviser. The next step in the saga is to watch from the sidelines as Corbyn is sued by John Ware and to await the EHRC report. No need for Starmer to overreach himself by setting up Corbyn as a martyr at this point. Better to wait and take stock later.

    I agree 100% with this article: "Keir Starmer doesn’t need to lift a finger as Corbyn’s Left discredits itself"

    https://inews.co.uk/opinion/keir-starmer-jeremy-corbyn-hard-left-antisemitism-whistleblowers-561470
    Possibly in terms of party management. I don’t think it would be better in terms of overall appeal to the electorate.

    Yes, expelling Corbyn on the grounds he’s a bully and an unreconstructed racist would be a gesture. After all, he now has no power so he looks like what he always was - a sad, pathetic failure of very limited ability focussed on a discredited philosophy and out to do favours for his mates while spewing bile at everyone and everything he sees as the enemy.

    But Starmer has shown a willingness to use gestures on this point, and it would be an important one. He would be saying, clearly and unequivocally, that he will not tolerate racists and bullies in the Labour Party any longer. I personally think, speaking purely anecdotally as a swing voter, that is important.
    Labour's problem is that "a sad, pathetic failure of very limited ability focussed on a discredited philosophy and out to do favours for his mates while spewing bile at everyone and everything he sees as the enemy" sums up many voters' view of the Labour Party itself, not just Corbyn.

    Which is why Starmer's polling is so far ahead of his Party.
    Which is another very good argument for having a massive purge. If Burgon, Long Bailey, Sultana etc say they cannot stay in Labour because it no longer matches their views, that will help to correct the impression.
    Purgin' Burgon? Long-Walk-Off-A-Short-Pier-Bailey? Sultana losing her raisin d'être?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 30,103
    edited July 24
    HYUFD said:

    Clearly Corbyn was a factor but then he was also a factor in 2017 too, delivering Brexit was the key change from 2017 to 2019

    I suspect that there will be much ink spilled in future years over whether the 2017 result was because of Corbyn or in spite of Corbyn.

    I think the true answer varies according to where you live. In the north of England and Wales I would hypothesise ‘in spite of;’ in the south of England, the Midlands (to a lesser extent) and Scotland I would say ‘because of.’

    But those are in themselves gross generalisations.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 74,050
    Scott_xP said:
    Interesting the Tories and Labour are both seen by 12% as in the centre
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 37,085
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Specifically on the LPF, if our position holds for all trade negotiations then the UK will be a nation with no trade deals. That's why I'm sure it is posturing and brinkmanship so when we do agree to set a minimum standard as part of the treaty with the EU it feels like a big win for the EU. Trade deals, big ones like this especially, always include legally enforceable minimum standards on state aid and tender processes not being used as a tool of state subsidy.

    If our position on no LPF commitment holds then it will be a no deal, the EU will, rightly IMO, refuse to deal with the UK. The issue is that they want a 10/10 LPF commitment and we're asking for 0/10. My guess is that we'll end up somewhere between 4-7/10 and both sides will call it a win.

    I don't think that's entirely fair Max. We aren't asking for no LPF.

    The UK position on LPF is that we agree there should be an LPF but it should be a standard LPF provision. In particular we are advocating the LPF found in the CETA agreement.

    I see no reason if we want an LPF found in other agreements that we can't make other agreements. That's the point.

    The EU are rejecting the LPF in past agreements and are claiming that all past agreements ratified are not a precedent to go on and the only precedence that applies is their interpretation of the Political Declaration and what they take that to mean.
    No, our current position is to make no commitment to a LPF as per government policy. It's a logical 0/10 position to take when the opposing side are at the 10/10 position.
    It must have changed then as we were suggesting Canada's precedence.

    But yes if we have dug in at the other extreme due to their intransigence then it is presumably to be able to meet in the middle (about where we started) and not an intention to die in the ditch for nothing.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 34,369
    HYUFD said:

    Clearly Corbyn was a factor but then he was also a factor in 2017 too, delivering Brexit was the key change from 2017 to 2019

    Sorry but Corbyn was the principal driver as evidenced by many polls and even just common sense

    Brexit was the second issue, and add both together equals an 80 seat majority

    I very much doubt that result or those circumstances will ever be repeated
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 30,103

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    BJO posted a belated comment two threads ago saying that sources in Islington CLP have been told Corbyn is to lose the whip.

    Leaving aside the fact he is now doubling down on his mindless racism, surely he deserves expulsion for the blatant defiance of Starmer, which effectively includes calling the new Labour leader a liar?

    Strategically for Starmer it would be better just to carry on and let Corbyn self-destruct as he discredits himself further. In doing so he'll splinter the far left further. On Tuesday it was noticeable how some of Corbyn's former allies were distancing themselves from his defiance - for example John Lansman and James Mills, his former adviser. The next step in the saga is to watch from the sidelines as Corbyn is sued by John Ware and to await the EHRC report. No need for Starmer to overreach himself by setting up Corbyn as a martyr at this point. Better to wait and take stock later.

    I agree 100% with this article: "Keir Starmer doesn’t need to lift a finger as Corbyn’s Left discredits itself"

    https://inews.co.uk/opinion/keir-starmer-jeremy-corbyn-hard-left-antisemitism-whistleblowers-561470
    Possibly in terms of party management. I don’t think it would be better in terms of overall appeal to the electorate.

    Yes, expelling Corbyn on the grounds he’s a bully and an unreconstructed racist would be a gesture. After all, he now has no power so he looks like what he always was - a sad, pathetic failure of very limited ability focussed on a discredited philosophy and out to do favours for his mates while spewing bile at everyone and everything he sees as the enemy.

    But Starmer has shown a willingness to use gestures on this point, and it would be an important one. He would be saying, clearly and unequivocally, that he will not tolerate racists and bullies in the Labour Party any longer. I personally think, speaking purely anecdotally as a swing voter, that is important.
    Labour's problem is that "a sad, pathetic failure of very limited ability focussed on a discredited philosophy and out to do favours for his mates while spewing bile at everyone and everything he sees as the enemy" sums up many voters' view of the Labour Party itself, not just Corbyn.

    Which is why Starmer's polling is so far ahead of his Party.
    Which is another very good argument for having a massive purge. If Burgon, Long Bailey, Sultana etc say they cannot stay in Labour because it no longer matches their views, that will help to correct the impression.
    Purgin' Burgon? Long-Walk-Off-A-Short-Pier-Bailey? Sultana losing her raisin d'être?
    Well, if they purge Burgon they will have one of their larger Dicks.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 907
    edited July 24
    I think it is highly likely that travel to the mask wearing Utopia of Spain will be banned in the next two weeks if the situation continues to worsen there.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 30,103

    HYUFD said:

    Clearly Corbyn was a factor but then he was also a factor in 2017 too, delivering Brexit was the key change from 2017 to 2019

    Sorry but Corbyn was the principal driver as evidenced by many polls and even just common sense

    Brexit was the second issue, and add both together equals an 80 seat majority

    I very much doubt that result or those circumstances will ever be repeated
    The other thing to remember is that a very large number of dud (Pidcock) or superannuated (Skinner) MPs have now lost their seats. Seats that in some cases they were parachuted into against the wishes of the constituency party and then more or less ignored.

    So next time in those seats there will be younger, more ambitious and probably more determined candidates under no illusion that they can take voters for granted.

    Will that help Labour retake them? Possibly, although it has to be said the example of Mansfield, which has a dud Tory MP whose majority skyrocketed, isn’t encouraging for Labour.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 31,660

    HYUFD said:

    Clearly Corbyn was a factor but then he was also a factor in 2017 too, delivering Brexit was the key change from 2017 to 2019

    Sorry but Corbyn was the principal driver as evidenced by many polls and even just common sense

    Brexit was the second issue, and add both together equals an 80 seat majority

    I very much doubt that result or those circumstances will ever be repeated
    The main skill of a leading politician is to explain why the case in point is exceptional and why it is necessary for you to do something this time that you would never have contemplated before. Boris is rather good at it. Next time will be different in the details and perhaps not as favourable but he will try hard to find a way to frame the issues that way, just as he did with Red Ken.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 20,282
    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    Specifically on the LPF, if our position holds for all trade negotiations then the UK will be a nation with no trade deals. That's why I'm sure it is posturing and brinkmanship so when we do agree to set a minimum standard as part of the treaty with the EU it feels like a big win for the EU. Trade deals, big ones like this especially, always include legally enforceable minimum standards on state aid and tender processes not being used as a tool of state subsidy.

    If our position on no LPF commitment holds then it will be a no deal, the EU will, rightly IMO, refuse to deal with the UK. The issue is that they want a 10/10 LPF commitment and we're asking for 0/10. My guess is that we'll end up somewhere between 4-7/10 and both sides will call it a win.

    The State aid is the tricky bit, especially in a time of Covid. The EU themselves seem to have (rightly) ripped up the rule book in this time of crisis and we need to be able to do the same. Standards, whether electrical safety or financial regulation is much less of an issue.
    Every trade deal will have emergency get out clauses in extremis. I don't see why the UK-EU deal wouldn't. In fact I'm pretty sure both sides will insist on very specific rules where both sides can temporarily break the rules without consequences and for how long. Additionally, the agreement works in both directions, just as we'd need to uphold whatever is in the treaty, the EU would as well so if we both break it, it's better that both sides are forgiven than damned.
    I don't disagree. It is just that negotiating what is meant by "extremis" and "temporary" is where the agreement will be difficult.
    That will be for the arbitration court to decide. As I said, if both sides break the rules neither would take it to arbitration. Would the EU want to be in a position where their €750bn fund is ruled illegal under the trade treaty or the arbitrator outlines specific areas the money can't be spent etc...? I doubt it.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 6,023

    Scott_xP said:
    Nonsense, we are still in the EU

    More likely covid related
    I often bought items from Japan (hobby related) which were sent in the post as personal items albeit ones which incurred VAT. Those could take weeks to clear even in the pre-covid era - more than the rest of the journey from shop to door took.
  • eekeek Posts: 8,645
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Clearly Corbyn was a factor but then he was also a factor in 2017 too, delivering Brexit was the key change from 2017 to 2019

    Sorry but Corbyn was the principal driver as evidenced by many polls and even just common sense

    Brexit was the second issue, and add both together equals an 80 seat majority

    I very much doubt that result or those circumstances will ever be repeated
    The other thing to remember is that a very large number of dud (Pidcock) or superannuated (Skinner) MPs have now lost their seats. Seats that in some cases they were parachuted into against the wishes of the constituency party and then more or less ignored.

    So next time in those seats there will be younger, more ambitious and probably more determined candidates under no illusion that they can take voters for granted.

    Will that help Labour retake them? Possibly, although it has to be said the example of Mansfield, which has a dud Tory MP whose majority skyrocketed, isn’t encouraging for Labour.
    For a lot of the northern seats Labour is being punished for their running of local councils that had their budgets destroyed by Austerity and Osbourne changing the rules on council tax...

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 55,331
    Scott_xP said:

    Phil Collins in The Times this morning is scathing on Corbyn, but he could just as easily be writing about BoZo

    The chaos of the Corbyn leadership is what happens if you take the most stupid person in the building and put him in charge. Public life can only bear so much stupidity. Bereft of intellectual weight, with nothing much in his head and painfully conscious of the deficiency, Mr Corbyn’s options were to lean heavily on unctuous self-righteousness or, when that failed, to lash out. Unable to provide good reasons, or any reasons, for his decisions, he simply acted with erratic impunity and got instantly testy if anyone questioned his authority. He was always a rather pathetic figure, if briefly quite a dangerous one. Meanwhile his entourage of sycophants, the Milnes, Murphys and McCluskeys, went out to argue for a man they always regarded as a useful idiot.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/starmer-must-finish-off-corbyn-to-show-he-means-business-xnlz35pvx

    Maybe but he wasnt.

    I do think the testiness of Corbyn showed much of his true character. Its certainly true that he was not someone who had spent his time grasping for power all his career, and he had a rather pleasant and mild demeanour which is admirable to a degree, but his supposed humility I never quite bought.

    He was so self righteous, so clearly irritated when pressed, so so angry and simply not competent and yet I think quite vain. Not in the same way as Boris whose vanity reveals in other ways, but in how the most important thing seems to be his own image and purity, not achieving things.

    I actually voted in a way which would have indirectly supported him as PM, hopefully briefly, but he truly was awful.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 5,202
    Scott_xP said:
    If you will insist on riding around on a steel relic of a bygone age...
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 5,809
    edited July 24

    I think it is highly likely that travel to the mask wearing Utopia of Spain will be banned in the next two weeks if the situation continues to worsen there.

    Let’s hope so it will help keep out the virus and the yobs who would spread it
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 30,103
    eek said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Clearly Corbyn was a factor but then he was also a factor in 2017 too, delivering Brexit was the key change from 2017 to 2019

    Sorry but Corbyn was the principal driver as evidenced by many polls and even just common sense

    Brexit was the second issue, and add both together equals an 80 seat majority

    I very much doubt that result or those circumstances will ever be repeated
    The other thing to remember is that a very large number of dud (Pidcock) or superannuated (Skinner) MPs have now lost their seats. Seats that in some cases they were parachuted into against the wishes of the constituency party and then more or less ignored.

    So next time in those seats there will be younger, more ambitious and probably more determined candidates under no illusion that they can take voters for granted.

    Will that help Labour retake them? Possibly, although it has to be said the example of Mansfield, which has a dud Tory MP whose majority skyrocketed, isn’t encouraging for Labour.
    For a lot of the northern seats Labour is being punished for their running of local councils that had their budgets destroyed by Austerity and Osbourne changing the rules on council tax...
    True.

    But - to take the most egregious example - how did the voters in County Durham feel when their MP spent part of her time on maternity leave, part of it jetting off to Italy for a romantic break with her boyfriend and missing a crucial vote on Universal Credit as a result, part of her time shouting, screaming and raging at various rallies around the country, and feck all time at her constituency duties?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 20,282

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Specifically on the LPF, if our position holds for all trade negotiations then the UK will be a nation with no trade deals. That's why I'm sure it is posturing and brinkmanship so when we do agree to set a minimum standard as part of the treaty with the EU it feels like a big win for the EU. Trade deals, big ones like this especially, always include legally enforceable minimum standards on state aid and tender processes not being used as a tool of state subsidy.

    If our position on no LPF commitment holds then it will be a no deal, the EU will, rightly IMO, refuse to deal with the UK. The issue is that they want a 10/10 LPF commitment and we're asking for 0/10. My guess is that we'll end up somewhere between 4-7/10 and both sides will call it a win.

    I don't think that's entirely fair Max. We aren't asking for no LPF.

    The UK position on LPF is that we agree there should be an LPF but it should be a standard LPF provision. In particular we are advocating the LPF found in the CETA agreement.

    I see no reason if we want an LPF found in other agreements that we can't make other agreements. That's the point.

    The EU are rejecting the LPF in past agreements and are claiming that all past agreements ratified are not a precedent to go on and the only precedence that applies is their interpretation of the Political Declaration and what they take that to mean.
    No, our current position is to make no commitment to a LPF as per government policy. It's a logical 0/10 position to take when the opposing side are at the 10/10 position.
    It must have changed then as we were suggesting Canada's precedence.

    But yes if we have dug in at the other extreme due to their intransigence then it is presumably to be able to meet in the middle (about where we started) and not an intention to die in the ditch for nothing.
    I think it's something that the negotiation team learned when Robbins and May were in charge. We'd stake out a fair position at 4-7/10 depending on the issue, the EU starts everything at 10/10 and refuses to to budge until the very last minute at which point them shifting to 9/10 is seen as a big win by the negotiators so they bring it back as such but really all that's happened is the EU have got their 9/10 alignment which is what they were going for.

    Whatever anyone thinks about Frost, you never get the reports that the EU team are running rings around him like we saw when Robbins was in charge with weekly reports in the FT that the EU had secured yet more movement in the UK position in return for nothing concessions they covered in glitter.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 3,198
    ydoethur said:

    BJO posted a belated comment two threads ago saying that sources in Islington CLP have been told Corbyn is to lose the whip.

    Leaving aside the fact he is now doubling down on his mindless racism, surely he deserves expulsion for the blatant defiance of Starmer, which effectively includes calling the new Labour leader a liar?

    Kicking Corbyn out the party would be a master stroke. Would send a crystal clear message to the electorate. Next target Tony Blair.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 8,482
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    BJO posted a belated comment two threads ago saying that sources in Islington CLP have been told Corbyn is to lose the whip.

    Leaving aside the fact he is now doubling down on his mindless racism, surely he deserves expulsion for the blatant defiance of Starmer, which effectively includes calling the new Labour leader a liar?

    Strategically for Starmer it would be better just to carry on and let Corbyn self-destruct as he discredits himself further. In doing so he'll splinter the far left further. On Tuesday it was noticeable how some of Corbyn's former allies were distancing themselves from his defiance - for example John Lansman and James Mills, his former adviser. The next step in the saga is to watch from the sidelines as Corbyn is sued by John Ware and to await the EHRC report. No need for Starmer to overreach himself by setting up Corbyn as a martyr at this point. Better to wait and take stock later.

    I agree 100% with this article: "Keir Starmer doesn’t need to lift a finger as Corbyn’s Left discredits itself"

    https://inews.co.uk/opinion/keir-starmer-jeremy-corbyn-hard-left-antisemitism-whistleblowers-561470
    Possibly in terms of party management. I don’t think it would be better in terms of overall appeal to the electorate.

    Yes, expelling Corbyn on the grounds he’s a bully and an unreconstructed racist would be a gesture. After all, he now has no power so he looks like what he always was - a sad, pathetic failure of very limited ability focussed on a discredited philosophy and out to do favours for his mates while spewing bile at everyone and everything he sees as the enemy.

    But Starmer has shown a willingness to use gestures on this point, and it would be an important one. He would be saying, clearly and unequivocally, that he will not tolerate racists and bullies in the Labour Party any longer. I personally think, speaking purely anecdotally as a swing voter, that is important.
    Labour's problem is that "a sad, pathetic failure of very limited ability focussed on a discredited philosophy and out to do favours for his mates while spewing bile at everyone and everything he sees as the enemy" sums up many voters' view of the Labour Party itself, not just Corbyn.

    Which is why Starmer's polling is so far ahead of his Party.
    Which is another very good argument for having a massive purge. If Burgon, Long Bailey, Sultana etc say they cannot stay in Labour because it no longer matches their views, that will help to correct the impression.
    If Labour under Starmer were to adopt PR under STV as a policy they would solve this problem.
    It would enable a breakaway Socialist Party to exist, a moderate Conservative Party to exist and at the same time attract votes from all over the spectrum from those who want to avoid ever again the sort of choice we were given last year of Corbyn or Boris/Cummings/No Deal Brexit.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 31,660
    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    Specifically on the LPF, if our position holds for all trade negotiations then the UK will be a nation with no trade deals. That's why I'm sure it is posturing and brinkmanship so when we do agree to set a minimum standard as part of the treaty with the EU it feels like a big win for the EU. Trade deals, big ones like this especially, always include legally enforceable minimum standards on state aid and tender processes not being used as a tool of state subsidy.

    If our position on no LPF commitment holds then it will be a no deal, the EU will, rightly IMO, refuse to deal with the UK. The issue is that they want a 10/10 LPF commitment and we're asking for 0/10. My guess is that we'll end up somewhere between 4-7/10 and both sides will call it a win.

    The State aid is the tricky bit, especially in a time of Covid. The EU themselves seem to have (rightly) ripped up the rule book in this time of crisis and we need to be able to do the same. Standards, whether electrical safety or financial regulation is much less of an issue.
    Every trade deal will have emergency get out clauses in extremis. I don't see why the UK-EU deal wouldn't. In fact I'm pretty sure both sides will insist on very specific rules where both sides can temporarily break the rules without consequences and for how long. Additionally, the agreement works in both directions, just as we'd need to uphold whatever is in the treaty, the EU would as well so if we both break it, it's better that both sides are forgiven than damned.
    I don't disagree. It is just that negotiating what is meant by "extremis" and "temporary" is where the agreement will be difficult.
    That will be for the arbitration court to decide. As I said, if both sides break the rules neither would take it to arbitration. Would the EU want to be in a position where their €750bn fund is ruled illegal under the trade treaty or the arbitrator outlines specific areas the money can't be spent etc...? I doubt it.
    The arbitration court determines the question by reference to the rules that the parties have agreed. That is why agreeing them is difficult.

    The 750bn euro agreement seems to me to have been somewhat oversold. More than half of it is loans. Why the EU Commission is borrowing money when none of the MS are having any real difficulty in doing so in the market (unlike 2009) is not clear to me but it was presumably driven by the urge to establish the principle of joint and several debt.

    The details of the grants is still to be agreed and may prove difficult in the cases of Hungary and Poland in particular. But the interest payments on the debt will force increases in future EU budgets so it was a win for the Ever closer Union brigade. Whether it actually helps their economy to any material extent is incidental to that purpose.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 30,103
    Dura_Ace said:

    Scott_xP said:
    If you will insist on riding around on a steel relic of a bygone age...
    Says a vintage car enthusiast.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 55,331
    Foxy said:

    Another major factor contributing towards Boris' GE 2019 victory (or Johnson as OGH now insists on referring to him) was the absolutely dismal showing by the LibDems, resulting from their very undemocratic stance of refusing to accept the Brexit referendum result and instead committing themselves to a second referendum, presumably in the hope of securing the "right" answer.
    The Great British Public were having none of that and the political career of Jo Swinson was destroyed after just a few short months as the party's leader.

    Swinson increased the LD popular vote significantly, but was poorly rewarded under FPTP
    So was May, and it doesnt save her reputation.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 30,103
    edited July 24

    ydoethur said:

    BJO posted a belated comment two threads ago saying that sources in Islington CLP have been told Corbyn is to lose the whip.

    Leaving aside the fact he is now doubling down on his mindless racism, surely he deserves expulsion for the blatant defiance of Starmer, which effectively includes calling the new Labour leader a liar?

    Kicking Corbyn out the party would be a master stroke. Would send a crystal clear message to the electorate. Next target Tony Blair.
    The SNP must be praying any purge doesn’t encompass Richard Leonard.

    Edit - mind you, they were worried that Wendy Alexander being forced out would be bad news. Didn’t turn out that way...
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 8,482

    ydoethur said:

    BJO posted a belated comment two threads ago saying that sources in Islington CLP have been told Corbyn is to lose the whip.

    Leaving aside the fact he is now doubling down on his mindless racism, surely he deserves expulsion for the blatant defiance of Starmer, which effectively includes calling the new Labour leader a liar?

    Kicking Corbyn out the party would be a master stroke. Would send a crystal clear message to the electorate. Next target Tony Blair.
    .... but Starmer is New Tony (hopefully without added Iraq).
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 55,331
    DavidL said:

    Labour have written to Ofcom asking for an urgent review into RT's licence to broadcast inthe UK

    You could not have conceived that 6 months ago

    Not sure why tbh. It is blatant propaganda but the idea that it genuinely influences people is a bit of a stretch. Maybe the odd Salmonista but no one even vaguely sensible.
    I'd be inclined to agree in general, but then most attempts to influence people taken individually are not likely hugely effective. A lot of people, a lot, thought or think the Brexir vote did not count if the Russians put out some Facebook ads and twitter bots.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 55,331

    Scott_xP said:
    Begging letter?

    Are you new to this whole politics malarkey? Parties are always emailing their lists asking for fundraising. Would you have been so snarkey to Cameron? I doubt it.
    Dont american presidents spend most of their time fundraising? Our politicians are probably hard working by comparison.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 3,198
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    A curious omission from @HYUFD when posting polls:

    Yet on actual polling all the indyref2 polls this year including Don't Knows have had Yes in a range of 43% to 50%, not vastly different from the 45% Yes got in 2014, not one single poll this year has had Yes over 50% once don't knows are included

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_second_Scottish_independence_referendum#Opinion_polling
    That is not the same point though. 59% of all Brits and 74% of Scots feel the United Kingdom is weaker over 5 years. It is hard to see that reversed by BoZos Clown car crash Brexit.

    Scottish Independence now looks inevitable, the only questions are timing and how acrimonious.
    Timing: under the next Labour Prime Minister, whenever that is

    Nastiness: extreme - expect many years of vicious eye-gouging over a whole range of inflammatory problems including (in no particular order) Trident, the national debt, the currency, the reserves of the Bank of England, the contents of the British Museum, citizenship, pensions and tariff barriers. Relations will be absolutely dreadful for at least as long as it takes for everybody who was involved in the separation process on both sides to die of old age
    It will be brutal, no question. We know that splits on such major topics will cause hateful reactions in whichever side loses.

    However, nothing is inevitable, even if the prospects look very grim, and we shouldn't pretend it is inevitable as that's just an excuse to convince people to give in.
    Technically you're correct, but in practice there's no likely end point to this process other than separation. Whoever said that Scottish devolution was a motorway to independence with no exits has been proven triumphantly right.

    Coming to terms with the end of the Union, if you're not in favour of it, is rather like coming to terms with the inevitability of your own eventual death. You don't have to like it, but it's a good idea for the sake of one's own sanity to learn to accept it.
    As I said, and well exampled there, an excuse to get people to give in. I have certainly accepted the prospect and indeed likelihood of it, and it makes me sad, but claiming anything like that is inevitable is nothing but arrogance designed to suggest those who resist are in some way deluded, rather than simply in disagreement. It casts resistors in the role of the irrational not just opponents.
    I don't think that's necessarily true. If you really care about something then, depending upon the circumstances, it may be entirely laudable to fight for it even absent any realistic prospect of success.
    HYUFD said:

    No that is defeatist and when Yes is not over 50% in any poll including don't knows absurdly so

    There's a world of difference between defeatism and realism. The First Minister is going to win a thumping majority in the Scottish Parliament next year, after which resistance to the second referendum - even if Johnson feels he can brazen it out under such circumstances - will only last for as long as the Conservative Government does. After that, you're facing a vote which has been delayed for years courtesy of obstruction by English Tory MPs, with an electorate in which many elderly Unionists have passed away and been replaced by pro-independence youth. It's over.
    Boris will likely delay it as long as he is PM, if he loses the next election that means Starmer becomes PM, the whole UK rejoins the single market or close to it and Holyrood gets devomax and the demand for independence recedes even if he grants indyref2.

    If however Boris does allow indyref2 after WTO terms Brexit then that means border controls and customs checks at Berwick and tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa and likely a Tory win again in 2024 on a surge of English nationalism, with Westminster free of SNP MPs the Tories have a majority of well over 100
    Interesting change in tone and content from ultra HYUFD. Note the lack of threats of armed force, direct rule and partition. Instead he writes “likely” delay in first paragraph, and then his second paragraph is a completely new line: effectively acknowledging what many PBers have been pointing out: Cummings and his organ-grinder monkey are considering going full-on English Nationalist, abandoning all pretence of being the “And Unionist Party”.

    GE24 would be a lot easier for the Tories if the Commons was 59 MPs lighter.

    (Incidentally, Starmer/Labour hasn’t said anything about devomax for years, and there would be huge resistance from SLab.)
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 24,155
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    Specifically on the LPF, if our position holds for all trade negotiations then the UK will be a nation with no trade deals. That's why I'm sure it is posturing and brinkmanship so when we do agree to set a minimum standard as part of the treaty with the EU it feels like a big win for the EU. Trade deals, big ones like this especially, always include legally enforceable minimum standards on state aid and tender processes not being used as a tool of state subsidy.

    If our position on no LPF commitment holds then it will be a no deal, the EU will, rightly IMO, refuse to deal with the UK. The issue is that they want a 10/10 LPF commitment and we're asking for 0/10. My guess is that we'll end up somewhere between 4-7/10 and both sides will call it a win.

    The State aid is the tricky bit, especially in a time of Covid. The EU themselves seem to have (rightly) ripped up the rule book in this time of crisis and we need to be able to do the same. Standards, whether electrical safety or financial regulation is much less of an issue.
    The EU has standards when it comes to financial regulation?
    LOL!

    For god's sake man don't let @TSE hear you. You might as well have said that pineapple on pizza should be mandatory.

    MiFID is your friend, here (or not!!).
This discussion has been closed.