Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Imagine what next Monday’s PLP meeting is going to be like

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited December 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Imagine what next Monday’s PLP meeting is going to be like if LAB loses Oldham

It’s Tuesday morning and like many other Tuesdays since Mr Corbyn had his huge victory in the Labour leadership election the political news is dominated by what happened at the weekly meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party.

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • First!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,828

    First!

    Dammit! Foiled by the "discussion ID required" :(
  • Strong local candidate should see Lab over the line - if he doesn't they are well & truly cruising the marmite motorway.....
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,299

    Strong local candidate should see Lab over the line - if he doesn't they are well & truly cruising the marmite motorway.....

    You have to feel a little sorry for Jim McMahon. He's seems a reasonable candidate: he's served on a local council for over a decade and is party leader of the LGA. He seems like the sort of person who'd love to be an MP (although shockingly he's much younger than me).

    Then Meacher sadly dies, and he gets his opportunity in a very safe seat. He bashes his opponent in the selection, and so it's all set. He can almost feel the green bench under his bum.

    Except ... except Corbyn. Except McDonnell. Except Ken f'ing Livingstone. Except Momentum.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,299
    Whilst writing the post below, I stumbled back onto Eoin Clarke's blog. He really needs to learn how to format a webpage to make it readable.

    And it would help if he could learn to write.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    Whilst writing the post below, I stumbled back onto Eoin Clarke's blog. He really needs to learn how to format a webpage to make it readable.

    And it would help if he could learn to write.

    ..and think.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,182
    SkyNews reporting the SeanT Fatbollah wheeze ....

    :smile:
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,299
    GeoffM said:

    Whilst writing the post below, I stumbled back onto Eoin Clarke's blog. He really needs to learn how to format a webpage to make it readable.

    And it would help if he could learn to write.

    ..and think.
    I've no doubt he does plenty of thinking. It's just that he hasn't learnt how to present his arguments to make them compelling to anyone other than those who already agree with him. It's archetypal narrow one-track thinking. In fact, it's so narrow that he ought to apply to be a platelayer on the Ffestiniog.

    Which IME is strangely not unusual for people who have made it as far as a doctorate. Professors can be worse, especially in industry. Nice chaps (and I assume chapesses, but I've never worked with a female professor), but sometimes incapable of looking at the broader picture ...
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,709
    It is a bit peculiar that a lot of people seem to be fairly confident in predicting a relatively narrow band of what they think the result is going to be - i.e. between 500 (ish) and about 2,000 (ish).

    Such precision is nincompoopismatic, bordering doubleplusridiculous, particularly in the absence of any opinion polls from the campaign and in the light of half-baked rumours of UKIP's private polling or canvassing returns, as well as doubts about the turnout (a very low turnout rendering the result almost meaningless anyway).

    I do not see any evidence of a big surge in support for UKIP, a swing to UKIP from either Labour or Conservative voters, or any evidence that the UKIP vote won't collapse with the lower turnout just as the Labour vote will collapse with the turnout.

    Thus it is perfectly conceivable that Labour might win by 10,000 votes to 5,000 (or something similar) and the majority of 5,000 being - almost inadvertently - spun into being a huge triumph for the onward march of Corbynism.

    The idea that UKIP might win - or come close to winning - seems to be based on the idea that the Labour vote will collapse from 23,000 to 8,000, but that the UKIP vote of 8,800 will remain magically intact, as if UKIP voters are somehow immune from lower turnouts.
  • GeoffM said:

    Whilst writing the post below, I stumbled back onto Eoin Clarke's blog. He really needs to learn how to format a webpage to make it readable.

    And it would help if he could learn to write.

    ..and think.
    I've no doubt he does plenty of thinking. It's just that he hasn't learnt how to present his arguments to make them compelling to anyone other than those who already agree with him. It's archetypal narrow one-track thinking. In fact, it's so narrow that he ought to apply to be a platelayer on the Ffestiniog.

    Which IME is strangely not unusual for people who have made it as far as a doctorate. Professors can be worse, especially in industry. Nice chaps (and I assume chapesses, but I've never worked with a female professor), but sometimes incapable of looking at the broader picture ...
    You mean - they don't care about what makes the most money? Take them out and shoot them, pronto!!

  • JohnLoony said:

    It is a bit peculiar that a lot of people seem to be fairly confident in predicting a relatively narrow band of what they think the result is going to be - i.e. between 500 (ish) and about 2,000 (ish).

    Such precision is nincompoopismatic, bordering doubleplusridiculous, particularly in the absence of any opinion polls from the campaign and in the light of half-baked rumours of UKIP's private polling or canvassing returns, as well as doubts about the turnout (a very low turnout rendering the result almost meaningless anyway).

    I do not see any evidence of a big surge in support for UKIP, a swing to UKIP from either Labour or Conservative voters, or any evidence that the UKIP vote won't collapse with the lower turnout just as the Labour vote will collapse with the turnout.

    Thus it is perfectly conceivable that Labour might win by 10,000 votes to 5,000 (or something similar) and the majority of 5,000 being - almost inadvertently - spun into being a huge triumph for the onward march of Corbynism.

    The idea that UKIP might win - or come close to winning - seems to be based on the idea that the Labour vote will collapse from 23,000 to 8,000, but that the UKIP vote of 8,800 will remain magically intact, as if UKIP voters are somehow immune from lower turnouts.

    I agree, it's very silly. The good folk of Oldham will vote for a pig in a red rosette. Getting people excited about UKIP just seems to be a way of playing the expectations game so UKIP look worse afterwards.
  • JohnLoony said:

    It is a bit peculiar that a lot of people seem to be fairly confident in predicting a relatively narrow band of what they think the result is going to be - i.e. between 500 (ish) and about 2,000 (ish).

    Such precision is nincompoopismatic, bordering doubleplusridiculous, particularly in the absence of any opinion polls from the campaign and in the light of half-baked rumours of UKIP's private polling or canvassing returns, as well as doubts about the turnout (a very low turnout rendering the result almost meaningless anyway).

    I do not see any evidence of a big surge in support for UKIP, a swing to UKIP from either Labour or Conservative voters, or any evidence that the UKIP vote won't collapse with the lower turnout just as the Labour vote will collapse with the turnout.

    Thus it is perfectly conceivable that Labour might win by 10,000 votes to 5,000 (or something similar) and the majority of 5,000 being - almost inadvertently - spun into being a huge triumph for the onward march of Corbynism.

    The idea that UKIP might win - or come close to winning - seems to be based on the idea that the Labour vote will collapse from 23,000 to 8,000, but that the UKIP vote of 8,800 will remain magically intact, as if UKIP voters are somehow immune from lower turnouts.

    You offering odds on any of that?
  • There'll be no need to imagine what the PLP meeting will be like - we'll have another multiply-reported tweetfest.

    "For the time being the LAB leader and his MPs are stuck with each other in a loveless forced marriage and will be for the foreseeable future." - A very good way of putting it. The question is, who instigates divorce proceedings first?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,436
    Having read Mr Loony's comments I am sticking with a Labour win of about 3000 in Oldham. The crisis will not come there but elsewhere. On Wednesday the PLP have an opportunity to show how little they appreciate Corbyn's opinion and judgement. How many will take it? How many of the Shadow Cabinet will take it?

    I think it is quite certain that Benn will. His position as shadow FS has put him in the lead on this and he seems all too willing to pick up the challenge. Will the other members of the SC hostile to Corbyn follow in behind or play their own politics? We have been spun the idea that there is a majority in the SC in favour of bombing. I wonder. If a majority reject the view of the Leader that would indeed be a crisis.

    It is also inevitable that those who chose not to serve in the SC will take yet another chance to show what they think of Corbyn's judgement. How many? I would suggest that more than about 60 Labour MPs voting in favour would also cause a crisis.

    Corbyn has aggravated a difficult situation by a series of idiotic appointments from McDonnell to Milne to Livingstone. He has, apparently, no interest in being a consensual leader. If Labour do lose Oldham the crisis may come sooner but it is coming, of that there is no doubt.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,299

    You mean - they don't care about what makes the most money? Take them out and shoot them, pronto!!

    With that reply, you're showing you should just join him on the Ffestiniong. In fact, a garden railway might be more fitting for you. :)
  • To follow up on John's comment, I don't think anyone is suggesting that Lab will lose two-thirds to stay-at-homes while UKIP's all turn out. There'll be much more going on than that. One scenario:

    Lab: 23630, less 50% to abstentions, less 10% to UKIP = 9452
    UKIP: 8892, less 25% to abstentions, plus 10% of Lab, plus 15% of Con = 10259
    Con: 8187, less 30% to abstentions, less 15% to UKIP = 4503

    Which having run those through makes me think that UKIP should perhaps be favourites after all.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,299

    JohnLoony said:

    It is a bit peculiar that a lot of people seem to be fairly confident in predicting a relatively narrow band of what they think the result is going to be - i.e. between 500 (ish) and about 2,000 (ish).

    Such precision is nincompoopismatic, bordering doubleplusridiculous, particularly in the absence of any opinion polls from the campaign and in the light of half-baked rumours of UKIP's private polling or canvassing returns, as well as doubts about the turnout (a very low turnout rendering the result almost meaningless anyway).

    I do not see any evidence of a big surge in support for UKIP, a swing to UKIP from either Labour or Conservative voters, or any evidence that the UKIP vote won't collapse with the lower turnout just as the Labour vote will collapse with the turnout.

    Thus it is perfectly conceivable that Labour might win by 10,000 votes to 5,000 (or something similar) and the majority of 5,000 being - almost inadvertently - spun into being a huge triumph for the onward march of Corbynism.

    The idea that UKIP might win - or come close to winning - seems to be based on the idea that the Labour vote will collapse from 23,000 to 8,000, but that the UKIP vote of 8,800 will remain magically intact, as if UKIP voters are somehow immune from lower turnouts.

    I agree, it's very silly. The good folk of Oldham will vote for a pig in a red rosette. Getting people excited about UKIP just seems to be a way of playing the expectations game so UKIP look worse afterwards.
    Morning luckyguy.

    Have you done any more reading on IHH ? ;)
  • DavidL said:

    Having read Mr Loony's comments I am sticking with a Labour win of about 3000 in Oldham. The crisis will not come there but elsewhere. On Wednesday the PLP have an opportunity to show how little they appreciate Corbyn's opinion and judgement. How many will take it? How many of the Shadow Cabinet will take it?

    I think it is quite certain that Benn will. His position as shadow FS has put him in the lead on this and he seems all too willing to pick up the challenge. Will the other members of the SC hostile to Corbyn follow in behind or play their own politics? We have been spun the idea that there is a majority in the SC in favour of bombing. I wonder. If a majority reject the view of the Leader that would indeed be a crisis.

    It is also inevitable that those who chose not to serve in the SC will take yet another chance to show what they think of Corbyn's judgement. How many? I would suggest that more than about 60 Labour MPs voting in favour would also cause a crisis.

    Corbyn has aggravated a difficult situation by a series of idiotic appointments from McDonnell to Milne to Livingstone. He has, apparently, no interest in being a consensual leader. If Labour do lose Oldham the crisis may come sooner but it is coming, of that there is no doubt.

    Why, in your judgment, did the Party's members vote JC into the leadership in the first place?

  • There'll be no need to imagine what the PLP meeting will be like - we'll have another multiply-reported tweetfest.

    "For the time being the LAB leader and his MPs are stuck with each other in a loveless forced marriage and will be for the foreseeable future." - A very good way of putting it. The question is, who instigates divorce proceedings first?

    MP deselection would be a big mistake. In many cases it would lead to the subsequent loss of the constituency. Ultimately, though, it is the only weapon Corbyn really has. We'll see it start to happen relatively soon, I guess. Then the shit will really hit the fan.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,436
    Dan's take. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12025863/Monday-was-Labours-blackest-day.html

    He clearly has an agenda but I agree with almost all of that.
  • FPT
    notme said:



    The dentist said it was now standard at his practice and implied it was across the NHS. The thing is my oral hygiene wasnt bad, room for improvement, as there always is, but in the higher range for all their assessment numbers.

    He told me i needed to clean my teeth minimum three times a day, not rinse my mouth after brushing and that i need to buy an electric toothbrush. Unless i did that he doesnt expect to see an improvement. No improvement, no treatment.

    Wow, what your dentist is telling you is bullsh-t and dangerous at that. Not to rinse your mouth?

    To fix your teeth you need to look after them, sure, but they are bone like any other, they need to be nourished from the inside and they will regrow (no dentist will tell you this). You need to cut right down on sugar (not just because of acid erosion but because it undermines bone strength), and eat lots of cultured dairy (live yoghurt). Raw milk would work just as well, but is expensive. We can't properly assimilate calcium from pasteurised milk. Culturing reverses the damage done to the product when it's pasteurised. I speak from experience.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 35,300
    @ZoraSuleman: BTP investigate after women handed cards on the London Underground telling them they're 'fat' pic @kflorish https://t.co/6EbuTBqo58
  • Innocent_AbroadInnocent_Abroad Posts: 3,294
    edited December 2015

    To follow up on John's comment, I don't think anyone is suggesting that Lab will lose two-thirds to stay-at-homes while UKIP's all turn out. There'll be much more going on than that. One scenario:

    Lab: 23630, less 50% to abstentions, less 10% to UKIP = 9452
    UKIP: 8892, less 25% to abstentions, plus 10% of Lab, plus 15% of Con = 10259
    Con: 8187, less 30% to abstentions, less 15% to UKIP = 4503

    Which having run those through makes me think that UKIP should perhaps be favourites after all.

    Why do you think UKIP will lose fewer to abstentions than Con? Perhaps there will be a bigger Con -> UKIP switch, OTOH.

  • DavidL said:

    Dan's take. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12025863/Monday-was-Labours-blackest-day.html

    He clearly has an agenda but I agree with almost all of that.

    In the end it's all about members, affiliates and unions. Nothing will change until they do. Clearly, the unions have most to lose from perennial Tory rule, so it may be there that the first chinks of light appear. At some stage even Len McCluskey is goin to realise that Corbyn Labour can never get close to power.

  • To follow up on John's comment, I don't think anyone is suggesting that Lab will lose two-thirds to stay-at-homes while UKIP's all turn out. There'll be much more going on than that. One scenario:

    Lab: 23630, less 50% to abstentions, less 10% to UKIP = 9452
    UKIP: 8892, less 25% to abstentions, plus 10% of Lab, plus 15% of Con = 10259
    Con: 8187, less 30% to abstentions, less 15% to UKIP = 4503

    Which having run those through makes me think that UKIP should perhaps be favourites after all.

    Why do you think UKIP will lose fewer to abstentions than Con? Perhaps there will be a bigger Con -> UKIP switch, OTOH.

    I think UKIP will lose fewer to abstentions because they're clearly in the game to win it; the Tories aren't. There's therefore a much bigger incentive for UKIP supporters / anti-establishment voters to turn out for them than there is for Con-backers. Also, I think that there were probably quite a lot of people who backed Con and Lab in May on the basis that it was an important government-making decision (even though in Oldham West it wasn't really), whereas at a by-election it's clearly not.

    In the past, Con voters have been notoriously reluctant to vote tactically. That said, in Oldham East next door they were willing to go LD in quite large numbers in 2011 so it is possible. You're right that I've put what's probably quite a cautious figure on it though.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,436

    DavidL said:

    Having read Mr Loony's comments I am sticking with a Labour win of about 3000 in Oldham. The crisis will not come there but elsewhere. On Wednesday the PLP have an opportunity to show how little they appreciate Corbyn's opinion and judgement. How many will take it? How many of the Shadow Cabinet will take it?

    I think it is quite certain that Benn will. His position as shadow FS has put him in the lead on this and he seems all too willing to pick up the challenge. Will the other members of the SC hostile to Corbyn follow in behind or play their own politics? We have been spun the idea that there is a majority in the SC in favour of bombing. I wonder. If a majority reject the view of the Leader that would indeed be a crisis.

    It is also inevitable that those who chose not to serve in the SC will take yet another chance to show what they think of Corbyn's judgement. How many? I would suggest that more than about 60 Labour MPs voting in favour would also cause a crisis.

    Corbyn has aggravated a difficult situation by a series of idiotic appointments from McDonnell to Milne to Livingstone. He has, apparently, no interest in being a consensual leader. If Labour do lose Oldham the crisis may come sooner but it is coming, of that there is no doubt.

    Why, in your judgment, did the Party's members vote JC into the leadership in the first place?

    Because the alternatives they were given were crap who did not appear to have any principles or beliefs but a tired and defeated manageralist outlook. I think that was unfair but they were so anxious to avoid offending any second or third preferences that they did not speak up for what they believed in until it was way too late. In short they didn't lead and Corbyn did.

    Right off the cliff.
  • There'll be no need to imagine what the PLP meeting will be like - we'll have another multiply-reported tweetfest.

    "For the time being the LAB leader and his MPs are stuck with each other in a loveless forced marriage and will be for the foreseeable future." - A very good way of putting it. The question is, who instigates divorce proceedings first?

    MP deselection would be a big mistake. In many cases it would lead to the subsequent loss of the constituency. Ultimately, though, it is the only weapon Corbyn really has. We'll see it start to happen relatively soon, I guess. Then the shit will really hit the fan.

    No need. The boundary review will assist greatly in expediting deselections. I do wonder whether Corbyn will support boundary review, even though removing their undersized seats will damage Labour, in the overt name of 'fairness' but actually because it makes effective deselection so much easier.
  • To follow up on John's comment, I don't think anyone is suggesting that Lab will lose two-thirds to stay-at-homes while UKIP's all turn out. There'll be much more going on than that. One scenario:

    Lab: 23630, less 50% to abstentions, less 10% to UKIP = 9452
    UKIP: 8892, less 25% to abstentions, plus 10% of Lab, plus 15% of Con = 10259
    Con: 8187, less 30% to abstentions, less 15% to UKIP = 4503

    Which having run those through makes me think that UKIP should perhaps be favourites after all.

    David - the way you have arrived at your figures means that 20% (rather than 10%) of those former Labour voters, who actually vote on Thursday switch to UKIP. That's a very big ask.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 35,300
    @sundersays: Ken Livingstone will contribute his thoughts to @bbcr4today at 7.30am https://t.co/dPdb5tu6xI
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492

    To follow up on John's comment, I don't think anyone is suggesting that Lab will lose two-thirds to stay-at-homes while UKIP's all turn out. There'll be much more going on than that. One scenario:

    Lab: 23630, less 50% to abstentions, less 10% to UKIP = 9452
    UKIP: 8892, less 25% to abstentions, plus 10% of Lab, plus 15% of Con = 10259
    Con: 8187, less 30% to abstentions, less 15% to UKIP = 4503

    Which having run those through makes me think that UKIP should perhaps be favourites after all.

    Why do you think UKIP will lose fewer to abstentions than Con? Perhaps there will be a bigger Con -> UKIP switch, OTOH.

    I think UKIP will lose fewer to abstentions because they're clearly in the game to win it; the Tories aren't. There's therefore a much bigger incentive for UKIP supporters / anti-establishment voters to turn out for them than there is for Con-backers. Also, I think that there were probably quite a lot of people who backed Con and Lab in May on the basis that it was an important government-making decision (even though in Oldham West it wasn't really), whereas at a by-election it's clearly not.

    In the past, Con voters have been notoriously reluctant to vote tactically. That said, in Oldham East next door they were willing to go LD in quite large numbers in 2011 so it is possible. You're right that I've put what's probably quite a cautious figure on it though.
    Labour are experts at getting postal votes organised, I suspect their nerves are built around the response they've had. Kippers will be very motivated in Oldham but I have concerns about resources and infrastructure in terms of getting people to the booths.

    From a distance it almost seems as though this election is being fought along race/ethnicity/cultural lines: Asians vote labour, WWC vote ukip, that's a very worrying development. If labour win as I expect it will paper over a lot of cracks.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,436

    DavidL said:

    Dan's take. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12025863/Monday-was-Labours-blackest-day.html

    He clearly has an agenda but I agree with almost all of that.

    In the end it's all about members, affiliates and unions. Nothing will change until they do. Clearly, the unions have most to lose from perennial Tory rule, so it may be there that the first chinks of light appear. At some stage even Len McCluskey is goin to realise that Corbyn Labour can never get close to power.

    Hmm.... What McCluskey sees at the moment is a party which better reflects his view of society than he has ever had before which still has a chance of winning. If the Tories have a melt down on the EU or replace Cameron with someone a lot less emollient there is still a chance.

    Would he give up that chance for the better chance of a more Blairite party winning? I think he wouldn't.
  • There'll be no need to imagine what the PLP meeting will be like - we'll have another multiply-reported tweetfest.

    "For the time being the LAB leader and his MPs are stuck with each other in a loveless forced marriage and will be for the foreseeable future." - A very good way of putting it. The question is, who instigates divorce proceedings first?

    MP deselection would be a big mistake. In many cases it would lead to the subsequent loss of the constituency. Ultimately, though, it is the only weapon Corbyn really has. We'll see it start to happen relatively soon, I guess. Then the shit will really hit the fan.

    No need. The boundary review will assist greatly in expediting deselections. I do wonder whether Corbyn will support boundary review, even though removing their undersized seats will damage Labour, in the overt name of 'fairness' but actually because it makes effective deselection so much easier.

    Doesn't it depend on who is affected, how selection processes for new seats work and timeframes? Sitting Labour MPs fighting as Independent Labour candidates on either current or new boundaries would be likely to significantly eat into the Labour vote - especially if they are high profile.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,299

    FPT

    notme said:



    The dentist said it was now standard at his practice and implied it was across the NHS. The thing is my oral hygiene wasnt bad, room for improvement, as there always is, but in the higher range for all their assessment numbers.

    He told me i needed to clean my teeth minimum three times a day, not rinse my mouth after brushing and that i need to buy an electric toothbrush. Unless i did that he doesnt expect to see an improvement. No improvement, no treatment.

    Wow, what your dentist is telling you is bullsh-t and dangerous at that. Not to rinse your mouth?

    To fix your teeth you need to look after them, sure, but they are bone like any other, they need to be nourished from the inside and they will regrow (no dentist will tell you this). You need to cut right down on sugar (not just because of acid erosion but because it undermines bone strength), and eat lots of cultured dairy (live yoghurt). Raw milk would work just as well, but is expensive. We can't properly assimilate calcium from pasteurised milk. Culturing reverses the damage done to the product when it's pasteurised. I speak from experience.
    "(no dentist will tell you this)"

    I wonder why that is? :)

    My dentist also repeatedly tells me not to rinse my mouth after brushing. The reason she gives (and I've no idea if this is true or not), is that most toothpaste contains chemicals that help protect the teeth and gums, and over-rigorous rinsing can remove them. If you're brushing before going to bed, by rinsing you miss many hours when those chemicals could be helping.

    I always ignore the advice, as I find most toothpaste makes my mouth incredibly dry.

    From memory, she says use mouthwash before brushing. Which again, has always struck me as a little odd.
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Dan's take. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12025863/Monday-was-Labours-blackest-day.html

    He clearly has an agenda but I agree with almost all of that.

    In the end it's all about members, affiliates and unions. Nothing will change until they do. Clearly, the unions have most to lose from perennial Tory rule, so it may be there that the first chinks of light appear. At some stage even Len McCluskey is goin to realise that Corbyn Labour can never get close to power.

    Hmm.... What McCluskey sees at the moment is a party which better reflects his view of society than he has ever had before which still has a chance of winning. If the Tories have a melt down on the EU or replace Cameron with someone a lot less emollient there is still a chance.

    Would he give up that chance for the better chance of a more Blairite party winning? I think he wouldn't.

    Len is not the brightest, but he will come to understand there is literally nothing the Tories could say or do that would put Corbyn Labour close to power. The only issue is when and how much damage the Corbynistas do to Labour in the meantime.

  • FPT

    notme said:



    The dentist said it was now standard at his practice and implied it was across the NHS. The thing is my oral hygiene wasnt bad, room for improvement, as there always is, but in the higher range for all their assessment numbers.

    He told me i needed to clean my teeth minimum three times a day, not rinse my mouth after brushing and that i need to buy an electric toothbrush. Unless i did that he doesnt expect to see an improvement. No improvement, no treatment.

    Wow, what your dentist is telling you is bullsh-t and dangerous at that. Not to rinse your mouth?

    To fix your teeth you need to look after them, sure, but they are bone like any other, they need to be nourished from the inside and they will regrow (no dentist will tell you this). You need to cut right down on sugar (not just because of acid erosion but because it undermines bone strength), and eat lots of cultured dairy (live yoghurt). Raw milk would work just as well, but is expensive. We can't properly assimilate calcium from pasteurised milk. Culturing reverses the damage done to the product when it's pasteurised. I speak from experience.
    "(no dentist will tell you this)"

    I wonder why that is? :)

    My dentist also repeatedly tells me not to rinse my mouth after brushing. The reason she gives (and I've no idea if this is true or not), is that most toothpaste contains chemicals that help protect the teeth and gums, and over-rigorous rinsing can remove them. If you're brushing before going to bed, by rinsing you miss many hours when those chemicals could be helping.

    I always ignore the advice, as I find most toothpaste makes my mouth incredibly dry.

    From memory, she says use mouthwash before brushing. Which again, has always struck me as a little odd.

    I have adopted a routine: floss, mouthwash, brush,don't rinse.. Since starting that 3 years ago, my teeth appear to much healthier. As I am an OAP, I like to keep whatever faculties I have left :-)
  • Unless I've just misheard, Ken Livingstone just said on R4 that he doesn't support air strikes in Syria but he *would* support an invasion by ground troops - in the manner of the post-war occupation of Germany.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,645
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Dan's take. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12025863/Monday-was-Labours-blackest-day.html

    He clearly has an agenda but I agree with almost all of that.

    In the end it's all about members, affiliates and unions. Nothing will change until they do. Clearly, the unions have most to lose from perennial Tory rule, so it may be there that the first chinks of light appear. At some stage even Len McCluskey is goin to realise that Corbyn Labour can never get close to power.

    Hmm.... What McCluskey sees at the moment is a party which better reflects his view of society than he has ever had before which still has a chance of winning. If the Tories have a melt down on the EU or replace Cameron with someone a lot less emollient there is still a chance.

    Would he give up that chance for the better chance of a more Blairite party winning? I think he wouldn't.
    McCluskey may not accept a David Miliband or Chuka Umunna or even Yvette Cooper leadership at the moment but he might accept a Hilary Benn or Margaret Beckett leadership if the situation really got dire
  • notmenotme Posts: 2,371

    Unless I've just misheard, Ken Livingstone just said on R4 that he doesn't support air strikes in Syria but he *would* support an invasion by ground troops - in the manner of the post-war occupation of Germany.

    I don't want to appear as if I'm being a bit picky here, but didn't the occupation of Germany require an awful lot of air strikes to enable us to occupy?
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Dan's take. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12025863/Monday-was-Labours-blackest-day.html

    He clearly has an agenda but I agree with almost all of that.

    In the end it's all about members, affiliates and unions. Nothing will change until they do. Clearly, the unions have most to lose from perennial Tory rule, so it may be there that the first chinks of light appear. At some stage even Len McCluskey is goin to realise that Corbyn Labour can never get close to power.

    Hmm.... What McCluskey sees at the moment is a party which better reflects his view of society than he has ever had before which still has a chance of winning. If the Tories have a melt down on the EU or replace Cameron with someone a lot less emollient there is still a chance.

    Would he give up that chance for the better chance of a more Blairite party winning? I think he wouldn't.

    Len is not the brightest, but he will come to understand there is literally nothing the Tories could say or do that would put Corbyn Labour close to power. The only issue is when and how much damage the Corbynistas do to Labour in the meantime.

    Which is why I want Corbyn out. The Tories having no opposition is no good for anyone - it leads to arrogant, lazy and even corrupt government. And it probably means that, ultimately, when the tables do turn the Tories will go down to a very heavy defeat once again. Not to mention he's a corrosive influence on British politics as a whole.

    Ideally, I want a strong centre-left party challenging the Tories and an assertive UKIP continuing to threaten its Right flank, particularly on the EU and immigration.

    Obviously, i still want the Tories to win but monopolies are good for no-one.
  • notme said:

    Unless I've just misheard, Ken Livingstone just said on R4 that he doesn't support air strikes in Syria but he *would* support an invasion by ground troops - in the manner of the post-war occupation of Germany.

    I don't want to appear as if I'm being a bit picky here, but didn't the occupation of Germany require an awful lot of air strikes to enable us to occupy?
    Nick Robinson didn't push him on it.

    Hands up who thinks Livingstone would back a ground invasion and occupation by NATO and the Arab League, even if mandated to do so by the UN?
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Good morning all.

    The man who will never resign on principle, because he has none:
  • HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Dan's take. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12025863/Monday-was-Labours-blackest-day.html

    He clearly has an agenda but I agree with almost all of that.

    In the end it's all about members, affiliates and unions. Nothing will change until they do. Clearly, the unions have most to lose from perennial Tory rule, so it may be there that the first chinks of light appear. At some stage even Len McCluskey is goin to realise that Corbyn Labour can never get close to power.

    Hmm.... What McCluskey sees at the moment is a party which better reflects his view of society than he has ever had before which still has a chance of winning. If the Tories have a melt down on the EU or replace Cameron with someone a lot less emollient there is still a chance.

    Would he give up that chance for the better chance of a more Blairite party winning? I think he wouldn't.
    McCluskey may not accept a David Miliband or Chuka Umunna or even Yvette Cooper leadership at the moment but he might accept a Hilary Benn or Margaret Beckett leadership if the situation really got dire

    Exactly - it's not a binary choice between Jezza and a Blairite. This will sink in at some stage. Corbyn v a safe hands candidate will be the choice. The next leadership contest will be a rescue operation, not a clash of ideologies.

  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Dan's take. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12025863/Monday-was-Labours-blackest-day.html

    He clearly has an agenda but I agree with almost all of that.

    In the end it's all about members, affiliates and unions. Nothing will change until they do. Clearly, the unions have most to lose from perennial Tory rule, so it may be there that the first chinks of light appear. At some stage even Len McCluskey is goin to realise that Corbyn Labour can never get close to power.

    Hmm.... What McCluskey sees at the moment is a party which better reflects his view of society than he has ever had before which still has a chance of winning. If the Tories have a melt down on the EU or replace Cameron with someone a lot less emollient there is still a chance.

    Would he give up that chance for the better chance of a more Blairite party winning? I think he wouldn't.
    McCluskey may not accept a David Miliband or Chuka Umunna or even Yvette Cooper leadership at the moment but he might accept a Hilary Benn or Margaret Beckett leadership if the situation really got dire
    What a nest of far left traitors that would be.
  • HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Dan's take. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12025863/Monday-was-Labours-blackest-day.html

    He clearly has an agenda but I agree with almost all of that.

    In the end it's all about members, affiliates and unions. Nothing will change until they do. Clearly, the unions have most to lose from perennial Tory rule, so it may be there that the first chinks of light appear. At some stage even Len McCluskey is goin to realise that Corbyn Labour can never get close to power.

    Hmm.... What McCluskey sees at the moment is a party which better reflects his view of society than he has ever had before which still has a chance of winning. If the Tories have a melt down on the EU or replace Cameron with someone a lot less emollient there is still a chance.

    Would he give up that chance for the better chance of a more Blairite party winning? I think he wouldn't.
    McCluskey may not accept a David Miliband or Chuka Umunna or even Yvette Cooper leadership at the moment but he might accept a Hilary Benn or Margaret Beckett leadership if the situation really got dire
    Hilary Benn is starting to look like more than just the King across the water.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,645
    MikeK said:

    Good morning all.

    The man who will never resign on principle, because he has none:

    Principles and power rarely go together
  • MikeK said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Dan's take. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12025863/Monday-was-Labours-blackest-day.html

    He clearly has an agenda but I agree with almost all of that.

    In the end it's all about members, affiliates and unions. Nothing will change until they do. Clearly, the unions have most to lose from perennial Tory rule, so it may be there that the first chinks of light appear. At some stage even Len McCluskey is goin to realise that Corbyn Labour can never get close to power.

    Hmm.... What McCluskey sees at the moment is a party which better reflects his view of society than he has ever had before which still has a chance of winning. If the Tories have a melt down on the EU or replace Cameron with someone a lot less emollient there is still a chance.

    Would he give up that chance for the better chance of a more Blairite party winning? I think he wouldn't.
    McCluskey may not accept a David Miliband or Chuka Umunna or even Yvette Cooper leadership at the moment but he might accept a Hilary Benn or Margaret Beckett leadership if the situation really got dire
    What a nest of far left traitors that would be.
    Anyone to the left of Gideon or Hezza is a traitor to you.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,645

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Dan's take. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12025863/Monday-was-Labours-blackest-day.html

    He clearly has an agenda but I agree with almost all of that.

    In the end it's all about members, affiliates and unions. Nothing will change until they do. Clearly, the unions have most to lose from perennial Tory rule, so it may be there that the first chinks of light appear. At some stage even Len McCluskey is goin to realise that Corbyn Labour can never get close to power.

    Hmm.... What McCluskey sees at the moment is a party which better reflects his view of society than he has ever had before which still has a chance of winning. If the Tories have a melt down on the EU or replace Cameron with someone a lot less emollient there is still a chance.

    Would he give up that chance for the better chance of a more Blairite party winning? I think he wouldn't.
    McCluskey may not accept a David Miliband or Chuka Umunna or even Yvette Cooper leadership at the moment but he might accept a Hilary Benn or Margaret Beckett leadership if the situation really got dire
    Hilary Benn is starting to look like more than just the King across the water.
    Yes the PLP seem to have settled on him as their Michael Howard figure if the need arises
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,645

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Dan's take. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12025863/Monday-was-Labours-blackest-day.html

    He clearly has an agenda but I agree with almost all of that.

    In the end it's all about members, affiliates and unions. Nothing will change until they do. Clearly, the unions have most to lose from perennial Tory rule, so it may be there that the first chinks of light appear. At some stage even Len McCluskey is goin to realise that Corbyn Labour can never get close to power.

    Hmm.... What McCluskey sees at the moment is a party which better reflects his view of society than he has ever had before which still has a chance of winning. If the Tories have a melt down on the EU or replace Cameron with someone a lot less emollient there is still a chance.

    Would he give up that chance for the better chance of a more Blairite party winning? I think he wouldn't.
    McCluskey may not accept a David Miliband or Chuka Umunna or even Yvette Cooper leadership at the moment but he might accept a Hilary Benn or Margaret Beckett leadership if the situation really got dire

    Exactly - it's not a binary choice between Jezza and a Blairite. This will sink in at some stage. Corbyn v a safe hands candidate will be the choice. The next leadership contest will be a rescue operation, not a clash of ideologies.

    Agreed Labour members lost the next election when they picked Corbyn as Tory members lost the 2005 election when they picked IDS, the job of Benn would be to save the furniture as Michael Howard did
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,303
    Off-topic. On Police Scotland.

    Several Members of the Scottish Parliament have stated their concern over Police Scotland's decision to pursue whistleblowers citing investigative failures, rather than renewing the investigation itself.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/30/police_scotland_taken_tribunal_former_detective_unlawful_snooping/
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    What I can't understand is his wholesale blocking of people on Twitter - I've seen at least a dozen saying they've been blocked.

    This seems like an incredibly stupid attitude for a candidate and potential MP - and very Eoin/Owenish. Creating your own echo chamber bubble strikes me as someone who can't accept they represent all parts of their constituency.

    Eoin and Owen can do what they fancy - not a likely MP by Friday. For a supposedly sensible chap - he's making a mistake.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,645
    MikeK said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Dan's take. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12025863/Monday-was-Labours-blackest-day.html

    He clearly has an agenda but I agree with almost all of that.

    In the end it's all about members, affiliates and unions. Nothing will change until they do. Clearly, the unions have most to lose from perennial Tory rule, so it may be there that the first chinks of light appear. At some stage even Len McCluskey is goin to realise that Corbyn Labour can never get close to power.

    Hmm.... What McCluskey sees at the moment is a party which better reflects his view of society than he has ever had before which still has a chance of winning. If the Tories have a melt down on the EU or replace Cameron with someone a lot less emollient there is still a chance.

    Would he give up that chance for the better chance of a more Blairite party winning? I think he wouldn't.
    McCluskey may not accept a David Miliband or Chuka Umunna or even Yvette Cooper leadership at the moment but he might accept a Hilary Benn or Margaret Beckett leadership if the situation really got dire
    What a nest of far left traitors that would be.
    It will have to be
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    @rcs1000 is watching you!
    RobD said:

    First!

    Dammit! Foiled by the "discussion ID required" :(
  • Could we have a Hil(l)ary in both the White House and No 10 at some stage?
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,290
    Mr Observer,

    "Sitting Labour MPs fighting as Independent Labour candidates on either current or new boundaries would be likely to significantly eat into the Labour vote - especially if they are high profile.

    Does that matter to Jezza? They're all Tories anyway.

    Jezza is a man on a mission to bring back true socialism. The longest journey begins with a single step and all that. Gradualism is the key to ensure that the frog doesn't jump out the pan. But if the frog is a Tory one, it's good riddance.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    He posted here for a little bit under the moniker TheGreenBenches IIRC. That was before he got sued, a lot.

    Whilst writing the post below, I stumbled back onto Eoin Clarke's blog. He really needs to learn how to format a webpage to make it readable.

    And it would help if he could learn to write.

  • Good morning, everyone.

    I still expect Labour to win, but this might really help UKIP with renewal of memberships and reinvigorating the party after it did so well in the 2014 European vote but failed in the General Election.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Having a PhD in IRA Feminism or whatever it was just sums him up.

    Someone here ages ago mentioned meeting him once and said he seemed a nice chappy.

    GeoffM said:

    Whilst writing the post below, I stumbled back onto Eoin Clarke's blog. He really needs to learn how to format a webpage to make it readable.

    And it would help if he could learn to write.

    ..and think.
    I've no doubt he does plenty of thinking. It's just that he hasn't learnt how to present his arguments to make them compelling to anyone other than those who already agree with him. It's archetypal narrow one-track thinking. In fact, it's so narrow that he ought to apply to be a platelayer on the Ffestiniog.

    Which IME is strangely not unusual for people who have made it as far as a doctorate. Professors can be worse, especially in industry. Nice chaps (and I assume chapesses, but I've never worked with a female professor), but sometimes incapable of looking at the broader picture ...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,645
    The Times reports Burnham and Healey and Ashworth led Shadow Cabinet opposition to an anti airstrikes policy with Burnham warning that if they voted against they could be Dr selected and ' you can't throw us to the wolves. ' Hilary Benn offered to speak from the backbenches in favour of strikes and Shadow Defence Secretary Kevin Jones said 'You won on a promise of straight politics. After this last week that lies in tatters.' Even McDonnell had reservations with Seamus Milne most in favour
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Tory policy seems to be deliberately stirring up trouble in the Shadow Cabinet. I am not at all convinced that is a very good reason to get involved in the Syrian Civil war.

    Will bombing make us safer? Probably not.

    Will bombing make us less safe? Probably not.

    Does anyone anywhere know the way out of the barbarous chaos let loose by the Arab Spring? Probably not, including all the participants.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 35,300
    @JoeWatts_: "I have no interest in leading the Labour party," says Hilary Benn, repeating a sentiment expressed by Jeremy Corbyn before he became leader
  • What I can't understand is his wholesale blocking of people on Twitter - I've seen at least a dozen saying they've been blocked.

    This seems like an incredibly stupid attitude for a candidate and potential MP - and very Eoin/Owenish. Creating your own echo chamber bubble strikes me as someone who can't accept they represent all parts of their constituency.

    Eoin and Owen can do what they fancy - not a likely MP by Friday. For a supposedly sensible chap - he's making a mistake.

    I do wonder what the criteria was for blocking. I'd not even tweeted him. I do agree though it is a very stupid way to behave, choosing to listen to the comments he likes and mute the ones he doesn't.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Dan sums up for me why I voted for Tony - I can feel his frustration and despair to a certain extent.

    I'm sure those well to the Left of me felt similarly appalled and frustrated when Tony won, and won and won.

    Unfortunately for them, they're making a monumental pig's ear of it.
    DavidL said:

    Dan's take. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12025863/Monday-was-Labours-blackest-day.html

    He clearly has an agenda but I agree with almost all of that.

  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,470
    Oh dear HYUFD - Benn just said he had no interest in leading the party....
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,645

    Could we have a Hil(l)ary in both the White House and No 10 at some stage?

    Labour MPs have even adopted her campaign slogan 'ready for Hillary'
  • Yesterday in The Times, Tim Farron wrote that the Liberal Democrats are now the real party of opposition.

    Today, Labour MP, Jon Ashworth replied

  • Mr. Abode, I got blocked by someone with whom I'd had some short (entirely civil) discussions. No idea why [I disagreed with him, but it was completely courteous, both ways].

    It does seem a bit odd.

    Still, that's why the term 'echo chamber' is often so accurate.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 64,263
    edited December 2015
    On topic, success equal performance minus anticipation, any win for Labour will be seen as a victory for Corbyn.

    Like limbo dancing Oompa Loompas, the bar is set quite low for Corbyn
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,645
    Mortimer said:

    Oh dear HYUFD - Benn just said he had no interest in leading the party....

    So did Michael Heseltine in 1990 so did Jeremy Corbyn so did Michael Howard it means nothing until the circumstances emerge
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,470

    On topic, success equal performance minus anticipation, any win for Labour will be seen as a victory for Corbyn.

    Like limbo dancing Oompa Loompas, the bar is set quite low for Corbyn

    Only by the delusional...

    My lefty luvvie mate has loads of right on Greenie/SWP mates. One of them just put on fb that Corbyn's actions yesterday will have gained the party millions of votes!

  • On topic, the most astonishing about the PLP meetings and the Shadow Cabinet meetings, is how much live reports we're getting.

    The Shadow Cabinet and the PLP are leaking like a sieve.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    I got blocked by Kay Burley FFS - I've no idea why, I was always nice too. My pitiful claim to fame is that she once retweeted me. :open_mouth:

    Mr. Abode, I got blocked by someone with whom I'd had some short (entirely civil) discussions. No idea why [I disagreed with him, but it was completely courteous, both ways].

    It does seem a bit odd.

    Still, that's why the term 'echo chamber' is often so accurate.

  • felixfelix Posts: 7,219

    Tory policy seems to be deliberately stirring up trouble in the Shadow Cabinet. I am not at all convinced that is a very good reason to get involved in the Syrian Civil war.

    Will bombing make us safer? Probably not.

    Will bombing make us less safe? Probably not.

    Does anyone anywhere know the way out of the barbarous chaos let loose by the Arab Spring? Probably not, including all the participants.

    What a load of old bollocks - you should seek to spouting rubbish about the NHS!
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,303

    On topic, the most astonishing about the PLP meetings and the Shadow Cabinet meetings, is how much live reports we're getting.

    The Shadow Cabinet and the PLP are leaking like a sieve.


    But a sieve intentionally leaks?

    Ahh, right.

  • Yesterday in The Times, Tim Farron wrote that the Liberal Democrats are now the real party of opposition.

    Today, Labour MP, Jon Ashworth replied

    In light of what's happened since May it's pretty clear that the only opposition to the Tories over the past five years have been the Lib Dems
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,626

    JohnLoony said:

    It is a bit peculiar that a lot of people seem to be fairly confident in predicting a relatively narrow band of what they think the result is going to be - i.e. between 500 (ish) and about 2,000 (ish).

    Such precision is nincompoopismatic, bordering doubleplusridiculous, particularly in the absence of any opinion polls from the campaign and in the light of half-baked rumours of UKIP's private polling or canvassing returns, as well as doubts about the turnout (a very low turnout rendering the result almost meaningless anyway).

    I do not see any evidence of a big surge in support for UKIP, a swing to UKIP from either Labour or Conservative voters, or any evidence that the UKIP vote won't collapse with the lower turnout just as the Labour vote will collapse with the turnout.

    Thus it is perfectly conceivable that Labour might win by 10,000 votes to 5,000 (or something similar) and the majority of 5,000 being - almost inadvertently - spun into being a huge triumph for the onward march of Corbynism.

    The idea that UKIP might win - or come close to winning - seems to be based on the idea that the Labour vote will collapse from 23,000 to 8,000, but that the UKIP vote of 8,800 will remain magically intact, as if UKIP voters are somehow immune from lower turnouts.

    I agree, it's very silly. The good folk of Oldham will vote for a pig in a red rosette. Getting people excited about UKIP just seems to be a way of playing the expectations game so UKIP look worse afterwards.
    Perhaps - I think it more it just feels like labour should be hit hard and someone else benefit right now, UKIP being the only likely candidates, which is why it will be so surprising to many if they don't.
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,219

    Yesterday in The Times, Tim Farron wrote that the Liberal Democrats are now the real party of opposition.

    Today, Labour MP, Jon Ashworth replied

    It says a lot for how bad Labour is doing that the Farron claim is only mildly ludicrous.
  • On topic, the most astonishing about the PLP meetings and the Shadow Cabinet meetings, is how much live reports we're getting.

    The Shadow Cabinet and the PLP are leaking like a sieve.

    To be fair, no one was really interested in the PLP meetings before.

    Now, they're like a mini-series of entertainment every week.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 35,300
    @Reuters: BREAKING: German cabinet approves plans to join military campaign against IS in Syria - German govt official https://t.co/dGnr5g42hG
  • Mr. Abode, I got blocked by someone with whom I'd had some short (entirely civil) discussions. No idea why [I disagreed with him, but it was completely courteous, both ways].

    It does seem a bit odd.

    Still, that's why the term 'echo chamber' is often so accurate.

    Twitter is an odd thing really. The whole echo chamber thing just seems to get worse, and I believe Corbyn wanted Watson to look at using Twitter to engage and inform party policy. I find that idea utterly barmy (though I guess symptomatic of labours woes)

    And Diane Abbott is the worse for blocking people. Probably explains why she always comes across as living in some entirely parallel universe.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 35,300
    @LBC: Police appeal for information after cards handed to women on Tube calling them “fat” https://t.co/iz3di6Ojkk https://t.co/QTwqqGjaLv
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,645

    On topic, success equal performance minus anticipation, any win for Labour will be seen as a victory for Corbyn.

    Like limbo dancing Oompa Loompas, the bar is set quite low for Corbyn

    If Labour's majority falls under a thousand that will still be a bad result given they comfortably won the seat in May
  • On topic, the most astonishing about the PLP meetings and the Shadow Cabinet meetings, is how much live reports we're getting.

    The Shadow Cabinet and the PLP are leaking like a sieve.

    To be fair, no one was really interested in the PLP meetings before.

    Now, they're like a mini-series of entertainment every week.
    It was the live reports we were getting from the Shadow Cabinet meeting that proves illuminating about what they really think about Jez.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,626
    MikeK said:

    Good morning all.

    The man who will never resign on principle, because he has none:

    Even if someone likes Corbyn, how could they believe that given the shambles this week?
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    Osborne eighteen points ahead of McDonnell on the economy and Tories take the lead on the cost-of-living.

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ilk1lytlmr/InternalResults_151126_Spending_Review_W.pdf

    The data also shows that Scots are most likely to be negative about the economy and the public do not believe that the nation's books will be balanced by 2020 - so, missing the deficit reduction target is already factored in to views about Osborne and voting intention.

    Similarly, people believe that key public services will not be stronger so this is also factored in to voting intention.
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838

    Tory policy seems to be deliberately stirring up trouble in the Shadow Cabinet. I am not at all convinced that is a very good reason to get involved in the Syrian Civil war.

    Will bombing make us safer? Probably not.

    Will bombing make us less safe? Probably not.

    Does anyone anywhere know the way out of the barbarous chaos let loose by the Arab Spring? Probably not, including all the participants.

    Would you also advocate ceasing air strikes on IS in Iraq and advising the Americans and French to cease in Syria and Iraq?
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    If Labour do win Oldham do we think it will be enough to change the news narrative, even briefly, away from Jez-is-crap?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 10,731
    felix said:

    Yesterday in The Times, Tim Farron wrote that the Liberal Democrats are now the real party of opposition.

    Today, Labour MP, Jon Ashworth replied

    It says a lot for how bad Labour is doing that the Farron claim is only mildly ludicrous.
    While there's some truth in that, the major coalition partner didn't do badly. Mostly at the expense of the smaller party, of course, though.
  • On topic, the most astonishing about the PLP meetings and the Shadow Cabinet meetings, is how much live reports we're getting.

    The Shadow Cabinet and the PLP are leaking like a sieve.

    To be fair, no one was really interested in the PLP meetings before.

    Now, they're like a mini-series of entertainment every week.
    It was the live reports we were getting from the Shadow Cabinet meeting that proves illuminating about what they really think about Jez.
    We should be hearing about neither. Discussions behind closed doors should stay behind closed doors. The fact we're hearing about both shows just how ill-disciplined and how poor the morale is on the Labour Parliamentary benches. If I were a Labour party member, I'd be furious with the elected representatives about this.
  • Unless I've just misheard, Ken Livingstone just said on R4 that he doesn't support air strikes in Syria but he *would* support an invasion by ground troops

    The complete reverse of public opinion.......
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,626
    Wanderer said:

    If Labour do win Oldham do we think it will be enough to change the news narrative, even briefly, away from Jez-is-crap?

    Yes. If it is comfortable, and ev n if reduced, then the inevitable claims of how this shows how well the party is doing in the face of hostile media etc, will be more credible.
  • Wanderer said:

    If Labour do win Oldham do we think it will be enough to change the news narrative, even briefly, away from Jez-is-crap?

    Morning all,

    Quite possibly. Mainly because we are rapidly entering the Xmas zone, where people's minds are on other matters for a few weeks.
  • On topic, the most astonishing about the PLP meetings and the Shadow Cabinet meetings, is how much live reports we're getting.

    The Shadow Cabinet and the PLP are leaking like a sieve.

    To be fair, no one was really interested in the PLP meetings before.

    Now, they're like a mini-series of entertainment every week.
    It was the live reports we were getting from the Shadow Cabinet meeting that proves illuminating about what they really think about Jez.
    We should be hearing about neither. Discussions behind closed doors should stay behind closed doors. The fact we're hearing about both shows just how ill-disciplined and how poor the morale is on the Labour Parliamentary benches. If I were a Labour party member, I'd be furious with the elected representatives about this.
    This is the problem with having a serial rebel as leader.

    Same thing happened when IDS was in charge, party discipline breaks down.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 5,488

    JohnLoony said:

    It is a bit peculiar that a lot of people seem to be fairly confident in predicting a relatively narrow band of what they think the result is going to be - i.e. between 500 (ish) and about 2,000 (ish).

    Such precision is nincompoopismatic, bordering doubleplusridiculous, particularly in the absence of any opinion polls from the campaign and in the light of half-baked rumours of UKIP's private polling or canvassing returns, as well as doubts about the turnout (a very low turnout rendering the result almost meaningless anyway).

    I do not see any evidence of a big surge in support for UKIP, a swing to UKIP from either Labour or Conservative voters, or any evidence that the UKIP vote won't collapse with the lower turnout just as the Labour vote will collapse with the turnout.

    Thus it is perfectly conceivable that Labour might win by 10,000 votes to 5,000 (or something similar) and the majority of 5,000 being - almost inadvertently - spun into being a huge triumph for the onward march of Corbynism.

    The idea that UKIP might win - or come close to winning - seems to be based on the idea that the Labour vote will collapse from 23,000 to 8,000, but that the UKIP vote of 8,800 will remain magically intact, as if UKIP voters are somehow immune from lower turnouts.

    I agree, it's very silly. The good folk of Oldham will vote for a pig in a red rosette. Getting people excited about UKIP just seems to be a way of playing the expectations game so UKIP look worse afterwards.
    Morning luckyguy.

    Have you done any more reading on IHH ? ;)
    He hasn't had the latest memo from Moscow yet. ;-)
  • Miss Plato, was there sadness in your eyes?

    Mr. Abode, it just seems odd to me. Obviously if someone pesters you or is abusive, blocking makes sense. But having a different opinion? That's the whole point of democracy and freedom of choice. Saying "Rawr, you're wrong" and blocking works fine online, but doesn't cut it in reality.

    Unfortunately for the hard left, voting occurs in reality, not Twitter.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    :smiley:

    On topic, the most astonishing about the PLP meetings and the Shadow Cabinet meetings, is how much live reports we're getting.

    The Shadow Cabinet and the PLP are leaking like a sieve.

    To be fair, no one was really interested in the PLP meetings before.

    Now, they're like a mini-series of entertainment every week.
  • Wanderer said:

    If Labour do win Oldham do we think it will be enough to change the news narrative, even briefly, away from Jez-is-crap?

    Yup, the next few weeks are going to be dominated by Star Wars, then Christmas.
  • Tory policy seems to be deliberately stirring up trouble in the Shadow Cabinet. I am not at all convinced that is a very good reason to get involved in the Syrian Civil war.

    You don't think Cameron might have slightly weightier matters on his mind - like the slaughter in Paris, and likelihood of its repetition here? That ISIS claim to legitimacy is the physical occupation of territory (unlike most other terrorist groups) and that curtailing that is in our national interest? That a close ally has asked for our help?

    I doubt the shambles on the opposite benches gets a look in.

    One of your silliest posts in quite some time!
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492

    Mr. Abode, I got blocked by someone with whom I'd had some short (entirely civil) discussions. No idea why [I disagreed with him, but it was completely courteous, both ways].

    It does seem a bit odd.

    Still, that's why the term 'echo chamber' is often so accurate.

    Twitter is an odd thing really. The whole echo chamber thing just seems to get worse, and I believe Corbyn wanted Watson to look at using Twitter to engage and inform party policy. I find that idea utterly barmy (though I guess symptomatic of labours woes)

    And Diane Abbott is the worse for blocking people. Probably explains why she always comes across as living in some entirely parallel universe.
    When I see Abbott on supposedly serious programmes such as This Week I wonder what happened to political discourse, she is truly awful.

  • Scott_P said:

    @LBC: Police appeal for information after cards handed to women on Tube calling them “fat” https://t.co/iz3di6Ojkk https://t.co/QTwqqGjaLv

    This may be unpleasant, but I fail to see that any sort of crime has been committed.
This discussion has been closed.