Friday 20th January 2017

[refitman]

Morning all.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 36516.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

brexit-latest-tim-farron-labour-party-jeremy-corbyn-theresa-may-opposition-divisive

Farron rules out electoral pact with Labour

[StephenDolan]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 36516.html

brexit-latest-tim-farron-labour-party-jeremy-corbyn-theresa-may-opposition-divisive

Farron rules out electoral pact with Labour

Chutzpah alert!

[yahyah]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 36516.html

brexit-latest-tim-farron-labour-party-jeremy-corbyn-theresa-may-opposition-divisive

Farron rules out electoral pact with Labour

He may be right about how future generations will view Labour's response.

Banging on about it may also help the Lib Dems move on from their role as Tory collaborators. They can argue that the coalition was time limited, and brought about by the need to unite to help get the country out of ''Labour's mess'', but Brexit is forever.

[StephenDolan]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 36516.html

brexit-latest-tim-farron-labour-party-jeremy-corbyn-theresa-may-opposition-divisive

Farron rules out electoral pact with Labour

He may be right about how future generations will view Labour's response.

Banging on about it may also help the Lib Dems move on from their role as Tory collaborators. They can argue that the coalition was time limited, and brought about by the need to unite to help get the country out of ''Labour's mess'', but Brexit is forever.

They can argue that.

I'd like to hear the argument defending the former.

As to the latter, any Lib Dem using the word forever in the context of politics needs swiftly putting in their place.

[SpinningHugo]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 36516.html

brexit-latest-tim-farron-labour-party-jeremy-corbyn-theresa-may-opposition-divisive

Farron rules out electoral pact with Labour

He may be right about how future generations will view Labour's response.

Banging on about it may also help the Lib Dems move on from their role as Tory collaborators. They can argue that the coalition was time limited, and brought about by the need to unite to help get the country out of ''Labour's mess'', but Brexit is forever.

The Greens are a more natural home for former Labour supporters who support Remain (or at least anything other than a Hard Brexit). Lucas has been exemplary.

[Willow904]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... e-dictator" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Theresa May will not remain in power long as Brexit cripples her government, while Donald Trump is a “would-be dictator” who is “going to fail”, the billionaire investor George Soros has told the Davos world economic forum.

[StephenDolan]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... e-dictator

Theresa May will not remain in power long as Brexit cripples her government, while Donald Trump is a “would-be dictator” who is “going to fail”, the billionaire investor George Soros has told the Davos world economic forum.

I was following the live blog section on Soros last night. Quite illuminating.

[StephenDolan]

Ladbrokes have Tories the favourites for Copeland. Could be worth a punt. Against

[SpinningHugo]

Ladbrokes have Tories the favourites for Copeland. Could be worth a punt. Against

I think it is. Have had a small wager. Oppositions don't lose safe seats in by-elections. Candidate is good.

Rather larger bet on betfair on art 50 case

[RogerOThornhill]

Ladbrokes have Tories the favourites for Copeland. Could be worth a punt. Against

Possible - they weren't far behind last time. Labour's share has been dropping since 1997.

The one to watch will be UKIP though. If Tories win by taking UKIP votes away I don't give much for their chances as "Labour's replacement in the North".

[StephenDolan]

Ladbrokes have Tories the favourites for Copeland. Could be worth a punt. Against

I think it is. Have had a small wager. Oppositions don't lose safe seats in by-elections. Candidate is good.

Rather larger bet on betfair on art 50 case

That's what you call a safe seat?

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Does look on the face of it like the candidate is a good choice.

Anatoly?

[StephenDolan]

https://mobile.twitter.com/GuardianHeather" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not covering herself in glory wrt the 3 line whip story.

And those calling out the whiff of bull are trolling. Of course.

[adam]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 36516.html

brexit-latest-tim-farron-labour-party-jeremy-corbyn-theresa-may-opposition-divisive

Farron rules out electoral pact with Labour

He may be right about how future generations will view Labour's response.

Banging on about it may also help the Lib Dems move on from their role as Tory collaborators. They can argue that the coalition was time limited, and brought about by the need to unite to help get the country out of ''Labour's mess'', but Brexit is forever.

The issue with the lib dems, however much better they might be doing about the EU is firstly, in a minor way, they are not getting the kind of negative press attention that Labour would be getting if they were doing the same because they are being seen still as an irrelevance...

... and secondly, in the really important way, they have just spent five years choosing to define their role in coalition as entirely enthusiastic partners for the Conservative project. One of the first things they did in government was to appear with the conservative chairman (chris huhne appearing with Warsi) to proclaim how shit labour had been and how absolutely everything was their fault - and they stuck with that through thick and thin. They didn't hold their noses and accept the need to vote for policies that were 180 degrees off from theirs in order to stay in coalition, they jumped in with both feet to support, argue for and press through those policies. On the NHS it was widely reported that even the cabinet were surprised at the extent of Lansley's white paper, but rather than reject it, as there were clear grounds to do from the conservative manifesto and the coalition agreement, they fought hard to get it through the commons, the lords and the country.

They spent five years saying to me 'You are shit, your ideas are shit and your worldview is shit' and now, they are not in the least bit sorry about that and all they say and suggest is that would do exactly the same again if the parliamentary arithmetic arose.

Until they deal with all of that, they're completely worthless, however worthy some of what they say might be.

[SpinningHugo]

Ladbrokes have Tories the favourites for Copeland. Could be worth a punt. Against

I think it is. Have had a small wager. Oppositions don't lose safe seats in by-elections. Candidate is good.

Rather larger bet on betfair on art 50 case

That's what you call a safe seat?

Tories have never won it have they, even in Thatacher's pomp. Labour used to get well over 50%. Even now, the Tories are too far behind.

I can see the Tories taking it in the General Election though. Midterm? No way.

[SpinningHugo]

https://mobile.twitter.com/GuardianHeather

Not covering herself in glory wrt the 3 line whip story.

And those calling out the whiff of bull are trolling. Of course.

“I’ve made it very clear the Labour party accepts and respects the decision of the British people. We will not block article 50.”

When asked if that meant a three-line whip, an order to MPs to vote for the bill, he replied: “It means that Labour MPs will be asked to vote in that direction next week, or whenever the vote comes up.”

Are you claiming the attributed quote is false?

[SpinningHugo]

Ladbrokes have Tories the favourites for Copeland. Could be worth a punt. Against

Possible - they weren't far behind last time. Labour's share has been dropping since 1997.

The one to watch will be UKIP though. If Tories win by taking UKIP votes away I don't give much for their chances as "Labour's replacement in the North".

Ukip won't win any seats at all.

The problem for Labour is not that Ukip will win even one seat, they won't, but that the Tories win back Ukip voters, while some Labour voters leak to Ukip, handing the Tories yet more seats. That is the fear for Copeland come the GE (not in the by-election though).

[StephenDolan]

https://mobile.twitter.com/GuardianHeather

Not covering herself in glory wrt the 3 line whip story.

And those calling out the whiff of bull are trolling. Of course.

“I’ve made it very clear the Labour party accepts and respects the decision of the British people. We will not block article 50.”

When asked if that meant a three-line whip, an order to MPs to vote for the bill, he replied: “It means that Labour MPs will be asked to vote in that direction next week, or whenever the vote comes up.”

Are you claiming the attributed quote is false?

Will impose a three line whip.

[SpinningHugo]

https://mobile.twitter.com/GuardianHeather

Not covering herself in glory wrt the 3 line whip story.

And those calling out the whiff of bull are trolling. Of course.

“I’ve made it very clear the Labour party accepts and respects the decision of the British people. We will not block article 50.”

When asked if that meant a three-line whip, an order to MPs to vote for the bill, he replied: “It means that Labour MPs will be asked to vote in that direction next week, or whenever the vote comes up.”

Are you claiming the attributed quote is false?

Will impose a three line whip.

I don't think he will. Because he can't. The PLP will vote as it likes, regardless of the whip. He'd just make that obvious if he tried.

[gilsey]

Well said adam.

[StephenDolan]

“I’ve made it very clear the Labour party accepts and respects the decision of the British people. We will not block article 50.”

When asked if that meant a three-line whip, an order to MPs to vote for the bill, he replied: “It means that Labour MPs will be asked to vote in that direction next week, or whenever the vote comes up.”

Are you claiming the attributed quote is false?

Will impose a three line whip.

I don't think he will. Because he can't. The PLP will vote as it likes, regardless of the whip. He'd just make that obvious if he tried.

It's not about whether he will or won't. This is about the Kuenssbergisation of what was asked and said.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Will impose a three line whip.

I don't think he will. Because he can't. The PLP will vote as it likes, regardless of the whip. He'd just make that obvious if he tried.

It's not about whether he will or won't. This is about the Kuenssbergisation of what was asked and said.

And nobody that I can see asking how many Tories will vote against.

[AnatolyKasparov]

I think it is. Have had a small wager. Oppositions don't lose safe seats in by-elections. Candidate is good.

Rather larger bet on betfair on art 50 case

That's what you call a safe seat?

Tories have never won it have they, even in Thatacher's pomp. Labour used to get well over 50%. Even now, the Tories are too far behind.

I can see the Tories taking it in the General Election though. Midterm? No way.

The present seat would have gone Tory in the 1980s.

[SpinningHugo]

I don't think he will. Because he can't. The PLP will vote as it likes, regardless of the whip. He'd just make that obvious if he tried.

It's not about whether he will or won't. This is about the Kuenssbergisation of what was asked and said.

And nobody that I can see asking how many Tories will vote against.

2? 3? They're the party of Brexit.

Aren't they, you know, the baddies?

[SpinningHugo]

Will impose a three line whip.

I don't think he will. Because he can't. The PLP will vote as it likes, regardless of the whip. He'd just make that obvious if he tried.

It's not about whether he will or won't. This is about the Kuenssbergisation of what was asked and said.

The direct quote are above. Do you think they're made up? Very serious if true.

[SpinningHugo]

That's what you call a safe seat?

Tories have never won it have they, even in Thatacher's pomp. Labour used to get well over 50%. Even now, the Tories are too far behind.

I can see the Tories taking it in the General Election though. Midterm? No way.

The present seat would have gone Tory in the 1980s.

So you think the tories could win it, even with this candidate?

I'd be astonished.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Just pointing out a fact, which the "THIS SEAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN LABOUR SINCE 1935!!!" spin merchants (often deliberately) ignore.

As for bookies odds, in this case they reflect the widespread spin of the very same (and similarly gullible) lobby journalists.

That may or may not be taken as a hint to put a bit of money on Labour

[adam]

From the Trump liveblog (which seems a little unnecessary when it's still only about 6.30am on the East Coast, but there you go).

Before the inauguration ceremony, Trump and his family are due to attend a private service at St John’s church in Washington, at which controversial pastor Robert Jeffress is expected to preach, writes Harriet Sherwood.

Jeffress is the Southern Baptist leader of a 12,000-member megachurch in Dallas, a regular Fox News contributor and a strong supporter of Trump during the election campaign.

He has described Islam as an “evil religion” that “promotes paedophilia” and has said the Roman Catholic church is a “counterfeit religion” which represents the “genius of Satan”.

He has accused Obama of paving the way of the Antichrist by his support for same sex marriage, and that gay people lead a “miserable lifestyle” that is predisposed to “depression, or suicide, or alcoholism.”

I'm sure everything will be fine.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

It's not about whether he will or won't. This is about the Kuenssbergisation of what was asked and said.

And nobody that I can see asking how many Tories will vote against.

2? 3? They're the party of Brexit.

Aren't they, you know, the baddies?

Ultimately Tory Brexit rebels could be key players in this Parliament, depending on how Brexit plays out.

What if there is a vote on May's final deal and all the opposition MPs come out against it? With such a wafer thin majority, a handful of Soubrys might suddenly be in a very interesting position.

[SpinningHugo]

And nobody that I can see asking how many Tories will vote against.

2? 3? They're the party of Brexit.

Aren't they, you know, the baddies?

Ultimately Tory Brexit rebels could be key players in this Parliament, depending on how Brexit plays out.

What if there is a vote on May's final deal and all the opposition MPs come out against it? With such a wafer thin majority, a handful of Soubrys might suddenly be in a very interesting position.

They could have been. But the opposition hasn't tried to oppose Hard Brexit, so that is that.

the final deal vote is a complete red herring. by then the choice will be

(a) Exit without a deal

or

(b) Exit with the negotiated deal.

The government could not have been clearer about that.

It is a disaster, but the Tories are not the sole authors of that disaster.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

2? 3? They're the party of Brexit.

Aren't they, you know, the baddies?

Ultimately Tory Brexit rebels could be key players in this Parliament, depending on how Brexit plays out.

What if there is a vote on May's final deal and all the opposition MPs come out against it? With such a wafer thin majority, a handful of Soubrys might suddenly be in a very interesting position.

They could have been. But the opposition hasn't tried to oppose Hard Brexit, so that is that.

the final deal vote is a complete red herring. by then the choice will be

(a) Exit without a deal

or

(b) Exit with the negotiated deal.

The government could not have been clearer about that.

It is a disaster, but the Tories are not the sole authors of that disaster.

What is it like to live life so certain of the future?

You must have a bundle of surprises every day?

[SpinningHugo]

Ultimately Tory Brexit rebels could be key players in this Parliament, depending on how Brexit plays out.

What if there is a vote on May's final deal and all the opposition MPs come out against it? With such a wafer thin majority, a handful of Soubrys might suddenly be in a very interesting position.

They could have been. But the opposition hasn't tried to oppose Hard Brexit, so that is that.

the final deal vote is a complete red herring. by then the choice will be

(a) Exit without a deal

or

(b) Exit with the negotiated deal.

The government could not have been clearer about that.

It is a disaster, but the Tories are not the sole authors of that disaster.

What is it like to live life so certain of the future?

You must have a bundle of surprises every day?

And what is it like to only realise *now* why it mattered whether the opposition opposed this *now*. The government doesn't have a big majority, as you say. A Parliamentary majority in favour of a more moderate position, such as staying in the single market, was achievable. that is what Miliband or Owen Smith would have done.

Just not Labour as it is now led. Very sad.

[citizenJA]

The issue with the lib dems, however much better they might be doing about the EU is firstly, in a minor way, they are not getting the kind of negative press attention that Labour would be getting if they were doing the same because they are being seen still as an irrelevance...

... and secondly, in the really important way, they have just spent five years choosing to define their role in coalition as entirely enthusiastic partners for the Conservative project. One of the first things they did in government was to appear with the conservative chairman (chris huhne appearing with Warsi) to proclaim how shit labour had been and how absolutely everything was their fault - and they stuck with that through thick and thin. They didn't hold their noses and accept the need to vote for policies that were 180 degrees off from theirs in order to stay in coalition, they jumped in with both feet to support, argue for and press through those policies. On the NHS it was widely reported that even the cabinet were surprised at the extent of Lansley's white paper, but rather than reject it, as there were clear grounds to do from the conservative manifesto and the coalition agreement, they fought hard to get it through the commons, the lords and the country.

They spent five years saying to me 'You are shit, your ideas are shit and your worldview is shit' and now, they are not in the least bit sorry about that and all they say and suggest is that would do exactly the same again if the parliamentary arithmetic arose.

Until they deal with all of that, they're completely worthless, however worthy some of what they say might be.

Hear! Hear!

[SpinningHugo]

Here is the interview with Corbyn, I'd not realised it was on the BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38689400" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[citizenJA]

Good-afternoon, everyone.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Ludicrous puff piece with Farron in today's Graun, following some highly misleading spin re Labour yesterday. Its just like the Miliband days!

[PaulfromYorkshire]

I was just thinking yesterday how compelling Owen Smith has been in opposing the trigger of Article 50.

Not.

[SpinningHugo]

I was just thinking yesterday how compelling Owen Smith has been in opposing the trigger of Article 50.

Not.

I'm not a Labour supporter any longer, so I of course think it very bad that more MPs are not more vocal.. I think it is good that 60-80 MPs will rebel come what may and vote against Art 50, but I also understand why all of the PLP are trying to keep quiet about Corbyn. They have to let the membership see what a disaster he is, and not allow the excuse about how it is the chickecoup or Blairites under the bed who are responsible. That means not rocking the boat, and carrying on with constituency work. They've been remarkably disciplined in the last week, in the face of strong provocation. It won't mean voting for Art 50 though.

[NonOxCol]

Afternoon.

Two things from Simon Schama's righteously angry timeline:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ce=twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk ... and-defend" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AnatolyKasparov]

Confirmed that both the Copeland and Stoke polls will be on Feb 23, despite confident lobby journalist assertions last week they would be held off until May

[onebuttonmonkey]

2? 3? They're the party of Brexit.

Aren't they, you know, the baddies?

Ultimately Tory Brexit rebels could be key players in this Parliament, depending on how Brexit plays out.

What if there is a vote on May's final deal and all the opposition MPs come out against it? With such a wafer thin majority, a handful of Soubrys might suddenly be in a very interesting position.

They could have been. But the opposition hasn't tried to oppose Hard Brexit, so that is that.

the final deal vote is a complete red herring. by then the choice will be

(a) Exit without a deal

or

(b) Exit with the negotiated deal.

The government could not have been clearer about that.

It is a disaster, but the Tories are not the sole authors of that disaster.

You know, it's worth popping in if for no other reason to say how much I agree with Hugo here. Yes, me. Yes, agreeing with Hugo. It's a strange world, this Trump/Brexit apocalypse, but there it is.

Outside of those who are already sure Labour is taking a reasonable stance on Brexit, it couldn't be more obvious that the party has failed to stand for Remaining and followed it up by failing to oppose the most brutal of Brexits.

And you know, for all Corbyn might be being misrepresented, the simple fact is: he hasn't provided an opposition to Hard Brexit before the headline and he isn't doing so now. And worse: he failed to grasp the opportunity to collaborate and oppose the kind of Brexit we're getting before the vote and then again after the vote. It's almost as if there's a gaping vacuum where the opposition people need should be.

Here's a leader who's set his entire stall on listening to the members and being more democratic, which is easy enough when you and your members are sick of the same thing - vacuous, besuited, lightly-sanded-on-the-edges centre-rightism. But when the majority of the party voted to Remain and he - whether through lack of will or lack of ability - has never managed to communicate any enthusiasm for Remaining, it appears he has neither heard nor has any desire to. Again - incapable or unwilling to stand up and fight for his own members - or the swathes of constituents - who want an opposition to hard Brexit.

Oh, and the idea he might be reserving his powder to fight for certain bits of Brexit - to protect workers' rights, say - is equally laughable. "We'll give up the battlefield even though we know that means everything on it will be destroyed, because it might just be the case that a shrub we like remains, and I'm sure we'll be able to go back and put up a fence around it later. No contradictions here. We have a strategy!" Pfft.

It's bloody pitiful is what it is. And that failure to do the job that's needed is true regardless of if that particular story is factually accurate, or if there's bias in the press or how much anyone is stabbing anyone else in the back. They are neither an excuse nor even vaguely relevant. The bigger picture is we are facing the uncertain consequences of the most catastrophic political decision this country has made in our lifetime, and the leader of the Labour Party can't even point out how the referendum has been retrospectively redefined to be a mandate for everything his opponents said it wasn't at the time. If our response to that is to bleat about the press, we should look in our own backyard before we start pointing to everyone else's litter. It really doesn't matter if it's a troll or a saint who is pointing out how useless the party's been over this - it's the status of the party that's in question, and that's not a function or a result of the status of the accuser.

I dunno how much of that Hugo agrees with, but I really couldn't agree with him more than i do today. I guess this really must be the end of the world...

[onebuttonmonkey]

I was just thinking yesterday how compelling Owen Smith has been in opposing the trigger of Article 50.

Not.

Yes, but he's not the bloody leader, is he? I mean, yes, he's rubbish and all, and yes, one of the many problems Labour faces is that the alternatives are no alternative. Like bloody Starmer, who's just Corbyn for a different demographic who prefer a slightly better narrative. Point is, it is explicitly Jeremy Corbyn's job to get a message across. Even if what he said was broadcast by a media biased in his favour, Corbyn's message has been a vacuum quacking out bubbles of hapless nothings.

And when Brexit crashes down around all of us, no one's going to say, "yeah, it's rubbish, but we can't really blame Corbyn and Labour because, you know, Owen Smith didn't say much, did he?"

[AngryAsWell]

Over on AS blog :

One reader has written a detailed post outlining their view of what Labour’s Brexit strategy should be.
richardbunning

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/bl ... 20-january" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(It's been put up on the main page not left in comments)
*edit coz I forgot link....

[AngryAsWell]

As onebuttonmonkey says, we are living in very strange times.

Thanks for the above post onebuttonmonkey, you put succinctly the thoughts that have been taking me days to try to formulate into words.
Agree with every word.

[onebuttonmonkey]

As onebuttonmonkey says, we are living in very strange times.

Thanks for the above post onebuttonmonkey, you put succinctly the thoughts that have been taking me days to try to formulate into words.
Agree with every word.

Well, I'm glad it's not just me. I had a few exasperated conversations with people yesterday on the whole "Labour support A50" story. The general consensus was: oh for f**k's sake. And debating whether he would or wouldn't be successful if he tried, or if the story is true or not really does miss the point of exactly where we are and what hasn't been done.

So I came home, cancelled my Labour membership DD, wrote an angry letter to the party (that will make precisely no difference whatsoever, but that I posted on the Guardian today because I'm absolutely furious, and I meant it and why not), and now I rather want to join a party whose strategy on Brexit exactly matches that of the commenter you linked to.

[PorFavor]

Severin Carrell (@severincarrell)

Jeremy Corbyn: "too simplistic" to see Scottish problems as national questions & north English ones as economic. It is all people vs capital (Politics Live, Guardian)January 20, 2017

Did he really say that or is it just a "Guardian Special"?

It may be broadly true, but it's hardly going to catch on as a rallying cry. It sounds too 1960s student union.





Edited to add an "S"

[citizenJA]

@onebuttonmonkey
No one has to agree with the commentator known as SpinningHugo to appreciate and agree with the information in your excellent post.

[PorFavor]

Good morfternoon.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Just pointing out a fact, which the "THIS SEAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN LABOUR SINCE 1935!!!" spin merchants (often deliberately) ignore.

As for bookies odds, in this case they reflect the widespread spin of the very same (and similarly gullible) lobby journalists.

That may or may not be taken as a hint to put a bit of money on Labour

You're luck it's only 1935.

Labour had "since 1910" with Gower.