Political round up.............

First topic message reminder :

Turn up for the books.............The hard left guy gets on the ballot for the Labour leadership !!....Managed to bag 35 nominations although some were chucked at him by Burnham who will no doubt pick up many of his second preferences...........

Corbyn has no chance....

However it means one of the other three is likely to get hurt in the first round..........Corbyn no doubt will hoover up the extreme nutty left of which there are no doubt plenty in the Labour party and will probably get enough to take him through the first round !!...

(Cruddas finished top in the 2007 Deputy leader race after the first round (He was the "left" candidate)...Of course Harman and Johnson did better as the rounds progresses with second prefs...)

That means one of the three favorites is likely to be eliminated first..................

Latest odds............

Burnham 10/11
Kendall 5/2
Cooper 3/1
Corbyn 66/1 .................

Duty281 wrote:Yes, only one seat due to the democratically bankrupt system we have. It would be around 80 seats with a fair system.

The system is fine as is, thanks. I don't want Labour supporters from the north east, or UKIP protest voters, ruining the representation we all voted for. If candidates cannot win their seats, they need to either campaign better, join a different party, or campaign elsewhere. Nigel Farage not winning his seat was proof that for all the protesting, his party had not campaigned on issues, policies, nor reached out to the electorate enough.

Tories and Labour are the bride and groom, between them winning the majority of seats. Under the proportional system, the fat ugly bridesmaid - UKIP - would get far more seats than their policies and experience deserve. Not to mention the Greens, the hippie cousin you invite who scoffs at the food and drinks tepid tap water all night while refusing to do the hokey-cokey.

I don't want to live in a country that says 'aww, you were second, have a really well-paid and highly-responsible cookie'. I want a country run by serious political parties with candidates that contribute to their communities. That young lady from the SNP is the most impressive politician in the House of Commons, we need more of her and less of the Farage / Reckless types.

You think it's fine that SNP got a vastly superior number of MPs compared to any other party, relative the the number of votes achieved, given that (as of then and now) they get to vote on national, not just Scottish, issues??

Azzy wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Yes, only one seat due to the democratically bankrupt system we have. It would be around 80 seats with a fair system.

The system is fine as is, thanks. I don't want Labour supporters from the north east, or UKIP protest voters, ruining the representation we all voted for.

Incorrect. UKIP got 12.7% of the vote, but only have 0.2% of the MPs in the House of Commons.

Or, as TopHat alludes to, the SNP getting 4.7% of the vote, but having 8.6% of the MPs in the House of Commons.

How is that representation of what people voted for?

TopHat - yes I do think that's fine.

We vote for someone to represent our local area as our elected Member of Parliament. Regardless of party politics, we elect one person to represent our voice. Some MPs are great at doing that, some are terrible, but I do not believe for one second that UKIP should have 12.7% of MPs - that's not what people in this country voted for. People in this country voted for UKIP to have 0.2% of MPs.

Someone voting in Rutland should not affect the Parliamentary representation of anywhere other than Rutland. MPs deal with local issues as well as national ones and I would not expect to have some UKIP flouncer or Green nubbin destroying a local community anywhere other than where they garnered the most votes.

But it's ok for someone voting in Scotland to affect the Parliamentary representation of citizens in England & Wales?

Someone who specifically has no interest in representing those citizens' interests and, if anything, is motivated to the contrary.

TopHat24/7 wrote:But it's ok for someone voting in Scotland to affect the Parliamentary representation of citizens in England & Wales?

Someone who specifically has no interest in representing those citizens' interests and, if anything, is motivated to the contrary.

It is, because we're not separate countries. We are the United Kingdom. All constituent parts of our United Kingdom should be represented as the people in those parts vote - I have no issue with the SNP representation.

Personally, I would love to break up the UK and let Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland go it alone. However as that's never going to happen, we carry on as the United Kingdom and allow the citizens to elect whomever they desire. I don't think it's fair that voters in Scotland receive less representation in their Parliament just because elsewhere other voters want someone else to represent them.

Must say, that's a pretty perverse arguement.

"I don't think it's fair that voters in Scotland receive less representation in their Parliament just because elsewhere other voters want someone else to represent them."

But you do think it's fair that Scottish interests are over-representated in the UK Parliament?

I think with 37 percent of the vote..Conservative interests are over represented.

NB: I do actually favour FPTP to PR and am not advocating PR.

However, given the extent of devolved powers, Scottish influence over the UK parliament does not require almost 10% of available seats. Scots parliament dominated by Scots/SNP whose primary/sole interest is Scots affairs is fair and logical. But the corollary of this is that they require less representation in UK parliament - maybe 25-30 seats rather than the 60 or so currently.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Must say, that's a pretty perverse arguement.

"I don't think it's fair that voters in Scotland receive less representation in their Parliament just because elsewhere other voters want someone else to represent them."

But you do think it's fair that Scottish interests are over-representated in the UK Parliament?

It's not that it's fair, it's that I don't care about it and that that is what the Scottish voters wanted. Scotland is a large part of the United Kingdom, they should be represented however they choose and if they want 95% of their MPs to be SNP, that's what should happen. The Scottish people clearly felt that the existing Parliament and their elected MPs did not look after their interests well enough and voted to change that. We should 100% respect their votes and allow those MPs to represent their voters, without losing half the number of MPs just because people in Swindon voted for UKIP in 2nd place.

Azzy wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Must say, that's a pretty perverse arguement.

"I don't think it's fair that voters in Scotland receive less representation in their Parliament just because elsewhere other voters want someone else to represent them."

But you do think it's fair that Scottish interests are over-representated in the UK Parliament?

It's not that it's fair, it's that I don't care about it and that that is what the Scottish voters wanted. Scotland is a large part of the United Kingdom, they should be represented however they choose and if they want 95% of their MPs to be SNP, that's what should happen. The Scottish people clearly felt that the existing Parliament and their elected MPs did not look after their interests well enough and voted to change that. We should 100% respect their votes and allow those MPs to represent their voters, without losing half the number of MPs just because people in Swindon voted for UKIP in 2nd place.

Defined how? Area (I'm guessing), GVA, population??

TopHat24/7 wrote:Defined how? Area (I'm guessing), GVA, population??

UK population is 64.1m, Scotland 5.3m - 8.3% of the population lives in Scotland. Scotland has 59 MPs, out of 650 - 9.1% of total MPs. I don't think it's unfair that the Scottish people have a meagre 0.8% more representation.

Going by area, the 650 UK MPs on average cover 3,748km2 each; the 59 Scottish MPs in particular cover 1,328km2 each. So in terms of area, Scotland has more per km2 than the UK average. Again, I don't mind that. There are 67.6 people per km2 in Scotland vs 263.13 per km2 for the UK as a whole.

It's not that big a deal. With 5 less MPs Scotland would have the same MP% as their population - it's not a huge gap.

Fine. Take back all their devolved powers and let their 59 MPs battle it out in UK Parliament like the hundreds of English MPs have to on matters concerning their constituencies.

Or, strip Scotland of its over-representation based on extent do delvolved powers and/or push through the 'English votes' legislation.

TopHat24/7 wrote:NB: I do actually favour FPTP to PR and am not advocating PR.  

However, given the extent of devolved powers, Scottish influence over the UK parliament does not require almost 10% of available seats.  Scots parliament dominated by Scots/SNP whose primary/sole interest is Scots affairs is fair and logical.  But the corollary of this is that they require less representation in UK parliament - maybe 25-30 seats rather than the 60 or so currently.

Surely the point is...the Independence crowd don't want any seats in the UK parliament.  So they want more of what you want than you want.  They want their percentage to be zero.  

Ironically, the people you should be most mad at are actually the people who voted to stay in the Union.  They're the ones perpetuating the truth of so many Scottish MPs being down in London influencing English issues.  The Union system perpetuates the very notion that Scottish folks have a say in things you don't want them to have a say in.  

Meanwhile, the English Unionists seem to say to the Scottish: "We want you to stay against your will.  But we demand you have even less influence than you do now in the thing we want you to stay part of that you want out of."

Not the most inviting and appealing Welcome Mat greeting there, TopHat.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Fine.  Take back all their devolved powers and let their 59 MPs battle it out in UK Parliament like the hundreds of English MPs have to on matters concerning their constituencies.

Or, strip Scotland of its over-representation based on extent do delvolved powers and/or push through the 'English votes' legislation.

I'd have no issue with the 'English votes' legislation, nor would I if there were Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish versions. However when our MPs vote on legislation that affects all of the United Kingdom, every elected MP should be there to vote. Those MPs should represent their local constituency and its specific voting rather than the average voting across the entire UK, which would not take into account the needs of any local constituencies at all and would result in many constituencies being lumbered with a candidate for whom the majority did not vote.

It's a British parliament............

Are you going to the Labour conference Wheelie ??

If I was a member this would definitely be one conference I wouldn't miss !!!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Are you going to the Labour conference Wheelie ??

If I was a member this would definitely be one conference I wouldn't miss !!!

It must either be a really exciting time to be a Labour Party member, or a terrifying one. Either way it's fascinating as an outsider to see how the conference will pan out, with these tantalising hints about Corbyn disagreeing with shadow cabinet members on tax credits. It's the first time British politics has been genuinely interesting since the Tony Blair days.

Azzy wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Are you going to the Labour conference Wheelie ??

If I was a member this would definitely be one conference I wouldn't miss !!!

It must either be a really exciting time to be a Labour Party member, or a terrifying one. Either way it's fascinating as an outsider to see how the conference will pan out, with these tantalising hints about Corbyn disagreeing with shadow cabinet members on tax credits. It's the first time British politics has been genuinely interesting since the Tony Blair days.

Clear water between the parties...........Probably too much in Labour's case...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34351725

Really interesting piece echoing the thoughts of several other political commentators. If UKIP does fold in 2017, thank God we didn't have proportional representation.

Azzy wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34351725

Really interesting piece echoing the thoughts of several other political commentators. If UKIP does fold in 2017, thank God we didn't have proportional representation.

Too many top of the party UKIPers are having too good a time to want to leave the limelight.....

Besides they've got the BNP share sewn up and I imagine the Brits will vote to stay in anyway..

Closet Corbs?  
"Yes, he's very much our elected Leader.  But we've locked him in that box over there called 'Labour Think Tank'.  So we hope he has plenty of room for thinking in it and we carry on with his wishes that Blairite-ism-ist economics prevails.  All Hail Corbs!"

Any news on Corbyn's speech wheels...

Was it a good one ??

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Any news on Corbyn's speech wheels...

Was it a good one ??

He was authentic, and the faithful in the party will love it, whether it inspires the country is another matter. I liked it, this will truely test how much influence the media has these days as they will largely hate him and the speech after he attacked them 8 times during it(which i enjoyed)

He wore a tie, which shows what a fraud he is.

Well that's it then

Corbyn's speech went down better than he did according to Ipsos Mori..

He doesn't look Prime ministerial.....and he looks tired and old..

Still Labour are closer in latest Yougov....

Yougov - 39-34 ....Libs still dying on their backsides ..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Corbyn's speech went down better than he did according to Ipsos Mori..

He doesn't look Prime ministerial.....and he looks tired and old..

Still Labour are closer in latest Yougov....

Yougov - 39-34 ....Libs still dying on their backsides ..

Part of my role with Worcester labour is to compile polling data, i saw the polling verdicts on the speech. He was asked this morning if he wanted to be PM, Corbyn did not answer the question really

He's too honest....Needs to be more media savvy..

Still 160,000 new members can't be bad for your party..

Plenty of dough and leaflet droppers.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He's too honest....Needs to be more media savvy..

Still 160,000 new members can't be bad for your party..

Plenty of dough and leaflet droppers.

We are doing well on that score for certain, I am almost certain though Corbyn will not be leader in 2020

2,200 since yesterday...

I agree problem for Jarvis is Cooper is desperate for the job..

Corbyn will continue to appeal to his own supporters, problem is I think he'll struggle to make much of an impact on those who aren't his supporters. 160k votes wont get you a majority.

To be honest I cant see him going 5 years. Those to the right of Labour will be like Sharks once they smell blood.

GSC wrote:Corbyn will continue to appeal to his own supporters, problem is I think he'll struggle to make much of an impact on those who aren't his supporters. 160k votes wont get you a majority.

To be honest I cant see him going 5 years. Those to the right of Labour will be like Sharks once they smell blood.

You are spot on i think, i think Jarvis will be the next leader, Lisa Nandy though is the one being positioned as Corbyn's like minded replacement as we speak

You can see the tension in the faces of the delegates
Half smiles through clenched and nervous teeth.

Wishing, wishing, wishing:

"Please talk like a left of centre Tory, Corbs.  Please do.   This scruffy beard stuff embarrasses us.  We want to wear suits and have our hair combed nice like those bastareauds in Government.  Our mothers who brought us up well and sent us to college wouldn't like seeing us clapping to this guff from a crumpled jacket geezer."

It's funny how it all comes out even as they all try to make it look united for the cameras.

Crumpled jacket geezer, you just made Corbyn sound 10 years younger

I continue to be fascinated by the Labour Party. It's clearly a very complicated beast, unlike all the other parties.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3259523/It-s-eggs-bacon-Tories-splattered-anti-cuts-march-outside-conference-protesters-mock-Cameron-pig-gate.html#comments

So this is the modern Labour party, and its noble defence of free speech.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/laughing-tory-egged-after-brandishing-picture-of-margaret-thatcher-at-anti-austerity-protesters-a6679071.html#commentsDiv

He brought it on himself

Waste of a good egg..

ShahenshahG wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/laughing-tory-egged-after-brandishing-picture-of-margaret-thatcher-at-anti-austerity-protesters-a6679071.html#commentsDiv

He brought it on himself

Should've lamped the tw@t like Prezza......

Na. Prezza was just walking past and got egged. This guy is a lee froch type guy where carl in this instance is the police.

Lol disagree with those overly-vocal minority-representing hypocritical bell-ends. But the guy did kinda deserve it for holding up the Maggie poster. He incited what happened to him.

Same can't be said of the simple politicians and news reporters that got spat at/on.....disgusting.

I guess the 'new politics' has not took hold yet in everyone..

?

wheelchair1991 wrote:I guess the 'new politics' has not took hold yet in everyone..

Tom Watson killed the new politics in his speech......

What a cracking buttkicker that was..

Don't like Watson, think he's a smug pr!ck, but he's a capable politician. Maybe lining up to take over......

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11901525/Tom-Watson-is-the-real-Labour-leader.html

I don't think Labour have a hope at the next election with the current leadership in place, we will probebly win London Mayor next year and do ok at the local elections but when it comes to 2020 Corbyn cannot win

No one is shifting a guy with 60% of the members behind him...

No i agree they can't shift him yet

Membership backing is more 'faddy' than PLP backing (which he lacks).

Unless he (or should I say, Tom) can find a way for the voting public en masse (not just the current vocal minority) to get behind a left-wing (not left-of-centre) vision, I think Labour's only chance at 2020 is for DM to swoop in and save the day...

Miliband would cost Labour members....60% want a left wing leader....

Kendall got 4% .........Blair is hated by his own party..

Jarvis in 2018.....