|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
Labour leadership: Jeremy Corbyn defeats Owen Smith
Mr Corbyn won 61.8% of the total vote, a larger margin of victory than last year.
In a result announced on the eve of Labour's party conference in Liverpool, Mr Corbyn won 313,209 votes, compared with Mr Smith's 193,229.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37461219
|
On September 24 2016 20:23 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +Labour leadership: Jeremy Corbyn defeats Owen Smith
Mr Corbyn won 61.8% of the total vote, a larger margin of victory than last year.
In a result announced on the eve of Labour's party conference in Liverpool, Mr Corbyn won 313,209 votes, compared with Mr Smith's 193,229. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37461219
And the rage is real:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Tory's must be jumping for joy.
|
On September 24 2016 20:23 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +Labour leadership: Jeremy Corbyn defeats Owen Smith
Mr Corbyn won 61.8% of the total vote, a larger margin of victory than last year.
In a result announced on the eve of Labour's party conference in Liverpool, Mr Corbyn won 313,209 votes, compared with Mr Smith's 193,229. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37461219
For all the effort put into trying to oust Corbyn, it's surprising how badly it's all failing.
|
On September 25 2016 00:44 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2016 20:23 Dan HH wrote:Labour leadership: Jeremy Corbyn defeats Owen Smith
Mr Corbyn won 61.8% of the total vote, a larger margin of victory than last year.
In a result announced on the eve of Labour's party conference in Liverpool, Mr Corbyn won 313,209 votes, compared with Mr Smith's 193,229. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37461219 For all the effort put into trying to oust Corbyn, it's surprising how badly it's all failing.
The people wanting to get rid of Corbyn are the MPs. The people who want him to be in power are the labour party membership.
Since the two have opposing views, the only viable options now are either recruit lots of new more centrist people to the party to balance out the leftists and then push for yet another leadership election next year, for MPs to leave the party, or to go along with an internally self destructive party where the party membership and the majority of the party representatives don't get along.
|
On September 25 2016 01:27 Lonyo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2016 00:44 LegalLord wrote:On September 24 2016 20:23 Dan HH wrote:Labour leadership: Jeremy Corbyn defeats Owen Smith
Mr Corbyn won 61.8% of the total vote, a larger margin of victory than last year.
In a result announced on the eve of Labour's party conference in Liverpool, Mr Corbyn won 313,209 votes, compared with Mr Smith's 193,229. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37461219 For all the effort put into trying to oust Corbyn, it's surprising how badly it's all failing. The people wanting to get rid of Corbyn are the MPs. The people who want him to be in power are the labour party membership. Since the two have opposing views, the only viable options now are either recruit lots of new more centrist people to the party to balance out the leftists and then push for yet another leadership election next year, for MPs to leave the party, or to go along with an internally self destructive party where the party membership and the majority of the party representatives don't get along.
How exactly did it happen that the party membership and MPs are so strongly misaligned on the issues?
|
On September 25 2016 01:34 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2016 01:27 Lonyo wrote:On September 25 2016 00:44 LegalLord wrote:On September 24 2016 20:23 Dan HH wrote:Labour leadership: Jeremy Corbyn defeats Owen Smith
Mr Corbyn won 61.8% of the total vote, a larger margin of victory than last year.
In a result announced on the eve of Labour's party conference in Liverpool, Mr Corbyn won 313,209 votes, compared with Mr Smith's 193,229. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37461219 For all the effort put into trying to oust Corbyn, it's surprising how badly it's all failing. The people wanting to get rid of Corbyn are the MPs. The people who want him to be in power are the labour party membership. Since the two have opposing views, the only viable options now are either recruit lots of new more centrist people to the party to balance out the leftists and then push for yet another leadership election next year, for MPs to leave the party, or to go along with an internally self destructive party where the party membership and the majority of the party representatives don't get along. How exactly did it happen that the party membership and MPs are so strongly misaligned on the issues?
Their membership tripled from 2015, went from ~220k to ~640k
|
|
|
On September 25 2016 01:46 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2016 01:34 LegalLord wrote:On September 25 2016 01:27 Lonyo wrote:On September 25 2016 00:44 LegalLord wrote:On September 24 2016 20:23 Dan HH wrote:Labour leadership: Jeremy Corbyn defeats Owen Smith
Mr Corbyn won 61.8% of the total vote, a larger margin of victory than last year.
In a result announced on the eve of Labour's party conference in Liverpool, Mr Corbyn won 313,209 votes, compared with Mr Smith's 193,229. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37461219 For all the effort put into trying to oust Corbyn, it's surprising how badly it's all failing. The people wanting to get rid of Corbyn are the MPs. The people who want him to be in power are the labour party membership. Since the two have opposing views, the only viable options now are either recruit lots of new more centrist people to the party to balance out the leftists and then push for yet another leadership election next year, for MPs to leave the party, or to go along with an internally self destructive party where the party membership and the majority of the party representatives don't get along. How exactly did it happen that the party membership and MPs are so strongly misaligned on the issues? Their membership tripled from 2015, went from ~220k to ~640k
Why did that happen? Was there some significant change in policy (maybe its easier now to get membership?) or some other major event that triggered it?
|
On September 25 2016 02:13 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2016 01:46 Dan HH wrote:On September 25 2016 01:34 LegalLord wrote:On September 25 2016 01:27 Lonyo wrote:On September 25 2016 00:44 LegalLord wrote:On September 24 2016 20:23 Dan HH wrote:Labour leadership: Jeremy Corbyn defeats Owen Smith
Mr Corbyn won 61.8% of the total vote, a larger margin of victory than last year.
In a result announced on the eve of Labour's party conference in Liverpool, Mr Corbyn won 313,209 votes, compared with Mr Smith's 193,229. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37461219 For all the effort put into trying to oust Corbyn, it's surprising how badly it's all failing. The people wanting to get rid of Corbyn are the MPs. The people who want him to be in power are the labour party membership. Since the two have opposing views, the only viable options now are either recruit lots of new more centrist people to the party to balance out the leftists and then push for yet another leadership election next year, for MPs to leave the party, or to go along with an internally self destructive party where the party membership and the majority of the party representatives don't get along. How exactly did it happen that the party membership and MPs are so strongly misaligned on the issues? Their membership tripled from 2015, went from ~220k to ~640k Why did that happen? Was there some significant change in policy (maybe its easier now to get membership?) or some other major event that triggered it?
Labour lost the election and the Tories won a commons majority.
Milliband resigned from the labour party and they had a leadership election.
The "common people" haven't seen much benefit from post-recession recovery.
Corbyn was a candidate for Labour leadership on a leftist platform.
Disenfranchised people could join the Labour party for £3 and were then allowed to vote for the new Labour leader.
Thousands of lefties joined to vote for Corbyn.
All those people felt like joining the party for a nominal fee and then voting for Corbyn for leader would give an left wing alternative to the right wing Conservatives, rather than the not-very-different-to-the-Tories Labour under Milliband (and his precursors).
Key part was that joining was a £3 fee only, so not much of a challenge to join up.
|
On September 25 2016 02:13 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2016 01:46 Dan HH wrote:On September 25 2016 01:34 LegalLord wrote:On September 25 2016 01:27 Lonyo wrote:On September 25 2016 00:44 LegalLord wrote:On September 24 2016 20:23 Dan HH wrote:Labour leadership: Jeremy Corbyn defeats Owen Smith
Mr Corbyn won 61.8% of the total vote, a larger margin of victory than last year.
In a result announced on the eve of Labour's party conference in Liverpool, Mr Corbyn won 313,209 votes, compared with Mr Smith's 193,229. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37461219 For all the effort put into trying to oust Corbyn, it's surprising how badly it's all failing. The people wanting to get rid of Corbyn are the MPs. The people who want him to be in power are the labour party membership. Since the two have opposing views, the only viable options now are either recruit lots of new more centrist people to the party to balance out the leftists and then push for yet another leadership election next year, for MPs to leave the party, or to go along with an internally self destructive party where the party membership and the majority of the party representatives don't get along. How exactly did it happen that the party membership and MPs are so strongly misaligned on the issues? Their membership tripled from 2015, went from ~220k to ~640k Why did that happen? Was there some significant change in policy (maybe its easier now to get membership?) or some other major event that triggered it?
Largely due to the polarizing effect of Corbyn, there were several waves of new members, some joined to help him win, some to take him down. Then there was one huge wave after the EU referendum, 130k joined in the 2 weeks after Brexit, but last I saw the people from this wave weren't allowed to vote in this week's leadership election.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/john-mcdonnell-jeremy-corbyn-appeal-court-ruling-labour-a7188006.html
|
Partly because Labour was seen as the same as the Conservatives and the lowering of the membership fee. Due to the first past the post system, it is easier to represent yourself by changing the second most popular party, than to support a weaker party.
|
|
|
Do people like May or is she just getting the benefit of the doubt for being new?
She seems ok, but a lot of people here seemed not to like the idea of her being PM.
|
On September 25 2016 06:21 LegalLord wrote:Do people like May or is she just getting the benefit of the doubt for being new? She seems ok, but a lot of people here seemed not to like the idea of her being PM.
She's getting a huge boost from being the only competent leader of any of the major parties, but being new probably helps. Playing a very quiet role in the referendum also helped her a lot.
|
The bosses of several of America’s biggest banks and corporations have warned Theresa May they will pre-emptively shift operations into Europe unless she can provide early clarity on the future shape of EU-UK relations, The Telegraph has learned.
The ultimatum was delivered at a round-table meeting with Mrs May in New York this week attended by a host of key US investors, including major City investors such as Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and BlackRock.
According to an account of the meeting obtained by The Telegraph, Mrs May declined to provide information about how the British government would approach the Brexit negotiations, other than pursuing a deal that was “in the national interest”.
There followed “frank exchanges” in which bosses warned they could not wait to discover the final outcome of the two-year Article 50 negotiations before making major investment decisions that could see thousands of UK jobs shift to Europe.
“The message was clear from at least some of those present: if Theresa May cannot provide some early clarity about where the negotiations will end up, the only way to avoid that uncertainty would be a move towards Europe – there will not be time to wait,” said the City source with knowledge of the meeting.
[...]
UK Treasury officials are now heavily pre-occupied with how to put in place transitional arrangements that – they readily concede – will only be possible with the political good will of the other 27 EU member states.
“A final deal could take years to negotiate, the real question everyone is focussing on now is what you do in between times that provides confidence and certainty to all business,” said an official with knowledge of the UK preparations.
The difficulties will be both practical and political, however, as European capitals continue to harden their stance ahead of future negotiations, ruling out any “cherry-picking” by the British side when it comes to accessing the single market.
Professor Alan Winters, director of the UK Trade Policy Observatory, has suggested that continuing existing arrangements for three years after Brexit could give space for a deal to be nailed down – but concedes this would require continuing to accept EU free movement during that transitional period.
The Telegraph understands that Mr Hammond has already cautioned bank bosses that delaying taking back control of borders for three years would be politically impossible, a position that would leave British negotiators ultimately reliant on EU goodwill.
[...]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/24/brexit-warning-us-bank-bosses-from-goldman-sachs-morgan-stanley/
|
They need to plan years in advance, they operate in Europe and have European customers. Nothing unreasonable about it. Anyone in a similar situation would require clarity, and if you don't know what will happen for sure, you have to look at the potential risks and take the most sensible decisions based on the facts you have available.
If they choose to move operations to Europe, they have greater certainty over their future operations. If they stay in the UK they in 2-3 years time they could get caught out by Brexit and it could have a negative impact, since it will take time to transition operations.
|
Theresa May is quiet solely because of one reason, she realises that she might need to put up with Tory in future so it was a mere politic strategy.
and her being quiet is exactly the reason why brexit is more worrying than before, when the bloody negotiating team consist of most of the people speak for their own benefit/career, how will that end well?
|
On September 25 2016 21:05 BurningSera wrote:
Theresa May is quiet solely because of one reason, she realises that she might need to put up with Tory in future so it was a mere politic strategy.
and her being quiet is exactly the reason why brexit is more worrying than before, when the bloody negotiating team consist of most of the people speak for their own benefit/career, how will that end well?
I said that she was quiet during the campaign. She's always been considered a eurosceptic, but was under huge pressure to support Remain, so that makes sense. I wouldn't say she's been quiet since then, exactly. It's just that there's not much to say. All the focus is on the technical restructuring of government to prepare for the process. I think she's said enough - as well as appointing the right people - to show that her government are willing to go for a hard Brexit if needed. This is the single most important factor for going into negotiations with a powerful position. If the government are not willing to withdraw fully, then they have essentially nothing going into negotiations.
Hard Brexit looks increasingly likely to me, and that's good. I genuinely believe the EU is completely unsustainable and the less dependent we are on them, the better it will be for us in the long run.
|
Theresa May is a eurosceptic for one reason and one reason only:
The humiliation she suffered from the ECHR while trying to deport a terrorist to a country where he would be tortured. She has used this as a platform to campaign for the dismantling of any kind of human rights charter in the UK and getting out of Europe is the first step.
Simply put, if she had the talent, ability, or work ethic to do her job properly int he first place instead of flopping around and failing completely - embarrassing her government in the process - brexit under May would be a different proposition indeed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img4.hostingpics.net/pics/792880Corbyn.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c8/Labour_Party_membership_graph.png/800px-Labour_Party_membership_graph.png)
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CtIP7tLXgAA8zuI.jpg:large)
