RugbyRebels

First there was this...

UGagain wrote:
You don't have a single clue about the motivations of these people.

They are on an intellectual level far beyond your understanding.

Your attempts to condescend to people with far higher intellectual capacity than your obvious limits just makes you look like an adolescent dick.

But then there was this!!!

UGagain wrote:

This is just the sort of polite intellectual discussion that Sandy is looking for here in the politics section of RR.

And we, the plebs, are not allowed to call you fascists.

I love UG

Donny osmond wrote:First there was this...

UGagain wrote:
You don't have a single clue about the motivations of these people.

They are on an intellectual level far beyond your understanding.

Your attempts to condescend to people with far higher intellectual capacity than your obvious limits just makes you look like an adolescent dick.

But then there was this!!!

UGagain wrote:

This is just the sort of polite intellectual discussion that Sandy is looking for here in the politics section of RR.

And we, the plebs, are not allowed to call you fascists.

I love UG

Self-awareness and self-reflection is for rightwing jackbooted thugs who are stifling discussion around here, don't you know?

cashead wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:First there was this...

UGagain wrote:
You don't have a single clue about the motivations of these people.

They are on an intellectual level far beyond your understanding.

Your attempts to condescend to people with far higher intellectual capacity than your obvious limits just makes you look like an adolescent dick.

But then there was this!!!

UGagain wrote:

This is just the sort of polite intellectual discussion that Sandy is looking for here in the politics section of RR.

And we, the plebs, are not allowed to call you fascists.

I love UG

Self-awareness and self-reflection is for rightwing jackbooted thugs who are stifling discussion around here, don't you know?

I didnt know! [emoji44] d'oh, classic donny

Incredible almost.

Sad that they hand qualifications out like lollipops these days.

So the next generation, under the current regime, will be even dumber.

UGagain wrote:I'm so sorry.

Welp, I'm going to choose to take this at face value, and quote it for posterity. Your apology is accepted.

Multiple complaints. Time out folks whilst we have a look.

Another victory for the left!
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ourt-rules

Zhivago wrote:Another victory for the left!
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ourt-rules

Surely Glorious Leader™ wins either way, so it doesn't seem it'll make any difference other than there being more lemmings taking Labour over the cliff.

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:Another victory for the left!
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ourt-rules

Surely Glorious Leader™ wins either way, so it doesn't seem it'll make any difference other than there being more lemmings taking Labour over the cliff.

Spoken like someone who lost the argument long long ago and now only resorts to calling people names like a 5 year old in a school playground. Stay classy Digby!

Not a surprise. Putting Humpty Dumpty back together again after all this will require a miracle.

Sandydragon wrote:Not a surprise. Putting Humpty Dumpty back together again after all this will require a miracle.

Well Labour now has more than 3x the members that the Tories have. This provides them with a massive stable income and campaigning force. Only a fool would think that they are a spent force.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Not a surprise. Putting Humpty Dumpty back together again after all this will require a miracle.

Well Labour now has more than 3x the members that the Tories have. This provides them with a massive stable income and campaigning force. Only a fool would think that they are a spent force.

Almost without doubt they'll be back, even allowing for the SNP to retain the seats in Scotland at some point less people in England will stay happy voting Tory, and as ever even if they do a good job the governing party will take a hit from those jaded by their tenure. That said I doubt they'll be that close to the Tories in spending terms, and they've yet to show they can retain those members which will be important if they're to have an increased spend. It's just for now it rather feels like they're wasting time, which is what the Tories did with Hague, Howard and IDS, but still, it's annoying.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Not a surprise. Putting Humpty Dumpty back together again after all this will require a miracle.

Well Labour now has more than 3x the members that the Tories have. This provides them with a massive stable income and campaigning force. Only a fool would think that they are a spent force.

Not any time soon. Their base of supporters won't necessarily translate at the polls and how long will those new members hang around when election success isn't forthcoming? Will the current moderate MPs hang on and hope of the best or jump ship and hope for the best? Either way, Labour's chance of being seen as a credible government by the wider electorate is getting slimmer by the day.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Not a surprise. Putting Humpty Dumpty back together again after all this will require a miracle.

Well Labour now has more than 3x the members that the Tories have. This provides them with a massive stable income and campaigning force. Only a fool would think that they are a spent force.

Not any time soon. Their base of supporters won't necessarily translate at the polls and how long will those new members hang around when election success isn't forthcoming? Will the current moderate MPs hang on and hope of the best or jump ship and hope for the best? Either way, Labour's chance of being seen as a credible government by the wider electorate is getting slimmer by the day.

While the PLP are sniping, yes they won't be seen as a viable government. Such a government simply would not be able to pass laws effectively. However, it is foolish to think that this situation with the PLP will endure.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Well Labour now has more than 3x the members that the Tories have. This provides them with a massive stable income and campaigning force. Only a fool would think that they are a spent force.

Not any time soon. Their base of supporters won't necessarily translate at the polls and how long will those new members hang around when election success isn't forthcoming? Will the current moderate MPs hang on and hope of the best or jump ship and hope for the best? Either way, Labour's chance of being seen as a credible government by the wider electorate is getting slimmer by the day.

While the PLP are sniping, yes they won't be seen as a viable government. Such a government simply would not be able to pass laws effectively. However, it is foolish to think that this situation with the PLP will endure.

Of course not. Some MPS will be deselected and replaced with more acceptable candidates (acceptable to Corbyn et al), and in many areas they will win seats because Labour could put a blind dog up for selection and it would win. Other Labour MPS will defect, or become independent, if that threat occurs which may or may not trigger a bye-election (I can't recall the rules on that, I think there has to be a set amount of time). Where UKIP are challenging, that might lose some seats for Labour.

I think most tellingly, Labour won't convert new votes to their cause from the centre ground and that is where they will hurt most. Their core support in the heartlands might be under some attack from UKIP (another debate on how effective they will be going forward) yet getting new votes to the flag could prove more difficult now Scotland has effectively gone and many in Middle England will see them as too left wing.

If there isn't an election until 2020 then there may be time to repair the damage. However, I think May must be very tempted to call a quick election (or engineer the requirement for one under the new rules to be more accurate) as she could easily grow her majority.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
Not any time soon. Their base of supporters won't necessarily translate at the polls and how long will those new members hang around when election success isn't forthcoming? Will the current moderate MPs hang on and hope of the best or jump ship and hope for the best? Either way, Labour's chance of being seen as a credible government by the wider electorate is getting slimmer by the day.

While the PLP are sniping, yes they won't be seen as a viable government. Such a government simply would not be able to pass laws effectively. However, it is foolish to think that this situation with the PLP will endure.

Of course not. Some MPS will be deselected and replaced with more acceptable candidates (acceptable to Corbyn et al), and in many areas they will win seats because Labour could put a blind dog up for selection and it would win. Other Labour MPS will defect, or become independent, if that threat occurs which may or may not trigger a bye-election (I can't recall the rules on that, I think there has to be a set amount of time). Where UKIP are challenging, that might lose some seats for Labour.

I think most tellingly, Labour won't convert new votes to their cause from the centre ground and that is where they will hurt most. Their core support in the heartlands might be under some attack from UKIP (another debate on how effective they will be going forward) yet getting new votes to the flag could prove more difficult now Scotland has effectively gone and many in Middle England will see them as too left wing.

If there isn't an election until 2020 then there may be time to repair the damage. However, I think May must be very tempted to call a quick election (or engineer the requirement for one under the new rules to be more accurate) as she could easily grow her majority.

They don't need the centre ground. They need to win votes back off SNP, Greens, and UKIP. Let the Lib Dems fight the Tories in the centre. And they need to get people who aren't politically engaged to become so, and vote for them. No one will become politically engaged to vote for a different shade of Tory.

May can't simply call an early election. Fixed Parliaments Bill from 2011 sees to that. Either a vote of no confidence needs to be called, which is risky, or 2/3rds of MPs must vote for an early general election. Neither will happen. The Tories want to wait at least until the boundary changes come into effect in order to gerrymander a better result, and Labour MPs will not vote for an election while their party is in disarray, as it is a risk to their cushy jobs.

Zhivago wrote:
They don't need the centre ground. They need to win votes back off SNP, Greens, and UKIP. Let the Lib Dems fight the Tories in the centre. And they need to get people who aren't politically engaged to become so, and vote for them. No one will become politically engaged to vote for a different shade of Tory.

May can't simply call an early election. Fixed Parliaments Bill from 2011 sees to that. Either a vote of no confidence needs to be called, which is risky, or 2/3rds of MPs must vote for an early general election. Neither will happen. The Tories want to wait at least until the boundary changes come into effect in order to gerrymander a better result, and Labour MPs will not vote for an election while their party is in disarray, as it is a risk to their cushy jobs.

They don't need the centre ground? The biggest change that'll come if Labour take many more votes on the left is that Labour will do much better in the constituencies which have a low voter turnout, but as Labor already hold more than 90% of those seats there are but a handful up for grabs that way. I don't especially like the FPP voting system we have, but it's the one you need to win under, and it's not going to happen by following Glorious Leader™

Also of course May can call an early election, I'm not sure she will given the crap fest created by Brexit, but t's hardly impossible to amend acts of parliament, so even supposing Labour wouldn't support a 2/3rds move and in the process announce even they don't think they're electable, then the government could just add to the statute that whilst a fixed term parliament remains as a consequence of the referendum result and a new PM being in place the 2020 election will be held in 2017 or 2018. It doesn't sound like they want to do that, but they might as well say they don't and then in the event Brexit talks start to drag or on the off chance Glorious Leader™ starts to prove annoying they've an option to call an early election

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
They don't need the centre ground. They need to win votes back off SNP, Greens, and UKIP. Let the Lib Dems fight the Tories in the centre. And they need to get people who aren't politically engaged to become so, and vote for them. No one will become politically engaged to vote for a different shade of Tory.

May can't simply call an early election. Fixed Parliaments Bill from 2011 sees to that. Either a vote of no confidence needs to be called, which is risky, or 2/3rds of MPs must vote for an early general election. Neither will happen. The Tories want to wait at least until the boundary changes come into effect in order to gerrymander a better result, and Labour MPs will not vote for an election while their party is in disarray, as it is a risk to their cushy jobs.

They don't need the centre ground? The biggest change that'll come if Labour take many more votes on the left is that Labour will do much better in the constituencies which have a low voter turnout, but as Labor already hold more than 90% of those seats there are but a handful up for grabs that way. I don't especially like the FPP voting system we have, but it's the one you need to win under, and it's not going to happen by following Glorious Leader™

Also of course May can call an early election, I'm not sure she will given the crap fest created by Brexit, but t's hardly impossible to amend acts of parliament, so even supposing Labour wouldn't support a 2/3rds move and in the process announce even they don't think they're electable, then the government could just add to the statute that whilst a fixed term parliament remains as a consequence of the referendum result and a new PM being in place the 2020 election will be held in 2017 or 2018. It doesn't sound like they want to do that, but they might as well say they don't and then in the event Brexit talks start to drag or on the off chance Glorious Leader™starts to prove annoying they've an option to call an early election

I don't debate politics with children. Grow up if you want a debate.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
They don't need the centre ground. They need to win votes back off SNP, Greens, and UKIP. Let the Lib Dems fight the Tories in the centre. And they need to get people who aren't politically engaged to become so, and vote for them. No one will become politically engaged to vote for a different shade of Tory.

May can't simply call an early election. Fixed Parliaments Bill from 2011 sees to that. Either a vote of no confidence needs to be called, which is risky, or 2/3rds of MPs must vote for an early general election. Neither will happen. The Tories want to wait at least until the boundary changes come into effect in order to gerrymander a better result, and Labour MPs will not vote for an election while their party is in disarray, as it is a risk to their cushy jobs.

They don't need the centre ground? The biggest change that'll come if Labour take many more votes on the left is that Labour will do much better in the constituencies which have a low voter turnout, but as Labor already hold more than 90% of those seats there are but a handful up for grabs that way. I don't especially like the FPP voting system we have, but it's the one you need to win under, and it's not going to happen by following Glorious Leader™

Also of course May can call an early election, I'm not sure she will given the crap fest created by Brexit, but t's hardly impossible to amend acts of parliament, so even supposing Labour wouldn't support a 2/3rds move and in the process announce even they don't think they're electable, then the government could just add to the statute that whilst a fixed term parliament remains as a consequence of the referendum result and a new PM being in place the 2020 election will be held in 2017 or 2018. It doesn't sound like they want to do that, but they might as well say they don't and then in the event Brexit talks start to drag or on the off chance Glorious Leader™starts to prove annoying they've an option to call an early election

I don't debate politics with children. Grow up if you want a debate.

More to the point is for the Labour party to grow up if it wants to be in government.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
While the PLP are sniping, yes they won't be seen as a viable government. Such a government simply would not be able to pass laws effectively. However, it is foolish to think that this situation with the PLP will endure.

Of course not. Some MPS will be deselected and replaced with more acceptable candidates (acceptable to Corbyn et al), and in many areas they will win seats because Labour could put a blind dog up for selection and it would win. Other Labour MPS will defect, or become independent, if that threat occurs which may or may not trigger a bye-election (I can't recall the rules on that, I think there has to be a set amount of time). Where UKIP are challenging, that might lose some seats for Labour.

I think most tellingly, Labour won't convert new votes to their cause from the centre ground and that is where they will hurt most. Their core support in the heartlands might be under some attack from UKIP (another debate on how effective they will be going forward) yet getting new votes to the flag could prove more difficult now Scotland has effectively gone and many in Middle England will see them as too left wing.

If there isn't an election until 2020 then there may be time to repair the damage. However, I think May must be very tempted to call a quick election (or engineer the requirement for one under the new rules to be more accurate) as she could easily grow her majority.

They don't need the centre ground. They need to win votes back off SNP, Greens, and UKIP. Let the Lib Dems fight the Tories in the centre. And they need to get people who aren't politically engaged to become so, and vote for them. No one will become politically engaged to vote for a different shade of Tory.

May can't simply call an early election. Fixed Parliaments Bill from 2011 sees to that. Either a vote of no confidence needs to be called, which is risky, or 2/3rds of MPs must vote for an early general election. Neither will happen. The Tories want to wait at least until the boundary changes come into effect in order to gerrymander a better result, and Labour MPs will not vote for an election while their party is in disarray, as it is a risk to their cushy jobs.

Traditionally, moving closer to the middle ground is essential for electoral success nationally. Taking votes off greens won't change much. In Scotland, the SNP are riding in a wave of pro independence which labour can't match, no matter how far they move to th left. UKIP could yield some support back to labour, but it will be in areas they largely already control.

Small point but the boundaries commission is independent, thus it can't be gerrymandering.

Calling an early election is t as easy as it once was, but if may thought the benefits outweighed the risk in losing a vote of no confidence, she might be tempted.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
Of course not. Some MPS will be deselected and replaced with more acceptable candidates (acceptable to Corbyn et al), and in many areas they will win seats because Labour could put a blind dog up for selection and it would win. Other Labour MPS will defect, or become independent, if that threat occurs which may or may not trigger a bye-election (I can't recall the rules on that, I think there has to be a set amount of time). Where UKIP are challenging, that might lose some seats for Labour.

I think most tellingly, Labour won't convert new votes to their cause from the centre ground and that is where they will hurt most. Their core support in the heartlands might be under some attack from UKIP (another debate on how effective they will be going forward) yet getting new votes to the flag could prove more difficult now Scotland has effectively gone and many in Middle England will see them as too left wing.

If there isn't an election until 2020 then there may be time to repair the damage. However, I think May must be very tempted to call a quick election (or engineer the requirement for one under the new rules to be more accurate) as she could easily grow her majority.

They don't need the centre ground. They need to win votes back off SNP, Greens, and UKIP. Let the Lib Dems fight the Tories in the centre. And they need to get people who aren't politically engaged to become so, and vote for them. No one will become politically engaged to vote for a different shade of Tory.

May can't simply call an early election. Fixed Parliaments Bill from 2011 sees to that. Either a vote of no confidence needs to be called, which is risky, or 2/3rds of MPs must vote for an early general election. Neither will happen. The Tories want to wait at least until the boundary changes come into effect in order to gerrymander a better result, and Labour MPs will not vote for an election while their party is in disarray, as it is a risk to their cushy jobs.

Traditionally, moving closer to the middle ground is essential for electoral success nationally. Taking votes off greens won't change much. In Scotland, the SNP are riding in a wave of pro independence which labour can't match, no matter how far they move to th left. UKIP could yield some support back to labour, but it will be in areas they largely already control.

Small point but the boundaries commission is independent, thus it can't be gerrymandering.

Calling an early election is t as easy as it once was, but if may thought the benefits outweighed the risk in losing a vote of no confidence, she might be tempted.

Politics is changing. We are entering an era of polarisation. In such a political environment, you win elections by winning votes at the poles and getting high turnout.

The cause of polarisation is the advancement of social technology. Mass propaganda that concentrates public opinion to a centre point is a thing of the past. Now mass propaganda is diversified into a fractious mess.

Labour must attract swing voters in England if they are to stand any chance of forming a Government, or at least being able to form some sort of coalition. Without winning over undecided's or wavering voters the party is sunk.

A party with broad appeal is essential if you want to gain influence under FPTP. That does involve some movement toward the centre and a recognition that its not about enlarging majorities in safe seats but winning over key marginals that really count.

Politics hasnt changed that much.

Zhivago wrote: Politics is changing. We are entering an era of polarisation. In such a political environment, you win elections by winning votes at the poles and getting high turnout.

The cause of polarisation is the advancement of social technology. Mass propaganda that concentrates public opinion to a centre point is a thing of the past. Now mass propaganda is diversified into a fractious mess.

There's sadly attention given to the rabble rousers on both sides, but really most people aren't listening to them, and aren't interested in what they have to say.

I think you may have a point if by high turnout you mean getting out a high % of your support and getting a message out to see supporters of the other side(s) stay at home. Certainly the SNP have been ahead of the rest in the collection and use of data as to who might and will vote their way, both in their use of IT and honing a message that speaks to their voters, but too we'd have to acknowledge they've a specific circumstance in which their seeking election, and it likely wouldn't work so easily across the UK

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote: Politics is changing. We are entering an era of polarisation. In such a political environment, you win elections by winning votes at the poles and getting high turnout.

The cause of polarisation is the advancement of social technology. Mass propaganda that concentrates public opinion to a centre point is a thing of the past. Now mass propaganda is diversified into a fractious mess.

There's sadly attention given to the rabble rousers on both sides, but really most people aren't listening to them, and aren't interested in what they have to say.

I think you may have a point if by high turnout you mean getting out a high % of your support and getting a message out to see supporters of the other side(s) stay at home. Certainly the SNP have been ahead of the rest in the collection and use of data as to who might and will vote their way, both in their use of IT and honing a message that speaks to their voters, but too we'd have to acknowledge they've a specific circumstance in which their seeking election, and it likely wouldn't work so easily across the UK

I'd even advocate a movement further to the left, and wait while the Tories piss people off. It's only a matter of time. But that's probably just my accelerationist tendencies speaking.

Zhivago wrote:
I'd even advocate a movement further to the left, and wait while the Tories piss people off. It's only a matter of time.

The Lib Dems would get back into government before Labour were Labour to run with such a policy. Seriously, where do some people think all the staunchly lefty voters are in a country that typically votes centre right?