2019 UK election 2

nicky wrote:

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/12/03/starmer-starting-to-pull-away-in-the-corbyn-successor-betting/

You would literally prefer to see Labour lose the election than win it with Corbyn as leader.  You would rather see the NHS abolished than accept the reality that Labour would be in even worse shape by doing what you demand by going all-out Remain,  Why are you so obsessed with keeping the UK in the UK?  And why do you keep acting like he could stand down before the election when you know it's been impossible for him to do so without a guarantee that the PLP wouldn't block all left-wing candidates from the leadership ballot?  Why couldn't the PLP at least guarantee that?  Nobody other than them wanted the party to completely repudiate everything the majority of paid Labour members-a majority which will always be socialist, i.e., left wing, anti austerity and antiwar-s0 why should the PLP still have the ability, as they still do, to limit the leadership ballot to no one but reactionaries?  

And what's so special about Starmer?  Other than the antisocialist, antiworker Remain cause, the man has no passionate convictions about anything, no important experience in governmeny, nothing, really.  Nothing he'd be doing as leader would be making any meaningful difference in this election, and there are no votes to gain by moving back to Blair's policies and kicking the socialists out again.  

If the issue the PLP had with Corbyn was nothing other than the unpopularity they caused for the man by pretending he'd cause a massive upsurge in AS when they and you knew there'd been no such thing, why didn't they just publicly pledge that, if he did stand down, the election would still be fought on his policies-ALL of which are popular-and that Labour would govern on those policies?  Why could they not just do that?                                                                                           Why were they still insisting not only on forcing Corbyn out but erasing the policies the vast majority of the party and much of the country support and not even agreeing not to expel the majority of paid Labour members and supporters who support those policies?

Why did the PLP refuse to make a signed commitment to Corbyn that they'd let it go at him standing down and agree not to try to erase everything his supporters stand for from the party?

Can you not at least that, if the anti-Corbynites were acting in good faith, they'd have realized that they needed to do something like that as an act of good faith?  That they should have agreed that Labour can't ever reduce itself to Blairism again?

Ken, I have to get to work soon so cannot address all of the 17 misstatements in your post #53 above.

I will limit myself to 3 of them.

1. I support Staemer. I don’t support anyone at this stage, except it is hard to think of anyone who could be more damaging to the Labour Party than Corbyn. I simply posted a link to an analysis suggesting Starmer is the front runner to replace the pathetic incumbent.

2. The PLP will not let a leftist on the leadership ballot. It may be that the PLP has learned its lesson not to give a complimentary nomination to a wingnut. But the rules are now changed. The 15% requirement has been reduced to 10%. In addition Corbyn has driven many of the sensible MPs out of the party. The NEC has replaced many of them  ( as well as filling open nominations) with Corbynites, in a number of constituencies against the preferences of the local parties. The left should have no problem securing nominations from 10% of the MPs under these circumstances.

3. Do you not consider how inconsistent you are in claiming on the one hand that the great majority of Labour members are left wing socialists, and on the other that Remain is an anti-socialist cause? More than 85% of party members back Remain. Why would they do that if they are left wing socialists and Remain is anti-socialist?

Extinction Rebellion bee protester glues himself to Lib Dem bus

An Extinction Rebellion protester dressed as a bee has glued himself to the Liberal Democrats’ battlebus, as the environmental group intervenes in the general election.

The group said it was “buzzing around” political parties’ campaign battlebuses on Wednesday “demanding the climate and ecological emergency is top of the agenda this election”.

quote:

One activist, Linda Doyle, said the Lib Dems’ plans to tackle the climate emergency were too weak. “The Lib Dem policy is 2045 for greenhouse gas neutral, which is really just disgraceful,” she said. “We’re here at a youth centre. I don’t see how they can help the youth whatsoever unless they provide them with a future.”

Labour political reforms include ban on MPs having second jobs

quote:

The proposed reforms include:

• A ban on MPs holding second jobs, with exemptions for professional registrations for careers such as nurses.

• Preventing political donations from “non-doms” – those who reside in the UK but claim their true home is overseas for tax purposes, exempting them paying tax on income received offshore – as well as those convicted of tax offences.

• Forcing political parties to name those who attend donors’ forums such as the Conservative party’s “Leader’s Group”, which give donors contributing more than £50,000 private audiences with senior party figures.

• Banning former ministers from working as lobbyists for a minimum of five years.

In a statement Jon Trickett, the shadow minister for the Cabinet Office, said: “Under the Tories, politics and government is in serious danger of becoming a playground for the rich and powerful, with decisions often made behind closed doors in the interests of a small few, at the expense of the many. This is very worrying for our democracy. The rules that are supposed to prevent this are completely ineffective. The time for their replacement is long overdue.”

quote:

Last week the Guardian reported that it had identified 11 wealthy donors in the US who had donated almost £3m to rightwing thinktanks in the UK over the past five years. One of the recipients, the Institute of Economic Affairs, has been specifically named by Labour as an example of a thinktank that would be affected by its new policy.

Why No One is Celebrating 10 Years of the Lisbon Treaty

https://twitter.com/DSharp_Paris/status/1202135742564188162

"Yesterday, the Lisbon Treaty, dreamed up by the EU in order to annul the results of the 2005 referendums in France and the Netherlands was 10 years old. How come nobody was celebrating?"

Can You Trust Jeremy Corbyn? (and vid)

https://twitter.com/Change_Britain/status/1188391133820309504

"This is a one-off choice between staying in or leaving completely." - Jeremy Corbyn

EU treachery with dishonest, collaborating politicians to subvert peoples' democratic resistance to neoliberalism are nothing new.

epaulo13 wrote:

General election: British newspapers’ attacks on Labour have intensified while Tories continue to get positive coverage, study finds

Negative press coverage of Labour’s election campaign has intensified, while coverage of the Tories remains positive overall, new analysis shows.

During the third week of the election campaign, a Loughborough University study found a persistent gulf between media reporting on Jeremy Corbyn’s party and the Conservatives under Boris Johnson.

Labour commands the highest number of column inches of all the parties, the study found, but academics said the greater prominence “should not be assumed to deliver a political advantage to the opposition”.

Researchers analysed the overall negativity and positivity of newspaper coverage of all the main political parties, assigning a positive value of +1 to stories that could benefit each party and -1 to pieces that held damaging implications for the party.

Labour faced overwhelmingly negative coverage in the first week with a -71.17 ranking, dropping to -71.96 in the second week and -75.79 last week.

This compared to a positive +29.98 for the Conservatives in the first week, falling to +17.86 in the second week and +15.87 in the third week.

“The high levels of newspaper negativity towards Labour identified in the first week of the campaign were sustained into week two and increased marginally in week three,” the report said.....

The BBC as well

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/03/election-coverage-bbc-tories?CMP=fb_cif

Now Naomi Klein and Noam Chomsky are in cahoots with the EU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ken makes this startling revelation:

"There's no program to the right of Corbyn's that's distinguishable from Toryism."

This must mean that Corbyn's program is onl;y infinitessimally more left wing that Johnson's . Because of course anything to the right of Corbyn, no matter how little, is Toryism. 

Do I have that right, Ken?

If you ask the London bookies, there may be a far different result at this election than the early polls predicted or than the pundits, the Tories and the Blairites keep demanding.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/general-election-odds-labour-majori...

John Major Urges Vote Against the Conservatives

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/news/108414/sir-john-major-calls-voters-back-candidates

Which ignores the fact that it is

the most radical-left Labour platform the nation has seen in decades.

https://www.thenation.com/article/climate-brexit-labour-uk/?utm_medium=socialflow&utm_source=twitter

[quote=josh]

Which ignores the fact that it is

the most radical-left Labour platform the nation has seen in decades.

https://www.thenation.com/article/climate-brexit-labour-uk/?utm_medium=socialflow&utm_source=twitter

[quote=NDPP]

Campaign 'promises'.

Jeremy Corbyn is Too Late to Save the NHS: It has Already Been Sold Off Under the EU

https://t.co/ehVX3SG19g

"The reality is that the NHS is already for sale, and has been for decades. EU directives and Tony Bliar's obsession for 'testing the market' are to blame..."

This UK General Election Is a Choice Between Imperialism and Internationalism

Jeremy Corbyn announced on Tuesday that, under a Labour government, schoolchildren would be taught about the injustice and violence of the British Empire. Labour also promised to promote a “new internationalism” and a progressive foreign policy, as outlined in its recent manifesto.

In response, the Conservatives claimed it was “staggering” to hear Labour “lecture people” about foreign affairs. And yet the Conservatives have not been remotely clear about foreign policy or defense when outlining their own election pledges. Reviewing the conduct of the May–Johnson governments since the last election in June 2017, this should come as no surprise.

Gulf Relationships

The government’s own figures reveal that, over the past two years, “telecommunications interception equipment” has been exported to the law enforcement agencies of authoritarian regimes such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Oman, and Qatar. These sales are quite possibly unlawful (violating the UK’s own export control guidelines banning sales when there is a “clear risk that the items might be used for internal repression”) given what is known about how these states use such equipment.

For instance, the UAE has mounted attacks on journalists and activists via spyware sent on Twitter and spear-phishing emails. In July, the UK approved £1.9 million worth of the same equipment for export to Hong Kong, weeks after mass protests. Britain has recently established new military base facilities in Bahrain and Oman, and so sales of telecommunications equipment and arms are a sign of support for the Gulf regimes, aiding the longevity of the ruling families.

While the Conservatives have not discussed the issue during election season, in September, the government published a security export strategy, reviewing its intentions for surveillance and cybersecurity. It stressed that the UK is the world’s fourth-largest exporter and that the government would “accelerate the continued year on year growth of security exports,” benefiting the UK’s “vibrant security ecosystem.”.....

Ken Burch wrote:

If you ask the London bookies, there may be a far different result at this election than the early polls predicted or than the pundits, the Tories and the Blairites keep demanding.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/general-election-odds-labour-majori...

Sorry Ken but that is not what the article says. 25-1. So there are long shot profiteers trying to make money on the long shot but not any real suggestion that it is the likely result.

That said the election is much closer than it appears. Smart money may be on another minority if it is seeking something other than a Conservative majority. 

There are reasons to think that Labour might be able to do this:

1) most governments this long in the tooth lose rather than gain support in a 4th mandate

2) the Conservatives have not really tried to expand their base

3) the youth vote may be harder to guage but it appears to be more motivated than ever will the LD are in freefall

However, the odds on favourite is Johnson even if there is no comfort for him. The shift is there but Corbyn is still behind significantly and may not be catching up fast enough. There may not be enough undecided left.

Still, I would not write off Corbyn and it is possible that he would ahve a minority mandate but he has a very long way to go to do better than that.

If you judge the Tories on anything, judge them on 120,000 social care deaths. Judge them on 590 suicides linked to the WCA residents in Uxbridge were left in no doubt what disabled people thought of Boris Johnson. He voted for every welfare cut. Cuts kill.

Since this rag is still the 'babble bible' on all things for some, here's the evil Guardian on Corbyn's 'anti-semitism' etc.

This Antisemitism Poisons Any Good Labour Might Do

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/30/antisemitism-poisons-an...

"...The Chief Rabbi represents the views of the majority of British Jews: 84% believe Labour is antisemitic; 87% that Corbyn is antisemitic: 93% won't vote Labour..."

Another fine piece of investigative journalism from Matt Kennard:

How the UK military and intelligence establishment is working to stop Jeremy Corbyn becoming prime minister

By Matt Kennard• 4 December 2019

 Officials in the UK military and intelligence establishment have been sources for at least 34 major national media stories that cast Jeremy Corbyn as a danger to British security, new research shows.

The stories — which quote former or current members of the army, navy and special forces, as well as MI5, MI6 and an ex-senior civil servant — have averaged one every six weeks since Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader of the Labour Party in September 2015. There have, however, been significant spikes in frequency during the 2017 and 2019 general election campaigns.

There is a strong suggestion that, for some stories, intelligence officials have themselves provided secret documents to journalists as part of what appears to be a campaign.

Every story has been picked up across national print media, often setting the news agenda and chiming with statements from Conservative government ministers. Nearly every story appeared in four papers — The Daily Telegraph, The Times, the Daily Mail, or The Sun.

Our research also found 440 articles in the UK press since September 2015 specifically mentioning Corbyn as a “threat to national security”.

The intelligence services and the military are supposed to abide by the “constitutional principle” of non-involvement in political affairs. But the numerous instances of serving national security officials briefing against Corbyn in the media raises questions about whether this principle has been upheld.
....
On 1 December 2019, less than two weeks before the election, The Times ran another warning, this time from former military commanders, under the title “Jeremy Corbyn ‘will wreck armed forces’ ”. Five prominent military commanders warned in a statement issued to the paper that Jeremy Corbyn is “dangerous” for national security and “has been a friend of our country’s enemies: whether it is Hamas or the IRA”.

The signatories included Lieutenant-General Jonathon Riley, who was deputy commander of the international security force in Afghanistan; Major-General Tim Cross, the commander of British troops in Iraq; Major-General Julian Thompson, who led British land forces in the Falklands; Rear-Admiral Roger Lane-Nott, who led British naval forces during the latter stages of the Gulf War; and, Colonel Richard Kemp, a commander of 300 British troops in Afghanistan, who had also worked for the joint intelligence committee....

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2019-12-04-how-the-uk-military-a...

This is just the open attacks from the military/spy state agencies interference in the election. Craig Murray relates the massive use of online troll farms from these same sectors:

It is a matter of simple fact that the British government employs a very large number of people whose full time job is to influence the political narrative on social media. The 77th Brigade of the British Army, the Integrity Initiative, MI5 and MI6 and GCHQ all run major programmes of covert online propaganda. These information warriors operate on twitter, facebook, and in comments sections across the internet.

I have long been fascinated by the disconnect by which people, who do know and understand that the security services employ tens of thousands of people and have budgets of billions, nevertheless find it hard to accept that they may come personally into contact with their operations. Therefore when I state that the security services infiltrate groups including environmentalists and the SNP, and were involved in the Skripal story in ways not public, there is a peculiar desire among people to reject it as it is uncomfortable. Equally while people do know the security services are committing huge sums to social media influencing, to point out any of its instances brings derisive shouts of “conspiracy theory”....https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/07/how-to-spot-a-twitter-tr...

But that is just election tampering originating in the UK,  though Matt Kennard's belief that "the people" will see through the shitstorm of attacks is...quaint:

Every sinew of the Western establishment—its thinktanks, its media, its intelligence services, its militaries—is straining to stop a Corbyn-led Labour govt.
They’ve never seen a threat like this. Believe nothing you read for next 5 days. One thing they don’t have: the people.

https://twitter.com/DCKennard/status/1203363201938796544

The Guardian is infinitely more accurate and objective about Corbyn than Ken is, in case somehow you’ve missed it, NDPP.

i don’t presume to speak for “most of us on Babble” but I doubt Ken does.

Ken Burch wrote:

NDPP, if you've somehow missed this, most of us on Babble have no use for the Guardian anymore due to its endless lies about Corbyn.

[quote=NDPP]

But never a problem with its equally outrageous but more popular mendacities such as the  shitsmearing of Julian Assange or all things Russian apparently. 

Here's a few words from the monster nicky is obsessed with destroying:

https://www.facebook.com/JeremyCorbynMP/videos/432145581062441/?t=28

Ken, you write endlessly about Corbyn’s “decency”.

A decent leader would not have tolerated, much less made excuses for, the rampant anti-semetism among his followers.

A decent leader would not have sacrificed his party, much less his country, to the looming Tory right wing majority, enabled by his egotism and refusal to recognize that the great majority of Britons believe him to be unfit to be Prime Minister.

A decent leader would not have sabotaged the unambiguous Remain policy supported by 85% of his party.

The Tories may think they've already won – but the stats tell a different story

quote:

In 2017, there were three main factors that scuppered the Conservatives’ hopes of winning an overall majority: a surge in support for the Labour party in the polls; a massive increase in youth turnout and support for Labour among young people; and remain voters swinging their support behind Labour as the most viable alternative to the Conservatives. All of these things are now happening again.

Labour’s vote share in polls has dramatically increased over the past few weeks. Whereas the Conservatives have lagged behind their 2017 performance (averaging 43% in polls last week, compared to 46% in the fourth week of the 2017 campaign), Labour has surged in the polls. Having averaged just 23% in polls in the week of 21-27 October, Labour is now averaging 33%, an increase of 10 percentage points in just a few short weeks; this is the same level of support that Labour had in the fourth week of the 2017 campaign.

A major reason for this has been the party’s success in attracting the support of people who voted remain in 2016. In the week of 21-27 October, Labour was winning the support of just 34% of remainers on average; the Liberal Democrats, meanwhile, were averaging 33%. Last week, however, Labour was averaging 48% with remain voters (+14), while the Lib Dems were averaging just 23% (-10).

Labour has also increased its support among leave voters by five points (rising from 11% to 16%), but its support among remain voters has been far more significant. Virtually all of its gains among remainers have come from the Liberal Democrats, who have completely collapsed; having averaged 21% of the vote in the week of 16-22 September (2 points behind Labour), Jo Swinson’s party is now averaging just 13% in polls – 20 points behind the Labour party.

As in 2017, turnout among young people – and youth support for Labour – is likely to grow. In 2017, between the date that parliament voted for an election (19 April) and the final date of being able to register to vote (22 May), 1.9 million people aged under 35 registered to vote; over the same time period in 2019, 2.7 million people younger than 35 registered to vote – a 40% increase. Among voters younger than 25, registration rose by an even greater margin, increasing from 993,321 in 2017 to 1.5 million in 2019 – an increase of 47%.