May is nearly out and so is May

[Bryn]

Anti-Brexit gets about 2% more, pro-Brexit 1.6%; so 42.4% to35.5%

The Alliance party has trumped SF in the 5th round of counting. However, both are now past the post.

https://elections.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ni-european-election-2019

[french frank]

The Alliance party has trumped SF in the 5th round of counting. However, both are now past the post.

https://elections.belfasttelegraph.c...-election-2019

Looks as if Alliance Party is the 'most widely liked'! Well done, them.

[Bryn]

Looks as if Alliance Party is the 'most liked'! Well done, them.

I think that many will have adopted the attitude of "a plague on both your houses" regarding the current suspension of Stormont.

[teamsaint]

It seems that Corbyn has made a decisive move towards supporting a second referendum.
If this is the case, and a second vote happens, it will presumably justify his very ambiguous stance on the matter, whereas coming full out for referendum 2 earlier on would, one assumes, have alienated many more leave voters than a move ar this stage which can be justified on the basis of “ we have done all we can to respect the 2016 vote” .
I’m still unsure about whether his moves have been the best possible, either for Labour or the country , but then nothing much is sure here. But Labour may feel it would rather be where it is, than where the tories are. And Brexit is still far from done, and the Tories still face a major and disastrous split if the anti no dealers stand up to be counted.

My personal view is that liberal media should have trusted Corbyn and the Labour strategy, hard though it may be for Blairites, because they are, in the end, the biggest Progressive power bloc, and also because they were always likely to have to move towards a more Remain position, ( and of course the six tests were always impossible to meet) if only to work cooperatively withe the SNP, Lib dems etc..
But there has been a remorseless campaign against him, despite his overwhelming democratic mandate from his party, and very mainstream Social Democratic policies.

[french frank]

Well, team, I think there are others of your persuasion. But I'm not one of them. Even you make his stance simply sound devious - what's going to work out best for the Labour party (and me)? Even his MPs were frustrated with that.

As for the 'liberal media should have trusted Corbyn and the Labour strategy' - that appals me. The media are under no obligation to 'trust' politicians: they report - how it seems to them, how it seems to others. They can't all be party hacks. And Corbyn, having survived a vote of no confidence ('survived' it by taking no notice of it), has tried to railroad his MPs with three-line whips - he who rebelled against his party more often than any other as a backbencher - who ignored comments that he was not adhering to conference decisions … He has shown himself, for years, to be UNtrustworthy - why on earth should the media trust him when only those in the charismatic wing of the party actually trust him any longer. People who rail at the Lib Dems for going into a coalition with the Tories, stick with him when he's been doing his best to follow (coincidentally) the Tory line.

The magic label 'Socialist' seems to grant him a special controlling power over people. I'm no fan of Blair, on a purely personal level I could be a very happy little socialist, but … well, it's a party matter, for members to decide …

[Richard Barrett]

The magic label 'Socialist'

It's not a "magic label", it's a set of principles which, whatever else you may think of JC, he has clearly committed himself to throughout his political career which is exactly why he IS "trustworthy", having been as they say on the right side of history dozens of times when his party has shown itself to be UNtrustworthy when it comes to supporting the people it was originally set up to support. The "charismatic wing of the party" - please! that's Daily Mail talk: Labour taken over by a mad Trotskyite fringe etc. etc. - as burning dog has pointed out, many of the policies promoted by Labour under Corbyn are supported by very many people. Not, of course, so many people in the liberal and rightwing media

[teamsaint]

Well, team, I think there are others of your persuasion. But I'm not one of them. Even you make his stance simply sound devious - what's going to work out best for the Labour party (and me)? Even his MPs were frustrated with that.

As for the 'liberal media should have trusted Corbyn and the Labour strategy' - that appals me. The media are under no obligation to 'trust' politicians: they report - how it seems to them, how it seems to others. They can't all be party hacks. And Corbyn, having survived a vote of no confidence ('survived' it by taking no notice of it), has tried to railroad his MPs with three-line whips - he who rebelled against his party more often than any other as a backbencher - who ignored comments that he was not adhering to conference decisions … He has shown himself, for years, to be UNtrustworthy - why on earth should the media trust him when only those in the charismatic wing of the party actually trust him any longer. People who rail at the Lib Dems for going into a coalition with the Tories, stick with him when he's been doing his best to follow (coincidentally) the Tory line.

The magic label 'Socialist' seems to grant him a special controlling power over people. I'm no fan of Blair, on a purely personal level I could be a very happy little socialist, but … well, it's a party matter, for members to decide …

The bit about “ trust” was not of course an absolute, to be applied without thought. The media should be enquiring , challenging, questioning.
Three line whips are a part of our parliamentary system, and Corbyn was well within his rights to use them. Perhaps the parliamentary party should also have been more supportive, in the face of his overwhelming mandate from the wider party. If he is to be accused of being untrustworthy, then that label can also be stuck on way too many of his parliamentary colleagues.

[french frank]

#Richard: Socialism is a set of principles, socialist is a description or label. I think that anyone who adheres to those principles, and that probably does NOT include the entire Labour party, is likely to be 'trusted' by anyone else who shares those principles. But being more 'socialistic' than socialist, I don't think of a socialist, however unswervingly committed, as 'trustworthy' for that reason. I gave examples which, seen through my eyes, made Jeremy Corbyn seem more of an autocrat than a democrat, which I disapprove of; and being autocratic in pursuit of socialism doesn't make it acceptable to me, though it could be acceptable to another socialist.

As for the media, they're the product of a pluralist political world, some of it not very nice, some of it diabolically awful. But all political parties have to live with that. Corbyn hasn't (yet) suffered a newspaper determined to bring him down by uncovering a non-existent expenses scam, or a journalist posing as a constituent to try and trap a minister. The Liberal Democrats suffered that twice from the Daily Telegraph - because right-wingers, inside and outside Parliament, were as much against the coalition as the left-wing and wanted to bring it down. If the Tories try to scare their members with threats of 'Prime Minister Corbyn' the papers will report it. They're not interested in political theory. It's how things are - not just the press contra Jeremy Corbyn.

[Dave2002]

Three line whips are a part of our parliamentary system, and Corbyn was well within his rights to use them. Perhaps the parliamentary party should also have been more supportive, in the face of his overwhelming mandate from the wider party. If he is to be accused of being untrustworthy, then that label can also be stuck on way too many of his parliamentary colleagues.

Just because certain practices are "part of the system" doesn't make them justifiable - or at least only within a limited context. Why would a three line whip be more acceptable than a substantial bribe, for example? In some cases perhaps both are applied.

Relying on a tradition which may (arguably) have gone past its sell by date is not always a good argument, though works sometimes - but it is still a weak argument.

[teamsaint]

Just because certain practices are "part of the system" doesn't make them justifiable - or at least only within a limited context. Why would a three line whip be more acceptable than a substantial bribe, for example? In some cases perhaps both are applied.

Relying on a tradition which may (arguably) have gone past its sell by date is not always a good argument, though works sometimes - but it is still a weak argument.

My point isn’t that three line whips are a good or bad thing, simply that it is established practice, and accordingly shouldn’t be used as a stick to beat Corbyn, unless it is being used to beat all the parties.
And it isn’t, so JC is well within his “ rights”.

[Dave2002]

Follow up to msg 159 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnHnGyq0et4

[Dave2002]

My point isn’t that three line whips are a good or bad thing, simply that it is established practice, and accordingly shouldn’t be used as a stick to beat Corbyn, unless it is being used to beat all the parties.
And it isn’t, so JC is well within his “ rights”.

I agree with you, but I still think that the way both parties on occasion use three line whips is just plain wrong. My hope is that mostly that MPs should vote for what they believe in, not for what someone or some group of people decide they "should" vote for. There are added complications for some MPs - and indeed my own MP - should he vote in the direction "the country" wanted, should he vote the way his party tells him to vote, should he vote in the way his constituents wanted, or should he vote according to his own opinions? A reasonable interpretation was that he could have voted either way in the parliamentary debates, but he always sided with the government. Some other MPs were not in such a conflicting position.

[DracoM]

Well, team, I think there are others of your persuasion. But I'm not one of them. Even you make his stance simply sound devious - what's going to work out best for the Labour party (and me)? Even his MPs were frustrated with that.

As for the 'liberal media should have trusted Corbyn and the Labour strategy' - that appals me. The media are under no obligation to 'trust' politicians: they report - how it seems to them, how it seems to others. They can't all be party hacks. And Corbyn, having survived a vote of no confidence ('survived' it by taking no notice of it), has tried to railroad his MPs with three-line whips - he who rebelled against his party more often than any other as a backbencher - who ignored comments that he was not adhering to conference decisions … He has shown himself, for years, to be UNtrustworthy - why on earth should the media trust him when only those in the charismatic wing of the party actually trust him any longer. People who rail at the Lib Dems for going into a coalition with the Tories, stick with him when he's been doing his best to follow (coincidentally) the Tory line.

The magic label 'Socialist' seems to grant him a special controlling power over people. I'm no fan of Blair, on a purely personal level I could be a very happy little socialist, but … well, it's a party matter, for members to decide …

Top, top, posting, FF...........

[Bella Kemp]

As both our main parties have now become toxic brands, one wonders if it's now time for the Lib Dems (aka the Whigs) to take back control. As a once natural Labour supporter I've never supported them (apart from last week), but we now need a strong centre party and they could provide this.

[Serial_Apologist]

#Richard: Socialism is a set of principles, socialist is a description or label. I think that anyone who adheres to those principles, and that probably does NOT include the entire Labour party, is likely to be 'trusted' by anyone else who shares those principles. But being more 'socialistic' than socialist, I don't think of a socialist, however unswervingly committed, as 'trustworthy' for that reason. I gave examples which, seen through my eyes, made Jeremy Corbyn seem more of an autocrat than a democrat, which I disapprove of; and being autocratic in pursuit of socialism doesn't make it acceptable to me, though it could be acceptable to another socialist.

As for the media, they're the product of a pluralist political world, some of it not very nice, some of it diabolically awful. But all political parties have to live with that. Corbyn hasn't (yet) suffered a newspaper determined to bring him down by uncovering a non-existent expenses scam, or a journalist posing as a constituent to try and trap a minister. The Liberal Democrats suffered that twice from the Daily Telegraph - because right-wingers, inside and outside Parliament, were as much against the coalition as the left-wing and wanted to bring it down. If the Tories try to scare their members with threats of 'Prime Minister Corbyn' the papers will report it. They're not interested in political theory. It's how things are - not just the press contra Jeremy Corbyn.

I'm in total shock. I can't believe you're writing this kind of stuff.