Blog powered by Typepad

« 'Fat Boy Kim' loses weight! | Main | Your Monday Funnies: 23.4.18 »

Sunday, 22 April 2018


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Without Corbyn momentum will have trouble finding a champion who doesn't look like a bully. And Corbyn's cuddly image is responsible for a lot of his appeal to the public.
Also Labour's poll position is slowly eroding, despite May's uninspiring performance.
My guess is Labour will be taken over by momentum, loose Corbyn and then decline amongst much recrimination and many splits.
How the rest of the political class will realign after that is an interesting conundrum.

The wikipedia link you give for "The Quiet Place" goes to the wrong quiet place. I think you meant

Is there any chance that a Jezza-less Labour party could be put out of its misery and tossed on the ash pile of history? Such a fine thing might force some people to actually do some thinking about things instead of just Pavlovian responses to worn out "fight" cliches.

I fully expect to be taking some serious flak here (from my fellow Americans - Whitewall? Michael?) but I rather prefer the opposition party to hold at least one chamber of government. The House preferably. And with the prospect of a looming impeachment effort (very slight possibility in my humble opinion - if only because while the House may "lead", the Senate will not follow).

Candidly, I don't know why our media is so "worked up" over the possibility, History tends to show a mid-term turnover anyway (LBJ's first mid-term springs to mind as the exception. There may've been others since, Bob?) and while my fellow conservatives may howl at my heresy do recall LBJ getting in over his head with Viet Nam?

Still - look at what Bill 'n Newt managed. None of that'd been possible with the Dems continuing majorities in the House, Senate, and Executive.

*Side benefit - blame gets spread around in the event of a blunder. See Eisenhower.


See LBJ.


In a normal year I would say your right, and you probably are this year. It depends on how much the "no-Trump or die" talk is hot air or suicidal intent.

Precisely Hank.

The "hot air" consideration, again my opinion, can likely be put down to exercising the base. However I think, the Established Dems (note my not using "Establishment Dems") recognize the impeachment option in actuality to be liable to backfire ie, demoralizing long[er] term. The "suicidal intent" side of your equation.

I suppose we shall see.

*There is the distinct likelihood/possibility that, in much the same way as "immediately after" the Prez election Trump voters/supporters preferred (for safety's sake) relative anonymity. And if that turns out to be the case - the House Rs may well perform better than expected.

Nixon's "Silent Majority" to use a somewhat shopworn term.

The only recent exceptions to the party in power losing the mid terms are Clinton in 1998 and W. Bush in 2002. Lloyd Marcus's emotive public relations announcement summarizes how Republicans will attempt to characterize Democrats during this year's mid terms. We'll see how it balances against the Trump factor.

Frank, thank you for your correction.

JK, sorry but I prefer to hold everything. Post Obama, we are in a different America. I'm interested in finding out who stands where- in both political parties. I don't like the "pale pastels" they used to talk about among the chattering class. I prefer sharp distinctions.

It was Sir Walter who landed with colonists at Roanoke Island (North Carolina) in 1585. It is gratifying to see he had such a nice home in England. Too bad about that execution thing. Not letting that slow us down, we finally named our state capitol after him.

Well Whitewall, at least it wasn't "flak" as I suspected.

I think tho', those "pale pastels" you've mentioned won't be given that "the secret ballot" remains in place. Just happy that, whatever happens when CNN declares, my neighborhood will still be deep red.

No Molotov's through my windows in any event.

Typo alert! "the obvious contender, John McDonnell" Shouldn't you have typed "the odious contender"?

The comments to this entry are closed.