Thanks for the thread leader and the observations within it.
I have indeed visited both Ellesmere Port and Wrexham!
Many people who attended Yale University make the trip to Wrexham.
There is a book for Yale alumni to sign as they pay their respects to Elihu Yale, buried improbably enough in St Giles, Wrexham,
That wasn't my reason for going, though it was university-related: my then girlfriend was studying there.
I wish I'd known: I might have had a look. I can't say I saw a great deal else that would trouble the tourist guides (though I can't say I was looking particularly hard either).
UKIP's standing candidates in relatively few seats (looks to be about half) is a major error on their part.
The Greens have already been kicking off about broadcast coverage, and this is grist to their mill.
Broadcasters have to take into account evidence of past and current support in complying with impartiality obligations. There will almost certainly be substantially more Green than UKIP candidates and, combined with the local elections, it detracts from UKIP's case to get more coverage, Question Time slots and so on than the Greens. And, for the future, it simply limits their national vote share. This will adversely affect coverage in future elections. They ought to have found paper candidates and stood in 500+ seats. This is what a death spiral looks like.
UKIP are still fighting more seats than did the Liberals pre-1974.
Judging by that speech, I think we can basically say corbyn wouldn't have backed action against the falklands (i think east timor and the med migrant crisis were interventions he agreed with)
Michael Foot backed the action in the Falklands. Fat lot of good it did him, but he did.
Also worth noting that in Wales, Lancashire and the West Country hunting isn't really a "toff" activity. It's not the horsemen from the HH or the Vine that May is after. It's the working class folks who hunt on foot.
I suspect this could reinforce some of the appeal in rather unexpected locations
A huge misapprehension about hunting is that it is toffs in red coats. 90% of a typical field in a typical hunt will be normal people.
But you are getting dangerously close to pointing out the facts there with that observation.
The Banwen Miners Hunt are called that for a reason. And I agree - barring the Beaufort on a Saturday most hunts are well under 50% toff, and that includes the mounted field. I hunt with my builder, my tree surgeon and the lady behind the till at the local petrol station.
And without wishing to throw anyone else to the wolves, do these people not know about organized pheasant shooting? Harmless birds bred solely to be shot in numbers of 100s per day (more than most hunts killed foxes per season when they killed foxes), the remains sold to go in tinned cat food if they get utilised at all, and the cost of a day beyond anyone without a hedge fund.
The trouble is, when it is pointed out that several other situations don't receive the same attention (killing mice in traps, shooting, killing rats) accusations fly around of "whataboutery". But you are right, if ever there was an activity ripe for examination.
I've just watched about five minutes of Jeremy Corbyn talking about defence and I have to say apart from the fact that this man's views chill me to the bone, he does look to be in his element in this kind of scenario.
The conservatives really do need to up their game because I feel Jeremy Corbyn is going to hog the headlines "again".
I think the opposite. His views will horrify the vast majority of every right thinking person in this country, and bashing America will not appeal to anyone outside of his personal core vote.
Plenty of people like the idea of standing up to america, even if they are not as overtly anti-american as Corbyn. The Tories are being complacent, assuming people will automatically dislike anything Corbyn says because he is the one saying it. I don't doubt he will find it harder to get a message across because he is not trusted or liked, but at the moment he is not making gaffes, he personally seems reasonable and affable when speaking, and he is moderating what he says to appear reasonable.
The Tories need to do better if they want to win big. And I don't buy that they would rather not win big in order to keep Corbyn in place.
Still tight - TP needs a rise in the Con vote and almost all the UKIP vote.
I don't think you're living the real world, kle4, if you believe the public are warming to Corbyn. As far as gaffes go, I would say just about everything Corbyn says is a gaffe, but I'm guessing most of that is priced in anyway. There's an irony in what you say about him moderating his language - it's simply incredible. As for the Labour manifesto, let's see what the public thinks after Labour's costings have been scrutinised. I predict a complete meltdown in these so-called popular pledges.
I agree to an extent that the Tories have so far been complacent (they can afford to) - but that will change markedly after next week. I don't think they've even started on Corbyn and McDonnell yet.</>
I completely agree. The Tory election machine hasn't even warmed up yet.
Bit of light monstering of Corbyn on the front of the Daily Mail today.
The car is into first gear anyway.
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
Well that Trident wheeze in the manifesto didn't last long...he just can't get himself to bend like John the Marxist.
Jeremy Corbyn could abandon a manifesto pledge to replace the UK’s Trident nuclear submarines within weeks of being elected as Prime Minister.
Labour is committing to the renewal of the nuclear deterrent in the party’s General Election manifesto.
But Mr Corbyn today refused to commit to a like-for-like replacement of the UK’s existing complement of four submarines needed to sustain a continuous at sea deterrent as he said the system would be renewed.
I can just hear the arguments now....Britain may have voted to leave Eurovision, but it did not vote to leave the Single (boom boom) Market, or the Broadcast Union.
I've just watched about five minutes of Jeremy Corbyn talking about defence and I have to say apart from the fact that this man's views chill me to the bone, he does look to be in his element in this kind of scenario.
The conservatives really do need to up their game because I feel Jeremy Corbyn is going to hog the headlines "again".
I think the opposite. His views will horrify the vast majority of every right thinking person in this country, and bashing America will not appeal to anyone outside of his personal core vote.
Plenty of people like the idea of standing up to america, even if they are not as overtly anti-american as Corbyn. The Tories are being complacent, assuming people will automatically dislike anything Corbyn says because he is the one saying it. I don't doubt he will find it harder to get a message across because he is not trusted or liked, but at the moment he is not making gaffes, he personally seems reasonable and affable when speaking, and he is moderating what he says to appear reasonable.
The Tories need to do better if they want to win big. And I don't buy that they would rather not win big in order to keep Corbyn in place.
Still tight - TP needs a rise in the Con vote and almost all the UKIP vote.
I don't think you're living the real world, kle4, if you believe the public are warming to Corbyn. As far as gaffes go, I would say just about everything Corbyn says is a gaffe, but I'm guessing most of that is priced in anyway. There's an irony in what you say about him moderating his language - it's simply incredible. As for the Labour manifesto, let's see what the public thinks after Labour's costings have been scrutinised. I predict a complete meltdown in these so-called popular pledges.
I agree to an extent that the Tories have so far been complacent (they can afford to) - but that will change markedly after next week. I don't think they've even started on Corbyn and McDonnell yet.</>
I completely agree. The Tory election machine hasn't even warmed up yet.
Bit of light monstering of Corbyn on the front of the Daily Mail today.
The car is into first gear anyway.
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
As for the Labour manifesto, let's see what the public thinks after Labour's costings have been scrutinised.
Save me from the Institute for Fiscal Studies. In their "Mirrlees Review" of the British tax system, billed as deep, far-reaching, and radical, these "independent" guys strangely didn't manage to say anything at all "radical" about either tax havens or inheritance tax.
The conservatives really do need to up their game because I feel Jeremy Corbyn is going to hog the headlines "again".
I think the opposite. His views will horrify the vast majority of every right thinking person in this country, and bashing America will not appeal to anyone outside of his personal core vote. Plenty of people like the idea of standing up to america, even if they are not as overtly anti-american as Corbyn. The Tories are being complacent, assuming people will automatically dislike anything Corbyn says because he is the one saying it. I don't doubt he will find it harder to get a message across because he is not trusted or liked, but at the moment he is not making gaffes, he personally seems reasonable and affable when speaking, and he is moderating what he says to appear reasonable.
The Tories need to do better if they want to win big. And I don't buy that they would rather not win big in order to keep Corbyn in place.
Still tight - TP needs a rise in the Con vote and almost all the UKIP vote.
I don't think you're living the real world, kle4, if you believe the public are warming to Corbyn.
I didn't say that. But he hasn't been making things any worse during the campaign to date, and in terms of firming up the Labour vote that could be the difference in plenty of seats. Appearing more reasonable may not win him many extra votes, because he is not trusted or liked, but there is a battle over whether Labour voters will turnout and how many might dislike him enough to vote for someone else. If the Tories give him a free hand those people might give him a chance, and that could be the difference between a bad night and a disastrous night.
I'm sure the Tories have loads lined up against him, and I'm not voting for any Labour candidate at any level while Corbyn is leader, but I think they're overestimating how offputting he will be in general.
'...But he hasn't been making things any worse during the campaign to date,'
I think we both know that is wishful thinking, especially if the pollsters are overestimating Labour again - and I believe they are. 30% is above what Brown got and only a fraction below Miliband's performance. It does not seem credible to me that Corbyn is doing that well.
'...but I think they're overestimating how offputting he will be in general.'
Here's where I completely disagree. I think they are underestimating.
I stick by what I said - 1992 all over again, without Labour's massively disproportionate electoral advantage.
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
Putting aside your nonsense...go look at who the Guardian have supported in the past for instance.
Bizarrely for the mud thrown at the Daily Mail (and plenty is deserved) not only are they one of the most read in print newspapers, their internet traffic is insane. Now a lot of it is people looking at the sidebar of shame and general tittle tattle, but people will not fail to notice if the Mail start sticking massive anti-Corbyn clickbait stuff up.
Well that Trident wheeze in the manifesto didn't last long...he just can't get himself to bend like John the Marxist.
Jeremy Corbyn could abandon a manifesto pledge to replace the UK’s Trident nuclear submarines within weeks of being elected as Prime Minister.
Labour is committing to the renewal of the nuclear deterrent in the party’s General Election manifesto.
But Mr Corbyn today refused to commit to a like-for-like replacement of the UK’s existing complement of four submarines needed to sustain a continuous at sea deterrent as he said the system would be renewed.
But it is far from the CND position adopted by Labour in the 1983 & 1987 elections. Perhaps more akin to Labour's stance on Polaris in 1964.
I've just watched about five minutes of Jeremy Corbyn talking about defence and I have to say apart from the fact that this man's views chill me to the bone, he does look to be in his element in this kind of scenario.
The conservatives really do need to up their game because I feel Jeremy Corbyn is going to hog the headlines "again".
I think the opposite. His views will horrify the vast majority of every right thinking person in this country, and bashing America will not appeal to anyone outside of his personal core vote.
Plenty of people like the idea of standing up to america, even if they are not as overtly anti-american as Corbyn. The Tories are being complacent, assuming people will automatically dislike anything Corbyn says because he is the one saying it. I don't doubt he will find it harder to get a message across because he is not trusted or liked, but at the moment he is not making gaffes, he personally seems reasonable and affable when speaking, and he is moderating what he says to appear reasonable.
The Tories need to do better if they want to win big. And I don't buy that they would rather not win big in order to keep Corbyn in place.
Still tight - TP needs a rise in the Con vote and almost all the UKIP vote.
I don't think you're living the real world, kle4, if you believe the public are warming to Corbyn. As far as gaffes go, I would say just about everything Corbyn says is a gaffe, but I'm guessing most of that is priced in anyway. There's an irony in what you say about him moderating his language - it's simply incredible. As for the Labour manifesto, let's see what the public thinks after Labour's costings have been scrutinised. I predict a complete meltdown in these so-called popular pledges.
I agree to an extent that the Tories have so far been complacent (they can afford to) - but that will change markedly after next week. I don't think they've even started on Corbyn and McDonnell yet.</>
I completely agree. The Tory election machine hasn't even warmed up yet.
Bit of light monstering of Corbyn on the front of the Daily Mail today.
The car is into first gear anyway.
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
The problem for Corbyn on defence is this ridiculous assertion of ethical foreign policy. Who the hell is promoting unethical fp? It's just a matter of perspective. He would never use nukes but he's going you buy them? He wouldn't commit troops but he's maintaining the 2% defence spend? He thinks Kosovo was a mistake..... it's just not joined up, it's batshit crazy.
The problem for Corbyn on defence is this ridiculous assertion of ethical foreign policy. Who the hell is promoting unethical fp? It's just a matter of perspective. He would never use nukes but he's going you buy them? He wouldn't commit troops but he's maintaining the 2% defence spend? He thinks Kosovo was a mistake..... it's just not joined up, it's batshit crazy.
Remember no drones either...
All I can guess is he is going to spend it on lots of plant pots for the offices and loads of paper pushers with little to nothing to do.
As for the Labour manifesto, let's see what the public thinks after Labour's costings have been scrutinised.
Save me from the Institute for Fiscal Studies. In their "Mirrlees Review" of the British tax system, billed as deep, far-reaching, and radical, these "independent" guys strangely didn't manage to say anything at all "radical" about either tax havens or inheritance tax.
Because they are paid for government agents. Obvs.
I've just watched about five minutes of Jeremy Corbyn talking about defence and I have to say apart from the fact that this man's views chill me to the bone, he does look to be in his element in this kind of scenario.
The conservatives really do need to up their game because I feel Jeremy Corbyn is going to hog the headlines "again".
I think the opposite. His views will horrify the vast majority of every right thinking person in this country, and bashing America will not appeal to anyone outside of his personal core vote.
Plenty of people like the idea of standing up to america, even if they are not as overtly anti-american as Corbyn. The Tories are being complacent, assuming people will automatically dislike anything Corbyn says because he is the one saying it. I don't doubt he will find it harder to get a message across because he is not trusted or liked, but at the moment he is not making gaffes, he personally seems reasonable and affable when speaking, and he is moderating what he says to appear reasonable.
The Tories need to do better if they want to win big. And I don't buy that they would rather not win big in order to keep Corbyn in place.
Still tight - TP needs a rise in the Con vote and almost all the UKIP vote.
I don't think you're living the real world, kle4, if you believe the public are warming to Corbyn. As far as gaffes go, I would say just about everything Corbyn says is a gaffe, but I'm guessing most of that is priced in anyway. There's an irony in what you say about him moderating his language - it's simply incredible. As for the Labour manifesto, let's see what the public thinks after Labour's costings have been scrutinised. I predict a complete meltdown in these so-called popular pledges.
I agree to an extent that the Tories have so far been complacent (they can afford to) - but that will change markedly after next week. I don't think they've even started on Corbyn and McDonnell yet.</>
I completely agree. The Tory election machine hasn't even warmed up yet.
Speak for yourself! In Torbay, up to 3 days ago we had already got 70,000 leaflets out since the election was called....
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
Putting aside your nonsense...go look at who the Guardian have supported in the past for instance.
Bizarrely for the mud thrown at the Daily Mail (and plenty is deserved) not only are they one of the most read in print newspapers, their internet traffic is insane. Now a lot of it is people looking at the sidebar of shame and general tittle tattle, but people will not fail to notice if the Mail start sticking massive anti-Corbyn clickbait stuff up.
It is not nonsense but historical fact - however inconvenient that might be to extreme rightwingers here. The Daily Mail supported Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. Why should Corbyn not take the opportunity to remind voters of that?
I've just watched about five minutes of Jeremy Corbyn talking about defence and I have to say apart from the fact that this man's views chill me to the bone, he does look to be in his element in this kind of scenario.
The conservatives really do need to up their game because I feel Jeremy Corbyn is going to hog the headlines "again".
I think the opposite. His views will horrify the vast majority of every right thinking person in this country, and bashing America will not appeal to anyone outside of his personal core vote.
Plenty of people like the idea of standing up to america, even if they are not as overtly anti-american as Corbyn. The Tories are being complacent, assuming people will automatically dislike anything Corbyn says because he is the one saying it. I don't doubt he will find it harder to get a message across because he is not trusted or liked, but at the moment he is not making gaffes, he personally seems reasonable and affable when speaking, and he is moderating what he says to appear reasonable.
The Tories need to do better if they want to win big. And I don't buy that they would rather not win big in order to keep Corbyn in place.
Still tight - TP needs a rise in the Con vote and almost all the UKIP vote.
I don't think you're living the real world, kle4, if you believe the public are warming to Corbyn.
I didn't say that. But he hasn't been making things any worse during the campaign to date, and in terms of firming up the Labour vote that could be the difference in plenty of seats. Appearing more reasonable may not win him many extra votes, because he is not trusted or liked, but there is a battle over whether Labour voters will turnout and how many might dislike him enough to vote for someone else. If the Tories give him a free hand those people might give him a chance, and that could be the difference between a bad night and a disastrous night.
I'm sure the Tories have loads lined up against him, and I'm not voting for any Labour candidate at any level while Corbyn is leader, but I think they're overestimating how offputting he will be in general.
How do you expect him to be doing worse? He has spectacularly bad ratings which are not really recovering. That he lags around ten points behind his party 20/30 in leader ratings, and TM about performs Tory ratings should say it all
Also worth noting that in Wales, Lancashire and the West Country hunting isn't really a "toff" activity. It's not the horsemen from the HH or the Vine that May is after. It's the working class folks who hunt on foot.
I suspect this could reinforce some of the appeal in rather unexpected locations
I disagree. I think it's about pumping up the richer and nastier Tory activists, by playing the "don't let the bearded commie oiks take away our fun" and "let's kill sentimentalism and the Labour party forever" card. The kind of cap doffer working class person who might be persuaded to vote Tory by Theresa May's support for foxhunting probably wouldn't dream of voting Labour.
Or it could possibly be a cockup, as SirNorfolkPassmore says.
I could make a killer Labour broadcast:
FILM OF THERESA MAY SAYING "You know what some people call us – the Nasty Party."
CUT TO A REDCOAT CARRYING THE TWITCHING BODY OF A SAVAGED FOX soundtrack: "the Nasty Party"
CUT TO A CHILD AT A FOXHUNT WITH BLOOD SMEARED ON ITS FACE soundtrack: "the Nasty Party"
Star wipe to a reconstruction of Boris on the phone trying to get that bloke beaten up.
I've just watched about five minutes of Jeremy Corbyn talking about defence and I have to say apart from the fact that this man's views chill me to the bone, he does look to be in his element in this kind of scenario.
The conservatives really do need to up their game because I feel Jeremy Corbyn is going to hog the headlines "again".
I think the opposite. His views will horrify the vast majority of every right thinking person in this country, and bashing America will not appeal to anyone outside of his personal core vote.
Plenty of people like the idea of standing up to america, even if they are not as overtly anti-american as Corbyn. The Tories are being complacent, assuming people will automatically dislike anything Corbyn says because he is the one saying it. I don't doubt he will find it harder to get a message across because he is not trusted or liked, but at the moment he is not making gaffes, he personally seems reasonable and affable when speaking, and he is moderating what he says to appear reasonable.
The Tories need to do better if they want to win big. And I don't buy that they would rather not win big in order to keep Corbyn in place.
Still tight - TP needs a rise in the Con vote and almost all the UKIP vote.
I don't think you're living the real world, kle4, if you believe the public are warming to Corbyn. As far as gaffes go, I would say just about everything Corbyn says is a gaffe, but I'm guessing most of that is priced in anyway. There's an irony in what you say about him moderating his language - it's simply incredible. As for the Labour manifesto, let's see what the public thinks after Labour's costings have been scrutinised. I predict a complete meltdown in these so-called popular pledges.
I agree to an extent that the Tories have so far been complacent (they can afford to) - but that will change markedly after next week. I don't think they've even started on Corbyn and McDonnell yet.</>
I completely agree. The Tory election machine hasn't even warmed up yet.
Bit of light monstering of Corbyn on the front of the Daily Mail today.
The car is into first gear anyway.
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
You mean Britain's most popular newspaper. Good luck with that meme Ken.
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
Putting aside your nonsense...go look at who the Guardian have supported in the past for instance.
Bizarrely for the mud thrown at the Daily Mail (and plenty is deserved) not only are they one of the most read in print newspapers, their internet traffic is insane. Now a lot of it is people looking at the sidebar of shame and general tittle tattle, but people will not fail to notice if the Mail start sticking massive anti-Corbyn clickbait stuff up.
It is not nonsense but historical fact - however inconvenient that might be to extreme rightwingers here. The Daily Mail supported Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. Why should Corbyn not take the opportunity to remind voters of that?
That was a long long time ago for heaven's sake. When most of those involved with the paper at the time are dead, who cares? If someone tells me the Mail is a hotbed of extremist and offensive nonsense, that's relevant, but because is supported Osward Mosley? What does that have to do with anything today?
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
Putting aside your nonsense...go look at who the Guardian have supported in the past for instance.
Bizarrely for the mud thrown at the Daily Mail (and plenty is deserved) not only are they one of the most read in print newspapers, their internet traffic is insane. Now a lot of it is people looking at the sidebar of shame and general tittle tattle, but people will not fail to notice if the Mail start sticking massive anti-Corbyn clickbait stuff up.
It is not nonsense but historical fact - however inconvenient that might be to extreme rightwingers here. The Daily Mail supported Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. Why should Corbyn not take the opportunity to remind voters of that?
Its nonsense in the context of it won't do anything except excite the cult. It is ancient history, shown by the fact that people continue to log onto the Mail website in droves and many are not extreme right wingers. It is well known that many readers are women and centre / soft left of centre looking for some gossip.
They have a business model the can only Guardian dream of.
Whenever the Daily Mail do an attack piece it is the first thing the tw@tteri bring up, but it doesn't work. It is better to expose flaws in the facts of their hit piece. The problem for Corbyn, unlike the Mail going for Ed through his father (which I thought was totally misguided), Corbyn is a walking / talking terrorist sympathizer.
As I say the Guardian have also in the past supported some real extremists, but that has no relation to their modern day positioning.
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
Putting aside your nonsense...go look at who the Guardian have supported in the past for instance.
Bizarrely for the mud thrown at the Daily Mail (and plenty is deserved) not only are they one of the most read in print newspapers, their internet traffic is insane. Now a lot of it is people looking at the sidebar of shame and general tittle tattle, but people will not fail to notice if the Mail start sticking massive anti-Corbyn clickbait stuff up.
It is not nonsense but historical fact - however inconvenient that might be to extreme rightwingers here. The Daily Mail supported Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. Why should Corbyn not take the opportunity to remind voters of that?
Yes - remind a vast swathe of voters who Labour need to vote for them that the paper they read once backed Fascists. These Labour folk are genius.
Also worth noting that in Wales, Lancashire and the West Country hunting isn't really a "toff" activity. It's not the horsemen from the HH or the Vine that May is after. It's the working class folks who hunt on foot.
I suspect this could reinforce some of the appeal in rather unexpected locations
If she is 'after them' why is she only promising a free vote rather than promising to repeal?
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
Putting aside your nonsense...go look at who the Guardian have supported in the past for instance.
Bizarrely for the mud thrown at the Daily Mail (and plenty is deserved) not only are they one of the most read in print newspapers, their internet traffic is insane. Now a lot of it is people looking at the sidebar of shame and general tittle tattle, but people will not fail to notice if the Mail start sticking massive anti-Corbyn clickbait stuff up.
It is not nonsense but historical fact - however inconvenient that might be to extreme rightwingers here. The Daily Mail supported Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. Why should Corbyn not take the opportunity to remind voters of that?
That was a long long time ago for heaven's sake. When most of those involved with the paper at the time are dead, who cares? If someone tells me the Mail is a hotbed of extremist and offensive nonsense, that's relevant, but because is supported Osward Mosley? What does that have to do with anything today?
For some, any paper that does not fawn at Corbyn’s feet must be branded with an –ism.
I've just watched about five minutes of Jeremy Corbyn talking about defence and I have to say apart from the fact that this man's views chill me to the bone, he does look to be in his element in this kind of scenario.
The conservatives really do need to up their game because I feel Jeremy Corbyn is going to hog the headlines "again".
I think the opposite. His views will horrify the vast majority of every right thinking person in this country, and bashing America will not appeal to anyone outside of his personal core vote.
Plenty of people like the idea of standing up to america, even if they are not as overtly anti-american as Corbyn. The Tories are being complacent, assuming people will automatically dislike anything Corbyn says because he is the one saying it. I don't doubt he will find it harder to get a message across because he is not trusted or liked, but at the moment he is not making gaffes, he personally seems reasonable and affable when speaking, and he is moderating what he says to appear reasonable.
The Tories need to do better if they want to win big. And I don't buy that they would rather not win big in order to keep Corbyn in place.
Still tight - TP needs a rise in the Con vote and almost all the UKIP vote.
I don't think you're living the real world, kle4, if you believe the public are warming to Corbyn. As far as gaffes go, I would say just about everything Corbyn says is a gaffe, but I'm guessing most of that is priced in anyway. There's an irony in what you say about him moderating his language - it's simply incredible. As for the Labour manifesto, let's see what the public thinks after Labour's costings have been scrutinised. I predict a complete meltdown in these so-called popular pledges.
I agree to an extent that the Tories have so far been complacent (they can afford to) - but that will change markedly after next week. I don't think they've even started on Corbyn and McDonnell yet.</>
I completely agree. The Tory election machine hasn't even warmed up yet.
Speak for yourself! In Torbay, up to 3 days ago we had already got 70,000 leaflets out since the election was called....
Apologies, I live in a very safe tory constituency and haven't seen any leaflets or posters of any colour yet
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
Putting aside your nonsense...go look at who the Guardian have supported in the past for instance.
Bizarrely for the mud thrown at the Daily Mail (and plenty is deserved) not only are they one of the most read in print newspapers, their internet traffic is insane. Now a lot of it is people looking at the sidebar of shame and general tittle tattle, but people will not fail to notice if the Mail start sticking massive anti-Corbyn clickbait stuff up.
It is not nonsense but historical fact - however inconvenient that might be to extreme rightwingers here. The Daily Mail supported Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. Why should Corbyn not take the opportunity to remind voters of that?
That was a long long time ago for heaven's sake. When most of those involved with the paper at the time are dead, who cares? If someone tells me the Mail is a hotbed of extremist and offensive nonsense, that's relevant, but because is supported Osward Mosley? What does that have to do with anything today?
It doesn't. It's like lambasting Clement Attlee's record on human rights for not overturning the law against homosexuality.
Also worth noting that in Wales, Lancashire and the West Country hunting isn't really a "toff" activity. It's not the horsemen from the HH or the Vine that May is after. It's the working class folks who hunt on foot.
I suspect this could reinforce some of the appeal in rather unexpected locations
I disagree. I think it's about pumping up the richer and nastier Tory activists, by playing the "don't let the bearded commie oiks take away our fun" and "let's kill sentimentalism and the Labour party forever" card. The kind of cap doffer working class person who might be persuaded to vote Tory by Theresa May's support for foxhunting probably wouldn't dream of voting Labour.
Or it could possibly be a cockup, as SirNorfolkPassmore says.
I could make a killer Labour broadcast:
FILM OF THERESA MAY SAYING "You know what some people call us – the Nasty Party."
CUT TO A REDCOAT CARRYING THE TWITCHING BODY OF A SAVAGED FOX soundtrack: "the Nasty Party"
CUT TO A CHILD AT A FOXHUNT WITH BLOOD SMEARED ON ITS FACE soundtrack: "the Nasty Party"
I could make a killer Tory broadcast
FILM OF Jeremy Corbyn SAYING "You know we oppose immigration controls and want a multicultural Britain"
CUT TO A newspaper article saying "at least 1400 young children were abused at Rotherham and the Local Labour Party and Labour MP and Labour council not only did nothing but turned a blind eyes to all complaints"
Cut to the picture of a young child in distress with caption "Failed by Labour's multicultrism"
Of course, the Labour Party appear to be more concerned about teh lives of foxes than young children in the UK..
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
Putting aside your nonsense...go look at who the Guardian have supported in the past for instance.
Bizarrely for the mud thrown at the Daily Mail (and plenty is deserved) not only are they one of the most read in print newspapers, their internet traffic is insane. Now a lot of it is people looking at the sidebar of shame and general tittle tattle, but people will not fail to notice if the Mail start sticking massive anti-Corbyn clickbait stuff up.
It is not nonsense but historical fact - however inconvenient that might be to extreme rightwingers here. The Daily Mail supported Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. Why should Corbyn not take the opportunity to remind voters of that?
Its nonsense in the context of it won't do anything except excite the cult. It is ancient history, shown by the fact that people continue to long onto the Mail website in droves and many are not extreme right wingers. They have a business model the can only Guardian dream of.
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
Putting aside your nonsense...go look at who the Guardian have supported in the past for instance.
Bizarrely for the mud thrown at the Daily Mail (and plenty is deserved) not only are they one of the most read in print newspapers, their internet traffic is insane. Now a lot of it is people looking at the sidebar of shame and general tittle tattle, but people will not fail to notice if the Mail start sticking massive anti-Corbyn clickbait stuff up.
It is not nonsense but historical fact - however inconvenient that might be to extreme rightwingers here. The Daily Mail supported Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. Why should Corbyn not take the opportunity to remind voters of that?
That was a long long time ago for heaven's sake. When most of those involved with the paper at the time are dead, who cares? If someone tells me the Mail is a hotbed of extremist and offensive nonsense, that's relevant, but because is supported Osward Mosley? What does that have to do with anything today?
"when most of those involved with the paper at the time are dead ..."
Most?! It was 80 years and more ago. I would have thought that not only are all those involved dead but that they died well before many people posting on PBC were even born.
'...But he hasn't been making things any worse during the campaign to date,'
I think we both know that is wishful thinking, especially if the pollsters are overestimating Labour again - and I believe they are. 30% is above what Brown got and only a fraction below Miliband's performance. It does not seem credible to me that Corbyn is doing that well.
'...but I think they're overestimating how offputting he will be in general.'
Here's where I completely disagree. I think they are underestimating.
I stick by what I said - 1992 all over again, without Labour's massively disproportionate electoral advantage.
With the decline in UKIP and some of that going to Labour (even if not most of it, which is going Tory), 30% is plausible, though I am very surprised we keep seeing it as 27-28 seems more likely.
But my point was that the scores for Corbyn are dreadful, but not everything he ever says or does is dreadful, and the Tories shouldn't just rely on people thinking everything he does is dreadful. Many Labour policies are, as we know, popular, but that need not help them much if the party and Corbyn are not trusted or liked enough, but they could do more to push that home.
Apart from May on foxes (and I only know about that from here and twitter), I don't recall anything of the Tory campaign other than Strong and Stable. Fine, in a straight choice between Corbyn and May I already know what I need to, but the Tories presumably want to maximise their victory, and so far they seem pretty lazy.
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
Putting aside your nonsense...go look at who the Guardian have supported in the past for instance.
Bizarrely for the mud thrown at the Daily Mail (and plenty is deserved) not only are they one of the most read in print newspapers, their internet traffic is insane. Now a lot of it is people looking at the sidebar of shame and general tittle tattle, but people will not fail to notice if the Mail start sticking massive anti-Corbyn clickbait stuff up.
It is not nonsense but historical fact - however inconvenient that might be to extreme rightwingers here. The Daily Mail supported Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. Why should Corbyn not take the opportunity to remind voters of that?
It's bad enough with Labour wanting to take us back to the politics of the 1970's. You want to take us back to the politics of the 1930's for heaven's sake.
Also worth noting that in Wales, Lancashire and the West Country hunting isn't really a "toff" activity. It's not the horsemen from the HH or the Vine that May is after. It's the working class folks who hunt on foot.
I suspect this could reinforce some of the appeal in rather unexpected locations
Hm, vote reinforcer rather than winner?
Vote winner / motivator with a very small group in key marginals.
Vitriolically opposed by people who were never going to vote for her anyway.
Most people will go "meh"
Downside, I suppose, is the time issue. But with the Labour manifesto, the Tories weren't getting much time anyway....
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
Putting aside your nonsense...go look at who the Guardian have supported in the past for instance.
Bizarrely for the mud thrown at the Daily Mail (and plenty is deserved) not only are they one of the most read in print newspapers, their internet traffic is insane. Now a lot of it is people looking at the sidebar of shame and general tittle tattle, but people will not fail to notice if the Mail start sticking massive anti-Corbyn clickbait stuff up.
It is not nonsense but historical fact - however inconvenient that might be to extreme rightwingers here. The Daily Mail supported Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. Why should Corbyn not take the opportunity to remind voters of that?
That was a long long time ago for heaven's sake. When most of those involved with the paper at the time are dead, who cares? If someone tells me the Mail is a hotbed of extremist and offensive nonsense, that's relevant, but because is supported Osward Mosley? What does that have to do with anything today?
It doesn't. It's like lambasting Clement Attlee's record on human rights for not overturning the law against homosexuality.
Yes - and let's not forget dear old William Beveridge and John Maynard Keynes - avid supporters of the EUGENICS movement.
Also worth noting that in Wales, Lancashire and the West Country hunting isn't really a "toff" activity. It's not the horsemen from the HH or the Vine that May is after. It's the working class folks who hunt on foot.
I suspect this could reinforce some of the appeal in rather unexpected locations
I disagree. I think it's about pumping up the richer and nastier Tory activists, by playing the "don't let the bearded commie oiks take away our fun" and "let's kill sentimentalism and the Labour party forever" card. The kind of cap doffer working class person who might be persuaded to vote Tory by Theresa May's support for foxhunting probably wouldn't dream of voting Labour.
Or it could possibly be a cockup, as SirNorfolkPassmore says.
I could make a killer Labour broadcast:
FILM OF THERESA MAY SAYING "You know what some people call us – the Nasty Party."
CUT TO A REDCOAT CARRYING THE TWITCHING BODY OF A SAVAGED FOX soundtrack: "the Nasty Party"
CUT TO A CHILD AT A FOXHUNT WITH BLOOD SMEARED ON ITS FACE soundtrack: "the Nasty Party"
Star wipe to a reconstruction of Boris on the phone trying to get that bloke beaten up.
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
Putting aside your nonsense...go look at who the Guardian have supported in the past for instance.
Bizarrely for the mud thrown at the Daily Mail (and plenty is deserved) not only are they one of the most read in print newspapers, their internet traffic is insane. Now a lot of it is people looking at the sidebar of shame and general tittle tattle, but people will not fail to notice if the Mail start sticking massive anti-Corbyn clickbait stuff up.
It is not nonsense but historical fact - however inconvenient that might be to extreme rightwingers here. The Daily Mail supported Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. Why should Corbyn not take the opportunity to remind voters of that?
That was a long long time ago for heaven's sake. When most of those involved with the paper at the time are dead, who cares? If someone tells me the Mail is a hotbed of extremist and offensive nonsense, that's relevant, but because is supported Osward Mosley? What does that have to do with anything today?
"when most of those involved with the paper at the time are dead ..."
Most?! It was 80 years and more ago. I would have thought that not only are all those involved dead but that they died well before many people posting on PBC were even born.
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
Putting aside your nonsense...go look at who the Guardian have supported in the past for instance.
Bizarrely for the mud thrown at the Daily Mail (and plenty is deserved) not only are they one of the most read in print newspapers, their internet traffic is insane. Now a lot of it is people looking at the sidebar of shame and general tittle tattle, but people will not fail to notice if the Mail start sticking massive anti-Corbyn clickbait stuff up.
It is not nonsense but historical fact - however inconvenient that might be to extreme rightwingers here. The Daily Mail supported Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. Why should Corbyn not take the opportunity to remind voters of that?
Its nonsense in the context of it won't do anything except excite the cult. It is ancient history, shown by the fact that people continue to long onto the Mail website in droves and many are not extreme right wingers. They have a business model the can only Guardian dream of.
But it is a fact that most readers are totally unaware of! By highlighting its past Corbyn could hope to counter the credibility of attacks on him by a newspaper from a neofascist stable.He should seek to label the paper as the rightwing equivalent of the Morning Star on the left!
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
Putting aside your nonsense...go look at who the Guardian have supported in the past for instance.
Bizarrely for the mud thrown at the Daily Mail (and plenty is deserved) not only are they one of the most read in print newspapers, their internet traffic is insane. Now a lot of it is people looking at the sidebar of shame and general tittle tattle, but people will not fail to notice if the Mail start sticking massive anti-Corbyn clickbait stuff up.
It is not nonsense but historical fact - however inconvenient that might be to extreme rightwingers here. The Daily Mail supported Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. Why should Corbyn not take the opportunity to remind voters of that?
Its nonsense in the context of it won't do anything except excite the cult. It is ancient history, shown by the fact that people continue to long onto the Mail website in droves and many are not extreme right wingers. They have a business model the can only Guardian dream of.
But it is a fact that most readers are totally unaware of! By highlighting its past Corbyn could hope to counter the credibility of attacks on him by a newspaper from a neofascist stable.He should seek to label the paper as the rightwing equivalent of the Morning Star on the left!
And it will fail miserably. It is brought up time and time again and it doesn't work.
A better attack is pointing out inaccuracies in their reporting. The problem is with Corbyn they don't have to try and stretch the truth as they did with Ed to try and portray him as a left wing extremist.
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
Putting aside your nonsense...go look at who the Guardian have supported in the past for instance.
Bizarrely for the mud thrown at the Daily Mail (and plenty is deserved) not only are they one of the most read in print newspapers, their internet traffic is insane. Now a lot of it is people looking at the sidebar of shame and general tittle tattle, but people will not fail to notice if the Mail start sticking massive anti-Corbyn clickbait stuff up.
It is not nonsense but historical fact - however inconvenient that might be to extreme rightwingers here. The Daily Mail supported Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. Why should Corbyn not take the opportunity to remind voters of that?
Its nonsense in the context of it won't do anything except excite the cult. It is ancient history, shown by the fact that people continue to long onto the Mail website in droves and many are not extreme right wingers. They have a business model the can only Guardian dream of.
But it is a fact that most readers are totally unaware of! By highlighting its past Corbyn could hope to counter the credibility of attacks on him by a newspaper from a neofascist stable.He should seek to label the paper as the rightwing equivalent of the Morning Star on the left!
And what would any rational person think when they are told this shocking news? "Oh, that was 80 years ago"
It was the Daily Mirror, Corbyn's noisiest cheerleader, which notoriously carried a headline in January 1934: "Give the Blackshirts a helping hand." The paper even urged readers to join the British Union of Fascists.
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
Putting aside your nonsense...go look at who the Guardian have supported in the past for instance.
Bizarrely for the mud thrown at the Daily Mail (and plenty is deserved) not only are they one of the most read in print newspapers, their internet traffic is insane. Now a lot of it is people looking at the sidebar of shame and general tittle tattle, but people will not fail to notice if the Mail start sticking massive anti-Corbyn clickbait stuff up.
It is not nonsense but historical fact - however inconvenient that might be to extreme rightwingers here. The Daily Mail supported Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. Why should Corbyn not take the opportunity to remind voters of that?
It's bad enough with Labour wanting to take us back to the politics of the 1970's. You want to take us back to the politics of the 1930's for heaven's sake.
In what way are they seeking to take us back to the 1970s?
I've just watched about five minutes of Jeremy Corbyn talking about defence and I have to say apart from the fact that this man's views chill me to the bone, he does look to be in his element in this kind of scenario.
The conservatives really do need to up their game because I feel Jeremy Corbyn is going to hog the headlines "again".
I think the opposite. His views will horrify the vast majority of every right thinking person in this country, and bashing America will not appeal to anyone outside of his personal core vote.
Plenty of people like the idea of standing up to america, even if they are not as overtly anti-american as Corbyn. The Tories are being complacent, assuming people will automatically dislike anything Corbyn says because he is the one saying it. I don't doubt he will find it harder to get a message across because he is not trusted or liked, but at the moment he is not making gaffes, he personally seems reasonable and affable when speaking, and he is moderating what he says to appear reasonable.
The Tories need to do better if they want to win big. And I don't buy that they would rather not win big in order to keep Corbyn in place.
Still tight - TP needs a rise in the Con vote and almost all the UKIP vote.
I don't think you're living the real world, kle4, if you believe the public are warming to Corbyn. As far as gaffes go, I would say just about everything Corbyn says is a gaffe, but I'm guessing most of that is priced in anyway. There's an irony in what you say about him moderating his language - it's simply incredible. As for the Labour manifesto, let's see what the public thinks after Labour's costings have been scrutinised. I predict a complete meltdown in these so-called popular pledges.
I agree to an extent that the Tories have so far been complacent (they can afford to) - but that will change markedly after next week. I don't think they've even started on Corbyn and McDonnell yet.</>
I completely agree. The Tory election machine hasn't even warmed up yet.
So we keep hearing. At what point will the lack of heat be important?
It was the Daily Mirror, Corbyn's noisiest cheerleader, which notoriously carried a headline in January 1934: "Give the Blackshirts a helping hand." The paper even urged readers to join the British Union of Fascists.
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
Putting aside your nonsense...go look at who the Guardian have supported in the past for instance.
Bizarrely for the mud thrown at the Daily Mail (and plenty is deserved) not only are they one of the most read in print newspapers, their internet traffic is insane. Now a lot of it is people looking at the sidebar of shame and general tittle tattle, but people will not fail to notice if the Mail start sticking massive anti-Corbyn clickbait stuff up.
It is not nonsense but historical fact - however inconvenient that might be to extreme rightwingers here. The Daily Mail supported Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. Why should Corbyn not take the opportunity to remind voters of that?
Because the Daily Mail isn't standing for election?
UKIP's standing candidates in relatively few seats (looks to be about half) is a major error on their part.
The Greens have already been kicking off about broadcast coverage, and this is grist to their mill.
Broadcasters have to take into account evidence of past and current support in complying with impartiality obligations. There will almost certainly be substantially more Green than UKIP candidates and, combined with the local elections, it detracts from UKIP's case to get more coverage, Question Time slots and so on than the Greens. And, for the future, it simply limits their national vote share. This will adversely affect coverage in future elections. They ought to have found paper candidates and stood in 500+ seats. This is what a death spiral looks like.
UKIP are still fighting more seats than did the Liberals pre-1974.
The Liberals won 6 seats in the 1970 general election. UKIP 2017 .... titter ....
So we keep hearing. At what point will the lack of heat be important?
I just wondering....I remember thinking in 2015 the Tory election machine didn't really seem to have got going, not until the last couple of weeks. But according to insiders that actually made little difference to the result, they had quietly under the surface already done huge amounts of work in key seats and their polling was telling them they had got the messages they wanted across.
Perhaps we are still thinking about fighting old schoo, pre internet, pre social media, GE's. Where you needed to be on the telly every day to get your message out.
Also worth noting that in Wales, Lancashire and the West Country hunting isn't really a "toff" activity. It's not the horsemen from the HH or the Vine that May is after. It's the working class folks who hunt on foot.
I suspect this could reinforce some of the appeal in rather unexpected locations
I disagree. I think it's about pumping up the richer and nastier Tory activists, by playing the "don't let the bearded commie oiks take away our fun" and "let's kill sentimentalism and the Labour party forever" card. The kind of cap doffer working class person who might be persuaded to vote Tory by Theresa May's support for foxhunting probably wouldn't dream of voting Labour.
Or it could possibly be a cockup, as SirNorfolkPassmore says.
I could make a killer Labour broadcast:
FILM OF THERESA MAY SAYING "You know what some people call us – the Nasty Party."
CUT TO A REDCOAT CARRYING THE TWITCHING BODY OF A SAVAGED FOX soundtrack: "the Nasty Party"
CUT TO A CHILD AT A FOXHUNT WITH BLOOD SMEARED ON ITS FACE soundtrack: "the Nasty Party"
Star wipe to a reconstruction of Boris on the phone trying to get that bloke beaten up.
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
I wonder what Adolf Hitler's favourite breakfast cereal was? Should they be shamed into closing down production today as a result?
It was 80 years ago for God's sake. Even if we accepted your point that the Daily Mail supported Hitler, do you think it still eulogises Adolf Hitler today? If not, WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
If you want to make a point about people still backing those that history has condemned for the destructive consequences of their views and actions, then let's give a kicking to those who still think Karl Marx has something to say to the modern world. Or those who thought Chairman Mao had it right in his Little Red Book - whilst overseeing the death of 45 million in just four years in the Great Leap Forward.
Thank God nobody who espoused support for such idiotic ideologues and mass-murdering criminals is still seeking political office today.
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
I wonder what Adolf Hitler's favourite breakfast cereal was? Should they be shamed into closing down production today as a result?
It was 80 years ago for God's sake. Even if we accepted your point that the Daily Mail supported Hitler, do you think it still eulogises Adolf Hitler today? If not, WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
If you want to make a point about people still backing those that history has condemned for the destructive consequences of their views and actions, then let's give a kicking to those who still think Karl Marx has something to say to the modern world. Or those who thought Chairman Mao had it right in his Little Red Book - whilst overseeing the death of 45 million in just four years in the Great Leap Forward.
Thank God nobody who espoused support for such idiotic ideologues and mass-murdering criminals is still seeking political office today.
Oh......
Nobody ever buy a VW or a Hugo Boss suit every again....
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
Putting aside your nonsense...go look at who the Guardian have supported in the past for instance.
Bizarrely for the mud thrown at the Daily Mail (and plenty is deserved) not only are they one of the most read in print newspapers, their internet traffic is insane. Now a lot of it is people looking at the sidebar of shame and general tittle tattle, but people will not fail to notice if the Mail start sticking massive anti-Corbyn clickbait stuff up.
It is not nonsense but historical fact - however inconvenient that might be to extreme rightwingers here. The Daily Mail supported Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. Why should Corbyn not take the opportunity to remind voters of that?
Because the Daily Mail isn't standing for election?
Indeed - but it is reporting the election and will be reporting him in a very negative light. Why should he not return the compliment?
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
Putting aside your nonsense...go look at who the Guardian have supported in the past for instance.
Bizarrely for the mud thrown at the Daily Mail (and plenty is deserved) not only are they one of the most read in print newspapers, their internet traffic is insane. Now a lot of it is people looking at the sidebar of shame and general tittle tattle, but people will not fail to notice if the Mail start sticking massive anti-Corbyn clickbait stuff up.
It is not nonsense but historical fact - however inconvenient that might be to extreme rightwingers here. The Daily Mail supported Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. Why should Corbyn not take the opportunity to remind voters of that?
That was a long long time ago for heaven's sake. When most of those involved with the paper at the time are dead, who cares? If someone tells me the Mail is a hotbed of extremist and offensive nonsense, that's relevant, but because is supported Osward Mosley? What does that have to do with anything today?
"when most of those involved with the paper at the time are dead ..."
Most?! It was 80 years and more ago. I would have thought that not only are all those involved dead but that they died well before many people posting on PBC were even born.
Well, I didn't want to rule out some long lived intern. Some of these fascists last a long time.
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
Putting aside your nonsense...go look at who the Guardian have supported in the past for instance.
Bizarrely for the mud thrown at the Daily Mail (and plenty is deserved) not only are they one of the most read in print newspapers, their internet traffic is insane. Now a lot of it is people looking at the sidebar of shame and general tittle tattle, but people will not fail to notice if the Mail start sticking massive anti-Corbyn clickbait stuff up.
It is not nonsense but historical fact - however inconvenient that might be to extreme rightwingers here. The Daily Mail supported Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. Why should Corbyn not take the opportunity to remind voters of that?
Because the Daily Mail isn't standing for election?
Indeed - but it is reporting the election and will be reporting him in a very negative light. Why should he not return the compliment?
I suspect it would not be wise for Corbyn to focus on the past.
It was the Daily Mirror, Corbyn's noisiest cheerleader, which notoriously carried a headline in January 1934: "Give the Blackshirts a helping hand." The paper even urged readers to join the British Union of Fascists.
Yep. Then owned by Lord Rothermere who also owned the Mail. I wonder what the fash loving common thread was?
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
Putting aside your nonsense...go look at who the Guardian have supported in the past for instance.
Bizarrely for the mud thrown at the Daily Mail (and plenty is deserved) not only are they one of the most read in print newspapers, their internet traffic is insane. Now a lot of it is people looking at the sidebar of shame and general tittle tattle, but people will not fail to notice if the Mail start sticking massive anti-Corbyn clickbait stuff up.
It is not nonsense but historical fact - however inconvenient that might be to extreme rightwingers here. The Daily Mail supported Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. Why should Corbyn not take the opportunity to remind voters of that?
It's bad enough with Labour wanting to take us back to the politics of the 1970's. You want to take us back to the politics of the 1930's for heaven's sake.
In what way are they seeking to take us back to the 1970s?
Giving power to the Unions. Clueless management of the country. Uncosted spending. The 1976 IMF crisis (where we took the largest loan from the IMF that had been requested up to that time)
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
Putting aside your nonsense...go look at who the Guardian have supported in the past for instance.
Bizarrely for the mud thrown at the Daily Mail (and plenty is deserved) not only are they one of the most read in print newspapers, their internet traffic is insane. Now a lot of it is people looking at the sidebar of shame and general tittle tattle, but people will not fail to notice if the Mail start sticking massive anti-Corbyn clickbait stuff up.
It is not nonsense but historical fact - however inconvenient that might be to extreme rightwingers here. The Daily Mail supported Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. Why should Corbyn not take the opportunity to remind voters of that?
Because the Daily Mail isn't standing for election?
Indeed - but it is reporting the election and will be reporting him in a very negative light. Why should he not return the compliment?
Because what happened before most of the staff on it were born is irrelevant? The paper's stance 80 years ago has nothing to do with why they are negative toward him now. If he wants to show them in a negative light, he doesn't need to bring up details of things that happened before he was born to do so. It's laughable, and I don't even read the damn Mail.
He can just do the Trump thing and talk about fake news, and poor reporting and all that no need to try to make the argument 'The paper supported fascists 80 years = they are fascists now by association' argument.
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
I wonder what Adolf Hitler's favourite breakfast cereal was? Should they be shamed into closing down production today as a result?
It was 80 years ago for God's sake. Even if we accepted your point that the Daily Mail supported Hitler, do you think it still eulogises Adolf Hitler today? If not, WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
If you want to make a point about people still backing those that history has condemned for the destructive consequences of their views and actions, then let's give a kicking to those who still think Karl Marx has something to say to the modern world. Or those who thought Chairman Mao had it right in his Little Red Book - whilst overseeing the death of 45 million in just four years in the Great Leap Forward.
Thank God nobody who espoused support for such idiotic ideologues and mass-murdering criminals is still seeking political office today.
Oh......
The point is that the Daily Mail has a longstanding hitory of rightwing extremism and is no more to be trusted for objective reporting than the Morning Star.
Also worth noting that in Wales, Lancashire and the West Country hunting isn't really a "toff" activity. It's not the horsemen from the HH or the Vine that May is after. It's the working class folks who hunt on foot.
I suspect this could reinforce some of the appeal in rather unexpected locations
I disagree. I think it's about pumping up the richer and nastier Tory activists, by playing the "don't let the bearded commie oiks take away our fun" and "let's kill sentimentalism and the Labour party forever" card. The kind of cap doffer working class person who might be persuaded to vote Tory by Theresa May's support for foxhunting probably wouldn't dream of voting Labour.
Or it could possibly be a cockup, as SirNorfolkPassmore says.
I could make a killer Labour broadcast:
FILM OF THERESA MAY SAYING "You know what some people call us – the Nasty Party."
CUT TO A REDCOAT CARRYING THE TWITCHING BODY OF A SAVAGED FOX soundtrack: "the Nasty Party"
CUT TO A CHILD AT A FOXHUNT WITH BLOOD SMEARED ON ITS FACE soundtrack: "the Nasty Party"
Star wipe to a reconstruction of Boris on the phone trying to get that bloke beaten up.
Yes!!
hts://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDJWkS2A9T0
A most unlikely hit man I'd have thought! Guppy must've been desperate
It's ok, IIRC they never did beat the man up. So it's all good.
So we keep hearing. At what point will the lack of heat be important?
I just wondering....I remember thinking in 2015 the Tory election machine didn't really seem to have got going, not until the last couple of weeks. But according to insiders that actually made little difference to the result, they had quietly under the surface already done huge amounts of work in key seats and their polling was telling them they had got the messages they wanted across.
Perhaps we are still thinking about fighting old schoo, pre internet, pre social media, GE's. Where you needed to be on the telly every day to get your message out.
I've been thinking the same. During the campaign there was lots of commentary about how the Conservatives were invisible, Labour's ground game etc. Of course after the campaign it was all Lynton Crosby is a genius. I'm inclined to reserve judgment on the campaigns and just look at the polling.
Edit: mind you, the polling was all that good last time either...
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
I wonder what Adolf Hitler's favourite breakfast cereal was? Should they be shamed into closing down production today as a result?
It was 80 years ago for God's sake. Even if we accepted your point that the Daily Mail supported Hitler, do you think it still eulogises Adolf Hitler today? If not, WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
If you want to make a point about people still backing those that history has condemned for the destructive consequences of their views and actions, then let's give a kicking to those who still think Karl Marx has something to say to the modern world. Or those who thought Chairman Mao had it right in his Little Red Book - whilst overseeing the death of 45 million in just four years in the Great Leap Forward.
Thank God nobody who espoused support for such idiotic ideologues and mass-murdering criminals is still seeking political office today.
But that is coming from Adolf Hitler's favourite British newspaper - a point that Corbyn would do well to draw to public attention.
Putting aside your nonsense...go look at who the Guardian have supported in the past for instance.
Bizarrely for the mud thrown at the Daily Mail (and plenty is deserved) not only are they one of the most read in print newspapers, their internet traffic is insane. Now a lot of it is people looking at the sidebar of shame and general tittle tattle, but people will not fail to notice if the Mail start sticking massive anti-Corbyn clickbait stuff up.
It is not nonsense but historical fact - however inconvenient that might be to extreme rightwingers here. The Daily Mail supported Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. Why should Corbyn not take the opportunity to remind voters of that?
Is he going to have a go at Barclays for facilitating slavery as well?
Comments
I wish I'd known: I might have had a look. I can't say I saw a great deal else that would trouble the tourist guides (though I can't say I was looking particularly hard either).
https://candidates.democracyclub.org.uk/media/candidates-parl.2017-06-08.csv
The conservatives really do need to up their game because I feel Jeremy Corbyn is going to hog the headlines "again".
I think the opposite. His views will horrify the vast majority of every right thinking person in this country, and bashing America will not appeal to anyone outside of his personal core vote. Plenty of people like the idea of standing up to america, even if they are not as overtly anti-american as Corbyn. The Tories are being complacent, assuming people will automatically dislike anything Corbyn says because he is the one saying it. I don't doubt he will find it harder to get a message across because he is not trusted or liked, but at the moment he is not making gaffes, he personally seems reasonable and affable when speaking, and he is moderating what he says to appear reasonable.
The Tories need to do better if they want to win big. And I don't buy that they would rather not win big in order to keep Corbyn in place. Still tight - TP needs a rise in the Con vote and almost all the UKIP vote.
I don't think you're living the real world, kle4, if you believe the public are warming to Corbyn.
I didn't say that. But he hasn't been making things any worse during the campaign to date, and in terms of firming up the Labour vote that could be the difference in plenty of seats. Appearing more reasonable may not win him many extra votes, because he is not trusted or liked, but there is a battle over whether Labour voters will turnout and how many might dislike him enough to vote for someone else. If the Tories give him a free hand those people might give him a chance, and that could be the difference between a bad night and a disastrous night.
I'm sure the Tories have loads lined up against him, and I'm not voting for any Labour candidate at any level while Corbyn is leader, but I think they're overestimating how offputting he will be in general.
'...But he hasn't been making things any worse during the campaign to date,'
I think we both know that is wishful thinking, especially if the pollsters are overestimating Labour again - and I believe they are. 30% is above what Brown got and only a fraction below Miliband's performance. It does not seem credible to me that Corbyn is doing that well.
'...but I think they're overestimating how offputting he will be in general.'
Here's where I completely disagree. I think they are underestimating.
I stick by what I said - 1992 all over again, without Labour's massively disproportionate electoral advantage.
Bizarrely for the mud thrown at the Daily Mail (and plenty is deserved) not only are they one of the most read in print newspapers, their internet traffic is insane. Now a lot of it is people looking at the sidebar of shame and general tittle tattle, but people will not fail to notice if the Mail start sticking massive anti-Corbyn clickbait stuff up.
All I can guess is he is going to spend it on lots of plant pots for the offices and loads of paper pushers with little to nothing to do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDJWkS2A9T0
They have a business model the can only Guardian dream of.
Whenever the Daily Mail do an attack piece it is the first thing the tw@tteri bring up, but it doesn't work. It is better to expose flaws in the facts of their hit piece. The problem for Corbyn, unlike the Mail going for Ed through his father (which I thought was totally misguided), Corbyn is a walking / talking terrorist sympathizer.
As I say the Guardian have also in the past supported some real extremists, but that has no relation to their modern day positioning.
FILM OF Jeremy Corbyn SAYING "You know we oppose immigration controls and want a multicultural Britain"
CUT TO A newspaper article saying "at least 1400 young children were abused at Rotherham and the Local Labour Party and Labour MP and Labour council not only did nothing but turned a blind eyes to all complaints"
Cut to the picture of a young child in distress with caption "Failed by Labour's multicultrism"
Of course, the Labour Party appear to be more concerned about teh lives of foxes than young children in the UK..
There you are.. which would resonate betetr?
Most?! It was 80 years and more ago. I would have thought that not only are all those involved dead but that they died well before many people posting on PBC were even born.
But my point was that the scores for Corbyn are dreadful, but not everything he ever says or does is dreadful, and the Tories shouldn't just rely on people thinking everything he does is dreadful. Many Labour policies are, as we know, popular, but that need not help them much if the party and Corbyn are not trusted or liked enough, but they could do more to push that home.
Apart from May on foxes (and I only know about that from here and twitter), I don't recall anything of the Tory campaign other than Strong and Stable. Fine, in a straight choice between Corbyn and May I already know what I need to, but the Tories presumably want to maximise their victory, and so far they seem pretty lazy.
You want to take us back to the politics of the 1930's for heaven's sake.
Vitriolically opposed by people who were never going to vote for her anyway.
Most people will go "meh"
Downside, I suppose, is the time issue. But with the Labour manifesto, the Tories weren't getting much time anyway....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRXKHTTzayU
A better attack is pointing out inaccuracies in their reporting. The problem is with Corbyn they don't have to try and stretch the truth as they did with Ed to try and portray him as a left wing extremist.
http://i1.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article4436284.ece/ALTERNATES/s1227b/Daily-Mirror-2921936.jpg
His use of Twitter already contributed to one court defeat. I can't wait to see it being quoted in other proceedings.
His letter to Comey is already being suggested as him giving up executive privilege.
Perhaps we are still thinking about fighting old schoo, pre internet, pre social media, GE's. Where you needed to be on the telly every day to get your message out.
It was 80 years ago for God's sake. Even if we accepted your point that the Daily Mail supported Hitler, do you think it still eulogises Adolf Hitler today? If not, WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
If you want to make a point about people still backing those that history has condemned for the destructive consequences of their views and actions, then let's give a kicking to those who still think Karl Marx has something to say to the modern world. Or those who thought Chairman Mao had it right in his Little Red Book - whilst overseeing the death of 45 million in just four years in the Great Leap Forward.
Thank God nobody who espoused support for such idiotic ideologues and mass-murdering criminals is still seeking political office today.
Oh......
A polling error such that the French had in their final Macron vote leaves Labour on about 23%, and the Tories on 49% I think !
Then owned by Lord Rothermere who also owned the Mail. I wonder what the fash loving common thread was?
Danczuk when he was 12-1 was OK I think, but a market for the very brave in my opinion...
Clueless management of the country.
Uncosted spending.
The 1976 IMF crisis (where we took the largest loan from the IMF that had been requested up to that time)
I lived through it and it was not pretty.
He can just do the Trump thing and talk about fake news, and poor reporting and all that no need to try to make the argument 'The paper supported fascists 80 years = they are fascists now by association' argument.
LAB 166
L DEM 7
UKIP 0
GREEN 1
SNP 47
PLAID 3
OTHER 1
would be my guess on those figures.#
Remain Leave
CON 30 67
LAB 38 19
L DEM 18 2
UKIP 0 8
GREEN 6 1
SNP 6 1
PLAID 1 1
Other 1 1
And a manual adjustment of 7 extra seats for the Tories from the SNP in Scotland.
Edit: mind you, the polling was all that good last time either...
Fearing the #LibDemFightback
https://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Green-Were-Nazis-Environment/dp/0821416472#reader_0821416472
Biggest chance of busting people's sub 10 seat bets from anywhere.