Labour can probably kiss goodbye to winning seats like Hendon and Finchley if Corbyn is elected leader. They might lose Ilford North where there is still a significant Jewish population.
But an even bigger Asian population? I should know, been living here since the late 1970s.
Under JC I would expect Labour to gain more of the Muslim vote, but lose - as they are already doing - more of the Sikh and Hindu vote (and entirely forsake the Jewish vote).
I imagine he'd be voter-neutral for Black Brits, and might gain a few Scots.
He would of course make most white English voters puke into their shoes, and therefore lose the election by a distance.
I doubt - even now - if more than 5% of British voters have a clue what Jez Corbyn historically believes, and supports, and espouses, from the IRA to Hamas.
Once he is elected, the media will go to town on him. He represents the biggest target for the Tory redtops since Michael Foot fisted that underaged Jewish gerbil on Jim'll Fix It (which never actually happened, so this is worse). Corbyn will not survive this onslaught as an electable figure. He will emerge with a core support of 20-25%, is my guess, and would achieve that at a GE.
Interesting to note that the papers have kept their powder well dry on Corbyn.
For now, it's for Labour to fire the biggest shots as it's an internal party matter, even for Labour supporting papers. If he becomes LOTO on the other hand, a PM in waiting, in theory, then it's time to let loose.
A good night to all.
A cynic (moi?) would say they have kept quiet 'cos they want him to win. Better copy than ABC.
Labour can probably kiss goodbye to winning seats like Hendon and Finchley if Corbyn is elected leader. They might lose Ilford North where there is still a significant Jewish population.
But an even bigger Asian population? I should know, been living here since the late 1970s.
Under JC I would expect Labour to gain more of the Muslim vote, but lose - as they are already doing - more of the Sikh and Hindu vote (and entirely forsake the Jewish vote).
I imagine he'd be voter-neutral for Black Brits, and might gain a few Scots.
He would of course make most white English voters puke into their shoes, and therefore lose the election by a distance.
I doubt - even now - if more than 5% of British voters have a clue what Jez Corbyn historically believes, and supports, and espouses, from the IRA to Hamas.
Once he is elected, the media will go to town on him. He represents the biggest target for the Tory redtops since Michael Foot fisted that underaged Jewish gerbil on Jim'll Fix It (which never actually happened, so this is worse). Corbyn will not survive this onslaught as an electable figure. He will emerge with a core support of 20-25%, is my guess, and would achieve that at a GE.
Interesting to note that the papers have kept their powder well dry on Corbyn.
For now, it's for Labour to fire the biggest shots as it's an internal party matter, even for Labour supporting papers. If he becomes LOTO on the other hand, a PM in waiting, in theory, then it's time to let loose.
It seems to me that a fundamental problem with this whole Labour election is that they failed to establish the (s)electorate in advance of the candidates being nominated/declared. Whilst it is possible that there might have been some "entryism" anyway, i think it would have been on a far. And "entryism" is anyway an inaccurate term to describe what is happening - the point is that people are not signing up because they want a vote for the next Labour leader, they are signing up because they want to vote for Corbyn (or what he represents). Whilst the non JC candidates have come in for a lot of criticism i think it is fair to say that they have been extremely handicapped by the system. It is clear that they can only really appeal (in the context of this election) to the traditional Labour electorate (few from outside are going to sign up just to vote for them). Whereas Corbyn is able to pitch his campaign at a far wider population and (in the context of a small electorate) can win simply by bringing people in from outside (and who have no interest in the Labour Party as a political organisation). We keep hearing people saying that the Labour party and its supporters will step back from the abyss, but the point is that it is not the Labour Party that is voting in this election, so no matter how much "the Labour Party" "comes to its senses", Corbyn will still win anyway.
Spot on alex. This describes the slow motion car crash that is the current Labour Party.
Normally I love the sport and cut and thrust of UK politics and always I enjoy the betting opportunities. This time it looks like I'm going to lose a bit on the outcome of this event but nothing I'm too worried about.
But I'm seriously concerned about a Corbyn victory. I have moved politically towards the Tories over the last decade - or else they have moved towards me. I voted Tory in 2010 and Labour in 2015 (in support of our local MP, Gisela Stuart) and was I pleased with both General Election outcomes. But an unthreatened Tory government is not good for the country; not good for democracy.
For me, for once, betting and the political drama are overshadowed by the realpolitik.
I think the Blairites have been going far too strong on "electability". They should spend far more time focussing/banging the drum on what they see as their achievements. Also simply dismissing Corbyn for being "unelectable" helps him because it fails to address the weaknesses in his policies. It allows a message to build up that Blairite policies aren't good in themselves, but are simply a means to being elected, whereas Corbyn's policies are what the country needs, if only the electorate can be convinced to give them a fair hearing.
But this gets to one of the big ironies: it's actually "the Left" who are most defending the Blair government's achievements that came about through spending, because the centrists have so capitulated to Austerity.
Gordon Brown was the only chancellor to cut public spending since the IMF bailed out the UK. George Osborne is still spending about 4% points higher than Gordon did when he was cutting.
Labour can probably kiss goodbye to winning seats like Hendon and Finchley if Corbyn is elected leader. They might lose Ilford North where there is still a significant Jewish population.
But an even bigger Asian population? I should know, been living here since the late 1970s.
Under JC I would expect Labour to gain more of the Muslim vote, but lose - as they are already doing - more of the Sikh and Hindu vote (and entirely forsake the Jewish vote).
I imagine he'd be voter-neutral for Black Brits, and might gain a few Scots.
He would of course make most white English voters puke into their shoes, and therefore lose the election by a distance.
I doubt - even now - if more than 5% of British voters have a clue what Jez Corbyn historically believes, and supports, and espouses, from the IRA to Hamas.
Once he is elected, the media will go to town on him. He represents the biggest target for the Tory redtops since Michael Foot fisted that underaged Jewish gerbil on Jim'll Fix It (which never actually happened, so this is worse). Corbyn will not survive this onslaught as an electable figure. He will emerge with a core support of 20-25%, is my guess, and would achieve that at a GE.
Interesting to note that the papers have kept their powder well dry on Corbyn.
For now, it's for Labour to fire the biggest shots as it's an internal party matter, even for Labour supporting papers. If he becomes LOTO on the other hand, a PM in waiting, in theory, then it's time to let loose.
A good night to all.
A cynic (moi?) would say they have kept quiet 'cos they want him to win. Better copy than ABC.
Well, yes - no need to instigate stories and infighting when it's being handed over for free anyway.
Labour can probably kiss goodbye to winning seats like Hendon and Finchley if Corbyn is elected leader. They might lose Ilford North where there is still a significant Jewish population.
But an even bigger Asian population? I should know, been living here since the late 1970s.
Under JC I would expect Labour to gain more of the Muslim vote, but lose - as they are already doing - more of the Sikh and Hindu vote (and entirely forsake the Jewish vote).
I imagine he'd be voter-neutral for Black Brits, and might gain a few Scots.
He would of course make most white English voters puke into their shoes, and therefore lose the election by a distance.
I doubt - even now - if more than 5% of British voters have a clue what Jez Corbyn historically believes, and supports, and espouses, from the IRA to Hamas.
Once he is elected, the media will go to town on him. He represents the biggest target for the Tory redtops since Michael Foot fisted that underaged Jewish gerbil on Jim'll Fix It (which never actually happened, so this is worse). Corbyn will not survive this onslaught as an electable figure. He will emerge with a core support of 20-25%, is my guess, and would achieve that at a GE.
Interesting to note that the papers have kept their powder well dry on Corbyn.
For now, it's for Labour to fire the biggest shots as it's an internal party matter, even for Labour supporting papers. If he becomes LOTO on the other hand, a PM in waiting, in theory, then it's time to let loose.
For all that the Tories want Corbyn to win for electoral reasons, i think in their heads many will realise that the consequences of a Corbyn victory will impact negatively on the country as a whole. At a stroke it will make the UK a less certain place and will probably scare investors away. Circumstances can change and one can never guarantee the results of elections 100%. There is also the possibility that devoid of a credible and serious opposition the Govt could lose its head.
Not to mention the significant damage he could do in undermining British foreign policy.
I think the Blairites have been going far too strong on "electability". They should spend far more time focussing/banging the drum on what they see as their achievements. Also simply dismissing Corbyn for being "unelectable" helps him because it fails to address the weaknesses in his policies. It allows a message to build up that Blairite policies aren't good in themselves, but are simply a means to being elected, whereas Corbyn's policies are what the country needs, if only the electorate can be convinced to give them a fair hearing.
Very true. Why the F aren't they hammering home the toxic stuff on the IRA, Hezbollah, Islamism, quitting-NATO, scrap Trident, pro-mass-immigration, etc? This is the stuff that destroys Corbyn, totally. This is what makes him non-electable, and by a distance.
Yet they refrain. Presumably they are scared these hard Left policies are popular with the new Labour electorate, recently recruited by Ed Miliband's brilliant new leadership-voting scheme.
CHORTLE.
Let's look at their achievements -
Cooper, responsible for the debacle that was the ill fated HIPS disaster.
Burnham, the man behind the wheel when Stafford crashed off the road. And he privatised an NHS hospital.
No idea about the other one. Ken something?
It's hardly a surprise that Corbyn's leading the field.
Labour can probably kiss goodbye to winning seats like Hendon and Finchley if Corbyn is elected leader. They might lose Ilford North where there is still a significant Jewish population.
But an even bigger Asian population? I should know, been living here since the late 1970s.
Under JC I would expect Labour to gain more of the Muslim vote, but lose - as they are already doing - more of the Sikh and Hindu vote (and entirely forsake the Jewish vote).
I imagine he'd be voter-neutral for Black Brits, and might gain a few Scots.
He would of course make most white English voters puke into their shoes, and therefore lose the election by a distance.
For all that the Tories want Corbyn to win for electoral reasons, i think in their heads many will realise that the consequences of a Corbyn victory will impact negatively on the country as a whole. At a stroke it will make the UK a less certain place and will probably scare investors away. Circumstances can change and one can never guarantee the results of elections 100%. There is also the possibility that devoid of a credible and serious opposition the Govt could lose its head.
Not to mention the significant damage he could do in undermining British foreign policy.
Or the damage he could do to a unified response to the Islamist threat to Britain and other security threats.
Labour can probably kiss goodbye to winning seats like Hendon and Finchley if Corbyn is elected leader. They might lose Ilford North where there is still a significant Jewish population.
But an even bigger Asian population? I should know, been living here since the late 1970s.
Under JC I would expect Labour to gain more of the Muslim vote, but lose - as they are already doing - more of the Sikh and Hindu vote (and entirely forsake the Jewish vote).
I imagine he'd be voter-neutral for Black Brits, and might gain a few Scots.
He would of course make most white English voters puke into their shoes, and therefore lose the election by a distance.
I doubt - even now - if more than 5% of British voters have a clue what Jez Corbyn historically believes, and supports, and espouses, from the IRA to Hamas.
Once he is elected, the media will go to town on him. He represents the biggest target for the Tory redtops since Michael Foot fisted that underaged Jewish gerbil on Jim'll Fix It (which never actually happened, so this is worse). Corbyn will not survive this onslaught as an electable figure. He will emerge with a core support of 20-25%, is my guess, and would achieve that at a GE.
Interesting to note that the papers have kept their powder well dry on Corbyn.
For now, it's for Labour to fire the biggest shots as it's an internal party matter, even for Labour supporting papers. If he becomes LOTO on the other hand, a PM in waiting, in theory, then it's time to let loose.
A good night to all.
Mandelson remains strangely quiet.
Mandelson was always much smarter than Blair or Campbell. He knows that any intervention from him at this point would be counterproductive and further boost Corbyn. Anyway the game is up for this leadership election.
The Jewish population of Ilford North was 6.5% at Census 2011. Hindus 11.9%, Muslims 15.3%, Sikhs 4.2%, No Religion 12.6%. Christians a plurality at 41.5%.
I guess a fair number of left-wing Jewish voters will have gone for Labour in Ilford North, especially with Ed as leader.
"Barring a Tory meltdown over Europe and a huge recession, Corbyn's divisive lunacies could never deliver 30%+ in the UK, as you imply.
Recall that he WANTS more immigration, he LIKES it, so he will automatically alienate the WWC.
You're acting as if he will face the electorate tomorrow, not in five years, following a barrage of media derision and abuse, the likes of which we have never seen (and most of it unusually justified).
25%. That's what he'll get. Roughly. Should he ever make it that far without being assassinated."
Yes, but remember even Foot got 27% in 1983 and Kinnock 30% in 1987 and we have a higher ethnic minority population than then. The wwc who did not defect to UKIP in 2015 are unlikely to defect because Corbyn replaces Miliband, in Scotland I would expect Corbyn to actually make gains in the Central Belt
"If the Jewish Chronicle has its way, Corbyn will be run out of town, and then dumped in the sea."
If the JC believe that the UK should go down the US route of making it a prerequisite of standing for office that you show total reverance towards Israel and all its actions then I hope someone puts them right
...and hopefully if the other JC has his way, boycott of Israel will become official Labour policy.
boycott the only civilised liberal democracy in the region?
I'm sure shills for South Africa said the same in the 1970s...
The question would be why Israel and not any of the other countries in the region that have worse - in some cases *far* worse - human rights records.
Sure, but on the other hand Corbyn as Leader makes a Labour victory in 2020 almost inconceivable, so inward investors might see it as a good sign.
Investors and foreign governments don't worry their heads about loony opposition parties which might conceivably win an election in four or five years' time. There are just too many uncertainties, and in any case the UK has a magnificent record, dating back centuries, of avoiding extremism in government. Obviously that would change if, as the election approached, there looked to be any risk of Corbyn becoming PM, but for the moment that is so remote a possibility that it won't influence behaviour.
Equally, whilst I take the point which stjohn and others have made about the medium-term importance of an effective opposition, we are nowhere near a situation where the lack of such an opposition is a problem. The government has been in power for only three months, it has a tiny majority, it is run by a centrist one-nation PM, and it has the BBC as a very effective opposition; it's hardly a hegemony. A couple of years of being able to get on with good government whilst Labour provides the circus entertainment won't do any harm, quite the reverse.
"If the Jewish Chronicle has its way, Corbyn will be run out of town, and then dumped in the sea."
If the JC believe that the UK should go down the US route of making it a prerequisite of standing for office that you show total reverance towards Israel and all its actions then I hope someone puts them right
...and hopefully if the other JC has his way, boycott of Israel will become official Labour policy.
boycott the only civilised liberal democracy in the region?
I'm sure shills for South Africa said the same in the 1970s...
The question would be why Israel and not any of the other countries in the region that have worse - in some cases *far* worse - human rights records.
Like Iran, for instance. But then JC shills for it on Press TV. Just think. In little over a month we could have as Leader of the official Opposition a man who appears on the propaganda TV station of a regime which ordered the murder of a British citizen for writing a book.
For all that the Tories want Corbyn to win for electoral reasons, i think in their heads many will realise that the consequences of a Corbyn victory will impact negatively on the country as a whole. At a stroke it will make the UK a less certain place and will probably scare investors away. Circumstances can change and one can never guarantee the results of elections 100%. There is also the possibility that devoid of a credible and serious opposition the Govt could lose its head.
Not to mention the significant damage he could do in undermining British foreign policy.
Mind you Corbyn reflects a rise of populists across the western world, even in the US Sanders is now ahead of Clinton in NH and competitive with Trump for the general election (Trump also reflective of the same phenomonon)
"If the Jewish Chronicle has its way, Corbyn will be run out of town, and then dumped in the sea."
If the JC believe that the UK should go down the US route of making it a prerequisite of standing for office that you show total reverance towards Israel and all its actions then I hope someone puts them right
...and hopefully if the other JC has his way, boycott of Israel will become official Labour policy.
boycott the only civilised liberal democracy in the region?
I'm sure shills for South Africa said the same in the 1970s...
The question would be why Israel and not any of the other countries in the region that have worse - in some cases *far* worse - human rights records.
Israel does not have a good human rights record.
Not even remotely.
Missing the point and not answering the question. Is it worse or better than, say, Syria or Iraq or Iran or IS or Saudi Arabia or Lebanon or Qatar or Jordan or Lebanon?
In which of these countries, for instance, would the human rights of, say, gay people be (a) most likely to exist and (b) most likely to be protected?
Labour can probably kiss goodbye to winning seats like Hendon and Finchley if Corbyn is elected leader. They might lose Ilford North where there is still a significant Jewish population.
But an even bigger Asian population? I should know, been living here since the late 1970s.
Under JC I would expect Labour to gain more of the Muslim vote, but lose - as they are already doing - more of the Sikh and Hindu vote (and entirely forsake the Jewish vote).
I imagine he'd be voter-neutral for Black Brits, and might gain a few Scots.
He would of course make most white English voters puke into their shoes, and therefore lose the election by a distance.
@iainmartin1: That Corbyn interview on the IRA is incredible. He sees IRA and British Army as equivalent and refuses to condemn the IRA. Bloody hell.
Hardly news.
Actually, the bit about him "standing in one minute's silence out of respect for IRA soldiers killed in an SAS ambush" IS news. And will be utterly startling, perplexing and repulsive to 60-70% of voters.
YAY!
It might be repulsive to 60-70% of voters but that's still enough to get 37% of the vote and form an absolute majority in Parliament.
I just get the feeling... And I don't know why... But it kinda feels like Tony Blair isn't very popular with Guardian readers?
It's like the Two Minutes Hate. The vitriol is shocking. The loathing for Blair from The Guardian readership far outstrips that expressed for Thatcher.
The only way I can see Labour getting out of this unholy mess is for the four Labour leadership candidates to collectively come together at the final hour and agree to stand aside - in favour of the elder statesman and unity candidate, Alan Johnson.
I have just had £3.83 at 1000 on Betfair - on Alan Johnson.
"If the Jewish Chronicle has its way, Corbyn will be run out of town, and then dumped in the sea."
If the JC believe that the UK should go down the US route of making it a prerequisite of standing for office that you show total reverance towards Israel and all its actions then I hope someone puts them right
...and hopefully if the other JC has his way, boycott of Israel will become official Labour policy.
boycott the only civilised liberal democracy in the region?
I'm sure shills for South Africa said the same in the 1970s...
The question would be why Israel and not any of the other countries in the region that have worse - in some cases *far* worse - human rights records.
Israel does not have a good human rights record.
Not even remotely.
Missing the point and not answering the question. Is it worse or better than, say, Syria or Iraq or Iran or IS or Saudi Arabia or Lebanon or Qatar or Jordan or Lebanon?
In which of these countries, for instance, would the human rights of, say, gay people be (a) most likely to exist and (b) most likely to be protected?
There is no worse or better in the middle east. That's the entire point.
Herdson proposes is nonsense. Israel is just as bad as any of its neighbours in terms of human rights. It is better than most in terms of democracy and better than some in terms of applying a non-political legal system. But it fails in too many ways to be a "beacon" in the middle east.
I just get the feeling... And I don't know why... But it kinda feels like Tony Blair isn't very popular with Guardian readers?
It's like the Two Minutes Hate. The vitriol is shocking. The loathing for Blair from The Guardian readership far outstrips that expressed for Thatcher.
I think Blair should angle to try and get back into the Commons in a safe Tory seat. And seek the leadership on Cameron's retirement. That would be funny.
"If the Jewish Chronicle has its way, Corbyn will be run out of town, and then dumped in the sea."
If the JC believe that the UK should go down the US route of making it a prerequisite of standing for office that you show total reverance towards Israel and all its actions then I hope someone puts them right
...and hopefully if the other JC has his way, boycott of Israel will become official Labour policy.
boycott the only civilised liberal democracy in the region?
I'm sure shills for South Africa said the same in the 1970s...
The question would be why Israel and not any of the other countries in the region that have worse - in some cases *far* worse - human rights records.
Israel does not have a good human rights record.
Not even remotely.
Missing the point and not answering the question. Is it worse or better than, say, Syria or Iraq or Iran or IS or Saudi Arabia or Lebanon or Qatar or Jordan or Lebanon?
In which of these countries, for instance, would the human rights of, say, gay people be (a) most likely to exist and (b) most likely to be protected?
The only way I can see Labour getting out of this unholy mess is for the four Labour leadership candidates to collectively come together at the final hour and agree to stand aside - in favour of the elder statesman and unity candidate, Alan Johnson.
I have just had £3.83 at 1000 on Betfair - on Alan Johnson.
That's just the sort of common sense approach I expect the Labour party to not follow.
The only way I can see Labour getting out of this unholy mess is for the four Labour leadership candidates to collectively come together at the final hour and agree to stand aside - in favour of the elder statesman and unity candidate, Alan Johnson.
I have just had £3.83 at 1000 on Betfair - on Alan Johnson.
Labour can probably kiss goodbye to winning seats like Hendon and Finchley if Corbyn is elected leader. They might lose Ilford North where there is still a significant Jewish population.
But an even bigger Asian population? I should know, been living here since the late 1970s.
Under JC I would expect Labour to gain more of the Muslim vote, but lose - as they are already doing - more of the Sikh and Hindu vote (and entirely forsake the Jewish vote).
I imagine he'd be voter-neutral for Black Brits, and might gain a few Scots.
He would of course make most white English voters puke into their shoes, and therefore lose the election by a distance.
Labour can probably kiss goodbye to winning seats like Hendon and Finchley if Corbyn is elected leader. They might lose Ilford North where there is still a significant Jewish population.
But an even bigger Asian population? I should know, been living here since the late 1970s.
Under JC I would expect Labour to gain more of the Muslim vote, but lose - as they are already doing - more of the Sikh and Hindu vote (and entirely forsake the Jewish vote).
I imagine he'd be voter-neutral for Black Brits, and might gain a few Scots.
He would of course make most white English voters puke into their shoes, and therefore lose the election by a distance.
@iainmartin1: That Corbyn interview on the IRA is incredible. He sees IRA and British Army as equivalent and refuses to condemn the IRA. Bloody hell.
Do you think that when the British Tory government secretly flew Adams, McGuinness and others to London in 1972 (and returned them safely from whence they came) it was purely to "condemn" them, or to negotiate with them?
@iainmartin1: That Corbyn interview on the IRA is incredible. He sees IRA and British Army as equivalent and refuses to condemn the IRA. Bloody hell.
Hardly news.
Actually, the bit about him "standing in one minute's silence out of respect for IRA soldiers killed in an SAS ambush" IS news. And will be utterly startling, perplexing and repulsive to 60-70% of voters.
YAY!
It might be repulsive to 60-70% of voters but that's still enough to get 37% of the vote and form an absolute majority in Parliament.
I offer you £1000 at EVENS that Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn will not get an overall majority in 2020. In fact I offer £10,000.
Bet voided if Labour has any other leader by that time.
Ah, bless - the witterings of a true Primrose Hill Blairite!
I just get the feeling... And I don't know why... But it kinda feels like Tony Blair isn't very popular with Guardian readers?
It's like the Two Minutes Hate. The vitriol is shocking. The loathing for Blair from The Guardian readership far outstrips that expressed for Thatcher.
I think Blair should angle to try and get back into the Commons in a safe Tory seat. And seek the leadership on Cameron's retirement. That would be funny.
Blair may have a better chance with the US Republicans than the Tories
Yes. He has declared that he didn't vote for Michael Foot vs Healey because he thought he was unelectable, but sees no issue with Corbyn (a man of the people in the style of Nigel Farage - the sort of person you'd like to share a pint with - although perhaps not literally as Corbyn's would be lacking in alcohol!)
If Labour cared or believed her, he wouldn't be where he is. The reasonhe is is because he is saying things that people agree strongly with. Can anyone remember any reason at all that Cooper has given as to why the selectorate should choose her?
"selectorate" - lovely word, typo or deliberate?
Deliberate choice but the word's been around for a while; it's not mine.
Its a poor word. The 'selectorate' if there is one is the PLP who have made a total horlicks, from their point of view, of the selection process. They did not want to nominate Corbyn, he has no natural constituency on the PLP - he could not have got the 35 votes necessary except for gifts from MPs who will not vote for him and do not want him. The electorate are the now voting from the options made available. From top to bottom its a totally bonkers system. I could almost feel sorry for them. Almost.
@iainmartin1: That Corbyn interview on the IRA is incredible. He sees IRA and British Army as equivalent and refuses to condemn the IRA. Bloody hell.
Hardly news.
Actually, the bit about him "standing in one minute's silence out of respect for IRA soldiers killed in an SAS ambush" IS news. And will be utterly startling, perplexing and repulsive to 60-70% of voters.
YAY!
It might be repulsive to 60-70% of voters but that's still enough to get 37% of the vote and form an absolute majority in Parliament.
I offer you £1000 at EVENS that Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn will not get an overall majority in 2020. In fact I offer £10,000.
Bet voided if Labour has any other leader by that time.
"Runaway Labour leadership frontrunner Jeremy Corbyn once backed a House of Commons motion welcoming the 'inevitable' end of human life on earth in an asteroid strike, it emerged today. The veteran socialist signed the controversial motion, attacking people as 'obscene, perverted, cruel, uncivilised and lethal', after it emerged MI5 were planning to use pigeons as flying bombs in combat. Mr Corbyn is a long-term campaigner against 'pigeon prejudice' – and has insisted the birds are 'intelligent and gentle creatures' which are cleaner than cats and dogs. In 1996, his love of the birds moved him to attack plans to try to remove them from city centres."
@iainmartin1: That Corbyn interview on the IRA is incredible. He sees IRA and British Army as equivalent and refuses to condemn the IRA. Bloody hell.
Hardly news.
Actually, the bit about him "standing in one minute's silence out of respect for IRA soldiers killed in an SAS ambush" IS news. And will be utterly startling, perplexing and repulsive to 60-70% of voters.
YAY!
It might be repulsive to 60-70% of voters but that's still enough to get 37% of the vote and form an absolute majority in Parliament.
I offer you £1000 at EVENS that Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn will not get an overall majority in 2020. In fact I offer £10,000.
Bet voided if Labour has any other leader by that time.
Ah, bless - the witterings of a true Primrose Hill Blairite!
That's a bit harsh. There's plenty of other people who have gotten into their forties purely off the back of their parents before they succeeded on their own without being part of the Primrose Hill mafia.
"If the Jewish Chronicle has its way, Corbyn will be run out of town, and then dumped in the sea."
If the JC believe that the UK should go down the US route of making it a prerequisite of standing for office that you show total reverance towards Israel and all its actions then I hope someone puts them right
...and hopefully if the other JC has his way, boycott of Israel will become official Labour policy.
boycott the only civilised liberal democracy in the region?
I'm sure shills for South Africa said the same in the 1970s...
The question would be why Israel and not any of the other countries in the region that have worse - in some cases *far* worse - human rights records.
Israel does not have a good human rights record.
Not even remotely.
Missing the point and not answering the question. Is it worse or better than, say, Syria or Iraq or Iran or IS or Saudi Arabia or Lebanon or Qatar or Jordan or Lebanon?
In which of these countries, for instance, would the human rights of, say, gay people be (a) most likely to exist and (b) most likely to be protected?
There is no worse or better in the middle east. That's the entire point.
Herdson proposes is nonsense. Israel is just as bad as any of its neighbours in terms of human rights. It is better than most in terms of democracy and better than some in terms of applying a non-political legal system. But it fails in too many ways to be a "beacon" in the middle east.
Session: 2003-04 Date tabled: 21.05.2004 Primary sponsor: Banks, Tony Sponsors:
That this House is appalled, but barely surprised, at the revelations in M15 files regarding the bizarre and inhumane proposals to use pigeons as flying bombs; recognises the important and live-saving role of carrier pigeons in two world wars and wonders at the lack of gratitude towards these gentle creatures; and believes that humans represent the most obscene, perverted, cruel, uncivilised and lethal species ever to inhabit the planet and looks forward to the day when the inevitable asteroid slams into the earth and wipes them out thus giving nature the opportunity to start again.
Total number of signatures: 3
Banks, Tony Labour Party West Ham 21.05.2004 Corbyn, Jeremy Labour Party Islington North 25.05.2004 McDonnell, John Labour Party Hayes and Harlington 16.09.2004"
"Jeremy Corbyn once signed a parliamentary Early Day Motion (EDM) that looked forward to the day when an asteroid would slam into the earth and kill all humans as punishment for the way British spies treated pigeons."
The only way I can see Labour getting out of this unholy mess is for the four Labour leadership candidates to collectively come together at the final hour and agree to stand aside - in favour of the elder statesman and unity candidate, Alan Johnson.
I have just had £3.83 at 1000 on Betfair - on Alan Johnson.
That's just the sort of common sense approach I expect the Labour party to not follow.
This is cloud cuckoo land for many reasons, not least that AJ is a sensible bloke. The price is a tell too. JC never got anywhere near that to win
Yes. He has declared that he didn't vote for Michael Foot vs Healey because he thought he was unelectable, but sees no issue with Corbyn (a man of the people in the style of Nigel Farage - the sort of person you'd like to share a pint with - although perhaps not literally as Corbyn's would be lacking in alcohol!)
@iainmartin1: That Corbyn interview on the IRA is incredible. He sees IRA and British Army as equivalent and refuses to condemn the IRA. Bloody hell.
Do you think that when the British Tory government secretly flew Adams, McGuinness and others to London in 1972 (and returned them safely from whence they came) it was purely to "condemn" them, or to negotiate with them?
Yes. He has declared that he didn't vote for Michael Foot vs Healey because he thought he was unelectable, but sees no issue with Corbyn (a man of the people in the style of Nigel Farage - the sort of person you'd like to share a pint with - although perhaps not literally as Corbyn's would be lacking in alcohol!)
I can't think of anyone worse than Corbyn to have a drink with. Hold on, I've just seen Livingstone referenced
@iainmartin1: That Corbyn interview on the IRA is incredible. He sees IRA and British Army as equivalent and refuses to condemn the IRA. Bloody hell.
Hardly news.
Actually, the bit about him "standing in one minute's silence out of respect for IRA soldiers killed in an SAS ambush" IS news. And will be utterly startling, perplexing and repulsive to 60-70% of voters.
YAY!
It might be repulsive to 60-70% of voters but that's still enough to get 37% of the vote and form an absolute majority in Parliament.
I offer you £1000 at EVENS that Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn will not get an overall majority in 2020. In fact I offer £10,000.
Bet voided if Labour has any other leader by that time.
That's a terrible bet. Skybet are offering 4-1.
Of course it's a terrible bet. But YOU are clearly a retard, so I'm hoping YOU won't notice.
Nor am I being unrealistic. I've won similarly stupid bets with other Nats. They let their emotions get the better of them.
I await your reply.
Before or after Daddy rescues you from your latest shooting gallery?
"Runaway Labour leadership frontrunner Jeremy Corbyn once backed a House of Commons motion welcoming the 'inevitable' end of human life on earth in an asteroid strike, it emerged today. The veteran socialist signed the controversial motion, attacking people as 'obscene, perverted, cruel, uncivilised and lethal', after it emerged MI5 were planning to use pigeons as flying bombs in combat. Mr Corbyn is a long-term campaigner against 'pigeon prejudice' – and has insisted the birds are 'intelligent and gentle creatures' which are cleaner than cats and dogs. In 1996, his love of the birds moved him to attack plans to try to remove them from city centres."
The rest of the Guardian article about JC's foibles is equally entertaining and gives a flavour of the treats in store for us soon. Imagine how he must make sensiblish socialists cringe. Fantastic
Do you think that when the British Tory government secretly flew Adams, McGuinness and others to London in 1972 (and returned them safely from whence they came) it was purely to "condemn" them, or to negotiate with them?
Given that Edward (Cough! Spit!) Heath was PM at the time it was probably to discuss the surrender terms of the British Government to the IRA.
FPT. Nick Palmer "Fitalass: it's naughty to take a quote from someone who wrote to me and attribute it to me. I expect you did it by accident, yes?" "Like fitalass, you're making stuff up."
Thanks very much for immediately assuming that I was somehow deliberately attributing that comment to you, and then running with it!! Especially when I am not in the habit of doing that! I also noticed that you totally ignored the wider point I was making about Corbyn's poor political judgement when it came to arranging to meet Gerry Adams after the Brighton bombing. I find it incredible that the Labour party might actually elect this man as their Leader.
Twitter Iain Martin @iainmartin1 1 hr1 hour ago That Corbyn interview on the IRA is incredible. He sees IRA and British Army as equivalent and refuses to condemn the IRA. Bloody hell.
Do you think that when the British Tory government secretly flew Adams, McGuinness and others to London in 1972 (and returned them safely from whence they came) it was purely to "condemn" them, or to negotiate with them?
Given that Edward (Cough! Spit!) Heath was PM at the time it was probably to discuss the surrender terms of the British Government to the IRA.
Frank Steele, British Intelligence: "[Sean MacStiofain] proceeded to read out his demands. I mean, he behaved like the representative of an army who'd fought the British to a standstill and that we British wanted out."
I wouldn't bet on that actually happening next time for those 56 SNP MP's, they are hardly putting themselves forward as hard working individual constituency MP's right now. And the SNP Government up here has already been in power for nearly eight years, the internals of that YouGov poll should give some pause for thought when it comes to their competence at Holyrood, they have been in power longer the Conservatives have at Westminster.
Do you think that when the British Tory government secretly flew Adams, McGuinness and others to London in 1972 (and returned them safely from whence they came) it was purely to "condemn" them, or to negotiate with them?
Given that Edward (Cough! Spit!) Heath was PM at the time it was probably to discuss the surrender terms of the British Government to the IRA.
Frank Steele, British Intelligence: "[Sean MacStiofain] proceeded to read out his demands. I mean, he behaved like the representative of an army who'd fought the British to a standstill and that we British wanted out."
And the Provos were led by a London-born Protestant, John Edward Drayton Stephenson, who changed his name....
Do you think that when the British Tory government secretly flew Adams, McGuinness and others to London in 1972 (and returned them safely from whence they came) it was purely to "condemn" them, or to negotiate with them?
Given that Edward (Cough! Spit!) Heath was PM at the time it was probably to discuss the surrender terms of the British Government to the IRA.
Frank Steele, British Intelligence: "[Sean MacStiofain] proceeded to read out his demands. I mean, he behaved like the representative of an army who'd fought the British to a standstill and that we British wanted out."
And the Provos were led by a London-born Protestant, John Edward Drayton Stephenson, who changed his name....
I'm sure shills for South Africa said the same in the 1970s...
The question would be why Israel and not any of the other countries in the region that have worse - in some cases *far* worse - human rights records.
Israel does not have a good human rights record.
Not even remotely.
Missing the point and not answering the question. Is it worse or better than, say, Syria or Iraq or Iran or IS or Saudi Arabia or Lebanon or Qatar or Jordan or Lebanon?
In which of these countries, for instance, would the human rights of, say, gay people be (a) most likely to exist and (b) most likely to be protected?
There is no worse or better in the middle east. That's the entire point.
Herdson proposes is nonsense. Israel is just as bad as any of its neighbours in terms of human rights. It is better than most in terms of democracy and better than some in terms of applying a non-political legal system. But it fails in too many ways to be a "beacon" in the middle east.
Iran has a more inclusive democracy.
Dearie me. To call that a rubbish statement would be to insult rubbish.
@iainmartin1: That Corbyn interview on the IRA is incredible. He sees IRA and British Army as equivalent and refuses to condemn the IRA. Bloody hell.
Do you think that when the British Tory government secretly flew Adams, McGuinness and others to London in 1972 (and returned them safely from whence they came) it was purely to "condemn" them, or to negotiate with them?
Do you understand the difference between a government which has an obligation to sort out problems within the country, including that of an armed group taking up arms against the state and a backbencher with no standing and no role, official or otherwise?
Still with these two comments we have a flavour of the sort of historically, factually and morally illiterate witterings we can expect from Labour.
I just get the feeling... And I don't know why... But it kinda feels like Tony Blair isn't very popular with Guardian readers?
It's like the Two Minutes Hate. The vitriol is shocking. The loathing for Blair from The Guardian readership far outstrips that expressed for Thatcher.
I think Blair should angle to try and get back into the Commons in a safe Tory seat. And seek the leadership on Cameron's retirement. That would be funny.
if looking for longshots to replace Hillary as Democratic I would stick to females as feel the Democratic base would love a female president.Elizaberh Warren is 33/1.Sky bet offer at 200/1:Kirsten Gillibrand who if Hillary was forced to stand down quite possible the Clintons might back to be her substitute.Also there is Amy Klobochar from Minnesota.Kathleen Sibilius and Debbie Wesserman-Schulz.Needless to say there are all Lawyers.What is it with the Democratic party that you have to be a lawyer to make it.At least the Republicans in terms of jobs produce a much more diverse field
Comments
Normally I love the sport and cut and thrust of UK politics and always I enjoy the betting opportunities. This time it looks like I'm going to lose a bit on the outcome of this event but nothing I'm too worried about.
But I'm seriously concerned about a Corbyn victory. I have moved politically towards the Tories over the last decade - or else they have moved towards me. I voted Tory in 2010 and Labour in 2015 (in support of our local MP, Gisela Stuart) and was I pleased with both General Election outcomes. But an unthreatened Tory government is not good for the country; not good for democracy.
For me, for once, betting and the political drama are overshadowed by the realpolitik.
It isnt austerity, its profligacy.
Not to mention the significant damage he could do in undermining British foreign policy.
Cooper, responsible for the debacle that was the ill fated HIPS disaster.
Burnham, the man behind the wheel when Stafford crashed off the road. And he privatised an NHS hospital.
No idea about the other one. Ken something?
It's hardly a surprise that Corbyn's leading the field.
Who would want to do that?
And Salmond had a +40
At one stage Jim Murphy had a +6
You are clutching at straws which are dissolving in your hand.
"Barring a Tory meltdown over Europe and a huge recession, Corbyn's divisive lunacies could never deliver 30%+ in the UK, as you imply.
Recall that he WANTS more immigration, he LIKES it, so he will automatically alienate the WWC.
You're acting as if he will face the electorate tomorrow, not in five years, following a barrage of media derision and abuse, the likes of which we have never seen (and most of it unusually justified).
25%. That's what he'll get. Roughly. Should he ever make it that far without being assassinated."
Yes, but remember even Foot got 27% in 1983 and Kinnock 30% in 1987 and we have a higher ethnic minority population than then. The wwc who did not defect to UKIP in 2015 are unlikely to defect because Corbyn replaces Miliband, in Scotland I would expect Corbyn to actually make gains in the Central Belt
Sunil: "Got any Quorn?" .........(apologies to Alan Blake)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pieK7b4KLL4
Not even remotely.
Equally, whilst I take the point which stjohn and others have made about the medium-term importance of an effective opposition, we are nowhere near a situation where the lack of such an opposition is a problem. The government has been in power for only three months, it has a tiny majority, it is run by a centrist one-nation PM, and it has the BBC as a very effective opposition; it's hardly a hegemony. A couple of years of being able to get on with good government whilst Labour provides the circus entertainment won't do any harm, quite the reverse.
@iainmartin1: That Corbyn interview on the IRA is incredible. He sees IRA and British Army as equivalent and refuses to condemn the IRA. Bloody hell.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/12/even-if-hate-me-dont-take-labour-over-cliff-edge-tony-blair
I just get the feeling... And I don't know why... But it kinda feels like Tony Blair isn't very popular with Guardian readers?
In which of these countries, for instance, would the human rights of, say, gay people be (a) most likely to exist and (b) most likely to be protected?
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-1979-1983
I like the phrase:
"A spokesperson for Jeremy Corbyn's campaign said:
'Paul Eisen is not someone Jeremy Corbyn's office has any dealings with"
I have just had £3.83 at 1000 on Betfair - on Alan Johnson.
Herdson proposes is nonsense. Israel is just as bad as any of its neighbours in terms of human rights. It is better than most in terms of democracy and better than some in terms of applying a non-political legal system. But it fails in too many ways to be a "beacon" in the middle east.
Iran has a more inclusive democracy.
http://www.itnsource.com/en/shotlist/ITN/1983/07/26/AS260783025/
"Runaway Labour leadership frontrunner Jeremy Corbyn once backed a House of Commons motion welcoming the 'inevitable' end of human life on earth in an asteroid strike, it emerged today.
The veteran socialist signed the controversial motion, attacking people as 'obscene, perverted, cruel, uncivilised and lethal', after it emerged MI5 were planning to use pigeons as flying bombs in combat.
Mr Corbyn is a long-term campaigner against 'pigeon prejudice' – and has insisted the birds are 'intelligent and gentle creatures' which are cleaner than cats and dogs.
In 1996, his love of the birds moved him to attack plans to try to remove them from city centres."
http://tinyurl.com/ogw37q5
+
https://twitter.com/thatweecafe/status/598504198855073792
Session: 2003-04
Date tabled: 21.05.2004
Primary sponsor: Banks, Tony
Sponsors:
That this House is appalled, but barely surprised, at the revelations in M15 files regarding the bizarre and inhumane proposals to use pigeons as flying bombs; recognises the important and live-saving role of carrier pigeons in two world wars and wonders at the lack of gratitude towards these gentle creatures; and believes that humans represent the most obscene, perverted, cruel, uncivilised and lethal species ever to inhabit the planet and looks forward to the day when the inevitable asteroid slams into the earth and wipes them out thus giving nature the opportunity to start again.
Total number of signatures: 3
Banks, Tony Labour Party West Ham 21.05.2004
Corbyn, Jeremy Labour Party Islington North 25.05.2004
McDonnell, John Labour Party Hayes and Harlington 16.09.2004"
http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2003-04/1255
"Jeremy Corbyn once signed a parliamentary Early Day Motion (EDM) that looked forward to the day when an asteroid would slam into the earth and kill all humans as punishment for the way British spies treated pigeons."
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/08/11/jeremy-corbyn-signed-a-commons-motion-looking-forward-to-when-an-asteroid-kills-all-humans_n_7971908.html
What about Dr Palmer?
Have we got Palmer Tories For Corbyn?
"Things can only get bitter..."
"Like fitalass, you're making stuff up."
Thanks very much for immediately assuming that I was somehow deliberately attributing that comment to you, and then running with it!! Especially when I am not in the habit of doing that!
I also noticed that you totally ignored the wider point I was making about Corbyn's poor political judgement when it came to arranging to meet Gerry Adams after the Brighton bombing. I find it incredible that the Labour party might actually elect this man as their Leader.
Twitter
Iain Martin @iainmartin1 1 hr1 hour ago
That Corbyn interview on the IRA is incredible. He sees IRA and British Army as equivalent and refuses to condemn the IRA. Bloody hell.
Still with these two comments we have a flavour of the sort of historically, factually and morally illiterate witterings we can expect from Labour.