If you are going to make an arse of yourself. at least click on the link first...
Monica is not the full bawbee
The SNP are dumber than feck to ban GM crops.
It is only the stupidest, most mentally challenged and utterly retarded morons in society who have any problem with GM crops. GM is one thing - a more scientific and accurate method of hybridisation. Hybridisation is the way Humans have evolved and been able to feed themselves on a plant that could not possible cope with the food requirements of 7 billion people.
Yet it does. Because hybridisation has allowed Humans to escalate food supply and defy Malthys. It is the only way you can actually provide food to people. It has existed for at least 10,000 years, without it we would be trying to exist on primordial crops which, compared to today offer about one twentieth of the yield.
The GM ban is utterly retarded, scientifically idiotic and culturally backward, giving in the base fears of a population and society which can be manipulated with ease by the right triggers.
There is nothing intriguing or refreshing about Corbyn. He is a cliche: a class warrior, an apologist for terrorists, a friend of anti-semites and an economic illiterate. He is winning because his opponents are so weak. The only question about his victory is whether he stays long enough as leader to keep the Tories in power for 10, 15 or 20 years.
Labour is the Stupid Party and as it wanks itself off it entrenches in power the very people it claims to oppose.
There is nothing intriguing or refreshing about Corbyn. He is a cliche: a class warrior, an apologist for terrorists, a friend of anti-semites and an economic illiterate. He is winning because his opponents are so weak. The only question about his victory is whether he stays long enough as leader to keep the Tories in power for 10, 15 or 20 years.
Labour is the Stupid Party and as it wanks itself off it entrenches in power the very people it claims to oppose.
I take it you won't be voting for the dear leader then.
Corbyn is certainly the double or bust option for Labour against the Tory house...
Well done Pulps. Great analogy. Double or bust.
FWIW- on betting- I have changed completely onto Corbyn now- he is going to win, and with such a landslide that'll certainly be eye-catching. The only question is whether it'll go to second preferences which I think now is utterly irrelevant too since Corbyn will be home and hosed before then. The race will lengthen rather than tighten before the end.
There is nothing intriguing or refreshing about Corbyn. He is a cliche: a class warrior, an apologist for terrorists, a friend of anti-semites and an economic illiterate. He is winning because his opponents are so weak. The only question about his victory is whether he stays long enough as leader to keep the Tories in power for 10, 15 or 20 years.
Labour is the Stupid Party and as it wanks itself off it entrenches in power the very people it claims to oppose.
I love Jeremy I too find him refreshingly on the side of the working class.
You keep repeating this anti -semites stuff. When has Corbyn been anti-semitic?
Is it just because he calls out Israels atrocities or something more concrete?
There is nothing intriguing or refreshing about Corbyn. He is a cliche: a class warrior, an apologist for terrorists, a friend of anti-semites and an economic illiterate. He is winning because his opponents are so weak. The only question about his victory is whether he stays long enough as leader to keep the Tories in power for 10, 15 or 20 years.
Labour is the Stupid Party and as it wanks itself off it entrenches in power the very people it claims to oppose.
Blimpish garbage. Have you ever been right about anything?
There is nothing intriguing or refreshing about Corbyn. He is a cliche: a class warrior, an apologist for terrorists, a friend of anti-semites and an economic illiterate. He is winning because his opponents are so weak. The only question about his victory is whether he stays long enough as leader to keep the Tories in power for 10, 15 or 20 years.
Labour is the Stupid Party and as it wanks itself off it entrenches in power the very people it claims to oppose.
I take it you won't be voting for the dear leader then.
There is nothing intriguing or refreshing about Corbyn. He is a cliche: a class warrior, an apologist for terrorists, a friend of anti-semites and an economic illiterate. He is winning because his opponents are so weak. The only question about his victory is whether he stays long enough as leader to keep the Tories in power for 10, 15 or 20 years.
Labour is the Stupid Party and as it wanks itself off it entrenches in power the very people it claims to oppose.
I take it you won't be voting for the dear leader then.
I have no vote. I decided to wait and see what kind of Labour party it was before I got involved again. It was a very wise decision. A Corbyn-led party is of no interest to me. Why waste time hanging out with delusional fools who have no serious interest in securing change?
If you are going to make an arse of yourself. at least click on the link first...
Monica is not the full bawbee
The SNP are dumber than feck to ban GM crops.
It is only the stupidest, most mentally challenged and utterly retarded morons in society who have any problem with GM crops. GM is one thing - a more scientific and accurate method of hybridisation. Hybridisation is the way Humans have evolved and been able to feed themselves on a plant that could not possible cope with the food requirements of 7 billion people.
Yet it does. Because hybridisation has allowed Humans to escalate food supply and defy Malthys. It is the only way you can actually provide food to people. It has existed for at least 10,000 years, without it we would be trying to exist on primordial crops which, compared to today offer about one twentieth of the yield.
The GM ban is utterly retarded, scientifically idiotic and culturally backward, giving in the base fears of a population and society which can be manipulated with ease by the right triggers.
Agree one hundred percent. And the GM ban idiots who also claim to be conservationists fail to realize that there will be no wildlife unless we conserve habitat, but there will be no habitat unless we can grow more and more on the land already under crop.
There is nothing intriguing or refreshing about Corbyn. He is a cliche: a class warrior, an apologist for terrorists, a friend of anti-semites and an economic illiterate. He is winning because his opponents are so weak. The only question about his victory is whether he stays long enough as leader to keep the Tories in power for 10, 15 or 20 years.
Labour is the Stupid Party and as it wanks itself off it entrenches in power the very people it claims to oppose.
SO- it is pointless to attack the man, or the Labour folk who'll vote for him. This is not an act of self indulgent, self gratification as you suggest.
Blair believed in what he was doing. And we believed in Blair. Blairlite- a la Burnham and Cooper just comes across as vacuous and self serving. Kendall believes- but she is lightweight, unelectable and a bit bonkers.
I'm sure David Miliband would have relished this contest. Chukka would have walked it too. Possibly Dan Jarvis. But instead we have Coops and Andy- so don't blame me, or Jezza, or the Labour membership with your nauseating metaphor.
Corbyn is certainly the double or bust option for Labour against the Tory house...
Well done Pulps. Great analogy. Double or bust.
FWIW- on betting- I have changed completely onto Corbyn now- he is going to win, and with such a landslide that'll certainly be eye-catching. The only question is whether it'll go to second preferences which I think now is utterly irrelevant too since Corbyn will be home and hosed before then. The race will lengthen rather than tighten before the end.
Question for you, as a relatively reasonable lefty (cough). Do you honestly believe Corbyn might win a General Election? If you don't, why vote for him? If you do, how do you think that might happen, given the historical allergy of the UK electorate towards radical lefty candidates?
Or is this all about atoning for Tony and Iraq? I begin to suspect it is.
I think the most accurate answer to that is: No, I presently do not expect Corbyn to win the GE as things stand, but neither can the other candidates, the others might do worse given that they have proved to be absolutely useless.
The others would lose plenty of Labour votes to the left but they are too useless and incompetent to gain any Tory votes to compensate for it.
There is nothing intriguing or refreshing about Corbyn. He is a cliche: a class warrior, an apologist for terrorists, a friend of anti-semites and an economic illiterate. He is winning because his opponents are so weak. The only question about his victory is whether he stays long enough as leader to keep the Tories in power for 10, 15 or 20 years.
Labour is the Stupid Party and as it wanks itself off it entrenches in power the very people it claims to oppose.
I love Jeremy I too find him refreshingly on the side of the working class.
You keep repeating this anti -semites stuff. When has Corbyn been anti-semitic?
Is it just because he calls out Israels atrocities or something more concrete?
Corbyn has no real idea about "the working class". His view is as blinkered and as partial as any expressed by UKIP supporters who believe the WWC all drive white vans, have England flags in their windows and think of nothing but immigration. He is a North London (Camden & Islington) machine politician who never puts himself or his views in awkward positions. He despises the British state and the US so happily shares platforms with others who do too, never mind that they want to wipe out all Jews, keep women in servitude and kill British soldiers.
"Kids Company was pledged £20m by government last summer, founder says Camila Batmanghelidjh claims Oliver Letwin, head of Cabinet Office, made verbal promise in July 2014 after being told charity faced funding crisis"
There is nothing intriguing or refreshing about Corbyn. He is a cliche: a class warrior, an apologist for terrorists, a friend of anti-semites and an economic illiterate. He is winning because his opponents are so weak. The only question about his victory is whether he stays long enough as leader to keep the Tories in power for 10, 15 or 20 years.
Labour is the Stupid Party and as it wanks itself off it entrenches in power the very people it claims to oppose.
There is nothing intriguing or refreshing about Corbyn. He is a cliche: a class warrior, an apologist for terrorists, a friend of anti-semites and an economic illiterate. He is winning because his opponents are so weak. The only question about his victory is whether he stays long enough as leader to keep the Tories in power for 10, 15 or 20 years.
Labour is the Stupid Party and as it wanks itself off it entrenches in power the very people it claims to oppose.
I love Jeremy I too find him refreshingly on the side of the working class.
You keep repeating this anti -semites stuff. When has Corbyn been anti-semitic?
Is it just because he calls out Israels atrocities or something more concrete?
Corbyn has no real idea about "the working class". His view is as blinkered and as partial as any expressed by UKIP supporters who believe the WWC all drive white vans, have England flags in their windows and think of nothing but immigration. He is a North London (Camden & Islington) machine politician who never puts himself or his views in awkward positions. He despises the British state and the US so happily shares platforms with others who do too, never mind that they want to wipe out all Jews, keep women in servitude and kill British soldiers.
The "shares platforms" things always seem rather a stretch to me, given that I've seen people on the same platforms heavily disagree with each other.
Presumably all the other candidates are guilty of attending Labour conferences alongside Jeremy Corbyn
There is nothing intriguing or refreshing about Corbyn. He is a cliche: a class warrior, an apologist for terrorists, a friend of anti-semites and an economic illiterate. He is winning because his opponents are so weak. The only question about his victory is whether he stays long enough as leader to keep the Tories in power for 10, 15 or 20 years.
Labour is the Stupid Party and as it wanks itself off it entrenches in power the very people it claims to oppose.
I love Jeremy I too find him refreshingly on the side of the working class.
You keep repeating this anti -semites stuff. When has Corbyn been anti-semitic?
Is it just because he calls out Israels atrocities or something more concrete?
Corbyn has no real idea about "the working class". His view is as blinkered and as partial as any expressed by UKIP supporters who believe the WWC all drive white vans, have England flags in their windows and think of nothing but immigration. He is a North London (Camden & Islington) machine politician who never puts himself or his views in awkward positions. He despises the British state and the US so happily shares platforms with others who do too, never mind that they want to wipe out all Jews, keep women in servitude and kill British soldiers.
As someone who has a firm grasp of who the white working class are, could you define them?
Steve Coogan says 'It doesn’t make a huge amount of difference to my life whether we have a Conservative government or Labour government. The world has been kind to me and I can afford to bypass the state to fulfil most of my needs.' Hence, he argues, Burnham is the only candidate who will keep Labour's core values without sacrificing electability. Yet, while he is correct that Burnham tends to poll best with the general public nationwide, but Corbyn is not too far behind and ahead in London and Scotland.
(Eddie Izzard broke his duck backing No in indyref)
There is nothing intriguing or refreshing about Corbyn. He is a cliche: a class warrior, an apologist for terrorists, a friend of anti-semites and an economic illiterate. He is winning because his opponents are so weak. The only question about his victory is whether he stays long enough as leader to keep the Tories in power for 10, 15 or 20 years.
Labour is the Stupid Party and as it wanks itself off it entrenches in power the very people it claims to oppose.
I love Jeremy I too find him refreshingly on the side of the working class.
You keep repeating this anti -semites stuff. When has Corbyn been anti-semitic?
Is it just because he calls out Israels atrocities or something more concrete?
Corbyn has no real idea about "the working class". His view is as blinkered and as partial as any expressed by UKIP supporters who believe the WWC all drive white vans, have England flags in their windows and think of nothing but immigration. He is a North London (Camden & Islington) machine politician who never puts himself or his views in awkward positions. He despises the British state and the US so happily shares platforms with others who do too, never mind that they want to wipe out all Jews, keep women in servitude and kill British soldiers.
As someone who has a firm grasp of who the white working class are, could you define them?
The whole point is that they are not defineable. There is no generic WWC to be romanticised from either the right or left. The working class family I was born into was very different to those that lived down the road.
I wrote this many years ago on this site many times- Blair cut out the ideology of the Labour party to make it electable and a party of government. But once Labour lost government it was going to get into seriously big trouble- a party devoid of ideology, rootless, and out of power.
Out of power Labour required someone sufficiently messianic, charismatic and ruthless- as David Miliband, or perhaps Chukka- if it was going to continue it's pursuit of power on Blairite terms.
Cooper and Burnham are neither one thing or the other. A continuation of Ed which was painful and unconvincing. Kendall is a bit bonkers.
So, until a credible Blairite emerges, Corbyn is rather quite appealing. It has nothing to do with Iraq.
Corbyn is certainly the double or bust option for Labour against the Tory house...
Well done Pulps. Great analogy. Double or bust.
FWIW- on betting- I have changed completely onto Corbyn now- he is going to win, and with such a landslide that'll certainly be eye-catching. The only question is whether it'll go to second preferences which I think now is utterly irrelevant too since Corbyn will be home and hosed before then. The race will lengthen rather than tighten before the end.
Question for you, as a relatively reasonable lefty (cough). Do you honestly believe Corbyn might win a General Election? If you don't, why vote for him? If you do, how do you think that might happen, given the historical allergy of the UK electorate towards radical lefty candidates?
Or is this all about atoning for Tony and Iraq? I begin to suspect it is.
There is nothing intriguing or refreshing about Corbyn. He is a cliche: a class warrior, an apologist for terrorists, a friend of anti-semites and an economic illiterate. He is winning because his opponents are so weak. The only question about his victory is whether he stays long enough as leader to keep the Tories in power for 10, 15 or 20 years.
Labour is the Stupid Party and as it wanks itself off it entrenches in power the very people it claims to oppose.
SO- it is pointless to attack the man, or the Labour folk who'll vote for him. This is not an act of self indulgent, self gratification as you suggest.
Blair believed in what he was doing. And we believed in Blair. Blairlite- a la Burnham and Cooper just comes across as vacuous and self serving. Kendall believes- but she is lightweight, unelectable and a bit bonkers.
I'm sure David Miliband would have relished this contest. Chukka would have walked it too. Possibly Dan Jarvis. But instead we have Coops and Andy- so don't blame me, or Jezza, or the Labour membership with your nauseating metaphor.
You are daft to ignore SO's comments -- ''there is nothing intriguing or refreshing about Corbyn. He is a cliche'' -- but its your funeral. I'm sorry for the tragedy that has affected Dan Jervis' family, but I see nothing particular in him as a politician that marks him out as special. Fair enough he looks sane and can walk and chew gum at the same time. Indeed pushing him forward is a huge admission that all the experienced politicians of the Brown/Miliband era were as appalling as most of us Tories have been suggesting. Having said that, when people talk about 'skipping a generation' - they usually mean skipping forwards one, not sliding back two generations. Corbyn certainly breaks the mould there. The other significant thing about Corbyn is he certainly seems to have done for Burnham, which by a process of elimination has pushed up Cooper.
There is nothing intriguing or refreshing about Corbyn. He is a cliche: a class warrior, an apologist for terrorists, a friend of anti-semites and an economic illiterate. He is winning because his opponents are so weak. The only question about his victory is whether he stays long enough as leader to keep the Tories in power for 10, 15 or 20 years.
Labour is the Stupid Party and as it wanks itself off it entrenches in power the very people it claims to oppose.
I love Jeremy I too find him refreshingly on the side of the working class.
You keep repeating this anti -semites stuff. When has Corbyn been anti-semitic?
Is it just because he calls out Israels atrocities or something more concrete?
Corbyn has no real idea about "the working class". His view is as blinkered and as partial as any expressed by UKIP supporters who believe the WWC all drive white vans, have England flags in their windows and think of nothing but immigration. He is a North London (Camden & Islington) machine politician who never puts himself or his views in awkward positions. He despises the British state and the US so happily shares platforms with others who do too, never mind that they want to wipe out all Jews, keep women in servitude and kill British soldiers.
The "shares platforms" things always seem rather a stretch to me, given that I've seen people on the same platforms heavily disagree with each other.
Presumably all the other candidates are guilty of attending Labour conferences alongside Jeremy Corbyn
Not sure how many of the other candidates have called Hamas friends or hsve observed minute silences for IRA terrorists.
There is nothing intriguing or refreshing about Corbyn. He is a cliche: a class warrior, an apologist for terrorists, a friend of anti-semites and an economic illiterate. He is winning because his opponents are so weak. The only question about his victory is whether he stays long enough as leader to keep the Tories in power for 10, 15 or 20 years.
Labour is the Stupid Party and as it wanks itself off it entrenches in power the very people it claims to oppose.
SO- it is pointless to attack the man, or the Labour folk who'll vote for him. This is not an act of self indulgent, self gratification as you suggest.
Blair believed in what he was doing. And we believed in Blair. Blairlite- a la Burnham and Cooper just comes across as vacuous and self serving. Kendall believes- but she is lightweight, unelectable and a bit bonkers.
I'm sure David Miliband would have relished this contest. Chukka would have walked it too. Possibly Dan Jarvis. But instead we have Coops and Andy- so don't blame me, or Jezza, or the Labour membership with your nauseating metaphor.
You are daft to ignore SO's comments -- ''there is nothing intriguing or refreshing about Corbyn. He is a cliche'' -- but its your funeral. I'm sorry for the tragedy that has affected Dan Jervis' family, but I see nothing particular in him as a politician that marks him out as special. Fair enough he looks sane and can walk and chew gum at the same time. Indeed pushing him forward is a huge admission that all the experienced politicians of the Brown/Miliband era were as appalling as most of us Tories have been suggesting. Having said that, when people talk about 'skipping a generation' - they usually mean skipping forwards one, not sliding back two generations. Corbyn certainly breaks the mould there. The other significant thing about Corbyn is he certainly seems to have done for Burnham, which by a process of elimination has pushed up Cooper.
Survation. @Survation 4m4 minutes ago NEW POLL: Survation's latest video poll shows that the public think Jeremy Corbyn would make the best Labour leader
There is nothing intriguing or refreshing about Corbyn. He is a cliche: a class warrior, an apologist for terrorists, a friend of anti-semites and an economic illiterate. He is winning because his opponents are so weak. The only question about his victory is whether he stays long enough as leader to keep the Tories in power for 10, 15 or 20 years.
Labour is the Stupid Party and as it wanks itself off it entrenches in power the very people it claims to oppose.
I would suggest that JC is winning because he appeals to the Leftie pool of similarly minded class warriors, apologists for terrorists, anti-Semites and economic illiterates. He is picking up a huge percentage of a nationally pretty small pool of such individuals that, given union machinations and Labour's ludicrous election system (tinkered with by morons to make it even more ludicrous), have been able to build up a disproportionately large voice in the vote; and of course the gullible who still believe in Father Christmas.
Survation. @Survation 4m4 minutes ago NEW POLL: Survation's latest video poll shows that the public think Jeremy Corbyn would make the best Labour leader
NO Its the public they interviewed for the poll, not the public in general.
Survation. @Survation 4m4 minutes ago NEW POLL: Survation's latest video poll shows that the public think Jeremy Corbyn would make the best Labour leader
Survation. @Survation 4m4 minutes ago NEW POLL: Survation's latest video poll shows that the public think Jeremy Corbyn would make the best Labour leader
The same pollster who gave solace to Yes in the Indy Ref, prompting declarations of 'tipping point'?
Haven't we just learned that polls overestimate young politically engaged people? Corbyn mania is Cleggmania on steroids. Remember there was even a Brown bounce once too...
Survation. @Survation 4m4 minutes ago NEW POLL: Survation's latest video poll shows that the public think Jeremy Corbyn would make the best Labour leader
NO Its the public they interviewed for the poll, not the public in general.
Survation. @Survation 4m4 minutes ago NEW POLL: Survation's latest video poll shows that the public think Jeremy Corbyn would make the best Labour leader
There is nothing intriguing or refreshing about Corbyn. He is a cliche: a class warrior, an apologist for terrorists, a friend of anti-semites and an economic illiterate. He is winning because his opponents are so weak. The only question about his victory is whether he stays long enough as leader to keep the Tories in power for 10, 15 or 20 years.
Labour is the Stupid Party and as it wanks itself off it entrenches in power the very people it claims to oppose.
SO- it is pointless to attack the man, or the Labour folk who'll vote for him. This is not an act of self indulgent, self gratification as you suggest.
Blair believed in what he was doing. And we believed in Blair. Blairlite- a la Burnham and Cooper just comes across as vacuous and self serving. Kendall believes- but she is lightweight, unelectable and a bit bonkers.
I'm sure David Miliband would have relished this contest. Chukka would have walked it too. Possibly Dan Jarvis. But instead we have Coops and Andy- so don't blame me, or Jezza, or the Labour membership with your nauseating metaphor.
You are daft to ignore SO's comments -- ''there is nothing intriguing or refreshing about Corbyn. He is a cliche'' -- but its your funeral. I'm sorry for the tragedy that has affected Dan Jervis' family, but I see nothing particular in him as a politician that marks him out as special. Fair enough he looks sane and can walk and chew gum at the same time. Indeed pushing him forward is a huge admission that all the experienced politicians of the Brown/Miliband era were as appalling as most of us Tories have been suggesting. Having said that, when people talk about 'skipping a generation' - they usually mean skipping forwards one, not sliding back two generations. Corbyn certainly breaks the mould there. The other significant thing about Corbyn is he certainly seems to have done for Burnham, which by a process of elimination has pushed up Cooper.
Really, Burnham still leads Cooper with the public and the membership. Corbyn is though well ahead of both
Looking at the Survation pictures, Corbyn is perceived as more inteligent, in touch and trustworthy. Burham is seen as tough and charismatic. Kendall is seen as the most normal.
There is nothing intriguing or refreshing about Corbyn. He is a cliche: a class warrior, an apologist for terrorists, a friend of anti-semites and an economic illiterate. He is winning because his opponents are so weak. The only question about his victory is whether he stays long enough as leader to keep the Tories in power for 10, 15 or 20 years.
Labour is the Stupid Party and as it wanks itself off it entrenches in power the very people it claims to oppose.
I love Jeremy I too find him refreshingly on the side of the working class.
You keep repeating this anti -semites stuff. When has Corbyn been anti-semitic?
Is it just because he calls out Israels atrocities or something more concrete?
Corbyn has no real idea about "the working class". His view is as blinkered and as partial as any expressed by UKIP supporters who believe the WWC all drive white vans, have England flags in their windows and think of nothing but immigration. He is a North London (Camden & Islington) machine politician who never puts himself or his views in awkward positions. He despises the British state and the US so happily shares platforms with others who do too, never mind that they want to wipe out all Jews, keep women in servitude and kill British soldiers.
The "shares platforms" things always seem rather a stretch to me, given that I've seen people on the same platforms heavily disagree with each other.
Presumably all the other candidates are guilty of attending Labour conferences alongside Jeremy Corbyn
And was Corbyn disagreeing with those he was sharing a platform with?
There is nothing intriguing or refreshing about Corbyn. He is a cliche: a class warrior, an apologist for terrorists, a friend of anti-semites and an economic illiterate. He is winning because his opponents are so weak. The only question about his victory is whether he stays long enough as leader to keep the Tories in power for 10, 15 or 20 years.
Labour is the Stupid Party and as it wanks itself off it entrenches in power the very people it claims to oppose.
SO- it is pointless to attack the man, or the Labour folk who'll vote for him. This is not an act of self indulgent, self gratification as you suggest.
Blair believed in what he was doing. And we believed in Blair. Blairlite- a la Burnham and Cooper just comes across as vacuous and self serving. Kendall believes- but she is lightweight, unelectable and a bit bonkers.
I'm sure David Miliband would have relished this contest. Chukka would have walked it too. Possibly Dan Jarvis. But instead we have Coops and Andy- so don't blame me, or Jezza, or the Labour membership with your nauseating metaphor.
You know Corbyn can't win, you know his views are largely absurd, you know that once in charge he can lever other left-wingers into positions of power and marginalise the likes of Chukka, Jarvis and David Miliband, yet you still support him. Maybe it's not a public jerk-off, but it's some kind of destructive self-indulgence.
I wrote this many years ago on this site many times- Blair cut out the ideology of the Labour party to make it electable and a party of government. But once Labour lost government it was going to get into seriously big trouble- a party devoid of ideology, rootless, and out of power.
Out of power Labour required someone sufficiently messianic, charismatic and ruthless- as David Miliband, or perhaps Chukka- if it was going to continue it's pursuit of power on Blairite terms.
Cooper and Burnham are neither one thing or the other. A continuation of Ed which was painful and unconvincing. Kendall is a bit bonkers.
So, until a credible Blairite emerges, Corbyn is rather quite appealing. It has nothing to do with Iraq.
Corbyn is certainly the double or bust option for Labour against the Tory house...
Well done Pulps. Great analogy. Double or bust.
FWIW- on betting- I have changed completely onto Corbyn now- he is going to win, and with such a landslide that'll certainly be eye-catching. The only question is whether it'll go to second preferences which I think now is utterly irrelevant too since Corbyn will be home and hosed before then. The race will lengthen rather than tighten before the end.
Question for you, as a relatively reasonable lefty (cough). Do you honestly believe Corbyn might win a General Election? If you don't, why vote for him? If you do, how do you think that might happen, given the historical allergy of the UK electorate towards radical lefty candidates?
Or is this all about atoning for Tony and Iraq? I begin to suspect it is.
I remember many years ago seeing David Starkey pointing out that when Blair stepped down as Labour leader it would destroy the party which had been his aim all along. At the time I was inclined to see it as a bit eccentric and typical of Starkey's sensationalist mentality. Perhaps he was right though.
I believe Paddy Ashdown claimed Blair told him that Labour shouldn't have split from the Liberals.
There is nothing intriguing or refreshing about Corbyn. He is a cliche: a class warrior, an apologist for terrorists, a friend of anti-semites and an economic illiterate. He is winning because his opponents are so weak. The only question about his victory is whether he stays long enough as leader to keep the Tories in power for 10, 15 or 20 years.
Labour is the Stupid Party and as it wanks itself off it entrenches in power the very people it claims to oppose.
I love Jeremy I too find him refreshingly on the side of the working class.
You keep repeating this anti -semites stuff. When has Corbyn been anti-semitic?
Is it just because he calls out Israels atrocities or something more concrete?
Corbyn has no real idea about "the working class". His view is as blinkered and as partial as any expressed by UKIP supporters who believe the WWC all drive white vans, have England flags in their windows and think of nothing but immigration. He is a North London (Camden & Islington) machine politician who never puts himself or his views in awkward positions. He despises the British state and the US so happily shares platforms with others who do too, never mind that they want to wipe out all Jews, keep women in servitude and kill British soldiers.
The "shares platforms" things always seem rather a stretch to me, given that I've seen people on the same platforms heavily disagree with each other.
Presumably all the other candidates are guilty of attending Labour conferences alongside Jeremy Corbyn
Not sure how many of the other candidates have called Hamas friends or hsve observed minute silences for IRA terrorists.
I agree- Dan Jarvis appeared to be straw clutching based on a rather attractive back story.
But, the Tories too will find they are short of credible candidates when push comes to shove. I think Osborne, Boris and May will fall short, as the Tories look for a possible alternative. I think Hunt is the only one with real potential.
History will show that Blair, and Cameron were utterly unique.
There is nothing intriguing or refreshing about Corbyn. He is a cliche: a class warrior, an apologist for terrorists, a friend of anti-semites and an economic illiterate. He is winning because his opponents are so weak. The only question about his victory is whether he stays long enough as leader to keep the Tories in power for 10, 15 or 20 years.
Labour is the Stupid Party and as it wanks itself off it entrenches in power the very people it claims to oppose.
SO- it is pointless to attack the man, or the Labour folk who'll vote for him. This is not an act of self indulgent, self gratification as you suggest.
Blair believed in what he was doing. And we believed in Blair. Blairlite- a la Burnham and Cooper just comes across as vacuous and self serving. Kendall believes- but she is lightweight, unelectable and a bit bonkers.
I'm sure David Miliband would have relished this contest. Chukka would have walked it too. Possibly Dan Jarvis. But instead we have Coops and Andy- so don't blame me, or Jezza, or the Labour membership with your nauseating metaphor.
You are daft to ignore SO's comments -- ''there is nothing intriguing or refreshing about Corbyn. He is a cliche'' -- but its your funeral. I'm sorry for the tragedy that has affected Dan Jervis' family, but I see nothing particular in him as a politician that marks him out as special. Fair enough he looks sane and can walk and chew gum at the same time. Indeed pushing him forward is a huge admission that all the experienced politicians of the Brown/Miliband era were as appalling as most of us Tories have been suggesting. Having said that, when people talk about 'skipping a generation' - they usually mean skipping forwards one, not sliding back two generations. Corbyn certainly breaks the mould there. The other significant thing about Corbyn is he certainly seems to have done for Burnham, which by a process of elimination has pushed up Cooper.
I wrote this many years ago on this site many times- Blair cut out the ideology of the Labour party to make it electable and a party of government. But once Labour lost government it was going to get into seriously big trouble- a party devoid of ideology, rootless, and out of power.
Out of power Labour required someone sufficiently messianic, charismatic and ruthless- as David Miliband, or perhaps Chukka- if it was going to continue it's pursuit of power on Blairite terms.
Cooper and Burnham are neither one thing or the other. A continuation of Ed which was painful and unconvincing. Kendall is a bit bonkers.
So, until a credible Blairite emerges, Corbyn is rather quite appealing. It has nothing to do with Iraq.
Corbyn is certainly the double or bust option for Labour against the Tory house...
Well done Pulps. Great analogy. Double or bust.
FWIW- on betting- I have changed completely onto Corbyn now- he is going to win, and with such a landslide that'll certainly be eye-catching. The only question is whether it'll go to second preferences which I think now is utterly irrelevant too since Corbyn will be home and hosed before then. The race will lengthen rather than tighten before the end.
Question for you, as a relatively reasonable lefty (cough). Do you honestly believe Corbyn might win a General Election? If you don't, why vote for him? If you do, how do you think that might happen, given the historical allergy of the UK electorate towards radical lefty candidates?
Or is this all about atoning for Tony and Iraq? I begin to suspect it is.
I remember many years ago seeing David Starkey pointing out that when Blair stepped down as Labour leader it would destroy the party which had been his aim all along. At the time I was inclined to see it as a bit eccentric and typical of Starkey's sensationalist mentality. Perhaps he was right though.
I believe Paddy Ashdown claimed Blair told him that Labour shouldn't have split from the Liberals.
Rather ironic since it was the ex-Labour members of the SDP which really allowed the Liberals back into the big league.
Survation. @Survation 4m4 minutes ago NEW POLL: Survation's latest video poll shows that the public think Jeremy Corbyn would make the best Labour leader
Survation. @Survation 4m4 minutes ago NEW POLL: Survation's latest video poll shows that the public think Jeremy Corbyn would make the best Labour leader
Survation. @Survation 4m4 minutes ago NEW POLL: Survation's latest video poll shows that the public think Jeremy Corbyn would make the best Labour leader
Survation. @Survation 4m4 minutes ago NEW POLL: Survation's latest video poll shows that the public think Jeremy Corbyn would make the best Labour leader
NO Its the public they interviewed for the poll, not the public in general.
NEVER BELIEVE POLLS
There's a lot more wrong with the poll than that - my take on it will be up tomorrow.
I agree- Dan Jarvis appeared to be straw clutching based on a rather attractive back story.
But, the Tories too will find they are short of credible candidates when push comes to shove. I think Osborne, Boris and May will fall short, as the Tories look for a possible alternative. I think Hunt is the only one with real potential.
History will show that Blair, and Cameron were utterly unique.
There is nothing intriguing or refreshing about Corbyn. He is a cliche: a class warrior, an apologist for terrorists, a friend of anti-semites and an economic illiterate. He is winning because his opponents are so weak. The only question about his victory is whether he stays long enough as leader to keep the Tories in power for 10, 15 or 20 years.
Labour is the Stupid Party and as it wanks itself off it entrenches in power the very people it claims to oppose.
SO- it is pointless to attack the man, or the Labour folk who'll vote for him. This is not an act of self indulgent, self gratification as you suggest.
Blair believed in what he was doing. And we believed in Blair. Blairlite- a la Burnham and Cooper just comes across as vacuous and self serving. Kendall believes- but she is lightweight, unelectable and a bit bonkers.
I'm sure David Miliband would have relished this contest. Chukka would have walked it too. Possibly Dan Jarvis. But instead we have Coops and Andy- so don't blame me, or Jezza, or the Labour membership with your nauseating metaphor.
You are daft to ignore SO's comments -- ''there is nothing intriguing or refreshing about Corbyn. He is a cliche'' -- but its your funeral. I'm sorry for the tragedy that has affected Dan Jervis' family, but I see nothing particular in him as a politician that marks him out as special. Fair enough he looks sane and can walk and chew gum at the same time. Indeed pushing him forward is a huge admission that all the experienced politicians of the Brown/Miliband era were as appalling as most of us Tories have been suggesting. Having said that, when people talk about 'skipping a generation' - they usually mean skipping forwards one, not sliding back two generations. Corbyn certainly breaks the mould there. The other significant thing about Corbyn is he certainly seems to have done for Burnham, which by a process of elimination has pushed up Cooper.
Frank- to the contrary, I find Blair's rather histrionic interventions into this contest rather endearing. Blair is proving himself to be tribally Labour, and someone who is desperate for the party to continue as a party of government.
But this all does show the potential pitfalls of drawing your party too far off it's centre of gravity. What is your plan B?
I wrote this many years ago on this site many times- Blair cut out the ideology of the Labour party to make it electable and a party of government. But once Labour lost government it was going to get into seriously big trouble- a party devoid of ideology, rootless, and out of power.
Out of power Labour required someone sufficiently messianic, charismatic and ruthless- as David Miliband, or perhaps Chukka- if it was going to continue it's pursuit of power on Blairite terms.
Cooper and Burnham are neither one thing or the other. A continuation of Ed which was painful and unconvincing. Kendall is a bit bonkers.
So, until a credible Blairite emerges, Corbyn is rather quite appealing. It has nothing to do with Iraq.
Corbyn is certainly the double or bust option for Labour against the Tory house...
Well done Pulps. Great analogy. Double or bust.
FWIW- on betting- I have changed completely onto Corbyn now- he is going to win, and with such a landslide that'll certainly be eye-catching. The only question is whether it'll go to second preferences which I think now is utterly irrelevant too since Corbyn will be home and hosed before then. The race will lengthen rather than tighten before the end.
Question for you, as a relatively reasonable lefty (cough). Do you honestly believe Corbyn might win a General Election? If you don't, why vote for him? If you do, how do you think that might happen, given the historical allergy of the UK electorate towards radical lefty candidates?
Or is this all about atoning for Tony and Iraq? I begin to suspect it is.
I remember many years ago seeing David Starkey pointing out that when Blair stepped down as Labour leader it would destroy the party which had been his aim all along. At the time I was inclined to see it as a bit eccentric and typical of Starkey's sensationalist mentality. Perhaps he was right though.
I believe Paddy Ashdown claimed Blair told him that Labour shouldn't have split from the Liberals.
So ive paid my 3 quid and will be voting for Jeremy Corbyn. Here's why: He is the only candidate who has policies, has principles. Do I agree with them all? Hell no. Yet I want more of his kind. We are finally moving away from the Clinton, Blair copy and paste platitudes of bullshit, faux sincerity and perpetuation of a self-serving elite who purport to be left-wing but value presentation over policy. Kick them out, ransack their intellectual abodes and bring the House down. Time to clean the Temples of the cult of Triangulation
I wrote this many years ago on this site many times- Blair cut out the ideology of the Labour party to make it electable and a party of government. But once Labour lost government it was going to get into seriously big trouble- a party devoid of ideology, rootless, and out of power.
Out of power Labour required someone sufficiently messianic, charismatic and ruthless- as David Miliband, or perhaps Chukka- if it was going to continue it's pursuit of power on Blairite terms.
Cooper and Burnham are neither one thing or the other. A continuation of Ed which was painful and unconvincing. Kendall is a bit bonkers.
So, until a credible Blairite emerges, Corbyn is rather quite appealing. It has nothing to do with Iraq.
Corbyn is certainly the double or bust option for Labour against the Tory house...
Well done Pulps. Great analogy. Double or bust.
FWIW- on betting- I have changed completely onto Corbyn now- he is going to win, and with such a landslide that'll certainly be eye-catching. The only question is whether it'll go to second preferences which I think now is utterly irrelevant too since Corbyn will be home and hosed before then. The race will lengthen rather than tighten before the end.
Question for you, as a relatively reasonable lefty (cough). Do you honestly believe Corbyn might win a General Election? If you don't, why vote for him? If you do, how do you think that might happen, given the historical allergy of the UK electorate towards radical lefty candidates?
Or is this all about atoning for Tony and Iraq? I begin to suspect it is.
That Morley & Outwood result might well be the most significant single constituency poll for Labour since Bristol East in 1983. However, while that one saved Labour, this one might have damned it.
Survation. @Survation 4m4 minutes ago NEW POLL: Survation's latest video poll shows that the public think Jeremy Corbyn would make the best Labour leader
@michaelsavage: In a letter leaked to the Times, Chuka Umunna has urged local members and supporters to back ABC (Anyone But Corbyn) http://t.co/l8VwvKAC6B
One thing that I stand with Corbyn on. Brown was an idiot.
PFI / DBFO for hospitals and schools seems odd, to me at least. For other things, such as roads, it can make good sense. Using it on schools, hospitals and other complex operational systems was just an accounting trick, albeit a very expensive one in the long term.
It depends how they were negotiated - I'm not sure you know what is involved. Conventional procurement methods always brought with it significant cost overruns, mainly due to design changes brought on by the complex nature of hospitals and the inability of the clients to make their minds up.
Since PFI contacts include maintenance and renewals and ensuring that after 30 years the buildings are virtually as good as new ... then we can be sure that the savings will involve letting the infrastructure go to rack and ruin, just like the good old days. Furthermore since PFI contracts involve the servicing of all aspects of the hospital from running the heating to serving the cups of coffee we can be also sure that if they are returned to unionised public sector hands then the savings will rapidly deteriorate. And they will involve large scale payments for the original construction and loss of income to the PFI company.
Brown's error was in the mass production of PFI schemes and the simple minded belief that all spending was good and spending it on all new bricks and mortar was even better.
@michaelsavage: In a letter leaked to the Times, Chuka Umunna has urged local members and supporters to back ABC (Anyone But Corbyn) http://t.co/l8VwvKAC6B
what none of us know is how guileful Corbyn can be. His basic policies are likely to be an instant hit with the public. Even nationalizing the railways is popular and loudly protesting Osborne's cruelty to the poor while reducing IHT for the rich and looking authentic when doing it is sure to make him a hit.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Labour getting quite a boost in the polls. His problems might come down the line. If he's able to temper some of his wilder excesses and even appoint one or two right wingers to important positions (Cooper to the treasury?) then he might surprise us all.
Are you really falling for your own spin or are you just putting as good a gloss on the situation as you can?
This sort of populism could lead to a mild boost in the mid-term polls as Miliband's Labour got but without being credible it is never going to be election winning.
Corbyn is likely to do better in Scotland though and remember even Foot and IDS got a few poll leads
Scottish politics is not a simplistic matter of left or right. Scotland is its own mini universe now and it won't change until something dramatic happens like the SNP becomes dramatically unpopular, enters into coalition with the Tories (see previous remark) or there are other Scottish-only parties to compete with the SNP like the SDLP in Northern Ireland.
Simply being as left as Sturgeon on nuclear weapons and maybe a tad more left on economic issues is not enough.
One thing that I stand with Corbyn on. Brown was an idiot.
PFI / DBFO for hospitals and schools seems odd, to me at least. For other things, such as roads, it can make good sense. Using it on schools, hospitals and other complex operational systems was just an accounting trick, albeit a very expensive one in the long term.
It depends how they were negotiated - I'm not sure you know what is involved. Conventional procurement methods always brought with it significant cost overruns, mainly due to design changes brought on by the complex nature of hospitals and the inability of the clients to make their minds up.
Since PFI contacts include maintenance and renewals and ensuring that after 30 years the buildings are virtually as good as new ... then we can be sure that the savings will involve letting the infrastructure go to rack and ruin, just like the good old days. Furthermore since PFI contracts involve the servicing of all aspects of the hospital from running the heating to serving the cups of coffee we can be also sure that if they are returned to unionised public sector hands then the savings will rapidly deteriorate. And they will involve large scale payments for the original construction and loss of income to the PFI company.
Brown's error was in the mass production of PFI schemes and the simple minded belief that all spending was good and spending it on all new bricks and mortar was even better.
You're right about many of the schemes being nonsensical, whether PFI or more traditionally-funded projects. But I also think you're viewing the schemes a little too positively. Whilst it might take design / build risks out of the equation, it can add risk to the operation side. What happens when the hospital needs more room? Or the school cannot attract enough pupils?
A good, complex contract could capture everything. But they're very devilish to get right, and evidently many were not.
PFI is a useful tool to be used where it is most appropriate. Brown and others used it as a hammer to cut wood - the wrong tool for the job.
Survation. @Survation 4m4 minutes ago NEW POLL: Survation's latest video poll shows that the public think Jeremy Corbyn would make the best Labour leader
The same pollster who gave solace to Yes in the Indy Ref, prompting declarations of 'tipping point'?
Survation. @Survation 4m4 minutes ago NEW POLL: Survation's latest video poll shows that the public think Jeremy Corbyn would make the best Labour leader
Corbyn has no real idea about "the working class". His view is as blinkered and as partial as any ...
...
Not sure how many of the other candidates have called Hamas friends or hsve observed minute silences for IRA terrorists.
PB Tory PropgandaTM
You have lost all powers of reason. Even The Guardian points out... ''For one thing, he is the chair of an organisation which a decade ago effectively supported attacks on British troops. During the disastrous Iraq war, the misleadingly named Stop the War Coalition released a statement which “reaffirms its call for an end to the occupation, the return of all British troops in Iraq to this country and recognises once more the legitimacy of the struggle of Iraqis, by whatever means they find necessary, to secure such ends”.'' and ''Take the fact that Corbyn once described it as his “honour and pleasure” to host “our friends” from Hamas and Hezbollah in parliament. According to Corbyn, he extended his invitation to the aforementioned groups – and spoke of them glowingly – because all sides need to be involved in the peace process. So far, so reasonable. Yet negotiation is not on Hamas’s agenda, as Corbyn ought to know. In its charter Hamas states: “Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement… There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through jihad.” '' and ''Corbyn has also: - Taken tea on the parliamentary terrace with Raed Salah, who he described as “a very honoured citizen” despite that fact that Salah was charged with inciting anti-Jewish racism and violence in January 2008 in Jerusalem and sentenced to eight months in prison. He was found by a British court judge to have used the “blood libel”, the medieval antisemitic canard that Jews use gentile blood for ritual purposes;' - Written a letter defending Stephen Sizer, the vicar disciplined by the Church of England for linking to an article on social media entitled 9/11: Israel Did It; - Presented a call-in programme on Press TV, a propaganda channel of the Iranian government which was banned by Ofcom and which regularly hosts Holocaust deniers; - on 22 August Corbyn is scheduled to share a platform with Carlos Latuff, a cartoonist who regularly uses antisemitic imagery in his cartoons but denies being antisemitic. Middle East Monitor, the group organising the event, has been accused by the Community Security Trust of promoting conspiracy theories and myths about Jews''
Frank- to the contrary, I find Blair's rather histrionic interventions into this contest rather endearing. Blair is proving himself to be tribally Labour, and someone who is desperate for the party to continue as a party of government.
But this all does show the potential pitfalls of drawing your party too far off it's centre of gravity. What is your plan B?
I wrote this many years ago on this site many times- Blair cut out the ideology of the Labour party to make it electable and a party of government. But once Labour lost government it was going to get into seriously big trouble- a party devoid of ideology, rootless, and out of power.
Out of power Labour required someone sufficiently messianic, charismatic and ruthless- as David Miliband, or perhaps Chukka- if it was going to continue it's pursuit of power on Blairite terms.
Cooper and Burnham are neither one thing or the other. A continuation of Ed which was painful and unconvincing. Kendall is a bit bonkers.
So, until a credible Blairite emerges, Corbyn is rather quite appealing. It has nothing to do with Iraq.
Corbyn is certainly the double or bust option for Labour against the Tory house...
Well done Pulps. Great analogy. Double or bust.
FWIW- on betting- I have changed completely onto Corbyn now- he is going to win, and with such a landslide that'll certainly be eye-catching. The only question is whether it'll go to second preferences which I think now is utterly irrelevant too since Corbyn will be home and hosed before then. The race will lengthen rather than tighten before the end.
Question for you, as a relatively reasonable lefty (cough). Do you honestly believe Corbyn might win a General Election? If you don't, why vote for him? If you do, how do you think that might happen, given the historical allergy of the UK electorate towards radical lefty candidates?
Or is this all about atoning for Tony and Iraq? I begin to suspect it is.
I remember many years ago seeing David Starkey pointing out that when Blair stepped down as Labour leader it would destroy the party which had been his aim all along. At the time I was inclined to see it as a bit eccentric and typical of Starkey's sensationalist mentality. Perhaps he was right though.
I believe Paddy Ashdown claimed Blair told him that Labour shouldn't have split from the Liberals.
I've given up on political suggestions since the GE but I don't find Blair endearing in the slightest. It strikes me as the desperate pleading of a man who's afraid of no longer being relevant.
One thing that I stand with Corbyn on. Brown was an idiot.
.....
It depends how they were negotiated - I'm not sure you know what is involved. Conventional procurement methods always brought with it significant cost overruns, mainly due to design changes brought on by the complex nature of hospitals and the inability of the clients to make their minds up.
snip for space
Brown's error was in the mass production of PFI schemes and the simple minded belief that all spending was good and spending it on all new bricks and mortar was even better.
You're right about many of the schemes being nonsensical, whether PFI or more traditionally-funded projects. But I also think you're viewing the schemes a little too positively. Whilst it might take design / build risks out of the equation, it can add risk to the operation side. What happens when the hospital needs more room? Or the school cannot attract enough pupils? A good, complex contract could capture everything. But they're very devilish to get right, and evidently many were not. PFI is a useful tool to be used where it is most appropriate. Brown and others used it as a hammer to cut wood - the wrong tool for the job.
I take your points they are broadly valid - and I am aware of them. In short - future flexibility needs to be taken into account. I seem to recall millions spent on schools and then they were closed down. Not sure how big that problem is. But no matter what the procurement, if you build a glistening hospital and then start rebuilding it - then there will be costs. Its not that hospitals might need more room, its that its existing rooms might need to be put to a different use. And generally a hospital site is a collection of wings and buildings and spaces of all ages that are there to be developed and redeveloped as time goes on (usually on the side of a hill and with atrocious ground conditions) The big problem with many hospitals is that there are too many of them in some places and there is hell to pay when one is closed down at the expense of another. This is where money is wasted.
Just an observation- just as anyone should never, ever begin a letter by saying-- "I am writing this letter for bla, bla, bla......"---of course you're writing a letter you numpty;
so no one should ever start their written submission to members in a leadership contest--"I am running to be leader..."
Comments
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/jeremy-corbyn-highest-rated-labour-leadership-contender-by-general-public-according-to-new-poll-31452426.html
Corbyn is certainly the double or bust option for Labour against the Tory house...
Locals and leader ratings will be instructive tbh.
It is only the stupidest, most mentally challenged and utterly retarded morons in society who have any problem with GM crops. GM is one thing - a more scientific and accurate method of hybridisation. Hybridisation is the way Humans have evolved and been able to feed themselves on a plant that could not possible cope with the food requirements of 7 billion people.
Yet it does. Because hybridisation has allowed Humans to escalate food supply and defy Malthys. It is the only way you can actually provide food to people. It has existed for at least 10,000 years, without it we would be trying to exist on primordial crops which, compared to today offer about one twentieth of the yield.
The GM ban is utterly retarded, scientifically idiotic and culturally backward, giving in the base fears of a population and society which can be manipulated with ease by the right triggers.
Labour is the Stupid Party and as it wanks itself off it entrenches in power the very people it claims to oppose.
FWIW- on betting- I have changed completely onto Corbyn now- he is going to win, and with such a landslide that'll certainly be eye-catching. The only question is whether it'll go to second preferences which I think now is utterly irrelevant too since Corbyn will be home and hosed before then. The race will lengthen rather than tighten before the end.
@stephenkb: I have done a U-Turn. Labour leadership election has proved to me that adopting the Alternative Vote would be a mistake.
The number of illiterate articles in the press this week about AV doesn't work is embarrassing
You keep repeating this anti -semites stuff. When has Corbyn been anti-semitic?
Is it just because he calls out Israels atrocities or something more concrete?
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/jvcr8gkvrb/SundayTimesResults_150724_W.pdf
Have you ever been right about anything?
@iainmartin1: Huge crowd for Labour's Jeremy Corbyn in Nationalist Glasgow tonight. The SNP has taken Glasgow for granted for months now...
@Andy4Leader: Steve Coogan endorses Andy: http://t.co/DtJY81wh6W
RT if you also #BackBurnham
#Andy4Leader #PowerNotProtest http://t.co/xzLT7Xx2xO
Blair believed in what he was doing. And we believed in Blair. Blairlite- a la Burnham and Cooper just comes across as vacuous and self serving. Kendall believes- but she is lightweight, unelectable and a bit bonkers.
I'm sure David Miliband would have relished this contest. Chukka would have walked it too. Possibly Dan Jarvis. But instead we have Coops and Andy- so don't blame me, or Jezza, or the Labour membership with your nauseating metaphor.
Jezza packs em in sends em home happy!
The others would lose plenty of Labour votes to the left but they are too useless and incompetent to gain any Tory votes to compensate for it.
If Corbyn starts doing rallies in stadiums he would have reached SNP levels.
Presumably all the other candidates are guilty of attending Labour conferences alongside Jeremy Corbyn
(Eddie Izzard broke his duck backing No in indyref)
Out of power Labour required someone sufficiently messianic, charismatic and ruthless- as David Miliband, or perhaps Chukka- if it was going to continue it's pursuit of power on Blairite terms.
Cooper and Burnham are neither one thing or the other. A continuation of Ed which was painful and unconvincing. Kendall is a bit bonkers.
So, until a credible Blairite emerges, Corbyn is rather quite appealing. It has nothing to do with Iraq.
I'm sorry for the tragedy that has affected Dan Jervis' family, but I see nothing particular in him as a politician that marks him out as special. Fair enough he looks sane and can walk and chew gum at the same time. Indeed pushing him forward is a huge admission that all the experienced politicians of the Brown/Miliband era were as appalling as most of us Tories have been suggesting.
Having said that, when people talk about 'skipping a generation' - they usually mean skipping forwards one, not sliding back two generations. Corbyn certainly breaks the mould there.
The other significant thing about Corbyn is he certainly seems to have done for Burnham, which by a process of elimination has pushed up Cooper.
Thats exactly what I said to my Kendall supporting MP when I saw him at a football match last week about his preferred candidate.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/10/the-daniel-morgan-murder-an-unsolved-mystery-of-the-murdoch-hacking-scandal.html?
The News of the World got into a bit more trouble than just wiretapping.
I wonder what happened to the inquiry.
http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h4030
One thing that I stand with Corbyn on. Brown was an idiot.
NEW POLL: Survation's latest video poll shows that the public think Jeremy Corbyn would make the best Labour leader
NEVER BELIEVE POLLS
Haven't we just learned that polls overestimate young politically engaged people? Corbyn mania is Cleggmania on steroids.
Remember there was even a Brown bounce once too...
Straight to the bin for Kendall reasons.
Tables here:
http://survation.com/labour-leadership-latest-survation-video-poll/
I believe Paddy Ashdown claimed Blair told him that Labour shouldn't have split from the Liberals.
But, the Tories too will find they are short of credible candidates when push comes to shove. I think Osborne, Boris and May will fall short, as the Tories look for a possible alternative. I think Hunt is the only one with real potential.
History will show that Blair, and Cameron were utterly unique.
JICILL
Gets coat
Using it on schools, hospitals and other complex operational systems was just an accounting trick, albeit a very expensive one in the long term.
Conservatives 38.1%
Labour 32.6%
UKIP 14.7%
LibDems 6.1%
SNP 5%
Greens 2.6%
https://twitter.com/UKGE2020
[Corbyn is Crap is PM]
But this all does show the potential pitfalls of drawing your party too far off it's centre of gravity. What is your plan B?
Liz Fickest and less charismatic than Cooper. Is that even possible Sooty is more charismatic than Cooper
CON 38
LAB 33
UKIP 15
LD 6
SNP 5
GRN 3
EU
IN 46
OUT 37
Corbyn 28
Burnham 18
Cooper 13
Kendall 13
Among Con, Labour, LD, UKIP and Other voters:
Corbyn 18, 37, 33, 32, 47
Burnham 17, 25, 19, 21, 13
Cooper 14, 15, 10, 9, 10
Kendall 16, 8, 15, 13, 10
@michaelsavage: However, in the leaked letter, Chuka Umunna calls on the party to unite around Corbyn if he wins. http://t.co/Yh2RX2Cy62
Since PFI contacts include maintenance and renewals and ensuring that after 30 years the buildings are virtually as good as new ... then we can be sure that the savings will involve letting the infrastructure go to rack and ruin, just like the good old days.
Furthermore since PFI contracts involve the servicing of all aspects of the hospital from running the heating to serving the cups of coffee we can be also sure that if they are returned to unionised public sector hands then the savings will rapidly deteriorate. And they will involve large scale payments for the original construction and loss of income to the PFI company.
Brown's error was in the mass production of PFI schemes and the simple minded belief that all spending was good and spending it on all new bricks and mortar was even better.
Da diddly qua qua
Da diddly qua qua
Da diddly qua qua
Simply being as left as Sturgeon on nuclear weapons and maybe a tad more left on economic issues is not enough.
Corbyn 16, 30, 20, 32, 36
Burnham 27, 28, 26, 22, 21
Cooper 17, 15, 20, 11, 14
Kendall 9, 7, 11, 9, 6
A good, complex contract could capture everything. But they're very devilish to get right, and evidently many were not.
PFI is a useful tool to be used where it is most appropriate. Brown and others used it as a hammer to cut wood - the wrong tool for the job.
Oh dear what a shame
Even The Guardian points out...
''For one thing, he is the chair of an organisation which a decade ago effectively supported attacks on British troops.
During the disastrous Iraq war, the misleadingly named Stop the War Coalition released a statement which “reaffirms its call for an end to the occupation, the return of all British troops in Iraq to this country and recognises once more the legitimacy of the struggle of Iraqis, by whatever means they find necessary, to secure such ends”.''
and
''Take the fact that Corbyn once described it as his “honour and pleasure” to host “our friends” from Hamas and Hezbollah in parliament. According to Corbyn, he extended his invitation to the aforementioned groups – and spoke of them glowingly – because all sides need to be involved in the peace process.
So far, so reasonable. Yet negotiation is not on Hamas’s agenda, as Corbyn ought to know. In its charter Hamas states: “Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement… There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through jihad.” ''
and
''Corbyn has also:
- Taken tea on the parliamentary terrace with Raed Salah, who he described as “a very honoured citizen” despite that fact that Salah was charged with inciting anti-Jewish racism and violence in January 2008 in Jerusalem and sentenced to eight months in prison. He was found by a British court judge to have used the “blood libel”, the medieval antisemitic canard that Jews use gentile blood for ritual purposes;'
- Written a letter defending Stephen Sizer, the vicar disciplined by the Church of England for linking to an article on social media entitled 9/11: Israel Did It;
- Presented a call-in programme on Press TV, a propaganda channel of the Iranian government which was banned by Ofcom and which regularly hosts Holocaust deniers;
- on 22 August Corbyn is scheduled to share a platform with Carlos Latuff, a cartoonist who regularly uses antisemitic imagery in his cartoons but denies being antisemitic. Middle East Monitor, the group organising the event, has been accused by the Community Security Trust of promoting conspiracy theories and myths about Jews''
But no matter what the procurement, if you build a glistening hospital and then start rebuilding it - then there will be costs.
Its not that hospitals might need more room, its that its existing rooms might need to be put to a different use.
And generally a hospital site is a collection of wings and buildings and spaces of all ages that are there to be developed and redeveloped as time goes on (usually on the side of a hill and with atrocious ground conditions)
The big problem with many hospitals is that there are too many of them in some places and there is hell to pay when one is closed down at the expense of another. This is where money is wasted.
so no one should ever start their written submission to members in a leadership contest--"I am running to be leader..."
Yvette Cooper, please.