Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Undefined discussion subject.

SystemSystem Posts: 6,199
edited August 2015 in General
«13456

Comments

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,736
    edited August 2015
    IDS had also been a serial backbench rebel before he was elected Tory leader. While some of his associations are unsavoury are associating with Pinochet or the House of Said much better?
  • FPT:

    john_zims said:
    @NickPalmer

    'Personally I've decided for Corbyn (after leaning to Cooper earlier)'

    From a Blair fan to a Corbyn fan,

    Just following the crowd or a chameleon ?




    Times have changed. Blair was right for 1997 and 2001. Corbyn's right for now.

    People need someone they can believe in, someone who can make "they're all the same" a thing of the past.

    If there was a less divisive candidate with Corbyn's authenticity and ability to energise, I'd be backing them. But what's on offer from AB, YC and LK is insipid and uninspiring. It has to be Corbyn.

    Really, I'm not saying this because I backed him when his odds were long. It's appalling the way he's been treated by right-wingers in the party.

    I acknowledge some of his positions are challenging (mainly on foreign policy; I think his economic ideas are just what we need right now), but the answer is to work with him and reach compromises, not hand the Tories ammunition to use against a potential democratically-elected leader. Mann and Danczuk, in particular, have behaved disgracefully.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,851
    HYUFD said:

    IDS had also been a serial backbench rebel before he was elected Tory leader. While some of his associations are unsavoury are associating with Pinochet or the House of Said much better?

    Would be interesting to compare the number of times each rebelled. Interesting to this PBer anyway....
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,736
    Indeed though with IDS it was mainly Maastricht and Europe, night
  • handandmousehandandmouse Posts: 180
    edited August 2015
    Generally I hold humanitarianism in much higher esteem than patriotism - I expect I have this in common with most people who'd identify as being on the left.

    I'll be up-front, though, and say that my two biggest concerns with Corbyn, as a supporter, are related...

    1) His support for a united Ireland and (as Liz flagged yesterday), potential impact on the NI Peace Process

    2) His position on the Falklands and, by extension, Gibraltar (this was flagged up on here, I don't recall by who).

    It's not enough to put me off voting for him, primarily because I see the growing wealth gap as the #1 issue we face right now, and he's the only one speaking to it in any sort of convincing way. But, I do think he will need to adapt some of his pacifist positions and speak up for Britain's interests more to succeed as leader and improve the party's polling.
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @handandmouse

    'Times have changed. Blair was right for 1997 and 2001. Corbyn's right for now. '

    But this is not some minor change,it would be in the same league as a Ken Clarke supporter switching their allegiance to Nigel Farage.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    HYUFD said:
    So your idea is that any woman that cant get a job should show off her tits?

    You really are a despicable creature.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,851
    Dair said:

    HYUFD said:
    So your idea is that any woman that cant get a job should show off her tits?

    You really are a despicable creature.
    She seemed to enjoy the modelling on Twitter. Why not go pro?
  • PaulyPauly Posts: 860

    Generally I hold humanitarianism in much higher esteem than patriotism - I expect I have this in common with most people who'd identify as being on the left.

    I'll be up-front, though, and say that my two biggest concerns with Corbyn, as a supporter, are related...

    1) His support for a united Ireland and (as Liz flagged yesterday), potential impact on the NI Peace Process

    2) His position on the Falklands and, by extension, Gibraltar (this was flagged up on here, I don't recall by who).

    It's not enough to put me off voting for him, primarily because I see the growing wealth gap as the #1 issue we face right now, and he's the only one speaking to it in any sort of convincing way. But, I do think he will need to adapt some of his pacifist positions and speak up for Britain's interests more to succeed as leader and improve the party's polling.

    Which of his policies actually tackle wealth inequality?
    Tax redistribution is an old one that may be wrong when to have the best public services you should aim for tax revenue maximisation.
    Nationalisation of industries may reduce people's energy bills and rail fares (if you're lucky and corbyn's open door migration policy doesn't increase demand to offset it) but it doesn't tackle inequality.
  • Excellent PB Tory Propaganda piece, David!
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,736
    (OT) In the 1980s the Guinness Book of Records said that James Callaghan held the record for being the tallest ever PM in the UK (6 feet 1.5 inches). He must have shrunk a bit in old age:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMaND6MWEAAbW0_.jpg
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 22,432
    Labour — The Wilderness Years:

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XrO72C1WQ0
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    edited August 2015
    RobD said:

    Dair said:

    HYUFD said:
    So your idea is that any woman that cant get a job should show off her tits?

    You really are a despicable creature.
    She seemed to enjoy the modelling on Twitter. Why not go pro?
    So your decision over how a woman is perceived is the way you think that women should be perceived. You really need shot. I hope you don't have a daughter to abuse this way.
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 3,940
    @DavidHerdson just put up one of the best and most insightful articles yet on the Corbyn campaign, he absolutely nailed his well argued article in his header too. Take a bow David, also hope that most of the political lobby take the time to read it.

    And despite the recent local Scottish by-election results, and the very clear probability that the SNP might still win another majority in next years Holyrood elections. I am also going to hand Corbyn probable his biggest political victory outside winning the Labour Leadership if he pulls it off on the day. He may well have finally put the brakes on the SNP juggernaut up here in Scotland, he is certainly drowning out the usually North Korean style SNP PR machine in the local news with some positive media attention of his own. I almost laughed when I heard that Corbyn had Yes badge wearing supporters in the audience in Dundee rather than the usual chanting SNP.Yes hostile mob outside a venue which normally greets and tries to chase any non SNP or Indy supporting politician who dares to speak publicly in Scotland to a crowd out of town!!

    Its often been said that Cameron was a lucky Conservative Leader, but hell, just how lucky can you get as your Leadership of the Conservative party enters its second decade?! Almost the minute the final GE results were in and the shock Conservative majority sank in, the usual grim reapers were already writing his obituary due to the now upcoming EU referendum etc. How is that coming along now just as Nigel Farage and UKIP have suddenly faded from relevance as the new maverick anti EU party who ended up giving the Labour party a run for its money with far less success than the SNP did up North in Scotland?! And as for the 'rebellious and PR stunt' ridden SNP 56 at Westminster, hold onto your hats, there may yet be a more bearded version of James Dean grabbing more attention than you have managed after the summer recess. And with Corbyn's far more Labour friendly Independence and anti-austerity overtures, the SNP may in fact be forced to eat their words and work with a Labour Opposition rather than threaten it as the did before the GE.

    Corbyn might well yet support a No vote in an EU referendum which would really put the cat among the pigeons on the far left who had thought they had a Yes vote support sewn up. And what of the SNP who were also firing themselves up to call for another Indy Referendum if Scotland voted Yes to stay in EU while the rest of the UK might have voted NO? I look forward to Sturgeon trying to avoid getting caught on the same side of the argument as Cameron as she tries duck any connection with Cameron who also plans to campaign to stay in the EU if he gets the negotiated EU settlement he wants. And while Farage may yet have to put on a brave smile sharing a platform with Jeremy Corbyn. UK politics just got really fun again. And the betting opportunities must be boundless right now.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,851
    Dair said:

    RobD said:

    Dair said:

    HYUFD said:
    So your idea is that any woman that cant get a job should show off her tits?

    You really are a despicable creature.
    She seemed to enjoy the modelling on Twitter. Why not go pro?
    So your decision over how a woman is perceived is the way you think that women should be perceived. You really need shot. I hope you don't have a daughter to abuse this way.
    i wasn't talking about how she was perceived. I was talking about something she seemed to enjoy doing. She's clearly very happy with her form, and if she wanted to model, then why not. I'm not saying she has to do it.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    RobD said:

    Dair said:

    RobD said:

    Dair said:

    HYUFD said:
    So your idea is that any woman that cant get a job should show off her tits?

    You really are a despicable creature.
    She seemed to enjoy the modelling on Twitter. Why not go pro?
    So your decision over how a woman is perceived is the way you think that women should be perceived. You really need shot. I hope you don't have a daughter to abuse this way.
    i wasn't talking about how she was perceived. I was talking about something she seemed to enjoy doing. She's clearly very happy with her form, and if she wanted to model, then why not. I'm not saying she has to do it.
    You might want to move this debate to virtuesignalling.com ;)
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,851
    Indigo said:

    RobD said:

    Dair said:

    RobD said:

    Dair said:

    HYUFD said:
    So your idea is that any woman that cant get a job should show off her tits?

    You really are a despicable creature.
    She seemed to enjoy the modelling on Twitter. Why not go pro?
    So your decision over how a woman is perceived is the way you think that women should be perceived. You really need shot. I hope you don't have a daughter to abuse this way.
    i wasn't talking about how she was perceived. I was talking about something she seemed to enjoy doing. She's clearly very happy with her form, and if she wanted to model, then why not. I'm not saying she has to do it.
    You might want to move this debate to virtuesignalling.com ;)
    Sorry, can't hear you over the Tory majority government we have. :)

    Titters...
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,078
    Today (Friday) is the first of 10 days of the Iowa State Fair.

    Trump arrives tomorrow. He flies into Des Moines and then helicopters to the fair site. He has announced he will give free helicopter rides to kids. He has jury service in NYC Monday.

    Hillary will also be there tomorrow, probably less flamboyantly.

    Developments on the email front -

    The NJ technology company which handed her server over to the FBI says it has been wiped, but the contents were backed up to another server which is still there. She handed over all her emails to State on paper, so it's going to take a while before they're searchable, depending what is on the thumb drives.

    The major point is that now Hillary is no longer in control of the email story. The DOJ has clearly taken the decision to let the FBI loose on this. Contrary to the campaign PR, every FBI investigation is criminal, as the outfit will tell you. The FBI is relentless, thorough, patient, and has infinite resources. The current Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, headed up the FIFA investigation in her previous position.

    The front runner for the Democratic nomination is under investigation by the FBI, and not a single democrat has commented on it.

    Other than the results of the FBI probe, which if bad would take her out, it's hard to see her not getting the nomination at present. But there are other clouds starting to appear on her horizon, according to the polls.

    A spokesman for chainsaw Al Gore has denied he is considering a run. We'll see.

    Joe Biden has hired a couple of campaign consultants. He says he will announce if he's running by the end of the summer.

    Rumors are also circulating that Sec of State John Kerry is thinking of a run.

  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,078
    edited August 2015
    Correction - Friday is the third day of the Iowa State Fair.

    Saturday, Hillary is scheduled to arrive at 10.30am, Trump at 12.30pm
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,736
    Two years ago I thought it was unfortunate that Patrick Moore didn't quite live long enough to see the spectacular Chelyabinsk meteorite crashing through the atmosphere.

    Now I'm thinking it's a pity Tony Benn didn't live long enough to see the Corbynpocalypse.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,851
    One for @Sunil_Prasannan and the PB rail cabal. When should one be worried about points on a railway? I was reading up on the Potters Bar crash, and it was reported that three passengers noted violent jolting to the left and right when passing points.

    I only ask because I have noticed on the BART quite a few times that the when passing points the jolting can be quite forceful. Perhaps the wider gauge (5ft 6in) explains it, and I shouldn't be worried?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,878
    Looking at the Survation poll in detail and the " much more likely to vote Labour/much less likely to vote Labour" question, it's clear that Con/Lib Dem/UKIP voters react against Corbyn and that most of the pro-Corbyn feeling comes from existing Labour voters or "Others" (presumably Greens and SNP).
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,878
    HYUFD said:

    IDS had also been a serial backbench rebel before he was elected Tory leader. While some of his associations are unsavoury are associating with Pinochet or the House of Said much better?

    His leadership did not turn out well.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,572
    JohnLoony said:

    (OT) In the 1980s the Guinness Book of Records said that James Callaghan held the record for being the tallest ever PM in the UK (6 feet 1.5 inches). He must have shrunk a bit in old age:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMaND6MWEAAbW0_.jpg

    People do shrink with age, and in the photo Callaghan's knees seem to be bent. However, according to the Guardian's cut-out-and-keep guide to world leaders' heights, Lord Salisbury (Robert Gascoyne-Cecil) was tallest Prime Minister at 6'4" and Mrs Thatcher was the same height as Maradona.
    http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/oct/18/world-leader-heights-tall
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,266
    RobD said:

    One for @Sunil_Prasannan and the PB rail cabal. When should one be worried about points on a railway? I was reading up on the Potters Bar crash, and it was reported that three passengers noted violent jolting to the left and right when passing points.

    I only ask because I have noticed on the BART quite a few times that the when passing points the jolting can be quite forceful. Perhaps the wider gauge (5ft 6in) explains it, and I shouldn't be worried?

    If it's system wide, it's probably an artefact of a poorly designed/maintained system. If it's in one, or a handful, of places, whilst others are fine, I'd report them - try to give as accurate a position as possible, the service(s) you were on, and if possible the carriage number - it might be a problem with the rolling stock. There should be a place you an report it to. I'm probably teaching grandmother to suck eggs, but when corresponding with such organisations always keep dated copies.

    If the problem's still bad after a couple of months and you have not heard anything, contact them again.

    If the problem feels like it's deteriorating, contact someone urgently.

    Network Rail has a page that can be found as first hit if you enter "network rail report track faults"; sadly I cannot easily find similar for BART.

    BTW, track gauge should not matter: if the jolting is bad on a passenger line then it should really be fixed: it an exert forces on the track that can damage its geometry and/or damage the rolling stock, as well as causing discomfort for passengers.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    Previous thread

    Tyson described Kendall as Bonkers
    HYUFD described the left having won the social argument having failed to win the economic one.
    BJK=EICIPM =JCICILL.

    Perhaps the comment that the extreme left wing view needs to be tried and tested to utter destruction to bring Labour to its senses is right. What will remain of the party at that point is debatable but win or lose I just cannot see either wing of Labour reconciling after this and a parting of ways becomes more inevitable by the day. We will see SDP mk2.. As for what the shadow front bench will look like and even if JC can even get enough to serve.....who knows?

    The next few years though with Labour will be so appalling bad it will only be able to be safely viewed in a shocked state from behind a sofa, while biting down firmly on knuckles.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,411

    JohnLoony said:

    (OT) In the 1980s the Guinness Book of Records said that James Callaghan held the record for being the tallest ever PM in the UK (6 feet 1.5 inches). He must have shrunk a bit in old age:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMaND6MWEAAbW0_.jpg

    Mrs Thatcher was the same height as Maradona.
    http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/oct/18/world-leader-heights-tall
    The right hand of god as opposed to the hand of god.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,266
    JackW said:

    JohnLoony said:

    (OT) In the 1980s the Guinness Book of Records said that James Callaghan held the record for being the tallest ever PM in the UK (6 feet 1.5 inches). He must have shrunk a bit in old age:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMaND6MWEAAbW0_.jpg

    Mrs Thatcher was the same height as Maradona.
    http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/oct/18/world-leader-heights-tall
    The right hand of god as opposed to the hand of god.

    BTW, welcome back, Jack. Hope all is well.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,411
    Murray beats defending champion Tsonga 6:4 6:4 at the Montreal Masters at 1:30am local.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,411

    JackW said:

    JohnLoony said:

    (OT) In the 1980s the Guinness Book of Records said that James Callaghan held the record for being the tallest ever PM in the UK (6 feet 1.5 inches). He must have shrunk a bit in old age:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMaND6MWEAAbW0_.jpg

    Mrs Thatcher was the same height as Maradona.
    http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/oct/18/world-leader-heights-tall
    The right hand of god as opposed to the hand of god.

    BTW, welcome back, Jack. Hope all is well.
    Thank you. Life in the old dog yet ....

    Not only that but I return to find the Labour party is intent on providing a little light and colour to the political scene for the next few years.

    What jolly japes we shall have.

  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    Excellent piece Mr herdson.

    Corbyn will fall apart soon after winning because his lala land brand of politics never has and never will stand up to scrutiny, it's nothing to do with smearing. Equality and freedom are incompatible, the socialist desire for equality (however they wish to define it) can only be at the expense of freedom and we value that above all else.

    It's odd that he's got to his age without that dawning on him, we all gravitate to where we're comfortable, I suspect that as a veggie teetotal he spends the majority of his time with likeminded people. There's clearly plenty like him within labour happy to have him as labour but the country at large won't accept it. Regardless of what you think of the new labour sycophants, they know it too.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,266
    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    JohnLoony said:

    (OT) In the 1980s the Guinness Book of Records said that James Callaghan held the record for being the tallest ever PM in the UK (6 feet 1.5 inches). He must have shrunk a bit in old age:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMaND6MWEAAbW0_.jpg

    Mrs Thatcher was the same height as Maradona.
    http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/oct/18/world-leader-heights-tall
    The right hand of god as opposed to the hand of god.

    BTW, welcome back, Jack. Hope all is well.
    Thank you. Life in the old dog yet ....

    Not only that but I return to find the Labour party is intent on providing a little light and colour to the political scene for the next few years.

    What jolly japes we shall have.
    I was expecting a boring year or so in politics after the GE. Instead, UKIP, the SNP, and Labour have provided much entertainment. It's a shame that the Lib Dem leadership competition was so boringly competent. They've let the side down. ;)
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,266

    Excellent piece Mr herdson.

    Corbyn will fall apart soon after winning because his lala land brand of politics never has and never will stand up to scrutiny, it's nothing to do with smearing. Equality and freedom are incompatible, the socialist desire for equality (however they wish to define it) can only be at the expense of freedom and we value that above all else.

    It's odd that he's got to his age without that dawning on him, we all gravitate to where we're comfortable, I suspect that as a veggie teetotal he spends the majority of his time with likeminded people. There's clearly plenty like him within labour happy to have him as labour but the country at large won't accept it. Regardless of what you think of the new labour sycophants, they know it too.

    "Equality and freedom are incompatible"

    That sounds like rubbish to me. Care to explain?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,851

    RobD said:

    One for @Sunil_Prasannan and the PB rail cabal. When should one be worried about points on a railway? I was reading up on the Potters Bar crash, and it was reported that three passengers noted violent jolting to the left and right when passing points.

    I only ask because I have noticed on the BART quite a few times that the when passing points the jolting can be quite forceful. Perhaps the wider gauge (5ft 6in) explains it, and I shouldn't be worried?

    If it's system wide, it's probably an artefact of a poorly designed/maintained system. If it's in one, or a handful, of places, whilst others are fine, I'd report them - try to give as accurate a position as possible, the service(s) you were on, and if possible the carriage number - it might be a problem with the rolling stock. There should be a place you an report it to. I'm probably teaching grandmother to suck eggs, but when corresponding with such organisations always keep dated copies.

    If the problem's still bad after a couple of months and you have not heard anything, contact them again.

    If the problem feels like it's deteriorating, contact someone urgently.

    Network Rail has a page that can be found as first hit if you enter "network rail report track faults"; sadly I cannot easily find similar for BART.

    BTW, track gauge should not matter: if the jolting is bad on a passenger line then it should really be fixed: it an exert forces on the track that can damage its geometry and/or damage the rolling stock, as well as causing discomfort for passengers.
    Thanks! I'll try to pay attention as we go over the points in future, it just had me a little worried reading up on that previous crash.
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492

    Excellent piece Mr herdson.

    Corbyn will fall apart soon after winning because his lala land brand of politics never has and never will stand up to scrutiny, it's nothing to do with smearing. Equality and freedom are incompatible, the socialist desire for equality (however they wish to define it) can only be at the expense of freedom and we value that above all else.

    It's odd that he's got to his age without that dawning on him, we all gravitate to where we're comfortable, I suspect that as a veggie teetotal he spends the majority of his time with likeminded people. There's clearly plenty like him within labour happy to have him as labour but the country at large won't accept it. Regardless of what you think of the new labour sycophants, they know it too.

    "Equality and freedom are incompatible"

    That sounds like rubbish to me. Care to explain?
    Yep, the only way to achieve equality is by curtailing the freedom of individuals. You might want everybody to live in a 3 bedroom house, but to do that you have to stop people living in 4 bedroom houses.

  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,411

    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    JohnLoony said:

    (OT) In the 1980s the Guinness Book of Records said that James Callaghan held the record for being the tallest ever PM in the UK (6 feet 1.5 inches). He must have shrunk a bit in old age:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMaND6MWEAAbW0_.jpg

    Mrs Thatcher was the same height as Maradona.
    http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/oct/18/world-leader-heights-tall
    The right hand of god as opposed to the hand of god.

    BTW, welcome back, Jack. Hope all is well.
    Thank you. Life in the old dog yet ....

    Not only that but I return to find the Labour party is intent on providing a little light and colour to the political scene for the next few years.

    What jolly japes we shall have.
    I was expecting a boring year or so in politics after the GE. Instead, UKIP, the SNP, and Labour have provided much entertainment. It's a shame that the Lib Dem leadership competition was so boringly competent. They've let the side down. ;)
    Shame on the LibDems indeed.

    Farron and Lamb might have at least provided a little sport.

    Sandals at dawn or a fight to the death with bar charts. But what do we get but a modest and deathly dull competent leadership contest that made paint drying appear shockingly exciting.

  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    edited August 2015
    Have a look at China Mr jessop, they had equality but no freedom. They couldn't even decide how many children to have.

    Now let's be realistic, Corbyn isn't Mao, but the principle remains.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,266

    Excellent piece Mr herdson.

    Corbyn will fall apart soon after winning because his lala land brand of politics never has and never will stand up to scrutiny, it's nothing to do with smearing. Equality and freedom are incompatible, the socialist desire for equality (however they wish to define it) can only be at the expense of freedom and we value that above all else.

    It's odd that he's got to his age without that dawning on him, we all gravitate to where we're comfortable, I suspect that as a veggie teetotal he spends the majority of his time with likeminded people. There's clearly plenty like him within labour happy to have him as labour but the country at large won't accept it. Regardless of what you think of the new labour sycophants, they know it too.

    "Equality and freedom are incompatible"

    That sounds like rubbish to me. Care to explain?
    Yep, the only way to achieve equality is by curtailing the freedom of individuals. You might want everybody to live in a 3 bedroom house, but to do that you have to stop people living in 4 bedroom houses.

    If you cannot see the myriad flaws in your 'argument' then there's little hope for you.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,851
    Welcome back JackW. I trust you are fully refreshed after your sojourn.
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492

    Excellent piece Mr herdson.

    Corbyn will fall apart soon after winning because his lala land brand of politics never has and never will stand up to scrutiny, it's nothing to do with smearing. Equality and freedom are incompatible, the socialist desire for equality (however they wish to define it) can only be at the expense of freedom and we value that above all else.

    It's odd that he's got to his age without that dawning on him, we all gravitate to where we're comfortable, I suspect that as a veggie teetotal he spends the majority of his time with likeminded people. There's clearly plenty like him within labour happy to have him as labour but the country at large won't accept it. Regardless of what you think of the new labour sycophants, they know it too.

    "Equality and freedom are incompatible"

    That sounds like rubbish to me. Care to explain?
    Yep, the only way to achieve equality is by curtailing the freedom of individuals. You might want everybody to live in a 3 bedroom house, but to do that you have to stop people living in 4 bedroom houses.

    If you cannot see the myriad flaws in your 'argument' then there's little hope for you.
    Well I'm here for a while so I'm happy for you to enlighten me, I don't even mind if you continue to patronise me.

  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,575
    I can see why that as a former communist that Nick Palmer has decided on Corbyn. Its not as tho Corbyn is just a lefty, he's a full blown commie set against the state as we know it.

    Labour voters should think long and hard before voting for such a dangerous individual.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Good article DH. Corbyn looks nailed on, and given the lacklustre alternatives perhaps not surprisingly. One of the biggest problems will not be Corbyn's politics so much as his (lack of) organising and networking skills. That may default to Watson who may well be the Beria to Corbyn's Trotsky.

    There is a strong desire to lob a large mangy tomcat at the westminster pigeons, should be fun but not a very effective way of improving things. The Labour Conference is going to be a hoot..

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 19,031
    fitalass said:

    @DavidHerdson just put up one of the best and most insightful articles yet on the Corbyn campaign, he absolutely nailed his well argued article in his header too. Take a bow David, also hope that most of the political lobby take the time to read it.


    Its often been said that Cameron was a lucky Conservative Leader, but hell, just how lucky can you get as your Leadership of the Conservative party enters its second decade?! Almost the minute the final GE results were in and the shock Conservative majority sank in, the usual grim reapers were already writing his obituary due to the now upcoming EU referendum etc. How is that coming along now just as Nigel Farage and UKIP have suddenly faded from relevance as the new maverick anti EU party who ended up giving the Labour party a run for its money with far less success than the SNP did up North in Scotland?! And as for the 'rebellious and PR stunt' ridden SNP 56 at Westminster, hold onto your hats, there may yet be a more bearded version of James Dean grabbing more attention than you have managed after the summer recess. And with Corbyn's far more Labour friendly Independence and anti-austerity overtures, the SNP may in fact be forced to eat their words and work with a Labour Opposition rather than threaten it as the did before the GE.

    Corbyn might well yet support a No vote in an EU referendum which would really put the cat among the pigeons on the far left who had thought they had a Yes vote support sewn up. And what of the SNP who were also firing themselves up to call for another Indy Referendum if Scotland voted Yes to stay in EU while the rest of the UK might have voted NO? I look forward to Sturgeon trying to avoid getting caught on the same side of the argument as Cameron as she tries duck any connection with Cameron who also plans to campaign to stay in the EU if he gets the negotiated EU settlement he wants. And while Farage may yet have to put on a brave smile sharing a platform with Jeremy Corbyn. UK politics just got really fun again. And the betting opportunities must be boundless right now.

    Another sad SNP hater. Tories just cannot take the fact that the SNP are popular whilst they are reviled for the slimy uncaring nasty party they are.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,411
    RobD said:

    Welcome back JackW. I trust you are fully refreshed after your sojourn.

    Thank you. Yes indeed in somewhat better fettle especially after a course of Jezza Restorative Tonic - a patent remedy for PB junkies in desperate need of political amusement in the coming years.

    I only hope we've not be sold a £3 pup and some Islington based snake oil salesman isn't about to transform into a political giant that makes Lloyd George, Churchill and Attlee appears as froth across the British landscape !!

  • I can see why that as a former communist that Nick Palmer has decided on Corbyn. Its not as tho Corbyn is just a lefty, he's a full blown commie set against the state as we know it.

    Labour voters should think long and hard before voting for such a dangerous individual.

    But if they were capable of thinking long and hard, they wouldm't be Labour voters in the first place, eh, SquareRoot?

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,598
    What an outstanding article.

    As an aside, a Corbyn victory will be good for Labour. Not because Corbyn will be a good leader. On the contrary, he will be a disaster. But his disastrousness will be so plainly evident so rapidly, that he will step down as leader - probably after losing a byelection in a safe seat to UKIP or the LibDems.

    This will result in a new Labour leader. And a leader less monumentally awful than Kendall, Cooper or Burnham. (All of whom would have led the Labour Party to defeat in 2020.)
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 19,031
    rcs1000 said:

    What an outstanding article.

    As an aside, a Corbyn victory will be good for Labour. Not because Corbyn will be a good leader. On the contrary, he will be a disaster. But his disastrousness will be so plainly evident so rapidly, that he will step down as leader - probably after losing a byelection in a safe seat to UKIP or the LibDems.

    This will result in a new Labour leader. And a leader less monumentally awful than Kendall, Cooper or Burnham. (All of whom would have led the Labour Party to defeat in 2020.)

    They announce the new Head Donkey in Scotland today, should be good for a laugh.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,364
    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    JohnLoony said:

    (OT) In the 1980s the Guinness Book of Records said that James Callaghan held the record for being the tallest ever PM in the UK (6 feet 1.5 inches). He must have shrunk a bit in old age:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMaND6MWEAAbW0_.jpg

    Mrs Thatcher was the same height as Maradona.
    http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/oct/18/world-leader-heights-tall
    The right hand of god as opposed to the hand of god.

    BTW, welcome back, Jack. Hope all is well.
    Thank you. Life in the old dog yet ....

    Not only that but I return to find the Labour party is intent on providing a little light and colour to the political scene for the next few years.

    What jolly japes we shall have.
    I was expecting a boring year or so in politics after the GE. Instead, UKIP, the SNP, and Labour have provided much entertainment. It's a shame that the Lib Dem leadership competition was so boringly competent. They've let the side down. ;)
    Shame on the LibDems indeed.

    Farron and Lamb might have at least provided a little sport.

    Sandals at dawn or a fight to the death with bar charts. But what do we get but a modest and deathly dull competent leadership contest that made paint drying appear shockingly exciting.

    I suspect that the LD Conference might be a bit “different” this year. I wonder how Nick Clegg will be received?
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,575
    edited August 2015

    I can see why that as a former communist that Nick Palmer has decided on Corbyn. Its not as tho Corbyn is just a lefty, he's a full blown commie set against the state as we know it.

    Labour voters should think long and hard before voting for such a dangerous individual.

    But if they were capable of thinking long and hard, they wouldm't be Labour voters in the first place, eh, SquareRoot?

    Lets wait for the result. It could be a load of hot air and people saying one thing and doing something else There is still time to draw back from the cliff edge.. To consider voting for Corbyn is as a de minimus short sighted in the extreme, to acutally vote for him is bonkers.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,981

    Excellent piece Mr herdson.

    Corbyn will fall apart soon after winning because his lala land brand of politics never has and never will stand up to scrutiny, it's nothing to do with smearing. Equality and freedom are incompatible, the socialist desire for equality (however they wish to define it) can only be at the expense of freedom and we value that above all else.

    It's odd that he's got to his age without that dawning on him, we all gravitate to where we're comfortable, I suspect that as a veggie teetotal he spends the majority of his time with likeminded people. There's clearly plenty like him within labour happy to have him as labour but the country at large won't accept it. Regardless of what you think of the new labour sycophants, they know it too.

    "Equality and freedom are incompatible"

    That sounds like rubbish to me. Care to explain?
    It's a standard rhetorical trick of the ideologically committed or the defender of vested interest. If you bring in a policy to increase equality you are restricting the freedom of people to earn as much as they like. Therefore if you advocate progressive taxation you are an authoritarian.

    All politicians,indeed all people, use these kinds of argument to get them through the day. Life is too short to argue every point from first principles.The politicians that are dangerous are the ones who actually believe them like Benn and Thatcher.
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    rcs1000 said:

    What an outstanding article.

    As an aside, a Corbyn victory will be good for Labour. Not because Corbyn will be a good leader. On the contrary, he will be a disaster. But his disastrousness will be so plainly evident so rapidly, that he will step down as leader - probably after losing a byelection in a safe seat to UKIP or the LibDems.

    This will result in a new Labour leader. And a leader less monumentally awful than Kendall, Cooper or Burnham. (All of whom would have led the Labour Party to defeat in 2020.)

    Plausible, anyone in mind?

  • Excellent piece Mr herdson.

    Corbyn will fall apart soon after winning because his lala land brand of politics never has and never will stand up to scrutiny, it's nothing to do with smearing. Equality and freedom are incompatible, the socialist desire for equality (however they wish to define it) can only be at the expense of freedom and we value that above all else.

    It's odd that he's got to his age without that dawning on him, we all gravitate to where we're comfortable, I suspect that as a veggie teetotal he spends the majority of his time with likeminded people. There's clearly plenty like him within labour happy to have him as labour but the country at large won't accept it. Regardless of what you think of the new labour sycophants, they know it too.

    "Equality and freedom are incompatible"

    That sounds like rubbish to me. Care to explain?
    It's a standard rhetorical trick of the ideologically committed or the defender of vested interest. If you bring in a policy to increase equality you are restricting the freedom of people to earn as much as they like. Therefore if you advocate progressive taxation you are an authoritarian.

    All politicians,indeed all people, use these kinds of argument to get them through the day. Life is too short to argue every point from first principles.The politicians that are dangerous are the ones who actually believe them like Benn and Thatcher.
    It's more than that. Absolute equality and absolute freedom are both impossible: the serious question is how much relative freedom and equality are compatible? Not that many people come here to consider, let alone discuss, serious questions.
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    edited August 2015

    Excellent piece Mr herdson.

    Corbyn will fall apart soon after winning because his lala land brand of politics never has and never will stand up to scrutiny, it's nothing to do with smearing. Equality and freedom are incompatible, the socialist desire for equality (however they wish to define it) can only be at the expense of freedom and we value that above all else.

    It's odd that he's got to his age without that dawning on him, we all gravitate to where we're comfortable, I suspect that as a veggie teetotal he spends the majority of his time with likeminded people. There's clearly plenty like him within labour happy to have him as labour but the country at large won't accept it. Regardless of what you think of the new labour sycophants, they know it too.

    "Equality and freedom are incompatible"

    That sounds like rubbish to me. Care to explain?
    It's a standard rhetorical trick of the ideologically committed or the defender of vested interest. If you bring in a policy to increase equality you are restricting the freedom of people to earn as much as they like. Therefore if you advocate progressive taxation you are an authoritarian.

    All politicians,indeed all people, use these kinds of argument to get them through the day. Life is too short to argue every point from first principles.The politicians that are dangerous are the ones who actually believe them like Benn and Thatcher.
    It's more than that. Absolute equality and absolute freedom are both impossible: the serious question is how much relative freedom and equality are compatible? Not that many people come here to consider, let alone discuss, serious questions.
    Well put. To me it's at the heart of thinking, it's easy to appear caring and benevolent and to want to put the less well off first, to espouse equality. But it actually means nothing, in the election campaign millionaires like Brand were running around shouting about it, Toynbee does it every day, and look at the results for the party they support.

    Above all else we value freedom, most people want equality of opportunity but that's different to equality. Corbyn can talk about raising taxes, shooting bankers etc etc and people will cheer, but it won't win him a general election.

  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Morning all.

    Excellent article Mr Herdson, - We live in interesting times, Corbyn’s appeal is as surprising as it was unexpected and to say he has reinvigorated a long and rather dull leadership campaign, would be an epic understatement. One thing is for sure, the repercussions of JC winning the leadership race will have a profound effect within the Labour party over the next few years, whether they will split into two factions etc is hard to call, but it certainly will not be the same party come 2020 as it was at GE2015.

  • Excellent piece Mr herdson.

    Corbyn will fall apart soon after winning because his lala land brand of politics never has and never will stand up to scrutiny, it's nothing to do with smearing. Equality and freedom are incompatible, the socialist desire for equality (however they wish to define it) can only be at the expense of freedom and we value that above all else.

    It's odd that he's got to his age without that dawning on him, we all gravitate to where we're comfortable, I suspect that as a veggie teetotal he spends the majority of his time with likeminded people. There's clearly plenty like him within labour happy to have him as labour but the country at large won't accept it. Regardless of what you think of the new labour sycophants, they know it too.

    "Equality and freedom are incompatible"

    That sounds like rubbish to me. Care to explain?
    It's a standard rhetorical trick of the ideologically committed or the defender of vested interest. If you bring in a policy to increase equality you are restricting the freedom of people to earn as much as they like. Therefore if you advocate progressive taxation you are an authoritarian.

    All politicians,indeed all people, use these kinds of argument to get them through the day. Life is too short to argue every point from first principles.The politicians that are dangerous are the ones who actually believe them like Benn and Thatcher.
    It's more than that. Absolute equality and absolute freedom are both impossible: the serious question is how much relative freedom and equality are compatible? Not that many people come here to consider, let alone discuss, serious questions.
    Well put. To me it's at the heart of thinking, it's easy to appear caring and benevolent and to want to put the less well off first, to espouse equality. But it actually means nothing, in the election campaign millionaires like Brand were running around shouting about it, Toynbee does it every day, and look at the results for the party they support.

    Above all else we value freedom, most people want equality of opportunity but that's different to equality. Corbyn can talk about raising taxes, shooting bankers etc etc and people will cheer, but it won't win him a general election.

    Oh, I don't mind shooting bankers.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 19,031

    Morning all.

    Excellent article Mr Herdson, - We live in interesting times, Corbyn’s appeal is as surprising as it was unexpected and to say he has reinvigorated a long and rather dull leadership campaign, would be an epic understatement. One thing is for sure, the repercussions of JC winning the leadership race will have a profound effect within the Labour party over the next few years, whether they will split into two factions etc is hard to call, but it certainly will not be the same party come 2020 as it was at GE2015.

    Simon, not so sure it is surprising , people are fed up to the back teeth with carboard cut out liars in Westminster. They have now reached the point where they are going to turf them out. You only need to look at Scotland and see how it goes. The SNP do their best and people like that , previous lots talked big and filled their own pockets. People got sick of it and chucked them out, same is now coming at Westminster.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 19,031

    Excellent piece Mr herdson.

    Corbyn will fall apart soon after winning because his lala land brand of politics never has and never will stand up to scrutiny, it's nothing to do with smearing. Equality and freedom are incompatible, the socialist desire for equality (however they wish to define it) can only be at the expense of freedom and we value that above all else.

    It's odd that he's got to his age without that dawning on him, we all gravitate to where we're comfortable, I suspect that as a veggie teetotal he spends the majority of his time with likeminded people. There's clearly plenty like him within labour happy to have him as labour but the country at large won't accept it. Regardless of what you think of the new labour sycophants, they know it too.

    "Equality and freedom are incompatible"

    That sounds like rubbish to me. Care to explain?
    It's a standard rhetorical trick of the ideologically committed or the defender of vested interest. If you bring in a policy to increase equality you are restricting the freedom of people to earn as much as they like. Therefore if you advocate progressive taxation you are an authoritarian.

    All politicians,indeed all people, use these kinds of argument to get them through the day. Life is too short to argue every point from first principles.The politicians that are dangerous are the ones who actually believe them like Benn and Thatcher.
    It's more than that. Absolute equality and absolute freedom are both impossible: the serious question is how much relative freedom and equality are compatible? Not that many people come here to consider, let alone discuss, serious questions.
    Well put. To me it's at the heart of thinking, it's easy to appear caring and benevolent and to want to put the less well off first, to espouse equality. But it actually means nothing, in the election campaign millionaires like Brand were running around shouting about it, Toynbee does it every day, and look at the results for the party they support.

    Above all else we value freedom, most people want equality of opportunity but that's different to equality. Corbyn can talk about raising taxes, shooting bankers etc etc and people will cheer, but it won't win him a general election.

    Oh, I don't mind shooting bankers.

    you could add Brand and Toynbee as well happily
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,572

    Excellent piece Mr herdson.

    Corbyn will fall apart soon after winning because his lala land brand of politics never has and never will stand up to scrutiny, it's nothing to do with smearing. Equality and freedom are incompatible, the socialist desire for equality (however they wish to define it) can only be at the expense of freedom and we value that above all else.

    It's odd that he's got to his age without that dawning on him, we all gravitate to where we're comfortable, I suspect that as a veggie teetotal he spends the majority of his time with likeminded people. There's clearly plenty like him within labour happy to have him as labour but the country at large won't accept it. Regardless of what you think of the new labour sycophants, they know it too.

    "Equality and freedom are incompatible"

    That sounds like rubbish to me. Care to explain?
    It's a standard rhetorical trick of the ideologically committed or the defender of vested interest. If you bring in a policy to increase equality you are restricting the freedom of people to earn as much as they like. Therefore if you advocate progressive taxation you are an authoritarian.

    All politicians,indeed all people, use these kinds of argument to get them through the day. Life is too short to argue every point from first principles.The politicians that are dangerous are the ones who actually believe them like Benn and Thatcher.
    It's more than that. Absolute equality and absolute freedom are both impossible: the serious question is how much relative freedom and equality are compatible? Not that many people come here to consider, let alone discuss, serious questions.
    Well put. To me it's at the heart of thinking, it's easy to appear caring and benevolent and to want to put the less well off first, to espouse equality. But it actually means nothing, in the election campaign millionaires like Brand were running around shouting about it, Toynbee does it every day, and look at the results for the party they support.

    Above all else we value freedom, most people want equality of opportunity but that's different to equality. Corbyn can talk about raising taxes, shooting bankers etc etc and people will cheer, but it won't win him a general election.

    It is comforting to believe we value freedom, but the evidence is mixed.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,575
    malcolmg said:

    Morning all.

    Excellent article Mr Herdson, - We live in interesting times, Corbyn’s appeal is as surprising as it was unexpected and to say he has reinvigorated a long and rather dull leadership campaign, would be an epic understatement. One thing is for sure, the repercussions of JC winning the leadership race will have a profound effect within the Labour party over the next few years, whether they will split into two factions etc is hard to call, but it certainly will not be the same party come 2020 as it was at GE2015.

    Simon, not so sure it is surprising , people are fed up to the back teeth with carboard cut out liars in Westminster. They have now reached the point where they are going to turf them out. You only need to look at Scotland and see how it goes. The SNP do their best and people like that , previous lots talked big and filled their own pockets. People got sick of it and chucked them out, same is now coming at Westminster.
    Hmm.. The SNP is untruthfully offering voters in Scotland motherhood and apple pie without the means to achieve it. The oil bonanza that the SNP were so keen to lay their hopes on is a bust(and always was a bust)

    The SNP might keep all the balls in the air, but a crash will come.. its inevitable
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Excellent piece Mr herdson.

    Corbyn will fall apart soon after winning because his lala land brand of politics never has and never will stand up to scrutiny, it's nothing to do with smearing. Equality and freedom are incompatible, the socialist desire for equality (however they wish to define it) can only be at the expense of freedom and we value that above all else.

    It's odd that he's got to his age without that dawning on him, we all gravitate to where we're comfortable, I suspect that as a veggie teetotal he spends the majority of his time with likeminded people. There's clearly plenty like him within labour happy to have him as labour but the country at large won't accept it. Regardless of what you think of the new labour sycophants, they know it too.

    "Equality and freedom are incompatible"

    That sounds like rubbish to me. Care to explain?
    It's a standard rhetorical trick of the ideologically committed or the defender of vested interest. If you bring in a policy to increase equality you are restricting the freedom of people to earn as much as they like. Therefore if you advocate progressive taxation you are an authoritarian.

    All politicians,indeed all people, use these kinds of argument to get them through the day. Life is too short to argue every point from first principles.The politicians that are dangerous are the ones who actually believe them like Benn and Thatcher.
    It's more than that. Absolute equality and absolute freedom are both impossible: the serious question is how much relative freedom and equality are compatible? Not that many people come here to consider, let alone discuss, serious questions.
    Well put. To me it's at the heart of thinking, it's easy to appear caring and benevolent and to want to put the less well off first, to espouse equality. But it actually means nothing, in the election campaign millionaires like Brand were running around shouting about it, Toynbee does it every day, and look at the results for the party they support.

    Above all else we value freedom, most people want equality of opportunity but that's different to equality. Corbyn can talk about raising taxes, shooting bankers etc etc and people will cheer, but it won't win him a general election.

    Oh, I don't mind shooting bankers.

    Has Corbyn really advocated shooting bankers?
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Good article DH...unfortunately not many who are about to take the leap off the cliff will be reading it..Oh woe is the Labour Party.. .
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 19,031

    malcolmg said:

    Morning all.

    Excellent article Mr Herdson, - We live in interesting times, Corbyn’s appeal is as surprising as it was unexpected and to say he has reinvigorated a long and rather dull leadership campaign, would be an epic understatement. One thing is for sure, the repercussions of JC winning the leadership race will have a profound effect within the Labour party over the next few years, whether they will split into two factions etc is hard to call, but it certainly will not be the same party come 2020 as it was at GE2015.

    Simon, not so sure it is surprising , people are fed up to the back teeth with carboard cut out liars in Westminster. They have now reached the point where they are going to turf them out. You only need to look at Scotland and see how it goes. The SNP do their best and people like that , previous lots talked big and filled their own pockets. People got sick of it and chucked them out, same is now coming at Westminster.
    Hmm.. The SNP is untruthfully offering voters in Scotland motherhood and apple pie without the means to achieve it. The oil bonanza that the SNP were so keen to lay their hopes on is a bust(and always was a bust)

    The SNP might keep all the balls in the air, but a crash will come.. its inevitable
    Bollox , they have run the country well for 8 years on a limited fixed budget. Hence they are getting more and more popular. Oil has nothing to do with it, all the oil money goes to fund London excesses.
  • Good article DH...unfortunately not many who are about to take the leap off the cliff will be reading it..Oh woe is the Labour Party.. .

    And those Tories (I think DH is one) who want a Tory government with an effective opposition.

  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,575
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Morning all.

    Excellent article Mr Herdson, - We live in interesting times, Corbyn’s appeal is as surprising as it was unexpected and to say he has reinvigorated a long and rather dull leadership campaign, would be an epic understatement. One thing is for sure, the repercussions of JC winning the leadership race will have a profound effect within the Labour party over the next few years, whether they will split into two factions etc is hard to call, but it certainly will not be the same party come 2020 as it was at GE2015.

    Simon, not so sure it is surprising , people are fed up to the back teeth with carboard cut out liars in Westminster. They have now reached the point where they are going to turf them out. You only need to look at Scotland and see how it goes. The SNP do their best and people like that , previous lots talked big and filled their own pockets. People got sick of it and chucked them out, same is now coming at Westminster.
    Hmm.. The SNP is untruthfully offering voters in Scotland motherhood and apple pie without the means to achieve it. The oil bonanza that the SNP were so keen to lay their hopes on is a bust(and always was a bust)

    The SNP might keep all the balls in the air, but a crash will come.. its inevitable
    Bollox , they have run the country well for 8 years on a limited fixed budget. Hence they are getting more and more popular. Oil has nothing to do with it, all the oil money goes to fund London excesses.
    Ditto.. the Oil bonanza is how the SNP accounted for their ability to run the economy as an independent country.

    By all means live the dream whilst it lasts, and it is a dream.. economic reality is round the corner.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,989
    Very good article David, in both fact and rhetoric.

    I may be pointing a few of my deluded socialist friends in this direction to counter their facile '......but he has POLICIES!' argument....
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    IA..Every government should have an effective opposition..The Labour Party is woeful in providing one.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,989
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Morning all.

    Excellent article Mr Herdson, - We live in interesting times, Corbyn’s appeal is as surprising as it was unexpected and to say he has reinvigorated a long and rather dull leadership campaign, would be an epic understatement. One thing is for sure, the repercussions of JC winning the leadership race will have a profound effect within the Labour party over the next few years, whether they will split into two factions etc is hard to call, but it certainly will not be the same party come 2020 as it was at GE2015.

    Simon, not so sure it is surprising , people are fed up to the back teeth with carboard cut out liars in Westminster. They have now reached the point where they are going to turf them out. You only need to look at Scotland and see how it goes. The SNP do their best and people like that , previous lots talked big and filled their own pockets. People got sick of it and chucked them out, same is now coming at Westminster.
    Hmm.. The SNP is untruthfully offering voters in Scotland motherhood and apple pie without the means to achieve it. The oil bonanza that the SNP were so keen to lay their hopes on is a bust(and always was a bust)

    The SNP might keep all the balls in the air, but a crash will come.. its inevitable
    Bollox , they have run the country well for 8 years on a limited fixed budget. Hence they are getting more and more popular. Oil has nothing to do with it, all the oil money goes to fund London excesses.
    Then why do they not use their powers to vary the Scottish tax rate? Frit that they would have to stop blaming England for Scottish woes?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,266

    Excellent piece Mr herdson.

    Corbyn will fall apart soon after winning because his lala land brand of politics never has and never will stand up to scrutiny, it's nothing to do with smearing. Equality and freedom are incompatible, the socialist desire for equality (however they wish to define it) can only be at the expense of freedom and we value that above all else.

    It's odd that he's got to his age without that dawning on him, we all gravitate to where we're comfortable, I suspect that as a veggie teetotal he spends the majority of his time with likeminded people. There's clearly plenty like him within labour happy to have him as labour but the country at large won't accept it. Regardless of what you think of the new labour sycophants, they know it too.

    "Equality and freedom are incompatible"

    That sounds like rubbish to me. Care to explain?
    Yep, the only way to achieve equality is by curtailing the freedom of individuals. You might want everybody to live in a 3 bedroom house, but to do that you have to stop people living in 4 bedroom houses.

    If you cannot see the myriad flaws in your 'argument' then there's little hope for you.
    Well I'm here for a while so I'm happy for you to enlighten me, I don't even mind if you continue to patronise me.
    Sorry about the delay, had to do my bit for equality by feeding my son. During which he discovered how to open the toothpaste tube and spray the contents over the living room carpet ... ;)

    If you think that was patronising, you evidently haven't been following PB for long!
  • IA..Every government should have an effective opposition..The Labour Party is woeful in providing one.

    That's what I implied.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,614
    edited August 2015
    rcs1000 said:

    What an outstanding article.

    As an aside, a Corbyn victory will be good for Labour. Not because Corbyn will be a good leader. On the contrary, he will be a disaster...

    This will result in a new Labour leader. And a leader less monumentally awful than Kendall, Cooper or Burnham. (All of whom would have led the Labour Party to defeat in 2020.)

    Endorse comments on the article. However, I don't agree about the new Labour leader. So far, the Labour party have been trying to explain away Ed Miliband's dismal performance by blaming a narrow win under a flawed electoral system (at least, the sane members of Labour have been - obviously Andrew Burnham has said something different, but hey, he thought putting Corbyn on the ballot would help him win).

    Under your scenario, Corbyn collapses in a humiliating heap in 24 months. I agree. But it looks as if he's on course for a landslide victory on the basis of one member, one vote. How are the Labour party going to explain the overwhelming endorsement they gave to a man who proved marginally less effective than a toy monkey waving a red flag? They might blame entryists - but at the moment, all they are doing is amplifying his lead. On these numbers, he would win comfortably on just the paid up membership.

    So, Labour elect a new leader to face, possibly, a new Conservative leader. (Incidentally, I was speaking to a friend of mine a few weeks ago who used to work for Cameron and Osborne when they were on Howard's staff. His view is that Osborne doesn't want the top job - he prefers to be the Grand Vizier, the Peter Mandelson of the Conservatives, and would find a friendly placeman to front for him while he did it, much as he has with Cameron himself. He suggested Sajid Javid, from that point of view, should be the current favourite to replace Cameron. Of course, my friend knew him a while ago and Osborne may have changed his mind.) The first thing that leader will have to do is tear up the policy sheet. The second thing they will have to do is reunite the party. The third thing they will have to do is try to stop people pointing and laughing at them for enthusiastically electing such a numpty in the first place and persuade them to listen to Labour and take them seriously again.

    Meanwhile the new Tory leader has more or less a free ride. At that point, to quote the great Shirley Williams, Labour have already lost the next election.

    (Also, one other thought occurs - who would be this new Labour leader? Ummuna? Will never get it. Hunt? More brainless and vacuous than Cooper. Jarvis? Doesn't want it. Starmer? He may not even survive that long with the current scandals emerging at the CPS. So where is this excellent alternative to appear from? The most damning thing of the lot for Labour is right now, these three losers are the best that Labour have - and they're rubbish.)
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,713
    Good morning, everyone.

    Good piece, Mr. Herdson, and one I agree with.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,266


    Well put. To me it's at the heart of thinking, it's easy to appear caring and benevolent and to want to put the less well off first, to espouse equality. But it actually means nothing, in the election campaign millionaires like Brand were running around shouting about it, Toynbee does it every day, and look at the results for the party they support.

    Above all else we value freedom, most people want equality of opportunity but that's different to equality. Corbyn can talk about raising taxes, shooting bankers etc etc and people will cheer, but it won't win him a general election.

    It is ridiculous to base your argument on hypocrites like Brand and Toynbee.

    'Equality of opportunity' and 'equality' are different concepts. But given equality can be defined as:

    "Equality is ensuring individuals or groups of individuals are treated fairly and equally and no less favourably, specific to their needs, including areas of race, gender, disability, religion or belief, sexual orientation and age."

    Do you really disagree with that?
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492

    Excellent piece Mr herdson.

    Corbyn will fall apart soon after winning because his lala land brand of politics never has and never will stand up to scrutiny, it's nothing to do with smearing. Equality and freedom are incompatible, the socialist desire for equality (however they wish to define it) can only be at the expense of freedom and we value that above all else.

    It's odd that he's got to his age without that dawning on him, we all gravitate to where we're comfortable, I suspect that as a veggie teetotal he spends the majority of his time with likeminded people. There's clearly plenty like him within labour happy to have him as labour but the country at large won't accept it. Regardless of what you think of the new labour sycophants, they know it too.

    "Equality and freedom are incompatible"

    That sounds like rubbish to me. Care to explain?
    It's a standard rhetorical trick of the ideologically committed or the defender of vested interest. If you bring in a policy to increase equality you are restricting the freedom of people to earn as much as they like. Therefore if you advocate progressive taxation you are an authoritarian.

    All politicians,indeed all people, use these kinds of argument to get them through the day. Life is too short to argue every point from first principles.The politicians that are dangerous are the ones who actually believe them like Benn and Thatcher.
    It's more than that. Absolute equality and absolute freedom are both impossible: the serious question is how much relative freedom and equality are compatible? Not that many people come here to consider, let alone discuss, serious questions.
    Well put. To me it's at the heart of thinking, it's easy to appear caring and benevolent and to want to put the less well off first, to espouse equality. But it actually means nothing, in the election campaign millionaires like Brand were running around shouting about it, Toynbee does it every day, and look at the results for the party they support.

    Above all else we value freedom, most people want equality of opportunity but that's different to equality. Corbyn can talk about raising taxes, shooting bankers etc etc and people will cheer, but it won't win him a general election.

    Oh, I don't mind shooting bankers.

    Has Corbyn really advocated shooting bankers?
    He probably hasn't in the same way Farage didn't advocate shooting immigrants, but you get my point.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,266

    Excellent piece Mr herdson.

    Corbyn will fall apart soon after winning because his lala land brand of politics never has and never will stand up to scrutiny, it's nothing to do with smearing. Equality and freedom are incompatible, the socialist desire for equality (however they wish to define it) can only be at the expense of freedom and we value that above all else.

    It's odd that he's got to his age without that dawning on him, we all gravitate to where we're comfortable, I suspect that as a veggie teetotal he spends the majority of his time with likeminded people. There's clearly plenty like him within labour happy to have him as labour but the country at large won't accept it. Regardless of what you think of the new labour sycophants, they know it too.

    "Equality and freedom are incompatible"

    That sounds like rubbish to me. Care to explain?
    It's a standard rhetorical trick of the ideologically committed or the defender of vested interest. If you bring in a policy to increase equality you are restricting the freedom of people to earn as much as they like. Therefore if you advocate progressive taxation you are an authoritarian.

    All politicians,indeed all people, use these kinds of argument to get them through the day. Life is too short to argue every point from first principles.The politicians that are dangerous are the ones who actually believe them like Benn and Thatcher.
    It's more than that. Absolute equality and absolute freedom are both impossible: the serious question is how much relative freedom and equality are compatible? Not that many people come here to consider, let alone discuss, serious questions.
    Well put. To me it's at the heart of thinking, it's easy to appear caring and benevolent and to want to put the less well off first, to espouse equality. But it actually means nothing, in the election campaign millionaires like Brand were running around shouting about it, Toynbee does it every day, and look at the results for the party they support.

    Above all else we value freedom, most people want equality of opportunity but that's different to equality. Corbyn can talk about raising taxes, shooting bankers etc etc and people will cheer, but it won't win him a general election.

    It is comforting to believe we value freedom, but the evidence is mixed.
    Many people value their personal freedom, but want to restrict those same freedoms from others.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,498
    edited August 2015
    Mr Herdson,

    Spot-on. "Corbyn’s attraction is superficial. His campaign has been superficial because although his campaign has led on policy, those policies themselves are superficial."

    Jezza is popular because he says we can have our cake and eat it.

    But he is an evidence-free zone. Where we have deficiencies, we just spend more. Job done.

    Extra money? .... Trident cancellation, and squeeze those rich bankers, who deserve it all. Why haven't the other politicians done it? Because they're all in it together. They're all Tories. It's a conspiracy, I tell you.

    As a bonus, you get some barking mad social policies, but the three stooges can't mention those without losing their socialist credentials. Liz tried early on, but look what happened to her.

    The land of milk and honey beckons ... as long as you don't look too closely. And after the trauma of the election, the young, the naive and the Guardian-readers don't want to look too closely.

    It's a perfect storm - for the Tories.
  • Sorry, but...:

    Watching this Laboured election is like watching the wimmins cricket ashes. Dull off little interest to the general-public, and a pastiche of the reality within which we live/exist. Why can they not all commit Lemming-kari soon?

    I hope the Lib Dhimmies scoop up the nascient support soon: A one-party state governance is for 'troupe-of-clowns' - whether in Pyong-Yang or Edinborough - and should not be advocated....
  • Sorry, but...:

    Watching this Laboured election is like watching the wimmins cricket ashes. Dull off little interest to the general-public, and a pastiche of the reality within which we live/exist. Why can they not all commit Lemming-kari soon?

    I hope the Lib Dhimmies scoop up the nascient support soon: A one-party state governance is for 'troupe-of-clowns' - whether in Pyong-Yang or Edinborough - and should not be advocated....

    This election shows that the problem isn't JC, it's his supporters. I'm beginning to think there'll be a big push for abstentions at the next election, particularly if JC is no longer leading Labour for one reason or another.

    The road from social democracy to anarchism is shorter than one might think.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,620
    edited August 2015
    What I find genuinely sickening is the seeming willingness of the likes of Nick Palmer to brush off Corbyn's close associations with people who have openly and repeatedly called for the murder of British soldiers, the killing of all Jews and the enslavement of women. These are not colourful "details" or "irrelevancies", they are fundamental to what nice, unspun, straight-talking Jeremy Corbyn is all about - he is a lifetime opponent of the British state and a willing friend to all those who oppose it, whatever they stand for.

    Forget the insane, unworkable economics, the deeply flawed class-based analysis of society and the serial disloyalty if you like, but this man has consistently stood shoulder to shoulder with enemies of this country for the last 40 years. Shame on all those who know that (like Nick) and still back him. Not only are they providing succour to some very evil groups and individuals, but they are also consigning those who they claim to care about to a decade or more of Tory rule. The lacklustre campaigns run by Burnham, Cooper and Kendall do not excuse ignoring that. There are good people in the Labour party, but they seem to be outnumbered by clueless fools.

    And yes, of course, David is right.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 20,130
    @ShippersUnbound: Cameron rejects calls for him to stay for 3rd term: "I think 10 myears is along time to be prime minister." Most think he'll be gone in 8
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492


    Well put. To me it's at the heart of thinking, it's easy to appear caring and benevolent and to want to put the less well off first, to espouse equality. But it actually means nothing, in the election campaign millionaires like Brand were running around shouting about it, Toynbee does it every day, and look at the results for the party they support.

    Above all else we value freedom, most people want equality of opportunity but that's different to equality. Corbyn can talk about raising taxes, shooting bankers etc etc and people will cheer, but it won't win him a general election.

    It is ridiculous to base your argument on hypocrites like Brand and Toynbee.

    'Equality of opportunity' and 'equality' are different concepts. But given equality can be defined as:

    "Equality is ensuring individuals or groups of individuals are treated fairly and equally and no less favourably, specific to their needs, including areas of race, gender, disability, religion or belief, sexual orientation and age."

    Do you really disagree with that?
    In principle I don't disagree but the key word is "ensuring". I'd like to know who's ensuring equality before I sign up to it.

  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,572
    ydoethur said:

    (Also, one other thought occurs - who would be this new Labour leader? Ummuna? Will never get it. Hunt? More brainless and vacuous than Cooper. Jarvis? Doesn't want it. Starmer? He may not even survive that long with the current scandals emerging at the CPS. So where is this excellent alternative to appear from? The most damning thing of the lot for Labour is right now, these three losers are the best that Labour have - and they're rubbish.)

    Is this the price of the SpAdocracy? That gliding from PPE to SpAd then being parachuted in to a safe seat means not only never having to demonstrate electability but also having neither the need nor opportunity to learn basic political skills.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,812
    Excellent piece David, I really look forward to your articles on a Saturday morning and this is a good one.

    My only reservation is that one should not underestimate the attractiveness of superficiality. The SNP are the most obvious case in point. A campaign based on the most absurd delusions, inconsistencies, fantasies and some genuine emotion got 45% of the vote and scared the bejesus out of the rational majority. Labour needs a lot less than that.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,509
    edited August 2015
    I am no fan of Corbyn, but curious to mount the no experience argument.

    Having been in parliament for 32 years he has arguably more experience than Blair (14yrs) and Cameron (4yrs) when they became leader. He hasn't been a shadow minister, but in terms of the metrics you raise like participation in ceremonial duties or number of PMQ questions asked he is clearly ahead.

    Only a tory would say he is popular with the wrong people and it is bizarre to say his attraction is superficial. Many of his supporters are fellow travellers from CND who have stuck with him for over 30 years. That is not superficial. And whether you agree or disagree with them, their votes count as much as yours or mine.

    As for timing. He is clearly having more success than most politicians can dream of, so he is probably doing something right that many could learn from.

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 20,130
    I agree with both David's, Herdson and L. Jeremy Corbyn's appeal is superficial, but superficiality can be attractive for some time. But I don't think he's half as good a politician as Alex Salmond or Nicola Sturgeon and he has a lot of history.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,713
    Mr. Jonathan, that does raise an interesting question.

    Would a new leader in war be better if they'd been groomed for leadership for a few years, or if they'd been a foot soldier for a couple of decades but never had any leadership responsibility whatsoever (and had, in fact, been something of a troublemaker)?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,878

    What I find genuinely sickening is the seeming willingness of the likes of Nick Palmer to brush off Corbyn's close associations with people who have openly and repeatedly called for the murder of British soldiers, the killing of all Jews and the enslavement of women. These are not colourful "details" or "irrelevancies", they are fundamental to what nice, unspun, straight-talking Jeremy Corbyn is all about - he is a lifetime opponent of the British state and a willing friend to all those who oppose it, whatever they stand for.

    Forget the insane, unworkable economics, the deeply flawed class-based analysis of society and the serial disloyalty if you like, but this man has consistently stood shoulder to shoulder with enemies of this country for the last 40 years. Shame on all those who know that (like Nick) and still back him. Not only are they providing succour to some very evil groups and individuals, but they are also consigning those who they claim to care about to a decade or more of Tory rule. The lacklustre campaigns run by Burnham, Cooper and Kendall do not excuse ignoring that. There are good people in the Labour party, but they seem to be outnumbered by clueless fools.

    And yes, of course, David is right.

    I think a lot of people will be wondering what possessed them, in 12 months time.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,614
    Jonathan said:

    I am no fan of Corbyn, but curious to mount the no experience argument.

    Having been in parliament for 32 years he has arguably more experience than Blair (14yrs) and Cameron (4yrs) when they became leader. He hasn't been a shadow minister, but in terms of the metrics you raise like participation in ceremonial duties or number of PMQ questions asked he is clearly ahead.

    Only a tory would say he is popular with the wrong people and it is bizarre to say his attraction is superficial. Many of his supporters are fellow travellers from CND who have stuck with him for over 30 years. That is not superficial. And whether you agree or disagree with them, their votes count as much as yours or mine.

    As for timing. He is clearly having more success than most politicians cam dream of, so he is probably doing something right that many could learn from.

    Blair had been a shadow minister for 7 years, and an effective one. Cameron had worked in the leader's office although he hadn't held a shadow brief for long. He also worked for a time outside politics (admittedly as a PR consultant).

    Corbyn has never been a shadow minister (or any other sort of minister, or even a PPS). He has never had a job. He has never, so far as I know, even worked as a union organiser. He has never done any practical administration in his life - he boasts of his experience on Islington's housing committee! To go straight from that, to the huge, complicated and stressful executive job of leader of the Opposition is a massive ask.

    Lord George Bentinck would be just about the only parallel to such a case - and he lasted 18 months before resigning on a point of principle, during which time he was reliant on Disraeli to keep him afloat in the Commons, and admitted that he took his lead from Stanley in the Lords.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    And there's more for Jo Average voters to ponder:
    The video shows Corbyn speaking in praise of the Islamist preacher in 2012.

    It shows Corbyn saying: '[Salah] is a very honoured citizen. He represents his people extremely well and his is a voice that must be heard... I hereby renew my invitation to Sheikh Salah to come to Parliament, meet with me, meet with my colleagues.

    'He will be assured of a very warm welcome. I look forward to giving you tea on the terrace because you deserve it.

    Salah, who served two years in prison for raising millions of pounds for the Palestinian terror group Hamas and for having contact with an Iranian intelligence agent, has made a number of incendiary and extremist remarks on camera.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3191679/Jeremy-Corbyn-caught-video-calling-Muslim-hate-preacher-honoured-citizen-inviting-tea-terrace-House-Commons.html#ixzz3irro6ICW
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,692
    edited August 2015
    malcolmg said:

    Morning all.

    Excellent article Mr Herdson, - We live in interesting times, Corbyn’s appeal is as surprising as it was unexpected and to say he has reinvigorated a long and rather dull leadership campaign, would be an epic understatement. One thing is for sure, the repercussions of JC winning the leadership race will have a profound effect within the Labour party over the next few years, whether they will split into two factions etc is hard to call, but it certainly will not be the same party come 2020 as it was at GE2015.

    Simon, not so sure it is surprising , people are fed up to the back teeth with carboard cut out liars in Westminster. They have now reached the point where they are going to turf them out. You only need to look at Scotland and see how it goes. The SNP do their best and people like that , previous lots talked big and filled their own pockets. People got sick of it and chucked them out, same is now coming at Westminster.
    I confess I had not expected rUK, or even merely the Labour Party section of it, to have reached that point yet, it took many decades and with unique context to occur in Scotland after all. I can only conclude the SNP success has emboldened people. It still might not work, but anything that forces the current lot to work damn hard to win is a good thing.

    I do think this is a very fair critical piece from Mr herdson. Corbynmania seems largely unconnected to Corbyn himself, his ideas being generic left wing ones and his personal qualities unexceptional - though he's run a far better campaign than his dire opponents - and that speaks to the superficiality, while not being a mere insult piece, recognising his genuine support. His ideas have merit to many, but currently he personally seems to being pushed along by momentum, not really leading it. It will be very interesting to see how he adapts his skill set and experience to an unfamiliar public role.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,812
    antifrank said:

    I agree with both David's, Herdson and L. Jeremy Corbyn's appeal is superficial, but superficiality can be attractive for some time. But I don't think he's half as good a politician as Alex Salmond or Nicola Sturgeon and he has a lot of history.

    I agree he is not near the same class. This article has some of his quotes but embedded is that truly embarrassing interview with Channel 4 where he is simply cannot keep his temper:
    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/jeremy-corbyn-frontrunner-labour-leaders-quotes-hamas-renationalisation-taxing-rich-1512041
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    SO .. re Corbyn....I agree.
  • "Removing all privatisation from the NHS to make it completely publicly run"

    What does that even mean?

    Will the NHS be making mattresses, or surgical gloves now?
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    An ideological wish list does not add up to policies..
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,614

    "Removing all privatisation from the NHS to make it completely publicly run"

    What does that even mean?

    Will the NHS be making mattresses, or surgical gloves now?

    Although of course the largest part of the budget goes to the most shady companies of the lot - the big pharmaceutical companies! Will he nationalise GlaxoSmithKline?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,692

    ydoethur said:

    (Also, one other thought occurs - who would be this new Labour leader? Ummuna? Will never get it. Hunt? More brainless and vacuous than Cooper. Jarvis? Doesn't want it. Starmer? He may not even survive that long with the current scandals emerging at the CPS. So where is this excellent alternative to appear from? The most damning thing of the lot for Labour is right now, these three losers are the best that Labour have - and they're rubbish.)

    Is this the price of the SpAdocracy? That gliding from PPE to SpAd then being parachuted in to a safe seat means not only never having to demonstrate electability but also having neither the need nor opportunity to learn basic political skills.

    Yep. It's worked ok to this point, the public have rewarded spads, but it is inevitable it fails at some point, as lesser candidates come through. I am disappointed in them though. I liked burnham in 2010, thought cooper formidable if bland and Kendall seemed promising, but the slightest hin of a challenging context and they've played it horribly.
  • saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,143

    "Removing all privatisation from the NHS to make it completely publicly run"

    What does that even mean?

    Will the NHS be making mattresses, or surgical gloves now?

    Presumably he will be nationalizing GP services as well.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 14,170
    Jonathan said:

    I am no fan of Corbyn, but curious to mount the no experience argument.

    Having been in parliament for 32 years he has arguably more experience than Blair (14yrs) and Cameron (4yrs) when they became leader. He hasn't been a shadow minister, but in terms of the metrics you raise like participation in ceremonial duties or number of PMQ questions asked he is clearly ahead.

    Only a tory would say he is popular with the wrong people and it is bizarre to say his attraction is superficial. Many of his supporters are fellow travellers from CND who have stuck with him for over 30 years. That is not superficial. And whether you agree or disagree with them, their votes count as much as yours or mine.

    As for timing. He is clearly having more success than most politicians can dream of, so he is probably doing something right that many could learn from.

    His timing for winning the Labour leadership is perfect, though by chance rather than design: he didn't wait for this moment then reach to grab it as part of a career plan.

    His attractiveness to the far left, those who are still members of CND and the like, is of course not superficial but that was always his core vote; his attractiveness to the Labour mainstream, never mind the floating voters, is another matter.

    And these two points tie together as it's not his popularity now that matters in the big picture; it's his popularity with swing voters in 2020 or whenever the election is.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,692
    antifrank said:

    @ShippersUnbound: Cameron rejects calls for him to stay for 3rd term: "I think 10 myears is along time to be prime minister." Most think he'll be gone in 8

    Interesting he had actually acknowledged the calls. Clever bluff to test how people react, see if calls intensify, or genuine sentiment? Given it seems pretty blunt it appears the latter. He'll be gone in 2-3 years.
  • ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    I am no fan of Corbyn, but curious to mount the no experience argument.

    Having been in parliament for 32 years he has arguably more experience than Blair (14yrs) and Cameron (4yrs) when they became leader. He hasn't been a shadow minister, but in terms of the metrics you raise like participation in ceremonial duties or number of PMQ questions asked he is clearly ahead.

    Only a tory would say he is popular with the wrong people and it is bizarre to say his attraction is superficial. Many of his supporters are fellow travellers from CND who have stuck with him for over 30 years. That is not superficial. And whether you agree or disagree with them, their votes count as much as yours or mine.

    As for timing. He is clearly having more success than most politicians cam dream of, so he is probably doing something right that many could learn from.

    Blair had been a shadow minister for 7 years, and an effective one. Cameron had worked in the leader's office although he hadn't held a shadow brief for long. He also worked for a time outside politics (admittedly as a PR consultant).

    Corbyn has never been a shadow minister (or any other sort of minister, or even a PPS). He has never had a job. He has never, so far as I know, even worked as a union organiser. He has never done any practical administration in his life - he boasts of his experience on Islington's housing committee! To go straight from that, to the huge, complicated and stressful executive job of leader of the Opposition is a massive ask.

    Lord George Bentinck would be just about the only parallel to such a case - and he lasted 18 months before resigning on a point of principle, during which time he was reliant on Disraeli to keep him afloat in the Commons, and admitted that he took his lead from Stanley in the Lords.

    This is why Tom Watson will have such a key role to play. He does know the internal Labour ropes backwards and can either help Corbyn move the party way to the left, or seek to frustrate his efforts. He'll also set the rules for the new leadership election when Corbyn is forced out or resigns some time in the next two years. I can't see the £3 experiment being repeated.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,266


    Well put. To me it's at the heart of thinking, it's easy to appear caring and benevolent and to want to put the less well off first, to espouse equality. But it actually means nothing, in the election campaign millionaires like Brand were running around shouting about it, Toynbee does it every day, and look at the results for the party they support.

    Above all else we value freedom, most people want equality of opportunity but that's different to equality. Corbyn can talk about raising taxes, shooting bankers etc etc and people will cheer, but it won't win him a general election.

    It is ridiculous to base your argument on hypocrites like Brand and Toynbee.

    'Equality of opportunity' and 'equality' are different concepts. But given equality can be defined as:

    "Equality is ensuring individuals or groups of individuals are treated fairly and equally and no less favourably, specific to their needs, including areas of race, gender, disability, religion or belief, sexual orientation and age."

    Do you really disagree with that?
    In principle I don't disagree but the key word is "ensuring". I'd like to know who's ensuring equality before I sign up to it.

    The law.
Sign In or Register to comment.