Corbyn has the highest positive rating ( 21 % ) of the four Labour candidates, he also has the highest negative ( 31 % ). At least people are noticing him and forming opinions. The other three leave the public cold in so far as they're noticed at all.
James Hacker: 'I read all ten of the city's papers this morning, and not a good word about me in nine of them.'
Bernard: 'The tenth was better?'
JH: 'The tenth was worse. It didn't mention me at all!'
Congrats to @Pauly on getting into Birmingham. I think my own experiences at uni made me more left, than right-wing though
Also, I really enjoyed reading @Flockers_pb's contributions, they are really insightful. I also think that @SouthamObserver makes an excellent point in regard to Tom Watson. Although I intensely dislike the man, he is not someone of the hard-left; as Brownite, he'll too oppose the idea of Labour becoming some far-left movement. Thus, Tom Watson's role as Deputy Leader is even more crucial when you account for David Herdson's point that Corbyn lacks organisational skills. More importantly, Watson doesn't lack these skills. Watson has even been involved in takeovers - he was very much involved in the 2005-06 Brownite plot to oust Tony Blair. Although I like Stella Creasy, it may turn out to be a blessing for Labour that someone involved in the political dark arts is elected deputy leader. He is no way an endearing, or charismatic figure - but he could well undermine Corbyn by assuming organisational control of the Labour party.
I wasn't joking re: cats and the internet the other day, you know...
Pierre Azaria was an engineer in the steelworks in Alsace, who was sacked because he was late for work after stopping to rescue a drowning kitten. He took the opportunity to found CGE, which became Alcatel, one of the leading players in internet switches.
Guess how he funded his life while he was building up CGE?
The Comres poll, is a terrible one for Labour, it also highlights the generational gap enormously. In the under 45's Labour is ahead by double digits, in the over 45's the Tories are ahead but the killer one are the over 65's : CON 54, LAB 18, UKIP 16, LD 6.
So essentially there is no one over the age of 65 voting Labour.
All these under 45s going Labour are Generation Rent. Cameron really needs to do something about housing. If he does the Tories will sweep to a landslide in 2020, Corbyn or no Corbyn. If he doesn't....
Hard to do much - but Cameron has brought in Individual Voter Registration so a large chunk of them won't even be on the electoral register and those who are on it are much less likely to vote.
You think a large chunk of under 40s won't even be able to vote? Wishful thinking much. While under 24s, I'd agree on, most voters in their 30s and 40s will vote - issues, such as renting after all will be affecting them. I don't see why most voters in their 30s and 40s, won't seek to apply to vote if they need to.
Who said anything about "Little England"? If the Scots want to go their own way, as seems inevitable, then let them. The Welsh and the Northern Irish too, though they both may need a bit of a shove. There will be nothing ":little" about the England that is left after its unwanted medieval leftovers have gone their own way.
Absurd - only London could function as a viable independent city state. I'd sell the rest of England off to Disney and they can rebrand it as the "United Magic Kingdom".
Congrats to @Pauly on getting into Birmingham. I think my own experiences at uni made me more left, than right-wing though
Also, I really enjoyed reading @Flockers_pb's contributions, they are really insightful. I also think that @SouthamObserver makes an excellent point in regard to Tom Watson. Although I intensely dislike the man, he is not someone of the hard-left; as Brownite, he'll too oppose the idea of Labour becoming some far-left movement. Thus, Tom Watson's role as Deputy Leader is even more crucial when you account for David Herdson's point that Corbyn lacks organisational skills. More importantly, Watson doesn't lack these skills. Watson has even been involved in takeovers - he was very much involved in the 2005-06 Brownite plot to oust Tony Blair. Although I like Stella Creasy, it may turn out to be a blessing for Labour that someone involved in the political dark arts is elected deputy leader. He is no way an endearing, or charismatic figure - but he could well undermine Corbyn by assuming organisational control of the Labour party.
I wasn't joking re: cats and the internet the other day, you know...
Pierre Azaria was an engineer in the steelworks in Alsace, who was sacked because he was late for work after stopping to rescue a drowning kitten. He took the opportunity to found CGE, which became Alcatel, one of the leading players in internet switches.
Guess how he funded his life while he was building up CGE?
Wow. I actually thought you were having a laugh there. So how did he fund his life?
Comres has Burnham doing best, with a net score of +5% on whether he would improve Labour's chances or not. Cooper is on -3%, Kendall on -6% and Corbyn on -10%
I think that's because of all the wishful thinking/writing that has gone on. David Miliband would not have done better than his brother - he is less intelligent, less articulate, less energetic and has no imagination - but absence makes the heart grow fonder.
Yet all the polling evidence, even in 2010, suggested David Miliband had far higher ratings than Ed, but Labour, or at least the afilliates, elected his brother anyway. David Miliband did win the membership then though, so if he were to return that would be one card he could play
who can forget that banana?
I tend to find that this clouds the memory of that banana in my mind
Having just skimmed the previous thread, I cannot allow the good Mr Llama to get away with his comment on pedantry addressed to a certain YeoDoethur.
If people wish to write my ID out, it is correctly 'Y Doethur': 'The Doctor'. I know it is Welsh and therefore hard!
...
Fair go, but I did only reference you as, inter alia, PB's Pendant in Chief - a role that you previously seemed to have taken on in good heart.
As for the gross misspelling of your screen name, I apologise and can only plead in mitigation that I had had a jolly lunch. However, now that you have explained the spelling and the meaning i shall not make that mistake again. Whether you will enjoy being addressed as," The Doctor" we shall see.
I am very pleased to hear you had a jolly lunch, and I have absolutely no objection to being pedant in chief. As a result, however, I was honour bound to draw attention to this grievous error
(PS I intended my earlier post as a bit of a joke - I do hope I didn't accidentally offend you. Apologies if I did.)
No offence was even perceived, Doctor, let alone taken,
As an aside, now that I now the meaning of your screen name I am in something of a quandary. Previously, you see, I thought of you as a serious History Master, a bit Welsh and a bit eccentric, but nothing out of the ordinary for a chap from my background. However, now that I know you are The Doctor I am a bit lost.
My first instinct now is to picture you as William Hartnell, but in colour, or are you more a Pertwee character?
Conservatives really really have a low opinion of Corbyn.
Indeed, Burnham performs best with Labour, UKIP and LD voters, and with Tories is just behind Kendall. Kendall has a negative rating with Labour voters though, Corbyn a positive one, which suggests any Tories Kendall gains could be offset by Labour voters lost to the Greens, LDs and SNP
The Comres poll is a terrible one for Labour, it also highlights the generational gap enormously. In the under 45's Labour is ahead by double digits, in the over 45's the Tories are ahead but the killer one are the over 65's : CON 54, LAB 18, UKIP 16, LD 6.
So essentially there is no one over the age of 65 voting Labour.
Also it's the second poll that has Labour behind the Tories in scotland.
Over 65s?
They're the ones that in the 20s and 30s during the 1970s...do you think there might be a reason why they don't rate Labour?
Last night, Mrs Stodge and I attended the Spandau Ballet concert after racing. I'd backed four winners to cover the tickets, food and drink and it was nice to see some middle-aged men doing something useful with their lives instead on going on political forums and whingeing how the Labour party isn't what it used to be and how wonderful the Conservatives are and how we all wish we could be 65 and live a life of unbridled luxury and contentment thanks to that nice Mr Cameron.
Comres, if Corbyn would be PM will the British economy be worse or better by party net:
CON -59 LAB +9 LD -18 UKIP -32
Personal finances:
CON -51 LAB +23 LD +1 UKIP -25
Job Opportunities:
CON -44 LAB +24 LD + 11 UKIP -23
The pattern for the rest of the questions is the same, 2015 CON voters have an extremely negative opinion about all things Corbyn, followed to a lesser extent by UKIP voters, only LD have a more positive view apart from Labour voters of course.
There is a pattern emerging. It looks like the Labour Party is deliberately choosing ever worse leaders. Will it repeat?
Mind you, the Tories went Thatcher, then Major, then Hague, then IDS, so they are hardly ones to talk!!
True, but the Tories weren't trying to find some sort of anti-Thatcher.
If anything it was their unwillingness to realise that Thatcherism 2.0 wasn't going to win GEs that lead them to pick Hague, IDS and Howard. I don't think Major was that bad - he won a GE after all, and received the most votes of any PM in Britain's history. Probably the biggest proof that Britain's ideal PM is a very moderate Conservative, and not some hard-right figure. It was really the crazies in the Tory party in that time as well as the ERM crisis that messed the Tories up after 1992.
Indeed, of postwar PMs, Churchill, Eden, Macmillan, Home, Heath, Major, Blair and Cameron could all be said to be 'moderate conservatives.' Thatcher and Attlee were exceptions on polar opposites of the ideological scale that suited the times. Brown and Callaghan never won an election. Wilson was more leftwing than the British population, but he was careful to portray a cosy, traditional image (pipe smoking, holidays in the Scillies) and never pushed the boat too far. However even he only won 1 convincing majority, in 1966
Congrats to @Pauly on getting into Birmingham. I think my own experiences at uni made me more left, than right-wing though
Also, I really enjoyed reading @Flockers_pb's contributions, they are really insightful. I also think that @SouthamObserver makes an excellent point in regard to Tom Watson. Although I intensely dislike the man, he is not someone of the hard-left; as Brownite, he'll too oppose the idea of Labour becoming some far-left movement. Thus, Tom Watson's role as Deputy Leader is even more crucial when you account for David Herdson's point that Corbyn lacks organisational skills. More importantly, Watson doesn't lack these skills. Watson has even been involved in takeovers - he was very much involved in the 2005-06 Brownite plot to oust Tony Blair. Although I like Stella Creasy, it may turn out to be a blessing for Labour that someone involved in the political dark arts is elected deputy leader. He is no way an endearing, or charismatic figure - but he could well undermine Corbyn by assuming organisational control of the Labour party.
I wasn't joking re: cats and the internet the other day, you know...
Pierre Azaria was an engineer in the steelworks in Alsace, who was sacked because he was late for work after stopping to rescue a drowning kitten. He took the opportunity to found CGE, which became Alcatel, one of the leading players in internet switches.
Guess how he funded his life while he was building up CGE?
Wow. I actually thought you were having a laugh there. So how did he fund his life?
Selling photographs of said kittens...sent by mail, of course, since no one had invented the internet...
The Comres poll is a terrible one for Labour, it also highlights the generational gap enormously. In the under 45's Labour is ahead by double digits, in the over 45's the Tories are ahead but the killer one are the over 65's : CON 54, LAB 18, UKIP 16, LD 6.
So essentially there is no one over the age of 65 voting Labour.
Also it's the second poll that has Labour behind the Tories in scotland.
Over 65s?
They're the ones that in the 20s and 30s during the 1970s...do you think there might be a reason why they don't rate Labour?
Probably the reason you're thinking, but why the under 45's don't rate the Tories, and it's not a young age thing, those 35-44 are old enough to have families and yet they vote the same way as students.
The Comres poll is a terrible one for Labour, it also highlights the generational gap enormously. In the under 45's Labour is ahead by double digits, in the over 45's the Tories are ahead but the killer one are the over 65's : CON 54, LAB 18, UKIP 16, LD 6.
So essentially there is no one over the age of 65 voting Labour.
Also it's the second poll that has Labour behind the Tories in scotland.
Over 65s?
They're the ones that in the 20s and 30s during the 1970s...do you think there might be a reason why they don't rate Labour?
There used to be a clearly identifiable age group of voters, trackable aging over time, who were exceptionally hostile to the Conservatives because of what happened post ERM.
No offence was even perceived, Doctor, let alone taken,
As an aside, now that I now the meaning of your screen name I am in something of a quandary. Previously, you see, I thought of you as a serious History Master, a bit Welsh and a bit eccentric, but nothing out of the ordinary for a chap from my background. However, now that I know you are The Doctor I am a bit lost.
My first instinct now is to picture you as William Hartnell, but in colour, or are you more a Pertwee character?
In purely physical terms, the Doctor I resemble most closely would be Peter Davison (and he was close to my current age when he played the intergalactic slightly odd guy). The one I like best would however be Hartnell, simply because I am a huge admirer of William Hartnell as an actor, and have been ever since I first saw Brighton Rock at a young age. So I am very happy to be thought of as the stern sergeant- major type! (In terms of quality, variety, character and so on, I love Baker, and have a great regard for Tennant.)
I am very pleased to hear no offence was imparted or imputed! I am now happy to get back to being 'pedant in chief', but unfortunately I am off to buy milk in a few minutes (having forgotten to buy it on the way home).
The Comres poll is a terrible one for Labour, it also highlights the generational gap enormously. In the under 45's Labour is ahead by double digits, in the over 45's the Tories are ahead but the killer one are the over 65's : CON 54, LAB 18, UKIP 16, LD 6.
So essentially there is no one over the age of 65 voting Labour.
Also it's the second poll that has Labour behind the Tories in scotland.
Over 65s?
They're the ones that in the 20s and 30s during the 1970s...do you think there might be a reason why they don't rate Labour?
Probably the reason you're thinking, but why the under 45's don't rate the Tories, and it's not a young age thing, those 35-44 are old enough to have families and yet they vote the same way as students.
They were in their 20s and 30s during the good times under Blair. It's the formative years that are critical in fixing voting patterns for life (obviously there is always drift, but it takes a cataclysmic event to shift them dramatically)
Corbyn may well make Cameron's renegotiation task much harder. Any semblance of a consensus opinion in the UK will entirely disappear. As such EU exit has to be somewhat more likely.
I'm wondering about LD seats - sadly no market that I know of, but one has to presume it's good for Farron - there is of course a risk I suppose that a new centre party emerges, or (possibly) that the LDs just get drowned out in the raucous debate.
Mr. Omnium, Farron's religious views were at risk of making him the oddest (politically) leader. If Corbyn wins, Farron will be thankful Labour picked a NATO-loathing, unilateralist, pro-Russian, Hamas-loving republican.
Corbyn may well make Cameron's renegotiation task much harder. Any semblance of a consensus opinion in the UK will entirely disappear. As such EU exit has to be somewhat more likely.
On the other hand it may make it easier. I think it's fair to say that most European leaders will be pretty hostile to the prospect of a Corbyn leadership, and might be loathe to make Cameron's task harder if it opens up the possibility of Corbyn possibly coming to power.
Right now I'm a Yes [to the EU], but only because a No will hasten the break-up of the UK.
Crumbs, Mr. Observer. You don't want a Conservative Government in case it upsets the Scots. You don't want us to leave the EU in case it upsets the Scots. You seem to be thinking that keeping the UK together is the ultimate aim and appeasing the SNP is the only way that it can be achieved. Maybe you might want to think about what it is about the UK that makes it worth preserving.
You're misunderstanding Mr Observer's affection for the union.
It's the mechanism that allows him to vote Labour, regardless of their policies, because anything else represents an existential threat to the Union that he holds so dear.
'I am greatly concerned by these PBers who would like to see Great Britain reduced to Little England'
i am greatly concerned by these PBers who are still living in colonial times.
There is nothing remotely colonial about the Union, which the Scots have just re-endorsed by referendum, other nations have effective Federations, I don't see why we can't!
Mr. Omnium, Farron's religious views were at risk of making him the oddest (politically) leader. If Corbyn wins, Farron will be thankful Labour picked a NATO-loathing, unilateralist, pro-Russian, Hamas-loving republican.
Is that just the mainstream parties - because otherwise surely Natalie Bennett and Caroline Lucas are odder than Farron? Admittedly, they may be less odd than Corbyn.
Leanne Wood's views have their eccentricities as well - but she's not widely known outside Wales.
So far I have illustrated how opinions towards Corbyn are predictable by past party vote and how old people vote only Tory and middle aged and young people vote Labour, now attitudes to Corbyn by age (and correlates strongly with the Tory vote by age):
So in conclusion everyone who was born after 1970 is OK with Corbyn and vote Labour, everyone born before 1970 hates his guts and vote Tory.
So I'm willing to predict that the Tories will have the same number of votes in 2020 as in 2015, minus the people who have died of old age in between. And Labour the same votes too, plus the people who will be over 18 and vote by then.
'There is nothing remotely colonial about the Union, which the Scots have just re-endorsed by referendum, other nations have effective Federations, I don't see why we can't!'
If the Scots decide to leave the UK because the majority of UK voters want to leave the EU,that's their decision and nothing to do with your so called little England unless you seriously believe the minority should prevail over the majority.
Corbyn may well make Cameron's renegotiation task much harder. Any semblance of a consensus opinion in the UK will entirely disappear. As such EU exit has to be somewhat more likely.
On the other hand it may make it easier. I think it's fair to say that most European leaders will be pretty hostile to the prospect of a Corbyn leadership, and might be loathe to make Cameron's task harder if it opens up the possibility of Corbyn possibly coming to power.
He'll have some European support. Greece and Spain I imagine, perhaps Hollande too (while he lasts). Also I imagine that the entire Euro-area banking industry will be rubbing its hands at the prospect of dethroning London.
@MD: Farron's not that strange, and certainly not in Bennett's league - as ydoethur points out.
So far I have illustrated how opinions towards Corbyn are predictable by past party vote and how old people vote only Tory and middle aged and young people vote Labour, now attitudes to Corbyn by age (and correlates strongly with the Tory vote by age):
So in conclusion everyone who was born after 1970 is OK with Corbyn and vote Labour, everyone born before 1970 hates his guts and vote Tory.
So I'm willing to predict that the Tories will gain the same number of votes in 2020 as in 2015, minus the people who have died of old age in between. And Labour the same votes too, plus the people who will be over 18 and vote by then.
Yet Corbyn still has a negative rating in all age groups from 18-44, he just does rather better than the over 45s
The Comres poll is a terrible one for Labour, it also highlights the generational gap enormously. In the under 45's Labour is ahead by double digits, in the over 45's the Tories are ahead but the killer one are the over 65's : CON 54, LAB 18, UKIP 16, LD 6.
So essentially there is no one over the age of 65 voting Labour.
Also it's the second poll that has Labour behind the Tories in scotland.
Over 65s?
They're the ones that in the 20s and 30s during the 1970s...do you think there might be a reason why they don't rate Labour?
Probably the reason you're thinking, but why the under 45's don't rate the Tories, and it's not a young age thing, those 35-44 are old enough to have families and yet they vote the same way as students.
It is natural though, since most governments elected at times of low economic growth protect the interest of some part of the community vis a vis the claims of another part.
The last UK government protected services and benefits for the old, like the NHS, while reducing services and increasing charges for things used by the young, like university.
Furthermore, policies to preserve wealth help the old, who have the assets, and not the young, who struggle to buy the assets. The main asset among UK households being housing: high south-eastern rents are good for BTLs/shareholders and bad for new purchasers and tenants.
I also suspect that the reality faced by young people of low wages in a high-cost economy is not necessarily fully appreciated by other generations. Sure, there was less in the 1950s, but there were a good 25 years of consumer-spending good times for a country with only a handful of other high-income countries as economic competitors in its league. They don't seem to be coming back now 1bn Chinese have entered the labour market and that, incidentally, is not something immigration policy can do anything about.
So far I have illustrated how opinions towards Corbyn are predictable by past party vote and how old people vote only Tory and middle aged and young people vote Labour, now attitudes to Corbyn by age (and correlates strongly with the Tory vote by age):
So in conclusion everyone who was born after 1970 is OK with Corbyn and vote Labour, everyone born before 1970 hates his guts and vote Tory.
So I'm willing to predict that the Tories will gain the same number of votes in 2020 as in 2015, minus the people who have died of old age in between. And Labour the same votes too, plus the people who will be over 18 and vote by then.
Fascinating. Extraordinary how out of sync Corbyn is with his own age group.
There is a pattern emerging. It looks like the Labour Party is deliberately choosing ever worse leaders. Will it repeat?
This is what I pointed out on the prior thread. Incredibly, their leaders keep getting worse (who'd have thought they could select someone less papabile than Gordon Brown?) Now they might choose Corbyn??
Bravo!
After Corbyn, who? Lord Voldemort? Ronald McDonald?
Mr. Omnium, it's a relative measure. Given the identikit nature of political leaders (of major parties) recently, Farron is a little unusual. But Corbyn's from Planet Socialist.
So far I have illustrated how opinions towards Corbyn are predictable by past party vote and how old people vote only Tory and middle aged and young people vote Labour, now attitudes to Corbyn by age (and correlates strongly with the Tory vote by age):
So in conclusion everyone who was born after 1970 is OK with Corbyn and vote Labour, everyone born before 1970 hates his guts and vote Tory.
So I'm willing to predict that the Tories will gain the same number of votes in 2020 as in 2015, minus the people who have died of old age in between. And Labour the same votes too, plus the people who will be over 18 and vote by then.
Fascinating. Extraordinary how out of sync Corbyn is with his own age group.
It also happens to coincide with people who have experienced some of the policies that he espouses in action.
So far I have illustrated how opinions towards Corbyn are predictable by past party vote and how old people vote only Tory and middle aged and young people vote Labour, now attitudes to Corbyn by age (and correlates strongly with the Tory vote by age):
So in conclusion everyone who was born after 1970 is OK with Corbyn and vote Labour, everyone born before 1970 hates his guts and vote Tory.
So I'm willing to predict that the Tories will gain the same number of votes in 2020 as in 2015, minus the people who have died of old age in between. And Labour the same votes too, plus the people who will be over 18 and vote by then.
Yet Corbyn still has a negative rating in all age groups from 18-44, he just does rather better than the over 45s
In those age groups the pattern is neutral rather than negative, it might be slightly negative net but only of those who said either worse or better and not the same, if I included that then it would split 3 ways between worse, better, or the same.
I'm to be convinced the election of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader will be the opportunity Tim Farron and the LDs have wanted. The first stage of the way back is to pick up the mid-term protest votes (which will occur as time marches on).
As for Corbyn's numbers, I read the Racing Post rather than the usual papers but I imagine the pro-Conservative papers have already started the scaremongering about how a Corbyn Government would leave us impoverished, defenceless and how he's met with some not very nice people.
Meh...
The acid test will be the policies of a Corbyn-led Opposition which won't. I suspect, swallow 90% of the Cameron-Osborne economic and social agenda and will try to promulgate its own vision which, lacking credibility as it might, will still be "different".
Indeed, one can fault much of the Conservative agenda now - the absurd notion that schools should be forced to become Academies for example. If a large secondary school wants to become a Academy, great, but what about a small village primary ? Does its headteacher want to run a business or a school ? As an example, schools can choose in many areas can choose to opt-in to buy a selection of maintenance obligations, including statutory compliance inspections, from the local authority.
The notion an Academy can opt out completely from Council control is also wrong - the Academies take on a lease from the Council so the land isn't gifted to the school but leased and the Council still has a statutory responsibility in terms of capacity and school place planning.
I will be voting no in the EU referendum. As German domination is not good for most of Europe.
Also it will speed up Scottish Independence .
Corbyn will have to get of the fence, and eventually agree with his mentor Anthony Benn that it is an un democtrtatic institution. With the USA Obama, demanding we stay in, this should strengthen his hand to advocate a no vote.
So far I have illustrated how opinions towards Corbyn are predictable by past party vote and how old people vote only Tory and middle aged and young people vote Labour, now attitudes to Corbyn by age (and correlates strongly with the Tory vote by age):
So in conclusion everyone who was born after 1970 is OK with Corbyn and vote Labour, everyone born before 1970 hates his guts and vote Tory.
So I'm willing to predict that the Tories will gain the same number of votes in 2020 as in 2015, minus the people who have died of old age in between. And Labour the same votes too, plus the people who will be over 18 and vote by then.
Fascinating. Extraordinary how out of sync Corbyn is with his own age group.
Also that there are very few people voting Labour in that age group.
Mr. City, I was surprised by how anti-EU some of the left sounded during the most recent near-exit of Greece from the eurozone.
Of course, the risk is that those most ardent on the right *and* the left espouse exit, and the soft left/right present themselves as the reasonable centre.
Maybe we'll have Farage and Owen Jones on stage together for No
'There is nothing remotely colonial about the Union, which the Scots have just re-endorsed by referendum, other nations have effective Federations, I don't see why we can't!'
If the Scots decide to leave the UK because the majority of UK voters want to leave the EU,that's their decision and nothing to do with your so called little England unless you seriously believe the minority should prevail over the majority.
That is a different matter, and the UK is still unlikely to leave the EU, indeed it is also possible if a very narrow Yes a big In vote in Scotland could tip the balance. Not all Scots are pro EU either, indeed a significant minority of SNP voters polled are anti EU
So far I have illustrated how opinions towards Corbyn are predictable by past party vote and how old people vote only Tory and middle aged and young people vote Labour, now attitudes to Corbyn by age (and correlates strongly with the Tory vote by age):
So in conclusion everyone who was born after 1970 is OK with Corbyn and vote Labour, everyone born before 1970 hates his guts and vote Tory.
So I'm willing to predict that the Tories will gain the same number of votes in 2020 as in 2015, minus the people who have died of old age in between. And Labour the same votes too, plus the people who will be over 18 and vote by then.
Yet Corbyn still has a negative rating in all age groups from 18-44, he just does rather better than the over 45s
In those age groups the pattern is neutral rather than negative, it might be slightly negative net but only of those who said either worse or better and not the same, if I included that then it would split 3 ways between worse, better, or the same.
It was the recent Greek tragedy that decided my no vote . As everyone knows Greece should never have been allowed in the Euro, and there is no possiblity this debt can be repaid, with out massive debt relief Kicking the can down the road can not go on forever. We are involved in a giant ponzi scheme and it will eventually collapse as they all do.
Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Stalin - millions Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Ceaucescu - ? Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Castro - tens of thousands Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Tito - hundreds of thousands Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Mao - millions Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Pol Pot - millions
God - you really are the stereotype of the thick toff aren't you. I wasn't just listing right wing dictators (I'd don't believe Jeremy was even in parliament for most of the above, let alone government). I was specifically arguing with some tool who described Chavez as a brutal dictator and enemy of the UK without a shred of evidence presented on my repeated request. Then I compared that real-world non-brutal democrat and friend of the UK, Chavez, with a bunch of actual genocidal tyrants that had real life close relations with Tory governments at a time that many current Tory MPs were around.
Basically the Tory party hasn't got a leg to stand on when it comes to revolting associates.
Of course, the whole affair brought out the real scum amongst the PB Tories who secretly admire the torturer-in-chief Pinochet, though I'm sure you wouldn't stoop quite that low.
Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Stalin - millions Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Ceaucescu - ? Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Castro - tens of thousands Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Tito - hundreds of thousands Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Mao - millions Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Pol Pot - millions
God - you really are the stereotype of the thick toff aren't you. I wasn't just listing right wing dictators (I'd don't believe Jeremy was even in parliament for most of the above, let alone government). I was specifically arguing with some tool who described Chavez as a brutal dictator and enemy of the UK without a shred of evidence presented on my repeated request. Then I compared that real-world non-brutal democrat and friend of the UK, Chavez, with a bunch of actual genocidal tyrants that had real life close relations with Tory governments at a time that many current Tory MPs were around.
Basically the Tory party hasn't got a leg to stand on when it comes to revolting associates.
Of course, the whole affair brought out the real scum amongst the PB Tories who secretly admire the torturer-in-chief Pinochet, though I'm sure you wouldn't stoop quite that low.
" the PB Tories who secretly admire the torturer-in-chief Pinochet"
How would you know? I mean, if they're doing it secretly?
The Comres poll is a terrible one for Labour, it also highlights the generational gap enormously. In the under 45's Labour is ahead by double digits, in the over 45's the Tories are ahead but the killer one are the over 65's : CON 54, LAB 18, UKIP 16, LD 6.
So essentially there is no one over the age of 65 voting Labour.
Also it's the second poll that has Labour behind the Tories in scotland.
Over 65s?
They're the ones that in the 20s and 30s during the 1970s...do you think there might be a reason why they don't rate Labour?
Probably the reason you're thinking, but why the under 45's don't rate the Tories, and it's not a young age thing, those 35-44 are old enough to have families and yet they vote the same way as students.
It is natural though, since most governments elected at times of low economic growth protect the interest of some part of the community vis a vis the claims of another part.
The last UK government protected services and benefits for the old, like the NHS, while reducing services and increasing charges for things used by the young, like university.
Furthermore, policies to preserve wealth help the old, who have the assets, and not the young, who struggle to buy the assets. The main asset among UK households being housing: high south-eastern rents are good for BTLs/shareholders and bad for new purchasers and tenants.
I also suspect that the reality faced by young people of low wages in a high-cost economy is not necessarily fully appreciated by other generations. Sure, there was less in the 1950s, but there were a good 25 years of consumer-spending good times for a country with only a handful of other high-income countries as economic competitors in its league. They don't seem to be coming back now 1bn Chinese have entered the labour market and that, incidentally, is not something immigration policy can do anything about.
It's not just about them appreciating it: it is, I suspect that a large amount of them simply don't care. After all, all young people are evil/vile chavs/useless according to the Daily Mail, which old people are likely to read.
Questions like those in the Comres Poll are generally a nonsense due to the large numbers of don't knows and neutrals. The remainder break down core partisan lines, telling us very little.
Right now I'm a Yes [to the EU], but only because a No will hasten the break-up of the UK.
Crumbs, Mr. Observer. You don't want a Conservative Government in case it upsets the Scots. You don't want us to leave the EU in case it upsets the Scots. You seem to be thinking that keeping the UK together is the ultimate aim and appeasing the SNP is the only way that it can be achieved. Maybe you might want to think about what it is about the UK that makes it worth preserving.
You're misunderstanding Mr Observer's affection for the union.
It's the mechanism that allows him to vote Labour, regardless of their policies, because anything else represents an existential threat to the Union that he holds so dear.
Lol - post of the day and so true.
Southam Observer is or was a Lib Dem. For the last few Elections he never mentioned he was Labour.
Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Stalin - millions Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Ceaucescu - ? Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Castro - tens of thousands Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Tito - hundreds of thousands Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Mao - millions Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Pol Pot - millions
Basically the Tory party hasn't got a leg to stand on when it comes to revolting associates.
Of course, the whole affair brought out the real scum amongst the PB Tories who secretly admire the torturer-in-chief Pinochet, though I'm sure you wouldn't stoop quite that low.
"secretly"??
You're just a big flaming attention seeking drama queen whose opinions are flighty and ephemeral as aphids, barely felt, some of the really unpleasant types on here actually really seriously idolise him though rather than just pretending to to show off.
Right now I'm a Yes [to the EU], but only because a No will hasten the break-up of the UK.
Crumbs, Mr. Observer. You don't want a Conservative Government in case it upsets the Scots. You don't want us to leave the EU in case it upsets the Scots. You seem to be thinking that keeping the UK together is the ultimate aim and appeasing the SNP is the only way that it can be achieved. Maybe you might want to think about what it is about the UK that makes it worth preserving.
You're misunderstanding Mr Observer's affection for the union.
It's the mechanism that allows him to vote Labour, regardless of their policies, because anything else represents an existential threat to the Union that he holds so dear.
Yes Charles, I am proud to be British and have a huge affection for and loyalty to the UK. I am sorry you don't feel the same way.
Unlike you I don't support a party come what may. I vote for different reasons and with different motivations. Preserving the Union is one of those. Corbyn can't deliver that, which is one of the many reasons why a party led by him would never get my vote.
The Comres poll is a terrible one for Labour, it also highlights the generational gap enormously. In the under 45's Labour is ahead by double digits, in the over 45's the Tories are ahead but the killer one are the over 65's : CON 54, LAB 18, UKIP 16, LD 6.
So essentially there is no one over the age of 65 voting Labour.
Also it's the second poll that has Labour behind the Tories in scotland.
Over 65s?
They're the ones that in the 20s and 30s during the 1970s...do you think there might be a reason why they don't rate Labour?
Probably the reason you're thinking, but why the under 45's don't rate the Tories, and it's not a young age thing, those 35-44 are old enough to have families and yet they vote the same way as students.
It is natural though, since most governments elected at times of low economic growth protect the interest of some part of the community vis a vis the claims of another part.
The last UK government protected services and benefits for the old, like the NHS, while reducing services and increasing charges for things used by the young, like university.
Furthermore, policies to preserve wealth help the old, who have the assets, and not the young, who struggle to buy the assets. The main asset among UK households being housing: high south-eastern rents are good for BTLs/shareholders and bad for new purchasers and tenants.
I also suspect that the reality faced by young people of low wages in a high-cost economy is not necessarily fully appreciated by other generations. Sure, there was less in the 1950s, but there were a good 25 years of consumer-spending good times for a country with only a handful of other high-income countries as economic competitors in its league. They don't seem to be coming back now 1bn Chinese have entered the labour market and that, incidentally, is not something immigration policy can do anything about.
It's not just about them appreciating it: it is, I suspect that a large amount of them simply don't care. After all, all young people are evil/vile chavs/useless according to the Daily Mail, which old people are likely to read.
Yes, because none of us have children, and if we do, we don't give a shit about them *rolls eyes*. Do you actually know any 'old' people, or do you just pluck this nonsense from your fundament?
OGH engaged in a little wishful thinking on his twitter feed earlier, said Cooper came out best on net figures, now corrected to say it was actually Burnham https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB?lang=en-gb
This is a special analysis for HYUFD, he likes US demographics and stuff for elections there.
Looking at the Comres poll, the other post election polls and the exit poll, it seems that the year of birth strongly affects voting intention and the reaction to policies and events like in 2 separate worlds, with the schism year being 1970.
If I apply the usual mechanics of US elections where most predict elections with demographics, on the UK and looking at the Comres poll. If the death rate is maintained at 600 thousand per year then the Tories would lose 650 thousands of their voters, and if the turnout among the 3.5 million extra people who will gain the right the right to vote is the same as this years then Labour would gain 600 thousand votes. The Tories would win the 2020 election but much closer than in 2015, and in 2025 it would be a landslide Labour victory on a 1997 scale, assuming again that the generational schism is maintained.
This reminds of some of the talk in the mid to late 1990's were they said that the Tory vote simply died off.
The Comres poll is a terrible one for Labour, it also highlights the generational gap enormously. In the under 45's Labour is ahead by double digits, in the over 45's the Tories are ahead but the killer one are the over 65's : CON 54, LAB 18, UKIP 16, LD 6.
So essentially there is no one over the age of 65 voting Labour.
Also it's the second poll that has Labour behind the Tories in scotland.
Over 65s?
They're the ones that in the 20s and 30s during the 1970s...do you think there might be a reason why they don't rate Labour?
Probably the reason you're thinking, but why the under 45's don't rate the Tories, and it's not a young age thing, those 35-44 are old enough to have families and yet they vote the same way as students.
It is natural though, since most governments elected at times of low economic growth protect the interest of some part of the community vis a vis the claims of another part.
The last UK government protected services and benefits for the old, like the NHS, while reducing services and increasing charges for things used by the young, like university.
Furthermore, policies to preserve wealth help the old, who have the assets, and not the young, who struggle to buy the assets. The main asset among UK households being housing: high south-eastern rents are good for BTLs/shareholders and bad for new purchasers and tenants.
I also suspect that the reality faced by young people of low wages in a high-cost economy is not necessarily fully appreciated by other generations. Sure, there was less in the 1950s, but there were a good 25 years of consumer-spending good times for a country with only a handful of other high-income countries as economic competitors in its league. They don't seem to be coming back now 1bn Chinese have entered the labour market and that, incidentally, is not something immigration policy can do anything about.
It's not just about them appreciating it: it is, I suspect that a large amount of them simply don't care. After all, all young people are evil/vile chavs/useless according to the Daily Mail, which old people are likely to read.
Yes, because none of us have children, and if we do, we don't give a shit about them *rolls eyes*. Do you actually know any 'old' people, or do you just pluck this nonsense from your fundament?
Is Nick "principles" Palmer right now changing his mind, having seen the ComRes poll?
No, Nick is turning a blind eye to Jezza's pecadillos as his leadership is going to be a fascinating experiment. It's another great call in a political career that since 2010 has been littered with them.
Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Stalin - millions Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Ceaucescu - ? Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Castro - tens of thousands Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Tito - hundreds of thousands Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Mao - millions Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Pol Pot - millions
God - you really are the stereotype of the thick toff aren't you. I wasn't just listing right wing dictators (I'd don't believe Jeremy was even in parliament for most of the above, let alone government). I was specifically arguing with some tool who described Chavez as a brutal dictator and enemy of the UK without a shred of evidence presented on my repeated request. Then I compared that real-world non-brutal democrat and friend of the UK, Chavez, with a bunch of actual genocidal tyrants that had real life close relations with Tory governments at a time that many current Tory MPs were around.
Basically the Tory party hasn't got a leg to stand on when it comes to revolting associates.
Of course, the whole affair brought out the real scum amongst the PB Tories who secretly admire the torturer-in-chief Pinochet, though I'm sure you wouldn't stoop quite that low.
They also got a straw poll on your favourite way to eat bacon (americans, what do you expect) and your favourite new food (Apple Pie On-A-Stick? How would that work without it crumbling?) :
Right now I'm a Yes [to the EU], but only because a No will hasten the break-up of the UK.
Crumbs, Mr. Observer. You don't want a Conservative Government in case it upsets the Scots. You don't want us to leave the EU in case it upsets the Scots. You seem to be thinking that keeping the UK together is the ultimate aim and appeasing the SNP is the only way that it can be achieved. Maybe you might want to think about what it is about the UK that makes it worth preserving.
You're misunderstanding Mr Observer's affection for the union.
It's the mechanism that allows him to vote Labour, regardless of their policies, because anything else represents an existential threat to the Union that he holds so dear.
Lol - post of the day and so true.
Southam Observer is or was a Lib Dem. For the last few Elections he never mentioned he was Labour.
He's moved between Lib Dem and Labour depending on who has the best chance of beating the Tories. Because they want to abolish the welfare state, apparently.
At the last election he agonised for ages before finally deciding the vote Labour to save the Union
This is a special analysis for HYUFD, he likes US demographics and stuff for elections there.
Looking at the Comres poll, the other post election polls and the exit poll, it seems that the year of birth strongly affects voting intention and the reaction to policies and events like in 2 separate worlds, with the schism year being 1970.
If I apply the usual mechanics of US elections where most predict elections with demographics, on the UK and looking at the Comres poll. If the death rate is maintained at 600 thousand per year then the Tories would lose 650 thousands of their voters, and if the turnout among the 3.5 million extra people who will gain the right the right to vote is the same as this years then Labour would gain 600 thousand votes. The Tories would win the 2020 election but much closer than in 2015, and in 2025 it would be a landslide Labour victory on a 1997 scale, assuming again that the generational schism is maintained.
This reminds of some of the talk in the mid to late 1990's were they said that the Tory vote simply died off.
That suggests there is no drift in opinions through age.
I do not think it particularly significant but it is surely a contributing factor
So far I have illustrated how opinions towards Corbyn are predictable by past party vote and how old people vote only Tory and middle aged and young people vote Labour, now attitudes to Corbyn by age (and correlates strongly with the Tory vote by age):
So in conclusion everyone who was born after 1970 is OK with Corbyn and vote Labour, everyone born before 1970 hates his guts and vote Tory.
So I'm willing to predict that the Tories will have the same number of votes in 2020 as in 2015, minus the people who have died of old age in between. And Labour the same votes too, plus the people who will be over 18 and vote by then.
Except everyone is five years older and so the deaths are replaced by the "converts" in their forties. In reality of course it's not that neat but the old adage remains from Churchill "anyone under 30 who doesn't vote Liberal (Labour - he was talking 90 odd years ago I think), hasn't got a heart. Anyone over 40 who doesn't vote Tory hasn't got a brain".
Right now I'm a Yes [to the EU], but only because a No will hasten the break-up of the UK.
Crumbs, Mr. Observer. You don't want a Conservative Government in case it upsets the Scots. You ding.
You're.
Lol - post of the day and so true.
Southam Observer is or was a Lib Dem. For the last few Elections he never mentioned he was Labour.
Really? I felt like it came up a bunch. Then again, despite repeatedly saying I've never voted Tory, I was still accused of pretending I wasn't a Tory (all those 'Ed M isn't that bad, he'll win and be an ok PM must have given me away) due to not enough Tory hatred I guess, so it can be hard to tell.
Right now I'm a Yes [to the EU], but only because a No will hasten the break-up of the UK.
Crumbs, Mr. Observer. You don't want a Conservative Government in case it upsets the Scots. You don't want us to leave the EU in case it upsets the Scots. You seem to be thinking that keeping the UK together is the ultimate aim and appeasing the SNP is the only way that it can be achieved. Maybe you might want to think about what it is about the UK that makes it worth preserving.
You're misunderstanding Mr Observer's affection for the union.
It's the mechanism that allows him to vote Labour, regardless of their policies, because anything else represents an existential threat to the Union that he holds so dear.
Yes Charles, I am proud to be British and have a huge affection for and loyalty to the UK...Unlike you I don't support a party come what may. I vote for different reasons and with different motivations. Preserving the Union is one of those.
I find I am growing increasingly affectionate toward the Union as a rocket toward my 30s, even as I am increasingly despondent about the chances of it lasting more than 5-10 years more. Perhaps the latter is causing the former. I don't feel it affects my view of parties, as I'm so pessimistic it doesn't feel that anything could do more than delay the end, so it doesn't matter as much.
Right now I'm a Yes [to the EU], but only because a No will hasten the break-up of the UK.
Crumbs, Mr. Observer. You don't want a Conservative Government in case it upsets the Scots. You don't want us to leave the EU in case it upsets the Scots. You seem to be thinking that keeping the UK together is the ultimate aim and appeasing the SNP is the only way that it can be achieved. Maybe you might want to think about what it is about the UK that makes it worth preserving.
You're misunderstanding Mr Observer's affection for the union.
It's the mechanism that allows him to vote Labour, regardless of their policies, because anything else represents an existential threat to the Union that he holds so dear.
Lol - post of the day and so true.
Southam Observer is or was a Lib Dem. For the last few Elections he never mentioned he was Labour.
He's moved between Lib Dem and Labour depending on who has the best chance of beating the Tories. Because they want to abolish the welfare state, apparently.
At the last election he agonised for ages before finally deciding the vote Labour to save the Union
No Chas, I voted Labour because in my constituency they were best placed to beat your team.
Not sure why uou're making things up, but please feel free to carry on if it makes you feel better.
Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Stalin - millions Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Ceaucescu - ? Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Castro - tens of thousands Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Tito - hundreds of thousands Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Mao - millions Political killings at the hands of Corbynite fellow-traveller Pol Pot - millions
God - you really are the stereotype of the thick toff aren't you. I wasn't just listing right wing dictators (I'd don't believe Jeremy was even in parliament for most of the above, let alone government). I was specifically arguing with some tool who described Chavez as a brutal dictator and enemy of the UK without a shred of evidence presented on my repeated request. Then I compared that real-world non-brutal democrat and friend of the UK, Chavez, with a bunch of actual genocidal tyrants that had real life close relations with Tory governments at a time that many current Tory MPs were around.
Basically the Tory party hasn't got a leg to stand on when it comes to revolting associates.
Of course, the whole affair brought out the real scum amongst the PB Tories who secretly admire the torturer-in-chief Pinochet, though I'm sure you wouldn't stoop quite that low.
Neither thick, nor a toff.
But go with your bad self.
I suspect, by most people's standards, you are definitely a toff. But not thick, no.
This is a special analysis for HYUFD, he likes US demographics and stuff for elections there.
Looking at the Comres poll, the other post election polls and the exit poll, it seems that the year of birth strongly affects voting intention and the reaction to policies and events like in 2 separate worlds, with the schism year being 1970.
If I apply the usual mechanics of US elections where most predict elections with demographics, on the UK and looking at the Comres poll. If the death rate is maintained at 600 thousand per year then the Tories would lose 650 thousands of their voters, and if the turnout among the 3.5 million extra people who will gain the right the right to vote is the same as this years then Labour would gain 600 thousand votes. The Tories would win the 2020 election but much closer than in 2015, and in 2025 it would be a landslide Labour victory on a 1997 scale, assuming again that the generational schism is maintained.
This reminds of some of the talk in the mid to late 1990's were they said that the Tory vote simply died off.
Until they experience a leftwing Labour government again in which case they turn rapidly right for the remainder of their lives!
Right now I'm a Yes [to the EU], but only because a No will hasten the break-up of the UK.
Crumbs, Mr. Observer. You don't want a Conservative Government in case it upsets the Scots. You don't want us to leave the EU in case it upsets the Scots. You seem to be thinking that keeping the UK together is the ultimate aim and appeasing the SNP is the only way that it can be achieved. Maybe you might want to think about what it is about the UK that makes it worth preserving.
You're misunderstanding Mr Observer's affection for the union.
It's the mechanism that allows him to vote Labour, regardless of their policies, because anything else represents an existential threat to the Union that he holds so dear.
Lol - post of the day and so true.
Southam Observer is or was a Lib Dem. For the last few Elections he never mentioned he was Labour.
He's moved between Lib Dem and Labour depending on who has the best chance of beating the Tories. Because they want to abolish the welfare state, apparently.
At the last election he agonised for ages before finally deciding the vote Labour to save the Union
No Chas, I voted Labour because in my constituency they were best placed to beat your team.
Not sure why uou're making things up, but please feel free to carry on if it makes you feel better.
Two replies. Must have touched a nerve.
The reason you gave for voting Labour was because a Tory government would mean the end of the Union.
They also got a straw poll on your favourite way to eat bacon (americans, what do you expect) and your favourite new food (Apple Pie On-A-Stick? How would that work without it crumbling?) :
Mr. kle4, one of the nice things about liking classical history is the perspective it helps provide.
As an aside, if Alexander's fledgling empire had lasted as long as the Roman state, then it would've been around until the 18th century. That's a crazy thought. And, I recently read Alexander was planning to conquer the whole of north Africa and the northern coasts of the Mediterranean. More or less the Roman Empire, except extending east to the eastern border of modern day Pakistan.
.....
His Successors abandoned the plans, when the knackered army, unsurprisingly, expressed disapproval.
Re Livingstone's post 7/7 speech (FPT): yes it was a good speech but there was one thing which bothered me about it at the time and it was how he described Londoners.
So I went and looked it up and this is the passage.
"This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty and the powerful...... It was aimed at ordinary, working-class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindu and Jew, young and old. It was an indiscriminate attempt to slaughter, irrespective of any considerations for age, for class, for religion or whatever."
Now ignoring the questionable assumptions (people in the West are seen as powerful by Islamists), what bothered me then - and still does - is the use of "working class" before Londoners. Why was that needed? Why exclude middle class or upper class Londoners? Would the attack have been less blameworthy if aimed at them?
I appreciate that he may have made the speech off the cuff and overall it is powerful and moving. But, still, if it was off the cuff the reference only to working class Londoners is indicative of how Livingstone thinks. It is not a particularly inclusive view.
[edit: snipped out most of the rubbish] Of course, the whole affair brought out the real scum amongst the PB Tories who secretly admire the torturer-in-chief Pinochet, though I'm sure you wouldn't stoop quite that low.
Right now I'm a Yes [to the EU], but only because a No will hasten the break-up of the UK.
Crumbs, Mr. Observer. You don't want a Conservative Government in case it upsets the Scots. You don't want us to leave the EU in case it upsets the Scots. You seem to be thinking that keeping the UK together is the ultimate aim and appeasing the SNP is the only way that it can be achieved. Maybe you might want to think about what it is about the UK that makes it worth preserving.
You're misunderstanding Mr Observer's affection for the union.
It's the mechanism that allows him to vote Labour, regardless of their policies, because anything else represents an existential threat to the Union that he holds so dear.
Lol - post of the day and so true.
Southam Observer is or was a Lib Dem. For the last few Elections he never mentioned he was Labour.
He's moved between Lib Dem and Labour depending on who has the best chance of beating the Tories. Because they want to abolish the welfare state, apparently.
At the last election he agonised for ages before finally deciding the vote Labour to save the Union
No Chas, I voted Labour because in my constituency they were best placed to beat your team.
Not sure why uou're making things up, but please feel free to carry on if it makes you feel better.
Two replies. Must have touched a nerve.
The reason you gave for voting Labour was because a Tory government would mean the end of the Union.
No, it wasn't. I wanted the Tories to lose. Though a Labour victory would have been good for the Union. The Tories are clearly not interested in preserving it and it will be gone soon enough. You will shrug your shoulders, I will be devastated. Such is life.
The Comres poll is a terrible one for Labour, it also highlights the generational gap enormously. In the under 45's Labour is ahead by double digits, in the over 45's the Tories are ahead but the killer one are the over 65's : CON 54, LAB 18, UKIP 16, LD 6.
So essentially there is no one over the age of 65 voting Labour.
Also it's the second poll that has Labour behind the Tories in scotland.
Over 65s?
They're the ones that in the 20s and 30s during the 1970s...do you think there might be a reason why they don't rate Labour?
Probably the reason you're thinking, but why the under 45's don't rate the Tories, and it's not a young age thing, those 35-44 are old enough to have families and yet they vote the same way as students.
Then they might inherit a few quid for some, pay off the mortgage, seriously worry about their pension, and having a bloke that thinks Venezuala is a great model, who proposes taxing the balls off companies thereby collapsing dividends and so the stock market and so their old age savings, while printing money to create inflation to vaporise what's left might not look overly attractive.
This is a special analysis for HYUFD, he likes US demographics and stuff for elections there.
Looking at the Comres poll, the other post election polls and the exit poll, it seems that the year of birth strongly affects voting intention and the reaction to policies and events like in 2 separate worlds, with the schism year being 1970.
If I apply the usual mechanics of US elections where most predict elections with demographics, on the UK and looking at the Comres poll. If the death rate is maintained at 600 thousand per year then the Tories would lose 650 thousands of their voters, and if the turnout among the 3.5 million extra people who will gain the right the right to vote is the same as this years then Labour would gain 600 thousand votes. The Tories would win the 2020 election but much closer than in 2015, and in 2025 it would be a landslide Labour victory on a 1997 scale, assuming again that the generational schism is maintained.
This reminds of some of the talk in the mid to late 1990's were they said that the Tory vote simply died off.
That suggests there is no drift in opinions through age.
I do not think it particularly significant but it is surely a contributing factor
I haven't seen it though, that left wing wave is there since the 2005 GE and it only moves up the age cohort.
If Vice President Joe Biden makes the leap into the Democratic presidential race, he could promise that he would serve just one term in the White House, journalist and author Carl Bernstein said Friday. “And one thing that I keep hearing about Biden is that if he were to declare and say, because age is such a problem for him if he does, I want to be a one-term president. I want to serve for four years, unite Washington. I’ve dealt with the Republicans in Congress all my public life,” Bernstein told CNN’s “New Day.” Story Continued Below
“I think there’s a conversation going on to that effect among his aides and friends,” he said. “It could light fire to the current political environment.”
Right now I'm a Yes [to the EU], but only because a No will hasten the break-up of the UK.
Crumbs, Mr. Observer. You don't want a Conservative Government in case it upsets the Scots. You don't want us to leave the EU in case it upsets the Scots. You seem to be thinking that keeping the UK together is the ultimate aim and appeasing the SNP is the only way that it can be achieved. Maybe you might want to think about what it is about the UK that makes it worth preserving.
You're misunderstanding Mr Observer's affection for the union.
It's the mechanism that allows him to vote Labour, regardless of their policies, because anything else represents an existential threat to the Union that he holds so dear.
Lol - post of the day and so true.
Southam Observer is or was a Lib Dem. For the last few Elections he never mentioned he was Labour.
He's moved between Lib Dem and Labour depending on who has the best chance of beating the Tories. Because they want to abolish the welfare state, apparently.
At the last election he agonised for ages before finally deciding the vote Labour to save the Union
No Chas, I voted Labour because in my constituency they were best placed to beat your team.
Not sure why uou're making things up, but please feel free to carry on if it makes you feel better.
Two replies. Must have touched a nerve.
The reason you gave for voting Labour was because a Tory government would mean the end of the Union.
No, it wasn't. I wanted the Tories to lose. Though a Labour victory would have been good for the Union. The Tories are clearly not interested in preserving it and it will be gone soon enough. You will shrug your shoulders, I will be devastated. Such is life.
Excuse me, Scottish Tories voted over 90% for the Union, had Scottish Labour got anyway near that level of support for the Union from their voters Yes would have been trounced
I have to say that Thatcher's fawning over Pinochet when he was arrested did her and the Tory party no credit whatsoever.
Whatever Chile's help during the Falklands, Pinochet was no democrat and the Tories should have politely stayed away and allowed the legal process to run its course.
None of this excuses Corbyn's own choices about whom he describes as "honourable". It is not a word I would use to describe a man (Raed Salah) found by a British court to have uttered the medieval blood libel against Jews now about Jews now. I would expect better of a Briyptish Parliamentarian, particularly one belonging to a party which goes on and on about racism.
Anti-Semitism is the oldest, most enduring and most viciously murderous racism and, as Ivan Lewis has rightly said, the Left should oppose it, no ifs, no buts. Corbyn is at best naive on this. He seems to have - at the very least - a tin ear for what his choices say about him and his political and moral choices. At worst, he simply does not care about the fact that he seems to be a friend or a defender of anti-Semites. That does not show good judgment. And the quality of his judgment is, I would have thought, a key issue as to whether he is the right person to lead the official Opposition.
1, will obviously shatter the party, exiling the best talents 2. will give Tories years of ammunition about Labour consorting with terrorists, anti-Semites, racists, homophobes and now 3. Is a PROVEN disaster in the polls ALREADY
Really? Could any political party make such a terrible error?
If they do, it would constitute the greatest act of self harm, on a party level, in modern British political history.
Do you really believe what the opinion polls say after the events in May?
This is a special analysis for HYUFD, he likes US demographics and stuff for elections there.
Looking at the Comres poll, the other post election polls and the exit poll, it seems that the year of birth strongly affects voting intention and the reaction to policies and events like in 2 separate worlds, with the schism year being 1970.
If I apply the usual mechanics of US elections where most predict elections with demographics, on the UK and looking at the Comres poll. If the death rate is maintained at 600 thousand per year then the Tories would lose 650 thousands of their voters, and if the turnout among the 3.5 million extra people who will gain the right the right to vote is the same as this years then Labour would gain 600 thousand votes. The Tories would win the 2020 election but much closer than in 2015, and in 2025 it would be a landslide Labour victory on a 1997 scale, assuming again that the generational schism is maintained.
This reminds of some of the talk in the mid to late 1990's were they said that the Tory vote simply died off.
That suggests there is no drift in opinions through age.
I do not think it particularly significant but it is surely a contributing factor
I haven't seen it though, that left wing wave is there since the 2005 GE and it only moves up the age cohort.
Now the left wing wave has reached the age cohort of 40-44.
Listen: my wife campaigned for her local MP in 87. He was J Corbyn. Whilst not loving the idea, and in full recognition of the irony, she now thinks G Osborne of 11 Downing St would more fit her views.
1, will obviously shatter the party, exiling the best talents 2. will give Tories years of ammunition about Labour consorting with terrorists, anti-Semites, racists, homophobes and now 3. Is a PROVEN disaster in the polls ALREADY
Really? Could any political party make such a terrible error?
If they do, it would constitute the greatest act of self harm, on a party level, in modern British political history.
Do you really believe what the opinion polls say after the events in May?
All the opinion polls had Cameron ahead of Miliband as preferred PM, that was the better guide than the tied voting intention figures
1, will obviously shatter the party, exiling the best talents 2. will give Tories years of ammunition about Labour consorting with terrorists, anti-Semites, racists, homophobes and now 3. Is a PROVEN disaster in the polls ALREADY
Really? Could any political party make such a terrible error?
If they do, it would constitute the greatest act of self harm, on a party level, in modern British political history.
This is a special analysis for HYUFD, he likes US demographics and stuff for elections there.
Looking at the Comres poll, the other post election polls and the exit poll, it seems that the year of birth strongly affects voting intention and the reaction to policies and events like in 2 separate worlds, with the schism year being 1970.
If I apply the usual mechanics of US elections where most predict elections with demographics, on the UK and looking at the Comres poll. If the death rate is maintained at 600 thousand per year then the Tories would lose 650 thousands of their voters, and if the turnout among the 3.5 million extra people who will gain the right the right to vote is the same as this years then Labour would gain 600 thousand votes. The Tories would win the 2020 election but much closer than in 2015, and in 2025 it would be a landslide Labour victory on a 1997 scale, assuming again that the generational schism is maintained.
This reminds of some of the talk in the mid to late 1990's were they said that the Tory vote simply died off.
That suggests there is no drift in opinions through age.
I do not think it particularly significant but it is surely a contributing factor
I haven't seen it though, that left wing wave is there since the 2005 GE and it only moves up the age cohort.
Now the left wing wave has reached the age cohort of 40-44.
Listen: my wife campaigned for her local MP in 87. He was J Corbyn. Whilst not loving the idea, and in full recognition of the irony, she now thinks G Osborne of 11 Downing St would more fit her views.
Well she was born before 1970, everyone before that year votes Tory according to all the polls so no surprise there.
Right now I'm a Yes [to the EU], but only because a No will hasten the break-up of the UK.
Crumbs, Mr. Observer. You don't want a Conservative Government in case it upsets the Scots. You don't want us to leave the EU in case it upsets the Scots. You seem to be thinking that keeping the UK together is the ultimate aim and appeasing the SNP is the only way that it can be achieved. Maybe you might want to think about what it is about the UK that makes it worth preserving.
You're misunderstanding Mr Observer's affection for the union.
It's the mechanism that allows him to vote Labour, regardless of their policies, because anything else represents an existential threat to the Union that he holds so dear.
Lol - post of the day and so true.
Southam Observer is or was a Lib Dem. For the last few Elections he never mentioned he was Labour.
hmmm - you might need to check with Southam on that
The Comres poll is a terrible one for Labour, it also highlights the generational gap enormously. In the under 45's Labour is ahead by double digits, in the over 45's the Tories are ahead but the killer one are the over 65's : CON 54, LAB 18, UKIP 16, LD 6.
So essentially there is no one over the age of 65 voting Labour.
Also it's the second poll that has Labour behind the Tories in scotland.
Over 65s?
They're the ones that in the 20s and 30s during the 1970s...do you think there might be a reason why they don't rate Labour?
Probably the reason you're thinking, but why the under 45's don't rate the Tories, and it's not a young age thing, those 35-44 are old enough to have families and yet they vote the same way as students.
It is natural though, since most governments elected at times of low economic growth protect the interest of some part of the community vis a vis the claims of another part.
The last UK government protected services and benefits for the old, like the NHS, while reducing services and increasing charges for things used by the young, like university.
Furthermore, policies to preserve wealth help the old, who have the assets, and not the young, who struggle to buy the assets. The main asset among UK households being housing: high south-eastern rents are good for BTLs/shareholders and bad for new purchasers and tenants.
I also suspect that the reality faced by young people of low wages in a high-cost economy is not necessarily fully appreciated by other generations. Sure, there was less in the 1950s, but there were a good 25 years of consumer-spending good times for a country with only a handful of other high-income countries as economic competitors in its league. They don't seem to be coming back now 1bn Chinese have entered the labour market and that, incidentally, is not something immigration policy can do anything about.
It's not just about them appreciating it: it is, I suspect that a large amount of them simply don't care. After all, all young people are evil/vile chavs/useless according to the Daily Mail, which old people are likely to read.
Yes, because none of us have children, and if we do, we don't give a shit about them *rolls eyes*. Do you actually know any 'old' people, or do you just pluck this nonsense from your fundament?
Obviously I know old people; I have grandparents myself, and know old friends of our family. In my experience the vast majority of them think that their children are the exception, not the rule to how young people are.
1, will obviously shatter the party, exiling the best talents 2. will give Tories years of ammunition about Labour consorting with terrorists, anti-Semites, racists, homophobes and now 3. Is a PROVEN disaster in the polls ALREADY
Really? Could any political party make such a terrible error?
If they do, it would constitute the greatest act of self harm, on a party level, in modern British political history.
Do you really believe what the opinion polls say after the events in May?
Yes. Because the polls are in consort with the anecdata and the mood. There is clearly a surge for Corbyn, you can see it and feel it. In the GE there was just a strange fogginess, it was hard to discern any mood at all, hence the pollsters hedging and herding, in bewilderment.
Also the polls are emphatic, not tentative. Corbyn has an enormous lead entirely outwith the margin of error.
Is he certain to win? No. Is he odds on favourite tonight? Yes, just. Be interesting to see if this ComRes poll shifts things.
I thought we talking about the polling of the wider public.
Hopefully, I'll have the energy to finish writing a thread for tomorrow entitled
This is a special analysis for HYUFD, he likes US demographics and stuff for elections there.
Looking at the Comres poll, the other post election polls and the exit poll, it seems that the year of birth strongly affects voting intention and the reaction to policies and events like in 2 separate worlds, with the schism year being 1970.
If I apply the usual mechanics of US elections where most predict elections with demographics, on the UK and looking at the Comres poll. If the death rate is maintained at 600 thousand per year then the Tories would lose 650 thousands of their voters, and if the turnout among the 3.5 million extra people who will gain the right the right to vote is the same as this years then Labour would gain 600 thousand votes. The Tories would win the 2020 election but much closer than in 2015, and in 2025 it would be a landslide Labour victory on a 1997 scale, assuming again that the generational schism is maintained.
This reminds of some of the talk in the mid to late 1990's were they said that the Tory vote simply died off.
That suggests there is no drift in opinions through age.
I do not think it particularly significant but it is surely a contributing factor
I haven't seen it though, that left wing wave is there since the 2005 GE and it only moves up the age cohort.
Now the left wing wave has reached the age cohort of 40-44.
Listen: my wife campaigned for her local MP in 87. He was J Corbyn. Whilst not loving the idea, and in full recognition of the irony, she now thinks G Osborne of 11 Downing St would more fit her views.
Well she was born before 1970, everyone before that year votes Tory according to all the polls so no surprise there.
Dream on if you think age doesn't change views. If that were the case Honda would've stopped selling cars years ago in this country. Not all views of course but the shift is always there.
Comments
Corbyn -40, +6, +4, -15
Burnham -3, +18, +6, -1
Cooper -9, +10, -5, -11
Kendall -2, -7, -10, -4
Conservatives really really have a low opinion of Corbyn.
Bernard: 'The tenth was better?'
JH: 'The tenth was worse. It didn't mention me at all!'
Pierre Azaria was an engineer in the steelworks in Alsace, who was sacked because he was late for work after stopping to rescue a drowning kitten. He took the opportunity to found CGE, which became Alcatel, one of the leading players in internet switches.
Guess how he funded his life while he was building up CGE?
http://usvsth3m.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Bvw5n2E.jpg
As an aside, now that I now the meaning of your screen name I am in something of a quandary. Previously, you see, I thought of you as a serious History Master, a bit Welsh and a bit eccentric, but nothing out of the ordinary for a chap from my background. However, now that I know you are The Doctor I am a bit lost.
My first instinct now is to picture you as William Hartnell, but in colour, or are you more a Pertwee character?
They're the ones that in the 20s and 30s during the 1970s...do you think there might be a reason why they don't rate Labour?
To Cut A Long Story Short, I won some cash...
CON -59
LAB +9
LD -18
UKIP -32
Personal finances:
CON -51
LAB +23
LD +1
UKIP -25
Job Opportunities:
CON -44
LAB +24
LD + 11
UKIP -23
The pattern for the rest of the questions is the same, 2015 CON voters have an extremely negative opinion about all things Corbyn, followed to a lesser extent by UKIP voters, only LD have a more positive view apart from Labour voters of course.
'I am greatly concerned by these PBers who would like to see Great Britain reduced to Little England'
i am greatly concerned by these PBers who are still living in colonial times.
I am very pleased to hear no offence was imparted or imputed! I am now happy to get back to being 'pedant in chief', but unfortunately I am off to buy milk in a few minutes (having forgotten to buy it on the way home).
He's no cryptoTory traitor to the cause.
I'm wondering about LD seats - sadly no market that I know of, but one has to presume it's good for Farron - there is of course a risk I suppose that a new centre party emerges, or (possibly) that the LDs just get drowned out in the raucous debate.
Leanne Wood's views have their eccentricities as well - but she's not widely known outside Wales.
It's still strange to think the Lib Dems have just 8 seats.
Britain's economy under Corbyn, by age group net:
18-24 :-5
25-34 : -5
35-44 :-2
45-54: -26
55-64: -34
65+ : -50
So in conclusion everyone who was born after 1970 is OK with Corbyn and vote Labour, everyone born before 1970 hates his guts and vote Tory.
So I'm willing to predict that the Tories will have the same number of votes in 2020 as in 2015, minus the people who have died of old age in between.
And Labour the same votes too, plus the people who will be over 18 and vote by then.
'There is nothing remotely colonial about the Union, which the Scots have just re-endorsed by referendum, other nations have effective Federations, I don't see why we can't!'
If the Scots decide to leave the UK because the majority of UK voters want to leave the EU,that's their decision and nothing to do with your so called little England unless you seriously believe the minority should prevail over the majority.
@MD: Farron's not that strange, and certainly not in Bennett's league - as ydoethur points out.
The last UK government protected services and benefits for the old, like the NHS, while reducing services and increasing charges for things used by the young, like university.
Furthermore, policies to preserve wealth help the old, who have the assets, and not the young, who struggle to buy the assets. The main asset among UK households being housing: high south-eastern rents are good for BTLs/shareholders and bad for new purchasers and tenants.
I also suspect that the reality faced by young people of low wages in a high-cost economy is not necessarily fully appreciated by other generations. Sure, there was less in the 1950s, but there were a good 25 years of consumer-spending good times for a country with only a handful of other high-income countries as economic competitors in its league. They don't seem to be coming back now 1bn Chinese have entered the labour market and that, incidentally, is not something immigration policy can do anything about.
Extraordinary how out of sync Corbyn is with his own age group.
As for Corbyn's numbers, I read the Racing Post rather than the usual papers but I imagine the pro-Conservative papers have already started the scaremongering about how a Corbyn Government would leave us impoverished, defenceless and how he's met with some not very nice people.
Meh...
The acid test will be the policies of a Corbyn-led Opposition which won't. I suspect, swallow 90% of the Cameron-Osborne economic and social agenda and will try to promulgate its own vision which, lacking credibility as it might, will still be "different".
Indeed, one can fault much of the Conservative agenda now - the absurd notion that schools should be forced to become Academies for example. If a large secondary school wants to become a Academy, great, but what about a small village primary ? Does its headteacher want to run a business or a school ? As an example, schools can choose in many areas can choose to opt-in to buy a selection of maintenance obligations, including statutory compliance inspections, from the local authority.
The notion an Academy can opt out completely from Council control is also wrong - the Academies take on a lease from the Council so the land isn't gifted to the school but leased and the Council still has a statutory responsibility in terms of capacity and school place planning.
As German domination is not good for most of Europe.
Also it will speed up Scottish Independence .
Corbyn will have to get of the fence, and eventually agree with his mentor Anthony Benn that it is an un democtrtatic institution. With the USA Obama, demanding we stay in, this should strengthen his hand to advocate a no vote.
Of course, the risk is that those most ardent on the right *and* the left espouse exit, and the soft left/right present themselves as the reasonable centre.
Maybe we'll have Farage and Owen Jones on stage together for No
And thanks again for all your help with the book.
It was the recent Greek tragedy that decided my no vote .
As everyone knows Greece should never have been allowed in the Euro, and there is no possiblity this debt can be repaid, with out massive debt relief
Kicking the can down the road can not go on forever.
We are involved in a giant ponzi scheme and it will eventually collapse as they all do.
Dems:
Bernie: 47%
Hillary: 45%
O’Malley: 5%
Chafee: 1%
Webb: 1%
Republicans:
Trump: 26%
Carson: 18%
Fiorina: 8%
Walker: 8%
Cruz: 7%
Rubio: 7%
Jeb!: 6%
Huckabee: 4%
Paul: 4%
Jindal: 4%
Kasich: 3%
Santorum: 2%
Perry: 2%
Christie: 1%
Graham: 1%
Pataki: Two votes
Mark Everson: Two votes
Gilmore: 0
Coming at it from the right, it only reaffirmed my view on the EU/eurozone.
I was specifically arguing with some tool who described Chavez as a brutal dictator and enemy of the UK without a shred of evidence presented on my repeated request. Then I compared that real-world non-brutal democrat and friend of the UK, Chavez, with a bunch of actual genocidal tyrants that had real life close relations with Tory governments at a time that many current Tory MPs were around.
Basically the Tory party hasn't got a leg to stand on when it comes to revolting associates.
Of course, the whole affair brought out the real scum amongst the PB Tories who secretly admire the torturer-in-chief Pinochet, though I'm sure you wouldn't stoop quite that low.
" the PB Tories who secretly admire the torturer-in-chief Pinochet"
How would you know? I mean, if they're doing it secretly?
For the last few Elections he never mentioned he was Labour.
liz kendall is the antichrist
Liz Kendall @leicesterliz 22 hrs22 hours ago
Thanks so much
Unlike you I don't support a party come what may. I vote for different reasons and with different motivations. Preserving the Union is one of those. Corbyn can't deliver that, which is one of the many reasons why a party led by him would never get my vote.
https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB?lang=en-gb
Looking at the Comres poll, the other post election polls and the exit poll, it seems that the year of birth strongly affects voting intention and the reaction to policies and events like in 2 separate worlds, with the schism year being 1970.
If I apply the usual mechanics of US elections where most predict elections with demographics, on the UK and looking at the Comres poll.
If the death rate is maintained at 600 thousand per year then the Tories would lose 650 thousands of their voters, and if the turnout among the 3.5 million extra people who will gain the right the right to vote is the same as this years then Labour would gain 600 thousand votes.
The Tories would win the 2020 election but much closer than in 2015, and in 2025 it would be a landslide Labour victory on a 1997 scale, assuming again that the generational schism is maintained.
This reminds of some of the talk in the mid to late 1990's were they said that the Tory vote simply died off.
But you go with your bad self.
https://sos.iowa.gov/statefair.html
At the last election he agonised for ages before finally deciding the vote Labour to save the Union
I do not think it particularly significant but it is surely a contributing factor
Not sure why uou're making things up, but please feel free to carry on if it makes you feel better.
The reason you gave for voting Labour was because a Tory government would mean the end of the Union.
As an aside, if Alexander's fledgling empire had lasted as long as the Roman state, then it would've been around until the 18th century. That's a crazy thought. And, I recently read Alexander was planning to conquer the whole of north Africa and the northern coasts of the Mediterranean. More or less the Roman Empire, except extending east to the eastern border of modern day Pakistan.
.....
His Successors abandoned the plans, when the knackered army, unsurprisingly, expressed disapproval.
So I went and looked it up and this is the passage.
"This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty and the powerful...... It was aimed at ordinary, working-class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindu and Jew, young and old. It was an indiscriminate attempt to slaughter, irrespective of any considerations for age, for class, for religion or whatever."
Now ignoring the questionable assumptions (people in the West are seen as powerful by Islamists), what bothered me then - and still does - is the use of "working class" before Londoners. Why was that needed? Why exclude middle class or upper class Londoners? Would the attack have been less blameworthy if aimed at them?
I appreciate that he may have made the speech off the cuff and overall it is powerful and moving. But, still, if it was off the cuff the reference only to working class Londoners is indicative of how Livingstone thinks. It is not a particularly inclusive view.
@BBCPropaganda: ComRes Scotland subset
SNP 48% (-2%)
Con 23% (+8%)
Lab 14% (-10%)
LD 7% (-1%)
UKIP 4% (+2)
Ouch.
Look at this old ICM poll from 5 years ago, you can see the left wing wave at ages under 35 back then.
http://www.icmunlimited.com/pdfs/2010_dec_guardian_poll_short.pdf
And an even older ICM poll from 10 years ago, the left wing wave at ages under 25:
http://www.icmunlimited.com/pdfs/2005_june_guardian_june_poll.pdf
Now the left wing wave has reached the age cohort of 40-44.
“And one thing that I keep hearing about Biden is that if he were to declare and say, because age is such a problem for him if he does, I want to be a one-term president. I want to serve for four years, unite Washington. I’ve dealt with the Republicans in Congress all my public life,” Bernstein told CNN’s “New Day.”
Story Continued Below
“I think there’s a conversation going on to that effect among his aides and friends,” he said. “It could light fire to the current political environment.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/joe-biden-possible-2016-presidential-race-promises-one-term-121359.html#ixzz3iv0uXIMN
Whatever Chile's help during the Falklands, Pinochet was no democrat and the Tories should have politely stayed away and allowed the legal process to run its course.
None of this excuses Corbyn's own choices about whom he describes as "honourable". It is not a word I would use to describe a man (Raed Salah) found by a British court to have uttered the medieval blood libel against Jews now about Jews now. I would expect better of a Briyptish Parliamentarian, particularly one belonging to a party which goes on and on about racism.
Anti-Semitism is the oldest, most enduring and most viciously murderous racism and, as Ivan Lewis has rightly said, the Left should oppose it, no ifs, no buts. Corbyn is at best naive on this. He seems to have - at the very least - a tin ear for what his choices say about him and his political and moral choices. At worst, he simply does not care about the fact that he seems to be a friend or a defender of anti-Semites. That does not show good judgment. And the quality of his judgment is, I would have thought, a key issue as to whether he is the right person to lead the official Opposition.
Anyway, I'm off for the night.
Hopefully, I'll have the energy to finish writing a thread for tomorrow entitled
"Corbyn's path to Number 10"