Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 47m47 minutes ago Dear Corbyn supporters. You won. Congratulations. But some of us think it's a disaster for Labour. And we're going to say so. Sorry.
Er, in 1996 Blair Mandelson and Campell were in opposition, but I agree. Politicisation of management in the NHS and Police were similarly affected. Armed forces too from what I hear.
It looks as if I am not going to be able to sneak off to Duxford next week, though sorely tempted. May try the Jerome trick, but unlikely to be granted shore leave. Have a good time!
Doc, I know who was in opposition in 1996, that was sort of the point - the malignant influence was already being felt.
As per the air show: its already too late. In fact it was already too late last Monday when I tried to buy tickets for Mr. Jessup and myself - all sold out. Bummer, and I had an overnight pink ticket too.
Pity! Watching the LD conference on BBC Parliament it is then :-(
LCFC away at Stoke also sold out. It would be good to kick them while they are down.
Nick- I can't help but think that Corbyn's election today is anything but good for British politics. So what, he wants to change PMQ's. I'm enjoying today's thread here immensely.
I love the fact that the Labour party is led by someone who really harboured no long term ambitions. Corbyn is really quite remarkable- he is debunking and tearing up all the known rules on British politics. I don't know where its all heading, but I'm enjoying the Corbyn ride, and I'm well and truly on his bus.
"I was a long-standing member of the North Islington Labour party when he was selected in February 1982 and I still bear the scars. Corbyn’s victory was achieved as a result of a relentless campaign involving all strands of the ultra-left. Local working-class trade unionists were hounded out of the party and zero tolerance shown to anyone of a more moderate opinion. Following Corbyn’s victory, and the debacle of the 1983 general election, the remodeled North Islington Labour party took vicarious pleasure in supporting the miners’ strike. They were comfortable with the working class providing they could keep them at a distance.
No one ever looked forward to going to a meeting of the North Islington Labour party. There was a running fight between two hostile factions that frequently spilled over into aggression: on one occasion police were summoned to calm a situation that had arisen at the annual general meeting of the women’s section."
Very different now. Supporters of Liz Kendall got friendly cheers at the Islington N nomination meeting, with a couple of comments on the same lines as Jeremy's remarks today - "we don't agree with you but good on you for standing up for what you think".
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 47m47 minutes ago Dear Corbyn supporters. You won. Congratulations. But some of us think it's a disaster for Labour. And we're going to say so. Sorry.
So what else is new?
It's a good job Dan Hodges is accurate in all his political predictions. After all he said he'd run naked down Whitehall if Ukip got above 6% in the general election.
Agree with TSE/Dair/SeanT here - the Falklands is toxic for Corbyn far more so than anything Irish or Israeli where it is 6 of one Tec in a lot of people's eyes
We know the Argentines like to bring up the Falklands as a distraction from home troubles, but is the same true of Spain re Gibraltar? They periodically stir things up a little, but it feels less intense and desperate (presumably as the legalities of the British presence are even harder to complain about, and it's merely desire to have it back that fuels them)
A split in the Labour party would only be problematic if it led to two similar sized chunks. As Corbyn's politics appeal to sub 10% of the electorate, a Social Democratic party could take over as the main opposition. The problem is how would this party be funded and how could it get an initial batch of members on board.
At proms in the park, Hyde Park. Lefties everywhere with t shirts and flags handing out to we punters saying 'save our BBC'.... desperate times for the left..
Dair is right. The Falklands stuff is venomous for Corbyn. Hideous optics. That was a just war defending British subjects against invading Fascists. And the soixante-retard wants to give the islands BACK
I will probably rejoin the Tory Party in the new year, although Corbyn is unlikely to win he is too dangerous to be dismissed either, now the LDs have picked Farron they are well to my left and UKIP is too populist and isolationist for me
Indeed I might join Tory Party for the first time. It would be nice if they gave a special rate for pensioners. Do they? Corbyn is leading a take over of the Labour Party by the red flag waving the fanatics of the stop the war stop the austerity stop the G7 stop the globalised world I want to get off foam flecked crazies. He does not want to govern Britain he wants to destroy it.
Does anyone believe that there is any possible way that this ends without the PLP forming a new party at Westminster (probably with more than half of the current PLP joiing it)?
I can't see any way to avoid this, not with such a staunch backing for Corbyn by Labour members.
I wonder whether any of the resigned will be eyeing up an Alliance with the Lib Dems. 8 MPs means plenty of profiled jobs to go around.
The Tories have every reason to be afraid. I can't remember any leader of any party with the possible exception of Blair as looking 'NEW' and nothing is quite as desirable as something new.
A particularly virulent virus might also be "NEW".
I feel your pain Roger but recognising your illness will be the first stage to recovery ....
It does concern me that the enthusiasm of Mr Corbyn's supporters may be infectious. It could quite easily turn into something that will be very hard to counter.
What he says may well sound quite compassionate and appealing. If the downside/dark side doesn't get aired in the media, or comes across as 'knocking the ordinary bloke', who knows what may happen?
Sometimes we look for good even when we know the end beckons.
Labour will retain a rump of support - the faithful, the obdurate, the deluded and Nick Palmer. For the rest Corbyn will be seen as a man completely out of his depth, belonging to and adhering to an age long gone. A man of dubious political friends and with "friends" in the party who consider him to be a complete liability.
It really is as bad as it might be for Labour. There are no redeeming features at all. The Labour selectorate decided on the nuclear option and ground zero is coming and the fallout for the Labour party will be cataclysmic.
I wonder what the former "Tories For Palmer" think of Dr Nick now endorsing Comrade Corbyn?
They've been disbanded since Nick retired from front line politics to spend more time on PB and write his latest book :
The politics are clear and the bad guys obvious only applies to those conflicts that you win. If we'd lost the Falklands I am sure the historical analysis on our intervention would have been quite different.
Agree with TSE/Dair/SeanT here - the Falklands is toxic for Corbyn far more so than anything Irish or Israeli where it is 6 of one Tec in a lot of people's eyes
It's probably the only Conflict since 1945 where the politics are very clear cut and the "bad guys" obvious.
Nick- I can't help but think that Corbyn's election today is anything but good for British politics. So what, he wants to change PMQ's. I'm enjoying today's thread here immensely.
I love the fact that the Labour party is led by someone who really harboured no long term ambitions. Corbyn is really quite remarkable- he is debunking and tearing up all the known rules on British politics. I don't know where its all heading, but I'm enjoying the Corbyn ride, and I'm well and truly on his bus.
"I was a long-standing member of the North Islington Labour party when he was selected in February 1982 and I still bear the scars. Corbyn’s victory was achieved as a result of a relentless campaign involving all strands of the ultra-left. Local working-class trade unionists were hounded out of the party and zero tolerance shown to anyone of a more moderate opinion. Following Corbyn’s victory, and the debacle of the 1983 general election, the remodeled North Islington Labour party took vicarious pleasure in supporting the miners’ strike. They were comfortable with the working class providing they could keep them at a distance.
No one ever looked forward to going to a meeting of the North Islington Labour party. There was a running fight between two hostile factions that frequently spilled over into aggression: on one occasion police were summoned to calm a situation that had arisen at the annual general meeting of the women’s section."
Very different now. Supporters of Liz Kendall got friendly cheers at the Islington N nomination meeting, with a couple of comments on the same lines as Jeremy's remarks today - "we don't agree with you but good on you for standing up for what you think".
Agree with TSE/Dair/SeanT here - the Falklands is toxic for Corbyn far more so than anything Irish or Israeli where it is 6 of one Tec in a lot of people's eyes
It's probably the only Conflict since 1945 where the politics are very clear cut and the "bad guys" obvious.
Iraq
Presumably the bad guys were Bush and Blair for destabilising Iraq and the consequent 600,0000 deaths which continue rising to this day.
Saddam Hussein was a relatively good guy (in comparison) who had to act tough to keep order in an otherwise disorderly country.
"It's not as if the discovery that Corbyn was a prominent anti-apartheid campaigner can have come as a surprise to you!"
Of course not but it's not Corbyn being arrested for a worthwhile cause that makes it interesting but the simultaneous photo of the worthless dilettante Cameron in his restaurant trashing gear and the lingering question.......
"How did that lump of uselessness ever become Prime Minister?'.
Cameron defeated two hopelessly inadequate Labour leaders who were not not [sic] credible, certainly not charismatic, and not likeable. Now, you have Mr Corbyn
Yes, they do. Agree entirely. It's very remarkable that having tried Brown and Miliband they would unearth somebody even worse.
It's a bit like Lincoln appointing first Winfield Scott, then McClellan, then the great Ambrose Everett Burnside to command the Union armies in the American Civil War. He kept thinking it couldn't be worse - but oh boy, it was!
Agree with TSE/Dair/SeanT here - the Falklands is toxic for Corbyn far more so than anything Irish or Israeli where it is 6 of one Tec in a lot of people's eyes
It's probably the only Conflict since 1945 where the politics are very clear cut and the "bad guys" obvious.
Iraq
Presumably the bad guys were Bush and Blair for destabilising Iraq and the consequent 600,0000 deaths which continue rising to this day.
Saddam Hussein was a relatively good guy (in comparison) who had to act tough to keep order in an otherwise disorderly country.
At proms in the park, Hyde Park. Lefties everywhere with t shirts and flags handing out to we punters saying 'save our BBC'.... desperate times for the left..
One of my work colleagues was singing in the choir last night.
Agree with TSE/Dair/SeanT here - the Falklands is toxic for Corbyn far more so than anything Irish or Israeli where it is 6 of one Tec in a lot of people's eyes
It's probably the only Conflict since 1945 where the politics are very clear cut and the "bad guys" obvious.
Iraq
Presumably the bad guys were Bush and Blair for destabilising Iraq and the consequent 600,0000 deaths which continue rising to this day.
Saddam Hussein was a relatively good guy (in comparison) who had to act tough to keep order in an otherwise disorderly country.
Agree with TSE/Dair/SeanT here - the Falklands is toxic for Corbyn far more so than anything Irish or Israeli where it is 6 of one Tec in a lot of people's eyes
Because outside of very rare circles, it's an easily understood issue where our intervention was heroic and unquestionably in the right (whatever qualms some people may have about the legalities of the situation, or whether it would be better for the Falklands to be under Argentine rule or not, them invading and occupying puts us on the moral high ground). Conceding ground to a nation which did that (albeit in different times) and never shuts up about how awful we are for not talking to them about giving them over ever since, is to tell the people that a rare instance of a foreign policy area which seems simple and easy to be patriotic and in the right, is in fact wrong, and thus toxic.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the 1830's; we won the Falklands fair and square by right of conquest in 1982. Gaining land by conquest is the time honoured method, after all Argentina did the same to the Patagonian indians and the Paraguayans, and tried the same on us.
I have tickets for Argentina vs Namibia in the World Cup, and have a Falklands flag as well as my Namibian one to fly...
At proms in the park, Hyde Park. Lefties everywhere with t shirts and flags handing out to we punters saying 'save our BBC'.... desperate times for the left..
One of my work colleagues was singing in the choir last night.
makes a change from howling at the moon I suppose. :-)
I am convinced that the horse has already bolted on that one. Judging by the many references seanT makes to his virility, it is likely that the world is already awash with little seanT seedlings waiting to make their mark.
The Tories have every reason to be afraid. I can't remember any leader of any party with the possible exception of Blair as looking 'NEW' and nothing is quite as desirable as something new.
A particularly virulent virus might also be "NEW".
I feel your pain Roger but recognising your illness will be the first stage to recovery ....
It does concern me that the enthusiasm of Mr Corbyn's supporters may be infectious. It could quite easily turn into something that will be very hard to counter.
What he says may well sound quite compassionate and appealing. If the downside/dark side doesn't get aired in the media, or comes across as 'knocking the ordinary bloke', who knows what may happen?
Sometimes we look for good even when we know the end beckons.
Labour will retain a rump of support - the faithful, the obdurate, the deluded and Nick Palmer. For the rest Corbyn will be seen as a man completely out of his depth, belonging to and adhering to an age long gone. A man of dubious political friends and with "friends" in the party who consider him to be a complete liability.
It really is as bad as it might be for Labour. There are no redeeming features at all. The Labour selectorate decided on the nuclear option and ground zero is coming and the fallout for the Labour party will be cataclysmic.
I wonder what the former "Tories For Palmer" think of Dr Nick now endorsing Comrade Corbyn?
They've been disbanded since Nick retired from front line politics to spend more time on PB and write his latest book :
"It's not as if the discovery that Corbyn was a prominent anti-apartheid campaigner can have come as a surprise to you!"
Of course not but it's not Corbyn being arrested for a worthwhile cause that makes it interesting but the juxtaposition of the worthless dilettante Cameron in his restaurant trashing gear in the same year and the lingering question.......
"How did that lump of uselessness ever become Prime Minister?'.
I think the answer is that the people of Britain voted for him!
Could see the first ten going blue if Corbyn is Labour leader.
Indeed, in 1983 Foot won 209 seats, Ed Miliband won 232 seats in 2015. That means the Tories could win at least 20 seats from Labour if Corbyn bombs. As well as retaking the seats Ed Miliband gained the likes of Bridgend, Walsall North, Wrexham were all Labour in 2010 and 2015 but Tory in 1983
In 1983 they also won 41 seats in Scotland out of 72 - a lead of 20 over the Conservatives. That's a redoubt that has gone. Bridgend, Wrexham, possibly Delyn all look pretty vulnerable to me anyway (although if Delyn becomes more marginal, it might make Chester and some of the Liverpool seats safer).
That means Foot only won 168 seats in England & Wales.
Super Ed won 231!
If you want to take it further:
In 1983 Foot won 147 seats in England. Ed Miliband won 206.
However, there is no way on God's green earth that Corbyn could possibly hold 206 seats in England. 147 would be more like it.
Added to a likely 15-20 seats in Wales and we come up with the sort of desperate numbers Hague and Major achieved.
I thought the Tories bottomed out in the mid 190s?
Agree with TSE/Dair/SeanT here - the Falklands is toxic for Corbyn far more so than anything Irish or Israeli where it is 6 of one Tec in a lot of people's eyes
It's probably the only Conflict since 1945 where the politics are very clear cut and the "bad guys" obvious.
Iraq
Presumably the bad guys were Bush and Blair for destabilising Iraq and the consequent 600,0000 deaths which continue rising to this day.
Saddam Hussein was a relatively good guy (in comparison) who had to act tough to keep order in an otherwise disorderly country.
Could see the first ten going blue if Corbyn is Labour leader.
Indeed, in 1983 Foot won 209 seats, Ed Miliband won 232 seats in 2015. That means the Tories could win at least 20 seats from Labour if Corbyn bombs. As well as retaking the seats Ed Miliband gained the likes of Bridgend, Walsall North, Wrexham were all Labour in 2010 and 2015 but Tory in 1983
In 1983 they also won 41 seats in Scotland out of 72 - a lead of 20 over the Conservatives. That's a redoubt that has gone. Bridgend, Wrexham, possibly Delyn all look pretty vulnerable to me anyway (although if Delyn becomes more marginal, it might make Chester and some of the Liverpool seats safer).
That means Foot only won 168 seats in England & Wales.
Super Ed won 231!
If you want to take it further:
In 1983 Foot won 147 seats in England. Ed Miliband won 206.
However, there is no way on God's green earth that Corbyn could possibly hold 206 seats in England. 147 would be more like it.
Added to a likely 15-20 seats in Wales and we come up with the sort of desperate numbers Hague and Major achieved.
I thought the Tories bottomed out in the mid 190s?
The politics are clear and the bad guys obvious only applies to those conflicts that you win. If we'd lost the Falklands I am sure the historical analysis on our intervention would have been quite different.
Agree with TSE/Dair/SeanT here - the Falklands is toxic for Corbyn far more so than anything Irish or Israeli where it is 6 of one Tec in a lot of people's eyes
It's probably the only Conflict since 1945 where the politics are very clear cut and the "bad guys" obvious.
No, I don't think so. It was still an unprovoked invasion for shady political purposes, which historical analysis would indicate. If we'd lost we'd just not remember it as a triumphal moment is all.
Could see the first ten going blue if Corbyn is Labour leader.
Indeed, in 1983 Foot won 209 seats, Ed Miliband won 232 seats in 2015. That means the Tories could win at least 20 seats from Labour if Corbyn bombs. As well as retaking the seats Ed Miliband gained the likes of Bridgend, Walsall North, Wrexham were all Labour in 2010 and 2015 but Tory in 1983
In 1983 they also won 41 seats in Scotland out of 72 - a lead of 20 over the Conservatives. That's a redoubt that has gone. Bridgend, Wrexham, possibly Delyn all look pretty vulnerable to me anyway (although if Delyn becomes more marginal, it might make Chester and some of the Liverpool seats safer).
That means Foot only won 168 seats in England & Wales.
Super Ed won 231!
If you want to take it further:
In 1983 Foot won 147 seats in England. Ed Miliband won 206.
However, there is no way on God's green earth that Corbyn could possibly hold 206 seats in England. 147 would be more like it.
Added to a likely 15-20 seats in Wales and we come up with the sort of desperate numbers Hague and Major achieved.
I thought the Tories bottomed out in the mid 190s?
Just had an email from Corbyn (actually it came through twice) He'll be there on Wednesday asking questions; "When I stand at the despatch box for Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday, I want to be your voice. What do you want to ask David Cameron? Tell me now and I will put your questions to him in parliament. My questions will be your questions."
I'm beginning to suspect that we could see something like
Con 40 Lab 20 UKIP 20 LD 20
(Or, more like, 38, 18, 18, 18... or something...)
at the next election.
Essentially, I believe the Labour Party could lose the patriotic working class vote to UKIP, and the metropolitan europhiles to the LibDems, leaving them with the core union, and ethnic vote. (There is probably quite a large patriotic working class vote that UKIP could grab, but I'm not sure Farage is the man to get it, especially as it is likely to be quite Northern.)
Baxtering 40/18/17/18 gives the Tories a majority of 136. Could increase that to 150 after boundary changes...
Labour down to 145 (could be 130 with boundary change?)
At what point do the rumours start on how much of the vote that Corbyn won of long standing members rather than the Jonathan come latelies?
THought he had over 50% of all real members excluding all the new 3 bob ones at 54%, so just sore losers.
Actually people were signing up in droves for membership after the election started. Evidence is that this would be overwhelmingly Corbyn in nature.
The first rule of normal elections is that the membership is locked at those who were members before the election started. I believe Corbyn fell just short of a round one majority of full members, but we don't have figures for full members at the time of the election. I imagine the pre election membership did not elect Corbyn but it's impossible to know for sure.
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges Jul 22 People need to get a grip. Jeremy Corbyn is not going to be elected Labour leader.
The last in the series of 5-star nap bets as advised by Dan Hodges.
He's been right on things before of course, when everyone mocked him, but in any case I feel a bit sorry for him - he's been on a bit of an emotional rollercoaster this summer judging by the back and forth of his columns.
Dan Hodges and a Labour lady I didn't know, were talking about the complete trap they were now in as a Party. The MPs and the membership totally at odds with each other - and there's no prospect of a way out of this, as the vote was overwhelming.
The Tories have every reason to be afraid. I can't remember any leader of any party with the possible exception of Blair as looking 'NEW' and nothing is quite as desirable as something new.
A particularly virulent virus might also be "NEW".
I feel your pain Roger but recognising your illness will be the first stage to recovery ....
It does concern me that the enthusiasm of Mr Corbyn's supporters may be infectious. It could quite easily turn into something that will be very hard to counter.
What he says may well sound quite compassionate and appealing. If the downside/dark side doesn't get aired in the media, or comes across as 'knocking the ordinary bloke', who knows what may happen?
Sometimes we look for good even when we know the end beckons.
Labour will retain a rump of support - the faithful, the obdurate, the deluded and Nick Palmer. For the rest Corbyn will be seen as a man completely out of his depth, belonging to and adhering to an age long gone. A man of dubious political friends and with "friends" in the party who consider him to be a complete liability.
It really is as bad as it might be for Labour. There are no redeeming features at all. The Labour selectorate decided on the nuclear option and ground zero is coming and the fallout for the Labour party will be cataclysmic.
Jack as TOTY I really do respect your views,you kept the faith before the GE, and you were correct then, and you are correct now. Today has been a wonder to behold, and we have only just begun.
We must applaud Jezza for the pleasure he will bring to us over the coming years. For that much thanks.
The chuckle muscles will not lack for exercise ....
"It's not as if the discovery that Corbyn was a prominent anti-apartheid campaigner can have come as a surprise to you!"
Of course not but it's not Corbyn being arrested for a worthwhile cause that makes it interesting but the simultaneous photo of the worthless dilettante Cameron in his restaurant trashing gear and the lingering question.......
"How did that lump of uselessness ever become Prime Minister?'.
yet it was lady thatcher who did more to end apartheid than any other person outside of south africa.
One hopes so. However, I am not convinced by Chilcotts' competence or integrity - the report would have been published years ago if he had both in any significant measure.
Going back to the 1990s and the Labour operation. I think history will eventually show what a malignant presence Campbell and Mandelson were on the the body politic. I left the Civil Service in 1996 but even then their presence was being felt, bullying didn't come into it. Lots of people at senior level were cowed by that duo's threats and manipulations and in the media it was, from what I have heard, even worse.
Blair and his dreadful acolytes, which included Brown and his gang, did enormous and probably irreparable harm to the the political fabric of the UK. The most ghastly thing though is not that Campbell and Mandelson have personally made a great deal of money from their bullying and lies, it is that that Cameron seems to be happy to play on the field that they created.
On Chilcott: a recent Private Eye had a section on Chilcott, and stated that the Maxwellisation process that many inquiries use is actually a way away from the usage for which it was named: apparently a case where Maxwell has defendant back in the 1970s.
I'm not a lawyer and so might have missed some pertinent details, but it seems that it's perverted to basically be an excuse to delay things.
Dair is right. The Falklands stuff is venomous for Corbyn. Hideous optics. That was a just war defending British subjects against invading Fascists. And the soixante-retard wants to give the islands BACK
I will probably rejoin the Tory Party in the new year, although Corbyn is unlikely to win he is too dangerous to be dismissed either, now the LDs have picked Farron they are well to my left and UKIP is too populist and isolationist for me
Indeed I might join Tory Party for the first time. It would be nice if they gave a special rate for pensioners. Do they? Corbyn is leading a take over of the Labour Party by the red flag waving the fanatics of the stop the war stop the austerity stop the G7 stop the globalised world I want to get off foam flecked crazies. He does not want to govern Britain he wants to destroy it.
SeanT.. slight correction.. the idiot wants to give them away.. not back...and fuck the residents,
Lol, nearly ended up defending the IRA now defending SeanT, what's wrong with the world!
The Argies gave the islands AWAY - to us.
So specifically, it is correct to say we would be giving them BACK.
The Argies never owned the islands.
My understanding was their legal argument was the islands belonged to Spain, and as the successor state to Spain in the region they now belong to them. Not saying that argument is correct, but I find it interesting that it is more complicated than just 'the islands are close to argentina'.
Imagine being an MP and former soldier having served in Afghanistan - now led by a CND supporter who wouldn't tackle ISIS, describes Bin Laden's death as a tragedy.
... it's also about having the communication skills, charm, and charisma of Blair 1994 - 2002. Kendall has none of these things.
In 1994 you were a babe in arms, in 2002 you were eight years old. How do you know?
I saw Blair speak to an audience of East Midlands activists in 96. He had real charisma then, and a clear vision. Pity he sold his soul to the devil, he had real potential.
Wotcha, Doc, I also heard Blair speak at about that time and I agree he had charisma and projected a vision. In the same way that a confidence trickster does. I had him marked down as a snake oil salesman from then on. Future events only proved me correct so at least I was not left feeling disappointed at the slimy git's self-serving actions and lies. Many were, which possibly accounts for the over-reaction and that, maybe, has led to today's appointment.
Mind you, I think when Corbyn finds out what it means to play with the big boys his reputation as a fearless champion of the left might take a bit of a hammering to. It isn't difficult to imagine Corbyn whilst LOTO leading a demonstration against something outside parliament whilst the topic is actually being discussed inside. I wouldn't hesitate too long before I put a wager on Corbyn's main strategy being that of brave Sir Robin.
The most difficult confidence tricksters to deal with are those that believe their own lies. I think Blair was and remains one of those. Such liars are much more convincing and create false facts to sustain their lies, such as the infamous dodgy dossier.
The Chilcott debate is going to spit-roast Blair from both sides of the house when it is finally out.
One hopes so. However, I am not convinced by Chilcotts' competence or integrity - the report would have been published years ago if he had both in any significant measure.
I think I saw the other day, though, that the last "Maxwell letter" has been received. It's provided new evidence so needs to be considered, but presumably there's only so long he can string it out.
I'm looking forward to Corbyn calling for Blair to be sent to The Hague for trial
Er, in 1996 Blair Mandelson and Campell were in opposition, but I agree. Politicisation of management in the NHS and Police were similarly affected. Armed forces too from what I hear.
It looks as if I am not going to be able to sneak off to Duxford next week, though sorely tempted. May try the Jerome trick, but unlikely to be granted shore leave. Have a good time!
Doc, I know who was in opposition in 1996, that was sort of the point - the malignant influence was already being felt.
As per the air show: its already too late. In fact it was already too late last Monday when I tried to buy tickets for Mr. Jessup and myself - all sold out. Bummer, and I had an overnight pink ticket too.
Pity! Watching the LD conference on BBC Parliament it is then :-(
LCFC away at Stoke also sold out. It would be good to kick them while they are down.
The Lib Dems have also had a surge in new members. It is said many of the new members will be going to the Annual Conference. It will be interesting to see if they are Liberal or SDP minded and if they have an influence on policy eg being more interventionist and trade protectionist than a liberal should be.
I am convinced that the horse has already bolted on that one. Judging by the many references seanT makes to his virility, it is likely that the world is already awash with little seanT seedlings waiting to make their mark.
The Tories have every reason to be afraid. I can't remember any leader of any party with the possible exception of Blair as looking 'NEW' and nothing is quite as desirable as something new.
A particularly virulent virus might also be "NEW".
I feel your pain Roger but recognising your illness will be the first stage to recovery ....
It does concern me that the enthusiasm of Mr Corbyn's supporters may be infectious. It could quite easily turn into something that will be very hard to counter.
What he says may well sound quite compassionate and appealing. If the downside/dark side doesn't get aired in the media, or comes across as 'knocking the ordinary bloke', who knows what may happen?
Sometimes we look for good even when we know the end beckons.
Labour will retain a rump of support - the faithful, the obdurate, the deluded and Nick Palmer. For the rest Corbyn will be seen as a man completely out of his depth, belonging to and adhering to an age long gone. A man of dubious political friends and with "friends" in the party who consider him to be a complete liability.
It really is as bad as it might be for Labour. There are no redeeming features at all. The Labour selectorate decided on the nuclear option and ground zero is coming and the fallout for the Labour party will be cataclysmic.
I wonder what the former "Tories For Palmer" think of Dr Nick now endorsing Comrade Corbyn?
They've been disbanded since Nick retired from front line politics to spend more time on PB and write his latest book :
"Is Vivisection Wrong For SeanT?"
I feel sure you are correct .... and by "world" I think you mean Thailand.
Agree with TSE/Dair/SeanT here - the Falklands is toxic for Corbyn far more so than anything Irish or Israeli where it is 6 of one Tec in a lot of people's eyes
It's probably the only Conflict since 1945 where the politics are very clear cut and the "bad guys" obvious.
Iraq
Presumably the bad guys were Bush and Blair for destabilising Iraq and the consequent 600,0000 deaths which continue rising to this day.
Saddam Hussein was a relatively good guy (in comparison) who had to act tough to keep order in an otherwise disorderly country.
Gaddafi was the same in Libya.
That was malcolm's subtle point.
Malcolm and subtle in the same post?
Jay , I am capable I have to say , not all of my posts are aimed at frother baiting
What is the range on prices to join a political party? Like, which is the best choice for someone on a budget?
LDs: 10p and just speaking to them (they want the attention) Greens:Send in a photo of yourself hugging a pot plant while reading Das Kapital SNP: Punch an Englishman
Could see the first ten going blue if Corbyn is Labour leader.
Indeed, in 1983 Foot won 209 seats, Ed Miliband won 232 seats in 2015. That means the Tories could win at least 20 seats from Labour if Corbyn bombs. As well as retaking the seats Ed Miliband gained the likes of Bridgend, Walsall North, Wrexham were all Labour in 2010 and 2015 but Tory in 1983
In 1983 they also won 41 seats in Scotland out of 72 - a lead of 20 over the Conservatives. That's a redoubt that has gone. Bridgend, Wrexham, possibly Delyn all look pretty vulnerable to me anyway (although if Delyn becomes more marginal, it might make Chester and some of the Liverpool seats safer).
That means Foot only won 168 seats in England & Wales.
Super Ed won 231!
If you want to take it further:
In 1983 Foot won 147 seats in England. Ed Miliband won 206.
However, there is no way on God's green earth that Corbyn could possibly hold 206 seats in England. 147 would be more like it.
Added to a likely 15-20 seats in Wales and we come up with the sort of desperate numbers Hague and Major achieved.
I thought the Tories bottomed out in the mid 190s?
1997: 165 seats. 2001: 166 seats.
mid to late 90s! Although polling was dismal 94-95, and recovered a bit before 97.
Imagine being an MP and former soldier having served in Afghanistan - now led by a CND supporter who wouldn't tackle ISIS, describes Bin Laden's death as a tragedy.
What difference does that make, if you are stupid enough to join the army you should expect to be sent to do your master's bidding for your wages. You should should not expect everybody to think you are great because you did this or to fawn over you. It was a career choice not something virtuous.
PS posting a twisted half version of what he really said does not help your inane point either, you forgot the bit where he said it was a tragedy as he would have liked to see him on trial. We all know they could not afford for that to happen.
What is the range on prices to join a political party? Like, which is the best choice for someone on a budget?
LDs: 10p and just speaking to them (they want the attention) Greens:Send in a photo of yourself hugging a pot plant while reading Das Kapital SNP: Punch an Englishman
Imagine being an MP and former soldier having served in Afghanistan - now led by a CND supporter who wouldn't tackle ISIS, describes Bin Laden's death as a tragedy.
What difference does that make, if you are stupid enough to join the army you should expect to be sent to do your master's bidding for your wages. You should should not expect everybody to think you are great because you did this or to fawn over you. It was a career choice not something virtuous.
It makes the difference that you personally made a choice to fight in something, and someone is happy to just dump your work. Sharing values.
SeanT.. slight correction.. the idiot wants to give them away.. not back...and fuck the residents,
Lol, nearly ended up defending the IRA now defending SeanT, what's wrong with the world!
The Argies gave the islands AWAY - to us.
So specifically, it is correct to say we would be giving them BACK.
The Argies never owned the islands.
My understanding was their legal argument was the islands belonged to Spain, and as the successor state to Spain in the region they now belong to them. Not saying that argument is correct, but I find it interesting that it is more complicated than just 'the islands are close to argentina'.
Pardon me but why is anyone here even thinking about arguing about the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands? Since when was it in doubt? Stop wasting your breath.
Agree with TSE/Dair/SeanT here - the Falklands is toxic for Corbyn far more so than anything Irish or Israeli where it is 6 of one Tec in a lot of people's eyes
It's probably the only Conflict since 1945 where the politics are very clear cut and the "bad guys" obvious.
Iraq
Presumably the bad guys were Bush and Blair for destabilising Iraq and the consequent 600,0000 deaths which continue rising to this day.
Saddam Hussein was a relatively good guy (in comparison) who had to act tough to keep order in an otherwise disorderly country.
Gaddafi was the same in Libya.
That was malcolm's subtle point.
Malcolm and subtle in the same post?
Jay , I am capable I have to say , not all of my posts are aimed at frother baiting
Thought I would be castigated as a "Turnip", anyway I was up in your fine country last week making my annual pilgrimage to Fort Bill, and in all my 30 years of making this trip, I have to say it was the best weather ever, andI was treated with extreme courtesy, as always. Thanks
mid to late 90s! Although polling was dismal 94-95, and recovered a bit before 97.
Ah. My post on 'desparate numbers' was referring to seats, rather than polls. I can see where the confusion might come from though.
The Tories clocked 25% in a poll as late as summer 1996, according to my British Political Facts, although even that was a recovery from the scarcely believable 20.4% in December 1994. Unlikely Corbyn would go that low in the current economic climate, but I suppose it's not totally impossible given his erratic behaviour and his past um, activities.
Just had an email from Corbyn (actually it came through twice) He'll be there on Wednesday asking questions;
"When I stand at the despatch box for Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday, I want to be your voice.
What do you want to ask David Cameron? Tell me now and I will put your questions to him in parliament. My questions will be your questions."
Can you believe your luck Dave?
Do you think Cam might stay on now? I mean, in theory, he could have have a minimum 15 years as Prime Minister - Beating even the Blessed Margaret.
He must be tempted...
That some commentators went around floating the idea may well have been to test the waters for such a change of tune (it's the sort of u-turn i doubt the public would mind either, as he would only do it if he thought he would win again, meaning the public were still ok with him), but I don't think the party would accept it. His rivals are already jockeying for position, and would they stay quiet if he made serious noises about staying on? That he had reiterated he is going, rather than let the speculation go on, is I think the sign he knows his time is up even if he wanted to change his mind.
SeanT.. slight correction.. the idiot wants to give them away.. not back...and fuck the residents,
Lol, nearly ended up defending the IRA now defending SeanT, what's wrong with the world!
The Argies gave the islands AWAY - to us.
So specifically, it is correct to say we would be giving them BACK.
The Argies never owned the islands.
My understanding was their legal argument was the islands belonged to Spain, and as the successor state to Spain in the region they now belong to them. Not saying that argument is correct, but I find it interesting that it is more complicated than just 'the islands are close to argentina'.
Pardon me but why is anyone here even thinking about arguing about the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands? Since when was it in doubt? Stop wasting your breath.
Apparently Corbyn's policy is that they be ceded to Argentina.
By the way, great new avatar, @Jonathan - aptly summarises the problems poor old Labour have had in the last eight years since A Certain Person left. The polar opposite problem from those days!
Imagine being an MP and former soldier having served in Afghanistan - now led by a CND supporter who wouldn't tackle ISIS, describes Bin Laden's death as a tragedy.
He'll enjoy watching his young family grow up, then he will wield the knife.
Just had an email from Corbyn (actually it came through twice) He'll be there on Wednesday asking questions;
"When I stand at the despatch box for Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday, I want to be your voice.
What do you want to ask David Cameron? Tell me now and I will put your questions to him in parliament. My questions will be your questions."
Can you believe your luck Dave?
Do you think Cam might stay on now? I mean, in theory, he could have have 15 years as Prime Minister - Beating even the Blessed Margaret.
He must be tempted...
I think it may come down to the personal rather than the political. Ten years as PM and fifteen as Conservative leader is a decent run and he may consider his family should now come first.
I know how it feels. I'm feeling the strain after more than ten years as a PB leg(end) - part of the furniture and six years as PB TOTY ....
SeanT.. slight correction.. the idiot wants to give them away.. not back...and fuck the residents,
Lol, nearly ended up defending the IRA now defending SeanT, what's wrong with the world!
The Argies gave the islands AWAY - to us.
So specifically, it is correct to say we would be giving them BACK.
The Argies never owned the islands.
My understanding was their legal argument was the islands belonged to Spain, and as the successor state to Spain in the region they now belong to them. Not saying that argument is correct, but I find it interesting that it is more complicated than just 'the islands are close to argentina'.
Pardon me but why is anyone here even thinking about arguing about the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands? Since when was it in doubt? Stop wasting your breath.
I didn't realise we needed your permission to raise or answer or debate random questions.
''He'll enjoy watching his young family grow up, then he will wield the knife.''
He won;t enjoy anything, because the tories will be ceaselessly asking him and every labour person with an ounce of sense whether they support JC's stance on A, B or C.
They either support Jezza or look incredibly stupid by being in a party they are completely at odds with.
That is the tory tactic. To make labour wear this f8ck up. Every last one of them. Even the sensible ones
Just had an email from Corbyn (actually it came through twice) He'll be there on Wednesday asking questions;
"When I stand at the despatch box for Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday, I want to be your voice.
What do you want to ask David Cameron? Tell me now and I will put your questions to him in parliament. My questions will be your questions."
Can you believe your luck Dave?
Do you think Cam might stay on now? I mean, in theory, he could have have 15 years as Prime Minister - Beating even the Blessed Margaret.
He must be tempted...
I think it may come down to the personal rather than the political. Ten years as PM and fifteen as Conservative leader is a decent run and he may consider his family should now come first.
I know how it feels. I'm feeling the strain after more than ten years as a PB leg(end) - part of the furniture and six years as PB TOTY ....
mid to late 90s! Although polling was dismal 94-95, and recovered a bit before 97.
Ah. My post on 'desparate numbers' was referring to seats, rather than polls. I can see where the confusion might come from though.
The Tories clocked 25% in a poll as late as summer 1996, according to my British Political Facts, although even that was a recovery from the scarcely believable 20.4% in December 1994. Unlikely Corbyn would go that low in the current economic climate, but I suppose it's not totally impossible given his erratic behaviour and his past um, activities.
Labour managed to reach 18% (tied with the Lib Dems) on 31st May 2009 so abysmal polls are possible (though they recovered shortly afterwards)
''He'll enjoy watching his young family grow up, then he will wield the knife.''
He won;t enjoy anything, because the tories will be ceaselessly asking him and every labour person with an ounce of sense whether they support JC's stance on A, B or C.
They either support Jezza or look incredibly stupid by being in a party they are completely at odds with.
That is the tory tactic. To make labour wear this f8ck up. Every last one of them. Even the sensible ones
Quite. How are the centrists supposed to remain in the party of Corbyn? So will it be SDP2 or mass defections to Lib, Con and UKIP?
''He'll enjoy watching his young family grow up, then he will wield the knife.''
He won;t enjoy anything, because the tories will be ceaselessly asking him and every labour person with an ounce of sense whether they support JC's stance on A, B or C.
They either support Jezza or look incredibly stupid by being in a party they are completely at odds with.
That is the tory tactic. To make labour wear this f8ck up. Every last one of them. Even the sensible ones
How many Labour MPs might decide that the time is right to seek a new career after the next election. The boundary review combined with the threats of deselection by activists combined with lunatics being in charge of the asylum must make walking away seem very tempting.
Just had an email from Corbyn (actually it came through twice) He'll be there on Wednesday asking questions;
"When I stand at the despatch box for Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday, I want to be your voice.
What do you want to ask David Cameron? Tell me now and I will put your questions to him in parliament. My questions will be your questions."
Can you believe your luck Dave?
Do you think Cam might stay on now? I mean, in theory, he could have have 15 years as Prime Minister - Beating even the Blessed Margaret.
He must be tempted...
I think it may come down to the personal rather than the political. Ten years as PM and fifteen as Conservative leader is a decent run and he may consider his family should now come first.
I know how it feels. I'm feeling the strain after more than ten years as a PB leg(end) - part of the furniture and six years as PB TOTY ....
Any emanations from your ARSE on the Brexit referendum? I have invested some of my Corbyn winnings in Out, which surely must still be value on Betfair at 3.3.
Imagine being an MP and former soldier having served in Afghanistan - now led by a CND supporter who wouldn't tackle ISIS, describes Bin Laden's death as a tragedy.
What difference does that make, if you are stupid enough to join the army you should expect to be sent to do your master's bidding for your wages. You should should not expect everybody to think you are great because you did this or to fawn over you. It was a career choice not something virtuous.
It makes the difference that you personally made a choice to fight in something, and someone is happy to just dump your work. Sharing values.
No you picked a job , they are told where and when they will fight , it is not a pick and choose. It is just a job selection.
One hopes so. However, I am not convinced by Chilcotts' competence or integrity - the report would have been published years ago if he had both in any significant measure.
Going back to the 1990s and the Labour operation. I think history will eventually show what a malignant presence Campbell and Mandelson were on the the body politic. I left the Civil Service in 1996 but even then their presence was being felt, bullying didn't come into it. Lots of people at senior level were cowed by that duo's threats and manipulations and in the media it was, from what I have heard, even worse.
Blair and his dreadful acolytes, which included Brown and his gang, did enormous and probably irreparable harm to the the political fabric of the UK. The most ghastly thing though is not that Campbell and Mandelson have personally made a great deal of money from their bullying and lies, it is that that Cameron seems to be happy to play on the field that they created.
On Chilcott: a recent Private Eye had a section on Chilcott, and stated that the Maxwellisation process that many inquiries use is actually a way away from the usage for which it was named: apparently a case where Maxwell has defendant back in the 1970s.
I'm not a lawyer and so might have missed some pertinent details, but it seems that it's perverted to basically be an excuse to delay things.
The point about Maxwellisation is that the original report - where the DTI called Maxwell 'unfit' to run a company and he took it to court, is that it was a report which was only ever going to criticise one or a small number of individuals. It's fairly easy when you've got a report about one individual - you send him the findings, he responds. The Iraq Inquiry includes a vast array of people in interlocking ways which has reportedly made the process incredibly difficult. Say Alastair Campbell is criticised by evidence coming from cabinet ministers, he's entitled to see it and respond. If he then responds by criticising the spooks and Chilcott accepts his evidence then the spooks have to be written too, they could criticise civil servants for their drafting who'd then have to be Maxwellised themselves, and they might criticise Campbell who'd have to be Maxwellised again. Repeat for all the huge number of people involved. It's not anything particularly sinister, just that the process isn't designed for an inquiry of this size and scope. It did after all take 12 years for the Saville report to arrive and that was about a far smaller decision than the one to go to war.
Just had an email from Corbyn (actually it came through twice) He'll be there on Wednesday asking questions;
"When I stand at the despatch box for Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday, I want to be your voice.
What do you want to ask David Cameron? Tell me now and I will put your questions to him in parliament. My questions will be your questions."
Can you believe your luck Dave?
Do you think Cam might stay on now? I mean, in theory, he could have have 15 years as Prime Minister - Beating even the Blessed Margaret.
He must be tempted...
I think it may come down to the personal rather than the political. Ten years as PM and fifteen as Conservative leader is a decent run and he may consider his family should now come first.
I know how it feels. I'm feeling the strain after more than ten years as a PB leg(end) - part of the furniture and six years as PB TOTY ....
And a staunch Jacobite for the past, oh, 150 years?
Just had an email from Corbyn (actually it came through twice) He'll be there on Wednesday asking questions;
"When I stand at the despatch box for Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday, I want to be your voice.
What do you want to ask David Cameron? Tell me now and I will put your questions to him in parliament. My questions will be your questions."
Can you believe your luck Dave?
Do you think Cam might stay on now? I mean, in theory, he could have have 15 years as Prime Minister - Beating even the Blessed Margaret.
He must be tempted...
I think it may come down to the personal rather than the political. Ten years as PM and fifteen as Conservative leader is a decent run and he may consider his family should now come first.
I know how it feels. I'm feeling the strain after more than ten years as a PB leg(end) - part of the furniture and six years as PB TOTY ....
I think you mean Poster of the Year not TOTY
The POTY comes and goes but there is only ever one TOTY.
Who can ever forget those halcyon days on PB as little old moi romped to a landslide victory of one vote over my distinguished opponent - Peter the Punter.
mid to late 90s! Although polling was dismal 94-95, and recovered a bit before 97.
Ah. My post on 'desparate numbers' was referring to seats, rather than polls. I can see where the confusion might come from though.
The Tories clocked 25% in a poll as late as summer 1996, according to my British Political Facts, although even that was a recovery from the scarcely believable 20.4% in December 1994. Unlikely Corbyn would go that low in the current economic climate, but I suppose it's not totally impossible given his erratic behaviour and his past um, activities.
Labour managed to reach 18% (tied with the Lib Dems) on 31st May 2009 so abysmal polls are possible (though they recovered shortly afterwards)
They were in power at the time though, as were the Tories in the 1990s. I think enough people will reflexively say that they will vote for the main opposition to keep Labour's numbers from being utterly catastrophic, although I would be surprised if he polls at the levels of Ed Miliband (I nearly said 'as well as', but then I realised that made no sense)!
Agree with TSE/Dair/SeanT here - the Falklands is toxic for Corbyn far more so than anything Irish or Israeli where it is 6 of one Tec in a lot of people's eyes
It's probably the only Conflict since 1945 where the politics are very clear cut and the "bad guys" obvious.
Iraq
Presumably the bad guys were Bush and Blair for destabilising Iraq and the consequent 600,0000 deaths which continue rising to this day.
Saddam Hussein was a relatively good guy (in comparison) who had to act tough to keep order in an otherwise disorderly country.
Gaddafi was the same in Libya.
That was malcolm's subtle point.
Malcolm and subtle in the same post?
Jay , I am capable I have to say , not all of my posts are aimed at frother baiting
Thought I would be castigated as a "Turnip", anyway I was up in your fine country last week making my annual pilgrimage to Fort Bill, and in all my 30 years of making this trip, I have to say it was the best weather ever, and I was treated with extreme courtesy, as always. Thanks
Jayfdee, Glad to hear it , going by the rubbish you see posted on here you would think we all had 3 heads and were hiding behind bushes waiting for unsuspecting English people. You were lucky with the weather as it has been a poor summer.
Imagine being an MP and former soldier having served in Afghanistan - now led by a CND supporter who wouldn't tackle ISIS, describes Bin Laden's death as a tragedy.
What difference does that make, if you are stupid enough to join the army you should expect to be sent to do your master's bidding for your wages. You should should not expect everybody to think you are great because you did this or to fawn over you. It was a career choice not something virtuous.
It makes the difference that you personally made a choice to fight in something, and someone is happy to just dump your work. Sharing values.
No you picked a job , they are told where and when they will fight , it is not a pick and choose. It is just a job selection.
mid to late 90s! Although polling was dismal 94-95, and recovered a bit before 97.
Ah. My post on 'desparate numbers' was referring to seats, rather than polls. I can see where the confusion might come from though.
The Tories clocked 25% in a poll as late as summer 1996, according to my British Political Facts, although even that was a recovery from the scarcely believable 20.4% in December 1994. Unlikely Corbyn would go that low in the current economic climate, but I suppose it's not totally impossible given his erratic behaviour and his past um, activities.
Labour managed to reach 18% (tied with the Lib Dems) on 31st May 2009 so abysmal polls are possible (though they recovered shortly afterwards)
They were in power at the time though, as were the Tories in the 1990s. I think enough people will reflexively say that they will vote for the main opposition to keep Labour's numbers from being utterly catastrophic, although I would be surprised if he polls at the levels of Ed Miliband (I nearly said 'as well as', but then I realised that made no sense)!
Just had an email from Corbyn (actually it came through twice) He'll be there on Wednesday asking questions;
"When I stand at the despatch box for Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday, I want to be your voice.
What do you want to ask David Cameron? Tell me now and I will put your questions to him in parliament. My questions will be your questions."
Can you believe your luck Dave?
Do you think Cam might stay on now? I mean, in theory, he could have have 15 years as Prime Minister - Beating even the Blessed Margaret.
He must be tempted...
I think it may come down to the personal rather than the political. Ten years as PM and fifteen as Conservative leader is a decent run and he may consider his family should now come first.
I know how it feels. I'm feeling the strain after more than ten years as a PB leg(end) - part of the furniture and six years as PB TOTY ....
Any emanations from your ARSE on the Brexit referendum? I have invested some of my Corbyn winnings in Out, which surely must still be value on Betfair at 3.3.
Better IN than OUT of my ARSE as my mucker Elton John used to trill.
Just had an email from Corbyn (actually it came through twice) He'll be there on Wednesday asking questions;
"When I stand at the despatch box for Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday, I want to be your voice.
What do you want to ask David Cameron? Tell me now and I will put your questions to him in parliament. My questions will be your questions."
Can you believe your luck Dave?
Do you think Cam might stay on now? I mean, in theory, he could have have 15 years as Prime Minister - Beating even the Blessed Margaret.
He must be tempted...
I think it may come down to the personal rather than the political. Ten years as PM and fifteen as Conservative leader is a decent run and he may consider his family should now come first.
I know how it feels. I'm feeling the strain after more than ten years as a PB leg(end) - part of the furniture and six years as PB TOTY ....
And a staunch Jacobite for the past, oh, 150 years?
Rob, why do you pander to the Disney Scot, he would not recognise a Jacobite if he tripped over one.
Comments
LCFC away at Stoke also sold out. It would be good to kick them while they are down.
Cf. 83% of the 3-pounders (like yours truly!), and 57% of affiliates.
https://www.conservatives.com/join
1) Identify a long lost Danish territorial claim
2) Have Corbyn hand Scotland over to Denmark
3) Negotiate independence from Denmark.
a) He is outside the tent pissing in
b) He is inside the tent pissing out or
c) He is inside the tent pissing in?
Incontinent ?
"Is Vivisection Wrong For SeanT?"
Saddam Hussein was a relatively good guy (in comparison) who had to act tough to keep order in an otherwise disorderly country.
Gaddafi was the same in Libya.
People need to get a grip. Jeremy Corbyn is not going to be elected Labour leader.
The last in the series of 5-star nap bets as advised by Dan Hodges.
"It's not as if the discovery that Corbyn was a prominent anti-apartheid campaigner can have come as a surprise to you!"
Of course not but it's not Corbyn being arrested for a worthwhile cause that makes it interesting but the simultaneous photo of the worthless dilettante Cameron in his restaurant trashing gear and the lingering question.......
"How did that lump of uselessness ever become Prime Minister?'.
It's a bit like Lincoln appointing first Winfield Scott, then McClellan, then the great Ambrose Everett Burnside to command the Union armies in the American Civil War. He kept thinking it couldn't be worse - but oh boy, it was!
But who will be Grant and Meade?
I have tickets for Argentina vs Namibia in the World Cup, and have a Falklands flag as well as my Namibian one to fly...
"When I stand at the despatch box for Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday, I want to be your voice.
What do you want to ask David Cameron? Tell me now and I will put your questions to him in parliament. My questions will be your questions."
2001: 166 seats.
'I wonder what the former "Tories For Palmer" think of Dr Nick now endorsing Comrade Corbyn?'
If they ever really existed they will have seen at first hand an example of a Tony Benn Political Weathercock.
Labour down to 145 (could be 130 with boundary change?)
Would be an acceptable result, LOL!
The first rule of normal elections is that the membership is locked at those who were members before the election started. I believe Corbyn fell just short of a round one majority of full members, but we don't have figures for full members at the time of the election. I imagine the pre election membership did not elect Corbyn but it's impossible to know for sure.
The chuckle muscles will not lack for exercise ....
I'm not a lawyer and so might have missed some pertinent details, but it seems that it's perverted to basically be an excuse to delay things.
I'm looking forward to Corbyn calling for Blair to be sent to The Hague for trial
Nothing would surprise me right now.
If I woke up tomorrow and discovered it was really May 6th, that wouldn't seem as bizarre as the last 100 odd days.
LDs: 10p and just speaking to them (they want the attention)
Greens:Send in a photo of yourself hugging a pot plant while reading Das Kapital
SNP: Punch an Englishman
PS posting a twisted half version of what he really said does not help your inane point either, you forgot the bit where he said it was a tragedy as he would have liked to see him on trial. We all know they could not afford for that to happen.
He must be tempted...
He won 49 point something of the long-standing members in the first round.
So it wouldn't have been a landslide without the JCLs, but he would still have won
"I can't be arsed turning up next week, can he?"
"Why should we not just give the Falklands back to Argentina and Gibraltar back to the Spanish?"
Thanks
The Tories clocked 25% in a poll as late as summer 1996, according to my British Political Facts, although even that was a recovery from the scarcely believable 20.4% in December 1994. Unlikely Corbyn would go that low in the current economic climate, but I suppose it's not totally impossible given his erratic behaviour and his past um, activities.
Apparently Corbyn's policy is that they be ceded to Argentina.
I know how it feels. I'm feeling the strain after more than ten years as a PB leg(end) - part of the furniture and six years as PB TOTY ....
He won;t enjoy anything, because the tories will be ceaselessly asking him and every labour person with an ounce of sense whether they support JC's stance on A, B or C.
They either support Jezza or look incredibly stupid by being in a party they are completely at odds with.
That is the tory tactic. To make labour wear this f8ck up. Every last one of them. Even the sensible ones
I think you mean Poster of the Year not TOTY
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2005-2010
Anything is possible!
Apparently, the man to watch according to the Telegraph and any other stupid pundit is Tom Watson. What a load of total garbage.
Watson couldn;t prevent a total wipeout in Scotland and a stuffing in England, despite all his supposed machinations.
and now Watson ends up wearing the T shirt for Corbyn's leadership.
Who can ever forget those halcyon days on PB as little old moi romped to a landslide victory of one vote over my distinguished opponent - Peter the Punter.