Loyalists killed lots of innocents too - they even outkilled the Provos in 1993 and 94.
What's your point? That you've identified a group of terrorist scumbags Jez, doesn't count as friends?
People on the Loyalist side killed people as well, wasn't just the IRA, my dear.
And? Corbyns problem is that he openly associates with IRA members. The fact that he can't bring himself to speak to murdering scrum from the opposite side hardly improves his image.
The first RUC man (ie. police) to be killed in the Troubles, Victor Arbuckle, was shot dead by Loyalists on 11/10/69, who were, irony of ironies, protesting against the planned disarming of the RUC.
Are you totally stupid? So what? We know that there were Loyalist paramilitaries and we do not praise them. We know both sides paramilitaries themselves colluded with each other in their smuggling and protection rackets and their other common criminal activities.
Can't wait for the London mayoral election. My prediction: Goldsmith 55%, Khan 45%.
That's a significantly bigger margin than those of Boris.
Now considering demographic trends if Labour loses by 10% in London it will be annhilalted elsewhere and suffer enormous loses in wwcland.
In Yorkshire there would be pit villages going Conservative or UKIP.
Which would be ironic after Watson's speech today.
I was a bit surprised by the polling showing black voters less likely to vote Labour with Khan as candidate but if that happens you could get a 55/45 result like I forecast.
Perhaps an equivalent of New York - where many Hispanics wont vote for an Afro-American and many Afro-Americans wont vote for a Hispanic.
Tribal politics.
Certainly there will be some Black Christian Londoners who wont vote for a Muslim.
Ditto Jews / Hindus / Sikhs.
'Celebrate the mosaic'.
Yes, you have special powers of being able to read all of our BME minds!
So you think you speak for all BME votes do you ?
Though you clearly have reading inabilities when it comes to the word 'some'.
Making yourself look silly TWICE on the same thread is rather unbecoming to you Sunil.
Ridicule is nothing to be scared of, my dear!
Although Adam Ant's career went into a rapid downward spiral after uttering that line.
Corbyn will balance the books faster and keep it there. Cancel Trident saves many billions. Some QE. QE will be inflationary unless it was done under the Tories.
How much money per year do you think cancelling Trident will save?
Is it not dangerous to call Jeremy Corbyn JC - won't that confuse some people into thinking you are talking about either Julius Caesar or Jesus Christ?
People on the Loyalist side killed people as well, wasn't just the IRA, my dear.
And? Corbyns problem is that he openly associates with IRA members. The fact that he can't bring himself to speak to murdering scrum from the opposite side hardly improves his image.
The first RUC man (ie. police) to be killed in the Troubles, Victor Arbuckle, was shot dead by Loyalists on 11/10/69, who were, irony of ironies, protesting against the planned disarming of the RUC.
In what way is this going to make Corbyn any more palatable to the British people?
I think most Brits will deny there was collusion, either because they are unaware of the allegations (about Nairac or Stakeknife or whoever) or because they don't believe them.
When John McDonnell praised the "bravery and sacrifice" of the IRA ("It's about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle. It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. The peace we have now is due to the action of the IRA.") Labour did their best to shut him up because they knew it was bad news electorally. When Jeremy Corbyn has such close personal ties to the leadership of Sinn Fein, it is hardly going to make him more popular.
If he tried to justify it by getting into a tit-for-tat argument about who did what and who knew about it, decades ago, it would just be digging a deeper hole for himself.
Is it true the Ulster Defence Association were legal from their inception in 1971 until as late as 1992?
But Sunil, like Hurst's entirely reasonable post downthread, would you mind telling us what your point is? Are you just doing some awareness-raising of nasty things done by the British state/British-supporting organisations in NI?
I'm part Irish and there's no need to lecture me about it. A lot of other posters on this board will simply disbelieve you even when what you write is true. Frankly it's not a conversation I wish to engage in with you right now and I'm not sure anybody else is biting either. I am curious whether you are merely engaging in some gentle trolling of (conservatives and) unionists, whether you are pressing a hobby-horse, or if (as your original replies suggested) you believe this is in some way germane to how well the British people are going to take Corbyn and McDonnell's ties to Sinn Finn and past (sometimes quite explicit) support for Physical Force Repblicanism. (As far as I can see, the answers to that last point being "not germane at all", and "like being served a cold bucket of sick".)
Corbyn will balance the books faster and keep it there. Cancel Trident saves many billions. Some QE. QE will be inflationary unless it was done under the Tories.
How much money per year do you think cancelling Trident will save?
You only have to watch that and then you realise that Donald Trump will probably be the next POTUS. Trump combines the folksy charm of Bush, the dumbness of Reagan and the A star, testosterone charisma of Clinton. He is masterclass of parody....even I liked him after watching that sketch.
The Democrats and GOP have to dig a lot deeper if they are to find someone who can stop him. Biden maybe the only and last hope for both the Democrats and GOP to stop Trump...and even then I somehow doubt it.
If you watch the sitdown with Fallon after that sketch, it's even more striking. Everything the professional pols say is focus group tested, rehearsed etc. In Clinton's case it's even worse as she's such a poor candidate and comes across as insincere, her email responses are carefully parsed and keep changing.
When you watch Trump, Fiorina or Carson - or Biden on Colbert the other night - they are being honest, saying what they think, telling you how they feel. The honesty and sincerity just shines through. There's no focus group nonsense with them.
Just because they are being honest and sincere doesn't mean you have to support or agree with them however.
Interesting that Fallon was the first senior Tory to speak out today. Reminiscent of his intervention during the general election:
"The defence secretary, Michael Fallon, launches a scathing attack on the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, and the SNP's Nicola Sturgeon on Thursday over the future of the Trident nuclear deterrent. Fallon says the United Kingdom's nuclear programme is in danger of being abandoned if Miliband is elected as prime minister, with the help of SNP, in the general election on 7 May"
Is it not dangerous to call Jeremy Corbyn JC - won't that confuse some people into thinking you are talking about either Julius Caesar or Jesus Christ?
Daniel Finkelstein @Dannythefink 44m44 minutes ago Corbyn supporters saying is contempt not to join Shad Cab and criticise elected leader. But isn't that what Corbyn did for 32 years?
What a weird day; what a weird summer. I'm an atheist. I have friends who are religious, and that's fine, and it almost never comes up as an issue. And you can lull yourself into thinking that their religion is more habit than earnest belief. And then one day something is said which reminds you that they genuinely do believe things which, to me, seem absolutely insane; and it is very jarring. That is how I now feel about the Labour Party. Previously, I saw them as people with whom I disagreed about the means but broadly agreed about the ends. The Labour Party had its share of sociopaths, idiots, narcissists and the easily offended, but wasn't this true of al parties? If pushed, I could have happily pointed to numerous people in the Labour Party with whom I could agree on many things. But now 60% of the party have voted to support some batshit-crazy hard left throwback. This isn't due to his charm, his perceived ability as a winner or his intelligence; it's because they genuinely believe this stuff.we must conclude that Jeremy Corbyn's views are actually pretty mainstream within the Labour Party. The Labour Party is clearly a pretty unusual body of people. THIS IS NOT, TO USE tony Blair's phrase, the political wing of the British people.
I wonder, too whether the Labour Party has now sacrificed the automatic claim to the moral high ground that it had assumed amongst the not-particularly-engaged since the 90s. I vaguely recall something about the fictional but not atypical character Bridget Jones seeing Labour as clearly a good thing since they were the be-nice-to-gays party. If they're now to be the do-the-PR-for-terrorists-murderers-and-crazed-Islamists party, it's rather harder to get the general public to see you as the good guys.
Corbyn will balance the books faster and keep it there. Cancel Trident saves many billions. Some QE. QE will be inflationary unless it was done under the Tories.
How much money per year do you think cancelling Trident will save?
Between now and a week on mondays worth of deficit.
Silver lining, those on the centre left can not afford to be dull, wet and wooly any more.
What's your opinion on Corbyn? Will you loyally follow and support him?
Anyone that supports Labour under Corbyn is supporting a party that endorses sharing a platform with Islamists and handing over British territory over the heads of the British people that live there. I have been told by many over the years that it is a right wing myth that Labour dislikes Britain, but they are clearly prepared to elect an anti-British ideologue as leader.
The story Cameron and Osborne are going to paint to the country (remorselessly and with ruthless, repetitive use of messaging opportunities) is that people voting for Labour are voting for a party with all those negatives. I think they may be successful in doing so.
But.
I don't think the Labour membership as a whole (though I might be wrong) support handing over the Falklands/Gibraltar/NI. I don't think they feel the same sympathy for the IRA (though the younger cohorts of voters may not see what all the fuss was about, it all having washed into the Peace Process as far as they're concerned) and their sympathy with militant islamists is almost certainly restricted to foreign policy and civil rights issues, rather than social policy.
And Corbyn in charge of the party is not likely to be pressing a hard-left agenda. It sounds like he has put his personal feelings about abolition of the monarchy on the back-burner. I imagine a lot of his other baggage will join it there - not that that will stop the Tories attacking him over it.
The issue, as I see it, is less about what Mr Corbyn himself will do than about what his (fervent) supporters will do. He's opened a door, and there are a lot of people who will be grateful for the opportunities provided. (I'm not talking about immigration.) It's standard practice for the political wing to repudiate responsibility for what 'other people' do.
Corbyn will balance the books faster and keep it there. Cancel Trident saves many billions. Some QE. QE will be inflationary unless it was done under the Tories.
How much money per year do you think cancelling Trident will save?
Don't expect a sensible answer.
I don't, Mr. Path, I really don't. People throw around all sorts of figures without ever thinking about them that sometimes I can't resist asking them the question.
Bloody hell- the BBC pre MoD news- not very pretty for Jezza on his first day. I cannot think of any other occasion when the BEEB have gone after a party leader in quite such a vicious way.
If I was a conspiracy, paranoid theorist I would suspect that the higher management of the BEEB have a political agenda........
Surely not. Just a coincidence that their current affairs department has been a revolving door for Tories and Blairites.
Saw the 1030 news and didn't feel it was especially biased either way, really - usual on the one hand, on the other hand stuff. Seen a lot worse!
Interesting that Fallon was the first senior Tory to speak out today. Reminiscent of his intervention during the general election:
"The defence secretary, Michael Fallon, launches a scathing attack on the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, and the SNP's Nicola Sturgeon on Thursday over the future of the Trident nuclear deterrent. Fallon says the United Kingdom's nuclear programme is in danger of being abandoned if Miliband is elected as prime minister, with the help of SNP, in the general election on 7 May"
You only have to watch that and then you realise that Donald Trump will probably be the next POTUS. Trump combines the folksy charm of Bush, the dumbness of Reagan and the A star, testosterone charisma of Clinton. He is masterclass of parody....even I liked him after watching that sketch.
The Democrats and GOP have to dig a lot deeper if they are to find someone who can stop him. Biden maybe the only and last hope for both the Democrats and GOP to stop Trump...and even then I somehow doubt it.
Reagan was apparantly highly intelligent and interested in 'intellectual' p[olitical debate.
His 'dumbness' being an effect of increasing old age and the effects of being shot.
I think Reagan was a true great, but only of moderate intelligence. But he was a great believer in appointing very intelligent people and making his judgements based on their advice.
"Tear down this wall" still makes my eyes moisten.
You only have to watch that and then you realise that Donald Trump will probably be the next POTUS. Trump combines the folksy charm of Bush, the dumbness of Reagan and the A star, testosterone charisma of Clinton. He is masterclass of parody....even I liked him after watching that sketch.
The Democrats and GOP have to dig a lot deeper if they are to find someone who can stop him. Biden maybe the only and last hope for both the Democrats and GOP to stop Trump...and even then I somehow doubt it.
If you watch the sitdown with Fallon after that sketch, it's even more striking. Everything the professional pols say is focus group tested, rehearsed etc. In Clinton's case it's even worse as she's such a poor candidate and comes across as insincere, her email responses are carefully parsed and keep changing.
When you watch Trump, Fiorina or Carson - or Biden on Colbert the other night - they are being honest, saying what they think, telling you how they feel. The honesty and sincerity just shines through. There's no focus group nonsense with them.
Just because they are being honest and sincere doesn't mean you have to support or agree with them however.
I think a Hillary v Trump contest would be very tight but in the end Hillary would prevail, helped by the Hispanic vote which is strongly anti Trump. Picking Trump also weakens the GOP's ability to play the character card against Hillary given Trump's colourful past
The most interesting appointment (or poison chalice) in Corby's team is going to be The one having to whip the PLP...
Rumour is that it'll be Rosie Winterton reappointed.
Also rumoured that the Shadow Chancellor will be a centrist. My sources know Jeremy better than I do, but I don't think final decisions have been made yet.
But Sunil, like Hurst's entirely reasonable post downthread, would you mind telling us what your point is? Are you just doing some awareness-raising of nasty things done by the British state/British-supporting organisations in NI?
I'm part Irish and there's no need to lecture me about it. A lot of other posters on this board will simply disbelieve you even when what you write is true. Frankly it's not a conversation I wish to engage in with you right now and I'm not sure anybody else is biting either. I am curious whether you are merely engaging in some gentle trolling of (conservatives and) unionists, whether you are pressing a hobby-horse, or if (as your original replies suggested) you believe this is in some way germane to how well the British people are going to take Corbyn and McDonnell's ties to Sinn Finn and past (sometimes quite explicit) support for Physical Force Repblicanism. (As far as I can see, the answers to that last point being "not germane at all", and "like being served a cold bucket of sick".)
[Sunil in his best Northern Ireland accent]
The Brits partitioned MY country too, you know.
[suddenly, Sunil clutches his head, screaming, as his malfunctioning Tebbit Chip finally kicks in for the evening!]
Aarrrrrrrgh!
[before a more servile expression crosses his face]
Even better than that - a donkey jacket with a luminescent NCB in the back.
As seen at lower division football grounds throughout the 1970s and 1980s.
Now all we need to complete the picture is to bring back Frank Worthington (you must remember him Fox ), Tony Currie, Charlie George etc.
I know of Frank Worthington. Was before my time. But he's a Liverpool legend as his transfer to Liverpool collapsed because he failed a medical, because he had an STD
Corbyn will balance the books faster and keep it there. Cancel Trident saves many billions. Some QE. QE will be inflationary unless it was done under the Tories.
How much money per year do you think cancelling Trident will save?
Between now and a week on mondays worth of deficit.
A flippant response, Mr. Me, but along the right lines. When HMG's expenditure is in the region of £700bn a year the amount spent on Trident could be lost as a rounding error.
People on the Loyalist side killed people as well, wasn't just the IRA, my dear.
And? Corbyns problem is that he openly associates with IRA members. The fact that he can't bring himself to speak to murdering scrum from the opposite side hardly improves his image.
The first RUC man (ie. police) to be killed in the Troubles, Victor Arbuckle, was shot dead by Loyalists on 11/10/69, who were, irony of ironies, protesting against the planned disarming of the RUC.
In what way is this going to make Corbyn any more palatable to the British people?
I think most Brits will deny there was collusion, either because they are unaware of the allegations (about Nairac or Stakeknife or whoever) or because they don't believe them.
When John McDonnell praised the "bravery and sacrifice" of the IRA ("It's about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle. It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. The peace we have now is due to the action of the IRA.") Labour did their best to shut him up because they knew it was bad news electorally. When Jeremy Corbyn has such close personal ties to the leadership of Sinn Fein, it is hardly going to make him more popular.
If he tried to justify it by getting into a tit-for-tat argument about who did what and who knew about it, decades ago, it would just be digging a deeper hole for himself.
Is it true the Ulster Defence Association were legal from their inception in 1971 until as late as 1992?
Why don't you just fecking tell us what you want to say? If you have a point to make then make it.
Indeed. Was any protestant political party the UU or the DUP ever regarded as fronts for the UDA/UFF? Like for instance Sin Fein were fronts for the IRA with interchangeable commands/leadership?
Funny peculiar isn't it where people are suddenly arguing about the legality of our sovereignty over the Falklands and undermining the legitimacy of Northern Ireland?? All the subversives have suddenly come out from under their stones.
It wouldn't surprise me if some Tories privately have mixed feelings about the London mayoral election next year. They'd like to win it obviously but if they do it would be a serious blow for Corbyn on his home turf, and his chances of facing the electorate in 2020 would go down considerably.
The email I was sent had a third graphic was even more powerful
Picture of Corbyn then...
Labour's new leader is a threat
TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY
TO OUR ECONOMIC SECURITY
AND YOUR FAMILY'S SECURITY
I saw the third graphic before I presume the post was edited. I think they will be really effective.
It's textbook stuff - define your opponent before he can define himself. It sounds like with over 30 years in Parliament there's lots of Corbyn material to be mined.
Interesting that Fallon was the first senior Tory to speak out today. Reminiscent of his intervention during the general election:
"The defence secretary, Michael Fallon, launches a scathing attack on the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, and the SNP's Nicola Sturgeon on Thursday over the future of the Trident nuclear deterrent. Fallon says the United Kingdom's nuclear programme is in danger of being abandoned if Miliband is elected as prime minister, with the help of SNP, in the general election on 7 May"
Bloody hell- the BBC pre MoD news- not very pretty for Jezza on his first day. I cannot think of any other occasion when the BEEB have gone after a party leader in quite such a vicious way.
If I was a conspiracy, paranoid theorist I would suspect that the higher management of the BEEB have a political agenda........
Surely not. Just a coincidence that their current affairs department has been a revolving door for Tories and Blairites.
Saw the 1030 news and didn't feel it was especially biased either way, really - usual on the one hand, on the other hand stuff. Seen a lot worse!
Tell us again about the exciting canvass returns from Broxtowe, and how Labour are cruising to victory.
You are the single most devalued commenter on pb.com, bar none. Your descent into absurdity is embarrassing.
In all sincerity, I hope you wise up. PB should not be a rightwing echo chamber, but as long as its most significant leftwing commenters act like teenage halfwits, there is no hope.
It wouldn't surprise me if some Tories privately have mixed feelings about the London mayoral election next year. They'd like to win it obviously but if they do it would be a serious blow for Corbyn on his home turf, and his chances of facing the electorate in 2020 would go down considerably.
There's no mixed feelings they will *want* to win it. They will want to make gains in Council elections, they will want to see if they can manage any kind of improvement north of the border.
It wouldn't surprise me if some Tories privately have mixed feelings about the London mayoral election next year. They'd like to win it obviously but if they do it would be a serious blow for Corbyn on his home turf, and his chances of facing the electorate in 2020 would go down considerably.
Nope. Now that he's been elected and were he to be deposed, the Tories will telling all and sundry that Labour are only a heartbeat away from another hard left takeover
Corbyn will balance the books faster and keep it there. Cancel Trident saves many billions. Some QE. QE will be inflationary unless it was done under the Tories.
How much money per year do you think cancelling Trident will save?
Between now and a week on mondays worth of deficit.
A flippant response, Mr. Me, but along the right lines. When HMG's expenditure is in the region of £700bn a year the amount spent on Trident could be lost as a rounding error.
You only have to watch that and then you realise that Donald Trump will probably be the next POTUS. Trump combines the folksy charm of Bush, the dumbness of Reagan and the A star, testosterone charisma of Clinton. He is masterclass of parody....even I liked him after watching that sketch.
The Democrats and GOP have to dig a lot deeper if they are to find someone who can stop him. Biden maybe the only and last hope for both the Democrats and GOP to stop Trump...and even then I somehow doubt it.
Reagan was apparantly highly intelligent and interested in 'intellectual' p[olitical debate.
His 'dumbness' being an effect of increasing old age and the effects of being shot.
I think Reagan was a true great, but only of moderate intelligence. But he was a great believer in appointing very intelligent people and making his judgements based on their advice.
"Tear down this wall" still makes my eyes moisten.
He was a remarkable speaker. Even better than Blair, though no doubt Blair was a better cut-and-thrust debater (at least on matters of substance, rather than on put-downs).
Cameron can do a good line in speeches, when the mood strikes - the Bloody Sunday apology was very good.
It wouldn't surprise me if some Tories privately have mixed feelings about the London mayoral election next year. They'd like to win it obviously but if they do it would be a serious blow for Corbyn on his home turf, and his chances of facing the electorate in 2020 would go down considerably.
To be honest i think the Tories have to operate on the assumption that Corbyn won't be leader at the next election anyway. The very fact that he has become leader, with the potential to do further damage (both in terms of image and Labour Party organisation) should be enough.
Indeed. Was any protestant political party the UU or the DUP ever regarded as fronts for the UDA/UFF? Like for instance Sin Fein were fronts for the IRA with interchangeable commands/leadership?
Funny peculiar isn't it where people are suddenly arguing about the legality of our sovereignty over the Falklands and undermining the legitimacy of Northern Ireland?? All the subversives have suddenly come out from under their stones.
Seriously, just for the record.
PUP (Progressive Unionists)* were a front for the UVF UDP (Ulster Democratic), later UPRG (Ulster Political Research Group) were associated with the UDA
*not to be confused with the other PUP, James Kilfedder's Popular Unionists in North Down.
Corbyn will balance the books faster and keep it there. Cancel Trident saves many billions. Some QE. QE will be inflationary unless it was done under the Tories.
How much money per year do you think cancelling Trident will save?
Between now and a week on mondays worth of deficit.
A flippant response, Mr. Me, but along the right lines. When HMG's expenditure is in the region of £700bn a year the amount spent on Trident could be lost as a rounding error.
It's of the order of £2 billion a year, which you are right, is chicken feed in total spend. It is a long term commitment though. And if we cancelled, how much of a saving would we end up with? Would we end up just spending it somewhere else on defence instead?
Five fervent red fighters whose loyalty to Jeremy Corbyn will be rewarded
Corbyn's team have spent most of their careers in the political wilderness Set to appoint left-wing cronies to senior positions in the party as leader Diane Abbott, Ken Livingstone, John McDonnell tipped for cabinet spots Corbyn urged to also reserve posts for those willing to stay on such as defeated Andy Burnham and Hillary Benn
It wouldn't surprise me if some Tories privately have mixed feelings about the London mayoral election next year. They'd like to win it obviously but if they do it would be a serious blow for Corbyn on his home turf, and his chances of facing the electorate in 2020 would go down considerably.
Labour doing well in London in 1996 clearly benefitted the Conservatives in 1987, not only in London but nationwide.
The new Labour councils in Ealing and Waltham Forest putting up the rates by IIRC 65% and 62% respectively a few weeks before the general election was publicity beyong price to CCHQ.
Corbyn will balance the books faster and keep it there. Cancel Trident saves many billions. Some QE. QE will be inflationary unless it was done under the Tories.
How much money per year do you think cancelling Trident will save?
Between now and a week on mondays worth of deficit.
A flippant response, Mr. Me, but along the right lines. When HMG's expenditure is in the region of £700bn a year the amount spent on Trident could be lost as a rounding error.
It's of the order of £2 billion a year, which you are right, is chicken feed in total spend. It is a long term commitment though. And if we cancelled, how much of a saving would we end up with? Would we end up just spending it somewhere else on defence instead?
I remember at the end of the cold war there was much talk of a peace dividend. It never happened.
Five fervent red fighters whose loyalty to Jeremy Corbyn will be rewarded
Corbyn's team have spent most of their careers in the political wilderness Set to appoint left-wing cronies to senior positions in the party as leader Diane Abbott, Ken Livingstone, John McDonnell tipped for cabinet spots Corbyn urged to also reserve posts for those willing to stay on such as defeated Andy Burnham and Hillary Benn
Corbyn will balance the books faster and keep it there. Cancel Trident saves many billions. Some QE. QE will be inflationary unless it was done under the Tories.
How much money per year do you think cancelling Trident will save?
Between now and a week on mondays worth of deficit.
A flippant response, Mr. Me, but along the right lines. When HMG's expenditure is in the region of £700bn a year the amount spent on Trident could be lost as a rounding error.
It's of the order of £2 billion a year, which you are right, is chicken feed in total spend. It is a long term commitment though. And if we cancelled, how much of a saving would we end up with? Would we end up just spending it somewhere else on defence instead?
I remember at the end of the cold war there was much talk of a peace dividend. It never happened.
Isn't spending on defence much lower now than it was in 1990?
It wouldn't surprise me if some Tories privately have mixed feelings about the London mayoral election next year. They'd like to win it obviously but if they do it would be a serious blow for Corbyn on his home turf, and his chances of facing the electorate in 2020 would go down considerably.
There's no mixed feelings they will *want* to win it. They will want to make gains in Council elections, they will want to see if they can manage any kind of improvement north of the border.
What would do for Corbyn would not be losing the London Mayor (as Labour will almost certainly win the London Assembly) but coming third in a by-election to UKIP in a former Labour seat. Remember it was coming third in Brent East behind Labour and the LDs which did for IDS in the end
Indeed. Was any protestant political party the UU or the DUP ever regarded as fronts for the UDA/UFF? Like for instance Sin Fein were fronts for the IRA with interchangeable commands/leadership?
Funny peculiar isn't it where people are suddenly arguing about the legality of our sovereignty over the Falklands and undermining the legitimacy of Northern Ireland?? All the subversives have suddenly come out from under their stones.
Seriously, just for the record.
PUP (Progressive Unionists)* were a front for the UVF UDP (Ulster Democratic), later UPRG (Ulster Political Research Group) were associated with the UDA
*not to be confused with the other PUP, James Kilfedder's Popular Unionists in North Down.
And Peter Robinson led a cross-border raid/invasion.
It wouldn't surprise me if some Tories privately have mixed feelings about the London mayoral election next year. They'd like to win it obviously but if they do it would be a serious blow for Corbyn on his home turf, and his chances of facing the electorate in 2020 would go down considerably.
Labour doing well in London in 1986 clearly benefitted the Conservatives in 1987, not only in London but nationwide.
The new Labour councils in Ealing and Waltham Forest putting up the rates by IIRC 65% and 62% respectively a few weeks before the general election was publicity beyong price to CCHQ.
It also helped cause dredful results for Labour in London - see Ealing North and Walthstow in 1987.
Which makes me wonder if London Labour was behaving itself after the 2014 local elections in anticipation of the 2015 general election.
Corbyn will balance the books faster and keep it there. Cancel Trident saves many billions. Some QE. QE will be inflationary unless it was done under the Tories.
How much money per year do you think cancelling Trident will save?
Between now and a week on mondays worth of deficit.
A flippant response, Mr. Me, but along the right lines. When HMG's expenditure is in the region of £700bn a year the amount spent on Trident could be lost as a rounding error.
It's of the order of £2 billion a year, which you are right, is chicken feed in total spend. It is a long term commitment though. And if we cancelled, how much of a saving would we end up with? Would we end up just spending it somewhere else on defence instead?
I remember at the end of the cold war there was much talk of a peace dividend. It never happened.
Isn't spending on defence much lower now than it was in 1990?
Corbyn will balance the books faster and keep it there. Cancel Trident saves many billions. Some QE. QE will be inflationary unless it was done under the Tories.
How much money per year do you think cancelling Trident will save?
Between now and a week on mondays worth of deficit.
A flippant response, Mr. Me, but along the right lines. When HMG's expenditure is in the region of £700bn a year the amount spent on Trident could be lost as a rounding error.
It's of the order of £2 billion a year, which you are right, is chicken feed in total spend. It is a long term commitment though. And if we cancelled, how much of a saving would we end up with? Would we end up just spending it somewhere else on defence instead?
I remember at the end of the cold war there was much talk of a peace dividend. It never happened.
Isn't spending on defence much lower now than it was in 1990?
NB a lot of end-of-Cold-War budget reductions hit before 1990, in both the USA and UK. My understanding is that the USA then kept the budget pretty constant through the 90s, then it all ramped up again after 9/11. In the UK, reductions to an approximate 2% of GDP level were maintained.
We need the pollsters to start making a balls up of things again to keep Jezza in place until it's too late to get rid of him...
Let's have some regular Lab leads for starters.
People were seriously saying here that this is impossible nowadays because the polls have improved since the leadership of Michael Foot! To which I can only write, !!!!!!!!!
Corbyn will balance the books faster and keep it there. Cancel Trident saves many billions. Some QE. QE will be inflationary unless it was done under the Tories.
How much money per year do you think cancelling Trident will save?
Between now and a week on mondays worth of deficit.
A flippant response, Mr. Me, but along the right lines. When HMG's expenditure is in the region of £700bn a year the amount spent on Trident could be lost as a rounding error.
It's of the order of £2 billion a year, which you are right, is chicken feed in total spend. It is a long term commitment though. And if we cancelled, how much of a saving would we end up with? Would we end up just spending it somewhere else on defence instead?
I remember at the end of the cold war there was much talk of a peace dividend. It never happened.
Isn't spending on defence much lower now than it was in 1990?
It wouldn't surprise me if some Tories privately have mixed feelings about the London mayoral election next year. They'd like to win it obviously but if they do it would be a serious blow for Corbyn on his home turf, and his chances of facing the electorate in 2020 would go down considerably.
There's no mixed feelings they will *want* to win it. They will want to make gains in Council elections, they will want to see if they can manage any kind of improvement north of the border.
What would do for Corbyn would not be losing the London Mayor (as Labour will almost certainly win the London Assembly) but coming third in a by-election to UKIP in a former Labour seat. Remember it was coming third in Brent East behind Labour and the LDs which did for IDS in the end
The MPs were able to guillottine IDS when he underdelivered and when they were able to replace him. The MPs this time don't expect Corbyn to deliver anything and they know they can't choose who replaces him.
Corbyn will balance the books faster and keep it there. Cancel Trident saves many billions. Some QE. QE will be inflationary unless it was done under the Tories.
How much money per year do you think cancelling Trident will save?
Between now and a week on mondays worth of deficit.
A flippant response, Mr. Me, but along the right lines. When HMG's expenditure is in the region of £700bn a year the amount spent on Trident could be lost as a rounding error.
It's of the order of £2 billion a year, which you are right, is chicken feed in total spend. It is a long term commitment though. And if we cancelled, how much of a saving would we end up with? Would we end up just spending it somewhere else on defence instead?
If we went the unilateral disarmament route I very much doubt that such savings that would be made would stay within the defence budget. The treasury would have their greedy little paws on the dosh before you could say decommission. However, the sum would be so small as to be lost in the book keeping. HMG probably pisses more than that up the wall in the end of financial year spend fest.
The idea floated by Mr. Surbiton that dumping the deterrent would release huge sums for "infrastructure" is laughable.
Corbyn will balance the books faster and keep it there. Cancel Trident saves many billions. Some QE. QE will be inflationary unless it was done under the Tories.
How much money per year do you think cancelling Trident will save?
Between now and a week on mondays worth of deficit.
A flippant response, Mr. Me, but along the right lines. When HMG's expenditure is in the region of £700bn a year the amount spent on Trident could be lost as a rounding error.
It's of the order of £2 billion a year, which you are right, is chicken feed in total spend. It is a long term commitment though. And if we cancelled, how much of a saving would we end up with? Would we end up just spending it somewhere else on defence instead?
I remember at the end of the cold war there was much talk of a peace dividend. It never happened.
During the 1990s recession, Fish & Chip shops were especially hard-hit, causing a Mushy Peas Dividend...
The most interesting appointment (or poison chalice) in Corby's team is going to be The one having to whip the PLP...
Rumour is that it'll be Rosie Winterton reappointed.
Also rumoured that the Shadow Chancellor will be a centrist. My sources know Jeremy better than I do, but I don't think final decisions have been made yet.
My condolences, Nick, that you aren't in parliament to support Mr Corbyn personally.
Corbyn will balance the books faster and keep it there. Cancel Trident saves many billions. Some QE. QE will be inflationary unless it was done under the Tories.
How much money per year do you think cancelling Trident will save?
Between now and a week on mondays worth of deficit.
A flippant response, Mr. Me, but along the right lines. When HMG's expenditure is in the region of £700bn a year the amount spent on Trident could be lost as a rounding error.
It's of the order of £2 billion a year, which you are right, is chicken feed in total spend. It is a long term commitment though. And if we cancelled, how much of a saving would we end up with? Would we end up just spending it somewhere else on defence instead?
I remember at the end of the cold war there was much talk of a peace dividend. It never happened.
Isn't spending on defence much lower now than it was in 1990?
Ah sorry, you beat me to it. Wouldn't say "never happened" - more like, "it didn't last". That's for the USA, though, whereas for the UK it got down and stayed down.
(Looking in inflation-adjusted dollars terms only is a bit misleading: it'd be helpful also to see it in terms of % GDP, which would be a slightly different story.)
The margin of victory and the likely similar rules of any future contest are going to make it hard for the Labour centre and right. They can plot, but with a Shadow Cabinet likely to contain a number of younger anti-austerity voices, someone may well shine. Anyone who challenges from a more centrist position is likely to merely be a stalking horse.
A younger left-winger will likely not have the baggage of Corbyn, may not have obtained their left-wing ideas from the same set-text handbooks as Corbyn, may be more open to new thinking as part of the mix and may be a more attractive proposition to the electorate. As such, perhaps the Labour centre might be better spending their time developing new ideas to refresh their repertoire, ready for an ideological battle in the purest sense: a battle to get ideas on the table.
I seriously doubt Corbyn is Labour's messiah, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility that he could be their John the Baptist.
We need the pollsters to start making a balls up of things again to keep Jezza in place until it's too late to get rid of him...
Let's have some regular Lab leads for starters.
People were seriously saying here that this is impossible nowadays because the polls have improved since the leadership of Michael Foot! To which I can only write, !!!!!!!!!
It's not that polls have "improved". It's that there are all sorts of adjustments applied which serve to dampen down wild swings in public opinion. For a start any enthusiasm among former non-voters is likely to become signficantly discounted.
Saving billions spent on a weapon of mass destruction that can't be used without another country's say so = being unpatriotic for some reason. Whereas hounding disabled people to death = patriotism.
Corbyn will balance the books faster and keep it there. Cancel Trident saves many billions. Some QE. QE will be inflationary unless it was done under the Tories.
How much money per year do you think cancelling Trident will save?
Between now and a week on mondays worth of deficit.
A flippant response, Mr. Me, but along the right lines. When HMG's expenditure is in the region of £700bn a year the amount spent on Trident could be lost as a rounding error.
It's of the order of £2 billion a year, which you are right, is chicken feed in total spend. It is a long term commitment though. And if we cancelled, how much of a saving would we end up with? Would we end up just spending it somewhere else on defence instead?
I remember at the end of the cold war there was much talk of a peace dividend. It never happened.
During the 1990s recession, Fish & Chip shops were especially hard-hit, causing a Mushy Peas Dividend...
It wouldn't surprise me if some Tories privately have mixed feelings about the London mayoral election next year. They'd like to win it obviously but if they do it would be a serious blow for Corbyn on his home turf, and his chances of facing the electorate in 2020 would go down considerably.
Nope. Now that he's been elected and were he to be deposed, the Tories will telling all and sundry that Labour are only a heartbeat away from another hard left takeover
Whereas in truth JC's proposals are to the right of the SDP manifesto in 1981. Tempora mutant et nos mutamur in illis...
The margin of victory and the likely similar rules of any future contest are going to make it hard for the Labour centre and right. They can plot, but with a Shadow Cabinet likely to contain a number of younger anti-austerity voices, someone may well shine. Anyone who challenges from a more centrist position is likely to merely be a stalking horse.
A younger left-winger will likely not have the baggage of Corbyn, may not have obtained their left-wing ideas from the same set-text handbooks as Corbyn, may be more open to new thinking as part of the mix and may be a more attractive proposition to the electorate. As such, perhaps the Labour centre might be better spending their time developing new ideas to refresh their repertoire, ready for an ideological battle in the purest sense: a battle to get ideas on the table.
I seriously doubt Corbyn is Labour's messiah, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility that he could be their John the Baptist.
or if he turns out to have a cunning plan, their Baldrick
The most interesting appointment (or poison chalice) in Corby's team is going to be The one having to whip the PLP...
Rumour is that it'll be Rosie Winterton reappointed.
Also rumoured that the Shadow Chancellor will be a centrist. My sources know Jeremy better than I do, but I don't think final decisions have been made yet.
My condolences, Nick, that you aren't in parliament to support Mr Corbyn personally.
Mr Corbyn would be a government backbencher if Nick had won Broxtowe. He is only leader because Labour was defeated.
It wouldn't surprise me if some Tories privately have mixed feelings about the London mayoral election next year. They'd like to win it obviously but if they do it would be a serious blow for Corbyn on his home turf, and his chances of facing the electorate in 2020 would go down considerably.
Nope. Now that he's been elected and were he to be deposed, the Tories will telling all and sundry that Labour are only a heartbeat away from another hard left takeover
Whereas in truth JC's proposals are to the right of the SDP manifesto in 1981. Tempora mutant et nos mutamur in illis...
Nick- the day of the election victory, and the BEEB are showing footage of Gerry Adams and depicting Jezza as a 20th century hard left socialist. This is not good.
Bloody hell- the BBC pre MoD news- not very pretty for Jezza on his first day. I cannot think of any other occasion when the BEEB have gone after a party leader in quite such a vicious way.
If I was a conspiracy, paranoid theorist I would suspect that the higher management of the BEEB have a political agenda........
Surely not. Just a coincidence that their current affairs department has been a revolving door for Tories and Blairites.
Saw the 1030 news and didn't feel it was especially biased either way, really - usual on the one hand, on the other hand stuff. Seen a lot worse!
Corbyn will balance the books faster and keep it there. Cancel Trident saves many billions. Some QE. QE will be inflationary unless it was done under the Tories.
How much money per year do you think cancelling Trident will save?
Between now and a week on mondays worth of deficit.
A flippant response, Mr. Me, but along the right lines. When HMG's expenditure is in the region of £700bn a year the amount spent on Trident could be lost as a rounding error.
It's of the order of £2 billion a year, which you are right, is chicken feed in total spend. It is a long term commitment though. And if we cancelled, how much of a saving would we end up with? Would we end up just spending it somewhere else on defence instead?
I remember at the end of the cold war there was much talk of a peace dividend. It never happened.
Isn't spending on defence much lower now than it was in 1990?
1980 5.79% gdp 1990 4.09% gdp 2000 2.84% gdp (foreign aid .37%) 2010 2.83% gdp (foreign aid .57%) 2015 2.5% gdp (foreign aid .52%)
It wouldn't surprise me if some Tories privately have mixed feelings about the London mayoral election next year. They'd like to win it obviously but if they do it would be a serious blow for Corbyn on his home turf, and his chances of facing the electorate in 2020 would go down considerably.
Nope. Now that he's been elected and were he to be deposed, the Tories will telling all and sundry that Labour are only a heartbeat away from another hard left takeover
Whereas in truth JC's proposals are to the right of the SDP manifesto in 1981. Tempora mutant et nos mutamur in illis...
This is , of course, the left biased BBC we are talking about.
Agreed - amazingly. I'm surprised how nasty the BBC has been about Corbyn.
I guess it is a combo of their being afraid of the Tories, and many of them being sincerely Blairite centre-lefties who despise Corbynism. e.g. I cannot imagine Danny Cohen, the head of the BBC, or his wife Noreena Hertz, is hugely delighted by Corbyn's ascent.
I certainly donot have the dislike of the BBC many here do, but I recall an article theorising that while they are slanted left, what the BBC is above all is Establishment, so Corbyn pitching as anti that may override any leftness.
Even better than that - a donkey jacket with a luminescent NCB in the back.
As seen at lower division football grounds throughout the 1970s and 1980s.
Now all we need to complete the picture is to bring back Frank Worthington (you must remember him Fox ), Tony Currie, Charlie George etc.
I know of Frank Worthington. Was before my time. But he's a Liverpool legend as his transfer to Liverpool collapsed because he failed a medical, because he had an STD
IIRC his autobiography was called 'On Hump Or Two'.
He also was the English top division top scorer one year.
Five fervent red fighters whose loyalty to Jeremy Corbyn will be rewarded Corbyn's team have spent most of their careers in the political wilderness Set to appoint left-wing cronies to senior positions in the party as leader Diane Abbott, Ken Livingstone, John McDonnell tipped for cabinet spots Corbyn urged to also reserve posts for those willing to stay on such as defeated Andy Burnham and Hillary Benn Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3232253/The-cronies-collaborators-five-fervent-red-fighters-loyalty-rewarded.html#ixzz3lZIfhHXp
Corbyn would have to trust and have the trust of his shadow chancellor (not that this obvious point has stopped Labour in the past - to the nation's detriment). Set against this we always have to remember that Corbyn does not really give a stuff for Britain or its economy and only wants to peddle his own prejudiced way of doing things.
Nick- the day of the election victory, and the BEEB are showing footage of Gerry Adams and depicting Jezza as a 20th century hard left socialist. This is not good.
Bloody hell- the BBC pre MoD news- not very pretty for Jezza on his first day. I cannot think of any other occasion when the BEEB have gone after a party leader in quite such a vicious way.
If I was a conspiracy, paranoid theorist I would suspect that the higher management of the BEEB have a political agenda........
Surely not. Just a coincidence that their current affairs department has been a revolving door for Tories and Blairites.
Saw the 1030 news and didn't feel it was especially biased either way, really - usual on the one hand, on the other hand stuff. Seen a lot worse!
It wouldn't surprise me if some Tories privately have mixed feelings about the London mayoral election next year. They'd like to win it obviously but if they do it would be a serious blow for Corbyn on his home turf, and his chances of facing the electorate in 2020 would go down considerably.
Nope. Now that he's been elected and were he to be deposed, the Tories will telling all and sundry that Labour are only a heartbeat away from another hard left takeover
Whereas in truth JC's proposals are to the right of the SDP manifesto in 1981. Tempora mutant et nos mutamur in illis...
Yes.
This argument's nonsense. It's all about relativity. You don't see the left arguing that the Tories are a bunch of moderates because they are way to the left of where they were in the 30s.
Ah sorry, you beat me to it. Wouldn't say "never happened" - more like, "it didn't last". That's for the USA, though, whereas for the UK it got down and stayed down.
(Looking in inflation-adjusted dollars terms only is a bit misleading: it'd be helpful also to see it in terms of % GDP, which would be a slightly different story.)
In the UK the position is not as you state, Mr. Ears.
The "Peace Dividend " was taken with the "options for Change" defence cuts of 1992. Since then defence spending and capability has been cut time and again. So not so much "got Down and stayed down" more "got down and then taken further down and down and down again". We now only make the NATO agreement of 2% of GDP by account tricks and including stuff in the defence spend that never was in there before.
It wouldn't surprise me if some Tories privately have mixed feelings about the London mayoral election next year. They'd like to win it obviously but if they do it would be a serious blow for Corbyn on his home turf, and his chances of facing the electorate in 2020 would go down considerably.
Labour doing well in London in 1996 clearly benefitted the Conservatives in 1987, not only in London but nationwide.
The new Labour councils in Ealing and Waltham Forest putting up the rates by IIRC 65% and 62% respectively a few weeks before the general election was publicity beyong price to CCHQ.
Dont underestimate just how much Eric Pickles has done to slay the tentacles of municipal socialism. I dont support his 2% cap, but the offer of an extra piece of grant to cover half the income lost from putting up council tax in return for a freeze was dynamite.
What it did, it incentivised councils, who were under great financial difficulties, to not put up one of the things that they have direct control of that can raise them more money.
My local area has had a council tax freeze for coming up to five years. My council tax is £2,000 a year, those 2% increases cascade in perpetuity, before Eric took charge of Dept of communities and local government, 5% plus was normal!
Saving billions spent on a weapon of mass destruction that can't be used without another country's say so = being unpatriotic for some reason. Whereas hounding disabled people to death = patriotism.
Extra judicial executions and torture = Friends of the Labour Leader
Indeed. Was any protestant political party the UU or the DUP ever regarded as fronts for the UDA/UFF? Like for instance Sin Fein were fronts for the IRA with interchangeable commands/leadership?
Funny peculiar isn't it where people are suddenly arguing about the legality of our sovereignty over the Falklands and undermining the legitimacy of Northern Ireland?? All the subversives have suddenly come out from under their stones.
Seriously, just for the record.
PUP (Progressive Unionists)* were a front for the UVF UDP (Ulster Democratic), later UPRG (Ulster Political Research Group) were associated with the UDA
*not to be confused with the other PUP, James Kilfedder's Popular Unionists in North Down.
And Peter Robinson led a cross-border raid/invasion.
It wouldn't surprise me if some Tories privately have mixed feelings about the London mayoral election next year. They'd like to win it obviously but if they do it would be a serious blow for Corbyn on his home turf, and his chances of facing the electorate in 2020 would go down considerably.
There's no mixed feelings they will *want* to win it. They will want to make gains in Council elections, they will want to see if they can manage any kind of improvement north of the border.
What would do for Corbyn would not be losing the London Mayor (as Labour will almost certainly win the London Assembly) but coming third in a by-election to UKIP in a former Labour seat. Remember it was coming third in Brent East behind Labour and the LDs which did for IDS in the end
The MPs were able to guillottine IDS when he underdelivered and when they were able to replace him. The MPs this time don't expect Corbyn to deliver anything and they know they can't choose who replaces him.
Tory MPs did not vote for IDS either. If they think they are at risk of losing their seats to UKIP they will have no choice but to launch a challenge
Nick- the day of the election victory, and the BEEB are showing footage of Gerry Adams and depicting Jezza as a 20th century hard left socialist. This is not good.
Bloody hell- the BBC pre MoD news- not very pretty for Jezza on his first day. I cannot think of any other occasion when the BEEB have gone after a party leader in quite such a vicious way.
If I was a conspiracy, paranoid theorist I would suspect that the higher management of the BEEB have a political agenda........
Surely not. Just a coincidence that their current affairs department has been a revolving door for Tories and Blairites.
Saw the 1030 news and didn't feel it was especially biased either way, really - usual on the one hand, on the other hand stuff. Seen a lot worse!
When you are stood on a chair and/or at the front of a platform with your clenched fist held high screaming out the Red Flag - well its hard to miss.
Saving billions spent on a weapon of mass destruction that can't be used without another country's say so = being unpatriotic for some reason. Whereas hounding disabled people to death = patriotism.
Once again a fabrication. The control of the Trident weapons are entirely within the British chain of command. How many more times does this need to be pointed out to you?
We need the pollsters to start making a balls up of things again to keep Jezza in place until it's too late to get rid of him...
Let's have some regular Lab leads for starters.
People were seriously saying here that this is impossible nowadays because the polls have improved since the leadership of Michael Foot! To which I can only write, !!!!!!!!!
It's not that polls have "improved". It's that there are all sorts of adjustments applied which serve to dampen down wild swings in public opinion. For a start any enthusiasm among former non-voters is likely to become signficantly discounted.
What happened with the Conservatives in 2007-8, then? And Ukip in 2013-14?
Haha. The confusion and horror here is wonderful to behold.
Confusion? We are worried, in the same way you are worried when you notice a colleague both simultaneously self harming and self pleasuring. We wonder if we should intervene. We know that it isnt healthy, and there's no way it can end without a gooey mess.
No-one seems to want to talk about the LDs these days but they're probably fairly pleased at today's developments. Might get them back into double figures in the polls.
It wouldn't surprise me if some Tories privately have mixed feelings about the London mayoral election next year. They'd like to win it obviously but if they do it would be a serious blow for Corbyn on his home turf, and his chances of facing the electorate in 2020 would go down considerably.
There's no mixed feelings they will *want* to win it. They will want to make gains in Council elections, they will want to see if they can manage any kind of improvement north of the border.
What would do for Corbyn would not be losing the London Mayor (as Labour will almost certainly win the London Assembly) but coming third in a by-election to UKIP in a former Labour seat. Remember it was coming third in Brent East behind Labour and the LDs which did for IDS in the end
The MPs were able to guillottine IDS when he underdelivered and when they were able to replace him. The MPs this time don't expect Corbyn to deliver anything and they know they can't choose who replaces him.
Except they replaced IDS with Howard and still lost
It wouldn't surprise me if some Tories privately have mixed feelings about the London mayoral election next year. They'd like to win it obviously but if they do it would be a serious blow for Corbyn on his home turf, and his chances of facing the electorate in 2020 would go down considerably.
Labour doing well in London in 1986 clearly benefitted the Conservatives in 1987, not only in London but nationwide.
The new Labour councils in Ealing and Waltham Forest putting up the rates by IIRC 65% and 62% respectively a few weeks before the general election was publicity beyong price to CCHQ.
It also helped cause dredful results for Labour in London - see Ealing North and Walthstow in 1987.
Which makes me wonder if London Labour was behaving itself after the 2014 local elections in anticipation of the 2015 general election.
And now they'll go all out Corbynista.
Katy Hoey said on the radio today that Lambeth/Vauxhall Labour have 600 new members. Those guys are going to Corbinistas. And with those numbers they'll soon have councillors controlling budgets and policy. So we may see some Derek Hatton-like action at local level. Conference will be lively too I should think.
Comments
I'm part Irish and there's no need to lecture me about it. A lot of other posters on this board will simply disbelieve you even when what you write is true. Frankly it's not a conversation I wish to engage in with you right now and I'm not sure anybody else is biting either. I am curious whether you are merely engaging in some gentle trolling of (conservatives and) unionists, whether you are pressing a hobby-horse, or if (as your original replies suggested) you believe this is in some way germane to how well the British people are going to take Corbyn and McDonnell's ties to Sinn Finn and past (sometimes quite explicit) support for Physical Force Repblicanism. (As far as I can see, the answers to that last point being "not germane at all", and "like being served a cold bucket of sick".)
http://www.bennevisclothing.com/epages/BT3129.mobile/en_GB/?ObjectPath=/Shops/BT3129/Products/"Donkey Jacket, Leatherette Shoulders."
When you watch Trump, Fiorina or Carson - or Biden on Colbert the other night - they are being honest, saying what they think, telling you how they feel. The honesty and sincerity just shines through. There's no focus group nonsense with them.
Just because they are being honest and sincere doesn't mean you have to support or agree with them however.
"The defence secretary, Michael Fallon, launches a scathing attack on the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, and the SNP's Nicola Sturgeon on Thursday over the future of the Trident nuclear deterrent. Fallon says the United Kingdom's nuclear programme is in danger of being abandoned if Miliband is elected as prime minister, with the help of SNP, in the general election on 7 May"
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2015/apr/09/michael-fallon-ed-miliband-trident-video
Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness, Cristina de Kirchner and Hamas Congratulate Corbyn on Win: http://order-order.com/2015/09/12/corbyns-friends-congratulate-him-on-win/ …
Daniel Finkelstein @Dannythefink 44m44 minutes ago
Corbyn supporters saying is contempt not to join Shad Cab and criticise elected leader. But isn't that what Corbyn did for 32 years?
I'm an atheist. I have friends who are religious, and that's fine, and it almost never comes up as an issue. And you can lull yourself into thinking that their religion is more habit than earnest belief. And then one day something is said which reminds you that they genuinely do believe things which, to me, seem absolutely insane; and it is very jarring.
That is how I now feel about the Labour Party. Previously, I saw them as people with whom I disagreed about the means but broadly agreed about the ends. The Labour Party had its share of sociopaths, idiots, narcissists and the easily offended, but wasn't this true of al parties? If pushed, I could have happily pointed to numerous people in the Labour Party with whom I could agree on many things.
But now 60% of the party have voted to support some batshit-crazy hard left throwback. This isn't due to his charm, his perceived ability as a winner or his intelligence; it's because they genuinely believe this stuff.we must conclude that Jeremy Corbyn's views are actually pretty mainstream within the Labour Party. The Labour Party is clearly a pretty unusual body of people. THIS IS NOT, TO USE tony Blair's phrase, the political wing of the British people.
I wonder, too whether the Labour Party has now sacrificed the automatic claim to the moral high ground that it had assumed amongst the not-particularly-engaged since the 90s. I vaguely recall something about the fictional but not atypical character Bridget Jones seeing Labour as clearly a good thing since they were the be-nice-to-gays party. If they're now to be the do-the-PR-for-terrorists-murderers-and-crazed-Islamists party, it's rather harder to get the general public to see you as the good guys.
Picture of Corbyn then...
Labour's new leader is a threat
TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY
TO OUR ECONOMIC SECURITY
AND YOUR FAMILY'S SECURITY
It worked then and will work again with Corbyn even more given his past
"Tear down this wall" still makes my eyes moisten.
Im watching it again now...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfZgR5KOIXs
Also rumoured that the Shadow Chancellor will be a centrist. My sources know Jeremy better than I do, but I don't think final decisions have been made yet.
As seen at lower division football grounds throughout the 1970s and 1980s.
Now all we need to complete the picture is to bring back Frank Worthington (you must remember him Fox ), Tony Currie, Charlie George etc.
The Brits partitioned MY country too, you know.
[suddenly, Sunil clutches his head, screaming, as his malfunctioning Tebbit Chip finally kicks in for the evening!]
Aarrrrrrrgh!
[before a more servile expression crosses his face]
Must be loyal to England... Must be loyal...
We may see a Heffer walk out in reverse at the Lab Conference too.
The benchmark may well be a performance closer to Labour in the Thirties rather than the eighties. Perhaps the 52 seats of 1931 rather than 1983.
http://www.statista.com/statistics/262568/leading-us-sugarless-gum-brands-based-on-sales/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MDFX-dNtsM
He was a remarkable speaker. Even better than Blair, though no doubt Blair was a better cut-and-thrust debater (at least on matters of substance, rather than on put-downs).
Cameron can do a good line in speeches, when the mood strikes - the Bloody Sunday apology was very good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMZ3CtC8KEY
PUP (Progressive Unionists)* were a front for the UVF
UDP (Ulster Democratic), later UPRG (Ulster Political Research Group) were associated with the UDA
*not to be confused with the other PUP, James Kilfedder's Popular Unionists in North Down.
Five fervent red fighters whose loyalty to Jeremy Corbyn will be rewarded
Corbyn's team have spent most of their careers in the political wilderness
Set to appoint left-wing cronies to senior positions in the party as leader
Diane Abbott, Ken Livingstone, John McDonnell tipped for cabinet spots
Corbyn urged to also reserve posts for those willing to stay on such as defeated Andy Burnham and Hillary Benn
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3232253/The-cronies-collaborators-five-fervent-red-fighters-loyalty-rewarded.html#ixzz3lZIfhHXp
The new Labour councils in Ealing and Waltham Forest putting up the rates by IIRC 65% and 62% respectively a few weeks before the general election was publicity beyong price to CCHQ.
Let's have some regular Lab leads for starters.
And now they'll go all out Corbynista.
http://www.cfr.org/defense-budget/trends-us-military-spending/p28855
''I am delighted to have appointed Rosie Winterton to continue to serve as Chief Whip.''
http://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk/news/doncaster-mp-rosie-winterton-keeps-her-chief-whip-role-1-7458395
NB a lot of end-of-Cold-War budget reductions hit before 1990, in both the USA and UK. My understanding is that the USA then kept the budget pretty constant through the 90s, then it all ramped up again after 9/11. In the UK, reductions to an approximate 2% of GDP level were maintained.
okay!
The MPs this time don't expect Corbyn to deliver anything and they know they can't choose who replaces him.
The idea floated by Mr. Surbiton that dumping the deterrent would release huge sums for "infrastructure" is laughable.
(Looking in inflation-adjusted dollars terms only is a bit misleading: it'd be helpful also to see it in terms of % GDP, which would be a slightly different story.)
A younger left-winger will likely not have the baggage of Corbyn, may not have obtained their left-wing ideas from the same set-text handbooks as Corbyn, may be more open to new thinking as part of the mix and may be a more attractive proposition to the electorate. As such, perhaps the Labour centre might be better spending their time developing new ideas to refresh their repertoire, ready for an ideological battle in the purest sense: a battle to get ideas on the table.
I seriously doubt Corbyn is Labour's messiah, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility that he could be their John the Baptist.
1990 4.09% gdp
2000 2.84% gdp (foreign aid .37%)
2010 2.83% gdp (foreign aid .57%)
2015 2.5% gdp (foreign aid .52%)
He also was the English top division top scorer one year.
This is his most famous goal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0z_arXZ8nM
Flamboyance in football boots.
Set against this we always have to remember that Corbyn does not really give a stuff for Britain or its economy and only wants to peddle his own prejudiced way of doing things.
@MSmithsonPB: Today's Top Tip: Don't nominate someone to be leader of your party unless you want them to win
The "Peace Dividend " was taken with the "options for Change" defence cuts of 1992. Since then defence spending and capability has been cut time and again. So not so much "got Down and stayed down" more "got down and then taken further down and down and down again". We now only make the NATO agreement of 2% of GDP by account tricks and including stuff in the defence spend that never was in there before.
What it did, it incentivised councils, who were under great financial difficulties, to not put up one of the things that they have direct control of that can raise them more money.
My local area has had a council tax freeze for coming up to five years. My council tax is £2,000 a year, those 2% increases cascade in perpetuity, before Eric took charge of Dept of communities and local government, 5% plus was normal!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/amnesty-international-hamas-guilty-of-torture-summary-executions/2015/05/27/4d1ee6b1-ac6a-420f-b7a7-80aa62d24b86_story.html
https://twitter.com/BraidenHT/status/642087829774970880
Last I heard the BBC were bringing back Robert Lindsey as Wolfie Smith.
...oh botheration! Not after all.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-34219557