I reckon Corbyn is planning a two year stint. The PMQ move is to showcase and test new talent.
Clearly you didn't see Jeremy's shining face on TV last night. He thinks he's the chosen one. He has the biggest mandate in labour history. He's not going anywhere. There's a report in the guardian this week, quoting his friends, saying exactly that.
Keep dreaming.
Right now that may be the case. I get the impression that his mood may shift if things get difficult again. Clearly he thinks this his moment, but if reality starts to bite?
Nah! If ever there was a politician that did not care about being isolated or unpopular with his colleagues it is Jezzbollah.
When he goes it has to be a defenestration. Can the centrists arrange this? I think they are up against it in that any new contest automatically makes Corbyn eligible, and the selectorate would have to back the new candidate.
When the Tories change the rules on funding, the stool will be kicked away from Labour and they will be metaphorically swinging in the wind.
A question for PBs:
The HoC will be voting on the Trade Union bill shortly, assuming it passes, does anybody know how soon it will be before the Union Cash flow will be significantly curtailed? These laws often have very long lead in times.
Think the proposal is for 5 year renewals, so the initial period would be shorter.
Politics says Osbo would have it in time for the next Election.
If the divine Roger Federer wins tonight, I am quite sure that the Speaker will be so pleased he will be amenable to all requests, no matter how stupid.
The PMQ stuff is a real Westminster bubble thing, by the way. There are umpteen precedents for LOTOs and PMs skipping it and someone standing in, and nobody outside our sort of nerdy circle cared. It's not "Leader of the Opposition Questions". The idea that it's a cowardly and unpatriotic dereliction of duty to share it out is froth.
It is however, a reflection of a Corbyn approach which is quite novel and we don't know how it will turn out. He doesn't see himself as a leader out in front, but as one of a number of representatives of a movement who happens to be the current leader. It's a self-effacing attitude which is intended to create some space for others and it's totally out of keeping with what we're used to - imagine Gordon doing it, and I say that as someone who likes Gordon. I doubt if he'll be doing it often but the offer is distinctive, and there will be other counter-intuitive moves like this.
Utter tosh Nick. Stand-ins for PMQ's occur when the main protagonists are absent. The Corbyn proposal will see him sit opposite the PM whilst Denis Skinner and fellow travellers gets six pots at Cameron. It's utter lunacy and I doubt Bercow will allow it. Corbyn's approach may be "novel" but so would Jezza bungee jumping from "Strangers Gallery" or the new LotO streaking naked down to the House of Lords at the State Opening of Parliament. Might I suggest, as you no longer have to be whipped .... titter .... that you adopt a slightly more open and critical approach to your politics - that would be "novel".
Chance would be a fine thing. This 'stand in' notion does not hold a drop of water. It is a privilege for the LOTO to ask 6 questions. It is not his privilege to nominate anyone else. If the Speaker allowed it it would be a parliamentary disgrace. The Speakers duty is to look out for genuine backbenchers if the LOTO is not bothered and genuine leaders of viable as opposed to joke parties. As for some strange notion of it 'testing talent' - laughable. What on earth is there a shadow cabinet for and questions to ministers by their shadows. Have the Corbynite apologists no conception of what the term 'shadow' is all about?
Since Corbyn thought it more important to select his shadow cabinet team than appear on Marr this morning have we any idea when we might start to get some announcements? The Telegraph is somewhat optimistically running a live thread on this but they are currently struggling like a Liverpool defender with nothing to say.
Probably should have left that strong an attack to Fallon and others at this stage. Oh well, bound to be missteps, and Corbyn will need to exploit any overreach by his opponents before his image is settled.
Jeepers old JackW- you're in fine lefty attack mode this morning. Has the election of Jezza fired up your loins by bringing some sentience back to places which you considered redundant?
As I said yesterday, there is no chance that Cameron would take leaders questions from anyone other than the LOTO (if of course Jez was there), so he would nominate someone else too. It could get all quite ridiculous quite quickly as the two camps identify an appropriate match.
BTW- I don't blame Corbyn one iota trying to think of some excuse to get out of inflicting PMQ's on himself. He's 66 for god sakes, and he never wanted to be leader. So please be fair to the old boy- you of all people should understand the effects of ageing.
The PMQ stuff is a real Westminster bubble thing, by the way. There are umpteen precedents for LOTOs and PMs skipping it and someone standing in, and nobody outside our sort of nerdy circle cared. It's not "Leader of the Opposition Questions". The idea that it's a cowardly and unpatriotic dereliction of duty to share it out is froth.
It is however, a reflection of a Corbyn approach which is quite novel and we don't know how it will turn out. He doesn't see himself as a leader out in front, but as one of a number of representatives of a movement who happens to be the current leader. It's a self-effacing attitude which is intended to create some space for others and it's totally out of keeping with what we're used to - imagine Gordon doing it, and I say that as someone who likes Gordon. I doubt if he'll be doing it often but the offer is distinctive, and there will be other counter-intuitive moves like this.
Utter tosh Nick.
Utter tosh Nick.
Stand-ins for PMQ's occur when the main protagonists are absent. The Corbyn proposal will see him sit opposite the PM whilst Denis Skinner and fellow travellers gets six pots at Cameron. It's utter lunacy and I doubt Bercow will allow it.
Corbyn's approach may be "novel" but so would Jezza bungee jumping from "Strangers Gallery" or the new LotO streaking naked down to the House of Lords at the State Opening of Parliament.
Might I suggest, as you no longer have to be whipped .... titter .... that you adopt a slightly more open and critical approach to your politics - that would be "novel".
I've always regarded myself as a politically equal opportunity attack vehicle as necessary.
IDS, Howard, Blair, Brown, Miliband, Kennedy, Ming and Farage have all been widely favoured with the odd choice phrase and it would remiss if not churlish of me to deny Jezza the accolades he so richly deserves.
I think the Tories and right wing MSM are playing into Corbyn's hands at the moment, they're presenting him as an anti-establishment figure and this will likely drive forward his momentum - even Cameron is getting on board:
Meanwhile Watson will be quietly behind the scenes keeping the mainstream party together. If the Tories and MSM don't change tactics I think Corbyn could start producing some surprising polling numbers, their best approach would probably be to ignore him.
No doubt you and your ilk would give the same benefit to a Tory. To old didn't want the job blah blah
Actually no you wouldn't. You would have torn into them with venom and rightly argued if they did want the job or up to they should not have gone for it but as they did they are now fair game.
You are Just another utter hypocritical leftie.
The guy is frit and shit............ Just get over it and admit it.
As an example the big battle in the Commons tomorrow is supposed to be the Social Security reform bill. Labour's shadow for DWP, Rachel Reeves, has resigned. Does Corbyn not need someone to front up his opposition? Like today?
I'm afraid I have to agree with Malcolm on this one. I expected to like Kendall. She was positioning herself from a bit of the party that I have time for. But she was totally vacuous and incapable of constructing even the most basic argument.
The contrast with the very young Blair clips linked to during the campaign, bambi look and all, was positively painful. No one should have managed to get elected an MP with such unformed and incoherent views, let alone make the shadow cabinet. It simply shows they do not pay attention or lack the ability needed for a senior post. The few remaining Blairites seriously need someone else.
Kendall lost her deposit. She ran a vacuous campaign (worse even than Burnham).
But, with under 5 % of the vote, the weakness of the Blairites is obvious to all. The de-selections will surely now follow. (I won’t be sorry when Tristram is de-selected)l
Someone (older than me) on pb said that all this was reminiscent of McGovern’s 1972 victories in the Democratic primaries and Presidential run. Having reread Fear & Loathing on the Campaign Trail, I think I’d agree. We’ve already reached the stage where prominent Democrats are turning down the offer of a Vice Presidency in his Presidential run.
And I think this provides a template for how this will play out.
McGovern was horribly weakened from within the Democratic Party, and then went down to the worst defeat ever against the Republicans.
Worse than Burnham is truly harsh. I can see the similarity with McGovern. His version of the Democratic party excluded huge tranches of their natural supporters. It does seem likely that Crobyn will do the same.
Kendall was qute useless I agree and someone better was really needed (from a Blairite perspective), but it must have been difficult for her when once she opened her mouth she realised that she was speaking to a brick wall. A brick wall that was spitting lumps of cement back at her at every opportunity. BTW thought the giggling and gurning from the 3 losers after the announcement was quite pathetic. They were as limp in defeat as they were in campaigning. Corbyn's voters hate them and they don't even know it.
Most voters care little about Cameron's youthful "Bullingdon finery". It's an attack line that has run its course, if indeed it ever had a course to follow.
With Corbyn as leader Labour has effectively vacated their role of providing a viable government in waiting. Politically the nation faces a Conservative hegemony for the foreseeable future.
Electing Corbyn was the right of the members of the Labour party but it was also an act of gross self indulgence and they will pay a devastating price for their shallow naivety.
I agree. We have known about Cameron's (and Boris's!) Days in the Bullingdon club for over a decade, yet they go on winning election after election. It seems to be viewed as a fairly harmless youthful indiscretion and nothing more.
I think that Corbyn will be such a disaster that if he is in post in 2020 then Labour will be down to double figures in parliament, and possibly the third party behind the SNP.
However I think he will be deposed after a year or two, but if the successor is cut from the same cloth then oblivion awaits.
Double figures implying fewer than 100 seats seems too low but I can certainly see a Jezza led Labour party in 2020 going sub-Major, perhaps even as low as 140.
One thing that we see nowadays is that when parties come under the cosh, they get a hell of a beating. The Tories in 97 for example, and both SLAB and the LDs in May. There are other examples too. FPTP is pretty devastating when polling drops far enough.
Corbyn is a splitter by nature, and the nature of hard Left and hard Right parties is fratricidal fighting and splitting, because of both personality cults and also the cause of ideological purity drives splitting. I do not expect formal splits on the Left, but the internal fights will have the same effect. We have a new entryism of neo-Militants that are going to make Deggsy Hatton look like Clement Attlee.
I like the analogy of Corbyn as Farage isam just quoted from Hitchens.
So Corbyn will have a lot of sound and fury but will ultimately lose half the Commons seats he has inherited while failing to make a breakthrough winning new seats.
Sounds about right.
...or add three million votes?
Stephen Woolfe was very good on AQ on Friday. Would make a good leader to win over urban areas from the Corbynites, if Farage can be persuaded to give his ego a rest.
Farage giving his "ego a rest" is about as likely as him resigning his unresignation of his resignation.
He's the best stick Labour ever handed to their political opponents to beat them with
Exactly, if the Tories established a stick working group to come up with the optimal stick to beat Labour with, they would recommend something very much like getting Jeremy Corbyn elected Labour leader. But the working group's recommendation would be rejected as "it is implausible that Labour will ever give us such an opportunity".
I like the analogy of Corbyn as Farage isam just quoted from Hitchens.
So Corbyn will have a lot of sound and fury but will ultimately lose half the Commons seats he has inherited while failing to make a breakthrough winning new seats.
Sounds about right.
UKIP actually gained 1 seat in 2015 compared to 2010 and quadrupled their voteshare
Most voters care little about Cameron's youthful "Bullingdon finery". It's an attack line that has run its course, if indeed it ever had a course to follow.
With Corbyn as leader Labour has effectively vacated their role of providing a viable government in waiting. Politically the nation faces a Conservative hegemony for the foreseeable future.
Electing Corbyn was the right of the members of the Labour party but it was also an act of gross self indulgence and they will pay a devastating price for their shallow naivety.
I agree. We have known about Cameron's (and Boris's!) Days in the Bullingdon club for over a decade, yet they go on winning election after election. It seems to be viewed as a fairly harmless youthful indiscretion and nothing more.
I think that Corbyn will be such a disaster that if he is in post in 2020 then Labour will be down to double figures in parliament, and possibly the third party behind the SNP.
However I think he will be deposed after a year or two, but if the successor is cut from the same cloth then oblivion awaits.
Double figures implying fewer than 100 seats seems too low but I can certainly see a Jezza led Labour party in 2020 going sub-Major, perhaps even as low as 140.
One thing that we see nowadays is that when parties come under the cosh, they get a hell of a beating. The Tories in 97 for example, and both SLAB and the LDs in May. There are other examples too. FPTP is pretty devastating when polling drops far enough.
Corbyn is a splitter by nature, and the nature of hard Left and hard Right parties is fratricidal fighting and splitting, because of both personality cults and also the cause of ideological purity drives splitting. I do not expect formal splits on the Left, but the internal fights will have the same effect. We have a new entryism of neo-Militants that are going to make Deggsy Hatton look like Clement Attlee.
I believe the LoTO's "right" to ask three questions is a tradition rather than written in "rules". Corbyn could simply say when asked by the Speaker that he did not wish to ask any question then or even that day.
There is no question of Corbyn being forced to ask his six - it's simply whether he can nominate another Member to ask them in his place. Given Bercow is a fierce defender of the rights of backbenchers, often extending PMQs when the LOTO secion has gone on too long, I just can't see that happening.
Tom Watson: "If Cameron is serious about dealing with ISIS it will require troops on the ground".
Is he saying that anyone who doesn't support troops on the ground is ergo not serious about dealing with ISIS?
Yes
There are troops on the ground. Arab troops. But in general terms Watson is wrong. The way forward is to have special forces supporting local troops and air power. BTW - we really ought to er... scotch this notion that Watson is some sort of political clever dick.
He's the best stick Labour ever handed to their political opponents to beat them with
Exactly, if the Tories established a stick working group to come up with the optimal stick to beat Labour with, they would recommend something very much like getting Jeremy Corbyn elected Labour leader. But the working group's recommendation would be rejected as "it is implausible that Labour will ever give us such an opportunity".
Most voters care little about Cameron's youthful "Bullingdon finery". It's an attack line that has run its course, if indeed it ever had a course to follow.
With Corbyn as leader Labour has effectively vacated their role of providing a viable government in waiting. Politically the nation faces a Conservative hegemony for the foreseeable future.
Electing Corbyn was the right of the members of the Labour party but it was also an act of gross self indulgence and they will pay a devastating price for their shallow naivety.
I agree. We have known about Cameron's (and Boris's!) Days in the Bullingdon club for over a decade, yet they go on winning election after election. It seems to be viewed as a fairly harmless youthful indiscretion and nothing more.
I think that Corbyn will be such a disaster that if he is in post in 2020 then Labour will be down to double figures in parliament, and possibly the third party behind the SNP.
However I think he will be deposed after a year or two, but if the successor is cut from the same cloth then oblivion awaits.
Double figures implying fewer than 100 seats seems too low but I can certainly see a Jezza led Labour party in 2020 going sub-Major, perhaps even as low as 140.
One thing that we see nowadays is that when parties come under the cosh, they get a hell of a beating. The Tories in 97 for example, and both SLAB and the LDs in May. There are other examples too. FPTP is pretty devastating when polling drops far enough.
Corbyn is a splitter by nature, and the nature of hard Left and hard Right parties is fratricidal fighting and splitting, because of both personality cults and also the cause of ideological purity drives splitting. I do not expect formal splits on the Left, but the internal fights will have the same effect. We have a new entryism of neo-Militants that are going to make Deggsy Hatton look like Clement Attlee.
Christ, you're a cretin.
Hatton was reported yesterday as already being back in. Why are you using the word cretin at a female poster?
Frank Field on Murnaghan talking a lot of sense .....as always. Probably the leader that Labour always needed and would have attracted all comers which is what labour needs.
David Davis arguing now take on Corbyn on the issues with a comment saying that if he is pro Hezbollah then that is what is addressed directly not personal attacks.
Natalie Green bitching that the Tories only got 24% of the vote and Peter Hain kissing Corbyns but for a job.
If the EU wants backing for a common EU army, legal immigration system and Eurozone Treasury which we are outside then that cements an inner and outer EU. In exchange we must be protected on the shared EU policies we are already outside. That means free movement, so the inner EU can't give out passports so people can come straight here, and a double majority system for EU-wide matters.
We certainly should not stand aside for a common EU force in exchange for some small benefit changes and minor fiddling around business regulation.
What kind of double-majority could the UK desire?
Any new law or policy that's EU-wide should require a weighted majority of Eurozone nations and a weighted majority of non-Eurozone nations
Indeed, Sweden, Denmark and Hungary and Poland are the main non eurozone nations in the EU, if we are to stay in it will be in a block with them
I reckon Corbyn is planning a two year stint. The PMQ move is to showcase and test new talent.
Clearly you didn't see Jeremy's shining face on TV last night. He thinks he's the chosen one. He has the biggest mandate in labour history. He's not going anywhere. There's a report in the guardian this week, quoting his friends, saying exactly that.
Keep dreaming.
Right now that may be the case. I get the impression that his mood may shift if things get difficult again. Clearly he thinks this his moment, but if reality starts to bite?
Nah! If ever there was a politician that did not care about being isolated or unpopular with his colleagues it is Jezzbollah.
When he goes it has to be a defenestration. Can the centrists arrange this? I think they are up against it in that any new contest automatically makes Corbyn eligible, and the selectorate would have to back the new candidate.
When the Tories change the rules on funding, the stool will be kicked away from Labour and they will be metaphorically swinging in the wind.
A question for PBs:
The HoC will be voting on the Trade Union bill shortly, assuming it passes, does anybody know how soon it will be before the Union Cash flow will be significantly curtailed? These laws often have very long lead in times.
Think the proposal is for 5 year renewals, so the initial period would be shorter.
Politics says Osbo would have it in time for the next Election.
If the EU wants backing for a common EU army, legal immigration system and Eurozone Treasury which we are outside then that cements an inner and outer EU. In exchange we must be protected on the shared EU policies we are already outside. That means free movement, so the inner EU can't give out passports so people can come straight here, and a double majority system for EU-wide matters.
We certainly should not stand aside for a common EU force in exchange for some small benefit changes and minor fiddling around business regulation.
What kind of double-majority could the UK desire?
Any new law or policy that's EU-wide should require a weighted majority of Eurozone nations and a weighted majority of non-Eurozone nations
OK. Let me think of some reasons why that may not be a goer. First, the non-euro countries aren't a group. Explicitly, they don't want to be a group. So they shouldn't get a group veto. Second, the UK has over one-third of the non-euro population and thus would enjoy a near-veto - or a veto simpliciter if one used the current weighted majority rules requiring 65 per cent of the population. A British veto on EU-wide policies is not a goer.
Camerons tweet is spot on....go read Corbyns wish list
It might be. But Cameron shouldn't be the person saying it. Leave it to others to create the background then say it. Currently its just too early...
It's word for word the same message as given by two cabinet ministers yesterday and CCHQ emails over the weekend. It's a variant on the 'hard working families' and 'sustained economic recovery' used over the last 5 years - a strategy that the Tories obviously think works.
His message that the level of inequality is unsustainable as is the subjugation of weak nations by powerful ones is unargueable.
This is how he managed to cut through a very unradical Labour electorate to win decisively and his message will resonate. If I was a TORY (which thank the Lord I'm not sir....) I'd be seriously worried. The sight of the Prime Minister and his Tory chums posing in their Bullindon finery is now so inappropriate it's almost shocking
"Whether or not Corbyn is a useless politician isn't important."
Well, I suppose that's a view. A ridiculous and particularly stupid one, but a view.
And you get extra stupidity points for your mention of 'Bullingdon'. That attack didn't work in 2010, and it didn't work in 2015. It won't work in 2020 either.
I must say I find the idea that.now Cameron in his bullingdon gear can be juxtaposed with Corbyn doing stereotypical lefty things in the 80s it will be a potent attack again a little optimistic. If that strand of attack were ever going to work it would hav by now, or it did but not enough. Everyone knows Cameron is posh and they've returned a verdict that it's not a big enough deal to care about.
It might find more traction on Osborne, given his rest face seems to contain an inbuilt sneer, however unfair that impression may be.
Osborne has always given the very strong impression that he only cares about money and by extension rich people, an impression not helped by the pasty tax/45p tax debacle of 2012 (at a time when he thought Labour were certain to lose the next election, hence my comments last night about Tory complacency and the problems it will cause). Cameron, on the other hand, has at least occasionally given the impression that he cares about people even if clumsily expressed ('hug a hoodie'). Whether these impressions are fair or not, they are the impressions people have.
It's one reason why Cameron is quite an effective leader, and class attacks on him do not resonate as well as Labour expect. It's also why Osborne would likely not be an effective leader and such attacks might resonate.
Hug a hoodie first appeared in a Labour press release ...
Apparently a very effective one given the staying power of that meme.
Absolutely, but it says nothing about It Cameron's grammar, which was the point of the original comment.
I think (Malc will correct) that Project Fear was similarly an SNP Or Yes campaign label.
KLE4 it was a label by the Better Together campaign , one of the high heid yins on big six figure salaries , shortbread or shorthouse , something like that.
If the EU wants backing for a common EU army, legal immigration system and Eurozone Treasury which we are outside then that cements an inner and outer EU. In exchange we must be protected on the shared EU policies we are already outside. That means free movement, so the inner EU can't give out passports so people can come straight here, and a double majority system for EU-wide matters.
We certainly should not stand aside for a common EU force in exchange for some small benefit changes and minor fiddling around business regulation.
What kind of double-majority could the UK desire?
Any new law or policy that's EU-wide should require a weighted majority of Eurozone nations and a weighted majority of non-Eurozone nations
Indeed, Sweden, Denmark and Hungary and Poland are the main non eurozone nations in the EU, if we are to stay in it will be in a block with them
I suspect Hungary and Poland will end up joining the Eurozone, while I suspect Denmark and Sweden will not. (Although it worth remembering that Denmark has a currency peg to the Euro which is incredibly tight; for the last decade or more its been between 0.1335 and 0.1345 - that's less than 1%,)
Nevertheless, the point is that the Nordics in particular are members of the "no more closer union" club.
EEK Sorry.. I was not aware you were running the tactics div of the Conservative Party.. in my opinion Cameron should get stuck in right away..This Corbyn lad is not used to being got at..
The PMQ stuff is a real Westminster bubble thing, by the way. There are umpteen precedents for LOTOs and PMs skipping it and someone standing in, and nobody outside our sort of nerdy circle cared. It's not "Leader of the Opposition Questions". The idea that it's a cowardly and unpatriotic dereliction of duty to share it out is froth.
It is however, a reflection of a Corbyn approach which is quite novel and we don't know how it will turn out. He doesn't see himself as a leader out in front, but as one of a number of representatives of a movement who happens to be the current leader. It's a self-effacing attitude which is intended to create some space for others and it's totally out of keeping with what we're used to - imagine Gordon doing it, and I say that as someone who likes Gordon. I doubt if he'll be doing it often but the offer is distinctive, and there will be other counter-intuitive moves like this.
Utter tosh Nick. Stand-ins for PMQ's occur when the main protagonists are absent. The Corbyn proposal will see him sit opposite the PM whilst Denis Skinner and fellow travellers gets six pots at Cameron. It's utter lunacy and I doubt Bercow will allow it. Corbyn's approach may be "novel" but so would Jezza bungee jumping from "Strangers Gallery" or the new LotO streaking naked down to the House of Lords at the State Opening of Parliament. Might I suggest, as you no longer have to be whipped .... titter .... that you adopt a slightly more open and critical approach to your politics - that would be "novel".
Chance would be a fine thing. This 'stand in' notion does not hold a drop of water. It is a privilege for the LOTO to ask 6 questions. It is not his privilege to nominate anyone else. If the Speaker allowed it it would be a parliamentary disgrace. The Speakers duty is to look out for genuine backbenchers if the LOTO is not bothered and genuine leaders of viable as opposed to joke parties. As for some strange notion of it 'testing talent' - laughable. What on earth is there a shadow cabinet for and questions to ministers by their shadows. Have the Corbynite apologists no conception of what the term 'shadow' is all about?
It would seem Corbyn's only chance is to be as radical as possible, to exploit the anti-politics mood. Hung for a sheep instead of a lamb. Shit or bust, etc...
I only heard Fallon saying it first, but think you're right - it's painting Jezzbollah as dangerous, something voters just don't find appealing. And it's hard to prove that you aren't with all that baggage/photos of you doing it.
I made this same point weeks ago - his ideas and friends are dangerous.
Camerons tweet is spot on....go read Corbyns wish list
It might be. But Cameron shouldn't be the person saying it. Leave it to others to create the background then say it. Currently its just too early...
It's word for word the same message as given by two cabinet ministers yesterday and CCHQ emails over the weekend. It's a variant on the 'hard working families' and 'sustained economic recovery' used over the last 5 years - a strategy that the Tories obviously think works.
Camerons tweet is the standard party line as taken by Fallon. Simple and to the point. It bears repetition. There is nothing wrong with it at all. I fail to see how a half baked policy of printing money is anything but a grave threat to every family's security.
Polish girl I know is back in Katowice for a week.. we have never spoken about politics funnily enough...
Whats App last night:
"Pols are protesting against refugees, we dont want them here. But we are everywhere!We have problems with other religions. Half of them are racists"
Poland has a long-standing Muslim minority that's been there for centuries (bit like Russian Tatars) and is well-integrated. Poland is more religiously diverse than e.g. Slovakia nearby. I understand there have been tensions in the Polish Muslim community between the born-and-breds and the newly arrived (this being pre refugee crisis: Poland has taken migrants from Asia e.g. who studied at Polish universities).
No doubt you and your ilk would give the same benefit to a Tory. To old didn't want the job blah blah
Actually no you wouldn't. You would have torn into them with venom and rightly argued if they did want the job or up to they should not have gone for it but as they did they are now fair game.
You are Just another utter hypocritical leftie.
The guy is frit and shit............ Just get over it and admit it.
Watch that blood pressure, being bitter and twisted is not good for you, even if it is the Tory way
His message that the level of inequality is unsustainable as is the subjugation of weak nations by powerful ones is unargueable.
This is how he managed to cut through a very unradical Labour electorate to win decisively and his message will resonate. If I was a TORY (which thank the Lord I'm not sir....) I'd be seriously worried. The sight of the Prime Minister and his Tory chums posing in their Bullindon finery is now so inappropriate it's almost shocking
"Whether or not Corbyn is a useless politician isn't important."
Well, I suppose that's a view. A ridiculous and particularly stupid one, but a view.
And you get extra stupidity points for your mention of 'Bullingdon'. That attack didn't work in 2010, and it didn't work in 2015. It won't work in 2020 either.
I must say I find the idea that.now Cameron in his bullingdon gear can be juxtaposed with Corbyn doing stereotypical lefty things in the 80s it will be a potent attack again a little optimistic. If that strand of attack were ever going to work it would hav by now, or it did but not enough. Everyone knows Cameron is posh and they've returned a verdict that it's not a big enough deal to care about.
It might find more traction on Osborne, given his rest face seems to contain an inbuilt sneer, however unfair that impression may be.
Hug a hoodie first appeared in a Labour press release ...
Apparently a very effective one given the staying power of that meme.
Absolutely, but it says nothing about It Cameron's grammar, which was the point of the original comment.
I think (Malc will correct) that Project Fear was similarly an SNP Or Yes campaign label.
KLE4 it was a label by the Better Together campaign , one of the high heid yins on big six figure salaries , shortbread or shorthouse , something like that.
KLE4 should have added , they were talking about themselves , ie NO
Camerons tweet is the standard party line as taken by Fallon. Simple and to the point. It bears repetition. There is nothing wrong with it at all. I fail to see how a half baked policy of printing money is anything but a grave threat to every family's security.
It makes Cameron and his chums look like plonkers. People will only laugh and wonder how they can be so stupid.
Camerons tweet is the standard party line as taken by Fallon. Simple and to the point. It bears repetition. There is nothing wrong with it at all. I fail to see how a half baked policy of printing money is anything but a grave threat to every family's security.
It makes Cameron and his chums look like plonkers. People will only laugh and wonder how they can be so stupid.
Why would they think it was stupid?
Corbyn says he wants to eradicate global inequality. That means UK citizens moving down the rankings from the top percentile of earners, which can only be achieved by either reducing earnings in the UK or raising them elsewhere (which means cost increases for imports).
Both approaches offer a threat to UK living standards - and it's up to the electorate to decide whether they are happy to pay this price.
Camerons tweet is the standard party line as taken by Fallon. Simple and to the point. It bears repetition. There is nothing wrong with it at all. I fail to see how a half baked policy of printing money is anything but a grave threat to every family's security.
It makes Cameron and his chums look like plonkers. People will only laugh and wonder how they can be so stupid.
I think he is not trying to appeal to the Corbynistas, but plenty on the Labour right would agree.
Most voters care little about Cameron's youthful "Bullingdon finery". It's an attack line that has run its course, if indeed it ever had a course to follow.
With Corbyn as leader Labour has effectively vacated their role of providing a viable government in waiting. Politically the nation faces a Conservative hegemony for the foreseeable future.
Electing Corbyn was the right of the members of the Labour party but it was also an act of gross self indulgence and they will pay a devastating price for their shallow naivety.
I agree. We have known about Cameron's (and Boris's!) Days in the Bullingdon club for over a decade, yet they go on winning election after election. It seems to be viewed as a fairly harmless youthful indiscretion and nothing more.
I think that Corbyn will be such a disaster that if he is in post in 2020 then Labour will be down to double figures in parliament, and possibly the third party behind the SNP.
However I think he will be deposed after a year or two, but if the successor is cut from the same cloth then oblivion awaits.
Double figures implying fewer than 100 seats seems too low but I can certainly see a Jezza led Labour party in 2020 going sub-Major, perhaps even as low as 140.
One thing that we see nowadays is that when parties come under the cosh, they get a hell of a beating. The Tories in 97 for example, and both SLAB and the LDs in May. There are other examples too. FPTP is pretty devastating when polling drops far enough.
Corbyn is a splitter by nature, and the nature of hard Left and hard Right parties is fratricidal fighting and splitting, because of both personality cults and also the cause of ideological purity drives splitting. I do not expect formal splits on the Left, but the internal fights will have the same effect. We have a new entryism of neo-Militants that are going to make Deggsy Hatton look like Clement Attlee.
If the EU wants backing for a common EU army, legal immigration system and Eurozone Treasury which we are outside then that cements an inner and outer EU. In exchange we must be protected on the shared EU policies we are already outside. That means free movement, so the inner EU can't give out passports so people can come straight here, and a double majority system for EU-wide matters.
We certainly should not stand aside for a common EU force in exchange for some small benefit changes and minor fiddling around business regulation.
What kind of double-majority could the UK desire?
Any new law or policy that's EU-wide should require a weighted majority of Eurozone nations and a weighted majority of non-Eurozone nations
OK. Let me think of some reasons why that may not be a goer. First, the non-euro countries aren't a group. Explicitly, they don't want to be a group. So they shouldn't get a group veto. Second, the UK has over one-third of the non-euro population and thus would enjoy a near-veto - or a veto simpliciter if one used the current weighted majority rules requiring 65 per cent of the population. A British veto on EU-wide policies is not a goer.
It's better than the Eurozone having not just a veto but a bloc position to vote through whatever they want. They would still have the power to put through EZ only legislation, and non-Euro members could unilaterally join up.
If you can think of a better way of protecting us from Eurozone unilateral action in a binding manner then I am all ears. But we can't be a pure protectorate of a unified Eurozone. If that's all thats on offer we should leave.
Camerons tweet is the standard party line as taken by Fallon. Simple and to the point. It bears repetition. There is nothing wrong with it at all. I fail to see how a half baked policy of printing money is anything but a grave threat to every family's security.
It makes Cameron and his chums look like plonkers. People will only laugh and wonder how they can be so stupid.
I think he is not trying to appeal to the Corbynistas, but plenty on the Labour right would agree.
Where were they yesterday
PS: still pathetic and juvenile to any intelligent thinking person.
Imagine the scenes in most MSM news rooms and CCHQ ..All those hawks waiting for the names to come in..within minutes their every word ,every speech.. voting record.. Majority , and peccadilloes will be broadcast to the nation for its delectation..loving it...and of course as this is not a reshuffle but a revolution there will be the inevitable bloodletting,... all those offices being handed over, not with sweet words of encouragement...files shredded..Civil servants briefed... much weeping and wailing and that will just be Burnham... First day at school for the new kids on the block tomorrow..gonna be a lorra fun..
Most voters care little about Cameron's youthful "Bullingdon finery". It's an attack line that has run its course, if indeed it ever had a course to follow.
With Corbyn as leader Labour has effectively vacated their role of providing a viable government in waiting. Politically the nation faces a Conservative hegemony for the foreseeable future.
Electing Corbyn was the right of the members of the Labour party but it was also an act of gross self indulgence and they will pay a devastating price for their shallow naivety.
I agree. We have known about Cameron's (and Boris's!) Days in the Bullingdon club for over a decade, yet they go on winning election after election. It seems to be viewed as a fairly harmless youthful indiscretion and nothing more.
I think that Corbyn will be such a disaster that if he is in post in 2020 then Labour will be down to double figures in parliament, and possibly the third party behind the SNP.
However I think he will be deposed after a year or two, but if the successor is cut from the same cloth then oblivion awaits.
Double figures implying fewer than 100 seats seems too low but I can certainly see a Jezza led Labour party in 2020 going sub-Major, perhaps even as low as 140.
One thing that we see nowadays is that when parties come under the cosh, they get a hell of a beating. The Tories in 97 for example, and both SLAB and the LDs in May. There are other examples too. FPTP is pretty devastating when polling drops far enough.
Corbyn is a splitter by nature, and the nature of hard Left and hard Right parties is fratricidal fighting and splitting, because of both personality cults and also the cause of ideological purity drives splitting. I do not expect formal splits on the Left, but the internal fights will have the same effect. We have a new entryism of neo-Militants that are going to make Deggsy Hatton look like Clement Attlee.
Of those 16,000 conversations, how many started "when are you going to do something about immigration?" "You're leader is an unelectable idiot" or "Where is your economic policy?".....?
And why will the next 16,000 be any different?
Why do you want to give the Falklands to Argentina?
Why does your leader share platforms with such questionable people?
Why does it feel like your party hates people like me, those who grew up on council estates but through hard work have done well for themselves?
It's been fascinating to see how many Stayers are moving or have moved firmly into the Leave camp over the last month.
We may be more plugged into the day-to-day events than Joe Public, but if we're starting to move - does that herald a shift shortly in the general electorate?
David Kendrick said this (on one of the previous threads0:-
"Last night, on Channel 4 news, Cameron was being mocked for his lack of support for the 'refugees' (not migrants). Nothing new there.
It was given a bizarre twist, when one of the guests was a Jewish woman, nearing 90, who came to this country on kindertransport in 1939. The not-so-subtle point was how differently refugees were treated then. She tried to emote with the best of them, but her 'virtue signalling' was really pretty ordinary.
The relative scale of the rescues, of course, never had a mention."
A version of this argument is always being run - that somehow the largely Muslim refugees from their own civil war are this century's equivalent of the Jews of the 1930's. And what this argument conveniently ignores, of course, is that (1) a large part of the refugees/migrants share the views of the persecutors of the 1930's about the Jews; (2) the Baathist regime - often described as secular - drew some of its inspiration from the Nazi regime; and (3) as do many of the Islamist currents now swirling around today e.g. the Muslim Brotherhood. We risk reimporting a more virulent form of anti-Semitism by permitting unlimited migration from areas where anti-Semitism is rife.
One of the more repellent aspects of Islamism is the way in which it seeks to co-opt the so-called lessons of the 1930's and 1940's to excuse and/or camouflage its own fascistic behaviour to the very same persecuted groups as in the 1930's and 1940's.
I am a bit surprised at the Tory tactics. If they think Corbyn is a massive liability, shouldn't they let him stew in his own juice ? Why this guns blazing attack ?
For pity's sake, it is not a question and answer session. It is an opportunity to highlight an area where you think the government is making mistakes and to put across your point of view. Looked at sensibly, the more evasive the answers the better, it simply makes your point for you.
The old cliché of not asking questions you don't already know the answer to applies in spades: if the PM can come up with something unexpected it throws you off track. You want him to evade so you can tell him what the answer is in your next question and emphasise the point for the purpose of your soundbite. If you can make it vaguely witty, and thus improve the chance of the media using it, so much the better.
This is basic politics and if Corbyn does not play the game he will simply not contribute to the debate. That might be a good thing for Labour of course.
Cameron would be wiser to answer questions directly and honestly though. It would horribly confuse Corbyn and deprive him of a key line of attack, not to mention freeing up room to cover several subjects. William Hague admitted that the one time Tony Blair gave him a straight answer to his first question (on the Euro) it wrecked his next question and he had his weakest performance at PMQs.
Yes, and Hague was clever enough to think on his feet, Corbyn isn't.
I must say I do find it amusing - in a grim way - that Nick Palmer, having spent any number of threads, telling us - in the teeth of all the evidence - that Corbyn's "friends", "associations" whatever just showed his openness to speaking to all sorts of people, to try and find common ground, to lay the ground work for peace etc, that it showed his long decades of standing by his principles, did not mean that he supported them blah blah, is now saying that we should ignore everything he's said and done because, well, that was all in the past, and we should judge him on what he does now.
Well, which is it? Either he's a man of long-standing principle, willing to stand up for unpopular causes, his time has come sort of a guy, or he's someone whom we cannot judge because nothing he's ever said in the past counts now.
If the country could make money from all the rationalisations being trotted out by those who've voted for Corbyn, we could pay off the deficit by Tuesday afternoon.
I am a bit surprised at the Tory tactics. If they think Corbyn is a massive liability, shouldn't they let him stew in his own juice ? Why this guns blazing attack ?
They are right to believe that the initial few days do set up the long term trend. I think however that is too blunt, too soon and from the wrong person...
Of those 16,000 conversations, how many started "when are you going to do something about immigration?" "You're leader is an unelectable idiot" or "Where is your economic policy?".....?
And why will the next 16,000 be any different?
Why do you want to give the Falklands to Argentina?
Why does your leader share platforms with such questionable people?
Why does it feel like your party hates people like me, those who grew up on council estates but through hard work have done well for themselves?
I think most of the conversations went; 'Will you vote for me?' 'No'
It's been fascinating to see how many Stayers are moving or have moved firmly into the Leave camp over the last month.
We may be more plugged into the day-to-day events than Joe Public, but if we're starting to move - does that herald a shift shortly in the general electorate?
I reckon Corbyn is planning a two year stint. The PMQ move is to showcase and test new talent.
Clearly you didn't see Jeremy's shining face on TV last night. He thinks he's the chosen one. He has the biggest mandate in labour history. He's not going anywhere. There's a report in the guardian this week, quoting his friends, saying exactly that.
Keep dreaming.
Right now that may be the case. I get the impression that his mood may shift if things get difficult again. Clearly he thinks this his moment, but if reality starts to bite?
Nah! If ever there was a politician that did not care about being isolated or unpopular with his colleagues it is Jezzbollah.
When he goes it has to be a defenestration. Can the centrists arrange this? I think they are up against it in that any new contest automatically makes Corbyn eligible, and the selectorate would have to back the new candidate.
When the Tories change the rules on funding, the stool will be kicked away from Labour and they will be metaphorically swinging in the wind.
A question for PBs:
The HoC will be voting on the Trade Union bill shortly, assuming it passes, does anybody know how soon it will be before the Union Cash flow will be significantly curtailed? These laws often have very long lead in times.
Think the proposal is for 5 year renewals, so the initial period would be shorter.
Politics says Osbo would have it in time for the next Election.
Matt,
Thanks for the reply. With a 5 year renewal period, if that meant that the Union bosses could keep, collecting and passing on money form existing members for the next 5 years, i.e. after the next election, then that would be very different form initial consent needing to be gained form each exiting members in say the next year. In terms of the futcher of the labour Party this is probable as if not more important than the election of JC.
It's been fascinating to see how many Stayers are moving or have moved firmly into the Leave camp over the last month.
We may be more plugged into the day-to-day events than Joe Public, but if we're starting to move - does that herald a shift shortly in the general electorate?
After reading the Telegraph today it really does seem time to leave the EU.
As if the economic madness wasn't enough they add layer upon layer of stupidity.
Agreed. I will be voting "out" even though I'm not against integration per se... but the EU as it is (and how it is looking like developing/continuing) is not in my interests nor the interests of Great Britain.
That was the one we were told was nailed on if I recall correctly? '
Yes, hard to forget the weekly canvass returns showing it was a mere formality, red liberals, Anaa Soubry, 11% Tory swing required, not to mentioned the fantastic Labour ground war that we were constantly reminded of by IOS & Surbiton.
Most voters care little about Cameron's youthful "Bullingdon finery". It's an attack line that has run its course, if indeed it ever had a course to follow.
With Corbyn as leader Labour has effectively vacated their role of providing a viable government in waiting. Politically the nation faces a Conservative hegemony for the foreseeable future.
Electing Corbyn was the right of the members of the Labour party but it was also an act of gross self indulgence and they will pay a devastating price for their shallow naivety.
I agree. We have known about Cameron's (and Boris's!) Days in the Bullingdon club for over a decade, yet they go on winning election after election. It seems to be viewed as a fairly harmless youthful indiscretion and nothing more.
I think that Corbyn will be such a disaster that if he is in post in 2020 then Labour will be down to double figures in parliament, and possibly the third party behind the SNP.
However I think he will be deposed after a year or two, but if the successor is cut from the same cloth then oblivion awaits.
Double figures implying fewer than 100 seats seems too low but I can certainly see a Jezza led Labour party in 2020 going sub-Major, perhaps even as low as 140.
One thing that we see nowadays is that when parties come under the cosh, they get a hell of a beating. The Tories in 97 for example, and both SLAB and the LDs in May. There are other examples too. FPTP is pretty devastating when polling drops far enough.
Corbyn is a splitter by nature, and the nature of hard Left and hard Right parties is fratricidal fighting and splitting, because of both personality cults and also the cause of ideological purity drives splitting. I do not expect formal splits on the Left, but the internal fights will have the same effect. We have a new entryism of neo-Militants that are going to make Deggsy Hatton look like Clement Attlee.
Christ, you're a cretin.
Hatton was reported yesterday as already being back in. Why are you using the word cretin at a female poster?
Can you prepare an all woman shortlist for us rough types so we'll know who is to be spared the daily chaff that everyone else gives and receives? Thanks.
Well, which is it? Either he's a man of long-standing principle, willing to stand up for unpopular causes, his time has come sort of a guy, or he's someone whom we cannot judge because nothing he's ever said in the past counts now.
I think that's a fair point. Either his past is a selling point, or it isn't, we cannot have both ways and try to claim the good parts and not the bad parts.
Personally, I think it would be a disservice to Corbyn to claim his past statements do not matter and he should only be judged on what he says and does now. A major part of his stated appeal was his consistency in sticking to his views and principles over 30 years of a complex, changing world. Now, I don't agree with some of his principles, but how can I judge whether his stated principles now are sincere if I don't judge them by whether he has held them consistently? Again, personally I find his inflexibility more a problem than a selling point, but if it is presented as a selling point, and it has been, then his history is not only more relevant than many other politicians who don't make a virtue of never changing position, it is essential to judging the man.
I am a bit surprised at the Tory tactics. If they think Corbyn is a massive liability, shouldn't they let him stew in his own juice ? Why this guns blazing attack ?
Wasn't it IDS who said you have 100 days to establish yourself as leader? The Tories are seeking to define Corbyn before he does it for himself. The finer points of some meeting with the IRA or some squalid anti-Semite invited to tea don't matter to the public. They want the public to know or dimly remember one thing and one thing only about Corbyn: that he/Labour are a threat to people's security. So that everything he says or does will be viewed through that prism.
The Tories message is that Labour cannot be trusted with your security. It's a deceptively simple and adaptable message. If there's an IS attack and he equivocates or it turns out that one of his friends approve of it it will resonate. If he proposes some economic policy, it risks not being judged on its merits but as part of an attack on people's hard work and savings etc. The Tories want the public to make their mind up about Corbyn before he's even had a chance and long before any election campaign.
Incidentally, I don't think that Labour will be tainted by Corbyn so much as demonstrate how weak the liberal progressive Labour brand really is. Rather Corbyn is a symptom of how Labour has tainted itself by its prolonged failure to stand up for the values it claims to believe in. It is Labour's weakness which has allowed that part of the Left which is eager to suck up to radical Islam and other illiberal groups to become so strong. Labour has had no antibodies with which to fight the illiberals. Hence Corbyn's victory.
A truly strong, truly liberal, truly progressive, truly tolerant, truly anti-racist, truly anti-fascist, truly anti-totalitarian/anti-authoritarian Labour party would have batted Corbyn and his ilk away without fuss. But we have not had such a party on the left now for some time. Just a shell consisting of empty careerists ripe for takeover.
Completely OT. For a number of years I have been involved at a distance with the excavations of the early Neolithic sites of Northern Syria. These are some of the most ancient villages known to man and I have a collection of the original photographs and notebooks from the early archaeologists who worked in the area and have been helping to build a database of information on the sites with both Syrian and International archaeologists. The whole area is now controlled by the Da'esh and a few days ago one of my acquaintances from the project posted a link to the following article about what is happening there.
The article is part of a site giving accounts of what is happening inside Syria by those who are actually experiencing it. Not easy reading but worth a look.
I am a bit surprised at the Tory tactics. If they think Corbyn is a massive liability, shouldn't they let him stew in his own juice ? Why this guns blazing attack ?
They are right to believe that the initial few days do set up the long term trend. I think however that is too blunt, too soon and from the wrong person...
It was the immediate line from Fallon on the news last night - so Cameron was not the instigator or the public face of the line. It was Fallon who threw the dead cat onto the table in the middle of the election if you recall. It seems pretty accurate to me and as you say its correct to set the immediate long term trend. Its basically the same thought every non-labour drone has said one here for a start. The very fist line in the tory election campaign was the Miliband in Salmond's pocket poster and it stuck. So the tory antennae may be more finely tuned than people credit.
I am a bit surprised at the Tory tactics. If they think Corbyn is a massive liability, shouldn't they let him stew in his own juice ? Why this guns blazing attack ?
They are right to believe that the initial few days do set up the long term trend. I think however that is too blunt, too soon and from the wrong person...
It was the immediate line from Fallon on the news last night - so Cameron was not the instigator or the public face of the line. It was Fallon who threw the dead cat onto the table in the middle of the election if you recall. It seems pretty accurate to me and as you say its correct to set the immediate long term trend. Its basically the same thought every non-labour drone has said one here for a start. The very fist line in the tory election campaign was the Miliband in Salmond's pocket poster and it stuck. So the tory antennae may be more finely tuned than people credit.
I expected them to wait to see how the Fallon line played before bringing in Cameron to press it as well (in the same direct manner that is).
"I must say I do find it amusing - in a grim way - that Nick Palmer, having spent any number of threads, telling us - in the teeth of all the evidence - that Corbyn's "friends", "associations" whatever just showed his openness to speaking to all sorts of people, to try and find common ground, to lay the ground work for peace etc,"
By the same token should we consider the Prime Minister an irredeemable dilettante from his Bullingdon days? A time incidentally when Corbyn was demonstrating against the evils of apartheid.
"I must say I do find it amusing - in a grim way - that Nick Palmer, having spent any number of threads, telling us - in the teeth of all the evidence - that Corbyn's "friends", "associations" whatever just showed his openness to speaking to all sorts of people, to try and find common ground, to lay the ground work for peace etc,"
By the same token should we consider the Prime Minister an irredeemable dilettante from his Bullingdon days? A time incidentally when Corbyn was demonstrating against the evils of apartheid.
Cameron is not selling himself as not having changed his mind about anything important in 30 years. Corbyn is. His past, good and bad, is therefore more relevant to who he is now than Cameron, who would not claim to be the same person he was while getting pissed in a restaurant in his 20s.
Incidentally, Cameron's a lot younger than Corbyn, one wouldn't expect them to be doing similar things in the 80s, surely? Shouldn't the comparison be between Cameron's Bullingdom days and Corbyn's time in the late 60s and early 70s? I'm sure he was doing similar things as in the 80s.
Has the Labour Party changed for the foreseeable future? Will the next leader come from the Corbyn wing of the party or be back to New Labour.
The book on the next leader must be a very open one.
Highly likely that next Leader comes from same wing. There are some people more able than Corbyn from that wing and they now will have an opportunity to become known.
The horrific inequalities currently being waved in everyone's face with the plight of the migrants is unsustainable. Whether or not Corbyn is a useless politician isn't important. His overwhelming mandate as leader of the opposition means he'll be heard.
His message that the level of inequality is unsustainable as is the subjugation of weak nations by powerful ones is unargueable.
This is how he managed to cut through a very unradical Labour electorate to win decisively and his message will resonate. If I was a TORY (which thank the Lord I'm not sir....) I'd be seriously worried. The sight of the Prime Minister and his Tory chums posing in their Bullindon finery is now so inappropriate it's almost shocking
And this is where you lefties go wrong.
He won't be heard , he will be openly laughed at.
Look, the general public base their view of politicians on perceptions. The public have neither the interest or knowledge to examine any policy annoucement on its merits.
Corbyn believes in things that the vast majority find either abhorrent or silly.
Think about Anthony Wedgwood Benn who became something of a national treasure only after he was no longer anywhere near the leavers of power.
Couple this with the fact that govts have run into the limit of how much they can borrow and tax and you get reality forcing proper austerity, Corbyn therefore has nowhere to go.
I think we are witnessing nothing less than the destruction of socialism.
I am a bit surprised at the Tory tactics. If they think Corbyn is a massive liability, shouldn't they let him stew in his own juice ? Why this guns blazing attack ?
A truly strong, truly liberal, truly progressive, truly tolerant, truly anti-racist, truly anti-fascist, truly anti-totalitarian/anti-authoritarian Labour party would have batted Corbyn and his ilk away without fuss. But we have not had such a party on the left now for some time. Just a shell consisting of empty careerists ripe for takeover.
"I must say I do find it amusing - in a grim way - that Nick Palmer, having spent any number of threads, telling us - in the teeth of all the evidence - that Corbyn's "friends", "associations" whatever just showed his openness to speaking to all sorts of people, to try and find common ground, to lay the ground work for peace etc,"
By the same token should we consider the Prime Minister an irredeemable dilettante from his Bullingdon days? A time incidentally when Corbyn was demonstrating against the evils of apartheid.
I know whose past most would find more laudable.
(snip)
Again, that attack line did not work in 2010 or 2015. It won't work in 2020.
Please feel free to continue, though. The more a nasty sexist such as yourself bangs on about other people being nasty, the more you'll damage the brand of whatever side you're supporting.
Has the Labour Party changed for the foreseeable future? Will the next leader come from the Corbyn wing of the party or be back to New Labour.
The book on the next leader must be a very open one.
Highly likely that next Leader comes from same wing. There are some people more able than Corbyn from that wing and they now will have an opportunity to become known.
It won’t be a Blairite. With under 5 per cent of the membership, Blairites are becoming extinct.
They are the red squirrels of the Labour Party now.
On the subject of Blairism, I think Corbyn promised to apologise on behalf of the Labour Party for Iraq. I think that will be a popular move.
Has the Labour Party changed for the foreseeable future? Will the next leader come from the Corbyn wing of the party or be back to New Labour.
The book on the next leader must be a very open one.
Highly likely that next Leader comes from same wing. There are some people more able than Corbyn from that wing and they now will have an opportunity to become known.
As a service to some of us that don't follow the internal politics of the Labour Party that closely, would you care to name some names? Who are these more able people of the left? Who should we be looking out for in trying to judge form?
For pity's sake, it is not a question and answer session. It is an opportunity to highlight an area where you think the government is making mistakes and to put across your point of view. Looked at sensibly, the more evasive the answers the better, it simply makes your point for you.
This is basic politics and if Corbyn does not play the game he will simply not contribute to the debate. That might be a good thing for Labour of course.
Cameron would be wiser to answer questions directly and honestly though. It would horribly confuse Corbyn and deprive him of a key line of attack, not to mention freeing up room to cover several subjects. William Hague admitted that the one time Tony Blair gave him a straight answer to his first question (on the Euro) it wrecked his next question and he had his weakest performance at PMQs.
Answering directly and honestly is one of the most underhand tactics that there is given PMQs real purpose. I agree it is probably underused.
This is basic politics and if Corbyn does not play the game he will simply not contribute to the debate. That might be a good thing for Labour of course.
Cameron would be wiser to answer questions directly and honestly though. It would horribly confuse Corbyn and deprive him of a key line of attack, not to mention freeing up room to cover several subjects. William Hague admitted that the one time Tony Blair gave him a straight answer to his first question (on the Euro) it wrecked his next question and he had his weakest performance at PMQs.
Perhaps he is more out of touch with the public than Cameron ...
This is actually a serious point. Cameron is a posh guy who is out of touch but like all modern politicians aspiring to a leadership position is acutely conscious of the supposed need to not be seen as such, and do makes concerted efforts to either be in touch or look as though he is.
Corbyn is a guy who's spent 30 years in political obscurity ignored by the wider public, which one would think indicates he is out of touch, but like most of the far left is utterly convinced he is in touch even when ignored or rejected by the majority. Now he is not being ignored, how out of touch he is will be tested.
Now, I don't think it matters if a politician is out of touch, but it's interesting thaT both could be considered do.
The difference being of course, that Cameron (and Milliband, to be fair) were inteligent enough to actually make efforts to be in touch.
I see no indication that Corbyn will even acknowledge anything other than his comfort zone.
"I must say I do find it amusing - in a grim way - that Nick Palmer, having spent any number of threads, telling us - in the teeth of all the evidence - that Corbyn's "friends", "associations" whatever just showed his openness to speaking to all sorts of people, to try and find common ground, to lay the ground work for peace etc,"
By the same token should we consider the Prime Minister an irredeemable dilettante from his Bullingdon days? A time incidentally when Corbyn was demonstrating against the evils of apartheid.
Really? Cameron is like many I meet in the City and I have no particular love for them, frankly, to put it mildly.
But I think your moral compass needs a bit of tuning if you think that, say, trashing a restaurant as a student (appalling as that is) is as bad as an MP inviting to Parliament on two occasions terrorist leaders a few days after their organisations have killed people in London and the government.
One of Cameron's best moments as Prime Minister was the unreserved and gracious and much needed apology he made for Bloody Sunday. Corbyn can't even bring himself to condemn the IRA which is and was for many years an outfit which killed, tortured and disappeared people, some of them Catholics, ran criminal protection rackets and threatened anyone who tried to stand up to it and gloried in what it was doing.
This is the group Corbyn sympathises with.. The Wikipedia Chronology of Provisional Irish Republican Army actions 1990..99...Their principle aim was to kill and maim as many British people as they could..has anything actually changed.. HE STILL SUPPORTS THEM..
I am a bit surprised at the Tory tactics. If they think Corbyn is a massive liability, shouldn't they let him stew in his own juice ? Why this guns blazing attack ?
They are right to believe that the initial few days do set up the long term trend. I think however that is too blunt, too soon and from the wrong person...
It was the immediate line from Fallon on the news last night - so Cameron was not the instigator or the public face of the line. It was Fallon who threw the dead cat onto the table in the middle of the election if you recall. It seems pretty accurate to me and as you say its correct to set the immediate long term trend. Its basically the same thought every non-labour drone has said one here for a start. The very fist line in the tory election campaign was the Miliband in Salmond's pocket poster and it stuck. So the tory antennae may be more finely tuned than people credit.
I expected them to wait to see how the Fallon line played before bringing in Cameron to press it as well (in the same direct manner that is).
I must say the Tory attack is odd, as I have spent the morning reading in the paper that the party, via a political cabinet last week, had agreed to not go in too hard at the start.
The horrific inequalities currently being waved in everyone's face with the plight of the migrants is unsustainable. Whether or not Corbyn is a useless politician isn't important. His overwhelming mandate as leader of the opposition means he'll be heard.
His message that the level of inequality is unsustainable as is the subjugation of weak nations by powerful ones is unargueable.
This is how he managed to cut through a very unradical Labour electorate to win decisively and his message will resonate. If I was a TORY (which thank the Lord I'm not sir....) I'd be seriously worried. The sight of the Prime Minister and his Tory chums posing in their Bullindon finery is now so inappropriate it's almost shocking
I think we are witnessing nothing less than the destruction of socialism.
As I have said before on here, that is Corbyn's real role: to finally kill Socialism as a political idea put to the voters in the mainstream. Once it has been consigned to the dustbin of history, the Labour Party can finally get on with proposing solutions for the real world, shorn of the necessity to pay homage to this long-expired political quackery.
The difference being of course, that Cameron (and Milliband, to be fair) were inteligent enough to actually make efforts to be in touch.
I see no indication that Corbyn will even acknowledge anything other than his comfort zone.
There's an interesting point in that. One criticism I had of Miliband was that he tried to oppose too much, even when he (and the Labour party generally) were more or less in agreement. Instead of getting little changes, he opposed.
It'd be interesting to see if Corbyn might say: "Yep, that's what I've been saying for years," if the government proposed something he agreed with, or whether he would just mindlessly oppose.
Not that it's likely this government will do anything Corbyn would agree with. He's like antimatter for Conservatives.
I am a bit surprised at the Tory tactics. If they think Corbyn is a massive liability, shouldn't they let him stew in his own juice ? Why this guns blazing attack ?
They are right to believe that the initial few days do set up the long term trend. I think however that is too blunt, too soon and from the wrong person...
It was the immediate line from Fallon on the news last night - so Cameron was not the instigator or the public face of the line. It was Fallon who threw the dead cat onto the table in the middle of the election if you recall. It seems pretty accurate to me and as you say its correct to set the immediate long term trend. Its basically the same thought every non-labour drone has said one here for a start. The very fist line in the tory election campaign was the Miliband in Salmond's pocket poster and it stuck. So the tory antennae may be more finely tuned than people credit.
I expected them to wait to see how the Fallon line played before bringing in Cameron to press it as well (in the same direct manner that is).
I must say the Tory attack is odd, as I have spent the morning reading in the paper that the party, via a political cabinet last week, had agreed to not go in too hard at the start.
Gosh, do you mean that the opinions that you read in your newspaper have turned out not to be accurate? Well, that is a shock.
When you thought things couldn't get any worse a 3rd PLATO appears!
(Must be all this talk about a 'just society.....')
Didn't Plato have a doctrine of multiple forms?
For a few months , she was AWOL - the best days in PB.
What is it with you Labour supporting types? Why do you have such a problem with women? Oh, and being polite?
I don't get it either. The attacks on female bloggers* are more aggressive from people who claim they are all for feminism but still appear to think women should be seen but not heard.
* though SeanT aint doing righties any favours with MrsB atm.
Comments
Politics says Osbo would have it in time for the next Election.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11861535/jeremy-corbyn-picks-labour-shadow-cabinet-live.html
I've always regarded myself as a politically equal opportunity attack vehicle as necessary.
IDS, Howard, Blair, Brown, Miliband, Kennedy, Ming and Farage have all been widely favoured with the odd choice phrase and it would remiss if not churlish of me to deny Jezza the accolades he so richly deserves.
He's the best stick Labour ever handed to their political opponents to beat them with
Whats App last night:
"Pols are protesting against refugees, we dont want them here. But we are everywhere!We have problems with other religions. Half of them are racists"
No doubt you and your ilk would give the same benefit to a Tory. To old didn't want the job blah blah
Actually no you wouldn't. You would have torn into them with venom and rightly argued if they did want the job or up to they should not have gone for it but as they did they are now fair game.
You are Just another utter hypocritical leftie.
The guy is frit and shit............ Just get over it and admit it.
BTW thought the giggling and gurning from the 3 losers after the announcement was quite pathetic. They were as limp in defeat as they were in campaigning. Corbyn's voters hate them and they don't even know it.
If that's the case, then Galloway, Hatton et al could return en masse.
BTW - we really ought to er... scotch this notion that Watson is some sort of political clever dick.
Frank Field on Murnaghan talking a lot of sense .....as always. Probably the leader that Labour always needed and would have attracted all comers which is what labour needs.
David Davis arguing now take on Corbyn on the issues with a comment saying that if he is pro Hezbollah then that is what is addressed directly not personal attacks.
Natalie Green bitching that the Tories only got 24% of the vote and Peter Hain kissing Corbyns but for a job.
https://youtu.be/z4uivPpzCGo
Nevertheless, the point is that the Nordics in particular are members of the "no more closer union" club.
"Gove taking a polite but forensically robust position against Corbyn."
Just heard the clip on radio. Sounded to me like Mark Anthony's.........
'Brutus is an honourable man.
So are they all,all honourable men......"
I made this same point weeks ago - his ideas and friends are dangerous.
Simple and to the point. It bears repetition. There is nothing wrong with it at all. I fail to see how a half baked policy of printing money is anything but a grave threat to every family's security.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3232625/Out-old-new-Corbyn-starts-assembling-hardleft-team-frontbenchers-quit-splits-emerge-new-deputy-Tom-Watson-challenges-Nato-Trident.html
Corbyn says he wants to eradicate global inequality. That means UK citizens moving down the rankings from the top percentile of earners, which can only be achieved by either reducing earnings in the UK or raising them elsewhere (which means cost increases for imports).
Both approaches offer a threat to UK living standards - and it's up to the electorate to decide whether they are happy to pay this price.
If you can think of a better way of protecting us from Eurozone unilateral action in a binding manner then I am all ears. But we can't be a pure protectorate of a unified Eurozone. If that's all thats on offer we should leave.
PS: still pathetic and juvenile to any intelligent thinking person.
(Must be all this talk about a 'just society.....')
Video: Muslim migrant locusts brags 'destruction of Europe they will pay us to do it' http://wp.me/p2CcQu-bYk @FrancsPays @ritzy_jewels
Crazy but true! We need to put Europe on suicide watch.
As if the economic madness wasn't enough they add layer upon layer of stupidity.
Anyway, much information in wiki article "Table of voting systems by country"
Why does your leader share platforms with such questionable people?
Why does it feel like your party hates people like me, those who grew up on council estates but through hard work have done well for themselves?
We may be more plugged into the day-to-day events than Joe Public, but if we're starting to move - does that herald a shift shortly in the general electorate?
"Last night, on Channel 4 news, Cameron was being mocked for his lack of support for the 'refugees' (not migrants). Nothing new there.
It was given a bizarre twist, when one of the guests was a Jewish woman, nearing 90, who came to this country on kindertransport in 1939. The not-so-subtle point was how differently refugees were treated then. She tried to emote with the best of them, but her 'virtue signalling' was really pretty ordinary.
The relative scale of the rescues, of course, never had a mention."
A version of this argument is always being run - that somehow the largely Muslim refugees from their own civil war are this century's equivalent of the Jews of the 1930's. And what this argument conveniently ignores, of course, is that (1) a large part of the refugees/migrants share the views of the persecutors of the 1930's about the Jews; (2) the Baathist regime - often described as secular - drew some of its inspiration from the Nazi regime; and (3) as do many of the Islamist currents now swirling around today e.g. the Muslim Brotherhood. We risk reimporting a more virulent form of anti-Semitism by permitting unlimited migration from areas where anti-Semitism is rife.
One of the more repellent aspects of Islamism is the way in which it seeks to co-opt the so-called lessons of the 1930's and 1940's to excuse and/or camouflage its own fascistic behaviour to the very same persecuted groups as in the 1930's and 1940's.
Well, which is it? Either he's a man of long-standing principle, willing to stand up for unpopular causes, his time has come sort of a guy, or he's someone whom we cannot judge because nothing he's ever said in the past counts now.
If the country could make money from all the rationalisations being trotted out by those who've voted for Corbyn, we could pay off the deficit by Tuesday afternoon.
'Will you vote for me?'
'No'
Thanks for the reply. With a 5 year renewal period, if that meant that the Union bosses could keep, collecting and passing on money form existing members for the next 5 years, i.e. after the next election, then that would be very different form initial consent needing to be gained form each exiting members in say the next year. In terms of the futcher of the labour Party this is probable as if not more important than the election of JC.
You just can't trust him to keep his word!
'Don't forget Broxtowe !
That was the one we were told was nailed on if I recall correctly? '
Yes, hard to forget the weekly canvass returns showing it was a mere formality, red liberals, Anaa Soubry, 11% Tory swing required, not to mentioned the fantastic Labour ground war that we were constantly reminded of by IOS & Surbiton.
Personally, I think it would be a disservice to Corbyn to claim his past statements do not matter and he should only be judged on what he says and does now. A major part of his stated appeal was his consistency in sticking to his views and principles over 30 years of a complex, changing world. Now, I don't agree with some of his principles, but how can I judge whether his stated principles now are sincere if I don't judge them by whether he has held them consistently? Again, personally I find his inflexibility more a problem than a selling point, but if it is presented as a selling point, and it has been, then his history is not only more relevant than many other politicians who don't make a virtue of never changing position, it is essential to judging the man.
The Tories message is that Labour cannot be trusted with your security. It's a deceptively simple and adaptable message. If there's an IS attack and he equivocates or it turns out that one of his friends approve of it it will resonate. If he proposes some economic policy, it risks not being judged on its merits but as part of an attack on people's hard work and savings etc. The Tories want the public to make their mind up about Corbyn before he's even had a chance and long before any election campaign.
Incidentally, I don't think that Labour will be tainted by Corbyn so much as demonstrate how weak the liberal progressive Labour brand really is. Rather Corbyn is a symptom of how Labour has tainted itself by its prolonged failure to stand up for the values it claims to believe in. It is Labour's weakness which has allowed that part of the Left which is eager to suck up to radical Islam and other illiberal groups to become so strong. Labour has had no antibodies with which to fight the illiberals. Hence Corbyn's victory.
A truly strong, truly liberal, truly progressive, truly tolerant, truly anti-racist, truly anti-fascist, truly anti-totalitarian/anti-authoritarian Labour party would have batted Corbyn and his ilk away without fuss. But we have not had such a party on the left now for some time. Just a shell consisting of empty careerists ripe for takeover.
The book on the next leader must be a very open one.
The article is part of a site giving accounts of what is happening inside Syria by those who are actually experiencing it. Not easy reading but worth a look.
http://therepublicgs.net/en/
"I must say I do find it amusing - in a grim way - that Nick Palmer, having spent any number of threads, telling us - in the teeth of all the evidence - that Corbyn's "friends", "associations" whatever just showed his openness to speaking to all sorts of people, to try and find common ground, to lay the ground work for peace etc,"
By the same token should we consider the Prime Minister an irredeemable dilettante from his Bullingdon days? A time incidentally when Corbyn was demonstrating against the evils of apartheid.
I know whose past most would find more laudable.
ttps://www.google.fr/imgres?imgurl=https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COssc7tWwAA-JAg.jpg&imgrefurl=https://twitter.com/junayed_/status/642656272303656960&h=418&w=600&tbnid=xigV6E2bkHIPKM:&tbnh=120&tbnw=172&usg=__PSvKI6nvbgx8ssEvBcCte5sSmv0=&docid=cCPvT1OKj-ZCAM&sa=X&ved=0CDIQ9QEwB2oVChMIvOiWq-7zxwIVh10UCh1AGQMN
Incidentally, Cameron's a lot younger than Corbyn, one wouldn't expect them to be doing similar things in the 80s, surely? Shouldn't the comparison be between Cameron's Bullingdom days and Corbyn's time in the late 60s and early 70s? I'm sure he was doing similar things as in the 80s.
He won't be heard , he will be openly laughed at.
Look, the general public base their view of politicians on perceptions. The public have neither the interest or knowledge to examine any policy annoucement on its merits.
Corbyn believes in things that the vast majority find either abhorrent or silly.
Think about Anthony Wedgwood Benn who became something of a national treasure only after he was no longer anywhere near the leavers of power.
Couple this with the fact that govts have run into the limit of how much they can borrow and tax and you get reality forcing proper austerity, Corbyn therefore has nowhere to go.
I think we are witnessing nothing less than the destruction of socialism.
Please feel free to continue, though. The more a nasty sexist such as yourself bangs on about other people being nasty, the more you'll damage the brand of whatever side you're supporting.
They are the red squirrels of the Labour Party now.
On the subject of Blairism, I think Corbyn promised to apologise on behalf of the Labour Party for Iraq. I think that will be a popular move.
I see no indication that Corbyn will even acknowledge anything other than his comfort zone.
But I think your moral compass needs a bit of tuning if you think that, say, trashing a restaurant as a student (appalling as that is) is as bad as an MP inviting to Parliament on two occasions terrorist leaders a few days after their organisations have killed people in London and the government.
One of Cameron's best moments as Prime Minister was the unreserved and gracious and much needed apology he made for Bloody Sunday. Corbyn can't even bring himself to condemn the IRA which is and was for many years an outfit which killed, tortured and disappeared people, some of them Catholics, ran criminal protection rackets and threatened anyone who tried to stand up to it and gloried in what it was doing.
It'd be interesting to see if Corbyn might say: "Yep, that's what I've been saying for years," if the government proposed something he agreed with, or whether he would just mindlessly oppose.
Not that it's likely this government will do anything Corbyn would agree with. He's like antimatter for Conservatives.
* though SeanT aint doing righties any favours with MrsB atm.