This NewYorker piece says Corbyn 'makes Bernie Sanders look like Ted Cruz' - can that possibly be true? Certainly it is not piece favourable to Corbyn, but opponents can be right sometimes, but that just seems unlikely, surely?
I know you're economically pretty right, but I thought from a legal point of view (or a socially liberal one) you might have found aspects of the bill objectionable? I know you're not a David Davis fan but wondered whether aspects of his critique might have struck you as justified (the substantive content of what he said, rather than the "Franco" hyperbole).
Just back from local CLP meeting. Usually pretty dismal, this was a genuinely positive experience.
Total membership is over 600 in one of the safest blue seats, which I reckon is pretty good going given about 6-7 years ago in the nadir of 2008-9 it was around 100.
The mood was inclusive. Particularly striking that members who left over Iraq had returned and felt good about it. It was like a reunion.
Clearly there are huge risks from an unconventional leadership and I remain sceptical, but there are definitely some positive aspects.
I know you're economically pretty right, but I thought from a legal point of view (or a socially liberal one) you might have found aspects of the bill objectionable? I know you're not a David Davis fan but wondered whether aspects of his critique might have struck you as justified (the substantive content of what he said, rather than the "Franco" hyperbole).
Some aspects are draconian but it was said earlier that these were put in to be traded off later to ensure the bills passage
This NewYorker piece says Corbyn 'makes Bernie Sanders look like Ted Cruz' - can that possibly be true? Certainly it is not piece favourable to Corbyn, but opponents can be right sometimes, but that just seems unlikely, surely?
Why do they start their list of 'modern' leaders with Foot anyway? I was a alive when Wilson and Sunny Jim stalked the earth and I don't consider myself as medieval.
Whatever you say, Great-Grandad.
I remember Hugh Gaitskell. Thats the Labour leader who opposed unilateral nuclear disarmament and also tried to abolish Clause 4. I am not (clearly) a labour voter but Gaitskell killed himself trying to make labour "relevant and realistic"... If I were a Labour voter I can tell you that I'd be pretty disgusted that he was not on this list but Corbyn is. Can somebody advise me what if any progress Labour have made in the intervening umm... 60 years?
The new Labour leader is likely to be invited to National Security Council (NSC) summits at Downing Street, even though the Prime Minister fears he could be a risk to the country’s safety.
The Tory leader tweeted on Sunday: “The Labour Party is now a threat to our national security"
It is also a bit stunning to reflect only one of these was ever elected PM. Three times. Labour have really forgotten that politics is supposed to put you in a place where you can actually change things.
This NewYorker piece says Corbyn 'makes Bernie Sanders look like Ted Cruz' - can that possibly be true? Certainly it is not piece favourable to Corbyn, but opponents can be right sometimes, but that just seems unlikely, surely?
I know you're economically pretty right, but I thought from a legal point of view (or a socially liberal one) you might have found aspects of the bill objectionable? I know you're not a David Davis fan but wondered whether aspects of his critique might have struck you as justified (the substantive content of what he said, rather than the "Franco" hyperbole).
I've not read the bill properly, I note that Richard Tyndall had some libertarian concerns which I do share.
But my inner Thatcherite knows the country always does best when the Government reminds the unions who is the elected government.
Whatever I concerns I had with the bills were extinguished when I read some union guy talking about overthrowing the government.
This NewYorker piece says Corbyn 'makes Bernie Sanders look like Ted Cruz' - can that possibly be true? Certainly it is not piece favourable to Corbyn, but opponents can be right sometimes, but that just seems unlikely, surely?
I agree with him on 16 things. I suspect most people would agree on at least half of them.
It can't be described as hard left or communist.
To be fair, agreeing with "X ideas out of Y" (with any politician, not just Corbyn) is a pretty naff metric: depends a lot on who gets to pick the Y ideas. It would be easy to make a list that made Corbyn look pretty unreasonable (not just re economics, stick some homeopathy stuff in there too) and a completely different list that makes him look entirely fluffy and mostly harmless.
Just back from local CLP meeting. Usually pretty dismal, this was a genuinely positive experience.
Total membership is over 600 in one of the safest blue seats, which I reckon is pretty good going given about 6-7 years ago in the nadir of 2008-9 it was around 100.
The mood was inclusive. Particularly striking that members who left over Iraq had returned and felt good about it. It was like a reunion.
Clearly there are huge risks from an unconventional leadership and I remain sceptical, but there are definitely some positive aspects.
Indeed I am attending my first post Iraq CLP meeting next week.
I've updated the chart so you can split between All voters and 2015 Lab voters
What is striking about that is the rather small difference regarding Blair, overwhelmingly the top choice (even allowing for Iraq ) amongst both all voters and Labour voters . He's the guy whom the Labour Party now regards as some kind of plague-infested rat.
Perhaps today's the day that Blair nostalgia finally kicks in.
Blair is to Labour as Thatcher was to the Tories, but the neurosis is reversed, and possibly worse and more intractable.
Thatcher was an Athena who had to be venerated, a supremely successful leader killed by her own people in a fit of lunacy. The matricidal guilt lasted for a generation. It was only, finally exorcised when she died, and when Cameron won his majority last year - 25 years after her departure from Number 10.
The Labour party react to Blair the same way, but in reverse: Blair is like an outwardly successful Dad who secretly abused them. Raped them in their jim-jams while smiling at the neighbours next day, as he drove them to a swanky school. They feel guilty that they DIDN'T confront him at the time.
How do they forgive that, or even forget it? Perhaps when Blair dies or gets so old he is irrelevant. So another 15 years at least.
Also interesting that after Thatcher lost, every candidate Thatcher endorsed against Heseltine and Clarke went on to win, Major, Hague and IDS/Howard. However, after Blair was ousted every candidate Blair endorsed, eg David Miliband, Liz Kendall etc was defeated and his successors, Brown, Ed Miliband and Corbyn were all elected precisely because they were not Blair. However, just as Thatcher gained a compliment in the fact that Blair only won after purging Labour of socialism, so Blair gained a compliment in that Cameron only won after adopting a Blairite agenda
I've updated the chart so you can split between All voters and 2015 Lab voters
What is striking about that is the rather small difference regarding Blair, overwhelmingly the top choice (even allowing for Iraq ) amongst both all voters and Labour voters . He's the guy whom the Labour Party now regards as some kind of plague-infested rat.
Perhaps today's the day that Blair nostalgia finally kicks in.
Blair is to Labour as Thatcher was to the Tories, but the neurosis is reversed, and possibly worse and more intractable.
Thatcher was an Athena who had to be venerated, a supremely successful leader killed by her own people in a fit of lunacy. The matricidal guilt lasted for a generation. It was only, finally exorcised when she died, and when Cameron won his majority last year - 25 years after her departure from Number 10.
The Labour party react to Blair the same way, but in reverse: Blair is like an outwardly successful Dad who secretly abused them. Raped them in their jim-jams while smiling at the neighbours next day, as he drove them to a swanky school. They feel guilty that they DIDN'T confront him at the time.
How do they forgive that, or even forget it? Perhaps when Blair dies or gets so old he is irrelevant. So another 15 years at least.
Many thanks to all for your thoughts, no doubt the real reason behind his popularity is an amalgam of all the examples given, but with a healthy dose of what could have been.
Just back from local CLP meeting. Usually pretty dismal, this was a genuinely positive experience.
Total membership is over 600 in one of the safest blue seats, which I reckon is pretty good going given about 6-7 years ago in the nadir of 2008-9 it was around 100.
The mood was inclusive. Particularly striking that members who left over Iraq had returned and felt good about it. It was like a reunion.
Clearly there are huge risks from an unconventional leadership and I remain sceptical, but there are definitely some positive aspects.
Meanwhile the Tories have just initially and successfully passed a Bill which will destroy your party's funding overnight.
This poll is a stern reminder of how out-of-touch Labour members are with both the electorate at large and Labour voters. I was thinking it might have been useful if it had been published before the leadership election but in fact it probably wouldn't have made any difference.
This NewYorker piece says Corbyn 'makes Bernie Sanders look like Ted Cruz' - can that possibly be true? Certainly it is not piece favourable to Corbyn, but opponents can be right sometimes, but that just seems unlikely, surely?
I agree with him on 16 things. I suspect most people would agree on at least half of them.
It can't be described as hard left or communist.
Well I managed to agree on two points, more allotments and NATO, there were a couple of others where I might have agreed, at least in part, but the wording was so poor I wasn't sure what exactly was being suggested.
However, some of them are pie in the sky stuff that could never be implemented without massively damaging second order effects and some are just nonsense or motherhood and apple pie stuff.
Taken as a whole its the sort of stuff that I would expect to see from a reasonably bright sixth former. Perhaps Corbyn really never has grown up.
The New Yorker piece also gets wrong that Corbyn might object to joining the the Privy Council because of the religious oath sworn over a Bible - it is, of course, possible to affirm.
He's taken up the official car as well. He might begin to enjoy the high life. In the interests of prolonging it, maybe he'll decide that he's been on the wrong track for 30 years and rapidly reassess how his political views might have evolved over that time had he had any interest in pursuing political power before a couple of months ago. And rapidly bring his policies into line!
Then he'll be joining the Tories by next Thursday.....
I know you're economically pretty right, but I thought from a legal point of view (or a socially liberal one) you might have found aspects of the bill objectionable? I know you're not a David Davis fan but wondered whether aspects of his critique might have struck you as justified (the substantive content of what he said, rather than the "Franco" hyperbole).
I've not read the bill properly, I note that Richard Tyndall had some libertarian concerns which I do share.
But my inner Thatcherite knows the country always does best when the Government reminds the unions who is the elected government.
Whatever I concerns I had with the bills were extinguished when I read some union guy talking about overthrowing the government.
Unless they're careful I think it might well be the behaviour of the unions, rather than Labour MPs, that really turns people against Corbyn.
(And ta for the considered reply. Duly appreciated.)
This poll is a stern reminder of how out-of-touch Labour members are with both the electorate at large and Labour voters. I was thinking it might have been useful if it had been published before the leadership election but in fact it probably wouldn't have made any difference.
Of course as it shows the false consciousness that exists.
The new Labour leader is likely to be invited to National Security Council (NSC) summits at Downing Street, even though the Prime Minister fears he could be a risk to the country’s safety.
The Tory leader tweeted on Sunday: “The Labour Party is now a threat to our national security"
Then Corbyn shouldn't be there.
The first duty of the PM is the defence and safety of the nation. That supersedes any convention as to who might be invited to such meetings.
I don't know much about this bill, and I am sure it is designed for naked partisan advantage, but the funding bit, from what I gather, seems perfectly reasonable. Opt in generally seems fairer than opt-out, and like most people I don't know the details of the rest. Of course 'Tories enact union reform' need no more explanation to be condemned even were it entirely benign, so it will certainly play well as a rallying cry of something to be repealed, but I wonder about whether it can form the cornerstone of a movement of opposition against the government - the Unions can really hurt themselves sometimes, and people talking about trying to 'topple' the government and the like really piss me off, despite the importance of unions.
Majority of 33. Does that mean any opposition abstainers (excluding pairs) or does DUP/UUP + no Sinn Fein cover it.
Majority is 16 - after allowing for SF not taking seats.
DUP/UUP have 10 so if they abstain that takes it up to 26.
So Maj of 33 implies more opposition missing than Con missing.
This is going to be the practical problem for the opposition - getting everyone to turn up. Unless they think it's likely that the Govt will lose are some people (eg like Clegg and Carmichael?) going to bother to take the trouble to be there every night?
Just back from local CLP meeting. Usually pretty dismal, this was a genuinely positive experience.
Total membership is over 600 in one of the safest blue seats, which I reckon is pretty good going given about 6-7 years ago in the nadir of 2008-9 it was around 100.
The mood was inclusive. Particularly striking that members who left over Iraq had returned and felt good about it. It was like a reunion.
Clearly there are huge risks from an unconventional leadership and I remain sceptical, but there are definitely some positive aspects.
So long as everyone feels good and included, that's all right then. For God's sake, you're meant to be a political party not a bloody therapy session for distressed toddlers!
Correct - the 'Shadow First Secretary of State Job' is a non-top job if ever there was one. She has nothing like the influence (ie none) in the shadow government as Osborne has within the sunlit one. The Deputy Leader of the Party is the obvious person to merely stand in for Corbyn at PMQs when Cameron is absent.
Anyone have handy an actual summary of the bill's contents? I've not really looked into the matter before, and despite what are no doubt partisan motivations behind it, I'd be interested if the bad parts of the bill outweigh the bits I think are good.
On this, I'll probably be with the Corbynistas in not caring what his ex-wife says - dragging her out to make the point makes me care less about the point.
The new Labour leader is likely to be invited to National Security Council (NSC) summits at Downing Street, even though the Prime Minister fears he could be a risk to the country’s safety.
The Tory leader tweeted on Sunday: “The Labour Party is now a threat to our national security"
Then Corbyn shouldn't be there.
The first duty of the PM is the defence and safety of the nation. That supersedes any convention as to who might be invited to such meetings.
Whether you think there are other "security" issues or not, the tweet was clearly targeting Corbyn's potential policies surrounding NATO and Trident renewal. ie. it is the policies that are the issue, not the person. Cameron was suggesting that Corbyn was untrustworthy or would betray information given in confidence. So membership of the Privy council is not incompatible with the tweets.
Just back from local CLP meeting. Usually pretty dismal, this was a genuinely positive experience.
Total membership is over 600 in one of the safest blue seats, which I reckon is pretty good going given about 6-7 years ago in the nadir of 2008-9 it was around 100.
The mood was inclusive. Particularly striking that members who left over Iraq had returned and felt good about it. It was like a reunion.
Clearly there are huge risks from an unconventional leadership and I remain sceptical, but there are definitely some positive aspects.
So long as everyone feels good and included, that's all right then. For God's sake, you're meant to be a political party not a bloody therapy session for distressed toddlers!
Jesus Christ, The Sun, that's going a bit strong; it's not that big a deal, remember that undermining Corbyn is a marathon, not a sprint, don't blow your load all at once. I thought him pouting and not doing it was unnecessary - if he wants to get rid of such anachronisms, he can win power and legislate them away, not refuse to play by the rules and conventions currently in place - but equally I'm not going to condemn him so strongly for figuratively (and literally) bending the knee to get on with things rather than make a stubborn point.
Majority of 33. Does that mean any opposition abstainers (excluding pairs) or does DUP/UUP + no Sinn Fein cover it.
Majority is 16 - after allowing for SF not taking seats.
DUP/UUP have 10 so if they abstain that takes it up to 26.
So Maj of 33 implies more opposition missing than Con missing.
This is going to be the practical problem for the opposition - getting everyone to turn up. Unless they think it's likely that the Govt will lose are some people (eg like Clegg and Carmichael?) going to bother to take the trouble to be there every night?
That's bad. Party funding under threat and they couldn't be arsed to turn up. Must be some other explanation or if not they are closing the coffin lid and nailing it down from the inside.
Majority of 33. Does that mean any opposition abstainers (excluding pairs) or does DUP/UUP + no Sinn Fein cover it.
Majority is 16 - after allowing for SF not taking seats.
DUP/UUP have 10 so if they abstain that takes it up to 26.
So Maj of 33 implies more opposition missing than Con missing.
This is going to be the practical problem for the opposition - getting everyone to turn up. Unless they think it's likely that the Govt will lose are some people (eg like Clegg and Carmichael?) going to bother to take the trouble to be there every night?
That's bad. Party funding under threat and they couldn't be arsed to turn up. Must be some other explanation or if not they are closing the coffin lid and nailing it down from the inside.
The new Labour leader is likely to be invited to National Security Council (NSC) summits at Downing Street, even though the Prime Minister fears he could be a risk to the country’s safety.
The Tory leader tweeted on Sunday: “The Labour Party is now a threat to our national security"
Then Corbyn shouldn't be there.
The first duty of the PM is the defence and safety of the nation. That supersedes any convention as to who might be invited to such meetings.
I tend to agree. But having a meeting called something important is not the same as sharing information. They'll have the meetings but won't give him any information which they feel he can't be trusted with. The security services won't do anything to risk informants or live intelligence. (I hope so, anyway!)
So where is the market on "fun bets". 1. The first resignation from the shadow cabinet on "policy grounds" 2. Corbyn complaining the media are mis representing him 3. Dianne Abbot telling the media that Jeremy "whilst being well meaning, is barking mad". 4. Michael Portillo "i had a Homosexual experience with him when younger but found the beard chafing". 5. Corbyn has inherited foots donkey jacket.
Mind you Renzi's predecessor as leader of the Democratic Party, Pier Luigi Bersani, was a former member of the Italian Communist Party, so these things go in cycles. When Blair was leader of the Labour Party he was the most rightwing leader of a mainstream centre left party in the western world (including the US Democrats), Labour has now just decided to elect the most leftwing leader of a mainstream centre left party in the western world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pier_Luigi_Bersani
Majority of 33. Does that mean any opposition abstainers (excluding pairs) or does DUP/UUP + no Sinn Fein cover it.
Majority is 16 - after allowing for SF not taking seats.
DUP/UUP have 10 so if they abstain that takes it up to 26.
So Maj of 33 implies more opposition missing than Con missing.
This is going to be the practical problem for the opposition - getting everyone to turn up. Unless they think it's likely that the Govt will lose are some people (eg like Clegg and Carmichael?) going to bother to take the trouble to be there every night?
That's bad. Party funding under threat and they couldn't be arsed to turn up. Must be some other explanation or if not they are closing the coffin lid and nailing it down from the inside.
Interesting - perhaps SNP 'accidental' absences could guarantee Labour party dead and buried. It'd be in their interests for sure...
Why is John Smith so highly regarded, - he lead his party for two years in opposition but I have no idea what he achieved in the short time before his death.
He served as a relatively left wing leader without either losing an election or being toppled by his own side.
Well, sure, when you put it like that - I like how, just in case anyone might still give the wrong answer, they put 'Gidiot' in there as a subtle clue.
Though I thought we distrusted people who studied politics, or is that only PPE? (although my dissertations were on parliamentary politics, I reckon I'm still trustworthy as they were still plain History degrees, and 17th century parliamentary politics doesn't count).
Angela Eagle (Newsnight now) has a voice even more irritating than running your nails down a blackboard.
I think a new analogy may be needed - classrooms don't have blackboards anymore, so today's youth may get the point, but have no visceral understanding of it. Polystyrene blocks scraping together perhaps?
Just back from local CLP meeting. Usually pretty dismal, this was a genuinely positive experience.
Total membership is over 600 in one of the safest blue seats, which I reckon is pretty good going given about 6-7 years ago in the nadir of 2008-9 it was around 100.
The mood was inclusive. Particularly striking that members who left over Iraq had returned and felt good about it. It was like a reunion.
Clearly there are huge risks from an unconventional leadership and I remain sceptical, but there are definitely some positive aspects.
So long as everyone feels good and included, that's all right then. For God's sake, you're meant to be a political party not a bloody therapy session for distressed toddlers!
eh?
I really can't help you if you don't understand. A political party is not about feeling good and inclusive (a daft word frankly) but about reaching out to the wider public, voters, to win power so that you can enact the policies they have voted for.
Everything I've heard from the Corbynistas is about how good it's making them feel. Who gives a toss about feelings? Or indeed about how you all feel? How about the poor bloody voters? Who rejected you? And whom you seem to be ignoring?
If you want to feel good, go to swimming classes or join the WI.
Politics is about power. About getting it, retaining it and what you use it for.
So where is the market on "fun bets". 1. The first resignation from the shadow cabinet on "policy grounds" 2. Corbyn complaining the media are mis representing him 3. Dianne Abbot telling the media that Jeremy "whilst being well meaning, is barking mad". 4. Michael Portillo "i had a Homosexual experience with him when younger but found the beard chafing". 5. Corbyn has inherited foots donkey jacket.
He's already done no. 2. Apparently it's "cynical" of journalists to look up and repeat things he has said in the past.
Completed undergraduate degree say at 21. Complete masters in one year Forty year career before an MP (now aged 62) 18 years on back benches before becomes shadow chancellor in 2015.
EU mandatory quotas not approved - this is a fantastic week for a UKIP voter like myself. Sometimes I think Merkel is a closet eurosceptic or maybe she is just really really short-sighted...
Well, sure, when you put it like that - I like how, just in case anyone might still give the wrong answer, they put 'Gidiot' in there as a subtle clue.
Though I thought we distrusted people who studied politics, or is that only PPE? (although my dissertations were on parliamentary politics, I reckon I'm still trustworthy as they were still plain History degrees, and 17th century parliamentary politics doesn't count).
I've always quite liked that Osborne did a bit of manual work when he was younger rather than all these career politicos. Gives him a bit of the common touch and hopefully some humility. Strange to see the party of the working class being so dismissive of someone for doing an honest days work however.
So where is the market on "fun bets". 1. The first resignation from the shadow cabinet on "policy grounds" 2. Corbyn complaining the media are mis representing him 3. Dianne Abbot telling the media that Jeremy "whilst being well meaning, is barking mad". 4. Michael Portillo "i had a Homosexual experience with him when younger but found the beard chafing". 5. Corbyn has inherited foots donkey jacket.
As, apparently famously, Foot's jacket was not actually of the miniature equine variety, unless the bet has 'donkey jacket' in quotations, No.5 is just throwing your money away.
The new Labour leader is likely to be invited to National Security Council (NSC) summits at Downing Street, even though the Prime Minister fears he could be a risk to the country’s safety.
The Tory leader tweeted on Sunday: “The Labour Party is now a threat to our national security"
Then Corbyn shouldn't be there.
The first duty of the PM is the defence and safety of the nation. That supersedes any convention as to who might be invited to such meetings.
Every now and again its possible for a meeting to be arranged which the LOTO might be invited. But this is specific (ie ISIS info) so the security issues can be monitored if thought necessary. But if the govt do not want to invite someone then they do not have to. There is no 'convention'. Indeed the only reason that the LOTO might be invited would probably be to discover his secrets, eg would he support bombing.
Just back from local CLP meeting. Usually pretty dismal, this was a genuinely positive experience.
Total membership is over 600 in one of the safest blue seats, which I reckon is pretty good going given about 6-7 years ago in the nadir of 2008-9 it was around 100.
The mood was inclusive. Particularly striking that members who left over Iraq had returned and felt good about it. It was like a reunion.
Clearly there are huge risks from an unconventional leadership and I remain sceptical, but there are definitely some positive aspects.
So long as everyone feels good and included, that's all right then. For God's sake, you're meant to be a political party not a bloody therapy session for distressed toddlers!
eh?
I really can't help you if you don't understand. A political party is not about feeling good and inclusive (a daft word frankly) but about reaching out to the wider public, voters, to win power so that you can enact the policies they have voted for.
Everything I've heard from the Corbynistas is about how good it's making them feel. Who gives a toss about feelings? Or indeed about how you all feel? How about the poor bloody voters? Who rejected you? And whom you seem to be ignoring?
If you want to feel good, go to swimming classes or join the WI.
Politics is about power. About getting it, retaining it and what you use it for.
Come off it, you don't know what you are talking about. After an internal election (which by definition divides a party) it is important to come back together. Then you go out and campaign. And the better you feel the more likely you are to go out.
Completed undergraduate degree say at 21. Complete masters in one year Forty year career before an MP (now aged 62) 18 years on back benches before becomes shadow chancellor in 2015.
I reckon that makes him 80. He looks good for 80.
Strangely, his wikipage makes no mention of the 'senior roles' boasted of down thread merely lots of piddling about for local government. And a libel suit he lost.
The new Labour leader is likely to be invited to National Security Council (NSC) summits at Downing Street, even though the Prime Minister fears he could be a risk to the country’s safety.
The Tory leader tweeted on Sunday: “The Labour Party is now a threat to our national security"
Then Corbyn shouldn't be there.
The first duty of the PM is the defence and safety of the nation. That supersedes any convention as to who might be invited to such meetings.
Every now and again its possible for a meeting to be arranged which the LOTO might be invited. But this is specific (ie ISIS info) so the security issues can be monitored if thought necessary. But if the govt do not want to invite someone then they do not have to. There is no 'convention'. Indeed the only reason that the LOTO might be invited would probably be to discover his secrets, eg would he support bombing.
I thought Corbyn was a " threat to national security " as the PM said. Sometimes I think the PM simply gets those silly ideas from PB.
So where is the market on "fun bets". 1. The first resignation from the shadow cabinet on "policy grounds" 2. Corbyn complaining the media are mis representing him 3. Dianne Abbot telling the media that Jeremy "whilst being well meaning, is barking mad". 4. Michael Portillo "i had a Homosexual experience with him when younger but found the beard chafing". 5. Corbyn has inherited foots donkey jacket.
As, apparently famously, Foot's jacket was not actually of the miniature equine variety, unless the bet has 'donkey jacket' in quotations, No.5 is just throwing your money away.
What abou number 4 who will give me money on that.
I really can't help you if you don't understand. A political party is not about feeling good and inclusive (a daft word frankly) but about reaching out to the wider public, voters, to win power so that you can enact the policies they have voted for.
Everything I've heard from the Corbynistas is about how good it's making them feel. Who gives a toss about feelings? Or indeed about how you all feel? How about the poor bloody voters? Who rejected you? And whom you seem to be ignoring?
If you want to feel good, go to swimming classes or join the WI.
Politics is about power. About getting it, retaining it and what you use it for.
LOL, even by the high standards of Ms Cyclefree's posts that's a humdinger, especially the penultimate paragraph.
I am saddened that you thought that tweet was suitable to bring to this site, Mr Owls. It shows, if you'll pardon me saying so, a distinct lack of respect for the intelligence of your fellow posters.
The claim that McDonnell has had forty years experience in "senior roles in large complex organisations" is obviously false as he is only 64 years old and has been an MP since 1997.
40 years senior experience? So he got his first senior role in a complex organisation at the age of 24 . Impressive given he was still at Uni at the time. Depends also if you call a researchers position for a number of years until 1987 within the NUM and the TUC a senior role?
I know you're economically pretty right, but I thought from a legal point of view (or a socially liberal one) you might have found aspects of the bill objectionable? I know you're not a David Davis fan but wondered whether aspects of his critique might have struck you as justified (the substantive content of what he said, rather than the "Franco" hyperbole).
I've not read the bill properly, I note that Richard Tyndall had some libertarian concerns which I do share.
But my inner Thatcherite knows the country always does best when the Government reminds the unions who is the elected government.
Whatever I concerns I had with the bills were extinguished when I read some union guy talking about overthrowing the government.
Unless they're careful I think it might well be the behaviour of the unions, rather than Labour MPs, that really turns people against Corbyn.
(And ta for the considered reply. Duly appreciated.)
From a classical Liberal/Libertarian perspective there are mixed things in this Trade Union Bill.
Freedom of association is impotent, possibly as impotent as free speech, or freedom of religion. the rules governing voting in internal elections are wrong, as are other restrictions, e.g. the use of socialise media!!
However other things are very good, ending 'check off' the in the state sector, moving to an opt in for the political levee, the requirement to publish a back down of political spending, the right to employ temporary agency staff, and the requirement of unions to fund there own regulator.
Ideally the 'bad' bits (form a libertarian perspective) will be removed, but even if they are not, they to some extent balance out the advantages that Trade Unions still get curtacy of the state, and by definition at the expense of everybody else.
Currently a lot of attention is on the strike ballot rules, but the 'check off' change and the political fund change. will have much bigger implications.
This is only speculation but I suspect about 1 million less members with in a year and, and a drop in income to political funds for 24 million a year to perhaps 2-3 million a year.
I would love to here other opinions, from what ever perspective, and guesses at the implications.
Perhaps most revealing is the lack of women at the top. For the first time in a decade, there are no women holding any of the top jobs in the Labour party. Not only are the leader and deputy leader both men, so too are the shadow chancellor, shadow home secretary and shadow foreign secretary as well as Labour’s candidate for London mayor.
Although the leader’s office insists the shadow cabinet as a whole is balanced, two of the female members have been appointed to entirely new positions, dealing with mental health and young people. It is as if Mr Corbyn’s proposal for women-only carriages on trains has been transposed to Westminster, with female politicians given their own “safe” areas. For a party supposedly committed to equality it seems a surprising failure — but in keeping with the macho nature of traditional hard-left politics to which the new leader belongs.
40 years senior experience? So he got his first senior role in a complex organisation at the age of 24 .
Maybe he has held several roles simultaneously and is including the years from them all? So 4 years holding 3 senior positions concurrently equals 12 years?
I am saddened that you thought that tweet was suitable to bring to this site, Mr Owls. It shows, if you'll pardon me saying so, a distinct lack of respect for the intelligence of your fellow posters.
The claim that McDonnell has had forty years experience in "senior roles in large complex organisations" is obviously false as he is only 64 years old and has been an MP since 1997.
I just thought it was amusing as I am sure GO may have more experience than folding towels at Selfridges. What do you think to Pritti Patels interview Mr Lama?
Mayor of Salzburg says it's a basic human right to help asylum seekers fleeing war. Does he know how many people around the world are in that situation and what would happen if they all come to Austria, Germany or Sweden?
I really can't help you if you don't understand. A political party is not about feeling good and inclusive (a daft word frankly) but about reaching out to the wider public, voters, to win power so that you can enact the policies they have voted for.
Everything I've heard from the Corbynistas is about how good it's making them feel. Who gives a toss about feelings? Or indeed about how you all feel? How about the poor bloody voters? Who rejected you? And whom you seem to be ignoring?
If you want to feel good, go to swimming classes or join the WI.
Politics is about power. About getting it, retaining it and what you use it for.
LOL, even by the high standards of Ms Cyclefree's posts that's a humdinger, especially the penultimate paragraph.
"Power as an end in itself", the Blair motto. Thank god we will never experience again the feeling of "something is rotten in Denmark" of the Blair years, especially the corruption, the incompetence and the madness of the dear leader.
I even remember an interview with Robin Day in 1983, which for some odd reason involved moving from one table to another in the studio. Foot gathered up a chaotic sheaf of papers and shuffled in the required direction, while Day barked - as if addressing an imbecile - "Have ye got yer man-i-festo?", then (sotto voce) "so you don't forget what's in it..."
Terrible results for Corbyn in ITV News survey of Morley working mens' club, not one would vote for him, in a working mens' club!! 1 or 2 younger non voters said they may vote Labour with him as leader
Just back from local CLP meeting. Usually pretty dismal, this was a genuinely positive experience.
Total membership is over 600 in one of the safest blue seats, which I reckon is pretty good going given about 6-7 years ago in the nadir of 2008-9 it was around 100.
The mood was inclusive. Particularly striking that members who left over Iraq had returned and felt good about it. It was like a reunion.
Clearly there are huge risks from an unconventional leadership and I remain sceptical, but there are definitely some positive aspects.
So long as everyone feels good and included, that's all right then. For God's sake, you're meant to be a political party not a bloody therapy session for distressed toddlers!
eh?
I really can't help you if you don't understand. A political party is not about feeling good and inclusive (a daft word frankly) but about reaching out to the wider public, voters, to win power so that you can enact the policies they have voted for.
Everything I've heard from the Corbynistas is about how good it's making them feel. Who gives a toss about feelings? Or indeed about how you all feel? How about the poor bloody voters? Who rejected you? And whom you seem to be ignoring?
If you want to feel good, go to swimming classes or join the WI.
Politics is about power. About getting it, retaining it and what you use it for.
The WI wont let me in Ms Cyclefree believe me I would kill to attend a WI meeting.
Especially the ones where politicians turn up and receive a stony silence or worse
I even remember an interview with Robin Day in 1983, which for some odd reason involved moving from one table to another in the studio. Foot gathered up a chaotic sheaf of papers and shuffled in the required direction, while Day barked - as if addressing an imbecile - "Have ye got yer man-i-festo?", then (sotto voce) "so you don't forget what's in it..."
Sadly it wouldnt be unacceptable today. He was an honourable like Major, completly out of his depth.
40 years senior experience? So he got his first senior role in a complex organisation at the age of 24 .
Maybe he has held several roles simultaneously and is including the years from them all? So 4 years holding 3 senior positions concurrently equals 12 years?
This is a Socialist we are talking about. They aren't on speaking terms with basic arithmetic....
I even remember an interview with Robin Day in 1983, which for some odd reason involved moving from one table to another in the studio. Foot gathered up a chaotic sheaf of papers and shuffled in the required direction, while Day barked - as if addressing an imbecile - "Have ye got yer man-i-festo?", then (sotto voce) "so you don't forget what's in it..."
Yes, cruel. It would have been much kinder to try to ensure that Foot did forget what was in it.
Mayor of Salzburg says it's a basic human right to help asylum seekers fleeing war. Does he know how many people around the world are in that situation and what would happen if they all come to Austria, Germany or Sweden?
He would lose his job, that's what would happen for starters.
I am saddened that you thought that tweet was suitable to bring to this site, Mr Owls. It shows, if you'll pardon me saying so, a distinct lack of respect for the intelligence of your fellow posters.
The claim that McDonnell has had forty years experience in "senior roles in large complex organisations" is obviously false as he is only 64 years old and has been an MP since 1997.
McDonnell left school at 17 and got his BSc eventually aged about 25. He gained his experience helping his wife run a small childrens home and worked for NUPE. After that he worked for the NUM and the TUC... Its true he was number 2 to Ken Livingstone at the GLC. Better stop there I think; I have smeared him enough.
Just back from local CLP meeting. Usually pretty dismal, this was a genuinely positive experience.
Total membership is over 600 in one of the safest blue seats, which I reckon is pretty good going given about 6-7 years ago in the nadir of 2008-9 it was around 100.
The mood was inclusive. Particularly striking that members who left over Iraq had returned and felt good about it. It was like a reunion.
Clearly there are huge risks from an unconventional leadership and I remain sceptical, but there are definitely some positive aspects.
So long as everyone feels good and included, that's all right then. For God's sake, you're meant to be a political party not a bloody therapy session for distressed toddlers!
eh?
I really can't help you if you don't understand. A political party is not about feeling good and inclusive (a daft word frankly) but about reaching out to the wider public, voters, to win power so that you can enact the policies they have voted for.
Everything I've heard from the Corbynistas is about how good it's making them feel. Who gives a toss about feelings? Or indeed about how you all feel? How about the poor bloody voters? Who rejected you? And whom you seem to be ignoring?
If you want to feel good, go to swimming classes or join the WI.
Politics is about power. About getting it, retaining it and what you use it for.
Come off it, you don't know what you are talking about. After an internal election (which by definition divides a party) it is important to come back together. Then you go out and campaign. And the better you feel the more likely you are to go out.
It's politics 101.
Yes we saw you doing that before. Feeling good. Going out campaigning. Rather charmingly you called them having conversations with us, the voters. I remember having 2 of them with one of your campaigners, feeling good no doubt, so good that he didn't listen to a bloody word.
Comments
Interesting piece on the BBC website about 24 things Corbyn believes in.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34209478
I agree with him on 16 things. I suspect most people would agree on at least half of them.
It can't be described as hard left or communist.
Edit: Rereading the list, I suspect most people would agree on at least one-third of them!
Total membership is over 600 in one of the safest blue seats, which I reckon is pretty good going given about 6-7 years ago in the nadir of 2008-9 it was around 100.
The mood was inclusive. Particularly striking that members who left over Iraq had returned and felt good about it. It was like a reunion.
Clearly there are huge risks from an unconventional leadership and I remain sceptical, but there are definitely some positive aspects.
I am not (clearly) a labour voter but Gaitskell killed himself trying to make labour "relevant and realistic"... If I were a Labour voter I can tell you that I'd be pretty disgusted that he was not on this list but Corbyn is.
Can somebody advise me what if any progress Labour have made in the intervening umm... 60 years?
The Tory leader tweeted on Sunday: “The Labour Party is now a threat to our national security"
http://t.co/zNs654XtWA http://t.co/OqYDwPLsEi
But my inner Thatcherite knows the country always does best when the Government reminds the unions who is the elected government.
Whatever I concerns I had with the bills were extinguished when I read some union guy talking about overthrowing the government.
Looking forward to a big turnout.
Many thanks to all for your thoughts, no doubt the real reason behind his popularity is an amalgam of all the examples given, but with a healthy dose of what could have been.
However, some of them are pie in the sky stuff that could never be implemented without massively damaging second order effects and some are just nonsense or motherhood and apple pie stuff.
Taken as a whole its the sort of stuff that I would expect to see from a reasonably bright sixth former. Perhaps Corbyn really never has grown up.
(And ta for the considered reply. Duly appreciated.)
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/hansard/commons/todays-commons-debates/read/unknown/195/
In the meantime I assume journalists are tweeting about any oddities.
I is proud of this piece.
The first duty of the PM is the defence and safety of the nation. That supersedes any convention as to who might be invited to such meetings.
DUP/UUP have 10 so if they abstain that takes it up to 26.
So Maj of 33 implies more opposition missing than Con missing.
This is going to be the practical problem for the opposition - getting everyone to turn up. Unless they think it's likely that the Govt will lose are some people (eg like Clegg and Carmichael?) going to bother to take the trouble to be there every night?
From Huffington Post
@KevinMFeeney: The Italian left is laughing at us! THE ITALIANS! https://t.co/FhfoLLwY9t
1. The first resignation from the shadow cabinet on "policy grounds"
2. Corbyn complaining the media are mis representing him
3. Dianne Abbot telling the media that Jeremy "whilst being well meaning, is barking mad".
4. Michael Portillo "i had a Homosexual experience with him when younger but found the beard chafing".
5. Corbyn has inherited foots donkey jacket.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pier_Luigi_Bersani
Though I thought we distrusted people who studied politics, or is that only PPE? (although my dissertations were on parliamentary politics, I reckon I'm still trustworthy as they were still plain History degrees, and 17th century parliamentary politics doesn't count).
Everything I've heard from the Corbynistas is about how good it's making them feel. Who gives a toss about feelings? Or indeed about how you all feel? How about the poor bloody voters? Who rejected you? And whom you seem to be ignoring?
If you want to feel good, go to swimming classes or join the WI.
Politics is about power. About getting it, retaining it and what you use it for.
Complete masters in one year
Forty year career before an MP (now aged 62)
18 years on back benches before becomes shadow chancellor in 2015.
I reckon that makes him 80. He looks good for 80.
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/national-security/groups/national-security-council.
Every now and again its possible for a meeting to be arranged which the LOTO might be invited. But this is specific (ie ISIS info) so the security issues can be monitored if thought necessary. But if the govt do not want to invite someone then they do not have to. There is no 'convention'. Indeed the only reason that the LOTO might be invited would probably be to discover his secrets, eg would he support bombing.
It's politics 101.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McDonnell_(politician)
Sometimes I think the PM simply gets those silly ideas from PB.
The claim that McDonnell has had forty years experience in "senior roles in large complex organisations" is obviously false as he is only 64 years old and has been an MP since 1997.
Depends also if you call a researchers position for a number of years until 1987 within the NUM and the TUC a senior role?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McDonnell_(politician)
Freedom of association is impotent, possibly as impotent as free speech, or freedom of religion. the rules governing voting in internal elections are wrong, as are other restrictions, e.g. the use of socialise media!!
However other things are very good, ending 'check off' the in the state sector, moving to an opt in for the political levee, the requirement to publish a back down of political spending, the right to employ temporary agency staff, and the requirement of unions to fund there own regulator.
Ideally the 'bad' bits (form a libertarian perspective) will be removed, but even if they are not, they to some extent balance out the advantages that Trade Unions still get curtacy of the state, and by definition at the expense of everybody else.
Currently a lot of attention is on the strike ballot rules, but the 'check off' change and the political fund change. will have much bigger implications.
This is only speculation but I suspect about 1 million less members with in a year and, and a drop in income to political funds for 24 million a year to perhaps 2-3 million a year.
I would love to here other opinions, from what ever perspective, and guesses at the implications.
Thank god we will never experience again the feeling of "something is rotten in Denmark" of the Blair years, especially the corruption, the incompetence and the madness of the dear leader.
https://bigrab.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/554_big.jpg
I even remember an interview with Robin Day in 1983, which for some odd reason involved moving from one table to another in the studio. Foot gathered up a chaotic sheaf of papers and shuffled in the required direction, while Day barked - as if addressing an imbecile - "Have ye got yer man-i-festo?", then (sotto voce) "so you don't forget what's in it..."
Anybody who thinks the NI Unionists are going to regularly vote with Labour now may forget it.
Especially the ones where politicians turn up and receive a stony silence or worse
Its true he was number 2 to Ken Livingstone at the GLC.
Better stop there I think; I have smeared him enough.
Feeling is no substitute for thinking.
But you carry on.
Never mind politics 101. You'll be in Room 101.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomansland,_Wiltshire
*I actually have no idea if a WI would be worth joining, not that I am able, but it's late enough for an obvious joke.