Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » John McDonnell holds the key to the success of Project Corb

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited September 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » John McDonnell holds the key to the success of Project Corbyn

Wouldn’t it be lovely if we had a proper national anthem – one that celebrated the country and its people rather than the creepy dirge that got Jeremy Corbyn into trouble at the Battle of Britain memorial service. There’s a case for boycotting God Save the Queen on aesthetic grounds.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 64,969
    edited September 2015
    Don I agree about GSTQ it is a bloody dirge, replace it with something like Land of Hope and Glory, Rule Britannia or Bohemian Rhapsody, so long it isn't that other bloody dirge Jerusalem.

    Oh and first
  • *popcorn*
  • That's twice in as many days I've entered a conversation as the thread ends. Story of my life I'm afraid
  • *popcorn*

    Shame this is my last contribution to this thread.
  • 'creepy dirge' - Thank you, bye bye Mr Brind.
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 1,941

    That's twice in as many days I've entered a conversation as the thread ends. Story of my life I'm afraid

    Sanp
  • Hmm, colour me sceptical...

    Still, I take Don's point about dumping negatives. The two negatives which Labour most needs to dump are John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn.
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 1,037
    Finally some sense :)
  • Every time someone from the left quotes Paul Krugman they stick "Nobel-prize-winning" in front of him. Never mind that his Nobel prize was nothing to do with his take on austerity. There could not be a more blatant appeal to authority.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 6,466
    Blue_rog said:
    No matter what the question, challenge or issue, the answer is always "More Europe". Heil Merkel.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    "Encouraging too for McDonnell is the tone of a New Statesman article piece by Alison McGovern, a Liz Kendall supporter, who has just stepped down from the front bench Treasury team.

    She argues that he [sic] Tory economic record doesn’t match Cameron and Osborne’s boasts."

    HAHAHHAHAHHAH Let's see New Very Old Labour beat the Tories on economic credibility. I await with baited breath.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 3,382
    JWisemann said:

    Finally some sense :)

    Curse of the New Thread struck my (genuine ) question to you at end of last one. Am I to be wealth taxed?
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Makes a change from mentioning Keynes - but only the *spendy* bit.

    Every time someone from the left quotes Paul Krugman they stick "Nobel-prize-winning" in front of him. Never mind that his Nobel prize was nothing to do with his take on austerity. There could not be a more blatant appeal to authority.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,839
    So John has apologised for saying that the IRA "martyrs" (otherwise murderers) should be honoured. Well that's nice.
    And he has apologised for saying he wished he could go back in time and murder the PM of our country. That's nice too.

    But it doesn't make him a nice man. Not at all.

  • Hmm, colour me sceptical...

    Still, I take Don's point about dumping negatives. The two negatives which Labour most needs to dump are John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn.

    Allstar Darling -- ''I don't know what Jeremy Corbyn stands for'' (BBC)
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 6,658
    FPT @ JWeismann "If spending money had nothing to do with winning elections, why do parties ask for donations at all? What a silly thing to say."

    Of course spending money helps win elections - both advertising and funding the ground game is important.

    HYUFD's invocation of Romney misses the point. Political money spending is subject to the laws of diminishing returns and, indeed, there comes a point where additional money probably has no or even negative impact.

    The political funding laws and environments are very different between the US and UK. Over $2 billion was spent on the last US Presidential campaign. If I had lived in Ohio, I doubt I could have brought myself to watch TV.

    But with the limited spending on UK elections, I doubt any party actually reaches the point where additional money is not helpful if wisely spent.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 6,466

    Hmm, colour me sceptical...

    Still, I take Don's point about dumping negatives. The two negatives which Labour most needs to dump are John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn.

    Allstar Darling -- ''I don't know what Jeremy Corbyn stands for'' (BBC)
    Really? Has Darling been blind and deaf for the last thirty years? Corbyn isn't exactly hard to comprehend, he's been doing and saying the same thing since I was wearing platforms.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Given all his U-turns in 6 days, I'm not sure anyone knows what he stands for anymore either.

    Hmm, colour me sceptical...

    Still, I take Don's point about dumping negatives. The two negatives which Labour most needs to dump are John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn.

    Allstar Darling -- ''I don't know what Jeremy Corbyn stands for'' (BBC)
  • It will be interesting to see where McDonnell goes. If he can turn the anti-austerity message into one of 'invest to grow', al la Bill Clinton, then maybe Osborne will have a bit of headwind to face. Personally, I doubt it.
  • I'm intrigued by labour right now, few people give them any chance of winning a GE under the current leadership, even its supporters think it unlikely. Therefore, what do Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott etc really think?

    I'm convinced its a weird, ego driven vanity project, where they are walking round with two fingers up at everybody. I know a 15 year old who is heading for very poor GCSE results. She says:

    But you don't get it, I just don't care.

    Underneath the bravado I'm sure she realises she's behaving irresponsibly but she seems set on self destruction, I can't help think Corbyn's lot are the same. Peculiar.
  • Not sure I agree.I think the whole austerity argument has been fought, and been lost, by Labour. By 2020, with the defecit presumably clear, why would be still be talking about austerity? I'm assuming Labour would shift the debate to investment in public services, which again leaves them open to the 'spend spend spend' line.

    Another point- we've got record numbers in work, especially in the private sector. With wages rising at about 3% in this sector, why would anyone feel that the current 'plan' isn't working?
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 7,511
    edited September 2015
    Generally, however, I do agree with Don that economics is the Labour Party's best hope of traction under Corbyn. Market economics may be seen as "the default", but it's not sold well and many people have an instinctive preference for state ownership and price controls. Much like free trade / protectionism, really.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/i-loathe-socialism-but-have-to-admit-jeremy-corbyn-has-economic-policies-that-could-win-him-an-election-10507354.html
  • Given all his U-turns in 6 days, I'm not sure anyone knows what he stands for anymore either.

    Hmm, colour me sceptical...

    Still, I take Don's point about dumping negatives. The two negatives which Labour most needs to dump are John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn.

    Allstar Darling -- ''I don't know what Jeremy Corbyn stands for'' (BBC)
    The moment at which he's made a member of the Privy Council?
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 4,073
    A key point of this thread "These things shouldn’t matter but they do. If people are looking at what you’re wearing they’re not listening to what you are saying." was covered in the last one so we can skip that.

    The other point about dumping former statements is that the way it was done just looks crass. McDonnell has had a decade to repudiate his former statements and instead waits until he gets appointed to senior office? It looks like a case of being forced to apologise so as to avoid awkward questions. If he really did not mean them why did he not apologise beforehand.

    Finally "McDonnell and Corbyn will have enjoyed reading Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman view of his victory.". True no doubt and cuddly and warm, but he would be much wiser reading the criticisms of those who stand against him for that is where the battles ahead will be fought.
  • First, Labour have to be heard. They have made no progress on that front yet. The opposite, in fact.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''With wages rising at about 3% in this sector, why would anyone feel that the current 'plan' isn't working?''

    Very good post.

    Plus of course if Ozzie is running surpluses by 2020, he'll have plenty of room for juicy tax cuts for low and middle income workers.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    TBH, I think the whole *anti-austerity* shtick is at least 3yrs out of date. Voters voted against increased spending as it felt irresponsible in GE2015. Now there was a considerable amount of sleight of hand involved by Osborne - but that was largely handed to him by Labour hyperbole from 2010.

    By GE2020 it'll be resolved as a public spending issue, unless something really drastic happens.

    It's all so Last War.

    It will be interesting to see where McDonnell goes. If he can turn the anti-austerity message into one of 'invest to grow', al la Bill Clinton, then maybe Osborne will have a bit of headwind to face. Personally, I doubt it.

  • Nice article Don..Thanks

    ..

    Best piece on wishful thinking I have read since Labourlist..
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,839
    The article by Alison McGovern that Don links to is well worth a read. It should be a major concern that someone as obviously intelligent and articulate as her does not feel she can be in the shadow Treasury team.

    Her article makes 2 very good points. Firstly, politicians only really focus on the economy when things go seriously wrong. By far the best chance of Labour doing well in 2020 would be if the economy took a serious dip taking the gloss off Osborne in particular. There has to be at least a 40% chance of this happening given the length of the current cycle.

    Secondly, she observes politicians are really not good at focussing on long term improvement to the economy. Whether it is infrastructure, housing or education it is very difficult not to agree with that even if people differ on the solutions.

    She makes a less good point that Osborne's record is not as good as it is trumpeted and plays about with some regional statistics in a way which somewhat undermines the seriousness of her message. But one to watch I think.
  • TBH, I think the whole *anti-austerity* shtick is at least 3yrs out of date. Voters voted against increased spending as it felt irresponsible in GE2015. Now there was a considerable amount of sleight of hand involved by Osborne - but that was largely handed to him by Labour hyperbole from 2010.

    By GE2020 it'll be resolved as a public spending issue, unless something really drastic happens.

    It's all so Last War.

    It will be interesting to see where McDonnell goes. If he can turn the anti-austerity message into one of 'invest to grow', al la Bill Clinton, then maybe Osborne will have a bit of headwind to face. Personally, I doubt it.

    I sort of agree. But not if there's another recession. As we haven't had one, at least technically, for several years, then we are probably due by the mid of this parliament.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,218
    edited September 2015
    One point to put all this in context is that McDonnell is loathed, and I mean really loathed, by many of his Labour colleagues. Corbyn's appointment of him was an escalation of the civil war. Don's brave attempt to find a silver lining in the potential popularity of fantasy economics might have worked to an extent with a less extreme left-wing leader and shadow Chancellor, but any message is going to be drowned out by fraternal gunfire.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    The problem Labour have with austerity is that they try to simultaneously argue two things:

    1) We've only had growth because Osborne eased off on austerity and has only done a moderate amount of austerity
    2) Balancing the books over the longer term is important and we'll do it with moderate austerity
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 35,839

    One point to put all this in context is that McDonnell is loathed, and I mean really loathed, by many of his Labour colleagues. Corbyn's appointment of him was an escalation of the civil war. Don's brave attempt to find a silver lining in the potential popularity of fantasy economics might have worked to an extent with a less extreme left-wing leader and shadow Chancellor, but any message is going to be drowned out by fraternal gunfire.

    @UK__News: Alistair Darling says he does not know what Jeremy Corbyn stands for and sees no "silver lining" to his election. http://t.co/A2T6yhAJzY
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    edited September 2015
    taffys said:

    ''With wages rising at about 3% in this sector, why would anyone feel that the current 'plan' isn't working?''

    Very good post.

    Plus of course if Ozzie is running surpluses by 2020, he'll have plenty of room for juicy tax cuts for low and middle income workers.

    We just need Osborne to focus on tax cuts that help the low and middle earners. I always worry about the party's tendency to instead go for headline grabbers on inheritance tax, which is easier to cut because it brings in less money, but the returns go to the better off.

    The focus should definitely be on national insurance. The employer contribution is a simple jobs tax, and we should focus on cutting that rather than corporation tax. The employee contribution is just an unfair additional income tax on the middle earners, hitting right at the point on the income scale where people are thinking about working more.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 6,658
    I'm not sure that anyone who wants to get elected should take any encouragement from anything Paul Krugman says. He may have a Nobel in economics, but politically ...
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    I've been thinking about a quote made by Cameron yesterday, and I think it's rather key to the rebuttal of Corbynomics. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11873182/David-Cameron-despairs-of-throwback-Jeremy-Corbyn...-and-warns-him-not-to-stuff-up-taxes.html
    “No one wants to go back to those ideas… But we can’t rely on saying, ‘This was a disaster in the 1980s, look what happened to Michael Foot…’ We’ve got to win these arguments all over again... If you stuff up tax rates, it might make you feel good for five minutes, but actually you’ll generate less wealth, and you’ll have less money for the health service and schools.”
    Tories have to talk first principles and not assume voters - particularly younger ones - appreciate the implications of their starry-eyes. I think it'd also really be useful for canvassers to get the basics too - many of us at the more sophisticated end of political discussion can get lost in the details when Joe Public sees only the big visceral picture.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,604
    edited September 2015
    "[McDonnell] has a tough job ahead but I think he will give George Osborne a run for his money."

    Right up to the point where he opens his mouth and starts talking about the economy.

    And I don't buy that double-apology on QT. Trying to lighten the moment by saying the "assassinate Thatcher" er "joke" was the end of his career in stand-up. Ugh. The man is politically penitent, nothing else.

    I don't believe he has emotionally moved one millimeter from his opinions held for the last 30 years.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,839
    JEO said:

    taffys said:

    ''With wages rising at about 3% in this sector, why would anyone feel that the current 'plan' isn't working?''

    Very good post.

    Plus of course if Ozzie is running surpluses by 2020, he'll have plenty of room for juicy tax cuts for low and middle income workers.

    We just need Osborne to focus on tax cuts that help the low and middle earners. I always worry about the party's tendency to instead go for headline grabbers on inheritance tax, which is easier to cut because it brings in less money, but the returns go to the better off.
    I think that he has that. Look at the budget.

    But I don't believe there will be surpluses by 2020. The proportion of the deficit that was structural just goes up and up. It may even have exceeded the deficit itself. This has made it so much harder to cut. Growth has not produced the revenues expected and I expect it to continue to disappoint. The hole we were in was vast.

    If we have a slow down in 2018 which results in the deficit rising again the next election will look very different from the walk in the park it looks at the moment.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    Saudi Arabia has sentenced a man to be crucified for taking part in a pro-democracy protest and getting hold of firearms:

    http://www.newser.com/story/213009/man-arrested-at-17-in-saudi-arabia-to-be-crucified.html
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,335
    It's a good article. Corbyn and McDonnell need to do three things, in sequence.

    1. Deal with the personal negatives attributed to them (we can debate if they were deserved) to the extent that instinctive Labour-leaning voters feel that they aren't a barrier to voting Labour. It doesn't matter about impressing flightpath or JEO, but Southam and others of siilar mind need to be addressed.
    2. Develop an economic narrative that most people accept is a viable alternative to the current policy. If they think it's great, so much the better, but the key thing is that it's not seen to be riskier than drifting on with the status quo.
    3. Discredit the current Government and offer a better alternative.

    Point 1 is what we're seeing at the moment, and to my mind we're making some progress. The initial attack on Corbyn as a dangerous nutter has largely failed - most people accept that he's a nice man, if somewhat in the manner of an absent-minded academic. McConnell is widely acknowledged through gritted teeth to have handled his apologies well and is anything but absent-minded. Both of them are well-mannered and reasonable, and the crucial issue is going to be more whether they're seen to be competent.

    Point 2 is difficult after years of neglected drift in alternative thinking, but easier if the snags about the current alternative become more evident, as I suspect they will over the next few years. It's that which will largely decide the next election, because:

    Point 3 will be relatively easy if points 1 and 2 have been addressed. Floating voters don't think the Government is wonderful, they think it's rather crap but maybe the best available. They've given it a tiny majority over an opposition that they didn't really trust, and by 2020 we'll have had years of squabbles over Europe and a potentially divisive Tory leadership election. People will in principle be up for a change. But phase 3 only works once phases 1 and 2 are done, because otherwise people won't listen.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    The focus should definitely be on national insurance.

    NI, income tax, property tax, fuel tax, drink tax.

    in that order of priority.
  • antifrank said:

    First, Labour have to be heard. They have made no progress on that front yet. The opposite, in fact.

    In the event that they solved that the next problem is that they have to be heard saying something that doesn't sound completely retarded, and these guys don't seem to be making much progress on that front either.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    This thread, prefaced by Don Brind, is total cods wallop. A thin greasy veneer to make the duo Corbyn and McDonnell palatable to the general public. Well it won't work.

    The apology forced on McDonnell on QT was seen quickly, to be the insincere lie that it was; except for the true believers, of course.

    And Mr Brind, The 6th verse of GSTQ is lovely. Rebellious Scotts should be crushed, as is fitting. Th song is only a dirge if you make it so.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 30,361
    GSTQ is slow and simple enough that it is very easy to sing coherently and loudly at large events - in that sense it makes a very good anthem.
  • Nick Palmer says:

    The initial attack on Corbyn as a dangerous nutter has largely failed - most people accept that he's a nice man, if somewhat in the manner of an absent-minded academic.

    I'm sorry Nick but that simply isn't right. I thought Ed decent but out of his depth, Corbyn appears far more sinister.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    edited September 2015
    JEO said:

    taffys said:

    ''With wages rising at about 3% in this sector, why would anyone feel that the current 'plan' isn't working?''

    Very good post.

    Plus of course if Ozzie is running surpluses by 2020, he'll have plenty of room for juicy tax cuts for low and middle income workers.

    We just need Osborne to focus on tax cuts that help the low and middle earners. I always worry about the party's tendency to instead go for headline grabbers on inheritance tax, which is easier to cut because it brings in less money, but the returns go to the better off.

    The focus should definitely be on national insurance. The employer contribution is a simple jobs tax, and we should focus on cutting that rather than corporation tax. The employee contribution is just an unfair additional income tax on the middle earners, hitting right at the point on the income scale where people are thinking about working more.
    Mr. JEO, A thought: if the employers NI is a jobs tax then cutting it would, in theory at least, encourage companies to take on more workers. However, we do not have an employment problem at the moment. We do have a massive productivity problem. Therefore would encouraging firms to take on more low skilled workers rather than invest in plant and technology actually be a good idea?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 30,361
    JEO said:

    The problem Labour have with austerity is that they try to simultaneously argue two things:

    1) We've only had growth because Osborne eased off on austerity and has only done a moderate amount of austerity
    2) Balancing the books over the longer term is important and we'll do it with moderate austerity

    Yes - Ed M had the related problem, when he said that Britain had not overspent pre2010...but that it was vital to control spending now (hence not confirming reversing specific cuts). There may well be arguments to explain that, but it's a more complicated message to get across.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    I've given in reading Mr Palmer's posts about Corbyn. I simply don't think they're a credible assessment of anything.

    Nick Palmer says:

    The initial attack on Corbyn as a dangerous nutter has largely failed - most people accept that he's a nice man, if somewhat in the manner of an absent-minded academic.

    I'm sorry Nick but that simply isn't right. I thought Ed decent but out of his depth, Corbyn appears far more sinister.

  • runnymederunnymede Posts: 2,536
    'most people accept that he's a nice man, if somewhat in the manner of an absent-minded academic'

    Always hard to know exactly where the blah blah ends and outright disingenuousness starts with Nick Palmer, isn't it?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 30,361
    edited September 2015

    I'm intrigued by labour right now, few people give them any chance of winning a GE under the current leadership, even its supporters think it unlikely. Therefore, what do Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott etc really think?

    I'm convinced its a weird, ego driven vanity project, where they are walking round with two fingers up at everybody. I know a 15 year old who is heading for very poor GCSE results. She says:

    But you don't get it, I just don't care.

    Underneath the bravado I'm sure she realises she's behaving irresponsibly but she seems set on self destruction, I can't help think Corbyn's lot are the same. Peculiar.

    I think they may now believe they can win - they didn't think they could win the Labour leadership, even come close, and they did easily. Certainly, that does not mean it will translate to GE success and I think it won't, but I think having proven themselves wrong about Labour not supporting them, they will think anything is possible, so they're going for it.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,839

    McConnell is widely acknowledged through gritted teeth to have handled his apologies well and is anything but absent-minded. Both of them are well-mannered and reasonable, and the crucial issue is going to be more whether they're seen to be competent.

    I take it you were not one of those he threatened with the Mace then Nick? McDonnell is a big mistake and will cause Corbyn serious problems.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited September 2015
    'Even though their victory had looked likely for weeks Team Corbyn hit the ground stumbling.'

    yeh, at last Mr Brind and I agree on something...
  • I've given in reading Mr Palmer's posts about Corbyn. I simply don't think they're a credible assessment of anything.

    Nick Palmer says:

    The initial attack on Corbyn as a dangerous nutter has largely failed - most people accept that he's a nice man, if somewhat in the manner of an absent-minded academic.

    I'm sorry Nick but that simply isn't right. I thought Ed decent but out of his depth, Corbyn appears far more sinister.


    Nick seems to be constructing a fantasy to self-justify his own decision in voting for Corbyn.

    It is disappointing, but only human.

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,502
    edited September 2015
    kle4 said:

    JEO said:

    The problem Labour have with austerity is that they try to simultaneously argue two things:

    1) We've only had growth because Osborne eased off on austerity and has only done a moderate amount of austerity
    2) Balancing the books over the longer term is important and we'll do it with moderate austerity

    Yes - Ed M had the related problem, when he said that Britain had not overspent pre2010...but that it was vital to control spending now (hence not confirming reversing specific cuts). There may well be arguments to explain that, but it's a more complicated message to get across.
    Yup, this is tricky, even if the underlying point is correct, which it may well have been.

    But Corbyn seems to want to keep on piling on hostages to fortune like wanting to pay for things by printing money, which may actually have been a good idea around 2008 to 2012, but is highly unlikely to be a good idea in 2020. So what's he going to do around 2018, turn around and say, "Actually forget everything I've been saying for the last few years, it turns out we need austerity after all"?
  • Don Brind has evidently never tried singing the Star Spangled Banner. Unless you've got the vocal range of Beyoncé or Roy Orbison, it's unsingable.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 30,361
    edited September 2015

    Nick Palmer says:

    The initial attack on Corbyn as a dangerous nutter has largely failed - most people accept that he's a nice man, if somewhat in the manner of an absent-minded academic.

    I'm sorry Nick but that simply isn't right. I thought Ed decent but out of his depth, Corbyn appears far more sinister.

    I think it is too soon to say whether it has failed or not. Corbyn is flush with confidence, rightly so after a stonking win, and is fresh enough in the eyes of the public that even hearing about past statements of concern will not irrevocably taint him. However, I suspect it is about preparing people for if he makes a slip up. There is no question that Corbyn has, at best, made some inelegant statements about matters which could paint him in a bad light, and at worse said things which are a bit sinister. If the mask slips, or he gets careless, or says something stupid which can be characterised as being both, then it fits into a narrative already set by the Tory attacks and may hit home much harder as a result.

    Pigeonhole someone as incompetent and it is far easier to interpret future actions and words as evidence of that. Try to do the same as him being dangerous, and the right words could seem to support that.

    Incidentally, the attacks on Ed M were generally about him being useless, except for a brief period when they tried to say he dangerous. Perhaps withCorbyn the opposite will happen.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 30,361

    kle4 said:

    JEO said:

    The problem Labour have with austerity is that they try to simultaneously argue two things:

    1) We've only had growth because Osborne eased off on austerity and has only done a moderate amount of austerity
    2) Balancing the books over the longer term is important and we'll do it with moderate austerity

    Yes - Ed M had the related problem, when he said that Britain had not overspent pre2010...but that it was vital to control spending now (hence not confirming reversing specific cuts). There may well be arguments to explain that, but it's a more complicated message to get across.
    Yup, this is tricky, even if the underlying point is correct, which it may well have been.

    But Corbyn seems to want to keep on piling on hostages to fortune like wanting to pay for things by printing money, which may actually have been a good idea around 2008 to 2012, but is highly unlikely to be a good idea in 2020. So what's he going to do around 2018, turn around and say, "Actually forget everything I've been saying for the last few years, it turns out we need austerity after all"?
    Might work for Syriza. Somehow.
  • kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    JEO said:

    The problem Labour have with austerity is that they try to simultaneously argue two things:

    1) We've only had growth because Osborne eased off on austerity and has only done a moderate amount of austerity
    2) Balancing the books over the longer term is important and we'll do it with moderate austerity

    Yes - Ed M had the related problem, when he said that Britain had not overspent pre2010...but that it was vital to control spending now (hence not confirming reversing specific cuts). There may well be arguments to explain that, but it's a more complicated message to get across.
    Yup, this is tricky, even if the underlying point is correct, which it may well have been.

    But Corbyn seems to want to keep on piling on hostages to fortune like wanting to pay for things by printing money, which may actually have been a good idea around 2008 to 2012, but is highly unlikely to be a good idea in 2020. So what's he going to do around 2018, turn around and say, "Actually forget everything I've been saying for the last few years, it turns out we need austerity after all"?
    Might work for Syriza. Somehow.
    Which brings us to what Don Brine should actually have written.

    John McDonnell holds the key to the success of Project Corbyn. Because it will be a symbolic turning point when Corbyn fires him.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    edited September 2015
    I saw a comment elsewhere that said "By winning, Corbyn's universe has been shattered".

    I thought that was very perceptive - he's having to face reality whether he likes it or not. Dealing with conventions, making compromises, thinking about the views of others on his team, not surrounded by adoring acolytes et al.

    As @Richard_Nabavi noted - he may be happier attending pointless protests about Nicaraguan sex workers, than paying respects to Battle of Britain heroes. But that's no longer on offer.

    I've given in reading Mr Palmer's posts about Corbyn. I simply don't think they're a credible assessment of anything.

    Nick Palmer says:

    The initial attack on Corbyn as a dangerous nutter has largely failed - most people accept that he's a nice man, if somewhat in the manner of an absent-minded academic.

    I'm sorry Nick but that simply isn't right. I thought Ed decent but out of his depth, Corbyn appears far more sinister.


    Nick seems to be constructing a fantasy to self-justify his own decision in voting for Corbyn.

    It is disappointing, but only human.

  • Which brings us to what Don Brine should actually have written.

    John McDonnell holds the key to the success of Project Corbyn. Because it will be a symbolic turning point when Corbyn fires him.

    .. and appoints Liz Kendall as Shadow Chancellor.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098

    I've given in reading Mr Palmer's posts about Corbyn. I simply don't think they're a credible assessment of anything.

    Nick Palmer says:

    The initial attack on Corbyn as a dangerous nutter has largely failed - most people accept that he's a nice man, if somewhat in the manner of an absent-minded academic.

    I'm sorry Nick but that simply isn't right. I thought Ed decent but out of his depth, Corbyn appears far more sinister.


    Nick seems to be constructing a fantasy to self-justify his own decision in voting for Corbyn.

    It is disappointing, but only human.

    The wallpaper phrases, "Most people" and "widely acknowledged" used without a scintilla of evidence rather give the game away. Do you remember that scene in BlackAdder II where the mad old sea captain when asked a question on navigation says, "Opinion is divided on the issue" and follows up with "Some people say X but I say Y". The (mis)use of the word "Clearly" is another common indicator of dubious content following.

    Wallpaper phrases - there to cover the cracks in an argument, whenever you see one you can be sure the speaker is trying it on.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,492
    Please note that this thread was written in an alternative universe
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098

    Please note that this thread was written in an alternative universe

    :)
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    I'd give the SSB a fat 2/10 as a national anthem. It's one of my least favourite.
    antifrank said:

    Don Brind has evidently never tried singing the Star Spangled Banner. Unless you've got the vocal range of Beyoncé or Roy Orbison, it's unsingable.

  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098

    I saw a comment elsewhere that said "By winning, Corbyn's universe has been shattered".

    I thought that was very perceptive - he's having to face reality whether he likes it or not. Dealing with conventions, making compromises, thinking about the views of others on his team, not surrounded by adoring acolytes et al.

    As @Richard_Nabavi noted - he may be happier attending pointless protests about Nicaraguan sex workers, than paying respects to Battle of Britain heroes. But that's no longer on offer.

    I've given in reading Mr Palmer's posts about Corbyn. I simply don't think they're a credible assessment of anything.

    Nick Palmer says:

    The initial attack on Corbyn as a dangerous nutter has largely failed - most people accept that he's a nice man, if somewhat in the manner of an absent-minded academic.

    I'm sorry Nick but that simply isn't right. I thought Ed decent but out of his depth, Corbyn appears far more sinister.


    Nick seems to be constructing a fantasy to self-justify his own decision in voting for Corbyn.

    It is disappointing, but only human.

    As someone said on here earlier this morning, Corbyn seems finally to be having to come to terms with the adult world, just fifty years later than his contemporaries.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    In all our collected years on here - I've rarely shared your POVs.

    These last few threads - I'm 100% with you.

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    JEO said:

    The problem Labour have with austerity is that they try to simultaneously argue two things:

    1) We've only had growth because Osborne eased off on austerity and has only done a moderate amount of austerity
    2) Balancing the books over the longer term is important and we'll do it with moderate austerity

    Yes - Ed M had the related problem, when he said that Britain had not overspent pre2010...but that it was vital to control spending now (hence not confirming reversing specific cuts). There may well be arguments to explain that, but it's a more complicated message to get across.
    Yup, this is tricky, even if the underlying point is correct, which it may well have been.

    But Corbyn seems to want to keep on piling on hostages to fortune like wanting to pay for things by printing money, which may actually have been a good idea around 2008 to 2012, but is highly unlikely to be a good idea in 2020. So what's he going to do around 2018, turn around and say, "Actually forget everything I've been saying for the last few years, it turns out we need austerity after all"?
    Might work for Syriza. Somehow.
    Which brings us to what Don Brine should actually have written.

    John McDonnell holds the key to the success of Project Corbyn. Because it will be a symbolic turning point when Corbyn fires him.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Oh, that was me.

    I saw a comment elsewhere that said "By winning, Corbyn's universe has been shattered".

    I thought that was very perceptive - he's having to face reality whether he likes it or not. Dealing with conventions, making compromises, thinking about the views of others on his team, not surrounded by adoring acolytes et al.

    As @Richard_Nabavi noted - he may be happier attending pointless protests about Nicaraguan sex workers, than paying respects to Battle of Britain heroes. But that's no longer on offer.

    I've given in reading Mr Palmer's posts about Corbyn. I simply don't think they're a credible assessment of anything.

    Nick Palmer says:

    The initial attack on Corbyn as a dangerous nutter has largely failed - most people accept that he's a nice man, if somewhat in the manner of an absent-minded academic.

    I'm sorry Nick but that simply isn't right. I thought Ed decent but out of his depth, Corbyn appears far more sinister.


    Nick seems to be constructing a fantasy to self-justify his own decision in voting for Corbyn.

    It is disappointing, but only human.

    As someone said on here earlier this morning, Corbyn seems finally to be having to come to terms with the adult world, just fifty years later than his contemporaries.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 6,658
    One of Peggy Noonan's better articles, and a sad reflection on the state of both US politics and journalism:

    http://www.wsj.com/article_email/the-undercard-and-the-mane-event-1442530625-lMyQjAxMTA1ODEyODExMzgxWj
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,502
    edited September 2015

    Which brings us to what Don Brine should actually have written.

    John McDonnell holds the key to the success of Project Corbyn. Because it will be a symbolic turning point when Corbyn fires him.

    .. and appoints Liz Kendall as Shadow Chancellor.
    Exactly, that would be the move.

    But as far as I can tell, Jeremy Corbyn is no Alexis Tsipras.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,078

    I saw a comment elsewhere that said "By winning, Corbyn's universe has been shattered".

    I thought that was very perceptive - he's having to face reality whether he likes it or not. Dealing with conventions, making compromises, thinking about the views of others on his team, not surrounded by adoring acolytes et al.

    As @Richard_Nabavi noted - he may be happier attending pointless protests about Nicaraguan sex workers, than paying respects to Battle of Britain heroes. But that's no longer on offer.

    I've given in reading Mr Palmer's posts about Corbyn. I simply don't think they're a credible assessment of anything.

    Nick Palmer says:

    The initial attack on Corbyn as a dangerous nutter has largely failed - most people accept that he's a nice man, if somewhat in the manner of an absent-minded academic.

    I'm sorry Nick but that simply isn't right. I thought Ed decent but out of his depth, Corbyn appears far more sinister.


    Nick seems to be constructing a fantasy to self-justify his own decision in voting for Corbyn.

    It is disappointing, but only human.

    As someone said on here earlier this morning, Corbyn seems finally to be having to come to terms with the adult world, just fifty years later than his contemporaries.
    Isn't that a touch patronising?
  • God Save the Queen? What about the rest of us? Don't we need saving too?!

    :lol:
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 6,658
    antifrank said:

    Don Brind has evidently never tried singing the Star Spangled Banner. Unless you've got the vocal range of Beyoncé or Roy Orbison, it's unsingable.

    Definitely have to drop an octave when it hits the higher register.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Jonathan said:

    I saw a comment elsewhere that said "By winning, Corbyn's universe has been shattered".

    I thought that was very perceptive - he's having to face reality whether he likes it or not. Dealing with conventions, making compromises, thinking about the views of others on his team, not surrounded by adoring acolytes et al.

    As @Richard_Nabavi noted - he may be happier attending pointless protests about Nicaraguan sex workers, than paying respects to Battle of Britain heroes. But that's no longer on offer.

    I've given in reading Mr Palmer's posts about Corbyn. I simply don't think they're a credible assessment of anything.

    Nick Palmer says:

    The initial attack on Corbyn as a dangerous nutter has largely failed - most people accept that he's a nice man, if somewhat in the manner of an absent-minded academic.

    I'm sorry Nick but that simply isn't right. I thought Ed decent but out of his depth, Corbyn appears far more sinister.


    Nick seems to be constructing a fantasy to self-justify his own decision in voting for Corbyn.

    It is disappointing, but only human.

    As someone said on here earlier this morning, Corbyn seems finally to be having to come to terms with the adult world, just fifty years later than his contemporaries.
    Isn't that a touch patronising?
    It is patronising but better than taking the bugger seriously. Perhaps Corbyn can be laughed out of the Labour leadership.
  • Most rousing, stirring national anthem by far:

  • notmenotme Posts: 2,449
    FPT, but more on topic in this one!
    taffys said:

    Whatever one things of McDonnell personally, he is a good public performer as evidenced by last night's QT.

    He has the rare talent of making complete boll8cks seem quite plausible.

    But what hit me instantly, and others on here made similar points after the show, was he did a good job of explaining away what he said about the IRA (subsequently shown to be a tissue of lies, but it doesnt matter much, it got him through the show better than you would expect), his explanation of Corbyn not singing the national anthem was so utterly implausible that you immediately got the little warning bells that he was no telling the truth.

    But as SeanT eloquently put it last night, he used exactly the same technique for explaining away his IRA comments and his desire to kill Margaret Thatcher, as he did to explain why Corbyn didnt sing the anthem.

    It's precisely like watching a magician do a great trick when he makes the third ball disappear . Thinking Wow, thats pretty good. He does it again, and again you are impressed. Then a third time he does the same thing, but this time his sleight of hand isnt as good and you see how the trick is performed. You realise that there was no third ball all along and that in hindsight it wasnt a particularly good trick to begin with.
  • MTimT said:

    antifrank said:

    Don Brind has evidently never tried singing the Star Spangled Banner. Unless you've got the vocal range of Beyoncé or Roy Orbison, it's unsingable.

    Definitely have to drop an octave when it hits the higher register.
    Leslie Nielsen illustrates the problem perfectly:

  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,492
    edited September 2015
    Strikes me Dom Brind is trying to spray some perfume onto a full septic tank.

    It certainly will not work. First impressions are terribly important.. The people at the top of Labour are ghastly in terms of what they want to do to the the country.

    There is all sorts of infighting going on, possible defections and to try and gloss over it is plainly ludicrous

    The die is cast..

    Even Chanel No 5 won't make any difference./
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    I don't know much about Anne Coulter but my timeline was rammed with hate about her a couple of days ago.

    What happened and is it a fuss about nothing by a washed up media bod?
    MTimT said:

    One of Peggy Noonan's better articles, and a sad reflection on the state of both US politics and journalism:

    http://www.wsj.com/article_email/the-undercard-and-the-mane-event-1442530625-lMyQjAxMTA1ODEyODExMzgxWj

  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    Don Brind is getting better with his posts.

    This time it took me until half way through the second sentence before I thought "Who wrote this shit?"
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    'Just as important is “dumping negatives” – neutralising issues that get in the way of your focus on what you really care about.'


    That would be nice but when the library is full to overflowing with 'negatives' for both McDonnell & Corbyn there's no chance of that happening.
  • Just a tremendous bit of research and projection from @election_data here.

    The TL;DR version is - UKIP are going to do well in the Welsh Assembly.

    Labour will win between 28 and 32 seats (26 - 28 constituency seats PLUS 2 - 4 list seats)

    The Conservatives will win between 10 and 12 seats (5 - 6 constituency seats PLUS 5 - 6 list seats)

    Plaid Cymru will win between 9 and 11 seats (6 - 7 constituency seats PLUS 3 - 4 list seats)

    The Lib Dems will win 1 or 2 constituency seats

    UKIP will win 6 or 7 list seats


    http://elxn-data.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/ukip-labour-and-welsh-assembly.html
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 30,361

    Which brings us to what Don Brine should actually have written.

    John McDonnell holds the key to the success of Project Corbyn. Because it will be a symbolic turning point when Corbyn fires him.

    .. and appoints Liz Kendall as Shadow Chancellor.
    Exactly, that would be the move.

    But as far as I can tell, Jeremy Corbyn is no Alexis Tsipras.
    Corbyn will hope he doesn't face Tsipras' choice - memorably put as deciding whether he was a madman or a charlatan, and deciding on charlatan, as he folded.
    Jonathan said:

    I saw a comment elsewhere that said "By winning, Corbyn's universe has been shattered".

    I thought that was very perceptive - he's having to face reality whether he likes it or not. Dealing with conventions, making compromises, thinking about the views of others on his team, not surrounded by adoring acolytes et al.

    As @Richard_Nabavi noted - he may be happier attending pointless protests about Nicaraguan sex workers, than paying respects to Battle of Britain heroes. But that's no longer on offer.

    I've given in reading Mr Palmer's posts about Corbyn. I simply don't think they're a credible assessment of anything.

    Nick Palmer says:

    The initial attack on Corbyn as a dangerous nutter has largely failed - most people accept that he's a nice man, if somewhat in the manner of an absent-minded academic.

    I'm sorry Nick but that simply isn't right. I thought Ed decent but out of his depth, Corbyn appears far more sinister.


    Nick seems to be constructing a fantasy to self-justify his own decision in voting for Corbyn.

    It is disappointing, but only human.

    As someone said on here earlier this morning, Corbyn seems finally to be having to come to terms with the adult world, just fifty years later than his contemporaries.
    Isn't that a touch patronising?
    It is, but that doesn't mean it is incorrect. (it doesn't mean it definitely is correct either, to be fair, but merely being patronising does not invalidate an idea - thank goodness, or 75% points on here would have to be disregarded :) )
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 20,395
    runnymede said:

    'most people accept that he's a nice man, if somewhat in the manner of an absent-minded academic'

    Always hard to know exactly where the blah blah ends and outright disingenuousness starts with Nick Palmer, isn't it?

    No, Palmer is a careerist liar and an egregious hypocrite. Once you finally accept that, all else makes sense.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,420
    GeoffM said:

    Don Brind is getting better with his posts.

    This time it took me until half way through the second sentence before I thought "Who wrote this shit?"

    You can usually tell by the length.

    If it's long it's either Don Brind or @antifrank.

    At least with @antifrank there's usually tables, statistics and interesting analysis to break up the prose
  • Just a tremendous bit of research and projection from @election_data here.

    The TL;DR version is - UKIP are going to do well in the Welsh Assembly.

    Labour will win between 28 and 32 seats (26 - 28 constituency seats PLUS 2 - 4 list seats)

    The Conservatives will win between 10 and 12 seats (5 - 6 constituency seats PLUS 5 - 6 list seats)

    Plaid Cymru will win between 9 and 11 seats (6 - 7 constituency seats PLUS 3 - 4 list seats)

    The Lib Dems will win 1 or 2 constituency seats

    UKIP will win 6 or 7 list seats


    http://elxn-data.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/ukip-labour-and-welsh-assembly.html

    Note, if Labour get fewer than 30 seats, they lose their majority. That is a real risk point for Jeremy Corbyn.

    As you say, this is outstanding from Election Data.
  • I'd give the SSB a fat 2/10 as a national anthem. It's one of my least favourite.

    antifrank said:

    Don Brind has evidently never tried singing the Star Spangled Banner. Unless you've got the vocal range of Beyoncé or Roy Orbison, it's unsingable.

    Isn't the tune actually that of an 18th century drinking song? Perhaps it just doesn't work when you're sober.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    When The Mirror piles on about Corbyn and McDonnell - it's pretty clear which side their readers are on. And it's not Mr Palmer's.
    notme said:

    FPT, but more on topic in this one!

    taffys said:

    Whatever one things of McDonnell personally, he is a good public performer as evidenced by last night's QT.

    He has the rare talent of making complete boll8cks seem quite plausible.

    But what hit me instantly, and others on here made similar points after the show, was he did a good job of explaining away what he said about the IRA (subsequently shown to be a tissue of lies, but it doesnt matter much, it got him through the show better than you would expect), his explanation of Corbyn not singing the national anthem was so utterly implausible that you immediately got the little warning bells that he was no telling the truth.

    But as SeanT eloquently put it last night, he used exactly the same technique for explaining away his IRA comments and his desire to kill Margaret Thatcher, as he did to explain why Corbyn didnt sing the anthem.

    It's precisely like watching a magician do a great trick when he makes the third ball disappear . Thinking Wow, thats pretty good. He does it again, and again you are impressed. Then a third time he does the same thing, but this time his sleight of hand isnt as good and you see how the trick is performed. You realise that there was no third ball all along and that in hindsight it wasnt a particularly good trick to begin with.
  • antifrank said:

    Just a tremendous bit of research and projection from @election_data here.

    The TL;DR version is - UKIP are going to do well in the Welsh Assembly.

    Labour will win between 28 and 32 seats (26 - 28 constituency seats PLUS 2 - 4 list seats)

    The Conservatives will win between 10 and 12 seats (5 - 6 constituency seats PLUS 5 - 6 list seats)

    Plaid Cymru will win between 9 and 11 seats (6 - 7 constituency seats PLUS 3 - 4 list seats)

    The Lib Dems will win 1 or 2 constituency seats

    UKIP will win 6 or 7 list seats


    http://elxn-data.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/ukip-labour-and-welsh-assembly.html

    Note, if Labour get fewer than 30 seats, they lose their majority. That is a real risk point for Jeremy Corbyn.

    As you say, this is outstanding from Election Data.
    Glen O'Hara thinks Lab will do worse; Con/UKIP better. There isn't a JC effect built in to this yet.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    I don't know much about Anne Coulter but my timeline was rammed with hate about her a couple of days ago.

    What happened and is it a fuss about nothing by a washed up media bod?

    MTimT said:

    One of Peggy Noonan's better articles, and a sad reflection on the state of both US politics and journalism:

    http://www.wsj.com/article_email/the-undercard-and-the-mane-event-1442530625-lMyQjAxMTA1ODEyODExMzgxWj

    She wrote "fucking Jews" in a tweet. In context, it was because she is fed up with every second phrase in the GOP nominations referencing Israel, Reagan and Obamacare. She wants to hear something new and positive. But it has been spun as anti-Semitic, which it wasn't.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    edited September 2015
    I'm still struggling with "My political hero, Jack Jones"
    GeoffM said:

    Don Brind is getting better with his posts.

    /blockquote>

  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Daily Express ‏@Daily_Express 48m48 minutes ago
    35 MILLION migrants heading to Europe, says Hungary as it builds second fence http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/606211/35-MILLION-migrants-Europe-Hungary-builds-second-fence
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    edited September 2015
    @HurstLiama


    'The wallpaper phrases, "Most people" and "widely acknowledged" used without a scintilla of evidence rather give the game away. '


    Just like his fantasy canvass returns.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    !!!!!!!!! Brilliant.

    Just a tremendous bit of research and projection from @election_data here.

    The TL;DR version is - UKIP are going to do well in the Welsh Assembly.

    Labour will win between 28 and 32 seats (26 - 28 constituency seats PLUS 2 - 4 list seats)

    The Conservatives will win between 10 and 12 seats (5 - 6 constituency seats PLUS 5 - 6 list seats)

    Plaid Cymru will win between 9 and 11 seats (6 - 7 constituency seats PLUS 3 - 4 list seats)

    The Lib Dems will win 1 or 2 constituency seats

    UKIP will win 6 or 7 list seats


    http://elxn-data.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/ukip-labour-and-welsh-assembly.html

  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    edited September 2015
    GeoffM said:

    I don't know much about Anne Coulter but my timeline was rammed with hate about her a couple of days ago.

    What happened and is it a fuss about nothing by a washed up media bod?

    MTimT said:

    One of Peggy Noonan's better articles, and a sad reflection on the state of both US politics and journalism:

    http://www.wsj.com/article_email/the-undercard-and-the-mane-event-1442530625-lMyQjAxMTA1ODEyODExMzgxWj

    She wrote "fucking Jews" in a tweet. In context, it was because she is fed up with every second phrase in the GOP nominations referencing Israel, Reagan and Obamacare. She wants to hear something new and positive. But it has been spun as anti-Semitic, which it wasn't.
    @Plato_Says ...here it is in context

    Ann Coulter ✔ @AnnCoulter
    How many f---ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States?

    Ann Coulter ✔ @AnnCoulter
    I like the Jews, I like fetuses, I like Reagan. Didn't need to hear applause lines about them all night.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/09/17/gop-debate-ann-coulter-tweets-about-f-ing-jews/
  • antifrank said:

    MTimT said:

    antifrank said:

    Don Brind has evidently never tried singing the Star Spangled Banner. Unless you've got the vocal range of Beyoncé or Roy Orbison, it's unsingable.

    Definitely have to drop an octave when it hits the higher register.
    Leslie Nielsen illustrates the problem perfectly:

    Well, he was a Canadian :)
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    DowHeater ‏@Death2RapeGangs 3m3 minutes ago
    Merkel Greeted As a Traitor With Massive Booing
  • I'd give the SSB a fat 2/10 as a national anthem. It's one of my least favourite.

    antifrank said:

    Don Brind has evidently never tried singing the Star Spangled Banner. Unless you've got the vocal range of Beyoncé or Roy Orbison, it's unsingable.

    Isn't the tune actually that of an 18th century drinking song? Perhaps it just doesn't work when you're sober.
    The lyrics come from "Defence of Fort M'Henry",[1] a poem written in 1814 by the 35-year-old lawyer and amateur poet Francis Scott Key after witnessing the bombardment of Fort McHenry by British ships of the Royal Navy in Baltimore Harbor during the Battle of Fort McHenry in the War of 1812.

    The poem was set to the tune of a popular British song written by John Stafford Smith for the Anacreontic Society, a men's social club in London. "To Anacreon in Heaven" (or "The Anacreontic Song"), with various lyrics, was already popular in the United States. Set to Key's poem and renamed "The Star-Spangled Banner", it would soon become a well-known American patriotic song. With a range of one octave and one fifth (a semitone more than an octave and a half), it is known for being difficult to sing. Although the poem has four stanzas, only the first is commonly sung today.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star-Spangled_Banner
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @NickPalmer

    'The initial attack on Corbyn as a dangerous nutter has largely failed'

    You missed out 'according to Corbyn supporters'.
Sign In or Register to comment.