Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Even Michael Foot had net positive opening MORI ratings. Ho

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited September 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Even Michael Foot had net positive opening MORI ratings. How will Corbyn do?

Ipsos MORI, and in its earlier incarnation just MORI, has been surveying leader ratings since the mid-1970 and one question whether the sample are “satisfied or dissatisfied” has been asked in the same manner for nearly four decades.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • First ..... again!
  • We are getting a voting intention poll tonight from ComRes:

    http://ind.pn/1PbXn67

    Those supplementaries look fun.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,841
    Lol at Miliband rating higher than Blair.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 64,969
    edited September 2015
    antifrank said:

    We are getting a voting intention poll tonight from ComRes:

    http://ind.pn/1PbXn67

    Those supplementaries look fun.

    Yes they do look fun
  • Perhaps Shadsy would like to offer a market - it looks about evens stevens to me +/-
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,406
    Danny565 said:

    Lol at Miliband rating higher than Blair.

    Lol - and how did that work out for PM Miliband?
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,841
    felix said:

    Danny565 said:

    Lol at Miliband rating higher than Blair.

    Lol - and how did that work out for PM Miliband?
    It didn't - which gives some insight into how much use these opening figures are before Joe Public has the slightest clue about the leader.
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 20,395
    edited September 2015
    antifrank said:

    We are getting a voting intention poll tonight from ComRes:

    http://ind.pn/1PbXn67

    Those supplementaries look fun.

    Tonight we will probably know whether Corbyn has even a micro-chance of winning in 2020. If the Tories and tabloids, aided by Labour disloyalists, have already and successfully painted Corbyn as a danger to security, lover of ISIS etc, then the man is finished before he is started. Almost impossible to shake such an image off.

    Quite a crucial poll, then.
  • FT: Chelsea 2 - 0 Arsenal

    Normal service is restored.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,604
    Miliband and Kinnock higher than Blair, with Brown not far behind. Lolz. They know nothing, these "voters"....
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,406
    Danny565 said:

    felix said:

    Danny565 said:

    Lol at Miliband rating higher than Blair.

    Lol - and how did that work out for PM Miliband?
    It didn't - which gives some insight into how much use these opening figures are before Joe Public has the slightest clue about the leader.
    Indeed - except Corbyn has made sure already that Jo Public knows all about his past [including a holiday shag with Ms Abbott] and his rapid willingness to dump policies faster than someone after a vinderloo dumps...
  • Miliband and Kinnock higher than Blair, with Brown not far behind. Lolz. They know nothing, these "voters"....

    ..... and Forest ..... *cough* !
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 40,467
    edited September 2015
    Foot last and Brown second to last unsurprisingly, Blair and Smith in the middle, Kinnock top, showing that Mori's ratings are not an absolute guide. Voting intention and how Corbyn rates v Cameron more significant and comres will be key there. The key test will be comparison with the last Comres in August, that had Labour on 28% and the Tories on 42%, so if Labour is on 29%+ Corbyn can be said to have boosted Labour a little, if it is on 28% no change, if it is on 27% or less Corbyn has made Labour's situation worse
    http://comres.co.uk/polls/august-2015-daily-mail-political-poll/
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 14,215
    HYUFD said:

    Foot last and Brown second to last unsurprisingly, Blair and Smith in the middle, Kinnock top, showing that Mori's ratings are not an absolute guide. Voting intention and how Corbyn rates v Cameron more significant and comres will be key there. The key test will be comparison with the last Comres in August, that had Labour on 28% and the Tories on 42%, so if Labour is on 29%+ Corbyn can be said to have boosted Labour a little, if it is on 28% no change, if it is on 27% or less Corbyn has made Labour's situation worse
    http://comres.co.uk/polls/august-2015-daily-mail-political-poll/

    It is far, far too early to draw any of those conclusions from the basis of a single poll.
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 1,037
    SeanT said:

    antifrank said:

    We are getting a voting intention poll tonight from ComRes:

    http://ind.pn/1PbXn67

    Those supplementaries look fun.

    Tonight we will probably know whether Corbyn has even a micro-chance of winning in 2020. If the Tories and tabloids, aided by Labour disloyalists, have already and successfully painted Corbyn as a danger to security, lover of ISIS etc, then the man is finished before he is started. Almost impossible to shake such an image off.

    Quite a crucial poll, then.
    I know you dislike Corbyn (maybe everyone to the left of hitler?) but if the above is true, do you think it's a good thing that media owned by a few tax exiles and foreigners should have such overpowering ability to dictate what is acceptable in this country? If you look at it objectively, rather than in the narrow sense of 'good for your side'?
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 20,395
    Incidentally there are several rumours swirling around that weird Sun story about Corbyn donating to the IRA bomber, a story retracted by the Times back in 1987. The Sun went to Labour last week and asked for a rebuttal, but Labour said No Comment. Which is why the Sun has now printed it.

    The rumours are

    1. Total cock-up on all sides. Sun didn't check the story, Labour didn't understand what the Sun was banging on about
    2. Labour didn't talk to the Sun as that is now Labour's policy re The Sun: no speaks
    3. Labour are being clever and letting the Sun run an untrue story, which the Jezbollah can then point to as showing the media lie about Jez
    4. Labour insiders are deliberately trying to undermine Corbyn so they let the story run
    5. It's true after all

    and my favourite

    6. It's not true, but Labour are hoping the story just dies and the Sun loses interest, as there is an even more disturbing revelation underlying all this: Corbyn knowingly and happily employed an IRA sympathiser in his team, and it was this man who made the donation: because Corbyn was much closer to the IRA than anyone realises
  • The table above shows all bar one leader in a +16-20% band - this is near-enough a uniform starting position for new Labour leaders.

    If Jeremy Corbyn is in that band, he has a standard start. Personally, I'm expecting him to be a second outlier on the low side.
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 1,037
    edited September 2015
    Will anyone on the right admit here that it is a bit rich on the one hand calling Corbyn an extremist and on the other berating him for essentially operating with a moderate conciliatory, consensual approach (which he always said he would)? I'm finding it is quite an interesting dividing line between the genuinely thoughtful opponents of Corbyn and the blind, narrow partisans with a tribal agenda and little else to offer.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 4,815
    HYUFD said
    'The economy is growing, after the recession Labour left'
    The economy was growing when Labour left office - it now appears to be slowing. How will it look in 2018?
  • PaulyPauly Posts: 858
    JWisemann said:

    SeanT said:

    antifrank said:

    We are getting a voting intention poll tonight from ComRes:

    http://ind.pn/1PbXn67

    Those supplementaries look fun.

    Tonight we will probably know whether Corbyn has even a micro-chance of winning in 2020. If the Tories and tabloids, aided by Labour disloyalists, have already and successfully painted Corbyn as a danger to security, lover of ISIS etc, then the man is finished before he is started. Almost impossible to shake such an image off.

    Quite a crucial poll, then.
    I know you dislike Corbyn (maybe everyone to the left of hitler?) but if the above is true, do you think it's a good thing that media owned by a few tax exiles and foreigners should have such overpowering ability to dictate what is acceptable in this country? If you look at it objectively, rather than in the narrow sense of 'good for your side'?
    The only thing worse than a few tax elites/foreigners owning our media (despite the fact that anyone can set up a great online platform easily) is if the state starts interfering with media outlets it dislikes. In the modern day era of the internet, there is no such thing as a media monopoly, so nothing to break-up.
  • JWisemann said:

    Will anyone on the right admit here that it is a bit rich on the one hand calling Corbyn an extremist and on the other berating him for essentially operating with a moderate conciliatory, consensual approach (which he always said he would)? I'm finding it is quite an interesting dividing line between the genuinely thoughtful opponents of Corbyn and the blind, narrow partisans with a tribal agenda and little else to offer.

    He's been hugely inept in his opening week. Instead of attacking the media for reporting his many blunders, why not face up to that?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 40,467
    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foot last and Brown second to last unsurprisingly, Blair and Smith in the middle, Kinnock top, showing that Mori's ratings are not an absolute guide. Voting intention and how Corbyn rates v Cameron more significant and comres will be key there. The key test will be comparison with the last Comres in August, that had Labour on 28% and the Tories on 42%, so if Labour is on 29%+ Corbyn can be said to have boosted Labour a little, if it is on 28% no change, if it is on 27% or less Corbyn has made Labour's situation worse
    http://comres.co.uk/polls/august-2015-daily-mail-political-poll/

    It is far, far too early to draw any of those conclusions from the basis of a single poll.
    Not really, the first poll under IDS for ICM on 16th September 2001 had the Tories on 29%, the previous poll had them on 30%, he never recovered

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-2001-2005
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    JWisemann said:

    SeanT said:

    antifrank said:

    We are getting a voting intention poll tonight from ComRes:

    http://ind.pn/1PbXn67

    Those supplementaries look fun.

    Tonight we will probably know whether Corbyn has even a micro-chance of winning in 2020. If the Tories and tabloids, aided by Labour disloyalists, have already and successfully painted Corbyn as a danger to security, lover of ISIS etc, then the man is finished before he is started. Almost impossible to shake such an image off.

    Quite a crucial poll, then.
    I know you dislike Corbyn (maybe everyone to the left of hitler?) but if the above is true, do you think it's a good thing that media owned by a few tax exiles and foreigners should have such overpowering ability to dictate what is acceptable in this country? If you look at it objectively, rather than in the narrow sense of 'good for your side'?
    In this internet age nobody owns the media any longer.
    That's why the BBC will have to change model - as everyone else has done already.
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 20,395
    JWisemann said:

    SeanT said:

    antifrank said:

    We are getting a voting intention poll tonight from ComRes:

    http://ind.pn/1PbXn67

    Those supplementaries look fun.

    Tonight we will probably know whether Corbyn has even a micro-chance of winning in 2020. If the Tories and tabloids, aided by Labour disloyalists, have already and successfully painted Corbyn as a danger to security, lover of ISIS etc, then the man is finished before he is started. Almost impossible to shake such an image off.

    Quite a crucial poll, then.
    I know you dislike Corbyn (maybe everyone to the left of hitler?) but if the above is true, do you think it's a good thing that media owned by a few tax exiles and foreigners should have such overpowering ability to dictate what is acceptable in this country? If you look at it objectively, rather than in the narrow sense of 'good for your side'?
    It's not the media who have monstered Corbyn, dummy. It's Corbyn himself. He's friendly with Hamas, chummy with Holocaust deniers, ambivalent about ISIS, keen on Islamist homophobes, amiable about anti-Semites, and he installed a Shadow Chancellor who thinks we should "honour the bombs and bullets" that the IRA used to kill us. He also wants to shut down the army, abolish our nukes, print money like Mugabe, get rid of the Queen, or at least he did until he abandoned these sacred principles last Thursday, around tea-time.

    If our media consisted of two jazz mags and a radio station broadcasting nothing but skiffle, Corbyn would still be unsellable to the voters.


  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 43,665
    edited September 2015
    If there is one thing Labour is completely inept at, it is knifing a leader quickly.

    Combined with their labyrinthine selection procedure, the 4-5 available for Corbyn to still be leader on Jan 1st 2017 looks a great bet to me:

    http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/jeremy-corbyn-specials
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,406
    "Need another reason to boogy tonight? @timfarron will be introducing the first DJ! "

    Hahahah - LD conference tweet - there's cool retro and there's dad dancing, now which best fits Farron and Liberal Democracy? :)
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 1,037
    Yes Sean, but all of that is untrue or taken so out of context that you could probably fabricate a similar case against any politician.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 40,467
    edited September 2015
    Pulpstar said:

    If there is one thing Labour is completely inept at, it is knifing a leader quickly.

    Combined with their labyrinthine selection procedure, the 4-5 available for Corbyn to still be leader on Jan 1st 2017 looks a great bet to me:

    http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/jeremy-corbyn-specials

    Even the Tories took 2 years to get rid of IDS so that certainly looks good value
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 1,037
    antifrank said:

    JWisemann said:

    Will anyone on the right admit here that it is a bit rich on the one hand calling Corbyn an extremist and on the other berating him for essentially operating with a moderate conciliatory, consensual approach (which he always said he would)? I'm finding it is quite an interesting dividing line between the genuinely thoughtful opponents of Corbyn and the blind, narrow partisans with a tribal agenda and little else to offer.

    He's been hugely inept in his opening week. Instead of attacking the media for reporting his many blunders, why not face up to that?
    I dont believe he has - though it s clearly been a rocky road, as any attempt to wrest power from entrenched elites will be, by definition - if he was a conservative, none of that would have mattered. Lets face, whatever he did this week, the media would have found a negative spin on it. Its the behaviour of a tinpot dictatorship against its opponents.
  • For my money, Corbyn has already achieved some degree of success by so far avoiding any defections amongst the 232 Labour MPs to the Yellow team .... I had expected at least a handful.
    On reflection however, perhaps this has more to do with the attractions of Farron, compared with those of Corbyn.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 43,665
    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    If there is one thing Labour is completely inept at, it is knifing a leader quickly.

    Combined with their labyrinthine selection procedure, the 4-5 available for Corbyn to still be leader on Jan 1st 2017 looks a great bet to me:

    http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/jeremy-corbyn-specials

    Even the Tories took 2 years to get rid of IDS so that certainly looks good value
    I've stuck a ton on it anyway.
  • Pulpstar said:

    If there is one thing Labour is completely inept at, it is knifing a leader quickly.

    Combined with their labyrinthine selection procedure, the 4-5 available for Corbyn to still be leader on Jan 1st 2017 looks a great bet to me:

    http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/jeremy-corbyn-specials

    They are increasingly good at quickly selecting an inept leader...
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 1,037
    GeoffM said:

    JWisemann said:

    SeanT said:

    antifrank said:

    We are getting a voting intention poll tonight from ComRes:

    http://ind.pn/1PbXn67

    Those supplementaries look fun.

    Tonight we will probably know whether Corbyn has even a micro-chance of winning in 2020. If the Tories and tabloids, aided by Labour disloyalists, have already and successfully painted Corbyn as a danger to security, lover of ISIS etc, then the man is finished before he is started. Almost impossible to shake such an image off.

    Quite a crucial poll, then.
    I know you dislike Corbyn (maybe everyone to the left of hitler?) but if the above is true, do you think it's a good thing that media owned by a few tax exiles and foreigners should have such overpowering ability to dictate what is acceptable in this country? If you look at it objectively, rather than in the narrow sense of 'good for your side'?
    In this internet age nobody owns the media any longer.
    That's why the BBC will have to change model - as everyone else has done already.
    Older voters still read the papers. Everyone is exposed to at least some TV and radio. All of these outlets have been uniformly and relentlessly hostile to Corbyn, yet he represents the second largest party in the country. That is the behaviour of a banana republic.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 40,467
    edited September 2015
    JWisemann said:

    GeoffM said:

    JWisemann said:

    SeanT said:

    antifrank said:

    We are getting a voting intention poll tonight from ComRes:

    http://ind.pn/1PbXn67

    Those supplementaries look fun.

    Tonight we will probably know whether Corbyn has even a micro-chance of winning in 2020. If the Tories and tabloids, aided by Labour disloyalists, have already and successfully painted Corbyn as a danger to security, lover of ISIS etc, then the man is finished before he is started. Almost impossible to shake such an image off.

    Quite a crucial poll, then.
    I know you dislike Corbyn (maybe everyone to the left of hitler?) but if the above is true, do you think it's a good thing that media owned by a few tax exiles and foreigners should have such overpowering ability to dictate what is acceptable in this country? If you look at it objectively, rather than in the narrow sense of 'good for your side'?
    In this internet age nobody owns the media any longer.
    That's why the BBC will have to change model - as everyone else has done already.
    Older voters still read the papers. Everyone is exposed to at least some TV and radio. All of these outlets have been uniformly and relentlessly hostile to Corbyn, yet he represents the second largest party in the country. That is the behaviour of a banana republic.
    The Guardian and the Mirror have certainly not been uniformly hostile to Corbyn, nor has the BBC. Voters make up their own minds, a voter in Hartlepool unprompted on Newsnight last week said 'if Corbyn cannot look after his own appearance why should he be trusted to look after the country' that said it all, and that was in a Labour seat

    Remember under the Hague/IDS years only really the Telegraph and Mail were hostile to Blair and kept the Tory flag flying, the situation is reversed now with very few but solid Labour papers hostile to Cameron
  • PaulyPauly Posts: 858
    JWisemann said:

    GeoffM said:

    JWisemann said:

    SeanT said:

    antifrank said:

    We are getting a voting intention poll tonight from ComRes:

    http://ind.pn/1PbXn67

    Those supplementaries look fun.

    Tonight we will probably know whether Corbyn has even a micro-chance of winning in 2020. If the Tories and tabloids, aided by Labour disloyalists, have already and successfully painted Corbyn as a danger to security, lover of ISIS etc, then the man is finished before he is started. Almost impossible to shake such an image off.

    Quite a crucial poll, then.
    I know you dislike Corbyn (maybe everyone to the left of hitler?) but if the above is true, do you think it's a good thing that media owned by a few tax exiles and foreigners should have such overpowering ability to dictate what is acceptable in this country? If you look at it objectively, rather than in the narrow sense of 'good for your side'?
    In this internet age nobody owns the media any longer.
    That's why the BBC will have to change model - as everyone else has done already.
    Older voters still read the papers. Everyone is exposed to at least some TV and radio. All of these outlets have been uniformly and relentlessly hostile to Corbyn, yet he represents the second largest party in the country. That is the behaviour of a banana republic.
    What do you suggest be done about it?
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 20,395
    JWisemann said:

    Yes Sean, but all of that is untrue or taken so out of context that you could probably fabricate a similar case against any politician.

    Whuh? Most of it is true. And on the record.

    This is probably why the Guardian - the Guardian - said that Corbyn is "chilidish, "not grown up" and "a fool" - a man lacking political and moral judgement, insensitive to voters, with a predilection for gesture politics, and an indifference to his own party's politics. They also said that Labour could do without him. This was when Corbyn invited the IRA's political wing to parliament just after the Brighton Bomb, when the IRA tried to kill the British government.

  • For my money, Corbyn has already achieved some degree of success by so far avoiding any defections amongst the 232 Labour MPs to the Yellow team .... I had expected at least a handful.
    On reflection however, perhaps this has more to do with the attractions of Farron, compared with those of Corbyn.

    Why would anyone defect to the Lib Dems? It would be like abandoning a listing ship to jump into a sieve.

    It's more likely we will see defections to the Conservatives and I'm not particularly expecting that either.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 35,839
    @sarahwollaston: Some comfort for drunk & disorderly flyers facing a lifetime flying ban as Corbyn announces his frontbench education team
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,078
    Curious all leaders rate the same within MOE except Foot despite very different personalities and contexts.
  • Pulpstar said:

    If there is one thing Labour is completely inept at, it is knifing a leader quickly.

    Combined with their labyrinthine selection procedure, the 4-5 available for Corbyn to still be leader on Jan 1st 2017 looks a great bet to me:

    http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/jeremy-corbyn-specials

    They are increasingly good at quickly selecting an inept leader...
    Labour have only had 18 years of losing seats at GE's.... A remarkable record.
  • SeanT said:

    JWisemann said:

    SeanT said:

    antifrank said:

    We are getting a voting intention poll tonight from ComRes:

    http://ind.pn/1PbXn67

    Those supplementaries look fun.

    ...

    Quite a crucial poll, then.
    I know you dislike Corbyn (maybe everyone to the left of hitler?) but if the above is true, do you think it's a good thing that media owned by a few tax exiles and foreigners should have such overpowering ability to dictate what is acceptable in this country? If you look at it objectively, rather than in the narrow sense of 'good for your side'?
    It's not the media who have monstered Corbyn, dummy. It's Corbyn himself. He's friendly with Hamas, chummy with Holocaust deniers, ambivalent about ISIS, keen on Islamist homophobes, amiable about anti-Semites, and he installed a Shadow Chancellor who thinks we should "honour the bombs and bullets" that the IRA used to kill us. He also wants to shut down the army, abolish our nukes, print money like Mugabe, get rid of the Queen, or at least he did until he abandoned these sacred principles last Thursday, around tea-time.

    If our media consisted of two jazz mags and a radio station broadcasting nothing but skiffle, Corbyn would still be unsellable to the voters.
    The truth be told Corbyn's looks pretty inept at even his desired aim of taking over the Labour Party. This has got to be the best news the Labour Party (well the PLP) have heard all month. The question is just how are they going to jump the shark on this?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 40,467
    edited September 2015

    Pulpstar said:

    If there is one thing Labour is completely inept at, it is knifing a leader quickly.

    Combined with their labyrinthine selection procedure, the 4-5 available for Corbyn to still be leader on Jan 1st 2017 looks a great bet to me:

    http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/jeremy-corbyn-specials

    They are increasingly good at quickly selecting an inept leader...
    Labour have only had 18 years of losing seats at GE's.... A remarkable record.
    The Tories had 18 years of losing seats at GE's pre 2001 when they picked IDS, if it was not for Scotland Miliband would have made a handful of net gains like Hague did
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    I see Chuka is now suggesting that Corbyn's leadership could lead to riots and social unrest - really.

    The Tories just need to sit back and pass the popcorn.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    :lol:
    Scott_P said:

    @sarahwollaston: Some comfort for drunk & disorderly flyers facing a lifetime flying ban as Corbyn announces his frontbench education team

  • I had to laugh earlier when a very vocal Corbyn supporter in my circle of friends posted that it was clear that the new Shadow Cabinet was so packed with women and that Health and Education were the top jobs in Corbyn's eyes.

    I didn't have the heart to point out that he appointed someone he had never met to be Shadow Education Secretary (and then only after she had turned down the first job because she wanted to do something with child care) - and the new Shadow Health Secretary is someone who was a complete unknown (even to most of her constituents)

    If those jobs are so important and so central to his vision, why not appoint women with a track record on delivering in the House and in the media?

    The depths to which the Corbyn apologists are having to plumb in order to justify their man's actions is quite frankly ludicrous. And we are only in week 1.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 1,846
    edited September 2015
    JWisemann said:

    SeanT said:

    antifrank said:

    We are getting a voting intention poll tonight from ComRes:

    http://ind.pn/1PbXn67

    Those supplementaries look fun.

    Tonight we will probably know whether Corbyn has even a micro-chance of winning in 2020. If the Tories and tabloids, aided by Labour disloyalists, have already and successfully painted Corbyn as a danger to security, lover of ISIS etc, then the man is finished before he is started. Almost impossible to shake such an image off.

    Quite a crucial poll, then.
    I know you dislike Corbyn (maybe everyone to the left of hitler?) but if the above is true, do you think it's a good thing that media owned by a few tax exiles and foreigners should have such overpowering ability to dictate what is acceptable in this country? If you look at it objectively, rather than in the narrow sense of 'good for your side'?
    40% of the media is the BBC.

    You are being melodramatic.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited September 2015
    Afternoon all.

    Not sure that a +ve net rating shows anything of relevance quite honestly. Five of the six shown above failed to win a general election and the only one that did is shown joint third. – However, if Jeremy Corbyn’s rating is close to Michael Foot’s, Labour MPs will groan with despair and the media will have a field day with it.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,840
    SeanT said:

    JWisemann said:

    Yes Sean, but all of that is untrue or taken so out of context that you could probably fabricate a similar case against any politician.

    Whuh? Most of it is true. And on the record.

    This is probably why the Guardian - the Guardian - said that Corbyn is "chilidish, "not grown up" and "a fool" - a man lacking political and moral judgement, insensitive to voters, with a predilection for gesture politics, and an indifference to his own party's politics. They also said that Labour could do without him. This was when Corbyn invited the IRA's political wing to parliament just after the Brighton Bomb, when the IRA tried to kill the British government.

    That is pretty damning stuff and the Guardian make a good point that on that issue Corbyn was behaving as badly as a Tory.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 40,467

    Afternoon all.

    Not sure that a +ve net rating shows anything of relevance quite honestly. Five of the six shown above failed to win a general election and the only one that did is shown joint third. – However, if Jeremy Corbyn’s rating is close to Michael Foot’s, Labour MPs will groan with despair and the media will have a field day with it.

    Smith would almost certainly have won the 1997 election though
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,335
    Even as someone who lived through 1983 in active politics, it's hard to remember that Foot actually did OK in polling terms until the Falklands War, which produced a huge surge of popular support for Maggie despite Foot rallying round for it. Without that, I think Maggie would still have won, but it would have been significantly closer.

    Even Labour supporters weren't too keen then, though - I remember one saying morosely that she'd vote for us because one still supported one's football team even when they were being relegated. Foot was respected as a patriot and a good speaker but wasn't even that popular on the left - they felt he made too many compromises and was basically part of the establishment, even though a progressive part. I've not experienced quite the current level of enthusiasm among Corbyn fans in my life, though from a distance the SNP phenomenon looked similar.
  • One number to look at in the opening approval ratings is the Don't Know column. How many people are withholding judgement?
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    I did a YouGov earlier asking whether I was pleased that Corbyn was Labour leader - obviously I said Yes, very.

    This is all such an Alice in Wonderland time that it's getting hard to answer some of these questions.
    antifrank said:

    One number to look at in the opening approval ratings is the Don't Know column. How many people are withholding judgement?

  • HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    If there is one thing Labour is completely inept at, it is knifing a leader quickly.

    Combined with their labyrinthine selection procedure, the 4-5 available for Corbyn to still be leader on Jan 1st 2017 looks a great bet to me:

    http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/jeremy-corbyn-specials

    They are increasingly good at quickly selecting an inept leader...
    Labour have only had 18 years of losing seats at GE's.... A remarkable record.
    The Tories had 18 years of losing seats at GE's pre 2001 when they picked IDS, if it was not for Scotland Miliband would have made a handful of net gains like Hague did
    Actually 14 years for the Conservatives since 1983 to 97. Labour have lost seats (net) at every GE since 1997 up to 2015 an 18 year period. Or if we start in the year of the first GE with a loss, it is 10 years for the Conservatives and 13 years (so far) for Labour. Either way it is the worst period post WW2 for either major party. With Corbyn going to pile on the losses.
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 20,395

    Afternoon all.

    Not sure that a +ve net rating shows anything of relevance quite honestly. Five of the six shown above failed to win a general election and the only one that did is shown joint third. – However, if Jeremy Corbyn’s rating is close to Michael Foot’s, Labour MPs will groan with despair and the media will have a field day with it.

    Think it's the indy's supplementary Qs that are more important: is the evil bearded Jeremy Corbyn MP a secret member of al Qaeda intent on blowing up Prince Philip etc etc

    If the voters have decided he's dodgy. That's pretty much it.

    It's like going on a blind date and deciding in the first few seconds that your potential girlfriend is pig ugly. How often do these initial impressions change, outside Hollywood romantic comedies?

  • SeanT said:

    JWisemann said:

    SeanT said:

    antifrank said:

    We are getting a voting intention poll tonight from ComRes:

    http://ind.pn/1PbXn67

    Those supplementaries look fun.

    Tonight we will probably know whether Corbyn has even a micro-chance of winning in 2020. If the Tories and tabloids, aided by Labour disloyalists, have already and successfully painted Corbyn as a danger to security, lover of ISIS etc, then the man is finished before he is started. Almost impossible to shake such an image off.

    Quite a crucial poll, then.
    I know you dislike Corbyn (maybe everyone to the left of hitler?) but if the above is true, do you think it's a good thing that media owned by a few tax exiles and foreigners should have such overpowering ability to dictate what is acceptable in this country? If you look at it objectively, rather than in the narrow sense of 'good for your side'?
    It's not the media who have monstered Corbyn, dummy. It's Corbyn himself. He's friendly with Hamas, chummy with Holocaust deniers, ambivalent about ISIS, keen on Islamist homophobes, amiable about anti-Semites, and he installed a Shadow Chancellor who thinks we should "honour the bombs and bullets" that the IRA used to kill us. He also wants to shut down the army, abolish our nukes, print money like Mugabe, get rid of the Queen, or at least he did until he abandoned these sacred principles last Thursday, around tea-time.

    If our media consisted of two jazz mags and a radio station broadcasting nothing but skiffle, Corbyn would still be unsellable to the voters.


    Corbyn's sin comprises none of that resume; he is simply guilty of doing things in a way in which the current establishment does not approve.

    The campaign of vilification against UKIP and Nigel Farage was just the same. As was (though less vicious) the campaign against Scottish independence.

    So has been the case for 'Putin' and whichever 'regime' (they become a regime when we dislike them) we don't like at any point.

    Most recently, we've seen this appalling propaganda machine turned to serve the purpose of overrunning Europe with migrants. Why?

    The propaganda always operates the same way:
    -Show the 'truth' of one side, but leave to one side facts and developments that don't suit the agenda
    -Scream accusations and demand action before the facts have been established, and drop the story like a hot brick when it develops and nuances become apparent.
    -Treat said accusations as accepted fact from that point on and refer to them as such later

    Some of the recent media causes I personally approve of, some I do not, but I recognise that I can't disapprove of it when it's against me, but have a sly chuckle and enjoy it when it's turned against someone else. It would be nice if others did the same.

  • FPT:

    In 5 years time, it is possible - no more than that - that those who have gone from Minimum Wage to Living Wage will have seen a material rise in disposable income - and might be prepared to believe that the Tories are now the party to look out for the working poor...

    It depends on whether the WC do find that the 'living wage' is indeed a 'living wage' and have that disposable income. In any case, the trouble for the Conservatives in Labour's Northern heartlands has always been a brand issue; one created in the 1980s, that has since refused to budge.
  • Even as someone who lived through 1983 in active politics, it's hard to remember that Foot actually did OK in polling terms until the Falklands War, which produced a huge surge of popular support for Maggie despite Foot rallying round for it. Without that, I think Maggie would still have won, but it would have been significantly closer.

    Even Labour supporters weren't too keen then, though - I remember one saying morosely that she'd vote for us because one still supported one's football team even when they were being relegated. Foot was respected as a patriot and a good speaker but wasn't even that popular on the left - they felt he made too many compromises and was basically part of the establishment, even though a progressive part. I've not experienced quite the current level of enthusiasm among Corbyn fans in my life, though from a distance the SNP phenomenon looked similar.

    Labour's polling improved over the course of 1982. It was the Alliance that were flattened by the Falklands.

    https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/103/Voting-Intention-in-Great-Britain-1976present.aspx?view=wide
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,604

    Even as someone who lived through 1983 in active politics, it's hard to remember that Foot actually did OK in polling terms until the Falklands War, which produced a huge surge of popular support for Maggie despite Foot rallying round for it. Without that, I think Maggie would still have won, but it would have been significantly closer.

    And now, with the appointment of Corbyn as Labour leader, a man who seems indifferent to our Battle of Britain heroes and refuses to sing the national anthem, the Tories will get a similar boost - without actually having to go to war....
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 40,467

    Even as someone who lived through 1983 in active politics, it's hard to remember that Foot actually did OK in polling terms until the Falklands War, which produced a huge surge of popular support for Maggie despite Foot rallying round for it. Without that, I think Maggie would still have won, but it would have been significantly closer.

    Even Labour supporters weren't too keen then, though - I remember one saying morosely that she'd vote for us because one still supported one's football team even when they were being relegated. Foot was respected as a patriot and a good speaker but wasn't even that popular on the left - they felt he made too many compromises and was basically part of the establishment, even though a progressive part. I've not experienced quite the current level of enthusiasm among Corbyn fans in my life, though from a distance the SNP phenomenon looked similar.

    Foot actually saw a slight net fall in Labour's rating when he was elected relative to that achieved by Callaghan, the only other leader to see a negative bounce since 1979 was IDS (even Hague got a tiny one in 1997). So if Labour falls below 28% Corbyn is in danger, those 2 lasted 3 years as leader. (Also, by early 1982 polls had begun to shift back to the Tories again)
  • MattW said:

    JWisemann said:

    SeanT said:

    antifrank said:

    We are getting a voting intention poll tonight from ComRes:

    http://ind.pn/1PbXn67

    Those supplementaries look fun.

    Tonight we will probably know whether Corbyn has even a micro-chance of winning in 2020. If the Tories and tabloids, aided by Labour disloyalists, have already and successfully painted Corbyn as a danger to security, lover of ISIS etc, then the man is finished before he is started. Almost impossible to shake such an image off.

    Quite a crucial poll, then.
    I know you dislike Corbyn (maybe everyone to the left of hitler?) but if the above is true, do you think it's a good thing that media owned by a few tax exiles and foreigners should have such overpowering ability to dictate what is acceptable in this country? If you look at it objectively, rather than in the narrow sense of 'good for your side'?
    40% of the media is the BBC.

    You are being melodramatic.
    And the BBC did a total hatchet job on Corbyn.
  • BBC is influential, but then so is the Daily Mail, and many other centre-right publications. LuckyGuy makes a good point.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    *titters*

    Even as someone who lived through 1983 in active politics, it's hard to remember that Foot actually did OK in polling terms until the Falklands War, which produced a huge surge of popular support for Maggie despite Foot rallying round for it. Without that, I think Maggie would still have won, but it would have been significantly closer.

    And now, with the appointment of Corbyn as Labour leader, a man who seems indifferent to our Battle of Britain heroes and refuses to sing the national anthem, the Tories will get a similar boost - without actually having to go to war....
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 40,467
    edited September 2015

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    If there is one thing Labour is completely inept at, it is knifing a leader quickly.

    Combined with their labyrinthine selection procedure, the 4-5 available for Corbyn to still be leader on Jan 1st 2017 looks a great bet to me:

    http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/jeremy-corbyn-specials

    They are increasingly good at quickly selecting an inept leader...
    Labour have only had 18 years of losing seats at GE's.... A remarkable record.
    The Tories had 18 years of losing seats at GE's pre 2001 when they picked IDS, if it was not for Scotland Miliband would have made a handful of net gains like Hague did
    Actually 14 years for the Conservatives since 1983 to 97. Labour have lost seats (net) at every GE since 1997 up to 2015 an 18 year period. Or if we start in the year of the first GE with a loss, it is 10 years for the Conservatives and 13 years (so far) for Labour. Either way it is the worst period post WW2 for either major party. With Corbyn going to pile on the losses.
    Actually 14 years for Labour too then from 2001 to 2015. Labour did not lose any seats from 1997-2001 so those years do not count. Your third sentence does not make sense. (Of course the Tories also lost a seat at the Romsey by-election from 1997-2001, so Labour would have to lose a by-election under Corbyn to do as badly)
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,059
    It's a fall Saturday, which means one thing - college football.

    College Game Day today is in Tuscaloosa, on the campus at Alabama, in front of Bryant Denny Stadium.

    There are two big SEC games today - South Carolina at Georgia (Georgia favored by 16) followed by the big one - Ole Miss at Alabama (Bama by 6).

    One of the big things about the College Game Day show is the signs made and held up by the crowd. They tend to the witty and the whimsical. "Ole Miss girls are easier than their out of conference schedule" or "Hugh Freeze uses Ashley Madison" or :Hugh Freeze takes bubble baths" or "Make sure you're on the potty when you go Hotty toddy" or "Ole Miss can't swim with the Tide" is an example.

    Political signs are very rare, which means that the large sign in the foreground this morning saying "Hillary Clinton > Ole Miss" is unusual, and not a good sign for her, in any sense.

    But this evening -

    Go Dawgs!!!

    Roll Tide!!!

  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 20,395

    SeanT said:

    JWisemann said:

    SeanT said:

    antifrank said:

    We are getting a voting intention poll tonight from ComRes:

    http://ind.pn/1PbXn67

    Those supplementaries look fun.

    T.

    Quite a crucial poll, then.
    ctate what is acceptable in this country? If you look at it objectively, rather than in the narrow sense of 'good for your side'?
    It's

    Corbyn's sin comprises none of that resume; he is simply guilty of doing things in a way in which the current establishment does not approve.

    The campaign of vilification against UKIP and Nigel Farage was just the same. As was (though less vicious) the campaign against Scottish independence.

    So has been the case for 'Putin' and whichever 'regime' (they become a regime when we dislike them) we don't like at any point.

    Most recently, we've seen this appalling propaganda machine turned to serve the purpose of overrunning Europe with migrants. Why?

    The propaganda always operates the same way:
    -Show the 'truth' of one side, but leave to one side facts and developments that don't suit the agenda
    -Scream accusations and demand action before the facts have been established, and drop the story like a hot brick when it develops and nuances become apparent.
    -Treat said accusations as accepted fact from that point on and refer to them as such later

    Some of the recent media causes I personally approve of, some I do not, but I recognise that I can't disapprove of it when it's against me, but have a sly chuckle and enjoy it when it's turned against someone else. It would be nice if others did the same.

    Some truth there. The difference with Corbyn is that the press doesn't HAVE to make stuff up or develop misleading narratives blah de blah, because Corbyn really IS an extremist nutter, and he really DID appoint a Shadow Chancellor who honours the IRA, and so on.

    Let's take the Bin laden's death-is-a-tragedy thing. No one denies he said it (and on Iran's Press TV, too, but let's leave that aside). The Corbynite complaint is that Jeremy was taken out of context, and when you listen to more of his remarks, he meant Bin Laden's execution was a tragedy because he should have been arrested and tried.

    But then, if you do indeed listen to the rest of Corbyn's remarks on that show, you first hear Jezbollah allege that the entire death was "staged", Bin Laden died years before, after which, a few seconds later, Corbyn goes on to change his mind entirely and say that the death was a tragedy "like 9/11" - two remarks which prove that Corbyn is possibly mad, and certainly a monumental idiot with terrible judgement.

    That's no spin. It is the case.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,839
    So if we assume for the moment that the next Parliament will have 600 MPs what is the current buy/sell line for Labour?

    Their 232 is worth 212 on a strict ratio but given that the problem of excessively small seats for Labour held inner cities are also being addressed their starting point is probably nearer 205. How many extra do we think Corbyn can lose?

    On the current boundaries we were told that there were about 50 Labour seats with majorities of less than 4,400. Some of these will disappear but we also had some interesting stats a while ago about the number of Labour seats which did not touch any other Labour held seat. There was something like 50 of them as well and many of these are going to gain non Labour held areas and become even more marginal.

    My guess is that UKIP will do less well in terms of votes at the next election although much of that will clearly depend on how the referendum goes. My guess would also be that the Tories will be the major beneficiary of that. Unless the new Tory leader is a lot further right than looks likely at the moment I don't see a lot of room for a significant Lib Dem recovery although they may also seek to recover seats lost to Labour. At the moment that looks where they should be concentrating their efforts.

    The economy remains uncertain and a recession, even a mild one, might change the calculus but at the moment I would be drawing the line somewhere around 170-175. Long way to go of course but it seems to me there is as good a chance of things getting worse for Labour as better.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 40,467
    antifrank said:

    Even as someone who lived through 1983 in active politics, it's hard to remember that Foot actually did OK in polling terms until the Falklands War, which produced a huge surge of popular support for Maggie despite Foot rallying round for it. Without that, I think Maggie would still have won, but it would have been significantly closer.

    Even Labour supporters weren't too keen then, though - I remember one saying morosely that she'd vote for us because one still supported one's football team even when they were being relegated. Foot was respected as a patriot and a good speaker but wasn't even that popular on the left - they felt he made too many compromises and was basically part of the establishment, even though a progressive part. I've not experienced quite the current level of enthusiasm among Corbyn fans in my life, though from a distance the SNP phenomenon looked similar.

    Labour's polling improved over the course of 1982. It was the Alliance that were flattened by the Falklands.

    https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/103/Voting-Intention-in-Great-Britain-1976present.aspx?view=wide
    The Tories were level with Labour in March 1982 on that chart, the Falklands war began in April and put the Tories ahead but Labour had already lost its lead
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    I remain amazed that Corbyn's leadership ambitions didn't go straight to DVD. If his reign was a movie - what would be most appropriate?
  • Danny565 said:

    felix said:

    Danny565 said:

    Lol at Miliband rating higher than Blair.

    Lol - and how did that work out for PM Miliband?
    It didn't - which gives some insight into how much use these opening figures are before Joe Public has the slightest clue about the leader.
    I'd agree with that. What's remarkable is, Foot apart, how consistent all the others are despite the differing circumstances they each took over in.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    If there is one thing Labour is completely inept at, it is knifing a leader quickly.

    Combined with their labyrinthine selection procedure, the 4-5 available for Corbyn to still be leader on Jan 1st 2017 looks a great bet to me:

    http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/jeremy-corbyn-specials

    They are increasingly good at quickly selecting an inept leader...
    Labour have only had 18 years of losing seats at GE's.... A remarkable record.
    The Tories had 18 years of losing seats at GE's pre 2001 when they picked IDS, if it was not for Scotland Miliband would have made a handful of net gains like Hague did
    Actually 14 years for the Conservatives since 1983 to 97. Labour have lost seats (net) at every GE since 1997 up to 2015 an 18 year period. Or if we start in the year of the first GE with a loss, it is 10 years for the Conservatives and 13 years (so far) for Labour. Either way it is the worst period post WW2 for either major party. With Corbyn going to pile on the losses.
    Actually 14 years for Labour too then from 2001 to 2015. Labour did not lose any seats from 1997-2001 so those years do not count. Your third sentence does not make sense. (Of course the Tories also lost a seat at the Romsey by-election from 1997-2001, so Labour would have to lose a by-election under Corbyn to do as badly)
    Labour have lost (net) seats at every GE for 4 consecutive GEs. 01,05,10,15 that is four in a row.
    Conservatives lost net seats at GEs for 3 consecutive GEs 87,92 and 97.
    Was it pre WW2 when either of these parties had an equal or worse record than 4 GEs in a row?

    Of course Labour look like adding a 5th GE to their record.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 9,830

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    If there is one thing Labour is completely inept at, it is knifing a leader quickly.

    Combined with their labyrinthine selection procedure, the 4-5 available for Corbyn to still be leader on Jan 1st 2017 looks a great bet to me:

    http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/jeremy-corbyn-specials

    They are increasingly good at quickly selecting an inept leader...
    Labour have only had 18 years of losing seats at GE's.... A remarkable record.
    The Tories had 18 years of losing seats at GE's pre 2001 when they picked IDS, if it was not for Scotland Miliband would have made a handful of net gains like Hague did
    Actually 14 years for the Conservatives since 1983 to 97. Labour have lost seats (net) at every GE since 1997 up to 2015 an 18 year period. Or if we start in the year of the first GE with a loss, it is 10 years for the Conservatives and 13 years (so far) for Labour. Either way it is the worst period post WW2 for either major party. With Corbyn going to pile on the losses.
    Actually 14 years for Labour too then from 2001 to 2015. Labour did not lose any seats from 1997-2001 so those years do not count. Your third sentence does not make sense. (Of course the Tories also lost a seat at the Romsey by-election from 1997-2001, so Labour would have to lose a by-election under Corbyn to do as badly)
    Labour have lost (net) seats at every GE for 4 consecutive GEs. 01,05,10,15 that is four in a row.
    Conservatives lost net seats at GEs for 3 consecutive GEs 87,92 and 97.
    Was it pre WW2 when either of these parties had an equal or worse record than 4 GEs in a row?

    Of course Labour look like adding a 5th GE to their record.
    Labour 1950, 51, 55 and 59.

    Conservatives have never had a longer losing run than the one under Thathcer/Major.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    edited September 2015

    SeanT said:

    JWisemann said:

    SeanT said:

    antifrank said:

    We are getting a voting intention poll tonight from ComRes:

    http://ind.pn/1PbXn67

    Those supplementaries look fun.


    Quite a crucial poll, then.
    It's not the media who have monstered Corbyn, dummy. It's Corbyn himself. He's friendly with Hamas, chummy with Holocaust deniers, ambivalent about ISIS, keen on Islamist homophobes, amiable about anti-Semites, and he installed a Shadow Chancellor who thinks we should "honour the bombs and bullets" that the IRA used to kill us. He also wants to shut down the army, abolish our nukes, print money like Mugabe, get rid of the Queen, or at least he did until he abandoned these sacred principles last Thursday, around tea-time.

    If our media consisted of two jazz mags and a radio station broadcasting nothing but skiffle, Corbyn would still be unsellable to the voters.


    Corbyn's sin comprises none of that resume; he is simply guilty of doing things in a way in which the current establishment does not approve.

    The campaign of vilification against UKIP and Nigel Farage was just the same. As was (though less vicious) the campaign against Scottish independence.

    So has been the case for 'Putin' and whichever 'regime' (they become a regime when we dislike them) we don't like at any point.

    Most recently, we've seen this appalling propaganda machine turned to serve the purpose of overrunning Europe with migrants. Why?

    The propaganda always operates the same way:
    -Show the 'truth' of one side, but leave to one side facts and developments that don't suit the agenda
    -Scream accusations and demand action before the facts have been established, and drop the story like a hot brick when it develops and nuances become apparent.
    -Treat said accusations as accepted fact from that point on and refer to them as such later

    Some of the recent media causes I personally approve of, some I do not, but I recognise that I can't disapprove of it when it's against me, but have a sly chuckle and enjoy it when it's turned against someone else. It would be nice if others did the same.

    It is incredible why the British press or the BBC is so acquiescent of Saudi Arabia and its murderous Royal family, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Israel and yet some "regime" or other are the baddies.

    ISIS is bad because it beheads people. What does the current Saudi Royal family do ? The Saudis have beheaded hundreds / thousands more people than ISIS has done.

    What did Israel do in Gaza ?

    The more time goes by ISIS is becoming an entity in that part of the Middle East. The West by foolishly equating Assad to ISIS has sown the seeds of this stalemate.
  • JWisemann said:

    GeoffM said:

    JWisemann said:

    SeanT said:

    antifrank said:

    We are getting a voting intention poll tonight from ComRes:

    http://ind.pn/1PbXn67

    Those supplementaries look fun.

    Tonight we will probably know whether Corbyn has even a micro-chance of winning in 2020. If the Tories and tabloids, aided by Labour disloyalists, have already and successfully painted Corbyn as a danger to security, lover of ISIS etc, then the man is finished before he is started. Almost impossible to shake such an image off.

    Quite a crucial poll, then.
    I know you dislike Corbyn (maybe everyone to the left of hitler?) but if the above is true, do you think it's a good thing that media owned by a few tax exiles and foreigners should have such overpowering ability to dictate what is acceptable in this country? If you look at it objectively, rather than in the narrow sense of 'good for your side'?
    In this internet age nobody owns the media any longer.
    That's why the BBC will have to change model - as everyone else has done already.
    Older voters still read the papers. Everyone is exposed to at least some TV and radio. All of these outlets have been uniformly and relentlessly hostile to Corbyn, yet he represents the second largest party in the country. That is the behaviour of a banana republic.
    If every media outlet is saying the same thing, are the chances not that it's true?
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 20,395
    surbiton said:

    SeanT said:

    JWisemann said:

    SeanT said:

    antifrank said:

    We are getting a voting intention poll tonight from ComRes:

    http://ind.pn/1PbXn67

    Those supplementaries look fun.


    Quite a crucial poll, then.
    It's not the media who have monstered Corbyn, dummy. It's Corbyn himself. He's friendly with Hamas, chummy with Holocaust deniers, ambivalent about ISIS, keen on Islamist homophobes, amiable about anti-Semites, and he installed a Shadow Chancellor who thinks we should "honour the bombs and bullets" that the IRA used to kill us. He also wants to shut down the army, abolish our nukes, print money like Mugabe, get rid of the Queen, or at least he did until he abandoned these sacred principles last Thursday, around tea-time.

    If our media consisted of two jazz mags and a radio station broadcasting nothing but skiffle, Corbyn would still be unsellable to the voters.


    Corbyn's sin comprises none of that resume; he is simply guilty of doing things in a way in which the current establishment does not approve.

    The campaign of vilification against UKIP and Nigel Farage was just the same. As was (though less vicious) the campaign against Scottish independence.

    So has been the case for 'Putin' and whichever 'regime' (they become a regime when we dislike them) we don't like at any point.

    Most recently, we've seen this appalling propaganda machine turned to serve the purpose of overrunning Europe with migrants. Why?

    The propaganda always operates the same way:
    -Show the 'truth' of one side, but leave to one side facts and developments that don't suit the agenda
    -Scream accusations and demand action before the facts have been established, and drop the story like a hot brick when it develops and nuances become apparent.
    -Treat said accusations as accepted fact from that point on and refer to them as such later

    Some of the recent media causes I personally approve of, some I do not, but I recognise that I can't disapprove of it when it's against me, but have a sly chuckle and enjoy it when it's turned against someone else. It would be nice if others did the same.

    It is incredible why the British press or the BBC is so acquiescent of Saudi Arabia and its murderous Royal family, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Israel and yet some "regime" or other are the baddies.

    ISIS is bad because it beheads people. What does the current Saudi Royal family do ?

    What did Israel do in Gaza ?
    I detest the Saudi regime and abhor much of what Israel does to Palestinians, but neither state has instituted rape, torture, sex slavery, child murder and genocide, as a matter of public policy.

    ISIS is an evil apart, as you surely know.
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,059
    edited September 2015

    I remain amazed that Corbyn's leadership ambitions didn't go straight to DVD. If his reign was a movie - what would be most appropriate?

    Waking the Dead?

    The Dense Connection?

    Close Encounters of the Nerd Kind?

    The Untouchable?

    Austin Powers Leadmember?

    Austin Powers Oldmember?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 9,830
    Tim_B said:

    I remain amazed that Corbyn's leadership ambitions didn't go straight to DVD. If his reign was a movie - what would be most appropriate?

    Waking the Dead?

    The Dense Connection?

    Close Encounters of the Nerd Kind?

    The Untouchable?

    Austin Powers Leadmember?
    The Usual Suspects?

    If he wins, maybe The Great Escape?
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    SeanT said:

    surbiton said:

    SeanT said:

    JWisemann said:

    SeanT said:

    antifrank said:

    We are getting a voting intention poll tonight from ComRes:

    http://ind.pn/1PbXn67

    Those supplementaries look fun.


    Quite a crucial poll, then.


    If our media consisted of two jazz mags and a radio station broadcasting nothing but skiffle, Corbyn would still be unsellable to the voters.


    Corbyn's sin comprises none of that resume; he is simply guilty of doing things in a way in which the current establishment does not approve.

    The campaign of vilification against UKIP and Nigel Farage was just the same. As was (though less vicious) the campaign against Scottish independence.

    So has been the case for 'Putin' and whichever 'regime' (they become a regime when we dislike them) we don't like at any point.

    Most recently, we've seen this appalling propaganda machine turned to serve the purpose of overrunning Europe with migrants. Why?

    The propaganda always operates the same way:
    -Show the 'truth' of one side, but leave to one side facts and developments that don't suit the agenda
    -Scream accusations and demand action before the facts have been established, and drop the story like a hot brick when it develops and nuances become apparent.
    -Treat said accusations as accepted fact from that point on and refer to them as such later

    Some of the recent media causes I personally approve of, some I do not, but I recognise that I can't disapprove of it when it's against me, but have a sly chuckle and enjoy it when it's turned against someone else. It would be nice if others did the same.

    It is incredible why the British press or the BBC is so acquiescent of Saudi Arabia and its murderous Royal family, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Israel and yet some "regime" or other are the baddies.

    ISIS is bad because it beheads people. What does the current Saudi Royal family do ?

    What did Israel do in Gaza ?
    I detest the Saudi regime and abhor much of what Israel does to Palestinians, but neither state has instituted rape, torture, sex slavery, child murder and genocide, as a matter of public policy.

    ISIS is an evil apart, as you surely know.
    Do you know the housewife in every Saudi household compels every housemaid to go on the pill ? It is not because of any great concern for her welfare. But under Islamic law, any male born where the father is her husband or son will have the same rights as her own sons.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    If there is one thing Labour is completely inept at, it is knifing a leader quickly.

    Combined with their labyrinthine selection procedure, the 4-5 available for Corbyn to still be leader on Jan 1st 2017 looks a great bet to me:

    http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/jeremy-corbyn-specials

    They are increasingly good at quickly selecting an inept leader...
    Labour have only had 18 years of losing seats at GE's.... A remarkable record.
    The Tories had 18 years of losing seats at GE's pre 2001 when they picked IDS, if it was not for Scotland Miliband would have made a handful of net gains like Hague did
    Actually 14 years for the Conservatives since 1983 to 97. Labour have lost seats (net) at every GE since 1997 up to 2015 an 18 year period. Or if we start in the year of the first GE with a loss, it is 10 years for the Conservatives and 13 years (so far) for Labour. Either way it is the worst period post WW2 for either major party. With Corbyn going to pile on the losses.
    Actually 14 years for Labour too then from 2001 to 2015. Labour did not lose any seats from 1997-2001 so those years do not count. Your third sentence does not make sense. (Of course the Tories also lost a seat at the Romsey by-election from 1997-2001, so Labour would have to lose a by-election under Corbyn to do as badly)
    Labour have lost (net) seats at every GE for 4 consecutive GEs. 01,05,10,15 that is four in a row.
    Conservatives lost net seats at GEs for 3 consecutive GEs 87,92 and 97.
    Was it pre WW2 when either of these parties had an equal or worse record than 4 GEs in a row?

    Of course Labour look like adding a 5th GE to their record.
    Labour 1950, 51, 55 and 59.

    Conservatives have never had a longer losing run than the one under Thathcer/Major.
    True, but Labour lost 40 to the SNP which is a special situation.
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 20,395
    surbiton said:

    SeanT said:

    surbiton said:

    SeanT said:

    JWisemann said:

    SeanT said:

    antifrank said:

    We are getting a voting intention poll tonight from ComRes:

    http://ind.pn/1PbXn67

    Those supplementaries look fun.


    Quite a crucial poll, then.


    If our media consisted of two jazz mags and a radio station broadcasting nothing but skiffle, Corbyn would still be unsellable to the voters.


    Corbyn's sin comprises none of that resume; he is simply guilty of doing things in a way in which the current establishment does not approve.

    The campaign of vilification against UKIP and Nigel Farage was just the same. As was (though less vicious) the campaign against Scottish independence.

    So has been the case for 'Putin' and whichever 'regime' (they become a regime when we dislike them) we don't like at any point.

    Most recently, we've seen this appalling propaganda machine turned to serve the purpose of overrunning Europe with migrants. Why?

    The propaganda always operates the same way:
    -Show the 'truth' of one side, but leave to one side facts and developments that don't suit the agenda
    -Scream accusations and demand action before the facts have been established, and drop the story like a hot brick when it develops and nuances become apparent.
    -Treat said accusations as accepted fact from that point on and refer to them as such later

    Some of the recent media causes I personally approve of, some I do not, but I recognise that I can't disapprove of it when it's against me, but have a sly chuckle and enjoy it when it's turned against someone else. It would be nice if others did the same.

    It is incredible why the British press or the BBC is so acquiescent of Saudi Arabia and its murderous Royal family, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Israel and yet some "regime" or other are the baddies.

    ISIS is bad because it beheads people. What does the current Saudi Royal family do ?

    What did Israel do in Gaza ?
    I detest the Saudi regime and abhor much of what Israel does to Palestinians, but neither state has instituted rape, torture, sex slavery, child murder and genocide, as a matter of public policy.

    ISIS is an evil apart, as you surely know.
    Do you know the housewife in every Saudi household compels every housemaid to go on the pill ? It is not because of any great concern for her welfare. But under Islamic law, any male born where the father is her husband or son will have the same rights as her own sons.
    Digusting country. But still not in the same league of deliberate, pathological evil as ISIS.

    It is, however, notable that Saudi Arabia is where the ISIS creed was born.
  • surbiton said:

    SeanT said:

    surbiton said:

    SeanT said:

    JWisemann said:

    SeanT said:

    antifrank said:

    We are getting a voting intention poll tonight from ComRes:

    http://ind.pn/1PbXn67

    Those supplementaries look fun.


    Quite a crucial poll, then.


    If our media consisted of two jazz mags and a radio station broadcasting nothing but skiffle, Corbyn would still be unsellable to the voters.


    Corbyn's sin comprises none of that resume; he is simply guilty of doing things in a way in which the current establishment does not approve.

    The campaign of vilification against UKIP and Nigel Farage was just the same. As was (though less vicious) the campaign against Scottish independence.

    So has been the case for 'Putin' and whichever 'regime' (they become a regime when we dislike them) we don't like at any point.

    Most recently, we've seen this appalling propaganda machine turned to serve the purpose of overrunning Europe with migrants. Why?

    The propaganda always operates the same way:
    -Show the 'truth' of one side, but leave to one side facts and developments that don't suit the agenda
    -Scream accusations and demand action before the facts have been established, and drop the story like a hot brick when it develops and nuances become apparent.
    -Treat said accusations as accepted fact from that point on and refer to them as such later

    Some of the recent media causes I personally approve of, some I do not, but I recognise that I can't disapprove of it when it's against me, but have a sly chuckle and enjoy it when it's turned against someone else. It would be nice if others did the same.

    It is incredible why the British press or the BBC is so acquiescent of Saudi Arabia and its murderous Royal family, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Israel and yet some "regime" or other are the baddies.

    ISIS is bad because it beheads people. What does the current Saudi Royal family do ?

    What did Israel do in Gaza ?
    I detest the Saudi regime and abhor much of what Israel does to Palestinians, but neither state has instituted rape, torture, sex slavery, child murder and genocide, as a matter of public policy.

    ISIS is an evil apart, as you surely know.
    Do you know the housewife in every Saudi household compels every housemaid to go on the pill ? It is not because of any great concern for her welfare. But under Islamic law, any male born where the father is her husband or son will have the same rights as her own sons.
    That's a huge every. But a practical, if morally ambiguous, answer, when one could imagine far worse.
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,059
    ydoethur said:

    Tim_B said:

    I remain amazed that Corbyn's leadership ambitions didn't go straight to DVD. If his reign was a movie - what would be most appropriate?

    Waking the Dead?

    The Dense Connection?

    Close Encounters of the Nerd Kind?

    The Untouchable?

    Austin Powers Leadmember?
    The Usual Suspects?

    If he wins, maybe The Great Escape?
    If he wins, it's The Greatest Story Ever Told.
  • SeanT said:


    Some truth there. The difference with Corbyn is that the press doesn't HAVE to make stuff up or develop misleading narratives blah de blah, because Corbyn really IS an extremist nutter, and he really DID appoint a Shadow Chancellor who honours the IRA, and so on.

    Let's take the Bin laden's death-is-a-tragedy thing. No one denies he said it (and on Iran's Press TV, too, but let's leave that aside). The Corbynite complaint is that Jeremy was taken out of context, and when you listen to more of his remarks, he meant Bin Laden's execution was a tragedy because he should have been arrested and tried.

    But then, if you do indeed listen to the rest of Corbyn's remarks on that show, you first hear Jezbollah allege that the entire death was "staged", Bin Laden died years before, after which, a few seconds later, Corbyn goes on to change his mind entirely and say that the death was a tragedy "like 9/11" - two remarks which prove that Corbyn is possibly mad, and certainly a monumental idiot with terrible judgement.

    That's no spin. It is the case.

    Very often it is fact. Civilians do get hurt and killed when Assad bombs the rebels. Putin is no doubt helping the rebels in the Donbass. Some (few it seems) of the migrants are fleeing danger rather than seeking a better life. There are racist Ukip supporters. There are nasty cybernats. The misleading element comes in when there's a total omission of valid and pertinent facts on the other side of the argument.

    As for Corbyn's views on the death of Bin Laden, I believe much of what America has done in its leadership of the world will only unfold and dawn upon the wider public over the coming years and decades. A bit of pantomime over killing Bin Laden is a comparatively mild accusation.

  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    LOL

    Or perhaps The Day The Earth Stood Still
    Tim_B said:

    ydoethur said:

    Tim_B said:

    I remain amazed that Corbyn's leadership ambitions didn't go straight to DVD. If his reign was a movie - what would be most appropriate?

    Waking the Dead?

    The Dense Connection?

    Close Encounters of the Nerd Kind?

    The Untouchable?

    Austin Powers Leadmember?
    The Usual Suspects?

    If he wins, maybe The Great Escape?
    If he wins, it's The Greatest Story Ever Told.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 40,467

    surbiton said:

    SeanT said:

    surbiton said:

    SeanT said:

    JWisemann said:

    SeanT said:

    antifrank said:

    We are getting a voting intention poll tonight from ComRes:

    http://ind.pn/1PbXn67

    Those supplementaries look fun.


    Quite a crucial poll, then.


    If our media consisted of two jazz mags and a radio station broadcasting nothing but skiffle, Corbyn would still be unsellable to the voters.


    Corbyn's sin comprises none of that resume; he is simply guilty of doing things in a way in which the current establishment does not approve.

    The campaign

    The propaganda always operates the same way:
    -Show the 'truth' of one side, but leave to one side facts and developments that don't suit the agenda
    -Scream accusations and demand action before the facts have been established, and drop the story like a hot brick when it develops and nuances become apparent.
    -Treat said accusations as accepted fact from that point on and refer to them as such later

    Some of the recent media causes I personally approve of, some I do not, but I recognise that I can't disapprove of it when it's against me, but have a sly chuckle and enjoy it when it's turned against someone else. It would be nice if others did the same.

    It is incredible why the British press or the BBC is so acquiescent of Saudi Arabia and its murderous Royal family, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Israel and yet some "regime" or other are the baddies.

    ISIS is bad because it beheads people. What does the current Saudi Royal family do ?

    What did Israel do in Gaza ?
    I detest the Saudi regime and abhor much of what Israel does to Palestinians, but neither state has instituted rape, torture, sex slavery, child murder and genocide, as a matter of public policy.

    ISIS is an evil apart, as you surely know.
    Do you know the housewife in every Saudi household compels every housemaid to go on the pill ? It is not because of any great concern for her welfare. But under Islamic law, any male born where the father is her husband or son will have the same rights as her own sons.
    That's a huge every. But a practical, if morally ambiguous, answer, when one could imagine far worse.
    Mind you sex outside marriage is illegal in Saudi
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,059
    edited September 2015

    LOL

    Or perhaps The Day The Earth Stood Still

    Tim_B said:

    ydoethur said:

    Tim_B said:

    I remain amazed that Corbyn's leadership ambitions didn't go straight to DVD. If his reign was a movie - what would be most appropriate?

    Waking the Dead?

    The Dense Connection?

    Close Encounters of the Nerd Kind?

    The Untouchable?

    Austin Powers Leadmember?
    The Usual Suspects?

    If he wins, maybe The Great Escape?
    If he wins, it's The Greatest Story Ever Told.
    Or for the loons, A Quantum of Solace

    or White Mischief

    The Fugitive

    Public Enemies
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    SeanT said:



    Digusting country. But still not in the same league of deliberate, pathological evil as ISIS.

    It is, however, notable that Saudi Arabia is where the ISIS creed was born.

    Have ISIS crucified anyone yet?

    http://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/prisoner-ali-mohammed-al-nimr-facing-death-by-crucifixion-in-saudi-arabia/story-fnh81ifq-1227533534610
  • JWisemann said:

    GeoffM said:

    JWisemann said:

    SeanT said:

    antifrank said:

    We are getting a voting intention poll tonight from ComRes:

    http://ind.pn/1PbXn67

    Those supplementaries look fun.

    Tonight we will probably know whether Corbyn has even a micro-chance of winning in 2020. If the Tories and tabloids, aided by Labour disloyalists, have already and successfully painted Corbyn as a danger to security, lover of ISIS etc, then the man is finished before he is started. Almost impossible to shake such an image off.

    Quite a crucial poll, then.
    I know you dislike Corbyn (maybe everyone to the left of hitler?) but if the above is true, do you think it's a good thing that media owned by a few tax exiles and foreigners should have such overpowering ability to dictate what is acceptable in this country? If you look at it objectively, rather than in the narrow sense of 'good for your side'?
    In this internet age nobody owns the media any longer.
    That's why the BBC will have to change model - as everyone else has done already.
    Older voters still read the papers. Everyone is exposed to at least some TV and radio. All of these outlets have been uniformly and relentlessly hostile to Corbyn, yet he represents the second largest party in the country. That is the behaviour of a banana republic.
    If every media outlet is saying the same thing, are the chances not that it's true?
    Do you think therein might lie your problem perchance?
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    antifrank said:

    One number to look at in the opening approval ratings is the Don't Know column. How many people are withholding judgement?

    How are the pollsters going to "poll" those who did not vote in 2015, 2010 or even earlier ?

    34% of the people on the electoral register did not vote. If you take those not on the register the percentage comes close to 40% if not higher.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 40,467

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    If there is one thing Labour is completely inept at, it is knifing a leader quickly.

    Combined with their labyrinthine selection procedure, the 4-5 available for Corbyn to still be leader on Jan 1st 2017 looks a great bet to me:

    http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/jeremy-corbyn-specials

    They are increasingly good at quickly selecting an inept leader...
    Labour have only had 18 years of losing seats at GE's.... A remarkable record.
    The Tories had 18 years of losing seats at GE's pre 2001 when they picked IDS, if it was not for Scotland Miliband would have made a handful of net gains like Hague did
    Actually 14 years for the Conservatives since 1983 to 97. Labour have lost seats (net) at every GE since 1997 up to 2015 an 18 year period. Or if we start in the year of the first GE with a loss, it is 10 years for the Conservatives and 13 years (so far) for Labour. Either way it is the worst period post WW2 for either major party. With Corbyn going to pile on the losses.
    Actually 14 years for Labour too then from 2001 to 2015. Labour did not lose any seats from 1997-2001 so those years do not count. Your third sentence does not make sense. (Of course the Tories also lost a seat at the Romsey by-election from 1997-2001, so Labour would have to lose a by-election under Corbyn to do as badly)
    Labour have lost (net) seats at every GE for 4 consecutive GEs. 01,05,10,15 that is four in a row.
    Conservatives lost net seats at GEs for 3 consecutive GEs 87,92 and 97.
    Was it pre WW2 when either of these parties had an equal or worse record than 4 GEs in a row?

    Of course Labour look like adding a 5th GE to their record.
    The Tories though lost seats in by elections from 1983 to 1987 and 1992 to 1997 while Labour did not lose a single seat in by elections from 1997 to 2001. Outside Scotland Ed Miliband gained more seats in 2015 than Hague did in 2001
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    surbiton said:


    Do you know the housewife in every Saudi household compels every housemaid to go on the pill ? It is not because of any great concern for her welfare. But under Islamic law, any male born where the father is her husband or son will have the same rights as her own sons.

    Presumably something to do with this:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma_malakat_aymanukum
  • MattWMattW Posts: 1,846
    As for the Corbyn biopic?

    Back to the Future.

    Or

    The Bland that Time Forgot.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 867
    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said
    'The economy is growing, after the recession Labour left'
    The economy was growing when Labour left office - it now appears to be slowing. How will it look in 2018?

    'The economy was growing when labour left office'???????

    You mean after the man that clamed he had abolished 'boom and bust' delivered the closest thing to a depression since the 1930s! That the UK was particularly venerable because the amount of debt that he had built up even in the good years! He had managed to create the impression that things where not getting much worse by throwing more borrowed money at things like the car scrapage scheme!!!

    'it now appears to be slowing'??????

    40,000 new jobs where crated in the last quarter, that is very healthy, not as much as in the last few years, but that is because as the pool of unemployed people empties, there are less scope to crate more jobs. instead the principle indicator is now pay, which is growing at 2.9% again very healthily.

    After the damage inflicted by Mr Browns, 'no boom and bust' neo-depression, pay and living standards are now returning to where they should be.

    'How will that look in 2018'

    We will have to see, but I expect that by that time the 'Utopia of Venezwala' that the left idealises, will have imploded which is not going to reflect where on its proponents in this contrary.
  • JEO said:

    SeanT said:



    Digusting country. But still not in the same league of deliberate, pathological evil as ISIS.

    It is, however, notable that Saudi Arabia is where the ISIS creed was born.

    Have ISIS crucified anyone yet?

    http://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/prisoner-ali-mohammed-al-nimr-facing-death-by-crucifixion-in-saudi-arabia/story-fnh81ifq-1227533534610
    Yes, I understand they have (haven't googled but I'm sure it's googleable).

    The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

    ISIS is a Saudi-sponsored entity. If you want to see what the Saudis do when they REALLY want to crush an armed entity, see what they've done to the Houthi uprising in Yemen.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656

    SeanT said:


    Some truth there. The difference with Corbyn is that the press doesn't HAVE to make stuff up or develop misleading narratives blah de blah, because Corbyn really IS an extremist nutter, and he really DID appoint a Shadow Chancellor who honours the IRA, and so on.

    Let's take the Bin laden's death-is-a-tragedy thing. No one denies he said it (and on Iran's Press TV, too, but let's leave that aside). The Corbynite complaint is that Jeremy was taken out of context, and when you listen to more of his remarks, he meant Bin Laden's execution was a tragedy because he should have been arrested and tried.

    But then, if you do indeed listen to the rest of Corbyn's remarks on that show, you first hear Jezbollah allege that the entire death was "staged", Bin Laden died years before, after which, a few seconds later, Corbyn goes on to change his mind entirely and say that the death was a tragedy "like 9/11" - two remarks which prove that Corbyn is possibly mad, and certainly a monumental idiot with terrible judgement.

    That's no spin. It is the case.

    Very often it is fact. Civilians do get hurt and killed when Assad bombs the rebels. Putin is no doubt helping the rebels in the Donbass. Some (few it seems) of the migrants are fleeing danger rather than seeking a better life. There are racist Ukip supporters. There are nasty cybernats. The misleading element comes in when there's a total omission of valid and pertinent facts on the other side of the argument.

    As for Corbyn's views on the death of Bin Laden, I believe much of what America has done in its leadership of the world will only unfold and dawn upon the wider public over the coming years and decades. A bit of pantomime over killing Bin Laden is a comparatively mild accusation.

    What do you think are the less mild accusations of what has been done by America that the wide public has not dawned upon yet?
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    edited September 2015

    I had to laugh earlier when a very vocal Corbyn supporter in my circle of friends posted that it was clear that the new Shadow Cabinet was so packed with women and that Health and Education were the top jobs in Corbyn's eyes.

    I didn't have the heart to point out that he appointed someone he had never met to be Shadow Education Secretary (and then only after she had turned down the first job because she wanted to do something with child care) - and the new Shadow Health Secretary is someone who was a complete unknown (even to most of her constituents)

    If those jobs are so important and so central to his vision, why not appoint women with a track record on delivering in the House and in the media?

    The depths to which the Corbyn apologists are having to plumb in order to justify their man's actions is quite frankly ludicrous. And we are only in week 1.

    You actually have friends who support Corbyn ? Surprisingly, SeanT also has "leftie" friends. Ihave always wondered why they have him as a friend ?

    I am in the Labour Party since 1979 [ barring 2003 - 2007 ] and am on the left of the party and I do not know anyone.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Armageddon.
    MattW said:

    As for the Corbyn biopic?

    Back to the Future.

    Or

    The Bland that Time Forgot.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 35,839
    @afneil: Latest GDP estimates show UK and US economies have both grown by circa 13.5% since 2009 post-crash nadir.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 43,665
    JEO said:

    SeanT said:



    Digusting country. But still not in the same league of deliberate, pathological evil as ISIS.

    It is, however, notable that Saudi Arabia is where the ISIS creed was born.

    Have ISIS crucified anyone yet?

    http://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/prisoner-ali-mohammed-al-nimr-facing-death-by-crucifixion-in-saudi-arabia/story-fnh81ifq-1227533534610
    Yep - 27:52
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @JWisemann

    'Everyone is exposed to at least some TV and radio. All of these outlets have been uniformly and relentlessly hostile to Corbyn, yet he represents the second largest party in the country. That is the behaviour of a banana republic.'

    Have you made a formal complaint to the BBC yet?
Sign In or Register to comment.