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?
I think they've used and cultivated terrorism as a weapon of war. I think they've embarked upon a strategy of wilfully destabilising nation states and balkanising regions for their own strategic gain. I think their corporations have undermined our public health, and rotted our brains. Is that enough for an appetiser?
I would also like to state that I love Americans - every one I've met to a person has been charming. And I admire many attributes of America. I see America like Pandora's box in that respect. It causes problems but at the same time it offers hope.
Can you give some examples of when they have "used and cultivated terrorism"?
I think everyone accepts they have destabilised some states, like North Korea and Afghanistan. That doesn't mean it's illegitimate.
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.
Perhaps because only absolute idiots vet their friends for political allegiance before becoming friends with them?
"Sorry, before we go out for a drink I'd just like you to answer me a few questions. Firstly, are you a peace-loving Corbynite superior being, a baby-eating evil Tory, or some other form of lowlife slug?"
Some of the best political conversations I've had in my life were with lefty friends who, using both knowledge and passion, challenged my positions.
Didn't @tyson say he'd never be friends with a Tory on principle?
I don't know. I'd like to hope he didn't.
As an aside, there was an example of this on the R5L phone-in a few years ago. There was a teacher's strike, and a parent phoned in saying he was going to keep his child away from school. He said that even if the school opened, he'd disown his son if he crossed a picket line to get to school.
In other words: a man who would disown his son for going to school to get an education ...
There's been an awful lot of churching in an historic period of change.Politics in 21st century is very volatile.Labour starts on a solid base and popular policies,like removing the market in education,can reach the voters on education.Once the policies become clearer,there is an increased salesforce of 62,000 extra women and men who have joined the Labour party since Jeremy Corbyn was elected.Voter registration is the place to start.
'The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan, General William Odom recently remarked, “by any measure the U.S. has long used terrorism. In 1978-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the U.S. would be in violation.”'
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.
The northern heartlands are a few big cities - way less important than the whole of southern England - and more so given the loss of Scotland, decline in Wales, and in many small towns all over the country. Labour are getting closer and closer to the last redoubts.
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.
Or perhaps they are telling the truth? After all, he did say what he been accused of.
Or perhaps you want teh papers to tell lies about what he said?
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.
The northern heartlands are a few big cities - way less important than the whole of southern England - and more so given the loss of Scotland, decline in Wales, and in many small towns all over the country. Labour are getting closer and closer to the last redoubts.
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.
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.
The northern heartlands are a few big cities - way less important than the whole of southern England - and more so given the loss of Scotland, decline in Wales, and in many small towns all over the country. Labour are getting closer and closer to the last redoubts.
And Labour local authorities are pleased with the opportunities the tories are giving them. The inner cities may stay Labour but the mood may well seep out to the suburbs and beyond that the mood will consolidate the tores.
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.
Or perhaps they are telling the truth? After all, he did say what he been accused of.
Or perhaps you want teh papers to tell lies about what he said?
They tell half a truth. They denounce Corbyn's links with Muslim undesirables but take little issue with our own Government and establishment's close personal and strategic ties with the awful regime in KSA - which happens to be the world's number 1 sponsor of Islamic extremism and terror. That half a truth leads Corbyn to be (perhaps deservedly) loathed, but others to get away with behaviour that puts British people in danger. That is propaganda and deserves to be condemned.
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.
Perhaps because only absolute idiots vet their friends for political allegiance before becoming friends with them?
"Sorry, before we go out for a drink I'd just like you to answer me a few questions. Firstly, are you a peace-loving Corbynite superior being, a baby-eating evil Tory, or some other form of lowlife slug?"
Some of the best political conversations I've had in my life were with lefty friends who, using both knowledge and passion, challenged my positions.
Wait, how did you find out the secret question for the PB Tory interview process?
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.
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?
I think they've used and cultivated terrorism as a weapon of war. I think they've embarked upon a strategy of wilfully destabilising nation states and balkanising regions for their own strategic gain. I think their corporations have undermined our public health, and rotted our brains. Is that enough for an appetiser?
I would also like to state that I love Americans - every one I've met to a person has been charming. And I admire many attributes of America. I see America like Pandora's box in that respect. It causes problems but at the same time it offers hope.
Can you give some examples of when they have "used and cultivated terrorism"? I think everyone accepts they have destabilised some states, like North Korea and Afghanistan. That doesn't mean it's illegitimate.
Didn't @tyson say he'd never be friends with a Tory on principle?
I've had at least one, and possibly more, girl say that they couldn't date me because of my political beliefs.
Ok, so the one was a bit crazy and it turned out was involved in an affair with a married man, but still ...
We did have a *great* conversation when I revealed that I'd actually grown up on one of the old UK colonies, making me about the representation of pretty much every thing she campaigned against. YAY.
'The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan, General William Odom recently remarked, “by any measure the U.S. has long used terrorism. In 1978-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the U.S. would be in violation.”'
I'd be disappointed and nervous if they hadn't. I'm completely easy with it.
'The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan, General William Odom recently remarked, “by any measure the U.S. has long used terrorism. In 1978-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the U.S. would be in violation.”'
I'd be disappointed and nervous if they hadn't. I'm completely easy with it.
You'd be disappointed and nervous if they hadn't created Al Qaeda?
I'm glad to say I haven't experienced myself - but then again until very recently I've never really mentioned it.
Thinking hard about it - I'd really pushed to think of anyone I'd not be friends with because of their politics. It strikes me as a bit peculiar to be honest.
Didn't @tyson say he'd never be friends with a Tory on principle?
I've had at least one, and possibly more, girl say that they couldn't date me because of my political beliefs.
Ok, so the one was a bit crazy and it turned out was involved in an affair with a married man, but still ...
We did have a *great* conversation when I revealed that I'd actually grown up on one of the old UK colonies, making me about the representation of pretty much every thing she campaigned against. YAY.
There's been an awful lot of churching in an historic period of change.Politics in 21st century is very volatile.Labour starts on a solid base and popular policies,like removing the market in education,can reach the voters on education.Once the policies become clearer,there is an increased salesforce of 62,000 extra women and men who have joined the Labour party since Jeremy Corbyn was elected.Voter registration is the place to start.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by 'removing the market in education', but I think that you'll find denying parents choice over which school their children go to would be extremely unpopular, especially amongst a particular type of Labour supporter.
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
Labour gained something in the order of 12 or so seats from the LDs. The LDs got wiped out not least by the Tories.
'The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan, General William Odom recently remarked, “by any measure the U.S. has long used terrorism. In 1978-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the U.S. would be in violation.”'
I'd be disappointed and nervous if they hadn't. I'm completely easy with it.
You'd be disappointed and nervous if they hadn't created Al Qaeda?
It's a view.
It's a view that they 'created' something which wasn't there under other names already. Grow up.
People Sleep Peacefully in Their Beds at Night Only Because Rough Men Stand Ready to Do Violence on Their Behalf
Still good enough though, at or above trend growth. The problem for the US is that they haven't been able to balance the budget either. While we have a tenuous plan to do so at the end of the current cycle, the US has no plan at all. In 2020 they are still in deficit by about 2.5% of GDP while Osborne says he wants to have a surplus at the same point in time.
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.
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
Oh come on. Even the Guardian, Independent and Mirror are running overwhelmingly anti-Corbyn coverage, as is the supposedly impartial BBC. It's an elite stitch-up. Plurality of opinion until its something outside of approved topics.
During the IDS years Murdoch's papers supported Blair but they didn't support the Labour Party at large, and they certainly didn't attack IDS & Hague like they are doing to Corbyn. So it's a completely false equivalence.
There's been an awful lot of churching in an historic period of change.Politics in 21st century is very volatile.Labour starts on a solid base and popular policies,like removing the market in education,can reach the voters on education.Once the policies become clearer,there is an increased salesforce of 62,000 extra women and men who have joined the Labour party since Jeremy Corbyn was elected.Voter registration is the place to start.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by 'removing the market in education', but I think that you'll find denying parents choice over which school their children go to would be extremely unpopular, especially amongst a particular type of Labour supporter.
Didn't @tyson say he'd never be friends with a Tory on principle?
I've had at least one, and possibly more, girl say that they couldn't date me because of my political beliefs.
Ok, so the one was a bit crazy and it turned out was involved in an affair with a married man, but still ...
We did have a *great* conversation when I revealed that I'd actually grown up on one of the old UK colonies, making me about the representation of pretty much every thing she campaigned against. YAY.
There's been an awful lot of churching in an historic period of change.Politics in 21st century is very volatile.Labour starts on a solid base and popular policies,like removing the market in education,can reach the voters on education.Once the policies become clearer,there is an increased salesforce of 62,000 extra women and men who have joined the Labour party since Jeremy Corbyn was elected.Voter registration is the place to start.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by 'removing the market in education', but I think that you'll find denying parents choice over which school their children go to would be extremely unpopular, especially amongst a particular type of Labour supporter.
There's been an awful lot of churching in an historic period of change.Politics in 21st century is very volatile.Labour starts on a solid base and popular policies,like removing the market in education,can reach the voters on education.Once the policies become clearer,there is an increased salesforce of 62,000 extra women and men who have joined the Labour party since Jeremy Corbyn was elected.Voter registration is the place to start.
62,000 new members of the labour party since Corbyn was elected leader? that's significant if its on top of the 100,000ish that joined between the GE and the leadership vote. I'm not doubting you but can you provide a link to the sores?
I don't know a huge amount about the Labour party's internal working, but I'm courase as to how significantly and how quickly all these new, mostly hard left members will change the party. i.e. gain power in the NEC and in CLPs, so that it becomes harder for a new more moderate leader to move back to the centre?
'The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan, General William Odom recently remarked, “by any measure the U.S. has long used terrorism. In 1978-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the U.S. would be in violation.”'
I'd be disappointed and nervous if they hadn't. I'm completely easy with it.
You'd be disappointed and nervous if they hadn't created Al Qaeda?
It's a view.
It's a view that they 'created' something which wasn't there under other names already. Grow up.
People Sleep Peacefully in Their Beds at Night Only Because Rough Men Stand Ready to Do Violence on Their Behalf
You think people sleep peacefully in their beds because of Al Qaeda. Batshit doesn't cover it.
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 ...
Like Surbiton I'm a bit puzzled by this. Is your friend so senior that you'd expect him to have met everyone in the Shadow Cabinet personally?
On the thread discussion - it's a sad life if one only meets people of like mind. It gets a bit difficult if you have friends who you like who reveal an opinion that you think is really disgusting. You have to weigh up everything you like about them against the latest information and decide whether that changes your view or not.
I have a very old friend who normally votes Tory (yeah, well...) but once once voted BNP in a Euro-election. He's generous, amiable and not necessarily narrow-minded, but he felt immigration wasn't getting enough discussion so he wanted to send a message. I swallowed hard and accepted it. In turn he accepts my views, which maybe is hard for him too.
But an impact of social media is that we're more and more selecting news sources of doubtful integrity which tell us things we like, so the common basis of supposed knowledge which TV news still provides is starting to ebb away. People have always disagreed on opinions, but people are increasingly (?) disagreeing on the facts - "I know this is true as several people on Twitter said it".
There's been an awful lot of churching in an historic period of change.Politics in 21st century is very volatile.Labour starts on a solid base and popular policies,like removing the market in education,can reach the voters on education.Once the policies become clearer,there is an increased salesforce of 62,000 extra women and men who have joined the Labour party since Jeremy Corbyn was elected.Voter registration is the place to start.
62,000 new members of the labour party since Corbyn was elected leader? that's significant if its on top of the 100,000ish that joined between the GE and the leadership vote. I'm not doubting you but can you provide a link to the sores?
I don't know a huge amount about the Labour party's internal working, but I'm courase as to how significantly and how quickly all these new, mostly hard left members will change the party. i.e. gain power in the NEC and in CLPs, so that it becomes harder for a new more moderate leader to move back to the centre?
And, of course, it's impossible at this stage to tell how many people have 'left' the Labour party since last weekend. Some might have gone to the trouble of handing back their membership cards but I imagine most will just withdraw when their current membership runs out (or wait until corbyn is replaced).
'The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan, General William Odom recently remarked, “by any measure the U.S. has long used terrorism. In 1978-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the U.S. would be in violation.”'
I'd be disappointed and nervous if they hadn't. I'm completely easy with it.
You'd be disappointed and nervous if they hadn't created Al Qaeda?
It's a view.
It's a view that they 'created' something which wasn't there under other names already. Grow up.
People Sleep Peacefully in Their Beds at Night Only Because Rough Men Stand Ready to Do Violence on Their Behalf
You think people sleep peacefully in their beds because of Al Qaeda. Batshit doesn't cover it.
You are delightfully and entertainingly insane. I hope that your carer keeps sharp objects away from you.
How about "Honey, I shrunk my Votes" or "Home Alone part 2 - the Shadow Cabinet"
I am sorry to tell you there is already Home Alone parts 2, 3, and 4. I think it is fair to say that they get progressively worse so Home Alone part 5 is a real possibility.
Didn't @tyson say he'd never be friends with a Tory on principle?
I've had at least one, and possibly more, girl say that they couldn't date me because of my political beliefs.
Ok, so the one was a bit crazy and it turned out was involved in an affair with a married man, but still ...
We did have a *great* conversation when I revealed that I'd actually grown up on one of the old UK colonies, making me about the representation of pretty much every thing she campaigned against. YAY.
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.
Older voters have this thing called 'experience'. They're not the mindless sheeple you seem to believe.
How about "Honey, I shrunk my Votes" or "Home Alone part 2 - the Shadow Cabinet"
I am sorry to tell you there is already Home Alone parts 2, 3, and 4. I think it is fair to say that they get progressively worse so Home Alone part 5 is a real possibility.
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.
Your analysis of propaganda is spot on. I have to constantly and consciously remind myself of this in following US politics - if I am to have any chance at a balanced and informed view I must ensure that I read the other side's version of truth too, and to be able honestly to recognize when my side is using these tactics.
That said, while finding much of the Corbyn stuff overblown and some of it unwise, I do find it fun, fully realizing this is somewhat hypocritical given I would be annoyed were the shoe on the other foot.
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 ...
Like Surbiton I'm a bit puzzled by this. Is your friend so senior that you'd expect him to have met everyone in the Shadow Cabinet personally?
On the thread discussion - it's a sad life if one only meets people of like mind. It gets a bit difficult if you have friends who you like who reveal an opinion that you think is really disgusting. You have to weigh up everything you like about them against the latest information and decide whether that changes your view or not.
I have a very old friend who normally votes Tory (yeah, well...) but once once voted BNP in a Euro-election. He's generous, amiable and not necessarily narrow-minded, but he felt immigration wasn't getting enough discussion so he wanted to send a message. I swallowed hard and accepted it. In turn he accepts my views, which maybe is hard for him too.
But an impact of social media is that we're more and more selecting news sources of doubtful integrity which tell us things we like, so the common basis of supposed knowledge which TV news still provides is starting to ebb away. People have always disagreed on opinions, but people are increasingly (?) disagreeing on the facts - "I know this is true as several people on Twitter said it".
My point, and I should have been clearer in this, is that Corbyn appointed a Shadow Education Secretary whom HE had never met. Lucy Powell was absolutely clear that she had never encountered Corbyn. Yet she was given one of the 'top two' jobs by Corbyn (after she turned down DECC)
It is quite simply incredible that Corbyn (and his apologists) can try to claim that women are holding the top jobs in his SC - and then it transpires that he appointed people he has never met, let alone had a conversation with.
Utterly ludicrous. A party leader who appoints people to their front bench team without ever having met them is not a leader at all.
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.
Older voters have this thing called 'experience'. They're not the mindless sheeple you seem to believe.
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.
The northern heartlands are a few big cities - way less important than the whole of southern England - and more so given the loss of Scotland, decline in Wales, and in many small towns all over the country. Labour are getting closer and closer to the last redoubts.
Corbyn's internals on the Yougov were appalling in the North on immigration, terrorism and defence. Basically the same outcome as in the South.
Even Ed and Brown were given a free pass on two of the three.
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 ...
Like Surbiton I'm a bit puzzled by this. Is your friend so senior that you'd expect him to have met everyone in the Shadow Cabinet personally?
On the thread discussion - it's a sad life if one only meets people of like mind. It gets a bit difficult if you have friends who you like who reveal an opinion that you think is really disgusting. You have to weigh up everything you like about them against the latest information and decide whether that changes your view or not.
I have a very old friend who normally votes Tory (yeah, well...) but once once voted BNP in a Euro-election. He's generous, amiable and not necessarily narrow-minded, but he felt immigration wasn't getting enough discussion so he wanted to send a message. I swallowed hard and accepted it. In turn he accepts my views, which maybe is hard for him too.
But an impact of social media is that we're more and more selecting news sources of doubtful integrity which tell us things we like, so the common basis of supposed knowledge which TV news still provides is starting to ebb away. People have always disagreed on opinions, but people are increasingly (?) disagreeing on the facts - "I know this is true as several people on Twitter said it".
Didn't the new shadow education secretary (forget her name) tweet during the campaign that she'd never met Corbyn?
'The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan, General William Odom recently remarked, “by any measure the U.S. has long used terrorism. In 1978-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the U.S. would be in violation.”'
I'd be disappointed and nervous if they hadn't. I'm completely easy with it.
You'd be disappointed and nervous if they hadn't created Al Qaeda?
It's a view.
It's a view that they 'created' something which wasn't there under other names already. Grow up.
People Sleep Peacefully in Their Beds at Night Only Because Rough Men Stand Ready to Do Violence on Their Behalf
You think people sleep peacefully in their beds because of Al Qaeda. Batshit doesn't cover it.
You are delightfully and entertainingly insane. I hope that your carer keeps sharp objects away from you.
Sorry you felt you had to resort to personal invective due to lack of any sort of coherent argument.
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.
Older voters have this thing called 'experience'. They're not the mindless sheeple you seem to believe.
Young voters have experience too; often experiences their elders didn't - though not as many.
How about "Honey, I shrunk my Votes" or "Home Alone part 2 - the Shadow Cabinet"
I am sorry to tell you there is already Home Alone parts 2, 3, and 4. I think it is fair to say that they get progressively worse so Home Alone part 5 is a real possibility.
Surely just Apocalypse Now would cover it.
As I mentioned my wife was doing a really weird Yougov last night. It asked lots of detailed questions about the EU and our preparations for the apocalypse. I assumed there was a direct connection but maybe it was one of these indirect questions...
I'm glad to say I haven't experienced myself - but then again until very recently I've never really mentioned it.
Thinking hard about it - I'd really pushed to think of anyone I'd not be friends with because of their politics. It strikes me as a bit peculiar to be honest.
Didn't @tyson say he'd never be friends with a Tory on principle?
I've had at least one, and possibly more, girl say that they couldn't date me because of my political beliefs.
Ok, so the one was a bit crazy and it turned out was involved in an affair with a married man, but still ...
We did have a *great* conversation when I revealed that I'd actually grown up on one of the old UK colonies, making me about the representation of pretty much every thing she campaigned against. YAY.
I've certainly had close friends with very different political views to me. Indeed, one of those friends whose opinion and intellect i most respect was so anti-Tory he vowed, and was good to his word, not to live in the UK while Maggie was in power. Needless to say, we have plenty of political differences, even when we share the same analysis of a problem.
'The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan, General William Odom recently remarked, “by any measure the U.S. has long used terrorism. In 1978-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the U.S. would be in violation.”'
I'd be disappointed and nervous if they hadn't. I'm completely easy with it.
You'd be disappointed and nervous if they hadn't created Al Qaeda?
It's a view.
It's a view that they 'created' something which wasn't there under other names already. Grow up.
People Sleep Peacefully in Their Beds at Night Only Because Rough Men Stand Ready to Do Violence on Their Behalf
You think people sleep peacefully in their beds because of Al Qaeda. Batshit doesn't cover it.
You are delightfully and entertainingly insane. I hope that your carer keeps sharp objects away from you.
Sorry you felt you had to resort to personal invective due to lack of any sort of coherent argument.
You called me 'batshit' only one comment above - so you either have no self-awareness or some very serious issues with your short term memory.
Help yourself to the last word. I have other things to do. Cheers.
There's been an awful lot of churching in an historic period of change.Politics in 21st century is very volatile.Labour starts on a solid base and popular policies,like removing the market in education,can reach the voters on education.Once the policies become clearer,there is an increased salesforce of 62,000 extra women and men who have joined the Labour party since Jeremy Corbyn was elected.Voter registration is the place to start.
62,000 new members of the labour party since Corbyn was elected leader? that's significant if its on top of the 100,000ish that joined between the GE and the leadership vote. I'm not doubting you but can you provide a link to the sores?
I don't know a huge amount about the Labour party's internal working, but I'm courase as to how significantly and how quickly all these new, mostly hard left members will change the party. i.e. gain power in the NEC and in CLPs, so that it becomes harder for a new more moderate leader to move back to the centre?
And, of course, it's impossible at this stage to tell how many people have 'left' the Labour party since last weekend. Some might have gone to the trouble of handing back their membership cards but I imagine most will just withdraw when their current membership runs out (or wait until corbyn is replaced).
I suspect only a small number will have formally resigned perhaps in the low 100, or maybe 1000. their will be more who let there subscription run out, but even without the loss of moderate members, the number of new joiners, together with the long standing hard left, now clearly make up a majority.
In the PCS Trade Union, a traditionally non-political and moderate Trade Union, when the hard left gained power under, Mark Serwotka, they were very clever about getting their people in to key posts and modifying rules, that have made it impossible for the left to be removed from power. Instead there has been a slow but steady decline as the moderated membership and a couple of significant brake-away Unions has given up on regaining power in the Union and drifted away. The comparison is not perfect but I feel could be a indicator of how this will play out.
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 ...
Like Surbiton I'm a bit puzzled by this. Is your friend so senior that you'd expect him to have met everyone in the Shadow Cabinet personally?
On the thread discussion - it's a sad life if one only meets people of like mind. It gets a bit difficult if you have friends who you like who reveal an opinion that you think is really disgusting. You have to weigh up everything you like about them against the latest information and decide whether that changes your view or not.
I have a very old friend who normally votes Tory (yeah, well...) but once once voted BNP in a Euro-election. He's generous, amiable and not necessarily narrow-minded, but he felt immigration wasn't getting enough discussion so he wanted to send a message. I swallowed hard and accepted it. In turn he accepts my views, which maybe is hard for him too.
But an impact of social media is that we're more and more selecting news sources of doubtful integrity which tell us things we like, so the common basis of supposed knowledge which TV news still provides is starting to ebb away. People have always disagreed on opinions, but people are increasingly (?) disagreeing on the facts - "I know this is true as several people on Twitter said it".
Didn't the new shadow education secretary (forget her name) tweet during the campaign that she'd never met Corbyn?
That might explain why Lucy Powell took the job of course. How bad could it be?
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 ...
Like Surbiton I'm a bit puzzled by this. Is your friend so senior that you'd expect him to have met everyone in the Shadow Cabinet personally?
On the thread discussion - it's a sad life if one only meets people of like mind. It gets a bit difficult if you have friends who you like who reveal an opinion that you think is really disgusting. You have to weigh up everything you like about them against the latest information and decide whether that changes your view or not.
I have a very old friend who normally votes Tory (yeah, well...) but once once voted BNP in a Euro-election. He's generous, amiable and not necessarily narrow-minded, but he felt immigration wasn't getting enough discussion so he wanted to send a message. I swallowed hard and accepted it. In turn he accepts my views, which maybe is hard for him too.
But an impact of social media is that we're more and more selecting news sources of doubtful integrity which tell us things we like, so the common basis of supposed knowledge which TV news still provides is starting to ebb away. People have always disagreed on opinions, but people are increasingly (?) disagreeing on the facts - "I know this is true as several people on Twitter said it".
Didn't the new shadow education secretary (forget her name) tweet during the campaign that she'd never met Corbyn?
That might explain why Lucy Powell took the job of course. How bad could it be?
There's been an awful lot of churching in an historic period of change.Politics in 21st century is very volatile.Labour starts on a solid base and popular policies,like removing the market in education,can reach the voters on education.Once the policies become clearer,there is an increased salesforce of 62,000 extra women and men who have joined the Labour party since Jeremy Corbyn was elected.Voter registration is the place to start.
62,000 new members of the labour party since Corbyn was elected leader? that's significant if its on top of the 100,000ish that joined between the GE and the leadership vote. I'm not doubting you but can you provide a link to the sores?
I don't know a huge amount about the Labour party's internal working, but I'm courase as to how significantly and how quickly all these new, mostly hard left members will change the party. i.e. gain power in the NEC and in CLPs, so that it becomes harder for a new more moderate leader to move back to the centre?
And, of course, it's impossible at this stage to tell how many people have 'left' the Labour party since last weekend. Some might have gone to the trouble of handing back their membership cards but I imagine most will just withdraw when their current membership runs out (or wait until corbyn is replaced).
I suspect only a small number will have formally resigned perhaps in the low 100, or maybe 1000. their will be more who let there subscription run out, but even without the loss of moderate members, the number of new joiners, together with the long standing hard left, now clearly make up a majority.
In the PCS Trade Union, a traditionally non-political and moderate Trade Union, when the hard left gained power under, Mark Serwotka, they were very clever about getting their people in to key posts and modifying rules, that have made it impossible for the left to be removed from power. Instead there has been a slow but steady decline as the moderated membership and a couple of significant brake-away Unions has given up on regaining power in the Union and drifted away. The comparison is not perfect but I feel could be a indicator of how this will play out.
One of my closest friends is in that boat. He voted 1. Kendall (to send a message) / 2. Cooper (as the practical choice). He's not resigned but will let his membership expire and has said he'll donate his membership fee to the local food bank instead.
Maybe he has a burning enthusiasm for education. All of a sudden.
Or maybe, just maybe, it is even more desperate than it looks.
After his appointment, Lord Watson no doubt will be popping into One Brewers Green to measure the curtains. Or has he already done that? Perhaps that explains the fire five days ago?
F1: hmm. Got several ideas, but all the odds are a bit shoddy.
I do think the race will be fascinating, but tricky finding value [when I do put it up, I won't mention the tip(s) here to help preserve uncertainty for those who haven't seen qualifying yet].
Maybe he has a burning enthusiasm for education. All of a sudden.
Or maybe, just maybe, it is even more desperate than it looks.
After his appointment, Lord Watson no doubt will be popping into One Brewers Green to measure the curtains. Or has he already done that? Perhaps that explains the fire five days ago?
I'm glad to say I haven't experienced myself - but then again until very recently I've never really mentioned it.
Thinking hard about it - I'd really pushed to think of anyone I'd not be friends with because of their politics. It strikes me as a bit peculiar to be honest.
Didn't @tyson say he'd never be friends with a Tory on principle?
I've had at least one, and possibly more, girl say that they couldn't date me because of my political beliefs.
Ok, so the one was a bit crazy and it turned out was involved in an affair with a married man, but still ...
We did have a *great* conversation when I revealed that I'd actually grown up on one of the old UK colonies, making me about the representation of pretty much every thing she campaigned against. YAY.
I've certainly had close friends with very different political views to me. Indeed, one of those friends whose opinion and intellect i most respect was so anti-Tory he vowed, and was good to his word, not to live in the UK while Maggie was in power. Needless to say, we have plenty of political differences, even when we share the same analysis of a problem.
My best friend - we've known each other since we were 8 and he is currently battling multiple myeloma - was at one time many years ago the national fund raiser for the Labour Party.
Our political views are poles apart, but when we talk politics we avoid big emotional debates and respect each other's view, and we are still best friends.
Friendship - genuine friendship - trumps politics. In a lifetime you have only a few real friends, as against many acquaintances.
If you only want to be friends with folks who agree with you on everything it's very limiting.
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.
Older voters have this thing called 'experience'. They're not the mindless sheeple you seem to believe.
Some older voters base their vote on experience.
But probably a much larger cohort base it on "that's what I've always done". Hence Labour still existing and the turkeys who voted for Christmas when they crossed the No box in September last year.
Of course the basic tenet for those who do vote based on "experience" is "how do i keep my gains from being part of the most destructive generation in history".
Scotland look pretty certain to make the final now.
It's a shame the Hydro is likely to be booked out years ahead nowadays. A 15,000 crowd would have been great but I doubt they could get the venue with only two months notice.
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
Labour gained something in the order of 12 or so seats from the LDs. The LDs got wiped out not least by the Tories.
True but Labour also gained slightly more Tory seats net in England under Miliband than Hague gained Labour seats net in 2001
I see that the whole IRA story was put to Jezza a week ago and still No Comment. Sun have tweeted the EDM condemning it from 1987. I can imagine the digging that's taken place...
Apols to OxfordSimon for misreading your post. I'm not sure it's too surprising that someone catapulted from the backbenches hasn't previously met every potential shadow minister, but I understand your point now.
62,000 new members of the labour party since Corbyn was elected leader? that's significant if its on top of the 100,000ish that joined between the GE and the leadership vote. I'm not doubting you but can you provide a link to the sores?
I don't know a huge amount about the Labour party's internal working, but I'm courase as to how significantly and how quickly all these new, mostly hard left members will change the party. i.e. gain power in the NEC and in CLPs, so that it becomes harder for a new more moderate leader to move back to the centre?
and I gather the pace has continued, though I've not seen the 60K figure in particular. It's quite astonishing in some areas - 8% of the entire electorate in my ward are now members, and we're having trouble finding premises large enough for meetings. I know quite a lot of people in that category and I wouldn't describe them as necessarily hard left (the seriously hard left never give up, and these are often people who drifted away). My reservation would be more whether they are as committed as the long-standing members. But Surbiton is right that potentially they are a good source for ensuring that people actually register to vote - there are a lot of students in particular in that group.
You're undoubtedly correct that it will shift the balance of membership to the left, though. An interesting question is the "Nixon in China" one - how far can the new leadership compromise on policy (if they want to) in a way that made people erupt in fury when it was done by Tony or Gordon? Quite a lot IMO - people are not in doubt about the underlying commitment, and they can see that we can't really stand for 20 controversial causes at once. I don't know anyone who is concerned about, for instance, Corbyn dropping withdrawal from NATO or committing to the EU. Trident will be trickier, with even Tony Blair having openly (in his memoirs) flirted with dropping it as a use of money that is hard to imagine being actually useful..
Comments
I think everyone accepts they have destabilised some states, like North Korea and Afghanistan. That doesn't mean it's illegitimate.
As an aside, there was an example of this on the R5L phone-in a few years ago. There was a teacher's strike, and a parent phoned in saying he was going to keep his child away from school. He said that even if the school opened, he'd disown his son if he crossed a picket line to get to school.
In other words: a man who would disown his son for going to school to get an education ...
Happy Valley
Dad's Barmy
'The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan, General William Odom recently remarked, “by any measure the U.S. has long used terrorism. In 1978-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the U.S. would be in violation.”'
Or perhaps you want teh papers to tell lies about what he said?
All Leechers Great and Small
Obviously I gave my opinion, but one observation: for your new leader, the few things the pollee knows will fill the gap.
I've had at least one, and possibly more, girl say that they couldn't date me because of my political beliefs.
Ok, so the one was a bit crazy and it turned out was involved in an affair with a married man, but still ...
We did have a *great* conversation when I revealed that I'd actually grown up on one of the old UK colonies, making me about the representation of pretty much every thing she campaigned against. YAY.
I'm completely easy with it.
It's a view.
Thinking hard about it - I'd really pushed to think of anyone I'd not be friends with because of their politics. It strikes me as a bit peculiar to be honest.
People Sleep Peacefully in Their Beds at Night Only Because Rough Men Stand Ready to Do Violence on Their Behalf
During the IDS years Murdoch's papers supported Blair but they didn't support the Labour Party at large, and they certainly didn't attack IDS & Hague like they are doing to Corbyn. So it's a completely false equivalence.
FPT: Mr. Dair, although I'm going to set about the pre-race piece, I shan't mention the qualifying result.
I don't know a huge amount about the Labour party's internal working, but I'm courase as to how significantly and how quickly all these new, mostly hard left members will change the party. i.e. gain power in the NEC and in CLPs, so that it becomes harder for a new more moderate leader to move back to the centre?
On the thread discussion - it's a sad life if one only meets people of like mind. It gets a bit difficult if you have friends who you like who reveal an opinion that you think is really disgusting. You have to weigh up everything you like about them against the latest information and decide whether that changes your view or not.
I have a very old friend who normally votes Tory (yeah, well...) but once once voted BNP in a Euro-election. He's generous, amiable and not necessarily narrow-minded, but he felt immigration wasn't getting enough discussion so he wanted to send a message. I swallowed hard and accepted it. In turn he accepts my views, which maybe is hard for him too.
But an impact of social media is that we're more and more selecting news sources of doubtful integrity which tell us things we like, so the common basis of supposed knowledge which TV news still provides is starting to ebb away. People have always disagreed on opinions, but people are increasingly (?) disagreeing on the facts - "I know this is true as several people on Twitter said it".
So I offer 'Collosal mistake - the Corbyn Project'
I hope that your carer keeps sharp objects away from you.
That said, while finding much of the Corbyn stuff overblown and some of it unwise, I do find it fun, fully realizing this is somewhat hypocritical given I would be annoyed were the shoe on the other foot.
It is quite simply incredible that Corbyn (and his apologists) can try to claim that women are holding the top jobs in his SC - and then it transpires that he appointed people he has never met, let alone had a conversation with.
Utterly ludicrous. A party leader who appoints people to their front bench team without ever having met them is not a leader at all.
Even Ed and Brown were given a free pass on two of the three.
As I mentioned my wife was doing a really weird Yougov last night. It asked lots of detailed questions about the EU and our preparations for the apocalypse. I assumed there was a direct connection but maybe it was one of these indirect questions...
The (Angela) Eagle Has Landed
The (Lucy) Powell and the Glory
Help yourself to the last word. I have other things to do. Cheers.
In the PCS Trade Union, a traditionally non-political and moderate Trade Union, when the hard left gained power under, Mark Serwotka, they were very clever about getting their people in to key posts and modifying rules, that have made it impossible for the left to be removed from power. Instead there has been a slow but steady decline as the moderated membership and a couple of significant brake-away Unions has given up on regaining power in the Union and drifted away. The comparison is not perfect but I feel could be a indicator of how this will play out.
Ah.
The Corbyn Identity
The Corbyn Supremacy
The Corbyn Ultimatum
The Corbyn Legacy
Or maybe, just maybe, it is even more desperate than it looks.
Irrational Man
Man From R.U.S.S.I.A
Me and Jezza and the Dying Party
45 years ('til Labour next get elected)
Minions (the electorate)
No Escape (from the left)
Straight outa the '70s.
Almost any wild and wacky rumour could be true.
I do think the race will be fascinating, but tricky finding value [when I do put it up, I won't mention the tip(s) here to help preserve uncertainty for those who haven't seen qualifying yet].
The Three Amigos
1) It's college football season and you're not going to win that ratings war.
2) everyone has a dvr and nobody watches anything live anyway - except football.
Our political views are poles apart, but when we talk politics we avoid big emotional debates and respect each other's view, and we are still best friends.
Friendship - genuine friendship - trumps politics. In a lifetime you have only a few real friends, as against many acquaintances.
If you only want to be friends with folks who agree with you on everything it's very limiting.
But probably a much larger cohort base it on "that's what I've always done". Hence Labour still existing and the turkeys who voted for Christmas when they crossed the No box in September last year.
Of course the basic tenet for those who do vote based on "experience" is "how do i keep my gains from being part of the most destructive generation in history".
It's a shame the Hydro is likely to be booked out years ahead nowadays. A 15,000 crowd would have been great but I doubt they could get the venue with only two months notice.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-more-than-15000-join-labour-party-as-full-members-in-wake-of-islington-mps-victory-10498813.html
and I gather the pace has continued, though I've not seen the 60K figure in particular. It's quite astonishing in some areas - 8% of the entire electorate in my ward are now members, and we're having trouble finding premises large enough for meetings. I know quite a lot of people in that category and I wouldn't describe them as necessarily hard left (the seriously hard left never give up, and these are often people who drifted away). My reservation would be more whether they are as committed as the long-standing members. But Surbiton is right that potentially they are a good source for ensuring that people actually register to vote - there are a lot of students in particular in that group.
You're undoubtedly correct that it will shift the balance of membership to the left, though. An interesting question is the "Nixon in China" one - how far can the new leadership compromise on policy (if they want to) in a way that made people erupt in fury when it was done by Tony or Gordon? Quite a lot IMO - people are not in doubt about the underlying commitment, and they can see that we can't really stand for 20 controversial causes at once. I don't know anyone who is concerned about, for instance, Corbyn dropping withdrawal from NATO or committing to the EU. Trident will be trickier, with even Tony Blair having openly (in his memoirs) flirted with dropping it as a use of money that is hard to imagine being actually useful..