Sky News reporting that the Coalition Universal Free School Meal Programme is facing the axe as part of Ozzie's drive to make substantial cuts to the unprotected part of the education budget.
If accurate it's bad move by the Conservative government.
Why is it a good use of money to subsidise well-off parents and use a large portion of the capex budget to put kitchen facilities into all schools?
Nutrition is a fundamental factor that is at the root of so many issues (e.g. behaviour, learning rates, etc) but In my view supporting something like this would be a far better use of public money
I'm in favour of good governance and the appropriate use of state resources. Political parties make stupid promises in the heat of the moment and if the evidence shows that something is a bad idea they should have the courage to stand up and say that is the case.
I don't have a problem with schools providing food - I can see the benefits of hot food vs. packed lunches. But why should it be free? Even a nominal sum - to pick a number let's say £1 per day [assume that is cheaper than a packed lunch] - would generate about £200 per child*
There are 8.6 million children aged 5-16 in the UK. From memory about 25% of kids already get free school meals, and about 7% are at private school. Hence this policy impacts 5.7 million children.
I'm sure there are some on the margin that would benefit from free school meals, so let's say you are only charging 4.0 million children.
That's a very useful £800 million per year for the school budget - this money should be kept by the school and invested as they see fit. And, no, it shouldn't cost any more to process bills because it could be performed by existing staff.
I think that's right. Poor children should get free school meals, but since all other parents spend ~£2 a day on crappy sugary packed lunches for their kids, I don't see why schools don't just charge that for a daily hot meal (who wouldn't take that instead) and bill the parents £100 a term for it.
Also, make it "opt-out" rather than "opt-in" so the default is for kids to get decent lunches with parents paying - what they already pay anyway for packed lunches - for it.
Don't forget that the parents also benefit from the saving of time in not having to buy/package up sugary packed lunches
These relentless Colonel Blimpish stories in the Telegraph and Sun could well end up backfiring.
The ability to be outraged has its limits and it doesn't take long before people tire of the complainers. There are also the the peculiarly British traits of liking fair play and admiring the rebel.
Speaking for myself who was viscerally against his election I now am very hopefull he succeeds
Politics is not black or white. Corbyn despite numerous faults has managed to achieve what almost all politicians have failed to do since Blair. He has managed to generate popular enthusiasm for politics in 100s of thousands.
Right time, right place? Maybe. But not something you can simply write off. As story x,y and z about Corbyn hits the press its getting ignored. But it is a real and interesting development that deserves analysis.
But the enthusiasm he has generated is not one of decency and optimism but of bitterness and revenge: screw the bankers, screw the rich, screw the energy companies, screw the railway owners, screw the media, screw the Tories, screw the Blairites.
There is certainly an element that reminds me of the sort of passion that gave rise to things like Tory home, Guido and the like. None of which could be accused of being remotely positive but have been useful outriders to the Conservatives. Again a nod that Labour might be in an IDS phase.
The fact that mainstream members of the Labour Party like Nick Palmer are willing to overlook Corbyn and McDonnell's associations with Islamists and Irish Republican terrorists shows how morally bankrupt the Labour movement is throughout. This isn't some unusual group that got to the leadership by mistake, as the 60% mandate shows. This is fundamentally who the Labour party is, and the whole edifice is rotten.
Sky News reporting that the Coalition Universal Free School Meal Programme is facing the axe as part of Ozzie's drive to make substantial cuts to the unprotected part of the education budget.
If accurate it's bad move by the Conservative government.
Why is it a good use of money to subsidise well-off parents and use a large portion of the capex budget to put kitchen facilities into all schools?
Nutrition is a fundamental factor that is at the root of so many issues (e.g. behaviour, learning rates, etc) but In my view supporting something like this would be a far better use of public money
.....The Mayoral breakfast club is also a good idea but shouldn't be regarded as a substitute but an add-on
Quaint it may be but I'm also rather attracted to a political party keeping the odd promise or two.
Osborne making another blunder. It should have not been in the manifesto if there was a chance of dropping it.
Let us hope that Ozzie continues to make such "blunders" and that laissez fair obesity deniers like yourself are thinned out.
Obesity is mainly due to a lack of burning calories. We eat less calories now than the past.
Good morning all. I treated myself to a Fitbit last Christmas - probably one of the most useful gadgets I've ever owned. It's horrifying how few calories we burn - I'm sure most people overestimate the effect that exercise has.
I'm losing weight, but only if I walk (at least) 10 miles and row 10k per day. That's on an intake of between 1.5k and 2k calories per day, which is not exactly sybaritic. I doubt I'd have been able to consistently achieve that level of activity when I was a working slob.
I've switched to a banana instead of croissant in the morning, and in the afternoon instead of something from the vending machine. Plus a soup/bread roll for lunch rather than a meal from the canteen.
Losing about 0.5 pounds per week as a result for a relatively simple change
These relentless Colonel Blimpish stories in the Telegraph and Sun could well end up backfiring.
The ability to be outraged has its limits and it doesn't take long before people tire of the complainers. There are also the the peculiarly British traits of liking fair play and admiring the rebel.
Speaking for myself who was viscerally against his election I now am very hopefull he succeeds
Politics is not black or white. Corbyn despite numerous faults has managed to achieve what almost all politicians have failed to do since Blair. He has managed to generate popular enthusiasm for politics in 100s of thousands.
Right time, right place? Maybe. But not something you can simply write off. As story x,y and z about Corbyn hits the press its getting ignored. But it is a real and interesting development that deserves analysis.
Lots of noise from a few does not equate to enthusiasm in the masses.
If it did, then Labour would have won a landslide in May, given the pro-Labour posts on Twitter and Facebook.
Nah, there is something new going on here that needs understanding.
No there isn't it's just lots of activists egging each other on and ignoring the politics lite mass of disinterested voters.
Well it is what it is. I merely propose that it deserves figuring out. Curious that people can be quite so dismissive of something that is undeniably a bit different. I guess it doesn't compute at all in the Tory psyche, so we get a kind of willful blindness.
I just don't see how it's different, it looks same old same old to me.
Yes - the best of the four weekend polls, despite the Sun's spin, and specifically addresses the question of whether Corbyn can make progress in marginals rather than safe seats.
The main stumbling block that republicans have in UK is that they are fighting against a nice old lady in a cardi, that likes a flutter on the horses, spoils her dogs and makes us look good abroad.How are you supposed to fight against that? Charles has more targets but even he is just a Woodehousian eccentric, a member of the landed gentry that talks to his pigs and carrots and wants us all to get along.
There needs to be more of an argument that "we are a laughing stock abroad", because having been abroad quite a few times we plainly aren't...or if we are it isn't the Queen that is the cause. It has to be stronger and deeper rooted than this for republicans to succeed.
Republicanism will never win here.
That's because it's adherents and proponents main argument is about their belief the monarchy is objectionable in theory, and it doesn't fit with their ideal democratic constitutional niceties.
But the typical British person does not think like that. They are much more interested in pragmatism, symbolism, pride and seeing and feeling what works.
And the monarchy works - very, very well indeed*.
(*incidentally, I think constitutional monarchy works perfectly well in theory as well as in practice, but that's a discussion for another time - must dash)
I would never have guessed you were a grovelling hand kisser, doffing your cap to your betters. You must be talking to your fabled "typical British person" abroad if you believe the guff you write.
These relentless Colonel Blimpish stories in the Telegraph and Sun could well end up backfiring.
The ability to be outraged has its limits and it doesn't take long before people tire of the complainers. There are also the the peculiarly British traits of liking fair play and admiring the rebel.
Speaking for myself who was viscerally against his election I now am very hopefull he succeeds
Politics is not black or white. Corbyn despite numerous faults has managed to achieve what almost all politicians have failed to do since Blair. He has managed to generate popular enthusiasm for politics in 100s of thousands.
Right time, right place? Maybe. But not something you can simply write off. As story x,y and z about Corbyn hits the press its getting ignored. But it is a real and interesting development that deserves analysis.
Lots of noise from a few does not equate to enthusiasm in the masses.
If it did, then Labour would have won a landslide in May, given the pro-Labour posts on Twitter and Facebook.
Nah, there is something new going on here that needs understanding.
No there isn't it's just lots of activists egging each other on and ignoring the politics lite mass of disinterested voters.
Well it is what it is. I merely propose that it deserves figuring out. Curious that people can be quite so dismissive of something that is undeniably a bit different. I guess it doesn't compute at all in the Tory psyche, so we get a kind of willful blindness.
If I might venture into unwinnable Internet debating territory here, I'd argue that the Left is more idealistic than the Right - we tend to be pragmatists.
It's not so much wilful blindness, as addressing the practicalities of how Labour return to power. Now, you'll doubt my motives, but it's truly important that Labour be electable. While I'm sanguine about ten years of a Cameron/Osborne administration, fifteen years is much less appealing, and twenty is absolutely not on.
At present, you have a leader with a wealth of foibles, idiosyncrasies and a terrible track record in respect of his adherents, associates and fellow travellers. McDonnell is probably worse.
Further, you don't yet have a coherent philosophy on how to the Left deals with a globalised world, where the golden geese (i.e. corporations and wealthy individuals) can treat nations like boutiques and shop around.
I fear that social media has created an echo chamber that means the Left is becoming ever more introverted and, dare I say it, out of touch.
I'm a bit reluctant to play PB Corbyn point man on a daily basis when I'm more or less retired, but I have to say I'm not aware of any buyer's remorse at all - do we have even ONE example out of hundreds of thousands of even an ordinary member saying "I voted for him but now I wish I hadn't"?
Not quite what you were asking, but still symptomatic
These relentless Colonel Blimpish stories in the Telegraph and Sun could well end up backfiring.
The ability to be outraged has its limits and it doesn't take long before people tire of the complainers. There are also the the peculiarly British traits of liking fair play and admiring the rebel.
Speaking for myself who was viscerally against his election I now am very hopefull he succeeds
Politics is not black or white. Corbyn despite numerous faults has managed to achieve what almost all politicians have failed to do since Blair. He has managed to generate popular enthusiasm for politics in 100s of thousands.
Right time, right place? Maybe. But not something you can simply write off. As story x,y and z about Corbyn hits the press its getting ignored. But it is a real and interesting development that deserves analysis.
Lots of noise from a few does not equate to enthusiasm in the masses.
If it did, then Labour would have won a landslide in May, given the pro-Labour posts on Twitter and Facebook.
Nah, there is something new going on here that needs understanding.
No there isn't it's just lots of activists egging each other on and ignoring the politics lite mass of disinterested voters.
Well it is what it is. I merely propose that it deserves figuring out. Curious that people can be quite so dismissive of something that is undeniably a bit different. I guess it doesn't compute at all in the Tory psyche, so we get a kind of willful blindness.
I just don't see how it's different, it looks same old same old to me.
it's deja vu all over again.
noisy middle class lefties shouting a lot.
At least Roger can get to go on demos again and put the Che Guevara poster back up on the wall.
These relentless Colonel Blimpish stories in the Telegraph and Sun could well end up backfiring.
The ability to be outraged has its limits and it doesn't take long before people tire of the complainers. There are also the the peculiarly British traits of liking fair play and admiring the rebel.
Speaking for myself who was viscerally against his election I now am very hopefull he succeeds
Politics is not black or white. Corbyn despite numerous faults has managed to achieve what almost all politicians have failed to do since Blair. He has managed to generate popular enthusiasm for politics in 100s of thousands.
Right time, right place? Maybe. But not something you can simply write off. As story x,y and z about Corbyn hits the press its getting ignored. But it is a real and interesting development that deserves analysis.
But the enthusiasm he has generated is not one of decency and optimism but of bitterness and revenge: screw the bankers, screw the rich, screw the energy companies, screw the railway owners, screw the media, screw the Tories, screw the Blairites.
There is certainly an element that reminds me of the sort of passion that gave rise to things like Tory home, Guido and the like. None of which could be accused of being remotely positive but have been useful outriders to the Conservatives. Again a nod that Labour might be in an IDS phase.
Guido is not associated with the Tory party and goes guns a-blazing on politicians of all types. He's a libertarian I believe. ConservativeHome is plenty thoughtful.
The comparisons with IDS are a lazy parallel. IDS was chosen in a regrettable forced choice provided to us by MPs, and the party was down to its bare bones most right wing membership, which got sidelined as mainstream members came back. Labour chose Corbyn with the biggest electorate Labour have had and with a choice of mainstream candidates. And Corbyn is far, far more extreme. IDS never hung about with Klu Klux Klan members or Afrikaans separatists. Conservative party members would have been too moral to vote for someone like that.
Yes - the best of the four weekend polls, despite the Sun's spin, and specifically addresses the question of whether Corbyn can make progress in marginals rather than safe seats.
With the rise confined to non-voters who ... won't vote. Great.
These relentless Colonel Blimpish stories in the Telegraph and Sun could well end up backfiring.
The ability to be outraged has its limits and it doesn't take long before people tire of the complainers. There are also the the peculiarly British traits of liking fair play and admiring the rebel.
Speaking for myself who was viscerally against his election I now am very hopefull he succeeds
Politics is not black or white. Corbyn despite numerous faults has managed to achieve what almost all politicians have failed to do since Blair. He has managed to generate popular enthusiasm for politics in 100s of thousands.
Right time, right place? Maybe. But not something you can simply write off. As story x,y and z about Corbyn hits the press its getting ignored. But it is a real and interesting development that deserves analysis.
Lots of noise from a few does not equate to enthusiasm in the masses.
If it did, then Labour would have won a landslide in May, given the pro-Labour posts on Twitter and Facebook.
Nah, there is something new going on here that needs understanding.
No there isn't it's just lots of activists egging each other on and ignoring the politics lite mass of disinterested voters.
Well it is what it is. I merely propose that it deserves figuring out. Curious that people can be quite so dismissive of something that is undeniably a bit different. I guess it doesn't compute at all in the Tory psyche, so we get a kind of willful blindness.
I just don't see how it's different, it looks same old same old to me.
Things are different. A membership alone of 500k is different.
My Local CLP, for example, which had 100 members now has the challenge of organising 600. Branches that closed in the 90s are being restarted.
That's interesting. Other parties would see that as a very big deal.
These relentless Colonel Blimpish stories in the Telegraph and Sun could well end up backfiring.
The ability to be outraged has its limits and it doesn't take long before people tire of the complainers. There are also the the peculiarly British traits of liking fair play and admiring the rebel.
Speaking for myself who was viscerally against his election I now am very hopefull he succeeds
Politics is not black or white. Corbyn despite numerous faults has managed to achieve what almost all politicians have failed to do since Blair. He has managed to generate popular enthusiasm for politics in 100s of thousands.
Right time, right place? Maybe. But not something you can simply write off. As story x,y and z about Corbyn hits the press its getting ignored. But it is a real and interesting development that deserves analysis.
Lots of noise from a few does not equate to enthusiasm in the masses.
If it did, then Labour would have won a landslide in May, given the pro-Labour posts on Twitter and Facebook.
Nah, there is something new going on here that needs understanding.
You may be right, but there's no evidence of that yet. Wishing it was so does not make it so.
I find Corbyn's stated views utterly repugnant, and it's quite staggering how much people are trying to defend him (especially whilst still throwing out the old canard about Bulliingdon, etc). I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in that. He's compounded the problem by some of his selections for shadow cabinet.
I find at amazing that members of a party that pretends to be so pro-equality can throw around 'witch'-style insults to someone whose views they slightly disagree with who is within their own party. It's a sign of the intellectual and moral incoherence that will be the seed of Corbyn's political doom.
Yes - the best of the four weekend polls, despite the Sun's spin, and specifically addresses the question of whether Corbyn can make progress in marginals rather than safe seats.
Would be good to have some finer details. It does say that non voters made up the main swing toward Corbyn.
Yes - the best of the four weekend polls, despite the Sun's spin, and specifically addresses the question of whether Corbyn can make progress in marginals rather than safe seats.
Although, a poll of Labour's 20 most marginal seats might show some falling the other way.
While all the focus is currently on Corbyn, the poll (posted in the previous thread) shows that Nicola Sturgeon has equally poor popularity ratings, but it doesn't appear to have harmed the SNP. Or is it that the English dislike anyone who appears to be an enemy of the UK, which certainly applies to Sturgeon/SNP and her comrades in the 6 counties with whom Corbyn also sympathises?
These relentless Colonel Blimpish stories in the Telegraph and Sun could well end up backfiring.
The ability to be outraged has its limits and it doesn't take long before people tire of the complainers. There are also the the peculiarly British traits of liking fair play and admiring the rebel.
Speaking for myself who was viscerally against his election I now am very hopefull he succeeds
Politics is not black or white. Corbyn despite numerous faults has managed to achieve what almost all politicians have failed to do since Blair. He has managed to generate popular enthusiasm for politics in 100s of thousands.
Right time, right place? Maybe. But not something you can simply write off. As story x,y and z about Corbyn hits the press its getting ignored. But it is a real and interesting development that deserves analysis.
But the enthusiasm he has generated is not one of decency and optimism but of bitterness and revenge: screw the bankers, screw the rich, screw the energy companies, screw the railway owners, screw the media, screw the Tories, screw the Blairites.
There is certainly an element that reminds me of the sort of passion that gave rise to things like Tory home, Guido and the like. None of which could be accused of being remotely positive but have been useful outriders to the Conservatives. Again a nod that Labour might be in an IDS phase.
Guido is not associated with the Tory party and goes guns a-blazing on politicians of all types. He's a libertarian I believe. ConservativeHome is plenty thoughtful.
The comparisons with IDS are a lazy parallel. IDS was chosen in a regrettable forced choice provided to us by MPs, and the party was down to its bare bones most right wing membership, which got sidelined as mainstream members came back. Labour chose Corbyn with the biggest electorate Labour have had and with a choice of mainstream candidates. And Corbyn is far, far more extreme. IDS never hung about with Klu Klux Klan members or Afrikaans separatists. Conservative party members would have been too moral to vote for someone like that.
Ha Ha Ha Tories and morals, best laugh yet. You would sell your grannies for a profit and not blink.
These relentless Colonel Blimpish stories in the Telegraph and Sun could well end up backfiring.
The ability to be outraged has its limits and it doesn't take long before people tire of the complainers. There are also the the peculiarly British traits of liking fair play and admiring the rebel.
Speaking for myself who was viscerally against his election I now am very hopefull he succeeds
Great.
There was a saying discussed here when the Tories kept parroting "Long Term Economic Plan" - that by the time you're sick to death of saying something the public are starting to listen. We need to reach the point of being sick to death of pointing out how dangerous Corbyn is - as often as Long Term Economic Plan got said - and then it will have sunk in to the public.
If this has the counter-effect that it means that by your lot being sick of hearing it so you support unelectable Corbyn to be stubborn and he doesn't get evicted after 12 months but stays for years, or better loses a general election landslide, then all the better.
These relentless Colonel Blimpish stories in the Telegraph and Sun could well end up backfiring.
The ability to be outraged has its limits and it doesn't take long before people tire of the complainers. There are also the the peculiarly British traits of liking fair play and admiring the rebel.
Speaking for myself who was viscerally against his election I now am very hopefull he succeeds
Politics is not black or white. Corbyn despite numerous faults has managed to achieve what almost all politicians have failed to do since Blair. He has managed to generate popular enthusiasm for politics in 100s of thousands.
Right time, right place? Maybe. But not something you can simply write off. As story x,y and z about Corbyn hits the press its getting ignored. But it is a real and interesting development that deserves analysis.
Lots of noise from a few does not equate to enthusiasm in the masses.
If it did, then Labour would have won a landslide in May, given the pro-Labour posts on Twitter and Facebook.
Nah, there is something new going on here that needs understanding.
No there isn't it's just lots of activists egging each other on and ignoring the politics lite mass of disinterested voters.
Well it is what it is. I merely propose that it deserves figuring out. Curious that people can be quite so dismissive of something that is undeniably a bit different. I guess it doesn't compute at all in the Tory psyche, so we get a kind of willful blindness.
I just don't see how it's different, it looks same old same old to me.
Things are different. A membership alone of 500k is different.
My Local CLP, for example, which had 100 members now has the challenge of organising 600. Branches that closed in the 90s are being restarted.
That's interesting. Other parties would see that as a very big deal.
Not if the members you are getting are toxic to the electorate.
The real question must surely be how much of this childish nonsense the Shadow Cabinet can take. If it goes on like this I would give it another week. Buyers remorse must already be widespread whilst those that declined get to be equally childish and say, " I told you so."
I'm a bit reluctant to play PB Corbyn point man on a daily basis when I'm more or less retired, but I have to say I'm not aware of any buyer's remorse at all - do we have even ONE example out of hundreds of thousands of even an ordinary member saying "I voted for him but now I wish I hadn't"? I think it's sensible to concentrate on the day job rather than trying to chair an NGO at the same time, but I don't expect him to comment on every poem that anyone writes, and would think he was letting himself he hassled unnecessarily if he did.
As a Corbyn voter, I'm probably fairly typical - mildly encouraged that the polls show that the Tory onslaught hasn't had much effect so far, judging by the range of results yesterday. It was always going to be a difficult project, but we knew that and were not expecting a sunny honeymoon. There will be more awkward moments and compromises to make in the coming months, but you can't reshape British politics without some of that. Deciding whether to kneel as the price of Privy Council membership is another such - tricky but essentially peripheral to what we're trying to do. Most of us won't really care whether he kneels or not, and if the Government makes the sharing of issues of national importance hinge on that, then we'll know who to blame, and it won't be Corbyn.
[snip]
If he doesn't take the oath then he doesn't get the benefits.
But I think Labour's problem is encapsulated in two things you've alluded to. Firstly, there are hundreds of these sort of stories. Whether someone is up to being PM doesn't depend on whether they can eat a bacon sandwich or not but sometimes those images don't change minds of themselves but reinforce and sum up an existing impression. A steady stream of 'he's just another far-left activist interested in gesture politics' will do just that.
The second, relatedly, is that Corbyn is and always has been an ideas man; motivated by the pursuit of an ideological view of how the world should be. But most voters are not. How does he bridge that gap?
I'm not sure why anyone thinks Labour will follow the same path as the Tory party. It is highly unlikely to have A Hague, IDS, Howard Cameron progression.
It is a different entity with different influences pulling it different ways.
The real question must surely be how much of this childish nonsense the Shadow Cabinet can take. If it goes on like this I would give it another week. Buyers remorse must already be widespread whilst those that declined get to be equally childish and say, " I told you so."
I'm a bit reluctant to play PB Corbyn point man on a daily basis when I'm more or less retired, but I have to say I'm not aware of any buyer's remorse at all - do we have even ONE example out of hundreds of thousands of even an ordinary member saying "I voted for him but now I wish I hadn't"? I think it's sensible to concentrate on the day job rather than trying to chair an NGO at the same time, but I don't expect him to comment on every poem that anyone writes, and would think he was letting himself he hassled unnecessarily if he did.
As a Corbyn voter, I'm probably fairly typical - mildly encouraged that the polls show that the Tory onslaught hasn't had much effect so far, judging by the range of results yesterday. It was always going to be a difficult project, but we knew that and were not expecting a sunny honeymoon. There will be more awkward moments and compromises to make in the coming months, but you can't reshape British politics without some of that. Deciding whether to kneel as the price of Privy Council membership is another such - tricky but essentially peripheral to what we're trying to do. Most of us won't really care whether he kneels or not, and if the Government makes the sharing of issues of national importance hinge on that, then we'll know who to blame, and it won't be Corbyn.
What we have is not buyer's remorse but opponents' dilemma - people who didn't vote for him are torn between wanting to express their opposition and not wanting to rock the boat and be blamed for consequences. I'm not at all in the "let's start deselecting Blairites" camp, but I do expect internal opponents largely to STFU except by making specific policy proposals, and by and large that's what they're doing.
By the way, is anyone around for at the Labour conference? It'd be interesting to meet up. I'm at the Tory conference as well, but only on the Tuesday when I've got a fringe meeting.
It is really stupid that in a country of equals someone has to kneel in front of another. For women, it is worse.
Can't the Queen be shown respect without having to do this ?
Oddly enough, I agree. A bow should be a sufficient mark of respect to a Head of State.
The main stumbling block that republicans have in UK is that they are fighting against a nice old lady in a cardi, that likes a flutter on the horses, spoils her dogs and makes us look good abroad.How are you supposed to fight against that? Charles has more targets but even he is just a Woodehousian eccentric, a member of the landed gentry that talks to his pigs and carrots and wants us all to get along.
There needs to be more of an argument that "we are a laughing stock abroad", because having been abroad quite a few times we plainly aren't...or if we are it isn't the Queen that is the cause. It has to be stronger and deeper rooted than this for republicans to succeed.
Curiously, a number of rich and fairly egalitarian societies have monarchs as Heads of State.
These relentless Colonel Blimpish stories in the Telegraph and Sun could well end up backfiring.
The ability to be outraged has its limits and it doesn't take long before people tire of the complainers. There are also the the peculiarly British traits of liking fair play and admiring the rebel.
Speaking for myself who was viscerally against his election I now am very hopefull he succeeds
Politics is not black or white. Corbyn despite numerous faults has managed to achieve what almost all politicians have failed to do since Blair. He has managed to generate popular enthusiasm for politics in 100s of thousands.
Right time, right place? Maybe. But not something you can simply write off. As story x,y and z about Corbyn hits the press its getting ignored. But it is a real and interesting development that deserves analysis.
Lots of noise from a few does not equate to enthusiasm in the masses.
If it did, then Labour would have won a landslide in May, given the pro-Labour posts on Twitter and Facebook.
Nah, there is something new going on here that needs understanding.
No there isn't it's just lots of activists egging each other on and ignoring the politics lite mass of disinterested voters.
Well it is what it is. I merely propose that it deserves figuring out. Curious that people can be quite so dismissive of something that is undeniably a bit different. I guess it doesn't compute at all in the Tory psyche, so we get a kind of willful blindness.
I just don't see how it's different, it looks same old same old to me.
Things are different. A membership alone of 500k is different.
My Local CLP, for example, which had 100 members now has the challenge of organising 600. Branches that closed in the 90s are being restarted.
That's interesting. Other parties would see that as a very big deal.
Not if the members you are getting are toxic to the electorate.
Well if that were the case, which it isn't, it would be a very big deal indeed.
The willful blindness is palpable.
Anyway, why aren't we talking about the lib dems? It's their big week after all. With 6%, including a leader bounce, they are on the march back to glory.
These relentless Colonel Blimpish stories in the Telegraph and Sun could well end up backfiring.
The ability to be outraged has its limits and it doesn't take long before people tire of the complainers. There are also the the peculiarly British traits of liking fair play and admiring the rebel.
Speaking for myself who was viscerally against his election I now am very hopefull he succeeds
Politics is not black or white. Corbyn despite numerous faults has managed to achieve what almost all politicians have failed to do since Blair. He has managed to generate popular enthusiasm for politics in 100s of thousands.
Right time, right place? Maybe. But not something you can simply write off. As story x,y and z about Corbyn hits the press its getting ignored. But it is a real and interesting development that deserves analysis.
Lots of noise from a few does not equate to enthusiasm in the masses.
If it did, then Labour would have won a landslide in May, given the pro-Labour posts on Twitter and Facebook.
Nah, there is something new going on here that needs understanding.
No there isn't it's just lots of activists egging each other on and ignoring the politics lite mass of disinterested voters.
Well it is what it is. I merely propose that it deserves figuring out. Curious that people can be quite so dismissive of something that is undeniably a bit different. I guess it doesn't compute at all in the Tory psyche, so we get a kind of willful blindness.
I just don't see how it's different, it looks same old same old to me.
Things are different. A membership alone of 500k is different.
My Local CLP, for example, which had 100 members now has the challenge of organising 600. Branches that closed in the 90s are being restarted.
That's interesting. Other parties would see that as a very big deal.
Mike K How long can a Government put up with that before it sends in the military..there seems to be an awful lot of them and dressed in ISIS uniforms...and more on the way..The tragedy is that the Arab..ME..mentality sees generosity as a sign of weakness...so my Egyptian friend tells me..
These relentless Colonel Blimpish stories in the Telegraph and Sun could well end up backfiring.
The ability to be outraged has its limits and it doesn't take long before people tire of the complainers. There are also the the peculiarly British traits of liking fair play and admiring the rebel.
Speaking for myself who was viscerally against his election I now am very hopefull he succeeds
Politics is not black or white. Corbyn despite numerous faults has managed to achieve what almost all politicians have failed to do since Blair. He has managed to generate popular enthusiasm for politics in 100s of thousands.
Right time, right place? Maybe. But not something you can simply write off. As story x,y and z about Corbyn hits the press its getting ignored. But it is a real and interesting development that deserves analysis.
Lots of noise from a few does not equate to enthusiasm in the masses.
If it did, then Labour would have won a landslide in May, given the pro-Labour posts on Twitter and Facebook.
Nah, there is something new going on here that needs understanding.
The only thing that's new is Labour's leadership election process. Corbyn and co understood it; Burnham did not.
On the topic of whether the government would share issues of top secret national security with Corbyn - I'd frankly hope they'd decide they would or not because of his connections with our enemies etc and not based on a ceremony.
If he becomes PM then he should be briefed on top secret issues of national security, I'd be perfectly OK to not do so until then based on what he has said, done and spoken with and for in the past - not because of a ceremony.
These relentless Colonel Blimpish stories in the Telegraph and Sun could well end up backfiring.
The ability to be outraged has its limits and it doesn't take long before people tire of the complainers. There are also the the peculiarly British traits of liking fair play and admiring the rebel.
Speaking for myself who was viscerally against his election I now am very hopefull he succeeds
Politics is not black or white. Corbyn despite numerous faults has managed to achieve what almost all politicians have failed to do since Blair. He has managed to generate popular enthusiasm for politics in 100s of thousands.
Right time, right place? Maybe. But not something you can simply write off. As story x,y and z about Corbyn hits the press its getting ignored. But it is a real and interesting development that deserves analysis.
Lots of noise from a few does not equate to enthusiasm in the masses.
If it did, then Labour would have won a landslide in May, given the pro-Labour posts on Twitter and Facebook.
Nah, there is something new going on here that needs understanding.
No there isn't it's just lots of activists egging each other on and ignoring the politics lite mass of disinterested voters.
Well it is what it is. I merely propose that it deserves figuring out. Curious that people can be quite so dismissive of something that is undeniably a bit different. I guess it doesn't compute at all in the Tory psyche, so we get a kind of willful blindness.
I just don't see how it's different, it looks same old same old to me.
Things are different. A membership alone of 500k is different.
My Local CLP, for example, which had 100 members now has the challenge of organising 600. Branches that closed in the 90s are being restarted.
That's interesting. Other parties would see that as a very big deal.
It was around 80. You can be reasonable and surely can admit that is quite a big change for a small CLP. I pity the poor souls who have to organise that lot and am glad it's not me.
On the topic of whether the government would share issues of top secret national security with Corbyn - I'd frankly hope they'd decide they would or not because of his connections with our enemies etc and not based on a ceremony.
If he becomes PM then he should be briefed on top secret issues of national security, I'd be perfectly OK to not do so until then based on what he has said, done and spoken with and for in the past - not because of a ceremony.
There would be absolutely no chance of him passing a Developed Vetting, if he was a normal Joe, applying for a job that required one. Which in itself is disturbing for a man who aspires to be our PM.
According to the STimes - SServices contacts say he's not getting access to any intelligence or operational details. And only Restricted documents which frankly isn't anything much at all.
That seems perfectly sensible to me. How different it is from previous holders of LotO - no idea.
On the topic of whether the government would share issues of top secret national security with Corbyn - I'd frankly hope they'd decide they would or not because of his connections with our enemies etc and not based on a ceremony.
If he becomes PM then he should be briefed on top secret issues of national security, I'd be perfectly OK to not do so until then based on what he has said, done and spoken with and for in the past - not because of a ceremony.
HYUFD was put on watch to inform us next time Corbyn attended a Stop the war event .. It'' only be when he is kicked out as leader after this disgraceful tantrum message.
According to the STimes - SServices contacts say he's not getting access to any intelligence or operational details. And only Restricted documents which frankly isn't anything much at all.
That seems perfectly sensible to me. How different it is from previous holders of LotO - no idea.
On the topic of whether the government would share issues of top secret national security with Corbyn - I'd frankly hope they'd decide they would or not because of his connections with our enemies etc and not based on a ceremony.
If he becomes PM then he should be briefed on top secret issues of national security, I'd be perfectly OK to not do so until then based on what he has said, done and spoken with and for in the past - not because of a ceremony.
You get that level of clearance when you get a .gsi mail address (i.e. the same as any civil servant). DV criteria are trumped by elections - if Corbyn becomes PM, he gets the TS tear offs.
I've no issue with it as a huge increase in numbers - my concern for moderates like yourself is that a lot of hard-Lefties/Greenies have simply taken your Party over.
I'd be horrified if my CPC went from a couple of hundred to 500 if they were all Kippers.
These relentless Colonel Blimpish stories in the Telegraph and Sun could well end up backfiring.
The ability to be outraged has its limits and it doesn't take long before people tire of the complainers. There are also the the peculiarly British traits of liking fair play and admiring the rebel.
Speaking for myself who was viscerally against his election I now am very hopefull he succeeds
snip
Lots of noise from a few does not equate to enthusiasm in the masses.
If it did, then Labour would have won a landslide in May, given the pro-Labour posts on Twitter and Facebook.
Nah, there is something new going on here that needs understanding.
No there isn't it's just lots of activists egging each other on and ignoring the politics lite mass of disinterested voters.
Well it is what it is. I merely propose that it deserves figuring out. Curious that people can be quite so dismissive of something that is undeniably a bit different. I guess it doesn't compute at all in the Tory psyche, so we get a kind of willful blindness.
I just don't see how it's different, it looks same old same old to me.
Things are different. A membership alone of 500k is different.
My Local CLP, for example, which had 100 members now has the challenge of organising 600. Branches that closed in the 90s are being restarted.
That's interesting. Other parties would see that as a very big deal.
It was around 80. You can be reasonable and surely can admit that is quite a big change for a small CLP. I pity the poor souls who have to organise that lot and am glad it's not me.
I've lost count of the times that was said about tory posters before May 2015. They were continually patronised by the self appointed sages for whom a hung parliament was inevitable and a labour SNP coalition a distinct possibility.
Turns out the tories weren't correct enough.
Yes the labour membership stats are impressive, but I can't help feeling that Jeremy is providing a lovely warm comfort blanket for those who want to rail against terrible tories and isn't this awful for four and a half years.
I just don't see how it's different, it looks same old same old to me.
Things are different. A membership alone of 500k is different.
My Local CLP, for example, which had 100 members now has the challenge of organising 600. Branches that closed in the 90s are being restarted.
That's interesting. Other parties would see that as a very big deal.
Not if the members you are getting are toxic to the electorate.
Well if that were the case, which it isn't, it would be a very big deal indeed.
The willful blindness is palpable.
Anyway, why aren't we talking about the lib dems? It's their big week after all. With 6%, including a leader bounce, they are on the march back to glory.
Why do you think it isn't the case? The polls are suggesting that it is precisely that - popular with left wing Labour, non-voters and Greens - but toxic with centrist swing voters including some who are/were Labour, Liberals, Tories and UKIP etc
The polls could be wrong of course, but to simply be dismissive without giving a reason seems to me to be very curious. Especially when you're condemning others for being dismissive but then you yourself are just outright dismissive of counter-points.
As for the Lib Dems, they're a dead parrot of a party. Why would we talk of them?
HYUFD was put on watch to inform us next time Corbyn attended a Stop the war event .. It'' only be when he is kicked out as leader after this disgraceful tantrum message.
He is going to formally apologise for the Iraq War apparently, who knows whether Stop The War will be there
I think we should bear in mind that these polls have been taken against a backdrop where, on everything from the economy to defence, voters have no idea what labour policies actually are.
That is because labour itself has no idea what its policies are. Shadow ministers constantly contradict their leader. Or are sharply critical of him. Or reject what he stands for.
These relentless Colonel Blimpish stories in the Telegraph and Sun could well end up backfiring.
The ability to be outraged has its limits and it doesn't take long before people tire of the complainers. There are also the the peculiarly British traits of liking fair play and admiring the rebel.
Speaking for myself who was viscerally against his election I now am very hopefull he succeeds
Politics is not black or white. Corbyn despite numerous faults has managed to achieve what almost all politicians have failed to do since Blair. He has managed to generate popular enthusiasm for politics in 100s of thousands.
Right time, right place? Maybe. But not something you can simply write off. As story x,y and z about Corbyn hits the press its getting ignored. But it is a real and interesting development that deserves analysis.
Lots of noise from a few does not equate to enthusiasm in the masses.
If it did, then Labour would have won a landslide in May, given the pro-Labour posts on Twitter and Facebook.
Nah, there is something new going on here that needs understanding.
No there isn't it's just lots of activists egging each other on and ignoring the politics lite mass of disinterested voters.
Well it is what it is. I merely propose that it deserves figuring out. Curious that people can be quite so dismissive of something that is undeniably a bit different. I guess it doesn't compute at all in the Tory psyche, so we get a kind of willful blindness.
I just don't see how it's different, it looks same old same old to me.
Things are different. A membership alone of 500k is different.
My Local CLP, for example, which had 100 members now has the challenge of organising 600. Branches that closed in the 90s are being restarted.
That's interesting. Other parties would see that as a very big deal.
hmmm
well only time will tell, but it looks like gym membership in January - lots of joiners but by November the place is still down to the regulars..
The LDs have IIRC the same number of MPs as the DUP.
With Farron in charge, a curious fellow IMO - I can't see him winning back moderate Labour voters either. I know he's a campaigner blah blah, but I still think Lamb was a much better option.
I just don't see how it's different, it looks same old same old to me.
Things are different. A membership alone of 500k is different.
My Local CLP, for example, which had 100 members now has the challenge of organising 600. Branches that closed in the 90s are being restarted.
That's interesting. Other parties would see that as a very big deal.
Not if the members you are getting are toxic to the electorate.
Well if that were the case, which it isn't, it would be a very big deal indeed.
The willful blindness is palpable.
Anyway, why aren't we talking about the lib dems? It's their big week after all. With 6%, including a leader bounce, they are on the march back to glory.
As for the Lib Dems, they're a dead parrot of a party. Why would we talk of them?
Hilary Benn impressive on Marr, says he does not believe that Labour will vote to scrap Trident or withdraw from Nato and that while the Iraq War was wrong due to no WMDs nonetheless Iraq is now a democracy with its problems emanating from Saddam's rule. He remains the most likely replacement for Corbyn in my view if there is any coup before the next election
He also conceded his father would have been 'thrilled' by Corbyn's election
Given how bad the week has been for Labour, the polling isn't is bad as it might be. But, that doesn't mean it's good. It does suggest that 30% or so of the voters will respond positively to a left wing message, even if 50%+ don't.
I've no issue with it as a huge increase in numbers - my concern for moderates like yourself is that a lot of hard-Lefties/Greenies have simply taken your Party over.
The ones that showed up to meeting seem fine to me. Arguably a nice balance. A few in their 20s eager to "do stuff", some decent potential organisers who run shops, small businesses and some recent retirees who left due to Iraq.
All in all better than the moribund state it was in in 2008. And something that punters may want to consider as they navigate this new world..
According to the STimes - SServices contacts say he's not getting access to any intelligence or operational details. And only Restricted documents which frankly isn't anything much at all.
That seems perfectly sensible to me. How different it is from previous holders of LotO - no idea.
On the topic of whether the government would share issues of top secret national security with Corbyn - I'd frankly hope they'd decide they would or not because of his connections with our enemies etc and not based on a ceremony.
If he becomes PM then he should be briefed on top secret issues of national security, I'd be perfectly OK to not do so until then based on what he has said, done and spoken with and for in the past - not because of a ceremony.
You get that level of clearance when you get a .gsi mail address (i.e. the same as any civil servant). DV criteria are trumped by elections - if Corbyn becomes PM, he gets the TS tear offs.
The issue then becomes how many of his closest advisors McDonnell, et al, will get through the DV process, it's not a given, so he will be restricted in his ability to confer and share his decision making process based on TS and caveated material.
I've no issue with it as a huge increase in numbers - my concern for moderates like yourself is that a lot of hard-Lefties/Greenies have simply taken your Party over.
The ones that showed up to meeting seem fine to me. Arguably a nice balance. A few in their 20s eager to "do stuff", some decent potential organisers who run shops, small businesses and some recent retirees who left due to Iraq.
All in all better than the moribund state it was in in 2008. And something that punters may want to consider as they navigate this new world..
Jonathan I've considered it.
There is still absolutely zero chance of Labour taking Horsham at the next GE.
According to the STimes - SServices contacts say he's not getting access to any intelligence or operational details. And only Restricted documents which frankly isn't anything much at all.
That seems perfectly sensible to me. How different it is from previous holders of LotO - no idea.
On the topic of whether the government would share issues of top secret national security with Corbyn - I'd frankly hope they'd decide they would or not because of his connections with our enemies etc and not based on a ceremony.
If he becomes PM then he should be briefed on top secret issues of national security, I'd be perfectly OK to not do so until then based on what he has said, done and spoken with and for in the past - not because of a ceremony.
You get that level of clearance when you get a .gsi mail address (i.e. the same as any civil servant). DV criteria are trumped by elections - if Corbyn becomes PM, he gets the TS tear offs.
The issue then becomes how many of his closest advisors McDonnell, et al, will get through the DV process, it's not a given, so he will be restricted in his ability to confer and share his decision making process based on TS and caveated material.
Do you honeslty believe Corbyn won't just tell McDonnell and his Stop The War comrades things he thinks they'd need to know?
I've no issue with it as a huge increase in numbers - my concern for moderates like yourself is that a lot of hard-Lefties/Greenies have simply taken your Party over.
The ones that showed up to meeting seem fine to me. Arguably a nice balance. A few in their 20s eager to "do stuff", some decent potential organisers who run shops, small businesses and some recent retirees who left due to Iraq.
All in all better than the moribund state it was in in 2008. And something that punters may want to consider as they navigate this new world..
Jonathan I've considered it.
There is still absolutely zero chance of Labour taking Horsham at the next GE.
Yup, The one party state that is Horsham continues for the foreseeable future.
But clearly they can make a difference by helping next door.
According to the STimes - SServices contacts say he's not getting access to any intelligence or operational details. And only Restricted documents which frankly isn't anything much at all.
That seems perfectly sensible to me. How different it is from previous holders of LotO - no idea.
On the topic of whether the government would share issues of top secret national security with Corbyn - I'd frankly hope they'd decide they would or not because of his connections with our enemies etc and not based on a ceremony.
If he becomes PM then he should be briefed on top secret issues of national security, I'd be perfectly OK to not do so until then based on what he has said, done and spoken with and for in the past - not because of a ceremony.
You get that level of clearance when you get a .gsi mail address (i.e. the same as any civil servant). DV criteria are trumped by elections - if Corbyn becomes PM, he gets the TS tear offs.
The issue then becomes how many of his closest advisors McDonnell, et al, will get through the DV process, it's not a given, so he will be restricted in his ability to confer and share his decision making process based on TS and caveated material.
Do you honeslty believe Corbyn won't just tell McDonnell and his Stop The War comrades things he thinks they'd need to know?
It depends on if he wants to be charged under the official secrets act I suppose.
Given how bad the week has been for Labour, the polling isn't is bad as it might be. But, that doesn't mean it's good. It does suggest that 30% or so of the voters will respond positively to a left wing message, even if 50%+ don't.
Labour should exist to win elections, not to get 30% of the vote. That Corbyn not polling at 25% is considered good news shows just what a mess the party is in.
But I suspect it will remain the second biggest party until UKIP sorts itself out. Immigration and being anti-EU will get it so far, but there has to be a lot more than that. Last week its sole MP voted with the Tories to cut the incomes of working people. That is not going to win over socially conservative, centre left voters.
I've no issue with it as a huge increase in numbers - my concern for moderates like yourself is that a lot of hard-Lefties/Greenies have simply taken your Party over.
The ones that showed up to meeting seem fine to me. Arguably a nice balance. A few in their 20s eager to "do stuff", some decent potential organisers who run shops, small businesses and some recent retirees who left due to Iraq.
All in all better than the moribund state it was in in 2008. And something that punters may want to consider as they navigate this new world..
Jonathan I've considered it.
There is still absolutely zero chance of Labour taking Horsham at the next GE.
Yup, The one party state that is Horsham continues for the foreseeable future.
But clearly they can make a difference by helping next door.
And if this is being replicated...
The one party state in Horsham is a very bad thing because there is no one to hold the Tories to account. It isn't the Tories fault, its Labour and the LD's fault that no one wants to vote for them.
I've no issue with it as a huge increase in numbers - my concern for moderates like yourself is that a lot of hard-Lefties/Greenies have simply taken your Party over.
The ones that showed up to meeting seem fine to me. Arguably a nice balance. A few in their 20s eager to "do stuff", some decent potential organisers who run shops, small businesses and some recent retirees who left due to Iraq.
All in all better than the moribund state it was in in 2008. And something that punters may want to consider as they navigate this new world..
Jonathan I've considered it.
There is still absolutely zero chance of Labour taking Horsham at the next GE.
Yup, The one party state that is Horsham continues for the foreseeable future.
But clearly they can make a difference by helping next door.
And if this is being replicated...
By next door I assume you mean Crawley.
There's no LD vote left to squeeze so it's Tory converts and kippers which I'd say are lean pickings given Corbyn, or find 10,000 missing Labour voters - not easy.
These relentless Colonel Blimpish stories in the Telegraph and Sun could well end up backfiring.
The ability to be outraged has its limits and it doesn't take long before people tire of the complainers. There are also the the peculiarly British traits of liking fair play and admiring the rebel.
Speaking for myself who was viscerally against his election I now am very hopefull he succeeds
Politics is not black or white. Corbyn despite numerous faults has managed to achieve what almost all politicians have failed to do since Blair. He has managed to generate popular enthusiasm for politics in 100s of thousands.
Right time, right place? Maybe. But not something you can simply write off. As story x,y and z about Corbyn hits the press its getting ignored. But it is a real and interesting development that deserves analysis.
Lots of noise from a few does not equate to enthusiasm in the masses.
If it did, then Labour would have won a landslide in May, given the pro-Labour posts on Twitter and Facebook.
Nah, there is something new going on here that needs understanding.
No there isn't it's just lots of activists egging each other on and ignoring the politics lite mass of disinterested voters.
Well it is what it is. I merely propose that it deserves figuring out. Curious that people can be quite so dismissive of something that is undeniably a bit different. I guess it doesn't compute at all in the Tory psyche, so we get a kind of willful blindness.
I just don't see how it's different, it looks same old same old to me.
Things are different. A membership alone of 500k is different.
My Local CLP, for example, which had 100 members now has the challenge of organising 600. Branches that closed in the 90s are being restarted.
That's interesting. Other parties would see that as a very big deal.
hmmm
well only time will tell, but it looks like gym membership in January - lots of joiners but by November the place is still down to the regulars..
It would clearly be a significant risk to give Corbyn access to confidential, security-related information. If it were me I would not let him near it. If he had to be given it, then foreign governments are going to be much more reluctant to share info with the UK.
According to the STimes - SServices contacts say he's not getting access to any intelligence or operational details. And only Restricted documents which frankly isn't anything much at all.
That seems perfectly sensible to me. How different it is from previous holders of LotO - no idea.
On the topic of whether the government would share issues of top secret national security with Corbyn - I'd frankly hope they'd decide they would or not because of his connections with our enemies etc and not based on a ceremony.
If he becomes PM then he should be briefed on top secret issues of national security, I'd be perfectly OK to not do so until then based on what he has said, done and spoken with and for in the past - not because of a ceremony.
You get that level of clearance when you get a .gsi mail address (i.e. the same as any civil servant). DV criteria are trumped by elections - if Corbyn becomes PM, he gets the TS tear offs.
The issue then becomes how many of his closest advisors McDonnell, et al, will get through the DV process, it's not a given, so he will be restricted in his ability to confer and share his decision making process based on TS and caveated material.
Do you honeslty believe Corbyn won't just tell McDonnell and his Stop The War comrades things he thinks they'd need to know?
It depends on if he wants to be charged under the official secrets act I suppose.
I imagine he would see that as a pretty big feather in his cap.
According to the STimes - SServices contacts say he's not getting access to any intelligence or operational details. And only Restricted documents which frankly isn't anything much at all.
That seems perfectly sensible to me. How different it is from previous holders of LotO - no idea.
On the topic of whether the government would share issues of top secret national security with Corbyn - I'd frankly hope they'd decide they would or not because of his connections with our enemies etc and not based on a ceremony.
If he becomes PM then he should be briefed on top secret issues of national security, I'd be perfectly OK to not do so until then based on what he has said, done and spoken with and for in the past - not because of a ceremony.
You get that level of clearance when you get a .gsi mail address (i.e. the same as any civil servant). DV criteria are trumped by elections - if Corbyn becomes PM, he gets the TS tear offs.
The issue then becomes how many of his closest advisors McDonnell, et al, will get through the DV process, it's not a given, so he will be restricted in his ability to confer and share his decision making process based on TS and caveated material.
Do you honeslty believe Corbyn won't just tell McDonnell and his Stop The War comrades things he thinks they'd need to know?
It depends on if he wants to be charged under the official secrets act I suppose.
I'm not sure he'd be that bothered. He gives the impression that what matters is what he believes, and woe betide anyone or any little process that gets in his way. In many ways that's admirable; in others it is a disaster.
He was, until last night, chairman of Stop the War, ffs ...
It would clearly be a significant risk to give Corbyn access to confidential, security-related information. If it were me I would not let him near it. If he had to be given it, then foreign governments are going to be much more reluctant to share info with the UK.
Yup, he should not be given access to classified or foreign intelligence. He is a without doubt a terrorist sympathiser and would sell out this country to his Islamist mates.
According to the STimes - SServices contacts say he's not getting access to any intelligence or operational details. And only Restricted documents which frankly isn't anything much at all.
That seems perfectly sensible to me. How different it is from previous holders of LotO - no idea.
On the topic of whether the government would share issues of top secret national security with Corbyn - I'd frankly hope they'd decide they would or not because of his connections with our enemies etc and not based on a ceremony.
If he becomes PM then he should be briefed on top secret issues of national security, I'd be perfectly OK to not do so until then based on what he has said, done and spoken with and for in the past - not because of a ceremony.
You get that level of clearance when you get a .gsi mail address (i.e. the same as any civil servant). DV criteria are trumped by elections - if Corbyn becomes PM, he gets the TS tear offs.
The issue then becomes how many of his closest advisors McDonnell, et al, will get through the DV process, it's not a given, so he will be restricted in his ability to confer and share his decision making process based on TS and caveated material.
Do you honeslty believe Corbyn won't just tell McDonnell and his Stop The War comrades things he thinks they'd need to know?
It depends on if he wants to be charged under the official secrets act I suppose.
I imagine he would see that as a pretty big feather in his cap.
If that is true, he's more of a fool than I thought.
How on earth does getting rid of free school meals destroy the Labour Party exactly? If some Conservative activists really believe that playing silly little political games is their main aim instead of creating a better country, then they really can't pontificate on being the competent and responsibile party in British politics.
According to the STimes - SServices contacts say he's not getting access to any intelligence or operational details. And only Restricted documents which frankly isn't anything much at all.
That seems perfectly sensible to me. How different it is from previous holders of LotO - no idea.
On the topic of whether the government would share issues of top secret national security with Corbyn - I'd frankly hope they'd decide they would or not because of his connections with our enemies etc and not based on a ceremony.
If he becomes PM then he should be briefed on top secret issues of national security, I'd be perfectly OK to not do so until then based on what he has said, done and spoken with and for in the past - not because of a ceremony.
You get that level of clearance when you get a .gsi mail address (i.e. the same as any civil servant). DV criteria are trumped by elections - if Corbyn becomes PM, he gets the TS tear offs.
The issue then becomes how many of his closest advisors McDonnell, et al, will get through the DV process, it's not a given, so he will be restricted in his ability to confer and share his decision making process based on TS and caveated material.
Do you honeslty believe Corbyn won't just tell McDonnell and his Stop The War comrades things he thinks they'd need to know?
It depends on if he wants to be charged under the official secrets act I suppose.
I'm not sure he'd be that bothered. He gives the impression that what matters is what he believes, and woe betide anyone or any little process that gets in his way. In many ways that's admirable; in others it is a disaster.
He was, until last night, chairman of Stop the War, ffs ...
The main stumbling block that republicans have in UK is that they are fighting against a nice old lady in a cardi, that likes a flutter on the horses, spoils her dogs and makes us look good abroad.How are you supposed to fight against that? Charles has more targets but even he is just a Woodehousian eccentric, a member of the landed gentry that talks to his pigs and carrots and wants us all to get along.
There needs to be more of an argument that "we are a laughing stock abroad", because having been abroad quite a few times we plainly aren't...or if we are it isn't the Queen that is the cause. It has to be stronger and deeper rooted than this for republicans to succeed.
Curiously, a number of rich and fairly egalitarian societies have monarchs as Heads of State.
I think that's because monarchs in developed societies know that they can't throw their weight around and so don't get involved in politics.
By contrast an elected head of state will have the tendency to favor those groups of voters that (a) vote and (b) vote for them
Given how bad the week has been for Labour, the polling isn't is bad as it might be. But, that doesn't mean it's good. It does suggest that 30% or so of the voters will respond positively to a left wing message, even if 50%+ don't.
Labour should exist to win elections, not to get 30% of the vote. That Corbyn not polling at 25% is considered good news shows just what a mess the party is in.
But I suspect it will remain the second biggest party until UKIP sorts itself out. Immigration and being anti-EU will get it so far, but there has to be a lot more than that. Last week its sole MP voted with the Tories to cut the incomes of working people. That is not going to win over socially conservative, centre left voters.
Indeed, and 2/3 of the polls last night would have seen the Tories make net gains from Labour. UKIP's chance will come with EUref much as the LDs got a boost as the Iraq War loomed that was when IDS was toppled and when Corbyn could be most at risk
How on earth does getting rid of free school meals destroy the Labour Party exactly? If some Conservative activists really believe that playing silly little political games is their main aim instead of creating a better country, then they really can't pontificate on being the competent and responsibile party in British politics.
I'm lost with that, where does anyone say school meals is about destroying the Labour Party ?
The fundamental, structural dislocation at the heart of his leadership is his absence of support in parliament. That was made manifest at two of the most important events of his week. The first was his meeting with Labour MPs and peers on Monday night. It is traditional for a new leader to be greeted with a cheer.
Labour MPs gave that to Ed Miliband, even though a majority of them had not voted for him. Jeremy Corbyn was received with ill-disguised animosity and some questions that sounded deliberately designed to trip him up, which is not so surprising when more than 90% of his colleagues did not want him as leader. One of those questions, an elephant trap that the most myopic old mammoth could have spotted, was whether he would wear a red poppy at the Remembrance Day ceremony at the Cenotaph. When he wouldn’t say, his prevarication was promptly leaked.
By the time his office issued a correction saying that he would be wearing a red poppy in November, the first but by no means only U-turn of the week, damage was done.
The LDs have IIRC the same number of MPs as the DUP.
With Farron in charge, a curious fellow IMO - I can't see him winning back moderate Labour voters either. I know he's a campaigner blah blah, but I still think Lamb was a much better option.
I just don't see how it's different, it looks same old same old to me.
Things are different. A membership alone of 500k is different.
My Local CLP, for example, which had 100 members now has the challenge of organising 600. Branches that closed in the 90s are being restarted.
That's interesting. Other parties would see that as a very big deal.
Not if the members you are getting are toxic to the electorate.
Well if that were the case, which it isn't, it would be a very big deal indeed.
The willful blindness is palpable.
Anyway, why aren't we talking about the lib dems? It's their big week after all. With 6%, including a leader bounce, they are on the march back to glory.
As for the Lib Dems, they're a dead parrot of a party. Why would we talk of them?
"Baroness Tonge said she was “thinking about” joining Labour and “a lot of people” in her party were pondering the move as they found Corbyn “a breath of fresh air”. The former GP, who as Jenny Tonge was MP for Richmond Park, southwest London, said she agreed with Corbyn on benefit cuts, foreign affairs, defence and the environment. She complained that she had not “heard a peep” on policy from Tim Farron, the new Lib Dem leader." “I know that lots of Lib Dems are contemplating supporting Jeremy Corbyn, including me,” Tonge said. http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1609363.ece
Hilary Benn impressive on Marr, says he does not believe that Labour will vote to scrap Trident or withdraw from Nato and that while the Iraq War was wrong due to no WMDs nonetheless Iraq is now a democracy with its problems emanating from Saddam's rule. He remains the most likely replacement for Corbyn in my view if there is any coup before the next election
He also conceded his father would have been 'thrilled' by Corbyn's election
More interesting was that he kept saying that the decision on Trident was up to Conference.
According to the STimes - SServices contacts say he's not getting access to any intelligence or operational details. And only Restricted documents which frankly isn't anything much at all.
That seems perfectly sensible to me. How different it is from previous holders of LotO - no idea.
On the topic of whether the government would share issues of top secret national security with Corbyn - I'd frankly hope they'd decide they would or not because of his connections with our enemies etc and not based on a ceremony.
If he becomes PM then he should be briefed on top secret issues of national security, I'd be perfectly OK to not do so until then based on what he has said, done and spoken with and for in the past - not because of a ceremony.
You get that level of clearance when you get a .gsi mail address (i.e. the same as any civil servant). DV criteria are trumped by elections - if Corbyn becomes PM, he gets the TS tear offs.
The issue then becomes how many of his closest advisors McDonnell, et al, will get through the DV process, it's not a given, so he will be restricted in his ability to confer and share his decision making process based on TS and caveated material.
Do you honeslty believe Corbyn won't just tell McDonnell and his Stop The War comrades things he thinks they'd need to know?
I think you mean "he thinks they'd WANT to know" not "need"
The LDs have IIRC the same number of MPs as the DUP.
With Farron in charge, a curious fellow IMO - I can't see him winning back moderate Labour voters either. I know he's a campaigner blah blah, but I still think Lamb was a much better option.
I just don't see how it's different, it looks same old same old to me.
Things are different. A membership alone of 500k is different.
My Local CLP, for example, which had 100 members now has the challenge of organising 600. Branches that closed in the 90s are being restarted.
That's interesting. Other parties would see that as a very big deal.
Not if the members you are getting are toxic to the electorate.
Well if that were the case, which it isn't, it would be a very big deal indeed.
The willful blindness is palpable.
Anyway, why aren't we talking about the lib dems? It's their big week after all. With 6%, including a leader bounce, they are on the march back to glory.
As for the Lib Dems, they're a dead parrot of a party. Why would we talk of them?
"Baroness Tonge said she was “thinking about” joining Labour and “a lot of people” in her party were pondering the move as they found Corbyn “a breath of fresh air”. The former GP, who as Jenny Tonge was MP for Richmond Park, southwest London, said she agreed with Corbyn on benefit cuts, foreign affairs, defence and the environment. She complained that she had not “heard a peep” on policy from Tim Farron, the new Lib Dem leader." “I know that lots of Lib Dems are contemplating supporting Jeremy Corbyn, including me,” Tonge said. http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1609363.ece
Didn't she have the Lib Dem whip withdrawn in the Lords for making anti-Semitic remarks? Is that the sort of new member Labour wants?
The LDs have IIRC the same number of MPs as the DUP.
With Farron in charge, a curious fellow IMO - I can't see him winning back moderate Labour voters either. I know he's a campaigner blah blah, but I still think Lamb was a much better option.
I just don't see how it's different, it looks same old same old to me.
Things are different. A membership alone of 500k is different.
My Local CLP, for example, which had 100 members now has the challenge of organising 600. Branches that closed in the 90s are being restarted.
That's interesting. Other parties would see that as a very big deal.
Not if the members you are getting are toxic to the electorate.
Well if that were the case, which it isn't, it would be a very big deal indeed.
The willful blindness is palpable.
Anyway, why aren't we talking about the lib dems? It's their big week after all. With 6%, including a leader bounce, they are on the march back to glory.
As for the Lib Dems, they're a dead parrot of a party. Why would we talk of them?
"Baroness Tonge said she was “thinking about” joining Labour and “a lot of people” in her party were pondering the move as they found Corbyn “a breath of fresh air”. The former GP, who as Jenny Tonge was MP for Richmond Park, southwest London, said she agreed with Corbyn on benefit cuts, foreign affairs, defence and the environment. She complained that she had not “heard a peep” on policy from Tim Farron, the new Lib Dem leader." “I know that lots of Lib Dems are contemplating supporting Jeremy Corbyn, including me,” Tonge said. http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1609363.ece
Did she rejoin the Lib Dems after being effectively kicked out?
I'm not sure why anyone thinks Labour will follow the same path as the Tory party. It is highly unlikely to have A Hague, IDS, Howard Cameron progression.
It is a different entity with different influences pulling it different ways.
Private Eye had it exactly right the Tories and Labour lost an election to a smarmy PR man, Blair or Cameron, then elected a geek, Hague and Ed Miliband then lost another election and elected a troublesome backbencher, IDS and Corbyn. The Tories then lost another election. Labour er... https://twitter.com/asabenn?lang=en-gb
In March 2009 Tonge joined a six-person delegation of British politicians which met with Hamas political leader Khaled Meshaal in Syria. Tonge told an interviewer that their goal was to force the British government to talk to Hamas and pressure the United States to do likewise. She stated "You don't make peace by talking to your friends. You make peace by talking to your enemies," and said she knew that her meeting with Meshaal might be considered illegal and lead to her arrest. "That is one of the risks that you take," she said.[21][22]
The LDs have IIRC the same number of MPs as the DUP.
With Farron in charge, a curious fellow IMO - I can't see him winning back moderate Labour voters either. I know he's a campaigner blah blah, but I still think Lamb was a much better option.
I just don't see how it's different, it looks same old same old to me.
snip
Not if the members you are getting are toxic to the electorate.
Well if that were the case, which it isn't, it would be a very big deal indeed.
The willful blindness is palpable.
Anyway, why aren't we talking about the lib dems? It's their big week after all. With 6%, including a leader bounce, they are on the march back to glory.
As for the Lib Dems, they're a dead parrot of a party. Why would we talk of them?
"Baroness Tonge said she was “thinking about” joining Labour and “a lot of people” in her party were pondering the move as they found Corbyn “a breath of fresh air”. The former GP, who as Jenny Tonge was MP for Richmond Park, southwest London, said she agreed with Corbyn on benefit cuts, foreign affairs, defence and the environment. She complained that she had not “heard a peep” on policy from Tim Farron, the new Lib Dem leader." “I know that lots of Lib Dems are contemplating supporting Jeremy Corbyn, including me,” Tonge said. http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1609363.ece
How on earth does getting rid of free school meals destroy the Labour Party exactly? If some Conservative activists really believe that playing silly little political games is their main aim instead of creating a better country, then they really can't pontificate on being the competent and responsibile party in British politics.
I'm lost with that, where does anyone say school meals is about destroying the Labour Party ?
This is simply Osborne being a wanker again.
Very early on in the thread in some posts back it's certainly implied. I agree this Osborne being a wanker though. No wonder his figures are similar to Corbyn's.
So he has certainly upended the conventional rules of politics, just not in a way that advantages his authority. We are accustomed to party leaders rebuking juniors who get out of line. In this brave new world, members of the shadow cabinet slap down their leader. In the past seven days they have contradicted him over welfare policy, tax policy, defence and Ireland.
How on earth does getting rid of free school meals destroy the Labour Party exactly? If some Conservative activists really believe that playing silly little political games is their main aim instead of creating a better country, then they really can't pontificate on being the competent and responsibile party in British politics.
I'm lost with that, where does anyone say school meals is about destroying the Labour Party ?
This is simply Osborne being a wanker again.
Very early on in the thread in some posts back it's certainly implied. I agree this Osborne being a wanker though. No wonder his figures are similar to Corbyn's.
There should be a name for the amount of time it takes for someone to read a post, Google something and then formulate a reply to try to discredit the post.
These relentless Colonel Blimpish stories in the Telegraph and Sun could well end up backfiring.
The ability to be outraged has its limits and it doesn't take long before people tire of the complainers. There are also the the peculiarly British traits of liking fair play and admiring the rebel.
Speaking for myself who was viscerally against his election I now am very hopefull he succeeds
Politics is not black or white. Corbyn despite numerous faults has managed to achieve what almost all politicians have failed to do since Blair. He has managed to generate popular enthusiasm for politics in 100s of thousands.
Right time, right place? Maybe. But not something you can simply write off. As story x,y and z about Corbyn hits the press its getting ignored. But it is a real and interesting development that deserves analysis.
But the enthusiasm he has generated is not one of decency and optimism but of bitterness and revenge: screw the bankers, screw the rich, screw the energy companies, screw the railway owners, screw the media, screw the Tories, screw the Blairites.
There is certainly an element that reminds me of the sort of passion that gave rise to things like Tory home, Guido and the like. None of which could be accused of being remotely positive but have been useful outriders to the Conservatives. Again a nod that Labour might be in an IDS phase.
Guido is not associated with the Tory party and goes guns a-blazing on politicians of all types. He's a libertarian I believe. ConservativeHome is plenty thoughtful.
The comparisons with IDS are a lazy parallel. IDS was chosen in a regrettable forced choice provided to us by MPs, and the party was down to its bare bones most right wing membership, which got sidelined as mainstream members came back. Labour chose Corbyn with the biggest electorate Labour have had and with a choice of mainstream candidates. And Corbyn is far, far more extreme. IDS never hung about with Klu Klux Klan members or Afrikaans separatists. Conservative party members would have been too moral to vote for someone like that.
One of IDS' backers was Nick Griffin's father, IDS won 155,993 votes, Ken Clarke 100,864. Corbyn won 251,417 votes, Burnham 80,462. I am sorry but the situations are very similar and I can think of no moderates who flooded into the Tories when IDS was leader, certainly it had to wait for Howard to take over for even a slight rise in more moderate members
How on earth does getting rid of free school meals destroy the Labour Party exactly? If some Conservative activists really believe that playing silly little political games is their main aim instead of creating a better country, then they really can't pontificate on being the competent and responsibile party in British politics.
I'm lost with that, where does anyone say school meals is about destroying the Labour Party ?
This is simply Osborne being a wanker again.
Very early on in the thread in some posts back it's certainly implied. I agree this Osborne being a wanker though. No wonder his figures are similar to Corbyn's.
According to the STimes - SServices contacts say he's not getting access to any intelligence or operational details. And only Restricted documents which frankly isn't anything much at all.
That seems perfectly sensible to me. How different it is from previous holders of LotO - no idea.
On the topic of whether the government would share issues of top secret national security with Corbyn - I'd frankly hope they'd decide they would or not because of his connections with our enemies etc and not based on a ceremony.
If he becomes PM then he should be briefed on top secret issues of national security, I'd be perfectly OK to not do so until then based on what he has said, done and spoken with and for in the past - not because of a ceremony.
You get that level of clearance when you get a .gsi mail address (i.e. the same as any civil servant). DV criteria are trumped by elections - if Corbyn becomes PM, he gets the TS tear offs.
The issue then becomes how many of his closest advisors McDonnell, et al, will get through the DV process, it's not a given, so he will be restricted in his ability to confer and share his decision making process based on TS and caveated material.
Do you honeslty believe Corbyn won't just tell McDonnell and his Stop The War comrades things he thinks they'd need to know?
You think Cameron and his buddies don't tip of their rich business chums then.
How on earth does getting rid of free school meals destroy the Labour Party exactly? If some Conservative activists really believe that playing silly little political games is their main aim instead of creating a better country, then they really can't pontificate on being the competent and responsibile party in British politics.
I'm lost with that, where does anyone say school meals is about destroying the Labour Party ?
This is simply Osborne being a wanker again.
Very early on in the thread in some posts back it's certainly implied. I agree this Osborne being a wanker though. No wonder his figures are similar to Corbyn's.
Why should the state subsidise well off parents?
It subsides well-off pensioners so why not? I wouldn't have a problem means-testing it though to the poorest families - but from what I can see Osborne is getting rid of the scheme completely so many poor children will lose out.
How on earth does getting rid of free school meals destroy the Labour Party exactly? If some Conservative activists really believe that playing silly little political games is their main aim instead of creating a better country, then they really can't pontificate on being the competent and responsibile party in British politics.
I'm lost with that, where does anyone say school meals is about destroying the Labour Party ?
This is simply Osborne being a wanker again.
Very early on in the thread in some posts back it's certainly implied. I agree this Osborne being a wanker though. No wonder his figures are similar to Corbyn's.
Why should the state subsidise well off parents?
So time to end charitable status for private schools?
How on earth does getting rid of free school meals destroy the Labour Party exactly? If some Conservative activists really believe that playing silly little political games is their main aim instead of creating a better country, then they really can't pontificate on being the competent and responsibile party in British politics.
I'm lost with that, where does anyone say school meals is about destroying the Labour Party ?
This is simply Osborne being a wanker again.
Very early on in the thread in some posts back it's certainly implied. I agree this Osborne being a wanker though. No wonder his figures are similar to Corbyn's.
Why should the state subsidise well off parents?
So time to end charitable status for private schools?
How on earth does getting rid of free school meals destroy the Labour Party exactly? If some Conservative activists really believe that playing silly little political games is their main aim instead of creating a better country, then they really can't pontificate on being the competent and responsibile party in British politics.
I'm lost with that, where does anyone say school meals is about destroying the Labour Party ?
This is simply Osborne being a wanker again.
Think it would be MM's extreme right wing bollox about how great a scam it was and how the Tories were just finishing off destruction of Labour with this wonderful policy against poor children and suggesting Osborne be canonised.
How on earth does getting rid of free school meals destroy the Labour Party exactly? If some Conservative activists really believe that playing silly little political games is their main aim instead of creating a better country, then they really can't pontificate on being the competent and responsibile party in British politics.
I'm lost with that, where does anyone say school meals is about destroying the Labour Party ?
This is simply Osborne being a wanker again.
Think it would be MM's extreme right wing bollox about how great a scam it was and how the Tories were just finishing off destruction of Labour with this wonderful policy against poor children and suggesting Osborne be canonised.
The LDs have IIRC the same number of MPs as the DUP.
With Farron in charge, a curious fellow IMO - I can't see him winning back moderate Labour voters either. I know he's a campaigner blah blah, but I still think Lamb was a much better option.
I just don't see how it's different, it looks same old same old to me.
Things are different. A membership alone of 500k is different.
My Local CLP, for example, which had 100 members now has the challenge of organising 600. Branches that closed in the 90s are being restarted.
That's interesting. Other parties would see that as a very big deal.
Not if the members you are getting are toxic to the electorate.
Well if that were the case, which it isn't, it would be a very big deal indeed.
The willful blindness is palpable.
Anyway, why aren't we talking about the lib dems? It's their big week after all. With 6%, including a leader bounce, they are on the march back to glory.
As for the Lib Dems, they're a dead parrot of a party. Why would we talk of them?
"Baroness Tonge said she was “thinking about” joining Labour and “a lot of people” in her party were pondering the move as they found Corbyn “a breath of fresh air”. The former GP, who as Jenny Tonge was MP for Richmond Park, southwest London, said she agreed with Corbyn on benefit cuts, foreign affairs, defence and the environment. She complained that she had not “heard a peep” on policy from Tim Farron, the new Lib Dem leader." “I know that lots of Lib Dems are contemplating supporting Jeremy Corbyn, including me,” Tonge said. http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1609363.ece
Didn't she have the Lib Dem whip withdrawn in the Lords for making anti-Semitic remarks? Is that the sort of new member Labour wants?
Comments
Losing about 0.5 pounds per week as a result for a relatively simple change
The main news today is that greeks go to the polls, again.
Greece election: Voting begins in tight race
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34306084
I've had a bet that Golden Dawn will breach 9 percentage points.
I understand why @Jonathan feels the desire to defend his Party - but I don't agree with his premise.
It's not so much wilful blindness, as addressing the practicalities of how Labour return to power. Now, you'll doubt my motives, but it's truly important that Labour be electable. While I'm sanguine about ten years of a Cameron/Osborne administration, fifteen years is much less appealing, and twenty is absolutely not on.
At present, you have a leader with a wealth of foibles, idiosyncrasies and a terrible track record in respect of his adherents, associates and fellow travellers. McDonnell is probably worse.
Further, you don't yet have a coherent philosophy on how to the Left deals with a globalised world, where the golden geese (i.e. corporations and wealthy individuals) can treat nations like boutiques and shop around.
I fear that social media has created an echo chamber that means the Left is becoming ever more introverted and, dare I say it, out of touch.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33625612
noisy middle class lefties shouting a lot.
At least Roger can get to go on demos again and put the Che Guevara poster back up on the wall.
The comparisons with IDS are a lazy parallel. IDS was chosen in a regrettable forced choice provided to us by MPs, and the party was down to its bare bones most right wing membership, which got sidelined as mainstream members came back. Labour chose Corbyn with the biggest electorate Labour have had and with a choice of mainstream candidates. And Corbyn is far, far more extreme. IDS never hung about with Klu Klux Klan members or Afrikaans separatists. Conservative party members would have been too moral to vote for someone like that.
My Local CLP, for example, which had 100 members now has the challenge of organising 600. Branches that closed in the 90s are being restarted.
That's interesting. Other parties would see that as a very big deal.
I find Corbyn's stated views utterly repugnant, and it's quite staggering how much people are trying to defend him (especially whilst still throwing out the old canard about Bulliingdon, etc). I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in that. He's compounded the problem by some of his selections for shadow cabinet.
I find at amazing that members of a party that pretends to be so pro-equality can throw around 'witch'-style insults to someone whose views they slightly disagree with who is within their own party. It's a sign of the intellectual and moral incoherence that will be the seed of Corbyn's political doom.
Islamic invasion in Germany. Footage taken today. https://www.facebook.com/100006971236990/videos/1628531227389236/ …
Interesting footage of Migrants on the rampage, supposedly somewhere in Germany. Well Merkel sowed the wind; will the whirlwind now unseat her?
There was a saying discussed here when the Tories kept parroting "Long Term Economic Plan" - that by the time you're sick to death of saying something the public are starting to listen. We need to reach the point of being sick to death of pointing out how dangerous Corbyn is - as often as Long Term Economic Plan got said - and then it will have sunk in to the public.
If this has the counter-effect that it means that by your lot being sick of hearing it so you support unelectable Corbyn to be stubborn and he doesn't get evicted after 12 months but stays for years, or better loses a general election landslide, then all the better.
But I think Labour's problem is encapsulated in two things you've alluded to. Firstly, there are hundreds of these sort of stories. Whether someone is up to being PM doesn't depend on whether they can eat a bacon sandwich or not but sometimes those images don't change minds of themselves but reinforce and sum up an existing impression. A steady stream of 'he's just another far-left activist interested in gesture politics' will do just that.
The second, relatedly, is that Corbyn is and always has been an ideas man; motivated by the pursuit of an ideological view of how the world should be. But most voters are not. How does he bridge that gap?
It is a different entity with different influences pulling it different ways.
The willful blindness is palpable.
Anyway, why aren't we talking about the lib dems? It's their big week after all. With 6%, including a leader bounce, they are on the march back to glory.
If he becomes PM then he should be briefed on top secret issues of national security, I'd be perfectly OK to not do so until then based on what he has said, done and spoken with and for in the past - not because of a ceremony.
That seems perfectly sensible to me. How different it is from previous holders of LotO - no idea.
.. It'' only be when he is kicked out as leader after this disgraceful tantrum message.
I'd be horrified if my CPC went from a couple of hundred to 500 if they were all Kippers.
I've lost count of the times that was said about tory posters before May 2015. They were continually patronised by the self appointed sages for whom a hung parliament was inevitable and a labour SNP coalition a distinct possibility.
Turns out the tories weren't correct enough.
Yes the labour membership stats are impressive, but I can't help feeling that Jeremy is providing a lovely warm comfort blanket for those who want to rail against terrible tories and isn't this awful for four and a half years.
The polls could be wrong of course, but to simply be dismissive without giving a reason seems to me to be very curious. Especially when you're condemning others for being dismissive but then you yourself are just outright dismissive of counter-points.
As for the Lib Dems, they're a dead parrot of a party. Why would we talk of them?
That is because labour itself has no idea what its policies are. Shadow ministers constantly contradict their leader. Or are sharply critical of him. Or reject what he stands for.
well only time will tell, but it looks like gym membership in January - lots of joiners but by November the place is still down to the regulars..
With Farron in charge, a curious fellow IMO - I can't see him winning back moderate Labour voters either. I know he's a campaigner blah blah, but I still think Lamb was a much better option.
At least he gives off greybeard sensible vibes.
He also conceded his father would have been 'thrilled' by Corbyn's election
The ones that showed up to meeting seem fine to me. Arguably a nice balance. A few in their 20s eager to "do stuff", some decent potential organisers who run shops, small businesses and some recent retirees who left due to Iraq.
All in all better than the moribund state it was in in 2008. And something that punters may want to consider as they navigate this new world..
There is still absolutely zero chance of Labour taking Horsham at the next GE.
But clearly they can make a difference by helping next door.
And if this is being replicated...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-34305950
But I suspect it will remain the second biggest party until UKIP sorts itself out. Immigration and being anti-EU will get it so far, but there has to be a lot more than that. Last week its sole MP voted with the Tories to cut the incomes of working people. That is not going to win over socially conservative, centre left voters.
Wodger's cousin gets a positive comment over at arrse. When will Old t'Odger's kith-and-kin see the "Tory" light...?
There's no LD vote left to squeeze so it's Tory converts and kippers which I'd say are lean pickings given Corbyn, or find 10,000 missing Labour voters - not easy.
He was, until last night, chairman of Stop the War, ffs ...
By contrast an elected head of state will have the tendency to favor those groups of voters that (a) vote and (b) vote for them
This is simply Osborne being a wanker again.
The former GP, who as Jenny Tonge was MP for Richmond Park, southwest London, said she agreed with Corbyn on benefit cuts, foreign affairs, defence and the environment. She complained that she had not “heard a peep” on policy from Tim Farron, the new Lib Dem leader." “I know that lots of Lib Dems are contemplating supporting Jeremy Corbyn, including me,” Tonge said.
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1609363.ece
Weren't those the old rules in Labour?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jenniferlipman/100140924/good-riddance-to-jenny-tonge-and-her-anti-israel-poison/
No wonder she would feel comfortable with Corbyn.
https://twitter.com/asabenn?lang=en-gb
The Tonge posts below is a classic example.
The delay is usually about 3-5 minutes.
Any ideas?
One of IDS' backers was Nick Griffin's father, IDS won 155,993 votes, Ken Clarke 100,864. Corbyn won 251,417 votes, Burnham 80,462. I am sorry but the situations are very similar and I can think of no moderates who flooded into the Tories when IDS was leader, certainly it had to wait for Howard to take over for even a slight rise in more moderate members
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)_leadership_election,_2001
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)_leadership_election,_2015
Guido Fawkes @GuidoFawkes 4m4 minutes ago
BoJo hooker jibe, Corb's commie Royal Wedding & a bisexual flash mob: Today's @TheSun column http://www.sunnation.co.uk/maul-or-nothing-for-bojo/ …
over to Morris Dancer.
Lets not forget her remarks about Israel.. for which Tonge had to resign from the Parliamentary party.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17218291