Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Not in my name: Alastair Meeks looks at Jeremy Corbyn’s par
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Not in my name: Alastair Meeks looks at Jeremy Corbyn’s party leadership style
In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the burning topic of the day – literally, on occasion – was religion. In England, the cutting edge of religious thought was found among what we now call the Puritans. This label was originally in fact a catch-all term of abuse for a variety of different hardline Protestant groups and not one that those so labelled would have welcomed. One of the seminal figures was an Islington cleric called Robert Browne. Unwilling to commune with the Church of England, they suffered fines and other indignities in the early seventeenth century. They protested very heavily against this, given their deeply held beliefs. Some emigrated to leave behind this persecution:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Via Britain Elects.
LDN // Best politician to lead the campaign to leave the EU:
N. Farage: 19%
B. Johnson: 11%
T. May: 8%
[DK]: 54%
(via YouGov / 04 - 06 Jan)
Edit to clarify this is a London only poll
Given the recent assignation attempt, I would have thought Farage wouldn't be too keen to spend all that time in public...
Remain: 39%
Leave: 34%
(via YouGov / 04 - 06 Jan)
You should be a lawyer....
They have a mushy centrist blend, which they can ultimately use as cover for implementing some of the things that those further to the wing of their party want.
Unfortunately pragmatism isn't much of a credo, and - in the eyes of a large chunk of the party - has failed at the the last two elections. Not least because David Cameron has been doing much the same thing but better. He has destroyed one party, neutralised the threat from another and driven a third mad.
Labour's new Shadow Defence Secretary told me this morning. "I don't know why Jeremy gave me this job but I know that I'm really honoured."
If memory serves, There was quite an amusing exchange in the parliament on Christmas Day during the second protectorate parliament (IIRC), lamenting that not very many members were in attendance on the so called holy day, even though of course such days were not,or at least should not, be celebrated anymore.
http://youtu.be/ju_WSjSo3DY
I think the reshuffle, though limited in scope, is a watershed, the end of the Hundred Flowers.
I don't think this will end well for Corbyn. There are aspects of his worldview that are so odd that he won't get people to pay lip-service to them. Further resignations and weakening of the shadow cabinet seem inevitable.
Maybe Shadsy can put up some odds?
He noted that Benn said
- One must stick to one's principles
- So, free votes are essential
- But Cabinet solidarity was essential
- So, those who disagree with the leader must go
- Unity is now established
If Blair was Charles I and Corbyn is Cromwell, will the currently exiled David Miliband return as Charles II?
The answer, for Labour, is probably just to wait until the Tories stop doing it.
Is Corbyn now the Lord High Protector of the Marxist creed? Seumas Milne his Witchfinder General? (or Momentum?)
The Puritans were, in a very real sense, the Christian Taleban. Cromwell their Muqtada Al Sadr. In a word they were utter cnuts. Fanatical, narrow-minded, ideologically driven by their warped religion, joyless, wankers of the first water. So your Corbyn analogy is sublime.
A friend of mine likes to use a wicket-keeper analogy: always be ready for the nick, no matter how well set the batsmen are. Currently Labour have discarded their gloves and are standing too far away from the stumps in any case.
Don't you do that at home?
FPT: Someone asked what "Stage 3" meant. This article by Mark Steyn describes what might be argued appears to be the "typical" stages of reporting when "inconvenient" crimes occur.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/294130/lather-rinse-and-repeat-mark-steyn
Also contains a cracking typo:
"To some Labour MPs, this seems a rather convenient absence. “It’s all got a whiff of John Major’s toothache” one said to me – a reference to the dental emergency that allowed Major to avoid singing Margaret Thatcher’s nomination papers during the Tory putsch of 1990.
An excellent and well-sourced piece from Dan. Nice to see Andy Burnham having a totally-in-character cameo too.
I personally think that both sides of the Trident argument exaggerate its importance and it's become a token that people love to fight over rather than a really decisive issue, not least as it'll be decided by Parliament long before 2020. But it's clearly going to be a major theme and having a direct split with the Shadow Defence Secretary was really untenable.
O/T: anyone interested in politics over the last 20 years really should read these:
http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/5aa4876f138a60330e869d23b372880d.pdf
- despite the security redactions they offer a really remarkable insight into the discussions on the NI peace agreement, the run-up to the Iraq conflict (though they end in 2000) and even things like the hanging chad issue. There are endless sidelight on major public figures, and the media reports from it have only scratched the surface.
The approach they did take of being 'Tory-lite' impressed no-one, when the real Tories were also on offer, with a recent good record in government and trusted on the economy.
If an SDP2 party emerges, or a party-within-a-party waiting for Corbyn to get fed up, they could do a lot better than have a sensibly costed left wing agenda ready to go.
But the policy, if changed, is presumably going to go into the 2020 manifesto anyway as a (by then more expensive) commitment to cancelling the process. Risky.
Yes, an excellent explanation of the 'new politics' all around. Dismal.
That is a good point.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3389734/Why-Britain-worried-flood-young-male-migrants-Leader-lawyer-s-son-immigrants-gives-stark-warning.html
http://labourlist.org/2016/01/could-corbyns-position-strengthen-further-labour-supporters-still-more-left-wing-than-party/
The problem, of course, is that there is a circular effect in that: in general, the most committed supporters of any party will wish it was purer and less willing to compromise, but if the party obliges then its committed support shrinks to those who feel that particularly strongly, etc. It's a problem that surfaces most around the time of leadership elections...
[1] I may be using the wrong term here: I know terms like "Edwardian", "Streamline Moderne", "moderne", or others may be appropriate, and I can date buildings fairly accurately but not so much furniture, so I may be wrong here. But if you were filming "Poirot", you'd put it in the set, so let's wing it.
[2] British Heart Foundation Furniture and Electrical.
I am reminded of the wonderful Sir Humphrey comment ''Trident is the missile system Harrods would sell you''.
Shortly before he tells the PM that if he cancels Trident he'll only be meeting the VICE President.
Priceless.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/12089022/Sports-Direct-issues-profit-warning-poor-Christmas-trading-blames-weather.html
For my money, the fact that William Hague told his wife that he'd "just destroyed the Liberal Party" after the coalition agreement was brokered tells us a lot about the strategic intelligence at the top of the party.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/08/state-drinking-habits-uk-guidelines-alcohol-health
Two British Muslim extremists who were arrested in Hungary the day after the Paris terror attacks are both jailed for two years
just because the saintly Margaret made some odd remarks about household budgets, you poor loves get all confused. even the floating voters among you
(did you float away from John Major, or was it the Tone that floated yr boat?)
https://twitter.com/Michael_Taylor_/status/684538421126234112
The fact that Corbyn has allowed the rise of Momentum and their bully-boy tactics tells you all you need to know about his approach to winning arguments.
All the posturing about the size of his mandate is about suppressing debate -not encouraging it.
To give your household analogy, Brown's government in 2008 was earning £30k a year but spending £40k a year. And the extra £10k was being spent on sports cars, holidays and champagne - not on heating, clothing and feeding the family.
Given the detailed level of quotes he gives for meetings between Benn, Corbyn, Watson, Milne and, presumably, not that many other people, surely he either is making up quotes or else the pool of people who would be able to give him the account could be counted on one hand even with several fingers missing? Even in a leaking culture, such obviously sourced briefings would be a bit much, surely?