So he says that intimidation and abuse has no part to play in Labour politics. Let's see what that means in practice.
He should have those cowardly MP's on the carpet first thing Monday morning and read them the riot act. 100% effort or they are toast , that will focus their miserable thoughts.
But Malcolm, they're toast anyway. As far as Labour are concerned, they are the equivalent of the four Scottish redcoats regiments at Culloden.
I've posted here every day for about 10 years, and I'm sure I sometimes slip up - I just think you do it more consistently. I don't remember what I said about stalkers, but I don't think in general people would call me snide, while rather a lot of people have had your snidier edge. Never mind, was just a thought to consider if you want.
I'm a big fan of Sarah Champion for unrelated reasons (she is quite exceptionally helpful on animal welfare issues, which are part of her brief) so quite biased. I don't know anything about the case discussed on this thread, but based on what's been published (and I agree it's based on her account) it sounds like a domestic squabble rather than a case of worrying violence. The police told them both to calm down and they accepted cautions (maybe unwisely). I wouldn't think this was very worrying, and would also think that if she was the male in the case. But in general I think it's hard to judge marital behaviour from press coverage - hell, it's hard to judge couples who we know personally. (Snip)
"and I'm sure I sometimes slip up - I just think you do it more consistently. "
Yes Nick, I daresay you do think that. But I will remind you again that I have never repeatedly (and wrongly) accused you of a serious criminal offence just because I'd lost the argument.
You have. And that's just one example. So before you throw about accusations of snidery (as in mocking, derogatory, underhand), I suggest you take a good, hard look in the mirror.
As it happens, your original post to me in this thread could be seen as snide.
As for Champion: I daresay you're a fan of hers. But you tell me where her experience has impinged on her words in her role: where she accepts that men can be the victims of violence as well as women, and that *any* victim, whatever gender, sexual orientation, etc, etc, requires help.
Because I can only find occasions where she concentrates on female victims and disregards male victims. As she well knows from personal experience, domestic violence is much more complex than that.
Sadly this only backs up a party which had a shadow minister to tackle violence against women and girls, but not one for men.
So Corbyn re-elected and fractionally increases the percentage of votes he got from the 59.5% he got last September. Corbyn/McDonnell will now almost certainly be the Labour ticket for PM and Chancellor at the next general election
Implications? good question, if the leadership can target the Registered supporters to join up as full members, (should be possible) his position could become even stronger.
Pretty much as expected. Good but not great for Corbyn. It will be interesting to see the breakdowns. The anti-Corbyn Labour party is the second biggest political party in the country.
Not great? How often nowadays is any election won by pretty much two to one?
Chuka Umunna on BBC. Almost immediately raises subject of need to avoid mass deselections. Then onto reconciling the will of the membership with that of Labour voters, and Labour's policy weaknesses. Talking about immigration - immediately after Corbyn mentioned refugees prominently in his acceptance speech - and economic competence.
Dodging questions about Corbyn's competence with the 'we must move forward together' line. "How do you say to voters with a straight face that you should vote for this man to be Prime Minister," asks the reporter. Declines to answer the question again. As with Burnham earlier this morning, the moderates have no good answer as to why anybody should vote for Labour under Jeremy Corbyn, when most of his own MPs think he is useless and have said so publicly.
So Corbyn re-elected and fractionally increases the percentage of votes he got from the 59.5% he got last September. Corbyn/McDonnell will now almost certainly be the Labour ticket for PM and Chancellor at the next general election
Yep, unless something black swan happens.
Or Nye Bevan is resurrected from the dead!
Any of him, Denis Healey, Harold Wilson or Barbara Castle!
Reminder: Corbyn also mentioned health in his acceptance speech. A recently published opinion survey gave Theresa May an eight point lead over Jeremy Corbyn on who is best placed to protect the NHS. Does anyone know the last time the Tories led Labour on health? Extraordinary.
So he says that intimidation and abuse has no part to play in Labour politics. Let's see what that means in practice.
He should have those cowardly MP's on the carpet first thing Monday morning and read them the riot act. 100% effort or they are toast , that will focus their miserable thoughts.
He can be more subtle than that I think. He just has to get them to commit openly if they support the overwhelming voice of the members or not, and will they come together. No equivocation. On the spot, they can only squirm or they can capitulate, because he has them by the balls knowing they won't go anywhere.
Reminder: Corbyn also mentioned health in his acceptance speech. A recently published opinion survey gave Theresa May an eight point lead over Jeremy Corbyn on who is best placed to protect the NHS. Does anyone know the last time the Tories led Labour on health? Extraordinary.
Don't know whether we have polling from that far back but I would guess it was either 1979 or 1951.
Please note - on both occasions the Conservatives had been in opposition in the immediate past, not more than six years in to a bitter and controversial austerity/reform programme.
Well, the PLP has tried this method of getting rid of JC and failed - what now? Some of them dislike him and his leadership so much that it's hard to believe they'll stomach being under him any longer, so surely a few of them will now resign the whip?
I'm still banking on zero. The alternate parties are no option for them, going independent is pointless, and they have his own example of rebellion while retaining the whip.
Corbyn is a better speaker than both Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband IMO.
Michael Foot was quite eloquent, and that worked out well.......
As was William Hague on the other side. Good speaking ability is necessary in a leader - has there been an elected PM who hasn't been? - but is far from sufficient.
On that elected PM question, 1945 doesn't count as it was a wholly extraordinary election and in any case, before the TV era.
Reminder: Corbyn also mentioned health in his acceptance speech. A recently published opinion survey gave Theresa May an eight point lead over Jeremy Corbyn on who is best placed to protect the NHS. Does anyone know the last time the Tories led Labour on health? Extraordinary.
Don't know whether we have polling from that far back but I would guess it was either 1979 or 1951.
Please note - on both occasions the Conservatives had been in opposition in the immediate past, not more than six years in to a bitter and controversial austerity/reform programme.
A controversial programme - at the end of the first five years of which they increased their share of the popular vote.
Labour is not just walking but running headlong, willingly and joyfully, into the wilderness. It has been hijacked by an unrepresentative fringe of political radicals. If the Conservative Party were undergoing an equivalent spasm to that of Labour under Corbyn, then it would be advocating the return of national service and the death penalty, the repeal of a whole body of socially liberal legislation on issues such as marriage equality and the rights of women at work, and the abolition of the welfare state for everybody except pensioners and the severely disabled. It has, quite simply, ceased to be interested in compromise with the general public, and will pay a hefty price for this in due course.
I've posted here every day for about 10 years, and I'm sure I sometimes slip up - I just think you do it more consistently. I don't remember what I said about stalkers, but I don't think in general people would call me snide, while rather a lot of people have had your snidier edge. Never mind, was just a thought to consider if you want.
I'm a big fan of Sarah Champion for unrelated reasons (she is quite exceptionally helpful on animal welfare issues, which are part of her brief) so quite biased. I don't know anything about the case discussed on this thread, but based on what's been published (and I agree it's based on her account) it sounds like a domestic squabble rather than a case of worrying violence. The police told them both to calm down and they accepted cautions (maybe unwisely). I wouldn't think this was very worrying, and would also think that if she was the male in the case. But in general I think it's hard to judge marital behaviour from press coverage - hell, it's hard to judge couples who we know personally. (Snip)
"and I'm sure I sometimes slip up - I just think you do it more consistently. "
Yes Nick, I daresay you do think that. But I will remind you again that I have never repeatedly (and wrongly) accused you of a serious criminal offence just because I'd lost the argument.
You have. And that's just one example. So before you throw about accusations of snidery (as in mocking, derogatory, underhand), I suggest you take a good, hard look in the mirror.
As it happens, your original post to me in this thread could be seen as snide.
As for Champion: I daresay you're a fan of hers. But you tell me where her experience has impinged on her words in her role: where she accepts that men can be the victims of violence as well as women, and that *any* victim, whatever gender, sexual orientation, etc, etc, requires help.
Because I can only find occasions where she concentrates on female victims and disregards male victims. As she well knows from personal experience, domestic violence is much more complex than that.
Sadly this only backs up a party which had a shadow minister to tackle violence against women and girls, but not one for men.
I've posted here every day for about 10 years, and I'm sure I sometimes slip up - I just think you do it more consistently. I don't remember what I said about stalkers, but I don't think in general people would call me snide, while rather a lot of people have had your snidier edge. Never mind, was just a thought to consider if you want.
I'm a big fan of Sarah Champion for unrelated reasons (she is quite exceptionally helpful on animal welfare issues, which are part of her brief) so quite biased. I don't know anything about the case discussed on this thread, but based on what's been published (and I agree it's based on her account) it sounds like a domestic squabble rather than a case of worrying violence. The police told them both to calm down and they accepted cautions (maybe unwisely). I wouldn't think this was very worrying, and would also think that if she was the male in the case. But in general I think it's hard to judge marital behaviour from press coverage - hell, it's hard to judge couples who we know personally. (Snip)
"and I'm sure I sometimes slip up - I just think you do it more consistently. "
Yes Nick, I daresay you do think that. But I will remind you again that I have never repeatedly (and wrongly) accused you of a serious criminal offence just because I'd lost the argument.
You have. And that's just one example. So before you throw about accusations of snidery (as in mocking, derogatory, underhand), I suggest you take a good, hard look in the mirror.
As it happens, your original post to me in this thread could be seen as snide.
As for Champion: I daresay you're a fan of hers. But you tell me where her experience has impinged on her words in her role: where she accepts that men can be the victims of violence as well as women, and that *any* victim, whatever gender, sexual orientation, etc, etc, requires help.
Because I can only find occasions where she concentrates on female victims and disregards male victims. As she well knows from personal experience, domestic violence is much more complex than that.
Sadly this only backs up a party which had a shadow minister to tackle violence against women and girls, but not one for men.
Comments
Yes Nick, I daresay you do think that. But I will remind you again that I have never repeatedly (and wrongly) accused you of a serious criminal offence just because I'd lost the argument.
You have. And that's just one example. So before you throw about accusations of snidery (as in mocking, derogatory, underhand), I suggest you take a good, hard look in the mirror.
As it happens, your original post to me in this thread could be seen as snide.
As for Champion: I daresay you're a fan of hers. But you tell me where her experience has impinged on her words in her role: where she accepts that men can be the victims of violence as well as women, and that *any* victim, whatever gender, sexual orientation, etc, etc, requires help.
Because I can only find occasions where she concentrates on female victims and disregards male victims. As she well knows from personal experience, domestic violence is much more complex than that.
Sadly this only backs up a party which had a shadow minister to tackle violence against women and girls, but not one for men.
Overall: 61.80%
Member: 58.99%
Registered supporter 69.88%
Affiliate (Union ect..) Supporter 60.22%
Implications? good question, if the leadership can target the Registered supporters to join up as full members, (should be possible) his position could become even stronger.
Pretty blue I imagine. You do your best to save Labour from itself and it determinedly commits suicide.
I wonder if any MPs will also be feeling bluer right now?
Well someone's having fun on this train. https://t.co/hAS1K7qnt5
Gordon Brown could barely form a coherent sentence. Remember that he thought in his first PMQs that a week lasted five days?
Dodging questions about Corbyn's competence with the 'we must move forward together' line. "How do you say to voters with a straight face that you should vote for this man to be Prime Minister," asks the reporter. Declines to answer the question again. As with Burnham earlier this morning, the moderates have no good answer as to why anybody should vote for Labour under Jeremy Corbyn, when most of his own MPs think he is useless and have said so publicly.
They are hapless, hopeless and totally divided.
He was also a genuinely clever and genuinely decent man whom people liked and respected even when they disagreed with him.
Corbyn is not in that league and never will be.
Please note - on both occasions the Conservatives had been in opposition in the immediate past, not more than six years in to a bitter and controversial austerity/reform programme.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m33RUseb7Wg
On that elected PM question, 1945 doesn't count as it was a wholly extraordinary election and in any case, before the TV era.
Labour is not just walking but running headlong, willingly and joyfully, into the wilderness. It has been hijacked by an unrepresentative fringe of political radicals. If the Conservative Party were undergoing an equivalent spasm to that of Labour under Corbyn, then it would be advocating the return of national service and the death penalty, the repeal of a whole body of socially liberal legislation on issues such as marriage equality and the rights of women at work, and the abolition of the welfare state for everybody except pensioners and the severely disabled. It has, quite simply, ceased to be interested in compromise with the general public, and will pay a hefty price for this in due course.
new thread