***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 2 *****
==========================================================
Thought I'd start a new thread. Tom Watson is the deputy leader and the leader is...
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 21 Sep 15 at 01:03
|
|
Corbyn , outright on first ballot.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 12 Sep 15 at 11:44
|
|
No surprise, 6/1 on last night I think at the bookies.
|
I saw him at 1/15 last night!
I think he will be the Labour Party's style leader, as well as leader of the political party.
tinyurl.com/q8zd2ex
|
>> I think he will be the Labour Party's style leader, as well as leader of the political party.
Jeremy Corbyn is the worst dresser in British politics by a very long way. He missed a trick though: a hanky with knotted corners on his head. The rest of the get-up is pretty satirical, so why not that too?
|
>> Jeremy Corbyn is the worst dresser in British politics by a very long way. He
>> missed a trick though: a hanky with knotted corners on his head. The rest of
>> the get-up is pretty satirical, so why not that too?
>>
So we're back to the early 1980's and the new Michael Foot. Who's the next Kinnock and has Tony Blair Mk2 been born yet ?
Who says things don't go in cycles ?
|
>> So we're back to the early 1980's and the new Michael Foot. Who's the next
>> Kinnock and has Tony Blair Mk2 been born yet ?
>>
>> Who says things don't go in cycles ?
>>
More to the point, it proves what I've always believed; that Labour (in fact the Left in general) are utterly hopeless at learning from their past mistakes, in fact I'm starting to think that they're actually hell bent on repeating them.
I quite admire Corbyn for his determination to stick to his principles; but this election is further confirmation (if it were ever needed) of the accuracy of Churchill's jibe that Labour are not fit to manage a whelk stall.
|
>> Labour are not fit to manage a whelk stall.
I think that's true. But we're better for having them around.
I think that Corbyn's leadership can only be a good thing. And given that his stance seems like it will be clear, then if Labour get elected I'm guessing that's what the country really wants - even if i think it would be a disaster.
I think the real benefit will be that his policies are likely to be so different, that it'll make everybody, including the vegetables at UKIP, really be clear about what they are saying and which side of the fence they stand.
Although it may cause the loss of visibility of the details, most people don;t pay attention to those anyway.
I can't really see a downside of his selection, actually. About the only thing I can think of is that if you had wanted a Government called Labour but with Conservative principles, you are not now likely to get it. Which will disappoint Blair-ites, although it isn't clear anymore how many of those there are.
|
One of the most interesting (or alarming, depending on your point of view) aspects of Corbyn's victory is the disjunction between the Labour Party as a whole, who have elected Corbyn with around 60% of the votes, and the parliamentary party, which backed other candidates by 210 - 20.
Labour look like a house divided. The election of a new leader was by a chaotic process, partly fuelled by Miliband's introduction of the new system whereby new members could pay £3 and get a chance to vote. The colourless and feeble alternatives to Corbyn meant that he and his policies were never properly challenged.
The present situation is fascinating from a political point of view. Corbyn will surely never get Labour back into power, but will there be enough support for him among the electorate to shift the balance of power in Westminster even a little? No doubt by-elections and the attendant candidate selection, council elections and opinion polls will all be scrutinised, but the real test is whether Corbynism is sunk or not in 2020.
Last edited by: Observer on Sat 12 Sep 15 at 12:06
|
The newly-elected deputy leader of the Labour Party, Tom Watson, is described as "an ally of Gordon Brown". The conversation between him and Corbyn might be interesting. Or has he lost his principles?
'He said there "was only one Labour"...
'He would back the new leader 100%, he said, adding "only through unity comes the strength we need to fight the Tories".
'The conference applauded as Mr Watson warned the Conservatives to "watch their backs", insisting Labour could win in 2020.' (from The Guardian)
Well...
|
|
Nice to see the "progressive" Party have two white men as Leaders...
Last edited by: madf on Sat 12 Sep 15 at 12:17
|
An online Survation poll for the Daily Mail (ugh), immediately after Corbyn's election, gives the following:
Will Labour lose the next two General Elections? Yes - 39%, No - 22%, Don't know - 29%
Will Corbyn still be Labour leader at the next GE? Yes - 33%, No - 21%, Don't know - 46%
Has Corbyn's win made you more likely to vote Labour? Yes - 18%, No - 24%, No difference - 58%
Is Corbyn fit to be prime minister? Yes - 24%, No - 34%, Don't know 43%
No idea about the number of respondents or how they were selected. I assume the survey claims to show some kind of reflection of "your average voter".
|
>> One of the most interesting (or alarming, depending on your point of view) aspects of
>> Corbyn's victory is the disjunction between the Labour Party as a whole, who have elected
>> Corbyn with around 60% of the votes, and the parliamentary party, which backed other candidates
>> by 210 - 20.
Looking at the numbers, it seems the 'further' people are from the party the more voted for him. 50% of registered member, 57% of affiliated members then 84% of registered supporters voted for him.
The question is to win; can he take seats from the conservative party in England ?
|
>> The question is to win; can he take seats from the conservative party in England
>> ?
>>
Apparently they don't want to appeal to Tory voters. They want to be politically pure.
So unlimited immigration? Yes
Get rid of Trident? Yes
Increase taxes and benefits? Yes
Controls on the Press? Yes
Those will win over lots of English voters...
|
.. In his acceptance speech, Mr. Corbyn said his first act as leader of the
party would be to go to a demonstration in support of opening Europe’s
borders to unlimited migration in London.
|
|
I watched part of it, I didn't see him say that. Where did you see him saying that?
|
He's going to a demonstration in support of refugees. Tim Farron of the Lib Dems will be speaking as well as Jeremy. Other organisations participating include the Refugee Council, Amnesty International, War on Want and various Syria focussed outfits. There may even be some Tories too.
Like any demo it will be a 'broad church'; there are bound to be some wackier outfits in the fringes.
I'd like to see Roger's evidence for it really being a demonstration in support of opening Europe’s borders to unlimited migration.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 12 Sep 15 at 14:26
|
>> .. In his acceptance speech, Mr. Corbyn said his first act as leader of the
>> party would be to go to a demonstration in support of opening Europe’s
>> borders to unlimited migration in London.
>>
The man's a Chuffing Idiot.
|
>> >> party would be to go to a demonstration in support of opening Europe’s
>> >> borders to unlimited migration in London.
>> >>
>> The man's a Chuffing Idiot.
Except that wasn't the demo's message.
|
|
It seems several members of the shadow cabinet have resigned or have said they won't be in his cabinet.
|
Labour got hammered under Foot because they were too left wing. They consistently lost under Kinnock because they were too left wing. They consistently won after Blair moved them to the centre ground. They lost under Miliband because they were too left wing.
Very clever, the Labour party.
Corbyn apparently got in because he appealed to the people who don't normally vote. Of the 100 constituencies with the lowest electoral turnout 91 already have a labour MP. That's not going to do them much good come the next election.
|
>> Labour got hammered under Foot because they were too left wing. They consistently lost under
>> Kinnock because they were too left wing. They consistently won after Blair moved them to
>> the centre ground. They lost under Miliband because they were too left wing.
The lost under Foot because he was the wrong man. Elected because he was neither Benn nor Healey.
Kinnock pulled back votes in 1987 and almost won in 1992.
|
I've said elsewhere that I approve of Corbyn, that I met him briefly in the depths of the Sahara and liked him. He's got a nice smile although I don't remember seeing it in the desert. However the conditions were pretty harsh. There was an old lady, a CP member, on the same junket. She was flattened by the heat and had to be brought a chair to sit on.
The sniping by far-right ponces - no one here, don't flatter yourselves - is lying and despicable.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sat 12 Sep 15 at 15:49
|
I'm very politically naive, but I found this interesting. I expect the cleverer than me folk on here (oh, everyone then) can say why this is a load of old truffle oil.
www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11846603/Five-good-things-about-Corbyn-even-if-youre-not-a-Labour-supporter.html
|
The sniping by far-right ponces - no one here, don't flatter yourselves - is lying
>> and despicable.
>>
Is no-one here right wing or poncey enough?
|
>> Is no-one here right wing or poncey enough?
I'm too polite to venture an opinion. And of course I have a right wing poncy side myself.
|
>> She was flattened by the heat
>> and had to be brought a chair to sit on.
>>
Where did a chair materialise from in the heart of the blistering heat of the Sahara? Carried by a native bearer, one supposes.
|
>> Where did a chair materialise from in the heart of the blistering heat of the Sahara? Carried by a native bearer, one supposes.
There was a camp nearby, but it probably came off a lorry. The Sahara looks and feels empty a lot of the time, but it's far from uninhabited.
|
>> >>>>
>> The lost under Foot because he was the wrong man. Elected because he was neither
>> Benn nor Healey.
>>
>> Kinnock pulled back votes in 1987 and almost won in 1992.
>>
To suggest that Benn would have won against Thatcher is ridiculous, he had become a music hall joke long before then. Kinnock may have "Almost won" in '92 but he lost and he lost against a Tory party that by then had become deeply discredited. The history of the Labour Party in modern times shows that the further left you go the greater the defeat you'll suffer. Labour have ignored the lessons from many of their traditional voters going to UKIP or the Conservatives last May.
|
>> To suggest that Benn would have won against Thatcher is ridiculous, he had become a
>> music hall joke long before then.
I didn't say that Benn could have won against Thatcher (though Healey might have done). My point was that the Labour party elected Foot because he was a compromise between two people who would have split the party. The can was merely kicked down the road until the SDP split in 1980/81.
The Tory party was to some extent revived during 90-92 as Major rowed back from the excesses of Thatcherism. Real problems started after 1992 when they governed with a small overall majority and became susceptible to mischief on the back benches (and the some members of the Cabinet). Repeated scandals and 'cash for questions' certainly discredited them in that period.
The real poison though was Europe.
And they're still a long way from immune to it.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 12 Sep 15 at 16:31
|
When the Labour party has a middle of the road / bland / not_left_wing it doesn't offend anyone.
So everybody who supports Labour feels comfortable to vote for them. The middle of the road because they think themselves Labour supporters and the Left Wing because its the Labour party and except for nutters there is not really an alternative, even if they think its current stance is too middle of the road.
However, when it moves Left, as it now surely will, then it disappoints and alienates its own middle of the road supporters although pleases its left wing supporters.
It tends to lose not because it *is* Left Wing, but because it is *NOT* middle of the road. And that may sound like the same thing, but it isn't. The party alienates part of its own support without attracting anyone new.
Is the Left Wing Labour Party going to turn up enough hidden, not-currently-voting, truly left wing people to replace the middle of the road people that will be unhappy?
It remains to be seen, but it never has before.
|
And for the future it will be interesting;
Over recent years, since Blair started effectively, the Labour Party & The Conservative Party have been able to fudge over their reaction to the other's policiies and statements by playing with details.
Going forward they are likely to be in quite different places. This will mean that they will be much less able to sit on the fence about each other's position.
It is also going to have an impact on the leadership of the Conservative party. Its one thing to fight a battle for leadership with the middle of the road Labour Party breathing down your neck willing to pick up on small differences - there's no flexibility and little space for differences between the prospective leaders.
With the nearest opponents some considerable distance down the road it should facilitate and encourage more difference between any candidates.
It should be a good thing, but we will see.
|
>> Is the Left Wing Labour Party going to turn up enough hidden, not-currently-voting, truly left
>> wing people to replace the middle of the road people that will be unhappy?
>>
>> It remains to be seen, but it never has before.
>>
It's not just finding them but finding them in the right places. They need them in places where they can take seats off the Con in England.
|
|
Mr Corbyn has been congratulated by Hamas , and Argentina... With friends like that, it's difficult not to think of a dozen lines of attack...
|
>> Is the Left Wing Labour Party going to turn up enough hidden, not-currently-voting, truly left
>> wing people to replace the middle of the road people that will be unhappy?
Most unlikely.
|
>> Kinnock pulled back votes in 1987 and almost won in 1992.
>>
Surely Kinnock ought to have been a virtual dead cert for 1992?
What is your view to him not winning?
|
tinyurl.com/ok8bfhz
Link to Guido Fawkes re Corbyn's win.
|
>> tinyurl.com/ok8bfhz
>>
>> Link to Guido Fawkes re Corbyn's win.
Is there supposed to be a message there. I found the linked page unreadable.
What's so bad about being pictured with Martin McGuiness - he's met the Queen hasn't he?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 12 Sep 15 at 20:48
|
>> What's so bad about being pictured with Martin McGuiness - he's met the Queen hasn't
>> he?
>>
Apart from the fact the odious @@@ was/is a terrorist?
Last edited by: Webmaster on Tue 6 Oct 15 at 08:57
|
>> Apart from the fact the odious @@@ was/is a terrorist?
The path from terrorist to statesman is a well trodden one. Is there any evidence whatsoever that he's still a terrorist?
Northern Ireland's problems though continue to run deep. Utterly depressing segment on the Today programme yesterday. People from two White Christian communities described how they continued to live completely segregated lives divided by walls. Neither seems willing to see any move to, for example, desegregated schools or the political vision of non sectarian parties.
Last edited by: Webmaster on Tue 6 Oct 15 at 08:57
|
>> The path from terrorist to statesman is a well trodden one.
That doesn't make them any more palatable.
Is there any evidence
>> whatsoever that he's still a terrorist?
He's still there pulling the strings isn't he. He might not be going out with the gun or the bomb, but he's right amongst it all.
|
>> That doesn't make them any more palatable.
Maybe not but life's not black and white is it? NI, for all its current political mess, is in a far better place than before the Good Friday agreement.
>> He's still there pulling the strings isn't he. He might not be going out with
>> the gun or the bomb, but he's right amongst it all.
Let me ask again is there any evidence of current wrongdoing?
|
>> Let me ask again is there any evidence of current wrongdoing?
>>
None whatsoever as far as I am aware .... however it changes my opinion not a jot.
|
>> None whatsoever as far as I am aware .... however it changes my opinion not
>> a jot.
It won't surprise you to know that I'm happy to recognise McGuiness and Adams as converts to the ballot box. The latter though is now an MP in the Republic.
Was there an alternative?
|
>>It won't surprise you to know that I'm happy to recognise McGuiness and Adams as converts to the ballot box.
But that was only for terrorism. Presumably if he'd done something really serious like groped some girls bum in the 60s you;d advocate having a committee hunt him down and prosecute him forthwith.
>>Was there an alternative?
Probably not, but I think its your words "I'm happy to" which bother me.
He is a nasty, obnoxious, malignant, murderous, smug, prick that we regrettably have to live with. The only bright spot being that one day he will die.
|
>> Probably not, but I think its your words "I'm happy to" which bother me.
If McGuinness and the late Dr Paisley can be pals.......
When you turn from war to peace you have to do unpalatable stuff. Prisoners on both sides have been released as part of the process of putting the past behind them. Notwithstanding the current stuff around 'on the runs' the early releases etc were part of a consensual political process.
Trying to draw an analogy with sex crimes is just a variation on 'whatboutery'.
|
I draw no analogy between the crimes.
My comparison was between your behaviour, standards or position in one circumstance and that in another.
As for the rest of your reply, then as I said when you asked if there was an alternative;
"Probably not, but I think its your words "I'm happy to" which bother me"
p.s. "whatboutery"?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 13 Sep 15 at 13:22
|
>> My comparison was between your behaviour, standards or position in one circumstance and that in
>> another.
And I made clear where I think the difference lies.
A peace and reconciliation process on lines of that in South Africa might have been a better way forward than just releasing people. AIUI though neither side is prepared to enter into such a set up.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 13 Sep 15 at 13:39
|
>> What's so bad about being pictured with Martin McGuiness - he's met the Queen hasn't
>> he?
>>
So, for that matter, have Idi Amin, Colonel Gadaffi and assorted others from one of Dante's deeper circles.
|
>>What is your view to him not winning?>>
The Sheffield "Victory" rally 10 days before the election.
|
Phew ! All is right with the world.
For one moment I thought someone had uncovered what was really going on behind the scenes.
|
>> www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/10464045/Ed-Balls-asks-David-Cameron-if-he-ever-took-cocaine-amid-Commons-drugs-row.html
The point of course was the absurdity of justifying and glorifying the act of being arrested.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sun 13 Sep 15 at 19:21
|
Aren't Ed Balls and Dennis Skinner being humbugs here? It could be argued that by snorting coke and smoking weed these Tory ministers are behaving normally, in the same way as a lot of the population.
I wonder if they always got decent stuff? You can pay a lot for useless rubbish if you aren't careful.
:o}
|
|
A 1 sec snap shot covering 10 years. Good well thought out stuff there.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sat 12 Sep 15 at 22:36
|
>>
>> Kinnock pulled back votes in 1987 and almost won in 1992.
>>
Which looks good until you remember that there had to be some improvement in 1987 after two total canings in 1979 and 1982; and in 1992 Major had been tipped to lose by a sizeable margin.
Last edited by: Harleyman on Mon 14 Sep 15 at 00:47
|
|
On BBC news yesterday I saw JC on a stage singing Keep The Red Flag Flying and thought he'd got a pretty good voice. Then the mic was handed over, to another JC - the first one was actually Billy Bragg! JC's got himself a stunt double.
|
>> Then the mic was handed over,
>> to another JC - the first one was actually Billy Bragg! JC's got himself a
>> stunt double.
>>
Ah, Billy Bragg. What a laughable Richard Head.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Sun 13 Sep 15 at 20:37
|
Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer...
|
The only JC I would vote for is John Charles ( go Leeds)
Or maybe Johann Cruyff
Showing my age, again.
|
>> The only JC I would vote for is John Charles ( go Leeds)
>> Or maybe Johann Cruyff
>> Showing my age, again.
Jack Charlton?
|
>> Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer...
>>
>>
The working class can kiss my ----, I've got the leaders job at last.
|
|
Really disappointed to see Corbyn wearing a tie in the House of Commons. Even if his top button was undone.
|
He refused to sing the National Anthem, which everybody should do regardless of their feelings toward the Monarchy. It is something to be listened to respectfully, not bellowed out by tuneless morons in some mock "More patriotic than thou" contest.
Were I the England football manager I'd tell the players that anyone singing along to it would never get picked again, and if they compounded the felony by putting their arms round the guys on either side of them they'd be substituted before the kick off. I blame Blair and his Millennium Dome embarrassment.
|
>> He refused to sing the National Anthem, which everybody should do regardless of their feelings
>> toward the Monarchy.
>>
>> Were I the England football manager I'd tell the players that anyone singing along to
>> it would never get picked again
I'm confused :)
|
I think he's saying everyone should refuse to sing it. I read it the other way to start with.
Billy Connolly had this one right, we should use the theme from The Archers. No words. Just Rumpty pumpty pumpty pum. Ta ra la la la la.
|
>> >>>
>> I'm confused :)
>>
No need to be. I was making the point (Rather badly) that sports teams are the worst culprits in this.
|
>> >> >>>
>> >> I'm confused :)
>> >>
>> No need to be. I was making the point (Rather badly) that sports teams are
>> the worst culprits in this.
Sorry - senior moment. I read "He refused to sing the National Anthem, which everybody should do" as meaning everyone should sing the National Anthem. Duh.
|
|
I infer that no one should sing the national anthem, but should just listen respectfully to it.
|
|
That's what i read it as for football players. I think...
|
|
I re-read my post and realised it is as clear as mud. To clarify, the NA should be listened to and not sung.
|
>> I re-read my post and realised it is as clear as mud. To clarify, the
>> NA should be listened to and not sung.
Complete cobblers. You never sing to bubbles?
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 15 Sep 15 at 17:15
|
I like the National Anthem. Its played here at Embassy events, its quite emotional to hear it when so far from home. For me, anyway.
And I sing it. Badly.
|
>> I like the National Anthem.
I dont, its a crap tune with crap lyrics. However, a:its better than the yanks one, and b: its ours so it needs to be sung with gusto at appropriate moments.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 15 Sep 15 at 17:30
|
>> >> I like the National Anthem.
>>
>> I dont, its a crap tune with crap lyrics. However, a:its better than the yanks
>> one, and b: its ours so it needs to be sung with gusto at appropriate
>> moments.
>>
The Spanish National Anthem is one of the best - no words and a rousing tune..
|
Come the revolution THIS should be the national anthem: www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-4ce7bfvIk
I've been among 'that lot' home & away ... in a previous life.
|
Oh, Dog, I thought from your post that that was going to be this, which would be an interesting National Anthem.
youtu.be/qwlxeYA1SQI
|
>>Oh, Dog, I thought from your post that that was going to be this, which would be an interesting National Anthem.
>>youtu.be/qwlxeYA1SQI
Hahaha! LOL
|
|
.
Last edited by: Dog on Tue 15 Sep 15 at 17:21
|
I'm surprised there has been almost no mention of Corbyn's age. He's 66, so will be 71 at the time of the next election. That is too old to be appealing to many younger voters.
I mentioned in another thread a short time ago that all political parties from time to time seem to wander off into the political wilderness. The Tories did it for quite a few years, after their 1997 trouncing they didn't become even vaguely electable until 2005 when Cameron took over.
I watched the results on Saturday and the expression on Burnham's face said it all. I don't think he was so much disappointed to have lost but more what it meant to the Labour party. There must be many in the Labour party, the modernisers, the Blairites called them what you will, who must be almost paralysed with disbelief at what has happened.
The tragedy is I strongly believe that any democracy needs a strong opposition. It doesn't look like it's going to come from Labour. Meanwhile the Libdems have been more or less wiped out leaving the centre ground up for grabs. A once-in-a-generation opportunity for Labour to position itself at the centre has been completely squandered.
I don't believe Corbyn will survive for long, certainly I think he will be ousted by the time of the next general election. I must buy a copy of the gRauniad this weekend to catch up on what the left wing media makes of it all.
|
From Breitbart - fair warning to those unable to read owt but t'Guardian.
An article about Corbyn by a former Labour (female) ho has joined UKIP.
www.breitbart.com/london/2015/09/14/labour-to-ukip-defector-corbyn-is-an-enemy-of-women-jews-and-free-speech-abandon-ship/
|
I don't believe Corbyn will survive for long, certainly I think he will be ousted by the time of the next general election. I must buy a copy of the gRauniad this weekend to catch up on what the left wing media makes of it all.
Postwar Labour has never ditched a failing Leader. (they ditched Blair who was a winning one).
So it's a brave person who forecasts they will.
They don't have the balls to do it, nor a replacement lined up. Corbyn for 2020 in my view.
|
>> Postwar Labour has never ditched a failing Leader. (they ditched Blair who was a winning
>> one).
What about the last one?
|
>> >> >>
>> What about the last one?
>>
He fell on his sword.
|
|
Ah so he did, mind you jumped before he was pushed no doubt.
|
>> Postwar Labour has never ditched a failing Leader. (they ditched Blair who was a winning
>> one).
If you mean a leader departing mid term I can sort of seee the point. but after an election?
Foot went pretty quickly after 83 as did Kinnock after 1992. Miliband this time.
Gaitskell died in office. Wilson hung on after the loss of power in 1970 before winning two more elections and resigning mid term in 1976.
The Tories dispatched IDS as a failing leader without him facing a GE. Not sure many others have gone same way.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 15 Sep 15 at 20:56
|
|
I can't remember if William Hague and Michael Howard went of their own accord or were pushed.
|
>> I can't remember if William Hague and Michael Howard went of their own accord or
>> were pushed.
There now seems to be a presumption that a defeated party leader will fall on his sword. Hague, actually quite a decent politician, barely dented Labour's 1997 majority. Howard did a little better but still left Blair with a commanding majority.
He wasn't the most personable of leaders and as with Miliband it's not quite possible to eliminate a whiff of anti-semitism around some commentary on him.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 15 Sep 15 at 21:30
|
>>nd as with Miliband it's not quite possible to eliminate a whiff of anti-semitism around some commentary on him.
Oh goodness, are you bringing this up again? I thought you'd let it drop after you declared that you were not saying that there was, but that nobody could prove there wasn't.
|
>> He wasn't the most personable of leaders and as with Miliband it's not quite possible
>> to eliminate a whiff of anti-semitism around some commentary on him.
You what? I'm sure you make this crap up, but I can't for the life of me imagine why.
Howard had no public persona, but that was all.
|
>> You what? I'm sure you make this crap up, but I can't for the life
>> of me imagine why.
Somebody else (AC?) raised it first. I just agreed and stuck with the idea.
>> Howard had no public persona, but that was all.
That remark about 'something of the night'?
It's like a slight smell from the drains. You really want to be convinced it's not there but......
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 15 Sep 15 at 22:11
|
>> That remark about 'something of the night'?
Is not anti semetic, nor is the person who delivered it.
|
>>You really want to be convinced it's not there but..
But what?
I don't really want to be convinced, I have no vested interest in guilt or innocence. But given that there is absolutely no suggestion of guilt whatsoever its kind of difficult to understand how you could be?
Where do you stand on UFOs and the Tooth Fairy?
Its just insinuation and nose tapping to try to start a rumour.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 15 Sep 15 at 23:28
|
>> Its just insinuation and nose tapping to try to start a rumour.
Save the insinuations of trollery for those actually doing it.
Just something in the air I'm mildly uncomfortable about. I could exemplify use of the 'something of the night'. Accepting Widdecombe didn't mean it that way doesn't indemnify others. Same with Miliband and the sarnie.
Not like it's a subject on which I'm truly roused. Not nearly enough conviction to persue a crusade here a la Alanovic and the monarchy.
|
>> Just something in the air I'm mildly uncomfortable about. I could exemplify use of the
>> 'something of the night'. Accepting Widdecombe didn't mean it that way doesn't indemnify others.
Ah so you are the one who interprets its use as Anti Semitic. Not the one who proffered the insult or the one who was the target. Clearly one would have thought to be intended as a racial or religious slur at least one of the two would have had to be have been aware of it.
|
>> Really disappointed to see Corbyn wearing a tie in the House of Commons. Even if
>> his top button was undone.
>>
One of my pet hates. You either wear a tie properly or you take it off.
|
An intelligent and thoughtful leader would have known about Foot and his "donkey jacket"## episode at the Cenotaph and made sure they were perfectly attired.
I am afraid Comrade Corbyn appears unused to being in the limelight with his every word/move a subject of discussion. He's still in "protest mode".
## it was not a donkey jacket but a tailored jacket iirc...
|
I fear he knows no other way, Madf. The flip side of the 'new kind of politics...straight talking...plain speaking...blah...blah' coin (see also Farage, N.) is a failure to recognize the parts of the game that you have to play in order to achieve anything.
Dennis Skinner has made himself a national treasure by similar principled-class-clown means, but he's happy to be a perpetual outsider. Putting one of those in charge of the ship is politically suicidal.
I think the Foot comparison is unfair - to Foot. Foot was a capable, sincere politician who did his best in a job he was never really suited to, and he was entirely the wrong leader to try to claim the centre ground that Thatcher had vacated. As others have said, he was a compromise candidate within the party, when what the party needed was someone who could offer an acceptable compromise to the nation.
Those of us who dread the prospect of decades of unbroken Conservative government despair at the Labour party's naivety. The Conservatives have achieved their position by choosing a leader most of the members - rabid free-marketeers, buy-to-letters and pull-up-the-drawbridge Europhobes - disagree with in order to avoid alienating the centrist voters who decide elections. Meanwhile, Labour's membership failed to learn from the consequences of the Miliband prank and pulled an even bigger one with Corbyn. It's enough to make you cry, especially when you hear fat, smug Tories - like, I discovered this week, one I know at work - congratulating themselves on interfering with the election process. They, at least, recognize what's good for them.
|
|
The next one may be for the Conservatives to lose, but that does not mean they won't. It is entirely feasible that a Corbyn-led Labour will win an election. Governments are rarely popular.
|
>> The next one may be for the Conservatives to lose, but that does not mean
>> they won't. It is entirely feasible that a Corbyn-led Labour will win an election. Governments
>> are rarely popular.
Corbyn may 'grow into the role' though I have my doubts after yesterday. It's not as if the words are dificult is it. I did giggle at the senior ex service guy who speaks for Labour in the Lords saying GStQ was about 'The Nation'. Err no, it's a song about the Queen.
My current thought/hope is that Cameron's backbenches will mess up for him over the Europe issue, possibly splitting the party. If by that time Corbyn's not grown into the role then he's given the whisky/revolver thing and somebody with potential like (Sir) Keir Starmer steps into the breach.
|
All those who hope the Conservatives will split over Europe may be correct.. Lord Falconer has threatened to resign over Europe .. and he's a well known Tory.
If you are counting on Tory splits over Europe to win the next GE for Labour, you are ignoring the evident splits in Labour.. (Umana anyone?)
If the refugee shambles intensifies, the OUTs will win.
|
It's not as if the words are difficult...
Rugby players and footballers seem to manage. And yet HM herself doesn't; perhaps JC was taking his cue from her.
|
|
No, Manatee, I don't think so. Kinnock - who was vastly more electable than Corbyn and had publicly and painfully modernized the party - contrived to lose to an unpopular and incompetent government in 1992. Corbyn has no hope, leaving the Tories free to choose a neo-Howard or a Gove to succeed Cameron. It's an appalling prospect.
Last edited by: WillDeBeest on Wed 16 Sep 15 at 09:35
|
|
I said feasible, not likely; but it is impossible to underestimate the intelligence of a mob.
|
>> No, Manatee, I don't think so. Kinnock - who was vastly more electable than Corbyn
>> and had publicly and painfully modernized the party - contrived to lose to an unpopular
>> and incompetent government in 1992. Corbyn has no hope, leaving the Tories free to choose
>> a neo-Howard or a Gove to succeed Cameron. It's an appalling prospect.
>>
On the other hand, Corbyn may well force the Conservatives to move a little closer to the left in order to steal some of Labour's clothes. Labour will not be out of power forever, no matter who leads Labour or what their politics are. Four terms is probably the maximum any party can survive in government before the swell of people they've upset over various issues and the inevitable mistakes and scandals becomes big enough to overwhelm them.
|
>> On the other hand, Corbyn may well force the Conservatives to move a little closer
>> to the left in order to steal some of Labour's clothes. Labour will not be
>> out of power forever, no matter who leads Labour or what their politics are. Four
>> terms is probably the maximum any party can survive in government before the swell of
>> people they've upset over various issues and the inevitable mistakes and scandals becomes big enough
>> to overwhelm them.
>>
Good point. I suspect that in the next six months or so, there might be a little bit of one-way traffic across the floor of the Commons as those on the right of the Labour party with safer seats take note of the fact that they're losing personal support by staying with the party.
|
|
Wouldn't those Labour MPs with the most marginal seats be the most tempted to go LibDem/Tory, Harleyman? The point of a safe seat is that the party can haemorrhage support and yet still return the MP of that unpopular party?
|
>> Wouldn't those Labour MPs with the most marginal seats be the most tempted to go
>> LibDem/Tory, Harleyman? The point of a safe seat is that the party can haemorrhage support
>> and yet still return the MP of that unpopular party?
>>
True; but you'd stand accused of opportunism. I was thinking more along the lines of the example set by Douglas Carswell; his choice of party didn't appeal to many but he is well liked and respected on a personal level, enough to guarantee his safe return under a different flag.
I doubt they'd go LibDem either. Would not do them any favours jumping from one discredited party to another.
Last edited by: Harleyman on Wed 16 Sep 15 at 11:47
|
|
Carswell's a bit of an outlier and a red herring as the party he jumped to is irrelevant in terms of general elections to the UK Parliament. So people can safely vote for him personally without risking being party to delivering a government they don't want to see.
|
Carswell's majority reduced from over 12k at the by election to 3.437 votes at the GE.
His seat is not marginal but it is hardy safe if the EU membership issue is sorted and there is little purpose left for UKIP AND the Tories win the 2020 election.
|
>> Corbyn has no hope, leaving the Tories free to choose
>> a neo-Howard or a Gove to succeed Cameron. It's an appalling prospect.
The more I think about this the better I think are Corbyn's chances of winning an election. He is far from unelectable.
The number of people receiving benefits (or losing them) probably exceeds the number who will be hammered for tax directly. People won't worry about the effect of increased business taxes on their wages. And the promise of free education for life will appeal equally to a wide range of voters.
Public employees are also "falling behind" with pay increases (never mind where they start from) and won't give a toss about the deficit if they are promised increases.
It probably isn't too difficult to get elected once you have lit upon the idea of money printing to balance the books.
|
>> Public employees are also "falling behind" with pay increases (never mind where they start from)
>> and won't give a toss about the deficit if they are promised increases.
Trouble there is that most people receiving benefits either don't vote, live in Labour held seats and vote for them anyway. So do most public employees. As for university fees, I think people are coming round to the view that wasting taxpayers money sending lots of not very bright youngsters off to uni to do Media Studies and then and then end up flipping burgers is not the greatest of ideas.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 17 Sep 15 at 23:14
|
Public employees are also "falling behind" with pay increases (never mind where they start from)
>> and won't give a toss about the deficit if they are promised increases.
"PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
There is a growing divergence between private and public sector workers. The Tories led Labour by 17 points among people working in the private sector, while Labour lead by three points among public sector workers. That 20-point gulf between the two groups has widened from a 16-point gulf in 2010 (16-point Tory lead among private sector workers, level-pegging among public sector workers). If this gulf persists, it’s good long-term news for the Conservatives, as private sector employment expands while the public sector contracts."
yougov.co.uk/news/2015/06/08/general-election-2015-how-britain-really-voted/
See also public sector workers on this forum..:-)
|
>> I think the Foot comparison is unfair - to Foot. Foot was a capable, sincere
>> politician who did his best in a job he was never really suited to, and
>> he was entirely the wrong leader to try to claim the centre ground that Thatcher
>> had vacated. As others have said, he was a compromise candidate within the party, when
>> what the party needed was someone who could offer an acceptable compromise to the nation.
>>
>>
It is also worth noting that Foot was well liked and respected as an individual across the political spectrum, and despite also being a republican he was on good terms with the royals. He was by no means the poodle of the Tribune group; he supported the Falklands war and NATO too, though he was implacably opposed to a nuclear deterrent.
He was also responsible for the Health and Safety at Work Act; the principle of H&S may be much derided nowadays but back then it was very much a force for good.
Last edited by: Harleyman on Wed 16 Sep 15 at 15:11
|
I remember listening to Michael Foot - a really great orator , Also a great journalist. It is unfair to his memory to compare him with Jeremy Corbyn. He was respected and liked.
Jeremy Corbyn is polite and well spoken. Period.
Last edited by: madf on Wed 16 Sep 15 at 15:35
|
Corbyn made a decent fist of PMQ today.
Liked the DUP MP sticking it to the Shadow Chancellor.
Last edited by: Roger. on Wed 16 Sep 15 at 15:39
|
>>Corbyn made a decent fist of PMQ today.
De acuerdo. This could be JC's anthem: www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg6xaFZStEI&app=desktop
|
>> This could be JC's anthem: www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg6xaFZStEI&app=desktop
Good God Perro!
No offence at all, tastes differ, but to me that's a bland, boring song, both in melody and lyric. Like everything else by the Doors. Sheeesh...
|
I quite liked it Sire. My Plymouth friend sent it to me saying "Wondering about this one as a possible swansong for Jeremy?"
The sound quality/stereo separation I found particularly good though my Monitor Audio speakers.
I'll wager this is more to your liking: www.youtube.com/watch?v=alQiqTOkePE
|
That well known Tory rag - the Daily Mail - is abusing Comrade Corbyn...
"“Corbyn is doing such a good job for the Tories I wouldn’t be surprised to learn he’s a double agent taking instructions from Margaret Thatcher’s ghost via a ouija board.â€
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-secretly-working-tories-6454344
Oh it's the Daily Mirror - not the Mail
|
Is the Mirror Tory these days? I genuinely thought it was Labour and The Sun was Tory.
|
>> Is the Mirror Tory these days? I genuinely thought it was Labour and The Sun
>> was Tory.
>>
>>
>>
The Mirror is still rock solid Labour. That article was a bit tongue in cheek.
The Sun is whoever it thinks is going to win.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Wed 16 Sep 15 at 19:57
|
>> Is the Mirror Tory these days?
>>
Looking from Comrade Corbyn's viewpoint; probably.
|
>> I'll wager this is more to your liking: www.youtube.com/watch?v=alQiqTOkePE
Yes, I admit it, despite the singer's genteel music-hall accent. What I liked even more was the photo of the tram in the OKR.
I do like a nice tram. Saw a few back in the day but I think not in London. I remember the bridge in the photo.
|
The singer was Albert Chevalier, according to one of the comments.
I feel sure I went on one of the last trams when I was very young, although it could have well have been a trolley bus I suppose.
I keep looking on eBay and Amazon for an affordable little used two-seater time machine, so I can travel back to the late 1960's ... and stay there.
^_^
|
>> It is also worth noting that Foot was well liked and respected as an individual
>> across the political spectrum,
Hint of the rose tinted glasses there I think HM. Foot was mocked and ridiculed throughout his time as leader and before. The donkey jacket thing didn't happen in isolation.
My Father, who spent his youth in left wing politics, used to get very animated when people condemning Foot or Benn compared them with the 'liked/respected' left of old as represented by Nye Bevan etc. His point was that in his lifetime Bevan was consistently belittled, demonised and condemned, given no quarter by the Fleet Street's finest.
I'm turning into my Dad.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 16 Sep 15 at 20:04
|
>> Foot was mocked and ridiculed throughout his time as leader and before. The donkey jacket thing didn't happen in isolation.
The British are reactionary and brutal. Anyone making left wing noises is mocked, ridiculed and belittled. Just look at this site if you don't get it.
|
|
Small things matter in politics. Michael Foot made ugly snarling faces when speaking, even when he was being a total pussycat. Must have confused a lot of voters.
|
"Anyone making left wing noises is mocked, ridiculed and belittled."
Only if they are more than c. 30yrs old ;-)
|
>>>>
>> The British are reactionary and brutal. Anyone making left wing noises is mocked, ridiculed and
>> belittled. Just look at this site if you don't get it.
>>
>> Not just left wingers, Thatcher and Farage don't get away lightly either.
|
His point was that in his lifetime Bevan was consistently
>> belittled, demonised and condemned, given no quarter by the Fleet Street's finest.
>>
Perhaps justifiably so at the time; for all his qualities, there was a considerable fear that if he took over as leader this country would sell out to Russia . Attlee is reputed to have deliberately delayed his retirement in order to ensure that Bevan had little chance of succeeding him.
Whilst giving due respect to Bevan's considerable achievements in the field of social housing, it is also worth noting that whilst he did wholeheartedly support the NHS he did not, as is commonly believed, invent it. In fact, the lengths he went to to ensure it happened have had serious knock-on effects today, particularly in the way that consultants are paid.
|
|
I suspect that there is a very nasty side to Corbyn's personality. Having watched him being interviewed a couple of times he clearly has trouble controlling his temper as soon as he is challenged about his view on something or is asked a question he doesn't want to answer.
|
|
Frankly I could not care less about any MP's private life. It's journalistic voyeurism for the sake of it.
|
|
Agreed. Provided he did nothing illegal, who cares?
|
|
Vergin(g) on the ridiculous!
|
|
Agreed. Provided he did nothing illegal AND he didn't leave himself open to undue influence (blackmail, etc. etc.) then who cares. None of our business.
|
>> I suspect that there is a very nasty side to Corbyn's personality. Having watched him
>> being interviewed a couple of times he clearly has trouble controlling his temper as soon
>> as he is challenged about his view on something or is asked a question he
>> doesn't want to answer.
But then if the issue a senior BBC correspondent focusses on (repeatedly) is not policy but 'will you grovel as required when appointed to the Privy Council' I can sort of understand why he gets rattled.
|
>> Perhaps justifiably so at the time; for all his qualities, there was a considerable fear
>> that if he took over as leader this country would sell out to Russia .
It may or may nor have been justifiable. The point was that the same writers and organs who'd portrayed Bevan as the Devil incarnate suddenly decided he was a cuddly lefty in order to prove Benn was the Devil incarnate.
|
Jeremy Corbyn is Old Labour down to his socks. What's more he has a solid wodge of support from Labour voters and supporters - even members - of all ages and stations.
That's the way it's looked for ages.
|
>> It may or may nor have been justifiable. The point was that the same writers
>> and organs who'd portrayed Bevan as the Devil incarnate suddenly decided he was a cuddly
>> lefty in order to prove Benn was the Devil incarnate.
>>
And Benn ended up viewed as a national treasure, as did Foot to an extent.
I doubt Corbyn will though; he lacks the personal charisma of Benn, which was always his strongest suit, and the intellect of Foot.
|
>> I doubt Corbyn will though; he lacks the personal charisma of Benn,
and the intellect. And the personal integrity.
Corbyn is just your average protestor. Lets find a cause and protest just for the hell of it.
|
>> www.change.org/p/bbc-request-for-the-bbc-to-refer-to-david-cameron-as-the-right-wing-prime-minister?
>>
He's not though is he. He's centrist or left leaning of the Tory Party.
He is of the Right, 'yes', but he is not a 'right wing Prime Minister' in the same way Tony Blair wasn't a 'left wing Prime Minister'.
The BBC didn't call Ed Miliband the 'left wing leader of the opposition' despite his nickname of 'Red Ed'.
So Jeremy Corbyn being noticeably to the Left of 'Red Ed' makes him...wait for it.... the left wing Labour Leader.
Tenner though the BBC takes note and drops their language.
|
|
They'll drop it naturally once Corbyn's been in the job for a month or two. It's just that he's still new enough on the scene - or at least in the spotlight - to need a little introduction and positioning, which Cameron no longer is. Nothing worth fussing over.
|
He's not.
"The Eurosceptic Bill Cash"
"The wet Peter Walker"
"The right-wing former-minister Norman Tebbit"
"The Tory Prime Minister David Cameron who is firmly at the moderate end of his party."
"The Marxist Shadow Chancellor" (As City AM had it today.)
Brompton, are you pro-Corbyn? Apologies I've been away, and have not followed the whole saga here.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Fri 18 Sep 15 at 10:39
|
>> Brompton, are you pro-Corbyn? Apologies I've been away, and have not followed the whole saga
I like a lot of Corbyn's arguments on for example Trident, Ireland and idea that if you need to print money there are better uses than giving it to banks. But I doubt he has the pzazz or charisma to be leader.
Were I still a member I'd probably have held my nose and voted for Mrs Balls. Liz Kendall was a joke Blairite, only more right wing. Mrs B's observation of Andy Burnham's Northampton hustings confirmed my view of him as a chameleon.
|
>> Were I still a member I'd probably have held my nose and voted for Mrs
>> Balls.
That's the problem for Labour isn't it? You are a Labour-minded person, but what you are presented with stinks or is spoken of as unelectable.
It must feel like being a Newcastle United supporter does at the moment.
|
>> They'll drop it naturally once Corbyn's been in the job for a month or two.
>> It's just that he's still new enough on the scene - or at least in
>> the spotlight - to need a little introduction and positioning, which Cameron no longer is.
>> Nothing worth fussing over.
Thing is, Corbyn wont be left wing for long. Once the party organisation gets into the swing telling him what he can and can't say, how he can or can't dress, and how to bow to the queen, he will just be another Labour leader.
|
|
I think Corbyn's views/ideas will change and align more with what labour is today, i.e. not so left wing. Otherwise they are in danger of being unelectable for a long time. He should remember he's the leader of the Labour party and the manifesto won't contain only his ideas. Otherwise it's more of a dictator role surely?
|
They'll base the manifesto on the views of the members - so said Corbyn. Like PMQs.
So unlimited immigration, high taxes, lots of spending and lots more borrowing.
Which is what Corbyn proposes anyway - which was why he was elected..the supporters want to go back 40 years.To being a Party of conscience.. .
If they don't win, many say they don't care: they can vote Labour with a clear conscience...
(I am quoting and not making it up).
They want to win back the Green and LibDem votes only. Not win marginals from the Tories. But also persuade the non voters (35% of the electorate) to vote - on the declared basis that they are all anti Tory.(!?)
Any attempt to argue rationally is met with disdain.. See LabourList...
It's rather like an anthill or a beehive.. they have a hive mind.. And anything different is wrong..
And anyone who disagrees with them is a Tory..or a monarchist (most are republicans)... or both.
Last edited by: madf on Fri 18 Sep 15 at 13:06
|
Labour leader announced - Bromptonaut
