Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
You can't stop me.
Truffles taste all the better for having been sniffed out.
Probably why he didn't tbf.
STALIN MURDERED 6 MILLION PEOPLE
JJ has decided to give up the old socialism.
He could tell that the Soviet Union was properly socialist, because it had a gruel queue and different tills for different products.
is he beef with 'pure socialism' or the 'extreme form of socialism'? Either way, I don't think that's what Corbyn's offering.
in spectral form!
but he's a communist dictator in waiting and he must be stopped at all costs. Labour centrists like me are morally right by definition. I don't really know and because I said so, shut up"
the last-ever paid Guardian columnist turning out 2,000 columns a week on every subject regardless of lack of knowledge or insight. Seems I was wrong.
It's Jonathan Jones...
Good to see he's applying the same standards to his political columns as he does to his ones on art.
'Corbynmania is, in his view, “very narcissistic. It’s people saying, ‘We don’t care if we lose. We just want to feel good about ourselves. It’s identity politics. Your identity comes first, above everything else. It’s not about trying to achieve something.”'
Pretty troubling that a professional commentator seeks to admonish a movement with condescension. Opinions such as this strengthen the political class, and all the sneers and derision that comes with it. Who is he to suggest people should eschew representation?
unless this is just the new phrase we're using for THING I DON'T LIKE
know what it is, too.
is it possible that there's an issue with many proponents of identity politics also not really knowing what they're talking about? So it can get thrown around willy-nilly without necessarily being thought through, resulting in the concept and impact being watered down?
Dunno, think that there's a point here http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/09/listen-to-sex-workers-but-which-ones. Is it fair to suggest that there's a tension between individualism and community in identity politics? (Literally only just googled identity politics, should probably just shut up)
Yeah, don't think he knows what identity politics means either.
It reads like Lewis has used her ignorance of non-western sex worker charities an organisations as a peg on which to hang yet another article in which she moans about other people criticising her for not grasping intersectionality.
I find it hard to keep up. It was the comment about finding common ground that i thought was worth bearing in mind.
in which Cohen managed to turn a piece about the Conservative's assault on worker's rights into yet another article where he slags off Corbyn and his supporters.
Cohen has become one of those white, middle aged men who think that equality and acceptance only needs to go a smidgen further than the point at which it benefits him, and who throws his hands up when others suggest it should encroach on his privilege.
He's still not explained what it is in Corbyn's leadership policies that he disagrees with, or how any of the other candidates are in any way better.
"Troubling" that he's outlining the issues behind the rise in Corbyn's popularity? He's part of the commentariat; he's completely entitled to do that in his job.
It's interesting that we've seen a real absence of strong, joined up thought on here underlining how and why a Corbyn led Labour Party can deny the Conservatives power in 2020. That's what it boils down to ultimately, right?
and i claim my five pounds
and isn't the general consensus along the lines of offering something different/mopping up disaffected voters/being more accepting of coalition politics?
What's more interesting than any criticism of Corbyn is the weakness of the competition that he's facing (mentioned by marckee right above). Don't see how he can be discussed without addressing this.
I must have been having an off day.
Either way, it was pretty downheartening in that it made a lot of sense in fairly clear terms and you could see straight away that it was never going to happen. Enjoy cheering on Coopburnall at Reading Labour suckers.
"how and why a Corbyn led Labour Party can deny the Conservatives power in 2020. That's what it boils down to ultimately, right?"
(see threads passim for all the explanations why)
he's saying that the troubling aspect is that Cohen is admonishing it with condescension, rather than insight or seeking to put out an alternative.
It's notable that so far only Corbyn has actually outlined policies and only Corbyn has acknowledged that he won't become or stay as leader without broad party support and that Labour can only win power with that broad support.
None of the other candidates have done anywhere near this - they seem to think that being vague and allowing the papers to decide whether they are electable or not is enough.
Andy Burnham has stolen one of Corbyn's policies.
There was a good quote from Cooper over the weekend about [can't remember which policy] in which she said one of Corbyn's policies had actually been her policy for years and she was glad he'd decided to support her on it.
He said something nice about women apparently. She's a bit vague about it, which isn't like her.
"there are a lot of the things that Jeremy Corbyn has said on his campaign for women that are my policies which I’ve been pursuing for years so, great, I’m glad he supports them."
(Was it the rail renationalisation, which turned out not to be renationalisation, and just a restating of a policy from the 2015 manifesto?)
This is the daily thread yes?
"Labour officials say it is extraordinary that so many Green candidates have apparently decided to abandon their party within weeks of the general election, and stressed they would be blocked from voting."
I'm not signing up to vote for him but I would consider joining a Labour Party he was part of.
This sort of attitude about Green members is stupid, though. many people, like me, will have given up on Labour due to the lack of opposition it was showing to right-wing policies, something Corbyn should assuage. On top of that, I partly joined simply to add weight to the argument that all parties should be allowed to be in the televised debates and I'd guess a lot of others did for the same reason.
Genuinely don't know who's going to be next...Ruth Kelly? Geoff Hoon? Stephen fucking Byers!?
Although he'll probably be told by on high that he is better off supporting Corbyn to rubbish him.
Blog piece, and once again, he doesn't say which of Corbyn's policies he disagrees with, or which of the other candidates off a better alternative.
I venture that if he was to go through Corbyn's policies he'd find them to not be 'hard left' as he calls it, and more social democratic - again, outside of a vague newspaper-driven idea of political positioning there seems to be a complete unwillingness to actually interrogate what, if anything, the candidates are proposing.
but from the state of the Guardian/New Statesman etc coverage the aim seems to be of making sure Burnham/Cooper/Kendall backers don't give any of their alternate votes to Corbyn - so he'll lose the final runoff. If you focus on policies and differentiate between the candidates there's a risk you'll get a nuanced debate about policy and there'll be an unpredictable spread of second votes (and that a lot of woolly lefties will appease their conscience by putting Corbyn second).
as any of them start meddling in party politics to this extent it just gets hugely embarrassing.
You'd think after the Guardian's Lib Dem campaigning in 2010 and their "let's try to oust George W. Bush by writing patronising letters to everyone in a small town in America" whenever the fuck that was, they'd know to leave well alone by now.
then it'd probably be receiving one of these letters: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/13/uselections2004.usa13
but little about ourselves.
"Here is 4,000 words about why you shouldn't vote for Corbyn."
and not portray the other three as a homogenous blob? "Vote for one of them, doesn't matter which, just not the one with actual policies and opinions and shit". The state of that organization
FUCKING THE TORIES ONE CLIPART IMAGE AT A TIME
that YouGov poll has Corbyn so far in the lead it's difficult to see how he can lose this now.
Might be best now to turn our thoughts to speculating on how long Corbyn might last as Labour leader before he's ousted...
could be construed as important or helpful is terrifying.
just realised that the Labour leadership result will be announced RIGHT in the middle of when I'm away. And I'm fucked if I'm checking in on here on holiday.
A relief all round I'm sure.
there's something seriously off with his bike stem. don't think i can trust him.
HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA! Fucking GENIUS!
In all seriousness though - what's a bike stem?
at his rally in Cardiff. Might get a foam finger with 'Socialism!' written on it.
you get a really weird thank you text when you do.
I joined just after the election and they still had an automated message from Ed Miliband, which was really depressing.
Like you, I will not rest until my Ed Stone is installed in the garden of 10 Downing Street! Together we can do it!"
"Thank you for signing up as a Labour Supporter".
no link to a site or anything. its like they know everyone is just signing up to support Corbyn.
of new members at the moment I know that. Don't know why that'd impact on their New Member SMS or whatever though.
Thought it might just read
`Thank you for joining The Labour Party.
Please don't vote for Jez. Please. We mean it.`
of a government too.
back in 1990
Corbyn as a Noel Edmonds/blue peter presenter crossover?
Can see why you'd get them mixed up though...
happy birthday for the other day - sorry for not saying so on fb. Hope all is well!
needless to say I've changed my twitter handle and all the locks in my flat
Corbyn campaign banging on about the deficit and economic credibility and making 'the right kind of cuts'. Booo. More dreamland politics, please.
when in 2020, when Corbyn will SWEEP into Number 10, the deficit is planned to have been eradicated.
Not just a question for Corbyn of course - a question for all opposition parties.
This year we were supposed to be running a surplus of 0.8% according to Osborne's emergency budget in 2010 while debt was supposed to be 67% of GDP rather than 80%.
Fair to say the economic battleground won't be the same in 2020 as it was this year, but it's also fair to say that it probably won't be the one that Gideon's predicted either.
Labour's attack lines at the time were correct too - except for the points about unemployment. And yes I don't trust Osborne with deficit elimination either, but at least it seems annual (if pitiful) growth has returned to the UK economy which should make it a bit more straightforward than last time (by which I mean he should be able to make it more straightforward for himself than he conspired to last time). Although I think 2015 has the difference from 2010 is that the electorate have resoundingly spoken about who they want to manage budget deficit reduction. Would probably have been in Osborne's political interest to not wipe it out totally by 2020 actually - it was their strongest campaigning suit.
I suppose it is still the issue du jour but... the likelihood it won't be in 2020. But then again no-one can remember what politicians were saying 5 minutes ago let alone 5 years so maybe it isn't an issue.
either: the recovery is taking longer than we thought, don't risk letting Labour ruin it!!!1
or: we've fixed the economy, don't risk letting Labour ruin it!!!!1
maybe some open letters signed by tax dodgers and stuff
Just need to work out how much `re-nationalising the railways and energy sectors` costs and... boom. Tory government for the next decade. Great stuff.
the massive subsidies paid to rail companies to keep them profitable, or the complete stitch-up that is energy price-fixing etc etc.
case for the railways, sure. Although the issue is the actual, real cost of bringing all elements of it back into public ownership. I'm not sure of the cost myself but we're definitely talking £10s of billions.
Not sure what price-fixing in the energy sector's got to do with cost of `re-nationalisation` but either way majoring on supposed price-fixing is pretty libellous/dangerous for an Opposition leader to campaign on.
Whilst it's a policy which seems to have popular support - I still think people would question why it's a priority to spend money on, after the deficit has been wiped. Bit like clearing a credit card and then getting a new one and spending it on a new car as opposed to your kids school uniform etc. etc. Could be wrong mind.
so not paying profit subsidies to shareholders would equal long term savings for tax payers and commuters, just a question of framing the issue
Whether or not they see re-nationalisation as the answer is a different matter. We'll see.
but that's not to say there isn't one.
Re: price-fixing, we'll just have to wait on the outcome of this http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jun/20/ofgem-biggest-every-energy-sector-investigation-big-six-gas-electricity
Worth remembering that Ed Miliband (who?) pledged an energy bill price freeze and no-one much gave a stuff about that come election time.
but it caused a massive scramble amongst energy companies at the time, and noticeably put political pressure on Ofgem etc.
But then that manifesto. And the mug. AND THE ED-STONE.
Miliband only promised to freeze bills until the start of 2017 (on the presumption that he could draft and pass the legislation very quickly after being elected in May 2015).
But, at the time of the pledge (2013), at least three of the big six energy suppliers were already offering price freezes up until 2016/17. Prolly a better offer than what would've been in place had Ed managed to become PM and implement a shorter ceiling period, and without a mention of what would have stopped the energy companies hiking up prices before and after the Mili-ceiling period.
Fact Check questioned other aspects of it, too. http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-pouring-cold-water-labours-fuel-price-freeze/15908
tl;dr - a pissweak wooly policy designed to snare a favorable headline or two without overly scaring the business horses
tl;dr condensed - just more vacuous stuff to put on a mug
wasn't denying when it came down to it it was a poor policy.
In retrospect - kinda sums Miliband's leadership up. Fair ideas, fair intentions, terrible execution.
want to make noises about deficit reduction, whether it's going to be an issue in 2020 or not?
Whilst I do understand - I'm just thinking out loud really. Genuine question about when is a good time for `the deficit` and `austerity` messaging starting to get pulled in favour of other rhetoric.
Part of it is speculation about whether or not it's more fruitful for opposition messaging to dispense with it entirely and offer a vision beyond 2020 when we can start building a better country again etc.
when he is - explicitly - the only person to have dealt with the question in setting out policies: ie. operating at low deficit, only investing in low risk public assets, etc.
There is no way that it's not going to be an issue whatever state the economy is in come 2020: the Tories (and papers) will be pushing the angle that "well, we've been through all this pain to get here: why throw it away on a spendy left?"
^ Once again.
But yes Corbyn does appear to have the most detailed policy platform, it must be noted to his credit.
Must also be noted that if we're all sure that IS going to be the Tory/press key messaging than does it make practical sense to make the leader of the Labour party the bloke who's most susceptible to defeat under that line of attack?
Stop tizzing about the Tory/press "key messaging".
Being so unimaginatively reactive is one of the key reasons Labour are in this mess.
The UK voting public respect the depressingly grim austerity/financially responsible line that the Tories have been repeating. They don't necessarily like it. Or even fully subscribe to it. But they understand it. And, faced no real alternative, they'll vote for it.
Faffing around trying to be not-quite-as-Tory as the Tories is risible.
And where have I been advocating that? You seem to be conflating all of my questions around Corbyn's suitability to be Leader of The Labour Party with being a Tory which is risible in and of itself.
`The UK voting public respect the depressingly grim austerity/financially responsible line that the Tories have been repeating. They don't necessarily like it. Or even fully subscribe to it. But they understand it. And, faced no real alternative, they'll vote for it`
Completely, 100% agree. That's what the Labour party is for. Is Corbyn the `alternative that people will vote for`? I don't think so. Have any other candidates laid out a cogent, electable alternative? Not yet. Hence the current debacle. But I'd wager Yvette Cooper would give it a better shot at the very least (she's at least been sensibly challenging the `Labour spent too much` narrative which is a good start).
My position in a nutshell. Now bore off with your Tory nonsense.
They're cutting it a bit fine, aren't they?!
I mean in retrospect Miliband should've stayed on as leader over the summer, let everyone take a breather, and then revisit this in the Autumn. Hindsight though ennit. As such it's all been a bit of a shambles.
David Miliband needs to win a bye-election first.
But getting het up over the 'Tory/press "key messaging"' is to be on the defensive from the off. You've immediately conceded the initiative to the Tories. And all that's, ahem, left, once you've fallen into that trap is to play tippy toes with policies that are designed to appease Tory voters.
Therefore the Leader of the Labour Party being badly placed to weather attacks from both a) the Tory party and b) the Tory press doesn't strike me as a winning piece of electoral strategy.
If acknowledging this makes me defensive then so be it.
they don't have to be Tory ones - could be UKIP, Green, Lib Dem, or SNP depending on the seat.
One thing Blair got right in his not quite so recent intervention post defeat was that New Labour's offering was a broad one and worked as a whole on Labour's terms - as much as he could have been accused of "chasing the centre ground" it had something in it for most people. To be honest, I don't see that going off chasing particularly towards the Tories and fighting on their terms OR towards "hardcore-socialism" and fighting on a 1970s/80s platform is going to win an election. What might (and it's only a slim shout, admittedly), is putting together a positive Labour platform for what Britain should look like in the 2020s, showing how it benefits the country as a whole and fighting on that ground. Cooper *might* be able to do that (although I haven't seen anything from her in the campaign to suggest it), but Burnham and Kendall don't seem to have what it takes on that front.
it is far more tories than anyone else. whether and how that matters and what you do with that reality is another question altogether.
I agree Cooper is the most capable politician of the lot.
Although to finesse my point Tory voters aren't a set blob of evil-doers who ruin things for everyone. To go back to the Blair article CZUK is referencing he correctly identified that "people defaulted to the Tories - they didn't desire them". Tory voters aren't inherently loyal - they have a habit of voting for them in lieu of an alternative they can trust. Many routes for a Labour pitch to appeal to them whilst remaining true to what the Labour party is about. Even Blair himself did that.
CZUK's post is mostly a variant on what I've previously said - but better put obviously. But to win elections Labour needs to command a majority of the popular vote. Which, whisper it, includes habitual Tory voters too.
Habitual Tory voters can't be won over.
"if you look at it in terms of who labour would need to win over
it is far more tories than anyone else"
I don't buy it.
If Labour hadn't haemorrhaged votes to the SNP, had not failed to attract disaffected LibDems, and had managed to energise those who have drifted away from the party, they'd be laughing.
As it is, they've destroyed themself in Scotland by being pathologically obsessed with the SNP. And they seem intent on continuing down that road by developing a similar fixation in England.
I haven't mentioned the Greens because they're not a significant factor. Yet. Despite the pissing and moaning coming from some quarters directly after the election about how the traitorous insolent Greens had stolen chunks of Labour's God-given right to votes in marginal seats.
pointing out that labour would have won several more seats if there hadn't been a green surge is valuable and interesting in its own right. a lot of people very defensive at it even being pointed out...
If Labour had won ALL of the green party votes, they would have won 11 more seats.
More voters need to be won back in England and most of them voted Conservative. I don't know what data you're basing your argument on. The particular ways in which the lib dem vote collapsed did not help labour. Even in places where they did attract "disaffected" lib dems, it often just meant the tories won instead. Also important to remember that Labour's share of the vote increased (and by more than the Tories).
fao Geoff, you can talk about habitual/swing voters etc. but the electorate does change (its outlook and also its makeup when people die off and new younger people become eligible to vote). the electoral landscape is always open to change in multiple ways...
No more pertinent way of looking at that is to see how the political centre has shifted in Scotland. I didn't acknowledge that around referendum time, but there's been a marked shift. Obviously it's one defined by a form of nationalism, which is a largely incomparable phenomenon to the rest of the UK, but it's still distinct.
I think the safest thing is to analyse the electorate as it currently is. You can only win elections by appealing to what is there. Ed Miliband gambled his entire political career that the English centre had shifted to the left since the financial crisis. It hadn't. No greater evidence than the number of MPs Labour returned to Westminster there.
But you're 100% correct. And you know the best way of nudging the mood of the electorate in your favour? Winning elections. Setting Labour on a path to lose an election won't achieve anything.
he critically failed to challenge the Conservative narrative on the economy and wound up fighting the election on their terms. As a result his team analysed the electorate and reckoned they would jump for a soft-balled cuddly austerity pitch. It didn't work because it didn't appeal to anyone - not the left, who reject the necessity of deficit reduction on a timescale, not the right, because the Tories offered the same thing only steelier-looking, and not to anyone hanging around the middle because they looked utterly spineless.
This idea he shifted the party to the left is total bullshit. How more damning can it be the man pledged stuff the Tories adopted themselves, only more far-reaching?
but a politician should be able to campaign and her efforts in this race (when there has been any evidence of there being an effort) have been woeful.
Although doing a decent job in a Labour Leadership contest isn't inherently indicative of being a decent political campaigner in a national/GE context. You only have to look as far back as Ed Miliband for evidence of that.
When does it happen?
and Corbyn as Obi Wan if we're going to extend this metaphor
they weren't very good though.
It's estimated about 10,000 people signed up to Labour to vote on this just last night. Astonishing if true.
*someone off my facebook who seems in the know
and listen to my assessment of the threat!
"And, yes, governments do things people don’t like, and in time they lose power. That is the nature of democracy."
First of all, what?
Second, there was a debate? When? Where?
Third, vaguely lefty policies aren't like magic words. So far as I'm aware saying, "nationalise railways" three times doesn't summon the devil himself to devour our souls.
Fourth, shut up Tony. For fuck's sake shut up.
for fuck's sake don't actually talk about policies
"Corbyn Does Not Count As One Of Your 5-A-Day, Warns MP"
John McTernan v Owen Jones
Very subversive DiS.
Great story of her meeting a constituent who started crying about Tory cuts, followed by this: "What Cooper does not mention is her own tears, shed privately in her constituency worker’s car after the vexing encounter." Definitely sounds very private, feels a bit intrusive just reading the article tbh.
and she's outflanked Andy Burnham by not even pretending to want to appeal to the left of the party. Reckon the endless attacks on Corbyn will work in the end, they're just going to niggle away and edge as many doubters as they can. Wonder if a post-election Blairite leader will be at all conciliatory to the left of the party or if it will be framed as a decisive 'we are centrist modernisers forever' kind of victory.
if nothing else it's a reminder that they're there and that they can be just as grumpy and awkward as the right of the Tory party when they set their minds to it. Also if this influx of voters are largely left wingers as thought then the leadership will have to lean a little leftwards to keep them onboard. Presuming a decent percetage of them stick around/upgrade to full membership that is.
Cooper needed a bit more detail there. Repeating, "not credible" over and over may not be enough. I think she's done a decent job of positioning herself as the Anyone But Corbyn candidate now but I doubt many of his supporters will have been convinced.
I think the memory of the early 80s still hangs over a lot of Labour members and there will be more than a few struggling with what's being set up as a principles vs power question. DD's probably right that Labour need to win over a handful of Tory voters rather than Greens/Lib Dems/UKIP/SNP etc if they want to get the Tories out of power. I get the feeling that whichever anti-Corbyn candidate gets in, they'll be thinking about the realpolitik of winning in 2020 rather than placating the 'entryists'. Maybe the odd faux-left policy here and there, but I think it'll mainly be 'We've won, this is what the Labour Party is now'.
the left will probably get a 'maybe we'll think about renationalising the railways eventually I dunno maybe ask your mum' at best and hope that technically not being the conservative party will be enough to keep them in line.
It's filled with false equivalences, like it's an either/or choice between nationalising energy and helping disadvantaged single mums. It's the same old neoliberal rhetoric about "money we don't have", international policing and populism (that isn't even popular ffs) over principles.
but with enough hooks to undermine Corbyn's policies. The bit about nationalisation just being putting a different bunch of old white men in charge of something is particularly sly.
Just typical New Labour blandery
Don't think the thousands of people signing up to vote are floating voters anyway, but certainly can't see many being swayed by this. I agree that she's placed herself well as the only viable alternative but don't think they'll even need a second round of voting at this point.
or whether there are enough undecideds and waverers. None of Kendall's run-off votes are going to Corbyn, I'd imagine a few (but not a majority) of Burnham's are going to him, so it could be pretty tight in the end.
Cooper's speech isn't inspiring, but it's got enough headline quotes to nag at people's doubts. Also, I think she's clever to highlight things like Sure Start and the Bedroom Tax (which are very contemporary concerns) as opposed to public ownership and the like - it definitely casts Corbyn as the dinosaur quite well.
I think literally about 100 people or something if Facebook's any indication.
You're right though I think it's probably down to how many floaters there really are.
OR ARE WE GOING TO GIVING MUMS A CHANCE?
she cry if Putin is nasty to her?
is her saying she'll probably lose votes by coming out like this. Corbyn getting onto the ticket has inspired the debate MPs said they wanted to happen by including him but in fact didn't want under any circumstances. Cooper being forced to nail something like her true colours to the mast, instead of drifting in saying fuck all about anything, wouldn't have happened any other way.
That's Lucien's vote lost, then.
“I think the most radical thing we could do at all would be to put family at the centre of our economy, the centre of our society."
Not really sure what this means but it might be alright.
We should bear in mind that she might be using 'radical' in the 'Ninja Turtles' sense. They might all be.
It sounds rubbish.
Course he knows all about ANNIHILATION
Of brown children
when they wheeled out Gordo to prowl around and spit and plead and promise things totally outwith his control, but which were designed to shore up any tempted wavered that might just tip the balance in a close race.
It worked. Kinda. Until people realised (less than 24 hrs later) that they'd been comprehensively conned.
Totally expecting the Graun to publish a Daily Record-alike three muskateers VOW as a front page splash in the final days leading up to the vote.
"• Been accused of donating money to self-proclaimed Holocaust denier Paul Eisen, whose Deir Yassin Remembered group has been shunned by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, in the name of refusing to “turn a blind eye to antisemitism”. Corbyn has addressed that claim via his spokesman, who said that “Jeremy Corbyn’s office” had had no contact with Eisen and that Corbyn disassociated himself from his extreme views – a denial that seems neither forceful nor convincing."
Seriously though, fuck the guardian.
isn't that just some easy document written by some weirdos? I don't think Hamas actually considers it to be their charter
will pass that on
comment pieces by Corbyn sympathisers. Owen Jones's column's been about almost nothing else for the last 2 months.
If you want the reasons why they're not endorsing him for the leadership - read the leader this month. Also you won't find too many commentators in any broadsheets/politics magazines who are endorsing Corbyn either. Even left-wing ones.
It's also not just Guardian journalists who are considering/investigating what links/donations Corbyn has/has made to people/organisation who might be anti-Semitic.
They try to be a broadly left paper so they are supposed to be above this sort of thing.
Stupid. I guess they like to make stupid choices, though.
Senior Political correspondents/Leader writers are all pretty informed and rational myself.
We all like to (rightly) rag on the Guardian for its lifestyle section and some of the idiocy that spews forth from `the broader voices` within its comment pages but… the standard of their political commentary from its senior staffers is usually very good.
That went well.
not allowed to vote in the Labour leadership elections.
and they got into government, so it worked...
any decent online alternatives to the Guardian for news?
Not very well
Stell probably better than how Indie readers reacted to them coming out for ther Tories last election
2nd para: "Those who espouse an anybody-but-Corbyn line fall prey to the very politics that have alienated so many."
number of words written on Corbyn before their preferred candidate is mentioned: 789.
(total words 1008)
Robert Webb is having a nervous breakdown on twitter
who refuse to discuss policy?
I haven't really heard much chat/analysis about what SPECIFIC policies that Corbyn's outlined that people specifically like/think will work. Aside from rail renationalisation.
Think it's a bit of a red herring (although perhaps not to you personally because you actually pay particular attention) to ascribe Corbyn's appeal at least in part to the specifics of his policy platform. He seems to be attracting support in the same way as anyone else - based on look and feel (and also `hope` in his case).
"These other candidates will doom the Labour Party!"
The last two labour campaigns I've been on the receiving end of have seemed like:
- Don't vote for independence because it will be a DISASTER, just vote for what we tell you to instead
- Don't vote for the SNP in the general election because it will be a disaster, we're the only party you can vote for so you'll just have to
The same kind of approach seems to be taking place now, I don't know how effective it is but it doesn't half put you off them.
We've been told to 'hold your nose and vote Labour' since Blair was running for a second term. Basically people's noses are starting to hurt.
I get that politicians have to make #difficultdecisions and negotiate compromises, but I hate the idea that the electorate should have to compromise their own votes rather than voting for what they believe in.
This couldn't be more true. Campaigning based on any kind of positive vision for the future seems to have fallen drastically out of fashion.
virtually all of it positive, too, from people who know what they're talking about.
His economic policies have received a lot of discussion as well, and have widened the debate, bringing the likes of Richard Murphy and his ideas to a bigger audience.
I could go on. I dunno, if you take an interest in it a read around, then you'll inevitably come across lots of stuff. As I've said before, there's only really one candidate who's putting forward joined-up, comprehensive policies AND vision AND trying to appeal to a broad base of the party AND acknowledged that the only way to form a government is to carry all of those forward together.
None of the other candidates, and none of he 'Anyone But Corbyn' commentators in the media and none of the snipers and sneerers online have come close to approaching that, none of them have tried to engage with Corbyn's policies, and none of them have said why their candidate would be better for Labour and for the country.
That is why Corbyn is doing well at the moment. Cooper woke up yesterday, but there's still too much vague positioning from her, and certainly from the other candidates and their supporters, as if all you need to become the leader is to give the papers a rough idea of where you stand on the binary of 'hard left' and 'will do what we want'.
most of you will have seen this but it's still funny https://twitter.com/hrtbps/status/632093649552150529?lang=en-gb
I wasn't necessarily referring to those whose specific job it is to analyse policies, but more those who are signing up to vote for Corbyn who inevitably consume much less in-depth assessments of such matters. Like I said, not a criticism, but I don't think much of Corbyn's support comes inherently from the fact he's been more detailed in policy because I don't think most people have noticed. Could be wrong.
Richard Murphy getting a wider audience eh? Not sure how good a thing that is.
the political engagement of members of the Labour party and those who have also signed up to vote in this election specifically.
It's also worth noting that, despite all the talk of the £3 carpetbaggers, full party members and CLPs are still voting for Corbyn.
Also - yep. At the moment even if you strip out the `entryist` votes (if you want to call them that) he has the largest support across the `established` party membership.
It's not the £3 gig that is the greatest variable here wrt past Labour Leadership elections - it's the fact that the PLP's votes count for significantly less than they used to. Worth noting that only 9% of the PLP are intending to vote for Corbyn (which is 22 MPs - 13 fewer than the number of nominations he actually got).
who quit at some point during the Blair years and are returning because they feel they can support the party again. There seems to be a suggestion that Corbyn's supporters are either radical Trotskyists (which wouldn't make sense) or excitable teenagers like with that Milifandom thing.
if they're all total shit though right?
in the (very recent) past.
which isn't half as wooly as it sounds. Enjoyed this defence of it by Richard Murphy in response to Robert Peston: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/08/12/robert-peston-on-peoples-qe/
Chris Giles, I think.
would quite like to read some more thoughts on it.
of articles per month without charge.
I did not know that. Ta!
and a responsibility to summarise argument within that word count.
Richard Murphy's blog doesn't.
he doesn't quite explain why he's so dismissive, other not being keen on curbing the BoE's independence and a general sense that a new financial vehicle like this is unnecessary.
I don't think it's a 'magic bullet' for the economy or anything but funding infrastructure repairs and improvements and creating jobs to stimulate growth sounds like a better plan than CUT EVERYTHING to me. I'll level with you though - I'm in way over my head here.
On the one hand, he's pointing out that this isn't a magic bullet/other tools are already there (so sort of dismissive/grounding), but it should also be noted that he's pointing out that it's not that different to the QE already in place/is worth discussing.
So all the people describing Corbyn as an economically illiterate, left-wing crazy are maybe being dicks (hi Jack Straw).
I've heard WAY more on specifics from him than from the other contenders. (Especially Kendall's, JFC)
His housing policies for example; he put out an 8-page doc that's been put though a fair bit of scrutiny and there are plenty of specifics there. You might not agree with his economics stuff, but it's all out there and it's detailed. Same goes for education. He's vaguest - I think - on how to achieve savings without benefit cuts.
better posters have said this way better before me.
And using econonmic and political means to contain ISIS rather than militarism
This also applies to not bombing Syria
Scrapping tuition fees completely
Relaxing Immigration Laws
Also heard him make hints at becoming a Republic (although he said it seemed unlikely)
would cause flare ups in Northern Ireland, as if it wasn't actually negotiating with terrorists that secured a peace deal there in the first place.
Dear The Wizard. I am too scared to ask stu campbell this on twitter so please be my proxy scotsman here. What do you think a Corbyn leadership would mean for labour in Scotland? As in, first - are those votes now lost to the SNP for good, or could they be clawed back?
Second: do you think having a slightly leftier party in opposition in Wesminster hurts any future independence pushes?
Third: is there another way? I am imagining that a Corbyn leadership is going to be more open to formally working with the SNP, but I'm making that up out of my brain.
I've noticed that JC has mentioned his warmth towards working with the SNP a few times in lieu of mentioning rebuilding Scottish Labour or similar.
So yeah dunno if Corbyn would be good for Scottish Labour or, more strongly, whether or not Scottish Labour actually matters up there anymore (with any loyalty or scorn towards it being superceded by whoever's down in Westminster). Will be interesting anyroad.
But really good for Labour in Scotland.
It's quite exciting
If Stu C is a Scot in England, so I think, in that context, I'm an Englisher in Scotland. And Geoff asked similar Qs in one of the other two Corbyn/Lab threads. Anyway, my opinion, for what little it's worth...
are those votes now lost to the SNP for good, or could they be clawed back? - Not lost for good. Can be clawed back. But not alone in a hurry. And not by Corbyn alone (especially so whilst Scottish Labour is in the state it is). The anti-Trident vibez are a start, though.
do you think having a slightly leftier party in opposition in Wesminster hurts any future independence pushes? - No. Almost half the voting population is pro Indy. Half is not. But often overlooked is that, of that contingent, a decent chunk is pro-DevoMax/Federal/HomeRule. Which is what was promised by the three Imperial Masters in The Vow, and also by Big Gordo. But that promise has been significantly curtailed since by the lot of 'em. Which isn't playing well. Consequently, SNP polling is at an all time high. Which, considering it's been in government for over eight years, is kinda insane. Corbyn has apparently announced that he's against further tax devolution to Scotland. I don't think that's a strong position for him to be in.
Third: is there another way? There's no other way. All that you can do is watch them play...
you are much less terrifying than Stu C. Not sure if you will take that as a compliment or a cuss
heh. well done if you extracted any sense from that messy jumble of words. was on my phone with a meeting imminent.
Hadn't heard of him 10 days ago
and the show also featured a Harry Enfield Kevin-type character who went "OH GOD" every time he said something.
I think the mistake the other 3 candidates made was to abstain on the welfare bill. It massively pissed of their base, who all went to Corbyn.
pigeon and shit CGI asteroid picture pairing.
Denial of Srebrenica? Sidenote mate.
Quite difficult to corroborate most of the mud-slinging tbh...
meant that it looks worse and the DM has never let hard facts get in the way of some good mudslinging.
passionate leftie condemnation of US/UK unilateral action which leaves itself open to a lot of unfortunate implications. Corbyn does have a lot of this stuff in his locker on account of never building a career aimed at becoming PM one day.
Surprised more hasn't been made out of this and his IRA/Hamas comments during the campaign. I'd have thought Kendall or Cooper would have done more to paint him as a man unfit for international relations or something.
The Srebrenica allegation is awful though (if it's based on the link above), he should sue the pants off them.
but obviously that's the whole point.
Only just clocked that it was only you mentioning Srebrenica. Whoops.
someone I know on facebook got in a mardy the other day because of the amount of parliamentary time he spends on 'football bantz' (once a year he does that thing of using an early day motion to congratulate arsenal, which is presumably a nice little way of keeping sweet with his constituents).
I want to see, "That this House recognises that the football club Tottenham Hotspur are shit, and furthermore they know they are," on the record.
"That this House recognises that the Honourable Members should stand up if they hate Tottenham"
The rest of us aren't so sure.
If Corbyn wins the leadership...would you vote Labour?
Not sure if I'd cancel my membership or not though :/
(Don't tell Geoff)
i'd probs vote green (definitely if there was an election called now)
'This House believes that humans represent the most obscene, perverted, cruel, uncivilised and lethal species ever to inhabit the planet and looks forward to the day when the inevitable asteroid slams into the earth and wipes them out thus giving nature the opportunity to start again.'
less than 24 hours after criticising people for having a pop at Corbyn. Spine like a windsock, that one.
"The Corbyn Surge has opened up a space, but it is ill-prepared for what is to come if its wins. The party is going to have to find a way for the right, centre and left to work together to build a new politics for the 21st century."
the article tries to make a point about how the Corbyn campaign has not addressed european and global agreements on corporate behaviour and climate change.
Might just be me but it seems like none of the candidates actually addressed this, and if anything the incumbent government appear to be more interested in muddying the waters further by talking about renegotiating the terms of Britain's EU membership.
that the article avoids in the first place. First, that voters have been slipping away from labour in droves for years. The softly-softly approach of Ed wasn't working, and if they went any further to the right they'd share the same space as the tories (they already do on many issues). Something had to change either way: and although the author doesn't know what that is, he seems to think it ins't Corbyn for some reason.
Well, actually, it could be. It depends what kind of team emerges around him. Corbyn's already said that he doesn't want his own politics to be the party's only church. The author mentions Paul Mason, and his ideas are not incompatible with Corbyn's policies. Tom Watson has been rumoured to be in a strong position (whether deputy leader or not) and he argues for that same transformative view.
I think the best way to achieve the kind of fundamental change that the article is calling for would, at this point, appear to be a corbyn leadership that had the full backing of the party's right.
people are willing to project soooo much onto Corbyn in the hope he's a panacea for everything that's wrong with labour and the country at large.
Corbyn has said he wants the party to be more inclusive and less top down. You'd have to be pretty cynical not to think that would be better for democratic politics, and it's something he's committed himself to so it's hardly projecting.
Unless you think back to the time hired goons kicked an OAP out of the party conference and reckon that's the way forward.
i'm fully on board with the broad church stuff and I know Corbyn has been vocal on it.
my frustration is that people seem to be using "Jeremy Corbyn" as the answer to all questions and using increasingly convoluted logic to justify it - to the extent where someone told me the other day that Labour shouldn't have a female leader because the right wing press would crucify them for it!
for all the cries of "let's discuss policies not vague positioning" some people are willing to assume an awful lot about Labour under Corbyn.
reading jonny's post again I can see he's not that guilty of this, it was just a reaction.
I agree that a lot of the left are just using him as a "repository of dreams" and reckon it's going to tough for him as a leader of such a massively split opposition party not to let down some sections of the left. And twitter activists aren't known for their patience. Fuck twitter though.
and he benefits from a Farage-y 'not a politician' vibe, but I'd say the bulk of his 'success' is based on people liking his politics rather than liking his hype.
This sounds like a classic 'wake up sheeple' case: you seem to think people are backing him on the assumption that he's going to solve all the issues, and it's pretty insulting and really stupids up the discussion. I know it's going to be a clusterfuck either way.
i just wanted to talk about general direction of the party and the radical task it faced, not really endorsing or ruling out Corbyn, and I perceived you leaping to his defence.
I've also got sand in my crotch about this today!
Whatever the case, at this stage we will be so much better off under Corbyn and shaking off the dead hand of the Blairites, because at the very least he offers the chance to embrace a new kind of politics and an attempt to build a different type of consensus. Again and again he's been called out as a man stuck in the 80s - but he's used Labour's new democratic process to circumvent the political elites, essentially crowd-sourced his manifesto, and presented himself not as a leader but as a figurehead. That the heavyweight who expected to vague her way into power has been completely flummoxed by this, has reacted with personal attacks, by pointing stridently at her past, by doing anything but providing a uniting vision of a positive future, demonstrates who really is old news. Like everyone else who has expressed reasonable concern about Corbyn has said - imagine if Cooper or Burnham inch their way into power via second preferences now. What a victory for cynicism, negativity and dessication that would be. (I wouldn't be utterly gutted by Burnham too much.)
That he will face massive pressure and attacks from all sides once he's in, and needs to deal with this *whilst* using the energy and excitement his campaign has generated to pump life into the grass roots of an organisation that is crying out for it is true, and I don't know if he is capable of coping with it. He needs to get the right wing of the party which is currently doing its nut on side and he needs to prove that a lifetime rebel can exercise the pragmatism he's talked about to bring stability.
Ultimately, I believe if Labour are to win in 2020, he will probably have to stand down and let someone younger who doesn't have so many easy targets in his past take the reigns in the final stretch. A lot will also depend on the Tories - so many possible deadfalls that they need to navigate their way around in the next five years, and they need to underestimate and attack Corbyn along the exact same lines his own party have.
this must be his plan if he was to win, right? I just don't believe he wants to be Prime Minister.
so they would be wise to wait to see how that turns out in any case.
He'll use his age. It'll be a way for the right of the party to bury the hatchet and decouple all the terrible WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE stuff they've been coming out with the last few weeks, which the Conservatives will otherwise use with glee. Some of the left will see it as a betrayal, but as long as the party remains committed to the agenda and appealing to people sick to death of the old ways, most will take it.
I mean really a guy who never wanted to be leader and sees himself more as a conduit is exactly who you want to lead the country, but we don't live in an ideal world.
largely undermine any progress he may have made in turning the good ship labour around. all sounds a bit chelsea managers to me. #rafaloution
if on the other hand he got absolutely trounced in next year's local elections then standing down might be a bit more #fuckoffyoucompletefailurelution.
that's the worry: then we'd end up looking back on that one year of madness as a final nail in the coffin for anything resembling the left. Or in any case, the papers would paint it that way.
Personally I think (if he wins and the cunts don't do an SDP 2.0) he'd storm the local elections. If he scores a few minor victories and ushers himself out, having 'changed' the Labour Party, it could be great for politics.
we saw with the expenses scandal how hard it is to shake MPs out of their own little world and actually pay attention to the people who prop them up so *smiling poo emoji*
I imagine he's got a fresh spin on things that nobody really considered before and makes a clear case for Burnham or Cooper, rather than, let's say, 4,000 words about what an awful bumhead the member for Islington North is.
Given that public/media discourse around economic stuff is basically wilfully ignorant and carried out in bad faith, it just means...oh never mind
Jesus this is getting desperate. I don't even think particularly think Corbyn will be able to win unless events conspire to mean in five years time the country is in as much of a mess as we think it'll be, plus he somehow manages to ride out the media hatred storm AND tries to appeal to UKIPs and libertarian Tory types simultaneously (I still think he should just campaign a on voting and housing reform platform - with UKIP, Green and the Liberals) but in what universe do they believe that after losing TWO elections with stronger (than the other current Labour candidates) centre-left leaders they should just do that again after the biggest membership/supporter surge in decades.
Not sure how they reck that, given the membership surge and the bitter mudslinging and browbeating they've indulged in these last couple of weeks. They may have an easier time holding the immediate party together but they'll have a job on convincing anyone outside Westminster they aren't a sack of shit.
andy burnham has beautiful eyes?
the Independent doesn't think they should be
They're basically suggesting that Labour should start courting the votes of die-hard Tories who would vote for a hamster wearing a blue rosette, even if Labour were running on a Thatcherite manifesto, of Lib Dems who spent the last parliament parroting the lines that they would be rewarded for their maturity and Labour caused the crash or of UKIPers who are simply anti-Westminster politics.
The London-centric criticism is fine, but if Labour go off chasing the votes of people who are never going to vote Labour then they're going to be in serious trouble come 2020.
are pretending they care about the Green party now.
what's he gonna say!!!?
going to Traf Sq to watch it on the big screen
it's how to win a General Election.
Former UK PM Gordon Brown says Labour Party needs to be credible and electable to achieve "high ideals", according to the beeb.
Pah. Credible, schedible. I wanna see something INCREDIBLE!
Snowmail says "It was more a magisterial review of the history of the Labour Party than a tub-thumping leadership election speech, but Gordon Brown's message was pretty clear. In amongst his recollections of his meetings with Nelson Mandela and his reflections on the lessons of the experiences of Keir Hardie, Nye Bevan and Neil Kinnock, the former prime minister was telling those who have a vote in this month's poll: "Don't vote for Jeremy Corbyn". He didn't mention the left-winger by name, but he did say that the "group" which currently is most likely to win the most votes is also the one that is least likely to be able to form a government."
Man's a conflicted coward bullyboy.
Meanwhile, Deputy Dug has been given the nod to take on the sheriff's job (the sixth leader of Labour in Scotland in eight years! I wonder who'll win next year's leadership contest?! Arf!).
She's quoted as claiming “We are changing. I am part of a new generation. Someone without the baggage of the past”. She might be young-ish, but not especially so - only 12 yrs younger than Sturgeon, 4 yrs younger than Davidson. So not quite a new generation. Although if four years IS a generation, then perhaps the once in a generation indyref will be due a review sooner than we think. All told, though, she's way out of her depth. Not a patch on Mhairi Black (born 13 years later, in '94, with - that's the real new generation stuff). Kez is also a proven habitual liar, so not such a clean break after all. But the relatively proportional Holyrood system will ensure that the worst of her failings can be glossed over after next years Scottish election, and (contrary to the annual leadership contest vote above) she'll probably settle into the job and up her game over the coming years (though I'm not sure she'll ever be much use to Corbyn in terms of working towards the overall rehabilitation of the party).
And, I guess it's a positive thing to see that the four main parties up here led by three women and a gay guy.
In other news, Scot Goes Pop points out that,
"There's a new poll today that turns conventional wisdom on its head by suggesting that Corbyn is now the most popular of the Labour leadership candidates among the general public. He's even practically drawn level with Andy Burnham on the question of who would make the best Prime Minister.
If it's true, as the Guardian are reporting, that Corbyn's opponents have cast doubt on the findings by suggesting that opponents of Labour may have deliberately lied to skew the results, then they really are losing the plot. It's one thing to think that supporters of other parties may be trying to infiltrate the election itself, but to imagine that random respondents to a Survation poll are plotting Labour's downfall is utterly paranoid."
And that's the 6 o'clock Labour roundup. We do hope you can join us again for our 10 o'clock update. But now: the weather.
bit this Zoe Williams' article is very good http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/16/jeremy-corbyn-corbynomics-cosy-consensus-debt-radical-fear
"yes we need to help disabled people but we also need to help ordinary people". Fuck me, she's not even a good sound bit politician.
"We are not the party of people on benefits. We don’t want to be seen, and we're not, the party to represent those who are out of work." - Rachel Reeves, the Labour Shadow Work and Pensions Minister in March 2015
"Take me out? No, Jeremy liked a night in eating cold beans with his cat called Harold Wilson, Corbyn's first wife reveals."
Lord Mandelson, one of the architects of “new” Labour, privately appealed last week to the Kendall, Cooper and Burnham camps to quit the contest before ballot papers were sent out, according to sources.
One said: “Lord Mandelson and other Blairites were saying – this is a disgrace, let’s get this thing pulled. But it was not going to happen.”
The peer is understood to have believed that the party might suspend the contest if there was only one candidate, but he had to back down when officials said it would mean Mr Corbyn won.
`The Big 5` of New Labour have all shown their hands now. Let's take a look at how they've all done.
Probably done the most to galvanise support for Jeremy Corbyn. Not just for having the acute lack of self-awareness to realise that remaining silent was the best thing for him to do; he went and slagged everyone off in the process. Dreadfully poor form from the old goat. 3/10.
Very Gordon Brown like - his speech yesterday was clear, sensible, erudite and... weird. What he said was all perfectly reasonable, but no Corbynite will actually listen to it. 6/10
Still chugging away in the Labour engine room - had a good election campaign and his `essay` warning against Corbyn was also pretty sensible. Didn't see what the problem was with it myself, but it upset a few people on here. Got a bit snipey, but that's Alastair Campbell lads. 6/10
Has been woefully out of form since the aftermath of the 2010 election. Seems to have gone a bit mental. 2/10.
Told everyone to stop shitting themselves about the Corbynator. Gave all of the above a shot in the arm about why Corbyn might actually be popular. Actually tried to understand, not deride, the Corbyn phenomenon. 8/10.
Mixed bag with ol' 2 Jags coming out top. Funny old world.
only Prescott has managed to talk sense. That's John Prescott...talking sense.
Still a month to go, we must be due some more rare interventions in frontline politics. Ed Miliband? Maybe? He must be laughing his arse off.
`It is mad that of all the New Labour big hitters only Prescott has managed to say something that I agree with`
There we go.
It was confirmed JUST NOW that Miliband won't be intervening. Probably wise. Be interesting to know what he thinks though - I imagine he's actually enjoying it seeing as his pitch was a rejection of New Labour too.
Regardless of which side of the debate you're on, Prescott is the only one who tried to drive the debate back to policies and warned against the flailing, counter-productive scaremongering that have come from the other idiots.
Doesn't mean Campbell and Brown's banter doesn't contain `sense` mind.
But when it's mixed up with sensationalism and deliberately misleading half-truths it's hardly 'sense'.
`Sensationalist` - sure.
Guess we'll see in a few years to see if the New Labour lot have spoken sense in essence mind...
of booming angry voices reminded me of.
Then I remembered it was this: https://youtu.be/XxV1dIRlmOU?t=33m11s
Or is it a new thing that could happen? Sounds pretty cool.
is it time for a new thread on this now?
this is so weird to watch
Nice to find out Corbyn is planning an alliance with Russia though.
because that's pretty obviously his weakest point. Don't think anybody's told him about that wall falling over, for instance.
while giving their big speeches. This one especially:
Is that what happens when someone tries to focus-group some humanity into you?
Must be part of the induction schedule.
with his thumb pointing up thing.
It makes him look like he's had to undergo anger management therapy.
falafel and hummous are in my wrap today
And a dunkin doughnut courtesey of Ahmed who's brought some in for his birthday.
NOT MANY TO GO NOW!
(It's okay, he's 'left politics' so this is just his totally disinterested hot take)
over the past couple of months and thinking that Kendall offered clarity, and Corbyn nothing but anger.
I mean, how tone deaf would you have to be?
distance lends him some clarity and perspective.
Surprised that experienced folk can still look at her campaign and think that she's cut out for the job. Doesn't doesn't seem up to it (not to say she won't in future mind).
but I think she's done better than Burnham or Cooper. Burnham flaps back and forth seemingly every day, and Cooper seems to be trying to win by (with one exception) pretending she's not actually running. Kendall has been consistent and mildly less robotic than the other two. Future leader of SDP 2.0, nailed on.
but... every time I've seen her subsequently she just doesn't convince. Bit of an odd one. But then again she's very inexperienced politically so...
Can't be denied that Corbyn's run the best campaign. The other three have been varying shades of ineffective to useless.
I haven't agreed with much of what she's been saying but she's been saying it rather well and with impressive poise and conviction in the face of the hostility she's received.
"I like American things now, so I have some perspective on these questions."
why does he characterise Syriza/Podemos as an empty movement of defiance?
Also, er, Syriza won power.
references Syriza with regards to anything re: the UK electorate/political landscape.
Different party/movement rising out of an ENTIRELY different set of social/economic circumstances. In a different country.
Corbyn's modelling his anti-austerity, protest-not-power movement on them!
Could be wrong mind.
than a deliberately misleading one.
Imagine if this cunt got anywhere near power, jfc.
didn't realise he was such a massive bellend
It's your uncle David Miliband here. I hear that you performed very well in the school play this year; however, I live and work in the US now, which gives me some clarity and perspective on these matters, so here are some pointers...
I bet Mandelson is behind this.
and also my uncle Jeff (no link)
Labour though, who cares?