Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
46 minutes to go
corb WIN more like
12:15 Osborne announces mega socialism to outflank Corbyn
17:35 Lucien returns
*corbyn removes his mask to reveal he has been lucien the whole time
runs wild on you brother?
Not opened any of the threads on him before this one so no idea of the consensus, but I don't really get the fuss. We are so far from a general election that it is the ideal time to try someone a bit different that has many if the qualities people want from a politician, if closer to the election labour are failing on the polls then get rid of him then. I know labour tend to stick with no hopers until the end but given so many have been openly critical I don't think that will be the case this time. Worth a shot.
guardian have fucked it
and it's women only
not even close
note in history.
is that it's difficult to know whether they're genuinely serious or a wry parody.
Tom Watson delivered the longest suicide in history only a few minutes ago.
Guess this is the high point. It only gets shitter from here on in.
That's Jordannumbers' vote in the bag.
not really familiar with it tbh.
2/7 Tory win on Bet365
Didn't waste any time did he!
I'm impressed at your diligence there though. How did you set about making sure you'd get the scoop on the first one to jump ship?
I don't think I've seen a Labour politician try to get some reflected glory from Indian independence in my lifetime. Top marks Jamie!
Given it was pre-written you'd have though he could have put a bit more effort into drafting something that actually made sense.
About time a grey haired man with a beard was back in power. Good luck to him.
get someone representing what the Labour Party should be about for a few years before they replace him with some weird, never had a proper job, media trained pseudo Tory
"we offered the voter egg and chips, and they emphatically said no. So now, we're offering them double egg and chips"
And then start a pity fight with you if nobody's still bothered
plus that quote isn't mine btw
I think him and milliband are worlds apart. Milliband seemed to be just left enough to distance himself from the unpopular Blair/Brown, but then after that was basically nothing, he did that annoying politician thing of pretending people who are plain wrong had valid concerns and never really challenged anything, probably thought he could coast in by anti Tory backlash default.
our economy’s security and your family’s security
That must be a real fucking kick in the teeth, feel sorry for her.
she took it pretty well
after the the announcer dude had asked everyone to sit down and after telling the media to get back in their box.
Jumping before he's pushed, innit. And we all knew he was a Tory anyway.
"I'm throwing my toys out of the pram."
If he and Emma Reynolds really want to let Corbyn build his own team, make yourself available, don't limit his options because you're throwing a hissy fit about not getting your own way.
Provide a vital fifth column of support.
"at least 200,000 easily" apparently. how the fuck can they know?
Take the Police/BBC* announcement and treble that number.
Or, if you're Nick Robinson, and you're publicising your book a year after the event that your bullshit provoked, take that number and treble it (and throw in some crap about 'Putin's Russia' and 'bullying').
*Do you love Police/BBC underestimates via establishment/mainstream media more or less than when people on marches tweet/Facebook about it?
correction: */quadruple/ it if you're the N-Rob
"Left the march 2 head back 2 the train station. Walking past the marchers and still they come. This could be half a million"
all these blairites resigning en masse :'''''''''''''''''')
In case you were wondering, "R" is the letter that doesn't make the cut.
B-N sons like 'byn' anyway
Standing on a chair, he addressed the crowd as chants of “USA! USA! USA!” could bizarrely be heard in the background.
But the “Though cowards flinch and TRAITORS sneer/We’ll keep the Red Flag flying here” line has removed me of the #clypegate nonsense back in June when Scottish Labour put together their "cybernat dossier". Which turned out to be a laughable Word doc of screen grabs of random using the word TRAITOR on twitter.
For balance, SNP conferences end with a rendition of Scots Wha Hae, written by Burns, which has a line referring to “a traitor knave”.
Conclusions: party conferences are cringey and newspapers are shit.
What is absolutely fucking fascinating is the almost-liberatian concept of being able to opt out of funding military if you're a pacifist/opting out of funding education if you have no kids. Because that might seem fucking insanity to a lot of people, but it's the first time a red Labour leader has been thoughtful about placating the middle class voter who cares more about the bottom line than anything else. He might actually have a shot of winning them over, which would force the Tory government to reappraise their current austerity measures.
Something got lined up as being fascinating, which it obviously wasn't going to be. And then the phrase "almost-liberatian concept" got used, confirming that we're in for something that's anything but fascinating. And that's just the first line!
The most I'm managing to decipher about your opinion on Corbyn is that it seems to be in the vague region of 'thinly-veiled watered-down GeOff'.
I like Corbyn. The policy mentioned *is* libertarian in nature which is quite a surprise. I think it will win over middle classes who might assume they will hate his policies and i think it will force the Tories' hand a bit.
Do you want a chat or do you want to keep on being a snide cunt with sub-Brooker commentary on what i'm writing? Pick.
"thinly-veiled watered-down GeOff" v "snide snot-bubble-blowing cunt with sub-Brooker commentary"
Who said DiS was dying?
OK. Let's chat. Firstly, you haven't really written anything. You've c+p'd something without context or opinion. That aside, let's chat, brosef...
Being able to opt out of funding military if you're a pacifist? Opting out of funding education if you have no kids?
Has he genuinely proposed these? Outright? For real? Cos JFC, JC, if so.
The first one is hatstand nonsense. The second one is an idiot UKIP-style policy for the hard of thinking.
You'd need to be a total benny to think either were worth more consideration than a wet brainfart.
Even though that's the case, neither would placate middle-class bottom-liners or force the Tory government to reappraise a single one of their current austerity measures.
That explains the meltdown.
*How were we to know?
(don't you pretend to be Scottish? Cunt is hardly a terrifying word) is in reaction to you taking a patronising tone. I'm not going to pretend it's okay, coz it isn't.
And your attempts to personalise this are unfathomable.
As I've pointed out below, I didn't even know the words in your 15:33 post were your words, for FFS sake.
Look, if you think being called a thinly-veiled watered-down GeOff is so bad, then I'm sorry. For what it's worth, it wasn't even intended as an insult, as such - just a measure on a scale. GeOff's a great bunch o' lad, but his now trademark "I like Corbyn but [insert something about 'appealing to Tories, but I'm not a Tory' here]" refrain has been echoed by you with great aplomb. Take it as a compliment!
"Something got lined up as being fascinating, which it obviously wasn't going to be. And then the phrase "almost-liberatian concept" got used, confirming that we're in for something that's anything but fascinating. And that's just the first line!"
If there's a way other than belittling of reading that i'm missing it. And you're right, i'm getting personal, and that's not on, and i apologise. I just hadn't expected that kind of response to what was voicing some genuine interest in someone who is - and he really is - fascinating
You'd expect him to know/appreciate what a public good is.
it's why the press is having an aneurysm - they haven't figured out which front to attack him on because they don't know what the public wants of him
That article really is a shared Facebook picture 'if you don't agree with this then you are this' false dichotomy of an article. Who exactly is she criticising here, corbyn for not standing aside? Whats the implication of that, that no man could stand against a women in an election if they don't want to silence women voices. Or is she criticising the labour membership for not voting for one of the women candidates? Even though they have done a pretty good job at electing women as half of their MPs.
If he announces a shadow cabinet where women are underrepresented then sure give him a deserved kicking, but for winning himself, for a man announcing the result (would that have even been anything to do with him). It is just a ridiculously flimsy argument
i wanted to watch it live and pretend it was a football match
and in response to above - you were being a dick, and you know it too. And checking sources now but almost definite I saw that was his own camp being serious about him pushing that measure
It would certainly be democratic though Wza, or do people not know what's good for them?
"It would certainly be democratic though"
not sad about it. You're better than that.
Update on source: he proposed it aaaages ago and it's been dredged up. I thought it was too libertarian to fit that rhetoric hence the surprise.
But allowing people to spend their money only on what they use and endorse... How is undemocratic?
So he's not as intriguing as I thought. And now he has Murphy on board. Quantitive easing for people :D imagine. Murphy is hugely ridiculed across the board in economics.
Despite it all I like Corbyn but that choice was just fucking silly if he wants a chance of winning
if you are, where do you stand with his earlier pushing of hatstand hard of thinking ideas, as you put it?
That is first class LOLworthy
are you saying that people aren't capable of making decisions that benefit for those other than themselves or...?
and wouldn't back that idea in a million years but a) it made him more interesting and b) there's a pretty solid argument for it being a raw democracy)
would spell the end of functioning government in about two weeks. Terrible, terrible idea.
but is it undemocratic? That's what made me muse.
And btw I know you're up on your economics along with others here so what's your Murphy stance? I genuinely am baffled with what good can come from him being appointed as an adviser; surely people will leg it
I'm genuinely unsure as to which bit of it isn't democratic.
How exactly is anyone's individual tax contribution directly linked to any specific expenditure? The view that 'I don't want my tax money spent on...' is an erroneous complaint.
which obviously would mean a massive transformation of how it all worked. But if you follow that through?
when did i say it did? I'm asking you why, specifically the idea is undemocratic. And you're not answering me at all.
Rather I am saying that it is not more democratic because the 'problem' it fixes is only imaginary.
you should go into politics.
The nature of the idea is democratic, then. Yes. Like I said and you said it wasn't. I think it's a *fucking mad idea* but i also wondered whether that line of thinking would prick up the ears of the selfish among the middle classes.
You said it was more like raw democracy, suggesting greater democracy. The difference would only be the illusion of greater democracy, nothing would really have changed except that it would be a more convoluted system for achieving the same objectives.
sorry. that's me not being explanatory
"the selfish among the middle classes" is that they're not just miserly (in terms of their commitment to paying for shared services rather than coughing up for skiing holidays and nice cars), they're also scared and full of FUD. They also tend to get a lob on for things like The Flag, Queen & country, and 'going over there and sorting things out', and whatnot. So the idea of a bunch of hippies undermining 'our position in the world' by flaking out on paying for 'our boys over there' is gonna be a big turn-off to 'em.
I think I underestimate that jingoism tbf
disagree with (no matter what creaky says). If anything it's the opposite of that, abiding by the consensus even when you disagree.
And I think I nearly have what I want to mean in my head, but yes, i recognise that that's the accepted application of current forms of democracy in Westminster and elsewhere. Anyways. Murphy?
I think you're equating this mad kind of choose-your-policy-through-taxation concept with direct democracy, but that's not really how tax or spending does or ever could work.
which suggests he's not so hot on economy no?
he's definitely not pushing it now, but did waaaaay back (although he was still over 40 when he did)
During a House of Commons debate in 1999, the Islington North MP proposed letting people opt out of giving tax revenue to the Army
“What policy is adopted by his Department in respect of taxpayers who do not wish to pay certain elements of taxation on grounds of conscience,” he asked Treasury ministers on June 24.
Mr Corby continued: “British taxpayers have a right of conscience not to participate in the armed forces in time of conscription and should have a similar right in time of peace to ensure that part of their tax goes to peace, not war.”
What's not clear is whether he was talking on an individual or public vote basis. The latter would be a lot less mental
I am genuinely trying to understand...........so...in the US which is a democracy, there was a call to send young men to fight in Vietnam.....was it undemocratic of Cassius Clay (Later Mohamed Ali) to refuse to go and kill people on the other side of the world? ...I'm sure that you don't think that really, but please help me see how this squares up with the idea of it being ok to do things that you disagree with.....I may put things in a way that annoys you, but please explain how to get past this sort of dilemma.
but I kind of would like to get some more understanding on this point so I going to have to force the issue by responding...."but what about when a democracy DOES conscription? I seems to me that you statement upthread that its democratic to go along with things that you disagree with.....so from that (in this instance) it would seem like you could be suggesting its a democratic duty to allow yourself to be conscripted if it is ordered by a democratic country.........look umlaut, I know I'm being awkward, but please humour me, even if I'm not trying to be annoying, this dilemma presents itself to me....it may be a tricky one, but don't get angry at me because I am posing a difficult one to you......I pose it to myself and I don't know how to answer all the questions/dilemmas I have.....hence I sometimes take a difficult anti stance.....like saying democracy isn't always right, and I'm posing you something here so that you can answer my dilemma
But we live with most of those decisions as part of the deal and then when things are awful enough - like the Poll Tax or Vietnam - people object in an immediate way (as opposed to accountability at the next election). They have to deal with the consequences of that objection and, sadly, most of the time the only compensation they get is that history has proven them right.
I think you think I'm saying democracies produce perfect moral decisions. They don't, but it's still probably the least worst form of government we have.
you were saying that we should go along with them even if we thought they were wrong (although I didn't think you would agree with Vietnam...but I was wondering how that squared with the other thing.....that we should go along with them even when we disagree.
I agree that democracies can be the least worst form of gov, but they can degenerate to be awful things if you rely too much on saying that imo, and I still have a problem with doing things that you think/know are wrong, even if the majority go along with it. The majority can be wrong
And we're talking about the most extreme examples. There's a thousand small decisions which might be "wrong" or we disagree with, but within the rules of the game we go along with them because that's how it works and things get done, for better or worse, especially in a representative democracy.
I have a filter that flashes a warning to me "within the rules of the game" .....I am prevented from taking that in as I ask (myself first....and then you) '\what rules?' and 'what game?'..........and there is another thing I have problems with......as you say there are a thousand small decisions, which may only be selfishly relevant to your advantage/disadvantage, but when do these become issues that one can deem as necessary to be disobedient over? does one just save up ones frustration and do one BIG protest? surely it is the little things (death by a thousand cuts) the little unselfish liberties that authority takes away from the people, that emboldens an authority to do worse things (or to have a less human attitude to the people who it be helping rather than ruling)
but I don't seem to be able to understand some aspects of democracy, I don't think......I accept I'm clumsy and annoying, but I do think that if I could express myself better, there are genuine questions that could do with answering (or drawbacks/weaknesses that need to be articulated/understood/acknowledged/mitigated-against about democracy)
our social history, then maybe people would feel more altruistic, but we are on the shoulders of some of the most (individually....as opposed to class) selfish recent history and we are also at a time of great cutbacks and personal uncertainty about financial future.........we have had the lessons from authority that people who believed in the idea of society or a job for life were blinkered and foolish, that instead we should all have been individually making provision for our own retirement and healthcare and now, making provision for our childrens education (so why do we pay taxes again? ......we forget, it seems)
I responded to the words you posted, without getting personal. I didn't even know they were your words, for FFS sake. You're the one tossing out personal insults. Get a grip.
"allowing people to spend their money only on what they use and endorse... How is [sic] undemocratic?"
^That's basically the essence of being a Tory, right there, in a single sentence.
You can't be serious here, surely?
(And if this is genuinely a JC stance, then woah! But bearing in mind the reporting about WIMMINS TRAYNZ, some evidence would be nice.)
I've developed no particular opinion on this economic advisor chap, but being "ridiculed across the board in economics[sic]" is pretty standard fare for economists. All economists are seemingly both 'widely discredited' and 'highly respected', depending on who's commenting.
you'll get back what you give, just live with that or don't start that way in the first place bud.
I'm certainly in no illusion that the concept would actually work in even the slightest way possible. But in terms of it being pure democracy... it is, isn't it? Why isn't it?
I'm just flummoxed by how oddly touchy you're being.
Haven't you got a fiancée you could hug it out with and make it all better? Perhaps give that a shot.
You should have mentioned it!
::runs to corner flag::
::grabs club crest on shirt::
::trots back to half way line::
The easiest of easy goals, but they all count.
were discussing the terms
"allowing people to spend (the net of) their (fairly and equitably earnt) money only on what they use and endorse (believe is right)... How is [sic] undemocratic?"
Im sure if i tried to explain that it would probably offend someone. my son just asked me what spices i put in my curry and i said 'its not curry its chilli' and both my son and mrs knees have accused me of being/acting weird, even though it is chilli, not curry :|
i'm liking a man that once recommended that we all read 'the road to serfdom' claiming that richard murphy isn't well-respected amongst economists
(btw - are these the same economists that failed to predict the 2008 crisis?)
did you ever give it a read?
don't need to read a long shitty book to grasp the basic argument and understand why it is false
anyway i was more trying to point out that just because someone isn't favoured by the mainstream of (false, neo-classically trained) economics doesn't mean in principle that you should ignore it
I just haven't read other prominent economists supporting him, even from the left, and of course he's villified on the right, which is silly but... his ideas aren't going to win and Corbyn has very little economic nous so will feed off Murphy?
idk the 'corbynomics' programme had support from a bunch of different people, though obviously mostly left-wing economists. it's hardly radical heterodox policy anyway
not really fair to use that as an argument against him seeing as he is opposing a government whose policies are widely denounced as being based upon a key stage 1 level of economic thought (and are failing)
and Murphy's ideas?
You'll not find too many credible, independent economists backing austerity these days.
absolutely chuffed. gonna start watching pmq's for the first time ever this week.
Hes delivered the beeves in this thread. And for that alone I am grateful.
will Lord Politics have to step down?
the fuck happened to this thread
Fuck the middle classes and FUCK Y'all
*cant remember who bundle was created by
It's pretty clear that you can't challenge corbyn's economic policy without people being appalled. Despite the fact that this is where he lacks and will lose votes on. Probably just best to imagine it away though
We look to have a credible forward-thinking opposition party. Unfortunately, I believe that significant amounts of the electorate are ill-educated, ill-informed and/or scared witless by 30-40 years of shrinking of social equality, declining standards of education and healthcare, and fear-driven, rabid media journalism.
The perception has been through New Labour's time onwards that you have to play to base insecurities in the middle class and the last election saw that ever the more so. The trend through polling afterwards was that Miliband did not look prime ministerial and the Labour party did not appear a safe pair of hands economically.
Corbyn will be attacked on those same two points. I think his best bet is unpredictability and populism. On the one hand, scream out populist policies like railway re-nationalisation. On the other hand, look for radical solutions to perennial problems- let's go for a mass social housing construction programme focusing on cheap housing units for people on lower-incomes, rather than any half-baked wishy-washy bullshit. They'll go for him on immigration- punch back with a clear plan of state aid to benefit local communities that are chosen as havens for larger numbers of refugees, so that local authorities and citizens there benefit too.
If there can be one clear established policy that appeals to each of a range of different voter types- commuters, people living in areas of high unemployment, middle class who aspire to own a home, etc.. there is a platform for a mobilised support come election time.
Additionally - unpredictability - there need to be some thought-through moments to bamboozle the enemy/ show he is not a pussycat. For example, it's considered the done thing that a leader has to be calm and firm, but what is wrong with getting angry every now and again. Jeesus, the Conservatives make me angry! Also, some criticism of New Labour will be necessary- apologising for the Iraq war, continued de-regulation of the financial sector, lack of housing policy. To be upfront and say New Labour made a few good achievements but let people down seriously in other ways- that can have a massive effect on things.
To publicly 'own up' to the fact that over the last 30 years or so governments of both colours have deliberately manipulated statistics about unemployment by subterfuge and policy designed to create the impression that it is much lower than it is.
We have had an employment crisis for decades, and it needs to be grappled with head-on.
is the one saying crazy shit in this thread?
There's a real danger of him sticking his head in the sand about that as much as some on the Left have been doing recently. After all, 200,000 odd people appeared out of nowhere to vote for him, so why couldn't that happen on a larger scale five years on?
Unless things go catastrophically (they could) he will win a larger number of votes than Miliband, but that's exactly the kind of useless moral victory the Left has been comforting itself with for decades. He needs to be able to tell a middle-aged couple in Winchester, who don't pay much attention to politics but want to get on in life and are worried by all those pictures of people climbing fences, how he's going to put more money in their pocket, make the streets safer and make life better for their kids. Appeals to social justice aren't going to do that.
"how he's going to put more money in their pocket, make the streets safer and make life better for their kids" one could either lie about that to make a sale, or one could be truthful to manage expectations.....the problem is there is always another less truthful salesman as an option for the punter
except that he'll get more votes than Miliband. the press will position him as an absolute lunatic, take everything he says wildly out of context, and they'll go all out with conflating Communism and socialism. not sure the votes they'll gain from Greens, disaffected voters and Kippers who just want the railways renationalised will outweigh those lost through press/oppo fearmongering, both of which will be far more stifling than they were for Miliband.
Miliband's attempt to win Tory voters over failed miserably, you can't lose swing voters you didn't have in the first place. Meanwhile he can count on a swell of Scots, Greens, a few Kippers and Lib Dems, disaffected voters and a large number of people who will be sick and tired of the Tories by 2020/balk at the idea of looking at George Osborne's face for another five years. That, on its own, won't be enough.
If the last six months have shown anything it's that the traditional press can't predict anything and have a dwindling influence on the electorate. They screamed at people not to vote Corbyn and if anything that had the opposite effect. If he can continue to circumvent the establishment's voice-boxes by using the impetus he's already built at grass roots level, and his own party stop trying to stab him in the back (fat chance), he's got a better chance than anyone in the halls of power are giving him.
and maintains his dignified response to absurd levels and lines of attack from all angles, as he's done in this campaign, then i think the media might have to think about a change of tack.
the level of disdain for westminster politics is high across the board and that's something that absolutely works in his favour. if he can form up a strong shadow cabinet that represents the breadth of the labour party but is also able to present a reasoned and unified front then i think the tories will have to up their game considerably. that's a big if but i think corbyn and his team are smarter than people give them credit for.
think it's really vital to take the foundational aspects of corbyn's policies and on that base build a wide-ranging, balanced and ambitious set of policies to which people across the country can relate. in spite of what's being written about him, he's not some lunatic, nor is he on the extreme left.
it's about swing voters that might consider voting for him, who will more likely than not be put off by the intensity of rhetoric against him from all sides.
I really hope you are right, but I'm not getting my hopes up :/
might get pissed off by being treated like their morons after 5 years of hyperbolic tory and media messaging, it's transparent enough after 24 hours ffs.
obviously not everyone who voted Labour this year will vote for them in 2020. Corbyn will definitely cause some New Labourists to defect (will be interesting to see how many) and drive some of the anti-immigration folk to UKIP. it is possible he'll get more votes than Miliband, but I wouldn't think it probable - especially as many people have bad memories of the unions/lefty Labour etc in the late 70s and early 80s.
the press haven't affected the outcome of the Labour leadership election, but it's vastly biased against Labour generally (11/14 of the daily papers supported the Tories/coalition to win the election, right?), so why would definite Labour voters listen to the press? I think it had a much more potent effect on the general election - not in the direct run-up to it, but in the 5 years in which they created a received wisdom for uncertain voters that Miliband was not fit to run the country because he was a hapless, incompetent Wallace-lookalike. they will be far fiercer to Corbyn.
they just focused on upgrading the stock they already had, which was in a terrible condition after years of Tory mismanagement, underfunding and neglect.
was already at desperately low levels for needs at the time, let alone for future projections.
Blair's government needed to embark on substantial social housing construction and measures to cool the private market/inflation in house and rent prices. They were AWOL. Consequently now, we are where we are...
more the belief that sufficient affordable housing could be delivered via planning concessions and third-party organisations, which only works in a marketplace where prices are rising. Also that using a booming economy to pay for social welfare programmes would negate some of the need for affordable housing in the first place.
In retrospect this all seems incredibly naive, of course. In particular, pegging affordable housing provision to market housing construction is problematic when that same market suffers a dramatic collapse. To their credit they they did put some money in to both fund new delivery post-2008, but it was too little, too late.
What's probably also worth mentioning is their use of regional development agencies and mandated housing target numbers - whilst unpopular at the local level, they provided an effective scapegoat for local officials. The scrapping of those by the Coalition has left nobody remote to blame unpopular planning consents on, which has gone probably as far towards fucking housing delivery numbers as the terrible economy.
our economic security and your family's security.
Apparently ^that's a Cameron quote someone just shared from his facebook page. That can't be genuine can it?
At least, it was yesterday afternoon. Wouldn't entirely surprise me if it was some kind of agreed line they were all parroting out.
tweeting it word for word yesterday. Cameron (or at least, his twitter acount) did it this morning.
Two things: 1. if an opposition party is a threat to security then the government must be putting the country at grave risk, and 2. notice how the Tories have made the distinction between 'our(their)' economic security and 'your(our)' family security...
This government showed only a few days ago that they were willing to assassinate British citizens whom they deemed a threat to national security.
See upthread: http://drownedinsound.com/community/boards/social/4467117#r8703163
why are people discussing the election in five years time already?
you're all trotting out the same lines as you were last month about how he'd need to reach out and convince the middle england vote in order to win (the leadership election)
which he didn't do
has something like "POLL: Labour will lost the next TWO elections" on the front :'D
says soooo much to me that the people trying to do this aren't discussing, for example, the material effects of the current government's policies but treating 'new labour' people and 'hard left' people and 'ukip voters' as timeless categories
ukip won't even exist at the next election because the eu referendum is happening before then, drongos
that they could help appoint a labour leader who would be too left wing to appeal to enough of the centrist right English majority to have any hope of winning an election (the last thing the tories would want to be up against would be another blair).
Anyway, I wasn't really following this, do any of you think there is any truth in it?
In the end though Corbyn got something just north of 80% of the "registered supporter" votes, which would support that argument. However he also got nearly half of the full member votes, which pretty much blows the argument out of the water. On a febrile day for the Labour Party that at least was unambiguously good news, since it means there is no quibbling to be had whatsoever about his legitimacy as leader.
if you look at the figures he would've won without the supporter votes.
Don't forget that this was also after only one round of voting.
Do they reveal what the second preferences were?
well represented by this guy:
It seems like a group of people who've come to believe their collective wisdom on politics is now total and their understanding of the electorate is now nearly perfect and permanently established. Look how stupid he considers people who aren't behaving how he expects them to. He considers himself a grown up.
Funny that he sees Corbyn and his supporters as separate from real people and living in a bubble. This guy is basically John Travolta in 'The Boy in the Plastic Bubble' (and, to a lesser extent, whoever played the same role in the remake) while today Corbyn attended a Mental Health fun day instead of cancelling it so he could appear on the Andrew Marr show.
I stand by the rest
Particularly loving the irony in this bit:
"Purges and de-selections of the politically impure are not an exaggeration: they are a likelihood."
Priti Patel reading off a script and not realising how ridiculous it makes her party sound.
that someone so obviously dim is repeatedly elected to office:
how the fuck have people like that risen that far up? it's true on both sides too, some of the labour establishment's horses are equally shit with this.
Her first Question Time appearance was quite enlightening. On the one hand, it was nice to see a politician on there talking with conviction about something they believed in. On the other hand, it probably shouldn't have been a "rising star" saying they're in favour of the death penalty as a deterrent even though it means killing people who later are found to have unsafe convictions..
Genuinely optimistic about this guy, I started off quite negative and thought even though his ideas have a lot if support amongst the general public that was totally irrelevant as it all comes down to the fickle people in marginal seats who are bound to be more center ground. But now I think he may have a chance as across the board people are sick of the typical type of politician that he is clearly not, he might be able to draw people from all areas and engage non voters. I supported the lib dems to the bitter end (their new leader is a joke) and hated labour but now am thinking about joining, I'm sure I'm not alone in being persuaded.
Don't get what these labour MPs that are still against him are doing, if you are against the will of your membership then you are in the wrong party, new labour seemed like such a weird situation of an elite that felt they knew better than their supporters
Pre lib dem apocalypse pretty marginal, why?
to people who are mocked across the board(s) ha ha only joking
Y'all should've known you could not better the raw beautiful truth of "fuck off you beige cunt"
Must be true, look at the source:
their weapons are powerless against him
His choice of Shadow Chancellor is a strong bold move that needs to be supported.
You won't believe what he wants to offer to your children in No. 21.
care to comment on the cabinet selections?
mcdonnell as shadow chancellor is like waving a red rag to a bull really, i'll reserve my judgment on that one.
any other appointments that are likely to cause a stir, or might be smart thinking?
because it reminded me he existed, and that he has a kindly face
to find anything, ANYTHING!, to try and grab hold of, including the fact that he didn't time the announcements to coincide with the press print runs.
as does putting a Blairite in one of the top jobs and asking Cooper to major on the refugee crisis. Not putting at least one (and ideally two) females in as Chancellor, Home or Foreign Secretary is a misstep though and although a promotion for Burnham is a good move politically, I still think he's better suited to being focused on a smaller area rather than a wide ranging ministry. Can see him faring badly against Theresa May when he's not challenging her on specific issues.
but on the other hand it's not as if he wouldn't have been subject to some other line of attack if he'd got the gender balance right.
Tough one though, because it's a daft idea to appoint anyone but a close ally to Chancellor, so there weren't really any other candidates there. As for the other two, appointing one 'heavyweight' and one leadership opponent is a broadly sensible move, and if Kendall and Cooper hadn't sulked off then conceivably one of them could have been in.
Not sure which female Labour MPs have the experience or klout AND aren't anti-Corbyn enough for those roles...
would have thought Yvette Cooper as Foreign Secretary and Caroline Flint shadowing the Home Office could have been a reasonable pairing and sent out a suitably conciliatory message. Obviously, both refused to serve though.
is a problem in itself, but still a problem...
...where he sings, "beautiful, beautiful, beautiful...beautiful Cole!!". Very beautiful, something in my eye etc...
Wait, what were we talking about?
There was a lot of scaremongering about it before the election, but at the moment it seems like the Parliamentary Labour Party is on a completely different wavelength to the bulk of their support (obviously the Labour electorate isn't exactly the same as the Labour membership, but still). Either lots of MPs are going to have to defect, get deselected, or do a complete U-turn.
a bit more about what a deselection is, how it works etc etc. Google isn't particularly helpful.
But basically constituency parties don't *have to* select sitting MPs for re-election. I'm not sure if it would require any internal rule changes but theoretically if there were MPs that the party didn't like they could be booted out.
basically, members of the local party select their candidate at a branch meeting. Normally the reselection of a sitting MP is a formality (or, if they have managed to piss their local branch off, they are convinced not to stand again), though there were two tory deselections in the last Parliament.
The question on whether deselections will take place is twofold- 1) whether more new supporters/members attend branch meetings and are willing to get rid of longstanding MPs and 2) how the boundary review shapes up- currently, Parliament is due to lose 50 seats, which means there will be competion amongst a number of already sitting MPs.
thanks all for clarifying.
There isn't another election for four and a half long, long years. Few people who didn't want Corbyn were particularly enthused about any of the other three. Probably not worth getting too upset about stuff right now.
this is the new top gear presenter, yeah?
dennis skinner having a meltdown on the bbc :''''D
doesn't that just trigger a re-vote among members? I assume it must be something else because otherwise surely it won't make a difference because everyone will just vote for him again.
Or does he have to be re-nominated and they'd bank on that not happening or something?
do you think that's likely to happen days after he won a leadership election with the biggest mandate in uk history?
I mean there's already a whole bunch of rhetoric about the Labour party likely to 'correct itself/make a more sensible decision' etc etc in the next couple of years. But I wondered how that was even possible.
Are there not local/council elections coming up in the next few years? I just presumed the results of those and/or mistakes building up by Corbyn would be enough. The vote is one of confidence in him being given a shot at leader, not a continued mandate no matter what happens.
The only tricky thing for the less enthusiastic parts of the party is they can't easily use the media as a gauge because of this landslide vote in spite of pretty much every news and media outlet being strongly against him.
I am only speculating on how I can see it happening!
as an example for how it could feasibly happen really
and I was convinced they were going to do a similar no confidence and ditch him but they didn't.
The main problem is there doesn't seem to be anyone who'd win over the electorate. You need someone charismatic who can make people feel good about a left-centre manifesto, which I don't see Corbyn being but I don't think the others had that either. If there IS that leader out there they need to spend the next two years positioning themselves in the hope that Corbyn messes up enough for them to sweep in. (It might even be one of the three losers, assuming they decide to learn what they did wrong.)
I thought the Blairites would line him up in a shot but he didn't want to stand
He looked a good candidate from afar but in most interviews I've read with him he comes across very much like a Burnham-esque human windsock. Dunno if he'd have been able to handle Corbynmania for the same reasons Burnham couldn't.
i only thought he might have a shot because he managed to get a lot of Yorkies onside despite being from the Midlands. And that's a herculean achievement. He's also hyper-respected as being insanely good for his constituency. But like I say he took himself off the board early.
but to stand up to the Corbyn anti-politics he'd have needed a few convictions. Or maybe his military background and let's-get-shit-done attitude would have been enough to get him ahead before that all kicked off. Who knows?
But yeah. he's well liked in Barnsley. And lord knows they don't like much in Barnsley.
I read somewhere he said someone had tried to convince him that the whole 'dead wife angle' would sell and that was enough of a reason to never even consider running. I like him a lot for that.
the other candidates just had to seriously knuckle down and treat it like a leadership campaign and not an 'anyone but Corbyn OH GOD' campaign. Cooper sort of tried near the end but it was too late.
All this "I wouldn't serve under him" and other crap they were coming out with. If someone had just risen above that like Corbyn did they'd have been able to position themselves easily.
so as not to provoke the ire of the media, and across a pretty huge spectrum of politicians it's created a terrified inability to answer things directly:
'why should I vote for you?'
'let me tell you why you shouldn't vote for him, is that alright?'
That wonderful chat show where the other three wouldn't commit over Milly's place in government and Corbyn just went 'erm... environment, he's good at that' was the best example. Amazing to watch three other people - who are actually career politicians - unable to actually debate on even a sixth-form level
i could watch this forever
and after the savaging Kendall gets and how well Corbyn responds you'd assume the other two would have anything better prepared afterwards but nope. So embarrassing.
that Labour Party members, by and large, are left wing. Which gives left leaning candidates an easy leg up. This will only stop being an advantage if Corbyn flops and the left of the party either quit or swallow their pride and vote for some beige careerist (which is why the PLP will do everything they can to make Corbyn a failure).
either of blairites getting out of Labour because Corbyn or Corbynites getting out of Labour if he gets removed,
I'd guess 'probably not'. Having New New Labour, the Lib Dems and the Tories all roughly in the centre ground would be chaos. First and foremost MPs don't want to lose their seats, so enough of them would have to be faced with near certain electoral wipeout to warrant risking a new party. Should Labour surge in the polls or smash it at the local elections you'll find a lot of MPs making a quiet turnaround. If not, I imagine Corbyn will be toppled and Burnham or similar will be ushered in, centre-left policies having been proved wrong.
but i wonder if there'll be some confused labours heading over that way
Their stock is at an all time low. Thing with Labour Party members is there aren't that many (as we've seen) who are virulently centrist - even the 'power is the priority' brigade are generally left leaning and wouldn't join the Tories, and by extension, the Lib Dems as they are currently. As for MPs crossing the floor, again it's about keeping your seat - joining with the Lib Dems would be stoopid (not that that completely rules it out as a possibility, obviously)
is they're left with the Orange Book rump of the party after everyone else abandoned them over the last 5 years. The Tories and UKIP are probably more appealing to most economic liberals, and the Greens/Corbyn Labour to Social Democrats. The Lib Dems are sitting in the middle being nothing to anyone anymore.
we're actually Labour supporters voting tactically in Con/LibDem marginals.
The LibDem collapse in parliament and the rise in Tory MPs in England was largely down to these tactical voters abandoning them and voting Labour.
(can't remember the figures off the top of my head)
I thought you meant nationally. What you say is quite possible. Haven't looked into any specifics on the 2015 results.
but a great many that i know did so, like myself, because they felt that the LD's were no longer a party representing their interests in the slightest.
I lived with a Lib Dem activist at university, so I've been following his musings over the weekend with interest.
Not sure it's going to be *that* beneficial for them - sure, they can try and carve out space in between Labour and the Tories again, but without any media profile the stink of the Clegg era is going to haunt them for a long while.
fuck the lot of 'em
emphasise i mean that i hope the party dies forever, not him.
But do tell him
that the electorate wises up in the next decade and sees how much we need the Lib Dems.
Hands down the best bunch of people and policies, from mental health to drug reform, who made a daft mistake with decent intentions and the public bought the Tories throwing them under the bus hook, line and sinker. But muh tuition fees, obviously.
As good a place as Corbyn's ideas come from, we should be moving away from Labour and Conservative authoritarianism as a country, hell, as an entire human race. And yet here we are cheering these people on, just to get one over on the guys on the other side of the fence.
despite it being wildly tricky in terms of ideologies, it was, in terms of a greater good, the only option to make.
Yes, they blocked some shitty stuff from being passed BUT they allowed themselves to be scapegoats! They honestly didn't see that coming?
I voted LD the last time around. Never again, fuck those guys. Because of the damage they've caused the concept of a liberal government of that ilk is now dead in the water for 20 years, maybe (probably forever).
kind of...okay with this actually
The obliteration of an entire school of political thought from the UK parliament, and further reinforcement of the two-party system which everyone's suddenly so keen on again. Well enjoy your two flavours of nanny state, I wonder what Corbyn's thoughts are on electoral reform.
beyond believing a constituency link is important - there's a reasonably lengthy piece on Westminster politics on his constituency website which focuses on the increasing centralisation of power in parliament and the behaviour of elected representatives more than the electoral system itself.
that the Lib Dems had a choice between Labour and Conservatives as coalition partner. Lab-Lib wouldn't have been a majority. They could have just about scraped a tiny majority as a coalition of multiple parties, but it would have been so unstable, at such a critical time economically, it would have been hugely irresponsible.
Unless you hold the view that the Conservatives are actually evil, which I think is quite silly, they absolutely did the right thing. I think they could have done more to oppose the more brutal aspects of the cuts, and I feel like they sometimes underestimated the power they could have wielded, but the argument that they should have tried to form a government with a leaderless (presumably would have been a requirement of negotiations) Labour party holds no water at all. It would have been ridiculous.
even though I have big reservations about Farron.
although there'd probably be another candidate from that side of the party who'd take it on.
What you'd see then is the PLP close ranks and not 'lend' any of their nominations to that candidate, as they did Corbyn, and then you'd see a) membership plummet, unions leave, SNP, Green and PlaidC surge and dozens of seats lost at the next general election.
can votes of no confidence in triggering re-elections for leadership just happen indefinitely?
because quite honestly if Labour's MPs don't give him time they're signing their party's own death warrant, but my understanding is that any MP can challenge so long as just 20% of the parliamentary leadership party nominate them, then there'd be a new leadership contest (much like this one). It's not clear whether the leader requires15% of nominations to stand or whether they get an automatic spot on the ballot, but I suspect they're automatically on there.
There doesn't seem to be any particular rule stopping MPs from doing this endlessly, but even the most navel gazing of MPs would realise that they can't get away with continuously asking the same question over and over again until they get an answer they like.
The last one. Fair play.
"A journalist reporting from outside of the door where Mr Corbyn was attempting to form his shadow cabinet has described the late-night scramble to get senior figures to serve."
Hope he used a glass up against it like what they would do in a sitcom.
Are they not worried they'll run out of momentum? Kind of feel like they should have paced themselves, this non-stop shit-stirring will backfire...SURELY?
they figure younger people aren't going to read these anyway so they won't lose anyone per se. No one reading the guardian is that left wing anymore anyway.
And if the report is right about how and why they bumped up Eagle's role, then Corbyn's team must be conscious of it too.
around Westminster journalists that you don't shit stir over everything you overhear. Either the Corbyn lot are pretty slack (quite possible) or there's some serious flailing going on (equally possible).
But I suspect allowing yourself to be overheard falls in the same category as letting someone photograph your notes on your way to a major speech; your mistake = fair game.
Regardless, for the Labour Leader, Deputy, London mayoral candidate, Shadow Chancellor, Home Sec and Foreign Sec to all be men in this day and age is a story anyway I think.
but as with ^ up there somewhere, when most of the big hitters (and some small time twats) rule themselves out it's a trickier thing to achieve. And a majority female cabinet overall is A Good Thing, which I'd have thought would neutralise things somewhat more than it has.
that didn't previously attend Cabinet though.
Which, worryingly, is exactly what Cameron did previously to bump up the number of women in the actual Cabinet.
was almost universally reported as A Good Thing despite being (from memory) only about 1/3 women.
I would hope his aim to decentralise the party would mean there's less distinction between 'senior' and 'junior' cabinet roles and therefore less of an issue. Wait and see, I guess...
worth pointing out also that e.g. mcdonnell is heavily in favour of sex workers rights and has supported pro-women campaigns in the past
just having women in your cabinet doesn't mean you are a pro-women party at all (see for example the conservatives)
Stop living in the past, Marge.
will be as important as the Chancellor?
but more equal than in Burnhamland or similar. And promoting women to the shadow cabinet is A Good Thing for future female Chancellors, Foreign Secretaries, etc.
I wish he had given one of the 'top' jobs to a woman, but he hasn't and don't think it's something he can be judged on yet - totally agree with fyd's second point above.
doesn't explain why the non-Tory press is gunning for him too though
Every hatchet job just makes him stronger
Spend four years not saying a bleeding word and he'd be announced undisputed king of the universe forever
no wonder we don't get on
take your negative vibes elsewhere
We're a Morecambe and Wise for the new generation.
You're a div get over it its fine
Bizarro ed is here to stay
but then I guess I'd rather be someone who questions himself and struggles with mixed sentiments rather than believe himself to have got the answer. Better that than not, I think.
But clammy, yes: teenage bedroom stale kinda thing.
please be quiet
i'm just happy to hear that it is
people are trying to discuss Corbyn
Accuses Corbyn of being boring at the end. There's an immense terrified effort to try and take any sheen off of the idea of a 'firebrand' like JC as quickly as possible, ties in exactly with the link Royter put up.
Shut down the discussion before Labour can promote J to the wider world. Except it just looks fucking manic from that side of the press.
The astonishing wit and fire of.... Burnham?
And the mega-exciting Tory front bench of course. It's like they've decided that they only reason people would ever like JC is because he's exciting and they're desperate for it to not be true.
does anything good happen after that?
and no, nothing good. Basically pushes the idea that Corbyn is a regressive beast born of the old union-fuelled ideals, and that he's a white-angry-man-down-the-pub politician who's living in the past etc.
Which is easy to believe if you are absolutely fucking dense, but otherwise is just very obviously a terrible attempt to suggest JC is the opposite of what he actually is
but it's not like privatisation was invented in 2001. I have no further point to make
maybe just uncompromising but i think in a good way
I think there's probably some stuff around the Occupy movement that is more MODERN and cool, and sure ideally we'd all be getting into experimental Brazilian politics or whatever 'Bagehot' is into these days, but bogstandard social democracy still sounds pretty good
I think perhaps that would be more feasible if we had progressed further as a nation already. The truth is that politics with a conscience - which is essentially what JC represents to a lot of people right now - is something we're not actually achieving at all on a basic level, let alone engaging with anything more advanced than that.
"i would rather be someone who is" doesn't actually make it me in the 3rd person (coz i'm talking about the someone/kind of person, not specifically me) at all but it was a good run up, Tacos
not least myself. I am aware I keep flipping out here, and sorry for that. In between the rage-outs I am at least engaging best I can. Despite Bears' sarcyness below I don't know what I think exactly about the current political landscape and what's best, nor would I presume to believe my opinion is the better one even if I did.
On top of that i just generally find RF pretty unpleasant.
put Charles Clarke in a bin and fire it into space. Genuinely one of the worst worstcunts.
Don't think he realises how exciting a prospect that sounds
for most Home Secretaries over the last ten to twenty years really.
There's probably a reason that Alan Johnson only lasted a year in the job.
Smear job's clearly working a treat
I think he's probably the most likeable leader of either Labour or Conservative parties since, maybe John Smith.
another chance to roll out her "hold your nose and quietly get behind Labour" piece for Comment is Free. She must be thrilled she's manage to get another chance so soon after the general election.
you could tell when she was backing Cooper she was still preparing to wheel it out if she'd won.
"One onlooker at the service said they had watched Corbyn for several minutes as the national anthem was being sung and did not see his lips move."
Disgraceful display of disrespect by the onlooker (if they even exist) when they should have been focused on remembering those who lost their lives.
SHE'S NOT SINGING EITHER
"Corbyn is thought to have arrived on foot about 15 minutes before the service, which was attended by veterans, their families and senior RAF officers. He took his front row seat briefly before standing to talk to some of the other guests."
"Estimated time of death, 14.49."
as if some sort of gas were seeping into his lungs through his nose and/or mouth."
More politics articles filled with mundane details about senior politicians movements please.
he has totally lost his mind
this is really scraping the barrel.
“I want everyone to put there views forward every union branch every party branch so we develop organically the strengths we all have the imagination we all have.”
morbile 5m ago
Hmmm, so Corbyn gave a good speech today.
One good speech doesn't make a Prime Minister.
A very serious issue, yes, but an entire government department?
What next, Minister for Heart Disease? Rheumatoid Arthritis? Piles?"
[I don't think this person knows how government departments work]
Labour mps need to show Da Leader Corbyn how to tie a tie properly. Shirt buttons all done up and tie neatly pulled up to neck.Look a leader
They're really pushing the boat out today. Latest reason to have a go at him is for taking a free sandwich given to him by Costa employees.
four and a half years too early
Has anyone heard from Lord Politics recently? Getting slightly concerned about his welfare...
and already typing up the mother of all 'told you so's, should be just about ready for an early 2017 release.
"It’s about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle. It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. The peace we have now is due to the action of the IRA. Because of the bravery of the IRA and people like Bobby Sands, we now have a peace process.”
But for a piece from when he said it, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/may/30/northernireland.devolution
but thank you
he got into shit for his coat not being long enough? someone explain plz
that the press disparagingly referred to as a donkey jacket (it was actually a duffel coat apparently) and that meant he was disresepecting the War dead etc
its hardly a Partridge level crime
that nonsense is going to be nothing compared to what the press come up with to go nuts about this year, whether it's Corbyn wears a white poppy or doesn't start wearing one early enough or Corbyn blinks at the wrong time at the Cenotaph or something.
it was all pretty annoying
The three key areas of leadership are elections, economy and foreign policy? Really?
Calling Corbyn a hardcore leftist for another.
I really do.
to describe any British MP is probably not worth paying attention to.
the non-snippy comeback version just wasn't the same.
some of it is hilarious scaremongering, some of it completely off beam and shoddy, I mean, claiming that large numbers of LibDem voters in 2010 switched to voting Tory in 2015 sets off huge alarm bells when it comes to credibility.
And even then, talking about Corbyn as if he's a binary politician - he's not. He was easily the most nuanced and reasoned of the leadership candidates and is certainly more so than David Cameron, who while not as ideological as the majority of his cabinet, is little more than a wind sock.
"claiming that large numbers of LibDem voters in 2010 switched to voting Tory in 2015 sets off huge alarm bells when it comes to credibility."
did they not? genuine question, who did they switch to?
(with apologies for buzzfeed link)
LibDem 2010 voters split to:
UKIP: 11% (!)
And the switching was most critical in Tory/LibDem marginals, as mentioned above in the thread, where LibDem MPs had been returned in 2010 on the back of tactical voting by Labour supporters. Ironically (or depressingly, given that it's a failure of our electoral system), Labour voters who were so disgusted with the LibDems for allowing the Tories to govern to the right of their own manifesto ended up gifting the Tories large numbers of seats, in the south west in particular.
smoke up, jezzahhhh
like, when does the patriotism and associated jingoism die out? no one apart from utter nutcases talks about 'our brave lads' from the crimean or napoleonic or boer wars, how long have we got left of the battle of britain shite before it becomes like a touristy non-entity like the Victory in Portsmouth.
How long before you're allowed to talk and think about it dispassionately as if *somehow* it was from another time and circumstance altogether?
I understand there are still a few people alive who lived through all this shit but let it go ffs.
and are doomed to repeat it
WW2 will stick around for a while as people desperately want to cling on to one of the only wars that was actually necessary. Plus they want to act like Germany is still evil or something.
look at this telegraph article
we've won !!!!!!!
that's seemingly partly confused and partly impressed that Corbyn's 'ripped up the political rule book' and wrong footed the media by giving a slightly different speech to the pre-released version. These are adults. Adult humans.
that actually, judged on the terms on which he was elected, he's not actually been as disastrous as the whole political class are currently claiming. Mind you, it's been great cover for the Tories to get two of their more controversial bits of legislation through.
Well if it has just been one or the other that would be OK, but both? Time to pull the plug clearly.
she just tweets non-stop anti-corbyn rage all day, every day. looks like she's properly obsessed.
has he done anything yet?!
- Didn't sing the national anthem upon waking
- Made sandwiches in kitchen. Did not pay any money for these sandwiches that could have otherwise been eaten by war heroes.
- Chose awful tie to wear to PMQs in order to remain on tomorrow's front pages.
Everyone's already got their 'Cameron wipes the floor with Corbyn at PMQ' articles written
Asked in the right way, he could quite easily put Cameron on the spot and force him to engage, as the PM won't look good acting towards members of the public's questions the way he often does towards the Leader of the Opposition's.
Of course, used badly he'll open himself up to the charge of turning it into a pastiche of a badly managed press interview. "Jane from Stockport wants to know..."
were planning to be pretty non-aggressive towards Corbyn today so as not to create a sort of underdog halo around him.
Difficult to imagine everyone (anyone) behaving themselves for PMQs, especially one so watched, but would be a smart tactic if they could as the press are clearly going to throw an infinite amount of mud at Corbyn regardless and Cameron can look, erm, "statesmanlike" in comparison.
when even the non-Tory press is sticking the boot in from day one.
I can understand the disagreements over Trident and suchlike, but briefing against him over this anthem thing? They're behaving completely irrationally.
Rather than over-briefed, one-note soundbite politicians you've got a 'broad church' who don't necessarily publically agree about absolutely everything.
Whether it lasts is another thing. Horrible premonition of the whole thing being a slow car crash that tries to close ranks and start spinning too late.
still seems to think if they suck up to this govenment enough then the government might decide to not screw them over permanently. Good luck deluding yourselves with that guys.
job of alienating the people who would defend it when this government tries to break it up.
I've had NO emails from them since Corbyn got in. Didn't get the victory one, and didn't get the 'any requests?' PMQ one. What am I missing?
so I hope I haven't been purged afterwards!
'Is there a spin doctor in the house?' is pretty good
1/2 - takes the milk out of the fridge and doesn't put it back
EVENS - uses the last of the toilet roll and doesn't put another roll on the thing
4/1 - Cameron sneezes and PMQs and he does not say bless you
10/1 - Something of actual note.
Where they said the Tories are planning on confusing and disorienting Corbyn in PMQs by being really loud and causing distractions from different angles.
Just found it really funny a party considers cartoon tactics rather than like actually engaging with democracy. Half expecting big Dave to come out with sparklers.
Where a man who looked like several dogs dinners proclaimed if Corbyn can't do up his top button he doesn't care how he looks, and ergo doesn't care how the country looks. Was good watching, peeps.
they say we get the government we deserve but nobody deserves this sack.
Except Sam I guess.
No, I think we really do deserve this shit shower.
Umm, that is democracy in action.
what have i done?
if you can get past that it's alright.
Unless there's been multiple incidents.
Corbyn was doorstepped and prevented from getting to his car/taxi. In the scrum that followed a cameraman fell over. It happens quite regularly, but this incident will probably be enough to dominate another day of front pages.
The channel 4 guy was saying a "Corbyn aide"
from the Government Car Service.
given that within a couple of minutes of his first tweet, more than one person gave him a link to the full video and told him it was the driver. His focus at the moment seems to be "the BBC are hushing this up."
Would have to be people in marginal seats who stood the slightest chance of getting re-elected AND were big enough hitters to be worth the Tories promising them a job. It would be appalling press for the Blairite wing of the party, particularly after all the whinging about being called Red Tories.
is this "that they could not possibly remain in Corbyn's Labour Party for long if it looks as though Corbyn will endure."
Presumably these people, whoever they are, can't quite believe that if Jezza carries on the way he has in the last few days then he will remain unchallenged for more than a few months. If he does both then I guess they'll think they've gone down the rabbit hole and may as well shit or get off the pot, regardless of whether it means they end up leaving politics as a result.
But if he ballses up PMQs today they'll probably reckon he'll be toast before the crocuses come up.
it would't surprise me if Simon Danczuk leaves before long.
If there are MPs who call themselves Blairites and think that they're closer to slash and burn Osborne than the social democratic Corbyn, then a) they've forgotten how progressive Blair was and b) they probably are in the wrong party.
makes me ashamed to be human, never mind British.
Also remember Tony Banks having his fingers crossed when swearing allegiance to the Queen (or something. Maybe I don't remember it so well).
it's a good tactic to use RLP's questions, because it avoids DC being able to make it personal. However I don't think the questions have been particularly good.
tigers - now we're talking
so there can't be 6 more days of headlines about corbyn insulting potatoes or whatever the press have decided is sacred that day
He can happily make PMQs a complete non-event for the next five years. His buddies in the press can then take on the job of making JC look like a bumbling idiot.
Cameron's done alright here even though he failed to address the 4th one, and it does seem a bit disingenuous to address every question with a pivot back to "strong economy".
Corbyn's got through largely unscathed, although I'd imagine the media'll be pissed off if every PMQs exchange between Leaders ends up that sober.
just reading people's questions and letting Dave get in his soundbites isn't all that effective.
May be better to pick one or two good ones and use them as a springboard to ask further more forensic questions of his own rather than pre-prepare all 6 like that.
maybe get a bit more interrogatory once things have calmed down.
Which is fine, assuming things calm down.
while he reads statistics off a piece of paper
Bet Niki is involved.
"So let’s change public attitude to mental health, but we won’t be able to do that without a strong economy, [Cameron] says."
So on-message it's bizarre.
:D :D :D
who the hell let all these scottish people in ? there's millions of them !
but if it's the case, maybe Corbyn is playing a weird blinder.
- Portrayed as hard left protesting bastard
- Comes across as nice, inclusive, thoroughly electable
Clever Mour- clever Corbyn
How do you get 30 minutes of post-PMQ broadcasting out of that?
Maybe something else will be on the front page tomorrow.
no beard, not an activist :'D
WILL YOU KNEEL BEFORE OUR MIGHTY QUEEN?
WILL YOU KNEEL BEFORE OUR MIGHTY QUEEN?
WILL YOU KNEEL BEFORE OUR MIGHTY QUEEN?
WILL YOU KNEEL BEFORE OUR MIGHTY QUEEN?
WILL YOU KNEEL BEFORE OUR MIGHTY QUEEN?
WILL YOU KNEEL BEFORE OUR MIGHTY QUEEN?
WILL YOU KNEEL BEFORE OUR MIGHTY QUEEN?
WILL YOU KNEEL BEFORE OUR MIGHTY QUEEN?
WILL YOU KNEEL BEFORE OUR MIGHTY QUEEN?
WILL YOU KNEEL BEFORE OUR MIGHTY QUEEN?
He didn't even know it was part of the ceremony until the interviewer told him.
When he said he'd have to have a think, she was like "NO THEN! THAT MEANS NO! YOU SAID NO I HEARD YOU WHISPER IT, NONONO." Fucking loony lefty bbc.
I've read about the poxy kneeling tradition at least 3-4 times already this week.
He's taking these first few weeks to straight up avoid questions he doesn't like with feigned ignorance.
He's been an MP for long enough, I think he'd be aware of some of the machinations by now.
Maybe I'm being cynical but part of using people's questions in PMQs seemed defensive in this manner too.
Not /fully/ onside with him politically. But that's by the by. I'm very much enjoying the cut of his jib. Mostly because of the way it seems to be riling the meeja with his barely disguised contempt for them.
or addressed them at the end with "SUCK IT BITCHES".
then he'll take her hand and make as if to kiss it, but instead he'll slowly crush it and then hurl her into a nearby crevasse.
get a grip over-excitable arseholes
except it was real.
1. It's the (perceived) economy, stupid
2. Miliband's Labour were not too far to the left (in fact, tacking to the centre would have seen them lose more votes than if they'd tacked left)
3. Cameron's personal ratings were higher than Miliband's
4. Labour gains from the LibDems delivered marginal seats to the Tories
Labour and the Conservatives had virtually no net gain or loss between the two of them.
UKIP didn't take many votes off Labour - the biggest chunk, by far, came from the Tories, and (somewhat unbelievably) more people switched from the LibDems to UKIP than switched from Labour to UKIP.
Despite wildly diffent opinions on the EU, they're both protest votes, both more liberal than the main two parties. UKIP seem like a fairly natural home for Lib Dems not taken with the EU/immigration to me.
and not be taken with the EU though? It's always been a central part of their 'offer'
It's a party with a very particular position on the political spectrum, and one which I don't think automatically precludes being eurosceptic. Vince Cable's a prominent member and has expressed some fairly eurosceptic views at times. Also, as I heard from many Greens around the time of the GE, you don't necessarily have to agree with every policy if the cut and thrust of your personal views are there.
I think if the LDs lost a lot of voters to UKIP it was probably around the time of the Farage/Clegg debates. The two parties have often campaigned for the same thing on some pretty big issues and that would have forced people to pick a side on the EU thing. Given Clegg was a lot less persuasive a mass defection wouldn't have surprised me at that point.
ta for sharing.
the Con-Lab marginals section and the (declared) voting intentions of people in the couple of months leading up to the election, and it's frustratingly difficult to pin down how much of an effect the Tory/Tory press's pushing of their scaremongering against the SNP and making it the dominant topic in the final month had. It would be good to see how their stoking up of English Nationalism drove up the SNP vote and drove down the Labour one in England.
Oooh loads of Labour MPs have been texting me, can't name names though!!! PS please text me
who identified more with Farron than Corbyn defected to the Lib Dems, I'm pretty sure they would be the official opposition overnight.
Erm, compared to most politicians isn't he one of the most clearly defined in his political beliefs for ages. He might not have laid not policy yet but the news has been full of he thinks this and that (whether true or not).
Out of all the candidates, he was the one to release policy documents and statements.
Yevette Cooper had some extremely detailed policy, such as "2 million new homes in a decade", "a confident outward looking Britain" and "building a high-wage high-tech economy".
(I wonder if she ever got around to saying how she was going to achieve any of those)
a) exactly what Ed was promising
b) still less than is needed
thread ends on a high
Thought he seemed decent. Far more calm and reasonable than his media profile had suggested.
but it did seem like he was trying exceptionally hard to be calm and reasonable. At one point when that Telegraph bellend was trying to wind him up, his voice tone changed and he started pointing a lot, and you could sense his angry side threatening to break through.
I don't think his decency was false - I think he really wants to be on board with Corbyn's policy of being kind and reasonable. But I also hope he snaps at some point and punches Osborne in the face.
was SUCH a bellend.
Also, that 'I'm a patriot' audience guy was terrifying.
every time the camera went back on him. Proper scowl.
eerily similar to a certain DiSer that doesn't post much anymore and likes a moan.
and Joey Essex looks like both of them.
He will say whatever he thinks people want to hear.
Is this news?
with no more corbyn think peices
that's basically the same thing
6 matches for me
only 3 actual articles. though one of them is 'is corbyn too nice for satire?'