I remember reading that Harman had several votes in the previous leadership contest based on her position in the party, national executive, union and other affiliations. Basically it took several voters to overturn that so what's the point in engagement in that circumstance.
Unfortunately the road to hell is paved with good intentions and by making the necessary changes the pendulum has swung to far the other way. Meanwhile the unions are signing up voters to ensure "their man" ultimately still makes the top spot and Tories4Corbyn are assisting in the surge. It is so bad for Labour that there is going to be a moment in the future where Labour are going to look back with fondness and longing for the heady days of the Ed Milliband.
To parody the words of Kinnock " militant have got their party back"
It seems that Labour went back to the Kinnock years under Ed Miliband, a Corbyn leadership would take them back to the Foot years
If Jeremy Corbyn becomes Labour leader, the last seven Labour leaders will form a perfect parabola.
Indeed, there is a certain symmetry, with Smith and Brown, the 2 Scots, either side of Blair
The reality is when push comes to shove it is likely that Corbyn and Kendell will pull out to make it a two horse race between Andy and Yvette, with a Burnham victory inevitable (Burnham will give concessions to Corbyn, and Yvette to Kendell)
There is no conceivable way that Corbyn would want/ or could run a shadow cabinet. Look at Tsipasris- he marched them to the top of the hill and then... At the end of the day, the pressure is too much for proper lefties.
You cannot compare Corbyn to IDS- Corbyn has operated as a splinter, oppositional cell in the Labour party for ever. It is just an impossibility to think that he could even begin to run some kind of Labour team with the backing of the MP's. There are maybe 15 MP's at most that are ideologically allied with him.
Unlike Ed, who I just think never thought through what the implications could be of actually winning (Ed was too caught up in the moment), Corbyn will be more reflective.
I like Corbyn very much. But at the end of the day, the guy is principled. He is not a psychopath, and he is not an ambitious, narcissist (like Ed Miliband).
Anyway, I'll remind you all of this when it all comes to fruition.
No, Corbyn is not a narcissist, but he wants to win to push Labour further towards his ideology. Kendall will also keep the Blairite flag flying to the end
Nonsense of course. The Conservative party would do whatever it took to prevent a vote being subverted in this way. Entirely acceptable for Labour to do the same if it turns out that this is happening.
Sorry but Labour cannot change the rules half way through the process.
The evidence for this alleged infiltration is hardly convincing. And no vetting process can be devised to weed out the undesirables. Even if someone has joined from the Communist Party or SWP, are they going to have to face a tribunal (in the style of the McCarthy era in the US) to see whether they are real Reds under the bed? Or just people that feel Corbyn as Labour leader would provide them with a real home in the Labour party.
How do you prove that someone is the right sort of Socialist to be allowed into the Labour party?
You can't.
They set up these new rules. They created this monster. The MPs nominated Corbyn. Labour has to live with this.
oxfordsimon- just because you, and a whole host of ideologue Tories are on the verge of ejaculating at the prospect of a Corbyn victory, do not get that upset if it doesn't happen, for whatever reason. At the end of the day you won an election a few weeks ago- you cannot get it all your own way, always.
A land where only one benefit is paid - a pension for each over 65 based on 40 years honest work and tax contributions
No tax credits No subsidies for children No handouts for spongers No encouragement to be feckless
And a 20% tax rate for those hard working £100k plus individuals like me!!!
So not even any unemployment benefits, even if you have contributed in NI all your life, no child benefit, and a 25% tax cut for the rich, well it might win in City of London and Westminster and Surrey and Buckinghamshire but I doubt it has much appeal elsewhere
For those following the US campaign and - judging from what I read on here - tend to follow mainly the polls and not follow the day to day details and news of the campaign, let me draw your attention to something.
Two Inspectors General (of State and the intelligence community) found classified information in 4 of 40 Clinton emails from her server and referred the matter to the FBI, as a security NOT a criminal concern.
This is a game changer in the email row. It is potentially a very big deal indeed.
Up until now, from Rose Law Firm billings, Whitewater, Benghazi, the foundation, email - there are plenty more - some people (depending on how pink your spectacles are) have said it is a right wing witch hunt, or as the Clintons themselves have said for 25 years "a vast right wing conspiracy".
This is different. This is criminal activity. This is not political. As FIFA are finding out, the FBI is different.
State will not grant their own Inspector General unlimited access to the 30k emails Hillary handed to them, but apparently her lawyer has copies of them on a thumb drive in his office. Oddly they won't give the Inspector General for the intelligence community any access at all.
So as usual with Clinton imbroglios there is a bizarre aspect to it.
DOJ - particularly this very politicized one - are rightly reluctant to open politically charged investigations with anything less than a blazing gun (smoking is not enough).
If - and at present it is a big if - this comes to pass, it could torpedo her campaign.
Her numbers are going down already in swing states and her honesty and trustworthy ratings are awful.
This will not help once people realize what it means. She has lied yet again.
If she has to face federal national security criminal charges she is gone. No matter what her poll numbers, she is gone.
This one will run and run like a car crash in slow motion. Remember what happened to David Petraeus.
There is a lot more to this campaign than the polls.
Hang on. The FBI has not done anything yet. So this is not like FIFA. Files have been referred to the FBI. If they investigate and if charges are brought against her, it will probably mean she cannot run. But that comprises two different steps.
Nonsense of course. The Conservative party would do whatever it took to prevent a vote being subverted in this way. Entirely acceptable for Labour to do the same if it turns out that this is happening.
Sorry but Labour cannot change the rules half way through the process.
The evidence for this alleged infiltration is hardly convincing. And no vetting process can be devised to weed out the undesirables. Even if someone has joined from the Communist Party or SWP, are they going to have to face a tribunal (in the style of the McCarthy era in the US) to see whether they are real Reds under the bed? Or just people that feel Corbyn as Labour leader would provide them with a real home in the Labour party.
How do you prove that someone is the right sort of Socialist to be allowed into the Labour party?
You can't.
They set up these new rules. They created this monster. The MPs nominated Corbyn. Labour has to live with this.
oxfordsimon- just because you, and a whole host of ideologue Tories are on the verge of ejaculating at the prospect of a Corbyn victory, do not get that upset if it doesn't happen, for whatever reason. At the end of the day you won an election a few weeks ago- you cannot get it all your own way, always.
Except of course the Tories did get it all their own way between 1979 and 1997 with Foot and Kinnock leading Labour.
Some MPs are already resigned to defeat in 2020, whoever becomes leader, and fear that a Corbyn victory would bring the electoral oblivion that Labour had flirted with under Foot.
“If Andy [Burnham] wins,” said one Labour frontbencher, “we will just do what we can to make sure the election defeat is not as bad as it would be under Corbyn — because it would destroy the party, we would be a laughing stock.”
What a gloomy bunch they are being. The wrong leader means they have to rely on Tory mistakes - possible, but you don't want to rely on it - and the right leader surely has a chance at the least, but it's understandable some are glass half empty right now.
Nonsense of course. The Conservative party would do whatever it took to prevent a vote being subverted in this way. Entirely acceptable for Labour to do the same if it turns out that this is happening.
Sorry but Labour cannot change the rules half way through the process.
The evidence for this alleged infiltration is hardly convincing. And no vetting process can be devised to weed out the undesirables. Even if someone has joined from the Communist Party or SWP, are they going to have to face a tribunal (in the style of the McCarthy era in the US) to see whether they are real Reds under the bed? Or just people that feel Corbyn as Labour leader would provide them with a real home in the Labour party.
How do you prove that someone is the right sort of Socialist to be allowed into the Labour party?
You can't.
They set up these new rules. They created this monster. The MPs nominated Corbyn. Labour has to live with this.
oxfordsimon- just because you, and a whole host of ideologue Tories are on the verge of ejaculating at the prospect of a Corbyn victory, do not get that upset if it doesn't happen, for whatever reason. At the end of the day you won an election a few weeks ago- you cannot get it all your own way, always.
Except of course the Tories did get it all their own way between 1979 and 1997 with Foot and Kinnock leading Labour.
The reality is when push comes to shove it is likely that Corbyn and Kendell will pull out to make it a two horse race between Andy and Yvette, with a Burnham victory inevitable (Burnham will give concessions to Corbyn, and Yvette to Kendell)
There is no conceivable way that Corbyn would want/ or could run a shadow cabinet. Look at Tsipasris- he marched them to the top of the hill and then... At the end of the day, the pressure is too much for proper lefties.
You cannot compare Corbyn to IDS- Corbyn has operated as a splinter, oppositional cell in the Labour party for ever. It is just an impossibility to think that he could even begin to run some kind of Labour team with the backing of the MP's. There are maybe 15 MP's at most that are ideologically allied with him.
Unlike Ed, who I just think never thought through what the implications could be of actually winning (Ed was too caught up in the moment), Corbyn will be more reflective.
I like Corbyn very much. But at the end of the day, the guy is principled. He is not a psychopath, and he is not an ambitious, narcissist (like Ed Miliband).
Anyway, I'll remind you all of this when it all comes to fruition.
No, Corbyn is not a narcissist, but he wants to win to push Labour further towards his ideology. Kendall will also keep the Blairite flag flying to the end
I agree- he will push Burnham to the left. But the bottom line is Corbyn is just too much of an oppositional, principled, lefty maverick to run the modern day Labour party. And even if Burnham lurched to the left, Corbyn is even then, even then too much of a fringe figure to sit in his (Burnham's) shadow team.
For those following the US campaign and - judging from what I read on here - tend to follow mainly the polls and not follow the day to day details and news of the campaign, let me draw your attention to something.
Two Inspectors General (of State and the intelligence community) found classified information in 4 of 40 Clinton emails from her server and referred the matter to the FBI, as a security NOT a criminal concern.
This is a game changer in the email row. It is potentially a very big deal indeed.
Up until now, from Rose Law Firm billings, Whitewater, Benghazi, the foundation, email - there are plenty more - some people (depending on how pink your spectacles are) have said it is a right wing witch hunt, or as the Clintons themselves have said for 25 years "a vast right wing conspiracy".
This is different. This is criminal activity. This is not political. As FIFA are finding out, the FBI is different.
State will not grant their own Inspector General unlimited access to the 30k emails Hillary handed to them, but apparently her lawyer has copies of them on a thumb drive in his office. Oddly they won't give the Inspector General for the intelligence community any access at all.
So as usual with Clinton imbroglios there is a bizarre aspect to it.
DOJ - particularly this very politicized one - are rightly reluctant to open politically charged investigations with anything less than a blazing gun (smoking is not enough).
If - and at present it is a big if - this comes to pass, it could torpedo her campaign.
Her numbers are going down already in swing states and her honesty and trustworthy ratings are awful.
This will not help once people realize what it means. She has lied yet again.
If she has to face federal national security criminal charges she is gone. No matter what her poll numbers, she is gone.
This one will run and run like a car crash in slow motion. Remember what happened to David Petraeus.
There is a lot more to this campaign than the polls.
Hillary has always had a low ceiling and a high floor, this has changed very little, the average voter is not going to vote on her emails, end of. If she ends up in handcuffs then come back to me and we may have a story, but don't forget Bill's ratings increased when Ken Starr was appointed and Nixon won a landslide in 1972 even as Watergate began to emerge
oxfordsimon- just because you, and a whole host of ideologue Tories are on the verge of ejaculating at the prospect of a Corbyn victory, do not get that upset if it doesn't happen, for whatever reason. At the end of the day you won an election a few weeks ago- you cannot get it all your own way, always.
Actually I would much rather see a Kendall victory - even with all her faults, she is willing to stand up and be counted for an alternative way forward. She is forward looking - which is refreshing and positive.
I happen to believe in dealing with the consequences of your actions. Any attempt to give into the panic around a potential Corbyn victory will undermine the entire party.
The system was set up by Labour to elect the new leader. Checks were put in place. The process is now underway.
If the old and new Labour membership want Corbyn, they should get Corbyn. It would be a mistake for them - but they should get what they vote for.
For those following the US campaign and - judging from what I read on here - tend to follow mainly the polls and not follow the day to day details and news of the campaign, let me draw your attention to something.
Two Inspectors General (of State and the intelligence community) found classified information in 4 of 40 Clinton emails from her server and referred the matter to the FBI, as a security NOT a criminal concern.
This is a game changer in the email row. It is potentially a very big deal indeed.
Up until now, from Rose Law Firm billings, Whitewater, Benghazi, the foundation, email - there are plenty more - some people (depending on how pink your spectacles are) have said it is a right wing witch hunt, or as the Clintons themselves have said for 25 years "a vast right wing conspiracy".
This is different. This is criminal activity. This is not political. As FIFA are finding out, the FBI is different.
State will not grant their own Inspector General unlimited access to the 30k emails Hillary handed to them, but apparently her lawyer has copies of them on a thumb drive in his office. Oddly they won't give the Inspector General for the intelligence community any access at all.
So as usual with Clinton imbroglios there is a bizarre aspect to it.
DOJ - particularly this very politicized one - are rightly reluctant to open politically charged investigations with anything less than a blazing gun (smoking is not enough).
If - and at present it is a big if - this comes to pass, it could torpedo her campaign.
Her numbers are going down already in swing states and her honesty and trustworthy ratings are awful.
This will not help once people realize what it means. She has lied yet again.
If she has to face federal national security criminal charges she is gone. No matter what her poll numbers, she is gone.
This one will run and run like a car crash in slow motion. Remember what happened to David Petraeus.
There is a lot more to this campaign than the polls.
Hang on. The FBI has not done anything yet. So this is not like FIFA. Files have been referred to the FBI. If they investigate and if charges are brought against her, it will probably mean she cannot run. But that comprises two different steps.
I don't believe it's even at the 'files referred' stage yet. This thing is in its infancy. But run the math - 10% of a sample of 40 emails contain classified material. I don't imagine for a minute that 10% of the 30k emails will, but there's obviously much more to come.
A land where only one benefit is paid - a pension for each over 65 based on 40 years honest work and tax contributions
No tax credits No subsidies for children No handouts for spongers No encouragement to be feckless
And a 20% tax rate for those hard working £100k plus individuals like me!!!
So not even any unemployment benefits, even if you have contributed in NI all your life, no child benefit, and a 25% tax cut for the rich, well it might win in City of London and Westminster and Surrey and Buckinghamshire but I doubt it has much appeal elsewhere
No none of that! I have so much money all earned that I wouldn't get any unemployment benefit.
Bored of subsidising low earning children producing spongers!!
I love this story - eSports are becoming a bigger deal, so much so that tournaments are starting to work with the World Ant-Doping Agency, just as with actual sports.
@plato and andy plato- your'e a TV drama kind of person right? The prospect of Corbyn winning, would be like a re-make of the Sweeney- and I mean a re-make. Same dialogue, editing, lighting. etc... Even same cars, same haircuts, same photography.
It is just isn't going to happen. Time's have changed, and no matter how nostalgic people get for the Sweeney, they're not going back there.
I love nothing more than spending an afternoon watching episodes of Alfred Hitchcock Presents but I doubt there are many people like me.
oxfordsimon- just because you, and a whole host of ideologue Tories are on the verge of ejaculating at the prospect of a Corbyn victory, do not get that upset if it doesn't happen, for whatever reason. At the end of the day you won an election a few weeks ago- you cannot get it all your own way, always.
Except of course the Tories did get it all their own way between 1979 and 1997 with Foot and Kinnock leading Labour.
For those following the US campaign and - judging from what I read on here - tend to follow mainly the polls and not follow the day to day details and news of the campaign, let me draw your attention to something.
Two Inspectors General (of State and the intelligence community) found classified information in 4 of 40 Clinton emails from her server and referred the matter to the FBI, as a security NOT a criminal concern.
This is a game changer in the email row. It is potentially a very big deal indeed.
Up until now, from Rose Law Firm billings, Whitewater, Benghazi, the foundation, email - there are plenty more - some people (depending on how pink your spectacles are) have said it is a right wing witch hunt, or as the Clintons themselves have said for 25 years "a vast right wing conspiracy".
This is different. This is criminal activity. This is not political. As FIFA are finding out, the FBI is different.
State will not grant their own Inspector General unlimited access to the 30k emails Hillary handed to them, but apparently her lawyer has copies of them on a thumb drive in his office. Oddly they won't give the Inspector General for the intelligence community any access at all.
So as usual with Clinton imbroglios there is a bizarre aspect to it.
DOJ - particularly this very politicized one - are rightly reluctant to open politically charged investigations with anything less than a blazing gun (smoking is not enough).
If - and at present it is a big if - this comes to pass, it could torpedo her campaign.
Her numbers are going down already in swing states and her honesty and trustworthy ratings are awful.
This will not help once people realize what it means. She has lied yet again.
If she has to face federal national security criminal charges she is gone. No matter what her poll numbers, she is gone.
This one will run and run like a car crash in slow motion. Remember what happened to David Petraeus.
There is a lot more to this campaign than the polls.
Hillary has always had a low ceiling and a high floor, this has changed very little, the average voter is not going to vote on her emails, end of. If she ends up in handcuffs then come back to me and we may have a story, but don't forget Bill's ratings increased when Ken Starr was appointed and Nixon won a landslide in 1972 even as Watergate began to emerge
We'll know if there's a story long before handcuffs. Your comment was entirely about polling and this has nothing to do with polling.
Never mind whether Labour is fit to be a party of government, is it currently fit to be a party of opposition?
Labour hasn't been fit to be a party of opposition since May 2010. It's uselessness never ceases to amaze me.
If you were in charge (the puppet master, as it were), what would you do to make a Labour majority likely in 2020?
Wow that's a good question.
But I have some ideas.
If I'm being honest, I don't have a complete answer. Labour doesn't have a great team to work with at the moment - Cooper and Burnham are mediocre, the likes of Hilary Benn, and Angela Eagle are uninspiring. I guess I'd bring in the likes of Creasy, Kinnock Jr, Dan Jarvis into the team - Labour needs some new faces. I'd make Umunna Shadow Chancellor - I find Reeves to be terribly overrated and I can't quite understand Labour's obsession with her.
I do feel strongly welfare reform is needed - but not in the way this government is doing it. I think Labour should seriously consider advocating an alternative welfare reform (someone like Cruddas + Frank FIeld would be brilliant to put forward proposals) - which would arguably give them a land to stand on when being critical of this government's proposals - because at least they could say what they'd do.
I'd pretty much admit Labour overspent and move on in regards to that. It's a battle that Labour have already lost, if Labour wanted to change this narrative it should have done it 2008/9.
I also get rid of that dumb £3 entry policy to vote in the leadership.
I'd consider breaking - or at least reducing the union link. I deeply resent the influence of Unite and Len McLuskey, and I want them as far away from Labour as possible.
For those following the US campaign and - judging from what I read on here - tend to follow mainly the polls and not follow the day to day details and news of the campaign, let me draw your attention to something.
Two Inspectors General (of State and the intelligence community) found classified information in 4 of 40 Clinton emails from her server and referred the matter to the FBI, as a security NOT a criminal concern.
This is a game changer in the email row. It is potentially a very big deal indeed.
Up until now, from Rose Law Firm billings, Whitewater, Benghazi, the foundation, email - there are plenty more - some people (depending on how pink your spectacles are) have said it is a right wing witch hunt, or as the Clintons themselves have said for 25 years "a vast right wing conspiracy".
This is different. This is criminal activity. This is not political. As FIFA are finding out, the FBI is different.
State will not grant their own Inspector General unlimited access to the 30k emails Hillary handed to them, but apparently her lawyer has copies of them on a thumb drive in his office. Oddly they won't give the Inspector General for the intelligence community any access at all.
So as usual with Clinton imbroglios there is a bizarre aspect to it.
DOJ - particularly this very politicized one - are rightly reluctant to open politically charged investigations with anything less than a blazing gun (smoking is not enough).
If - and at present it is a big if - this comes to pass, it could torpedo her campaign.
Her numbers are going down already in swing states and her honesty and trustworthy ratings are awful.
This will not help once people realize what it means. She has lied yet again.
If she has to face federal national security criminal charges she is gone. No matter what her poll numbers, she is gone.
This one will run and run like a car crash in slow motion. Remember what happened to David Petraeus.
There is a lot more to this campaign than the polls.
Hillary has always had a low ceiling and a high floor, this has changed very little, the average voter is not going to vote on her emails, end of. If she ends up in handcuffs then come back to me and we may have a story, but don't forget Bill's ratings increased when Ken Starr was appointed and Nixon won a landslide in 1972 even as Watergate began to emerge
We'll know if there's a story long before handcuffs. Your comment was entirely about polling and this has nothing to do with polling.
Of course it has to do with polling, Clinton rode out Whitewater and Monicagate because his poll ratings remained high, Nixon initially rode out Watergate after his 1972 victory, it was only as his poll ratings nosedived he had to go
I have Alfred Hitchcock Presents on dvd, and am currently working my way through The Avengers 50th anniversary collection. No New Avengers thank heaven.
I am checking episode by episode with Dave Rogers The Ultimate Avengers book.
Just been informed that The Sunil on Sunday denies categorically that it is on the verge of endorsing Jeremy Corbyn.
The Tyson on Tuesday is endorsing Corbyn, and the Tyson on Thursday is endorsing.....drum roll..........Corbyn. So booya to the Sunil on Sunday.
And my vote is based on the fact that the Labour party has failed, yes failed miserably to put forward any candidates capable of laying a glove on Osborne.
And I'm not some lefty lefty trying to get my own back on the Blairites, or some mischievous, conniving Tory mischief making. I'm using my vote to vote.
Nonsense of course. The Conservative party would do whatever it took to prevent a vote being subverted in this way. Entirely acceptable for Labour to do the same if it turns out that this is happening.
Sorry but Labour cannot change the rules half way through the process.
The evidence for this alleged infiltration is hardly convincing. And no vetting process can be devised to weed out the undesirables. Even if someone has joined from the Communist Party or SWP, are they going to have to face a tribunal (in the style of the McCarthy era in the US) to see whether they are real Reds under the bed? Or just people that feel Corbyn as Labour leader would provide them with a real home in the Labour party.
How do you prove that someone is the right sort of Socialist to be allowed into the Labour party?
You can't.
They set up these new rules. They created this monster. The MPs nominated Corbyn. Labour has to live with this.
oxfordsimon- just because you, and a whole host of ideologue Tories are on the verge of ejaculating at the prospect of a Corbyn victory, do not get that upset if it doesn't happen, for whatever reason. At the end of the day you won an election a few weeks ago- you cannot get it all your own way, always.
Except of course the Tories did get it all their own way between 1979 and 1997 with Foot and Kinnock leading Labour.
1979-92, tbh. Even in 1990 it didn't go all their way (poll tax anyone?) Though whether the Tories are in as strong a position as they were back then is questionable.
Two Inspectors General (of State and the intelligence community) found classified information in 4 of 40 Clinton emails from her server and referred the matter to the FBI, as a security NOT a criminal concern.
This is a game changer in the email row. It is potentially a very big deal indeed.
This is different. This is criminal activity. This is not political. As FIFA are finding out, the FBI is different.
State will not grant their own Inspector General unlimited access to the 30k emails Hillary handed to them, but apparently her lawyer has copies of them on a thumb drive in his office. Oddly they won't give the Inspector General for the intelligence community any access at all.
So as usual with Clinton imbroglios there is a bizarre aspect to it.
DOJ - particularly this very politicized one - are rightly reluctant to open politically charged investigations with anything less than a blazing gun (smoking is not enough).
If - and at present it is a big if - this comes to pass, it could torpedo her campaign.
Her numbers are going down already in swing states and her honesty and trustworthy ratings are awful.
This will not help once people realize what it means. She has lied yet again.
If she has to face federal national security criminal charges she is gone. No matter what her poll numbers, she is gone.
This one will run and run like a car crash in slow motion. Remember what happened to David Petraeus.
There is a lot more to this campaign than the polls.
Hillary has always had a low ceiling and a high floor, this has changed very little, the average voter is not going to vote on her emails, end of. If she ends up in handcuffs then come back to me and we may have a story, but don't forget Bill's ratings increased when Ken Starr was appointed and Nixon won a landslide in 1972 even as Watergate began to emerge
We'll know if there's a story long before handcuffs. Your comment was entirely about polling and this has nothing to do with polling.
Of course it has to do with polling, Clinton rode out Whitewater and Monicagate because his poll ratings remained high, Nixon initially rode out Watergate after his 1972 victory, it was only as his poll ratings nosedived he had to go
Let me try to understand where you are on this - you are seriously suggesting that Hillary Clinton could continue to run for president if she was facing federal national security charges? I mean seriously, you are doing?
Clinton was president, she is merely a candidate.
I won't even bother to correct your Watergate inaccuracies.
A land where only one benefit is paid - a pension for each over 65 based on 40 years honest work and tax contributions
No tax credits No subsidies for children No handouts for spongers No encouragement to be feckless
And a 20% tax rate for those hard working £100k plus individuals like me!!!
So not even any unemployment benefits, even if you have contributed in NI all your life, no child benefit, and a 25% tax cut for the rich, well it might win in City of London and Westminster and Surrey and Buckinghamshire but I doubt it has much appeal elsewhere
No none of that! I have so much money all earned that I wouldn't get any unemployment benefit.
Bored of subsidising low earning children producing spongers!!
Well good for you, what about someone who loses a job as a cleaner having worked every day without a day off for sickness for 20 years? While I do not support benefits for more than 2 children in terms of women per child we are actually at 1.9, slightly below the 2.1 replacement rate, so to avoid population decline and the need to support an ever ageing population encouraging most families to have 2 children through child benefit makes sense
I have Alfred Hitchcock Presents on dvd, and am currently working my way through The Avengers 50th anniversary collection. No New Avengers thank heaven.
I am checking episode by episode with Dave Rogers The Ultimate Avengers book.
The reality is when push comes to shove it is likely that Corbyn and Kendell will pull out to make it a two horse race between Andy and Yvette, with a Burnham victory inevitable (Burnham will give concessions to Corbyn, and Yvette to Kendell)
There is no conceivable way that Corbyn would want/ or could run a shadow cabinet. Look at Tsipasris- he marched them to the top of the hill and then... At the end of the day, the pressure is too much for proper lefties.
You cannot compare Corbyn to IDS- Corbyn has operated as a splinter, oppositional cell in the Labour party for ever. It is just an impossibility to think that he could even begin to run some kind of Labour team with the backing of the MP's. There are maybe 15 MP's at most that are ideologically allied with him.
Unlike Ed, who I just think never thought through what the implications could be of actually winning (Ed was too caught up in the moment), Corbyn will be more reflective.
I like Corbyn very much. But at the end of the day, the guy is principled. He is not a psychopath, and he is not an ambitious, narcissist (like Ed Miliband).
Anyway, I'll remind you all of this when it all comes to fruition.
No, Corbyn is not a narcissist, but he wants to win to push Labour further towards his ideology. Kendall will also keep the Blairite flag flying to the end
I agree- he will push Burnham to the left. But the bottom line is Corbyn is just too much of an oppositional, principled, lefty maverick to run the modern day Labour party. And even if Burnham lurched to the left, Corbyn is even then, even then too much of a fringe figure to sit in his (Burnham's) shadow team.
If I were Burnham I would have the top 3 posts filled by Reeves, Cooper and Umunna and make Kendall Shadow Business Sec. I would appoint Corbyn as Overseas Aid Spokesman, not frontrank but still Shadow Cabinet and make him push for ever more aid spending, this stoking up Tory fury on that ringfenced area
A land where only one benefit is paid - a pension for each over 65 based on 40 years honest work and tax contributions
No tax credits No subsidies for children No handouts for spongers No encouragement to be feckless
And a 20% tax rate for those hard working £100k plus individuals like me!!!
So not even any unemployment benefits, even if you have contributed in NI all your life, no child benefit, and a 25% tax cut for the rich, well it might win in City of London and Westminster and Surrey and Buckinghamshire but I doubt it has much appeal elsewhere
No none of that! I have so much money all earned that I wouldn't get any unemployment benefit.
Bored of subsidising low earning children producing spongers!!
Ave it- far more likely that high earners produce spongers, wasters and idlers who rely on exploiting poor people to nurse, care, clean and skivvy after them.
@tyson - TimB- I bet you are the easiest person in the world to buy presents for.
Not according to my family, who claim I already have everything they think I want.
I get a lot of dvds from amazon uk - thanks to the magic of VAT I can buy them and get them airmailed to the US for less than the list price in the UK.
The Avengers - 40 dvds I think - arrived in 4 days with a shipping charge of 3 quid, much less than the VAT in the UK.
They have some amazing deals if you look carefully.
'Let me try to understand where you are on this - you are seriously suggesting that Hillary Clinton could continue to run for president if she was facing federal national security charges? I mean seriously, you are doing?
Clinton was president, she is merely a candidate.
I won't even bother to correct your Watergate inaccuracies.'
Well she is not facing such charges at the moment is she so we shall reach such a bridge when we come to it. Arrests were made over Watergate in June 1972, and it was revealed one of the burglars was a GOP aide and a cheque for Nixon's reelection was found in another's bank account. In October the FBI reported a large campaign of spying and sabotage by Nixon's re-election campaign. Nixon was re-elected the following month https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal
Well good for you, but some people can fall on hard times and be made redundant and having contributed into the pot all their lives it is immoral in my view to give them nothing to survive on beyond scraps of charity until they get their lives back on track
A land where only one benefit is paid - a pension for each over 65 based on 40 years honest work and tax contributions
No tax credits No subsidies for children No handouts for spongers No encouragement to be feckless
And a 20% tax rate for those hard working £100k plus individuals like me!!!
So not even any unemployment benefits, even if you have contributed in NI all your life, no child benefit, and a 25% tax cut for the rich, well it might win in City of London and Westminster and Surrey and Buckinghamshire but I doubt it has much appeal elsewhere
No none of that! I have so much money all earned that I wouldn't get any unemployment benefit.
Bored of subsidising low earning children producing spongers!!
Ave it- far more likely that high earners produce spongers, wasters and idlers who rely on exploiting poor people to nurse, care, clean and skivvy after them.
I find Reeves to be terribly overrated and I can't quite understand Labour's obsession with her.
Yes, I have always wondered what dirt Rachel Reeves has on people to constantly be getting these top gigs.
Frankly, for as much (deserved) flak as Cooper and Burnham's campaigns are getting, they are still streets ahead of the rest of the shadow cabinet bar Chuka (whose politics I don't like but he still undeniably has a bit of stardust).
Of course it has to do with polling, Clinton rode out Whitewater and Monicagate because his poll ratings remained high, Nixon initially rode out Watergate after his 1972 victory, it was only as his poll ratings nosedived he had to go
HYUFD Anyone who lived through Watergate knows that it was the certainty of impeachment that forced Nixon to resign. It had nothing to do with polls.
House Judiciary Committee passed the articles of impeachment 27-30 July. This is the first in 3 steps (next the full House votes on the findings of the Judiciary Committee, then the Senate sets up an impeachment trial). It rapidly became clear in August that this would happen. Nixon resigned rather than be impeached on 8 August.
The reality is when push comes to shove it is likely that Corbyn and Kendell will pull out to make it a two horse race between Andy and Yvette, with a Burnham victory inevitable (Burnham will give concessions to Corbyn, and Yvette to Kendell)
There is no conceivable way that Corbyn would want/ or could run a shadow cabinet. Look at Tsipasris- he marched them to the top of the hill and then... At the end of the day, the pressure is too much for proper lefties.
You cannot compare Corbyn to IDS- Corbyn has operated as a splinter, oppositional cell in the Labour party for ever. It is just an impossibility to think that he could even begin to run some kind of Labour team with the backing of the MP's. There are maybe 15 MP's at most that are ideologically allied with him.
Unlike Ed, who I just think never thought through what the implications could be of actually winning (Ed was too caught up in the moment), Corbyn will be more reflective.
I like Corbyn very much. But at the end of the day, the guy is principled. He is not a psychopath, and he is not an ambitious, narcissist (like Ed Miliband).
Anyway, I'll remind you all of this when it all comes to fruition.
No, Corbyn is not a narcissist, but he wants to win to push Labour further towards his ideology. Kendall will also keep the Blairite flag flying to the end
I agree- he will push Burnham to the left. But the bottom line is Corbyn is just too much of an oppositional, principled, lefty maverick to run the modern day Labour party. And even if Burnham lurched to the left, Corbyn is even then, even then too much of a fringe figure to sit in his (Burnham's) shadow team.
If I were Burnham I would have the top 3 posts filled by Reeves, Cooper and Umunna and make Kendall Shadow Business Sec. I would appoint Corbyn as Overseas Aid Spokesman, not frontrank but still Shadow Cabinet and make him push for ever more aid spending, this stoking up Tory fury on that ringfenced area
HYUFD- you could give Corbyn whatever position you wanted, but he just could not even begin to live with the constraints that a shadow seat would put on him. It wouldn't be fair on him either. Corbyn's better having a couple of proxies in the cabinet- Dianne Abbot etc.
I really do not like Reeves, I can live with Kendell- Chuka has blown his copybook somewhat with his frit, Yvette really has done herself no favours in this contest- Burnham has to turn to Jarvis, Starmer and some others of the new intake, maybe Hunt too- and then Creasey, Flint etc...
'Let me try to understand where you are on this - you are seriously suggesting that Hillary Clinton could continue to run for president if she was facing federal national security charges? I mean seriously, you are doing?
Clinton was president, she is merely a candidate.
I won't even bother to correct your Watergate inaccuracies.'
Well she is not facing such charges at the moment is she so we shall reach such a bridge when we come to it. Arrests were made over Watergate in June 1972, and it was revealed one of the burglars was a GOP aide and a cheque for Nixon's reelection was found in another's bank account. In October the FBI reported a large campaign of spying and sabotage by Nixon's re-election campaign. Nixon was re-elected the following month https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal
Nixon resigned because the White House tapes were made public and he was facing impeachment. The collapse in his numbers was an effect of the ongoing Watergate investigation of what happened, NOT a cause of his resignation
This is not the 1970s or the 1990s.
I suggest you have little understanding of the US political process and environment as it exists today, and not waste each other's time continuing this discussion.
Well good for you, but some people can fall on hard times and be made redundant and having contributed into the pot all their lives it is immoral in my view to give them nothing to survive on beyond scraps of charity until they get their lives back on track
I paid £60k tax last year (and * knows how much NI) - can I have some of it back to pay for losses on my Brazil ISA?
Of course it has to do with polling, Clinton rode out Whitewater and Monicagate because his poll ratings remained high, Nixon initially rode out Watergate after his 1972 victory, it was only as his poll ratings nosedived he had to go
HYUFD Anyone who lived through Watergate knows that it was the certainty of impeachment that forced Nixon to resign. It had nothing to do with polls.
House Judiciary Committee passed the articles of impeachment 27-30 July. This is the first in 3 steps (next the full House votes on the findings of the Judiciary Committee, then the Senate sets up an impeachment trial). It rapidly became clear in August that this would happen. Nixon resigned rather than be impeached on 8 August.
And why was Nixon certain to be impeached and found guilty, because his polls nosedived. Why did Clinton survive impeachment proceedings, because his poll rating remained high
Of course it has to do with polling, Clinton rode out Whitewater and Monicagate because his poll ratings remained high, Nixon initially rode out Watergate after his 1972 victory, it was only as his poll ratings nosedived he had to go
HYUFD Anyone who lived through Watergate knows that it was the certainty of impeachment that forced Nixon to resign. It had nothing to do with polls.
House Judiciary Committee passed the articles of impeachment 27-30 July. This is the first in 3 steps (next the full House votes on the findings of the Judiciary Committee, then the Senate sets up an impeachment trial). It rapidly became clear in August that this would happen. Nixon resigned rather than be impeached on 8 August.
Andt why was Nixon certain to be impeached, because his polls nosedived. Why did Clinton survive impeachment, because his poll rating remained high
Total bollocks. Just admit you are wrong, for once, and stop acting like an 11-year old.
A land where only one benefit is paid - a pension for each over 65 based on 40 years honest work and tax contributions
No tax credits No subsidies for children No handouts for spongers No encouragement to be feckless
And a 20% tax rate for those hard working £100k plus individuals like me!!!
So not even any unemployment benefits, even if you have contributed in NI all your life, no child benefit, and a 25% tax cut for the rich, well it might win in City of London and Westminster and Surrey and Buckinghamshire but I doubt it has much appeal elsewhere
No none of that! I have so much money all earned that I wouldn't get any unemployment benefit.
Bored of subsidising low earning children producing spongers!!
Ave it- far more likely that high earners produce spongers, wasters and idlers who rely on exploiting poor people to nurse, care, clean and skivvy after them.
Yawn - how's your family wealth Tyson? </blockquote
Actually Ave It- I'm self made. And the thing is once you make money, it is just so easy to make more without doing much at all. Unless you are a moron, you cannot lose under capitalism. So that is why I am happy to pay taxes and feel sorry for the plight of people who aren't in my position.
You are on the other hand just comes across as some throwback to a loadsofmoney 1980's Thatcherite creation.
A land where only one benefit is paid - a pension for each over 65 based on 40 years honest work and tax contributions
No tax credits No subsidies for children No handouts for spongers No encouragement to be feckless
And a 20% tax rate for those hard working £100k plus individuals like me!!!
So not even any unemployment benefits, even if you have contributed in NI all your life, no child benefit, and a 25% tax cut for the rich, well it might win in City of London and Westminster and Surrey and Buckinghamshire but I doubt it has much appeal elsewhere
No none of that! I have so much money all earned that I wouldn't get any unemployment benefit.
Bored of subsidising low earning children producing spongers!!
Ave it- far more likely that high earners produce spongers, wasters and idlers who rely on exploiting poor people to nurse, care, clean and skivvy after them.
Yawn - how's your family wealth Tyson?
Actually I think you are a * (not allowed on this site)
Of course it has to do with polling, Clinton rode out Whitewater and Monicagate because his poll ratings remained high, Nixon initially rode out Watergate after his 1972 victory, it was only as his poll ratings nosedived he had to go
HYUFD Anyone who lived through Watergate knows that it was the certainty of impeachment that forced Nixon to resign. It had nothing to do with polls.
House Judiciary Committee passed the articles of impeachment 27-30 July. This is the first in 3 steps (next the full House votes on the findings of the Judiciary Committee, then the Senate sets up an impeachment trial). It rapidly became clear in August that this would happen. Nixon resigned rather than be impeached on 8 August.
Andt why was Nixon certain to be impeached, because his polls nosedived. Why did Clinton survive impeachment, because his poll rating remained high
Total bollocks. Just admit you are wrong, for once, and stop acting like an 11-year old.
'Let me try to understand where you are on this - you are seriously suggesting that Hillary Clinton could continue to run for president if she was facing federal national security charges? I mean seriously, you are doing?
Clinton was president, she is merely a candidate.
I won't even bother to correct your Watergate inaccuracies.'
Well she is not facing such charges at the moment is she so we shall reach such a bridge when we come to it. Arrests were made over Watergate in June 1972, and it was revealed one of the burglars was a GOP aide and a cheque for Nixon's reelection was found in another's bank account. In October the FBI reported a large campaign of spying and sabotage by Nixon's re-election campaign. Nixon was re-elected the following month https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal
'Nixon resigned because the White House tapes were made public and he was facing impeachment. The collapse in his numbers was an effect of the ongoing Watergate investigation of what happened, NOT a cause of his resignation
This is not the 1970s or the 1990s.
I suggest you have little understanding of the US political process and environment as it exists today, and not waste each other's time continuing this discussion.'
The same principles apply regardless of decade, you can be as patronising as you wish but unless a 'smoking gun' emerges with a blazing trail direct to Hillary she will survive. It was only after more and more evidence emerged in relation to Watergate over the course of a year from 1972-1974 and Nixon's poll ratings fell ever further that he had to go
'No, Corbyn is not a narcissist, but he wants to win to push Labour further towards his ideology. Kendall will also keep the Blairite flag flying to the end
I agree- he will push Burnham to the left. But the bottom line is Corbyn is just too much of an oppositional, principled, lefty maverick to run the modern day Labour party. And even if Burnham lurched to the left, Corbyn is even then, even then too much of a fringe figure to sit in his (Burnham's) shadow team.
If I were Burnham I would have the top 3 posts filled by Reeves, Cooper and Umunna and make Kendall Shadow Business Sec. I would appoint Corbyn as Overseas Aid Spokesman, not frontrank but still Shadow Cabinet and make him push for ever more aid spending, this stoking up Tory fury on that ringfenced area
HYUFD- you could give Corbyn whatever position you wanted, but he just could not even begin to live with the constraints that a shadow seat would put on him. It wouldn't be fair on him either. Corbyn's better having a couple of proxies in the cabinet- Dianne Abbot etc.
I really do not like Reeves, I can live with Kendell- Chuka has blown his copybook somewhat with his frit, Yvette really has done herself no favours in this contest- Burnham has to turn to Jarvis, Starmer and some others of the new intake, maybe Hunt too- and then Creasey, Flint etc...'
IDS appointed Bill Cash Shadow Attorney General, which suited his background and interests, overseas aid would suit Corbyn's. Jarvis could be Shadow Defence, Starmer Shadow Justice, Hunt Shadow Education, Creasey Shadow Health, Flint Shadow W and P, there could be places for them all
Well good for you, but some people can fall on hard times and be made redundant and having contributed into the pot all their lives it is immoral in my view to give them nothing to survive on beyond scraps of charity until they get their lives back on track
I paid £60k tax last year (and * knows how much NI) - can I have some of it back to pay for losses on my Brazil ISA?
The other thing I've noticed with people with money is that they cannot bear losing any of it, anywhere, anytime, anyplace. Whether its taxes, or losses on investments or properties. They just expect all the cards to be stacked up for them all of the time. And they obsessively check their portfolios.
It makes them selfish, money obsessed (obviously), rather unpleasant- but just greedy and small minded.
And there we have....Ave it. Step forward comrade....
I find Reeves to be terribly overrated and I can't quite understand Labour's obsession with her.
Yes, I have always wondered what dirt Rachel Reeves has on people to constantly be getting these top gigs.
Frankly, for as much (deserved) flak as Cooper and Burnham's campaigns are getting, they are still streets ahead of the rest of the shadow cabinet bar Chuka (whose politics I don't like but he still undeniably has a bit of stardust).
When Reeves first came onto the scene her gig appeared to be 'look how good I am at Maths'....which is actually the minimum expected of a future Chancellor. She's also about as telegenic as IDS. Chuka, I have to say has improved immeasurably over the last couple of months. I also like Stella Creasy, but it looks like Labour party members/CLPs will be dumb enough to vote in Tom Watson. I know he did good work in the Phone Hacking scandal, but I actually can't stand him.
Well good for you, but some people can fall on hard times and be made redundant and having contributed into the pot all their lives it is immoral in my view to give them nothing to survive on beyond scraps of charity until they get their lives back on track
I paid £60k tax last year (and * knows how much NI) - can I have some of it back to pay for losses on my Brazil ISA?
The other thing I've noticed with people with money is that they cannot bear losing any of it, anywhere, anytime, anyplace. Whether its taxes, or losses on investments or properties. They just expect all the cards to be stacked up for them all of the time. And they obsessively check their portfolios.
It makes them selfish, money obsessed (obviously), rather unpleasant- but just greedy and small minded.
And there we have....Ave it. Step forward comrade....
I find Reeves to be terribly overrated and I can't quite understand Labour's obsession with her.
Yes, I have always wondered what dirt Rachel Reeves has on people to constantly be getting these top gigs.
Frankly, for as much (deserved) flak as Cooper and Burnham's campaigns are getting, they are still streets ahead of the rest of the shadow cabinet bar Chuka (whose politics I don't like but he still undeniably has a bit of stardust).
When Reeves first came onto the scene her gig appeared to be 'look how good I am at Maths'....which is actually the minimum expected of a future Chancellor. She's also about as telegenic as IDS. Chuka, I have to say has improved immeasurably over the last couple of months. I also like Stella Creasy, but it looks like Labour party members/CLPs will be dumb enough to vote in Tom Watson. I know he did good work in the Phone Hacking scandal, but I actually can't stand him.
The biggest barrier to Rachel Reeves career is her voice.
There's just something about the pitch and tone of her voice that makes nails on a blackboard sound appealing.
Of course it has to do with polling, Clinton rode out Whitewater and Monicagate because his poll ratings remained high, Nixon initially rode out Watergate after his 1972 victory, it was only as his poll ratings nosedived he had to go
HYUFD Anyone who lived through Watergate knows that it was the certainty of impeachment that forced Nixon to resign. It had nothing to do with polls.
House Judiciary Committee passed the articles of impeachment 27-30 July. This is the first in 3 steps (next the full House votes on the findings of the Judiciary Committee, then the Senate sets up an impeachment trial). It rapidly became clear in August that this would happen. Nixon resigned rather than be impeached on 8 August.
Andt why was Nixon certain to be impeached, because his polls nosedived. Why did Clinton survive impeachment, because his poll rating remained high
Total bollocks. Just admit you are wrong, for once, and stop acting like an 11-year old.
Well thankyou for that well argued response, nothing I said was wrong. If Nixon's poll ratings had remained skyhigh when the impeachment votes were taken he would probably have survived them as Clinton survived his impeachment votes
I find Reeves to be terribly overrated and I can't quite understand Labour's obsession with her.
Yes, I have always wondered what dirt Rachel Reeves has on people to constantly be getting these top gigs.
Frankly, for as much (deserved) flak as Cooper and Burnham's campaigns are getting, they are still streets ahead of the rest of the shadow cabinet bar Chuka (whose politics I don't like but he still undeniably has a bit of stardust).
When Reeves first came onto the scene her gig appeared to be 'look how good I am at Maths'....which is actually the minimum expected of a future Chancellor. She's also about as telegenic as IDS. Chuka, I have to say has improved immeasurably over the last couple of months. I also like Stella Creasy, but it looks like Labour party members/CLPs will be dumb enough to vote in Tom Watson. I know he did good work in the Phone Hacking scandal, but I actually can't stand him.
Chuka has grown on me too since he quit the race. I had him down as a slick empty suit, stepping down from that ambition seems to have improved him and allowed him to be a bit more outspoken rather than on-message.
Stella Creasy is also impressing, but Watson is dire.
Reeves is better than Lucy Powell though, tv-wise, surely?
Anything is better than Powell. Anything at all. One of the worst performers from any party i recent years. Utterly without skill, finesse or political acumen.
Well good for you, but some people can fall on hard times and be made redundant and having contributed into the pot all their lives it is immoral in my view to give them nothing to survive on beyond scraps of charity until they get their lives back on track
I paid £60k tax last year (and * knows how much NI) - can I have some of it back to pay for losses on my Brazil ISA?
The other thing I've noticed with people with money is that they cannot bear losing any of it, anywhere, anytime, anyplace. Whether its taxes, or losses on investments or properties. They just expect all the cards to be stacked up for them all of the time. And they obsessively check their portfolios.
It makes them selfish, money obsessed (obviously), rather unpleasant- but just greedy and small minded.
And there we have....Ave it. Step forward comrade....
Hey Tyson I'm genuinely undecided who to vote for, Corbyn is certainly the one who's ideas and opinions are closest to mine, but surely he is unelectable, so I will probably go Cooper who is the best of an average bunch. Were you serious about Corbyn getting your vote?
Ps good to have you back Ave It. Watford will have a good season IMO. I still think you are a closet Labourite though.
I find Reeves to be terribly overrated and I can't quite understand Labour's obsession with her.
Yes, I have always wondered what dirt Rachel Reeves has on people to constantly be getting these top gigs.
Frankly, for as much (deserved) flak as Cooper and Burnham's campaigns are getting, they are still streets ahead of the rest of the shadow cabinet bar Chuka (whose politics I don't like but he still undeniably has a bit of stardust).
When Reeves first came onto the scene her gig appeared to be 'look how good I am at Maths'....which is actually the minimum expected of a future Chancellor. She's also about as telegenic as IDS. Chuka, I have to say has improved immeasurably over the last couple of months. I also like Stella Creasy, but it looks like Labour party members/CLPs will be dumb enough to vote in Tom Watson. I know he did good work in the Phone Hacking scandal, but I actually can't stand him.
The biggest barrier to Rachel Reeves career is her voice.
There's just something about the pitch and tone of her voice that makes nails on a blackboard sound appealing.
It's true. I remember some months back my mum saw on her TV and remarked that she needed elocution lessons.
'No, Corbyn is not a narcissist, but he wants to win to push Labour further towards his ideology. Kendall will also keep the Blairite flag flying to the end
I agree- he will push Burnham to the left. But the bottom line is Corbyn is just too much of an oppositional, principled, lefty maverick to run the modern day Labour party. And even if Burnham lurched to the left, Corbyn is even then, even then too much of a fringe figure to sit in his (Burnham's) shadow team.
If I were Burnham I would have the top 3 posts filled by Reeves, Cooper and Umunna and make Kendall Shadow Business Sec. I would appoint Corbyn as Overseas Aid Spokesman, not frontrank but still Shadow Cabinet and make him push for ever more aid spending, this stoking up Tory fury on that ringfenced area
HYUFD- you could give Corbyn whatever position you wanted, but he just could not even begin to live with the constraints that a shadow seat would put on him. It wouldn't be fair on him either. Corbyn's better having a couple of proxies in the cabinet- Dianne Abbot etc.
I really do not like Reeves, I can live with Kendell- Chuka has blown his copybook somewhat with his frit, Yvette really has done herself no favours in this contest- Burnham has to turn to Jarvis, Starmer and some others of the new intake, maybe Hunt too- and then Creasey, Flint etc...'
IDS appointed Bill Cash Shadow Attorney General, which suited his background and interests, overseas aid would suit Corbyn's. Jarvis could be Shadow Defence, Starmer Shadow Justice, Hunt Shadow Education, Creasey Shadow Health, Flint Shadow W and P, there could be places for them all
IDS was politically aligned to Bill Cash- that's why it could work. Burnham isn't to Corbyn. Corbyn has to be allowed to carry on as an outsider. I would hope he puts Jarvis and Starmer in depts outside their comfort zone to judge how talented they are. I would give Chuka the shadow chancellor, and Yvette, foreign secretary- but have my doubts.
Reeves is better than Lucy Powell though, tv-wise, surely?
Anything is better than Powell. Anything at all. One of the worst performers from any party i recent years. Utterly without skill, finesse or political acumen.
Putting someone with no communication skills in charge of communicating during the campaign was a classic case of Ed's reverse Midas touch.
I find Reeves to be terribly overrated and I can't quite understand Labour's obsession with her.
Yes, I have always wondered what dirt Rachel Reeves has on people to constantly be getting these top gigs.
Frankly, for as much (deserved) flak as Cooper and Burnham's campaigns are getting, they are still streets ahead of the rest of the shadow cabinet bar Chuka (whose politics I don't like but he still undeniably has a bit of stardust).
When Reeves first came onto the scene her gig appeared to be 'look how good I am at Maths'....which is actually the minimum expected of a future Chancellor. She's also about as telegenic as IDS. Chuka, I have to say has improved immeasurably over the last couple of months. I also like Stella Creasy, but it looks like Labour party members/CLPs will be dumb enough to vote in Tom Watson. I know he did good work in the Phone Hacking scandal, but I actually can't stand him.
The biggest barrier to Rachel Reeves career is her voice.
There's just something about the pitch and tone of her voice that makes nails on a blackboard sound appealing.
It's true. I remember some months back my mum saw on her TV and remarked that she needed elocution lessons.
Before my time, but it was said Thatcher's voice when she became Leader of the Opposition was unappealing to voters, she had lessons and became more appealing.
Well good for you, but some people can fall on hard times and be made redundant and having contributed into the pot all their lives it is immoral in my view to give them nothing to survive on beyond scraps of charity until they get their lives back on track
I paid £60k tax last year (and * knows how much NI) - can I have some of it back to pay for losses on my Brazil ISA?
I am not talking about some losses on some investments, I am talking about losing everything eg a minimum wage job and eating up most of your savings and having nothing left to fall back on, in my view any civilised society should provide enough to survive on until people get back on their feet, including for you were Ave it were you ever to face such misfortune
I find Reeves to be terribly overrated and I can't quite understand Labour's obsession with her.
Yes, I have always wondered what dirt Rachel Reeves has on people to constantly be getting these top gigs.
Frankly, for as much (deserved) flak as Cooper and Burnham's campaigns are getting, they are still streets ahead of the rest of the shadow cabinet bar Chuka (whose politics I don't like but he still undeniably has a bit of stardust).
When Reeves first came onto the scene her gig appeared to be 'look how good I am at Maths'....which is actually the minimum expected of a future Chancellor. She's also about as telegenic as IDS. Chuka, I have to say has improved immeasurably over the last couple of months. I also like Stella Creasy, but it looks like Labour party members/CLPs will be dumb enough to vote in Tom Watson. I know he did good work in the Phone Hacking scandal, but I actually can't stand him.
Chuka has grown on me too since he quit the race. I had him down as a slick empty suit, stepping down from that ambition seems to have improved him and allowed him to be a bit more outspoken rather than on-message.
Stella Creasy is also impressing, but Watson is dire.
I don't understand why anyone would even think Tom Watson as Deputy Leader is a good idea. He makes Harriet look like Clement Atlee.
@kle4 My cat would be better TV wise than Lucy Powell. I hope I never see her on TV again. She's a tragedy.
I find Reeves to be terribly overrated and I can't quite understand Labour's obsession with her.
Yes, I have always wondered what dirt Rachel Reeves has on people to constantly be getting these top gigs.
Frankly, for as much (deserved) flak as Cooper and Burnham's campaigns are getting, they are still streets ahead of the rest of the shadow cabinet bar Chuka (whose politics I don't like but he still undeniably has a bit of stardust).
When Reeves first came onto the scene her gig appeared to be 'look how good I am at Maths'....which is actually the minimum expected of a future Chancellor. She's also about as telegenic as IDS. Chuka, I have to say has improved immeasurably over the last couple of months. I also like Stella Creasy, but it looks like Labour party members/CLPs will be dumb enough to vote in Tom Watson. I know he did good work in the Phone Hacking scandal, but I actually can't stand him.
The biggest barrier to Rachel Reeves career is her voice.
There's just something about the pitch and tone of her voice that makes nails on a blackboard sound appealing.
It's true. I remember some months back my mum saw on her TV and remarked that she needed elocution lessons.
Before my time, but it was said Thatcher's voice when she became Leader of the Opposition was unappealing to voters, she had lessons and became more appealing.
Is Rachel Reeves the new Margaret Thatcher?
*splutters*
Actually what Labour needs now is a new Mo Mowlam. Someone who appears straight-talking, no-nonsense and has the ability to engage with people.
The current political class could learn a lot from seeing how Mo operated. I may have disagreed with her politics, but I always listened to her.
Reeves is better than Lucy Powell though, tv-wise, surely?
Anything is better than Powell. Anything at all. One of the worst performers from any party i recent years. Utterly without skill, finesse or political acumen.
I find she attempts what has become a common tactic among MPs in recent years, I presume in counter to overly aggressive interviewers, of acting as though any followup question or request for the actual question to be answered is an outrageous insult, and stubbornly insist they have not said something they clearly did say, or insist they have answered a point no matter how ridiculous that claim is, hoping to given the impression they are facing down an unreasonable opponent rather than the truth, that they are waffling or providing a non-answer.
Trouble is, she seems spectacularly bad at the tactic. As someone who stood up for Ed M on many occasions (barring the Edstone, what a monstrosity that was), I found the criticisms of Powell and the caricatures of her in the Tory press to be one of the few things that were unfailingly accurate in how awful she really was. I presume she must be really good at behind the scenes work, otherwise repeatedly putting in her front of the cameras makes no sense whatsoever.
Well good for you, but some people can fall on hard times and be made redundant and having contributed into the pot all their lives it is immoral in my view to give them nothing to survive on beyond scraps of charity until they get their lives back on track
I paid £60k tax last year (and * knows how much NI) - can I have some of it back to pay for losses on my Brazil ISA?
I am not talking about some losses on some investments, I am talking about losing everything eg a minimum wage job and eating up most of your savings and having nothing left to fall back on, in my view any civilised society should provide enough to survive on until people get back on their feet, including for you were Ave it were you ever to face such misfortune
GRRRR HYUFD - had to log back in again to respond to this shyte
As I have already pointed out to you, due to the wealth I have earned for myself I would not get any state benefit if I lost my job. As it happens if that happened which hopefully it doesn't then actually I have enough to get me through to retirement - having already paid for benefits for a small primary school of children through my taxes!!!
I find Reeves to be terribly overrated and I can't quite understand Labour's obsession with her.
Yes, I have always wondered what dirt Rachel Reeves has on people to constantly be getting these top gigs.
Frankly, for as much (deserved) flak as Cooper and Burnham's campaigns are getting, they are still streets ahead of the rest of the shadow cabinet bar Chuka (whose politics I don't like but he still undeniably has a bit of stardust).
When Reeves first came onto the scene her gig appeared to be 'look how good I am at Maths'....which is actually the minimum expected of a future Chancellor. She's also about as telegenic as IDS. Chuka, I have to say has improved immeasurably over the last couple of months. I also like Stella Creasy, but it looks like Labour party members/CLPs will be dumb enough to vote in Tom Watson. I know he did good work in the Phone Hacking scandal, but I actually can't stand him.
The biggest barrier to Rachel Reeves career is her voice.
There's just something about the pitch and tone of her voice that makes nails on a blackboard sound appealing.
It's true. I remember some months back my mum saw on her TV and remarked that she needed elocution lessons.
Before my time, but it was said Thatcher's voice when she became Leader of the Opposition was unappealing to voters, she had lessons and became more appealing.
Is Rachel Reeves the new Margaret Thatcher?
There's a bigger chance of Boris getting a new haircut than Rachel Reeves being the new Thatcher!
Well good for you, but some people can fall on hard times and be made redundant and having contributed into the pot all their lives it is immoral in my view to give them nothing to survive on beyond scraps of charity until they get their lives back on track
I paid £60k tax last year (and * knows how much NI) - can I have some of it back to pay for losses on my Brazil ISA?
The other thing I've noticed with people with money is that they cannot bear losing any of it, anywhere, anytime, anyplace. Whether its taxes, or losses on investments or properties. They just expect all the cards to be stacked up for them all of the time. And they obsessively check their portfolios.
It makes them selfish, money obsessed (obviously), rather unpleasant- but just greedy and small minded.
And there we have....Ave it. Step forward comrade....
Hey Tyson I'm genuinely undecided who to vote for, Corbyn is certainly the one who's ideas and opinions are closest to mine, but surely he is unelectable, so I will probably go Cooper who is the best of an average bunch. Were you serious about Corbyn getting your vote?
Ps good to have you back Ave It. Watford will have a good season IMO. I still think you are a closet Labourite though.
Yet, in tomorrow's Sunday Times poll Cooper has the worst net score of all the contendors, including Corbyn
Well good for you, but some people can fall on hard times and be made redundant and having contributed into the pot all their lives it is immoral in my view to give them nothing to survive on beyond scraps of charity until they get their lives back on track
I paid £60k tax last year (and * knows how much NI) - can I have some of it back to pay for losses on my Brazil ISA?
The other thing I've noticed with people with money is that they cannot bear losing any of it, anywhere, anytime, anyplace. Whether its taxes, or losses on investments or properties. They just expect all the cards to be stacked up for them all of the time. And they obsessively check their portfolios.
It makes them selfish, money obsessed (obviously), rather unpleasant- but just greedy and small minded.
And there we have....Ave it. Step forward comrade....
Hey Tyson I'm genuinely undecided who to vote for, Corbyn is certainly the one who's ideas and opinions are closest to mine, but surely he is unelectable, so I will probably go Cooper who is the best of an average bunch. Were you serious about Corbyn getting your vote?
Ps good to have you back Ave It. Watford will have a good season IMO. I still think you are a closet Labourite though.
Of course Ave It is as a closet Labour boy Valley. It is one of pbcom's ongoing secrets along with JackW's identity.
I'm going for Corbyn. He is unelectable, but so are the others. Labour have 2 candidates who are political viagra- D Miliband, and Chuka. Possibly a third with Ed Jarvis, but we don't know yet. And maybe Stella Creasey too.
Corbyn is more likely to step aside in the interim. Better Valley to have some hope rather than no hope.
'Nixon resigned because the White House tapes were made public and he was facing impeachment. The collapse in his numbers was an effect of the ongoing Watergate investigation of what happened, NOT a cause of his resignation
This is not the 1970s or the 1990s.
I suggest you have little understanding of the US political process and environment as it exists today, and not waste each other's time continuing this discussion.'
The same principles apply regardless of decade, you can be as patronising as you wish but unless a 'smoking gun' emerges with a blazing trail direct to Hillary she will survive. It was only after more and more evidence emerged in relation to Watergate over the course of a year from 1972-1974 and Nixon's poll ratings fell ever further that he had to go
unless a 'smoking gun' emerges with a blazing trail direct to Hillary she will survive
I ALREADY SAID THAT!!!! Did you not read my original post?
It was only after more and more evidence emerged in relation to Watergate over the course of a year from 1972-1974 and Nixon's poll ratings fell ever further that he had to go
OK - one more time..... once it was known that the president had tape recording devices in the WH, the battle began for their release. Originally Nixon issued edited transcripts, but the pressure increased for the release of the whole thing.
Remember Howard Baker's question "What did the president know and when did he know it?" at the hearings in 1973.
Eventually the tapes were all released. The 'smoking gun' tape showed that 6 days after the break in Nixon tried to get the investigation into it stopped. That was the final straw,after CREEP and its slush funds, Martha Mitchell, and on and on, getting ever closer to the WH. With the smoking gun tape, it was obvious that Nixon knew, had lied about it, and had to go. So it was go or be impeached. What do you think Nixon's ratings were that Ford had to say "Our long national nightmare is over."
He left because impeachment proceedings were being implemented.
NOT the polls. Don't confuse cause and effect.
- and 'm not being patronising - you clearly have little or no deep understanding of US politics and history.
Your are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
Find a copy of "All the President's Men" -the book not the movie. The book has much more detail.
I find Reeves to be terribly overrated and I can't quite understand Labour's obsession with her.
Yes, I have always wondered what dirt Rachel Reeves has on people to constantly be getting these top gigs.
Frankly, for as much (deserved) flak as Cooper and Burnham's campaigns are getting, they are still streets ahead of the rest of the shadow cabinet bar Chuka (whose politics I don't like but he still undeniably has a bit of stardust).
When Reeves first came onto the scene her gig appeared to be 'look how good I am at Maths'....which is actually the minimum expected of a future Chancellor. She's also about as telegenic as IDS. Chuka, I have to say has improved immeasurably over the last couple of months. I also like Stella Creasy, but it looks like Labour party members/CLPs will be dumb enough to vote in Tom Watson. I know he did good work in the Phone Hacking scandal, but I actually can't stand him.
The biggest barrier to Rachel Reeves career is her voice.
There's just something about the pitch and tone of her voice that makes nails on a blackboard sound appealing.
It's true. I remember some months back my mum saw on her TV and remarked that she needed elocution lessons.
Before my time, but it was said Thatcher's voice when she became Leader of the Opposition was unappealing to voters, she had lessons and became more appealing.
Well good for you, but some people can fall on hard times and be made redundant and having contributed into the pot all their lives it is immoral in my view to give them nothing to survive on beyond scraps of charity until they get their lives back on track
I paid £60k tax last year (and * knows how much NI) - can I have some of it back to pay for losses on my Brazil ISA?
The other thing I've noticed with people with money is that they cannot bear losing any of it, anywhere, anytime, anyplace. Whether its taxes, or losses on investments or properties. They just expect all the cards to be stacked up for them all of the time. And they obsessively check their portfolios.
It makes them selfish, money obsessed (obviously), rather unpleasant- but just greedy and small minded.
And there we have....Ave it. Step forward comrade....
Hey Tyson I'm genuinely undecided who to vote for, Corbyn is certainly the one who's ideas and opinions are closest to mine, but surely he is unelectable, so I will probably go Cooper who is the best of an average bunch. Were you serious about Corbyn getting your vote?
Ps good to have you back Ave It. Watford will have a good season IMO. I still think you are a closet Labourite though.
Of course Ave It is as a closet Labour boy Valley. It is one of pbcom's ongoing secrets along with JackW's identity.
I'm going for Corbyn. He is unelectable, but so are the others. Labour have 2 candidates who are political viagra- D Miliband, and Chuka. Possibly a third with Ed Jarvis, but we don't know yet. And maybe Stella Creasey too.
Corbyn is more likely to step aside in the interim. Better Valley to have some hope rather than no hope.
Yes, thats the one thing that tempts me about Corbyn, better to go down fighting that not fighting at all. He may just get my vote after all. Fuck it.
Well good for you, but some people can fall on hard times and be made redundant and having contributed into the pot all their lives it is immoral in my view to give them nothing to survive on beyond scraps of charity until they get their lives back on track
I paid £60k tax last year (and * knows how much NI) - can I have some of it back to pay for losses on my Brazil ISA?
The other thing I've noticed with people with money is that they cannot bear losing any of it, anywhere, anytime, anyplace. Whether its taxes, or losses on investments or properties. They just expect all the cards to be stacked up for them all of the time. And they obsessively check their portfolios.
It makes them selfish, money obsessed (obviously), rather unpleasant- but just greedy and small minded.
And there we have....Ave it. Step forward comrade....
Hey Tyson I'm genuinely undecided who to vote for, Corbyn is certainly the one who's ideas and opinions are closest to mine, but surely he is unelectable, so I will probably go Cooper who is the best of an average bunch. Were you serious about Corbyn getting your vote?
Ps good to have you back Ave It. Watford will have a good season IMO. I still think you are a closet Labourite though.
Yet, in tomorrow's Sunday Times poll Cooper has the worst net score of all the contendors, including Corbyn
The problem with both Cooper and Burnham is that they have both gone backwards in this campaign. Cooper probably more so
'No, Corbyn is not a narcissist, but he wants to win to push Labour further towards his ideology. Kendall will also keep the Blairite flag flying to the end
I agree- he will push Burnham to the left. But the bottom line is Corbyn is just too much of an oppositional, principled, lefty maverick to run the modern day Labour party. And even if Burnham lurched to the left, Corbyn is even then, even then too much of a fringe figure to sit in his (Burnham's) shadow team.
If I were Burnham I would have the top 3 posts filled by Reeves, Cooper and Umunna and make Kendall Shadow Business Sec. I would appoint Corbyn as Overseas Aid Spokesman, not frontrank but still Shadow Cabinet and make him push for ever more aid spending, this stoking up Tory fury on that ringfenced area
HYUFD- you could give Corbyn whatever position you wanted, but he just could not even begin to live with the constraints that a shadow seat would put on him. It wouldn't be fair on him either. Corbyn's better having a couple of proxies in the cabinet- Dianne Abbot etc.
I really do not like Reeves, I can live with Kendell- Chuka has blown his copybook somewhat with his frit, Yvette really has done herself no favours in this contest- Burnham has to turn to Jarvis, Starmer and some others of the new intake, maybe Hunt too- and then Creasey, Flint etc...'
IDS appointed Bill Cash Shadow Attorney General, which suited his background and interests, overseas aid would suit Corbyn's. Jarvis could be Shadow Defence, Starmer Shadow Justice, Hunt Shadow Education, Creasey Shadow Health, Flint Shadow W and P, there could be places for them all
IDS was politically aligned to Bill Cash- that's why it could work. Burnham isn't to Corbyn. Corbyn has to be allowed to carry on as an outsider. I would hope he puts Jarvis and Starmer in depts outside their comfort zone to judge how talented they are. I would give Chuka the shadow chancellor, and Yvette, foreign secretary- but have my doubts.
If Corbyn comes top on the first ballot, as he almost certainly will even if Burnham wins on preferences, then he will no longer be an outsider on any definition and he has to be at least offered a place in the top team even if he turns it down. I would want a Shadow Cabinet making use of everyones talents, and areas of capability, though Burnham as you suggest may want to test candidates in areas they are unfamiliar with. Chuka is clearly pushing for Shadow Foreign Sec and would be suited to it
Well good for you, but some people can fall on hard times and be made redundant and having contributed into the pot all their lives it is immoral in my view to give them nothing to survive on beyond scraps of charity until they get their lives back on track
I paid £60k tax last year (and * knows how much NI) - can I have some of it back to pay for losses on my Brazil ISA?
I am not talking about some losses on some investments, I am talking about losing everything eg a minimum wage job and eating up most of your savings and having nothing left to fall back on, in my view any civilised society should provide enough to survive on until people get back on their feet, including for you were Ave it were you ever to face such misfortune
GRRRR HYUFD - had to log back in again to respond to this shyte
As I have already pointed out to you, due to the wealth I have earned for myself I would not get any state benefit if I lost my job. As it happens if that happened which hopefully it doesn't then actually I have enough to get me through to retirement - having already paid for benefits for a small primary school of children through my taxes!!!
*
Definitely off now GN
PS Priti Patel rules!!!
Wrong, as you can claim contributory JSA for 6 months regardless of savings
Well good for you, but some people can fall on hard times and be made redundant and having contributed into the pot all their lives it is immoral in my view to give them nothing to survive on beyond scraps of charity until they get their lives back on track
I paid £60k tax last year (and * knows how much NI) - can I have some of it back to pay for losses on my Brazil ISA?
The other thing I've noticed with people with money is that they cannot bear losing any of it, anywhere, anytime, anyplace. Whether its taxes, or losses on investments or properties. They just expect all the cards to be stacked up for them all of the time. And they obsessively check their portfolios.
It makes them selfish, money obsessed (obviously), rather unpleasant- but just greedy and small minded.
And there we have....Ave it. Step forward comrade....
Hey Tyson I'm genuinely undecided who to vote for, Corbyn is certainly the one who's ideas and opinions are closest to mine, but surely he is unelectable, so I will probably go Cooper who is the best of an average bunch. Were you serious about Corbyn getting your vote?
Ps good to have you back Ave It. Watford will have a good season IMO. I still think you are a closet Labourite though.
Of course Ave It is as a closet Labour boy Valley. It is one of pbcom's ongoing secrets along with JackW's identity.
I'm going for Corbyn. He is unelectable, but so are the others. Labour have 2 candidates who are political viagra- D Miliband, and Chuka. Possibly a third with Ed Jarvis, but we don't know yet. And maybe Stella Creasey too.
Corbyn is more likely to step aside in the interim. Better Valley to have some hope rather than no hope.
Yes, thats the one thing that tempts me about Corbyn, better to go down fighting that not fighting at all. He may just get my vote after all. Fuck it.
A healthy bit of nihilism doesn't do one any harm. Good night all. Off to walk Trotsky and to try and avoid the mosquitoes
I find Reeves to be terribly overrated and I can't quite understand Labour's obsession with her.
Yes, I have always wondered what dirt Rachel Reeves has on people to constantly be getting these top gigs.
Frankly, for as much (deserved) flak as Cooper and Burnham's campaigns are getting, they are still streets ahead of the rest of the shadow cabinet bar Chuka (whose politics I don't like but he still undeniably has a bit of stardust).
When Reeves first came onto the scene her gig appeared to be 'look how good I am at Maths'....which is actually the minimum expected of a future Chancellor. She's also about as telegenic as IDS. Chuka, I have to say has improved immeasurably over the last couple of months. I also like Stella Creasy, but it looks like Labour party members/CLPs will be dumb enough to vote in Tom Watson. I know he did good work in the Phone Hacking scandal, but I actually can't stand him.
The biggest barrier to Rachel Reeves career is her voice.
There's just something about the pitch and tone of her voice that makes nails on a blackboard sound appealing.
It's true. I remember some months back my mum saw on her TV and remarked that she needed elocution lessons.
Before my time, but it was said Thatcher's voice when she became Leader of the Opposition was unappealing to voters, she had lessons and became more appealing.
Is Rachel Reeves the new Margaret Thatcher?
No
It is true - she had a shrill voice. Laurence Olivier suggested a voice coach for her.
I find Reeves to be terribly overrated and I can't quite understand Labour's obsession with her.
Yes, I have always wondered what dirt Rachel Reeves has on people to constantly be getting these top gigs.
Frankly, for as much (deserved) flak as Cooper and Burnham's campaigns are getting, they are still streets ahead of the rest of the shadow cabinet bar Chuka (whose politics I don't like but he still undeniably has a bit of stardust).
When Reeves first came onto the scene her gig appeared to be 'look how good I am at Maths'....which is actually the minimum expected of a future Chancellor. She's also about as telegenic as IDS. Chuka, I have to say has improved immeasurably over the last couple of months. I also like Stella Creasy, but it looks like Labour party members/CLPs will be dumb enough to vote in Tom Watson. I know he did good work in the Phone Hacking scandal, but I actually can't stand him.
The biggest barrier to Rachel Reeves career is her voice.
There's just something about the pitch and tone of her voice that makes nails on a blackboard sound appealing.
It's true. I remember some months back my mum saw on her TV and remarked that she needed elocution lessons.
Before my time, but it was said Thatcher's voice when she became Leader of the Opposition was unappealing to voters, she had lessons and became more appealing.
Is Rachel Reeves the new Margaret Thatcher?
No
Scratching round the current shadow cabinet for glimpses of talent is a fairly depressing experience. One advantage of Corbyn as leader is that there eould be fresh blood rather than a reshuffle of the tired old faces.
It might force the centrists of Labour to sort out a way back, and give them some purpose rather than a sense of entitlement.
Well good for you, but some people can fall on hard times and be made redundant and having contributed into the pot all their lives it is immoral in my view to give them nothing to survive on beyond scraps of charity until they get their lives back on track
I paid £60k tax last year (and * knows how much NI) - can I have some of it back to pay for losses on my Brazil ISA?
The other thing I've noticed with people with money is that they cannot bear losing any of it, anywhere, anytime, anyplace. Whether its taxes, or losses on investments or properties. They just expect all the cards to be stacked up for them all of the time. And they obsessively check their portfolios.
It makes them selfish, money obsessed (obviously), rather unpleasant- but just greedy and small minded.
And there we have....Ave it. Step forward comrade....
Hey Tyson I'm genuinely undecided who to vote for, Corbyn is certainly the one who's ideas and opinions are closest to mine, but surely he is unelectable, so I will probably go Cooper who is the best of an average bunch. Were you serious about Corbyn getting your vote?
Ps good to have you back Ave It. Watford will have a good season IMO. I still think you are a closet Labourite though.
Yet, in tomorrow's Sunday Times poll Cooper has the worst net score of all the contendors, including Corbyn
The problem with both Cooper and Burnham is that they have both gone backwards in this campaign. Cooper probably more so
Indeed, Burnham is at least runner up to Corbyn, Cooper has dropped well back
Well good for you, but some people can fall on hard times and be made redundant and having contributed into the pot all their lives it is immoral in my view to give them nothing to survive on beyond scraps of charity until they get their lives back on track
I paid £60k tax last year (and * knows how much NI) - can I have some of it back to pay for losses on my Brazil ISA?
I am not talking about some losses on some investments, I am talking about losing everything eg a minimum wage job and eating up most of your savings and having nothing left to fall back on, in my view any civilised society should provide enough to survive on until people get back on their feet, including for you were Ave it were you ever to face such misfortune
GRRRR HYUFD - had to log back in again to respond to this shyte
As I have already pointed out to you, due to the wealth I have earned for myself I would not get any state benefit if I lost my job. As it happens if that happened which hopefully it doesn't then actually I have enough to get me through to retirement - having already paid for benefits for a small primary school of children through my taxes!!!
*
Definitely off now GN
PS Priti Patel rules!!!
Wrong, as you can claim contributory JSA for 6 months regardless of savings
I really do not wish you ill, AveIt, perhaps your football team, but not you, but if you really are so prejudiced against the less fortunate, as your posts would imply, I hope you do not hit hard times.
The odds of Corbyn becoming Labour leader and Trump becoming the GOP candidate are about 56 to 1 if you multiply the respective Betfair odds. If you'd said that a few months ago people would have thought you were a few sandwiches short of a picnic.
"HARRIET HARMAN has been urged to suspend the Labour leadership race after evidence emerged that hard left infiltration is fuelling a huge surge in party membership.
More than 140,000 new activists are projected to have joined by the deadline for registration to vote, a rise of more than two thirds since the election, with many signing up to back the hard left candidate Jeremy Corbyn.
The Communist party of Great Britain has called on supporters to join and back Corbyn as part of its revolutionary “strategy” while Green party activists have also been discussing how to vote for him."
If the 140,000 figure is accurate then surely Corbyn must have a very, very good chance indeed of winning.
Looks to me as if this is now getting incredibly serious - could the next move be something like a joint statement / press conference by Kinnock and Brown calling for the election to be halted?
unless a 'smoking gun' emerges with a blazing trail direct to Hillary she will survive
'I ALREADY SAID THAT!!!! Did you not read my original post?
It was only after more and more evidence emerged in relation to Watergate over the course of a year from 1972-1974 and Nixon's poll ratings fell ever further that he had to go
'OK - one more time..... once it was known that the president had tape recording devices in the WH, the battle began for their release. Originally Nixon issued edited transcripts, but the pressure increased for the release of the whole thing.
Remember Howard Baker's question "What did the president know and when did he know it?" at the hearings in 1973.
Eventually the tapes were all released. The 'smoking gun' tape showed that 6 days after the break in Nixon tried to get the investigation into it stopped. That was the final straw,after CREEP and its slush funds, Martha Mitchell, and on and on, getting ever closer to the WH. With the smoking gun tape, it was obvious that Nixon knew, had lied about it, and had to go. So it was go or be impeached. What do you think Nixon's ratings were that Ford had to say "Our long national nightmare is over."
He left because impeachment proceedings were being implemented.
NOT the polls. Don't confuse cause and effect.
- and 'm not being patronising - you clearly have little or no deep understanding of US politics and history.
Your are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.'
Find a copy of "All the President's Men" -the book not the movie. The book has much more detail.'
Yes and those tapes were connected to ever more evidence that the President of the United States had authorised a burglary of his opponents HQ and then tried to stop the investigation. That evidence was what led to his polls nosediving and resignation. The fact Hillary may have put some emails in her private account rather than the state account is nothing like the same unless there is some extraordinary revelation in those emails eg Hillary openly assisted an enemy of the US
Of course you are being patronising, you cannot assume anything of my knowledge of US politics and history.
"HARRIET HARMAN has been urged to suspend the Labour leadership race after evidence emerged that hard left infiltration is fuelling a huge surge in party membership.
More than 140,000 new activists are projected to have joined by the deadline for registration to vote, a rise of more than two thirds since the election, with many signing up to back the hard left candidate Jeremy Corbyn.
The Communist party of Great Britain has called on supporters to join and back Corbyn as part of its revolutionary “strategy” while Green party activists have also been discussing how to vote for him."
It looks like allowing people to join during the leadership election campaign wasn't such a bright idea.
"HARRIET HARMAN has been urged to suspend the Labour leadership race after evidence emerged that hard left infiltration is fuelling a huge surge in party membership.
More than 140,000 new activists are projected to have joined by the deadline for registration to vote, a rise of more than two thirds since the election, with many signing up to back the hard left candidate Jeremy Corbyn.
The Communist party of Great Britain has called on supporters to join and back Corbyn as part of its revolutionary “strategy” while Green party activists have also been discussing how to vote for him."
If Labour think that their members are going to get outvoted by members of the Communist Party in their own leadership contest then they've got much larger problems than Jeremy Corbyn.
“It should be halted. It is becoming a farce with longstanding members . . . in danger of getting trumped by people who have opposed the Labour party and want to break it up, expressly want to break it up — some of it is the Militant Tendency types coming back in.”
“It should be halted. It is becoming a farce with longstanding members . . . in danger of getting trumped by people who have opposed the Labour party and want to break it up, expressly want to break it up — some of it is the Militant Tendency types coming back in.”
If the 140,000 figure is accurate then surely Corbyn must have a very, very good chance indeed of winning.
Looks to me as if this is now getting incredibly serious - could the next move be something like a joint statement / press conference by Kinnock and Brown calling for the election to be halted?
On what grounds? While it's supposed to be 'genuine' Labour supporters voting in the election, the defence mechanism against a candidate not sufficiently backed by MPs (and in an imperfect representation as a result, party members) as to be deemed 'suitable', is meant to be the MP nomination limit. That is, only suitable candidates make it through to the open vote, so it isn't supposed to matter which wins, and though undermined a little that doesn't seem totally undermined if people are marshalling behind a particular candidate for less than pure reasons, as they have implicitly said all the candidates are viable labour leaders already.
To suspend the race would be to admit they shouldn't have allowed Corbyn on the ballot. Ok, if that's what they want, but best be sure it's worth looking silly.
"HARRIET HARMAN has been urged to suspend the Labour leadership race after evidence emerged that hard left infiltration is fuelling a huge surge in party membership.
More than 140,000 new activists are projected to have joined by the deadline for registration to vote, a rise of more than two thirds since the election, with many signing up to back the hard left candidate Jeremy Corbyn.
The Communist party of Great Britain has called on supporters to join and back Corbyn as part of its revolutionary “strategy” while Green party activists have also been discussing how to vote for him."
If Labour think that their members are going to get outvoted by members of the Communist Party in their own leadership contest then they've got much larger problems than Jeremy Corbyn.
Quite. Surely the Corbyn bubble will burst, this has to be a lot of noise from one side and quiet from those longstanding non left types, surely?
"HARRIET HARMAN has been urged to suspend the Labour leadership race after evidence emerged that hard left infiltration is fuelling a huge surge in party membership.
More than 140,000 new activists are projected to have joined by the deadline for registration to vote, a rise of more than two thirds since the election, with many signing up to back the hard left candidate Jeremy Corbyn.
The Communist party of Great Britain has called on supporters to join and back Corbyn as part of its revolutionary “strategy” while Green party activists have also been discussing how to vote for him."
It looks like allowing people to join during the leadership election campaign wasn't such a bright idea.
Yeah. The cut off should have been at the election, or at least when nominations closed.
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33664269
I happen to believe in dealing with the consequences of your actions. Any attempt to give into the panic around a potential Corbyn victory will undermine the entire party.
The system was set up by Labour to elect the new leader. Checks were put in place. The process is now underway.
If the old and new Labour membership want Corbyn, they should get Corbyn. It would be a mistake for them - but they should get what they vote for.
I did say twice that it is a long shot.
http://ind.pn/1epa40u
Bored of subsidising low earning children producing spongers!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-33650486
plato- your'e a TV drama kind of person right? The prospect of Corbyn winning, would be like a re-make of the Sweeney- and I mean a re-make. Same dialogue, editing, lighting. etc... Even same cars, same haircuts, same photography.
It is just isn't going to happen. Time's have changed, and no matter how nostalgic people get for the Sweeney, they're not going back there.
I love nothing more than spending an afternoon watching episodes of Alfred Hitchcock Presents but I doubt there are many people like me.
oxfordsimon- just because you, and a whole host of ideologue Tories are on the verge of ejaculating at the prospect of a Corbyn victory, do not get that upset if it doesn't happen, for whatever reason. At the end of the day you won an election a few weeks ago- you cannot get it all your own way, always.
Except of course the Tories did get it all their own way between 1979 and 1997 with Foot and Kinnock leading Labour.
Was pretty rubbish
OSBORNE every *where!
But I have some ideas.
If I'm being honest, I don't have a complete answer. Labour doesn't have a great team to work with at the moment - Cooper and Burnham are mediocre, the likes of Hilary Benn, and Angela Eagle are uninspiring. I guess I'd bring in the likes of Creasy, Kinnock Jr, Dan Jarvis into the team - Labour needs some new faces. I'd make Umunna Shadow Chancellor - I find Reeves to be terribly overrated and I can't quite understand Labour's obsession with her.
I do feel strongly welfare reform is needed - but not in the way this government is doing it. I think Labour should seriously consider advocating an alternative welfare reform (someone like Cruddas + Frank FIeld would be brilliant to put forward proposals) - which would arguably give them a land to stand on when being critical of this government's proposals - because at least they could say what they'd do.
I'd pretty much admit Labour overspent and move on in regards to that. It's a battle that Labour have already lost, if Labour wanted to change this narrative it should have done it 2008/9.
I also get rid of that dumb £3 entry policy to vote in the leadership.
I'd consider breaking - or at least reducing the union link. I deeply resent the influence of Unite and Len McLuskey, and I want them as far away from Labour as possible.
I am checking episode by episode with Dave Rogers The Ultimate Avengers book.
And my vote is based on the fact that the Labour party has failed, yes failed miserably to put forward any candidates capable of laying a glove on Osborne.
And I'm not some lefty lefty trying to get my own back on the Blairites, or some mischievous, conniving Tory mischief making. I'm using my vote to vote.
Clinton was president, she is merely a candidate.
I won't even bother to correct your Watergate inaccuracies.
I haven't had a day off sick for 18 years!!
Boo to you!!!
TimB- I bet you are the easiest person in the world to buy presents for.
I watched two episodes of the original twilight zone series this afternoon- sublime. And scary, even now.
Gosh- the original Avengers. That is self indulgent, with a capital S and lashing of indulgence.
Not according to my family, who claim I already have everything they think I want.
I get a lot of dvds from amazon uk - thanks to the magic of VAT I can buy them and get them airmailed to the US for less than the list price in the UK.
The Avengers - 40 dvds I think - arrived in 4 days with a shipping charge of 3 quid, much less than the VAT in the UK.
They have some amazing deals if you look carefully.
Clinton was president, she is merely a candidate.
I won't even bother to correct your Watergate inaccuracies.'
Well she is not facing such charges at the moment is she so we shall reach such a bridge when we come to it. Arrests were made over Watergate in June 1972, and it was revealed one of the burglars was a GOP aide and a cheque for Nixon's reelection was found in another's bank account. In October the FBI reported a large campaign of spying and sabotage by Nixon's re-election campaign. Nixon was re-elected the following month
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKywahxWEAAGudQ.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKywai1WgAAAPR7.jpg
Frankly, for as much (deserved) flak as Cooper and Burnham's campaigns are getting, they are still streets ahead of the rest of the shadow cabinet bar Chuka (whose politics I don't like but he still undeniably has a bit of stardust).
House Judiciary Committee passed the articles of impeachment 27-30 July. This is the first in 3 steps (next the full House votes on the findings of the Judiciary Committee, then the Senate sets up an impeachment trial). It rapidly became clear in August that this would happen. Nixon resigned rather than be impeached on 8 August.
I really do not like Reeves, I can live with Kendell- Chuka has blown his copybook somewhat with his frit, Yvette really has done herself no favours in this contest- Burnham has to turn to Jarvis, Starmer and some others of the new intake, maybe Hunt too- and then Creasey, Flint etc...
I love Reeves!
All part of the OSBORNE 20 (20 more years) vision!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal
Nixon resigned because the White House tapes were made public and he was facing impeachment. The collapse in his numbers was an effect of the ongoing Watergate investigation of what happened, NOT a cause of his resignation
This is not the 1970s or the 1990s.
I suggest you have little understanding of the US political process and environment as it exists today, and not waste each other's time continuing this discussion.
This is not the 1970s or the 1990s.
I suggest you have little understanding of the US political process and environment as it exists today, and not waste each other's time continuing this discussion.'
The same principles apply regardless of decade, you can be as patronising as you wish but unless a 'smoking gun' emerges with a blazing trail direct to Hillary she will survive. It was only after more and more evidence emerged in relation to Watergate over the course of a year from 1972-1974 and Nixon's poll ratings fell ever further that he had to go
'No, Corbyn is not a narcissist, but he wants to win to push Labour further towards his ideology. Kendall will also keep the Blairite flag flying to the end
I agree- he will push Burnham to the left. But the bottom line is Corbyn is just too much of an oppositional, principled, lefty maverick to run the modern day Labour party. And even if Burnham lurched to the left, Corbyn is even then, even then too much of a fringe figure to sit in his (Burnham's) shadow team.
If I were Burnham I would have the top 3 posts filled by Reeves, Cooper and Umunna and make Kendall Shadow Business Sec. I would appoint Corbyn as Overseas Aid Spokesman, not frontrank but still Shadow Cabinet and make him push for ever more aid spending, this stoking up Tory fury on that ringfenced area
HYUFD- you could give Corbyn whatever position you wanted, but he just could not even begin to live with the constraints that a shadow seat would put on him. It wouldn't be fair on him either. Corbyn's better having a couple of proxies in the cabinet- Dianne Abbot etc.
I really do not like Reeves, I can live with Kendell- Chuka has blown his copybook somewhat with his frit, Yvette really has done herself no favours in this contest- Burnham has to turn to Jarvis, Starmer and some others of the new intake, maybe Hunt too- and then Creasey, Flint etc...'
IDS appointed Bill Cash Shadow Attorney General, which suited his background and interests, overseas aid would suit Corbyn's. Jarvis could be Shadow Defence, Starmer Shadow Justice, Hunt Shadow Education, Creasey Shadow Health, Flint Shadow W and P, there could be places for them all
It makes them selfish, money obsessed (obviously), rather unpleasant- but just greedy and small minded.
And there we have....Ave it. Step forward comrade....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhKXC9be9Vo
Still like her though!
Off to check my Brazil portfolio now GN all!
There's just something about the pitch and tone of her voice that makes nails on a blackboard sound appealing.
Stella Creasy is also impressing, but Watson is dire.
I'm genuinely undecided who to vote for, Corbyn is certainly the one who's ideas and opinions are closest to mine, but surely he is unelectable, so I will probably go Cooper who is the best of an average bunch. Were you serious about Corbyn getting your vote?
Ps good to have you back Ave It. Watford will have a good season IMO. I still think you are a closet Labourite though.
I agree- he will push Burnham to the left. But the bottom line is Corbyn is just too much of an oppositional, principled, lefty maverick to run the modern day Labour party. And even if Burnham lurched to the left, Corbyn is even then, even then too much of a fringe figure to sit in his (Burnham's) shadow team.
If I were Burnham I would have the top 3 posts filled by Reeves, Cooper and Umunna and make Kendall Shadow Business Sec. I would appoint Corbyn as Overseas Aid Spokesman, not frontrank but still Shadow Cabinet and make him push for ever more aid spending, this stoking up Tory fury on that ringfenced area
HYUFD- you could give Corbyn whatever position you wanted, but he just could not even begin to live with the constraints that a shadow seat would put on him. It wouldn't be fair on him either. Corbyn's better having a couple of proxies in the cabinet- Dianne Abbot etc.
I really do not like Reeves, I can live with Kendell- Chuka has blown his copybook somewhat with his frit, Yvette really has done herself no favours in this contest- Burnham has to turn to Jarvis, Starmer and some others of the new intake, maybe Hunt too- and then Creasey, Flint etc...'
IDS appointed Bill Cash Shadow Attorney General, which suited his background and interests, overseas aid would suit Corbyn's. Jarvis could be Shadow Defence, Starmer Shadow Justice, Hunt Shadow Education, Creasey Shadow Health, Flint Shadow W and P, there could be places for them all
IDS was politically aligned to Bill Cash- that's why it could work. Burnham isn't to Corbyn. Corbyn has to be allowed to carry on as an outsider.
I would hope he puts Jarvis and Starmer in depts outside their comfort zone to judge how talented they are.
I would give Chuka the shadow chancellor, and Yvette, foreign secretary- but have my doubts.
Is Rachel Reeves the new Margaret Thatcher?
@kle4 My cat would be better TV wise than Lucy Powell. I hope I never see her on TV again. She's a tragedy.
Actually what Labour needs now is a new Mo Mowlam. Someone who appears straight-talking, no-nonsense and has the ability to engage with people.
The current political class could learn a lot from seeing how Mo operated. I may have disagreed with her politics, but I always listened to her.
Trouble is, she seems spectacularly bad at the tactic. As someone who stood up for Ed M on many occasions (barring the Edstone, what a monstrosity that was), I found the criticisms of Powell and the caricatures of her in the Tory press to be one of the few things that were unfailingly accurate in how awful she really was. I presume she must be really good at behind the scenes work, otherwise repeatedly putting in her front of the cameras makes no sense whatsoever.
As I have already pointed out to you, due to the wealth I have earned for myself I would not get any state benefit if I lost my job. As it happens if that happened which hopefully it doesn't then actually I have enough to get me through to retirement - having already paid for benefits for a small primary school of children through my taxes!!!
*
Definitely off now GN
PS Priti Patel rules!!!
I'm going for Corbyn. He is unelectable, but so are the others. Labour have 2 candidates who are political viagra- D Miliband, and Chuka. Possibly a third with Ed Jarvis, but we don't know yet. And maybe Stella Creasey too.
Corbyn is more likely to step aside in the interim. Better Valley to have some hope rather than no hope.
unless a 'smoking gun' emerges with a blazing trail direct to Hillary she will survive
I ALREADY SAID THAT!!!! Did you not read my original post?
It was only after more and more evidence emerged in relation to Watergate over the course of a year from 1972-1974 and Nixon's poll ratings fell ever further that he had to go
OK - one more time..... once it was known that the president had tape recording devices in the WH, the battle began for their release. Originally Nixon issued edited transcripts, but the pressure increased for the release of the whole thing.
Remember Howard Baker's question "What did the president know and when did he know it?" at the hearings in 1973.
Eventually the tapes were all released. The 'smoking gun' tape showed that 6 days after the break in Nixon tried to get the investigation into it stopped. That was the final straw,after CREEP and its slush funds, Martha Mitchell, and on and on, getting ever closer to the WH. With the smoking gun tape, it was obvious that Nixon knew, had lied about it, and had to go. So it was go or be impeached. What do you think Nixon's ratings were that Ford had to say "Our long national nightmare is over."
He left because impeachment proceedings were being implemented.
NOT the polls. Don't confuse cause and effect.
- and 'm not being patronising - you clearly have little or no deep understanding of US politics and history.
Your are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
Find a copy of "All the President's Men" -the book not the movie. The book has much more detail.
If I were Burnham I would have the top 3 posts filled by Reeves, Cooper and Umunna and make Kendall Shadow Business Sec. I would appoint Corbyn as Overseas Aid Spokesman, not frontrank but still Shadow Cabinet and make him push for ever more aid spending, this stoking up Tory fury on that ringfenced area
HYUFD- you could give Corbyn whatever position you wanted, but he just could not even begin to live with the constraints that a shadow seat would put on him. It wouldn't be fair on him either. Corbyn's better having a couple of proxies in the cabinet- Dianne Abbot etc.
I really do not like Reeves, I can live with Kendell- Chuka has blown his copybook somewhat with his frit, Yvette really has done herself no favours in this contest- Burnham has to turn to Jarvis, Starmer and some others of the new intake, maybe Hunt too- and then Creasey, Flint etc...'
IDS appointed Bill Cash Shadow Attorney General, which suited his background and interests, overseas aid would suit Corbyn's. Jarvis could be Shadow Defence, Starmer Shadow Justice, Hunt Shadow Education, Creasey Shadow Health, Flint Shadow W and P, there could be places for them all
IDS was politically aligned to Bill Cash- that's why it could work. Burnham isn't to Corbyn. Corbyn has to be allowed to carry on as an outsider.
I would hope he puts Jarvis and Starmer in depts outside their comfort zone to judge how talented they are.
I would give Chuka the shadow chancellor, and Yvette, foreign secretary- but have my doubts.
If Corbyn comes top on the first ballot, as he almost certainly will even if Burnham wins on preferences, then he will no longer be an outsider on any definition and he has to be at least offered a place in the top team even if he turns it down. I would want a Shadow Cabinet making use of everyones talents, and areas of capability, though Burnham as you suggest may want to test candidates in areas they are unfamiliar with. Chuka is clearly pushing for Shadow Foreign Sec and would be suited to it
https://www.awesomestories.com/asset/view/Margaret-Thatcher-Voice-Before-and-After-Lessons
It might force the centrists of Labour to sort out a way back, and give them some purpose rather than a sense of entitlement.
Actually ALL parties could do with a few Mo Mowlam types.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.107664938
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.103946886
"HARRIET HARMAN has been urged to suspend the Labour leadership race after evidence emerged that hard left infiltration is fuelling a huge surge in party membership.
More than 140,000 new activists are projected to have joined by the deadline for registration to vote, a rise of more than two thirds since the election, with many signing up to back the hard left candidate Jeremy Corbyn.
The Communist party of Great Britain has called on supporters to join and back Corbyn as part of its revolutionary “strategy” while Green party activists have also been discussing how to vote for him."
Looks to me as if this is now getting incredibly serious - could the next move be something like a joint statement / press conference by Kinnock and Brown calling for the election to be halted?
'I ALREADY SAID THAT!!!! Did you not read my original post?
It was only after more and more evidence emerged in relation to Watergate over the course of a year from 1972-1974 and Nixon's poll ratings fell ever further that he had to go
'OK - one more time..... once it was known that the president had tape recording devices in the WH, the battle began for their release. Originally Nixon issued edited transcripts, but the pressure increased for the release of the whole thing.
Remember Howard Baker's question "What did the president know and when did he know it?" at the hearings in 1973.
Eventually the tapes were all released. The 'smoking gun' tape showed that 6 days after the break in Nixon tried to get the investigation into it stopped. That was the final straw,after CREEP and its slush funds, Martha Mitchell, and on and on, getting ever closer to the WH. With the smoking gun tape, it was obvious that Nixon knew, had lied about it, and had to go. So it was go or be impeached. What do you think Nixon's ratings were that Ford had to say "Our long national nightmare is over."
He left because impeachment proceedings were being implemented.
NOT the polls. Don't confuse cause and effect.
- and 'm not being patronising - you clearly have little or no deep understanding of US politics and history.
Your are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.'
Find a copy of "All the President's Men" -the book not the movie. The book has much more detail.'
Yes and those tapes were connected to ever more evidence that the President of the United States had authorised a burglary of his opponents HQ and then tried to stop the investigation. That evidence was what led to his polls nosediving and resignation. The fact Hillary may have put some emails in her private account rather than the state account is nothing like the same unless there is some extraordinary revelation in those emails eg Hillary openly assisted an enemy of the US
Of course you are being patronising, you cannot assume anything of my knowledge of US politics and history.
“It should be halted. It is becoming a farce with longstanding members . . . in danger of getting trumped by people who have opposed the Labour party and want to break it up, expressly want to break it up — some of it is the Militant Tendency types coming back in.”
To suspend the race would be to admit they shouldn't have allowed Corbyn on the ballot. Ok, if that's what they want, but best be sure it's worth looking silly.
Good night Quite. Surely the Corbyn bubble will burst, this has to be a lot of noise from one side and quiet from those longstanding non left types, surely?