If the LP end up with say 400,000 voters , split roughly 50/50 between old and new members , then I suspect that about 60-70% of those new voters to be Corbynites ; I also expect at least 20-25% of old members to be voting for Corbyn too ....the LP have got to quickly unify behind Cooper if they are to have any chance of stopping this runaway train
Why? Cooper polls worse than Burnham and Corbyn and yougov had her third with members too
==============================
I don't believe that ...the more the voters see of of Burnham , the more they dislike him ; he is a lousy campaigner , a real wet lettuce with zero leadership qualities ...he almost came last in the 2010 campaign ...I think he will be a poor third , just ahead of Kendall Leadership is about inspiring confidence and how exactly will he inspire confidence when he clearly lacks confidence in himself ?
On latest polling Burnham is still well ahead of the other candidates and if anyone lacks confidence it is Cooper
It is highly hypocritical of Labour to complain about Lords appointments when they stuffed the chamber full of their supporters when they were in power. However, the Conservatives are playing it dodgy too. New Lords appointments should reflect the last election, meaning a substantial number of UKIP and Greens in there. Of course, they will probably get away with it as the BBC and other media only cover the big three's complaints. Carswell and Lucas should get on the phone and demand fairness.
@ RodCrosby. No need to impugn those who disagree with you. Dropping the bomb is not manifestly the greatest war crime of history. It was a decision, which the person making the decision described as a way to end the war quickly. On what basis to you challenge that?
The Halsey and Eisenhower quotes actually run against the evidence. Japan had not surrendered and Okinawa was a bloodbath just days before dropping the bomb. The US marines had just lost nearly 10,000 men in 12 days taking one 50 foot high 300 yard long hill. The three month battle for Okinawa had cost 40% of US combatants (over 100,000 of 250,000, dead, injured or psychiatric casualties) and a total of around 350,000 casualties (both sides and civilians). Japan did not surrender upon Hiroshima, only doing so with the Nagasaki bomb. If they were indeed on the brink of surrender before Hiroshima, then they would have surrendered immediately after the first bomb.
Nuclear bombs are indeed horrific. Quite how horrific was not realized until after dropping the two bombs in Japan. It is easy to judge historical figures harshly in hindsight - with far more information and changed moral compasses. But ultimately what happened 70 years ago is done. It is how we act on the information we have now that matters.
It wasn't the only factor in the Japanese Surrender. There was also the small matter of the Soviet Offensive into Manchuria/Korea/Sahkalin that started on 8th August.
Comments