When I went to buy some stuff from WHSmith at Gatwick recently, they wouldn't let me purchase it as I didn't have my boarding pass with me. (Husband had it and was having a coffee nearby). The assistant said I needed a boarding pass to "prove I was a passenger". I thought it was strange at the time, given that I was already airside.
Thanks to rcs.My mission to save the "any-to-come" bet may not be fruitless.However,Ladbrokes betting rules are silent on the matter and,therefore,it requires written an addendum to rule. On the plus side,Ladbrokes now have a Round Robin betting slip,3 selections,10 bets,with the multiplier effect of the up and down double.This would make an ideal political bet IMO,notably on constituency betting.
A dream indeed. The cherry on the top though was learning that part of EdM's legacy was being able to vote for Foot Mark II as Labour leader for the pittance of a sum of £3.
Having passed the rigorous vetting, I'm relishing exercising my democratic right to consign Labour to electoral oblivion in the coming days.
My only worry is that Corbs may prove massively more popular with the wider electorate than anyone ever envisaged.....
Thanks to rcs.My mission to save the "any-to-come" bet may not be fruitless.However,Ladbrokes betting rules are silent on the matter and,therefore,it requires written an addendum to rule. On the plus side,Ladbrokes now have a Round Robin betting slip,3 selections,10 bets,with the multiplier effect of the up and down double.This would make an ideal political bet IMO,notably on constituency betting.
What betslip do you have ?
Any sort of multiplier on constituency betting surely wouldn't be allowed and would be settled up as singles.
It was David Miliband who started the lending nominations nonsense in 2010. He even nominated Diane Abbott over himself to get her on the ballot paper.
If Jeremy Corbyn doesn't win from here, I suggest that the opinion pollsters take a period of absence.
You have to at least admire Kellner for "getting back on the horse" after falling off big time on May 7th, especially as the Labour leadership must be a polling nightmare given we have a totally unexpected (well from the perspective of a few weeks ago) apparent leader, and an electorate that is fiendishly difficult to model, that has doubled in size in three months, with at least some within that expressly there to do mischief. So props to YouGov for the effort - though I suspect Kellner will be looking at the result through his fingers from behind the sofa.
Why on earth did Ed not limit the election to those who were members on May 7th or before or those who had at least a year under their belts? Doesn't take Einstein to work out that "anyone can vote for three quid" was open to abuse. He really was deeply crap.
On a further note I think you suggested earler that Labour electing Corbyn was like Arsenal having Gunnersaurus as manager. What has the cheerful sauropod done to deserve such a slur I ask?
Kelner is not getting back on the horse, he's charging people to conduct a poll, hardly altruistic or honourable.
That anyone would want to pay him after the May fiasco I find astonishing. Unless of course, the customer wants some bullshit numbers they can pretend are a real reflection of the public's views.
Did anyone pick up on that link on here yesterday about the place in the Philippines that manufactured "personalities" for use in on line marketing applications?
I'm new to this, so may I ask what may be a very silly question? Can someone explain to me in simple terms how Corbyn got on the ballot? Assuming they weren't actually "morons", why did so many MPs who weren't going to support him agree to nominate him?
Some genuinely believed he was a good candidate
Some thought the left should be represented as a point of principle.
Some thought the left should be allowed to stand so they could suffer abject humiliation and never rise again (we all make mistakes).
Some were ordered to nominate him by Burnham, because Burnham thought it would...well, who knows?
Some were bullied into it by huge pressure on social media.
They added up to the required number and here we are.
Thanks. I was afraid that there might be one simple logical explanation that I was missing. I'm relieved to see that actually there isn't and it isn't just me being thick!
Just 'Trustee's children' in the paragraph I read - but knowing who it is doesn't affect the newsworthiness or otherwise of the information surely?
Equally, given that the Trustee's names are public and there are only about 12 of them it wouldn't exactly have taken a huge amount of investigative time or effort to find out who.
I take your point about the lack of journalistic focus in this information not being picked up and made widely available but surely the Charity Commission have a duty to actually scrutinise what goes on within a charity. Maybe the relevant government office which was giving away millions of pounds earned by the taxpayer might have shown a proper interest in where the money was going? FFS, if nobody was picking up on the fact that the Trustees families were benefiting financially, and we are not talking about a tenner for a child to feed to donkeys on a Sunday morning here but tens of thousands of pounds, then something was horribly wrong.
There are two focal points of blame, the trustees who behaved improperly even corruptly, and the organisations that have a duty to monitor. That the press didn't pick up on the story is regrettable but not culpable.
Absolutely agree that Trustees and Charity Commission have a great deal to answer for.
My point was more frustration with the media now going - "look what was going on - this is disgraceful - how could we have possibly known" when they could have just looked previously.
I'm new to this, so may I ask what may be a very silly question? Can someone explain to me in simple terms how Corbyn got on the ballot? Assuming they weren't actually "morons", why did so many MPs who weren't going to support him agree to nominate him?
They didn't want to give the idea that the labour party had totally abandoned the left, as a leadership campaign made up only of Cooper, Burnham and Kendall, all arguing only about how much further right the party should turn, was shaping up to do.
They were perhaps taken in by the common sentiment that making it hard to get on the ballot was undemocratic.
They were utterly unprepared for the notion that Corbyn could actually come anywhere but last or second to last.
Burnham supporters may have believed that they might pick up second preferences from left wing people who would otherwise not have voted.
I'm new to this, so may I ask what may be a very silly question? Can someone explain to me in simple terms how Corbyn got on the ballot? Assuming they weren't actually "morons", why did so many MPs who weren't going to support him agree to nominate him?
Some genuinely believed he was a good candidate
Some thought the left should be represented as a point of principle.
Some thought the left should be allowed to stand so they could suffer abject humiliation and never rise again (we all make mistakes).
Some were ordered to nominate him by Burnham, because Burnham thought it would...well, who knows?
Some were bullied into it by huge pressure on social media.
They added up to the required number and here we are.
Thanks. I was afraid that there might be one simple logical explanation that I was missing. I'm relieved to see that actually there isn't and it isn't just me being thick!
Sadly, Carolus, logic and Labour ceased to be friends some time ago.
I see that the Labour hierarchy have 'caught' something like 200 odd Green candidates who have registered to vote in the Labour leadership elections. Can anyone explain to me the logic of those who joined in this way? If they were joining to vote for Corbyn, then surely that is the quickest path to destruction for the Green party?
I think it is because Corbyn's brother is a noted opponent/denier of anthropogenic global warming and think Jezza is the same.
I see that the Labour hierarchy have 'caught' something like 200 odd Green candidates who have registered to vote in the Labour leadership elections. Can anyone explain to me the logic of those who joined in this way? If they were joining to vote for Corbyn, then surely that is the quickest path to destruction for the Green party?
I think it is because Corbyn's brother is a noted opponent/denier of anthropogenic global warming and think Jezza is the same.
So, are the Greens joining Labour to vote against Corbyn? Is this his brother: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn "At the end of 2007, WeatherAction predicted that temperatures in January could plummet to −17 °C in the Midlands, and that the average temperature for January would be close to freezing. This prediction was dismissed by the Met Office in a Guardian article on 2 January.[21] After the January prediction proved false, Corbyn blamed the incorrect forecast on an undefined 'procedural error," "In August 2014 Corbyn confidently predicted that August 2014 would be dominated by southerly winds bringing very warm air across the British Isles resulting in the warmest August for at least 300 years as measured by the CET.[24][25] In the event, August 2014 was dominated by northerly winds resulting in a rather cool month " "Corbyn is well known for his opposition to the idea of anthropogenic global warming. Corbyn has stated that the anthropogenic contribution to global warming is minimal with any increase in temperature due to increased solar activity"
And Piers still seems the less deluded of the two.
It was David Miliband who started the lending nominations nonsense in 2010. He even nominated Diane Abbott over himself to get her on the ballot paper.
Surely the "Return of the king over the water" has got to be a popcorn bestselling chapter in the Lord of the Labour party ongoing trilogy ?
If Jeremy Corbyn doesn't win from here, I suggest that the opinion pollsters take a period of absence.
You have to at least admire Kellner for "getting back on the horse" after falling off big time on May 7th, especially as the Labour leadership must be a polling nightmare given we have a totally unexpected (well from the perspective of a few weeks ago) apparent leader, and an electorate that is fiendishly difficult to model, that has doubled in size in three months, with at least some within that expressly there to do mischief. So props to YouGov for the effort - though I suspect Kellner will be looking at the result through his fingers from behind the sofa.
Why on earth did Ed not limit the election to those who were members on May 7th or before or those who had at least a year under their belts? Doesn't take Einstein to work out that "anyone can vote for three quid" was open to abuse. He really was deeply crap.
On a further note I think you suggested earler that Labour electing Corbyn was like Arsenal having Gunnersaurus as manager. What has the cheerful sauropod done to deserve such a slur I ask?
Kelner is not getting back on the horse, he's charging people to conduct a poll, hardly altruistic or honourable.
That anyone would want to pay him after the May fiasco I find astonishing.
If polls help sell newspapers, they will continue to get paid.
Kinnock must surely be despairing now. Be careful what you wish for... when he said he'd got his Party back with EdM - it was truly the thin end of a massive Militant red wedge
If Jeremy Corbyn doesn't win from here, I suggest that the opinion pollsters take a period of absence.
You have to at least admire Kellner for "getting back on the horse" after falling off big time on May 7th, especially as the Labour leadership must be a polling nightmare given we have a totally unexpected (well from the perspective of a few weeks ago) apparent leader, and an electorate that is fiendishly difficult to model, that has doubled in size in three months, with at least some within that expressly there to do mischief. So props to YouGov for the effort - though I suspect Kellner will be looking at the result through his fingers from behind the sofa.
Why on earth did Ed not limit the election to those who were members on May 7th or before or those who had at least a year under their belts? Doesn't take Einstein to work out that "anyone can vote for three quid" was open to abuse. He really was deeply crap.
On a further note I think you suggested earler that Labour electing Corbyn was like Arsenal having Gunnersaurus as manager. What has the cheerful sauropod done to deserve such a slur I ask?
Kelner is not getting back on the horse, he's charging people to conduct a poll, hardly altruistic or honourable.
True - it's his business and he might want/have to accept the work from a commercial point of view for all I know - that's his call. It's just mighty high profile and very difficult, and I wouldn't have blamed him if he had thought discretion was the better part of valour, given (I assume) the polling industry enquiry into May is still going on, and two visible cock ups in four months might look like an awkward trend. Of course should YouGov nail it the reverse is true.
I see that the Labour hierarchy have 'caught' something like 200 odd Green candidates who have registered to vote in the Labour leadership elections. Can anyone explain to me the logic of those who joined in this way? If they were joining to vote for Corbyn, then surely that is the quickest path to destruction for the Green party?
I think it is because Corbyn's brother is a noted opponent/denier of anthropogenic global warming and think Jezza is the same.
I see that the Labour hierarchy have 'caught' something like 200 odd Green candidates who have registered to vote in the Labour leadership elections. Can anyone explain to me the logic of those who joined in this way? If they were joining to vote for Corbyn, then surely that is the quickest path to destruction for the Green party?
I think it is because Corbyn's brother is a noted opponent/denier of anthropogenic global warming and think Jezza is the same.
So, are the Greens joining Labour to vote against Corbyn? Is this his brother: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn "At the end of 2007, WeatherAction predicted that temperatures in January could plummet to −17 °C in the Midlands, and that the average temperature for January would be close to freezing. This prediction was dismissed by the Met Office in a Guardian article on 2 January.[21] After the January prediction proved false, Corbyn blamed the incorrect forecast on an undefined 'procedural error," "In August 2014 Corbyn confidently predicted that August 2014 would be dominated by southerly winds bringing very warm air across the British Isles resulting in the warmest August for at least 300 years as measured by the CET.[24][25] In the event, August 2014 was dominated by northerly winds resulting in a rather cool month " "Corbyn is well known for his opposition to the idea of anthropogenic global warming. Corbyn has stated that the anthropogenic contribution to global warming is minimal with any increase in temperature due to increased solar activity"
And Piers still seems the less deluded of the two.
If Jeremy Corbyn doesn't win from here, I suggest that the opinion pollsters take a period of absence.
You have to at least admire Kellner for "getting back on the horse" after falling off big time on May 7th, especially as the Labour leadership must be a polling nightmare given we have a totally unexpected (well from the perspective of a few weeks ago) apparent leader, and an electorate that is fiendishly difficult to model, that has doubled in size in three months, with at least some within that expressly there to do mischief. So props to YouGov for the effort - though I suspect Kellner will be looking at the result through his fingers from behind the sofa.
Why on earth did Ed not limit the election to those who were members on May 7th or before or those who had at least a year under their belts? Doesn't take Einstein to work out that "anyone can vote for three quid" was open to abuse. He really was deeply crap.
On a further note I think you suggested earler that Labour electing Corbyn was like Arsenal having Gunnersaurus as manager. What has the cheerful sauropod done to deserve such a slur I ask?
Kelner is not getting back on the horse, he's charging people to conduct a poll, hardly altruistic or honourable.
True - it's his business and he might want/have to accept the work from a commercial point of view for all I know - that's his call. It's just mighty high profile and very difficult, and I wouldn't have blamed him if he had thought discretion was the better part of valour, given (I assume) the polling industry enquiry into May is still going on, and two visible cock ups in four months might look like an awkward trend. Of course should YouGov nail it the reverse is true.
Corbyn's margin is sufficiently large that even if the polls are as far out as the GE polls were, he'll sail away with it. That perhaps he only gets 44% of first prefs and ends up with say 53% in the final round will be forgotten in the collective memory. Kellner can claim victory, so long as Corbyn wins, even if the polls are still out.
"If polls help sell newspapers, they will continue to get paid"
Quite right, Mr. Hopkins. I think I covered that in my second sentence, "Unless of course, the customer wants some bullshit numbers they can pretend are a real reflection of the public's views."
Don't know whether this has already been mentioned, but it seems that Kids Company may have been running unregulated schools. This would be a criminal offence, if true.
I though the allegation of the day regarding that so-called charity was that two of the trustees had children on the payroll to the tune of fifty grand. That is just so mind-bogglingly wrong that, if it were true, one would hope that said trustees would be dropped from any and all other posts they may have and be shunned from polite society. They will not be of course and the whole KC debacle will be brushed under the carpet - far too many of the "great and the good" and friends of the "great and the good" are involved.
What's astonishing is that there are so many issues, and that none of them surfaced before the charity went tits up.
Unless you had firm proof, who was going to criticise someone that was (a) a woman, (b) ethnic minority, (c) helping children and (d) had friends in high places? The politically correct elitist culture we now have would have guaranteed horrendous abuse and career limitations for anyone that took it on. That's why it could only be a brave right wing outfit like the Spectator that could do it. People aren't prepared to speak out against politically connected gangs of ethnic minorities that were raping children on an industrial scale. One police officer that did got sent on a racial sensitivity course. Why would anyone worry about the mere matter of wasting public money?
People weren't prepared to speak out against White British gangs raping children either.
If Jeremy Corbyn doesn't win from here, I suggest that the opinion pollsters take a period of absence.
You have to at least admire Kellner for "getting back on the horse" after falling off big time on May 7th, especially as the Labour leadership must be a polling nightmare given we have a totally unexpected (well from the perspective of a few weeks ago) apparent leader, and an electorate that is fiendishly difficult to model, that has doubled in size in three months, with at least some within that expressly there to do mischief. So props to YouGov for the effort - though I suspect Kellner will be looking at the result through his fingers from behind the sofa.
Why on earth did Ed not limit the election to those who were members on May 7th or before or those who had at least a year under their belts? Doesn't take Einstein to work out that "anyone can vote for three quid" was open to abuse. He really was deeply crap.
On a further note I think you suggested earler that Labour electing Corbyn was like Arsenal having Gunnersaurus as manager. What has the cheerful sauropod done to deserve such a slur I ask?
Kelner is not getting back on the horse, he's charging people to conduct a poll, hardly altruistic or honourable.
True - it's his business and he might want/have to accept the work from a commercial point of view for all I know - that's his call. It's just mighty high profile and very difficult, and I wouldn't have blamed him if he had thought discretion was the better part of valour, given (I assume) the polling industry enquiry into May is still going on, and two visible cock ups in four months might look like an awkward trend. Of course should YouGov nail it the reverse is true.
Corbyn's margin is sufficiently large that even if the polls are as far out as the GE polls were, he'll sail away with it. That perhaps he only gets 44% of first prefs and ends up with say 53% in the final round will be forgotten in the collective memory. Kellner can claim victory, so long as Corbyn wins, even if the polls are still out.
Quite. Though Dominic Lawson wrote in the S Times a few weeks ago that he'd sacked a pollster for correctly predicting Labour would win in 2001 (I think) but that they were 5 points out. He pointed out that 5 points was a lot in a closer election.
It was David Miliband who started the lending nominations nonsense in 2010. He even nominated Diane Abbott over himself to get her on the ballot paper.
Surely the "Return of the king over the water" has got to be a popcorn bestselling chapter in the Lord of the Labour party ongoing trilogy ?
"My only worry is that Corbs may prove massively more popular with the wider electorate than anyone ever envisaged....."
I was introduced to an 86 year old woman in a cafe this morning with a strong German/Austrian accent. She came to the UK from Vienna in '48 and regaled me with stories of how the Austrians were worse than the Germans and how to this day they're still racists who refuse to accept their history.
She felt great affection for the English. For their friendliness and lack of corruption. She also hated the Tories with a passion almost equalling her loathing for her ex compatriots. She joined the Lib Dems because of Blair and has stuffed envelopes for them when required ever since.
She said if Corbyn won the leadership she would rejoin Labour and die happy!
If the fading star of Boris wants to shine again it is obvious what he should do.
He'll do nothing. A bit of huffing and puffing, and then back to his other jobs.
He'll do nothing as there's nothing that can be done , at least safely. If you get rid of the drivers, then they'll just have to be replaced with DLR-style 'train captains' / 'Passenger Service Agent', who'll just go on strike.
I see that the Labour hierarchy have 'caught' something like 200 odd Green candidates who have registered to vote in the Labour leadership elections. Can anyone explain to me the logic of those who joined in this way? If they were joining to vote for Corbyn, then surely that is the quickest path to destruction for the Green party?
I think it is because Corbyn's brother is a noted opponent/denier of anthropogenic global warming and think Jezza is the same.
Well Corbyn is in favour of reopening the pits (although i doubt he is in favour of fracking) - but that does not mean he does not believe in AGW. Admittedly this is the Express... ''In stark contrast to his younger sibling, Piers Corbyn, 68, has made no secret of his dislike for “global warming hysteria” and has built a reputation as one of Britain's most vocal climate change sceptics. The Corbyn brothers disagree wildly on environmental issues, '' I think I prefer cut of Corbyn major's jib. http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/593809/Labour-leader-race-climatechange-denier-Piers-brother-Jeremy-Corbyn
I see that the Labour hierarchy have 'caught' something like 200 odd Green candidates who have registered to vote in the Labour leadership elections. Can anyone explain to me the logic of those who joined in this way? If they were joining to vote for Corbyn, then surely that is the quickest path to destruction for the Green party?
Greens and logic don't go well together but to the extent that they do, I'd have thought they're trying to realise their policies in a party that stands a chance of governing. Parties are simply means to an end, after all.
Indeed. Thinking 2nd order effects though - Corbyn being elected could prove most problematic for the Greens if they are in any way 'representative' of the recent 'Green surge'. Could easily move them back down to the 1-2% of the vote mark presumably? Any betting opportunities?
With the LibDems buried in a hole that leaves a big electoral space open for them in the centre, if they can bring themselves to do smarten themselves up a bit and do a small-c-conservative, nimby, nice-to-kittens, down-with-all-the-horrible-things kind of vibe.
Name me a single centrist Green candidate ?
Doesn't that depend on where one's personal definition of the Centre is? For some Caroline Lucas was/is very centrist, though Neil, who used to post on here, seemed to regard her as a right-wing traitor to the cause. Though, I have met a couple of Green supporters who would regard Neil's views (he only wanted to take society back to the forties) as being beyond the pale.
His views on paying up for losing bets are quite radical too
Is there a list of untrustworthy posters? It would be a valuable resource for those of us entering into bets.
When I went to buy some stuff from WHSmith at Gatwick recently, they wouldn't let me purchase it as I didn't have my boarding pass with me. (Husband had it and was having a coffee nearby). The assistant said I needed a boarding pass to "prove I was a passenger". I thought it was strange at the time, given that I was already airside.
I am surprised it has taken so long for people to cotton on that is what is occurring. You can't be air-side as a member of the public without being a passenger.
I see that the Labour hierarchy have 'caught' something like 200 odd Green candidates who have registered to vote in the Labour leadership elections. Can anyone explain to me the logic of those who joined in this way? If they were joining to vote for Corbyn, then surely that is the quickest path to destruction for the Green party?
I think it is because Corbyn's brother is a noted opponent/denier of anthropogenic global warming and think Jezza is the same.
I see that the Labour hierarchy have 'caught' something like 200 odd Green candidates who have registered to vote in the Labour leadership elections. Can anyone explain to me the logic of those who joined in this way? If they were joining to vote for Corbyn, then surely that is the quickest path to destruction for the Green party?
I think it is because Corbyn's brother is a noted opponent/denier of anthropogenic global warming and think Jezza is the same.
So, are the Greens joining Labour to vote against Corbyn? Is this his brother: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn "At the end of 2007, WeatherAction predicted that temperatures in January could plummet to −17 °C in the Midlands, and that the average temperature for January would be close to freezing. This prediction was dismissed by the Met Office in a Guardian article on 2 January.[21] After the January prediction proved false, Corbyn blamed the incorrect forecast on an undefined 'procedural error," "In August 2014 Corbyn confidently predicted that August 2014 would be dominated by southerly winds bringing very warm air across the British Isles resulting in the warmest August for at least 300 years as measured by the CET.[24][25] In the event, August 2014 was dominated by northerly winds resulting in a rather cool month " "Corbyn is well known for his opposition to the idea of anthropogenic global warming. Corbyn has stated that the anthropogenic contribution to global warming is minimal with any increase in temperature due to increased solar activity"
And Piers still seems the less deluded of the two.
"My only worry is that Corbs may prove massively more popular with the wider electorate than anyone ever envisaged....."
I was introduced to an 86 year old woman in a cafe this morning with a strong German/Austrian accent. She came to the UK from Vienna in '48 and regaled me with stories of how the Austrians were worse than the Germans and how to this day they're still racists who refuse to accept their history.
She felt great affection for the English. For their friendliness and lack of corruption. She also hated the Tories with a passion almost equalling her loathing for her ex compatriots. She joined the Lib Dems because of Blair and has stuffed envelopes for them when required ever since.
She said if Corbyn won the leadership she would rejoin Labour and die happy!
It almost tempted me to pay my £3
Shame that she didn't recognise:
- it was a Tory administration that declared war on Germany - it was a Tory PM who won the war - the majority of her years of living in England have been under Tory rule
I'd be pretty thankful to the Tories in that situation.
"My only worry is that Corbs may prove massively more popular with the wider electorate than anyone ever envisaged....."
I was introduced to an 86 year old woman in a cafe this morning with a strong German/Austrian accent. She came to the UK from Vienna in '48 and regaled me with stories of how the Austrians were worse than the Germans and how to this day they're still racists who refuse to accept their history.
She felt great affection for the English. For their friendliness and lack of corruption. She also hated the Tories with a passion almost equalling her loathing for her ex compatriots. She joined the Lib Dems because of Blair and has stuffed envelopes for them when required ever since.
She said if Corbyn won the leadership she would rejoin Labour and die happy!
It almost tempted me to pay my £3
Shame that she didn't recognise:
- it was a Tory administration that declared war on Germany - it was a Tory PM who won the war - the majority of her years of living in England have been under Tory rule
I'd be pretty thankful to the Tories in that situation.
I see that the Labour hierarchy have 'caught' something like 200 odd Green candidates who have registered to vote in the Labour leadership elections. Can anyone explain to me the logic of those who joined in this way? If they were joining to vote for Corbyn, then surely that is the quickest path to destruction for the Green party?
I think it is because Corbyn's brother is a noted opponent/denier of anthropogenic global warming and think Jezza is the same.
Well Corbyn is in favour of reopening the pits (although i doubt he is in favour of fracking) - but that does not mean he does not believe in AGW. Admittedly this is the Express... ''In stark contrast to his younger sibling, Piers Corbyn, 68, has made no secret of his dislike for “global warming hysteria” and has built a reputation as one of Britain's most vocal climate change sceptics. The Corbyn brothers disagree wildly on environmental issues, '' I think I prefer cut of Corbyn major's jib. http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/593809/Labour-leader-race-climatechange-denier-Piers-brother-Jeremy-Corbyn
They both appear to be intellectually challenged in their different ways.
"My only worry is that Corbs may prove massively more popular with the wider electorate than anyone ever envisaged....."
I was introduced to an 86 year old woman in a cafe this morning with a strong German/Austrian accent. She came to the UK from Vienna in '48 and regaled me with stories of how the Austrians were worse than the Germans and how to this day they're still racists who refuse to accept their history.
She felt great affection for the English. For their friendliness and lack of corruption. She also hated the Tories with a passion almost equalling her loathing for her ex compatriots. She joined the Lib Dems because of Blair and has stuffed envelopes for them when required ever since.
She said if Corbyn won the leadership she would rejoin Labour and die happy!
It almost tempted me to pay my £3
Shame that she didn't recognise:
- it was a Tory administration that declared war on Germany - it was a Tory PM who won the war - the majority of her years of living in England have been under Tory rule
I'd be pretty thankful to the Tories in that situation.
Quite. It was the Jeremy Corbyn's of this world that were trying get on with Germany by appealing to the Nazis better nature. Just as the man himself does with Chavez and Hamas.
During GE2015 the main message from the SNP from day one of the campaign was, vote SNP to ensure Scotland's interests are best protected at Westminster
...and the end result was the lowest amount of Scottish influence at Westminster in history.
The Futile56 mean that Scotland's representation in Government is as low as it technically could be.
Awesome job...
In three months the SNP have defeated the government three times. Despite only having 56 MPs and the government having an absolute majority.
When I went to buy some stuff from WHSmith at Gatwick recently, they wouldn't let me purchase it as I didn't have my boarding pass with me. (Husband had it and was having a coffee nearby). The assistant said I needed a boarding pass to "prove I was a passenger". I thought it was strange at the time, given that I was already airside.
I am surprised it has taken so long for people to cotton on that is what is occurring. You can't be air-side as a member of the public without being a passenger.
I never understood it either. Isn't it illegal for companies to lie to you about the reason for your information?
"My only worry is that Corbs may prove massively more popular with the wider electorate than anyone ever envisaged....."
I was introduced to an 86 year old woman in a cafe this morning with a strong German/Austrian accent. She came to the UK from Vienna in '48 and regaled me with stories of how the Austrians were worse than the Germans and how to this day they're still racists who refuse to accept their history.
She felt great affection for the English. For their friendliness and lack of corruption. She also hated the Tories with a passion almost equalling her loathing for her ex compatriots. She joined the Lib Dems because of Blair and has stuffed envelopes for them when required ever since.
She said if Corbyn won the leadership she would rejoin Labour and die happy!
It almost tempted me to pay my £3
Shame that she didn't recognise:
- it was a Tory administration that declared war on Germany - it was a Tory PM who won the war - the majority of her years of living in England have been under Tory rule
I'd be pretty thankful to the Tories in that situation.
Quite. It was the Jeremy Corbyn's of this world that were trying get on with Germany by appealing to the Nazis better nature. Just as the man himself does with Chavez and Hamas.
I see that the Labour hierarchy have 'caught' something like 200 odd Green candidates who have registered to vote in the Labour leadership elections. Can anyone explain to me the logic of those who joined in this way? If they were joining to vote for Corbyn, then surely that is the quickest path to destruction for the Green party?
Greens and logic don't go well together but to the extent that they do, I'd have thought they're trying to realise their policies in a party that stands a chance of governing. Parties are simply means to an end, after all.
Indeed. Thinking 2nd order effects though - Corbyn being elected could prove most problematic for the Greens if they are in any way 'representative' of the recent 'Green surge'. Could easily move them back down to the 1-2% of the vote mark presumably? Any betting opportunities?
With the LibDems buried in a hole that leaves a big electoral space open for them in the centre, if they can bring themselves to do smarten themselves up a bit and do a small-c-conservative, nimby, nice-to-kittens, down-with-all-the-horrible-things kind of vibe.
Name me a single centrist Green candidate ?
Doesn't that depend on where one's personal definition of the Centre is? For some Caroline Lucas was/is very centrist, though Neil, who used to post on here, seemed to regard her as a right-wing traitor to the cause. Though, I have met a couple of Green supporters who would regard Neil's views (he only wanted to take society back to the forties) as being beyond the pale.
His views on paying up for losing bets are quite radical too
Is there a list of untrustworthy posters? It would be a valuable resource for those of us entering into bets.
Most people are ok in my experience, only Neil didnt pay.. strange as he emailed me to ask for bank details etc so his intentions seemed good
I owe RCS and the charity bet to CD13... please provide details and Ill pay pay
Quite. It was the Jeremy Corbyn's of this world that were trying get on with Germany by appealing to the Nazis better nature. Just as the man himself does with Chavez and Hamas.
Now, be fair: Stalin, rather than Hitler, was the preferred murderous dictator of the trade unions and left-wing intellectuals of the time (and right up to 1956).
In addition to the headlines about Corbyn, the fact that he is supported by a large (40% to 60%) of the party's membership, does indicate that there is a major gap between the "mainstream" Labour MPs and their CLP membership. If Corbyn or the NEC provides more room for local initiatives to deselect their MPs, we will be in for major internal battles within the party. One way that would be accelerated is if the "supporters" from the union subs and the £3 fee supporters are given the same voting rights within each CLP. Does anyone know if that is/has happened?
If Jeremy Corbyn doesn't win from here, I suggest that the opinion pollsters take a period of absence.
You have to at least admire Kellner for "getting back on the horse" after falling off big time on May 7th, especially as the Labour leadership must be a polling nightmare given we have a totally unexpected (well from the perspective of a few weeks ago) apparent leader, and an electorate that is fiendishly difficult to model, that has doubled in size in three months, with at least some within that expressly there to do mischief. So props to YouGov for the effort - though I suspect Kellner will be looking at the result through his fingers from behind the sofa.
Why on earth did Ed not limit the election to those who were members on May 7th or before or those who had at least a year under their belts? Doesn't take Einstein to work out that "anyone can vote for three quid" was open to abuse. He really was deeply crap.
On a further note I think you suggested earler that Labour electing Corbyn was like Arsenal having Gunnersaurus as manager. What has the cheerful sauropod done to deserve such a slur I ask?
Isn't anyone who thinks it appropriate to be able to buy a vote actually worse than deeply crap?
Quite. It was the Jeremy Corbyn's of this world that were trying get on with Germany by appealing to the Nazis better nature. Just as the man himself does with Chavez and Hamas.
Now, be fair: Stalin, rather than Hitler, was the preferred murderous dictator of the trade unions and left-wing intellectuals of the time (and right up to 1956).
I was under the impression that it went far past 1956. Didn't Jack Straw still describe himself as a Stalinist some time later? Admittedly that may be stretching the definition of 'intellectual'.
Quite. It was the Jeremy Corbyn's of this world that were trying get on with Germany by appealing to the Nazis better nature. Just as the man himself does with Chavez and Hamas.
Now, be fair: Stalin, rather than Hitler, was the preferred murderous dictator of the trade unions and left-wing intellectuals of the time (and right up to 1956).
I see that the Labour hierarchy have 'caught' something like 200 odd Green candidates who have registered to vote in the Labour leadership elections. Can anyone explain to me the logic of those who joined in this way? If they were joining to vote for Corbyn, then surely that is the quickest path to destruction for the Green party?
Greens and logic don't go well together but to the extent that they do, I'd have thought they're trying to realise their policies in a party that stands a chance of governing. Parties are simply means to an end, after all.
Indeed. Thinking 2nd order effects though - Corbyn being elected could prove most problematic for the Greens if they are in any way 'representative' of the recent 'Green surge'. Could easily move them back down to the 1-2% of the vote mark presumably? Any betting opportunities?
With the LibDems buried in a hole that leaves a big electoral space open for them in the centre, if they can bring themselves to do smarten themselves up a bit and do a small-c-conservative, nimby, nice-to-kittens, down-with-all-the-horrible-things kind of vibe.
Name me a single centrist Green candidate ?
Doesn't that depend on where one's personal definition of the Centre is? For some Caroline Lucas was/is very centrist, though Neil, who used to post on here, seemed to regard her as a right-wing traitor to the cause. Though, I have met a couple of Green supporters who would regard Neil's views (he only wanted to take society back to the forties) as being beyond the pale.
His views on paying up for losing bets are quite radical too
Is there a list of untrustworthy posters? It would be a valuable resource for those of us entering into bets.
Most people are ok in my experience, only Neil didnt pay.. strange as he emailed me to ask for bank details etc so his intentions seemed good
I owe RCS and the charity bet to CD13... please provide details and Ill pay pay
I have form on not collecting from Kippers. I won a bet against the GenSec on the result of the Bercow/Farage matchup in 2010.
Now, be fair: Stalin, rather than Hitler, was the preferred murderous dictator of the trade unions and left-wing intellectuals of the time (and right up to 1956).
Those doyens of British academia, Raymond Williams and Eric Hobsbawm, even co-wrote a treatise defending the Nazi-Soviet Pact. How either were ever accepted in polite society again still strikes one as extraordinary. Hobsbawm, for his sins, was very clever. Williams was always a preposterous charlatan.
Don't know whether this has already been mentioned, but it seems that Kids Company may have been running unregulated schools. This would be a criminal offence, if true.
I though the allegation of the day regarding that so-called charity was that two of the trustees had children on the payroll to the tune of fifty grand. That is just so mind-bogglingly wrong that, if it were true, one would hope that said trustees would be dropped from any and all other posts they may have and be shunned from polite society. They will not be of course and the whole KC debacle will be brushed under the carpet - far too many of the "great and the good" and friends of the "great and the good" are involved.
What's astonishing is that there are so many issues, and that none of them surfaced before the charity went tits up.
Blame the Trustees for that.
They obviously couldn't find, research or believe the truth. I suspect they were happy to believe what they were told, which they assumed was the truth. Not a good policy for a Trustee.
If the fading star of Boris wants to shine again it is obvious what he should do.
He'll do nothing. A bit of huffing and puffing, and then back to his other jobs.
He'll do nothing as there's nothing that can be done , at least safely. If you get rid of the drivers, then they'll just have to be replaced with DLR-style 'train captains' / 'Passenger Service Agent', who'll just go on strike.
Is that right, Mr. J? I am fairly certain I have travelled on the DLR when there was nobody in the front cab? Whether one needs "rain captains"/"passenger service agents" or, as we used to call them, "guards", is a matter for local legislation not safety. The metro-thing in Miami (aka the Mugger Mover) never had them and I am sure there are other metro systems around the word that don't either.
I remember when it was suggested that the London Underground could function quite safely without guards. There was hell to pay, but it happened eventually and even the RMT is not campaigning to bring them back. Drivers will go the same way.
Crikey, my son and I have a bet on which driver of a road motor vehicle job will be the first to be rendered obsolete by the driverless technology Google and others now have under development. He, full of the idealism of youth, reckons it will be HGV drivers. I, being old and cynical, think it will be taxi drivers. I fully expect to be alive long enough to collect my winnings.
The skills required of London Underground drivers pale into insignificance in comparison to what Google have already achieved. They will be gone inside 10 years.
I was under the impression that it went far past 1956. Didn't Jack Straw still describe himself as a Stalinist some time later? Admittedly that may be stretching the definition of 'intellectual'.
A few retained the faith even later than 1956, but the invasion of Hungary was the final straw for most of them in terms of finally acknowledging the true nature of what Stalin had built (although he'd died in '53).
What is most staggering is that anyone could have had any illusions about Stalin after the late thirties.
Socialism is even more foolish than those who think Caesar superior to Hannibal. It's the equivalent of believing Arcadius to be a better emperor than Trajan.
Mr welshowl, Kelner's link with labour is there for all to see, his wife is doing very well thank you. I'm not for a moment suggesting impropriety but Kelner is at the heart of cronyism and new labour, no idea who commissioned the poll and what they were hoping to achieve.
I'd bet good money it wasn't Corbyn who commissioned it.
If the fading star of Boris wants to shine again it is obvious what he should do.
He'll do nothing. A bit of huffing and puffing, and then back to his other jobs.
He'll do nothing as there's nothing that can be done , at least safely. If you get rid of the drivers, then they'll just have to be replaced with DLR-style 'train captains' / 'Passenger Service Agent', who'll just go on strike.
Is that right, Mr. J? I am fairly certain I have travelled on the DLR when there was nobody in the front cab? Whether one needs "rain captains"/"passenger service agents" or, as we used to call them, "guards", is a matter for local legislation not safety. The metro-thing in Miami (aka the Mugger Mover) never had them and I am sure there are other metro systems around the word that don't either.
I remember when it was suggested that the London Underground could function quite safely without guards. There was hell to pay, but it happened eventually and even the RMT is not campaigning to bring them back. Drivers will go the same way.
Crikey, my son and I have a bet on which driver of a road motor vehicle job will be the first to be rendered obsolete by the driverless technology Google and others now have under development. He, full of the idealism of youth, reckons it will be HGV drivers. I, being old and cynical, think it will be taxi drivers. I fully expect to be alive long enough to collect my winnings.
The skills required of London Underground drivers pale into insignificance in comparison to what Google have already achieved. They will be gone inside 10 years.
If Corbyn gets to be PM, a man with a red flag will probably have to walk in front of every driver-less car.
I'm new to this, so may I ask what may be a very silly question? Can someone explain to me in simple terms how Corbyn got on the ballot? Assuming they weren't actually "morons", why did so many MPs who weren't going to support him agree to nominate him?
They didn't want to give the idea that the labour party had totally abandoned the left, as a leadership campaign made up only of Cooper, Burnham and Kendall, all arguing only about how much further right the party should turn, was shaping up to do.
They were perhaps taken in by the common sentiment that making it hard to get on the ballot was undemocratic.
They were utterly unprepared for the notion that Corbyn could actually come anywhere but last or second to last.
Burnham supporters may have believed that they might pick up second preferences from left wing people who would otherwise not have voted.
Whatever the reason it looks pretty flawed at present doesn't it? Or have I missed something?
I'm new to this, so may I ask what may be a very silly question? Can someone explain to me in simple terms how Corbyn got on the ballot? Assuming they weren't actually "morons", why did so many MPs who weren't going to support him agree to nominate him?
They didn't want to give the idea that the labour party had totally abandoned the left, as a leadership campaign made up only of Cooper, Burnham and Kendall, all arguing only about how much further right the party should turn, was shaping up to do.
They were perhaps taken in by the common sentiment that making it hard to get on the ballot was undemocratic.
They were utterly unprepared for the notion that Corbyn could actually come anywhere but last or second to last.
Burnham supporters may have believed that they might pick up second preferences from left wing people who would otherwise not have voted.
Whatever the reason it looks pretty flawed at present doesn't it? Or have I missed something?
Every system has flaws. The problem that has occured for Labour is they treated an intentional feature of the system - ensuring anyone getting on the ballot had significant support among the parliamentary party - as a flaw and so undermined that, resulting in the potential victory of a man the PLP did not actually support and thus a lot of aggravation.
That's fine, if you feel the views of members overall is more important, but when they approved the current system the intention was clearly to ensure at least a certain level of PLP support. The Tory system of whittling down those on the ballot to the final 2 candidates before asking the members at large is a way of ensuring the same thing.
If the party had prized a broad debate as the most important factor, they should have made it a lot easier for anyone to get on the ballot - that way, even if Corbyn had still taken everyone by surprise at how well they were doing, and some members got worried about that, they couldn't get angry at each other for ignoring the rules about what they'd agreed was important in leadership candidates.
I'm new to this, so may I ask what may be a very silly question? Can someone explain to me in simple terms how Corbyn got on the ballot? Assuming they weren't actually "morons", why did so many MPs who weren't going to support him agree to nominate him?
They didn't want to give the idea that the labour party had totally abandoned the left, as a leadership campaign made up only of Cooper, Burnham and Kendall, all arguing only about how much further right the party should turn, was shaping up to do.
They were perhaps taken in by the common sentiment that making it hard to get on the ballot was undemocratic.
They were utterly unprepared for the notion that Corbyn could actually come anywhere but last or second to last.
Burnham supporters may have believed that they might pick up second preferences from left wing people who would otherwise not have voted.
Whatever the reason it looks pretty flawed at present doesn't it? Or have I missed something?
Burnham could well still pick up more second prefs of Corbyn over Liz or Yvette
In three months the SNP have defeated the government three times.
No, they really haven't.
Of course they have. And oil has not fallen below the absurdly pessimistic level of $77 a barrel either. You just need to adjust your grip on reality to the new paradigm.
I'm new to this, so may I ask what may be a very silly question? Can someone explain to me in simple terms how Corbyn got on the ballot? Assuming they weren't actually "morons", why did so many MPs who weren't going to support him agree to nominate him?
They didn't want to give the idea that the labour party had totally abandoned the left, as a leadership campaign made up only of Cooper, Burnham and Kendall, all arguing only about how much further right the party should turn, was shaping up to do.
They were perhaps taken in by the common sentiment that making it hard to get on the ballot was undemocratic.
They were utterly unprepared for the notion that Corbyn could actually come anywhere but last or second to last.
Burnham supporters may have believed that they might pick up second preferences from left wing people who would otherwise not have voted.
Whatever the reason it looks pretty flawed at present doesn't it? Or have I missed something?
Every system has flaws. The problem that has occured for Labour is they treated an intentional feature of the system - ensuring anyone getting on the ballot had significant support among the parliamentary party - as a flaw and so undermined that, resulting in the potential victory of a man the PLP did not actually support and thus a lot of aggravation.
That's fine, if you feel the views of members overall is more important, but when they approved the current system the intention was clearly to ensure at least a certain level of PLP support. The Tory system of whittling down those on the ballot to the final 2 candidates before asking the members at large is a way of ensuring the same thing.
If the party had prized a broad debate as the most important factor, they should have made it a lot easier for anyone to get on the ballot - that way, even if Corbyn had still taken everyone by surprise at how well they were doing, and some members got worried about that, they couldn't get angry at each other for ignoring the rules about what they'd agreed was important in leadership candidates.
Do you really think that being able to buy a vote is just a flaw?
If the fading star of Boris wants to shine again it is obvious what he should do.
He'll do nothing. A bit of huffing and puffing, and then back to his other jobs.
He'll do nothing as there's nothing that can be done , at least safely. If you get rid of the drivers, then they'll just have to be replaced with DLR-style 'train captains' / 'Passenger Service Agent', who'll just go on strike.
Is that right, Mr. J? I am fairly certain I have travelled on the DLR when there was nobody in the front cab? Whether one needs "rain captains"/"passenger service agents" or, as we used to call them, "guards", is a matter for local legislation not safety. The metro-thing in Miami (aka the Mugger Mover) never had them and I am sure there are other metro systems around the word that don't either.
I remember when it was suggested that the London Underground could function quite safely without guards. There was hell to pay, but it happened eventually and even the RMT is not campaigning to bring them back. Drivers will go the same way.
Crikey, my son and I have a bet on which driver of a road motor vehicle job will be the first to be rendered obsolete by the driverless technology Google and others now have under development. He, full of the idealism of youth, reckons it will be HGV drivers. I, being old and cynical, think it will be taxi drivers. I fully expect to be alive long enough to collect my winnings.
The skills required of London Underground drivers pale into insignificance in comparison to what Google have already achieved. They will be gone inside 10 years.
I have been on the DLR on several occasions when the person sitting at the front (not obviously doing anything) got up and left leaving us to cope on our own which we miraculously did. I would accept this might have been after the busier stations.
I think the problem with the Underground is that trains get so crowded and doors need to be checked. The actual driving seems completely pointless.
When I went to buy some stuff from WHSmith at Gatwick recently, they wouldn't let me purchase it as I didn't have my boarding pass with me. (Husband had it and was having a coffee nearby). The assistant said I needed a boarding pass to "prove I was a passenger". I thought it was strange at the time, given that I was already airside.
I am surprised it has taken so long for people to cotton on that is what is occurring. You can't be air-side as a member of the public without being a passenger.
I never understood it either. Isn't it illegal for companies to lie to you about the reason for your information?
I have always thought, known, assumed, the boarding passes were for VAT reasons - I'm surprised the newspaper reports quote people who never realised this. I am equally surprised and disgusted that retailers are claiming it back and not passing savings on. Its advertised as tax free but again from my observation I have never believed it to be value for money.
Quite. It was the Jeremy Corbyn's of this world that were trying get on with Germany by appealing to the Nazis better nature. Just as the man himself does with Chavez and Hamas.
Now, be fair: Stalin, rather than Hitler, was the preferred murderous dictator of the trade unions and left-wing intellectuals of the time (and right up to 1956).
Stalin was a murderous charlatan, in that he killed socialists while professing to be building a socialist heaven.
Hitler was the truthful killer, in that he laid his soul bare in "Mein Kampf" of what he was going to do should he gain power. The tragedy was that that very few in the Western Democracies believed it; preffering to believe that Nazism would be a bulwark against Soviet Russia. Even when he was filling Dachau with lefties (trades unionists among them), communists, and Jews, the British government and aristocracy was sure it was only a passing phase.
I'm new to this, so may I ask what may be a very silly question? Can someone explain to me in simple terms how Corbyn got on the ballot? Assuming they weren't actually "morons", why did so many MPs who weren't going to support him agree to nominate him?
They didn't want to give the idea that the labour party had totally abandoned the left, as a leadership campaign made up only of Cooper, Burnham and Kendall, all arguing only about how much further right the party should turn, was shaping up to do.
They were perhaps taken in by the common sentiment that making it hard to get on the ballot was undemocratic.
They were utterly unprepared for the notion that Corbyn could actually come anywhere but last or second to last.
Burnham supporters may have believed that they might pick up second preferences from left wing people who would otherwise not have voted.
Whatever the reason it looks pretty flawed at present doesn't it? Or have I missed something?
Every system has flaws. The problem that has occured for Labour is they treated an intentional feature of the system - ensuring anyone getting on the ballot had significant support among the parliamentary party - as a flaw and so undermined that, resulting in the potential victory of a man the PLP did not actually support and thus a lot of aggravation.
That's fine, if you feel the views of members overall is more important, but when they approved the current system the intention was clearly to ensure at least a certain level of PLP support. The Tory system of whittling down those on the ballot to the final 2 candidates before asking the members at large is a way of ensuring the same thing.
If the party had prized a broad debate as the most important factor, they should have made it a lot easier for anyone to get on the ballot - that way, even if Corbyn had still taken everyone by surprise at how well they were doing, and some members got worried about that, they couldn't get angry at each other for ignoring the rules about what they'd agreed was important in leadership candidates.
Do you really think that being able to buy a vote is just a flaw?
Quite. It was the Jeremy Corbyn's of this world that were trying get on with Germany by appealing to the Nazis better nature. Just as the man himself does with Chavez and Hamas.
Now, be fair: Stalin, rather than Hitler, was the preferred murderous dictator of the trade unions and left-wing intellectuals of the time (and right up to 1956).
Stalin was a murderous charlatan, in that he killed socialists while professing to be building a socialist heaven.
Hitler was the truthful killer, in that he laid his soul bare in "Mein Kampf" of what he was going to do should he gain power. The tragedy was that that very few in the Western Democracies believed it; preffering to believe that Nazism would be a bulwark against Soviet Russia. Even when he was filling Dachau with lefties (trades unionists among them), communists, and Jews, the British government and aristocracy was sure it was only a passing phase.
No one can say that Hitler wasn't up-front about what he intended.
In addition to the headlines about Corbyn, the fact that he is supported by a large (40% to 60%) of the party's membership, does indicate that there is a major gap between the "mainstream" Labour MPs and their CLP membership. If Corbyn or the NEC provides more room for local initiatives to deselect their MPs, we will be in for major internal battles within the party. One way that would be accelerated is if the "supporters" from the union subs and the £3 fee supporters are given the same voting rights within each CLP. Does anyone know if that is/has happened?
I think there will only be deselections of MPs if they start voting with the Tories in Parliament (as has been implied with some of these briefings in the press of "Corbyn didn't obey the whip, so we won't obey his whip either").
My sense is that most mainstream Labour members, including some of the less militant Corbyn supporters, are happy for different opinions to co-exist in the party and for there to be a debate about party policy. But Labour MPs going beyond that, and actively enabling Tory cuts to be passed, would cross the line for many.
With the news from the Electoral Commission about 2014 accounts for the major political parties. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33860338) I went and had a look at the full downloadable list.
When looking at the list as a whole and thinking about the party being an 'Ongoing Concern' - I had a look at those parties where (Liabilities - Assets) are greater than Total Income for the year 2014, and Income is greater than £1,000. Parties which are potentially in danger on this basis:
Respect (Income £14,227; Net Liabilities £16,459) English Dems (Income £49,266; Net Liabilities £188,788) Scottish Voice (Income £1,025; Net Liabilities £191,554)
I'm new to this, so may I ask what may be a very silly question? Can someone explain to me in simple terms how Corbyn got on the ballot? Assuming they weren't actually "morons", why did so many MPs who weren't going to support him agree to nominate him?
They didn't want to give the idea that the labour party had totally abandoned the left, as a leadership campaign made up only of Cooper, Burnham and Kendall, all arguing only about how much further right the party should turn, was shaping up to do.
They were perhaps taken in by the common sentiment that making it hard to get on the ballot was undemocratic.
They were utterly unprepared for the notion that Corbyn could actually come anywhere but last or second to last.
Burnham supporters may have believed that they might pick up second preferences from left wing people who would otherwise not have voted.
Whatever the reason it looks pretty flawed at present doesn't it? Or have I missed something?
Burnham could well still pick up more second prefs of Corbyn over Liz or Yvette
Corbyn supporters' second preferences only apply if you think Corbyn is going to finish 3rd or 4th. which is a bold call. Corbyn supporters might as well only vote Corbyn - and leave their second choice blank.
You just need to adjust your grip on reality to the new paradigm.
You mean a reality where only getting 1 question out of 3 right gets you a pass mark in a maths exam?
Oh, wait...
And being asked to apply your mathematical skills in a slightly unexpected context is thought to be a flaw rather than the whole point.
We have indeed much to learn.
The paper looked quite rough to me to do in under an hour !
It was actually 1 hour 10 minutes for the non calculator paper and1 hour 30 minutes for the calculator paper. But yes, it did remind me that my Higher Maths was a very long time ago.
My concern was that the point of maths should surely be to use the skills you have learned in unexpected situations. If they are simply doing very similar questions to those they have been taught then they are getting taught to pass the test, not to use mathematics. This is not the candidate's fault of course or even necessarily their teachers.
I'm new to this, so may I ask what may be a very silly question? Can someone explain to me in simple terms how Corbyn got on the ballot? Assuming they weren't actually "morons", why did so many MPs who weren't going to support him agree to nominate him?
They didn't want to give the idea that the labour party had totally abandoned the left, as a leadership campaign made up only of Cooper, Burnham and Kendall, all arguing only about how much further right the party should turn, was shaping up to do.
They were perhaps taken in by the common sentiment that making it hard to get on the ballot was undemocratic.
They were utterly unprepared for the notion that Corbyn could actually come anywhere but last or second to last.
Burnham supporters may have believed that they might pick up second preferences from left wing people who would otherwise not have voted.
Whatever the reason it looks pretty flawed at present doesn't it? Or have I missed something?
Every system has flaws. The problem that has occured for Labour is they treated an intentional feature of the system - ensuring anyone getting on the ballot had significant support among the parliamentary party - as a flaw and so undermined that, resulting in the potential victory of a man the PLP did not actually support and thus a lot of aggravation.
If the party had prized a broad debate as the most important factor, they should have made it a lot easier for anyone to get on the ballot - that way, even if Corbyn had still taken everyone by surprise at how well they were doing, and some members got worried about that, they couldn't get angry at each other for ignoring the rules about what they'd agreed was important in leadership candidates.
Do you really think that being able to buy a vote is just a flaw?
I think it's not the best thing to have in a system to elect a leader, but I cannot call it a flaw either, as it was intentional in order to enable more people to participate. That the system is so open to manipulation is a flaw, but allowing people to buy votes was something they seem to have explicitly wanted, clearly thinking the risk of ill motivated entryism was worth the benefit of engaging more people.
It's surely about what you want to achieve with your leadership system, and what you want to prevent. Preventing entryism was not something they prioritised, and they may come to regret that, we shall see.
Centrist Labour MPs who continue to just sneer at the grassroots would do well to listen to Gisela Stuart (who is herself a Kendall supporter):
Gisela Stuart, MP for Birmingham Edgbaston, said: “We have lost the umbilical cord between the parliamentary party and the rest of Labour. MPs have to remember that we are an ideological movement with values, and we need to be more sensitive to that.”
Russia welcomes Jeremy Corbyn in Labour leadership contest
Fyodor Lukyanov, a key associate close to the Russian foreign ministry, says Russia would welcome a leader like Jeremy Corbyn after leftwinger suggests Britain should have closer ties with the country
The Corbyn machine has been quite brilliant at recruitment so far. – There's little hope imho that Andy Burnham supporters will turn it around with just 24hrs remaining.
In addition to the headlines about Corbyn, the fact that he is supported by a large (40% to 60%) of the party's membership, does indicate that there is a major gap between the "mainstream" Labour MPs and their CLP membership. If Corbyn or the NEC provides more room for local initiatives to deselect their MPs, we will be in for major internal battles within the party. One way that would be accelerated is if the "supporters" from the union subs and the £3 fee supporters are given the same voting rights within each CLP. Does anyone know if that is/has happened?
I think there will only be deselections of MPs if they start voting with the Tories in Parliament ...... My sense is that most mainstream Labour members, including some of the less militant Corbyn supporters, are happy for different opinions to co-exist in the party and for there to be a debate about party policy. But Labour MPs going beyond that, and actively enabling Tory cuts to be passed, would cross the line for many.
The votes have been provided for a series of local revolutions. How many CLPs will hold back from pressing the button for a revolution? After all, they know who did not nominate Corbyn.
Comments
I thought it was strange at the time, given that I was already airside.
On the plus side,Ladbrokes now have a Round Robin betting slip,3 selections,10 bets,with the multiplier effect of the up and down double.This would make an ideal political bet IMO,notably on constituency betting.
arf..
Having passed the rigorous vetting, I'm relishing exercising my democratic right to consign Labour to electoral oblivion in the coming days.
My only worry is that Corbs may prove massively more popular with the wider electorate than anyone ever envisaged.....
Any sort of multiplier on constituency betting surely wouldn't be allowed and would be settled up as singles.
Did anyone pick up on that link on here yesterday about the place in the Philippines that manufactured "personalities" for use in on line marketing applications?
My point was more frustration with the media now going - "look what was going on - this is disgraceful - how could we have possibly known" when they could have just looked previously.
They were perhaps taken in by the common sentiment that making it hard to get on the ballot was undemocratic.
They were utterly unprepared for the notion that Corbyn could actually come anywhere but last or second to last.
Burnham supporters may have believed that they might pick up second preferences from left wing people who would otherwise not have voted.
Welcome to PB!
Around 2017 maybe ?
If polls help sell newspapers, they will continue to get paid.
Is he still thinking ......
1) We've got our party back
or
2) Why did I bother detoxifying the party
3) Oh shit
4) We are completely f*cked
5) all three of the above 2.3.4
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-33866704
If the fading star of Boris wants to shine again it is obvious what he should do.
A frightening encounter on the USS Enterprise.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/593809/Labour-leader-race-climatechange-denier-Piers-brother-Jeremy-Corbyn
So, TSE, why are the Greens joining Labour?
"If polls help sell newspapers, they will continue to get paid"
Quite right, Mr. Hopkins. I think I covered that in my second sentence, "Unless of course, the customer wants some bullshit numbers they can pretend are a real reflection of the public's views."
It's not about race.
Yes, possibly things can get 'that bad'
MI7 up to their old tricks:
Fragments of a suspected Russian missile system have been found at the Flight MH17 crash site in eastern Ukraine, investigators say.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33865420
They must have had a day off from suppressing global oil prices and hiding oil fields.....
"My only worry is that Corbs may prove massively more popular with the wider electorate than anyone ever envisaged....."
I was introduced to an 86 year old woman in a cafe this morning with a strong German/Austrian accent. She came to the UK from Vienna in '48 and regaled me with stories of how the Austrians were worse than the Germans and how to this day they're still racists who refuse to accept their history.
She felt great affection for the English. For their friendliness and lack of corruption. She also hated the Tories with a passion almost equalling her loathing for her ex compatriots. She joined the Lib Dems because of Blair and has stuffed envelopes for them when required ever since.
She said if Corbyn won the leadership she would rejoin Labour and die happy!
It almost tempted me to pay my £3
Admittedly this is the Express...
''In stark contrast to his younger sibling, Piers Corbyn, 68, has made no secret of his dislike for “global warming hysteria” and has built a reputation as one of Britain's most vocal climate change sceptics.
The Corbyn brothers disagree wildly on environmental issues, ''
I think I prefer cut of Corbyn major's jib.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/593809/Labour-leader-race-climatechange-denier-Piers-brother-Jeremy-Corbyn
That's their logic
- it was a Tory administration that declared war on Germany
- it was a Tory PM who won the war
- the majority of her years of living in England have been under Tory rule
I'd be pretty thankful to the Tories in that situation.
I owe RCS and the charity bet to CD13... please provide details and Ill pay pay
http://www.express.co.uk/expressyourself/126784/Hitler-s-aristocratic-admirers
(sorry it's the Express again!)
They obviously couldn't find, research or believe the truth. I suspect they were happy to believe what they were told, which they assumed was the truth. Not a good policy for a Trustee.
I remember when it was suggested that the London Underground could function quite safely without guards. There was hell to pay, but it happened eventually and even the RMT is not campaigning to bring them back. Drivers will go the same way.
Crikey, my son and I have a bet on which driver of a road motor vehicle job will be the first to be rendered obsolete by the driverless technology Google and others now have under development. He, full of the idealism of youth, reckons it will be HGV drivers. I, being old and cynical, think it will be taxi drivers. I fully expect to be alive long enough to collect my winnings.
The skills required of London Underground drivers pale into insignificance in comparison to what Google have already achieved. They will be gone inside 10 years.
What is most staggering is that anyone could have had any illusions about Stalin after the late thirties.
Socialism is even more foolish than those who think Caesar superior to Hannibal. It's the equivalent of believing Arcadius to be a better emperor than Trajan.
I'd bet good money it wasn't Corbyn who commissioned it.
If Corbyn gets to be PM, a man with a red flag will probably have to walk in front of every driver-less car.
That's fine, if you feel the views of members overall is more important, but when they approved the current system the intention was clearly to ensure at least a certain level of PLP support. The Tory system of whittling down those on the ballot to the final 2 candidates before asking the members at large is a way of ensuring the same thing.
If the party had prized a broad debate as the most important factor, they should have made it a lot easier for anyone to get on the ballot - that way, even if Corbyn had still taken everyone by surprise at how well they were doing, and some members got worried about that, they couldn't get angry at each other for ignoring the rules about what they'd agreed was important in leadership candidates.
I think the problem with the Underground is that trains get so crowded and doors need to be checked. The actual driving seems completely pointless.
Oh, wait...
"I owe RCS and the charity bet to CD13... please provide details and Ill pay pay."
No problem. A fiver for Cafod will be fine.
Or double or quits on Jezza? I bet he will never be LOTO, on the basis that turkeys never vote for Christmas. Not sentient turkeys anyway.
We have indeed much to learn.
The answer for me is no, but whenever I see posts by one writer on the site, I always hum "It's Dair" to the Gorillaz tune.
Sounds like a knife attack.
Hitler was the truthful killer, in that he laid his soul bare in "Mein Kampf" of what he was going to do should he gain power. The tragedy was that that very few in the Western Democracies believed it; preffering to believe that Nazism would be a bulwark against Soviet Russia. Even when he was filling Dachau with lefties (trades unionists among them), communists, and Jews, the British government and aristocracy was sure it was only a passing phase.
My sense is that most mainstream Labour members, including some of the less militant Corbyn supporters, are happy for different opinions to co-exist in the party and for there to be a debate about party policy. But Labour MPs going beyond that, and actively enabling Tory cuts to be passed, would cross the line for many.
When looking at the list as a whole and thinking about the party being an 'Ongoing Concern' - I had a look at those parties where (Liabilities - Assets) are greater than Total Income for the year 2014, and Income is greater than £1,000. Parties which are potentially in danger on this basis:
Respect (Income £14,227; Net Liabilities £16,459)
English Dems (Income £49,266; Net Liabilities £188,788)
Scottish Voice (Income £1,025; Net Liabilities £191,554)
My concern was that the point of maths should surely be to use the skills you have learned in unexpected situations. If they are simply doing very similar questions to those they have been taught then they are getting taught to pass the test, not to use mathematics. This is not the candidate's fault of course or even necessarily their teachers.
Labour say they won't release details.
It's surely about what you want to achieve with your leadership system, and what you want to prevent. Preventing entryism was not something they prioritised, and they may come to regret that, we shall see.
Fyodor Lukyanov, a key associate close to the Russian foreign ministry, says Russia would welcome a leader like Jeremy Corbyn after leftwinger suggests Britain should have closer ties with the country
http://bit.ly/1N6Y3em
CON 40 (+2)
LAB 31 (-3)
LIB 7 (+1)
UKIP 10 (-3)
GRN 4 (=)
SNP 5 (+1)
Note: New methodology
Conservatives 40% Labour 31% LibDems 7% UKIP 10% SNP 5% Green Party 4% Others 2%