I see that Ladbrokes have Jeremy Corbyn at 1/2 to win more than 50% first preferences. I hope my tip last week on taking up the 6/1 they had on any candidate winning 50%+ first preferences makes up for some of the likely losses on Yvette. I never imagined for a moment how listless her campaign would become.
Jack Straw on Sky - agreeing with Tony and "it's worse than Foot", it's an existential crisis for Labour.
"Jeremy doesn't have the confidence of the PLP" "The constituencies in London voting for him aren't representative of Labour"
Well if it's true that half the Labour membership is in London (which may have radically changed in the past month of course), J Straw is wrong. But deeper down he is probably worried that London increasingly does not look anything like the rest of the country (e.g where his son lost in Rossendale) and that a Labour party increasingly dominated by London Labour will look even less like the rest of the country with worrying implications in Nuneaton, Bury, Southampton, and the Gower.
Mr. Barber, pish. You're defining feminism as basically not-bigots, and saying those who actively claim the title but are anti-men aren't feminists, and those who actively reject the title (me! and also some other people) are feminists.
It's ridiculous.
And I don't need an approved label to be in favour of equality.
The Conservatives remained silent, barely able to restrain their mirth during this summer of Labour punching itself repeatedly in the face until it passed out.
Have the PB Tories ever thought a Labour leader was good?
It depends on whether you mean good at politics, or good at governance. In the case mentioned by TheScreamingEagles, it seems to be discussing politics. Blair was certainly good at that.
There's different criteria to judge on being good leaders, here's why I consider these Labour leaders good, in no particular order
So every single Labour PM up to 2007 was 'good'. Blimey, welcome to the fold - it sounds like your £3 would have been most acceptable had you chosen to spend it!
Out of interest what proportion of Conservative post-war leaders would you have counted as 'good'.
David Cameron - Very good, my kind of One Nation Tory
Michael Howard - Did a good job and brought discipline to the party
IDS - Possibly the worst LOTO in recent times, did well to rehabilitate himself and is a passionate advocate of Social Justice (even if you don't agree with his policies)
William Hague - The job came too soon for him and had to face Blair when he at peak popularity
John Major - I liked a lot, the error of joining the ERM as Chancellor came back to haunt him, but was badly treated by the Eurosceptics, who went out of their way to damage him. His economic performance (ERM not withstanding) was superb
Lady Thatcher - The Great She Elephant did brilliantly, she changed Britain, for me legacy is tainted by the way she undermined her successor and ruined the 1997 Tory leadership election.
Edward Heath - Oh my, his best achievement apart from taking us into the EC was taking Middlesbrough out of Yorkshire. He was a crap PM, who governs he asked in 1974, the country said not you mate.
Alec Douglas-Home - A decent man vastly over promoted for a job he wasn't suited for.
Harold MacMillan - Again my kind of one nation tory, liked him a lot, Winds of Change speech was fab.
Sir Anthony Eden - A bit like Gordon Brown, served a long apprenticeship but when he got it, he messed up on what was his forte.
Sir Winston Churchill - Great wartime PM, meh peacetime PM
Exactly. While Yvette took a holiday, this bloke was speaking to at least 1 often 2 packed rallies a day. He's not my politics, but you've got to admire that. Of all of them he looks like the one who is playing to win.
*slaps Mr. Barber across the face with a large haddock*
I'll describe and define myself, if that's all the same to you. I am not a feminist. I agree with many feminists on most things. Some are foam-flecked man-hating lunatics.
It's ridiculous to use a term based on one gender for a group allegedly about gender equality.
I don't need a label. I don't want a label. This reminds me of when an idiot at school tried to claim I was an Anglican, after I told him I was an atheist.
I was simply pointing out that what you said you believed in can actually be described as feminist... The Venn diagram would be a circle.
I would argue that "foam-flecked man-hating lunatics" are not in fact feminist, but rather lunatics.
I hope you're not male, as I know some feminists who would be rather angry at a man defining who is and is not a feminist ...
I was there. It was crap. I don't want to go back.
You didn't mention Labour (Healey) austerity. He cut more in one year than Osborne cut in the whole of the last parliament. I suppose some will feel that was perfectly fine because it was cuddly Labour austerity not nasty Tory austerity
Callaghan, PPB, October 1976:
'Let me say, of course there has been a fall in people's standard of life. And it has fallen this year and will fall again next year.'
Healey, budget March 1977:
'The standard of living has been deliberately reduced by the government over the last eighteen months in order that we should get ourselves financially straight again. That should be a matter for congratulation and not recrimination.'
Mr. Slackbladder, probably, but don't forget that things can always get worse. Whoever thought that when Ed Miliband left the leadership things would go downhill for Labour?
Mr. Barber, pish. You're defining feminism as basically not-bigots, and saying those who actively claim the title but are anti-men aren't feminists, and those who actively reject the title (me! and also some other people) are feminists.
Yep, that about sums it up. If you accept that feminism is the advancement of equality, then people who don't believe in equality, regardless of their sex, cannot be considered feminist. And people who do believe in said aims can be described as feminist, even if they choose not to self label as such.
JC winning the leadership election will be very bad news for the Tories. He won't be allowed to fight the next GE. The BBC would effectively prevent it from happening, if the labour party were too disorganised to do it themselves.
His replacement is very likely to appear to be more impressive than the current candidates.
That's just about the only positive that can come out of this clusterf*ck.
Dan Jarvis really would be a formidable leader and 2018 would be good timing.
In order for this to work Labour has to get hammered in Local, Scottish and Welsh elections. I'm reminded of how PB Tory's used to cheer any Labour result that was poor but not disastrous like the Heywood and Middleton by-election as it meant Miliband would hang on.
There will be no requirement for Labour to be 'hammered' anywhere. An average minus showing, demonstrating to all that JC could not win a GE would be enough for him to fatally undermined by the BBC.
So there will be lots more channels by 2020? Sure, but the decline in the political influence of the Beeb will be only marginal amoung the floating-voter classes.
I was there. It was crap. I don't want to go back.
You didn't mention Labour (Healey) austerity. He cut more in one year than Osborne cut in the whole of the last parliament. I suppose some will feel that was perfectly fine because it was cuddly Labour austerity not nasty Tory austerity
Callaghan, PPB, October 1976:
'Let me say, of course there has been a fall in people's standard of life. And it has fallen this year and will fall again next year.'
Healey, budget March 1977:
'The standard of living has been deliberately reduced by the government over the last eighteen months in order that we should get ourselves financially straight again. That should be a matter for congratulation and not recrimination.'
*slaps Mr. Barber across the face with a large haddock*
I'll describe and define myself, if that's all the same to you. I am not a feminist. I agree with many feminists on most things. Some are foam-flecked man-hating lunatics.
It's ridiculous to use a term based on one gender for a group allegedly about gender equality.
I don't need a label. I don't want a label. This reminds me of when an idiot at school tried to claim I was an Anglican, after I told him I was an atheist.
I was simply pointing out that what you said you believed in can actually be described as feminist... The Venn diagram would be a circle.
I would argue that "foam-flecked man-hating lunatics" are not in fact feminist, but rather lunatics.
I hope you're not male, as I know some feminists who would be rather angry at a man defining who is and is not a feminist ...
I'm not defining it, just stating what the accepted definition is.
You should listen to the PB Tories, we've been right about how crap Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband would be.
PB Tories, always right, nothing more to learn, as we know everything
And Falkirk...
Have the PB Tories ever thought a Labour leader was good?
If PB Tories thought any given Labour leader was good, lefties would immediately label that leader a 'Tory'.
Blair was a consummate politician and had he not been hobbled by the barkingly mad Brown might have achieved great things. The fact that he's now reviled as a tory-in-disguise only persuades me that Labour are now a cult, not a political movement.
As I'm only 54, I can't remember any other good ones - John Smith perhaps, though we'll never know how he would have performed in office.
JC winning the leadership election will be very bad news for the Tories. He won't be allowed to fight the next GE. The BBC would effectively prevent it from happening, if the labour party were too disorganised to do it themselves.
His replacement is very likely to appear to be more impressive than the current candidates.
That's just about the only positive that can come out of this clusterf*ck.
Dan Jarvis really would be a formidable leader and 2018 would be good timing.
In order for this to work Labour has to get hammered in Local, Scottish and Welsh elections. I'm reminded of how PB Tory's used to cheer any Labour result that was poor but not disastrous like the Heywood and Middleton by-election as it meant Miliband would hang on.
There will be no requirement for Labour to be 'hammered' anywhere. An average minus showing, demonstrating to all that JC could not win a GE would be enough for him to fatally undermined by the BBC.
So there will be lots more channels by 2020? Sure, but the decline in the political influence of the Beeb will be only marginal amoung the floating-voter classes.
The 'Save Jez' twibbons are being designed as we speak....
I was there. It was crap. I don't want to go back.
You didn't mention Labour (Healey) austerity. He cut more in one year than Osborne cut in the whole of the last parliament. I suppose some will feel that was perfectly fine because it was cuddly Labour austerity not nasty Tory austerity
Callaghan, PPB, October 1976:
'Let me say, of course there has been a fall in people's standard of life. And it has fallen this year and will fall again next year.'
Healey, budget March 1977:
'The standard of living has been deliberately reduced by the government over the last eighteen months in order that we should get ourselves financially straight again. That should be a matter for congratulation and not recrimination.'
Politicians with integrity... not sure it will catch on.
JC winning the leadership election will be very bad news for the Tories. He won't be allowed to fight the next GE. The BBC would effectively prevent it from happening, if the labour party were too disorganised to do it themselves.
His replacement is very likely to appear to be more impressive than the current candidates.
That's just about the only positive that can come out of this clusterf*ck.
Dan Jarvis really would be a formidable leader and 2018 would be good timing.
In order for this to work Labour has to get hammered in Local, Scottish and Welsh elections. I'm reminded of how PB Tory's used to cheer any Labour result that was poor but not disastrous like the Heywood and Middleton by-election as it meant Miliband would hang on.
Outsiders very rarely take the leadership. Churchill in 1940 is one exception, Corbyn in 2015 might be a second. Labour minds do seem to like the idea of a prince over the water who can cure all their ills. At various times this has been Tony Benn, Gordon Brown, Alan Johnson, David Miliband; and now David Miliband (again), Dan Jarvis, Chuka Umunna and Kier Starmer are all improbably cited.
Unite are entitled to encourage their members to sign up to be affiliated supporters. It was what all unions were asked to do in response to losing their third of the electoral college. The real question is why haven't most of the other unions not done this? Usdaw is backing Andy Burnham - they've 400,000 union members. How many of them have they got signed up?
*slaps Mr. Barber across the face with a large haddock*
I'll describe and define myself, if that's all the same to you. I am not a feminist. I agree with many feminists on most things. Some are foam-flecked man-hating lunatics.
It's ridiculous to use a term based on one gender for a group allegedly about gender equality.
I don't need a label. I don't want a label. This reminds me of when an idiot at school tried to claim I was an Anglican, after I told him I was an atheist.
I was simply pointing out that what you said you believed in can actually be described as feminist... The Venn diagram would be a circle.
I would argue that "foam-flecked man-hating lunatics" are not in fact feminist, but rather lunatics.
I hope you're not male, as I know some feminists who would be rather angry at a man defining who is and is not a feminist ...
I'm not defining it, just stating what the accepted definition is.
*slaps Mr. Barber across the face with a large haddock*
I'll describe and define myself, if that's all the same to you. I am not a feminist. I agree with many feminists on most things. Some are foam-flecked man-hating lunatics.
It's ridiculous to use a term based on one gender for a group allegedly about gender equality.
I don't need a label. I don't want a label. This reminds me of when an idiot at school tried to claim I was an Anglican, after I told him I was an atheist.
I was simply pointing out that what you said you believed in can actually be described as feminist... The Venn diagram would be a circle.
I would argue that "foam-flecked man-hating lunatics" are not in fact feminist, but rather lunatics.
I hope you're not male, as I know some feminists who would be rather angry at a man defining who is and is not a feminist ...
I'm not defining it, just stating what the accepted definition is.
mansplaining
LOL yeah, probably guilty of that from time to time. I am a man after all
as per @TGOHF, I think laying Andy is now the correct move now on Betfair - if Corbyn should be ~ 1.1 perhaps, then Yvette deserves at least equal of the remaining % as Burnham.. he is completely anonymous.
I was there. It was crap. I don't want to go back.
You didn't mention Labour (Healey) austerity. He cut more in one year than Osborne cut in the whole of the last parliament. I suppose some will feel that was perfectly fine because it was cuddly Labour austerity not nasty Tory austerity
Callaghan, PPB, October 1976:
'Let me say, of course there has been a fall in people's standard of life. And it has fallen this year and will fall again next year.'
Healey, budget March 1977:
'The standard of living has been deliberately reduced by the government over the last eighteen months in order that we should get ourselves financially straight again. That should be a matter for congratulation and not recrimination.'
Politicians with integrity... not sure it will catch on.
Until of course, you compare it with these two quotations:
James Callaghan, July 1976:
'I do not think this would be the right moment to cut people's standard of life in terms of private consumption any further.'
Denis Healey, on campaign in September 1974:
'I don't believe myself it is necessary for the people as a whole to have their living standards lowered in order to conquer inflation.'
Of course, integrity can be awkward when it confronts reality, as Michael Foot, regarded as one of the most transparently honest and decent men in politics, found out the hard way!
Corbyn could be the modern day Gerald Ratner in terms of brand damage.
Didn't Ratner actually have a point in what he was saying, and it was mainly media misreporting that caused the problems? Or have I got that wrong?
He also spoke about how they sold gold earrings for less than he paid for his prawn sandwich at lunch, but then reflected that the prawn sandwich might very well last longer. (I worked for H Samuels as a holiday job, the manager of many decades service had some choice words to say when they were taken over by Ratners!)
Corbyn could be the modern day Gerald Ratner in terms of brand damage.
Didn't Ratner actually have a point in what he was saying, and it was mainly media misreporting that caused the problems? Or have I got that wrong?
Okay, my vague memory is this: the product in question was from a company that Ratners had just purchased, and he was pointing out that their (now his) products were poor? I.e. he was looking to improve them.
Or have I just pulled that out of my heavily-bruised posterior?
Unite are entitled to encourage their members to sign up to be affiliated supporters. It was what all unions were asked to do in response to losing their third of the electoral college. The real question is why haven't most of the other unions not done this? Usdaw is backing Andy Burnham - they've 400,000 union members. How many of them have they got signed up?
Take your point about Cooper appearing to play the gender card earlier - although why saying she is a woman with children is seen as purely an attack on Kendall I am not sure. However, seems to me she is being attacked on here for happening to mention Sure Start in her speech. On feminism...... while some extreme feminists may consider women to be superior, the basis of feminism is equality of the sexes, i.e. that neither is superior. OED definition" the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes" So on that definitions is there anyone on here who is NOT a feminist?
Unite reckon they've got between 90-100,000 affiliated members in Lab ballot. McCluskey to write to all by weekend to urge vote Corbyn
This is a coup, plain and simple, and the PLP have walked into it.
God, Ed Miliband really was crap.
Honourable mention must also go to A. Smith
"He might so easily have been late. He could have been trapped in his office by an urgent phone call, or been stricken by a tummy bug, or in his frantic haste tripped and turned an ankle. He might have been lying on a stone floor, whimpering, when the list closed leaving Jez that one tantalising nomination short.
I see that Ladbrokes have Jeremy Corbyn at 1/2 to win more than 50% first preferences. I hope my tip last week on taking up the 6/1 they had on any candidate winning 50%+ first preferences makes up for some of the likely losses on Yvette. I never imagined for a moment how listless her campaign would become.
Your original Yvette tip was a good one. The odds were too long and those of us who followed you were able to lay off later at a profit. Of course things have developed in an unexpected way since then, but that's politics, and in any case it was easy to switch to backing Corbyn outright or at least going all-green.
I agree that it is a surprise how feeble Yvette's campaign has been.
As regards the union (especially Unite) influence, I pointed out at the time of Ed Miliband's change to the electoral system that this would increase, not decrease, the union leaders' influence.
This is a coup, plain and simple, and the PLP have walked into it.
God, Ed Miliband really was crap.
It is really quite remarkable how poorly thought out this election has been. Many people on here joked about Tories signing up to vote for the worst candidate, but I don't think anybody anticipated a massive influx of hard-left voters hijacking the Labour Party. If Corbyn wins, and that now looks likely, it will be very difficult for the moderates to regain control of the party.
This is a coup, plain and simple, and the PLP have walked into it.
God, Ed Miliband really was crap.
It is really quite remarkable how poorly thought out this election has been. Many people on here joked about Tories signing up to vote for the worst candidate, but I don't think anybody anticipated a massive influx of hard-left voters hijacking the Labour Party. If Corbyn wins, and that now looks likely, it will be very difficult for the moderates to regain control of the party.
The question might be, will there be a party left for them to regain control of?
Take your point about Cooper appearing to play the gender card earlier - although why saying she is a woman with children is seen as purely an attack on Kendall I am not sure. However, seems to me she is being attacked on here for happening to mention Sure Start in her speech. On feminism...... while some extreme feminists may consider women to be superior, the basis of feminism is equality of the sexes, i.e. that neither is superior. OED definition" the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes" So on that definitions is there anyone on here who is NOT a feminist?
Which is why many feminists actively disagree with that definition. For instance, any in favour of positive discrimination, of giving women less time in jail (or even of being let off jail), and especially those who do not point out where men are also harmed by society.
Then you get the worst of all; the political feminists. People like Harriet Harman, who seem to use the cause as a means of political power rather than having any true belief in it.
My engagement ring came from H. Samuel! And very nice it is too.
The quality of their stuff declined horribly - TBH, most high st jewelers did. All my recent purchases have come from India where most of it is made. At least it's bespoke.
Corbyn could be the modern day Gerald Ratner in terms of brand damage.
Didn't Ratner actually have a point in what he was saying, and it was mainly media misreporting that caused the problems? Or have I got that wrong?
He also spoke about how they sold gold earrings for less than he paid for his prawn sandwich at lunch, but then reflected that the prawn sandwich might very well last longer. (I worked for H Samuels as a holiday job, the manager of many decades service had some choice words to say when they were taken over by Ratners!)
"Dan Jarvis really would be a formidable leader [of the Labour Party]..."
Would he? What evidence to support that theory? He was a skilled and brave soldier, we are not short of men and women who have that qualification, he is a dedicated family fan, so are millions of others. That he can lead is not in doubt, whether he can lead the Labour Party is a different caldron of octopus.
The primary requirement of leadership is that people will want to follow you. What has Jarvis got or done that would make his party, especially his MPs, want to follow him?
This is a coup, plain and simple, and the PLP have walked into it.
God, Ed Miliband really was crap.
It is really quite remarkable how poorly thought out this election has been. Many people on here joked about Tories signing up to vote for the worst candidate, but I don't think anybody anticipated a massive influx of hard-left voters hijacking the Labour Party. If Corbyn wins, and that now looks likely, it will be very difficult for the moderates to regain control of the party.
"Dan Jarvis really would be a formidable leader [of the Labour Party]..."
Would he? What evidence to support that theory? He was a skilled and brave soldier, we are not short of men and women who have that qualification, he is a dedicated family fan, so are millions of others. That he can lead is not in doubt, whether he can lead the Labour Party is a different caldron of octopus.
The primary requirement of leadership is that people will want to follow you. What has Jarvis got or done that would make his party, especially his MPs, want to follow him?
Given Corbyn and the hard left views on the military, does anything think a ex-soldier is going to win when the Corbynites are done with the party?
Especially as he served in both Iraq and Agfanistan?
Mr. Barber, that does sound like Freeman's Labour PPB.
"If you're not Labour/a feminist, you're a bastard."
This is because feminism is wrongly seen as a left wing ideology. Feminism is (or should be) politically neutral being a liberal ideology. The problem is that many/all for the more vocal/militant activists come from the left.
A liberal ideology would focus on equal rights and treatment for all, rather than concentrating on just one gender.
I quite agree, and most feminists would too. Feminism by advocating equality rather does imply that the other sex be equal too...
But feminism only concentrates on places where women are less equal, and is completely indifferent to where men are. I have not seen many feminists show concern about males doing worse at secondary education, being the main victims of war, being biased against in family courts, having worse health and shorter lives, receiving longer prison sentences for the same crime. In fact, on the last issue, I have heard feminists argue that we should concentrate on giving women even fewer prison sentences.
Feminism was a response to the unequal treatment of women. But, most modern feminist thinkers do indeed concern themselves with both sexes, see Bell Hooks as an example.
Ok, so what I'm taking out of this is that the label "Feminism" is being objected to rather than the aims and reality of what feminism is.
From reading about her, Bell Hooks seems to be a rare type of feminist who also cares about male inequality. But is that "feminism", or is just her caring about things beyond feminism? I could cite plenty of self-described feminists who say unpleasant things about men. Do you really believe that arguing for male prison sentences to be brought in line with female prison sentences is "feminist"? Egalitarian, yes. Feminist, no. Even moderate feminism is about supporting equal rights, but only for one segment of society.
Mr. Barber, it's a view held by a number of bishops
And I don't accept your 'accepted' definition. Yes, it's in the dictionary. I'm more concerned by the reality. And yes, it's true of many feminists, but it's untrue of many feminists as well.
I've got a perfect Twitter link on the madness, but it contains swearing, and I know things get auto-pasted when you try posting a link. Ah ha! Using my superior male brain I've thought of a way to just cut it in two: https://tw
Copy and paste the above to the start of the below.
Lolz - we're really good friends. We have a peculiar relationship where he phones me from the car or when his new wife's out. It's all very furtive, like having an affair.
I see that Ladbrokes have Jeremy Corbyn at 1/2 to win more than 50% first preferences. I hope my tip last week on taking up the 6/1 they had on any candidate winning 50%+ first preferences makes up for some of the likely losses on Yvette. I never imagined for a moment how listless her campaign would become.
Your original Yvette tip was a good one. The odds were too long and those of us who followed you were able to lay off later at a profit. Of course things have developed in an unexpected way since then, but that's politics, and in any case it was easy to switch to backing Corbyn outright or at least going all-green.
I agree that it is a surprise how feeble Yvette's campaign has been.
As regards the union (especially Unite) influence, I pointed out at the time of Ed Miliband's change to the electoral system that this would increase, not decrease, the union leaders' influence.
All the leadership contenders were tipped up at various points here:
14-1 Burnham 50-1 and 20-1 Kendall 11-4? Cooper.
If you'd followed all those in, you could STILL trade out for a small loss. And this is after the Corbyn horse is not only out the stable, but 50 lengths in front with a furlong to run.
The primary requirement of leadership is that people will want to follow you. What has Jarvis got or done that would make his party, especially his MPs, want to follow him?
Up until this Corbyn debacle I would have said that politicians will by and large follow someone that looks like a winner. Jarvis was a company commander for SFSG so one assume he knows how to herd cats, and is familiar with dealing with primadonnas, so he is ahead already. Remember the riddle in the Game of Thrones:
“In a room sit three great men, a king, a priest, and a rich man with his gold. Between them stands a sellsword, a little man of common birth and no great mind. Each of the great ones bids him slay the other two. ‘Do it,’ says the king, ‘for I am your lawful ruler.’ ‘Do it,’ says the priest, ‘for I command you in the names of the gods.’ ‘Do it,’ says the rich man, ‘and all this gold shall be yours.’ So tell me—who lives and who dies?”
Corbyn could be the modern day Gerald Ratner in terms of brand damage.
Didn't Ratner actually have a point in what he was saying, and it was mainly media misreporting that caused the problems? Or have I got that wrong?
Okay, my vague memory is this: the product in question was from a company that Ratners had just purchased, and he was pointing out that their (now his) products were poor? I.e. he was looking to improve them.
Or have I just pulled that out of my heavily-bruised posterior?
To be fair: Ratner described some of his products as crap, not all of them. Mrs Fox's engagement ring came from Ratners in Tooting. It seems to have lasted.
Pathetic. No satsifactory explanation has been provided as to this delay - allowing people to respond is certainly necessary, but that takes the years it has been? Not credible, no matter how long the report or the sections of it they are referenced in are.
Mr. Barber, that does sound like Freeman's Labour PPB.
"If you're not Labour/a feminist, you're a bastard."
This is because feminism is wrongly seen as a left wing ideology. Feminism is (or should be) politically neutral being a liberal ideology. The problem is that many/all for the more vocal/militant activists come from the left.
A liberal ideology would focus on equal rights and treatment for all, rather than concentrating on just one gender.
I quite agree, and most feminists would too. Feminism by advocating equality rather does imply that the other sex be equal too...
But feminism only concentrates on places where women are less equal, and is completely indifferent to where men are. I have not seen many feminists show concern about males doing worse at secondary education, being the main victims of war, being biased against in family courts, having worse health and shorter lives, receiving longer prison sentences for the same crime. In fact, on the last issue, I have heard feminists argue that we should concentrate on giving women even fewer prison sentences.
Feminism was a response to the unequal treatment of women. But, most modern feminist thinkers do indeed concern themselves with both sexes, see Bell Hooks as an example.
Ok, so what I'm taking out of this is that the label "Feminism" is being objected to rather than the aims and reality of what feminism is.
From reading about her, Bell Hooks seems to be a rare type of feminist who also cares about male inequality. But is that "feminism", or is just her caring about things beyond feminism? I could cite plenty of self-described feminists who say unpleasant things about men. Do you really believe that arguing for male prison sentences to be brought in line with female prison sentences is "feminist"? Egalitarian, yes. Feminist, no. Even moderate feminism is about supporting equal rights, but only for one segment of society.
Take your point about Cooper appearing to play the gender card earlier - although why saying she is a woman with children is seen as purely an attack on Kendall I am not sure. However, seems to me she is being attacked on here for happening to mention Sure Start in her speech. On feminism...... while some extreme feminists may consider women to be superior, the basis of feminism is equality of the sexes, i.e. that neither is superior. OED definition" the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes" So on that definitions is there anyone on here who is NOT a feminist?
I think I'll claim that title, Mrs. B.. There are certain matters in which I will never treat a woman the same as I would a man, common decency and politeness (at least the way I was brought up) demands it.
Given Corbyn and the hard left views on the military, does anything think a ex-soldier is going to win when the Corbynites are done with the party?
Especially as he served in both Iraq and Agfanistan?
That's a good point, even the supposedly good candidates for leader (Jarvis is unproven) will have to take the party back not from the current members, but from the hard-left who will shortly be in control. Who knows what rules and hurdles might apply in future leadership elections? For all we know the unions might be back in charge.
Mr Jessop Your argument on feminism is a nonsense. It is like saying Catholicism is rubbish because of the IRA.
That analogy is really rubbish. I mean, really?
And this is the first problem many discussions about feminism get into: definitions. Many women see themselves as 'true' feminists and others who they disagree with as heretics. Whereas they only speak for themselves and not the entire movement.
I see that Ladbrokes have Jeremy Corbyn at 1/2 to win more than 50% first preferences. I hope my tip last week on taking up the 6/1 they had on any candidate winning 50%+ first preferences makes up for some of the likely losses on Yvette. I never imagined for a moment how listless her campaign would become.
Your original Yvette tip was a good one. The odds were too long and those of us who followed you were able to lay off later at a profit. Of course things have developed in an unexpected way since then, but that's politics, and in any case it was easy to switch to backing Corbyn outright or at least going all-green.
I agree that it is a surprise how feeble Yvette's campaign has been.
As regards the union (especially Unite) influence, I pointed out at the time of Ed Miliband's change to the electoral system that this would increase, not decrease, the union leaders' influence.
All the leadership contenders were tipped up at various points here:
14-1 Burnham 50-1 and 20-1 Kendall 11-4? Cooper.
If you'd followed all those in, you could STILL trade out for a small loss. And this is after the Corbyn horse is not only out the stable, but 50 lengths in front with a furlong to run.
This would be a betting post if I knew who this would benefit the most, Khan?
The number of Londoners set to vote in Labour’s mayoral contest has more than doubled on the back of the Jeremy Corbyn leadership bandwagon, party sources have told the Standard.
Mr. Barber, that does sound like Freeman's Labour PPB.
"If you're not Labour/a feminist, you're a bastard."
This is because feminism is wrongly seen as a left wing ideology. Feminism is (or should be) politically neutral being a liberal ideology. The problem is that many/all for the more vocal/militant activists come from the left.
A liberal ideology would focus on equal rights and treatment for all, rather than concentrating on just one gender.
I quite agree, and most feminists would too. Feminism by advocating equality rather does imply that the other sex be equal too...
But feminism only concentrates on places where women are less equal, and is completely indifferent to where men are. I have not seen many feminists show concern about males doing worse at secondary education, being the main victims of war, being biased against in family courts, having worse health and shorter lives, receiving longer prison sentences for the same crime. In fact, on the last issue, I have heard feminists argue that we should concentrate on giving women even fewer prison sentences.
Feminism was a response to the unequal treatment of women. But, most modern feminist thinkers do indeed concern themselves with both sexes, see Bell Hooks as an example.
Ok, so what I'm taking out of this is that the label "Feminism" is being objected to rather than the aims and reality of what feminism is.
From reading about her, Bell Hooks seems to be a rare type of feminist who also cares about male inequality. But is that "feminism", or is just her caring about things beyond feminism? I could cite plenty of self-described feminists who say unpleasant things about men. Do you really believe that arguing for male prison sentences to be brought in line with female prison sentences is "feminist"? Egalitarian, yes. Feminist, no. Even moderate feminism is about supporting equal rights, but only for one segment of society.
On the very specific subject of prison sentences... Without getting into that particular debate too much, supporting differential sentences on the basis of gender alone doesn't strike me as being a particularly good idea. Besides, is anybody arguing for male sentences to be brought in-line with female sentences?
"Even moderate feminism is about supporting equal rights, but only for one segment of society." Assuming that in this debate we are talking about two genders, male and female, stating that you support equal rights rather suggests that both sides are included.
This would be a betting post if I knew who this would benefit the most, Khan?
The number of Londoners set to vote in Labour’s mayoral contest has more than doubled on the back of the Jeremy Corbyn leadership bandwagon, party sources have told the Standard.
Given Corbyn and the hard left views on the military, does anything think a ex-soldier is going to win when the Corbynites are done with the party?
Especially as he served in both Iraq and Agfanistan?
That's a good point, even the supposedly good candidates for leader (Jarvis is unproven) will have to take the party back not from the current members, but from the hard-left who will shortly be in control. Who knows what rules and hurdles might apply in future leadership elections? For all we know the unions might be back in charge.
I think the real problem of a few years of Corbyn as far as Mr Jarvis is concerned may not be the movement of the centre of the party so much as he has no chance of getting position during those years that will give him the experience he needs to make a pitch before the next election.
I see that Ladbrokes have Jeremy Corbyn at 1/2 to win more than 50% first preferences. I hope my tip last week on taking up the 6/1 they had on any candidate winning 50%+ first preferences makes up for some of the likely losses on Yvette. I never imagined for a moment how listless her campaign would become.
My guess is Yvette would be happier to lose. She certainly doesn't look as though her heart is in this. It looks as though she is running from a sense of duty rather than anything else.
After all, would she have even run, if the result in Morley & Outwood had been different ?
The sense of duty is commendable (after all, some very viable candidates ruled themselves out immediately, Cruddas, Jarvis, etc). But, it won't be enough to win this.
I see that Ladbrokes have Jeremy Corbyn at 1/2 to win more than 50% first preferences. I hope my tip last week on taking up the 6/1 they had on any candidate winning 50%+ first preferences makes up for some of the likely losses on Yvette. I never imagined for a moment how listless her campaign would become.
Your original Yvette tip was a good one. The odds were too long and those of us who followed you were able to lay off later at a profit. Of course things have developed in an unexpected way since then, but that's politics, and in any case it was easy to switch to backing Corbyn outright or at least going all-green.
I agree that it is a surprise how feeble Yvette's campaign has been.
As regards the union (especially Unite) influence, I pointed out at the time of Ed Miliband's change to the electoral system that this would increase, not decrease, the union leaders' influence.
All the leadership contenders were tipped up at various points here:
14-1 Burnham 50-1 and 20-1 Kendall 11-4? Cooper.
If you'd followed all those in, you could STILL trade out for a small loss. And this is after the Corbyn horse is not only out the stable, but 50 lengths in front with a furlong to run.
50/1 and 20/1 - Bloody hell, what a wise fellow that person must be.
This would be a betting post if I knew who this would benefit the most, Khan?
The number of Londoners set to vote in Labour’s mayoral contest has more than doubled on the back of the Jeremy Corbyn leadership bandwagon, party sources have told the Standard.
This would be a betting post if I knew who this would benefit the most, Khan?
The number of Londoners set to vote in Labour’s mayoral contest has more than doubled on the back of the Jeremy Corbyn leadership bandwagon, party sources have told the Standard.
This would be a betting post if I knew who this would benefit the most, Khan?
The number of Londoners set to vote in Labour’s mayoral contest has more than doubled on the back of the Jeremy Corbyn leadership bandwagon, party sources have told the Standard.
I think the real problem of a few years of Corbyn as far as Mr Jarvis is concerned may not be the movement of the centre of the party so much as he has no chance of getting position during those years that will give him the experience he needs to make a pitch before the next election.
That's an even better point. Many careers will be prematurely terminated. If Corbyn wins Labour really are stuffed!
Mr. Barber, it's a view held by a number of bishops
And I don't accept your 'accepted' definition. Yes, it's in the dictionary. I'm more concerned by the reality. And yes, it's true of many feminists, but it's untrue of many feminists as well.
I've got a perfect Twitter link on the madness, but it contains swearing, and I know things get auto-pasted when you try posting a link. Ah ha! Using my superior male brain I've thought of a way to just cut it in two: https://tw
Copy and paste the above to the start of the below.
itter.com/shoe0nhead/status/630527028438171649
Ok, how about this... I'm an atheist. But I think that some of the baiting done by Richard Dawkins in the name of advancing equal rights for atheists is rude and probably counter productive. I don't believe all of the same things that some more "politically active" atheists do, but I am still atheist.
I think if Dan Jarvis wanted to run for Shadow Cabinet elections then the Corbyn lot would be delighted. They need to demonstrate he can bring in people from the centre of the party. This is the conundrum for those who want to run for leader in the future. Are they better off keeping their distance from the Corbyn era or would 'going on strike' in Shadow Cabinet elections be seen by party members (who presumably will have voted for him) as a negative for another election in possibly 2 years' time. My gut reaction is those that play a role will benefit in the medium to longer term and steal a march on those who withdraw like Chuka Umunna, Liz Kendall etc.
Given Corbyn and the hard left views on the military, does anything think a ex-soldier is going to win when the Corbynites are done with the party?
Especially as he served in both Iraq and Agfanistan?
That's a good point, even the supposedly good candidates for leader (Jarvis is unproven) will have to take the party back not from the current members, but from the hard-left who will shortly be in control. Who knows what rules and hurdles might apply in future leadership elections? For all we know the unions might be back in charge.
I think the real problem of a few years of Corbyn as far as Mr Jarvis is concerned may not be the movement of the centre of the party so much as he has no chance of getting position during those years that will give him the experience he needs to make a pitch before the next election.
This would be a betting post if I knew who this would benefit the most, Khan?
The number of Londoners set to vote in Labour’s mayoral contest has more than doubled on the back of the Jeremy Corbyn leadership bandwagon, party sources have told the Standard.
It would be funny if Diane Abbott scooped the Labour nomination on the back of Corbynmania... but that's perhaps asking for one wish too many from the Tooth Fairy.
2nd is best she can expect unless Kendall and Burnham withdraw.
Even then latest union sign up numbers mean Jezza wins methinks.
Cooper very petulant in her speech: "Who is the real radical, Jeremy, a white male, or ME, a woman?"
As I said earlier, racist and sexist. Possessing a uterus does not make you useful, any more than a pair of testicles does. She's just peddling identity politics in her usual dreary way.
Following the Dan Hodges endorsement Cooper is now clearly doomed.
Not happy with the pb attacks on her because she happens to talk about things more associated with women than men. Haven't men had enough opportunities to make messes of things? At least she is trying, unlike Burnham.
I appreciate she is trying, unlike Burnham. I think Cooper is bland as all hell, but despite a poor showing in this campaign is more formidible than the others. I think she is more formidible than her husband, quite frankly. I do not however see what 'haven't men had enough opportunities to make messes of things' has to do with anything. Yes they have. And Yvette or another woman could indeed make just as good a mess as a man. That's not a reason to vote for someone on its own though, unless they are also decent. Some people think she is, and also is going to bring a particularly female approach to things (whatever that means), some think she isn't, and is only promising to bring that approach, which on its own is meaningless as a political pitch.
The primary requirement of leadership is that people will want to follow you. What has Jarvis got or done that would make his party, especially his MPs, want to follow him?
Up until this Corbyn debacle I would have said that politicians will by and large follow someone that looks like a winner. Jarvis was a company commander for SFSG so one assume he knows how to herd cats, and is familiar with dealing with primadonnas, so he is ahead already. Remember the riddle in the Game of Thrones:
“In a room sit three great men, a king, a priest, and a rich man with his gold. Between them stands a sellsword, a little man of common birth and no great mind. Each of the great ones bids him slay the other two. ‘Do it,’ says the king, ‘for I am your lawful ruler.’ ‘Do it,’ says the priest, ‘for I command you in the names of the gods.’ ‘Do it,’ says the rich man, ‘and all this gold shall be yours.’ So tell me—who lives and who dies?”
Lots of ex-army officers have served as MPs and there are others still in the Commons, I think, but that doesn't make them automatically suitable candidates for leadership of a party. An officer who doesn't know where he wants to lead his people will find that they do not want to follow him and an officer who cannot do, or at least in the past has not done, what he demands of his people will find even fewer prepared to offer respect.
Aside from being elected as MP what has Jarvis done in politics? Come to that what are his politics? He is Labour, well yes but as current events demonstrate, being Labour can mean a lot of things.
Corbyn could be the modern day Gerald Ratner in terms of brand damage.
Didn't Ratner actually have a point in what he was saying, and it was mainly media misreporting that caused the problems? Or have I got that wrong?
Okay, my vague memory is this: the product in question was from a company that Ratners had just purchased, and he was pointing out that their (now his) products were poor? I.e. he was looking to improve them.
Or have I just pulled that out of my heavily-bruised posterior?
I think it was more a case of him wanting to be clever infront of his audience. It went something like 'People ask me how I can do a silver tray with a cut-glass decanter for under £20. I tell them 'because it's crap!'' (I'm paraphrasing). It is quite funny, but obviously in a public setting completely disastrous.
Patrick, you really shouldn't take the P out of the Labour Party.
Oh, go on then - everyone else is!
The Labour Party is a malign destructive cancer. I have no problem with a coherent, principled, sensible left wing party - in fact I'm sure the country needs one as opposition right now. But Labour have ruined the public finances every time they get in,
(BTW I don't like Labour much)
How about paying some attention to the facts? Labour left the Tories a Budget Surplus in 1951 and again in 1970.Perhaps you would like to give an example of the Tories having left Labour such a surplus. Since 1945 Britain has had 11 years of Budget Surplus - 9 were under a Labour Government.
This would be a betting post if I knew who this would benefit the most, Khan?
The number of Londoners set to vote in Labour’s mayoral contest has more than doubled on the back of the Jeremy Corbyn leadership bandwagon, party sources have told the Standard.
It would be funny if Diane Abbott scooped the Labour nomination on the back of Corbynmania... but that's perhaps asking for one wish too many from the Tooth Fairy.
More likely to bolster Khan I'd have thought.
But Abbott was cheap enough to cover when I did it on Betfair last.
Not going to happen! Thankfully. The big unions have backed Sadiq and I think he'll get in with this selectorate. Diane Abbott is a permanent reminder to the Left that the individual candidate does actually matter. The Left needs to remember this in future.
It would be funny if Diane Abbott scooped the Labour nomination on the back of Corbynmania... but that's perhaps asking for one wish too many from the Tooth Fairy.
Comments
It was all getting a bit surreal.
No doubt Straw and others are implying something negative, not sure it will work however.
It's ridiculous.
And I don't need an approved label to be in favour of equality.
If he hadn't gotten the Labour MPs he needed, I do wonder how Burnham and Cooper would've campaigned.
Michael Howard - Did a good job and brought discipline to the party
IDS - Possibly the worst LOTO in recent times, did well to rehabilitate himself and is a passionate advocate of Social Justice (even if you don't agree with his policies)
William Hague - The job came too soon for him and had to face Blair when he at peak popularity
John Major - I liked a lot, the error of joining the ERM as Chancellor came back to haunt him, but was badly treated by the Eurosceptics, who went out of their way to damage him. His economic performance (ERM not withstanding) was superb
Lady Thatcher - The Great She Elephant did brilliantly, she changed Britain, for me legacy is tainted by the way she undermined her successor and ruined the 1997 Tory leadership election.
Edward Heath - Oh my, his best achievement apart from taking us into the EC was taking Middlesbrough out of Yorkshire. He was a crap PM, who governs he asked in 1974, the country said not you mate.
Alec Douglas-Home - A decent man vastly over promoted for a job he wasn't suited for.
Harold MacMillan - Again my kind of one nation tory, liked him a lot, Winds of Change speech was fab.
Sir Anthony Eden - A bit like Gordon Brown, served a long apprenticeship but when he got it, he messed up on what was his forte.
Sir Winston Churchill - Great wartime PM, meh peacetime PM
This is about winning the party, not about winning the country.
If you accept that feminism is the advancement of equality, then people who don't believe in equality, regardless of their sex, cannot be considered feminist. And people who do believe in said aims can be described as feminist, even if they choose not to self label as such. I'm not labelling you MD, just saying that your beliefs and views are in no way discordant with being a feminist.
So there will be lots more channels by 2020? Sure, but the decline in the political influence of the Beeb will be only marginal amoung the floating-voter classes.
Great quotes. Healey, budget March 1977:
Unite reckon they've got between 90-100,000 affiliated members in Lab ballot. McCluskey to write to all by weekend to urge vote Corbyn
This is a coup, plain and simple, and the PLP have walked into it.
God, Ed Miliband really was crap.
Very unfair on the whole - my diamond wedding ring came from Ratners in 1988 - it's still perfect, all stones in place and never been off my finger.
Blair was a consummate politician and had he not been hobbled by the barkingly mad Brown might have achieved great things. The fact that he's now reviled as a tory-in-disguise only persuades me that Labour are now a cult, not a political movement.
As I'm only 54, I can't remember any other good ones - John Smith perhaps, though we'll never know how he would have performed in office.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj9BZz71yQE
Until of course, you compare it with these two quotations:
James Callaghan, July 1976: Denis Healey, on campaign in September 1974: Of course, integrity can be awkward when it confronts reality, as Michael Foot, regarded as one of the most transparently honest and decent men in politics, found out the hard way!
Roberto Soldado's departure from Tottenham confirmed - by Erik Lamela
The Argentinian midfielder wishes his team mate well at his 'new club', before hastily deleting the tweet.
http://bit.ly/1J5VhnP
Or have I just pulled that out of my heavily-bruised posterior?
Take your point about Cooper appearing to play the gender card earlier - although why saying she is a woman with children is seen as purely an attack on Kendall I am not sure. However, seems to me she is being attacked on here for happening to mention Sure Start in her speech.
On feminism...... while some extreme feminists may consider women to be superior, the basis of feminism is equality of the sexes, i.e. that neither is superior. OED definition" the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes" So on that definitions is there anyone on here who is NOT a feminist?
"He might so easily have been late. He could have been trapped in his office by an urgent phone call, or been stricken by a tummy bug, or in his frantic haste tripped and turned an ankle. He might have been lying on a stone floor, whimpering, when the list closed leaving Jez that one tantalising nomination short.
On such randomness does the arc of history turn. A ruddy-faced butterfly from east Oxford flapped his wings to make a deadline, and a devastating tornado began to blow."
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/corbyns-success-is-down-to-one-man-now-what-was-his-name-10450633.html
I agree that it is a surprise how feeble Yvette's campaign has been.
As regards the union (especially Unite) influence, I pointed out at the time of Ed Miliband's change to the electoral system that this would increase, not decrease, the union leaders' influence.
Then you get the worst of all; the political feminists. People like Harriet Harman, who seem to use the cause as a means of political power rather than having any true belief in it.
The quality of their stuff declined horribly - TBH, most high st jewelers did. All my recent purchases have come from India where most of it is made. At least it's bespoke.
Would he? What evidence to support that theory? He was a skilled and brave soldier, we are not short of men and women who have that qualification, he is a dedicated family fan, so are millions of others. That he can lead is not in doubt, whether he can lead the Labour Party is a different caldron of octopus.
The primary requirement of leadership is that people will want to follow you. What has Jarvis got or done that would make his party, especially his MPs, want to follow him?
Especially as he served in both Iraq and Agfanistan?
And I don't accept your 'accepted' definition. Yes, it's in the dictionary. I'm more concerned by the reality. And yes, it's true of many feminists, but it's untrue of many feminists as well.
I've got a perfect Twitter link on the madness, but it contains swearing, and I know things get auto-pasted when you try posting a link. Ah ha! Using my superior male brain I've thought of a way to just cut it in two:
https://tw
Copy and paste the above to the start of the below.
itter.com/shoe0nhead/status/630527028438171649
I suspect he thinks she'd be jealous.
Your argument on feminism is a nonsense. It is like saying Catholicism is rubbish because of the IRA.
14-1 Burnham
50-1 and 20-1 Kendall
11-4? Cooper.
If you'd followed all those in, you could STILL trade out for a small loss. And this is after the Corbyn horse is not only out the stable, but 50 lengths in front with a furlong to run.
Pity it has taken 3 months to do so.
2nd is best she can expect unless Kendall and Burnham withdraw.
Even then latest union sign up numbers mean Jezza wins methinks.
On the ballot paper, or is Jez still your first preference
Simon Danczuk, a figure on the right wing of the Labour party, has said the leadership race should be halted because of the way it had been conducted.
Asked on LBC Radio this morning whether plotting against Mr Corbyn “on day one” he said: “Yeah, if not before. As soon as the result comes out.
And this is the first problem many discussions about feminism get into: definitions. Many women see themselves as 'true' feminists and others who they disagree with as heretics. Whereas they only speak for themselves and not the entire movement.
Edit: and I never said feminism is 'rubbish'.
The number of Londoners set to vote in Labour’s mayoral contest has more than doubled on the back of the Jeremy Corbyn leadership bandwagon, party sources have told the Standard.
http://bit.ly/1f9tYgc
"Even moderate feminism is about supporting equal rights, but only for one segment of society." Assuming that in this debate we are talking about two genders, male and female, stating that you support equal rights rather suggests that both sides are included.
Cooper probably a better bet for GE 2020 but I cant vote for a pro Austerity candidate.
After all, would she have even run, if the result in Morley & Outwood had been different ?
The sense of duty is commendable (after all, some very viable candidates ruled themselves out immediately, Cruddas, Jarvis, etc). But, it won't be enough to win this.
https://twitter.com/History_Pics/status/631788660871008257
*strokes white cat*
Im off before Ms Cyclefree sees us!!
I'm an atheist. But I think that some of the baiting done by Richard Dawkins in the name of advancing equal rights for atheists is rude and probably counter productive.
I don't believe all of the same things that some more "politically active" atheists do, but I am still atheist.
:%s/atheist/feminist/g
I'm afraid it's Corbyn uber alles.
Lots of ex-army officers have served as MPs and there are others still in the Commons, I think, but that doesn't make them automatically suitable candidates for leadership of a party. An officer who doesn't know where he wants to lead his people will find that they do not want to follow him and an officer who cannot do, or at least in the past has not done, what he demands of his people will find even fewer prepared to offer respect.
Aside from being elected as MP what has Jarvis done in politics? Come to that what are his politics? He is Labour, well yes but as current events demonstrate, being Labour can mean a lot of things.
I'm still not a feminist. Equality doesn't start with a female prefix.
But Abbott was cheap enough to cover when I did it on Betfair last.