And I imagine many of the 16% will be Muslims themselves.
At least 12% of Londoners are Muslims, so I'd guess at least half of the 16%
16% seems pretty low to me, so I don't know. If you'd said 24%, I would have happily chalked up 8% to Muslims. But 10% of the non-Muslim population seems low... considering the number of staunch Catholics, some older people, and so forth...
It's all very well saying that Corbyn won't win but what the analysis doesn't address is why any of the other three might. At least Corbyn offers the voters something different. Does anyone know any policies BC or K propose that might help the voters to differentiate them from the Tories?
We are in very dangerous times. To have a loony left leader of the Labour party might suit the Tories, but it would be terrible for the country. The Govt needs to be called to account by someone who can carry his party. Corbyn cannot and will not, it'll be internal strife...
There is no reason why the government cannot be called to account. In terms of numbers the govt still has to get its policies through. An ace united opposition is just that if the govt has a majority of 100. Does it hold the govt to account any better? The issue is what the alternative is for the electorate to decide on. If I may say so, this is why the instant, knee jerk, 'flatlining', opposition from labour was so pointless. At the death they had no policies no credibility. It did not help the lib dems either.
I know who hopes the punters are wrong again. Those who laid Corbyn on Betfair at odds of 100/1 and higher. They must be sweating, particularly the punter who laid Corbyn at 980/1 for £2.
In total, £1,500 has been laid on Corbyn at odds of 100/1 or greater which will lose them£260,000 if Corbyn wins. Whoops! Those on the other side of these bets must be smiling.
What was the 980-1 person thinking ?
Were they thinking ?
There's a lot more caution on the next Prime Minister market. Someone is laying £10 at 10.5 on Corbyn as next Prime Minister. It would be mindblowing if it happened! I'd say it is more like 50/1 against but I'm not laying it at those odds! Not after what has just happened.
It's all very well saying that Corbyn won't win but what the analysis doesn't address is why any of the other three might. At least Corbyn offers the voters something different. Does anyone know any policies BC or K propose that might help the voters to differentiate them from the Tories?
well of course it's not so much to differentiate themselves from the Tories (although it is that as well); it is to differentiate themselves from Lab pre-10pm on May 7th.
They are able to say neither "more of the same" nor "it was all dreadful".
If I were a Lab supporter [pause to steady myself, ok, I'll go on], that would be the primary reason why I would be supporting Jezza. He has, for all his many many many many many many ills, been consistent and it seems that people value that more than they abhor some of his more bonkers policies (ie all of them).
It's all very well saying that Corbyn won't win but what the analysis doesn't address is why any of the other three might. At least Corbyn offers the voters something different. Does anyone know any policies BC or K propose that might help the voters to differentiate them from the Tories?
Well quite Roger – a less civil chap might say there is an obvious flaw in Mr Brind’s analysis.
.I agree with most of that - but would not wish to see aggression by any country prevail. To condemn other countries for aggression and then proceed to turn a blind eye and say nothing when my own country does the same thing is nothing less than pure humbug and hypocrisy. For that reason, I wished to see the invading forces defeated in 2003. I did not wish UK forces any direct harm but any casualties I blame entirely on those who sent them there -a sentiment clearly shared by many relatives of the victims. At the end of the day, those being attacked had every right to defend themselves
I agree that people who are attacked have a right to defend themselves. But the person being attacked was Saddam Hussein, who far too many on the Labour left (Galloway) were willing to suck up to simply because he was not American. I will say in fairness to Corbyn I don't know of him supporting Saddam Hussein before 2003.
Certainly any comparison of the British left to Willi Brandt is to my mind wholly inappropriate. Brandt and other German dissidents risked their lives, and the lives of their families. Labour opponents of Blair risked their careers (except that most of them didn't have careers - Cook and Short were both at the end of theirs).
Remember also that the people of Iraq were initially very pleased to see Saddam ousted, until the American occupation turned into a worse shambles than the Ba'athi government had been. I don't think too many people in the occupies countries of Europe were pleased to see the Wehrmacht, although there were exceptions - the Ukrainians were delighted when the Germans showed up as they thought that they would get their farms back (they rapidly realised their mistake, but not rapidly enough to stop Stalin taking some pretty brutal reprisals in 1944-46).
Blair assured us at the time that he was not looking for regime change.The attack - in the view of the vast majority of International Jurists - was unlawful and we had no more right to remove Saddam Hussein than he had to invade Kuwait or - if he had had the technology - to remove Blair and Bush. It was not simply a personal attack on him but an attack on the individuals in the Iraqi Armed Forces and led to significant civilian casualties. I might add that having taken several years to read the transcripts of the main Nuremberg trial - via the internet - that in relation to the specific indictment concerning 'Planning for War' Blair and Bush were almost certainly more guilty than any of those convicted - with the possible exception of Ribbentrop, though even he lacked final executive authority. Whilst I shall vote for Cooper in the leadership election, I do retain a faint hope that a Corbyn victory might yet increase the probability of Blair facing Trial at The Hague!
ydoethur said: » show previous quotes ' Justin, whatever the manifold and egregious faults of Tony Blair and George W. Bush, they were not mass killers bent on world domination and the genocide of racial groups they didn't approve of. It was perfectly possible to disagree flatly with their ideas and behaviour - I did - and it is possible to see them as hopelessly misguided and very unwise, but they are not actually evil to the extent that would justify taking up arms against them or working to sabotage or imperil our own armed forces.
EDIT - and strange to reflect that the only person I met who fully supported the invasion was actually a Communist, who had been a great admirer of Khrushchev and regarded the Second Gulf War as a fully justified strike against an evil Fascist dictator'
.I agree with most of that - but would not wish to see aggression by any country prevail. To condemn other countries for aggression and then proceed to turn a blind eye and say nothing when my own country does the same thing is nothing less than pure humbug and hypocrisy. For that reason, I wished to see the invading forces defeated in 2003. I did not wish UK forces any direct harm but any casualties I blame entirely on those who sent them there -a sentiment clearly shared by many relatives of the victims. At the end of the day, those being attacked had every right to defend themselves
Where were you when Saddam was bombing and gassing his own country's citizens? Where were you when he was misusing specific UN aid and allowing his own citizen's children to starve and die instead. In short where were you when Saddam was breaking the terms of the ceasefire he signed after the Gulf War - where of course he had invaded and occupied Kuwait. I don't know where you were - on holiday in Corbynland I suppose - but I despise you for wanting to see UK soldiers defeated.
ydoethur said: » show previous quotes ' Justin, whatever the manifold and egregious faults of Tony Blair and George W. Bush, they were not mass killers bent on world domination and the genocide of racial groups they didn't approve of. It was perfectly possible to disagree flatly with their ideas and behaviour - I did - and it is possible to see them as hopelessly misguided and very unwise, but they are not actually evil to the extent that would justify taking up arms against them or working to sabotage or imperil our own armed forces.
EDIT - and strange to reflect that the only person I met who fully supported the invasion was actually a Communist, who had been a great admirer of Khrushchev and regarded the Second Gulf War as a fully justified strike against an evil Fascist dictator'
.I agree with most of that - but would not wish to see aggression by any country prevail. To condemn other countries for aggression and then proceed to turn a blind eye and say nothing when my own country does the same thing is nothing less than pure humbug and hypocrisy. For that reason, I wished to see the invading forces defeated in 2003. I did not wish UK forces any direct harm but any casualties I blame entirely on those who sent them there -a sentiment clearly shared by many relatives of the victims. At the end of the day, those being attacked had every right to defend themselves
Where were you when Saddam was bombing and gassing his own country's citizens? Where were you when he was misusing specific UN aid and allowing his own citizen's children to starve and die instead. In short where were you when Saddam was breaking the terms of the ceasefire he signed after the Gulf War - where of course he had invaded and occupied Kuwait. I don't know where you were - on holiday in Corbynland I suppose - but I despise you for wanting to see UK soldiers defeated.
lest us not forget, Corbyn was anti-afgan war as well, which was very different and for very different reasons.
The 4th crusade was hardly pyrrhic for the Venetians. They did very well out of it, and got rid of a major threat to their interests. When Napoleon finally did for them, they still had bits of the empire they won remaining. And artifacts taken from Constantinople still help attract the tourists.
It was only a mistake if you insist on seeing things through the eyes of Christians vs Muslims, and I don't think the Venetians or the Byzantines ever did. And even the rest of the Crusaders at least got rich, which is better than going on to the holy land and getting slaughtered in some hopeless and pointless war.
And I imagine many of the 16% will be Muslims themselves.
At least 12% of Londoners are Muslims, so I'd guess at least half of the 16%
16% seems pretty low to me, so I don't know. If you'd said 24%, I would have happily chalked up 8% to Muslims. But 10% of the non-Muslim population seems low... considering the number of staunch Catholics, some older people, and so forth...
Maybe... To be honest I don't know anyone who would be bothered by a Gay mayor or anyone all that religious either... White British Londoners seem Quite non religious and gay friendly in my experience
And I imagine many of the 16% will be Muslims themselves.
At least 12% of Londoners are Muslims, so I'd guess at least half of the 16%
16% seems pretty low to me, so I don't know. If you'd said 24%, I would have happily chalked up 8% to Muslims. But 10% of the non-Muslim population seems low... considering the number of staunch Catholics, some older people, and so forth...
Maybe... To be honest I don't know anyone who would be bothered by a Gay mayor or anyone all that religious either... White British Londoners seem Quite non religious and gay friendly in my experience
"Regardless of whether it should be legal or not, do you personally consider homosexuality to be morally acceptable or morally wrong?"
29% in London said morally wrong... 17% outside London (basically the same everywhere).
"Yes, I have some views that are homophobic" - 13% +/- 2 everywhere - so not so obvious a Muslim bias on that.
Janner loses effort to dodge the court appearance...
Might have to miss his regular HoL sign-on to make it.
His lawyers unsuccessfully argued that his right to "dignity" trumped the principles of open and public justice.
Arrest warrant will be issued if he's a no-show tomorrow.
If he's not fit to stand on child sex abuse, is he fit to stand on failing to appear? (I'm right to think the thing tomorrow is something less than a full trial? - like trial on the facts or something)
It's all very well saying that Corbyn won't win but what the analysis doesn't address is why any of the other three might. At least Corbyn offers the voters something different. Does anyone know any policies BC or K propose that might help the voters to differentiate them from the Tories?
Exactly Roger. The very reason why Corbyn- obviously an unelectable leader- is doing well is because the other challengers are so uninspiring, insipid, robotic, limp, and most probably unelectable too. "Jezz we can" is not the cause of the lefty uprising and potential civil war, he is a symptom of Labour's inability to identify a half decent candidate.
The other Don Brind comment I don't go along with is saying the GE result was complex. It wasn't actually. The Tories were presented with a gift horse from heaven with Ed's dismal leadership.
And I imagine many of the 16% will be Muslims themselves.
At least 12% of Londoners are Muslims, so I'd guess at least half of the 16%
16% seems pretty low to me, so I don't know. If you'd said 24%, I would have happily chalked up 8% to Muslims. But 10% of the non-Muslim population seems low... considering the number of staunch Catholics, some older people, and so forth...
Maybe... To be honest I don't know anyone who would be bothered by a Gay mayor or anyone all that religious either... White British Londoners seem Quite non religious and gay friendly in my experience
"Regardless of whether it should be legal or not, do you personally consider homosexuality to be morally acceptable or morally wrong?"
29% in London said morally wrong... 17% outside London (basically the same everywhere).
"Yes, I have some views that are homophobic" - 13% +/- 2 everywhere - so not so obvious a Muslim bias on that.
The lost Labour voters report has some powerful stuff in it:
These voters believed that the financial crash was largely caused by Labour’s over-borrowing and over-spending. Even those who recognised it was a global event and that the banks were to blame thought Labour’s overspending contributed. Labour’s economic credibility is non-existent with these former-Labour voters who were very nervous about trusting their party to run the country’s economy once again. They said they wanted proof
Labour was seen as anti-business, only caring about public services and the public sector. Labour seemed to be happy spending and borrowing money, but not so concerned with helping to create it, nor even understanding the need to.
Labour was seen as being pro-welfare and as having invented the benefits culture. They were a soft touch, instinctively on the side of claimants. These people wanted Labour to be the party of work and of workers primarily.
They said that immigrants were allowed to receive benefits far too soon after their arrival, and those benefits were too high. It was all too attractive. It meant immigrants could come here without working and live off our benefits, which were considered to be much better than they could get back home.
The respondents in these groups could all easily have been from union backgrounds. Yet none of them thought that unions were relevant to their life. Unions are not seen as fit for purpose nor relevant to the 21st century economy.
The challenge for Labour is how they address these key themes. I think Cruddas-style Blue Labour could have done quite well but I think Corbyn (however principled he might be) will be a hindrence rather than a help in these areas.
And I imagine many of the 16% will be Muslims themselves.
At least 12% of Londoners are Muslims, so I'd guess at least half of the 16%
16% o forth...
Maybe... To be honest I don't know anyone who would be bothered by a Gay mayor or anyone all that religious either... White British Londoners seem Quite non religiou and gay friendly in my experience
"Regardless of whether it should be legal or not, do you personally consider homosexuality to be morally acceptable or morally wrong?"
29% in London said morally wrong... 17% outside London (basically the same everywhere).
"Yes, I have some views that are homophobic" - 13% +/- 2 everywhere - so not so obvious a Muslim bias on that.
Poll from 2009 so things may have improved (can't have got worse)
"The most dramatic contrast was found in attitudes towards homosexuality. None of the 500 British Muslims interviewed believed that homosexual acts were morally acceptable. 1,001 non-Muslim Britons were interviewed."
"These are not isolated incidents. East London has seen the highest increase in homophobic attacks anywhere in Britain, and some of the worst in Europe. Everybody knows why, and nobody wants to say it. It is because East London has the highest Muslim population in Britain, and we have allowed a fanatically intolerant attitude towards gay people to incubate there, in the name of "tolerance"...Even more worryingly, younger Muslims had more stridently anti-gay views than older Muslims. These attitudes have consequences - and they are worst of all for gay Muslims, who have to live a sham half-life of lies, or be shunned by their families."
The real problem Labour have is that the defeat was unexpected, meaning the conversation about what has gone wrong has barely started by the time of the leadership election. Labour voters are basing their votes on their anger and frustration at losing, rather than a thoughtful digestion of research.
And I imagine many of the 16% will be Muslims themselves.
At least 12% of Londoners are Muslims, so I'd guess at least half of the 16%
16% seems pretty low to me, so I don't know. If you'd said 24%, I would have happily chalked up 8% to Muslims. But 10% of the non-Muslim population seems low... considering the number of staunch Catholics, some older people, and so forth...
Maybe... To be honest I don't know anyone who would be bothered by a Gay mayor or anyone all that religious either... White British Londoners seem Quite non religious and gay friendly in my experience
"Regardless of whether it should be legal or not, do you personally consider homosexuality to be morally acceptable or morally wrong?"
29% in London said morally wrong... 17% outside London (basically the same everywhere).
"Yes, I have some views that are homophobic" - 13% +/- 2 everywhere - so not so obvious a Muslim bias on that.
That just shows how weak the final question is. Just ~13% of Londoners think they have some homophobic views, but 29% of Londoners think homosexuality is morally wrong.
The real problem Labour have is that the defeat was unexpected, meaning the conversation about what has gone wrong has barely started by the time of the leadership election. Labour voters are basing their votes on their anger and frustration at losing, rather than a thoughtful digestion of research.
Harman should have delayed the leadership election until such time as Labour had worked out where it had gone wrong, licked it's wounds and found the right time to move on. She bears a fair amount of responsibility for this mess.
If Corbyn does win, it may be a blessing to the Labour party as they can have 2-3 years to sort themselves out as well as develop some policies that are relevant to the 21st century.
Unless they do that, then they may well splinter or not survive at all. PBers, effectively there could be an opportunity for a new party - that will be your chance to lead the way..
One thought crosses my mind, if Corbyn wins and stands as LotO against Cameron at PMQ's, who of course will do his snooty best to put Corbyn down, who will show up better on the news?
The comparison of the "honest" man agin the Bullingdon one?
Should Cameron leave Downing Street, where would the Tories find an honest man to replace him, to spike the popularity of Corbyn?
The real problem Labour have is that the defeat was unexpected, meaning the conversation about what has gone wrong has barely started by the time of the leadership election. Labour voters are basing their votes on their anger and frustration at losing, rather than a thoughtful digestion of research.
Harman should have delayed the leadership election until such time as Labour had worked out where it had gone wrong, licked it's wounds and found the right time to move on. She bears a fair amount of responsibility for this mess.
A little unfair imho – HH was left holding the baby when Ed walked away from his mess and leaving a flawed leadership contest in his wake. – No one within Labour anticipated a Corbyngasm because he should never have been on the list to start with.
One thought crosses my mind, if Corbyn wins and stands as LotO against Cameron at PMQ's, who of course will do his snooty best to put Corbyn down, who will show up better on the news?
The comparison of the "honest" man agin the Bullingdon one?
Should Cameron leave Downing Street, where would the Tories find an honest man to replace him, to spike the popularity of Corbyn?
Can't see how that particular problem would be any worse with Corbyn than it was with Miliband
The comparison of the "honest" man agin the Bullingdon one?
Well, obviously those blinded purely by class prejudice won't favour Cameron, but everyone else will be bemused by the contrast between Corbyn's/Labour's position and what Corbyn has said in the past. On almost any topic you care to name, there are zillions are quotes which can be flung at him. If he maintains his loony-left, anti-British, terrorist-sympathising positions, Cameron will point to what his backbenchers and shadow cabinet members have said about them. If he attempts to wriggle out of his loony-left, anti-British, terrorist-sympathising positions, Cameron will point to what he has said in the past.
In the topsy turvy world of Scottish politics the Scottish LibDems appear to be the only party attempting to provide the SNP with any serious opposition. They have just published the results of their GP research, which is a very impressive body of work.
The Scottish LibDems appear to have the best party machine of the Holyrood opposition parties. However SLAB and the Scottish Tories with many more members and parliamentarians, are reduced to sending a few SNP BAD tweets a day. Sadly come Holyrood 2016 the LibDems will likely lose a number of their 5 seats:
The real problem Labour have is that the defeat was unexpected, meaning the conversation about what has gone wrong has barely started by the time of the leadership election. Labour voters are basing their votes on their anger and frustration at losing, rather than a thoughtful digestion of research.
Harman should have delayed the leadership election until such time as Labour had worked out where it had gone wrong, licked it's wounds and found the right time to move on. She bears a fair amount of responsibility for this mess.
A little unfair imho – HH was left holding the baby when Ed walked away from his mess and leaving a flawed leadership contest in his wake. – No one within Labour anticipated a Corbyngasm because he should never have been on the list to start with.
I blame Chuka to be honest. He was the only appealing candidate that came forward and he bottled it.
... the pogrom is underway against SNPers who want IndyRef2
SNP MSP Colin Keir will lose his Edinburgh Western seat at next year’s Scottish election after party members failed to support his bid to stand again in the constituency.
SNP sources said Mr Keir, who has recently been criticised for campaigning for a second referendum, had been defeated by Toni Giugliano in the internal battle over who should stand for the party at the May 2016 poll.
"Secretly filmed tirades against Muslims and Asians by the leader of the British National party, Nick Griffin, were described to a jury yesterday, including claims that rape and paedophilia against non-believers were countenanced by the Qur'an. At private party meetings, the Cambridge graduate who has immersed himself in far-right politics for nearly 30 years described parts of Britain as "multiracial hellholes" targeted by a supposed Asian Muslim plan for global conquest."
''On almost any topic you care to name, there are zillions are quotes which can be flung at him.''
'Mr Speaker, the honourable gentlemen's policy is 'not credible'. That's not just my opinion, its the view of a former senior cabinet colleague on his side of the house, the member for Pontefract and Castleford''
If Corbyn wins and enthuses sufficient of a fairly disillusioned electorate then who knows what might happen
Turnout in the last London Mayoral election was 38.1% (45.3% the time before). It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that a JC effect could boost turnout significantly and the labour Party might win.
There is nothing like a win to cause people to view things differently - momentum is everything. I wonder if some in the Labour Party, including Mr Brind, will wish they hadn't gone into print about Jeremy.
More importantly, this analysis perpetuates the myth that Labour doesn’t need to worry about Conservative voters. The opposite is true. The only way that Labour can win again is by winning over significant numbers of those voting Conservative in 2015 – many of whom will have voted Labour in the past. Analysis by the Fabian Society concludes that four out of five votes that Labour needs to win back in 2020 are Conservative. To win them over, the next Labour leader has to address issues many in the party would rather not, such as public spending, immigration and welfare. Once you accept this, and you really should, it is hard to argue that Jeremy Corbyn is the answer. These people won’t vote for him.
''On almost any topic you care to name, there are zillions are quotes which can be flung at him.''
'Mr Speaker, the honourable gentlemen's policy is 'not credible'. That's not just my opinion, its the view of a former senior cabinet colleague on his side of the house, the member for Pontefract and Castleford''
Mr. Isam, it's horrendous. As Mr. T remarked some time ago, the world might be a much better place if we'd had Obama as president when George W Bush had the gig, and George W Bush in charge when ISIS arose.
If Corbyn wins and enthuses sufficient of a fairly disillusioned electorate then who knows what might happen
Turnout in the last London Mayoral election was 38.1% (45.3% the time before). It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that a JC effect could boost turnout significantly and the labour Party might win.
There is nothing like a win to cause people to view things differently - momentum is everything. I wonder if some in the Labour Party, including Mr Brind, will wish they hadn't gone into print about Jeremy.
"the labour Party might win" - currently 1/2 favourite!
Boris' victory in 2012 probably an early indication Milliband was an election loser.
If Corbyn wins and enthuses sufficient of a fairly disillusioned electorate then who knows what might happen
Turnout in the last London Mayoral election was 38.1% (45.3% the time before). It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that a JC effect could boost turnout significantly and the labour Party might win.
There is nothing like a win to cause people to view things differently - momentum is everything. I wonder if some in the Labour Party, including Mr Brind, will wish they hadn't gone into print about Jeremy.
He can't win outside the big cities. He won't win in Swindon, in Milton Keynes, in Worcester, in Gloucester, in Stroud, in Corby, in Stourbridge, in Warwick&Leamington. These sorts of places only voted for Tony Blair by fairly modest majorities in 1997 and 2001.
The real problem Labour have is that the defeat was unexpected, meaning the conversation about what has gone wrong has barely started by the time of the leadership election. Labour voters are basing their votes on their anger and frustration at losing, rather than a thoughtful digestion of research.
Harman should have delayed the leadership election until such time as Labour had worked out where it had gone wrong, licked it's wounds and found the right time to move on. She bears a fair amount of responsibility for this mess.
A little unfair imho – HH was left holding the baby when Ed walked away from his mess and leaving a flawed leadership contest in his wake. – No one within Labour anticipated a Corbyngasm because he should never have been on the list to start with.
And no one in the Westminster Bubble expected the SNP to do so well, or to have the discipline to remain so united. (Except for Salmond, but that's par for the course of his history)
Leftist politics is beginning to sweep across Europe and the USA (Bernie Sanders' rallies are drawing greater crowds than the other Presidential hopefulls put together).
Whether by accident or incompetence, Corbyn is in the election and what ever others think of him, he does seem to part of the present day flow of change.
We are in very dangerous times. To have a loony left leader of the Labour party might suit the Tories, but it would be terrible for the country. The Govt needs to be called to account by someone who can carry his party. Corbyn cannot and will not, it'll be internal strife...
Bollocks. It's 5 years til the next election. A lefty meltdown and Labour re-emergence with sensible leadership and policies would be good for the party and the country. They need to elect Corbyn and for the left to be proven catastrophic for that to come about. We should all (entryists included :-) ) vote Corbyn and strongly encourage him to be as militant and lefty as possible.
Mr. Isam, it's horrendous. As Mr. T remarked some time ago, the world might be a much better place if we'd had Obama as president when George W Bush had the gig, and George W Bush in charge when ISIS arose.
If Obama was in charge 2000-2008, there would not have been an Iraq invasion, and ISIS would not have been able to fill the power vacuum.
The real problem Labour have is that the defeat was unexpected, meaning the conversation about what has gone wrong has barely started by the time of the leadership election. Labour voters are basing their votes on their anger and frustration at losing, rather than a thoughtful digestion of research.
Really? I think many within Labour, were expecting a defeat - it was the scale that may have shocked them. The only people who were expecting a GE win, were Ed Miliband and lefties on social media.
... the pogrom is underway against SNPers who want IndyRef2
SNP MSP Colin Keir will lose his Edinburgh Western seat at next year’s Scottish election after party members failed to support his bid to stand again in the constituency.
SNP sources said Mr Keir, who has recently been criticised for campaigning for a second referendum, had been defeated by Toni Giugliano in the internal battle over who should stand for the party at the May 2016 poll.
Unlike other parties there are no seats for life for sitting constituency SNP MSPs, each candidate is democratically elected by the membership. During GE2015 we had 8 candidates to choose from - 4 political, 3 business folks and an academic. Colin lost - simple as that - the Edinburgh News can spin it all it likes but 70% turn out of 1400 members is what unseated him - not some committee sitting in a darkened room.
Turning to the Scottish Tories - Ruth D continuing to justify her Glasgow to Edinburgh move. If she wanted to walk her talk about moving to Edinburgh as she sees a real opportunity to increase the number of Tory MSPs, I guess she'll be quite happy to take up 3rd place on the Lothian regional list after the two sitting MSPs:
We are in very dangerous times. To have a loony left leader of the Labour party might suit the Tories, but it would be terrible for the country. The Govt needs to be called to account by someone who can carry his party. Corbyn cannot and will not, it'll be internal strife...
Bollocks. It's 5 years til the next election. A lefty meltdown and Labour re-emergence with sensible leadership and policies would be good for the party and the country. They need to elect Corbyn and for the left to be proven catastrophic for that to come about. We should all (entryists included :-) ) vote Corbyn and strongly encourage him to be as militant and lefty as possible.
Er! The SNP consider themselves to be Leftist (not true of course amongst the higher echelons) but to the true believers, heresy is not allowed. Would you call them electorally unsuccessful?
The real problem Labour have is that the defeat was unexpected, meaning the conversation about what has gone wrong has barely started by the time of the leadership election. Labour voters are basing their votes on their anger and frustration at losing, rather than a thoughtful digestion of research.
Harman should have delayed the leadership election until such time as Labour had worked out where it had gone wrong, licked it's wounds and found the right time to move on. She bears a fair amount of responsibility for this mess.
A little unfair imho – HH was left holding the baby when Ed walked away from his mess and leaving a flawed leadership contest in his wake. – No one within Labour anticipated a Corbyngasm because he should never have been on the list to start with.
Leftist politics is beginning to sweep across Europe and the USA (Bernie Sanders' rallies are drawing greater crowds than the other Presidential hopefulls put together).
Really ?
Hollande - would lose an election against himself Syriza - scuppered Podemos - peaked and diving in the polls Beppe Grillo - who ? Nats - state sponsors of music festivals, puritanism and proposing a single national school uniform
Meanwhile the Uk forges ahead with a booming economy..
One thought crosses my mind, if Corbyn wins and stands as LotO against Cameron at PMQ's, who of course will do his snooty best to put Corbyn down, who will show up better on the news?
The comparison of the "honest" man agin the Bullingdon one?
Should Cameron leave Downing Street, where would the Tories find an honest man to replace him, to spike the popularity of Corbyn?
Cameron's not going anywhere for a few years, would Corbyn last that long? An interesting questio I think, but until then, while I can see Cameron being wrongfooted by Corbyn being an entirely different beast than his previous sparring partners, I would think he would adjust eventually. His exact strategy would presumably depend on how many Labour MPs he could quote who disagreed with Corbyn, in response to any questions he is asked.
Mr. Eye, be fair, lots of PBers predicted a very strong result for the SNP.
Indeed. Not many predicted they'd do as amazingly well as they did, but there were plenty of people in the bubble and outside of it who thought they would do very well indeed.
The real problem Labour have is that the defeat was unexpected, meaning the conversation about what has gone wrong has barely started by the time of the leadership election. Labour voters are basing their votes on their anger and frustration at losing, rather than a thoughtful digestion of research.
Harman should have delayed the leadership election until such time as Labour had worked out where it had gone wrong, licked it's wounds and found the right time to move on. She bears a fair amount of responsibility for this mess.
A little unfair imho – HH was left holding the baby when Ed walked away from his mess and leaving a flawed leadership contest in his wake. – No one within Labour anticipated a Corbyngasm because he should never have been on the list to start with.
Leftist politics is beginning to sweep across Europe and the USA (Bernie Sanders' rallies are drawing greater crowds than the other Presidential hopefulls put together).
Really ?
Hollande - would lose an election against himself Syriza - scuppered Podemos - peaked and diving in the polls Beppe Grillo - who ? Nats - state sponsors of music festivals, puritanism and proposing a single national school uniform
Meanwhile the Uk forges ahead with a booming economy..
Syriza executed one of the worst bluffs in the history of gambling, while holding no cards, and were forced into an embarrassing and humilating u-turn...but didn't polls indicate they'd probably still win any elections? I don't know if that is still the case.
The comparison of the "honest" man agin the Bullingdon one?
Well, obviously those blinded purely by class prejudice won't favour Cameron, but everyone else will be bemused by the contrast between Corbyn's/Labour's position and what Corbyn has said in the past. On almost any topic you care to name, there are zillions are quotes which can be flung at him. If he maintains his loony-left, anti-British, terrorist-sympathising positions, Cameron will point to what his backbenchers and shadow cabinet members have said about them. If he attempts to wriggle out of his loony-left, anti-British, terrorist-sympathising positions, Cameron will point to what he has said in the past.
I think in the event of a Corbyn win, Cameron 'flags at half mast for the Saudis' will to be very cautious of trying to attack Corbyn on who is and isn't a terrorist. There is a very fine veil of 'security' and 'patriotism' concealing what is basically a foreign policy of being a US apendage for better or (frequently) for worse, and I don't think he'll want to have that discussion.
One thought crosses my mind, if Corbyn wins and stands as LotO against Cameron at PMQ's, who of course will do his snooty best to put Corbyn down, who will show up better on the news?
The comparison of the "honest" man agin the Bullingdon one?
Should Cameron leave Downing Street, where would the Tories find an honest man to replace him, to spike the popularity of Corbyn?
If Corbyn wins, the first Ipsos leader satisfaction poll will certainly be interesting.
The real problem Labour have is that the defeat was unexpected, meaning the conversation about what has gone wrong has barely started by the time of the leadership election. Labour voters are basing their votes on their anger and frustration at losing, rather than a thoughtful digestion of research.
Really? I think many within Labour, were expecting a defeat - it was the scale that may have shocked them. The only people who were expecting a GE win, were Ed Miliband and lefties on social media.
Those social media lefties are the ones we are not being told are the true voice of Labour, so if they expected it, does that mean Labour as an entity expected it?
Oh, and there were a few very pessimistic Tories who expected a Labour win too, as well non tories who are politically blind - I think I rated the Tories as having a 5% chance of a win of any stripe about 24 hours before the GE.
The comparison of the "honest" man agin the Bullingdon one?
Well, obviously those blinded purely by class prejudice won't favour Cameron, but everyone else will be bemused by the contrast between Corbyn's/Labour's position and what Corbyn has said in the past. On almost any topic you care to name, there are zillions are quotes which can be flung at him. If he maintains his loony-left, anti-British, terrorist-sympathising positions, Cameron will point to what his backbenchers and shadow cabinet members have said about them. If he attempts to wriggle out of his loony-left, anti-British, terrorist-sympathising positions, Cameron will point to what he has said in the past.
I think in the event of a Corbyn win, Cameron 'flags at half mast for the Saudis' will to be very cautious of trying to attack Corbyn on who is and isn't a terrorist. There is a very fine veil of 'security' and 'patriotism' concealing what is basically a foreign policy of being a US apendage for better or (frequently) for worse, and I don't think he'll want to have that discussion.
Rubbish.
Cameron has plenty of room to attack Hezbollah, Hamas, the IRA, Argentina, Milosevic (sp.?), Venezuela and anything else that emerges from 30 years of Corbyn being Corbyn.
ydoethur said: » show previous quotes ' Justin, whatever the manifold and egregious faults of Tony Blair and George W. Bush, they were not mass killers bent on world domination and the genocide of racial groups they didn't approve of. It was perfectly possible to disagree flatly with their ideas and behaviour - I did - and it is possible to see them as hopelessly misguided and very unwise, but they are not actually evil to the extent that would justify taking up arms against them or working to sabotage or imperil our own armed forces.
EDIT - and strange to reflect that the only person I met who fully supported the invasion was actually a Communist, who had been a great admirer of Khrushchev and regarded the Second Gulf War as a fully justified strike against an evil Fascist dictator'
.I agree with most of that - but would not wish to see aggression by any country prevail. To condemn other countries for aggression and then proceed to turn a blind eye and say nothing when my own country does the same thing is nothing less than pure humbug and hypocrisy. For that reason, I wished to see the invading forces defeated in 2003. I did not wish UK forces any direct harm but any casualties I blame entirely on those who sent them there -a sentiment clearly shared by many relatives of the victims. At the end of the day, those being attacked had every right to defend themselves
Where were you when Saddam was bombing and gassing his own country's citizens? Where were you when he was misusing specific UN aid and allowing his own citizen's children to starve and die instead. In short where were you when Saddam was breaking the terms of the ceasefire he signed after the Gulf War - where of course he had invaded and occupied Kuwait. I don't know where you were - on holiday in Corbynland I suppose - but I despise you for wanting to see UK soldiers defeated.
Ok - and had you been a German in the early 1940s doubtless you would have despised any fellow German wishing to see the Wehrmacht defeated in the interests of humanity. Some of us do not make a moral distinction between people on the basis of nationality.
The real problem Labour have is that the defeat was unexpected, meaning the conversation about what has gone wrong has barely started by the time of the leadership election. Labour voters are basing their votes on their anger and frustration at losing, rather than a thoughtful digestion of research.
Really? I think many within Labour, were expecting a defeat - it was the scale that may have shocked them. The only people who were expecting a GE win, were Ed Miliband and lefties on social media.
Those social media lefties are the ones we are not being told are the true voice of Labour, so if they expected it, does that mean Labour as an entity expected it?
Oh, and there were a few very pessimistic Tories who expected a Labour win too, as well non tories who are politically blind - I think I rated the Tories as having a 5% chance of a win of any stripe about 24 hours before the GE.
Social media lefties don't represent most Labour voters, or even most Labour MPs.
There is an axis of leftism sweeping the globe from Primrose Hill to Liverpool to T in the Park.
A FORMER SNP leader has slammed a party candidate for her controversial role in securing public cash to support T in the Park.
Gordon Wilson called for a top level review of lobbying rules after it emerged Jennifer Dempsie was employed by the festival to gain a £150,000 grant from the Scottish Goverment.
Do you think it is worse than, for example, what the Japanese army did to Korean and Chinese 'comfort' women?
Or what the red army did to German women in 1945?
In every army since the dawn of time there have been those who maybe ain't so keen on the fighting, but when it comes to f8cking over the beaten locals afterwards, they are right up for it.
The comparison of the "honest" man agin the Bullingdon one?
Well, obviously those blinded purely by class prejudice won't favour Cameron, but everyone else will be bemused by the contrast between Corbyn's/Labour's position and what Corbyn has said in the past. On almost any topic you care to name, there are zillions are quotes which can be flung at him. If he maintains his loony-left, anti-British, terrorist-sympathising positions, Cameron will point to what his backbenchers and shadow cabinet members have said about them. If he attempts to wriggle out of his loony-left, anti-British, terrorist-sympathising positions, Cameron will point to what he has said in the past.
I think in the event of a Corbyn win, Cameron 'flags at half mast for the Saudis' will to be very cautious of trying to attack Corbyn on who is and isn't a terrorist. There is a very fine veil of 'security' and 'patriotism' concealing what is basically a foreign policy of being a US apendage for better or (frequently) for worse, and I don't think he'll want to have that discussion.
Rubbish.
Cameron has plenty of room to attack Hezbollah, Hamas, the IRA, Argentina, Milosevic (sp.?), Venezuela and anything else that emerges from 30 years of Corbyn being Corbyn.
PMQs - DC will fish out a piece of paper and give it the "and I quote....." followed by whatever Malvinas/Hamas/Galloway/Blair nugget his team have dredged up that week - not even the Nats will want to sit on the front bench in shot of the cameras.
We are in very dangerous times. To have a loony left leader of the Labour party might suit the Tories, but it would be terrible for the country. The Govt needs to be called to account by someone who can carry his party. Corbyn cannot and will not, it'll be internal strife...
Bollocks. It's 5 years til the next election. A lefty meltdown and Labour re-emergence with sensible leadership and policies would be good for the party and the country. They need to elect Corbyn and for the left to be proven catastrophic for that to come about. We should all (entryists included :-) ) vote Corbyn and strongly encourage him to be as militant and lefty as possible.
Er! The SNP consider themselves to be Leftist (not true of course amongst the higher echelons) but to the true believers, heresy is not allowed. Would you call them electorally unsuccessful?
Ooooh. Hugely different electorate. The Jocks are much leftier than the English. And appealing to both Scotland and England from within a single party looks more and more unachievable. Corbyn might help a minor revival in Scotland. He might double Labour's Scottish MP count in Westminster! BFD - still get them both plus the Libdem and the Tory in a taxi. It's middle England that matters. Nuneaton. Corbyn and hard leftyism would make that gap un-closeable.
The real problem Labour have is that the defeat was unexpected, meaning the conversation about what has gone wrong has barely started by the time of the leadership election. Labour voters are basing their votes on their anger and frustration at losing, rather than a thoughtful digestion of research.
Harman should have delayed the leadership election until such time as Labour had worked out where it had gone wrong, licked it's wounds and found the right time to move on. She bears a fair amount of responsibility for this mess.
A little unfair imho – HH was left holding the baby when Ed walked away from his mess and leaving a flawed leadership contest in his wake. – No one within Labour anticipated a Corbyngasm because he should never have been on the list to start with.
And no one in the Westminster Bubble expected the SNP to do so well, or to have the discipline to remain so united. (Except for Salmond, but that's par for the course of his history)
Leftist politics is beginning to sweep across Europe and the USA (Bernie Sanders' rallies are drawing greater crowds than the other Presidential hopefulls put together).
Whether by accident or incompetence, Corbyn is in the election and what ever others think of him, he does seem to part of the present day flow of change.
Leftist politics is not "sweeping Europe". The one place the radical left did truly well is Greece, where the commies of Syriza successfully crashed the economy with such force, and speed, the entire country is now being run from a small office near Dusseldorf.
That quite a few people (not Daily Mail readers) consider that the major problem for Greece was not only the Greek clowns who got into the Euro by twisting the figures (by certain of the big accountants), but also of the hold of Germany on the financial structures of the EU which benefited German Industry and finances at the expense of the other countries.
Still the Germans are probably thankful that the UK did not join the Euro. The UK banks would have destroyed the project while they tried to accidentally destroy the UK economy in 2008.
There is an axis of leftism sweeping the globe from Primrose Hill to Liverpool to T in the Park.
A FORMER SNP leader has slammed a party candidate for her controversial role in securing public cash to support T in the Park.
Gordon Wilson called for a top level review of lobbying rules after it emerged Jennifer Dempsie was employed by the festival to gain a £150,000 grant from the Scottish Goverment.
Mr. Taffys, you're right to cite historical examples, but this appears to be the policy of what aspires to be a government doing it to its own people in peacetime.
[Incidentally, I haven't read the article. Still trying to get some work done].
The comparison of the "honest" man agin the Bullingdon one?
Well, obviously those blinded purely by class prejudice won't favour Cameron, but everyone else will be bemused by the contrast between Corbyn's/Labour's position and what Corbyn has said in the past. On almost any topic you care to name, there are zillions are quotes which can be flung at him. If he maintains his loony-left, anti-British, terrorist-sympathising positions, Cameron will point to what his backbenchers and shadow cabinet members have said about them. If he attempts to wriggle out of his loony-left, anti-British, terrorist-sympathising positions, Cameron will point to what he has said in the past.
I think in the event of a Corbyn win, Cameron 'flags at half mast for the Saudis' will to be very cautious of trying to attack Corbyn on who is and isn't a terrorist. There is a very fine veil of 'security' and 'patriotism' concealing what is basically a foreign policy of being a US apendage for better or (frequently) for worse, and I don't think he'll want to have that discussion.
Rubbish.
Cameron has plenty of room to attack Hezbollah, Hamas, the IRA, Argentina, Milosevic (sp.?), Venezuela and anything else that emerges from 30 years of Corbyn being Corbyn.
PMQs - DC will fish out a piece of paper and give it the "and I quote....." followed by whatever Malvinas/Hamas/Galloway/Blair nugget his team have dredged up that week - not even the Nats will want to sit on the front bench in shot of the cameras.
The real problem Labour have is that the defeat was unexpected, meaning the conversation about what has gone wrong has barely started by the time of the leadership election. Labour voters are basing their votes on their anger and frustration at losing, rather than a thoughtful digestion of research.
Harman should have delayed the leadership election until such time as Labour had worked out where it had gone wrong, licked it's wounds and found the right time to move on. She bears a fair amount of responsibility for this mess.
A little unfair imho – HH was left holding the baby when Ed walked away from his mess and leaving a flawed leadership contest in his wake. – No one within Labour anticipated a Corbyngasm because he should never have been on the list to start with.
Leftist politics is beginning to sweep across Europe and the USA (Bernie Sanders' rallies are drawing greater crowds than the other Presidential hopefulls put together).
Really ?
Hollande - would lose an election against himself Syriza - scuppered Podemos - peaked and diving in the polls Beppe Grillo - who ? Nats - state sponsors of music festivals, puritanism and proposing a single national school uniform
Meanwhile the Uk forges ahead with a booming economy..
A booming economy with rising unemployment! Growth of 2.5% per annum is well short of that - circa 4% would be another matter.
The comparison of the "honest" man agin the Bullingdon one?
Well, obviously those blinded purely by class prejudice won't favour Cameron, but everyone else will be bemused by the contrast between Corbyn's/Labour's position and what Corbyn has said in the past. On almost any topic you care to name, there are zillions are quotes which can be flung at him. If he maintains his loony-left, anti-British, terrorist-sympathising positions, Cameron will point to what his backbenchers and shadow cabinet members have said about them. If he attempts to wriggle out of his loony-left, anti-British, terrorist-sympathising positions, Cameron will point to what he has said in the past.
I think in the event of a Corbyn win, Cameron 'flags at half mast for the Saudis' will to be very cautious of trying to attack Corbyn on who is and isn't a terrorist. There is a very fine veil of 'security' and 'patriotism' concealing what is basically a foreign policy of being a US apendage for better or (frequently) for worse, and I don't think he'll want to have that discussion.
Rubbish.
Cameron has plenty of room to attack Hezbollah, Hamas, the IRA, Argentina, Milosevic (sp.?), Venezuela and anything else that emerges from 30 years of Corbyn being Corbyn.
PMQs - DC will fish out a piece of paper and give it the "and I quote....." followed by whatever Malvinas/Hamas/Galloway/Blair nugget his team have dredged up that week - not even the Nats will want to sit on the front bench in shot of the cameras.
It could be a weekly segment.
"This week on '30 Years of Corbyn'...."
Corbyn has more skeletons in his closet of that kind than Fred and May West...
The real problem Labour have is that the defeat was unexpected, meaning the conversation about what has gone wrong has barely started by the time of the leadership election. Labour voters are basing their votes on their anger and frustration at losing, rather than a thoughtful digestion of research.
Really? I think many within Labour, were expecting a defeat - it was the scale that may have shocked them. The only people who were expecting a GE win, were Ed Miliband and lefties on social media.
Those social media lefties are the ones we are not being told are the true voice of Labour, so if they expected it, does that mean Labour as an entity expected it?
Oh, and there were a few very pessimistic Tories who expected a Labour win too, as well non tories who are politically blind - I think I rated the Tories as having a 5% chance of a win of any stripe about 24 hours before the GE.
Social media lefties don't represent most Labour voters, or even most Labour MPs.
I was just teasing - currently, as Corbyn is winning with the social media crowd and, I believe, labour member generally, currently the two are, for once, one and the same. But of course, as we know, if they usually did, the government would look quite dfferent right now.
There is an axis of leftism sweeping the globe from Primrose Hill to Liverpool to T in the Park.
A FORMER SNP leader has slammed a party candidate for her controversial role in securing public cash to support T in the Park.
Gordon Wilson called for a top level review of lobbying rules after it emerged Jennifer Dempsie was employed by the festival to gain a £150,000 grant from the Scottish Goverment.
One thought crosses my mind, if Corbyn wins and stands as LotO against Cameron at PMQ's, who of course will do his snooty best to put Corbyn down, who will show up better on the news?
The comparison of the "honest" man agin the Bullingdon one?
Should Cameron leave Downing Street, where would the Tories find an honest man to replace him, to spike the popularity of Corbyn?
Cameron's not going anywhere for a few years, would Corbyn last that long? An interesting questio I think, but until then, while I can see Cameron being wrongfooted by Corbyn being an entirely different beast than his previous sparring partners, I would think he would adjust eventually. His exact strategy would presumably depend on how many Labour MPs he could quote who disagreed with Corbyn, in response to any questions he is asked.
Mr. Eye, be fair, lots of PBers predicted a very strong result for the SNP.
Indeed. Not many predicted they'd do as amazingly well as they did, but there were plenty of people in the bubble and outside of it who thought they would do very well indeed.
*ahem* I did say for some months beforehand on here that the SNP would get 50.0% of the Scottish vote.
The comparison of the "honest" man agin the Bullingdon one?
Well, obviously those blinded purely by class prejudice won't favour Cameron, but everyone else will be bemused by the contrast between Corbyn's/Labour's position and what Corbyn has said in the past. On almost any topic you care to name, there are zillions are quotes which can be flung at him. If he maintains his loony-left, anti-British, terrorist-sympathising positions, Cameron will point to what his backbenchers and shadow cabinet members have said about them. If he attempts to wriggle out of his loony-left, anti-British, terrorist-sympathising positions, Cameron will point to what he has said in the past.
I think in the event of a Corbyn win, Cameron 'flags at half mast for the Saudis' will to be very cautious of trying to attack Corbyn on who is and isn't a terrorist. There is a very fine veil of 'security' and 'patriotism' concealing what is basically a foreign policy of being a US apendage for better or (frequently) for worse, and I don't think he'll want to have that discussion.
Rubbish.
Cameron has plenty of room to attack Hezbollah, Hamas, the IRA, Argentina, Milosevic (sp.?), Venezuela and anything else that emerges from 30 years of Corbyn being Corbyn.
PMQs - DC will fish out a piece of paper and give it the "and I quote....." followed by whatever Malvinas/Hamas/Galloway/Blair nugget his team have dredged up that week - not even the Nats will want to sit on the front bench in shot of the cameras.
It could be a weekly segment.
"This week on '30 Years of Corbyn'...."
Corbyn has more skeletons in his closet of that kind than Fred and May West...
The Tories are laying off Corbyn now. If they're smart they'll lay off him when he's elected too. Let him ruin Labour all on his own. And then get medieval about a six months out from a GE, pulling up all his awful history, comments, track record, etc. I'm sure they have a little black book sitting on the shelf awaiting its day in the sun.
According to YouGov, nearly a third (31 per cent) of Londoners would be uncomfortable if the next London Mayor was Muslim. The company, which surveyed 1,153 adults for LBC, found that Londoners were more uneasy about the idea of Muslim mayor than they were about one who was female (only 4 per cent expressed discomfort), gay (16 per cent), or from an ethnic minority (13 per cent).
The comparison of the "honest" man agin the Bullingdon one?
Well, obviously those blinded purely by class prejudice won't favour Cameron, but everyone else will be bemused by the contrast between Corbyn's/Labour's position and what Corbyn has said in the past. On almost any topic you care to name, there are zillions are quotes which can be flung at him. If he maintains his loony-left, anti-British, terrorist-sympathising positions, Cameron will point to what his backbenchers and shadow cabinet members have said about them. If he attempts to wriggle out of his loony-left, anti-British, terrorist-sympathising positions, Cameron will point to what he has said in the past.
I think in the event of a Corbyn win, Cameron 'flags at half mast for the Saudis' will to be very cautious of trying to attack Corbyn on who is and isn't a terrorist. There is a very fine veil of 'security' and 'patriotism' concealing what is basically a foreign policy of being a US apendage for better or (frequently) for worse, and I don't think he'll want to have that discussion.
Rubbish.
Cameron has plenty of room to attack Hezbollah, Hamas, the IRA, Argentina, Milosevic (sp.?), Venezuela and anything else that emerges from 30 years of Corbyn being Corbyn.
Yes, and whilst I agree that Corbyn's positions on many of these issues are contemptible (I say many, not all), so are many official Government positions, and indeed actions. They get away with it with the collusion of the media by a sort of unspoken code where criticism of 'The West' (a designation that simply lumps us in with the US), and anything 'The West' does is taboo. That unspoken system doesn't work if you're goading someone about it over the Commons floor. We saw how the public was totally against the bombing of Syria. Public consent for our foreign policy is wafer thin.
The Tories are laying off Corbyn now. If they're smart they'll lay off him when he's elected too. Let him ruin Labour all on his own. And then get medieval about a six months out from a GE, pulling up all his awful history, comments, track record, etc. I'm sure they have a little black book sitting on the shelf awaiting its day in the sun.
I read a press story yesterday that the Tories are already compiling a dossier ready to be published the day he is announced the winner
Don Brind "If Corbyn is hinting that he would stand down without completing a full term there is hope that Labour could yet go in to 2020 with a leader who is “electable”."
But what will the Labour party look like in 2018 after three years of Corbyn? An NEC dominated by Corbyn, by the hard left unions and by the effects of the extra 400k of mainly hard left supporters and members. CLPs stuffed with these folk affecting the reselections and out break of deselections. New PPCs having to be from the hard left. There may not be much electoral capability in the Labour party of 2018 or 19. How many of the current MPs will just throw in the towel ahead of 2020?
The Labour party may already have become unsalvageable.
Comments
When you look at Cooper's broadside today, you have to wonder how Yvette and JC could reconcile their differences and work together.
Clearly LOTS of interest!
The issue is what the alternative is for the electorate to decide on.
If I may say so, this is why the instant, knee jerk, 'flatlining', opposition from labour was so pointless. At the death they had no policies no credibility. It did not help the lib dems either.
Were they thinking ?
There's a lot more caution on the next Prime Minister market. Someone is laying £10 at 10.5 on Corbyn as next Prime Minister. It would be mindblowing if it happened! I'd say it is more like 50/1 against but I'm not laying it at those odds! Not after what has just happened.
http://www.thelocal.no/20150812/norway-to-deport-or-jail-teen-migrant-rioters
also, http://jeremycorbyn.org.uk/categories/immigration/ seems to be ok for me just now too.
They are able to say neither "more of the same" nor "it was all dreadful".
If I were a Lab supporter [pause to steady myself, ok, I'll go on], that would be the primary reason why I would be supporting Jezza. He has, for all his many many many many many many ills, been consistent and it seems that people value that more than they abhor some of his more bonkers policies (ie all of them).
I might add that having taken several years to read the transcripts of the main Nuremberg trial - via the internet - that in relation to the specific indictment concerning 'Planning for War' Blair and Bush were almost certainly more guilty than any of those convicted - with the possible exception of Ribbentrop, though even he lacked final executive authority. Whilst I shall vote for Cooper in the leadership election, I do retain a faint hope that a Corbyn victory might yet increase the probability of Blair facing Trial at The Hague!
In short where were you when Saddam was breaking the terms of the ceasefire he signed after the Gulf War - where of course he had invaded and occupied Kuwait.
I don't know where you were - on holiday in Corbynland I suppose - but I despise you for wanting to see UK soldiers defeated.
It was only a mistake if you insist on seeing things through the eyes of Christians vs Muslims, and I don't think the Venetians or the Byzantines ever did. And even the rest of the Crusaders at least got rich, which is better than going on to the holy land and getting slaughtered in some hopeless and pointless war.
http://www.speedtest.net/
Arrest warrant will be issued if he's a no-show tomorrow.
29% in London said morally wrong... 17% outside London (basically the same everywhere).
"Yes, I have some views that are homophobic" - 13% +/- 2 everywhere - so not so obvious a Muslim bias on that.
Exactly Roger. The very reason why Corbyn- obviously an unelectable leader- is doing well is because the other challengers are so uninspiring, insipid, robotic, limp, and most probably unelectable too. "Jezz we can" is not the cause of the lefty uprising and potential civil war, he is a symptom of Labour's inability to identify a half decent candidate.
The other Don Brind comment I don't go along with is saying the GE result was complex. It wasn't actually. The Tories were presented with a gift horse from heaven with Ed's dismal leadership.
These voters believed that the financial crash was largely caused by Labour’s over-borrowing and over-spending. Even those who recognised it was a global event and that the banks were to blame thought Labour’s overspending contributed. Labour’s economic credibility is non-existent with these former-Labour voters who were very nervous about trusting their party to
run the country’s economy once again. They said they wanted proof
Labour was seen as anti-business, only caring about public services and the public sector. Labour seemed to be happy spending and borrowing money, but not so concerned with helping to create it, nor even understanding the need to.
Labour was seen as being pro-welfare and as having invented the benefits culture. They were a soft touch, instinctively on the side of claimants. These people wanted Labour to be the party of work and of workers primarily.
They said that immigrants were allowed to receive benefits far too soon after their arrival, and those benefits were too high. It was all too attractive. It meant immigrants could come here without working and live off our benefits, which were considered to be much better than they could get back home.
The respondents in these groups could all easily have been from union backgrounds. Yet none of them thought that unions were relevant to their life. Unions are not seen as fit for purpose nor relevant to the 21st century economy.
The challenge for Labour is how they address these key themes. I think Cruddas-style Blue Labour could have done quite well but I think Corbyn (however principled he might be) will be a hindrence rather than a help in these areas.
"The most dramatic contrast was found in attitudes towards homosexuality. None of the 500 British Muslims interviewed believed that homosexual acts were morally acceptable. 1,001 non-Muslim Britons were interviewed."
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/may/07/muslims-britain-france-germany-homosexuality
Not the best source but...
"These are not isolated incidents. East London has seen the highest increase in homophobic attacks anywhere in Britain, and some of the worst in Europe. Everybody knows why, and nobody wants to say it. It is because East London has the highest Muslim population in Britain, and we have allowed a fanatically intolerant attitude towards gay people to incubate there, in the name of "tolerance"...Even more worryingly, younger Muslims had more stridently anti-gay views than older Muslims. These attitudes have consequences - and they are worst of all for gay Muslims, who have to live a sham half-life of lies, or be shunned by their families."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/can-we-finally-talk-about_b_828037.html
Unless they do that, then they may well splinter or not survive at all. PBers, effectively there could be an opportunity for a new party - that will be your chance to lead the way..
The comparison of the "honest" man agin the Bullingdon one?
Should Cameron leave Downing Street, where would the Tories find an honest man to replace him, to spike the popularity of Corbyn?
Don;t you think the last election showed the electorate is not keen on the politics of class...?
The Scottish LibDems appear to have the best party machine of the Holyrood opposition parties. However SLAB and the Scottish Tories with many more members and parliamentarians, are reduced to sending a few SNP BAD tweets a day. Sadly come Holyrood 2016 the LibDems will likely lose a number of their 5 seats:
https://twitter.com/scotlibdems/status/631829045974536193
http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080523Morals1_48fnwiothioj.gif
They're also a lot less tolerant of abortion, with just 10% finding it morally acceptable, compared to a third of Berlin Muslims:
http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080523Morals2_irnc0934j.gif
And sex before marriage:
http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080523Morals4_irnc892w3n.gif
I blame Chuka to be honest. He was the only appealing candidate that came forward and he bottled it.
@LabourList: A vote for Corbyn lets the Tories off the hook, says @keiranpedley http://labli.st/1L88fB9
And in 2006...
"Secretly filmed tirades against Muslims and Asians by the leader of the British National party, Nick Griffin, were described to a jury yesterday, including claims that rape and paedophilia against non-believers were countenanced by the Qur'an.
At private party meetings, the Cambridge graduate who has immersed himself in far-right politics for nearly 30 years described parts of Britain as "multiracial hellholes" targeted by a supposed Asian Muslim plan for global conquest."
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/jan/18/race.religion
'Mr Speaker, the honourable gentlemen's policy is 'not credible'. That's not just my opinion, its the view of a former senior cabinet colleague on his side of the house, the member for Pontefract and Castleford''
Cameron will have a thousand of these....
Turnout in the last London Mayoral election was 38.1% (45.3% the time before). It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that a JC effect could boost turnout significantly and the labour Party might win.
There is nothing like a win to cause people to view things differently - momentum is everything. I wonder if some in the Labour Party, including Mr Brind, will wish they hadn't gone into print about Jeremy.
Mr. Isam, it's horrendous. As Mr. T remarked some time ago, the world might be a much better place if we'd had Obama as president when George W Bush had the gig, and George W Bush in charge when ISIS arose.
Boris' victory in 2012 probably an early indication Milliband was an election loser.
Leftist politics is beginning to sweep across Europe and the USA (Bernie Sanders' rallies are drawing greater crowds than the other Presidential hopefulls put together).
Whether by accident or incompetence, Corbyn is in the election and what ever others think of him, he does seem to part of the present day flow of change.
Unlike other parties there are no seats for life for sitting constituency SNP MSPs, each candidate is democratically elected by the membership. During GE2015 we had 8 candidates to choose from - 4 political, 3 business folks and an academic. Colin lost - simple as that - the Edinburgh News can spin it all it likes but 70% turn out of 1400 members is what unseated him - not some committee sitting in a darkened room.
Turning to the Scottish Tories - Ruth D continuing to justify her Glasgow to Edinburgh move. If she wanted to walk her talk about moving to Edinburgh as she sees a real opportunity to increase the number of Tory MSPs, I guess she'll be quite happy to take up 3rd place on the Lothian regional list after the two sitting MSPs:
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/opinion/ruth-davidson-ignore-martin-hannan-i-m-coming-home-1-3856473
Hollande - would lose an election against himself
Syriza - scuppered
Podemos - peaked and diving in the polls
Beppe Grillo - who ?
Nats - state sponsors of music festivals, puritanism and proposing a single national school uniform
Meanwhile the Uk forges ahead with a booming economy..
Oh, and there were a few very pessimistic Tories who expected a Labour win too, as well non tories who are politically blind - I think I rated the Tories as having a 5% chance of a win of any stripe about 24 hours before the GE.
It sounds like the equivalent of having the Rotherham disgrace as a matter of government policy.
Cameron has plenty of room to attack Hezbollah, Hamas, the IRA, Argentina, Milosevic (sp.?), Venezuela and anything else that emerges from 30 years of Corbyn being Corbyn.
Do you think it is worse than, for example, what the Japanese army did to Korean and Chinese 'comfort' women?
Or what the red army did to German women in 1945?
In every army since the dawn of time there have been those who maybe ain't so keen on the fighting, but when it comes to f8cking over the beaten locals afterwards, they are right up for it.
Still the Germans are probably thankful that the UK did not join the Euro. The UK banks would have destroyed the project while they tried to accidentally destroy the UK economy in 2008.
You missed the good bit
" Jennifer Dempsie was employed by the festival before they recieved a £150,000 grant from the Scottish Goverment.
Dempsie is a former adviser to Alex Salmond and is standing as a candidate in the Holyrood election next year.
She is also the partner of SNP Westminster leader Angus Robertson."
[Incidentally, I haven't read the article. Still trying to get some work done].
Or will the Noisy Brigade rely on Comrade Corbyn to do it for them in the HoC?
"This week on '30 Years of Corbyn'...."
Anyone offering odds?
@jonwalker121: Gloves off as @LizforLeader attacks @Corbyn4Leader over the IRA, NATO, EU & economic policy http://t.co/QLu59H93sS http://t.co/2VnZo38rP1
" Jennifer Dempsie was employed by the festival before they recieved a £150,000 grant from the Scottish Goverment.
Dempsie is a former adviser to Alex Salmond and is standing as a candidate in the Holyrood election next year.
She is also the partner of SNP Westminster leader Angus Robertson."
Oh goody, a simultaneous Plastic Jockgasm.
'Uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, SNP BAAAAAAD!'
They got 50.0%. *buffs nails*
I think that makes it now all three going down kicking and screaming – better late than never.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/london-mayor-election/mayor-of-london/11800426/Some-Londoners-dont-want-a-Muslim-Mayor.-Maybe-London-isnt-so-different-after-all.html
According to YouGov, nearly a third (31 per cent) of Londoners would be uncomfortable if the next London Mayor was Muslim. The company, which surveyed 1,153 adults for LBC, found that Londoners were more uneasy about the idea of Muslim mayor than they were about one who was female (only 4 per cent expressed discomfort), gay (16 per cent), or from an ethnic minority (13 per cent).
But what will the Labour party look like in 2018 after three years of Corbyn? An NEC dominated by Corbyn, by the hard left unions and by the effects of the extra 400k of mainly hard left supporters and members. CLPs stuffed with these folk affecting the reselections and out break of deselections. New PPCs having to be from the hard left. There may not be much electoral capability in the Labour party of 2018 or 19. How many of the current MPs will just throw in the towel ahead of 2020?
The Labour party may already have become unsalvageable.