Of course the obvious answer to the Calais crisis is just to not process anyone's asylum claim who comes through. If you've come from a safe country you don't get to apply and get immediately deported. No one would bother trying if you are guaranteed rejection.
Nope, the obvious answer is to close the tunnel until the french have their house in order.
If the tunnel is kept open then the problem will only grow until there is a major foreign policy food fight over illegal immigration between Britain and France and countless dead in Calais and Dover for the newspapers to publish pictures and salty headlines.
Closing the tunnel will put many out of work, a large number of them residents in the Calais area.
Why oh why can they not keep quiet for a few weeks.
Corbyn should make Labour unelectable and essentially destroy the party, but.... there's just this slight and awful risk that he strikes a chord with the British public and gets into Number 10. He'll then destroy the country. On balance I'd prefer not to run that risk, however slight.
Of course the obvious answer to the Calais crisis is just to not process anyone's asylum claim who comes through. If you've come from a safe country you don't get to apply and get immediately deported. No one would bother trying if you are guaranteed rejection.
Nope, the obvious answer is to close the tunnel until the french have their house in order.
If the tunnel is kept open then the problem will only grow until there is a major foreign policy food fight over illegal immigration between Britain and France and countless dead in Calais and Dover for the newspapers to publish pictures and salty headlines.
Closing the tunnel will put many out of work, a large number of them residents in the Calais area.
Is that what the mayor wants?
I suspect they are at the end of their rope, saying whatever and bugger the consequences being the attitude now.
Whilst waiting for the by-election results have a look at this, no wonder Fox News surrendered to Trump, Trump's entire political movements so far can be deciphered by this crazy stuff he did at Wrestlemania, this is essentially his entire political campaign in a 4 minute video:
Of course the obvious answer to the Calais crisis is just to not process anyone's asylum claim who comes through. If you've come from a safe country you don't get to apply and get immediately deported. No one would bother trying if you are guaranteed rejection.
Nope, the obvious answer is to close the tunnel until the french have their house in order.
If the tunnel is kept open then the problem will only grow until there is a major foreign policy food fight over illegal immigration between Britain and France and countless dead in Calais and Dover for the newspapers to publish pictures and salty headlines.
Closing the tunnel will put many out of work, a large number of them residents in the Calais area.
Is that what the mayor wants?
I suspect they are at the end of their rope, saying whatever and bugger the consequences being the attitude now.
The mayor should be pestering her own government. Besides, Calais is an utter hole, and has been for a while. From experience, I'd recommend using any other ferry port.
If the tunnel was closed, the collective whining from Parisien commuters denied their preferred method of transport to London would soon jolt the French government into taking firmer and immediate action.
Must be quite likely there will be a late swing against Corbyn - both due to the media and also people just getting cold feet.
But the question is whether Corbyn will still have enough given Union affiliates and £3 sign-ups.
A fair point I think. After all, the negative stuff on Ed M did actually work, despite people like me saying it would not be enough. Doesn't mean it will this time, Corbyn appears to have a sizable advantage, but it's been amazing his campaign has not, to my knowledge, had any major slips up as yet, can they be so lucky as to have none to come that will precipitate some movement away from him, or indeed the cumulative impact of negative press have no impact?
There can be little movement away from him, whatever he says or does. At best some people who were going to vote for him might not bother at all. His support by and large isn't coming from floating voters, it is coming from people who are only in the selectorate to vote for him.
Why oh why can they not keep quiet for a few weeks.
Corbyn should make Labour unelectable and essentially destroy the party, but.... there's just this slight and awful risk that he strikes a chord with the British public and gets into Number 10. He'll then destroy the country. On balance I'd prefer not to run that risk, however slight.
Agreed the 5% chance he wins and turns us into a cold version of Venezuela is awful. If I feel it's a remote possibility I will convert any asset I could in terms of cash and pension funds ISAs etc into foreign assets in advance as his economics is just plain bleeding certifiable and the Pound will tank at warp speed.
Also the country needs a functioning realistic opposition to scrutinise Govt. We really need that. What we have is an opposition that has formed a circle and opened fire. It's not good for any of us.
Why oh why can they not keep quiet for a few weeks.
Corbyn should make Labour unelectable and essentially destroy the party, but.... there's just this slight and awful risk that he strikes a chord with the British public and gets into Number 10. He'll then destroy the country. On balance I'd prefer not to run that risk, however slight.
Look at Corbyn's history - his job history his private life and habits, never mind just his politics - I mean like divorcing his wife because she wanted to send their son to a grammar school (that was the Chilean exile one not the labour councilor one and not the Mexican importer of fair trade coffee one) - and you see that he is a classic irredeemable grade A blinkered bonkers boneheaded beardy-weardy leftie he is.
Linking tonight's by-election and Labour leadership: Exeter City's best young player, David Wheeler, comes out as a Corbyn supporter.
"Over the past few months, I've been taking a keen interest in the Labour leadership battle. While I'm a member of the Green Party, I've been very impressed by Jeremy Corbyn – lots of what he says resonates with me and I would love to see him become the new Labour leader and drag the party back to the left.
I don't buy this argument put forward by Tony Blair and others that Corbyn would make the party unelectable; in actual fact, it's a bit of a non-argument for me.
Some people might think I'm young and idealistic, but for me politics should be less about winning at all costs and more about principles and standing up for what you believe in.
As someone who's opposed to inequality, anti-austerity and pro-environment, I like what Corbyn stands for and if, as seems likely, he becomes the party's new leader I might even contemplate voting Labour."
Whilst waiting for the by-election results have a look at this, no wonder Fox News surrendered to Trump, Trump's entire political movements so far can be deciphered by this crazy stuff he did at Wrestlemania, this is essentially his entire political campaign in a 4 minute video:
That's just the american politics version of appearing in Coronation Street. Utterly hilarious though. Makes me think much higher of him. In the same way that Sarah Palin was game for a laugh on Saturday Night Live.
Must be quite likely there will be a late swing against Corbyn - both due to the media and also people just getting cold feet.
But the question is whether Corbyn will still have enough given Union affiliates and £3 sign-ups.
I think it will come down to turnout amongst the Union affiliates. Remember Unions have just rung these people up and got them to agree to be affiliates. So the individuals haven't had to take the same positive action as the £3 sign-ups who have had to personally do something.
So how many of the 200,000 affiliates will actually get round to voting?
Since most of them have registered at least 3 times under bogus names, there are only about 70,000 who need to remember to vote. Of course they have to remember to do it 3 times. :-)
Updated YouGov/Times poll has Corbyn now polling 57%, up 4% since last time
43% > 53%> 57% - Hmm, I seem to recall some saying Corbyn may have peaked too soon.
It's not a normal election, he's not attracting more support. Simply gaining as a result of increased numbers of his supporters joining the electorate. Have any of the other candidates dedicated any serious part of their campaign strategy to encouraging new registrations to vote for them?
There are millions of people in the population who would not dream of casting a vote for Corbyn (except to destroy the Labour Party). But they have not been targeted at all.
Why oh why can they not keep quiet for a few weeks.
Perhaps they've decided that a Corbyn leadership will fall apart so rapidly that the best outcome would actually be for the Labour leader at the next election to be one (not Corbyn) arising out of this contest, rather than one in a year's time? With the advantage that they would be permanently handicapped by a disgruntled and emboldened, but not defeated, left wing.
An interesting theory, especially as none of the contenders are particularly strong.
Why oh why can they not keep quiet for a few weeks.
Corbyn should make Labour unelectable and essentially destroy the party, but.... there's just this slight and awful risk that he strikes a chord with the British public and gets into Number 10. He'll then destroy the country. On balance I'd prefer not to run that risk, however slight.
Labour out of power for many years and overrun with loony lefties might be a risk worth taking.
I still don't understand why Exeter is so left-wing. It baffles me and, visiting it, politically it doesn't "feel" right.
It's the only splotch of red in the whole of the south-west, and yet it's more affluent than Tory Plymouth. And it's in Devon, my favourite county, which is about as "undiverse", traditional, beautiful, rural, historical, and English, as you get these days.
Where do the Labour drones come from down there?
It's a university city. Say no more. Also Ben Bradshaw is one of the most right-wing Labour MPs which probably helps.
Whilst waiting for the by-election results have a look at this, no wonder Fox News surrendered to Trump, Trump's entire political movements so far can be deciphered by this crazy stuff he did at Wrestlemania, this is essentially his entire political campaign in a 4 minute video:
That's just the american politics version of appearing in Coronation Street. Utterly hilarious though. Makes me think much higher of him. In the same way that Sarah Palin was game for a laugh on Saturday Night Live.
You are getting into why Trump is polling so well. American politics is a TV show of it's own, and Trump can entertain the voters by the thousands.
How precisely does Corbyn propose to "nationalise the energy sector"? Whilst at least he can try to claim that nationalising the railways won't cost much/anything because of all the subsidies the rail companies allegedly get to fund their profits, how is he proposing to buy out the energy sector?
How much would it cost to buy all the shares of all the energy companies? Print that much money. Its easy. Then once you have the energy companies under your control just slash price charged to households where the main earner is not in an approved occupation to, say, 1p per unit. At a stroke you have solved fuel poverty and provided a massive stimulus to the economy which will result in humungous growth and massive wealth that can then be taxed and given to poor families.
This economics lark is so easy if only the levers of power are taken away from Tory plutocrats who seek nothing but to grind the faces of the poor in order that they can, well do something.
I think he is right in several respects. Firstly, in the current loony bin that is the Labour party this was indeed a brave speech. Secondly, she is right that Corbyn's answers are very old and unrealistic answers to the problems of several decades ago rather than today, let alone tomorrow. Thirdly, it is almost certainly too late.
But...I heard a good chunk of this speech on the radio. It reads quite well, not exactly Kinnock in 1985 but well enough. It's just that the presentation of it was absolutely awful. How do you get to be one of the most senior members of the Shadow Cabinet and not learn how to make a speech? She sounded glum, soulless, miserable and resigned. I am sure she is not all of these things (although she may well be some of them) but dear me.
What she said may the stuff of leadership as Dan claims. How she said it demonstrates her limitations as such a candidate.
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges Corbyn supporters now saying Andy Burnham is a Tory. I know personal attacks are counterproductive. But sod it. These people are lunatics.
I know this is difficult to believe but Polly Toynbee is being labelled a Tory by Corbynites for supporting Yvette Cooper.
I still don't understand why Exeter is so left-wing. It baffles me and, visiting it, politically it doesn't "feel" right.
It's the only splotch of red in the whole of the south-west, and yet it's more affluent than Tory Plymouth. And it's in Devon, my favourite county, which is about as "undiverse", traditional, beautiful, rural, historical, and English, as you get these days.
Where do the Labour drones come from down there?
There's a Met Office in Exeter,
Full of climate change believers, who probably vote Labour
How many do they employ, though, who live in the constituency?
Honestly, it's like someone has gifted the city 20,000 voters from Islington and Hackney down there.
Not sure, I think Ben Bradshaw is a well regarded local MP, so some of it is down to that.
I know of Labour canvassers who didn't mention their allegiance in the GE campaign. Just asked for the votes for Ben.
I'd heard he had to be persuaded to stand again in 2015. Threw his hat in the ring for Deputy, so he must still have some fire in his belly. But if he doesn't stand again for Exeter in 2020, the new Labour candidate is going to face a wall of Tories in the SW with not much else to do but keep Plymouth blue - and unseat him....
OK.
Question: how many Labour seats have no bordering seats that aren't Labour?
Blackpool South Cambridge Derby South Edinburgh South Exeter Great Grimsby Hove Lancaster & Fleetwood Norwich South Oxford East Preston Scunthorpe Slough Southampton Test Ynys Mon York Central
...plus some that I probably missed.
Isn't that the opposite to the question that was asked?
Probably. The treble-negative in the question fused my circuits. I'm only a Mark 2 Android.
How precisely does Corbyn propose to "nationalise the energy sector"? Whilst at least he can try to claim that nationalising the railways won't cost much/anything because of all the subsidies the rail companies allegedly get to fund their profits, how is he proposing to buy out the energy sector?
How much would it cost to buy all the shares of all the energy companies? Print that much money. Its easy. Then once you have the energy companies under your control just slash price charged to households where the main earner is not in an approved occupation to, say, 1p per unit. At a stroke you have solved fuel poverty and provided a massive stimulus to the economy which will result in humungous growth and massive wealth that can then be taxed and given to poor families.
This economics lark is so easy if only the levers of power are taken away from Tory plutocrats who seek nothing but to grind the faces of the poor in order that they can, well do something.
What I want to know is why the BBC takes off "This Week" and the "Daily Politics"just because parliament isn't sitting. Don't they know that politics is a 24/7/52/365 year and never stops for holidays.
It's a shame that in their blindness the BBC is missing explaining the biggest political story of the year.
This time it is blindingly obvious that people who pay £45 per year to be members are far, far, far more likely to vote than someone who just said "Yes" on the phone when asked by their union if they wanted to be an affiliate.
I grew up near Exeter, in a village near Pinhoe in fact. Exeter as a whole has changed a lot since then. It's more affluent and more 'hipster'. Has a lot of trendy middle-class folk with the University and Met Office being big employers. Not many though would live in Pinhoe it being more of an C2 WWC area. Ben Bradshaw is very well regarded as an excellent constituency MP. Pinhoe itself has changed this century becoming less of a village (as it was really) and becoming just another suburb. There's been a lot of housing development nearby. The Tory candidate tried to make an issue about bullying in the local park - since I used to avoid the place due to that reason in the 1980s I doubt it as an issue has great salience!
Pinhoe is also home to 'Po Lee's' Exeter's first and by a considerable distance its worst, Chinese take away.
Interesting information. Also the most Tory part of Exeter was moved into the East Devon constituency in 2010.
What I want to know is why the BBC takes off "This Week" and the "Daily Politics"just because parliament isn't sitting. Don't they know that politics is a 24/7/52/365 year and never stops for holidays.
It's a shame that in their blindness the BBC is missing explaining the biggest political story of the year.
What I want to know is why the BBC takes off "This Week" and the "Daily Politics"just because parliament isn't sitting. Don't they know that politics is a 24/7/52/365 year and never stops for holidays.
It's a shame that in their blindness the BBC is missing explaining the biggest political story of the year.
But we have PB! Who needs Auntie to interpret this selection?
How precisely does Corbyn propose to "nationalise the energy sector"? Whilst at least he can try to claim that nationalising the railways won't cost much/anything because of all the subsidies the rail companies allegedly get to fund their profits, how is he proposing to buy out the energy sector?
How much would it cost to buy all the shares of all the energy companies? Print that much money. Its easy. Then once you have the energy companies under your control just slash price charged to households where the main earner is not in an approved occupation to, say, 1p per unit. At a stroke you have solved fuel poverty and provided a massive stimulus to the economy which will result in humungous growth and massive wealth that can then be taxed and given to poor families.
This economics lark is so easy if only the levers of power are taken away from Tory plutocrats who seek nothing but to grind the faces of the poor in order that they can, well do something.
Hasta la Victoria siempre! ( but can you tell me where I can get bog roll on the black market as there's none in Caracas run by Jezza's mates because this price control lark turns out to have a few downsides).
I think he is right in several respects. Firstly, in the current loony bin that is the Labour party this was indeed a brave speech. Secondly, she is right that Corbyn's answers are very old and unrealistic answers to the problems of several decades ago rather than today, let alone tomorrow. Thirdly, it is almost certainly too late.
But...I heard a good chunk of this speech on the radio. It reads quite well, not exactly Kinnock in 1985 but well enough. It's just that the presentation of it was absolutely awful. How do you get to be one of the most senior members of the Shadow Cabinet and not learn how to make a speech? She sounded glum, soulless, miserable and resigned. I am sure she is not all of these things (although she may well be some of them) but dear me.
What she said may the stuff of leadership as Dan claims. How she said it demonstrates her limitations as such a candidate.
What do you mean how did she get to be a senior member of the Shadow Cabinet without learning how to make a speech? She was used to be a member of the real cabinet, a government minister actually in charge of things, for goodness sake. How did she get that job? Well being married to Gordon Brown's best mate probably didn't hurt.
It's a shame that in their blindness the BBC is missing explaining the biggest political story of the year.
Because they would really struggle to explain it. No-one has really fully come to terms with what has happened within the Labour Party.
It is something that will take time to digest and to explain.
I know the BBC news/politics teams seem to love pointless speculation - but they would be floundering as much as anyone to deal with this properly. So silence is probably for the best.
Plus many won't want to upset the incoming regime by getting it wrong...
I still don't understand why Exeter is so left-wing. It baffles me and, visiting it, politically it doesn't "feel" right.
It's the only splotch of red in the whole of the south-west, and yet it's more affluent than Tory Plymouth. And it's in Devon, my favourite county, which is about as "undiverse", traditional, beautiful, rural, historical, and English, as you get these days.
Where do the Labour drones come from down there?
There's a Met Office in Exeter,
Full of climate change believers, who probably vote Labour
How many do they employ, though, who live in the constituency?
Honestly, it's like someone has gifted the city 20,000 voters from Islington and Hackney down there.
Not sure, I think Ben Bradshaw is a well regarded local MP, so some of it is down to that.
I think he is right in several respects. Firstly, in the current loony bin that is the Labour party this was indeed a brave speech. Secondly, she is right that Corbyn's answers are very old and unrealistic answers to the problems of several decades ago rather than today, let alone tomorrow. Thirdly, it is almost certainly too late.
But...I heard a good chunk of this speech on the radio. It reads quite well, not exactly Kinnock in 1985 but well enough. It's just that the presentation of it was absolutely awful. How do you get to be one of the most senior members of the Shadow Cabinet and not learn how to make a speech? She sounded glum, soulless, miserable and resigned. I am sure she is not all of these things (although she may well be some of them) but dear me.
What she said may the stuff of leadership as Dan claims. How she said it demonstrates her limitations as such a candidate.
What do you mean how did she get to be a senior member of the Shadow Cabinet without learning how to make a speech? She was used to be a member of the real cabinet, a government minister actually in charge of things, for goodness sake. How did she get that job? Well being married to Gordon Brown's best mate probably didn't hurt.
How precisely does Corbyn propose to "nationalise the energy sector"? Whilst at least he can try to claim that nationalising the railways won't cost much/anything because of all the subsidies the rail companies allegedly get to fund their profits, how is he proposing to buy out the energy sector?
How much would it cost to buy all the shares of all the energy companies? Print that much money. Its easy. Then once you have the energy companies under your control just slash price charged to households where the main earner is not in an approved occupation to, say, 1p per unit. At a stroke you have solved fuel poverty and provided a massive stimulus to the economy which will result in humungous growth and massive wealth that can then be taxed and given to poor families.
This economics lark is so easy if only the levers of power are taken away from Tory plutocrats who seek nothing but to grind the faces of the poor in order that they can, well do something.
Not sure if satire
I guess that's what makes good satire? I was going to query how the UK was going to buy the energy to pass on to consumers for nothing, but then i remembered that Corbyn was pledging to reopen the coal mines. Maybe this is how he is going to sell immigration to the UK electorate - into the country and straight down the pits?
I think he is right in several respects. Firstly, in the current loony bin that is the Labour party this was indeed a brave speech. Secondly, she is right that Corbyn's answers are very old and unrealistic answers to the problems of several decades ago rather than today, let alone tomorrow. Thirdly, it is almost certainly too late.
But...I heard a good chunk of this speech on the radio. It reads quite well, not exactly Kinnock in 1985 but well enough. It's just that the presentation of it was absolutely awful. How do you get to be one of the most senior members of the Shadow Cabinet and not learn how to make a speech? She sounded glum, soulless, miserable and resigned. I am sure she is not all of these things (although she may well be some of them) but dear me.
What she said may the stuff of leadership as Dan claims. How she said it demonstrates her limitations as such a candidate.
What do you mean how did she get to be a senior member of the Shadow Cabinet without learning how to make a speech? She was used to be a member of the real cabinet, a government minister actually in charge of things, for goodness sake. How did she get that job? Well being married to Gordon Brown's best mate probably didn't hurt.
Yes but Ministers get help with their speeches and usually have something concrete to talk about which helps.
Purely political speeches are more difficult and require a range of tone and emotion that seems to be beyond her. It's unfortunate. I have always believed her to be the brightest of the candidates by some distance. She has just never learned how to speak to an audience of anything other than nodding dogs waiting for an obvious pause to add the sound effect of applause.
What I want to know is why the BBC takes off "This Week" and the "Daily Politics"just because parliament isn't sitting. Don't they know that politics is a 24/7/52/365 year and never stops for holidays.
It's a shame that in their blindness the BBC is missing explaining the biggest political story of the year.
In fairness, who could have expected the Labour leadership contest would actually be interesting?
How precisely does Corbyn propose to "nationalise the energy sector"? Whilst at least he can try to claim that nationalising the railways won't cost much/anything because of all the subsidies the rail companies allegedly get to fund their profits, how is he proposing to buy out the energy sector?
How much would it cost to buy all the shares of all the energy companies? Print that much money. Its easy. Then once you have the energy companies under your control just slash price charged to households where the main earner is not in an approved occupation to, say, 1p per unit. At a stroke you have solved fuel poverty and provided a massive stimulus to the economy which will result in humungous growth and massive wealth that can then be taxed and given to poor families.
This economics lark is so easy if only the levers of power are taken away from Tory plutocrats who seek nothing but to grind the faces of the poor in order that they can, well do something.
Hasta la Victoria siempre! ( but can you tell me where I can get bog roll on the black market as there's none in Caracas run by Jezza's mates because this price control lark turns out to have s few downsides).
The problems of supply of basic commodities in Venezuela are caused solely by CIA agents and their counter-revolutionary lackies. They have nothing to do with the governments policies being fundamentally flawed (except in that they probably have not shot enough intellectuals). For proof just look at how the Soviet Union managed to provide not only the basic staples but raised living standards far above those in the West. Dammit, they had to build a wall to prevent the poverty stricken West Germans rushing to the Democratic Sector.
P.S> Those who say Mercedes make fine cars have never driven a Trabant.
To be fair i don't see why being in the Cabinet/Shadow Cabinet should correlate with ability to make a speech. If it is even on the person spec, it's definitely a non-essential part. Being able to handle an interviewer and defend policy in the House of commons is about the limit of what is required outside of the basic job.
I think he is right in several respects. Firstly, in the current loony bin that is the Labour party this was indeed a brave speech. Secondly, she is right that Corbyn's answers are very old and unrealistic answers to the problems of several decades ago rather than today, let alone tomorrow. Thirdly, it is almost certainly too late.
But...I heard a good chunk of this speech on the radio. It reads quite well, not exactly Kinnock in 1985 but well enough. It's just that the presentation of it was absolutely awful. How do you get to be one of the most senior members of the Shadow Cabinet and not learn how to make a speech? She sounded glum, soulless, miserable and resigned. I am sure she is not all of these things (although she may well be some of them) but dear me.
What she said may the stuff of leadership as Dan claims. How she said it demonstrates her limitations as such a candidate.
What do you mean how did she get to be a senior member of the Shadow Cabinet without learning how to make a speech? She was used to be a member of the real cabinet, a government minister actually in charge of things, for goodness sake. How did she get that job? Well being married to Gordon Brown's best mate probably didn't hurt.
Yes but Ministers get help with their speeches and usually have something concrete to talk about which helps.
Purely political speeches are more difficult and require a range of tone and emotion that seems to be beyond her. It's unfortunate. I have always believed her to be the brightest of the candidates by some distance. She has just never learned how to speak to an audience of anything other than nodding dogs waiting for an obvious pause to add the sound effect of applause.
Cooper looks and speaks like a demented marionette on Newsnight. Makes Jezza seem credible. Nul points.
Because they would really struggle to explain it. No-one has really fully come to terms with what has happened within the Labour Party.
It is something that will take time to digest and to explain.
I know the BBC news/politics teams seem to love pointless speculation - but they would be floundering as much as anyone to deal with this properly. So silence is probably for the best.
Plus many won't want to upset the incoming regime by getting it wrong...
They could say something like "You know the problem the Republicans have with the Tea Party? Well this is like that, times ten".
I know this is difficult to believe but Polly Toynbee is being labelled a Tory by Corbynites for supporting Yvette Cooper.
Ah yes that well known Tory-lover, Polly Toynbee. FULL MOONBAT.
She is a Tory, she joined the SDP (and was a candidate) which stopped Michael Foot winning in 1983
Well. She is certainly a champagne socialist,... in the this is what I think others should do/ will be forced to do whilst I live it up in my Italian second home../my italian dacha
Its so reminiscent of post 1917 in Russia..
and that's why Polly is despised.. perhaps that's why the left has taken hold of the grass roots
How precisely does Corbyn propose to "nationalise the energy sector"? Whilst at least he can try to claim that nationalising the railways won't cost much/anything because of all the subsidies the rail companies allegedly get to fund their profits, how is he proposing to buy out the energy sector?
How much would it cost to buy all the shares of all the energy companies? Print that much money. Its easy. Then once you have the energy companies under your control just slash price charged to households where the main earner is not in an approved occupation to, say, 1p per unit. At a stroke you have solved fuel poverty and provided a massive stimulus to the economy which will result in humungous growth and massive wealth that can then be taxed and given to poor families.
This economics lark is so easy if only the levers of power are taken away from Tory plutocrats who seek nothing but to grind the faces of the poor in order that they can, well do something.
Hasta la Victoria siempre! ( but can you tell me where I can get bog roll on the black market as there's none in Caracas run by Jezza's mates because this price control lark turns out to have s few downsides).
The problems of supply of basic commodities in Venezuela are caused solely by CIA agents and their counter-revolutionary lackies. They have nothing to do with the governments policies being fundamentally flawed (except in that they probably have not shot enough intellectuals). For proof just look at how the Soviet Union managed to provide not only the basic staples but raised living standards far above those in the West. Dammit, they had to build a wall to prevent the poverty stricken West Germans rushing to the Democratic Sector.
P.S> Those who say Mercedes make fine cars have never driven a Trabant.
Well at least Jezza's Britain will solve the migrant crisis. The mayor of Calais will turn her police to face the other way ( and pay for them herself) as they face the tidal wave of people leaving the paradise of the People's Republic of Britain.
I still don't understand why Exeter is so left-wing. It baffles me and, visiting it, politically it doesn't "feel" right.
It's the only splotch of red in the whole of the south-west, and yet it's more affluent than Tory Plymouth. And it's in Devon, my favourite county, which is about as "undiverse", traditional, beautiful, rural, historical, and English, as you get these days.
Where do the Labour drones come from down there?
There's a Met Office in Exeter,
Full of climate change believers, who probably vote Labour
Scientists often seem to vote Labour in my experience.
Perhaps we should push a probe into their brains.
Scientists are less left-wing than other academics (but still well to the left of the electorate). Arts and social sciences are 90% + left wing.
Economists are much more balanced than that, in my opinion. Probably majority left-wing, but there's a lot of pro-free trade, anti-rent control ones out there.
I think he is right in several respects. Firstly, in the current loony bin that is the Labour party this was indeed a brave speech. Secondly, she is right that Corbyn's answers are very old and unrealistic answers to the problems of several decades ago rather than today, let alone tomorrow. Thirdly, it is almost certainly too late.
But...I heard a good chunk of this speech on the radio. It reads quite well, not exactly Kinnock in 1985 but well enough. It's just that the presentation of it was absolutely awful. How do you get to be one of the most senior members of the Shadow Cabinet and not learn how to make a speech? She sounded glum, soulless, miserable and resigned. I am sure she is not all of these things (although she may well be some of them) but dear me.
What she said may the stuff of leadership as Dan claims. How she said it demonstrates her limitations as such a candidate.
What do you mean how did she get to be a senior member of the Shadow Cabinet without learning how to make a speech? She was used to be a member of the real cabinet, a government minister actually in charge of things, for goodness sake. How did she get that job? Well being married to Gordon Brown's best mate probably didn't hurt.
Yes but Ministers get help with their speeches and usually have something concrete to talk about which helps.
Purely political speeches are more difficult and require a range of tone and emotion that seems to be beyond her. It's unfortunate. I have always believed her to be the brightest of the candidates by some distance. She has just never learned how to speak to an audience of anything other than nodding dogs waiting for an obvious pause to add the sound effect of applause.
Cooper looks and speaks like a demented marionette on Newsnight. Makes Jezza seem credible. Nul points.
Natural talent (like, say Boris) helps but these things are capable of being taught. Curiously I had an offer of CPD from a voice coach who is coming to the Faculty only today. It just seems an incredibly basic thing for an aspirational politician not to work on.
I think she has decided to go for this because if Corbyn wins she will leave the stage and she will not want to do that without knowing she had given it her best shot. Of course she is about a month late in coming to that conclusion.
Yvette sounded on the verge of tears at the end of that Newsnight interview...
Her political career is about to go off a cliff at 100 mph.
Having to cope on only one income must be a challenge for them. And only one set of allowances for them to exploit. How will their mortgage broker cope with the loss of trade with all their property flipping coming to an end?
I find it hard to find any sympathy for the Balls-Cooper clan
I can't imagine she's in a very happy position in general. Leaving aside opinions based on political allegiances, i think that her husband losing at the election must have hit her pretty hard. No doubt he is offering her every support in private, but it can't be easy when he has publicly announced that he has pretty much completely withdrawn from frontline politics.
I think he is right in several respects. Firstly, in the current loony bin that is the Labour party this was indeed a brave speech. Secondly, she is right that Corbyn's answers are very old and unrealistic answers to the problems of several decades ago rather than today, let alone tomorrow. Thirdly, it is almost certainly too late.
But...I heard a good chunk of this speech on the radio. It reads quite well, not exactly Kinnock in 1985 but well enough. It's just that the presentation of it was absolutely awful. How do you get to be one of the most senior members of the Shadow Cabinet and not learn how to make a speech? She sounded glum, soulless, miserable and resigned. I am sure she is not all of these things (although she may well be some of them) but dear me.
What she said may the stuff of leadership as Dan claims. How she said it demonstrates her limitations as such a candidate.
What do you mean how did she get to be a senior member of the Shadow Cabinet without learning how to make a speech? She was used to be a member of the real cabinet, a government minister actually in charge of things, for goodness sake. How did she get that job? Well being married to Gordon Brown's best mate probably didn't hurt.
Yes but Ministers get help with their speeches and usually have something concrete to talk about which helps.
Purely political speeches are more difficult and require a range of tone and emotion that seems to be beyond her. It's unfortunate. I have always believed her to be the brightest of the candidates by some distance. She has just never learned how to speak to an audience of anything other than nodding dogs waiting for an obvious pause to add the sound effect of applause.
Cooper looks and speaks like a demented marionette on Newsnight. Makes Jezza seem credible. Nul points.
Doc, anyone who remembered her public utterances over HIPs would know that Cooper was never, ever, leadership material let alone a potential PM.
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges Corbyn supporters now saying Andy Burnham is a Tory. I know personal attacks are counterproductive. But sod it. These people are lunatics.
I know this is difficult to believe but Polly Toynbee is being labelled a Tory by Corbynites for supporting Yvette Cooper.
Well, the Labour Party may be about to be led by an anti-Semite loving, terrorist appeasing, jam making, economically illiterate leftie but at least we can get a good laugh out of the problems it causes for other lefties.
I disagree with other posters who think the Tories should hold off attacking Corbyn. Au contraire: the first 100 days are crucial and his looniness and the evil groups he supports need to be firmly set in the public's mind. Then show up the contortions he gets into. For instance, not believing that Muslims in Kosovo were slaughtered by the Serbs (presumably because he wanted to be pro the fascist Serbs as the U.S. were against them) and trying to explain that to his Islamist friends for whom the very real (and utterly abhorrent) atrocities in Bosnia and Kosovo against Muslims were one of the way posts to radicalisation for some (conveniently forgetting, of course, that it was the U.S. - urged on in part by Elie Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor - which did the most to try and save Yugoslavia's Muslims). An old story, I know. And I'm probably the only person who cares about it. But I do care about not having the Labour Party led by a man who supported Serb fascists in their murderous campaign against European Muslims.
Incidentally, I see that BJO and TSE have been v naughty re La Kendall and La Jowell. Tut tut!
And in reply to @NickPalmer: I do not get my opinions of JC from what others have said about him but from what he himself has said, done and not said, done. That is one reason why I knew about his association with Raed Salah, a notorious and vile anti-Semite, and mentioned it a few threads back.
'How precisely does Corbyn propose to "nationalise the energy sector"?
Not a problem, as with his other solutions e.g infrastructure spending he's going to print the money.
His mate Ken said last night that Jeremy had come up with this brilliant new way of funding expenditure,if it was good enough for the banks etc.
Printing money, hyper inflation, anti semitism. It really is back to the 1930's. We even have the nonsensical attachment to the euro: the Gold Standard de nos jours.
I think he is right in several respects. Firstly, in the current loony bin that is the Labour party this was indeed a brave speech. Secondly, she is right that Corbyn's answers are very old and unrealistic answers to the problems of several decades ago rather than today, let alone tomorrow. Thirdly, it is almost certainly too late.
But...I heard a good chunk of this speech on the radio. It reads quite well, not exactly Kinnock in 1985 but well enough. It's just that the presentation of it was absolutely awful. How do you get to be one of the most senior members of the Shadow Cabinet and not learn how to make a speech? She sounded glum, soulless, miserable and resigned. I am sure she is not all of these things (although she may well be some of them) but dear me.
What she said may the stuff of leadership as Dan claims. How she said it demonstrates her limitations as such a candidate.
What do you mean how did she get to be a senior member of the Shadow Cabinet without learning how to make a speech? She was used to be a member of the real cabinet, a government minister actually in charge of things, for goodness sake. How did she get that job? Well being married to Gordon Brown's best mate probably didn't hurt.
Yes but Ministers get help with their speeches and usually have something concrete to talk about which helps.
Purely political speeches are more difficult and require a range of tone and emotion that seems to be beyond her. It's unfortunate. I have always believed her to be the brightest of the candidates by some distance. She has just never learned how to speak to an audience of anything other than nodding dogs waiting for an obvious pause to add the sound effect of applause.
Cooper looks and speaks like a demented marionette on Newsnight. Makes Jezza seem credible. Nul points.
I don't think its any secret that the remaining 3 leadership candidates were useless and over rated. But the same can be said of the entire shadow cabinet. The pond is small shallow polluted and leaking. The biggest of any of the fish is a minnow.
In terms of range of tone and voice etc - I'm afraid Angela Eagles was squeakingly unbearably appalling the other night on Newsnight.
How precisely does Corbyn propose to "nationalise the energy sector"? Whilst at least he can try to claim that nationalising the railways won't cost much/anything because of all the subsidies the rail companies allegedly get to fund their profits, how is he proposing to buy out the energy sector?
How much would it cost to buy all the shares of all the energy companies? Print that much money. Its easy. Then once you have the energy companies under your control just slash price charged to households where the main earner is not in an approved occupation to, say, 1p per unit. At a stroke you have solved fuel poverty and provided a massive stimulus to the economy which will result in humungous growth and massive wealth that can then be taxed and given to poor families.
This economics lark is so easy if only the levers of power are taken away from Tory plutocrats who seek nothing but to grind the faces of the poor in order that they can, well do something.
Not sure if satire
I guess that's what makes good satire? I was going to query how the UK was going to buy the energy to pass on to consumers for nothing, but then i remembered that Corbyn was pledging to reopen the coal mines. Maybe this is how he is going to sell immigration to the UK electorate - into the country and straight down the pits?
I thought he was against burning the coal. Where will it all go, then? Will we have slag heaps next to mining villages?
I think he is right in several respects. Firstly, in the current loony bin that is the Labour party this was indeed a brave speech. Secondly, she is right that Corbyn's answers are very old and unrealistic answers to the problems of several decades ago rather than today, let alone tomorrow. Thirdly, it is almost certainly too late.
But...I heard a good chunk of this speech on the radio. It reads quite well, not exactly Kinnock in 1985 but well enough. It's just that the presentation of it was absolutely awful. How do you get to be one of the most senior members of the Shadow Cabinet and not learn how to make a speech? She sounded glum, soulless, miserable and resigned. I am sure she is not all of these things (although she may well be some of them) but dear me.
What she said may the stuff of leadership as Dan claims. How she said it demonstrates her limitations as such a candidate.
What do you mean how did she get to be a senior member of the Shadow Cabinet without learning how to make a speech? She was used to be a member of the real cabinet, a government minister actually in charge of things, for goodness sake. How did she get that job? Well being married to Gordon Brown's best mate probably didn't hurt.
Yes but Ministers get help with their speeches and usually have something concrete to talk about which helps.
Purely political speeches are more difficult and require a range of tone and emotion that seems to be beyond her. It's unfortunate. I have always believed her to be the brightest of the candidates by some distance. She has just never learned how to speak to an audience of anything other than nodding dogs waiting for an obvious pause to add the sound effect of applause.
Cooper looks and speaks like a demented marionette on Newsnight. Makes Jezza seem credible. Nul points.
I don't think its any secret that the remaining 3 leadership candidates were useless and over rated.
In terms of range of tone and voice etc - I'm afraid Angela Eagles was squeakingly unbearably appalling the other night on Newsnight.
Stella Creasy is the best of the bunch for deputy. Tom Watson makes my skin crawl. Simply seeing his smug fat face makes me feel unclean. It looks as if Dave Spart is going to have the Noncefinder General as the Beria to his Stalin*
*though I think Jezza is more Trotsky than Stalin. Watchout for that icepick!
I think he is right in several respects. Firstly, in the current loony bin that is the Labour party this was indeed a brave speech. Secondly, she is right that Corbyn's answers are very old and unrealistic answers to the problems of several decades ago rather than today, let alone tomorrow. Thirdly, it is almost certainly too late.
But...I heard a good chunk of this speech on the radio. It reads quite well, not exactly Kinnock in 1985 but well enough. It's just that the presentation of it was absolutely awful. How do you get to be one of the most senior members of the Shadow Cabinet and not learn how to make a speech? She sounded glum, soulless, miserable and resigned. I am sure she is not all of these things (although she may well be some of them) but dear me.
What she said may the stuff of leadership as Dan claims. How she said it demonstrates her limitations as such a candidate.
What do you mean how did she get to be a senior member of the Shadow Cabinet without learning how to make a speech? She was used to be a member of the real cabinet, a government minister actually in charge of things, for goodness sake. How did she get that job? Well being married to Gordon Brown's best mate probably didn't hurt.
Yes but Ministers get help with their speeches and usually have something concrete to talk about which helps.
Purely political speeches are more difficult and require a range of tone and emotion that seems to be beyond her. It's unfortunate. I have always believed her to be the brightest of the candidates by some distance. She has just never learned how to speak to an audience of anything other than nodding dogs waiting for an obvious pause to add the sound effect of applause.
Cooper looks and speaks like a demented marionette on Newsnight. Makes Jezza seem credible. Nul points.
Doc, anyone who remembered her public utterances over HIPs would know that Cooper was never, ever, leadership material let alone a potential PM.
Imagine the sheer awfulness of her somehow winning. I feel sorry for Labour.
Does anyone get why Frank Field is one of Corbyn's backers? Or are there two Frank Fields in the Labour Party?
Mr Field thought it was important that Corbyn's brand of left-wing views were represented in the leadership contest. He did state that he does not agree with Corbyn's views.
How precisely does Corbyn propose to "nationalise the energy sector"? Whilst at least he can try to claim that nationalising the railways won't cost much/anything because of all the subsidies the rail companies allegedly get to fund their profits, how is he proposing to buy out the energy sector?
Nationalisation is relatively easy. You can pay the market price for the shares, or compel the current owners to hand them over in return for some kind of bond. The debate is whether or not it is a good idea. If it stops my concentration being interrupted by people ringing me up offering to give me a better deal on my electricity bill every half hour when I am trying to work I'll be in favour of it. More importantly, there was talk about possible power cuts coming because the private energy companies haven't invested enough in generating capacity a couple of years back. If we want to keep our levels of productivity high enough to continue functioning as a first world country we might need to be considering whether we can afford not to nationalise energy.
Prof Paul Whitely, from the University of Essex, has been researching the demographic makeup of party membership since 1992 and most recently he has investigated norms in political opinion.
"We've been conducting surveys since 2013. The assumption in Westminster is parties need to be close together in the 'centre ground', but that is not what drives elections.
"Voters are not asking themselves, 'Where is Jeremy Corbyn on the left-right dimension?' They're asking themselves: 'Is this guy saying something which is new which might help me and deal with the problems that Britain faces?'
"The thing about Jeremy Corbyn, whether you agree or disagree with him, is that he has a new narrative and I think that's what's exciting people."
Something that surprises me about the Labour leadership election..... There have been lots of polls in the US showing opinion on the various possible Democratic Candidate versus Republican candidate matchups. (Clinton v Bush, Clinton v Trump, etc)
Has anyone seen any equivalent polling on the relative strengths of the four Labour candidates versus the Tories? e.g. asking the public as a whole which one might make them more likely to vote Labour?
Yes, a yougov poll from 3 weeks ago. Burnham is at -2. Corbyn at -2. Kendall at -3. Cooper at -6.
They all make people less likely to vote Labour net.
Thanks Speedy. Depressing reading for all four contenders, really.
Though Corbyn has a net positive in Scotland. Of other potential contendors polled who are not running Alan Johnson and David Miliband had positive ratings overall and were ahead of all 4 contendors running
Prof Paul Whitely, from the University of Essex, has been researching the demographic makeup of party membership since 1992 and most recently he has investigated norms in political opinion.
"We've been conducting surveys since 2013. The assumption in Westminster is parties need to be close together in the 'centre ground', but that is not what drives elections.
"Voters are not asking themselves, 'Where is Jeremy Corbyn on the left-right dimension?' They're asking themselves: 'Is this guy saying something which is new which might help me and deal with the problems that Britain faces?'
"The thing about Jeremy Corbyn, whether you agree or disagree with him, is that he has a new narrative and I think that's what's exciting people."
Prof Paul Whitely, from the University of Essex, has been researching the demographic makeup of party membership since 1992 and most recently he has investigated norms in political opinion. "We've been conducting surveys since 2013. The assumption in Westminster is parties need to be close together in the 'centre ground', but that is not what drives elections. "Voters are not asking themselves, 'Where is Jeremy Corbyn on the left-right dimension?' They're asking themselves: 'Is this guy saying something which is new which might help me and deal with the problems that Britain faces?' "The thing about Jeremy Corbyn, whether you agree or disagree with him, is that he has a new narrative and I think that's what's exciting people."
This is fascinating stuff and must be a source of optimism for Corbyites and of course all the rest the Labour Party. Whitely has been doing this stuff for a long time as this piece from The Guardian optimistically reported in Feb2015 ''The Labour Party will narrowly win more seats than the Conservatives – and the Liberal Democrats will be saved from wipe out by the first-past-the-post system, according to a new electoral forecast by Prof Paul Whiteley at the University of Essex, co-director of the British Election Study from 2001 to 2012.''
Something that surprises me about the Labour leadership election..... There have been lots of polls in the US showing opinion on the various possible Democratic Candidate versus Republican candidate matchups. (Clinton v Bush, Clinton v Trump, etc)
Has anyone seen any equivalent polling on the relative strengths of the four Labour candidates versus the Tories? e.g. asking the public as a whole which one might make them more likely to vote Labour?
Yes, a yougov poll from 3 weeks ago. Burnham is at -2. Corbyn at -2. Kendall at -3. Cooper at -6.
They all make people less likely to vote Labour net.
Thanks Speedy. Depressing reading for all four contenders, really.
Though Corbyn has a net positive in Scotland. Of other potential contendors polled who are not running Alan Johnson and David Miliband had positive ratings overall and were ahead of all 4 contendors running
Apparently he's been making comments about opposing Scotland utilising the new tax powers they have been given, and strongly opposing any transfers of business taxation (of course he wants to use business taxation to fund a lot of his schemes and doesn't like the idea of being undercut by Scotland - although why being undercut by other countries isn't a problem for him isn't clear). SNP are "seeking clarification"...
Prof Paul Whitely, from the University of Essex, has been researching the demographic makeup of party membership since 1992 and most recently he has investigated norms in political opinion. "We've been conducting surveys since 2013. The assumption in Westminster is parties need to be close together in the 'centre ground', but that is not what drives elections. "Voters are not asking themselves, 'Where is Jeremy Corbyn on the left-right dimension?' They're asking themselves: 'Is this guy saying something which is new which might help me and deal with the problems that Britain faces?' "The thing about Jeremy Corbyn, whether you agree or disagree with him, is that he has a new narrative and I think that's what's exciting people."
This is fascinating stuff and must be a source of optimism for Corbyites and of course all the rest the Labour Party. Whitely has been doing this stuff for a long time as this piece from The Guardian optimistically reported in Feb2015 ''The Labour Party will narrowly win more seats than the Conservatives – and the Liberal Democrats will be saved from wipe out by the first-past-the-post system, according to a new electoral forecast by Prof Paul Whiteley at the University of Essex, co-director of the British Election Study from 2001 to 2012.''
Whiteley does seem to be a bit of a cockeyed-optimist, doesn't he?!
Comments
Is that what the mayor wants?
Whilst waiting for the by-election results have a look at this, no wonder Fox News surrendered to Trump, Trump's entire political movements so far can be deciphered by this crazy stuff he did at Wrestlemania, this is essentially his entire political campaign in a 4 minute video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ1L013k5Hw
If the tunnel was closed, the collective whining from Parisien commuters denied their preferred method of transport to London would soon jolt the French government into taking firmer and immediate action.
Also the country needs a functioning realistic opposition to scrutinise Govt. We really need that. What we have is an opposition that has formed a circle and opened fire. It's not good for any of us.
"Over the past few months, I've been taking a keen interest in the Labour leadership battle. While I'm a member of the Green Party, I've been very impressed by Jeremy Corbyn – lots of what he says resonates with me and I would love to see him become the new Labour leader and drag the party back to the left.
I don't buy this argument put forward by Tony Blair and others that Corbyn would make the party unelectable; in actual fact, it's a bit of a non-argument for me.
Some people might think I'm young and idealistic, but for me politics should be less about winning at all costs and more about principles and standing up for what you believe in.
As someone who's opposed to inequality, anti-austerity and pro-environment, I like what Corbyn stands for and if, as seems likely, he becomes the party's new leader I might even contemplate voting Labour."
http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/David-Wheeler-column-s-great-90-minutes-Exeter/story-27595829-detail/story.html
Brilliantly Monty Python-esque absurd, but absurd nonetheless.
Updated YouGov/Times poll has Corbyn now polling 57%
To paraphrase Ross Perot:
There is a giant sucking sound going straight to Corbyn.
Of course they have to remember to do it 3 times.
:-)
There are millions of people in the population who would not dream of casting a vote for Corbyn (except to destroy the Labour Party). But they have not been targeted at all.
American politics is a TV show of it's own, and Trump can entertain the voters by the thousands.
And with that goodnight.
This economics lark is so easy if only the levers of power are taken away from Tory plutocrats who seek nothing but to grind the faces of the poor in order that they can, well do something.
I think he is right in several respects. Firstly, in the current loony bin that is the Labour party this was indeed a brave speech. Secondly, she is right that Corbyn's answers are very old and unrealistic answers to the problems of several decades ago rather than today, let alone tomorrow. Thirdly, it is almost certainly too late.
But...I heard a good chunk of this speech on the radio. It reads quite well, not exactly Kinnock in 1985 but well enough. It's just that the presentation of it was absolutely awful. How do you get to be one of the most senior members of the Shadow Cabinet and not learn how to make a speech? She sounded glum, soulless, miserable and resigned. I am sure she is not all of these things (although she may well be some of them) but dear me.
What she said may the stuff of leadership as Dan claims. How she said it demonstrates her limitations as such a candidate.
It's a shame that in their blindness the BBC is missing explaining the biggest political story of the year.
Remember what happened at the GE?
This time it is blindingly obvious that people who pay £45 per year to be members are far, far, far more likely to vote than someone who just said "Yes" on the phone when asked by their union if they wanted to be an affiliate.
Back of envelope turnout calculation:
Members = 300,000 @ 90% = 270,000
Affiliates = 200,000 @ 60% = 120,000
£3 Supporters = 110,000 @ 85% = 93,500
Total votes cast = 483,500
If the above is anything like right the affiliates won't play that big a role.
It is something that will take time to digest and to explain.
I know the BBC news/politics teams seem to love pointless speculation - but they would be floundering as much as anyone to deal with this properly. So silence is probably for the best.
Plus many won't want to upset the incoming regime by getting it wrong...
Anyone not voting for Corbyn will be declared invalid as they are obviously Tories.
YC at 11s - get in.
Purely political speeches are more difficult and require a range of tone and emotion that seems to be beyond her. It's unfortunate. I have always believed her to be the brightest of the candidates by some distance. She has just never learned how to speak to an audience of anything other than nodding dogs waiting for an obvious pause to add the sound effect of applause.
P.S> Those who say Mercedes make fine cars have never driven a Trabant.
I was down in Doraville today - I suspect your old school has changed a little......
http://www.dunwoodyhs.dekalb.k12.ga.us/
Well. She is certainly a champagne socialist,... in the this is what I think others should do/ will be forced to do whilst I live it up in my Italian second home../my italian dacha
Its so reminiscent of post 1917 in Russia..
and that's why Polly is despised.. perhaps that's why the left has taken hold of the grass roots
LOL
I think she has decided to go for this because if Corbyn wins she will leave the stage and she will not want to do that without knowing she had given it her best shot. Of course she is about a month late in coming to that conclusion.
Perhaps she could re-enact the end of 'Thelma and Louise' with Kendall, special guest star Burnham in the back of the car touching up his makeup.
I find it hard to find any sympathy for the Balls-Cooper clan
'How precisely does Corbyn propose to "nationalise the energy sector"?
Not a problem, as with his other solutions e.g infrastructure spending he's going to print the money.
His mate Ken said last night that Jeremy had come up with this brilliant new way of funding expenditure,if it was good enough for the banks etc.
I disagree with other posters who think the Tories should hold off attacking Corbyn. Au contraire: the first 100 days are crucial and his looniness and the evil groups he supports need to be firmly set in the public's mind. Then show up the contortions he gets into. For instance, not believing that Muslims in Kosovo were slaughtered by the Serbs (presumably because he wanted to be pro the fascist Serbs as the U.S. were against them) and trying to explain that to his Islamist friends for whom the very real (and utterly abhorrent) atrocities in Bosnia and Kosovo against Muslims were one of the way posts to radicalisation for some (conveniently forgetting, of course, that it was the U.S. - urged on in part by Elie Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor - which did the most to try and save Yugoslavia's Muslims). An old story, I know. And I'm probably the only person who cares about it. But I do care about not having the Labour Party led by a man who supported Serb fascists in their murderous campaign against European Muslims.
Incidentally, I see that BJO and TSE have been v naughty re La Kendall and La Jowell. Tut tut!
And in reply to @NickPalmer: I do not get my opinions of JC from what others have said about him but from what he himself has said, done and not said, done. That is one reason why I knew about his association with Raed Salah, a notorious and vile anti-Semite, and mentioned it a few threads back.
Guardian: endorsing Cooper.
Corbyn = happy.
In terms of range of tone and voice etc - I'm afraid Angela Eagles was squeakingly unbearably appalling the other night on Newsnight.
Crosskeys (Caerphilly) vote result:
LAB - 354 - 50.6% (-4.3)
PC - 179 - 25.6% (+12.9)
UKIP - 166 - 23.7% (+23.7)
No independent standing
I like the idea of the Greens winning the one in Nuneaton as well - they're the future, clearly!
*though I think Jezza is more Trotsky than Stalin. Watchout for that icepick!
Conservative GAIN Pinhoe (Exeter) from Labour.
Britain Elects @britainelects 3m3 minutes ago
Conservative HOLD Nuneaton Whitestone (Warwickshire).
Pinhoe (Exeter) result:
CON - 42.3% (+7.7)
LAB - 42.0% (-5.7)
UKIP - 8.0% (-3.2)
LDEM - 3.5% (+0.3)
GRN - 3.5% (+0.3)
IND - 0.6% (+0.6)
Corbyn doesn't have a new narrative. Not wearing a tie doesn't make you different.
He is a consistent old-fashioned metropolitan leftie - there is absolutely nothing new in what he is saying.
Playing to the gallery isn't exciting.
This is fascinating stuff and must be a source of optimism for Corbyites and of course all the rest the Labour Party.
Whitely has been doing this stuff for a long time as this piece from The Guardian optimistically reported in Feb2015
''The Labour Party will narrowly win more seats than the Conservatives – and the Liberal Democrats will be saved from wipe out by the first-past-the-post system, according to a new electoral forecast by Prof Paul Whiteley at the University of Essex, co-director of the British Election Study from 2001 to 2012.''
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-192597/Britain-winter-power-cut.html
So Corbyn could be Donald Trump, if he had the money?
Whitely has been doing this stuff for a long time as this piece from The Guardian optimistically reported in Feb2015
''The Labour Party will narrowly win more seats than the Conservatives – and the Liberal Democrats will be saved from wipe out by the first-past-the-post system, according to a new electoral forecast by Prof Paul Whiteley at the University of Essex, co-director of the British Election Study from 2001 to 2012.''
Whiteley does seem to be a bit of a cockeyed-optimist, doesn't he?!