So basically the supposed scandal is that Corbyn has met some unpleasant people in the course of meeting thousands of people whilst campaigning for the rights of a horribly oppressed people, who just happen to be being oppressed by a close friend of much of the UK establishment. And this is basically all they have on the guy. I don't think this is going to wash with the 70% of the UK who have a negative opinion of Israel (I'd say it's quite likely the remaining 30% are closely correlated with Tory supporters anyway, given their historical approval of racist, oppressive regimes)
No, the fact he's met them is not the supposed scandal. The fact that he calls them his friends and honoured citizens is. You have been told this a dozen times, and you keep on pretending the criticism is something it isn't. It is dishonest, albeit no more dishonest than Corbyn himself.
Just looking at the content of what the New Statesman has said, I can't quite see the logic in their thinking.
They are essentially saying that she deserves to come second so that she is ready to take over when Corbyn fails. But why on earth would Labour vote for her after rejecting her the first time round?
If she wasn't good enough to beat Corbyn, she isn't good enough to lead the party. Simple as that.
The post-Corbyn leader will be coming from a completely new generation - not one of those who has failed this time round.
The immediate post Corbyn leader would be Margaret Beckett or Alan Johnson as Howard succeeded IDS
Surely the immediate post-Corbyn leader will be the Deputy to be elected alongside him...
Tom Watson for Labour Leader... now there's a thought.
Not if the replacement is unopposed
What about a new unity candidate to step in after Corbyn is forced out from the mounting piles of smelly stuff?
Step forward Alan Johnson. Would save Labour and get the party to 2020 without massive splits.
Indeed, and, bar David Miliband, yougov had Johnson polling better than all the candidates in this leadership race, not just Corbyn
Johnson is a nice guy. I've read, and greatly enjoyed, his autobiographical volumes. It's clear from those that he just sort of wandered in to politics, has no really clear thinking, and broadly just echoes the ideas of his friends. He's pretty much said that himself.
No, wrong. The only acceptable alternative leader pre-election would have to be experienced, a former Cabinet Minister and respected across the party, not the noncefinder general who spent his early years undermining Blair. Beckett and Johnson have been loyal to every Labour leader and would likely even be loyal to Corbyn AFTER the leadership election. I have also never heard anyone call Alan Johnson a traitor.
And before today, I had never heard of anyone accusing Michael Howard of briefing against Iain Duncan Smith. I think that probably reflects the different circles we move in.
To put it at its simplest - do you really think a 72 year old who was promoted to the Foreign Office solely as an emergency stop gap after two other more senior ministers had refused it, whose ministerial career was one of pretty much unmitigated disaster and ended nearly ten years ago, who is not really respected (let's be honest) by the MPs left in Labour and has agreed that she and other nominators of Corbyn are 'morons' is a stronger candidate than the man more than a quarter of the PLP has nominated to be deputy leader and who will be a key figure in the shadow cabinet, win or lose?
Yes, he's loathsome. Yes, he's incompetent. Yes, he's controversial. But he's still the likeliest emergency stop-gap figure. Perhaps Labour would be sensible to find an elder statesman(/woman) to fill in. But there isn't one who could do it. Therefore, Watson is the value bet.
Labour would need a uniter not a divider, which would be why Alan Johnson would be better than both, but if not him then Beckett is the only viable alternative who could run unopposed (and the nature of their election would require a coronation, as Howard was crowned). Watson is too much of a serial plotter not to face a challenge
I listened to Jezza's interview on R4 today. He didn't really answer any of the questions and was irritated to be reminded of the question. A
Well that's pretty standard behaviour in fairness. Was it any worse than Lucy Powell and Chuka Umunna types, who act that way all the time in inteviews? I presume it's a reaction against the trend of overly aggressive interviewers, but the newer breed seem to overcompensate.
He also uses the "innocent by association" defence. So apparently the fact that his mother was against the Mosleyites in the 1930's is his answer to the questions raised about his friendships with Islamist extremists now. It's an evasive and dishonest answer to a legitimate question. If he really believed that he was doing something worthwhile by meeting with and inviting these Islamist extremists to Parliament then he should be willing to say what he was doing, why and why he thought and thinks it a good thing.
But he doesn't: he claims not to know them then when that is untenable comes out with rubbish like " he didn't say anything anti-semitic to me" or plays the "my parents were anti-fascists" card. It's evidence of someone who didn't think through properly what he was doing at the time or didn't care and now realises (or rather his office does) that there is a mismatch between the values he claims to believe in and his actions.
There's no new politics about him. He's just another politician trying to avoid difficult questions. I dare say you could find obscure Tory Monday Club MPs talking equally offensive and evasive rubbish in response to questions about their support for white supremacists in Africa.
The Mosleyite defence reminds me of Diane Abbott's argument that she wasn't racist against white people because she has defended black people from racism. No-one doubts that Corbyn hates right wing extremists. The problem is that he sympathises with left wing extremists.
"And it is legitimate for others to comment on the view that he takes. After all, presumably his chairmanship of Stop the War is a key part of the new politics which he has been proclaiming."
It is highly legitimate and his inability to answer questions on these matters in interviews with C4 News previously, and on WATO today, raise grave concerns about not only the company he keeps but his suitability for the role he seeks to fill.
Unfortunately, the people who will be voting for him couldn't give a toss.
He has a vision you see.
If he is elected, at some point there will be one of those surveys of how Labour is perceived by voters and Labour people will express astonishment and pain when it turns out that people think that Labour is too close to terrorists and extremists and they will wonder how this could be, much as they wonder now at being seen on the side of the workshy, and there will be a great cry from some of us saying "We told you, you f**king fools!"
Am I the only PBer who's voted Lab, Con, LD, Green, Independent Mayoral Candidate and UKIP? (though not all at once, obviously!)
If there was any correlation between these votes (say, 'rational thinking') then perhaps not. Otherwise then given that PB is a relatively small community then probably yes.
Just looking at the content of what the New Statesman has said, I can't quite see the logic in their thinking.
They are essentially saying that she deserves to come second so that she is ready to take over when Corbyn fails. But why on earth would Labour vote for her after rejecting her the first time round?
If she wasn't good enough to beat Corbyn, she isn't good enough to lead the party. Simple as that.
The post-Corbyn leader will be coming from a completely new generation - not one of those who has failed this time round.
The immediate post Corbyn leader would be Margaret Beckett or Alan Johnson as Howard succeeded IDS
Surely the immediate post-Corbyn leader will be the Deputy to be elected alongside him...
Tom Watson for Labour Leader... now there's a thought.
Not if the replacement is unopposed
What about a new unity candidate to step in after Corbyn is forced out from the mounting piles of smelly stuff?
Step forward Alan Johnson. Would save Labour and get the party to 2020 without massive splits.
Indeed, and, bar David Miliband, yougov had Johnson polling better than all the candidates in this leadership race, not just Corbyn
Johnson is a nice guy. I've read, and greatly enjoyed, his autobiographical volumes. It's clear from those that he just sort of wandered in to politics, has no really clear thinking, and broadly just echoes the ideas of his friends. He's pretty much said that himself.
Johnson certainly didnt have his eye on the road while at Health. His timeline over Stafford and privatisation is not a good one. A leader needs a bit more than just charm.
Labour would need a uniter not a divider, which would be why Alan Johnson would be better than both, but if not him then Beckett is the only viable alternative who could run unopposed (and the nature of their election would require a coronation, as Howard was crowned). Watson is too much of a serial plotter not to face a challenge
Looks as though we're never going to agree on this. But if you are correct, then should Corbyn win and live until 2020, then he will be Labour leader at the next election. Because essentially, you are saying there are no alternatives who could be put forward in an emergency. The only other one who might be able to command support in such an emergency that we haven't discussed is Cruddas, and he could hardly have been clearer in his lack of desire for a top job.
However, there is one other person who will surely be very senior in a Corbyn shadow cabinet who might just be worth keeping an eye on if the Labour party genuinely does pivot to the far left and Corbyn is ousted. I know he's got very long odds (the same as Blair and Owen Jones) and certainly he's a weaker candidate than Watson, but don't altogether rule out John Trickett as a potential leader.
So basically the supposed scandal is that Corbyn has met some unpleasant people in the course of meeting thousands of people whilst campaigning for the rights of a horribly oppressed people, who just happen to be being oppressed by a close friend of much of the UK establishment. And this is basically all they have on the guy. I don't think this is going to wash with the 70% of the UK who have a negative opinion of Israel (I'd say it's quite likely the remaining 30% are closely correlated with Tory supporters anyway, given their historical approval of racist, oppressive regimes)
No, the fact he's met them is not the supposed scandal. The fact that he calls them his friends and honoured citizens is. You have been told this a dozen times, and you keep on pretending the criticism is something it isn't. It is dishonest, albeit no more dishonest than Corbyn himself.
It's no use JEO. As Gore Vidal once said, even the stupid have the right to be represented. The dishonest too. (I assume Wisemann is over 18, though it's hard to tell, sometimes.)
I've voted Tory in election I've been eligible to vote in, except for one council election back in the early 2000s, when the Tory candidate was complete bell end (think Brian Coleman or Kerry Smith without the charm or intelligence), so I voted Labour
Although there would be plenty of humour value in a Corbyn win, I have to admit given the seeming inevitability of his victory now and the bile being flung around, it would probably be funnier now if he doesn't win. All those people on twitter and packing in to halls, hoping of a true return to the left, stunned rigid that, once again, the actual vote had gone against them, that just because they get excited does not mean other people will vote the same way. Of course, even if he does come second, realistically that would be a very good result compared to where everyone thought he'd finish, but they've allowed themselves to dream, and then become super arrogant in record time, so it would hit hard.
No, wrong. The only acceptable alternative leader pre-election would have to be experienced, a former Cabinet Minister and respected across the party, not the noncefinder general who spent his early years undermining Blair. Beckett and Johnson have been loyal to every Labour leader and would likely even be loyal to Corbyn AFTER the leadership election. I have also never heard anyone call Alan Johnson a traitor.
And before today, I had never heard of anyone accusing Michael Howard of briefing against Iain Duncan Smith. I think that probably reflects the different circles we move in.
To put it at its simplest - do you really think a 72 year old who was promoted to the Foreign Office solely as an emergency stop gap after two other more senior ministers had refused it, whose ministerial career was one of pretty much unmitigated disaster and ended nearly ten years ago, who is not really respected (let's be honest) by the MPs left in Labour and has agreed that she and other nominators of Corbyn are 'morons' is a stronger candidate than the man more than a quarter of the PLP has nominated to be deputy leader and who will be a key figure in the shadow cabinet, win or lose?
Yes, he's loathsome. Yes, he's incompetent. Yes, he's controversial. But he's still the likeliest emergency stop-gap figure. Perhaps Labour would be sensible to find an elder statesman(/woman) to fill in. But there isn't one who could do it. Therefore, Watson is the value bet.
Labour would need a uniter not a divider, which would be why Alan Johnson would be better than both, but if not him then Beckett is the only viable alternative who could run unopposed (and the nature of their election would require a coronation, as Howard was crowned). Watson is too much of a serial plotter not to face a challenge
While there has been much about Corbyn being a disaster, Watson would be worse. Corbyn will be exposed as at best a "holy fool", but Watson is a poisonous plotter, and not a particularly competent one. With TW undermining Corbyn from the start the noose is tightening on Labours neck.
Labour would need a uniter not a divider, which would be why Alan Johnson would be better than both, but if not him then Beckett is the only viable alternative who could run unopposed (and the nature of their election would require a coronation, as Howard was crowned). Watson is too much of a serial plotter not to face a challenge
Looks as though we're never going to agree on this. But if you are correct, then should Corbyn win and live until 2020, then he will be Labour leader at the next election. Because essentially, you are saying there are no alternatives who could be put forward in an emergency. The only other one who might be able to command support in such an emergency that we haven't discussed is Cruddas, and he could hardly have been clearer in his lack of desire for a top job.
However, there is one other person who will surely be very senior in a Corbyn shadow cabinet who might just be worth keeping an eye on if the Labour party genuinely does pivot to the far left and Corbyn is ousted. I know he's got very long odds (the same as Blair and Owen Jones) and certainly he's a weaker candidate than Watson, but don't altogether rule out John Trickett as a potential leader.
Cruddas is perhaps another alternative, but he does not have the experience of the other 2. In any case they would have to have 2/3 of MPs nominating them against Corbyn as a minimum so would in effect have to take the leadership. It would, of course, only be put into operation if Corbyn was clearly trailing in the polls by 2017/18, perhaps triggered by a bad by-election like Brent East toppled IDS. If Corbyn is competitive then he stays. Even a political junkie like me has barely heard of John Trickett so he is not really a runner either, it would have to be a well known figure
Can you imagine if the favourite for the Tory leadership had been caught lobbying the Home Secretary on behalf of a neo-Nazi? IT would lead all the bulletins. The television media is hopelessly biased to the left.
Labour would need a uniter not a divider, which would be why Alan Johnson would be better than both, but if not him then Beckett is the only viable alternative who could run unopposed (and the nature of their election would require a coronation, as Howard was crowned). Watson is too much of a serial plotter not to face a challenge
Looks as though we're never going to agree on this. But if you are correct, then should Corbyn win and live until 2020, then he will be Labour leader at the next election. Because essentially, you are saying there are no alternatives who could be put forward in an emergency. The only other one who might be able to command support in such an emergency that we haven't discussed is Cruddas, and he could hardly have been clearer in his lack of desire for a top job.
However, there is one other person who will surely be very senior in a Corbyn shadow cabinet who might just be worth keeping an eye on if the Labour party genuinely does pivot to the far left and Corbyn is ousted. I know he's got very long odds (the same as Blair and Owen Jones) and certainly he's a weaker candidate than Watson, but don't altogether rule out John Trickett as a potential leader.
Cruddas is perhaps another alternative, but he does not have the experience of the other 2. In any case they would have to have 2/3 of MPs nominating them against Corbyn as a minimum so would in effect have to take the leadership. It would, of course, only be put into operation if Corbyn was clearly trailing in the polls by 2017/18, perhaps triggered by a bad by-election like Brent East toppled IDS. If Corbyn is competitive then he stays. Even a political junkie like me has barely heard of John Trickett so he is not really a runner either, it would have to be a well known figure
Can you imagine if the favourite for the Tory leadership had been caught lobbying the Home Secretary on behalf of a neo-Nazi? IT would lead all the bulletins. The television media is hopelessly biased to the left.
Much better the public become aware of it during the 2020 election.
The issue isn't now so much who this guy is, but Corbyn is either a liar or has a crap memory.
But I'm sure J Not very wise man will be along to tell us differently
Labour would need a uniter not a divider, which would be why Alan Johnson would be better than both, but if not him then Beckett is the only viable alternative who could run unopposed (and the nature of their election would require a coronation, as Howard was crowned). Watson is too much of a serial plotter not to face a challenge
Looks as though we're never going to agree on this. But if you are correct, then should Corbyn win and live until 2020, then he will be Labour leader at the next election. Because essentially, you are saying there are no alternatives who could be put forward in an emergency. The only other one who might be able to command support in such an emergency that we haven't discussed is Cruddas, and he could hardly have been clearer in his lack of desire for a top job.
However, there is one other person who will surely be very senior in a Corbyn shadow cabinet who might just be worth keeping an eye on if the Labour party genuinely does pivot to the far left and Corbyn is ousted. I know he's got very long odds (the same as Blair and Owen Jones) and certainly he's a weaker candidate than Watson, but don't altogether rule out John Trickett as a potential leader.
Cruddas is perhaps another alternative, but he does not have the experience of the other 2. In any case they would have to have 2/3 of MPs nominating them against Corbyn as a minimum so would in effect have to take the leadership. It would, of course, only be put into operation if Corbyn was clearly trailing in the polls by 2017/18, perhaps triggered by a bad by-election like Brent East toppled IDS. If Corbyn is competitive then he stays. Even a political junkie like me has barely heard of John Trickett so he is not really a runner either, it would have to be a well known figure
The Lib Dems came from a very distant third, to gain the seat.
Labour would need a uniter not a divider, which would be why Alan Johnson would be better than both, but if not him then Beckett is the only viable alternative who could run unopposed (and the nature of their election would require a coronation, as Howard was crowned). Watson is too much of a serial plotter not to face a challenge
Looks as though we're never going to agree on this. But if you are correct, then should Corbyn win and live until 2020, then he will be Labour leader at the next election. Because essentially, you are saying there are no alternatives who could be put forward in an emergency. The only other one who might be able to command support in such an emergency that we haven't discussed is Cruddas, and he could hardly have been clearer in his lack of desire for a top job.
However, there is one other person who will surely be very senior in a Corbyn shadow cabinet who might just be worth keeping an eye on if the Labour party genuinely does pivot to the far left and Corbyn is ousted. I know he's got very long odds (the same as Blair and Owen Jones) and certainly he's a weaker candidate than Watson, but don't altogether rule out John Trickett as a potential leader.
Cruddas is perhaps another alternative, but he does not have the experience of the other 2. In any case they would have to have 2/3 of MPs nominating them against Corbyn as a minimum so would in effect have to take the leadership. It would, of course, only be put into operation if Corbyn was clearly trailing in the polls by 2017/18, perhaps triggered by a bad by-election like Brent East toppled IDS. If Corbyn is competitive then he stays. Even a political junkie like me has barely heard of John Trickett so he is not really a runner either, it would have to be a well known figure
Sarah Teather won for the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives came a very poor, very embarrassing third in a seat where they had consistently come second - just before the party conference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_East_by-election,_2003
Labour would need a uniter not a divider, which would be why Alan Johnson would be better than both, but if not him then Beckett is the only viable alternative who could run unopposed (and the nature of their election would require a coronation, as Howard was crowned). Watson is too much of a serial plotter not to face a challenge
Looks as though we're never going to agree on this. But if you are correct, then should Corbyn win and live until 2020, then he will be Labour leader at the next election. Because essentially, you are saying there are no alternatives who could be put forward in an emergency. The only other one who might be able to command support in such an emergency that we haven't discussed is Cruddas, and he could hardly have been clearer in his lack of desire for a top job.
However, there is one other person who will surely be very senior in a Corbyn shadow cabinet who might just be worth keeping an eye on if the Labour party genuinely does pivot to the far left and Corbyn is ousted. I know he's got very long odds (the same as Blair and Owen Jones) and certainly he's a weaker candidate than Watson, but don't altogether rule out John Trickett as a potential leader.
Cruddas is perhaps another alternative, but he does not have the experience of the other 2. In any case they would have to have 2/3 of MPs nominating them against Corbyn as a minimum so would in effect have to take the leadership. It would, of course, only be put into operation if Corbyn was clearly trailing in the polls by 2017/18, perhaps triggered by a bad by-election like Brent East toppled IDS. If Corbyn is competitive then he stays. Even a political junkie like me has barely heard of John Trickett so he is not really a runner either, it would have to be a well known figure
Sarah Teather won for the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives came a very poor, very embarrassing third in a seat where they had consistently come second - just before the party conference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_East_by-election,_2003
Cruddas is perhaps another alternative, but he does not have the experience of the other 2. In any case they would have to have 2/3 of MPs nominating them against Corbyn as a minimum so would in effect have to take the leadership. It would, of course, only be put into operation if Corbyn was clearly trailing in the polls by 2017/18, perhaps triggered by a bad by-election like Brent East toppled IDS. If Corbyn is competitive then he stays. Even a political junkie like me has barely heard of John Trickett so he is not really a runner either, it would have to be a well known figure
I think the key difference between the two of us is that you are assuming the Labour party will take a rational decision to appoint the candidate best placed to unite the party, present an aura of authority and minimise the electoral damage in 2020.
I on the other hand am not merely assuming but near-certain that they will seize on any vaguely senior candidate they think can 'take the fight to the Tories' in the messianic belief that as long as they are seen to be fighting the Tories rather than each other, they will win by default because the Tories are horrible and Labour are lovely.
In other words, you are assuming they are sensible and self-aware, I am assuming they are self-indulgent and complacent. Unfortunately, if they elect Corbyn they will be proving that they are self-indulgent and complacent, and have no idea how much people hate them, or why. Indeed, you only need to look at some of the absolutely incredible defences posted of Corbyn on these threads to see why I think that.
However, since for various reasons there is no obvious candidate for either scenario, it's hard to see Corbyn being removed maugre his will before 2020. Good news for the Conservatives.
The question now is whether any of the other Labour leadership contenders will have the courage to condemn Jezbollah's lobbying on behalf of extremists, or whether they will stay quiet lest they face the wrath of the left.
I don't think the Labour grandees ABC interventions and now the MSM franticly trying to come up with Corbyn's skeletons is going to have much impact on his support levels - if anything they will just help Corbyn's anti-establishment style campaign.
Cruddas is perhaps another alternative, but he does not have the experience of the other 2. In any case they would have to have 2/3 of MPs nominating them against Corbyn as a minimum so would in effect have to take the leadership. It would, of course, only be put into operation if Corbyn was clearly trailing in the polls by 2017/18, perhaps triggered by a bad by-election like Brent East toppled IDS. If Corbyn is competitive then he stays. Even a political junkie like me has barely heard of John Trickett so he is not really a runner either, it would have to be a well known figure
I think the key difference between the two of us is that you are assuming the Labour party will take a rational decision to appoint the candidate best placed to unite the party, present an aura of authority and minimise the electoral damage in 2020.
I on the other hand am not merely assuming but near-certain that they will seize on any vaguely senior candidate they think can 'take the fight to the Tories' in the messianic belief that as long as they are seen to be fighting the Tories rather than each other, they will win by default because the Tories are horrible and Labour are lovely.
In other words, you are assuming they are sensible and self-aware, I am assuming they are self-indulgent and complacent. Unfortunately, if they elect Corbyn they will be proving that they are self-indulgent and complacent, and have no idea how much people hate them, or why. Indeed, you only need to look at some of the absolutely incredible defences posted of Corbyn on these threads to see why I think that.
However, since for various reasons there is no obvious candidate for either scenario, it's hard to see Corbyn being removed maugre his will before 2020. Good news for the Conservatives.
One of the reasons, oft forgotten, why the Tories ditched IDS was because of the Hutton report.
There was an expectation they might be able to use it to topple Blair, and we all knew that IDS wasn't the man to tear Blair apart at the despatch box, but the very eminent Queen's Counsel, Michael Howard was the man.
@TSE then they were fools. Michael Howard never really recovered from the way he mishandled the Hutton report. It was something that should have been exploited only ex post facto - not as a running battle all through the summer.
@rowenamason: Spokeswoman for Corbyn now denying Home Office letter+visa claim, says spokesman quoted was wrong and unauthorised. Something odd going on.
Cruddas is perhaps another alternative, but he does not have the experience of the other 2. In any case they would have to have 2/3 of MPs nominating them against Corbyn as a minimum so would in effect have to take the leadership. It would, of course, only be put into operation if Corbyn was clearly trailing in the polls by 2017/18, perhaps triggered by a bad by-election like Brent East toppled IDS. If Corbyn is competitive then he stays. Even a political junkie like me has barely heard of John Trickett so he is not really a runner either, it would have to be a well known figure
I think the key difference between the two of us is that you are assuming the Labour party will take a rational decision to appoint the candidate best placed to unite the party, present an aura of authority and minimise the electoral damage in 2020.
I on the other hand am not merely assuming but near-certain that they will seize on any vaguely senior candidate they think can 'take the fight to the Tories' in the messianic belief that as long as they are seen to be fighting the Tories rather than each other, they will win by default because the Tories are horrible and Labour are lovely.
In other words, you are assuming they are sensible and self-aware, I am assuming they are self-indulgent and complacent. Unfortunately, if they elect Corbyn they will be proving that they are self-indulgent and complacent, and have no idea how much people hate them, or why. Indeed, you only need to look at some of the absolutely incredible defences posted of Corbyn on these threads to see why I think that.
However, since for various reasons there is no obvious candidate for either scenario, it's hard to see Corbyn being removed maugre his will before 2020. Good news for the Conservatives.
Inevitably they will have to, as they will not be able to get enough signatures on the nomination paper to have the momentum to topple Corbyn in the first place if they don't. It does not have to be an election winning Messiah, Howard certainly was not, they can sort that out after the election, the replacement leader's job would be to save the furniture
Labour MPs have already said they will move to topple Corbyn if he falls flat after they failed to topple Miliband. Tory MPs did not topple Hague but they were not willing to allow IDS to lead them for a full Parliament.
How can they mis-spell 'keep'? It is one of the simplest words in the language! Honestly, overthrowing the bourgeoisie and the capitalist classes is one thing, but war on the English language, that's really disgusting.
@rowenamason: Spokeswoman for Corbyn now denying Home Office letter+visa claim, says spokesman quoted was wrong and unauthorised. Something odd going on.
@AndyJS - we're not off the hook. Once a sizeable chunk of those 800k have claimed asylum in Germany and, eventually, obtained citizenship a good number will head straight here. Legitimately.
@rowenamason: Spokeswoman for Corbyn now denying Home Office letter+visa claim, says spokesman quoted was wrong and unauthorised. Something odd going on.
Somebody has remembered Hacker's first rule of politics: Never Believe Anything Until It's Been Officially Denied.
@AndyJS - we're not off the hook. Once a sizeable chunk of those 800k have claimed asylum in Germany and, eventually, obtained citizenship a good number will head straight here. Legitimately.
Remaining in the EU means no real border control.
I'd like to hear the Prime Minister's response to this issue. Perhaps a commitment from other other states that asylum seekers would not get EU passports for 20 years would help?
@AndyJS - we're not off the hook. Once a sizeable chunk of those 800k have claimed asylum in Germany and, eventually, obtained citizenship a good number will head straight here. Legitimately.
Remaining in the EU means no real border control.
I'd like to hear the Prime Minister's response to this issue. Perhaps a commitment from other other states that asylum seekers would not get EU passports for 20 years would help?
I'd imagine Cameron is doing his best to keep schtum till AFTER Jezza has been elected. He's odds on but not 1.01 !!
@rowenamason: Spokeswoman for Corbyn now denying Home Office letter+visa claim, says spokesman quoted was wrong and unauthorised. Something odd going on.
Somebody has remembered Hacker's first rule of politics: Never Believe Anything Until It's Been Officially Denied.
A candidate for shortest male MP is probably Ian McCartney who was Labour MP for Makerfield between 1987 and 2010. I think he was about 5 feet 4 inches tall.
Labour would need a uniter not a divider, which would be why Alan Johnson would be better than both, but if not him then Beckett is the only viable alternative who could run unopposed (and the nature of their election would require a coronation, as Howard was crowned). Watson is too much of a serial plotter not to face a challenge
Looks as though we're never going to agree on this. But if you are correct, then should Corbyn win and live until 2020, then he will be Labour leader at the next election. Because essentially, you are saying there are no alternatives who could be put forward in an emergency. The only other one who might be able to command support in such an emergency that we haven't discussed is Cruddas, and he could hardly have been clearer in his lack of desire for a top job.
However, there is one other person who will surely be very senior in a Corbyn shadow cabinet who might just be worth keeping an eye on if the Labour party genuinely does pivot to the far left and Corbyn is ousted. I know he's got very long odds (the same as Blair and Owen Jones) and certainly he's a weaker candidate than Watson, but don't altogether rule out John Trickett as a potential leader.
Cruddas is perhaps another alternative, but he does not have the experience of the other 2. In any case they would have to have 2/3 of MPs nominating them against Corbyn as a minimum so would in effect have to take the leadership. It would, of course, only be put into operation if Corbyn was clearly trailing in the polls by 2017/18, perhaps triggered by a bad by-election like Brent East toppled IDS. If Corbyn is competitive then he stays. Even a political junkie like me has barely heard of John Trickett so he is not really a runner either, it would have to be a well known figure
Sarah Teather won for the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives came a very poor, very embarrassing third in a seat where they had consistently come second - just before the party conference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_East_by-election,_2003
The SNP is facing a crisis in Uddingston and Bellshill after angry clashes between warring members led to a meeting being abandoned.
Some members were said to have been left shaken by the level of verbal abuse dished out by some of those present, and it’s understood at least one complaint of threatening behaviour has been made to the police.
A candidate for shortest male MP is probably Ian McCartney who was Labour MP for Makerfield between 1987 and 2010. I think he was about 5 feet 4 inches tall.
There would have been shorter MPs than that in the seventeenth century. Charles I was only about five feet tall and he wasn't considered ridiculously short (albeit on the small side) by the standards of the age.
How many people have never voted Tory is probably a more pertinent question.
It is a group that will shrink dramatically if Corbyn becomes leader!
More seriously, a lot of people under 40 will never have voted Tory, simply because it became so unfashionable in the 1990s and 2000s.
Research overseen by Labour MP Jon Cruddas has found that while in 2011 40% would never vote Conservative and 31% Labour, today the figures are Con 38% and Lab 36%.
Cruddas is perhaps another alternative, but he does not have the experience of the other 2. In any case they would have to have 2/3 of MPs nominating them against Corbyn as a minimum so would in effect have to take the leadership. It would, of course, only be put into operation if Corbyn was clearly trailing in the polls by 2017/18, perhaps triggered by a bad by-election like Brent East toppled IDS. If Corbyn is competitive then he stays. Even a political junkie like me has barely heard of John Trickett so he is not really a runner either, it would have to be a well known figure
I think the key difference between the two of us is that you are assuming the Labour party will take a rational decision to appoint the candidate best placed to unite the party, present an aura of authority and minimise the electoral damage in 2020.
I on the other hand am not merely assuming but near-certain that they will seize on any vaguely senior candidate they think can 'take the fight to the Tories' in the messianic belief that as long as they are seen to be fighting the Tories rather than each other, they will win by default because the Tories are horrible and Labour are lovely.
In other words, you are assuming they are sensible and self-aware, I am assuming they are self-indulgent and complacent. Unfortunately, if they elect Corbyn they will be proving that they are self-indulgent and complacent, and have no idea how much people hate them, or why. Indeed, you only need to look at some of the absolutely incredible defences posted of Corbyn on these threads to see why I think that.
However, since for various reasons there is no obvious candidate for either scenario, it's hard to see Corbyn being removed maugre his will before 2020. Good news for the Conservatives.
One of the reasons, oft forgotten, why the Tories ditched IDS was because of the Hutton report.
There was an expectation they might be able to use it to topple Blair, and we all knew that IDS wasn't the man to tear Blair apart at the despatch box, but the very eminent Queen's Counsel, Michael Howard was the man.
Hutton apart Howard at least boosted Tory MPs morale at PMQs, remember 'this grammar school boy won't take lectures from that public school boy' in his first outing!
I don't think the Labour grandees ABC interventions and now the MSM franticly trying to come up with Corbyn's skeletons is going to have much impact on his support levels - if anything they will just help Corbyn's anti-establishment style campaign.
It won't do him much harm with the Labour party electorate, though his evasiveness might. It will, however, do Labour serious harm with the public at large.
@AndyJS - we're not off the hook. Once a sizeable chunk of those 800k have claimed asylum in Germany and, eventually, obtained citizenship a good number will head straight here. Legitimately.
Remaining in the EU means no real border control.
I'd like to hear the Prime Minister's response to this issue. Perhaps a commitment from other other states that asylum seekers would not get EU passports for 20 years would help?
His response will be 'we will get what Britain needs', 'we won't let EU migrants claim benefits for at least four years', and there'll be some speeches, rows and posturing.
@AndyJS - we're not off the hook. Once a sizeable chunk of those 800k have claimed asylum in Germany and, eventually, obtained citizenship a good number will head straight here. Legitimately.
Remaining in the EU means no real border control.
I'd like to hear the Prime Minister's response to this issue. Perhaps a commitment from other other states that asylum seekers would not get EU passports for 20 years would help?
Perhaps we can build some gas chambers for these asylum seekers?
Honestly, sometimes you have to pinch yourself with the comments you find on pbCOM. Beyond parody.
Hutton apart Howard at least boosted Tory MPs morale at PMQs, remember 'this grammar school boy won't take lectures from that public school boy' in his first outing!
I don't think that was his first outing. I seem to remember his first outing was waving a folder about as part of a joke when Blair raised his past as Home Secretary, 'I've got a complete dossier on the PM's past Mr Speaker, and I didn't even have to sex it up!'
I remember that other line though, and as a comprehensive school boy myself, it did make me laugh a lot!
Harriet Harman is about 5 feet 11 inches tall. I don't know whether any women MPs have hit the six feet mark. IIRC Joan Hall, Tory MP for Keighley in 1970, was fairly tall although I can't remember the figure.
You know, looking at the last thread I'd like to ask what is a 'nonsense' degree re universities. Personally, I think @JEO hit the nail on the head. The Top 50 unis as a whole, are fine: but unis like London Met....no.
Harriet Harman is about 5 feet 11 inches tall. I don't know whether any women MPs have hit the six feet mark. IIRC Joan Hall, Tory MP for Keighley in 1970, was fairly tall although I can't remember the figure.
@AndyJS - we're not off the hook. Once a sizeable chunk of those 800k have claimed asylum in Germany and, eventually, obtained citizenship a good number will head straight here. Legitimately.
Remaining in the EU means no real border control.
I'd like to hear the Prime Minister's response to this issue. Perhaps a commitment from other other states that asylum seekers would not get EU passports for 20 years would help?
Perhaps we can build some gas chambers for these asylum seekers?
Honestly, sometimes you have to pinch yourself with the comments you find on pbCOM. Beyond parody.
Cruddas is perhaps another alternative, but he does not have the experience of the other 2. In any case they would have to have 2/3 of MPs nominating them against Corbyn as a minimum so would in effect have to take the leadership. It would, of course, only be put into operation if Corbyn was clearly trailing in the polls by 2017/18, perhaps triggered by a bad by-election like Brent East toppled IDS. If Corbyn is competitive then he stays. Even a political junkie like me has barely heard of John Trickett so he is not really a runner either, it would have to be a well known figure
I think the key difference between the two of us is that you are assuming the Labour party will take a rational decision to appoint the candidate best placed to unite the party, present an aura of authority and minimise the electoral damage in 2020.
I on the other hand am not merely assuming but near-certain that they will seize on any vaguely senior candidate they think can 'take the fight to the Tories' in the messianic belief that as long as they are seen to be fighting the Tories rather than each other, they will win by default because the Tories are horrible and Labour are lovely.
In other words, you are assuming they are sensible and self-aware, I am assuming they are self-indulgent and complacent. Unfortunately, if they elect Corbyn they will be proving that they are self-indulgent and complacent, and have no idea how much people hate them, or why. Indeed, you only need to look at some of the absolutely incredible defences posted of Corbyn on these threads to see why I think that.
However, since for various reasons there is no obvious candidate for either scenario, it's hard to see Corbyn being removed maugre his will before 2020. Good news for the Conservatives.
One of the reasons, oft forgotten, why the Tories ditched IDS was because of the Hutton report.
There was an expectation they might be able to use it to topple Blair, and we all knew that IDS wasn't the man to tear Blair apart at the despatch box, but the very eminent Queen's Counsel, Michael Howard was the man.
Hutton apart Howard at least boosted Tory MPs morale at PMQs, remember 'this grammar school boy won't take lectures from that public school boy' in his first outing!
Was that his first PMQs? I certainly remember it and cheered loudly!
A candidate for shortest male MP is probably Ian McCartney who was Labour MP for Makerfield between 1987 and 2010. I think he was about 5 feet 4 inches tall.
There would have been shorter MPs than that in the seventeenth century. Charles I was only about five feet tall and he wasn't considered ridiculously short (albeit on the small side) by the standards of the age.
Charles I was certainly shortish as can be seen from his surviving clothing. On the other hand, his son was at least six feet tall and I have not seen anything to suggest he was regarded as outrageously tall (some of the Stuart women were big ladies too). Is there any real evidence to suggest that MPs in the 17th century would have been than in more modern times?
@tnewtondunn: Not proving a great night for the Corbyn campaign. First they confirm he helped Abou Jahjah apply for a UK visa, then they insist he didn't.
Harriet Harman is about 5 feet 11 inches tall. I don't know whether any women MPs have hit the six feet mark. IIRC Joan Hall, Tory MP for Keighley in 1970, was fairly tall although I can't remember the figure.
I gave a couple of guest lectures at London Met for a friend of mine who ran their Marketing BA courses - the students weren't the brightest bulbs. One asked me what a blog was.
You know, looking at the last thread I'd like to ask what is a 'nonsense' degree re universities. Personally, I think @JEO hit the nail on the head. The Top 50 unis as a whole, are fine: but unis like London Met....no.
@AndyJS - we're not off the hook. Once a sizeable chunk of those 800k have claimed asylum in Germany and, eventually, obtained citizenship a good number will head straight here. Legitimately.
Remaining in the EU means no real border control.
I'd like to hear the Prime Minister's response to this issue. Perhaps a commitment from other other states that asylum seekers would not get EU passports for 20 years would help?
Perhaps we can build some gas chambers for these asylum seekers?
Honestly, sometimes you have to pinch yourself with the comments you find on pbCOM. Beyond parody.
There's a difference between not giving someone a passport and putting them in a gas chamber. Seems a bit strange to claim they are the same.
The analogy would be Person B's father having raped someone before. No-one currently serving in the US government has been involved in the annexation of any country. The very highest levels of the Russian government have. In both the First and Second World War, when the US still wasn't ascendant in world affairs, they occupied large chunks of Europe and gave all of it back to the nations in question. During the early Cold War, when the US was evenly matched with the USSR, and the latter annexed large swathes of Eastern Europe, the US never annexed anywhere.
Your history of the British Empire is also incorrect. The UK became the primary power after 1815. It annexed parts of Ceylon in 1815, the Maratha Empire in 1817; Xhosaland in 1919, 1836, 1847 and 1879; Burma in 1826, 1853 and 1885; Hong Kong in 1842 and 1860; Borneo in 1846 and 1882; Punjab in 1846 and 1849; New Zealand in 1840 and 1864; Manitoba in 1869; Malaya in 1825 and 1874; the Ashanti Empire in 1874; Zululand in 1879; Afghanistan in 1880; the Niger coast in 1884; Somaliland in 1884; Sudan in 1889; Sikkim in 1888; Uganda in 1894; Kenya in 1895; the Boer states in 1902; Igboland in 1902; Siam in 1909.
So your argument that countries do not annex places when they are top dog is just not true.
Leaving rape to one side if we may, your approach to reading the international situation is somewhat explained by your very superficial understanding of historical concepts and motivations.
The British annexation of Ceylon (after being given the territory by the Dutch) was to gain control against Dutch colonists, and Portuguese, and was at the height of the Napoleonic wars. The war against the Maratha Empire was the East India Company, again against a threat to their commercial interests. Burma, again the East India Company. Hong Kong, ceded by China - a perfect example of a sphere of influence. No need to annexe it as China was dominated by Britain and the US to give us everything we wanted. India - again taken over by The British East India company, and eventually united under British rule by necessity.
-You get the picture. Annexation takes place as a result of or against the background of threats to commercial or political/military interests. It doesn't just result from some idiot wanting to plant their flag somewhere (unless you're Mussolini in Ehtiopia). If you can have it free, you will.
"Can you imagine if the favourite for the Tory leadership had been caught lobbying the Home Secretary on behalf of a neo-Nazi? IT would lead all the bulletins. The television media is hopelessly biased to the left."
That's true but when someone on the extreme left lobbies the Home Secretary on behalf of right-reactionaries like leaders of Hezbollah it is assumed the motives are quite different which of course they are.
A candidate for shortest male MP is probably Ian McCartney who was Labour MP for Makerfield between 1987 and 2010. I think he was about 5 feet 4 inches tall.
There would have been shorter MPs than that in the seventeenth century. Charles I was only about five feet tall and he wasn't considered ridiculously short (albeit on the small side) by the standards of the age.
Charles I was certainly shortish as can be seen from his surviving clothing. On the other hand, his son was at least six feet tall and I have not seen anything to suggest he was regarded as outrageously tall (some of the Stuart women were big ladies too). Is there any real evidence to suggest that MPs in the 17th century would have been than in more modern times?
Average heights tended to be lower because diets were not as good. Charles II and Henry VIII were both regarded as pretty tall at 6 feet (just over) which is not noted as exceptional now. Also you would get very short people who had suffered from childhood illnesses, especially lung and muscle ailments, which stunted their growth - or of course they might have bone problems that shaved a bit off their height, e.g. Richard III (5 foot 10 at full stretch, but was shorter due to scoliosis).
They would be less usual among the upper classes, because they got more food, but they would not be unheard of. The problem is, I doubt if we have records of MPs' heights from that far back, although I don't know.
I gave a couple of guest lectures at London Met for a friend of mine who ran their Marketing BA courses - the students weren't the brightest bulbs. One asked me what a blog was.
You know, looking at the last thread I'd like to ask what is a 'nonsense' degree re universities. Personally, I think @JEO hit the nail on the head. The Top 50 unis as a whole, are fine: but unis like London Met....no.
I can't believe someone at uni doesn't know what a blog is. Especially given how much my generation knows about technology and the internet in general.
How many people have never voted Tory is probably a more pertinent question.
Actually I do find people who have voted Tory, even in that moment of weakness, particularly distasteful. My mum, sister, her husband, two of their their three children, my eldest brother, his wife, both their children, my other elder brother, possibly his wife- they all come under this banner of at least one (or more) time Tory voters.
At the end of the day, I cannot get over the mindset of someone who votes Tory. I certainly couldn't have a meaningful relationship with them in any kind of capacity which excludes most of my family.
@AndyJS - we're not off the hook. Once a sizeable chunk of those 800k have claimed asylum in Germany and, eventually, obtained citizenship a good number will head straight here. Legitimately.
Remaining in the EU means no real border control.
I'd like to hear the Prime Minister's response to this issue. Perhaps a commitment from other other states that asylum seekers would not get EU passports for 20 years would help?
Perhaps we can build some gas chambers for these asylum seekers?
Honestly, sometimes you have to pinch yourself with the comments you find on pbCOM. Beyond parody.
There's a difference between not giving someone a passport and putting them in a gas chamber. Seems a bit strange to claim they are the same.
How many people have never voted Tory is probably a more pertinent question.
Actually I do find people who have voted Tory, even in that moment of weakness, particularly distasteful. My mum, sister, her husband, two of their their three children, my eldest brother, his wife, both their children, my other elder brother, possibly his wife- they all come under this banner of at least one (or more) time Tory voters.
At the end of the day, I cannot get over the mindset of someone who votes Tory. I certainly couldn't have a meaningful relationship with them in any kind of capacity which excludes most of my family.
Tyson - I must be misreading this post. Are you seriously telling us that you have disowned your entire family because all of them put an X in the wrong box?
Or are you saying that excluding members of your family, you could not have a meaningful relationship with such people?
I gave a couple of guest lectures at London Met for a friend of mine who ran their Marketing BA courses - the students weren't the brightest bulbs. One asked me what a blog was.
You know, looking at the last thread I'd like to ask what is a 'nonsense' degree re universities. Personally, I think @JEO hit the nail on the head. The Top 50 unis as a whole, are fine: but unis like London Met....no.
I can't believe someone at uni doesn't know what a blog is. Especially given how much my generation knows about technology and the internet in general.
"Can you imagine if the favourite for the Tory leadership had been caught lobbying the Home Secretary on behalf of a neo-Nazi? IT would lead all the bulletins. The television media is hopelessly biased to the left."
That's true but when someone on the extreme left lobbies the Home Secretary on behalf of right-reactionaries like leaders of Hezbollah it is assumed the motives are quite different which of course they are.
Not really, when they are part of the anti-Western alliance and thus the extreme left considers them ideological allies.
Another topsy turvy day in Scotland, first we had the Daily Record's endorsement of Corbyn which pretty much has everyone a bit flummoxed.
Then we had Kezia announcing her new team with the only change being to drop the only openly Corbyn supporting front bench MSP and to exclude Neil Findlay, Corbyn's self appointed campaign manager in Scotland.
To top things off we then had Allan Massie with a call to arms for the Unionist parties:
" IF Labour can harness Corbynmania, and the Lib Dems and Tories can work together, a landslide can be avoided. "
@AndyJS - we're not off the hook. Once a sizeable chunk of those 800k have claimed asylum in Germany and, eventually, obtained citizenship a good number will head straight here. Legitimately.
Remaining in the EU means no real border control.
I'd like to hear the Prime Minister's response to this issue. Perhaps a commitment from other other states that asylum seekers would not get EU passports for 20 years would help?
Perhaps we can build some gas chambers for these asylum seekers?
Honestly, sometimes you have to pinch yourself with the comments you find on pbCOM. Beyond parody.
There's a difference between not giving someone a passport and putting them in a gas chamber. Seems a bit strange to claim they are the same.
There's not really a difference between not giving out a passport and putting someone in a gas chamber? You're correct: some of the comments you find on pbCOM are beyond parody.
@AndyJS - we're not off the hook. Once a sizeable chunk of those 800k have claimed asylum in Germany and, eventually, obtained citizenship a good number will head straight here. Legitimately.
Remaining in the EU means no real border control.
I'd like to hear the Prime Minister's response to this issue. Perhaps a commitment from other other states that asylum seekers would not get EU passports for 20 years would help?
Perhaps we can build some gas chambers for these asylum seekers?
Honestly, sometimes you have to pinch yourself with the comments you find on pbCOM. Beyond parody.
There's a difference between not giving someone a passport and putting them in a gas chamber. Seems a bit strange to claim they are the same.
Eh? So you advocate giving everyone a passport who wants one?
I really don't understand some of the rhetoric of the left on immigration.
I gave a couple of guest lectures at London Met for a friend of mine who ran their Marketing BA courses - the students weren't the brightest bulbs. One asked me what a blog was.
You know, looking at the last thread I'd like to ask what is a 'nonsense' degree re universities. Personally, I think @JEO hit the nail on the head. The Top 50 unis as a whole, are fine: but unis like London Met....no.
I can't believe someone at uni doesn't know what a blog is. Especially given how much my generation knows about technology and the internet in general.
What are you up to at Uni? Seem quite interested in current affairs.
Is education wasted if you take a job that doesn't need it? Only if you consider that all investments need to be repaid in cold cash rather than personal development.
Nick Palmer and the Useful Idiots. If only they were a band not the fools who will deliver Labour to Jezza and his mates on the far left.
I am shicked to learn that JC may not have been entitely truthful about his relationship with Mr Jagjah. Whoever would have thought it?
Useful idiot is a brilliant phrase to describe Jeremy Corbyn. He's a fairly nice guy himself but seems to be in accidental association with a lot of people who are anything but.
I have not disowned them, not by any means. But I have a superficial relationship with them all in one way or another.
I have friends who are Tories, but I just have to be really mindful about what I say which means that that the said friendship is really not that great.
I'm amazed by just how many people who are really quite close to me feel free to say negative things about welfare claimants, asylum seekers, Muslims, economic migrants- every time they do this, I don't think they realise just how much I look down upon them. It elicits a similar kind of nauseous feeling to when I read some of the half witted and racist comments in pbCOM.
How many people have never voted Tory is probably a more pertinent question.
Actually I do find people who have voted Tory, even in that moment of weakness, particularly distasteful. My mum, sister, her husband, two of their their three children, my eldest brother, his wife, both their children, my other elder brother, possibly his wife- they all come under this banner of at least one (or more) time Tory voters.
At the end of the day, I cannot get over the mindset of someone who votes Tory. I certainly couldn't have a meaningful relationship with them in any kind of capacity which excludes most of my family.
Tyson - I must be misreading this post. Are you seriously telling us that you have disowned your entire family because all of them put an X in the wrong box?
Or are you saying that excluding members of your family, you could not have a meaningful relationship with such people?
Hutton apart Howard at least boosted Tory MPs morale at PMQs, remember 'this grammar school boy won't take lectures from that public school boy' in his first outing!
I don't think that was his first outing. I seem to remember his first outing was waving a folder about as part of a joke when Blair raised his past as Home Secretary, 'I've got a complete dossier on the PM's past Mr Speaker, and I didn't even have to sex it up!'
I remember that other line though, and as a comprehensive school boy myself, it did make me laugh a lot!
Yes, the fact IDS was never as good at PMQs as Hague and Howard did not help him
How many people have never voted Tory is probably a more pertinent question.
Actually I do find people who have voted Tory, even in that moment of weakness, particularly distasteful. My mum, sister, her husband, two of their their three children, my eldest brother, his wife, both their children, my other elder brother, possibly his wife- they all come under this banner of at least one (or more) time Tory voters.
At the end of the day, I cannot get over the mindset of someone who votes Tory. I certainly couldn't have a meaningful relationship with them in any kind of capacity which excludes most of my family.
That's remarkably judgmental. Even if we were to say for the sake of argument that Tory politicians, all of them, are inherently immoral - which is simply not the case - not everyone who has ever voted Tory shares all their values, you are ascribing a mindset to many of them that might not exist, they might simply regard them as the best of a bad series of options, or some other reason. Millions upon millions of people vote Tory, unless you think millions of people are genuinely bad people - which pessimistic as I am seems unlikely - it stands to reason it is more likely Tories are not evil monsters, just people with whom you disagree, and given most voters are not so ideologically tied to a party as its activists, it's even more unfair to condemn them.
The same applies in reverse for Labour, and is why I find political partisanship so utterly baffling. There are too many decent people on each side of some flimsily defined left-right spectrum to think that any side is inherently bad, even if we might think one side has a higher ratio of those who are decent and correct in their thinking.
Edit - I've never voted Tory by the way, if it helps you give my view more weight.
Cruddas is perhaps another alternative, but he does not have the experience of the other 2. In any case they would have to have 2/3 of MPs nominating them against Corbyn as a minimum so would in effect have to take the leadership. It would, of course, only be put into operation if Corbyn was clearly trailing in the polls by 2017/18, perhaps triggered by a bad by-election like Brent East toppled IDS. If Corbyn is competitive then he stays. Even a political junkie like me has barely heard of John Trickett so he is not really a runner either, it would have to be a well known figure
I think the key difference between the two of us is that you are assuming the Labour party will take a rational decision to appoint the candidate best placed to unite the party, present an aura of authority and minimise the electoral damage in 2020.
I on the other hand am not merely assuming but near-certain that they will seize on any vaguely senior candidate they think can 'take the fight to the Tories' in the messianic belief that as long as they are seen to be fighting the Tories rather than each other, they will win by default because the Tories are horrible and Labour are lovely.
In other words, you are assuming they are sensible and self-aware, I am assuming they are self-indulgent and complacent. Unfortunately, if they elect Corbyn they will be proving that they are self-indulgent and complacent, and have no idea how much people hate them, or why. Indeed, you only need to look at some of the absolutely incredible defences posted of Corbyn on these threads to see why I think that.
However, since for various reasons there is no obvious candidate for either scenario, it's hard to see Corbyn being removed maugre his will before 2020. Good news for the Conservatives.
One of the reasons, oft forgotten, why the Tories ditched IDS was because of the Hutton report.
There was an expectation they might be able to use it to topple Blair, and we all knew that IDS wasn't the man to tear Blair apart at the despatch box, but the very eminent Queen's Counsel, Michael Howard was the man.
Hutton apart Howard at least boosted Tory MPs morale at PMQs, remember 'this grammar school boy won't take lectures from that public school boy' in his first outing!
Was that his first PMQs? I certainly remember it and cheered loudly!
I gave a couple of guest lectures at London Met for a friend of mine who ran their Marketing BA courses - the students weren't the brightest bulbs. One asked me what a blog was.
You know, looking at the last thread I'd like to ask what is a 'nonsense' degree re universities. Personally, I think @JEO hit the nail on the head. The Top 50 unis as a whole, are fine: but unis like London Met....no.
I can't believe someone at uni doesn't know what a blog is. Especially given how much my generation knows about technology and the internet in general.
Comments
Johnson is a nice guy. I've read, and greatly enjoyed, his autobiographical volumes. It's clear from those that he just sort of wandered in to politics, has no really clear thinking, and broadly just echoes the ideas of his friends. He's pretty much said that himself.
"O, wad some Power the giftie gie us. To see oursels as others see us"
Jeremy Corbyn lobbied Home Office to get extremist who condoned killing British soldiers into UK
Labour leadership front-runner wrote to Jacqui Smith, then home secretary, on 26 March 2009 asking for Dyab Abou Jahjah's visa to be approved
http://bit.ly/1HWq0yu
However, there is one other person who will surely be very senior in a Corbyn shadow cabinet who might just be worth keeping an eye on if the Labour party genuinely does pivot to the far left and Corbyn is ousted. I know he's got very long odds (the same as Blair and Owen Jones) and certainly he's a weaker candidate than Watson, but don't altogether rule out John Trickett as a potential leader.
The issue isn't now so much who this guy is, but Corbyn is either a liar or has a crap memory.
But I'm sure J Not very wise man will be along to tell us differently
Whilst the Tories went backwards.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_East_by-election,_2003
EDIT And I see old Winston McKenzie stood in that one too!
I on the other hand am not merely assuming but near-certain that they will seize on any vaguely senior candidate they think can 'take the fight to the Tories' in the messianic belief that as long as they are seen to be fighting the Tories rather than each other, they will win by default because the Tories are horrible and Labour are lovely.
In other words, you are assuming they are sensible and self-aware, I am assuming they are self-indulgent and complacent. Unfortunately, if they elect Corbyn they will be proving that they are self-indulgent and complacent, and have no idea how much people hate them, or why. Indeed, you only need to look at some of the absolutely incredible defences posted of Corbyn on these threads to see why I think that.
However, since for various reasons there is no obvious candidate for either scenario, it's hard to see Corbyn being removed maugre his will before 2020. Good news for the Conservatives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
I don't think the Labour grandees ABC interventions and now the MSM franticly trying to come up with Corbyn's skeletons is going to have much impact on his support levels - if anything they will just help Corbyn's anti-establishment style campaign.
There was an expectation they might be able to use it to topple Blair, and we all knew that IDS wasn't the man to tear Blair apart at the despatch box, but the very eminent Queen's Counsel, Michael Howard was the man.
http://tinyurl.com/pqwbdjj
Labour MPs have already said they will move to topple Corbyn if he falls flat after they failed to topple Miliband. Tory MPs did not topple Hague but they were not willing to allow IDS to lead them for a full Parliament.
Remaining in the EU means no real border control.
"An awful lot of goodwill" "An instant routine visit"
ABL !!
More seriously, a lot of people under 40 will never have voted Tory, simply because it became so unfashionable in the 1990s and 2000s.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/08/labour-are-becoming-toxic-brand-warns-jon-cruddas
And that's about it.
Honestly, sometimes you have to pinch yourself with the comments you find on pbCOM. Beyond parody.
I remember that other line though, and as a comprehensive school boy myself, it did make me laugh a lot!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoinette_Sandbach
The British annexation of Ceylon (after being given the territory by the Dutch) was to gain control against Dutch colonists, and Portuguese, and was at the height of the Napoleonic wars. The war against the Maratha Empire was the East India Company, again against a threat to their commercial interests. Burma, again the East India Company. Hong Kong, ceded by China - a perfect example of a sphere of influence. No need to annexe it as China was dominated by Britain and the US to give us everything we wanted. India - again taken over by The British East India company, and eventually united under British rule by necessity.
-You get the picture. Annexation takes place as a result of or against the background of threats to commercial or political/military interests. It doesn't just result from some idiot wanting to plant their flag somewhere (unless you're Mussolini in Ehtiopia). If you can have it free, you will.
Kendell first, Corbyn second by the way. The Labour party needs to change and the other two are not going to do that..
EDIT: Not even in the leadership election!
"Can you imagine if the favourite for the Tory leadership had been caught lobbying the Home Secretary on behalf of a neo-Nazi? IT would lead all the bulletins. The television media is hopelessly biased to the left."
That's true but when someone on the extreme left lobbies the Home Secretary on behalf of right-reactionaries like leaders of Hezbollah it is assumed the motives are quite different which of course they are.
They would be less usual among the upper classes, because they got more food, but they would not be unheard of. The problem is, I doubt if we have records of MPs' heights from that far back, although I don't know.
At the end of the day, I cannot get over the mindset of someone who votes Tory. I certainly couldn't have a meaningful relationship with them in any kind of capacity which excludes most of my family.
I'd pay £3 to vote for that!
Or are you saying that excluding members of your family, you could not have a meaningful relationship with such people?
TBH, I wouldn't have offered any of them a job - I was delivering a specialist piece on PR and the pressures of real world vs theory.
What a laugh he was....
Then we had Kezia announcing her new team with the only change being to drop the only openly Corbyn supporting front bench MSP and to exclude Neil Findlay, Corbyn's self appointed campaign manager in Scotland.
To top things off we then had Allan Massie with a call to arms for the Unionist parties:
" IF Labour can harness Corbynmania, and the Lib Dems and Tories can work together, a landslide can be avoided. "
http://www.scotsman.com/news/allan-massie-unionists-can-prevent-snp-government-1-3862176
https://twitter.com/DavidJFHalliday/status/633964429609148417
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3203891/BBC-presenter-Victoria-Derbyshire-reveals-diagnosed-breast-cancer.html
I am shicked to learn that JC may not have been entitely truthful about his relationship with Mr Jagjah. Whoever would have thought it?
I really don't understand some of the rhetoric of the left on immigration.
Is education wasted if you take a job that doesn't need it? Only if you consider that all investments need to be repaid in cold cash rather than personal development.
'Goldmann Suchs!': A drunken typo brings - eventually - the world to normality! Is Junior to throw another £500 on the barbie...?
:fatjugs-rulez:
New Thread
I have friends who are Tories, but I just have to be really mindful about what I say which means that that the said friendship is really not that great.
I'm amazed by just how many people who are really quite close to me feel free to say negative things about welfare claimants, asylum seekers, Muslims, economic migrants- every time they do this, I don't think they realise just how much I look down upon them. It elicits a similar kind of nauseous feeling to when I read some of the half witted and racist comments in pbCOM.
The same applies in reverse for Labour, and is why I find political partisanship so utterly baffling. There are too many decent people on each side of some flimsily defined left-right spectrum to think that any side is inherently bad, even if we might think one side has a higher ratio of those who are decent and correct in their thinking.
Edit - I've never voted Tory by the way, if it helps you give my view more weight.