It is good news indeed, Miss P, but as with all press releases it needs careful examination. When one actually looks at what comparison is being made the performance does not justify the headline let alone what will be subsequently claimed.
That said there is one figure that I find both astonishing and exciting. The performance of the former Hackney Downs Comprehensive now the Mossbourne Academy in scoring 809 is astonishing. A school in not a good area by any measure, which takes all comers regardless of ability, has been totally transformed. How? Well people can do their own research (and will find it worthwhile) but the transformation has nothing to do with the expectation of failure promoted by so much of the teaching establishment.
I look forward to reading The Doctor's take on all this when he parades for duty today.
In order for something to be reborn, it first needs to DIE. The yellow peril are achieving this feat, having pretty much croaked in May. The reds can stagger on as a sick party with Burnham, or fuck it up good and proper with Corbyn.
I've got the be honest, I still can't quite believe Labour will actually do it. Will actually throw themselves off the mountain with Corbyn?
Surely they will step back from the brink at the last minute, right?
No.
Think Conservatives voting for IDS but with knobs on.
In the Labour party there's always been a strong strain hankering for ideological purity over the pragmatism of achieving power. Their electoral pain threshold is much greater than with the Conservatives who dispensed with IDS in a bloodless coup.
Accordingly we should expect a lengthy period of ferocious blood letting once it finally dawns on the faithful that Corbyn isn't the messiah but just a very naughty chap.
Will Labour survive the Corbyn Revolution?
Yes.
The questions being in what shape and how long will the recovery take. The Foot fiasco, not nearly as bad as Corbyn, resulted in huge defections and 18 years in opposition.
Food for thought for the faithful save that they've completely tuned out from political reality.
I think the possibility of a legal challenge to the Labour shambolection is quite small. For a serious challenge to happen, firstly the result needs to be close. Secondly, someone has to have the will and means to mount such a challenge, as well as a legally-sufficient interest to do so (the "locus standi"). It's not easy to see who would be in such a position - realistically, the losing candidates are very unlikely to challenge the result as it would be political suicide even if it had a chance of success. Individuals who have failed Harriet's purge wouldn't, I imagine, have a strong case, except perhaps to get their £3 returned.
However, I'm not a lawyer, so I might well be wrong on this - perhaps some of our distinguished lawyers could provide a more informed view?
In fairness, I think he's looking pretty good. Smile is a lot more natural now he's not leader, I guess that's the pressure being off.
Re Syriza, are they still expected to win? It's remarkable to me that they apparently got credit for standing up for Greece, which would normally be fine, except they did it with a damaging bluff that totally failed. Seriously, they barely seemed to get anything from their brinkmanship. I'm all for rewarding people for taking a bold stand, but they didn't, as far as I can tell, they pretended to take a bold stand and then folded when their bluff was called.
I've just read John Rentoul's article on Jezza. He notes the similarity to the gardener in "Being there" (I mentioned it on here last week), but says Jezza is no idiot. In terms of IQ perhaps not, but he has a sclerosed mind set in 1967.
He sees black and white without shades of grey. America is always bad, left wing causes and activists are always good. He has a refreshing simplicity, so in that respect he is literally simple minded.
And facts become irrelevant, things to be argued against. I think that is gradually sinking in to the Labour voters. His candidature is a race against reality. It will be a close race but I continue to believe that realism will win.
In a parallel universe David Cameron grew a beard this week and Ed Miliband ate paprika pringles.
I should think you need to come into office with a beard if you want one - when PM it's like being in the navy, you can be bearded or not bearded, but not inbetween, so you stay below decks while growing it (by remaining on backbenches)
''Accordingly we should expect a lengthy period of ferocious blood letting once it finally dawns on the faithful that Corbyn isn't the messiah but just a very naughty chap.''
Except, 'the faithful' don't exist in anything like the numbers or the way that they used to because of the end of mass manufacturing, industry and mining.
And that is why this event is possibly life threatening for labour, in a way that the Foot leadership was never going to be.
The numbers may have diminished and the composition of the faithful different but the voting bloc of left of centre voters remains substantial and will be served by a Labour party in one form or another.
People keep mentioning polls, but by Spring 2016, or even Spring 2017 Corbyn is most likely going to be hammered in real elections - which cannot be dismissed. Given Ed Miliband's record of doing well in polls, but doing mediocre in local/council elections, this will be bad news for Corbyn in a way it wasn't for Ed Miliband.
And while the Tories may wait to hammer Corbyn, the media certainly won't.
Compulsory retirement ages are illegal now unless prescribed in law. However, while HM is still on the throne in her late 80s or early 90s, while her husband is still at her side in his mid-90s, and while her heir remains older than Corbyn, he has a ready-made answer. True, the demands on a Head of Govt are more than those on a Head of State but a HoS still has a lot of commitments and has to avoid putting a foot wrong.
Tasteless/treasonous though it may be to speculate about it, there has to be a significant chance that Brenda dies or is incapacitated in the next 5 years. Would Corbyn be able to restrain his republicanism at that point? The Corbynistas certainly wouldn't.
There is a general assumption on the part of monarchists that any republican ticket would be unpopular and never attract public support. This seems to me to be quite naive.
Certain major constitutional issues can garner enough support to sway voters away from their "natural" ideology. Look at the SNP in Scotland which is filled with natural Tories who put the achievement of Scottish Independence ahead of their ideology.
It is quite conceivable that a republican Labour ticket could attract enough Tories and Lib Dems (probably not many Kippers) who, along with an extant Labour vote could get the party to 40%. And remember 40% is enough under the broken, undemocratic FPTP system.
Ironically, the Conservative adherence to the FPTP is the greatest danger to the Conservative adherence to unjustified privilege.
In 20 years of polling the low point for monarchism has been 65% and the high point for republicanism has been 22%.
And for as long as I can remember, and indeed going back even before that, support for Scottish Independence was in the 20% to 25% range.
I'm not actually saying that the case is there today. I'm putting forward that the case could be built and like Scottish Independence, it is the type of debate which might cross party boundaries. Currently the debate is utterly squashed in public by the complicit behest of the major political parties and news media. That can change.
People keep mentioning polls, but by Spring 2016, or even Spring 2017 Corbyn is most likely going to be hammered in real elections - which cannot be dismissed. Given Ed Miliband's record of doing well in polls, but doing mediocre in local/council elections, this will be bad news for Corbyn in a way it wasn't for Ed Miliband.
And while the Tories may wait to hammer Corbyn, the media certainly won't.
Corbyn's personal ratings and LE results will be the things to watch:
I think the possibility of a legal challenge to the Labour shambolection is quite small. For a serious challenge to happen, firstly the result needs to be close. Secondly, someone has to have the will and means to mount such a challenge, as well as a legally-sufficient interest to do so (the "locus standi"). It's not easy to see who would be in such a position - realistically, the losing candidates are very unlikely to challenge the result as it would be political suicide even if it had a chance of success. Individuals who have failed Harriet's purge wouldn't, I imagine, have a strong case, except perhaps to get their £3 returned.
However, I'm not a lawyer, so I might well be wrong on this - perhaps some of our distinguished lawyers could provide a more informed view?
I can't see the grounds for a legal challenge either. The contest is being run in accordance with rules set out. The voters are being vetted (or not) in accordance with rules set out.
The fact that the rules in the first place were somewhere between WTF??? and OMFG!!!!!! is the issue. And nobody made them do it like that.
I think the possibility of a legal challenge to the Labour shambolection is quite small. For a serious challenge to happen, firstly the result needs to be close. Secondly, someone has to have the will and means to mount such a challenge, as well as a legally-sufficient interest to do so (the "locus standi"). It's not easy to see who would be in such a position - realistically, the losing candidates are very unlikely to challenge the result as it would be political suicide even if it had a chance of success. Individuals who have failed Harriet's purge wouldn't, I imagine, have a strong case, except perhaps to get their £3 returned.
However, I'm not a lawyer, so I might well be wrong on this - perhaps some of our distinguished lawyers could provide a more informed view?
It depends how close the result is really. If a candidate wins by a margin of 2:1, no one is going to challenge it.
If we're in hanging chad territory (as an aside, has Jeremy Corbyn ever campaigned about Chad?), it's a very different matter, especially given the shambolic conduct of the election.
I wonder if a lot of the support for Corbyn and his policies is because they know that he's not going to be voted into government so feel it is safe to vote for him as Labour leader.
People like to feel good about themselves supporting nuclear disarmament, leaving NATO, unlimited immigration and infinite government spending, but they wouldn't really actually want any of that to happen.
I think the serious issue here is that Andy and Yvette didn't have any ideas what Labour should look like, Liz did but is hated for it - and Corbyn had a VERY clear vision he's been warming up for 40yrs.
So - when given the chance, he's gone for it. The rest are looking at their shoes and mumbling Don't Know, Miss.
That will make it very hard to recover from. Labour has been annexed by the Hard Left agenda - the LDs didn't expect to die in May, and have to find a way to rebuild what they stand for.
In order for something to be reborn, it first needs to DIE. The yellow peril are achieving this feat, having pretty much croaked in May. The reds can stagger on as a sick party with Burnham, or fuck it up good and proper with Corbyn.
I have to say I find the personal attacks on Nick Palmer unnecessary. I don't share his views and think that he is quite wrong from a Labour perspective about Jeremy Corbyn but he's entitled to them and I don't think that he's been particularly inconsistent.
Agreed. I feel awkward saying so as he can defend himself, but even if he has been inconsistent he is unfailingly polite and willing to offer an explanation in response to often very personal attacks, which speaks well to character.
I have to say I find the personal attacks on Nick Palmer unnecessary. I don't share his views and think that he is quite wrong from a Labour perspective about Jeremy Corbyn but he's entitled to them and I don't think that he's been particularly inconsistent.
Agreed. I feel awkward saying so as he can defend himself, but even if he has been inconsistent he is unfailingly polite and willing to offer an explanation in response to often very personal attacks, which speaks well to character.
The problem is, he isn't unfailingly polite. Far from, in fact.
What is it about Labour and leaders? Most of his senior colleagues seemed to have reservations about Brown before he became leader but no-one had the nerve to say so openly or oppose him directly. Miliband was the butt of jokes from the time of his election, an impression only confirmed by his recent pleasure at Millifandom and almost unhealthy interest in being photographed with pubescent girls. Yet no-one resigned or called for his departure. No-one outside the left of the Labour Party could even think of Corbyn as anything other than a humourless, small-minded throwback to the 1960s. So, why aren’t 150 Labour MPs lining up to say they couldn’t serve in his cabinet and would not accept the legitimacy of his election?
People keep mentioning polls, but by Spring 2016, or even Spring 2017 Corbyn is most likely going to be hammered in real elections - which cannot be dismissed. Given Ed Miliband's record of doing well in polls, but doing mediocre in local/council elections, this will be bad news for Corbyn in a way it wasn't for Ed Miliband.
And while the Tories may wait to hammer Corbyn, the media certainly won't.
Corbyn's personal ratings and LE results will be the things to watch:
It's going to be disastrous. The more his views come out, the more I'm even shocked such an utter lunatic is a part of the parliamentary Labour party, let alone leader. And the trouble is is cult of followers online are so deluded - they literally cannot accept any kind of slightly different POV from their own.
I think the possibility of a legal challenge to the Labour shambolection is quite small. For a serious challenge to happen, firstly the result needs to be close. Secondly, someone has to have the will and means to mount such a challenge, as well as a legally-sufficient interest to do so (the "locus standi"). It's not easy to see who would be in such a position - realistically, the losing candidates are very unlikely to challenge the result as it would be political suicide even if it had a chance of success. Individuals who have failed Harriet's purge wouldn't, I imagine, have a strong case, except perhaps to get their £3 returned.
However, I'm not a lawyer, so I might well be wrong on this - perhaps some of our distinguished lawyers could provide a more informed view?
I can't see the grounds for a legal challenge either. The contest is being run in accordance with rules set out. The voters are being vetted (or not) in accordance with rules set out.
The fact that the rules in the first place were somewhere between WTF??? and OMFG!!!!!! is the issue. And nobody made them do it like that.
Quite so. I know some people were up in arms about democracy with talk of Tories joining to vote for Corbyn, but as I see it Labour are in essence a private club and they can set whateever rules they like for leadership of that club. They could choose not to include anyone at all if they wanted. As it is, the rules were a mess, to some anyway, made worse as people did not adhere to the spirit of those rules (re 35MP nominations).
Corbyn leader in 5 years ...surely you jest ...it's much more likely that the dodgy past and grisly friends of this quasi Marxist catches up to him within 6 months ...the tory print media are just waiting to hammer him after he is elected ...this poor fool is going to be humiliated and then yanked out of there I notice that Cooper is 10-1 at Ladbrokes to be leader in 2020 ; that seems like a good bet to me
I'm not sure. The Tories I expect will give Corbyn a fairly easy ride to begin with. Remember, they want to make sure he survives.
Theters know just what a scumbag Corbyn is.
As with EdM, the Tories will want to knock Corbyn hard enough so that he does not gain any credibility by default, but not so hard as to knock him out
EdM was a naive fool with no self knowledge and zero leadership ability, and he was a glorious gift to the Tories; but he never actively wished the UK harm and in his own way is rather fond of the place. Corbyn knows exactly what he is doing and demonstrably has no loyalty to or affection for the country he says he wants to lead - that's because, as a good Marxist, he sees absolutely everything through the prism of class and anti-capitalism. He is a genuine danger - not just to Labour, but to the UK. As LOTO he will be privy to information that would be very useful to the kinds of people and entities he has spent his entire political career hanging out with. I'd expect the Tories to point that out relentlessly.
Would the government be obliged to admit Jeremy Corbyn to the Privy Council if he became Labour leader? Genuine question.
Great (or should that be grate) minds ponder alike. I can't recall any LoTo who hasn't been, but in this case, I believe an exception could and probably should be made. Why should he see any sensitive security information?
This could be one of the tactics that the Tories use to define him; even a failed attempt to prevent him seeing sensitive information for security reasons will put it in people's minds that he's a danger to the British state (or British soldiers).
I reckon the Tories just have to wait till the 24th of April 2016, that's when Corbyn will make a major faux pas on this topic
What's the significance of that date?
I imagine that Sinn Fein will be marching to celebrate the murder of some innocent post office workers
And on the economy - hasn't unemployment been rising recently? Anyway, with the long-term trends in the UK economy regarding housing and other matters it appears this country is screwed anyway.
The Labour leadership candidates are experiencing The Wrath of Khan
A strong warning that Labour could lose the 2016 mayoral election because of its “nasty and inward-looking” leadership battle was sounded today by Sadiq Khan.
In a rebuke to rival leadership contenders, he said personal attacks were “seriously hurting Labour’s chances of winning” its first big test since the general election.
Mr Khan, who quit the shadow cabinet in May to campaign for the mayoralty, criticised the use of terms like “morons” or “Tories”, claims of purges and forming a “resistance”.
People keep mentioning polls, but by Spring 2016, or even Spring 2017 Corbyn is most likely going to be hammered in real elections - which cannot be dismissed. Given Ed Miliband's record of doing well in polls, but doing mediocre in local/council elections, this will be bad news for Corbyn in a way it wasn't for Ed Miliband.
And while the Tories may wait to hammer Corbyn, the media certainly won't.
Corbyn's personal ratings and LE results will be the things to watch:
That was a brilliant post from Rod. Not just firmly stating his view, but giving good data to back his view. There're some funny comment as well, like:
Rod Crosby, if that is the best reply you can muster up then you had better go back to the drawing board and try again. The good Lord only knows why you were invited to post such a pathetic column in the first place
Good job Labour aren't promising to nationalise breweries.
ITV News @itvnews 2m2 minutes ago ITV News retweeted ITV News If you are, @itvnews wants to hear from you. Email yourstory@itn.co.uk and one of our producers may be in touch
And on the economy - hasn't unemployment been rising recently? Anyway, with the long-term trends in the UK economy regarding housing and other matters it appears this country is screwed anyway.
The last two months have seen increases, I think. We'll have to see if that's just a blip (caused by the threat of a Labour government?) or something more worrying.
People keep mentioning polls, but by Spring 2016, or even Spring 2017 Corbyn is most likely going to be hammered in real elections - which cannot be dismissed. Given Ed Miliband's record of doing well in polls, but doing mediocre in local/council elections, this will be bad news for Corbyn in a way it wasn't for Ed Miliband.
And while the Tories may wait to hammer Corbyn, the media certainly won't.
Corbyn's personal ratings and LE results will be the things to watch:
It's going to be disastrous. The more his views come out, the more I'm even shocked such an utter lunatic is a part of the parliamentary Labour party, let alone leader. And the trouble is is cult of followers online are so deluded - they literally cannot accept any kind of slightly different POV from their own.
It's so bad I'm thinking of becoming a LD.
Before you do anything drastic and permanent, talk to the Samaritans.
Trouble with this article is that most over 50s can remember the 1970s and 1980s and don't want no return to those days.
And they vote. In large numbers.
Just wait till immigration is raised as an issue. Corbyn will lose lots of Labour support with unlimited immigration...
The 70's were great.
Was that the last time Scotland won a football match? Or is it the Bay City Rollers that you are remembering fondly?
Fox, both and lots of wine women and song, monthly pay rises, big moustaches , it was a hoot.
I am with you on this, Mr. G. The seventies were wonderful. The beer and, especially, the fags were cheap, the girls were pretty and didn't run so fast that they weren't catchable, well paying jobs were plentiful and you could have a beer at lunchtime without being cast as a retarded alcoholic. All that has gone sad to say, but some of us have retained our big moustaches grey as they may be.
'' Anyway, with the long-term trends in the UK economy regarding housing and other matters it appears this country is screwed anyway. ''
The tories ignore at their peril the fact that young workers cannot afford their own homes in large parts of the country, and maybe never will.
Its not just London and the south east any more. This is a matter that needs to be addressed urgently or people will listen to a left wing solution.
The Tories already implemented a left wing solution - probably the most left wing policy of the last 100 years. "If people want a house, give them one for pennies".
It was a disaster and the root cause of where we are today.
People keep mentioning polls, but by Spring 2016, or even Spring 2017 Corbyn is most likely going to be hammered in real elections - which cannot be dismissed. Given Ed Miliband's record of doing well in polls, but doing mediocre in local/council elections, this will be bad news for Corbyn in a way it wasn't for Ed Miliband.
And while the Tories may wait to hammer Corbyn, the media certainly won't.
Corbyn's personal ratings and LE results will be the things to watch:
It's going to be disastrous. The more his views come out, the more I'm even shocked such an utter lunatic is a part of the parliamentary Labour party, let alone leader. And the trouble is is cult of followers online are so deluded - they literally cannot accept any kind of slightly different POV from their own.
It's so bad I'm thinking of becoming a LD.
Used to be plenty of Red Liberals who voted LD but were Labour at heart, so there's a grand old tradition there.
People keep mentioning polls, but by Spring 2016, or even Spring 2017 Corbyn is most likely going to be hammered in real elections - which cannot be dismissed. Given Ed Miliband's record of doing well in polls, but doing mediocre in local/council elections, this will be bad news for Corbyn in a way it wasn't for Ed Miliband.
And while the Tories may wait to hammer Corbyn, the media certainly won't.
Corbyn's personal ratings and LE results will be the things to watch:
It's going to be disastrous. The more his views come out, the more I'm even shocked such an utter lunatic is a part of the parliamentary Labour party, let alone leader. And the trouble is is cult of followers online are so deluded - they literally cannot accept any kind of slightly different POV from their own.
People keep mentioning polls, but by Spring 2016, or even Spring 2017 Corbyn is most likely going to be hammered in real elections - which cannot be dismissed. Given Ed Miliband's record of doing well in polls, but doing mediocre in local/council elections, this will be bad news for Corbyn in a way it wasn't for Ed Miliband.
And while the Tories may wait to hammer Corbyn, the media certainly won't.
Corbyn's personal ratings and LE results will be the things to watch:
It's going to be disastrous. The more his views come out, the more I'm even shocked such an utter lunatic is a part of the parliamentary Labour party, let alone leader. And the trouble is is cult of followers online are so deluded - they literally cannot accept any kind of slightly different POV from their own.
It's so bad I'm thinking of becoming a LD.
TBF I think you'd fit quite well into the LD fold, at least from the views you've expressed on here.
(That is not meant as an insult, just an observation)
And on the economy - hasn't unemployment been rising recently? Anyway, with the long-term trends in the UK economy regarding housing and other matters it appears this country is screwed anyway.
The last two months have seen increases, I think. We'll have to see if that's just a blip (caused by the threat of a Labour government?) or something more worrying.
It's quite interesting, but then I think a lot of the issues in regard to employment are long-term ones. Yesterday there was a discussion on PB in regard to graduate employment prospects, and the usual humanities vs STEM subjects debate was had. I remember reading CIF comments' section on a report that most graduates are doing non-graduate jobs (which doesn't surprise me). But what many CIFers forgot is employers have pretty much been critical of the quality vocational qualifications as well as university degrees. And we all know that not everyone can, or will be a STEM graduate from a top 20 university - after all if everyone graduated in medicine, that would probably lose its value as well. I think as result of the Further Education sector needing serious reform, along with the 'experience' many employers looking for being difficult to come by, the economy is a ticking timebomb.
And on the economy - hasn't unemployment been rising recently? Anyway, with the long-term trends in the UK economy regarding housing and other matters it appears this country is screwed anyway.
The last two months have seen increases, I think. We'll have to see if that's just a blip (caused by the threat of a Labour government?) or something more worrying.
''The labour market numbers can be confusing and as a result are prone to misreporting. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) takes three-month periods as its basis for the employment and unemployment numbers. The latest three-month period is April-June. The three-month period reported in July was March-May. The unemployment number for April-June, 1.852m was slightly lower than the 1.853m for March-May, not higher. Employment, 31.035m, was just over 50,000 up on the 30.982m figure reported for March-May; higher not lower. So where did the rising unemployment-falling employment story come from? This is because the ONS compares the latest three months with the previous three months, in this case January-March. On that basis, employment was down 63,000 and unemployment up 25,000, but that is different from saying the jobless total rose for a second successive month. Indeed, unemployment on the old claimant count measure – people on jobseeker’s allowance – has fallen every month this year.''
Whatever you do - whatever you do - please please please do not bet the house on any labour figure, let alone any Corbynite - ever admitting to this. ''its 'austerity' all the way down don'tcha know''
People keep mentioning polls, but by Spring 2016, or even Spring 2017 Corbyn is most likely going to be hammered in real elections - which cannot be dismissed. Given Ed Miliband's record of doing well in polls, but doing mediocre in local/council elections, this will be bad news for Corbyn in a way it wasn't for Ed Miliband.
And while the Tories may wait to hammer Corbyn, the media certainly won't.
Corbyn's personal ratings and LE results will be the things to watch:
One leadership camp said its canvassing data suggests Corbyn is only getting about 40% of the votes of Unite members, who make up more than half of the 190,000 affiliated supporters.
"only" 40%...
Isn't the general rule, though, that your own canvassing reports overstate your position?
Presumably as these are spun negatively they are from Burnham/Cooper (I guess Burnham).
So that probably means Corbyn is >40% but <50%. From the group that is likely to be only moderately supportive.
And on the economy - hasn't unemployment been rising recently? Anyway, with the long-term trends in the UK economy regarding housing and other matters it appears this country is screwed anyway.
The last two months have seen increases, I think. We'll have to see if that's just a blip (caused by the threat of a Labour government?) or something more worrying.
It's quite interesting, but then I think a lot of the issues in regard to employment are long-term ones. Yesterday there was a discussion on PB in regard to graduate employment prospects, and the usual humanities vs STEM subjects debate was had. I remember reading CIF comments' section on a report that most graduates are doing non-graduate jobs (which doesn't surprise me). But what many CIFers forgot is employers have pretty much been critical of the quality vocational qualifications as well as university degrees. And we all know that not everyone can, or will be a STEM graduate from a top 20 university - after all if everyone graduated in medicine, that would probably lose its value as well. I think as result of the Further Education sector needing serious reform, along with the 'experience' many employers looking for being difficult to come by, the economy is a ticking timebomb.
I'm slightly wary of the concentration on degrees. I don't have one for various reasons, and have done reasonably well for myself in my career (even if I'm currently on a career break).
Everyone seems obsessed with degrees. Vocational qualification need much better visibility, and to be valued by the public (and the media). They may need significant changes before that will happen, though.
As an aside, I know people who live in an ex-mining area (not too far from BJO's gaff). Two families had parents who were told by their schools that there was no point educating them because they'd only end up down the mines. That was in the late 70's and early '80s. That is a much bigger problem IMO.
@taffys It's because the Tories are only thinking in the short-term - they know that everyone 45+ will vote for them. A Corbyn leadership actually makes things worse, because they are even less likely to feel compelled to solve the issue of housing without any credible opposition keeping them on their toes. There's even a risk that if Corbyn is the figure who backs young people's cause, then that may get dismissed as well.
@Plato Tim Farron is looking moderate right now. It's a tad too much a religiously type for me, but he looks sane in comparison to Corbyn.
As a change from things we disagree about, something that might get quite wide support - regardless of what we think about foreign interventions, should we allow people whose lives are at risk because they helped the British Army be allowed to come to Britain? Surely yes?
The numbers are trivial and the moral case seems unanswerable, as well as the practical case - we should send a message that we look after people who help us, since otherwise we may find it hard to get people to help in future.
It's just that your general viewpoint seems, to this outsider at least, to fit more with the sandal-wearers than the red-flag wavers. I freely admit I might have got utterly the wrong impression.
And on the economy - hasn't unemployment been rising recently? Anyway, with the long-term trends in the UK economy regarding housing and other matters it appears this country is screwed anyway.
The last two months have seen increases, I think. We'll have to see if that's just a blip (caused by the threat of a Labour government?) or something more worrying.
It's quite interesting, but then I think a lot of the issues in regard to employment are long-term ones. Yesterday there was a discussion on PB in regard to graduate employment prospects, and the usual humanities vs STEM subjects debate was had. I remember reading CIF comments' section on a report that most graduates are doing non-graduate jobs (which doesn't surprise me). But what many CIFers forgot is employers have pretty much been critical of the quality vocational qualifications as well as university degrees. And we all know that not everyone can, or will be a STEM graduate from a top 20 university - after all if everyone graduated in medicine, that would probably lose its value as well. I think as result of the Further Education sector needing serious reform, along with the 'experience' many employers looking for being difficult to come by, the economy is a ticking timebomb.
I'm slightly wary of the concentration on degrees. I don't have one for various reasons, and have done reasonably well for myself in my career (even if I'm currently on a career break).
Everyone seems obsessed with degrees. Vocational qualification need much better visibility, and to be valued by the public (and the media). They may need significant changes before that will happen, though.
As an aside, I know people who live in an ex-mining area (not too far from BJO's gaff). Two families had parents who were told by their schools that there was no point educating them because they'd only end up down the mines. That was in the late 70's and early '80s. That is a much bigger problem IMO.
When did you go to school? I think my generation were brought up to believe that you need a degree to even compete in the job market. I also think many don't have a clear career direction. Some people stupidly believe that getting a degree will automatically lead you to some 30k+ job, instead of using it as a stepping-stone.
I think the quality of Higher Education in some universities, and vocationally needs to be improved.
On the mining family, do you think that kind of thing still goes on now?
Ok in 10 years time what is going to look the worse decision? Labour electing an old never was as leader or Cookie putting the Australians into bat without our best bowler on what has turned out to be a belter?
It may be closer than you think as the Labour party starts to fade from memory.
It's just that your general viewpoint seems, to this outsider at least, to fit more with the sandal-wearers than the red-flag wavers. I freely admit I might have got utterly the wrong impression.
Hmmm. What's the big difference between the sandal wearers and the red-flag wavers?
O/T: apparently the bank deposit guarantee is being lowered from Jan 1 from £85K to £75K. Does anyone know the background to this? - it doesn't seem an intuitively obvious thing to do at a time of general nervousness, and it's not as though the £85K limit had been frequently (ever?) called upon.
O/T: apparently the bank deposit guarantee is being lowered from Jan 1 from £85K to £75K. Does anyone know the background to this? - it doesn't seem an intuitively obvious thing to do at a time of general nervousness, and it's not as though the £85K limit had been frequently (ever?) called upon.
It's because it is an EU-set value of €100K, and the exchange rates have changed.
As a change from things we disagree about, something that might get quite wide support - regardless of what we think about foreign interventions, should we allow people whose lives are at risk because they helped the British Army be allowed to come to Britain? Surely yes?
The numbers are trivial and the moral case seems unanswerable, as well as the practical case - we should send a message that we look after people who help us, since otherwise we may find it hard to get people to help in future.
I'm slightly wary of the concentration on degrees. I don't have one for various reasons, and have done reasonably well for myself in my career (even if I'm currently on a career break).
Everyone seems obsessed with degrees. Vocational qualification need much better visibility, and to be valued by the public (and the media). They may need significant changes before that will happen, though.
As an aside, I know people who live in an ex-mining area (not too far from BJO's gaff). Two families had parents who were told by their schools that there was no point educating them because they'd only end up down the mines. That was in the late 70's and early '80s. That is a much bigger problem IMO.
When did you go to school? I think my generation were brought up to believe that you need a degree to even compete in the job market. I also think many don't have a clear career direction. Some people stupidly believe that getting a degree will automatically lead you to some 30k+ job, instead of using it as a stepping-stone.
I think the quality of Higher Education in some universities, and vocationally needs to be improved.
On the mining family, do you think that kind of thing still goes on now?
I'm 42. I went to both state and private schools; my last private school having a strong concentration on the military and sports, and less on the (ahem) academic.
As for the latter question; it was two families, and from talking to them, it is happening to the next generation as well. It's not too far from Rotherham (in fact, members of one family lives in the town).
One girl was the first in her family to go to uni, and it was seen as a very big and slightly odd thing (tm). To her family's credit, they scrimped and saved to help her through.
It's just that your general viewpoint seems, to this outsider at least, to fit more with the sandal-wearers than the red-flag wavers. I freely admit I might have got utterly the wrong impression.
Hmmm. What's the big difference between the sandal wearers and the red-flag wavers?
I believe traditionally it's size or type of beard, but obviously that signifier is not always applicable, as in this case.
''There's even a risk that if Corbyn is the figure who backs young people's cause, then that may get dismissed as well.''
All I know is that any person who offers our young workers an alternative to becoming the long term rent slaves of foreign investors and the old will reap a big political dividend.
I'm amazed that the document offering a star from the compliance unit for shopping members of other parties is still circulating (and being reported in reputable newspapers) as though it's true. It's not surely.
However, that people are taken in by it says a lot! They think it could be true.
In fairness, I think he's looking pretty good. Smile is a lot more natural now he's not leader, I guess that's the pressure being off.
Re Syriza, are they still expected to win? It's remarkable to me that they apparently got credit for standing up for Greece, which would normally be fine, except they did it with a damaging bluff that totally failed. Seriously, they barely seemed to get anything from their brinkmanship. I'm all for rewarding people for taking a bold stand, but they didn't, as far as I can tell, they pretended to take a bold stand and then folded when their bluff was called.
But given the choice of having to pick between the two, who would you put in charge of your bank account? (a) a bunch of competent thieves who don't care a jot about you or the country; or (b) a bunch of naive idiots who have no idea what they are doing but at least try
''There's even a risk that if Corbyn is the figure who backs young people's cause, then that may get dismissed as well.''
All I know is that any person who offers our young workers an alternative to becoming the long term rent slaves of foreign investors and the old will reap a big political dividend.
I'm slightly wary of the concentration on degrees. I don't have one for various reasons, and have done reasonably well for myself in my career (even if I'm currently on a career break).
Everyone seems obsessed with degrees. Vocational qualification need much better visibility, and to be valued by the public (and the media). They may need significant changes before that will happen, though.
As an aside, I know people who live in an ex-mining area (not too far from BJO's gaff). Two families had parents who were told by their schools that there was no point educating them because they'd only end up down the mines. That was in the late 70's and early '80s. That is a much bigger problem IMO.
When did you go to school? I think my generation were brought up to believe that you need a degree to even compete in the job market. I also think many don't have a clear career direction. Some people stupidly believe that getting a degree will automatically lead you to some 30k+ job, instead of using it as a stepping-stone.
I think the quality of Higher Education in some universities, and vocationally needs to be improved.
On the mining family, do you think that kind of thing still goes on now?
I'm 42. I went to both state and private schools; my last private school having a strong concentration on the military and sports, and less on the (ahem) academic.
As for the latter question; it was two families, and from talking to them, it is happening to the next generation as well. It's not too far from Rotherham (in fact, members of one family lives in the town).
One girl was the first in her family to go to uni, and it was seen as a very big and slightly odd thing (tm). To her family's credit, they scrimped and saved to help her through.
Would you say (as is currently perceived) that private schools are better than state schools?
I wonder why going to uni was seen as odd by her family though?!
It's just that your general viewpoint seems, to this outsider at least, to fit more with the sandal-wearers than the red-flag wavers. I freely admit I might have got utterly the wrong impression.
Hmmm. What's the big difference between the sandal wearers and the red-flag wavers?
Expectations. The sandal wearers want to hold their views without the distraction of holding power, whilst the red-flag wavers want power so they can argue amongst themselves about what to do with it.
The Lib Dems must be praying for a Corbyn win to allow them to rise from the dead. However an influx from Labour would take them even further from their Liberal roots.
The Liberal Democrats are by no means dead, Mr Sulphate, however much the PB Tories tell one another that we are!
In the byelections yesterday, the Lib Dems came very close to winning two of the three seats at stake - and certainly there was a very impressive increase in the number of Lib Dem votes.
I have been to a number of meetings with new members recently, and the general feeling is that, without the Tory millstone around our necks, we are on the way up again. This may not be reflected yet in the opinion polls, but Lib Dem spirits are high and the mood is positive.
It's just that your general viewpoint seems, to this outsider at least, to fit more with the sandal-wearers than the red-flag wavers. I freely admit I might have got utterly the wrong impression.
Hmmm. What's the big difference between the sandal wearers and the red-flag wavers?
I'm slightly wary of the concentration on degrees. I don't have one for various reasons, and have done reasonably well for myself in my career (even if I'm currently on a career break).
Everyone seems obsessed with degrees. Vocational qualification need much better visibility, and to be valued by the public (and the media). They may need significant changes before that will happen, though.
As an aside, I know people who live in an ex-mining area (not too far from BJO's gaff). Two families had parents who were told by their schools that there was no point educating them because they'd only end up down the mines. That was in the late 70's and early '80s. That is a much bigger problem IMO.
When did you go to school? I think my generation were brought up to believe that you need a degree to even compete in the job market. I also think many don't have a clear career direction. Some people stupidly believe that getting a degree will automatically lead you to some 30k+ job, instead of using it as a stepping-stone.
I think the quality of Higher Education in some universities, and vocationally needs to be improved.
On the mining family, do you think that kind of thing still goes on now?
I'm 42. I went to both state and private schools; my last private school having a strong concentration on the military and sports, and less on the (ahem) academic.
As for the latter question; it was two families, and from talking to them, it is happening to the next generation as well. It's not too far from Rotherham (in fact, members of one family lives in the town).
One girl was the first in her family to go to uni, and it was seen as a very big and slightly odd thing (tm). To her family's credit, they scrimped and saved to help her through.
Would you say (as is currently perceived) that private schools are better than state schools?
I wonder why going to uni was seen as odd by her family though?!
The way private schools offer a better future than public schools is nothing to do with academics and everything to do with networking. It basically allows those outside the nepotistic network of advancement to buy their way in.
O/T: apparently the bank deposit guarantee is being lowered from Jan 1 from £85K to £75K. Does anyone know the background to this? - it doesn't seem an intuitively obvious thing to do at a time of general nervousness, and it's not as though the £85K limit had been frequently (ever?) called upon.
Euro-peans get to sleep just as comfortably at night.
Brits? Ever so slightly not so much. (well those Brits who have over £75K in the Bank. But hey what do we care about them?)
It's just that your general viewpoint seems, to this outsider at least, to fit more with the sandal-wearers than the red-flag wavers. I freely admit I might have got utterly the wrong impression.
Hmmm. What's the big difference between the sandal wearers and the red-flag wavers?
I believe traditionally it's size or type of beard, but obviously that signifier is not always applicable, as in this case.
Oh, you mean viewpoint differences? No idea.
The Red Flag wearers are always ready for the imminent revolution and therefore require practical and stout shoes appropriate for wading through the blood of capitalist swine.
The sandal wearers on the other hand are interested only in discussing the plight of the working class before referring their decision to the appropriate working party.
I have Corbyn down as a sandal wearer and therefore I'm unsure if he really wants to do it; maybe those rallies are changing him.
And please leave beards out of it - I have a very right wing beard.
In fairness, I think he's looking pretty good. Smile is a lot more natural now he's not leader, I guess that's the pressure being off.
Re Syriza, are they still expected to win? It's remarkable to me that they apparently got credit for standing up for Greece, which would normally be fine, except they did it with a damaging bluff that totally failed. Seriously, they barely seemed to get anything from their brinkmanship. I'm all for rewarding people for taking a bold stand, but they didn't, as far as I can tell, they pretended to take a bold stand and then folded when their bluff was called.
To be fair, if a bluff is called then you don't have much option. Their mistake was making the bluff in the first place in the belief that it wouldn't be called.
On the substantive point, Greece could again end up in a very messy position where either:
- ND wins, bags the 50-seat bonus, can't form a viable coalition themselves but are too big to enable anyone else to form one either (given that the Communists and Nazis won't ally with anyone but will still bag 12-15% of the vote). Or, - Syriza or the splitters win but need each other to form a government meaning they either can't do or that the splitters gain the upper hand, putting them on a new collision course with the EU and IMF.
In fairness, I think he's looking pretty good. Smile is a lot more natural now he's not leader, I guess that's the pressure being off.
Re Syriza, are they still expected to win? It's remarkable to me that they apparently got credit for standing up for Greece, which would normally be fine, except they did it with a damaging bluff that totally failed. Seriously, they barely seemed to get anything from their brinkmanship. I'm all for rewarding people for taking a bold stand, but they didn't, as far as I can tell, they pretended to take a bold stand and then folded when their bluff was called.
But given the choice of having to pick between the two, who would you put in charge of your bank account? (a) a bunch of competent thieves who don't care a jot about you or the country; or (b) a bunch of naive idiots who have no idea what they are doing but at least try
I suppose b) presuming they were just naiive and did not know their bluff would not work, if the others really are thieves.
That reminds me of my first flat - sofa bed, fold-down table, kitchen so small you could touch opposite walls and a sliding door that hid the hot water tank and had a rail for clothes.
I hope he's successful with it - the build quality looks very impressive, even if there's no windows or view.
''There's even a risk that if Corbyn is the figure who backs young people's cause, then that may get dismissed as well.''
All I know is that any person who offers our young workers an alternative to becoming the long term rent slaves of foreign investors and the old will reap a big political dividend.
And on the economy - hasn't unemployment been rising recently? Anyway, with the long-term trends in the UK economy regarding housing and other matters it appears this country is screwed anyway.
The last two months have seen increases, I think. We'll have to see if that's just a blip (caused by the threat of a Labour government?) or something more worrying.
It's quite interesting, but then I think a lot of the issues in regard to employment are long-term ones. Yesterday there was a discussion on PB in regard to graduate employment prospects, and the usual humanities vs STEM subjects debate was had. I remember reading CIF comments' section on a report that most graduates are doing non-graduate jobs (which doesn't surprise me). But what many CIFers forgot is employers have pretty much been critical of the quality vocational qualifications as well as university degrees. And we all know that not everyone can, or will be a STEM graduate from a top 20 university - after all if everyone graduated in medicine, that would probably lose its value as well. I think as result of the Further Education sector needing serious reform, along with the 'experience' many employers looking for being difficult to come by, the economy is a ticking timebomb.
I think you are correct, Miss (which will doubtless come as a great relief to you). Vocational education needs a massive overhaul and to be taken seriously for once.
This has been a problem that has dogged the English education system since the 19th century. A parliamentary commission in the 1880s recommended that England adopt the German system of technical and academic schools. It was ignored. The 1944 education Act made provision for technical schools, very few opened and the idea was shunned by the educational establishment. In recent decades we have had the ongoing squabble about grammar schools, which is about the top ten per cent of academically gifted children, and have been largely ignoring the needs of the majority. Oh, to be sure various governments have announced various initiatives but they have been on a trivial scale compared to the size of the problem and have never actually been followed through.
Until someone rips up the 50% must go to Uni target and gets a grip on the educational establishment, or, to be more precise, just ignores it, we will continue to have a system that fails the students and the nation.
O/T: apparently the bank deposit guarantee is being lowered from Jan 1 from £85K to £75K. Does anyone know the background to this? - it doesn't seem an intuitively obvious thing to do at a time of general nervousness, and it's not as though the £85K limit had been frequently (ever?) called upon.
Euro-peans get to sleep just as comfortably at night.
Brits? Ever so slightly not so much. (well those Brits who have over £75K in the Bank. But hey what do we care about them?)
It's just that your general viewpoint seems, to this outsider at least, to fit more with the sandal-wearers than the red-flag wavers. I freely admit I might have got utterly the wrong impression.
Hmmm. What's the big difference between the sandal wearers and the red-flag wavers?
Expectations. The sandal wearers want to hold their views without the distraction of holding power, whilst the red-flag wavers want power so they can argue amongst themselves about what to do with it.
Hence the problems the LD's had
Ironically it's Corbynites who have been saying these past months power isn't everything! I guess that I'm rarity on the Left in this sense that I prioritise getting power.
Syriza are a good example of the far left's need to have an enemy to define themselves against; when you spend a political career claiming to be oppressed or speaking for the oppressed then taking power can be complicating. You therefore need someone else to oppress you; in Syriza's case the EU.
Corbyn's problem is that Cameron et al are not plausible as oppressors to the majority of the British population.
That reminds me of my first flat - sofa bed, fold-down table, kitchen so small you could touch opposite walls and a sliding door that hid the hot water tank and had a rail for clothes.
I hope he's successful with it - the build quality looks very impressive, even if there's no windows or view.
''There's even a risk that if Corbyn is the figure who backs young people's cause, then that may get dismissed as well.''
All I know is that any person who offers our young workers an alternative to becoming the long term rent slaves of foreign investors and the old will reap a big political dividend.
Tim Straker has declared that no public law challenge could be made to the result of the ballot. said that the Labour party had no greater legal status than a members’ club. “This won’t be a matter of electoral law or public law. This is a private matter for the Labour party,” he told The Times. “The only legal basis upon which a challenge could be brought would be some kind of contractual challenge.”
I'm slightly wary of the concentration on degrees. I don't have one for various reasons, and have done reasonably well for myself in my career (even if I'm currently on a career break).
Everyone seems obsessed with degrees. Vocational qualification need much better visibility, and to be valued by the public (and the media). They may need significant changes before that will happen, though.
As an aside, I know people who live in an ex-mining area (not too far from BJO's gaff). Two families had parents who were told by their schools that there was no point educating them because they'd only end up down the mines. That was in the late 70's and early '80s. That is a much bigger problem IMO.
When did you go to school? I think my generation were brought up to believe that you need a degree to even compete in the job market. I also think many don't have a clear career direction. Some people stupidly believe that getting a degree will automatically lead you to some 30k+ job, instead of using it as a stepping-stone.
I think the quality of Higher Education in some universities, and vocationally needs to be improved.
On the mining family, do you think that kind of thing still goes on now?
I'm 42. I went to both state and private schools; my last private school having a strong concentration on the military and sports, and less on the (ahem) academic.
As for the latter question; it was two families, and from talking to them, it is happening to the next generation as well. It's not too far from Rotherham (in fact, members of one family lives in the town).
One girl was the first in her family to go to uni, and it was seen as a very big and slightly odd thing (tm). To her family's credit, they scrimped and saved to help her through.
Would you say (as is currently perceived) that private schools are better than state schools?
I wonder why going to uni was seen as odd by her family though?!
The way private schools offer a better future than public schools is nothing to do with academics and everything to do with networking. It basically allows those outside the nepotistic network of advancement to buy their way in.
I think you've got a point in regards to networking. It's one of the big reasons why inequality matters in relation to social mobility. If the wealthy have all the capital, the education and contacts they can access and consolidate the the most powerful positions among themselves.
People keep mentioning polls, but by Spring 2016, or even Spring 2017 Corbyn is most likely going to be hammered in real elections - which cannot be dismissed. Given Ed Miliband's record of doing well in polls, but doing mediocre in local/council elections, this will be bad news for Corbyn in a way it wasn't for Ed Miliband.
And while the Tories may wait to hammer Corbyn, the media certainly won't.
The May elections are huge but also come with ready-built excuses.
Scotland? Special case - iceberg hit long ago. Wales? Probably won't be disastrous and in any case, local issues again? London? Candidate issues if Labour loses (and would be no worse than Miliband did) PCCs? Too many independents messing up the numbers. Locals? The only genuine test for Corbyn, not least because 2012 was Miliband's high point, but so far down the list that the media won't go big on them.
O/T: apparently the bank deposit guarantee is being lowered from Jan 1 from £85K to £75K. Does anyone know the background to this? - it doesn't seem an intuitively obvious thing to do at a time of general nervousness, and it's not as though the £85K limit had been frequently (ever?) called upon.
Euro-peans get to sleep just as comfortably at night.
Brits? Ever so slightly not so much. (well those Brits who have over £75K in the Bank. But hey what do we care about them?)
Open another bank account or buy some bonds ?
The Jezziah would not approve of such thoughts, Comrade....
Being the ex-President's daughter pays off: Hugo Chavez's ambassador daughter is Venezuela's richest woman
Diario las Americas claims that Maria Gabriela Chavez, 35, has $4.2billion in assets held in American and Andorran banks Hugo Chavez famously declared 'being rich is bad' and during his lifetime railed against the wealthy for being lazy and gluttonous Efforts to determine Chavez's wealth have been made before, without much luck
Syriza are a good example of the far left's need to have an enemy to define themselves against; when you spend a political career claiming to be oppressed or speaking for the oppressed then taking power can be complicating. You therefore need someone else to oppress you; in Syriza's case the EU.
Corbyn's problem is that Cameron et al are not plausible as oppressors to the majority of the British population.
@taffys It's because the Tories are only thinking in the short-term - they know that everyone 45+ will vote for them. A Corbyn leadership actually makes things worse, because they are even less likely to feel compelled to solve the issue of housing without any credible opposition keeping them on their toes. There's even a risk that if Corbyn is the figure who backs young people's cause, then that may get dismissed as well.
@Plato Tim Farron is looking moderate right now. It's a tad too much a religiously type for me, but he looks sane in comparison to Corbyn.
I think you've got a point in regards to networking. It's one of the big reasons why inequality matters in relation to social mobility. If the wealthy have all the capital, the education and contacts they can access and consolidate the the most powerful positions among themselves.
I agree to a certain extent. Networks introduce inequality to opportunity. They may also skew performance evaluation in favour of insiders. But ultimately, they cannot hide bad performance. What it means is that outsiders need to be better, but IMO that disadvantage diminishes over time for the best performers.
People keep mentioning polls, but by Spring 2016, or even Spring 2017 Corbyn is most likely going to be hammered in real elections - which cannot be dismissed. Given Ed Miliband's record of doing well in polls, but doing mediocre in local/council elections, this will be bad news for Corbyn in a way it wasn't for Ed Miliband.
And while the Tories may wait to hammer Corbyn, the media certainly won't.
The May elections are huge but also come with ready-built excuses.
Scotland? Special case - iceberg hit long ago. Wales? Probably won't be disastrous and in any case, local issues again? London? Candidate issues if Labour loses (and would be no worse than Miliband did) PCCs? Too many independents messing up the numbers. Locals? The only genuine test for Corbyn, not least because 2012 was Miliband's high point, but so far down the list that the media won't go big on them.
Actually I can imagine a Corbyn Labour party doing OK at the locals - the low turnout means that those eager young zealots can have an effect - working hard can pay dividends.
Comments
That said there is one figure that I find both astonishing and exciting. The performance of the former Hackney Downs Comprehensive now the Mossbourne Academy in scoring 809 is astonishing. A school in not a good area by any measure, which takes all comers regardless of ability, has been totally transformed. How? Well people can do their own research (and will find it worthwhile) but the transformation has nothing to do with the expectation of failure promoted by so much of the teaching establishment.
I look forward to reading The Doctor's take on all this when he parades for duty today.
(Steve Richards - http://www.totalpolitics.com/opinion/450896/parties-that-want-to-thrive-cannot-be-selling-votes-for-3.thtml)
The questions being in what shape and how long will the recovery take. The Foot fiasco, not nearly as bad as Corbyn, resulted in huge defections and 18 years in opposition.
Food for thought for the faithful save that they've completely tuned out from political reality.
However, I'm not a lawyer, so I might well be wrong on this - perhaps some of our distinguished lawyers could provide a more informed view?
Re Syriza, are they still expected to win? It's remarkable to me that they apparently got credit for standing up for Greece, which would normally be fine, except they did it with a damaging bluff that totally failed. Seriously, they barely seemed to get anything from their brinkmanship. I'm all for rewarding people for taking a bold stand, but they didn't, as far as I can tell, they pretended to take a bold stand and then folded when their bluff was called.
He sees black and white without shades of grey. America is always bad, left wing causes and activists are always good. He has a refreshing simplicity, so in that respect he is literally simple minded.
And facts become irrelevant, things to be argued against. I think that is gradually sinking in to the Labour voters. His candidature is a race against reality. It will be a close race but I continue to believe that realism will win.
And while the Tories may wait to hammer Corbyn, the media certainly won't.
I'm not actually saying that the case is there today. I'm putting forward that the case could be built and like Scottish Independence, it is the type of debate which might cross party boundaries. Currently the debate is utterly squashed in public by the complicit behest of the major political parties and news media. That can change.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/05/27/guest-slot-rod-crosby-the-bell-tolls-for-labour-and-miliband/
The fact that the rules in the first place were somewhere between WTF??? and OMFG!!!!!! is the issue. And nobody made them do it like that.
If we're in hanging chad territory (as an aside, has Jeremy Corbyn ever campaigned about Chad?), it's a very different matter, especially given the shambolic conduct of the election.
People like to feel good about themselves supporting nuclear disarmament, leaving NATO, unlimited immigration and infinite government spending, but they wouldn't really actually want any of that to happen.
Hmmmm
So - when given the chance, he's gone for it. The rest are looking at their shoes and mumbling Don't Know, Miss.
That will make it very hard to recover from. Labour has been annexed by the Hard Left agenda - the LDs didn't expect to die in May, and have to find a way to rebuild what they stand for.
Two very different situations.
https://twitter.com/tom_watson/status/634680213285269504
It's so bad I'm thinking of becoming a LD.
Most Labour supporters will have already voted. So it is all sewn up.
A strong warning that Labour could lose the 2016 mayoral election because of its “nasty and inward-looking” leadership battle was sounded today by Sadiq Khan.
In a rebuke to rival leadership contenders, he said personal attacks were “seriously hurting Labour’s chances of winning” its first big test since the general election.
Mr Khan, who quit the shadow cabinet in May to campaign for the mayoralty, criticised the use of terms like “morons” or “Tories”, claims of purges and forming a “resistance”.
http://bit.ly/1NzIcVM
Ms. Apocalypse, I wonder if others will be thinking much the same.
Hardly a winning strategy, is it?
England took the new ball first thing but it's made no difference, Australia are 330 for 3.
ITV News @itvnews 2m2 minutes ago
ITV News retweeted ITV News
If you are, @itvnews wants to hear from you. Email yourstory@itn.co.uk and one of our producers may be in touch
The tories ignore at their peril the fact that young workers cannot afford their own homes in large parts of the country, and maybe never will.
Its not just London and the south east any more. This is a matter that needs to be addressed urgently or people will listen to a left wing solution.
It was a disaster and the root cause of where we are today.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34014449
I didn't have you down as that sort of person!
The north are preparing to launch Scuds at 11 sites in the south, where loudspeakers have been set up to broadcast over the border.
(That is not meant as an insult, just an observation)
The likely next Deputy Leader of the Labour Party follows me on Twitter.
I could have so much fun with that
https://gyazo.com/fd2b48822f6fd2e766e9b3f7c82addd7
http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002116.html#more
''The labour market numbers can be confusing and as a result are prone to misreporting. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) takes three-month periods as its basis for the employment and unemployment numbers. The latest three-month period is April-June. The three-month period reported in July was March-May. The unemployment number for April-June, 1.852m was slightly lower than the 1.853m for March-May, not higher. Employment, 31.035m, was just over 50,000 up on the 30.982m figure reported for March-May; higher not lower.
So where did the rising unemployment-falling employment story come from? This is because the ONS compares the latest three months with the previous three months, in this case January-March. On that basis, employment was down 63,000 and unemployment up 25,000, but that is different from saying the jobless total rose for a second successive month. Indeed, unemployment on the old claimant count measure – people on jobseeker’s allowance – has fallen every month this year.''
Whatever you do - whatever you do - please please please do not bet the house on any labour figure, let alone any Corbynite - ever admitting to this. ''its 'austerity' all the way down don'tcha know''
Isn't the general rule, though, that your own canvassing reports overstate your position?
Presumably as these are spun negatively they are from Burnham/Cooper (I guess Burnham).
So that probably means Corbyn is >40% but <50%. From the group that is likely to be only moderately supportive.
Everyone seems obsessed with degrees. Vocational qualification need much better visibility, and to be valued by the public (and the media). They may need significant changes before that will happen, though.
As an aside, I know people who live in an ex-mining area (not too far from BJO's gaff). Two families had parents who were told by their schools that there was no point educating them because they'd only end up down the mines. That was in the late 70's and early '80s. That is a much bigger problem IMO.
@JossiasJessop Why do you think that, out of interest?
@taffys It's because the Tories are only thinking in the short-term - they know that everyone 45+ will vote for them. A Corbyn leadership actually makes things worse, because they are even less likely to feel compelled to solve the issue of housing without any credible opposition keeping them on their toes. There's even a risk that if Corbyn is the figure who backs young people's cause, then that may get dismissed as well.
@Plato Tim Farron is looking moderate right now. It's a tad too much a religiously type for me, but he looks sane in comparison to Corbyn.
I always liked the Stranger Knights and Lady Companions of the Garter.
If only because of the name
However an influx from Labour would take them even further from their Liberal roots.
The numbers are trivial and the moral case seems unanswerable, as well as the practical case - we should send a message that we look after people who help us, since otherwise we may find it hard to get people to help in future.
https://www.change.org/p/minister-for-security-and-immigration-james-brokenshire-mp-make-the-minister-of-immigration-reassess-the-case-of-khushal-a-heroic-afghan-interpreter?recruiter=37356780&utm_campaign=signature_receipt_twitter_dialog&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=share_petition
I think the quality of Higher Education in some universities, and vocationally needs to be improved.
On the mining family, do you think that kind of thing still goes on now?
It may be closer than you think as the Labour party starts to fade from memory.
As for the latter question; it was two families, and from talking to them, it is happening to the next generation as well. It's not too far from Rotherham (in fact, members of one family lives in the town).
One girl was the first in her family to go to uni, and it was seen as a very big and slightly odd thing (tm). To her family's credit, they scrimped and saved to help her through.
Oh, you mean viewpoint differences? No idea.
All I know is that any person who offers our young workers an alternative to becoming the long term rent slaves of foreign investors and the old will reap a big political dividend.
This is interesting...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3204956/YO-Sushi-founder-launches-space-saving-homes-dining-tables-emerge-floor-master-bedrooms-lower-ceiling.html
However, that people are taken in by it says a lot! They think it could be true.
(a) a bunch of competent thieves who don't care a jot about you or the country; or
(b) a bunch of naive idiots who have no idea what they are doing but at least try
I don't believe the Fifth Element was a particularly positive view of the future.
I wonder why going to uni was seen as odd by her family though?!
Hence the problems the LD's had
In the byelections yesterday, the Lib Dems came very close to winning two of the three seats at stake - and certainly there was a very impressive increase in the number of Lib Dem votes.
I have been to a number of meetings with new members recently, and the general feeling is that, without the Tory millstone around our necks, we are on the way up again. This may not be reflected yet in the opinion polls, but Lib Dem spirits are high and the mood is positive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufGlBv8Z3NU
WARNING: Do not attempt to drink coffee near a computer while watching.
Brits? Ever so slightly not so much. (well those Brits who have over £75K in the Bank. But hey what do we care about them?)
The sandal wearers on the other hand are interested only in discussing the plight of the working class before referring their decision to the appropriate working party.
I have Corbyn down as a sandal wearer and therefore I'm unsure if he really wants to do it; maybe those rallies are changing him.
And please leave beards out of it - I have a very right wing beard.
On the substantive point, Greece could again end up in a very messy position where either:
- ND wins, bags the 50-seat bonus, can't form a viable coalition themselves but are too big to enable anyone else to form one either (given that the Communists and Nazis won't ally with anyone but will still bag 12-15% of the vote). Or,
- Syriza or the splitters win but need each other to form a government meaning they either can't do or that the splitters gain the upper hand, putting them on a new collision course with the EU and IMF.
I hope he's successful with it - the build quality looks very impressive, even if there's no windows or view.
This has been a problem that has dogged the English education system since the 19th century. A parliamentary commission in the 1880s recommended that England adopt the German system of technical and academic schools. It was ignored. The 1944 education Act made provision for technical schools, very few opened and the idea was shunned by the educational establishment. In recent decades we have had the ongoing squabble about grammar schools, which is about the top ten per cent of academically gifted children, and have been largely ignoring the needs of the majority. Oh, to be sure various governments have announced various initiatives but they have been on a trivial scale compared to the size of the problem and have never actually been followed through.
Until someone rips up the 50% must go to Uni target and gets a grip on the educational establishment, or, to be more precise, just ignores it, we will continue to have a system that fails the students and the nation.
I guess that I'm rarity on the Left in this sense that I prioritise getting power.
Corbyn's problem is that Cameron et al are not plausible as oppressors to the majority of the British population.
Tim Straker has declared that no public law challenge could be made to the result of the ballot. said that the Labour party had no greater legal status than a members’ club. “This won’t be a matter of electoral law or public law. This is a private matter for the Labour party,” he told The Times. “The only legal basis upon which a challenge could be brought would be some kind of contractual challenge.”
Scotland? Special case - iceberg hit long ago.
Wales? Probably won't be disastrous and in any case, local issues again?
London? Candidate issues if Labour loses (and would be no worse than Miliband did)
PCCs? Too many independents messing up the numbers.
Locals? The only genuine test for Corbyn, not least because 2012 was Miliband's high point, but so far down the list that the media won't go big on them.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/21/no-housing-crisis-just-very-british-sickness
http://www.capx.co/there-is-no-uk-housing-crisis-and-there-never-was-one/
www.spectator.co.uk/features/9452952/the-myth-of-the-housing-crisis/
http://moneyweek.com/merryns-blog/the-uk-doesnt-have-a-housing-shortage/
http://moneystepper.com/property/housing-crisis-uk/