Anyone else fear that, past distasteful comments notwithstanding, Corbyn will prove a disappointment to those expecting a complete disaster or instant meltdown of revolutionary zeal?
From what I've seen and heard from him he's far from the fresh breath of air style wise that he is supposed to be - a little more direct and normal, but no stranger to the meaningless political speak, no sir - and despite what must have been surprise at his initial success he's quickly gotten pretty disciplined and organised, utterly dominating his rivals (acknowledging of course the wave behind him is a big help, and little to do with his own personal qualities), and that suggests to me despite his unchanging views over decades, many of which I disagree with (and his inflexibility being even more concerning, for all a set of ideals is good to have), he is cannier that given credit for (which is not to say intelligent necessarily, I could not be in a position to judge), and may avoid some early pitfalls or oversteps.
As Doctor "pro Iraq war" Palmer is here, in his position as the leading pb Corbynite, perhaps he'd like to comment.
It would be hysterical if it wasn't so grotesque.
Even the Corbyn camp must be getting a bit concerned about reports like this.
IF he wins, I now think he will take Labour down to about 100 seats. Possibly fewer. He is just toxic. He will destroy what is left of the Labour brand for a generation at least.
25% of the population are pacifist and leftwing or Muslim and they will vote for Corbyn regardless, even if he stayed leader until 2020 he would get about 200 seats
Forget the economy. Forget austerity. Forget benefit cuts and the bedroom tax. Forget the public sector pay freeze. Forget taxing the rich. Forget housing. Forget inequality. Forget everything Corbyn supporters are interested in. The public is not going to hear anything about any of these subjects.
The media is going to absolutely 100% annihilate him on the Monarchy, NATO, Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament, the Falklands, the IRA, ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah.
It's going to be completely devastating.
And the thing is that even if Corbyn is later deposed there is going to be overspill damage to the Labour brand which will adversely affect whoever takes over.
Indeed so.
As the PB Tories pointed out when the unthinkable, namely Jeremy Corbyn becoming leader of the Labour Party, first started being thought.
Deliciously, Labour members and supporters seem to be - just - beginning to appreciate this trivially obvious point, having already voted.
Forget the economy. Forget austerity. Forget benefit cuts and the bedroom tax. Forget the public sector pay freeze. Forget taxing the rich. Forget housing. Forget inequality. Forget everything Corbyn supporters are interested in. The public is not going to hear anything about any of these subjects.
The media is going to absolutely 100% annihilate him on the Monarchy, NATO, Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament, the Falklands, the IRA, ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah.
It's going to be completely devastating.
And the thing is that even if Corbyn is later deposed there is going to be overspill damage to the Labour brand which will adversely affect whoever takes over.
I'm trying to see this as objectively as I can, from a betting frame of mind as opposed to a campaigning one. And, I just don't see it working that way.
Whatever Corbyn might have said in the past, he and his team are responding sensibly to the various foreign policy-related attack lines that are being thrown his way. The power of the print media isn't what it once was. People are a bit savvier now, they realise there's an agenda at play, and that what's good for newspaper proprietors isn't necessarily good for them.
Earlier in the campaign, I worried that JC would get cornered into saying something unwise on immigration. It hasn't happened, and by now it's probably too late for it to have an impact even if he did so. I don't think the monarchy, Hamas and Trident are the policy areas that will drive decisions pro- or anti-. It'll come down to the economy, and if he and his economist supporters can win that argument over the coming years, do not write him off.
Well it is reaching fever pitch, I'll grant them that. I'll assume he cannot be as bad as recent reports make him sound, although if his comments are accurately reported on the, shall we say, troublesome topics, then best case is he was just being really stupid on some of them. It's been a while since I've seen one of his policy announcements that actually does seem fairly likely to have some popular appeal - media conspiracy no doubt - but throw out enough ideas and some will be decent, so if he wins he really needs to go overboard with the 'hope and change' stuff right quick before characterisation of him as a useless nutter takes hold, if it hasn't already (despite making some headway into the public consciousness this summer - as mentioned I've had non-voters and others who don't generally discuss politics with me because I am a total bore raise him with me, there likely still remain plenty who won't pay attention until he wins, if he does).
What makes you think he "cannot be that bad". The evidence is now overwhelming.
It's just hard to believe, even with the protection of anonymity and mediocrity that you describe, my mind shies away from accepting he really could be that bad. I sincerely hope he isn't, but these days you never know!
Forget the economy. Forget austerity. Forget benefit cuts and the bedroom tax. Forget the public sector pay freeze. Forget taxing the rich. Forget housing. Forget inequality. Forget everything Corbyn supporters are interested in. The public is not going to hear anything about any of these subjects.
The media is going to absolutely 100% annihilate him on the Monarchy, NATO, Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament, the Falklands, the IRA, ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah.
It's going to be completely devastating.
And the thing is that even if Corbyn is later deposed there is going to be overspill damage to the Labour brand which will adversely affect whoever takes over.
I'm trying to see this as objectively as I can, from a betting frame of mind as opposed to a campaigning one. And, I just don't see it working that way.
Whatever Corbyn might have said in the past, he and his team are responding sensibly to the various foreign policy-related attack lines that are being thrown his way. The power of the print media isn't what it once was. People are a bit savvier now, they realise there's an agenda at play, and that what's good for newspaper proprietors isn't necessarily good for them.
Earlier in the campaign, I worried that JC would get cornered into saying something unwise on immigration. It hasn't happened, and by now it's probably too late for it to have an impact. I don't think the monarchy, Hamas and Trident are the policy areas that will drive decisions pro- or anti-. It'll come down to the economy, and if he and his economist supporters can win that argument over the coming years, do not write him off.
Didn't he just say that only 'some' of what ISIS is doing is bad?
My sister-in-law fell crossing the road with 2 bags of shopping in Haywards Heath on Friday, breaking her elbow. They x-rayed her elbow and immobilized it in a full arm cast.
They asked her to go back in yesterday for a cat scan. They are not going to operate until next Thursday, in Brighton. Why does she have to wait a week in discomfort?
Because she is in the UK and that is the way the NHS works. It would be nice if she were operated on sooner but there is too much demand and too few resources. Demand is of course going up all the time and having an extra 300,000 people a year doesn't help with that, but she can rest comfortable that Haywards Heath is now more vibrant and diverse than ever before.
Don't tell her this but if she is going to the RSCH for her operation she will be lucky if it goes ahead on the day planned. Non-urgent stuff (including cancer surgery) frequently gets kicked off the list. The one saving grace is that she had her mishap in August, if it had happened towards the end of the financial year she could be waiting a month or more. Oh, if she is to be an in-patient make sure that there are relatives/friends who will take her food; the muck they serve up at the RSCH is disgusting.
Well it is reaching fever pitch, I'll grant them that. I'll assume he cannot be as bad as recent reports make him sound, although if his comments are accurately reported on the, shall we say, troublesome topics, then best case is he was just being really stupid on some of them. It's been a while since I've seen one of his policy announcements that actually does seem fairly likely to have some popular appeal - media conspiracy no doubt - but throw out enough ideas and some will be decent, so if he wins he really needs to go overboard with the 'hope and change' stuff right quick before characterisation of him as a useless nutter takes hold, if it hasn't already (despite making some headway into the public consciousness this summer - as mentioned I've had non-voters and others who don't generally discuss politics with me because I am a total bore raise him with me, there likely still remain plenty who won't pay attention until he wins, if he does).
What makes you think he "cannot be that bad". The evidence is now overwhelming.
It's just hard to believe, even with the protection of anonymity and mediocrity that you describe, my mind shies away from accepting he really could be that bad. I sincerely hope he isn't, but these days you never know!
ISIS have now destroyed the most important temple in Palmyra, even more important than the temple of Baal
?
George Orwell — 'The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.'
And it means that once the remnants of the history have been destroyed, the people will be next. IS will destroy everything and everyone in the land they control.
And IS supporters here - and I am in no doubt that IS people are entering Europe as we speak - will seek to do the same here.
When they finish over there we sadly and undoubtedly will be next. Reports indicate they are now coming in with the migrants but what to do? Meanwhile we allow then to have the freedoms here and restrict our security services from doing an effective job? Go figure
We either take hard-headed steps now or fight later. If we leave it until later the fight will be harder, longer and bloodier.
Of course, a Corbyn-led Labour Party (or even a Labour Party where he gets a lot of support but does not actually win) will make it that much harder to take the steps that are needed to combat Islamist extremism here. What are the chances of Corbyn and his mates supporting Cameron in what he said in his recent speech on the topic? So the security of all of us here is put at risk.
Not many people will care about the Yazidis and Palmyra and the Assyrians - or not enough. But they will care if some barbarity happens here - and Labour are seen to be as equivocal about condemning the perpetrators as Corbyn has been about condemning the IRA.
It takes something to happen to make the authorities react but it's always reactive rather than preventative. For example the recent attack on a international train resulted in more stringent checks on the travelling public with all the inconvenience that will cause despite being obviously necessary. We continue to tie our hands behind our backs and blind ourselves with the human rights act to the point we are entirely exposed to those who wish to do us harm.
I still believe that it is a minority that cause all the issues but it is a minority we need to confront, as an international force of countries. We can never win a war where the combatants are not seen. The platitudes of the politicians saying we will not bow to violence does not help those who are involved and those yet to be involved.
The only option is elimination because they won't stop. We have to face reality . Times up.
Well it is reaching fever pitch, I'll grant them that. I'll assume he cannot be as bad as recent reports make him sound, although if his comments are accurately reported on the, shall we say, troublesome topics, then best case is he was just being really stupid on some of them. It's been a while since I've seen one of his policy announcements that actually does seem fairly likely to have some popular appeal - media conspiracy no doubt - but throw out enough ideas and some will be decent, so if he wins he really needs to go overboard with the 'hope and change' stuff right quick before characterisation of him as a useless nutter takes hold, if it hasn't already (despite making some headway into the public consciousness this summer - as mentioned I've had non-voters and others who don't generally discuss politics with me because I am a total bore raise him with me, there likely still remain plenty who won't pay attention until he wins, if he does).
What makes you think he "cannot be that bad". The evidence is now overwhelming.
It's just hard to believe, even with the protection of anonymity and mediocrity that you describe, my mind shies away from accepting he really could be that bad. I sincerely hope he isn't, but these days you never know!
A bit less so, as he seems more aggressive, but not totally - I guess I'm just overly optimistic about people, much to my surprise.
Corbyn calling Bin Laden's death a "tragedy" is about ten times worse than everything else that's come out to date. He's said some very friendly things about various Islamist types, but these are Islamists most of the British public are only vaguely aware of. On the other hand, everyone hates the IRA, but he just met with them, and hasn't (that we know of) said anything that positive about them.
The Bin Laden thing, however, is off the charts. The entire damn electorate knows exactly who he is - the most hated man since one Adolf Hitler - and were very glad when he came to his end. Describing his passing as a "tragedy" is something so horribly odious that the vast bulk of the public will detest Corbyn for it. Other parties just need to say, on the doorstep, "Jeremy Corbyn said Osama Bin Laden's death was a tragedy" and it will immediately lose Labour votes in the entire household. And it's completely, undeniably true.
Labour aren't just screwed. They are so screwed that I am unable to give an analogy to how screwed they are without offending people by using such a deeply traumatic event in a political analogy. I take back everything I said about Corbyn not doing too badly at first. Labour will likely drop to the low 20s within a month of him getting in.
Forget the economy. Forget austerity. Forget benefit cuts and the bedroom tax. Forget the public sector pay freeze. Forget taxing the rich. Forget housing. Forget inequality. Forget everything Corbyn supporters are interested in. The public is not going to hear anything about any of these subjects.
The media is going to absolutely 100% annihilate him on the Monarchy, NATO, Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament, the Falklands, the IRA, ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah.
It's going to be completely devastating.
And the thing is that even if Corbyn is later deposed there is going to be overspill damage to the Labour brand which will adversely affect whoever takes over.
This is where Clive Lewis comes in as a possible replacement for Corbyn before 2020. Someone who did a tour of duty in Afghanistan will be IMPOSSIBLE to paint as a traitor to Britain no matter how "left-wing" he is.
As Doctor "pro Iraq war" Palmer is here, in his position as the leading pb Corbynite, perhaps he'd like to comment.
It would be hysterical if it wasn't so grotesque.
Even the Corbyn camp must be getting a bit concerned about reports like this.
IF he wins, I now think he will take Labour down to about 100 seats. Possibly fewer. He is just toxic. He will destroy what is left of the Labour brand for a generation at least.
25% of the population are pacifist and leftwing or Muslim and they will vote for Corbyn regardless, even if he stayed leader until 2020 he would get about 200 seats
Disagree. It's more like 20% ( = 100 seats?). And even if it is 25% many of them will be frightened by the prospect of economic chaos.
Forget the economy. Forget austerity. Forget benefit cuts and the bedroom tax. Forget the public sector pay freeze. Forget taxing the rich. Forget housing. Forget inequality. Forget everything Corbyn supporters are interested in. The public is not going to hear anything about any of these subjects.
The media is going to absolutely 100% annihilate him on the Monarchy, NATO, Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament, the Falklands, the IRA, ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah.
It's going to be completely devastating.
And the thing is that even if Corbyn is later deposed there is going to be overspill damage to the Labour brand which will adversely affect whoever takes over.
Does that include the destruction of Palmyra? Or is that some of the *good* stuff they do?
Just checking. Perhaps Nick Palmer can inform us what his chosen leader meant.
Surely a person who makes such a comment cannot possibly face the British electorate in a general election.
I realise I'm being pedantic but is it an incorrect assertion? If he were to say 'Everything ISIS does is appalling' it would be OTT (although the kind of statement people regularly get away with) because he can't know everything ISIS does. It seems to me he says more controversial and inane things at least every other sentence than that. Are you suggesting that politicians should never miss an opportunity to indulge in hyperbole where it accords with national opinion?
As Doctor "pro Iraq war" Palmer is here, in his position as the leading pb Corbynite, perhaps he'd like to comment.
It would be hysterical if it wasn't so grotesque.
Even the Corbyn camp must be getting a bit concerned about reports like this.
IF he wins, I now think he will take Labour down to about 100 seats. Possibly fewer. He is just toxic. He will destroy what is left of the Labour brand for a generation at least.
The problem for labour is that the very existence of Corbyn on the ballot has encouraged all his fellow thinkers to 'join' up and vote for him. These fellow thinkers do not really care much about 'labour' other than, like Corbyn. to turn it into an object after their own image.
How many people are yet to vote in the Labour leadership contest? Surely even the most left-wing voters will realise that "Bin Laden dying was a tragedy" is a toxic step too far, and vote against him now? If Burnham or Cooper now get placed above Corbyn in 80% of remaining ballots, will Corbyn lose?
Forget the economy. Forget austerity. Forget benefit cuts and the bedroom tax. Forget the public sector pay freeze. Forget taxing the rich. Forget housing. Forget inequality. Forget everything Corbyn supporters are interested in. The public is not going to hear anything about any of these subjects.
The media is going to absolutely 100% annihilate him on the Monarchy, NATO, Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament, the Falklands, the IRA, ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah.
It's going to be completely devastating.
And the thing is that even if Corbyn is later deposed there is going to be overspill damage to the Labour brand which will adversely affect whoever takes over.
This is where Clive Lewis comes in as a possible replacement for Corbyn before 2020. Someone who did a tour of duty in Afghanistan will be IMPOSSIBLE to paint as a traitor to Britain no matter how "left-wing" he is.
If I'm not mistaken, you've been cheerleading for Corbyn the last few weeks.No?
Not really - I ended up ranking him 3rd on my vote, behind Burnham and Cooper.
I've always said I agreed with him mostly on the economy, and the thought of giving the Labour "elite" a kick up the arse did appeal, but I always thought some of his stances on foreign policy would be problematic.
As Doctor "pro Iraq war" Palmer is here, in his position as the leading pb Corbynite, perhaps he'd like to comment.
It would be hysterical if it wasn't so grotesque.
Even the Corbyn camp must be getting a bit concerned about reports like this.
IF he wins, I now think he will take Labour down to about 100 seats. Possibly fewer. He is just toxic. He will destroy what is left of the Labour brand for a generation at least.
25% of the population are pacifist and leftwing or Muslim and they will vote for Corbyn regardless, even if he stayed leader until 2020 he would get about 200 seats
Disagree. It's more like 20% ( = 100 seats?). And even if it is 25% many of them will be frightened by the prospect of economic chaos.
Even Michael Foot got 27% and 209 seats
Easily outclassed by Super Ed who got 30.4% and 232 seats
As Doctor "pro Iraq war" Palmer is here, in his position as the leading pb Corbynite, perhaps he'd like to comment.
It would be hysterical if it wasn't so grotesque.
Even the Corbyn camp must be getting a bit concerned about reports like this.
IF he wins, I now think he will take Labour down to about 100 seats. Possibly fewer. He is just toxic. He will destroy what is left of the Labour brand for a generation at least.
25% of the population are pacifist and leftwing or Muslim and they will vote for Corbyn regardless, even if he stayed leader until 2020 he would get about 200 seats
Disagree. It's more like 20% ( = 100 seats?). And even if it is 25% many of them will be frightened by the prospect of economic chaos.
Even Michael Foot got 27% and 209 seats
Easily outclassed by Super Ed got 30.4% and 232 seats
Yes there is still a little further Labour could fall though Foot's total is roughly their floor
How many people are yet to vote in the Labour leadership contest? Surely even the most left-wing voters will realise that "Bin Laden dying was a tragedy" is a toxic step too far, and vote against him now? If Burnham or Cooper now get placed above Corbyn in 80% of remaining ballots, will Corbyn lose?
I think that perhaps Corbyn has now reached the point where he is playing games. He has come out with some very daft stuff and found people have been cheering him on. Perhaps he has now decided to see how far he can go and still be acclaimed as the new messiah. So we get the Falklands comments, now Bin Laden's death was a tragedy, tomorrow, perhaps, 9/11 was a CIA operation.
Corbyn calling Bin Laden's death a "tragedy" is about ten times worse than everything else that's come out to date. He's said some very friendly things about various Islamist types, but these are Islamists most of the British public are only vaguely aware of. On the other hand, everyone hates the IRA, but he just met with them, and hasn't (that we know of) said anything that positive about them.
Given his words about ISIS and Bin Laden it seems quite plausible to me that Corbyn has said something equally repugnant about the IRA.
Forget the economy. Forget austerity. Forget benefit cuts and the bedroom tax. Forget the public sector pay freeze. Forget taxing the rich. Forget housing. Forget inequality. Forget everything Corbyn supporters are interested in. The public is not going to hear anything about any of these subjects.
The media is going to absolutely 100% annihilate him on the Monarchy, NATO, Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament, the Falklands, the IRA, ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah.
It's going to be completely devastating.
And the thing is that even if Corbyn is later deposed there is going to be overspill damage to the Labour brand which will adversely affect whoever takes over.
This is where Clive Lewis comes in as a possible replacement for Corbyn before 2020. Someone who did a tour of duty in Afghanistan will be IMPOSSIBLE to paint as a traitor to Britain no matter how "left-wing" he is.
Does that include the destruction of Palmyra? Or is that some of the *good* stuff they do?
Just checking. Perhaps Nick Palmer can inform us what his chosen leader meant.
Surely a person who makes such a comment cannot possibly face the British electorate in a general election.
I realise I'm being pedantic but is it an incorrect assertion? If he were to say 'Everything ISIS does is appalling' it would be OTT (although the kind of statement people regularly get away with) because he can't know everything ISIS does. It seems to me he says more controversial and inane things at least every other sentence than that. Are you suggesting that politicians should never miss an opportunity to indulge in hyperbole where it accords with national opinion?
It's an unnecessary piece of very strict accuracy even if he doesn't wish to engage in hyperbole. On that particular point I can believe he was perhaps speaking inelegantly (although probably in his eagerness to transition from talking about the actual point to the point he wanted to talk about, condemning the americans) rather than necessarily making the implication that has been inferred from his phrasing, but he could have just said 'the stuff we've seen from ISIS is terrible' and leave it at that, rather than leave himself open to attack. Which he wouldn't be in any case were his other flaws and statements about things making that phrasing seem more symbolic of his views than, if we are for the sake of argument to assume they were intended to be.
That is surely the most problematic aspect of his potential leadership, that some of his comments and associations, if not shied away from if he becomes leader, are at best worthy of taking a close look at, and at worst will be comdemned by a lot of people whose votes he will need, and yet if he shies away of explains things away like a 'normal' politician, he loses some of his supposed magic.
I feel very able to give him a fair go at being Labour leader, and it is not impossible for him to succeed - nothing is impossible - but he does have far more vulnerabilities, some minor, some major, and the major ones open him up to even more, which without those majors would not cause the same level of concern or attention.
I predicted this (I claim no great insight) months ago. The whole place will be slowly levelled. Their adolescent hunger for shock and horror makes them unable to resist.
I visited Palmyra in 1998. It's one of the four or five greatest surviving sites from the pre-industrial world. Up there with Macchu Picchu. Culturally, it's like losing all of Granada - or Cambridge.
The greatest cultural crime of my entire life, by a distance.
Very saddening. But what will the West do?
Reflect on their guilt?
The West are destroying Palmyra?
Our meddling has created this mess.
You must be Corbyn's sidekick, Mr Crosby?
Been away, did you ever explain the point of your immigrant mobile phone tweet from earlier?
I will explain to blockheads like you: For so called penniless, starving, poor immigrants to have smart phones, shows that they are neither penniless nor starving or poor. It's not the smart phones themselves however that shows that they are far from the asylum seekers that they would claim for themselves. Remember, it takes a provider for the phones to be of any use, and that demands cash. Mugs like you continue to welcome this criminal trash; so be it.
You've gone overboard with your criminal trash remark. I do not think many people are calling these people penniless - although some of the young from say Somalia must be pretty poor. The reality is that these migrants have paid significant sums of money by their standards to get where they are. We are seeing whole extended families trying to move. They are probably not persecuted, they are trying to escape a miserable life, more analogous to being refugees rather than asylum seekers. They are economic migrants. Quite a few of them are stone cold dead economic migrants.
Corbyn calling Bin Laden's death a "tragedy" is about ten times worse than everything else that's come out to date. He's said some very friendly things about various Islamist types, but these are Islamists most of the British public are only vaguely aware of. On the other hand, everyone hates the IRA, but he just met with them, and hasn't (that we know of) said anything that positive about them.
Given his words about ISIS and Bin Laden it seems quite plausible to me that Corbyn has said something equally repugnant about the IRA.
Labour really do know how to pick them.
Is it true the British govt. colluded with Loyalist paramilitaries?
Does that include the destruction of Palmyra? Or is that some of the *good* stuff they do?
Just checking. Perhaps Nick Palmer can inform us what his chosen leader meant.
Surely a person who makes such a comment cannot possibly face the British electorate in a general election.
I realise I'm being pedantic but is it an incorrect assertion? If he were to say 'Everything ISIS does is appalling' it would be OTT (although the kind of statement people regularly get away with) because he can't know everything ISIS does. It seems to me he says more controversial and inane things at least every other sentence than that. Are you suggesting that politicians should never miss an opportunity to indulge in hyperbole where it accords with national opinion?
It's an unnecessary piece of very strict accuracy even if he doesn't wish to engage in hyperbole. On that particular point I can believe he was perhaps speaking inelegantly (although probably in his eagerness to transition from talking about the actual point to the point he wanted to talk about, condemning the americans) rather than necessarily making the implication that has been inferred from his phrasing, but he could have just said 'the stuff we've seen from ISIS is terrible' and leave it at that, rather than leave himself open to attack. Which he wouldn't be in any case were his other flaws and statements about things making that phrasing seem more symbolic of his views than, if we are for the sake of argument to assume they were intended to be.
From what I've seen of JC, I think @initforthemoney is on the money here. He doesn't approve of anything ISIS are doing, but could have phrased this better. He needs to eliminate this kind of phrasing if elected leader, but to claim that it means he supports ISIS is smear tactics at their worst.
How many people are yet to vote in the Labour leadership contest? Surely even the most left-wing voters will realise that "Bin Laden dying was a tragedy" is a toxic step too far, and vote against him now? If Burnham or Cooper now get placed above Corbyn in 80% of remaining ballots, will Corbyn lose?
I agree. I think it's a step too far. It's surely - SURELY - a campaign ending revelation.
Even if Corbyn *wins* I now expect there will be a judicial review, a challenge of sorts, and some means will be found to eject him.
Which implies there might be VALUE in the other leader candidates, if one could work out the absurd complexities (would this be the next leader, or the next but one?)
Labour MPs have already said they will give him 18 months though:
No doubt when they suggested it they thought was the most harsh term they could offer to replace him and keep the Left on board. But now they will regret giving Jeremy "what a shame about the 9/11 architect dying" Corbyn even that long. They'll now have to remove him instantly, and the Left will cry, "but you said 18 months!" and never forgive them.
It's hard to see how Labour could have screwed this up any more.
How many people are yet to vote in the Labour leadership contest? Surely even the most left-wing voters will realise that "Bin Laden dying was a tragedy" is a toxic step too far, and vote against him now? If Burnham or Cooper now get placed above Corbyn in 80% of remaining ballots, will Corbyn lose?
I agree. I think it's a step too far. It's surely - SURELY - a campaign ending revelation.
Even if Corbyn *wins* I now expect there will be a judicial review, a challenge of sorts, and some means will be found to eject him.
Which implies there might be VALUE in the other leader candidates, if one could work out the absurd complexities (would this be the next leader, or the next but one?)
I agree it looks bad at face value. I'd like 1) actual video or even audio of him saying this - at the moment we just have the text of a Sun article - hardly a bastion of journalistic integrity. That would hopefully also provide 2) the context. It's easy to take something out of context to damn someone.
For Corbyn supporters, anything negative about him is part of a dastardly propaganda campaign by Tories and Blairites. Including, no doubt, the Bin Laden comment.
Does that include the destruction of Palmyra? Or is that some of the *good* stuff they do?
Just checking. Perhaps Nick Palmer can inform us what his chosen leader meant.
Surely a person who makes such a comment cannot possibly face the British electorate in a general election.
I realise I'm being pedantic but is it an incorrect assertion? If he were to say 'Everything ISIS does is appalling' it would be OTT (although the kind of statement people regularly get away with) because he can't know everything ISIS does. It seems to me he says more controversial and inane things at least every other sentence than that. Are you suggesting that politicians should never miss an opportunity to indulge in hyperbole where it accords with national opinion?
It's an unnecessary piece of very strict accuracy even if he doesn't wish to engage in hyperbole. On that particular point I can believe he was perhaps speaking inelegantly (although probably in his eagerness to transition from talking about the actual point to the point he wanted to talk about, condemning the americans) rather than necessarily making the implication that has been inferred from his phrasing, but he could have just said 'the stuff we've seen from ISIS is terrible' and leave it at that, rather than leave himself open to attack. Which he wouldn't be in any case were his other flaws and statements about things making that phrasing seem more symbolic of his views than, if we are for the sake of argument to assume they were intended to be.
From what I've seen of JC, I think @initforthemoney is on the money here. He doesn't approve of anything ISIS are doing, but could have phrased this better. He needs to eliminate this kind of phrasing if elected leader, but to claim that it means he supports ISIS is smear tactics at their worst.
Fine, but if he doesn't approve anything they are doing why doesn't he just say so? Its not difficult to speak one's mind and it is something he is supposed to be good at. Perhaps we should just take him at his word.
Does that include the destruction of Palmyra? Or is that some of the *good* stuff they do?
Just checking. Perhaps Nick Palmer can inform us what his chosen leader meant.
Surely a person who makes such a comment cannot possibly face the British electorate in a general election.
I realise I'm being pedantic but is it an incorrect assertion? If he were to say 'Everything ISIS does is appalling' it would be OTT (although the kind of statement people regularly get away with) because he can't know everything ISIS does. It seems to me he says more controversial and inane things at least every other sentence than that. Are you suggesting that politicians should never miss an opportunity to indulge in hyperbole where it accords with national opinion?
It's an unnecessary piece of very strict accuracy even if he doesn't wish to engage in hyperbole. On that particular point I can believe he was perhaps speaking inelegantly (although probably in his eagerness to transition from talking about the actual point to the point he wanted to talk about, condemning the americans) rather than necessarily making the implication that has been inferred from his phrasing, but he could have just said 'the stuff we've seen from ISIS is terrible' and leave it at that, rather than leave himself open to attack. Which he wouldn't be in any case were his other flaws and statements about things making that phrasing seem more symbolic of his views than, if we are for the sake of argument to assume they were intended to be.
From what I've seen of JC, I think @initforthemoney is on the money here. He doesn't approve of anything ISIS are doing, but could have phrased this better. He needs to eliminate this kind of phrasing if elected leader, but to claim that it means he supports ISIS is smear tactics at their worst.
Smearing is, unfortunately, part and parcel of politics. He wouldn't be open to as many smears if he wasn't proving real targets for people to aim at, and which would make people potentially believe the smears. Politically that's a problem that he cannot get away from just by complaining that he is being smeared.
Especially as there is no chance, none, that a Corbyn led Labour party would not engage in smearing their opponents, anymore than an ABC led Labour would or an anybody led any other part would.
Heck, smears have been flying around against internal opponents already.
Given his words about ISIS and Bin Laden it seems quite plausible to me that Corbyn has said something equally repugnant about the IRA.
Frankly I don't think you can get much more repugnant than inviting two convicted IRA bombers into parliament just two weeks after a large chunk of your fellow MPs have been the victim of an horrendous IRA bombing which killed or maimed for life several of them and their completely innocent wives.
For that disgustingly insensitive act alone, Jeremy Corbyn is beyond the pale for any civilised person. And that's just one of several such stunts. The man is a monster, pure and simple - or at best a moral simpleton.
Labour aren't just screwed. They are so screwed that I am unable to give an analogy to how screwed they are without offending people by using such a deeply traumatic event in a political analogy.
Are they more screwed than the Lib Dems were before the election?
As Doctor "pro Iraq war" Palmer is here, in his position as the leading pb Corbynite, perhaps he'd like to comment.
It would be hysterical if it wasn't so grotesque.
Even the Corbyn camp must be getting a bit concerned about reports like this.
IF he wins, I now think he will take Labour down to about 100 seats. Possibly fewer. He is just toxic. He will destroy what is left of the Labour brand for a generation at least.
25% of the population are pacifist and leftwing or Muslim and they will vote for Corbyn regardless, even if he stayed leader until 2020 he would get about 200 seats
Disagree. It's more like 20% ( = 100 seats?). And even if it is 25% many of them will be frightened by the prospect of economic chaos.
Even Michael Foot got 27% and 209 seats
Easily outclassed by Super Ed got 30.4% and 232 seats
Yes there is still a little further Labour could fall though Foot's total is roughly their floor
Nonsense. Labour has no floor. They've been wiped out in Scotland - that was their heartland. That was their core, their ultimate fastness. If they elect this c*nt Corbyn, they could be wiped out by UKIP in the north of England. Which leaves them with... Ebbw Vale. And Islington (North).
There is no floor for any political party. Look at Greece: one day PASOK was one of the two ruling parties, the next it is scrabbling around at 3% in the polls. If you have the wrong leader, or are spectacularly incompetent or corrupt, you can literally end up at zero in the polls.
For Corbyn supporters, anything negative about him is part of a dastardly propaganda campaign by Tories and Blairites. Including, no doubt, the Bin Laden comment.
Corby better now hope most of his support comes from Merseyside because they don't read the Sun there apparently.
Not as bad as the Bin Laden remarks, but "Falklands War was a Tory plot" and refusing loyal support to our forces could have been the worst gaffe had Bin Laden gate not come out:
I predicted this (I claim no great insight) months ago. The whole place will be slowly levelled. Their adolescent hunger for shock and horror makes them unable to resist.
I visited Palmyra in 1998. It's one of the four or five greatest surviving sites from the pre-industrial world. Up there with Macchu Picchu. Culturally, it's like losing all of Granada - or Cambridge.
The greatest cultural crime of my entire life, by a distance.
Very saddening. But what will the West do?
Reflect on their guilt?
The West are destroying Palmyra?
Our meddling has created this mess.
You must be Corbyn's sidekick, Mr Crosby?
Been away, did you ever explain the point of your immigrant mobile phone tweet from earlier?
I will explain to blockheads like you: For so called penniless, starving, poor immigrants to have smart phones, shows that they are neither penniless nor starving or poor. It's not the smart phones themselves however that shows that they are far from the asylum seekers that they would claim for themselves. Remember, it takes a provider for the phones to be of any use, and that demands cash. Mugs like you continue to welcome this criminal trash; so be it.
I know this may come as a shock to a coffin dodger, such as yourself, but in the modern world there's this thing called wireless, in the modern world there are lots of places, even in France, where it can be accessed free, this modern marvel provides access to the internet, and thereby, relatives and information. You should try it, you'd be amazed. Perhaps you could put it on your bucket list.
From what I've seen of JC, I think @initforthemoney is on the money here. He doesn't approve of anything ISIS are doing, but could have phrased this better. He needs to eliminate this kind of phrasing if elected leader, but to claim that it means he supports ISIS is smear tactics at their worst.
Fine, but if he doesn't approve anything they are doing why doesn't he just say so? Its not difficult to speak one's mind and it is something he is supposed to be good at. Perhaps we should just take him at his word.
Again with the caveat that having managed to get myself photographed with the man and got him to sign something doesn't actually mean I have great insight into how he thinks...
My impression is that he doesn't believe in condemning anything or anyone unequivocally. Rather, everyone is a human being, and some people have wrong beliefs and/or do wrong things. Everything is shades of grey, not black & white. Perhaps, because to JC diplomacy means keeping lines of communication open, and blanket condemnation is antithetical to that. This phrasing is in keeping with that.
But, it's politically unwise. He hasnt really had to worry about that up til now, and it's taking a bit of getting used to!
Let's take tonight's Bin Laden story as an example.
Corbyn went on Press TV to talk about it.
He said:
"We can only guess that there is something fishy here. Either Bin Laden wasn’t there, therefore there has to be a story. Or, the pictures … show something else… This was an assassination attempt and is yet another tragedy upon a tragedy, upon a tragedy."
He did not go on air to re-iterate agreed foreign policy, did he? He went on to challenge the view that Bin Laden's killing was a good thing and the establishment with it. I have seen people try to defend him, by saying that every killing is a tragedy. But Corbyn didn't say that, he could have if he'd wanted to.
It is increasingly difficult to look at Corbyn's views with such a positive spin, because we have to take them together.
Given his words about ISIS and Bin Laden it seems quite plausible to me that Corbyn has said something equally repugnant about the IRA.
Frankly I don't think you can get much more repugnant than inviting two convicted IRA bombers into parliament just two weeks after a large chunk of your fellow MPs have been the victim of an horrendous IRA bombing which killed or maimed for life several of them and their completely innocent wives.
For that disgustingly insensitive act alone, Jeremy Corbyn is beyond the pale for any civilised person. And that's just one of several such stunts. The man is a monster, pure and simple - or at best a moral simpleton.
That wasn't the only occasion he carried out such a stunt. The Guardian assessment of him in 1996 - that he was someone the Labour Party would be better off without - was and remains absolutely right.
It looks like the huge discrepancy between Romanian and Bulgarians coming here in ONS migration statistics and in NI numbers is now gaining traction. Daily Mail calling for an investigation:
How many people are yet to vote in the Labour leadership contest? Surely even the most left-wing voters will realise that "Bin Laden dying was a tragedy" is a toxic step too far, and vote against him now? If Burnham or Cooper now get placed above Corbyn in 80% of remaining ballots, will Corbyn lose?
I think that perhaps Corbyn has now reached the point where he is playing games. He has come out with some very daft stuff and found people have been cheering him on. Perhaps he has now decided to see how far he can go and still be acclaimed as the new messiah. So we get the Falklands comments, now Bin Laden's death was a tragedy, tomorrow, perhaps, 9/11 was a CIA operation.
These comments were old comments made at the time and are revealing for his inner motivations. The current comment about 'some' of what ISIS do being appalling is in itself (as SeanT suggests) totally crass. It is a remark which shows those old motivations have not changed.
Everyone of a sane mind, and not utterly committed to destroying every institution of our western capitalist structure, must regard this man if let loose from the chains of backbench imprisonment as a wild and dangerous maniac.
It looks like the huge discrepancy between Romanian and Bulgarians coming here in ONS migration statistics and in NI numbers is now gaining traction. Daily Mail calling for an investigation:
Can you remember when the BBC did a report the day after they were allowed to come to the UK pointing out there was apparently only person who'd taken the opportunity, at Stansted Airport?
They actually sent a reporter to interview him IIRC.
Forget the economy. Forget austerity. Forget benefit cuts and the bedroom tax. Forget the public sector pay freeze. Forget taxing the rich. Forget housing. Forget inequality. Forget everything Corbyn supporters are interested in. The public is not going to hear anything about any of these subjects.
The media is going to absolutely 100% annihilate him on the Monarchy, NATO, Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament, the Falklands, the IRA, ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah.
It's going to be completely devastating.
And the thing is that even if Corbyn is later deposed there is going to be overspill damage to the Labour brand which will adversely affect whoever takes over.
It looks like the huge discrepancy between Romanian and Bulgarians coming here in ONS migration statistics and in NI numbers is now gaining traction. Daily Mail calling for an investigation:
I'm all for further investigation, but there are plenty of potential reasons (mostly relating to short term, seasonal work) which might account for the discrepancy. And if it's a reason that isn't above board, it would be interesting to know which: false NI regs? previously illegal immigrants now legalising? etc.
From what I've seen of JC, I think @initforthemoney is on the money here. He doesn't approve of anything ISIS are doing, but could have phrased this better. He needs to eliminate this kind of phrasing if elected leader, but to claim that it means he supports ISIS is smear tactics at their worst.
Fine, but if he doesn't approve anything they are doing why doesn't he just say so? Its not difficult to speak one's mind and it is something he is supposed to be good at. Perhaps we should just take him at his word.
My impression is that he doesn't believe in condemning anything or anyone unequivocally. Rather, everyone is a human being, and some people have wrong beliefs and/or do wrong things.
Does that include Tories, because that's certainly not the case for his most vocal supporters (accepting the caveat that one cannot be entirely judged by the nuttiest of one's supporters)
My sister-in-law fell crossing the road with 2 bags of shopping in Haywards Heath on Friday, breaking her elbow. They x-rayed her elbow and immobilized it in a full arm cast.
They asked her to go back in yesterday for a cat scan. They are not going to operate until next Thursday, in Brighton. Why does she have to wait a week in discomfort?
Because she is in the UK and that is the way the NHS works. It would be nice if she were operated on sooner but there is too much demand and too few resources. Demand is of course going up all the time and having an extra 300,000 people a year doesn't help with that, but she can rest comfortable that Haywards Heath is now more vibrant and diverse than ever before.
Don't tell her this but if she is going to the RSCH for her operation she will be lucky if it goes ahead on the day planned. Non-urgent stuff (including cancer surgery) frequently gets kicked off the list. The one saving grace is that she had her mishap in August, if it had happened towards the end of the financial year she could be waiting a month or more. Oh, if she is to be an in-patient make sure that there are relatives/friends who will take her food; the muck they serve up at the RSCH is disgusting.
She's been told they will be inserting 'pins'. They charge for parking FFS!!! Website says use public transport. No clue.
She was meant to be here in 3 weeks. She is my wife's identical twin and they haven't seen each other in a decade. They are going to reschedule for next year. It'll be interesting, as today it was only 75, and we both wore heavy jackets going out for lunch.
I detailed on here some time ago about my daughter's experience with the NHS, and how we had to go private to fix the terrible NHS service she got. I am not a fan. They have no concept of serving the customer. Here folks are very conscious that you have a choice and appreciate your business, but there you just have the awful monopoly.
From what I've seen of JC, I think @initforthemoney is on the money here. He doesn't approve of anything ISIS are doing, but could have phrased this better. He needs to eliminate this kind of phrasing if elected leader, but to claim that it means he supports ISIS is smear tactics at their worst.
Fine, but if he doesn't approve anything they are doing why doesn't he just say so? Its not difficult to speak one's mind and it is something he is supposed to be good at. Perhaps we should just take him at his word.
Again with the caveat that having managed to get myself photographed with the man and got him to sign something doesn't actually mean I have great insight into how he thinks...
My impression is that he doesn't believe in condemning anything or anyone unequivocally. Rather, everyone is a human being, and some people have wrong beliefs and/or do wrong things. Everything is shades of grey, not black & white. Perhaps, because to JC diplomacy means keeping lines of communication open, and blanket condemnation is antithetical to that. This phrasing is in keeping with that.
But, it's politically unwise. He hasnt really had to worry about that up til now, and it's taking a bit of getting used to!
Let's nail this nonsense about him needing to use diplomatic language as a reason for the words he uses. Corbyn has never ever been engaged in any sort of diplomatic work, whether formal or informal. He has all his life been a nonentity of a backbencher with no judgment whatsoever and a predilection for gesture politics of the most crass and offensive kind. He says these things because he means them or because he is an idiot - a moral simpleton, in Mr Nabavi's lovely phrase.
Either way, he's not fit to be in charge of anything more onerous than the biscuit money for his allotment.
How many people are yet to vote in the Labour leadership contest? Surely even the most left-wing voters will realise that "Bin Laden dying was a tragedy" is a toxic step too far, and vote against him now? If Burnham or Cooper now get placed above Corbyn in 80% of remaining ballots, will Corbyn lose?
I agree. I think it's a step too far. It's surely - SURELY - a campaign ending revelation.
Even if Corbyn *wins* I now expect there will be a judicial review, a challenge of sorts, and some means will be found to eject him.
Which implies there might be VALUE in the other leader candidates, if one could work out the absurd complexities (would this be the next leader, or the next but one?)
I agree it looks bad at face value. I'd like 1) actual video or even audio of him saying this - at the moment we just have the text of a Sun article - hardly a bastion of journalistic integrity. That would hopefully also provide 2) the context. It's easy to take something out of context to damn someone.
Arguably worse is that he calls 9/11 a "tragedy". No, that wasn't a tragedy, that was a monstrous crime.
But that's just me. Fact is, he said it, he said it about Bin Laden's death, he can't deny it. I think he's finished.
Finished for 2020 yup probably but he could still be elected as leader but it really depends how many votes have been cast already and how many are holding back. Such information might well be betting gold dust.
From what I've seen of JC, I think @initforthemoney is on the money here. He doesn't approve of anything ISIS are doing, but could have phrased this better. He needs to eliminate this kind of phrasing if elected leader, but to claim that it means he supports ISIS is smear tactics at their worst.
Fine, but if he doesn't approve anything they are doing why doesn't he just say so? Its not difficult to speak one's mind and it is something he is supposed to be good at. Perhaps we should just take him at his word.
Again with the caveat that having managed to get myself photographed with the man and got him to sign something doesn't actually mean I have great insight into how he thinks...
My impression is that he doesn't believe in condemning anything or anyone unequivocally. Rather, everyone is a human being, and some people have wrong beliefs and/or do wrong things. Everything is shades of grey, not black & white. Perhaps, because to JC diplomacy means keeping lines of communication open, and blanket condemnation is antithetical to that. This phrasing is in keeping with that.
But, it's politically unwise. He hasnt really had to worry about that up til now, and it's taking a bit of getting used to!
Let's nail this nonsense about him needing to use diplomatic language as a reason for the words he uses. Corbyn has never ever been engaged in any sort of diplomatic work, whether formal or informal. He has all his life been a nonentity of a backbencher with no judgment whatsoever and a predilection for gesture politics of the most crass and offensive kind. He says these things because he means them or because he is an idiot - a moral simpleton, in Mr Nabavi's lovely phrase.
Either way, he's not fit to be in charge of anything more onerous than the biscuit money for his allotment.
The diplomatic language argument has been blown out the water by the tragedy comment. Who was he being diplomatic to? Osama's dead body?
As Doctor "pro Iraq war" Palmer is here, in his position as the leading pb Corbynite, perhaps he'd like to comment.
It would be hysterical if it wasn't so grotesque.
Even the Corbyn camp must be getting a bit concerned about reports like this.
IF he wins, I now think he will take Labour down to about 100 seats. Possibly fewer. He is just toxic. He will destroy what is left of the Labour brand for a generation at least.
25% of the population are pacifist and leftwing or Muslim and they will vote for Corbyn regardless, even if he stayed leader until 2020 he would get about 200 seats
Disagree. It's more like 20% ( = 100 seats?). And even if it is 25% many of them will be frightened by the prospect of economic chaos.
Even Michael Foot got 27% and 209 seats
Easily outclassed by Super Ed got 30.4% and 232 seats
Yes there is still a little further Labour could fall though Foot's total is roughly their floor
Nonsense. Labour has no floor. They've been wiped out in Scotland - that was their heartland. That was their core, their ultimate fastness. If they elect this c*nt Corbyn, they could be wiped out by UKIP in the north of England. Which leaves them with... Ebbw Vale. And Islington (North).
The one place Corbyn is likely to boost Labour outside London is Scotland and while UKIP may win more votes in the north they are unlikely to win many seats
Labour aren't just screwed. They are so screwed that I am unable to give an analogy to how screwed they are without offending people by using such a deeply traumatic event in a political analogy.
Are they more screwed than the Lib Dems were before the election?
More screwed than a Mr Flat Head being made professor of screwing at Oxford.
How many people are yet to vote in the Labour leadership contest? Surely even the most left-wing voters will realise that "Bin Laden dying was a tragedy" is a toxic step too far, and vote against him now? If Burnham or Cooper now get placed above Corbyn in 80% of remaining ballots, will Corbyn lose?
I agree. I think it's a step too far. It's surely - SURELY - a campaign ending revelation.
Even if Corbyn *wins* I now expect there will be a judicial review, a challenge of sorts, and some means will be found to eject him.
Which implies there might be VALUE in the other leader candidates, if one could work out the absurd complexities (would this be the next leader, or the next but one?)
I agree it looks bad at face value. I'd like 1) actual video or even audio of him saying this - at the moment we just have the text of a Sun article - hardly a bastion of journalistic integrity. That would hopefully also provide 2) the context. It's easy to take something out of context to damn someone.
Arguably worse is that he calls 9/11 a "tragedy". No, that wasn't a tragedy, that was a monstrous crime.
But that's just me. Fact is, he said it, he said it about Bin Laden's death, he can't deny it. I think he's finished.
Thanks for posting that, either it wasn't linked from the Sun article or it didn't come up on my mobile browser. On the whole I'm not exactly impressed - it gets a bit conspiracy-minded which I always find a bit off-putting (not that it's always wrong: see COINTELPRO) , but that's not what the headlines are trumpeting.
JC clearly, rightly or wrongly, sees it as an extrajudicial killing and - as a fervent opponent of the death penalty - therefore as immoral. His preference would have been for Bin Laden to have been brought to trial. Whether that was possible in the circumstances, maybe not. But I believe that was Corbyn's basis for calling it a tragedy.
It looks like the huge discrepancy between Romanian and Bulgarians coming here in ONS migration statistics and in NI numbers is now gaining traction. Daily Mail calling for an investigation:
I'm all for further investigation, but there are plenty of potential reasons (mostly relating to short term, seasonal work) which might account for the discrepancy. And if it's a reason that isn't above board, it would be interesting to know which: false NI regs? previously illegal immigrants now legalising? etc.
Most likely reason is that the International Passenger Survey is survey data that is then scaled up with weightings to get the full picture. National Insurance numbers are actual registrations and are much more likely to be reliable. Can you imagine how devastating it will be for the Conservatives if there's another story saying actually net immigration is 50k higher than we thought?
Labour aren't just screwed. They are so screwed that I am unable to give an analogy to how screwed they are without offending people by using such a deeply traumatic event in a political analogy.
Are they more screwed than the Lib Dems were before the election?
More screwed than a Mr Flat Head being made professor of screwing at Oxford.
From what I've seen of JC, I think @initforthemoney is on the money here. He doesn't approve of anything ISIS are doing, but could have phrased this better. He needs to eliminate this kind of phrasing if elected leader, but to claim that it means he supports ISIS is smear tactics at their worst.
Fine, but if he doesn't approve anything they are doing why doesn't he just say so? Its not difficult to speak one's mind and it is something he is supposed to be good at. Perhaps we should just take him at his word.
Again with the caveat that having managed to get myself photographed with the man and got him to sign something doesn't actually mean I have great insight into how he thinks...
My impression is that he doesn't believe in condemning anything or anyone unequivocally. Rather, everyone is a human being, and some people have wrong beliefs and/or do wrong things. Everything is shades of grey, not black & white. Perhaps, because to JC diplomacy means keeping lines of communication open, and blanket condemnation is antithetical to that. This phrasing is in keeping with that.
But, it's politically unwise. He hasnt really had to worry about that up til now, and it's taking a bit of getting used to!
Yeah, right. He seems quite able to condemn people when he wants to, and he can be forthright in his criticism of people's actions, again when he wants to. I think I'll just take him at his word, thanks very much.
From what I've seen of JC, I think @initforthemoney is on the money here. He doesn't approve of anything ISIS are doing, but could have phrased this better. He needs to eliminate this kind of phrasing if elected leader, but to claim that it means he supports ISIS is smear tactics at their worst.
Fine, but if he doesn't approve anything they are doing why doesn't he just say so? Its not difficult to speak one's mind and it is something he is supposed to be good at. Perhaps we should just take him at his word.
Again with the caveat that having managed to get myself photographed with the man and got him to sign something doesn't actually mean I have great insight into how he thinks...
My impression is that he doesn't believe in condemning anything or anyone unequivocally. Rather, everyone is a human being, and some people have wrong beliefs and/or do wrong things. Everything is shades of grey, not black & white. Perhaps, because to JC diplomacy means keeping lines of communication open, and blanket condemnation is antithetical to that. This phrasing is in keeping with that.
But, it's politically unwise. He hasnt really had to worry about that up til now, and it's taking a bit of getting used to!
Let's nail this nonsense about him needing to use diplomatic language as a reason for the words he uses. Corbyn has never ever been engaged in any sort of diplomatic work, whether formal or informal. He has all his life been a nonentity of a backbencher with no judgment whatsoever and a predilection for gesture politics of the most crass and offensive kind. He says these things because he means them or because he is an idiot - a moral simpleton, in Mr Nabavi's lovely phrase.
Either way, he's not fit to be in charge of anything more onerous than the biscuit money for his allotment.
The diplomatic language argument has been blown out the water by the tragedy comment. Who was he being diplomatic to? Osama's dead body?
How many people are yet to vote in the Labour leadership contest? Surely even the most left-wing voters will realise that "Bin Laden dying was a tragedy" is a toxic step too far, and vote against him now? If Burnham or Cooper now get placed above Corbyn in 80% of remaining ballots, will Corbyn lose?
I agree. I think it's a step too far. It's surely - SURELY - a campaign ending revelation.
Even if Corbyn *wins* I now expect there will be a judicial review, a challenge of sorts, and some means will be found to eject him.
Which implies there might be VALUE in the other leader candidates, if one could work out the absurd complexities (would this be the next leader, or the next but one?)
I agree it looks bad at face value. I'd like 1) actual video or even audio of him saying this - at the moment we just have the text of a Sun article - hardly a bastion of journalistic integrity. That would hopefully also provide 2) the context. It's easy to take something out of context to damn someone.
Arguably worse is that he calls 9/11 a "tragedy". No, that wasn't a tragedy, that was a monstrous crime.
But that's just me. Fact is, he said it, he said it about Bin Laden's death, he can't deny it. I think he's finished.
JC clearly, rightly or wrongly, sees it as an extrajudicial killing and - as a fervent opponent of the death penalty - therefore as immoral. His preference would have been for Bin Laden to have been brought to trial. Whether that was possible in the circumstances, maybe not. But I believe that was Corbyn's basis for calling it a tragedy.
Then he chose the wrong word. Not ideal would be one better way of saying that, tragedy just gives this impression that he is personally saddened by the outcome itself.
I personally can give people leeway for inelegant phrasing, but as we've seen just lately with furore over such things as 'swarming' migrants, politics is not forgiving about such inelegance on sensitive issues.
Corbyn's communicative skills have been praised in this campaign, he's a straight talker we have been told - is he really going to be able to rely on the 'What I meant was' defence over and over again, even if it is true?
It looks like the huge discrepancy between Romanian and Bulgarians coming here in ONS migration statistics and in NI numbers is now gaining traction. Daily Mail calling for an investigation:
I'm all for further investigation, but there are plenty of potential reasons (mostly relating to short term, seasonal work) which might account for the discrepancy. And if it's a reason that isn't above board, it would be interesting to know which: false NI regs? previously illegal immigrants now legalising? etc.
Most likely reason is that the International Passenger Survey is survey data that is then scaled up with weightings to get the full picture. National Insurance numbers are actual registrations and are much more likely to be reliable. Can you imagine how devastating it will be for the Conservatives if there's another story saying actually net immigration is 50k higher than we thought?
My memory might be wrong, but IIRC, there are about 48m active NI registrations in the UK. The number is about 1.5x the actual workforce at any time, so it's clearly subject to some innacuracies,
My guess is that NI is probably closer to the truth, but that the actual answer is probably around 125-150k, because of (a) seasonal working, and (b) a large number of Romanians and Bulgarians who think they can find work here, and then go home after finding they can't.
The "tragedy upon tragedy" comment just adds salt to the wound. 3,000 innocent people dying as they went about their daily lives, working and visiting tourist sites, is being compared to the assassination of an at-large mass murderer. Both tragedies.
Who else's death does he think is a tragedy? Mussolini? Gadaffi? Hussein? Hitler?
Over the years, Corbyn's written more than 500 articles for the Morning Star. There'll be plenty of 'interesting ideas' in that lot I'm sure. In fact it would probably be worth a publisher binding them into a novelty book for Christmas market.
Good night all - I eagerly await us moving on to the next phase of Corbyn-debate-syndrome, which involves someone piping up that Tories are just getting ridiculously over excited, ignoring Labour and other non-Tory types joining in, then followed by ridiculous over excitement from Tories after all.
Do you have a question for the four MPs hoping to become the next Labour leader?
Sky News presenter Adam Boulton will be hosting a televised debate with Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper, Jeremy Corbyn and Liz Kendall.
The special programme, which will come live from The Sage in Gateshead on Thursday, 3 September, is your chance to put the contenders on the spot about what they stand for.
As Doctor "pro Iraq war" Palmer is here, in his position as the leading pb Corbynite, perhaps he'd like to comment.
It would be hysterical if it wasn't so grotesque.
Even the Corbyn camp must be getting a bit concerned about reports like this.
IF he wins, I now think he will take Labour down to about 100 seats. Possibly fewer. He is just toxic. He will destroy what is left of the Labour brand for a generation at least.
25% of the population are pacifist and leftwing or Muslim and they will vote for Corbyn regardless, even if he stayed leader until 2020 he would get about 200 seats
Disagree. It's more like 20% ( = 100 seats?). And even if it is 25% many of them will be frightened by the prospect of economic chaos.
Even Michael Foot got 27% and 209 seats
Easily outclassed by Super Ed got 30.4% and 232 seats
Yes there is still a little further Labour could fall though Foot's total is roughly their floor
Nonsense. Labour has no floor. They've been wiped out in Scotland - that was their heartland. That was their core, their ultimate fastness. If they elect this c*nt Corbyn, they could be wiped out by UKIP in the north of England. Which leaves them with... Ebbw Vale. And Islington (North).
There is no floor for any political party. Look at Greece: one day PASOK was one of the two ruling parties, the next it is scrabbling around at 3% in the polls. If you have the wrong leader, or are spectacularly incompetent or corrupt, you can literally end up at zero in the polls.
PASOK fell that far because Syriza overtook them as the main party of the left and no party will overtake Corbyn led Labour to its left
Over the years, Corbyn's written more than 500 articles for the Morning Star. There'll be plenty of 'interesting ideas' in that lot I'm sure. In fact it would probably be worth a publisher binding them into a novelty book for Christmas market.
It looks like the huge discrepancy between Romanian and Bulgarians coming here in ONS migration statistics and in NI numbers is now gaining traction. Daily Mail calling for an investigation:
I'm all for further investigation, but there are plenty of potential reasons (mostly relating to short term, seasonal work) which might account for the discrepancy. And if it's a reason that isn't above board, it would be interesting to know which: false NI regs? previously illegal immigrants now legalising? etc.
Most likely reason is that the International Passenger Survey is survey data that is then scaled up with weightings to get the full picture. National Insurance numbers are actual registrations and are much more likely to be reliable. Can you imagine how devastating it will be for the Conservatives if there's another story saying actually net immigration is 50k higher than we thought?
My memory might be wrong, but IIRC, there are about 48m active NI registrations in the UK. The number is about 1.5x the actual workforce at any time, so it's clearly subject to some innacuracies,
My guess is that NI is probably closer to the truth, but that the actual answer is probably around 125-150k, because of (a) seasonal working, and (b) a large number of Romanians and Bulgarians who think they can find work here, and then go home after finding they can't.
Which would mean an upward revision of 75,000 to 100,000 to the net migration data. How would the government react to net migration being over 400,000 a year?
"‘There was no attempt whatsoever that I can see to arrest him and put him on trial, to go through that process. This was an assassination attempt, and is yet another tragedy, upon a tragedy, upon a tragedy."
Do you have a question for the four MPs hoping to become the next Labour leader?
Sky News presenter Adam Boulton will be hosting a televised debate with Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper, Jeremy Corbyn and Liz Kendall.
The special programme, which will come live from The Sage in Gateshead on Thursday, 3 September, is your chance to put the contenders on the spot about what they stand for.
Genuinely? How can Labour win votes in the South's small towns and rural areas, recognizing that it will take more than merely energizing non-voters to win in such places and it will make winning the country as a whole much much easier?
As Doctor "pro Iraq war" Palmer is here, in his position as the leading pb Corbynite, perhaps he'd like to comment.
It would be hysterical if it wasn't so grotesque.
Even the Corbyn camp must be getting a bit concerned about reports like this.
IF he wins, I now think he will take Labour down to about 100 seats. Possibly fewer. He is just toxic. He will destroy what is left of the Labour brand for a generation at least.
25% of the population are pacifist and leftwing or Muslim and they will vote for Corbyn regardless, even if he stayed leader until 2020 he would get about 200 seats
Disagree. It's more like 20% ( = 100 seats?). And even if it is 25% many of them will be frightened by the prospect of economic chaos.
Even Michael Foot got 27% and 209 seats
Easily outclassed by Super Ed got 30.4% and 232 seats
Yes there is still a little further Labour could fall though Foot's total is roughly their floor
Nonsense. Labour has no floor. They've been wiped out in Scotland - that was their heartland. That was their core, their ultimate fastness. If they elect this c*nt Corbyn, they could be wiped out by UKIP in the north of England. Which leaves them with... Ebbw Vale. And Islington (North).
There is no floor for any political party. Look at Greece: one day PASOK was one of the two ruling parties, the next it is scrabbling around at 3% in the polls. If you have the wrong leader, or are spectacularly incompetent or corrupt, you can literally end up at zero in the polls.
PASOK fell that far because Syriza overtook them as the main party of the left and no party will overtake Corbyn led Labour to its left
And now Syriza have done a 180 on their own platform of less than a year ago and still might win - PASOK remnants must be really pissed.
"‘There was no attempt whatsoever that I can see to arrest him and put him on trial, to go through that process. This was an assassination attempt, and is yet another tragedy, upon a tragedy, upon a tragedy."
You know even if you think Bin Laden should have been taken alive and put on trial, how naive do you have to be to think that that was a remotely plausible outcome? What are you going to do phone up the ISI and ask them to arrest the man they might even have been sheltering?
The "tragedy upon tragedy" comment just adds salt to the wound. 3,000 innocent people dying as they went about their daily lives, working and visiting tourist sites, is being compared to the assassination of an at-large mass murderer. Both tragedies.
Who else's death does he think is a tragedy? Mussolini? Gadaffi? Hussein? Hitler?
Well to be fair I grant you that most of what Hitler did was appalling.
She's been told they will be inserting 'pins'. They charge for parking FFS!!! Website says use public transport. No clue.
She was meant to be here in 3 weeks. She is my wife's identical twin and they haven't seen each other in a decade. They are going to reschedule for next year. It'll be interesting, as today it was only 75, and we both wore heavy jackets going out for lunch.
I detailed on here some time ago about my daughter's experience with the NHS, and how we had to go private to fix the terrible NHS service she got. I am not a fan. They have no concept of serving the customer. Here folks are very conscious that you have a choice and appreciate your business, but there you just have the awful monopoly.
There is a carpark for patients and visitors to use for a price. However, it is very small and is full from 08:00 onwards. So your family and friends should basically forget it. Parking in the side streets nearby is also next to impossible due to yellow lines and other restrictions. If they are hale and hearty then parking in the streets to the South is possible at a cost (take plenty of change) but it may take a few circuits of the area to find a space. The walk from a likey parking spot is about 400 yards and up a steep incline. Not for the elderly and hard of breathing.
There is a bus that runs from Haywards heath to the RSCH and it is free for patients with an appointment letter. It runs once an hour but only until about 18:00, so no good for evening visitors.
Really the only sensible way for a patient or a visitor to get to and from the RSCH is to have a driver who does not need to park. If your sister in law needs help in this respect do let me know. You can get me at HurstLlama at gmail dot com. I am only ten minutes from Haywards Heath and I am sure that either myself or Mrs Llama can provide transport if needed.
How many people are yet to vote in the Labour leadership contest? Surely even the most left-wing voters will realise that "Bin Laden dying was a tragedy" is a toxic step too far, and vote against him now? If Burnham or Cooper now get placed above Corbyn in 80% of remaining ballots, will Corbyn lose?
I agree. I think it's a step too far. It's surely - SURELY - a campaign ending revelation.
Even if Corbyn *wins* I now expect there will be a judicial review, a challenge of sorts, and some means will be found to eject him.
Which implies there might be VALUE in the other leader candidates, if one could work out the absurd complexities (would this be the next leader, or the next but one?)
I agree it looks bad at face value. I'd like 1) actual video or even audio of him saying this - at the moment we just have the text of a Sun article - hardly a bastion of journalistic integrity. That would hopefully also provide 2) the context. It's easy to take something out of context to damn someone.
Arguably worse is that he calls 9/11 a "tragedy". No, that wasn't a tragedy, that was a monstrous crime.
But that's just me. Fact is, he said it, he said it about Bin Laden's death, he can't deny it. I think he's finished.
Thanks for posting that, either it wasn't linked from the Sun article or it didn't come up on my mobile browser. On the whole I'm not exactly impressed - it gets a bit conspiracy-minded which I always find a bit off-putting (not that it's always wrong: see COINTELPRO) , but that's not what the headlines are trumpeting.
JC clearly, rightly or wrongly, sees it as an extrajudicial killing and - as a fervent opponent of the death penalty - therefore as immoral. His preference would have been for Bin Laden to have been brought to trial. Whether that was possible in the circumstances, maybe not. But I believe that was Corbyn's basis for calling it a tragedy.
A natural event or accident (like the hunter jet crash) is a tragedy. A deliberate act of mass murder is not a tragedy. The Glasgow bin lorry accident was a tragic result of a decision whose purpose and intent was not aimed at killing anyone even though that decision could be regarded as criminal.
How many people are yet to vote in the Labour leadership contest? Surely even the most left-wing voters will realise that "Bin Laden dying was a tragedy" is a toxic step too far, and vote against him now? If Burnham or Cooper now get placed above Corbyn in 80% of remaining ballots, will Corbyn lose?
I agree. I think it's a step too far. It's surely - SURELY - a campaign ending revelation.
Even if Corbyn *wins* I now expect there will be a judicial review, a challenge of sorts, and some means will be found to eject him.
Which implies there might be VALUE in the other leader candidates, if one could work out the absurd complexities (would this be the next leader, or the next but one?)
I agree it looks bad at face value. I'd like 1) actual video or even audio of him saying this - at the moment we just have the text of a Sun article - hardly a bastion of journalistic integrity. That would hopefully also provide 2) the context. It's easy to take something out of context to damn someone.
Arguably worse is that he calls 9/11 a "tragedy". No, that wasn't a tragedy, that was a monstrous crime.
But that's just me. Fact is, he said it, he said it about Bin Laden's death, he can't deny it. I think he's finished.
Thanks for posting that, either it wasn't linked from the Sun article or it didn't come up on my mobile browser. On the whole I'm not exactly impressed - it gets a bit conspiracy-minded which I always find a bit off-putting (not that it's always wrong: see COINTELPRO) , but that's not what the headlines are trumpeting.
JC clearly, rightly or wrongly, sees it as an extrajudicial killing and - as a fervent opponent of the death penalty - therefore as immoral. His preference would have been for Bin Laden to have been brought to trial. Whether that was possible in the circumstances, maybe not. But I believe that was Corbyn's basis for calling it a tragedy.
Cut the hand-wringing. Even for my low opinion of Corbyn I am truly flabergasted after watching that video. Its one thing to be going on stage with all these homophobic antisemetic anti-British hate preachers and claiming not to know about who you were sharing a stage with ... but to call the death of Osama Bin Laden a tragedy? I don't know anyone at all who shares that opinion. Nobody of any political persuasion.
This is utterly unbelievable. You could not make it up.
As Doctor "pro Iraq war" Palmer is here, in his position as the leading pb Corbynite, perhaps he'd like to comment.
It would be hysterical if it wasn't so grotesque.
Even the Corbyn camp must be getting a bit concerned about reports like this.
IF he wins, I now think he will take Labour down to about 100 seats. Possibly fewer. He is just toxic. He will destroy what is left of the Labour brand for a generation at least.
25% of the population are pacifist and leftwing or Muslim and they will vote for Corbyn regardless, even if he stayed leader until 2020 he would get about 200 seats
Disagree. It's more like 20% ( = 100 seats?). And even if it is 25% many of them will be frightened by the prospect of economic chaos.
Even Michael Foot got 27% and 209 seats
Easily outclassed by Super Ed got 30.4% and 232 seats
Yes there is still a little further Labour could fall though Foot's total is roughly their floor
Nonsense. Labour has no floor. They've been wiped out in Scotland - that was their heartland. That was their core, their ultimate fastness. If they elect this c*nt Corbyn, they could be wiped out by UKIP in the north of England. Which leaves them with... Ebbw Vale. And Islington (North).
There is no floor for any political party. Look at Greece: one day PASOK was one of the two ruling parties, the next it is scrabbling around at 3% in the polls. If you have the wrong leader, or are spectacularly incompetent or corrupt, you can literally end up at zero in the polls.
PASOK fell that far because Syriza overtook them as the main party of the left and no party will overtake Corbyn led Labour to its left
And now Syriza have done a 180 on their own platform of less than a year ago and still might win - PASOK remnants must be really pissed.
Maybe but latest polls show Syriza about 10% down on the last election with the Popular Unity Party made up of Syriza defectors on 5 to 10%
She's been told they will be inserting 'pins'. They charge for parking FFS!!! Website says use public transport. No clue.
She was meant to be here in 3 weeks. She is my wife's identical twin and they haven't seen each other in a decade. They are going to reschedule for next year. It'll be interesting, as today it was only 75, and we both wore heavy jackets going out for lunch.
I detailed on here some time ago about my daughter's experience with the NHS, and how we had to go private to fix the terrible NHS service she got. I am not a fan. They have no concept of serving the customer. Here folks are very conscious that you have a choice and appreciate your business, but there you just have the awful monopoly.
There is a carpark for patients and visitors to use for a price. However, it is very small and is full from 08:00 onwards. So your family and friends should basically forget it. Parking in the side streets nearby is also next to impossible due to yellow lines and other restrictions. If they are hale and hearty then parking in the streets to the South is possible at a cost (take plenty of change) but it may take a few circuits of the area to find a space. The walk from a likey parking spot is about 400 yards and up a steep incline. Not for the elderly and hard of breathing.
There is a bus that runs from Haywards heath to the RSCH and it is free for patients with an appointment letter. It runs once an hour but only until about 18:00, so no good for evening visitors.
Really the only sensible way for a patient or a visitor to get to and from the RSCH is to have a driver who does not need to park. If your sister in law needs help in this respect do let me know. You can get me at HurstLlama at gmail dot com. I am only ten minutes from Haywards Heath and I am sure that either myself or Mrs Llama can provide transport if needed.
Mr Llama, thank you for your kind offer, but I am assured that her husband - born and raised in Haywards Heath - has everything in hand.
My best friend since the age of 8 has myeloma and just had a stem cell transplant, so it looks like I may well be coming over there next year at some point. Maybe I'll get to meet you then, as I will doubtless be visiting my dad's school as well as my own in Yorkshire.
It looks like the huge discrepancy between Romanian and Bulgarians coming here in ONS migration statistics and in NI numbers is now gaining traction. Daily Mail calling for an investigation:
I'm all for further investigation, but there are plenty of potential reasons (mostly relating to short term, seasonal work) which might account for the discrepancy. And if it's a reason that isn't above board, it would be interesting to know which: false NI regs? previously illegal immigrants now legalising? etc.
Most likely reason is that the International Passenger Survey is survey data that is then scaled up with weightings to get the full picture. National Insurance numbers are actual registrations and are much more likely to be reliable. Can you imagine how devastating it will be for the Conservatives if there's another story saying actually net immigration is 50k higher than we thought?
My memory might be wrong, but IIRC, there are about 48m active NI registrations in the UK. The number is about 1.5x the actual workforce at any time, so it's clearly subject to some innacuracies,
My guess is that NI is probably closer to the truth, but that the actual answer is probably around 125-150k, because of (a) seasonal working, and (b) a large number of Romanians and Bulgarians who think they can find work here, and then go home after finding they can't.
Which would mean an upward revision of 75,000 to 100,000 to the net migration data. How would the government react to net migration being over 400,000 a year?
I smell a cover up,how would a Government react to those numbers,Theresa May resigning.
She's been told they will be inserting 'pins'. They charge for parking FFS!!! Website says use public transport. No clue.
She was meant to be here in 3 weeks. She is my wife's identical twin and they haven't seen each other in a decade. They are going to reschedule for next year. It'll be interesting, as today it was only 75, and we both wore heavy jackets going out for lunch.
I detailed on here some time ago about my daughter's experience with the NHS, and how we had to go private to fix the terrible NHS service she got. I am not a fan. They have no concept of serving the customer. Here folks are very conscious that you have a choice and appreciate your business, but there you just have the awful monopoly.
There is a carpark for patients and visitors to use for a price. However, it is very small and is full from 08:00 onwards. So your family and friends should basically forget it. Parking in the side streets nearby is also next to impossible due to yellow lines and other restrictions. If they are hale and hearty then parking in the streets to the South is possible at a cost (take plenty of change) but it may take a few circuits of the area to find a space. The walk from a likey parking spot is about 400 yards and up a steep incline. Not for the elderly and hard of breathing.
There is a bus that runs from Haywards heath to the RSCH and it is free for patients with an appointment letter. It runs once an hour but only until about 18:00, so no good for evening visitors.
Really the only sensible way for a patient or a visitor to get to and from the RSCH is to have a driver who does not need to park. If your sister in law needs help in this respect do let me know. You can get me at HurstLlama at gmail dot com. I am only ten minutes from Haywards Heath and I am sure that either myself or Mrs Llama can provide transport if needed.
Mr Llama, thank you for your kind offer, but I am assured that her husband - born and raised in Haywards Heath - has everything in hand.
My best friend since the age of 8 has myeloma and just had a stem cell transplant, so it looks like I may well be coming over there next year at some point. Maybe I'll get to meet you then, as I will doubtless be visiting my dad's school.
OK, good to hear everything is under control. Should things work out not as planned my offer stands.
If you are coming this way next year and can spare the time for a glass of something or maybe even lunch I'd be delighted.
Really the only sensible way for a patient or a visitor to get to and from the RSCH is to have a driver who does not need to park. If your sister in law needs help in this respect do let me know. You can get me at HurstLlama at gmail dot com. I am only ten minutes from Haywards Heath and I am sure that either myself or Mrs Llama can provide transport if needed.
As Doctor "pro Iraq war" Palmer is here, in his position as the leading pb Corbynite, perhaps he'd like to comment.
It would be hysterical if it wasn't so grotesque.
Even the Corbyn camp must be getting a bit concerned about reports like this.
IF he wins, I now think he will take Labour down to about 100 seats. Possibly fewer. He is just toxic. He will destroy what is left of the Labour brand for a generation at least.
25% of the population are pacifist and leftwing or Muslim and they will vote for Corbyn regardless, even if he stayed leader until 2020 he would get about 200 seats
25%? Only if you are counting left-wing on a very vague basis, eg counting all centre-left at least.
The proportion of the UK who are pacifist and (far) leftwing or Muslim is far below that. Muslims make up 4.5% of the UK
It looks like the huge discrepancy between Romanian and Bulgarians coming here in ONS migration statistics and in NI numbers is now gaining traction. Daily Mail calling for an investigation:
I'm all for further investigation, but there are plenty of potential reasons (mostly relating to short term, seasonal work) which might account for the discrepancy. And if it's a reason that isn't above board, it would be interesting to know which: false NI regs? previously illegal immigrants now legalising? etc.
Most likely reason is that the International Passenger Survey is survey data that is then scaled up with weightings to get the full picture. National Insurance numbers are actual registrations and are much more likely to be reliable. Can you imagine how devastating it will be for the Conservatives if there's another story saying actually net immigration is 50k higher than we thought?
I don't think that it will be devastating for one simple reason - minds are fixed already while statistics are statistics.
Those who are upset by immigration are fed up with the existing numbers already. Those who are OK with the immigration at existing levels will still be OK with a different number.
Whose mind is going to be changed with one number or another? Who thinks that today's numbers are perfectly OK but if they're 50k higher then that's far too far?
How many people are yet to vote in the Labour leadership contest? Surely even the most left-wing voters will realise that "Bin Laden dying was a tragedy" is a toxic step too far, and vote against him now? If Burnham or Cooper now get placed above Corbyn in 80% of remaining ballots, will Corbyn lose?
I agree. I think it's a step too far. It's surely - SURELY - a campaign ending revelation.
Even if Corbyn *wins* I now expect there will be a judicial review, a challenge of sorts, and some means will be found to eject him.
Which implies there might be VALUE in the other leader candidates, if one could work out the absurd complexities (would this be the next leader, or the next but one?)
I agree it looks bad at face value. I'd like 1) actual video or even audio of him saying this - at the moment we just have the text of a Sun article - hardly a bastion of journalistic integrity. That would hopefully also provide 2) the context. It's easy to take something out of context to damn someone.
Arguably worse is that he calls 9/11 a "tragedy". No, that wasn't a tragedy, that was a monstrous crime.
But that's just me. Fact is, he said it, he said it about Bin Laden's death, he can't deny it. I think he's finished.
JC clearly, rightly or wrongly, sees it as an extrajudicial killing and - as a fervent opponent of the death penalty - therefore as immoral. His preference would have been for Bin Laden to have been brought to trial. Whether that was possible in the circumstances, maybe not. But I believe that was Corbyn's basis for calling it a tragedy.
Then he chose the wrong word. Not ideal would be one better way of saying that, tragedy just gives this impression that he is personally saddened by the outcome itself.
I personally can give people leeway for inelegant phrasing, but as we've seen just lately with furore over such things as 'swarming' migrants, politics is not forgiving about such inelegance on sensitive issues.
Corbyn's communicative skills have been praised in this campaign, he's a straight talker we have been told - is he really going to be able to rely on the 'What I meant was' defence over and over again, even if it is true?
Disagree.
Whenever he is asked an awkward question which would involve giving an answer which is not anti-Western he dissembles or triangulates.
She's been told they will be inserting 'pins'. They charge for parking FFS!!! Website says use public transport. No clue.
She was meant to be here in 3 weeks. She is my wife's identical twin and they haven't seen each other in a decade. They are going to reschedule for next year. It'll be interesting, as today it was only 75, and we both wore heavy jackets going out for lunch.
I detailed on here some time ago about my daughter's experience with the NHS, and how we had to go private to fix the terrible NHS service she got. I am not a fan. They have no concept of serving the customer. Here folks are very conscious that you have a choice and appreciate your business, but there you just have the awful monopoly.
There is a carpark for patients and visitors to use for a price. However, it is very small and is full from 08:00 onwards. So your family and friends should basically forget it. Parking in the side streets nearby is also next to impossible due to yellow lines and other restrictions. If they are hale and hearty then parking in the streets to the South is possible at a cost (take plenty of change) but it may take a few circuits of the area to find a space. The walk from a likey parking spot is about 400 yards and up a steep incline. Not for the elderly and hard of breathing.
There is a bus that runs from Haywards heath to the RSCH and it is free for patients with an appointment letter. It runs once an hour but only until about 18:00, so no good for evening visitors.
Really the only sensible way for a patient or a visitor to get to and from the RSCH is to have a driver who does not need to park. If your sister in law needs help in this respect do let me know. You can get me at HurstLlama at gmail dot com. I am only ten minutes from Haywards Heath and I am sure that either myself or Mrs Llama can provide transport if needed.
Mr Llama, thank you for your kind offer, but I am assured that her husband - born and raised in Haywards Heath - has everything in hand.
My best friend since the age of 8 has myeloma and just had a stem cell transplant, so it looks like I may well be coming over there next year at some point. Maybe I'll get to meet you then, as I will doubtless be visiting my dad's school.
OK, good to hear everything is under control. Should things work out not as planned my offer stands.
If you are coming this way next year and can spare the time for a glass of something or maybe even lunch I'd be delighted.
Dinner party at my place tonight. 8 people who didn't vote Labour in May. All supporting Corbyn now - for a number of reasons all to do with policy not personality. One person didn't know who HAMAS were. None Labour party members. Are you really sure Corbyn is such a disaster? These are people I know well and I was surprised at how keen they were. I know anecdotes are not data and my friends may be unusual and unrepresentative, but if the country is swinging to the left the pollsters and the pundits would be the last to know.
As Doctor "pro Iraq war" Palmer is here, in his position as the leading pb Corbynite, perhaps he'd like to comment.
It would be hysterical if it wasn't so grotesque.
Even the Corbyn camp must be getting a bit concerned about reports like this.
IF he wins, I now think he will take Labour down to about 100 seats. Possibly fewer. He is just toxic. He will destroy what is left of the Labour brand for a generation at least.
25% of the population are pacifist and leftwing or Muslim and they will vote for Corbyn regardless, even if he stayed leader until 2020 he would get about 200 seats
25%? Only if you are counting left-wing on a very vague basis, eg counting all centre-left at least.
The proportion of the UK who are pacifist and (far) leftwing or Muslim is far below that. Muslims make up 4.5% of the UK
All centre left would be about 30% eg including SNP and Greens and social democrats in the LDs. 27% of the country voted for Michael Foot's hard left manifesto in 1983 so I would say 25% is about right. I said Muslims comprise a part of that grouping, not they were the majority of it
Dinner party at my place tonight. 8 people who didn't vote Labour in May. All supporting Corbyn now - for a number of reasons all to do with policy not personality. One person didn't know who HAMAS were. None Labour party members. Are you really sure Corbyn is such a disaster? These are people I know well and I was surprised at how keen they were. I know anecdotes are not data and my friends may be unusual and unrepresentative, but if the country is swinging to the left the pollsters and the pundits would be the last to know.
Not to cast aspersions on your anecdote but anyone who doesn't know who Hamas are I'd assume not only doesn't vote Labour but doesn't vote at all. Not exactly an educated swing voter you're describing.
As Doctor "pro Iraq war" Palmer is here, in his position as the leading pb Corbynite, perhaps he'd like to comment.
It would be hysterical if it wasn't so grotesque.
Even the Corbyn camp must be getting a bit concerned about reports like this.
IF he wins, I now think he will take Labour down to about 100 seats. Possibly fewer. He is just toxic. He will destroy what is left of the Labour brand for a generation at least.
25% of the population are pacifist and leftwing or Muslim and they will vote for Corbyn regardless, even if he stayed leader until 2020 he would get about 200 seats
25%? Only if you are counting left-wing on a very vague basis, eg counting all centre-left at least.
The proportion of the UK who are pacifist and (far) leftwing or Muslim is far below that. Muslims make up 4.5% of the UK
All centre left would be about 30% eg including SNP and Greens and social democrats in the LDs. 27% of the country voted for Michael Foot's hard left manifesto in 1983 so I would say 25% is about right. I said Muslims comprise a part of that grouping, not they were the majority of it
I am not wholly convinced that the proportion of people who voted for a particular party under a particular set of circumstances more than thirty years ago can in anyway be taken as a reliable indicator of that party's level of support today.
Dinner party at my place tonight. 8 people who didn't vote Labour in May. All supporting Corbyn now - for a number of reasons all to do with policy not personality. One person didn't know who HAMAS were. None Labour party members. Are you really sure Corbyn is such a disaster? These are people I know well and I was surprised at how keen they were. I know anecdotes are not data and my friends may be unusual and unrepresentative, but if the country is swinging to the left the pollsters and the pundits would be the last to know.
What sort of parliamentary seats do your friends live in? If they are market towns, or rural then that would be good news for Labour/Corbyn, If they are metropolitan type areas, then not so much (unless in a rare Tory/Labour marginal).
Comments
From what I've seen and heard from him he's far from the fresh breath of air style wise that he is supposed to be - a little more direct and normal, but no stranger to the meaningless political speak, no sir - and despite what must have been surprise at his initial success he's quickly gotten pretty disciplined and organised, utterly dominating his rivals (acknowledging of course the wave behind him is a big help, and little to do with his own personal qualities), and that suggests to me despite his unchanging views over decades, many of which I disagree with (and his inflexibility being even more concerning, for all a set of ideals is good to have), he is cannier that given credit for (which is not to say intelligent necessarily, I could not be in a position to judge), and may avoid some early pitfalls or oversteps.
Whatever Corbyn might have said in the past, he and his team are responding sensibly to the various foreign policy-related attack lines that are being thrown his way. The power of the print media isn't what it once was. People are a bit savvier now, they realise there's an agenda at play, and that what's good for newspaper proprietors isn't necessarily good for them.
Earlier in the campaign, I worried that JC would get cornered into saying something unwise on immigration. It hasn't happened, and by now it's probably too late for it to have an impact even if he did so. I don't think the monarchy, Hamas and Trident are the policy areas that will drive decisions pro- or anti-. It'll come down to the economy, and if he and his economist supporters can win that argument over the coming years, do not write him off.
Don't tell her this but if she is going to the RSCH for her operation she will be lucky if it goes ahead on the day planned. Non-urgent stuff (including cancer surgery) frequently gets kicked off the list. The one saving grace is that she had her mishap in August, if it had happened towards the end of the financial year she could be waiting a month or more. Oh, if she is to be an in-patient make sure that there are relatives/friends who will take her food; the muck they serve up at the RSCH is disgusting.
The Bin Laden thing, however, is off the charts. The entire damn electorate knows exactly who he is - the most hated man since one Adolf Hitler - and were very glad when he came to his end. Describing his passing as a "tragedy" is something so horribly odious that the vast bulk of the public will detest Corbyn for it. Other parties just need to say, on the doorstep, "Jeremy Corbyn said Osama Bin Laden's death was a tragedy" and it will immediately lose Labour votes in the entire household. And it's completely, undeniably true.
Labour aren't just screwed. They are so screwed that I am unable to give an analogy to how screwed they are without offending people by using such a deeply traumatic event in a political analogy. I take back everything I said about Corbyn not doing too badly at first. Labour will likely drop to the low 20s within a month of him getting in.
I've always said I agreed with him mostly on the economy, and the thought of giving the Labour "elite" a kick up the arse did appeal, but I always thought some of his stances on foreign policy would be problematic.
Labour really do know how to pick them.
That is surely the most problematic aspect of his potential leadership, that some of his comments and associations, if not shied away from if he becomes leader, are at best worthy of taking a close look at, and at worst will be comdemned by a lot of people whose votes he will need, and yet if he shies away of explains things away like a 'normal' politician, he loses some of his supposed magic.
I feel very able to give him a fair go at being Labour leader, and it is not impossible for him to succeed - nothing is impossible - but he does have far more vulnerabilities, some minor, some major, and the major ones open him up to even more, which without those majors would not cause the same level of concern or attention.
The reality is that these migrants have paid significant sums of money by their standards to get where they are. We are seeing whole extended families trying to move.
They are probably not persecuted, they are trying to escape a miserable life, more analogous to being refugees rather than asylum seekers. They are economic migrants. Quite a few of them are stone cold dead economic migrants.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/senior-labour-mps-offer-jeremy-6346452
No doubt when they suggested it they thought was the most harsh term they could offer to replace him and keep the Left on board. But now they will regret giving Jeremy "what a shame about the 9/11 architect dying" Corbyn even that long. They'll now have to remove him instantly, and the Left will cry, "but you said 18 months!" and never forgive them.
It's hard to see how Labour could have screwed this up any more.
Especially as there is no chance, none, that a Corbyn led Labour party would not engage in smearing their opponents, anymore than an ABC led Labour would or an anybody led any other part would.
Heck, smears have been flying around against internal opponents already.
For that disgustingly insensitive act alone, Jeremy Corbyn is beyond the pale for any civilised person. And that's just one of several such stunts. The man is a monster, pure and simple - or at best a moral simpleton.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3215676/Falklands-war-Tory-plot-jobless-men-died-Thatcher-says-Jeremy-Corbyn-Labour-leadership-hopeful-refused-offer-loyal-support-British-troops-fighting-liberate-islands.html
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/600916/Kids-Company-warned-ministers-RIOTING-Government-buildings
My impression is that he doesn't believe in condemning anything or anyone unequivocally. Rather, everyone is a human being, and some people have wrong beliefs and/or do wrong things. Everything is shades of grey, not black & white. Perhaps, because to JC diplomacy means keeping lines of communication open, and blanket condemnation is antithetical to that. This phrasing is in keeping with that.
But, it's politically unwise. He hasnt really had to worry about that up til now, and it's taking a bit of getting used to!
Corbyn went on Press TV to talk about it.
He said:
"We can only guess that there is something fishy here. Either Bin Laden wasn’t there, therefore there has to be a story. Or, the pictures … show something else… This was an assassination attempt and is yet another tragedy upon a tragedy, upon a tragedy."
He did not go on air to re-iterate agreed foreign policy, did he? He went on to challenge the view that Bin Laden's killing was a good thing and the establishment with it. I have seen people try to defend him, by saying that every killing is a tragedy. But Corbyn didn't say that, he could have if he'd wanted to.
It is increasingly difficult to look at Corbyn's views with such a positive spin, because we have to take them together.
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/m09.pdf
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results/wales
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3214729/It-s-worse-think-Officially-53-000-Bulgarians-Romanians-came-year-gave-200-000-NI-numbers.html
Everyone of a sane mind, and not utterly committed to destroying every institution of our western capitalist structure, must regard this man if let loose from the chains of backbench imprisonment as a wild and dangerous maniac.
They actually sent a reporter to interview him IIRC.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/i-like-corbyn-but-lets-face-it-we-dont-need-another-white-man-at-the-head-of-a-political-party-10478920.html
She was meant to be here in 3 weeks. She is my wife's identical twin and they haven't seen each other in a decade. They are going to reschedule for next year. It'll be interesting, as today it was only 75, and we both wore heavy jackets going out for lunch.
I detailed on here some time ago about my daughter's experience with the NHS, and how we had to go private to fix the terrible NHS service she got. I am not a fan. They have no concept of serving the customer. Here folks are very conscious that you have a choice and appreciate your business, but there you just have the awful monopoly.
Either way, he's not fit to be in charge of anything more onerous than the biscuit money for his allotment.
JC clearly, rightly or wrongly, sees it as an extrajudicial killing and - as a fervent opponent of the death penalty - therefore as immoral. His preference would have been for Bin Laden to have been brought to trial. Whether that was possible in the circumstances, maybe not. But I believe that was Corbyn's basis for calling it a tragedy.
I personally can give people leeway for inelegant phrasing, but as we've seen just lately with furore over such things as 'swarming' migrants, politics is not forgiving about such inelegance on sensitive issues.
Corbyn's communicative skills have been praised in this campaign, he's a straight talker we have been told - is he really going to be able to rely on the 'What I meant was' defence over and over again, even if it is true?
My guess is that NI is probably closer to the truth, but that the actual answer is probably around 125-150k, because of (a) seasonal working, and (b) a large number of Romanians and Bulgarians who think they can find work here, and then go home after finding they can't.
Who else's death does he think is a tragedy? Mussolini? Gadaffi? Hussein? Hitler?
Sky News presenter Adam Boulton will be hosting a televised debate with Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper, Jeremy Corbyn and Liz Kendall.
The special programme, which will come live from The Sage in Gateshead on Thursday, 3 September, is your chance to put the contenders on the spot about what they stand for.
http://news.sky.com/story/1537697/labour-leadership-debate-send-your-questions
"‘There was no attempt whatsoever that I can see to arrest him and put him on trial, to go through that process. This was an assassination attempt, and is yet another tragedy, upon a tragedy, upon a tragedy."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3216437/Labour-leadership-favourite-Jeremy-Corbyn-said-assassination-9-11-mastermind-Osama-Bin-Laden-tragedy.html
There is a bus that runs from Haywards heath to the RSCH and it is free for patients with an appointment letter. It runs once an hour but only until about 18:00, so no good for evening visitors.
Really the only sensible way for a patient or a visitor to get to and from the RSCH is to have a driver who does not need to park. If your sister in law needs help in this respect do let me know. You can get me at HurstLlama at gmail dot com. I am only ten minutes from Haywards Heath and I am sure that either myself or Mrs Llama can provide transport if needed.
The Glasgow bin lorry accident was a tragic result of a decision whose purpose and intent was not aimed at killing anyone even though that decision could be regarded as criminal.
This is utterly unbelievable. You could not make it up.
My best friend since the age of 8 has myeloma and just had a stem cell transplant, so it looks like I may well be coming over there next year at some point. Maybe I'll get to meet you then, as I will doubtless be visiting my dad's school as well as my own in Yorkshire.
If you are coming this way next year and can spare the time for a glass of something or maybe even lunch I'd be delighted.
Is there at least one person involved in this who *isn't* a fruit loop?
The proportion of the UK who are pacifist and (far) leftwing or Muslim is far below that. Muslims make up 4.5% of the UK
Those who are upset by immigration are fed up with the existing numbers already.
Those who are OK with the immigration at existing levels will still be OK with a different number.
Whose mind is going to be changed with one number or another? Who thinks that today's numbers are perfectly OK but if they're 50k higher then that's far too far?
Whenever he is asked an awkward question which would involve giving an answer which is not anti-Western he dissembles or triangulates.
It's the old self-hating far left problem.
In the US there are SEVEN THOUSAND privately owned tigers. This does not include those in zoos.
If they are market towns, or rural then that would be good news for Labour/Corbyn,
If they are metropolitan type areas, then not so much (unless in a rare Tory/Labour marginal).
"Labour have been “in denial” about threat from UKIP, says Dan Jarvis"
http://labourlist.org/2015/08/labour-have-been-in-denial-about-threat-from-ukip-says-dan-jarvis/