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.
Do most of them already live in safe Labour seats in London or other metropolitan areas? If so, it probably doesn't mean much. The voters that matter live in places like Cannock Chase, Amber Valley, Barrow & Furness, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Erewash. (Not that I'm a fan of the present electoral system).
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.
There is literally zero chance that Jezbollah will bring success to Labour. The only thing you reveal with your anecdote is how unrepresentative your friends are.
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.
You lost me at "dinner party".
Aren't they all the rage in Primrose Hill (borders)?
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.
8 voters switching from the Greens to Labour in Hampstead or Hackney is, I am afraid, not going to win Corbyn the election
I'm not sure how many swing voters ever attend a dinner party. They're more likely to have a barbecue in the back yard or a hog roast on the cricket field.
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.
No, I think it follows, Miliband won 30%, 25% would be a little less than that. 30/31% voted Tory in 1997/2001 so the same applies to the right
An amazing stat from a National Geographic program about the tiger escape in 2007 from the SF Zoo -
In the US there are SEVEN THOUSAND privately owned tigers. This does not include those in zoos.
Only 3,000 to 4,000 in the wild, around half of those in India.
The zoos these days are big into breeding programs to preserve the various species. I get, respect, support and admire that. They are magnificent and gorgeous looking animals.
But some loony tune owning his own tiger for god knows what reason strikes me as crazy.
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
Labour don't need to be overtaken by a more extreme-left party than Corbyn-led Labour. Being overtaken by a more credible left-wing Party than a Corbyn-led Labour Party would be enough to finish Labour too.
It nearly happened in 1983. The Alliance failed to breakthrough but had there been a couple percent more swing then there could have been an SNP-style breakthrough where Labour was displaced as the party of the Left. Labour have no God-Given right to rule or to be a major party.
Corbyn is worse than Foot. He could easily underperform Foot.
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.
You lost me at "dinner party".
Aren't they all the rage in Primrose Hill (borders)?
I thought they'd been replaced by "kitchen suppers", at least in Notting Hill.
Really my friends, we live in one of the safest Tory seats in the country so it makes no practical difference who we vote for. My point was that people with no particular connection to Labour like what Corbyn is saying. I don't recall Blair having the same effect. There are millions of voters so it is quite possible this particular random set is a fluke. But equally it might be an indication that opinion is shifting. I don't have any skin in this game, just reporting.
Really my friends, we live in one of the safest Tory seats in the country so it makes no practical difference who we vote for. My point was that people with no particular connection to Labour like what Corbyn is saying. I don't recall Blair having the same effect. There are millions of voters so it is quite possible this particular random set is a fluke. But equally it might be an indication that opinion is shifting. I don't have any skin in this game, just reporting.
Thanks for the interesting anecdote. (Not being sarcastic).
When predicting seats in 2020 be very careful - remember all the predictions on here before the 2015 GE that Con had to be 11% ahead to get a majority and the system was biased to Lab etc etc etc.
Corbyn will be terrible for votes to seats efficiency - if he does attract some previous non- voters they will almost all be in Lab safe seats (where turnout is low) - which won't win him a single seat.
If he polls 31% (as per Miliband) he will, for certain, win significantly fewer seats than Miliband.
If he polls under 30% he will lose far, far more seats than UNS suggests.
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
1: Corbyn is worse than Foot. Foot's performance would be a ceiling not a floor. 2: The Conservatives are far more moderate under Cameron (and any of his likely successors) than under Thatcher. 3: Many left-wingers would not vote for Corbyn and there's been a rise of parties like the Greens and UKIP that appeal to former Labour voters.
No way would a Corbyn-led Labour Party hit 25%. That would be optimistic.
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
Labour don't need to be overtaken by a more extreme-left party than Corbyn-led Labour. Being overtaken by a more credible left-wing Party than a Corbyn-led Labour Party would be enough to finish Labour too.
It nearly happened in 1983. The Alliance failed to breakthrough but had there been a couple percent more swing then there could have been an SNP-style breakthrough where Labour was displaced as the party of the Left. Labour have no God-Given right to rule or to be a major party.
Corbyn is worse than Foot. He could easily underperform Foot.
The only potential chance of that happening would be a moderately centre left LD party, presently the LDs are led by Tim Farron, I think that ends that conversation!
Really my friends, we live in one of the safest Tory seats in the country so it makes no practical difference who we vote for. My point was that people with no particular connection to Labour like what Corbyn is saying. I don't recall Blair having the same effect. There are millions of voters so it is quite possible this particular random set is a fluke. But equally it might be an indication that opinion is shifting. I don't have any skin in this game, just reporting.
A few Notting Hill media and human rights lawyer types in Kensington and Chelsea also switching from the Greens or LDs to Labour again does not a swing voter make
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
1: Corbyn is worse than Foot. Foot's performance would be a ceiling not a floor. 2: The Conservatives are far more moderate under Cameron (and any of his likely successors) than under Thatcher. 3: Many left-wingers would not vote for Corbyn and there's been a rise of parties like the Greens and UKIP that appeal to former Labour voters.
No way would a Corbyn-led Labour Party hit 25%. That would be optimistic.
Corbyn has attracted more interest than Foot did when he was elected, the SDP were an even more moderate alternative than Cameron's Tories, the voters most likely to move to Corbyn would be Green Party voters
2: The Conservatives are far more moderate under Cameron (and any of his likely successors) than under Thatcher.
Hahaha, no.
It wasn't Thatcher who introduced the highest state university fees in the world (or gut the last remaining part of grants), fully privatised Royal Mail, effectively force all schools to become grant maintained, introduced right-to-buy for housing associations, cut corporation tax from 34% at the end of Thatcher's tenure to 21% today, or introduce brutal sanctions on unemployment and disability benefits.
Those are all hard right policies. Cameron makes Thatcher look moderate.
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
1: Corbyn is worse than Foot. Foot's performance would be a ceiling not a floor. 2: The Conservatives are far more moderate under Cameron (and any of his likely successors) than under Thatcher. 3: Many left-wingers would not vote for Corbyn and there's been a rise of parties like the Greens and UKIP that appeal to former Labour voters.
No way would a Corbyn-led Labour Party hit 25%. That would be optimistic.
Corbyn has attracted more interest than Foot did when he was elected, the SDP were an even more moderate alternative than Cameron's Tories, the voters most likely to move to Corbyn would be Green Party voters
The Greens polled 3.8% which was a bit disappointing from their point of view compared to many of the campaign polls putting them on 6-8%. The point is there aren't that many Green voters for Corbyn to win over since they'll probably get around 3% no matter what happens.
If the Greens had actually polled 8% there would have possibly been around 5 percentage points up for grabs for Corbyn to target.
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.
You lost me at "dinner party".
Aren't they all the rage in Primrose Hill (borders)?
I thought they'd been replaced by "kitchen suppers", at least in Notting Hill.
2: The Conservatives are far more moderate under Cameron (and any of his likely successors) than under Thatcher.
Hahaha, no.
It wasn't Thatcher who introduced the highest state university fees in the world (or gut the last remaining part of grants), fully privatised Royal Mail, effectively force all schools to become grant maintained, introduced right-to-buy for housing associations, cut corporation tax from 34% at the end of Thatcher's tenure to 21% today, or introduce brutal sanctions on unemployment and disability benefits.
Those are all hard right policies. Cameron makes Thatcher look moderate.
From the tone of your comment you seem to think these are bad things?
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
1: Corbyn is worse than Foot. Foot's performance would be a ceiling not a floor. 2: The Conservatives are far more moderate under Cameron (and any of his likely successors) than under Thatcher. 3: Many left-wingers would not vote for Corbyn and there's been a rise of parties like the Greens and UKIP that appeal to former Labour voters.
No way would a Corbyn-led Labour Party hit 25%. That would be optimistic.
Corbyn has
The Greens polled 3.8% which was a bit disappointing from their point of view compared to many of the campaign polls putting them on 6-8%. The point is there aren't that many Green voters for Corbyn to win over since they'll probably get around 3% no matter what happens.
If the Greens had actually polled 8% there would have possibly been around 5 percentage points up for grabs for Corbyn to target.
The Greens got 0.9% in 2010 though so that is 2.9% Corbyn could grab, so he better grab any voters he can get, night!
2: The Conservatives are far more moderate under Cameron (and any of his likely successors) than under Thatcher.
Hahaha, no.
It wasn't Thatcher who introduced the highest state university fees in the world (or gut the last remaining part of grants), fully privatised Royal Mail, effectively force all schools to become grant maintained, introduced right-to-buy for housing associations, cut corporation tax from 34% at the end of Thatcher's tenure to 21% today, or introduce brutal sanctions on unemployment and disability benefits.
Those are all hard right policies. Cameron makes Thatcher look moderate.
From the tone of your comment you seem to think these are bad things?
Personally, I do.
But I understand people on the right will agree with those policies. Just don't think they're "moderate", when they're undeniably further to the right than Thatcher!
If ISIS were blowing up Stonehenge, I suspect Corbyn would be cheering them on...
Wow. Another gem.
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
1: Corbyn is worse than Foot. Foot's performance would be a ceiling not a floor. 2: The Conservatives are far more moderate under Cameron (and any of his likely successors) than under Thatcher. 3: Many left-wingers would not vote for Corbyn and there's been a rise of parties like the Greens and UKIP that appeal to former Labour voters.
No way would a Corbyn-led Labour Party hit 25%. That would be optimistic.
Corbyn has
The Greens polled 3.8% which was a bit disappointing from their point of view compared to many of the campaign polls putting them on 6-8%. The point is there aren't that many Green voters for Corbyn to win over since they'll probably get around 3% no matter what happens.
If the Greens had actually polled 8% there would have possibly been around 5 percentage points up for grabs for Corbyn to target.
The Greens got 0.9% in 2010 though so that is 2.9% Corbyn could grab, so he better grab any voters he can get, night!
Possibly, but I think the Greens have a bit more of a base now than they did in 2010. I can't see them going below 2.5%-3.0%.
2: The Conservatives are far more moderate under Cameron (and any of his likely successors) than under Thatcher.
Hahaha, no.
It wasn't Thatcher who introduced the highest state university fees in the world (or gut the last remaining part of grants), fully privatised Royal Mail, effectively force all schools to become grant maintained, introduced right-to-buy for housing associations, cut corporation tax from 34% at the end of Thatcher's tenure to 21% today, or introduce brutal sanctions on unemployment and disability benefits.
Those are all hard right policies. Cameron makes Thatcher look moderate.
From the tone of your comment you seem to think these are bad things?
Personally, I do.
But I understand people on the right will agree with those policies. Just don't think they're "moderate", when they're undeniably further to the right than Thatcher!
The top tax rate at 45% is still higher than Thatcher left it though, the NHS is ringfenced and gay marriage was passed by Cameron when Thatcher left s28 so it depends which way you look at it, night
2: The Conservatives are far more moderate under Cameron (and any of his likely successors) than under Thatcher.
Hahaha, no.
It wasn't Thatcher who introduced the highest state university fees in the world (or gut the last remaining part of grants), fully privatised Royal Mail, effectively force all schools to become grant maintained, introduced right-to-buy for housing associations, cut corporation tax from 34% at the end of Thatcher's tenure to 21% today, or introduce brutal sanctions on unemployment and disability benefits.
Those are all hard right policies. Cameron makes Thatcher look moderate.
From the tone of your comment you seem to think these are bad things?
Personally, I do.
But I understand people on the right will agree with those policies. Just don't think they're "moderate", when they're undeniably further to the right than Thatcher!
What does "highest state university fees" mean? Our universities are private.
2: The Conservatives are far more moderate under Cameron (and any of his likely successors) than under Thatcher.
Hahaha, no.
It wasn't Thatcher who introduced the highest state university fees in the world (or gut the last remaining part of grants), fully privatised Royal Mail, effectively force all schools to become grant maintained, introduced right-to-buy for housing associations, cut corporation tax from 34% at the end of Thatcher's tenure to 21% today, or introduce brutal sanctions on unemployment and disability benefits.
Those are all hard right policies. Cameron makes Thatcher look moderate.
From the tone of your comment you seem to think these are bad things?
Personally, I do.
But I understand people on the right will agree with those policies. Just don't think they're "moderate", when they're undeniably further to the right than Thatcher!
What does "highest state university fees" mean? Our universities are private.
Fine, government funded. I believe universities are private in a similar way housing associations are private.
Osborne also introduced a living wage, Thatcher did not even have a minimum wage
True, that's the one vaguely left-wing thing the Conservatives have accepted since Thatcher.
That's pretty much the entire left-wing legacy of 13 years of Labour government. No wonder the left is disillusioned and cares little about electability!
And it's not a "living wage". It's a minimum wage increase. There's a propagandistic undertone when politicians try to define accepted terms to suit their own ends. I find it uncomfortable enough with politically manufactured terms like "bedroom tax", "wealth creators" and "UK plc" that partisans repeat uncritically without redefining existing terms.
I think the assumption that Corbyn will be a disaster might get a shock. I don't really think politics necessarily works that way, with the bland ultra-pragmatic centrist career politician being the winning strategy. I don't think his left-wing policies are quite as off-putting as people assume, especially since, despite him being presented to the left of Trotsky by the press, he's not that left-wing. But maybe I'm wrong! It'll be fun to find out.
And, assuming he does win (which I still think is a BIG assumption), if nothing else, it will certainly be entertaining to watch, which is always half the reason to do anything. It will also be a fun case study on the principled politician with baggage vs cynical careerists.
That said, he'll gave to fight an assault on all sides, including internal battles, notably from right-wing "Progress" Labour members from Kendallson to Blair who are already poisoning the well to prevent Corbyn winning at any cost, and an all-out attack by the right-wing press. That's tough to overcome.
And hopefully he'll give the Labour establishment a much-needed shake-up, seeing as Burnham, Cooper and Kendall are the very best they can come up with.
And, if nothing else, it's at least settled once and for all whether there is such a thing as the "left-wing press". Given the coverage over Corbyn, the answer is a resounding no.
I think the assumption that Corbyn will be a disaster might get a shock. I don't really think politics necessarily works that way, with the bland ultra-pragmatic centrist career politician being the winning strategy. I don't think his left-wing policies are quite as off-putting as people assume, especially since, despite him being presented to the left of Trotsky by the press, he's not that left-wing. But maybe I'm wrong! It'll be fun to find out.
And, assuming he does win (which I still think is a BIG assumption), if nothing else, it will certainly be entertaining to watch, which is always half the reason to do anything. It will also be a fun case study on the principled politician with baggage vs cynical careerists.
That said, he'll gave to fight an assault on all sides, including internal battles, notably from right-wing "Progress" Labour members from Kendallson to Blair who are already poisoning the well to prevent Corbyn winning at any cost, and an all-out attack by the right-wing press. That's tough to overcome.
And hopefully he'll give the Labour establishment a much-needed shake-up, seeing as Burnham, Cooper and Kendall are the very best they can come up with.
And, if nothing else, it's at least settled once and for all whether there is such a thing as the "left-wing press". Given the coverage over Corbyn, the answer is a resounding no.
US universities are publicly funded and have higher fees than the UK.
Okay, third behind the United States and Korea. So highest in Europe.
And certainly students in the United States certainly have better access to low-cost state universities (as well as other adult education through community colleges) than the UK.
I travel a lot. I commonly have to get visas and part of the application is
naming of the sponsor in country? where I intend to stay and proof? for how long? what will I be doing or that I have meaningful work / employment.
I also need a financial backer that will support me when in country in case of any expenditures? medical treatment?
I also have to provide before departure letter of invite at flight desk, on arrival at immigration flight tickets booked already to go home.
This happens. Even in West African countries let along other places worldwide. If I don't do this I don't enter the country and get put back on the plane, boat, method of transport to my original boarding point.
Why can't we do that here? It's a simply way of ensuring people are legitimate workers.
It doesn't happen in the EU/EEA, and it would be absolutely revolutionary - real "pull up the drawbridge" stuff - if it were proposed, and the reciprocal measures would put our tourist industry to the sword. Younger people in particular are used to the idea that they can explore the continent as tourists if they want to. It doesn't even happen in the US, where you do need a visa but nothing like the sort of thing you describe. Nor is it needed in any of China, Japan, Vietnam, South Korea, Taiwan, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Peru, Colombia, Kenya, Singapore, all of which I've visited in the last couple of years with no more than a trivial visa process. It's a bit more complicated in Russia, though not as bad as you describe.
Oh, and it is of course incompatible with the EU. The chance of Merkel agreeing to it? Zero.
And yet it is exactly what we ask non-EU immigrants to do when they come to the UK, funny that.
Well it is fun to be patronised on here. I feel suitably belittled by my superiors.
I had no idea that 'dinner party' was so outdated. In my defence I used the term to explain what was going on to you trendy hipster types. We just refer to it as having some friends round for dinner and a drink or three. And the political discussion lasted all of five minutes. This wasn't a demographically balanced focus group or a self selected group of politicos. Just 8 random people round a table in the home counties.
I repeat my point that the political landscape may have changed and that you guys on here might have missed something big. I may be wrong, but so what. I don't claim to be an expert. But I do know that people who automatically dismiss evidence that contradicts their preconceptions aren't generally very good decision makers.
It is a great comfort to me to think that I am unlikely to see another Labour majority in my lifetime. I am 87 years old next week although in very good health.
Comments
But some loony tune owning his own tiger for god knows what reason strikes me as crazy.
It nearly happened in 1983. The Alliance failed to breakthrough but had there been a couple percent more swing then there could have been an SNP-style breakthrough where Labour was displaced as the party of the Left. Labour have no God-Given right to rule or to be a major party.
Corbyn is worse than Foot. He could easily underperform Foot.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/9173644/The-class-war-is-still-raging-across-the-dining-table.html
Corbyn will be terrible for votes to seats efficiency - if he does attract some previous non- voters they will almost all be in Lab safe seats (where turnout is low) - which won't win him a single seat.
If he polls 31% (as per Miliband) he will, for certain, win significantly fewer seats than Miliband.
If he polls under 30% he will lose far, far more seats than UNS suggests.
2: The Conservatives are far more moderate under Cameron (and any of his likely successors) than under Thatcher.
3: Many left-wingers would not vote for Corbyn and there's been a rise of parties like the Greens and UKIP that appeal to former Labour voters.
No way would a Corbyn-led Labour Party hit 25%. That would be optimistic.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/jeremy-corbyn-u-turn-on-annual-election-vow-1-3873220
It wasn't Thatcher who introduced the highest state university fees in the world (or gut the last remaining part of grants), fully privatised Royal Mail, effectively force all schools to become grant maintained, introduced right-to-buy for housing associations, cut corporation tax from 34% at the end of Thatcher's tenure to 21% today, or introduce brutal sanctions on unemployment and disability benefits.
Those are all hard right policies. Cameron makes Thatcher look moderate.
If the Greens had actually polled 8% there would have possibly been around 5 percentage points up for grabs for Corbyn to target.
http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2015-08-30/its-all-a-bit-emotional-as-downton-abbey-gets-ready-to-say-goodbye-in-series-six-trailer
But I understand people on the right will agree with those policies. Just don't think they're "moderate", when they're undeniably further to the right than Thatcher!
That's pretty much the entire left-wing legacy of 13 years of Labour government. No wonder the left is disillusioned and cares little about electability!
And it's not a "living wage". It's a minimum wage increase. There's a propagandistic undertone when politicians try to define accepted terms to suit their own ends. I find it uncomfortable enough with politically manufactured terms like "bedroom tax", "wealth creators" and "UK plc" that partisans repeat uncritically without redefining existing terms.
I think the assumption that Corbyn will be a disaster might get a shock. I don't really think politics necessarily works that way, with the bland ultra-pragmatic centrist career politician being the winning strategy. I don't think his left-wing policies are quite as off-putting as people assume, especially since, despite him being presented to the left of Trotsky by the press, he's not that left-wing. But maybe I'm wrong! It'll be fun to find out.
And, assuming he does win (which I still think is a BIG assumption), if nothing else, it will certainly be entertaining to watch, which is always half the reason to do anything. It will also be a fun case study on the principled politician with baggage vs cynical careerists.
That said, he'll gave to fight an assault on all sides, including internal battles, notably from right-wing "Progress" Labour members from Kendallson to Blair who are already poisoning the well to prevent Corbyn winning at any cost, and an all-out attack by the right-wing press. That's tough to overcome.
And hopefully he'll give the Labour establishment a much-needed shake-up, seeing as Burnham, Cooper and Kendall are the very best they can come up with.
And, if nothing else, it's at least settled once and for all whether there is such a thing as the "left-wing press". Given the coverage over Corbyn, the answer is a resounding no.
US universities are publicly funded and have higher fees than the UK.
And certainly students in the United States certainly have better access to low-cost state universities (as well as other adult education through community colleges) than the UK.
I had no idea that 'dinner party' was so outdated. In my defence I used the term to explain what was going on to you trendy hipster types. We just refer to it as having some friends round for dinner and a drink or three. And the political discussion lasted all of five minutes. This wasn't a demographically balanced focus group or a self selected group of politicos. Just 8 random people round a table in the home counties.
I repeat my point that the political landscape may have changed and that you guys on here might have missed something big. I may be wrong, but so what. I don't claim to be an expert. But I do know that people who automatically dismiss evidence that contradicts their preconceptions aren't generally very good decision makers.