The horrific inequalities currently being waved in everyone's face with the plight of the migrants is unsustainable. Whether or not Corbyn is a useless politician isn't important. His overwhelming mandate as leader of the opposition means he'll be heard.
His message that the level of inequality is unsustainable as is the subjugation of weak nations by powerful ones is unargueable.
This is how he managed to cut through a very unradical Labour electorate to win decisively and his message will resonate. If I was a TORY (which thank the Lord I'm not sir....) I'd be seriously worried. The sight of the Prime Minister and his Tory chums posing in their Bullindon finery is now so inappropriate it's almost shocking
Sadly Roger you are deluded.
Most voters care little about Cameron's youthful "Bullingdon finery". It's an attack line that has run its course, if indeed it ever had a course to follow.
With Corbyn as leader Labour has effectively vacated their role of providing a viable government in waiting. Politically the nation faces a Conservative hegemony for the foreseeable future.
Electing Corbyn was the right of the members of the Labour party but it was also an act of gross self indulgence and they will pay a devastating price for their shallow naivety.
You misunderstand what Labour activists want. They would far sooner the Tories won the next six or even sixty General Elections - and swept through all the council elections, too - than have to go through a "centre ground" government ever again. They want to protest, to campaign and to oppose.
You may dislike it, I'm sure you and all the other Peebie Tories do FWIW, but they have a right to behave like that. An analogy might be a man who comes out of a painful, even horrific marriage and realises that it wasn't her fault - it was his own: he's gay.
"Do not underestimate Jeremy Corbyn. Labour’s Blairites lie dead and dying all over the place because they made that mistake. Tory Blairites such as David Cameron might be wise to learn from this, especially given last week’s dismal, shrinking manufacturing and export figures, which were pushed far away from front pages by other stories, but which cast doubt on the vaunted recovery
Mr Corbyn reminds mature people of the days when the big parties really differed. He impresses the young because he doesn’t patronise them, and obviously believes what he says. This desire for real politics isn’t just confined to the Left. Ken Livingstone is right to call Mr Corbyn Labour’s Nigel Farage. Ukip appeals to a similar impulse. Millions are weary of being smarmed and lied to by people who actually are not that competent or impressive, and who have been picked because they look good on TV rather than because they have ideas or character
Actually, I dislike many of Mr Corbyn’s opinions – his belief in egalitarianism and high taxation, his enthusiasm for comprehensive schools, his readiness to talk to terrorists and his support for the EU. Oddly enough, these are all policies he shares with the Tory Party. But I like the honest way he states them, compared with the Tories’ slippery pretence of being what they’re not"
The PMQ stuff is a real Westminster bubble thing, by the way. There are umpteen precedents for LOTOs and PMs skipping it and someone standing in, and nobody outside our sort of nerdy circle cared. It's not "Leader of the Opposition Questions". The idea that it's a cowardly and unpatriotic dereliction of duty to share it out is froth.
It is however, a reflection of a Corbyn approach which is quite novel and we don't know how it will turn out. He doesn't see himself as a leader out in front, but as one of a number of representatives of a movement who happens to be the current leader. It's a self-effacing attitude which is intended to create some space for others and it's totally out of keeping with what we're used to - imagine Gordon doing it, and I say that as someone who likes Gordon. I doubt if he'll be doing it often but the offer is distinctive, and there will be other counter-intuitive moves like this.
Utter tosh Nick.
Stand-ins for PMQ's occur when the main protagonists are absent. The Corbyn proposal will see him sit opposite the PM whilst Denis Skinner and fellow travellers gets six pots at Cameron. It's utter lunacy and I doubt Bercow will allow it.
Corbyn's approach may be "novel" but so would Jezza bungee jumping from "Strangers Gallery" or the new LotO streaking naked down to the House of Lords at the State Opening of Parliament.
Might I suggest, as you no longer have to be whipped .... titter .... that you adopt a slightly more open and critical approach to your politics - that would be "novel".
Corbyn can easily play another card [ indeed any LoTO could ]. Simply announce that unless the PM actually answers the question asked of him directly and the government benches behaved like a mob, he wouldn't be asking any questions as it was an affront to democracy. After all, the half hour is called PMQ, meaning accountability, rather than evasions. On this one, at least, the majority of the public will be on his side. The public [ apart from political nerds ] do not like the circus that it is today.
I don't think that's true. Political behaviours emerge for all sorts of reasons, but many develop because they worked with the public, or as a byproduct of things that work with the public. If MPs found that the low and shouty nature of pmqs harmed the political class, the culture would change very quickly. As it is, on serious occasions and topics they know to play it serious, otherwise they indulge in political theatre. That says to me only a few actually dislike it among the public, even if more claim they do. The public like to claim they want politicians to compromise and work together too, but punish those that do as being weak.
Nor have I seen historical pmqs since the TV age that are any different.
For me, one of the most interesting periods of PMQs was when Cameron took over and had to deal with Blair. It was obvious that he would not be fighting Blair at the election so he was not his real target. His tactics were really clever. He kept trying to find things that he could agree with Blair on but which were not popular with the Labour party in general and Brown in particular. In this way he started the process of peeling the label of moderation off Labour.
The technique had another advantage in that agreeing with the PM made PMQs just that little bit less dangerous for Cameron as he learned the ropes. Blair was a master of the Commons and could be dangerous. It was a technique of reducing the risk. Once Brown took over the tone and emphasis changed enormously.
Could Corbyn learn from this? He is in a similar situation where he is unlikely to face Cameron at an election. Cameron is now the Blair figure, experienced, fast on his feet and dangerous. He is also popular with middle England and Corbyn needs to peel away that popularity from the Conservatives as a whole.
It is a possible approach. It would take some of the heat out of PMQs which might be thought to be a good thing and indicative of Corbyn's "seriousness". I just don't think he is nearly bright enough to achieve it and he does not have the equivalent of the Blair/Brown chasm to work on.
Labour morning after. Waking up the chap walks away from the assignation with the lady who met all his deepest desires. Indulgence without contraception and in a few weeks this brief few hours will turn into a two decade legacy dragging him down into penury.
IIRC he did that more than once. It became a bit of meme that he'd carry on pushing a point that had already been addressed - as if he was talking to himself.
EdM had no sixpence turning ability - none. I doubt Corbyn will have any either given how he doesn't like having his views questioned at all.
For pity's sake, it is not a question and answer session. It is an opportunity to highlight an area where you think the government is making mistakes and to put across your point of view. Looked at sensibly, the more evasive the answers the better, it simply makes your point for you.
The old cliché of not asking questions you don't already know the answer to applies in spades: if the PM can come up with something unexpected it throws you off track. You want him to evade so you can tell him what the answer is in your next question and emphasise the point for the purpose of your soundbite. If you can make it vaguely witty, and thus improve the chance of the media using it, so much the better.
This is basic politics and if Corbyn does not play the game he will simply not contribute to the debate. That might be a good thing for Labour of course.
Cameron would be wiser to answer questions directly and honestly though. It would horribly confuse Corbyn and deprive him of a key line of attack, not to mention freeing up room to cover several subjects. William Hague admitted that the one time Tony Blair gave him a straight answer to his first question (on the Euro) it wrecked his next question and he had his weakest performance at PMQs.
At one of the last PMQs, David gave Ed a direct and straight answer to the first question, and Ed just kept on with his preprepared questions which assumed that David hadn't answered. It made Ed look rather silly.
I think Ed would often start with a straight question, then try and build up the rhetoric as he progressed through his questioning. The problem came when the first, straight, question received a dead straight answer and he hadn't thought through what the response would be, only what the next question was on the paper in front of him.
I imagine that the pressure in the chamber makes that session quite stressful for all involved no matter how good their preparation and public speaking skills. Didn't Gordon Brown once say that he spent most of Tuesday preparing, and the whole of Weds morning getting his papers together? I notice with DC that he often has a positive statistic related to the constituency of his questioner when from the opposite benches - usually about unemployment rates or NHS waiting times - that must take a lot of preparation.
"Do not underestimate Jeremy Corbyn. Labour’s Blairites lie dead and dying all over the place because they made that mistake. Tory Blairites such as David Cameron might be wise to learn from this, especially given last week’s dismal, shrinking manufacturing and export figures, which were pushed far away from front pages by other stories, but which cast doubt on the vaunted recovery
Mr Corbyn reminds mature people of the days when the big parties really differed. He impresses the young because he doesn’t patronise them, and obviously believes what he says. This desire for real politics isn’t just confined to the Left. Ken Livingstone is right to call Mr Corbyn Labour’s Nigel Farage. Ukip appeals to a similar impulse. Millions are weary of being smarmed and lied to by people who actually are not that competent or impressive, and who have been picked because they look good on TV rather than because they have ideas or character
Actually, I dislike many of Mr Corbyn’s opinions – his belief in egalitarianism and high taxation, his enthusiasm for comprehensive schools, his readiness to talk to terrorists and his support for the EU. Oddly enough, these are all policies he shares with the Tory Party. But I like the honest way he states them, compared with the Tories’ slippery pretence of being what they’re not"
The horrific inequalities currently being waved in everyone's face with the plight of the migrants is unsustainable. Whether or not Corbyn is a useless politician isn't important. His overwhelming mandate as leader of the opposition means he'll be heard.
Well, I suppose that's a view. A ridiculous and particularly stupid one, but a view.
And you get extra stupidity points for your mention of 'Bullingdon'. That attack didn't work in 2010, and it didn't work in 2015. It won't work in 2020 either.
I must say I find the idea that.now Cameron in his bullingdon gear can be juxtaposed with Corbyn doing stereotypical lefty things in the 80s it will be a potent attack again a little optimistic. If that strand of attack were ever going to work it would hav by now, or it did but not enough. Everyone knows Cameron is posh and they've returned a verdict that it's not a big enough deal to care about.
It might find more traction on Osborne, given his rest face seems to contain an inbuilt sneer, however unfair that impression may be.
Osborne has always given the very strong impression that he only cares about money and by extension rich people, an impression not helped by the pasty tax/45p tax debacle of 2012 (at a time when he thought Labour were certain to lose the next election, hence my comments last night about Tory complacency and the problems it will cause). Cameron, on the other hand, has at least occasionally given the impression that he cares about people even if clumsily expressed ('hug a hoodie'). Whether these impressions are fair or not, they are the impressions people have.
It's one reason why Cameron is quite an effective leader, and class attacks on him do not resonate as well as Labour expect. It's also why Osborne would likely not be an effective leader and such attacks might resonate.
Taking all my lessons from movies as I do, I always felt the line from gladiator to be reasonable:
'I don't pretend to be a man of the people, but I do try to be a man for the people'
Cameron does try to pretend to be a man of the people sometimes, but I think the key is people do accept he tries to do the latter part too.
Now, some will think he is anything but, that he is more extreme than thatcher - or the memory of her at any rate - but some speculate that is his greatest strength; he just doesn't come across to people as extreme even if he is, and so the more extreme attacks do not resonate against him. As you say, with another leader, even doing the same things, they might.
I can't think that Labour frontbenchers will be exactly jumping up to nominate themselves for the job of asking LOTO questions either! I doubt it's really a lot of fun, and requires a lot of preparation and ability to think on your feet ...
Yes i'm sure they'll be happy to put themselves through that for the sake of developing a collegiate approach!
Most MPs are self-important. They are anxious for publicity (especially on National TV). They are ambitious.
I expect it will be so popular that Jeremy will struggle to reserve a few questions of himself.
I don’t have any problems with Jeremy’s suggestion -- it looks like a lot of fun.
Sentence construction of a child who hasn't been taught about sentence construction at school because they are a child at school who hasn't been taught about sentence construction. #headache
Short of a depression Corbyn has no chance of winning votes in marginal seats, he will pile up votes in Camden and Islington but if he remains leader by 2020, short of an economic depression, he will lose. The big unknown is UKIP, certainly the pro immigration Corbyn is the ideal candidate to help them eat into Labour's vote amongst the white working class, particularly in towns in the midlands and north and the Tories will also need to be careful to keep Out Tory voters from switching to Farage if EUref produces a narrow In vote (which I still think is the most likely outcome). While Corbyn is likely to back In there is also a narrow chance he will back Out which could also make things interesting
If you want an army Anglea, then you can bloody well recruit and train them yourself, rather than trying to steal ours. I wonder what happened to the German army, anyway..?
Still licking it wounds after losing two world wars....
Ponder the fact that it took the world to beat them whilst nowadays we could not even win against a bit of Afghanistan. Not exactly superior in any way shape or form.
At the height of the greatest Empire the planet has ever seen, the British Army couldn't win against a bit of Afghanistan. Your point is?
You were mocking the Germans , yet we had no hope against them , it took the Americans , Russians and Empire armies to beat them. You can kid yourself that we beat the Germans etc but they hardly need us in a European Army , but nice to see Merkel twisting their tails. Ineffectual effete halfwits renegotiating , what a laugh, she will eat baw face and his muppets alive.
I don't like Cammo either or the Tories as constituted at present. However it isn't his face Merkel will be eating, it is Britain's face, and I don't like it one bit. And another thing, quite relevant: Hitler had contingents of soldiers from every occupied country in the wehrmacht. Merkel, under cover of the Juncker and other Brussels dolts, is simply trying to repeat this trick, without endangering a single German soldier.
The horrific inequalities currently being waved in everyone's face with the plight of the migrants is unsustainable. Whether or not Corbyn is a useless politician isn't important. His overwhelming mandate as leader of the opposition means he'll be heard.
His message that the level of inequality is unsustainable as is the subjugation of weak nations by powerful ones is unargueable.
This is how he managed to cut through a very unradical Labour electorate to win decisively and his message will resonate. If I was a TORY (which thank the Lord I'm not sir....) I'd be seriously worried. The sight of the Prime Minister and his Tory chums posing in their Bullindon finery is now so inappropriate it's almost shocking
Sadly Roger you are deluded.
Most voters care little about Cameron's youthful "Bullingdon finery". It's an attack line that has run its course, if indeed it ever had a course to follow.
With Corbyn as leader Labour has effectively vacated their role of providing a viable government in waiting. Politically the nation faces a Conservative hegemony for the foreseeable future.
Electing Corbyn was the right of the members of the Labour party but it was also an act of gross self indulgence and they will pay a devastating price for their shallow naivety.
I agree. We have known about Cameron's (and Boris's!) Days in the Bullingdon club for over a decade, yet they go on winning election after election. It seems to be viewed as a fairly harmless youthful indiscretion and nothing more.
I think that Corbyn will be such a disaster that if he is in post in 2020 then Labour will be down to double figures in parliament, and possibly the third party behind the SNP.
However I think he will be deposed after a year or two, but if the successor is cut from the same cloth then oblivion awaits.
Short of a depression Corbyn has no chance of winning votes in marginal seats, he will pile up votes in Camden and Islington but if he remains leader by 2020, short of an economic depression, he will lose. The big unknown is UKIP, certainly the pro immigration Corbyn is the ideal candidate to help them eat into Labour's vote amongst the white working class, particularly in towns in the midlands and north and the Tories will also need to be careful to keep Out Tory voters from switching to Farage if EUref produces a narrow In vote (which I still think is the most likely outcome). While Corbyn is likely to back In there is also a narrow chance he will back Out which could also make things interesting
It will cause confusion though, won't it - Corbyn is pro-immigration, but at the same time he's also the most Eurosceptic leader the Labour party have had definitely since Foot and arguably since Wilson.
I don't think that it will cancel out the immigration question with UKIP/Labour waverers, but it may be something to bear in mind.
Sentence construction of a child who hasn't been taught about sentence construction at school because they are a child at school who hasn't been taught about sentence construction. #headache
Your father and I have seen that many times! Imagine marking and correcting thirty books like that...
The horrific inequalities currently being waved in everyone's face with the plight of the migrants is unsustainable. Whether or not Corbyn is a useless politician isn't important. His overwhelming mandate as leader of the opposition means he'll be heard.
His message that the level of inequality is unsustainable as is the subjugation of weak nations by powerful ones is unargueable.
This is how he managed to cut through a very unradical Labour electorate to win decisively and his message will resonate. If I was a TORY (which thank the Lord I'm not sir....) I'd be seriously worried. The sight of the Prime Minister and his Tory chums posing in their Bullindon finery is now so inappropriate it's almost shocking
Sadly Roger you are deluded.
Most voters care little about Cameron's youthful "Bullingdon finery". It's an attack line that has run its course, if indeed it ever had a course to follow.
With Corbyn as leader Labour has effectively vacated their role of providing a viable government in waiting. Politically the nation faces a Conservative hegemony for the foreseeable future.
Electing Corbyn was the right of the members of the Labour party but it was also an act of gross self indulgence and they will pay a devastating price for their shallow naivety.
You misunderstand what Labour activists want. They would far sooner the Tories won the next six or even sixty General Elections - and swept through all the council elections, too - than have to go through a "centre ground" government ever again. They want to protest, to campaign and to oppose.
You may dislike it, I'm sure you and all the other Peebie Tories do FWIW, but they have a right to behave like that. An analogy might be a man who comes out of a painful, even horrific marriage and realises that it wasn't her fault - it was his own: he's gay.
I perfectly understand what Labour activists wanted. Sadly those same activists don't understand that it's a total dead end for Labour.
Neither am I a "Peebie" Tory. I am a lapsed "Coalitionista" who's prepared to give this government a not uncritical but fair wind.
Those on the left that don't care at all about being electable are in effect saying they don't think the Tories at that bad, as better a Tory government than a sub par labour one. I think I prefer the optimists thinking, however wrong they may be, that a radical new offer will prove enticing to the public. It might lead to the same end, but at least the ignorant ones won't rail against an outcome they implicitly admitted was ok, however unintentionally.
I remember OGH writing threads about the Labour bias within the electoral system, and I further recall him writing another thread that it had either gone or was now a tory bias.. anyone recall where we are?
The uncomfortable fact is that, after the boundary changes, whoever would lead Labour will need a 1997-style swing to achieve a bare majority in 2020 - a feat only achieved by Blair himself.
No wonder even Prescott was saying the unthinkable yesterday, that Labour should consider all options, including pacts and coalitions.
PR might be back on the agenda too, I guess.
The problem of course is that in order to be in a position to consider pacts, coalitions and PR, Labour are going to have to do an awful lot better than they did under a much stronger leader.
Which in itself is a pretty uncomfortable fact.
And to do a pact you need someone who isn't such an extreme leader. Perhaps He could scoop up a few points through merging with the Greens. That could also cement the left's control over the party.
The purpose of PMQ's is to hold the PM to account. The LOTO is given the chance to ask up to six questions as a means of raising issues of national importance and to delve deeper into those issues.
Backbenchers are given one question each to raise issues of particular importance to them or their constituents.
If on any given week the LOTO does not think anything needs to be raised, then it is fine for them not to use their quota and give the time to more backbenchers to ask questions. That would be self effacing and sensible.
If the LOTO delegates to someone else, it will either appear that they are unable to do the job, or don't think the opportunity to question the PM is important. That is not self effacing - it's either incompetent or arrogant.
I remember OGH writing threads about the Labour bias within the electoral system, and I further recall him writing another thread that it had either gone or was now a tory bias.. anyone recall where we are?
The uncomfortable fact is that, after the boundary changes, whoever would lead Labour will need a 1997-style swing to achieve a bare majority in 2020 - a feat only achieved by Blair himself.
No wonder even Prescott was saying the unthinkable yesterday, that Labour should consider all options, including pacts and coalitions.
PR might be back on the agenda too, I guess.
Attlee got an 11% swing in 1945, Blair a 10% swing in 1997, so Attlee did it too, albeit over 50 years prior
Mr. K, surely you're not suggesting a German Chancellor with economic hegemony over the eurozone, who has recently dictated migration policy to most of the EU and who now wants an EU army, is something to be afraid of?
I especially like the "Give me what I want [an EU army green light] and I'll agree to permit you to ask for some things, which I shall then consider (or not)" line.
I'd still be greatly surprised if Cameron turned to Out, but not as shocked as I would've been a month ago.
I reckon Corbyn is planning a two year stint. The PMQ move is to showcase and test new talent.
Sounds somewhat plausible. He never thought he'd win, may recognise he cannot take them all the way, could easily find an excuse to step aside of his own volition, so if he can change direction of the party and then put up someone more electable it seems possible.
I really liked Innocent's analogy of Corbyn's win as Labour 'coming out as gay'. It's painfully accurate I think; and very painful it will be for them electorally.
''You may dislike it, I'm sure you and all the other Peebie Tories do FWIW, but they have a right to behave like that.''
True, but you will never help the people you say you want to help, because you will never gain the power to do so.
In the end it will be nothing but empty virtue signalling.
But it will at least be that. The Party has only won England once (if we consider Blair's victories a form of Toryism without the Tories) and there is no reason to suppose that it can ever do so again. 1945 was a very different election, following six years of wartime solidarity.
I reckon Corbyn is planning a two year stint. The PMQ move is to showcase and test new talent.
Clearly you didn't see Jeremy's shining face on TV last night. He thinks he's the chosen one. He has the biggest mandate in labour history. He's not going anywhere. There's a report in the guardian this week, quoting his friends, saying exactly that.
Keep dreaming.
Right now that may be the case. I get the impression that his mood may shift if things get difficult again. Clearly he thinks this his moment, but if reality starts to bite?
I reckon Corbyn is planning a two year stint. The PMQ move is to showcase and test new talent.
Clearly you didn't see Jeremy's shining face on TV last night. He thinks he's the chosen one. He has the biggest mandate in labour history. He's not going anywhere. There's a report in the guardian this week, quoting his friends, saying exactly that.
Keep dreaming.
if reality starts to bite?
You think Jeremy & 'reality' are well (or at all) acquainted?
It's certainly right that under FPTP there is no point in focusing on safe seats. But the problem in the Midlands marginals was not a shortage of help - I've never had so many helpers or so many donations. The problem was a near-absence of a coherent message: essentially we were putting out dozens of leaflets promising not to be as Tory as the Tories and have a few random policies on GP waiting times and electricity prices. People weren't impressed and they felt that change was risky and not apparently going to give many benefits, so why chance it?
It is however a mistake to think that English marginals are full of centrists while safe seats are full of radicals. All seats have a variety of voters, and marginals are marginals because of the demographic mix. It's possible to win elections in marginals by enthusing a few thousand people who drifted off to minor parties (I lost in 2010 by much less than the Green vote) plus people who really don't vote on left-right lines, so long as you don't thereby alienate your normal vote. That's the more serious challenge for a left-wing Labour party than the risk of only piling up votes in safe seats.
That is exactly it. A lot of people on here seem to think in terms of rather than people. Nearly everyone thinks they are in the centre. In reality I am in the centre, and they are all deluded.
I like the analogy of Corbyn as Farage isam just quoted from Hitchens.
So Corbyn will have a lot of sound and fury but will ultimately lose half the Commons seats he has inherited while failing to make a breakthrough winning new seats.
However I think he will be deposed after a year or two, but if the successor is cut from the same cloth then oblivion awaits.
Can't quite see how he might be deposed though. There will be very few politicians of substance in the front ranks of the Labour party, and even if there were Corbyn has certainly shown that he's happy to plough on alone. I guess Watson is a key figure here.
A really massive council election defeat is the only really plausible trigger that I can see, and even then with Mad-dog McClusky financing him and banging the drum it may not happen.
If the EU wants backing for a common EU army, legal immigration system and Eurozone Treasury which we are outside then that cements an inner and outer EU. In exchange we must be protected on the shared EU policies we are already outside. That means free movement, so the inner EU can't give out passports so people can come straight here, and a double majority system for EU-wide matters.
We certainly should not stand aside for a common EU force in exchange for some small benefit changes and minor fiddling around business regulation.
I reckon Corbyn is planning a two year stint. The PMQ move is to showcase and test new talent.
Clearly you didn't see Jeremy's shining face on TV last night. He thinks he's the chosen one. He has the biggest mandate in labour history. He's not going anywhere. There's a report in the guardian this week, quoting his friends, saying exactly that.
Keep dreaming.
if reality starts to bite?
You think Jeremy & 'reality' are well (or at all) acquainted?
Given how unexpected his triumph was, at the moment he is in dreamland, no question. Just an issue of if it can continue for 5 years.
I really liked Innocent's analogy of Corbyn's win as Labour 'coming out as gay'. It's painfully accurate I think; and very painful it will be for them electorally.
They have come out as clenched fist revolutionary communist.
In a way, Yes. You're terrified when you see someone standing on a window ledge, saying they're going to jump. You're terrified for them, not terrified for yourself.
The country is terrified as are a number of x members of the shadow cabinet.
So to continue Southam's colourful metaphor, climax seems to have been reached last night. How long before Labour notice that they have a sticky substance on their hands and the public is looking on with a mixture of curiosity and disgust at their antics?
However I think he will be deposed after a year or two, but if the successor is cut from the same cloth then oblivion awaits.
Can't quite see how he might be deposed though. There will be very few politicians of substance in the front ranks of the Labour party, and even if there were Corbyn has certainly shown that he's happy to plough on alone. I guess Watson is a key figure here.
A really massive council election defeat is the only really plausible trigger that I can see, and even then with Mad-dog McClusky financing him and banging the drum it may not happen.
A massive council election defeat? You mean losing in the Scottish Parliament elections then?
I reckon Corbyn is planning a two year stint. The PMQ move is to showcase and test new talent.
Clearly you didn't see Jeremy's shining face on TV last night. He thinks he's the chosen one. He has the biggest mandate in labour history. He's not going anywhere. There's a report in the guardian this week, quoting his friends, saying exactly that.
Keep dreaming.
Right now that may be the case. I get the impression that his mood may shift if things get difficult again. Clearly he thinks this his moment, but if reality starts to bite?
Nah! If ever there was a politician that did not care about being isolated or unpopular with his colleagues it is Jezzbollah.
When he goes it has to be a defenestration. Can the centrists arrange this? I think they are up against it in that any new contest automatically makes Corbyn eligible, and the selectorate would have to back the new candidate.
When the Tories change the rules on funding, the stool will be kicked away from Labour and they will be metaphorically swinging in the wind.
If you want an army Anglea, then you can bloody well recruit and train them yourself, rather than trying to steal ours. I wonder what happened to the German army, anyway..?
Still licking it wounds after losing two world wars....
Ponder the fact that it took the world to beat them whilst nowadays we could not even win against a bit of Afghanistan. Not exactly superior in any way shape or form.
At the height of the greatest Empire the planet has ever seen, the British Army couldn't win against a bit of Afghanistan. Your point is?
You were mocking the Germans , yet we had no hope against them , it took the Americans , Russians and Empire armies to beat them. You can kid yourself that we beat the Germans etc but they hardly need us in a European Army , but nice to see Merkel twisting their tails. Ineffectual effete halfwits renegotiating , what a laugh, she will eat baw face and his muppets alive.
I don't like Cammo either or the Tories as constituted at present. However it isn't his face Merkel will be eating, it is Britain's face, and I don't like it one bit. And another thing, quite relevant: Hitler had contingents of soldiers from every occupied country in the wehrmacht. Merkel, under cover of the Juncker and other Brussels dolts, is simply trying to repeat this trick, without endangering a single German soldier.
Mike , i agree with you , I was merely pointing out that MM's sneering was misguided and typical of the right wing nutters on here, who seem to actually believe the "Great" is reality instead of a joke nowadays.
F1: Turkey may return to the calendar next year [according to the BBC gossip column]. With Germany perhaps returning and Azerbaijan joining, this may be a bad sign for Monza.
Edited extra bit: I think Monza's in for 2016, it's beyond that the question arises.
The horrific inequalities currently being waved in everyone's face with the plight of the migrants is unsustainable. Whether or not Corbyn is a useless politician isn't important. His overwhelming mandate as leader of the opposition means he'll be heard.
His message that the level of inequality is unsustainable as is the subjugation of weak nations by powerful ones is unargueable.
This is how he managed to cut through a very unradical Labour electorate to win decisively and his message will resonate. If I was a TORY (which thank the Lord I'm not sir....) I'd be seriously worried. The sight of the Prime Minister and his Tory chums posing in their Bullindon finery is now so inappropriate it's almost shocking
Sadly Roger you are deluded.
Most voters care little about Cameron's youthful "Bullingdon finery". It's an attack line that has run its course, if indeed it ever had a course to follow.
With Corbyn as leader Labour has effectively vacated their role of providing a viable government in waiting. Politically the nation faces a Conservative hegemony for the foreseeable future.
Electing Corbyn was the right of the members of the Labour party but it was also an act of gross self indulgence and they will pay a devastating price for their shallow naivety.
I agree. We have known about Cameron's (and Boris's!) Days in the Bullingdon club for over a decade, yet they go on winning election after election. It seems to be viewed as a fairly harmless youthful indiscretion and nothing more.
I think that Corbyn will be such a disaster that if he is in post in 2020 then Labour will be down to double figures in parliament, and possibly the third party behind the SNP.
However I think he will be deposed after a year or two, but if the successor is cut from the same cloth then oblivion awaits.
Double figures implying fewer than 100 seats seems too low but I can certainly see a Jezza led Labour party in 2020 going sub-Major, perhaps even as low as 140.
I reckon Corbyn is planning a two year stint. The PMQ move is to showcase and test new talent.
Clearly you didn't see Jeremy's shining face on TV last night. He thinks he's the chosen one. He has the biggest mandate in labour history. He's not going anywhere. There's a report in the guardian this week, quoting his friends, saying exactly that.
Keep dreaming.
Right now that may be the case. I get the impression that his mood may shift if things get difficult again. Clearly he thinks this his moment, but if reality starts to bite?
Nah! If ever there was a politician that did not care about being isolated or unpopular with his colleagues it is Jezzbollah.
When he goes it has to be a defenestration. Can the centrists arrange this? I think they are up against it in that any new contest automatically makes Corbyn eligible, and the selectorate would have to back the new candidate.
When the Tories change the rules on funding, the stool will be kicked away from Labour and they will be metaphorically swinging in the wind.
It's certainly right that under FPTP there is no point in focusing on safe seats. But the problem in the Midlands marginals was not a shortage of help - I've never had so many helpers or so many donations. The problem was a near-absence of a coherent message: essentially we were putting out dozens of leaflets promising not to be as Tory as the Tories and have a few random policies on GP waiting times and electricity prices. People weren't impressed and they felt that change was risky and not apparently going to give many benefits, so why chance it?
It is however a mistake to think that English marginals are full of centrists while safe seats are full of radicals. All seats have a variety of voters, and marginals are marginals because of the demographic mix. It's possible to win elections in marginals by enthusing a few thousand people who drifted off to minor parties (I lost in 2010 by much less than the Green vote) plus people who really don't vote on left-right lines, so long as you don't thereby alienate your normal vote. That's the more serious challenge for a left-wing Labour party than the risk of only piling up votes in safe seats.
That is exactly it. A lot of people on here seem to think in terms of rather than people. Nearly everyone thinks they are in the centre. In reality I am in the centre, and they are all deluded.
Good for Labour though , means that by the next time , 2024 mind you, anyone left that is not in the workhouse will be desperate to get rid of the Tories for a long long time.
Kevin Moody of Tommy Sheridan's 'Solidarity' Party has posted this note of congratulations to Corbyn (makes a change from the usual 'Red Tories')
'On behalf of Solidarity Scotland I would like to offer our congratulations to both Jeremy Corbyn and Tom Watson in securing significant victories in the Labour leadership and deputy leadership elections. Both won their contests in the face of Old Establishment figures and rabid anti-democratic media campaigns that sought to demonise them both. The power of the unelected, unaccountable and reactionary billionaire press was today clipped as hundreds of thousands of ordinary people refused to be bullied or duped by them. These results, particularly the almost 60% vote for Jeremy, is tremendously encouraging to left and progressive forces here in Scotland and across the globe, particularly in oppressed nations like Palestine and Cuba. We in Solidarity welcome the victories and appeal to both Jeremy and Tom to realise that the Labour Party in Scotland can recover popularity and electoral support but only if they ditch the attachment to an out-dated and undemocratic Westminster union and instead embrace radical independence advancing the cause of socialism in Scotland, England and Wales. Break with the reactionary and undemocratic union of Westminster and forge a new and powerful socialist Party in Scotland committed to public ownership and control of gas, electricity, oil and transport. For an independent and socialist Scotland as part of a socialist Europe and world https://twitter.com/citizentommy?lang=en-gb&lang=en-gb
I reckon Corbyn is planning a two year stint. The PMQ move is to showcase and test new talent.
Possibly – but Just in case this emotional crutch the left appears to have put their hopes into does not pan out, I suggest Labour starts planning for the long term with Corbyn still in situ.
I remember OGH writing threads about the Labour bias within the electoral system, and I further recall him writing another thread that it had either gone or was now a tory bias.. anyone recall where we are?
The uncomfortable fact is that, after the boundary changes, whoever would lead Labour will need a 1997-style swing to achieve a bare majority in 2020 - a feat only achieved by Blair himself.
No wonder even Prescott was saying the unthinkable yesterday, that Labour should consider all options, including pacts and coalitions.
PR might be back on the agenda too, I guess.
Attlee got an 11% swing in 1945, Blair a 10% swing in 1997, so Attlee did it too, albeit over 50 years prior
Yeah, I know, but Attlee/Labour had been in government immediately prior in unique circumstances.
I remember OGH writing threads about the Labour bias within the electoral system, and I further recall him writing another thread that it had either gone or was now a tory bias.. anyone recall where we are?
The uncomfortable fact is that, after the boundary changes, whoever would lead Labour will need a 1997-style swing to achieve a bare majority in 2020 - a feat only achieved by Blair himself.
No wonder even Prescott was saying the unthinkable yesterday, that Labour should consider all options, including pacts and coalitions.
PR might be back on the agenda too, I guess.
Attlee got an 11% swing in 1945, Blair a 10% swing in 1997, so Attlee did it too, albeit over 50 years prior
Yeah, I know, but Attlee/Labour had been in government immediately prior in unique circumstances.
Yes, but during WW2 and with the Tory PM as the war leader
Kevin Moody of Tommy Sheridan's 'Solidarity' Party has posted this note of congratulations to Corbyn (makes a change from the usual 'Red Tories')
'On behalf of Solidarity Scotland I would like to offer our congratulations to both Jeremy Corbyn and Tom Watson in securing significant victories in the Labour leadership and deputy leadership elections. Both won their contests in the face of Old Establishment figures and rabid anti-democratic media campaigns that sought to demonise them both. The power of the unelected, unaccountable and reactionary billionaire press was today clipped as hundreds of thousands of ordinary people refused to be bullied or duped by them. These results, particularly the almost 60% vote for Jeremy, is tremendously encouraging to left and progressive forces here in Scotland and across the globe, particularly in oppressed nations like Palestine and Cuba. We in Solidarity welcome the victories and appeal to both Jeremy and Tom to realise that the Labour Party in Scotland can recover popularity and electoral support but only if they ditch the attachment to an out-dated and undemocratic Westminster union and instead embrace radical independence advancing the cause of socialism in Scotland, England and Wales. Break with the reactionary and undemocratic union of Westminster and forge a new and powerful socialist Party in Scotland committed to public ownership and control of gas, electricity, oil and transport. For an independent and socialist Scotland as part of a socialist Europe and world https://twitter.com/citizentommy?lang=en-gb&lang=en-gb
I like the implication that if your side does poorly it would be because people are bullied or duped by the press. Presumably they feel the public was bullied and duped to a Tory majority just months ago, so a quick turnaround from the people to rise up in the face of the evil media.
If the EU wants backing for a common EU army, legal immigration system and Eurozone Treasury which we are outside then that cements an inner and outer EU. In exchange we must be protected on the shared EU policies we are already outside. That means free movement, so the inner EU can't give out passports so people can come straight here, and a double majority system for EU-wide matters.
We certainly should not stand aside for a common EU force in exchange for some small benefit changes and minor fiddling around business regulation.
I like the analogy of Corbyn as Farage isam just quoted from Hitchens.
So Corbyn will have a lot of sound and fury but will ultimately lose half the Commons seats he has inherited while failing to make a breakthrough winning new seats.
PMQs will be interesting, but surely the questions by the LOTO have a much higher status than from backbenchers, Corbyns tactic could just diffuse any questions into the background.
Radio 5 did a vox pop from a car boot sale this morning. As is to be expected most of the people they spoke to were barely aware that Labour had had a leadership election. The person who did seem most aware, a Labour voter who still got Corbyn's first name wrong, rattled off some of the issues that concerned him, which included defence and terrorism.
In a way, Yes. You're terrified when you see someone standing on a window ledge, saying they're going to jump. You're terrified for them, not terrified for yourself.
The country is terrified as are a number of x members of the shadow cabinet.
They should be ashamed , they are so lacking in talent that an unknown backbencher beat all of them by a landslide. He for sure will not do as badly as the frothers on here and the second rate Labour "talent" think. This country is not in good shape and the majority will only take it for so long.
I never realised Cuba was oppressed .. should someone have a word with Fidel and his bro..maybe they can do something about it .. I am aware that the Fidelistas have been proclaiming Cuba as a socialist paradise for many decades..
On topic, under current circumstances it probably doesn't make sense to be optimizing for a general election. If you're not going to try to get control of a national government, which Labour seem to have decided not to bother with (understandably, as it involves a lot of tedious pandering to dim-witted floating-voter moderates) then a councillor or an MEP is just as important as an MP.
I think the Tories and right wing MSM are playing into Corbyn's hands at the moment, they're presenting him as an anti-establishment figure and this will likely drive forward his momentum - even Cameron is getting on board:
Meanwhile Watson will be quietly behind the scenes keeping the mainstream party together. If the Tories and MSM don't change tactics I think Corbyn could start producing some surprising polling numbers, their best approach would probably be to ignore him.
It's certainly right that under FPTP there is no point in focusing on safe seats. But the problem in the Midlands marginals was not a shortage of help - I've never had so many helpers or so many donations. The problem was a near-absence of a coherent message: essentially we were putting out dozens of leaflets promising not to be as Tory as the Tories and have a few random policies on GP waiting times and electricity prices. People weren't impressed and they felt that change was risky and not apparently going to give many benefits, so why chance it?
It is however a mistake to think that English marginals are full of centrists while safe seats are full of radicals. All seats have a variety of voters, and marginals are marginals because of the demographic mix. It's possible to win elections in marginals by enthusing a few thousand people who drifted off to minor parties (I lost in 2010 by much less than the Green vote) plus people who really don't vote on left-right lines, so long as you don't thereby alienate your normal vote. That's the more serious challenge for a left-wing Labour party than the risk of only piling up votes in safe seats.
That is exactly it. A lot of people on here seem to think in terms of rather than people. Nearly everyone thinks they are in the centre. In reality I am in the centre, and they are all deluded.
Good for Labour though , means that by the next time , 2024 mind you, anyone left that is not in the workhouse will be desperate to get rid of the Tories for a long long time.
Based on policy polls the typical centrist voter would be anti increased immigration but pro renationalising the railways, want to cut welfare but tax the rich more, wants to cut inheritance tax but increase corporation tax, thinks the Iraq War was wrong but wants airstrikes on ISIS, is EU sceptic but would like a trading relationship with Europe and is pro gay marriage and euthanasia but anti legalisation of drugs. A mixture of both left and right
Mr. K, surely you're not suggesting a German Chancellor with economic hegemony over the eurozone, who has recently dictated migration policy to most of the EU and who now wants an EU army, is something to be afraid of?
I especially like the "Give me what I want [an EU army green light] and I'll agree to permit you to ask for some things, which I shall then consider (or not)" line.
I'd still be greatly surprised if Cameron turned to Out, but not as shocked as I would've been a month ago.
There are clear differences between what Hollande and Merkel want as far as eve closer Eurozone union means. Little signs of hegemony there. But ever close currency union inevitably means closer fiscal and political union. Its hard to see how you can avoid it. Its that closer union Cameron and the tories are against. We need to be sure we are not part of it and protect ourselves from it. If we cannot then we probably ought to vote out. But lets be under no illusions that that will be much different from now, as opposed to this closer union in the future. And let's be under no illusion that the EU will suddenly disappear and that voting out will protect us somehow from the thing that the EU becomes.
Oh and lets be under no illusion that being out of the EU will protect us magically from these waves of migration. Not with open-arms-welcome-Corbyn-led-Labour in charge. Do kippers really think the EU is so important when set against this home grown nutjob?
The purpose of PMQ's is to hold the PM to account. The LOTO is given the chance to ask up to six questions as a means of raising issues of national importance and to delve deeper into those issues.
Backbenchers are given one question each to raise issues of particular importance to them or their constituents.
If on any given week the LOTO does not think anything needs to be raised, then it is fine for them not to use their quota and give the time to more backbenchers to ask questions. That would be self effacing and sensible.
If the LOTO delegates to someone else, it will either appear that they are unable to do the job, or don't think the opportunity to question the PM is important. That is not self effacing - it's either incompetent or arrogant.
If the EU wants backing for a common EU army, legal immigration system and Eurozone Treasury which we are outside then that cements an inner and outer EU. In exchange we must be protected on the shared EU policies we are already outside. That means free movement, so the inner EU can't give out passports so people can come straight here, and a double majority system for EU-wide matters.
We certainly should not stand aside for a common EU force in exchange for some small benefit changes and minor fiddling around business regulation.
What kind of double-majority could the UK desire?
Any new law or policy that's EU-wide should require a weighted majority of Eurozone nations and a weighted majority of non-Eurozone nations
If the EU wants backing for a common EU army, legal immigration system and Eurozone Treasury which we are outside then that cements an inner and outer EU. In exchange we must be protected on the shared EU policies we are already outside. That means free movement, so the inner EU can't give out passports so people can come straight here, and a double majority system for EU-wide matters.
We certainly should not stand aside for a common EU force in exchange for some small benefit changes and minor fiddling around business regulation.
It's all becoming obvious that the solution is simply for us to exit the EU and negotiate a UK-EU bilateral treaty similar to what other nations have. At least we'd be sovereign and we'd know what's what.
Jeepers old JackW- you're in fine lefty attack mode this morning. Has the election of Jezza fired up your loins by bringing some sentience back to places which you considered redundant?
As I said yesterday, there is no chance that Cameron would take leaders questions from anyone other than the LOTO (if of course Jez was there), so he would nominate someone else too. It could get all quite ridiculous quite quickly as the two camps identify an appropriate match.
BTW- I don't blame Corbyn one iota trying to think of some excuse to get out of inflicting PMQ's on himself. He's 66 for god sakes, and he never wanted to be leader. So please be fair to the old boy- you of all people should understand the effects of ageing.
The PMQ stuff is a real Westminster bubble thing, by the way. There are umpteen precedents for LOTOs and PMs skipping it and someone standing in, and nobody outside our sort of nerdy circle cared. It's not "Leader of the Opposition Questions". The idea that it's a cowardly and unpatriotic dereliction of duty to share it out is froth.
It is however, a reflection of a Corbyn approach which is quite novel and we don't know how it will turn out. He doesn't see himself as a leader out in front, but as one of a number of representatives of a movement who happens to be the current leader. It's a self-effacing attitude which is intended to create some space for others and it's totally out of keeping with what we're used to - imagine Gordon doing it, and I say that as someone who likes Gordon. I doubt if he'll be doing it often but the offer is distinctive, and there will be other counter-intuitive moves like this.
Utter tosh Nick.
Utter tosh Nick.
Stand-ins for PMQ's occur when the main protagonists are absent. The Corbyn proposal will see him sit opposite the PM whilst Denis Skinner and fellow travellers gets six pots at Cameron. It's utter lunacy and I doubt Bercow will allow it.
Corbyn's approach may be "novel" but so would Jezza bungee jumping from "Strangers Gallery" or the new LotO streaking naked down to the House of Lords at the State Opening of Parliament.
Might I suggest, as you no longer have to be whipped .... titter .... that you adopt a slightly more open and critical approach to your politics - that would be "novel".
I think the Tories and right wing MSM are playing into Corbyn's hands at the moment, they're presenting him as an anti-establishment figure and this will likely drive forward his momentum - even Cameron is getting on board:
Meanwhile Watson will be quietly behind the scenes keeping the mainstream party together. If the Tories and MSM don't change tactics I think Corbyn could start producing some surprising polling numbers, their best approach would probably be to ignore him.
I like the analogy of Corbyn as Farage isam just quoted from Hitchens.
So Corbyn will have a lot of sound and fury but will ultimately lose half the Commons seats he has inherited while failing to make a breakthrough winning new seats.
Sounds about right.
UKIP actually gained 1 seat in 2015 compared to 2010 and quadrupled their voteshare
I think the Tories and right wing MSM are playing into Corbyn's hands at the moment, they're presenting him as an anti-establishment figure and this will likely drive forward his momentum - even Cameron is getting on board:
Meanwhile Watson will be quietly behind the scenes keeping the mainstream party together. If the Tories and MSM don't change tactics I think Corbyn could start producing some surprising polling numbers, their best approach would probably be to ignore him.
Anti establishment doesn't mean he will win a GE - every Ge has been won by someone who is Establishment. There is little harm in Cameron and co burnishing Corbyn's anti establishment credentials and bolstering his position within labour unless they have miscalculated and it turns out his positions are all popular too. Possible, but certainly not assured, in which case confirming the man in his past helps them
Mr. K, surely you're not suggesting a German Chancellor with economic hegemony over the eurozone, who has recently dictated migration policy to most of the EU and who now wants an EU army, is something to be afraid of?
I especially like the "Give me what I want [an EU army green light] and I'll agree to permit you to ask for some things, which I shall then consider (or not)" line.
I'd still be greatly surprised if Cameron turned to Out, but not as shocked as I would've been a month ago.
There are clear differences between what Hollande and Merkel want as far as eve closer Eurozone union means. Little signs of hegemony there. But ever close currency union inevitably means closer fiscal and political union. Its hard to see how you can avoid it. Its that closer union Cameron and the tories are against. We need to be sure we are not part of it and protect ourselves from it. If we cannot then we probably ought to vote out. But lets be under no illusions that that will be much different from now, as opposed to this closer union in the future. And let's be under no illusion that the EU will suddenly disappear and that voting out will protect us somehow from the thing that the EU becomes.
Oh and lets be under no illusion that being out of the EU will protect us magically from these waves of migration. Not with open-arms-welcome-Corbyn-led-Labour in charge. Do kippers really think the EU is so important when set against this home grown nutjob?
Corbyn is only in charge of Labour , what are you wittering about. He cannot do anything on migration other than bump his gums.
Mr. K, surely you're not suggesting a German Chancellor with economic hegemony over the eurozone, who has recently dictated migration policy to most of the EU and who now wants an EU army, is something to be afraid of?
I especially like the "Give me what I want [an EU army green light] and I'll agree to permit you to ask for some things, which I shall then consider (or not)" line.
I'd still be greatly surprised if Cameron turned to Out, but not as shocked as I would've been a month ago.
There are clear differences between what Hollande and Merkel want as far as eve closer Eurozone union means. Little signs of hegemony there. But ever close currency union inevitably means closer fiscal and political union. Its hard to see how you can avoid it. Its that closer union Cameron and the tories are against. We need to be sure we are not part of it and protect ourselves from it. If we cannot then we probably ought to vote out. But lets be under no illusions that that will be much different from now, as opposed to this closer union in the future. And let's be under no illusion that the EU will suddenly disappear and that voting out will protect us somehow from the thing that the EU becomes.
Oh and lets be under no illusion that being out of the EU will protect us magically from these waves of migration. Not with open-arms-welcome-Corbyn-led-Labour in charge. Do kippers really think the EU is so important when set against this home grown nutjob?
Being out of it would protect us from having laws passed directly over us without our say, and stop the vast amount of legal immigration (both current volumes and the additional from second hand asylum seekers). Ideally we should protect ourselves from that within the EU (double majority voting and migration caps), but if that's not possible we should leave.
The horrific inequalities currently being waved in everyone's face with the plight of the migrants is unsustainable. Whether or not Corbyn is a useless politician isn't important. His overwhelming mandate as leader of the opposition means he'll be heard.
His message that the level of inequality is unsustainable as is the subjugation of weak nations by powerful ones is unargueable.
This is how he managed to cut through a very unradical Labour electorate to win decisively and his message will resonate. If I was a TORY (which thank the Lord I'm not sir....) I'd be seriously worried. The sight of the Prime Minister and his Tory chums posing in their Bullindon finery is now so inappropriate it's almost shocking
Sadly Roger you are deluded.
Most voters care little about Cameron's youthful "Bullingdon finery". It's an attack line that has run its course, if indeed it ever had a course to follow.
With Corbyn as leader Labour has effectively vacated their role of providing a viable government in waiting. Politically the nation faces a Conservative hegemony for the foreseeable future.
Electing Corbyn was the right of the members of the Labour party but it was also an act of gross self indulgence and they will pay a devastating price for their shallow naivety.
I agree. We have known about Cameron's (and Boris's!) Days in the Bullingdon club for over a decade, yet they go on winning election after election. It seems to be viewed as a fairly harmless youthful indiscretion and nothing more.
I think that Corbyn will be such a disaster that if he is in post in 2020 then Labour will be down to double figures in parliament, and possibly the third party behind the SNP.
However I think he will be deposed after a year or two, but if the successor is cut from the same cloth then oblivion awaits.
Double figures implying fewer than 100 seats seems too low but I can certainly see a Jezza led Labour party in 2020 going sub-Major, perhaps even as low as 140.
One thing that we see nowadays is that when parties come under the cosh, they get a hell of a beating. The Tories in 97 for example, and both SLAB and the LDs in May. There are other examples too. FPTP is pretty devastating when polling drops far enough.
Corbyn is a splitter by nature, and the nature of hard Left and hard Right parties is fratricidal fighting and splitting, because of both personality cults and also the cause of ideological purity drives splitting. I do not expect formal splits on the Left, but the internal fights will have the same effect. We have a new entryism of neo-Militants that are going to make Deggsy Hatton look like Clement Attlee.
If the EU wants backing for a common EU army, legal immigration system and Eurozone Treasury which we are outside then that cements an inner and outer EU. In exchange we must be protected on the shared EU policies we are already outside. That means free movement, so the inner EU can't give out passports so people can come straight here, and a double majority system for EU-wide matters.
We certainly should not stand aside for a common EU force in exchange for some small benefit changes and minor fiddling around business regulation.
What kind of double-majority could the UK desire?
Any new law or policy that's EU-wide should require a weighted majority of Eurozone nations and a weighted majority of non-Eurozone nations
Indeed, Sweden, Denmark and Hungary and Poland are the main non eurozone nations in the EU, if we are to stay in it will be in a block with them
I think the Tories and right wing MSM are playing into Corbyn's hands at the moment, they're presenting him as an anti-establishment figure and this will likely drive forward his momentum - even Cameron is getting on board:
Meanwhile Watson will be quietly behind the scenes keeping the mainstream party together. If the Tories and MSM don't change tactics I think Corbyn could start producing some surprising polling numbers, their best approach would probably be to ignore him.
Calum, they are too stupid to do that.
Tom Watson is the genius that got Brown's leadership bid rolling. I think that the Tories would be happy to see that berk pulling strings.
The horrific inequalities currently being waved in everyone's face with the plight of the migrants is unsustainable. Whether or not Corbyn is a useless politician isn't important. His overwhelming mandate as leader of the opposition means he'll be heard.
His message that the level of inequality is unsustainable as is the subjugation of weak nations by powerful ones is unargueable.
This is how he managed to cut through a very unradical Labour electorate to win decisively and his message will resonate. If I was a TORY (which thank the Lord I'm not sir....) I'd be seriously worried. The sight of the Prime Minister and his Tory chums posing in their Bullindon finery is now so inappropriate it's almost shocking
"Whether or not Corbyn is a useless politician isn't important."
Well, I suppose that's a view. A ridiculous and particularly stupid one, but a view.
And you get extra stupidity points for your mention of 'Bullingdon'. That attack didn't work in 2010, and it didn't work in 2015. It won't work in 2020 either.
I must say I find the idea that.now Cameron in his bullingdon gear can be juxtaposed with Corbyn doing stereotypical lefty things in the 80s it will be a potent attack again a little optimistic. If that strand of attack were ever going to work it would hav by now, or it did but not enough. Everyone knows Cameron is posh and they've returned a verdict that it's not a big enough deal to care about.
It might find more traction on Osborne, given his rest face seems to contain an inbuilt sneer, however unfair that impression may be.
Osborne has always given the very strong impression that he only cares about money and by extension rich people, an impression not helped by the pasty tax/45p tax debacle of 2012 (at a time when he thought Labour were certain to lose the next election, hence my comments last night about Tory complacency and the problems it will cause). Cameron, on the other hand, has at least occasionally given the impression that he cares about people even if clumsily expressed ('hug a hoodie'). Whether these impressions are fair or not, they are the impressions people have.
It's one reason why Cameron is quite an effective leader, and class attacks on him do not resonate as well as Labour expect. It's also why Osborne would likely not be an effective leader and such attacks might resonate.
Hug a hoodie first appeared in a Labour press release ...
I never realised Cuba was oppressed .. should someone have a word with Fidel and his bro..maybe they can do something about it .. I am aware that the Fidelistas have been proclaiming Cuba as a socialist paradise for many decades..
Kevin Moody of Tommy Sheridan's 'Solidarity' Party has posted this note of congratulations to Corbyn (makes a change from the usual 'Red Tories')
'On behalf of Solidarity Scotland I would like to offer our congratulations to both Jeremy Corbyn and Tom Watson in securing significant victories in the Labour leadership and deputy leadership elections. Both won their contests in the face of Old Establishment figures and rabid anti-democratic media campaigns that sought to demonise them both. The power of the unelected, unaccountable and reactionary billionaire press was today clipped as hundreds of thousands of ordinary people refused to be bullied or duped by them. These results, particularly the almost 60% vote for Jeremy, is tremendously encouraging to left and progressive forces here in Scotland and across the globe, particularly in oppressed nations like Palestine and Cuba. We in Solidarity welcome the victories and appeal to both Jeremy and Tom to realise that the Labour Party in Scotland can recover popularity and electoral support but only if they ditch the attachment to an out-dated and undemocratic Westminster union and instead embrace radical independence advancing the cause of socialism in Scotland, England and Wales. Break with the reactionary and undemocratic union of Westminster and forge a new and powerful socialist Party in Scotland committed to public ownership and control of gas, electricity, oil and transport. For an independent and socialist Scotland as part of a socialist Europe and world https://twitter.com/citizentommy?lang=en-gb&lang=en-gb
I like the implication that if your side does poorly it would be because people are bullied or duped by the press. Presumably they feel the public was bullied and duped to a Tory majority just months ago, so a quick turnaround from the people to rise up in the face of the evil media.
The horrific inequalities currently being waved in everyone's face with the plight of the migrants is unsustainable. Whether or not Corbyn is a useless politician isn't important. His overwhelming mandate as leader of the opposition means he'll be heard.
His message that the level of inequality is unsustainable as is the subjugation of weak nations by powerful ones is unargueable.
This is how he managed to cut through a very unradical Labour electorate to win decisively and his message will resonate. If I was a TORY (which thank the Lord I'm not sir....) I'd be seriously worried. The sight of the Prime Minister and his Tory chums posing in their Bullindon finery is now so inappropriate it's almost shocking
"Whether or not Corbyn is a useless politician isn't important."
Well, I suppose that's a view. A ridiculous and particularly stupid one, but a view.
And you get extra stupidity points for your mention of 'Bullingdon'. That attack didn't work in 2010, and it didn't work in 2015. It won't work in 2020 either.
I must say I find the idea that.now Cameron in his bullingdon gear can be juxtaposed with Corbyn doing stereotypical lefty things in the 80s it will be a potent attack again a little optimistic. If that strand of attack were ever going to work it would hav by now, or it did but not enough. Everyone knows Cameron is posh and they've returned a verdict that it's not a big enough deal to care about.
It might find more traction on Osborne, given his rest face seems to contain an inbuilt sneer, however unfair that impression may be.
Osborne has always given the very strong impression that he only cares about money and by extension rich people, an impression not helped by the pasty tax/45p tax debacle of 2012 (at a time when he thought Labour were certain to lose the next election, hence my comments last night about Tory complacency and the problems it will cause). Cameron, on the other hand, has at least occasionally given the impression that he cares about people even if clumsily expressed ('hug a hoodie'). Whether these impressions are fair or not, they are the impressions people have.
It's one reason why Cameron is quite an effective leader, and class attacks on him do not resonate as well as Labour expect. It's also why Osborne would likely not be an effective leader and such attacks might resonate.
Hug a hoodie first appeared in a Labour press release ...
Apparently a very effective one given the staying power of that meme.
If the EU wants backing for a common EU army, legal immigration system and Eurozone Treasury which we are outside then that cements an inner and outer EU. In exchange we must be protected on the shared EU policies we are already outside. That means free movement, so the inner EU can't give out passports so people can come straight here, and a double majority system for EU-wide matters.
We certainly should not stand aside for a common EU force in exchange for some small benefit changes and minor fiddling around business regulation.
What kind of double-majority could the UK desire?
Any new law or policy that's EU-wide should require a weighted majority of Eurozone nations and a weighted majority of non-Eurozone nations
OK. Let me think of some reasons why that may not be a goer. First, the non-euro countries aren't a group. Explicitly, they don't want to be a group. So they shouldn't get a group veto. Second, the UK has over one-third of the non-euro population and thus would enjoy a near-veto - or a veto simpliciter if one used the current weighted majority rules requiring 65 per cent of the population. A British veto on EU-wide policies is not a goer.
The PMQ stuff is a real Westminster bubble thing, by the way. There are umpteen precedents for LOTOs and PMs skipping it and someone standing in, and nobody outside our sort of nerdy circle cared. It's not "Leader of the Opposition Questions". The idea that it's a cowardly and unpatriotic dereliction of duty to share it out is froth.
It is however, a reflection of a Corbyn approach which is quite novel and we don't know how it will turn out. He doesn't see himself as a leader out in front, but as one of a number of representatives of a movement who happens to be the current leader. It's a self-effacing attitude which is intended to create some space for others and it's totally out of keeping with what we're used to - imagine Gordon doing it, and I say that as someone who likes Gordon. I doubt if he'll be doing it often but the offer is distinctive, and there will be other counter-intuitive moves like this.
Utter tosh Nick. Stand-ins for PMQ's occur when the main protagonists are absent. The Corbyn proposal will see him sit opposite the PM whilst Denis Skinner and fellow travellers gets six pots at Cameron. It's utter lunacy and I doubt Bercow will allow it. Corbyn's approach may be "novel" but so would Jezza bungee jumping from "Strangers Gallery" or the new LotO streaking naked down to the House of Lords at the State Opening of Parliament. Might I suggest, as you no longer have to be whipped .... titter .... that you adopt a slightly more open and critical approach to your politics - that would be "novel".
Chance would be a fine thing. This 'stand in' notion does not hold a drop of water. It is a privilege for the LOTO to ask 6 questions. It is not his privilege to nominate anyone else. If the Speaker allowed it it would be a parliamentary disgrace. The Speakers duty is to look out for genuine backbenchers if the LOTO is not bothered and genuine leaders of viable as opposed to joke parties. As for some strange notion of it 'testing talent' - laughable. What on earth is there a shadow cabinet for and questions to ministers by their shadows. Have the Corbynite apologists no conception of what the term 'shadow' is all about?
I reckon Corbyn is planning a two year stint. The PMQ move is to showcase and test new talent.
Clearly you didn't see Jeremy's shining face on TV last night. He thinks he's the chosen one. He has the biggest mandate in labour history. He's not going anywhere. There's a report in the guardian this week, quoting his friends, saying exactly that.
Keep dreaming.
Right now that may be the case. I get the impression that his mood may shift if things get difficult again. Clearly he thinks this his moment, but if reality starts to bite?
Nah! If ever there was a politician that did not care about being isolated or unpopular with his colleagues it is Jezzbollah.
When he goes it has to be a defenestration. Can the centrists arrange this? I think they are up against it in that any new contest automatically makes Corbyn eligible, and the selectorate would have to back the new candidate.
When the Tories change the rules on funding, the stool will be kicked away from Labour and they will be metaphorically swinging in the wind.
A question for PBs:
The HoC will be voting on the Trade Union bill shortly, assuming it passes, does anybody know how soon it will be before the Union Cash flow will be significantly curtailed? These laws often have very long lead in times.
I like the analogy of Corbyn as Farage isam just quoted from Hitchens.
So Corbyn will have a lot of sound and fury but will ultimately lose half the Commons seats he has inherited while failing to make a breakthrough winning new seats.
Sounds about right.
...or add three million votes?
Stephen Woolfe was very good on AQ on Friday. Would make a good leader to win over urban areas from the Corbynites, if Farage can be persuaded to give his ego a rest.
I like the analogy of Corbyn as Farage isam just quoted from Hitchens.
So Corbyn will have a lot of sound and fury but will ultimately lose half the Commons seats he has inherited while failing to make a breakthrough winning new seats.
Sounds about right.
...or add three million votes?
Stephen Woolfe was very good on AQ on Friday. Would make a good leader to win over urban areas from the Corbynites, if Farage can be persuaded to give his ego a rest.
It will never happen. Farage believes he is UKIP and is too arrogant to see that he is as much of a hindrance as an asset as leader.
His message that the level of inequality is unsustainable as is the subjugation of weak nations by powerful ones is unargueable.
This is how he managed to cut through a very unradical Labour electorate to win decisively and his message will resonate. If I was a TORY (which thank the Lord I'm not sir....) I'd be seriously worried. The sight of the Prime Minister and his Tory chums posing in their Bullindon finery is now so inappropriate it's almost shocking
"Whether or not Corbyn is a useless politician isn't important."
Well, I suppose that's a view. A ridiculous and particularly stupid one, but a view.
And you get extra stupidity points for your mention of 'Bullingdon'. That attack didn't work in 2010, and it didn't work in 2015. It won't work in 2020 either.
I must say I find the idea that.now Cameron in his bullingdon gear can be juxtaposed with Corbyn doing stereotypical lefty things in the 80s it will be a potent attack again a little optimistic. If that strand of attack were ever going to work it would hav by now, or it did but not enough. Everyone knows Cameron is posh and they've returned a verdict that it's not a big enough deal to care about.
It might find more traction on Osborne, given his rest face seems to contain an inbuilt sneer, however unfair that impression may be.
Osborne has always given the very strong impression that he only cares about money and by extension rich people, an impression not helped by the pasty tax/45p tax debacle of 2012 (at a time when he thought Labour were certain to lose the next election, hence my comments last night about Tory complacency and the problems it will cause). Cameron, on the other hand, has at least occasionally given the impression that he cares about people even if clumsily expressed ('hug a hoodie'). Whether these impressions are fair or not, they are the impressions people have.
It's one reason why Cameron is quite an effective leader, and class attacks on him do not resonate as well as Labour expect. It's also why Osborne would likely not be an effective leader and such attacks might resonate.
Hug a hoodie first appeared in a Labour press release ...
Apparently a very effective one given the staying power of that meme.
Absolutely, but it says nothing about It Cameron's grammar, which was the point of the original comment.
I think (Malc will correct) that Project Fear was similarly an SNP Or Yes campaign label.
In a way, Yes. You're terrified when you see someone standing on a window ledge, saying they're going to jump. You're terrified for them, not terrified for yourself.
The country is terrified as are a number of x members of the shadow cabinet.
They should be ashamed , they are so lacking in talent that an unknown backbencher beat all of them by a landslide. He for sure will not do as badly as the frothers on here and the second rate Labour "talent" think. This country is not in good shape and the majority will only take it for so long.
Comments
You may dislike it, I'm sure you and all the other Peebie Tories do FWIW, but they have a right to behave like that. An analogy might be a man who comes out of a painful, even horrific marriage and realises that it wasn't her fault - it was his own: he's gay.
Mr Corbyn reminds mature people of the days when the big parties really differed. He impresses the young because he doesn’t patronise them, and obviously believes what he says. This desire for real politics isn’t just confined to the Left. Ken Livingstone is right to call Mr Corbyn Labour’s Nigel Farage. Ukip appeals to a similar impulse.
Millions are weary of being smarmed and lied to by people who actually are not that competent or impressive, and who have been picked because they look good on TV rather than because they have ideas or character
Actually, I dislike many of Mr Corbyn’s opinions – his belief in egalitarianism and high taxation, his enthusiasm for comprehensive schools, his readiness to talk to terrorists and his support for the EU. Oddly enough, these are all policies he shares with the Tory Party.
But I like the honest way he states them, compared with the Tories’ slippery pretence of being what they’re not"
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/
From memory, I got Kendall spot on and went high on Corbyn, so I must have been close.
Stand-ins for PMQ's occur when the main protagonists are absent. The Corbyn proposal will see him sit opposite the PM whilst Denis Skinner and fellow travellers gets six pots at Cameron. It's utter lunacy and I doubt Bercow will allow it.
Corbyn's approach may be "novel" but so would Jezza bungee jumping from "Strangers Gallery" or the new LotO streaking naked down to the House of Lords at the State Opening of Parliament.
Might I suggest, as you no longer have to be whipped .... titter .... that you adopt a slightly more open and critical approach to your politics - that would be "novel".
The technique had another advantage in that agreeing with the PM made PMQs just that little bit less dangerous for Cameron as he learned the ropes. Blair was a master of the Commons and could be dangerous. It was a technique of reducing the risk. Once Brown took over the tone and emphasis changed enormously.
Could Corbyn learn from this? He is in a similar situation where he is unlikely to face Cameron at an election. Cameron is now the Blair figure, experienced, fast on his feet and dangerous. He is also popular with middle England and Corbyn needs to peel away that popularity from the Conservatives as a whole.
It is a possible approach. It would take some of the heat out of PMQs which might be thought to be a good thing and indicative of Corbyn's "seriousness". I just don't think he is nearly bright enough to achieve it and he does not have the equivalent of the Blair/Brown chasm to work on.
True, but you will never help the people you say you want to help, because you will never gain the power to do so.
In the end it will be nothing but empty virtue signalling.
Waking up the chap walks away from the assignation with the lady who met all his deepest desires. Indulgence without contraception and in a few weeks this brief few hours will turn into a two decade legacy dragging him down into penury.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1y6BnZPN95aqXB_D9vx0ySPUOO0sRgWWAPWYNoFH1OTU/edit?pli=1#gid=1544717176
I imagine that the pressure in the chamber makes that session quite stressful for all involved no matter how good their preparation and public speaking skills. Didn't Gordon Brown once say that he spent most of Tuesday preparing, and the whole of Weds morning getting his papers together? I notice with DC that he often has a positive statistic related to the constituency of his questioner when from the opposite benches - usually about unemployment rates or NHS waiting times - that must take a lot of preparation.
Why does is not surprise me that a complete loon like Peter Hitchens would be tipping great success for the another fruit and nutcase like Corbyn.
I expect it will be so popular that Jeremy will struggle to reserve a few questions of himself.
I don’t have any problems with Jeremy’s suggestion -- it looks like a lot of fun.
[face_applause]
I think that Corbyn will be such a disaster that if he is in post in 2020 then Labour will be down to double figures in parliament, and possibly the third party behind the SNP.
However I think he will be deposed after a year or two, but if the successor is cut from the same cloth then oblivion awaits.
I don't think that it will cancel out the immigration question with UKIP/Labour waverers, but it may be something to bear in mind.
Neither am I a "Peebie" Tory. I am a lapsed "Coalitionista" who's prepared to give this government a not uncritical but fair wind.
Thanks
Backbenchers are given one question each to raise issues of particular importance to them or their constituents.
If on any given week the LOTO does not think anything needs to be raised, then it is fine for them not to use their quota and give the time to more backbenchers to ask questions. That would be self effacing and sensible.
If the LOTO delegates to someone else, it will either appear that they are unable to do the job, or don't think the opportunity to question the PM is important. That is not self effacing - it's either incompetent or arrogant.
I especially like the "Give me what I want [an EU army green light] and I'll agree to permit you to ask for some things, which I shall then consider (or not)" line.
I'd still be greatly surprised if Cameron turned to Out, but not as shocked as I would've been a month ago.
So Corbyn will have a lot of sound and fury but will ultimately lose half the Commons seats he has inherited while failing to make a breakthrough winning new seats.
Sounds about right.
A really massive council election defeat is the only really plausible trigger that I can see, and even then with Mad-dog McClusky financing him and banging the drum it may not happen.
We certainly should not stand aside for a common EU force in exchange for some small benefit changes and minor fiddling around business regulation.
Just kidding, my nationalist comrades.
When he goes it has to be a defenestration. Can the centrists arrange this? I think they are up against it in that any new contest automatically makes Corbyn eligible, and the selectorate would have to back the new candidate.
When the Tories change the rules on funding, the stool will be kicked away from Labour and they will be metaphorically swinging in the wind.
Edited extra bit: I think Monza's in for 2016, it's beyond that the question arises.
We must avoid a Blair-rebate scenario, where Cameron gives away a major long term concession to show good grace and achieves nothing much for it.
'On behalf of Solidarity Scotland I would like to offer our congratulations to both Jeremy Corbyn and Tom Watson in securing significant victories in the Labour leadership and deputy leadership elections. Both won their contests in the face of Old Establishment figures and rabid anti-democratic media campaigns that sought to demonise them both. The power of the unelected, unaccountable and reactionary billionaire press was today clipped as hundreds of thousands of ordinary people refused to be bullied or duped by them. These results, particularly the almost 60% vote for Jeremy, is tremendously encouraging to left and progressive forces here in Scotland and across the globe, particularly in oppressed nations like Palestine and Cuba. We in Solidarity welcome the victories and appeal to both Jeremy and Tom to realise that the Labour Party in Scotland can recover popularity and electoral support but only if they ditch the attachment to an out-dated and undemocratic Westminster union and instead embrace radical independence advancing the cause of socialism in Scotland, England and Wales. Break with the reactionary and undemocratic union of Westminster and forge a new and powerful socialist Party in Scotland committed to public ownership and control of gas, electricity, oil and transport. For an independent and socialist Scotland as part of a socialist Europe and world
https://twitter.com/citizentommy?lang=en-gb&lang=en-gb
And the only phone lines Labour supporters will be using are the Samaritans.
Well done Labour.
This country is not in good shape and the majority will only take it for so long.
http://news.sky.com/story/1551708/cameron-corbyns-labour-a-security-threat
Meanwhile Watson will be quietly behind the scenes keeping the mainstream party together. If the Tories and MSM don't change tactics I think Corbyn could start producing some surprising polling numbers, their best approach would probably be to ignore him.
But lets be under no illusions that that will be much different from now, as opposed to this closer union in the future. And let's be under no illusion that the EU will suddenly disappear and that voting out will protect us somehow from the thing that the EU becomes.
Oh and lets be under no illusion that being out of the EU will protect us magically from these waves of migration. Not with open-arms-welcome-Corbyn-led-Labour in charge. Do kippers really think the EU is so important when set against this home grown nutjob?
As I said yesterday, there is no chance that Cameron would take leaders questions from anyone other than the LOTO (if of course Jez was there), so he would nominate someone else too. It could get all quite ridiculous quite quickly as the two camps identify an appropriate match.
BTW- I don't blame Corbyn one iota trying to think of some excuse to get out of inflicting PMQ's on himself. He's 66 for god sakes, and he never wanted to be leader. So please be fair to the old boy- you of all people should understand the effects of ageing.
Utter tosh Nick.
Stand-ins for PMQ's occur when the main protagonists are absent. The Corbyn proposal will see him sit opposite the PM whilst Denis Skinner and fellow travellers gets six pots at Cameron. It's utter lunacy and I doubt Bercow will allow it.
Corbyn's approach may be "novel" but so would Jezza bungee jumping from "Strangers Gallery" or the new LotO streaking naked down to the House of Lords at the State Opening of Parliament.
Might I suggest, as you no longer have to be whipped .... titter .... that you adopt a slightly more open and critical approach to your politics - that would be "novel".
Corbyn is a splitter by nature, and the nature of hard Left and hard Right parties is fratricidal fighting and splitting, because of both personality cults and also the cause of ideological purity drives splitting. I do not expect formal splits on the Left, but the internal fights will have the same effect. We have a new entryism of neo-Militants that are going to make Deggsy Hatton look like Clement Attlee.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34199866
https://twitter.com/David_Cameron/status/642984909980725248
This 'stand in' notion does not hold a drop of water. It is a privilege for the LOTO to ask 6 questions. It is not his privilege to nominate anyone else. If the Speaker allowed it it would be a parliamentary disgrace. The Speakers duty is to look out for genuine backbenchers if the LOTO is not bothered and genuine leaders of viable as opposed to joke parties.
As for some strange notion of it 'testing talent' - laughable. What on earth is there a shadow cabinet for and questions to ministers by their shadows. Have the Corbynite apologists no conception of what the term 'shadow' is all about?
The HoC will be voting on the Trade Union bill shortly, assuming it passes, does anybody know how soon it will be before the Union Cash flow will be significantly curtailed? These laws often have very long lead in times.
Maybe he should have said;
Be afraid, be very afraid....... there is a Corbyn about
I think (Malc will correct) that Project Fear was similarly an SNP Or Yes campaign label.