Every child should be taught about the negative impact and suffering caused by the British Empire, Jeremy Corbyn has suggested.
Mr Corbyn told young Labour supporters that the national curriculum should be re-written to teach children about how the Empire expanded "at the expense of people".
He also suggested that the curriculum should be changed so that every child should be taught about the importance of the trade unions, his biggest backers.
Every child should be taught about the negative impact and suffering caused by the British Empire, Jeremy Corbyn has suggested.
Mr Corbyn told young Labour supporters that the national curriculum should be re-written to teach children about how the Empire expanded "at the expense of people".
He also suggested that the curriculum should be changed so that every child should be taught about the importance of the trade unions, his biggest backers.
Telegraph attacks (and probably misinterprets) Labour policies.
Shock, Horror. Whodathunkit!
Morning all,
Very short on detail. The Telegraph's idea of 'middle class' usually means reasonably wealthy, professional Londoners like themselves.
We'll see what comes out later in the day. I would say though that it is not beyond the bounds that some of this will turn out to be popular. Not least if there's another major recession. Ken Clarke has warned the Tories.
Every child should be taught about the negative impact and suffering caused by the British Empire, Jeremy Corbyn has suggested.
Mr Corbyn told young Labour supporters that the national curriculum should be re-written to teach children about how the Empire expanded "at the expense of people".
He also suggested that the curriculum should be changed so that every child should be taught about the importance of the trade unions, his biggest backers.
Get the brainwashing in young...
Cameron a few years ago blamed some of the ills of the world on the Empire.
I cannot see Corbyn having much positive effect on Labour support in the 2016 Holyrood election.
By failing to even obtain a debate at the Labour conference on Trident, he will already have undermined the flickering interest in his ideas in Scotland. As he will not be standing for Holyrood the choice between Sturgeon and Dugdale will be a classic no-brainer for the electorate.
Of course, there is a strong argument that not debating the Trident issue is the best ploy for advancement in England, but it certainly isn't in Scotland. Who knew that the interests of Scotland and England are often different? :-)
Telegraph attacks (and probably misinterprets) Labour policies.
Shock, Horror. Whodathunkit!
Morning all,
Very short on detail. The Telegraph's idea of 'middle class' usually means reasonably wealthy, professional Londoners like themselves.
We'll see what comes out later in the day. I would say though that it is not beyond the bounds that some of this will turn out to be popular. Not least if there's another major recession. Ken Clarke has warned the Tories.
Well, duh. "Tax people who have more money than me, and then give me some of that money" will ALWAYS have a large chunk of the UK cheering.
Shame it always f*cks the country in the long run.
Telegraph attacks (and probably misinterprets) Labour policies.
Shock, Horror. Whodathunkit!
Morning all,
Very short on detail. The Telegraph's idea of 'middle class' usually means reasonably wealthy, professional Londoners like themselves.
We'll see what comes out later in the day. I would say though that it is not beyond the bounds that some of this will turn out to be popular. Not least if there's another major recession. Ken Clarke has warned the Tories.
The DM is far more popular with the aspirant MC most likely to be voting in marginals.
Lucky they're not pointing out the foolishness of Corbyn's economic and foreign policy positions. Oh, wait...
Mr McDonnell has suggested that Labour could bring back the 60p top rate of tax as he revealed he would review Britain's entire tax system.
He denied suggestions that he would renationalise the banks and instead create a state bank to boost spending.
He told LBC: "What we're arguing for now is that we launch a state investment bank in which we use that investment bank to invest in our infrastructure.
"That would be a state bank, a nationalised bank if you like, exactly the same as they have in Germany and elsewhere."
On topic, Corbyn has been elected precisely because he rejects the dignified part of the role. It is the essential tension of his leadership: the support base that got him elected - and his own core principles - do not want him to take up that aspect; yet Labour's wiser (if not older) heads, together with the party's broader support, view it as an essential pre-requisite for a prime ministerial candidate, which a Leader of the Opposition should always be.
On how (or indeed whether), Corbyn and/or Labour reconciles that tension will depend their success over the next few years.
On the back of the Catalan elections yesterday, Spanish shares and bonds are in positive territory. The markets are clear that Catalonia has rejected independence.
However, PP had a terrible night - losing nearly half its seats. The big winner was Ciutadans, which is Ciudadanos elsewhere in Spain.
Attention now switches to the general election in December. the PP is certain to lose a number of seats and its overall majority. It's possible they will hang on in coalition with Ciudadanos, but PSOE may well pip them. The Socialist vote in Catalonia held up better than expected last night - probably because of the higher than usual turnout among the non-Catalan Spanish in the big cities. But whatever happens the new Madrid government will be much more amenable to discussions with Barcelona than the Spanish nationalist PP has been.
Thus, today the odds must be on a negotiated settlement to the PP-caused Catalan constitutional crisis being agreed some time next year. That's good news, but all this could have been avoided. The PP nearly cost Spain very dear indeed.
It was the opening ceremony of a major international event, not simply an international football match. Corbyn did not eve delegate it to the shadow sports minister.Pathetic.
Running out of Road - Peter Kellner in New Statesman "if the divide is simply too wide, and if Corbyn is still in place in two or three years’ time, then his opponents will face a stark choice: accept that Labour has reverted to an older, firmly anti-capitalist version of its purpose – or leave this party and start a new one." http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2015/09/running-out-road-0
Haha, I see the appalling Plato has graduated from tirelessly copying and pasting from the mail to the loonies at Guido's place. Oh dear.
Piketty has not been charged let alone convicted of assault.
However I would not be quite as sanguine as you appear to be about allegations of violence against women. These are serious matters and physical and verbal abuse of women is all too prevalent and not a matter for joking or as a peg for criticising female posters. Cooper criticised verbal misogny and abuse against women in politics this weekend. Even Corbyn recognises this, given that he has appointed a Shadow Minister to deal with abuse (against both men and women).
Labour has - over the last few months - not shown itself as a female friendly party at all. And women are the majority in this country, not some minority group to be alternately ignored or patronised.
Tom Watson and now Alan Johnson are saying Comrade Corbyn could be leader in 10 yrs time. I presume they're trying to scare the moderates into realising this isn't going to go away anytime soon.
Running out of Road - Peter Kellner in New Statesman "if the divide is simply too wide, and if Corbyn is still in place in two or three years’ time, then his opponents will face a stark choice: accept that Labour has reverted to an older, firmly anti-capitalist version of its purpose – or leave this party and start a new one." http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2015/09/running-out-road-0
I cannot see Corbyn having much positive effect on Labour support in the 2016 Holyrood election.
By failing to even obtain a debate at the Labour conference on Trident, he will already have undermined the flickering interest in his ideas in Scotland. As he will not be standing for Holyrood the choice between Sturgeon and Dugdale will be a classic no-brainer for the electorate.
I think you might be right. Loony left see independence as the best way to stuff the West.
Running out of Road - Peter Kellner in New Statesman "if the divide is simply too wide, and if Corbyn is still in place in two or three years’ time, then his opponents will face a stark choice: accept that Labour has reverted to an older, firmly anti-capitalist version of its purpose – or leave this party and start a new one." http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2015/09/running-out-road-0
A formal announcement of the JackW approved Corbyn acronym is clearly awaited with barely concealed hysteria among the PB cognoscenti.
Informed speculation from sources close to the heart of the Jacobite conclave appear to indicate the wait is almost over ....
Is it JCWAW?
No.
I feel JCWAW - "Jezza Corbyn What A Wally" fails to convey the appropriate dignity, gravitas and status that the JackW acronym now deservedly merits.
Corbyn will be as successful as the Jacobite uprisings you mean?
You're forgetting, the primary purpose of the Jacobite uprisings, so crushingly defeated, was to prepare JackW's mind for what it would be like to say EMWNBPM in spite of all the polling evidence to the contrary. They are used to playing the long game, those Jacobites.
The Jacobite Rebellions were a put up false flag job, all set up by the HIA.
I must say i find the idea that people disdain the westminster elite for obscure rituals and traditions a little baffling, not least since this is usually accompanied by statements that people don't know about these traditions and rituals, in which case how can the disdain people have be ascribed to them?
While like others I'm in agreement that outuright obstinacy would be unhelpful in challenging some of the less purposeful conventions, but that some push back is possible, maybe even a good thing, I do think people overdo the idea that such conventions are why people regard the political class as out of touch or that it is symbolic of such. I think too much importance gets placed on such an idea, to thepoint I think Carswell once worked it into a complaint about the parlimaentary authorities not likeing him Periscooping (whatever that is) in parliament, working it into the personal narrative of the grand crusading reformer he likes to adopt (and many good ideas he has to, along with some not good ones), when it really is not a big deal.
I know many lawyers probably hate them, and it is objectively silly, but people don't think judges lack authority because they wear stupid wigs, most people just accept it and in fact it adds to their authority because we expect it. I would put slightly obtuse parliamentary procedures in a similar, if lesser, bracket, in that most people don't care, a few passionately with to get rid of them, but for others they enhance the dry nature of politics, and others just accept it as natural, even if objectively it is silly, and certainly not anything like significant in terms of how we view the westminster bubble.
"I fear that the quiet life will win the day, that Corbyn will become entrenched, and that a head-on doctrinal dispute will, as always, be avoided. For a century, fudging the issue has occasionally allowed Labour to build an election-winning, big-tent coalition of progressive voters. Today, that approach guarantees disaster. It will leave Corbyn free to promote his electorally toxic and economically destructive brand of left-wing politics. If that is what happens, Labour’s tent will become a lot smaller and the party will cease to be fit for purpose."
Today is the anniversary of William the Conqueror's invasion in 1066. Just sayin'
Illegal immigrant !
I think you get off if you bring your own country...
The most shameful moment in the history of England.
We were conquered by a French Bastard.
Not true Frenchies. I grant you they spoke french, lived in france and served the french king, but they were still more Norse than french, damnit!
I can live with that, they were Norsemen, plus it was the Norwegian invasion oop North a few days earlier that helped William T'Bastard conquer England.
So we conquered by the Norse people, not the French.
And when the electorate who voted for Tories say something Corbynites don't like?
I've lost count how many reviews and debates Labour are going to have into everything.
Mr McDonnell predicted "heavy debates" and "dissent" as new policies are drawn up, but insisted that this would not mean the party was split, warning: "Don't confuse democracy with disunity."
He told BBC1's Breakfast: "What we are doing today is opening up one of the biggest debates on our economy this country has ever seen.
"Everyone will have their say, so the future policies of the Labour Party will be determined by the British people themselves, having faith in the people - trust the people."
"We will be able to come up with the ideas, then we will rigorously test them and test them again until we know they will work in the interests of everybody and not just the rich elite in this country."
"I fear that the quiet life will win the day, that Corbyn will become entrenched, and that a head-on doctrinal dispute will, as always, be avoided. For a century, fudging the issue has occasionally allowed Labour to build an election-winning, big-tent coalition of progressive voters. Today, that approach guarantees disaster. It will leave Corbyn free to promote his electorally toxic and economically destructive brand of left-wing politics. If that is what happens, Labour’s tent will become a lot smaller and the party will cease to be fit for purpose."
"I fear that the quiet life will win the day, that Corbyn will become entrenched, and that a head-on doctrinal dispute will, as always, be avoided. For a century, fudging the issue has occasionally allowed Labour to build an election-winning, big-tent coalition of progressive voters. Today, that approach guarantees disaster. It will leave Corbyn free to promote his electorally toxic and economically destructive brand of left-wing politics. If that is what happens, Labour’s tent will become a lot smaller and the party will cease to be fit for purpose."
watdford30..The Mirror wasn't "going" when it was going..a dreadful rag with some of the worst journalists..they must all go there when the Guardian kicks em out...
It was the opening ceremony of a major international event, not simply an international football match. Corbyn did not eve[n] delegate it to the shadow sports minister.Pathetic.
But is that not symbolic of someone who does not understand and does not want to understand the symbollic aspects of the role, except where it reinforces rather than conflicts with an already-held view of his? Nationalism and patriotism are inevitable bedfellows of international sport. I very much doubt that Corbyn is comfortable with such overt pride. That he had a constituency matter to attend to shows on what level he's still thinking. In one sense, it's quite commendable; in another, it completely fails to understand the nature of the game he's got himself into.
"I fear that the quiet life will win the day, that Corbyn will become entrenched, and that a head-on doctrinal dispute will, as always, be avoided. For a century, fudging the issue has occasionally allowed Labour to build an election-winning, big-tent coalition of progressive voters. Today, that approach guarantees disaster. It will leave Corbyn free to promote his electorally toxic and economically destructive brand of left-wing politics. If that is what happens, Labour’s tent will become a lot smaller and the party will cease to be fit for purpose."
Corbyn is not by nature a compromiser. His followers will at some stage deselect one or more sitting MPs. I suspect that it will depend on 'events', badly losing a series of elections or too many sitting MPs being deselected may bring things to a head. If and when enough of them see that they won't win by getting rid of Corbyn they may jump ship. The fact and memory of the SDP may delay things, but I think that it's either a successful coup against Corbyn or a new party. Kellner is right on this.
Today is the anniversary of William the Conqueror's invasion in 1066. Just sayin'
Illegal immigrant !
I think you get off if you bring your own country...
The most shameful moment in the history of England.
We were conquered by a French Bastard.
Not true Frenchies. I grant you they spoke french, lived in france and served the french king, but they were still more Norse than french, damnit!
That means we all must have missed the anniversary of the battle of Stamford Bridge. I remember driving over it (or its successor) a few years back but did not have time to stop. I have been to Culloden ( since there has been occasional discussion of Jacobites). If Harold had lost at Stamford Bridge there would have inevitably been a grand final between Hardrada and William. An interesting 'sliding doors' thought experiment, but nothing like as bloody as what is going to happen in the Labour party though. And how would the world have turned if 20 dozy labour MPs had not nominated Corbyn?
Oakeshott is clearly a shoddy journalist that shouldn't get work again. You don't make up lurid allegations against the Prime Minister based on one man's dinner party anecdote and don't stand up your story.
"I fear that the quiet life will win the day, that Corbyn will become entrenched, and that a head-on doctrinal dispute will, as always, be avoided. For a century, fudging the issue has occasionally allowed Labour to build an election-winning, big-tent coalition of progressive voters. Today, that approach guarantees disaster. It will leave Corbyn free to promote his electorally toxic and economically destructive brand of left-wing politics. If that is what happens, Labour’s tent will become a lot smaller and the party will cease to be fit for purpose."
Corbyn is not by nature a compromiser. His followers will at some stage deselect one or more sitting MPs. I suspect that it will depend on 'events', badly losing a series of elections or too many sitting MPs being deselected may bring things to a head. If and when enough of them see that they won't win by getting rid of Corbyn they may jump ship. The fact and memory of the SDP may delay things, but I think that it's either a successful coup against Corbyn or a new party. Kellner is right on this.
For Labour rightwingers' own personal ambitions, the best route would be the Liberal Unionist route, breaking away to become a separate party with a distinct tradition but in an electoral tie-up with the Conservatives.
However, I believe that far from being arch-pragmatists, most Labour rightwingers are too ideological to contemplate such a course of action. They're more likely to wear a Never Kissed A Tory t shirt than get into bed with them.
And when the electorate who voted for Tories say something Corbynites don't like?
I've lost count how many reviews and debates Labour are going to have into everything.
Mr McDonnell predicted "heavy debates" and "dissent" as new policies are drawn up, but insisted that this would not mean the party was split, warning: "Don't confuse democracy with disunity."
He told BBC1's Breakfast: "What we are doing today is opening up one of the biggest debates on our economy this country has ever seen.
"Everyone will have their say, so the future policies of the Labour Party will be determined by the British people themselves, having faith in the people - trust the people."
"We will be able to come up with the ideas, then we will rigorously test them and test them again until we know they will work in the interests of everybody and not just the rich elite in this country."
"I fear that the quiet life will win the day, that Corbyn will become entrenched, and that a head-on doctrinal dispute will, as always, be avoided. For a century, fudging the issue has occasionally allowed Labour to build an election-winning, big-tent coalition of progressive voters. Today, that approach guarantees disaster. It will leave Corbyn free to promote his electorally toxic and economically destructive brand of left-wing politics. If that is what happens, Labour’s tent will become a lot smaller and the party will cease to be fit for purpose."
The Labour party are talking as if there had not been an election within the last 4 months, in which the people did have their say. Perhaps the wrong sort of people gave their say, or maybe the Labour party did not like what they were saying.
Still I do like the idea of rigorously testing and testing again their ideas. Whenever and wherever his ideas (or such of them as we know about) have been tested they have been found wanting, if not disastrous.
What will they do when all this testing gives them the wrong answer? Or will they do a VW, which would be quite appropriate for a People's Party?
Oakeshott is clearly a shoddy journalist that shouldn't get work again. You don't make up lurid allegations against the Prime Minister based on one man's dinner party anecdote and don't stand up your story.
Really? Since you've linked to the piece:
'Asked about his feelings towards Ashcroft and the pig allegation, Cameron said: “Everyone can see why the book was written and everyone can see straight through it. As for the specific issue raised, a very specific denial was made a week ago and I’ve nothing to add to that.”
In fact, Downing Street has said nothing about the anecdote on the record, although Conservative sources have described the book’s claims as “utter nonsense” and “untrue”.'
Oakeshott is clearly a shoddy journalist that shouldn't get work again. You don't make up lurid allegations against the Prime Minister based on one man's dinner party anecdote and don't stand up your story.
Certainly her defence of including it was pretty pathetic - if she had said it was included as it was funny, well, people may criticise but it is certainly amusing, but her pretence of being shocked or annoyed that people focused on it over the rest of the book, as though it were not the most lurid claim in there, and irritation that more proof should be included on such an accusation, did not speak well of her motivations.
Not sure why Cameron is publicly denying it now though, I thought officially not commenting had worked ok.
Conspiracy idea - he was waiting to see if they could produce more proof, because he knows it is true, and when they didn't figured it was safe to firmly deny it, but that was a trick and they do have the proof and will go with it tomorrow!
People who continue voting Corbyn Labour are going to feel much better doing it than they have for a while - it's a party that will stand for stuff and will not be afraid to say what it thinks. The problem Labour has is that there are not going to be that many of them.
However, I believe that far from being arch-pragmatists, most Labour rightwingers are too ideological to contemplate such a course of action. They're more likely to wear a Never Kissed A Tory t shirt than get into bed with them.
Labour 42% (+5) Conservative: 26% (-2) UKIP: 16% (+1) Plaid Cymru: 10% (-2) Liberal Democrats: 5% (+1) Greens: 2% (-1)
/
Assembly constituency part Labour: 39% (+4) Conservatives: 23% (no change) Plaid Cymru: 18% (-2) UKIP: 13% (-1) Liberal Democrats: 6% (+1) Greens: 2% (-1)
List part Labour: 34% (+2) Conservatives: 24% (+2) Plaid Cymru: 18% (-2) UKIP: 14% (no change) Liberal Democrats: 5% (no change) Greens: 4% (no change) Others: 2% (-1) Flag Quote
Re: Labour 'bounce'.
1. Have ITV changed their methodology since the GE as they and all other posters underestimated the Con Vote in Wales and the RoUK.
2. How much of this Labour 'bounce' will show up in marginal seats as opposed to the Labour heartlands.
3. Why is the con vote apparently holding up much better for the , more imminent, welsh assembly election than for a GE 5 years distant.
Today is the anniversary of William the Conqueror's invasion in 1066. Just sayin'
Illegal immigrant !
I think you get off if you bring your own country...
The most shameful moment in the history of England.
We were conquered by a French Bastard.
Not true Frenchies. I grant you they spoke french, lived in france and served the french king, but they were still more Norse than french, damnit!
IIRC hadn't Harold had to march up North to thrash the Scots (Battle of Stamford Bridge) before immediately returning South.
Vikings, not Scots. Otherwise correct.
Harold pulled off a pretty impressive feat of generalship simply taking the field at Hastings after what he'd been through over the previous two months. I wouldn't regard 1066 as any more shameful than any of the other invasions that England suffered during the earlier part of the eleventh centuries. The only thing that marked it as being particularly different was that it was the last successful one - and that could only be seen in retrospect.
Today is the anniversary of William the Conqueror's invasion in 1066. Just sayin'
Illegal immigrant !
I think you get off if you bring your own country...
The most shameful moment in the history of England.
We were conquered by a French Bastard.
Not true Frenchies. I grant you they spoke french, lived in france and served the french king, but they were still more Norse than french, damnit!
IIRC hadn't Harold had to march up North to thrash the Scots (Battle of Stamford Bridge) before immediately returning South.
Vikings, not Scots. Otherwise correct.
Harold pulled off a pretty impressive feat of generalship simply taking the field at Hastings after what he'd been through over the previous two months. I wouldn't regard 1066 as any more shameful than any of the other invasions that England suffered during the earlier part of the eleventh centuries. The only thing that marked it as being particularly different was that it was the last successful one - and that could only be seen in retrospect.
Cue someone bringing up William of Orange in 'successful invasions'
Oakeshott is clearly a shoddy journalist that shouldn't get work again. You don't make up lurid allegations against the Prime Minister based on one man's dinner party anecdote and don't stand up your story.
Really? Since you've linked to the piece:
'Asked about his feelings towards Ashcroft and the pig allegation, Cameron said: “Everyone can see why the book was written and everyone can see straight through it. As for the specific issue raised, a very specific denial was made a week ago and I’ve nothing to add to that.”
In fact, Downing Street has said nothing about the anecdote on the record, although Conservative sources have described the book’s claims as “utter nonsense” and “untrue”.'
Precisely. I read that as a confirmation if anything.
"I fear that the quiet life will win the day, that Corbyn will become entrenched, and that a head-on doctrinal dispute will, as always, be avoided. For a century, fudging the issue has occasionally allowed Labour to build an election-winning, big-tent coalition of progressive voters. Today, that approach guarantees disaster. It will leave Corbyn free to promote his electorally toxic and economically destructive brand of left-wing politics. If that is what happens, Labour’s tent will become a lot smaller and the party will cease to be fit for purpose."
Corbyn is not by nature a compromiser. His followers will at some stage deselect one or more sitting MPs. I suspect that it will depend on 'events', badly losing a series of elections or too many sitting MPs being deselected may bring things to a head. If and when enough of them see that they won't win by getting rid of Corbyn they may jump ship. The fact and memory of the SDP may delay things, but I think that it's either a successful coup against Corbyn or a new party. Kellner is right on this.
Labour MPs record on Leaders is with Brown and Miliband to opt for the quiet life. Just look at Alan Johnson, comfortable to sit back and let his party fall apart. Just too lazy to step forward.
Oakeshott is clearly a shoddy journalist that shouldn't get work again. You don't make up lurid allegations against the Prime Minister based on one man's dinner party anecdote and don't stand up your story.
Really? Since you've linked to the piece:
'Asked about his feelings towards Ashcroft and the pig allegation, Cameron said: “Everyone can see why the book was written and everyone can see straight through it. As for the specific issue raised, a very specific denial was made a week ago and I’ve nothing to add to that.”
In fact, Downing Street has said nothing about the anecdote on the record, although Conservative sources have described the book’s claims as “utter nonsense” and “untrue”.'
Precisely. I read that as a confirmation if anything.
A denial and a reference to a denial is a confirmation in your eyes?
"I fear that the quiet life will win the day, that Corbyn will become entrenched, and that a head-on doctrinal dispute will, as always, be avoided. ..."
Corbyn is not by nature a compromiser. His followers will at some stage deselect one or more sitting MPs. I suspect that it will depend on 'events', badly losing a series of elections or too many sitting MPs being deselected may bring things to a head. If and when enough of them see that they won't win by getting rid of Corbyn they may jump ship. The fact and memory of the SDP may delay things, but I think that it's either a successful coup against Corbyn or a new party. Kellner is right on this.
Labour MPs record wth failing Leaders such as Brown and Miliband is to opt for the quiet life. Just look at Alan Johnson, comfortable to sit back and let his party fall apart. Just too lazy to step forward.
It was the opening ceremony of a major international event, not simply an international football match. Corbyn did not eve[n] delegate it to the shadow sports minister.Pathetic.
But is that not symbolic of someone who does not understand and does not want to understand the symbollic aspects of the role, except where it reinforces rather than conflicts with an already-held view of his? Nationalism and patriotism are inevitable bedfellows of international sport. I very much doubt that Corbyn is comfortable with such overt pride. That he had a constituency matter to attend to shows on what level he's still thinking. In one sense, it's quite commendable; in another, it completely fails to understand the nature of the game he's got himself into.
I don't think it misunderstands the game at all - I actually think it's playing it very well on his own terms. The unhappy thing for Corbyn is not having the PR team behind him to make the most of it.
Corbyn's reluctance to kneel to the Queen suggests he is paying unusually large regard for the "dignified" aspects of his role. Most would brush it off as meaningless fluff, he sees it as significant enough to resist.
I would say he should pay less regard. Bow to the harmless eccentricities and focus on the stuff with practical import.
Oakeshott is clearly a shoddy journalist that shouldn't get work again. You don't make up lurid allegations against the Prime Minister based on one man's dinner party anecdote and don't stand up your story.
Really? Since you've linked to the piece:
'Asked about his feelings towards Ashcroft and the pig allegation, Cameron said: “Everyone can see why the book was written and everyone can see straight through it. As for the specific issue raised, a very specific denial was made a week ago and I’ve nothing to add to that.”
In fact, Downing Street has said nothing about the anecdote on the record, although Conservative sources have described the book’s claims as “utter nonsense” and “untrue”.'
Precisely. I read that as a confirmation if anything.
A denial and a reference to a denial is a confirmation in your eyes?
Today is the anniversary of William the Conqueror's invasion in 1066. Just sayin'
Illegal immigrant !
I think you get off if you bring your own country...
The most shameful moment in the history of England.
We were conquered by a French Bastard.
Not true Frenchies. I grant you they spoke french, lived in france and served the french king, but they were still more Norse than french, damnit!
IIRC hadn't Harold had to march up North to thrash the Scots (Battle of Stamford Bridge) before immediately returning South.
Vikings, not Scots. Otherwise correct.
Harold pulled off a pretty impressive feat of generalship simply taking the field at Hastings after what he'd been through over the previous two months. I wouldn't regard 1066 as any more shameful than any of the other invasions that England suffered during the earlier part of the eleventh centuries. The only thing that marked it as being particularly different was that it was the last successful one - and that could only be seen in retrospect.
Cue someone bringing up William of Orange in 'successful invasions'
Today is the anniversary of William the Conqueror's invasion in 1066. Just sayin'
Illegal immigrant !
I think you get off if you bring your own country...
The most shameful moment in the history of England.
We were conquered by a French Bastard.
Not true Frenchies. I grant you they spoke french, lived in france and served the french king, but they were still more Norse than french, damnit!
IIRC hadn't Harold had to march up North to thrash the Scots (Battle of Stamford Bridge) before immediately returning South.
Vikings, not Scots. Otherwise correct.
Harold pulled off a pretty impressive feat of generalship simply taking the field at Hastings after what he'd been through over the previous two months. I wouldn't regard 1066 as any more shameful than any of the other invasions that England suffered during the earlier part of the eleventh centuries. The only thing that marked it as being particularly different was that it was the last successful one - and that could only be seen in retrospect.
Cue someone bringing up William of Orange in 'successful invasions'
Oakeshott is clearly a shoddy journalist that shouldn't get work again. You don't make up lurid allegations against the Prime Minister based on one man's dinner party anecdote and don't stand up your story.
Really? Since you've linked to the piece:
'Asked about his feelings towards Ashcroft and the pig allegation, Cameron said: “Everyone can see why the book was written and everyone can see straight through it. As for the specific issue raised, a very specific denial was made a week ago and I’ve nothing to add to that.”
In fact, Downing Street has said nothing about the anecdote on the record, although Conservative sources have described the book’s claims as “utter nonsense” and “untrue”.'
Precisely. I read that as a confirmation if anything.
A denial and a reference to a denial is a confirmation in your eyes?
What denial?
The denial he is referencing that have been quoted as saying the claims are "utter nonsense" and "untrue".
He is on the record as saying it is "utter nonsense" and "untrue" and has "nothing more to add" - if that is a confirmation in your eyes it says more about you than it does about him.
Telegraph attacks (and probably misinterprets) Labour policies.
Shock, Horror. Whodathunkit!
Morning all,
Very short on detail. The Telegraph's idea of 'middle class' usually means reasonably wealthy, professional Londoners like themselves.
We'll see what comes out later in the day. I would say though that it is not beyond the bounds that some of this will turn out to be popular. Not least if there's another major recession. Ken Clarke has warned the Tories.
Methinks the Tories are going to get a few shocks, they are a bit smug at present and have no clue what people want. They do not understand that people voted against Labour not because they loved the Tories. If Labour stop aping Tory policy it could get very interesting, though they need a clearout for that to really happen.
Today is the anniversary of William the Conqueror's invasion in 1066. Just sayin'
Illegal immigrant !
I think you get off if you bring your own country...
The most shameful moment in the history of England.
We were conquered by a French Bastard.
Not true Frenchies. I grant you they spoke french, lived in france and served the french king, but they were still more Norse than french, damnit!
IIRC hadn't Harold had to march up North to thrash the Scots (Battle of Stamford Bridge) before immediately returning South.
Vikings, not Scots. Otherwise correct.
Harold pulled off a pretty impressive feat of generalship simply taking the field at Hastings after what he'd been through over the previous two months. I wouldn't regard 1066 as any more shameful than any of the other invasions that England suffered during the earlier part of the eleventh centuries. The only thing that marked it as being particularly different was that it was the last successful one - and that could only be seen in retrospect.
Cue someone bringing up William of Orange in 'successful invasions'
Oakeshott is clearly a shoddy journalist that shouldn't get work again. You don't make up lurid allegations against the Prime Minister based on one man's dinner party anecdote and don't stand up your story.
Really? Since you've linked to the piece:
'Asked about his feelings towards Ashcroft and the pig allegation, Cameron said: “Everyone can see why the book was written and everyone can see straight through it. As for the specific issue raised, a very specific denial was made a week ago and I’ve nothing to add to that.”
In fact, Downing Street has said nothing about the anecdote on the record, although Conservative sources have described the book’s claims as “utter nonsense” and “untrue”.'
Precisely. I read that as a confirmation if anything.
A denial and a reference to a denial is a confirmation in your eyes?
What denial?
The denial he is referencing that have been quoted as saying the claims are "utter nonsense" and "untrue".
He is on the record as saying it is "utter nonsense" and "untrue" and has "nothing more to add" - if that is a confirmation in your eyes it says more about you than it does about him.
Where is he on the record as making these denials? Link?
It was the opening ceremony of a major international event, not simply an international football match. Corbyn did not eve[n] delegate it to the shadow sports minister.Pathetic.
But is that not symbolic of someone who does not understand and does not want to understand the symbollic aspects of the role, except where it reinforces rather than conflicts with an already-held view of his? Nationalism and patriotism are inevitable bedfellows of international sport. I very much doubt that Corbyn is comfortable with such overt pride. That he had a constituency matter to attend to shows on what level he's still thinking. In one sense, it's quite commendable; in another, it completely fails to understand the nature of the game he's got himself into.
The really crass part of Corbyn's decision not to attend the opening ceremony of the Rugby World Cup was that it was also a snub to "Tackle Hunger" and its aim to help provide meals for children worldwide.
Telegraph attacks (and probably misinterprets) Labour policies.
Shock, Horror. Whodathunkit!
Morning all,
Very short on detail. The Telegraph's idea of 'middle class' usually means reasonably wealthy, professional Londoners like themselves.
We'll see what comes out later in the day. I would say though that it is not beyond the bounds that some of this will turn out to be popular. Not least if there's another major recession. Ken Clarke has warned the Tories.
Methinks the Tories are going to get a few shocks, they are a bit smug at present and have no clue what people want. They do not understand that people voted against Labour not because they loved the Tories. If Labour stop aping Tory policy it could get very interesting, though they need a clearout for that to really happen.
Why did the public vote against Labour and how does Corbyn assist in addressing that?
If Labour stop being centrists it will be interesting I agree. In the same way as Michael Foot was interesting but with less success as they're now less centrist than Foot even.
Today is the anniversary of William the Conqueror's invasion in 1066. Just sayin'
Illegal immigrant !
I think you get off if you bring your own country...
The most shameful moment in the history of England.
We were conquered by a French Bastard.
Not true Frenchies. I grant you they spoke french, lived in france and served the french king, but they were still more Norse than french, damnit!
IIRC hadn't Harold had to march up North to thrash the Scots (Battle of Stamford Bridge) before immediately returning South.
Vikings, not Scots. Otherwise correct.
Harold pulled off a pretty impressive feat of generalship simply taking the field at Hastings after what he'd been through over the previous two months. I wouldn't regard 1066 as any more shameful than any of the other invasions that England suffered during the earlier part of the eleventh centuries. The only thing that marked it as being particularly different was that it was the last successful one - and that could only be seen in retrospect.
Cue someone bringing up William of Orange in 'successful invasions'
What on earth are Labour proposing re. This so called Tobin tax? I understand the resentment about financial services but we are generally a leader in this area and make a lot of money to boot. In a globalised world, is this really common sense? Ugh.
Oakeshott is clearly a shoddy journalist that shouldn't get work again. You don't make up lurid allegations against the Prime Minister based on one man's dinner party anecdote and don't stand up your story.
Really? Since you've linked to the piece:
'Asked about his feelings towards Ashcroft and the pig allegation, Cameron said: “Everyone can see why the book was written and everyone can see straight through it. As for the specific issue raised, a very specific denial was made a week ago and I’ve nothing to add to that.”
In fact, Downing Street has said nothing about the anecdote on the record, although Conservative sources have described the book’s claims as “utter nonsense” and “untrue”.'
Precisely. I read that as a confirmation if anything.
A denial and a reference to a denial is a confirmation in your eyes?
What denial?
The denial he is referencing that have been quoted as saying the claims are "utter nonsense" and "untrue".
He is on the record as saying it is "utter nonsense" and "untrue" and has "nothing more to add" - if that is a confirmation in your eyes it says more about you than it does about him.
Where is he on the record as making these denials? Link?
The link was above. He is on the record saying "as for the specific issue raised, a very specific denial was made a week ago". There is no way to pretend that it is not a real denial or not on the record, he can't deny he made that denial when he has said the denial was made.
What on earth are Labour proposing re. This so called Tobin tax? I understand the resentment about financial services but we are generally a leader in this area and make a lot of money to boot. In a globalised world, is this really common sense? Ugh.
Corbyn's reluctance to kneel to the Queen suggests he is paying unusually large regard for the "dignified" aspects of his role. Most would brush it off as meaningless fluff, he sees it as significant enough to resist.
I would say he should pay less regard. Bow to the harmless eccentricities and focus on the stuff with practical import.
Morning all.
It all boils down to basic manners, there may be little practical use in some the polite formalities of the constitution, but they are still important to a great many. People don’t like their conventions trashed or ignored, if a leader can’t respect these basic things, how can he respect the people?
Oakeshott is clearly a shoddy journalist that shouldn't get work again. You don't make up lurid allegations against the Prime Minister based on one man's dinner party anecdote and don't stand up your story.
Really? Since you've linked to the piece:
'Asked about his feelings towards Ashcroft and the pig allegation, Cameron said: “Everyone can see why the book was written and everyone can see straight through it. As for the specific issue raised, a very specific denial was made a week ago and I’ve nothing to add to that.”
In fact, Downing Street has said nothing about the anecdote on the record, although Conservative sources have described the book’s claims as “utter nonsense” and “untrue”.'
Precisely. I read that as a confirmation if anything.
A denial and a reference to a denial is a confirmation in your eyes?
What denial?
The denial he is referencing that have been quoted as saying the claims are "utter nonsense" and "untrue".
He is on the record as saying it is "utter nonsense" and "untrue" and has "nothing more to add" - if that is a confirmation in your eyes it says more about you than it does about him.
Where is he on the record as making these denials? Link?
The link was above. He is on the record saying "as for the specific issue raised, a very specific denial was made a week ago". There is no way to pretend that it is not a real denial or not on the record, he can't deny he made that denial when he has said the denial was made.
Just awkward that no specific denial was made the previous week.
''However, I believe that far from being arch-pragmatists, most Labour rightwingers are too ideological to contemplate such a course of action.''
That would make their right wingery a complete lie then, wouldn;t it?
Labour are as left wing as they believe they can get away with.
It should be noted from posts made here by a former MP, that Labour are ready and willing to toss aside principle, and say absolutely anything to the electorate for the sake of power.
What on earth are Labour proposing re. This so called Tobin tax? I understand the resentment about financial services but we are generally a leader in this area and make a lot of money to boot. In a globalised world, is this really common sense? Ugh.
They're proposing to destroy the City of London as a financial power and to devastate taxes as Sweden found out to devastating effect with their disastrous experiment that was swiftly reversed. There is no case study of it working anywhere and is an horrific economically illiterate idea that has been shown to fail in real world applications of it.
"I fear that the quiet life will win the day, that Corbyn will become entrenched, and that a head-on doctrinal dispute will, as always, be avoided. For a century, fudging the issue has occasionally allowed Labour to build an election-winning, big-tent coalition of progressive voters. Today, that approach guarantees disaster. It will leave Corbyn free to promote his electorally toxic and economically destructive brand of left-wing politics. If that is what happens, Labour’s tent will become a lot smaller and the party will cease to be fit for purpose."
Corbyn is not by nature a compromiser. His followers will at some stage deselect one or more sitting MPs. I suspect that it will depend on 'events', badly losing a series of elections or too many sitting MPs being deselected may bring things to a head. If and when enough of them see that they won't win by getting rid of Corbyn they may jump ship. The fact and memory of the SDP may delay things, but I think that it's either a successful coup against Corbyn or a new party. Kellner is right on this.
For Labour rightwingers' own personal ambitions, the best route would be the Liberal Unionist route, breaking away to become a separate party with a distinct tradition but in an electoral tie-up with the Conservatives.
However, I believe that far from being arch-pragmatists, most Labour rightwingers are too ideological to contemplate such a course of action. They're more likely to wear a Never Kissed A Tory t shirt than get into bed with them.
Most people lack courage. There are any number of good and not so good reasons for not doing stuff and no-one wants to be labelled a troublemaker or treacherous etc. So nothing will be done. I'm not even sure there will be civil war. It is more likely that behind the scenes the Livingstone acolytes, who seem to be running the show for Corbyn, will tighten their grip on power within Labour, which is non-headline grabbing stuff but essential for effective control. Some of the policies will be popular ("free money", "tax the rich" etc) and there may even be some election successes.
Whether we'll get the violent demos and hoo hahs of the late 1970s and 1980s is hard to say.
The non-Marxist bit of Labour has completely lost heart, its bearings and its head. I don't see anyone with the wit to do any of the hard thinking that's needed. Until that changes Labour will continue to revel in its very old Labour comfort zone.
Oakeshott is clearly a shoddy journalist that shouldn't get work again. You don't make up lurid allegations against the Prime Minister based on one man's dinner party anecdote and don't stand up your story.
Really? Since you've linked to the piece:
'Asked about his feelings towards Ashcroft and the pig allegation, Cameron said: “Everyone can see why the book was written and everyone can see straight through it. As for the specific issue raised, a very specific denial was made a week ago and I’ve nothing to add to that.”
In fact, Downing Street has said nothing about the anecdote on the record, although Conservative sources have described the book’s claims as “utter nonsense” and “untrue”.'
Precisely. I read that as a confirmation if anything.
A denial and a reference to a denial is a confirmation in your eyes?
What denial?
The denial he is referencing that have been quoted as saying the claims are "utter nonsense" and "untrue".
He is on the record as saying it is "utter nonsense" and "untrue" and has "nothing more to add" - if that is a confirmation in your eyes it says more about you than it does about him.
Where is he on the record as making these denials? Link?
The link was above. He is on the record saying "as for the specific issue raised, a very specific denial was made a week ago". There is no way to pretend that it is not a real denial or not on the record, he can't deny he made that denial when he has said the denial was made.
Just awkward that no specific denial was made the previous week.
Yes there was. Some people here were protesting that it wasn't on the record so didn't count.
Well it is clearly ipso facto on the record now. It was specific at the time and if there was any doubt about being on the record that can't be claimed now. It takes tremendous mental gymnastics to pretend otherwise.
Telegraph attacks (and probably misinterprets) Labour policies.
Shock, Horror. Whodathunkit!
Morning all,
Very short on detail. The Telegraph's idea of 'middle class' usually means reasonably wealthy, professional Londoners like themselves.
We'll see what comes out later in the day. I would say though that it is not beyond the bounds that some of this will turn out to be popular. Not least if there's another major recession. Ken Clarke has warned the Tories.
They do not understand that people voted against Labour not because they loved the Tories.
Bolleaux. People actively voted for the Tories. If they didn't like Labour they could simply abstain.
Labour 42% (+5) Conservative: 26% (-2) UKIP: 16% (+1) Plaid Cymru: 10% (-2) Liberal Democrats: 5% (+1) Greens: 2% (-1)
/
Assembly constituency part Labour: 39% (+4) Conservatives: 23% (no change) Plaid Cymru: 18% (-2) UKIP: 13% (-1) Liberal Democrats: 6% (+1) Greens: 2% (-1)
List part Labour: 34% (+2) Conservatives: 24% (+2) Plaid Cymru: 18% (-2) UKIP: 14% (no change) Liberal Democrats: 5% (no change) Greens: 4% (no change) Others: 2% (-1) Flag Quote
Re: Labour 'bounce'.
1. Have ITV changed their methodology since the GE as they and all other posters underestimated the Con Vote in Wales and the RoUK.
2. How much of this Labour 'bounce' will show up in marginal seats as opposed to the Labour heartlands.
3. Why is the con vote apparently holding up much better for the , more imminent, welsh assembly election than for a GE 5 years distant.
1. Don't know
2. Very little
3. 42% is not a high vote by historic standard for Welsh Labour. Specifically, though, people are likely unhappy with the performance of the Senedd.
Those Assembly numbers would probably result in something like:-
For history buffs I suggest to you that seminal work, 'The Battle of Hastings' by Marriott Edgar. He paints that indelible picture of Harold, 'on his 'orse with his 'awk in his 'and' that the possibly biased Bayeux Tapestry quite misses.
What on earth are Labour proposing re. This so called Tobin tax? I understand the resentment about financial services but we are generally a leader in this area and make a lot of money to boot. In a globalised world, is this really common sense? Ugh.
They're proposing to destroy the City of London as a financial power and to devastate taxes as Sweden found out to devastating effect with their disastrous experiment that was swiftly reversed. There is no case study of it working anywhere and is an horrific economically illiterate idea that has been shown to fail in real world applications of it.
It is also not a tax on banks at all but on transactions i.e. on savers: anyone with a pension, an ISA, an endowment policy etc. The people most harmed by it will be ordinary savers not bankers.
Telegraph attacks (and probably misinterprets) Labour policies.
Shock, Horror. Whodathunkit!
Morning all,
Very short on detail. The Telegraph's idea of 'middle class' usually means reasonably wealthy, professional Londoners like themselves.
We'll see what comes out later in the day. I would say though that it is not beyond the bounds that some of this will turn out to be popular. Not least if there's another major recession. Ken Clarke has warned the Tories.
They do not understand that people voted against Labour not because they loved the Tories.
Bolleaux. People actively voted for the Tories. If they didn't like Labour they could simply abstain.
Oakeshott is clearly a shoddy journalist that shouldn't get work again. You don't make up lurid allegations against the Prime Minister based on one man's dinner party anecdote and don't stand up your story.
Really? Since you've linked to the piece:
'Asked about his feelings towards Ashcroft and the pig allegation, Cameron said: “Everyone can see why the book was written and everyone can see straight through it. As for the specific issue raised, a very specific denial was made a week ago and I’ve nothing to add to that.”
In fact, Downing Street has said nothing about the anecdote on the record, although Conservative sources have described the book’s claims as “utter nonsense” and “untrue”.'
Precisely. I read that as a confirmation if anything.
A denial and a reference to a denial is a confirmation in your eyes?
What denial?
The denial he is referencing that have been quoted as saying the claims are "utter nonsense" and "untrue".
He is on the record as saying it is "utter nonsense" and "untrue" and has "nothing more to add" - if that is a confirmation in your eyes it says more about you than it does about him.
Where is he on the record as making these denials? Link?
The link was above. He is on the record saying "as for the specific issue raised, a very specific denial was made a week ago". There is no way to pretend that it is not a real denial or not on the record, he can't deny he made that denial when he has said the denial was made.
So he's not on the record making them, thanks. So he has obliquely referred to a denial he never made. You can call it what you like - I call it mealy mouthed equivocation that would in no way be necessary or wise if the incident had never occurred.
What on earth are Labour proposing re. This so called Tobin tax? I understand the resentment about financial services but we are generally a leader in this area and make a lot of money to boot. In a globalised world, is this really common sense? Ugh.
They're proposing to destroy the City of London as a financial power and to devastate taxes as Sweden found out to devastating effect with their disastrous experiment that was swiftly reversed. There is no case study of it working anywhere and is an horrific economically illiterate idea that has been shown to fail in real world applications of it.
It is also not a tax on banks at all but on transactions i.e. on savers: anyone with a pension, an ISA, an endowment policy etc. The people most harmed by it will be ordinary savers not bankers.
The bankers won't pay a penny to Labour as they'll be in Singapore quite happily ignoring McDonnell's madness, just as Swedish bankers fled to London and elsewhere choosing to pay us taxes instead of Sweden.
Oakeshott is clearly a shoddy journalist that shouldn't get work again. You don't make up lurid allegations against the Prime Minister based on one man's dinner party anecdote and don't stand up your story.
Really? Since you've linked to the piece ...
In fact, Downing Street has said nothing about the anecdote on the record, although Conservative sources have described the book’s claims as “utter nonsense” and “untrue”.'
Precisely. I read that as a confirmation if anything.
A denial and a reference to a denial is a confirmation in your eyes?
What denial?
The denial he is referencing that have been quoted as saying the claims are "utter nonsense" and "untrue".
He is on the record as saying it is "utter nonsense" and "untrue" and has "nothing more to add" - if that is a confirmation in your eyes it says more about you than it does about him.
Where is he on the record as making these denials? Link?
The link was above. He is on the record saying "as for the specific issue raised, a very specific denial was made a week ago". There is no way to pretend that it is not a real denial or not on the record, he can't deny he made that denial when he has said the denial was made.
Just awkward that no specific denial was made the previous week.
Yes there was. Some people here were protesting that it wasn't on the record so didn't count.
Well it is clearly ipso facto on the record now. It was specific at the time and if there was any doubt about being on the record that can't be claimed now. It takes tremendous mental gymnastics to pretend otherwise.
Again 2 points. The initial official response was a bit sniffy its true, but probably because there was little knowledge of what else might be alleged. Why set yourself up for constant rebuttals. Cameron himself made a comment drawing attention to the issue at a speech the same evening. So he hardly avoided it.
We can tell that Dellingpole has been upset by criticisms levelled at him because he has spent several thousand words telling us how he is not upset at the criticism levelled at him.
Every child should be taught about the negative impact and suffering caused by the British Empire, Jeremy Corbyn has suggested.
Mr Corbyn told young Labour supporters that the national curriculum should be re-written to teach children about how the Empire expanded "at the expense of people".
He also suggested that the curriculum should be changed so that every child should be taught about the importance of the trade unions, his biggest backers.
I take it he's not been to a school recently - this was even widely covered in my day, and I left school over a decade ago.
Comments
Very short on detail. The Telegraph's idea of 'middle class' usually means reasonably wealthy, professional Londoners like themselves.
We'll see what comes out later in the day. I would say though that it is not beyond the bounds that some of this will turn out to be popular. Not least if there's another major recession. Ken Clarke has warned the Tories.
Cameron a few years ago blamed some of the ills of the world on the Empire.
By failing to even obtain a debate at the Labour conference on Trident, he will already have undermined the flickering interest in his ideas in Scotland. As he will not be standing for Holyrood the choice between Sturgeon and Dugdale will be a classic no-brainer for the electorate.
Of course, there is a strong argument that not debating the Trident issue is the best ploy for advancement in England, but it certainly isn't in Scotland. Who knew that the interests of Scotland and England are often different? :-)
Shame it always f*cks the country in the long run.
Lucky they're not pointing out the foolishness of Corbyn's economic and foreign policy positions.
Oh, wait...
Oh dear.
On how (or indeed whether), Corbyn and/or Labour reconciles that tension will depend their success over the next few years.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/34377884
The only thing appalling on here is your misogyny....
However, PP had a terrible night - losing nearly half its seats. The big winner was Ciutadans, which is Ciudadanos elsewhere in Spain.
Attention now switches to the general election in December. the PP is certain to lose a number of seats and its overall majority. It's possible they will hang on in coalition with Ciudadanos, but PSOE may well pip them. The Socialist vote in Catalonia held up better than expected last night - probably because of the higher than usual turnout among the non-Catalan Spanish in the big cities. But whatever happens the new Madrid government will be much more amenable to discussions with Barcelona than the Spanish nationalist PP has been.
Thus, today the odds must be on a negotiated settlement to the PP-caused Catalan constitutional crisis being agreed some time next year. That's good news, but all this could have been avoided. The PP nearly cost Spain very dear indeed.
"if the divide is simply too wide, and if Corbyn is still in place in two or three years’ time, then his opponents will face a stark choice: accept that Labour has reverted to an older, firmly anti-capitalist version of its purpose – or leave this party and start a new one."
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2015/09/running-out-road-0
However I would not be quite as sanguine as you appear to be about allegations of violence against women. These are serious matters and physical and verbal abuse of women is all too prevalent and not a matter for joking or as a peg for criticising female posters. Cooper criticised verbal misogny and abuse against women in politics this weekend. Even Corbyn recognises this, given that he has appointed a Shadow Minister to deal with abuse (against both men and women).
Labour has - over the last few months - not shown itself as a female friendly party at all. And women are the majority in this country, not some minority group to be alternately ignored or patronised.
We were conquered by a French Bastard.
While like others I'm in agreement that outuright obstinacy would be unhelpful in challenging some of the less purposeful conventions, but that some push back is possible, maybe even a good thing, I do think people overdo the idea that such conventions are why people regard the political class as out of touch or that it is symbolic of such. I think too much importance gets placed on such an idea, to thepoint I think Carswell once worked it into a complaint about the parlimaentary authorities not likeing him Periscooping (whatever that is) in parliament, working it into the personal narrative of the grand crusading reformer he likes to adopt (and many good ideas he has to, along with some not good ones), when it really is not a big deal.
I know many lawyers probably hate them, and it is objectively silly, but people don't think judges lack authority because they wear stupid wigs, most people just accept it and in fact it adds to their authority because we expect it. I would put slightly obtuse parliamentary procedures in a similar, if lesser, bracket, in that most people don't care, a few passionately with to get rid of them, but for others they enhance the dry nature of politics, and others just accept it as natural, even if objectively it is silly, and certainly not anything like significant in terms of how we view the westminster bubble.
Their legal costs for industrial phone hacking must be well in excess of £30 million by now.
So we conquered by the Norse people, not the French.
Huzzah, national pride is restored.
I've lost count how many reviews and debates Labour are going to have into everything.
JCALARL
The fact and memory of the SDP may delay things, but I think that it's either a successful coup against Corbyn or a new party. Kellner is right on this.
If Harold had lost at Stamford Bridge there would have inevitably been a grand final between Hardrada and William. An interesting 'sliding doors' thought experiment, but nothing like as bloody as what is going to happen in the Labour party though. And how would the world have turned if 20 dozy labour MPs had not nominated Corbyn?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/27/david-cameron-denies-lord-ashcroft-allegations-call-me-dave-dead-pig
Oakeshott is clearly a shoddy journalist that shouldn't get work again. You don't make up lurid allegations against the Prime Minister based on one man's dinner party anecdote and don't stand up your story.
However, I believe that far from being arch-pragmatists, most Labour rightwingers are too ideological to contemplate such a course of action. They're more likely to wear a Never Kissed A Tory t shirt than get into bed with them.
The Labour party are talking as if there had not been an election within the last 4 months, in which the people did have their say. Perhaps the wrong sort of people gave their say, or maybe the Labour party did not like what they were saying.
Still I do like the idea of rigorously testing and testing again their ideas. Whenever and wherever his ideas (or such of them as we know about) have been tested they have been found wanting, if not disastrous.
What will they do when all this testing gives them the wrong answer? Or will they do a VW, which would be quite appropriate for a People's Party?
'Asked about his feelings towards Ashcroft and the pig allegation, Cameron said: “Everyone can see why the book was written and everyone can see straight through it. As for the specific issue raised, a very specific denial was made a week ago and I’ve nothing to add to that.”
In fact, Downing Street has said nothing about the anecdote on the record, although Conservative sources have described the book’s claims as “utter nonsense” and “untrue”.'
Not sure why Cameron is publicly denying it now though, I thought officially not commenting had worked ok.
Conspiracy idea - he was waiting to see if they could produce more proof, because he knows it is true, and when they didn't figured it was safe to firmly deny it, but that was a trick and they do have the proof and will go with it tomorrow!
Labour: 39% (+4)
Conservatives: 23% (no change)
Plaid Cymru: 18% (-2)
UKIP: 13% (-1)
Liberal Democrats: 6% (+1)
Greens: 2% (-1)
List part
Labour: 34% (+2)
Conservatives: 24% (+2)
Plaid Cymru: 18% (-2)
UKIP: 14% (no change)
Liberal Democrats: 5% (no change)
Greens: 4% (no change)
Others: 2% (-1)
Flag Quote
Re: Labour 'bounce'.
1. Have ITV changed their methodology since the GE as they and all other posters underestimated the Con Vote in Wales and the RoUK.
2. How much of this Labour 'bounce' will show up in marginal seats as opposed to the Labour heartlands.
3. Why is the con vote apparently holding up much better for the , more imminent, welsh assembly election than for a GE 5 years distant.
Harold pulled off a pretty impressive feat of generalship simply taking the field at Hastings after what he'd been through over the previous two months. I wouldn't regard 1066 as any more shameful than any of the other invasions that England suffered during the earlier part of the eleventh centuries. The only thing that marked it as being particularly different was that it was the last successful one - and that could only be seen in retrospect.
Well quite. After the hard evidence of May 2015, anybody who believes labour poll scores at face value needs their heads examined.
There are many on the site who never learn, however.
Mr. Flightpath, indeed, Tigranes the Great found that approach ultimately terminal.
Mr. kle4, I'd guess Cameron was asked about it directly.
I would say he should pay less regard. Bow to the harmless eccentricities and focus on the stuff with practical import.
That would make their right wingery a complete lie then, wouldn;t it?
Labour are as left wing as they believe they can get away with.
He is on the record as saying it is "utter nonsense" and "untrue" and has "nothing more to add" - if that is a confirmation in your eyes it says more about you than it does about him.
McDonnell is calling for 'direct action' to gag tory MPs though.
So the debates he wants are ones where everybody agrees with him.
http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/tacklehunger
If Labour stop being centrists it will be interesting I agree. In the same way as Michael Foot was interesting but with less success as they're now less centrist than Foot even.
I've got William the Bastard on t'brain
It's beyond old hat.
It all boils down to basic manners, there may be little practical use in some the polite formalities of the constitution, but they are still important to a great many. People don’t like their conventions trashed or ignored, if a leader can’t respect these basic things, how can he respect the people?
Whether we'll get the violent demos and hoo hahs of the late 1970s and 1980s is hard to say.
The non-Marxist bit of Labour has completely lost heart, its bearings and its head. I don't see anyone with the wit to do any of the hard thinking that's needed. Until that changes Labour will continue to revel in its very old Labour comfort zone.
Well it is clearly ipso facto on the record now. It was specific at the time and if there was any doubt about being on the record that can't be claimed now. It takes tremendous mental gymnastics to pretend otherwise.
Mr Morris.
2. Very little
3. 42% is not a high vote by historic standard for Welsh Labour. Specifically, though, people are likely unhappy with the performance of the Senedd.
Those Assembly numbers would probably result in something like:-
Labour 28
Con 15
Plaid 10
UKIP 6
Lib Dem 1.
He paints that indelible picture of Harold, 'on his 'orse with his 'awk in his 'and' that the possibly biased Bayeux Tapestry quite misses.
Unsurprising a Corbyn ally would be in favour of people being bolshy.
It'll be interesting to see how the labour poll score vs turnout 'lag' is under Corbyn.
The initial official response was a bit sniffy its true, but probably because there was little knowledge of what else might be alleged. Why set yourself up for constant rebuttals.
Cameron himself made a comment drawing attention to the issue at a speech the same evening. So he hardly avoided it.
We can tell that Dellingpole has been upset by criticisms levelled at him because he has spent several thousand words telling us how he is not upset at the criticism levelled at him.
Isn't the main reason steel making is uneconomical expensive energy??
ie a direct result of their green policies??