politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » First polling reaction to Corbyn speech – an Ipsos MORI foc

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » First polling reaction to Corbyn speech – an Ipsos MORI focus group of LAB voters in Croydon

We've run focus group of ex-Lab voters in Croydon on speech – mixed reaction… results at 6pm Holiday Inn #Lab15 pic.twitter.com/RnhmYj6Hdc

Read the full story here

RobD

First!

Sunil_Prasannan

The point is, ladies and gentlemen, that Jezza, for lack of a better word, is good. Jezza is right, Jezza works. Jezza clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the
(R)evolutionary spirit. Jezza, in all of his forms; Jezza for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And Jezza, you mark my words, will not only save the Labour Party, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the UK. Thank you very much.

Scrapheap_as_was

Jezza did just fine...

if you know what I mean.

TGOHF

would those polled have liked the speech more or less when it was written 4 years ago for Ed Miliband ?

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/09/much-of-jeremy-corbyns-speech-today-was-written-for-ed-miliband-in-2011/

"A significant chunk of Corbyn’s speech was, in its essentials, written in 2011. Not by Corbyn, of course, but by the writer Richard Heller."

Sunil_Prasannan

Corbyn's alive!

DavidL

I thought Cameron did make rather a good joke about Lord A's effusions.

Scrapheap_as_was

Mary Riddell (!) and Economist give glowing reviews

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11899501/Jeremy-Corbyn-is-a-humble-man-and-this-speech-showed-he-has-much-to-be-humble-about.html

http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2015/09/labour-party

DavidL

FPT
Interesting judgment in the Carmichael case. https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=eb9eeea6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

I think he will be seriously disappointed.

For those not familiar with it the case was resolved on the Scottish test of relevancy. This means that if you assume that everything the petitioners has said is true, can they win the case?

They have decided that the conduct complained of could fall within s106 of the 1983 Act. They now have to hear evidence as to whether it did in fact amount to a misrepresentation as a candidate or whether it was a misrepresentation by the Secretary of State. Not many good options there for Carmichael although one wins and one loses.

They then have to decide if the false statement was made for "the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election”?

Again, not great but probably ought to have been Carmichael's biggest hope. As the attack was really directed at Sturgeon was it a statement that was designed to affect the outcome of the election in Carmichael's seat?

The Court have addressed this in the first instance by concluding that a statement that "I didn't leak it" is a statement that goes to the standing of the candidate in the election he is standing in. That will be the most worrying part of the decision for Carmichael since it does not seem to be in dispute that he told a lie. It is also a very broad proposition which might make a number of elected politicians twitch. If every, eh, misstatement, can be brought back to your own election in this way the distinction that was previously thought to exist between public and election statements, at least during the election period, may not exist.

It is very difficult to see a positive way forward from here for Carmichael. He might be able to appeal this decision but I seem to recall that appeals under the 1983 Act are quite problematic. It seems that a proof is more likely and he really didn't want that.

Edit. I apologise for repeating it but if I was a betting man I would say that we have a bye election on the way.

Sunil_Prasannan

https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/632948421805113344

Scrapheap_as_was

pb tories everywhere

George Eaton ‏@georgeeaton 9 mins9 minutes ago
Usual deluge of shadow cabinet praise for leader's speech absent this year. #lab15

rcs1000

foxinsoxuk said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Cyclefree said:

surbiton said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

I actually thought he was better than Miliband as Mili always seemed to be walking a tightrope between what he wanted to say and what he felt he ought to say to get elected. Corbyn didn't bother with the second at all so was more consistent.

I give him some credit as well for taking on the Saudis (although no mention of Wahhabism) and for making clear how the high cost of housing pushes up the benefits bill.

On the downside, there was a lot of waffle (you could easily cut 10 minutes out) and some areas such as the NHS hardly got a mention. I thought the defence section was unconvincing (retraining trident workers) as was foreign policy (making peace with ISIS). Wasn't there supposed to be something about loving Britain in there - if so I must have zoned out. Nothing in there for voters in Middle England.

He is the first British politician to criticise the Saudis openly.

About bloody time. But the Saudis, IS, Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Al-Shabab, Muslim Brotherhood etc etc - they all drink from the same poisoned well. Criticise one, criticise all. Will Corbyn go that far or is he just doing the lefty version of "this group may be bastards but they're OUR bastards"?

"Israel may be bastards but they're OUR bastards"?

To be fair it was 1948 when the Israelis last attempted to blow up British soldiers or civilians. The others have more recent form.

Although the Israelis were the most recent country to destroy a US warship.

Danny565

A couple of these fit into the idea that Corbynomics has potential, but that it needs a better/younger messenger (step up Clive Lewis).

Morris_Dancer

On Cameron and jokes: he should announce making Ashcroft ambassador to Mars.

MTimT

rcs1000 said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Cyclefree said:

surbiton said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

I actually thought he was better than Miliband as Mili always seemed to be walking a tightrope between what he wanted to say and what he felt he ought to say to get elected. Corbyn didn't bother with the second at all so was more consistent.

I give him some credit as well for taking on the Saudis (although no mention of Wahhabism) and for making clear how the high cost of housing pushes up the benefits bill.

On the downside, there was a lot of waffle (you could easily cut 10 minutes out) and some areas such as the NHS hardly got a mention. I thought the defence section was unconvincing (retraining trident workers) as was foreign policy (making peace with ISIS). Wasn't there supposed to be something about loving Britain in there - if so I must have zoned out. Nothing in there for voters in Middle England.

He is the first British politician to criticise the Saudis openly.

About bloody time. But the Saudis, IS, Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Al-Shabab, Muslim Brotherhood etc etc - they all drink from the same poisoned well. Criticise one, criticise all. Will Corbyn go that far or is he just doing the lefty version of "this group may be bastards but they're OUR bastards"?

"Israel may be bastards but they're OUR bastards"?

To be fair it was 1948 when the Israelis last attempted to blow up British soldiers or civilians. The others have more recent form.

Although the Israelis were the most recent country to destroy a US warship.

Strange statistic to quote

Alistair

DavidL said:

FPT
Interesting judgment in the Carmichael case. https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=eb9eeea6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

I think he will be seriously disappointed.

For those not familiar with it the case was resolved on the Scottish test of relevancy. This means that if you assume that everything the petitioners has said is true, can they win the case?

They have decided that the conduct complained of could fall within s106 of the 1983 Act. They now have to hear evidence as to whether it did in fact amount to a misrepresentation as a candidate or whether it was a misrepresentation by the Secretary of State. Not many good options there for Carmichael although one wins and one loses.

They then have to decide if the false statement was made for "the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election”?

Again, not great but probably ought to have been Carmichael's biggest hope. As the attack was really directed at Sturgeon was it a statement that was designed to affect the outcome of the election in Carmichael's seat?

The Court have addressed this in the first instance by concluding that a statement that "I didn't leak it" is a statement that goes to the standing of the candidate in the election he is standing in. That will be the most worrying part of the decision for Carmichael since it does not seem to be in dispute that he told a lie. It is also a very broad proposition which might make a number of elected politicians twitch. If every, eh, misstatement, can be brought back to your own election in this way the distinction that was previously thought to exist between public and election statements, at least during the election period, may not exist.

It is very difficult to see a positive way forward from here for Carmichael. He might be able to appeal this decision but I seem to recall that appeals under the 1983 Act are quite problematic. It seems that a proof is more likely and he really didn't want that.

Edit. I apologise for repeating it but if I was a betting man I would say that we have a bye election on the way.

Wow, I thought this was going to fail the "the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election” test hard.

This feels like a very profound judgement that is going to have serious consequences for further elections.

Sunil_Prasannan

Morris_Dancer said:

On Cameron and jokes: he should announce making Ashcroft ambassador to Mars.

Mr Dancer. I prefer Milky Way to Mars bars.

Pulpstar

DavidL said:

FPT
Interesting judgment in the Carmichael case. https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=eb9eeea6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

I think he will be seriously disappointed.

For those not familiar with it the case was resolved on the Scottish test of relevancy. This means that if you assume that everything the petitioners has said is true, can they win the case?

They have decided that the conduct complained of could fall within s106 of the 1983 Act. They now have to hear evidence as to whether it did in fact amount to a misrepresentation as a candidate or whether it was a misrepresentation by the Secretary of State. Not many good options there for Carmichael although one wins and one loses.

They then have to decide if the false statement was made for "the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election”?

Again, not great but probably ought to have been Carmichael's biggest hope. As the attack was really directed at Sturgeon was it a statement that was designed to affect the outcome of the election in Carmichael's seat?

The Court have addressed this in the first instance by concluding that a statement that "I didn't leak it" is a statement that goes to the standing of the candidate in the election he is standing in. That will be the most worrying part of the decision for Carmichael since it does not seem to be in dispute that he told a lie. It is also a very broad proposition which might make a number of elected politicians twitch. If every, eh, misstatement, can be brought back to your own election in this way the distinction that was previously thought to exist between public and election statements, at least during the election period, may not exist.

It is very difficult to see a positive way forward from here for Carmichael. He might be able to appeal this decision but I seem to recall that appeals under the 1983 Act are quite problematic. It seems that a proof is more likely and he really didn't want that.

Edit. I apologise for repeating it but if I was a betting man I would say that we have a bye election on the way.

Carmichael's actions were certainly intended to be material to the outcome in the GE and his seat I'd say. Where I thought the action may fall down was that Nicola Sturgeon was not standing as a candidate in Orkney and Shetland... but the court seems to have considered a wider viewpoint than that.

Its not looking good for him, though I think the Lib Dems can hold the seat at a by-election personally.

DavidL

Alistair said:

DavidL said:

FPT
Interesting judgment in the Carmichael case. https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=eb9eeea6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

I think he will be seriously disappointed.

For those not familiar with it the case was resolved on the Scottish test of relevancy. This means that if you assume that everything the petitioners has said is true, can they win the case?

They have decided that the conduct complained of could fall within s106 of the 1983 Act. They now have to hear evidence as to whether it did in fact amount to a misrepresentation as a candidate or whether it was a misrepresentation by the Secretary of State. Not many good options there for Carmichael although one wins and one loses.

They then have to decide if the false statement was made for "the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election”?

Again, not great but probably ought to have been Carmichael's biggest hope. As the attack was really directed at Sturgeon was it a statement that was designed to affect the outcome of the election in Carmichael's seat?

The Court have addressed this in the first instance by concluding that a statement that "I didn't leak it" is a statement that goes to the standing of the candidate in the election he is standing in. That will be the most worrying part of the decision for Carmichael since it does not seem to be in dispute that he told a lie. It is also a very broad proposition which might make a number of elected politicians twitch. If every, eh, misstatement, can be brought back to your own election in this way the distinction that was previously thought to exist between public and election statements, at least during the election period, may not exist.

It is very difficult to see a positive way forward from here for Carmichael. He might be able to appeal this decision but I seem to recall that appeals under the 1983 Act are quite problematic. It seems that a proof is more likely and he really didn't want that.

Edit. I apologise for repeating it but if I was a betting man I would say that we have a bye election on the way.

Wow, I thought this was going to fail the "the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election” test hard.

This feels like a very profound judgement that is going to have serious consequences for further elections.

It still might of course, that is one of the questions on which they have to hear evidence. But I agree the fact that it even might get over that hurdle is the most significant part of the judgment.

rcs1000

MTimT said:

rcs1000 said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Cyclefree said:

surbiton said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

I actually thought he was better than Miliband as Mili always seemed to be walking a tightrope between what he wanted to say and what he felt he ought to say to get elected. Corbyn didn't bother with the second at all so was more consistent.

I give him some credit as well for taking on the Saudis (although no mention of Wahhabism) and for making clear how the high cost of housing pushes up the benefits bill.

On the downside, there was a lot of waffle (you could easily cut 10 minutes out) and some areas such as the NHS hardly got a mention. I thought the defence section was unconvincing (retraining trident workers) as was foreign policy (making peace with ISIS). Wasn't there supposed to be something about loving Britain in there - if so I must have zoned out. Nothing in there for voters in Middle England.

He is the first British politician to criticise the Saudis openly.

About bloody time. But the Saudis, IS, Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Al-Shabab, Muslim Brotherhood etc etc - they all drink from the same poisoned well. Criticise one, criticise all. Will Corbyn go that far or is he just doing the lefty version of "this group may be bastards but they're OUR bastards"?

"Israel may be bastards but they're OUR bastards"?

To be fair it was 1948 when the Israelis last attempted to blow up British soldiers or civilians. The others have more recent form.

Although the Israelis were the most recent country to destroy a US warship.

Strange statistic to quote

Whenever I give speeches in the US, I always start by asking:

"In the post World War II period, only one US warship has been destroyed by enemy fire. Which country was doing the attacking?"

No-one ever gets it right :-)

It's almost as good as "In the Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception, who's conception is it that's immaculate?"

Sunil_Prasannan

MTimT said:

rcs1000 said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Cyclefree said:

surbiton said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

I actually thought he was better than Miliband as Mili always seemed to be walking a tightrope between what he wanted to say and what he felt he ought to say to get elected. Corbyn didn't bother with the second at all so was more consistent.

I give him some credit as well for taking on the Saudis (although no mention of Wahhabism) and for making clear how the high cost of housing pushes up the benefits bill.

On the downside, there was a lot of waffle (you could easily cut 10 minutes out) and some areas such as the NHS hardly got a mention. I thought the defence section was unconvincing (retraining trident workers) as was foreign policy (making peace with ISIS). Wasn't there supposed to be something about loving Britain in there - if so I must have zoned out. Nothing in there for voters in Middle England.

He is the first British politician to criticise the Saudis openly.

About bloody time. But the Saudis, IS, Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Al-Shabab, Muslim Brotherhood etc etc - they all drink from the same poisoned well. Criticise one, criticise all. Will Corbyn go that far or is he just doing the lefty version of "this group may be bastards but they're OUR bastards"?

"Israel may be bastards but they're OUR bastards"?

To be fair it was 1948 when the Israelis last attempted to blow up British soldiers or civilians. The others have more recent form.

Although the Israelis were the most recent country to destroy a US warship.

Strange statistic to quote

No, USS Liberty was back in '67.

You had Iraq "accidentally brutally" hit the USS Stark in 1987. And USS Cole was hit by Al Qaeda terrorists off Yemen in 2000.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Stark_incident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

Cyclefree

FPT: and with apologies - but am off now for the evening.

Roger said:
"
Cyclefree

"About bloody time. But the Saudis, IS, Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Al-Shabab, Muslim Brotherhood etc etc - they all drink from the same poisoned well"

Absolute rubbish born of a primeval prejudice. Do you consider a majority of Egyptians to be so stupid or malevolent to vote overwhelmingly for the Muslim Brotherhood if they are as you describe? Your prejudices are as profound as anything I've read on these boards. I can only assume you have an unhealthy hatred of Muslims."

My response:-

I do not consider Egyptians either stupid or malevolent. But I suggest that you do a bit of research on the intellectual origins of the Muslim Brotherhood and its founder. Paul Berman has writen expensively on the subject. The Brotherhood has absorbed far more from Fascism and Communism than some of its admirers care to admit. It has had a social side - as indeed has Hezbollah - which is attractive to poor people often disregarded by their arrogant and corrupt rulers and I don't blame those people for being grateful for such help. But its world view is not a nice one, however much you may scream.

And in regard to its intellectual antecedents, it is probably true to say that these Islamist groupuscules do not properly represent Islam properly understood. That they are seen - wrongly - as the face of Islam is a great sadness for true Muslims as it is for the rest of us, me included.

I have said before on this site that I have never been to a Muslim country (Turkey and Kashmir) where I have not been made to feel welcome and I have never been in a mosque which has not had an air of often sublime peace about it.

Genuine Muslims must be in despair at how their religion has been abused and perverted.

I wish I could quote an article written by a famous Egyptian jouralist in the leading Egyptian newspaper shortly after the Beslan siege where he despairs at what some of the followers of the peaceful religion he and his family so loved had turned into. It is very sad and moving. I have kept a hard copy. If only there were more like him or more of them spoke up, there would be more hope in that part of the world.

One day when I find it I will quote it to you. You might learn something.

DavidL

Pulpstar said:

DavidL said:

FPT
Interesting judgment in the Carmichael case. https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=eb9eeea6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

I think he will be seriously disappointed.

For those not familiar with it the case was resolved on the Scottish test of relevancy. This means that if you assume that everything the petitioners has said is true, can they win the case?

They have decided that the conduct complained of could fall within s106 of the 1983 Act. They now have to hear evidence as to whether it did in fact amount to a misrepresentation as a candidate or whether it was a misrepresentation by the Secretary of State. Not many good options there for Carmichael although one wins and one loses.

They then have to decide if the false statement was made for "the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election”?

Again, not great but probably ought to have been Carmichael's biggest hope. As the attack was really directed at Sturgeon was it a statement that was designed to affect the outcome of the election in Carmichael's seat?

The Court have addressed this in the first instance by concluding that a statement that "I didn't leak it" is a statement that goes to the standing of the candidate in the election he is standing in. That will be the most worrying part of the decision for Carmichael since it does not seem to be in dispute that he told a lie. It is also a very broad proposition which might make a number of elected politicians twitch. If every, eh, misstatement, can be brought back to your own election in this way the distinction that was previously thought to exist between public and election statements, at least during the election period, may not exist.

It is very difficult to see a positive way forward from here for Carmichael. He might be able to appeal this decision but I seem to recall that appeals under the 1983 Act are quite problematic. It seems that a proof is more likely and he really didn't want that.

Edit. I apologise for repeating it but if I was a betting man I would say that we have a bye election on the way.

Carmichael's actions were certainly intended to be material to the outcome in the GE and his seat I'd say. Where I thought the action may fall down was that Nicola Sturgeon was not standing as a candidate in Orkney and Shetland... but the court seems to have considered a wider viewpoint than that.

Its not looking good for him, though I think the Lib Dems can hold the seat at a by-election personally.

Actually, I would say it is a narrower viewpoint rather than a wider one. It is all about him and his personal standing. Very modern in its way but a large barn door has been opened.

I seem to remember Labour held their seat after a decision like this quite easily but the Scottish Lib Dems are in a bad place.

DavidL

On the plus side Farron may soon be leading the Magnificent 7. How cool is that?

AlastairMeeks

We'll hear a lot more about this:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/09/much-of-jeremy-corbyns-speech-today-was-written-for-ed-miliband-in-2011/

Is plagiarism part of the new politics?

Charles

rcs1000 said:

MTimT said:

rcs1000 said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Cyclefree said:

surbiton said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

I actually thought he was better than Miliband as Mili always seemed to be walking a tightrope between what he wanted to say and what he felt he ought to say to get elected. Corbyn didn't bother with the second at all so was more consistent.

I give him some credit as well for taking on the Saudis (although no mention of Wahhabism) and for making clear how the high cost of housing pushes up the benefits bill.

On the downside, there was a lot of waffle (you could easily cut 10 minutes out) and some areas such as the NHS hardly got a mention. I thought the defence section was unconvincing (retraining trident workers) as was foreign policy (making peace with ISIS). Wasn't there supposed to be something about loving Britain in there - if so I must have zoned out. Nothing in there for voters in Middle England.

He is the first British politician to criticise the Saudis openly.

About bloody time. But the Saudis, IS, Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Al-Shabab, Muslim Brotherhood etc etc - they all drink from the same poisoned well. Criticise one, criticise all. Will Corbyn go that far or is he just doing the lefty version of "this group may be bastards but they're OUR bastards"?

"Israel may be bastards but they're OUR bastards"?

To be fair it was 1948 when the Israelis last attempted to blow up British soldiers or civilians. The others have more recent form.

Although the Israelis were the most recent country to destroy a US warship.

Strange statistic to quote

Whenever I give speeches in the US, I always start by asking:

"In the post World War II period, only one US warship has been destroyed by enemy fire. Which country was doing the attacking?"

No-one ever gets it right :-)

It's almost as good as "In the Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception, who's conception is it that's immaculate?"

Israel and Mary?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. L, in the Bible, the number seven represents the perfection of God.

I'm not sure I'd call Farron 'cool', however.

Sunil_Prasannan

Charles said:

rcs1000 said:

MTimT said:

rcs1000 said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Cyclefree said:

surbiton said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

I actually thought he was better than Miliband as Mili always seemed to be walking a tightrope between what he wanted to say and what he felt he ought to say to get elected. Corbyn didn't bother with the second at all so was more consistent.

I give him some credit as well for taking on the Saudis (although no mention of Wahhabism) and for making clear how the high cost of housing pushes up the benefits bill.

On the downside, there was a lot of waffle (you could easily cut 10 minutes out) and some areas such as the NHS hardly got a mention. I thought the defence section was unconvincing (retraining trident workers) as was foreign policy (making peace with ISIS). Wasn't there supposed to be something about loving Britain in there - if so I must have zoned out. Nothing in there for voters in Middle England.

He is the first British politician to criticise the Saudis openly.

About bloody time. But the Saudis, IS, Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Al-Shabab, Muslim Brotherhood etc etc - they all drink from the same poisoned well. Criticise one, criticise all. Will Corbyn go that far or is he just doing the lefty version of "this group may be bastards but they're OUR bastards"?

"Israel may be bastards but they're OUR bastards"?

To be fair it was 1948 when the Israelis last attempted to blow up British soldiers or civilians. The others have more recent form.

Although the Israelis were the most recent country to destroy a US warship.

Strange statistic to quote

Whenever I give speeches in the US, I always start by asking:

"In the post World War II period, only one US warship has been destroyed by enemy fire. Which country was doing the attacking?"

No-one ever gets it right :-)

It's almost as good as "In the Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception, who's conception is it that's immaculate?"

Israel and Mary?

To be fair the Liberty wasn't sunk outright. Was struck off the USN register in 1968.

Scrapheap_as_was

antifrank said:

We'll hear a lot more about this:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/09/much-of-jeremy-corbyns-speech-today-was-written-for-ed-miliband-in-2011/

Is plagiarism part of the new politics?

Sam Coates TimesVerified account
‏@SamCoatesTimes
So just to recap, Team Corbyn confirm they used Ed Miliband reject speech as template

RobD

rcs1000 said:

MTimT said:

rcs1000 said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Cyclefree said:

surbiton said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

I actually thought he was better than Miliband as Mili always seemed to be walking a tightrope between what he wanted to say and what he felt he ought to say to get elected. Corbyn didn't bother with the second at all so was more consistent.

I give him some credit as well for taking on the Saudis (although no mention of Wahhabism) and for making clear how the high cost of housing pushes up the benefits bill.

On the downside, there was a lot of waffle (you could easily cut 10 minutes out) and some areas such as the NHS hardly got a mention. I thought the defence section was unconvincing (retraining trident workers) as was foreign policy (making peace with ISIS). Wasn't there supposed to be something about loving Britain in there - if so I must have zoned out. Nothing in there for voters in Middle England.

He is the first British politician to criticise the Saudis openly.

About bloody time. But the Saudis, IS, Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Al-Shabab, Muslim Brotherhood etc etc - they all drink from the same poisoned well. Criticise one, criticise all. Will Corbyn go that far or is he just doing the lefty version of "this group may be bastards but they're OUR bastards"?

"Israel may be bastards but they're OUR bastards"?

To be fair it was 1948 when the Israelis last attempted to blow up British soldiers or civilians. The others have more recent form.

Although the Israelis were the most recent country to destroy a US warship.

Strange statistic to quote

Whenever I give speeches in the US, I always start by asking:

"In the post World War II period, only one US warship has been destroyed by enemy fire. Which country was doing the attacking?"

No-one ever gets it right :-)

It's almost as good as "In the Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception, who's conception is it that's immaculate?"

Do you ever get invited back?

Scrapheap_as_was

alexmassie ‏@alexmassie 5 mins5 minutes ago
@SamCoatesTimes So they go from "no similarity" to "Heller was cool"?
2 retweets 1 favourite
Reply Retweet 2 Favourite 1
More

Sam Coates Times ‏@SamCoatesTimes 5 mins5 minutes ago Brighton, England
@alexmassie The initial utter denial was done by the spokesman, before he had checked the facts

Richard_Nabavi

antifrank said:

We'll hear a lot more about this:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/09/much-of-jeremy-corbyns-speech-today-was-written-for-ed-miliband-in-2011/

Is plagiarism part of the new politics?

Yep, that is a humdinger of a story.

Charles

Scrapheap_as_was said:

alexmassie ‏@alexmassie 5 mins5 minutes ago
@SamCoatesTimes So they go from "no similarity" to "Heller was cool"?
2 retweets 1 favourite
Reply Retweet 2 Favourite 1
More

Sam Coates Times ‏@SamCoatesTimes 5 mins5 minutes ago Brighton, England
@alexmassie The initial utter denial was done by the spokesman, before he had checked the facts

So how comes the spokesman's denial counts as a denial, but the PM's Official Spokesman's denials don't?

(At least according to @putin'sluckyguy

TheScreamingEagles

rcs1000 said:

MTimT said:

rcs1000 said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Cyclefree said:

surbiton said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

I actually thought he was better than Miliband as Mili always seemed to be walking a tightrope between what he wanted to say and what he felt he ought to say to get elected. Corbyn didn't bother with the second at all so was more consistent.

I give him some credit as well for taking on the Saudis (although no mention of Wahhabism) and for making clear how the high cost of housing pushes up the benefits bill.

On the downside, there was a lot of waffle (you could easily cut 10 minutes out) and some areas such as the NHS hardly got a mention. I thought the defence section was unconvincing (retraining trident workers) as was foreign policy (making peace with ISIS). Wasn't there supposed to be something about loving Britain in there - if so I must have zoned out. Nothing in there for voters in Middle England.

He is the first British politician to criticise the Saudis openly.

About bloody time. But the Saudis, IS, Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Al-Shabab, Muslim Brotherhood etc etc - they all drink from the same poisoned well. Criticise one, criticise all. Will Corbyn go that far or is he just doing the lefty version of "this group may be bastards but they're OUR bastards"?

"Israel may be bastards but they're OUR bastards"?

To be fair it was 1948 when the Israelis last attempted to blow up British soldiers or civilians. The others have more recent form.

Although the Israelis were the most recent country to destroy a US warship.

Strange statistic to quote

Whenever I give speeches in the US, I always start by asking:

"In the post World War II period, only one US warship has been destroyed by enemy fire. Which country was doing the attacking?"

No-one ever gets it right :-)

It's almost as good as "In the Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception, who's conception is it that's immaculate?"

The answer is the UK.

We sank the USS Phoenix or The General Belgrano as it became known as when they sold it to Argentina

Plato_Says

It's a corker - after all the New Politics, we get recycled EdM from 2011. It's quite brilliant self-harm.

Scrapheap_as_was said:

alexmassie ‏@alexmassie 5 mins5 minutes ago
@SamCoatesTimes So they go from "no similarity" to "Heller was cool"?
2 retweets 1 favourite
Reply Retweet 2 Favourite 1
More

Sam Coates Times ‏@SamCoatesTimes 5 mins5 minutes ago Brighton, England
@alexmassie The initial utter denial was done by the spokesman, before he had checked the facts

Richard_Nabavi

Was the plagiarism a deliberate attempt to stitch Corbyn up by a Labour staffer? It's hard to see how it could have been accidental.

Edit: Not plagiarism, see my next post

flightpath01

Sunil_Prasannan said:

The point is, ladies and gentlemen, that Jezza, for lack of a better word, is good. Jezza is right, Jezza works. Jezza clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the
(R)evolutionary spirit. Jezza, in all of his forms; Jezza for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And Jezza, you mark my words, will not only save the Labour Party, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the UK. Thank you very much.

Jezza (punishment) beats as it sweeps as it cleans.

Roger

MBE FPT

I have a few Muslim friends in England though plenty in Egypt Lebanon Turkey and throughout the Middle East where I have worked probably over a hundred times. For the most part I find them more intelligent and considered than the people here. Certainly more politically aware which is why it's no surprise that Corbyn's speech was run live in Iran and elsewhere in the region. Who here would even know the name of the Egyptian leader let alone the leader of the opposition?

If we continue to see them all as ragheads then we're making a very big mistake. In my experience they have the sort of intelligence that comes with very old civilizations and it's very rare to find the sweeping political generalizations that you get in this country and on here all the time.

Hezbollah are popular in Lebanon because they care for the schooling and social work in the areas they control. Likewise Hamas in Gaza. They are not considered corrupt or evil nor do their populations live in fear of them. I'm so tired of the prejudice here knowing it to be the complete opposite of the reality. Even the Lebaneses Christians accept the reason's for Hezbollah's popularity and their lack of corruption.

Richard_Nabavi

OK, not plagiarism, they used it with permission:

My colleague Hugh Muir has spoken to Richard Heller. Heller told him this:

"I sent it to Team Corbyn as I have sent it to each and every Labour leader before him. I am very proud of that passage. I had no idea they were going to use it until today, but I am delighted that they have. It is a very fine passage. I sent it by post two weeks ago, to the leader of the opposition’s office."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/sep/29/labour-conference-jeremy-corbyns-speech-politics-live

Scrapheap_as_was

Richard_Nabavi said:

Was the plagiarism a deliberate attempt to stitch Corbyn up by a Labour staffer? It's hard to see how it could have been accidental.

you'll be thinking the lack of mentioning 'deficit' after all the hoo-har when Ed forgot it last year was another stick that Labour staffers deliberately gave out too?

Plato_Says

I wonder who sent Alex the draft? He says he knows Mr Heller - so perhaps he recognised his own brushwork.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Was the plagiarism a deliberate attempt to stitch Corbyn up by a Labour staffer? It's hard to see how it could have been accidental.

Edit: Not plagiarism, see my next post

Plato_Says

It's still 4yrs old and written for another. Massive clanger either way.

Richard_Nabavi said:

OK, not plagiarism, they used it with permission:

My colleague Hugh Muir has spoken to Richard Heller. Heller told him this:

"I sent it to Team Corbyn as I have sent it to each and every Labour leader before him. I am very proud of that passage. I had no idea they were going to use it until today, but I am delighted that they have. It is a very fine passage. I sent it by post two weeks ago, to the leader of the opposition’s office."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/sep/29/labour-conference-jeremy-corbyns-speech-politics-live

RobD

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Was the plagiarism a deliberate attempt to stitch Corbyn up by a Labour staffer? It's hard to see how it could have been accidental.

you'll be thinking the lack of mentioning 'deficit' after all the hoo-har when Ed forgot it last year was another stick that Labour staffers deliberately gave out too?

This is worse. Ed simply forgot to say it, despite it being in the speech. Corbyn didn't include it at all!

oxfordsimon

Plato_Says said:

It's still 4yrs old and written for another. Massive clanger either way.

Richard_Nabavi said:

OK, not plagiarism, they used it with permission:

My colleague Hugh Muir has spoken to Richard Heller. Heller told him this:

"I sent it to Team Corbyn as I have sent it to each and every Labour leader before him. I am very proud of that passage. I had no idea they were going to use it until today, but I am delighted that they have. It is a very fine passage. I sent it by post two weeks ago, to the leader of the opposition’s office."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/sep/29/labour-conference-jeremy-corbyns-speech-politics-live

So much for Corbyn being authentic - he is just another leftie mouthpiece.

Nice to have it confirmed

JosiasJessop

TheScreamingEagles said:

rcs1000 said:

MTimT said:

rcs1000 said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Cyclefree said:

surbiton said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

I actually thought he was better than Miliband as Mili always seemed to be walking a tightrope between what he wanted to say and what he felt he ought to say to get elected. Corbyn didn't bother with the second at all so was more consistent.

I give him some credit as well for taking on the Saudis (although no mention of Wahhabism) and for making clear how the high cost of housing pushes up the benefits bill.

On the downside, there was a lot of waffle (you could easily cut 10 minutes out) and some areas such as the NHS hardly got a mention. I thought the defence section was unconvincing (retraining trident workers) as was foreign policy (making peace with ISIS). Wasn't there supposed to be something about loving Britain in there - if so I must have zoned out. Nothing in there for voters in Middle England.

He is the first British politician to criticise the Saudis openly.

About bloody time. But the Saudis, IS, Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Al-Shabab, Muslim Brotherhood etc etc - they all drink from the same poisoned well. Criticise one, criticise all. Will Corbyn go that far or is he just doing the lefty version of "this group may be bastards but they're OUR bastards"?

"Israel may be bastards but they're OUR bastards"?

To be fair it was 1948 when the Israelis last attempted to blow up British soldiers or civilians. The others have more recent form.

Although the Israelis were the most recent country to destroy a US warship.

Strange statistic to quote

Whenever I give speeches in the US, I always start by asking:

"In the post World War II period, only one US warship has been destroyed by enemy fire. Which country was doing the attacking?"

No-one ever gets it right :-)

It's almost as good as "In the Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception, who's conception is it that's immaculate?"

The answer is the UK.

We sank the USS Phoenix or The General Belgrano as it became known as when they sold it to Argentina

Surely the Belgrano cannot be classes as a US warship when it was sunk, which means it cannot be that?

The wording 'enemy fire' means it cannot be the USS Evans after its collision with the Melbourne. And 'destroyed' probably means total loss?

I;m wondering if any captured US vessels were sunk later as target practice?

Scrapheap_as_was

So a Labour leader complains about the media and jokes they'd even said he'd called for an asteroid to wipe out mankind....

Cue laughter and sympathy from Labour herd....

except he did..

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/jeremy-corbyn-once-supported-a-motion-which-looked-forward-to-an-asteroid-destroying-the-planet--b1xQIS2Ev4x


I give you Labour v.2015.

watford30

Roger said:

MBE FPT

snip

If we continue to see them all as ragheads then we're making a very big mistake.

snip

Err Roger, since you're the only one using that description here, perhaps you should to come to terms with your own views?

Scrapheap_as_was

RobD said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Was the plagiarism a deliberate attempt to stitch Corbyn up by a Labour staffer? It's hard to see how it could have been accidental.

you'll be thinking the lack of mentioning 'deficit' after all the hoo-har when Ed forgot it last year was another stick that Labour staffers deliberately gave out too?

This is worse. Ed simply forgot to say it, despite it being in the speech. Corbyn didn't include it at all!

Exactly. If Shadsy is listening I would like to bet a large amount on 'forgetting the deficit was bad but deliberately ignoring it is worse' or similar

and/or 'asteroid' coming up in Ozzie or Cammo's speech next week.

GarethoftheVale2

Re: Orkney

I guess it depends on how the election were to be framed. If the SNP were to make it all about LD wrongdoing then they should clean up. If on the other hand the LDs could pick the right candidate and make it "Only the LDs can stop the SNP" then the other Unionist parties had 20% of the vote that could be tapped.

TheScreamingEagles

Scrapheap_as_was said:

So a Labour leader complains about the media and jokes they'd even said he'd called for an asteroid to wipe out mankind....

Cue laughter and sympathy from Labour herd....

except he did..

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/jeremy-corbyn-once-supported-a-motion-which-looked-forward-to-an-asteroid-destroying-the-planet--b1xQIS2Ev4x


I give you Labour v.2015.

I'm not sure who is providing the greatest entertainment at the moment. Labour or the Kippers.

It's a great time to be a Tory.

TheScreamingEagles

@BobbyIpsosMORI: Focus gp reaction to speech: after strong start, less positive on substance and concerns abt Jeremy as leader #Lab15 http://t.co/gZOBJrKCsk

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Eagles, hubris precedes nemesis.

TCPoliticalBetting

Pulpstar said:

DavidL said:

FPT
Interesting judgment in the Carmichael case. https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=eb9eeea6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

I think he will be seriously disappointed.

For those not familiar with it the case was resolved on the Scottish test of relevancy. This means that if you assume that everything the petitioners has said is true, can they win the case?

They have decided that the conduct complained of could fall within s106 of the 1983 Act. They now have to hear evidence as to whether it did in fact amount to a misrepresentation as a candidate or whether it was a misrepresentation by the Secretary of State. Not many good options there for Carmichael although one wins and one loses.

They then have to decide if the false statement was made for "the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election”?

Again, not great but probably ought to have been Carmichael's biggest hope. As the attack was really directed at Sturgeon was it a statement that was designed to affect the outcome of the election in Carmichael's seat?

The Court have addressed this in the first instance by concluding that a statement that "I didn't leak it" is a statement that goes to the standing of the candidate in the election he is standing in. That will be the most worrying part of the decision for Carmichael since it does not seem to be in dispute that he told a lie. It is also a very broad proposition which might make a number of elected politicians twitch. If every, eh, misstatement, can be brought back to your own election in this way the distinction that was previously thought to exist between public and election statements, at least during the election period, may not exist.

It is very difficult to see a positive way forward from here for Carmichael. He might be able to appeal this decision but I seem to recall that appeals under the 1983 Act are quite problematic. It seems that a proof is more likely and he really didn't want that.

Edit. I apologise for repeating it but if I was a betting man I would say that we have a bye election on the way.

Carmichael's actions were certainly intended to be material to the outcome in the GE and his seat I'd say. Where I thought the action may fall down was that Nicola Sturgeon was not standing as a candidate in Orkney and Shetland... but the court seems to have considered a wider viewpoint than that.
Its not looking good for him, though I think the Lib Dems can hold the seat at a by-election personally.

"I think the Lib Dems can hold the seat at a by-election"
Not now. The LDs would now be fighting on the back of a dishonourable act, which will be shunned by the local voters.

Scrapheap_as_was

Richard_Nabavi said:

OK, not plagiarism, they used it with permission:

My colleague Hugh Muir has spoken to Richard Heller. Heller told him this:

"I sent it to Team Corbyn as I have sent it to each and every Labour leader before him. I am very proud of that passage. I had no idea they were going to use it until today, but I am delighted that they have. It is a very fine passage. I sent it by post two weeks ago, to the leader of the opposition’s office."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/sep/29/labour-conference-jeremy-corbyns-speech-politics-live

Shame they managed to insult the author first isn't it....

Team Corbyn deny Richard Heller had anything to do with this speech. It was written by ppl who are "a lot cleverer"

TheScreamingEagles

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, hubris precedes nemesis.

I know. I'm fully expecting it not to last.

flightpath01

Richard_Nabavi said:

antifrank said:

We'll hear a lot more about this:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/09/much-of-jeremy-corbyns-speech-today-was-written-for-ed-miliband-in-2011/

Is plagiarism part of the new politics?

Yep, that is a humdinger of a story.

I see that Corbyn changed 'sanctity' ('the state or quality of being holy, sacred, or saintly') to 'clout', something which was already covered by 'power'.
Does 'responsibility' come in anywhere as a counterpoint to that ridiculous diatribe?

As I understand it these words were not actually used by Miliband in 2011, but were 'offered' as an open letter in a series of blogposts.
It alters not that they were casually plagiarized without acknowledgement of course, passed off as Corbyn's own originality of thought. I'm sure Heller is delighted - he did add on his blog 'open to others on application'.
The other point remains that this dates back to 2011 and was out of date then (he talks of job losses on his blog - we have record numbers in work now).
Which Presidential candidate got laughed out of town for plagiarizing a British (Blair??) politician's speech???

Scrapheap_as_was

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

So a Labour leader complains about the media and jokes they'd even said he'd called for an asteroid to wipe out mankind....

Cue laughter and sympathy from Labour herd....

except he did..

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/jeremy-corbyn-once-supported-a-motion-which-looked-forward-to-an-asteroid-destroying-the-planet--b1xQIS2Ev4x


I give you Labour v.2015.

I'm not sure who is providing the greatest entertainment at the moment. Labour or the Kippers.

It's a great time to be a Tory.

It does make me fonder still of the Lib Dems - well the orange booker part if there's any left - compared the 2 other options.

Plato_Says

http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2015/09/labour-party

There was almost no attempt whatsoever to challenge negative perceptions of Labour or its leader, despite the fact that the early polling on Mr Corbyn is dire. After an election which the party lost, badly, because voters did not trust it with the nation’s economy and finances he did not talk about the budget deficit—precisely the issue on which it was skewered—at all. Businesses, where they made an appearance, were the sort run by cackling sadists in top hats. The Conservatives, recently not just returned to power but awarded a majority by the British people, were straightforwardly bad people in politics for the wrong reasons

watford30

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

OK, not plagiarism, they used it with permission:

My colleague Hugh Muir has spoken to Richard Heller. Heller told him this:

"I sent it to Team Corbyn as I have sent it to each and every Labour leader before him. I am very proud of that passage. I had no idea they were going to use it until today, but I am delighted that they have. It is a very fine passage. I sent it by post two weeks ago, to the leader of the opposition’s office."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/sep/29/labour-conference-jeremy-corbyns-speech-politics-live

Shame they managed to insult the author first isn't it....

Team Corbyn deny Richard Heller had anything to do with this speech. It was written by ppl who are "a lot cleverer"

Genius. Slagging off the original author whom they've just ripped off without any acknowledgment. Whatever next?

Scrapheap_as_was

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, hubris precedes nemesis.

I know. I'm fully expecting it not to last.

I'm taking every minute to enjoy the PL table and which London team is currently the worst in the city....

TheScreamingEagles

Scrapheap_as_was said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

So a Labour leader complains about the media and jokes they'd even said he'd called for an asteroid to wipe out mankind....

Cue laughter and sympathy from Labour herd....

except he did..

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/jeremy-corbyn-once-supported-a-motion-which-looked-forward-to-an-asteroid-destroying-the-planet--b1xQIS2Ev4x


I give you Labour v.2015.

I'm not sure who is providing the greatest entertainment at the moment. Labour or the Kippers.

It's a great time to be a Tory.

It does make me fonder still of the Lib Dems - well the orange booker part if there's any left - compared the 2 other options.

I'm writing a piece on the Lib Dems. I miss them on one level.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. 30, on the plus side, it's a nicer instance than the last time Labour 'borrowed' someone else's work.

alex.

flightpath01 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

antifrank said:

We'll hear a lot more about this:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/09/much-of-jeremy-corbyns-speech-today-was-written-for-ed-miliband-in-2011/

Is plagiarism part of the new politics?

Yep, that is a humdinger of a story.

I see that Corbyn changed 'sanctity' ('the state or quality of being holy, sacred, or saintly') to 'clout', something which was already covered by 'power'.
Does 'responsibility' come in anywhere as a counterpoint to that ridiculous diatribe?

As I understand it these words were not actually used by Miliband in 2011, but were 'offered' as an open letter in a series of blogposts.
It alters not that they were casually plagiarized without acknowledgement of course, passed off as Corbyn's own originality of thought. I'm sure Heller is delighted - he did add on his blog 'open to others on application'.
The other point remains that this dates back to 2011 and was out of date then (he talks of job losses on his blog - we have record numbers in work now).
Which Presidential candidate got laughed out of town for plagiarizing a British (Blair??) politician's speech???

Joe Biden/Kinnock

Plato_Says

Oh they didn't do that - really??

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

OK, not plagiarism, they used it with permission:

My colleague Hugh Muir has spoken to Richard Heller. Heller told him this:

"I sent it to Team Corbyn as I have sent it to each and every Labour leader before him. I am very proud of that passage. I had no idea they were going to use it until today, but I am delighted that they have. It is a very fine passage. I sent it by post two weeks ago, to the leader of the opposition’s office."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/sep/29/labour-conference-jeremy-corbyns-speech-politics-live

Shame they managed to insult the author first isn't it....

Team Corbyn deny Richard Heller had anything to do with this speech. It was written by ppl who are "a lot cleverer"

Scrapheap_as_was

It wasn't plagiarism just old copy finally used .... but will that be it's impression?

Damian McBride @DPMcBride
All you ever want is the speech reported straight. The nightmare is an unforeseen external fuckarama, and plagiarism is as bad as it gets.

Morris_Dancer

Miss Plato, and it's a shade rude, given the importance of being nice.

Scrapheap_as_was

Plato_Says said:

Oh they didn't do that - really??

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

OK, not plagiarism, they used it with permission:

My colleague Hugh Muir has spoken to Richard Heller. Heller told him this:

"I sent it to Team Corbyn as I have sent it to each and every Labour leader before him. I am very proud of that passage. I had no idea they were going to use it until today, but I am delighted that they have. It is a very fine passage. I sent it by post two weeks ago, to the leader of the opposition’s office."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/sep/29/labour-conference-jeremy-corbyns-speech-politics-live

Shame they managed to insult the author first isn't it....

Team Corbyn deny Richard Heller had anything to do with this speech. It was written by ppl who are "a lot cleverer"

Yup the spokesman issued that rebuttal without checking the facts... later corrected...

Roger

Antifrank and 25 others........

"We'll hear a lot more about this:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/09/much-of-jeremy-corbyns-speech-today-was-written-for-ed-miliband-in-2011/"

Sometimes it's impossible to even imagine the trivia with which some people occupy their minds

TheScreamingEagles

Speaking to my Manchester focus group of 30 something professionals.

They liked the Corbyn bit about the Saudi chap.

Overall they see Corbyn as Ed Miliband's Dad.

rcs1000

Charles said:

rcs1000 said:

MTimT said:

rcs1000 said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Cyclefree said:

surbiton said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

I actually thought he was better than Miliband as Mili always seemed to be walking a tightrope between what he wanted to say and what he felt he ought to say to get elected. Corbyn didn't bother with the second at all so was more consistent.

I give him some credit as well for taking on the Saudis (although no mention of Wahhabism) and for making clear how the high cost of housing pushes up the benefits bill.

On the downside, there was a lot of waffle (you could easily cut 10 minutes out) and some areas such as the NHS hardly got a mention. I thought the defence section was unconvincing (retraining trident workers) as was foreign policy (making peace with ISIS). Wasn't there supposed to be something about loving Britain in there - if so I must have zoned out. Nothing in there for voters in Middle England.

He is the first British politician to criticise the Saudis openly.

About bloody time. But the Saudis, IS, Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Al-Shabab, Muslim Brotherhood etc etc - they all drink from the same poisoned well. Criticise one, criticise all. Will Corbyn go that far or is he just doing the lefty version of "this group may be bastards but they're OUR bastards"?

"Israel may be bastards but they're OUR bastards"?

To be fair it was 1948 when the Israelis last attempted to blow up British soldiers or civilians. The others have more recent form.

Although the Israelis were the most recent country to destroy a US warship.

Strange statistic to quote

Whenever I give speeches in the US, I always start by asking:

"In the post World War II period, only one US warship has been destroyed by enemy fire. Which country was doing the attacking?"

No-one ever gets it right :-)

It's almost as good as "In the Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception, who's conception is it that's immaculate?"

Israel and Mary?

Absolutely right. It's amazing how few Catholics get the second one right; and I once took £5 off an Anglican vicar at a wedding on the question...

Plato_Says

Epic. Just epic.

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Plato_Says said:

Oh they didn't do that - really??

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

OK, not plagiarism, they used it with permission:

My colleague Hugh Muir has spoken to Richard Heller. Heller told him this:

"I sent it to Team Corbyn as I have sent it to each and every Labour leader before him. I am very proud of that passage. I had no idea they were going to use it until today, but I am delighted that they have. It is a very fine passage. I sent it by post two weeks ago, to the leader of the opposition’s office."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/sep/29/labour-conference-jeremy-corbyns-speech-politics-live

Shame they managed to insult the author first isn't it....

Team Corbyn deny Richard Heller had anything to do with this speech. It was written by ppl who are "a lot cleverer"

Yup the spokesman issued that rebuttal without checking the facts... later corrected...

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Eagles, but do they seem as a credible PM?

Mr. Roger, I agree. People should focus on learning and remembering classical history. To do otherwise is to take a view of Rome akin to Honorius.

Edited extra bit: see him*. Ahem.

Scrapheap_as_was

I've got a meeting to go to... but this is popcorntastic (finally!!)

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/09/corbyns-tougher-line-on-nuclear-weapons-could-become-a-resigning-issue-for-shadow-cabinet/

rcs1000

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Pulpstar said:

DavidL said:

FPT
Interesting judgment in the Carmichael case. https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=eb9eeea6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

For those not familiar with it the case was resolved on the Scottish test of relevancy. This means that if you assume that everything the petitioners has said is true, can they win the case?

They have decided that the conduct complained of could fall within s106 of the 1983 Act. They now have to hear evidence as to whether it did in fact amount to a misrepresentation as a candidate or whether it was a misrepresentation by the Secretary of State. Not many good options there for Carmichael although one wins and one loses.

They then have to decide if the false statement was made for "the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election”?

Again, not great but probably ought to have been Carmichael's biggest hope. As the attack was really directed at Sturgeon was it a statement that was designed to affect the outcome of the election in Carmichael's seat?

The Court have addressed this in the first instance by concluding that a statement that "I didn't leak it" is a statement that goes to the standing of the candidate in the election he is standing in. That will be the most worrying part of the decision for Carmichael since it does not seem to be in dispute that he told a lie. It is also a very broad proposition which might make a number of elected politicians twitch. If every, eh, misstatement, can be brought back to your own election in this way the distinction that was previously thought to exist between public and election statements, at least during the election period, may not exist.

It is very difficult to see a positive way forward from here for Carmichael. He might be able to appeal this decision but I seem to recall that appeals under the 1983 Act are quite problematic. It seems that a proof is more likely and he really didn't want that.

Edit. I apologise for repeating it but if I was a betting man I would say that we have a bye election on the way.

Carmichael's actions were certainly intended to be material to the outcome in the GE and his seat I'd say. Where I thought the action may fall down was that Nicola Sturgeon was not standing as a candidate in Orkney and Shetland... but the court seems to have considered a wider viewpoint than that.
Its not looking good for him, though I think the Lib Dems can hold the seat at a by-election personally.

"I think the Lib Dems can hold the seat at a by-election"
Not now. The LDs would now be fighting on the back of a dishonourable act, which will be shunned by the local voters.

Two words: Chris Huhne

And that was a lot more serious than denying you leaked something (which you did in fact leak).

Roger

Eagle

"Speaking to my Manchester focus group of 30 something professionals"

Is that professionals or pros?

flightpath01

Richard_Nabavi said:

OK, not plagiarism, they used it with permission:

My colleague Hugh Muir has spoken to Richard Heller. Heller told him this:

"I sent it to Team Corbyn as I have sent it to each and every Labour leader before him. I am very proud of that passage. I had no idea they were going to use it until today, but I am delighted that they have. It is a very fine passage. I sent it by post two weeks ago, to the leader of the opposition’s office."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/sep/29/labour-conference-jeremy-corbyns-speech-politics-live

http://www.richardheller.co.uk/2011/08/belles-lettres/a-collection-of-zingers/

In my book its still plagiarism when the speaker does not acknowledge the true and published author.
If you believe in the point being made you can still quote it as a reference. But the words were meant to be passed off as stogy old Corbyn's own.
Why I wonder did every other leader ignore Hellers incessant hammerings on the door?

One of the unattributed passages of Heller's is headed “You Don’t Have To Take What You’re Given“.
In fact of course taking what you are given is the whole point of Socialism. The State provides and you put up with it.

Scrapheap_as_was

corking - this is old!


Michael Crick ✔ @MichaelLCrick
Richard Heller says he published speech on website in 2011 as none of previous five Labour leaders would use it, dating back to Neil Kinnock


Jim Waterson ✔ @jimwaterson

...and your newspaper headline for tomorrow is "Jeremy Corbyn's speech was rejected by Labour in the 1980s". https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/648911689644122112 …

CarlottaVance

Roger said:

Sometimes it's impossible to even imagine the trivia with which some people occupy their minds

And you work in advertising?

TGOHF

55.....

@AlanRoden: Breaking: SNP MP Michelle Thomson has "withdrawn from the party whip" while police investigation into property deals is conducted

RobD

Scrapheap_as_was said:

corking - this is old!


Michael Crick ✔ @MichaelLCrick
Richard Heller says he published speech on website in 2011 as none of previous five Labour leaders would use it, dating back to Neil Kinnock

How did Niel Kinnock reply when asked to use the speech? "No thanks, we're allllllrighttttt!!"


Oh, that's my coat!!

Plato_Says

Jim Waterson ‏@jimwaterson 4m4 minutes ago

So: a man calls Richard Heller posts this speech to every new Labour leader for 25 years. Corbyn's team open post, like it and use it.

saddened

Roger said:

Eagle

"Speaking to my Manchester focus group of 30 something professionals"

Is that professionals or pros?

You seem very out of sorts, is reality starting to bite?

RobD

TGOHF said:

55.....

@AlanRoden: Breaking: SNP MP Michelle Thomson has "withdrawn from the party whip" while police investigation into property deals is conducted

Total non-story.

Scrapheap_as_was

RobD said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

corking - this is old!


Michael Crick ✔ @MichaelLCrick
Richard Heller says he published speech on website in 2011 as none of previous five Labour leaders would use it, dating back to Neil Kinnock

How did Niel Kinnock reply when asked to use the speech? "No thanks, we're allllllrighttttt!!"


Oh, that's my coat!!

LIKE!!!

Time for work...

alex.

Heller makes it sound like it wasn't just rejected by Miliband, but Brown, Blair?, Smith? Foot?

Richard_Nabavi

This gets even funnier:

@MichaelLCrick

Richard Heller, who gave Corbyn long passages of his speech, was Denis Healey's special adviser 1981-3 when DH fighting Bennites like Corbyn

MikeL

We often hear accusations of BBC bias on here.

Has anyone commented on the fact that the BBC's guest for the McDonnell speech was John McTernan and their guest for the Corbyn speech was Lance Price - both of whom were 100% critical of McDonnell / Corbyn, said they were only talking to the converted, said they were offering nothing to the wider public and in summary said Labour had no hope at all with this approach.

I don't personally accuse the BBC of bias but those who do accuse it of being anti Conservative should note the above.

foxinsoxuk

Roger said:

Antifrank and 25 others........

"We'll hear a lot more about this:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/09/much-of-jeremy-corbyns-speech-today-was-written-for-ed-miliband-in-2011/"

Sometimes it's impossible to even imagine the trivia with which some people occupy their minds

Come on! Give the man a bit of slack - we are all into recycling nowadays.

saddened

RobD said:

TGOHF said:

55.....

@AlanRoden: Breaking: SNP MP Michelle Thomson has "withdrawn from the party whip" while police investigation into property deals is conducted

Total non-story.

Malcoholic, in, 5, 4, 3.......

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Alex, it sounds like Foot was too early, with Kinnock being the first [I think].

Plato_Says

*chortles*

Richard_Nabavi said:

This gets even funnier:

@MichaelLCrick

Richard Heller, who gave Corbyn long passages of his speech, was Denis Healey's special adviser 1981-3 when DH fighting Bennites like Corbyn

perdix

Roger said:

MBE FPT

I have a few Muslim friends in England though plenty in Egypt Lebanon Turkey and throughout the Middle East where I have worked probably over a hundred times. For the most part I find them more intelligent and considered than the people here. Certainly more politically aware which is why it's no surprise that Corbyn's speech was run live in Iran and elsewhere in the region. Who here would even know the name of the Egyptian leader let alone the leader of the opposition?

If we continue to see them all as ragheads then we're making a very big mistake. In my experience they have the sort of intelligence that comes with very old civilizations and it's very rare to find the sweeping political generalizations that you get in this country and on here all the time.

Hezbollah are popular in Lebanon because they care for the schooling and social work in the areas they control. Likewise Hamas in Gaza. They are not considered corrupt or evil nor do their populations live in fear of them. I'm so tired of the prejudice here knowing it to be the complete opposite of the reality. Even the Lebaneses Christians accept the reason's for Hezbollah's popularity and their lack of corruption.

Hezbollah and Hamas buying political support, funded by Iran.

foxinsoxuk

TGOHF said:

55.....

@AlanRoden: Breaking: SNP MP Michelle Thomson has "withdrawn from the party whip" while police investigation into property deals is conducted

A new kind of politics...free of the corruption of the Westminster elite...

flightpath01

Richard_Nabavi said:

This gets even funnier:

@MichaelLCrick
Richard Heller, who gave Corbyn long passages of his speech, was Denis Healey's special adviser 1981-3 when DH fighting Bennites like Corbyn

I was going to ask who this Richard Heller was.
Does this mean that Corbyn is 'out of his tiny chinese mind'?

ydoethur

rcs1000 said:

Two words: Chris Huhne

And that was a lot more serious than denying you leaked something (which you did in fact leak).

I imagine if it does come to a by-election (which still doesn't look certain to me) the question for the voters of Orkney and Shetland will be, was what Carmichael did actually particularly serious (a politician tells a lie about a rival in a panic after doing something a bit stupid? Hmmmm - if we recalled all of them, we'd have an awfully chamber) or will they see the SNP as a bunch of sore losers using an arcane procedure to try and massage their wounded egos (the way the voters of Oldham East and Saddleworth, on what to be candid was probably a more serious matter, did when put to the test five years ago by, ironically, the Liberal Democrats).

I am just wondering whether the SNP are wise to keep pushing it this hard (which they are, whoever their ostensible front man is). If they lost a by-election in what should be an eminently winnable seat, it would shake their confidence and momentum for no discernable reason.

ydoethur

MikeL said:

We often hear accusations of BBC bias on here.

Has anyone commented on the fact that the BBC's guest for the McDonnell speech was John McTernan and their guest for the Corbyn speech was Lance Price - both of whom were 100% critical of McDonnell / Corbyn, said they were only talking to the converted, said they were offering nothing to the wider public and in summary said Labour had no hope at all with this approach.

I don't personally accuse the BBC of bias but those who do accuse it of being anti Conservative should note the above.

Surely the best interests of the Conservatives are served by Corbyn surviving as long as possible?

Giving airtime to his rivals within the Labour party is clearly designed to help remove him, a disgraceful act of pro-Labour bias designed to rob the Tories of their richly deserved 300 seat majority in 2020.

TheScreamingEagles

Roger said:

Eagle

"Speaking to my Manchester focus group of 30 something professionals"

Is that professionals or pros?

They say the legal profession is the world's second oldest profession.

Having spent fifteen years working in the legal profession I can say it shares similarities to the world's oldest profession

Hertsmere_Pubgoer

TheScreamingEagles said:

Roger said:

Eagle

"Speaking to my Manchester focus group of 30 something professionals"

Is that professionals or pros?

They say the legal profession is the world's second oldest profession.

Having spent fifteen years working in the legal profession I can say it shares similarities to the world's oldest profession

I always thought that spying was the 2nd oldest.
Learn something new every day on PB

RobD

TheScreamingEagles said:

Roger said:

Eagle

"Speaking to my Manchester focus group of 30 something professionals"

Is that professionals or pros?

They say the legal profession is the world's second oldest profession.

Having spent fifteen years working in the legal profession I can say it shares similarities to the world's oldest profession

It's expensive, but there are cheaper options available if you accept a lower caliber?

TheScreamingEagles

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, but do they seem as a credible PM?

Mr. Roger, I agree. People should focus on learning and remembering classical history. To do otherwise is to take a view of Rome akin to Honorius.

Edited extra bit: see him*. Ahem.

They think I've got a better chance of being PM.

oxfordsimon

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Roger said:

Eagle

"Speaking to my Manchester focus group of 30 something professionals"

Is that professionals or pros?

They say the legal profession is the world's second oldest profession.

Having spent fifteen years working in the legal profession I can say it shares similarities to the world's oldest profession

I always thought that spying was the 2nd oldest.
Learn something new every day on PB

I thought Motherhood was the oldest profession, then prostitution and then lawyers!