What has the world come to that during a new Opposition Leaders honeymoon being only 4% behind is considered good news?
You have to take into account who the new Labour leader is. To my mind 4% is extraordinary given that circumstance.
Why? He has not shifted one net Tory voter to Labour, he has simply picked up some Greens and LDs, hardly earthshattering
I stick by my post. I believe it is extraordinary that Corbyn only lags by 4% given who he is, what he says, who supports him. It is an observation with the inference that I would have expected him to lag by much more. "Extraordinary" works both ways.
The next big story seems to be the relationship our govt has w the Saudi prison regime... Wonder if Corbyn will make skewer Cam at PMQs? I reckon taking the moral high ground will be a Corbyn tactic at every opportunity
I suspect, increasingly, that Labour MPs will find some way to remove Corbyn and McDonnell in the next 18 months. They will change the rules. They will cheat. They will tell the membership to go jump.
The membership will eat the MP's alive if they somehow manage to overthrow Corbyn, thanks to the boundary changes and the reduction of the number of MP's:
You are wrong there as Labour officials have said that it does and they, not Corbyn, interpret the rules
T challenge himself.
at
Nope the rules ( specifically Chapter 4, Clause II, rule 2 B ii.) are clear there can only be nominations to challenge Corbyn, his opponents will have to be nominated to challenge him not Corbyn.
Here it is again, it's in english: “Where there is no vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of party conference. In this case nominations must be supported by 20% of the Commons members of the PLP”
Corbyn does not need to be nominated, his challengers need to, unnamed Labour officials or not the rules are in english and clear.
The first sentence says challenger
Nominations are required to challenge the leader, if there is a challenge Corbyn does not require to b
The only thing we know about those unnamed Labour officials is that they don't know english.
There is nothing that precludes a challenged incumbent from also being required to get 20% of MPs to nominate him in that Clause and Peter Mandelson certainly will do so!
It's a nomination to challenge the man who is already Leader, the Leader is not required to challenge himself for the leadership. The rules specifically say that the challengers need to be nominated, Corbyn is not a challenger thus he doesn't need to be nominated to challenge himself because he is already leader. It's a leadership challenge not a leadership election.
There is a requirement for a challenger to get nominations from 20% of MPs, once he has done so there is nothing that says the leader does not also have to get 20%. It is a leadership challenge which then brings about a leadership election if successful
The next big story seems to be the relationship our govt has w the Saudi prison regime... Wonder if Corbyn will make skewer Cam at PMQs? I reckon taking the moral high ground will be a Corbyn tactic at every opportunity
What has the world come to that during a new Opposition Leaders honeymoon being only 4% behind is considered good news?
You have to take into account who the new Labour leader is. To my mind 4% is extraordinary given that circumstance.
Why? He has not shifted one net Tory voter to Labour, he has simply picked up some Greens and LDs, hardly earthshattering
I stick by my post. I believe it is extraordinary that Corbyn only lags by 4% given who he is, what he says, who supports him. It is an observation with the inference that I would have expected him to lag by much more. "Extraordinary" works both ways.
The next big story seems to be the relationship our govt has w the Saudi prison regime... Wonder if Corbyn will make skewer Cam at PMQs? I reckon taking the moral high ground will be a Corbyn tactic at every opportunity
What has the world come to that during a new Opposition Leaders honeymoon being only 4% behind is considered good news?
You have to take into account who the new Labour leader is. To my mind 4% is extraordinary given that circumstance.
Why? He has not shifted one net Tory voter to Labour, he has simply picked up some Greens and LDs, hardly earthshattering
I stick by my post. I believe it is extraordinary that Corbyn only lags by 4% given who he is, what he says, who supports him. It is an observation with the inference that I would have expected him to lag by much more. "Extraordinary" works both ways.
What has the world come to that during a new Opposition Leaders honeymoon being only 4% behind is considered good news?
You have to take into account who the new Labour leader is. To my mind 4% is extraordinary given that circumstance.
Why? He has not shifted one net Tory voter to Labour, he has simply picked up some Greens and LDs, hardly earthshattering
I stick by my post. I believe it is extraordinary that Corbyn only lags by 4% given who he is, what he says, who supports him. It is an observation with the inference that I would have expected him to lag by much more. "Extraordinary" works both ways.
Good to have his interference out in the open now.
He couldn't even be bothered to spelled Brittan correctly... though that is nothing compared to the manipulative and smearing tone in his letter. Not acceptable from anyone who seeks to be a serious politician
What has the world come to that during a new Opposition Leaders honeymoon being only 4% behind is considered good news?
You have to take into account who the new Labour leader is. To my mind 4% is extraordinary given that circumstance.
Why? He has not shifted one net Tory voter to Labour, he has simply picked up some Greens and LDs, hardly earthshattering
I stick by my post. I believe it is extraordinary that Corbyn only lags by 4% given who he is, what he says, who supports him. It is an observation with the inference that I would have expected him to lag by much more. "Extraordinary" works both ways.
What has the world come to that during a new Opposition Leaders honeymoon being only 4% behind is considered good news?
You have to take into account who the new Labour leader is. To my mind 4% is extraordinary given that circumstance.
Why? He has not shifted one net Tory voter to Labour, he has simply picked up some Greens and LDs, hardly earthshattering
I stick by my post. I believe it is extraordinary that Corbyn only lags by 4% given who he is, what he says, who supports him. It is an observation with the inference that I would have expected him to lag by much more. "Extraordinary" works both ways.
It may have something to do with my politics but I don't think IDS is as toxic as JC nor, more debatably, as incompetent.
IDS was taken even less seriously than Corbyn
But IDS' father in law was portrayed by Sean Connery.
Which film was that?
'Cause you might be thinking about Sir Menzies Campbell's father in law?
A Bridge Too Far. I don't think I've ever thought about Campbell's father in law
Yeah it was Sir Menzies Campbell's father in law.
In that case I shall post many spoilers about last night's Walking Dead premiere, which was pedestrian at best, but obviously had a huge budget increase.
The next big story seems to be the relationship our govt has w the Saudi prison regime... Wonder if Corbyn will make skewer Cam at PMQs? I reckon taking the moral high ground will be a Corbyn tactic at every opportunity
QTWTAIN
Why do you think that?
Firstly because Corbyn's approach of using crowd-sourced letters and not following them up means he is never going to be able to skewer Cameron on anything
Secondly because Corbyn's support for very distasteful groups in the Middle East means he has not moral high ground on which to stand - and Cameron will bat him away very easily as a result
Plus I suspect Wednesday will be more Watson - the publication of the letters means that is not going away.
In the film, Trevelyan is still burning up about this stuff because these victims of British treachery included his parents. That really ages the film. These days if a youngish villain were secretly angry about the way their parents were killed, it would have to be against the backdrop to a whole new generation of conflicts - someone angry about the British role in Kuwait or Bosnia, or their beloved Malvinas perhaps. You'd have to be really pushing things to even make it about Biafra or the British failure to sort out Cyprus in 1960.
He is odious and shameless. He looks like Jabba the Warehouse.
It really is in all our interests that the Conservatives do not mess up and let these people in. Wilson, Callaghan, Foot, Kinnock, Smith, Blair, Brown and Miliband. Even the latter seems like a political giant you could trust compared to them.
The next big story seems to be the relationship our govt has w the Saudi prison regime... Wonder if Corbyn will make skewer Cam at PMQs? I reckon taking the moral high ground will be a Corbyn tactic at every opportunity
QTWTAIN
Why do you think that?
Firstly because Corbyn's approach of using crowd-sourced letters and not following them up means he is never going to be able to skewer Cameron on anything
Secondly because Corbyn's support for very distasteful groups in the Middle East means he has not moral high ground on which to stand - and Cameron will bat him away very easily as a result
Plus I suspect Wednesday will be more Watson - the publication of the letters means that is not going away.
I doubt Corbyn will do the crowd source every week or that he will feel the need to pull punches because of his own beliefs... He believes them! He thinks he's right
There's a split in the cabinet between senior members, he'd be mad not to go on it
Friendly £20 bet at EVS? You've said he won't, so must think it's odds on
You tend to find, with the exception of the obvious death penalty and stoning of women, you dont get much sympathy from people when you go to a foreign place and get punished for breaking their laws.
When in Rome etc applies as much abroad as it does here.
The next big story seems to be the relationship our govt has w the Saudi prison regime... Wonder if Corbyn will make skewer Cam at PMQs? I reckon taking the moral high ground will be a Corbyn tactic at every opportunity
QTWTAIN
Why do you think that?
Firstly because Corbyn's approach of using crowd-sourced letters and not following them up means he is never going to be able to skewer Cameron on anything
Secondly because Corbyn's support for very distasteful groups in the Middle East means he has not moral high ground on which to stand - and Cameron will bat him away very easily as a result
Plus I suspect Wednesday will be more Watson - the publication of the letters means that is not going away.
I doubt Corbyn will do the crowd source every week or that he will feel the need to pull punches because of his own beliefs... He believes them! He thinks he's right
There's a split in the cabinet between senior members, he'd be mad not to go on it
Friendly £20 bet at EVS? You've said he won't, so must think it's odds on
Asking a question is not skewering. Skewering requires making a real impact - and his technique won't achieve anything close to that.
And he is crowd-sourcing this week - the tweets have been sent out requesting them.
Corbyn might ask a question - but he won't achieve anything with it.
What has the world come to that during a new Opposition Leaders honeymoon being only 4% behind is considered good news?
You have to take into account who the new Labour leader is. To my mind 4% is extraordinary given that circumstance.
Why? He has not shifted one net Tory voter to Labour, he has simply picked up some Greens and LDs, hardly earthshattering
I stick by my post. I believe it is extraordinary that Corbyn only lags by 4% given who he is, what he says, who supports him. It is an observation with the inference that I would have expected him to lag by much more. "Extraordinary" works both ways.
It may have something to do with my politics but I don't think IDS is as toxic as JC nor, more debatably, as incompetent.
IDS was taken even less seriously than Corbyn
But IDS' father in law was portrayed by Sean Connery.
Which film was that?
'Cause you might be thinking about Sir Menzies Campbell's father in law?
A Bridge Too Far. I don't think I've ever thought about Campbell's father in law
Yeah it was Sir Menzies Campbell's father in law.
In that case I shall post many spoilers about last night's Walking Dead premiere, which was pedestrian at best, but obviously had a huge budget increase.
Now I'm really pissed off because you are right.
I quite liked Fear the Walking Dead, i didnt know it was just a six episode mini series. Tons of plot holes, but i liked seeing it happen rather than the later aftermath.
The next big story seems to be the relationship our govt has w the Saudi prison regime... Wonder if Corbyn will make skewer Cam at PMQs? I reckon taking the moral high ground will be a Corbyn tactic at every opportunity
QTWTAIN
Why do you think that?
Firstly because Corbyn's approach of using crowd-sourced letters and not following them up means he is never going to be able to skewer Cameron on anything
Secondly because Corbyn's support for very distasteful groups in the Middle East means he has not moral high ground on which to stand - and Cameron will bat him away very easily as a result
Plus I suspect Wednesday will be more Watson - the publication of the letters means that is not going away.
I doubt Corbyn will do the crowd source every week or that he will feel the need to pull punches because of his own beliefs... He believes them! He thinks he's right
There's a split in the cabinet between senior members, he'd be mad not to go on it
Friendly £20 bet at EVS? You've said he won't, so must think it's odds on
Asking a question is not skewering. Skewering requires making a real impact - and his technique won't achieve anything close to that.
And he is crowd-sourcing this week - the tweets have been sent out requesting them.
Corbyn might ask a question - but he won't achieve anything with it.
You tend to find, with the exception of the obvious death penalty and stoning of women, you dont get much sympathy from people when you go to a foreign place and get punished for breaking their laws.
When in Rome etc applies as much abroad as it does here.
Entirely agree, what sticks in the throat is that we are involved with it
The next big story seems to be the relationship our govt has w the Saudi prison regime... Wonder if Corbyn will make skewer Cam at PMQs? I reckon taking the moral high ground will be a Corbyn tactic at every opportunity
QTWTAIN
Why do you think that?
Firstly because Corbyn's approach of using crowd-sourced letters and not following them up means he is never going to be able to skewer Cameron on anything
Secondly because Corbyn's support for very distasteful groups in the Middle East means he has not moral high ground on which to stand - and Cameron will bat him away very easily as a result
Plus I suspect Wednesday will be more Watson - the publication of the letters means that is not going away.
I doubt Corbyn will do the crowd source every week or that he will feel the need to pull punches because of his own beliefs... He believes them! He thinks he's right
There's a split in the cabinet between senior members, he'd be mad not to go on it
Friendly £20 bet at EVS? You've said he won't, so must think it's odds on
Asking a question is not skewering. tweets have been sent out requesting them.
Corbyn might ask a question - but he won't achieve anything with it.
I dont know why not:
John from Bradford wants to know why XYZ
And you get in a team to go through the most likely answers from the PM and then skewer him with a pre prepared follow up, especially if he gives a predictable answer.
Three asked questions Three of his own follow up questions. With a couple of spare asked questions in case the PM gives him a response he cant bat back.
He'll get quickly good at it. Harman is a complete light weight and she managed to hold her own, after initially being very very poor. If she can improve!
The next big story seems to be the relationship our govt has w the Saudi prison regime... Wonder if Corbyn will make skewer Cam at PMQs? I reckon taking the moral high ground will be a Corbyn tactic at every opportunity
QTWTAIN
Why do you think that?
Firstly because Corbyn's approach of using crowd-sourced letters and not following them up means he is never going to be able to skewer Cameron on anything
Secondly because Corbyn's support for very distasteful groups in the Middle East means he has not moral high ground on which to stand - and Cameron will bat him away very easily as a result
Plus I suspect Wednesday will be more Watson - the publication of the letters means that is not going away.
I doubt Corbyn will do the crowd source every week or that he will feel the need to pull punches because of his own beliefs... He believes them! He thinks he's right
There's a split in the cabinet between senior members, he'd be mad not to go on it
Friendly £20 bet at EVS? You've said he won't, so must think it's odds on
Asking a question is not skewering. Skewering requires making a real impact - and his technique won't achieve anything close to that.
And he is crowd-sourcing this week - the tweets have been sent out requesting them.
Corbyn might ask a question - but he won't achieve anything with it.
So ducking the bet, Righto
No.
You made a claim that he would skewer. I said he wouldn't skewer.
You then change position to say that he would ask a question.
That isn't me ducking a bet, it is you changing tack halfway through a conversation
The next big story seems to be the relationship our govt has w the Saudi prison regime... Wonder if Corbyn will make skewer Cam at PMQs? I reckon taking the moral high ground will be a Corbyn tactic at every opportunity
QTWTAIN
Why do you think that?
Firstly because Corbyn's approach of using crowd-sourced letters and not following them up means he is never going to be able to skewer Cameron on anything
Secondly because Corbyn's support for very distasteful groups in the Middle East means he has not moral high ground on which to stand - and Cameron will bat him away very easily as a result
Plus I suspect Wednesday will be more Watson - the publication of the letters means that is not going away.
I doubt Corbyn will do the crowd source every week or that he will feel the need to pull punches because of his own beliefs... He believes them! He thinks he's right
There's a split in the cabinet between senior members, he'd be mad not to go on it
Friendly £20 bet at EVS? You've said he won't, so must think it's odds on
Asking a question is not skewering. Skewering requires making a real impact - and his technique won't achieve anything close to that.
And he is crowd-sourcing this week - the tweets have been sent out requesting them.
Corbyn might ask a question - but he won't achieve anything with it.
So ducking the bet, Righto
No.
You made a claim that he would skewer. I said he wouldn't skewer.
You then change position to say that he would ask a question.
That isn't me ducking a bet, it is you changing tack halfway through a conversation
I didn't make a claim he would, I wondered whether he would
You said he wouldn't bring it up because he was crowd sourcing, I said I bet £20 he does
The next big story seems to be the relationship our govt has w the Saudi prison regime... Wonder if Corbyn will make skewer Cam at PMQs? I reckon taking the moral high ground will be a Corbyn tactic at every opportunity
QTWTAIN
Why do you think that?
Firstly because Corbyn's approach of using crowd-sourced letters and not following them up means he is never going to be able to skewer Cameron on anything
Secondly because Corbyn's support for very distasteful groups in the Middle East means he has not moral high ground on which to stand - and Cameron will bat him away very easily as a result
Plus I suspect Wednesday will be more Watson - the publication of the letters means that is not going away.
I doubt Corbyn will do the crowd source every week or that he will feel the need to pull punches because of his own beliefs... He believes them! He thinks he's right
There's a split in the cabinet between senior members, he'd be mad not to go on it
Friendly £20 bet at EVS? You've said he won't, so must think it's odds on
Asking a question is not skewering. Skewering requires making a real impact - and his technique won't achieve anything close to that.
And he is crowd-sourcing this week - the tweets have been sent out requesting them.
Corbyn might ask a question - but he won't achieve anything with it.
So ducking the bet, Righto
No.
You made a claim that he would skewer. I said he wouldn't skewer.
You then change position to say that he would ask a question.
That isn't me ducking a bet, it is you changing tack halfway through a conversation
I didn't make a claim he would, I wondered whether he would
You said he wouldn't bring it up because he was crowd sourcing, I said I bet £20 he does
You don't want to back it up, fair enough
Read it back - I never said he wouldn't ask a question on that subject. I said he wouldn't skewer Cameron on it.
I stick by my post. I believe it is extraordinary that Corbyn only lags by 4% given who he is, what he says, who supports him. It is an observation with the inference that I would have expected him to lag by much more. "Extraordinary" works both ways.
It's an honest view and deserves an honest reply. British politics is as polarised as I've ever seen it. Corbyn opponents think it literally incredible that anyone would vote for him. Corbyn supporters think he's the first leader to offer genuine hope for decades. It will take a lot to shift either group.
I do think the anti-Corbynites made a mistake in going for an all-guns-blazing approach. There are a few things in his record which are clearly awkward, but they've been submerged in a tide of trivia - he didn't do up his top button! He went for a walking holiday instead of seeing the Queen! He doesn't make carefully-constructed speeches! He misread the autocue!
We don't care about any of that. The effect is that the more serious criticisms simply get shrugged off, like a spouse going on and on about their partner's failings - LAST WEEK HE FORGOT TO SHUT THE FRIDGE!
The next big story seems to be the relationship our govt has w the Saudi prison regime... Wonder if Corbyn will make skewer Cam at PMQs? I reckon taking the moral high ground will be a Corbyn tactic at every opportunity
QTWTAIN
Why do you think that?
Firstly because Corbyn's approach of using crowd-sourced letters and not following them up means he is never going to be able to skewer Cameron on anything
Secondly because Corbyn's support for very distasteful groups in the Middle East means he has not moral high ground on which to stand - and Cameron will bat him away very easily as a result
Plus I suspect Wednesday will be more Watson - the publication of the letters means that is not going away.
I doubt Corbyn will do the crowd source every week or that he will feel the need to pull punches because of his own beliefs... He believes them! He thinks he's right
There's a split in the cabinet between senior members, he'd be mad not to go on it
Friendly £20 bet at EVS? You've said he won't, so must think it's odds on
Asking a question is not skewering. Skewering requires making a real impact - and his technique won't achieve anything close to that.
And he is crowd-sourcing this week - the tweets have been sent out requesting them.
Corbyn might ask a question - but he won't achieve anything with it.
So ducking the bet, Righto
No.
You made a claim that he would skewer. I said he wouldn't skewer.
You then change position to say that he would ask a question.
That isn't me ducking a bet, it is you changing tack halfway through a conversation
I didn't make a claim he would, I wondered whether he would
You said he wouldn't bring it up because he was crowd sourcing, I said I bet £20 he does
You don't want to back it up, fair enough
Read it back - I never said he wouldn't ask a question on that subject. I said he wouldn't skewer Cameron on it.
What has the world come to that during a new Opposition Leaders honeymoon being only 4% behind is considered good news?
You have to take into account who the new Labour leader is. To my mind 4% is extraordinary given that circumstance.
Why? He has not shifted one net Tory voter to Labour, he has simply picked up some Greens and LDs, hardly earthshattering
I stick by my post. I believe it is extraordinary that Corbyn only lags by 4% given who he is, what he says, who supports him. It is an observation with the inference that I would have expected him to lag by much more. "Extraordinary" works both ways.
I stick by my post. I believe it is extraordinary that Corbyn only lags by 4% given who he is, what he says, who supports him. It is an observation with the inference that I would have expected him to lag by much more. "Extraordinary" works both ways.
It's an honest view and deserves an honest reply. British politics is as polarised as I've ever seen it. Corbyn opponents think it literally incredible that anyone would vote for him. Corbyn supporters think he's the first leader to offer genuine hope for decades. It will take a lot to shift either group.
I do think the anti-Corbynites made a mistake in going for an all-guns-blazing approach. There are a few things in his record which are clearly awkward, but they've been submerged in a tide of trivia - he didn't do up his top button! He went for a walking holiday instead of seeing the Queen! He doesn't make carefully-constructed speeches! He misread the autocue!
We don't care about any of that. The effect is that the more serious criticisms simply get shrugged off, like a spouse going on and on about their partner's failings - LAST WEEK HE FORGOT TO SHUT THE FRIDGE!
The most polarised since Thatcher v Foot anyway, though Cameron slightly less so than the Iron Lady
I stick by my post. I believe it is extraordinary that Corbyn only lags by 4% given who he is, what he says, who supports him. It is an observation with the inference that I would have expected him to lag by much more. "Extraordinary" works both ways.
It's an honest view and deserves an honest reply. British politics is as polarised as I've ever seen it. Corbyn opponents think it literally incredible that anyone would vote for him. Corbyn supporters think he's the first leader to offer genuine hope for decades. It will take a lot to shift either group.
I do think the anti-Corbynites made a mistake in going for an all-guns-blazing approach. There are a few things in his record which are clearly awkward, but they've been submerged in a tide of trivia - he didn't do up his top button! He went for a walking holiday instead of seeing the Queen! He doesn't make carefully-constructed speeches! He misread the autocue!
We don't care about any of that. The effect is that the more serious criticisms simply get shrugged off, like a spouse going on and on about their partner's failings - LAST WEEK HE FORGOT TO SHUT THE FRIDGE!
I stick by my post. I believe it is extraordinary that Corbyn only lags by 4% given who he is, what he says, who supports him. It is an observation with the inference that I would have expected him to lag by much more. "Extraordinary" works both ways.
It's an honest view and deserves an honest reply. British politics is as polarised as I've ever seen it. Corbyn opponents think it literally incredible that anyone would vote for him. Corbyn supporters think he's the first leader to offer genuine hope for decades. It will take a lot to shift either group.
I do think the anti-Corbynites made a mistake in going for an all-guns-blazing approach. There are a few things in his record which are clearly awkward, but they've been submerged in a tide of trivia - he didn't do up his top button! He went for a walking holiday instead of seeing the Queen! He doesn't make carefully-constructed speeches! He misread the autocue!
We don't care about any of that. The effect is that the more serious criticisms simply get shrugged off, like a spouse going on and on about their partner's failings - LAST WEEK HE FORGOT TO SHUT THE FRIDGE!
I was going to read but not post, but I take exception that you presume my judgment is based on meaningless trivia about JC. I don't care if he does his top button up. I wouldn't care if he forgot to do up his flies. You must know that there are serious concerns about JC and his cohorts on any level you like. It is fast getting to a situation where you (and your ilk) must decide whether you are a Corbynista or a Labour supporter. I cannot tell from your post.
If this poll is correct it represents a swing of about 1.3% to Labour since the election. I think it's likely such a swing would be concentrated in the seats Labour already holds rather than the marginals.
I stick by my post. I believe it is extraordinary that Corbyn only lags by 4% given who he is, what he says, who supports him. It is an observation with the inference that I would have expected him to lag by much more. "Extraordinary" works both ways.
It's an honest view and deserves an honest reply. British politics is as polarised as I've ever seen it. Corbyn opponents think it literally incredible that anyone would vote for him. Corbyn supporters think he's the first leader to offer genuine hope for decades. It will take a lot to shift either group.
I do think the anti-Corbynites made a mistake in going for an all-guns-blazing approach. There are a few things in his record which are clearly awkward, but they've been submerged in a tide of trivia - he didn't do up his top button! He went for a walking holiday instead of seeing the Queen! He doesn't make carefully-constructed speeches! He misread the autocue!
We don't care about any of that. The effect is that the more serious criticisms simply get shrugged off, like a spouse going on and on about their partner's failings - LAST WEEK HE FORGOT TO SHUT THE FRIDGE!
The Tories are also up on the general election though on 38%. Mori also had Labour on 34% in its first post Corbyn poll. Comres has reweighted since the election and has Labour unchanged on 30%. 34% is the score Kinnock got in 1992 when Major got a bigger majority than Cameron
On a GB basis - which is what the polls give us! - Kinnock polled 35.2% in 1992.
So Corbyn is still doing worse than Kinnock then
Did someone say "we're alright"? Pretty sure I saw it upthread.
Well given his family's income from politics I am sure the Kinnocks are 'alright'
"Labour tensions boil over at fractious MPs' meeting Corbyn supporters and critics clash over fiscal charter U-turn and new group Momentum.
"A total fucking shambles". That was the verdict of the usually emollient Ben Bradshaw as he left tonight's Parliamentary Labour Party meeting. His words were echoed by MPs from all wings of the party. "I've never seen anything like it," one shadow minister told me. In commitee room 14 of the House of Commons, tensions within the party - over the U-turn on George Osborne's fiscal charter and new Corbynite group Momentum - erupted."
@JosiasJessop Yes - your analysis of Erdogan I completely agree with. And his strategy of playing East and West off against each other. A dangerous game, but sometimes I wish our 'allies' wouldn't take our unquestioning devotion for granted so much.
However, on the false flag, I'm very right, and it's a good example of our British 'free press' to show you. This link has a full transcript.
(Snip)
-all carried the story but TOTALLY avoided the entire motivation for the ban.
And the Telegraph didn't even carry it at all. So you have the hideous irony of our press reporting on (and disaproving of) Turkish censorship, yet assisting it!
This is why I warn that people MUST widen their reading to get the facts these days.
There are several things about this. Firstly, if you 'completely agree' with my analysis of Erdogan, then you must agree that your earlier claims about his motivation wrt neighbouring countries was hyperbolic - he and Turkey do not want to recreate the Ottoman Empire.
As for the leak: have you considered that (pauses to say something I don't particularly want to say): Erdogan and the government might be right? That the source recordings might have been doctored?
If they are, there are certainly precedents. The leaked recordings need to be seen in the context of the conflict between Erdogan and Gulen. Which is quite funny, as Erdogan and Gulen together used similar tactics against the senior secular Turkish military officers wrt 'Sledgehammer'.
Note that the documents used as a basis for the convictions in Sledgehammer were eventually shown to be fake in court. But that does not matter now, as the people convicted (or even charged and earlier acquitted) have been replaced within their relevant organisations, which was to the benefit of the government. In fact, to make it more multi-dimensional and complex, the AKP might have wanted the convictions to be quashed as it would cast doubt on the evidence against them in the currently-running corruption scandal.
Add in Ergenekon (if that shadowy organisation actually exists), and you have a hefty cocktail for intrigue and lies.The AKP has essentially neutered the military, but the Gulen organisation, Ergenekon, and others within the state are against them.
Basically: Turkish politics is awash with scandals caused by leaked documents and recordings, some of which are probably faked, and each of which benefit and hinder one or more states-within-a-state.
It makes McBride look positively trivial.
Turkish politics is *way* more interesting than UK politics. If the UK was like Turkey, then Ashcroft's book would have not featured a pig, but would have had audio recordings of Cameron shagging the chief of staff in a sauna whilst discussing the overthrow of the queen, with the aim of replacing her with Jimmy Saville's reanimated corpse.
I stick by my post. I believe it is extraordinary that Corbyn only lags by 4% given who he is, what he says, who supports him. It is an observation with the inference that I would have expected him to lag by much more. "Extraordinary" works both ways.
It's an honest view and deserves an honest reply. British politics is as polarised as I've ever seen it. Corbyn opponents think it literally incredible that anyone would vote for him. Corbyn supporters think he's the first leader to offer genuine hope for decades. It will take a lot to shift either group.
I do think the anti-Corbynites made a mistake in going for an all-guns-blazing approach. There are a few things in his record which are clearly awkward, but they've been submerged in a tide of trivia - he didn't do up his top button! He went for a walking holiday instead of seeing the Queen! He doesn't make carefully-constructed speeches! He misread the autocue!
We don't care about any of that. The effect is that the more serious criticisms simply get shrugged off, like a spouse going on and on about their partner's failings - LAST WEEK HE FORGOT TO SHUT THE FRIDGE!
I was going to read but not post, but I take exception that you presume my judgment is based on meaningless trivia about JC. I don't care if he does his top button up. I wouldn't care if he forgot to do up his flies. You must know that there are serious concerns about JC and his cohorts on any level you like. It is fast getting to a situation where you (and your ilk) must decide whether you are a Corbynista or a Labour supporter. I cannot tell from your post.
Er....60% voted for Corbyn. I was not one of them. But he is our elected leader whether I like it or not.
I was always against de-selections. But open talk against agreed party policy like bombing Syria cannot be accepted. De-selections have to take place to get rid of them.
I stick by my post. I believe it is extraordinary that Corbyn only lags by 4% given who he is, what he says, who supports him. It is an observation with the inference that I would have expected him to lag by much more. "Extraordinary" works both ways.
It's an honest view and deserves an honest reply. British politics is as polarised as I've ever seen it. Corbyn opponents think it literally incredible that anyone would vote for him. Corbyn supporters think he's the first leader to offer genuine hope for decades. It will take a lot to shift either group.
I do think the anti-Corbynites made a mistake in going for an all-guns-blazing approach. There are a few things in his record which are clearly awkward, but they've been submerged in a tide of trivia - he didn't do up his top button! He went for a walking holiday instead of seeing the Queen! He doesn't make carefully-constructed speeches! He misread the autocue!
We don't care about any of that. The effect is that the more serious criticisms simply get shrugged off, like a spouse going on and on about their partner's failings - LAST WEEK HE FORGOT TO SHUT THE FRIDGE!
I was going to read but not post, but I take exception that you presume my judgment is based on meaningless trivia about JC. I don't care if he does his top button up. I wouldn't care if he forgot to do up his flies. You must know that there are serious concerns about JC and his cohorts on any level you like. It is fast getting to a situation where you (and your ilk) must decide whether you are a Corbynista or a Labour supporter. I cannot tell from your post.
Er....60% voted for Corbyn. I was not one of them. But he is our elected leader whether I like it or not.
I was always against de-selections. But open talk against agreed party policy like bombing Syria cannot be accepted. De-selections have to take place to get rid of them.
They will be purged. Are you just going to end up with 200 Corbyn drones, without any individuality? How dull.
I stick by my post. I believe it is extraordinary that Corbyn only lags by 4% given who he is, what he says, who supports him. It is an observation with the inference that I would have expected him to lag by much more. "Extraordinary" works both ways.
It's an honest view and deserves an honest reply. British politics is as polarised as I've ever seen it. Corbyn opponents think it literally incredible that anyone would vote for him. Corbyn supporters think he's the first leader to offer genuine hope for decades. It will take a lot to shift either group.
I do think the anti-Corbynites made a mistake in going for an all-guns-blazing approach. There are a few things in his record which are clearly awkward, but they've been submerged in a tide of trivia - he didn't do up his top button! He went for a walking holiday instead of seeing the Queen! He doesn't make carefully-constructed speeches! He misread the autocue!
We don't care about any of that. The effect is that the more serious criticisms simply get shrugged off, like a spouse going on and on about their partner's failings - LAST WEEK HE FORGOT TO SHUT THE FRIDGE!
I was going to read but not post, but I take exception that you presume my judgment is based on meaningless trivia about JC. I don't care if he does his top button up. I wouldn't care if he forgot to do up his flies. You must know that there are serious concerns about JC and his cohorts on any level you like. It is fast getting to a situation where you (and your ilk) must decide whether you are a Corbynista or a Labour supporter. I cannot tell from your post.
Er....60% voted for Corbyn. I was not one of them. But he is our elected leader whether I like it or not.
I was always against de-selections. But open talk against agreed party policy like bombing Syria cannot be accepted. De-selections have to take place to get rid of them.
They will be purged. Are you just going to end up with 200 Corbyn drones, without any individuality? How dull.
Anybody who votes with the Tories against overwhelmingly agreed Party policy on bombing Syria is a Tory and must seek another party or stand as independent which, of course, they are perfectly entitled to do.
I stick by my post. I believe it is extraordinary that Corbyn only lags by 4% given who he is, what he says, who supports him. It is an observation with the inference that I would have expected him to lag by much more. "Extraordinary" works both ways.
It's an honest view and deserves an honest reply. British politics is as polarised as I've ever seen it. Corbyn opponents think it literally incredible that anyone would vote for him. Corbyn supporters think he's the first leader to offer genuine hope for decades. It will take a lot to shift either group.
I do think the anti-Corbynites made a mistake in going for an all-guns-blazing approach. There are a few things in his record which are clearly awkward, but they've been submerged in a tide of trivia - he didn't do up his top button! He went for a walking holiday instead of seeing the Queen! He doesn't make carefully-constructed speeches! He misread the autocue!
We don't care about any of that. The effect is that the more serious criticisms simply get shrugged off, like a spouse going on and on about their partner's failings - LAST WEEK HE FORGOT TO SHUT THE FRIDGE!
I was going to read but not post, but I take exception that you presume my judgment is based on meaningless trivia about JC. I don't care if he does his top button up. I wouldn't care if he forgot to do up his flies. You must know that there are serious concerns about JC and his cohorts on any level you like. It is fast getting to a situation where you (and your ilk) must decide whether you are a Corbynista or a Labour supporter. I cannot tell from your post.
Er....60% voted for Corbyn. I was not one of them. But he is our elected leader whether I like it or not.
I was always against de-selections. But open talk against agreed party policy like bombing Syria cannot be accepted. De-selections have to take place to get rid of them.
Go for it - you'll get no arguments from Conservatives
I stick by my post. I believe it is extraordinary that Corbyn only lags by 4% given who he is, what he says, who supports him. It is an observation with the inference that I would have expected him to lag by much more. "Extraordinary" works both ways.
It's an honest view and deserves an honest reply. British politics is as polarised as I've ever seen it. Corbyn opponents think it literally incredible that anyone would vote for him. Corbyn supporters think he's the first leader to offer genuine hope for decades. It will take a lot to shift either group.
I do think the anti-Corbynites made a mistake in going for an all-guns-blazing approach. There are a few things in his record which are clearly awkward, but they've been submerged in a tide of trivia - he didn't do up his top button! He went for a walking holiday instead of seeing the Queen! He doesn't make carefully-constructed speeches! He misread the autocue!
We don't care about any of that. The effect is that the more serious criticisms simply get shrugged off, like a spouse going on and on about their partner's failings - LAST WEEK HE FORGOT TO SHUT THE FRIDGE!
I was going to read but not post, but I take exception that you presume my judgment is based on meaningless trivia about JC. I don't care if he does his top button up. I wouldn't care if he forgot to do up his flies. You must know that there are serious concerns about JC and his cohorts on any level you like. It is fast getting to a situation where you (and your ilk) must decide whether you are a Corbynista or a Labour supporter. I cannot tell from your post.
Er....60% voted for Corbyn. I was not one of them. But he is our elected leader whether I like it or not.
I was always against de-selections. But open talk against agreed party policy like bombing Syria cannot be accepted. De-selections have to take place to get rid of them.
They will be purged. Are you just going to end up with 200 Corbyn drones, without any individuality? How dull.
Anybody who votes with the Tories against overwhelmingly agreed Party policy on bombing Syria is a Tory and must seek another party or stand as independent which, of course, they are perfectly entitled to do.
Overwhelmingly agreed? How overwhelming is it if so many MPs may vote against it?
Anybody who votes with the Tories against overwhelmingly agreed Party policy on bombing Syria is a Tory and must seek another party or stand as independent which, of course, they are perfectly entitled to do.
You're more hardline than me. I see it primarily as a question of how MPs express their views. They were mostly selected in a different era and it's unreasonable to expect them all to have an instant conversion. In particular, on a life and death issue like Syria where there really are arguments both ways I think it's unreasonable to expect routine party line adherence, even though I would vote no myself. And if centrist MPs want to work on alternative policies, that's a good thing - it was their absence which prompted the leadership selection result. However, if an MP routinely gives the Daily Mail quotes slagging off the leader and the party (in the case I'm thinking of, he did exactly the same with Ed Miliband), they're actively looking for martyrdom.
If this poll is correct it represents a swing of about 1.3% to Labour since the election. I think it's likely such a swing would be concentrated in the seats Labour already holds rather than the marginals.
What is the evidence for that? The Green/LibDem vote (which is mostly what's switching) is very significant in middle England marginals (like Broxtowe) and we're certainly seeing people coming back in significant numbers there. It's less of a factor in somewhere like Islington North, where I now live, as Labour was already dominant.
Comments
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/07/labour-one-point-lead-tories-final-icm-poll
@iainmartin1: Tonight: Labour total shambles on deficit. Watson being taken apart by forensic @jonsnowC4 on other matters. Ed Miliband was a giant.
@iainmartin1: Watson is going to have to resign.
'Cause you might be thinking about Sir Menzies Campbell's father in law?
He couldn't even be bothered to spelled Brittan correctly... though that is nothing compared to the manipulative and smearing tone in his letter. Not acceptable from anyone who seeks to be a serious politician
Now I'm really pissed off because you are right.
https://twitter.com/tonygallagher/status/653690521999818752
Secondly because Corbyn's support for very distasteful groups in the Middle East means he has not moral high ground on which to stand - and Cameron will bat him away very easily as a result
Plus I suspect Wednesday will be more Watson - the publication of the letters means that is not going away.
In the film, Trevelyan is still burning up about this stuff because these victims of British treachery included his parents. That really ages the film. These days if a youngish villain were secretly angry about the way their parents were killed, it would have to be against the backdrop to a whole new generation of conflicts - someone angry about the British role in Kuwait or Bosnia, or their beloved Malvinas perhaps. You'd have to be really pushing things to even make it about Biafra or the British failure to sort out Cyprus in 1960.
There's a split in the cabinet between senior members, he'd be mad not to go on it
Friendly £20 bet at EVS? You've said he won't, so must think it's odds on
When in Rome etc applies as much abroad as it does here.
And he is crowd-sourcing this week - the tweets have been sent out requesting them.
Corbyn might ask a question - but he won't achieve anything with it.
Watson is an utter twunt.
John from Bradford wants to know why XYZ
And you get in a team to go through the most likely answers from the PM and then skewer him with a pre prepared follow up, especially if he gives a predictable answer.
Three asked questions
Three of his own follow up questions. With a couple of spare asked questions in case the PM gives him a response he cant bat back.
He'll get quickly good at it. Harman is a complete light weight and she managed to hold her own, after initially being very very poor. If she can improve!
You made a claim that he would skewer. I said he wouldn't skewer.
You then change position to say that he would ask a question.
That isn't me ducking a bet, it is you changing tack halfway through a conversation
You said he wouldn't bring it up because he was crowd sourcing, I said I bet £20 he does
You don't want to back it up, fair enough
But never mind.
I do think the anti-Corbynites made a mistake in going for an all-guns-blazing approach. There are a few things in his record which are clearly awkward, but they've been submerged in a tide of trivia - he didn't do up his top button! He went for a walking holiday instead of seeing the Queen! He doesn't make carefully-constructed speeches! He misread the autocue!
We don't care about any of that. The effect is that the more serious criticisms simply get shrugged off, like a spouse going on and on about their partner's failings - LAST WEEK HE FORGOT TO SHUT THE FRIDGE!
You can't expect me to know the minutiae of this stuff. I make no pretense to do so. What the hell would I know of UK politicians?
Being tickled by terrapins is great - so long as they are done before the Monday Night game
I happily admit defeat!
"Labour tensions boil over at fractious MPs' meeting
Corbyn supporters and critics clash over fiscal charter U-turn and new group Momentum.
"A total fucking shambles". That was the verdict of the usually emollient Ben Bradshaw as he left tonight's Parliamentary Labour Party meeting. His words were echoed by MPs from all wings of the party. "I've never seen anything like it," one shadow minister told me. In commitee room 14 of the House of Commons, tensions within the party - over the U-turn on George Osborne's fiscal charter and new Corbynite group Momentum - erupted."
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2015/10/labour-tensions-boil-over-fractious-mps-meeting
As for the leak: have you considered that (pauses to say something I don't particularly want to say): Erdogan and the government might be right? That the source recordings might have been doctored?
If they are, there are certainly precedents. The leaked recordings need to be seen in the context of the conflict between Erdogan and Gulen. Which is quite funny, as Erdogan and Gulen together used similar tactics against the senior secular Turkish military officers wrt 'Sledgehammer'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sledgehammer_(coup_plan)
Note that the documents used as a basis for the convictions in Sledgehammer were eventually shown to be fake in court. But that does not matter now, as the people convicted (or even charged and earlier acquitted) have been replaced within their relevant organisations, which was to the benefit of the government. In fact, to make it more multi-dimensional and complex, the AKP might have wanted the convictions to be quashed as it would cast doubt on the evidence against them in the currently-running corruption scandal.
Add in Ergenekon (if that shadowy organisation actually exists), and you have a hefty cocktail for intrigue and lies.The AKP has essentially neutered the military, but the Gulen organisation, Ergenekon, and others within the state are against them.
Basically: Turkish politics is awash with scandals caused by leaked documents and recordings, some of which are probably faked, and each of which benefit and hinder one or more states-within-a-state.
It makes McBride look positively trivial.
Turkish politics is *way* more interesting than UK politics. If the UK was like Turkey, then Ashcroft's book would have not featured a pig, but would have had audio recordings of Cameron shagging the chief of staff in a sauna whilst discussing the overthrow of the queen, with the aim of replacing her with Jimmy Saville's reanimated corpse.
I was always against de-selections. But open talk against agreed party policy like bombing Syria cannot be accepted. De-selections have to take place to get rid of them.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34511999
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-34359936
(The article features a lady with what is now a rather unfortunate name)