Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Antifrank: “Dangerous corners: a date for Jeremy Corbyn’s d
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Antifrank: “Dangerous corners: a date for Jeremy Corbyn’s diary”
A few years ago, when Labour were the natural party of government, Tony Blair ran his administration on what was known as the Grid. In essence, the Grid was a timetable of upcoming events which was used to make sure that eyecatching initiatives would not clash, be overshadowed by other events or, worse, be sabotaged by an unflattering and off-message juxtaposition.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
http://order-order.com/2015/11/09/seumas-milne-it-wasnt-only-negative-what-happened-in-the-riots/
Was that what he was taught to think brought up in a good Beeboid / Winchester School household? I somehow doubt he lives in the kind of areas he think were showing such positive things by burning / looting everything in sight.
I don't think they particularly care about that.
"He's behind you!!"
No, really, he is.
My Facebook feed, for example, is full every day of anti-Tory pro-Corbyn bile (I love my friends and family....!) and yet not a dickie bird about this - and she's just round the corner!
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/mps-star-wars-r2-d2-10409810
Good to see what her priorities are anyway. Oh, and she's a Corbyn supporter....
Corbyn does not care because he probably does not understand. And he is probably not interested. The real issue is the way the labour party is being eaten from within.
The Mayor of London warned "absolute torrents of drivel" would spew from those wishing for Britain to remain part of the 28-nation bloc ahead of the in/out vote, which will be held before the end of 2017."
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/618106/Boris-Johnson-Brexit-EU-referendum-Leave-drivel
The ‘Grid’ made perfect sense as Tony Blair was in power at the time. Jeremy Corbyn is not in power, he presides over a shadow cabinet which appears ill-disciplined and horrendously split from within and with the bulk of his backbench MPs. – I suspect he will continue to stumble from one faux-pas after another until he’s gone.
http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/848/economics/savings-ratio-uk/
He really is useless.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/2012/medals/athletes?country=RUS&gender=&filter=Filter
If there is a terrorist incident on British soil or affecting Britons - or something like another Charlie Hebdo or attack on a Jewish location, his reaction will be interesting. We know that his reaction to 7/7 was to blame us. Apparently austerity was one of the reasons for the Tunisian beach massacre of Britons.
How he - and those around him - react to such an incident (and please God we don't have one) will probably do more than his reaction to the Easter Uprising Anniversary events which will, no doubt, be drowned in Irish whimsy.
The folk I know on Facebook mostly think he will not only last until the GE but will win it and consign the Tories to the dustbin of history.
They can't grasp that the biggest opposition to him, and the source of his inevitable ousting, comes from within Labour!
Will I have to pay another £3 to vote for the next no-hoper or am I a "registered supporter" now for good? Tee hee....
That being said, the FTT is as dead as a dodo and has been for some time. Even the attempt to get a subset of countries to implement it under the "Enhanced Co-operation" rules died a death.
might be one way to get rid of the bearded wonder.
A vile foreign power lording it over the sovereign will of the people.
The British Empire = The EU?
Discuss.
It may well be Corbyn is on the right side of history, just like he was over Iraq and meeting Gerry Adams long before the British government did.
IN will say, hold on to nurse for fear of worse. But Quite so. And in my opinion the nub of the argument is this: This is a fundamental difference between the EU and the UK. The issue of sovereignty is that here it lies with the people. But less so in continental Europe. E.g. consider France, a country run by énarques whose president - De Gaulle - said "l'état c'est moi". This is reflected in the administrative structures and procedures of the EU.
In Margaret Thatcher's egregiously misquoted interview with Woman's Own ("no such thing as society") she also said "the whole essence of democracy is that you submit yourself to the people and it is from the people that your only authority comes." That is not how the big fish in Europe think. Look at their response to elections/referenda in various countries in recent years when the result was not to their liking. So when IN say "we carry on" (© J-C Junker) they mean the goal of ever closer union will continue to ride roughshod over the lesser goal of democratic decision making in member states. That is the status quo for IN.
Miss Plato, is the CO situation resolved?
Mr. 1000, a bigger problem, as far I'm concerned, is that the blonde oaf is on the record stating we should vote Out, then remain in after getting some concessions.
Mr. Antifrank, I do wonder if Corbyn fits FU's description of Hal Collingridge's leadership, something like - "He was in the trap and screaming from the first moment. We just put the poor bastard out of his misery."
b) he has wilfully misinterpreted the London riots; or
c) he is a moron; meanwhile
d) is that a North Korean propaganda poster behind him (or a 2015 Sth Korean calendar)?
On topic, I cannot say I'd considered the matter of such an anniversary, Irish issues with Britain in general are just so frustrating and depressing to think about at times, but no-one on his own side seems to have cared much about his views on the subject to date, so it will be interesting to see if his core support gets rattled by how he handles it, for there will no doubt be politics made of his positions at such times. Unless his core gets rattled, it doesn't matter what he believes or says. He could quote a former BNP figure, to pick an example at random, something that would condemn a Tory, and there'd be barely a peep.
Corbyn seems to be settling into the role quite well (it took Cameron a bit of time as well). The problem does seem to be his immediate associates and what they've said or not said. It seems not to have grasped some on the Labour side that as soon as an appointment is made their opponents will start scouring Twitter and Facebook accounts for anything "useful".
As for other matters, Cameron's argument for staying in the EU on the basis of "national security" is astonishingly feeble - if he were advocating membership or otherwise of NATO that would be different.
The only advantage REMAIN has is LEAVE is also inept at conveying any kind of coherent and positive message.
I argued a couple of weeks ago a post-EU Britain could take the lead in a rejuvenated EFTA offering a free market and much looser association as a counterweight to the increasingly integrationist EU. That might in turn prove an attractive option for other sceptical EU members on the periphery such as Poland, Finland and Denmark.
REMAIN's message is awful if that's all Cameron has to offer - no one believes the scenario of hundreds of thousands of job losses on EU exit. LEAVE has to get its act together - pathetic stunts like this morning are counter-productive. The message needs to be optimistic and re-assuring - "the world won't end if we leave the EU and will in fact be better".
Out means out. Out doesn't mean "let's think about it some more". If the vote is for out, then we should invoke article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty as soon as practicable, and begin the negotiation process for Out.
(There is a case for discussions with EFTA - if that was the goal - to begin prior to invocation of Article 50, as it would make most sense to go EU -> EFTA without a period where our status is unclear.)
Coe's actions as president so far were getting crucified on TalkSport this morning
So whilst I agree it would be good to begin such negotiations with EFTA as early as possible, it is unlikely we would have a situation where we were caught between two stools.
http://m.hsj.co.uk/5091783.article#.VkC0nrfhAok
Britain's rule in Ireland certainly had its dark moments but they should be judged in the context of their time, and the context of the credibly available alternatives.
To be fair of course we were at war, and Intelligence were aware of Casement’s concurrent (and earlier) activities, although of course he wasn’t involved with the Rising.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/chris-christie-ben-carson-215637
Have you ever heard of a coup being carried about by Doctors?
The Doctors' plot doesn't count.
A military coup after a Corbyn GE win not so fine.
The Brits partitioned MY country too, you know!
[but then he clutches his head, screaming, as his hitherto malfunctioning Tebbit Chip finally kicks in...]
Aaaarrrrrrgh!!!
[...before a more servile expression crosses his face...]
Must be loyal to England... must be loyal...
The question might well have been asked by a select committee with complete propriety and answered in identical terms. I can't see what the general did wrong at all.
1. British rule in Ireland was not, by any stretch of the imagination, one of Britain's finest hours;
2. The Tory party's approach to the Irish question in the early part of this century was pretty disgraceful;
3. The Left have no real understanding of Irish history, preferring - ignorantly and arrogantly - to shoehorn it into their reductive Marxist view of everything; and
4. Anything Corbyn or McDonnell said or did on Ireland was totally irrelevant to the relatively peaceful outcome we have today. They are not - and will not be - even footnotes on footnotes in Irish history.