politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn’s power within LAB will soon hinge on perceptions of his likely general election performance
For the moment at least Mr Corbyn’s authority within the Labour Party derives directly from the sheer scale of his victory in the leadership election in September. His winning margin, of course, was even greater than that of Tony Blair’s in 1994.
He really does need to "scrub up" somewhat and at least start to look the part. Dispensing with (or at least hiding) those Steptoe-style vests would be a good start. Oh and taking that beige suit down to the charity shop would be another smart move.
He really does need to "scrub up" somewhat and at least start to look the part. Dispensing with (or at least hiding) those Steptoe-style vests would be a good start. Oh and taking that beige suit down to the charity shop would be another smart move.
Compare and contrast with the way in which John McDonnell has smartened up his act of late.
He really does need to "scrub up" somewhat and at least start to look the part. Dispensing with (or at least hiding) those Steptoe-style vests would be a good start. Oh and taking that beige suit down to the charity shop would be another smart move.
Compare and contrast with the way in which John McDonnell has smartened up his act of late.
To be fair, JM was always smartly dressed. Even during the GLC days.
"Mr Corbyn needs a good result in Oldham a fortnight on Thursday."
Really? In a by-election four-and-a-half years from a general election in a highly atypical seat against a protest party?
There is also the little matter of the total lack of an obvious challenger to JC, let alone one who could command enough support to win against him. Labour scraped the bottom of the barrel in its leadership election and the results were remarkable in their mediocrity.
I think he's safe for a while. I think Labour are mad, but I can't see him being moved for at least the next two years.
I expect an easy Labour win in Oldham with any reduced majority explainable away by low turnout. It is not a threat to him.
The challenge will come next year in the Scottish, Welsh and London Mayoral elections. If Labour does badly there the perception of being a loser will become dangerous to him.
And the omens are not good in either Scotland or Wales. In London Labour have a candidate who wants to keep his distance (as, in fairness, do the Tories). What role is he going to play in these campaigns? Looking irrelevant would be even worse than looking weak.
Not sure I'd agree with "soon" but the general point is right. For now, even with a bad Oldham result, Corbyn is safe. Firstly, his mandate is huge and Labour won't move against him for a while on that basis alone. And secondly, if they do move, it'll have to be on the basis that they *know* that Corbyn's the problem.
In the interim, losses or other under-performances will continue to be explained away. Oldham? The Paris attacks combined with a seat where one in six voted for Griffin not long ago. London? Obviously Sadiq wasn't the man. Scotland? Who could oppose the SNP at the moment? Wales? Local difficulties. And so on. And the seductive aspect of all of those is that it won't be the Tories who are the beneficiaries, keeping the chimera of the anti-Tory alliance alive. The exception, of course, would be London but then that could be explained away as a personal vote for Zac: Boris' wins didn't stop Labour doing well at the GE.
But before Corbyn's critics can move, they need to make sure of three things: (1) that they actually can force him out, (2) that if they do, the left won't unite and win around McDonnell or some other candidate, and (3) that whoever does become the standard-bearer of the mainstream will do a half-decent job and not get landed with the blame after another election defeat. I don't think they're remotely close to having a credible answer to any of those and as such, their best option is to rally behind the scenes and wait for the opportunity.
"Mr Corbyn needs a good result in Oldham a fortnight on Thursday."
Really? In a by-election four-and-a-half years from a general election in a highly atypical seat against a protest party?
There is also the little matter of the total lack of an obvious challenger to JC, let alone one who could command enough support to win against him. Labour scraped the bottom of the barrel in its leadership election and the results were remarkable in their mediocrity.
I think he's safe for a while. I think Labour are mad, but I can't see him being moved for at least the next two years.
In what way is Oldham "highly atypical"? I'd say that it was broadly in line with many Labour heartland areas. Yes, there was a high BNP vote there in the past but Oldham is not unique in that and there has certainly been the latent, if not as here actual, threat of defections to the populist right from the WWC since the start of the century in many Labour safe seats.
The problem with this article is it assumes Labour is more interested in winning power than continuing to stay within its comfort zone.
Labour's MPs are. But their problem is that while they can make life intolerable for Corbyn if they want to, that doesn't necessarily translate into them being able to take control of the party.
The problem with this article is it assumes Labour is more interested in winning power than continuing to stay within its comfort zone.
Labour's MPs are. But their problem is that while they can make life intolerable for Corbyn if they want to, that doesn't necessarily translate into them being able to take control of the party.
Government announces 15% funding increase for GCHQ, MI5 and MI6 - money for an extra 1,900 officers - ahead of the publication of the SDSR next week. I assume this announcement has been brought forward from that:
The problem with this article is it assumes Labour is more interested in winning power than continuing to stay within its comfort zone.
Quite. Labour members - with or without the three-quidders - will want to satisfy themselves that any future Labour government will not betray them with PFIs, wars to please the Yanks, and so on and so forth. In short, they will want some evidence that elections can be won from the left. At present, they see none (and nor does any Peebie that I know of).
The polling during the leadership election indicated election performance wasn't a key consideration at the moment, the Labour membership want strong, unequivocal opposition to the Tories over these next few years.
There's also a lot of ambiguity over what will be considered a good result in the upcoming elections. You could argue standing still would be a decent result in Wales, is just coming 2nd enough in Scotland and how do you determine good local election results, aggregate percentage or performance in marginals..
Government announces 15% funding increase for GCHQ, MI5 and MI6 - money for an extra 1,900 officers - ahead of the publication of the SDSR next week. I assume this announcement has been brought forward from that:
Labour MPs do appear a little more combative than in the past, but I still think there's little prospect of them axing Corbyn. The Macedonian royal family they are not.
The problem with this article is it assumes Labour is more interested in winning power than continuing to stay within its comfort zone.
Quite. Labour members - with or without the three-quidders - will want to satisfy themselves that any future Labour government will not betray them with PFIs, wars to please the Yanks, and so on and so forth. In short, they will want some evidence that elections can be won from the left. At present, they see none (and nor does any Peebie that I know of).
Yes, and if they don't get it they will assume false consciousness and carry on as before.
Election Data tweeted yesterday that Oldham West should be closer than 1/12 Labour. He knows the constituency and knows the battle between UKIP and Labour. I'm taking note.
‘Mr Corbyn needs a good result in Oldham a fortnight on Thursday.’
He’ll need a lot more than just one goodish result from a by-election to allay fears from within the party and Scotland 2016 looks as though it will be a stinker for him, - what then?
What I find strange about the modern British Left - and Corbynites - is how their supporters are utterly counter-intuitive.
Three friends of mine (yes, on Facebook again, but I've know them for decades) were heavily attacking Cameron at the weekend and making all the usual pro-Corbyn noises and echoing Left-wing shibboleths on immigration. They include two self-proclaimed socialists. I never knew the third had such sympathies; my eyes popped out when I read his posts.
Background? Two of them went to the same traditional private all-boys school as I did, where the headmaster was an ex-BoB fighter pilot, and are from established middle-class families. The third is very well spoken, went to Cambridge and is from a wealthy family that owns a six-bedroom pile with land in a small, pretty village in the middle of Hampshire.
There must have been a time when 80% of anyone with that sort of backstory voted Conservative. No longer.
The problem with this article is it assumes Labour is more interested in winning power than continuing to stay within its comfort zone.
Quite. Labour members - with or without the three-quidders - will want to satisfy themselves that any future Labour government will not betray them with PFIs, wars to please the Yanks, and so on and so forth. In short, they will want some evidence that elections can be won from the left. At present, they see none (and nor does any Peebie that I know of).
Yes, and if they don't get it they will assume false consciousness and carry on as before.
Why should anyone invest time and money to achieve an end they don't want?
Not sure I'd agree with "soon" but the general point is right. For now, even ance alive. The exception, of course, would be London but then that could be explained away as a personal vote for Zac: Boris' wins didn't me after another election defeat. I don't think they're remotely close to having a credible answer to any of those and as such, their best option is to rally behind the scenes and wait for the opportunity.
Not sure I'd agree with "soon" but the general point is right. For now, even with a bad Oldham result, Corbyn is safe. Firstly, his mandate is huge and Labour won't move against him for a while on that basis alone. And secondly, if they do move, it'll have to be on the basis that they *know* that Corbyn's the problem.
In the interim, losses or other under-performances will continue to be explained away. Oldham? The Paris attacks combined with a seat where one in six voted for Griffin not long ago. London? Obviously Sadiq wasn't the man. Scotland? Who could oppose the SNP at the moment? Wales? Local difficulties. And so on. And the seductive aspect of all of those is that it won't be the Tories who are the beneficiaries, keeping the chimera of the anti-Tory alliance alive. The exception, of course, would be London but then that could be explained away as a personal vote for Zac: Boris' wins didn't stop Labour doing well at the GE.
But before Corbyn's critics can move, they need to make sure of three things: (1) that they actually can force him out, (2) that if they do, the left won't unite and win around McDonnell or some other candidate, and (3) that whoever does become the standard-bearer of the mainstream will do a half-decent job and not get landed with the blame after another election defeat. I don't think they're remotely close to having a credible answer to any of those and as such, their best option is to rally behind the scenes and wait for the opportunity.
Even IDS got two years so there will be no move yet. Remember too that IDS was only replaced by Michael Howard who was still very much of the right so if Corbyn is replaced before the election the only likely replacement is Hilary Benn who as his reservations about Syrian airstrikes show is still a figure on Labour's left even if, like Michael Howard, he is a more experienced and mainstream figure than the incumbent
News from France once again featuring heavily on the TV today.
But something that is quite striking is how rare this is; news coverage of our 'closest neighbour' is almost nonexistent except for catastrophic events like this.
Normally, France might as well be 5000 miles away rather than less less 50, for all the interest we as a society have in the place. I can't imagine any time in the last 1000 years when this would have been so to the extent it apparently is now.
I can't think of a single reason to vote for Corbyn's Labour Party other than they're not Tories. All Labour can hope for is that the Tories really screw up over the referendum and make themselves so unelectable that a vote for Labour becomes a necessity
Afraid I'm not really convinced by this argument. Corbyn's authority is already shot to bits with his MPs, but that seems irrelevant. His power comes from the members and I can't see them caring whether he is going to win the election or not given the sorts of people who seem to have joined in recent months.
Of course this could change. Four and half years is a heck of a long time in politics. Many of the Corbynistas may have drifted away in a couple of years, distracted by something else. Or, the consequences of Osborne's budgets may be so bad that the membership, even the £3ers, start to desperately want a Labour government at any price, even if Chukka or Jarvis is that price. I can't see it, but who knows. What seems more likely is that the Left's Great Corbyn Experiment is going to be tested to destruction at the ballot box.
I can't think of a single reason to vote for Corbyn's Labour Party other than they're not Tories. All Labour can hope for is that the Tories really screw up over the referendum and make themselves so unelectable that a vote for Labour becomes a necessity
Is that because you think JC's a socialist or because you fear he isn't? It occurred to me the other day that he's only leader because his close friend Bernie Grant is no longer with us.
Election Data tweeted yesterday that Oldham West should be closer than 1/12 Labour. He knows the constituency and knows the battle between UKIP and Labour. I'm taking note.
Election Data tweeted yesterday that Oldham West should be closer than 1/12 Labour. He knows the constituency and knows the battle between UKIP and Labour. I'm taking note.
Not sure I'd agree with "soon" but the general point is right. For now, even ance alive. The exception, of course, would be London but then that could be explained away as a personal vote for Zac: Boris' wins didn't me after another election defeat. I don't think they're remotely close to having a credible answer to any of those and as such, their best option is to rally behind the scenes and wait for the opportunity.
Not sure I'd agree with "soon" but the general point is right. For now, even with a bad Oldham result, Corbyn is safe. Firstly, his mandate is huge and Labour won't move against him for a while on that basis alone. And secondly, if they do move, it'll have to be on the basis that they *know* that Corbyn's the problem.
In the interim, losses or other under-performances will continue to be explained away. Oldham? The Paris attacks combined with a seat where one in six voted for Griffin not long ago. London? Obviously Sadiq wasn't the man. Scotland? Who could oppose the SNP at the moment? Wales? Local difficulties. And so on. And the seductive aspect of all of those is that it won't be the Tories who are the beneficiaries, keeping the chimera of the anti-Tory alliance alive. The exception, of course, would be London but then that could be explained away as a personal vote for Zac: Boris' wins didn't stop Labour doing well at the GE.
But before Corbyn's critics can move, they need to make sure of three things: (1) that they actually can force him out, (2) that if they do, the left won't unite and win around McDonnell or some other candidate, and (3) that whoever does become the standard-bearer of the mainstream will do a half-decent job and not get landed with the blame after another election defeat. I don't think they're remotely close to having a credible answer to any of those and as such, their best option is to rally behind the scenes and wait for the opportunity.
Even IDS got two years so there will be no move yet. Remember too that IDS was only replaced by Michael Howard who was still very much of the right so if Corbyn is replaced before the election the only likely replacement is Hilary Benn who as his reservations about Syrian airstrikes show is still a figure on Labour's left even if, like Michael Howard, he is a more experienced and mainstream figure than the incumbent
Why is Stephen Kinnock not going to be next leader, post-come-to-their-senses?
If his name was different surely he would be 8/1 rather than 20s?
Has he massively blotted his copybook at some point or some other egregious mis-step? I'm on him but have no idea of his previous...
Not sure I'd agree with "soon" but the general point is right. For now, even ance alive. The exception, of course, would be London but then that could be explained away as a personal vote for Zac: Boris' wins didn't me after another election defeat. I don't think they're remotely close to having a credible answer to any of those and as such, their best option is to rally behind the scenes and wait for the opportunity.
Not sure I'd agree with "soon" but the general point is right. For now, even with a bad Oldham result, Corbyn is safe. Firstly, his mandate is huge and Labour won't move against him for a while on that basis alone. And secondly, if they do move, it'll have to be on the basis that they *know* that Corbyn's the problem.
In the interim, losses or other under-performances will continue to be explained away. Oldham? The Paris attacks combined with a seat where one in six voted for Griffin not long ago. London? Obviously Sadiq wasn't the man. Scotland? Who could oppose the SNP at the moment? Wales? Local difficulties. And so on. And the seductive aspect of all of those is that it won't be the Tories who are the beneficiaries, keeping the chimera of the anti-Tory alliance alive. The exception, of course, would be London but then that could be explained away as a personal vote for Zac: Boris' wins didn't stop Labour doing well at the GE.
But before Corbyn's critics can move, they need to make sure of three things: (1) that they actually can force him out, (2) that if they do, the left won't unite and win around McDonnell or some other candidate, and (3) that whoever does become the standard-bearer of the mainstream will do a half-decent job and not get landed with the blame after another election defeat. I don't think they're remotely close to having a credible answer to any of those and as such, their best option is to rally behind the scenes and wait for the opportunity.
Even IDS got two years so there will be no move yet. Remember too that IDS was only replaced by Michael Howard who was still very much of the right so if Corbyn is replaced before the election the only likely replacement is Hilary Benn who as his reservations about Syrian airstrikes show is still a figure on Labour's left even if, like Michael Howard, he is a more experienced and mainstream figure than the incumbent
Why is Stephen Kinnock not going to be next leader, post-come-to-their-senses?
If his name was different surely he would be 8/1 rather than 20s?
Has he massively blotted his copybook at some point or some other egregious mis-step? I'm on him but have no idea of his previous...
Why Kinnock? There's a raft of potential candidates.
Election Data tweeted yesterday that Oldham West should be closer than 1/12 Labour. He knows the constituency and knows the battle between UKIP and Labour. I'm taking note.
Ladbrokes have UKIP at 9 still. Worth a punt?
I've had a flutter at 8/1 on the strength of this.
"Is that because you think JC's a socialist or because you fear he isn't? It occurred to me the other day that he's only leader because his close friend Bernie Grant is no longer with us."
You mean because Bernie Grant would have been leader?
In answer to your question neither. I haven't the vaguest picture of what a Corbyn government would look like other that it would be at permanent war with itself and watching Labour's factions fighting for control is an unbearable thought
Not sure I'd agree with "soon" but the general point is right. For now, even ance alive. The exception, of course, would be London but then that could be explained away as a personal vote for Zac: Boris' wins didn't me after another election defeat. I don't think they're remotely close to having a credible answer to any of those and as such, their best option is to rally behind the scenes and wait for the opportunity.
Not sure I'd agree with "soon" but the general point is right. For now, even with a bad Oldham result, Corbyn is safe. Firstly, his mandate is huge and Labour won't move against him for a while on that basis alone. And secondly, if they do move, it'll have to be on the basis that they *know* that Corbyn's the problem.
In the interim, losses or other under-performances will continue to be explained away. Oldham? The Paris attacks combined with a seat where one in six voted for Griffin not long ago. London? Obviously Sadiq wasn't the man. Scotland? Who could oppose the SNP at the moment? Wales? Local difficulties. And so on. And the seductive aspect of all of those is that it won't be the Tories who are the beneficiaries, keeping the chimera of the anti-Tory alliance alive. The exception, of course, would be London but then that could be explained away as a personal vote for Zac: Boris' wins didn't stop Labour doing well at the GE.
But before Corbyn's critics can move, they need to make sure of three things: (1) that they actually can force him out, (2) that if they do, the left won't unite and win around McDonnell or some other candidate, and (3) that whoever does become the standard-bearer of the mainstream will do a half-decent job and not get landed with the blame after another election defeat. I don't think they're remotely close to having a credible answer to any of those and as such, their best option is to rally behind the scenes and wait for the opportunity.
Even IDS got two years so there will be no move yet. Remember too that IDS was only replaced by Michael Howard who was still very much of the right so if Corbyn is replaced before the election the only likely replacement is Hilary Benn who as his reservations about Syrian airstrikes show is still a figure on Labour's left even if, like Michael Howard, he is a more experienced and mainstream figure than the incumbent
Why is Stephen Kinnock not going to be next leader, post-come-to-their-senses?
If his name was different surely he would be 8/1 rather than 20s?
Has he massively blotted his copybook at some point or some other egregious mis-step? I'm on him but have no idea of his previous...
1) he's a brand new MP.
2) why do you expect the Labour electorate to come to their senses?
In the interim, losses or other under-performances will continue to be explained away. Oldham? The Paris attacks combined with a seat where one in six voted for Griffin not long ago. London? Obviously Sadiq wasn't the man. Scotland? Who could oppose the SNP at the moment? Wales? Local difficulties. And so on. And the seductive aspect of all of those is that it won't be the Tories who are the beneficiaries, keeping the chimera of the anti-Tory alliance alive. The exception, of course, would be London but then that could be explained away as a personal vote for Zac: Boris' wins didn't stop Labour doing well at the GE.
But before Corbyn's critics can move, they need to make sure of three things: (1) that they actually can force him out, (2) that if they do, the left won't unite and win around McDonnell or some other candidate, and (3) that whoever does become the standard-bearer of the mainstream will do a half-decent job and not get landed with the blame after another election defeat. I don't think they're remotely close to having a credible answer to any of those and as such, their best option is to rally behind the scenes and wait for the opportunity.
Even IDS got two years so there will be no move yet. Remember too that IDS was only replaced by Michael Howard who was still very much of the right so if Corbyn is replaced before the election the only likely replacement is Hilary Benn who as his reservations about Syrian airstrikes show is still a figure on Labour's left even if, like Michael Howard, he is a more experienced and mainstream figure than the incumbent
Why is Stephen Kinnock not going to be next leader, post-come-to-their-senses?
If his name was different surely he would be 8/1 rather than 20s?
Has he massively blotted his copybook at some point or some other egregious mis-step? I'm on him but have no idea of his previous...
He wants to cut the top rate of income tax which is a big no no with Labour at the moment. He is also not even in the Shadow Cabinet. Any replacement for Corbyn will need to have a high profile Shadow Cabinet job as Michael Howard did and Hilary Benn does. Only following another election defeat can younger more centrist candidates like Chuka Umunna, Stephen Kinnock, Dan Jarvis and Stella Creasey start to be considered
Not sure I'd agree with "soon" but the general point is right. For now, even ance alive. The exception, of course, would be London but then that could be explained away as a personal vote for Zac: Boris' wins didn't me after another election defeat. I don't think they're remotely close to having a credible answer to any of those and as such, their best option is to rally behind the scenes and wait for the opportunity.
snip For now, even with a bad Oldham result, Corbyn is safe. Firstly, his mandate is huge and Labour won't move against him for a while on that basis alone. And secondly, if they do move, it'll have to be on the basis that they *know* that Corbyn's the problem.
In the interim, losses or other under-performances will continue to be explained away. Oldham? The Paris attacks combined with a seat where one in six voted for Griffin not long ago. London? Obviously Sadiq wasn't the man. Scotland? Who could oppose the SNP at the moment? Wales? Local difficulties. And so on. And the seductive aspect of all of those is that it won't be the Tories who are the beneficiaries, keeping the chimera of the anti-Tory alliance alive. The exception, of course, would be London but then that could be explained away as a personal vote for Zac: Boris' wins didn't stop Labour doing well at the GE.
But before Corbyn's critics can move, they need to make sure of three things: (1) that they actually can force him out, (2) that if they do, the left won't unite and win around McDonnell or some other candidate, and (3) that whoever does become the standard-bearer of the mainstream will do a half-decent job and not get landed with the blame after another election defeat. I don't think they're remotely close to having a credible answer to any of those and as such, their best option is to rally behind the scenes and wait for the opportunity.
Even IDS got two years so there will be no move yet. Remember too that IDS was only replaced by Michael Howard who was still very much of the right so if Corbyn is replaced before the election the only likely replacement is Hilary Benn who as his reservations about Syrian airstrikes show is still a figure on Labour's left even if, like Michael Howard, he is a more experienced and mainstream figure than the incumbent
Why is Stephen Kinnock not going to be next leader, post-come-to-their-senses?
If his name was different surely he would be 8/1 rather than 20s?
Has he massively blotted his copybook at some point or some other egregious mis-step? I'm on him but have no idea of his previous...
Why Kinnock? There's a raft of potential candidates.
In the interim, losses or other under-performances will continue to be explained away. Oldham? The Paris attacks combined with a seat where one in six voted for Griffin not long ago. London? Obviously Sadiq wasn't the man. Scotland? Who could oppose the SNP at the moment? Wales? Local difficulties. And so on. And the seductive aspect of all of those is that it won't be the Tories who are the beneficiaries, keeping the chimera of the anti-Tory alliance alive. The exception, of course, would be London but then that could be explained away as a personal vote for Zac: Boris' wins didn't stop Labour doing well at the GE.
But before Corbyn's critics can move, they need to make sure of three things: (1) that they actually can force him out, (2) that if they do, the left won't unite and win around McDonnell or some other candidate, and (3) that whoever does become the standard-bearer of the mainstream will do a half-decent job and not get landed with the blame after another election defeat. I don't think they're remotely close to having a credible answer to any of those and as such, their best option is to rally behind the scenes and wait for the opportunity.
Even IDS got two years so there will be no move yet. Remember too that IDS was only replaced by Michael Howard who was still very much of the right so if Corbyn is replaced before the election the only likely replacement is Hilary Benn who as his reservations about Syrian airstrikes show is still a figure on Labour's left even if, like Michael Howard, he is a more experienced and mainstream figure than the incumbent
Why is Stephen Kinnock not going to be next leader, post-come-to-their-senses?
If his name was different surely he would be 8/1 rather than 20s?
Has he massively blotted his copybook at some point or some other egregious mis-step? I'm on him but have no idea of his previous...
He wants to cut the top rate of income tax which is a big no no with Labour at the moment. He is also not even in the Shadow Cabinet. Any replacement for Corbyn will need to have a high profile Shadow Cabinet job as Michael Howard did and Hilary Benn does. Only following another election defeat can younger more centrist candidates like Chuka Umunna, Stephen Kinnock, Dan Jarvis and Stella Creasey start to be considered
Not sure I'd agree with "soon" but the general point is right. For now, even ance alive. The exception, of course, would be London but then that could be explained away as a personal vote for Zac: Boris' wins didn't me after another election defeat. I don't think they're remotely close to having a credible answer to any of those and as such, their best option is to rally behind the scenes and wait for the opportunity.
Not sure I'd agree with "soon" but the general point is right. For now, even with a bad Oldham result, Corbyn is safe. Firstly, his mandate is huge and Labour won't move against him for a while on that basis alone. And secondly, if they do move, it'll have to be on the basis that they *know* that Corbyn's the problem.
In the interim, losses or other under-performances will continue to be explained away. Oldham? The Paris attacks combined with a seat where one in six voted for Griffin not long ago. London? Obviously Sadiq wasn't the man. with the blame after another election defeat. I don't think they're remotely close to having a credible answer to any of those and as such, their best option is to rally behind the scenes and wait for the opportunity.
Even IDS got two years so there will be no move yet. Remember too that IDS was only replaced by Michael Howard who was still very much of the right so if Corbyn is replaced before the election the only likely replacement is Hilary Benn who as his reservations about Syrian airstrikes show is still a figure on Labour's left even if, like Michael Howard, he is a more experienced and mainstream figure than the incumbent
Why is Stephen Kinnock not going to be next leader, post-come-to-their-senses?
If his name was different surely he would be 8/1 rather than 20s?
Has he massively blotted his copybook at some point or some other egregious mis-step? I'm on him but have no idea of his previous...
Why Kinnock? There's a raft of potential candidates.
The woman from Walthamstow? (Attlee's seat, after all )
"Is that because you think JC's a socialist or because you fear he isn't? It occurred to me the other day that he's only leader because his close friend Bernie Grant is no longer with us."
You mean because Bernie Grant would have been leader?
In answer to your question neither. I haven't the vaguest picture of what a Corbyn government would look like other that it would be at permanent war with itself and watching Labour's factions fighting for control is an unbearable thought
Yes. Bernie would have stood and JC wouldn't have opposed him.
Government announces 15% funding increase for GCHQ, MI5 and MI6 - money for an extra 1,900 officers - ahead of the publication of the SDSR next week. I assume this announcement has been brought forward from that:
ISIS atrocities do put Labour in an awkward position. Most supporters realise that the problem is restricted to a few Muslims, but for some middle class Jezza fans, any implied criticism of Islam is anathema and must be resisted. The Jezzarite "It's all America's fault" rings hollow but it's all they know.
@Runnymede - What struck me about the coverage of France is how many people across the French political spectrum and ordinary folk talk in very clear and tough terms about what they are facing: the references to war, which come across as deliberate rather than just an emotional reaction, talk of a 30 year war with jihadism and its ideology etc. I don't think we'd have had necessarily the same language here if, God forbid, what happened on Friday happened here.
I thought the Charlie Hebdo/Supermarket attacks were appalling enough but this seems to have struck the French as similar to 9/11 and, at least judging by the responses so far, the reaction has been similar to the US's, in terms of language anyway.
Anyway, news reports of shooting / police raids in a Brussels suburb......
Government announces 15% funding increase for GCHQ, MI5 and MI6 - money for an extra 1,900 officers - ahead of the publication of the SDSR next week. I assume this announcement has been brought forward from that:
I thought the Telegraph report on Molenbeek, the Brussels radical-training ground, was astonishing.
The Belgian minister admitted in so many words that they'd 'lost control' of the area, that it is the 'European political centre of radical Islam' and that most of the big European terrorist attacks have been planned there. As nonchalantly as that.
That story is a microcosm of all that is wrong with the EU. The EU could be a leading force in tackling continental terrorism yet we have lacksadaisical, politically-correct, lazy chaps like him in charge, shrugging his shoulders about guns, terrorism, organised crime and drug running operating from an area of 100,000 people that is only 30% Muslim.
How hard is it to get a grip on 30,000 people if the Belgian authorities really put their minds to it?
Government announces 15% funding increase for GCHQ, MI5 and MI6 - money for an extra 1,900 officers - ahead of the publication of the SDSR next week. I assume this announcement has been brought forward from that:
News from France once again featuring heavily on the TV today.
But something that is quite striking is how rare this is; news coverage of our 'closest neighbour' is almost nonexistent except for catastrophic events like this.
Normally, France might as well be 5000 miles away rather than less less 50, for all the interest we as a society have in the place. I can't imagine any time in the last 1000 years when this would have been so to the extent it apparently is now.
Gives plenty of opportunity for hypocrisy though, country is full of it as shown by the frothers on here.
I see that the BBC are interviewing Tariq Ramadan. He is not the neutral expert the BBC seem to think. Famously, in a debate with Sarkozy he would not condemn the practice of stoning women for adultery. The Paul Berman book I mentioned yesterday evening analyses what he says and shows how two-faced he is in his approach to Islamist violence. So has Caroline Fourest, a well-informed French journalist who was on our screens after the Charlie Hebdo affair. Infamously, Sky cut her off when she tried to show one of the so-called "offensive" Hebdo cartoons.
Government announces 15% funding increase for GCHQ, MI5 and MI6 - money for an extra 1,900 officers - ahead of the publication of the SDSR next week. I assume this announcement has been brought forward from that:
I thought the Telegraph report on Molenbeek, the Brussels radical-training ground, was astonishing.
The Belgian minister admitted in so many words that they'd 'lost control' of the area, that it is the 'European political centre of radical Islam' and that most of the big European terrorist attacks have been planned there. As nonchalantly as that.
That story is a microcosm of all that is wrong with the EU. The EU could be a leading force in tackling continental terrorism yet we have lacksadaisical, politically-correct, lazy chaps like him in charge, shrugging his shoulders about guns, terrorism, organised crime and drug running operating from an area of 100,000 people that is only 30% Muslim.
How hard is it to get a grip on 30,000 people if the Belgian authorities really put their minds to it?
Yes - extraordinary. If the sovereign state does not have actual control of the area under its nominal control, what sort of a state is it. No medieval king would have put up with this. And when they lost control they were overthrown sharpish.
Not sure I'd agree with "soon" but the general point is right. For now, even with a bad Oldham result, Corbyn is safe. Firstly, his mandate is huge and Labour won't move against him for a while on that basis alone. And secondly, if they do move, it'll have to be on the basis that they *know* that Corbyn's the problem.
In the interim, losses or other under-performances will continue to be explained away. Oldham? The Paris attacks combined with a seat where one in six voted for Griffin not long ago. London? Obviously Sadiq wasn't the man. Scotland? Who could oppose the SNP at the moment? Wales? Local difficulties. And so on. And the seductive aspect of all of those is that it won't be the Tories who are the beneficiaries, keeping the chimera of the anti-Tory alliance alive. The exception, of course, would be London but then that could be explained away as a personal vote for Zac: Boris' wins didn't stop Labour doing well at the GE.
But before Corbyn's critics can move, they need to make sure of three things: (1) that they actually can force him out, (2) that if they do, the left won't unite and win around McDonnell or some other candidate, and (3) that whoever does become the standard-bearer of the mainstream will do a half-decent job and not get landed with the blame after another election defeat. I don't think they're remotely close to having a credible answer to any of those and as such, their best option is to rally behind the scenes and wait for the opportunity.
They, the PLP, cannot force Corbyn out. But if unfortunately he fell under a number 19 bus then McDonnell could not find the 35 MPs to nominate him. Corbyn needs a foodtaster pursuivant. The purpose of Momentum is to change that, the requirement from the general election is to get their own people into safe or suitable seats. The big opportunity is to remake the labour party in their own image.
The beige jacket really needs to be retired. It's the one thing I notice again and again - and the pucker on the right sleeve top is so distracting. It's also at least two sizes too large.
I've no idea why he's so attached to it. He definitely owns a dark jacket, and it's not like he can't afford a whole suit given he's on over £100k as LotO.
He's certainly experiencing the Ming Effect of looking visibly a lot older/old bird since his election as leader.
He really does need to "scrub up" somewhat and at least start to look the part. Dispensing with (or at least hiding) those Steptoe-style vests would be a good start. Oh and taking that beige suit down to the charity shop would be another smart move.
I thought the Telegraph report on Molenbeek, the Brussels radical-training ground, was astonishing.
The Belgian minister admitted in so many words that they'd 'lost control' of the area, that it is the 'European political centre of radical Islam' and that most of the big European terrorist attacks have been planned there. As nonchalantly as that.
That story is a microcosm of all that is wrong with the EU. The EU could be a leading force in tackling continental terrorism yet we have lacksadaisical, politically-correct, lazy chaps like him in charge, shrugging his shoulders about guns, terrorism, organised crime and drug running operating from an area of 100,000 people that is only 30% Muslim.
How hard is it to get a grip on 30,000 people if the Belgian authorities really put their minds to it?
Yes - extraordinary. If the sovereign state does not have actual control of the area under its nominal control, what sort of a state is it. No medieval king would have put up with this. And when they lost control they were overthrown sharpish.
Medieval kings lost control of areas all the time, although usually to barons rather than peasants. A king's writ did not run very far if a powerful feudal lord did not want it to, providing that the baron wasn't too overt in any challenge to the crown's authority.
Mr. Herdson, except that this Belgian enclave is overtly hostile to both Belgium and the West generally. It's not just a case of the writ not running, but of the state being actively opposed by violent means. If a baron rebelled, either he or the king was done for.
The beige jacket really needs to be retired. It's the one thing I notice again and again - and the pucker on the right sleeve top is so distracting. It's also at least two sizes too large.
I've no idea why he's so attached to it. He definitely owns a dark jacket, and it's not like he can't afford a whole suit given he's on over £100k as LotO.
He's certainly experiencing the Ming Effect of looking visibly a lot older/old bird since his election as leader.
He really does need to "scrub up" somewhat and at least start to look the part. Dispensing with (or at least hiding) those Steptoe-style vests would be a good start. Oh and taking that beige suit down to the charity shop would be another smart move.
He's got a lodger, I know nothing of his private life but people who take in a lodger tend to be skint.
I'm not sure he won't last another 3 at least. All sorts of appalling crap has been unearthed and he sails onwards, it's truly Alice In Wonderland politics.
Being caught in bed with a dead boy wouldn't touch him right now - it'd be hand-waved away. I've no idea what could possibly unseat him - none.
"Mr Corbyn needs a good result in Oldham a fortnight on Thursday."
Really? In a by-election four-and-a-half years from a general election in a highly atypical seat against a protest party?
There is also the little matter of the total lack of an obvious challenger to JC, let alone one who could command enough support to win against him. Labour scraped the bottom of the barrel in its leadership election and the results were remarkable in their mediocrity.
I think he's safe for a while. I think Labour are mad, but I can't see him being moved for at least the next two years.
I thought the Telegraph report on Molenbeek, the Brussels radical-training ground, was astonishing.
The Belgian minister admitted in so many words that they'd 'lost control' of the area, that it is the 'European political centre of radical Islam' and that most of the big European terrorist attacks have been planned there. As nonchalantly as that.
That story is a microcosm of all that is wrong with the EU. The EU could be a leading force in tackling continental terrorism yet we have lacksadaisical, politically-correct, lazy chaps like him in charge, shrugging his shoulders about guns, terrorism, organised crime and drug running operating from an area of 100,000 people that is only 30% Muslim.
How hard is it to get a grip on 30,000 people if the Belgian authorities really put their minds to it?
Does this really have anything to do with the EU? For all that there is a Home and Justice aspect to the EU, this only amounts to the facilitation of co-operation. It still relies on the governments getting the information and then sharing it in the first place. The failure is Belgium's in this case.
The alternative - what you appear to propose - is a Euro-FBI, which were it seriously put forward as an option would send Eurosceptics barmy. I cannot see it as a political runner.
I thought the Telegraph report on Molenbeek, the Brussels radical-training ground, was astonishing.
The Belgian minister admitted in so many words that they'd 'lost control' of the area, that it is the 'European political centre of radical Islam' and that most of the big European terrorist attacks have been planned there. As nonchalantly as that.
That story is a microcosm of all that is wrong with the EU. The EU could be a leading force in tackling continental terrorism yet we have lacksadaisical, politically-correct, lazy chaps like him in charge, shrugging his shoulders about guns, terrorism, organised crime and drug running operating from an area of 100,000 people that is only 30% Muslim.
How hard is it to get a grip on 30,000 people if the Belgian authorities really put their minds to it?
??? How is this anything to do with the EU... namely the internal policing and social policy arrangements of a sovereign country? The minister was a Belgian minister, not an EU one. If the EU was telling Belgium how to police itself you would be the first to complain.
@patrickwintour: Putin confirms British shared intelligence data with Moscow over the downed Russian metro jet and says UK Russian relations are repairing.
Even IDS got two years so there will be no move yet. Remember too that IDS was only replaced by Michael Howard who was still very much of the right so if Corbyn is replaced before the election the only likely replacement is Hilary Benn who as his reservations about Syrian airstrikes show is still a figure on Labour's left even if, like Michael Howard, he is a more experienced and mainstream figure than the incumbent
Why is Stephen Kinnock not going to be next leader, post-come-to-their-senses?
If his name was different surely he would be 8/1 rather than 20s?
Has he massively blotted his copybook at some point or some other egregious mis-step? I'm on him but have no idea of his previous...
1) he's a brand new MP.
2) why do you expect the Labour electorate to come to their senses?
He's a possible but 20/1 is still far too short. One scenario:
Corbyn, despite much misgiving in between, makes it through to 2020 then crashes badly at the election. He stands down and Watson takes over. Watson persuades the NEC not to call a leadership election until after the rules have been changed "in light of a third defeat, each worse than the last". The new rules are adopted at a conference early in 2021, removing the three-pounder clause. Watson finally stands down in June, by which point, Kinnock has been an MP for six years and has been promoted to the front bench.
I think that's not out of the bounds of possibility but nor is it topside of a 5% shot.
I'm not sure he won't last another 3 at least. All sorts of appalling crap has been unearthed and he sails onwards, it's truly Alice In Wonderland politics.
Being caught in bed with a dead boy wouldn't touch him right now - it'd be hand-waved away. I've no idea what could possibly unseat him - none.
"Mr Corbyn needs a good result in Oldham a fortnight on Thursday."
Really? In a by-election four-and-a-half years from a general election in a highly atypical seat against a protest party?
There is also the little matter of the total lack of an obvious challenger to JC, let alone one who could command enough support to win against him. Labour scraped the bottom of the barrel in its leadership election and the results were remarkable in their mediocrity.
I think he's safe for a while. I think Labour are mad, but I can't see him being moved for at least the next two years.
@patrickwintour: Putin confirms British shared intelligence data with Moscow over the downed Russian metro jet and says UK Russian relations are repairing.
That's good news, we should be friends with Russia.
@iainjwatson: Jeremy Corbyn says unfortunately last week's bombing in Beirut got very little coverage and media should report what happens outside europe
But it’s just blatantly untrue.
Search Google News and you will find pages and pages of reports of the attacks in Beirut. Pages and pages and pages. Over 1,286 articles in fact — lots of which pre-date the attacks in Paris.
The sheer number of people who will, though, happily claim that the media hasn’t reported it does my head in.
But before Corbyn's critics can move, they need to make sure of three things: (1) that they actually can force him out, (2) that if they do, the left won't unite and win around McDonnell or some other candidate, and (3) that whoever does become the standard-bearer of the mainstream will do a half-decent job and not get landed with the blame after another election defeat. I don't think they're remotely close to having a credible answer to any of those and as such, their best option is to rally behind the scenes and wait for the opportunity.
I'd add (4) have a coherent alternative project. Labour is a coalition of members who want a Labour government that we think to look after ordinary people and members who want us to stand for an alternative approach to conservatism that we think attractive. The latter group are dominant, partly because people mainly only join parties because they think them appealing, not as a power vehicle. If the choice is "idealistic socialism that might win" vs "nothing special but an apparently good chance of winning" the membership will always choose the former - not least as unless you have an exceptionally charismatic leader, you can't really win with nothing much to say - on the day, people don't turn out.
The alternative project would need to include some significant redistribution - most members aren't in the least interested in managerialist stuff like transferring power to local authorities, even though it might be a good idea. But it's not only the left that feel that Britain is now seriously lopsided in terms of both wealth and opportunity, and an alternative that set out concrete ways to address that would get an interested audience. For now, though, the great majority of members want Corbyn to be given a decent run.
Transform your tweets into tablets of stone: Dumb Cuneiform translates your posts into ancient symbols and carves them into clay
Dumb Cuneiform uses ancient symbols to preserve tweets in stone It is the brainchild of web designer Matt Kirkland and wife Erika The couple transliterate tweets using Persian character
But before Corbyn's critics can move, they need to make sure of three things: (1) that they actually can force him out, (2) that if they do, the left won't unite and win around McDonnell or some other candidate, and (3) that whoever does become the standard-bearer of the mainstream will do a half-decent job and not get landed with the blame after another election defeat. I don't think they're remotely close to having a credible answer to any of those and as such, their best option is to rally behind the scenes and wait for the opportunity.
I'd add (4) have a coherent alternative project.
There's currently a coherent project? The voters don't think so...
@iainjwatson: Jeremy Corbyn says unfortunately last week's bombing in Beirut got very little coverage and media should report what happens outside europe
But it’s just blatantly untrue.
Search Google News and you will find pages and pages of reports of the attacks in Beirut. Pages and pages and pages. Over 1,286 articles in fact — lots of which pre-date the attacks in Paris.
The sheer number of people who will, though, happily claim that the media hasn’t reported it does my head in.
IMO from that single photo - we have Cameron looking engaged and confident, leaning in/legs crossed towards Putin. Putin looks reluctant, but feeling the need to be there - feet on floor, hands covering crotch, leaning back.
But before Corbyn's critics can move, they need to make sure of three things: (1) that they actually can force him out, (2) that if they do, the left won't unite and win around McDonnell or some other candidate, and (3) that whoever does become the standard-bearer of the mainstream will do a half-decent job and not get landed with the blame after another election defeat. I don't think they're remotely close to having a credible answer to any of those and as such, their best option is to rally behind the scenes and wait for the opportunity.
I'd add (4) have a coherent alternative project. Labour is a coalition of members who want a Labour government that we think to look after ordinary people and members who want us to stand for an alternative approach to conservatism that we think attractive. The latter group are dominant, partly because people mainly only join parties because they think them appealing, not as a power vehicle. If the choice is "idealistic socialism that might win" vs "nothing special but an apparently good chance of winning" the membership will always choose the former - not least as unless you have an exceptionally charismatic leader, you can't really win with nothing much to say - on the day, people don't turn out.
The alternative project would need to include some significant redistribution - most members aren't in the least interested in managerialist stuff like transferring power to local authorities, even though it might be a good idea. But it's not only the left that feel that Britain is now seriously lopsided in terms of both wealth and opportunity, and an alternative that set out concrete ways to address that would get an interested audience. For now, though, the great majority of members want Corbyn to be given a decent run.
The beige jacket really needs to be retired. It's the one thing I notice again and again - and the pucker on the right sleeve top is so distracting. It's also at least two sizes too large.
I've no idea why he's so attached to it. He definitely owns a dark jacket, and it's not like he can't afford a whole suit given he's on over £100k as LotO.
But just think how many worthy causes he must have Standing Orders for each month...
The beige jacket really needs to be retired. It's the one thing I notice again and again - and the pucker on the right sleeve top is so distracting. It's also at least two sizes too large.
I've no idea why he's so attached to it. He definitely owns a dark jacket, and it's not like he can't afford a whole suit given he's on over £100k as LotO.
He's certainly experiencing the Ming Effect of looking visibly a lot older/old bird since his election as leader.
He really does need to "scrub up" somewhat and at least start to look the part. Dispensing with (or at least hiding) those Steptoe-style vests would be a good start. Oh and taking that beige suit down to the charity shop would be another smart move.
He's got a lodger, I know nothing of his private life but people who take in a lodger tend to be skint.
Skint? No chance. He's been on an MP's salary and expenses for 32 years.
@iainjwatson: Jeremy Corbyn says unfortunately last week's bombing in Beirut got very little coverage and media should report what happens outside europe
But it’s just blatantly untrue.
Search Google News and you will find pages and pages of reports of the attacks in Beirut. Pages and pages and pages. Over 1,286 articles in fact — lots of which pre-date the attacks in Paris.
The sheer number of people who will, though, happily claim that the media hasn’t reported it does my head in.
Comments
What does OGH rate as being a good result I wonder? Labour surely needs to do more than simply scrape back in?
Really? In a by-election four-and-a-half years from a general election in a highly atypical seat against a protest party?
There is also the little matter of the total lack of an obvious challenger to JC, let alone one who could command enough support to win against him. Labour scraped the bottom of the barrel in its leadership election and the results were remarkable in their mediocrity.
I think he's safe for a while. I think Labour are mad, but I can't see him being moved for at least the next two years.
And how easy is it going to be for them to renew?
The challenge will come next year in the Scottish, Welsh and London Mayoral elections. If Labour does badly there the perception of being a loser will become dangerous to him.
And the omens are not good in either Scotland or Wales. In London Labour have a candidate who wants to keep his distance (as, in fairness, do the Tories). What role is he going to play in these campaigns? Looking irrelevant would be even worse than looking weak.
In the interim, losses or other under-performances will continue to be explained away. Oldham? The Paris attacks combined with a seat where one in six voted for Griffin not long ago. London? Obviously Sadiq wasn't the man. Scotland? Who could oppose the SNP at the moment? Wales? Local difficulties. And so on. And the seductive aspect of all of those is that it won't be the Tories who are the beneficiaries, keeping the chimera of the anti-Tory alliance alive. The exception, of course, would be London but then that could be explained away as a personal vote for Zac: Boris' wins didn't stop Labour doing well at the GE.
But before Corbyn's critics can move, they need to make sure of three things: (1) that they actually can force him out, (2) that if they do, the left won't unite and win around McDonnell or some other candidate, and (3) that whoever does become the standard-bearer of the mainstream will do a half-decent job and not get landed with the blame after another election defeat. I don't think they're remotely close to having a credible answer to any of those and as such, their best option is to rally behind the scenes and wait for the opportunity.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34829546
The latest SDSR will certainly make interesting reading.
There's a clue in the answer.
There's also a lot of ambiguity over what will be considered a good result in the upcoming elections. You could argue standing still would be a decent result in Wales, is just coming 2nd enough in Scotland and how do you determine good local election results, aggregate percentage or performance in marginals..
However, I'll find the results of the following perhaps just as interesting:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/defence-committee/news-parliament-2015/an-sdsr-checklist-of-potential-threats-inquiry-launch/
I kinda get the impression this inquiry should have been done *before* the SDSR ...
Labour MPs do appear a little more combative than in the past, but I still think there's little prospect of them axing Corbyn. The Macedonian royal family they are not.
‘Mr Corbyn needs a good result in Oldham a fortnight on Thursday.’
He’ll need a lot more than just one goodish result from a by-election to allay fears from within the party and Scotland 2016 looks as though it will be a stinker for him, - what then?
Three friends of mine (yes, on Facebook again, but I've know them for decades) were heavily attacking Cameron at the weekend and making all the usual pro-Corbyn noises and echoing Left-wing shibboleths on immigration. They include two self-proclaimed socialists. I never knew the third had such sympathies; my eyes popped out when I read his posts.
Background? Two of them went to the same traditional private all-boys school as I did, where the headmaster was an ex-BoB fighter pilot, and are from established middle-class families. The third is very well spoken, went to Cambridge and is from a wealthy family that owns a six-bedroom pile with land in a small, pretty village in the middle of Hampshire.
There must have been a time when 80% of anyone with that sort of backstory voted Conservative. No longer.
Typical Jezza Lab view: everything is seen through the prism of the Labour Party rather than the country and politics as a whole.
But something that is quite striking is how rare this is; news coverage of our 'closest neighbour' is almost nonexistent except for catastrophic events like this.
Normally, France might as well be 5000 miles away rather than less less 50, for all the interest we as a society have in the place. I can't imagine any time in the last 1000 years when this would have been so to the extent it apparently is now.
Afraid I'm not really convinced by this argument. Corbyn's authority is already shot to bits with his MPs, but that seems irrelevant. His power comes from the members and I can't see them caring whether he is going to win the election or not given the sorts of people who seem to have joined in recent months.
Of course this could change. Four and half years is a heck of a long time in politics. Many of the Corbynistas may have drifted away in a couple of years, distracted by something else. Or, the consequences of Osborne's budgets may be so bad that the membership, even the £3ers, start to desperately want a Labour government at any price, even if Chukka or Jarvis is that price. I can't see it, but who knows. What seems more likely is that the Left's Great Corbyn Experiment is going to be tested to destruction at the ballot box.
http://www.kraxon.com/zodiac-eclipse-escape/
If his name was different surely he would be 8/1 rather than 20s?
Has he massively blotted his copybook at some point or some other egregious mis-step? I'm on him but have no idea of his previous...
"Is that because you think JC's a socialist or because you fear he isn't? It occurred to me the other day that he's only leader because his close friend Bernie Grant is no longer with us."
You mean because Bernie Grant would have been leader?
In answer to your question neither. I haven't the vaguest picture of what a Corbyn government would look like other that it would be at permanent war with itself and watching Labour's factions fighting for control is an unbearable thought
Lots of skeletons rattling there
2) why do you expect the Labour electorate to come to their senses?
ISIS atrocities do put Labour in an awkward position. Most supporters realise that the problem is restricted to a few Muslims, but for some middle class Jezza fans, any implied criticism of Islam is anathema and must be resisted. The Jezzarite "It's all America's fault" rings hollow but it's all they know.
I thought the Charlie Hebdo/Supermarket attacks were appalling enough but this seems to have struck the French as similar to 9/11 and, at least judging by the responses so far, the reaction has been similar to the US's, in terms of language anyway.
Anyway, news reports of shooting / police raids in a Brussels suburb......
The Belgian minister admitted in so many words that they'd 'lost control' of the area, that it is the 'European political centre of radical Islam' and that most of the big European terrorist attacks have been planned there. As nonchalantly as that.
That story is a microcosm of all that is wrong with the EU. The EU could be a leading force in tackling continental terrorism yet we have lacksadaisical, politically-correct, lazy chaps like him in charge, shrugging his shoulders about guns, terrorism, organised crime and drug running operating from an area of 100,000 people that is only 30% Muslim.
How hard is it to get a grip on 30,000 people if the Belgian authorities really put their minds to it?
Will be interesting to see what that will show.
Anyway to work now.
Have a good day all.
It's the police and local authorities that bother me. They have no excuse for these powers, and will abuse them if they get them.
The purpose of Momentum is to change that, the requirement from the general election is to get their own people into safe or suitable seats. The big opportunity is to remake the labour party in their own image.
When Bactria and Sogdiana rebelled, Alexander didn't dick about. The Black Prince didn't just shrug when bits of Gascony shifted to the French.
And it's not like the Islamist terrorists are some sort of benign hippy commune.
I've no idea why he's so attached to it. He definitely owns a dark jacket, and it's not like he can't afford a whole suit given he's on over £100k as LotO.
He's certainly experiencing the Ming Effect of looking visibly a lot older/old bird since his election as leader.
Being caught in bed with a dead boy wouldn't touch him right now - it'd be hand-waved away. I've no idea what could possibly unseat him - none.
The alternative - what you appear to propose - is a Euro-FBI, which were it seriously put forward as an option would send Eurosceptics barmy. I cannot see it as a political runner.
How is this anything to do with the EU... namely the internal policing and social policy arrangements of a sovereign country?
The minister was a Belgian minister, not an EU one. If the EU was telling Belgium how to police itself you would be the first to complain.
Corbyn, despite much misgiving in between, makes it through to 2020 then crashes badly at the election. He stands down and Watson takes over. Watson persuades the NEC not to call a leadership election until after the rules have been changed "in light of a third defeat, each worse than the last". The new rules are adopted at a conference early in 2021, removing the three-pounder clause. Watson finally stands down in June, by which point, Kinnock has been an MP for six years and has been promoted to the front bench.
I think that's not out of the bounds of possibility but nor is it topside of a 5% shot.
Halloween was two weeks ago!
@iainjwatson: Jeremy Corbyn says unfortunately last week's bombing in Beirut got very little coverage and media should report what happens outside europe https://medium.com/@martinbelam/you-won-t-read-about-this-in-the-media-but-b275d46fd51f
The alternative project would need to include some significant redistribution - most members aren't in the least interested in managerialist stuff like transferring power to local authorities, even though it might be a good idea. But it's not only the left that feel that Britain is now seriously lopsided in terms of both wealth and opportunity, and an alternative that set out concrete ways to address that would get an interested audience. For now, though, the great majority of members want Corbyn to be given a decent run.
They really do need to axe Corbyn.
What I want to know is - which one of them does the panda mask belong to?
He was on Lorraine Kelly's show this morning talking about this.
He came across as amiable enough, if a little verbose, until she engaged him on the subject of man-hole covers.
At which point, all his oddness became very visible. Weirder than Ed.
https://twitter.com/msmithsonpb/status/662319898719363072
ha
haha
hahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/666167312047857664
He came across as amiable enough, if a little verbose, until she engaged him on the subject of man-hole covers.
At which point, all his oddness became very visible. Weirder than Ed.