The conquest, subjugation and occupation of backward Islamic caliphates and states, and the installation of secular client strongmen in the Assad/Saddam/Ghaddafi mould.
The powerful civilised states - US, Russia, Europeans, China, etc - should agree a carve-up and thus share the risks and the spoils of such a venture.
And a declaration that followers of radical Islam are perpetui inimici (Perpetual enemies) of the world, and will be treated as outlaws wherever they are found, especially in the civilised world.
Won't happen of course.
Instead, we'll just half-heartedly poke a stick at them, and wait for their inevitable response...
You are right - this is ultimately the only way to deal with the situation. But the political will for such a 'nuclear' option would be impossible to establish.
Maybe I'm a bit ruthless but I think whoever succeeds Corbyn should expel Corbyn and his band of merry travelers from the party. Anything to cleanse the brand as quickly as possible.
Disagree, as many of the Corbyn backers will still be needed to win with swing voters added onto them. Cameron did not expel IDS did he, despite similarly dire ratings under his leadership, in fact he even ended up in the Cabinet
IDS is nothing like Corbyn!
The pious man is here to stay, and he's burning down the commune!
Maybe I'm a bit ruthless but I think whoever succeeds Corbyn should expel Corbyn and his band of merry travelers from the party. Anything to cleanse the brand as quickly as possible.
Disagree, as many of the Corbyn backers will still be needed to win with swing voters added onto them. Cameron did not expel IDS did he, despite similarly dire ratings under his leadership, in fact he even ended up in the Cabinet
So. Jeremy Corbyn. You were slightly less shit than Iain Duncan Smith. But not by much.
EJ Thribb, aged 17 1/2.
Yes, Corbyn and IDS are in competition for the award of the worst post-war leader of the opposition ever with the result yet to be determined, William Hague, Michael Foot and Ed Miliband in the battle for the bronze, night!
The conquest, subjugation and occupation of backward Islamic caliphates and states, and the installation of secular client strongmen in the Assad/Saddam/Ghaddafi mould.
The powerful civilised states - US, Russia, Europeans, China, etc - should agree a carve-up and thus share the risks and the spoils of such a venture.
And a declaration that followers of radical Islam are perpetui inimici (Perpetual enemies) of the world, and will be treated as outlaws wherever they are found, especially in the civilised world.
Won't happen of course.
Instead, we'll just half-heartedly poke a stick at them, and wait for their inevitable response...
Rod, if you don't mind me asking, what do you make of OW&S?
The conquest, subjugation and occupation of backward Islamic caliphates and states, and the installation of secular client strongmen in the Assad/Saddam/Ghaddafi mould.
The powerful civilised states - US, Russia, Europeans, China, etc - should agree a carve-up and thus share the risks and the spoils of such a venture.
And a declaration that followers of radical Islam are perpetui inimici (Perpetual enemies) of the world, and will be treated as outlaws wherever they are found, especially in the civilised world.
Won't happen of course.
Instead, we'll just half-heartedly poke a stick at them, and wait for their inevitable response...
That works in Egypt, under a military dictatorship and in Syria in the Alawite areas sympathetic to Assad but the problem is most of Syria is Sunni with the FSA the only viable alternative and in Iraq most of the country is Shia while Saddam was also Sunni
Maybe I'm a bit ruthless but I think whoever succeeds Corbyn should expel Corbyn and his band of merry travelers from the party. Anything to cleanse the brand as quickly as possible.
Disagree, as many of the Corbyn backers will still be needed to win with swing voters added onto them. Cameron did not expel IDS did he, despite similarly dire ratings under his leadership, in fact he even ended up in the Cabinet
So. Jeremy Corbyn. You were slightly less shit than Iain Duncan Smith. But not by much.
EJ Thribb, aged 17 1/2.
Yes, Corbyn and IDS are in competition for the award of the worst post-war leader of the opposition ever with the result yet to be determined, William Hague, Michael Foot and Ed Miliband in the battle for the bronze, night!
Ed Miliband wins by a landslide, when you consider his legacy, and the fact that the leadership election procedure changes took place on his watch. Not forgetting that whoever won in 2010 was supposed to be "out of power for a generation".
I wouldn't be surprised if Labour membership falls off a cliff when £3ers come to renew... similarly the true moderates are already dropping off like flies. All of this combined with a union backlash once Corbyn is disposed off and the Labour party is in a deep deep hole.
Maybe I'm a bit ruthless but I think whoever succeeds Corbyn should expel Corbyn and his band of merry travelers from the party. Anything to cleanse the brand as quickly as possible.
Disagree, as many of the Corbyn backers will still be needed to win with swing voters added onto them. Cameron did not expel IDS did he, despite similarly dire ratings under his leadership, in fact he even ended up in the Cabinet
So. Jeremy Corbyn. You were slightly less shit than Iain Duncan Smith. But not by much.
EJ Thribb, aged 17 1/2.
Yes, Corbyn and IDS are in competition for the award of the worst post-war leader of the opposition ever with the result yet to be determined, William Hague, Michael Foot and Ed Miliband in the battle for the bronze, night!
Ed Miliband wins by a landslide, when you consider his legacy, and the fact that the leadership election procedure changes took place on his watch. Not forgetting that whoever won in 2010 was supposed to be "out of power for a generation".
Ed did do a pretty useless job overall and actually saw Labour fall backwards but most of that was due to Scotland and he got more seats than Foot and Hague, he was also much brighter than IDS and much sharper than Corbyn, as shown by the way he defeated Cameron over Syrian airstrikes while Corbyn cannot even get his own party on board, night!
The conquest, subjugation and occupation of backward Islamic caliphates and states, and the installation of secular client strongmen in the Assad/Saddam/Ghaddafi mould.
The powerful civilised states - US, Russia, Europeans, China, etc - should agree a carve-up and thus share the risks and the spoils of such a venture.
And a declaration that followers of radical Islam are perpetui inimici (Perpetual enemies) of the world, and will be treated as outlaws wherever they are found, especially in the civilised world.
Won't happen of course.
Instead, we'll just half-heartedly poke a stick at them, and wait for their inevitable response...
Rod, if you don't mind me asking, what do you make of OW&S?
Any value in the odds in your opinion?
So hard to call.
But one could scarcely find more propitious circumstances for an upset, could one?
Corbyn & Labour... Meacher... December... ISIS... The weather...
UKIP are the value bet, I would have thought. 600 votes short in nearby Heywood in 2014. When Labour were about 3% in the lead in the national polls...
The conquest, subjugation and occupation of backward Islamic caliphates and states, and the installation of secular client strongmen in the Assad/Saddam/Ghaddafi mould.
The powerful civilised states - US, Russia, Europeans, China, etc - should agree a carve-up and thus share the risks and the spoils of such a venture.
And a declaration that followers of radical Islam are perpetui inimici (Perpetual enemies) of the world, and will be treated as outlaws wherever they are found, especially in the civilised world.
Won't happen of course.
Instead, we'll just half-heartedly poke a stick at them, and wait for their inevitable response...
Rod, if you don't mind me asking, what do you make of OW&S?
Any value in the odds in your opinion?
So hard to call.
But one could scarcely find more propitious circumstances for an upset, could one?
Corbyn & Labour... Meacher... December... ISIS... The weather...
UKIP are the value bet, I would have thought. 600 votes short in nearby Heywood in 2014. When Labour were about 3% in the lead in the national polls...
Yeah, cheers. I've backed UKIP down from 9/1 to just above 3/1 - and greened out when they went below that.
Even on a shocking Lab performance, it's still a hell of a mountain for UKIP to climb.
Wow every interview is a massive car crash. He gets so aggressive. That isn't passionate defence, it is aggressive, and this is an interview from a friendly journo. And he starts banker bashing...ISIL exists because of evil banksters...back to treating suicide bombers with feathers dusters, that was a more convincing position.
If he actually makes a GE campaign, he will explode, as he will have to do far more combative interviews.
The conquest, subjugation and occupation of backward Islamic caliphates and states, and the installation of secular client strongmen in the Assad/Saddam/Ghaddafi mould.
The powerful civilised states - US, Russia, Europeans, China, etc - should agree a carve-up and thus share the risks and the spoils of such a venture.
And a declaration that followers of radical Islam are perpetui inimici (Perpetual enemies) of the world, and will be treated as outlaws wherever they are found, especially in the civilised world.
Won't happen of course.
Instead, we'll just half-heartedly poke a stick at them, and wait for their inevitable response...
Rod, if you don't mind me asking, what do you make of OW&S?
Any value in the odds in your opinion?
So hard to call.
But one could scarcely find more propitious circumstances for an upset, could one?
Corbyn & Labour... Meacher... December... ISIS... The weather...
UKIP are the value bet, I would have thought. 600 votes short in nearby Heywood in 2014. When Labour were about 3% in the lead in the national polls...
Yeah, cheers. I've backed UKIP down from 9/1 to just above 3/1 - and greened out when they went below that.
Even on a shocking Lab performance, it's still a hell of a mountain for UKIP to climb.
Also, you would have to go back certainly pre-1945, maybe 100 years, to find a party defending a seat in a by-election after a 45-year incumbent dies...
Yes, a bit sub-optimal :-). As always with the YG series, there is a problem with the question: it asks an objective question rather than a personal preference. It'd be hard to argue that Corbyn is having huge success this week, so "doing well" is an expression of faith rather than a strict answer to the question - Corbyn is the leader I want, but I wouldn't say he was objectively doing well. (Conversely one could say e.g. "Marine Le Pen is doing well" without liking her at all.)
The 11-point lead is the more serious issue - people are clearly being put off either by the portrayal of Corbyn (whether fair or not) or by the in-fighting (whoever one blames) or both. But I'm not sure that can be avoided until the party sorts itself out. Does that make Corbyn supporters demand a change in leader? No - that's not the point: the point is what sort of party we want to be. If we want to have a party that stands for genuine left-wing change, we need to stick it out (and not resign because not everyone instantly agrees - come on, Surbiton!). Not many here will agree, and I'm only posting it because it's important to have diverse opinion here.
Yes, a bit sub-optimal :-). As always with the YG series, there is a problem with the question: it asks an objective question rather than a personal preference. It'd be hard to argue that Corbyn is having huge success this week, so "doing well" is an expression of faith rather than a strict answer to the question - Corbyn is the leader I want, but I wouldn't say he was objectively doing well. (Conversely one could say e.g. "Marine Le Pen is doing well" without liking her at all.)
The 11-point lead is the more serious issue - people are clearly being put off either by the portrayal of Corbyn (whether fair or not) or by the in-fighting (whoever one blames) or both. But I'm not sure that can be avoided until the party sorts itself out. Does that make Corbyn supporters demand a change in leader? No - that's not the point: the point is what sort of party we want to be. If we want to have a party that stands for genuine left-wing change, we need to stick it out (and not resign because not everyone instantly agrees - come on, Surbiton!). Not many here will agree, and I'm only posting it because it's important to have diverse opinion here.
I actually agree. Current membership likes Corbyn even if, at present, polls such as we can trust suggest the wider public do not. With such a divide, jettisoning Corbyn would probably result in a similar leader in any case. The idea of a leader like Corbyn and the direction he is heading needs to be tested to destruction or unexpected victory. Either the genuine left wing party can appeal to people despite early indications, or it won't but the party are happy staying true but out of power, or the membership will decide compromising to win is indeed necessary. But they need to go big and bold, and fail (or not) if they are to change their minds I suspect. I'm not a party member, but if they are currently satisfied, they need to take this all the way to see if it works, and if they are able to put up with it if it doesn't.
Yes, a bit sub-optimal :-). As always with the YG series, there is a problem with the question: it asks an objective question rather than a personal preference. It'd be hard to argue that Corbyn is having huge success this week, so "doing well" is an expression of faith rather than a strict answer to the question - Corbyn is the leader I want, but I wouldn't say he was objectively doing well. (Conversely one could say e.g. "Marine Le Pen is doing well" without liking her at all.)
The 11-point lead is the more serious issue - people are clearly being put off either by the portrayal of Corbyn (whether fair or not) or by the in-fighting (whoever one blames) or both. But I'm not sure that can be avoided until the party sorts itself out. Does that make Corbyn supporters demand a change in leader? No - that's not the point: the point is what sort of party we want to be. If we want to have a party that stands for genuine left-wing change, we need to stick it out (and not resign because not everyone instantly agrees - come on, Surbiton!). Not many here will agree, and I'm only posting it because it's important to have diverse opinion here.
I actually agree. Current membership likes Corbyn even if, at present, polls such as we can trust suggest the wider public do not. With such a divide, jettisoning Corbyn would probably result in a similar leader in any case. The idea of a leader like Corbyn and the direction he is heading needs to be tested to destruction or unexpected victory. Either the genuine left wing party can appeal to people despite early indications, or it won't but the party are happy staying true but out of power, or the membership will decide compromising to win is indeed necessary. But they need to go big and bold, and fail (or not) if they are to change their minds I suspect. I'm not a party member, but if they are currently satisfied, they need to take this all the way to see if it works, and if they are able to put up with it if it doesn't.
On this basis presumably you accept that those MPs not in the 'project' should resign or be deselected.
Yes, a bit sub-optimal :-). As always with the YG series, there is a problem with the question: it asks an objective question rather than a personal preference. It'd be hard to argue that Corbyn is having huge success this week, so "doing well" is an expression of faith rather than a strict answer to the question - Corbyn is the leader I want, but I wouldn't say he was objectively doing well. (Conversely one could say e.g. "Marine Le Pen is doing well" without liking her at all.)
The 11-point lead is the more serious issue - people are clearly being put off either by the portrayal of Corbyn (whether fair or not) or by the in-fighting (whoever one blames) or both. But I'm not sure that can be avoided until the party sorts itself out. Does that make Corbyn supporters demand a change in leader? No - that's not the point: the point is what sort of party we want to be. If we want to have a party that stands for genuine left-wing change, we need to stick it out (and not resign because not everyone instantly agrees - come on, Surbiton!). Not many here will agree, and I'm only posting it because it's important to have diverse opinion here.
Yes, a bit sub-optimal :-). As always with the YG series, there is a problem with the question: it asks an objective question rather than a personal preference. It'd be hard to argue that Corbyn is having huge success this week, so "doing well" is an expression of faith rather than a strict answer to the question - Corbyn is the leader I want, but I wouldn't say he was objectively doing well. (Conversely one could say e.g. "Marine Le Pen is doing well" without liking her at all.)
The 11-point lead is the more serious issue - people are clearly being put off either by the portrayal of Corbyn (whether fair or not) or by the in-fighting (whoever one blames) or both. But I'm not sure that can be avoided until the party sorts itself out. Does that make Corbyn supporters demand a change in leader? No - that's not the point: the point is what sort of party we want to be. If we want to have a party that stands for genuine left-wing change, we need to stick it out (and not resign because not everyone instantly agrees - come on, Surbiton!). Not many here will agree, and I'm only posting it because it's important to have diverse opinion here.
I agree with Nick
Again you should therefore support the removal of the many MPs on the Labour side with very different views about what they want the party to be.
Yes, a bit sub-optimal :-). As always with the YG series, there is a problem with the question: it asks an objective question rather than a personal preference. It'd be hard to argue that Corbyn is having huge success this week, so "doing well" is an expression of faith rather than a strict answer to the question - Corbyn is the leader I want, but I wouldn't say he was objectively doing well. (Conversely one could say e.g. "Marine Le Pen is doing well" without liking her at all.)
The 11-point lead is the more serious issue - people are clearly being put off either by the portrayal of Corbyn (whether fair or not) or by the in-fighting (whoever one blames) or both. But I'm not sure that can be avoided until the party sorts itself out. Does that make Corbyn supporters demand a change in leader? No - that's not the point: the point is what sort of party we want to be. If we want to have a party that stands for genuine left-wing change, we need to stick it out (and not resign because not everyone instantly agrees - come on, Surbiton!). Not many here will agree, and I'm only posting it because it's important to have diverse opinion here.
I agree with Nick
Again you should therefore support the removal of the many MPs on the Labour side with very different views about what they want the party to be.
Yes, a bit sub-optimal :-). As always with the YG series, there is a problem with the question: it asks an objective question rather than a personal preference. It'd be hard to argue that Corbyn is having huge success this week, so "doing well" is an expression of faith rather than a strict answer to the question - Corbyn is the leader I want, but I wouldn't say he was objectively doing well. (Conversely one could say e.g. "Marine Le Pen is doing well" without liking her at all.)
The 11-point lead is the more serious issue - people are clearly being put off either by the portrayal of Corbyn (whether fair or not) or by the in-fighting (whoever one blames) or both. But I'm not sure that can be avoided until the party sorts itself out. Does that make Corbyn supporters demand a change in leader? No - that's not the point: the point is what sort of party we want to be. If we want to have a party that stands for genuine left-wing change, we need to stick it out (and not resign because not everyone instantly agrees - come on, Surbiton!). Not many here will agree, and I'm only posting it because it's important to have diverse opinion here.
I agree with Nick
Again you should therefore support the removal of the many MPs on the Labour side with very different views about what they want the party to be.
'There's no hiding' from the new politics.....
Of course NPXMP hid his light under a pretty big bush for many years when he actually had to win elections.
Yes, a bit sub-optimal :-). As always with the YG series, there is a problem with the question: it asks an objective question rather than a personal preference. It'd be hard to argue that Corbyn is having huge success this week, so "doing well" is an expression of faith rather than a strict answer to the question - Corbyn is the leader I want, but I wouldn't say he was objectively doing well. (Conversely one could say e.g. "Marine Le Pen is doing well" without liking her at all.)
The 11-point lead is the more serious issue - people are clearly being put off either by the portrayal of Corbyn (whether fair or not) or by the in-fighting (whoever one blames) or both. But I'm not sure that can be avoided until the party sorts itself out. Does that make Corbyn supporters demand a change in leader? No - that's not the point: the point is what sort of party we want to be. If we want to have a party that stands for genuine left-wing change, we need to stick it out (and not resign because not everyone instantly agrees - come on, Surbiton!). Not many here will agree, and I'm only posting it because it's important to have diverse opinion here.
I
On this basis presumably you accept that those MPs not in the 'project' should resign or be deselected.
I think forcing that issue is a decision the party needs to come to in determining how far they really want to test this left wing appeal. If providing a genuine hard left party option, even if the public hate it, is what the members consider their priority, deselecting those who don't fit the bill surely has to be part of it. If they decide the purity of that appeal is not as important as winning seats and not testing that appeal fully, well, that's more sensible but suggests they are not as different from compromising blairites as they'd like to think, as they are saying a broad church approach is still ok.
Personally I worry a Corbynite Labour Party would not be credible, and we need credible alternate governing options, but if the party's members think a Corbynite party is credible or don't care if it is not, it is to everyone's benefit to determine that quickly so it succeeds or the recovery can begin when it fails. Forcing resignations or deselections would certainly bring matters to a head quickly, but it's their party and their choice On how best to test this theory.
Yes, a bit sub-optimal :-). As always with the YG series, there is a problem with the question: it asks an objective question rather than a personal preference. It'd be hard to argue that Corbyn is having huge success this week, so "doing well" is an expression of faith rather than a strict answer to the question - Corbyn is the leader I want, but I wouldn't say he was objectively doing well. (Conversely one could say e.g. "Marine Le Pen is doing well" without liking her at all.)
The 11-point lead is the more serious issue - people are clearly being put off either by the portrayal of Corbyn (whether fair or not) or by the in-fighting (whoever one blames) or both. But I'm not sure that can be avoided until the party sorts itself out. Does that make Corbyn supporters demand a change in leader? No - that's not the point: the point is what sort of party we want to be. If we want to have a party that stands for genuine left-wing change, we need to stick it out (and not resign because not everyone instantly agrees - come on, Surbiton!). Not many here will agree, and I'm only posting it because it's important to have diverse opinion here.
I
On this basis presumably you accept that those MPs not in the 'project' should resign or be deselected.
I think forcing that issue is a decision the party needs to come to in determining how far they really want to test this left wing appeal. If providing a genuine hard left party option, even if the public hate it, is what the members consider their priority, deselecting those who don't fit the bill surely has to be part of it. If they decide the purity of that appeal is not as important as winning seats and not testing that appeal fully, well, that's more sensible but suggests they are not as different from compromising blairites as they'd like to think, as they are saying a broad church approach is still ok.
Personally I worry a Corbynite Labour Party would not be credible, and we need credible alternate governing options, but if the party's members think a Corbynite party is credible or don't care if it is not, it is to everyone's benefit to determine that quickly so it succeeds or the recovery can begin when it fails. Forcing resignations or deselections would certainly bring matters to a head quickly, but it's their party and their choice On how best to test this theory.
"Personally I worry a Corbynite Labour Party would not be credible"
Yes, a bit sub-optimal :-). As always with the YG series, there is a problem with the question: it asks an objective question rather than a personal preference. It'd be hard to argue that Corbyn is having huge success this week, so "doing well" is an expression of faith rather than a strict answer to the question - Corbyn is the leader I want, but I wouldn't say he was objectively doing well. (Conversely one could say e.g. "Marine Le Pen is doing well" without liking her at all.)
The 11-point lead is the more serious issue - people are clearly being put off either by the portrayal of Corbyn (whether fair or not) or by the in-fighting (whoever one blames) or both. But I'm not sure that can be avoided until the party sorts itself out. Does that make Corbyn supporters demand a change in leader? No - that's not the point: the point is what sort of party we want to be. If we want to have a party that stands for genuine left-wing change, we need to stick it out (and not resign because not everyone instantly agrees - come on, Surbiton!). Not many here will agree, and I'm only posting it because it's important to have diverse opinion here.
I
On this basis presumably you accept that those MPs not in the 'project' should resign or be deselected.
I think forcing that issue is a decision the party needs to come to in determining how far they really want to test this left wing appeal. If providing a genuine hard left party option, even if the public hate it, is what the members consider their priority, deselecting those who don't fit the bill surely has to be part of it. If they decide the purity of that appeal is not as important as winning seats and not testing that appeal fully, well, that's more sensible but suggests they are not as different from compromising blairites as they'd like to think, as they are saying a broad church approach is still ok.
Personally I worry a Corbynite Labour Party would not be credible, and we need credible alternate governing options, but if the party's members think a Corbynite party is credible or don't care if it is not, it is to everyone's benefit to determine that quickly so it succeeds or the recovery can begin when it fails. Forcing resignations or deselections would certainly bring matters to a head quickly, but it's their party and their choice On how best to test this theory.
"Personally I worry a Corbynite Labour Party would not be credible"
Understatement of the milennium
Well, we're only 15 years into the millennium, so that's not so remarkable.
Alright, time to try and get back to sleep, I've got work in like 2 hours.
Yes, a bit sub-optimal :-). As always with the YG series, there is a problem with the question: it asks an objective question rather than a personal preference. It'd be hard to argue that Corbyn is having huge success this week, so "doing well" is an expression of faith rather than a strict answer to the question - Corbyn is the leader I want, but I wouldn't say he was objectively doing well. (Conversely one could say e.g. "Marine Le Pen is doing well" without liking her at all.)
The 11-point lead is the more serious issue - people are clearly being put off either by the portrayal of Corbyn (whether fair or not) or by the in-fighting (whoever one blames) or both. But I'm not sure that can be avoided until the party sorts itself out. Does that make Corbyn supporters demand a change in leader? No - that's not the point: the point is what sort of party we want to be. If we want to have a party that stands for genuine left-wing change, we need to stick it out (and not resign because not everyone instantly agrees - come on, Surbiton!). Not many here will agree, and I'm only posting it because it's important to have diverse opinion here.
To me it's about whether you want to stand by your principles or say what you have to in order to get elected, I get the impression from some on here Mr Palmer's principles are quite flexible but I can't say. I can't think of anything Corbyn believes in that I agree with and would never vote for him but he's dealing with patronising Tories and vacuous Blairites, I hope that hardens his resolve. During the labour leadership elections Corbyn was head and shoulders above the other three, Labour need to stop whining and unite behind the man who was elected in a landslide. Better to die fighting than surrender.
I've just heard Cameron's remarks about going into the lobby with terrorists....what a piece of work...... Just after I'd thought he'd begun to look like Prime Minister.
First impressions are often the most accurate. A two faced insincere dilettante. His one time membership of the Bullingdon Club told us everything we needed to know......
I've just heard Cameron's remarks about going into the lobby with terrorists....
Terrorist sympathisers - it may be an unpleasant charge, but there is a cornucopia of evidence to back it up.....particularly in the case of Corbyn & McMao......
Of course there will be many MPs who have grappled with this sincerely and concluded that bombing is wrong - but I very much doubt Corbyn approached it with anything like an open mind - and in his case, I fear the charge has some justification....
Front page of the Mail says Osborne is encouraging immigration to balance the books, front page of the Telegraph says Osborne is removing students from immigration figures to massage the numbers.
What a disgrace this govt is, continually pledge to reduce immigration then willfully do the opposite.
I think you might be right about Corbyn and a few others but that doesn't make it any less crass. Any thinking person can see It's a difficult and balanced decision which is why such a brutal and insensitive comment jars so badly.
He has this achilles heel. He can be very crude and fake
I think you might be right about Corbyn and a few others but that doesn't make it any less crass. Any thinking person can see It's a difficult and balanced decision which is why such a brutal and insensitive comment jars so badly.
He has this achilles heel. He can be very crude and fake
His track record indicates it is not a difficult and balanced decision for him: he is anti-war. His difficulty is in trying to persuade other Labour MPs of his views, which is an entirely different matter.
In fact, if he had a more balanced view on it, he might find it easier to persuade them to vote against. Instead, he has to cast-iron certainty of his own conviction, which is not an argument that particularly wins other people over.
It'd also be easier for him if he had a better and more thought-out alternative plan.
I happened to be working in a factory yesterday within earshot of some women working on a production line. I think these would definitely be considered to be the working class manual workers. They were working manually in front of me, so I didn't really need a sociologist to confirm it. Jeremy Corbyn was on the Steve Wright show, and as he came on there was a barage of contempt launched towards him. I suspect that had they been able to, they would have changed the channel. However, as he spoke there were a few positive comments and after he was gone they agreed that he came across okay, to their surprise. I spend enough time in that kind of environment that I can say that politics is very very rarely a topic of conversation, and Corbyn didn't seem to have enthused them enough to actually change their opinion. They then went on to discuss bombing Syria and none of them had a good word to say for the strategy. It was entirely possible that they hadn't realised that Corbyn was against it prior to the broadcast, and their objections to him previously had been to do with the image he projected rather than what he was talking about. But I thought it was interesting that he was listened to and that he went down well. It might have been a different story on television - he doesn't really seem to get visual. If I were a Labour MP and my job depended on it, I'd certainly be in the market for someone a bit more mainstream. But I wouldn't rule out him winning over people if he manages to get the time to do so.
Comments
Any value in the odds in your opinion?
But one could scarcely find more propitious circumstances for an upset, could one?
Corbyn & Labour...
Meacher...
December...
ISIS...
The weather...
UKIP are the value bet, I would have thought. 600 votes short in nearby Heywood in 2014.
When Labour were about 3% in the lead in the national polls...
Even on a shocking Lab performance, it's still a hell of a mountain for UKIP to climb.
Wow every interview is a massive car crash. He gets so aggressive. That isn't passionate defence, it is aggressive, and this is an interview from a friendly journo. And he starts banker bashing...ISIL exists because of evil banksters...back to treating suicide bombers with feathers dusters, that was a more convincing position.
If he actually makes a GE campaign, he will explode, as he will have to do far more combative interviews.
Who knows what could happen?
I expect the twitterati will be pleased with themselves........
........much good may it do them at the ballot box......
Doing well (net)
18-24: -5
25-39: -21
40-59: -53
60+: -61
Its also interesting how the Lab vote is turning into a 'Jeremy' vote:
Doing Well:
2015 Voted Lab: -6
Vote Lab today: +31
2015 voted Lab support Syria air strikes: -51
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/mlyjmh534j/TimesResults_151201_Syria_W1.pdf
The 11-point lead is the more serious issue - people are clearly being put off either by the portrayal of Corbyn (whether fair or not) or by the in-fighting (whoever one blames) or both. But I'm not sure that can be avoided until the party sorts itself out. Does that make Corbyn supporters demand a change in leader? No - that's not the point: the point is what sort of party we want to be. If we want to have a party that stands for genuine left-wing change, we need to stick it out (and not resign because not everyone instantly agrees - come on, Surbiton!). Not many here will agree, and I'm only posting it because it's important to have diverse opinion here.
Personally I worry a Corbynite Labour Party would not be credible, and we need credible alternate governing options, but if the party's members think a Corbynite party is credible or don't care if it is not, it is to everyone's benefit to determine that quickly so it succeeds or the recovery can begin when it fails. Forcing resignations or deselections would certainly bring matters to a head quickly, but it's their party and their choice On how best to test this theory.
Understatement of the milennium
Alright, time to try and get back to sleep, I've got work in like 2 hours.
First impressions are often the most accurate. A two faced insincere dilettante. His one time membership of the Bullingdon Club told us everything we needed to know......
Of course there will be many MPs who have grappled with this sincerely and concluded that bombing is wrong - but I very much doubt Corbyn approached it with anything like an open mind - and in his case, I fear the charge has some justification....
What a disgrace this govt is, continually pledge to reduce immigration then willfully do the opposite.
I think you might be right about Corbyn and a few others but that doesn't make it any less crass. Any thinking person can see It's a difficult and balanced decision which is why such a brutal and insensitive comment jars so badly.
He has this achilles heel. He can be very crude and fake
In fact, if he had a more balanced view on it, he might find it easier to persuade them to vote against. Instead, he has to cast-iron certainty of his own conviction, which is not an argument that particularly wins other people over.
It'd also be easier for him if he had a better and more thought-out alternative plan.
His back isn't even against the wall.
Its odd.