Is it just me or are the Tories deliberately going very very light on Corbyn? There's just so much historical (as well as current) baggage that they could very easily mount a destruction offensive. I suspect that they're simply being smart and waiting to do this in the run up to a GE. They were very light touch on Miliband, realising he was their best asset, and made sure they did nothing to unseat him until it was too late for any change - and then they tore him apart before the GE. His manifest unsuitability was brutally exposed. No doubt a repeat of the same is due for Corbyn. If he manages to survive internal defenestrations until then, I am sure we'll see a similarly brutal takedown (probably worse in fact) getting going in early 2020. It won't be hard! I don't think these current leader ratings will be the same in Feb 2020.
They can go light whilst Labour do all the attacks on Corbyn.
This is what a former Labour Defence Secretary said about Corbyn last weekend
Jeremy Corbyn is a threat to national security, says Lord Hutton
Mr. Jessop, but we're talking about basic issues, not arcane knowledge. Things like 'hackers exist' and 'banning encryption is inherently stupid'.
I'm a luddite. I have no mobile phone, or tablet (I recently used a touch-screen for the first time. It is witchcraft) and even I know this sort of thing.
Whilst I agree with your position on this, I'm not sure Cameron would disagree that 'hackers exist' ...
But that'll just get us onto the true meaning of 'hackers'.
Back in 2000 I attended an export control conference, where the company I worked for was trying to get permission to export 40-bit SSL (encryption code). Given the source code for the much stronger 128-bit SSL was already in the wild, and had been for years, it all seemed faintly ridiculous.
Governments have always been well behind the curve on computing technology. As ever, I'd prefer it if they stated clearly the problem(s) they were trying to solve and then come up with potential solutions. Instead we get the solutions first ...
Cameron's ratings are irrelevant since he won't be offering himself to the country again.
He won't, but given some of the others maybe he should change his mind. Though I suspect his rivals wouldn't let him now, and the EU vote is going to damage him a lot too.
I told Mike last week, were Remain to win comfortably, in a few months time some Tories will hate Cameron more than the Corbynites hate Blair.
The Tory PM that kept us in the EU for a generation will always annoy Tombstone groupers
I have a disabled client with a brain injury. The JW's(not Jack W's) I hasten to add) keep turning up, I keep telling them, neither he nor I are interested, so the last time in exasperation had to tell them to F off or I'd call the police. We now have a note in the window to tell them not to ring the bell , but I doubt it will do any good.
I used to work for a seriously devoted Jew, who said that in his area he had often had visits from JWs and other evangelicals; like all the Jews who I know he was tolerant to a fault, but they were getting tiresome. He found a way to stop being pestered: "When I told them I was Jewish they just tried harder. So I told them I am a worshipper of Satan. The visits have stopped. They are happier with more promising targets, I am happier, everyone benefits."
There's a strategy here. It is somewhat aided by Labour's own actions, but the Tories need Corbyn in post for as long as possible - Labour is Corbyn and Corbyn is Labour and every single leader afterwards will need to show that they are not Corbyn.
As long as they can keep from saying "we told you so", this mud will stick.
Two threads ago, someone mentioned Arthur Scargill. It reminds me of a sketch which was on "Spitting Image" about the negotiations between the NUM and the NCB during the miners' strike in 1984.
Ian McGregor: Good morning, Mr Scargill.
Arthur Scargill: I am not prepared to enter into negotiations about the wellbeing, or otherwise, of the morning.
Mr. Eagles, maybe, but even if they do it'll be under rules rewritten by the likes of Corbyn and Mao. The garnish might be more elegant, but the meal will remain rancid.
Mr. Jessop, the hackers point was about idiots like Bercow who think electronic voting is super-awesome because technology.
I question the judgement of a man whose explanation of hiring someone patently unsuitable for a role was that he wanted to split the role in two, wasn't allowed by old fuddy duddies, so instead of hiring someone who could do both aspects, decided to go with someone unable to do half of it anyway.
Mr. kle4, quite. Bercow's an arse, who thinks anything more modern is inherently better. Probably prefers the winner of the Turner Prize to York Minster.
According to the front pages 9 in 10 hospitals are short of nurses, eventually some bright spark will link that to population growth.
And then realise that that is the only way to solve it
INMIGRATION = GOOD
That is pathetic defeatism. The only proper way to solve it is training our youth effectively. The lifting the nurse training & university number caps is a great start. Immigration can develop into a dangerous dependency on the same level as welfare/benefits.
It does show a lack of coherence in government. The DoH cuts nurse training, and also makes Nursing and Medicine less attractive as careers. Then the Home Office finds the immigration figures going up!
A majority of the nurses that I work with trained overseas. Filipino, Portuguese, Spanish, Indian, Mauritian, Irish etc. A great bunch and judging by last weeks Christmas party very Integrated with British life!
I'm sure they're professional, caring, integrated and great fun, but that doesn't get away from the fact that the number of nurses we're training has been cut.
There's a strategy here. It is somewhat aided by Labour's own actions, but the Tories need Corbyn in post for as long as possible - Labour is Corbyn and Corbyn is Labour and every single leader afterwards will need to show that they are not Corbyn.
As long as they can keep from saying "we told you so", this mud will stick.
I suspect COrbyn's ratings will go up. I know he's stubborn, but Everyone learns on the job and the government is bound to do some bad things as we move forward to make him look better to some.
Cameron's ratings are irrelevant since he won't be offering himself to the country again.
He won't, but given some of the others maybe he should change his mind. Though I suspect his rivals wouldn't let him now, and the EU vote is going to damage him a lot too.
I told Mike last week, were Remain to win comfortably, in a few months time some Tories will hate Cameron more than the Corbynites hate Blair.
The Tory PM that kept us in the EU for a generation will always annoy Tombstone groupers
Isn't hate too strong a word? I'm a harsh critic of Cameron but I don't hate him, I'm sure he's a very nice man, he certainly comes across that way.
Miss Plato, and Mr. Eagles, makes sense. Corbyn gets attacked, but the Conservatives don't even need to lift a finger.
The other thing is I think CCHQ are assuming Labour will replace Corbyn before 2020 with someone more electable.
My grandmother's cat is more electable. Tyson Fury after last night's interview is more electable, and is from Yorkshire to boot. Sadly from the Tories point of view the best unelectable leader for labour with a long shelf life was Burnham. But as OJSimpson would say 'if the glove don't fit you can't convict'. The fact is Corbyn cannot be deposed. It's a physical imposibility.
I suspect COrbyn's ratings will go up. I know he's stubborn, but Everyone learns on the job and the government is bound to do some bad things as we move forward to make him look better to some.
Cameron's ratings are irrelevant since he won't be offering himself to the country again.
He won't, but given some of the others maybe he should change his mind. Though I suspect his rivals wouldn't let him now, and the EU vote is going to damage him a lot too.
I told Mike last week, were Remain to win comfortably, in a few months time some Tories will hate Cameron more than the Corbynites hate Blair.
The Tory PM that kept us in the EU for a generation will always annoy Tombstone groupers
Isn't hate too strong a word? I'm a harsh critic of Cameron but I don't hate him, I'm sure he's a very nice man, he certainly comes across that way.
Oh there are plenty who do hate him though. Quite a few disappointed Tories on GE night who I'll bet were lined up for media appearances to tear into him as phoney, not really right wing and a fool, for not winning yet again.
There's a strategy here. It is somewhat aided by Labour's own actions, but the Tories need Corbyn in post for as long as possible - Labour is Corbyn and Corbyn is Labour and every single leader afterwards will need to show that they are not Corbyn.
As long as they can keep from saying "we told you so", this mud will stick.
It's civil war no matter what happens. Bringing back Galloway is just one more battle. If Corbyn stays there is war if he is ejected there is thermonuclear war.
Jezza is now approaching EdM1.0 at PMQs. He tried Ask The Audience and dropped it within three outings IIRCs.
He avoids most of the media bar the Morning Star. I'm starting to notice a rise in the number of *maybe we shouldn't underestimate* Corbyn articles. Journalists have just reached this point a great deal faster than normal with a numpty. They don't seriously think this, but are desperate to create faux competition with the Tories.
I suspect COrbyn's ratings will go up. I know he's stubborn, but Everyone learns on the job and the government is bound to do some bad things as we move forward to make him look better to some.
Cameron's ratings are irrelevant since he won't be offering himself to the country again.
He won't, but given some of the others maybe he should change his mind. Though I suspect his rivals wouldn't let him now, and the EU vote is going to damage him a lot too.
I told Mike last week, were Remain to win comfortably, in a few months time some Tories will hate Cameron more than the Corbynites hate Blair.
The Tory PM that kept us in the EU for a generation will always annoy Tombstone groupers
As I saved d a couple of threads ago when Tory MPS voted for Cameron o. the basis of his referendum promise I suspect they foolishly thouht they would be getting a referendum formed on their terms.
Jezza is now approaching EdM1.0 at PMQs. He tried Ask The Audience and dropped it within three outings IIRCs.
He avoids most of the media bar the Morning Star. I'm starting to notice a rise in the number of *maybe we shouldn't underestimate* Corbyn articles. Journalists have just reached this point a great deal faster than normal with a numpty. They don't seriously think this, but are desperate to create faux competition with the Tories.
I suspect COrbyn's ratings will go up. I know he's stubborn, but Everyone learns on the job and the government is bound to do some bad things as we move forward to make him look better to some.
Well, it just seems so unlikely he could really be so bad, continuously, but I accept it is grasping. I'm also for some reason predisposed to predict positive things for labour despite not being labour. If he does pick up, he truly will break the mould of our politics.
Its things like the "threat to security" line. The Tories dropped that right at the start, to eye-rolling. Since then Corbyn has managed to get himself painted as that by his own actions and by his own words.
On some matters, he just can't help himself and if the Tories can continue to see these things coming and prepare such 'traps', he'll damn himself.
I call them 'traps', they're not really as they're signposted with neon lights.
The obvious place to look first is the voting intention numbers. At the general election, Labour scored 31% in Great Britain. December’s polls have shown Labour in roughly the same place – ranging from 33 to 29 %. However, many of the changes that the polling industry needs to make haven’t been made yet, so it is more likely than not that this number is – like the pre-election polls – an over-estimate.
For most Leaders of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition, it is downhill from here.
Gov't will have a tricky year with the EU ref ahead. Any further move in the middle east involves the political hot potato of 'ground troops'. Khan is the most likely winner of the Mayoral election. Heathrow.
I think Cameron's 2016 might be trickier than Corbyn's actually.
The Labour apple cart is very rickety, but Corbyn will stay driving it. CCHQ will be delighted.
From that link, and with respect to personal ratings:
"He has certainly captured enthusiasm from some parts of the electorate, but unfortunately they are heavily outnumbered by voters who don’t rate him highly at all. Those dissatisfied with Corbyn outnumber those satisfied with Corbyn by a margin of 17 points. That doesn’t just compare unfavourably with the last two successful opposition leaders – who both had more people satisfied than dissatisfied at this stage – it also compares badly with the last three failed opposition leaders. Ed Miliband and IDS were in neutral territory at this point, while Hague was 11 points better off that Corbyn."
There's a strategy here. It is somewhat aided by Labour's own actions, but the Tories need Corbyn in post for as long as possible - Labour is Corbyn and Corbyn is Labour and every single leader afterwards will need to show that they are not Corbyn.
As long as they can keep from saying "we told you so", this mud will stick.
He's been doing it for years - decades, even. He's the first (and, I hope, the last) British politician to follow Trotsky's rules of engagement. As Brecht put it - "dissolve the people and elect another".
Labour, as I keep saying here, is an idea whose time has gone. Its activists' response to 13 consecutive years of office was - to leave the Party. Government is essentially a right-wing activity (controlling the people in the interests of the powerful) and social democracy therefore a contradiction in terms. I suspect Corbyn and Blair would agree on that, if nothing else.
I think the daisy-in-the-cowpat syndrome is writ large in many Corbyn *highlights*
Anyone else wouldn't be praised as a Winner for retaining a safe seat, or because most of his MPs agreed with their own leader over Syria when his own FSec disagreed entirely, and 66 of his own side voted with the Tories.
It's clutching at straws. The success bar is so low for Corbyn, it makes EdM eating a bacon sandwich look tough.
For most Leaders of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition, it is downhill from here.
Gov't will have a tricky year with the EU ref ahead. Any further move in the middle east involves the political hot potato of 'ground troops'. Khan is the most likely winner of the Mayoral election. Heathrow.
I think Cameron's 2016 might be trickier than Corbyn's actually.
The Labour apple cart is very rickety, but Corbyn will stay driving it. CCHQ will be delighted.
I need a lie down. ConHome have said something nice about Dave
So it’s farewell to Denmark’s Social Democrats – and now, possibly, Mariano Rajoy – and hello to Syriza and Law & Justice. With incumbents under pressure all over Europe, David Cameron’s achievement in pushing up the Conservative share of the vote and gaining a Commons majority stands out.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Corbyn's ratings go up over time, not down - this current political landscape is far from 'business is usual' and past performance is inapplicable. The initial attack on him from the media and his own party was so relentless it means that all he has to do is disprove the ridiculous caricatures painted of him, just by being him.
There's a strategy here. It is somewhat aided by Labour's own actions, but the Tories need Corbyn in post for as long as possible - Labour is Corbyn and Corbyn is Labour and every single leader afterwards will need to show that they are not Corbyn.
As long as they can keep from saying "we told you so", this mud will stick.
There's a strategy of sorts by centre-right Labour MPs too - to rock the boat often enough with disobliging comments so that it doesn't stabilise. The centrist Labour MPs who I know are equally fed up with leftist trolls harassing colleagues and colleagues who can't manage to "shut up and let it play itself out". The present position is that Corbyn reflects what most members want and nobody else is putting their heads above the parapet to say they'd like to stand against him (except Danczuk, who nobody takes seriously).
I remember discussing the position about Gordon Brown with Charles Clarke. I said I shared his doubts about the wisdom of Brown staying on, but in the absence of a clear alternative I thought he was unwise to keep coming out with critical comments. Charles said that he felt that the comments from him and others would produce a challenger in due course, and it was necessary to avoid Gordon settling in. I think he was mistaken - no challenger appeared, so he'd just weakened the party to no benefit. Essentially, if people want to do it they have to say so, and otherwise we should assume they won't.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Corbyn's ratings go up over time, not down - this current political landscape is far from 'business is usual' and past performance is inapplicable. The initial attack on him from the media and his own party was so relentless it means that all he has to do is disprove the ridiculous caricatures painted of him, just by being him.
The wormhole to the parallel universe is open for business.
I have a disabled client with a brain injury. The JW's(not Jack W's) I hasten to add) keep turning up, I keep telling them, neither he nor I are interested, so the last time in exasperation had to tell them to F off or I'd call the police. We now have a note in the window to tell them not to ring the bell , but I doubt it will do any good.
I used to work for a seriously devoted Jew, who said that in his area he had often had visits from JWs and other evangelicals; like all the Jews who I know he was tolerant to a fault, but they were getting tiresome. He found a way to stop being pestered: "When I told them I was Jewish they just tried harder. So I told them I am a worshipper of Satan. The visits have stopped. They are happier with more promising targets, I am happier, everyone benefits."
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Corbyn's ratings go up over time, not down - this current political landscape is far from 'business is usual' and past performance is inapplicable. The initial attack on him from the media and his own party was so relentless it means that all he has to do is disprove the ridiculous caricatures painted of him, just by being him.
While Corbyn faced particularly intense attacks, let's not pretend parties don't make caricatures of all their opponents. Did you know Cameron is an uncaring Toff who went to Eton and likes to trash restaurants?
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Corbyn's ratings go up over time, not down - this current political landscape is far from 'business is usual' and past performance is inapplicable. The initial attack on him from the media and his own party was so relentless it means that all he has to do is disprove the ridiculous caricatures painted of him, just by being him.
While Corbyn faced particularly intense attacks, let's not pretend parties don't make caricatures of all their opponents. Did you know Cameron is an uncaring Toff who went to Eton and likes to trash restaurants?
Just seen the SPOTY figures. Surprised Sinfield did so well. Didn't win, but got 28% versus Murray's 35%, and Ennis-Hill (third) only got 8%. Hamilton was nowhere, about 5th, behind Tyson Fury.
I discussed this with Dair last night. The BBC have little real sport. A bit of Rugby League, Olympics, Wimbledon, a bit of motor racing. Football highlights. Where is the worthy home grown footballer? Olympics? Years ago. Boxing? Where's Harry? The BBC gave up on the mess that is boxing years ago. F1? Hamilton, anonymous for months, might as well have lost the title not won it. The BBC covered and hyped up the Davis Cup and despite Murray's honourable protestations he won it single handed. RL has a bit of presence on live free to air TV. Sinfield is a good bloke and good player. Been around for a long time and got a good focussed supporters vote. The wider public are ignorant of any sport that is not on live free to air TV.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Corbyn's ratings go up over time, not down - this current political landscape is far from 'business is usual' and past performance is inapplicable. The initial attack on him from the media and his own party was so relentless it means that all he has to do is disprove the ridiculous caricatures painted of him, just by being him.
Wishful thinking.
He will bump along the bottom until the election when he will lose. Doubt he will get chopped after that either.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Corbyn's ratings go up over time, not down - this current political landscape is far from 'business is usual' and past performance is inapplicable. The initial attack on him from the media and his own party was so relentless it means that all he has to do is disprove the ridiculous caricatures painted of him, just by being him.
You never get a second chance to make a first impression. Jeremy Corbyn's ratings will only change if he does something that makes the public take a second look at him.
Ed Miliband started off poorly also. He managed to get the public to take a second look at him with his daring stance over newspaper phone hacking. Unfortunately he then didn't capitalise on it and the public decided after all that he wasn't up to it.
Jeremy Corbyn will need to do something even more noteworthy to turn round public perceptions of him now.
Being the season of goodwill and all that, I'm going to be nice to the Guardian, which (despite its columnists) is now the best source of actual news, at least of those available without a paywall or restriction on the number of articles. The BBC, on the other hand, is just rubbish. Compare and contrast these two lead articles on the Spanish election:
The Beeb's article is not only incoherent, but manages the quite extraordinary feat of not actually bothering to report how many seats each party won. The Guardian's account, on the other hand, is clear, informative and well-written.
The real problem with the Labour Party these days is not Corbyn. It is the Labour Party itself.
The party no longer comprises the same people it did just a few years ago. The vast body of its members and activists are now hard left. They've mounted a very successful putsch. Even if Kim Jong Jez were to be ousted they'd only re-elect him, or another Trot. 'Sensible Labour' has no route back and are anyway being steadily degraded.
Civil war and prolonged unelectability are baked in already. Probably the Labour brand will lose its appeal - slowly but steadily. Historically Labour meant something like 'decent moral person, has average person's interests at heart, if utterly cretinous at managing the money'. This is morphing into 'bunch of vicious Trots, not a one of them had a proper job in their lives, need a wash/shave, thinks the IRA / Mao/Hezbollah are the good guys, you can kiss the economy goodbye'. Once the brand is tarnished beyond repair then we'll discover really what the core Labour vote is. hahahaha.
Mr. Nabavi, I read that BBC article a little earlier, and was wondering about that. A parliamentary system, but they only report vote shares.
.....
Mr. Flightpath, worth noting Sinfield both captained his side to a great treble (Leeds, historically, cock up the Challenge Cup and then end up winning the Superleague play-offs despite not winning the league itself) and he's been there for ages, so a lot of people (especially in Yorkshire but perhaps further afield) would be voting based both on this year and his stellar career in general.
Hamilton did poorly, but then, the year was more vinegar than wine.
Corbyn is electoral poison for labour. His views on bashing big business and reducing inequality are fine, but his security and patriotism views are deadly. Guardian land may cope but no one else will give him the time of day. Trots do not rule OK.
Being fair to him, he's not inclined to fudge these views. Full marks for honesty but he's doomed. Worzel Gummidge would be a better LOTO.
Just because shouty, seventeen-year-olds like to be "edgy" does not a majority make.
I was at his surgery, though I assumed he'd have lots of constituents so took work along to pass the hours till he was free. He said sombrely that one of them had just had a miscarriage, and although there was nothing he could do to help she just needed someone to talk to, and she'd talked for over an hour. "You have to listen in that sort of situation and give people the space to take the time they need." (Characteristically, he doesn't mention it in the interview.)
I get why many people don't like his (and, generally, my) politics, and his willingness over the years to share platforms with all sort of dodgy groups. But it's a mistake to extrapolate from that to believing that he's a wicked man with a cunning plan. He's exactly what it says on the tin - a gentle, friendly socialist who believes in saying what he thinks and calmly engaging with people.
Southam and others who feel similarly don't have to vote for him, but you also shouldn't demonise him. Politics would be a lot better if we had more people in it like that, all over the spectrum.
Mr. Nabavi, I read that BBC article a little earlier, and was wondering about that. A parliamentary system, but they only report vote shares.
.....
Mr. Flightpath, worth noting Sinfield both captained his side to a great treble (Leeds, historically, cock up the Challenge Cup and then end up winning the Superleague play-offs despite not winning the league itself) and he's been there for ages, so a lot of people (especially in Yorkshire but perhaps further afield) would be voting based both on this year and his stellar career in general.
Hamilton did poorly, but then, the year was more vinegar than wine.
Here's Lewis, live from Colorado dodging tax with his dogs and dodgy jeans - "I've got to lose 3 kilos".
Southam and others who feel similarly don't have to vote for him, but you also shouldn't demonise him. Politics would be a lot better if we had more people in it like that, all over the spectrum.
Most people don't have him down as wicked. Just naive, not very bright and stuck in the 1970s. If he wants to chum up with Gerry Adams etc. in a "quiet and dignified" way - then he's hurting Labour - a lot.
Which is fantastic news for the Conservatives - and the country.
I get why many people don't like his (and, generally, my) politics, and his willingness over the years to share platforms with all sort of dodgy groups. But it's a mistake to extrapolate from that to believing that he's a wicked man with a cunning plan. He's exactly what it says on the tin - a gentle, friendly socialist who believes in saying what he thinks and calmly engaging with people.
Southam and others who feel similarly don't have to vote for him, but you also shouldn't demonise him. Politics would be a lot better if we had more people in it like that, all over the spectrum.
There is nothing gentle or friendly about antisemitism or terrorism or homophobia.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Corbyn's ratings go up over time, not down - this current political landscape is far from 'business is usual' and past performance is inapplicable. The initial attack on him from the media and his own party was so relentless it means that all he has to do is disprove the ridiculous caricatures painted of him, just by being him.
I'm an OAP. I talk to lots of OAPs. They have made up their minds on Corbyn.. ##
OAPs vote. They also tend to have the wisdom of experience. and memories of elephants.
Corbyn would have to walk on water and turn water into wine delivered by the caseload free to OAPs to change their minds.
## They made up their minds on the two Eds as well. Compared to Corbyn, Ed is a great politician.
A little more on Spain. The PSOE President of Andalucia has called for a deal with the PP over an alliance with Podemos. If there are many others inside the PSOE of this persuasion, it makes a Left-Lefter-Leftist coalition almost impossible. Unlike with the results in Portugal, the main Left Wing Parties (all six of them) do not have a majority.
There are three interesting "swing" players: the centre right Basque Nationalist Party (EAJ), the similarly centrist Democràcia i Llibertat in Catalonia, and the Canaries Party. It's hard to see any of these siding with Podemos, and mostly these little groupings have allowed themselves to be 'bought' in return for local largesse. Now is probably a good time to be proposing building a new school in Gran Canaria.
The most likely outcome remains C and the PSOE abstaining, and allowing the PP to form a minority government, but we shall see.
Mr. Pulpstar, didn't watch any of it. Did he refer to the weight limits?
They are harsher than they should be, especially for taller chaps like Hulkenberg, but Hamilton's glitzy approach and moving overseas to avoid tax (which lots of chaps do) won't have endeared him.
Mr. Palmer, he's an appeaser. There are some people to whom we ought not be gentle, nor friendly.
Cameron's ratings are irrelevant since he won't be offering himself to the country again.
He won't, but given some of the others maybe he should change his mind. Though I suspect his rivals wouldn't let him now, and the EU vote is going to damage him a lot too.
I told Mike last week, were Remain to win comfortably, in a few months time some Tories will hate Cameron more than the Corbynites hate Blair.
The Tory PM that kept us in the EU for a generation will always annoy Tombstone groupers
Isn't hate too strong a word? I'm a harsh critic of Cameron but I don't hate him, I'm sure he's a very nice man, he certainly comes across that way.
Oh there are plenty who do hate him though. Quite a few disappointed Tories on GE night who I'll bet were lined up for media appearances to tear into him as phoney, not really right wing and a fool, for not winning yet again.
Yes, you meet a lot of them on Conservative Forums and UKIP websites.
"Hate" is not a good thing to base policy on. I am somewhat eurosceptic but many of the arch sceptics like Liam Fox have deeply unpleasant traits and are politically and personally unappealing..
I'm sure your and Jezza's views are sincerely held - when I was seventeen, I would have agreed with them. But from memory, I found the older people who held them tended to have a slight superiority complex. That is why they never deviated, they never thought they might be wrong (despite being pleasant otherwise).
but as Mr Madasafish says, oldies vote. Unless elections are restricted to under forties, Labour are doomed.
Cameron's ratings are irrelevant since he won't be offering himself to the country again.
He won't, but given some of the others maybe he should change his mind. Though I suspect his rivals wouldn't let him now, and the EU vote is going to damage him a lot too.
I told Mike last week, were Remain to win comfortably, in a few months time some Tories will hate Cameron more than the Corbynites hate Blair.
The Tory PM that kept us in the EU for a generation will always annoy Tombstone groupers
Isn't hate too strong a word? I'm a harsh critic of Cameron but I don't hate him, I'm sure he's a very nice man, he certainly comes across that way.
Oh there are plenty who do hate him though. Quite a few disappointed Tories on GE night who I'll bet were lined up for media appearances to tear into him as phoney, not really right wing and a fool, for not winning yet again.
Still my favourite tweet exchange of the year, a fortnight before election day, and people wonder why I think Tim Montgomerie is a numptie who knows nothing
Cameron's ratings are irrelevant since he won't be offering himself to the country again.
He won't, but given some of the others maybe he should change his mind. Though I suspect his rivals wouldn't let him now, and the EU vote is going to damage him a lot too.
I told Mike last week, were Remain to win comfortably, in a few months time some Tories will hate Cameron more than the Corbynites hate Blair.
The Tory PM that kept us in the EU for a generation will always annoy Tombstone groupers
Isn't hate too strong a word? I'm a harsh critic of Cameron but I don't hate him, I'm sure he's a very nice man, he certainly comes across that way.
Oh there are plenty who do hate him though. Quite a few disappointed Tories on GE night who I'll bet were lined up for media appearances to tear into him as phoney, not really right wing and a fool, for not winning yet again.
Still my favourite tweet exchange of the year, a fortnight before election day, and people wonder why I think Tim Montgomerie is a numptie who knows nothing
Mr. Pulpstar, didn't watch any of it. Did he refer to the weight limits?
They are harsher than they should be, especially for taller chaps like Hulkenberg, but Hamilton's glitzy approach and moving overseas to avoid tax (which lots of chaps do) won't have endeared him.
Mr. Palmer, he's an appeaser. There are some people to whom we ought not be gentle, nor friendly.
In a round about way I suppose !
I was too distracted by his attire to note what he was saying that much:
The most likely outcome remains C and the PSOE abstaining, and allowing the PP to form a minority government, but we shall see.
Could that not lead to a PASOK style collapse for PSOE ?
Possibly, but hard to tell. Don't forget that PASOK was punished for what it did in power. In this case, PSOE wouldn't be in power.
The issue that PSOE has is this: if they abstain and allow PP to go into power, then they risk being seen as stooges; in they go into coalition with Podemos, then they lose the right wing third of their vote to Citizens (and quite possibly a few of their members too); and the parliamentary arithmetic doesn't really allow a coalition with Citizens; finally, if they force new elections, there is the very real risk that Podemos will climb a couple of percent and supplant them as the main party of the Left in Spain
All the options - for them - suck. Letting the PP run the government for a little while probably sucks least.
Cameron's ratings are irrelevant since he won't be offering himself to the country again.
He won't, but given some of the others maybe he should change his mind. Though I suspect his rivals wouldn't let him now, and the EU vote is going to damage him a lot too.
I told Mike last week, were Remain to win comfortably, in a few months time some Tories will hate Cameron more than the Corbynites hate Blair.
The Tory PM that kept us in the EU for a generation will always annoy Tombstone groupers
Isn't hate too strong a word? I'm a harsh critic of Cameron but I don't hate him, I'm sure he's a very nice man, he certainly comes across that way.
Oh there are plenty who do hate him though. Quite a few disappointed Tories on GE night who I'll bet were lined up for media appearances to tear into him as phoney, not really right wing and a fool, for not winning yet again.
Still my favourite tweet exchange of the year, a fortnight before election day, and people wonder why I think Tim Montgomerie is a numptie who knows nothing
I'm surprise Neil was so spectacularly wrong, but then perhaps he wasn't at the time. The aftertiming is that Cameron thought it was another coalition, only Crosby was confident
Cameron's ratings are irrelevant since he won't be offering himself to the country again.
He won't, but given some of the others maybe he should change his mind. Though I suspect his rivals wouldn't let him now, and the EU vote is going to damage him a lot too.
I told Mike last week, were Remain to win comfortably, in a few months time some Tories will hate Cameron more than the Corbynites hate Blair.
The Tory PM that kept us in the EU for a generation will always annoy Tombstone groupers
Isn't hate too strong a word? I'm a harsh critic of Cameron but I don't hate him, I'm sure he's a very nice man, he certainly comes across that way.
Oh there are plenty who do hate him though. Quite a few disappointed Tories on GE night who I'll bet were lined up for media appearances to tear into him as phoney, not really right wing and a fool, for not winning yet again.
Still my favourite tweet exchange of the year, a fortnight before election day, and people wonder why I think Tim Montgomerie is a numptie who knows nothing
Tremendous find.
Montie is the Phantom Menace of pundits.
Phantom was suprisingly crap. I think he is more Attack of the Clones. Unsuprisingly Awful.
I'm sure your and Jezza's views are sincerely held - when I was seventeen, I would have agreed with them. But from memory, I found the older people who held them tended to have a slight superiority complex. That is why they never deviated, they never thought they might be wrong (despite being pleasant otherwise).
but as Mr Madasafish says, oldies vote. Unless elections are restricted to under forties, Labour are doomed.
I think it's tremendously unfair to imply that Nick is unable to deviate from his sincerely held views. History shows otherwise.
Corbyn will always be the most hated man in politics no matter what, because he ideologically confronts Toryism and the sore losers will never accept that they lost the party to him. So 38 (CON)+13(UKIP)+ Liz Kendalls will always be his disapproval rating.
That will never chance, and so is voting intention from the last election due to Corbyn's polarization, as I say since the summer.
I can't understand why anyone is wasting his time making threads about the obvious.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Corbyn's ratings go up over time, not down - this current political landscape is far from 'business is usual' and past performance is inapplicable. The initial attack on him from the media and his own party was so relentless it means that all he has to do is disprove the ridiculous caricatures painted of him, just by being him.
Is it just me or are the Tories deliberately going very very light on Corbyn? There's just so much historical (as well as current) baggage that they could very easily mount a destruction offensive. I suspect that they're simply being smart and waiting to do this in the run up to a GE. They were very light touch on Miliband, realising he was their best asset, and made sure they did nothing to unseat him until it was too late for any change - and then they tore him apart before the GE. His manifest unsuitability was brutally exposed. No doubt a repeat of the same is due for Corbyn. If he manages to survive internal defenestrations until then, I am sure we'll see a similarly brutal takedown (probably worse in fact) getting going in early 2020. It won't be hard! I don't think these current leader ratings will be the same in Feb 2020.
The old adage: 'Never interrupt your opposition when they are making a mistake.'
Cameron's ratings are irrelevant since he won't be offering himself to the country again.
He won't, but given some of the others maybe he should change his mind. Though I suspect his rivals wouldn't let him now, and the EU vote is going to damage him a lot too.
I told Mike last week, were Remain to win comfortably, in a few months time some Tories will hate Cameron more than the Corbynites hate Blair.
The Tory PM that kept us in the EU for a generation will always annoy Tombstone groupers
Isn't hate too strong a word? I'm a harsh critic of Cameron but I don't hate him, I'm sure he's a very nice man, he certainly comes across that way.
Oh there are plenty who do hate him though. Quite a few disappointed Tories on GE night who I'll bet were lined up for media appearances to tear into him as phoney, not really right wing and a fool, for not winning yet again.
Still my favourite tweet exchange of the year, a fortnight before election day, and people wonder why I think Tim Montgomerie is a numptie who knows nothing
I'm surprise Neil was so spectacularly wrong, but then perhaps he wasn't at the time. The aftertiming is that Cameron thought it was another coalition, only Crosby was confident
Although most Tories on election thought a majority was impossible. Only the dreamers were dreaming for one.
Cameron's ratings are irrelevant since he won't be offering himself to the country again.
He won't, but given some of the others maybe he should change his mind. Though I suspect his rivals wouldn't let him now, and the EU vote is going to damage him a lot too.
I told Mike last week, were Remain to win comfortably, in a few months time some Tories will hate Cameron more than the Corbynites hate Blair.
The Tory PM that kept us in the EU for a generation will always annoy Tombstone groupers
Isn't hate too strong a word? I'm a harsh critic of Cameron but I don't hate him, I'm sure he's a very nice man, he certainly comes across that way.
Oh there are plenty who do hate him though. Quite a few disappointed Tories on GE night who I'll bet were lined up for media appearances to tear into him as phoney, not really right wing and a fool, for not winning yet again.
Still my favourite tweet exchange of the year, a fortnight before election day, and people wonder why I think Tim Montgomerie is a numptie who knows nothing
I'm surprise Neil was so spectacularly wrong, but then perhaps he wasn't at the time. The aftertiming is that Cameron thought it was another coalition, only Crosby was confident
Neil was only quoting a Tory donor - not his own words.
As for Galloway, I can't see what is the problem of him returning to Labour. He was expelled due to his opposition to the Iraq war, since Galloway's opinions have now become more or less the Labour party's official line, there is no policy reason for him to stay out. Of course Galloway coming back into the fold means one MP extra for Corbyn, and that is the issue of why Corbyn's enemies are against that.
As for Galloway, I can't see what is the problem of him returning to Labour. He was expelled due to his opposition to the Iraq war, since Galloway's opinions have now become more or less the Labour party's official line, there is no policy reason for him to stay out. Of course Galloway coming back into the fold means one MP extra for Corbyn, and that is the issue of why Corbyn's enemies are against that.
Being the season of goodwill and all that, I'm going to be nice to the Guardian, which (despite its columnists) is now the best source of actual news, at least of those available without a paywall or restriction on the number of articles. The BBC, on the other hand, is just rubbish. Compare and contrast these two lead articles on the Spanish election:
The Beeb's article is not only incoherent, but manages the quite extraordinary feat of not actually bothering to report how many seats each party won. The Guardian's account, on the other hand, is clear, informative and well-written.
I agree. Guardian always been good but as a Tory, I've always had to ignore their loony left opinions. Guardian's facts are great, opinions awful.
On topic - what strikes me in the graphic of favourabilities is Cameron's positive score. Over 40% is very impressive, and I can't see Osborne, May or whoever* getting anything like that when they take over in 2018/19.
As for Galloway, I can't see what is the problem of him returning to Labour. He was expelled due to his opposition to the Iraq war, since Galloway's opinions have now become more or less the Labour party's official line, there is no policy reason for him to stay out. Of course Galloway coming back into the fold means one MP extra for Corbyn, and that is the issue of why Corbyn's enemies are against that.
Galloway is an MP? Someone tell Naz Shah
He will be an MP if he returns, all by himself he managed to win a few elections by himself, an amazing feat for someone without any party infrastructure.
I think the daisy-in-the-cowpat syndrome is writ large in many Corbyn *highlights*
Anyone else wouldn't be praised as a Winner for retaining a safe seat, or because most of his MPs agreed with their own leader over Syria when his own FSec disagreed entirely, and 66 of his own side voted with the Tories.
It's clutching at straws. The success bar is so low for Corbyn, it makes EdM eating a bacon sandwich look tough.
For most Leaders of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition, it is downhill from here.
Gov't will have a tricky year with the EU ref ahead. Any further move in the middle east involves the political hot potato of 'ground troops'. Khan is the most likely winner of the Mayoral election. Heathrow.
I think Cameron's 2016 might be trickier than Corbyn's actually.
The Labour apple cart is very rickety, but Corbyn will stay driving it. CCHQ will be delighted.
I agree. Dave C may be gone by 2017 and his replacement may not set the world alight. As if that b*stard Khan wins the London Mayoralty, it gives power to the loony left.
I get why many people don't like his (and, generally, my) politics, and his willingness over the years to share platforms with all sort of dodgy groups. But it's a mistake to extrapolate from that to believing that he's a wicked man with a cunning plan. He's exactly what it says on the tin - a gentle, friendly socialist who believes in saying what he thinks and calmly engaging with people.
Southam and others who feel similarly don't have to vote for him, but you also shouldn't demonise him. Politics would be a lot better if we had more people in it like that, all over the spectrum.
There is nothing gentle or friendly about antisemitism or terrorism or homophobia.
I agree wholeheartedly.
However, I can quite believe that JC is personally polite and courteous. My son met him last week in the pub - he lives in his constituency - and said he was very polite and chatty to people in the pub, including him. He did not come across in person as the grouch he appears on television, which I can well believe, having known other politicians.
It is perfectly possible for someone to be courteous while holding revolting views. I think it a mistake for people to assume that because someone is the former, their views should somehow be excused or thought of as merely a form of exaggerated politeness to one's enemies.
The problem I have with Corbyn's associations is not that he is politely engaging with our enemies but that he does not think of them as enemies; he agrees with them. It's his poor judgment that is the issue not his manners.
Mr Palmer's assessment of Corbyn places a high premium on this and, for all his Europeness, it is a very English response! (IMO anyway)
Mr. Dixie, Khan winning in London may prove Pyrrhic. If he supports ethnic workplace quotas, that won't play well for Labour come the General Election.
On topic - what strikes me in the graphic of favourabilities is Cameron's positive score. Over 40% is very impressive, and I can't see Osborne, May or whoever* getting anything like that when they take over in 2018/19.
*With one exception, who I don't need to name.
He starts with total support from his own party (38%), plus scrapings from all the other parties ( 1% here, 1% there) and it's easy for him to breach 40.
That is the difference between Corbyn and Cameron, Corbyn will always be hated by the factions that lost the leadership race, hence he will never have the total support of his party unlike Cameron, plus the fact that Labour got 31 not 38, so it will be impossible for Corbyn to ever reach 40 even if he got total support from his party.
Mr. Eagles, that's interesting. I didn't think it was illegal or against a regulation for a paper to openly support a given political party. Or was it something else that contravened the rules?
Mr. Eagles, that's interesting. I didn't think it was illegal or against a regulation for a paper to openly support a given political party. Or was it something else that contravened the rules?
But data protection watchdog the Information Commissioner’s Office found the newspaper’s parent company, Telegraph Media Group, broke direct marketing rules.
The watchdog said subscribers might have signed up to receive a daily email, but promoting the Tory election campaign “crossed a line”.
“People may well perceive the paper’s editorial content to have a political bias, but when the Telegraph emailed people directly calling them to vote for a political party they crossed a line,” said Steve Eckersley, head of enforcement at the ICO.
As for Galloway, I can't see what is the problem of him returning to Labour. He was expelled due to his opposition to the Iraq war, since Galloway's opinions have now become more or less the Labour party's official line, there is no policy reason for him to stay out. Of course Galloway coming back into the fold means one MP extra for Corbyn, and that is the issue of why Corbyn's enemies are against that.
Galloway is an MP? Someone tell Naz Shah
He will be an MP if he returns, all by himself he managed to win a few elections by himself, an amazing feat for someone without any party infrastructure.
What upcoming by-elections do you foresee being ripe for GG's plucking? Or will we have to wait till 2020 to see his fedora-ed, cuban heeled wonderfulness back in the HoC?
Being the season of goodwill and all that, I'm going to be nice to the Guardian, which (despite its columnists) is now the best source of actual news, at least of those available without a paywall or restriction on the number of articles. The BBC, on the other hand, is just rubbish. Compare and contrast these two lead articles on the Spanish election:
The Beeb's article is not only incoherent, but manages the quite extraordinary feat of not actually bothering to report how many seats each party won. The Guardian's account, on the other hand, is clear, informative and well-written.
I agree. Guardian always been good but as a Tory, I've always had to ignore their loony left opinions. Guardian's facts are great, opinions awful.
The BBC's report is unusually bad. I read it this morning and it really is incoherent and uninformative. Poor marks to the journalist and editor concerned.
As for Galloway, I can't see what is the problem of him returning to Labour. He was expelled due to his opposition to the Iraq war, since Galloway's opinions have now become more or less the Labour party's official line, there is no policy reason for him to stay out. Of course Galloway coming back into the fold means one MP extra for Corbyn, and that is the issue of why Corbyn's enemies are against that.
Galloway is an MP? Someone tell Naz Shah
He will be an MP if he returns, all by himself he managed to win a few elections by himself, an amazing feat for someone without any party infrastructure.
What upcoming by-elections do you foresee being ripe for GG's plucking? Or will we have to wait till 2020 to see his fedora-ed, cuban heeled wonderfulness back in the HoC?
I'm calling it now, Galloway wins a Glasgow East by election
Comments
This is what a former Labour Defence Secretary said about Corbyn last weekend
Jeremy Corbyn is a threat to national security, says Lord Hutton
https://www.politicshome.com/party-politics/articles/story/jeremy-corbyn-threat-national-security-says-lord-hutton
But that'll just get us onto the true meaning of 'hackers'.
Back in 2000 I attended an export control conference, where the company I worked for was trying to get permission to export 40-bit SSL (encryption code). Given the source code for the much stronger 128-bit SSL was already in the wild, and had been for years, it all seemed faintly ridiculous.
Governments have always been well behind the curve on computing technology. As ever, I'd prefer it if they stated clearly the problem(s) they were trying to solve and then come up with potential solutions. Instead we get the solutions first ...
The Tory PM that kept us in the EU for a generation will always annoy Tombstone groupers
I still accept blatter's explanation for corruption in Fifa when he said there was none, as because he is incompetent, not corrupt.
As long as they can keep from saying "we told you so", this mud will stick.
Ian McGregor: Good morning, Mr Scargill.
Arthur Scargill: I am not prepared to enter into negotiations about the wellbeing, or otherwise, of the morning.
He was unknown beyond anoraks and STW aficionados only 5 months ago. Now he's remaking Labour in his own image.
It took Thatcher years to do that. He's managed it in less than 100 days.
It's splendid - that the LDs aren't making any hay here is just strange. Even with all his celestial support, Farron is doing nothing.
Sadly from the Tories point of view the best unelectable leader for labour with a long shelf life was Burnham.
But as OJSimpson would say 'if the glove don't fit you can't convict'. The fact is Corbyn cannot be deposed. It's a physical imposibility.
http://image.slidesharecdn.com/ipsosmoripoliticalmonitor-october2014-141015055006-conversion-gate01/95/ipsos-mori-political-monitor-october-2014-12-638.jpg?cb=1413439951
Blair didn't drop, Cameron wobbled, everyone else ...
He avoids most of the media bar the Morning Star. I'm starting to notice a rise in the number of *maybe we shouldn't underestimate* Corbyn articles. Journalists have just reached this point a great deal faster than normal with a numpty. They don't seriously think this, but are desperate to create faux competition with the Tories.
On some matters, he just can't help himself and if the Tories can continue to see these things coming and prepare such 'traps', he'll damn himself.
I call them 'traps', they're not really as they're signposted with neon lights.
The obvious place to look first is the voting intention numbers. At the general election, Labour scored 31% in Great Britain. December’s polls have shown Labour in roughly the same place – ranging from 33 to 29 %. However, many of the changes that the polling industry needs to make haven’t been made yet, so it is more likely than not that this number is – like the pre-election polls – an over-estimate.
http://labourlist.org/2015/12/100-days-of-jeremy-corbyn-what-the-polls-tell-us/
I think Cameron's 2016 might be trickier than Corbyn's actually.
The Labour apple cart is very rickety, but Corbyn will stay driving it. CCHQ will be delighted.
"He has certainly captured enthusiasm from some parts of the electorate, but unfortunately they are heavily outnumbered by voters who don’t rate him highly at all. Those dissatisfied with Corbyn outnumber those satisfied with Corbyn by a margin of 17 points. That doesn’t just compare unfavourably with the last two successful opposition leaders – who both had more people satisfied than dissatisfied at this stage – it also compares badly with the last three failed opposition leaders. Ed Miliband and IDS were in neutral territory at this point, while Hague was 11 points better off that Corbyn."
Oh, jeremy.
Labour, as I keep saying here, is an idea whose time has gone. Its activists' response to 13 consecutive years of office was - to leave the Party. Government is essentially a right-wing activity (controlling the people in the interests of the powerful) and social democracy therefore a contradiction in terms. I suspect Corbyn and Blair would agree on that, if nothing else.
Anyone else wouldn't be praised as a Winner for retaining a safe seat, or because most of his MPs agreed with their own leader over Syria when his own FSec disagreed entirely, and 66 of his own side voted with the Tories.
It's clutching at straws. The success bar is so low for Corbyn, it makes EdM eating a bacon sandwich look tough.
So it’s farewell to Denmark’s Social Democrats – and now, possibly, Mariano Rajoy – and hello to Syriza and Law & Justice. With incumbents under pressure all over Europe, David Cameron’s achievement in pushing up the Conservative share of the vote and gaining a Commons majority stands out.
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2015/12/15-lessons-from-2015.html
This doesn't matter as long as Labour party members keep their faith in him. Those who wish to see him replaced need to work on that audience.
I remember discussing the position about Gordon Brown with Charles Clarke. I said I shared his doubts about the wisdom of Brown staying on, but in the absence of a clear alternative I thought he was unwise to keep coming out with critical comments. Charles said that he felt that the comments from him and others would produce a challenger in due course, and it was necessary to avoid Gordon settling in. I think he was mistaken - no challenger appeared, so he'd just weakened the party to no benefit. Essentially, if people want to do it they have to say so, and otherwise we should assume they won't.
http://youtu.be/bRKhTQHrtdk
Where is the worthy home grown footballer?
Olympics? Years ago.
Boxing? Where's Harry? The BBC gave up on the mess that is boxing years ago.
F1? Hamilton, anonymous for months, might as well have lost the title not won it.
The BBC covered and hyped up the Davis Cup and despite Murray's honourable protestations he won it single handed.
RL has a bit of presence on live free to air TV. Sinfield is a good bloke and good player. Been around for a long time and got a good focussed supporters vote.
The wider public are ignorant of any sport that is not on live free to air TV.
He will bump along the bottom until the election when he will lose. Doubt he will get chopped after that either.
Ed Miliband started off poorly also. He managed to get the public to take a second look at him with his daring stance over newspaper phone hacking. Unfortunately he then didn't capitalise on it and the public decided after all that he wasn't up to it.
Jeremy Corbyn will need to do something even more noteworthy to turn round public perceptions of him now.
Being the season of goodwill and all that, I'm going to be nice to the Guardian, which (despite its columnists) is now the best source of actual news, at least of those available without a paywall or restriction on the number of articles. The BBC, on the other hand, is just rubbish. Compare and contrast these two lead articles on the Spanish election:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35147266
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/20/peoples-party-wins-spanish-election-absolute-majority
The Beeb's article is not only incoherent, but manages the quite extraordinary feat of not actually bothering to report how many seats each party won. The Guardian's account, on the other hand, is clear, informative and well-written.
The party no longer comprises the same people it did just a few years ago. The vast body of its members and activists are now hard left. They've mounted a very successful putsch. Even if Kim Jong Jez were to be ousted they'd only re-elect him, or another Trot. 'Sensible Labour' has no route back and are anyway being steadily degraded.
Civil war and prolonged unelectability are baked in already. Probably the Labour brand will lose its appeal - slowly but steadily. Historically Labour meant something like 'decent moral person, has average person's interests at heart, if utterly cretinous at managing the money'. This is morphing into 'bunch of vicious Trots, not a one of them had a proper job in their lives, need a wash/shave, thinks the IRA / Mao/Hezbollah are the good guys, you can kiss the economy goodbye'. Once the brand is tarnished beyond repair then we'll discover really what the core Labour vote is. hahahaha.
.....
Mr. Flightpath, worth noting Sinfield both captained his side to a great treble (Leeds, historically, cock up the Challenge Cup and then end up winning the Superleague play-offs despite not winning the league itself) and he's been there for ages, so a lot of people (especially in Yorkshire but perhaps further afield) would be voting based both on this year and his stellar career in general.
Hamilton did poorly, but then, the year was more vinegar than wine.
Corbyn is electoral poison for labour. His views on bashing big business and reducing inequality are fine, but his security and patriotism views are deadly. Guardian land may cope but no one else will give him the time of day. Trots do not rule OK.
Being fair to him, he's not inclined to fudge these views. Full marks for honesty but he's doomed. Worzel Gummidge would be a better LOTO.
Just because shouty, seventeen-year-olds like to be "edgy" does not a majority make.
http://link.huffingtonpost.com/view/524aa3dc3227b874ccf803013flxx.9r/b5a4a1ab
(the interview itself is here: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/12/19/jeremy-corbyn-interview-o_n_8845882.html?1450569451&utm_hp_ref=uk)
I was at his surgery, though I assumed he'd have lots of constituents so took work along to pass the hours till he was free. He said sombrely that one of them had just had a miscarriage, and although there was nothing he could do to help she just needed someone to talk to, and she'd talked for over an hour. "You have to listen in that sort of situation and give people the space to take the time they need." (Characteristically, he doesn't mention it in the interview.)
I get why many people don't like his (and, generally, my) politics, and his willingness over the years to share platforms with all sort of dodgy groups. But it's a mistake to extrapolate from that to believing that he's a wicked man with a cunning plan. He's exactly what it says on the tin - a gentle, friendly socialist who believes in saying what he thinks and calmly engaging with people.
Southam and others who feel similarly don't have to vote for him, but you also shouldn't demonise him. Politics would be a lot better if we had more people in it like that, all over the spectrum.
Oh the hardship Lewis !
Which is fantastic news for the Conservatives - and the country.
OAPs vote. They also tend to have the wisdom of experience. and memories of elephants.
Corbyn would have to walk on water and turn water into wine delivered by the caseload free to OAPs to change their minds.
## They made up their minds on the two Eds as well. Compared to Corbyn, Ed is a great politician.
There are three interesting "swing" players: the centre right Basque Nationalist Party (EAJ), the similarly centrist Democràcia i Llibertat in Catalonia, and the Canaries Party. It's hard to see any of these siding with Podemos, and mostly these little groupings have allowed themselves to be 'bought' in return for local largesse. Now is probably a good time to be proposing building a new school in Gran Canaria.
The most likely outcome remains C and the PSOE abstaining, and allowing the PP to form a minority government, but we shall see.
They are harsher than they should be, especially for taller chaps like Hulkenberg, but Hamilton's glitzy approach and moving overseas to avoid tax (which lots of chaps do) won't have endeared him.
Mr. Palmer, he's an appeaser. There are some people to whom we ought not be gentle, nor friendly.
"Hate" is not a good thing to base policy on. I am somewhat eurosceptic but many of the arch sceptics like Liam Fox have deeply unpleasant traits and are politically and personally unappealing..
I'm sure your and Jezza's views are sincerely held - when I was seventeen, I would have agreed with them. But from memory, I found the older people who held them tended to have a slight superiority complex. That is why they never deviated, they never thought they might be wrong (despite being pleasant otherwise).
but as Mr Madasafish says, oldies vote. Unless elections are restricted to under forties, Labour are doomed.
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/678877529562853376
Montie is the Phantom Menace of pundits.
I was too distracted by his attire to note what he was saying that much:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CWsW1a0WoAIO2Y6.png:large
The issue that PSOE has is this: if they abstain and allow PP to go into power, then they risk being seen as stooges; in they go into coalition with Podemos, then they lose the right wing third of their vote to Citizens (and quite possibly a few of their members too); and the parliamentary arithmetic doesn't really allow a coalition with Citizens; finally, if they force new elections, there is the very real risk that Podemos will climb a couple of percent and supplant them as the main party of the Left in Spain
All the options - for them - suck. Letting the PP run the government for a little while probably sucks least.
Hamilton has a good deal more money than (fashion) sense. Imagine if Mr. Eagles had an unlimited wardrobe account.
Corbyn will always be the most hated man in politics no matter what, because he ideologically confronts Toryism and the sore losers will never accept that they lost the party to him.
So 38 (CON)+13(UKIP)+ Liz Kendalls will always be his disapproval rating.
That will never chance, and so is voting intention from the last election due to Corbyn's polarization, as I say since the summer.
I can't understand why anyone is wasting his time making threads about the obvious.
But how many of these:
http://image.slidesharecdn.com/ipsosmoripoliticalmonitor-october2014-141015055006-conversion-gate01/95/ipsos-mori-political-monitor-october-2014-12-638.jpg?cb=1413439951
had higher personal ratings at the end than they did after 3 months?
" past performance is inapplicable"
Well, that's certainly an interesting approach.
He was expelled due to his opposition to the Iraq war, since Galloway's opinions have now become more or less the Labour party's official line, there is no policy reason for him to stay out.
Of course Galloway coming back into the fold means one MP extra for Corbyn, and that is the issue of why Corbyn's enemies are against that.
Those boots !
*With one exception, who I don't need to name.
However, I can quite believe that JC is personally polite and courteous. My son met him last week in the pub - he lives in his constituency - and said he was very polite and chatty to people in the pub, including him. He did not come across in person as the grouch he appears on television, which I can well believe, having known other politicians.
It is perfectly possible for someone to be courteous while holding revolting views. I think it a mistake for people to assume that because someone is the former, their views should somehow be excused or thought of as merely a form of exaggerated politeness to one's enemies.
The problem I have with Corbyn's associations is not that he is politely engaging with our enemies but that he does not think of them as enemies; he agrees with them. It's his poor judgment that is the issue not his manners.
Mr Palmer's assessment of Corbyn places a high premium on this and, for all his Europeness, it is a very English response! (IMO anyway)
Telegraph fined £30,000 over email urging readers to vote Tory
Editor’s message asking hundreds of thousands of readers to oppose the most ‘leftwing Labour leader for a generation’ crossed a line, says watchdog
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/dec/21/telegraph-fined-email-conservatives
That is the difference between Corbyn and Cameron, Corbyn will always be hated by the factions that lost the leadership race, hence he will never have the total support of his party unlike Cameron, plus the fact that Labour got 31 not 38, so it will be impossible for Corbyn to ever reach 40 even if he got total support from his party.
The watchdog said subscribers might have signed up to receive a daily email, but promoting the Tory election campaign “crossed a line”.
“People may well perceive the paper’s editorial content to have a political bias, but when the Telegraph emailed people directly calling them to vote for a political party they crossed a line,” said Steve Eckersley, head of enforcement at the ICO.
Hmm. Didn't (in 2010) the head of the FSA e-mail staff saying they should vote Labour to avoid Conservative cuts, or have I completely misremembered?