There is no evidence that he is mentally ill. It is necessary to understand where the hard left is coming from. To them "the party" means the grassroots. Parliamentary representatives are no more than a couple of hundred party members who merit no special consideration. In this sense his actions are logical: he will not resign because he has not lost the confidence of the party as he sees it.
Good summary of his view. Equally, if he loses the leadership election he will go without fuss and resume his previous role of championing the minority view.
If Labour were to campaign for staying in the EU at next election (assuming before article 50), could they get the support of the city/big business, and hence big doners, over tories who would be proposing at best an EEA agreement without the financial passport? (there is no way the EU will allow the financial passport if we go down the EEA route - the news channels in France are practically salivating over Brexit and the opportunities for Paris as a finance centre now)
This would require the rest of the labour platform to not be completely socialist however, so maybe it would be SDP2 that big business back
Edit: actually I've just read something saying we would automatically have financial passporting in the EEA/EFTA, Switzerland doesn't right? - I didn't think that was the case but please correct me if mistaken!
Switzerland isn't in the EEA, they have a separate agreement for the financial passport. EEA nations have it automatically. We would not accept a deal that had free movement and no financial passport. If we want to restrict free movement, then I believe the cost will be the passport.
The French can salivate all they like about opportunities for Paris, but as many have said here before, it will be Dublin that benefits the most.
Dublin is a strange way of spelling Edinburgh.
I find it strange that Scotland isn't keen on opening up new and bigger global trade deals.
Perhaps the Nats just like the EU for the socialism ?
Starting to think the party is actually better off, splitting. Become the Progressive Party/Democratic Party with a Chuka/Luciana centrist leader and woo Tory Europhile left wingers and Liberals. Short term pain for potential long term gain. The Labour Party is screwed. Corbyn will go down in history as the man who wantonly destroyed one of Britain's great parties of state through his gross narcissism.
I don't think there is any choice.
I also think people are underestimating the chances of such a party. The SDP was a breakaway of 4, this would be a breakaway of what? 150+? It would take the soft left with it, which is critical. Plus the political landscape is in flux now, everything is up for grabs. Better still, the Tory Party is weak and stumbling. This isn't the 80s.
I think that to succeed it does need to be a centre-left party though. And I say that as a centrist. You can still win centrist votes from a centre-left position.
The SDP had 4 leaders, but they were supported by 30 or so (IIRC) Labour MP’s.
If 150 Labour MPs split, how many of them would tale their constituency parties with them? Then who would benefit from the official vs real Labour candidates at the election?
My impression ...... like Stodge I was a Liberal activist in the 80’s ...... was that the SDP were a top-down organisation. The consituency I knew best ..... Castle Point ....... only rarely elected Liberal councillors and so was given to the SDP. Yes people did come out of the woodwork to join but much of the on the ground stuff was done by Liberals.
I’m sure I’m not relying on False Memory Syndrome when I say that had it not been for the Falklands the Tories would have experienced disaster in 1983. Stodge’s experience reported in his earlier post was not unusual.
Oh Lord, I might have seen you at an Assembly at Harrogate or Llandudno or Eastbourne or somewhere in a bar....
Yes, SDP was very top down - it needed to be as it had no ground infrastructure. The first SDP people I met were not atypical - a ex-Labour activist, an ex-Tory member and someone who had never been in a political party. The ex-Labour man was initially suspicious of the Liberals while the other two were much friendlier.
We put out a newsletter called Alliance Briefing (no Focus there). The ex-Labour man was a professional typesetter and the non party man knew a printer. By today's standards it was awful - in 1981 it was state of the art.
As I was in the weakest of the then four Bromley constituencies from a Liberal point of view, I was part of the liaison between the SDP and the Liberals across Bromley. The SDP stayed out of Orpington which still had a strong Liberal branch even though the late Lord Avebury had lost the seat back in 1970. Instead, the SDP focussed on Chislehurst which had always had a Labour presence in the Crays and Ravensbourne.
I have to say even though we were two separate parties, we worked together almost from minute one as the Alliance.
And failed miserably to prevent 15 years of Tory Government?
The debt the Tories owe to General Galteri is immense and rarely, if ever, acknowledged.
I think PB Leavers were so engrossed in their elegant, thoughtful desired Leave position (in contradistinction to the actual Leave position, and peoples' reasons for voting Leave) that it comes as a genuine shock when the reality, both of what they have helped to do, and of how the Leave vote has affected those outside the PB bubble, finally dawns on them.
@DavidL, one of the bright PB Leavers, with his well-thought out, theoretically attractive motives and desired outcomes, is perhaps the most curious example.
Worth noting that some of the things you and Jonathan consider to be negative outcomes I consider to be positives. Both Scottish Independence and a strong negative move on house prices are things I would be very pleased to see.
I do also believe there was an overreaction in the markets on Friday which is now slowly going to correct itself and that if our final destination is going to be EFTA (by no means certain of course) then the fear mongering from some elements of Remain will have been proved to be as ridiculous as many of us regard them
Why the passion for Scots Indy Richard?
Basic logic for me. My political beliefs are all based on small government at its lowest practical level. In part it is what drives my opposition to the EU and it strikes me as illogical to be in favour of the UK leaving the EU but opposed to Scotland leaving the UK.
For the last few years much of my work has been in Scotland so it may well cause me some disruption. But that doesn't change my basic view that if they can make it work I would much rather have Scotland as a good neighbour than an angry sullen family member.
They actually said that a third of people are putting off buying lots of things, including soft furnishings. But hey, it's only jobs in interiors that will be affected right?
Did they say putting off until next year, or putting off for a week or two. Or don't you know and you just like talking your country down ?
Yes the gang of six met to try and shaft the Eastern European nations and keep the UK in the EU by restrictions on free movement. Apparently the meeting ended up with mixed feelings. I heard that France and Belgium were the most reticent in offering us anything, the rest were generally on board. The problem is that there would be no mechanism for them to push through the reforms necessary against Eastern European interests, they have more than enough to block a decision taken by QMV.
< 1997 was a strategic disaster for the Lib Dems (or more accurately, the decisions that led to it were).
An SDP2 cannot tear any more chunks out of the Tories than blair did, for the same reason: 25-30% of the electorate is moderate centre-right and will not vote for a left-of-centre party. I'd be more worried about UKIP there, except that (1) their ground game and leadership are poor and (2) it makes more sense for them to go left and exploit the socially conservative voters neither Corbyn nor Eagle would appeal to.
And do the Lib Dems have that much of a councillor base? Isn't it now highly concentrated in a small number of authorities? The price of all that targetting in the 1990s/2000s was writing off enormous parts of the country.
Come on, David, this is unadulterated nonsense and you know it.
In 1997, the "disaster" you claim saw the LDs go from 20 to 46 MPs. It didn't seem like a disaster at the time for anyone other than the Conservatives who then spent their longest period in opposition under universal suffrage.
It took thirteen years and the biggest financial crash since the 1930s plus Gordon Brown to haul the Conservatives back to the brink of power. At that point, the LDs came in with their disastrous 57 MPs and formed the Coalition which now looks like a paragon of stability and good governance compared to the current shambles.
I think you're appallingly complacent as to the effect of a potential non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left on Conservative voters. Millions deserted the Conservative Party in 1997 for Blair and halved your Parliamentary representation overnight. The LDs benefitted from the tactical desire of millions to be rid of your party.
Could the same happen in 2020 ? Possibly.
As for Councillors, the LDs has always had concentrations of power just like the Conservatives. How many Tory Councillors are there in Newham - here's a clue, the same number as there are Lib Dem councillors. There are still, I believe, around 2,000 LD councillors, in 1979 there were 150. Next year the County Council elections offer some opportunities to increase that number further - perhaps it will be another 1993, we can but hope. That year, the Conservatives lost control of Surrey.
You're running scared of a new centre party and rightly so. The Conservatives are all over the place on Europe - you can't decide whether to respect the national vote or ignore it. Your best electoral asset has walked off the stage and looking at the field of selling platers on offer, the fact Stephen Crabb is being considered speaks volumes.
@RobDotHutton: Call it Clegg's Law Of Politics: even if you didn't actually promise it, if voters think you did, you're stuffed. https://t.co/PkgHxh7G20
Yes the gang of six met to try and shaft the Eastern European nations and keep the UK in the EU by restrictions on free movement. Apparently the meeting ended up with mixed feelings. I heard that France and Belgium were the most reticent in offering us anything, the rest were generally on board. The problem is that there would be no mechanism for them to push through the reforms necessary against Eastern European interests, they have more than enough to block a decision taken by QMV.
And this is really the problem with the EU. Trying to get reform with 27-28 countries with differing interests & economic positions means at the very very best you get a terrible fudge. With 6-8 of similar sized economies you can probably find common ground.
The Corbyn cult is quite interesting. I can't help but think that for years this man has been ignored, an old school firebrand, isolated, making his own meetings with his comradely chums equally despised, laughed and sneered at by his Parliamentary colleagues, voted Parliamentary beard of the year as a piss take. Drip, drip, drip. It just accumulates, and the hatred builds up. He is the Thomas Hamilton equivalent. Last year the membership bought him an AK47 through the vote, this year he has trained how to use it and bought a shed load of ammo, and in the next weeks he is going to go out and slaughter his loathed Parliamentary colleagues.
I do honestly think that Corbyn has some kind of mental health condition. He is a sociopath who believes his own righteousness, and is surrounded by an inner clique that feeds this madness for their own ends. He has the same affliction that warped Mair the other week.
That's over-analysis (to put it mildly - there is actually nobody in politics who I'd compare with an alleged murderer, not even a BNP leader). He doesn't loathe anyone (less than most people here, I'd think) - it's one of his attractive qualities, and widely reciprocated, as acknowledged in many of the resignation letters. Rebelling colleagues generally think he's ineffective and inflexible, not evil or mad. He merely sees himself as the representative of a strand of political thinking, obliged to do his best by it.
< 1997 was a strategic disaster for the Lib Dems (or more accurately, the decisions that led to it were).
An SDP2 cannot tear any more chunks out of the Tories than blair did, for the same reason: 25-30% of the electorate is moderate centre-right and will not vote for a left-of-centre party. I'd be more worried about UKIP there, except that (1) their ground game and leadership are poor and (2) it makes more sense for them to go left and exploit the socially conservative voters neither Corbyn nor Eagle would appeal to.
And do the Lib Dems have that much of a councillor base? Isn't it now highly concentrated in a small number of authorities? The price of all that targetting in the 1990s/2000s was writing off enormous parts of the country.
Come on, David, this is unadulterated nonsense and you know it.
In 1997, the "disaster" you claim saw the LDs go from 20 to 46 MPs. It didn't seem like a disaster at the time for anyone other than the Conservatives who then spent their longest period in opposition under universal suffrage.
It took thirteen years and the biggest financial crash since the 1930s plus Gordon Brown to haul the Conservatives back to the brink of power. At that point, the LDs came in with their disastrous 57 MPs and formed the Coalition which now looks like a paragon of stability and good governance compared to the current shambles.
I think you're appallingly complacent as to the effect of a potential non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left on Conservative voters. Millions deserted the Conservative Party in 1997 for Blair and halved your Parliamentary representation overnight. The LDs benefitted from the tactical desire of millions to be rid of your party.
Could the same happen in 2020 ? Possibly.
As for Councillors, the LDs has always had concentrations of power just like the Conservatives. How many Tory Councillors are there in Newham - here's a clue, the same number as there are Lib Dem councillors. There are still, I believe, around 2,000 LD councillors, in 1979 there were 150. Next year the County Council elections offer some opportunities to increase that number further - perhaps it will be another 1993, we can but hope. That year, the Conservatives lost control of Surrey.
You're running scared of a new centre party and rightly so. The Conservatives are all over the place on Europe - you can't decide whether to respect the national vote or ignore it. Your best electoral asset has walked off the stage and looking at the field of selling platers on offer, the fact Stephen Crabb is being considered speaks volumes.
Mr S, you are cheering me up immensely. And, for reasons which are only partly to do with the Referendum, I need cheering up.
@RobDotHutton: Call it Clegg's Law Of Politics: even if you didn't actually promise it, if voters think you did, you're stuffed. https://t.co/PkgHxh7G20
last week the electorate stated it wanted to control immigration,
that's not what it said on the ballot
Stop playing games. There is what the ballot said, what the campaign promoted, and what the voters want, they are not even remotely the same. Even if VoteLeave was full to the eyeballs of positive Gisela Stuart types, a large chunk of the country would have seen it as an opportunity to reduce immigration, either directly, or as a necessarily first step.
not playing games at all. just think that you can't really make the claim that "the electorate" want what you say. Sure, a goodly number of them probably did vote for primarily that reason, but not necessarily a majority of those that voted leave.
... and remember Leave only just won, by 3.8%. Considering the enormity of the lies used (£350m/wk and reduced immigration) and which have since been renounced, you can't claim "the electorate" wanted to do anything in particular.
Donnez moi un break. If we are talking about enormous lies we better not consider World War 3, the economic apocalypse appears to be fizzling after getting just below where we were in February and about triple where we were in 2008, the French have said there borders are not moving so no refugee camps in Kent, the former governor of the Bank Of England told us yesterday the the economic case was bullshit, etc etc. Both sides lied massively, neither has any case to try and take the moral high ground over the other, get over it.
Just factually incorrect. You are clutching at straws, Britain is worse off. I see that you concede that Leave 'lied massively'.
If Labour were to campaign for staying in the EU at next election (assuming before article 50), could they get the support of the city/big business, and hence big doners, over tories who would be proposing at best an EEA agreement without the financial passport? (there is no way the EU will allow the financial passport if we go down the EEA route - the news channels in France are practically salivating over Brexit and the opportunities for Paris as a finance centre now)
This would require the rest of the labour platform to not be completely socialist however, so maybe it would be SDP2 that big business back
Edit: actually I've just read something saying we would automatically have financial passporting in the EEA/EFTA, Switzerland doesn't right? - I didn't think that was the case but please correct me if mistaken!
Switzerland isn't in the EEA, they have a separate agreement for the financial passport. EEA nations have it automatically. We would not accept a deal that had free movement and no financial passport. If we want to restrict free movement, then I believe the cost will be the passport.
The French can salivate all they like about opportunities for Paris, but as many have said here before, it will be Dublin that benefits the most.
Dublin is a strange way of spelling Edinburgh.
Let the bickering vultures peck at each other. Their leonine lunch has just woken up and is sauntering off to happier hunting grounds.
Yes the gang of six met to try and shaft the Eastern European nations and keep the UK in the EU by restrictions on free movement. Apparently the meeting ended up with mixed feelings. I heard that France and Belgium were the most reticent in offering us anything, the rest were generally on board. The problem is that there would be no mechanism for them to push through the reforms necessary against Eastern European interests, they have more than enough to block a decision taken by QMV.
And this is really the problem with the EU. Trying to get reform with 27-28 countries with differing interests & economic positions means at the very very best you get a terrible fudge. With 6-8 of similar sized economies you can probably find common ground.
Yes, if I were to reshape Europe I would have an Eastern bloc, a northern bloc and a southern bloc, France would have to decide at that point whether they want to be in the northern outward looking bloc or in the inward looking southern one. Free trade between all of them, and free movement within the groups but not between the groups. As the economies align and they become similarly sized in terms of per capita income we could merge them into a single free trading and free movement zone.
Donnez moi un break. If we are talking about enormous lies we better not consider World War 3, the economic apocalypse appears to be fizzling after getting just below where we were in February and about triple where we were in 2008
Nobody on the Remain side said World War 3
The Prime Minister may not have spoken the words, "World War 3," but he did suggest Brexit would endanger European security and lead to another in the sequence: Blenheim, Trafalgar, Waterloo, our country’s heroism in the Great War and, most of all, our lone stand in 1940
Next time Corbyn acts as leader of the opposition in the Commons, would it be possible for some MP to raise a point of order challenging his position, presumably forcing a ruling from the speaker?
That would be a pretty daring thing for any MP to do, and the speaker wouldn't be happy about being put in that position, but it's possible some MP might see this as a way to bypass the Labour party rules.
Come on, David, this is unadulterated nonsense and you know it.
In 1997, the "disaster" you claim saw the LDs go from 20 to 46 MPs. It didn't seem like a disaster at the time for anyone other than the Conservatives who then spent their longest period in opposition under universal suffrage.
It took thirteen years and the biggest financial crash since the 1930s plus Gordon Brown to haul the Conservatives back to the brink of power. At that point, the LDs came in with their disastrous 57 MPs and formed the Coalition which now looks like a paragon of stability and good governance compared to the current shambles.
I think you're appallingly complacent as to the effect of a potential non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left on Conservative voters. Millions deserted the Conservative Party in 1997 for Blair and halved your Parliamentary representation overnight. The LDs benefitted from the tactical desire of millions to be rid of your party.
Could the same happen in 2020 ? Possibly.
As for Councillors, the LDs has always had concentrations of power just like the Conservatives. How many Tory Councillors are there in Newham - here's a clue, the same number as there are Lib Dem councillors. There are still, I believe, around 2,000 LD councillors, in 1979 there were 150. Next year the County Council elections offer some opportunities to increase that number further - perhaps it will be another 1993, we can but hope. That year, the Conservatives lost control of Surrey.
You're running scared of a new centre party and rightly so. The Conservatives are all over the place on Europe - you can't decide whether to respect the national vote or ignore it. Your best electoral asset has walked off the stage and looking at the field of selling platers on offer, the fact Stephen Crabb is being considered speaks volumes.
" It didn't seem like a disaster at the time". No, indeed. But it was. 1906 has been described as a landslide from which the Liberals never recovered. It overstates things a bit (1916 was more important) but there's also a germ of truth. 1997 was not dissimilar.
I've no reason whatsoever to run scared of a centre-left party (and the Lib Dems and SDP2 would both be that). Another dreadful Lib Dem error was to believe that they could replace the Tories as the opposition to Labour during their Iraq high, while simultaneously positioning themselves to the left of Blair. For as long as the right-of-centre is broadly unchallenged, the Tories will be fine, if not always in government. By contrast, Labour is facing its worst existential crisis since at least 1981 and possibly since 1931, while the Lib Dems are almost wiped out as a party at national, European and regional level.
If Labour were to campaign for staying in the EU at next election (assuming before article 50), could they get the support of the city/big business, and hence big doners, over tories who would be proposing at best an EEA agreement without the financial passport? (there is no way the EU will allow the financial passport if we go down the EEA route - the news channels in France are practically salivating over Brexit and the opportunities for Paris as a finance centre now)
This would require the rest of the labour platform to not be completely socialist however, so maybe it would be SDP2 that big business back
Edit: actually I've just read something saying we would automatically have financial passporting in the EEA/EFTA, Switzerland doesn't right? - I didn't think that was the case but please correct me if mistaken!
Switzerland isn't in the EEA, they have a separate agreement for the financial passport. EEA nations have it automatically. We would not accept a deal that had free movement and no financial passport. If we want to restrict free movement, then I believe the cost will be the passport.
The French can salivate all they like about opportunities for Paris, but as many have said here before, it will be Dublin that benefits the most.
Dublin is a strange way of spelling Edinburgh.
Let the bickering vultures peck at each other. Their leonine lunch has just woken up and is sauntering off to happier hunting grounds.
@RobDotHutton: Call it Clegg's Law Of Politics: even if you didn't actually promise it, if voters think you did, you're stuffed. https://t.co/PkgHxh7G20
I don't want to appear to be an extremist but I must say that the problem with modern cushions is that they do not possess the mass needed to perform the function implicit in their name. They are all about appearance, surface and clever design but inside have virtually nothing. A metaphor for modern politicians.
The Corbyn cult is quite interesting. I can't help but think that for years this man has been ignored, an old school firebrand, isolated, making his own meetings with his comradely chums equally despised, laughed and sneered at by his Parliamentary colleagues, voted Parliamentary beard of the year as a piss take. Drip, drip, drip. It just accumulates, and the hatred builds up. He is the Thomas Hamilton equivalent. Last year the membership bought him an AK47 through the vote, this year he has trained how to use it and bought a shed load of ammo, and in the next weeks he is going to go out and slaughter his loathed Parliamentary colleagues.
I do honestly think that Corbyn has some kind of mental health condition. He is a sociopath who believes his own righteousness, and is surrounded by an inner clique that feeds this madness for their own ends. He has the same affliction that warped Mair the other week.
That's over-analysis (to put it mildly - there is actually nobody in politics who I'd compare with an alleged murderer, not even a BNP leader). He doesn't loathe anyone (less than most people here, I'd think) - it's one of his attractive qualities, and widely reciprocated, as acknowledged in many of the resignation letters. Rebelling colleagues generally think he's ineffective and inflexible, not evil or mad. He merely sees himself as the representative of a strand of political thinking, obliged to do his best by it.
Good morning all.
There are some things that seem to be extremely desirable in theory that look much less attractive in practice. Jeremy Corbyn is a man of unimpeachable integrity. It's that quality that is driving the PLP quite literally demented.
One of the frequent criticisms we make of politicians is that they're slippery and don't stand for anything. In Mr Corbyn's case we can see the opposite pole. It's my personal view that every virtue can be a vice, and Jeremy is a lovely example of that.
The membership clearly wanted Corbyn last year though opening the floodgates to Conservative spoilers (and indeed other spoilers) was an act of unmitigated stupidity.
Taking this part out of context, although the £3 scheme might not have turned out for the best, it is not on paper an obviously worse idea than American parties allowing non-aligned voters to pick their presidential candidates, or the Conservative Party's open primaries.
The £3 scheme wasn't a daft idea in and of itself - the lunacy was the MP's not doing the job that was now required of them (ie only putting forward candidates that they could genuinely support). I would also posit that the 15% threshold is a little low, and actually you would be better having a much higher threshold, but with MP's being able to 'endorse' multiple candidates, but that leads to other issues (tactical non-support to help your preferred candidate for example)
The daft bit was also letting people who signed up after the contest was started vote in the contest, so that people could sign up specifically because there was a hard-left candidate on the list who otherwise would not have bothered.
They actually said that a third of people are putting off buying lots of things, including soft furnishings. But hey, it's only jobs in interiors that will be affected right?
Did they say putting off until next year, or putting off for a week or two. Or don't you know and you just like talking your country down ?
I was quoting from Sky News, it's not me saying it. Plus what anyone says on PB makes sod all difference to anything
@RobDotHutton: Call it Clegg's Law Of Politics: even if you didn't actually promise it, if voters think you did, you're stuffed. https://t.co/PkgHxh7G20
Have we got PMQs today, I might actually watch it if it's on.
We have, and it's likely to be extremely amusing/tragic depending on one's political views. If nothing else, David Cameron will be rolling in the aisles.
If Labour were to campaign for staying in the EU at next election (assuming before article 50), could they get the support of the city/big business, and hence big doners, over tories who would be proposing at best an EEA agreement without the financial passport? (there is no way the EU will allow the financial passport if we go down the EEA route - the news channels in France are practically salivating over Brexit and the opportunities for Paris as a finance centre now)
This would require the rest of the labour platform to not be completely socialist however, so maybe it would be SDP2 that big business back
Edit: actually I've just read something saying we would automatically have financial passporting in the EEA/EFTA, Switzerland doesn't right? - I didn't think that was the case but please correct me if mistaken!
Switzerland isn't in the EEA, they have a separate agreement for the financial passport. EEA nations have it automatically. We would not accept a deal that had free movement and no financial passport. If we want to restrict free movement, then I believe the cost will be the passport.
The French can salivate all they like about opportunities for Paris, but as many have said here before, it will be Dublin that benefits the most.
Dublin is a strange way of spelling Edinburgh.
By the time Edinburgh gets indy and back in the EU the banks will have been in Dublin for 3-4 years and won't see any point in moving.
Next time Corbyn acts as leader of the opposition in the Commons, would it be possible for some MP to raise a point of order challenging his position, presumably forcing a ruling from the speaker?
That would be a pretty daring thing for any MP to do, and the speaker wouldn't be happy about being put in that position, but it's possible some MP might see this as a way to bypass the Labour party rules.
I don't see how doing that would be consistent with the MP remaining part of the Labour party.
I mean, if we do get a split, then whichever side has the loyalty of the majority of MPs will decice who is leader of the opposition (Unless they split into enough pieces that the SNP are the 2nd largest party), but until then they need to respect the rules of the labour party which say that Corbyn is leader.
Yes the gang of six met to try and shaft the Eastern European nations and keep the UK in the EU by restrictions on free movement. Apparently the meeting ended up with mixed feelings. I heard that France and Belgium were the most reticent in offering us anything, the rest were generally on board. The problem is that there would be no mechanism for them to push through the reforms necessary against Eastern European interests, they have more than enough to block a decision taken by QMV.
And this is really the problem with the EU. Trying to get reform with 27-28 countries with differing interests & economic positions means at the very very best you get a terrible fudge. With 6-8 of similar sized economies you can probably find common ground.
Yes, if I were to reshape Europe I would have an Eastern bloc, a northern bloc and a southern bloc, France would have to decide at that point whether they want to be in the northern outward looking bloc or in the inward looking southern one. Free trade between all of them, and free movement within the groups but not between the groups. As the economies align and they become similarly sized in terms of per capita income we could merge them into a single free trading and free movement zone.
Something like that could solve a lot of problems not just migration. Basically the more you pay in & more important you are the bigger say you have.
At the moment, eu has the same problem as fifa. A massive corrupt organisation where nobody can reform it, as Fiji has all the same voting rights as Germany, and have wildly different needs and objectives from being in fifa.
The Corbyn cult is quite interesting. I can't help but think that for years this man has been ignored, an old school firebrand, isolated, making his own meetings with his comradely chums equally despised, laughed and sneered at by his Parliamentary colleagues, voted Parliamentary beard of the year as a piss take. Drip, drip, drip. It just accumulates, and the hatred builds up. He is the Thomas Hamilton equivalent. Last year the membership bought him an AK47 through the vote, this year he has trained how to use it and bought a shed load of ammo, and in the next weeks he is going to go out and slaughter his loathed Parliamentary colleagues.
I do honestly think that Corbyn has some kind of mental health condition. He is a sociopath who believes his own righteousness, and is surrounded by an inner clique that feeds this madness for their own ends. He has the same affliction that warped Mair the other week.
Corbyn is an innocent naïf. McDonnell is the string puller behind him.
Yes the gang of six met to try and shaft the Eastern European nations and keep the UK in the EU by restrictions on free movement. Apparently the meeting ended up with mixed feelings. I heard that France and Belgium were the most reticent in offering us anything, the rest were generally on board. The problem is that there would be no mechanism for them to push through the reforms necessary against Eastern European interests, they have more than enough to block a decision taken by QMV.
And this is really the problem with the EU. Trying to get reform with 27-28 countries with differing interests & economic positions means at the very very best you get a terrible fudge. With 6-8 of similar sized economies you can probably find common ground.
Yes, if I were to reshape Europe I would have an Eastern bloc, a northern bloc and a southern bloc, France would have to decide at that point whether they want to be in the northern outward looking bloc or in the inward looking southern one. Free trade between all of them, and free movement within the groups but not between the groups. As the economies align and they become similarly sized in terms of per capita income we could merge them into a single free trading and free movement zone.
Something like that could solve a lot of problems not just migration. Basically the more you pay in & more important you are the bigger say you have.
At the moment, eu has the same problem as fifa. Fiji has all the same votes rights as Germany.
QMV is based on population, or have I had a colossal brain fart?
Next time Corbyn acts as leader of the opposition in the Commons, would it be possible for some MP to raise a point of order challenging his position, presumably forcing a ruling from the speaker?
That would be a pretty daring thing for any MP to do, and the speaker wouldn't be happy about being put in that position, but it's possible some MP might see this as a way to bypass the Labour party rules.
I thought that was precisely what the SNP were planning to do - saying that they are the Opposition and that Angus Roberson should have the LOTO questions at PMQ's
Yes the gang of six met to try and shaft the Eastern European nations and keep the UK in the EU by restrictions on free movement. Apparently the meeting ended up with mixed feelings. I heard that France and Belgium were the most reticent in offering us anything, the rest were generally on board. The problem is that there would be no mechanism for them to push through the reforms necessary against Eastern European interests, they have more than enough to block a decision taken by QMV.
And this is really the problem with the EU. Trying to get reform with 27-28 countries with differing interests & economic positions means at the very very best you get a terrible fudge. With 6-8 of similar sized economies you can probably find common ground.
Yes, if I were to reshape Europe I would have an Eastern bloc, a northern bloc and a southern bloc, France would have to decide at that point whether they want to be in the northern outward looking bloc or in the inward looking southern one. Free trade between all of them, and free movement within the groups but not between the groups. As the economies align and they become similarly sized in terms of per capita income we could merge them into a single free trading and free movement zone.
Something like that could solve a lot of problems not just migration. Basically the more you pay in & more important you are the bigger say you have.
At the moment, eu has the same problem as fifa. Fiji has all the same votes rights as Germany.
QMV is based on population, or have I had a colossal brain fart?
But population isn't the correct metric. Imagine fifa being run like that, China & India having huge says.
Just wanted to add to the market news, the sentiment appears to be a mix of relief that Brexit didn't actually mean the UK turning into a post-apocalyptic wasteland and good news from Germany/China.
FTSE100 is looking OK, but FTSE250 has lost almost all its gains since February. We'll need to see what comes out of the council meeting today before we can say things have settled.
I don't want to appear to be an extremist but I must say that the problem with modern cushions is that they do not possess the mass needed to perform the function implicit in their name. They are all about appearance, surface and clever design but inside have virtually nothing. A metaphor for modern politicians.
I find cushions, like pillows rather short on lifespan. When new, they're too bouncy - then for a brief period they're perfect...and then go all tired and flat.
Yes the gang of six met to try and shaft the Eastern European nations and keep the UK in the EU by restrictions on free movement. Apparently the meeting ended up with mixed feelings. I heard that France and Belgium were the most reticent in offering us anything, the rest were generally on board. The problem is that there would be no mechanism for them to push through the reforms necessary against Eastern European interests, they have more than enough to block a decision taken by QMV.
And this is really the problem with the EU. Trying to get reform with 27-28 countries with differing interests & economic positions means at the very very best you get a terrible fudge. With 6-8 of similar sized economies you can probably find common ground.
Yes, if I were to reshape Europe I would have an Eastern bloc, a northern bloc and a southern bloc, France would have to decide at that point whether they want to be in the northern outward looking bloc or in the inward looking southern one. Free trade between all of them, and free movement within the groups but not between the groups. As the economies align and they become similarly sized in terms of per capita income we could merge them into a single free trading and free movement zone.
Something like that could solve a lot of problems not just migration. Basically the more you pay in & more important you are the bigger say you have.
At the moment, eu has the same problem as fifa. Fiji has all the same votes rights as Germany.
QMV is based on population, or have I had a colossal brain fart?
But population isn't the correct metric. Imagine fifa being run like that, China & India having huge says.
For clarity, I'm not arguing it's the correct mechanic, I was just worried that I'd made a fundamental misapprehension about QMV and it was one-nation, one vote .
Jezza tells McDonnell or Lewis that if they got on the ballot he will stand down.
Will Labour MPs be prepared to nominate either?
If not Jezza wins the party vote and deselections results in SDP2
Tory reign for 15 years,
The current idea by the splitters is doomed
Eagle is Kendall level of support
Watson is Cooper level of support
Jezza is over 50% on first ballot
The splitters really hadn't thought this through had they
So then they will have to walk and either defect or set up their own party. What marks this rebellion out so far is the unity of purpose: the resignations and then the VoNC. Would that carry forward to the ultimate rebellion were Corbyn re-elected? It would have its own momentum. Providing that a critical mass went, then those who stayed would be ever more vulnerable to the increasing relative power of the left, so increasing the incentive to jump.
Yes the gang of six met to try and shaft the Eastern European nations and keep the UK in the EU by restrictions on free movement. Apparently the meeting ended up with mixed feelings. I heard that France and Belgium were the most reticent in offering us anything, the rest were generally on board. The problem is that there would be no mechanism for them to push through the reforms necessary against Eastern European interests, they have more than enough to block a decision taken by QMV.
And this is really the problem with the EU. Trying to get reform with 27-28 countries with differing interests & economic positions means at the very very best you get a terrible fudge. With 6-8 of similar sized economies you can probably find common ground.
Yes, if I were to reshape Europe I would have an Eastern bloc, a northern bloc and a southern bloc, France would have to decide at that point whether they want to be in the northern outward looking bloc or in the inward looking southern one. Free trade between all of them, and free movement within the groups but not between the groups. As the economies align and they become similarly sized in terms of per capita income we could merge them into a single free trading and free movement zone.
Something like that could solve a lot of problems not just migration. Basically the more you pay in & more important you are the bigger say you have.
At the moment, eu has the same problem as fifa. Fiji has all the same votes rights as Germany.
QMV is based on population, or have I had a colossal brain fart?
But population isn't the correct metric. Imagine fifa being run like that, China & India having huge says.
For clarity, I'm not arguing it's the correct mechanic, I was just worried that I'd made a fundamental misapprehension about QMV and it was one-nation, one vote .
Have we got PMQs today, I might actually watch it if it's on.
We have, and it's likely to be extremely amusing/tragic depending on one's political views. If nothing else, David Cameron will be rolling in the aisles.
It must be near his last with recess coming on 21st July.
Ewan McGregor @mcgregor_ewan @jeremycorbyn Good for you! The turncoats in your party should be ashamed of themselves. I hope you find the support you deserve.
Members of PLP should just refuse to attend PMQs. The site of Corbyn - and a few acolytes- isolated on the opposition benches should do the trick (other parties can cluster as usual).
" It didn't seem like a disaster at the time". No, indeed. But it was. 1906 has been described as a landslide from which the Liberals never recovered. It overstates things a bit (1916 was more important) but there's also a germ of truth. 1997 was not dissimilar.
I've no reason whatsoever to run scared of a centre-left party (and the Lib Dems and SDP2 would both be that). Another dreadful Lib Dem error was to believe that they could replace the Tories as the opposition to Labour during their Iraq high, while simultaneously positioning themselves to the left of Blair. For as long as the right-of-centre is broadly unchallenged, the Tories will be fine, if not always in government. By contrast, Labour is facing its worst existential crisis since at least 1981 and possibly since 1931, while the Lib Dems are almost wiped out as a party at national, European and regional level.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on 1997. I remember it as a disaster for the Conservatives. For the LDs and for Paddy, it was bad only inasmuch as the size of the Labour win meant the plan for comprehensive realignment of the centre and centre left (including perhaps electoral reform) was shoved off the table.
The events of September 11th 2001 dominated the second Labour term and were, as I hope you'd agree, unforeseeable in their scope and impact and the ramifications of which we live with to this day.
As Labour became more centralised and authoritarian in approach (aspects it has always had to e fair), there was a convergence between the Liberals (with the accession of the Orange Booker Nick Clegg) and the Conservatives under the One Nation Cameron on a number of issues and this strengthened with the financial crash of 2008 and the realisation the "Third Way" model which had run since 1992 had broadly collapsed.
The Coalition was formed out of that temporary convergence of ideas around a "sorting out the Labour mess" agenda but it was never more than temporary and soon diverged in Government.
Labour's problem (and I do accept the problem of the centre left) is that it has failed to come up with a coherent economic response to 2008. The Conservatives had austerity but that too has run its course and for the first time in decades, I get a sense of nobody really knowing which way to turn and the vote to LEAVE is symbolic of it.
If we were more mature individuals instead of partisan supporters of a team or rosette, we'd be thinking about how to shape our economy, society and communities for the next 20 years but the sniping, the sneering and the points scoring is so much more fun.
My question to you, David, is what are the Conservatives for now ? If it is simply about being in power, then it is nothing at all and does us all a disservice.
Ewan McGregor @mcgregor_ewan @jeremycorbyn Good for you! The turncoats in your party should be ashamed of themselves. I hope you find the support you deserve.
The force is with Jezza but TBF i already knew that
Yes the gang of six met to try and shaft the Eastern European nations and keep the UK in the EU by restrictions on free movement. Apparently the meeting ended up with mixed feelings. I heard that France and Belgium were the most reticent in offering us anything, the rest were generally on board. The problem is that there would be no mechanism for them to push through the reforms necessary against Eastern European interests, they have more than enough to block a decision taken by QMV.
And this is really the problem with the EU. Trying to get reform with 27-28 countries with differing interests & economic positions means at the very very best you get a terrible fudge. With 6-8 of similar sized economies you can probably find common ground.
Yes, if I were to reshape Europe I would have an Eastern bloc, a northern bloc and a southern bloc, France would have to decide at that point whether they want to be in the northern outward looking bloc or in the inward looking southern one. Free trade between all of them, and free movement within the groups but not between the groups. As the economies align and they become similarly sized in terms of per capita income we could merge them into a single free trading and free movement zone.
Something like that could solve a lot of problems not just migration. Basically the more you pay in & more important you are the bigger say you have.
At the moment, eu has the same problem as fifa. Fiji has all the same votes rights as Germany.
QMV is based on population, or have I had a colossal brain fart?
But population isn't the correct metric. Imagine fifa being run like that, China & India having huge says.
For clarity, I'm not arguing it's the correct mechanic, I was just worried that I'd made a fundamental misapprehension about QMV and it was one-nation, one vote .
It's both.
Thanks, looked it up (so lazy today). I am now fully up to speed on the double majority rules, and the blocking minority curlicue. I also note that the old system can still be used until March 2017.
Members of PLP should just refuse to attend PMQs. The site of Corbyn - and a few acolytes- isolated on the opposition benches should do the trick (other parties can cluster as usual).
Do what trick
Prove to constituents they have no questions to the PM
Just wanted to add to the market news, the sentiment appears to be a mix of relief that Brexit didn't actually mean the UK turning into a post-apocalyptic wasteland and good news from Germany/China.
FTSE100 is looking OK, but FTSE250 has lost almost all its gains since February. We'll need to see what comes out of the council meeting today before we can say things have settled.
FTSE100 includes many companies with big foreign subsidiaries whose Sterling values will be increased by the fall in the pound. FTSE250 are more UK operating companies.
Members of PLP should just refuse to attend PMQs. The site of Corbyn - and a few acolytes- isolated on the opposition benches should do the trick (other parties can cluster as usual).
Do what trick
Prove to constituents they have no questions to the PM
They already believe it is in constituents interests to see Corbyn removed. Also I am sure a full rota of questions will be asked to the PM.
Members of PLP should just refuse to attend PMQs. The site of Corbyn - and a few acolytes- isolated on the opposition benches should do the trick (other parties can cluster as usual).
Trouble is, it will look like they are not doing their jobs. Also, Corbyn is clearly impervious to humiliation.
I feel sorry for the ordinary Labour voters who deserve better.
Why don't they both run? Surely AV solves all their problems?
No has to be one candidate. Has to be a clear choice between Corbyn or no Corbyn.
Why? Because "We're the establishment, do what we tell you, accept who we choose for you" is a successful message at the moment?
I mean, if they're planning on losing then a single candidate might limit the margin of victory a bit and give them a better start to their new party, but if they're looking to win then drawing more people into the voting pool and offering a choice on non-corbyn options seems like the better idea.
Jezza tells McDonnell or Lewis that if they got on the ballot he will stand down.
Will Labour MPs be prepared to nominate either?
If not Jezza wins the party vote and deselections results in SDP2
Tory reign for 15 years,
The current idea by the splitters is doomed
Eagle is Kendall level of support
Watson is Cooper level of support
Jezza is over 50% on first ballot
The splitters really hadn't thought this through had they
So then they will have to walk and either defect or set up their own party. What marks this rebellion out so far is the unity of purpose: the resignations and then the VoNC. Would that carry forward to the ultimate rebellion were Corbyn re-elected? It would have its own momentum. Providing that a critical mass went, then those who stayed would be ever more vulnerable to the increasing relative power of the left, so increasing the incentive to jump.
Indeed. It really is quite something how the far left Corbynites are tried to brush off a rebellion of this scale as s wrinkle of history. There is no precedent for a leader staying in such circumstances
Have to agree with Stodge on the ludicrous complacency of the Conservatives at the moment. About 40% of their voters voted Remain last week and, especially among the young professional demographic in the south east, many of them are furious with what has happened. Assuming that they wouldn't be open to supporting a pro-European pro-business centre party is the height of complacency. Having voted Conservative in every GE since 1997 I certainly will not be doing so again for a long time even though the current alternatives are awful.
May has spent 6 years at the Home Office failing to control immigration. What makes anyone think that if she becomes PM she will do anything whatsoever to control immigration?
UKIP will have a field day with May as PM.
Meanwhile everyone left of centre can just keep saying "Nasty Party" whatever policies she tries to implement.
She's also quite authoritarian. Her biggest blackmark for me is swapping sides to hedge her bets, then hid during the whole campaign. That's not leadership using any yardstick.
Looking at what she does rather than says speaks volumes.
When the leave campaign smashed Cameron As every child can tell Theresa May, throughout the war Did nothing in particular And did it very well.
Some leave posters are turning in to Diane Abbot / Comical Ali in their resolutely blinkered dismissals of anything possibly negative to do with their glorious victory... any nay sayers are immoral, corrupt or worse a remainer.
Naturally I'm a wide-eyed, positive, open to everything Remainer (cough)
Of McDonnell's economic advisory team, so far I'm aware that Richard Murphy, Thomas Piketty and Danny Blanchflower have quit so far. Are there any others that people know of?
All will henceforth be labelled "Blairites" by the Corbynites.
Just wanted to add to the market news, the sentiment appears to be a mix of relief that Brexit didn't actually mean the UK turning into a post-apocalyptic wasteland and good news from Germany/China.
FTSE100 is looking OK, but FTSE250 has lost almost all its gains since February. We'll need to see what comes out of the council meeting today before we can say things have settled.
FTSE100 includes many companies with big foreign subsidiaries whose Sterling values will be increased by the fall in the pound. FTSE250 are more UK operating companies.
70% of earnings come from overseas for the FTSE 100 was the stat I heard.
Members of PLP should just refuse to attend PMQs. The site of Corbyn - and a few acolytes- isolated on the opposition benches should do the trick (other parties can cluster as usual).
Trouble is, it will look like they are not doing their jobs. Also, Corbyn is clearly impervious to humiliation.
I worked with a guy who'd spent several years at HMP [Ch Acct caught defrauding VAT].
He was totally shameless - made it very difficult to 'manage' him in a conventional sense. He simply didn't play by conventional rules. Corbyn reminds me a lot of this.
Comments
Perhaps the Nats just like the EU for the socialism ?
Angela Eagle wouldnt for example
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/poland-and-hungary-lead-angry-rebellion-against-the-old-guard-8fddw7wtg
Are we listening to Gordon Brown now Scott ?
For the last few years much of my work has been in Scotland so it may well cause me some disruption. But that doesn't change my basic view that if they can make it work I would much rather have Scotland as a good neighbour than an angry sullen family member.
In 1997, the "disaster" you claim saw the LDs go from 20 to 46 MPs. It didn't seem like a disaster at the time for anyone other than the Conservatives who then spent their longest period in opposition under universal suffrage.
It took thirteen years and the biggest financial crash since the 1930s plus Gordon Brown to haul the Conservatives back to the brink of power. At that point, the LDs came in with their disastrous 57 MPs and formed the Coalition which now looks like a paragon of stability and good governance compared to the current shambles.
I think you're appallingly complacent as to the effect of a potential non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left on Conservative voters. Millions deserted the Conservative Party in 1997 for Blair and halved your Parliamentary representation overnight. The LDs benefitted from the tactical desire of millions to be rid of your party.
Could the same happen in 2020 ? Possibly.
As for Councillors, the LDs has always had concentrations of power just like the Conservatives. How many Tory Councillors are there in Newham - here's a clue, the same number as there are Lib Dem councillors. There are still, I believe, around 2,000 LD councillors, in 1979 there were 150. Next year the County Council elections offer some opportunities to increase that number further - perhaps it will be another 1993, we can but hope. That year, the Conservatives lost control of Surrey.
You're running scared of a new centre party and rightly so. The Conservatives are all over the place on Europe - you can't decide whether to respect the national vote or ignore it. Your best electoral asset has walked off the stage and looking at the field of selling platers on offer, the fact Stephen Crabb is being considered speaks volumes.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/professor-damien-ridge/we-can-resist-the-brexit-_b_10699998.html?utm_hp_ref=uk-politics&ir=UK+Politics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqiFr0uppVk
Mr. Urquhart, Machiavelli in Discourses on Livy advocates a maximum confederacy size of 4-6 countries, for that sort of reason.
Miss Plato, unsurprised the non-founding countries are peeved.
You are clutching at straws, Britain is worse off.
I see that you concede that Leave 'lied massively'.
https://twitter.com/brianspanner1/status/746488316510482433
That would be a pretty daring thing for any MP to do, and the speaker wouldn't be happy about being put in that position, but it's possible some MP might see this as a way to bypass the Labour party rules.
I've no reason whatsoever to run scared of a centre-left party (and the Lib Dems and SDP2 would both be that). Another dreadful Lib Dem error was to believe that they could replace the Tories as the opposition to Labour during their Iraq high, while simultaneously positioning themselves to the left of Blair. For as long as the right-of-centre is broadly unchallenged, the Tories will be fine, if not always in government. By contrast, Labour is facing its worst existential crisis since at least 1981 and possibly since 1931, while the Lib Dems are almost wiped out as a party at national, European and regional level.
What a wonderful turn of phrase.
There are some things that seem to be extremely desirable in theory that look much less attractive in practice. Jeremy Corbyn is a man of unimpeachable integrity. It's that quality that is driving the PLP quite literally demented.
One of the frequent criticisms we make of politicians is that they're slippery and don't stand for anything. In Mr Corbyn's case we can see the opposite pole. It's my personal view that every virtue can be a vice, and Jeremy is a lovely example of that.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/748083515720404993
I feel sorry for the ordinary Labour voters who deserve better.
I mean, if we do get a split, then whichever side has the loyalty of the majority of MPs will decice who is leader of the opposition (Unless they split into enough pieces that the SNP are the 2nd largest party), but until then they need to respect the rules of the labour party which say that Corbyn is leader.
At the moment, eu has the same problem as fifa. A massive corrupt organisation where nobody can reform it, as Fiji has all the same voting rights as Germany, and have wildly different needs and objectives from being in fifa.
It seems normal service has been resumed.
(Yes, I know someone else said that yesterday)
Both of them disastrous for Labour but in different ways.
FTSE100 is looking OK, but FTSE250 has lost almost all its gains since February. We'll need to see what comes out of the council meeting today before we can say things have settled.
As you say - just like politicians.
http://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-commons-faqs/business-faq-page/recess-dates/
@LOS_Fisher: Criteria to be official opposition: statute + standing orders + convention (Erskine May). Parliament spox explains: https://t.co/5z58qT0iWa
@jeremycorbyn Good for you! The turncoats in your party should be ashamed of themselves. I hope you find the support you deserve.
The events of September 11th 2001 dominated the second Labour term and were, as I hope you'd agree, unforeseeable in their scope and impact and the ramifications of which we live with to this day.
As Labour became more centralised and authoritarian in approach (aspects it has always had to e fair), there was a convergence between the Liberals (with the accession of the Orange Booker Nick Clegg) and the Conservatives under the One Nation Cameron on a number of issues and this strengthened with the financial crash of 2008 and the realisation the "Third Way" model which had run since 1992 had broadly collapsed.
The Coalition was formed out of that temporary convergence of ideas around a "sorting out the Labour mess" agenda but it was never more than temporary and soon diverged in Government.
Labour's problem (and I do accept the problem of the centre left) is that it has failed to come up with a coherent economic response to 2008. The Conservatives had austerity but that too has run its course and for the first time in decades, I get a sense of nobody really knowing which way to turn and the vote to LEAVE is symbolic of it.
If we were more mature individuals instead of partisan supporters of a team or rosette, we'd be thinking about how to shape our economy, society and communities for the next 20 years but the sniping, the sneering and the points scoring is so much more fun.
My question to you, David, is what are the Conservatives for now ? If it is simply about being in power, then it is nothing at all and does us all a disservice.
Or, the FTP doesn't mean what it says.
Prove to constituents they have no questions to the PM
If Corbyn opposes, even better. It will probably still pass. Keep tabling it every week if necessary.
Watson #611
Angela #503
an early election [...] There would be time neither for deselections
I specifically asked about this yesterday and Nick said that the selections would be NEC-controlled in the event of a snap election.
Splitsville is looking a pretty realistic destination. I have backed John McDonnell as leader of "The Labour Party" at 55.0 as a proxy for this.
I mean, if they're planning on losing then a single candidate might limit the margin of victory a bit and give them a better start to their new party, but if they're looking to win then drawing more people into the voting pool and offering a choice on non-corbyn options seems like the better idea.
I am not sure why there has to be only one candidate. The losing non-Corbynite candidate's votes should passive to the higher achieving one.
As every child can tell
Theresa May, throughout the war
Did nothing in particular
And did it very well.
(Iolanthe)
Naturally I'm a wide-eyed, positive, open to everything Remainer (cough)
All will henceforth be labelled "Blairites" by the Corbynites.
https://twitter.com/DailyMailUK/status/748042843575488512
If only one woman candidate, I would still prefer Yvette.
A Eagle has the charisma of wet lettuce !
He was totally shameless - made it very difficult to 'manage' him in a conventional sense. He simply didn't play by conventional rules. Corbyn reminds me a lot of this.