politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Analysing Labour’s rise in the polls

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Analysing Labour’s rise in the polls

At the start of this general election campaign, I thought there was a chance that my 10/1 bets on Labour polling sub 20% might be in play but during this general election campaign if the polls are accurate, Labour’s share of the vote has risen, and Labour might end up polling close to 40%.

Read the full story here

kle4

That has been their approach from the start, I am sure they will keep at the policy rather than the personality focus. Freebies are very popular.

kle4

It is worth noting that even when people do recall policies, they are not necessarily what they base their vote on. Ballot box behaviour is much more about the broader perceptions of the parties
Yep. Tories took a hit, but started well in front so should still win. Their manifesto was deliberately a more sober affair and was never going to be as popular, but they need to limit any further damage - a proposed relaunch is a very bad idea, as it will just make matters more complicated with little guarantee it will fix the perception of their plans.

kle4

NickPalmer said:

kle4 said:

Hard to say. He's slick, he's presentable, he's more authoritative, but as SeanT notes, there's something in Corbyn's offbeat, quiet, slightly unkempt approach that people really get enthused about, and I think his approach would be less appealing to those people.

Yes, count me in there. I think McDonnell is highly intelligent and has done a good job of making a serious effort on economic issues, but as he engagingly says of himself, "Jeremy is teaching me to be a nicer person but i'm only halfway through the course."

But he doesn't want to be leader, and has said so emphatically on repeated occasions.

Oh come on, Nick, surely everyone says that! May said she wouldn't call for a GE too. Ball loose from the scrum, do my duty for the party and country if Jeremy goes, etc etc.

RoyalBlue

kle4 said:

It is worth noting that even when people do recall policies, they are not necessarily what they base their vote on. Ballot box behaviour is much more about the broader perceptions of the parties
Yep. Tories took a hit, but started well in front so should still win. Their manifesto was deliberately a more sober affair and was never going to be as popular, but they need to limit any further damage - a proposed relaunch is a very bad idea, as it will just make matters more complicated with little guarantee it will fix the perception of their plans.

You say they should limit further damage, but a relaunch is a bad idea. What should they do?

isam

I think it is because the politically engaged are over represented in opinion polls. Most people aren't that interested, made their mind up early and stick with it.

People who like to discuss why they are voting this way or that over analyse it, and are probably the type that like to tell people they can be swayed by manifestos, logic, reasoned argument etc, because they admire intellectual thought

TheScreamingEagles

Why couldn't this melt have come to Betfair instead of going to William Hill, he'd have got 15/1 and I'd have made some money

https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/868815351043297281

Freggles

RoyalBlue said:

kle4 said:

It is worth noting that even when people do recall policies, they are not necessarily what they base their vote on. Ballot box behaviour is much more about the broader perceptions of the parties
Yep. Tories took a hit, but started well in front so should still win. Their manifesto was deliberately a more sober affair and was never going to be as popular, but they need to limit any further damage - a proposed relaunch is a very bad idea, as it will just make matters more complicated with little guarantee it will fix the perception of their plans.

You say they should limit further damage, but a relaunch is a bad idea. What should they do?

Pick a fight with Brussels.

isam said:

I think it is because the politically engaged are over represented in opinion polls

I agree.

kle4

RoyalBlue said:

kle4 said:

It is worth noting that even when people do recall policies, they are not necessarily what they base their vote on. Ballot box behaviour is much more about the broader perceptions of the parties
Yep. Tories took a hit, but started well in front so should still win. Their manifesto was deliberately a more sober affair and was never going to be as popular, but they need to limit any further damage - a proposed relaunch is a very bad idea, as it will just make matters more complicated with little guarantee it will fix the perception of their plans.

You say they should limit further damage, but a relaunch is a bad idea. What should they do?

Not cause further ructions! The polls were not disastrous yesterday, it could well be the slide has been halted, and the fundamentals of Corbyn being less popular than May are still true (even if he is more popular than supposed), so the personality focus is probably their best bet - defending what they proposed when raised but not inviting too many more questions, which if they start tinkering and u-turning (as any additional clarification via a 'relaunch' would be perceived) it could just confuse things.

kle4

Freggles said:

RoyalBlue said:

kle4 said:

It is worth noting that even when people do recall policies, they are not necessarily what they base their vote on. Ballot box behaviour is much more about the broader perceptions of the parties
Yep. Tories took a hit, but started well in front so should still win. Their manifesto was deliberately a more sober affair and was never going to be as popular, but they need to limit any further damage - a proposed relaunch is a very bad idea, as it will just make matters more complicated with little guarantee it will fix the perception of their plans.

You say they should limit further damage, but a relaunch is a bad idea. What should they do?

Pick a fight with Brussels.

I believe they have been proposing plans for a Eurosausage...

TheScreamingEagles

RoyalBlue said:

kle4 said:

It is worth noting that even when people do recall policies, they are not necessarily what they base their vote on. Ballot box behaviour is much more about the broader perceptions of the parties
Yep. Tories took a hit, but started well in front so should still win. Their manifesto was deliberately a more sober affair and was never going to be as popular, but they need to limit any further damage - a proposed relaunch is a very bad idea, as it will just make matters more complicated with little guarantee it will fix the perception of their plans.

You say they should limit further damage, but a relaunch is a bad idea. What should they do?

Well they've made a positive start by castrating Nick Timothy and giving Sir Lynton Crosby complete control of the campaign.

kle4

Recidivist said:

BudG said:

Pulpstar said:

BudG said:

rottenborough said:

AndyJS said:

Next Labour leader:

Yvette Cooper 4.8 / 5
Keir Starmer 7.4 / 9.2
Dan Jarvis 14 / 19
Lisa Nandy 17 / 19
Chuka Umanna 17 / 21
Clive Lewis 13.5 / 22

https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.120629096

I am in deep on this market. But we could be waiting some time for any winnings.

Difficult to see Cooper getting it, if this election does not turn out to be the disaster for Corbyn that most were predicting originally. It is likely to be a successor chosen and supported by him, when he eventually goes.

Right now I'd have to say McIRA may well get it. And the Tories had better have a superior campaign to this one if he's leading Labour in 2022.

Hope he is not put forward by Corbyn as his successor. I would happily vote for most centre left canandidates in a leadership election, but don't think I could vote for McD, he comes with far too much baggage.

Based purely on Twitter, I'd say that Labour activists aren't all that left wing. They just like Corbyn. I don't think Corbyn's successor has to be from the same pedigree.

Not sure many others fit the kind, slightly bumbling cool grandad image though.

kle4

TheScreamingEagles said:

RoyalBlue said:

kle4 said:

It is worth noting that even when people do recall policies, they are not necessarily what they base their vote on. Ballot box behaviour is much more about the broader perceptions of the parties
Yep. Tories took a hit, but started well in front so should still win. Their manifesto was deliberately a more sober affair and was never going to be as popular, but they need to limit any further damage - a proposed relaunch is a very bad idea, as it will just make matters more complicated with little guarantee it will fix the perception of their plans.

You say they should limit further damage, but a relaunch is a bad idea. What should they do?

Well they've made a positive start by castrating Nick Timothy and giving Sir Lynton Crosby complete control of the campaign.

If he's so great why didn't they from the start, if you are serious?

Freggles

The Lib Dem manifesto is really good and sensible, but the awful two sided campaign has meant I only actually thought to read it last night.

Floater

Dear fucking god - apparently the grooming problem getting worse

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4546450/Rochdale-horror-goes-abuse-rife-10-years-on.html

TheScreamingEagles

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RoyalBlue said:

kle4 said:

It is worth noting that even when people do recall policies, they are not necessarily what they base their vote on. Ballot box behaviour is much more about the broader perceptions of the parties
Yep. Tories took a hit, but started well in front so should still win. Their manifesto was deliberately a more sober affair and was never going to be as popular, but they need to limit any further damage - a proposed relaunch is a very bad idea, as it will just make matters more complicated with little guarantee it will fix the perception of their plans.

You say they should limit further damage, but a relaunch is a bad idea. What should they do?

Well they've made a positive start by castrating Nick Timothy and giving Sir Lynton Crosby complete control of the campaign.

If he's so great why didn't they from the start, if you are serious?

Apparently Mrs May is a control freak and she and Nick Timothy thought they knew better than Sir Lynton Crosby when it comes to winning general elections.

https://twitter.com/MsHelicat/status/868572170099752961

kle4

Freggles said:

The Lib Dem manifesto is really good and sensible, but the awful two sided campaign has meant I only actually thought to read it last night.

I thought it the best presented. Lab's had the nicest policies but was overly wordy and harder to pick out the promises and priorities.

TheScreamingEagles

Freggles said:

The Lib Dem manifesto is really good and sensible, but the awful two sided campaign has meant I only actually thought to read it last night.

I had thought about doing a thread on the Lib Dems today.

Hard to believe but a few years ago over 50% of the public would have voted for a coalition/coupon deal in 2015.

Now they could be down to 1 or 2 MPs.

TheScreamingEagles

Oh my word, that looks like a serious accident in Monaco.

Never seen a car at that angle.

Edit - Pascal Wehrlein is ok. Phew

kle4

TheScreamingEagles said:

Freggles said:

The Lib Dem manifesto is really good and sensible, but the awful two sided campaign has meant I only actually thought to read it last night.

I had thought about doing a thread on the Lib Dems today.

Hard to believe but a few years ago over 50% of the public would have voted for a coalition/coupon deal in 2015.

Now they could be down to 1 or 2 MPs.

The public is unkind. They also say they like middle options and compromise, but act otherwise (yes I know the LDs did not help themselves in some ways)

nunu

Floater said:

Dear fucking god - apparently the grooming problem getting worse

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4546450/Rochdale-horror-goes-abuse-rife-10-years-on.html

Hardly anyone has been arrested and tried have they?

isam

nunu said:

Floater said:

Dear fucking god - apparently the grooming problem getting worse

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4546450/Rochdale-horror-goes-abuse-rife-10-years-on.html

Hardly anyone has been arrested and tried have they?

The ones that were are few again and using taxpayers money to stave off deportation

TheScreamingEagles

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RoyalBlue said:

kle4 said:

It is worth noting that even when people do recall policies, they are not necessarily what they base their vote on. Ballot box behaviour is much more about the broader perceptions of the parties
Yep. Tories took a hit, but started well in front so should still win. Their manifesto was deliberately a more sober affair and was never going to be as popular, but they need to limit any further damage - a proposed relaunch is a very bad idea, as it will just make matters more complicated with little guarantee it will fix the perception of their plans.

You say they should limit further damage, but a relaunch is a bad idea. What should they do?

Well they've made a positive start by castrating Nick Timothy and giving Sir Lynton Crosby complete control of the campaign.

If he's so great why didn't they from the start, if you are serious?

Apparently Mrs May is a control freak and she and Nick Timothy thought they knew better than Sir Lynton Crosby when it comes to winning general elections.

https://twitter.com/MsHelicat/status/868572170099752961

If Ruth Davidson was Tory leader they'd still be 20 points ahead. Why can't TMay be like this? - coherent, smart, lucid, persuasive, and nailing her points without sounding like a robot.

https://twitter.com/RidgeOnSunday/status/868755755716837376

I live in hope Ruth Davidson might be the Tory leader/PM for the 2022 general election.

foxinsoxuk

TheScreamingEagles said:

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RoyalBlue said:

kle4 said:

It is worth noting that even when people do recall policies, they are not necessarily what they base their vote on. Ballot box behaviour is much more about the broader perceptions of the parties
Yep. Tories took a hit, but started well in front so should still win. Their manifesto was deliberately a more sober affair and was never going to be as popular, but they need to limit any further damage - a proposed relaunch is a very bad idea, as it will just make matters more complicated with little guarantee it will fix the perception of their plans.

You say they should limit further damage, but a relaunch is a bad idea. What should they do?

Well they've made a positive start by castrating Nick Timothy and giving Sir Lynton Crosby complete control of the campaign.

If he's so great why didn't they from the start, if you are serious?

Apparently Mrs May is a control freak and she and Nick Timothy thought they knew better than Sir Lynton Crosby when it comes to winning general elections.

https://twitter.com/MsHelicat/status/868572170099752961

If Ruth Davidson was Tory leader they'd still be 20 points ahead. Why can't TMay be like this? - coherent, smart, lucid, persuasive, and nailing her points without sounding like a robot.

https://twitter.com/RidgeOnSunday/status/868755755716837376

I live in hope Ruth Davidson might be the Tory leader/PM for the 2022 general election.

She needs a Westminster seat first, surely?

The_Apocalypse

TheScreamingEagles said:

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RoyalBlue said:

kle4 said:

It is worth noting that even when people do recall policies, they are not necessarily what they base their vote on. Ballot box behaviour is much more about the broader perceptions of the parties
Yep. Tories took a hit, but started well in front so should still win. Their manifesto was deliberately a more sober affair and was never going to be as popular, but they need to limit any further damage - a proposed relaunch is a very bad idea, as it will just make matters more complicated with little guarantee it will fix the perception of their plans.

You say they should limit further damage, but a relaunch is a bad idea. What should they do?

Well they've made a positive start by castrating Nick Timothy and giving Sir Lynton Crosby complete control of the campaign.

If he's so great why didn't they from the start, if you are serious?

Apparently Mrs May is a control freak and she and Nick Timothy thought they knew better than Sir Lynton Crosby when it comes to winning general elections.

https://twitter.com/MsHelicat/status/868572170099752961

If Ruth Davidson was Tory leader they'd still be 20 points ahead. Why can't TMay be like this? - coherent, smart, lucid, persuasive, and nailing her points without sounding like a robot.

https://twitter.com/RidgeOnSunday/status/868755755716837376

I live in hope Ruth Davidson might be the Tory leader/PM for the 2022 general election.

She's basically the only decent option for them/the country.

I like Ruth.

TheScreamingEagles

foxinsoxuk said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RoyalBlue said:

kle4 said:

It is worth noting that even when people do recall policies, they are not necessarily what they base their vote on. Ballot box behaviour is much more about the broader perceptions of the parties
Yep. Tories took a hit, but started well in front so should still win. Their manifesto was deliberately a more sober affair and was never going to be as popular, but they need to limit any further damage - a proposed relaunch is a very bad idea, as it will just make matters more complicated with little guarantee it will fix the perception of their plans.

You say they should limit further damage, but a relaunch is a bad idea. What should they do?

Well they've made a positive start by castrating Nick Timothy and giving Sir Lynton Crosby complete control of the campaign.

If he's so great why didn't they from the start, if you are serious?

Apparently Mrs May is a control freak and she and Nick Timothy thought they knew better than Sir Lynton Crosby when it comes to winning general elections.

https://twitter.com/MsHelicat/status/868572170099752961

If Ruth Davidson was Tory leader they'd still be 20 points ahead. Why can't TMay be like this? - coherent, smart, lucid, persuasive, and nailing her points without sounding like a robot.

https://twitter.com/RidgeOnSunday/status/868755755716837376

I live in hope Ruth Davidson might be the Tory leader/PM for the 2022 general election.

She needs a Westminster seat first, surely?

She does, a by election could do the trick but she could do an Alec Douglas-Home and become PM from the Lords.

kle4

foxinsoxuk said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RoyalBlue said:

kle4 said:

It is worth noting that even when people do recall policies, they are not necessarily what they base their vote on. Ballot box behaviour is much more about the broader perceptions of the parties
Yep. Tories took a hit, but started well in front so should still win. Their manifesto was deliberately a more sober affair and was never going to be as popular, but they need to limit any further damage - a proposed relaunch is a very bad idea, as it will just make matters more complicated with little guarantee it will fix the perception of their plans.

You say they should limit further damage, but a relaunch is a bad idea. What should they do?

Well they've made a positive start by castrating Nick Timothy and giving Sir Lynton Crosby complete control of the campaign.

If he's so great why didn't they from the start, if you are serious?

Apparently Mrs May is a control freak and she and Nick Timothy thought they knew better than Sir Lynton Crosby when it comes to winning general elections.

https://twitter.com/MsHelicat/status/868572170099752961

If Ruth Davidson was Tory leader they'd still be 20 points ahead. Why can't TMay be like this? - coherent, smart, lucid, persuasive, and nailing her points without sounding like a robot.

https://twitter.com/RidgeOnSunday/status/868755755716837376

I live in hope Ruth Davidson might be the Tory leader/PM for the 2022 general election.

She needs a Westminster seat first, surely?

Well, probably decent odds for a by-election at some point before then. Or she could be chosen as a candidate and made Leader by any outgoing PM.

But it may be that she really knows it is best for the party that she remain at Holyrood, although five years from now, when the Tories will have been in power a long time and the situation may be more difficult, and if Davidson remains a well thought of figure, it would be a good time even if standing for Westminster now was not on the cards.

kle4

The_Apocalypse said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RoyalBlue said:

kle4 said:

It is worth noting that even when people do recall policies, they are not necessarily what they base their vote on. Ballot box behaviour is much more about the broader perceptions of the parties
Yep. Tories took a hit, but started well in front so should still win. Their manifesto was deliberately a more sober affair and was never going to be as popular, but they need to limit any further damage - a proposed relaunch is a very bad idea, as it will just make matters more complicated with little guarantee it will fix the perception of their plans.

You say they should limit further damage, but a relaunch is a bad idea. What should they do?

Well they've made a positive start by castrating Nick Timothy and giving Sir Lynton Crosby complete control of the campaign.

If he's so great why didn't they from the start, if you are serious?

Apparently Mrs May is a control freak and she and Nick Timothy thought they knew better than Sir Lynton Crosby when it comes to winning general elections.

https://twitter.com/MsHelicat/status/868572170099752961

If Ruth Davidson was Tory leader they'd still be 20 points ahead. Why can't TMay be like this? - coherent, smart, lucid, persuasive, and nailing her points without sounding like a robot.

https://twitter.com/RidgeOnSunday/status/868755755716837376

I live in hope Ruth Davidson might be the Tory leader/PM for the 2022 general election.

She's basically the only decent option for them/the country.

I like Ruth.

Well there should be a whole bunch of new ones coming in soon, maybe there's a Davidson amongst them.

Scott_P

Before the Zoomers arrive in force to disparage Ruth, remember they have this quality in their ranks...

@JohnMasonMSP: @torykipper @Tyndale7 Youngsters today coming out of school more rounded than in past. Learning times tables & spelling stronger in my day but we have moved on.

@euanmccolm: we have not "moved on" from the need to be able to spell and count, you dolt. twitter.com/johnmasonmsp/s…

TheScreamingEagles

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RoyalBlue said:

kle4 said:

It is worth noting that even when people do recall policies, they are not necessarily what they base their vote on. Ballot box behaviour is much more about the broader perceptions of the parties
Yep. Tories took a hit, but started well in front so should still win. Their manifesto was deliberately a more sober affair and was never going to be as popular, but they need to limit any further damage - a proposed relaunch is a very bad idea, as it will just make matters more complicated with little guarantee it will fix the perception of their plans.

You say they should limit further damage, but a relaunch is a bad idea. What should they do?

Well they've made a positive start by castrating Nick Timothy and giving Sir Lynton Crosby complete control of the campaign.

If he's so great why didn't they from the start, if you are serious?

Apparently Mrs May is a control freak and she and Nick Timothy thought they knew better than Sir Lynton Crosby when it comes to winning general elections.

https://twitter.com/MsHelicat/status/868572170099752961

If Ruth Davidson was Tory leader they'd still be 20 points ahead. Why can't TMay be like this? - coherent, smart, lucid, persuasive, and nailing her points without sounding like a robot.

https://twitter.com/RidgeOnSunday/status/868755755716837376

I live in hope Ruth Davidson might be the Tory leader/PM for the 2022 general election.

She's the best candidate by miles. I can't think of anyone close. She personally turned around the SCONES. She's a proven winner.

I'm With You: Davidson for '22.

I suspect she won't make the move whilst there's a risk of Indyref2.

She'd rather ensure the Union remains secure than be PM.

DecrepitJohnL

FBI tipped off MI5 about Abedi.


The FBI told MI5 that Abedi was planning an attack in Britain in January this year

But they thought he might be planning to assassinate a key political figure

MI5 investigated but 'nothing came of it' and he slipped down the pecking order


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4548892/FBI-warned-MI5-Manchester-bomber-planning-attack.html

Scott_P

TheScreamingEagles said:

I suspect she won't make the move whilst there's a risk of Indyref2.

She'd rather ensure the Union remains secure than be PM.

She is likely to be FM before any move to Westminster

kle4

You can have Lords who are ministers, why not an MSP?

(Yes, it's different, but like others, I do like Ruth, and it'd be nice to see what she could do at Westminster without facing accusations of leaving Scotland as soon as there was a better job in London)

Chris

AlsoIndigo said:

Chris said:

AlsoIndigo said:

Chris said:

Did Corbyn actually make any speeches saying explicitly that he thought IRA terrorism was justified, for example?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11924431/Revealed-Jeremy-Corbyn-and-John-McDonnells-close-IRA-links.html

Thank you. Can you quote the part you mean, please?

Corbyn was the General Secretary of the Editorial Board of Labour Briefing when it published a special supplement on the Brighton Bombing:

In its December 1984 leader, editorial board “disassociated itself” from an article the previous month criticising the bombing, saying the criticism was a “serious political misjudgment.”

The board said it “reaffirmed its support for, and solidarity with, the Irish republican movement” and added that “the British only sit up and take notice [of Ireland] when they are bombed into it.”

Alongside its editorial, the board reprinted a speech by Gerry Adams describing the bombing as a "blow for democracy" and the "inevitable result of the British presence in [Ireland]."

Briefing earlier stated: “We refuse to parrot the ritual condemnation of ‘violence’ because we insist on placing responsibility where it lies…. Let our ‘Iron Lady’ know this: those who live by the sword shall die by it. If she wants violence, then violence she will certainly get.”

Thank you. Looking at the article, the Telegraph didn't seem entirely convinced Corbyn was the general secretary of the editorial board. The article says that he was a member of the board, and that the reference book Parliamentary Profiles says he was general secretary. Wikipedia cites Private Eye for both those claims. Corbyn says both claims are mistaken, and he wasn't even a member of the board.

I was hoping someone knew of a statement that could clearly be attributed to Corbyn, rather than claims like these whose accuracy is disputed.

glw

Scott_P said:

Before the Zoomers arrive in force to disparage Ruth, remember they have this quality in their ranks...

@JohnMasonMSP: @torykipper @Tyndale7 Youngsters today coming out of school more rounded than in past. Learning times tables & spelling stronger in my day but we have moved on

Are you sure that isn't a spoof account? That does seem to be too stupid for even the dimmest member of the political class.

AnneJGP

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RoyalBlue said:

kle4 said:

It is worth noting that even when people do recall policies, they are not necessarily what they base their vote on. Ballot box behaviour is much more about the broader perceptions of the parties
Yep. Tories took a hit, but started well in front so should still win. Their manifesto was deliberately a more sober affair and was never going to be as popular, but they need to limit any further damage - a proposed relaunch is a very bad idea, as it will just make matters more complicated with little guarantee it will fix the perception of their plans.

You say they should limit further damage, but a relaunch is a bad idea. What should they do?

Well they've made a positive start by castrating Nick Timothy and giving Sir Lynton Crosby complete control of the campaign.

If he's so great why didn't they from the start, if you are serious?

Apparently Mrs May is a control freak and she and Nick Timothy thought they knew better than Sir Lynton Crosby when it comes to winning general elections.

ttps://twitter.com/MsHelicat/status/868572170099752961

If Ruth Davidson was Tory leader they'd still be 20 points ahead. Why can't TMay be like this? - coherent, smart, lucid, persuasive, and nailing her points without sounding like a robot.

ttps://twitter.com/RidgeOnSunday/status/868755755716837376

Because she's a different person?

Good afternoon, everyone.

peter_from_putney

It's interesting to note from TSE's header that of the top 5 perceived 'main' manifesto policies set out by the two major parties, three of Labour's were clearly positive - i.e. scrapping tuition fees, more funding for the NHS and more funding for schools, whereas the Tories were remembered for only such one positive policy - i.e. reducing immigration, which many would doubtless disbelieve, based on their singular lack of success to date as regards their dealing this issue. To be blunt, there's little or no good news being shouted from the rooftops by the Blue team.

Isn't the simple truth that the British people have aspirations, whether these are credible or not and they expect their politicians to at least fuel those aspirations with hope that the future will be better than the past - this is without doubt where the Tories are seen to have failed spectacularly.

NickPalmer

kle4 said:

NickPalmer said:

kle4 said:

Hard to say. He's slick, he's presentable, he's more authoritative, but as SeanT notes, there's something in Corbyn's offbeat, quiet, slightly unkempt approach that people really get enthused about, and I think his approach would be less appealing to those people.

Yes, count me in there. I think McDonnell is highly intelligent and has done a good job of making a serious effort on economic issues, but as he engagingly says of himself, "Jeremy is teaching me to be a nicer person but i'm only halfway through the course."

But he doesn't want to be leader, and has said so emphatically on repeated occasions.

Oh come on, Nick, surely everyone says that! May said she wouldn't call for a GE too. Ball loose from the scrum, do my duty for the party and country if Jeremy goes, etc etc.

Well, my canvass reports are anecdotal and I'm not much better than anyone else at predicting popular trends. But I'm usually right about internal Labour matters - I predicted both Corbyn wins, I said EdM would stay on pre-2015 when Henry Manson thought he'd be ousted, and I have a reasonable understanding of what makes most of the PLP tick. I don't think McDonnell will stand if an opening appears, for both health reasons and political judgment. Might be wrong, DYOR, etc.!

kle4

peter_from_putney said:

It's interesting to note from TSE's header that of the top 5 perceived 'main' manifesto policies set out by the two major parties, three of Labour's were clearly positive - i.e. scrapping tuition fees, more funding for the NHS and more funding for schools, whereas the Tories were remembered for only such one positive policy - i.e. reducing immigration, which many would doubtless disbelieve, based on their singular lack of success to date as regards their dealing this issue. To be blunt, there's little or no good news being shouted from the rooftops by the Blue team.

Isn't the simple truth that the British people have aspirations, whether these are credible or not and they expect their politicians to at least fuel those aspirations with hope that the future will be better than the past - this is without doubt where the Tories are seen to have failed spectacularly.

Maybe, although if the aspirations are not credible and we still demand politicians provide them anyway, we really do get the politicians we deserve.

Scott_P

@krishgm: Good point about Corbyn's past. Come on #C4News and let's study your claims and the truth. Starting with that £300… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/868824276106924032

kle4

NickPalmer said:

kle4 said:

NickPalmer said:

kle4 said:

Hard to say. He's slick, he's presentable, he's more authoritative, but as SeanT notes, there's something in Corbyn's offbeat, quiet, slightly unkempt approach that people really get enthused about, and I think his approach would be less appealing to those people.

Yes, count me in there. I think McDonnell is highly intelligent and has done a good job of making a serious effort on economic issues, but as he engagingly says of himself, "Jeremy is teaching me to be a nicer person but i'm only halfway through the course."

But he doesn't want to be leader, and has said so emphatically on repeated occasions.

Oh come on, Nick, surely everyone says that! May said she wouldn't call for a GE too. Ball loose from the scrum, do my duty for the party and country if Jeremy goes, etc etc.

Well, my canvass reports are anecdotal and I'm not much better than anyone else at predicting popular trends. But I'm usually right about internal Labour matters - I predicted both Corbyn wins, I said EdM would stay on pre-2015 when Henry Manson thought he'd be ousted, and I have a reasonable understanding of what makes most of the PLP tick. I don't think McDonnell will stand if an opening appears, for both health reasons and political judgment. Might be wrong, DYOR, etc.!

It wasn't a criticism, he might really mean it, but Cabinet Ministers say the same before they get their chance at the big time, and no doubt shadow cabinet ministers too, but if an opportunity arose, and no one else seemed viable, people reassess.

Scott_P

glw said:

Are you sure that isn't a spoof account? That does seem to be too stupid for even the dimmest member of the political class.

I think he has a bet on with Pete Wishart for the stupidest MP at Westminster crown

foxinsoxuk

http://citizenaid.org/features/download-citizenaid-app/

An interesting phone App, from a combination of emergency and medical services on how to respond to terrorist incidents. FWIW.

A "Protect and Survive" for our times.

DecrepitJohnL

Chris said:

AlsoIndigo said:

Chris said:

AlsoIndigo said:

Chris said:

Did Corbyn actually make any speeches saying explicitly that he thought IRA terrorism was justified, for example?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11924431/Revealed-Jeremy-Corbyn-and-John-McDonnells-close-IRA-links.html

Thank you. Can you quote the part you mean, please?

Corbyn was the General Secretary of the Editorial Board of Labour Briefing when it published a special supplement on the Brighton Bombing:

In its December 1984 leader, editorial board “disassociated itself” from an article the previous month criticising the bombing, saying the criticism was a “serious political misjudgment.”

The board said it “reaffirmed its support for, and solidarity with, the Irish republican movement” and added that “the British only sit up and take notice [of Ireland] when they are bombed into it.”

Alongside its editorial, the board reprinted a speech by Gerry Adams describing the bombing as a "blow for democracy" and the "inevitable result of the British presence in [Ireland]."

Briefing earlier stated: “We refuse to parrot the ritual condemnation of ‘violence’ because we insist on placing responsibility where it lies…. Let our ‘Iron Lady’ know this: those who live by the sword shall die by it. If she wants violence, then violence she will certainly get.”

Thank you. Looking at the article, the Telegraph didn't seem entirely convinced Corbyn was the general secretary of the editorial board. The article says that he was a member of the board, and that the reference book Parliamentary Profiles says he was general secretary. Wikipedia cites Private Eye for both those claims. Corbyn says both claims are mistaken, and he wasn't even a member of the board.

I was hoping someone knew of a statement that could clearly be attributed to Corbyn, rather than claims like these whose accuracy is disputed.

Corbyn denied it to Sophy on Sky. About seven and a half minutes in.

youtu.be/NSpMujhSQHE?t=7m35s

Chris

DecrepitJohnL said:

Chris said:

AlsoIndigo said:

Chris said:

AlsoIndigo said:

Chris said:

Did Corbyn actually make any speeches saying explicitly that he thought IRA terrorism was justified, for example?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11924431/Revealed-Jeremy-Corbyn-and-John-McDonnells-close-IRA-links.html

Thank you. Can you quote the part you mean, please?

Corbyn was the General Secretary of the Editorial Board of Labour Briefing when it published a special supplement on the Brighton Bombing:

In its December 1984 leader, editorial board “disassociated itself” from an article the previous month criticising the bombing, saying the criticism was a “serious political misjudgment.”

The board said it “reaffirmed its support for, and solidarity with, the Irish republican movement” and added that “the British only sit up and take notice [of Ireland] when they are bombed into it.”

Alongside its editorial, the board reprinted a speech by Gerry Adams describing the bombing as a "blow for democracy" and the "inevitable result of the British presence in [Ireland]."

Briefing earlier stated: “We refuse to parrot the ritual condemnation of ‘violence’ because we insist on placing responsibility where it lies…. Let our ‘Iron Lady’ know this: those who live by the sword shall die by it. If she wants violence, then violence she will certainly get.”

Thank you. Looking at the article, the Telegraph didn't seem entirely convinced Corbyn was the general secretary of the editorial board. The article says that he was a member of the board, and that the reference book Parliamentary Profiles says he was general secretary. Wikipedia cites Private Eye for both those claims. Corbyn says both claims are mistaken, and he wasn't even a member of the board.

I was hoping someone knew of a statement that could clearly be attributed to Corbyn, rather than claims like these whose accuracy is disputed.

Corbyn denied it to Sophy on Sky. About seven and a half minutes in.

youtu.be/NSpMujhSQHE?t=7m35s

Yes. As the Telegraph reporters were at the least doubtful about whether he was general secretary of the board or only a member, wouldn't journalistic ethics normally require them to contact him to clarify that? Especially as they suggested this point might be the most controversial raised by their article?

Stark_Dawning

It's astonishing how the political narrative has changed in a matter of weeks. Although fairly confident of a reasonable majority, the Tories are now conceding that will be in spite of Theresa rather than because of her. Once the election is done and dusted, I can't see her lasting.

DecrepitJohnL

Stark_Dawning said:

It's astonishing how the political narrative has changed in a matter of weeks. Although fairly confident of a reasonable majority, the Tories are now conceding that will be in spite of Theresa rather than because of her. Once the election is done and dusted, I can't see her lasting.

Theresa May will be 65 by the next election; the same age as Mrs Thatcher when she left office. Whatever the result in a fortnight, I'd expect May to retire mid-term.

foxinsoxuk

kle4 said:

NickPalmer said:

kle4 said:

NickPalmer said:

kle4 said:

Hard to say. He's slick, he's presentable, he's more authoritative, but as SeanT notes, there's something in Corbyn's offbeat, quiet, slightly unkempt approach that people really get enthused about, and I think his approach would be less appealing to those people.

Yes, count me in there. I think McDonnell is highly intelligent and has done a good job of making a serious effort on economic issues, but as he engagingly says of himself, "Jeremy is teaching me to be a nicer person but i'm only halfway through the course."

But he doesn't want to be leader, and has said so emphatically on repeated occasions.

Oh come on, Nick, surely everyone says that! May said she wouldn't call for a GE too. Ball loose from the scrum, do my duty for the party and country if Jeremy goes, etc etc.

Well, my canvass reports are anecdotal and I'm not much better than anyone else at predicting popular trends. But I'm usually right about internal Labour matters - I predicted both Corbyn wins, I said EdM would stay on pre-2015 when Henry Manson thought he'd be ousted, and I have a reasonable understanding of what makes most of the PLP tick. I don't think McDonnell will stand if an opening appears, for both health reasons and political judgment. Might be wrong, DYOR, etc.!

It wasn't a criticism, he might really mean it, but Cabinet Ministers say the same before they get their chance at the big time, and no doubt shadow cabinet ministers too, but if an opportunity arose, and no one else seemed viable, people reassess.

I think McDonnell is not personally ambitious, and would back a younger, politically cleaner lieutenant.

kle4

Stark_Dawning said:

It's astonishing how the political narrative has changed in a matter of weeks. Although fairly confident of a reasonable majority, the Tories are now conceding that will be in spite of Theresa rather than because of her. Once the election is done and dusted, I can't see her lasting.

If she does get a 100+ majority she will last as long as she wants, nervousness during the campaign notwithstanding.

SandyRentool

Well, my Vote Labour poster went up this morning. Skipton and Ripon Tories will be quaking in their boots.

kle4

foxinsoxuk said:

kle4 said:

NickPalmer said:

kle4 said:

NickPalmer said:

kle4 said:

Hard to say. He's slick, he's presentable, he's more authoritative, but as SeanT notes, there's something in Corbyn's offbeat, quiet, slightly unkempt approach that people really get enthused about, and I think his approach would be less appealing to those people.

Yes, count me in there. I think McDonnell is highly intelligent and has done a good job of making a serious effort on economic issues, but as he engagingly says of himself, "Jeremy is teaching me to be a nicer person but i'm only halfway through the course."

But he doesn't want to be leader, and has said so emphatically on repeated occasions.

Oh come on, Nick, surely everyone says that! May said she wouldn't call for a GE too. Ball loose from the scrum, do my duty for the party and country if Jeremy goes, etc etc.

Well, my canvass reports are anecdotal and I'm not much better than anyone else at predicting popular trends. But I'm usually right about internal Labour matters - I predicted both Corbyn wins, I said EdM would stay on pre-2015 when Henry Manson thought he'd be ousted, and I have a reasonable understanding of what makes most of the PLP tick. I don't think McDonnell will stand if an opening appears, for both health reasons and political judgment. Might be wrong, DYOR, etc.!

It wasn't a criticism, he might really mean it, but Cabinet Ministers say the same before they get their chance at the big time, and no doubt shadow cabinet ministers too, but if an opportunity arose, and no one else seemed viable, people reassess.

I think McDonnell is not personally ambitious, and would back a younger, politically cleaner lieutenant.

Being the eminence grise has its advantages.

TMA1

DecrepitJohnL said:

Chris said:

AlsoIndigo said:

Chris said:

AlsoIndigo said:

Chris said:

Did Corbyn actually make any speeches saying explicitly that he thought IRA terrorism was justified, for example?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11924431/Revealed-Jeremy-Corbyn-and-John-McDonnells-close-IRA-links.html

Thank you. Can you quote the part you mean, please?

Corbyn was the General Secretary of the Editorial Board of Labour Briefing when it published a special supplement on the Brighton Bombing:

snip

The board said it “reaffirmed its support for, and solidarity with, the Irish republican movement” and added that “the British only sit up and take notice [of Ireland] when they are bombed into it.”

Alongside its editorial, the board reprinted a speech by Gerry Adams describing the bombing as a "blow for democracy" and the "inevitable result of the British presence in [Ireland]."

Briefing earlier stated: “We refuse to parrot the ritual condemnation of ‘violence’ because we insist on placing responsibility where it lies…. Let our ‘Iron Lady’ know this: those who live by the sword shall die by it. If she wants violence, then violence she will certainly get.”

Thank you. Looking at the article, the Telegraph didn't seem entirely convinced Corbyn was the general secretary of the editorial board. The article says that he was a member of the board, and that the reference book Parliamentary Profiles says he was general secretary. Wikipedia cites Private Eye for both those claims. Corbyn says both claims are mistaken, and he wasn't even a member of the board.

I was hoping someone knew of a statement that could clearly be attributed to Corbyn, rather than claims like these whose accuracy is disputed.

Corbyn denied it to Sophy on Sky. About seven and a half minutes in.

youtu.be/NSpMujhSQHE?t=7m35s

So who was? And given what is at stake for lefties would anybody on Labour Briefing choose to admit Corbyn was involved?
In any even there have been countless speeches by Corbyn in public and public associations with the IRA leadership.
One simple act condemns Corbyn as being totally unfit.
He was part of a picket outside the Old Bailey to oppose what they called the “show trial” of a group including Patrick Magee, who was subsequently convicted of murdering five people at the 1984 Tory party conference.
He wanted to “show solidarity with the Irish Republican prisoners put on trial by the British state”. In doing so he got himself arrested. Pity they did not throw away the key.
He is a disgusting personality.

Morris_Dancer

Good afternoon, everyone.

F1: shan't spoil the result, but less than thrilled with the race. Beginning the post-race ramble now.

TMA1

kle4 said:

peter_from_putney said:

It's interesting to note from TSE's header that of the top 5 perceived 'main' manifesto policies set out by the two major parties, three of Labour's were clearly positive - i.e. scrapping tuition fees, more funding for the NHS and more funding for schools, whereas the Tories were remembered for only such one positive policy - i.e. reducing immigration, which many would doubtless disbelieve, based on their singular lack of success to date as regards their dealing this issue. To be blunt, there's little or no good news being shouted from the rooftops by the Blue team.

Isn't the simple truth that the British people have aspirations, whether these are credible or not and they expect their politicians to at least fuel those aspirations with hope that the future will be better than the past - this is without doubt where the Tories are seen to have failed spectacularly.

Maybe, although if the aspirations are not credible and we still demand politicians provide them anyway, we really do get the politicians we deserve.

TSE gives advice to Labour to fight on policy. He should add that they should not fight on where the money comes from

isam

https://twitter.com/garethsoye/status/868789076442460161

Stark_Dawning

Dianne Abbott should have featured in the Tory manifesto. Throughout this entire campaign she's the only thing to have got the Tories even remotely enthused.

TudorRose

Stark_Dawning said:

It's astonishing how the political narrative has changed in a matter of weeks. Although fairly confident of a reasonable majority, the Tories are now conceding that will be in spite of Theresa rather than because of her. Once the election is done and dusted, I can't see her lasting.

I think the Tories should try to turn TMay's lack of 'on-screen charisma' into a positive; do we really want another 'form over substance' PM or do we want a 'bloody difficult woman' who gets on with the job. It's either that or a lot of intensive media training before tomorrow night.

IanB2

Serious Q: where are the Conservative policies to help the JAMS, with whose circumstances Mrs May expressed so much sympathy on the steps of number 10? There must be more to it than a re-hash of Miliband's energy price policy?

DecrepitJohnL

TudorRose said:

Stark_Dawning said:

It's astonishing how the political narrative has changed in a matter of weeks. Although fairly confident of a reasonable majority, the Tories are now conceding that will be in spite of Theresa rather than because of her. Once the election is done and dusted, I can't see her lasting.

I think the Tories should try to turn TMay's lack of 'on-screen charisma' into a positive; do we really want another 'form over substance' PM or do we want a 'bloody difficult woman' who gets on with the job. It's either that or a lot of intensive media training before tomorrow night.

Not flash, just Gordon. It's been done before.

IanB2

TheScreamingEagles said:

foxinsoxuk said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RoyalBlue said:

kle4 said:

It is worth noting that even when people do recall policies, they are not necessarily what they base their vote on. Ballot box behaviour is much more about the broader perceptions of the parties
Yep. Tories took a hit, but started well in front so should still win. Their manifesto was deliberately a more sober affair and was never going to be as popular, but they need to limit any further damage - a proposed relaunch is a very bad idea, as it will just make matters more complicated with little guarantee it will fix the perception of their plans.

You say they should limit further damage, but a relaunch is a bad idea. What should they do?

Well they've made a positive start by castrating Nick Timothy and giving Sir Lynton Crosby complete control of the campaign.

If he's so great why didn't they from the start, if you are serious?

Apparently Mrs May is a control freak and she and Nick Timothy thought they knew better than Sir Lynton Crosby when it comes to winning general elections.

https://twitter.com/MsHelicat/status/868572170099752961

If Ruth Davidson was Tory leader they'd still be 20 points ahead. Why can't TMay be like this? - coherent, smart, lucid, persuasive, and nailing her points without sounding like a robot.

https://twitter.com/RidgeOnSunday/status/868755755716837376

I live in hope Ruth Davidson might be the Tory leader/PM for the 2022 general election.

She needs a Westminster seat first, surely?

She does, a by election could do the trick but she could do an Alec Douglas-Home and become PM from the Lords.

Relying on a by-election given what the Tories almost certainly have coming their way these next five years would be peculiarly rash ISTM.

isam

https://twitter.com/centaur2015/status/868753247699390464

foxinsoxuk

IanB2 said:

Serious Q: where are the Conservative policies to help the JAMS, with whose circumstances Mrs May expressed so much sympathy on the steps of number 10? There must be more to it than a re-hash of Miliband's energy price policy?

LDs have the most redistributive manifesto fwiw

https://twitter.com/TheIFS/status/868023274491576320

rkrkrk

Chris said:

AlsoIndigo said:

Chris said:

AlsoIndigo said:

Chris said:

Did Corbyn actually make any speeches saying explicitly that he thought IRA terrorism was justified, for example?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11924431/Revealed-Jeremy-Corbyn-and-John-McDonnells-close-IRA-links.html

Thank you. Can you quote the part you mean, please?

Corbyn was the General Secretary of the Editorial Board of Labour Briefing when it published a special supplement on the Brighton Bombing:

In its December 1984 leader, editorial board “disassociated itself” from an article the previous month criticising the bombing, saying the criticism was a “serious political misjudgment.”

The board said it “reaffirmed its support for, and solidarity with, the Irish republican movement” and added that “the British only sit up and take notice [of Ireland] when they are bombed into it.”

Alongside its editorial, the board reprinted a speech by Gerry Adams describing the bombing as a "blow for democracy" and the "inevitable result of the British presence in [Ireland]."

Briefing earlier stated: “We refuse to parrot the ritual condemnation of ‘violence’ because we insist on placing responsibility where it lies…. Let our ‘Iron Lady’ know this: those who live by the sword shall die by it. If she wants violence, then violence she will certainly get.”

Thank you. Looking at the article, the Telegraph didn't seem entirely convinced Corbyn was the general secretary of the editorial board. The article says that he was a member of the board, and that the reference book Parliamentary Profiles says he was general secretary. Wikipedia cites Private Eye for both those claims. Corbyn says both claims are mistaken, and he wasn't even a member of the board.

I was hoping someone knew of a statement that could clearly be attributed to Corbyn, rather than claims like these whose accuracy is disputed.

At this stage in the election campaign you'd have to think that such a comment would have come out by now?

IanB2

TudorRose said:

Stark_Dawning said:

It's astonishing how the political narrative has changed in a matter of weeks. Although fairly confident of a reasonable majority, the Tories are now conceding that will be in spite of Theresa rather than because of her. Once the election is done and dusted, I can't see her lasting.

I think the Tories should try to turn TMay's lack of 'on-screen charisma' into a positive; do we really want another 'form over substance' PM or do we want a 'bloody difficult woman' who gets on with the job. It's either that or a lot of intensive media training before tomorrow night.

The 'difficult woman' bit shouldn't be too much of a challenge. The 'getting the job done' bit, not so much?

kyf_100

IanB2 said:

Serious Q: where are the Conservative policies to help the JAMS, with whose circumstances Mrs May expressed so much sympathy on the steps of number 10? There must be more to it than a re-hash of Miliband's energy price policy?

One of my biggest concerns.

I assume JAMS are concentrated in marginal seats as safe Tory seats are likely to be richer and safe Labour seats poorer.

The danger is that the Conservative manifesto offered nothing than more of the same, if not slightly worse and JAMS will see this and go "well, maybe I'll take a punt on Labour then, it may be better, it may be worse, but at least it will not be more of the same".

IanB2

foxinsoxuk said:

IanB2 said:

Serious Q: where are the Conservative policies to help the JAMS, with whose circumstances Mrs May expressed so much sympathy on the steps of number 10? There must be more to it than a re-hash of Miliband's energy price policy?

LDs have the most redistributive manifesto fwiw

https://twitter.com/TheIFS/status/868023274491576320

The LibDem manifesto is actually very good. It's just a shame we fell for Mrs May's line that this election was all about Brexit. We had the die-hard remainer vote sewn up, and would have done better to have talked about anything else but.

AndyJS

DecrepitJohnL said:

Stark_Dawning said:

It's astonishing how the political narrative has changed in a matter of weeks. Although fairly confident of a reasonable majority, the Tories are now conceding that will be in spite of Theresa rather than because of her. Once the election is done and dusted, I can't see her lasting.

Theresa May will be 65 by the next election; the same age as Mrs Thatcher when she left office. Whatever the result in a fortnight, I'd expect May to retire mid-term.

I think Amber Rudd would like to be the next Tory leader. She gives that impression every time I see her on TV.

TudorRose

IanB2 said:

TudorRose said:

Stark_Dawning said:

It's astonishing how the political narrative has changed in a matter of weeks. Although fairly confident of a reasonable majority, the Tories are now conceding that will be in spite of Theresa rather than because of her. Once the election is done and dusted, I can't see her lasting.

I think the Tories should try to turn TMay's lack of 'on-screen charisma' into a positive; do we really want another 'form over substance' PM or do we want a 'bloody difficult woman' who gets on with the job. It's either that or a lot of intensive media training before tomorrow night.

The 'difficult woman' bit shouldn't be too much of a challenge. The 'getting the job done' bit, not so much?

I'm not so sure; there'll be lots of references to where she's been and what she's been up to during the last week.

Theuniondivvie

Scott_P said:

Before the Zoomers arrive in force to disparage Ruth, remember they have this quality in their ranks...

Even we know it's bad manners to interrupt a circle jerk (not to mention the messy possibility of flying, Tory ejaculate).

Stark_Dawning

IanB2 said:

Serious Q: where are the Conservative policies to help the JAMS, with whose circumstances Mrs May expressed so much sympathy on the steps of number 10? There must be more to it than a re-hash of Miliband's energy price policy?

I suspect that the energy-price thing was a Nick Timothy wheeze and will be quietly dropped. The Tories still have Dianne Abbott, but can this be sustained as a sole rallying point for months possibly years?

IanB2

TudorRose said:

IanB2 said:

TudorRose said:

Stark_Dawning said:

It's astonishing how the political narrative has changed in a matter of weeks. Although fairly confident of a reasonable majority, the Tories are now conceding that will be in spite of Theresa rather than because of her. Once the election is done and dusted, I can't see her lasting.

I think the Tories should try to turn TMay's lack of 'on-screen charisma' into a positive; do we really want another 'form over substance' PM or do we want a 'bloody difficult woman' who gets on with the job. It's either that or a lot of intensive media training before tomorrow night.

The 'difficult woman' bit shouldn't be too much of a challenge. The 'getting the job done' bit, not so much?

I'm not so sure; there'll be lots of references to where she's been and what she's been up to during the last week.

I'd be expecting more from her than just having avoided holding hands with Donald (in public) for a couple of days.

IanB2

Stark_Dawning said:

IanB2 said:

Serious Q: where are the Conservative policies to help the JAMS, with whose circumstances Mrs May expressed so much sympathy on the steps of number 10? There must be more to it than a re-hash of Miliband's energy price policy?

I suspect that the energy-price thing was a Nick Timothy wheeze and will be quietly dropped. The Tories still have Dianne Abbott, but can this be sustained as a sole rallying point for months possibly years?

Who gets to run the country for five years rests upon not liking Diane Abbott? Surely we are better than this.

rkrkrk

foxinsoxuk said:

IanB2 said:

Serious Q: where are the Conservative policies to help the JAMS, with whose circumstances Mrs May expressed so much sympathy on the steps of number 10? There must be more to it than a re-hash of Miliband's energy price policy?

LDs have the most redistributive manifesto fwiw

https://twitter.com/TheIFS/status/868023274491576320

They don't seem to be getting much credit for it.
Suspect that reversing the Tory benefit changes is less exciting electorally than Labours offer.

BannedInParis

foxinsoxuk said:

IanB2 said:

Serious Q: where are the Conservative policies to help the JAMS, with whose circumstances Mrs May expressed so much sympathy on the steps of number 10? There must be more to it than a re-hash of Miliband's energy price policy?

LDs have the most redistributive manifesto fwiw

https://twitter.com/TheIFS/status/868023274491576320

I saw loads of these charts 2010 - 2015.

They seemed to have precisely zero effect on anything.

Do people go back and check whether the sums added up?

TudorRose

IanB2 said:

TudorRose said:

IanB2 said:

TudorRose said:

Stark_Dawning said:

It's astonishing how the political narrative has changed in a matter of weeks. Although fairly confident of a reasonable majority, the Tories are now conceding that will be in spite of Theresa rather than because of her. Once the election is done and dusted, I can't see her lasting.

I think the Tories should try to turn TMay's lack of 'on-screen charisma' into a positive; do we really want another 'form over substance' PM or do we want a 'bloody difficult woman' who gets on with the job. It's either that or a lot of intensive media training before tomorrow night.

The 'difficult woman' bit shouldn't be too much of a challenge. The 'getting the job done' bit, not so much?

I'm not so sure; there'll be lots of references to where she's been and what she's been up to during the last week.

I'd be expecting more from her than just having avoided holding hands with Donald (in public) for a couple of days.

Manchester bombing, increased state of alert, various COBRAs and G7 support for a crackdown on opportunities for internet-linked terrorism. I think she can claim to have been busy; effective is a different thing, of course.

IanB2

rkrkrk said:

foxinsoxuk said:

IanB2 said:

Serious Q: where are the Conservative policies to help the JAMS, with whose circumstances Mrs May expressed so much sympathy on the steps of number 10? There must be more to it than a re-hash of Miliband's energy price policy?

LDs have the most redistributive manifesto fwiw

https://twitter.com/TheIFS/status/868023274491576320

They don't seem to be getting much credit for it.
Suspect that reversing the Tory benefit changes is less exciting electorally than Labours offer.

The LibDems have come up with some very sensible policy approaches to the big questions that will face the next government, then decided that their campaign should focus entirely on Brexit, paying for advertising hoardings such as the one showing Mr Farage (remember him?) with Mrs May's hair.

The best we can hope to salvage from such idiocy is that non-Tory voters in our target seats have the good sense not to throw away their votes on third placed Labour candidates.

TudorRose

BannedInParis said:

foxinsoxuk said:

IanB2 said:

Serious Q: where are the Conservative policies to help the JAMS, with whose circumstances Mrs May expressed so much sympathy on the steps of number 10? There must be more to it than a re-hash of Miliband's energy price policy?

LDs have the most redistributive manifesto fwiw

https://twitter.com/TheIFS/status/868023274491576320

I saw loads of these charts 2010 - 2015.

They seemed to have precisely zero effect on anything.

Do people go back and check whether the sums added up?

And it doesn't take into consideration the effects of non-tax/benefit policies, such as middle class bungs - I mean free tuition fees!

foxinsoxuk

BannedInParis said:

foxinsoxuk said:

IanB2 said:

Serious Q: where are the Conservative policies to help the JAMS, with whose circumstances Mrs May expressed so much sympathy on the steps of number 10? There must be more to it than a re-hash of Miliband's energy price policy?

LDs have the most redistributive manifesto fwiw

https://twitter.com/TheIFS/status/868023274491576320

I saw loads of these charts 2010 - 2015.

They seemed to have precisely zero effect on anything.

Do people go back and check whether the sums added up?

It is the IFS figures, not mine.

AndyJS

O/T

"Deputy sheriff among eight dead in Mississippi shooting
Police say the shootings happened at three separate homes in rural Lincoln County and a suspect is in custody."

http://news.sky.com/story/deputy-sheriff-among-eight-dead-in-mississippi-shooting-10896390

IanB2

TudorRose said:

IanB2 said:

TudorRose said:

IanB2 said:

TudorRose said:

Stark_Dawning said:

It's astonishing how the political narrative has changed in a matter of weeks. Although fairly confident of a reasonable majority, the Tories are now conceding that will be in spite of Theresa rather than because of her. Once the election is done and dusted, I can't see her lasting.

I think the Tories should try to turn TMay's lack of 'on-screen charisma' into a positive; do we really want another 'form over substance' PM or do we want a 'bloody difficult woman' who gets on with the job. It's either that or a lot of intensive media training before tomorrow night.

The 'difficult woman' bit shouldn't be too much of a challenge. The 'getting the job done' bit, not so much?

I'm not so sure; there'll be lots of references to where she's been and what she's been up to during the last week.

I'd be expecting more from her than just having avoided holding hands with Donald (in public) for a couple of days.

Manchester bombing, increased state of alert, various COBRAs and G7 support for a crackdown on opportunities for internet-linked terrorism. I think she can claim to have been busy; effective is a different thing, of course.

Busy but ineffective is the last thing we need in the Brexit negotiations. More than anything it is the Tories' attempt to over-sell Mrs May's capabilities that explains the wobble they've just been through.

BannedInParis

foxinsoxuk said:

BannedInParis said:

foxinsoxuk said:

IanB2 said:

Serious Q: where are the Conservative policies to help the JAMS, with whose circumstances Mrs May expressed so much sympathy on the steps of number 10? There must be more to it than a re-hash of Miliband's energy price policy?

LDs have the most redistributive manifesto fwiw

https://twitter.com/TheIFS/status/868023274491576320

I saw loads of these charts 2010 - 2015.

They seemed to have precisely zero effect on anything.

Do people go back and check whether the sums added up?

It is the IFS figures, not mine.

Yes, I mean the IFS (and the media for that matter)

AlsoIndigo

Chris said:

AlsoIndigo said:

Chris said:

AlsoIndigo said:

Chris said:

Did Corbyn actually make any speeches saying explicitly that he thought IRA terrorism was justified, for example?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11924431/Revealed-Jeremy-Corbyn-and-John-McDonnells-close-IRA-links.html

Thank you. Can you quote the part you mean, please?

Corbyn was the General Secretary of the Editorial Board of Labour Briefing when it published a special supplement on the Brighton Bombing:

In its December 1984 leader, editorial board “disassociated itself” from an article the previous month criticising the bombing, saying the criticism was a “serious political misjudgment.”

The board said it “reaffirmed its support for, and solidarity with, the Irish republican movement” and added that “the British only sit up and take notice [of Ireland] when they are bombed into it.”

Alongside its editorial, the board reprinted a speech by Gerry Adams describing the bombing as a "blow for democracy" and the "inevitable result of the British presence in [Ireland]."

Briefing earlier stated: “We refuse to parrot the ritual condemnation of ‘violence’ because we insist on placing responsibility where it lies…. Let our ‘Iron Lady’ know this: those who live by the sword shall die by it. If she wants violence, then violence she will certainly get.”

Thank you. Looking at the article, the Telegraph didn't seem entirely convinced Corbyn was the general secretary of the editorial board. The article says that he was a member of the board, and that the reference book Parliamentary Profiles says he was general secretary. Wikipedia cites Private Eye for both those claims. Corbyn says both claims are mistaken, and he wasn't even a member of the board.

If you want to read the profile by Mr Roth its here:

http://internetserver.bishopsgate.org.uk/files/Parliamentary Profiles Archive/A-D/CORBYN, Jeremy/CORBYN, Jeremy.pdf

He joined the Labour Party and CND at school '66; was sympathetic to the Socialist Organiser Alliance of Trotskyist entryists; joined LONDON LABOUR BRIEFING editorial board - led by Ken Livingstone and Ted Knight and designed to push the London party Leftward - as General Secretary '79

foxinsoxuk

TudorRose said:

BannedInParis said:

foxinsoxuk said:

IanB2 said:

Serious Q: where are the Conservative policies to help the JAMS, with whose circumstances Mrs May expressed so much sympathy on the steps of number 10? There must be more to it than a re-hash of Miliband's energy price policy?

LDs have the most redistributive manifesto fwiw

https://twitter.com/TheIFS/status/868023274491576320

I saw loads of these charts 2010 - 2015.

They seemed to have precisely zero effect on anything.

Do people go back and check whether the sums added up?

And it doesn't take into consideration the effects of non-tax/benefit policies, such as middle class bungs - I mean free tuition fees!

That is another chart, the IFS twitter has loads of graphs.

TudorRose

IanB2 said:

TudorRose said:

IanB2 said:

TudorRose said:

IanB2 said:

TudorRose said:

Stark_Dawning said:

It's astonishing how the political narrative has changed in a matter of weeks. Although fairly confident of a reasonable majority, the Tories are now conceding that will be in spite of Theresa rather than because of her. Once the election is done and dusted, I can't see her lasting.

I think the Tories should try to turn TMay's lack of 'on-screen charisma' into a positive; do we really want another 'form over substance' PM or do we want a 'bloody difficult woman' who gets on with the job. It's either that or a lot of intensive media training before tomorrow night.

The 'difficult woman' bit shouldn't be too much of a challenge. The 'getting the job done' bit, not so much?

I'm not so sure; there'll be lots of references to where she's been and what she's been up to during the last week.

I'd be expecting more from her than just having avoided holding hands with Donald (in public) for a couple of days.

Manchester bombing, increased state of alert, various COBRAs and G7 support for a crackdown on opportunities for internet-linked terrorism. I think she can claim to have been busy; effective is a different thing, of course.

Busy but ineffective is the last thing we need in the Brexit negotiations. More than anything it is the Tories' attempt to over-sell Mrs May's capabilities that explains the wobble they've just been through.

'Busy but ineffective'; that's a great motto for the EU.

Morris_Dancer

F1: a slightly grumpy post-race analysis (obviously, spoilers abound within):
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/monaco-post-race-analysis-2017.html

foxinsoxuk

TudorRose said:

IanB2 said:

TudorRose said:

IanB2 said:

TudorRose said:

Stark_Dawning said:

It's astonishing how the political narrative has changed in a matter of weeks. Although fairly confident of a reasonable majority, the Tories are now conceding that will be in spite of Theresa rather than because of her. Once the election is done and dusted, I can't see her lasting.

I think the Tories should try to turn TMay's lack of 'on-screen charisma' into a positive; do we really want another 'form over substance' PM or do we want a 'bloody difficult woman' who gets on with the job. It's either that or a lot of intensive media training before tomorrow night.

The 'difficult woman' bit shouldn't be too much of a challenge. The 'getting the job done' bit, not so much?

I'm not so sure; there'll be lots of references to where she's been and what she's been up to during the last week.

I'd be expecting more from her than just having avoided holding hands with Donald (in public) for a couple of days.

Manchester bombing, increased state of alert, various COBRAs and G7 support for a crackdown on opportunities for internet-linked terrorism. I think she can claim to have been busy; effective is a different thing, of course.

I rarely spring to the defence of Theresa, but even I would not claim the Manchester bombing was her work!

DecrepitJohnL

AlsoIndigo said:

Chris said:

AlsoIndigo said:

Chris said:

AlsoIndigo said:

Chris said:

Did Corbyn actually make any speeches saying explicitly that he thought IRA terrorism was justified, for example?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11924431/Revealed-Jeremy-Corbyn-and-John-McDonnells-close-IRA-links.html

Thank you. Can you quote the part you mean, please?

Corbyn was the General Secretary of the Editorial Board of Labour Briefing when it published a special supplement on the Brighton Bombing:

In its December 1984 leader, editorial board “disassociated itself” from an article the previous month criticising the bombing, saying the criticism was a “serious political misjudgment.”

The board said it “reaffirmed its support for, and solidarity with, the Irish republican movement” and added that “the British only sit up and take notice [of Ireland] when they are bombed into it.”

Alongside its editorial, the board reprinted a speech by Gerry Adams describing the bombing as a "blow for democracy" and the "inevitable result of the British presence in [Ireland]."

Briefing earlier stated: “We refuse to parrot the ritual condemnation of ‘violence’ because we insist on placing responsibility where it lies…. Let our ‘Iron Lady’ know this: those who live by the sword shall die by it. If she wants violence, then violence she will certainly get.”

Thank you. Looking at the article, the Telegraph didn't seem entirely convinced Corbyn was the general secretary of the editorial board. The article says that he was a member of the board, and that the reference book Parliamentary Profiles says he was general secretary. Wikipedia cites Private Eye for both those claims. Corbyn says both claims are mistaken, and he wasn't even a member of the board.

If you want to read the profile by Mr Roth its here:

http://internetserver.bishopsgate.org.uk/files/Parliamentary Profiles Archive/A-D/CORBYN, Jeremy/CORBYN, Jeremy.pdf

He joined the Labour Party and CND at school '66; was sympathetic to the Socialist Organiser Alliance of Trotskyist entryists; joined LONDON LABOUR BRIEFING editorial board - led by Ken Livingstone and Ted Knight and designed to push the London party Leftward - as General Secretary '79

And if you want to see Corbyn say Roth was wrong and that he was not on the board, it's in the Sophy Ridge interview posted earlier.

youtu.be/NSpMujhSQHE?t=7m35s

TudorRose

foxinsoxuk said:

TudorRose said:

IanB2 said:

TudorRose said:

IanB2 said:

TudorRose said:

Stark_Dawning said:

It's astonishing how the political narrative has changed in a matter of weeks. Although fairly confident of a reasonable majority, the Tories are now conceding that will be in spite of Theresa rather than because of her. Once the election is done and dusted, I can't see her lasting.

I think the Tories should try to turn TMay's lack of 'on-screen charisma' into a positive; do we really want another 'form over substance' PM or do we want a 'bloody difficult woman' who gets on with the job. It's either that or a lot of intensive media training before tomorrow night.

The 'difficult woman' bit shouldn't be too much of a challenge. The 'getting the job done' bit, not so much?

I'm not so sure; there'll be lots of references to where she's been and what she's been up to during the last week.

I'd be expecting more from her than just having avoided holding hands with Donald (in public) for a couple of days.

Manchester bombing, increased state of alert, various COBRAs and G7 support for a crackdown on opportunities for internet-linked terrorism. I think she can claim to have been busy; effective is a different thing, of course.

I rarely spring to the defence of Theresa, but even I would not claim the Manchester bombing was her work!

Aww - you should try harder to channel your inner conspiracy theorist!!

kle4

DecrepitJohnL said:

TudorRose said:

Stark_Dawning said:

It's astonishing how the political narrative has changed in a matter of weeks. Although fairly confident of a reasonable majority, the Tories are now conceding that will be in spite of Theresa rather than because of her. Once the election is done and dusted, I can't see her lasting.

I think the Tories should try to turn TMay's lack of 'on-screen charisma' into a positive; do we really want another 'form over substance' PM or do we want a 'bloody difficult woman' who gets on with the job. It's either that or a lot of intensive media training before tomorrow night.

Not flash, just Gordon. It's been done before.

Indeed - it is also based on entirely false premise in that it suggests you cannot have style and substance, an argument you wouldn't make if you think your candidate has both, and it makes them seem even worse than they are, as happened with Gordon, as the spinners push the line even if they do fine.

Chris

TMA1 said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Corbyn denied it to Sophy on Sky. About seven and a half minutes in.

youtu.be/NSpMujhSQHE?t=7m35s

So who was? And given what is at stake for lefties would anybody on Labour Briefing choose to admit Corbyn was involved?
In any even there have been countless speeches by Corbyn in public and public associations with the IRA leadership.
One simple act condemns Corbyn as being totally unfit.
He was part of a picket outside the Old Bailey to oppose what they called the “show trial” of a group including Patrick Magee, who was subsequently convicted of murdering five people at the 1984 Tory party conference.
He wanted to “show solidarity with the Irish Republican prisoners put on trial by the British state”. In doing so he got himself arrested. Pity they did not throw away the key.
He is a disgusting personality.

But having wasted some time today looking into two other stories about how "disgusting" Jeremy Corbyn is, which turned out not to be what they seemed, I can't help wondering whether that is entirely accurate and fair. Are those words "show solidarity ..." a quotation from Corbyn, as you seem to imply? I don't think they are. If they aren't, how do you know why he was there or what he was trying to do? Did Corbyn call it a "show trial"? I looked at an online report in the Times, and although that phrase was in quotation marks, it was very difficult to tell where it came from. Not from Corbyn, I suspect.

In response to this story, Corbyn's spokesperson said he was lobbying for a fair trial. Some people may think the idea that alleged terrorists wouldn't get a fair trial is ridiculous and "disgusting". But is it really, viewed in the context of the serious miscarriages of justice that are known to have taken place?

I don't understand why, if Corbyn really expressed clear support for terrorism in his speeches, those speeches can't just be quoted, and then there would be no question about it.

AlsoIndigo

DecrepitJohnL said:

AlsoIndigo said:

Chris said:

AlsoIndigo said:

Chris said:

AlsoIndigo said:

Chris said:

Did Corbyn actually make any speeches saying explicitly that he thought IRA terrorism was justified, for example?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11924431/Revealed-Jeremy-Corbyn-and-John-McDonnells-close-IRA-links.html

Thank you. Can you quote the part you mean, please?

Corbyn was the General Secretary of the Editorial Board of Labour Briefing when it published a special supplement on the Brighton Bombing:

In its December 1984 leader, editorial board “disassociated itself” from an article the previous month criticising the bombing, saying the criticism was a “serious political misjudgment.”

The board said it “reaffirmed its support for, and solidarity with, the Irish republican movement” and added that “the British only sit up and take notice [of Ireland] when they are bombed into it.”

Alongside its editorial, the board reprinted a speech by Gerry Adams describing the bombing as a "blow for democracy" and the "inevitable result of the British presence in [Ireland]."

Briefing earlier stated: “We refuse to parrot the ritual condemnation of ‘violence’ because we insist on placing responsibility where it lies…. Let our ‘Iron Lady’ know this: those who live by the sword shall die by it. If she wants violence, then violence she will certainly get.”

Thank you. Looking at the article, the Telegraph didn't seem entirely convinced Corbyn was the general secretary of the editorial board. The article says that he was a member of the board, and that the reference book Parliamentary Profiles says he was general secretary. Wikipedia cites Private Eye for both those claims. Corbyn says both claims are mistaken, and he wasn't even a member of the board.

If you want to read the profile by Mr Roth its here:

http://internetserver.bishopsgate.org.uk/files/Parliamentary Profiles Archive/A-D/CORBYN, Jeremy/CORBYN, Jeremy.pdf

He joined the Labour Party and CND at school '66; was sympathetic to the Socialist Organiser Alliance of Trotskyist entryists; joined LONDON LABOUR BRIEFING editorial board - led by Ken Livingstone and Ted Knight and designed to push the London party Leftward - as General Secretary '79

And if you want to see Corbyn say Roth was wrong and that he was not on the board, it's in the Sophy Ridge interview posted earlier.

youtu.be/NSpMujhSQHE?t=7m35s

MRDA ?

foxinsoxuk

DecrepitJohnL said:

AlsoIndigo said:

Chris said:

AlsoIndigo said:

Chris said:

AlsoIndigo said:

Chris said:

Did Corbyn actually make any speeches saying explicitly that he thought IRA terrorism was justified, for example?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11924431/Revealed-Jeremy-Corbyn-and-John-McDonnells-close-IRA-links.html

Thank you. Can you quote the part you mean, please?

Corbyn was the General Secretary of the Editorial Board of Labour Briefing when it published a special supplement on the Brighton Bombing:

In its December 1984 leader, editorial board “disassociated itself” from an article the previous month criticising the bombing, saying the criticism was a “serious political misjudgment.”

The board said it “reaffirmed its support for, and solidarity with, the Irish republican movement” and added that “the British only sit up and take notice [of Ireland] when they are bombed into it.”

Alongside its editorial, the board reprinted a speech by Gerry Adams describing the bombing as a "blow for democracy" and the "inevitable result of the British presence in [Ireland]."

Briefing earlier stated: “We refuse to parrot the ritual condemnation of ‘violence’ because we insist on placing responsibility where it lies…. Let our ‘Iron Lady’ know this: those who live by the sword shall die by it. If she wants violence, then violence she will certainly get.”

Thank you. Looking at the .

If you want to read the profile by Mr Roth its here:

http://internetserver.bishopsgate.org.uk/files/Parliamentary Profiles Archive/A-D/CORBYN, Jeremy/CORBYN, Jeremy.pdf

He joined the Labour Party and CND at school '66; was sympathetic to the Socialist Organiser Alliance of Trotskyist entryists; joined LONDON LABOUR BRIEFING editorial board - led by Ken Livingstone and Ted Knight and designed to push the London party Leftward - as General Secretary '79

And if you want to see Corbyn say Roth was wrong and that he was not on the board, it's in the Sophy Ridge interview posted earlier.

youtu.be/NSpMujhSQHE?t=7m35s

Was he on the board in 1984 at the time of the special edition?

London Labour Briefing was a newsheet, becoming Labour Briefing with a higher production quality in the Eighties.

It was pretty good, I subscribed for about 5 years. Before the internet took off it was hard to get non MSMnews and views.

TudorRose

kle4 said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

TudorRose said:

Stark_Dawning said:

It's astonishing how the political narrative has changed in a matter of weeks. Although fairly confident of a reasonable majority, the Tories are now conceding that will be in spite of Theresa rather than because of her. Once the election is done and dusted, I can't see her lasting.

I think the Tories should try to turn TMay's lack of 'on-screen charisma' into a positive; do we really want another 'form over substance' PM or do we want a 'bloody difficult woman' who gets on with the job. It's either that or a lot of intensive media training before tomorrow night.

Not flash, just Gordon. It's been done before.

Indeed - it is also based on entirely false premise in that it suggests you cannot have style and substance, an argument you wouldn't make if you think your candidate has both, and it makes them seem even worse than they are, as happened with Gordon, as the spinners push the line even if they do fine.

Except then it becomes an odd spiral of chasing your own reputation. The candidate claims to be good at everything and therefore becomes criticised either for being 'too good to be true' or 'not one of us', so then they try to become more 'down to earth' and get criticised for 'faking it'. Of modern politicians I suspect Nigel Farage (and I'm no fan of his) got the mix about right and I think Ruth Davidson is developing a similar capacity for appearing to be 'human/fallible' enough without being incompetent.

AlsoIndigo

Most rightwingers seem to have a pretty clear eyed view of their leaders. There are not that many people championing May here, she is just okay, the best of a bad bunch. Many were equally critical of Cameron and Osborne for different reasons. Similarly very few have any messianic zeal for thier parties policies - plenty of Tories here have been critical of the Tory manifesto, and rarely have hatred for their opponents, who they consider at best misguided, or just wrong.

What is it about lefties that inspires such undying devotion to their leaders and feelings of needing to throw themselves in the way of volleys of incoming fire from their opponents, when they have have quite unsavory records, and can in the current context, with even the most charitable interpretation be described as wishing ill on the British state, and those who serve her. Personally I find the unswerving loyalty to people whose unpatriotic actions and views are a matter of public record slightly nauseous.

Chris

AlsoIndigo said:

Chris said:

AlsoIndigo said:

Chris said:

AlsoIndigo said:

Chris said:

Did Corbyn actually make any speeches saying explicitly that he thought IRA terrorism was justified, for example?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11924431/Revealed-Jeremy-Corbyn-and-John-McDonnells-close-IRA-links.html

Thank you. Can you quote the part you mean, please?

Corbyn was the General Secretary of the Editorial Board of Labour Briefing when it published a special supplement on the Brighton Bombing:

In its December 1984 leader, editorial board “disassociated itself” from an article the previous month criticising the bombing, saying the criticism was a “serious political misjudgment.”

The board said it “reaffirmed its support for, and solidarity with, the Irish republican movement” and added that “the British only sit up and take notice [of Ireland] when they are bombed into it.”

Alongside its editorial, the board reprinted a speech by Gerry Adams describing the bombing as a "blow for democracy" and the "inevitable result of the British presence in [Ireland]."

Briefing earlier stated: “We refuse to parrot the ritual condemnation of ‘violence’ because we insist on placing responsibility where it lies…. Let our ‘Iron Lady’ know this: those who live by the sword shall die by it. If she wants violence, then violence she will certainly get.”

Thank you. Looking at the article, the Telegraph didn't seem entirely convinced Corbyn was the general secretary of the editorial board. The article says that he was a member of the board, and that the reference book Parliamentary Profiles says he was general secretary. Wikipedia cites Private Eye for both those claims. Corbyn says both claims are mistaken, and he wasn't even a member of the board.

If you want to read the profile by Mr Roth its here:

http://internetserver.bishopsgate.org.uk/files/Parliamentary Profiles Archive/A-D/CORBYN, Jeremy/CORBYN, Jeremy.pdf

He joined the Labour Party and CND at school '66; was sympathetic to the Socialist Organiser Alliance of Trotskyist entryists; joined LONDON LABOUR BRIEFING editorial board - led by Ken Livingstone and Ted Knight and designed to push the London party Leftward - as General Secretary '79

Thanks. The Telegraph article described the author as the late Andrew Roth, the implication being that they were unable to ask him where that information came from. I note that Roth says only that Corbyn joined the board as general secretary in 1979, whereas the Telegraph claims Roth says he was general secretary "at the time" (i.e. in late 1984).

rottenborough

AlsoIndigo said:

Most rightwingers seem to have a pretty clear eyed view of their leaders. There are not that many people championing May here, she is just okay, the best of a bad bunch. Many were equally critical of Cameron and Osborne for different reasons. Similarly very few have any messianic zeal for thier parties policies - plenty of Tories here have been critical of the Tory manifesto, and rarely have hatred for their opponents, who they consider at best misguided, or just wrong.

What is it about lefties that inspires such undying devotion to their leaders and feelings of needing to throw themselves in the way of volleys of incoming fire from their opponents, when they have have quite unsavory records, and can in the current context, with even the most charitable interpretation be described as wishing ill on the British state, and those who serve her. Personally I find the unswerving loyalty to people whose unpatriotic actions and views are a matter of public record slightly nauseous.

I suspect it is related to the messianic belief that if only there was radical change then paradise could be built on earth.

Yorkcity

AlsoIndigo said:

Most rightwingers seem to have a pretty clear eyed view of their leaders. There are not that many people championing May here, she is just okay, the best of a bad bunch. Many were equally critical of Cameron and Osborne for different reasons. Similarly very few have any messianic zeal for thier parties policies - plenty of Tories here have been critical of the Tory manifesto, and rarely have hatred for their opponents, who they consider at best misguided, or just wrong.

What is it about lefties that inspires such undying devotion to their leaders and feelings of needing to throw themselves in the way of volleys of incoming fire from their opponents, when they have have quite unsavory records, and can in the current context, with even the most charitable interpretation be described as wishing ill on the British state, and those who serve her. Personally I find the unswerving loyalty to people whose unpatriotic actions and views are a matter of public record slightly nauseous.

Bull shit I can hardly name a Corbyn supporter on here .Southam for example derides him everyday.

DecrepitJohnL

AlsoIndigo said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

AlsoIndigo said:

If you want to read the profile by Mr Roth its here:

http://internetserver.bishopsgate.org.uk/files/Parliamentary Profiles Archive/A-D/CORBYN, Jeremy/CORBYN, Jeremy.pdf

He joined the Labour Party and CND at school '66; was sympathetic to the Socialist Organiser Alliance of Trotskyist entryists; joined LONDON LABOUR BRIEFING editorial board - led by Ken Livingstone and Ted Knight and designed to push the London party Leftward - as General Secretary '79

And if you want to see Corbyn say Roth was wrong and that he was not on the board, it's in the Sophy Ridge interview posted earlier.

youtu.be/NSpMujhSQHE?t=7m35s

MRDA ?

Mandy Rice-Davies applies? Not really. There should be evidence but so far no-one has produced any. I doubt it was a secret at the time. And if Corbyn had been on the board, he could just admit it. It might be better to attack Corbyn from the other side, and say that while he was parading his conscience on pickets and demos, it was people like Chris Mullin who were putting in the hard yards to prove the Birmingham Six (and Guildford Four and Maguire Seven) had been wrongly convicted.

Note: some internal quotes removed owing to length restrictions.

Chris

SeanT said:

Chris said:

TMA1 said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Corbyn denied it to Sophy on Sky. About seven and a half minutes in.

youtu.be/NSpMujhSQHE?t=7m35s

So who was? And given what is at stake for lefties would anybody on Labour Briefing choose to admit Corbyn was involved?
In any even there have been countless speeches by Corbyn in public and public associations with the IRA leadership.
One simple act condemns Corbyn as being totally unfit.
He was part of a picket outside the Old Bailey to oppose what they called the “show trial” of a group including Patrick Magee, who was subsequently convicted of murdering five people at the 1984 Tory party conference.
He wanted to “show solidarity with the Irish Republican prisoners put on trial by the British state”. In doing so he got himself arrested. Pity they did not throw away the key.
He is a disgusting personality.

But having wasted some time today looking into two other stories about how "disgusting" Jeremy Corbyn is, which turned out not to be what they seemed, I can't help wondering whether that is entirely accurate and fair. Are those words "show solidarity ..." a quotation from Corbyn, as you seem to imply? I don't think they are. If they aren't, how do you know why he was there or what he was trying to do? Did Corbyn call it a "show trial"? I looked at an online report in the Times, and although that phrase was in quotation marks, it was very difficult to tell where it came from. Not from Corbyn, I suspect.

In response to this story, Corbyn's spokesperson said he was lobbying for a fair trial. Some people may think the idea that alleged terrorists wouldn't get a fair trial is ridiculous and "disgusting". But is it really, viewed in the context of the serious miscarriages of justice that are known to have taken place?

I don't understand why, if Corbyn really expressed clear support for terrorism in his speeches, those speeches can't just be quoted, and then there would be no question about it.

Try this quiz. Who said these various quotes, Jeremy Corbyn's Stop the War Coalition, or ISIS?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/12036681/Who-said-it-Stop-the-War-Coalition-or-Isil.html

Sorry, no time for a quiz. Please just quote the incriminating stuff, if there is any.

kle4

TudorRose said:

kle4 said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

TudorRose said:

Stark_Dawning said:

It's astonishing how the political narrative has changed in a matter of weeks. Although fairly confident of a reasonable majority, the Tories are now conceding that will be in spite of Theresa rather than because of her. Once the election is done and dusted, I can't see her lasting.

I think the Tories should try to turn TMay's lack of 'on-screen charisma' into a positive; do we really want another 'form over substance' PM or do we want a 'bloody difficult woman' who gets on with the job. It's either that or a lot of intensive media training before tomorrow night.

Not flash, just Gordon. It's been done before.

Indeed - it is also based on entirely false premise in that it suggests you cannot have style and substance, an argument you wouldn't make if you think your candidate has both, and it makes them seem even worse than they are, as happened with Gordon, as the spinners push the line even if they do fine.

Except then it becomes an odd spiral of chasing your own reputation. The candidate claims to be good at everything and therefore becomes criticised either for being 'too good to be true' or 'not one of us', so then they try to become more 'down to earth' and get criticised for 'faking it'. Of modern politicians I suspect Nigel Farage (and I'm no fan of his) got the mix about right and I think Ruth Davidson is developing a similar capacity for appearing to be 'human/fallible' enough without being incompetent.

They don't need to claim to be good at everything, but having your spinners go around saying 'It's ok if they look crap, underneath they are good' just reinforces the idea they are crap. I recall very distinctly thinking Brown did ok in a 2010 leadership debate, but his people came out with the whole 'It's substance not style that counts' stuff afterward, leaving me in no uncertain terms they thought he had done badly and needed to reassure people he wasn't as bad as he seemed.

AlsoIndigo

Chris said:

Thanks. The Telegraph article described the author as the late Andrew Roth, the implication being that they were unable to ask him where that information came from. I note that Roth says only that Corbyn joined the board as general secretary in 1979, whereas the Telegraph claims Roth says he was general secretary "at the time" (i.e. in late 1984).

Well Mr Roth seems to have been good enough for that well known rightwing rag, The Guardian, that published his profiles of politicans on a regular basis, and still keeps an archive of a selection online even now.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/series/profiles