Sign of the times - Opinium has started asking in its intro questions: "Are you male, female, or other?" I wonder what the "Other" cross-tab will show?
Just wait for the 2021 Census.
A sizeable minority of Other Jedi?
If they ask the sexuality question this time - with a free text field - the crosstabs with religion will be fascinating.
The Tories not being able to handsomely defeat an opposition being led by someone who spied for the Soviet Union would be quite something.
However, I find it hard to believe that the Soviets were so imcompetent they recruited someone who would not be in apposition to supply them with any info relating tot he British state. I guess what he may have been able to provide is insights into the tortuous relationships and enmities that characterised the far left back in the day (as they do now, too, of course). Having some insight into who was up and who was down might have been worthwhile in some small way - especially given the far left's control of some councils, especially in London.
If you play the video here, they've got the original Czech documents which explain what they were interested in (mainly internal Labour Party stuff plus info about anti-communist organisations):
Doesn't look like much of a money trail, TBH, so I think he'll get away with it. Even so, it's the kind of drip-drip which won't help Labour at the next election, even if it's hardly news to anyone who knows anything that he was a communist stooge (which to be fair he didn't conceal).
All this is why the Tories can bank 40% or so already for the next GE. Corbyn has always hated the British state and always will - that is enough for millions of voters ot fo all they can to prevent him becoming PM. If the Tories could find their way to a next generation leader from the centre with no serious Brexit associations they would be looking at a huge majority next time around.
Not huge, Corbyn also has 40% banked and the Tories have only won a 4th term once in the last century and that was with a majority of just 21
Post-Brexit, with a conciliatory centrist in charge of the Tories and the loons back on the fringes where they belong, that Labour coalition would be very fragile. Make Johnson or Rees Mogg leader and I agree it would be rock solid.
The Tories are only on 40%+ thanks to ex UKIP voters, they need both centrists and to avoid Leavers drifting back to UKIP to win an overall majority next time
Not all UKIP voters went to the Tories.
In constituencies that Labour won, a lot of UKIP supporters went to Labour. Labour is just as likely to lose UKIppers as the Tories.
So....Corbyn falls under a Czech bus, the Labour Party has a blood-bath election for a new leader, which a non-Momentum candidate wins....a devoutly Remainer non-Momentum candidate. And sets about promptly and properly buggering Brexit.
Now, I wonder whose interest it is in for Brexit's bessy mate to be locked in the Tower?
/CynicalMode......
How does the non-Momentum candidate win? MI5 are rubbing out the pencil votes from labour members?
IMO the census ought to have an option for people who are non-practising members of a given religion. The way it is now forces people who are in that category to either put themselves into the same category as devout believers or to classify themselves as atheists. Maybe there should also be an agnostic box as well.
Can anyone confirm whether we are supposed to take this new seriously?
The culture war jumped the shark with Trump, but surely if he took money from Czech security services, he must resign from the House (and, of course, the Leadership).
If only the Czechs had piped up in, say, August 2015......
I dont know why the Sun bothers with such ridiculous stories which are unproveable even if they contained a modicum of truth. This sort of thing only helps Corbyn.
Corbyn should be attacked by both his Labour and Tory opponents by showing him up for what he actually is rather than daft stories about spies.
Yep, much more concerning is current Russian interference in our elections and referendums than historic allegations.
Really? You don't think a story of the Leader of the Opposition and potential future PM taking money from an enemy of Britain would (if substantiated) be a big story?
It's a view, I suppose.
Of course, the 'if substantiated' is a very big 'if'.
Well, lets see some evidence.
I wouldn't be surprised at contact, after all Jezza has never hidden his anti Trident, anti NATO position, and famously went on his biker tour of East Germany.
He has never struck me as someone interested in money though, so it would seem out of character. Its not as if he had access to any secrets anyway.
The problem is that its impossible to prove. Unless there were a money transaction "smoking gun" which seems unlikely.
You will notice that the BBC isnt running with the story. The news channels are scared of saying anything critical of Corbyn.....
Interesting that you haven't joined in the PB Tory w***fest over this story. I assume you consider this is already priced in for Corbyn.
Corbyn is a useless Soviet stooge isn't a remarkable revelation. If agents were compromised through his duplicity would be a different, if surprising issue.
The issues change don't they as Corbyn gets closer to power
Let's take Defence. We spend fortunes on this, and yet it's really quite hard to see any results. The Army nips in, and the first thing they do is backtrack. More equipment please. The Navy has sinking ships, and in the slightest of hostile environments surrenders. The men and women of the armed services I don't doubt for one moment want to live up to the astonishingly high standards that we've come to ask from them, but they're not actually put in a position to do so.
You may enjoy this quotation from Shepperd Frere's Britannia, published in 1967. It refers to the weakening of Roman authority over Britannia allowing the Saxon incursions:
'The plight of a prosperous people dependent for their defence on a foreign power whose strategic interests were in the last analysis centred elsewhere is not without interest today.'
I do indeed enjoy that quotation, and I'd not read it before. What did he conclude?
We though are not really "dependent for their defence on a foreign power". At least not in principle. Our first, last and best defence will always just be the people of this nation. The defence that will actually defend in the first instance is the one we train and pay for. They need to do far better. (All of them.)
It was part of a wider conclusion that as Britannia was peripheral to Roman interests it was one of the first places to be formally let go as central authority weakened. (That said, it spent a lot of time letting itself go as divers governors tried to build little kingdoms of their own or struck at the Imperial crown.) The throwaway line was really for his own ironic amusement as much as anything I think.
I thought more recent research argued very much the opposite in that the British administrators saw Rome as corrupt and wanted their local example to reinforce what once was. (Something that I may just have imagined I read)
If we did what Rome did proportionately to our resources we'd be flying to the stars. Some chance of having tackled the tricky problems like adding-up too.
I expect you still had well above average historical knowledge, an interest in literature is not far removed from an interest in history and most 6 year olds do not have a great knowledge of either
My favourite colleague at work organised a petition to save Radio 3 when he was 8, not because he liked classical music (he was a Beatles fan) but "because I foresaw that a time might come when I liked it". I think that childhood isn't homogenous (or indeed adulthood) - children have moments of pentrating insights alternating with random silliness, and both can be endearing.
In my experience, a fair number of children have a lot of interest in history. Even at the age of 7, I and my fellow Cub Scouts loved visiting places like the Tower of London and Hampton Court.
It feels to me like the Sun have something on Corbyn that isn't newsworthy in itself, but that will be if he's asked the right question and denies something or other in parliament. Or perhaps they're simply hoping that someone will come forwards with something or other.
Just a hunch mind.
Given how mad the guy is I think its frankly amazing that the Labour party have managed to keep his secrets buried. I'm completely sure he's not always had our nation's best interests at heart (and although that's not good, these things were some while ago), but can't really see treasonous goings on.
Overall I imagine that the KGB and others would have viewed absolutely all of the current Labour leadership as completely worthless potential targets.
Politicians that seem to be magically richer than their background suggests are of more current interest in my view (and before you ask the answer is no).
It is hard to imagine anything more calculated to cause mayhem and damage to the UK than a Corbynista government. Nuff said.
Agent COB: “When the Sunday Times falsely accused Michael Foot of being a Soviet ‘agent of influence’ he sued, won, and bought a new kitchen,” said Paul Richards, who served as a special adviser to Hazel Blears and Patricia Hewitt.
IMO the census ought to have an option for people who are non-practising members of a given religion. The way it is now forces people who are in that category to either put themselves into the same category as devout believers or to classify themselves as atheists. Maybe there should also be an agnostic box as well.
There is, and you can say you're a true Jedi believer too. There isn't specifcally a non-practising category for each religion though. I guess the Jedi's objected.
I expect you still had well above average historical knowledge, an interest in literature is not far removed from an interest in history and most 6 year olds do not have a great knowledge of either
My favourite colleague at work organised a petition to save Radio 3 when he was 8, not because he liked classical music (he was a Beatles fan) but "because I foresaw that a time might come when I liked it". I think that childhood isn't homogenous (or indeed adulthood) - children have moments of pentrating insights alternating with random silliness, and both can be endearing.
In my experience, a fair number of children have a lot of interest in history. Even at the age of 7, I and my fellow Cub Scouts loved visiting places like the Tower of London and Hampton Court.
A friend of mine grew up in the Tower of London. His father was Yeoman Warder.
Agent COB: “When the Sunday Times falsely accused Michael Foot of being a Soviet ‘agent of influence’ he sued, won, and bought a new kitchen,” said Paul Richards, who served as a special adviser to Hazel Blears and Patricia Hewitt.
The Tories not being able to handsomely defeat an opposition being led by someone who spied for the Soviet Union would be quite something.
However, I find it hard to believe that the Soviets were so imcompetent they recruited someone who would not be in apposition to supply them with any info relating tot he British state. I guess what he may have been able to provide is insights into the tortuous relationships and enmities that characterised the far left back in the day (as they do now, too, of course). Having some insight into who was up and who was down might have been worthwhile in some small way - especially given the far left's control of some councils, especially in London.
The bit you left out is "sleepers". Remarkable foresight by the Soviets. Russians have always been long game players.
Let's take Defence. We spend fortunes on this, and yet it's really quite hard to see any results. The Army nips in, and the first thing they do is backtrack. More equipment please. The Navy has sinking ships, and in the slightest of hostile environments surrenders. The men and women of the armed services I don't doubt for one moment want to live up to the astonishingly high standards that we've come to ask from them, but they're not actually put in a position to do so.
You may enjoy this quotation from Shepperd Frere's Britannia, published in 1967. It refers to the weakening of Roman authority over Britannia allowing the Saxon incursions:
'The plight of a prosperous people dependent for their defence on a foreign power whose strategic interests were in the last analysis centred elsewhere is not without interest today.'
I do indeed enjoy that quotation, and I'd not read it before. What did he conclude?
We though are not really "dependent for their defence on a foreign power". At least not in principle. Our first, last and best defence will always just be the people of this nation. The defence that will actually defend in the first instance is the one we train and pay for. They need to do far better. (All of them.)
It was part of a wider conclusion that as Britannia was peripheral to Roman interests it was one of the first places to be formally let go as central authority weakened. (That said, it spent a lot of time letting itself go as divers governors tried to build little kingdoms of their own or struck at the Imperial crown.) The throwaway line was really for his own ironic amusement as much as anything I think.
I thought more recent research argued very much the opposite in that the British administrators saw Rome as corrupt and wanted their local example to reinforce what once was. (Something that I may just have imagined I read)
If we did what Rome did proportionately to our resources we'd be flying to the stars. Some chance of having tackled the tricky problems like adding-up too.
Oh, indeed. I'm not necessarily endorsing his conclusion and as I noted there are good reasons to argue against it. I just thought - and still think - it's a great quote.
The Tories not being able to handsomely defeat an opposition being led by someone who spied for the Soviet Union would be quite something.
However, I find it hard to believe that the Soviets were so imcompetent they recruited someone who would not be in apposition to supply them with any info relating tot he British state. I guess what he may have been able to provide is insights into the tortuous relationships and enmities that characterised the far left back in the day (as they do now, too, of course). Having some insight into who was up and who was down might have been worthwhile in some small way - especially given the far left's control of some councils, especially in London.
You have to be 27 to have even been born at the time of the Soviet Union and 47 to have any real memory of the Berlin Wall coming down, coincidentally the age you were more likely to be a Tory than Labour voter at the last general election
47? You're having a giraffe. I'm 38 and the Berlin wall falling was the defining moment of my life until 9/11.
The Tories not being able to handsomely defeat an opposition being led by someone who spied for the Soviet Union would be quite something.
However, I find it hard to believe that the Soviets were so imcompetent they recruited someone who would not be in apposition to supply them with any info relating tot he British state. I guess what he may have been able to provide is insights into the tortuous relationships and enmities that characterised the far left back in the day (as they do now, too, of course). Having some insight into who was up and who was down might have been worthwhile in some small way - especially given the far left's control of some councils, especially in London.
The bit you left out is "sleepers". Remarkable foresight by the Soviets. Russians have always been long game players.
This wasn't the Soviets. It was the Czechs.
If they recruited Corbyn as a possible then they must have had many other Czechs that bounced.
The Tories not being able to handsomely defeat an opposition being led by someone who spied for the Soviet Union would be quite something.
However, I find it hard to believe that the Soviets were so imcompetent they recruited someone who would not be in apposition to supply them with any info relating tot he British state. I guess what he may have been able to provide is insights into the tortuous relationships and enmities that characterised the far left back in the day (as they do now, too, of course). Having some insight into who was up and who was down might have been worthwhile in some small way - especially given the far left's control of some councils, especially in London.
If you play the video here, they've got the original Czech documents which explain what they were interested in (mainly internal Labour Party stuff plus info about anti-communist organisations):
Doesn't look like much of a money trail, TBH, so I think he'll get away with it. Even so, it's the kind of drip-drip which won't help Labour at the next election, even if it's hardly news to anyone who knows anything that he was a communist stooge (which to be fair he didn't conceal).
All this is why the Tories can bank 40% or so already for the next GE. Corbyn has always hated the British state and always will - that is enough for millions of voters ot fo all they can to prevent him becoming PM. If the Tories could find their way to a next generation leader from the centre with no serious Brexit associations they would be looking at a huge majority next time around.
Not huge, Corbyn also has 40% banked and the Tories have only won a 4th term once in the last century and that was with a majority of just 21
No. Corbyn doesnt have 40% banked. This is the big mistake of Corbynista lap of honour runners since last June. Many of those 40% voted Labour believing Jeremy Corbyn would not be prime minister. Many of them voted Labour on that basis. Many voted Labour to stop Theresa may getting a landslide for a no deal Brexit. The Labour 40% is exeptionally soft and liable to crumble.
I agree and am relieved that at least one other person on here sees it like that. I thought my view was formed more in hope than rationality. It still might be but at least I'm now not alone in my self deceit.
A note to Joff Wild at SO from someone who has always kind of sided with you....I wish you’d STFU with your bizarre anti Corbyn posts. Leave that kind of nonsense to the Brexit and pcCOM ideologues...there are plenty of those around here who do not need a frustrated, articulate liberal left like yourself to encourage them.
The Tories not being able to handsomely defeat an opposition being led by someone who spied for the Soviet Union would be quite something.
However, I find it hard to believe that the Soviets were so imcompetent they recruited someone who would not be in apposition to supply them with any info relating tot he British state. I guess what he may have been able to provide is insights into the tortuous relationships and enmities that characterised the far left back in the day (as they do now, too, of course). Having some insight into who was up and who was down might have been worthwhile in some small way - especially given the far left's control of some councils, especially in London.
The bit you left out is "sleepers". Remarkable foresight by the Soviets. Russians have always been long game players.
This wasn't the Soviets. It was the Czechs.
If they recruited Corbyn as a possible then they must have had many other Czechs that bounced.
Good night.
And with so much money bouncing around, a Czech secret service operative was not stashing cash under the till. The Stazi, KGB agents were all playing the system.
A note to Joff Wild at SO from someone who has always kind of sided with you....I wish you’d STFU with your bizarre anti Corbyn posts. Leave that kind of nonsense to the Brexit and pcCOM ideologues...there are plenty of those around here who do not need a frustrated, articulate liberal left like yourself to encourage them.
Yes I'm very surprised at the passion that Corbyn stirs up in many of the left on here. It's unnaturally intense. It can't be his policies. They are leftish but not extreme. It can't be the man. He's quite gentle, polite and anti-violence. It can't be the damage to the Labour Party. He did quite well against May against all expectations. I just don't understand the passion.
I can understand why a Tory might be passionately against him. They can see his electoral threat. But a leftie? I agree it is perplexing why they would want to help the Tories undermine Corbyn.
A note to Joff Wild at SO from someone who has always kind of sided with you....I wish you’d STFU with your bizarre anti Corbyn posts. Leave that kind of nonsense to the Brexit and pcCOM ideologues...there are plenty of those around here who do not need a frustrated, articulate liberal left like yourself to encourage them.
Yes I'm very surprised at the passion that Corbyn stirs up in many of the left on here. It's unnaturally intense. It can't be his policies. They are leftish but not extreme. It can't be the man. He's quite gentle, polite and anti-violence. It can't be the damage to the Labour Party. He did quite well against May against all expectations. I just don't understand the passion.
I can understand why a Tory might be passionately against him. They can see his electoral threat. But a leftie? I agree it is perplexing why they would want to help the Tories undermine Corbyn.
The Tories not being able to handsomely defeat an opposition being led by someone who spied for the Soviet Union would be quite something.
However, I find it hard to believe that the Soviets were so imcompetent they recruited someone who would not be in apposition to supply them with any info relating tot he British state. I guess what he may have been able to provide is insights into the tortuous relationships and enmities that characterised the far left back in the day (as they do now, too, of course). Having some insight into who was up and who was down might have been worthwhile in some small way - especially given the far left's control of some councils, especially in London.
If you play the video here, they've got the original Czech documents which explain what they were interested in (mainly internal Labour Party stuff plus info about anti-communist organisations):
Doesn't look like much of a money trail, TBH, so I think he'll get away with it. Even so, it's the kind of drip-drip which won't help Labour at the next election, even if it's hardly news to anyone who knows anything that he was a communist stooge (which to be fair he didn't conceal).
All this is why the Tories can bank 40% or so already for the next GE. Corbyn has always hated the British state and always will - that is enough for millions of voters ot fo all they can to prevent him becoming PM. If the Tories could find their way to a next generation leader from the centre with no serious Brexit associations they would be looking at a huge majority next time around.
Not huge, Corbyn also has 40% banked and the Tories have only won a 4th term once in the last century and that was with a majority of just 21
No. Corbyn doesnt have 40% banked. This is the big mistake of Corbynista lap of honour runners since last June. Many of those 40% voted Labour believing Jeremy Corbyn would not be prime minister. Many of them voted Labour on that basis. Many voted Labour to stop Theresa may getting a landslide for a no deal Brexit. The Labour 40% is exeptionally soft and liable to crumble.
"Many of those 40% voted Labour believing Jeremy Corbyn would not be prime minister." How can you know that? You might just as well say many of the 52% voted Leave believing Remain would win.
The Tories not being able to handsomely defeat an opposition being led by someone who spied for the Soviet Union would be quite something.
However, I find it hard to believe that the Soviets were so imcompetent they recruited someone who would not be in apposition to supply them with any info relating tot he British state. I guess what he may have been able to provide is insights into the tortuous relationships and enmities that characterised the far left back in the day (as they do now, too, of course). Having some insight into who was up and who was down might have been worthwhile in some small way - especially given the far left's control of some councils, especially in London.
You have to be 27 to have even been born at the time of the Soviet Union and 47 to have any real memory of the Berlin Wall coming down, coincidentally the age you were more likely to be a Tory than Labour voter at the last general election
47? You're having a giraffe. I'm 38 and the Berlin wall falling was the defining moment of my life until 9/11.
Defining moment? You'd have been 9 or 10 when the Berlin Wall came down in late 1989.
A note to Joff Wild at SO from someone who has always kind of sided with you....I wish you’d STFU with your bizarre anti Corbyn posts. Leave that kind of nonsense to the Brexit and pcCOM ideologues...there are plenty of those around here who do not need a frustrated, articulate liberal left like yourself to encourage them.
Yes I'm very surprised at the passion that Corbyn stirs up in many of the left on here. It's unnaturally intense. It can't be his policies. They are leftish but not extreme. It can't be the man. He's quite gentle, polite and anti-violence. It can't be the damage to the Labour Party. He did quite well against May against all expectations. I just don't understand the passion.
I can understand why a Tory might be passionately against him. They can see his electoral threat. But a leftie? I agree it is perplexing why they would want to help the Tories undermine Corbyn.
The Tories are probably more afraid of Corbyn being replaced by Yvette Cooper or Clive Lewis. As SO has said, Corbyn is ensuring the Tories stay at 40% regardless of the difficulties they're encountering.
A note to Joff Wild at SO from someone who has always kind of sided with you....I wish you’d STFU with your bizarre anti Corbyn posts. Leave that kind of nonsense to the Brexit and pcCOM ideologues...there are plenty of those around here who do not need a frustrated, articulate liberal left like yourself to encourage them.
Yes I'm very surprised at the passion that Corbyn stirs up in many of the left on here. It's unnaturally intense. It can't be his policies. They are leftish but not extreme. It can't be the man. He's quite gentle, polite and anti-violence. It can't be the damage to the Labour Party. He did quite well against May against all expectations. I just don't understand the passion.
I can understand why a Tory might be passionately against him. They can see his electoral threat. But a leftie? I agree it is perplexing why they would want to help the Tories undermine Corbyn.
The Tories are probably more afraid of Corbyn being replaced by Yvette Cooper or Clive Lewis. As SO has said, Corbyn is ensuring the Tories stay at 40% regardless of the difficulties they're encountering.
If labour had a mainstream leader I would be quite laid back aboit the next election
The Tories not being able to handsomely defeat an opposition being led by someone who spied for the Soviet Union would be quite something.
However, I find it hard to believe that the Soviets were so imcompetent they recruited someone who would not be in apposition to supply them with any info relating tot he British state. I guess what he may have been able to provide is insights into the tortuous relationships and enmities that characterised the far left back in the day (as they do now, too, of course). Having some insight into who was up and who was down might have been worthwhile in some small way - especially given the far left's control of some councils, especially in London.
If you play the video here, they've got the original Czech documents which explain what they were interested in (mainly internal Labour Party stuff plus info about anti-communist organisations):
Doesn't look like much of a money trail, TBH, so I think he'll get away with it. Even so, it's the kind of drip-drip which won't help Labour at the next election, even if it's hardly news to anyone who knows anything that he was a communist stooge (which to be fair he didn't conceal).
All this is why the Tories can bank 40% or so already for the next GE. Corbyn has always hated the British state and always will - that is enough for millions of voters ot fo all they can to prevent him becoming PM. If the Tories could find their way to a next generation leader from the centre with no serious Brexit associations they would be looking at a huge majority next time around.
Not huge, Corbyn also has 40% banked and the Tories have only won a 4th term once in the last century and that was with a majority of just 21
No. Corbyn doesnt have 40% banked. This is the big mistake of Corbynista lap of honour runners since last June. Many of those 40% voted Labour believing Jeremy Corbyn would not be prime minister. Many of them voted Labour on that basis. Many voted Labour to stop Theresa may getting a landslide for a no deal Brexit. The Labour 40% is exeptionally soft and liable to crumble.
"Many of those 40% voted Labour believing Jeremy Corbyn would not be prime minister." How can you know that? You might just as well say many of the 52% voted Leave believing Remain would win.
Many? Perhaps enough to make the difference. It seemed unlikely that Leave could win against the might of the Establishment. So it was easy to vote your conscience without expecting it to come about.
A note to Joff Wild at SO from someone who has always kind of sided with you....I wish you’d STFU with your bizarre anti Corbyn posts. Leave that kind of nonsense to the Brexit and pcCOM ideologues...there are plenty of those around here who do not need a frustrated, articulate liberal left like yourself to encourage them.
Yes I'm very surprised at the passion that Corbyn stirs up in many of the left on here. It's unnaturally intense. It can't be his policies. They are leftish but not extreme. It can't be the man. He's quite gentle, polite and anti-violence. It can't be the damage to the Labour Party. He did quite well against May against all expectations. I just don't understand the passion.
I can understand why a Tory might be passionately against him. They can see his electoral threat. But a leftie? I agree it is perplexing why they would want to help the Tories undermine Corbyn.
The Tories are probably more afraid of Corbyn being replaced by Yvette Cooper or Clive Lewis. As SO has said, Corbyn is ensuring the Tories stay at 40% regardless of the difficulties they're encountering.
A poll last year had 7% fewer voters would consider voting for Cooper led Labour than Corbyn led Labour
A Yougov poll at the same time had Labour on 33% under Cooper and Umunna with the Tories on 45% and 46% respectively compared to 35% under Corbyn (admittedly pre general election) with the Tories on 44%, only Khan did better than Corbyn getting Labour to 36% with the Tories on 45%.
A note to Joff Wild at SO from someone who has always kind of sided with you....I wish you’d STFU with your bizarre anti Corbyn posts. Leave that kind of nonsense to the Brexit and pcCOM ideologues...there are plenty of those around here who do not need a frustrated, articulate liberal left like yourself to encourage them.
Yes I'm very surprised at the passion that Corbyn stirs up in many of the left on here. It's unnaturally intense. It can't be his policies. They are leftish but not extreme. It can't be the man. He's quite gentle, polite and anti-violence. It can't be the damage to the Labour Party. He did quite well against May against all expectations. I just don't understand the passion.
I can understand why a Tory might be passionately against him. They can see his electoral threat. But a leftie? I agree it is perplexing why they would want to help the Tories undermine Corbyn.
+1 Same here... perplexing.
Not if you take exception to your party being "intensely relaxed" about its broad church encompassing anti-semites and holocaust deniers ?
A note to Joff Wild at SO from someone who has always kind of sided with you....I wish you’d STFU with your bizarre anti Corbyn posts. Leave that kind of nonsense to the Brexit and pcCOM ideologues...there are plenty of those around here who do not need a frustrated, articulate liberal left like yourself to encourage them.
Yes I'm very surprised at the passion that Corbyn stirs up in many of the left on here. It's unnaturally intense. It can't be his policies. They are leftish but not extreme. It can't be the man. He's quite gentle, polite and anti-violence. It can't be the damage to the Labour Party. He did quite well against May against all expectations. I just don't understand the passion.
I can understand why a Tory might be passionately against him. They can see his electoral threat. But a leftie? I agree it is perplexing why they would want to help the Tories undermine Corbyn.
The Tories are probably more afraid of Corbyn being replaced by Yvette Cooper or Clive Lewis. As SO has said, Corbyn is ensuring the Tories stay at 40% regardless of the difficulties they're encountering.
They won't be afraid of him being replaced by Yvette Cooper or Clive Lewis. They know there is no chance of that.
The Tories staying at 40% in spite of their poor performance can easily be explained by the fact that they are the natural home for Brexiteers (all 52% of them). About a quarter of the Tory 40% are ex-Kippers. It doesn't need Corbyn to explain why the Tories are sticking at 40%.
Lefties do the Tories work for them by knocking Corbyn.
A note to Joff Wild at SO from someone who has always kind of sided with you....I wish you’d STFU with your bizarre anti Corbyn posts. Leave that kind of nonsense to the Brexit and pcCOM ideologues...there are plenty of those around here who do not need a frustrated, articulate liberal left like yourself to encourage them.
Yes I'm very surprised at the passion that Corbyn stirs up in many of the left on here. It's unnaturally intense. It can't be his policies. They are leftish but not extreme. It can't be the man. He's quite gentle, polite and anti-violence. It can't be the damage to the Labour Party. He did quite well against May against all expectations. I just don't understand the passion.
I can understand why a Tory might be passionately against him. They can see his electoral threat. But a leftie? I agree it is perplexing why they would want to help the Tories undermine Corbyn.
+1 Same here... perplexing.
Not if you take exception to your party being "intensely relaxed" about its broad church encompassing anti-semites and holocaust deniers ?
Personally I think the politics of Corbyn and McDonnell are beyond contempt. They would have the entire economy collapse so we would all be "equal". I lived in Russia for a few months in the 90s after the collapse of communism. Ideology benefits no one if people don't hav enough to eat.
A note to Joff Wild at SO from someone who has always kind of sided with you....I wish you’d STFU with your bizarre anti Corbyn posts. Leave that kind of nonsense to the Brexit and pcCOM ideologues...there are plenty of those around here who do not need a frustrated, articulate liberal left like yourself to encourage them.
Yes I'm very surprised at the passion that Corbyn stirs up in many of the left on here. It's unnaturally intense. It can't be his policies. They are leftish but not extreme. It can't be the man. He's quite gentle, polite and anti-violence. It can't be the damage to the Labour Party. He did quite well against May against all expectations. I just don't understand the passion.
I can understand why a Tory might be passionately against him. They can see his electoral threat. But a leftie? I agree it is perplexing why they would want to help the Tories undermine Corbyn.
The Tories are probably more afraid of Corbyn being replaced by Yvette Cooper or Clive Lewis. As SO has said, Corbyn is ensuring the Tories stay at 40% regardless of the difficulties they're encountering.
They won't be afraid of him being replaced by Yvette Cooper or Clive Lewis. They know there is no chance of that.
The Tories staying at 40% in spite of their poor performance can easily be explained by the fact that they are the natural home for Brexiteers (all 52% of them). About a quarter of the Tory 40% are ex-Kippers. It doesn't need Corbyn to explain why the Tories are sticking at 40%.
Lefties do the Tories work for them by knocking Corbyn.
A quarter? Seems a bit much, especially as the Tories were in the high thirties when UKIP were doing well.
A note to Joff Wild at SO from someone who has always kind of sided with you....I wish you’d STFU with your bizarre anti Corbyn posts. Leave that kind of nonsense to the Brexit and pcCOM ideologues...there are plenty of those around here who do not need a frustrated, articulate liberal left like yourself to encourage them.
Yes I'm very surprised at the passion that Corbyn stirs up in many of the left on here. It's unnaturally intense. It can't be his policies. They are leftish but not extreme. It can't be the man. He's quite gentle, polite and anti-violence. It can't be the damage to the Labour Party. He did quite well against May against all expectations. I just don't understand the passion.
I can understand why a Tory might be passionately against him. They can see his electoral threat. But a leftie? I agree it is perplexing why they would want to help the Tories undermine Corbyn.
The Tories are probably more afraid of Corbyn being replaced by Yvette Cooper or Clive Lewis. As SO has said, Corbyn is ensuring the Tories stay at 40% regardless of the difficulties they're encountering.
If labour had a mainstream leader I would be quite laid back aboit the next election
Welcome to the club!
Corbyn meant I had to vote Tory in 2017, If Labour had someone as leader who was mainstream I might even vote for them. But Corbyn, I just don't trust him on defence (with his policies you might as well not have a defence policy or armed services anyway). Then on the economy he wants to spend too much too quickly and this obsession with public ownership is frankly strange. I am not against public ownership for some monopolistic, strategically important or even loss making industries i.e. Nuclear power.
No, my problem with Labour is they advocate some reasonable policies and then ruin it with totally inadequate defence policies or stupid economic policies. As a political consumer I am only interested in policies that offer positive outcomes for the people, not doing it for PC reasons. Another lunatic policy is banning defence industries from selling certain weapons, which is fine but what about the people who will be made unemployed? Obviously I feel bad for the people who are maimed and killed with the weapons but the people who perpetrate these horrors are going to buy them somewhere so it might as well give jobs to our people.
A note to Joff Wild at SO from someone who has always kind of sided with you....I wish you’d STFU with your bizarre anti Corbyn posts. Leave that kind of nonsense to the Brexit and pcCOM ideologues...there are plenty of those around here who do not need a frustrated, articulate liberal left like yourself to encourage them.
Yes I'm very surprised at the passion that Corbyn stirs up in many of the left on here. It's unnaturally intense. It can't be his policies. They are leftish but not extreme. It can't be the man. He's quite gentle, polite and anti-violence. It can't be the damage to the Labour Party. He did quite well against May against all expectations. I just don't understand the passion.
I can understand why a Tory might be passionately against him. They can see his electoral threat. But a leftie? I agree it is perplexing why they would want to help the Tories undermine Corbyn.
The Tories are probably more afraid of Corbyn being replaced by Yvette Cooper or Clive Lewis. As SO has said, Corbyn is ensuring the Tories stay at 40% regardless of the difficulties they're encountering.
If labour had a mainstream leader I would be quite laid back aboit the next election
Welcome to the club!
Corbyn meant I had to vote Tory in 2017, If Labour had someone as leader who was mainstream I might even vote for them. But Corbyn, I just don't trust him on defence (with his policies you might as well not have a defence policy or armed services anyway). Then on the economy he wants to spend too much too quickly and this obsession with public ownership is frankly strange. I am not against public ownership for some monopolistic, strategically important or even loss making industries i.e. Nuclear power.
No, my problem with Labour is they advocate some reasonable policies and then ruin it with totally inadequate defence policies or stupid economic policies. As a political consumer I am only interested in policies that offer positive outcomes for the people, not doing it for PC reasons. Another lunatic policy is banning defence industries from selling certain weapons, which is fine but what about the people who will be made unemployed? Obviously I feel bad for the people who are maimed and killed with the weapons but the people who perpetrate these horrors are going to buy them somewhere so it might as well give jobs to our people.
A note to Joff Wild at SO from someone who has always kind of sided with you....I wish you’d STFU with your bizarre anti Corbyn posts. Leave that kind of nonsense to the Brexit and pcCOM ideologues...there are plenty of those around here who do not need a frustrated, articulate liberal left like yourself to encourage them.
Yes I'm very surprised at the passion that Corbyn stirs up in many of the left on here. It's unnaturally intense. It can't be his policies. They are leftish but not extreme. It can't be the man. He's quite gentle, polite and anti-violence. It can't be the damage to the Labour Party. He did quite well against May against all expectations. I just don't understand the passion.
I can understand why a Tory might be passionately against him. They can see his electoral threat. But a leftie? I agree it is perplexing why they would want to help the Tories undermine Corbyn.
I think a few of them are emotionally tied into the idea of Corbyn as the enemy from the warnings on his original election to the coup attempt that backfired. The election that didn't end in the predicted disaster seems to have tipped a few of them over the edge.
The problem is that governments are not supposed to be level pegging with oppositions. governments between elections are supposed to be less popular than oppositions. When Ed Miliband was 12 points ahead in 2012, when Neil Kinnock was 20 points aheadm in 1990, that is how it was supposed to be. Governments recover some of their vote from between election polls as general election day approaches.
So the question remains: why the Tories level pegging with Labour? Why is Labour not tearing ahead? Becuae if the Tory government adds a few points on in 2022 as all governments do (even the ones that lose) then Labour is stuffed.
You keep posting this same point.
Here's the thing:
1. We're not exactly mid-term, so comparing a peak opposition lead three years into a parliament with the current one, eight months in, is disingenuous.
2. The Labour Party is led by Jeremy Corbyn.
I keep posting the same point in response to the same sort of articles. If I posted an opposite point you would say I was contradicting myself. If repetition is what concerns you I suggest you address your criticism to remoaners who go on and on about Brexit even when it has nothing to do with the thread.
1). Ed Miliband was 12 points ahead 2 years into the parliament, not three. That was indeed the peak. But even at this point in the parliament, previous oppositions have been further ahead than just one point.
2). Not sure what point you are making here. The fact is that jeremy Corbyn is doing worse at this point in the parliament, than previous opposition leaders who went on to lose.
In short all the polls right now are pointing to defeat at the next general election for Labour (led by Corbyn.
Corbyn is performing a lot better than Gaitskell was managing in 1960 and 1961!
Comments
If we did what Rome did proportionately to our resources we'd be flying to the stars. Some chance of having tackled the tricky problems like adding-up too.
On the level of current damages, several I'd hope.
If they recruited Corbyn as a possible then they must have had many other Czechs that bounced.
Good night.
I can understand why a Tory might be passionately against him. They can see his electoral threat. But a leftie? I agree it is perplexing why they would want to help the Tories undermine Corbyn.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/2018/02/13/bevan-congdon-new-zealand-cricketer-obituary/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leader-tony-blair-support-election-2017-uk-prime-minister-polls-a7740921.html
A Yougov poll at the same time had Labour on 33% under Cooper and Umunna with the Tories on 45% and 46% respectively compared to 35% under Corbyn (admittedly pre general election) with the Tories on 44%, only Khan did better than Corbyn getting Labour to 36% with the Tories on 45%.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/poll-labour-would-go-backwards-under-yvette-cooper-or-chuka-umunna-2017-5
The Tories staying at 40% in spite of their poor performance can easily be explained by the fact that they are the natural home for Brexiteers (all 52% of them). About a quarter of the Tory 40% are ex-Kippers. It doesn't need Corbyn to explain why the Tories are sticking at 40%.
Lefties do the Tories work for them by knocking Corbyn.
Corbyn meant I had to vote Tory in 2017, If Labour had someone as leader who was mainstream I might even vote for them. But Corbyn, I just don't trust him on defence (with his policies you might as well not have a defence policy or armed services anyway). Then on the economy he wants to spend too much too quickly and this obsession with public ownership is frankly strange. I am not against public ownership for some monopolistic, strategically important or even loss making industries i.e. Nuclear power.
No, my problem with Labour is they advocate some reasonable policies and then ruin it with totally inadequate defence policies or stupid economic policies. As a political consumer I am only interested in policies that offer positive outcomes for the people, not doing it for PC reasons. Another lunatic policy is banning defence industries from selling certain weapons, which is fine but what about the people who will be made unemployed? Obviously I feel bad for the people who are maimed and killed with the weapons but the people who perpetrate these horrors are going to buy them somewhere so it might as well give jobs to our people.
Czech mate?