politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour candidates fear doorstep questions about Corbyn and the

Could it be..first?

the whole issue of party funding is messy in British politics - £160k Russian money for the Tories makes the Corbyn meets czechs in 1980s disappear as a story, I dont excuse Labour either as Blair's cosying showed. Surely the funding, "technical " assistance of IT and campaign financing is a priority to clean up UK politics - the C4 2015 case seemed to disappear but the whiff of corruption certainly hasn't

TheJezziah said:

Back on topic I would agree with the optimistic conclusion. I would suggest in regards to the Salisbury incident this is probably the height of its relevance and it doesn't really seem to have done much in the polls. Come the time of the May elections I can't see it being a big issue on peoples mind and by the time of the next general election only those already on a side will probably remember it to any degree.

We have only had 2 polls that included the key period - so it is too early to say on that one.

And whether this fades very much depends on how events play out. If the murder investigation indicates a Russian link then actions will be required. If the other unexplained deaths are reinvestigated and find more links to the Putin regime then it will keep going. I don't think we can put the story to bed quite yet.

The public reaction will continue to be shaped by events. I think it acts to reinforce existing perceptions as to Corbyn and his attitudes - so may not shift votes in and of itself, but the situation could well alter turn out. Which does bring electoral consequences.

The internal fracture lines within the PLP have come to the fore again and it is always said that divided parties don't prosper. Last year's GE would seem to put a lie to that one - but never say never.

The fact that McDonnell has taken a different line to Corbyn is a clear indication that things are not as Corbyn would want them.

If he wants to regain the initiative, he should get rid of Milne. MIlne is too often the story these days. Not what you want from a backroom operator.

TheJezziah said:

rkrkrk said:

TheJezziah said:

I don't like to post stuff I'm not sure on myself and I think I even said in the previous topic I don't think the BBC deliberately smeared Corbyn but what do people make of this?

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/975335522150297600

Seems a bit conspiracy theory. Won’t be a surprise to the die hards...
Also if true, JM says he won’t say who told him as told in confidence.
But why? If you believe in bbc impartiality you should want to expose it?

Wouldn't take much notice usually but he seems to be somebody known rather than just a random twitter user, given he's a QC and doesn't like Corbyn it would seem a strange for him to just make that lie up, although far from impossible.

Very strange for him to make it up.
But not ridiculous for the other person to be bullshitting/wrong...

TheJezziah said:

Okay okay, the image has been altered but look look this guy tweeted something about it and he is a bad guy, so if you agree the image has been altered then you believe what this guy believes.

How does it go.... if you can't discredit the message...

I haven't been following hat-gate that closely. In what way was the image altered, and what is the significance in your eyes of the alteration?

(Just saying it has been altered is pointless, as many images are routinely post-processed before use. The question becomes what levels of processing are acceptable.)

rcs1000 said:

JosiasJessop said:

TheJezziah said:

Okay okay, the image has been altered but look look this guy tweeted something about it and he is a bad guy, so if you agree the image has been altered then you believe what this guy believes.

How does it go.... if you can't discredit the message...

I haven't been following hat-gate that closely. In what way was the image altered, and what is the significance in your eyes of the alteration?

(Just saying it has been altered is pointless, as many images are routinely post-processed before use. The question becomes what levels of processing are acceptable.)

What about poor Dec?

I think you may have responded to the wrong post. Unless Ant is being accused of photoshopping Corbyn's hat?

At least Dec seems more sensible. And we may get to know if they are actually individuals rather than a gestalt entity.

Roger said:

Following several appearances by Boris I'm beginning to have serious doubts about the veracity of the British account. Since Iraq the intelligence services have been suspect and there are now several questions that need answering. Not least Putin's motives which seem to be non-existent.

If it turns out that this was not a Russian adventure Corbyn's stock will be sky high and as we've seen before he's a very lucky politician.

Putin's motives non-existent? Really?

Putin worked for the KGB for 14 years. He worked in counter-intelligence and as a spy. He is deep within that world, and will see any Russians spying for other countries as beneath contempt. This attack, and the official messages coming out afterwards, is exactly in line with that: don't betray the motherland.

The implausible deniability also makes him appear stronger at home. And after our utter lack of response to Assad's use of chemical weapons in Syria, he guessed the west's reaction would be weak.

As a matter of interest, what do you think happened with Litvinenko?

TheJezziah said:

This is a previous comment I made on it, larger image as well. Also image from someone who dislike Corbyn to avoid accusations of bias.

Edit: click show previous quotes to see the larger images.

TheJezziah said:

SouthamObserver said:

Hat-gate rolls on. The anti-BBC right are getting the chance to peer into the Looking Glass. Some might pause to consider that the way Corbynistas are coming across now over Jezza’s hat is how they come across when they cry conspiracy over the Brussels Broadcasting Corporation. But they won’t, of course.
https://twitter.com/jamin2g/status/975143798186696704?s=21

As far as I can tell the complaints centre around the hat looking a bit bigger and losing its definition, well the hat related complaint, the other aspect of the complaint seems to be how Corbyn is blended into the image whereas Gavin Williamson isn't when he is shown on the background.

The complaints, or at least some of the ones I've seen aren't that the BBC are showing him wearing the hat that he is wearing in the first image and has worn in lots of other photographs. The complaints are that it has been made to look different to that hat by looking bigger and losing its definiton

I don't believe the BBC went out of its way to try and smear Corbyn here but you can understand some suspicions on behalf of the Corbyn fans given this sort of looks like the BBC backing the right wing presses message.

I did also see mentioned that Gavin Williamson on the same background is show much further away from the Kremlin and it was a story presented as Williamson vs the Kremlin whereas the Corbyn story with that background was about whether he was strong enough against the Kremlin and shown much closer to the Kremlin.

It is all small stuff but in a week where the press had been ramping up that angle the BBC aiding in that goal (perhaps unwittingly) is not a good look.

Not exactly connected but they do seem to have done a few things with Corbyn, they have a background with him having a Trump style hat on and they also made a video of him as Quirinus Quirrell (a bad guy off Harry Potter, I had no idea either) have to wonder if they have had May as Trump in the background before.

Edit: click show previous quotes to see the larger images.

Oh lordy, that's weak. In fact, it's almost tasseography - diving meaning from meaningless patterns.

This sort of rubbish will inspire the true believers; it'll make you all look a little (ahem) odd to the rest of the public.

TheJezziah said:

Too late for an edit, the last point was on a similar background Gavin Williamson was shown in a suit, there are plenty of images of Corbyn in a suit they could have used.

If Corbyn wanted to be known for wearing a suit, he should perhaps wear one a little more often? In fact I'd argue showing him a suit isn't exactly representative of his usual clothing style, and would therefore be a biased image to use.

"Look! They've put Corbyn in a suit! They're just making him look like any other politician! The bastards !!!"

I suspect that by May the confrontation with Russia will have faded to background noise.

JosiasJessop said:

Roger said:

Following several appearances by Boris I'm beginning to have serious doubts about the veracity of the British account. Since Iraq the intelligence services have been suspect and there are now several questions that need answering. Not least Putin's motives which seem to be non-existent.

If it turns out that this was not a Russian adventure Corbyn's stock will be sky high and as we've seen before he's a very lucky politician.

Putin's motives non-existent? Really?

Putin worked for the KGB for 14 years. He worked in counter-intelligence and as a spy. He is deep within that world, and will see any Russians spying for other countries as beneath contempt. This attack, and the official messages coming out afterwards, is exactly in line with that: don't betray the motherland.

The implausible deniability also makes him appear stronger at home. And after our utter lack of response to Assad's use of chemical weapons in Syria, he guessed the west's reaction would be weak.

As a matter of interest, what do you think happened with Litvinenko?

Litvinenko was almost certainly assasinated by the Russians. He was a serious and continuous danger to Russia. This man by all accounts was not. He wasn't even a serious spy. His sentence for spying was only 12 years which hardly puts him in the George Blake category. Their ambassador had never head of him. He was also long retired unlike the very active Livinenko. Political assassinations are rare other than by the Israelis and this one just seems pointless

Roger said:

JosiasJessop said:

Roger said:

Following several appearances by Boris I'm beginning to have serious doubts about the veracity of the British account. Since Iraq the intelligence services have been suspect and there are now several questions that need answering. Not least Putin's motives which seem to be non-existent.

If it turns out that this was not a Russian adventure Corbyn's stock will be sky high and as we've seen before he's a very lucky politician.

Putin's motives non-existent? Really?

Putin worked for the KGB for 14 years. He worked in counter-intelligence and as a spy. He is deep within that world, and will see any Russians spying for other countries as beneath contempt. This attack, and the official messages coming out afterwards, is exactly in line with that: don't betray the motherland.

The implausible deniability also makes him appear stronger at home. And after our utter lack of response to Assad's use of chemical weapons in Syria, he guessed the west's reaction would be weak.

As a matter of interest, what do you think happened with Litvinenko?

Litvinenko was almost certainly assasinated by the Russians. He was a serious and continuous danger to Russia. This man by all accounts was not. He wasn't even a serious spy. His sentence for spying was only 12 years which hardly puts him in the George Blake category. Their ambassador had never head of him. He was also long retired unlike the very active Livinenko. Political assassinations are rare other than by the Israelis and this one just seems pointless

So you are accusing May etc of lying.

What’s your alternative theory? That it was smuggled from Syria in Jeremy’s hat?

.

Gardenwalker said:

Roger said:

JosiasJessop said:

Roger said:

Following several appearances by Boris I'm beginning to have serious doubts about the veracity of the British account. Since Iraq the intelligence services have been suspect and there are now several questions that need answering. Not least Putin's motives which seem to be non-existent.

If it turns out that this was not a Russian adventure Corbyn's stock will be sky high and as we've seen before he's a very lucky politician.

Putin's motives non-existent? Really?

Putin worked for the KGB for 14 years. He worked in counter-intelligence and as a spy. He is deep within that world, and will see any Russians spying for other countries as beneath contempt. This attack, and the official messages coming out afterwards, is exactly in line with that: don't betray the motherland.

The implausible deniability also makes him appear stronger at home. And after our utter lack of response to Assad's use of chemical weapons in Syria, he guessed the west's reaction would be weak.

As a matter of interest, what do you think happened with Litvinenko?

Litvinenko was almost certainly assasinated by the Russians. He was a serious and continuous danger to Russia. This man by all accounts was not. He wasn't even a serious spy. His sentence for spying was only 12 years which hardly puts him in the George Blake category. Their ambassador had never head of him. He was also long retired unlike the very active Livinenko. Political assassinations are rare other than by the Israelis and this one just seems pointless

So you are accusing May etc of lying.

What’s your alternative theory? That it was smuggled from Syria in Jeremy’s hat?

I'm not accusing May of lying. I'm sure she believes that's what happened. I just think there may be an alternative explanation. Until we know all the facts or even enough to make a theory plausible we should hold our fire.

-

Oh and Don, sounds like the local candidates you were talking about come firmly from the Blair's Brigade Chris-Leslie-mini-me wing, there’s regrettably still plenty about, which strikes an even more pathetic tone at local level.

JosiasJessop said:

it's almost tasseography - divining meaning from meaningless patterns.

Given the randomness of recent political contests, aren't we all here psephologists proving to be tasseographists - divinging meaning from meaningless political patterns?

And whilst some hear white noise, others swear they can hear the Ode to Joy....

Really can't believe we are still going on about the hat. The question was whether or not Corbyn's equivocation in blaming the Russians was because he was historically too close to the Russians (or indeed everyone else opposed to this country). Newsnight highlighted the story with a picture of Corbyn wearing a vaguely Russian hat blended into a background of Red Square and St Basils. It is a common enough device used whenever an MP is in trouble. An image related to the perceived trouble is shown with the political figure in it as a background to the story.

As a distraction from the issue of whether Corbyn has consistently and instinctively supported those hostile to this country and its interests for over 30 years the argument about whether the exact shape of the hat has been cropped is absurd. The argument about whether the BBC is showing a bias and whether it should treat MPs this way is fractionally less so but the absolute failure to engage with the underlying problem is shameful. Many Labour MPs up to McDonnell have as Don points out but criticism of the messiah is still forbidden within Momentum, apparently.

Roger said:

I'm not accusing May of lying. I'm sure she believes that's what happened. I just think there may be an alternative explanation. Until we know all the facts or even enough to make a theory plausible we should hold our fire.

But what comes across, Roger, is a burning desire for there to BE an alternative explanation, against the massive weight of evidence, history and common sense. To seek to find an alternative explanation requires special pleading heaped on special pleading, with a nice crispy side-order of special pleading. It's also the thin veneer being used by those who caused these events to protect them from the outright condemnation they deserve.

We ask our juries to convict not on the basis of absolute knowledge, but of beyond reasonable doubt. You are trying to get an acquittal on the basis of unreasonble doubt. Knock it off.

DavidL said:

Really can't believe we are still going on about the hat.

The only good thing to come out of "hatgate" is the knowledge that the True Believers in the Useful Idiot are going to welcome an equal degree of forensic examination of Labour's next Manifesto, especially the section on their economic plans and the funding thereof.

Yeah, right.....

MarqueeMark said:

DavidL said:

Really can't believe we are still going on about the hat.

The only good thing to come out of "hatgate" is the knowledge that the True Believers in the Useful Idiot are going to welcome an equal degree of forensic examination of Labour's next Manifesto, especially the section on their economic plans and the funding thereof.

Yeah, right.....

As opposed to the complete lack of detail in the last Conservative manifesto?

Russian state TV makes jokes about how many opponents of Putin and/or traitorous Russians seem to meet untimely ends, nod-nod-wink-wink. But no motive, honest.

Roger said:

.

Gardenwalker said:

Roger said:

JosiasJessop said:

Roger said:

Following several appearances by Boris I'm beginning to have serious doubts about the veracity of the British account. Since Iraq the intelligence services have been suspect and there are now several questions that need answering. Not least Putin's motives which seem to be non-existent.

If it turns out that this was not a Russian adventure Corbyn's stock will be sky high and as we've seen before he's a very lucky politician.

Putin's motives non-existent? Really?

Putin worked for the KGB for 14 years. He worked in counter-intelligence and as a spy. He is deep within that world, and will see any Russians spying for other countries as beneath contempt. This attack, and the official messages coming out afterwards, is exactly in line with that: don't betray the motherland.

The implausible deniability also makes him appear stronger at home. And after our utter lack of response to Assad's use of chemical weapons in Syria, he guessed the west's reaction would be weak.

As a matter of interest, what do you think happened with Litvinenko?

Litvinenko was almost certainly assasinated by the Russians. He was a serious and continuous danger to Russia. This man by all accounts was not. He wasn't even a serious spy. His sentence for spying was only 12 years which hardly puts him in the George Blake category. Their ambassador had never head of him. He was also long retired unlike the very active Livinenko. Political assassinations are rare other than by the Israelis and this one just seems pointless

So you are accusing May etc of lying.

What’s your alternative theory? That it was smuggled from Syria in Jeremy’s hat?

I'm not accusing May of lying. I'm sure she believes that's what happened. I just think there may be an alternative explanation. Until we know all the facts or even enough to make a theory plausible we should hold our fire.

Given that we appear to be relying on assertions by Boris J and Vladimir P, neither of whom seem to have much more than a nodding acqaintance with truth,, I’m keeping an open mind.
There were some very interesting letters in the Guardian about who can and cannot produce these poisons.

MarqueeMark said:

Roger said:

I'm not accusing May of lying. I'm sure she believes that's what happened. I just think there may be an alternative explanation. Until we know all the facts or even enough to make a theory plausible we should hold our fire.

But what comes across, Roger, is a burning desire for there to BE an alternative explanation, against the massive weight of evidence, history and common sense. To seek to find an alternative explanation requires special pleading heaped on special pleading, with a nice crispy side-order of special pleading. It's also the thin veneer being used by those who caused these events to protect them from the outright condemnation they deserve.

We ask our juries to convict not on the basis of absolute knowledge, but of beyond reasonable doubt. You are trying to get an acquittal on the basis of unreasonble doubt. Knock it off.

I'm not looking for an alternative explanation just wanting the explanation we have to make sense. Even a little bit of sense. As soon as the police fill in the blanks we can all let loose

AlastairMeeks said:

I suspect that by May the confrontation with Russia will have faded to background noise.

There may be a lingering smell of Kremlin around Corbyn, without the salient details in the forefront of voters' minds, which is almost worse.

DecrepitJohnL said:

MarqueeMark said:

DavidL said:

Really can't believe we are still going on about the hat.

The only good thing to come out of "hatgate" is the knowledge that the True Believers in the Useful Idiot are going to welcome an equal degree of forensic examination of Labour's next Manifesto, especially the section on their economic plans and the funding thereof.

Yeah, right.....

As opposed to the complete lack of detail in the last Conservative manifesto?

Oh, I think you can make a strong case for what did for the Tories in 2017 being precisely what WAS in the Manifesto....

DavidL said:

Really can't believe we are still going on about the hat. The question was whether or not Corbyn's equivocation in blaming the Russians was because he was historically too close to the Russians (or indeed everyone else opposed to this country). Newsnight highlighted the story with a picture of Corbyn wearing a vaguely Russian hat blended into a background of Red Square and St Basils. It is a common enough device used whenever an MP is in trouble. An image related to the perceived trouble is shown with the political figure in it as a background to the story.

It just shows how thin-skinned and fragile the Corbynista are. Owen Jones was full on frothing at the mouth mode (even more than normal).

if they ever got into power, then things would get really bonkers.

Jonathan said:

I would not be surprised if there isn't quiet support for Corbyn's "careful now" approach .

The "careful now" approach that is essentially the same as the Government position - support for expulsions, gathering international support etc (whilst using language giving the impression it is not).

Roger said:

JosiasJessop said:

Roger said:

Following several appearances by Boris I'm beginning to have serious doubts about the veracity of the British account. Since Iraq the intelligence services have been suspect and there are now several questions that need answering. Not least Putin's motives which seem to be non-existent.

If it turns out that this was not a Russian adventure Corbyn's stock will be sky high and as we've seen before he's a very lucky politician.

Putin's motives non-existent? Really?

Putin worked for the KGB for 14 years. He worked in counter-intelligence and as a spy. He is deep within that world, and will see any Russians spying for other countries as beneath contempt. This attack, and the official messages coming out afterwards, is exactly in line with that: don't betray the motherland.

The implausible deniability also makes him appear stronger at home. And after our utter lack of response to Assad's use of chemical weapons in Syria, he guessed the west's reaction would be weak.

As a matter of interest, what do you think happened with Litvinenko?

Litvinenko was almost certainly assasinated by the Russians. He was a serious and continuous danger to Russia. This man by all accounts was not. He wasn't even a serious spy. His sentence for spying was only 12 years which hardly puts him in the George Blake category. Their ambassador had never head of him. He was also long retired unlike the very active Livinenko. Political assassinations are rare other than by the Israelis ...

So rare they have their own wikipedia page...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Assassinated_Russian_politicians

rcs1000 said:

JosiasJessop said:

TheJezziah said:

Okay okay, the image has been altered but look look this guy tweeted something about it and he is a bad guy, so if you agree the image has been altered then you believe what this guy believes.

How does it go.... if you can't discredit the message...

I haven't been following hat-gate that closely. In what way was the image altered, and what is the significance in your eyes of the alteration?

(Just saying it has been altered is pointless, as many images are routinely post-processed before use. The question becomes what levels of processing are acceptable.)

What about poor Dec?

Obscurity where he should be , the two most talentless chancers ever to make it big.

Gardenwalker said:

Roger said:

.

Gardenwalker said:

Roger said:

JosiasJessop said:

Roger said:

Following several appearances by Boris I'm beginning to have serious doubts about the veracity of the British account. Since Iraq the intelligence services have been suspect and there are now several questions that need answering. Not least Putin's motives which seem to be non-existent.

If it turns out that this was not a Russian adventure Corbyn's stock will be sky high and as we've seen before he's a very lucky politician.

Putin's motives non-existent? Really?

Putin worked for the KGB for 14 years. He worked in counter-intelligence and as a spy. He is deep within that world, and will see any Russians spying for other countries as beneath contempt. This attack, and the official messages coming out afterwards, is exactly in line with that: don't betray the motherland.

The implausible deniability also makes him appear stronger at home. And after our utter lack of response to Assad's use of chemical weapons in Syria, he guessed the west's reaction would be weak.

As a matter of interest, what do you think happened with Litvinenko?

Litvinenko was almost certainly assasinated by the Russians. He was a serious and continuous danger to Russia. This man by all accounts was not. He wasn't even a serious spy. His sentence for spying was only 12 years which hardly puts him in the George Blake category. Their ambassador had never head of him. He was also long retired unlike the very active Livinenko. Political assassinations are rare other than by the Israelis and this one just seems pointless

So you are accusing May etc of lying.

What’s your alternative theory? That it was smuggled from Syria in Jeremy’s hat?

I'm not accusing May of lying. I'm sure she believes that's what happened. I just think there may be an alternative explanation. Until we know all the facts or even enough to make a theory plausible we should hold our fire.

No.

The government has set out clearly that it believes Russia to be responsible. It really has no reason to lie, and indeed every reason to be careful in making such allegations.

And, Western allies have fallen in behind us.

The theory is entirely plausible and Putin of course has every motive.

Anyway, May has “under-reacted” so far, diplomatic expulsions make no real difference and this will all likely be forgotten in a month or so unless there is another development in the plot.

Weak as ditch water, we will get some mote hot air and they will kick it into long grass.

DavidL said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I suspect that by May the confrontation with Russia will have faded to background noise.

Agreed. I can understand why Labour loyalists are concerned and distressed about this latest self inflicted wound by Corbyn but I really struggle to see it impacting on local government results still 7 weeks away.

Plus we know how good JC is it at campaigning and how fucking shit TM is. He will transform into Mecha-Corbz and scour the local government landscape firing anti neo-liberalism rays from his red eyes. May will stand in front of a dog shit bin for an awkward photo with some equally awkward looking tory candidates.

Jonathan said:

I would not be surprised if there isn't quiet support for Corbyn's "careful now" approach .

I said that last week.

Noone has any motive that doesnt sound ridiculous in the cold light of day unless you think of Putin as some kind of insane Bond villain that doesnt care about the massive potential blow to his country’s image in the runup to a prestigious international sporting event. Basically you have to have a mental age of 8.

As for trusting the government, where to begin.

Gardenwalker said:

Roger said:

MarqueeMark said:

Roger said:

I'm not accusing May of lying. I'm sure she believes that's what happened. I just think there may be an alternative explanation. Until we know all the facts or even enough to make a theory plausible we should hold our fire.

But what comes across, Roger, is a burning desire for there to BE an alternative explanation, against the massive weight of evidence, history and common sense. To seek to find an alternative explanation requires special pleading heaped on special pleading, with a nice crispy side-order of special pleading. It's also the thin veneer being used by those who caused these events to protect them from the outright condemnation they deserve.

We ask our juries to convict not on the basis of absolute knowledge, but of beyond reasonable doubt. You are trying to get an acquittal on the basis of unreasonble doubt. Knock it off.

I'm not looking for an alternative explanation just wanting the explanation we have to make sense. Even a little bit of sense. As soon as the police fill in the blanks we can all let loose

But what doesn’t make sense?

I find it interesting that turnout in the Russian election was only 60%. Once you get less than that, questions may be raised about strength of support.

The attempted Skripal hit - or more accurately, the necessary Western response, allows Putin to rally his “base”. And there’s one less ex-spy walking the streets which is perhaps convenient for Putin in other respects.

Given that Putin assassinated* Boris Nemtsov (and others by hook or by crook were excluded form the ballot paper), the ony way to show dissent against Putin was by not voting. THAT was the subversive thing to do in this election. That Putin's goons had to stuff ballot boxes show just how effective they feared that was being. Even then, "turnout was only 60%". So yes, questions can be asked about the strength of support for the strong man.

A counterfactual of Nemtsov facing Putin would have been fascinating.

*Other opinions as to what happened are possible. If you are a Putin stooge.

JWisemann said:

Noone has any motive that doesnt sound ridiculous in the cold light of day unless you think of Putin as some kind of insane Bond villain that doesnt care about the massive potential blow to his country’s image in the runup to a prestigious international sporting event. Basically you have to have a mental age of 8.

As for trusting the government, where to begin.

Colder than Moscow today here in Devon. And if you weren't strapped into your seat in the troll farm bunker, you'd see it is a beautiful sunny day out there....

https://www.webcams.travel/webcam/fullscreen/1428614761

I doubt it will make too much difference especially with traditional Labour voters but fear of Corbyn support for Putin and the Kremlin and the return of the hard Left in London boroughs could be enough to ensure the Tories keep control of their wealthy West End flagship boroughs like Westminster, Wandsworth and Kensington and Chelsea which were otherwise at risk of falling to Labour

As I've said, I largely agree with Corbyn's response to the affair. But as usual I think Sean F has a soberly realistic view - the affair has benefited the Tories slightly and damaged Labour slightly. In general any kind of perceived foreign threat benefits the government in power, and it plays to May's strengths (sober, dry presentation) and it gives the Mail and Sun an opportunity to air their views about Corbyn in lavish detail. The reason it's not had more effect is that "Corbyn isn't your conventional patriot" (to put it neutrally) is pretty well priced in - most people know that, and either they like it or they don't or they feel it's irrelevant to what matters to them.

Corbyn's reaction to criticism is to calmly state his views again. McDonnell is much more of a conventional politician despite his image in some quarters and more willing to tack to the wind. There is a market for polite consistency, though, and I'm not convinced that any lasting effect will materialise.

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

I strongly disagree with Corbyn's line but very much doubt this will affect the polling markedly. There's a Trump element here - to a large extent, the fact that the "political and media establishment" has attacked Corbyn for his knee-jerk reaction is likely to galvanise his support... even though the establishment are right on this one.

Labour will clearly do very well in May. 2014 was a relatively poor year for Miliband's Labour - 31% and 2% lead. Labour will far exceed that this year, particularly given London is a large voting area and is good for Corbyn.

Will they? Labour led most polls before the May 2014 local elections and won them by 2%.

Now the Tories are ahead in most polls after the Russian affair and it is not impossible Labour could even lose seats to the Tories

NickPalmer said:

As I've said, I largely agree with Corbyn's response to the affair. But as usual I think Sean F has a soberly realistic view - the affair has benefited the Tories slightly and damaged Labour slightly. In general any kind of perceived foreign threat benefits the government in power, and it plays to May's strengths (sober, dry presentation) and it gives the Mail and Sun an opportunity to air their views about Corbyn in lavish detail. The reason it's not had more effect is that "Corbyn isn't your conventional patriot" (to put it neutrally) is pretty well priced in - most people know that, and either they like it or they don't or they feel it's irrelevant to what matters to them.

Corbyn's reaction to criticism is to calmly state his views again. McDonnell is much more of a conventional politician despite his image in some quarters and more willing to tack to the wind. There is a market for polite consistency, though, and I'm not convinced that any lasting effect will materialise.

Yep, the Tory baseline of 40% of the vote is priced in. That pretty much ensures Labour cannot win the next general election. McDonnell - who really wants to get into power - clearly understands this.

Jonathan said:

I would not be surprised if there isn't quiet support for Corbyn's "careful now" approach .

Corbyn's not arguing to be careful, he's essentially arguing to do nothing by letting the Russian's analyse the sample themselves, allowing them to present a pack of lies, and treating that as of equal merit to his own country's analysis.

SouthamObserver said:

NickPalmer said:

As I've said, I largely agree with Corbyn's response to the affair. But as usual I think Sean F has a soberly realistic view - the affair has benefited the Tories slightly and damaged Labour slightly. In general any kind of perceived foreign threat benefits the government in power, and it plays to May's strengths (sober, dry presentation) and it gives the Mail and Sun an opportunity to air their views about Corbyn in lavish detail. The reason it's not had more effect is that "Corbyn isn't your conventional patriot" (to put it neutrally) is pretty well priced in - most people know that, and either they like it or they don't or they feel it's irrelevant to what matters to them.

Corbyn's reaction to criticism is to calmly state his views again. McDonnell is much more of a conventional politician despite his image in some quarters and more willing to tack to the wind. There is a market for polite consistency, though, and I'm not convinced that any lasting effect will materialise.

Yep, the Tory baseline of 40% of the vote is priced in. That pretty much ensures Labour cannot win the next general election. McDonnell - who really wants to get into power - clearly understands this.

Corbyn would be unlikely to win a majority in England and Wales where the Tories won a majority at the general election, no. That is even more the case in England where the Tories had a majority of about 60 last June.

If he does become PM it would likely be with the votes of Scottish MPs and confidence and supply from the SNP.

Mr Wiseman,

Putin has a very good motive.

He's telling any potential Russian rebels not to spy for a foreign nations. Wherever you run to, he'll hunt you down and kill you, and this may mean killing your family too. He's also sending a message to the voters that he'll stand up for this country whatever it takes. Very timely during election time.

Smart politics for him. And he assumes the rest of the world will make a ritual condemnation and then look away, like they did before - the Crimea is now effectively part of Russia, as are bits of the Ukraine.

Didn't the nascent Jezza-boys accuse Thatcher of starting a war to court popularity during the Falklands?