politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » An authoritarian Tory government will undo Cameron’s early

CarlottaVance said:

JosiasJessop said:

malcolmg said:

JosiasJessop said:

malcolmg said:

JosiasJessop said:

malcolmg said:

JosiasJessop said:

malcolmg said:

Ha Ha Ha , game over when you are using the Mail as your evidence. Poor billionaire gets upset that a few people have placards outside his house , but JJ happy that he can sack hundreds without giving a hoot and wants to restrict the workers from having any say whatsoever.

Thugs are thugs. Even if they are union thugs or Scottish thugs.

You last bit is very telling, sore loser you resort to your bigotry. I presume you had their nationality checked out.

So you're denying that 'Scottish thugs' are not thugs? Are Scottish thugs some form of enlightened higher life form in your mind?

Or are they just lowlife scum, just like English or Welsh thugs?

I just wondered why you highlighted "Scottish Thugs" all of a sudden when it was never in the discussion. We were talking about people with placards and had never mentioned nationality. From what I saw of the "incident " a few people with placards were on the pavement and did very little so not sure that makes them "THUGS" but even so to get that to "Scottish THUGS " takes some doing even for you.

Malc, you've obviously missed the many times on here that I've mentioned my love for Scotland and the Scottish people. Something that I doubt you've said about England, the English or particularly London.

And are you saying there are no such things as 'Scottish thugs' ?

JJ, I have not missed it and of course a Scottish thug is no better than any other nationality of thug. I just wonder how you got from pickets as thugs to them being Scottish thugs. Why did you bring up "Scottish", you never mentioned that in your replies to others.

You really are trying very hard to be aggrieved here. It's quite entertaining.

If the Nats could bottle (and sell) 'Taking Offence' they'd make a fortune......

Meanwhile James, late of this Parish, ponders on the Corgasm on the SNP's chances:

http://www.thenational.scot/comment/james-kelly-corbyn-will-inject-a-dose-of-unpredictability-into-the-holyrood-race.7550

While David Torrance reviews the death of the SNP's 'Red Tories' meme:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/nicola-sturgeon-no-longer-has-a-monopoly-on-authenticity-10499157.html

Has there ever been a more ill informed comment than the first under James' article??!

(don't say "I could think of almost 16 thousand!")

TheScreamingEagles said:

Justine Greening for next Prime Minister, she's got my vote.

How many women will be Tory PMs before Labour get around to it?

Mr. Ghedebrav, Hunt would be an improvement in the incumbent.

Mr. Eagles, some of us have been saying that for years.

Good to see you back, hope business is still on the up.

currystar said:

My first post for a few months.

Jeremy Corbyn's appointment as leader of the Labour Party is the most bizzare appointment by a political party in the past century. He will be a unmitigated disaster as leader. And as for the shadow chancellor! A political party with a very left wing agenda cannot win an election in the UK. The lunatics have really taken over the asylum. The tories and lib dems must be like Cheshire Cats today.

I will be amazed of Labour put up with him for more than a year. If he is leader at the next election, Labour could be down to less than 150 seats.

Cyclefree said:

glw said:

Hilary Benn had seemed to be a basically decent man, I'm surprised he's having anything to do with this farce.

So am I. Am also surprised by Falconer. He has a very well paid job at a US law firm. Why would he need the grief?

There's quite a big difference between temperamental moderates who know Corbyn personally and moderates who don't. A lot of the former, like me, trust him to be reasonable even where they don't agree on something.

Plato_Says said:

Not sending out a good wishes message on Jewish NY is just one example. I am giving the benefit of the doubt to cock-up rather than intent here.

You must have missed it, but Corbyn did send a good wishes message on Jewish NY.

CarlottaVance said:

Or has even had Media training?

Perhaps NPexMP can clarify whether that's something back benchers get.....?

No, backbenchers (and for all I know front-benchers) don't get training in ANYTHING. Not even in quite basic things like where the loos are or how to attract the Speaker's eye. You work it out as you go along. Or not.

I had media training when I worked in industry - the first time I saw myself interviewed in a training session it was devastating (and that's what a lot of people say about their training). I never got brilliant at it, but it certainly helped.

I read Gloria de Piero was offered shadow defence.

Four years selling pacifism with 20,000 tory and UKIP voters in your constituency?

Hmmn....

This is just too much fun.

Jim Pickard ‏@PickardJE 3 mins3 minutes ago

Hearing that Luciana Berger will have a job attending shadow cabinet.
Michael Dugher getting culture.
Gloria de Piero was offered defence.

Gloria de Piero- Defence?!?!?

I'll bet there isn't a shadow minister for Syrian refugees yet. Cameron's always one step head...

NickPalmer said:

CarlottaVance said:

Or has even had Media training?

Perhaps NPexMP can clarify whether that's something back benchers get.....?

No, backbenchers (and for all I know front-benchers) don't get training in ANYTHING. Not even in quite basic things like where the loos are or how to attract the Speaker's eye. You work it out as you go along. Or not.

I had media training when I worked in industry - the first time I saw myself interviewed in a training session it was devastating (and that's what a lot of people say about their training). I never got brilliant at it, but it certainly helped.

I'm surprised - I'd have thought it was a basic skill the parties would organise. I too had media training in industry - its a LOT harder than it looks! So many pitfalls! I had one colleague whose throwaway remark to the reporter as he was seeing him out the door turn into a front page splash 'I thought the interview was over.....'

Slackbladder said:

Jim Pickard ‏@PickardJE 3 mins3 minutes ago

Hearing that Luciana Berger will have a job attending shadow cabinet.
Michael Dugher getting culture.
Gloria de Piero was offered defence.

Gloria de Piero- Defence?!?!?

She'd get the forces vote plus she's a good media performer.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/03/14/article-2580587-04F5285B0000044D-683_306x423.jpg

''She'd get the forces vote plus she's a good media performer.''

Selling pacifism and ceding the Falklands...???

A turd is a turd, doesn;t matter who polishes it.

That's very Sir Humphrey!

CarlottaVance said:

NickPalmer said:

CarlottaVance said:

Or has even had Media training?

Perhaps NPexMP can clarify whether that's something back benchers get.....?

No, backbenchers (and for all I know front-benchers) don't get training in ANYTHING. Not even in quite basic things like where the loos are or how to attract the Speaker's eye. You work it out as you go along. Or not.

I had media training when I worked in industry - the first time I saw myself interviewed in a training session it was devastating (and that's what a lot of people say about their training). I never got brilliant at it, but it certainly helped.

I'm surprised - I'd have thought it was a basic skill the parties would organise. I too had media training in industry - its a LOT harder than it looks! So many pitfalls! I had one colleague whose throwaway remark to the reporter as he was seeing him out the door turn into a front page splash 'I thought the interview was over.....'

taffys said:

''She'd get the forces vote plus she's a good media performer.''

Selling pacifism and ceding the Falklands...???

A turd is a turd, doesn;t matter who polishes it.

You think a leader promising not to get involved with wars will go down badly with the British Armed forces after the last 15 years or so?

Titter.......

http://www.capx.co/did-willie-whitelaw-embed-jeremy-corbyn-as-a-tory-agent-in-1982/

TheScreamingEagles said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The Labour Party is seeing more go out than a humiliating cricket collapse.

60 all out bad?

The Oz PM could be all out soon... They seem to have more party leadership elections than we do.

You think a leader promising not to get involved with wars will go down badly with the British Armed forces after the last 15 years or so?

Absolutely.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Blimey, HenryG is in a bad way, which is understandable I guess. This article, in all its wrong-headedness, is actually a very good indicator of what a complete mess Labour are it - a mess of which Corbyn is a symptom, not a primary cause.

Still, the article was a good laugh. I particularly enjoyed the attack on Cameron for calling Corbyn 'a threat to national security'. Err, Henry, has it not occurred to you that the reason we don't expect a Prime Minister to use language like that about the Leader of the Opposition is that this is the first Leader of the Opposition in living memory about whom it's an entirely reasonable thing to say?

I do agree. HG's tribal piece is a demonstration of the extent of Labour denial which still exists amongst what would have been thought of as sensible lefties and seems to be extending if JC's "election" is anything to go by. Policies formulated within a void ignoring history and practicalities produces unworkable policies, like virtually all those extolled by JC.

I think it is worth repeating once again what a terrible thing for British politics and for democracy the Corbyn election really is. Whilst we many of us like to joke about him and laugh at the Labour party going down the drain, the fact is that under the current system, Parliamentary democracy needs an effective and electable Opposition party to hold the Government to account. For all the desperate pleas of the Labour faithful, Corbyn and his shadow cabinet cannot provide that. Not now, not ever. Britain - or at least England and Wales, and I believe on balance Scotland as well - is not a radical left wing country and will not vote for a radical left wing Government.

Effectively the Tories have been given carte blanche to pursue their agenda with no fear of effective party based opposition. The only real opposition I can see coming is from individual MPs - both Tory and Labour - who hold service to the country to be more important than service to the party. I fear this will make for not only bad opposition but, as a result, potentially bad government as well.

@BBCNormanS: I thought long and hard before accepting post as Shadow Health Sec but its important the party comes together - Heidi Alexander

Mr. Tyndall, I agree. Labour have buggered themselves, but they've also harmed the body politic in general. We need an opposition that isn't crackers.

david_herdson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TOPPING said:

@TheScreamingEagles

If Dave engages in so much as a smidge of bonhomie or smiles at all at any time unless it is laughing at, not with Jezza on Wednesday at midday I might resign from the Conservative Party.

No Dave has to play it nice with Corbyn on Wednesday. Has to welcome to his role.

I'm not sure he has to play it nice, though he does have to play it straight and civil. It would be a mistake to go for the man when it's so easily (and proper) to play the ball.

I suggest he'll leave everything he can and be canny with anything he can't. JC is a change bowler who presents little threat by himself so would be extremely embarrassing to get out to.

Richard_Tyndall said:

I think it is worth repeating once again what a terrible thing for British politics and for democracy the Corbyn election really is. Whilst we many of us like to joke about him and laugh at the Labour party going down the drain, the fact is that under the current system, Parliamentary democracy needs an effective and electable Opposition party to hold the Government to account. For all the desperate pleas of the Labour faithful, Corbyn and his shadow cabinet cannot provide that. Not now, not ever. Britain - or at least England and Wales, and I believe on balance Scotland as well - is not a radical left wing country and will not vote for a radical left wing Government.

Effectively the Tories have been given carte blanche to pursue their agenda with no fear of effective party based opposition. The only real opposition I can see coming is from individual MPs - both Tory and Labour - who hold service to the country to be more important than service to the party. I fear this will make for not only bad opposition but, as a result, potentially bad government as well.

I think we'll end up with two oppositions - an ideological opposition (Corbyn) and a practical opposition (MPs scrutinising legislation against local/specialist concerns). Given the constant complaints of 'there's no difference between Labour and Tory' I don't think that's a bad thing. We can have a genuine debate about philosophy and proper scrutiny of policy.

Some vox pops from my feedback to give the flavour. Summary - lots of churn. The largest feedback I've had since the election - scores of replies, of which these are a representative sample.

Local doctor who voted LibDem in 2010 and Green in 2015:
"His acceptance speech was brilliant. It was the first time for 20 years+ that I had heard a speech made by a labour leader which was aimed at the Labour party and addressed issues rather than being bland so as not to alienate the Daily Mail. Recognising that he will never appeal to the Mail but could rejuvenate both the Labour Party and get young people involved with politics is inspiring. Interestingly my three 24-29 yo children who are interested but switched off by the lack of choice, were really inspired by him."

Tory who considered voting for me as he did in 2005, but didn't in 2010 or 2015:
"For all of your rhetoric you are so wrong and confirms my decision for not voting for you in the last election."

David Miliband supporter, voted Lab reluctantly in 2015:
"I fear that the election of a leader who had the support of only a handful of MPs and under whom several current shadow ministers will refuse to serve, will be a disaster for the party. I know that a week is a long time in politics but with the (almost) demise of the Lib Dems we could be in for a very long period of Tory government before the centre left sorts itself out."

Apolitical local Civic Society member who sometimes doesn't vote:
"Some sanity needs to come back into politics and he seems a real bloke, not like the majority of who we have now. It will be interesting to see what happens. If nothing else it will show certain factions that the voting public think they all need a big shake up and they need to live in the real world, not the rarefied atmosphere they live in. I think the fools who have stood down and the others that will not back him have shown they have no idea how the public feels about politics and that they can carry on regardless."

John_M said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

taffys said:

''She'd get the forces vote plus she's a good media performer.''

Selling pacifism and ceding the Falklands...???

A turd is a turd, doesn;t matter who polishes it.

You think a leader promising not to get involved with wars will go down badly with the British Armed forces after the last 15 years or so?

I can only suppose you don't know many forces people.

You would be wrong.

Richard_Tyndall said:

I think it is worth repeating once again what a terrible thing for British politics and for democracy the Corbyn election really is. Whilst we many of us like to joke about him and laugh at the Labour party going down the drain, the fact is that under the current system, Parliamentary democracy needs an effective and electable Opposition party to hold the Government to account. For all the desperate pleas of the Labour faithful, Corbyn and his shadow cabinet cannot provide that. Not now, not ever. Britain - or at least England and Wales, and I believe on balance Scotland as well - is not a radical left wing country and will not vote for a radical left wing Government.

Effectively the Tories have been given carte blanche to pursue their agenda with no fear of effective party based opposition. The only real opposition I can see coming is from individual MPs - both Tory and Labour - who hold service to the country to be more important than service to the party. I fear this will make for not only bad opposition but, as a result, potentially bad government as well.

Spot on. All the things Henry complains about. No-one now cares what Labour has to say about them. A party with no hope of forming an alternative government is irrelevant. The Tory leadership will have to work hard to keep its political radar intact.

As things stand, in 2020 we may be heading to the lowest general election turnout ever.

That said, JC is likely to be long gone by then.

I'm expecting a shadow Shadow Cabinet to operate from the back benches

TudorRose said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

I think it is worth repeating once again what a terrible thing for British politics and for democracy the Corbyn election really is. Whilst we many of us like to joke about him and laugh at the Labour party going down the drain, the fact is that under the current system, Parliamentary democracy needs an effective and electable Opposition party to hold the Government to account. For all the desperate pleas of the Labour faithful, Corbyn and his shadow cabinet cannot provide that. Not now, not ever. Britain - or at least England and Wales, and I believe on balance Scotland as well - is not a radical left wing country and will not vote for a radical left wing Government.

Effectively the Tories have been given carte blanche to pursue their agenda with no fear of effective party based opposition. The only real opposition I can see coming is from individual MPs - both Tory and Labour - who hold service to the country to be more important than service to the party. I fear this will make for not only bad opposition but, as a result, potentially bad government as well.

I think we'll end up with two oppositions - an ideological opposition (Corbyn) and a practical opposition (MPs scrutinising legislation against local/specialist concerns). Given the constant complaints of 'there's no difference between Labour and Tory' I don't think that's a bad thing. We can have a genuine debate about philosophy and proper scrutiny of policy.

currystar said:

In the spirit of balance perhaps the tories might elect Philip Hollobone as leader with Peter Bone as Chancellor

Mrs Bone can be the token woman in the cabinet.

I'm expecting a shadow Shadow Cabinet to operate from the back benches

Trouble is, its difficult for good labour MPs to scrutinise the government when they can be discredited with a simple

'and would you agree with your own leader Jeremy Corbyn that...''

Richard_Tyndall said:

I think it is worth repeating once again what a terrible thing for British politics and for democracy the Corbyn election really is. Whilst we many of us like to joke about him and laugh at the Labour party going down the drain, the fact is that under the current system, Parliamentary democracy needs an effective and electable Opposition party to hold the Government to account. For all the desperate pleas of the Labour faithful, Corbyn and his shadow cabinet cannot provide that. Not now, not ever. Britain - or at least England and Wales, and I believe on balance Scotland as well - is not a radical left wing country and will not vote for a radical left wing Government.

Effectively the Tories have been given carte blanche to pursue their agenda with no fear of effective party based opposition. The only real opposition I can see coming is from individual MPs - both Tory and Labour - who hold service to the country to be more important than service to the party. I fear this will make for not only bad opposition but, as a result, potentially bad government as well.

You seem to be forgetting the Lords, Mr. Tyndall. That will be the place that causes the government to think through hastily drafted and, sometimes, wrong-headed legislation. The elected government will be held to account by the unelected chamber and probably far more effectively than by even a functioning opposition party in the commons.

Had others been granted their wish and the Lords had been abolished then we really would be in an elected dictatorship. As it is we do have some checks and balances in the system.

taffys said:

You think a leader promising not to get involved with wars will go down badly with the British Armed forces after the last 15 years or so?

Absolutely.

Quite, and to think otherwise is to totally misunderstand the people in our armed forces.

Jim Waterson @jimwaterson
Understand Tories spending £££ buying YouTube/Facebook ads for this Corbyn attack vid across UK & not just marginals

Clearly going in brutal is the name of the game.

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

I think it is worth repeating once again what a terrible thing for British politics and for democracy the Corbyn election really is. Whilst we many of us like to joke about him and laugh at the Labour party going down the drain, the fact is that under the current system, Parliamentary democracy needs an effective and electable Opposition party to hold the Government to account. For all the desperate pleas of the Labour faithful, Corbyn and his shadow cabinet cannot provide that. Not now, not ever. Britain - or at least England and Wales, and I believe on balance Scotland as well - is not a radical left wing country and will not vote for a radical left wing Government.

Effectively the Tories have been given carte blanche to pursue their agenda with no fear of effective party based opposition. The only real opposition I can see coming is from individual MPs - both Tory and Labour - who hold service to the country to be more important than service to the party. I fear this will make for not only bad opposition but, as a result, potentially bad government as well.

As far as the latter is concerned I thought you wanted greater MP independence of thought and less of a whipped vote. The Labour Party by electing a 500x rebel is going down the road of doing exactly that.

I did and I had that in mind as I wrote that comment. The problem is that greater independence of MPs requires a change in the system to limit the power of the whips applying to all sides of the House. Having one side implode whilst the other maintains its power within the rules as they currently stand does not achieve anything beyond giving far more effective power to the Government.

Philip_Thompson said:

The Labour Party is seeing more go out than a humiliating cricket collapse.

to be fair that has to be true of anything over 10 but I would suggest that humiliation starts much lower than that, especially if top order is involved.

The Corbyn meltdown is so just predictable ; he never intended to be leader and was never remotely qualified but he got caught up by the messianic gullibility of the Leftist voters ; now he must pay the price ...public humiliation and forced resignation ...Furthermore , I suspect it going to come much sooner than any of us ever imagined

Some MPs are appalled - one told the BBC "it is a disgrace - there's only one thing worse than being ignored in politics and that's being laughed at"

taffys said:

I'm expecting a shadow Shadow Cabinet to operate from the back benches

Trouble is, its difficult for good labour MPs to scrutinise the government when they can be discredited with a simple

'and would you agree with your own leader Jeremy Corbyn that...''

Well Tom Watson on TV yesterday publicly disagreed with his leader on defence issues and nobody made a fuss. Possibly that was because too many people were too busy pissing themselves laughing to notice, but even so having a deputy leader say he thought the leader was wrong on a major issue ought to have created a little stir.

Steve Richards waffling on and on and on, on DP BBC2 today adding no insight and of very limited value. Talking about the GE being years away and lots of time.... re Blairites/Progress "I think they are going to keep their heads down and say nothing".
Really?

Toby Young @toadmeister
Lucy Powell turned down DECC, saying "she wanted something to do with childcare”. So made Shadow Education Secretary bit.ly/1NrobQN

TudorRose said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

I think it is worth repeating once again what a terrible thing for British politics and for democracy the Corbyn election really is. Whilst we many of us like to joke about him and laugh at the Labour party going down the drain, the fact is that under the current system, Parliamentary democracy needs an effective and electable Opposition party to hold the Government to account. For all the desperate pleas of the Labour faithful, Corbyn and his shadow cabinet cannot provide that. Not now, not ever. Britain - or at least England and Wales, and I believe on balance Scotland as well - is not a radical left wing country and will not vote for a radical left wing Government.

Effectively the Tories have been given carte blanche to pursue their agenda with no fear of effective party based opposition. The only real opposition I can see coming is from individual MPs - both Tory and Labour - who hold service to the country to be more important than service to the party. I fear this will make for not only bad opposition but, as a result, potentially bad government as well.

I think we'll end up with two oppositions - an ideological opposition (Corbyn) and a practical opposition (MPs scrutinising legislation against local/specialist concerns). Given the constant complaints of 'there's no difference between Labour and Tory' I don't think that's a bad thing. We can have a genuine debate about philosophy and proper scrutiny of policy.

But no 'alternative government' opposition.

SouthamObserver said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

I think it is worth repeating once again what a terrible thing for British politics and for democracy the Corbyn election really is. Whilst we many of us like to joke about him and laugh at the Labour party going down the drain, the fact is that under the current system, Parliamentary democracy needs an effective and electable Opposition party to hold the Government to account. For all the desperate pleas of the Labour faithful, Corbyn and his shadow cabinet cannot provide that. Not now, not ever. Britain - or at least England and Wales, and I believe on balance Scotland as well - is not a radical left wing country and will not vote for a radical left wing Government.

Effectively the Tories have been given carte blanche to pursue their agenda with no fear of effective party based opposition. The only real opposition I can see coming is from individual MPs - both Tory and Labour - who hold service to the country to be more important than service to the party. I fear this will make for not only bad opposition but, as a result, potentially bad government as well.

Spot on. All the things Henry complains about. No-one now cares what Labour has to say about them. A party with no hope of forming an alternative government is irrelevant. The Tory leadership will have to work hard to keep its political radar intact.

As things stand, in 2020 we may be heading to the lowest general election turnout ever.

That said, JC is likely to be long gone by then.

I agree with both of you. The Tories may only have a small majority but without any opposition to speak of the right wing loonies could assert themselves. The Euro referendum would be an ideal opportunity for that to happen and Corbyn may even exacerbate that.

Plato_Says said:

Jim Waterson @jimwaterson
Understand Tories spending £££ buying YouTube/Facebook ads for this Corbyn attack vid across UK & not just marginals

Clearly going in brutal is the name of the game.

It has to be.

Jezza is far from cuddly, far from someone that anyone sane can do business with, and deserves no quarter given. EdM I get as a human being. Jezza? Nope.

I would rejoice if Cam on Weds started with a cold-eyed insult and firmed up from there.

Headline of the Telegraph "Labour leader appoints man who wanted to assassinate Thatcher"

The gift that keeps on giving

CarlottaVance said:

We still don't have:

Shadow Defence Secretary ?
Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary ?
Shadow Energy Secretary ?
Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment ?
Shadow Communities Secretary ?
Shadow Culture Secretary ?
Shadow Secretary of State for Transport ?
Shadow Secretary of State for Wales ?

This isn't amateur hour, it's amateur 24 hours.

Beverley_C said:

isam said:

HurstLlama said:

taffys said:

You think a leader promising not to get involved with wars will go down badly with the British Armed forces after the last 15 years or so?

Absolutely.

Quite, and to think otherwise is to totally misunderstand the people in our armed forces.

Well someone has misunderstood...

There was me thinking people in the army were doing it to pay the bills

Somehow, the recruiting slogan of "Army - be the billpayer" does not sound like a winner for getting young men and women into HM Forces..

Having a bloke in charge that ultimately wants there to be no armed forces would be a real boon for them

I'm sure Henry predicted the general response to his piece would be this, but I'm glad for it. I still disagree with its focus, if not the premise in a hypothetical sense, but variety is good.

SouthamObserver said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

I think it is worth repeating once again what a terrible thing for British politics and for democracy the Corbyn election really is. Whilst we many of us like to joke about him and laugh at the Labour party going down the drain, the fact is that under the current system, Parliamentary democracy needs an effective and electable Opposition party to hold the Government to account. For all the desperate pleas of the Labour faithful, Corbyn and his shadow cabinet cannot provide that. Not now, not ever. Britain - or at least England and Wales, and I believe on balance Scotland as well - is not a radical left wing country and will not vote for a radical left wing Government.

Effectively the Tories have been given carte blanche to pursue their agenda with no fear of effective party based opposition. The only real opposition I can see coming is from individual MPs - both Tory and Labour - who hold service to the country to be more important than service to the party. I fear this will make for not only bad opposition but, as a result, potentially bad government as well.

Spot on. All the things Henry complains about. No-one now cares what Labour has to say about them. A party with no hope of forming an alternative government is irrelevant. The Tory leadership will have to work hard to keep its political radar intact.

As things stand, in 2020 we may be heading to the lowest general election turnout ever.

That said, JC is likely to be long gone by then.

JC will always be with us in spirit.

PS Yes, I am inordinately amused with the Christ/Corbyn comparison.

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Steve Richards waffling on and on and on, on DP BBC2 today adding no insight and of very limited value. Talking about the GE being years away and lots of time.... re Blairites/Progress "I think they are going to keep their heads down and say nothing".
Really?

Corbyn is busily messing things up after just a couple of days. He's best left to get on with that.