Sorry to be a total pedant, but it just says Trinity College in that article, so she might have been at Trinity College, Dublin or Trinity College, Oxford.
(Yes: I realise that Andy Burnham went to Cambridge, but he was at Fitzwilliam. And girls from Trinity College Cambridge, Tory or not, do not kiss boys from Fitzwilliam.)
Not really. The Trident thing shows that Corbyn isn't remotely interested in debate or carrying a message to the voters, or even to the party. Less still is he interested in accommodating his views or compromise.
The idea is you just agree with him. Or you get replaced by someone who does.
Yet in the post that immediately follows yours, I claim his main problem is that he is compromising...
okc Do you ever wonder why the McCann parents were never prosecuted for child neglect..If it had been a couple from some Northern hell hole they would have done time and the other kids put into care..They went to the pub and left the kids unattended..but they were Doctors..
Sorry to be a total pedant, but it just says Trinity College in that article, so she might have been at Trinity College, Dublin or Trinity College, Oxford.
(Yes: I realise that Andy Burnham went to Cambridge, but he was at Fitzwilliam. And girls from Trinity College Cambridge, Tory or not, do not kiss boys from Fitzwilliam.)
From my experience, they kiss everyone else though.
At least he can remember. Unlike some I could (but won’t) mention. Not sure I can remember all the girls I kissed in my student days, but they were a long time ago!
Not really. The Trident thing shows that Corbyn isn't remotely interested in debate or carrying a message to the voters, or even to the party. Less still is he interested in accommodating his views or compromise.
The idea is you just agree with him. Or you get replaced by someone who does.
Welcome to far left politics. Agree with the leader or you are out. UKIP works much the same.
''Yet in the post that immediately follows yours, I claim his main problem is that he is compromising...
Indeed!! He seems to be compromising, but does the party have any policies as such? on anything? Or is it all still up for 'debate'........ie until I can get enough people to agree with me.
Not really. The Trident thing shows that Corbyn isn't remotely interested in debate or carrying a message to the voters, or even to the party. Less still is he interested in accommodating his views or compromise.
The idea is you just agree with him. Or you get replaced by someone who does.
Welcome to far left politics. Agree with the leader or you are out. UKIP works much the same.
"Out" as in out of the party? Or "out" as in, taken out and shot?
okc Do you ever wonder why the McCann parents were never prosecuted for child neglect..If it had been a couple from some Northern hell hole they would have done time and the other kids put into care..They went to the pub and left the kids unattended..but they were Doctors..
Yup. Some people can abandon their children in the pub too. And apparently think it’s quite funny! Not even a visit from Social Services!
I think a lot of people have the impression about Corbyn that because he wears linen suits sometimes and appears to be an eccentric he is as such some kind of academic, as those two ideas are linked together due to television. But he isn't, he is not well educated, well read and nor has he written up a solid theory about politics in anything more advanced than a few pamphlets for stop the war.
He has not intellectual presence at all from what I've seen, he didn't sit on the back benches biding his time for his great theories to be born out in front of the masses. He sat on his backside doing local pastoral care in his constituency, thinking about nothing else but what he thought about back in the late 1970's.
Not really. The Trident thing shows that Corbyn isn't remotely interested in debate or carrying a message to the voters, or even to the party. Less still is he interested in accommodating his views or compromise.
The idea is you just agree with him. Or you get replaced by someone who does.
Welcome to far left politics. Agree with the leader or you are out. UKIP works much the same.
"Out" as in out of the party? Or "out" as in, taken out and shot?
It very much depends on whether the party is in power or not!
Another point, the attacks on the MSM that he makes make cheer his supporters but in reality the press are weaker now than ever and will only get weaker. Attacking them, heavily regulating them changes very little in the long term. It's solving a problem that is solving itself already.
OKC I suppose you are referring to the Camerons ..Where on leaving the pub the daughter went to the toilet .. one parent thought she was with the other one..she was recovered five mins later.. certainly not abandoned...I guess you must be the perfect parent..well done..
Sorry to be a total pedant, but it just says Trinity College in that article, so she might have been at Trinity College, Dublin or Trinity College, Oxford.
(Yes: I realise that Andy Burnham went to Cambridge, but he was at Fitzwilliam. And girls from Trinity College Cambridge, Tory or not, do not kiss boys from Fitzwilliam.)
Sorry to be a total pedant, but it just says Trinity College in that article, so she might have been at Trinity College, Dublin or Trinity College, Oxford.
(Yes: I realise that Andy Burnham went to Cambridge, but he was at Fitzwilliam. And girls from Trinity College Cambridge, Tory or not, do not kiss boys from Fitzwilliam.)
From the video it looks like Russia is using anti personnel bomblets as well as missiles and heavier bombs.
Go, Vladimir, GO.
Kill them all, you weirdly brilliant bare-chested Slavic homo-tyrant.
I quite admire Putin. It's quite something to have such utter control over the politics, media and civil life of your country. He's an operator.
I still disagree with him, though. Such power rarely leads to anything other than evil.
Putin isn't evil. He's a fairly thuggish autocrat, with a ruthless streak - but by the standards of Russian hard men - Ivan the Terrible to Stalin - he's positively benign, if not metrosexual, the Nick Clegg of historic Russian politics.
I carefully didn't say he was evil; I said the power he yields rarely leads to anything other than evil. Even with good intentions, such power leads, directly or indirectly, to awful outcomes.
Look at Blair, who in 1997 had nearly unparalleled power in British politics.
Lord Acton said it better - Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely
OKC I suppose you are referring to the CAMERONS ..Where on leaving the pub the daughter went to the toilet .. one parent thought she was with the other one..she was recovered five mins later.. certainly not abandoned...I guess you must be the perfect parent..well done..
Now our children are adults, yes, all three have, at one time or another, said we were.
Are any of their supporters happy that Labour's current position on Trident is to pay for it but to promise not to use it? If they are happy with that then they're stupider than I imagined possible.
I warm to anyone willing to slot those rape-Nazi Islamogoons. Even, yes, Vladimir "probably shaves his chest" Putin.
Trouble is, Putin may not be bombing ISIS. He may be bombing US backed moderates in Syria.
And that is f8cking serious, if true.
Who cares. American policy is a total failure in the Mid East. A total and calamitous failure, from the second Gulf War through Libya to encouraging the Arab Spring to not-quite-dealing-with-ISIS as it was "Junior League". Or so Obama thought.
With all due respect to the leader of the Free World, F*ck off, America. America's days as global policeman are drawing to a natural close, perhaps at the right time,
And maybe now it's the moment for a more ruthless, regional actor to get the job done and kill those ISIS rats. Difficult to see how Syria could get any WORSE.
The bombings today appear not to be in IS controlled areas:
Are any of their supporters happy that Labour's current position on Trident is to pay for it but to promise not to use it? If they are happy with that then they're stupider than I imagined possible.
No good asking Labour supporters, they've all gone mad.
Sorry to be a total pedant, but it just says Trinity College in that article, so she might have been at Trinity College, Dublin or Trinity College, Oxford.
(Yes: I realise that Andy Burnham went to Cambridge, but he was at Fitzwilliam. And girls from Trinity College Cambridge, Tory or not, do not kiss boys from Fitzwilliam.)
Speaking from experience?
It is a truth universally acknowledged.
I will take your word for it, but student romances don't normally lead to marriage
I warm to anyone willing to slot those rape-Nazi Islamogoons. Even, yes, Vladimir "probably shaves his chest" Putin.
Trouble is, Putin may not be bombing ISIS. He may be bombing US backed moderates in Syria.
And that is f8cking serious, if true.
Of more serious concern to me is the deconfliction of US, French and Russian air forces.
Which makes me wonder: have Russian and NATO forces ever fought together or in the same airspaces before without it being war? I know NATO learnt a great deal from Eastern Bloc air forces after the fall of the Berlin Wall; e.g. the Ukranian and East German flankers, but have Russian and NATO forces even done cooperative exercises before?
It seems a recipe for disaster, especially given Putin's attitude to planes being shot out of the air (or not, according to some on here).
Just to say, it's not necessarily the case that a huge increase in young turnout would only favour Labour in their safe seats. Quite a lot of the southern marginals have VERY high young populations (Milton Keynes especially comes to mind).
I think Sean F posted a while back a report showing a lot of the big southern towns are demographically becoming a lot more like London (as young leftie graduates and ethnic minorities get priced out of London itself), which could theoretically be very good news for Labour.
Just to say, it's not necessarily the case that a huge increase in young turnout would only favour Labour in their safe seats. Quite a lot of the southern marginals have VERY high young populations (Milton Keynes especially comes to mind).
I think Sean F posted a while back a report showing a lot of the big southern towns are demographically becoming a lot more like London, which could theoretically be very good news for Labour.
Give over. Labours on a one way ticket to oblivion.
There's a program on BBC2 right now called "Welcome to the Mosque". I really do hope these people are not representative of Islam in the UK. I've never seen a bunch of more backwards and sexist people in this country.
From the video it looks like Russia is using anti personnel bomblets as well as missiles and heavier bombs.
Go, Vladimir, GO.
Kill them all, you weirdly brilliant bare-chested Slavic homo-tyrant.
I quite admire Putin. It's quite something to have such utter control over the politics, media and civil life of your country. He's an operator.
I still disagree with him, though. Such power rarely leads to anything other than evil.
Putin isn't evil. He's a fairly thuggish autocrat, with a ruthless streak - but by the standards of Russian hard men - Ivan the Terrible to Stalin - he's positively benign, if not metrosexual, the Nick Clegg of historic Russian politics.
I carefully didn't say he was evil; I said the power he yields rarely leads to anything other than evil. Even with good intentions, such power leads, directly or indirectly, to awful outcomes.
Look at Blair, who in 1997 had nearly unparalleled power in British politics.
Lord Acton said it better - Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely
Just to say, it's not necessarily the case that a huge increase in young turnout would only favour Labour in their safe seats. Quite a lot of the southern marginals have VERY high young populations (Milton Keynes especially comes to mind).
I think Sean F posted a while back a report showing a lot of the big southern towns are demographically becoming a lot more like London, which could theoretically be very good news for Labour.
Give over. Labours on a one way ticket to oblivion.
Enjoy the ride..
Yes, you're right, the Tories scraping a majority this year, when led by someone far more popular than his likely successor, shows they are guaranteed landslide wins forevermore.
Re Corbyn's speech and the lukewarm response, even from lefties.
I'll be honest, I reckon I could write a barnstormer of a speech for an anti-establishment, anti-Murdoch politician like Corbyn. It wouldn't be difficult to put together a real tub-thumper to have them banging the walls. It needn't be economically coherent or aimed at the middle ground either, it could be pitched merely as an anti-establishment spectacular. One to make them go nuts.
Why didn't Corbyn do this? His effort, for want of a better word, was just boring.
I've been travelling across a Greek island so I missed the speech, but I caught up with the most important snippets yesterday.
OMGod. Perhaps the vids I saw were unrepresentative, but he was unbelievably bad - inarticulate, confused, meandering, silly. And entirely lacking in any oratorical or actorly skills whatsoever.
I confess myself, like you, bewildered. I thought the whole point of Jihadi Jez was that, if nothing else, he'd be a rabblerousing red, able to fire up the comrades with a Slay The Tories take on the Gettysburg Address.
Instead, meh.
Weird.
Indeed, Corbyn is IDS with a beard
Do you think Corbyn would have managed as a lieutenant in the British army?
Just to say, it's not necessarily the case that a huge increase in young turnout would only favour Labour in their safe seats. Quite a lot of the southern marginals have VERY high young populations (Milton Keynes especially comes to mind).
I think Sean F posted a while back a report showing a lot of the big southern towns are demographically becoming a lot more like London (as young leftie graduates and ethnic minorities get priced out of London itself), which could theoretically be very good news for Labour.
Apart from a few areas like Brighton, where 2/3 seats are Labour or Green already, that is more the case in outer London where Labour did better than average at the election in marginal seats. Most of the Kent and Essex marginals still have far more elderly and white man van voters than young graduates and ethnic minorities
It seems to me that the US can't do anything right in the eyes of some people. If they go into Iraq, they are aggressive warmongers who have screwed up the region. If they don't go into Syria, they are useless vaccillaters who have screwed up the region.
Has it occurred to SeanT that perhaps its the region itself that is to blame, rather than the US? I rather suspect that the place will still be a nightmare after Russia's intervention. Perhaps he will blame Russia then?
Although I suspect he will still find a way to blame the USA.
I warm to anyone willing to slot those rape-Nazi Islamogoons. Even, yes, Vladimir "probably shaves his chest" Putin.
Trouble is, Putin may not be bombing ISIS. He may be bombing US backed moderates in Syria.
And that is f8cking serious, if true.
Of more serious concern to me is the deconfliction of US, French and Russian air forces.
Which makes me wonder: have Russian and NATO forces ever fought together or in the same airspaces before without it being war? I know NATO learnt a great deal from Eastern Bloc air forces after the fall of the Berlin Wall; e.g. the Ukranian and East German flankers, but have Russian and NATO forces even done cooperative exercises before?
It seems a recipe for disaster, especially given Putin's attitude to planes being shot out of the air (or not, according to some on here).
If we ever thought of going to help people bring down Assad again, it would mean we were at war w Russia wouldn't it?
I warm to anyone willing to slot those rape-Nazi Islamogoons. Even, yes, Vladimir "probably shaves his chest" Putin.
Trouble is, Putin may not be bombing ISIS. He may be bombing US backed moderates in Syria.
And that is f8cking serious, if true.
Who cares. American policy is a total failure in the Mid East. A total and calamitous failure, from the second Gulf War through Libya to encouraging the Arab Spring to not-quite-dealing-with-ISIS as it was "Junior League". Or so Obama thought.
With all due respect to the leader of the Free World, F*ck off, America. America's days as global policeman are drawing to a natural close, perhaps at the right time,
And maybe now it's the moment for a more ruthless, regional actor to get the job done and kill those ISIS rats. Difficult to see how Syria could get any WORSE.
The bombings today appear not to be in IS controlled areas:
The Russians vigorously dispute this, and say they've hit both - ISIS and others.
Besides, the so-called "moderate rebels" do not exist. They are all, now, jihadis of one shade or another. The idea there is some Lib Dem voting centrist rebel group with interesting ideas on recycling the 300,000 dead doesn't really cut it.
I thought you were arguing for arming the Kurds a few months ago, when their civilians were trapped on the mountaintop? Because Assad and his Russian friends will be after them as well.
Just to say, it's not necessarily the case that a huge increase in young turnout would only favour Labour in their safe seats. Quite a lot of the southern marginals have VERY high young populations (Milton Keynes especially comes to mind).
I think Sean F posted a while back a report showing a lot of the big southern towns are demographically becoming a lot more like London, which could theoretically be very good news for Labour.
Give over. Labours on a one way ticket to oblivion.
Enjoy the ride..
Yes, you're right, the Tories scraping a majority this year, when led by someone far more popular than his likely successor, shows they are guaranteed landslide wins forevermore.
Tories not guaranteed landslides for ever more... Labour will get back in when they come to their sense's and start engaging with the public rather than p*ssing on them. Same as always.
Of course, Lab's only got so long to give up this madness. Eventually the public would start looking for an alternative to Lab and if there isn't one, somebody will create one.
Labours got a big decision to make after they lose in 2020. Do they get real, or go for Corbyn II. If they go for Corbyn II it might be the end of Lab forever.
Just to say, it's not necessarily the case that a huge increase in young turnout would only favour Labour in their safe seats. Quite a lot of the southern marginals have VERY high young populations (Milton Keynes especially comes to mind).
I think Sean F posted a while back a report showing a lot of the big southern towns are demographically becoming a lot more like London (as young leftie graduates and ethnic minorities get priced out of London itself), which could theoretically be very good news for Labour.
Apart from a few areas like Brighton, where 2/3 seats are Labour or Green already, that is more the case in outer London where Labour did better than average at the election in marginal seats. Most of the Kent and Essex marginals still have far more elderly and white man van voters than young graduates and ethnic minorities
No, the report said much of the South was demographically trending towards being more multi-ethnic and younger on average - though it did single out Essex as an exception to that.
Are any of their supporters happy that Labour's current position on Trident is to pay for it but to promise not to use it? If they are happy with that then they're stupider than I imagined possible.
No good asking Labour supporters, they've all gone mad.
Even that nice Dr Palmer has lost the plot...
Do you think any of them will even try to justify that position though? It would be most entertaining to read!
Just to say, it's not necessarily the case that a huge increase in young turnout would only favour Labour in their safe seats. Quite a lot of the southern marginals have VERY high young populations (Milton Keynes especially comes to mind).
I think Sean F posted a while back a report showing a lot of the big southern towns are demographically becoming a lot more like London (as young leftie graduates and ethnic minorities get priced out of London itself), which could theoretically be very good news for Labour.
How did that theory work out in May? - MKN and MKS Tory majorities increased.
Just to say, it's not necessarily the case that a huge increase in young turnout would only favour Labour in their safe seats. Quite a lot of the southern marginals have VERY high young populations (Milton Keynes especially comes to mind).
I think Sean F posted a while back a report showing a lot of the big southern towns are demographically becoming a lot more like London, which could theoretically be very good news for Labour.
Give over. Labours on a one way ticket to oblivion.
Enjoy the ride..
Yes, you're right, the Tories scraping a majority this year, when led by someone far more popular than his likely successor, shows they are guaranteed landslide wins forevermore.
The Tories went round S England portaying Nicola Surgeon as a demoness who must be blocked at all costs, but owe muuch of their current strong position to her.
This BBC documentary is enraging me. It's asking softball questions to hardline Muslims, allowing them to have a mouthpiece, and then the presenter sympathises with them.
Just to say, it's not necessarily the case that a huge increase in young turnout would only favour Labour in their safe seats. Quite a lot of the southern marginals have VERY high young populations (Milton Keynes especially comes to mind).
I think Sean F posted a while back a report showing a lot of the big southern towns are demographically becoming a lot more like London, which could theoretically be very good news for Labour.
Give over. Labours on a one way ticket to oblivion.
Enjoy the ride..
Yes, you're right, the Tories scraping a majority this year, when led by someone far more popular than his likely successor, shows they are guaranteed landslide wins forevermore.
Fair point. It is hard to think Labour simply cannot compete even with years to go. I accept there are a lot of points against them at this point, and I usually dismiss the idea of treating every non-tory vote as part of a monolithic bloc and I still do, but people will surely take into account that if they don't like the Tories and the Tory leader in 2020, somebody has to oppose them, and the SNP can only do that from 59 seats total (if they are not already on the way to independence by then), so simply through lack of options Labour has to be at least moderately competitive regardless of if they deserve to be. Surely?
Just to say, it's not necessarily the case that a huge increase in young turnout would only favour Labour in their safe seats. Quite a lot of the southern marginals have VERY high young populations (Milton Keynes especially comes to mind).
I think Sean F posted a while back a report showing a lot of the big southern towns are demographically becoming a lot more like London, which could theoretically be very good news for Labour.
Give over. Labours on a one way ticket to oblivion.
Enjoy the ride..
Yes, you're right, the Tories scraping a majority this year, when led by someone far more popular than his likely successor, shows they are guaranteed landslide wins forevermore.
The Tories went round S England portaying Nicola Surgeon as a demoness who must be blocked at all costs, but owe muuch of their current strong position to her.
Nicola was useful... But I think Labour was probably doomed the moment they handed the key's to Ed Miliband.
We said for years on here that sooner or later Ed's catastrophic personal ratings and Labours poll rating would have to meet... And that moment came at 10pm on 7th May.
Just to say, it's not necessarily the case that a huge increase in young turnout would only favour Labour in their safe seats. Quite a lot of the southern marginals have VERY high young populations (Milton Keynes especially comes to mind).
I think Sean F posted a while back a report showing a lot of the big southern towns are demographically becoming a lot more like London (as young leftie graduates and ethnic minorities get priced out of London itself), which could theoretically be very good news for Labour.
How did that theory work out in May? - MKN and MKS Tory majorities increased.
The whole point of the thread header is that supposedly increasing young-voter turnout would only help Labour in their safe seats. I'm making the point that in some of the Southern seats like MK, a higher youth turnout than this year would help Labour (though whether it's possible to get habitual non-voters to turn out is another question, of course)
A woman in Germany is being evicted from her home of 23 years to make way for asylum-seekers, in the second such case to emerge. Gabrielle Keller has been given until the end of the year to leave her flat in the small southern town of Eschbach, near the border with France.
The flat belongs to the local municipality, which says it is needed to house refugees.
This is only the tip of a coming volcano. I read a few days ago that that tenants from over 220 flats in Hamburg are due to be evicted in order to place immigrants. I lost the link, however, so one must take my word for it.
Rise of DIP ?
Next time you hear how awful our striving to own a home culture is ...
Quite. There will be a few nervous people in germany, renting (especially from the state) doesnt seem quite so good anymore. Someone comes and tries to confiscate my house, it would be getting burnt down before anyone got their hands on it.
Are any of their supporters happy that Labour's current position on Trident is to pay for it but to promise not to use it? If they are happy with that then they're stupider than I imagined possible.
No good asking Labour supporters, they've all gone mad.
Even that nice Dr Palmer has lost the plot...
Do you think any of them will even try to justify that position though? It would be most entertaining to read!
I wonder what "Tim" thinks about it?
Didn't he want to bomb the hell out of everyone most of the time? :^O
''This BBC documentary is enraging me. It's asking softball questions to hardline Muslims, allowing them to have a mouthpiece, and then the presenter sympathises with them. ''
Just to say, it's not necessarily the case that a huge increase in young turnout would only favour Labour in their safe seats. Quite a lot of the southern marginals have VERY high young populations (Milton Keynes especially comes to mind).
I think Sean F posted a while back a report showing a lot of the big southern towns are demographically becoming a lot more like London (as young leftie graduates and ethnic minorities get priced out of London itself), which could theoretically be very good news for Labour.
How did that theory work out in May? - MKN and MKS Tory majorities increased.
The whole point of the thread header is that supposedly increasing young-voter turnout would only help Labour in their safe seats. I'm making the point that in some of the Southern seats like MK, a higher youth turnout than this year would help Labour (though whether it's possible to get habitual non-voters to turn out is another question, of course)
Both seats are already no longer very marginal. These one change theories are very silly because they assume only one change and that all in one direction. The SNP landslide did not occur because a few youngsters decided to vote - their impact was very marginal if at all.
I warm to anyone willing to slot those rape-Nazi Islamogoons. Even, yes, Vladimir "probably shaves his chest" Putin.
Trouble is, Putin may not be bombing ISIS. He may be bombing US backed moderates in Syria.
And that is f8cking serious, if true.
Of more serious concern to me is the deconfliction of US, French and Russian air forces.
Which makes me wonder: have Russian and NATO forces ever fought together or in the same airspaces before without it being war? I know NATO learnt a great deal from Eastern Bloc air forces after the fall of the Berlin Wall; e.g. the Ukranian and East German flankers, but have Russian and NATO forces even done cooperative exercises before?
It seems a recipe for disaster, especially given Putin's attitude to planes being shot out of the air (or not, according to some on here).
If we ever thought of going to help people bring down Assad again, it would mean we were at war w Russia wouldn't it?
I'm not sure what the official legal situation would be. The western powers were invited into Iraq, and we are operating there in conjunction with their forces. We were not invited into Syria, which is why UK forces are generally not operating there. On the other hand, Syria has invited Russia in, but Iraq has not.
It's incredibly messy. Perhaps Korea is the best analogous situation: ISTR we had western-allied fighter pilots mixing it up with Russian and Chinese ones at times, all over a disputed third country.
But the fact IS sees themselves as a separate state (even if we do not acknowledge it as such) is a complicating factor.
It's starting to look increasingly like Corbyn has played a blinder and will achiever everything he wants by fundamentally changing the Labour Party.
It requires an assumption. That is that Jeremy Corbyn has absolutely no interest in becoming PM of the United Kingdom.
Once you accept that it is pretty clear that everything which is going on is a smokescreen, the chaos, the bizarre cabinet appointments who are more of an opposition to him than the Tories, the concilliatory but contradictory statements he is making.
It's all a cover to get the PLPs eye off the ball while hee floods the NEC with his supporters. As I understand it, the NEC is *everything* in Labour and the way it currently works was specifically designed by Kinnock and enhanced by Blair to put complete complete control of the party into the few hands on the NEC.
The NEC controls the policy, the agenda and the candidates. And Jezza is now in complete control of that. He can now use the next few years to transform Labour into a "proper" Socialist party, with a socialist platform and socialist PPCs for 2020.
He loses in 2020 but at that point he has replaced the bulk of Blairites and Brownits with the loony left, he can stand aside and let one of the younger generation (probably someone he's placed on the NEC and not in the Shadow Cabinet) take over.
To me this seems to be a worthwhile goal for someone with Corbyn's mindset. If that is his goal, he has already succeeded.
Strikes me too as having more than a grain of truth.
Question is whether it will still remain worth the while of the PLP to go for an overthrow at some point in the future. OK, they remain for the time being the gatekeepers for leadership candidates, but the party is such that it would be far harder to resist a more acceptable face of leftism sans Corbyn's history next time out, even if the PLP learn from the last battle and try to do so. I still think they might go for it, even if the prize is to end up with a Nandy or a Clive Lewis or whoever else from the Corbyn coterie emerges as a front runner in the meantime.
It also seems to suggest that an overthrow could be precipitated not by polling or elections but by the internal reorganisation of the Labour party itself, the progression of that becoming a greater threat to MPs jobs than success or failure at the polls. Again, an inexperienced left-winger might be thought of as less familiar with the internal mechanics of the party, so less able to force through change within it, and any perceived effectiveness may actually be considered a disadvantage. Of course, the new leader would also need to be somehow isolated from the old hands of the left who do know how to navigate the smokeless rooms.
Perhaps what the PLP might need now is not their own man, too risky with the base for the time being, but at very least their own choice of left-wing useful idiot?
Just to say, it's not necessarily the case that a huge increase in young turnout would only favour Labour in their safe seats. Quite a lot of the southern marginals have VERY high young populations (Milton Keynes especially comes to mind).
I think Sean F posted a while back a report showing a lot of the big southern towns are demographically becoming a lot more like London, which could theoretically be very good news for Labour.
Give over. Labours on a one way ticket to oblivion.
Enjoy the ride..
Yes, you're right, the Tories scraping a majority this year, when led by someone far more popular than his likely successor, shows they are guaranteed landslide wins forevermore.
The Tories went round S England portaying Nicola Surgeon as a demoness who must be blocked at all costs, but owe muuch of their current strong position to her.
Nicola was useful... But I think Labour was probably doomed the moment they handed the key's to Ed Miliband.
We said for years on here that sooner or later Ed's catastrophic personal ratings and Labours poll rating would have to meet... And that moment came at 10pm on 7th May.
How many seats did the Tories gain from Labour? I thought most of their gains were from the LD’s. Weren’t Labour vs Tory about square?
Just to say, it's not necessarily the case that a huge increase in young turnout would only favour Labour in their safe seats. Quite a lot of the southern marginals have VERY high young populations (Milton Keynes especially comes to mind).
I think Sean F posted a while back a report showing a lot of the big southern towns are demographically becoming a lot more like London, which could theoretically be very good news for Labour.
Give over. Labours on a one way ticket to oblivion.
Enjoy the ride..
Yes, you're right, the Tories scraping a majority this year, when led by someone far more popular than his likely successor, shows they are guaranteed landslide wins forevermore.
The Tories went round S England portaying Nicola Surgeon as a demoness who must be blocked at all costs, but owe muuch of their current strong position to her.
Nicola was useful... But I think Labour was probably doomed the moment they handed the key's to Ed Miliband.
We said for years on here that sooner or later Ed's catastrophic personal ratings and Labours poll rating would have to meet... And that moment came at 10pm on 7th May.
Weren’t Labour vs Tory about square?
I believe so - but that the Tory seats vs Labour held up so well was the surprise for many. Without the SNP stuff and the personal ratings comparison being much more effective than I personally thought it would, the Tories would have lost a lot more seats on not much less of the vote.
Are any of their supporters happy that Labour's current position on Trident is to pay for it but to promise not to use it? If they are happy with that then they're stupider than I imagined possible.
To be fair, it will be like their position on schools and hospitals - build them with mountains of borrowed cash, only to find the collapse in tax receipts mean they will never see students or patients.
FPT: Corbyn's position on firing Trident missiles is readily resolvable. If London gets nuked, his peacenik approach will have failed big style, so he could instantly resign. With the proper protocols in place for Tom Watson to take immediate control of the authorisation codes.
He could let such be known - if the prospect of Tom Watson in charge of a nuclear response isn't still deterrence, I sure as hell don't know what is!
The problem with the Beeb is that they think pumping out centre-left wooly liberal propaganda that the bulk of the population rejects is "brave journalism". It isn't. It's staying right within their comfort zone.
Nicola was useful... But I think Labour was probably doomed the moment they handed the key's to Ed Miliband.
We said for years on here that sooner or later Ed's catastrophic personal ratings and Labours poll rating would have to meet... And that moment came at 10pm on 7th May.
And now the Labour Party is led by a man who makes Ed Miliband look good by comparison, really good.
But Labour need not worry as clearly there are millions of quasi-Marxist non-voters who hate the Queen just waiting to put a man who would not lift a finger to defend us if London was wiped from the map into Number 10.
It seems to me that the US can't do anything right in the eyes of some people. If they go into Iraq, they are aggressive warmongers who have screwed up the region. If they don't go into Syria, they are useless vaccillaters who have screwed up the region.
Has it occurred to SeanT that perhaps its the region itself that is to blame, rather than the US? I rather suspect that the place will still be a nightmare after Russia's intervention. Perhaps he will blame Russia then?
Although I suspect he will still find a way to blame the USA.
Don't be daft. I'm saying that the USA's recent record in Middle Eastern meddling has been dreadful-to-catastrophic, which it unquestionably has - partly because America is overly influenced by the Israeli lobby and partly because American liberals have completely failed to understand the virulence and malignity of Islamism.
So let the Russians have a bash. Why not. If they get rid of ISIS great, they will be ridding us of an enemy.
America gets the blame because America sees itself, or saw itself until very recently, as THE global superpower and THE global policeman. If you assume that task, you get the brickbats when you fail.
I thought the current president was elected as an explicit rejection of that sort of thing. Do you support Obama withdrawing from the Middle East or not?
Just to say, it's not necessarily the case that a huge increase in young turnout would only favour Labour in their safe seats. Quite a lot of the southern marginals have VERY high young populations (Milton Keynes especially comes to mind).
I think Sean F posted a while back a report showing a lot of the big southern towns are demographically becoming a lot more like London, which could theoretically be very good news for Labour.
Give over. Labours on a one way ticket to oblivion.
Enjoy the ride..
Tories not guaranteed landslides for ever more... Labour will get back in when they come to their sense's and start engaging with the public rather than p*ssing on them. Same as always.
Of course, Lab's only got so long to give up this madness. Eventually the public would start looking for an alternative to Lab and if there isn't one, somebody will create one.
Labours got a big decision to make after they lose in 2020. Do they get real, or go for Corbyn II. If they go for Corbyn II it might be the end of Lab forever.
Give over. Labours on a one way ticket to oblivion.
Enjoy the ride..
For me, the issue is simply this: if Corbyn can achieve his aim to take over the NEC (and it looks as though he has), then there is no simple way back to the centre for Labour.
Of course they haven't, Ralph would definitely have written his own speech. But maybe Labour think they've elected Ralph; they'll be sorely disappointed by the dud they've got
It seems to me that the US can't do anything right in the eyes of some people. If they go into Iraq, they are aggressive warmongers who have screwed up the region. If they don't go into Syria, they are useless vaccillaters who have screwed up the region.
Has it occurred to SeanT that perhaps its the region itself that is to blame, rather than the US? I rather suspect that the place will still be a nightmare after Russia's intervention. Perhaps he will blame Russia then?
Although I suspect he will still find a way to blame the USA.
Don't be daft. I'm saying that the USA's recent record in Middle Eastern meddling has been dreadful-to-catastrophic, which it unquestionably has - partly because America is overly influenced by the Israeli lobby and partly because American liberals have completely failed to understand the virulence and malignity of Islamism.
So let the Russians have a bash. Why not. If they get rid of ISIS great, they will be ridding us of an enemy.
America gets the blame because America sees itself, or saw itself until very recently, as THE global superpower and THE global policeman. If you assume that task, you get the brickbats when you fail.
I thought the current president was elected as an explicit rejection of that sort of thing. Do you support Obama withdrawing from the Middle East or not?
I think Obama should have realised from the calamity of Iraq then Libya then Egypt that an Arab hardman is better than nothing at all, because the vacuum is filled by Islamism, and he should have TACITLY helped Assad (snake that he is) and killed ISIS before it got too big to kill.
He could have dealt with Assad afterwards, perhaps.
Too late now.
Ironically Egypt has now been taken over by even more of a hardman than before and probably just as well
Just to say, it's not necessarily the case that a huge increase in young turnout would only favour Labour in their safe seats. Quite a lot of the southern marginals have VERY high young populations (Milton Keynes especially comes to mind).
I think Sean F posted a while back a report showing a lot of the big southern towns are demographically becoming a lot more like London, which could theoretically be very good news for Labour.
Give over. Labours on a one way ticket to oblivion.
Enjoy the ride..
Yes, you're right, the Tories scraping a majority this year, when led by someone far more popular than his likely successor, shows they are guaranteed landslide wins forevermore.
The Tories went round S England portaying Nicola Surgeon as a demoness who must be blocked at all costs, but owe muuch of their current strong position to her.
It was Labour which was being blocked. I don't think the SNP contested many seats in S England. NS was merely a tool.
Just to say, it's not necessarily the case that a huge increase in young turnout would only favour Labour in their safe seats. Quite a lot of the southern marginals have VERY high young populations (Milton Keynes especially comes to mind).
I think Sean F posted a while back a report showing a lot of the big southern towns are demographically becoming a lot more like London (as young leftie graduates and ethnic minorities get priced out of London itself), which could theoretically be very good news for Labour.
Apart from a few areas like Brighton, where 2/3 seats are Labour or Green already, that is more the case in outer London where Labour did better than average at the election in marginal seats. Most of the Kent and Essex marginals still have far more elderly and white man van voters than young graduates and ethnic minorities
No, the report said much of the South was demographically trending towards being more multi-ethnic and younger on average - though it did single out Essex as an exception to that.
Seats like Reading and Stevenage and Milton Keynes maybe, seats like Chatham and Rochestor and Thanet probably not. Of course Essex differs between areas like Epping, Upminster, Hornchurch and Romford which are really outer London border and Southend and Braintree and Thurrock and Basildon, Colchestor and Chelmsford and Saffron Walden which may be less prone to change
Just to say, it's not necessarily the case that a huge increase in young turnout would only favour Labour in their safe seats. Quite a lot of the southern marginals have VERY high young populations (Milton Keynes especially comes to mind).
I think Sean F posted a while back a report showing a lot of the big southern towns are demographically becoming a lot more like London (as young leftie graduates and ethnic minorities get priced out of London itself), which could theoretically be very good news for Labour.
It's by Lewis Baston, who is always worth reading. I think it's more that *some* rather than a lot of Southern towns are trending Labour. And unfortunately for Labour, the biggest pro-Labour swings in the South have tended to where they're weakest. The Thames Estuary, and Hertfordshire, where Labour used to win marginal seats, have shifted Right.
@ScottyNational: Turner Prize in Glasgow:New art piece displayed titled 'SNP Integrity'- shows 13 miniature houses & a cheque made out to 'Music, wink, wink'
Sorry to be a total pedant, but it just says Trinity College in that article, so she might have been at Trinity College, Dublin or Trinity College, Oxford.
(Yes: I realise that Andy Burnham went to Cambridge, but he was at Fitzwilliam. And girls from Trinity College Cambridge, Tory or not, do not kiss boys from Fitzwilliam.)
You forgot Trinity College Carmarthen, now University of Wales Trinity St. David. Not a lot of choice there - I can imagine if Andy Burnham was passing through in a group of Cambridge students who looked intelligent, if he kept his mouth shut and the light wasn't too good a young lady might consider him worth a quick snog.
Sorry to be a total pedant, but it just says Trinity College in that article, so she might have been at Trinity College, Dublin or Trinity College, Oxford.
(Yes: I realise that Andy Burnham went to Cambridge, but he was at Fitzwilliam. And girls from Trinity College Cambridge, Tory or not, do not kiss boys from Fitzwilliam.)
Speaking from experience?
It is a truth universally acknowledged.
I will take your word for it, but student romances don't normally lead to marriage
Please mention that to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.
In fact, I would say that a fairly high proportion of student romances end in marriage/long term cohabitation - roughly 40% in my circle (although as I spent eight and a half years at university until I was approaching thirty, I appreciate my experience may be exceptional)!
Just to say, it's not necessarily the case that a huge increase in young turnout would only favour Labour in their safe seats. Quite a lot of the southern marginals have VERY high young populations (Milton Keynes especially comes to mind).
I think Sean F posted a while back a report showing a lot of the big southern towns are demographically becoming a lot more like London (as young leftie graduates and ethnic minorities get priced out of London itself), which could theoretically be very good news for Labour.
Apart from a few areas like Brighton, where 2/3 seats are Labour or Green already, that is more the case in outer London where Labour did better than average at the election in marginal seats. Most of the Kent and Essex marginals still have far more elderly and white man van voters than young graduates and ethnic minorities
No, the report said much of the South was demographically trending towards being more multi-ethnic and younger on average - though it did single out Essex as an exception to that.
Seats like Reading and Stevenage and Milton Keynes maybe, seats like Chatham and Rochestor and Thanet probably not. Of course Essex differs between areas like Epping, Upminster, Hornchurch and Romford which are really outer London border and Southend and Braintree and Thurrock and Basildon, Colchestor and Chelmsford and Saffron Walden which may be less prone to change
Luton, Brighton and Hove, and Exeter are clear examples of a pro-Labour swing. Peterborough and Reading may head that way. Milton Keynes isn't heading that way. Stevenage almost looks like a safe Tory seat.
It seems to me that the US can't do anything right in the eyes of some people. If they go into Iraq, they are aggressive warmongers who have screwed up the region. If they don't go into Syria, they are useless vaccillaters who have screwed up the region.
Has it occurred to SeanT that perhaps its the region itself that is to blame, rather than the US? I rather suspect that the place will still be a nightmare after Russia's intervention. Perhaps he will blame Russia then?
Although I suspect he will still find a way to blame the USA.
Don't be daft. I'm saying that the USA's recent record in Middle Eastern meddling has been dreadful-to-catastrophic, which it unquestionably has - partly because America is overly influenced by the Israeli lobby and partly because American liberals have completely failed to understand the virulence and malignity of Islamism.
So let the Russians have a bash. Why not. If they get rid of ISIS great, they will be ridding us of an enemy.
America gets the blame because America sees itself, or saw itself until very recently, as THE global superpower and THE global policeman. If you assume that task, you get the brickbats when you fail.
I thought the current president was elected as an explicit rejection of that sort of thing. Do you support Obama withdrawing from the Middle East or not?
I think Obama should have realised from the calamity of Iraq then Libya then Egypt that an Arab hardman is better than nothing at all, because the vacuum is filled by Islamism, and he should have TACITLY helped Assad (snake that he is) and killed ISIS before it got too big to kill.
He could have dealt with Assad afterwards, perhaps.
Too late now.
Wouldn't dealing with Assad afterwards then mean Islamism would fill the vacuum again? How would it be any different in 2017 than in 2013?
Can I humbly point out to journalist friends there that it all looks completely mad? Perhaps it seems mad inside, but it is being treated as though it is a normal event, because the broadcasters are doing their job (they have to) and just covering it, when they obviously want to turn to the camera and make cuckoo noises while flapping their arms like a chicken
Can I humbly point out to journalist friends there that it all looks completely mad? Perhaps it seems mad inside, but it is being treated as though it is a normal event, because the broadcasters are doing their job (they have to) and just covering it, when they obviously want to turn to the camera and make cuckoo noises while flapping their arms like a chicken
It seems to me that the US can't do anything right in the eyes of some people. If they go into Iraq, they are aggressive warmongers who have screwed up the region. If they don't go into Syria, they are useless vaccillaters who have screwed up the region.
Has it occurred to SeanT that perhaps its the region itself that is to blame, rather than the US? I rather suspect that the place will still be a nightmare after Russia's intervention. Perhaps he will blame Russia then?
Although I suspect he will still find a way to blame the USA.
Don't be daft. I'm saying that the USA's recent record in Middle Eastern meddling has been dreadful-to-catastrophic, which it unquestionably has - partly because America is overly influenced by the Israeli lobby and partly because American liberals have completely failed to understand the virulence and malignity of Islamism.
So let the Russians have a bash. Why not. If they get rid of ISIS great, they will be ridding us of an enemy.
America gets the blame because America sees itself, or saw itself until very recently, as THE global superpower and THE global policeman. If you assume that task, you get the brickbats when you fail.
I thought the current president was elected as an explicit rejection of that sort of thing. Do you support Obama withdrawing from the Middle East or not?
I think Obama should have realised from the calamity of Iraq then Libya then Egypt that an Arab hardman is better than nothing at all, because the vacuum is filled by Islamism, and he should have TACITLY helped Assad (snake that he is) and killed ISIS before it got too big to kill.
He could have dealt with Assad afterwards, perhaps.
Too late now.
When Hitler cosied up to Stalin it wasn't because he had married bliss in mind. The same when Churchill and Stalin got chummy, the marriage, if such it ever was, was certainly one of convenience for both. ISIS is a far greater threat to Western civilisation than Assad could ever be, so deal with ISIS and take it from there. What's so great about our Arab allies that we should deal so differently with them, compared to Assad? USA had the chance but not the inclination and Putin has an invitation. The USA should back off.
It seems to me that the US can't do anything right in the eyes of some people. If they go into Iraq, they are aggressive warmongers who have screwed up the region. If they don't go into Syria, they are useless vaccillaters who have screwed up the region.
Has it occurred to SeanT that perhaps its the region itself that is to blame, rather than the US? I rather suspect that the place will still be a nightmare after Russia's intervention. Perhaps he will blame Russia then?
Although I suspect he will still find a way to blame the USA.
Don't be daft. I'm saying that the USA's recent record in Middle Eastern meddling has been dreadful-to-catastrophic, which it unquestionably has - partly because America is overly influenced by the Israeli lobby and partly because American liberals have completely failed to understand the virulence and malignity of Islamism.
So let the Russians have a bash. Why not. If they get rid of ISIS great, they will be ridding us of an enemy.
America gets the blame because America sees itself, or saw itself until very recently, as THE global superpower and THE global policeman. If you assume that task, you get the brickbats when you fail.
I thought the current president was elected as an explicit rejection of that sort of thing. Do you support Obama withdrawing from the Middle East or not?
I think Obama should have realised from the calamity of Iraq then Libya then Egypt that an Arab hardman is better than nothing at all, because the vacuum is filled by Islamism, and he should have TACITLY helped Assad (snake that he is) and killed ISIS before it got too big to kill.
He could have dealt with Assad afterwards, perhaps.
Too late now.
Ironically Egypt has now been taken over by even more of a hardman than before and probably just as well
In the final Western security analysis, what is the difference between Egypt and Saudi?
Just to say, it's not necessarily the case that a huge increase in young turnout would only favour Labour in their safe seats. Quite a lot of the southern marginals have VERY high young populations (Milton Keynes especially comes to mind).
I think Sean F posted a while back a report showing a lot of the big southern towns are demographically becoming a lot more like London (as young leftie graduates and ethnic minorities get priced out of London itself), which could theoretically be very good news for Labour.
Apart from a few areas like Brighton, where 2/3 seats are Labour or Green already, that is more the case in outer London where Labour did better than average at the election in marginal seats. Most of the Kent and Essex marginals still have far more elderly and white man van voters than young graduates and ethnic minorities
No, the report said much of the South was demographically trending towards being more multi-ethnic and younger on average - though it did single out Essex as an exception to that.
Seats like Reading and Stevenage and Milton Keynes maybe, seats like Chatham and Rochestor and Thanet probably not. Of course Essex differs between areas like Epping, Upminster, Hornchurch and Romford which are really outer London border and Southend and Braintree and Thurrock and Basildon, Colchestor and Chelmsford and Saffron Walden which may be less prone to change
Luton, Brighton and Hove, and Exeter are clear examples of a pro-Labour swing. Peterborough and Reading may head that way. Milton Keynes isn't heading that way. Stevenage almost looks like a safe Tory seat.
Broadley agree, though movement in coastal Kent and Essex is even less pronounced
Sorry to be a total pedant, but it just says Trinity College in that article, so she might have been at Trinity College, Dublin or Trinity College, Oxford.
(Yes: I realise that Andy Burnham went to Cambridge, but he was at Fitzwilliam. And girls from Trinity College Cambridge, Tory or not, do not kiss boys from Fitzwilliam.)
You forgot Trinity College Carmarthen, now University of Wales Trinity St. David. Not a lot of choice there - I can imagine if Andy Burnham was passing through in a group of Cambridge students who looked intelligent, if he kept his mouth shut and the light wasn't too good a young lady might consider him worth a quick snog.
Sorry to be a total pedant, but it just says Trinity College in that article, so she might have been at Trinity College, Dublin or Trinity College, Oxford.
(Yes: I realise that Andy Burnham went to Cambridge, but he was at Fitzwilliam. And girls from Trinity College Cambridge, Tory or not, do not kiss boys from Fitzwilliam.)
Speaking from experience?
It is a truth universally acknowledged.
I will take your word for it, but student romances don't normally lead to marriage
Please mention that to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.
In fact, I would say that a fairly high proportion of student romances end in marriage/long term cohabitation - roughly 40% in my circle (although as I spent eight and a half years at university until I was approaching thirty, I appreciate my experience may be exceptional)!
40% is a fair number but still not a majority and in this case it was just a kiss, not a Mills and Boon novel
A rare lucid moment from a disgruntled Rafael Behr:
Perhaps the looser style means room for more substance. But all the permitted expansion is in a direction that moves away from the voters who most need persuading. Corbyn’s party is a red Tardis: bigger on the inside than the outside, a political labyrinth in a little box whose epic dimensions are invisible to the uninitiated passerby – and, as a vehicle for getting Labour to power, science fiction.
Even in the 1980s, the Guardian was unswervingly loyal to Labour. With that apparently lost, the last significant Labour paper is the Daily Mirror.
Without forgetting to allow for the collapsing status of the print media, how is Corbyn supposed to get his 'message' out to the huge majority of people who are not active on social media without a sympathetic mouthpiece to rely on? The Morning Star, with a circulation of just 7-10,000, won't help, and readers of the Mirror will already be either hard left or fundamentally uninterested in politics. If he's to reach the disengaged voters, he needs the readers of the Sun and the Mail (especially the Mail) to pay attention to him - but they simply won't do it.
I will take your word for it, but student romances don't normally lead to marriage
Please mention that to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.
In fact, I would say that a fairly high proportion of student romances end in marriage/long term cohabitation - roughly 40% in my circle (although as I spent eight and a half years at university until I was approaching thirty, I appreciate my experience may be exceptional)!
40% is a fair number but still not a majority and in this case it was just a kiss, not a Mills and Boon novel
Andrew 'if my expenses are not paid I might be in line for a divorce' Burnham could only have his life improved by living in a Mills and Boon novel.
With regard to 40%, the way I read your post was that it was 'not normal,' i.e. not usual for student romances to end in marriage and I was pointing out that it is actually perfectly normal and happens quite a lot, if indeed perhaps not the majority of the time.
Lets be clear about the Russian involvement in Syria:
1. Its a direct result of Western inability to take a line early, stick to it and finish a task with the necessary decisiveness. The Kremlin have a phrase for it, weakness.
2. The air attacks today will do nothing to IS, because they didn't strike IS. They struck other insurgent areas. In fact what they were concerned with was the North-South corridor that Assad needs. IS strategic strength and resource is east of where today's attacks took place. Today's raids were battlefield support operations.
3. The extent of the Russian military build up is actually small, useful but small. Its possibly no more than 18-20 aircraft in total, if that (multiple sightings but possibly same aircraft). That effort has taken Russia weeks to prepare and if it gets much bigger it will stretch them. In short Putin is an old bluffer, again.
4. Assad is a puppet at this stage, it was whether he wanted to effectively to be run by the Iranians or not. As I mentioned here on several occasions, plenty in the regime didn't like the way the Iranians were getting involved, they effectively created a shadow military. Assad therefore prefers Putin.
A rare lucid moment from a disgruntled Rafael Behr:
Perhaps the looser style means room for more substance. But all the permitted expansion is in a direction that moves away from the voters who most need persuading. Corbyn’s party is a red Tardis: bigger on the inside than the outside, a political labyrinth in a little box whose epic dimensions are invisible to the uninitiated passerby – and, as a vehicle for getting Labour to power, science fiction.
Even in the 1980s, the Guardian was unswervingly loyal to Labour. With that apparently lost, the last significant Labour paper is the Daily Mirror.
Without forgetting to allow for the collapsing status of the print media, how is Corbyn supposed to get his 'message' out to the huge majority of people who are not active on social media without a sympathetic mouthpiece to rely on? The Morning Star, with a circulation of just 7-10,000, won't help, and readers of the Mirror will already be either hard left or fundamentally uninterested in politics. If he's to reach the disengaged voters, he needs the readers of the Sun and the Mail (especially the Mail) to pay attention to him - but they simply won't do it.
Came across a new word today for what Twitter does - narrowcasting. Very descriptive term, I reckon.
But millions of hours narrowcasting in this way achieves nothing.
A rare lucid moment from a disgruntled Rafael Behr:
Perhaps the looser style means room for more substance. But all the permitted expansion is in a direction that moves away from the voters who most need persuading. Corbyn’s party is a red Tardis: bigger on the inside than the outside, a political labyrinth in a little box whose epic dimensions are invisible to the uninitiated passerby – and, as a vehicle for getting Labour to power, science fiction.
Even in the 1980s, the Guardian was unswervingly loyal to Labour. With that apparently lost, the last significant Labour paper is the Daily Mirror.
Without forgetting to allow for the collapsing status of the print media, how is Corbyn supposed to get his 'message' out to the huge majority of people who are not active on social media without a sympathetic mouthpiece to rely on? The Morning Star, with a circulation of just 7-10,000, won't help, and readers of the Mirror will already be either hard left or fundamentally uninterested in politics. If he's to reach the disengaged voters, he needs the readers of the Sun and the Mail (especially the Mail) to pay attention to him - but they simply won't do it.
In 1983 I believe the Guardian was more pro SDP, the Mirror had the headline 'loyal to Labour, loyal to you'. Of course in the Blair years almost all the papers, including the Sun, were pro Blair, only the Telegraph was really pro Tory
Please mention that to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.
In fact, I would say that a fairly high proportion of student romances end in marriage/long term cohabitation - roughly 40% in my circle (although as I spent eight and a half years at university until I was approaching thirty, I appreciate my experience may be exceptional)!
Not to mention Ken Clarke and his other half (Caius and Newnham). Oh, and me and my other half of 22 years (same).
That's very nearly a statistic.
(My brief delurk after about 5 years is over. Back to the shadows for me.)
I will take your word for it, but student romances don't normally lead to marriage
Please mention that to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.
In fact, I would say that a fairly high proportion of student romances end in marriage/long term cohabitation - roughly 40% in my circle (although as I spent eight and a half years at university until I was approaching thirty, I appreciate my experience may be exceptional)!
40% is a fair number but still not a majority and in this case it was just a kiss, not a Mills and Boon novel
Andrew 'if my expenses are not paid I might be in line for a divorce' Burnham could only have his life improved by living in a Mills and Boon novel.
With regard to 40%, the way I read your post was that it was 'not normal,' i.e. not usual for student romances to end in marriage and I was pointing out that it is actually perfectly normal and happens quite a lot, if indeed perhaps not the majority of the time.
Indeed, but I don't think this really counts as a romance
Please mention that to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.
In fact, I would say that a fairly high proportion of student romances end in marriage/long term cohabitation - roughly 40% in my circle (although as I spent eight and a half years at university until I was approaching thirty, I appreciate my experience may be exceptional)!
Not to mention Ken Clarke and his other half (Caius and Newnham). Oh, and me and my other half of 22 years (same).
That's very nearly a statistic.
(My brief delurk after about 5 years is over. Back to the shadows for me.)
Maybe a terrible thing to say, but I feel a bit safer knowing Russia are in Syria sorting ISIS out
Why do you think they're interested in sorting ISIS out?
As in "they are and what do I think there reasons for doing so are" or (more likely) "They're not so why do I think they are?"
I read an article last week about it which suggested they were. I'll try and find it, hang on
EDIT: Here we are
"So the long-time Syrian ally Russia called Washington’s bluff by establishing military bases in the regime stronghold Latakia. In a flash its tanks, fighter jets, military advisers, warships and even its most modern anti-aircraft missile system were in place. Its engineers constructed an airport landing strip almost overnight, as its navy conducted menacing drills in the nearby (Russian-leased) Syrian port of Tartus.
This was the most brazen overseas military deployment by Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union. But it caught Nato off guard. Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised. After all, we learnt of the Islamic State’s new caliphate — arguably the most important development in the region since the founding of Israel in 1948 — only when its leader announced the event on YouTube. Still, the question remains: why did the Russians move to guarantee Assad’s survival? The short answer is because the West’s Syrian strategy was in such disarray that Russia could expect Nato to look the other way.
Assad’s forces, long thought to be on the verge of collapse, meanwhile celebrated the bolstering of their military arsenal by bombing Islamic State targets in the north. Wave after wave of airstrikes hit their targets with previously unimaginable precision. Who could object to that? Senior Washington and London politicians, after years of repeating like a mantra that The Evil Dictator Assad Must Go Now, suddenly found themselves mumbling that, come to think of it, Assad does not need to go just yet after all. In fact, Nato should co-ordinate with Russia, in a renewed effort to destroy the Islamic State and stem the flow of refugees. Russia’s bluff played off."
Comments
(Yes: I realise that Andy Burnham went to Cambridge, but he was at Fitzwilliam. And girls from Trinity College Cambridge, Tory or not, do not kiss boys from Fitzwilliam.)
Indeed!!
He seems to be compromising, but does the party have any policies as such? on anything? Or is it all still up for 'debate'........ie until I can get enough people to agree with me.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11900130/Jeremy-Corbyn-conference-speech-regret-outsourcing-his-policy-to-Labour-party-members.html
Not even a visit from Social Services!
But he isn't, he is not well educated, well read and nor has he written up a solid theory about politics in anything more advanced than a few pamphlets for stop the war.
He has not intellectual presence at all from what I've seen, he didn't sit on the back benches biding his time for his great theories to be born out in front of the masses. He sat on his backside doing local pastoral care in his constituency, thinking about nothing else but what he thought about back in the late 1970's.
He makes Cameron look like Gladstone.
Trouble is, Putin may not be bombing ISIS. He may be bombing US backed moderates in Syria.
And that is f8cking serious, if true.
It's solving a problem that is solving itself already.
Mind, when they were teenagers .......
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/30/putin-orders-u-s-jets-out-of-syria.html?via=mobile&source=twitter
Even that nice Dr Palmer has lost the plot...
Which makes me wonder: have Russian and NATO forces ever fought together or in the same airspaces before without it being war? I know NATO learnt a great deal from Eastern Bloc air forces after the fall of the Berlin Wall; e.g. the Ukranian and East German flankers, but have Russian and NATO forces even done cooperative exercises before?
It seems a recipe for disaster, especially given Putin's attitude to planes being shot out of the air (or not, according to some on here).
I think Sean F posted a while back a report showing a lot of the big southern towns are demographically becoming a lot more like London (as young leftie graduates and ethnic minorities get priced out of London itself), which could theoretically be very good news for Labour.
Enjoy the ride..
Has it occurred to SeanT that perhaps its the region itself that is to blame, rather than the US? I rather suspect that the place will still be a nightmare after Russia's intervention. Perhaps he will blame Russia then?
Although I suspect he will still find a way to blame the USA.
Of course, Lab's only got so long to give up this madness. Eventually the public would start looking for an alternative to Lab and if there isn't one, somebody will create one.
Labours got a big decision to make after they lose in 2020. Do they get real, or go for Corbyn II. If they go for Corbyn II it might be the end of Lab forever.
We said for years on here that sooner or later Ed's catastrophic personal ratings and Labours poll rating would have to meet... And that moment came at 10pm on 7th May.
Next time you hear how awful our striving to own a home culture is ...
Quite. There will be a few nervous people in germany, renting (especially from the state) doesnt seem quite so good anymore. Someone comes and tries to confiscate my house, it would be getting burnt down before anyone got their hands on it.
Didn't he want to bomb the hell out of everyone most of the time? :^O
Hopefully the Mail will be 'outraged' tomorrow...
It's incredibly messy. Perhaps Korea is the best analogous situation: ISTR we had western-allied fighter pilots mixing it up with Russian and Chinese ones at times, all over a disputed third country.
But the fact IS sees themselves as a separate state (even if we do not acknowledge it as such) is a complicating factor.
Question is whether it will still remain worth the while of the PLP to go for an overthrow at some point in the future. OK, they remain for the time being the gatekeepers for leadership candidates, but the party is such that it would be far harder to resist a more acceptable face of leftism sans Corbyn's history next time out, even if the PLP learn from the last battle and try to do so. I still think they might go for it, even if the prize is to end up with a Nandy or a Clive Lewis or whoever else from the Corbyn coterie emerges as a front runner in the meantime.
It also seems to suggest that an overthrow could be precipitated not by polling or elections but by the internal reorganisation of the Labour party itself, the progression of that becoming a greater threat to MPs jobs than success or failure at the polls. Again, an inexperienced left-winger might be thought of as less familiar with the internal mechanics of the party, so less able to force through change within it, and any perceived effectiveness may actually be considered a disadvantage. Of course, the new leader would also need to be somehow isolated from the old hands of the left who do know how to navigate the smokeless rooms.
Perhaps what the PLP might need now is not their own man, too risky with the base for the time being, but at very least their own choice of left-wing useful idiot?
Labour’s losses were in Scotland.
He could let such be known - if the prospect of Tom Watson in charge of a nuclear response isn't still deterrence, I sure as hell don't know what is!
But Labour need not worry as clearly there are millions of quasi-Marxist non-voters who hate the Queen just waiting to put a man who would not lift a finger to defend us if London was wiped from the map into Number 10.
http://home.bt.com/news/uk-news/libyan-sex-attack-cadets-seeking-asylum-in-uk-11364008003200
In fact, I would say that a fairly high proportion of student romances end in marriage/long term cohabitation - roughly 40% in my circle (although as I spent eight and a half years at university until I was approaching thirty, I appreciate my experience may be exceptional)!
Ian Martin on the Labour conference
Can I humbly point out to journalist friends there that it all looks completely mad? Perhaps it seems mad inside, but it is being treated as though it is a normal event, because the broadcasters are doing their job (they have to) and just covering it, when they obviously want to turn to the camera and make cuckoo noises while flapping their arms like a chicken
Ihttp://www.capx.co/beyond-brighton-labour-conference-looks-utterly-bonkers/
Was 'Corbynistas love a mass debate' intended as a not-so-subtle homophone?
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34392909
Even in the 1980s, the Guardian was unswervingly loyal to Labour. With that apparently lost, the last significant Labour paper is the Daily Mirror.
Without forgetting to allow for the collapsing status of the print media, how is Corbyn supposed to get his 'message' out to the huge majority of people who are not active on social media without a sympathetic mouthpiece to rely on? The Morning Star, with a circulation of just 7-10,000, won't help, and readers of the Mirror will already be either hard left or fundamentally uninterested in politics. If he's to reach the disengaged voters, he needs the readers of the Sun and the Mail (especially the Mail) to pay attention to him - but they simply won't do it.
With regard to 40%, the way I read your post was that it was 'not normal,' i.e. not usual for student romances to end in marriage and I was pointing out that it is actually perfectly normal and happens quite a lot, if indeed perhaps not the majority of the time.
1. Its a direct result of Western inability to take a line early, stick to it and finish a task with the necessary decisiveness. The Kremlin have a phrase for it, weakness.
2. The air attacks today will do nothing to IS, because they didn't strike IS. They struck other insurgent areas. In fact what they were concerned with was the North-South corridor that Assad needs. IS strategic strength and resource is east of where today's attacks took place. Today's raids were battlefield support operations.
3. The extent of the Russian military build up is actually small, useful but small. Its possibly no more than 18-20 aircraft in total, if that (multiple sightings but possibly same aircraft). That effort has taken Russia weeks to prepare and if it gets much bigger it will stretch them. In short Putin is an old bluffer, again.
4. Assad is a puppet at this stage, it was whether he wanted to effectively to be run by the Iranians or not. As I mentioned here on several occasions, plenty in the regime didn't like the way the Iranians were getting involved, they effectively created a shadow military. Assad therefore prefers Putin.
Even in the 1980s, the Guardian was unswervingly loyal to Labour. With that apparently lost, the last significant Labour paper is the Daily Mirror.
Without forgetting to allow for the collapsing status of the print media, how is Corbyn supposed to get his 'message' out to the huge majority of people who are not active on social media without a sympathetic mouthpiece to rely on? The Morning Star, with a circulation of just 7-10,000, won't help, and readers of the Mirror will already be either hard left or fundamentally uninterested in politics. If he's to reach the disengaged voters, he needs the readers of the Sun and the Mail (especially the Mail) to pay attention to him - but they simply won't do it.
Came across a new word today for what Twitter does - narrowcasting. Very descriptive term, I reckon.
But millions of hours narrowcasting in this way achieves nothing.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11902864/Jeremy-Corbyn-has-no-understanding-of-the-British-people-beyond-Islington.html
Even in the 1980s, the Guardian was unswervingly loyal to Labour. With that apparently lost, the last significant Labour paper is the Daily Mirror.
Without forgetting to allow for the collapsing status of the print media, how is Corbyn supposed to get his 'message' out to the huge majority of people who are not active on social media without a sympathetic mouthpiece to rely on? The Morning Star, with a circulation of just 7-10,000, won't help, and readers of the Mirror will already be either hard left or fundamentally uninterested in politics. If he's to reach the disengaged voters, he needs the readers of the Sun and the Mail (especially the Mail) to pay attention to him - but they simply won't do it.
In 1983 I believe the Guardian was more pro SDP, the Mirror had the headline 'loyal to Labour, loyal to you'. Of course in the Blair years almost all the papers, including the Sun, were pro Blair, only the Telegraph was really pro Tory
That's very nearly a statistic.
(My brief delurk after about 5 years is over. Back to the shadows for me.)
http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2015/09/30/does_labour_have_a_death_wish_111472.html
I read an article last week about it which suggested they were. I'll try and find it, hang on
EDIT: Here we are
"So the long-time Syrian ally Russia called Washington’s bluff by establishing military bases in the regime stronghold Latakia. In a flash its tanks, fighter jets, military advisers, warships and even its most modern anti-aircraft missile system were in place. Its engineers constructed an airport landing strip almost overnight, as its navy conducted menacing drills in the nearby (Russian-leased) Syrian port of Tartus.
This was the most brazen overseas military deployment by Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union. But it caught Nato off guard. Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised. After all, we learnt of the Islamic State’s new caliphate — arguably the most important development in the region since the founding of Israel in 1948 — only when its leader announced the event on YouTube. Still, the question remains: why did the Russians move to guarantee Assad’s survival? The short answer is because the West’s Syrian strategy was in such disarray that Russia could expect Nato to look the other way.
Assad’s forces, long thought to be on the verge of collapse, meanwhile celebrated the bolstering of their military arsenal by bombing Islamic State targets in the north. Wave after wave of airstrikes hit their targets with previously unimaginable precision. Who could object to that? Senior Washington and London politicians, after years of repeating like a mantra that The Evil Dictator Assad Must Go Now, suddenly found themselves mumbling that, come to think of it, Assad does not need to go just yet after all. In fact, Nato should co-ordinate with Russia, in a renewed effort to destroy the Islamic State and stem the flow of refugees. Russia’s bluff played off."
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9643672/putin-and-assad-have-made-fools-of-the-west/