politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn might have to face another tricky electoral test in

isam said:

Tissue_Price said:

I don’t know the seat or the MP but my understanding is that, unlike Oldham West and Royton, this is not natural UKIP territory.

Islington North?

I didn't know Oldham West and Royton was natural UKIP territory... You live and learn

The immigration numbers today can only help.

flightpath01 said:

blackburn63 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/buzzfeedukpol/status/669864612989419521

Who paid for that?

Its a very slimming portrait.

Paint is after all quite expensive :-)

TheKrakenAwakes said:

Charles said:

Dair said:

Charles said:

watford30 said:

I see there's a row brewing over Osborne's decision to help out his chums with large property companies.

'What will fuel their anger is that large firms owning more than 15 properties are not expected to have to pay the higher charge.'

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3334304/Huge-stamp-duty-rises-rental-properties-second-homes-set-kill-booming-market.html

If Labour manage to get their act into gear by 2020, an Osborne lead Tory party will have a fight on it's hands to stay in office. He's wound up a lot of natural Conservative voters.

This policy is very simple:

1. BTL-buyers will have to pay 3% more tax. All other things being equal, they will reduce their bids by 3%, which will reduce the price that owner-occupiers have to pay to compete with the BTL segment.

2. The exemption for more than 15 properties is because the government is trying to persuade the insurance companies to get involved in the private rental sector by building specific rental developments. Putting up their taxes will not help this. So it's not about "helping out his chums". It's all about reducing house prices and reducing rents.

Surely a good thing?

It's one of the better ideas in the statement but it's a long way from what is needed.

The ideal solution is to introduce a rental tax to which certain organisations would be exempt with a stated intention to build it up, bit by bit to at least the level of VAT. A slow movement over 10 years would push property from BTL into Owner-Occupation.

Although people already pay income tax on rental income, and the changes to the W&T allowance and the mortgage interest relief are designed to reduce the return on investment

I've advocated before, a charge equivalent to the rate of NIC on profits derived from letting more than two properties

Reducing profitability of current renting will impact interest coverage analysis and possibly lead to loans being called in due to regulatory reasons. Result will be forced selling and uncontrolled price movements (as well as potential ruination for individuals)

Increasing stamp duty on new purchases will put pressure on prices of new purchases so selling will be more controlled but the o/o will get the immediate competitive advantage on new purchases

Dair said:

blackburn63 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/buzzfeedukpol/status/669864612989419521

Who paid for that?

Pooling and Sharing, twas English taxpayers who paid.

Where are you going to hang it?

Casino_Royale said:

Dair said:

blackburn63 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/buzzfeedukpol/status/669864612989419521

Who paid for that?

Pooling and Sharing, twas English taxpayers who paid.

Where are you going to hang it?

Peston

Large quantity of salt, a giant pinch may be required.

The best thing about him going to ITV is that I'm highly unlikely to trip across him. If he'd gone to Sky, I'd be wailing.

perdix said:

Casino_Royale said:

Peston confirms Osborne has started acting like Ed Balls and that he's moved the Tory party to the Left:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34920769

I hope the Tories who naively voted for Corbyn are pleased.

Peston "confirms" nothing. He's just a bitter lefty beeboid who can't get over the fact that there is a Conservative majority government. Nothing that this government does will meet with his complete approval.

Casino_Royale said:

Peston confirms Osborne has started acting like Ed Balls and that he's moved the Tory party to the Left:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34920769

I hope the Tories who naively voted for Corbyn are pleased.

How can Robert Peston 'confirm' anything of the sort? I think you mean he's giving his not-especially-authoritative opinion.

In fact the article is bollocks. A moment's glance at the figures shows that Osborne has changed very little overall: he's spending a smidgen more (partly because he had no choice, given the fact that he didn't have the votes to get the tax credit changes through), and he's taxing a smidgen more to (partially) compensate.

As for the point that the forecasts all depend on, err, the forecasts being right: that's always true. If things go better than expected the outcome will be better, and if things go badly - perhaps because of external shocks from China or the EU - then the outcome will be worse. I'm amazed that journalists can get paid for telling us this!

There may be trouble ahead

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12018575/Syria-will-be-the-spark-for-open-rebellion-of-Labours-shadow-cabinet-against-Jeremy-Corbyn.html

Interesting stuff about feelings of ordinary voters when Labour come a calling

“We were out leafleting on tax credits in rock solid Labour areas, and people were handing us the leaflets back. I’ve never seen a reaction like it before,” said one backbencher.

You should have listened to Southam.

Hodges:

“We were out leafleting on tax credits in rock solid Labour areas, and people were handing us the leaflets back. I’ve never seen a reaction like it before,” said one backbencher.

Floater said:

There may be trouble ahead

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12018575/Syria-will-be-the-spark-for-open-rebellion-of-Labours-shadow-cabinet-against-Jeremy-Corbyn.html

Interesting stuff about feelings of ordinary voters when Labour come a calling

“We were out leafleting on tax credits in rock solid Labour areas, and people were handing us the leaflets back. I’ve never seen a reaction like it before,” said one backbencher.

You should have listened to Southam.

If this is true then those of us who have bet on UKIP in Oldham may well be in with a better chance than the odds are saying.

Dair said:

However, if oil prices are low, George Osborne guffaws in Westminster about Scots losing jobs and Scottish businesses going under,

Really? Care to post a link?

Fenster said:

Floater said:

There may be trouble ahead

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12018575/Syria-will-be-the-spark-for-open-rebellion-of-Labours-shadow-cabinet-against-Jeremy-Corbyn.html

Interesting stuff about feelings of ordinary voters when Labour come a calling

“We were out leafleting on tax credits in rock solid Labour areas, and people were handing us the leaflets back. I’ve never seen a reaction like it before,” said one backbencher.

You should have listened to Southam.

Labour just need a UKIP-level event, to hive off the crazy fuckers from the party.

I don't for a moment think even the craziest Kippers are as intransigent, nasty, deaf and full of hatred as the staunchest Corbynites, but they do need their own party, like the Kippers have.

The Kippers at least have a mainstream cause (leaving the EU). The communists, anti-British terrorist-apologisers and real batshit crazy types who think Corbyn is the answer will have a cause that enthuses about 1% of the population.

When they are hived off labour can go back to being a serious contender again. I still think - if they carve off the Corbynites sooner rather than later - they can win in 2020.

The problem is that the Corbynites have control and are rapidly changing the rules to ensure that they will always have control. The only way to carve the Corbynites out is for everyone else to leave and that is a big gamble as the SDP showed...

Dair said:

malcolmg said:

Dair said:

Kezia Dugdale must get sick and tired of being given the dockyard hooker treatment every Thursday at FMQs. I genuinely felt sorry for her when she led on oil revenues and Nicola slapped her down by pointing out how she was essentially laughing at people losing jobs and livelihoods.

You could tell in her tone in the next question that she was totally deflated and realised just how insidious she was being.

Labour are so thick it is unbelievable , they are constantly belittling people in Scotland, hard to believe they can be as stupid.

Indeed.

It is true, to an extent that if oil prices are high it is good for SNP and if oil prices are low, it is not so good for the SNP.

However, if oil prices are low, George Osborne guffaws in Westminster about Scots losing jobs and Scottish businesses going under, then the very next day Kezia Dugdale stands up in Parliament and joins in with Osborne's laughter at lost Scottish jobs and livelihoods, then that is the biggest win imaginable for the SNP.

When have you ever heard a Tory MP laughing at Scottish job losses?

You need to start seeing past your dribbling prejudices dude.

Dair said:

Floater said:

There may be trouble ahead

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12018575/Syria-will-be-the-spark-for-open-rebellion-of-Labours-shadow-cabinet-against-Jeremy-Corbyn.html

Interesting stuff about feelings of ordinary voters when Labour come a calling

“We were out leafleting on tax credits in rock solid Labour areas, and people were handing us the leaflets back. I’ve never seen a reaction like it before,” said one backbencher.

You should have listened to Southam.

I guess this backbencher had never been to Scotland.

If this sort of story is true, UKIP have already won Oldham West and Royton.

I'm beginning to think there will be a leadership election much sooner than most of us expected. How can this go on? And will Len and co allow it to?

Charles said:

In this case, you need big companies to increase the supply of properties. Individuals tend to buy 1, 2 or 3 existing properties. We need investors to build 50 or 100 units for rent at a time.

Absolutely right. Large investors will be building new stock while small "investors" will buy existing stock and try to extract maximum yield from it by ripping off private tenants as much as they possibly can. Insurance companies, pension funds and large developers just aren't going to be interested in buying up single units here and there like private "investors".

The other good part about this is that by making it a stamp duty based charge it doesn't effect those real investors who are taking a risk by buying land and building new property to rent. I also think they should be able to claim maximum tax relief while existing property lets should have all tax relief abolished and the stamp duty increased to 10% additional, plus an annual fee worth 2% of the market price for foreign buyers not resident for tax purposes. We absolutely have to stamp out buy-to-let and encourage build-to-let. Buy-to-let is economically unfavourable, it is a transfer or wealth from young people who spend money to old people who don't spend money. It means less actual investment in housing, people who rent never spend money on home improvements and landlords are completely useless in this area despite tax breaks on offer (thankfully now on their way out) and young people spending less of their disposable income on luxury goods and services as they save for a deposit to buy their own place.

Much more of foot-in-mouth from Corbyn - how tolerant will Uncle Len and Prentiss be?

Both seem a tad peed off.

rottenborough said:

Dair said:

Floater said:

There may be trouble ahead

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12018575/Syria-will-be-the-spark-for-open-rebellion-of-Labours-shadow-cabinet-against-Jeremy-Corbyn.html

Interesting stuff about feelings of ordinary voters when Labour come a calling

“We were out leafleting on tax credits in rock solid Labour areas, and people were handing us the leaflets back. I’ve never seen a reaction like it before,” said one backbencher.

You should have listened to Southam.

I guess this backbencher had never been to Scotland.

If this sort of story is true, UKIP have already won Oldham West and Royton.

I'm beginning to think there will be a leadership election much sooner than most of us expected. How can this go on? And will Len and co allow it to?

Turkey releases 10 recordings of ‘warnings to Russian pilots’ http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/middleeast/article4624458.ece

Floater said:

Cyclefree said:

Re this - http://hurryupharry.org/2015/11/25/jeremy-corbyn-and-the-finsbury-park-mosque/ - it would be interesting to know how often he has visited this mosque before. The article suggests the association is of long standing. Was he close to it when Abu Hamza was using it as a base for his terrorist activities?

It is very depressing that a Leader of the Opposition should see no problem at all with associating with people such as these. Still the Labour Party were warned about this and they still went ahead and elected them. They can hardly complain now if they are seen by some us as terrorist sympathizers.

Harry's place provides a very useful service by shinning a spot light on areas(certain areas of) the left would not like to be widely know.n

Indeed it does. As does Jamie Palmer - check out www.jacobinism.blogspot.co.uk.

@MaxPB I assume you know quite alot of people who rent in London - any of them coming round to GO ?

TheKitchenCabinet said:

Wanderer said:

isam said:

Tissue_Price said:

I don’t know the seat or the MP but my understanding is that, unlike Oldham West and Royton, this is not natural UKIP territory.

Islington North?

I didn't know Oldham West and Royton was natural UKIP territory... You live and learn

Maybe fertile territory rather than natural? The kind of seat where, since the events of May, one expects UKIP to be in contention.

If "natural" means a seat which a party is nailed on to win at a GE then there is, as yet, no natural UKIP territory.

One of the things that has been slightly surprising about the coverage around this election is the relative lack of attention paid to just how bad relations are between the two communities in Oldham in general, and that part in particular. There has been a long history of nasty incidents over the years and, while the optimists will say that much has been done to repair the damage, around the Manchester area, Oldham has the reputation of being the town with probably the most difficult community relations, more so than in H&M. There has also been a lot of anger historically at the perceived bias of Oldham Council towards certain communities.

Personal feeling is the key to whether UKIP wins or not will be the Conservative block in OW (I think the WWC ex-Labour core has now disappeared to UKIP bar some residual loyalty): if you are Conservative in one of those types of Northern seats, you tend to stick with them but, unlike H&M, I suspect at least some Conservative voters may be tempted to switch to give the Council a black eye.

Unfortunately I think you are right about community relations, but none of it seems to have exploded into the open during the campaign.
Whatever the result it seems likely it will have to be interpreted through the glass of a low turnout.

TheScreamingEagles said:

The man who helped mastermind a campaign that broke electoral laws and triggered the resignation of a former minister is at the heart of Ukip’s push to win the Oldham West and Royton by-election.

Joe Fitzpatrick, Ukip’s interim Oldham chairman, was the electoral agent for Labour MP Phil Woolas when he was accused of inflaming racial tensions with false statements about his rival.

Mr Woolas was forced to resign after a court found he had made “untrue” statements in the 2010 election campaign linking his rival to Islamists who “advocate extreme violence”.

The court heard how Mr Fitzpatrick wrote an email during the tightly-fought campaign warning: “If we don't get the white folk angry, he's gone."

http://bit.ly/1LBgCly

This is the whole point and ethos of UKIP these days. Carswell should be ashamed of himself.

Fenster said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Fenster said:

The communists, anti-British terrorist-apologisers and real batshit crazy types who think Corbyn is the answer will have a cause that enthuses about 1% of the population.

When they are hived off labour can go back to being a serious contender again. I still think - if they carve off the Corbynites sooner rather than later - they can win in 2020.

The Corbynites already had their own party. In fact they had several parties, split off from the Communist Party. That didn't work terribly well so they've taken the opportunity Ed Miliband gave then to take over Labour.

The question facing Labour now is: will the Corbynites be the expellees, or the expellers?

What I think is really, deeply, philosophically interesting about all this, is whether Corbyn wants the Labour party to split.

Corbyn is a not a (completely) stupid man, and he will likely know there isn't enough support in the country to lead a Marxist-socialist government. He'll likely know his agenda will never even get close.

So is he:

a) so full of bitterness about the Blair/Mandelson years (believing that neo-Thatcherites usurped the party) that he wants to split the party in an act of revenge.

b) Really naive enough to think that he is inspirational and right enough to persuade millions of voters to his and McDonnell's agenda, then rally to dramatic victory in 2020.

c) Up to something else? Is he planning to spend enough time in the job (taking all sorts of flak and abuse and laughter) to keep hammering home a social-justice agenda, so that - at some point - he can step aside and leave the position open to a more centrist leader, who can no longer ignore the plight of the poor etc*..

*If he does want this he has a hell of a job on his hands reconciling his unreconcilable supporters with the Blairite election-winning (popular) types...

Corbyn is the most interesting thing in British politics by far....

It seems that b is the one, given what we have seen so far. Certainly those around him - McDonnells, the Seamus Milnes, the Owen Jones and Momentum and all the rest - they really believe as far as I can see that their time has come. They need to get out a bit more - maybe go mad and do some door knocking in Oldham this December.

AndyJS said:

I've been saying for weeks that UKIP had a good chance of winning. It is a by-election after all. People can make a protest and then return to their usual party at the next general election.

rottenborough said:

Hodges:

“We were out leafleting on tax credits in rock solid Labour areas, and people were handing us the leaflets back. I’ve never seen a reaction like it before,” said one backbencher.

Floater said:

There may be trouble ahead

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12018575/Syria-will-be-the-spark-for-open-rebellion-of-Labours-shadow-cabinet-against-Jeremy-Corbyn.html

Interesting stuff about feelings of ordinary voters when Labour come a calling

“We were out leafleting on tax credits in rock solid Labour areas, and people were handing us the leaflets back. I’ve never seen a reaction like it before,” said one backbencher.

You should have listened to Southam.

If this is true then those of us who have bet on UKIP in Oldham may well be in with a better chance than the odds are saying.

If they have a party left to come back to.

Scots are incurable optimists. More think that Scotland is likely to win the rugby world cup by 2025 than expect life to be discovered on Mars by that date:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CUvWYDnWUAA6Q82.jpg

rottenborough said:

Certainly those around him - McDonnells, the Seamus Milnes, the Owen Jones and Momentum and all the rest - they really believe as far as I can see that their time has come.

Tiocfaidh ár lá !

LondonBob said:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary

Trump continues to hit new highs, great stuff.

Bonkers...embellish your story about 9/11, makes some more offensive tweets, mock a disabled reports...bump in poll ratings. He is making Teflon Tony look like an amateur.

AlastairMeeks said:

Scots are incurable optimists. More think that Scotland is likely to win the rugby world cup by 2025 than expect life to be discovered on Mars by that date:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CUvWYDnWUAA6Q82.jpg

Life being found on Mars is an order of magnitude more likely than Scotland winning the rugby world cup.

O/T:

“Rhodes must fall,” chants the crowd. But bringing down an imperialist’s statue won’t change the past

Rhodes is a metaphor for the fact that the university is not a fully inclusive space,” says Sizwe Mpofu-Walsh."

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2015/11/rhodes-must-fall-chants-crowd-bringing-down-imperialist-s-statue-won-t-change

Fenster said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Fenster said:

The communists, anti-British terrorist-apologisers and real batshit crazy types who think Corbyn is the answer will have a cause that enthuses about 1% of the population.

When they are hived off labour can go back to being a serious contender again. I still think - if they carve off the Corbynites sooner rather than later - they can win in 2020.

The Corbynites already had their own party. In fact they had several parties, split off from the Communist Party. That didn't work terribly well so they've taken the opportunity Ed Miliband gave then to take over Labour.

The question facing Labour now is: will the Corbynites be the expellees, or the expellers?

What I think is really, deeply, philosophically interesting about all this, is whether Corbyn wants the Labour party to split.

Corbyn is a not a (completely) stupid man, and he will likely know there isn't enough support in the country to lead a Marxist-socialist government. He'll likely know his agenda will never even get close.

So is he:

a) so full of bitterness about the Blair/Mandelson years (believing that neo-Thatcherites usurped the party) that he wants to split the party in an act of revenge.

b) Really naive enough to think that he is inspirational and right enough to persuade millions of voters to his and McDonnell's agenda, then rally to dramatic victory in 2020.

c) Up to something else? Is he planning to spend enough time in the job (taking all sorts of flak and abuse and laughter) to keep hammering home a social-justice agenda, so that - at some point - he can step aside and leave the position open to a more centrist leader, who can no longer ignore the plight of the poor etc*..

*If he does want this he has a hell of a job on his hands reconciling his unreconcilable supporters with the Blairite election-winning (popular) types...

Corbyn is the most interesting thing in British politics by far....

I expect Corbyn, McDonnell etc probably hugely overrate their chances of actually winning in 2020 and see it as far more probable than almost anyone here would. Also, however, if they get, say 23% of the vote that, while a catastrophe for Labour, would be excellent compared with what TUSC (or equivalent) might achieve. In short, they have hijacked the Labour brand, built by the right and soft-left over decades, and will be happy to cash it in.

Is late term abortion available for theses nitwits?

AndyJS said:

O/T:

“Rhodes must fall,” chants the crowd. But bringing down an imperialist’s statue won’t change the past

Rhodes is a metaphor for the fact that the university is not a fully inclusive space,” says Sizwe Mpofu-Walsh."

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2015/11/rhodes-must-fall-chants-crowd-bringing-down-imperialist-s-statue-won-t-change

@AndyJS: although John Simpson is wrong to say that Rhodes University is in Cape Town; it's actually in Grahamstown.

AndyJS said:

O/T:

“Rhodes must fall,” chants the crowd. But bringing down an imperialist’s statue won’t change the past

Rhodes is a metaphor for the fact that the university is not a fully inclusive space,” says Sizwe Mpofu-Walsh."

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2015/11/rhodes-must-fall-chants-crowd-bringing-down-imperialist-s-statue-won-t-change

It is a source of shame that the current student body of Oxford University is so incapable of rational thought that this sort of campaign ever got off the ground.

We cannot change our past. But we can learn from it.

However these student radicals seem completely unwilling to listen or learn. They want to impose a world view that ignores the realities that the rest of us have to deal with.

It saddens me enormously

Charles said:

Fenster said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Fenster said:

The communists, anti-British terrorist-apologisers and real batshit crazy types who think Corbyn is the answer will have a cause that enthuses about 1% of the population.

When they are hived off labour can go back to being a serious contender again. I still think - if they carve off the Corbynites sooner rather than later - they can win in 2020.

The Corbynites already had their own party. In fact they had several parties, split off from the Communist Party. That didn't work terribly well so they've taken the opportunity Ed Miliband gave then to take over Labour.

The question facing Labour now is: will the Corbynites be the expellees, or the expellers?

What I think is really, deeply, philosophically interesting about all this, is whether Corbyn wants the Labour party to split.

Corbyn is a not a (completely) stupid man, and he will likely know there isn't enough support in the country to lead a Marxist-socialist government. He'll likely know his agenda will never even get close.

So is he:

a) so full of bitterness about the Blair/Mandelson years (believing that neo-Thatcherites usurped the party) that he wants to split the party in an act of revenge.

b) Really naive enough to think that he is inspirational and right enough to persuade millions of voters to his and McDonnell's agenda, then rally to dramatic victory in 2020.

c) Up to something else? Is he planning to spend enough time in the job (taking all sorts of flak and abuse and laughter) to keep hammering home a social-justice agenda, so that - at some point - he can step aside and leave the position open to a more centrist leader, who can no longer ignore the plight of the poor etc*..

*If he does want this he has a hell of a job on his hands reconciling his unreconcilable supporters with the Blairite election-winning (popular) types...

Corbyn is the most interesting thing in British politics by far....

Much simpler than that.

He wants his party back.

The truth is that it never was HIS party.

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

On ISIS, I've heard a lot of opposition coming from people saying that if we bomb them then we will get reprisal attacks, so we shouldn't bomb them. Wouldn't that basically be saying that they've won? They have cowed us into such a state that we are so afraid of their terrorism that we won't take the fight to them.

I have some reservations about attacks in Syria, these 70,000 FSA fighters for one, but fear of revenge attacks or reprisals from ISIS shouldn't even be considered as one of them. We cannot allow fear of being attacked by terrorists to have any influence on our foreign policy.

Surely it's all a matter of cost-benefit.

If ISIS had a nuclear bomb in London, and threatened to detonate it if we bombed them in Syria, then would you really be so sanguine?

If we allow the putrid mess to fester we could be reaching that point sooner rather than later.

Raqqa needs flattening.

oxfordsimon said:

Charles said:

Fenster said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Fenster said:

The communists, anti-British terrorist-apologisers and real batshit crazy types who think Corbyn is the answer will have a cause that enthuses about 1% of the population.

When they are hived off labour can go back to being a serious contender again. I still think - if they carve off the Corbynites sooner rather than later - they can win in 2020.

The Corbynites already had their own party. In fact they had several parties, split off from the Communist Party. That didn't work terribly well so they've taken the opportunity Ed Miliband gave then to take over Labour.

The question facing Labour now is: will the Corbynites be the expellees, or the expellers?

What I think is really, deeply, philosophically interesting about all this, is whether Corbyn wants the Labour party to split.

Corbyn is a not a (completely) stupid man, and he will likely know there isn't enough support in the country to lead a Marxist-socialist government. He'll likely know his agenda will never even get close.

So is he:

a) so full of bitterness about the Blair/Mandelson years (believing that neo-Thatcherites usurped the party) that he wants to split the party in an act of revenge.

b) Really naive enough to think that he is inspirational and right enough to persuade millions of voters to his and McDonnell's agenda, then rally to dramatic victory in 2020.

c) Up to something else? Is he planning to spend enough time in the job (taking all sorts of flak and abuse and laughter) to keep hammering home a social-justice agenda, so that - at some point - he can step aside and leave the position open to a more centrist leader, who can no longer ignore the plight of the poor etc*..

*If he does want this he has a hell of a job on his hands reconciling his unreconcilable supporters with the Blairite election-winning (popular) types...

Corbyn is the most interesting thing in British politics by far....

Much simpler than that.

He wants his party back.

The truth is that it never was HIS party.

Well quite – Corbyn may hate New Labour, but Old Labour was never the Communist utopia he wishes to recreate.

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

On ISIS, I've heard a lot of opposition coming from people saying that if we bomb them then we will get reprisal attacks, so we shouldn't bomb them. Wouldn't that basically be saying that they've won? They have cowed us into such a state that we are so afraid of their terrorism that we won't take the fight to them.

I have some reservations about attacks in Syria, these 70,000 FSA fighters for one, but fear of revenge attacks or reprisals from ISIS shouldn't even be considered as one of them. We cannot allow fear of being attacked by terrorists to have any influence on our foreign policy.

Surely it's all a matter of cost-benefit.

If ISIS had a nuclear bomb in London, and threatened to detonate it if we bombed them in Syria, then would you really be so sanguine?

Surely then we would hunt down these fellows holding the bomb, there would be no guarantee they wouldn't detonate it anyway, just out of the kindness of their hearts. This is one of those ideological fights that goes beyond cost/benefit. We must defeat ISIS whatever the cost, if it makes the streets of London slightly less secure for a while or increases the threat of terrorism, requires us to land troops in Syria or even bringing back the draft to wage war, we have to do it now because the problem of extremist Islam isn't just going to go away.

oxfordsimon said:

Charles said:

Fenster said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Fenster said:

The communists, anti-British terrorist-apologisers and real batshit crazy types who think Corbyn is the answer will have a cause that enthuses about 1% of the population.

When they are hived off labour can go back to being a serious contender again. I still think - if they carve off the Corbynites sooner rather than later - they can win in 2020.

The Corbynites already had their own party. In fact they had several parties, split off from the Communist Party. That didn't work terribly well so they've taken the opportunity Ed Miliband gave then to take over Labour.

The question facing Labour now is: will the Corbynites be the expellees, or the expellers?

What I think is really, deeply, philosophically interesting about all this, is whether Corbyn wants the Labour party to split.

Corbyn is a not a (completely) stupid man, and he will likely know there isn't enough support in the country to lead a Marxist-socialist government. He'll likely know his agenda will never even get close.

So is he:

a) so full of bitterness about the Blair/Mandelson years (believing that neo-Thatcherites usurped the party) that he wants to split the party in an act of revenge.

b) Really naive enough to think that he is inspirational and right enough to persuade millions of voters to his and McDonnell's agenda, then rally to dramatic victory in 2020.

c) Up to something else? Is he planning to spend enough time in the job (taking all sorts of flak and abuse and laughter) to keep hammering home a social-justice agenda, so that - at some point - he can step aside and leave the position open to a more centrist leader, who can no longer ignore the plight of the poor etc*..

*If he does want this he has a hell of a job on his hands reconciling his unreconcilable supporters with the Blairite election-winning (popular) types...

Corbyn is the most interesting thing in British politics by far....

Much simpler than that.

He wants his party back.

The truth is that it never was HIS party.

They can't handle the truth.

(I was referencing the Kinnock quote)

justin124 said:

23 billion does not appear out of thin air in just a few months.

Might be worth reminding yourself of that when you're next advocating an avalanche of public spending splurging a.k.a. current Labour leadership policy.

oxfordsimon said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

oxfordsimon said:

AndyJS said:

O/T:

“Rhodes must fall,” chants the crowd. But bringing down an imperialist’s statue won’t change the past

,” says Sizwe Mpofu-Walsh."

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2015/11/rhodes-must-fall-chants-crowd-bringing-down-imperialist-s-statue-won-t-change

It is a source of shame that the current student body of Oxford University is so incapable of rational thought that this sort of campaign ever got off the ground.

We cannot change our past. But we can learn from it.

However these student radicals seem completely unwilling to listen or learn. They want to impose a world view that ignores the realities that the rest of us have to deal with.

It saddens me enormously

It's not really " the current student body of Oxford University " is it?

When you see some of the other regressive thinking going on here, it is clear that this SJW mentality has spread far and wide round the dreaming spires.

Whether it is part of the no-platforming of speakers with whom a vocal minority disapprove or campaigns such as Rhodes must fall, it is scary to see how blinkered so many of the students here actually are.

oxfordsimon said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

oxfordsimon said:

AndyJS said:

O/T:

“Rhodes must fall,” chants the crowd. But bringing down an imperialist’s statue won’t change the past

Rhodes is a metaphor for the fact that the university is not a fully inclusive space,” says Sizwe Mpofu-Walsh."

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2015/11/rhodes-must-fall-chants-crowd-bringing-down-imperialist-s-statue-won-t-change

It is a source of shame that the current student body of Oxford University is so incapable of rational thought that this sort of campaign ever got off the ground.

We cannot change our past. But we can learn from it.

However these student radicals seem completely unwilling to listen or learn. They want to impose a world view that ignores the realities that the rest of us have to deal with.

It saddens me enormously

It's not really " the current student body of Oxford University " is it?

When you see some of the other regressive thinking going on here, it is clear that this SJW mentality has spread far and wide round the dreaming spires.

Whether it is part of the no-platforming of speakers with whom a vocal minority disapprove or campaigns such as Rhodes must fall, it is scary to see how blinkered so many of the students here actually are.

It does seem to be the case that top universities attract people who are a little bit thick, these days.

Or Col Jessop...

Charles said:

oxfordsimon said:

Charles said:

Fenster said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Fenster said:

The communists, anti-British terrorist-apologisers and real batshit crazy types who think Corbyn is the answer will have a cause that enthuses about 1% of the population.

When they are hived off labour can go back to being a serious contender again. I still think - if they carve off the Corbynites sooner rather than later - they can win in 2020.

The Corbynites already had their own party. In fact they had several parties, split off from the Communist Party. That didn't work terribly well so they've taken the opportunity Ed Miliband gave then to take over Labour.

The question facing Labour now is: will the Corbynites be the expellees, or the expellers?

What I think is really, deeply, philosophically interesting about all this, is whether Corbyn wants the Labour party to split.

Corbyn is a not a (completely) stupid man, and he will likely know there isn't enough support in the country to lead a Marxist-socialist government. He'll likely know his agenda will never even get close.

So is he:

a) so full of bitterness about the Blair/Mandelson years (believing that neo-Thatcherites usurped the party) that he wants to split the party in an act of revenge.

b) Really naive enough to think that he is inspirational and right enough to persuade millions of voters to his and McDonnell's agenda, then rally to dramatic victory in 2020.

c) Up to something else? Is he planning to spend enough time in the job (taking all sorts of flak and abuse and laughter) to keep hammering home a social-justice agenda, so that - at some point - he can step aside and leave the position open to a more centrist leader, who can no longer ignore the plight of the poor etc*..

*If he does want this he has a hell of a job on his hands reconciling his unreconcilable supporters with the Blairite election-winning (popular) types...

Corbyn is the most interesting thing in British politics by far....

Much simpler than that.

He wants his party back.

The truth is that it never was HIS party.

They can't handle the truth.

(I was referencing the Kinnock quote)

Plato_Says said:

I'm a reluctant Yes when it comes to involvement - we're on the IS hit-list, we don't have an option to look at our shoes and wish the monster away.

MaxPB said:

On ISIS, I've heard a lot of opposition coming from people saying that if we bomb them then we will get reprisal attacks, so we shouldn't bomb them. Wouldn't that basically be saying that they've won? They have cowed us into such a state that we are so afraid of their terrorism that we won't take the fight to them.

I have some reservations about attacks in Syria, these 70,000 FSA fighters for one, but fear of revenge attacks or reprisals from ISIS shouldn't even be considered as one of them. We cannot allow fear of being attacked by terrorists to have any influence on our foreign policy.

Miss P., I am a reluctant No when it comes to British involvement in Syria. Not because I am a pacifist or frightened of terrorist attacks but because I don't believe anyone in HMG has actually got a plan for how to win such a war or that anyone in HMG has really got the commitment to see such a war through to its end.

I think we will go off half-cock joining in with not enough resources to make a difference and no plan as to how to win and then after a few years get bored with it and pull out. If we are not going to do it properly then best not to do anything.

Plato_Says said:

Or Col Jessop...

Charles said:

oxfordsimon said:

Charles said:

Fenster said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Fenster said:

The communists, anti-British terrorist-apologisers and real batshit crazy types who think Corbyn is the answer will have a cause that enthuses about 1% of the population.

When they are hived off labour can go back to being a serious contender again. I still think - if they carve off the Corbynites sooner rather than later - they can win in 2020.

The Corbynites already had their own party. In fact they had several parties, split off from the Communist Party. That didn't work terribly well so they've taken the opportunity Ed Miliband gave then to take over Labour.

The question facing Labour now is: will the Corbynites be the expellees, or the expellers?

What I think is really, deeply, philosophically interesting about all this, is whether Corbyn wants the Labour party to split.

Corbyn is a not a (completely) stupid man, and he will likely know there isn't enough support in the country to lead a Marxist-socialist government. He'll likely know his agenda will never even get close.

So is he:

a) so full of bitterness about the Blair/Mandelson years (believing that neo-Thatcherites usurped the party) that he wants to split the party in an act of revenge.

b) Really naive enough to think that he is inspirational and right enough to persuade millions of voters to his and McDonnell's agenda, then rally to dramatic victory in 2020.

c) Up to something else? Is he planning to spend enough time in the job (taking all sorts of flak and abuse and laughter) to keep hammering home a social-justice agenda, so that - at some point - he can step aside and leave the position open to a more centrist leader, who can no longer ignore the plight of the poor etc*..

*If he does want this he has a hell of a job on his hands reconciling his unreconcilable supporters with the Blairite election-winning (popular) types...

Corbyn is the most interesting thing in British politics by far....

Much simpler than that.

He wants his party back.

The truth is that it never was HIS party.

They can't handle the truth.

(I was referencing the Kinnock quote)

Oi! I'm not a Major General, not a Colonel!

Get it right before I send you for immediate reeducation.

There is an interesting thread over on Property 118 explaining why a lot of LLs who don't put rents up during a tenancy are about to start doing so, thanks to Mr O.

http://www.property118.com/are-most-landlords-are-under-charging/82183/

Responses from 50+ LLs representing 1000+ properties.

1920s balls are coming under attack at Oxford:

"Oxford University in 'race row' over 'problematic' 1920s ball

Critics have wondered why the colleges are commemorating 'an era of history steeped in racism

Colleges at the University of Oxford have been drawn into a 'race row' after advertising New Orleans and 1920s-themed balls, to be held in May 2016.
Students have claimed that the balls may cause offence to female and ethnic minority students.'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/12014304/Oxford-University-in-race-row-over-problematic-1920s-ball.html

JosiasJessop said:

Plato_Says said:

Or Col Jessop...

Charles said:

oxfordsimon said:

Charles said:

Fenster said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Fenster said:

The communists, anti-British terrorist-apologisers and real batshit crazy types who think Corbyn is the answer will have a cause that enthuses about 1% of the population.

When they are hived off labour can go back to being a serious contender again. I still think - if they carve off the Corbynites sooner rather than later - they can win in 2020.

The Corbynites already had their own party. In fact they had several parties, split off from the Communist Party. That didn't work terribly well so they've taken the opportunity Ed Miliband gave then to take over Labour.

The question facing Labour now is: will the Corbynites be the expellees, or the expellers?

What I think is really, deeply, philosophically interesting about all this, is whether Corbyn wants the Labour party to split.

Corbyn is a not a (completely) stupid man, and he will likely know there isn't enough support in the country to lead a Marxist-socialist government. He'll likely know his agenda will never even get close.

So is he:

a) so full of bitterness about the Blair/Mandelson years (believing that neo-Thatcherites usurped the party) that he wants to split the party in an act of revenge.

b) Really naive enough to think that he is inspirational and right enough to persuade millions of voters to his and McDonnell's agenda, then rally to dramatic victory in 2020.

c) Up to something else? Is he planning to spend enough time in the job (taking all sorts of flak and abuse and laughter) to keep hammering home a social-justice agenda, so that - at some point - he can step aside and leave the position open to a more centrist leader, who can no longer ignore the plight of the poor etc*..

*If he does want this he has a hell of a job on his hands reconciling his unreconcilable supporters with the Blairite election-winning (popular) types...

Corbyn is the most interesting thing in British politics by far....

Much simpler than that.

He wants his party back.

The truth is that it never was HIS party.

They can't handle the truth.

(I was referencing the Kinnock quote)

Oi! I'm not a Major General, not a Colonel!

Get it right before I send you for immediate reeducation.

The very model of a modern major general, Mr Jessop, or one of Cromwell's type? Which do you see yourself as?