Jeremy Corbyn's position as Labour leader is untenable by any stretch of the imagination yet he remains in post and this despite rumours that he is being prevented from resigning by aids. This situation is supported by the latest information that Andy Burnham was prevented from speaking with Corbyn earlier this afternoon by those same aids.
Has this farce gone on long enough? Has British politics become a laughing stock?
Thanks to Milliband changing the rules, the electoral college for the Labour leader is in the hands of the members of the labour party, and concentrated in the hands of Momentum members. The Parliamentary party are powerless.
I fear it may be impossible to remove Corbyn. He will automatically be on the ballot and will win each time.
It is possible that only thing to do is decamp to another party.
I am not sure the ordinary voters will ever forgive them for ignoring the crisis going on around them while they all dance round their handbags arguing about who is the most "pure" socialist and who can be leader. They need to get off their arses and do the job they are paid to do. And realise its not an effing game.
Sorry - you may realise I am a bit exercised about this.
The Labour Party no sooner got rid of Militant than the door was foolishly opened to further entryism via Momentum and haven't they used the opportunity to best effect ... for them.
Pity the posturing and sloganising doesn't go near to to addressing the lives of the people who should be able to look to the Labour Party for representation and support.
What a God damn mess both main parties are making of this. Osborne had the good sense to keep out of it but no doubt is secretly backing May in the hope of remaining Chancellor.
Corbyn is being extraordinarily stubborn and selfish IMO. He obviously wants to destroy the PLP for some reason. No good can come of his clinging on for grim death.
Corbyn is being extraordinarily stubborn and selfish IMO. He obviously wants to destroy the PLP for some reason. No good can come of his clinging on for grim death.
The story going around is that as leader of the Opposition he wants to be able to put the boot into Blair when the Chilcot Report goes public on 6th July. Can he survive another 5 or 6 days?What for? Who really cares what he has to say on the matter, it's a foregone conclusion what it will be anyway. Everyone on every side of the political spectrum will be no doubt saying much the same thing about the subject so not worth him hanging on for IMO.
The story going around is that as leader of the Opposition he wants to be able to put the boot into Blair when the Chilcot Report goes public on 6th July. Can he survive another 5 or 6 days?
The story going around is that as leader of the Opposition he wants to be able to put the boot into Blair when the Chilcot Report goes public on 6th July. Can he survive another 5 or 6 days?
Well that will be the next political storm, unless of course a lot of the material has been redacted.
I don't think it is going to have the impact it might have had and any fallout is going to be short term. Blair couldn't have arranged a better time for it if he had planned it himself.
You mean he didnt.......
For £3 I could place a vote for Maria Eagle, though I've never voted Labour in my life. How is that right?
As far as I know anyone can join a political party at any time if they want to. Membership entitles members to a say in the party's affairs, including leadership elections.
Democracy means power belongs to the people. The Labour Party is more democratic than the Conservative Party because it's members vote earlier in the leadership process.
I believe in democracy but I think democracy in most cases is limited. The people should have the power but usually their ability to wield it is limited.
We have seen democracy in action twice in the last year and the outrage has been plain. I think unfettered democracy would not suit those who believe they know best. They see the people as untrustworthy, which is why there has never been true democracy in the UK.
For £3 I could place a vote for Maria Eagle, though I've never voted Labour in my life. How is that right?First you have to state why you think its wrong
never been true democracy in the UK...what an absolute load of tosh...it depends how you define true democracy which is entirely subjective
If you live in an area with a safe Labour seat you can be a member of the Conservative Party, you can work for it and vote for it but you will be represented by a Labour MP. Birkenhead being one case in point. You are pretty much disenfranchised.
so...every system has pluses and minuses....
For £3 I could place a vote for Maria Eagle, though I've never voted Labour in my life. How is that right?
I doubt it.
With the new 'membership', it would seem unlikely.
I presume this new membership is democracy in his eyes.
Essentially, paying for a vote.
I am coming round to the opinion that the parasite is in the process of killing the host.
Perhaps it is time for the true labour party to take this opportunity to reform and become a party which is capable of being elected to office and therefore in a position to represent the electorate of the country as a whole.
Consideration should be given less to the 'mass membership' ease of access for those representing policies which are anathema to most voters (including mainstream Labour members and sympathisers) and make them un-electable under their true colours.
Which is why they have attached themselves to the coat tails of an established political party.
Time to reclaim Labour from the militant tendency or socialist worker clones and it seems the only way possible to do that is by leaving them behind in a rump which can then stand under its own colours and no-one else's.
There has seldom been a period in our history when effective opposition and leadership is so paramount for the good of the country ... if Labour can't provide it ... I'm leaning towards the unthinkable and Angus Robertson's proposition for providing one.
I can't recall a time when the country needed an effective leader soooooo badly and the candidates were so poor. God only knows who would win if we had an election tomorrow?
I feel positive about TM ?{)(** At the end of the day who would want such a job with all the stresses and strains 24/7? It's not even well paid relevant to the responsibilities involved.
I would describe my politics as centre but I have only ever voted Tory! But it's always good imo to have an effective opposition. The current lot are completely unelectable imo and an embarrassment to the country. Keir Starmer was encouraged to stand in 2015 but he didn't citing lack of political experience. Maybe a future contender.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNRlVT5w-N4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keir_Starmer
I can't recall a time when the country needed an effective leader soooooo badly and the candidates were so poor. God only knows who would win if we had an election tomorrow?
If the MP's thought they could defeat Corbyn a leadership election would be taking place. Instead we have Tom Watson trying to persuade everyone to play nicely.If Corbyn truly was an honest man he should have backed the Leave campaign, as he has been against the EU all his political career.
The same MP's who have no faith in Corbyn had faith in Ed Milliband and let him lead them in a General Election. That casts serious doubts on their ability to judge.
I think the issue is about Corbyn's left wing stance rather than his leadership abilities. His mentor, Tony Benn, faced exactly the same problems throughout his political career. Both share something scarce in politics; honesty.
Tony Blair was attractive to the Electorate, but he wasn't an honest man, it seems.
If Corbyn truly was an honest man he should have backed the Leave campaign, as he has been against the EU all his political career.
Corbyn has criticised aspects of the EU along with many other politicians, including Thatcher, Blair and Cameron. Has anyone a cite where he said we should leave?Anyone HONEST with these opinions on the EU should have had the courage of his convictions and come out in favour of Leave
I am coming round to the opinion that the parasite is in the process of killing the host.
Perhaps it is time for the true labour party to take this opportunity to reform and become a party which is capable of being elected to office and therefore in a position to represent the electorate of the country as a whole.
Consideration should be given less to the 'mass membership' ease of access for those representing policies which are anathema to most voters (including mainstream Labour members and sympathisers) and make them un-electable under their true colours.
Which is why they have attached themselves to the coat tails of an established political party.
Time to reclaim Labour from the militant tendency or socialist worker clones and it seems the only way possible to do that is by leaving them behind in a rump which can then stand under its own colours and no-one else's.
There has seldom been a period in our history when effective opposition and leadership is so paramount for the good of the country ... if Labour can't provide it ... I'm leaning towards the unthinkable and Angus Robertson's proposition for providing one.
If Corbyn truly was an honest man he should have backed the Leave campaign, as he has been against the EU all his political career.No, youre logic is totally flawed
Also:
He voted in favour of leaving the European Economic Community in 1975.
He voted against the Maastricht Treaty that created the EU. Here's what he had to say about it — "It takes us in the opposite direction of an unelected legislative body—the Commission—and, in the case of foreign policy, a policy Commission that will be, in effect, imposing foreign policy on nation states that have fought for their own democratic accountability."
He voted against the Lisbon Treaty which is the current constitutional basis for the EU.
maybe he was, he's certainly not a "conviction" politician as Is Jeremy, supposedly...
What he said about the Commission was correct and voting against the Lisbon Treaty doesn't a leaver make, unless Cameron was a secret leaver too.
David Cameron voted no on Lisbon Treaty — Second Reading
David Cameron voted no on Lisbon Treaty — Third Reading
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10777/david_cameron/witney/divisions?policy=1065
If Jeremy was a passionate advocate of remaining in the EU, perhaps you can link me to a few of his passionate speeches in the subject over the last 3 months?
It has been said he was a secret supporter of 'Leave', not a passionate advocate of 'Remain'. Don't change the subject, give cites which support the allegations; your last attempt failed.I wrote:
What efforts did Jeremy Corbyn make to persuade traditional Labour voters that remaining in the EU was the best option for them? Where were the impassioned speeches spelling out all the benefits of remaining? I recall seeing him on a chat show, at the beginning of which he got out of a limo in a long white fur coat and bling, all very amusing, and then claiming in the interview (after a telling pause) that he was 7/10 in favour of remaining, but I wasn't convinced. Who was?
He clearly hasn't supported EU membership 100%, so why should he have made impassioned speeches of support? You seem to think he should have passionately supported something he didn't passionately believe in.The issue of whether or not to remain in the EU has aroused passionate debate on both sides of the fence. The fact that the leader of the opposition couldn't muster more than a "meh" either way is a shocking indictment on his ability to lead the opposition and / or govern the country IMO. If he can't get passionate about this most important of issues which effects every single person living in this country, what can he get passionate about (apart from putting the boot in to Tony Blair and"evil" Israel?)
He gave remain the level of support he felt it deserved; 7/10. Any more would have been dishonest of him.
The issue of whether or not to remain in the EU has aroused passionate debate on both sides of the fence. The fact that the leader of the opposition couldn't muster more than a "meh" either way is a shocking indictment on his ability to lead the opposition and / or govern the country IMO. If he can't get passionate about this most important of issues which effects every single person living in this country, what can he get passionate about (apart from putting the boot in to Tony Blair and"evil" Israel?)
That's just your opinion of how a leader should behave. As I recall Corbyn's election was driven by a desire to seeI don"t know where you got the idea that I admire Blair! However, I don't think I'm alone in expecting a leader to be strong, decisive, and unambiguous in his or her views about serious matters such as the EU. Corbyn has been anything but.
a different kind of leadership. Blair was the type of leader you admire and he took us to war in Iraq without allowing his cabinet a proper voice. A strong leader who is now out there on his own with no back-up, taking all the blame.
Corbyn said he wants the views of regular people across the country to be recognised. The 66-year-old leader of the opposition exclaimed: “Kinder, more inclusive. Bottom up, not top down. In every community and workplace, not just at Westminster. Real debate, not message discipline. Straight talking. Honest.”
http://www.managers.org.uk/insights/news/2015/october/whats-new-about-jeremy-corbyns-leadership-style
That's just your opinion of how a leader should behave. As I recall Corbyn's election was driven by a desire to see
a different kind of leadership. Blair was the type of leader you admire and he took us to war in Iraq without allowing his cabinet a proper voice. A strong leader who is now out there on his own with no back-up, taking all the blame.
Corbyn said he wants the views of regular people across the country to be recognised. The 66-year-old leader of the opposition exclaimed: “Kinder, more inclusive. Bottom up, not top down. In every community and workplace, not just at Westminster. Real debate, not message discipline. Straight talking. Honest.”
http://www.managers.org.uk/insights/news/2015/october/whats-new-about-jeremy-corbyns-leadership-style
I don"t know where you got the idea that I admire Blair! However, I don't think I'm alone in expecting a leader to be strong, decisive, and unambiguous in his or her views about serious matters such as the EU. Corbyn has been anything but.
We had a multitude of strong, decisive and unambiguous voices. They spoke, they wrote, they promised and they threatened. None of them gave full and factual information so we could make an informed decision. All any of them wanted was to make sure their 'side' won. I don't think I'm alone in being fed up with people trying to manipulate the electorate for their own ends. There's a difference between leading and browbeating.So what's your understanding of where Corbyn sits on Europe? Say he wins a general election in October, what would you expect him to deliver and how?
So what's your understanding of where Corbyn sits on Europe? Say he wins a general election in October, what would you expect him to deliver and how?Why are YOU so obsessed with corbyn, did he or a labour person let you down once?
So what's your understanding of where Corbyn sits on Europe? Say he wins a general election in October, what would you expect him to deliver and how?
I would expect him to accept the majority decision delivered by the referendum. Labour's leave negotiations would, however, seek to get a deal which both sides could accept. I expect whoever gets the job to do the same.And what has he actually said on the subject to back up your expectations?
And what has he actually said on the subject to back up your expectations?
And what has he actually said on the subject to back up your expectations?Jeremy Corbyn has said very clearly, following the Brexit vote, that the referendum vote must be respected, as in this report on the BBC:
(snip)
It must be clearly understood that the free movement of both labour and capital favours corporate, global businesses, and not the ordinary 'man and woman in the street'.
As for the gloom and doom predictions, just four weeks ago today the stock market (FTSE100 index) was at 5,900. Today it is 12 percent higher at 6,600.
So much for the Remainers' doom and gloom!
Jeremy Corbyn has said very clearly, following the Brexit vote, that the referendum vote must be respected, as in this report on the BBC:LOL. Wasn't he supposed to be in the Remain camp? Isn't that what I have just been discussing with G-Unit?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36628305
"He also announced a review of immigration policy and ruled out a new EU referendum if Labour wins power. He said: "The referendum has taken place, a decision has been made, I think we have got to respect that decision and work out our relationship with Europe in the future."
Corbyn has been a lifelong opponent of the European Union, correctly, in my view, seeing it as an unholy alliance between the interests of career politicians and big, corporate business. Which is the precise reason I campaigned and voted to leave the Common Market in the 1975 referendum.
It must be clearly understood that the free movement of both labour and capital favours corporate, global businesses, and not the ordinary 'man and woman in the street'. That is precisely why the EU is supporting the appalling TTIP proposals which will massively assist - and empower even further - corporate global businesses operating in the US and the EU.
As a matter of fact, as this 15-second clip of Corbyn speaking just before the referendum vote shows, he gave the electorate a crisp summary of the very reasons why we should vote LEAVE:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErEumAi_zGU
I'm not bothered what any of them have said. The British people were asked a question and they answered it. I expect every politician to accept and implement the will of the people. At the same time I expect them to try their best to find a solution that both sides can accept. Whether that's possible we shall see.So, you don't care what Jeremy has to say on the subject of Europe but you think he's a top bloke who will rise to the challenge of leading us out of the EU, ok then!
The Labour party has already tarnished itself. their policies under bliar brought us right wing fascist into the political spectrum due to their deaf earing a concerned public. I was so sure we were going to have a civil war on our hands... if the Government does not hold the vote up as the people have spoken then I fear that is what we will have. We are borrowing money to support a benefit system,education and NHS SERVICE which is collapsing under the weight of uncontrolled immigration. Simple fact is we do not have the infrastructure and did not put money aside to build more housing and school etc for this invasion.
Thank you Labour!
We are also in debt to pay for 2 wars
Thank you Labour!
And no I AM NOT a Tory or uk voter!
What you have to take account of is that the Labour Party was taken over by 'New Labour' under Blair and Brown.
The last real Labour government ended in 1979.
http://www.redpepper.org.uk/inside-new-labours-rolling-coup-the-blair-supremacy/
The British public do not want an extreme party ...Blair realised this
As long as they are extreme..as Corbyn is..... They are unelectable
Political extremism is a label applied to anyone who is seen as having the potential to upset the status quo.
Corbyn is a democratic socialist, as were Clement Attlee, Nelson Mandela, Francois Mitterrand, Willy Brant, Aneurin Bevan, Tony Benn, Dennis Healey, Albert Einstein, Helen Keller and Martin Luther King.
Were they all extremists?
Political extremism is a label applied to anyone who is seen as having the potential to upset the status quo.
Corbyn is a democratic socialist, as were Clement Attlee, Nelson Mandela, Francois Mitterrand, Willy Brant, Aneurin Bevan, Tony Benn, Dennis Healey, Albert Einstein, Helen Keller and Martin Luther King.
Were they all extremists?
corbyn is far left and therefore by definition extreme.....you need to get your head out of the sand. He is unelectable........in my heart I am a far left but we know it does not work in practice. corbyn is more communist than you would like to admit
There have always been powerful people and non powerful people. There have always been rich and poor. There have always been struggles between the two. Those struggling against the powerful and rich have always been labelled as extreme in order to discredit them.
If no-one had ever struggled we would still be ruled by an absolute monarchy.
That's why saying a certain group are extreme is meaningless. What they are is a group who feel the status quo doesn't work in the interests of a certain section of society. Their aim is to redress the balance.
The Labour Party was formed out of the Trade Union Movement with the aim of ensuring that Parliament represented the interests of everybody.
The unashamed attacks on the poor by the Conservatives recently have contributed to the return of Labour to it's original aims in my opinion. The struggle still needs to continue because the Conservatives don't represent those at the bottom, and neither did 'New Labour'.
There have always been powerful people and non powerful people. There have always been rich and poor. There have always been struggles between the two. Those struggling against the powerful and rich have always been labelled as extreme in order to discredit them.
If no-one had ever struggled we would still be ruled by an absolute monarchy.
That's why saying a certain group are extreme is meaningless. What they are is a group who feel the status quo doesn't work in the interests of a certain section of society. Their aim is to redress the balance.
The Labour Party was formed out of the Trade Union Movement with the aim of ensuring that Parliament represented the interests of everybody.
The unashamed attacks on the poor by the Conservatives recently have contributed to the return of Labour to it's original aims in my opinion. The struggle still needs to continue because the Conservatives don't represent those at the bottom, and neither did 'New Labour'.
The Pink Lady and any other wanna-be's will. have to beat the sitting tenant fair and square, it seems.
Corbyn got trounced by May yesterday in question time.
Did it even occur to him to go on the offensive and point out that May was not elected by voters, and has no mandate.
199 Tory M.P.'s not withstanding.
The Labour Party's woes appear to be going from bad to worse what with female MP's now demanding an end to abuse.
Snip
Jeremy Corbyn has been accused by nearly half the female MPs in his party of failing to stop the "disgusting and totally unacceptable" abuse of women by his supporters.
In a letter to the Labour leader, 45 female MPs say his response to the intimidation has been “inadequate” and tell him: “Jeremy, this is being done in your name.”
The MPs demand he signs a three-part pledge to do more to stop the “rape threats, death threats, smashed cars and bricks through the windows” seen in recent weeks.
They also suggest Mr Corbyn failed in his duty of care by opposing a secret ballot for a crucial party board vote despite the pleas of women colleagues receiving intimidating messages.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/22/45-female-labour-mps-write-to-jeremy-corbyn-demanding-he-does-mo/
The Labour Party's woes appear to be going from bad to worse what with female MP's now demanding an end to abuse.That's just a bunch of whingeing wimmin though so not to be taken seriously, especially not by real men like Corbyn and O'Donnell. 8(0(*
Snip
Jeremy Corbyn has been accused by nearly half the female MPs in his party of failing to stop the "disgusting and totally unacceptable" abuse of women by his supporters.
In a letter to the Labour leader, 45 female MPs say his response to the intimidation has been “inadequate” and tell him: “Jeremy, this is being done in your name.”
The MPs demand he signs a three-part pledge to do more to stop the “rape threats, death threats, smashed cars and bricks through the windows” seen in recent weeks.
They also suggest Mr Corbyn failed in his duty of care by opposing a secret ballot for a crucial party board vote despite the pleas of women colleagues receiving intimidating messages.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/22/45-female-labour-mps-write-to-jeremy-corbyn-demanding-he-does-mo/
That's just a bunch of whingeing wimmin though so not to be taken seriously, especially not by real men like Corbyn and O'Donnell. 8(0(*
Firstly he has continually condemned the bullying, so I don't know what they think he can do? Secondly, 'demanding' he do this or that strikes me as typical of these women's attitudes. Thirdly, seven wimmin are working with him in his Shadow Cabinet, so he's clearly not sexist as far as they're concerned.
Firstly he has continually condemned the bullying, so I don't know what they think he can do? Secondly, 'demanding' he do this or that strikes me as typical of these women's attitudes. Thirdly, seven wimmin are working with him in his Shadow Cabinet, so he's clearly not sexist as far as they're concerned.Firstly, of course he's going to condemn the bullying publicly, he's hardly going to make a speech endorsing it, is he? Secondly, why shouldn't they demand he puts his money where his hairy orifice is and do more to address bullying and abuse, do you think they should ask pretty please with sugar on top, or better still put up with it and pipe down, this monstrous regiment of women? Thirdly, having women in your shadow cabinet does not preclude one from being sexist. Some men like to be surrounded by women, just ask any guy with his own harem.
Firstly, of course he's going to condemn the bullying publicly, he's hardly going to make a speech endorsing it, is he? Secondly, why shouldn't they demand he puts his money where his hairy orifice is and do more to address bullying and abuse, do you think they should ask pretty please with sugar on top, or better still put up with it and pipe down, this monstrous regiment of women? Thirdly, having women in your shadow cabinet does not preclude one from being sexist. Some men like to be surrounded by women, just ask any guy with his own harem.
What exactly do you and those women expect him to do? Track down everyone involved and tell them off?Tell them off? How about rescind their membership? Cast them out of the Momentum Cult would be a good start. Instead of acting like the Messiah and constantly telling us what a kind, lovely man he is, he should hold an internal enquiry and start weeding out the bullies, the abusers, the misogynists and the anti-semites within the party, god knows there's plenty of them to be found, and get rid of them once and for all. But that's just my opinion. I could provide you with acres of evidence of sexism and abuse carried out in Corbyn's name but you'd reject it all as lies made up to make trouble for poor saintly Jeremy and his disciples so what's the point.
I just think they need to stand on their own feet and deal with it. The police can be involved if it gets serious. It's ike the McCann thing. both sides are as bad.
If you have proof of sexism let's see it, or don't bother casting silly aspersions.
Despite the smears he's on track to beat Smith hands down. Probably because no-one believes the media or MP's any more; that ship has sunk without trace recently.
Tell them off? How about rescind their membership? Cast them out of the Momentum Cult would be a good start. Instead of acting like the Messiah and constantly telling us what a kind, lovely man he is, he should hold an internal enquiry and start weeding out the bullies, the abusers, the misogynists and the anti-semites within the party, god knows there's plenty of them to be found, and get rid of them once and for all. But that's just my opinion. I could provide you with acres of evidence of sexism and abuse carried out in Corbyn's name but you'd reject it all as lies made up to make trouble for poor saintly Jeremy and his disciples so what's the point.
We all know Jeremy's going to win so there's no need to keep banging that drum, the sad fact is he has a strong cult following, far more so than the non-entity that's up against him.
Out of interest, do you think Corbyn is completely beyond reproach? You jump in to defend him at every opportunity so one must suppose so. Is he your idea of the perfect party leader?
Tell them off? How about rescind their membership? Cast them out of the Momentum Cult would be a good start. Instead of acting like the Messiah and constantly telling us what a kind, lovely man he is, he should hold an internal enquiry and start weeding out the bullies, the abusers, the misogynists and the anti-semites within the party, god knows there's plenty of them to be found, and get rid of them once and for all. But that's just my opinion. I could provide you with acres of evidence of sexism and abuse carried out in Corbyn's name but you'd reject it all as lies made up to make trouble for poor saintly Jeremy and his disciples so what's the point.
We all know Jeremy's going to win so there's no need to keep banging that drum, the sad fact is he has a strong cult following, far more so than the non-entity that's up against him.
Out of interest, do you think Corbyn is completely beyond reproach? You jump in to defend him at every opportunity so one must suppose so. Is he your idea of the perfect party leader?
You seem woefully ill-informed about the powers and areas of responsibility of the Leader of the Labour Party. Look up 'Compliance Unit'; here's a link to help you.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/02/senior-momentum-member-expelled-labour
I expect those who tried to bully their elected leader out of his position will eventually be dealt with.
You also seem confused when describing Corbyn. You need to decide if he's a reincarnation of Mao or some religious leader. @)(++(*
I have seen vicious attacks on Corbyn by those MP's who are more likely to approve of Progress than of Momentum. I have seen the media print only stories which attempt to discredit him. Despite that ordinary people have supported him, just as they supported Farage in similar circumstances. The media needs to take note. People no longer swallow their demonisation tactics.
I have said over and over I believe in democracy. Corbyn was democratically elected and most of the MP's who oppose him do not seem to be representing the views of their constituents. Whether he's the right leader or the wrong leader is irrelevant, he's the member's choice.
Corbyn was elected last year after the Labour Party gained a large number of 'new members'.
This included those from the Communist Party and the Socialist Workers Party.
It was BUYING VOTES, not democracy.
If I recall correctly, that included members of the Tory Party who wanted someone elected who had a cat in hells chance of winning a general election.
Corbyn was not elected because of the £3 members, so your argument is irrelevant;
Mr Corbyn received 121,751 first preferences votes from full Labour members, well over double the number of his nearest rival Andy Burnham, who won 55,698. Yvette Cooper took 54,470 and Liz Kendall took 13,601.
Mr Corbyn also received 41,217 voters from affiliate trade unionists and members of socialist societies, more than double the number of his nearest rival Andy Burnham who took 18,604.
The numbers mean that without £3 registered supporters Mr Corbyn would still have won in the first round of the contest with 51 per cent of the vote.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-won-a-landslide-with-full-labour-party-members-not-just-3-supporters-10498221.html
My argument is not irrelevant.
Corbyn was elected on the backs of people who are deluded that left wing policies are popular in the country.
They aren't.
Corbyn surrounds himself with like thinking cronies and he if re-elected will destroy the Labour Party.
Mark my words.
Does anyone believe that Jeremy Corbyn could ever win a General Election?
Oh dear. So many deluded people around. Why are they deluded? Because they didn't agree with you on the EU referendum and because they don't agree with you on who should lead the Labour Party. You're beginning to sound like one of those disgruntled MP's who're convinced they know best! 8((()*/
Does anyone believe that Jeremy Corbyn could ever win a General Election?
There is a hatred and fear of left-wing politics by some in this country, as we have seen since Corbyn won the Labour leadership election;
http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/14637934.Kevin_McKenna__Why_the_powers_that_be_fear_Jeremy_Corbyn/
They attacked Nigel Farage in a similar way but people took no notice and his support grew. Tha same effect can be seen with Corbyn.
If Scotland became disenchanted with the SNP Labour could easily win a general election. Whether it could do so with Corbyn in charge remains to be seen.
You seem woefully ill-informed about the powers and areas of responsibility of the Leader of the Labour Party. Look up 'Compliance Unit'; here's a link to help you.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/02/senior-momentum-member-expelled-labour
I expect those who tried to bully their elected leader out of his position will eventually be dealt with.
You also seem confused when describing Corbyn. You need to decide if he's a reincarnation of Mao or some religious leader. @)(++(*
I have seen vicious attacks on Corbyn by those MP's who are more likely to approve of Progress than of Momentum. I have seen the media print only stories which attempt to discredit him. Despite that ordinary people have supported him, just as they supported Farage in similar circumstances. The media needs to take note. People no longer swallow their demonisation tactics.
I have said over and over I believe in democracy. Corbyn was democratically elected and most of the MP's who oppose him do not seem to be representing the views of their constituents. Whether he's the right leader or the wrong leader is irrelevant, he's the member's choice.
There is a hatred and fear of left-wing politics by some in this country, as we have seen since Corbyn won the Labour leadership election;I think you will find that it is more than "some" in this country who hate and fear the brand of left-wing politics that Jeremy Corbyn represents, which would explain why there hasn't been a far left PM for a very long time (if ever!)
http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/14637934.Kevin_McKenna__Why_the_powers_that_be_fear_Jeremy_Corbyn/
They attacked Nigel Farage in a similar way but people took no notice and his support grew. Tha same effect can be seen with Corbyn.
If Scotland became disenchanted with the SNP Labour could easily win a general election. Whether it could do so with Corbyn in charge remains to be seen.
So where does Corbyn have support apart from his band of followers. ?
Whilst I agree with some of his policies, he has no chance of winning an election.
Neither of us know whether his support will grow or decline in the future, so I prefer to say I don't know if he can win a general election or not.
So are you telling me Corbyn as party leader wields so little power and influence that he could not do more to expose and remove bullies, abusers, misogynists and anti-semites from both Momentum and the party that he represents? don't make me laugh please.
As for the Mao / Messiah thing, JC is the head of a cult, he seems to enjoy fanatical quasi-religious devotion from his followers in the way that (for example) Mao enjoyed so I don't see any contradiction there, and it strikes me as both sinister and a little worrying. You can buy Mao T-shirts, and you can buy Jeremy Corbyn t-shirts, don't see many items of apparel featuring Theresa May or any previous party leaders for that matter.
I rest my case @)(++(*
By the way, how do you know whether or not rebel MPs are reflecting the views of their constituents or not? Have you conducted surveys amongst the Labour supporters in these constituencies?
Oh dear. It sounds to me like you are falling for the propaganda hook. line and sinker. It isn't the first time campaigns against those on the left have been waged of course. Tony Benn also scared the establishment;What propaganda do you think I have fallen for? You obviously credit me with very little intelligence nor believe I have the ability to form an opinion based on the actions and words of the man himself, or of those of his acolytes. Nor do you credit me with the ability to separate media hyperbole about the man from the facts - and there are enough facts to convince me that Jeremy is never, ever going to form a Labour government and to convince me that he is an incompetent labour leader, and not the brightest button in the box.
Benn's biographer, David Powell, described the campaign against Benn as "venomous" and quoted the Labour MP and Benn supporter, Michael Meacher, as saying:
"There was never less than a half-page of vitriol in the press every day, and the source was the right wing of the Labour party."
the Sun ran a feature headlined "Benn on the couch: a top psychiatrist's view of Britain's leading leftie". It claimed he was "a Messiah figure hiding behind the mask of the common man … greedy for power and willing to do anything to get it."
https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/mar/14/tony-benn-national-newspapers
I think people are less likely to fall for such rubbish these days.
entryism ... the policy or practice of members of a particular political group joining an existing political party with the intention of changing its principles and policies, instead of forming a new party
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Entryist
Like Miliant of yesteryear ... Momentum is an entryist political organisation which is using the Labour party in an attempt to gain power.
If they are so certain that their policies make them electable ... why not be honest about it and form their own political party with Corbyn at their head and go for it?
Majority of Labour members want Jeremy to step down before the next election -
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/majority-labour-members-want-jeremy-8322439
entryism ... the policy or practice of members of a particular political group joining an existing political party with the intention of changing its principles and policies, instead of forming a new party
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Entryist
Like Miliant of yesteryear ... Momentum is an entryist political organisation which is using the Labour party in an attempt to gain power.
If they are so certain that their policies make them electable ... why not be honest about it and form their own political party with Corbyn at their head and go for it?
What propaganda do you think I have fallen for? You obviously credit me with very little intelligence nor believe I have the ability to form an opinion based on the actions and words of the man himself, or of those of his acolytes. Nor do you credit me with the ability to separate media hyperbole about the man from the facts - and there are enough facts to convince me that Jeremy is never, ever going to form a Labour government and to convince me that he is an incompetent labour leader, and not the brightest button in the box.
Yes, yes, yes, we all know the media has it in for Jezbollah, in the same way they have (had) it in for Farage, Trump, Nick Griffin etc over the years - it doesn't mean that these latter individuals' views and actions are any less appalling than as portrayed in the media. The media had a field day with Griffin a few years ago - were you standing up for him on internet forums when people were saying nasty things about him too?
Perhaps it is you who has fallen for Jeremy's wizened, one-eyed Wilk, snaggle-toothed and be-whiskered charms and for his own "new brand of politics" propaganda? it's a possibility isn't it...?
There is a hatred and fear of left-wing politics by some in this country, as we have seen since Corbyn won the Labour leadership election;
http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/14637934.Kevin_McKenna__Why_the_powers_that_be_fear_Jeremy_Corbyn/
They attacked Nigel Farage in a similar way but people took no notice and his support grew. Tha same effect can be seen with Corbyn.
If Scotland became disenchanted with the SNP Labour could easily win a general election. Whether it could do so with Corbyn in charge remains to be seen.
Here's a couple of facts for you;My opinion is obviously personal (that tends to come with the territory of having an opinion), it is also perfectly logical, and happens to chime with the opinions of many, many other people in this country, includng those who have worked alongside Corbyn for many months, people who have hoped that they could overlook the man's obvious short-comings and pull together with him and his cronies to form some sort of cohesive opposition. All my opinion is based on reports from the media, including TV and radio because I do not have first hand access to Corbyn, or his fellow MPs. Do you, or are all your opinions based on media reporting too? IF the latter, what makes your opinion so much more important and special than mine? Are you blessed with greater insight, intelligence and knowledge than me, is that it?
Corbyn made 123 public appearances campaigning for Remain. Twice as many Labour voters voted Remain than voted Leave. Nevertheless his MP's accused him of not doing enough. Eagle made 10 public appearances. More Tory voters voted Remain, but nobody in their party attacked Cameron. Or did they.................?
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/07/it-s-neither-labour-nor-uk-s-interests-blame-jeremy-corbyn-brexit
So it wasn't anything to do with Brexit really when the PLP turned on Corbyn, that was just an excuse.
The Labour rebels plotted separately and without a big candidate to take on Corbyn. In doing so they have inevitably become part of the current problem. They are in the painfully contorted position of being both passionately sincere and disingenuous in pointing out that the Corbyn leadership “isn’t working”. For sure they mean it, but one of the many reasons it is not working is that they constantly attack him.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/22/labour-rebels-problem-jeremy-corbyn-owen-smith
As far as I can see all your facts are taken from media reports. Of course there are always media reports giving another view.
I would like to accept your protestations of a considered opinion, but when you start the hyperbolic personal attacks it's a sure sign that your opinion is personal, not logical.
To be fair G Many people, not just 'some' do not want a left wing neo communist- everyone is equal - clap trap. It is a political romancer who believes they can deliver such an ideology without blood being spilled.
If the rich companies don't give much in Tax ( like amazon) et el, they can't leave the country as their company is online- they are a net worthless to our nation, and indeed taking jobs and revenue from our country makes them parasites in my eyes. The wealthy who pay less tax than the poor we don't need them either. This is the thinking in all the dictatorships, looking back how did the poor get richer? as the rich got poorer did that help the survival of their economies? It didn't work for ANY communist country-It dosn't work for socialist EU, what makes us think the UK and JC can make it work....any revolution requires participation of the people! After voting to get out of the EU I can't see those voters wanting things to stay as they are, Corbyn asn't actually mentioned his policies has he?
The labour party set the rules by which its leader is elected whether that leader is electable as Prime Minister is a different issue.
If the labour party want a new leader there is a mechanism they set up to elect one. Whether one likes Corbyn or not he seems to be pushing for his party to follow its own rules. Where is the problem with that?
Those who to tried to oust him by other means sought to subvert their own party's rules.
Oh and don't bother with the "an honourable gentleman or decent chap or anyone with with any common sense or dignity would or reds under the bed" bollocks its not relevant.
The reason no one invoked the rules apart from Ms Eagle was they were to quote Margaret Thatcher "frit".
We are all equal in that we come into the world with nothing and we leave with nothing. It's the bit in between where inequalities occur. The inequalities aren't natural, they are man-made, so can be changed if the will to change them exists.
The Labour Party is a democratic Socialist Party and Corbyn is a democratic socialist. It advocates democratic government, not government by a dictator. Corbyn hasn't made firm policy proposals, but he has revealed the direction he would like to move in;
Renationalise railways to bring down fares. Franchises would be managed locally;
Locally owned energy suppliers, emulating the German model;
Integration of health and social care;
Creation of a lifelong education service that would help retrain and reskill workers;
Universal childcare;
Repeal the Tory Trade Union Act;
Fixed pay ratios for companies to stop top management earning many multiples more than lowest paid workers;
Restriction on dividend payments for firms that don't pay the living wage.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/jeremy-corbyns-policies-at-the-fabian-conference-2016-2016-1
I agree with you on the inequalities part. I am disconcered with how democratic or not the Labour party are at chosing a leader as far as I am concerned it is the lobbyist and big bucks who call the real shots- and I fear JC may not have the clout to stand up against them. For this reason,all the sleaze bag- self serving labour mp's and supporters want the power and money for themselves, so JC is not going to deliver their riches to them- hence they will fight him by what ever means-(they wheeled in the disgusting blair - and even worse money sniffers kinnocks) which usually involves back stabbing/undermining etc. a bit like what socalist do to whistleblowers in public services. remember those 'sent to coventry' tactics- sacked for being incompetent with loads of witnesses who never even knew your surname but worked with you kind of thing? This kind of behaviour was born in the Labour party and has infected all public services.
With regards the 'social care' this is run by a private company IE councils, which now run all hospital discharged patients yes the social work now run the NHS... oh yes bet you didn't know that is what is meant by 'social care partnerships' more managers- less workers, patient care cut! where is your NHS money going? ask nicely.
Not everyone is happy about handing over their hard earned cash (TAX) to be give to people they wouldn't spit on, so demanding that inequalities should be met with robbing the poor to give to the less rich and more rich is a bit much to be honest. There is no social justice in this country, that was removed by multiculturalism.
And finally we do not have democracy in this country we are the queens subjects, we also have party politics, hardly democratic.
I would add that I am not a supporter of any political party.
I agree that our 'democracy' is an illusion. We vote occasionally for candidates chosen by others who then go to Parliament and pretend to represent us.
The EU referendum and the Labour leadership election were actually democratic. One person, one vote, one question, pick your answer. In both cases the answer was not the one required by those in positions of power, hence the fuss.
People should take note of the fact that a truly democratic decision is not what the powerful want. There will be no more referendums for a while and if Corbyn loses the leadership election the voting rules will be likely to be changed.
I also don't belong to any political party.
An excellent post. The Referendum vote was indeed democracy at its finest and people knew that their vote counted.Post Brexit Jeremy Corbyn appeared to back the free movement of people on a recent Newsnight interview, so on that basis alone I can't see him winning the GBP round to voting for a Labour government any time soon, unless he performs a volte face closer to election day, which obviously as a man of honour and principle he is unlikely to do... &%+((£.
What was particularly amazing about the Referendum was that despite both main Parties banging the REMAIN drum and despite all these so-called experts promoting the idea that it would be doom and gloom if we left the EU, the majority of voters voted LEAVE. Both Cameron and Corbyn made their positions known to their electorate and both summarily failed. Cameron has resigned in defeat yet Corbyn hangs on to whatever teensy weensy bit of influence and power he has left.
One of two things will happen next in relation to the Labour leadership. If Corbyn wins I can see the Labour Party split with the rebel MP's going off to form a new party. If Corbyn loses, the Labour Party will continue as is.
Who knows what the situation will be by the time a leadership election finally happens in two months time?
An excellent post. The Referendum vote was indeed democracy at its finest and people knew that their vote counted.
What was particularly amazing about the Referendum was that despite both main Parties banging the REMAIN drum and despite all these so-called experts promoting the idea that it would be doom and gloom if we left the EU, the majority of voters voted LEAVE. Both Cameron and Corbyn made their positions known to their electorate and both summarily failed. Cameron has resigned in defeat yet Corbyn hangs on to whatever teensy weensy bit of influence and power he has left.
One of two things will happen next in relation to the Labour leadership. If Corbyn wins I can see the Labour Party split with the rebel MP's going off to form a new party. If Corbyn loses, the Labour Party will continue as is.
Who knows what the situation will be by the time a leadership election finally happens in two months time?
An excellent post. The Referendum vote was indeed democracy at its finest and people knew that their vote counted.
What was particularly amazing about the Referendum was that despite both main Parties banging the REMAIN drum and despite all these so-called experts promoting the idea that it would be doom and gloom if we left the EU, the majority of voters voted LEAVE. Both Cameron and Corbyn made their positions known to their electorate and both summarily failed. Cameron has resigned in defeat yet Corbyn hangs on to whatever teensy weensy bit of influence and power he has left.
One of two things will happen next in relation to the Labour leadership. If Corbyn wins I can see the Labour Party split with the rebel MP's going off to form a new party. If Corbyn loses, the Labour Party will continue as is.
Who knows what the situation will be by the time a leadership election finally happens in two months time?
Very true, lots of time for things to develop. I'm not sure the rebels have enough integrity to leave, but whether they can keep any support...........I expect they will do what Blair and Progress tell them in the end, as they have all along in my opinion.On what basis do you doubt the integrity of 172 elected members of parliament? The fact that they have no faith in Jeremy Corbyn, a man they perceive to be an incompetent leader? My local MP is one of the 172, and he is a man of integrity IMO who does much good work for his constituency.
Sarah Champion has "unresigned" from Corbyn's cabinet, much to Jez's delight. The rats are beginning to rejoin the sinking ship, it's quite extraordinary! @)(++(*
Great article below, which anyone who feels that rebel MPs are behaving anti-democratically would do well to read and digest....
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/25/jeremy-corbyn-populist-democracy-mps
It's a woman's prerogative, they say. Others are said to be reconsidering also. The sinking ship has now become the lifeboat, perhaps?Whatever it is, it's on extremely stormy seas and I don't rate its chances of getting back to port in one piece.
The article is discussing representative democracy, not democracy per se. The leadership election is democratic. Our system of government is representative democracy.
Sarah Champion has "unresigned" from Corbyn's cabinet, much to Jez's delight. The rats are beginning to rejoin the sinking ship, it's quite extraordinary! @)(++(*
Will someone please shoot ferryman for starting the dreadful pox on here of using parentheses instead of commas.
I will happily provide the AK 47, well it will go bang at the right end consistently @)(++(*
I was thinking on my walk home today, if I worked for a large company (like I used to) and it was our loyal customers who (for a small fee) were able to decide who should be the CEO of the business, what a recipe for disaster that would be. They would be appointing someone whose 'people' skills, ability to lead a team, intellectual ability etc they wouldn't have the first clue about (not being part of the company themselves), nor of having worked along side this person. So if the post room boy decided to stand as a candidate, and he had an appealingly goofy smile, a humble demeanour and made lots of promises to offer customers bigger and better services, and there was a populist movement among our customers to shaft the "high-ups" and put someone "down-to-earth" with little expertise and few ideas in the top position (just for the lulz or some misplaced sense of justice for the working man) then that may be considered "democratic" but it sure as hell wouldn't be in the best interests of those actually working within the company, or the company itself.
I was thinking on my walk home today, if I worked for a large company (like I used to) and it was our loyal customers who (for a small fee) were able to decide who should be the CEO of the business, what a recipe for disaster that would be. They would be appointing someone whose 'people' skills, ability to lead a team, intellectual ability etc they wouldn't have the first clue about (not being part of the company themselves), nor of having worked along side this person. So if the post room boy decided to stand as a candidate, and he had an appealingly goofy smile, a humble demeanour and made lots of promises to offer customers bigger and better services, and there was a populist movement among our customers to shaft the "high-ups" and put someone "down-to-earth" with little expertise and few ideas in the top position (just for the lulz or some misplaced sense of justice for the working man) then that may be considered "democratic" but it sure as hell wouldn't be in the best interests of those actually working within the company, or the company itself.
I would say the electorate are more like the 'customers' of a political party, buying policies rather than goods. Party members are closer than that, they are part of the association. More like shareholders perhaps?except you didn't need to be a member to elect the leader last time, just £3.
Is this all your own work?
It sounds like something Robert Townsend may have said.
except you didn't need to be a member to elect the leader last time, just £3.
Robert Townsend. God that takes me back a bit. Wasn't he the ex CEO of Avis? I think i quite liked his book. What was it called?
He doesn't seem to inspire much love in the comments section under this article which denounces him as "a coward, a hypocrite, a bully and a fraud".
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3705171/DAN-HODGES-Reckon-s-nice-decent-bloke-let-dark-menacing-reality-Great-Corbyn-Myth.html#ixzz4FXRYjz35
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
He doesn't seem to inspire much love in the comments section under this article which denounces him as "a coward, a hypocrite, a bully and a fraud".
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3705171/DAN-HODGES-Reckon-s-nice-decent-bloke-let-dark-menacing-reality-Great-Corbyn-Myth.html#ixzz4FXRYjz35
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
What a nasty article; he certainly knows how to appeal to Mail readers. @)(++(* Not all the comments agree with this person, by the way. I have looked at a few of his other articles and he loves his polemics, doesn't he? There's no reason to believe he knows what he's talking about though;just as not all comments in the Mail are are Anti McCann, there are inevitably some supportive of Jeremy. You can't have your cake and eat it though. The majority of the comments are firmly against him, so by the Anti McCann logic this should give us an accurate snapshot of public opinion. Do you agree or not?
The Out campaign is imploding before our eyes – and the tempting idea that this referendum is too close to call is nothing but fantasy
05 Feb 2016
The out campaign is stark raving mad – come June, the majority of rational Britons will vote to stay in Europe
26 Feb 2016
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/dan-hodges/
Is it useful to look at tabloid newspaper comments to get a good idea of what the GBP consensus is on any given subject? In past debates on the JF we have been given to believe that it is, does it therefore follow that a majority of negative comments in the papers regarding Corbyn means he is not generallyt very popular popular with the GBP?
Hoping that that post meets with the approval of pedants and Alfie-detractors everywhere... @)(++(*
Off topic deleted
The Mail is a Conservative supporting newspaper. It should be happy if Labour are imploding. It's columnists should be gleeful. Instead they are desperately trying to destroy Corbyn. Obviously the Conservatives prefer the lily-livered watered down rebel Labour MP's agenda to a Labour Party with a real democratic socialist agenda.Why do you assume that a negative article about Corbyn is a desperate attempt to destroy him? The man is a dead duck and poses no threat whatsoever to the present Conservative government. Indeed, if today's poll is anything to go by two and a half million LABOUR voters prefer May to Corbyn as PM. How about you though? If you could flip a switch and put Corbyn in No 10today instead of May would you flip it?
Brexit and Corbyn have made them realise that they have pushed their austerity agenda too far and a lot of people are sick of it. Hence May's 'one nation' speech. [Huh!]
Why do you assume that a negative article about Corbyn is a desperate attempt to destroy him? The man is a dead duck and poses no threat whatsoever to the present Conservative government. Indeed, if today's poll is anything to go by two and a half million LABOUR voters prefer May to Corbyn as PM. How about you though? If you could flip a switch and put Corbyn in No 10today instead of May would you flip it?
If he poses no threat why does each day bring a new attempt to discredit him? Why bother? Apparently Labour are happily destroying thenselves, so they need no help. You still seem to be fixated on short-term gains. The Party membership seem to be taking the long-term view; first create the Labour Party they want, then go for election success. It isn't Labour voters who will decide the winner of the leadership contest, btw.
This thoughtful article explains very well what's going on, I think;
Why Labour's dismal poll ratings won't harm Jeremy Corbyn's re-election chances
Members didn't vote for him on electoral grounds and believe his opponents would fare no better.
Corbyn was not elected last summer because members regarded him as best-placed to win a general election (polling showed Andy Burnham ahead on that front) but because his views aligned with theirs on austerity, immigration and foreign policy......
Their backing for Corbyn was not conditional on improved performance among the public. The surge in party membership from 200,000 last year to 515,000 is far more worthy of note........
From the start, Corbyn has been opposed by the majority of Labour MPs; the latest polls follow 81 per cent voting no confidence in him. It is this disunity, rather than Corbyn's leadership, that many members regard as the cause of the party's malady........
As YouGov's Marcus Roberts told me: "One of the big reasons candidates like Tessa Jowell and Andy Burnham struggled last summer was that they put too much emphasis on winning. When you say 'winning' to the PLP they think of landslides. But when you say 'winning' to today's membership they often think it implies some kind of moral compromise."
It was the overwhelming desire for a break with the politics of New Labour that delivered Corbyn victory. It is the fear of its return that ensures his survival.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/07/why-labours-dismal-poll-ratings-wont-harm-jeremy-corbyns-re-election-chances
Before Labour thinks of entering Number 10 it has to have a PLP which shares the leaders views and which is prepared to campaign on them. That's a way off at the moment.
[I don't know why you put stupid questions to me, you should know by now I don't answer them.]
If he poses no threat why does each day bring a new attempt to discredit him? Why bother? Apparently Labour are happily destroying thenselves, so they need no help. You still seem to be fixated on short-term gains. The Party membership seem to be taking the long-term view; first create the Labour Party they want, then go for election success. It isn't Labour voters who will decide the winner of the leadership contest, btw.I don't know how many times I have to say it but if Labour members are content for their party never to get into power again and to simply be a pressure group against austerity then fair enough, but who then is going to provide serious credible opposition to the Tories? The GBP are never going to put a far left Jez-led Labour party in parliament, so what is the point of all this?
This thoughtful article explains very well what's going on, I think;
Why Labour's dismal poll ratings won't harm Jeremy Corbyn's re-election chances
Members didn't vote for him on electoral grounds and believe his opponents would fare no better.
Corbyn was not elected last summer because members regarded him as best-placed to win a general election (polling showed Andy Burnham ahead on that front) but because his views aligned with theirs on austerity, immigration and foreign policy......
Their backing for Corbyn was not conditional on improved performance among the public. The surge in party membership from 200,000 last year to 515,000 is far more worthy of note........
From the start, Corbyn has been opposed by the majority of Labour MPs; the latest polls follow 81 per cent voting no confidence in him. It is this disunity, rather than Corbyn's leadership, that many members regard as the cause of the party's malady........
As YouGov's Marcus Roberts told me: "One of the big reasons candidates like Tessa Jowell and Andy Burnham struggled last summer was that they put too much emphasis on winning. When you say 'winning' to the PLP they think of landslides. But when you say 'winning' to today's membership they often think it implies some kind of moral compromise."
It was the overwhelming desire for a break with the politics of New Labour that delivered Corbyn victory. It is the fear of its return that ensures his survival.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/07/why-labours-dismal-poll-ratings-wont-harm-jeremy-corbyns-re-election-chances
Before Labour thinks of entering Number 10 it has to have a PLP which shares the leaders views and which is prepared to campaign on them. That's a way off at the moment.
[I don't know why you put stupid questions to me, you should know by now I don't answer them.]
I don't know how many times I have to say it but if Labour members are content for their party never to get into power again and to simply be a pressure group against austerity then fair enough, but who then is going to provide serious credible opposition to the Tories? The GBP are never going to put a far left Jez-led Labour party in parliament, so what is the point of all this?
What was stupid about my question by the way? Why are you so very reluctant to tell us what you really think, instead of constantly taking the position of devil's advocate?
Labour members have been led away from their roots by Kinnock and Blair in pursuit of electoral victory. Perhaps they prefer to return to their roots rather than become pseudo Tories?Fair enough.
At the very least a clear alternative to the Tories would allow a clear choice. The Blairites weren't different enough, some seem to think.
Your question was stupid because it was a fantasy scenario which skimmed the surface of the very important ethical and ideological issues being addressed by the Labour Party at the moment. Being in power is important, but it's more important that the right people are in place first. If Corbyn wins the leadership election he will need a PLP prepared to adopt radical policies and, if elected, implement them. An impossibility with his present PLP.
I don't see our political system as particularly democratic. I don't belong to a political party. I don't believe in the first past the post system. I see capitalism as a cruel economic system because it's competitiveness means the ruthless thrive. Despite the higher standards of living it provides, the greed it encourages means those at the bottom will always struggle, if only relatively.
I don't know how many times I have to say it but if Labour members are content for their party never to get into power again and to simply be a pressure group against austerity then fair enough, but who then is going to provide serious credible opposition to the Tories? The GBP are never going to put a far left Jez-led Labour party in parliament, so what is the point of all this?
What was stupid about my question by the way? Why are you so very reluctant to tell us what you really think, instead of constantly taking the position of devil's advocate?
Labour members have been led away from their roots by Kinnock and Blair in pursuit of electoral victory. Perhaps they prefer to return to their roots rather than become pseudo Tories?
At the very least a clear alternative to the Tories would allow a clear choice. The Blairites weren't different enough, some seem to think.
Your question was stupid because it was a fantasy scenario which skimmed the surface of the very important ethical and ideological issues being addressed by the Labour Party at the moment. Being in power is important, but it's more important that the right people are in place first. If Corbyn wins the leadership election he will need a PLP prepared to adopt radical policies and, if elected, implement them. An impossibility with his present PLP.
I don't see our political system as particularly democratic. I don't belong to a political party. I don't believe in the first past the post system. I see capitalism as a cruel economic system because it's competitiveness means the ruthless thrive. Despite the higher standards of living it provides, the greed it encourages means those at the bottom will always struggle, if only relatively.
Why is it necessary to have choice between two extremes, why is it not acceptable to have more nuanced choices within the central spectrum of politics, such as that offered by 'New' Labour (dirty words now, but only because of Iraq) and "Hug A Hoody" "Compassionate" Conservatism? Who would really want to live in a country that swings between the far left and the far right every five or ten years?
Where is this country?It was a rhetorical question - "who would want to live in a country...."? G-Unit was bemoaning the fact that the Labour Party are just "pseudo" Tories, whilst the Tories have muscled in on traditional Labour policy territory of late, so there is an overlap between the two which she presumably perceives as a negative situation. She seems to be advocating a shift away from the centre towards the left for Labour, and presumably would not object to the same thing happening in Tory Land. Were that to happen then the GBP would be left with a choice between two extremes rather than two more centrist parties. Perhaps it would be more like the good old days again and that's what misty eyed nostalgists are hankering after.
It was a rhetorical question - "who would want to live in a country...."? G-Unit was bemoaning the fact that the Labour Party are just "pseudo" Tories, whilst the Tories have muscled in on traditional Labour policy territory of late, so there is an overlap between the two which she presumably perceives as a negative situation. She seems to be advocating a shift away from the centre towards the left for Labour, and presumably would not object to the same thing happening in Tory Land. Were that to happen then the GBP would be left with a choice between two extremes rather than two more centrist parties. Perhaps it would be more like the good old days again and that's what misty eyed nostalgists are hankering after.I cannot speak for G-Unit.
Fair enough.
At the risk of asking another question that you refuse to answer on the basis that you think it's "stupid", what economic system do you think works, and where in the world do you see this working best?
What other economic system? Everywhere seems to be capitalist or on the way to being capitalist now. That's why it needs tempering by government measures to protect the poor and powerless. A Conservative government is unlikely to put those measures in place imo.OK open it up to any time in the last 100 years, cite another economic system that you think has worked well for its people that wasn't based on capitalism.
OK open it up to any tme in the last 100 years, cite another economic system that you think has worked well for its people that wasn't based on capitalism.
Hitlers Germany? That was a sucess story to crawl from nothing to something great... but then the murders,slaughtering ( which was also very efficiently done)! and a bloody great war lead that cute salute Nationalist Socialist party to....erm oblivion.Nazis couldn't be called racists?! That's a new one! @)(++(*
ah but now....
People forget that Nazis were socialists, ?{)(** who hated communists... well they actually hated everyone equally, so at least they couldn't be called racists.
OK open it up to any tme in the last 100 years, cite another economic system that you think has worked well for its people that wasn't based on capitalism.
So why did Angela Eagle back down so easily? Was the support simply not there?The view is a woman (and a lesbian at that) would not have gone down well with the old school union members.
The view is a woman (and a lesbian at that) would not have gone down well with the old school union members.
The Labour Party is in danger of attracted the 'also ran' label if they fail to get unity. Corbyn won't be in any rush to relinquish power despite the damage to the Party at large, his sort never are. He is far too small world to be the leader of the opposition, a focus group down Hackney would suit him better.
a focus group down Hackney would suit him better.
Hahahahahahahaha!
This is the message the left don't get.
The working people,tax paying people of the UK are sick of being made to feel guilty about a whole bunch of stuff , from slavery centuries ago ( which was enabled,supported and financed by many black african leaders and middle eastern 'busineess men'- which these countries are still operational and in for the long run. To being'responsible' for educating, healing sick ,housing those who are PRECIEVED to be in a worse situation that ourselves- no evidence of this great need ofcource.
We are not responsible for other countries bad management, cruelty to their population, corupt governments so stop trying to tell us we are all very wealthy- the very wealthy don't pay much tax,so it is the tax paying classes being ripped off and this should be addressed. It is the tax paying public who VOTE.
......and not enough will ever vote for Corbyn to lead a government.
That may well be the case.. I see ugly communism rising...what about the Kinnock Dynasty...anyone from there chomping at the bit?
Communism? Really?
Stephen Kinnock was elected MP for Aberavon in 2015. He said he would be at Westminster from Monday to Thursday and in his constituency at the weekend. I wonder if he gets time to see his family who live in Copenhagen, as has he since his marriage in 1996 although his work was based in Brussels, Sierra Leone and Switzerland. He took a job in London in 2012.
Can the Labour Party ever hope to survive intact regardless of whether Corbyn or Smith win the leadership election?
It will become encysted in Parliament.
"during the encystment it degenerates and loses all trace of structure. This wandering appears to be accidental, and to have nothing to do with the further evolution of the animal which takes place..............."
I can't see how a split down the middle can be avoided if Corbyn is allowed to peddle his Trotskyite/Marxist rubbish any longer.
Corbyn's problem, along with his band of devoted followers is that he cannot accept someone else could lead the Labour Party.
He is probably sincere in his beliefs and some of his policies I support, but some like his 500 billion investment plan appear hot air, and he has no idea of how to finance them other than more borrowing.
Two hundred and fifty thousand people voted for Corbyn to be leader. His nearest rival got eighty thousand votes. One hundred and seventy-odd disagreed and staged an attempted coup. At this moment in time he is the only one who has the right to lead the party.
Two hundred and fifty thousand people voted for Corbyn to be leader. His nearest rival got eighty thousand votes. One hundred and seventy-odd disagreed and staged an attempted coup. At this moment in time he is the only one who has the right to lead the party.
And lead it he will but the Party is doomed to oblivion under Corby and his 70's mindset. The existing Labour Party will end up just another defunct socialist has been.Whatbenefit has privatisation brought all these years vs the problems its created?
Indeed, votes paid for, last year.
It is abundantly clear that his ego cannot imagine anyone else being leader.
Yeah yeah. Corbyn is leader and is likely to stay leader. Quite an achievement considering the concerted efforts of the PLP and the media to discredit him. They have not found anything to use against him, poor souls. No cash for questions, no excessive expense claims, no high jinks with animals, no downloaded porn. Quite a refreshing change.
...and Foxtrot Alpha chance of winning a General Election. 8)--))
By the way, who would you be referring to as regards 'high jinks with animals' or 'downloaded porn' ?
Would you care to enlighten us all ?
Does it matter if it came to it? If the partywere united they could vote down every tory new law they didnt like, surely thats mikes better than being a labour leader but being a half tory and letting thrm get their way all the time?
By the way G-Unit.
What will Corbyn do if he wins the election and those M.P.'s you mentioned don't cooperate with him and/or leave the party ?
Then 'his' Labour Party could no longer be the official opposition.
They may vote down legislation, but they can only succeed with other parties, or with the help of the House of Lords and sometimes the media.
So far, in Parliament, Cameron walked over Corbyn, and so did May in her one encounter, in P.M.'s Question Time, which is what most of the average voting public observe as regards politics.
Like it or , impressions do count.
All, I see with Corbyn is a bunch of baying sycophants and little else.
For an example of that, listen to Galloway on Talk Sport, Fridays from 7 to 10 pm.
Look at the crowds who have turned out to hear him; they don't care about childish point scoring at PMQ's, they care about jobs, housing, infrastructure and a decent chance for all. Labour MP's voting for Tory austerity policies are not what they want. Corbyn may or may not be able to deliver, but he's the only one who is prepared to try.
I have certainly heard his baying crowd of supporters who try to shout others down.
That does not impress me one iota.
How do you know he is the only only one prepared to try and vote down the austerity policies.
Have you heard any of them, including Corbyn saying how they will deal with the real UK debt burden, which including state pensions is in the region of 5 Trillion pounds ?
Baying? I was referring to those like the ten thousand who brought Liverpool Lime Street to a standstill, no baying mob, just ordinary people.
Only 48 MP's voted against the Tory Welfare Reform and Work Bill. Corbyn was one of them. All the other leadership contenders abstained [184 Labour MP's abstained altogether], allowing the Bill to be passed. The SNP MP's voted against it, as did the LibDems. Those abstaining MP's cannot claim to be socialists imo.
We will have to wait and see financial planning details. What do the Tories plan to do since borrowing rose despite Osborne's attacks on the poor?
You can refer to what you want.
The baying groups of Corbynite supporters have been plainly on vision in the Television Hustings and other broadcast material, shouting down and abusing those who don't follow the Corbyn line, and he has done nothing about that.
As to financial planning, it is a matter of fact that Tory governments have borrowed more money than Labour ones. Neither seem to be concerned openly by the National Debt.
http://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk/ (http://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk/)
You can abuse Corbyn all you want, but the fact remains he appears to have more grassroots support than any other member of the PLP. The more abuse he gets the more support he gathers. I wonder what those people are seeing that you can't?
You can abuse Corbyn all you want, but the fact remains he appears to have more grassroots support than any other member of the PLP. The more abuse he gets the more support he gathers. I wonder what those people are seeing that you can't?Just because someone has a lot of "grassroots" support doesn't mean that what they have to offer is right or worthwhile, history has plenty of examples of extremely suspect movements that rapidly grew in huge "grassroots. popularity based on the cult of a single personality, movements that ultimately wreaked havoc on the peoples whose best interests they allegedly represented.
Baying? I was referring to those like the ten thousand who brought Liverpool Lime Street to a standstill, no baying mob, just ordinary people.
Only 48 MP's voted against the Tory Welfare Reform and Work Bill. Corbyn was one of them. All the other leadership contenders abstained [184 Labour MP's abstained altogether], allowing the Bill to be passed. The SNP MP's voted against it, as did the LibDems. Those abstaining MP's cannot claim to be socialists imo.
We will have to wait and see financial planning details. What do the Tories plan to do since borrowing rose despite Osborne's attacks on the poor?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/19/labour-leadership-1000-councillors-sign-letter-backing-owen-smith
More than 1,000 Labour councillors sign letter backing Owen Smith
Letter says councillors do not have faith in Jeremy Corbyn’s ‘weak leadership’ and warns UK is facing existential threat
Labour's leadership hopefuls Smith and Corbyn
Smith is ‘the only path forward to a Labour government’, letter says. It follows Corbyn winning the support of 84% of local Labour parties.
More than 1,000 Labour councillors have signed a letter of support for the Labour leadership candidate Owen Smith, representing more than 200 local authorities.
The letter, signed by representatives from England, Wales and Scotland, says the councillors do not have faith in Jeremy Corbyn’s “weak leadership”, warning that the country faces an existential threat from the vote to leave the EU with a potential second Scottish referendum looming.
The letter, which follows a separate piece from 246 councillors endorsing Corbyn, was organised by the Nottinghamshire councillor Michael Payne and the Westminster councillor Tim Roca. There are about 6,000 Labour councillors in the UK.
Payne said the support came from councils in a wide variety of areas, urban and rural. It includes councillors from traditionally leftwing areas such as Brighton and Hove, Glasgow and Liverpool.
Payne said: “Corbyn’s weak leadership risks condemning Britain to a generation of destructive Conservative rule. Labour councillors are supporting Owen Smith because only he can unite Labour against the Tories, and lead us back to power where we can transform the lives of working people for the better.”
The letter says the councillors will be casting their votes for Smith because they see him as “the only path forward to a Labour government”.
Corbyn and Smith at a hustings event in Birmingham
Corbyn and Smith at a hustings event in Birmingham on Thursday. Photograph: Darren Staples/Reuters
They also warn of “militants in both wings of our party who are determined to carry out a civil war against each other, whether it harms working people or not”, and say a unifying leader was the only solution.
The stories you need to read, in one handy email
“We have intimidation and bullying in constituency Labour parties up and down the country,” the letter states. “We have those who seem to prefer perpetual division to the job of winning power for the good of those we represent.”
It adds: “Our country faces an existential threat from nationalists and poor-bashing Tories. A new Scottish referendum is on the horizon. This is no time for Labour to keep fighting itself. The next general election has already begun.
“Owen Smith, with his experience, especially as shadow secretary of state fighting austerity, has a firm grasp of the issues and will be prepared to lead our party from day one.”
Smith said: “Labour councils are the first line of defence for communities which are being hardest hit by this rightwing Tory government. We need to elect more Labour councils and councillors, but that will only be achieved if we are a radical, credible party which people trust.”
Corbyn won local party nominations by a landslide in the Labour leadership contest, taking 84% of constituency nominations from those who chose to nominate.
Smith took just 53 nominations compared to 285 who backed the Labour leader, who took support from CLPs who nominated all three other candidates in 2015 – Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall.
Smith fought against austerity by abstaining in the vote on the Bill I mentioned earlier. Not much of a fighter, is he?
So 1,000 Labour councillors and 172 MP's don't want Corbyn? 2.5K members do. That's it in a nutshell really.
Michael Payne and Tim Roca? Would-be career MP's who both failed to get elected in 2015. I'm sure this letter will earn them both some brownie points if the right of the Party proves victorious.
Where is the money for all Corbyn's ideas to come from ?
I have noticed you pay no attention to this at all.
If you think Corbyn is going to herald a golden age of socialism and justice for all, you are greatly mistaken.
I think you're mistaking me for someone who cares. I'm merely an interested observer.
Harold Wilson said;
Whichever party is in office, the Treasury is in power.
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/h/harold_wilson.html
He also said;
This Party is a moral crusade or it is nothing.
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/h/harold_wilson.html
Well as you are commenting and have accused me of insulting Corbyn, you clearly are taking it personally.
By the way, what use is a 'moral crusade' without the power to implement the principles held ?
I'm commenting because I have an academic interest in politics and in popular movements. As a young person in the 60's I found the civil rights movements fascinating. More recently there was Live Aid. I can see similarities.Live Aid???! You're equating Live Aid with the civil rights movements of the 60s???! Hilarious!!
The power allegedly rests with the people. If enough people want something the theory is they can use their votes to get it. We shall see.
Live Aid???! You're equating Live Aid with the civil rights movements of the 60s???! Hilarious!!
Do you actually support Corbyn and his policies or do you just enjoying arguing for the sake of it?
Saddiq Khan nails it:
He said that through the referendum and its aftermath, Mr Corbyn had "failed to show the leadership we desperately needed".
"And you can't just blame a 'hostile media' and let Jeremy and his team off the hook.
"I know from my own election - up against a nasty and divisive Tory campaign - that if we are strong and clear enough in our convictions, the message will get through to the public.
"That's a test that Jeremy totally failed in the EU referendum. Why would things be different in a general election?
"His position on EU membership was never clear - and voters didn't believe him."
What is Jeremy's position on EU membership and Brexit?? Does anyone apart from Jeremy actually know?
I'm talking about people who emerge and motivate others, not the aims they espouse.I would say it's unusual to defend as vigorously as you do someone whose political views you do not actually share. I guess you just enjoy playing devil's advocate which is fair enough but it somewhat weakens your debating position IMO.
I think debate is the purpose of the forum. Where is it written that you can only debate on subjects where you have chosen a 'side?
I would say it's unusual to defend as vigorously as you do someone whose political views you do not actually share. I guess you just enjoy playing devil's advocate which is fair enough but it somewhat weakens your debating position IMO.
Not at all. To quote my old philosophy professor "there is nothing quite as satisfying as stoutly defending a position you no longer hold".
I would say it's unusual to defend as vigorously as you do someone whose political views you do not actually share. I guess you just enjoy playing devil's advocate which is fair enough but it somewhat weakens your debating position IMO.
Not at all. To quote my old philosophy professor "there is nothing quite as satisfying as stoutly defending a position you no longer hold".what is the point of it though?
I don't see why lack of commitment to a cause = a weak debating position. I have seen various points raised against Corbyn which add nothing to a sensible debate. His age, dress sense and facial hair are irrelevant.Although they are not my primary gripes wth Corbyn, I think his age is relevant as is his overall presentability as far as representing his party and the country are concerned. Do you think, for example, Mchael Foot's presentation were irrelevant to the electorate compared to that of Margaret Thatcher's? Whether you like it or not, how you look and present youself matters - remember sweaty Nixon vs suave Kennedy? The PLP is unsympathetic BECAUSE of his inability to be a leader with the ability to unite the party first and foremost, they gave him a chance he blew it.
As far as I can see the arguments against Corbyn are weak leadership and an inability to appeal to the wider electorate.
His leadership has been seriously undermined by the rebel PLP. Would a sympathetic PLP find his leadership adequate? No-one knows, but Emily Thornberry for one strikes me as no fool and she works with him OK.
His wider appeal has not yet been tested. Politicians have increasingly relied on media support in recent years. People are now looking for other sources, however. That's why Corbyn has support; people increasingly don't trust the media to be impartial.
what is the point of it though?
It's an intellectual thing Alfie.OK, I guess I'm too stupid to understand then.
JC has already lost the Geordie vote, the heartland of Labour support.Cringey publicity stunt that was for the benefit of the camera that had been following him about making a film about his canvassing IMO.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-not-knowing-who-8650020
And if you think he's fit to entertain world leaders....
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-corbyn-sat-on-a-train-floor_uk_57b422d0e4b0d122b47369ee
Cringey publicity stunt that was for the benefit of the camera that had been following him about making a film about his canvassing IMO.
Or the actions of a man whoOr a man who is unable to plan in advance, a seat booked on a train in advance is the same price (if not cheaper) than buying on the day and sitting on the floor.
a] doesn't have a sense of his own importance [Osborne's train journey] or
b] doesn't spend other people's money freely; he does have the lowest expenses claim in the country.
Or a man who is unable to plan in advance, a seat booked on a train in advance is the same price (if not cheaper) than buying on the day and sitting on the floor.
My money however is on publicity stunt.
Do they guarantee you a seat if you reserve one? Only on some journeys at some times, I think you'll find. Also, he may have reserved a seat but decided a stand-up argument when he found someone else sitting in it was not a productive use of his energies.I book a lot of train tickets in advance and have always been able to book a seat, especially on long journeys such as those between London and Newcastle. He's the leader of the opposition FGS, with a camera crew in tow, there would no doubt have been people faling over themselves to give up their seat for him (he is hugely popular, remember?) but no, he decided all humble and Jesus-like to suffer on the floor, whilst being filmed giving his little sermon. You're so naive, strange when you are able to display such extreme cynicism about the actions of others. Perhaps it depends on your personal opinion of them rather than the facts.
You are so judgemental of some people. Strange when you are able to display above average tolerance for the actions of others. Perhaps it depends on your personal opinion of them rather than facts.
I book a lot of train tickets in advance and have always been able to book a seat, especially on long journeys such as those between London and Newcastle. He's the leader of the opposition FGS, with a camera crew in tow, there would no doubt have been people faling over themselves to give up their seat for him (he is hugely popular, remember?) but no, he decided all humble and Jesus-like to suffer on the floor, whilst being filmed giving his little sermon. You're so naive, strange when you are able to display such extreme cynicism about the actions of others. Perhaps it depends on your personal opinion of them rather than the facts.
The sooner the Labour party implodes, the better.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1647381/labour-leftie-diane-abbott-spends-29k-of-her-education-charitys-35k-budget-on-lavish-parliament-bash/
LOL
if that is a reason for them to implode the tories should have imploded 200 yrs ago plus
As they hold the gold meddle for pissing money down the drain
At least the Tories made sure the country had gold to make the medal with. 8(0(*At what cost
At what cost
Certainly not at the same cost to the country as Labour's open invitation for the world to come to the UK.
Apart from the exagerration I dont thnk you have thought it all through
Uk nhs and economy would collapse with no immigrants
We're going off-topic now so I will resist the temptation to argue that one out.
Both Corbyn and Osborne behaved as I would have expected them to behave on a busy train. Your opinion of politicians is obviously more cynical than mine if you can't recognise an honest man when you see one. Conviction politicians strike fear into the hearts of the Establishment because they can't bribe or blackmail them [as the Tory whips were wont to do]Why are you so starry eyed over Corbyn and completely unable to countenance the possibility that he (a career politician let's not forget) staged the sitting on the floor of the train stunt for the camera (that, let's face it, he had invited along for the ride)? If it had been ooh, let's say Hillary Benn filmed sitting on the floor instead, your cynicism would no doubt have kicked in big time. It seems as if Corbyn's followers revere him as some sort of saintly, completely altruistic Christ-like figure. It's weird.
Why are you so starry eyed over Corbyn and completely unable to countenance the possibility that he (a career politician let's not forget) staged the sitting on the floor of the train stunt for the camera (that, let's face it, he had invited along for the ride)? If it had been ooh, let's say Hillary Benn filmed sitting on the floor instead, your cynicism would no doubt have kicked in big time. It seems as if Corbyn's followers revere him as some sort of saintly, completely altruistic Christ-like figure. It's weird.
y
I have been reading posts on this forum for a very long time idolising a certain couple in just the way you describe above despite evidence suggesting that the couple have not been entirely truthful.@)(++(*, pathetic that you feel the need to deflect in this way. Never mind Godwin's Law, there should be a Law for referring to "that" case. The fact the you, a born cynic who questions everything and believes nothing, refuse to even countenance the fact that Corbyn, A POLITICIAN OUT CANVASSING AND WHO HAD A FILM CREW WITH HIM, pulled a stunt, really is quite comical.
When you find evidence of Corbyn's duplicity instead of mere innuendo please do post it.
@)(++(*, pathetic that you feel the need to deflect in this way. Never mind Godwin's Law, there should be a Law for referring to "that" case. The fact the you, a born cynic who questions everything and believes nothing, refuse to even countenance the fact that Corbyn, A POLITICIAN OUT CANVASSING AND WHO HAD A FILM CREW WITH HIM, pulled a stunt, really is quite comical.
Are people on here starry eyed about Jeremy Corbyn?
I haven't noticed that.
There are those who seem to be in a muck sweat about him having been elected leader in accordance with Labour Party rules then the PLP decide they want him [Mr Corbyn] out but can only shift him by using the rules which is now proving to be difficult. I guess an AK47 or the "Bulgarian umbrella trick" would be quicker if somewhat undemocratic.
Of course were he a man of principle he would resign.
Now there is the rub. The words "politician" and "principle" do not fit well into the same sentence.
Fear not there remain 4 years ish before the next general election in which to elect another leader by which time questions about today's issues "where does he[the leader] stand on [fill in topic]" will be largely irrelevant.
Good innit.
Making such accusations is a rather transparent ploy imo. The less reputable media tend use it. The Mirror's attempt to win friends in Sheffield. Ouch!;
A spot of drizzle wasn't enough to put off the people of the Socialist Republic of South Yorkshire
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/hero-worship-jeremy-corbyn-thousands-8667373
A few more here;
http://www.neonnettle.com/feed/184-10-most-anti-jeremy-corbyn-headlines-ever-written-by-the-uk-press
'Muck sweat' seems to be nearer the truth. His detractors can't seem to decide whether he's an outdated 70's socialist, a closet Marxist, or a dangerous threat to the status quo. Their rhetoric suggests the former, their actions suggest the latter.
He who must be discredited by any means possible seems to be the main message of the media. Unfortunately the only ones listening are the unthinking sheep imo. Today's younger people in particular are used to using the internet for research.
Hero worship ???
What exactly has he done to be a hero ?
Who knows? I suggest you ask the Mirror 'journalists', they said it.
Who knows? I suggest you ask the Mirror 'journalists', they said it.
"Mr Corbyn was accompanied on his trip to Yorkshire by director Ken Loach*, who is making a series of short films for his campaign".
* Father of Emma. Now that association, one would have opined is surely sufficient to elicit a few fans around here ? 8(0(*
"Mr Corbyn was accompanied on his trip to Yorkshire by director Ken Loach*, who is making a series of short films for his campaign".
* Father of Emma. Now that association, one would have opined is surely sufficient to elicit a few fans around here ? 8(0(*
Then why bring it up in the first place ?
Let's not forget Corbyn's ex girlfriend/lover either, Dianne Abbot.
Now there is a great socialist. The one who sent her son to an expensive private school.
If you look again, I was referring to their 'Socialist Republic of South Yorkshire' headline. Guaranteed to frighten Sheffield's inhabitants into withdrawing support from Corbyn? More likely to guarantee more support for Corbyn imo. Yorkshire folk are nowt if not stubborn. Insult them at your peril.
Oh dear, Alice. He is a raving radical too, don't you know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_Unity_(UK)
I repeat, you have neglected to provide any EVIDENCE to support your assertion. Let's see now, who were the film crew working for? ['crew' is a misnomer, it was one man, I believe]Don't be absurd. It is my OPINION and my SUSPICION, both of which I am ENTITLED to hold without having to provide EVIDENCE. You are perfectly at liberty to believe that Corbyn is a man so principled and honorable that he would NEVER stoop to anything so low as a publicity stunt. THat is your opinion for which I won't demand you provide evidence, because that would be an idiotic request and impossible to fulfill.
Freelance filmmaker Yannis Mendez, who is working for the Guardian to follow Corbyn and volunteers for his campaign, made the footage while they were on their way from London to Newcastle.
https://www.rt.com/uk/356171-corbyn-train-floor-labour/
Yannis Mendez
@MrYannisMendez
Freelance Film-maker working with The Guardian, Middle East Eye, RT and many other.
https://twitter.com/mryannismendez
So not employed by Corbyn or the Labour Party then.
Other evidence of his transport habits, also in The Guardian [is the paper a secret supporter?]
Jeremy Corbyn caught looking gloomy on night bus
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/01/fan-catches-jeremy-corbyn-looking-gloomy-on-night-bus
Please provide your EVIDENCE that Corbyn had an ulterior motive for sitting on the floor.
Don't be absurd. It is my OPINION and my SUSPICION, both of which I am ENTITLED to hold without having to provide EVIDENCE. You are perfectly at liberty to believe that Corbyn is a man so principled and honorable that he would NEVER stoop to anything so low as a publicity stunt. THat is your opinion for which I won't demand you provide evidence, because that would be an idiotic request and impossible to fulfill.
People often say 'In my opinion', but what is an opinion? Often people present beliefs and prejudices as opinions. In the context of rational logical debate opinions are based on verifiable facts. This allows others to see the facts upon which the opinion rests and to either offer another interpretation or present other facts supporting their opposing opinion.
Beliefs and prejudices aren't based on verifiable facts, so they can't be verified or disproved. Hence they are irrational and illogical. In a debate they obviously carry less weight than a factually-based opinion.
In this context your opinion is actually a belief or prejudice because you don't seem able to provide any supporting facts.
My belief [as you describe it] is actually an opinion because I provided another example of Corbyn taking the rough with the smooth on public transport.
http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/teaching/co300man/pop12d.cfm
The link is interesting.
Especially this bit:
"Another kind of assertion that has no place in serious argumentation is prejudice, a half-baked opinion based on insufficient or unexamined evidence. (Ex.: "Women are bad drivers.") Unlike a belief, a prejudice is testable: it can be contested and disproved on the basis of facts. We often form prejudices or accept them from others--family, friends, the media, etc.--without questioning their meaning or testing their truth. At best, prejudices are careless oversimplifications. At worst, they reflect a narrow-minded view of the world. Most of all, they are not likely to win the confidence or agreement of your readers".
People often say 'In my opinion', but what is an opinion? Often people present beliefs and prejudices as opinions. In the context of rational logical debate opinions are based on verifiable facts. This allows others to see the facts upon which the opinion rests and to either offer another interpretation or present other facts supporting their opposing opinion.So are you saying that all opinions are not equally valid???! I thought that we had established that, on this forum at least, they were.... &%+((£
Beliefs and prejudices aren't based on verifiable facts, so they can't be verified or disproved. Hence they are irrational and illogical. In a debate they obviously carry less weight than a factually-based opinion.
In this context your opinion is actually a belief or prejudice because you don't seem able to provide any supporting facts.
My belief [as you describe it] is actually an opinion because I provided another example of Corbyn taking the rough with the smooth on public transport.
http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/teaching/co300man/pop12d.cfm
Well done Alfie; some facts. I agree the polls look bad for Labour but the question is why?
Is it because the membership voted for Corbyn to lead the Party or is it because of the reaction of the PLP and the media to his election?
For me, it's clearly the latter. Had the PLP accepted the result and worked with Corbyn, and had the media reported his stance neutrally the polls could have been quite different.
A lot of the PLP agree with the New Labour view that the only way to win general elections is to ditch traditional labour values. Hence their horror at Corbyn's success. Pragmatism not idealism is their preference.
There has always been bias against the left in the media. The adjectives used say it all; loony, hard, extreme, far. They don't win fairly they infiltrate, dominate, threaten, bay. The right, on the other hand, are reasonable, moderate, sensible etc.
I can only assume that the preference is for a US type political system where the difference between left and right is so small it's barely noticeable.
Corbyn's success ?
What success are you referring to exactly ?
A couple of by-elections wins , where there was a low turn out.
Corbyn undeniably has a small hard core number of supporters, but certainly not sufficient to win an election.
He is a left wing politician, who voted against the previous Labour government on hundreds of occasions, which is a matter of record by the way.
If you have any delusions that the British public will vote in a left wing government, you are solely mistaken, especially as Labour governments have a reputation for overspending, regardless of the fact that Conservative administrations have borrowed far more than any Labour one has.
I listened in to a phone in last night on LBC about Corbyn. Some people admired him for his 'honesty' compared to other politicians. Others said they voted for him in the last election because of that. However, there was an overwhelming view that the media and other parties 'had it in for him', though they could not quantify that. One even said there was a global conspiracy involving the planning of a world government, planning to destroy Corbyn. *&*%£
You can here that by the way, on LBC's podcasts, specifically Clive Bull's broadcast last night.
http://lbc.audioagain.com/presenters/10-clive-bull
Has it actually occurred to you, like it or not, that Corbyn is un-electable ?
A few weeks ago he was asked to say which way he voted in the referendum, and he refused to answer. Someone with principles would have answered that question, he didn't, and the flac he has received because of that and his viewed inaction during the referendum campaign, knowingf of course in the past he was vocally anti-EU, in my view partially led to this new election.
By the way, I'm still waiting for an answer to the allegation you made that I insulted Corbyn. Can you do me the courtesy of answering that ?
Corbyn's success was in being elected as leader by the Labour membership.you don't seem able to comprehend why Labour MPs want to be led a) by someone who can lead and b) by someone who appeals to the broad electorate. Why should they wait for what will amount to the best part of ten years before standing a chance of forming government, when they can clearly see what the problem is now?
I'm not surprised people are considering far out answers to explain the media attacks on Corbyn. Why the ferocity if he's unelectable? Leave him alone and he'll lose a general election and sink back into obscurity; simple!
He voted against 'New Labour' because they departed from traditional labour values, I expect.
If I accused you of something you didn't do I apologise.
38 mins ago - Jeremy Corbyn sits on train after filming video on the floor attacks 'ram-packed service' ... Jeremy Corbyn had a seat on a train journey during which he sat on the ground for a video attacking the quality of Britain’s rail services, new CCTV footage obtained by The Telegraph shows.
You visited this page on 23/08/16.
@)(++(* @)(++(*
Why are you so starry eyed over Corbyn and completely unable to countenance the possibility that he (a career politician let's not forget) staged the sitting on the floor of the train stunt for the camera (that, let's face it, he had invited along for the ride)? If it had been ooh, let's say Hillary Benn filmed sitting on the floor instead, your cynicism would no doubt have kicked in big time. It seems as if Corbyn's followers revere him as some sort of saintly, completely altruistic Christ-like figure. It's weird.
y
A politician pulling a stroke ? That has to be a first by the dastardly Mr Corbyn he should be thoroughly ashamed of himself
Were he only like that nice Mr Hamilton, that nice Mrs Smith and that nice Mr Osborne..... &%+((£
On the BBC now too so it must be true:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37167700
Does this restore my opinion to one of equal merit to G-Unit's? I live in hope..!
Yes, that's him alright in the pic posted on the Virgin Trains website. What are all those tickets sticking up from the backs of the seats?
(https://resources.mynewsdesk.com/image/upload/dpr_1.25,f_auto,q_80,w_670/sbgrgo4oklkiwoh86dwl.jpg)
Is this chap right?
The Transport Salaried Staffs Association said Virgin Trains was being "disingenuous", claiming the empty seats were in fact reserved.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37167700
The BBC seems to have more pics than Virgin, including this one;
(http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/E2D4/production/_90886085_jc044-pixilated.png)
It looks like Corbyn but is he sitting, talking or what? Perhaps Virgin will release the full video eventually. Not that I suspect Virgin of manipulating anything. What would they stand to gain except keeping their rail franchises?
Aren't we being told Corbyn is politics Mr. Clean and doesn't look for photo opportumites or the equivalent. 8**8:/:
If this was a stunt , and it is looking like it was, then he will have lost a lot more cred than it is believed he had.
JC seems a nice ,friendly guy you can sit havea have a chat with, but he has ambition, and determination- Hitler had ambiiton, and determination and his follwer loved the guy, but then...well, not always a good trait you know.
The Georgous,sexy, millionaire socialists, (no flat cappers here man, nay way) don't like him because he doesn't fit in with their greed and self serving,PR. Tthey don't support him because he doesn't fit their man for the corporate job of 'makin munny fur us' and to Tony 'makin moe munny for me' then corbyn will be eased out of office on something stupid... watch this spot! and he should watch his back!
Luckily for him others are prepared to watch his back; other passengers are speaking out;
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/passengers-dispute-virgin-trains-version-of-jeremy-corbyn-sitting-on-floor-video-a7205631.html
I know someone who uses that line regularly, and agrees that something should be done and Corbyn giving it attention is a great thing. JC, if he travels a lot should book ahead like I and many others do. He didn't have to sit on the floor at all, standing in the isle is what most people have to do.And he didn't have to sit there for the full journey. The rail companies are a disgrace. They need to go to Switzerland and see how it is done properly.
I was under the impression from Jeremy's initial report that he had to sit on the floor all the way from London to Newcastle. Clearly this is not the case. There were e reserved but empty seats he could have sat in, as well as first class (I believe he was offered a freeupgrade but he preferred to martyr himself for the cause). What a stunt. Of course the man still walks on water as far as his disciples are concerned, so no harm done.
That impression was from the original newspaper report, not from Corbyn. I think you should ask yourself why so many are determined to discredit Corbyn? What threat does he pose and who to? He poses no threat to me, I know that. Who would lose out?
Those who own our railways.
Those who own our buses.
Those who provide expensive childcare. [the costs of which are often met by the taxpayer through tax credits]
Those who charge high private rental rates [the costs of which are often met by the taxpayer]
Those who provide outsourced services to councils [paid by our council tax]
Ditto for the NHS, but paid through general taxes.
Those who pay low wages to their workers [subsidised by the taxpayer who pays the worker's tax credits]
Who would gain?
The taxpayer would gain the profits from railways and buses.
Workers would be able to access affordable childcare nationally provided and regulated.
Those living in substandard housing and paying high rents would gain; they might even get a council house.
Council services would improve because the competitive nature of outsourcing means that profit, not service, is the driving force.
No private company should make profit from the NHS.
The taxpayer should not be subsidising wages for those owning and running businesses. If they can't pay decent wages they haven't got a viable business.
'No private company should make profit from the NHS.'
Drug companies included then ?
That impression was from the original newspaper report, not from Corbyn. I think you should ask yourself why so many are determined to discredit Corbyn? What threat does he pose and who to? He poses no threat to me, I know that. Who would lose out?Corbyn poses no threat at all to anyone or anything execpt the PLP, that is the problem and that is why most Labour MPs voted no confidence in him.
Those who own our railways.
Those who own our buses.
Those who provide expensive childcare. [the costs of which are often met by the taxpayer through tax credits]
Those who charge high private rental rates [the costs of which are often met by the taxpayer]
Those who provide outsourced services to councils [paid by our council tax]
Ditto for the NHS, but paid through general taxes.
Those who pay low wages to their workers [subsidised by the taxpayer who pays the worker's tax credits]
Who would gain?
The taxpayer would gain the profits from railways and buses.
Workers would be able to access affordable childcare nationally provided and regulated.
Those living in substandard housing and paying high rents would gain; they might even get a council house.
Council services would improve because the competitive nature of outsourcing means that profit, not service, is the driving force.
No private company should make profit from the NHS.
The taxpayer should not be subsidising wages for those owning and running businesses. If they can't pay decent wages they haven't got a viable business.
Corbyn poses no threat at all to anyone or anything execpt the PLP, that is the problem and that is why most Labour MPs voted no confidence in him.
In himself no I agree but his inability to establish a proper opposition to the Tories going forward will be detrimental to the vast majority of workers in this country.Well yes, that as well obviously.
If Corbyn is a threat only to the Labour PLP or to workers why are the media so intent on discrediting him? No-one seems able to give an explanation for that.The media spent an awful lot of energy demonizing the BNP and Nick Griffin in particular too but I don't suppose they ever believed he or his party was a serious threat to the status quo. The media have it in for most politicians one way or another, it will be Theresa May's turn soon no doubt.
If Corbyn is a threat only to the Labour PLP or to workers why are the media so intent on discrediting him? No-one seems able to give an explanation for that.
I don't see Mr Corbyn posing much of a threat to anything except the status quo in the Westminster Bubble but there are clearly those who think he does outside that narrow sphere.
Maybe he will ride around the country on a bicycle or walk carrying his own possibles wearing the same clothes as his underlings and believing in the same principles. Don't knock it; I remember a bloke like that from a while ago. The French and the Yanks remember him too I'll bet. His name was Giap... 8(>((
Just another rather shallow 'knocking' piece which is surprising from someone who portrays himself as a serious political historian. I think Corbyn's detractors need to come up with better thought-out articles.
Just another rather shallow 'knocking' piece which is surprising from someone who portrays himself as a serious political historian. I think Corbyn's detractors need to come up with better thought-out articles.Perhaps you could pick out parts of the article that you felt were incorrect and say why?
Perhaps you could pick out parts of the article that you felt were incorrect and say why?
Perhaps you could pick out parts of the article that you felt were incorrect and say why?
I could, but I won't. I have contributed quite a few detailed posts on this thread which no-one has chosen to address. I see no point in analysing an article which is there for one reason only.
11am train to Newcastle 'rammed'? Not a chance.
Corbyn, camera and a photo opportunity. He seems to have forgotten that Virgin trains have cctv. Just another wannabe politician who has tried to use the media and come unstuck. Nothing more, nothing less.
I could, but I won't. I have contributed quite a few detailed posts on this thread which no-one has chosen to address. I see no point in analysing an article which is there for one reason only.Is Corbyn above criticism in your view? As a man who is seeling himself as above spin and deception in politics should commentators not investigate him when he appears to be being less than candid, as per the train shenanigans? Has he ever put a foot wrong in your view, or is he practically perfect in every way as far as you're concerned?
I watched one of the people accompanying him on that train on Channel 4 news last night.
She basically implied Virgin trains were lying despite the videos.
According to the Data Protection Act most businesses use CCTV for the purpose of security and the prevention and detection of crime.
As far as I can see there's no justification for publicly sharing images of passengers on trains in order to defend the company's good name.
Corbyn apart, those images could have included shots of people who were supposed to be elsewhere or who were accompanied by someone they didn't want to be seen with.
The matter is being investigated. I believe.
Corbyn did not tell the truth, and tried to use the train journey to further his political agenda.
The other faces in the videos have been blanked out, so what is the problem ?
There's one man sitting down in coach H I would recognise if he was a relative.
So let's imagine that in some parallel universe Corbyn is elected PM. How is he going to travel around the country? Squatting by the toilets on an Inter-city train until he's nationalized the railways and then everyone gets their own seat, or what? Will this hugely principled and selfless man eschew all the trappings of comfort and protecting enjoyed by a PM so that no one poorer than him goes without, of has to suffer on his account?
There's one man sitting down in coach H I would recognise if he was a relative.If Corbyn had lied about my business being substandard to make a public political point and I had evidence that he was lying I would use it to expose the lie, wouldn't you? Or do you think politicians should be allowed to get away with their lies and spin at the expense of others?
Well that'it basically, Corbyn has no style, no flair and no Statesman qualities whatsoever. On the other hand take Theresa May, will we ever see her sitting on her ass on a train floor?When Jeremy is elected PM in the parallel universe he will probably ride an ass to the House of Commons on his first day, surrounded by disciples wafting palm leaves as he passes. @)(++(*
Come the general election there will be two main parties to choose from.
If you don't like Corbyn or his policies then don't vote or vote for the other party.
When Jeremy is elected PM in the parallel universe he will probably ride an ass to the House of Commons on his first day, surrounded by disciples wafting palm leaves as he passes. @)(++(*
According to Virgin, some passengers were offered upgrades to first class in order to free up seats in economy. Maybe Jez was annoyed at not being one of them?He was offered a FREE upgrade too but turned it down for some nonsensical but highly sanctimonious reason. Jesus would have turned it down too, but then He was the Son of God, what's Jeremy's excuse?
Corbyn did not tell the truth, and tried to use the train journey to further his political agenda.
The other faces in the videos have been blanked out, so what is the problem ?
Even if Corbyn blatantly lied about the train that isn't a threat to security and it isn't a crime, which are the justifications used to film passengers.
Virgin could perhaps have sued Corbyn and used the images as proof that he attempted to damage their business reputation without just cause.
That's if he actually said 'There are no seats to be had on this train'. My PC won't play the train video for some reason.
I don't think he said he sat on the floor for three hours either, it was the Guardian who insinuated that [but didn't actually say it].
Here's the direct Corbyn quotes I do have;
“This is a problem that many passengers face every day, commuters and long-distance travellers. Today this train is completely ram-packed. The staff are absolutely brilliant, working really hard to help everybody.
“The reality is there are not enough trains, we need more of them – and they’re also incredibly expensive.” He said the whole experience was a good case for public ownership.
Later, Corbyn said: “Is it fair that I should upgrade my ticket whilst others who might not be able to afford such a luxury should have to sit on the floor? It’s their money I would be spending after all.”
The Guardian headine was;
Corbyn joins seatless commuters on floor for three-hour train journey
It doesn't say he was seatless, he joined those who were.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/16/jeremy-corbyn-floor-three-hour-train-journey-london-newcastle
Why can't you actually admit, he is just another B.S. artist as are most politicians ?
...and of course , he gave the excuse as to why he didn't take a seat, even though they were available, because he couldn't sit next to his wife. He never mentioned his wife at the start, only when he was caught out.
So it beggars the question as to why wasn't his wife sitting on the floor with him, when he was filmed.
8)--)) %£&)**# %£&)**#
That would involve believing unquestioningly what is reported in the newspapers and believing the man who stands to make profit from the train service. Does that sound like me?
I see that a serious point was being made about passengers being seatless. If there were plenty of seats there would have been no free upgrades available to first class.
Even if Corbyn blatantly lied about the train that isn't a threat to security and it isn't a crime, which are the justifications used to film passengers.whose money would he be spending if Virgin offered him a free upgrade? Why did he join commuters on the floor if he had a seat? The whole thing is so obviously a stunt, only a complete idiot could fail to spot it. Of course I spotted it from the off... 8(>((
Virgin could perhaps have sued Corbyn and used the images as proof that he attempted to damage their business reputation without just cause.
That's if he actually said 'There are no seats to be had on this train'. My PC won't play the train video for some reason.
I don't think he said he sat on the floor for three hours either, it was the Guardian who insinuated that [but didn't actually say it].
Here's the direct Corbyn quotes I do have;
“This is a problem that many passengers face every day, commuters and long-distance travellers. Today this train is completely ram-packed. The staff are absolutely brilliant, working really hard to help everybody.
“The reality is there are not enough trains, we need more of them – and they’re also incredibly expensive.” He said the whole experience was a good case for public ownership.
Later, Corbyn said: “Is it fair that I should upgrade my ticket whilst others who might not be able to afford such a luxury should have to sit on the floor? It’s their money I would be spending after all.”
The Guardian headine was;
Corbyn joins seatless commuters on floor for three-hour train journey
It doesn't say he was seatless, he joined those who were.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/16/jeremy-corbyn-floor-three-hour-train-journey-london-newcastle
whose money would he be spending if Virgin offered him a free upgrade? Why did he join commuters on the floor if he had a seat? The whole thing is so obviously a stunt, only a complete idiot could fail to spot it. Of course I spotted it from the off... 8(>((
Perhaps he was asked why he didn't pay for an upgrade. Perhaps the first offer by the train staff was to pay for an upgrade? Without a complete record of events I don't know and neither do you. How do you know he had a seat before he sat on the floor? Even Virgin never said he found a seat then went and sat on the floor. They said he walked past empty seats, which is different. Seats can be empty of people but not vacant.How is it possible that I can be right and this was a stunt (obviously it was, all the evidence points to it) and you can be right and it was a case of poor Jeremy unable to find a seat on a train, and by coincidence he happened to be filmed squatting in the corridor whilst having a pontificate about renationalizing the railways en route to canvassing for Labour members' votes, a film clip whch which somehow got passed to the media and wasn't in any way, shape or form a stunt?
In my opinion only a complete idiot would think either side have been proved correct in this stupid argument. There isn't enough evidence to decide who's right. It's quite possible both are.
How is it possible that I can be right and this was a stunt (obviously it was, all the evidence points to it) and you can be right and it was a case of poor Jeremy unable to find a seat on a train, and by coincidence he happened to be filmed squatting in the corridor whilst having a pontificate about renationalizing the railways en route to canvassing for Labour members' votes, a film clip whch which somehow got passed to the media and wasn't in any way, shape or form a stunt?
Do we believe that actions on train journey made by the current party leader, misreported or not, will lead to the implosion of the party which he leads legitimately ?
No, but his uselessness as a leader will.
By legitimate, I presume you mean the sudden rush in paid membership last year, for a few quid and a vote.
Whoa there! I never said you were right! I said both Corbyn and Virgin could have been right, not both you and I @)(++(*The fact that Corbyn allowed himself to be filmed, the fact that he used his allegedly seatless plight to make s political plight on the film and for the film to be released to the media, the fact that he gave cockamamie excuses to the media when caught out "I wanted to sit with my wife but there weren't two seats together' tells any clear thinking reasonable person everything they need to know. The fact that Jeremy's disciples simply can't compute that their hero is just as capable of using spin and deceit as the next politician is their problem not mine.
The film maker said the seats which seemed to be empty had bags and coats on them. Another passenger who sat on the floor had gone through the whole train and said there was luggage and passengers in every vestibule.
A Virgin Trains spokeswoman said the company would look into whether it could provide CCTV footage of vestibule areas to show whether or not other passengers were sitting in them.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/virgin-releases-footage-to-challenge-corbyn-s-ram-packed-train-claim-1.2765760
The fact that Corbyn allowed himself to be filmed, the fact that he used his allegedly seatless plight to make s political plight on the film and for the film to be released to the media, the fact that he gave cockamamie excuses to the media when caught out "I wanted to sit with my wife but there weren't two seats together' tells any clear thinking reasonable person everything they need to know. The fact that Jeremy's disciples simply can't compute that their hero is just as capable of using spin and deceit as the next politician is their problem not mine.
So many sour grapes here because a lefty has managed to become leader of a left party rofl and survive attacks left right and centre
For the foreseeable future it will be beneficial to this country if he remains Leader of the Opposition. JMO.For anyone happy that the Tories are in power and will remain in that position for the best part of the next 10 years, then yes I think you are absolutely right.
For anyone happy that the Tories are in power and will remain in that position for the best part of the next 10 years, then yes I think you are absolutely right.
Was it against the rules?
You mean the same rules now being employed by the Labour Party to ensure some 'members' can't vote for Corbyn in the upcoming election ? 8)--))
I mean: was anything to do with Corbyn's election as leader in contravention of The Labour Party's Rules governing the election of a leader.
If not there are no grounds for complaint. The fact he is perceived by some to be incompetent is irrelevant,added to which as he has never held a ministerial post on which a sound judgement could be based in that respect. Making a judgement on his competence or lack thereof is based merely on bias or personal prejudice.
If people don't like Labour's policies under Corbyn they can always vote Tory, LibDem etc or not at all.
The idea that "the Labour Party is now dark pink rather than pale blue and I don't like it so Corbyn is a toss pot" is bit of a laugh.
Signed a life long believer in benevolent socialism who has always voted Tory. Now figure that out.
The problem with the Tories is their apparent belief that the fifth richest nation in the world can't afford to take care of the poor, sick and disabled members of it's population.And yet the Tories will still win the next election despite this, as the electorate will almost certainly reject Jeremy and his motley crew of socks-and-sandals lefties (despite their supposedly popular policies) as not fit to govern.
Making comments on other peoples abilities is something the overwhelming majority of people do, as has occurred on this forum on numerous occasions.
So, I presume you are happy that the Labour Party is using it's 'rules' to prevent Corbyn supporters voting for him in the election.
By the way, who said Corbyn is a 'toss pot' ?
Speaking personally, I just believe he is a weak leader, and he has surrounded himself with sycophants, who are little more than 'yes men or women'.
And yet the Tories will still win the next election despite this, as the electorate will almost certainly reject Jeremy and his motley crew of socks-and-sandals lefties (despite their supposedly popular policies) as not fit to govern.
My opinion of the rules is not relevant. They are what they are. If that means they can be used to advantage then OK by me. I played golf a lot where knowing the rules can gain advantage and save shots; ie a free drop within three club lengths but not nearer the hole. The club is not specified so why measure using a wedge when measuring with a driver can get your ball out of the rough onto the fairway ? You can argue morality til the cows come home but it is within the rules.
No one used the words "toss pot" it was my interpretation of the emotional rather than objective language used by the usual parties who like to sneer.
Par for the course.
It looks like the 'moderates' [what's moderate about a neoliberal btw] are going to have some tough decisions to make;
YouGov, which has called the last two contests correctly, shows Corbyn leading comfortably among all three groups: party members (52-40), registered supporters (70-25) and affiliated supporters (54-33).
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/08/jeremy-corbyn-set-win-landslide-victory-what-now-his-opponents
The fact Mr Smith is set for an electoral hiding must be infuriating for his supporters, who have depicted him as a paragon of electability. They have argued that Labour only stands a chance of winning the next election with him in charge, but party members disagree.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/31/jeremy-corbyn-isnt-going-away-labour-moderates-must-decide-if-th/
It looks like the 'moderates' [what's moderate about a neoliberal btw] are going to have some tough decisions to make;You don't need a poll to know that Corbyn is going to win. That was a dead cert the moment they thrust Owen Smith into the ring, if not before. Party members have got it into their heads (for some strange reason) that Jeremy is the Messiah and no one else will do, even those (like OS who espouse similar, if not even more extreme policies). It's all about the cult of personality / celebrity, which is kind of ironic on a number of levels. So, well done Jeremy and goodbye Labour for the next 10 years.
YouGov, which has called the last two contests correctly, shows Corbyn leading comfortably among all three groups: party members (52-40), registered supporters (70-25) and affiliated supporters (54-33).
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/08/jeremy-corbyn-set-win-landslide-victory-what-now-his-opponents
The fact Mr Smith is set for an electoral hiding must be infuriating for his supporters, who have depicted him as a paragon of electability. They have argued that Labour only stands a chance of winning the next election with him in charge, but party members disagree.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/31/jeremy-corbyn-isnt-going-away-labour-moderates-must-decide-if-th/
it's not what the party members think that counts.
it's the electorate. 8)--))
Not at the moment it isn't. The members are entitled to vote for the leader they want. Corbyn seems to be the one they want.
At the moment the electorate doesn't want to vote for a Labour Party with Corbyn as leader. They didn't want to vote for a Labour Party with Brown or Milliband as leader either.
Perhaps things will change before the next election. May's 'honeymoon period' will be long gone, Brexit could cause problems. There's a good deal more time than a week for things to change.
I predict Corbyn will retain his crown but that the Party will split rendering it a hollow victory and him the leader of what little of New Labour is left.
Tonight Chuka reckoned the party will not split !
Do you reckon there will be a new gang of four?
"Ah - the gang of four - Shirl the Pearl, Egghead Roy, Arrogant Dave and that other chap".
Shirley Williams = Anne Coffey or Margaret Hodge
Bill Rogers = Andy Burnham
Roy Jenkins = Find an egghead in the present bunch.
David Owen = Hillary Benn
"The party's proposals included calls to reform the political system, environmentally friendly policies, equality of opportunity for women and ethnic minorities, and a fairer distribution of wealth".
"The four left Labour citing major differences over European and defence policies as the party has taken a sharp turn to the left under leader Michael Foot. The opposition leader has insisted they will win no support".
We have seen it all before haven't we Billy ?
.
See it soon on Newzoids. ?{)(**
I predict Corbyn will retain his crown but that the Party will split rendering it a hollow victory and him the leader of what little of New Labour is left.
If they do split they may be handing the Labour Party over. Many CLP's will choose new MP's to replace the splitters. Will the constituents stay with Labour or vote for their former MP under a new party banner? It's a gamble, are these MP's gamblers? We shall see.
What is more to the point, is whether the electorate will vote for Corbynites.
You will just have to wait and see like everyone else for the answer to that question.Corbyn's latest approval rating is -33. More labour voters prefer Theresa May's politics to Jeremy Corbyn's. The Tories are +11% over Labour if there was an election tomorrow. Still, it could all change. Photos of Theresa May having it off with a poodle might appear in the press, Corbyn might perform a feeding of the 5000 miracle at a food bank, who knows WHAT might happen!
Good analysis of the Sheffield result on FB
"In this grim autopsy into Labour's Sheffield defeat perhaps the strangest bit of news is that an army of Momentum supporters went to Sheffield and then spent their time ringing other Labour members (presumably also Momentum supporters) to tell them to vote Labour.
Meanwhile the Lib Dems took almost half the entire vote. And they came from fourth place. Behind Labour, behind the Tories and behind UKIP.
But it is emblematic of the whole Corbyn project, talking only to those who agree with you and telling anyone who you suspect might disagree with you to 'f..k off and vote for someone else.'
Which in the case of Sheffield, voters did in their droves.
The idea that a political party might actually have to talk with people who are not inclined to vote for it is quintessentially Corbyn. They do not need to be convinced, they must be dismissed and despised. So the object becomes not to gain votes, but to weed out the unfaithful. The goal astonishingly is less votes.
Normally when you say something is 'less than useless' you just mean it's pretty rubbish. But in the case of Corbyn and his supporters the expression is literally true.
They are of negative utility".
I was recently told off by G-Unit for using the perfectly innocuous expression "calling a spade a spade". I wonder what words of chastisement she might offer to Jeremy Corbyn for his choice in gloves...?
(http://www.thetimes.co.uk/imageserver/image/methode%2Ftimes%2Fprod%2Fweb%2Fbin%2F0f9415ae-7dba-11e6-9862-c87336845bcf.jpg?crop=3840,2160,0,200&resize=685)
I wonder how they're getting away with that lol.
Labour RIP.
No doubt the dissenters are being lined up against a wall as we speak....
Labour is rising from the ashes of Blairite 'modernism' and regaining it's original aims and values.LOL at "rising from the ashes" - yeah, whatever.
Any actions following are in the hands of the CLP's not the PLP or it's leader.
Labour RIP.
No doubt the dissenters are being lined up against a wall as we speak....
Interesting...
Owen Smith beat Jeremy Corbyn among Labour party members who joined the party before 2015, a new exit poll has revealed.
Although he was defeated in the overall election, the YouGov/ElectionData poll found that Smith also won among 18-24 year-olds and Scottish party members.
The survey found that 63% of pre-2015 party members had backed the Pontypridd MP, to just 37% for Corbyn.
But the current leader had a huge lead among the tens of thousands who have joined the party since Ed Miliband quit, with 74% of them backing him to just 24% for Smith.
Among those who had joined since Corbyn became leader, a massive 83% said they had voted for him in the 2016 leader election, and 15% voted Smith
I would say the implosion is imminent. Corbyn is well past his sell by date, there is no place for his trotty politics in the 21st century. Corbyn has little real support outside of London and the Parliamentary Party know it.
Yes, here's his London supporters...er..no...sorry, that's LiverpoolIf that's the sum total of Labour's support in those cities then they really ARE up shit creek!
(http://i1.dailyrecord.co.uk/incoming/article8542265.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/JS96096800.jpg)
Bristol
(http://b247cdn.co.uk/18924/gallery/top/web/jeremy-corbyn-rally-1444731947-1470644106.jpg)
Hull
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ConaIHjWAAINFpE.jpg)
Incidentally if I'd been out in those cities on the day ol' Jezza rode into town I would have stood there to have a listen to what he had to say - doesn't mean I'd vote for him.
I think most people knew what he was saying before the latest leadership tour started.I think you overestimate both "most people" and also Jeremy Corbyn's reach out to the GBP. Being more clued up than most I'd have a pretty good idea about what the old Lefty would have to say but that doesn't mean that if I were out and about at the same time as one of his rallies that I wouldn't stop to have a listen. Your byline is 'don't assume' - don't assume a large crowd means wide support generally.
Thatcher once declared to a crowd of her supporters: “Our greatest achievement was Tony Blair. We forced our opponents to change.” New Labour's acceptance of many of the underlying assumptions of Thatcherism was, in the view of Thatcher and her supporters, the crowning glory of their great crusade.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/08/owen-jones-right-are-mocking-jeremy-corbyn-because-secretly-they-fear-him
I think most people knew what he was saying before the latest leadership tour started.By the way, thanks for the article link by Owen Jones, you may be interested to read a more up to date article by the same author:
Thatcher once declared to a crowd of her supporters: “Our greatest achievement was Tony Blair. We forced our opponents to change.” New Labour's acceptance of many of the underlying assumptions of Thatcherism was, in the view of Thatcher and her supporters, the crowning glory of their great crusade.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/08/owen-jones-right-are-mocking-jeremy-corbyn-because-secretly-they-fear-him
The leader of the turncoats has turned again lol
sacked Hilary Benn says 'time for unity'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/24/labour-leadership-results-jeremy-corbyn-set-for-huge-win-but-fac/
I think you overestimate both "most people" and also Jeremy Corbyn's reach out to the GBP. Being more clued up than most I'd have a pretty good idea about what the old Lefty would have to say but that doesn't mean that if I were out and about at the same time as one of his rallies that I wouldn't stop to have a listen. Your byline is 'don't assume' - don't assume a large crowd means wide support generally.
Don't assume it doesn't. The proof of the pudding has not yet been tested outside of the Party. Until that testing occurs it's all guesswork.You tried to make some sort of point about Jeremy's huge reach and popularity by posting a few photographs of large crowds - I think it's you whose doing the assuming around here. If you have anything concrete apart from a few photos to show Jeremy's widespread support across the electorate, one that flies in the face of all the polls on the subject then by all means post it here.
Don't assume it doesn't. The proof of the pudding has not yet been tested outside of the Party. Until that testing occurs it's all guesswork.
You tried to make some sort of point about Jeremy's huge reach and popularity by posting a few photographs of large crowds - I think it's you whose doing the assuming around here. If you have anything concrete apart from a few photos to show Jeremy's widespread support across the electorate, one that flies in the face of all the polls on the subject then by all means post it here.
The photos were a reply to another poster who said Corbyn had little support outside London. I posted pics which suggest he has support in Bristol, Liverpool and Hull.
The photos were a reply to another poster who said Corbyn had little support outside London. I posted pics which suggest he has support in Bristol, Liverpool and Hull.I have no doubt that Corbyn has support in most English towns and cities, the question is how much? Judging from every opinion poll there's been for the last 12 months the answer would seem to be - not much. Still, at least he's guaranteed 0.7% of the electorate are behind him, which is a start.
I've just seen clips on the BBC news, from Liverpool. Does Corbyn have any supporters under 50y.o?
I doubt it, misty. He looks like he haunts car boot sales, and smells of Germolene. %56&
Newzoids depicted him correctly tonight - "if he could turn back time".
Ha!! I saw that!
I wouldn't put him in charge of an allotment.
I watched an interview with him last night and he was as slippery as an eel on the issue of the forth-coming and inevitable purge of the moderates. In short, I believe his pacifist Jesus impression is just that - a front. He will get others to do his dirty work for him of course to preserve the saintly image but it will be done with his implicit consent.
I watched an interview with him last night and he was as slippery as an eel on the issue of the forth-coming and inevitable purge of the moderates. In short, I believe his pacifist Jesus impression is just that - a front. He will get others to do his dirty work for him of course to preserve the saintly image but it will be done with his implicit consent.
You can believe what you like but without evidence you can't prove it. What you say could be seen as libel, imo.He's not "even more popular " with the electorate and that's all that really matters, not to Jeremy and his fanclub obviously, but to anyone who actually wants an alternative to Tory rule at some point in the next decade or two.
The rebels do need to watch their step. The NEC is now pro-Corbyn and many CLP's too. I'm not sure, but a CLP dissatisfied with it's MP may be able to deselect them.
Their woeful campaign against Corbyn suggests they are incompetent, does it not? All this fuss to make him even more popular! @)(++(*
You can believe what you like but without evidence you can't prove it. What you say could be seen as libel, imo.
The rebels do need to watch their step. The NEC is now pro-Corbyn and many CLP's too. I'm not sure, but a CLP dissatisfied with it's MP may be able to deselect them.
Their woeful campaign against Corbyn suggests they are incompetent, does it not? All this fuss to make him even more popular! @)(++(*
"The sense that Labour has been captured by left-wing entryists was strengthened by a poll showing that Smith had won the contest by a margin of 63%-37% among voters who were members before last year’s general election. Corbyn won by 85%-15% among those who have signed up since he became leader of the party" - is it any wonder most Labour MPs are not fully supportive of their leader, a man who has consistently voted against his own party all his political life? The PLP may well be a bunch of wimps and incompetents but nothing alters the fact that they have a cuckoo in their nest, one who is being fed and supported by lefty Marxist/Trot entryists.
You may find that your 'reds under the beds' obsession is becoming outdated.He can't do ANY of those things if he and his party don't appeal to the public and get themselves elected. All the evidence to date seems strongly to suggest he doesn't and the leadership qualities required to pull this sinking ship round look decidedly lacking. It's not JUST about the policies, it's about leadership, communication, trust, security.
You seem to think the PLP belongs to the 'wimps and incompetents'. It is only 'theirs' if they remain MP's and if they make up a majority of Labour MP's. Labour has always contained a spectrum of opinions, as do most parties.
It remains to be seen how the party will change under Corbyn's leadership, but why people are dead set against a man who;
Cares about the poor and vulnerable
Wants the NHS to stay in public ownership
Wants to stop penalising students by putting them into debt
Wants a fair national education system
Wants to encourage a thriving manufacturing economy like the Germans have
Wants all regions of the UK to be given a chance
Isn't keen on the UK joining in wars which are not our business
Is beyond me, it really is. Let the man try.
If he can get our men out of call centres and sandwich shops and back into manufacturing, good on him.
If he can provide the housing and services we need to support immigrants, good on him.
If he can reduce waiting lists for non urgent operations, good on him.
If he can reverse the trend of higher education being only for those with money, good on him.
If he can stop our military personnel being killed for reasons which aren't clearly to our benefit, good on him.
If he can't then it will at least have been tried.
You may find that your 'reds under the beds' obsession is becoming outdated.
You seem to think the PLP belongs to the 'wimps and incompetents'. It is only 'theirs' if they remain MP's and if they make up a majority of Labour MP's. Labour has always contained a spectrum of opinions, as do most parties.
It remains to be seen how the party will change under Corbyn's leadership, but why people are dead set against a man who;
Cares about the poor and vulnerable
Wants the NHS to stay in public ownership
Wants to stop penalising students by putting them into debt
Wants a fair national education system
Wants to encourage a thriving manufacturing economy like the Germans have
Wants all regions of the UK to be given a chance
Isn't keen on the UK joining in wars which are not our business
Is beyond me, it really is. Let the man try.
If he can get our men out of call centres and sandwich shops and back into manufacturing, good on him.
If he can provide the housing and services we need to support immigrants, good on him.
If he can reduce waiting lists for non urgent operations, good on him.
If he can reverse the trend of higher education being only for those with money, good on him.
If he can stop our military personnel being killed for reasons which aren't clearly to our benefit, good on him.
If he can't then it will at least have been tried.
He can't do ANY of those things if he and his party don't appeal to the public and get themselves elected. All the evidence to date seems strongly to suggest he doesn't and the leadership qualities required to pull this sinking ship round look decidedly lacking. It's not JUST about the policies, it's about leadership, communication, trust, security.
What is Corbyn's position on free movement of people by the way? It seems to have been the single most important issue as far as Leave voters were concerned, is Jeremy for it or against it now, does anyone really know where he stands?
The evidence to date must have been heavily influenced by the spectacle of a Party in disarray. He can't be blamed for the disgraceful behaviour of those MP's who seem to have no respect for democracy. It's now up to them to unite behind their leader and concentrate on doing the job they were elected to do; oppose the government. It's called being adults.You seem to be suggesting that people who are against unlimited immigration and who voted Leave will be happy for immigration to continue unchecked so long as a Labour government spends billions building houses and health care for them. You cannot be serious can you?! Is this Jeremy's position too then? Oh dear...
Many leave voters were concerned about uncontrolled immigration because they could see services; housing, education, healthcare all being swamped. If the services and infrastructure were in place those people would be likely to be less concerned. Most Brits aren't racist, they are tolerant of other people and cultures, particularly younger people who see a person, not a nationality or colour.
The evidence to date must have been heavily influenced by the spectacle of a Party in disarray. He can't be blamed for the disgraceful behaviour of those MP's who seem to have no respect for democracy. It's now up to them to unite behind their leader and concentrate on doing the job they were elected to do; oppose the government. It's called being adults.
Many leave voters were concerned about uncontrolled immigration because they could see services; housing, education, healthcare all being swamped. If the services and infrastructure were in place those people would be likely to be less concerned. Most Brits aren't racist, they are tolerant of other people and cultures, particularly younger people who see a person, not a nationality or colour.
Corbyn was quite happy to vote against a Labour government mentioned, over 200 times I believe.
He also was quite happy I heard to have regular elections for a leader.
So that makes him a prize hypocrite if he now complains about Labour M.P.'s not backing him, or future elections.
Has he?
Where does Labour stand on Trident's renewal, does anyone know...? Jeremy is, as we all know, opposed but Clive Lewis the Shadow Defence secretary said today that Labour would give the go-ahead to the scheme. How can the Leader of the party preside over something that he is dead set against, can someone please explain?
Where does Labour stand on Trident's renewal, does anyone know...? Jeremy is, as we all know, opposed but Clive Lewis the Shadow Defence secretary said today that Labour would give the go-ahead to the scheme. How can the Leader of the party preside over something that he is dead set against, can someone please explain?
For anyone who missed it and wants a short precis of the the best worst bits...
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/watch-john-mcdonnells-disastrous-newsnight-interview/
Well there were plenty of ideas, or should I say soundbites.
Though quite how he believes that Labour could form the next Government seems more like fantasy.
Jeremy Corbyn could never be the Prime Minister of the UK with his past associations, his anti nuclear stance and his policy on immigrants. The sooner he hands over to someone with across the board appeal the better. Until that time Labour will continue to be a non entity.
Labour will not win an election under him, regardless of the delusion that he thinks he can, as he said yesterday.
As to his 'new politics', who is he trying to kid.
Jeremy Corbyn is the Tories dream vote winner. As long as he is leader of the Labour Party the Conservatives have nothing to worry about.
He is wound up in Marxist theory.
Unfortunately, he forgets human nature.
People will vote for what they consider will benefit them, and not some pie in the sky ideals which have not been costed, and it seems depend on more borrowing.
Human nature? I don't think there is a definitive definition of human nature. Those with conservative leanings support and propagate the belief that it's human nature to consider one's own interests before other's. It's the basic explanation used to describe how capitalism works and why other economic systems wouldn't work.
Undeniably those who put themselves first thrive under the capitalist system. Self interest is necessary for them them to make it in the dog eat dog nature of the system. It enables them to blame the poor for their situation, rather than the system, for example. It enables them to make workers redundant for 'the good of the company' or, in other words, their own profits.
As to whether self interest is a universal trait of human beings, there is evidence to the contrary. Not everybody puts themselves first.
Unfortunately G-Unit, never enough.
Diane Abbott - Shadow Home Secretary.... @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Diane Abbott took her son out of state education and put him into private school. Jeremy Corbyn divorced his wife because she wanted their son to go to a State Grammar, but is seemingly happy to overlook Abbott's education choice for her child. Abbott is a joke, but maybe poor Jeremy isn't exactly spoilt for choice in who to put in his cabinet these days.
So, Jezza got his votes by promising the students free uni fees (something he could never deliver without a radical overhaul of admissions) and by promising the golden oldies a return to the euphoria that was 1970's nationalised chaos.
The SNP & UKIP took a right bashing - oh, how fickle the UK voters are.
Theresa will be secretly gleeful that she probably won't have to negotiate a Brexit she doesn't support. The EU will be laughing (once again) into their UK-funded banquet luncheons and plotting how much extra misery they can heap on us. Happy days!
Oh, and Boris has been very, very quiet.......
Don't count on that lasting for long.
Voters only need know one thing. Governments do not have anything to trade for cash. Their only source of income is taxation. How it is dressed up politically is another matter. Does one want to afford the things folk think they are entitled to from government. ie me and you cos it's our dosh.
The EU have had a year to get themselves going on Brexit. I just hope we have not been wasting time and that in the background the mandarins have been hard at it.
The student loan thing is a bit funny. Has it been going long enough for anyone to work out whether much is paid back? Like one has to be earning over £35k to pay anything back at all and after 30 years it is written off regardless.
I don't see too many holders of "degrees in Bob Dylan", Nail Art, Dance etc ever contributing much.; he said in a reactionary sort of way.
Yep,
May is a dead duck in the water, and the knives will be out for her.
Where this leaves the brexit negotiations is anyone's guess.
Who would take over? Boris? davis? hmmmm. I think she'll be kept on for a while as a dreadful warning of what happens when you take the electorate for granted..
Brexit negotiations? What is this "brexit" of which you speak......?
The threshold is £21000 a year, Alice, and the rate is 9% of pay above that. In effect its an extra graduate tax of 9% of earnings over £21000. Payable until the principal plus interest is paid.
On the very limited poll (my kids), two have repaid the loan and one has another two years to go. So it is being collected from everyone on over £21k
Notes:
How much you will repay
Your employer will take repayments from your salary during any pay period where your earnings before tax are over the weekly or monthly threshold.
By pay period, we mean each time you receive your salary. This could be every:
•Week
•Four weeks
•Calendar month
The earnings threshold is:
•£404 a week
•£1,750 a month
•£21,000 a year
You pay 9% of your income over the threshold
Love her or hate her she don't 'ang about do she ?.
She'll have her man in Brussels at the table on June 19th.
It's not good but nor is it that bad [apart from a being a gross error of judgement]...unless Sinn Fein decide to take up their seats; so there's seven (eight?) she doesn't have to have. Whereas JC would need all his lot the SNP and most of the stragglers all to side with him.
Maybe it's all a bad dream and Lord Palmerston will come out of the shower?
Dan Hodges from the Mail on Sunday on Sky. He says he's struggling to work out what happened; no-one saw it coming blah blah.
I saw it coming by looking at those crowds listening to Corbyn and watching May visiting small shops in Fleetwood.
The truth is they refused to see because they didn't think they could all be wrong. @)(++(*
The Tories can't sack May because the consequences are another leadership election and then maybe another general election. They can't risk being blamed for that. If, however, she can't get her Queen's speech through Parliament she could face a vote of no confidence. If she loses that off we go again, but without the Tories having to take the blame.
Ooops I should have checked that. Cheers J-P.
A young acquaintance of mine is of the opinion it was £35k!!!!
Boy are they in for a shock anytime now.
Does the result put Blair in a stronger or weaker position to launch an alternative Labour party for the disillusioned moderates?
It depends on when you started Uni. My son's repayment threshold is £17775. He has an amount which is less than the monthly interest on his debt taken from his wages each month, so his debt continues to increase.
https://www.gov.uk/repaying-your-student-loan/overview
My daughter fortunately had most of her Uni fees paid for by the local education authority so she has very little to repay.
I don't follow the byach infighting in politics- total waste of my time. However, I just wonder if those blairites babes/and spin doctors are aware of the impact on JC's and Abbots Policies have on the electorate- I predicted civil war 10 years ago, I feel it is still brewing in some quarters of our nation.
Free education for all? this didn't work in Scotland because we had to provide free education up to university level for those not born in this country, but English students COULD NOT access this 'free' education even though they paid in taxes.(WTF). Now many schools and HE's are jam packed with 'educational immigrants' Can we afford it ? NO, so what happens is SNP cut budgets else where.(nursing training as an example) This is a shameful disgrace. People from Turkey, not even in the EU, can access NHS money via bursary to get UK education. again (WTF). Wards are understanffed, we have real crisis in the NHS can we really afford this luxury? The cuts are being made not to 'save money' but to go to other causes which is well hidden from public view.
If JC is very honest, as is claimed, then why did he not take the opportunity to put a price on how much further immigration, housing, medical access, and education was going to cost and where would this money come from?
oh and BTW re nationalising industry costs billions as well, who woud run these quangos?
Young people do believe money is free, they can't even get jobs which pays enough to house themselves!
I haven't studied Labour's Manifesto but I think it was meticulously prepared and costed. Otherwise the media and the Tories would have focused on criticising it and they didn't. I think Labour did their homework. The Tories cobbled together a vague 'wish list' with no costings whatsoever, just more threats of austerity and cuts. When May said we're all in it together' I took it as a warning to pensioners that they were the next target. I think a few others did to!
Diane Abbot got her sums wrong for the additional policing costs & JC didn't know what the cost was for the promised free child care for all 2-4 year olds, when asked.
As far as the childcare is concerned, he hasn't got a clue. The 30 hours policy is unworkable without employing many extra staff whilst at the same time having available slots unfilled when parents opt not to use the full 30 hours (which have to still be kept open for them). All this at a time when education authorities are strapped for cash & laying off teachers/classroom assistants in mainstream schools.
JC could promise what he wanted, knowing he was never going to be running the country or negotiating Brexit. More fool those who believe he would have delivered on any of his manifesto.
The Tories did no sums so their spending plans were a mystery. I wouldn't be so sure that Corbyn won't run the country; he is in a very strong position should May's house of cards collapse. Or should I say when........
The Tories still had their 2015 manifesto to fulfil so no costings required. The only mystery is the one neither party did, or was able to, address which is spending post Brexit.
Corbyn couldn't win the election despite the collapse of the UKIP vote and Mrs May's absence on the national media platform & imo his position is weaker in his own party than Mrs May's is in hers. I get the feeling Tom Watson can't wait to step into Corbyn's shoes.
Ah, the 2015 Manifesto. I'm not sure that Manifesto is still relevant if a new election takes place. There's another problem for the Tories because they are under investigation over that election, aren't they?
I think Labour's Manifesto covers spending post Brexit because with a five year fixed term for governments now it covers that period.
I'm sure many would like to step into Corbyn's shoes but at the moment his grip on them is unassailable. May is clinging onto her kitten heels, but only by her little toes imo.
No party can cost spending post Brexit because no-one knows exactly what financial & economic effect it will have on this country. Put quite simply, if Corbyn wants to raise Corporation tax to 26% to help cover his planned spending & we have no free trade agreements in place, how many businesses will pull out of UK or collapse entirely?
Less tax paid=less for Labour to spend.
It's the same with the Uni fees - less money going into the uni's = reduced student numbers = more young people looking for jobs which aren't there.
IMO Corbyn is like Sturgeon - a very good convincing orator but viewing the electorate as Arabs to sell sand to.
The proof of the pudding may prove to be in the eating. May has not managed to secure an agreement with the DUP yet. I believe there's a deadline of tomorrow when Parliament reassembles. Even then, she could face a vote of no confidence.
It's a ridiculous situation when Theresa May was only 400 votes short of achieving an overall majority and attracted 42.5% of the voting public, despite not engaging in a full campaign. Tony Blair had a 43.2% of the public vote in 1997 when he achieved his landslide victory - a mere 0.7% more than Mrs May achieved.
IMO the Tories would be extremely foolish to challenge their leader right now when so much is at stake for the country. The Labour party, on the other hand, have absolutely nothing to lose by challenging JC again & the time is right for Blair to make a move if he seriously intends to do so.
It's seats which count in our system, not votes. The only reason May is still in place is because the Tories have no choice. The UK has no government at the moment so they have to let her try to form one. Labour attacking Corbyn at the moment would be suicidal. The gains they have made are down to him and his policies. Blair is irrelevant, he's history.
The Tories received their highest percentage of the public vote since 1983, so hardly a failure. Considering how many Tory supporters want to remain in the EU I consider that quite an achievement. There's a data map in the Telegraph today (you may be able to access the online copy to read it, I've used up my permitted one premium article for this week) showing just how "Blue" the country is, representative of the seat allocation.
The country should hope that the DUP will do a deal or we are in for an intense & indefinite period of financial & economic instability. The prospect of that does not bode well.
There are more voters now than in '83.
Second , what was the % turnout ?
The Tories received their highest percentage of the public vote since 1983, so hardly a failure. Considering how many Tory supporters want to remain in the EU I consider that quite an achievement. There's a data map in the Telegraph today (you may be able to access the online copy to read it, I've used up my permitted one premium article for this week) showing just how "Blue" the country is, representative of the seat allocation.
The country should hope that the DUP will do a deal or we are in for an intense & indefinite period of financial & economic instability. The prospect of that does not bode well.
In 1983 - Electorate – 42,197,344
Turnout – 72.7% =30,677,469 voted
In 2017 Electorate 46,843,896
Turnout - 68.7% =32,181,756 voted
Your point being??
I wouldn't count on a deal with the DUP ensuring stability if I were you.
I was trying to work out yours.
My point is how the success or failure of Mrs May measures up against previous election results.
Well if you want to talk about votes, Corbyn's Labour Party won a higher share of the vote (40.1%) than Blair's 'New' Labour Party did (35.2%). Even though it didn't convert into seats, it stopped the predicted Tory landslide and has caused the problems they are wrestling with.
I just wish they [the Tories] would collectively get on and play the hand they have been dealt and stop playing silly b****rs. TM will be out because her own side will get her thus following in the footsteps of Thatcher, Major, Duncan-Smith, Howard, Hague and Cameron.......all over the European Union "should I stay or should I go" ?
They are trying, but the deal with the DUP is a difficult balancing act. Their links to Loyalist Paramilitary groups are now emerging. One rumour says they will want all the Orange marches to be allowed again. I'm sure May and the Tories don't want to be involved in anything which could start hostilities in Northern Ireland to resume.
The question isn't whether she will go but when and how.
I thought all the controversial stuff in NI had been handed over to the devolved mob in Stormont who now refuse to sit in the same room with each other? If they would play ball there would be no need for the UK government to play honest broker. I guess if we leave the EU the Republic of Ireland can legitimately say a united Ireland is back on the stocks?
If/when she TM goes is only an internal presentational thingy anyway. The law courts of this country thanks to Gina Miller have decreed the "Brexit" negotiations are b****r all to do with devolved national governments but the stomping ground solely of the UK government. The last contractual letter on file to the EU says "we are off" start the clock. 27 EU nations will have a battle royal over how the UK 's multi billion Euro contribution is divvied up between them. I see no consensus forthcoming on that. At least May is not afraid to run the ball at folk on occasion even if she occasionally drops it. God preserve us from those who think they can bat at better than 0.4 all the time. (to mix metaphors) Some idiots (IMNSHO) think Bojo should be PM. The way the tories are p***ing about it's enough to make me vote for Corbyn if there is an another election. ?{)(**
Well if you want to talk about votes, Corbyn's Labour Party won a higher share of the vote (40.1%) than Blair's 'New' Labour Party did (35.2%). Even though it didn't convert into seats, it stopped the predicted Tory landslide and has caused the problems they are wrestling with.The last time that we had a massive slide towards a persuasive Labour politician who promised everything, was when ~~~ Blair ~~~ got in.
The irony of it all! No wonder the only person smiling at the moment is Corbyn. Was he wrong when he said nothing would persuade Sinn Fein to take their seats at Westminster? The rumour is they're doing just that. Seven more votes against the Tories.
Hmmm....pot & kettle....https://order-order.com/2017/06/11/labour-repeatedly-tried-to-do-deals-with-the-dup/
The last time that we had a massive slide towards a persuasive Labour politician who promised everything, was when ~~~ Blair ~~~ got in.
And he gave everyone everything everyone wanted ... became very ;popular ... and bankrupted the Country.
And that is apart from the dreadful things he did in the Middle East, which killed whole swathes of our young soldiers, countless civilians and was in no small measure responsible for the [ censored word ]ed that some of our home grown terrorists exhibit today.
Hopefully Corbyn would not do the later, but his ideas would bring us down to rock bottom again financially .... helped by Brexit.
A good period of AUSTERITY for all including the rich, is what this Country needs to try and bring us back to reality.... IMO ... and to attempt to pay off some of our debts.
Doom and gloom. sorry folks.
The last time that we had a massive slide towards a persuasive Labour politician who promised everything, was when ~~~ Blair ~~~ got in.
And he gave everyone everything everyone wanted ... became very ;popular ... and bankrupted the Country.
And that is apart from the dreadful things he did in the Middle East, which killed whole swathes of our young soldiers, countless civilians and was in no small measure responsible for the [ censored word ]ed that some of our home grown terrorists exhibit today.
Hopefully Corbyn would not do the later, but his ideas would bring us down to rock bottom again financially .... helped by Brexit.
A good period of AUSTERITY for all including the rich, is what this Country needs to try and bring us back to reality.... IMO ... and to attempt to pay off some of our debts.
Doom and gloom. sorry folks.
If you look at the size of our welfare budget maybe someone should propose something really reactionary. Like if you can afford to pay for it you do thus leaving welfare as an emergency net for those on hard times not for those who just want another plasma tv "cos I'm entitled and I am worth it". Remember the fuss about four years ago how the government should bail out those on negative equity? Mortgages and shares are a gamble. "Society" needs a major rethink.
It's all crazy. A pensioner with less than approx £168 a week coming in gets housing and council tax benefits. So a pensioner needs £168 each week to live on.
Job seekers allowance gives claimants approx £75 a week to live on.
Pensioners get free bus passes in most places, but job seekers have to pay fares to get to interviews or to get to the Job Centre to sign on.
Pensioners get £200 extra to keep warm in winter. Those on job seekers allowance get nothing.
The only possible reason for the difference is that pensioners are seen as 'deserving' help, job seekers aren't.
It's all crazy. A pensioner with less than approx £168 a week coming in gets housing and council tax benefits. So a pensioner needs £168 each week to live on.
Job seekers allowance gives claimants approx £75 a week to live on.
Pensioners get free bus passes in most places, but job seekers have to pay fares to get to interviews or to get to the Job Centre to sign on.
Pensioners get £200 extra to keep warm in winter. Those on job seekers allowance get nothing.
The only possible reason for the difference is that pensioners are seen as 'deserving' help, job seekers aren't.
I think PIP blows that idea out of the water, but imo the whole welfare system needs revision. No frigging about round the edges just thwack it all right between the eyes and start again.
The term pensioner is too emotive. It casts a spectre of poor Billy from Barnsley with flat cap and whippet and scarcely two ha'pennies to rub together or Eva from Leicester with water on the knee from kneeling down red leading her front step.
Today there are those "pensioners" who contributed to the state pension including the SERPS bit, contributed to a final salary occupational pension scheme have no mortgage made a killing on their property and generally are making money faster than they can spend it. They should pay for what they can afford by way of their own welfare. Too many of them seem to think it is their God given right to deprive others by taking state handouts they don't need just so they can leave some dynastic pile to their kids. Then they have the brass neck to complain of scroungers.
PIP is for the disabled, not pensioners or job seekers? When I was young you claimed dole or national assistance which wasn't enough for anyone to live on. The only people who claimed it long term were the truly workshy, however, because there was full employment. I would like to see full employment again, even though it costs money because I would rather the government subsidised people to work than pay them not to work. Then penalising claimants would only affect the truly workshy.
PIP was DLA. DLA extended beyond the age of 65. Today it's replacement, PIP, stops at 65. There is a thingy called Care Allowance or some such which is available for those who are just about completely hepless. It leaves a ruck of people over 65 who may find their ability to escape the prison of their own four walls is severely limited because they cannot afford the wherewithall and there is no longer a state funded system to help them.
I don't know a lot about disability allowances, except that they were subjected to cuts too.
As they say, a week is a long time in politics. The rebel Labour MP's still don't care for their leader, but he's unassailable at the moment. His caring attitude at Grenfell was so right, and now he's smashed it at Glastonbury.
The problem he has is that without him it would all fizzle out. He'd better make sure someone's watching his back, his Shelley quote won't have gone down well in some circles;
(https://static.standard.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/story_medium/public/thumbnails/image/2017/06/15/13/corbyngrenfell1506e.jpg)
As they say, a week is a long time in politics. The rebel Labour MP's still don't care for their leader, but he's unassailable at the moment. His caring attitude at Grenfell was so right, and now he's smashed it at Glastonbury.
The problem he has is that without him it would all fizzle out. He'd better make sure someone's watching his back, his Shelley quote won't have gone down well in some circles;
(https://static.standard.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/story_medium/public/thumbnails/image/2017/06/15/13/corbyngrenfell1506e.jpg)
What songs did he sing at Gladstonbury?
Do you have any pictures of joyful jerry hugging IRA victims? How about Warrington murder of a child not old enough to know or care about the pope running Ireland, surely there must be one...has he got great snaps crying on the shoulder of the young couple who can't get on the housing list never mind hugging illegal immigrants , sorry economic migrants, living in £2000.00 per month rent free housing. No? didn't think so.