D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Corbyn winning by 76%.
On Sky News.
On Sky News.
and corbyn wins with 83.4%
Latest cover piece from the Spectator is about Corbyn as leader by James Forsyth - always a good guy to listen to if you want the inside scoop on the Tories. Apparently they're keeping their powder dry, and it's not all gonna drop this month, but rather they'll let Jezza settle in before slowly oozes out their bucket of shit on his head.
He also pointed out the thing I mentioned before, about how ambitious young PLP members aren't going to want to be in his cabinet or even go out to bat for them in the media because they'll get asked "Do you want Corbyn to be Prime Minister?" And it's basically a "have you stopped beating your wife" style question.
Sure the tories have little to gain by slinging mud now. Not sure how much harm that will do though, depends on the type of mud I guess.
Labour lost the last election because the voters didnt trust the party with their money and the nations finances. Corbynomics (and his proposed peoples quantitative easing) is not the answer. Then there is Corbyns long list of dubious statements and associations. One of the Tories involved in doing the opposition research on Corbyn says gleefully, Theres just so much. Calling Osama bin Ladens death a tragedy is just the start. Indeed, what should worry Labour is how silent the Tories have been during this leadership contest. When I asked one if they would throw the book at him straight away if he wins, I was told no. The plan is to wait until he is firmly ensconced before doing so.
Moreover, a Corbyn victory would pose an immediate dilemma for any ambitious Labour MP. Anyone who served under him would be tainted. They would be asked in every interview if they wanted Corbyn to be Prime Minister; if they said yes, then that clip would be used endlessly against them come their own time at the top. But getting rid of him would be just as hard. Labour MPs who openly opposed Corbyn would find themselves in a battle to hold on to their own constituencies. Internal warfare would ensue. It would be back to the 1980s in more ways than one for Labour. It is easy to see why so many Tories are rubbing their hands in glee. One source in No. 10 says, We wouldnt have dared script it like this, people just wouldnt have believed it. Corbyn as leader would mean that the next election is the Tories to lose, and they would need to make an epochdefining mistake to blow it. All of a sudden, the Tories have gone from fearing that they would never win outright again to being confident of at least a decade of majority rule. One secretary of state predicts that in 2020 the electorate will form their judgment even more decisively than before.
As the last general election so spectacularly demonstrated, pollsters and bookmakers can get it horribly wrong. Labours election is not over. Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper may yet win but if they do, the leadership that resulted would probably be a mere footnote in history: a holding period in which some of the more talented younger Labour figures could gain the experience and the stature necessary to lead. Should Corbyn win, the shockwaves will be felt for decades.
Corbyns supporters are right about one thing: you can change politics without winning a general election. If he becomes leader, his time in charge would change both the Labour and Conservative parties. It would confirm that May 2015 marked the beginning of a new era of Tory majority rule. A Labour party that is prepared to elect Corbyn as leader is a party that has consigned itself to not being in power for a very long time.
Corbyn winning a debate on Kosovo just shows how utterly pathetic the rest of the candidates are. Dismal stuff.
Corbyn's the only candidate with anything at all going for him.
So what do we think a Corbyn Labour leadership, should it happen, will mean for the SNP.
Not specifically Corbyn, but I think the SNP could take a major hit on popularity based on next year's Scottish elections.
I'm predicting going for a second referendum is going to be a problematic move.
It's had a pretty nasty fallout because most of the young and the diehards are still wanting another referendum in a couple of years and I've seen a lot of salt and extreme negativity coming from them. I think a lot of the more moderate people have seen the divides the outcome has caused, and would like to avoid bringing it all up again so soon.
The fact the oil money has sort of went down the drain has to be factored in as well.
Maybe forcing fiscal autonomy for a few years would win a lot of people round but that doesn't seem to be the card the SNP want to play.
Someone quote me in a year and bask in how wrong I'll be. Thank goodness I'm not a betting man!
Or perhaps, if Corbyn was actually an opposition leader he'd be given the chance to counter Cameron without the media being able to lie about what he's saying as his actual full speech from PM's Qs would be aired?
Maybe people might, upon hearing an alternative, one with actual convictions, decide they've had enough of bland slimy c**ts.
I find it very ironic that an article prognosticating such a bleak future would in the same breath point out how 'pollsters and bookmakers can get it horribly wrong'...
Forgive me if I don't trust polling right now.
Still though, kmag, I want you to quote me when I'm wrong so I can learn from this.
Yeah maybe, except his actual stance on a lot of things will repel people from him too.
What are you basing that on? As far as I can tell he represents a 'real alternative' which people have been asking for for 20 years.
What are you basing that on? As far as I can tell he represents a 'real alternative' which people have been asking for for 20 years.
Define "people". Are these those members of the Labour party or those who Labour failed to attract the vote for in the last election? The last time this country got swelled up in "change" euphoria was back in 1997. And Labour seems dead set on purging those same people from their own party once Corbyn is finally elected.
I'm primarily basing it on the fact that in the last 40 years the only time we haven't had a Tory PM was when people voted for Tony Blair. Where have these "people" been? Do they all live in Brighton? And how many are there?
There's a huge difference between a Labour leadership contest - which Corbyn may well storm, though I think it'll be a little tighter than some people think - and winning a General Election. What's gonna happen is Corbyn will win the leadership, and literally whatever happens will be put down to a right-wing media conspiracy, allowing his supporters to carry on saying "we were right, we were right". Meanwhile, the Tories keep cutting. Viva la Corbyn.
People = myself and everyone I know well enough to know their politcal view.
Why would the next 'change euphoria' be for a change to what we already have?
Perhaps Tony was elected because people mistakenly thought he was left-wing (or left leaning at least), even when it became clear he wasn't, he was still preferred to the alternative.
When the effects of the cuts start to become undeniably clear, people might start thinking a left of centre government might not be such a bad idea afterall?
Where does this idea come from that if you're left-wing you must be a hippy? I feel that the immigration crisis has shown the Tory's true colours up a little bit, when it takes pictures of dead children before you show compassion for other humans surely it's not that the left wing are hippies, it's that the right wing are selfish?
People = myself and everyone I know well enough to know their politcal view.
Perhaps Tony was elected because people mistakenly thought he was left-wing (or left leaning at least), even when it became clear he wasn't, he was still preferred to the alternative.
When the effects of the cuts start to become undeniably clear, people might start thinking a left of centre government might not be such a bad idea afterall?
Where does this idea come from that if you're left-wing you must be a hippy? I feel that the immigration crisis has shown the Tory's true colours up a little bit, when it takes pictures of dead children before you show compassion for other humans surely it's not that the left wing are hippies, it's that the right wing are selfish?
Conjugate after me the verb to be on the Left:
I care You dont He is out to get me ideologically.
Bang your pots and pans together and make like a suffragette.
Well between 2010 and 2015, the electorate shifted away from Labour and towards the Conservatives. How long do we need to wait for this breaking point to occur?
I think that's a dangerous starting position, no? "This is what my friends think."
Yeah, maybe - having passed up James Callaghan, Michael Foot and then Neil Kinnock (twice), they thought "Hey, this guy who just cut Clause IV up on stage at the Labour Party conference - we finally have a left wing candidate we can get behind!" He then proceded to win 3 elections, including one after a disastrously unpopular war in Iraq. He then left and, when presented with Gordon Brown, David "We can't go on like this, I'll cut the deficit" Cameron and Nick "Swingeing Cuts" Clegg, voted for a coalition of the latter two. Maybe all this time, people just wanted someone to enforce wage ceilings.
Well between 2010 and 2015, the electorate shifted away from Labour and towards the Conservatives. How long do we need to wait for this breaking point to occur?
Uhh, I dunno - who has mentioned hippies?
Anyway, this immigration crisis is a bit of a red herring imo. It's a perfect encapsulation, I think, of what makes certain aspects of the left's rhetoric so silly. As Philip Collins once said...
It's not enough to just make an argument. To engage with the fact that only around 7% of the refugees have headed to Europe with the > 90% of others staying in the immediate surroundings (Lebanon etc), and that the UK spends significantly more than every other European country in the supply and maintenence of the refugee accomodation in these places, supplying clean water and food and whatnot, or to acknowledge that this is a solution and response, even if I disagree. It's not enough to tackle the current response and explain why I think an alternative is better. Nope - what's required is the application of emotion. You think your way is better than my way? Well then you must be selfish. Your decisions must be due to a lack of compassion.
Now personally I think we should be doing way, way more to accomodate refugees, and not because of our history in the region but because there are people dying and we can help, so we should. This also isn't a problem that's going away any time soon, so the camps in Lebanon and the surrounding area have an important but limited role in providing a solution. But do you see what I did there? I engaged with the argument and explained why I thought the alternative was better, without calling anyone selfish or lacking in compassion. I didn't use a photo of a dead kid to beat an opponent and I didn't assume that my position was morally superior to the alternative.
You'll also notice that my politicial analysis above is based primarily on past election results based on the choices at the time, not what my mates think.
You asked if they 'lived in Brighton', you know exactly what you said.
Lol, I'll reply properly later on but I wasn't talking about hippies - I was talking about the fact that it was the only constituency in the whole of England that actually voted in a party more left wing than Ed's Labour. So when I was asking where all these people clamouring for a break from the norm were, I jokingly answered my own question with "Brighton".
Not specifically Corbyn, but I think the SNP could take a major hit on popularity based on next year's Scottish elections.
I'm predicting going for a second referendum is going to be a problematic move.
Someone quote me in a year and bask in how wrong I'll be. Thank goodness I'm not a betting man!
No need to wait a year, all indications are that the SNP will smash it at this years Hollyrood elections, and that support for Independence is higher than it's ever been.
I wouldn't be surprised if Scotland is gone from the Union before 2020.
Without a Westminster parliamentary act that is simply not possible.
It does strike me as a bit dishonest to push for a second referendum so soon after the first. I know that is only speculation at this point, but I feel like that result should mean something. You can't just keep putting referendums forward until you get the desired answer.
I'd guess their platform will be no second referendum, unless the UK votes to leave the EU and Scotland votes to stay.
It does strike me as a bit dishonest to push for a second referendum so soon after the first. I know that is only speculation at this point, but I feel like that result should mean something. You can't just keep putting referendums forward until you get the desired answer.
Of course you can. There's even a word for it.
Of course you can. There's even a word for it.
I'd guess their platform will be no second referendum, unless the UK votes to leave the EU and Scotland votes to stay.
Well, that presents an interesting conundrum for nationalists. Do you vote to remain in the EU because that's what you want; or to leave the EU because it will precipitate an independence referendum?
Pretty simple conundrum imo. Scotland leaving the UK would mean Scotland leaving the EU anyway (this has been confirmed by the Commission and was talked about quite a bit during the referendum last year). So from a nationalist point of view, simply vote to leave the EU if it will precipitate another indy ref. Scotland would have to rejoin either way.
Much more interesting than that!
The thing that was confirmed by the Commission last year was if Scotland seceded from the UK while the UK was a member state Scotland would have to reapply.
However, if the UK votes to leave the EU and Scotland wants to stay in the EU and leave the UK, then there's a pretty strong argument that Scotland would not have to reapply, as it would be effectively the successor state to an existing member.
Hence the conundrum. A very strong REMAIN vote in Scotland with a strong LEAVE vote in the rest of the UK, sufficient to trigger Brexit, would (a) provide a very strong case for Scotland to be regarded as the successor state but (b) would not provoke an early referendum. On the other hand if a strong LEAVE vote in Scotland helps trigger Brexit an early referendum would be more likely but the moral case for successor-statehood would be undermined.
It is all very fiddly.
Would that mean Scotland as a permanent member of the Security Council?![]()
Would that mean Scotland as a permanent member of the Security Council?![]()
I'm pretty sure the EU doesn't have a security council.