Saw this yesterday. Very good, and utterly in keeping with his usual comedic style. The point really needed to be laboured
Hereâs a more serious take from the Independent about the threat Corbyn poses to the Tories.
It is blithely assumed that Corbynâs somewhat fuzzy, sometimes hesitant air will translate into a poor performance at Prime Ministerâs Questions. That need not be so.
Corbyn has one asset that even Tony Blair at the height of his oratorical power did not possess: an ideologically coherent view of the world. His position, barely changed in its fundamentals over decades, is entirely of a piece. You may agree with him or not, but you cannot say you do not know where he stands, or how one view fits with another. The SNP leader, Nicola Sturgeon, impressed during those pre-election debates not just because she spoke with conviction, but because her positions formed a coherent whole. This is why some erstwhile Labour voters were envious.
As Ed Miliband found to his cost, being a moderate exposes contradictions. Corbynâs rivals for the Labour leadership illustrate this liability of centrism even more graphically. A âfoolish consistency may be the hobgoblin of little mindsâ, but ideological coherence has intellectual appeal. Nor is Cameron immune to accusations of inconsistency in presenting himself as a moderate on the right. The only reason he has mostly not had to confront them so far is that in his first term as Prime Minister, he could blame the Liberal Democrats and then that Ukip made such a mess of its election campaign. If Cameron has to face an authentic leftist at the despatch box, he could find it harder than he or his MPs might think.
Hitchens came out of that to me as an absolute Gent, donât know what anyone else thought but I believed him, which is something rare in politics or commentaotrson the periphery.
Voting closes at midday. Still thousands of people out there that havenât received their ballot papers and are unable to vote. Worse, Labour shut itâs leadership election help line last night, meaning that these people will be likely disenfranchised.
We find out on Saturday, I guess.
Anyone reckon Corbyn will do it on first preference vote alone?
If people have not been sent there ballot papers, then surely that opens up any result to a legal challenge - deliberate ploy or gross incompetence?
As to who wins I guess iit depends on how sneaky Labour have been with these ballot papers - if they sent out ballot papers to members in order of length of membership then all of Corbyns new supporters who have just signed up are going to be included in that bunch who havenât received their ballot papers
I think the incompetence is spread all about. Iâve heard of people that have signed up for ÂŁ3 not getting a vote, just as I have heard that card-carrying stalwarts have also not received their ballot papers.
After all the crap heaped on her recently, and as she steps down, I think itâs worth recognising Harriet Harmanâs most significant contribution to social justice. She guided through the Equality Act in 2010 - probably the most important piece of reforming legislation for people in the workplace since Michael Footâs Health and Safety at Work Act in 1974, which cut work-related deaths by 75%.
Real politicians make a difference, and they do this most effectively by enacting reforms. Itâs instructive to look at Corbynâs legislative history over the past 32 years. He has sponsored not one single Bill, nothing - neither a government Bill (because heâs been nowhere near office) nor a private memberâs Bill (youâll have to ask him why). Itâs an appalling (lack of) record - a lamentable performance by a gesture politican whose self-aggrandising posturing is rooted in a futile liberation politics that went out of style with Marcuse and Fanon.
His presumed election tomorrow will be characterised by a continuation of these effect-free âprinciplesâ. The imminent chaos in the Party doesnât bear thinking about. But far worse, his utter and demonstrable uselessness condemns the people who need Labourâs protections the most to at least another electoral cycle of Tory barbarism. That in itself represents the worst of betrayals.
But as the cliche goes, the proof is in the pudding. Letâs see how long this pudding of an Opposition lasts before falling completely flat.
If they opposed it theyâd be losing more potential support (which they desperately need), considering the swell in support for military intervention.
As has been said a number of times, a vote for Corbyn in this election, is a vote for Boris Johnson in the next.
The Labour party and its supporters have shown that the Labour party is now a useless entity, and one that needs to evolve towards the centre, not to the left, to ever be in government again. A new, âleftieâ Labour also needs to be formed, to unify the lefties votes, so that they can at least challenge and have a meaningful say in UK politics, not as a second party, but as a kingmaker to the âcentreâ Labour party.
Do you mean potential support in terms of the wider public? The problem with the Stop The War Coalition - and itâs been their problem from day one - is they are supporting doing nothing. This was popular when we were involved in an unpopular intervention. But I canât even begin to get my head around how this âdo nothing but diplomacyâ philosophy could work as a policy stance from the leader of the opposition. Add to that Corbyn doesnât believe in following the whipâŚtherefore canât now demand that of his partyâŚwhere does it go from here? The mess that is Syria has come at an unfortunate time for Corbyn - itâs really going to put his leadership and his âprinciplesâ to the test. I donât think he gives a monkey about public popularity, or winning an election. Itâs the oddest mindset.
Do you mean potential support in terms of the wider public? The problem with the Stop The War Coalition - and itâs been their problem from day one - is they are supporting doing nothing.
If theyâd succeeded in that objective, maybe a million plus people wouldnât be dead, ISIS existed.
Theyâre not supporting âdoing nothingâ. They campaigned to stop the UK from becoming an aggressor. They failed, unfortunately. Weâre now an aggressor nation again (as long as the US says it is okay)!
This was popular when we were involved in an unpopular intervention. But I canât even begin to get my head around how this âdo nothing but diplomacyâ philosophy could work as a policy stance from the leader of the opposition. Add to that Corbyn doesnât believe in following the whipâŚtherefore canât now demand that of his partyâŚwhere does it go from here?
Weâve already discussed this on this very thread. Corbynâs power will come, has to come, from the grass roots. He only has the real support of 20 MPs. His Parliamentary party can rebel against him, sure - but if the CLP backed him, good luck on getting selected next time, yeah?
The mess that is Syria has come at an unfortunate time for Corbyn - itâs really going to put his leadership and his âprinciplesâ to the test. I donât think he gives a monkey about public popularity, or winning an election. Itâs the oddest mindset.
The mess that was Syria has been going on for four years now. Last time, the only thing that coalition forces wanted to do was fight Assad. With Al-Qaeda and bits of the FSA, parts of which are now ISIS. And yes, the Conservatives proposed that we fucking do that
Did Iraq and Libya not give us enough information about regime change without post-conflict planning?
Most voters say they want Labour to provide a radical, socialist alternative to the Conservatives, according to a new poll.
The survey found that of all voters, 52 per cent believed a radical socialist alternative would be a force for good and change Britain for the better were it in power.
The voters were however split on whether such a party could win a general election, with only 43 per cent saying it could.
Counter-intuitively, voters who deserted Labour in 2015 for right-wing parties did not necessarily view a shift to the radical left by Labour as a bad thing.
Around one third â 32 per cent â of Conservative switchers agreed with the need for Labour to present a socialist agenda.
Most switchers to the Tories thought such a political programme would have a negative impact, however.
The wording of the poll asked voters whether Labour would be âa force for goodâ and âchange Britain for the betterâ.
