Next Leader of the Opposition

[Guest Bilo]

I can change the poll for this thread if you'd like rather than have the other thread quickly slide down the list of topics

Makes sense. :-)

[DB11]

Makes sense. :-)

 

Well I've sort of done it. Turns out I can't delete votes so people will have to manually delete their vote and vote again.

 

I'll see if Mark can delete all votes en masse

[Guest MattP]

Good read from Dan Hodges again in today's Telegraph regarding the Corbynites that have hijacked the party. He is fast become by favourite left wing columist.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11808433/Why-are-Labour-Party-members-putting-up-with-the-Corbyn-cultists-claptrap.html
 

Last Wednesday, Labour’s “procedure committee” gathered on a conference call to discuss the leadership election. First up was Harriet Harman, who had troubling news: a mapping of new supporters against the party’s election canvassing data had revealed many of them weren’t Labour supporters at all. Almost one in five of the recently registered had voted for other parties at the general election. Given Labour’s canvassing data covered five million voters, Ms Harman proposed cross-referencing all new sign-ups with the canvassing lists. Those who’d told Labour activists in May they were voting Conservative, Respect, Ukip or for any other party would be invited to confirm they were genuine supporters. If they did, their votes would be counted. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t.

 

The trade union representatives on the committee listened politely. And then, one by one, they responded. No. There would be no questioning of those who had supported the Conservatives or other parties. Their applications would be processed without further scrutiny.

 

For those watching Labour’s leadership election from afar, it might be hard to absorb the true taste and texture of the contest. People may, for example, have caught glimpses of a kindly looking figure, in a quaint, old-fashioned vest, looking slightly bemused at all the fuss he is creating. They may have heard his appeals for unity. They may have read his statement warning that “there is no place for personal animosity, negative campaigning, and saying or doing anything now that will damage our ability to work together as one party”.

It’s all a mirage. A fiction. Jeremy Corbyn and his campaign are living a well-crafted lie.

I have spent a great deal of my adult life around politics. Until I started to write about it, I ran some hard campaigns. I ran some downright dirty campaigns. I did many things I’m not proud of, and a few I’m openly ashamed of. But I’ve never seen anything quite like Jeremy Corbyn’s “campaign of Hope”.

 

What started as a fresh, spontaneous – if misguided – popular movement has been mutating. Its initial mood of optimism was quickly replaced by a sense of entitlement. Jeremy Corbyn had a right to be in the contest, whatever the rules said. In the blink of an eye, entitlement had morphed into arrogance. Jeremy Corbyn was right, everyone else was wrong. Anyone claiming otherwise simply couldn’t understand or wouldn’t understand or didn’t deserve to understand. Then, as victory beckoned, arrogance was replaced with outright hostility. To dare to question in any way the divinity of the bearded godhead was to invite a torrent of abuse. Labour MPs, Labour activists, journalists, neutral political observers - anyone not prepared to take the Corbynite blood oath was a war-criminal, a class-traitor, a useful idiot, a neo-con, a capitalist stooge, a Tory. Worst of all, a Blairite.

 

Now, I relish political knockabout. And arrogance is part and parcel of politics. You are, after all, trying to impose your world-view on others. But the hypocrisy of it all has taken my breath away. For the past month, Corbyn’s acolytes have been branding anyone who opposes them a Tory. And yet, as I discovered yesterday, they’ve also been trying to fix things so that genuine Tories, and Labour’s other opponents, can elbow aside long-standing party members and install Corbyn in the leadership.

Actually scrap that: hypocrisy is part and parcel of politics too. What I genuinely can’t stomach is the Corbyn Camp’s intellectual perversity and pomposity.

 

We’ve now reached the stage where the Corbyn cultists are effectively arguing that membership of the Labour party at any point over the past 30 years represents the ultimate act of treachery towards that party. Their minds process their warped narrative thus: the modernisation started by Kinnock and carried forward by Blair and Brown was a betrayal. During these dark days only the Corbynites remained true to Labour’s values. And so, by extension, anyone who supported Kinnock, Blair or Brown supported the erosion of those aims and values. Ergo – only those who joined Labour over the past 12 weeks can claim to be genuine Labour supporters.

 

What amazes me isn’t that the Corbyn cultists are peddling this rubbish. The hard-Left have always spouted this morally superior effluent. What astonishes me is that ordinary Labour Party members are putting up with this crap. Why are people who have dedicated their lives to Labour letting a bunch of three-quid-dog-on-a-rope-rent-a-Trots lecture them on their own party?

 

The genuine heirs of the Suffragettes and the Chartists and the Tolpuddle Martyrs shouldn’t be cowed by people who view a bar of soap as a tool of capitalist oppression. They should tell the Trumpton revolutionaries that if they want to play politics, they’ll have to find their own party to play with. And they should tell Jeremy Corbyn that if he wants to win a leadership election using Tory votes, he should bugger off and join the Tory party.

[Rincewind]

I never even knew the other poll existed. It was only a light off the cuff remark. It seemed a bit unfair to Corbyn not to see his name. He was in a lose lose situation.

[Guest MattP]

I never even knew the other poll existed. It was only a light off the cuff remark. It seemed a bit unfair to Corbyn not to see his name. He was in a lose lose situation.

 

I'm just amazed he wasn't being touted as leadership material at the start, it's almost like something is wrong with him.

[Rincewind]

Something right you mean. He cares about vulnerable people.

[Guest MattP]

Unless those vulnerable people have been blown up by Hamas or the IRA.

[Guest Bilo]

Something right you mean. He cares about vulnerable people.

So do Burnham, Cooper and Kendall.

[Rincewind]

So do Burnham, Cooper and Kendall.

I hope so because many do not

[BoneDog]

Corbyn is the only one who doesn't want to spend £100billion on a new arsenal of nukes? I don't know anything about him but would vote for him on that.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/british-labour-party-jeremy-corbyn-the-things-that-are-real/5469308

 

A couple more pieces here about Corbyn. He has the Blair running scared apparently.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/longtime-iraq-war-opponent-jeremy-corbyn-has-war-criminal-tony-blair-running-scared/5469521

 

The Corbyn Factor

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-corbyn-factor-the-transformation-of-labour-and-british-politics/5468269

[Rincewind]

Trouble is he will be labeled as a threat to people and people listen when it affects them.

[Alf Bentley]

Good read from Dan Hodges again in today's Telegraph regarding the Corbynites that have hijacked the party. He is fast become by favourite left wing columist.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11808433/Why-are-Labour-Party-members-putting-up-with-the-Corbyn-cultists-claptrap.html

 

 

 

I can understand you liking Hodges as he seems to specialise in articles venomously hostile to the Left. How you can categorise him as a "left-wing columnist" I don't know, though! 

 

You got me curious about him, though, as he's always seemed a truly hateful bloke to me. Here's Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Hodges.  I didn't know that he was Glenda Jackson's son!!   

 

Apparently he was her researcher for many years, and still shares a £2m house with her in Blackheath.

Here's one of his articles, in which he whines on about Ed Balls trying to make him pay a £3k tax bill on his £2m property (originally acquired by Mummy & Daddy in the 70s; I wonder if he bought them out or was given ownership as a tax dodge?):

 https://web.archive.org/web/20141022004815/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11177527/Ed-Balls-has-just-turned-my-house-into-a-mansion.-Im-not-as-happy-about-it-as-you-might-think.html

 

He describes himself as a "tribal neo-Blairite", but supported Boris for London mayor and left the Labour Party in protest when they opposed Cameron's plan to intervene in Syria in support of Islamic State and other anti-Assad elements.

 

 

I'm curious about his missing eye, too. It's clear that he lost it by getting glassed in a pub brawl, but the circumstances are a bit murky. Several sites claim that he was standing up for a couple of black blokes who were being abused by a group of whites, but the source for this seems to be a puff-piece for Mummy Glenda. To be fair to Dan, his comments suggest that one of his party was throwing beer at another group, he intervened "to keep the peace" and someone glassed him (unclear what colour the different parties were).

 

Must be a tough gig being Glenda Jackson's son, though, and still sharing a mansion with her in your 40s.... I mean, I just did a Google search on her and immediately came across a photo of her with her tits out (very nice, too). That would do your head on, wouldn't it, leading "left-wing columnist" or not.... 

[Harry - LCFC]

Corbyn is the only one who doesn't want to spend £100billion on a new arsenal of nukes? I don't know anything about him but would vote for him on that.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/british-labour-party-jeremy-corbyn-the-things-that-are-real/5469308

 

The figure is £2bn. It's £100bn over 50 years i.e. £2bn a year, which is the time period normally used for government spending.

 

Funnily enough, that policy alone means he wouldn't get my vote.

[BoneDog]

The figure is £2bn. It's £100bn over 50 years i.e. £2bn a year, which is the time period normally used for government spending.

 

Funnily enough, that policy alone means he wouldn't get my vote.

 

So saving £8bn over the four years he'd serve if PM (plus the bonus of less nukes hanging around waiting for trouble). I think we could get by fine without the extra £2bn of nukes per year, and think we'd still have the same clout.

 

I would vote for that policy alone. In everyday life I never really notice a nice difference in anything else either party in power does so that one positive would be a big sway.

[The Horse's Mouth]

The figure is £2bn. It's £100bn over 50 years i.e. £2bn a year, which is the time period normally used for government spending.

 

Funnily enough, that policy alone means he wouldn't get my vote.

Why?

[Harry - LCFC]

Why?

 

Were there to be a major confrontation between Britain and some other state I feel extremely uncomfortable about them being able to annihilate our cities with us not having an effective response to act as a deterrent.

[Tuna]

I met Jeremy Corbyn's brother, Piers, in Radcliffe On Trent about 2 years ago. He said they didn't get on!

[BoneDog]

Were there to be a major confrontation between Britain and some other state I feel extremely uncomfortable about them being able to annihilate our cities with us not having an effective response to act as a deterrent.

 

The main threat to the uk is terrorism and nukes are not needed to stop terrorism.

 

I think our armed forces, special forces and intelligence networks, along with British allies, are a good enough deterrent where one is needed. We have enough clout to not need more nukes. Whoever profits from building these nukes will push the propaganda that they're needed I'm sure.

[The Horse's Mouth]

nukes will probably never be a viable option anyway

[Sir Fynwy]

The main threat to the uk is terrorism and nukes are not needed to stop terrorism.

 

I think our armed forces, special forces and intelligence networks, along with British allies, are a good enough deterrent where one is needed. We have enough clout to not need more nukes. Whoever profits from building these nukes will push the propaganda that they're needed I'm sure.

The main reason that the government cling onto nuclear weapons is they think that getting rid of them could mean losing the permanent seat on the UN security council, the security council is a waste of time since any of the permanent members can veto any decisions and they usually do.

[Webbo]

The main threat to the uk is terrorism and nukes are not needed to stop terrorism.

 

I think our armed forces, special forces and intelligence networks, along with British allies, are a good enough deterrent where one is needed. We have enough clout to not need more nukes. Whoever profits from building these nukes will push the propaganda that they're needed I'm sure.

I thought all terrorists worked for the govt to scare us into accepting oppression?

[Christoph]

I agree with the Nukes.I keep seeing the 100 billion mark being thrown around. I find it hard to believe they'd cost that much but even if it cost 50 billion to make and maintain, that still seems like a ridiculous amount considering how much welfare we're trying to cut down on...

 

Nuclear bombs are not the answer. We need to get rid of them and start a trend. What good is having nuclear bombs? If shit hits the fans, would anyone really want nuclear bombs being chucked from both sides?

[Claridge]

I agree with the Nukes.I keep seeing the 100 billion mark being thrown around. I find it hard to believe they'd cost that much but even if it cost 50 billion to make and maintain, that still seems like a ridiculous amount considering how much welfare we're trying to cut down on...

 

Nuclear bombs are not the answer. We need to get rid of them and start a trend. What good is having nuclear bombs? If shit hits the fans, would anyone really want nuclear bombs being chucked from both sides?

and why were at it ban planes, tanks, guns and sharp sticks and the world can be a really safe place. How do you know we won't get threatened by a nuclear power in the future if we don't have them. Would Russia have annexed the Crimea if they had them?

[Guest MattP]

I think every sensible person wants to see all countries drop their nuclear weapons at some point.

 

At this point in time though with Russia seemingly ready to go to war and an organisation in IS that isn't being delt with and could (albeit unlikely) expand into a nation that has a nuclear program it's not something I'd be considering at this point in time.

[Sir Fynwy]

and why were at it ban planes, tanks, guns and sharp sticks and the world can be a really safe place. How do you know we won't get threatened by a nuclear power in the future if we don't have them. Would Russia have annexed the Crimea if they had them?

Plenty of the worlds nations get on just fine without nuclear arms, Germany, Italy, Spain, Canada, the whole of Africa, Australia and Japan for instance, based on the 'need' for nukes the only safe countries in the world are USA, Russia, UK, France, China, India Pakistan, North Korea and Israel.