ComRes released their monthly telephone poll for the Daily Mail last night, topline figures were CON 39%, LAB 30%, LD 9%, UKIP 12%, GRN 4%. While the nine point Conservative lead looks similar to most recent polls, note that ComRes have been showing larger Conservative leads of late (typically around 12 points) so comparing like-to-like this represents a narrowing of the lead. The poll was conducted over the weekend, prior to Jeremy Corbyn’s speech (tabs here)


241 Responses to “ComRes/Mail – CON 39, LAB 30, LD 9, UKIP 12”

1 2 3 4 5
  1. COUPER2802

    I agree.

    I cannot see an alternative if he remains leader.

    He cannot go into a GE campaign with the current disagreements & verbal contortions on national tv every day.

    I don’t see any future for MPs who disagree with him fundamentally-they cannot beat his majority in the Party, so they have await deselection or move to a new/different party……..don’t they?

  2. @Colin

    “I watch & wait for the mind numbing business of Realpolitik to bore them rigid again.”

    Indeed. Idealistic young people are a good thing in their way but not a firm voter base for any party. In 5 years time, many of them will have careers and mortgages, Corbyn will no longer be a novelty with fad appeal bolstered by peer group pressure, and their enthusiasm will wane and their votes wander off in several directions.

  3. COUPER2802

    Is this where the key battle for control is taking place?

    Note the last para re “futureproofing”-this is about factional control-not just the temporary holder of the Left’s office of Head Convenor.

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2015/09/jeremy-corbyn-secures-his-first-big-victory-labour-party-conference

  4. WATCHIT

    I agree that is the probable direction of travel-but so long as the Labour Left can keep finding Corbyns they will presumably keep attracting the next generation of idealist young.

  5. @Colin

    “He cannot go into a GE campaign with the current disagreements & verbal contortions on national tv every day.”

    A statement of the bleedin’ obvious, but he’s not likely to, is he? He’s been leader for barely three weeks and has deliberately generated the open discussion on issues like the EU, Trident and Syria. I think this may be shrewd internal party politics because he’s as aware as anyone, I would think, that he didn’t carry the PLP with him in the leadership campaign and if he’s going to handle that difficulty sensibly, then it seems to me to be quite a good idea to let a few thousand flowers bloom when you’re roughly five years away from the aforementioned General Election.

    He has a large mandate from the party membership but there is an interesting quartet of factions emerging that he has to manage. The old membership, the new arrivistes, the Unions and the PLP. Each require subtly different approaches and, if Corbyn is serious about bottom up methods of policy discussion, and eventual formation, then he has to give the impression that he’s listening to this competing quartet. It will take some doing, but now’s the time for the organised chaos and I think Corbyn and his advisers are well aware of this.

    Of course, all this presents a challenge to the old way of thinking about politics. Where’s the carefully orchestrated choreography, the soundbites, the stage-managed photo opportunities, the on-message TV and radio interviews? This is unsettling and disconcerting for the political establishment and commentariat who think politics is a sort of glorified Golf Club committee writ large.

    Rose Garden press conference phoniness is not what Corbyn’s about and his whole raison d’etre appears to be that he’s going to represent a complete break from that contrived phoniness and false bonhomie. He’s hoping that he’s tapping into a genuine public thirst for a different sort of politics and if he has to sacrifice conventional micro party management to get there, he seems perfectly relaxed about taking that risk. Eventually, order will have to replace chaos but Corbyn’s approach in the early days of his leadership may be quite an astute way of making everyone think they’ve won when the time eventually comes to play serious electoral politics. That time is still some way off.

    Fascinating stuff.

  6. @Mrnameless

    “People don’t dislike vegetarianism, they dislike Vegetarianism – the unfortunate tendency for vegetarians to let you know they are within about five minutes of meeting them and seem to be judging you accordingly”

    Got it, spite mixed with insecurity ;)

  7. CB11
    @”he’s not likely to, is he?”

    I have no idea. Asked in an interview what he would do if Party Policy is Trident Renewal & he stands as Leader who will never use it-I think he said something like “we will work it out” :-)

    @” he has to give the impression that he’s listening to this competing quartet.”

    Right!-so what about “Honest Politics & Straight Talking” ?

    @” the old way of thinking about politics. ”

    I’m not sure I buy all this paradigm shift thing. EM was forever parading New this & New that. I think the public are as sceptical about the new Snake Oil Salesmen as the Old ones. I reckon there’s only one “politics” -the kind that gets you into power so you can change things. Of course there will always be protest parties . They are necessary in a democracy-but they don’t want -or ned-power.

    @” He’s hoping that he’s tapping into a genuine public thirst for a different sort of politics ”

    Yes-I think thats true-the one he knows best-the mobilisation of the masses-bottom up politics-etc etc.

    And there will be ( are already) a few hundred thousand takers for that- including at least three of my grandchildren. ………….at present :-)

  8. I think Labour leaders should be vegetarians. It’s the surest way to avoid the bacon sandwich trap. ;-)

  9. @Colin

    “Of course there will always be protest parties . They are necessary in a democracy-but they don’t want -or ned-power.”

    Ah yes, those frivolous, non-serious and benignly eccentric old political factions who merely add to the gaiety of the nation whilst the serious boys and girls in suits get on with running the country. A bit patronising, I think.

    They called Syriza a protest party once, and Podemos too.

  10. CB11

    So glad to see you haven’t lost your hatred of “Golf Clubs”.

    Watching the Rugby Union at present, as the privileged Middle Classes from Tonga & Fiji , Romania & Georgia bray & booze with gusto , I occasionally think of you & feel a smidgen of sympathy .

  11. CB11

    Syriza is indeed interesting-as you say it once was a “protest party”-If memory serves it protested about spending cuts in Greece & vowed to reverse them :-)

  12. New EU poll from ICM

    REMAIN 45 (+1)
    LEAVE 38 (+1)

    Dates 25th-27th Sep
    N=2,005

    http://www.icmunlimited.com/data/media/pdf/Voting-28thSep15_pv.pdf

  13. NEDLUDD

    What an interesting post- I think your last para shows foresight .

  14. @Colin

    “Watching the Rugby Union at present, as the privileged Middle Classes from Tonga & Fiji , Romania & Georgia bray & booze with gusto , I occasionally think of you & feel a smidgen of sympathy .”

    That’s a bit harsh isn’t it? Braying and boozing? A bit yobbo-ish, don’t you think? I’ve watched some of the games too and it would appear that the few attending that aren’t there on hospitality junkets have been ferried in via a couple of taxis. They’ve probably been given the costumes and flags to wave too!

    Contrived, overhyped nonsense that, blissfully, will soon be over. Referees still the stars for me, though. “Wait, until I bluurr ma wheesell…” as the poor devil dives into to separate a load of very fat men wrestling over an invisible ball. Meanwhile the crowd conduct yet another Mexican wave and get a few more lagers down. Very well behaved though and the Barbour Jackets look a treat.

    :-)

  15. I think JC has (perhaps accidentally) raised a relevant issue regarding who orders a nuclear strike.

    As it stands, it seems that the decision is made by the PM alone & recorded in a letter to the Trident crew.

    And in the past, the PM also had the decision about whether to declare war/ deploy forces. But this changed; it is now generally accepted that, whenever possible, the HoC should debate & vote on whether war is declared/ troops are deployed.

    So, perhaps that should also be the position with the Trident letter. Each parliament, there should be a vote on what instruction goes into the letter. Would a vote not to deploy reduce the deterrent effect? Possibly; but there is also the possibility that at a time of conflict escalation, a vote could be called to change the instruction. That would, in itself, send a powerful message to the escalating state (& more importantly its citizens) that the UK considered their behaviour to be worth ‘going nuclear’ over.

    I think that a vote of the HoC on the instruction which goes into the letter is definitely worth considering as it would bring Trident into line with the current procedure for deploying conventional armed forces.

  16. Omnishambles: New EU poll from ICM REMAIN 45 (+1)
    LEAVE 38 (+1)

    That looks quite positive for staying. The Brexit cause isn’t helped by noisily competing campaign groups with a lunatic fringe / rich person’s obsession whiff to them. As a supporter of staying, I was pleased to see Lord Lawson getting a prominent ‘out’ role. He looks pretty eccentric these days, and as a prominent climate change denier his judgement and respect for clear evidence are already compromised.

  17. I think there are two problems which Mr Corbyn has to resolve – an open discussion over Trident and over NATO is fine but given his long standing opposition to any use of military force – it become difficult to see how any policy contrary to his moral position could possibly be regarded as effective. This is not at all like a Union Leader abandoning his Unilateralism in order to head a union opposed to that policy – since the UK’s utility as an ally rests upon her reliability to act in a given set of circumstances. I’m unsure how that circle can be squared but it cannot but present a difficulty.

    If Mandatory Reselection of MPs is pursued and a good number of MPs are deselected – it might lead to a number of Labour MP’s resigning the whip – and if more than 119 of them did so de facto whoever their elected leader was in HOC would become the de facto Leader of HM Opposition. It seems likely this influx of new members will be keen to use their muscle but that may also have the effect of weakening local parties as older and experienced members cease to participate. It is oddly the use of a political form of nuclear deterrence which Mr Corbyn claims never works in practice. that being the case we are all in for some explosive times ahead….

  18. reverting the to the issue of class and their political attitudes and homogeneity within groups.
    At one time political viewpoint could generally be equated with class because of a shared self-interest within the group. It is arguable that by the 1980’s this had been broken (there are numerous theories as to why this should have been so). In addition to this the Boomer generation is strange (in historical terms) because there are large numbers who were born into one class and (depending on your theory) joined or were subsumed into another as adults> They in turn have had children, some of whom are now in a different class again.
    All of this leaves open to question what party political stance any particular class might take as a homogeneous group.
    The situation of my brother and I might illustrate this difficulty for pollsters and sociologists alike.
    I was born in the 1960’s my brother in the 1970’s. I left school at 16 without qualifications, became through a variety of jobs a bus driver and by 21 was a trade union representative, My brother left school at 16 with good “O” levels and became an apprentice electrician with BP. I at 25 went to Ruskin College on a trade union bursary and from the studied law at Balliol College, became a Barrister and am now a Judge. My brother gained an OU science degree, became a chartered engineer and is now a director in a medium sized oil business. I still live in South Wales where we were raised, he lives in Dorsetshire.
    We had a discussion about our politics recently and both agreed that it would probably be in our personal financial interests to have voted conservative. However we both agreed that it was impossible for us to do so when it actually came to putting a cross on a ballot paper, I vote Labout as does my brother, when we analysed this it was clear that our approach was coloured by our upbringing and not just current policy.
    I am clear that, whatever disagreements I have with the policy espoused by the current labour leadership, I will inevitably vote Labour or if I cannot bring myself to do so will spoil my ballot.
    How is statistics supposed to deal with this?

  19. @amber star

    The Letter of Last Resort is only opened if there’s an attack on the British government such that the PM and any appointed deputies are killed. Peter Hennessey had a documentary about this on radio 4 years ago, not many details are public but it’s not as simple as retaliate or don’t. He can also tell the submarine commander to use his own judgement, tell him to join up with an allied fleet and await orders from them, etc.

    But if the PM (or deputies) are alive, then the PM makes the decision along with senior members of Cabinet and defence staff. The PM has the responsibility but various people at the top levels need to give their support before the security code is sent to Vanguard submarine on patrol. This is to guard against the “PM goes crazy” scenario.

    However at the end of the day it’s only the submarine commander who can launch the nuclear weapons. The commander would receive a code from Whitehall giving instruction to fire, but the “big red button” can’t be pressed from Westminster. The reason is to increase the credibility of the deterrent. So enemies know that they can’t stop a retaliation by cutting communication lines, destroying satellites, jamming signals and so on. In fact if they lose communications with the government, they’re meant to assume the British government has been destroyed and open the Letter of Last Resort.

  20. Wales EU poll

    Remain: 42% (-2)
    Leave: 38% (+1)
    (via YouGov / 21 – 24 Sep)

  21. @Nedludd

    The journey Labour is taking with JC is really good news for democracy in the UK as a whole. I am personally doubtful if he will cross the finishing line, but isn’t the point.

    For a long time people have moaned about MPs being lobby fodder for political parties. They tow the line of the party, as party management takes over. Because the Leader thinks X, suddenly a whole of people who thought Y up to that point change their mind.

    JC’s Labour is currently an unruly beast, as living with real freedom after being shackled creates this. However, we are seeing people talking about real issues (as real people do), not always agreeing (as real people do) and breaking the binds that people have previously thought to be bad.

    I hope this rubs off on all parties. If this movement gets squashed, we will end up back at the place where MPs are just unthinking cogs in a party machine.

  22. In fact if they lose communications with the government, they’re meant to assume the British government has been destroyed and open the Letter of Last Resort.

    Crickey, I hope they don’t use Talk Talk.

  23. @nedludd

    “””
    It’s absolutely terrifying those who thought they could build careers for themselves by occupying the hollow shell of the Labour party in much of it’s heartland areas.
    “””

    It happens in all parties but I think Labour has historically had the most problems with unmotivated seat-fillers, especially (but not exclusively) at local council level. Regardless of leftism, centrism and factions within Labour, I think a clear-out of such people can only be a good thing for the system, not just the Labour party — even the most hardened Tories would agree that having any major party be dysfunctional is a bad idea!

  24. I think there is a real problem for Corbyn in squaring his more democratic, bottom-up vision of the Labour Party with the need to maintain a broad church.

    There is a danger that the Labour Party becomes a very effective, motivated and united organization representing UK socialists with aplomb but having not much to say to 60-70% of the electorate. After all, that’s what the membership seems to want.

    Conventional wisdom is that the battleground (in England at least) is really in the centre, amongst voters who are basically “social democrats” who believe in capitalism but also in the welfare state (people like me). At the moment one could plausibly answer that all the main parties can appeal to that centre, but if the “mob” gets its way then Labour may take itself off the menu.

  25. @catmanjeff

    Heh. Actually I should have said, if they lose communications with the UK. As @raf said previously one of the signals they keep track of is the Radio 4 longwave. You can imagine there will be loads of redundancy built-in to that process, they wouldn’t rely on just a handful of ways to see if the UK is functioning.

  26. @ Omnishambles

    The media are currently presenting it as a binary choice; so let’s hope there will be a wider discussion about it on alternative forums which might filter through to the MSM.

  27. “You can imagine there will be loads of redundancy built-in to that process…”

    ——–

    They should check to see if peeps are still posting on UKPR…

  28. @NEDLUDD

    I’m not a member of Oval (Vauxhall) any longer but I understand there membership has gone from 900 to 1800. I think it is far too early to say how committed these new members will be or how active….and equally far too early to gauge their effect on those members who previously have been active at a ward level…a bit like the misogyny on-line – because Mr Corbyn says he wants it all to be inclusive etc it may not be how his followers will feel…

    Personally, I think it unlikely either side will want to push the other into a corner but sometimes in politics things acquire a momentum of their own and stuff just happens… it will certainly be interesting…the polls are as yet unclear – but this may help Labour in Wales and Scotland and in the northern heartlands – but whether it helps Labour in the middle of middle England is what we all wait to see…but no one can deny events have certainly got the party an awful lot of Media interest and not all of it negative..and that matters a lot….

    I may well be wrong – history may attest how often that happens…

  29. @amber

    Interesting points. In practice, there might not be time for a commons vote on that issue though. lol!

    Richo

  30. NEDLUDD

    Thanks

    Fascinating stuff.-I can almost see the flickering torches & smell the hot burning tar. :-)

    Do you hear the people sing!
    Singing the song of angry men?
    It is the music of the people
    Who will not be slaves again!
    When the beating of your heart
    Echoes the beating of the drums
    There is a life about to start
    When tomorrow comes!

  31. There is a quite lazy assumption underlining a lot of posts above along the lines that that the support for Corbyn has somehow redefined much of the Labour party membership as being made up of hard line Trots who will step up to deselect their local MP if he or she steps out of line.

    I consider that that is an utterly false reading of the motivation of almost all full members. There will be no deselections as such. There will though be a small amount of churn on account of the redrawing of constituency boundaries, with a small number of current MPs finding themselves out in the cold as selections take place for new seats. But that would though be the case anyway as the electoral system tilts further against Labour and its numbers of notional seats fall in the boundary review.

    Furthermore, while Corbyn’s leadership will prove cathartic in the short term, and in my view a necessary reaction against the timidity of what went before, it won’t be too long before the reality of lost council seats and continued poor opinion polling focuses the minds even of a currently enthusiastic membership. There is no immediate urgency but by 2019, I don’t expect Corbyn to be leading the party. If that process is rather bloody it may well help rather than hinder the prospects of the successor appealing to the wider UK electorate.

  32. I was going to say that the public is going to have a bit of a shock when they find out that a party other than Labour still exists in the UK during the upcoming Tory confernece, but it turns out that Labour plan on continuing to get coverage during the period-

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/29/jeremy-corbyn-to-gatecrash-tory-conference-by-speaking-at-rally

  33. * conference

  34. A lot of informative and interesting posts today amongst the abuse. Too many to comment on except that I loved Amber’s vegetarian joke.
    ————————————————
    Here’s my latest thought about Corbynism. I’m reminded of 1992, when as soon as there seemed to be a realistic chance that a perceived left-wing socialist might win, suddenly record numbers of ‘soft’ Tories emerged from hiding to put the kybosh on Kinnock.

    I suspect that something similar will happen if Corbyn (or even a more media-friendly socialist) is still in position in 2020. Though he may enthuse a few non-voters and get a few converts from Greens etc, he’s just as likely to frighten a lot of habitual non-voters into voting Tory.

  35. @Neil A

    “Conventional wisdom is that the battleground (in England at least) is really in the centre, amongst voters who are basically “social democrats” who believe in capitalism but also in the welfare state (people like me). At the moment one could plausibly answer that all the main parties can appeal to that centre, but if the “mob” gets its way then Labour may take itself off the menu.”

    In reality, though, that’s all Corbyn is trying to do. He is a social democrat and, I’ll warrant, so are most of his supporters. All they’re really arguing for is simply capitalism but with a firm hand on the tiller, combined with a generous welfare state. The problem, of course, is the centre appears to have shifted (hence why opting to nationalize railways is considered hard-left lunacy but privatizing successful franchises for a pittance is considered sound and sensible position).

    The debate, and fight, between the ‘moderates’ and the ‘Corbynites’ essentially lies on what to do about this problem. The ‘moderates’ take the position of ‘there’s nothing we can do about it; the centre has shifted so we just have to accept that and try and make the best of it’, whereas the ‘Corbynite’ position is to try and hook a winch on the centre and drag it leftwards.

    As to which of these would work, I don’t really know. I would maintain that had Labour gone for the ‘dragging centre’ position in 2015 they would have won the election; instead they went for a muddled ‘make the best of it’ position which had the damaging effect of conceding the argument and shooting themselves in the foot. The trouble, for the ‘Corbynite’ wing, is that having conceded the argument it is now more difficult, if not impossible, to drag the centre back and perhaps does not make this a viable strategy (to an extent McDonnell and Corbyn are recognizing this, hence their insistence that they are looking to get the deficit down and run surpluses).

    The fighting between the ‘moderates’ and the ‘Corbynites’ is very vicious, essentially, because the ‘moderates’ are rather confused. On the one hand they don’t want Labour to lose, they would all like government jobs after all, but on the other hand they don’t particularly want Corbyn to win, because that would mean that their position (nothing we can do, no alternative) is wrong, and they’d all look pretty silly. Hence why there’s the present campaign of briefing against – they’re all hoping that this will somehow cause brand Corbyn to collapse. That won’t happen, of course, because they’re all cowards and none of them want to wield the knife, so all that they’re really doing is hardening Corbyn’s support and turning said support strongly against them.

    The fact that these people are supposed to be the brightest sparks and the top strategists of the Labour party should be intensely worrying, for all sorts of reasons.

  36. @Nedludd

    “He’s not in a position to control it.”

    Indeed.

    The only question is if activism is sustainable. But there is a Tom Watson … (Who wiped Blair and Brown by talking about the achievements of Smith and Miliband, and nobody else). He seems to have the capability to have quite a significant control (although won’t be full, so errors will be made) over the movement.

    It seems that at least three alternative organisational solutions against the central office are emerging, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the deputy leader’s was the defining ones. Does Watson have leadership ambitions? I don’t know, he maybe happy to be the deputy with power.

  37. FREDERIC STANSFIELD

    Why are we getting such different results for UKIP from different pollsters? This poll has UKIP on 12% but the previous Ipsos MORI one has them on 7%. I am not a statistics expert but this is near the limit of statistical error and I think it is more likely to be due to some non-random measurement, or methodological, problem, which needs to be identified.

    I think it’s got to do with what may be an ‘elusive’ UKIP problem in telephone polls, especially MORI. I say ‘elusive’ rather than ‘shy’ because it may be that UKIP voters are the type who don’t answer the phone or are unwilling to take part in surveys. This is different from the traditional ‘shy’ Tory problem in that it less about people not saying how they will vote, rather they are not really contactable at all.

    It doesn’t seem to be a problem for the online surveys- indeed in the past they have tended to over-represent UKIP, especially Survation[1]. I always reckoned this was because UKIP voters were more ‘opinionated’ and so more likely to be members of online panels. Why they’re not as keen to answer the phone to have their say is a bit of a mystery. It may be that they are disproportionately less likely to answer at all (this is real problem for all polling) or that online they feel they have more control and are getting paid.

    There does still seem to be difference between phone and online. In the 8 online polls since the GE, UKIP have averaged 13.6%, while the 9 phone polls[2] from ComRes and ICM averaged 11.2%. So there may still be a difference, but now that pollsters have had a general election with UKIP at around 12% rather than their previous 3%, it’s also easier to get the sample proportions right.

    But MORI doesn’t do any political weighting – they don’t even ask how people voted. So they have no ability to correct for the sample being systematically out of skew[3]. So their three polls since May have only shown an average of 8% for UKIP – way out of line with all the others.

    [1] This may be because they weighted by income rather than class, which seemed to result in too many C2s – the group where UKIP is strongest.

    [2] It’s a symptom of the crisis of confidence in polling that there have been fewer online polls than telephone since May – normally the latter would have been far outnumbered, but polling seems to have reverted to their ‘old’ ways, even though there may not be any evidence phone polls did any better.
    Polling list from:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#2015

    [3] From their latest poll, ICM appear to do this by weighting those who voted UKIP in May up, while ComRes seem to have got a closer sample. But with phone polls quota sampling is used get the right sample in terms of age, sex, region and so on (which is why they really wanted to talk to Crossbat jnr) so it may be that they deliberately looked for people who voted UKIP in May.

  38. Thanks, Roger.

    Telephone polls have long been problematic, and evolution of commications technology doesn’t make them any easier. Many of us do find email more reliable than over-complicated telelphones.

  39. I’m quite convinced that Corbyn’s aim is to have a coalition from the centre to the (almost) far left with the leadership of centrist social democrats – inside and outside the party. He pointedly refuses to give policy commitments outside of what there is an agreement within this coalition) and what he cannot and/or doesn’t want to disown (nuclear deterrent). So far it is an extremely generic narrative that actually connects this coalition – some may disagree with elements of the narrative, but not the majority of the elements, so there is a qualified support (the style is part of this).

    There was a clear attempt in the conference to create a new terminology along the coalition lines, but it didn’t quite work, because of the competition of the factions of the coalition. They need conversations, and access to TV (press is less important and too difficult) to shape this vocabulary.

    This means purge of those who attempt to break the coalition instead of arguing within it. It may go further.

    Once this is created, they will attempt to translate the narrative to policies, which may or may not possible (I’m very suspicious of comprehensive social democratic policies).

    The whole thing also leaves the possibility of another faction of the coalition takes the leading role instead of the centrist socdems.

  40. I didn’t vote for Corbyn in the leadership election but I have to say it is so refreshing to feel the fresh air, ‘winds of change’ even, blowing through our tired, atrophied, political discourse, where everyone is in the thrall of the media and too frightened to say boo to a goose.
    There will not be a GE for five years and there are major changes afoot for the Conservative party. Goodness only knows who will be the next leader of the Tory party and how will the EU referendum play out? What could be a better time for Corbyn to try and change the way politics works in this country?
    What I find amusing is how the shock and disbelief that a political leader should be relaxed, nay even encourage debate, has created an unholy-alliance of Corbyn detractors; as can be seen by the unlikely bedfellows posting on this board.
    NB. By country, I’m not including Scotland. They got their own fish to fry.

  41. This is a test to see if the act of posting helps me see recent posts. Nothing since 1:08.

  42. Yep.

  43. @ Pete B

    I think it’s a delicious cookie problem (otherwise cache, although posting shouldn’t clear the older cache). But a refresh should do the job in general.

    Perhaps it is related to a conspiracy involving the Labour Party leader as today is the international day of vegetarianism (not a joke), and it obstructs critiques of Corbyn and hence vegetarianism (what a wonderful non sequitur) to have an opportunity of engaging negatively with pro-Corbyn comments :-)

  44. Valerie,
    I agree with a lot of that but I can’t resist this –

    “I have to say it is so refreshing to feel the fresh air, ‘winds of change’ even, blowing through our tired, atrophied, political discourse, ”

    More like the last burst of flatulence from a corpse :-)

  45. Laszlo
    I’m surprised no-one’s said this yet. Perhaps they can’t stoop as low as me.

    Hitler was a vegetarian. Hence obviously all vegetarians are Nazi sympathisers. (For the non-humorous, that’s a joke)

  46. Pete B
    Don’t give the Mail ideas

  47. @ Pete B

    It’s good – but Hitler wasn’t vegetarian. I don’t know where it comes from (is there a conspiracy against vegetarians?), but all the contemporary documents show that he was omnivorous.

  48. It is like a breath of fresh air, a leader of the opposition answering a question, whether you agree with him or not on Trident..
    For my part, I do not agree with him, even if a mainstream party like the SNP do.
    In most honest peoles eyes, the yes minister sketch was correct, regarding trident.
    Having a debate 5 years out from an a GE and some people feel threatned by a politician challenging the so called consencus.
    Even a politican, which they all state has no chance of winning.
    I am a republican because , I do not believe it is correct to be born head of state.
    I know this view is heresy in many quarters, and the polls always suggest this to be the case.
    I imagine that is why the SNP dropped their believes on the monarchy and NATO.
    However it is good that it enters the discourse, as things do change overtime, who would have thought 30 years ago, that a conservative government would introduce gay marriage.
    This country has always needed its keir hardies, to speak out and be lambasted by the right wing media, but over time , even if they do not win elections, attitudes and law is changed, to help the people without power and privilege.

  49. LASZLO

    Hitler wasn’t vegetarian. I don’t know where it comes from (is there a conspiracy against vegetarians?), but all the contemporary documents show that he was omnivorous.

    I thought that too, but Wiki rounds up the evidence quite convincingly:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler_and_vegetarianism

    and suggests that he was basically a vegetarian for the last eight years of his life. Before that he was just a fussy eater (just when you though you couldn’t dislike the man any more, eh?)

  50. @ Roger Mexico

    Thank you.

    One keeps on learning.

    In Romm’s film there is a reference to his vegetarianism, but then there is a footage and Hufstangel’s diary that he ate meat in 1932. I’m quite sure that in the Table conversations there is a reference for the tastiness of bratwurst, but the evidence you provided convinced me :-).

    It’s getting worse and worse for Corbyn after all.

1 2 3 4 5