There is a new Opinium poll in the Observer with topline figures of CON 37%(+3), LAB 31%(+2), LDEM 6%(-1), UKIP 15%(-2), GRN 4%(nc) – changes are from a month ago. The Conservatives have a healthy lead, but not the sort of big honeymoon lead that ICM and YouGov both showed them enjoying.

The Observer’s write up concentrates on the Labour race. Among current Labour voters Jeremy Corbyn is the preferred choice of 54%, Owen Smith of 22%. Labour voters do not, of course, necessarily reflect the preferences of the Labour members and supporters who get a vote, though the previous YouGov polling of Labour party members also suggested a large lead for Corbyn. On who would make the best Prime Minister (among the general public, rather than just Labour supporters!) Theresa May leads Corbyn by 52% to 16%.


441 Responses to “Opinium/Observer – CON 37, LAB 31, LD 6, UKIP 15”

1 5 6 7 8 9
  1. Good evening all from sunny rural Hampshire.

    Been reading the last few comments on Russia. Some of it waffle and some of it okay.

    The reality is today’s Russia is not the USSR and does not enjoy the same power projection as the USSR, it’s navy has gone from a true blue water navy to one that has limited blue water status, an air force that is a fraction of what it used to be and a conventional army that has shrunk to about 20% of that of the USSR.

    However today’s Russian military has much different objectives than that of the USSR and is tasked mainly with protecting its near abroad and unlike the USA and USSR does not seek global dominance. In short Russia has different strategic goals than that of the USSR and the USA

    Despite Russia having a military budget a 10th of that of the USA and it’s military a fraction the size of the former USSR, it is still a great military power with the second most powerful navy and air force on the planet and the Worlds 2nd or 3rd most powerful conventional army and has nuclear superiority over every other country in the World.

    Trying to figure out who would win between NATO and Russia is like compering apples with pears, however my money would be on Russia. If Putin decided to invade the Baltics or Poland then what would be NATO’s response? and do you think Russia like Saddam Hussian did would just sit back and let the Americans bring in reinforcements and build up their forces?

    And what happens if NATO attacked Russian assets in Russia with cruise missiles? They have already said they would use a nuclear strike if such weapons were deployed against them. I can’t imagine any American President ordering an attack on Russia without knowing what the consequences might be for the US.

    On paper when you compare NATO to the Russian military then NATO looks to have the upper hand but as military people know it’s not just about how many planes and ships you have but the ability to get as many of them into the conflict area ASAP,in that scenario it’s game set and match to the Russians.

    Lastly on a Nuke confrontation. 92% of America’s population live in 40 large conurbations. Just a couple of salvo’s either from the the Russian mainland or from her subs via their Topol-M missiles would be enough to wipe 92% of America’s population out. These missiles can penetrate any missile defense system and the American’s themselves have said they can change trajectory and are almost impossible to stop.

  2. The most amusing thing bout tonight’s Roland v Tancred contest is that it has provoked an intervention from Neil A, who really should have know better than to have become involved :)

    The real question is how long will it take Roly and Mr T to realise that there can never be a winner to such a contest, and if they continue this will only lead to MAD (banishment by Anthony).

  3. CR

    That article is a year old.. Has he done it yet ?

  4. CAMBRIDGE RACHEL.
    Hello from a lovely Bournemouth
    The thing is: Mr J C (the one from Islington) is never going to be PM

  5. RAF

    Yes MAD does ensure there can be no winner (if all nukes are deployed) .

    I still think if Russia landed an ICM or two wiping out LA, and New York then the Americans would push back from the table and call it a day. I’m not so sure the Russians would do the same if the US were to take out Moscow, Novosibirsk or Samara. There mentality is different from the west and they would take a much higher casualty rate than us before pushing back from the table.

  6. I see the Labour Leader of the Lords is supporting Owen Smith….more trouble at Mill for Jeremy Corbin?

  7. PROFHOWARD

    “more trouble at Mill for Jeremy Corbin?”
    ____

    More trouble for ol Corby spells more trouble for Labour. It’s not a one way ticket and only ol Corby has trouble…

  8. Professor howard

    But there was good news today with the first unresigning.

  9. Andrew 111

    Has he been allowed to do it yet?

  10. RAF
    At least its a change from “Good News for the Labour Party”.

  11. Cambridge Rachel

    Perhaps Queen won’t object to “We are the Champions” being played at the next Corbyn rally (as they complained about Trump’s use of it).

  12. ALLAN CHRISTIE
    I do hope you do not think my comments on the subject of Russia, are
    “waffle”. The reason being is, we seem to come the same conclusion.
    Russia IS massively powerful by comparison to any European armed forces and has a totally ruthless approach to warfare, prisoners, civilians, loses, the wounded ect, that is reminiscent of the Wehrmacht and the Red Army. It is all very well persons of the left “seeing no benefit for Putin” blah blah, the appear to have no concept of the Russian mind set. EG If it shows weakness kill it.

  13. What strange avenues we wander down when freed of Anthony’s leash. Prognosis for ww3, eh?

    For what it’s worth, I can quite envisage Putin engaging in further adventurism on his borders if he thinks he can get away with it. As well he might if Trump wins and repeats his unwillingness to honour the USA’s NATO commitments. A grab for Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, plus enough of Poland to link up Kaliningrad. Yes, I can see the appeal of that to a ruler trying to live up to Stalin’s legacy.

    The point that interests me more, is this: there seems to be a close link between supporting Brexit and being horrified by the notion of a joint EU defence effort. The ‘threat’ of a Euro army was a significant plank of the Brexit campaign.

    But if America will no longer defend Europe, are all these Eurosceptics still implacably opposed to the idea of Europe defending itself? Just asking.

  14. SOMERJOHN
    I agree with much of what you say. Basically trust Putin as far as I can throw a 5 bedroom house. The point about European armies is where I came in. It isn’t that the thought of defending ones own country and continent is so strange, it is that in the west, the armed forces are an absolute farce. They could not defend a hot dinner.

  15. @Roland Haines

    “RAF
    At least its a change from “Good News for the Labour Party”.

    It’s all good news. Interesting times have never been so interesting.

  16. @ROLAND HAINES

    I’d like to see some evidence of this, as post Afghanistan the opposite appears to be the case, with the Russian public highly sensitive to losses of soldiers.

    The whole NATO strategy was one of elastic retreat, to allow the Russians to advance so quickly it stretched supply lines past breaking point, as the Germans had done previous. A risky strategy as the Russians could well have prepared for this, hence the UKs reliance on nuclear missiles at sea.

  17. ROLAND HAINES

    No I wasn’t labeling your comments on Russia as waffle and agreed with some of them however I’m not as anti Putin as many others.
    I see a leader who’s country has many adversaries, some from the former USSR, some from terrorists and NATO expansionism all probing at Russia’s borders.

    I’m not so sure the west should be trying to isolate a country like Russia because of a fascist government in Poland and leaders in the Baltics who are discriminating ethnic Russians.

    And I’m also reading reports that it was the Russians who tipped off the Turkish leader regarding the coup and that it may have been the USA who had a hand in it because of the warming of relations between Russia and Turkey. The US only came out in support of the mad Turk when the coup was obviously failing.

    The reason Putin gets bad press is because he along with China can and will peruse an independent foreign policy much to the annoyance of the west.

  18. Meanwhile, another battle continues tomorrow at the RCJ:

    COURT 76

    Before MR JUSTICE FOSKETT

    Tuesday, 26th July 2016

    At 10 o’clock

    Non Jury List

    UNROBED

    FOR HEARING

    TLQ/16/0925 Foster v McNicol & anr

  19. SOMERJOHN

    “For what it’s worth, I can quite envisage Putin engaging in further adventurism on his borders if he thinks he can get away with it. As well he might if Trump wins and repeats his unwillingness to honour the USA’s NATO commitments. A grab for Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, plus enough of Poland to link up Kaliningrad. Yes, I can see the appeal of that to a ruler trying to live up to Stalin’s legacy”
    _________

    I can’t envisage Putin doing that, it would take his forces a day or so to take the Baltics so he could have easily had taken the Baltics some time ago.

    I don’t see Putin trying anything thinking he can get away with it, I see it as the West trying their luck to see how far they can push Putin then scream blue murder as soon as he rolls his forces near his own borders to counter NATO war games.

    I wonder how the Americans would feel if Russia were to send over 20,000 troops, fighter jets, drones, subs, ships and the S500 defense system to Cuba and held large scale war games of the Florida cost?

  20. # Florida Coast

  21. @Cambridgerachel – your 8.56pm post about Corbyn’s fund for low income people to become MPs really quite effectively summarises the complete claptrap that stands for Labour policy at present.

    First, have a read of this – https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/25/jeremy-corbyn-populist-democracy-mps

    Now I think we could probably all agree that we urgently need a wider range of MPs in the HoC, and that if some of these could come from lower income backgrounds that would assist to a degree, but essentially Corbyn is suggesting that your background is more important than your ability, and in this he is getting close to Baggini’s characterization of the Corbyn movement as an anti expert populist movement. Purges next?

    As @Andrew111 said, he has had 10 months to do something on this, so has he, or is this just so much hot air? He says things like – “…Labour’s members of parliament needed to be drawn from people who were facing the brunt of government policy so that they would understand what was at stake.”

    The idea that you only ‘understand’ if you have directly suffered is divisive and exclusionary. It’s also insulting to MPs like my own who has spent a lot of time campaigning on all manner of poverty related issues and worked hard to bring jobs into her constituency.

    Labour’s MPs do need to understand lots of things, including how tough life can be, but we want bright and thoughtful people who can solve the problems, which doesn’t necessarily mean they should come from any specific background. By this logic, Corbyn himself should stand down as he doesn’t fit the bill.

    He also says – “Because if at the next election we as a party have hardly any candidates from the frontline of Tory cuts then it will be very hard to be heard by voters we need to win back.”

    Again, why? It’s what the party proposes to do and how much they are believed that will win back voters. Labour has lost many voters to a well off former city trader who wanted us to leave the EU – does Farage experience their pain? It’s Corbyn who is currently losing Labour’s traditional voters by pushing such a disconnected and vapid slogan based policy platform while leaving others to pick through the wreckage and do the heavy lifting on policy and actually opposing the government.

    No – there is some merit in the idea of helping a wider range of people into parliament, as the unions did in days of yore, but this appears not to have been acted upon, and the arguments behind it are pretty simplistic, sixth form political angst based memes that mean little.

    This is spin – every bit as much spin as Alistair Campbell. That’s the sad truth of Corbyn. Just as with his attack on Pfizer, a year after signing motions to defend Pfizer – everything he does is presentational spin and political posturing. He’s come out with no substantive policy work in the last year and other people in parliament have been responsible for any successes Labour have had, and dredging up more failed pledges from a year ago fails to impress.

  22. Alec

    Reread your post and substitute woman/female for working class or substitute black for working class, or how about gay. Now I’m really annoyed with you

  23. Why?

    I never even used the words ‘working class’.

  24. Arguably many Labour voters will have been impressed by Owen Smith on Newsnight with his emphasis on traditional labour values and sensible old-fashioned Labour positions.

  25. @ProfHoward
    “Arguably many Labour voters will have been impressed by Owen Smith on Newsnight with his emphasis on traditional labour values and sensible old-fashioned Labour positions.”

    This one for one. Plus he comes across as very credible and will be safe in the Bacon Butty Test.

  26. Coming out from my self-imposed exile to support @CambridgeRachel

    @ CambridgeRachel

    Very good point on Alec’s comment. It is actually a circular argument that he presents, and he was to put in a flowchart he would see it (I did it, just for curiosity) – so it is purely prejudice that may or may not be true, but no backing up.

    @ProfHoward

    I actually showed the video to 5 working class people (skilled) tonight (all from NW, but only one for Liverpool) in a focus group setting for research purposes. It was an absolute rejection. I was surprised, so we need more research as they say …

    Back to exile.

  27. @ALEC

    What your post illustrates is the dearth of fresh thinking in senior politicians, or a total inability to recognise there might be anything wrong in the system itself – the usual Labour philosophy of throwing money at it rather than fixing it applies.

    Both David Cameron and Ed Miliband studied PPE at Oxford and became interns working in London for no pay.

    How many people do you know who could afford to live & work in London with no income if they didn’t live there with parents and whose parents were supportive?

    Now the top jobs in politics realistically are only open to the offspring of multi millionaires and it is that which needs fixing, not propping up by a Corbyn fund !

  28. @ DAVID CARROD
    Meanwhile, another battle continues tomorrow at the RCJ:

    TLQ/16/0925 Foster v McNicol & anr

    Is the ‘anr’ Jeremy Corbyn?

  29. Lazlo

    How strange. Did they think he was too weak on immigration?

  30. @CR

    From the rulebook:

    “If the sitting MP wishes to stand for re-election,
    a trigger ballot *will* be carried out through party
    units and affiliates according to NEC guidelines.”

    A trigger ballot is mandatory. What are the obstacles in the way of members having a say?

    @Laszlo

    Labour Party members/supporters are 70-80% ABC1, so while interesting your straw poll of working class voters is of limited relevance.

  31. @ Laszlo

    ‘Back to exile.’

    I wish you wouldn’t go ‘Back to exile’. It makes a lot of difference to me in validating my thinking which fits with your ‘focus group’. I may otherwise start to doubt my own phenomenological experience…

  32. @ALLAN CHRISTIE

    “I’m not so sure the west should be trying to isolate a country like Russia because of a fascist government in Poland and leaders in the Baltics who are discriminating ethnic Russians.”

    What a load of utter tripe! Fascist government in Poland? Really? Where are the blackshirts? And the poor Russians discriminated against? Poor little mites. Of course the Baltic people are not allowed to own their countries are they?

    Let’s look at the figures shall we? (From Wikipedia)

    Latvia:
    Ethnic groups (2015)
    61.6% Latvians
    25.8% Russians
    3.4% Belarusians
    2.3% Ukrainians
    2.1% Poles
    1.2% Lithuanians
    4.8% others / unspecified

    Estonia:
    68.8% Estonians
    25.1% Russians
    1.8% Ukrainians
    0.9% Belarusians
    0.6% Finns
    0.2% Latvians
    0.2% Jews
    2.4% Others

    Lithuania:
    86.7% Lithuanians
    5.6% Poles
    4.8% Russians
    1.3% Belarusians
    0.7% Ukrainians
    0.1% Jews
    0.1% Tatars
    0.1% Germans
    0.1% Romani
    0.1% Latvians
    0.5% others / unspecified

    In both Estonia and Latvia, 25% of the population is Russian, mostly brought in by Stalin in order to forcibly Russify these nations and take away their nationhood. In the UK, this is equivalent to 16 MILLION people of another nationality living here!! And you ‘leavers’ worry about a few hundred thousands of EU migrants! No wonder there little love for the Russians in these lands, and rightly so. Only in Lithuania is the Russian minority, though still high, at a more controllable level.

  33. @ ProfHoward

    (Declaration: it is not my research project, I was asked to step in to facilitate, and manage the process).

    As it was tonight, so my opinion is more of impression than analysis (there was more interested-group interaction than I have ever seen).

    One of the strange things was that every sentence was interpreted against Corbyn, which essentially set up Smith to lose.

    So, yes, immigration was an issue, and one person interpreted Corbyn’s point as if – if we wanted free trade, it means free flow of labour, as we don’t want the latter, we don’t want free trade. He would not budge from this. This is an interesting question for Corbyn – if he has the answer, it would be quite something (there is actually an answer).

    The second weak point was – “he says what Corbyn says, so what’s about?” – they actually don’t buy the leadership point (I really have to go into an analysis is, because it contradicts my beliefs and my experiences). It was very, very strong.

    The third – they actually don’t believe that Labour can win in 2020, but they express it in such a strange way that leaves the door open wide. But, no, they don’t (again more analysis, etc).

    The fourth – they are all fond of Corbyn. Differently and to a different extent, but they are. This seems (I hope the researchers will check it) to be a dominant factor. It is really strange for me (as I don’t particularly have an affinity with him), but it was there.

  34. @ Robin

    Indeed (about ABC1) but I was asked to conduct this. It was particularly interesting because my foreign accent is unmistakable, but the guys who commissioned it also knew that I’m quite good in it,

  35. @ Allan Christie

    I agree with you on Putin.. He is a very ruthless politician but certainly not comparable with Hitler or Stalin. He is most interested in keeping what he has got but if there is a vacuum of strategic importance like Crimea he will expand into it (and in many other circumstances people over here would have been championing the Crimean right to self-determination because it was pretty clear what they wanted). He has to support Russian minorities in neighbouring countries because the Russians feel the same way about them as British people do about the Falklands. In Donbass he (or perhaps radical elements not entirely under his control) fomented the revolt and Crimea made them think the Russian tanks would just roll in. But they didn’t, until the Ukrainians stated winning the war and then Putin did just enough in two short campaigns to first push them back and then create a more sensible border north of Debaltseve. Meanwhile our friends the Ukrainians were launching Grad rockets indiscriminately into civilian areas for months and actively supporting neo-fascist militias who think Bandera (responsible for the massacre of about 100,000 Poles in collusion with Hitler) is a hero… Well, it suits Putin for Ukraine to be a frozen conflict indefinitely, but for well over a year he has dissuaded the rebels from any serious attempt at expansion.. And at any time he could certainly have conquered all Ukraine if he had wanted to, and it is doubtful that NATO would have done anything about it..

    He does see the CIA and NATO behind every bush (even Eurovision and the Olympic ban) but is probably right that the Americans have been actively promoting these “coloured” revolutions.

    I happen to know some Russians very well, and the idea that NATO is the enemy poised to invade is deep in their psyche. So when NATO expanded into the former Warsaw Pact counties Russia felt very threatened. As a very proud country they are pushing back.

    Roly is correct though that Putin is very ruthless when it comes to war, much more than the Americans. Read about the second Chechen war if you want to see that. But also note that he did everything to prevent the Russian casualties that had happened in the disastrous first Chechen war. The advance was slow and preceded by massive bombardment. In Crimea he lost no soldiers through preemptive action and in Ukraine very few. Russians will indeed take huge losses in defending their own territory but since Afghanistan have limited enthusiasm for foreign adventures (just like the Americans). There is no sign at all that Putin has plans to roll his tanks across Poland (who after all are a NATO country that Trump will presumably support since they DO spend 2% of GDP on defence…), but I can easily imagine Ukraine-style trouble erupting in places like Estonia with big Russian minorities…

    If I was in Russia I would no doubt be against Putin… But he is the only credible leader and whoever replaced him could be much worse

  36. @ Robin

    While the focus group was part of an academic research project, it has a major practical implication (although right now I’m more interested in the academic one).

    The assumption is: we more or less know the above C1 voting inclination, but we actually have only a vague knowledge of its distribution, and it is far from certain if it is a normal one (I actually use a one-tail one on this, but anyhow), and even less so about the turnout.

    We more or less know the values and beliefs of the working and non-working classes, but we have no idea how the contradictory elements come together in a voting intention or being absent.

    So, as the referendum triggered a much higher participation, what values and beliefs triggered this? (Importantly, some academics have doubts about Ashcroft’s post referendum poll, but this is what we have). It is an obvious interest to all parties.

  37. Lazlo

    Interesting. Thank you.

    On the leadership point, perhaps Owen needs to refine and clarify his case. Regarding policy differences, he perhaps needs not to emphasise these, so as not to detract from the leadership point.

  38. @ ProfHoward

    Yes, that would be the message: leadership, because it is in the public mind, and it was mentioned by everyone, and it also de-emphasise policies (Smith doesn’t have them anyway – neither does Corbyn).

    However, it would still have to be defined (one person said this), and defined against the followership (all, but obviously not in this form). I mean I’m a kind of academic, so I can’t really claim this, but at the moment the leadership bit won’t work, even if Corbyn’s “leadership” is a clear negative.

    Again, it is not an analysis:

    Corbyn is an embodiment what these people want to pursue (well their elected people). Consequently, if Smith can’t differentiate, he has no chance. If he moves to the right, he is lost. He can’t move to the left (he could, but th n what does he do with the PLP?).

    There’s more to this research project, and this particular focus group, but we do have to wait until the proper analysis is done,

  39. Watching owen Smith on iPlayer. Prehaps unsurprisingly I don’t find him credible, the only time he sounded honest is when he said “my wife is a school teacher”, it was very really noticeable the difference in tone

  40. The Clintstones

    The Democrat National Convention has started in the US with boos and chants of ‘lock her up’ from the from their Convention Floor, at the mere mention of Hillary’s name. Hillary supporters are consoling themselves that the cheers outnumber the boos and chants. Well that’s alright then

    How exactly does the Democrat Party expect to win elections if its own activists publicly boo and call for the imprisonment of their own Presidential Candidate? Isn’t there an exact parallel with the self indulgent naval gazing that’s going on in the UK Labour Party.

    Mrs Clinton despite being a useless vacuous candidate by any standards has however won an easy majority of Democrat voters in the Primaries. Even if Labour do manage to replace Corbyn with this non entity Owen Smith exactly the same thing will happen here as is happening to Mrs Clinton. And if they don’t replace him it’ll be the same thing the other way round.

    This must be the best age in Anglo Saxon political history to be Right Wing.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/07/24/bernie-sanders-supporters-chant-lock-her-up-in-philadelphia-protest-against-clinton/

  41. Ron

    The real parallel is that Bernie supporters feel that the party establishment and the media rigged the contest against them. That feeling is even more prevalent here. If hilary loses against trump there will be bitter infighting in the democratic party.

  42. Cambridgerachel

    The fact that he makes nice promises is no reason to ‘support ‘JC”. Any of us can make vacuous promises. Supporting ‘JC’ on the strength of the promise of a ‘fund’ for poor people is like voting for the Raving Loony Party because they promise something plausible that we approve of.

    YOU HAVE TO WIN ELECTIONS to implement these things. The first thing Labour has to do is find a Leader who can maintain the support of his or her MP’s. Then he or she, has to appeal to a majority in the electorate. Following Boundary changes, Labour has to get an incredible 13% swing in its favour in England and Wales to win a bare overall majority at the next election. Something like this has never been achieved. It’s far more than Blair achieved in 1997. And at the time he was regarded by all as the second coming.

    Why on earth should a single person who voted Tory in 2015 vote for Corbyn? What is he offering Tory voters that Miliband wasn’t. But he’s doing a great deal to put them off even considering changing. parties. At the moment the swing is going the other way.

    Then even if you win, the promise has to be deliverable. Supporting ‘JC’ in these circumstances is like supporting me if I promise to put a man on Pluto during the lifetime of the next Parliament. I have neither the credibility or support to win an election nor the remotest possibility of delivering the promise if I do.

    Supporting unelectable leaders reduces Socialism to a mere hobby for the self indulgent rather than treating it as a practical means of getting something for the disadvantaged. The poor deserve better than this. It’s they not the self indulgent intelligentsia that lose when Labour abandons reality.

    Labour has to do what the Right of the Tory Party did when sat back and allowed David Cameron to be elected as leader in 2005. Hold their nose and elect someone who can first return them to power so they can get something of what they want, then continue to agitate intelligently to get something better. And look how successful it’s been for them. They’ve achieved Brexit, which is what they really wanted, but didn’t in their wildest dreams think they could get it.

    2020 is already lost for Labour whatever they do. They need to grow up now even to have a chance in 2025, if ever.

  43. @ CR

    ‘The real parallel is that Bernie supporters feel that the party establishment and the media rigged the contest against them.’

    Furthermore, Hilary Clinton has made no concession to the Bernie Sanders’ supporters, in appointing Kaine as her VP running mate… one of only 10 democratic senators who voted for fast track, an enthusiast for TPP and embedded in Wall Street connections. In fact, her ‘kinda guy’ is the antithesis of the leftward moves that Hilary has adopted during the primaries in response to the Bernie Sanders’ campaign.

    It is the very parallel that I would expect should Owen Smith win the leadership campaign. Like you, I do not experience him as being authentic.

  44. @SYZYGY
    “TLQ/16/0925 Foster v McNicol & anr

    Is the ‘anr’ Jeremy Corbyn?”

    Certainly is, he was granted permission last week to be added as co-defendant.

    I think Mr Foster’s QC is likely to be advancing an argument which is thinner than the low-fat spread on an anorexic supermodel’s crispbread, but you never know how these will turn out.

    If Foster were to win, and get a ruling that JC has to get MP’s nominations to be on the ballot paper, I can imagine the NEC will take it to the Court of Appeal, and then the Supreme Court if necessary. it could all get very bloody and interesting.

  45. @Robin

    A trigger ballot is mandatory. What are the obstacles in the way of members having a say?

    They get a say, but a trigger ballot isn’t like a normal members ballot: it’s more like an electoral college. Each “party unit” and affiliated organisation (e.g. union branches, socialist societies etc) in the constituency gets a single vote, irrespective of size; and the majority wins. So it’s actually a series of decisions across each sub-section of the CLP, in which weight of party membership is far from decisive.

    The breadth, intensity, messiness and organisational mobilisation needed to fight a trigger ballot against a sitting MP is a significant obstacle.

    I’d imagine that it will be high priority for Corbyn supporters to change the trigger ballot rules before launching any widespread deselection drive. But it may be hard to push through even if they win all the CLP seats on the NEC.

  46. Interesting references to Bernie Sanders. Unlike Corbyn, he has recognised he can’t win and wholeheartedly backs Clinton, for the sake of party unity. Lessons there, but they won’t be learned.

    @Laszlo and @CA – your were typical kneejerk responses to my point, with no real meaning.

    You immediately roled out the ‘working class, women, black, gay’ trope as if it had anything to do with what I said. Being right on might make you feel good about yourselves, but it’s so often a meaningless way categorize critics in a way that means you can safely but falsely ignore what they are saying.

    Corbyn effectively said that only candidates who had experienced Tory cuts can effectively represent those people. It’s crass nonsense, but nonsense that he has failed to deliver.

    We are all in favour of diversity, and I’m assuming you back Smith for a return to all women shortlists. Not women who have experienced directly Tory cuts, just top quality women. I would feel confident that tn months in, if he were elected, Smith would deliver this, as he is a serious politician and not a student union mouthpiece.

    I was favourably disposed to Corbyn, but without really paying attention to internal Labour politics, but I’m afraid from my own left wing perspective his policy stance, which I had prevouisly thought to be reasonable, is now joining his management capacity in being dumped into the useless bin.

    I fully expect him to win, and Labour and all those working class voters, will suffer the consequences.

  47. So, if Labour are to select MPs who have ‘experienced Tory cuts’ in future, does that mean that the Tories should select MPs who have previously run companies which have suffered as a result of Trade Union militancy?

    Or is this whole notion complete and utter bollox?

  48. RON OLDEN

    @”The fact that he makes nice promises is no reason to ‘support ‘JC”

    For Corbyn supporters , I think it is precisely the reason.

    I well remember this from him at last years Lab Conference:–

    “Since the dawn of history in virtually every human society there are some people who are given a great deal and many more people who are given little or nothing.
    Some people have property and power, class and capital, status and clout which are denied to the many.
    And time and time again, the people who receive a great deal tell the many to be grateful to be given anything at all.
    They say that the world cannot be changed and the many must accept the terms on which they are allowed to live in it.
    These days this attitude is justified by economic theory.
    The many with little or nothing are told they live in a global economy whose terms cannot be changed.
    They must accept the place assigned to them by competitive markets.
    By the way, isn’t it curious that globalisation always means low wages for poor people, but is used to justify massive payments to top chief executives.
    Our Labour Party came into being to fight that attitude.

    That is still what our Labour Party is all about. Labour is the voice that says to the many, at home and abroad: “you don’t have to take what you’re given.”
    “You don’t have to be grateful to survive in a world made by others.
    No, you set the terms for the people in power over you, and you dismiss them when they fail you.”
    That’s what democracy is about.
    That has always been our Labour Party’s message.
    You don’t have to take what you’re given.”

    I particularly remember that last line.

    You don’t have to take what your given ( by them)………you can just take what you want ( from them)………….because “you set the terms”…………and I will enforce them for you.

    It is hugely appealing to groups which we can all define & describe. It is simple & iconoclastic. It means that you cannot criticise Jeremy because in doing so you criticise ME. You deny ME what I WANT. And Jeremy is going to get it for me.

    “simples”

  49. I have been musing on UKPR for a while about who the woman with green hair is who is always at Corbyn’s side on his platforms & podiums.

    He was recently photographed with an entourage of ladies at the launch of his leadership campaign-and there she was again.

    I now know who she is :-

    Marsha-Jane Thompson-social media manager for Momentum.

    It struck me that this lady is probably more important in Corbyn’s “Democracy” than John Bercow is in mine. :-)

    http://www.mondonews.net/FetchedImages/1/3676FD6B00000578-3702448-image-a-1-1469145149850.jpg

1 5 6 7 8 9