Ship of Fools: Oldham by-election

Thread: Oldham by-election Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029589

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on 30 November, 2015 20:06 :

So the pundits are watching the Oldham byelection on December 3rd to see whether UKIP make further inroads into the normally massive Labour majority there.

Any predictions?

I think UKIP will make considerable gains.

Diagnosis offered which I (non-Labour voter) find fairly plausible: Labour under Corbyn is becoming more a party for left-wing intellectuals and radicals, less for traditional trade-unionists. Thus the Labour vote will hold up in London but is in danger from the populist right in the North.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on 30 November, 2015 20:43 :

I broadly agree with your diagnosis. Labour's problem is that more and more of the working class folk it thinks should be guaranteed to vote for it no longer see it as a party that speaks for them. And for the most part, those people are going to UKIP.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on 30 November, 2015 20:50 :

I think Labour will win. Whether or not the percentage vote will drop, dunno. The votes cast will probably drop because of low turn-out.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on 01 December, 2015 17:58 :

Tutquoise wrote:

quote:
Diagnosis offered which I (non-Labour voter) find fairly plausible: Labour under Corbyn is becoming more a party for left-wing intellectuals and radicals, less for traditional trade-unionists. Thus the Labour vote will hold up in London but is in danger from the populist right in the North.

Marvin wrote:

quote:
I broadly agree with your diagnosis. Labour's problem is that more and more of the working class folk it thinks should be guaranteed to vote for it no longer see it as a party that speaks for them. And for the most part, those people are going to UKIP.

It's a perennial complaint that labour-oriented parties are drifting away from their working-class roots, and being over-run by "intellectuals and radicals". I'm guessing this sort of thing was being said in the 60s, when the youth culture was in full swing, and the Labour Party likely had as many intellectuals in tow as it does now.

And it's pretty much a global complaint as well. I believe it was at the 1972 Democratic Convention in Miami Beach that union reps were heard complaining about "too many love beads, not enough cigars".

And do union people in the UK really think that the rule of Tony Blair was a better time for trade-unionists in the Labour Party than the rule of Jeremy Corbyn?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on 01 December, 2015 23:19 :

I also think Labour will win. It's share of the poll will probably drop very markedly. Nevertheless, the combination of the ethnic vote and those that will not forsake it either for Ukip or despite their dislike for Corbyn will be sufficient to pull it through. Although Ukip may pick up quite a lot of votes from usually Labour voters, I suspect it will not attract that many voters from the other parties' regular voters, who by and large detest it.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on 01 December, 2015 23:37 :

A Stop the War Coalition demo outside Labour HQ (which was attended by at least one Labour Shadow Minister) caused the cancellation of a telephone canvassing session this evening. Were Labour to lose the seat by a handful of votes I wonder how the blame game would play out?

But I think Labour will win.

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on 02 December, 2015 09:30 :

My prediction is that Labour will win.

Dan Hodges will then publish a piece (already drafted) explaining why this is such a terrible result for Jeremy Corbyn.

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on 02 December, 2015 09:40 :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

And do union people in the UK really think that the rule of Tony Blair was a better time for trade-unionists in the Labour Party than the rule of Jeremy Corbyn? [/QB]

As a trade unionist, I would have to say yes, because then Labour was in government and there's no chance that it will be again any time soon.

Anyone who is intellectually lazy enough to assert that Noo Labour was no better than the Tories needs to familiarize themselves with the contents of the Trades Unions Act currently making its way through the Lords. The right to strike may well be all but removed.

As for Oldham, I think Labour will win but this is a seat that it should be impossible for them to lose. The only real challenger is UKIP and the constituency has a large minority ethnic community to whom UKIP's appeal is somewhat limited.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on 02 December, 2015 10:57 :

quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
My prediction is that Labour will win.

Dan Hodges will then publish a piece (already drafted) explaining why this is such a terrible result for Jeremy Corbyn.

The response of most of the media since Corbyn's leadership win has been similar to that of Kevin the teenager - flail arms and yell 'It's SO NOT FAIR!'.

Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on 02 December, 2015 11:11 :

I sincerely hope they get crushed, now that Labour allows segregated rallies, and Mr McMahon's answer to people who challenge him on the matter online is to block them. Bye bye,

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on 02 December, 2015 11:26 :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
My prediction is that Labour will win.

Dan Hodges will then publish a piece (already drafted) explaining why this is such a terrible result for Jeremy Corbyn.
The response of most of the media since Corbyn's leadership win has been similar to that of Kevin the teenager - flail arms and yell 'It's SO NOT FAIR!'.

I think a more accurate description of the response in the less responsible sections of the media has been (adopts southern accent) "yeehar! it's a turkey shoot boys!"

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on 02 December, 2015 11:52 :

Touchstone, by "southern accent" can you clarify the relative position of southern in your thinking?

Southern United States (e.g. Alabama) would sound rather different from southern England (e.g. Berkshire) in uttering "yeehar! it's a turkey shoot boys!".

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on 02 December, 2015 12:27 :

If it's between Labour and UKIP it says little for the Conservatives. I reckon UKIP will win it, by a couple of thousand, but that will only be because the BNP aren't standing, which is a surprise in an area which has had a fair amount of racial tension. Maybe the BNP has decided to pass the xenophobe baton to UKIP.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on 02 December, 2015 13:45 :

Why does that reflect poorly on the Conservatives? It's a safe Labour seat no doubt full of the sort of people who wouldn't vote Tory.

The BNP are almost insolvent, I think. It's no surprise that they aren't standing. It wouldn't surprise me if they couldn't afford the deposit.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on 02 December, 2015 13:52 :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Why does that reflect poorly on the Conservatives? It's a safe Labour seat no doubt full of the sort of people who wouldn't vote Tory.

The BNP are almost insolvent, I think. It's no surprise that they aren't standing. It wouldn't surprise me if they couldn't afford the deposit.

I'd expect the Conservatives to pick up some of the Labour malcontents and while the BNP is skint, UKIP has lost some backers recently. Then again, their support is so fickle a win could see them back again.

It won't cure the disagreements between Nigel Farage and almost everyone else in the party though. This makes Corbyn v the PLP look trivial.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on 02 December, 2015 14:08 :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Why does that reflect poorly on the Conservatives? It's a safe Labour seat no doubt full of the sort of people who wouldn't vote Tory.

The BNP are almost insolvent, I think. It's no surprise that they aren't standing. It wouldn't surprise me if they couldn't afford the deposit.
I'd expect the Conservatives to pick up some of the Labour malcontents and while the BNP is skint, UKIP has lost some backers recently. Then again, their support is so fickle a win could see them back again.

It won't cure the disagreements between Nigel Farage and almost everyone else in the party though. This makes Corbyn v the PLP look trivial.

I think the Tories are (understandably) peddling softly up in Oldham. They're not really in the running to win, UKIP with 2 seats is probably no more dangerous than UKIP with one, and the political calculation is probably just to stand back and give them their head in the hope that they can embarrass Labour.

I'm not making a judgment as to whether that's good, right, or sensible (in the long term), but I can understand the thinking.

The Conservative campaigning budget for Oldham is probably about £3.60.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on 02 December, 2015 14:24 :

The danger for the Conservatives if Labour lose is that it might further weaken Corbyn's position. At the moment he's a key asset.

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on 02 December, 2015 18:26 :

quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
Touchstone, by "southern accent" can you clarify the relative position of southern in your thinking?

Southern United States (e.g. Alabama) would sound rather different from southern England (e.g. Berkshire) in uttering "yeehar! it's a turkey shoot boys!".

I was thinking maybe Ray Winstone.

Labour should squeak home. There's a significant Tory vote in the constituency and they aren't all blue collar Tories who might be UKIP targets.

Even if Labour lose, I for one won't read much significance into it, by-elections are strange beasts. Having said that I can't think of any examples of an opposition party with a new leader, defending a huge majoriy, losing one.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on 02 December, 2015 18:37 :

Heywood was a shock in 2014, but it was because UKIP increased their vote by 36%, which I think is a record. But at the GE the Labour majority became more comfortable; same area as well.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on 03 December, 2015 23:26 :

Well, early signs are that I was completely wrong...

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on 04 December, 2015 00:09 :

Lib dems are now saying they think that Labour have over 60% of the vote on a 40% turnout. Thats a pretty good result for a new candidate if its right.

(Labour held the seat with 55% of the vote at the general election.)

[ 03. December 2015, 23:12: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on 04 December, 2015 01:11 :

Labour - 17,322

UKIP - 6,487

Conservative - 2,596

Liberal Democrat - 1,024

Green - 249

Monster Raving Loony - 141

Nigel Farage is very upset.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on 04 December, 2015 01:21 :

UKIP were well beaten by a very good Labour candidate. Nigel Farrage is a sore loser! Jeremy Corbyn needed a good night and he got one.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on 04 December, 2015 01:29 :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
UKIP were well beaten by a very good Labour candidate. Nigel Farrage is a sore loser! Jeremy Corbyn needed a good night and he got one.

Paul Nuttall is an even sorer loser. I've heard him whinging about the iniquities of postal votes.

At this rate Douglas Carswell, who has fallen out with Farage, may well ask the Tories to take him back.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on 04 December, 2015 01:43 :

I'd quite like to see the collapse of UKIP in the 'Northern Powerhouse'. It pains me to see working class people voting for that shower. Well, anyone really. Labour have got work to do to achieve that result more generally but I'm hoping we're on our way.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on 04 December, 2015 07:00 :

Farage has posted on twitter that someone told him the postal vote was "bent".

I think that extremely unlikely, but I wonder if UKIP will launch a legal challenge.

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on 04 December, 2015 07:43 :

Delighted that we don't have another UKIP MP this morning. They slightly increased their vote share but it was a terrible result for them - bodes well for the EU referendum.

I think that UKIP need to improve their own postal vote operation rather than whingeing.

Labour's core British Asian vote seems to have held up, possiby helped by Corbyn's opposition to air strikes in Syria? They also fielded a strong local candidate, rather than some SPAD carpetbagger.

Other than that, a case of "nothing to see here."

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on 04 December, 2015 08:08 :

We'll never know, but it would be interesting to know whether, if the by-election had been held before the Syria debate, or there had been no Syria debate at all, the result would have been more in Ukip's favour.

I've also wondered whether the result was influenced by a) a popular local candidate or b) the Benn Effect. But who can tell.

[ 04. December 2015, 07:08: Message edited by: Ariel ]

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on 04 December, 2015 08:23 :

I do think that the half the press stating that this was a referendum on Corbyn and the candidate was going to scrape in or lose, may want to re-examine their political analysis. They did not see Corbyn's victory within labour coming, and now their electoral prediction was very, very wrong.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on 04 December, 2015 08:29 :

That's one by-election. It doesn't mean it will be a resounding victory in five years' time. There are already too many question marks over Corbyn and his close associates. Whether you think they're justified or not, if enough mud is flung it has a habit of sticking.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on 04 December, 2015 08:31 :

Yes, there seems to be this odd thing in the Media about Corbyn - 'oh he's popular with people - but what do they know?'

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on 04 December, 2015 08:33 :

I said on the Labour leadership election thread, that with Corbyn as leader Labour would pile up votes in their safe seats in London, Wales and the Northern cities, whilst losing even more marginal seats in the rest of England. This result is in line with that prediction and I stand by it.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on 04 December, 2015 08:38 :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
Yes, there seems to be this odd thing in the Media about Corbyn - 'oh he's popular with people - but what do they know?'

He's popular with some people, but it doesn't look as if all the Labour membership are equally enchanted, and I don't just mean MPs, there have been vox pops on the local news to which some Labour supporters have replied they think he's a joke.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on 04 December, 2015 08:40 :

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:
I said on the Labour leadership election thread, that with Corbyn as leader Labour would pile up votes in their safe seats in London, Wales and the Northern cities, whilst losing even more marginal seats in the rest of England. This result is in line with that prediction and I stand by it.

Before the labour victory that isn't what people were saying though, is it ?

Not even on this thread, let alone the press.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on 04 December, 2015 08:44 :

quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
I sincerely hope they get crushed, now that Labour allows segregated rallies, and Mr McMahon's answer to people who challenge him on the matter online is to block them. Bye bye,

I'm intrigued, what do you expect that organisers do if a group chooses to seat themselves b gender - do you ask them to stand up and reseat them boy/girl boy/girl.

(They used to do that when we lined up at primary school, but then it got lampooned as teachers being too politically correct.)

[ 04. December 2015, 07:45: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on 04 December, 2015 08:51 :

The real lesson may well be to go for good local candidates who understand the constituency at grass roots level. I think that applies particularly in constituencies like Oldham. Particularly in the current climate, working class local grievances are not always best met by pointing to national policies or the charisma (or otherwise) of national leaders.

The plus for Jeremy Corbyn in that is that he has shown a willingness both to listen and to ask questions which members of the general public have about government and its policies. People may not always agree with his own, conviction-based, conclusions. But he's not remote. And something of his courtesy and sincerity have got across. Hilary Benn's description of him as "an honest, a principled, a decent and a good man" represents a widely held view. I think people have got fed up with "slick, professional and polished" politicians. That's increasingly seen as all too "spinny and self-serving".

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on 04 December, 2015 08:52 :

I don't understand the problem with segregation of gender, providing everyone wants it. In various Christian communities I've visited around the world, this is all perfectly normal - men sit on one side and the women on another.

The only possible problem with segregation is when the men get all the good seats and exclude the women from the political process by relegating them to the back of the room and barracking them whenever they try to make a point.

One would think that could be easily dealt with.

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on 04 December, 2015 09:00 :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:
I said on the Labour leadership election thread, that with Corbyn as leader Labour would pile up votes in their safe seats in London, Wales and the Northern cities, whilst losing even more marginal seats in the rest of England. This result is in line with that prediction and I stand by it.
Before the labour victory that isn't what people were saying though, is it

Not even on this thread, let alone the press.

Hard polling evidence for this particular election was thin on the ground, but there were party canvass returns indicating that UKIP were a real threat. It was in any case a by-election and these frequently throw up completely anomalous results. In a general election it is entirely possible that Labour could win the popular vote but lose the election . This has happened before:

1951 general election

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on 04 December, 2015 10:39 :

No, I think this is a very good result for Labour and bad for UKIP. It indicates that UKIP are failing to capitalise on their general election surge.

The Conservatives have missed the boat I think. They should be trying to make inroads in the urban North - they shouldn't write it off as impossible territory.

Lots of people have said nice things about McMahon. He seems a good thing.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on 04 December, 2015 10:47 :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Farage has posted on twitter that someone told him the postal vote was "bent".

I think that extremely unlikely, but I wonder if UKIP will launch a legal challenge.

He's like a football manager complaining about a referee not giving his team a penalty. Does it matter that their star striker would have missed anyway?

I hope they do go through the courts. Their funds are low and with luck this will ruin them financially. Another similarity with the BNP.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on 04 December, 2015 11:44 :

It's quite comical watching the anti-Corbyn pundits scrambling for a position on this. Favourite is probably, 'Labour win in spite of Corbyn' (which seems unfalsifiable); also 'strong local candidate' is a runner. The Times for a while had 'Muslims win Oldham for Labour', which seems a bit Farage-like, while Farage himself seems to be in panic mode. I was looking for the Guardian's anti-Corbyn slant to be preserved, and it didn't disappoint, with 'in spite of Corbyn'. You can almost call it a neo-con rag now.

Imagine the disappointment they felt, and all those wasted headlines, disaster for Corbyn, Benn favourite to take over, blah blah blah.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on 04 December, 2015 12:08 :

UKIP doesn't have a strong ground operation, so far as I can tell, so it will always struggle to get its voters out on the day. In a by-election, where turn out is often lower, this is crucial.

With Corbyn's position now more secure, I think this is a good result for the Tories.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on 04 December, 2015 12:12 :

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:
I said on the Labour leadership election thread, that with Corbyn as leader Labour would pile up votes in their safe seats in London, Wales and the Northern cities, whilst losing even more marginal seats in the rest of England. This result is in line with that prediction and I stand by it.

Once you eliminate London and the Northern cities, there's not much left, population wise, of England. A few very large largely rural constituencies but all ones that Labour would never win in a million years anyway.

Not sure how you can take Wales out of England as it's not in it.

Posted by Pottage (# 9529) on 04 December, 2015 12:17 :

It's turned into a disappointing non-story for the media. A precipitous fall in Labour support would have been newsworthy, especially with all the wider interest in Labour Party affairs that Corbyn's elevation and all the subsequent skirmishing has generated. But "very strong Labour candidate holds very safe Labour seat" doesn't leave much to write about. Jim McMahon doesn't seem like the sort of MP who will be a natural Corbynista when he gets to Westminster, but I imagine it'll be all smiles and handshakes today.

Farage's ranting might help the newsworthiness for at least some of the press, but unless he turns up some actual evidence pretty soon (and I don't rule out the possibility that he could be right) that's also going to fizzle out pretty fast and be dismissed as whining from someone who has a bit of "form" as a poor loser.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on 04 December, 2015 12:18 :

quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
I sincerely hope they get crushed, now that Labour allows segregated rallies.

The Prime Minister has regularly addresses segregated audiences, presumably you apply the same reasoning in this case.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on 04 December, 2015 12:20 :

An even bigger non-story is 'pundits hopelessly wrong', or 'anti-Corbyn bias of media quite transparent'. Still, that would require an element of reflection, forget it.

Posted by Pottage (# 9529) on 04 December, 2015 12:22 :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
An even bigger non-story is 'pundits hopelessly wrong', or 'anti-Corbyn bias of media quite transparent'. Still, that would require an element of reflection, forget it.

After the general election, "pundits hopelessly wrong again" isn't really news, no!

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on 04 December, 2015 12:22 :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
I sincerely hope they get crushed, now that Labour allows segregated rallies.
The Prime Minister has regularly addresses segregated audiences, presumably you apply the same reasoning in this case.

When? Where?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on 04 December, 2015 12:33 :

quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
An even bigger non-story is 'pundits hopelessly wrong', or 'anti-Corbyn bias of media quite transparent'. Still, that would require an element of reflection, forget it.
After the general election, "pundits hopelessly wrong again" isn't really news, no!

Well, they are on a hot streak, general election, Labour leadership contest, now Oldham by-election. You saw it here first (and wrong).

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on 04 December, 2015 12:35 :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
I sincerely hope they get crushed, now that Labour allows segregated rallies.
The Prime Minister has regularly addresses segregated audiences, presumably you apply the same reasoning in this case.
When? Where?

Party conferences, invitation-only fundraisers. Some press releases are by invitation. Everyone does it. It isn't news.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on 04 December, 2015 12:47 :

Amusing that Farage had claimed that this by-election was a referendum on Corbyn. Err, sorry, scrub that, the headline now is 'cheating by brown people with funny names who don't speak English'.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on 04 December, 2015 12:50 :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
I sincerely hope they get crushed, now that Labour allows segregated rallies.
The Prime Minister has regularly addresses segregated audiences, presumably you apply the same reasoning in this case.
When? Where?
Party conferences, invitation-only fundraisers. Some press releases are by invitation. Everyone does it. It isn't news.

But those sorts of things are quite different to gender segregation within a meeting, aren't they? (Which is what I understood was under discussion.)

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on 04 December, 2015 13:16 :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Party conferences, invitation-only fundraisers. Some press releases are by invitation. Everyone does it. It isn't news.
But those sorts of things are quite different to gender segregation within a meeting, aren't they? (Which is what I understood was under discussion.)

You can probably find pictures on the web of David Cameron addressing a gender-segregated audience inside the Hindu Temple in Neasden.

Similarly, there are pictures of Boris addressing male-only audiences inside a couple of Mosques.

[and I'm not sure how you come up with your differentiation].

[ 04. December 2015, 12:17: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on 04 December, 2015 14:17 :

I don't get this argument and can't see what the issue is about. If a person goes to a hall to talk to people, and they choose instinctively, and probably without thinking about it because that's usual for them, to sit men on one side of the hall and women on the other, so what. That's their choice. It's not the responsibility of the person visiting. That person has to take people as he or she finds them.

If I went to a meeting held by somebody who was trying to get me to do something for them - such as soliciting my vote - and they told me I couldn't sit here. I had got to go and sit there. I'd be offended and would be quite likely to walk out.

[ 04. December 2015, 13:20: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on 04 December, 2015 14:19 :

[crosspost]

In the Oldham case, the meeting contained both men and women. The photograph shows women sitting on ones side of room and men on the other. Most of the people are of asian descent - there are a couple of white women seated amongst the asian men.

This suggests to me that a mixed gender group entered the meeting and sat down, and exercised their preference about where they wanted to sit.

Otherwise, how did the white women end up seated amongst the men ?

Would it be right to insist that people sit in mixed gender groups ?

[ 04. December 2015, 13:21: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on 04 December, 2015 16:40 :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The real lesson may well be to go for good local candidates who understand the constituency at grass roots level. I think that applies particularly in constituencies like Oldham. Particularly in the current climate, working class local grievances are not always best met by pointing to national policies or the charisma (or otherwise) of national leaders.

The plus for Jeremy Corbyn in that is that he has shown a willingness both to listen and to ask questions which members of the general public have about government and its policies. People may not always agree with his own, conviction-based, conclusions. But he's not remote. And something of his courtesy and sincerity have got across. Hilary Benn's description of him as "an honest, a principled, a decent and a good man" represents a widely held view. I think people have got fed up with "slick, professional and polished" politicians. That's increasingly seen as all too "spinny and self-serving".

Actually I think that's Corbyn's biggest strength. He comes over as someone who thinks though his beliefs and will change them if he sees a good reason to do so. But doesn't consider popularity to be a good reason. (Unlike Cameron). And who takes it on the chin. (Unlike Cameron and Farage).

I would also say that the hysteria that the media and the Tories have worked themselves up into over his election as Labour leader has done them no favours whatsoever.

Tubbs

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on 04 December, 2015 17:04 :

Has Corbyn ever changed his beliefs on something? He strikes me as someone who thinks pretty much the same things since he was first elected 30 years ago.

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on 04 December, 2015 17:40 :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Has Corbyn ever changed his beliefs on something? He strikes me as someone who thinks pretty much the same things since he was first elected 30 years ago.

If you're right, there's little need to change your mind. It's if you're right wing that the need to change your mind becomes imperative. [Biased]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on 04 December, 2015 19:22 :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Has Corbyn ever changed his beliefs on something? He strikes me as someone who thinks pretty much the same things since he was first elected 30 years ago.

I expect he regards those things that are unjust as being unjust then and unjust now. We have had the same economic policy for over thirty five years, with growing income and wealth disparity so apart from a different date on the newspapers, nothing much has changed.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on 04 December, 2015 20:46 :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Party conferences, invitation-only fundraisers. Some press releases are by invitation. Everyone does it. It isn't news.
But those sorts of things are quite different to gender segregation within a meeting, aren't they? (Which is what I understood was under discussion.)
You can probably find pictures on the web of David Cameron addressing a gender-segregated audience inside the Hindu Temple in Neasden.

Similarly, there are pictures of Boris addressing male-only audiences inside a couple of Mosques.

[and I'm not sure how you come up with your differentiation].

You probably can, but this isn't a religious gathering it's a political rally. It's I think at least the third political meeting that the Labour party has held that's been segregated. For a party that claims to be in favour of equality I think that's at best embarrassing.

[ 04. December 2015, 19:47: Message edited by: Anglican't ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on 04 December, 2015 21:40 :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

You probably can, but this isn't a religious gathering it's a political rally.

That's a distinction with virtually no difference. They have spoken at segregated gatherings inside mosques and temples where there was no purpose to the meeting beyond listening to the politician speaking.

Besides, if you are really so concerned about segregated gatherings you would insist that they boycott them on principle.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on 04 December, 2015 22:53 :

I repeat, that for the reasons I've given just up the page, this is a non-issue.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0