Jeremy Corbyn

Some of them on the public land they are currently giving away to developers of luxury flats.

Which will give no net increase in the amount of property built - the only change will be it will be funded by the taxpayer instead of the individuals.

Unless you're saying the public funded buildings will be much smaller, in which case why not just insist on smaller houses? (Which already happens incidentally, all of the recent developments near me had to increase density to get planning permission.)

Sound familiar?

LOL, all we need is JC to claim that Mexico is going to fund his spending spree and they'll be a perfect match.

LOL, all we need is JC to claim that Mexico is going to fund his spending spree and they'll be a perfect match.

Are you really comparing Jeremy Corbyn to Donald Trump? 😯

Some of them on the public land they are currently giving away to developers of luxury flats.

I haven't heard of any such stories. I am aware of Labour controlled London Boroughs flogging off council housing sites for development.

It's a nice tagline DrJ but the amount of housing required would be imense,I just don't know where and how they would build it all. Perhaps they are just going to buy exisitng private properties and rent them for half commercial rents ?

If you don't mind me saying it's another shoot from the hip soundbyte from Corbyn, it's nkt a policy with any real meat behind it.

Anti-Zionism means the Jewish people (a race and a religion) have no right to their own country anywhere.

Its perfectly fine to object to what Israel currently does it treatment of people, its illegally expansionist borders, its illegal collective punishment, its "secret" nukes, its assassinations abroad etc and still not wish to see the state destroyed. To claim otherwise is to just BS

The term [anti-zionism]is used to describe various religious, moral and political points of view, but their diversity of motivation and expression is sufficiently different that "anti-Zionism" cannot be seen as having a single ideology or source. According to many notable Jewish and non-Jewish sources, anti-Zionism has become a cover for modern-day antisemitism, a position that critics have challenged as a tactic to silence criticism of Israeli policies

I don't see a similar movement targetting any other race ?

Brexit. So there will be no official Brexit debate ... OOOOOO KKKKKKK AAAAAA YYYYYY 😯

The biggest issue in British Politics for 40 years and no discussion ?

I saw conference passed a motion calling for a second Referendum, non binding on the party and in any case Brexit will be done by 2020.

Lots of comment from MPs that party is still failing to confront immigration as an issue and that's the main reason there is no Brexit debate.

If you don't mind me saying it's another shoot from the hip soundbyte from Corbyn, it's nkt a policy with any real meat behind it.

Perhaps they are just going to buy exisitng private properties and rent them for half commercial rents ?

it's a good job that I'm not in charge..

I'd have all second homes repossessed with minimal compensation.. housing shortage solved

would leave a lot of stroppy crybabies, but at least they would be stroppy crybabies with the means to support themselves

Are you really comparing Jeremy Corbyn to Donald Trump?

Not just comparing, I'm saying they're incredibly similar:

- Both outsiders popular with people looking for non-establishment leaders.

- Both disliked by their own party.

- Both making endless deliberate Gaffes to keep themselves in the media and their message centre stage.

- Both mistrusted by the establishment.

- Both leading parties smarting after two defeats in a row.

- Both promising big infrastructure projects.

- Both completely unable to attract centrist voters in marginals.

That's off the top of my head. Google for the parallels, they're endless.

I'm saying they're incredibly similar:

The biggest issue in British Politics for 40 years and no discussion ?

Keeping the trend going then - no discussion is better than BS though and the last version was appalling

Lots of comment from MPs that party is still failing to confront immigration as an issue and that's the main reason there is no Brexit debate.

Perhaps they are embarrassed by the xenophobia and racism that has been uncovered by the vote and still working out what to do about it. Descent to that level and win votes or rise above and lose them?

So now he says "we should all unite and work together" and then "I don't agree with party policy on Trident so I'll carry on expressing my own opinions". Being re-elected as leader obviously hasn't given him any more understanding of what leadership means.

So now he says "we should all unite and work together" and then "I don't agree with party policy on Trident so I'll carry on expressing my own opinions".

What is it with this thread that stops people using a couple of braincells before they write something stupid? Being united as a party and working together does not require everyone to think exactly the same on every single issue. Corbyn's view on Trident is open and out there, he's never made a secret about it. So why on earth would you now expect him to now say the opposite? The fact that he's allowed it to be a non-issue at this conference and is no longer actively pursuing a policy change on it is direct evidence that he is making the effort to compromise and work together.

Where's he stand on directional speaker cables?

Bourjwah frippery or solidly horny handed son of toil heroic?

Collective responsibility?
Representing party's interest?

Collective responsibility?
Representing party's interest?

If he's accepted the party policy and not seeking to change it then does that not demonstrate that he's putting the collective view, and the party's interest before his own?

I've never really understood the immense dislike for right to buy, if done properly (not the way Thatcher did it which criminal) it should help create a really sustainable social housing system. People often need state help when they're younger, as they get older many are fiscally able to buy their own property but often won't want to move from the home and community they've grown up in. They're now potentially blocking a home the next generation need. Let them buy at a little below market rate and reinvest the proceeds into new housing stock. I can't see a downside really, regular funded renewal of the social housing stock, you're allowing people who want to achieve their aspirations do so without kicking them out of their homes and with the added bonus that new social housing can be built where it's needed which may not be where it was previously. Should also help remove some of the stigma associated with some of the big 50s council house ghettos as the people living there are more mixed and we can avoid building the big estates with the new builds. Only downside I can see is it encourages social mobility, home ownership and taking responsibility for yourself, none of which really fits Corbyn's agenda (or the fact home owners are more likely to vote Tory).

I suspect he thinks CD's are a step too far and sticks to his vinyl collection (of Soviet male voice choir recordings) though, what with the face fuzz and allotment lifestyle and all...

stumpyjon - Member

I've never really understood the immense dislike for right to buy, if done properly (not the way Thatcher did it which criminal) it should help create a really sustainable social housing system.

It's got 3 big issues tbh and 2 of them are the history; it's a very poisoned idea obviously but also it comes with it an assumption of getting a house for a fraction of what it's worth. To be sustainable it either needs the price to be at market or replacement value, or to have a constant substantial cash injection from government. But if it doesn't come with a massive discount it'll disappoint people.

The 3rd, is that even if you set up a sustainable, funded, right to buy scheme on a 1-for-1 replacement structure, a future government is 100% guaranteed to **** it for short term gain. It'll always be an expensive and divisive policy for you today, that your opponents will turn into a bribe to voters tomorrow.

Oh, OK, 4th. It'll create another generation of total ****ers who will proudly tell you how clever they were to buy their house and make a fortune, and how they've always voted Tory since, then complain that their kids can't get a council house.

It'll always be an expensive and divisive policy for you today, that your opponents will turn into a bribe to voters tomorrow.

Really good insight that I'd never considered before.

Only downside I can see is it encourages social mobility, home ownership and taking responsibility for yourself, none of which really fits Corbyn's agenda (or the fact home owners are more likely to vote Tory).

'Tis ironic. Tories selling social housing to lift people up and create Tory voters while Labour need to create more people stuck renting who will vote Labour. I always think Defence is ironic in a similar way. Tories instinctively talk up defence but then they cut it to save cash. Labour talk down defence but then they realize there are blue collar jobs in defence in key constituencies and have to spend on it.

What is it with this thread that stops people using a couple of braincells before they write something stupid?

There's no problem with ordinary party members having opinions that differ from party policy, which JC has done from the backbenches for years. For a party leader to publicly disagree with policy is very poor leadership, and is not going to help bring the party together.

To be sustainable it either needs the price to be at market or replacement value, or to have a constant substantial cash injection from government. But if it doesn't come with a massive discount it'll disappoint people.

Yes, but in that 'price paid' calculation surely you have to include to some extent the payments they have already made over years as a tenant, almost a form of hire purchase

What is it about this thread that makes people decide they can abuse other posters because they disagree with what they wrote?

No idea but it's always the same sort of people. You just don't see people with a coherent point based on fact and reason resorting to abuse, or using any other logical fallacy.

What's the percentage of right to buy property now on the portfolios of private landlords?
Would perchance the biggest portfolio of ex council houses in greater London belong to the Son of Thatchers housing minister

ninfan - Member

Yes, but in that 'price paid' calculation surely you have to include to some extent the payments they have already made over years as a tenant, almost a form of hire purchase

No. Why would you? It's rent not HP.

"Why would you?"

To encourage the tenants to vote for you.

So in conclusion right to buy could work properly but previous politicians cocked it up and future politicians will cock it for short term gain. Sounds like politicians of all hues can't be trusted, shame the politicians are more interest ed in themselves rather than implementing policies properly that could make a genuine difference.

And no the sell off shouldn't be massively discounted, it's not intended to be a money making scheme, it should be about giving people a home, and no previously subdidised rent should not count, that should have been spent on the cost of running social housing and investing into new stock.

What is it about this thread that makes people decide they can abuse other posters because they disagree with what they wrote?

You just don't see people with a coherent point based on fact and reason resorting to abuse, or using any other logical fallacy.

The reality is we have three options here

1. he reverses his personal opinion
2. He does not and he opposes party policy
3. He accepts policy but disagrees

Whichever one he picks the bright logical folk will be having a dig.

TBH Dazh has been one of the most logical , reasonable and least personal contributors to this thread

What is it about this thread that makes people decide they can abuse other posters because they disagree with what they wrote?

The left (as you can see) cant handle dissent and often lack the tools to debate effectively. Hence either suppress others or abuse them. Its a tried and tested tactic. The right aren't anywhere near as good at it - here or in the real world.

Jezza might have his c**k in the custard over trident, but he talks sense on bombing in Syria at least relatively speaking

Looking forward to a barnstormer tomorrow and perhaps an answer to the new name....

@stumpy my issue with right to buy is that the proceeds where not reinvested into new housing (I believe that was actually forbidden at one stage), also as tennents where buying below market its a gift and one which they can realise by just selling on. Singapore's system is to build simple apartments and sell those to residents, various qualification requirements including being married, minimum holdong period and you can only ever buy one new one - interesting system and probably too controverisal for UK. We should just build more social housing and means test tenants also consider no lifetime tennets in certain areas. Where I loved in central London there where very many retired council tennents while perhaps those properties would be better rented by nurses, ambulance staff, firemen ?

it's a good job that I'm not in charge..

I'd have all second homes repossessed with minimal compensation.. housing shortage solved

would leave a lot of stroppy crybabies, but at least they would be stroppy crybabies with the means to support themselves

@yunki it wouldn't matter if you where in charge as Magna Carta wouldn't allow such theft !! BTW France (very lefty country) has more second homes than anywhere else in Europe I believe. They have a housing "crises" too.

What is it about this thread that makes people decide they can abuse other posters because they disagree with what they wrote?

Greybeard most political threads are like that and those dishing out the abuse are usually the same (even if they have more than one login). Best to have a thick skin and just skip read certain posters in my humble opinion. It is worth sticking with it though.

The left (as you can see) cant handle dissent and often lack the tools to debate effectively. Hence either suppress others or abuse them. Its a tried and tested tactic. The right aren't anywhere near as good at it - here or in the real world.

Plenty of folk have got personal on here attacking daz for it just highlights the paucity of evidence based debate we have on here as its just a vehicle for abuse for the usual RW trolling numbnuts. THe LW are holding their own to be fair but Daz is not really getting involved so attacking him is pretty harsh IMHO and based on the thread.

Greybeard most political threads are like that and those dishing out the abuse are usually the same (even if they have more than one login)

What are we meant to say to folk who just make things up ?

TBH if Corbyn started shitting gold bricks the RW On here would complain they were not big enough. Every issue is just a way to beat him up whatever option he chooses on trident

The left (as you can see) cant handle dissent and often lack the tools to debate effectively

That's bawlicks of the highest order.

I have a theory that the right are on the right because they lack the ability or experience to empathise with people they don't know. That has the knock-on effect that they don't listen to alternative points of view.

The left then eventually get annoyed with trying to explain and having their points ignored or trashed with all sorts of garbage arguments.

Don't forget ignoring the argument and throwing straw men about...

The reality is we have three options here

1. he reverses his personal opinion
2. He does not and he opposes party policy
3. He accepts policy but disagrees

As leader, he has to do (1) or (3) if he wants unity.

True, but

Otherwise, it's one rule for him and one for everyone else.

Seems to be how it works, so the outcome is most likely to be 2

To call for unity, while at the same time refusing to support a major democratically decided party policy (Trident) is just not credible. In fact its so inherently contradictory, particularly given his past voting record, its laughable

I'd imagine a lot of people at the conference are going to struggle to listen to that with a straight face.

It is going to be interesting to hear what he has to say on the subject of immigration. For a long time Its probably been the number one difference between the metropolitan, London-centric leaders of the party, and there supposed core vote.

Its good to see that he's done what no leader before has, and actually engage with the issue, or even acknowledge that its an issue.

Sounds like he's going to be talking about mitigating the impact of migration on certain areas, rather than doing the knee-jerk thing by trying to out-UKIP UKIP. Thats could go some way to getting back some of the voters they've been haemorrhaging in northern working class areas, where immigration means competition for scarce jobs and resources, rather than a Latvian au pair, and Polish builders to work on your new extension

1. he reverses his personal opinion
2. He does not and he opposes party policy
3. He accepts policy but disagrees

4. Achieve unity by deselecting all the MPs who have a different view to the new leader and the new members.

The CLPs have every right to do it & the party has pretty much said they're going to do it so that's the plan. No turning back now.

Corbyn has spent his entire political career opposing Labour policy. It should not be surprising he finds himself in the same position as leader. Changing his view on something as central to his political career as anti-nuke / Trident is not credible hence he finds himself in this mess. This was all foreseeabls.

The vast majorty of the agressive posting on STW comes from the left, in my view this is consistent with what happens in borader society. It's far left protestors who throw petrol bombs at police in Paris. It's anti-Capitals who seek to destroy property.

Anti-Semitism survery in the Independent. Approx 1,900 Jews asked "Is this party soft on anti-Semitism ?"

1) Labour 87%
2) Greens 49%
3) UKIP 43%
4) Lib Dems 37%
5) Conservative 13%

There is a clear transition here (for avoidance of doubt the transition isn't 100% from left to right but the trend is clear)

Anti-Capitalist -> Anti-US -> Anti-Israel -> Anti-Semitic

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/almost-nine-in-ten-british-jews-believe-labour-is-soft-on-anti-semitism-poll-finds-a7333676.html

As leader, he has to do (1) or (3) if he wants unity.

He's doing 3. How many times does he have to say 'That is the party policy, but I have my own views, which are on record' before people accept that is the case? My stupid comment (TBF I was saying the comment was stupid, not that you are stupid, there's a small but important difference, but apologies in any case) was addressing the fact that even though he's said this repeatedly, his opponents still say the opposite because they want to use the Trident issue to beat him with. It doesn't suit their agenda for it to be neutralised, so they continue presenting it as if it still is an issue, when in reality it's not apart from in their own minds. That's what's so frustrating about this debate, on this and many other issues (eg the anti-semitism fiction), his critics are happy to lie and misrepresent the truth to suit their own agenda, and people who should know better lap it up with absolutely no critical thinking whatsoever.

his critics are happy to lie and misrepresent the truth to suit their own agenda, and people who should know better lap it up with absolutely no critical thinking whatsoever.

So anyone who doesn't think that Jeremy's stance is a credible or coherent one for a party leader to take is just a gullible half-wit?

his critics are happy to lie and misrepresent the truth to suit their own agenda, and people who should know better lap it up with absolutely no critical thinking whatsoever

The thing is, there are a number of people who like things just the way they are..
For whatever reason, they don't see change and progression as a fundamental necessity and in some cases they have very fearful theories about what change may bring..
They also (rightly or wrongly) assume that the majority of people think just like them..
There are a number of very powerful and wealthy people around the globe who do very nicely indeed out of the current situation, and they also would prefer things to stay as they are..
There are further people who are unaware of the reality that exists outside of what they are spoonfed by the media and they too fear change as they are told that change is bad and they believe what they are told..

this group of people combine to create a kind of mass hysteria amongst themselves in which they have come to believe that they are involved in some kind of battle to save humanity..
It's pretty primal - Do we lead the tribe out across the river to fresh pasture and new hunting grounds, or do we stay put and fight amongst ourselves in the feudal dustbowl that we have created over the millenia?

these people are frightened and frightened people behave very irrationally.. I can understand their fear, cowardly people like to stay put and endure, they are happier to exist under unsatisfactory conditions rather than face their fears..

I'm not entirely sure that their collective trepidation is as widespread as they think though

Its good to see that he's done what no leader before has, and actually engage with the issue, or even acknowledge that its an issue.

I'm no doubt in a minority, but I think his stance on immigration, and by extension free movement, is potentially a huge vote winner. As I've previously said, IMO the knee-jerk racism immigration causes is borne of ignorance, not intention. Most people who are anti-immigration are not racists, or don't want to be labelled with racist views, and his stance gives them an opportunity approach the issue from a different angle, and the fact that by supporting free movement it also opens the door to remaining in the single market is a massive bonus.

So anyone who doesn't think that Jeremy's stance is a credible or coherent one for a party leader to take is just a gullible half-wit?

That's not what I said.

Most people who are anti-immigration are not racists, or don't want to be labelled with racist views, and his stance gives them an opportunity approach the issue from a different angle, and the fact that by supporting free movement it also opens the door to remaining in the single market is a massive bonus.

Daz. Couldn't agree with you more.

He's the first politician who has signalled he's willing to address the immigration issue with more nuance than a right wing 'stop it all now!!!' or a complete open door policy, without any intention of addressing the issues and challenges that that brings. Its going to be really interesting to hear what he has to say. But its encouraging that he's had the balls to mention the elephant in the room.

where immigration means competition for scarce jobs and resources

Honestly curious about this.

Why would EU immigrants go to a place where jobs are scarce?

To call for unity, while at the same time refusing to support a major democratically decided party policy (Trident) is just not credible.

I think it is. I do it all the time. "Well, I don't want to do XYZ today but because we want to to something together as a family I'll go along anyway. Then this afternoon I'll go out on my bike when everyone's chilling after XYZ."

I honestly don't see a problem with that. We've already slagged Blair off endlessly for bending the party to his own personal aims. You want Corbyn to do the same thing? Or you want to kick out the leader every time there's any conflict? Or you want him to lie?

I'm no doubt in a minority, but I think his stance on immigration, and by extension free movement, is potentially a huge vote winner.

Not sure about huge, but handled correctly a vote winner for sure. But...

As I've previously said, IMO the knee-jerk racism immigration causes is borne of ignorance, not intention.

Is the polite version

Most people who are anti-immigration are not racists, or don't want to be labelled with racist views,

much more the latter IMO - closest racism has just been exposed in all its glory

and his stance gives them an opportunity approach the issue from a different angle, and the fact that by supporting free movement it also opens the door to remaining in the single market is a massive bonus.

True - good for him for rejecting numerical targets. We shall see on the rest. Unfortunately, I feel that his good intentions here will be swamped by the simple fact that a significant element of his target voters are xenophobic bordering on racist and its much easily to blame Johnny for their current woes than to tackle the root causes.

Why would EU immigrants go to a place where jobs are scarce?

They dont - they go to places where the demand for labour exceeds its supply

where immigration means competition for scarce jobs and resources.

Honestly curious about this.

Why would EU immigrants go to a place where jobs are scarce?

Maybe the jobs weren't as scarce before a huge influx of immigrants?

There are examples of companies only advertising jobs in Eastern Europe as they know they can get away with much lower rates of pay, for example.

This is the kind of thing that needs to be addressed, instead of lazily labelling things as being the fault of immigrants. Its the company doing that that is at fault, not the immigrants. Yet guess who gets the blame?

If Jeremy is going to try and broaden the debate, and shift the discussion onto these issues rather than go for quick, easy answers then good on him.

Politicians on the right have just casually blamed migrants for anything and everything. Using them as scapegoats, while at the same time exploiting their labour. All very cynical.

But they've got away with this because politicians of the left have been terrified of the subject, as they think even mentioning it will undermine their liberal metropolitan credentials

Jeremy will have a huge battle, changing the narrative on immigrants

It's one May has been a big fan of head in the sand all immigrants = evil.
It was used to great effect by Vote Leave, remeber Farage and his poster?

More importantly the Murdoch press and Daily mail etc are still obsessed with scapegoating immigrants in the time honoured tradition of right wing propagandaists, just look at the bonkers DM front page with a headline since shoen to be 100% lies
[img]

[/img]

The failure of the government to regulate the press means they can keep pumping out their nonsense with no repercussions
Which is why they can completely ignore what Corbyn is trying to talk about and today publish their own version of what he said
[img] [/img]

Yes good for Jez.

During the Brexit campaign he stuck up for immigration aswell. Maybe that's why the PLP got pissed off with him.

Good points binners.

They dont - they go to places where the demand for labour exceeds its supply

I didn't realise that Rochdale had such a vibrant economy

Unfortunately, I feel that his good intentions here will be swamped by the simple fact that a significant element of his target voters are xenophobic bordering on racist and its much easily to blame Johnny for their current woes than to tackle the root causes.

Is this how you characterise Gillian Duffy?

Guardians take on Labour right now:

[i]Labour has become a coalition and, as Owen Jones suggested in a recent essay, one way forward might be a proper coalition agreement.[/i]

Problem with that is that if it is in the open, the UK can't stand coalitions as Ed Ball acknowledged the other night.

Good to see the united Labour hasn't lasted even a couple of days, with senior figures having a pop at Tom Watson, who lets remember is the deputy of the party.

Good to see the united Labour hasn't lasted even a couple of days, with senior figures having a pop at Tom Watson, who lets remember is the deputy of the party.

So you don't subscribe to the view that TW's speech yesterday was a brazen attempt to position himself for a future leadership bid?

Seemed to me that he was just pointing out that endlessly banging on about Iraq, spitting the word 'Blairite Scum', 'Tory-lite', and 'Red Tory' at anyone who you disagree with, while denying all the things the last labour government achieved, is not only juvenile sixth form common room nonsense, but that its also massively self-defeating

Andy Burnham has just deployed his ejector seat

Seemed to me that he was just pointing out that endlessly banging on about Iraq, spitting the word 'Blairite Scum', 'Tory-lite', and 'Red Tory' at anyone who you disagree with

That may be true, but was it the right time? Seems to me that when others (on both sides) are trying to draw a line under the past year of stupidity and at least project the image of being constructive, he comes wading in stoking up the fire again. Not that I'd expect anything else from one of Brown's ex-henchmen. As Blair himself experienced, political skullduggery and naked amibition is the modus operandi for that lot.

He should stick to going to music festivals. Future leader?

[img] [/img]

Good to see the united Labour hasn't lasted even a couple of days, with senior figures having a pop at Tom Watson, who lets remember is the deputy of the party.

Plus of course, Lilly Allen.

Oh no. Now it really is all over... 🙁

😈 Seen his brand of Cider?

Maybe they should have just re-wriiten his speech and just put it on the autocue Daz 😉

Regulated press? No thanks.

Of course, it's easy to spit vitriol at the Fail/Torygraph/Grauniad/Sunday Sport because they don't align with your political angle, but a free press with some you don't agree with is way, way better than the alternative.

[img] [/img]

Have spoken to Tom Watson a few times at Hacked Off events. Good speaker. Someone I respect.

Seamus Milne supposedly stepping down amongst rumours its impossible to work with Corbyn. Interesting to see how this plays out as he returns to the Guardian a paper highly critical of Corbyn

Andy Burnham getting out as well

I wonder when Baroness Chakrabati's appointment to the Shadow Cabinet will be announced ?

CaptainFlashheart - Member
Regulated press? No thanks.

Call me a fantasist but I think there may be some middle ground between stalinist russia and stuff like this

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Spotted this

The Labour leader may exasperate his fellow MPs, but they can do little about it as his mandate means he isn't going anywhere. "Jeremy is like an alpaca," one MP despaired to me last night. "He's lovely, but f---ing useless".

I wonder when Baroness Chakrabati's appointment to the Shadow Cabinet will be announced ?

http://order-order.com/2016/09/28/labour-director-of-communications-runners-and-riders/

So Seamus is bailing

Alpacas are delicious eating, able to live in very harsh conditions, have very efficient digestive system so require much less food than similar grazing stock and produce very lovely soft fleecy wool

granted not traits you'd want in a party leader, but a strange analogy, none the less as they are far frome useless

Kimbers, of course there's a middle ground. We both chose extreme examples for effect, or at least I know I did! I just prefer press freedom to state controlled* media.

*Sorry, I meant "press regulation" obviously. 😉

big_n_daft - Member

So Seamus is bailing

Being denied at the moment. (supposedly he's on a 12 month secondment/contract as it stands and is supposed to be returning to the Guardian pretty much now, so who knows what that all means in practice. Obviously if he does decide to go back to the paper it'll be depicted as him abandoning Corbyn regardless)

to the Guardian a paper highly critical of Corbyn

Have you been reading it?

Tone has definitely shifted since the leadership challenge.

Watson was describing Corbyn supporters/ momentum as Trots wasn't he? Or did he acknowledge that in his speech? ie say both sides need to pack it in.

A few minutes until the second coronation speech - "mandate" spread? 2:40-3:40 - takers?

His shadow education (?) seemed to have lost the immigration script earlier.

Please neither OJ or chippy Mason to take over from our Wykehamist friend - "Establishment" bingo coming up!!!

Seven minutes forty seconds, four minutes out - too many thank yous to fit in first!

Has he praised Jackie Walker yet?

No just her brother Johnny

(factual inaccuracies aside, not as bad as expected so far)

Just trying to work out who the people sitting at the front are. Any ideas?

good stuff from jezza, hes actually been popping some personality pills or something

I like this

Of course that doesn’t mean giving a blank cheque to Theresa May and her three-legged team of fractious Brexiteers, as they try to work up a negotiating plan and squabble about whose turn it is to have the Chevening country retreat each weekend. We have made it clear that we will resist a Brexit at the expense of workers’ rights and social justice we have set out our red lines on employment, environmental and social protection and on access to the European market."

good stuff from jezza, hes actually been popping some personality pills or something

No doubt the naysayers will be along in a minute with their marxist-leninist-sixth-form-trotskyist-revolutionary rubbish, but I didn't hear much there that many normal working people would disagree with. It's a million miles away though from the 'we need to change the narrative to being a party of aspiration' rubbish which we've had from previous leaders.

7.5/10 😉 for improved presentation

3/10 for lightweight content

still small steps....

It was the same the day after Benn resigned , he was all fired up at PMQs, I think it takes a bit of party infighting to get him fired up

content was a bit light but sounds like hes developing some sort of narrative
he shouldve been hounding may & the 3 stooges over brexit for a while though, the tories are obviously in dissaray over what is looking like an increasingly impossible task, just a shame that labour cant deal with their own issues!

@molgrips I hadn't personally noticed but I'll take your word for it

Has he praised Jackie Walker yet?

Momentum co-chair/founder just can't help herself, been suspended once for anti-Semitism (only just re-instated) managed to weigh into a JLM anti-Semitism training event (filmed by Telegraph) shooting her mouth off and being offensive. Likely to be suspended again for anti-Semitism as a result. She is right in one regard, she hasn't been given a definition of anti-Semitism she can work with 😐

As an aside the Haolocaust Day events I have been to where roughly 50/50 Jewish Holocaust vs others inc Rawanda, Srebrenicia. Ms Walker has coearly never been to one.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/watch-anger-as-momentum-vice-chair-jackie-walker-criticises-holocaust-memorial-day-at-antisemitism-event_uk_57eb736de4b0e315f281c764

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/momentum-antisemitism-jackie-walker-labour-calls-resign-holocaust-memorial-day-a7335576.html

Corbyn, he was definitely much better. It is not that hard after you read "strong emphasis here" last time 😀

Local authorities can borrow against council houses and spend it on what they want 😯 😯 😯 whilst Corbyn suggests more housing in practice they'll borrow for 25 years and spend it on day to day services, spend today - repent [s]at leisure[/s] never

At least McDonnell confirmed the £500bn includes the £250bn for the Investment Bank rather in addition to, well for now anyway.

The notion that a Labour Government would invest in wealth creating business is laughable really, even a Tory Govt can't manage a business / enterprise the Labour party are totally unsuitable for such an activity