This is the story of some squalid little men (and women), but it is a vital insight into the nexus of the political and corporate media elite. The Guardian, New Statesman and Huffington Post today all run major stories around a “focus group” study in Nuneaton which revealed that voters think Corbyn is “scruffy” and “old-fashioned”. This is deemed front page news.
The publicity was obviously supposed to coincide with Labour losing Nuneaton council, its most marginal council surrounded by Tory territory, in the council elections on Thursday. However Labour held Nuneaton. That did not stop the New Statesman article, by “research” authors James Morris and Ian Warren, from going ahead with the immortal phrase “While today’s Labour party has no hope of representing Nuneaton”. Err, it is still in control of the Council.
The publication is also timed to coincide with a revolt by Labour MPs at this afternoon’s meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party. The idea is that the “research” would prove that election losses were Corbyn’s fault. That is toned down now after they beat the Tories outside Scotland, but I am told that Progress MPs are still briefed to flourish the Guardian and raise this “research” today. That is meant to get this “research” onto the evening news.
But when you look at the research very closely, you realise that it is absolute rubbish. James Morris and Ian Warren are total charlatans.
Firstly, the whole sample is 16 people. That is right, 16 people. They are supposed all to be ex-Labour, though there is little evidence of that in the transcripts. What is not in dispute is that they are all Tory voters.
So you have 16 Tory voters, in two groups male and female. But out of 16 people there is not one retired person. Not one young voter. Not one person unemployed. And every single one is in a nuclear heterosexual relationship with children. Every single one is a homeowner.
Furthermore their sources of information are (by order most mentioned) the Daily Mail, Sky, the BBC and the Sun. Only one out of 16 mentions the internet as a source of political information.
People who voted Tory constitute already just 24% of the general population. Exclude retired, tenants, single, childless, gay, young and internet savvy people as well, and you get down to a deliberately chosen 5% of the population from which to choose your sample. You then get these 16 carefully chosen, blinkered right wing bigots into a room. Nevertheless something still goes wrong for your research. Two of the 16 (in the female group) state a firm intention to vote Labour next time (while a larger number state they would consider it).
So what do you do if you are a charlatan like James Morris or Ian Warren? You leave that in the transcript, which no journalist will ever read, but you exclude the fact that 2 of the 16 will vote Labour next time from your findings! And you studiously lead the conversation with the group round to the idea that others who are considering voting Labour next time might be more likely to do so with a change of leader.
The idea that locking two carefully selected groups of totally unrepresentative right wingers into a room to self-reinforce their bigoted opinions, in any way constitutes real research, is utterly laughable. The only conclusion is that having carefully selected the people in all of the UK the most likely to dislike Jeremy Corbyn, they dislike Jeremy Corbyn. Next week, a group of young unemployed people from the Easter Road will give their views on David Cameron.
Needless to say the so called journalists who have published this nonsense did no investigation whatsoever of the farcical nature of the “research”. They just published the press release, as witnessed by the fact they all use exactly the same quotes from scores of pages of transcript.
An important question is who paid for this. Obviously it is a Blairite production, but where did the money come from? Greenberg Quinlan Rosner research are credited, and they are extremely expensive. I asked Ian Warren who funded it. First he replied “I did”, then when I asked him who funded Greenberg Quinlan Rosner he stated there was “something sinister” about the question. I asked again twice, but answer came there none. Astonishingly, “who paid for this” did not occur to the mainstream journalists who uncritically published Morris and Warren’s nonsense.
This is a deeply sinister story. Right wing Labour figures hope desperately their own party will lose in Nuneaton. So they commission (and presumably pay for) ludicrously skewed research to show Jeremy Corbyn caused the loss. This absolute non-news item, that a tiny selected group of completely unrepresentative right wingers do not like Jeremy Corbyn, is then plastered on front pages by their Blairite media contacts to coincide with a Parliamentary Labour Party meeting today, in order to further the slow motion coup against Corbyn.
It is actually quite sickening. All of those involved – including the Guardian and New Statesman editors – are very low people indeed.
I saw this in the NS website and thought it was bogus and irrelevant so stopped reading after a few paragraphs.
Jeremy Corbyn has probably made Labour far more electable in the short and long term than any of the other options. He’s principled and not polished like the Blairites were and look how that all turned out. I always refer to Tony Blair as the illegitimate son of Thatcher. But I don’t say illegitimate.
Excellent post.
You’d think “who paid” rather than being sinister is exactly the sort of question any journalist would be asking ! Maybe we’re in a post journalistic era now
According to the Guardian account the same group described George Osborne as “slimy” and “weaselly” so if they are Tories they’re not overly loyal or enthusiastic and let’s face it, Corbyn is scruffy and old fashioned. Why not accept that and spotlight his good points?
Yes – entirely consistent with a Blairite initiative
I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at. As Kempe says, much better to focus on Corbyn’s strengths. No-one has ever suggested he’s a snappy dresser, and nor should that matter.
The Blairites and their stooges would rather keep the commentary on Corbyn’s apparent lacking in the make-up department, as Kempe has done in his sneaky way. Never, ever talk about his policies – that’s the last thing they want to get a general airing.
Instead, talk about how bad Corbyn is, how awful, how completely unelectable and so on, and then do the “See! We told you so!” routine when election results tend to be swayed by this relentless campaign.
‘…the immortal phrase “While today’s Labour party has no hope of representing Nuneaton”’.
Er, that’s actually a clause.
I shall take your word for it
If someone were going for a job interview, would he (or she) not do well to smarten up to increase one’s chances of beong taken on?
No one is talking about Brioni suits and Charvet ties, just something reasonably smart and well fitting.
It may be unfair, it may be silly (although I would dispute that) but that’s the way things work, isn’t it.
If one’s serious about the application, of course.
You’ve said this before.
Depends on the sort of job, actually. I’ve gone dressed extremely casually to my last couple of interviews (denim hip-huggers, trainers, frayed T-shirt etc.) and got the post no problem. It was definitely a serious job, and I was serious about getting it.
Are you suggesting Corbyn is dressed in rags or something? By contrast, that nice Mr. Mussolini was a very snappy dresser…
This is the leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition. We’re not talking about a position in a yoghurt-weaving co-operative.
What on earth has Corbyn’s attire got to do with his policies?
Corbyn’s attire is presentable, I’m reminded of the inane Hilary Clinton acolytes who parrot the line “Hiliary is a strong woman” when infact it’s her policies that should matter.
Corbyn’s policies are what matter not the shade or make his tie or suit, the nasty party and the Blairites are so afraid that Corbyn may become PM, that ad hominem arguments are all they have to smear the man.
Glenn
I’m pleased to hear that.
But consider the following:
You had a face-to-face, one-on-one opportunity to sell yourself to your future boss (or whoever you were talking to) and to convince him of your merits however you were turned out.
Will Mr Corbyn have a similar opportunity with the electors?
Thanks, Habbabkuk. Times change and sharp suits and military haircuts are not necessary anymore – at least in some industries. You won’t find any suits in the very successful Silicon Valley companies I attended, for instance, apart from those worn by salespeople funnily enough.
Who’s making all the complaints about Corbyn – ordinary people, or very firm Establishment cronies?
I doubt Corbyn will have the opportunity you mention, because his message is quite deliberately being drowned out with hoots and cat-calls from people who simply don’t want him to be heard. This “appearance” business is just one of a string of attacks, all of which are of marginal interest to anyone, but being hammered as if it were all that matters.
I am not entirely persuaded that the man on the street wants the political leaders to be “just like” him, whether in dress or in many other respects.
Just a thought.
Habbabkuk: “I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on the last three lines of my post at 15h36.”
That is what my last paragraph at 16:08 attempted to do – basically, I don’t think Corbyn will get his message to the voters regardless of how he’s dressed. Do you honestly think the Establishment and corporate media, would give him a fair shake if only he wore a bespoke suit from Savile Row?
You see, Glenn, you’re taking part in the alibi-building-fest.
Mr Corbyn will not get elected because his policies (as they stand now, at least) have no traction with the electorate but you are saying that this will be all the fault of the media?
It is that sort of blindness which – apart from being very patronising of the man in the street – will ensure that Labour stay out of power for a very long time. So carry on, I don’t mind 🙂
“I doubt Corbyn will have the opportunity you mention, because his message is quite deliberately being drowned out with hoots and cat-calls from people who simply don’t want him to be heard”
_____________________
BTW, Glenn, the above deliberately misunderstands what I meant.
The question was : will Mr Corbyn – as you were able to – be able to sit down with each elector and convince him of his merits?
Of course not – which is why appearance is important.
D’you see the point now?
H: “D’you see the point now?”
Yes, I do see your point now – you were being literal, I thought it was figuratively “sitting down” with each voter.
Nevertheless, if your faith in the ordinary person in the street is sincere, you would surely hope they would see through superficial adornments to appreciate the value of the person beneath.
My misunderstanding was genuine – I don’t go for the faked responses, come on.
*
As far as the supposed alibi is concerned, that’s not my intent either. No – it was strictly on point, being the rubbishing of a character over trivial criteria – in this case, whether or not someone is magnificently attired being a hugely important consideration.
In my opinion Jeremy Corbyn is not remotely scruffy. He may not aspire to limos like his Blairite colleagues.
But yes he is definitely old-fashioned in the very best sense. As I see it that means he thinks before he speaks of something within the boundaries of the truth, however small the statement, while the Blairites proclaim utter lies with no thought at all for the consequences or damage done to their own or their party’s reputations.
I have called him a fossil on this blog but again in the very best sense of a piece of revered antiquity that has survived New Labour spin and the current Tory direct deceit.
Nobody is talking about limos. He aspires to be PM yet he turns himself out looking like a piss-soaked tramp.
Anon 1
My dad used to wear suits to work, but they were cheap, brown, electrical engineer boffin suits that looked like off the shelf Hungarian. I am not remotely embarrassed by what you are embarrassed by, if the man, like my dad, speaks the truth.
BS. He’s not dressed like some CEO of a fortune-100 company, which is good, because that’s not the type of person that’s being represented – for a change.
It’s the beard that should set off alarm bells. We haven’t had a PM with a beard since 1902.
They’re becoming quite popular with the yoof these days – haven’t you noticed?
Sorry, we did have a PM with a beard…. Gordon Brown.
😉
A nice sharp little moustache and I suppose you’d thoroughly approve.
Let’s face it, you’d approve of a monkey on a stick if it wore jack-boots and snapped a good straight-arm salute. All this guff about appearance is a childish distraction and nothing but.
“Sorry we did have a Prime Minister with a beard
……Gordon Brown”
Whatever can you mean Anon1?
A beard in the sense of Obama’s “beard” perchance?
“Piss-soaked tramp” – not exaggerating much, are we? He looks fine to me, but far more importantly, I like what he says.
” that’s the way things work, isn’t it”
That’s the 2nd time the trolls have used this phrase in 2 days. They wish to imply that varnishing reality will successfully deceive people. Not if the people you want to deceive know that you are trying to deceive them.
My future nephew in law is going for an interview for a job. There is a preliminary interview before that.
It’s not that employers want people with the correct qualifications. They now need to check that the candidate has the correct corporate ability to deceive and to defend corporate deceit.
Today my Fluke tester was returned from being repaired under warranty by Fluke. The enclosed note said that the technician could not find the fault, which definitely existed before and now has been rectified.
Corporate power statistics obviously require that faults don’t exist.
Er is spelt Er. To err is human but to er is to indicate a pause.
Haward.
Reading your comment, I was instantly reminded of the Myth of Er, which is really a cautionary tale of morality. It seems quite fitting in this day and age, with the nasty party in power and all. ?
Err, no. I think Craig probably knows that. Err is a new and slangy usage indicating sarcastic disagreement or puzzlement. (Try the Urban Dictionary.) Err and err are homographs.
This isn’t a new tack for the right-wing. They pulled the same stunt when Labour leader Michael Foot turned up in a duffle-coat to a memorial service. Foot looked normal compared to the establishment clones that all turned up in the establishment approved uniform overcoat. Right-wing sickos will sink to any depth to bend and twist ‘the news’.
Not a duffle coat at all.
Memorably described by Charles Moore
“He laid his wreath of poppies with all the reverent dignity of a tramp bending down to inspect a cigarette end.”
Did Moore, perchance, not agree with Foot on an ideological basis?
Personally, I think it highly distasteful to judge others’ appearance as they pay respects to the dead. It’s not supposed to be a fashion parade, where you strut your stuff to impress a critical audience.
In addition, the exceedingly well turned out right-wingers in their £2000 suits couldn’t give a good goddamn about the war dead, their widows or their wounded comrades as you fully well know. They’re only there for the photo opportunity.
This goes beyond a class-based disdain for Jeremy Corbyn…..this so-called ‘research’ is a disgrace…presenting lies as facts…something very rotten in the state of journalism if this is deemed acceptable. However, the Tories are getting desperate, as are their LibDem former henchmen..Labour needs to hold its nerve and back Corby who has drawn in more supporters than Blair…and he won’t chuck it all away on an illegal war. Those who despise others for not being as privileged as they are were sociopaths-we’ve had too many already. Great article. Keep up the good work!
I suggest you Google “Ian Warren UKIP” you will get some *very* interesting results.
“If someone were going for a job interview, would he (or she) not do well to smarten up to increase one’s chances of beong taken on?”
Why? because he’s selling himself? And he doesn’t want to be mistaken for an ordinary person?
“No one is talking about Brioni suits and Charvet ties, just something reasonably smart and well fitting.”
You really think this way, don’t you?
“It may be unfair, it may be silly (although I would dispute that) but that’s the way things work, isn’t it.”
‘It’s the way things work’ That really sums up your intellectual universe doesn’t it, Habba? You do things the way that things are done. The way daddy did them. The way the squire and the vicar do them. The way that nanny taught you.
“If one’s serious…”
You know that he is serious. And that there are millions of others who are serious behind him. And they’ve (seriously) had their bellyfull of chaps wearing ties (no windsor knots now!!) who do as they are told, kow tow to Washington, leak to Murdoch, and fill their pockets as they flog public property to their mates (who never forget the favour) and look away as the last of our freedoms and the few morsels of fuel and food above subsistence levels are chiselled off and turned into investments abroad.
The worm is turning and Habbakkuk wants it to comb its hair and put a tie on, before it eats him up.
Black pyjamas for you, Bevin?
Bevin
““No one is talking about Brioni suits and Charvet ties, just something reasonably smart and well fitting.”
You really think this way, don’t you?”
_______________________
Which way is that, Bevin?
And now let me ask you something.
Do you believe, then, that Mr Corbyn should wear something reasonably scruffy and badly fitting?
Or is it that you think we *should* be talking about Brioni suits ans Charvet ties?
I’m having difficulty seeing what you’re so annoyed about.
“Bevin”
“‘It’s the way things work’ That really sums up your intellectual universe doesn’t it, Habba? You do things the way that things are done. The way daddy did them. The way the squire and the vicar do them. The way that nanny taught you.”
________________________
It’s not what I think or how I “do things”, Bevin, it’s what the average, normal man on the street thinks and how he does things which will determine whether Mr Corbyn gets elected or not in 2020 (assuming he’s still leader then).
I merely suggest that if there’s a risk that the normal, average elector might find Mr Corbyn on the scruffy side and be less than impressed by that, then would it not be in his own interest to smarten up a little?
Why give hostages to fortune?
CM,
As far as The Guardian goes with this crap, if Ms. Heather Stewart, the hack who wrote the Story, and Ms, Viner, the G Editor, were confident about this trash, the story would be open to reader comment. That the story is closed epitomises the fact that it’s a crap news item and as such propaganda, based on the reality that the CIF community would rip it apart, apart from Establishment toads who would laud how accurate the article was – the Establishment toads never get Modded or banned, and its very east to note who are in the New Labour/ Blair mould, given their rubbish seems like written from a script – no passion whatsoever.
Still, they have already thrown the kitchen sink at Corby over the ‘antisemitism, nonsense, which by the way The Guardian was actually running with this morning, so now its back to slinging other objects before the Terrorism canard is hauled out as the last resort to undermine a left-leaning Labour Party.
“toads never get modded or banned”
Chris,
They have been both. But far worse happened to Habbabkuk and Anon1 after the Lord Carlile and Lord Janner thread. They were taken away physically and water-boarded by MI5 at some boot camp for defending paedophilia and bringing the cause they are paid to support into total disrepute.
You hit The Guardian and its CiF policies in one. It’s a wonder to behold how The Guardian manages CiF to its own ends to suppress dissent over what are obvious commercial or propaganda puff-pieces. I’m sick to death of Guardian attacks on the SNP by the likes of Severin Carrell being closed for comments.
In the commercial arena just try posting anti-Monsanto comments (particularly if you provide links to material elsewhere on the net) on a GMO article and the mods jump in pretty quick. Snap for a computing article if you mention Microsoft and its latest “Spyware Suite” trying to pose as an operating system.
The only good that comes out of this is that on a daily basis we are presented with object lessons on propaganda and media studies. I have no faith at all left now for any MSM point of view on just about any subject. I’m not the only one. In the long-run this is all to the good. Slowly, slowly we are all being educated.
I disagree that you can easily tell who the New Labourites are on CIF. I have long since passed the point where
I cannot tell the difference between a Blairite poster and a Tory one.
Craig,
This entire thing is Peter Mandelson devised. He still has an hot seat straight to the heart of the “liberal” corporate media. The right wing media treat his press releases and briefing with a great deal of scepticism. Which is why the attacks from the liberal media seem so much more vicious. By continuing to print whatever Peter Mandelson tells them, the guardian have destroyed their core readership, i do not even visit the guardian site anymore and I have now cancelled my new statesman sub, as I’m sure other will.
If Vyner or the Stateman wish to salvage any of their reputation they would be well advised to hold Mandelson downwind. Sadly he seems to be the only Westminster “source” they have left.
“hold Mandelson downwind”
No, since Thatcher all UK politicians who aspire to greatness have always placed themselves up wind and forced their audiences to enjoy the stiff spray of urine in their faces.
I think it’s a more like loose stools in this case
Discrimination against scruffy people should be outlawed. In a free country we have a right to be scruffy if we wish, even if Cameron’s mother disapproves.
As for “Putting on a suit to apply for a job”, Mr Corbyn isn’t applying for a job; he’s already got one and that what’s upsetting the establishment
He is asking to be elected PM. If he can’t look after himself, people will wonder about his ability to look after the country.
Anon How many encores do you want? If I wanted to hear God save the Queen or the Archers I wouldn’t switch them off before the first note. Stop talking shit.
No he isn’t! The next general election is four years away. He might die before then, as might I, you, Cameron, Blair, any of us.
You’re a Mandelson troll – bugger off.
Excuse, Corbyn is not asking to be elected PM, he’s the bloody leader of HM’s loyal opposition in Parliament, a job which he did put himself forward for and was duly elected. I’m really sick and tired of having to explain to idiots that we do not have a Presidential electoral system, the only buggers allowed to vote for Corbyn are his bloody constituents, whom he needs to seek approval from every 5 years presently.
How much easier is it for you and the likes of the ‘Establishment Toad’ to understand our own bloody Constitution – political Parties slog it out for power via getting MP’s elected in constituencies. Now, are you a constituent of Corbyn’s, who, if you remember, has increased his share of votes cast in each Election since entering Parliament.
Can’t look after himself? He’s 69 years old and has a punishing schedule that would poleaxe most people half his age. I’d say he’s looking after himself pretty well.
I’m glad he wears ordinary clothes. Not scruffy, just ordinary. I’m glad he doesn’t have that rich man’s shine.
Alan
We know he has a job right now.
Are you saying that Mr Corbyn does not want to become Prime Minister? It does sound like it, you know.
And it were true, what the devil is he doing as Leader of the opposition?
Surely the solution is to build up (or keep on building up) one or two left-wing news sites in the UK (or free Scotland and the UK) to compete with the likes of the Guardian. Would it really be that hard? I’m sure there are huge numbers of people who feel completely unrepresented by the Guardian/Independent as their primary source of news and comment, but are left dependent on them as first-stop. The corporate media isn’t going to change, it’s up to those fed up with the corporate propaganda and agenda setting to stop waiting around passively and build alternatives instead.
As for the BBC, I grew up trusting it as an institution, but for a decade now it’s been clearly shifting to the right while its standards have fallen hugely. BBC World is an appalling corporate shill and has been for two decades. There’s probably an analysis to be made of how the ‘world business’ niche interest eventually took over the entire corporation as its branding and the entire scope of its cultural imagination. Just close the thing down and abandon any semblance of impartiality.
Even Blair was deeply sceptical about focus groups:
“Then there was Philip Gould and his focus groups…but I used to laugh at how extraordinary the confluence was between his own views and what the (focus) groups seemed to be saying.”
Tony Blair, “A Journey” p298.
Grauniad, New Statesman, Torygraph… all peas in a pod.
Tomorrow the headline will read ‘Labour lost control over Norfolk County council’ just to give them another squalid headline.
But, we shall precede their rubbish and can report that the Greens have withdrawn their support for the rainbow coalition due to George Nobbs full support for the Norwich northern bypass.
The get Corbyn campaign seems to be an even bigger target now that he has declared himself to be in Europe, these nefarious muck rakers stop at nothing.
Nevermind
“muck-rakers”
East Anglia , in fact most of the UK at this time of the year, mostly smells of pig-shit.
I don’t know if they rake it, comb it, dye their hair with it, make coffee with it or put it in sandwiches.
Politics as we know it stinks.
Thanks Craig, for an important exposé. It’s sad that the Blairites don’t ‘get’ the fact that Corbyn-style Labour really is different from, and opposed to, Thatcherism.
Nice to see that Craig’s latest post, linked at least two times on Guardian Comment, is about as welcome as a case of STD at a brothel, suffice to say, in our more polite/censored Guardian things like telling the truth and honest Journalism are frowned upon – but of course the censorious editor Viner is most competent at her job of steamrolling Corbyn, although Freedland would have done it a bit more expertly given he likes the bottom of a barrel.
Truth, there ain’t none, alas our own Establishment toads do seem to like to keep up the pretence, even on these boards, but CM definitely is a no, no as far as posting on CIF is concerned – it was not always the case, because I found this site because of a CIF poster by a humble truth seeker.
Corbyn came up to Scotland and told (or dumbly repeated) a pack of lies. We might excuse that as a man who was new in the job and had to rely on local briefings only discovering, too late, that it was all pish from village idiots.
I sort of like him, but I have that worry.
This is the type of deceit that occurs daily in corporate controlled news.
The corporate media is without a doubt the biggest deterrent to a functioning democracy and need to be broken up. The Rupert Murdochs of this world have way to much influence and are running their media empires as propaganda engines to serve their own and their corporate and elite friend’s wants.
This is not what news organisations are meant to do. They are meant to report to the people on the issues not to generate propaganda that supports their own desires.
Break up the corporate media.
Firstly I like to say that I find it astonising that the right of the Labour party would rather destroy the party, than see the left of centre of Labour and Corbyn become a future prime minister.
As for biased journalism or outright lying journalism, are we really surprised by it. Peter Oborne left the Telegraph newspaper not that long ago, Mr Oborne, then chief political editor at the paper realised that amongst other articles the coverage of HSBC in Britain’s Telegraph is a fraud on its readers.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-oborne/why-i-have-resigned-from-telegraph
If I recall the New Statesman newspaper sales plummeted and it’s now the first major daily to go completely online, which in my opinion makes it highly susceptible to corporate or government influence. As for the Guardian the BBC
buys thousands of copies every year, which goes a long way to supporting, ergo allowing it to influence the Guardian. Indeed last year the BBC spent £2,500 pounds a month on buying Guardian newspapers.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3097877/BBC-spends-130-000-year-buying-copies-Guardian-s-equivalent-900-licence-fees.html
Corbyn’s Labour South of the border will thrive and grow in my opinion, social media will be the catalyst to that. People realise that Corbyn actually stands for the good of the people, and if Corbyn could just oust the Blairites or quell their little tin pot rebellion, Labour down South might actually do some good.
Labour down South can find a parallel in the rise of the SNP over the last decade or so even though the media, scaremongered and lied about them constantly, social media however saw through those profanities, and backed the SNP.
Thanks for this Craig. Great to see David Milliband repeating his brother’s mistake by sharing a platform with Cameron. Moreover he further alienated Labour members by promoting TTIP. Rumours abound that the plotters have anointed the former Foreign Secretary and prince over the water as the new Former Paratrooper Dan Jarvis. Do you think there’s any truth in this, and if so, will he be greasing his way into Tooting?
This was such a funny quote (courtesy of Anon1, May 9, 2016 at 14:02) that I’ve just got to repeat it. It’s Charles Moore describing Michael Foot and his famous donkey jacket during a Remembrance Day ceremony…
“He laid his wreath of poppies with all the reverent dignity of a tramp bending down to inspect a cigarette end.”
Howabout José Mujica, who until recently was the leader of Uruquay and was described as “the world’s ‘humblest’ president”…
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-20243493
Just brilliant:
“In a ceremony yesterday, Jose “Pepe” Mujica, who leaves with approval ratings of nearly 70 per cent, handed over his presidential sash to Tabare Vazquez.”
“The former president shunned the luxurious lifestyle and was usually seen in casual clothes for official ceremonies and rarely, if ever, wore a tie. By donating 90 per cent of his salary to charity, his income was roughly equal to the average wage in Uruguay – $775 (£485) a month.”
“With just his three-legged dog Manuela and two police officers for security, Mujica lives on a small farm on the outskirts of the capital Montevideo.”
“While most presidents travel around in chauffeur-driven saloon cars, the former Uruguayan president drove his own beat-up Beetle.”
“It’s not often you get picked up by a world leader, but when Gerhald Acosta was walking between his home town and his place of work he was given a ride by Mujica and his wife.”
“As well as backing a range of social policies like legalising abortion and gay marriage, the president leaves behind a legacy of economic health. While neighbouring Argentina and Brazil have suffered downturns in recent years, Uruguay has witnessed rising salaries and a historically low unemployment rate.”
http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/8-reasons-why-well-miss-jose-mujica-uruguays-maverick-president–e1t_MupEpl
From the mouth of babes and sucklings (aka “Chris Rogers”):
“Excuse, Corbyn is not asking to be elected PM, he’s the bloody leader of HM’s loyal opposition in Parliament,..”
He’s not asking to become Prime Minister?? That counts as a scoop on my book.
Keep it up, Chris! 🙂
Habbabkuk (Establishment Toad!)
May I suggest you look at a few law books dealing with Constitutional & Administrative Law.
I’ll also remind you of the interlude between the 2010 GE in the UK and forming of a government, legally, Brown was head of the Labour Party, and indeed our PM, the fact remains, had enough Labour, LibDem and other minority parties united a new administration could have been formed, one not led by Brown. Indeed, had Brown stood down as leader of Labour and someone else came forward to command the respect and loyalty of all non-Tories that person would have been invited by the Queen to form the next government. Again, we do not elect a Prime Minister, that’s what our MP’s do in Parliament.
Now, are you trying to tell me that we have a Presidential style of government where the First Minister is elected by the electorate, if this were the case the candidates name would appear across the UK, as it stands we elect constituency MP’s to represent us, and they may, or may not belong to a political grouping.
What ever you may think, that’s the law and legal status, particularly given our head of state is a Monarch.
But, alas in your opinion Corbyn is auditioning for a Job, and that’s exactly what’s wrong with politics, i.e., forget the fucking policies and platform. You may like to forget them, this old bugger does not.
I do apologise, “Chris Rogers”.
I had always been under the impression – obviously mistaken – that when there is a change of govt in that the parliamentary opposition takes power, it is the leader of the parliamentary opposition who becomes Prime Minister.
And may I remind you, regardless of electoral outcomes, it is the person in Parliament who commands a majority of MP’s, or a largest contingent of MP’s ( a minority administration) who forms the government once the head of state has actually requested he forms a government. This is playing out now in The Welsh Assembly, and as unlikely as its sounds, if 31 of the elected ASM’s form a unit, it would be they and not Carwyn Jones’s Labour grouping that would be running Wales – and I did not vote for Carwyn Jones, I voted for the Labour candidate in Torfaen, who’s now my Welsh Assembly representative.
You seem to forget because we have an ‘unwritten’ codified Constitution it’s actually quite flexible, everything based on precedent and tradition, but not legally binding – its flexibility being why its lasted so long in my opinion.
I saw this on the Huffington Post, it was reminiscent of a beauty product advert where 90% of (10) girls would recommend it to a friend (vs pouring acid on their face and consenting to necrophilia). It did however mention that ALL of the voters interviewed, voted Labour once in the past 11 years, rather than Tory through and through. I was also pleased to read the comments about Osbourne being slimy and the Conservatives being “full of crap”.
Mr. Paul,
These electors are usually referred too as swing voters, that is they are not formally associated with any political party and alternate their vote. However, had all been over 50, no issue, but the fact remains if they only began voting circa 1997, then all they know is Thatcherism, Blair the son of Thatcher and Cameron, the bastard child of Blair. Further, any questionnaire is always biased as by carefully working each question elicits the answer you are actually after – these crass methods have been abandoned by Bernie Sanders in the USA and in all ‘Open’ primaries he’s beaten Clinton, which kinda proves the new fangled techniques developed in the 90’s by Clinton and his gang are losing their edge with younger voters, who have cottoned on to the fact that most rubbish in the MSM is rubbish, as are these type of confectionary gatherings. Welcome to the New politics, which ain’t the Third Way.
Speaking of fraudulent speel spouters, old droopy chops HRH, will address the new session of the Scottish Parliament on July 2nd. Ear plugs are the order of the day . ?
Meanwhile to all you Europeans out there, (Johnson and Farage excluded) may I wish you a very pleasant European day. Yes today is EU day, founded on Robert Schuman’s ideas in 1950, the EU has grown,and matured.
It’s just a pity, that corruption constant lobbying and the American corporations and their shitty trade deals might end up f*cking the whole thing up, god I hope not.
to anyone who know about this ex Canadian diplomat involved in nuclear arms control and movements at NATO some years back, his name is Loorne Green, he’s been a Canadian diplomat in south east Asia who then landed a fat job in NATO, last job was general secretary of the ‘world nuclear transport institute’ in London.
Now elected Tory PCC for Norfolk. He is being presented as a very clean, never to have edged up against something, level headed person.
But is he just another continuation of a job imposition, an extra budget expenditure we can fleece the taxpayer for?
RoS
“Droopy chops”?
I suspect you’re not much of an oil-painting yourself – and you’re nowhere near ninety.
These comments about people’s appearances are very….Mary, don’t you think? Let’s not get back into that sort of silliness.
“These comments about people’s appearances are very….Mary, don’t you think? Let’s not get back into that sort of silliness.”
________________
Habb.
I do apologise if my description of old saddle bag face HRH, offended you . ?
As for your completely inane comment above, you’ve been doing Jeremy Corbyn’s appearance down all afternoon, are you such the fool? That you’ve not even noticed? I think you are. ?
Mr Corbyn’s dress sense, RoS; not his physical features.
I do love analyses like this which rip to pieces the disguises of the establishment press. Thank Heaven for the internet. Without that we would all be living in cloud-cuckoo-land; which is where, it seems, most of the tory press are currently resident.
Bert.