Jeremy Corbyn’s first hundred days

Written By: - Date published: 9:27 am, January 3rd, 2016 - 52 comments
Categories: International, Syria, uk politics, war - Tags:

Jeremy Corbyn

Jeremy Corbyn recently passed a major milestone and celebrated his first hundred days as Labour’s leader.

His reign has not been without its problems. Never ending claims about how his leadership was doomed and its end is just a matter of time have been voiced for some time.  Despite this some polls suggest that Labour is now polling better than it did when Ed Miliband was leader.

The right wing attacks and smears have been incessant.  They may have become too extreme and may now be counterproductive.  A recent example is this Sun front page where Corbyn was described as a hypocrite for accepting further funding after being appointed a Privy Councillor.  The only problem was that the two matters were not linked.  The otherwise toothless Independent Press Standards Organisation has ordered a front page apology.

The Oldham East by election result was a helpful endorsement.  The vote was meant to be very tight but the result was an overwhelming victory for the Labour candidate.

Syria proved problematic with many within caucus wanting to support the Conservative’s proposal to bomb Syria.  Corbyn gave labour members the opportunity to vent their spleen and then agreed to a free vote on the subject which given the current state of the caucus was, I think, the only realistic option he had.

Various Labour MPs have shown appalling discipline and loyalty and have chosen to publicly criticise Corbyn at every opportunity.  MPs like Simon Danczuk who was recently discovered to have sent a series of inappropriate texts to a 17 year old girl.  The anti child abuse campaigner and ardent critic of Corbyn has openly attacked the membership and publicly described Labour as the nasty party.  Obviously he was fearful for his position with membership of the party doubling in the last year and members expecting MPs to actually follow a left wing line.  Ridding the party of MPs who are openly disloyal and who engage in totally inappropriate behaviour should be an easy thing to do.

The nasty meme is one that has spread.  Singular instances of inappropriate things being said on social media are conflated to provide evidence of a mass conspiracy.

The reality is that some of these MPs are detested because on the important issues, such as Syria and Trident, they are making the wrong decision.

Take Trident for instance.  Trident is an example of cold war mentality.  Four submarines each carry sixteen missiles each with multiple warheads.  The fleet needs to be replaced by 2025 at an anticipated cost of £25 billion.  A decision needs to be made next year.

The Scottish National Party is unanimously opposed to the spend both on the grounds of cost and because the idea of ever using the missiles is barbaric.  They are only meant to be fired in retaliation and their use would clearly show that deterrence had failed.

And take Syria.  To put things very simply continued interference by the West in the Middle East over the last few decades has not worked.  Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, Al Qaeda and now ISIS present clear evidence of the futility and stupidity of covert and military intervention.  Corbyn is the one world leader who is saying this clearly and distinctly.

This passage from an article by Freddie Gray in the Spectator sums things up well:

What strange people we Brits are. We spend years moaning that our politicians are cynical opportunists who don’t stand for anything. Then along comes an opposition leader who has principles — and appears to stick by them even when it makes him unpopular — and he is dismissed as a joke.

Jeremy Corbyn has been ridiculed in recent days for the feebleness of his foreign policy. It is widely agreed that his positions on terrorism and Isis show how unelectable and useless he is. At the same time, we say he is a grave threat to national security.

But what has Corbyn said that is so stupid or dangerous? In the wake of the attacks in Paris, he declared that Britain ‘must not be drawn into responses that feed the cycle of violence and hate’. He has urged his country not to ‘keep making the same mistakes’ in the Middle East, something he has been saying for decades. ‘Enthusiasm for interventions has only multiplied the threats to us,’ he says, not unreasonably. He has said he will not support airstrikes in Syria unless it is clear that military action will help us achieve our strategic objective of defeating Isis.

If you look at Corbyn’s actual words — rather than the Twitter feeds of the organisations he is affiliated with or the outbursts of his crazy fans — his response to the difficult and frightening problem of terrorism has been sensible, cautious and moral. Like a good Christian, he thinks violence should be a last resort, as he showed with his reluctance to embrace a ‘shoot to kill’ policy for security services in Britain, and his statement that it would have been ‘far better’ for the serial beheader Mohammed Emwazi (‘Jihadi John’) to have been tried in court rather than taken out by drones.

The battle for control of the Labour Party is a fascinating one.  On one side are careerists and professionals who clearly believe that political power is only a matter of being slightly more beige than the other side.

And on the other side is Corbyn and grassroots members of the Party, whose numbers have surged since the election and are now approaching 400,000.  Conservative membership numbers are now thought to be in the vicinity of 150,000 although it has the decided advantage of huge funding.

He may succeed, he may fail.  But at least with Jeremy Corbyn you what you see is exactly what you get.

52 comments on “Jeremy Corbyn’s first hundred days ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Pat 1
    3 January 2016 at 9:41 am

    “He may succeed, he may fail. But at least with Jeremy Corbyn you what you see is exactly what you get.”

    Honesty in politics?..we’ve forgotten what it looks like.

    • Naturesong 1.1
      3 January 2016 at 11:31 am

      No.

      We do see honesty in NZ politics fairly often.
      The Greens get almost no press coverage coverage, and when they do they are generally referred to as lunatics.

      • alex 1.1.1
        3 January 2016 at 1:01 pm

        I don’t agree. The Green press office is very effective at getting quick press releases out, and it shows when their comments get picked up as the opposition to government policy, at least in news stories. Opinion pieces are different, but there too there are a reasonable number of supportive arguments. You would have had a point 5-10 years ago, but things change.

        • Naturesong 1.1.1.1
          3 January 2016 at 1:24 pm

          You would have had a point 5-10 years ago, but things change.

          I see this trend as well.
          However I don’t believe it has reached a tipping point.

          The internal governance structures are very well designed (though there are a couple of things with which I disagree) and robust enough to incorporate more members and greater variety of voices and still be true to the values* and principles that provide a common direction to the Greens.

          * har! har! still in xmas pun mode

        • Naturesong 1.1.2.1
          3 January 2016 at 2:46 pm

          This is Steffan Brownings last term as an MP.
          You will see him plummet down the list prior to the next election.

          The incident you point to is, quite frankly, embarassing.

          It’s one of the differences between the Greens and most other parties.
          When we realise we’ve given the power to represent us to an idiot, we fix it at the first opportunity.

          You do know that he is not expressing Green policy or anything sanctioned by the membership or executive, right?

          • Lanthanide 1.1.2.1.1
            3 January 2016 at 3:05 pm

            Jeanette Fitsimmons, while leader, suggested that the government investigate ‘alternative’ methods of possum control (using homoeopathic ashes of dead possums…) in the Hawkes Bay. I believe she stayed on as leader for 2 terms after that.

            • Naturesong 1.1.2.1.1.1
              3 January 2016 at 3:26 pm

              Curious to see her press release or argument in the house.

              Links please.

              • alwyn …
                3 January 2016 at 5:56 pm

                It’s quite long but this would certainly appear to support Lanthanide’s statement.
                http://skeptics.nz/journal/issues/65/jeanette-fitzsimons-wins-skeptics-2002-bent-spoon-award
                I had never heard this story but I got this via Google.

                • Naturesong …
                  3 January 2016 at 6:14 pm

                  Holy shit.
                  I was not aware of this.

                  My first thought was that it was some spin or smear or that Fitsimmons had been misrepresented*. Apparently not.

                  And now I have to go and read the entire agricultural policy again in case I missed something last time it was updated 😥

                  * I use the crushed dead bodies of queen bees in alcohol to attract swarms. Thyme oil based mite treatments, and peppermint oil and crushed cinnamon to repel ants. Pretty sure this could be misrepresented as witchdoctory despite their proven efficacy.

                  edit: I notice at the end of the link there is a response from a “senior office holder” which goes on to explain some of the internal conversation that was had within the party (I was not a member until 2009). I think this demonstrates one of the strengths of the Green Party.
                  It is disappointing that there have been 2 incidences (one involving a leader) over a 13 year period. But it’s heartening that I’ve not seen any hocus-pocus like this get through to be policy while I’ve been a member.

                  • weka …
                    3 January 2016 at 6:32 pm

                    Hard to take the NZ Skeptics seriously on that. Biodynamics is not understandable by people with their particular world view. Yet it’s successful (demonstrably so) which is why it is being adopted by some many vinyards in NZ. I don’t know about the peppering research (can’t find a useful report online), but their inability to comprehend the theory behind the practice of biodynamic, and to not be able to measure actual empirical success, probably means their bias is in the way.

                    * I use the crushed dead bodies of queen bees in alcohol to attract swarms. Thyme oil based mite treatments, and peppermint oil and crushed cinnamon to repel ants. Pretty sure this could be misrepresented as witchdoctory despite their proven efficacy.

                    The really critical one is that at the end of the age of antibiotics science still isn’t seriously looking to plants that have proven antibacterial properties and traditional/empirical successful use. There are many reasons for that, including the role that funding and big pharma are playing in it, but I think the main stumblng block is simply ideology. Fear of witchdoctory 😉

                    • Naturesong …
                      3 January 2016 at 6:47 pm

                      I’m aware of biodynamics and Steiners work in agriculture. Bit of a fan of Steiner to be honest.

                      Some things are useful and clearly work, some is questionable so needs to prove its efficacy.
                      Just because some of that body of knowledge works, doesn’t mean all of it does.

                      An open and enquiring mind requires us to kill our darlings should they prove insufficient. Defending them by questioning the mental agility of those who don’t agree, or may not understand doesn’t really progress our understanding.

                    • weka …
                      3 January 2016 at 7:03 pm

                      “Just because some of that body of knowledge works, doesn’t mean all of it does.”

                      Very true. I’m not sure that practices like biodynamics should have to meet the standards of reductionist science, although there is no reason why other standards shouldn’t apply.

                      An open and enquiring mind requires us to kill our darlings should they prove insufficient. Defending them by questioning the mental agility of those who don’t agree, or may not understand doesn’t really progress our understanding.

                      I think the world view of the people with the power to say what is valid or not is massively political and should be challenged at every opportunity. I’m still unclear whether Science as religion is in the ascendancy or not, but enough damage has been done by the insistence of the fundamentalists that their world view is the one true. We’re squandering our advantages all over the place.

                    • Macro …
                      3 January 2016 at 7:29 pm

                      Its quite astounding really how little biodynamics is understood, yet for many it is a very profitable and sustainable method of farming.
                      Biodynamics uses very limited external inputs and re-uses most on-farm waste, so it has a low impact on the environment. It also provides an economical way of farming because most of the costs are met at the time they are incurred. That’s where the word “biodynamics” comes from. Those who can’t see past unsustainable “conventional” farming practices, scoff at biodynamics but actually it is essentially the practice of centuries of farming – up until the industrial era when the drive for increased production from limited areas meant the importation of artificial fertilizers, chemical weed control, and the necessary applications of pesticides to control rampant pests in the resultant monoculture. The steady loss of soil fertility, constant tilling, and depletion of soil organisms vital for plant health means that many of our farms today are in a poor state of health.
                      Farmers in Germany between the wars were concerned about the more to conventional methods and it was then that the practices of the early farmers were rediscovered and applied.
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodynamic_agriculture

                    • Magisterium …
                      4 January 2016 at 1:35 pm

                      Yet it’s successful (demonstrably so) which is why it is being adopted by some many vinyards in NZ

                      It really isn’t. Demonstrably successful, that is.

                      It’s marketing, that’s all. Consumers are happy to pay more for wine that has “biodynamic” on the label.

                    • weka …
                      4 January 2016 at 2:27 pm

                      “It really isn’t. Demonstrably successful, that is.”

                      how many biodynamic farms and gardens have you been on?

                      “It’s marketing, that’s all. Consumers are happy to pay more for wine that has “biodynamic” on the label.”

                      Lolz, did you just make that up? It’s rare for NZ wine makers to promote their wine as biodynamic. It’s getting better but I don’t think many use the biodynamic certification on their label.

                    • Magisterium …
                      4 January 2016 at 5:16 pm

                      “how many biodynamic farms and gardens have you been on?”

                      Maybe three or four… since my last post.

                      There is no evidence that biodynamic agriculture is anything other than hippy woo-woo. If you grow good produce on (1) ecologically-sustainable organically-farmed land, land on which you (2) carefully buried a cow’s horn containing quartz crystals in the spring, the quality of the produce is a result of the first bit, not the second.

                      But hey, I could be wrong. Maybe Steiner was right and maybe the cow horn thing is important for agriculture because, as he said

                      “The cow has horns in order to reflect inwards the astral and etheric formative forces, which then penetrate right into the metabolic system so that increased activity in the digestive organism arises by reason of this radiation from horns and hoofs.”

                      Mmm, woo-woo.

                    • weka …
                      4 January 2016 at 5:34 pm

                      “Maybe three or four… since my last post this morning.”

                      How come?

                      “the quality of the produce is a result of the first bit, not the second”

                      Or something else entirely (plus the first two). See this is the problem I have with the reductionist mindset. I don’t care what the reason is if it works. And my observation is that biodynamic gardens have a different quality to them than conventional organic ones.

                      Maybe the reason that it works and/or is better than conventional organics is because the person doing the growing is just inherently more attuned to the subtle. I don’t mean the woo woo stuff, I mean that they may be gaining an advantage by paying attention to things that less sensitive people miss eg subtleties in soil microbia. I just read about biodymanic compost preps being done over a year using herbs. I don’t know if that time frame establishes different soil microbia but it’s certainly a viable hypothesis.

                      The rationalist will go, aha! it’s not really about the woo woo at all. Myself, I will go, if the grower’s belief system enhances their innate sensitivity (and thus they grow better food), and the corollary of that is that dumping the belief system makes them less sensitive (and growing not such excellent food), then the rationalist view just looks like dog in the manger shit to me. I’ll support the person with the great veges every time.

                      This is why with all those things I am far more interested in who they work for and how, rather than why they may work or may not be possible. I’m old enough to remember when the same supposed rationalist approaches were applied to things like acupuncture or herbal medicine, both of which are now accepted as efficacious.

                      I’m thinking of that man in the North Island who got done by the Commerce Commission for advertising a system of farming that was not able to be supported by science (can’t remember if it was biodynamics or somethign similar). Yet he had all these conventional farmers who had converted to his system and swore by it. The reason they converted was because they could literally see other farms doing better than they were.

                      I’m sure there will be vinyards jumping on the biodynamics bandwagon because its trendy, just like there are conventional growers converting to organics for economic reasons. But the original growers weren’t doing that, the ones that proved that the system is a good way to grow grapes and produce wine. If you put your belief system up against their business success, I’ll have to go with them.

                    • Magisterium …
                      4 January 2016 at 5:44 pm

                      How come?

                      I work in the wine industry.

                      See this is the problem I have with the reductionist mindset. I don’t care what the reason is if it works.

                      But it doesn’t work. Or, rather, it’s either (1) not been proven to work, or (2) been proven to not work. Farmers who tout themselves as biodynamic do all sorts of things that are great for the dirt and the plants and do some hippy woo-woo as well. Then when the produce is good they’re all “hippy woo-woo works!”

                      It’s like you getting a bacterial infection, and then taking antibiotics while putting magnets under your pillow at night. Then when you get better you shout “magnets, fuck yeah!”

                    • weka …
                      4 January 2016 at 6:14 pm

                      I see you’ve completely ignored the actual argument I was making. One more attempt then. If someone is taking antibiotics for a bacterial infection and using some woowoo at the same time, and the belief in the woo woo acts to enhance the placebo effect, that makes what they are doing more effective than antibiotics alone. Seeing as how antibiotics have a failure rate, I would have thought that was a useful thing. The theory on that is sound according to western science, but I doubt that you could design a conventional study to prove anything about it because it’s so individual. And because science still has its head up its arse when it comes to healing.

                      All good health practitioners understand the value of placebo whether they call it that or not, and that includes GPs and specialists. The rationalists are being dog in the mangers about it simply because their belief systems trump empiricism every time. Hell, even hard out scienceheads are critiquing the extremes to which evidence based science has been taken.

                      If you work in the wine industry, how many biodynamic vinyards have the actual certification on their bottles now?

                      edited to add, not all biodynamic practice is woo woo, as I’m sure you will be aware, so let’s not pretend that your medical comparison is particularly relevant to the biodynamic part of the discussion.

                    • Magisterium …
                      4 January 2016 at 6:45 pm

                      If someone is taking antibiotics for a bacterial infection and using some woowoo at the same time, and the belief in the woo woo acts to enhance the placebo effect, that makes what they are doing more effective than antibiotics alone.

                      And that has been scientifically tested and has been proven to be the case. What the patient’s mind thinks has a measurable testable effect on the patient’s body.

                      Biodynamic farmers never do their woo-woo on plants and dirt that are not farmed in accordance with scientifically-measured and testable organic methods. For example, Steiner’s compost preparation 505 requires farmers to place chopped oak bark inside the skull of a domesticated animal in the earth at a place where rain water runs past. It has to be the skull of a domesticated animal, because domesticated animals are more intelligent, and their intelligence imbues their skulls with superpowers, and those superpowers pass into the earth through magic rays. Now you never see a biodynamic farmer taking the time to do that on ground that has been sprayed with herbicide and fertilised with organophosphates and thrashed for ten growing seasons in a row. No, they do their woo-woo on ground that is farmed organically and which has been carefully tended with sustainability in mind.

                      Then when that ground produces good fruit and veges, the biodynamic farmer goes “look my woo-woo worked!” when it was the organic and sustainable stuff that actually made a difference.

                      Then when some annoying rationalist comes along and says “well, stop your woo-woo and keep doing the other scientific stuff and we’ll see what quality of fruit we get next year” they flat out refuse. Because woo-woo.

                      Of course then the intl sales manager comes along and says “if I put the word BIODYNAMIC on the label I can export the wine from this vineyard at twice the price, so I don’t care what you do I’m putting that on the label”.

                    • weka …
                      4 January 2016 at 6:59 pm

                      Ok, so you are acknowledging that your medical example was irrelevant (and my point was successful), and you are again completely ignoring the basic premise I am arguing. Any good reason I should stay in this conversation?

                      You are comparing biodynamics with conventional. I’m comparing it with other less destructive practices including conventional organics. Your argument fails for that reason, and for the reason that there are ways of knowing things that science can’t prove and every half wit knows this. Geniuses too, it’s just that the science geniuses aren’t allowed to talk about it. Try Einstein if you want to see well applied woo woo by a scientist.

                    • Magisterium …
                      4 January 2016 at 7:04 pm

                      Ok, so you are acknowledging that your medical example was irrelevant (and my point was successful)

                      No, the exact opposite. My medical example is a 100% on-point analogy for how biodynamic farming works. A combination of science-proven stuff and woo-woo is used, then when a positive outcome is achieved that outcome is attributed solely to the woo-woo. And in Every. Single. Scientific. Test. the woo-woo is shown to have no effect whatsoever.

                      (Other than on the retail price of the produce, which is the whole point)

                    • weka …
                      4 January 2016 at 7:24 pm

                      “My medical example is a 100% on-point analogy for how biodynamic farming works”

                      Mate, you’ve just said placebo is a real effect. That makes the two examples different (unless you are arguing that biodynamics has a placebo effect).

                      You’re still not even acknowledging my point, so thanks for the waste of time and go well with your circular, self-confirming arguments on your own.

                  • weka …
                    3 January 2016 at 6:37 pm

                    edit: I notice at the end of the link there is a response from a “senior office holder” which goes on to explain some of the internal conversation that was had within the party (I was not a member until 2009). I think this demonstrates one of the strengths of the Green Party.
                    It is disappointing that there have been 2 incidences (one involving a leader) over a 13 year period. But it’s heartening that I’ve not seen any hocus-pocus like this get through to be policy while I’ve been a member.

                    I see it as an error in politics as much as anything. Fitzsimons probably uses peppering successfully on her farm or knows people that do, but it’s a mistake to take that into the public domain where you need reliable repeatable practices.

                    Likewise many people use homeopathics successfully, and I’m pretty sure that would include many GP members. The decision to not support it publicly is about political pragmatics (a decision I agree with so long as they don’t have policy that removes people’s health care choices). That they don’t make those kind of political mistakes now is heartening (Browning notwithstanding). It’s the post-Morris Dancing GP.

                    • Naturesong …
                      3 January 2016 at 6:55 pm

                      That’s my impression as well.

                      I know people in the Green party and outside that support homeopathy and oppose vaccinations.

                      Generally they are decent people, but I don’t want people who believe things that are demonstrably false (or unable to be proven) anywhere near public policy.

                      I don’t care whether it’s a belief that homeopathy has any more effect than as a placebo or someone who thinks tax cuts for higher incomes results in prosperity for anyone other than people who earn extreme amounts.

                    • alwyn …
                      3 January 2016 at 7:09 pm

                      “Likewise many people use homeopathics successfully, and I’m pretty sure that would include many GP members”. Really?
                      It may be a post-Morris dancing Green Party but the dancers seem to still be there. It rather seems to be a variation of Oscar Wilde’s comment ““I have no objection to anyone’s sex life as long as they don’t practice it in the street and frighten the horses.” Don’t let the public hear about it in other words.

                      As an apparent believer can you give me some advice? I have decided to go on an almighty binge. Should I dilute the ale by 10,000 times or 100,000 times to get the best results?

                    • weka …
                      3 January 2016 at 7:15 pm

                      If the GP were in government and say held the social security portfolio, do you think they should prevent WINZ from funding alternative medical treatments on Disability Allowance where the treatement is recommended by the person’s GP?

                      The problem with the homeopathy argument is that as someone who has a reasonable lay person understanding of both the theory and practice of homeopathy and a good enough grasp of the scientific method and medical research, I can pick holes very easily in the meta studies on homeopathy that get held up as proof that homeopathy doesn’t work.

                      I can also put up a pretty good argument for why science isn’t mature enough yet to study homeopathy effectively. I’d say 99% of the arguments I’ve had about homeopathy never get to that stage of discussion because the people I’m arguing with are so convinced that their world view (Science as god) is right. Rationality and empiricism go out the window. I don’t want those people in charge of public policy either.

                      Ultimately there is a balance to be struck. The GP want to be seen as evidence-based, which I think it sensible given all the bullshit that gets thrown at them. But I’d hate for the baby to get thrown out with the bath water.

                    • weka …
                      3 January 2016 at 7:17 pm

                      The really funny thing about your comment alwyn is that you just came across as both stupid and bigoted. You’ve missed the point about the GP I was making (as well as NS I think) and you quite obviously have no idea what homeopathy actually is.

                    • Naturesong …
                      3 January 2016 at 7:39 pm

                      I am happy with govt funding some alternative treatments as long as they are prescribed by a qualified health professional certified to practice in NZ.
                      One of the best diagnosticians I ever met was an osteopath

                      I’d not be happy with homeopathy being prescribed however given the lack of double blind studies whose findings support homeopathy.

                      Until the efficacy of homeopathy is proven I’m with Phil Plait;

                      If homeopathy works, then obviously the less you use it, the stronger it gets.
                      So the best way to apply homeopathy is to not use it at all

                    • weka …
                      3 January 2016 at 10:06 pm

                      I can see some blindingly obvious problems with that study and I haven’t even read the whole page yet.

                      Your last statement is pretty standard from people who don’t know what homeopathy is and choose to ridicule it.

                      Both those things prove my point above, which is odd as I wouldn’t see you as a fundamentalist.

                    • Lanthanide …
                      4 January 2016 at 11:20 am

                      @weka:
                      Ok, what are the blindingly obvious failures with that study that you haven’t even read yet?

                    • weka …
                      4 January 2016 at 11:27 am

                      sorry, but the way you’ve just phrased that question suggests that it’s not particularly genuine*. I’m not that interested in putting time into a conversation that starts like that. I am interested in a conversation where there is genuine interest and openness and would be happy to have that kind of conversation about homeopathy research. Your question doesn’t fill me with confidence though.

                      *can you really not assess some things on the first superficial look? I do this with things I am familiar with all the time. Herald editorials on water protection would be an example from today.

                    • Lanthanide …
                      5 January 2016 at 12:39 am

                      Apparently there are some blindingly obvious failures in the study. I didn’t see any, so I want to know what you think they are. Pity you spent more time dodging the question than just answering it would have taken.

                    • weka …
                      5 January 2016 at 9:59 am

                      Lanth, I’ve stated a couple of times that I can’t be bothered engaging in conversations that are disingenuous. For future reference, if you had asked cleanly what I saw the problems in the study as, I would have answered cleanly and directly. But you had to put in the insinuation that I was talking shit because I hadn’t even read the study. IMO there was very little good faith in the question and IME engaging at that level just leads to interminable arguments where people talk past each other and the conversation goes nowhere. See the convo with the winery dude for an classic example. It’s boring.

                      So of course I avoided answering your question, for very good reasons which have now been explained thoroughly.

                    • Lanthanide …
                      5 January 2016 at 10:42 am

                      *I’m* not insinuating anything. I quoted what you said; any insinuation is entirely of your own making.

                      It’s a pretty extraordinary claim that you know what is wrong with a study because it’s ‘obvious’, without having even read the study. I personally would never make such a claim. Now that you have made such a claim, you’re refusing to back it up.

                      I personally see no problems with the study, so I’m curious what is so obviously wrong with it.

                    • weka …
                      5 January 2016 at 10:47 am

                      I’m not refusing to back it up (I’ve said under what conditions I would be happy to continue the conversation). I’m just not willing to engage in a conversation that I don’t see as being in good faith.

                    • Lanthanide …
                      5 January 2016 at 10:57 am

                      What then, are the “blindingly obvious problems” in the study?

            • Paul 1.1.2.1.1.2
              3 January 2016 at 5:31 pm

              Is leasing the discussion point on climate change mad?
              I’d calling selling a country’s assets to foreign corporations crazy, but You and I disagree on what constitutes crazy policy

  2. tc 2
    3 January 2016 at 10:23 am

    Good to see he has weathered the initial barrage and as you know what you are getting with him at the helm is why IMO they easily won Oldham east.

    Clear, concise, enough is enough type politics, time for a new way etc is very resonant in the UK after a few terms of Etonian neoliberal smugness.

    Crucially they still have some independent media such as the guardian so there is sunlight amongst the CT and Murdoch driven darkness and fear similar to that used in their last GE to ‘discredit’ that evil ‘left’ wanting a fairer deal….how dare they.

  3. Richard Christie 3
    3 January 2016 at 10:57 am

    “ Like a good Christian, he thinks violence should be a last resort… ”

    That is more than a bit rich.

    • Molly 3.1
      3 January 2016 at 11:11 am

      I noticed that on the initial read too, but it is a quote and as such needs to be included to provide context. At least he used the qualifier “good”. Subjective though it is.

      The rest of the quote is relevant to the article and clearly understood.

      The rest of the article is a great read and good summary. Thanks MS.

    • Vaughan Little 3.2
      3 January 2016 at 7:33 pm

      you mean there is no such thing as good.christians? or do you mean that the only good christian is a dead one, and therefore in no position to use violence?

  4. Manuka AOR 4
    3 January 2016 at 11:23 am

    “The reality is that some of these MPs are detested because on the important issues, such as Syria and Trident, they are making the wrong decision.
    “Take Trident for instance. “

    According to this article, Corbyn is about to make significant shadow cabinet changes in the next few days: “Jeremy Corbyn is ready to offer the shadow foreign secretary, Hilary Benn, a move to another shadow cabinet post in what is likely to be an imminent, high-risk reshuffle aimed at ensuring that his top team speaks with one voice on foreign and defence matters, the Observer understands…

    “Corbyn believes that the party is remarkably united on most domestic issues, including economic policy, and that it now has to present a similar front on foreign affairs and defence in votes on key issues such as Trident in the coming months..” http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/02/jeremy-corbyn-snap-reshuffle-hilary-benn

  5. savenz 5
    3 January 2016 at 1:36 pm

    Jeremy Corbyn gives us hope for change!

    An honest and ethical politician who does not care about spin and opinion polls. He says what he believes and no surprises.

    People can and do trust him, in spite of the massive slander campaign against him.

  6. Ad 6
    3 January 2016 at 2:02 pm

    The inflection point will be candidate selection: can Corbyn’s people alter the body of caucus in time to stop internal revolt. Corbyn can’t pull ‘free votes’ out of his bum every time things get too hard for him in caucus.

    I’m only very partially convinced he can make a success of this.

  7. Ted Cooper 7
    3 January 2016 at 3:26 pm

    Recent elections in NZ and the UK have been plagued by low voter turnout. Predominantly those staying at home are the very people who we should able to rely on voting Labour.
    In my view voter apathy is the result of difficulty discerning increasingly subtle differences between National/Conservative policies and Labour’s. How often have we heard people say “they’re all the same”?
    For 50 years Progressive parties have become increasingly fixated on “the middle ground”. In moving to the centre, Labour began to lose the commitment of it’s traditional voters, while capturing the votes of the “swinging” centrists.
    Since the early 80s the Tories, under the smokescreen of describing themselves as “centre right”, have become significantly more right-wing. UK Labour’s desire to control a rightward moving “centre”, spawned “New Labour” and the Blair government, in my view a “Tory lite” administration.
    In NZ it was a different tale, with a similar result; the advent of Rogernomics.
    Jeremy Corbyn was recently elected leader with a substantial majority of grassroots support. He’s brought with him a refreshing change. I hope this signals a return to real Labour values in the UK.
    Instead of criticising and undermining Corbyn’s leadership, those UK (New) Labour Party MPs disloyal to their duly elected leader (the will of the Party) should be reconsidering their membership and resigning their seats rather than continuing to undermine his leadership.
    I believe, by restating it’s progressive, leftwing credentials, Labour can revitalise it’s support (in both UK and NZ) to everyone’s benefit.

  8. newsense 8
    4 January 2016 at 6:02 pm

    the Labour Party is a broad church
    we should be focusing on the Tories
    let’s not focus on internal party matters (also isn’t the leader lazy/useless/unelectable/naive/dangerous/out-dated/radical etc etc)
    it’s a broad church, not a religious cult (what a dangerous naive demagogue, his crazy abusive supporters, I’m such a victim to their vicious crazy attacks, that majority of all parts of the party that elected him, they all need heart-transplants…)

    And they’ve got their own ABC club…

    A British remake of an NZ series?