The Labour Party leadership election

55% , not 10% voted against it.

Given there was only 10% in it I think "wave of relief" is probably over egging the pudding

Were you here?

Why would the desire to not have the killing thing be "offensive"?

Peace process? Has to start with someone/somewhere.

Given there was only 10% in it I think "wave of relief" is probably over egging the pudding.

Politically, Corbyn was ahead of the game. He wanted to sit down with Republicans a decade before the GFA was brokered. He was campaigning against apartheid when the world looked the other way.

Your last sentence is extremely offensive. I doubt very much that Corbyn's ill judged tea party had the slightest bearing on the peace settlement.

IRA was a good thing to do. Providing a bridge of sorts between the English-based governmentt and Parliament and the Irish-based organisation who were busy killing each other at the time seemed a worthwhile thing to do. Unless you were satisfied with a bit more killing thing.

Oh come off it re IRA. Yes of course those leaders had to meet with and deal with Sinn Fein. Completely different from a backbench nonentity having tea with them only a month after the IRA had tried to blow up the UK 's (whatever you might think of her) democratically elected PM. Huge lack of judgement and common sense.

So far as Better Together I assume you are not in Scotland so missed the wave of relief after the referendum result?

The Better together campaign was a disaster for Labour as it made the party look like they were doing the Tories bidding.

And the support for the IRA will be huge turn off for many people.

Only if they believe the lies. The British government met with the IRA in the early 70's. Some people believe that talking to your enemies can bring peace. Its a shame it took the establishment 30 years to realize this. It was perfectly acceptable for Clinton, Major, Blair to deal with Sinn Fein.

And the support for the IRA will be huge turn off for many people.

No matter what one thought of Thatcher for him to be fraternities with Gerry Adams a month after the Brighton bombing is mind-boggling.

And yes, the link below is to an article from the Spectator and of course it's right wing and is out to get him - but as they say- goodness it's easy.

It feels as if the SWP 1979 student group has just been elected. And the SWP 1979 student group would be as effective and as electable as he is.

From a personal point of view as a Unionist
, he is very dangerous. We would never have had a Better Together campaign if he had been Labour leader. Sturgeon can rightly point out the chance of Labour being the party in power in Westminster under him is non-existent. Hell she can even point out that the SNP isn't as bonkers as him and has at least a tenuous grasp on reality.
blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/08/stripping-the-bark-from-jeremy-corbyn-will-be-the-easiest-campaign-in-modern-political-history/

I think you are interpreting "change" very loosely. There's no indication the vast majority of the country who are not members, registered supporters or affiliates of the Labour Party want what he offers. Indeed 40% of them don't want him either.

Yes, but as we know under FPTP you don't need the support of the majority.

You may be thinking of the Daily Mirror. Rawnsley is in the same pen as a few journos, who can't grasp the implications of 'change'.

I think you are interpreting "change" very loosely. There's no indication the vast majority of the country who are not members, registered supporters or affiliates of the Labour Party want what he offers. Indeed 40% of them don't want him either.

I don't think it matters. It doesn't bother me in the least. Personality wise I liked Liz Kendall but not Yvette Cooper who came over as a bit feeble.

What a totally, totally fatuous comment.

Pan, I agree with some of his policies and will listen to others with an open mind but I'd never be moved towards unilateral disarmament and I'd be very dubious about leaving Nato.

In shorthand I might say I like him and agree with lots of what he says but think he's unelectable - because I know myself and at the voting booth I could not vote for a party proposing him as PM.

I don't think it matters. It doesn't bother me in the least. Personality wise I liked Liz Kendall but not Yvette Cooper who came over as a bit feeble.

You say "total integrity" like that's a good thing, which is debatable. No doubt Corbyn's comments about Osama Bin Laden, his relationship with the IRA, his views on Palestine and Hamas and the like are also evidence of his "total integrity". Fine.

Scaremongering, tabloid induced twaddle. Britain is governed by a party hell bent on making the lives of millions of ordinary men and women worse. There is a huge battle to be fought. The gender of Labour's new leader is irrelevant their ability to offer an alternative to the socially and morally bankrupt ideology of the Tories is absolutely paramount.

Um...no The Observer often is not that 'sympathetic. You may be thinking of the Daily Mirror. Rawnsley is in the same pen as a few journos, who can't grasp the implications of 'change'.

Odd that I've had 3 conversations with adults and the line has been 'Oh I agree with what he says, but he's unelectable.'. Er...he wouldn't be if you followed your wishes and voted for him.

The leader in today's Observer and Andrew Rawnsley's article in the same paper both make the same point - essentially his victory is a disaster for the Labour party and he is unelectable.

And that is the paper which is most sympathetic (other than of course The Morning Star)

Actually, to Mide7's point, I thought it was very impressive just how many women there were to vote for - all of whom were talented in their own way.

(I voted for 2 of them, because I thought they were brilliant candidates - but I didn't vote for them because they were women.)

I was saddened by this too (although I didn't vote for TJ, I did have YC and SC as my other first choice candidates). The people have spoken, and that's fine, and it will be interesting to see what happens- he has at least promised 50% of women in the shadow cabinet. I'm more worried about his foreign policy than anything else.

I've been around Labour and unions my whole life and there is still a deep vein of sexism on the left. Whether it's different to the right I don't know, but it is disappointing, as the party of equality. One of the biggest challenges to the equal pay act was men and the unions within the Labour movement and there's plenty of them still around. Even the selection process is heavily weighted towards those who are able to clear weekends and evenings for months to work the local party. That's harder if you have caring responsiblities, aren't rich and are not well connected.

"It's also an issue - a huge one for me - that the party couldn't get one woman in top position. Not one. Or even invite Kez Dugdale to speak at the conference today, just so there weren't exclusively male voices being heard."

I know where you are coming from but that's not how democracy works is it?

There were 3 women in the deputy race and 2 women in for leader. It's not like it's a BBC sports personality type vote, where there is only 1 women in 10 or whatever

More unreconstructed in the north of England? And what is this libel based on Amethyst?

I think often the extreme left is pretty anti-women, either in policy or practice. The militant unions that keep certain industries a closed shop predominantly serve male-dominated positions (RMT, for eg). The various dalliances and associations with Islamism, which is certainly a misogynistic belief system. And this article from 2013 in interesting - if depressing - reading too.