Well, there we have it: Jeremy Corbyn has just been announced the next Labour Leader

[InTheBox]

With 59% of the vote (first round).

I've just been following the live BBC broadcast and just wanted them to get on with it.

No doubt people on both sides of the political spectrum will be overjoyed with the result.

Sorry, Deficit - not Debt - Winky.

The latter rises inexorably...

The grammar school thing is interesting. I think his wife did the right thing over QE boys and he should have stuck by her and not subjected his son to an unnecessary parental separation. Especially as it is hard to get into QE boys: he shouldn't have made his son feel a failure for something he did really well on. That said, wasn't Nigella Lawson's awful abuse in the Ivy by her husband sad to be due to a row over differing opinions as to how the children should be educated?

But what does it mean? Does it mean that fundamentally Corbyn isnt sympathetic to those who choose a selective education for their children?
Hmmm. Or does it man he couldn't compromise with his own wife to do the best for his own son because he couldn't see beyond his nose?

I didnt go ski-ing for ages because I thought it was elitist. When I finally went I realised what a fool I'd been for years. Ski-ing is wonderful and it is easy to avoid the elite. Not doing nice things because they are 'elitist' is silly.

I wonder what biscuits he likes?

For goodness sake, reforms are always necessary! We don't live in an unchanging world. But unions are necessary, too, because employers don't usually improve their workers' lives unless the workers prove they're not expendable by striking.

Union action secured equal pay rights for women, maternity rights, weekends, working hours rules & break rules, paid leave, and a bunch of other stuff.

Few people seem to realise that strong unions worked with the employers. Improved productivity is beneficial to everybody, so they thrash out how to achieve it.

Mayfly, your post is teeming with inaccuracies, perhaps most spectacularly the one about our reducing debt. It is very much increasing.

In fact the more I think about the QE boys thing and his son and his ex wife, the more I'm regretting voting for him. This could be a fundamentally sexist man in disguise.

I wonder what biscuits he likes?

I'm sure we'll find out

By the way, Corbyn has invited all members to give him a question to ask at PMQs (I sent one about immigration.) No other opposition leader has done that.

But what does it mean?

That no-one knows much about it except what his ex has told the media?

I really don't see how Charles Saatchi's violent behaviour towards Nigella Lawson is particularly relevant to the demise of Jeremy Corbyn's marriage.

I'm older than 45 and I remain furious at how Thatcher began the process of disempowering the unions. I agree with Garrick

How is it sexist, funny?

My cousins all went to comps, due to parental politics. They're massively successful now, doing work they find fulfilling as they were imbued with confidence in their talents.

I do think it's hypocritical of Labour MPs to send their kids to public schools. I'm not so sure about grammars, but I feel parents need to reflect their beliefs in their choices for their children - look at how many parents send their kids to public schools for the "better" class of social development.

I might send him one about whether he thinks fantastic schools like QE boys should be closed, or perhaps whether labour party supporters children should be banned from attending even if they are clever enough to get in.

I know about this because DS got into the next door borough's grammar school having got 100% on the test. We turned it down but it wasnt the cause of our divorce. In fact had we known then that universities would charge tuition fees to families, we probably would have accepted the place for DS.

I don't see how his stand on his son's school is sexist either.

I corrected a typo, Garrick regarding the distinction between debt and deficit. If you want to provide a detailed exposition of the difference between the two I'm happy to hear it.

With regard to trade unionism, I neither said nor implied that trade unions are unnecessary. Did you imagine that or were you reading somebody else's post? What I said was that they were in need of reform in the 1970's/1980's. I happen to agree that the introduction of collective bargaining through the trade union movement was essential once the Industrial Revolution had gained momentum

Which are the other "teeming inaccuracies" to which you refer?

'the 'mighty' farage as sticking it to the elite, to switch allegance at a drop of a hat to corbyn with such fundamental differences in policies doesn't really hold weight with the anti establishment stance that you try and portray'

That's because you don't understand UKIP voters - of which there are 4 million. As Ken Livingstone said, 70% of UKIP voters wanted Corbyn to be Labour leader, and a poll in London found that Corbyn was more popular among UKIP voters than among Labour voters.

The policies I disagree with Corbyn on are less important to me than the policies I agree with him on. He will make life better for ordinary people which is why the elite are so scared of him. He has changed teh game entirely, changed the parameters, offered new possibilities and could possibly make UKIP irrelevant because he will offer UKIP voters policies that they agree with and benefit from which will far outweigh the policies they disagree with. Corbyn is part of a populist phenomenon of a European wide rise of the people against the elites - whether from the right as in UKIP or the left as in Syriza. It won't matter which side wins as long as it delivers improvements for the people and a diminution of power for the elite. Corbyn stands a better chance of doing the job than Farage does which is why he will take back lots of UKIP votes.

Giddy The Falklands War saved Mrs T from being thrown out by her own party, who at that time had never liked her.

However, outside the Tory faithful, people were proud of the armed forces, not Mrs T. I admit I'm talking of my own social circle there.
imo, the Falklands didn't gain the Tories many new votes. Churchill was rejected in the 1945 election, despite the much greater WW2 victory.

Michael Foot's policies just scared most people and caused the Labour Party to split.
He was an outstanding character - superb intellect, oratory, a talented writer - but he behaved more like a protestor than a leader. I suspect JC may come over in the same way, but without the intellectual stature.

Still looking for the "inaccuracies" Garrick or are you reflecting on the difference between the definition of a fact and an opinion?

Well I think the pressure on labour party MP's to send their children to a comprehensive is a bit OTT actually.
I mean you can be any religion and an MP but frowned upon if you send your child to a selective school.
Huh.
Broad church not.
I mean I'm labour because I dislike inequality and think the needy should be provided for etc etc.
But I would fight tooth and nail if needed to get my children the best possible ( yep, selective) education. Because they are bright and deserve it. I didnt have to fight thats beside the point.
If they were special needs I would fight for the right support. I wouldn't pitch them into the local comp with all the others and no extra provision. The 'one size fits all ' education approach doesn't work for me.

It doesn't need to work for you. You can make your own choices as to your child's education. But it hardly seems an outlandish ideal for a Labour politician to have a preference for comprehensive education.

Perhaps if the principled Left had their way ALL children would attend state school and the independent sector could be permanently closed down? That would mean the c.500,000 children currently being privately educated would descend on to their local state school. As everybody knows, there are lots of spare places; teachers aplenty and unlimited money for a those new desks and books.

That sounds like a great idea.

Oh, hang on a minute I must have missed something...

YouGov polled UKIP voters at the 2015 election and found very few of them knew UKIP's policies on any issues except immigration and the EU

% Kippers who knew Ukip's policy on:

Immigration,71
Europe,63
Pensions,11
Crime,24
Education,18
Defence, 24
The economy ,16
NHS, 24
The environment,13

So, most Kippers are racist, xenophobic and ignorant about everything else.
I don't see the fit to JC - I admit their ignorance about him could last 4 years though !

So you'd have left the trade union laws as they were then Sooty?

I assume you are in full support of the actions the striking drivers on London Underground periodically take in respect of their appalling working conditions and low salaries?

'YouGov polled UKIP voters at the 2015 election and found very few of them knew UKIP's policies on any issues except immigration and the EU'

Yes, because like me, they don't read manifestos. UKIP is Farage and people vote for Farage because he sticks it to the elite. They think there is too much immigration and they are anti EU, but 70% of them also prefer Corbyn to all the other Labour candidates.

What you are missing is that Corbyn has changed everything by offering an entirely new credible hope that things will change and teh changes he offers will benefit and be of interest to working and middle class UKIP voters who voted UKIP because all teh other parties were the same.

'So, most Kippers are racist, xenophobic and ignorant about everything else.'

If that were true then those 4 million people would probably have voted BNP before but they didn't. They are ex Labour and ex Tory voters who voted Farage because he was opposition to the elitist system of politicians who are all the same.

Perhaps if the principled Left had their way ALL children would attend state school and the independent sector could be permanently closed down?

Has it been suggested that the independent sector be permanently closed down? I don't think it has.

Wonderful idea of JC's though to remove public schools' charitable status. The £700m they receive in tax breaks doesn't seem quite fair does it?

I feel parents need to reflect their beliefs in their choices for their children

Does that translate to: "I am a socialist and went to state school therefore you will also be imbued with the same prejudice/inverse snobbery that I have" Garrick?

I so admire your enlightened liberal perspective.

Those who want to vote against the elite might find say the Greens more suitable than a former commodity broker like Farage. The finance industry, which caused the 2008 crash, is as elite as it gets.
Calculate what he has trousered over his years on the MEP gravy train - salary & massive expenses.

'Those who want to vote against the elite might find say the Greens more suitable than a former commodity broker like Farage.'

Some people do, but people like me who believe that "climate change" is an elite scam don't. Farage worked in finance, but he is against the corrupt crony capitalism that allows big banks and big business a backdoor into government via lobbying against the interests of small independent business. The Tories are for big business, Farage is for small business. The Tories are for the elite, Farage is for the people.

'Calculate what he has trousered over his years on the MEP gravy train - salary & massive expenses.'

I don't care. I vote Farage for change and an end to the status quo.