Super Mac had a tash.

Deviation once you introduced Margaret.

I think you'll find that Syd introduced that particular topic, m'lud.

What a bizarre post. I'll try to answer it point by point in a slightly more polite manner than you managed.

1. Maybe you're right and I'm missing something. Maybe the average voter won't care that he can barely string two sentences together and looks like his wife dresses him. Maybe style doesn't matter at all. I mean, it's always mattered before now, but maybe it won't any more. I never said everyone should see things the way I do, only that I am struggling see things the way the Corbynistas do. There's a difference.

I really don't think the British public hate the press as much as you think they do, else they wouldn't read it. There is a broad view across all the newspapers IMO, and you can agree and disagree with who you like. Owen Jones vs Julia Hartley-Brewer. People are more than capable of making up their own minds and always have been. I think you're making the classic mistake of the left and assuming if the electorate doesn't agree with it it must be stupid.

2. I think this was a perfect opportunity for him to show the rest of the electorate he had something for them, but I accept that conference speeches tend to be low on policy.

3. Thatcher was aided in her dragging of the electorate to the right by a sense of rejection of the left. Trade unions were too powerful, the electorate saw it and yet in the 1980s Labour went further to the left. Blair was right when he said if faced with a traditional right vs left election, the British electorate will always vote right, which is why Labour moved to the centre to win. But maybe you're right and Jeremy Corbyn will rewrite history. I have my doubts.

4. I think, respectfully, you've missed my point. Labour activists may well rally around their leader like they did with Kinnock, but it does not mean the electorate will vote for it. In swing seats, middle class voters will not want higher taxes. It will simply not get voted in.

But as I say, maybe I am wrong and suddenly the British electorate will vote in someone who calls himself a socialist. Maybe he will confound all electoral logic and history. Me simply pointing out what appears to have always been true before doesn't mean I have "narrow prejudices". Corbyn is the Tories' dream, he will unite the left perhaps, but the country isn't left-wing enough for that to win him an election. In my opinion. Hope that's OK with you Syd.

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

Most of the Labour MP's are already my friend !!
:'(

Supported Palace for over 69 years since the age of 7 and have seen all the ups and downs and will probably see many more ups and downs before I go up to the big football club in the sky.

A stern debater with robust opinions.

The rotter

I was not intentionally rude. Sorry if it came across that way.

But that's your interpretation of his style and manner. Do we have any evidence that the broader public concur? I don't think he looks or sounds appreciably less attractive than any other politician. But I would concede that I am inclined to be sympathetic. Anyway, it's not what you or I think. It's what the broader public think (sic). If you think, as I do, that they've had enough of the "status quo" homo politicus, perhaps they will respond to rather than reject his style.

Integrity. Substance. Moral compass. A rejection of the superficial that has dominated the entire political spectrum in recent years. That's what I see among other things.

That's not a valid argument. The conclusion doesn't follow the assertion. Beyond that, I am honestly not so sure your assertion is right anyway. I think, increasingly, they do hate the press. But of course I may be wrong.

Maybe. But aren't you essentially doing exactly the same thing in reverse? It's simply that over the past two decades, you have been proved right. But that may not last.

Alll of that is true. But isn't it possible that Corbyn will be aided in his own counter-dragging of the electorate by a sense of rejection of the right? The economic crash has exposed the corporate world as being too influential, the wealthy as being too selfish, the political intelligentsia as being too dishonest, and broader society as being too self-serving. I may be wrong, but pretty much every time there's been a lurch towards one end of the political spectrum -- left or right, ultimately it's been followed by a corrective lurch back towards the center. I simply think it's possible -- just possible -- that this may be the time for that to happen.

Yep, that is the key point. But I think if Corbyn can articulate his case and present a coherent taxation policy, the middle classes might vote for it. Of course, I may be living in a fool's paradise but my belief is that I may not be.

Only in so far as you expect history to repeat itself. But that isn't a valid argument -- only a strong one based on recent evidence -- because history shows that eventually, things do change. If they didn't we could predict the outcome of the next election and not need to vote. I would agree that Corbyn faces overwhelming challenges and his election would require a sea change in our voting patterns. His task is difficult for the reasons you give. But change will happen at some point and I think/hope he is the man to deliver it. I hope. You hope not.

Edited by sydtheeagle (29 Sep 2015 5.46pm)

Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.

W(h)igs before that.

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Best name of past prime minister must be Bonar Law, in office 1922-1923 - had 'Village People' tash, I wonder if gay rights were in his manifesto.

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler