Some just hate team sports and will never enjoy them, and yet might have a lot to gain from physical training of a more individual kind.
Indeed, it can be quite subversive....
I think affiliated is the unions. Supporters is the 3 pound public.
I'd sort-of unthinkingly assumed the Union votes would be as fully registered members. A friend who's a member told me before the election that there's a lot of top-down driven block-voting by the unions in these elections.
So if the LH column doesn't include the union vote, but is entirely individual core members, that actually makes things worse.
I'm really encouraged by Pagani's assertion that Corbyn will never be PM.
Mildly annoyed I didn't stick a lazy £20 on him becoming leader at the originally offered odds of 600/1. Maybe I'll check out what's being offered on him becoming PM.
I'll pop my Fisking hat on for a second, and take a couple of lazy swipes at that article.
Quoting the post-election Lord Ashcroft analysis: "Labour's loyal core vote", and her later assertion that the "Ashcroft analysis shows Corbyn has been elected by activists more concerned about validating their anger and feeling good about themselves".
Well, firstly I'd be vary wary of taking his stated conclusions at face value, as he's hardly a disinterested impartical bystander and has a vested interest in interpretations favouring a certain view. On Sunday after the results came out, David Cameron said something along the lines that there could no longer be consensus on core issues between the parties (i.e. austerity, mainly). So there's clearly a strong impulse among the Tories to pull Labour in close (to the right) to minimise resistance to their agenda. The Ashcroft analysis would be part of that - get the message out that Labour lost because they weren't 'Austerity' enough for the electorate, and drown out any other interpretation that doesn't fit that interpretation.
Secondly, the implication there (and the message that Establishment Labour seem desperate to believe) is that the three quid Johnny-come-latelys saw an oppportunity to vent their frustration/stir up mischief, and took it. But the figures don't bear that out.
UK Labour's official figures. Scroll down to the first table. The first column is full members - i.e. the fully paid-up 'loyal core vote' (the second and third columns are (I think) the three-quidders. Not sure of the difference between 'registered' and 'affiliated'). Full members pay a lot more, and although there was a minor post-election full membership sign-up surge in May/June (before the leadership contest got rolling), it's reasonable to assume that the vast majority of these are deeply committed long-termers.
Just looking at these members - Corbyn's vote share smashes any of the other candidates by over 2:1 (and he's nearly got more that all three of the other candidates combined).
So, Josie: if, as you say "Labour's base has indulged itself" (rather than leaving internal politics to the big boys and girls, and not worrying it's pretty little head), here's the question: why do you think that is? Why haven't they managed to convince their own core supporters - the people who are actually already clearly listening to them highly intently, to vote for them? Don't you think that's odd? Something worth exploring in more detail, perhaps? Rather than just dismissing them as a bunch of self-indulgent brats who won't take their medicine?
is this a skill that journalism schools should be teaching now - how to turn a tweet by Lorde or Jemaine Clement into a 300-word article?
Yes indeed. I can what he meant to say ie. forging links with sources. It's just that those two missing words have the unfortunate consequence of implying that her practice is fraudulent, or per James' reading of it, at best manipulative.
Reckon I could spin a few hundred words of sub-Freudian analysis out of that choice of wording, for a couple of hundred bucks.....Any offers...? No...?
I wonder what those defending the centre line will make of this?
Well, they'll either STFU and realise that the has an overwhelming mandate from the people they are supposed to be representing, and that they can like it or lump it.
Or they'll unite and conspire to undermine him at every opportunity in order to get back to business as usual at the earliest opportunity.
Head says one is far more likely than the other. Heart hopes otherwise.
We were all a bit disappointed.
Well, as long as you all learned something in time for the closing monologue and end credits.
Fifty Shades of Grey is also freely available to all.
As is it's inspiration 'The Twilight Saga', and it's creepy abusive central relationship.
I'd forgotten about all that fuss around Baise-moi. When the ban was lifted, I ended up seeing it (on my birthday!) in 2002. I literally cannot remember anything about it and my diary doesn't record any emotional damage from seeing it.
I remember seeing a DVD copy sitting next to 'I spit on your grave' in the local video hire shop when we moved to Devonport in 2006.
BAN THIS SICK FILTH!
the left get their zero-cost victories and the right get their depleted uranium.
Yeah, it's a bit hard not to compare and contrast opposition to the Vietnam war with opposition to Gulf Wars I and II, the main difference being that there was a significant risk that nice white middle-class young men might get drafted and have to put their lives on the line.
By the spirit of igniting thought, I didn't mean killing it stone dead. Now I really wish I'd deleted that post.
Well, I'm glad you didn't anyway.
What you're saying broadly chimes with some vague thoughts I've been having. Firstly, and without wishing to minimise the considerable problems that still exist and need to be dealt with, there has been a lot of progress in the last few decades, but it's all been on a level of 'benefit to the individual'. So we have civil unions, workplace equality legistation, anti-discimination leigislation, and steps towards drug legalisation (mostly in the US, but still). And on the other hand, in terms of 'benefit to the collective', there has been considerable roll-back of hard-won rights: widespread privatisation, zero-hours contacts, sell-of of social housing, etc.
Perhaps it's easier for people (young people) to get behind single-issue campaigns that directly affect them, and which have easier-to-grasp consequences, and where there is tangible measurable progress.
The other thing which your 'old dog' analogy reminded me of was Russell Brand's political capering last year. Whatever you think of him (and the kindest thing I can find to say about him is that he is at best a court jester), he managed to land a few telling blows. He flat-footed Paxman merely by not playing the interview game by the established rules (given that Paxo is supposed to be the people's champion of 'holding truth to power', that was quite telling in itself). He also had a bit (I think in the same interview) where he was talking about the Commons/Lords in the UK - if you've been raised in the certain way as a member of a certain demographic, then when you walk into a place like that, you are 'home'. For anyone outside that demographic, it's either overwhelmingly foreign and intimidating (you don't belong here), or just...weird. Show the opening of the UK Parliament to a young Brit, and I expect the reaction would, 9 times out of 10, be bemusement. Who's that idiot in the stockings? Black Rod? Why's he knocking on the door with a golden club? These people govern us? I'm supposed to be engaged and invested in this? Yeah, nah. Then try explaining to them that while 'yo mama' jokes are unacceptable in the playground, Prime Minister's question time is a bastion of democracy.