RugbyRebels

Posted: **Mon Sep 26, 2016 11:08 am**

Big D wrote:An early election would be interesting for a number of reasons particularly Labours leadership and to me, what happens in Scotland.

Big call for May and the more I think about it, I cant see her making that call. Her majority will almost certainly increase in 2020 due to boundary changes. The Brexit negotiations wont start until early next year, at the earliest, so what do you go to the country with until you know what the end deal will look like. Even then, the chances of a GE are somewhat slim as there is no way to stop Brexit once article 50 is enacted (at least I don't think there is). For May to engineer an early GE she would have to lose a vote of no confidence which could be seen as her playing politics and may not be supported by many Labour MPs who might not want to fight a GE until they have to.

Unless her own party becomes ungovernable (very possible as Tory MPs are quite capable of providing their own opposition in lieu of anyone else) then she may decide that continuing as things are is the best option. If she were considering a snap GE (assuming she could make it happen) then potentially the window for that is fading given the absolute gift of an opportunity to go to the country when Labour were distracted by infighting and she could look for a mandate for her premiership. The longer she leaves it the more likely the current government (barring disaster) will remain until 2020.

Posted: **Mon Sep 26, 2016 2:45 pm**

If Labour carry on announcing spending plans then May might as well call an election. At some point soon, if not already, the Conservatives will just have to write down the slogan 'Labour will double your taxes' and that will be that.

Posted: **Mon Sep 26, 2016 3:08 pm**

Digby wrote:If Labour carry on announcing spending plans then May might as well call an election. At some point soon, if not already, the Conservatives will just have to write down the slogan 'Labour will double your taxes' and that will be that.

Some of the headlines from their conference are a gift to the Conservatives. McDonnel's praising of socialist ideas with a picture of economic failure from Eastern Europe would do. Meanwhile the shadow defence minister seems confused as hell about trident and seems to think that the only way Labour will get back into power is through some kind of alliance with other left wing parties.

Fair play, this is comedy gold. I winder what will happen when the huge reserve of pro-socialist voters in the UK fails to show up?

Posted: **Mon Sep 26, 2016 3:13 pm**

Sandydragon wrote:
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
Sandydragon wrote:Bunga bunga parties in the US? Well Trump does have a fancy building in Vegas and what happens in Vegas.......

Back on topic and the labour party has royally fecked its last remaining hope for any victory in 2020. I half agree with Eugene that an early election resulting in a wipeout might be beneficial, but I'm not convinced that someone equally as loopy wouldn't be next. As it is, the changes to the constituency boundaries will probably get much of the blame for any 2020 loss.

Meanwhile, what are the Liberals doing? This is a golden opportunity for them to capture those central left voters who liked Blair et al and reform themselves. Yet their profile is a long way oof a party which is seriously trying to re-emerge as one of the main parties in Britain.
There won't be a wipe out. It will be a drubbing - back to the days of a triple figure majority - but they won't be near wipe out.

The Lib Dems chose the wrong leader - although I'm not sure there was a right one left among the MPs since Nick Clegg didn't want to continue - and 4th parties never get much in the way of coverage.
I agree about the Lib Dem leadership, although choices were/ are limited. Fourth party status notwithstanding, I think they should be making more noise. UKIP are further down the pecking order and get considerably more coverage.

Perhaps wipe out is a overstatement, yet I can see Labour being reduced to a small rump if they are not careful. If UKIP can continue to exert influence in certain constituencies, then there is every chance that some Labour heartlands will be lost to them. I think they can forget about swing voters for quite some time and Scotland also seems lost for the next few parliaments whilst the other parties work out how to oppose the SNP. Ruth Davidson seems to most effective there, but as a Conservative she can directly oppose SNP policies in a number of areas and be an alternative voice. Labour have a positioning problem in that they cant outmanoeuvre the SNP to the left and have no intention of moving to their right. I think it will take years for the SNP bubble to burst. In addition, if parts of Wales move away from Labour, then they are left clinging to some seats in London and their old industrial heartlands in the Midlands and North.

As you wrote earlier, it will probably take a real hiding, or two, for them to come to their senses and the student union politicians who failed to grow up to move back to other fringe parties.

That UKIP get more coverage is due to the nature of their extremist politics. That's not a media draw that the Lib dems can emulate, nor is it down to any better campaigning by UKIP. "I think we should be reasonable people" is not going to bring the press or tv news running.

Digby wrote:If Labour carry on announcing spending plans then May might as well call an election. At some point soon, if not already, the Conservatives will just have to write down the slogan 'Labour will double your taxes' and that will be that.

Every single spending pledge (or even aspiration) is now cast in stone because any attempt to resile from it will lead to cries of "sell out" and I strongly suspect that whatever else he'll put up with, that criticism is not one which Corbyn is prepared to bear. Thus there's no incentive to call an election. Just wait and keep them piling up. Anyway they won't fund it by taxes in the short term but by borrowing.

Posted: **Mon Sep 26, 2016 3:21 pm**

Interesting that Labour is currently, on average, polling worse than it managed to do under Foot in the 1980s after a similar amount of time since the last GE.

There are other parties with extreme messages Eugene. Like him or loath I'm, no one can deny that Farage had a way with the media. The Liberals may suffer by being very middle of the road, but with the ammunition they have been handed with Brexit and Corbyn, this should be a gift for them. Instead they hardly get a mention. Until their conference comes along and its still a bit underwhelming. Perhaps they shold have kept the most successful Liberal leader in recent years, rather run to oust him?

McDonnell did admit to the requirement for more borrowing on the news this morning. £100bn was mentioned which I suspect would just be the start, as at todays prices that might buy half a school. I'm sure I also caught the mention of higher taxes.

Posted: **Mon Sep 26, 2016 4:13 pm**

Sandydragon wrote:Interesting that Labour is currently, on average, polling worse than it managed to do under Foot in the 1980s after a similar amount of time since the last GE.

There are other parties with extreme messages Eugene. Like him or loath I'm, no one can deny that Farage had a way with the media. The Liberals may suffer by being very middle of the road, but with the ammunition they have been handed with Brexit and Corbyn, this should be a gift for them. Instead they hardly get a mention. Until their conference comes along and its still a bit underwhelming. Perhaps they shold have kept the most successful Liberal leader in recent years, rather run to oust him?

McDonnell did admit to the requirement for more borrowing on the news this morning. £100bn was mentioned which I suspect would just be the start, as at todays prices that might buy half a school. I'm sure I also caught the mention of higher taxes.

No political party is in control of the amount of media it gets. The government gets coverage because it makes actual decisions. The opposition gets coverage because they have to for "balance". The SNP gets coverage because they are in government and because they are constitutionally important. The Lib Dems don't get coverage because there's not much left and because they don't say anything particularly overwhelming.

Posted: **Mon Sep 26, 2016 6:09 pm**

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: The Lib Dems don't get coverage because there's not much left and because they don't say anything particularly overwhelming.

I'm not too fussed about Farron getting extra media coverage, he might be the best choice they had but he is a little dull. But it does frustrate that it's easier to get coverage if one says something alarmist rather than try to discuss the nuances of how policy will work amongst more middle of the road candidates

Posted: **Mon Sep 26, 2016 6:49 pm**

Digby wrote:
Eugene Wrayburn wrote: The Lib Dems don't get coverage because there's not much left and because they don't say anything particularly overwhelming.
I'm not too fussed about Farron getting extra media coverage, he might be the best choice they had but he is a little dull. But it does frustrate that it's easier to get coverage if one says something alarmist rather than try to discuss the nuances of how policy will work amongst more middle of the road candidates

Political journalism at the moment is pisspoor. I expect that from the press but the BBC have abandoned any pretence at a duty to explain and everyone else has pretty much only ever gone through the motions. actually that's not fair on ITV in the days of Walden and others who packed a real punch.

Posted: **Mon Sep 26, 2016 8:05 pm**

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
Sandydragon wrote:Interesting that Labour is currently, on average, polling worse than it managed to do under Foot in the 1980s after a similar amount of time since the last GE.

There are other parties with extreme messages Eugene. Like him or loath I'm, no one can deny that Farage had a way with the media. The Liberals may suffer by being very middle of the road, but with the ammunition they have been handed with Brexit and Corbyn, this should be a gift for them. Instead they hardly get a mention. Until their conference comes along and its still a bit underwhelming. Perhaps they shold have kept the most successful Liberal leader in recent years, rather run to oust him?

McDonnell did admit to the requirement for more borrowing on the news this morning. £100bn was mentioned which I suspect would just be the start, as at todays prices that might buy half a school. I'm sure I also caught the mention of higher taxes.
No political party is in control of the amount of media it gets. The government gets coverage because it makes actual decisions. The opposition gets coverage because they have to for "balance". The SNP gets coverage because they are in government and because they are constitutionally important. The Lib Dems don't get coverage because there's not much left and because they don't say anything particularly overwhelming.

Yet with 16 million people voting to remain, there is a huge topic they could major on. I agree that you can't force the media line, but you can at least look like you are interesting enough to be worth covering.

Posted: **Mon Sep 26, 2016 8:57 pm**

Sandydragon wrote:As you wrote earlier, it will probably take a real hiding, or two, for them to come to their senses and the student union politicians who failed to grow up to move back to other fringe parties.

It's like an unironic and 100% serious version of what New Zealand lawyer and blogger Scott Yorke posted the other day.

https://imperatorfish.com/2016/09/26/unity-2/

A message to British Labour Party members from Jeremy Corbyn’s opponents

The party members have spoken, and now we move on. It’s time for us all to put the whole episode behind us as a party and focus on the real enemy.

We need to unite for the good of the party. We cannot continue to fight among ourselves, all the while allowing this awful Tory government to ride roughshod over the British people. To be an effective opposition we must be outwardly focused.

We cannot expect the voters to take us seriously while we remain unable to speak with one voice. We cannot ask them to entrust us with the governance of this country, if we cannot even govern ourselves.

We have had a bitter and protracted leadership contest, and a great many things have been said in the heat of battle, things that perhaps should not have been said. Mistakes have been made, and we have allowed our enemies to profit from our disarray. But that is all behind us now. We cannot change the past. All we can do is focus on the future and the need to form a credible and united opposition.

Now is a time for healing, for reconciliation. We may have our differences, but we all want the same thing. To get rid of these Tories, to form a government guided by progressive values. To make a positive change in the lives of ordinary working people, so many of whom have fallen victim to the harsh and brutal austerity measures of this callous government.

But to achieve these things we must first unite. Only two obstacles stand between us and the full realisation of our goals. The first obstacle is our own disunity. We are a divided party, and those divisions must end.

The second obstacle is Jeremy Corbyn and all the idiots who voted for him, which as it happens includes the great majority of you. What the fuck were you thinking?

You people know nothing. It’s about time you stopped telling us what you think. Look where that has got us. The very existence of Labour is now in jeopardy. We may be a party of the masses, but that doesn’t mean we have to listen to you unwashed morons. You have had your little bit of democracy. Now stand aside, little children, while Mummy and Daddy clean up the stinking mess you’ve made.

We cannot be a united party so long as someone we dislike remains in charge. We will only truly have unity when you bumpkins start listening to your betters. But we’re willing to forgive you your betrayals, this time, on the condition that you stop giving us your worthless opinions and instead give us your unconditional support. Like we said: healing and reconciliation, yadda yadda.

We are committed to a change of government, and to a Labour Party that has as its core a progressive platform and a focus on the things that really matter to the British people. We’ll work out exactly what those things are before the next election, hopefully, because frankly I have no idea what they might be. We may have to organise a number of focus group sessions to help us figure those things out, but our first priority has to be ridding ourselves of this socialist lunatic.

So unite behind us. Help us to continue the undermining of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. We all know that Corbyn cannot win a general election, largely because we won’t let him. So if you want a change of government, we’re your only option.

What you've posted is some real "in order to save the village" shit. The establishment have failed, and have alienated the party base, and they've gone about scorched earthing the party support. I'm sorry you're upset that Corbyn and co. won this challenge, but maybe, the establishment fuckwits shouldn't have acted like a bunch of petulant crybaby fuckboys all the time, laughing and clapping like a bunch of fucking trained seals at David Cameron's pre-prepared "sick burns"^(TM), or screaming their heads off like my 2-year old niece when she's throwing a tantrum. It's not Corbyn's mob that'll probably cost Labour the election. It's the establishment cunts telling the party members what they want, and then getting stroppy when the party members tell those suck-ass failure junkies to fuck off. I mean, what is this born-to-rule shit? What are they, the fucking Tories?

Posted: **Mon Sep 26, 2016 9:31 pm**

That's a party that has been hijacked. Personally I couldn't care that much about labour, ther than it makes the Tory job easier. If those who have taken over the Labour Party think that they will form an elected government then they are about to hit some reality. Perhaps some will then realist hat to be electable, labour needs to appeal to a wider base. Or perhaps they will become a footnote of political history.

If you think that Corbyn is electable, even if his MPs were playing nicely (oh the irony) then I'd disagree.

Posted: **Tue Sep 27, 2016 2:07 am**

Sandydragon wrote:If you think that Corbyn is electable, even if his MPs were playing nicely (oh the irony) then I'd disagree.

If you think that the anti-Corbyn crowd that apparently makes up much of the MPs in the house aren't exacerbating things by behaving the way they are, and demonstrating exactly the kind of shit that has alienated Labour from its base, then I don't know what to tell you.

I have criticised Corbyn in the past, but most of the shit that the party has done is completely out of order. I'd go so far as to say, if Corbyn isn't "electable," neither are the rest of those dipshit MPs. At least the party actually likes Corbyn and want him there. The rest anti-Corbyn MPs? The fuck is their excuse?

Posted: **Tue Sep 27, 2016 2:58 am**

cashead wrote:
Sandydragon wrote:If you think that Corbyn is electable, even if his MPs were playing nicely (oh the irony) then I'd disagree.
If you think that the anti-Corbyn crowd that apparently makes up much of the MPs in the house aren't exacerbating things by behaving the way they are, and demonstrating exactly the kind of shit that has alienated Labour from its base, then I don't know what to tell you.

I have criticised Corbyn in the past, but most of the shit that the party has done is completely out of order. I'd go so far as to say, if Corbyn isn't "electable," neither are the rest of those dipshit MPs. At least the party actually likes Corbyn and want him there. The rest anti-Corbyn MPs? The fuck is their excuse?

Perhaps the mandates of the millions of votes from the public for the manifesto on which they stood and were elected?

Posted: **Tue Sep 27, 2016 3:08 am**

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
cashead wrote:
Sandydragon wrote:If you think that Corbyn is electable, even if his MPs were playing nicely (oh the irony) then I'd disagree.
If you think that the anti-Corbyn crowd that apparently makes up much of the MPs in the house aren't exacerbating things by behaving the way they are, and demonstrating exactly the kind of shit that has alienated Labour from its base, then I don't know what to tell you.

I have criticised Corbyn in the past, but most of the shit that the party has done is completely out of order. I'd go so far as to say, if Corbyn isn't "electable," neither are the rest of those dipshit MPs. At least the party actually likes Corbyn and want him there. The rest anti-Corbyn MPs? The fuck is their excuse?
Perhaps the mandates of the millions of votes from the public for the manifesto on which they stood and were elected?

Yeah, and they sure fucked that up, didn't they? Who's in government now?

Posted: **Tue Sep 27, 2016 4:54 am**

cashead wrote:
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
cashead wrote:
If you think that the anti-Corbyn crowd that apparently makes up much of the MPs in the house aren't exacerbating things by behaving the way they are, and demonstrating exactly the kind of shit that has alienated Labour from its base, then I don't know what to tell you.

I have criticised Corbyn in the past, but most of the shit that the party has done is completely out of order. I'd go so far as to say, if Corbyn isn't "electable," neither are the rest of those dipshit MPs. At least the party actually likes Corbyn and want him there. The rest anti-Corbyn MPs? The fuck is their excuse?
Perhaps the mandates of the millions of votes from the public for the manifesto on which they stood and were elected?
Yeah, and they sure fucked that up, didn't they? Who's in government now?

People who are opposed to everything that Corbyn stands for and and who got more votes. People much further to the right than the anti-Corbyn MPs. The idea you seem to be promoting that they lost that election because they weren't enough like Corbyn is palpable nonsense. As is your idea that the only virtuous path is to ignore the millions of voters who voted for them on the basis that they would support the political direction of their manifesto in favour of a few hundred thousand people in the Labour Party most of whom have joined (or not even joined but "expressed support") in the past 15 months.

Posted: **Tue Sep 27, 2016 5:57 am**

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
cashead wrote:
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
Perhaps the mandates of the millions of votes from the public for the manifesto on which they stood and were elected?
Yeah, and they sure fucked that up, didn't they? Who's in government now?
People who are opposed to everything that Corbyn stands for and and who got more votes. People much further to the right than the anti-Corbyn MPs. The idea you seem to be promoting that they lost that election because they weren't enough like Corbyn is palpable nonsense. As is your idea that the only virtuous path is to ignore the millions of voters who voted for them on the basis that they would support the political direction of their manifesto in favour of a few hundred thousand people in the Labour Party most of whom have joined (or not even joined but "expressed support") in the past 15 months.

Then hey, join the party! Vote against Corbyn! The unwashed, smelly masses were able to snap up a membership in a fire sale, so what's stopping them?

Posted: **Tue Sep 27, 2016 7:31 am**

cashead wrote:
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
cashead wrote: Yeah, and they sure fucked that up, didn't they? Who's in government now?
People who are opposed to everything that Corbyn stands for and and who got more votes. People much further to the right than the anti-Corbyn MPs. The idea you seem to be promoting that they lost that election because they weren't enough like Corbyn is palpable nonsense. As is your idea that the only virtuous path is to ignore the millions of voters who voted for them on the basis that they would support the political direction of their manifesto in favour of a few hundred thousand people in the Labour Party most of whom have joined (or not even joined but "expressed support") in the past 15 months.
Then hey, join the party! Vote against Corbyn! The unwashed, smelly masses were able to snap up a membership in a fire sale, so what's stopping them?

That completely misses the point. There will always be more people voting for party than are members of the party unless you are doing something badly wrong. Millions of people voted for the Labour Party. Labour MPs have every right to reflect the views of those who voted for them. That is the "excuse" of the "dipshit" MPs for opposing what Corbyn wants to do: sticking by what they promised.

Posted: **Tue Sep 27, 2016 8:13 am**

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
cashead wrote:
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
People who are opposed to everything that Corbyn stands for and and who got more votes. People much further to the right than the anti-Corbyn MPs. The idea you seem to be promoting that they lost that election because they weren't enough like Corbyn is palpable nonsense. As is your idea that the only virtuous path is to ignore the millions of voters who voted for them on the basis that they would support the political direction of their manifesto in favour of a few hundred thousand people in the Labour Party most of whom have joined (or not even joined but "expressed support") in the past 15 months.
Then hey, join the party! Vote against Corbyn! The unwashed, smelly masses were able to snap up a membership in a fire sale, so what's stopping them?
That completely misses the point. There will always be more people voting for party than are members of the party unless you are doing something badly wrong. Millions of people voted for the Labour Party. Labour MPs have every right to reflect the views of those who voted for them. That is the "excuse" of the "dipshit" MPs for opposing what Corbyn wants to do: sticking by what they promised.

And around 62% of the eligible voter in the Labour leadership election voted to have Corbyn retained as leader. I'm also pretty sure the 9.5 million that voted for Labour last year did so on the hopes that they had a party that is actually focused and capable of holding the government to account rather than a basketcase group more focused on undermining the leader than actually doing what an opposition party's job actually is.

Also, tell me where I said "they lost 'that' election because they weren't enough like Corbyn?" I thought it was pretty clear that the point I was making was that the Labour MPs have been an unidisciplined group of shits that are likely costing Labour more voters than Corbyn ever could - something that is a far cry from that strawman you're building at the moment.

Posted: **Tue Sep 27, 2016 9:08 am**

Its amazingly ironic that Corbyn now expects loyalty to his leadership when he has probably the worst track record of any MP when it comes to defying his own party leadership.

Posted: **Tue Sep 27, 2016 9:33 am**

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
cashead wrote:
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
People who are opposed to everything that Corbyn stands for and and who got more votes. People much further to the right than the anti-Corbyn MPs. The idea you seem to be promoting that they lost that election because they weren't enough like Corbyn is palpable nonsense. As is your idea that the only virtuous path is to ignore the millions of voters who voted for them on the basis that they would support the political direction of their manifesto in favour of a few hundred thousand people in the Labour Party most of whom have joined (or not even joined but "expressed support") in the past 15 months.
Then hey, join the party! Vote against Corbyn! The unwashed, smelly masses were able to snap up a membership in a fire sale, so what's stopping them?
That completely misses the point. There will always be more people voting for party than are members of the party unless you are doing something badly wrong. Millions of people voted for the Labour Party. Labour MPs have every right to reflect the views of those who voted for them. That is the "excuse" of the "dipshit" MPs for opposing what Corbyn wants to do: sticking by what they promised.

lol.....f*ck off. This has always been the parliamentary party protecting their phoney baloney jobs. They are the ones that, in Sandys words, feel they have 'grown up'. Which actually translates as 'puppets to their corporate paymasters'.

Posted: **Tue Sep 27, 2016 9:48 am**

Sandydragon wrote:Its amazingly ironic that Corbyn now expects loyalty to his leadership when he has probably the worst track record of any MP when it comes to defying his own party leadership.

Good,....that's what's needed. The entire whip system makes a mockery of democracy.

Posted: **Tue Sep 27, 2016 11:14 am**

kk67 wrote:
Sandydragon wrote:Its amazingly ironic that Corbyn now expects loyalty to his leadership when he has probably the worst track record of any MP when it comes to defying his own party leadership.
Good,....that's what's needed. The entire whip system makes a mockery of democracy.

No it doesn't. It actually supports democracy. It means that those who are elected are encouraged to support the manifesto commitments which they made to the public which is the platform on which they were elected. An MP who has openly declared that he does not support some aspect of it is of course quite welcome to defy the whip, but the basic purpose of the whips is ensuring that the public get what they voted for.

Posted: **Tue Sep 27, 2016 4:02 pm**

I may have left the Politics room before, and glancing at the replies on this topic the reasons for doing so are painfully obvious. But I just had to add something to the debate.

In 1 day since Corbyn was confirmed as leader, another 15,000+ people have become members of the Labour party. That pretty much shows that there is an appetite for what Corbyn brings, especially as press publications were leading with articles telling people how to leave the party...

Suggesting that the core Labour membership is growing and is happy with the direction.

Suggesting, again, that if you're unhappy with such, but are not a Labour supporter, nor would be, this probably isn't the discussion for you...

Posted: **Tue Sep 27, 2016 4:37 pm**

Stom wrote:I may have left the Politics room before, and glancing at the replies on this topic the reasons for doing so are painfully obvious. But I just had to add something to the debate.

In 1 day since Corbyn was confirmed as leader, another 15,000+ people have become members of the Labour party. That pretty much shows that there is an appetite for what Corbyn brings, especially as press publications were leading with articles telling people how to leave the party...

Suggesting that the core Labour membership is growing and is happy with the direction.

Suggesting, again, that if you're unhappy with such, but are not a Labour supporter, nor would be, this probably isn't the discussion for you...

So only Labour supporters can comment on a discussion on the Labour party? The is surely a debate across opposing views which is the point of this forum.

15000 new supporters. brilliant. Well done. Now, lets see how he polls across the country come the big electoral tests shall we? Because at the moment he is seen as a joke, and a dangerous joke. Convincing like minded lefties that he is the second coming is one thing, convincing the wider electorate is another all together. Lots of noise on twitter and Facebook don't translate into votes at the ballot box.

Posted: **Tue Sep 27, 2016 5:30 pm**

How is he dangerous?

On a slightly related note, would you cum in your pants if the cold war fired up again?

RugbyRebels

Corbyn Wins

Re: Corbyn Wins

Re: Corbyn Wins

Re: Corbyn Wins

Re: Corbyn Wins

Re: Corbyn Wins

Re: Corbyn Wins

Re: Corbyn Wins

Re: Corbyn Wins

Re: Corbyn Wins

Re: Corbyn Wins

Re: Corbyn Wins

Re: Corbyn Wins

Re: Corbyn Wins

Re: Corbyn Wins

Re: Corbyn Wins

Re: Corbyn Wins

Re: Corbyn Wins

Re: Corbyn Wins

Re: Corbyn Wins

Re: Corbyn Wins

Re: Corbyn Wins

Re: Corbyn Wins

Re: Corbyn Wins

Re: Corbyn Wins

Re: Corbyn Wins