not research, just an opinion piece.

Keep in mind that all of the explosive comments that are being attributed to him were made prior to 2015, before he became leader of the party. As odd as it may seem, before he was leader, he was a relative nobody. So, it kind of follows that nobody, not even his Jewish colleagues, cared or even raised an eyebrow when he actually said the things he is now being crucified for.

In fact, since he became leader, there is relatively little material to bash him with, hence the incessant digging into what he was doing 10 years ago. Now, as leader, he does have plenty of enemies, who dont like the direction that Labour has taken with him at the helm. Unfortuntely, he resonates with the voters, so they cant simply 'leave' the party. His opponents in Labour, their constituents like corbyn more. leaving the party or opposing him outright is political suicide, so they're happy to snipe him with stuff he did years ago.


wrt to the jews =/=zionists question, the US has traditionally been far more pro-Israel then other countries, and in particular Europe. There are various explanations for that including the relative strength in government of lobbyists on both sides. Its worth noting that the article is from 2014, and though perhaps not enough to change the majority, there has been significant shifts since then. As well, someone who has an emotional attachment to Israel may describe themselves as zionists, but wouldn't go so far so as to deny the history of Palestinian people. As with all things, there are degrees of zionism, and some people only go so far so as to agree that israel should exist, whereas the more zealous ones insist it should exist there, at the expense of all others.

Like i said, its a very polarising topic and one that you could bury yourself in books for weeks for, and still draw no reliable conclusion.

Err... yeah.

What are "JAMs" ? Which of Osborne's (no U in his name) policies are so bad ?

Labour's current Brexit policy is not very different to the tories.

anyone can have an opinion, but facts are harder to dispute. I'd rather vote based on facts than opinion.

Is this the famous Brexit jam thats going to make us all millionaires?

When I stated there was an article about it, what kind of link did you think I would post?

You posted an Op-Ed from the NYT about how families vote the same way and I posted a piece from the Telegraph suggesting the opposite.

Do you actually read the stuff on here before you post?

the article I posted quoted research by several professors published by Cambridge University press.

Your article was an opinion piece. no research, no data to back it up.

Have you actually read your NYT article? It's mainly about voting habits not HOW people vote . If your parents vote and engage their kids in voting, the kids are more likely to vote. That kind of thing.

Doesn't even mention that kids will vote the same way as their parents.

The link just goes to some synopsis of a book you have to buy, which also says nothing about how people vote or whether they're influenced by their parents.

The book also talks about how family & friends influences your voting.

and it's free to download.

more info

Why don't you copy/paste a relevant paragraph and/or figures here then?

Maybe how, seeing the thread is about the UK and Corbyn and all, it supports your theory that everyone votes the same as their family?

Looking forward...

Because you asked so nicely, and becasue you are a Blackadder fan:

" The conservatism of older voters in the face of social change is well documented in the
literature of voting studies. Going back at least as far as Tingsten (1937), political scientists have
observed the immunizing effects of repeated voting choice (see, for example, McPhee and
Glaser, 1962; Butler and Stokes, 1974). When new parties emerge, their support has generally
been found to have come from young voters or those who were previously not electorally active.
In the United States, Andersen (1979) showed how the New Deal realignment could be largely
explained by the mobilization of previously non-voting segments of the population. This is
consistent with the Butler and Stokes (1974) analysis of the rise of the British Labour Party,
which evidently came to prominence in the 1920s on the basis of an enormous increase in the
size of the electorate (and particularly the working-class electorate) consequential upon the
electoral reforms of 1918 and 1927 (Butler, 1953). In Scandinavian countries, Rokkan has
demonstrated the importance of differential levels of enfranchisement in the process of mobilizing
socialist party supporters (Rokkan, 1970)

I didn't say "everyone votes same as their family", but that the family has a major impact on political opinions.

May's JAMs refers to the just about managing folks across the UK struggling despite holding down jobs. Poorly paid jobs which don't cover year on year rise in living costs, etc.

May acknowledged the JAMs, admitted they exist and then forgot all about them. All under a carpet somewhere in Downing Street, no doubt..

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. This is more how I see it and, indeed, have experienced it.

From here.

Maybe it's more common in the UK than the US, I don't know but it makes more sense if you are brought up to be politically aware then you are more likely to question what you've been brought up to believe and be at a higher risk of shedding the beliefs of your parents.

Jeremy Corbyn gets support from former BNP leader Nick Griffin over Zionists comments row.

2018 just gets weirder and weirder...

I read somewhere this morning there are plans afoot to send folks to live on the moon. Where do I sign up?

You wouldn't like it. There's no atmosphere

You do make a fair point there to be honest. My dad's side were all self-employed, blue collar conservatives. My mum's side were all white collar, public sector workers and staunch Labour voters. I came down between the two after witnessing so many heated political debates throughout my youth.

Politically dead and would have to put my head in a bowl all day, so no talking or listening to anyone. What's not to like?

I would've opted for a hut in the Himalayas, but methinks they're all taken..

In 1921 already, two years after women got the vote, the NSDAP barred women from being member of the party leadership and of any leading committee. Party culture had always been masculine, in 1933 female members sunk to 4% from 6% a bit earlier.

And you had to be of voting age to be NSDAP member, meaning only about 25% of the population could potentially join. So those 10% membership mean 40% of those who could join actually did. Which seems pretty high by any standard.