Concern within the Labour Party that Jeremy Corbyn is doing well

You can never be bothered, soon, so I do not say why you say it.

This is much more useful for David Miliband to be involved in.

www.rescue.org/blog/away-war-syrian-children-lebanon-step-back-school

He actually supported Blair in the Iraq war, so will not get the votes of those who did not. That could be a reason he joined the IRC.

Sorry about this whitewave.

I think I am getting drawn in, so I shall leave it there.

whitewave explained that she and a large group of others are following Keynes
I briefly looked him up
That and I took her word for it. That was good enough for me

I could I suppose discuss this all night if I could be bothered

"I briefly looked him up?????
I thought you said you had A level Economics, so not unreasonably I thought you knew about Keynes (John Maynard, that is, not Milton). When you talked about followers I assumed you were talking about economists/ politicians/ people who follow his principles, not a brief mention on GN (no disrespect, Grannies!)
When you say people are " following" Keynes, do you mean on Twitter or something? It is a weird way of talking about principles of Economics
One usually says "followers of John Stuart Mill, Lenin, Marx" or whoever, not " they are following Locke"!!!

Methinks someone is ducking the issue, or having made a sweeping statement has no idea of how to distant use it.
It's not a case of getting drawn into anything, but you need to know what you mean if you mean what you say.

I will presume you are being genuine about this.

I said upthread that I cannot remember too much about my A level economics[you can find the exact words I said]
I am talking about people who follow his principles [I certainly dont mean twitter!]

I am taking you at your word that you are not drawing me into anything.

On reflection I think you are drawing me into something. So I am going to withdraw. Again!

I don't know what planet my iPad is on but I think I meant to write "substantiate it"!

Are you sure this time, soon?
All Alea is asking you to do is educate us on your knowledge of economics. Not unreasonable, I feel. What are you being drawn into?

I am not drawing you into anything , can you answer my perfectly reasonable question or not!? Do you in fact know anything about Keynesian theory? Are you bluffing?

And for goodness sak, don't just post another flipping link.
If a person makes a statement they should be able to back it up. Either you know something about Economics or you don't!

Soontobe. Why do you think that posters are 'drawing you into anything'
I think it was a reasonable request from Alea.

Not sure if you are talking about me Gracesgran, but I passed an Economics A Level, back in the day. Though I have forgotten some of it

Oh I do hope my A level students have retained a little bit more than a smidgen to try to bluff their way through a discussion.

I see what you mean.

You can't nail jelly, it slides down the wall.

Elegran. Wonderful. I must remember that one.

Silence speaks VOLUMES sometimes

Ah well, how surprised am I? It is hard to have any sort of discussion when it is like juggling jelly, very frustrating, but a person's prerogative I suppose.
The tale of the little boy/girl who cried Wolf occurs to me, however, and I might not attach a lot of credence to some comments in the future.

Not sure how 'crying wolf' is a fitting anology in this instance...

I think I was suggesting that maybe a person can get away with an apparently authoratative statement without backing it up or going into detail once or twice and be given the benefit of the doubt but if it happens too often and he/she refuses to back up what they say, I am unlikely to be convinced, even if in fact he/she actually knows what they are talking about this time!

Hmm...I suppose so, although I understood the moral of the story was a warning against giving a false alarm, because it might not be believed when it's actually true.

Fair enough, but you get my gist?

Well of course , but I'd better get off this thread now I think!

Oh dear, seem to have killed the thread stone dead

Getting back to the original post.

I have been thinking of all the new members and am wondering why they have joined.

Are they attracted to the JC message?

Do they hope for a Labour Government?

Would they subsequently leave if Labour fails to get in next time?

ReaLly I guess the question I am asking is - is it the message I.e. JC or the messenger I.e. the Labour Party

I seem to be disappearing up my own proverbial here! To try to make more sense if JC fails to get to elected would all the new people leave?
If JC gets the leadership but fails to win the election would they stay?
Is the message more important than the a ility to carry it out?

I think I need to go back to bed!

I like the way you have to say you support Labour's aims and values, but three of the contenders do not support them as far as I'm concerned.

Corbyn's been an MP for longer than Liz Kendall has been in the Labour Party.

Whose aims and values are truly Labour?

White wave, what you mean is, is it the 'singer and not the song?'

If Corbyn doesn't get in as leader, will all the support just fall away?