They could only report these things though if Corbyn was crazy enough to actually make McDonell his shadow chancellor. And he was. It's a bizarre appointment.

Corbyns appointments make perfect rational sense. Softening the edges is pointless, he needs to turn into the skid. As for the Chancellor appointment he just picked his crony buddy who is equally lulzy and who was promised the job from the start. End of the day this is going to come down to whether his pro IRA anti business values match up with the electorate and surrounding himself with allies is the only logical route to take.

It was going to be a huge and very long running story anyway. All we don't know is how much the voters are going to be bothered by it.

He's hardly surrounded himself with allies, there aren't enough in the PLP for a start but McDonnell was the obvious choice for shadow chancellor, it's definitely a position he was going to have his strongest ally in given his platform is anti austerity. Burnham was a Blarite for long enough and Hilary Benn has served under Blair Brown and Miliband it's not obvious that he's got ideological allies in those positions nor is it clear who else should have had those jobs, Cooper instead of Burnham would have been my choice but she ruled herself out. Benn keeps his job on the basis he has experience and was prepared to stay and work with him, you don't reward that with a demotion which we are led to believe any other job than one of the three would have been.

With the economy, and Labour's perceived lack of credibility there, being a major election issue I think appointing someone who talks about 'fermenting the overthrow of capitalism' to such a position won't play out well at all.

I agree what he says about the economy is going to matter. The past stuff or quip in who's who will quickly fade compared to what he says and does as shadow chancellor.

They had a go at him for the assassinating Thatcher thing as well. Does anyone really care?

Yeah I think people will which is why you will see such a big deal made of them when the time comes.

I'm afraid I agree. The Tories will be keeping their powder dry with the Corbyn dossier until the GE (if he hasn't been knifed in the back by then), and the tabloids will have a field day selling their grot by scaring Middle England with those old quotes.

The talk about McDonnell is reminiscent of Ken - side by side above.

Didn't seem to bother the voters that much.

However exactly they play the hand, it was always going to be played. It's just going to have to be faced - there's no point trying to avoid it.

They are hardly keeping their powder dry.

In any case the party has given him and his platform a mandate and suggesting he should ignore this then disguise his beliefs when they were what got him elected is laughable. He got elected on an anti austerity platform, those members and supporters who voted for him understood this and yet that's what they voted for. Yes he has to build across the party but not at the expense of his core principles.

There's a world of difference between being chancellor and Mayor of London.

Maybe but I wonder how many people there are who are ok with this historical stuff when it comes to mayor but have a problem with it when it comes to chancellor. It's a strange world now - the association with Ken is probably going to help him.

If the worst people can manage is that quip from who's who then the past is going to be an easy ride.

What you talking about?

He has a massive mandate to go even further than he did.

Your point is based on the career politician 'win power regardless' approach.

Voters are pretty conservative (with a small c) when it comes to general elections which is why there has been so much of a battle for the centre ground. If McDonnell makes it to the next GE he will take a pasting for his views. Labour should be rubbing their hands about being able to go into the next election after almost 10 years of 'austerity' and a Tory party that could be lead by Osborne, who is hardly the most likeable of characters, and yet I'm absolutely certain they will win again basically on the issue of economic credibility.

You may well be right but if you are Corbyn has no chance anyway. The argument that Labour shouldn't contest the 'small c' conservative center ground has been won for now.

The disagreement we have seems to be that you think with a different chancellor they might have fought for that 'small c' center ground. There was absolutely no chance of that with or without McDonnell.

I'll be impressed if John McDonnell can bring the arms trade debate to the mainstream.

People in large cities are usually far more progressively minded (can I say open-minded too?) than the rest of the country, so I don't think the Livingstone example helps much here, unfortunately.

Big cities are a lot of seats but more to the point are you saying you think there are lots of voters who would have been fine with Corbyn as PM but transform into 'small c'' conservatives when confronted with McDonnell?

No, I'm saying that many people in the provinces will soon be scared (if they're not already) of Corbyn (let alone McDonnell) once the tabloids start on him.

He'll do well in the big cities (where Labour are already strong) but much of the rest of the country is very conservative by nature (small and big c), and it's striking how little some parts of the UK have changed in 30 or 40 years.

I hope he can convince people that there's a better way of doing things, but he's got a massive struggle on his hands to persuade people who don't like change that it's for the better, and that's even without his policies being perverted and distorted by the print media.

Nah its the opposite and it's already happening. Define the opponent immediately and make them react. Worked really well with Ed and will work better with Corbyn (direct and via his appointments).

Corbyn was already given the image of out of touch and unelectable by labour themselves, letting him redefine himself from that would be a disastrous strategy.

I agree it's going to be a big struggle, I will take moving the center ground significantly as a success even if he doesn't win and I'm not at all confident he will achieve that. I just don't think McDonnell's past comments will make that any harder - how he will perform as shadow chancellor can make a huge difference but remains to be seen and I have no idea*

I'm more inclined to the reverse view on McDonnell that it's a no lose scenario. If some more centrist person had been chosen then at the general election the Tories would run scare stories about the types who would really be in charge after the election and that's a very powerful campaign. Instead the 'bogeyman' has the job and if he becomes credible then the Tories have lost their biggest weapon against Labour (apart possibly from Trident).

*except that he is not going to be the usual dull performer. From the BBC website:

Livingstone sacked Corbyn from his council for being too left wing. Hell, even DiegoArmando may think he's a little bit loony-left .

-

+1 to all of Jalfrezi's posts, this Labour front bench just ain't getting elected, obviously lots can change though.

Things can change very suddenly in politics. Cameron's ridden out a few close-shave scandals (Brooks and his appointment of Coulson) that another time might have finished him, and who knows what else might be in his closet? As for Osborne - the Chancellor whose own family wouldn't trust him with their business - I'm sure most people have seen the photo of him enjoying his illegal recreational pursuits.

I think this is a good point. They've got 4 years to prove themselves to be sensible lefty in outlook (Corbyn's comparison of some of his supposedly extremist policies with Germany's is the way to go because it's hard for anyone to argue with), and as long as they don't start promising the earth and subjecting themselves to ridicule I guess they have a chance.

Even if it all goes pear-shaped it will at least be colourful and different, something we never had from Blair and co.

Prime Ministers questions is on now.

One of JC's questions summed up why I'm a Tory voter. The question came from a guy who was struggling to make ends meet with the cut in tax credits. He earned £25k a year, and his wife worked part time. He had 5 children.

As you start to add children to the family, at what point do you sit down with a pen and paper and work out whether you can afford to pay for them? Why should the burden fall on responsible tax payers to pay for their extra children, who might want more of their own but decide they can't afford it?