Mr. kinabalu, Corbyn was only on the shortlist because Labour MPs put him there.
They deserve the blame just as much as the PCP for Johnson.
Objectively false assertion. A small number putting him on the ballot to include the 'left' in the contest - not in a million years expecting him to be competitive - is not of the same order of culpability as the majority picking him and sending him to the members as preferred choice and hot favourite.
Sort of. They were stupid for risking an outcome that they did not want, and which they knew the public would not want, but it is true they did not recommend him. The Tory MPs making him the preferred choice was because of the, correct, assumption the public would want him him too, at least in the short term. So they were less stupid since they expected him to win (unlike those with Corbyn), but were more culpable since they accepted the potential risks.
First up, as always, vote intention. Labour are registering a NINE point lead over the Conservatives:
CON🔵33% LAB🔴42% LD🟠11% GRN🟢4% SNP🟡3% REFUK 3% PC 1% OTHER 2%
(2/n)
Bang goes the "Labour aren't even at 40%" line of yesterday.
Tories now up 5% to 33% from 28% in last night's Yougov however and Labour lead cut from 10% last night to 9% already after Boris' apology.
Clearly he should apologise more often. Another ten apologies and the Tories will be back in the lead.
I think what's needed is a big umbrella one from the Conservative Party and in particular their MPs. I've sent them a draft for their approval and sign off.
30 months ago, with malice aforethought, thinking only of our electoral skin, we chose a person to lead our party and country who wasn’t fit to run a whelk stall and we’d like to apologize to every single member of the public for this. We won’t insult you with weasel talk of ‘hindsight’, pretending his plethora of inadequacies have come as a surprise to us, neither will we be appointing Sue Gray to look into it. Redemption starts with facing the truth and showing genuine remorse. What we did was wrong and we knew it was wrong. We are truly truly sorry. It won’t happen again until the next time.
Don't know why I should help but I felt compelled to.
Of course we could write a similar mea culpa from the Labour party for giving us Corbyn as LOTO. One of the main reasons we have Johnson as PM (and Brexit) is because the Labour Party in it's infinite wisdom thought that a very thick, shabby little man who is possibly anti-Semitic had done nothing with his life except be a backbench MP and drone on about Palestine was suitable as a candidate for PM of this country
Gosh I didn't expect anybody to reply with "but Corbyn". But ok, not 100% unfair, but neither 100% fair. Labour MPs, who knew Corbyn, didn't choose him. It was the members who did and their reasons were not shabby. This isn't an equivalent to Tory MPs, knowing Johnson would be a dreadful PM, nevertheless putting him there, thinking only of their seats.
Well, as you know, I am no fan of the decision to put Johnson in, but the Corbyn decision is absolutely symmetrical in every way. The Labour members put in Corbyn in pretty much the same way as the Tories, following his selection by Labour MPs. If anything Corbyn is significantly worse than Johnson; he had no ministerial experience and was a known extremist with a history of quasi-anti-Semitism. He is absolutely responsible for the chain of events that caused Brexit and resulted in The Clown becoming PM. Labour has to own the state of our politics as much as the Tories. Pretending otherwise is simply partisan.
Hm, yes: bad as the last two years have been, it would have been infinitely worse with Corbyn in charge. Worse still with Corbyn propped up by Sturgeon. @kinabalu, you say 'thinking only of their seats' as a bad thing - but if I could have had one thing and one thing only out of 2019 it would have been keeping Corbyn out. Utter wazzock though Johnson in, I can't in all honesty think of any better way 2019 would have panned out. Would Jeremy Hunt have beaten Corbyn? Possibly he would, but it's not a dice I'd want to roll.
So for you having a raving nutter English Marxist with an outright majority would be better than if he had to work with a Scottish social democrat?
Well if that Scottish social democrat had been John Reid, no. But the social democrat in question happens to be a Scottish Nationalist who has an active interest in p*ssing off the English and no interest in the long term health of the UK. I don't see Scottish Nationalism as actively pernicious. But having the UK run by people who actively want to split it up is not really in the country's interests.
If the Queen doesn't do what this letter asks her to do then she really must hate the military.
More than 150 veterans have signed an open letter calling for Queen Elizabeth to strip her son Prince Andrew of his military titles over his relationship with disgraced late U.S. financier Jeffrey Epstein, the campaign group Republic said on Thursday.
A day after Andrew's lawyers failed to persuade a U.S. judge to dismiss Virginia Giuffre's civil lawsuit against him which accuses the royal of sexually abusing her when she was a teenager, the anti-monarchy group released the letter from veterans angry that he still held honorary military roles.
Their letter to the 95-year-old monarch called for her to take immediate action because Andrew, the Duke of York, had been "uncooperative and less than truthful" about his relationship with Epstein, and had brought the armed services he represented into disrepute.
"We are particularly upset and angry that Prince Andrew remains a member of the armed forces and continues to hold military titles, positions and ranks, including that of Vice Admiral of the Royal Navy," the letter said.
"We are therefore asking that you take immediate steps to strip Prince Andrew of all his military ranks and titles and, if necessary, that he be dishonourably discharged."
What's the point of the ranks he does have? Are they ever used in anger? Do they come with monies?
The point is to make him feel nice for having them. Taking them away is therefore an effective punishment.
There were reports at the funeral of Phillip that Andrew wanted to go in uniform IIRC, and that the Queen had to step in to sort out the disagreement about it with Charles. I recall thinking at the time that that it took a 95 year old woman, who had just lost her lifelong love and companion, to stop the rest of them bickering over something inconsequential, was not an encouraging sign.
Yes but Royalty and aristocracy is built on trivialities and order of precedence. Who gets to sit where, does an order of the daffodil or a Knight of the bathtub take precedence when deciding the next groomer of the Kings stool. These are the things that they argue about. Originally it had a point by stopping knights from killing each other, but now it is just pointless obscurantism.
Mr. kinabalu, Corbyn was only on the shortlist because Labour MPs put him there.
They deserve the blame just as much as the PCP for Johnson.
Objectively false assertion. A small number putting him on the ballot to include the 'left' in the contest - not in a million years expecting him to be competitive - is not of the same order of culpability as the majority picking him and sending him to the members as preferred choice and hot favourite.
Is that the same as @BlancheLivermore voting for Nigel Farage but not supporting him.
When did I vote for Farage?
I think he meant me.
And I have always opposed Farage which is why I never voted for Farage or any party associated with him for a Westminster election.
Joke ballots like Strictly, X Factor, I'm a Celeb or the 2019 European Parliament are not real elections. In the only real Westminster election of 2019 I voted Conservative.
You voted for Farage in 2019, I was one of the 9% who still voted for May's Tories and yet you call me the hard rightwinger!
First up, as always, vote intention. Labour are registering a NINE point lead over the Conservatives:
CON🔵33% LAB🔴42% LD🟠11% GRN🟢4% SNP🟡3% REFUK 3% PC 1% OTHER 2%
(2/n)
Bang goes the "Labour aren't even at 40%" line of yesterday.
Tories now up 5% to 33% from 28% in last night's Yougov however and Labour lead cut from 10% last night to 9% already after Boris' apology.
Clearly he should apologise more often. Another ten apologies and the Tories will be back in the lead.
I think what's needed is a big umbrella one from the Conservative Party and in particular their MPs. I've sent them a draft for their approval and sign off.
30 months ago, with malice aforethought, thinking only of our electoral skin, we chose a person to lead our party and country who wasn’t fit to run a whelk stall and we’d like to apologize to every single member of the public for this. We won’t insult you with weasel talk of ‘hindsight’, pretending his plethora of inadequacies have come as a surprise to us, neither will we be appointing Sue Gray to look into it. Redemption starts with facing the truth and showing genuine remorse. What we did was wrong and we knew it was wrong. We are truly truly sorry. It won’t happen again until the next time.
Don't know why I should help but I felt compelled to.
Of course we could write a similar mea culpa from the Labour party for giving us Corbyn as LOTO. One of the main reasons we have Johnson as PM (and Brexit) is because the Labour Party in it's infinite wisdom thought that a very thick, shabby little man who is possibly anti-Semitic had done nothing with his life except be a backbench MP and drone on about Palestine was suitable as a candidate for PM of this country
Gosh I didn't expect anybody to reply with "but Corbyn". But ok, not 100% unfair, but neither 100% fair. Labour MPs, who knew Corbyn, didn't choose him. It was the members who did and their reasons were not shabby. This isn't an equivalent to Tory MPs, knowing Johnson would be a dreadful PM, nevertheless putting him there, thinking only of their seats.
Well, as you know, I am no fan of the decision to put Johnson in, but the Corbyn decision is absolutely symmetrical in every way. The Labour members put in Corbyn in pretty much the same way as the Tories, following his selection by Labour MPs. If anything Corbyn is significantly worse than Johnson; he had no ministerial experience and was a known extremist with a history of quasi-anti-Semitism. He is absolutely responsible for the chain of events that caused Brexit and resulted in The Clown becoming PM. Labour has to own the state of our politics as much as the Tories. Pretending otherwise is simply partisan.
BiB - so it was Corbyn who called the referendum?
Corbyn's ambiguous at best position on Brexit probably made the difference when the vote was 52:48. A capable leader making the case for Remain with vigour might well have shifted 2% of the voters....
I don't dispute that at all. I was merely questioning the claim that Corbyn was "absolutely responsible for the chain of events that caused Brexit". Absolutely? I think Cameron had a role.
I suppose it is fair to say that he is one of a small number of individuals who could, if they had acted differently, probably have prevented Brexit.
Mr. kinabalu, Corbyn was only on the shortlist because Labour MPs put him there.
They deserve the blame just as much as the PCP for Johnson.
Objectively false assertion. A small number putting him on the ballot to include the 'left' in the contest - not in a million years expecting him to be competitive - is not of the same order of culpability as the majority picking him and sending him to the members as preferred choice and hot favourite.
Sort of. They were stupid for risking an outcome that they did not want, and which they knew the public would not want, but it is true they did not recommend him. The Tory MPs making him the preferred choice was because of the, correct, assumption the public would want him him too, at least in the short term. So they were less stupid since they expected him to win (unlike those with Corbyn), but were more culpable since they accepted the potential risks.
A precise and flawless summary. Nobody does it better.
First up, as always, vote intention. Labour are registering a NINE point lead over the Conservatives:
CON🔵33% LAB🔴42% LD🟠11% GRN🟢4% SNP🟡3% REFUK 3% PC 1% OTHER 2%
(2/n)
Bang goes the "Labour aren't even at 40%" line of yesterday.
Tories now up 5% to 33% from 28% in last night's Yougov however and Labour lead cut from 10% last night to 9% already after Boris' apology.
Clearly he should apologise more often. Another ten apologies and the Tories will be back in the lead.
I think what's needed is a big umbrella one from the Conservative Party and in particular their MPs. I've sent them a draft for their approval and sign off.
30 months ago, with malice aforethought, thinking only of our electoral skin, we chose a person to lead our party and country who wasn’t fit to run a whelk stall and we’d like to apologize to every single member of the public for this. We won’t insult you with weasel talk of ‘hindsight’, pretending his plethora of inadequacies have come as a surprise to us, neither will we be appointing Sue Gray to look into it. Redemption starts with facing the truth and showing genuine remorse. What we did was wrong and we knew it was wrong. We are truly truly sorry. It won’t happen again until the next time.
Don't know why I should help but I felt compelled to.
Of course we could write a similar mea culpa from the Labour party for giving us Corbyn as LOTO. One of the main reasons we have Johnson as PM (and Brexit) is because the Labour Party in it's infinite wisdom thought that a very thick, shabby little man who is possibly anti-Semitic had done nothing with his life except be a backbench MP and drone on about Palestine was suitable as a candidate for PM of this country
Gosh I didn't expect anybody to reply with "but Corbyn". But ok, not 100% unfair, but neither 100% fair. Labour MPs, who knew Corbyn, didn't choose him. It was the members who did and their reasons were not shabby. This isn't an equivalent to Tory MPs, knowing Johnson would be a dreadful PM, nevertheless putting him there, thinking only of their seats.
Well, as you know, I am no fan of the decision to put Johnson in, but the Corbyn decision is absolutely symmetrical in every way. The Labour members put in Corbyn in pretty much the same way as the Tories, following his selection by Labour MPs. If anything Corbyn is significantly worse than Johnson; he had no ministerial experience and was a known extremist with a history of quasi-anti-Semitism. He is absolutely responsible for the chain of events that caused Brexit and resulted in The Clown becoming PM. Labour has to own the state of our politics as much as the Tories. Pretending otherwise is simply partisan.
Hm, yes: bad as the last two years have been, it would have been infinitely worse with Corbyn in charge. Worse still with Corbyn propped up by Sturgeon. @kinabalu, you say 'thinking only of their seats' as a bad thing - but if I could have had one thing and one thing only out of 2019 it would have been keeping Corbyn out. Utter wazzock though Johnson in, I can't in all honesty think of any better way 2019 would have panned out. Would Jeremy Hunt have beaten Corbyn? Possibly he would, but it's not a dice I'd want to roll.
So for you having a raving nutter English Marxist with an outright majority would be better than if he had to work with a Scottish social democrat?
Well if that Scottish social democrat had been John Reid, no. But the social democrat in question happens to be a Scottish Nationalist who has an active interest in p*ssing off the English and no interest in the long term health of the UK. I don't see Scottish Nationalism as actively pernicious. But having the UK run by people who actively want to split it up is not really in the country's interests.
Fair enough. I was just curious as to which was your bigger fear, a radical left government or a government involving the SNP. And it's the latter. That's interesting.
What on earth is Chatham House? Is this like a swingers thing?
I guess most swingers groups might have the Chatham House rule, to be fair - you can discuss what happened with outsiders, but not with whom? I hasten to add this is not from personal experience. Although I did almost buy a house with pampas grass outside it last year
Working from sterotypes - probably reasonably well built, but very poorly insulated, not very cramped, with squarish rooms or sub-rooms, and in the same ownership for a long time in a leafy environment. May contain asbestos, and a small change of concrete cancer in the slab. Currently expensive to run if they have been too tight to invest in it.
I'm not totally sure, but I think you may have quoted the wrong post.
- 'reasonably well built' -- Fine - 'very poorly insulated' - Not much fat then? - 'not very cramped' -- too much information - 'with squarish rooms or sub-rooms' -- again, too much info - 'same ownership for a long time in a leafy environment' -- yep, I guess this squares with much of the sterotype of leafy suburbia and long term marriages - 'May contain asbestos' -- What? - 'small change of concrete cancer in the slab' -- ? - 'expensive to run if they have been too tight to invest in it' -- what are the operating costs for swingers' clubs? just a bowl for the keys, surely?
Edit: Or, referring to swingers' houses? Probably all those comments were fair about the house we looked at...
I'm commenting on the Pampas Grass outside, which was fashionable in the 1960s into the 1970s, and extrapolating a little too far. So yes - the one you were looking at. If its still there, the same people may be too, and may have done nothing to the house.
All the rest is based on normal characteristics for estate houses of that period.
- 'reasonably well built' -- Fine Trad methods in wide use. Now very different often. May well be better, but different methods - more likely preassembled.
- 'not very cramped' -- too much information Developers not very efficient at laying out estates in those days. If you compare a 1930s cul-de-sac with a 1970s cul-de-sac with a 2010s cul-de-sac you can see where extra houses are slotted in.
- 'with squarish rooms or sub-rooms' -- again, too much info Interesting change in floor plans for modern living. They go now more for rectangular rooms with less wasted space. The space that used to be behind the sofa is now probably in the kitchen behind the wall. A main room may be 17x11 rather than 15 x 15. Space for 2 activity areas.(
- 'same ownership for a long time in a leafy environment' -- yep, I guess this squares with much of the sterotype of leafy suburbia and long term marriages - 'May contain asbestos' -- What?- Was used in houses from approx the 1930s/40s into the 1970s. Bloody expensive when you need to remove it, and can kill you. Asbestosis got my dad about 10 years before a normal life expectancy.
- 'small change of concrete cancer in the slab' -- ? Sometimes ingredients used in concrete in mainly the 1940s/50s into the 1960s that cause the concrete to decay, so you may end up replacing the floor slab if you miss it. One risk of spacious bungalows.
- 'expensive to run if they have been too tight to invest in it' -- what are the operating costs for swingers' clubs? just a bowl for the keys, surely? - Heating with all that missing insulation.
Heh, yep I was late to work out that possible meaning (the 'swingers' house). The answers were all pretty good matches to my comment about why schools largely not suitable for ASHP retrofit, hence my confusion.
My local schools are all full of asbestos, reaching the end of the lifetime in the next 15 years.
Perhaps 100+ in Notts. A local campaign issue that reaches every household. Similar but less extreme in Derbys and County Durham.
A classic needed-investment that could be sold as "Levelling Up" if Boris and the Tories were awake.
The problem with asbestos removal is that official guidance is that it should remain in place unless in poor condition. I had a big row with a heartache once who realised during a small refurbishment that the school had lots of asbestos and was trying to insist every last bit was removed as she was scared the parents would find out. I had to say the reports I had didn't lead me to recommend it's removal. I had to point her in the direction of the LEA in the end for basic instruction.
First up, as always, vote intention. Labour are registering a NINE point lead over the Conservatives:
CON🔵33% LAB🔴42% LD🟠11% GRN🟢4% SNP🟡3% REFUK 3% PC 1% OTHER 2%
(2/n)
Bang goes the "Labour aren't even at 40%" line of yesterday.
Tories now up 5% to 33% from 28% in last night's Yougov however and Labour lead cut from 10% last night to 9% already after Boris' apology.
Clearly he should apologise more often. Another ten apologies and the Tories will be back in the lead.
I think what's needed is a big umbrella one from the Conservative Party and in particular their MPs. I've sent them a draft for their approval and sign off.
30 months ago, with malice aforethought, thinking only of our electoral skin, we chose a person to lead our party and country who wasn’t fit to run a whelk stall and we’d like to apologize to every single member of the public for this. We won’t insult you with weasel talk of ‘hindsight’, pretending his plethora of inadequacies have come as a surprise to us, neither will we be appointing Sue Gray to look into it. Redemption starts with facing the truth and showing genuine remorse. What we did was wrong and we knew it was wrong. We are truly truly sorry. It won’t happen again until the next time.
Don't know why I should help but I felt compelled to.
Of course we could write a similar mea culpa from the Labour party for giving us Corbyn as LOTO. One of the main reasons we have Johnson as PM (and Brexit) is because the Labour Party in it's infinite wisdom thought that a very thick, shabby little man who is possibly anti-Semitic had done nothing with his life except be a backbench MP and drone on about Palestine was suitable as a candidate for PM of this country
Gosh I didn't expect anybody to reply with "but Corbyn". But ok, not 100% unfair, but neither 100% fair. Labour MPs, who knew Corbyn, didn't choose him. It was the members who did and their reasons were not shabby. This isn't an equivalent to Tory MPs, knowing Johnson would be a dreadful PM, nevertheless putting him there, thinking only of their seats.
Well, as you know, I am no fan of the decision to put Johnson in, but the Corbyn decision is absolutely symmetrical in every way. The Labour members put in Corbyn in pretty much the same way as the Tories, following his selection by Labour MPs. If anything Corbyn is significantly worse than Johnson; he had no ministerial experience and was a known extremist with a history of quasi-anti-Semitism. He is absolutely responsible for the chain of events that caused Brexit and resulted in The Clown becoming PM. Labour has to own the state of our politics as much as the Tories. Pretending otherwise is simply partisan.
Hm, yes: bad as the last two years have been, it would have been infinitely worse with Corbyn in charge. Worse still with Corbyn propped up by Sturgeon. @kinabalu, you say 'thinking only of their seats' as a bad thing - but if I could have had one thing and one thing only out of 2019 it would have been keeping Corbyn out. Utter wazzock though Johnson in, I can't in all honesty think of any better way 2019 would have panned out. Would Jeremy Hunt have beaten Corbyn? Possibly he would, but it's not a dice I'd want to roll.
So for you having a raving nutter English Marxist with an outright majority would be better than if he had to work with a Scottish social democrat?
Well if that Scottish social democrat had been John Reid, no. But the social democrat in question happens to be a Scottish Nationalist who has an active interest in p*ssing off the English and no interest in the long term health of the UK. I don't see Scottish Nationalism as actively pernicious. But having the UK run by people who actively want to split it up is not really in the country's interests.
Fair enough. I was just curious as to which was your bigger fear, a radical left government or a government involving the SNP. And it's the latter. That's interesting.
@kinabalu - with apologies for continuing the discussion on an old thread (but it's an interesting one): Fear a radical left government or a radical left government involving the SNP - definitely the latter. But would I fear a Corbyn government more or a Starmer-sturgeon government? The former, definitely. How about whether I'd fear a Starmer government or a Starmer-Sturgeon government? The latter, definitely.
Comments
But the social democrat in question happens to be a Scottish Nationalist who has an active interest in p*ssing off the English and no interest in the long term health of the UK.
I don't see Scottish Nationalism as actively pernicious. But having the UK run by people who actively want to split it up is not really in the country's interests.
There will not be a Western intervention.
The Americans will pour tons of arms into Ukraine, to turn it into a proxy engagement with Russia. The Germans will probably protest at that.
Remember the "Levelling the killing fields?" in Yugoslavia.
Meanwhile, the chemistry of removing Uranium 236 from Plutonium will be of great interest. To Japan, Taiwan. Maybe even Poland.
But would I fear a Corbyn government more or a Starmer-sturgeon government? The former, definitely.
How about whether I'd fear a Starmer government or a Starmer-Sturgeon government? The latter, definitely.