I expect Andy Burnham will have a very bad day tomorrow.
In The Times, his campaign manager has said Women ‘are not tough enough to lead Labour’
That was his 2010 campaign manager in a not particularly friendly article from him to Burnham, saying he was moving too far to the left from his centrist position in 2010 to win the membership
No, I'm talking about Lord Falconer and his interview/article in the Times tomorrow.
Well as Lord Falconer was Blair's flatmate, is a top barrister and as Blairite as they come he is hardly the image of some sexist working men's club unionist is he! As Danny565 states (and I will check the comments in the Times tomorrow) it was his assessment of Kendall and Cooper's weaknesses, not Burnham's view and not those of women in general either
It is further evidence of why Burnham repels women
Not surprising, fewer than half his supporters think he's a PM.
Yet Burnham was the only Labour leadership contendor in today's Mori poll who did not have a negative rating on the question of whether they could be a future PM. CLP nominations are anyway not the determinant, the determinant is members, supporters and affiliates and with them yougov has showed it is Burnham, not Cooper, who ends up in the final round with Burnham
I get the feeling Andy Burnham could do a dump in your living room, and you'd be telling us it was a work of art by a genius
Burnham's a strange contender - he has all the assets required to be a very good leader. He's televisual, can do emotional, has a signature policy which could actually do a lot of good and show how Labour can save money later by spending a relatively small amount of money now (integrating social care), which is exactly what the party needs to do. Plus he's got the ideological flexibility necessary having initially been thought of as a Blairite moderniser up until his stint under EdM. For example despite being regarded as 'on the left', he's the only candidate other than Kendall to get the toxicity of answering 'no' to the spent too much question.
Yet his campaign's been utterly uninspiting to the point of tedium and he. My only thought is he was so scarred by getting hammerred as the extra Blairite in 2010 that he's running the ultimate safety first frontrunner's campaign and been trying to be all things to all men. It's not working though as the turgidness of it all has created the Corbyngasm. After saying he'd serve in a Corbyn cabinet he may have made his way from being a toss-up with Liz Kendall for my 1st pref in early June, to third now. Hopefully the current nonsense will slap him round the face with a wet fish and he'll realise that to go out and win a leadership contest you should show a bit of leadership.
Not surprising, fewer than half his supporters think he's a PM.
Yet Burnham was the only Labour leadership contendor in today's Mori poll who did not have a negative rating on the question of whether they could be a future PM. CLP nominations are anyway not the determinant, the determinant is members, supporters and affiliates and with them yougov has showed it is Burnham, not Cooper, who ends up in the final round with Burnham
I get the feeling Andy Burnham could do a dump in your living room, and you'd be telling us it was a work of art by a genius
The candidates should all be made to display their unmade beds at the Royal Academy. Maybe this election is in fact just an exercise in performance art - it all starts to make sense when you think about it.
Do we know how Sweden and Denmark are taking things, particularly the moves towards fiscal union (and hence deeper political integration) of the Eurozone? We used to have a couple of posters from Sweden and Nick Palmer keeps in touch with things in Denmark to some extent, but I'd be interested to know how the Eurozone crisis and its consequences is going down in those countries. Do they fear for their place as a "non-core" EU member?
The Swedes are still largely anti-Euro (solid, sensible people that they are).
There is an interesting report published by the European Commission in May this year: "Introduction of the euro in the Member States that have not yet adopted the common currency" http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_418_sum_en.pdf
Swedes think that the Euro would have negative consequences for them by a 51/35 margin. Czechs and Poles are roughly similar. They all think that prices would go up to some degree.
Cheers. I'll have a read later.
I knew they were sceptical still about the euro, I remain curious whether there is a national debate about being relegated to "second-class state" by staying out of European integration. I'm surprised that so many Brits are so afraid of the UK losing status outside the EU given that in a few decades it is likely to have both the largest population and largest economy in Western Europe, and that trade with the continent is likely to continue under some sort of treaty basis. Moreover, in the very long run, I'm not convinced that Britain staying in the EU will look all that different - if Eurozone integration continues, the UK will surely be left outside "Euroland". Either way the UK would have a semi-detached relationship with its European partners. But countries like Denmark and Sweden have much less geopolitical heft to rely on. If they stay off the top table, will anybody hear their voices? And do any of them care?
Not surprising, fewer than half his supporters think he's a PM.
Yet Burnham was the only Labour leadership contendor in today's Mori poll who did not have a negative rating on the question of whether they could be a future PM. CLP nominations are anyway not the determinant, the determinant is members, supporters and affiliates and with them yougov has showed it is Burnham, not Cooper, who ends up in the final round with Burnham
I get the feeling Andy Burnham could do a dump in your living room, and you'd be telling us it was a work of art by a genius
Burnham's a strange contender - he has all the assets required to be a very good leader. He's televisual, can do emotional, has a signature policy which could actually do a lot of good and show how Labour can save money later by spending a relatively small amount of money now (integrating social care), which is exactly what the party needs to do. Plus he's got the ideological flexibility necessary having initially been thought of as a Blairite moderniser up until his stint under EdM. For example despite being regarded as 'on the left', he's the only candidate other than Kendall to get the toxicity of answering 'no' to the spent too much question.
Yet his campaign's been utterly uninspiting to the point of tedium and he. My only thought is he was so scarred by getting hammerred as the extra Blairite in 2010 that he's running the ultimate safety first frontrunner's campaign and been trying to be all things to all men. It's not working though as the turgidness of it all has created the Corbyngasm. After saying he'd serve in a Corbyn cabinet he may have made his way from being a toss-up with Liz Kendall for my 1st pref in early June, to third now. Hopefully the current nonsense will slap him round the face with a wet fish and he'll realise that to go out and win a leadership contest you should show a bit of leadership.
I'm friends with far too many Labour members and activists, they don't like him for a variety of reasons, in no particular order
1) He couldn't land a punch on the Tories/Hunt when it came to the NHS, if he can't do that, then he's got no hope of winning any economic arguments against the Tories
2) The whole I'm so working class/man of the people, because I'm an ordinary working class, non political lad from Liverpool, and grew up in a cardboard box, on the m62, please ignore the fact I went to Cambridge, or have been involved in politics for most of my adult life
Except it's no longer just a "common market" - it's now a political project.
Maggie in her own words:
[it] is ironic that just when those countries such as the Soviet Union, which have tried to run everything from the centre, are learning that success depends on dispersing power and decisions away from the centre, there are some in the [European] Community who seem to want to move in the opposite direction.
I have to say....you've made some cracking posts tonight, Sunil!
I shall be voting for the British interest. Like Mrs Thatcher I shall campaign for In.
.The European Community is one manifestation of that European identity, but it is not the only one. cause it has France as France, Spain as Spain, Britain as Britain, each with its own customs, traditions and identity. It would be folly to try to fit them into some sort of identikit European personality...it is ironic that just when those countries such as the Soviet Union, which have tried to run everything from the centre, are learning that success depends on dispersing power and decisions away from the centre, there are some in the Community who seem to want to move in the opposite direction. We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them re-imposed at a European level with a European super-state exercising a new dominance from Brussels. - M. H. Thatcher, The Bruges Speech (20 September, 1988)
And now most of those Iron Curtain countries are now happily part of the European family. Each distinct and different, but with much (as Mrs T pointed out) in common.
As someone who has longed for a referendum, but in the reality that Out will surely lose, I have to say that the inane comments from intelligent people such as you make me believe it is not such a forlorn hope.
Your arguments are both childish and deluded, if this is all you have then for the first time ever I genuinely believe that Out may win.
I agree that Maggie was wrong on many things, but she was right to campaign to be in the Common market, right to campaign for the single European market.
Except it's no longer just a "common market" - it's now a political project.
Maggie in her own words:
[it] is ironic that just when those countries such as the Soviet Union, which have tried to run everything from the centre, are learning that success depends on dispersing power and decisions away from the centre, there are some in the [European] Community who seem to want to move in the opposite direction.
I agree with Disraeli, great comment. Now let's see if DC et al takes it on board. GO is trying with Manchester. Will the other cities and regions come on board.
It makes the potential of a federal system of UK government look a possibility.
I expect Andy Burnham will have a very bad day tomorrow.
In The Times, his campaign manager has said Women ‘are not tough enough to lead Labour’
That was his 2010 campaign manager in a not particularly friendly article from him to Burnham, saying he was moving too far to the left from his centrist position in 2010 to win the membership
No, I'm talking about Lord Falconer and his interview/article in the Times tomorrow.
Well as Lord Falconer was Blair's flatmate, is a top barrister and as Blairite as they come he is hardly the image of some sexist working men's club unionist is he! As Danny565 states (and I will check the comments in the Times tomorrow) it was his assessment of Kendall and Cooper's weaknesses, not Burnham's view and not those of women in general either
It is further evidence of why Burnham repels women
Burnham led Cooper with women on both the first and second rounds in that Labour members and supporters' poll, his lead with the public with Mori today also suggests he does not repel women
I'm friends with far too many Labour members and activists, they don't like him for a variety of reasons, in no particular order
1) He couldn't land a punch on the Tories/Hunt when it came to the NHS, if he can't do that, then he's got no hope of winning any economic arguments against the Tories
2) The whole I'm so working class/man of the people, because I'm an ordinary working class, non political lad from Liverpool, and grew up in a cardboard box, on the m62, please ignore the fact I went to Cambridge, or have been involved in politics for most of my adult life
I expect Andy Burnham will have a very bad day tomorrow.
In The Times, his campaign manager has said Women ‘are not tough enough to lead Labour’
That was his 2010 campaign manager in a not particularly friendly article from him to Burnham, saying he was moving too far to the left from his centrist position in 2010 to win the membership
No, I'm talking about Lord Falconer and his interview/article in the Times tomorrow.
Well as Lord Falconer was Blair's flatmate, is a top barrister and as Blairite as they come he is hardly the image of some sexist working men's club unionist is he! As Danny565 states (and I will check the comments in the Times tomorrow) it was his assessment of Kendall and Cooper's weaknesses, not Burnham's view and not those of women in general either
It is further evidence of why Burnham repels women
Burnham led Cooper with women on both the first and second rounds in that Labour members and supporters' poll, his lead with the public with Mori today also suggests he does not repel women
He repels the women who will decide this leadership contest
Not surprising, fewer than half his supporters think he's a PM.
Yet Burnham was the only Labour leadership contendor in today's Mori poll who did not have a negative rating on the question of whether they could be a future PM. CLP nominations are anyway not the determinant, the determinant is members, supporters and affiliates and with them yougov has showed it is Burnham, not Cooper, who ends up in the final round with Burnham
I get the feeling Andy Burnham could do a dump in your living room, and you'd be telling us it was a work of art by a genius
Burnham's a strange contender - he has all the assets required to be a very good leader. He's televisual, can do emotional, has a signature policy which could actually do a lot of good and show how Labour can save money later by spending a relatively small amount of money now (integrating social care), which is exactly what the party needs to do. Plus he's got the ideological flexibility necessary having initially been thought of as a Blairite moderniser up until his stint under EdM. For example despite being regarded as 'on the left', he's the only candidate other than Kendall to get the toxicity of answering 'no' to the spent too much question.
Yet his campaign's been utterly uninspiting to the point of tedium and he. My only thought is he was so scarred by getting hammerred as the extra Blairite in 2010 that he's running the ultimate safety first frontrunner's campaign and been trying to be all things to all men. It's not working though as the turgidness of it all has created the Corbyngasm. After saying he'd serve in a Corbyn cabinet he may have made his way from being a toss-up with Liz Kendall for my 1st pref in early June, to third now. Hopefully the current nonsense will slap him round the face with a wet fish and he'll realise that to go out and win a leadership contest you should show a bit of leadership.
I always have and still think Burnham would be the best leader preseentationally. He's good-looking and speaks vaguely normally, which shallow as it is gives him an advantage over most politicians.
My big worry is whether he's tough enough for the job. Just during the campaign, he's seemed very brittle when put under pressure, but this is nothing compared to what it will be like in the job proper. By contrast, Cooper for all her MANY presentational flaws atleast seems to have the hide of a rhinoceros.
'I'm friends with far too many Labour members and activists, they don't like him for a variety of reasons, in no particular order
1) He couldn't land a punch on the Tories/Hunt when it came to the NHS, if he can't do that, then he's got no hope of winning any economic arguments against the Tories
2) The whole I'm so working class/man of the people, because I'm an ordinary working class, non political lad from Liverpool, and grew up in a cardboard box, on the m62, please ignore the fact I went to Cambridge, or have been involved in politics for most of my adult life
3) His flip flopping on Welfare this week.'
I could not care less what your Labour friends think, I care what the public as a whole thinks, and they like Burnham best by a clear margin. In any case enough Labour members like him to have him second to Corbyn
1) Labour led on the NHS at the last election, they did not lead on the economy and Burnham has said Labour spent too much unlike Ed Miliband
2) He started off from an average background and got to Cambridge, it is how he got there that is interesting not his SPADism
3) He voted for amendments which were rejected, he then refused to back the bill without them but would not allow the image of his being 'soft' on welfare a vote to oppose the bill would have given either
I shall be voting for the British interest. Like Mrs Thatcher I shall campaign for In.
.The European Community is one manifestation of that European identity, but it is not the only one. We must never forget that east of the Iron Curtain, peoples who once enjoyed a full share of European culture, freedom and identity have been cut off from their roots. We shall always look on Warsaw, Prague and Budapest as great European cities...To try to suppress nationhood and concentrate power at the centre of a European conglomerate would be highly damaging and would jeopardise the objectives we seek to achieve. Europe will be stronger precisely because it has France as France, Spain as Spain, Britain as Britain, each with its own customs, traditions and identity. It would be folly to try to fit them into some sort of identikit European personality...it is ironic that just when those countries such as the Soviet Union, which have tried to run everything from the centre, are learning that success depends on dispersing power and decisions away from the centre, there are some in the Community who seem to want to move in the opposite direction. We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them re-imposed at a European level with a European super-state exercising a new dominance from Brussels. - M. H. Thatcher, The Bruges Speech (20 September, 1988)
And now most of those Iron Curtain countries are now happily part of the European family. Each distinct and different, but with much (as Mrs T pointed out) in common.
As someone who has longed for a referendum, but in the reality that Out will surely lose, I have to say that the inane comments from intelligent people such as you make me believe it is not such a forlorn hope.
Your arguments are both childish and deluded, if this is all you have then for the first time ever I genuinely believe that Out may win.
I agree that Maggie was wrong on many things, but she was right to campaign to be in the Common market, right to campaign for the single European market.
Except it's no longer just a "common market" - it's now a political project.
Maggie in her own words:
[it] is ironic that just when those countries such as the Soviet Union, which have tried to run everything from the centre, are learning that success depends on dispersing power and decisions away from the centre, there are some in the [European] Community who seem to want to move in the opposite direction.
foxinsox is a mediocre Midlands GP approaching retirement, who hasn't had sex since 1998: hence his europhilia.
It is one of the glories of PB that we get to hear the fetid opinions of unremarkable people like him: who would otherwise go entirely unnoticed.
Because people like him vote.
I don't really care about any of that, my point is that he has absolutely no coherent reason why the UK should stay in.
Sure. I was just pointing out that his elderly opinions (is anyone under 55 europhile, apart from loony teens?) cannot be discounted, because the old vote.
There is a constituency of the middle age middlebrow middleclass left which will be europhile til they die (hopefully soon) even if the euro is proven to cause bubonic plague and nuclear winter. It's a faith, innit.
My youngest tells me it's really not cool to say LOL these days, but LOL all the same!
'I'm friends with far too many Labour members and activists, they don't like him for a variety of reasons, in no particular order
1) He couldn't land a punch on the Tories/Hunt when it came to the NHS, if he can't do that, then he's got no hope of winning any economic arguments against the Tories
2) The whole I'm so working class/man of the people, because I'm an ordinary working class, non political lad from Liverpool, and grew up in a cardboard box, on the m62, please ignore the fact I went to Cambridge, or have been involved in politics for most of my adult life
3) His flip flopping on Welfare this week.'
I could not care less what your Labour friends think, I care what the public as a whole thinks, and they like Burnham best by a clear margin. In any case enough Labour members like him to have him second to Corbyn
1) Labour led on the NHS at the last election, they did not lead on the economy
2) He started off from an average background and got to Cambridge, it is how he got there that is interesting not his SPADism
3) He voted for amendments which were rejected, he then refused to back the bill without them but would not allow the image of his being 'soft' on welfare a vote to oppose the bill would have given either
You miss the point. The NHS wasn't an election issue, that speaks volumes about Burnham's crapness, especially after the universally panned Lansley reforms.
"Comrades, this is your leadership candidate. It is an honour to speak to you today, and I am honoured to be sailing with you on the maiden voyage of our motherland's most recent achievement. Once more, we play our dangerous game, a game of chess against our old adversary — The Conservative Party! For a hundred years, your fathers before you and your older brothers played this game and played it well. But today the game is different. We have the advantage. It reminds me of the heady days of 1945 and Clement Atlee, when the world trembled at the sound of our Nationalisations. Well, they will tremble again — at the sound of our Progressiveness. The order is: engage the Corbyn Drive!
"Comrades, our own Parliamentary Party doesn't know our full potential! They will do everything possible to test us; but they will only test their own embarrassment! We will leave our MPs behind, we will pass through the Conservative patrols, past their sonar nets, and lay off their largest constituency, and listen to their chortling and tittering... while we conduct Austerity Debates! Then, and when we are finished, the only sound they will hear is our laughter, while we sail to Brighton, where the Sun is warm, and so is the...Comradeship.
I shall be voting for the British interest. Like Mrs Thatcher I shall campaign for In.
.The European Community is one manifestation of that European identity, but it is not the only one. We must never forget that east of the Iron Curtain, peoples who once enjoyed a full share of European culture, freedom and identity have been cut off from their roots. We shall always look on Warsaw, Prague and Budapest as great European cities...To try to suppress nationhood and concentrate power at the centre of a European conglomerate would be highly damaging and would jeopardise the objectives we seek to achieve. Europe will be stronger precisely because it has France as France, Spain as Spain, Britain as Britain, each with its own customs, traditions and identity. It would be folly to try to fit them into some sort of identikit European personality...it is ironic that just when those countries such as the Soviet Union, which have tried to run everything from the centre, are learning that success depends on dispersing power and decisions away from the centre, there are some in the Community who seem to want to move in the opposite direction. We have not
And now most of those Iron Curtain countries are now happily part of the European family. Each distinct and different, but with much (as Mrs T pointed out) in common.
As someone who has longed for a referendum, but in the reality that Out will surely lose, I have to say that the inane comments from intelligent people such as you make me believe it is not such a forlorn hope.
Your arguments are both childish and deluded, if this is all you have then for the first time ever I genuinely believe that Out may win.
I agree that Maggie was wrong on many things, but she was right to campaign to be in the Common market, right to campaign for the single European market.
Except it's no longer just a "common market" - it's now a political project.
Maggie in her own words:
[it] is ironic that just when those countries such as the Soviet Union, which have tried to run everything from the centre, are learning that success depends on dispersing power and decisions away from the centre, there are some in the [European] Community who seem to want to move in the opposite direction.
GLC!
Ratecapping!
Scottish Devolution!
Maggie only wanted power devolved as far as herself.
Not surprising, fewer than half his supporters think he's a PM.
Yet Burnham was the only Labour leadership contendor in today's Mori poll who did not have a negative rating on the question of whether they could be a future PM. CLP nominations are anyway not the determinant, the determinant is members, supporters and affiliates and with them yougov has showed it is Burnham, not Cooper, who ends up in the final round with Burnham
I get the feeling Andy Burnham could do a dump in your living room, and you'd be telling us it was a work of art by a genius
Burnham's a strange contender - he has all the assets required to be a very good leader. He's televisual, can do emotional, has a signature policy which could actually do a lot of good and show how Labour can save money later by spending a relatively small amount of money now (integrating social care), which is exactly what the party needs to do. Plus he's got the ideological flexibility necessary having initially been thought of as a Blairite moderniser up until his stint under EdM. For example despite being regarded as 'on the left', he's the only candidate other than Kendall to get the toxicity of answering 'no' to the spent too much question.
Yet his campaign's been utterly uninspiting to the point of tedium and he. My only thought is he was so scarred by getting hammerred as the extra Blairite in 2010 that he's running the ultimate safety first frontrunner's campaign and been trying to be all things to all men. It's not working though as the turgidness of it all has created the Corbyngasm. After saying he'd serve in a Corbyn cabinet he may have made his way from being a toss-up with Liz Kendall for my 1st pref in early June, to third now. Hopefully the current nonsense will slap him round the face with a wet fish and he'll realise that to go out and win a leadership contest you should show a bit of leadership.
I always have and still think Burnham would be the best leader preseentationally. He's good-looking and speaks vaguely normally, which shallow as it is gives him an advantage over most politicians.
My big worry is whether he's tough enough for the job. Just during the campaign, he's seemed very brittle when put under pressure, but this is nothing compared to what it will be like in the job proper. By contrast, Cooper for all her MANY presentational flaws atleast seems to have the hide of a rhinoceros.
Spot on.
My guess is the Tories would much rather Burnham wins than Cooper.
My guess is the Tories would much rather Burnham wins than Cooper.'
Absolutely, unequivocally not, Cooper had a negative rating of -12% with the public in today's Mori, Burnham was neutral. Burnham has said Labour spent too much, Cooper has refused to!
Apparently, this 15 year old Briton who was planning this ANZAC day attack was on an anti-radicalisation course. We just have no hope with these people...
I shall be voting for the British interest. Like Mrs Thatcher I shall campaign for In.
snip for length
And now most of those Iron Curtain countries are now happily part of the European family. Each distinct and different, but with much (as Mrs T pointed out) in common.
As someone who has longed for a referendum, but in the reality that Out will surely lose, I have to say that the inane comments from intelligent people such as you make me believe it is not such a forlorn hope.
Your arguments are both childish and deluded, if this is all you have then for the first time ever I genuinely believe that Out may win.
I agree that Maggie was wrong on many things, but she was right to campaign to be in the Common market, right to campaign for the single European market.
Except it's no longer just a "common market" - it's now a political project.
Maggie in her own words:
[it] is ironic that just when those countries such as the Soviet Union, which have tried to run everything from the centre, are learning that success depends on dispersing power and decisions away from the centre, there are some in the [European] Community who seem to want to move in the opposite direction.
I agree with Disraeli, great comment. Now let's see if DC et al takes it on board. GO is trying with Manchester. Will the other cities and regions come on board.
It makes the potential of a federal system of UK government look a possibility.
We already have local government, the tories see the benefit in making it more joined up and accountable. I'm unsure about elected mayors. As for the Eurozone - Cameron has repeatedly said that he, we, the tories and the UK, do not want to be a part of any ever closer union. All individual countries and economies 'are run from the centre' in that they have a central bank and national currency and government/centrally set tax and interest rates. Our own local government and health expenditure is mostly financed from general taxation and disbursed to the regions from the 'centre'.
'I'm friends with far too many Labour members and activists, they don't like him for a variety of reasons, in no particular order
1) He couldn't land a punch on the Tories/Hunt when it came to the NHS, if he can't do that, then he's got no hope of winning any economic arguments against the Tories
2) The whole I'm so working class/man of the people, because I'm an ordinary working class, non political lad from Liverpool, and grew up in a cardboard box, on the m62, please ignore the fact I went to Cambridge, or have been involved in politics for most of my adult life
3) His flip flopping on Welfare this week.'
I could not care less what your Labour friends think, I care what the public as a whole thinks, and they like Burnham best by a clear margin. In any case enough Labour members like him to have him second to Corbyn
1) Labour led on the NHS at the last election, they did not lead on the economy
2) He started off from an average background and got to Cambridge, it is how he got there that is interesting not his SPADism
3) He voted for amendments which were rejected, he then refused to back the bill without them but would not allow the image of his being 'soft' on welfare a vote to oppose the bill would have given either
You miss the point. The NHS wasn't an election issue, that speaks volumes about Burnham's crapness, especially after the universally panned Lansley reforms.
It was Miliband leading the campaign, not Burnham and of course it was Burnham who helped get the Lansley reforms scrapped
I shall be voting for the British interest. Like Mrs Thatcher I shall campaign for In.
.The European Community is one manifestation of that European identity, but it is not the only one. We must never forget that east of the Iron Curtain, peoples who once enjoyed a full share of European culture, freedom and identity have been cut off from their roots. We shall always look on Warsaw, Prague and Budapest as great European cities...To try to suppress nationhood and concentrate power at the centre of a European conglomerate would be highly damaging and would jeopardise the objectives we seek to achieve. Europe will be stronger precisely because it has France as France, Spain as Spain, Britain as Britain, each with its own customs, traditions and identity. It would be folly to try to fit them into some sort of identikit European personality...it is ironic that just when those countries such as the Soviet Union, which have tried to run everything from the centre, are learning that success depends on dispersing power and decisions away from the centre, there are some in the Community who seem to want to move in the opposite direction. We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them re-imposed at a European level with a European super-state exercising a new dominance from Brussels. - M. H. Thatcher, The Bruges Speech (20 September, 1988)
And now most of those Iron Curtain countries are now happily part of the European family. Each distinct and different, but with much (as Mrs T pointed out) in common.
As someone who has longed for a referendum, but in the reality that Out will surely lose, I have to say that the inane comments from intelligent people such as you make me believe it is not such a forlorn hope.
Your arguments are both childish and deluded, if this is all you have then for the first time ever I genuinely believe that Out may win.
I agree that Maggie was wrong on many things, but she was right to campaign to be in the Common market, right to campaign for the single European market.
Except it's no longer just a "common market" - it's now a political project.
Maggie in her own words:
[it] is ironic that just when those countries such as the Soviet Union, which have tried to run everything from the centre, are learning that success depends on dispersing power and decisions away from the centre, there are some in the [European] Community who seem to want to move in the opposite direction.
Not surprising, fewer than half his supporters think he's a PM.
Yet Burnham was the only Labour leadership contendor in today's Mori poll who did not have a negative rating on the question of whether they could be a future PM. CLP nominations are anyway not the determinant, the determinant is members, supporters and affiliates and with them yougov has showed it is Burnham, not Cooper, who ends up in the final round with Burnham
I get the feeling Andy Burnham could do a dump in your living room, and you'd be telling us it was a work of art by a genius
Burnham's a strange contender - he has all the assets required to be a very good leader. He's televisual, can do emotional, has a signature policy which could actually do a lot of good and show how Labour can save money later by spending a relatively small amount of money now (integrating social care), which is exactly what the party needs to do. Plus he's got the ideological flexibility necessary having initially been thought of as a Blairite moderniser up until his stint under EdM. For example despite being regarded as 'on the left', he's the only candidate other than Kendall to get the toxicity of answering 'no' to the spent too much question.
Yet his campaign's been utterly uninspiting to the point of tedium and he. My only thought is he was so scarred by getting hammerred as the extra Blairite in 2010 that he's running the ultimate safety first frontrunner's campaign and been trying to be all things to all men. It's not working though as the turgidness of it all has created the Corbyngasm. After saying he'd serve in a Corbyn cabinet he may have made his way from being a toss-up with Liz Kendall for my 1st pref in early June, to third now. Hopefully the current nonsense will slap him round the face with a wet fish and he'll realise that to go out and win a leadership contest you should show a bit of leadership.
I always have and still think Burnham would be the best leader preseentationally. He's good-looking and speaks vaguely normally, which shallow as it is gives him an advantage over most politicians.
My big worry is whether he's tough enough for the job. Just during the campaign, he's seemed very brittle when put under pressure, but this is nothing compared to what it will be like in the job proper. By contrast, Cooper for all her MANY presentational flaws atleast seems to have the hide of a rhinoceros.
Cooper has had ME and depression, now that does not preclude her from the leadership but nor does it suggest she has the hide of a rhinoceros
My guess is the Tories would much rather Burnham wins than Cooper.'
Absolutely, unequivocally not, Cooper had a negative rating of -12% with the public in today's Mori, Burnham was neutral. Burnham has said Labour spent too much, Cooper has refused to!
The Tories will eat Andy Bambi alive, they would never get away with that with Cooper.
I expect Andy Burnham will have a very bad day tomorrow.
In The Times, his campaign manager has said Women ‘are not tough enough to lead Labour’
That was his 2010 campaign manager in a not particularly friendly article from him to Burnham, saying he was moving too far to the left from his centrist position in 2010 to win the membership
No, I'm talking about Lord Falconer and his interview/article in the Times tomorrow.
Well as Lord Falconer was Blair's flatmate, is a top barrister and as Blairite as they come he is hardly the image of some sexist working men's club unionist is he! As Danny565 states (and I will check the comments in the Times tomorrow) it was his assessment of Kendall and Cooper's weaknesses, not Burnham's view and not those of women in general either
It is further evidence of why Burnham repels women
Burnham led Cooper with women on both the first and second rounds in that Labour members and supporters' poll, his lead with the public with Mori today also suggests he does not repel women
He repels the women who will decide this leadership contest
The fact a few more Labour women seem to have a crush on Corbyn does not really suggest that, Corbyn also leads Kendall and Cooper with women
I'm friends with far too many Labour members and activists, they don't like him for a variety of reasons, in no particular order
1) He couldn't land a punch on the Tories/Hunt when it came to the NHS, if he can't do that, then he's got no hope of winning any economic arguments against the Tories
2) The whole I'm so working class/man of the people, because I'm an ordinary working class, non political lad from Liverpool, and grew up in a cardboard box, on the m62, please ignore the fact I went to Cambridge, or have been involved in politics for most of my adult life
3) His flip flopping on Welfare this week.
BIB: LMAO, that made me laugh out loud.
The fact I had to look up "BIB" makes me feel old. (It's "bit in bold", for fellow Luddites.)
I'm still not completely used to computers having bold type. Proper computers just use inverse video instead!
Just watching a programme about the far right in Russia.
Jesus, they are a seriously frightening bunch of nutters, and Reggie Yates has earned my utmost respect
So you didn't watch his program on South Africa? He earned my utmost hatred for his support of the current South African government and their policies towards their white (and Indian) population.
I shall be voting for the British interest. Like Mrs Thatcher I shall campaign for In.
.The European Community is one manifestation of that European identity, but it is not the only one. We must never forget that east of the Iron Curtain, peoples who once enjoyed a full share of European culture, freedom and identity have been cut off from their roots. We shall always look on Warsaw, Prague and Budapest as great European cities...To try to suppress nationhood and concentrate power at the centre of a European conglomerate would be highly damaging and would jeopardise the objectives we seek to achieve. Europe will be stronger precisely because it has France as France, Spain as Spain, Britain as Britain, each with its own customs, traditions and identity. It would be folly to try to fit them into some sort of identikit European personality...it is ironic that just when those countries such as the Soviet Union, which have tried to run everything from the centre, are learning that success depends on dispersing power and decisions away from the centre, there are some in the Community who seem to want to move in the opposite direction. We have not
And now most of those Iron Curtain countries are now happily part of the European family. Each distinct and different, but with much (as Mrs T pointed out) in common.
As someone who has longed for a referendum, but in the reality that Out will surely lose, I have to say that the inane comments from intelligent people such as you make me believe it is not such a forlorn hope.
Your arguments are both childish and deluded, if this is all you have then for the first time ever I genuinely believe that Out may win.
I agree that Maggie was wrong on many things, but she was right to campaign to be in the Common market, right to campaign for the single European market.
Except it's no longer just a "common market" - it's now a political project.
Maggie in her own words:
[it] is ironic that just when those countries such as the Soviet Union, which have tried to run everything from the centre, are learning that success depends on dispersing power and decisions away from the centre, there are some in the [European] Community who seem to want to move in the opposite direction.
GLC!
Ratecapping!
Scottish Devolution!
Maggie only wanted power devolved as far as herself.
Councils forced to sell property at a big discount.
foxinsox is a mediocre Midlands GP approaching retirement, who hasn't had sex since 1998: hence his europhilia.
It is one of the glories of PB that we get to hear the fetid opinions of unremarkable people like him: who would otherwise go entirely unnoticed.
Because people like him vote.
I don't really care about any of that, my point is that he has absolutely no coherent reason why the UK should stay in.
Sure. I was just pointing out that his elderly opinions (is anyone under 55 europhile, apart from loony teens?) cannot be discounted, because the old vote.
There is a constituency of the middle age middlebrow middleclass left which will be europhile til they die (hopefully soon) even if the euro is proven to cause bubonic plague and nuclear winter. It's a faith, innit.
Once more you display your ignorance along with your drunkeness. Every poll shows that the young are the most pro-EU and the oldies most anti. For example:
Just watching a programme about the far right in Russia.
Jesus, they are a seriously frightening bunch of nutters, and Reggie Yates has earned my utmost respect
So you didn't watch his program on South Africa? He earned my utmost hatred for his support of the current South African government and their policies towards their white (and Indian) population.
I didn't, no.
He was very brave sticking himself up front in Russia, will try to find the SA equivalent
Whether you agree with Obama or not, as President of America he is absolutely entitled to express a view on the issue of our continued membership of the EU. Especially as the US is a major partner in NATO and a close ally of the UK.
Just watching a programme about the far right in Russia.
Jesus, they are a seriously frightening bunch of nutters, and Reggie Yates has earned my utmost respect
So you didn't watch his program on South Africa? He earned my utmost hatred for his support of the current South African government and their policies towards their white (and Indian) population.
Yep. Tis fine to say "Africa for the africans" but woe betide such remarks in Europe.
Whether you agree with Obama or not, as President of America he is absolutely entitled to express a view on the issue of our continued membership of the EU. Especially as the US is a major partner in NATO and a close ally of the UK.
Not surprising, fewer than half his supporters think he's a PM.
I get the feeling Andy Burnham could do a dump in your living room, and you'd be telling us it was a work of art by a genius
.
I'm friends with far too many Labour members and activists, they don't like him for a variety of reasons, in no particular order
1) He couldn't land a punch on the Tories/Hunt when it came to the NHS, if he can't do that, then he's got no hope of winning any economic arguments against the Tories
2) The whole I'm so working class/man of the people, because I'm an ordinary working class, non political lad from Liverpool, and grew up in a cardboard box, on the m62, please ignore the fact I went to Cambridge, or have been involved in politics for most of my adult life
3) His flip flopping on Welfare this week.
1.) Yes, and what made it bizarre was that he did have something rather good to say on the NHS with the social care stuff and had started to land a few hits with it early on, it gave Labour something to say around funding different to the Tories at least. Then we had a few 'crisis' headlines and he and Ed seemed to get overexcited and just started shouting 'crisis' over and over again. As it was mostly Ed (remember every winter PMQs?), who'd decided it was THE issue, one hoped it was Burnham being overruled, but we're still seeing bad Andy.
2.) Yes, although some of it is genuine. Having lived in Liverpool recently, he is very popular in that part of the world for maintaining a connection with the area which he actually helped make a difference on something pretty important to many. I think the point is that the more you mention it the less sincere it seems and takes it to levels of implausibility. The way to play it is to be self-deprecating about it and wait for people to bring your background up and use it as a defence. E.g. "You're just another SpAd aren't you?" "No ask my friends, ask my constituents where I grew up..." Rather than bringing it up as your selling point.
3.) There I have sympathy because it put all of them in a ruddy awful position. Look at the torrents of abuse Liz Kendall has got. Labour MPs have been slaughtered for explaining parliamentary procedure and how yes, they will be opposing the bits of the bill people are foaming at the mouth about at the next reading. I can hardly blame someone trying to win an election for fudging something for which there is no palatable answer. After all it's what politicians do, heck, the Tories had a few masterful ones in the campaign.
I expect Andy Burnham will have a very bad day tomorrow.
In The Times, his campaign manager has said Women ‘are not tough enough to lead Labour’
That was his 2010 campaign manager in a not particularly friendly article from him to Burnham, saying he was moving too far to the left from his centrist position in 2010 to win the membership
No, I'm talking about Lord Falconer and his interview/article in the Times tomorrow.
Well as Lord Falconer was Blair's flatmate, is a top barrister and as Blairite as they come he is hardly the image of some sexist working men's club unionist is he! As Danny565 states (and I will check the comments in the Times tomorrow) it was his assessment of Kendall and Cooper's weaknesses, not Burnham's view and not those of women in general either
It is further evidence of why Burnham repels women
But is the comment right? It is Labour we are talking about. And who is tough enough to lead Labour?
Whether you agree with Obama or not, as President of America he is absolutely entitled to express a view on the issue of our continued membership of the EU. Especially as the US is a major partner in NATO and a close ally of the UK.
I shall be voting for the British interest. Like Mrs Thatcher I shall campaign for In.
.The European Community is one manifestation of that European identity, but it is not the only one. We must necessfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them re-imposed at a European level with a European super-state exercising a new dominance from Brussels. - M. H. Thatcher, The Bruges Speech (20 September, 1988)
And now most of those Iron Curtain countries are now happily part of the European family. Each distinct and different, but with much (as Mrs T pointed out) in common.
As someone who has longed for a referendum, but in the reality that Out will surely lose, I have to say that the inane comments from intelligent people such as you make me believe it is not such a forlorn hope.
Your arguments are both childish and deluded, if this is all you have then for the first time ever I genuinely believe that Out may win.
I agree that Maggie was wrong on many things, but she was right to campaign to be in the Common market, right to campaign for the single European market.
Except it's no longer just a "common market" - it's now a political project.
Maggie in her own words:
[it] is ironic that just when those countries such as the Soviet Union, which have tried to run everything from the centre, are learning that success depends on dispersing power and decisions away from the centre, there are some in the [European] Community who seem to want to move in the opposite direction.
GLC!
GLA! Boris! Transport for London!
Genuine question for once! Why do London MP's get to vote on things that others cannot vote on London projects? And if GO has his way with city and regional mayoral councils, how would Westminster get away with having 650 MP's and goodness knows how many Lords?
I shall be voting for the British interest. Like Mrs Thatcher I shall campaign for In.
.The European Community is one manifestation of that European identity, but it is not the only one. We must necessfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them re-imposed at a European level with a European super-state exercising a new dominance from Brussels. - M. H. Thatcher, The Bruges Speech (20 September, 1988)
And now most of those Iron Curtain countries are now happily part of the European family. Each distinct and different, but with much (as Mrs T pointed out) in common.
As someone who has longed for a referendum, but in the reality that Out will surely lose, I have to say that the inane comments from intelligent people such as you make me believe it is not such a forlorn hope.
Your arguments are both childish and deluded, if this is all you have then for the first time ever I genuinely believe that Out may win.
I agree that Maggie was wrong on many things, but she was right to campaign to be in the Common market, right to campaign for the single European market.
Except it's no longer just a "common market" - it's now a political project.
Maggie in her own words:
[it] is ironic that just when those countries such as the Soviet Union, which have tried to run everything from the centre, are learning that success depends on dispersing power and decisions away from the centre, there are some in the [European] Community who seem to want to move in the opposite direction.
GLC!
GLA! Boris! Transport for London!
Genuine question for once! Why do London MP's get to vote on things that others cannot vote on London projects? And if GO has his way with city and regional mayoral councils, how would Westminster get away with having 650 MP's and goodness knows how many Lords?
London Assembly has only 25 members - why does Scotland need 129?
I shall be voting for the British interest. Like Mrs Thatcher I shall campaign for In.
.The European Community is one manifestation of that European identity, but it is not the only one. We must necessfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them re-imposed at a European level with a European super-state exercising a new dominance from Brussels. - M. H. Thatcher, The Bruges Speech (20 September, 1988)
And now most of those Iron Curtain countries are now happily part of the European family. Each distinct and different, but with much (as Mrs T pointed out) in common.
As someone who has longed for a referendum, but in the reality that Out will surely lose, I have to say that the inane comments from intelligent people such as you make me believe it is not such a forlorn hope.
Your arguments are both childish and deluded, if this is all you have then for the first time ever I genuinely believe that Out may win.
I agree that Maggie was wrong on many things, but she was right to campaign to be in the Common market, right to campaign for the single European market.
Except it's no longer just a "common market" - it's now a political project.
Maggie in her own words:
[it] is ironic that just when those countries such as the Soviet Union, which have tried to run everything from the centre, are learning that success depends on dispersing power and decisions away from the centre, there are some in the [European] Community who seem to want to move in the opposite direction.
GLC!
GLA! Boris! Transport for London!
Genuine question for once! Why do London MP's get to vote on things that others cannot vote on London projects? And if GO has his way with city and regional mayoral councils, how would Westminster get away with having 650 MP's and goodness knows how many Lords?
London Assembly has only 32 members - why does Scotland need 129?
Agreed, we should only have had about 70 or less. Too many MP's and MSP's screw up law making.
foxinsox is a mediocre Midlands GP approaching retirement, who hasn't had sex since 1998: hence his europhilia.
It is one of the glories of PB that we get to hear the fetid opinions of unremarkable people like him: who would otherwise go entirely unnoticed.
Because people like him vote.
I don't really care about any of that, my point is that he has absolutely no coherent reason why the UK should stay in.
Sure. I was just pointing out that his elderly opinions (is anyone under 55 europhile, apart from loony teens?) cannot be discounted, because the old vote.
There is a constituency of the middle age middlebrow middleclass left which will be europhile til they die (hopefully soon) even if the euro is proven to cause bubonic plague and nuclear winter. It's a faith, innit.
Once more you display your ignorance along with your drunkeness. Every poll shows that the young are the most pro-EU and the oldies most anti. For example:
Of course older people are more likely to vote, but that is offset by greater interest in referendums on Union than in FPTP votes in safe seats.
There will be plenty of time to discuss the referendum.
lol. Nailed you tho, didn't I? You're an old sad europervy doctor in the Midlands, with views typical of your generation and milieu. Don't be angry. There's no shame in mediocrity: it is, after all, by definition, the fate of most.
Middle England decides outcomes of elections and referendums, not Islington narcissists. My people rule your people.
My guess is the Tories would much rather Burnham wins than Cooper.'
Absolutely, unequivocally not, Cooper had a negative rating of -12% with the public in today's Mori, Burnham was neutral. Burnham has said Labour spent too much, Cooper has refused to!
The Tories will eat Andy Bambi alive, they would never get away with that with Cooper.
Hague used to regularly win QT it made zero difference with the public, the 'Demon Eyes' poster in 1997 also actually helped Blair. I see no evidence Tories could 'eat Burnham alive' and Cooper has given them more ammunition on spending anyway. Blair was initially taunted as Bambi by Tories, it ended up being Blair who ate them alive!
Back at the end of June I mentioned that Turkey, Jordan and the Israelis had plans for more direct intervention in Syria in the form of incursions by force.
Now, both the Israelis and Turks have turned up across the border in Syria, mysteriously enough in the same 24-48 hour period.
The Jordanians meanwhile have initially turned east to Iraq. They've moved troops across the border.
The numbers of boots are not large but they are there a number of miles within Syria and Iraq.
I expect Andy Burnham will have a very bad day tomorrow.
In The Times, his campaign manager has said Women ‘are not tough enough to lead Labour’
That was his 2010 campaign manager in a not particularly friendly article from him to Burnham, saying he was moving too far to the left from his centrist position in 2010 to win the membership
No, I'm talking about Lord Falconer and his interview/article in the Times tomorrow.
Well as Lord Falconer was Blair's flatmate, is a top barrister and as Blairite as they come he is hardly the image of some sexist working men's club unionist is he! As Danny565 states (and I will check the comments in the Times tomorrow) it was his assessment of Kendall and Cooper's weaknesses, not Burnham's view and not those of women in general either
It is further evidence of why Burnham repels women
But is the comment right? It is Labour we are talking about. And who is tough enough to lead Labour?
How would we know? Labour has never had a woman leader.
foxinsox is a mediocre Midlands GP approaching retirement, who hasn't had sex since 1998: hence his europhilia.
It is one of the glories of PB that we get to hear the fetid opinions of unremarkable people like him: who would otherwise go entirely unnoticed.
Because people like him vote.
I don't really care about any of that, my point is that he has absolutely no coherent reason why the UK should stay in.
Sure. I was just pointing out that his elderly opinions (is anyone under 55 europhile, apart from loony teens?) cannot be discounted, because the old vote.
There is a constituency of the middle age middlebrow middleclass left which will be europhile til they die (hopefully soon) even if the euro is proven to cause bubonic plague and nuclear winter. It's a faith, innit.
Once more you display your ignorance along with your drunkeness. Every poll shows that the young are the most pro-EU and the oldies most anti. For example:
Of course older people are more likely to vote, but that is offset by greater interest in referendums on Union than in FPTP votes in safe seats.
There will be plenty of time to discuss the referendum.
lol. Nailed you tho, didn't I? You're an old sad europervy doctor in the Midlands, with views typical of your generation and milieu. Don't be angry. There's no shame in mediocrity: it is, after all, by definition, the fate of most.
What's sad about being a doctor in the Midlands? The greatest essayist of our age, Theodore Dalrymple, started out as one (although he's from London originally).
Not surprising, fewer than half his supporters think he's a PM.
I get the feeling Andy Burnham could do a dump in your living room, and you'd be telling us it was a work of art by a genius
.
I'm friends with far too many Labour members and activists, they don't like him for a variety of reasons, in no particular order
1) He couldn't land a punch on the Tories/Hunt when it came to the NHS, if he can't do that, then he's got no hope of winning any economic arguments against the Tories
2) The whole I'm so working .
1.) Yes, and what made it bizarre was that he did have something rather good to say on the NHS with the social care stuff and had started to land a few hits with it early on, it gave Labour something to say around funding different to the Tories at least. Then we had a few 'crisis' headlines and he and Ed seemed to get overexcited and just started shouting 'crisis' over and over again. As it was mostly Ed (remember every winter PMQs?), who'd decided it was THE issue, one hoped it was Burnham being overruled, but we're still seeing bad Andy.
2.) Yes, although some of it is genuine. Having lived in Liverpool recently, he is very popular in that part of the world for maintaining a connection with the area which he actually helped make a difference on something pretty important to many. I think the point is that the more you mention it the less sincere it seems and takes it to levels of implausibility. The way to play it is to be self-deprecating about it and wait for people to bring your background up and use it as a defence. E.g. "You're just another SpAd aren't you?" "No ask my friends, ask my constituents where I grew up..." Rather than bringing it up as your selling point.
3.) There I have sympathy because it put all of them in a ruddy awful position. Look at the torrents of abuse Liz Kendall has got. Labour MPs have been slaughtered for explaining parliamentary procedure and how yes, they will be opposing the bits of the bill people are foaming at the mouth about at the next reading. I can hardly blame someone trying to win an election for fudging something for which there is no palatable answer. After all it's what politicians do, heck, the Tories had a few masterful ones in the campaign.
The other thing they don't like about Burnham is he appears to be a bit of a drama queen.
My guess is the Tories would much rather Burnham wins than Cooper.'
Absolutely, unequivocally not, Cooper had a negative rating of -12% with the public in today's Mori, Burnham was neutral. Burnham has said Labour spent too much, Cooper has refused to!
I suspect the Tories' biggest worry is that they will wake up and it will be Tony Blair who walks out of the shower. The Labour Party leadership election is I admit a big worry ... for the Labour Party.
Funny thing is that the Turks and Israelis have had mostly friendly relations for a long time (yes, I know, except when some Israeli troops killed some Turkish humanitarians trying to sail into Gaza) while the Israelis and the Jordanians have had a working relationship over the Temple on the Mount and other religious sites
Not surprising, fewer than half his supporters think he's a PM.
I get the feeling Andy Burnham could do a dump in your living room, and you'd be telling us it was a work of art by a genius
.
I'm friends with far too many Labour members and activists, they don't like him for a variety of reasons, in no particular order
1) He couldn't land a punch on the Tories/Hunt when it came to the NHS, if he can't do that, then he's got no hope of winning any economic arguments against the Tories
2) The whole I'm so working .
1.) Yes, and what made it bizarre was that he did have something rather good to say on the NHS with the social care stuff and had started to land a few hits with it early on, it gave Labour something to say around funding different to the Tories at least. Then we had a few 'crisis' headlines and he and Ed seemed to get overexcited and just started shouting 'crisis' over and over again. As it was mostly Ed (remember every winter PMQs?), who'd decided it was THE issue, one hoped it was Burnham being overruled, but we're still seeing bad Andy.
snip
3.) There I have sympathy because it put all of them in a ruddy awful position. Look at the torrents of abuse Liz Kendall has got. Labour MPs have been slaughtered for explaining parliamentary procedure and how yes, they will be opposing the bits of the bill people are foaming at the mouth about at the next reading. I can hardly blame someone trying to win an election for fudging something for which there is no palatable answer. After all it's what politicians do, heck, the Tories had a few masterful ones in the campaign.
The other thing they don't like about Burnham is he appears to be a bit of a drama queen.
Remember he threatened to sue Jeremy Hunt
Not the temperament of a future PM
As ever we need the CYETOHODS test, as in Close Your Eyes, Think of Him/Her Outside Downing Street test. Burnham doesn't pass IMHO.
foxinsox is a mediocre Midlands GP approaching retirement, who hasn't had sex since 1998: hence his europhilia.
It is one of the glories of PB that we get to hear the fetid opinions of unremarkable people like him: who would otherwise go entirely unnoticed.
Because people like him vote.
I don't really care about any of that, my point is that he has absolutely no coherent reason why the UK should stay in.
Sure. I was just pointing out that his elderly opinions (is anyone under 55 europhile, apart from loony teens?) cannot be discounted, because the old vote.
There is a constituency of the middle age middlebrow middleclass left which will be europhile til they die (hopefully soon) even if the euro is proven to cause bubonic plague and nuclear winter. It's a faith, innit.
Once more you display your ignorance along with your drunkeness. Every poll shows that the young are the most pro-EU and the oldies most anti. For example:
Of course older people are more likely to vote, but that is offset by greater interest in referendums on Union than in FPTP votes in safe seats.
There will be plenty of time to discuss the referendum.
lol. Nailed you tho, didn't I? You're an old sad europervy doctor in the Midlands, with views typical of your generation and milieu. Don't be angry. There's no shame in mediocrity: it is, after all, by definition, the fate of most.
What's sad about being a doctor in the Midlands? The greatest essayist of our age, Theodore Dalrymple, started out as one (although he's from London originally).
A cracking writer, though I think Raymond Tallis is probably the greatest British medical writer.
Wouldn't surprise me if the Israelis, Turks and Jordanians had decided enough was enough. Just hope that the USAF doesn't make a mistake and bomb the new allies.
foxinsox is a mediocre Midlands GP approaching retirement, who hasn't had sex since 1998: hence his europhilia.
It is one of the glories of PB that we get to hear the fetid opinions of unremarkable people like him: who would otherwise go entirely unnoticed.
Because people like him vote.
I don't really care about any of that, my point is that he has absolutely no coherent reason why the UK should stay in.
Sure. I was just pointing out that his elderly opinions (is anyone under 55 europhile, apart from loony teens?) cannot be discounted, because the old vote.
There is a constituency of the middle age middlebrow middleclass left which will be europhile til they die (hopefully soon) even if the euro is proven to cause bubonic plague and nuclear winter. It's a faith, innit.
Once more you display your ignorance along with your drunkeness. Every poll shows that the young are the most pro-EU and the oldies most anti. For example:
Of course older people are more likely to vote, but that is offset by greater interest in referendums on Union than in FPTP votes in safe seats.
There will be plenty of time to discuss the referendum.
lol. Nailed you tho, didn't I? You're an old sad europervy doctor in the Midlands, with views typical of your generation and milieu. Don't be angry. There's no shame in mediocrity: it is, after all, by definition, the fate of most.
Middle England decides outcomes of elections and referendums, not Islington narcissists. My people rule your people.
Um, your people, the Lib Dems, can't even rule Norwich. Tho I admire your attempt to remember what it's like to have an erection, politically speaking.
You do seem strangely obsessed with my sexual abilities. Projecting your own fears of fading abilities brought on by pox and booze?
Funny thing is that the Turks and Israelis have had mostly friendly relations for a long time (yes, I know, except when some Israeli troops killed some Turkish humanitarians trying to sail into Gaza) while the Israelis and the Jordanians have had a working relationship over the Temple on the Mount and other religious sites
foxinsox is a mediocre Midlands GP approaching retirement, who hasn't had sex since 1998: hence his europhilia.
It is one of the glories of PB that we get to hear the fetid opinions of unremarkable people like him: who would otherwise go entirely unnoticed.
Because people like him vote.
I don't really care about any of that, my point is that he has absolutely no coherent reason why the UK should stay in.
Sure. I was just pointing out that his elderly opinions (is anyone under 55 europhile, apart from loony teens?) cannot be discounted, because the old vote.
There is a constituency of the middle age middlebrow middleclass left which will be europhile til they die (hopefully soon) even if the euro is proven to cause bubonic plague and nuclear winter. It's a faith, innit.
Once more you display your ignorance along with your drunkeness. Every poll shows that the young are the most pro-EU and the oldies most anti. For example:
Of course older people are more likely to vote, but that is offset by greater interest in referendums on Union than in FPTP votes in safe seats.
There will be plenty of time to discuss the referendum.
lol. Nailed you tho, didn't I? You're an old sad europervy doctor in the Midlands, with views typical of your generation and milieu. Don't be angry. There's no shame in mediocrity: it is, after all, by definition, the fate of most.
Middle England decides outcomes of elections and referendums, not Islington narcissists. My people rule your people.
Um, your people, the Lib Dems, can't even rule Norwich. Tho I admire your attempt to remember what it's like to have an erection, politically speaking.
You do seem strangely obsessed with my sexual abilities. Projecting your own fears of fading abilities brought on by pox and booze?
Given the amount of time Sean has spent with Doctors who treat the clap he's just angry at the whole profession.
I shall be voting for the British interest. Like Mrs Thatcher I shall campaign for In.
.The European Community is one manifestation of that European identity, but it is not the only one. We must necessfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them re-imposed at a European level with a European super-state exercising a new dominance from Brussels. - M. H. Thatcher, The Bruges Speech (20 September, 1988)
And now most of those Iron Curtain countries are now happily part of the European family. Each distinct and different, but with much (as Mrs T pointed out) in common.
As someone who has longed for a referendum, but in the reality that Out will surely lose, I have to say that the inane comments from intelligent people such as you make me believe it is not such a forlorn hope.
Your arguments are both childish and deluded, if this is all you have then for the first time ever I genuinely believe that Out may win.
I agree that Maggie was wrong on many things, but she was right to campaign to be in the Common market, right to campaign for the single European market.
Except it's no longer just a "common market" - it's now a political project.
Maggie in her own words:
[it] is ironic that just when those countries such as the Soviet Union, which have tried to run everything from the centre, are learning that success depends on dispersing power and decisions away from the centre, there are some in the [European] Community who seem to want to move in the opposite direction.
GLC!
GLA! Boris! Transport for London!
Genuine question for once! Why do London MP's get to vote on things that others cannot vote on London projects? And if GO has his way with city and regional mayoral councils, how would Westminster get away with having 650 MP's and goodness knows how many Lords?
?? Have you never heard of local government - as opposed to devolution? MPs in Westminster vote on the organisation of the English NHS - including Scottish ones. Who votes on the organisation of the Scottish NHS?
Wouldn't surprise me if the Israelis, Turks and Jordanians had decided enough was enough. Just hope that the USAF doesn't make a mistake and bomb the new allies.
foxinsox is a mediocre Midlands GP approaching retirement, who hasn't had sex since 1998: hence his europhilia.
It is one of the glories of PB that we get to hear the fetid opinions of unremarkable people like him: who would otherwise go entirely unnoticed.
Because people like him vote.
I don't really care about any of that, my point is that he has absolutely no coherent reason why the UK should stay in.
Sure. I was just pointing out that his elderly opinions (is anyone under 55 europhile, apart from loony teens?) cannot be discounted, because the old vote.
There is a constituency of the middle age middlebrow middleclass left which will be europhile til they die (hopefully soon) even if the euro is proven to cause bubonic plague and nuclear winter. It's a faith, innit.
Once more you display your ignorance along with your drunkeness. Every poll shows that the young are the most pro-EU and the oldies most anti. For example:
Of course older people are more likely to vote, but that is offset by greater interest in referendums on Union than in FPTP votes in safe seats.
There will be plenty of time to discuss the referendum.
lol. Nailed you tho, didn't I? You're an old sad europervy doctor in the Midlands, with views typical of your generation and milieu. Don't be angry. There's no shame in mediocrity: it is, after all, by definition, the fate of most.
Middle England decides outcomes of elections and referendums, not Islington narcissists. My people rule your people.
Um, your people, the Lib Dems, can't even rule Norwich. Tho I admire your attempt to remember what it's like to have an erection, politically speaking.
You do seem strangely obsessed with my sexual abilities. Projecting your own fears of fading abilities brought on by pox and booze?
Given the amount of time Sean has spent with Doctors who treat the clap he's just angry at the whole profession.
I wouldn't take it personally.
Its water off a ducks back. I am sure that my Harley St friends will stiffen him up for a little longer with viagra. He is probably not going to be completely past it for another year ot two.
My guess is the Tories would much rather Burnham wins than Cooper.'
Absolutely, unequivocally not, Cooper had a negative rating of -12% with the public in today's Mori, Burnham was neutral. Burnham has said Labour spent too much, Cooper has refused to!
'I suspect the Tories' biggest worry is that they will wake up and it will be Tony Blair who walks out of the shower. The Labour Party leadership election is I admit a big worry ... for the Labour Party.'
However Cameron will not be leading the Tories in 2020 and after 10 years in power all governments are vulnerable
Wouldn't surprise me if the Israelis, Turks and Jordanians had decided enough was enough. Just hope that the USAF doesn't make a mistake and bomb the new allies.
A forlorn hope, I expect. The septics always bomb their allies. In every war that USAAF/USAF has taken part they have managed to kill soldiers on their own side. Even with all the advances in communication and targeting since WW2 they were still doing it in Afghanistan just a few years ago.
Wouldn't surprise me if the Israelis, Turks and Jordanians had decided enough was enough. Just hope that the USAF doesn't make a mistake and bomb the new allies.
A forlorn hope, I expect. The septics always bomb their allies. In every war that USAAF/USAF has taken part they have managed to kill soldiers on their own side. Even with all the advances in communication and targeting since WW2 they were still doing it in Afghanistan just a few years ago.
Wouldn't surprise me if the Israelis, Turks and Jordanians had decided enough was enough. Just hope that the USAF doesn't make a mistake and bomb the new allies.
A forlorn hope, I expect. The septics always bomb their allies. In every war that USAAF/USAF has taken part they have managed to kill soldiers on their own side. Even with all the advances in communication and targeting since WW2 they were still doing it in Afghanistan just a few years ago.
Wouldn't surprise me if the Israelis, Turks and Jordanians had decided enough was enough. Just hope that the USAF doesn't make a mistake and bomb the new allies.
A forlorn hope, I expect. The septics always bomb their allies. In every war that USAAF/USAF has taken part they have managed to kill soldiers on their own side. Even with all the advances in communication and targeting since WW2 they were still doing it in Afghanistan just a few years ago.
I knew a former American soldier who got fed up with the crap they get for this. He claimed that their own troops had high-tech equipment on each of their soldiers that would show the bombers where they were to prevent friendly fire incidents. The various armies that work with them, including the Brits, were never willing to shell out for this more expensive kit, but still wanted to work with American aerial backup. As a result, more friendly fire incidents happened as that extra safeguard happened. So he considered it the allies' fault for being cheap.
Not sure how true it was, but it was another side to the story.
foxinsox is a mediocre Midlands GP approaching retirement, who hasn't had sex since 1998: hence his europhilia.
It is one of the glories of PB that we get to hear the fetid opinions of unremarkable people like him: who would otherwise go entirely unnoticed.
Because people like him vote.
I don't really care about any of that, my point is that he has absolutely no coherent reason why the UK should stay in.
Sure. I was just pointing out that his elderly opinions (is anyone under 55 europhile, apart from loony teens?) cannot be discounted, because the old vote.
There is a constituency of the middle age middlebrow middleclass left which will be europhile til they die (hopefully soon) even if the euro is proven to cause bubonic plague and nuclear winter. It's a faith, innit.
Once more you display your ignorance along with your drunkeness. Every poll shows that the young are the most pro-EU and the oldies most anti. For example:
Of course older people are more likely to vote, but that is offset by greater interest in referendums on Union than in FPTP votes in safe seats.
There will be plenty of time to discuss the referendum.
lol. Nailed you tho, didn't I? You're an old sad europervy doctor in the Midlands, with views typical of your generation and milieu. Don't be angry. There's no shame in mediocrity: it is, after all, by definition, the fate of most.
In my view, becoming a qualified doctor and saving goodness knows how many lives is achieving much more than mediocrity. While I think writing bestselling books is a fine thing to have done, I would put being a doctor above that.
Wouldn't surprise me if the Israelis, Turks and Jordanians had decided enough was enough. Just hope that the USAF doesn't make a mistake and bomb the new allies.
A forlorn hope, I expect. The septics always bomb their allies. In every war that USAAF/USAF has taken part they have managed to kill soldiers on their own side. Even with all the advances in communication and targeting since WW2 they were still doing it in Afghanistan just a few years ago.
I knew a former American soldier who got fed up with the crap they get for this. He claimed that their own troops had high-tech equipment on each of their soldiers that would show the bombers where they were to prevent friendly fire incidents. The various armies that work with them, including the Brits, were never willing to shell out for this more expensive kit, but still wanted to work with American aerial backup. As a result, more friendly fire incidents happened as that extra safeguard happened. So he considered it the allies' fault for being cheap.
Not sure how true it was, but it was another side to the story.
It is utter bollocks, Mr. JEO. In Gulf War 1 my old unit lost several dead, their only fatalities, to a Yank air strike, despite having all the gizmos necessary to identify their vehicles as friendly, as the subsequent investigation proved. In Afghanistan UK troops were also equipped with all modern communication and ID devices and it still didn't stop the septics bombing them on occasion.
Now, that said what has to be acknowledged is that in war mistakes will happen and that sometimes those mistakes will have very bad consequences. Furthermore, far more Brit and allied soldiers have been saved by US air strikes than have ever been hurt by them. Nevertheless, the Yanks do have a friendly fire problem and if you go to war alongside them then you should expect to take casualties from American bombing.
Whether you agree with Obama or not, as President of America he is absolutely entitled to express a view on the issue of our continued membership of the EU. Especially as the US is a major partner in NATO and a close ally of the UK.
Obama sticking his oar in about the EU on the BBC right now
What the fuck has it got to do with him?
Not sure why he isn't allowed to have views on it?
I stopped reading after Obama claimed the EU makes the world safer and more prosperous. Try telling that to the unemployed youth in southern Europe or the relatives of those who died during the breakup of Yugoslavia caused in part by the EC's obsession with forcing countries together.
I notice the words "moderated" don't seem to appear on PB these days. Is that because they're not being moderated anymore or because posters are more sensible than they used to be?
foxinsox is a mediocre Midlands GP approaching retirement, who hasn't had sex since 1998: hence his europhilia.
It is one of the glories of PB that we get to hear the fetid opinions of unremarkable people like him: who would otherwise go entirely unnoticed.
Because people like him vote.
I don't really care about any of that, my point is that he has absolutely no coherent reason why the UK should stay in.
Sure. I was just pointing out that his elderly opinions (is anyone under 55 europhile, apart from loony teens?) cannot be discounted, because the old vote.
There is a constituency of the middle age middlebrow middleclass left which will be europhile til they die (hopefully soon) even if the euro is proven to cause bubonic plague and nuclear winter. It's a faith, innit.
Once more you display your ignorance along with your drunkeness. Every poll shows that the young are the most pro-EU and the oldies most anti. For example:
Of course older people are more likely to vote, but that is offset by greater interest in referendums on Union than in FPTP votes in safe seats.
There will be plenty of time to discuss the referendum.
lol. Nailed you tho, didn't I? You're an old sad europervy doctor in the Midlands, with views typical of your generation and milieu. Don't be angry. There's no shame in mediocrity: it is, after all, by definition, the fate of most.
Middle England decides outcomes of elections and referendums, not Islington narcissists. My people rule your people.
Wouldn't surprise me if the Israelis, Turks and Jordanians had decided enough was enough. Just hope that the USAF doesn't make a mistake and bomb the new allies.
A forlorn hope, I expect. The septics always bomb their allies. In every war that USAAF/USAF has taken part they have managed to kill soldiers on their own side. Even with all the advances in communication and targeting since WW2 they were still doing it in Afghanistan just a few years ago.
I knew a former American soldier who got fed up with the crap they get for this. He claimed that their own troops had high-tech equipment on each of their soldiers that would show the bombers where they were to prevent friendly fire incidents. The various armies that work with them, including the Brits, were never willing to shell out for this more expensive kit, but still wanted to work with American aerial backup. As a result, more friendly fire incidents happened as that extra safeguard happened. So he considered it the allies' fault for being cheap.
Not sure how true it was, but it was another side to the story.
Translation: give us your money or we'll blow you bits.
A market doesn't need a parliament, a flag, or an anthem.
I'm not sure the flag or anthem bit is true: even Disney has an anthem (go to a Disney store around closing time). And a common market needs a commonly-agreed arbitrator, and an example of same is a "court". However you are arguably correct about a parliament, and one may speculate about what would have happened if the European Parliament had never come into existence, or had remained a convocation of appointed delegates (instead of elected representatives, which it became in 1979). Many people here have an opinion concerning the EU and/or its structure, but few consider its administrative structure (other than the Brussels-Strasbourg commute). It did not have to evolve in the way than it did.
Whether you agree with Obama or not, as President of America he is absolutely entitled to express a view on the issue of our continued membership of the EU. Especially as the US is a major partner in NATO and a close ally of the UK.
Obama sticking his oar in about the EU on the BBC right now
What the fuck has it got to do with him?
Not sure why he isn't allowed to have views on it?
I stopped reading after Obama claimed the EU makes the world safer and more prosperous. Try telling that to the unemployed youth in southern Europe or the relatives of those who died during the breakup of Yugoslavia caused in part by the EC's obsession with forcing countries together.
I understand that the EU is currently held to be Satan's representative on Earth and the primum mobile of all evil. But blaming it or its predecessors for the breakup of Yugoslavia is difficult to defend, or even propound. Yugoslavia was only held together by Tito and a desire to define in contradistinction to the West and the Warsaw Pact. When those reasons disappeared, Yugoslavia broke up. It would have happened if the EU/EC/EEC had never existed.
Wouldn't surprise me if the Israelis, Turks and Jordanians had decided enough was enough. Just hope that the USAF doesn't make a mistake and bomb the new allies.
A forlorn hope, I expect. The septics always bomb their allies. In every war that USAAF/USAF has taken part they have managed to kill soldiers on their own side. Even with all the advances in communication and targeting since WW2 they were still doing it in Afghanistan just a few years ago.
I knew a former American soldier who got fed up with the crap they get for this. He claimed that their own troops had high-tech equipment on each of their soldiers that would show the bombers where they were to prevent friendly fire incidents. The various armies that work with them, including the Brits, were never willing to shell out for this more expensive kit, but still wanted to work with American aerial backup. As a result, more friendly fire incidents happened as that extra safeguard happened. So he considered it the allies' fault for being cheap.
Not sure how true it was, but it was another side to the story.
Translation: give us your money or we'll blow you bits.
Not sure that version is true though. The British APCs blown up be US airpower in Iraq were equipped with the correct and agreed identifying panels which had been observed (but misinterpreted) by the US pilots, but they did not bother to wait for Forward Air Control confirmation, or for artillery fire to fix the target, and was immediately called as blue-on-blue by the FAC once the kill was confirmed. So that incident was not one of failure to be identified clearly. Don't believe GPS identifiers would have prevented that case.
I expect Andy Burnham will have a very bad day tomorrow.
In The Times, his campaign manager has said Women ‘are not tough enough to lead Labour’
That was his 2010 campaign manager in a not particularly friendly article from him to Burnham, saying he was moving too far to the left from his centrist position in 2010 to win the membership
No, I'm talking about Lord Falconer and his interview/article in the Times tomorrow.
Well as Lord Falconer was Blair's flatmate, is a top barrister and as Blairite as they come he is hardly the image of some sexist working men's club unionist is he! As Danny565 states (and I will check the comments in the Times tomorrow) it was his assessment of Kendall and Cooper's weaknesses, not Burnham's view and not those of women in general either
It is further evidence of why Burnham repels women
But is the comment right? It is Labour we are talking about. And who is tough enough to lead Labour?
How would we know? Labour has never had a woman leader.
The Labour Party has had two women leaders (and, indeed, has one at the moment).
Comments
Yet his campaign's been utterly uninspiting to the point of tedium and he. My only thought is he was so scarred by getting hammerred as the extra Blairite in 2010 that he's running the ultimate safety first frontrunner's campaign and been trying to be all things to all men. It's not working though as the turgidness of it all has created the Corbyngasm. After saying he'd serve in a Corbyn cabinet he may have made his way from being a toss-up with Liz Kendall for my 1st pref in early June, to third now. Hopefully the current nonsense will slap him round the face with a wet fish and he'll realise that to go out and win a leadership contest you should show a bit of leadership.
Maybe this election is in fact just an exercise in performance art - it all starts to make sense when you think about it.
I knew they were sceptical still about the euro, I remain curious whether there is a national debate about being relegated to "second-class state" by staying out of European integration. I'm surprised that so many Brits are so afraid of the UK losing status outside the EU given that in a few decades it is likely to have both the largest population and largest economy in Western Europe, and that trade with the continent is likely to continue under some sort of treaty basis. Moreover, in the very long run, I'm not convinced that Britain staying in the EU will look all that different - if Eurozone integration continues, the UK will surely be left outside "Euroland". Either way the UK would have a semi-detached relationship with its European partners. But countries like Denmark and Sweden have much less geopolitical heft to rely on. If they stay off the top table, will anybody hear their voices? And do any of them care?
1) He couldn't land a punch on the Tories/Hunt when it came to the NHS, if he can't do that, then he's got no hope of winning any economic arguments against the Tories
2) The whole I'm so working class/man of the people, because I'm an ordinary working class, non political lad from Liverpool, and grew up in a cardboard box, on the m62, please ignore the fact I went to Cambridge, or have been involved in politics for most of my adult life
3) His flip flopping on Welfare this week.
Jesus, they are a seriously frightening bunch of nutters, and Reggie Yates has earned my utmost respect
It makes the potential of a federal system of UK government look a possibility.
My big worry is whether he's tough enough for the job. Just during the campaign, he's seemed very brittle when put under pressure, but this is nothing compared to what it will be like in the job proper. By contrast, Cooper for all her MANY presentational flaws atleast seems to have the hide of a rhinoceros.
1) He couldn't land a punch on the Tories/Hunt when it came to the NHS, if he can't do that, then he's got no hope of winning any economic arguments against the Tories
2) The whole I'm so working class/man of the people, because I'm an ordinary working class, non political lad from Liverpool, and grew up in a cardboard box, on the m62, please ignore the fact I went to Cambridge, or have been involved in politics for most of my adult life
3) His flip flopping on Welfare this week.'
I could not care less what your Labour friends think, I care what the public as a whole thinks, and they like Burnham best by a clear margin. In any case enough Labour members like him to have him second to Corbyn
1) Labour led on the NHS at the last election, they did not lead on the economy and Burnham has said Labour spent too much unlike Ed Miliband
2) He started off from an average background and got to Cambridge, it is how he got there that is interesting not his SPADism
3) He voted for amendments which were rejected, he then refused to back the bill without them but would not allow the image of his being 'soft' on welfare a vote to oppose the bill would have given either
@britainelects: Liberal Democrats HOLD Long Ditton (Elmbridge).
@britainelects: Labour HOLD Harrow Road (Westminster).
1) Labour led on the NHS at the last election, they did not lead on the economy
2) He started off from an average background and got to Cambridge, it is how he got there that is interesting not his SPADism
3) He voted for amendments which were rejected, he then refused to back the bill without them but would not allow the image of his being 'soft' on welfare a vote to oppose the bill would have given either
You miss the point. The NHS wasn't an election issue, that speaks volumes about Burnham's crapness, especially after the universally panned Lansley reforms.
"Comrades, this is your leadership candidate. It is an honour to speak to you today, and I am honoured to be sailing with you on the maiden voyage of our motherland's most recent achievement. Once more, we play our dangerous game, a game of chess against our old adversary — The Conservative Party! For a hundred years, your fathers before you and your older brothers played this game and played it well. But today the game is different. We have the advantage. It reminds me of the heady days of 1945 and Clement Atlee, when the world trembled at the sound of our Nationalisations. Well, they will tremble again — at the sound of our Progressiveness. The order is: engage the Corbyn Drive!
"Comrades, our own Parliamentary Party doesn't know our full potential! They will do everything possible to test us; but they will only test their own embarrassment! We will leave our MPs behind, we will pass through the Conservative patrols, past their sonar nets, and lay off their largest constituency, and listen to their chortling and tittering... while we conduct Austerity Debates! Then, and when we are finished, the only sound they will hear is our laughter, while we sail to Brighton, where the Sun is warm, and so is the...Comradeship.
"A great day, Comrades! We sail into history!"
Scottish Devolution!
Maggie only wanted power devolved as far as herself.
LibDems 770 50.6%
Cons 611 40.2%
Greens 79 5.2%
UKIP 61 4.0%
Turnout 32.2%
Comfortable LibDem hold (swing since May of about 4.5%) but a good deal better for us blues than Kingston last week and Hampton Wick a fornight ago.
PS Saw Lembit Opik knocking up (sic) this evening.
My guess is the Tories would much rather Burnham wins than Cooper.
My guess is the Tories would much rather Burnham wins than Cooper.'
Absolutely, unequivocally not, Cooper had a negative rating of -12% with the public in today's Mori, Burnham was neutral. Burnham has said Labour spent too much, Cooper has refused to!
As for the Eurozone - Cameron has repeatedly said that he, we, the tories and the UK, do not want to be a part of any ever closer union.
All individual countries and economies 'are run from the centre' in that they have a central bank and national currency and government/centrally set tax and interest rates. Our own local government and health expenditure is mostly financed from general taxation and disbursed to the regions from the 'centre'.
It was Miliband leading the campaign, not Burnham and of course it was Burnham who helped get the Lansley reforms scrapped
The Tories will eat Andy Bambi alive, they would never get away with that with Cooper.
I'm still not completely used to computers having bold type. Proper computers just use inverse video instead!
(Have a picture, for those that don't remember.)
Section 28.
A lot of policies were made at "the centre".
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-young-people-want-uk-to-stay-in-europe-four-in-10-adults-aged-18-to-24-are-firmly-in-favour-of-membership-poll-shows-9006438.html
Of course older people are more likely to vote, but that is offset by greater interest in referendums on Union than in FPTP votes in safe seats.
There will be plenty of time to discuss the referendum.
He was very brave sticking himself up front in Russia, will try to find the SA equivalent
2.) Yes, although some of it is genuine. Having lived in Liverpool recently, he is very popular in that part of the world for maintaining a connection with the area which he actually helped make a difference on something pretty important to many. I think the point is that the more you mention it the less sincere it seems and takes it to levels of implausibility. The way to play it is to be self-deprecating about it and wait for people to bring your background up and use it as a defence. E.g. "You're just another SpAd aren't you?" "No ask my friends, ask my constituents where I grew up..." Rather than bringing it up as your selling point.
3.) There I have sympathy because it put all of them in a ruddy awful position. Look at the torrents of abuse Liz Kendall has got. Labour MPs have been slaughtered for explaining parliamentary procedure and how yes, they will be opposing the bits of the bill people are foaming at the mouth about at the next reading. I can hardly blame someone trying to win an election for fudging something for which there is no palatable answer. After all it's what politicians do, heck, the Tories had a few masterful ones in the campaign.
Hague used to regularly win QT it made zero difference with the public, the 'Demon Eyes' poster in 1997 also actually helped Blair. I see no evidence Tories could 'eat Burnham alive' and Cooper has given them more ammunition on spending anyway. Blair was initially taunted as Bambi by Tories, it ended up being Blair who ate them alive!
Back at the end of June I mentioned that Turkey, Jordan and the Israelis had plans for more direct intervention in Syria in the form of incursions by force.
Now, both the Israelis and Turks have turned up across the border in Syria, mysteriously enough in the same 24-48 hour period.
The Jordanians meanwhile have initially turned east to Iraq. They've moved troops across the border.
The numbers of boots are not large but they are there a number of miles within Syria and Iraq.
Remember he threatened to sue Jeremy Hunt
Not the temperament of a future PM
I suspect the Tories' biggest worry is that they will wake up and it will be Tony Blair who walks out of the shower. The Labour Party leadership election is I admit a big worry ... for the Labour Party.
The consequences of the Welfare Bill? Cooper up 18. Corbyn up 13. Burnham up 10.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Spanish_general_election,_2015#National
I wouldn't take it personally.
"Spain raises marriage age from 14 to 16"
'The other thing they don't like about Burnham is he appears to be a bit of a drama queen.
Remember he threatened to sue Jeremy Hunt
Not the temperament of a future PM'
He did not, but Hunt said on social media "@andyburnhammp's attempts to cover up failing hospitals" which could be a libellous allegation
'I suspect the Tories' biggest worry is that they will wake up and it will be Tony Blair who walks out of the shower. The Labour Party leadership election is I admit a big worry ... for the Labour Party.'
However Cameron will not be leading the Tories in 2020 and after 10 years in power all governments are vulnerable
Delete : "they were still doing it in Afghanistan just a few years ago."
Insert: "they are still doing it in Afghanistan even now."
Not sure how true it was, but it was another side to the story.
Now, that said what has to be acknowledged is that in war mistakes will happen and that sometimes those mistakes will have very bad consequences. Furthermore, far more Brit and allied soldiers have been saved by US air strikes than have ever been hurt by them. Nevertheless, the Yanks do have a friendly fire problem and if you go to war alongside them then you should expect to take casualties from American bombing.
Lab 648
Ukip 90
Con 47
Decent result for Lab
Decisions, decisions.
(clears throat, significantly)
Lab 768 (37%) -3%
Con 513 (25%) -2%
LD 323 (16%) +12%
UKIP 318 (15%) - 7%
TUSC 85 (4%) +2%
Green 66 (3%0 -1%
A full range of candidates and confirmation of some recent trends re Lib Dems and UKIP.