He must have picked up a bit of sunstroke on one of his post-resignation holidays.
Deluded doesn't even come close.
Ed Miliband surely must be the biggest idiot ever to lead the Labour party?! Nearly every other Labour leader of the last 30 years - Foot, Kinnock, Smith, Blair, Brown - at least did something for the party, regardless of their flaws.
To be fair Foot and Brown were probably worse, in 1983 Foot saw Labour's voteshare fall by 9% in 1983 from the share Callaghan got in 1979 and Brown saw Labour's voteshare fall by 6% from the share Blair got in 2005. Miliband at least increased Labour's voteshare, even if by just 1%
From 29% Remind me how many seats he won in Scotland?
All comparisons should leave Brown out because he was from another planet.
From 29.7% to 31.2% in GB.
When you factor in the collapse in the LD vote, that is a massive underperformance.
Mandleson saved Brown's blushes in 2010 , without Mandleson, Labour would have been stuffed.
Mandelson also performed the magical trick of getting very rich, very quickly, and yet never really apparently earning very much. Ho hum... ooh is that a tumbleweed!?...
Don't forget the time he spent as EU Commissioner. At that level the EU has one heck of a trough to get your snout into!
It still doesn't add up. He's borrowing 400k in 1996 and yet has 7m in 2011? In the meantime he's hardly been sitting at home and hoarding.
There is perhaps some explanation with regards to his partner, but I can't see it.
It's their reason for existence, they cannot accept it if it goes against.
Agreed, but since the SNP has conceded that they can't call a legitimate referendum and that only HMG can do that, why would HMG permit a second referendum when the SNP has proven that it can't accept Scots' democratic decision?
The problem for Loyalists is that the decision was not clear and the actual argument was fundamentally lost (perhaps forever) by the Loyalists.
Assuming by "Loyalists" you mean "Unionists", this is risible. The No camp won by 10 percentage points: a decisive margin.
You lost. Accept the democratic verdict of the people of Scotland and move on.
Great- just back from a rustic Italian lunch in the remote Tuscan Appenines. Fantastic cheeses, tarts, truffle, soufflé , hand made pastas, coffee, and of course local wines. There are even some wild boar roaming outside a fence you can feed some scraps to. Simple Italian local food- I cannot think of what better cuisine you could find anywhere.
But the transendence of Bolt. Virtually the whole restaurant crowded around my iPhone for the race- and everyone went quite mad when he won. The owner even opened up a bottle of vintage grappa to celebrate.
Ussain Bolt- man of the year and the greatest athlete in history. He has made many, many people very happy today.
Now I am off for a well earned siesta in an unusually good mood.
Seems rather at odds with the Italian perspective on Pantani et al.
"If current trends hold, [Christie] will likely lose his spot in the primetime CNN/Reagan Library debate on Sept. 16, displaced by a surging Carly Fiorina."
Yes, and also up very slightly in Wales (+0.6%). The disaster in Scotland grabbed so much attention that this has tended to be forgotten.
However I think that people we voting Labour in spite of Ed, not because of him. (Just my opinion, but that what this site is for surely?)
Ed did have a small Ed vote too. Someone, somewhere voted Labour because of Ed. This is I'm sure true of most leaders. I'm not sure anyone, anywhere chose to vote Tory because of Michael Howard though. I've nothing against the man, but he is as far away from inspiring as chalk is from cheese. The other obvious negative man is Brown. In my view you'd have to be a frothing loony to do anything other than want to hit him with a bat, but I'm sufficiently worldly to know that there are people to whom his megalomania seems appealing.
Either way the Ed factor wasn't the biggest issue.
It's funny how this Met Office story has come out the same day as the Saville story ...
One can only imagine how the BBC had covered it if, for instance, he was a Conservative MP or Lord.
According to Wiki:
"Alan Yentob (born 11 March 1947) is a British television executive and presenter. He has spent his entire career at the BBC."
Why was someone of such limited experience seen as being suitable to help run a charity in a very different arena?
He's completely part of the inner circle of people who are beyond reproach. 'Society'. If Batmanwoman is murdered then he'll have to be the prime suspect for getting him in to this pickle. The directors of charities, Companies, and those who sit on boards of enquiry and the like are all from a pretty small circle. To be fair they're all from a very capable circle, but they really don't have their eyes on what's going on in the way you or I would. That's entirely the secret of their success.
To see this sort of thing in action I'd suggest no better example that the space shuttle disasters. Richard Feynman simply blew them all away with actual thought being applied to the area that they were supposed to be responsible for. Now Feynman was a clever man, and people are people. Nonetheless I imagine that there are many instances of people being paid lots of money to run something-or-other where there are simply the most obvious of mistakes being made.
The way that the Met Office story has been covered has got under my skin.
The BBC have had the tenacity to ask whether the Met Office is right for them. They have invited other bidders and will consider them. And if, of course, the Met Office may well win.
Indeed I think that is likely - I was once told only the Norwegians could operate on the same level - plus the fact that public sector bodies who only offer things to tender because they are under a legal obligation to do so tend to award the contracts the same way anyway - you can lead a horse to water, and all that.
Don't think the referendum is this September, but still...
'Looking the Wrong Way
Personally I think we have heard pretty much all we need to know about the Labour Party leadership election, Far more interesting, but (as usual) far less covered is the revelation that David Cameron’s EU ‘renegotiation’ really is a blatant fix.
The former Cabinet Minister Andrew Lansley has told select audiences that the whole thing is planned, right down to a fake table-thumping row with the French to make the Prime Minister look like John Bull.
If this got the prominence it deserved, the referendum result might be in some doubt. But most voters will still be unaware of it by the time they come to vote in September. News isn’t just what happens. It’s what a fairly small group of people decide is news.'
News isn’t just what happens. It’s what a fairly small group of people decide is news.'
Isn't that the truth. Especially on this issue. The BBC give prominent reporting to any think tank study that comes out with a positive conclusion about the EU, and ignores anything doing the opposite.
Having just effectively deselected their only female MSP, Alison McIness, by LibDem members in her region placing her 2nd on the list, Willie Rennie has announced a review of how to ensure a better gender balance.
The Scottish LibDems along with Scottish Labour seem to have determined that banging on about a better gender balance in Holyrood etc, is somehow going to transform their fortunes in Scotland. This says it all about the state of these parties as Scotland has many problems, but with a female FM + 3 out of 5 female party leaders + gender balanced cabinets and opposition front bench - gender balance seems one area where these parties are wasting their time.
It's funny how this Met Office story has come out the same day as the Saville story ...
One can only imagine how the BBC had covered it if, for instance, he was a Conservative MP or Lord.
According to Wiki:
"Alan Yentob (born 11 March 1947) is a British television executive and presenter. He has spent his entire career at the BBC."
Why was someone of such limited experience seen as being suitable to help run a charity in a very different arena?
He's completely part of the inner circle of people who are beyond reproach. 'Society'. If Batmanwoman is murdered then he'll have to be the prime suspect for getting him in to this pickle. The directors of charities, Companies, and those who sit on boards of enquiry and the like are all from a pretty small circle. To be fair they're all from a very capable circle, but they really don't have their eyes on what's going on in the way you or I would. That's entirely the secret of their success.
To see this sort of thing in action I'd suggest no better example that the space shuttle disasters. Richard Feynman simply blew them all away with actual thought being applied to the area that they were supposed to be responsible for. Now Feynman was a clever man, and people are people. Nonetheless I imagine that there are many instances of people being paid lots of money to run something-or-other where there are simply the most obvious of mistakes being made.
Private Eye occasionally has a section detailing various great 'n good who have many directorships and jobs. It's clear that many of these are little more than unthinking sinecures.
Edit: oh, and Feynman was a genius. Politics and society would be far better off if we had more like him.
Don't think the referendum is this September, but still...
'Looking the Wrong Way
Personally I think we have heard pretty much all we need to know about the Labour Party leadership election, Far more interesting, but (as usual) far less covered is the revelation that David Cameron’s EU ‘renegotiation’ really is a blatant fix.
The former Cabinet Minister Andrew Lansley has told select audiences that the whole thing is planned, right down to a fake table-thumping row with the French to make the Prime Minister look like John Bull.
If this got the prominence it deserved, the referendum result might be in some doubt. But most voters will still be unaware of it by the time they come to vote in September. News isn’t just what happens. It’s what a fairly small group of people decide is news.'
Just how close is Lansley to No 10 these days? He's spinning a plausible argument, but it doesn't mean he knows any more than you or me, or that cat what voted in the Corbynendum.
It's funny how this Met Office story has come out the same day as the Saville story ...
One can only imagine how the BBC had covered it if, for instance, he was a Conservative MP or Lord.
According to Wiki:
"Alan Yentob (born 11 March 1947) is a British television executive and presenter. He has spent his entire career at the BBC."
Why was someone of such limited experience seen as being suitable to help run a charity in a very different arena?
He's completely part of the inner circle of people who are beyond reproach. 'Society'. If Batmanwoman is murdered then he'll have to be the prime suspect for getting him in to this pickle. The directors of charities, Companies, and those who sit on boards of enquiry and the like are all from a pretty small circle. To be fair they're all from a very capable circle, but they really don't have their eyes on what's going on in the way you or I would. That's entirely the secret of their success.
To see this sort of thing in action I'd suggest no better example that the space shuttle disasters. Richard Feynman simply blew them all away with actual thought being applied to the area that they were supposed to be responsible for. Now Feynman was a clever man, and people are people. Nonetheless I imagine that there are many instances of people being paid lots of money to run something-or-other where there are simply the most obvious of mistakes being made.
Private Eye occasionally has a section detailing various great 'n good who have many directorships and jobs. It's clear that many of these are little more than unthinking sinecures.
Edit: oh, and Feynman was a genius. Politics and society would be far better off if we had more like him.
Sure. You don't get sacked for buying big blue (IBM) as they used to say. We'll have to make do with Feynman-like people being few and far between. Doesn't mean that the great and the good couldn't learn the lesson and pull their fingers out though.
This sounds like a classic case of the last post. What are the chances the BBC would cover such a revelation? 0.1%?
What revelation?
That the Sunday Times is reporting Downing Street feels they can't run a referendum campaign on what is 'actually' being renegotiated, and they will have to heavily spin it.
I have high hopes for a substantial renegotiation, but if we get nothing and the party leadership tries to lie to the public to get a vote won, I will be furious.
If anyone here, like me, has serious gripes with the BBC in its current form - I'd encourage you to contribute to the current public consultation: https://www.research.net/r/bbconlineconsultation Likewise if you love it and think it's the greatest organisation in the world. I doubt they'll get many responses so your opinion may go a long way.
That the Sunday Times is reporting Downing Street feels they can't run a referendum campaign on what is 'actually' being renegotiated, and they will have to heavily spin it..
That's not a revelation, it's an anonymous person's opinion on what ground Cameron will want to fight the referendum, saying he won't want it to be a referendum on the renegotiation.
As it happens, I think the unquoted source is probably right that that is the correct approach: Cameron will want to focus on the central point, which is whether we stay in the EU or go for some (as yet unknown) alternative. It's also the honest thing to do: this is not a referendum on the renegotiation, it's a referendum on whether we stay in the EU on the terms available with the renegotiation.
Similarly, the Out side will want to avoid discussing the alternative, because they haven't got one that they can point to, or at least not one they can agree on. They certainly won't want it to be a referendum on what the details of a trade deal with the EU would look like (for the very good reason that they'd look much like what Cameron comes back with).
This sounds like a classic case of the last post. What are the chances the BBC would cover such a revelation? 0.1%?
What revelation?
That the Sunday Times is reporting Downing Street feels they can't run a referendum campaign on what is 'actually' being renegotiated, and they will have to heavily spin it.
I have high hopes for a substantial renegotiation, but if we get nothing and the party leadership tries to lie to the public to get a vote won, I will be furious.
If anyone here, like me, has serious gripes with the BBC in its current form - I'd encourage you to contribute to the current public consultation: https://www.research.net/r/bbconlineconsultation Likewise if you love it and think it's the greatest organisation in the world. I doubt they'll get many responses so your opinion may go a long way.
That the Sunday Times is reporting Downing Street feels they can't run a referendum campaign on what is 'actually' being renegotiated, and they will have to heavily spin it..
That's not a revelation, it's an anonymous person's opinion on what ground Cameron will want to fight the referendum.
As it happens, I think the unquoted source is probably right that that is the correct approach: Cameron will want to focus on the central point, which is whether we stay in the EU or go for some (as yet unknown) alternative. It's also the honest thing to do: this is not a referendum on the renegotiation, it's a referendum on whether we stay in the EU on the terms available with the renegotiation.
Similarly, the Out side will want to avoid discussing the alternative, because they haven't got one that they can point to, or at least not one they can agree on.
But without a substantial renegotiation, staying In a completely unclear proposition. The EU will go wherever the Eurozone bloc vote wants it to go. It won't even matter if the In side agrees what they want, as we won't be in control of it. If we don't get a double majority system for Euro and non-Euro members, then our sovereignty will evaporate.
If we don't get a double majority system for Euro and non-Euro members, then our sovereignty will evaporate.
I think we will get some some protection.
It's a key point, of course, and one which I personally will be looking at very closely in deciding how to vote. But I don't think the average man on the Clapham omnibus will be looking at that: it will be immigration and jobs which are the key battlegrounds.
It's funny how this Met Office story has come out the same day as the Saville story ...
One can only imagine how the BBC had covered it if, for instance, he was a Conservative MP or Lord.
According to Wiki:
"Alan Yentob (born 11 March 1947) is a British television executive and presenter. He has spent his entire career at the BBC."
Why was someone of such limited experience seen as being suitable to help run a charity in a very different arena?
He's completely part of the inner circle of people who are beyond reproach. 'Society'. If Batmanwoman is murdered then he'll have to be the prime suspect for getting him in to this pickle. The directors of charities, Companies, and those who sit on boards of enquiry and the like are all from a pretty small circle. To be fair they're all from a very capable circle, but they really don't have their eyes on what's going on in the way you or I would. That's entirely the secret of their success.
To see this sort of thing in action I'd suggest no better example that the space shuttle disasters. Richard Feynman simply blew them all away with actual thought being applied to the area that they were supposed to be responsible for. Now Feynman was a clever man, and people are people. Nonetheless I imagine that there are many instances of people being paid lots of money to run something-or-other where there are simply the most obvious of mistakes being made.
Private Eye occasionally has a section detailing various great 'n good who have many directorships and jobs. It's clear that many of these are little more than unthinking sinecures.
Edit: oh, and Feynman was a genius. Politics and society would be far better off if we had more like him.
Sure. You don't get sacked for buying big blue (IBM) as they used to say. We'll have to make do with Feynman-like people being few and far between. Doesn't mean that the great and the good couldn't learn the lesson and pull their fingers out though.
I'd just like it if they considered more how their latest Wizard Wheeze (tm) might fail.
Bit of a ragbag. There's even a "former Economics Adviser to Ken Livingstone" who was one of those Socialist Action / International Marxist Group types, not economists, "researchers", retirees, honorary bods. Couldn't spot a Nobel Laureate.
Basically it's a selection from a wider pool of usual suspects plus relevant hangers on, with a fair overlap with these other letters from leading economists:
Two-and-a-half weeks left to finally make up my mind. My first-preference choice has so far flip-flopped more times than Andy on the Welfare Bill.
Lol! Most of my friends and people who correspond with me have now decided, mostly Corbyn but Cooper getting several and a couple for Burnham and Kendall: people who have already voted are now warming to Burnham as a reasonable consensus outcome, but possibly too late. My impression is that the row between Burnham and Cooper early on has damaged the ABC transfer plan - quite a few supporters of one are not putting the other second. I'm still convinced that a result where one of the ABCs wins by 1% after umpteen transfers is the worst possible outcome.
One group of £3ers waited to see what they made of Corbyn in Nottingham; and apparently have all plumped for him:
"Managed to get tickets to Jeremy Corbyn here in Nottingham. He was wonderful, reminding us of the Labour Party we used to know and love pre-Blair. Friends who attended with some reservations were absolutely energised."
On Miliband, I think his main achievement was to keep the party harmonious, but it was rather at the expense of making it ill-defined, which is why we are where we are. That said, he's probably over-sold right now - he put up a reasonable fight given an apparently reviving economy and memories of the crash still fresh, and it's not as though the Tories won by 100 seats.
By the way, we've not heard from Edmund in Tokyo lately - what does he make of this Bitcoin feud?
It's their reason for existence, they cannot accept it if it goes against.
Agreed, but since the SNP has conceded that they can't call a legitimate referendum and that only HMG can do that, why would HMG permit a second referendum when the SNP has proven that it can't accept Scots' democratic decision?
The problem for Loyalists is that the decision was not clear and the actual argument was fundamentally lost (perhaps forever) by the Loyalists.
Assuming by "Loyalists" you mean "Unionists", this is risible. The No camp won by 10 percentage points: a decisive margin.
You lost. Accept the democratic verdict of the people of Scotland and move on.
The way that the Met Office story has been covered has got under my skin.
The BBC have had the tenacity to ask whether the Met Office is right for them. They have invited other bidders and will consider them. And if, of course, the Met Office may well win.
Indeed I think that is likely - I was once told only the Norwegians could operate on the same level - plus the fact that public sector bodies who only offer things to tender because they are under a legal obligation to do so tend to award the contracts the same way anyway - you can lead a horse to water, and all that.
It strikes me the BBC and the Met are both inept. They never get it right despite having far better info than they did in 1944 when the Army meteo guys got it right with a lull on 6/6/44
The BBC have screwed up so many times they don't really forecast anything precise for fear of being castigated are consequently never precise about the weather because their fingers have been burned so many times..
So it doesn't matter a toss who does the weather, I reckon I can tell better by looking out of my window in the morning and relying on folklore.
@MattW - Corbyn's economic policy is so utterly loony that no sane economist could possibly support it. It all seems to be based on barmy analysis by Richard Murphy, demolished in many places such as here:
Having just effectively deselected their only female MSP, Alison McIness, by LibDem members in her region placing her 2nd on the list, Willie Rennie has announced a review of how to ensure a better gender balance.
The Scottish LibDems along with Scottish Labour seem to have determined that banging on about a better gender balance in Holyrood etc, is somehow going to transform their fortunes in Scotland. This says it all about the state of these parties as Scotland has many problems, but with a female FM + 3 out of 5 female party leaders + gender balanced cabinets and opposition front bench - gender balance seems one area where these parties are wasting their time.
Are you surprised, its Deputy Dawg and wee wullie winkie making the decisions
Having just effectively deselected their only female MSP, Alison McIness, by LibDem members in her region placing her 2nd on the list, Willie Rennie has announced a review of how to ensure a better gender balance.
The Scottish LibDems along with Scottish Labour seem to have determined that banging on about a better gender balance in Holyrood etc, is somehow going to transform their fortunes in Scotland. This says it all about the state of these parties as Scotland has many problems, but with a female FM + 3 out of 5 female party leaders + gender balanced cabinets and opposition front bench - gender balance seems one area where these parties are wasting their time.
Are you surprised, its Deputy Dawg and wee wullie winkie making the decisions
@MattW - Corbyn's economic policy is so utterly loony that no sane economist could possibly support it. It all seems to be based on barmy analysis by Richard Murphy, demolished in many places such as here:
But I'm quite interested in the media manipulation process.
In this case it wouldn't surprise me if the Guardian had seen the Our Kingdom piece, and asked for a letter so they could create an "anti-austerity" narrative.
All quite ironic, because harsh austerity is not exactly something done by the Coalition.
Having just effectively deselected their only female MSP, Alison McIness, by LibDem members in her region placing her 2nd on the list, Willie Rennie has announced a review of how to ensure a better gender balance.
The Scottish LibDems along with Scottish Labour seem to have determined that banging on about a better gender balance in Holyrood etc, is somehow going to transform their fortunes in Scotland. This says it all about the state of these parties as Scotland has many problems, but with a female FM + 3 out of 5 female party leaders + gender balanced cabinets and opposition front bench - gender balance seems one area where these parties are wasting their time.
Are you surprised, its Deputy Dawg and wee wullie winkie making the decisions
Hi Malc still swimming in all that black gold?
LOL, you missed my comment earlier , you were the only one of the three stooges not on stage but I did say you would turn up.
Whilst Burnham, Kendall and Cooper-Balls have been absolutely useless at challenging Corbyn, then the MSM have hardly covered themselves in glory. I can well believe they want Corbyn to win because of all the endless headlines.
Personally, I'm beyond bored with the whole Labour leadership contest. It's a complete and utter shambles.
On another note, whoever raised the Union Jack at the Iranian embassy, should have practised more, as it was a pretty tawdry effort!
calum and malcomg the Lib Dems go on and on about the need for equality and respect for women and women's rights etc etc. Beams and Motes in eyes.
But what they actually do in practice ranks amongst the worst examples of bad practice of any political party. It is all empty gesture politics. Personally I cannot wait for the male Tim Farron and his all male MPs to launch another outcry in this area. The fun the media will have with them is going to be a time for getting in the pop corn.
@MattW - Corbyn's economic policy is so utterly loony that no sane economist could possibly support it. It all seems to be based on barmy analysis by Richard Murphy, demolished in many places such as here:
But I'm quite interested in the media manipulation process.
In this case it wouldn't surprise me if the Guardian had seen the Our Kingdom piece, and asked for a letter so they could create an "anti-austerity" narrative.
All quite ironic, because harsh austerity is not exactly something done by the Coalition.
Murphaloon is wonderful fun. A terminally self-important velveteen crocodile in his personal punch and judy show in his garden office that he avoided business rates on for years.
It's only a fortnight since he published an email and defended himself on the basis that it was like a blog comment so he had a right to publish it under copyright law.
Whilst Burnham, Kendall and Cooper-Balls have been absolutely useless at challenging Corbyn, then the MSM have hardly covered themselves in glory. I can well believe they want Corbyn to win because of all the endless headlines.
Personally, I'm beyond bored with the whole Labour leadership contest. It's a complete and utter shambles.
On another note, whoever raised the Union Jack at the Iranian embassy, should have practised more, as it was a pretty tawdry effort!
And in the BirdsNest it was raised upside down for Mo Farahs gold medal ceremony,
By the way, we've not heard from Edmund in Tokyo lately - what does he make of this Bitcoin feud?
You're right, I think, we haven't heard from Edmund recently.
As for Bitcoin, it was obvious from the start that it was a Ponzi scheme, and a very clever one. Selling prime numbers in return for real money was a scam of genius.
It's only a fortnight since he published an email and defended himself on the basis that it was like a blog comment so he had a right to publish it under copyright law.
She gorgeous ;-) makes you wait until the end of look north for the weather.
A hopeless presenter though. She just constantly looks at the camera in that clip, and shows no interest in what she's presenting.
As an aside, my mother's mentioned to both Mrs J and an ex that she saw Carol Kirkwood as the 'perfect' daughter-in-law material. I'm not quite sure what they were meant to make of that admission, or the delightful's lady's husband, for that matter.
Having just effectively deselected their only female MSP, Alison McIness, by LibDem members in her region placing her 2nd on the list, Willie Rennie has announced a review of how to ensure a better gender balance.
The Scottish LibDems along with Scottish Labour seem to have determined that banging on about a better gender balance in Holyrood etc, is somehow going to transform their fortunes in Scotland. This says it all about the state of these parties as Scotland has many problems, but with a female FM + 3 out of 5 female party leaders + gender balanced cabinets and opposition front bench - gender balance seems one area where these parties are wasting their time.
Are you surprised, its Deputy Dawg and wee wullie winkie making the decisions
Scottish LibDems being the party of taking as many 2nd chances as you need, I can only hope that they don't decide to get Rennard involved in the gender review, as part of his rehabilitation.
It turns out that Rennie is one of my regional list MSPs, based on current polling he'd be lucky to win a seat, I wonder which list he will go for?
If anyone here, like me, has serious gripes with the BBC in its current form - I'd encourage you to contribute to the current public consultation: https://www.research.net/r/bbconlineconsultation Likewise if you love it and think it's the greatest organisation in the world. I doubt they'll get many responses so your opinion may go a long way.
I agree with you about the complaints, but I'm pretty sure this goes straight to DCMS.
What happens if the final round is Burnham v Corbyn, which still just about looks most likely if Corbyn does not win in round 1? You have not used your final 2 votes so will have no say
What happens if the final round is Burnham v Corbyn, which still just about looks most likely if Corbyn does not win in round 1? You have not used your final 2 votes so will have no say
Up until last week I was going to put Burnham as 3. But frankly, I've come to the conclusion that he wouldn't be any better than Corbyn (who will of course be an utter disaster).
It's their reason for existence, they cannot accept it if it goes against.
Agreed, but since the SNP has conceded that they can't call a legitimate referendum and that only HMG can do that, why would HMG permit a second referendum when the SNP has proven that it can't accept Scots' democratic decision?
The problem for Loyalists is that the decision was not clear and the actual argument was fundamentally lost (perhaps forever) by the Loyalists.
Assuming by "Loyalists" you mean "Unionists", this is risible. The No camp won by 10 percentage points: a decisive margin.
You lost. Accept the democratic verdict of the people of Scotland and move on.
What happens if the final round is Burnham v Corbyn, which still just about looks most likely if Corbyn does not win in round 1? You have not used your final 2 votes so will have no say
I voted the same way in the leadership one. If anything I prefer Corbyn to Burnham but couldn't bring myself to 'vote' for him
It's their reason for existence, they cannot accept it if it goes against.
Agreed, but since the SNP has conceded that they can't call a legitimate referendum and that only HMG can do that, why would HMG permit a second referendum when the SNP has proven that it can't accept Scots' democratic decision?
The problem for Loyalists is that the decision was not clear and the actual argument was fundamentally lost (perhaps forever) by the Loyalists.
Assuming by "Loyalists" you mean "Unionists", this is risible. The No camp won by 10 percentage points: a decisive margin.
You lost. Accept the democratic verdict of the people of Scotland and move on.
Dear Dear you are not very good at the trolling
Indeed not. Trolls tend not to use facts.
You really are trying to be seen as dimmer than Scott
Is the 1/20 tip in the thread header the shortest ever advised in a PB article?
The 8/1 on a delay looks quite attractive actually. The Electoral Reform Society wanted the vote to be delayed to allow for the processing of new voters to be carried out:
It's their reason for existence, they cannot accept it if it goes against.
Agreed, but since the SNP has conceded that they can't call a legitimate referendum and that only HMG can do that, why would HMG permit a second referendum when the SNP has proven that it can't accept Scots' democratic decision?
The problem for Loyalists is that the decision was not clear and the actual argument was fundamentally lost (perhaps forever) by the Loyalists.
Assuming by "Loyalists" you mean "Unionists", this is risible. The No camp won by 10 percentage points: a decisive margin.
You lost. Accept the democratic verdict of the people of Scotland and move on.
Dear Dear you are not very good at the trolling
Indeed not. Trolls tend not to use facts.
You really are trying to be seen as dimmer than Scott
Who is that?
You seem to be struggling to come to terms with the fact that 11 months ago, you lost. Why is that?
Bit of a ragbag. There's even a "former Economics Adviser to Ken Livingstone" who was one of those Socialist Action / International Marxist Group types, not economists, "researchers", retirees, honorary bods. Couldn't spot a Nobel Laureate.
Basically it's a selection from a wider pool of usual suspects plus relevant hangers on, with a fair overlap with these other letters from leading economists:
To cut a long story short, anyone who's a professor of economics isn't likely to be a very good economist, or they'd be advising someone who'd be making pots of money. My old Professor of economic history/statistics is a lovely man, but he's also a died in the wool socialist always on some rant that the Government should spend more. Yet he lives daily with the evidence that socialism always fails. It's a deep deep delusion, and if I knew how to break it, I'd be zapping people with the magic formula right left and centre.
What happens if the final round is Burnham v Corbyn, which still just about looks most likely if Corbyn does not win in round 1? You have not used your final 2 votes so will have no say
Up until last week I was going to put Burnham as 3. But frankly, I've come to the conclusion that he wouldn't be any better than Corbyn (who will of course be an utter disaster).
Well you may not think so, but polls have Burnham the highest rated amongst the public of the 4, anyway that is up to you
It's their reason for existence, they cannot accept it if it goes against.
Agreed, but since the SNP has conceded that they can't call a legitimate referendum and that only HMG can do that, why would HMG permit a second referendum when the SNP has proven that it can't accept Scots' democratic decision?
The problem for Loyalists is that the decision was not clear and the actual argument was fundamentally lost (perhaps forever) by the Loyalists.
Assuming by "Loyalists" you mean "Unionists", this is risible. The No camp won by 10 percentage points: a decisive margin.
You lost. Accept the democratic verdict of the people of Scotland and move on.
Dear Dear you are not very good at the trolling
Indeed not. Trolls tend not to use facts.
You really are trying to be seen as dimmer than Scott
Who is that?
You seem to be struggling to come to terms with the fact that 11 months ago, you lost. Why is that?
What happens if the final round is Burnham v Corbyn, which still just about looks most likely if Corbyn does not win in round 1? You have not used your final 2 votes so will have no say
I voted the same way in the leadership one. If anything I prefer Corbyn to Burnham but couldn't bring myself to 'vote' for him
It does look like there will be a certain section of the electorate then who could well in effect be irrelevant after round 2
It's their reason for existence, they cannot accept it if it goes against.
Agreed, but since the SNP has conceded that they can't call a legitimate referendum and that only HMG can do that, why would HMG permit a second referendum when the SNP has proven that it can't accept Scots' democratic decision?
The problem for Loyalists is that the decision was not clear and the actual argument was fundamentally lost (perhaps forever) by the Loyalists.
Assuming by "Loyalists" you mean "Unionists", this is risible. The No camp won by 10 percentage points: a decisive margin.
You lost. Accept the democratic verdict of the people of Scotland and move on.
Dear Dear you are not very good at the trolling
Indeed not. Trolls tend not to use facts.
You really are trying to be seen as dimmer than Scott
Who is that?
You seem to be struggling to come to terms with the fact that 11 months ago, you lost. Why is that?
You seem to be living in the past. Plus you seem to be barking, sound very like a SLAB drone.
What happens if the final round is Burnham v Corbyn, which still just about looks most likely if Corbyn does not win in round 1? You have not used your final 2 votes so will have no say
Up until last week I was going to put Burnham as 3. But frankly, I've come to the conclusion that he wouldn't be any better than Corbyn (who will of course be an utter disaster).
Well you may not think so, but polls have Burnham the highest rated amongst the public of the 4, anyway that is up to you
You do seem to be fixated on this factoid, repeating it even when it is irrelevant.
What happens if the final round is Burnham v Corbyn, which still just about looks most likely if Corbyn does not win in round 1? You have not used your final 2 votes so will have no say
Up until last week I was going to put Burnham as 3. But frankly, I've come to the conclusion that he wouldn't be any better than Corbyn (who will of course be an utter disaster).
Well you may not think so, but polls have Burnham the highest rated amongst the public of the 4, anyway that is up to you
Yes, so you keep saying ... But I don't really think when it comes to it in 2020 that there will be a groundswell of enthusiasm for a flip-flopping continuity Ed Miliband with a Northern accent.
It's their reason for existence, they cannot accept it if it goes against.
Agreed, but since the SNP has conceded that they can't call a legitimate referendum and that only HMG can do that, why would HMG permit a second referendum when the SNP has proven that it can't accept Scots' democratic decision?
The problem for Loyalists is that the decision was not clear and the actual argument was fundamentally lost (perhaps forever) by the Loyalists.
Assuming by "Loyalists" you mean "Unionists", this is risible. The No camp won by 10 percentage points: a decisive margin.
You lost. Accept the democratic verdict of the people of Scotland and move on.
Dear Dear you are not very good at the trolling
Indeed not. Trolls tend not to use facts.
You really are trying to be seen as dimmer than Scott
Who is that?
You seem to be struggling to come to terms with the fact that 11 months ago, you lost. Why is that?
It's their reason for existence, they cannot accept it if it goes against.
Agreed, but since the SNP has conceded that they can't call a legitimate referendum and that only HMG can do that, why would HMG permit a second referendum when the SNP has proven that it can't accept Scots' democratic decision?
The problem for Loyalists is that the decision was not clear and the actual argument was fundamentally lost (perhaps forever) by the Loyalists.
Assuming by "Loyalists" you mean "Unionists", this is risible. The No camp won by 10 percentage points: a decisive margin.
You lost. Accept the democratic verdict of the people of Scotland and move on.
Dear Dear you are not very good at the trolling
Indeed not. Trolls tend not to use facts.
You really are trying to be seen as dimmer than Scott
Who is that?
You seem to be struggling to come to terms with the fact that 11 months ago, you lost. Why is that?
You seem to be living in the past. Plus you seem to be barking, sound very like a SLAB drone.
In the past, Scots were yet to decide on Scotland's future within the United Kingdom and hence independence was a possibility.
What happens if the final round is Burnham v Corbyn, which still just about looks most likely if Corbyn does not win in round 1? You have not used your final 2 votes so will have no say
Up until last week I was going to put Burnham as 3. But frankly, I've come to the conclusion that he wouldn't be any better than Corbyn (who will of course be an utter disaster).
Well you may not think so, but polls have Burnham the highest rated amongst the public of the 4, anyway that is up to you
He may well have once upon a time but do we have any such survey from after Burnham started jumping on that day's bandwagon....
I can't recall who used the One Direction analogy, but it was very good. If you were asked to name the band member you liked the most, you'd probably name the only one who's most well known - Kayne? Zayne?
I've no idea - but that's about the level of this polling.
What happens if the final round is Burnham v Corbyn, which still just about looks most likely if Corbyn does not win in round 1? You have not used your final 2 votes so will have no say
Up until last week I was going to put Burnham as 3. But frankly, I've come to the conclusion that he wouldn't be any better than Corbyn (who will of course be an utter disaster).
Well you may not think so, but polls have Burnham the highest rated amongst the public of the 4, anyway that is up to you
Yes, so you keep saying ... But I don't really think when it comes to it that there will be a groundswell of enthusiasm for a flip-flopping continuity Ed Miliband with a Northern accent in 2020.
I can't recall who used the One Direction analogy, but it was very good. If you were asked to name the band member you liked the most, you'd probably name the only one who's most well known - Kayne? Zayne?
I've no idea - but that's about the level of this polling.
What happens if the final round is Burnham v Corbyn, which still just about looks most likely if Corbyn does not win in round 1? You have not used your final 2 votes so will have no say
Up until last week I was going to put Burnham as 3. But frankly, I've come to the conclusion that he wouldn't be any better than Corbyn (who will of course be an utter disaster).
Well you may not think so, but polls have Burnham the highest rated amongst the public of the 4, anyway that is up to you
Yes, so you keep saying ... But I don't really think when it comes to it that there will be a groundswell of enthusiasm for a flip-flopping continuity Ed Miliband with a Northern accent in 2020.
Except most of the polls have been on a net positive/negative rating, which is much less prone to name recognition. Admittedly Alan Johnson or David Miliband poll better than Burnham (as did Chuka before he pulled out) but they are not running and of the 4 who are running Burnham polls best
It's their reason for existence, they cannot accept it if it goes against.
Agreed, but since the SNP has conceded that they can't call a legitimate referendum and that only HMG can do that, why would HMG permit a second referendum when the SNP has proven that it can't accept Scots' democratic decision?
The problem for Loyalists is that the decision was not clear and the actual argument was fundamentally lost (perhaps forever) by the Loyalists.
Assuming by "Loyalists" you mean "Unionists", this is risible. The No camp won by 10 percentage points: a decisive margin.
You lost. Accept the democratic verdict of the people of Scotland and move on.
Dear Dear you are not very good at the trolling
Indeed not. Trolls tend not to use facts.
You really are trying to be seen as dimmer than Scott
Who is that?
You seem to be struggling to come to terms with the fact that 11 months ago, you lost. Why is that?
Popcorn and Fat Free Blackpudding time
Fat free black pudding?
Arrow Farm Worksop make it.
Only ingredients are Pigs Blood Salt Pepper and
Instead of Pigs fat they use potato and onion.
So the man on the butchers counter said when i asked if it was a joke.
I did check Worksop hadnt designated 23rd August as April Fools day
What happens if the final round is Burnham v Corbyn, which still just about looks most likely if Corbyn does not win in round 1? You have not used your final 2 votes so will have no say
Up until last week I was going to put Burnham as 3. But frankly, I've come to the conclusion that he wouldn't be any better than Corbyn (who will of course be an utter disaster).
Well you may not think so, but polls have Burnham the highest rated amongst the public of the 4, anyway that is up to you
He may well have once upon a time but do we have any such survey from after Burnham started jumping on that day's bandwagon....
What happens if the final round is Burnham v Corbyn, which still just about looks most likely if Corbyn does not win in round 1? You have not used your final 2 votes so will have no say
Up until last week I was going to put Burnham as 3. But frankly, I've come to the conclusion that he wouldn't be any better than Corbyn (who will of course be an utter disaster).
Well you may not think so, but polls have Burnham the highest rated amongst the public of the 4, anyway that is up to you
You do seem to be fixated on this factoid, repeating it even when it is irrelevant.
Surely the public's views should be the most relevant factor of all, but anyway that is up to Labour
It's their reason for existence, they cannot accept it if it goes against.
Agreed, but since the SNP has conceded that they can't call a legitimate referendum and that only HMG can do that, why would HMG permit a second referendum when the SNP has proven that it can't accept Scots' democratic decision?
The problem for Loyalists is that the decision was not clear and the actual argument was fundamentally lost (perhaps forever) by the Loyalists.
Assuming by "Loyalists" you mean "Unionists", this is risible. The No camp won by 10 percentage points: a decisive margin.
You lost. Accept the democratic verdict of the people of Scotland and move on.
Dear Dear you are not very good at the trolling
Indeed not. Trolls tend not to use facts.
You really are trying to be seen as dimmer than Scott
Who is that?
You seem to be struggling to come to terms with the fact that 11 months ago, you lost. Why is that?
Popcorn and Fat Free Blackpudding time
Fat free black pudding?
Arrow Farm Worksop make it.
Only ingredients are Pigs Blood Salt Pepper and
Instead of Pigs fat they use potato and onion.
So the man on the butchers counter said when i asked if it was a joke.
I did check Worksop hadnt designated 23rd August as April Fools day
Very innovative and I hope it tastes nice but imho there's nothing wrong with pigs fat! People weren't dropping dead of heart attacks every five minutes when lard was a national staple.
What happens if the final round is Burnham v Corbyn, which still just about looks most likely if Corbyn does not win in round 1? You have not used your final 2 votes so will have no say
Up until last week I was going to put Burnham as 3. But frankly, I've come to the conclusion that he wouldn't be any better than Corbyn (who will of course be an utter disaster).
Well you may not think so, but polls have Burnham the highest rated amongst the public of the 4, anyway that is up to you
He may well have once upon a time but do we have any such survey from after Burnham started jumping on that day's bandwagon....
What happens if the final round is Burnham v Corbyn, which still just about looks most likely if Corbyn does not win in round 1? You have not used your final 2 votes so will have no say
Up until last week I was going to put Burnham as 3. But frankly, I've come to the conclusion that he wouldn't be any better than Corbyn (who will of course be an utter disaster).
Well you may not think so, but polls have Burnham the highest rated amongst the public of the 4, anyway that is up to you
You do seem to be fixated on this factoid, repeating it even when it is irrelevant.
Surely the public's views should be the most relevant factor of all, but anyway that is up to Labour
Some polls have shown Corbyn with the highest ratings.
Polls have shown Kendall to be the candidate the Tories most fear.
You can pick your candidate and the polling will follow, basically.
There is also the argument that right now it's mostly about name recognition for the public, and you should make a judgement based on who you think would be polling best in a few years' time, not now.
What happens if the final round is Burnham v Corbyn, which still just about looks most likely if Corbyn does not win in round 1? You have not used your final 2 votes so will have no say
Up until last week I was going to put Burnham as 3. But frankly, I've come to the conclusion that he wouldn't be any better than Corbyn (who will of course be an utter disaster).
Well you may not think so, but polls have Burnham the highest rated amongst the public of the 4, anyway that is up to you
You do seem to be fixated on this factoid, repeating it even when it is irrelevant.
Surely the public's views should be the most relevant factor of all, but anyway that is up to Labour
Some polls have shown Corbyn with the highest ratings.
Polls have shown Kendall to be the candidate the Tories most fear.
You can pick your candidate and the polling will follow, basically.
There is also the argument that right now it's mostly about name recognition for the public, and you should make a judgement based on who you think would be polling best in a few years' time, not now.
Some polls have shown Corbyn with the highest favourables, but he has even higher unfavourables so on a net rating he is negative. Polls have shown Kendall the candidate Tory MPs most fear, that is not the same as a poll of the public. As I said net scores are far less prone to name recognition than a straight ranking
What happens if the final round is Burnham v Corbyn, which still just about looks most likely if Corbyn does not win in round 1? You have not used your final 2 votes so will have no say
Up until last week I was going to put Burnham as 3. But frankly, I've come to the conclusion that he wouldn't be any better than Corbyn (who will of course be an utter disaster).
Well you may not think so, but polls have Burnham the highest rated amongst the public of the 4, anyway that is up to you
He may well have once upon a time but do we have any such survey from after Burnham started jumping on that day's bandwagon....
What happens if the final round is Burnham v Corbyn, which still just about looks most likely if Corbyn does not win in round 1? You have not used your final 2 votes so will have no say
Up until last week I was going to put Burnham as 3. But frankly, I've come to the conclusion that he wouldn't be any better than Corbyn (who will of course be an utter disaster).
Well you may not think so, but polls have Burnham the highest rated amongst the public of the 4, anyway that is up to you
You do seem to be fixated on this factoid, repeating it even when it is irrelevant.
Surely the public's views should be the most relevant factor of all, but anyway that is up to Labour
Let's look at the inferred "make no difference/don't know" numbers, shall we?
Corbyn 48 Burnham 67 Cooper 67 Kendall 72
Given the scale of Labour's defeat in May, "make no difference" really isn't any better than "making things worse".
Comments
There is perhaps some explanation with regards to his partner, but I can't see it.
You lost. Accept the democratic verdict of the people of Scotland and move on.
However I think that people we voting Labour in spite of Ed, not because of him. (Just my opinion, but that what this site is for surely?)
It's like a toddler shouting "BUM" to try and get attention. If he posts it on every thread maybe the big boys will notice him and give him a biccy
According to Wiki:
"Alan Yentob (born 11 March 1947) is a British television executive and presenter. He has spent his entire career at the BBC."
Why was someone of such limited experience seen as being suitable to help run a charity in a very different arena?
"If current trends hold, [Christie] will likely lose his spot in the primetime CNN/Reagan Library debate on Sept. 16, displaced by a surging Carly Fiorina."
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/chris-christie-fades-into-darkness-121618.html?hp=t1_r
https://twitter.com/SunPolitics/status/635489678079193092
Either way the Ed factor wasn't the biggest issue.
God...just thought... by this logic there would be someone somewhere who voted Tory because of IDS.
The horror! Lets hope that the two of them don't get together and breed.
He's completely part of the inner circle of people who are beyond reproach. 'Society'. If Batmanwoman is murdered then he'll have to be the prime suspect for getting him in to this pickle. The directors of charities, Companies, and those who sit on boards of enquiry and the like are all from a pretty small circle. To be fair they're all from a very capable circle, but they really don't have their eyes on what's going on in the way you or I would. That's entirely the secret of their success.
To see this sort of thing in action I'd suggest no better example that the space shuttle disasters. Richard Feynman simply blew them all away with actual thought being applied to the area that they were supposed to be responsible for. Now Feynman was a clever man, and people are people. Nonetheless I imagine that there are many instances of people being paid lots of money to run something-or-other where there are simply the most obvious of mistakes being made.
The BBC have had the tenacity to ask whether the Met Office is right for them. They have invited other bidders and will consider them. And if, of course, the Met Office may well win.
Indeed I think that is likely - I was once told only the Norwegians could operate on the same level - plus the fact that public sector bodies who only offer things to tender because they are under a legal obligation to do so tend to award the contracts the same way anyway - you can lead a horse to water, and all that.
'Looking the Wrong Way
Personally I think we have heard pretty much all we need to know about the Labour Party leadership election, Far more interesting, but (as usual) far less covered is the revelation that David Cameron’s EU ‘renegotiation’ really is a blatant fix.
The former Cabinet Minister Andrew Lansley has told select audiences that the whole thing is planned, right down to a fake table-thumping row with the French to make the Prime Minister look like John Bull.
If this got the prominence it deserved, the referendum result might be in some doubt. But most voters will still be unaware of it by the time they come to vote in September. News isn’t just what happens. It’s what a fairly small group of people decide is news.'
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/
http://www.libdemvoice.org/willie-rennie-backs-all-women-shortlists-47231.html#utm_source=tweet&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter
The Scottish LibDems along with Scottish Labour seem to have determined that banging on about a better gender balance in Holyrood etc, is somehow going to transform their fortunes in Scotland. This says it all about the state of these parties as Scotland has many problems, but with a female FM + 3 out of 5 female party leaders + gender balanced cabinets and opposition front bench - gender balance seems one area where these parties are wasting their time.
Edit: oh, and Feynman was a genius. Politics and society would be far better off if we had more like him.
but it doesn't mean he knows any more than you or me, or that cat what voted in the Corbynendum.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11819074/Alex-Salmond-Nick-Robinson-referendum-coverage-was-a-disgrace.html
I have high hopes for a substantial renegotiation, but if we get nothing and the party leadership tries to lie to the public to get a vote won, I will be furious.
https://www.research.net/r/bbconlineconsultation
Likewise if you love it and think it's the greatest organisation in the world.
I doubt they'll get many responses so your opinion may go a long way.
As it happens, I think the unquoted source is probably right that that is the correct approach: Cameron will want to focus on the central point, which is whether we stay in the EU or go for some (as yet unknown) alternative. It's also the honest thing to do: this is not a referendum on the renegotiation, it's a referendum on whether we stay in the EU on the terms available with the renegotiation.
Similarly, the Out side will want to avoid discussing the alternative, because they haven't got one that they can point to, or at least not one they can agree on. They certainly won't want it to be a referendum on what the details of a trade deal with the EU would look like (for the very good reason that they'd look much like what Cameron comes back with).
It wasn't much of a piece, but better and more balanced that Adam Boulton whose efforts are thin gruel and usually rather one-eyed.
"We looked into the issues raised and decided we were right".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB96kXL3mFc
It's a key point, of course, and one which I personally will be looking at very closely in deciding how to vote. But I don't think the average man on the Clapham omnibus will be looking at that: it will be immigration and jobs which are the key battlegrounds.
It's a bit Potemkin.
41 not. Leading mainly not. Economists partially not.
Letter
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/23/jeremy-corbyns-opposition-to-austerity-is-actually-mainstream-economics
It's has some relation to this group on Our Kingdom last week:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/ourkingdom/35-economists-back-corbyn's-policies-as-'sensible'
Bit of a ragbag. There's even a "former Economics Adviser to Ken Livingstone" who was one of those Socialist Action / International Marxist Group types, not economists, "researchers", retirees, honorary bods. Couldn't spot a Nobel Laureate.
Basically it's a selection from a wider pool of usual suspects plus relevant hangers on, with a fair overlap with these other letters from leading economists:
About Greece, Jan 2015:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/20/greece-needs-debts-cancelled-and-growth
About Osborne Plan having no basis in Economics, June 2015:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/12/osborne-plan-has-no-basis-in-economics
Will try to put together a bit of an analysis.
One can't help but think of the wonderful but treacherous torrents that surround our island.
One group of £3ers waited to see what they made of Corbyn in Nottingham; and apparently have all plumped for him:
"Managed to get tickets to Jeremy Corbyn here in Nottingham. He was wonderful, reminding us of the Labour Party we used to know and love pre-Blair. Friends who attended with some reservations were absolutely energised."
On Miliband, I think his main achievement was to keep the party harmonious, but it was rather at the expense of making it ill-defined, which is why we are where we are. That said, he's probably over-sold right now - he put up a reasonable fight given an apparently reviving economy and memories of the crash still fresh, and it's not as though the Tories won by 100 seats.
By the way, we've not heard from Edmund in Tokyo lately - what does he make of this Bitcoin feud?
The BBC have screwed up so many times they don't really forecast anything precise for fear of being castigated are consequently never precise about the weather because their fingers have been burned so many times..
So it doesn't matter a toss who does the weather, I reckon I can tell better by looking out of my window in the morning and relying on folklore.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11797948/Oops-Theres-a-100-billion-hole-in-Jeremy-Corbyns-tax-plans.html
But I'm quite interested in the media manipulation process.
In this case it wouldn't surprise me if the Guardian had seen the Our Kingdom piece, and asked for a letter so they could create an "anti-austerity" narrative.
All quite ironic, because harsh austerity is not exactly something done by the Coalition.
Personally, I'm beyond bored with the whole Labour leadership contest. It's a complete and utter shambles.
On another note, whoever raised the Union Jack at the Iranian embassy, should have practised more, as it was a pretty tawdry effort!
But what they actually do in practice ranks amongst the worst examples of bad practice of any political party. It is all empty gesture politics. Personally I cannot wait for the male Tim Farron and his all male MPs to launch another outcry in this area. The fun the media will have with them is going to be a time for getting in the pop corn.
But I'm quite interested in the media manipulation process.
In this case it wouldn't surprise me if the Guardian had seen the Our Kingdom piece, and asked for a letter so they could create an "anti-austerity" narrative.
All quite ironic, because harsh austerity is not exactly something done by the Coalition.
Murphaloon is wonderful fun. A terminally self-important velveteen crocodile in his personal punch and judy show in his garden office that he avoided business rates on for years.
It's only a fortnight since he published an email and defended himself on the basis that it was like a blog comment so he had a right to publish it under copyright law.
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/08/05/putting-the-record-straight-on-peoples-qe/comment-page-1/#comment-730870
As for Bitcoin, it was obvious from the start that it was a Ponzi scheme, and a very clever one. Selling prime numbers in return for real money was a scam of genius.
Leader: 1) Kendall; 2) Cooper
Deputy: 1) Creasy; 2) Bradshaw; 3) Flint; 4) Eagle
Mayoral candidate: 1) Jowell; 2) Lammy; 3) Wolmer; 4) Thomas; 5) Khan
As an aside, my mother's mentioned to both Mrs J and an ex that she saw Carol Kirkwood as the 'perfect' daughter-in-law material. I'm not quite sure what they were meant to make of that admission, or the delightful's lady's husband, for that matter.
It turns out that Rennie is one of my regional list MSPs, based on current polling he'd be lucky to win a seat, I wonder which list he will go for?
What happens if the final round is Burnham v Corbyn, which still just about looks most likely if Corbyn does not win in round 1? You have not used your final 2 votes so will have no say
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/labour-leadership-election-should-delayed-6249001
The timetable for reviewing new voters looks very tight. I'm not betting on this but if forced at gunpoint that's the way I'd go.
You seem to be struggling to come to terms with the fact that 11 months ago, you lost. Why is that?
In the present, neither statement is true.
I've no idea - but that's about the level of this polling.
We should give @HYUFD a break - it's a bromance
Only ingredients are Pigs Blood Salt Pepper and
Instead of Pigs fat they use potato and onion.
So the man on the butchers counter said when i asked if it was a joke.
I did check Worksop hadnt designated 23rd August as April Fools day
http://www.itv.com/news/2015-08-16/poll-finds-corbyn-is-labours-best-and-worst-election-hope/
Polls have shown Kendall to be the candidate the Tories most fear.
You can pick your candidate and the polling will follow, basically.
There is also the argument that right now it's mostly about name recognition for the public, and you should make a judgement based on who you think would be polling best in a few years' time, not now.
Don't forget to read my post-race wittering here:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/belgium-post-race-analysis.html
Corbyn 48
Burnham 67
Cooper 67
Kendall 72
Given the scale of Labour's defeat in May, "make no difference" really isn't any better than "making things worse".