What a shambles the Labour Party is. Screwed up the country (at least twice) and now unable to conduct a simple contest for their next Leader.
I finally decided today to exercise my right, as a committed Tory voter with £3 to spare and a desire for a laugh, to vote for Mr Corbyn.
I went Corbyn 1, Burnham 2 (I think he's more unelectable than Corbyn TBH), Kendall 3, Balls 4. (On the basis Yvette last as she's the one likely to get Labour highest in the polls). Applying the same principles, in the Deputy Contest I went Watson, Eagle, Bradshaw, Flint, Creasey.
Such fun... :-)
You will make Putin, Adams, Hamas, Hezbollah et al very happy. Many of this country's friends will be less impressed. Let's hope that your vote and all the others Corbyn gets do not cause the UK any problems.
Doubt it. But if so, it will be Ed Miliband's fault not mine.
And that makes me even happier....
I disagree strongly. All those who vote for Corbyn own the resultant mess. And there will be a mess - whether he wins or not. Even if he loses we will have seen that a significant part of the Labour party has no problems with having as their leader a person with views as repellent as Corbyn's. That is a lesson which bodes ill for those of us who hope that such views could be cast out to the fascist fringes where they belong not circulating round the main opposition party.
Spot on. I can understand the temptation to give Labour a kicking - and the party certainly deserves it - but voting for Corbyn, for whatever reason, puts an anti-capitalist, anti-Western, class warrior at the helm of a party that got over nine million votes in May. That will register abroad and will have consequences.
As long as the Tories get 10 million or more votes, would it really matter?
Mr. Observer, that's the thing. Labour can be given a kicking by voting for Burnham.
I don't have a vote [never applied for one] but wouldn't back Corbyn. He's beyond the pale.
Labour is kicking, punching and hurling hard objects at itself. Why bother getting involved at all? Tory Corbynistas are making themselves complicit in all the consequences of his victory for absolutely no reason at all. If they then seek to blame Ed Miliband that will make them look even more ridiculous.
If Nick Palmer and co are JC's useful idiots, his Tory supporters are just idiots :-)
Mr. Observer, that's the thing. Labour can be given a kicking by voting for Burnham.
I don't have a vote [never applied for one] but wouldn't back Corbyn. He's beyond the pale.
Labour is kicking, punching and hurling hard objects at itself. Why bother getting involved at all? Tory Corbynistas are making themselves complicit in all the consequences of his victory for absolutely no reason at all. If they then seek to blame Ed Miliband that will make them look even more ridiculous.
If Nick Palmer and co are JC's useful idiots, his Tory supporters are just idiots :-)
Tory Corbynistas are making a big mistake - they should be voting Burnham. He is an obvious Bozo.
What a shambles the Labour Party is. Screwed up the country (at least twice) and now unable to conduct a simple contest for their next Leader.
I finally decided today to exercise my right, as a committed Tory voter with £3 to spare and a desire for a laugh, to vote for Mr Corbyn.
I went Corbyn 1, Burnham 2 (I think he's more unelectable than Corbyn TBH), Kendall 3, Balls 4. (On the basis Yvette last as she's the one likely to get Labour highest in the polls). Applying the same principles, in the Deputy Contest I went Watson, Eagle, Bradshaw, Flint, Creasey.
Such fun... :-)
You will make Putin, Adams, Hamas, Hezbollah et al very happy. Many of this country's friends will be less impressed. Let's hope that your vote and all the others Corbyn gets do not cause the UK any problems.
Doubt it. But if so, it will be Ed Miliband's fault not mine.
And that makes me even happier....
I disagree strongly. All those who vote for Corbyn own the resultant mess. And there will be a mess - whether he wins or not. Even if he loses we will have seen that a significant part of the Labour party has no problems with having as their leader a person with views as repellent as Corbyn's. That is a lesson which bodes ill for those of us who hope that such views could be cast out to the fascist fringes where they belong not circulating round the main opposition party.
Spot on. I can understand the temptation to give Labour a kicking - and the party certainly deserves it - but voting for Corbyn, for whatever reason, puts an anti-capitalist, anti-Western, class warrior at the helm of a party that got over nine million votes in May. That will register abroad and will have consequences.
As long as the Tories get 10 million or more votes, would it really matter?
I think that at the very least it will have an affect on perceptions of the UK.
What a shambles the Labour Party is. Screwed up the country (at least twice) and now unable to conduct a simple contest for their next Leader.
I finally decided today to exercise my right, as a committed Tory voter with £3 to spare and a desire for a laugh, to vote for Mr Corbyn.
I went Corbyn 1, Burnham 2 (I think he's more unelectable than Corbyn TBH), Kendall 3, Balls 4. (On the basis Yvette last as she's the one likely to get Labour highest in the polls). Applying the same principles, in the Deputy Contest I went Watson, Eagle, Bradshaw, Flint, Creasey.
Such fun... :-)
You will make Putin, Adams, Hamas, Hezbollah et al very happy. Many of this country's friends will be less impressed. Let's hope that your vote and all the others Corbyn gets do not cause the UK any problems.
Doubt it. But if so, it will be Ed Miliband's fault not mine.
And that makes me even happier....
I disagree strongly. All those who vote for Corbyn own the resultant mess. And there will be a mess - whether he wins or not. Even if he loses we will have seen that a significant part of the Labour party has no problems with having as their leader a person with views as repellent as Corbyn's. That is a lesson which bodes ill for those of us who hope that such views could be cast out to the fascist fringes where they belong not circulating round the main opposition party.
Spot on. I can understand the temptation to give Labour a kicking - and the party certainly deserves it - but voting for Corbyn, for whatever reason, puts an anti-capitalist, anti-Western, class warrior at the helm of a party that got over nine million votes in May. That will register abroad and will have consequences.
As long as the Tories get 10 million or more votes, would it really matter?
I think that at the very least it will have an affect on perceptions of the UK.
It's difficult to imagine that Labour could be beaten by UKIP at the next election with Kendall, Cooper or Burnham as leader. With Corbyn it's a possibility IMO.
I agree, if the UK voted to leave the EU under Cameron, he likely would be regarded as a truly great Conservative leader.
That would rather depend on what happened next. But it's more likely that he'll be seen as a truly great Conservative leader with the UK voting to stay In.
Mr. Herdson, that's the thing that confounds me. I could not previously see Cameron recommending Out. And I'm having difficulty seeing it now. But Merkel's behaviour may push him that way. I'd still be flabbergasted if he recommended Out.
It could be part of the stage managed argument which was meant to occur prior to Dave making the big announcement. I notice France have joined in demanding the UK take their fair share of migrants otherwise the negotiations will not go anywhere.
Mr. T, gardening is super. Helped my mother plant some bulbs the other day. I don't do much (time and weather often get in the way), but if I ever have more of the former I think it'd be something I'd like to do more of.
Then again, you could always cheers yourself up by buying Sir Edric's Temple
Mr. Observer, that's the thing. Labour can be given a kicking by voting for Burnham.
I don't have a vote [never applied for one] but wouldn't back Corbyn. He's beyond the pale.
Labour is kicking, punching and hurling hard objects at itself. Why bother getting involved at all? Tory Corbynistas are making themselves complicit in all the consequences of his victory for absolutely no reason at all. If they then seek to blame Ed Miliband that will make them look even more ridiculous.
If Nick Palmer and co are JC's useful idiots, his Tory supporters are just idiots :-)
Tory Corbynistas are making a big mistake - they should be voting Burnham. He is an obvious Bozo.
Labour invited them in, but the Tory Corbynistas gave their votes to the only one of the four candidates whose victory would have possible repercussions beyond buggering up Labour.
Interesting that Corbyn is only recommending accepting 50,000 Syrian refugees. That's a pretty low number for someone from his wing of the Labour Party. The only explanation is that even he recognises how unpopular it would be to take in more than that when the population of the country has increased by 7 million over the last 20 years (during which time Germany's population has declined slightly).
I agree, if the UK voted to leave the EU under Cameron, he likely would be regarded as a truly great Conservative leader.
That would rather depend on what happened next. But it's more likely that he'll be seen as a truly great Conservative leader with the UK voting to stay In.
Not unless his deal is a very good one, which it won't be.
The exchanges between Cameron and Merkel as described by Anthony Seldon are really interesting.
I think it's safe to say that there will be nothing on offer to keep the UK in the EU.
Is that news? Well, i suspected it but even I was surprised to hear how blunt those exchanges had been.
I do wonder how Cameron will play this if he has zilch all to play with next year. Perhaps a very luke warm endorsement of the proposals by a sitting PM, with a tacit acceptance that cabinet colleagues can campaign how they like whilst he takes a back seat, might be enough for some floating voters to question it.
I don't really expect us to leave even if we get a 'leave'.
Although, if you are in a position where you know the other side won't compromise an inch it makes sense to take a very moderate position.
Then when it doesn't work you can regretfully say how reasonable you were, but [Merkel] was just intransigent so you have to recommend out.
That only works if the other side doesn't then compromise, otherwise you end up having asked for virtually nothing and having got it.
But the way things are heading, Cameron is going to have to recommend an Out.
Could you see yourself voting that way, David?
I could although I don't expect to. I would vote to stay in on the status quo. For all that it's a mess, I don't think leaving would help either side and won't make it go away. And in a dangerous and rapidly changing world, going it alone isn't a great idea. It's all very well for some small states to believe that they can free ride the dangers but to the extent they can, it's only because big ones act a shields.
What is really needed in the EU is a change of mindset; the structure is neutral - what matters is the use to which it is put. The Eurocrisis, the migrant issue and the challenge of China, Russia and (economically) India, may yet force that change out of necessity.
Mr. Observer, that's the thing. Labour can be given a kicking by voting for Burnham.
I don't have a vote [never applied for one] but wouldn't back Corbyn. He's beyond the pale.
Labour is kicking, punching and hurling hard objects at itself. Why bother getting involved at all? Tory Corbynistas are making themselves complicit in all the consequences of his victory for absolutely no reason at all. If they then seek to blame Ed Miliband that will make them look even more ridiculous.
If Nick Palmer and co are JC's useful idiots, his Tory supporters are just idiots :-)
The only idiots are the Labour political hierarchy who did not foresee that two party politics was a thing of the past and refused to institute electoral reform to provide PR which is the only way an ideological left wing can actually survive in multi-party politics.
They seem to have buried their head in the sand and assumed that Labour would always be one of two parties of political power in the United Kingdom and as such, the controlling elite could continue to parachute their friends into safe seats geographically alien to them and never worry for on second about a consistent political position.
No-one is to blame for the current state of Labour (and it's approaching death) than the Islington Elite who successfully took over the party but then did nothing to give it a future.
Radio 5 are excelling themselves in the propaganda stakes this afternoon.
I listen to Five Live a fair bit and they're embarrassing themselves with the biased nature of their reporting at the moment. The tone is basically that if you don't support large scale migration you're a vicious bigot.
O/T Dan Jarvis seems to have come off the fence. He has written a report giving his views on why Labour lost the last GE and what it needs to do if it's ever going to win again. Needless to say Corbyn style politics is the antithesis of Jarvis's views. Fun reading for all, particularly those that think UKIP is irrelevant.
Mr. Herdson, that's the thing that confounds me. I could not previously see Cameron recommending Out. And I'm having difficulty seeing it now. But Merkel's behaviour may push him that way. I'd still be flabbergasted if he recommended Out.
It could be part of the stage managed argument which was meant to occur prior to Dave making the big announcement. I notice France have joined in demanding the UK take their fair share of migrants otherwise the negotiations will not go anywhere.
"Meant to occur"
=
"Andrew Lansley, a man with no credit or pull in Downing Street, speculated that it might occur"
The exchanges between Cameron and Merkel as described by Anthony Seldon are really interesting.
I think it's safe to say that there will be nothing on offer to keep the UK in the EU.
Is that news? Well, i suspected it but even I was surprised to hear how blunt those exchanges had been.
I do wonder how Cameron will play this if he has zilch all to play with next year. Perhaps a very luke warm endorsement of the proposals by a sitting PM, with a tacit acceptance that cabinet colleagues can campaign how they like whilst he takes a back seat, might be enough for some floating voters to question it.
I don't really expect us to leave even if we get a 'leave'.
Although, if you are in a position where you know the other side won't compromise an inch it makes sense to take a very moderate position.
Then when it doesn't work you can regretfully say how reasonable you were, but [Merkel] was just intransigent so you have to recommend out.
That only works if the other side doesn't then compromise, otherwise you end up having asked for virtually nothing and having got it.
But the way things are heading, Cameron is going to have to recommend an Out.
Could you see yourself voting that way, David?
I could although I don't expect to. I would vote to stay in on the status quo. For all that it's a mess, I don't think leaving would help either side and won't make it go away. And in a dangerous and rapidly changing world, going it alone isn't a great idea. It's all very well for some small states to believe that they can free ride the dangers but to the extent they can, it's only because big ones act a shields.
What is really needed in the EU is a change of mindset; the structure is neutral - what matters is the use to which it is put. The Eurocrisis, the migrant issue and the challenge of China, Russia and (economically) India, may yet force that change out of necessity.
I could vote to stay in on the status quo as well.
But I don't believe the status quo is sustainable in the long-term.
I agree, if the UK voted to leave the EU under Cameron, he likely would be regarded as a truly great Conservative leader.
That would rather depend on what happened next. But it's more likely that he'll be seen as a truly great Conservative leader with the UK voting to stay In.
The exchanges between Cameron and Merkel as described by Anthony Seldon are really interesting.
I think it's safe to say that there will be nothing on offer to keep the UK in the EU.
Is that news? Well, i suspected it but even I was surprised to hear how blunt those exchanges had been.
I do wonder how Cameron will play this if he has zilch all to play with next year. Perhaps a very luke warm endorsement of the proposals by a sitting PM, with a tacit acceptance that cabinet colleagues can campaign how they like whilst he takes a back seat, might be enough for some floating voters to question it.
I don't really expect us to leave even if we get a 'leave'.
Although, if you are in a position where you know the other side won't compromise an inch it makes sense to take a very moderate position.
Then when it doesn't work you can regretfully say how reasonable you were, but [Merkel] was just intransigent so you have to recommend out.
That only works if the other side doesn't then compromise, otherwise you end up having asked for virtually nothing and having got it.
But the way things are heading, Cameron is going to have to recommend an Out.
Could you see yourself voting that way, David?
I could although I don't expect to. I would vote to stay in on the status quo. For all that it's a mess, I don't think leaving would help either side and won't make it go away. And in a dangerous and rapidly changing world, going it alone isn't a great idea. It's all very well for some small states to believe that they can free ride the dangers but to the extent they can, it's only because big ones act a shields.
What is really needed in the EU is a change of mindset; the structure is neutral - what matters is the use to which it is put. The Eurocrisis, the migrant issue and the challenge of China, Russia and (economically) India, may yet force that change out of necessity.
I disagree but thank you for such an honest answer.
"I will not be offering my home to a Syrian refugee family.
You probably think that makes me a terrible person. Indeed the man I was sitting next to on a TV news programme yesterday definitely thought so.
After an on-air discussion about how Britain should deal with the Syrian refugee crisis, as soon as the cameras were switched off, he turned to me and said: “I think you are a f–––ing awful person.”
He had, up until that moment, been quite nice. And, as soon as the cameras went back on, he was so again. So what had I done to prompt his extraordinary outburst?
I had made the mistake, on national television, of failing to signal my virtue by opening up my home to a Syrian refugee family and applauding others who have made that generous offer."
Presumably she was not appearing on the BBC as that would have been all over the article.
She was on Sky and her fellow news columnist was pretty unpleasant - refusing to accept the validity of the Survation poll - saying on air that it was nasty and unacceptable. I'm not surprised he was even worse off air.
Unable to successfully facilitate the piss up in the Brewery, it appears very much as though they are having significant troubles organising the hangover also...
Mr. SE, I'm not convinced. This flood and Merkel's deranged policy (which has implications far beyond us and Germany) cannot have been planned.
Mr. Dancer, an alternative reason for Merkel's policy that you may like to consider:
Some weeks ago, well before the current mass hysteria, the German minister with responsibility for Immigration said, in public, that he expected 800,000 immigrants from the third world to arrive in Germany this year. He further said he had no idea how Germany was going to cope but it had no way of stopping that tide. His remarks were little reported, I picked them up from, I think, Der Spiegel's international site, and even less noted.
Fast forward a few weeks and the tide has started to lap against Germany's shore. Now Merkel says Germany are going to take 800,000 refugees (note the change in term) and you lot, i.e. the rest of the EU, must help.
So has Frau Merkel opened the door with a silly policy? Perhaps she is trying to make a virtue out of a necessity and maybe use emotional blackmail to get other countries to bail out her own.
Radio 5 are excelling themselves in the propaganda stakes this afternoon.
Indeed they are.. when you get to the point when some BBC presenter has to use his mother as a pretext to ask "why the BBC are not putting up more of a fight".. you know they are fecked... I just laughed out loud.
The BBc are crying wolf again about closing channels down. How many did they close down after the last load of dissembling a couple of years ago . answer NONE.
I could vote to stay in on the status quo as well.
But I don't believe the status quo is sustainable in the long-term.
Why do you think it is?
I think the EU lacks a meaningful "settlement" between the Eurozone and those who will likely never join it in deeper integration (Sweden, the UK, and Denmark).
Personal view is that the negotiation should be between the three countries that will not be joining the Eurozone and the rest of the EU predicated on the basis that (a) the Eurozone will need to integrate further if it is to survive, but (b) there is a substantial minority of countries that don't want to be on that bus. (It might also offer an opportunity for some countries to get off the Eurozone bus...) It would recognise that the interests of non-Eurozone members need to be protected, and also that the Eurozone needs the flexibility to deal with its many problems.
What I think is sad is that David Cameron doesn't seem to be going down that route. The other two "refuseniks" should be in London trying to put together a common platform.
Mr. T, gardening is super. Helped my mother plant some bulbs the other day. I don't do much (time and weather often get in the way), but if I ever have more of the former I think it'd be something I'd like to do more of.
Then again, you could always cheers yourself up by buying Sir Edric's Temple
Who was the chap appearing with Julia Hartley-Brewer?
Mr. T, cheers
[That is just a pen name, incidentally].
Mr. 1000, the issue I have with your perspective and that of Mr. Herdson is that it depends on the EU fundamentally changing in a way it has never done so before, and which it shows no sign of doing now. It won't shift from every deeper integration. Like communists who (correctly) say their system is sound if people actually followed it, you're relying on people behaving like angels (or, in this cause, EU-philes taking account of reality rather than their ideals).
It's not going to happen.
Mr. Llama, an interesting, and perhaps correct, interpretation. However, that still leaves the issue of the German Chancellor attempting to dictate policy to the whole of the EU, to which we ought offer a concise Anglo-Saxon answer.
I could vote to stay in on the status quo as well.
But I don't believe the status quo is sustainable in the long-term.
Why do you think it is?
I think the EU lacks a meaningful "settlement" between the Eurozone and those who will likely never join it in deeper integration (Sweden, the UK, and Denmark).
Personal view is that the negotiation should be between the three countries that will not be joining the Eurozone and the rest of the EU predicated on the basis that (a) the Eurozone will need to integrate further if it is to survive, but (b) there is a substantial minority of countries that don't want to be on that bus. (It might also offer an opportunity for some countries to get off the Eurozone bus...) It would recognise that the interests of non-Eurozone members need to be protected, and also that the Eurozone needs the flexibility to deal with its many problems.
What I think is sad is that David Cameron doesn't seem to be going down that route. The other two "refuseniks" should be in London trying to put together a common platform.
I think he tried, but was pretty quickly shot down.
The Eurozone has proved that it is unwilling to keep non-legal/non-treaty promises (funding Greek bailout). And it is unwilling to accept treaty change.
Given those two, how do you come up with a binding settlement that protects the UK's valid interests?
O/T Dan Jarvis seems to have come off the fence. He has written a report giving his views on why Labour lost the last GE and what it needs to do if it's ever going to win again. Needless to say Corbyn style politics is the antithesis of Jarvis's views. Fun reading for all, particularly those that think UKIP is irrelevant.
An interesting report pretty much entirely focussed on UKIP.
Not sure how useful it is as the recommendations are nothing new. Showing Labour are a party for the working man/woman, explaining the benefits of mass immigration, less career politicians, etc.
I found this sentence particularly amusing, "Labour campaigners report that conversations with UKIP - leaning voters are often among the longest and most challenging."
'Labour invited them in, but the Tory Corbynistas gave their votes to the only one of the four candidates whose victory would have possible repercussions beyond buggering up Labour.'
What a load of sanctimonious nonsense,seems you are a really bad loser,it was the Labour party that made it a free for all and it was Labour MP's that allowed Corbyn to get onto the ballot paper.
If Labour want to be the Stupid party then they should accept the consequences.
The exchanges between Cameron and Merkel as described by Anthony Seldon are really interesting.
I think it's safe to say that there will be nothing on offer to keep the UK in the EU.
Is that news? Well, i suspected it but even I was surprised to hear how blunt those exchanges had been.
I do wonder how Cameron will play this if he has zilch all to play with next year. Perhaps a very luke warm endorsement of the proposals by a sitting PM, with a tacit acceptance that cabinet colleagues can campaign how they like whilst he takes a back seat, might be enough for some floating voters to question it.
I don't really expect us to leave even if we get a 'leave'.
Although, if you are in a position where you know the other side won't compromise an inch it makes sense to take a very moderate position.
Then when it doesn't work you can regretfully say how reasonable you were, but [Merkel] was just intransigent so you have to recommend out.
That only works if the other side doesn't then compromise, otherwise you end up having asked for virtually nothing and having got it.
But the way things are heading, Cameron is going to have to recommend an Out.
Could you see yourself voting that way, David?
I could although I don't expect to. I would vote to stay in on the status quo. For all that it's a mess, I don't think leaving would help either side and won't make it go away. And in a dangerous and rapidly changing world, going it alone isn't a great idea. It's all very well for some small states to believe that they can free ride the dangers but to the extent they can, it's only because big ones act a shields.
What is really needed in the EU is a change of mindset; the structure is neutral - what matters is the use to which it is put. The Eurocrisis, the migrant issue and the challenge of China, Russia and (economically) India, may yet force that change out of necessity.
I disagree but thank you for such an honest answer.
But a UK out of the EU would hardly be going it alone. It would still belong to NATO, the UN, all the UN agencies, the Commonwealth, the Breton Woods organizations etc etc ... And there'd always be the (somewhat less) Special (than in the past) Relationship. We should certainly be no more on our own than New Zealand or Australia or Canada, and I'd hope at least as well placed for that position as any of those three.
Mr. T, gardening is super. Helped my mother plant some bulbs the other day. I don't do much (time and weather often get in the way), but if I ever have more of the former I think it'd be something I'd like to do more of.
Then again, you could always cheers yourself up by buying Sir Edric's Temple
Mr. Llama, finishing them and getting them released are different kettles of monkeys. Treasure's done, due March next year. Kingdom's about 95% done. Working on it now, actually, adding a new scene or two.
BTW @TSE, you are aware that Hindi language in India and Urdu in Pakistan are two variants of essentially the same tongue? Hindustani, the language of the Raj?
I could although I don't expect to. I would vote to stay in on the status quo. For all that it's a mess, I don't think leaving would help either side and won't make it go away. And in a dangerous and rapidly changing world, going it alone isn't a great idea. It's all very well for some small states to believe that they can free ride the dangers but to the extent they can, it's only because big ones act a shields.
What is really needed in the EU is a change of mindset; the structure is neutral - what matters is the use to which it is put. The Eurocrisis, the migrant issue and the challenge of China, Russia and (economically) India, may yet force that change out of necessity.
The problem for me is the status quo isn't a fixed thing. William Hague gave a good speech on this a while ago. When Gordon Brown signed up to the Lisbon Treaty, he was not agreeing to a static new order. The Eurozone now has the power to vote things through as a bloc, and we can't do anything about it. They are even willing to tear up previous arrangements to do so. If we want to have a status quo, we need to get a very good protection mechanism from the Eurozone bloc vote: either a red card system for national parliaments, or a double majority system where it has to be passed by both Eurozone and non-Eurozone states.
As for the change of mindsets, if it hasn't happened for 40 years, and it doesn't happen when one of the big three makes a real concerted push for reform with a risk of exit, then it won't ever happen. History is littered with states and empires that should have changed out of necessity and didn't. If the EU does not change under the pressures of the present crisis, they won't ever.
And I say this as someone that wants to stay in a reformed EU.
'Labour invited them in, but the Tory Corbynistas gave their votes to the only one of the four candidates whose victory would have possible repercussions beyond buggering up Labour.'
What a load of sanctimonious nonsense,seems you are a really bad loser,it was the Labour party that made it a free for all and it was Labour MP's that allowed Corbyn to get onto the ballot paper.
If Labour want to be the Stupid party then they should accept the consequences.
All those who vote Corbyn are equally responsible for the consequences. Your vote counts for just as much as Nick Palmer's. And like him you exercised a choice. You chose to vote for an anti-western, anti-capitalist who shares political platforms with anti-semites, terrorists and declared enemies of this country. His victory will delight them and dismay our friends. What a giggle.
MD I finished the full draft of a novel two months ago..haven't looked at it since..but I have to very soon .. then on to the editors.. painful process
I agree, if the UK voted to leave the EU under Cameron, he likely would be regarded as a truly great Conservative leader.
That would rather depend on what happened next. But it's more likely that he'll be seen as a truly great Conservative leader with the UK voting to stay In.
If we voted to stay in with major reform, that will definitely be the case. If we vote to stay in based on a renegotiation that turns out to be a mirage, I expect most conservatives will never forgive him.
@paulwaugh: Is this 1st ever UK targeted assassination? Cameron reveals that on 21 August Brit ISIL suspect Reyad Khan killed in RAF air strike in Raqaa
@faisalislam: PM: Im clear the action was entirely lawful.. AG consulted, planning and directing attacks in UK
'Labour invited them in, but the Tory Corbynistas gave their votes to the only one of the four candidates whose victory would have possible repercussions beyond buggering up Labour.'
What a load of sanctimonious nonsense,seems you are a really bad loser,it was the Labour party that made it a free for all and it was Labour MP's that allowed Corbyn to get onto the ballot paper.
If Labour want to be the Stupid party then they should accept the consequences.
All those who vote Corbyn are equally responsible for the consequences. Your vote counts for just as much as Nick Palmer's. And like him you exercised a choice. You chose to vote for an anti-western, anti-capitalist who shares political platforms with anti-semites, terrorists and declared enemies of this country. His victory will delight them and dismay our friends. What a giggle.
What "consequences"? Surely the Tories are more likely to be victors in 2020 with JC at the Labour helm?
That said, Sir Edric's shenanigans has relatively little redrafting. Because it's told from a single perspective, it's a lot simpler to write and change than stories with many points of view.
I see Jade Dernbach is being outbowled by a schoolboy at the Oval...reminds me of the long lost @Neil... any word from PBs champion knocker?
In fairness to Drenbach (who's just got a wicket as well) - Baby Curran would be outbowling most people in his current form - he's been awesome to watch all 2nd half of the season, but particularly with the new ball.
O/T Dan Jarvis seems to have come off the fence. He has written a report giving his views on why Labour lost the last GE and what it needs to do if it's ever going to win again. Needless to say Corbyn style politics is the antithesis of Jarvis's views. Fun reading for all, particularly those that think UKIP is irrelevant.
An interesting report pretty much entirely focussed on UKIP.
Not sure how useful it is as the recommendations are nothing new. Showing Labour are a party for the working man/woman, explaining the benefits of mass immigration, less career politicians, etc.
I found this sentence particularly amusing, "Labour campaigners report that conversations with UKIP - leaning voters are often among the longest and most challenging."
The polls totally missed any Labour to UKIP switching. In 'real' elections like the locals, by elections and European Election Labour's fall was accompanied by a UKIP rise.
I could vote to stay in on the status quo as well.
But I don't believe the status quo is sustainable in the long-term.
Why do you think it is?
I think the EU lacks a meaningful "settlement" between the Eurozone and those who will likely never join it in deeper integration (Sweden, the UK, and Denmark).
Personal view is that the negotiation should be between the three countries that will not be joining the Eurozone and the rest of the EU predicated on the basis that (a) the Eurozone will need to integrate further if it is to survive, but (b) there is a substantial minority of countries that don't want to be on that bus. (It might also offer an opportunity for some countries to get off the Eurozone bus...) It would recognise that the interests of non-Eurozone members need to be protected, and also that the Eurozone needs the flexibility to deal with its many problems.
What I think is sad is that David Cameron doesn't seem to be going down that route. The other two "refuseniks" should be in London trying to put together a common platform.
As an aside, what is your view of how the City is going to vote? In my experience, "No/Leave/Out" was considered to be a joke this time last year and anyone who supported it did so in the privacy of their own workstation, a year later and some serious players are beginning to talk up the idea and people who support leaving aren't so scared to say so.
Have you (and this goes for Charles and Cyclefree as well) seen a similar change in the London based US banks?
The Auchentennach Bugle is reporting that noted local aristo has asked Mrs JackW to delay her impending shopping trip to New York by three days .... or three months .... as it appears that his wallet has gone missing in action.
The local constabulary are said to be looking into the loss very seriously and very slowly ....
@paulwaugh: Is this 1st ever UK targeted assassination? Cameron reveals that on 21 August Brit ISIL suspect Reyad Khan killed in RAF air strike in Raqaa
@faisalislam: PM: Im clear the action was entirely lawful.. AG consulted, planning and directing attacks in UK
'Labour invited them in, but the Tory Corbynistas gave their votes to the only one of the four candidates whose victory would have possible repercussions beyond buggering up Labour.'
What a load of sanctimonious nonsense,seems you are a really bad loser,it was the Labour party that made it a free for all and it was Labour MP's that allowed Corbyn to get onto the ballot paper.
If Labour want to be the Stupid party then they should accept the consequences.
All those who vote Corbyn are equally responsible for the consequences. Your vote counts for just as much as Nick Palmer's. And like him you exercised a choice. You chose to vote for an anti-western, anti-capitalist who shares political platforms with anti-semites, terrorists and declared enemies of this country. His victory will delight them and dismay our friends. What a giggle.
What friends, Mr. Observer? As you should know, the UK does not have friends only interests. Aside from that who do you think is going to take any notice? Nobody batted an eyelid when E Miliband was elected Labour leader, and him a self-proclaimed socialist, why should Corbyn be any different?
@paulwaugh: Is this 1st ever UK targeted assassination? Cameron reveals that on 21 August Brit ISIL suspect Reyad Khan killed in RAF air strike in Raqaa
@faisalislam: PM: Im clear the action was entirely lawful.. AG consulted, planning and directing attacks in UK
Mr. T, gardening is super. Helped my mother plant some bulbs the other day. I don't do much (time and weather often get in the way), but if I ever have more of the former I think it'd be something I'd like to do more of.
Then again, you could always cheers yourself up by buying Sir Edric's Temple
I see Jade Dernbach is being outbowled by a schoolboy at the Oval...reminds me of the long lost @Neil... any word from PBs champion knocker?
In fairness to Drenbach (who's just got a wicket as well) - Baby Curran would be outbowling most people in his current form - he's been awesome to watch all 2nd half of the season, but particularly with the new ball.
Yes he looks fantastic. I was massive on Surrey earlier & got out for a loss! Never mind
20,000 is a very big number. I was expecting 4,000. 20,000 is a fifth of our migration limit. Will he be reducing immigration elsewhere to make way?
If you're British, poor and on a housing waiting list, you're f@cked.
Cameron, and others, think your worth less than someone living thousands of miles away.
Indeed. Maybe he should redirect some of that foreign aid budget to build houses for all the people who are on the housing waiting lists who won't get anything for 5 + years now.
'Labour invited them in, but the Tory Corbynistas gave their votes to the only one of the four candidates whose victory would have possible repercussions beyond buggering up Labour.'
What a load of sanctimonious nonsense,seems you are a really bad loser,it was the Labour party that made it a free for all and it was Labour MP's that allowed Corbyn to get onto the ballot paper.
If Labour want to be the Stupid party then they should accept the consequences.
All those who vote Corbyn are equally responsible for the consequences. Your vote counts for just as much as Nick Palmer's. And like him you exercised a choice. You chose to vote for an anti-western, anti-capitalist who shares political platforms with anti-semites, terrorists and declared enemies of this country. His victory will delight them and dismay our friends. What a giggle.
What friends, Mr. Observer? As you should know, the UK does not have friends only interests. Aside from that who do you think is going to take any notice? Nobody batted an eyelid when E Miliband was elected Labour leader, and him a self-proclaimed socialist, why should Corbyn be any different?
Because of the company he has kept and the things he has been saying for the last 40 years. Having him in charge of a party that got over nine million votes in May and which could, in theory, form the next government is going to affect perceptions of the UK as a whole, not just of Labour.
@paulwaugh: Is this 1st ever UK targeted assassination? Cameron reveals that on 21 August Brit ISIL suspect Reyad Khan killed in RAF air strike in Raqaa
@faisalislam: PM: Im clear the action was entirely lawful.. AG consulted, planning and directing attacks in UK
@waughles seems to have forgotten about Heydrich, for one.
'Labour invited them in, but the Tory Corbynistas gave their votes to the only one of the four candidates whose victory would have possible repercussions beyond buggering up Labour.'
What a load of sanctimonious nonsense,seems you are a really bad loser,it was the Labour party that made it a free for all and it was Labour MP's that allowed Corbyn to get onto the ballot paper.
If Labour want to be the Stupid party then they should accept the consequences.
All those who vote Corbyn are equally responsible for the consequences. Your vote counts for just as much as Nick Palmer's. And like him you exercised a choice. You chose to vote for an anti-western, anti-capitalist who shares political platforms with anti-semites, terrorists and declared enemies of this country. His victory will delight them and dismay our friends. What a giggle.
What friends, Mr. Observer? As you should know, the UK does not have friends only interests. Aside from that who do you think is going to take any notice? Nobody batted an eyelid when E Miliband was elected Labour leader, and him a self-proclaimed socialist, why should Corbyn be any different?
Because of the company he has kept and the things he has been saying for the last 40 years. Having him in charge of a party that got over nine million votes in May and which could, in theory, form the next government is going to affect perceptions of the UK as a whole, not just of Labour.
But the Tories got over 11 million votes in May...
Comments
If Nick Palmer and co are JC's useful idiots, his Tory supporters are just idiots :-)
Plus mocking people is also great too.
Mr. Observer, quite. It's all very well burning down your enemy next door, but when you live in a semi-detached house it's ill-advised.
Aylesbury child sex ring jailed for a total of 82 years, no prizes for names... http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/crime/article4549750.ece
Then again, you could always cheers yourself up by buying Sir Edric's Temple
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Edrics-Temple-Adventures-Edric-Book-ebook/dp/B00GCAF2CI/
My mum won Redbridge in Bloom for her front garden (container category) for the second year running! And fifth time in total!
Um, I chipped in with some watering... occasionally
What is really needed in the EU is a change of mindset; the structure is neutral - what matters is the use to which it is put. The Eurocrisis, the migrant issue and the challenge of China, Russia and (economically) India, may yet force that change out of necessity.
They seem to have buried their head in the sand and assumed that Labour would always be one of two parties of political power in the United Kingdom and as such, the controlling elite could continue to parachute their friends into safe seats geographically alien to them and never worry for on second about a consistent political position.
No-one is to blame for the current state of Labour (and it's approaching death) than the Islington Elite who successfully took over the party but then did nothing to give it a future.
Mr. 30, do tell.
Mr. Herdson, the EU doesn't make a habit of letting reality derail its utopian daydreaming.
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ab/pages/477/attachments/original/1440871372/Reconnecting_Labour-1.pdf?1440871372
=
"Andrew Lansley, a man with no credit or pull in Downing Street, speculated that it might occur"
I'm afraid there are no second preferences left.
Kind regards, and good luck!
Jeremy
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/jeremy-corbyn-not-labour-leader-10006187
I'm afraid to tell you there are no voters left.
But I don't believe the status quo is sustainable in the long-term.
Why do you think it is?
@paulwaugh: Latest Lab leadership election chaos: David Blunkett has not been sent a vote, @HuffPostUK has been told http://t.co/0qpiTny2MS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arshad
http://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2015/09/07/violence-erupts-when-50-refugees-attempt-spanish-detention-centre-escape/
Live ones can't be far away now...
Some weeks ago, well before the current mass hysteria, the German minister with responsibility for Immigration said, in public, that he expected 800,000 immigrants from the third world to arrive in Germany this year. He further said he had no idea how Germany was going to cope but it had no way of stopping that tide. His remarks were little reported, I picked them up from, I think, Der Spiegel's international site, and even less noted.
Fast forward a few weeks and the tide has started to lap against Germany's shore. Now Merkel says Germany are going to take 800,000 refugees (note the change in term) and you lot, i.e. the rest of the EU, must help.
So has Frau Merkel opened the door with a silly policy? Perhaps she is trying to make a virtue out of a necessity and maybe use emotional blackmail to get other countries to bail out her own.
The BBc are crying wolf again about closing channels down. How many did they close down after the last load of dissembling a couple of years ago . answer NONE.
Never trust the BBC talking about itself, .
Personal view is that the negotiation should be between the three countries that will not be joining the Eurozone and the rest of the EU predicated on the basis that (a) the Eurozone will need to integrate further if it is to survive, but (b) there is a substantial minority of countries that don't want to be on that bus. (It might also offer an opportunity for some countries to get off the Eurozone bus...) It would recognise that the interests of non-Eurozone members need to be protected, and also that the Eurozone needs the flexibility to deal with its many problems.
What I think is sad is that David Cameron doesn't seem to be going down that route. The other two "refuseniks" should be in London trying to put together a common platform.
Will take a look at your offering idc, Mr White.
Mr. T, cheers
[That is just a pen name, incidentally].
Mr. 1000, the issue I have with your perspective and that of Mr. Herdson is that it depends on the EU fundamentally changing in a way it has never done so before, and which it shows no sign of doing now. It won't shift from every deeper integration. Like communists who (correctly) say their system is sound if people actually followed it, you're relying on people behaving like angels (or, in this cause, EU-philes taking account of reality rather than their ideals).
It's not going to happen.
Mr. Llama, an interesting, and perhaps correct, interpretation. However, that still leaves the issue of the German Chancellor attempting to dictate policy to the whole of the EU, to which we ought offer a concise Anglo-Saxon answer.
Edited extra bit: idc?
http://www.modernindianbabynames.com/meaning_of_hindi_boy_name_arshad.htm
The Eurozone has proved that it is unwilling to keep non-legal/non-treaty promises (funding Greek bailout). And it is unwilling to accept treaty change.
Given those two, how do you come up with a binding settlement that protects the UK's valid interests?
Not sure how useful it is as the recommendations are nothing new. Showing Labour are a party for the working man/woman, explaining the benefits of mass immigration, less career politicians, etc.
I found this sentence particularly amusing, "Labour campaigners report that conversations with UKIP - leaning voters are often among the longest and most challenging."
'Labour invited them in, but the Tory Corbynistas gave their votes to the only one of the four candidates whose victory would have possible repercussions beyond buggering up Labour.'
What a load of sanctimonious nonsense,seems you are a really bad loser,it was the Labour party that made it a free for all and it was Labour MP's that allowed Corbyn to get onto the ballot paper.
If Labour want to be the Stupid party then they should accept the consequences.
One day, one day. Mr. Dancer will get around to finishing the next book in the series. We just have to be patient. *drums fingers on desk*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindustani_language
As for the change of mindsets, if it hasn't happened for 40 years, and it doesn't happen when one of the big three makes a real concerted push for reform with a risk of exit, then it won't ever happen. History is littered with states and empires that should have changed out of necessity and didn't. If the EU does not change under the pressures of the present crisis, they won't ever.
And I say this as someone that wants to stay in a reformed EU.
https://twitter.com/BBCNormanS/status/640896326348222464
I imagine they will all stay as their human rights would otherwise be infringed.
@faisalislam: PM: Im clear the action was entirely lawful.. AG consulted, planning and directing attacks in UK
Some people actually like redrafting. Madness.
That said, Sir Edric's shenanigans has relatively little redrafting. Because it's told from a single perspective, it's a lot simpler to write and change than stories with many points of view.
If you are on a council waiting list you may as well give up as councils have stated they will be willing to house the migrants.
'The NHS's consultants of tomorrow'.
Sheesh.
The polls totally missed any Labour to UKIP switching. In 'real' elections like the locals, by elections and European Election Labour's fall was accompanied by a UKIP rise.
Have you (and this goes for Charles and Cyclefree as well) seen a similar change in the London based US banks?
'What "consequences"? Surely the Tories are more likely to be victors in 2020 with JC at the Labour helm?'
Spot on, and if it's anything like a repeat of the 80's it will rid this country of left wing loons for at least a generation.
The local constabulary are said to be looking into the loss very seriously and very slowly ....
Cameron, and others, think your worth less than someone living thousands of miles away.
Clearly.