OK, a fiver on 'Thatcher' at 12/1. The guy is fixated with the great lady, and I'm thinking he might come up with 'the biggest attack on workers since Mrs Thatcher' or some such tosh.
Edit: 'Inequality' is a pretty good guess but 1/2 is a bit mean. Ditto 'Poverty'
Mistake. Mentioning "Thatcher" allows Cameron to ask if the Shadow Chancellor would still want to assassinate her given the chance. Too easy a hit. He will avoid it.
Inequality and poverty much better bets.
Despite the fact half the country or more would love to have done? (As hyperbole.)
Half the Country would love to have 'assassinated' her. Do you think before you spout such rubbish
I do. Thatcher was the most divisive politician of the twentieth century by all measures. I can't really be bothered to give you a history lesson on it. Have a look at YouTube on the poll tax riots to remind yourself. That's not a comment on whether she was right or wrong. She was just incredible divisive and even now if you speak her name people a significant number of people will well up in a near-allergic reaction. Go to some parts of the country and try and deny this at your peril.
Those people are idiots. I don't like labelling whole groups of people, I strive to be reasonable in all things, but that is seriously idiotic behaviour.
I truly want people, left and right, to stop trying to get me to worship or demonise Thatcher. I know there are young people who, for some reason, get really emotional about a PM who was ousted when they were children or not even born, but I don't understand it. Hate her politics sure, particularly if raised to do it, but I just cannot get worked up about her. Things have moved on, the legacy is important but not to the point people should still be getting so bloody upset and talking of assassination and the like, it's insanity.
I was not raised to hate any political party or figure, and it is much more relaxing (and as I've never voted Tory, cannot be 'defending' Thatcher out of loyalty)
I don't think they'll even dislike Corbyn to be honest. Disagree with is probably more fitting because I am convinced Corbyn will never stoop to playing the man which will make a refreshing change.
I think alot of people will grow to like Corbyn- even some of our pbCOM loons. I don't think Corbyn's integrity and way of conducting himself will translate to votes, but it will earn him a great deal of cross party respect. Politics will become much more civilised with Corbyn around.
Interestingly gracious welcome from Javid this afternoon to Corbyn's first outing. My guess is that the Tories will feel no particular need to go for Corbyn's jugular and I expect Cameron to be on his best behaviour.
snip
It's easy to forget how much the Tories hated Miliband's two faced behaviour (for example the way he behaved over Syria). They will dislike Corbyn but respect him because what you see is what you get.
I am sorry, Mr. Tyson, but your post so much reminded me of the Monty Python sketch about the Piranaha brothers. In which Dynsdale is described as a lovely bloke who sent his mum flowers and everything.
As we are starting to see Corbyn is not really that nice, friendly chap who is always willing to debate ideas with anyone. What we see might be what we get but we ain't seen much so far and what little we have seen, when he is taken away from his comfort zone, doesn't bode well.
I think this is the danger. He is now LotO so many people who aren't particularly paying attention (as @SeanT mentioned) who won't have been paying attention might think - ah what a decent cove...might not agree with him but at least he speaks his mind...new kind of politics...
And all of a sudden the man who consorted and for all we know still consorts with the UK's enemies, with terrorists, with people who throw homosexuals off buildings, who want to destroy the Jews (and I don't think his Ministry will protect them) and who are deeply misogynist...becomes mainstream and it then becomes Jeremy just being Jeremy.
And then you have @tyson telling us that in all his emails Jeremy has never had a bad word to say about anyone.
Interestingly gracious welcome from Javid this afternoon to Corbyn's first outing. My guess is that the Tories will feel no particular need to go for Corbyn's jugular and I expect Cameron to be on his best behaviour.
The target of choice is going to be McConnell, partly because he is a series of words we are not supposed to use on this site, partly because so many in the Labour party itself clearly have reservations but ultimately because this appointment reflects more badly on Mr Corbyn's judgement than anything else he has done to date. The whole Alan Johnston episode did Ed a lot of damage and the Tories will be hoping to repeat it.
On these words I agree with TSE. Shadsy is hoping to recoup some of his Corbyn losses. Avoid.
It's easy to forget how much the Tories hated Miliband's two faced behaviour (for example the way he behaved over Syria). They will dislike Corbyn but respect him because what you see is what you get.
That's a fair point. Disdain turned to contempt after Syria.
I didn't mind Ed M even after then, I thought he'd be an ok PM, but that incident was one of his lowest for me. Not for the vote itself, or even supposed promises made to the PM which he broke, but the ballsiness of claiming to intended to prevent any bombing at any point, when they was not the purpose of the Labour amendment. It was as close to a falsehood as you get in politics.
To be honest I never got to the point of seriously disliking Ed. Unlike Brown, to pick a name at random. He just didn't seem worth it.
Corbyn seems generally polite and personable. I am not sure yet. I think he is very fixed in his views and that his idea of a debate is people listening to him pontificating (in fairness a fairly common fault amongst politicians). He has shown consistently poor judgment and a very narrow point of view that tends to the unpatriotic but there does seem to be something in the WYSIWYG about him.
Nick- the problem is Nick, there's not enough Greens coming back to build a winning coalition, especially as we leak voters elsewhere. My Marxist firebrand friend has re-joined too- he'll terrify the local constituency party for sure.
The constituency parties are going to become radicalised which might energise things admittedly, but lead Labour further and further from power.
Peter Kellner writes -- "About 70,000 people who voted in the leadership election did not vote Labour in the general election. Some 40,000 voted Green and 96 per cent of these Green voters backed Mr Corbyn. We estimate that the other non-Labour voters were: Liberal Democrats: 10,000; Conservatives: 3,000; Ukip: 3,000; other parties 6,000; did not vote 8,000."
What goes on at PMQs will be the least interesting and least relevant issue for now. What will be interesting and possibly entertaining is what happens inside the Labour Party and the changes to its internal rules.
An additionally interesting aside is what happens to the Green Party. If even 30% of that 40,000 were previously Green members rather than just voters then that's over 10,000 members that they have just lost... That'll make quite a difference in some places.
I've chatted/emailed with four local Greens. Two are rejoining Labour (both left over our perceived centrism), the others not, though they said they'd like to see some cooperation on joint campaigns. Anecdotes, obviously, but probably not untypical.
OK, a fiver on 'Thatcher' at 12/1. The guy is fixated with the great lady, and I'm thinking he might come up with 'the biggest attack on workers since Mrs Thatcher' or some such tosh.
Edit: 'Inequality' is a pretty good guess but 1/2 is a bit mean. Ditto 'Poverty'
Mistake. Mentioning "Thatcher" allows Cameron to ask if the Shadow Chancellor would still want to assassinate her given the chance. Too easy a hit. He will avoid it.
Inequality and poverty much better bets.
Despite the fact half the country or more would love to have done? (As hyperbole.)
Half the Country would love to have 'assassinated' her. Do you think before you spout such rubbish
I do. Thatcher was the most divisive politician of the twentieth century by all measures. I can't really be bothered to give you a history lesson on it. Have a look at YouTube on the poll tax riots to remind yourself. That's not a comment on whether she was right or wrong. She was just incredible divisive and even now if you speak her name people a significant number of people will well up in a near-allergic reaction. Go to some parts of the country and try and deny this at your peril.
Those people are idiots. I don't like labelling whole groups of people, I strive to be reasonable in all things, but that is seriously idiotic behaviour.
I truly want people, left and right, to stop trying to get me to worship or demonise Thatcher. I know there are young people who, for some reason, get really emotional about a PM who was ousted when they were children or not even born, but I don't understand it. Hate her politics sure, particularly if raised to do it, but I just cannot get worked up about her. Things have moved on, the legacy is important but not to the point people should still be getting so bloody upset and talking of assassination and the like, it's insanity.
I was not raised to hate any political party or figure, and it is much more relaxing (and as I've never voted Tory, cannot be 'defending' Thatcher out of loyalty)
Those people are not just idiots, but they are losers on the wrong side of history. Thatcher didn't just win every election she fought as party leader, her party also won the next one after she was no longer the leader.
Just because some rioters want to be thugs does not change matters.
Would those people on the housing estates in Liverpool and Glasgow be the same ones who have the right to buy their homes at a huge discount because of Maggie.. Which means they can move slightly further up the property ladder...much desired by the Labour Party
OK, a fiver on 'Thatcher' at 12/1. The guy is fixated with the great lady, and I'm thinking he might come up with 'the biggest attack on workers since Mrs Thatcher' or some such tosh.
Edit: 'Inequality' is a pretty good guess but 1/2 is a bit mean. Ditto 'Poverty'
Mistake. Mentioning "Thatcher" allows Cameron to ask if the Shadow Chancellor would still want to assassinate her given the chance. Too easy a hit. He will avoid it.
Inequality and poverty much better bets.
inequality claims are pretty bogus too. So he is on weak ground so where you look. It's a bad 'proxy' for poverty - which we should worry about. 'Globally, inequality has been falling for decades because poor countries such China and India have grown much, much more rapidly than the developed world. But within-country inequality in these countries is often rising, because it is the middle classes that benefit most from this growth. Even though poor people are still getting substantially richer in these places, anyone looking at equality statistics would conclude that things are getting worse. That's nonsense' http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/jeremy-corbyn-inequality-myth-sorry-labour-lefties-your-new-messiah-will-not-help-poor-1519216
If I have a mobile phone for £50 and someone else one for £500 then where am I unequal? How many people are denied a mobile phone because of inequality?
Best idea on the thread to date. The latest figures were miserable.
"Some argue that Corbyn is well placed to win these voters back— that, really, this is about trustworthiness, tapping into an anti-politics mood and desire for authenticity. It is a nice thought to comfort Labour on cold nights but it is simply not accurate. Those who have left Labour for Ukip are chiefly obsessed with immigration. This is not a proxy for something else. These voters really do not like immigration and they want less of it"
The Right Honorable Jeremy Corbyn MP has confirmed he will be there this week.
He's not Right Honourable yet, is he?
That was my immediate thought. Will he ever? But I do not think we should get too hung up on this. We need to let nature take its course, obviously. But in one respect Montgomerie was vaguely approaching the truth for once. The govt has a job to do - it needs to get on with it as normal and hopefully succeed. If the opposition do not like it then they must swat it back as best they can. Lets keep our fingers crossed like we always would. Internally its the Labour Party that is now facing all the hard battles. It is being taken over. Its outside appearance is already slowly changing, but it is going to be eaten away from within by alien spores until its inner organs have been transformed. By then its outer skin will have changed as well.
I might be tempted to join, although generations of ancestors would disapprove.
Only three (main) issues for you to fix first:
1. Papal infallibility - a little arrogant, no? 2. Marianism - mother fixation? 3. Transubstantiation - nah. That's just silly.
Is transubstantiation still doctrine? I though that had gone the way of purgatory. It certainly wasn't on my worry list when I thought of joining the left footers. The business with Mary and the saints generally caused me to seriously think and the doctrine surrounding the Pope was the final nail in the idea.
So I remain where I started a High Anglican who lives in despair of the CofE but in hope that maybe they will one day appoint an Archbishop of Canterbury who does not see it as part of his job to drive people away from the church (actually, at the moment I'll settle for a vicar who thinks that).
P.S. Charles a couple of years ago you were singularly good with your information on church appointments, do you perchance have any tips on current events?
After his ‘walk of silence’ Corbyn may end up saying nothing…
There's a difference between PMQ's and ignoring one of Murdoch's tossers.
I did miss it. Yes, I voted for Corbyn.
I think you under-estimate how much dislike there is 'out there' for the MSM especially the Murdoch machine and right-wing rags. They have whipped up disgusting sentiment against 'migrants' and against Corbyn with totally unjustified personal attacks.
If you've seen the polling on migrants you'll know that well over half the country back Cameron or want fewer to come. I believe the figure wanting more was in the teens. Once again you're confusing your twitter and facebook friends with most of the general public.
Mr. L, not lunatics, but psychopathology can be a substantial advantage in business, politics or the military. There's an interesting strand of thought that certain psych conditions, whilst potentially debilitating, can lead to advantages (bipolar creativity, savant genius, psychopaths being fantastic [if occasionally murderous] leaders).
John Tzimisces brutally kicked his predecessor as emperor to death, and then reigned successfully for years.
Brown was certainly not a psychopath. Wrong-headed, obsessive, scheming and prone to rage, yes - but many of the most telling indicators of psychopathy are totally absent.
Blair, with his superficial charm, is a more likely candidate for psychopathy (but I don't think he was either). A good place to start psycho-hunting in HoP would be the respective whips' offices.
OK, a fiver on 'Thatcher' at 12/1. The guy is fixated with the great lady, and I'm thinking he might come up with 'the biggest attack on workers since Mrs Thatcher' or some such tosh.
Edit: 'Inequality' is a pretty good guess but 1/2 is a bit mean. Ditto 'Poverty'
Mistake. Mentioning "Thatcher" allows Cameron to ask if the Shadow Chancellor would still want to assassinate her given the chance. Too easy a hit. He will avoid it.
Inequality and poverty much better bets.
Despite the fact half the country or more would love to have done? (As hyperbole.)
Half the Country would love to have 'assassinated' her. Do you think before you spout such rubbish
I do. Thatcher was the most divisive politician of the twentieth century by all measures. I can't really be bothered to give you a history lesson on it. Have a look at YouTube on the poll tax riots to remind yourself. That's not a comment on whether she was right or wrong. She was just incredible divisive and even now if you speak her name people a significant number of people will well up in a near-allergic reaction. Go to some parts of the country and try and deny this at your peril.
Ah, the Poll Tax Riots.
Thousands of Lefties and Soap Dodgers expecting special treatment, and objecting when they were expected to contribute towards the services they used.
You do see some crud on here at times. Clearly you have no idea of what the problem was.
OK, a fiver on 'Thatcher' at 12/1. The guy is fixated with the great lady, and I'm thinking he might come up with 'the biggest attack on workers since Mrs Thatcher' or some such tosh.
Edit: 'Inequality' is a pretty good guess but 1/2 is a bit mean. Ditto 'Poverty'
Mistake. Mentioning "Thatcher" allows Cameron to ask if the Shadow Chancellor would still want to assassinate her given the chance. Too easy a hit. He will avoid it.
Inequality and poverty much better bets.
Despite the fact half the country or more would love to have done? (As hyperbole.)
Half the Country would love to have 'assassinated' her. Do you think before you spout such rubbish
I do. Thatcher was the most divisive politician of the twentieth century by all measures. I can't really be bothered to give you a history lesson on it. Have a look at YouTube on the poll tax riots to remind yourself. That's not a comment on whether she was right or wrong. She was just incredible divisive and even now if you speak her name people a significant number of people will well up in a near-allergic reaction. Go to some parts of the country and try and deny this at your peril.
Oh grow up. I don't need a history lesson. I was an adult throughout her premiership. Were you?
Estobar I called you Mr because female posters are generally slightly more genteel in their posts and you have a very aggressive stance..However from now it is Ms or MRS or MISS..You still post rubbish tho and what are the odds that you were still at junior school when Maggie was PM..
Peter Kellner writes -- "About 70,000 people who voted in the leadership election did not vote Labour in the general election. Some 40,000 voted Green and 96 per cent of these Green voters backed Mr Corbyn. We estimate that the other non-Labour voters were: Liberal Democrats: 10,000; Conservatives: 3,000; Ukip: 3,000; other parties 6,000; did not vote 8,000."
What goes on at PMQs will be the least interesting and least relevant issue for now. What will be interesting and possibly entertaining is what happens inside the Labour Party and the changes to its internal rules.
An additionally interesting aside is what happens to the Green Party. If even 30% of that 40,000 were previously Green members rather than just voters then that's over 10,000 members that they have just lost... That'll make quite a difference in some places.
I've chatted/emailed with four local Greens. Two are rejoining Labour (both left over our perceived centrism), the others not, though they said they'd like to see some cooperation on joint campaigns. Anecdotes, obviously, but probably not untypical.
Just receiving a gushing email from my councillor (Independent, former LibDem) saying this is the most exciting event in his political life. So, pb is certainly only presenting a partial picture.
I am reserving judgment on Jezza for the moment, but I do think the treatment of him by the media is beginning to recall the worst excesses of their behaviour to Gordon Brown, Michael Foot (& John Major & William Hague for that matter).
I think one of the big winners of Corbyn's victory is the BBC who will reveal they have always been politically quite neutral all along by critiquing Corbyn in the way they would critique any extremist. Corbyn and his acolytes are going to get a bumpy ride indeed as we have already seen.
OK, a fiver on 'Thatcher' at 12/1. The guy is fixated with the great lady, and I'm thinking he might come up with 'the biggest attack on workers since Mrs Thatcher' or some such tosh.
Edit: 'Inequality' is a pretty good guess but 1/2 is a bit mean. Ditto 'Poverty'
Mistake. Mentioning "Thatcher" allows Cameron to ask if the Shadow Chancellor would still want to assassinate her given the chance. Too easy a hit. He will avoid it.
Inequality and poverty much better bets.
Despite the fact half the country or more would love to have done? (As hyperbole.)
Half the Country would love to have 'assassinated' her. Do you think before you spout such rubbish
I do. Thatcher was the most divisive politician of the twentieth century by all measures. I can't really be bothered to give you a history lesson on it. Have a look at YouTube on the poll tax riots to remind yourself. That's not a comment on whether she was right or wrong. She was just incredible divisive and even now if you speak her name people a significant number of people will well up in a near-allergic reaction. Go to some parts of the country and try and deny this at your peril.
Oh grow up. I don't need a history lesson. I was an adult throughout her premiership. Were you?
Guido Fawkes @GuidoFawkes 6s6 seconds ago Small number of staff evacuated from Labour HQ, though it seems to be the building next door that is on fire...
Interesting regional cross-breaks, especially Page 8. Such support as Corbyn has is concentrated in Scotland and the North, and he's especially toxic in the Midlands & Wales.
Corbyn supporters are rather sensitive. These 'attacks' consist of replaying speeches he has made in recent years, and following him from his Commons office to ask him relevant questions about his Shadow Cabinet. I haven't seen any personal attacks. Has anyone?
Mr. Ghedebrav, he certainly lacked the glib, superficial charm [wrote that before seeing you had a second paragraph].
Blair was more of a narcissist. If he'd been a psychopath he would've crushed Brown, and enjoyed himself doing it.
True. His autobiography backs that up. But from my lay-est of lay-people's knowledge, narcissists tend not to have great propensity to success (unlike psychopaths). Yet as we all know, he was a Pretty Straight Guy.
I think both Brown and Blair suffered from narcissistic personality disorder which is a form of psychopathy. Blair was charming and charismatic, Brown angry and disruptive. Both though were the centre of their own universes and both were convinced that they were right on everything and anything. Both relied on cliques of acolytes who reinforced their opinions of how wonderful they were.
How the two managed to work alongside each other for fifteen years or so is one for the most remarkable relationships in politics.
The narcissists in the Tory party are Boris (of course), Gove and David Davis.
Politics unfortunately attracts people who suffer from this untreatable mental health problem.
Mr. L, not lunatics, but psychopathology can be a substantial advantage in business, politics or the military. There's an interesting strand of thought that certain psych conditions, whilst potentially debilitating, can lead to advantages (bipolar creativity, savant genius, psychopaths being fantastic [if occasionally murderous] leaders).
John Tzimisces brutally kicked his predecessor as emperor to death, and then reigned successfully for years.
Brown was certainly not a psychopath. Wrong-headed, obsessive, scheming and prone to rage, yes - but many of the most telling indicators of psychopathy are totally absent.
Blair, with his superficial charm, is a more likely candidate for psychopathy (but I don't think he was either). A good place to start psycho-hunting in HoP would be the respective whips' offices.
Corbyn seems generally polite and personable. I am not sure yet. I think he is very fixed in his views and that his idea of a debate is people listening to him pontificating (in fairness a fairly common fault amongst politicians). He has shown consistently poor judgment and a very narrow point of view that tends to the unpatriotic but there does seem to be something in the WYSIWYG about him.
Polite and fixed in views are both right, but qualified by "not insistent on others agreeing with him". He's used to being in a minority and perhaps temperamentally inclined to accept that it's not important to win every argument. That is fairly unusual among politicians, who tend to be unhappy even if they can't "win" an argument about whether Marmite taste nice. Whether it's a desirable characteristic in a leader is an interesting question - i like it myself, but can see downsides too.
I might be tempted to join, although generations of ancestors would disapprove.
Only three (main) issues for you to fix first:
1. Papal infallibility - a little arrogant, no? 2. Marianism - mother fixation? 3. Transubstantiation - nah. That's just silly.
Well, I'm not Pope (obviously).
1. Maybe - but given that it's meant to be on matters of doctrine and in practice Popes do change - albeit slowly - how much of a practical problem is it? Also you could say the same about Jesus. I will be controversial now and say that this is just English fear of a foreign ruler. It's time to get over Henry VIII and all that.
2. What's wrong with thinking mothers are wonderful, eh?? Honestly: Englishmen!!! A man loves his first love the deepest, his wife the best and his mother the longest. And as you know, if you want a man to do something you get to the woman closest to him. At least women have some status: not just Mary but Mary Magdalene and Martha etc and St Anne. We honour the older woman - unlike some other organisations we could mention.
3. Well, given that we've got Turning Water into Wine, Feeding Five Thousand on 5 Loaves and 2 Fishes, Walking on Water, the Resurrection and the Ascension into Heaven, you're gibbing at swallowing the gnat having swallowed the camel, as it were.....
After his ‘walk of silence’ Corbyn may end up saying nothing…
There's a difference between PMQ's and ignoring one of Murdoch's tossers.
Have I been in a coma for the past decade or so? GE2020 has been and gone and we're still talking about Corbyn? What a newsworthy chap he must be... please fill me in with what I've missed.
Apols if this point has already been made but in the recording of the interview this pm I heard on R4, Corbyn said he would "be there" [at PMQs], he didn't say he would be taking part. He made some comment about wanting to do things differently, so I wouldn't take it for granted that he will stand up and ask six questions as per his predecessors.
After his ‘walk of silence’ Corbyn may end up saying nothing…
There's a difference between PMQ's and ignoring one of Murdoch's tossers.
Have I been in a coma for the past decade or so? GE2020 has been and gone and we're still talking about Corbyn? What a newsworthy chap he must be... please fill me in with what I've missed.
Corbyn seems generally polite and personable. I am not sure yet. I think he is very fixed in his views and that his idea of a debate is people listening to him pontificating (in fairness a fairly common fault amongst politicians). He has shown consistently poor judgment and a very narrow point of view that tends to the unpatriotic but there does seem to be something in the WYSIWYG about him.
Polite and fixed in views are both right, but qualified by "not insistent on others agreeing with him". He's used to being in a minority and perhaps temperamentally inclined to accept that it's not important to win every argument. That is fairly unusual among politicians, who tend to be unhappy even if they can't "win" an argument about whether Marmite taste nice. Whether it's a desirable characteristic in a leader is an interesting question - i like it myself, but can see downsides too.
Are you going to defend the appointment of John McDonnell?
OK, a fiver on 'Thatcher' at 12/1. The guy is fixated with the great lady, and I'm thinking he might come up with 'the biggest attack on workers since Mrs Thatcher' or some such tosh.
Edit: 'Inequality' is a pretty good guess but 1/2 is a bit mean. Ditto 'Poverty'
Mistake. Mentioning "Thatcher" allows Cameron to ask if the Shadow Chancellor would still want to assassinate her given the chance. Too easy a hit. He will avoid it.
Inequality and poverty much better bets.
Despite the fact half the country or more would love to have done? (As hyperbole.)
Half the Country would love to have 'assassinated' her. Do you think before you spout such rubbish
I do. Thatcher was the most divisive politician of the twentieth century by all measures. I can't really be bothered to give you a history lesson on it. Have a look at YouTube on the poll tax riots to remind yourself. That's not a comment on whether she was right or wrong. She was just incredible divisive and even now if you speak her name people a significant number of people will well up in a near-allergic reaction. Go to some parts of the country and try and deny this at your peril.
You don't need to give me a history lesson. Having been born while German flying bombs were exploding above our house in Manchester I probably have more knowledge of history than you do and I well remember the industrial disaster of labour's policies and the threat Scargill posed to the Country. The left lost - get used to it
David davis just confirmed he'll vote for this time, but against 3rd reading unless changes. (Particularly to social media restrictions and picketers having to give their names to the police before)
Corbyn supporters are rather sensitive. These 'attacks' consist of replaying speeches he has made in recent years, and following him from his Commons office to ask him relevant questions about his Shadow Cabinet. I haven't seen any personal attacks. Has anyone?
Any questioning of The Great Leader (PBUH) is considered 'personal'.
David davis just confirmed he'll vote for this time, but against 3rd reading unless changes. (Particularly to social media restrictions and picketers having to give their names to the police before)
Any other Tories threatening to vote against on 2nd reading?
I think they'll need the full 331 (or, essentially, 315-320 after pairing and absences) to pass this tonight, so they can't afford more than a handful of rebels. I can't think of anyone else who'll vote for it.
Away from the Labour meltdown and hysterics and onto the migrant crisis, I recall someone a few months ago (isam I think) saying that the EU would find a way to make it mandatory for us to take part in quotas for redistributing migrants, despite our opt-out.
It seems to be settled now that won't happen and that Denmark, Ireland and ourselves are exempt. If you see this post, do you accept that now or still expect the EU to find a way to make us take a quota against our will?
David davis just confirmed he'll vote for this time, but against 3rd reading unless changes. (Particularly to social media restrictions and picketers having to give their names to the police before)
Any other Tories threatening to vote against on 2nd reading?
I think they'll need the full 331 (or, essentially, 315-320 after pairing and absences) to pass this tonight, so they can't afford more than a handful of rebels. I can't think of anyone else who'll vote for it.
Perhaps Carswell. Not sure about the UUP.
I can not imagine either the UUP or the DUP wanting to give Corbyn/McDonnell a victory on day one. They'll probably abstain at this stage if the oppose it and then request a quid pro quo for not rejecting it at third reading if it is close enough.
Peter Kellner writes -- "About 70,000 people who voted in the leadership election did not vote Labour in the general election. Some 40,000 voted Green and 96 per cent of these Green voters backed Mr Corbyn. We estimate that the other non-Labour voters were: Liberal Democrats: 10,000; Conservatives: 3,000; Ukip: 3,000; other parties 6,000; did not vote 8,000."
What goes on at PMQs will be the least interesting and least relevant issue for now. What will be interesting and possibly entertaining is what happens inside the Labour Party and the changes to its internal rules.
An additionally interesting aside is what happens to the Green Party. If even 30% of that 40,000 were previously Green members rather than just voters then that's over 10,000 members that they have just lost... That'll make quite a difference in some places.
I've chatted/emailed with four local Greens. Two are rejoining Labour (both left over our perceived centrism), the others not, though they said they'd like to see some cooperation on joint campaigns. Anecdotes, obviously, but probably not untypical.
Good for you: you can have the Greens and the other flotsam and jetsam of the Left; we'll have the floating voters.
These Green switchers are also largely useless votes for Labour.
Green 2nd places:
Sheffield C; Manchester G; Bristol W; Liverpool Riverside
All Labour Seats already.
Green 3rd places - London - Total 15
Holborn, Hackney N & Stoke Newington, Camberwell & Peckham, Hackney South and Shoreditch, Bethnal Green and Bow, Islington North, Tottenham, Lewisham West and Penge, Vauxhall, Leyton and Wanstead, Lewisham Deptford, Walthamstow, Ealing Southall and Tooting.
All Labour Seats already.
Green 3rd places - Outside London - Total 2
Norwich South; Hove (London By The Sea)
Again, all Labour seats.
It's a stunningly crap strategy by Labour. The Socialist Republic of Over Priced Coffeeland London. They must be dropping votes in the rest of England.
Peter Kellner writes -- "About 70,000 people who voted in the leadership election did not vote Labour in the general election. Some 40,000 voted Green and 96 per cent of these Green voters backed Mr Corbyn. We estimate that the other non-Labour voters were: Liberal Democrats: 10,000; Conservatives: 3,000; Ukip: 3,000; other parties 6,000; did not vote 8,000."
What goes on at PMQs will be the least interesting and least relevant issue for now. What will be interesting and possibly entertaining is what happens inside the Labour Party and the changes to its internal rules.
An additionally interesting aside is what happens to the Green Party. If even 30% of that 40,000 were previously Green members rather than just voters then that's over 10,000 members that they have just lost... That'll make quite a difference in some places.
I've chatted/emailed with four local Greens. Two are rejoining Labour (both left over our perceived centrism), the others not, though they said they'd like to see some cooperation on joint campaigns. Anecdotes, obviously, but probably not untypical.
Good for you: you can have the Greens and the other flotsam and jetsam of the Left; we'll have the floating voters.
Everyone's a winner; everyone's happy.
There was a time when people would defer to NPXMP, then he told terminological inexactitudes about Broxtowe constituency at 2015 GE.
I never trusted what he said on here especially the bollocks about Gordon Brown and have been amazed at the deference given just because he had been an MP.
Palmer has lost the plot, or to put it more succinctly has shown his true colours. PB'ers should take note.
The only "personal" attacks on Corbyn have been on his appalling political and moral judgment. A politician's judgment is entirely fair game. And a politician complaining about it is an utter moron.
This is not something dreamt up by the nasty Murdoch press. The most devastating critique of Corbyn was given by the Guardian in 1996. It's been posted on here several times already.
I'm not sure I buy this latest bit of spin that he is all WYSIWYG and that he's honest. He has said some things which are clearly contradicted by the evidence and which he must have known were. I think there is a danger of assuming that because he's quiet and polite and looks like an inoffensive folk singer that he therefore cannot also be as dishonest and disingenuous as other politicians. He strikes me as more in the Livingstone mould, another politician who constructed a persona to make him seem nicer and cuddlier than was in fact the case.
Mr. Ghedebrav, can't say I have. It's been a while since I read any psychology books. Any good?
Yeah, it is. Though important to say it's written from a neurological POV than a psychological one. It deals with the neurological aspects of empathy as a whole (so taking in the autistic spectrum as well as negative diagnoses of psychopathy, narcissism and borderline personality).
Corbyn is ‘one of ours’ : The same could be said for Hamas, Hezbollah and the IRA.
Mike you're misunderstanding him. He is a straight talker and what you see is what you get. Admirable qualities for any man, and in particular the LotO to have.
OK, a fiver on 'Thatcher' at 12/1. The guy is fixated with the great lady, and I'm thinking he might come up with 'the biggest attack on workers since Mrs Thatcher' or some such tosh.
Edit: 'Inequality' is a pretty good guess but 1/2 is a bit mean. Ditto 'Poverty'
Mistake. Mentioning "Thatcher" allows Cameron to ask if the Shadow Chancellor would still want to assassinate her given the chance. Too easy a hit. He will avoid it.
Inequality and poverty much better bets.
Despite the fact half the country or more would love to have done? (As hyperbole.)
Half the Country would love to have 'assassinated' her. Do you think before you spout such rubbish
I do. Thatcher was the most divisive politician of the twentieth century by all measures. I can't really be bothered to give you a history lesson on it. Have a look at YouTube on the poll tax riots to remind yourself. That's not a comment on whether she was right or wrong. She was just incredible divisive and even now if you speak her name people a significant number of people will well up in a near-allergic reaction. Go to some parts of the country and try and deny this at your peril.
Those people are idiots. I don't like labelling whole groups of people, I strive to be reasonable in all things, but that is seriously idiotic behaviour.
I truly want people, left and right, to stop trying to get me to worship or demonise Thatcher. I know there are young people who, for some reason, get really emotional about a PM who was ousted when they were children or not even born, but I don't understand it. Hate her politics sure, particularly if raised to do it, but I just cannot get worked up about her. Things have moved on, the legacy is important but not to the point people should still be getting so bloody upset and talking of assassination and the like, it's insanity.
I was not raised to hate any political party or figure, and it is much more relaxing (and as I've never voted Tory, cannot be 'defending' Thatcher out of loyalty)
That is what I find supremely off-putting about the left-wing people. They have actively taught their young people to hate - whether a single figure from the past, or anyone whom they can label as 'Tory'.
Teaching young people to hate anyone or anything just turns me up. I don't know how anyone with any principles at all can find common cause with people who do that.
Away from the Labour meltdown and hysterics and onto the migrant crisis, I recall someone a few months ago (isam I think) saying that the EU would find a way to make it mandatory for us to take part in quotas for redistributing migrants, despite our opt-out.
It seems to be settled now that won't happen and that Denmark, Ireland and ourselves are exempt. If you see this post, do you accept that now or still expect the EU to find a way to make us take a quota against our will?
Given that Juncker, Merkel et al seem to be making up EU migration policy as they go, I think it is premature to suggest that anything is "settled".
David davis just confirmed he'll vote for this time, but against 3rd reading unless changes. (Particularly to social media restrictions and picketers having to give their names to the police before)
Any other Tories threatening to vote against on 2nd reading?
I think they'll need the full 331 (or, essentially, 315-320 after pairing and absences) to pass this tonight, so they can't afford more than a handful of rebels. I can't think of anyone else who'll vote for it.
Perhaps Carswell. Not sure about the UUP.
I can not imagine either the UUP or the DUP wanting to give Corbyn/McDonnell a victory on day one. They'll probably abstain at this stage if the oppose it and then request a quid pro quo for not rejecting it at third reading if it is close enough.
Yes, I think that's right. The real battle will come at 3rd reading.
Particularly on the police/social media clauses, probably. I could see the government losing a couple of those.
FWIW, I think the Lords will find a reason to throw it out. So we could be doing this again all over next year.
Jihadist Jez, the soixante-retard, tweeting in 2010 about his belief in homeopathy
jeremycorbyn 5 Mar 2010 @leftoutside I believe that homeo-meds works for some ppl and that it compliments 'convential' meds. they both come from organic matter...
THEY BOTH COME FROM ORGANIC MATTER
I'm returning to the opinion that our Jeremy is just a bit thick, hence his personal "niceness" allied to some massively stupid and dangerous opinions.
Imagine Tim reading that stuff re homeopathic treatment...and as for that spelling of conventional.,,the grammar nazis will be after him.
Peter Kellner writes -- "About 70,000 people who voted in the leadership election did not vote Labour in the general election. Some 40,000 voted Green and 96 per cent of these Green voters backed Mr Corbyn. We estimate that the other non-Labour voters were: Liberal Democrats: 10,000; Conservatives: 3,000; Ukip: 3,000; other parties 6,000; did not vote 8,000."
What goes on at PMQs will be the least interesting and least relevant issue for now. What will be interesting and possibly entertaining is what happens inside the Labour Party and the changes to its internal rules.
An additionally interesting aside is what happens to the Green Party. If even 30% of that 40,000 were previously Green members rather than just voters then that's over 10,000 members that they have just lost... That'll make quite a difference in some places.
I've chatted/emailed with four local Greens. Two are rejoining Labour (both left over our perceived centrism), the others not, though they said they'd like to see some cooperation on joint campaigns. Anecdotes, obviously, but probably not untypical.
Good for you: you can have the Greens and the other flotsam and jetsam of the Left; we'll have the floating voters.
Everyone's a winner; everyone's happy.
The Labour Party has become the political equivalent of a Bad Bank, soaking up the crap assets that no one else really wants in their portfolio. Genius.
I do think someone should confiscate that magic lamp from George Osborne. Things are getting out of hand.
With Carswell unlikely to side with Corbyn on much except Europe (which will be a free vote anyway for backbenchers at least) the effective Tory majority is 18. With "praise the IRA" Corbyn and McDonnell in charge the DUP/UUP will not want to side with them - so now Corbyn has effectively gifted the Tories a working majority of 38.
Unbelievable stroke of fortune after stroke of fortune for the Tories.
Away from the Labour meltdown and hysterics and onto the migrant crisis, I recall someone a few months ago (isam I think) saying that the EU would find a way to make it mandatory for us to take part in quotas for redistributing migrants, despite our opt-out.
It seems to be settled now that won't happen and that Denmark, Ireland and ourselves are exempt. If you see this post, do you accept that now or still expect the EU to find a way to make us take a quota against our will?
Experience shows that the EU's guarantees 'guarantee' nothing.
I'm not sure I buy this latest bit of spin that he is all WYSIWYG and that he's honest. He has said some things which are clearly contradicted by the evidence and which he must have known were. I think there is a danger of assuming that because he's quiet and polite and looks like an inoffensive folk singer that he therefore cannot also be as dishonest and disingenuous as other politicians. He strikes me as more in the Livingstone mould, another politician who constructed a persona to make him seem nicer and cuddlier than was in fact the case.
I can believe he is authentic and straightforward in most instances, but the thing is that 'person who doesn't care about presentation' is itself a presentation, as is his 'authentic, normal person' schtick. I don't doubt that is, in general, who he is, but we also know he is a political animal, and he has been shown to use cliche, obfuscating explanations and distraction techniques like any politician would. I don't condemn him for doing that, it's part of the game. But you don't last 30 years as a politician without developing the skills necessary to survive. He hasn't needed some of the skills that people on the front bench needed, and that may help or hinder him right now, but he has others, and he has used them well.
Peter Kellner writes -- "About 70,000 people who voted in the leadership election did not vote Labour in the general election. Some 40,000 voted Green and 96 per cent of these Green voters backed Mr Corbyn. We estimate that the other non-Labour voters were: Liberal Democrats: 10,000; Conservatives: 3,000; Ukip: 3,000; other parties 6,000; did not vote 8,000."
What goes on at PMQs will be the least interesting and least relevant issue for now. What will be interesting and possibly entertaining is what happens inside the Labour Party and the changes to its internal rules.
An additionally interesting aside is what happens to the Green Party. If even 30% of that 40,000 were previously Green members rather than just voters then that's over 10,000 members that they have just lost... That'll make quite a difference in some places.
I've chatted/emailed with four local Greens. Two are rejoining Labour (both left over our perceived centrism), the others not, though they said they'd like to see some cooperation on joint campaigns. Anecdotes, obviously, but probably not untypical.
Good for you: you can have the Greens and the other flotsam and jetsam of the Left; we'll have the floating voters.
Everyone's a winner; everyone's happy.
The Labour Party has become the political equivalent of a Bad Bank, soaking up the crap assets that no one else wants. Genius.
Away from the Labour meltdown and hysterics and onto the migrant crisis, I recall someone a few months ago (isam I think) saying that the EU would find a way to make it mandatory for us to take part in quotas for redistributing migrants, despite our opt-out.
It seems to be settled now that won't happen and that Denmark, Ireland and ourselves are exempt. If you see this post, do you accept that now or still expect the EU to find a way to make us take a quota against our will?
The UK are indirectly taking part through having to contribute £90 million to fund the relocation of the asylum seekers across those countries who are taking part.
Compare the imagery. Corbyn, on his first day as Labour leader, walking stolidly along the street ignoring questions from a TV reporter. Cameron, in his sixth year as prime minister, on the ground in Lebanon and Jordan arguing the case for more spending on the refugees in the region.
Away from the Labour meltdown and hysterics and onto the migrant crisis, I recall someone a few months ago (isam I think) saying that the EU would find a way to make it mandatory for us to take part in quotas for redistributing migrants, despite our opt-out.
It seems to be settled now that won't happen and that Denmark, Ireland and ourselves are exempt. If you see this post, do you accept that now or still expect the EU to find a way to make us take a quota against our will?
Experience shows that the EU's guarantees 'guarantee' nothing.
If its not written down in black and white you may be right. Ours is written in black and white and there seems to be no push whatsoever to compel us (or Denmark or Ireland).
Corbyn is ‘one of ours’ : The same could be said for Hamas, Hezbollah and the IRA.
Mike you're misunderstanding him. He is a straight talker and what you see is what you get. Admirable qualities for any man, and in particular the LotO to have.
Straight talking is not admirable if what is being said is nonsense. The substance of what is being said is what matters.
Corbyn is ‘one of ours’ : The same could be said for Hamas, Hezbollah and the IRA.
Mike you're misunderstanding him. He is a straight talker and what you see is what you get. Admirable qualities for any man, and in particular the LotO to have.
Compare the imagery. Corbyn, on his first day as Labour leader, walking stolidly along the street ignoring questions from a TV reporter. Cameron, in his sixth year as prime minister, on the ground in Lebanon and Jordan arguing the case for more spending on the refugees in the region.
Not permitted. We must compare them when Corbyn was in his mid 30s and Cameron in his early 20s, it's the only fair way.
In all honesty, I;m sure Corbyn will talk to the media in time - it's weird not to do so now, or act affronted at the idea they will want to, but if ever there was a time he could get away with this, it's now.
I'd also say that one instance of the EU not being perfidious cretins is no reason to forget the multitude other instances of deception and incompetence.
Miss Jones, quite.
Mr. Ghedebrav, sounds quite interesting. One of the issues with psychology (and the "Is it a science?" question) is that it runs the gamut from biopsychology to sociology. I always preferred biopsychology to postmodern stuff. Behaviourism was quite good too [I quite liked the black box approach to the head (we don't know and never will so let's just accept that and focus on what works). Nice and practical].
Corbyn is ‘one of ours’ : The same could be said for Hamas, Hezbollah and the IRA.
Mike you're misunderstanding him. He is a straight talker and what you see is what you get. Admirable qualities for any man, and in particular the LotO to have.
Straight talking is not admirable if what is being said is nonsense. The substance of what is being said is what matters.
yes you're right.My sarcasm doesn't come out well on chatrooms. Perhaps because I am on the way to losing my sense of humour at all this "good old Jezza at least you know where you stand" bolleaux.
Jihadist Jez, the soixante-retard, tweeting in 2010 about his belief in homeopathy
jeremycorbyn 5 Mar 2010 @leftoutside I believe that homeo-meds works for some ppl and that it compliments 'convential' meds. they both come from organic matter...
THEY BOTH COME FROM ORGANIC MATTER
I'm returning to the opinion that our Jeremy is just a bit thick, hence his personal "niceness" allied to some massively stupid and dangerous opinions.
I've enjoyed pointing this out to a few Corbynista doctor friends! A brief flicker of 'oh, sh1t' in their eyes...
OK, a fiver on 'Thatcher' at 12/1. The guy is fixated with the great lady, and I'm thinking he might come up with 'the biggest attack on workers since Mrs Thatcher' or some such tosh.
Edit: 'Inequality' is a pretty good guess but 1/2 is a bit mean. Ditto 'Poverty'
Mistake. Mentioning "Thatcher" allows Cameron to ask if the Shadow Chancellor would still want to assassinate her given the chance. Too easy a hit. He will avoid it.
Inequality and poverty much better bets.
Despite the fact half the country or more would love to have done? (As hyperbole.)
Half the Country would love to have 'assassinated' her. Do you think before you spout such rubbish
I do. Thatcher was the most divisive politician of the twentieth century by all measures. I can't really be bothered to give you a history lesson on it. Have a look at YouTube on the poll tax riots to remind yourself. That's not a comment on whether she was right or wrong. She was just incredible divisive and even now if you speak her name people a significant number of people will well up in a near-allergic reaction. Go to some parts of the country and try and deny this at your peril.
Those people are idiots. I don't like labelling whole groups of people, I strive to be reasonable in all things, but that is seriously idiotic behaviour.
I truly want people, left and right, to stop trying to get me to worship or demonise Thatcher. I know there are young people who, for some reason, get really emotional about a PM who was ousted when they were children or not even born, but I don't understand it. Hate her politics sure, particularly if raised to do it, but I just cannot get worked up about her. Things have moved on, the legacy is important but not to the point people should still be getting so bloody upset and talking of assassination and the like, it's insanity.
I was not raised to hate any political party or figure, and it is much more relaxing (and as I've never voted Tory, cannot be 'defending' Thatcher out of loyalty)
That is what I find supremely off-putting about the left-wing people. They have actively taught their young people to hate - whether a single figure from the past, or anyone whom they can label as 'Tory'.
Teaching young people to hate anyone or anything just turns me up. I don't know how anyone with any principles at all can find common cause with people who do that.
David davis just confirmed he'll vote for this time, but against 3rd reading unless changes. (Particularly to social media restrictions and picketers having to give their names to the police before)
Any other Tories threatening to vote against on 2nd reading?
I think they'll need the full 331 (or, essentially, 315-320 after pairing and absences) to pass this tonight, so they can't afford more than a handful of rebels. I can't think of anyone else who'll vote for it.
Perhaps Carswell. Not sure about the UUP.
I can not imagine either the UUP or the DUP wanting to give Corbyn/McDonnell a victory on day one. They'll probably abstain at this stage if the oppose it and then request a quid pro quo for not rejecting it at third reading if it is close enough.
Yes, I think that's right. The real battle will come at 3rd reading.
Particularly on the police/social media clauses, probably. I could see the government losing a couple of those.
FWIW, I think the Lords will find a reason to throw it out. So we could be doing this again all over next year.
The Lords would be seriously breaching protocol if they throw out a part of the election winning parties manifesto altogether.
I'd expect the Lords to vote to amend and remove the contentious police/social media clauses and send it back to the Commons. The Commons can then either accept it as amended (which should easily clear) or through a close vote force it back and enforce the Salisbury Convention.
I suspect the police/social media clauses are the ones the government will be most happy to lose. Possibly even put in with the intent of removing those and so keep the rest.
I'd also say that one instance of the EU not being perfidious cretins is no reason to forget the multitude other instances of deception and incompetence.
Miss Jones, quite.
Mr. Ghedebrav, sounds quite interesting. One of the issues with psychology (and the "Is it a science?" question) is that it runs the gamut from biopsychology to sociology. I always preferred biopsychology to postmodern stuff. Behaviourism was quite good too [I quite liked the black box approach to the head (we don't know and never will so let's just accept that and focus on what works). Nice and practical].
All of which, via R.D. Laing, brings us back to the loony left!
Agree on behaviouralism (though again, I'm a layperson) as it seems to work.
David davis just confirmed he'll vote for this time, but against 3rd reading unless changes. (Particularly to social media restrictions and picketers having to give their names to the police before)
Any other Tories threatening to vote against on 2nd reading?
I think they'll need the full 331 (or, essentially, 315-320 after pairing and absences) to pass this tonight, so they can't afford more than a handful of rebels. I can't think of anyone else who'll vote for it.
Perhaps Carswell. Not sure about the UUP.
I can not imagine either the UUP or the DUP wanting to give Corbyn/McDonnell a victory on day one. They'll probably abstain at this stage if the oppose it and then request a quid pro quo for not rejecting it at third reading if it is close enough.
Yes, I think that's right. The real battle will come at 3rd reading.
Particularly on the police/social media clauses, probably. I could see the government losing a couple of those.
FWIW, I think the Lords will find a reason to throw it out. So we could be doing this again all over next year.
The Lords would be seriously breaching protocol if they throw out a part of the election winning parties manifesto altogether.
Breaching any convention is justified to topple an evil Tory government that thinks it is legitimate just because it won a majority via an electoral system that, however many some people dislike it, the people have not yet voted to alter.
Comments
I truly want people, left and right, to stop trying to get me to worship or demonise Thatcher. I know there are young people who, for some reason, get really emotional about a PM who was ousted when they were children or not even born, but I don't understand it. Hate her politics sure, particularly if raised to do it, but I just cannot get worked up about her. Things have moved on, the legacy is important but not to the point people should still be getting so bloody upset and talking of assassination and the like, it's insanity.
I was not raised to hate any political party or figure, and it is much more relaxing (and as I've never voted Tory, cannot be 'defending' Thatcher out of loyalty)
Corbyn seems generally polite and personable. I am not sure yet. I think he is very fixed in his views and that his idea of a debate is people listening to him pontificating (in fairness a fairly common fault amongst politicians). He has shown consistently poor judgment and a very narrow point of view that tends to the unpatriotic but there does seem to be something in the WYSIWYG about him.
My Marxist firebrand friend has re-joined too- he'll terrify the local constituency party for sure.
The constituency parties are going to become radicalised which might energise things admittedly, but lead Labour further and further from power.
Just because some rioters want to be thugs does not change matters.
"Some argue that Corbyn is well placed to win these voters back— that, really, this is about trustworthiness, tapping into an anti-politics mood and desire for authenticity. It is a nice thought to comfort Labour on cold nights but it is simply not accurate. Those who have left Labour for Ukip are chiefly obsessed with immigration. This is not a proxy for something else. These voters really do not like immigration and they want less of it"
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-will-struggle-to-win-back-ukip-voters
Magnificent.
Corbyn and McDonnell at the helm not only means the end of Blairism. It means the destruction of Kinnock's legacy as well. It is Militant triumphant,.
Best Modern Leader of Labour Party: OA (Labour)
Blair: 35 (38)
Smith: 16 (17)
Corbyn: 8 (13)
Brown: 5 (5)
Miliband: 4 (7)
Kinnock: 4 (6)
Foot: 2 (1)
http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Corbyn-Full-Data-Tables.pdf
But I do not think we should get too hung up on this. We need to let nature take its course, obviously. But in one respect Montgomerie was vaguely approaching the truth for once. The govt has a job to do - it needs to get on with it as normal and hopefully succeed. If the opposition do not like it then they must swat it back as best they can. Lets keep our fingers crossed like we always would.
Internally its the Labour Party that is now facing all the hard battles. It is being taken over. Its outside appearance is already slowly changing, but it is going to be eaten away from within by alien spores until its inner organs have been transformed. By then its outer skin will have changed as well.
So I remain where I started a High Anglican who lives in despair of the CofE but in hope that maybe they will one day appoint an Archbishop of Canterbury who does not see it as part of his job to drive people away from the church (actually, at the moment I'll settle for a vicar who thinks that).
P.S. Charles a couple of years ago you were singularly good with your information on church appointments, do you perchance have any tips on current events?
Blair, with his superficial charm, is a more likely candidate for psychopathy (but I don't think he was either). A good place to start psycho-hunting in HoP would be the respective whips' offices.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-34249646
I look forward to someone releasing the interim CQC report, as happened at Hinchinbrooke, so political points could be made.
Labour HQ evacuated because there is an actual fire there. Fire alarm didn't go off.
must have been burning some old files.
I am reserving judgment on Jezza for the moment, but I do think the treatment of him by the media is beginning to recall the worst excesses of their behaviour to Gordon Brown, Michael Foot (& John Major & William Hague for that matter).
Corby suitable PM - net agree:
18-34: +10
35-54: -8
55+: -27
Blair was more of a narcissist. If he'd been a psychopath he would've crushed Brown, and enjoyed himself doing it.
http://telegraph.newsprints.co.uk/view/31473006/75533547_matt cartoon swift thinking after catastrophic
Small number of staff evacuated from Labour HQ, though it seems to be the building next door that is on fire...
Overheard: "That's not a shadow cabinet. It's a London Labour council in 1987."
These 'attacks' consist of replaying speeches he has made in recent years, and following him from his Commons office to ask him relevant questions about his Shadow Cabinet.
I haven't seen any personal attacks. Has anyone?
Labour 2015 retention: 88%-89% = 1.1m voters lost
Lib Dem 2015 gains: 11%-14% = 300k voters gained
Green 2015 gains: 23% = 270k voters gained
So net loss from leftward shift, roughly half a million voters.
How the two managed to work alongside each other for fifteen years or so is one for the most remarkable relationships in politics.
The narcissists in the Tory party are Boris (of course), Gove and David Davis.
Politics unfortunately attracts people who suffer from this untreatable mental health problem.
1. Maybe - but given that it's meant to be on matters of doctrine and in practice Popes do change - albeit slowly - how much of a practical problem is it? Also you could say the same about Jesus. I will be controversial now and say that this is just English fear of a foreign ruler. It's time to get over Henry VIII and all that.
2. What's wrong with thinking mothers are wonderful, eh?? Honestly: Englishmen!!! A man loves his first love the deepest, his wife the best and his mother the longest. And as you know, if you want a man to do something you get to the woman closest to him. At least women have some status: not just Mary but Mary Magdalene and Martha etc and St Anne. We honour the older woman - unlike some other organisations we could mention.
3. Well, given that we've got Turning Water into Wine, Feeding Five Thousand on 5 Loaves and 2 Fishes, Walking on Water, the Resurrection and the Ascension into Heaven, you're gibbing at swallowing the gnat having swallowed the camel, as it were.....
Consequently the right answer might be NOTA.
Seems a big mistake to me. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11863279/John-McDonnells-top-six-political-blunders.html
It must be like the Fall of Siagon over there. Air Blair helicopters lifting the faithful off the roof.
I think they'll need the full 331 (or, essentially, 315-320 after pairing and absences) to pass this tonight, so they can't afford more than a handful of rebels. I can't think of anyone else who'll vote for it.
Perhaps Carswell. Not sure about the UUP.
It seems to be settled now that won't happen and that Denmark, Ireland and ourselves are exempt. If you see this post, do you accept that now or still expect the EU to find a way to make us take a quota against our will?
Everyone's a winner; everyone's happy.
Corbyn is ‘one of ours’ says Argentine envoy over Falklands. #Corbyn http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/politics/corbyn-is-one-of-ours-says-argentine-envoy-over-falklands-1-7459632 …
Corbyn is ‘one of ours’ : The same could be said for Hamas, Hezbollah and the IRA.
I think we should adopt The Vested One as the nom de plume we give JC, rather like The Special One at Chelsea
These Green switchers are also largely useless votes for Labour.
Green 2nd places:
Sheffield C; Manchester G; Bristol W; Liverpool Riverside
All Labour Seats already.
Green 3rd places - London - Total 15
Holborn, Hackney N & Stoke Newington, Camberwell & Peckham, Hackney South and Shoreditch, Bethnal Green and Bow, Islington North, Tottenham, Lewisham West and Penge, Vauxhall, Leyton and Wanstead, Lewisham Deptford, Walthamstow, Ealing Southall and Tooting.
All Labour Seats already.
Green 3rd places - Outside London - Total 2
Norwich South; Hove (London By The Sea)
Again, all Labour seats.
It's a stunningly crap strategy by Labour. The Socialist Republic of Over Priced Coffeeland London. They must be dropping votes in the rest of England.
I never trusted what he said on here especially the bollocks about Gordon Brown and have been amazed at the deference given just because he had been an MP.
Palmer has lost the plot, or to put it more succinctly has shown his true colours. PB'ers should take note.
This is not something dreamt up by the nasty Murdoch press. The most devastating critique of Corbyn was given by the Guardian in 1996. It's been posted on here several times already.
I'm not sure I buy this latest bit of spin that he is all WYSIWYG and that he's honest. He has said some things which are clearly contradicted by the evidence and which he must have known were. I think there is a danger of assuming that because he's quiet and polite and looks like an inoffensive folk singer that he therefore cannot also be as dishonest and disingenuous as other politicians. He strikes me as more in the Livingstone mould, another politician who constructed a persona to make him seem nicer and cuddlier than was in fact the case.
Teaching young people to hate anyone or anything just turns me up. I don't know how anyone with any principles at all can find common cause with people who do that.
Particularly on the police/social media clauses, probably. I could see the government losing a couple of those.
FWIW, I think the Lords will find a reason to throw it out. So we could be doing this again all over next year.
Unbelievable stroke of fortune after stroke of fortune for the Tories.
Corbyn, on his first day as Labour leader, walking stolidly along the street ignoring questions from a TV reporter.
Cameron, in his sixth year as prime minister, on the ground in Lebanon and Jordan arguing the case for more spending on the refugees in the region.
In all honesty, I;m sure Corbyn will talk to the media in time - it's weird not to do so now, or act affronted at the idea they will want to, but if ever there was a time he could get away with this, it's now.
I'd also say that one instance of the EU not being perfidious cretins is no reason to forget the multitude other instances of deception and incompetence.
Miss Jones, quite.
Mr. Ghedebrav, sounds quite interesting. One of the issues with psychology (and the "Is it a science?" question) is that it runs the gamut from biopsychology to sociology. I always preferred biopsychology to postmodern stuff. Behaviourism was quite good too [I quite liked the black box approach to the head (we don't know and never will so let's just accept that and focus on what works). Nice and practical].
I'd expect the Lords to vote to amend and remove the contentious police/social media clauses and send it back to the Commons. The Commons can then either accept it as amended (which should easily clear) or through a close vote force it back and enforce the Salisbury Convention.
I suspect the police/social media clauses are the ones the government will be most happy to lose. Possibly even put in with the intent of removing those and so keep the rest.
Labour to UKIP Defector: Corbyn Is An Enemy Of Women, Jews, And Free Speech… Abandon Ship! http://bit.ly/1QcENuY via @BreitbartNews
Agree on behaviouralism (though again, I'm a layperson) as it seems to work.