Libby Wiener @LibbyWienerITV 1h1 hour ago Heated exchanges at tonight's PLP. One backbencher reportedly shouting at Corbyn demanding to know where Labour stand on policies @itvnews
Libby Wiener @LibbyWienerITV 56m56 minutes ago If Corbyn thought his 1st PLP was bad, getting even rougher ride at his 2nd U-turn on fiscal charter dubbed 'a huge joke' by one MP@itvnews
By U-turn they mean that Corbyn has a different opinion from Harman.
Tbh Assange isn't hiding out in the embassy to avoid a few months in a Swedish prison.30 years+ in a super max in the USA is a different matter entirely.
Then he is an even bigger fool than he comes across. It is a lot less likely he would be extradited from Sweden to the US than from the UK to the US.
The most painful truth of all for Assange, I suspect, is that now the US have Manning he's not actually very important to them. He evidently needs to stoke his paranoia and his ego by manufactured hysteria - but why? To keep donations coming to Wikileaks?
@PolhomeEditor: Ben Bradshaw on John McDonnell's fiscal charter U-turn: "It's a total fucking shambles."
Par.
I don't think any parliamentary group has behaved like this to their own elected [ by a decisive margin ] leader. Even the "wets" in the late 70's were coded with their words. People like Jim Prior used to say, "how can you have a thriving service sector if you didn't have a manufacturing sector to serve" ?
I think the party membership will not tolerate this. I am somebody who voted 1. Cooper 2. Burnham and did not vote 3 or 4.
The Syria vote could be the catalyst. Many people in the party will not countenance any vote for bombing. If my MP was a Labour MP and voted for bombing , I would start de-selection proceedings myself. No one gave them the authority to vote for bombing.
The Syria vote is just silly, if the PM wants to risk a shooting war with other great powers over Syria just so he can make the Labour party look divided at a time when he is ahead anyway and the next election years away, he is a certified loony.
In a western democracy you do small wars when you are down in the polls, not great wars when you are up, Cameron risks forced removal from office the moment the first RAF jet gets shot down by the russians, that is a steep price just to make Labour MP's look unruly.
You are a good example of the rising hysteria on here. France has been bombing targets in Syria since last month. The USA for even longer. That's good old fashioned socialist nutjob France. Mr goody two shoes peace prize winner Obama. Are Hollande or Obama likely to be removed from office if a plane of theirs is shot down. Do grow up. Meantime Putin is spraying missiles around like confetti
1 or 2 bombs a week does not constitute a bombing campaign by an airforce. Hollande may say he is conducting an air campaign but if it's invisible then it's like it's not happening, same goes for Obama.
You are twisting words like the red queen just to suit yourself.
Tbh Assange isn't hiding out in the embassy to avoid a few months in a Swedish prison.30 years+ in a super max in the USA is a different matter entirely.
I don't think the Swedish charges would carry a prison sentence anyway for a first offence (although maybe due to his failure to return voluntarily he might exacerbate things).
He's charged with two counts of sexual misconduct, which is only reported as "rape" here because Lefties want anything in the sack to count as rape if it involves a complaint against a man.
Isn't he wanted here for skipping bail? And subject to arrest and detention as likely to abscond? Would the USA demand his extradition if detained in the UK?
@PolhomeEditor: Ben Bradshaw on John McDonnell's fiscal charter U-turn: "It's a total fucking shambles."
Par.
I don't think any parliamentary group has behaved like this to their own elected [ by a decisive margin ] leader. Even the "wets" in the late 70's were coded with their words. People like Jim Prior used to say, "how can you have a thriving service sector if you didn't have a manufacturing sector to serve" ?
I think the party membership will not tolerate this. I am somebody who voted 1. Cooper 2. Burnham and did not vote 3 or 4.
The Syria vote could be the catalyst. Many people in the party will not countenance any vote for bombing. If my MP was a Labour MP and voted for bombing , I would start de-selection proceedings myself. No one gave them the authority to vote for bombing.
The Syria vote is just silly, if the PM wants to risk a shooting war with other great powers over Syria just so he can make the Labour party look divided at a time when he is ahead anyway and the next election years away, he is a certified loony.
In a western democracy you do small wars when you are down in the polls, not great wars when you are up, Cameron risks forced removal from office the moment the first RAF jet gets shot down by the russians, that is a steep price just to make Labour MP's look unruly.
The only good news I have heard is that the Labour Party MPs will not vote for bombing unless there is a UNSC resolution - which, of course, will not come. So any bombing will be illegal in international law. Of course, you can't tell about the Blairite rump.
You are right. If one British fighter gets shot down by a SAM, there will be hell to pay. God forbid, if the pilot is taken prisoner by those IS nutters.
In a case of a RAF jet getting shot down the pilot, if he survives, will be a prisoner of the russians. It will create a severe military and diplomatic incident, including public humiliation by the russians and fears of a real war between Britain and Russia. The sanity of the PM will be in question, risking a big war just to create a headache for Corbyn is just nuts.
Putin has zero interest in capturing any British pilots not least as it risks retaliatory action by NATO. Both Russian and Western intelligence are cooperating to ensure strikes do not overlap
Libby Wiener @LibbyWienerITV 1h1 hour ago Heated exchanges at tonight's PLP. One backbencher reportedly shouting at Corbyn demanding to know where Labour stand on policies @itvnews
Libby Wiener @LibbyWienerITV 56m56 minutes ago If Corbyn thought his 1st PLP was bad, getting even rougher ride at his 2nd U-turn on fiscal charter dubbed 'a huge joke' by one MP@itvnews
By U-turn they mean that Corbyn has a different opinion from Harman.
More that O'Donnell said one thing at conference, and now he is saying the opposite.
@PolhomeEditor: Ben Bradshaw on John McDonnell's fiscal charter U-turn: "It's a total fucking shambles."
Par.
I don't think any parliamentary group has behaved like this to their own elected [ by a decisive margin ] leader. Even the "wets" in the late 70's were coded with their words. People like Jim Prior used to say, "how can you have a thriving service sector if you didn't have a manufacturing sector to serve" ?
I think the party membership will not tolerate this. I am somebody who voted 1. Cooper 2. Burnham and did not vote 3 or 4.
The Syria vote could be the catalyst. Many people in the party will not countenance any vote for bombing. If my MP was a Labour MP and voted for bombing , I would start de-selection proceedings myself. No one gave them the authority to vote for bombing.
The Syria vote is just silly, if the PM wants to risk a shooting war with other great powers over Syria just so he can make the Labour party look divided at a time when he is ahead anyway and the next election years away, he is a certified loony.
In a western democracy you do small wars when you are down in the polls, not great wars when you are up, Cameron risks forced removal from office the moment the first RAF jet gets shot down by the russians, that is a steep price just to make Labour MP's look unruly.
You are a good example of the rising hysteria on here. France has been bombing targets in Syria since last month. The USA for even longer. That's good old fashioned socialist nutjob France. Mr goody two shoes peace prize winner Obama. Are Hollande or Obama likely to be removed from office if a plane of theirs is shot down. Do grow up. Meantime Putin is spraying missiles around like confetti
1 or 2 bombs a week does not constitute a bombing campaign by an airforce. Hollande may say he is conducting an air campaign but if it's invisible then it's like it's not happening, same goes for Obama.
You are twisting words like the red queen just to suit yourself.
Thanks, I'll make a good MP.
Try standing for election in Canada, its planes have been bombing targets in Iraq and Syria.
Libby Wiener @LibbyWienerITV 1h1 hour ago Heated exchanges at tonight's PLP. One backbencher reportedly shouting at Corbyn demanding to know where Labour stand on policies @itvnews
Libby Wiener @LibbyWienerITV 56m56 minutes ago If Corbyn thought his 1st PLP was bad, getting even rougher ride at his 2nd U-turn on fiscal charter dubbed 'a huge joke' by one MP@itvnews
By U-turn they mean that Corbyn has a different opinion from Harman.
More that O'Donnell said one thing at conference, and now he is saying the opposite.
Was that a deliberate misprint to highlight Macdonnell's IRA sympathies or a confusion with the great Daniel O'Connell of the 1840s?
@PolhomeEditor: Ben Bradshaw on John McDonnell's fiscal charter U-turn: "It's a total fucking shambles."
Par.
I don't think any parliamentary group has behaved like this to their own elected [ by a decisive margin ] leader. Even the "wets" in the late 70's were coded with their words. People like Jim Prior used to say, "how can you have a thriving service sector if you didn't have a manufacturing sector to serve" ?
I think the party membership will not tolerate this. I am somebody who voted 1. Cooper 2. Burnham and did not vote 3 or 4.
The Syria vote could be the catalyst. Many people in the party will not countenance any vote for bombing. If my MP was a Labour MP and voted for bombing , I would start de-selection proceedings myself. No one gave them the authority to vote for bombing.
The Syria vote is just silly, if the PM wants to risk a shooting war with other great powers over Syria just so he can make the Labour party look divided at a time when he is ahead anyway and the next election years away, he is a certified loony.
In a western democracy you do small wars when you are down in the polls, not great wars when you are up, Cameron risks forced removal from office the moment the first RAF jet gets shot down by the russians, that is a steep price just to make Labour MP's look unruly.
You are a good example of the rising hysteria on here. France has been bombing targets in Syria since last month. The USA for even longer. That's good old fashioned socialist nutjob France. Mr goody two shoes peace prize winner Obama. Are Hollande or Obama likely to be removed from office if a plane of theirs is shot down. Do grow up. Meantime Putin is spraying missiles around like confetti
1 or 2 bombs a week does not constitute a bombing campaign by an airforce. Hollande may say he is conducting an air campaign but if it's invisible then it's like it's not happening, same goes for Obama.
You are twisting words like the red queen just to suit yourself.
Thanks, I'll make a good MP.
Try standing for election in Canada, its planes have been bombing targets in Iraq and Syria.
Are those the goose planes where Canucks jump off? With swords?
@PolhomeEditor: Ben Bradshaw on John McDonnell's fiscal charter U-turn: "It's a total fucking shambles."
Par.
I don't think any parliamentary group has behaved like this to their own elected [ by a decisive margin ] leader. Even the "wets" in the late 70's were coded with their words. People like Jim Prior used to say, "how can you have a thriving service sector if you didn't have a manufacturing sector to serve" ?
I think the party membership will not tolerate this. I am somebody who voted 1. Cooper 2. Burnham and did not vote 3 or 4.
The Syria vote could be the catalyst. Many people in the party will not countenance any vote for bombing. If my MP was a Labour MP and voted for bombing , I would start de-selection proceedings myself. No one gave them the authority to vote for bombing.
The only good news I have heard is that the Labour Party MPs will not vote for bombing unless there is a UNSC resolution - which, of course, will not come. So any bombing will be illegal in international law. Of course, you can't tell about the Blairite rump.
You are right. If one British fighter gets shot down by a SAM, there will be hell to pay. God forbid, if the pilot is taken prisoner by those IS nutters.
In a case of a RAF jet getting shot down the pilot, if he survives, will be a prisoner of the russians. It will create a severe military and diplomatic incident, including public humiliation by the russians and fears of a real war between Britain and Russia. The sanity of the PM will be in question, risking a big war just to create a headache for Corbyn is just nuts.
Putin has zero interest in capturing any British pilots not least as it risks retaliatory action by NATO. Both Russian and Western intelligence are cooperating to ensure strikes do not overlap
I think Putin would not mine, if Cameron is loony enough to risk it. I actually think that the russians were forced to start their bombing campaign because Hollande, Cameron and Erdogan have itchy fingers these past months and wanted to deter them from any further action by flooding Syria with russian jets. The russians read newspapers too so it's no secret to them that some western governments really really want to get involved when they read the warm-up acts from the Tory press.
@PolhomeEditor: Ben Bradshaw on John McDonnell's fiscal charter U-turn: "It's a total fucking shambles."
Par.
I don't think any parliamentary group has behaved like this to their own elected [ by a decisive margin ] leader. Even the "wets" in the late 70's were coded with their words. People like Jim Prior used to say, "how can you have a thriving service sector if you didn't have a manufacturing sector to serve" ?
I think the party membership will not tolerate this. I am somebody who voted 1. Cooper 2. Burnham and did not vote 3 or 4.
The Syria vote could be the catalyst. Many people in the party will not countenance any vote for bombing. If my MP was a Labour MP and voted for bombing , I would start de-selection proceedings myself. No one gave them the authority to vote for bombing.
The only good news I have heard is that the Labour Party MPs will not vote for bombing unless there is a UNSC resolution - which, of course, will not come. So any bombing will be illegal in international law. Of course, you can't tell about the Blairite rump.
You are right. If one British fighter gets shot down by a SAM, there will be hell to pay. God forbid, if the pilot is taken prisoner by those IS nutters.
In a case of a RAF jet getting shot down the pilot, if he survives, will be a prisoner of the russians. It will create a severe military and diplomatic incident, including public humiliation by the russians and fears of a real war between Britain and Russia. The sanity of the PM will be in question, risking a big war just to create a headache for Corbyn is just nuts.
Putin has zero interest in capturing any British pilots not least as it risks retaliatory action by NATO. Both Russian and Western intelligence are cooperating to ensure strikes do not overlap
I think Putin would not mine, if Cameron is loony enough to risk it. I actually think that the russians were forced to start their bombing campaign because Hollande, Cameron and Erdogan have itchy fingers these past months and wanted to deter them from any further action by flooding Syria with russian jets. The russians read newspapers too so it's no secret to them that some western governments really really want to get involved when they read the warm-up acts from the Tory press.
No western governments want a direct war with Russia and if Russia shot down a UK jet that would be an attack on a Nato member requiring a military response from the US and other Western nations too against Russia, it is not going to happen
@PolhomeEditor: Ben Bradshaw on John McDonnell's fiscal charter U-turn: "It's a total fucking shambles."
Par.
I don't think any parliamentary group has behaved like this to their own elected [ by a decisive margin ] leader. Even the "wets" in the late 70's were coded with their words. People like Jim Prior used to say, "how can you have a thriving service sector if you didn't have a manufacturing sector to serve" ?
I think the party membership will not tolerate this. I am somebody who voted 1. Cooper 2. Burnham and did not vote 3 or 4.
The Syria vote could be the catalyst. Many people in the party will not countenance any vote for bombing. If my MP was a Labour MP and voted for bombing , I would start de-selection proceedings myself. No one gave them the authority to vote for bombing.
The Syria vote is just silly, if the PM wants to risk a shooting war with other great powers over Syria just so he can make the Labour party look divided at a time when he is ahead anyway and the next election years away, he is a certified loony.
In a western democracy you do small wars when you are down in the polls, not great wars when you are up, Cameron risks forced removal from office the moment the first RAF jet gets shot down by the russians, that is a steep price just to make Labour MP's look unruly.
You are a good example of the rising hysteria on here. France has been bombing targets in Syria since last month. The USA for even longer. That's good old fashioned socialist nutjob France. Mr goody two shoes peace prize winner Obama. Are Hollande or Obama likely to be removed from office if a plane of theirs is shot down. Do grow up. Meantime Putin is spraying missiles around like confetti
1 or 2 bombs a week does not constitute a bombing campaign by an airforce. Hollande may say he is conducting an air campaign but if it's invisible then it's like it's not happening, same goes for Obama.
You are twisting words like the red queen just to suit yourself.
Thanks, I'll make a good MP.
Try standing for election in Canada, its planes have been bombing targets in Iraq and Syria.
How many targets since last year? 5? 10? 20? Is it more or less that 1 per week?
As I said simply stating that you are bombing does not make it true when you are not 6 days a week or longer.
Tbh Assange isn't hiding out in the embassy to avoid a few months in a Swedish prison.30 years+ in a super max in the USA is a different matter entirely.
I don't think the Swedish charges would carry a prison sentence anyway for a first offence (although maybe due to his failure to return voluntarily he might exacerbate things).
He's charged with two counts of sexual misconduct, which is only reported as "rape" here because Lefties want anything in the sack to count as rape if it involves a complaint against a man.
Ya, my point is he'd get no more than a couple of months... at the most for evading arrest maybe. But obviously he doesn't have to look far - Bradley Manning actually to see the consequences of ending up in the US. F*ck knows why he came to the UK from Sweden though ;p. But he is where he is and can't risk heading out the embassy.
@PolhomeEditor: Ben Bradshaw on John McDonnell's fiscal charter U-turn: "It's a total fucking shambles."
Par.
I think the party membership will not tolerate this. I am somebody who voted 1. Cooper 2. Burnham and did not vote 3 or 4.
The Syria vote could be the catalyst. Many people in the party will not countenance any vote for bombing. If my MP was a Labour MP and voted for bombing , I would start de-selection proceedings myself. No one gave them the authority to vote for bombing.
The Syria vote is just silly, if the PM wants to risk a shooting war with other great powers over Syria just so he can make the Labour party look divided at a time when he is ahead anyway and the next election years away, he is a certified loony.
In a western democracy you do small wars when you are down in the polls, not great wars when you are up, Cameron risks forced removal from office the moment the first RAF jet gets shot down by the russians, that is a steep price just to make Labour MP's look unruly.
The only good news I have heard is that the Labour Party MPs will not vote for bombing unless there is a UNSC resolution - which, of course, will not come. So any bombing will be illegal in international law. Of course, you can't tell about the Blairite rump.
You are right. If one British fighter gets shot down by a SAM, there will be hell to pay. God forbid, if the pilot is taken prisoner by those IS nutters.
In a case of a RAF jet getting shot down the pilot, if he survives, will be a prisoner of the russians. It will create a severe military and diplomatic incident, including public humiliation by the russians and fears of a real war between Britain and Russia. The sanity of the PM will be in question, risking a big war just to create a headache for Corbyn is just nuts.
Putin has zero interest in capturing any British pilots not least as it risks retaliatory action by NATO. Both Russian and Western intelligence are cooperating to ensure strikes do not overlap
I do not know what is good or what is bad, clever or sad, neither does anyone else on here. What I do know is that at least 3 other NATO countries are bombing targets in Syria. I suspect other countries are too. One of these countries is so stupidly socialist that it's economy is a joke. But for some strange reason the Brains of Britain on here conclude it would be a disaster for the UK to join them. They must be clearly very clever, we can only await their explanations.
@PolhomeEditor: Ben Bradshaw on John McDonnell's fiscal charter U-turn: "It's a total fucking shambles."
Par.
I don't think any parliamentary group has behaved like this to their own elected [ by a decisive margin ] leader. Even the "wets" in the late 70's were coded with their words. People like Jim Prior used to say, "how can you have a thriving service sector if you didn't have a manufacturing sector to serve" ?
I think the party membership will not tolerate this. I am somebody who voted 1. Cooper 2. Burnham and did not vote 3 or 4.
The Syria vote could be the catalyst. Many people in the party will not countenance any vote for bombing. If my MP was a Labour MP and voted for bombing , I would start de-selection proceedings myself. No one gave them the authority to vote for bombing.
forbid, if the pilot is taken prisoner by those IS nutters.
In a case of a RAF jet getting shot down the pilot, if he survives, will be a prisoner of the russians. It will create a severe military and diplomatic incident, including public humiliation by the russians and fears of a real war between Britain and Russia. The sanity of the PM will be in question, risking a big war just to create a headache for Corbyn is just nuts.
Putin has zero interest in capturing any British pilots not least as it risks retaliatory action by NATO. Both Russian and Western intelligence are cooperating to ensure strikes do not overlap
I think Putin would not mine, if Cameron is loony enough to risk it. I actually think that the russians were forced to start their bombing campaign because Hollande, Cameron and Erdogan have itchy fingers these past months and wanted to deter them from any further action by flooding Syria with russian jets. The russians read newspapers too so it's no secret to them that some western governments really really want to get involved when they read the warm-up acts from the Tory press.
No western governments want a direct war with Russia and if Russia shot down a UK jet that would be an attack on a Nato member requiring a military response from the US and other Western nations too against Russia, it is not going to happen
Not actually, NATO covers only actions under the NATO charter, Syria is not covered by NATO hence when Syria shot down a Turkish fighter jet NATO did not respond, it convened under article 4 not article 5 (the collective defense one). So Britain will be alone.
Tbh Assange isn't hiding out in the embassy to avoid a few months in a Swedish prison.30 years+ in a super max in the USA is a different matter entirely.
I don't think the Swedish charges would carry a prison sentence anyway for a first offence (although maybe due to his failure to return voluntarily he might exacerbate things).
He's charged with two counts of sexual misconduct, which is only reported as "rape" here because Lefties want anything in the sack to count as rape if it involves a complaint against a man.
Ya, my point is he'd get no more than a couple of months... at the most for evading arrest maybe. But obviously he doesn't have to look far - Bradley Manning actually to see the consequences of ending up in the US. F*ck knows why he came to the UK from Sweden though ;p. But he is where he is and can't risk heading out the embassy.
But that's the point, Pulpstar, isn't it? He's in zero danger of extradition to the US. If they wanted him, they would have presented charges here, got them rubber-stamped by our courts, and then just taken him. From Sweden, not only would they have to meet Sweden's far stiffer extradition laws, but they would need the approval of the UK Foreign Office (probably at ministerial level) to take him to the US - a much more formidable hurdle.
So the real irony is that he has spent several years, far longer than he would have done for the original offence, cooped up in misery and squalor in the tiny embassy of an impoverished nation (which is also a sinister dictatorship) running from an entirely imaginary vision of 30 years in a US prison - when actually, having hooked the big fish, the US seem happy to regard Assange as small fry and not waste time pursuing him abroad.
I wouldn't travel to the US in his shoes, but I don't suppose he wants to anyway. If he stays away from there, and possibly Canada, Mexico and the UK, he would be perfectly safe.
EDIT - in fact, if he were really scared of being sent to the US, I think he would probably have begged the Swedes to take him! I suspect this is as simple as he does not want to face the investigation that was being conducted over there, and invented this hyperbole to cover his fear of arrest for something his backers would certainly not approve of.
The ICM subsamples show the Tories have gained 6% of 2015 Labour voters since May and Labour 6% of 2015 Tory voters so no net change. However, Labour have picked up more LD voters, 20% to the Tories 14%, and Labour have narrowly picked up more UKIP voters, 9% to 8% going to the Tories. 38% of Green voters have also switched to Labour and 11% of SNP/PC voters http://www.icmunlimited.com/data/media/pdf/2015_oct_guardian_poll.pdf
According to the latest Canadian polls, the Liberals are set to increase from 19% to something like 34% with most of that coming from the NDP. The Tories are actually on course to increase their support in Quebec and have an outside chance of coming first there.
I'm quite fascinated to see that there is a thinking on PB that if any western jets are shot down over Syria by Russia then NATO will come to the rescue, when article 6 of the NATO charter specifically excludes that:
"Article 6 (1) For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer; on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer."
The above is the reason why the Falklands War were fought by Britain only, not by NATO. Interestingly enough, Hawaii is also excluded from NATO coverage even if it's a US state.
Libby Wiener @LibbyWienerITV 1h1 hour ago Heated exchanges at tonight's PLP. One backbencher reportedly shouting at Corbyn demanding to know where Labour stand on policies @itvnews
Libby Wiener @LibbyWienerITV 56m56 minutes ago If Corbyn thought his 1st PLP was bad, getting even rougher ride at his 2nd U-turn on fiscal charter dubbed 'a huge joke' by one MP@itvnews
By U-turn they mean that Corbyn has a different opinion from Harman.
More that O'Donnell said one thing at conference, and now he is saying the opposite.
I'm quite fascinated to see that there is a thinking on PB that if any western jets are shot down over Syria by Russia then NATO will come to the rescue, when article 6 of the NATO charter specifically excludes that:
"Article 6 (1) For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer; on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer."
The above is the reason why the Falklands War were fought by Britain only, not by NATO. Interestingly enough, Hawaii is also excluded from NATO coverage even if it's a US state.
So Turkey is only protected if they get attacked West of the Bosphorus?
@PolhomeEditor: Ben Bradshaw on John McDonnell's fiscal charter U-turn: "It's a total fucking shambles."
Par.
I don't think any parliamentary group has behaved like this to their own elected [ by a decisive margin ] leader. Even the "wets" in the late 70's were coded with their words. People like Jim Prior used to say, "how can you have a thriving service sector if you didn't have a manufacturing sector to serve" ?
I think the party membership will not tolerate this. I am somebody who voted 1. Cooper 2. Burnham and did not vote 3 or 4.
The Syria vote could be the catalyst. Many people in the party will not countenance any vote for bombing. If my MP was a Labour MP and voted for bombing , I would start de-selection proceedings myself. No one gave them the authority to vote for bombing.
forbid, if the pilot is taken prisoner by those IS nutters.
Putin has zero interest in capturing any British pilots not least as it risks retaliatory action by NATO. Both Russian and Western intelligence are cooperating to ensure strikes do not overlap
I think Putin would not mine, if Cameron is loony enough to risk it. I actually think that the russians were forced to start their bombing campaign because Hollande, Cameron and Erdogan have itchy fingers these past months and wanted to deter them from any further action by flooding Syria with russian jets. The russians read newspapers too so it's no secret to them that some western governments really really want to get involved when they read the warm-up acts from the Tory press.
No western governments want a direct war with Russia and if Russia shot down a UK jet that would be an attack on a Nato member requiring a military response from the US and other Western nations too against Russia, it is not going to happen
Not actually, NATO covers only actions under the NATO charter, Syria is not covered by NATO hence when Syria shot down a Turkish fighter jet NATO did not respond, it convened under article 4 not article 5 (the collective defense one). So Britain will be alone.
You are just plain silly. NATO is engaged in bombing targets in Syria. Not some odd collection of countries, official NATO policy. Its natos 28 countries which have warned russia. Shooting down a plane from either side is not the same as war, but all of NATO is involved
According to the latest Canadian polls, the Liberals are set to increase from 19% to something like 34% with most of that coming from the NDP. The Tories are actually on course to increase their support in Quebec and have an outside chance of coming first there.
The Canada poll average has the Liberals ahead with 34.7% to the Tories 31.7% and the NDP on 23.4%. That would produce a Liberal minority government with the Liberals on 134 seats, the Tories 119 and NDP 80. In Quebec Nanos today has the NDP ahead with 32.7%, the Liberals on 28.7%, the Bloc on 23.2% and the Tories on 14%. Given today's ICM has the Tories on 18% in Scotland the Quebec Tories are doing worse than their Tartan cousins!
According to the latest Canadian polls, the Liberals are set to increase from 19% to something like 34% with most of that coming from the NDP. The Tories are actually on course to increase their support in Quebec and have an outside chance of coming first there.
It's the Burqa issue, the Canadian Tories want to ban it, the NDP are against banning it so they are collapsing in catholic Quebec in favour of the Tories mostly.
@PolhomeEditor: Ben Bradshaw on John McDonnell's fiscal charter U-turn: "It's a total fucking shambles."
Par.
I don't think any parliamentary group has behaved like this to their own elected [ by a decisive margin ] leader. Even the "wets" in the late 70's were coded with their words. People like Jim Prior used to say, "how can you have a thriving service sector if you didn't have a manufacturing sector to serve" ?
I think the party membership will not tolerate this. I am somebody who voted 1. Cooper 2. Burnham and did not vote 3 or 4.
The Syria vote could be the catalyst. Many people in the party will not countenance any vote for bombing. If my MP was a Labour MP and voted for bombing , I would start de-selection proceedings myself. No one gave them the authority to vote for bombing.
forbid, if the pilot is taken prisoner by those IS nutters.
In a case of a RAF jet getting shot down the pilot, if he survives, will be a prisoner of the russians. It will create a severe military and diplomatic incident, including public humiliation by the russians and fears of a real war between Britain and Russia. The sanity of the PM will be in question, risking a big war just to create a headache for Corbyn is just nuts.
Putin has zero interest in capturing any British pilots not least as it risks retaliatory action by NATO. Both Russian and Western intelligence are cooperating to ensure strikes do not overlap
I think Putin would not mine, if Cameron is loony enough to risk it.
No western governments want a direct war with Russia and if Russia shot down a UK jet that would be an attack on a Nato member requiring a military response from the US and other Western nations too against Russia, it is not going to happen
Not actually, NATO covers only actions under the NATO charter, Syria is not covered by NATO hence when Syria shot down a Turkish fighter jet NATO did not respond, it convened under article 4 not article 5 (the collective defense one). So Britain will be alone.
Turkey is not Britain, and Syria shooting down a Turkish jet is a different proposition. If a British jet was shot down deliberately by the Russians there would be US cruise missiles sent to Russian bases in Latakia no question
Scottish Subsample is 54/22/18, Kezia holding the Tories off, SNP pretty much static in the mid 50s.
Thanks.
UKIP retaining 80% of their GE2015 vote. Greens 58%, LD 56%.
These are 56% their truncated vote base. Can this party survive ? Whilst taking into account sub-samples, the UKIP vote is centred around the Midlands and the South. Only 7% in the North.
The Liberals will have big problems financially, they owe millions, including £800k to Police Scotland. I don't see any future for them, sure they can become what the old Liberals became - a tiny rump winning a few Counci
Where do the Lib Dems get their money from as their membership is similar to UKIP's except they have no way near as many wealthy donors?
In comparison UKIP have 1560 donors and £14,722,884.23 in donations, Labour 15774 and £275,557,783.70, and the Conservatives 16012 and £314,588,688.81.
What's the timeframe. £300mn, holy moly.
Holy moly indeed, look:
Donation to Conservative party £200,000.00 in CASH, date 30/06/2015 by Ms Rosemary J Simpson. Who goes around with £200,000.00 in CASH these days?
I'm quite fascinated to see that there is a thinking on PB that if any western jets are shot down over Syria by Russia then NATO will come to the rescue, when article 6 of the NATO charter specifically excludes that:
"Article 6 (1) For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer; on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer."
The above is the reason why the Falklands War were fought by Britain only, not by NATO. Interestingly enough, Hawaii is also excluded from NATO coverage even if it's a US state.
Syria borders the Mediterranean anyway so still covered by Article 6, although of course Putin is not so stupid as to risk bombing from NATO in Syria and you are being ridiculous to even consider it.
The Falklands War is a totally different prospect, had the USSR shot down a British jet deliberately Reagan would have responded, he was not going to risk US blood defending a few penguins in the South Atlantic from Argentina
@PolhomeEditor: Ben Bradshaw on John McDonnell's fiscal charter U-turn: "It's a total fucking shambles."
Par.
I think the party membership will not tolerate this. I am somebody who voted 1. Cooper 2. Burnham and did not vote 3 or 4.
The Syria vote could be the catalyst. Many people in the party will not countenance any vote for bombing. If my MP was a Labour MP and voted for bombing , I would start de-selection proceedings myself. No one gave them the authority to vote for bombing.
The Syria vote is just silly, if the PM wants to risk a shooting war with other great powers over Syria just so he can make the Labour party look divided at a time when he is ahead anyway and the next election years away, he is a certified loony.
In a western democracy you do small wars when you are down in the polls, not great wars when you are up, Cameron risks forced removal from office the moment the first RAF jet gets shot down by the russians, that is a steep price just to make Labour MP's look unruly.
The only good news I have heard is that the Labour Party MPs will not vote for bombing unless there is a UNSC resolution - which, of course, will not come. So any bombing will be illegal in international law. Of course, you can't tell about the Blairite rump.
You are right. If one British fighter gets shot down by a SAM, there will be hell to pay. God forbid, if the pilot is taken prisoner by those IS nutters.
In a case of a RAF jet getting shot down the pilot, if he survives, will be a prisoner of the russians
Putin has zero interest in capturing any British pilots not least as it risks retaliatory action by NATO. Both Russian and Western intelligence are cooperating to ensure strikes do not overlap
I do not know what is good or what is bad, clever or sad, neither does anyone else on here. What I do know is that at least 3 other NATO countries are bombing targets in Syria. I suspect other countries are too. One of these countries is so stupidly socialist that it's economy is a joke. But for some strange reason the Brains of Britain on here conclude it would be a disaster for the UK to join them. They must be clearly very clever, we can only await their explanations.
Clearly though any airstrikes should be focused on ISIS alone, leave the Russians to the battle between Assad and the rebels
Looks like as everyone thought. Dave needs to do nothing whilst Labour implode.. Wouldn't surprise me if some Labour MP's... whilst not crossing the floor..., give some ammo to Dave..
I'm quite fascinated to see that there is a thinking on PB that if any western jets are shot down over Syria by Russia then NATO will come to the rescue, when article 6 of the NATO charter specifically excludes that:
"Article 6 (1) For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer; on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer."
The above is the reason why the Falklands War were fought by Britain only, not by NATO. Interestingly enough, Hawaii is also excluded from NATO coverage even if it's a US state.
Syria borders the Mediterranean anyway so still covered by Article 6, although of course Putin is not so stupid as to risk bombing from NATO in Syria and you are being ridiculous to even consider it.
The Falklands War is a totally different prospect, had the USSR shot down a British jet deliberately Reagan would have responded, he was not going to risk US blood defending a few penguins in the South Atlantic from Argentina
28 NATO countries have sent awarning to Russia about its bombing. The issue is not a question of declaring war and Speedy is romancing on stupidly. It's a question of allies working together. Pretending we would be ' on our own' when participating in a NATO operation is silly.
Nick Hewer on Labour 'I’m very wobbly. I feel homeless – it’s a huge hole,” says Nick Hewer who, after nine years and 10 series as Alan Sugar’s right-hand man, has left The Apprentice. But the 71 year-old businessman isn’t talking about leaving the show; he’s describing what it feels like to have voted Labour since 1964 and now be faced with a catastrophic lurch to the left.
I'm quite fascinated to see that there is a thinking on PB that if any western jets are shot down over Syria by Russia then NATO will come to the rescue, when article 6 of the NATO charter specifically excludes that:
"Article 6 (1) For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer; on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer."
The above is the reason why the Falklands War were fought by Britain only, not by NATO. Interestingly enough, Hawaii is also excluded from NATO coverage even if it's a US state.
Syria borders the Mediterranean anyway so still covered by Article 6, although of course Putin is not so stupid as to risk bombing from NATO in Syria and you are being ridiculous to even consider it.
The Falklands War is a totally different prospect, had the USSR shot down a British jet deliberately Reagan would have responded, he was not going to risk US blood defending a few penguins in the South Atlantic from Argentina
28 NATO countries have sent awarning to Russia about its bombing. The issue is not a question of declaring war and Speedy is romancing on stupidly. It's a question of allies working together. Pretending we would be ' on our own' when participating in a NATO operation is silly.
Indeed and given the US and France have done all of the bombing so far they are more likely to be relying on the UK than the other way around
Scottish Subsample is 54/22/18, Kezia holding the Tories off, SNP pretty much static in the mid 50s.
Thanks.
UKIP retaining 80% of their GE2015 vote. Greens 58%, LD 56%.
These are 56% their truncated vote base. Can this party survive ? Whilst taking into account sub-samples, the UKIP vote is centred around the Midlands and the South. Only 7% in the North.
The Liberals will have big problems financially, they owe millions, including £800k to Police Scotland. I don't see any future for them, sure they can become what the old Liberals became - a tiny rump winning a few Counci
Where do the Lib Dems get their money from as their membership is similar to UKIP's except they have no way near as many wealthy donors?
In comparison UKIP have 1560 donors and £14,722,884.23 in donations, Labour 15774 and £275,557,783.70, and the Conservatives 16012 and £314,588,688.81.
What's the timeframe. £300mn, holy moly.
Holy moly indeed, look:
Donation to Conservative party £200,000.00 in CASH, date 30/06/2015 by Ms Rosemary J Simpson. Who goes around with £200,000.00 in CASH these days?
Tbh Assange isn't hiding out in the embassy to avoid a few months in a Swedish prison.30 years+ in a super max in the USA is a different matter entirely.
I don't think the Swedish charges would carry a prison sentence anyway for a first offence (although maybe due to his failure to return voluntarily he might exacerbate things).
He's charged with two counts of sexual misconduct, which is only reported as "rape" here because Lefties want anything in the sack to count as rape if it involves a complaint against a man.
Ya, my point is he'd get no more than a couple of months... at the most for evading arrest maybe. But obviously he doesn't have to look far - Bradley Manning actually to see the consequences of ending up in the US. F*ck knows why he came to the UK from Sweden though ;p. But he is where he is and can't risk heading out the embassy.
But that's the point, Pulpstar, isn't it? He's in zero danger of extradition to the US. If they wanted him, they would have presented charges here, got them rubber-stamped by our courts, and then just taken him. From Sweden, not only would they have to meet Sweden's far stiffer extradition laws, but they would need the approval of the UK Foreign Office (probably at ministerial level) to take him to the US - a much more formidable hurdle.
So the real irony is that he has spent several years, far longer than he would have done for the original offence, cooped up in misery and squalor in the tiny embassy of an impoverished nation (which is also a sinister dictatorship) running from an entirely imaginary vision of 30 years in a US prison - when actually, having hooked the big fish, the US seem happy to regard Assange as small fry and not waste time pursuing him abroad.
I wouldn't travel to the US in his shoes, but I don't suppose he wants to anyway. If he stays away from there, and possibly Canada, Mexico and the UK, he would be perfectly safe.
EDIT - in fact, if he were really scared of being sent to the US, I think he would probably have begged the Swedes to take him! I suspect this is as simple as he does not want to face the investigation that was being conducted over there, and invented this hyperbole to cover his fear of arrest for something his backers would certainly not approve of.
You think we spent £12.6 million to send an alleged rapist to Sweden. When we can't even be bothered to arrest 1400 of our own alleged rapists. Nothing to do with Wikileaks. It's a view.
I suspect, increasingly, that Labour MPs will find some way to remove Corbyn and McDonnell in the next 18 months. They will change the rules. They will cheat. They will tell the membership to go jump.
It's either that or takeover by an unelectable Trotskyite clique that they all despise, and the death of Labour as a serious electoral force. Pretty high stakes.
Imagine working for a company for 15 years and suddenly discovering the weird guy from the post room has been appointed CEO. Hardly surprising most of the employees are pissed off and willing to show it.
I suppose the real worry over Syria is not that there'll be a stand-off, or even fight between NATO and Russian forces but some sort of horrendous accident.
Tbh Assange isn't hiding out in the embassy to avoid a few months in a Swedish prison.30 years+ in a super max in the USA is a different matter entirely.
I don't think the Swedish charges would carry a prison sentence anyway for a first offence (although maybe due to his failure to return voluntarily he might exacerbate things).
He's charged with two counts of sexual misconduct, which is only reported as "rape" here because Lefties want anything in the sack to count as rape if it involves a complaint against a man.
Ya, my point is he'd get no more than a couple of months... at the most for evading arrest maybe. But obviously he doesn't have to look far - Bradley Manning actually to see the consequences of ending up in the US. F*ck knows why he came to the UK from Sweden though ;p. But he is where he is and can't risk heading out the embassy.
But that's the point, Pulpstar, isn't it? He's in zero danger of extradition to the US. If they wanted him, they would have presented charges here, got them rubber-stamped by our courts, and then just taken him. From Sweden, not only would they have to meet Sweden's far stiffer extradition laws, but they would need the approval of the UK Foreign Office (probably at ministerial level) to take him to the US - a much more formidable hurdle.
So the real irony is that he has spent several years, far longer than he would have done for the original offence, cooped up in misery and squalor in the tiny embassy of an impoverished nation (which is also a sinister dictatorship) running from an entirely imaginary vision of 30 years in a US prison - when actually, having hooked the big fish, the US seem happy to regard Assange as small fry and not waste time pursuing him abroad.
I wouldn't travel to the US in his shoes, but I don't suppose he wants to anyway. If he stays away from there, and possibly Canada, Mexico and the UK, he would be perfectly safe.
EDIT - in fact, if he were really scared of being sent to the US, I think he would probably have begged the Swedes to take him! I suspect this is as simple as he does not want to face the investigation that was being conducted over there, and invented this hyperbole to cover his fear of arrest for something his backers would certainly not approve of.
You think we spent £12.6 million to send an alleged rapist to Sweden. When we can't even be bothered to arrest 1400 of our own alleged rapists. Nothing to do with Wikileaks. It's a view.
Tbh Assange isn't hiding out in the embassy to avoid a few months in a Swedish prison.30 years+ in a super max in the USA is a different matter entirely.
I don't think the Swedish charges would carry a prison sentence anyway for a first offence (although maybe due to his failure to return voluntarily he might exacerbate things).
He's charged with two counts of sexual misconduct, which is only reported as "rape" here because Lefties want anything in the sack to count as rape if it involves a complaint against a man.
Ya, my point is he'd get no more than a couple of months... at the most for evading arrest maybe. But obviously he doesn't have to look far - Bradley Manning actually to see the consequences of ending up in the US. F*ck knows why he came to the UK from Sweden though ;p. But he is where he is and can't risk heading out the embassy.
But that's the point, Pulpstar, isn't it? He's in zero danger of extradition to the US. If they wanted him, they would have presented charges here, got them rubber-stamped by our courts, and then just taken him. From Sweden, not only would they have to meet Sweden's far stiffer extradition laws, but they would need the approval of the UK Foreign Office (probably at ministerial level) to take him to the US - a much more formidable hurdle.
So the real irony is that he has spent several years, far longer than he would have done for the original offence, cooped up in misery and squalor in the tiny embassy of an impoverished nation (which is also a sinister dictatorship) running from an entirely imaginary vision of 30 years in a US prison - when actually, having hooked the big fish, the US seem happy to regard Assange as small fry and not waste time pursuing him abroad.
I wouldn't travel to the US in his shoes, but I don't suppose he wants to anyway. If he stays away from there, and possibly Canada, Mexico and the UK, he would be perfectly safe.
EDIT - in fact, if he were really scared of being sent to the US, I think he would probably have begged the Swedes to take him! I suspect this is as simple as he does not want to face the investigation that was being conducted over there, and invented this hyperbole to cover his fear of arrest for something his backers would certainly not approve of.
You think we spent £12.6 million to send an alleged rapist to Sweden. When we can't even be bothered to arrest 1400 of our own alleged rapists. Nothing to do with Wikileaks. It's a view.
Pour encourager les autres..
I'm sure they're quaking in Rotherham as a result.
We PB Tories are seriously rattled by this shock polling.... we're always wrong and have massively underestimated the power that Corbyn and McDonnell have unleashed on the neo-con establishment in the UK.
No, it is. It's entirely possible to have been found 'not guilty' of a crime and to have done it. If there is insufficient evidence to avoid reasonable doubt. I believe in that legal principal; I don't want it changed, but it isn't a literal transposition of the truth, for obvious reasons.
I understand and appreciate you believe in what you're saying on this issue, but I am sorry I cannot agree. If our legal system from investigation to trial was functioning in the desired way, how did Jimmy Savile get away with his crimes? How did Cyril Smith get away with his crimes? How did Ted Heath's Whip regale us with tales of MPs coming to him with 'tales of small boys'? Why is there a public enquiry?
I think I've answered this already on this thread. What I have set out is the law. It's not a question of my belief in it. And the fact that you disagree with what is a well-established legal principle is irrelevant.
Your second point is a different one and relates to the quality of investigation and the decision on whether or not to charge someone which has been in the hands of the police, the CPS and the DPP, depending on timing. The police have not, to put it mildly, always covered themselves in glory in their investigations, particularly in relation to sexual matters and those happening decades ago. That explains much about why certain alleged crimes were not properly pursued. It probably also explains much of why now they seem to have gone overboard in the opposite direction.
There are many reasons why charismatic and well-connected people get away with stuff that others would be rightly excoriated for. The cult of celebrity. People looking but not seeing what is in front of their noses. Cowardice by those who do see but turn a blind eye and think it's someone else's problem. People believing what they want to believe. Corruption, possibly. A refusal to take victims seriously or an easy categorisation of them as sluts, hysterics, unreliable etc. A failure to understand the horrors of child abuse. Different sexual mores etc etc.
There have been plenty of miscarriages of justice in the English legal system. But the way to campaign about them is to do what Chris Mullin and Sir John Farr did. That is the model if you are serious. Watson has done the complete opposite, has shamed himself, has done the cause of justice no favours and has probably made it harder for such crimes amongst the well-connected to be pursued without fear or favour.
Police will no longer be stationed outside the Ecuadorean embassy in London where Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has sought refuge since 2012. Met Police officers had been there since Mr Assange sought asylum to avoid extradition to Sweden over a rape allegation, which he denies. The Met said it had cost £12.6m and was "no longer proportionate" - but it would still try to arrest him.
BBC news
Days of Austerity ! Sadly, I paid for this act of stupidity.
How can it cost £12.6m ? Is Wayne Rooney a copper ?
I will not repeat what I put at the end of the previous thread re Lord B and Watson.
But I would just summarise it thus: innocent until proven guilty is not some legal technicality. It's not innocent in the eyes of the law but guilty in the eyes of everyone else. All of us are innocent. Full stop.
When we're charged, we're still innocent. We're innocent until the moment a jury (or magistrate) convicts us after a fair trial. And a fair trial is not some journalist or MP or other self-important booby pronouncing on our guilt or on how evil or not we are .
Trying to suggest otherwise is nasty smearing and tittle tattle and shows a lack of respect for well-established and long-standing legal processes. Lamentable in an MP. And frankly no better than ducking people in rivers to see if they float as a way of determining guilt.
When I become the country's first directly elected Dictator, I'm making you either Home Secretary or Justice Secretary. If you're lucky, I might make you both.
Well that's very kind. And I would be honoured, of course. (I'd quite like to run the City as well, if it's not too much to ask.)
You don't think, though, that Britain would be ready for another clear-thinking lady to run things, no??
(And you can be the absolute ruler of the City of London)
Oi! Hands off! That's my turf
Ahem? Ladies first.
Anyway, I will be regulating and investigating you. And if that doesn't make you behave, I don't know what will.
If you're very good, you can be my special advisor.
The ICM subsamples are interesting though. Corbyn has made no net gains with Tories since May which is why the Tories have fractionally increased their total, they have gained 6% of 2015 Labour voters and Labour 6% of 2015 Tory voters.
You think we spent £12.6 million to send an alleged rapist to Sweden. When we can't even be bothered to arrest 1400 of our own alleged rapists. Nothing to do with Wikileaks. It's a view.
No, I think we spent £12.6 million to (1) try and catch an absconding criminal (the moment he jumped bail, he committed a crime) and (2) to protect the Ecuadorian embassy from the protestors who would undoubtedly gather there. That's certainly something to do with Wikileaks, of course, although in my view it's a poor use of public money.
Meanwhile, you think the US would invent charges in a third country with a long history of judicial freedom and independence that would make it much more difficult for them to extradite him if they wanted to rather than just using our grossly inequitable extradition treaty to nail him with ease and cheapness here?
Well, as you say, it's a point of view.
EDIT - incidentally, LuckyGuy, and this is my last word before I head off to get some rest - have you not noted the irony that you are accepting what even the police admit are the wildly implausible and very ancient claims against Leon Brittan made by one witness whose testimony has been withdrawn, and dismissing as a conspiracy the rather more credible claims against a known criminal and even more shameless narcissist by two women in the recent past?
I suppose the real worry over Syria is not that there'll be a stand-off, or even fight between NATO and Russian forces but some sort of horrendous accident.
The real worry is you have a seriously f*cked off Saudi Arabia watching their terrorist progeny get slaughtered, and not doing very well directly fighting in Yemen either - terrified of losing control of the region to Shias, and eventually their own power. You have Turkey who will stop at nothing to create a situation where they can dominate the region to recreate the Ottoman Empire. And you have the world's feral (formerly) hegemonic superpower who've just been shat on from a great height by the 'Ruskies', who are in the process of making their 13 month 'anti-ISIS' campaign look like the utter sham it was/is, and are now staring the loss of world policeman status in the face. Powder keg doesn't even come close.
Not only had Mr Watson declined the invitation to say sorry. He’d made the invitation sound trivial, irrelevant – as if, simply by asking him to apologise for his mistake, his critics were somehow trying to discredit investigations into abuse in general. He, by implication, remained a lone, heroic voice of truth – and he wasn’t going to pipe down because “people in high places” were “scared”.
It was extraordinary. No one could possibly disagree with him that “the survivors of child abuse have been belittled and ridiculed for too long”. But he could have said so while acknowledging the distress he’d caused Lady Brittan. He didn’t even mention her. For a split second there was silence – disbelieving silence. Then the cries of “Shame!” began.
Probably he meant to say “Being in the EU”, rather than “Being in Britain”. Still: a saving of £480 million a year for every person in the country. It sounded a remarkable figure. Had he got that right? Lord Rose led M&S to great commercial success, so he must know his sums. But, unless he’d misread his notes, he did appear to be suggesting that to leave the EU would cost the UK a total of £31 quadrillion a year. Written out in full, that number ends in 15 zeroes, and is just under 20,000 times bigger than the UK national debt.
I suppose the real worry over Syria is not that there'll be a stand-off, or even fight between NATO and Russian forces but some sort of horrendous accident.
The real worry is you have a seriously f*cked off Saudi Arabia watching their terrorist progeny get slaughtered, and not doing very well directly fighting in Yemen either - terrified of losing control of the region to Shias, and eventually their own power. You have Turkey who will stop at nothing to create a situation where they can dominate the region to recreate the Ottoman Empire. And you have the world's feral (formerly) hegemonic superpower who've just been shat on from a great height by the 'Ruskies', who are in the process of making their 13 month 'anti-ISIS' campaign look like the utter sham it was/is, and are now staring the loss of world policeman status in the face. Powder keg doesn't even come close.
Saudi Arabia does not consider ISIS their progeny. They are petrified ISIS could well replace their own monarchy within 20 years.
Although I agree they are equally worried about Shiite regional dominance.
Libby Wiener @LibbyWienerITV 1h1 hour ago Heated exchanges at tonight's PLP. One backbencher reportedly shouting at Corbyn demanding to know where Labour stand on policies @itvnews
Libby Wiener @LibbyWienerITV 56m56 minutes ago If Corbyn thought his 1st PLP was bad, getting even rougher ride at his 2nd U-turn on fiscal charter dubbed 'a huge joke' by one MP@itvnews
By U-turn they mean that Corbyn has a different opinion from Harman.
Ok let's just back up a bit on this comment.
Yesterday Surbiton was claiming that there were and I quote "fissures and cracks" appearing in the Tories a a result of differences of opinion over the EU yet? ....yet , tonight you a fellow traveller dismiss such a claim when related to Labour in a similar situation?
M'Kay
We will ignore entirely then the quote / unquote "utter fecking shambles " how Ben ?Bradshore) described the PLP meeting. No cracks and fissures there ....Oh no sireee just a difference of opinion I guess Nothing to see here move along please.
Probably he meant to say “Being in the EU”, rather than “Being in Britain”. Still: a saving of £480 million a year for every person in the country. It sounded a remarkable figure. Had he got that right? Lord Rose led M&S to great commercial success, so he must know his sums. But, unless he’d misread his notes, he did appear to be suggesting that to leave the EU would cost the UK a total of £31 quadrillion a year. Written out in full, that number ends in 15 zeroes, and is just under 20,000 times bigger than the UK national debt.
Maybe he meant £480? Although I believe he quoted £300 earlier on today and £3,000 yesterday. Not off to a great start.
I suppose the real worry over Syria is not that there'll be a stand-off, or even fight between NATO and Russian forces but some sort of horrendous accident.
The real worry is you have a seriously f*cked off Saudi Arabia watching their terrorist progeny get slaughtered, and not doing very well directly fighting in Yemen either - terrified of losing control of the region to Shias, and eventually their own power. You have Turkey who will stop at nothing to create a situation where they can dominate the region to recreate the Ottoman Empire. And you have the world's feral (formerly) hegemonic superpower who've just been shat on from a great height by the 'Ruskies', who are in the process of making their 13 month 'anti-ISIS' campaign look like the utter sham it was/is, and are now staring the loss of world policeman status in the face. Powder keg doesn't even come close.
" You have Turkey who will stop at nothing to create a situation where they can dominate the region to recreate the Ottoman Empire. "
That is totally and utterly ridiculous. I think you'd need all Alcan's output for a year to make a tinfoil hat big enough.
Probably he meant to say “Being in the EU”, rather than “Being in Britain”. Still: a saving of £480 million a year for every person in the country. It sounded a remarkable figure. Had he got that right? Lord Rose led M&S to great commercial success, so he must know his sums. But, unless he’d misread his notes, he did appear to be suggesting that to leave the EU would cost the UK a total of £31 quadrillion a year. Written out in full, that number ends in 15 zeroes, and is just under 20,000 times bigger than the UK national debt.
Maybe he meant £480? Although I believe he quoted £300 earlier on today and £3,000 yesterday. Not off to a great start.
I'm guessing he meant in total and accidentally said 'per person'? Still even on that basis, it doesn't square with 3000 or 300 per person. Combined with the 'quitters' kerfaffle the Remain campaign seems like an omnishambles at the moment.
I suspect, increasingly, that Labour MPs will find some way to remove Corbyn and McDonnell in the next 18 months. They will change the rules. They will cheat. They will tell the membership to go jump.
It's either that or takeover by an unelectable Trotskyite clique that they all despise, and the death of Labour as a serious electoral force. Pretty high stakes.
I suppose the real worry over Syria is not that there'll be a stand-off, or even fight between NATO and Russian forces but some sort of horrendous accident.
The real worry is you have a seriously f*cked off Saudi Arabia watching their terrorist progeny get slaughtered, and not doing very well directly fighting in Yemen either - terrified of losing control of the region to Shias, and eventually their own power. You have Turkey who will stop at nothing to create a situation where they can dominate the region to recreate the Ottoman Empire. And you have the world's feral (formerly) hegemonic superpower who've just been shat on from a great height by the 'Ruskies', who are in the process of making their 13 month 'anti-ISIS' campaign look like the utter sham it was/is, and are now staring the loss of world policeman status in the face. Powder keg doesn't even come close.
" You have Turkey who will stop at nothing to create a situation where they can dominate the region to recreate the Ottoman Empire. "
That is totally and utterly ridiculous. I think you'd need all Alcan's output for a year to make a tinfoil hat big enough.
I think he meant metaphorically. People have often called Erdogan's foreign policy 'Neo-Ottoman'.
I suspect, increasingly, that Labour MPs will find some way to remove Corbyn and McDonnell in the next 18 months. They will change the rules. They will cheat. They will tell the membership to go jump.
It's either that or takeover by an unelectable Trotskyite clique that they all despise, and the death of Labour as a serious electoral force. Pretty high stakes.
Imagine working for a company for 15 years and suddenly discovering the weird guy from the post room has been appointed CEO. Hardly surprising most of the employees are pissed off and willing to show it.
Early days but it's clear the public see qualities in the new Labour leadership not immediately apparent to posters on here.
It is not at all clear that is the case from any sort of evidence. As pointed out previously, even many of those predicting a never ending Tory hegemony as a result of Corbyn's leadership have often acknowledged he will, at some point, even see Labour leading in the polls.
Personally I think many of his views are distasteful, but that is not a deal breaker for most people even if they don't agree with him, as he has other qualities which enable him to present himself well, and that the biggest stumbling block is likely to be those around him rather that he himself.
Probably he meant to say “Being in the EU”, rather than “Being in Britain”. Still: a saving of £480 million a year for every person in the country. It sounded a remarkable figure. Had he got that right? Lord Rose led M&S to great commercial success, so he must know his sums. But, unless he’d misread his notes, he did appear to be suggesting that to leave the EU would cost the UK a total of £31 quadrillion a year. Written out in full, that number ends in 15 zeroes, and is just under 20,000 times bigger than the UK national debt.
Maybe he meant £480? Although I believe he quoted £300 earlier on today and £3,000 yesterday. Not off to a great start.
NO! Say it ain't so. In our office we've been having an enjoyable time deciding what to do with our £480 million each.
Honestly, first I don't get my free owl. And now this. It's too much. It really is.
I suppose the real worry over Syria is not that there'll be a stand-off, or even fight between NATO and Russian forces but some sort of horrendous accident.
The real worry is you have a seriously f*cked off Saudi Arabia watching their terrorist progeny get slaughtered, and not doing very well directly fighting in Yemen either - terrified of losing control of the region to Shias, and eventually their own power. You have Turkey who will stop at nothing to create a situation where they can dominate the region to recreate the Ottoman Empire. And you have the world's feral (formerly) hegemonic superpower who've just been shat on from a great height by the 'Ruskies', who are in the process of making their 13 month 'anti-ISIS' campaign look like the utter sham it was/is, and are now staring the loss of world policeman status in the face. Powder keg doesn't even come close.
" You have Turkey who will stop at nothing to create a situation where they can dominate the region to recreate the Ottoman Empire. "
That is totally and utterly ridiculous. I think you'd need all Alcan's output for a year to make a tinfoil hat big enough.
Do you not think that Erdogan has neo-colonial ambitions?
I-95 southbound is now completely open. I-95 northbound is sill closed for a 13 mile stretch. I-95 is far and away the busiest interstate on the eastern seaboard.
Residents of Richland County - which includes state capital Columbia - are still being warned to boil water before drinking it.
Probably he meant to say “Being in the EU”, rather than “Being in Britain”. Still: a saving of £480 million a year for every person in the country. It sounded a remarkable figure. Had he got that right? Lord Rose led M&S to great commercial success, so he must know his sums. But, unless he’d misread his notes, he did appear to be suggesting that to leave the EU would cost the UK a total of £31 quadrillion a year. Written out in full, that number ends in 15 zeroes, and is just under 20,000 times bigger than the UK national debt.
Maybe he meant £480? Although I believe he quoted £300 earlier on today and £3,000 yesterday. Not off to a great start.
I'm guessing he meant in total and accidentally said 'per person'? Still even on that basis, it doesn't square with 3000 or 300 per person. Combined with the 'quitters' kerfaffle the Remain campaign seems like an omnishambles at the moment.
You think that's an omnishambles? How about naming your campaign group after Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) or Mad Cow Disease?
What has the world come to that during a new Opposition Leaders honeymoon being only 4% behind is considered good news?
When he opened with the worst ever leadership ratings, it could suggest Corbyn may defy conventional patterns and actually see some improvement in his personals later - the only way is up, it would seem - and so perhaps such a party figure is acceptable too.
I don't think that particularly likely myself, but I don't think it is entirely without reason to think if he sticks around for awhile, given known Tory troubles (as opposed to merely likely troubles) on the horizon, and his low starting position, that 4% is not that bad. After all, it is still true that for anti-Tories, there is nowhere else to go, in England at least.
I suppose the real worry over Syria is not that there'll be a stand-off, or even fight between NATO and Russian forces but some sort of horrendous accident.
The real worry is you have a seriously f*cked off Saudi Arabia watching their terrorist progeny get slaughtered, and not doing very well directly fighting in Yemen either - terrified of losing control of the region to Shias, and eventually their own power. You have Turkey who will stop at nothing to create a situation where they can dominate the region to recreate the Ottoman Empire. And you have the world's feral (formerly) hegemonic superpower who've just been shat on from a great height by the 'Ruskies', who are in the process of making their 13 month 'anti-ISIS' campaign look like the utter sham it was/is, and are now staring the loss of world policeman status in the face. Powder keg doesn't even come close.
" You have Turkey who will stop at nothing to create a situation where they can dominate the region to recreate the Ottoman Empire. "
That is totally and utterly ridiculous. I think you'd need all Alcan's output for a year to make a tinfoil hat big enough.
Do you not think that Erdogan has neo-colonial ambitions?
By the way I saw earlier you'd given some really helpful answers in a previous thread - sorry I'd not responded, I'd gone to bed I think.
Probably he meant to say “Being in the EU”, rather than “Being in Britain”. Still: a saving of £480 million a year for every person in the country. It sounded a remarkable figure. Had he got that right? Lord Rose led M&S to great commercial success, so he must know his sums. But, unless he’d misread his notes, he did appear to be suggesting that to leave the EU would cost the UK a total of £31 quadrillion a year. Written out in full, that number ends in 15 zeroes, and is just under 20,000 times bigger than the UK national debt.
Maybe he meant £480? Although I believe he quoted £300 earlier on today and £3,000 yesterday. Not off to a great start. The £3000 was per family. Agree that it's all nonsense though. Would love to see some justification for all these figures thrown around.
Libby Wiener @LibbyWienerITV 1h1 hour ago Heated exchanges at tonight's PLP. One backbencher reportedly shouting at Corbyn demanding to know where Labour stand on policies @itvnews
Libby Wiener @LibbyWienerITV 56m56 minutes ago If Corbyn thought his 1st PLP was bad, getting even rougher ride at his 2nd U-turn on fiscal charter dubbed 'a huge joke' by one MP@itvnews
By U-turn they mean that Corbyn has a different opinion from Harman.
Ok let's just back up a bit on this comment.
Yesterday Surbiton was claiming that there were and I quote "fissures and cracks" appearing in the Tories a a result of differences of opinion over the EU yet? ....yet , tonight you a fellow traveller dismiss such a claim when related to Labour in a similar situation?
M'Kay
We will ignore entirely then the quote / unquote "utter fecking shambles " how Ben ?Bradshore) described the PLP meeting. No cracks and fissures there ....Oh no sireee just a difference of opinion I guess Nothing to see here move along please.
I will not repeat what I put at the end of the previous thread re Lord B and Watson.
But I would just summarise it thus: innocent until proven guilty is not some legal technicality. It's not innocent in the eyes of the law but guilty in the eyes of everyone else. All of us are innocent. Full stop.
When we're charged, we're still innocent. We're innocent until the moment a jury (or magistrate) convicts us after a fair trial. And a fair trial is not some journalist or MP or other self-important booby pronouncing on our guilt or on how evil or not we are .
Trying to suggest otherwise is nasty smearing and tittle tattle and shows a lack of respect for well-established and long-standing legal processes. Lamentable in an MP. And frankly no better than ducking people in rivers to see if they float as a way of determining guilt.
When I become the country's first directly elected Dictator, I'm making you either Home Secretary or Justice Secretary. If you're lucky, I might make you both.
Well that's very kind. And I would be honoured, of course. (I'd quite like to run the City as well, if it's not too much to ask.)
You don't think, though, that Britain would be ready for another clear-thinking lady to run things, no??
(And you can be the absolute ruler of the City of London)
Oi! Hands off! That's my turf
Ahem? Ladies first.
Anyway, I will be regulating and investigating you. And if that doesn't make you behave, I don't know what will.
If you're very good, you can be my special advisor.
We PB Tories are seriously rattled by this shock polling.... we're always wrong and have massively underestimated the power that Corbyn and McDonnell have unleashed on the neo-con establishment in the UK.
Labour are down to their core vote - those who will vote Labour no matter what. The latest 'great news' has Labour 2% up on the election - well within moe and those thinking to the contrary are clutching at straws.
Probably he meant to say “Being in the EU”, rather than “Being in Britain”. Still: a saving of £480 million a year for every person in the country. It sounded a remarkable figure. Had he got that right? Lord Rose led M&S to great commercial success, so he must know his sums. But, unless he’d misread his notes, he did appear to be suggesting that to leave the EU would cost the UK a total of £31 quadrillion a year. Written out in full, that number ends in 15 zeroes, and is just under 20,000 times bigger than the UK national debt.
Maybe he meant £480? Although I believe he quoted £300 earlier on today and £3,000 yesterday. Not off to a great start.
I'm guessing he meant in total and accidentally said 'per person'? Still even on that basis, it doesn't square with 3000 or 300 per person. Combined with the 'quitters' kerfaffle the Remain campaign seems like an omnishambles at the moment. According to Karren Brady, leaving the EU is "way too dangerous":
Richard Reed of Innocent Smoothes then goes on to say "The 'Out' guys - or 'the Quitters' as we like to call them." Not suprising as he barely grasps how the EU functions (the regulations he is forced to comply with are actually made by the Codex Alimentarius Commission) so resorts to childish insults.
I hope the level of debate improves as this is just insulting to everyone who would like to vote in what is a serious matter.
" You have Turkey who will stop at nothing to create a situation where they can dominate the region to recreate the Ottoman Empire. "
That is totally and utterly ridiculous. I think you'd need all Alcan's output for a year to make a tinfoil hat big enough.
I think he meant metaphorically. People have often called Erdogan's foreign policy 'Neo-Ottoman'.
It's still ridiculous. Neo-Ottoman does exist as a philosophy, but it is focussed internally (mainly to rid the country of its secular base) rather than externally. The battle over the banning of headscarves for women in universities is a classic example, as is the attempted shift of institutions from Ankara back to Istanbul.
Turkey has eight countries bordering it; it does not particularly have good relations with any of them. It is in Turkey's interest to obtain good relations with as many of them as possible, which was not always possible whilst it was looking towards the west. They know that they are in a strategically important location geographically, and are looking to maximise that by playing east and west off against each other.
But to say they want to 'dominate the region to recreate the Ottoman Empire' is utterly ridiculous. They have enough troubles in their country as it is without importing more.
Libby Wiener @LibbyWienerITV 1h1 hour ago Heated exchanges at tonight's PLP. One backbencher reportedly shouting at Corbyn demanding to know where Labour stand on policies @itvnews
Libby Wiener @LibbyWienerITV 56m56 minutes ago If Corbyn thought his 1st PLP was bad, getting even rougher ride at his 2nd U-turn on fiscal charter dubbed 'a huge joke' by one MP@itvnews
By U-turn they mean that Corbyn has a different opinion from Harman.
Ok let's just back up a bit on this comment.
Yesterday Surbiton was claiming that there were and I quote "fissures and cracks" appearing in the Tories a a result of differences of opinion over the EU yet? ....yet , tonight you a fellow traveller dismiss such a claim when related to Labour in a similar situation?
M'Kay
We will ignore entirely then the quote / unquote "utter fecking shambles " how Ben ?Bradshore) described the PLP meeting. No cracks and fissures there ....Oh no sireee just a difference of opinion I guess Nothing to see here move along please.
Let deselecting commence.
I should think Ben Bradshaw of all people is safe - being the only non Tory in the entire SW outside of Bristol, should be enough for him to have sufficient personal support locally no matter if he goes against the current national strain of Labour opinion.
Not only had Mr Watson declined the invitation to say sorry. He’d made the invitation sound trivial, irrelevant – as if, simply by asking him to apologise for his mistake, his critics were somehow trying to discredit investigations into abuse in general. He, by implication, remained a lone, heroic voice of truth – and he wasn’t going to pipe down because “people in high places” were “scared”.
It was extraordinary. No one could possibly disagree with him that “the survivors of child abuse have been belittled and ridiculed for too long”. But he could have said so while acknowledging the distress he’d caused Lady Brittan. He didn’t even mention her. For a split second there was silence – disbelieving silence. Then the cries of “Shame!” began.
Tom Watson is so thick skinned he has to keep his vital organs in his nether regions.
Libby Wiener @LibbyWienerITV 1h1 hour ago Heated exchanges at tonight's PLP. One backbencher reportedly shouting at Corbyn demanding to know where Labour stand on policies @itvnews
Libby Wiener @LibbyWienerITV 56m56 minutes ago If Corbyn thought his 1st PLP was bad, getting even rougher ride at his 2nd U-turn on fiscal charter dubbed 'a huge joke' by one MP@itvnews
By U-turn they mean that Corbyn has a different opinion from Harman.
Ok let's just back up a bit on this comment.
Yesterday Surbiton was claiming that there were and I quote "fissures and cracks" appearing in the Tories a a result of differences of opinion over the EU yet? ....yet , tonight you a fellow traveller dismiss such a claim when related to Labour in a similar situation?
M'Kay
We will ignore entirely then the quote / unquote "utter fecking shambles " how Ben ?Bradshore) described the PLP meeting. No cracks and fissures there ....Oh no sireee just a difference of opinion I guess Nothing to see here move along please.
Let deselecting commence.
I should think Ben Bradshaw of all people is safe - being the only non Tory in the entire SW outside of Bristol, should be enough for him to have sufficient personal support locally no matter if he goes against the current national strain of Labour opinion.
Bradshaw tried to retire last time, I'm told. Will he fight another? Who knows... He has a huge personal following - anyone trying to fill his shoes is going to have quite a job on their hands.
Probably he meant to say “Being in the EU”, rather than “Being in Britain”. Still: a saving of £480 million a year for every person in the country. It sounded a remarkable figure. Had he got that right? Lord Rose led M&S to great commercial success, so he must know his sums. But, unless he’d misread his notes, he did appear to be suggesting that to leave the EU would cost the UK a total of £31 quadrillion a year. Written out in full, that number ends in 15 zeroes, and is just under 20,000 times bigger than the UK national debt.
What has the world come to that during a new Opposition Leaders honeymoon being only 4% behind is considered good news?
Of course it should not be forgotten that just months before he was deposed in November 2003 in July 2003 ICM had the Tories on 34% and Labour on 36%, so even IDS did better than Corbyn with the same pollsters at one stage (before Labour get too excited!) http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-2001-2005
Not only had Mr Watson declined the invitation to say sorry. He’d made the invitation sound trivial, irrelevant – as if, simply by asking him to apologise for his mistake, his critics were somehow trying to discredit investigations into abuse in general. He, by implication, remained a lone, heroic voice of truth – and he wasn’t going to pipe down because “people in high places” were “scared”.
It was extraordinary. No one could possibly disagree with him that “the survivors of child abuse have been belittled and ridiculed for too long”. But he could have said so while acknowledging the distress he’d caused Lady Brittan. He didn’t even mention her. For a split second there was silence – disbelieving silence. Then the cries of “Shame!” began.
Tom Watson is so thick skinned he has to keep his vital organs in his nether regions.
Presumably you mean his tongue? Not the best place to talk out of but hey, in the current Labour party anything goes.
" You have Turkey who will stop at nothing to create a situation where they can dominate the region to recreate the Ottoman Empire. "
That is totally and utterly ridiculous. I think you'd need all Alcan's output for a year to make a tinfoil hat big enough.
I think he meant metaphorically. People have often called Erdogan's foreign policy 'Neo-Ottoman'.
It's still ridiculous. Neo-Ottoman does exist as a philosophy, but it is focussed internally (mainly to rid the country of its secular base) rather than externally. The battle over the banning of headscarves for women in universities is a classic example, as is the attempted shift of institutions from Ankara back to Istanbul.
Turkey has eight countries bordering it; it does not particularly have good relations with any of them. It is in Turkey's interest to obtain good relations with as many of them as possible, which was not always possible whilst it was looking towards the west. They know that they are in a strategically important location geographically, and are looking to maximise that by playing east and west off against each other.
But to say they want to 'dominate the region to recreate the Ottoman Empire' is utterly ridiculous. They have enough troubles in their country as it is without importing more.
Indeed the Turkish nationalists are struggling to dominate their own country against fissile elements, let alone take over other countries.
'Maybe he meant £480? Although I believe he quoted £300 earlier on today and £3,000 yesterday. Not off to a great start.'
Did he mention the three million jobs we would lose ?
It appears that they have finally accepted that the claim that 3 million jobs will be lost is pure Goebbels:
"Q: Why are you still using the 3m jobs at risk figure? It is 10 years out of date, and is discredited.
Straw says the campaign is not saying 3m jobs would be lost if we left the EU. It is saying 3m jobs are linked to our being in the EU. The challenge is for the other side to explain what the impact on jobs would be."
Probably he meant to say “Being in the EU”, rather than “Being in Britain”. Still: a saving of £480 million a year for every person in the country. It sounded a remarkable figure. Had he got that right? Lord Rose led M&S to great commercial success, so he must know his sums. But, unless he’d misread his notes, he did appear to be suggesting that to leave the EU would cost the UK a total of £31 quadrillion a year. Written out in full, that number ends in 15 zeroes, and is just under 20,000 times bigger than the UK national debt.
Maybe he meant £480? Although I believe he quoted £300 earlier on today and £3,000 yesterday. Not off to a great start.
I'm guessing he meant in total and accidentally said 'per person'? Still even on that basis, it doesn't square with 3000 or 300 per person. Combined with the 'quitters' kerfaffle the Remain campaign seems like an omnishambles at the moment.
According to Karren Brady, leaving the EU is "way too dangerous":
Richard Reed of Innocent Smoothes then goes on to say "The 'Out' guys - or 'the Quitters' as we like to call them." Not suprising as he barely grasps how the EU functions (the regulations he is forced to comply with are actually made by the Codex Alimentarius Commission) so resorts to childish insults.
I hope the level of debate improves as this is just insulting to everyone who would like to vote in what is a serious matter.
That photo makes it look like one of those tedious Leadership workshops HR make you attend from time to time. All it needs is David Brent and a flip chart and it's every office worker's worst nightmare.
I suppose the real worry over Syria is not that there'll be a stand-off, or even fight between NATO and Russian forces but some sort of horrendous accident.
The real worry is you have a seriously f*cked off Saudi Arabia watching their terrorist progeny get slaughtered, and not doing very well directly fighting in Yemen either - terrified of losing control of the region to Shias, and eventually their own power. You have Turkey who will stop at nothing to create a situation where they can dominate the region to recreate the Ottoman Empire. And you have the world's feral (formerly) hegemonic superpower who've just been shat on from a great height by the 'Ruskies', who are in the process of making their 13 month 'anti-ISIS' campaign look like the utter sham it was/is, and are now staring the loss of world policeman status in the face. Powder keg doesn't even come close.
" You have Turkey who will stop at nothing to create a situation where they can dominate the region to recreate the Ottoman Empire. "
That is totally and utterly ridiculous. I think you'd need all Alcan's output for a year to make a tinfoil hat big enough.
Do you not think that Erdogan has neo-colonial ambitions?
I don't think so, no. Some say he does, but the evidence seems mightily thin. He has enough problems within his country as it stands, without importing new ones.
Like many people in this UK wrt the empire, he and others in his government seem to look back to the Ottoman times as glorious, even if they were far from such (the Ottoman empire suffered a prolonged strangulation over many years).
Some in the UK want to go back to the glory days of Empire when the country was great, for instance by reintroducing national service. That does not mean they want to invade India and a third of Africa. It's the same with some in the AKP: they want Turkey to move back towards Ottoman times domestically whilst still using the best of the modern world. That does not mean they're going to invade (militarily or economically) the old empire.
It's about religion and traditions.
At least that's my reading of it.
(Please realise I have to be a little careful in what I say about Turkish politics, but I will say things as I see them, even if I tone them down a little ... )
Comments
The most painful truth of all for Assange, I suspect, is that now the US have Manning he's not actually very important to them. He evidently needs to stoke his paranoia and his ego by manufactured hysteria - but why? To keep donations coming to Wikileaks?
To kill dragons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DG6fhub9HDQ
I actually think that the russians were forced to start their bombing campaign because Hollande, Cameron and Erdogan have itchy fingers these past months and wanted to deter them from any further action by flooding Syria with russian jets.
The russians read newspapers too so it's no secret to them that some western governments really really want to get involved when they read the warm-up acts from the Tory press.
But http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/jeremy-corbyn-specials Corbyn to be in post at 1st Jan 2017 at 8-13 is still nice enough.
I've been tipping this one up at 4-5 and 4-6. Still time to jump on the bandwagon if you have a live VC account.
5?
10?
20?
Is it more or less that 1 per week?
As I said simply stating that you are bombing does not make it true when you are not 6 days a week or longer.
They must be clearly very clever, we can only await their explanations.
So Britain will be alone.
So the real irony is that he has spent several years, far longer than he would have done for the original offence, cooped up in misery and squalor in the tiny embassy of an impoverished nation (which is also a sinister dictatorship) running from an entirely imaginary vision of 30 years in a US prison - when actually, having hooked the big fish, the US seem happy to regard Assange as small fry and not waste time pursuing him abroad.
I wouldn't travel to the US in his shoes, but I don't suppose he wants to anyway. If he stays away from there, and possibly Canada, Mexico and the UK, he would be perfectly safe.
EDIT - in fact, if he were really scared of being sent to the US, I think he would probably have begged the Swedes to take him! I suspect this is as simple as he does not want to face the investigation that was being conducted over there, and invented this hyperbole to cover his fear of arrest for something his backers would certainly not approve of.
http://www.icmunlimited.com/data/media/pdf/2015_oct_guardian_poll.pdf
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm
"Article 6 (1)
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer."
The above is the reason why the Falklands War were fought by Britain only, not by NATO.
Interestingly enough, Hawaii is also excluded from NATO coverage even if it's a US state.
Patrick Wintour ✔ @patrickwintour
Parliamentary Labour Party meeting described by one MP - not a Blairite - as one of the worst he has ever seen - "an incompetent shambles".
Laura Kuenssberg ✔ @bbclaurak
'That was the worst PLP I've ever been to' says one labour MP - Corbyn was 'read the riot act' and said nothing
http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/poll-tracker/2015/index.html
http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/20151011 Ballot TrackingE.pdf
Libby Wiener ✔ @LibbyWienerITV
'Total F****** shambles' says Ben Bradshaw MP as he leaves PLP @itvnews
Retweeted by Harry Cole
The Falklands War is a totally different prospect, had the USSR shot down a British jet deliberately Reagan would have responded, he was not going to risk US blood defending a few penguins in the South Atlantic from Argentina
Trump 23%
Carson 17%
Rubio 14%
Fiorina 13%
Bush 9%
Cruz 5%
Christie 4%
Huckabee 3%
Kasich 2%
Paul 2%
Graham 1%
Gilmore 0%
Jindal 0%
Pataki 0%
Santorum 0%
General Election Matchups Versus Clinton
Carson 49%
Clinton 43%
Christie 47%
Clinton 42%
Fiorina 47%
Clinton 43%
Bush 46%
Clinton 43%
Rubio 45%
Clinton 45%
Clinton 47%
Trump 40%
Clinton 49%
Cruz 41%
Versus Biden
Biden 48%
Carson 44%
Biden 47%
Bush 42%
Biden 48%
Fiorina 42%
Biden 48%
Christie 41%
Biden 50%
Rubio 40%
Biden 53%
Cruz 36%
Biden 54%
Trump 37%
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/clinton-drops-trump-still-the-favorite-for-virginia-voters-poll-shows/2015/10/11/9b5d164c-6ec2-11e5-b31c-d80d62b53e28_story.html
http://www.cityam.com/226302/nick-hewer-on-uber-and-dream-labour-party-coup
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2015/10/labour-tensions-boil-over-fractious-mps-meeting
We PB Tories are seriously rattled by this shock polling.... we're always wrong and have massively underestimated the power that Corbyn and McDonnell have unleashed on the neo-con establishment in the UK.
Your second point is a different one and relates to the quality of investigation and the decision on whether or not to charge someone which has been in the hands of the police, the CPS and the DPP, depending on timing. The police have not, to put it mildly, always covered themselves in glory in their investigations, particularly in relation to sexual matters and those happening decades ago. That explains much about why certain alleged crimes were not properly pursued. It probably also explains much of why now they seem to have gone overboard in the opposite direction.
There are many reasons why charismatic and well-connected people get away with stuff that others would be rightly excoriated for. The cult of celebrity. People looking but not seeing what is in front of their noses. Cowardice by those who do see but turn a blind eye and think it's someone else's problem. People believing what they want to believe. Corruption, possibly. A refusal to take victims seriously or an easy categorisation of them as sluts, hysterics, unreliable etc. A failure to understand the horrors of child abuse. Different sexual mores etc etc.
There have been plenty of miscarriages of justice in the English legal system. But the way to campaign about them is to do what Chris Mullin and Sir John Farr did. That is the model if you are serious. Watson has done the complete opposite, has shamed himself, has done the cause of justice no favours and has probably made it harder for such crimes amongst the well-connected to be pursued without fear or favour.
Anyway, I will be regulating and investigating you. And if that doesn't make you behave, I don't know what will.
If you're very good, you can be my special advisor.
However, Labour have picked up 20% of LD voters and 9% of UKIP voters and 11% of nationalists. Corbyn has made his biggest gains with the Greens with 38% of 2015 Green voters having switched to Labour
http://www.icmunlimited.com/data/media/pdf/2015_oct_guardian_poll.pdf
Meanwhile, you think the US would invent charges in a third country with a long history of judicial freedom and independence that would make it much more difficult for them to extradite him if they wanted to rather than just using our grossly inequitable extradition treaty to nail him with ease and cheapness here?
Well, as you say, it's a point of view.
EDIT - incidentally, LuckyGuy, and this is my last word before I head off to get some rest - have you not noted the irony that you are accepting what even the police admit are the wildly implausible and very ancient claims against Leon Brittan made by one witness whose testimony has been withdrawn, and dismissing as a conspiracy the rather more credible claims against a known criminal and even more shameless narcissist by two women in the recent past?
Just a thought.
Although I agree they are equally worried about Shiite regional dominance.
Yesterday Surbiton was claiming that there were and I quote "fissures and cracks" appearing in the Tories a a result of differences of opinion over the EU yet? ....yet , tonight you a fellow traveller dismiss such a claim when related to Labour in a similar situation?
M'Kay
We will ignore entirely then the quote / unquote "utter fecking shambles " how Ben ?Bradshore) described the PLP meeting. No cracks and fissures there ....Oh no sireee just a difference of opinion I guess Nothing to see here move along please.
That is totally and utterly ridiculous. I think you'd need all Alcan's output for a year to make a tinfoil hat big enough.
I'm guessing he meant in total and accidentally said 'per person'? Still even on that basis, it doesn't square with 3000 or 300 per person. Combined with the 'quitters' kerfaffle the Remain campaign seems like an omnishambles at the moment.
Personally I think many of his views are distasteful, but that is not a deal breaker for most people even if they don't agree with him, as he has other qualities which enable him to present himself well, and that the biggest stumbling block is likely to be those around him rather that he himself.
NO! Say it ain't so. In our office we've been having an enjoyable time deciding what to do with our £480 million each.
Honestly, first I don't get my free owl. And now this. It's too much. It really is.
I-95 southbound is now completely open. I-95 northbound is sill closed for a 13 mile stretch. I-95 is far and away the busiest interstate on the eastern seaboard.
Residents of Richland County - which includes state capital Columbia - are still being warned to boil water before drinking it.
You think that's an omnishambles? How about naming your campaign group after Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) or Mad Cow Disease?
I don't think that particularly likely myself, but I don't think it is entirely without reason to think if he sticks around for awhile, given known Tory troubles (as opposed to merely likely troubles) on the horizon, and his low starting position, that 4% is not that bad. After all, it is still true that for anti-Tories, there is nowhere else to go, in England at least.
The £3000 was per family.
Agree that it's all nonsense though.
Would love to see some justification for all these figures thrown around.
According to Karren Brady, leaving the EU is "way too dangerous":
https://twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/653515767477047296
I presume this June Sarpong character has been brought on board to appeal to the youth vote, except noone really remembers who she is:
http://metro.co.uk/2015/10/12/who-is-june-sarpong-twitter-isnt-sure-so-heres-everything-you-need-to-know-5435242/
Richard Reed of Innocent Smoothes then goes on to say "The 'Out' guys - or 'the Quitters' as we like to call them." Not suprising as he barely grasps how the EU functions (the regulations he is forced to comply with are actually made by the Codex Alimentarius Commission) so resorts to childish insults.
I hope the level of debate improves as this is just insulting to everyone who would like to vote in what is a serious matter.
Turkey has eight countries bordering it; it does not particularly have good relations with any of them. It is in Turkey's interest to obtain good relations with as many of them as possible, which was not always possible whilst it was looking towards the west. They know that they are in a strategically important location geographically, and are looking to maximise that by playing east and west off against each other.
But to say they want to 'dominate the region to recreate the Ottoman Empire' is utterly ridiculous. They have enough troubles in their country as it is without importing more.
'Maybe he meant £480? Although I believe he quoted £300 earlier on today and £3,000 yesterday. Not off to a great start.'
Did he mention the three million jobs we would lose ?
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-2001-2005
Presumably you mean his tongue? Not the best place to talk out of but hey, in the current Labour party anything goes.
"Q: Why are you still using the 3m jobs at risk figure? It is 10 years out of date, and is discredited.
Straw says the campaign is not saying 3m jobs would be lost if we left the EU. It is saying 3m jobs are linked to our being in the EU. The challenge is for the other side to explain what the impact on jobs would be."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/oct/12/stuart-rose-launches-pro-eu-campaign-britain-stronger-in-europe-politics-live
https://twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/653515767477047296
I presume this June Sarpong character has been brought on board to appeal to the youth vote, except noone really remembers who she is:
http://metro.co.uk/2015/10/12/who-is-june-sarpong-twitter-isnt-sure-so-heres-everything-you-need-to-know-5435242/
Richard Reed of Innocent Smoothes then goes on to say "The 'Out' guys - or 'the Quitters' as we like to call them." Not suprising as he barely grasps how the EU functions (the regulations he is forced to comply with are actually made by the Codex Alimentarius Commission) so resorts to childish insults.
I hope the level of debate improves as this is just insulting to everyone who would like to vote in what is a serious matter.
That photo makes it look like one of those tedious Leadership workshops HR make you attend from time to time. All it needs is David Brent and a flip chart and it's every office worker's worst nightmare.
Like many people in this UK wrt the empire, he and others in his government seem to look back to the Ottoman times as glorious, even if they were far from such (the Ottoman empire suffered a prolonged strangulation over many years).
Some in the UK want to go back to the glory days of Empire when the country was great, for instance by reintroducing national service. That does not mean they want to invade India and a third of Africa. It's the same with some in the AKP: they want Turkey to move back towards Ottoman times domestically whilst still using the best of the modern world. That does not mean they're going to invade (militarily or economically) the old empire.
It's about religion and traditions.
At least that's my reading of it.
(Please realise I have to be a little careful in what I say about Turkish politics, but I will say things as I see them, even if I tone them down a little ...