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.
Wait till the three musketeers pitch in. If the Tory leadership is to stand off (and what choice do they have?) then that may mean LEAVE.
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
It covers forces in the mediterranean sea (navy), not the ones stationed inland outside of Europe like the middle east, Syria is outside article 6. Vietnam is also not covered by article 6 so the americans had to fight without NATO there. Once upon a time the USA had numerous alliances to cover different areas, NATO covers just Europe and the North Atlantic. CENTO was for the middle east, SEATO was for the far east but they no longer exist, the ANZUS still exists though.
Lets hope that the PM has better knowledge of the boundaries of NATO affairs than you do, without offence.
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.
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.
Glad they were of use (and I hope they were right). The questions strayed into an area I used to know a fair bit about, although technology has changed a lot since then, and we never used explosives.
(As it happens, my dad once used North Sea divers on a demolition job, inside a building in the Midlands. It was a weird but practical solution to a very particular problem)
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.
I have problems with your irony at times.
If there is any, it's likely unintentional - I'm just indecisive.
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.
The £3000 was per family. Agree that it's all nonsense though. Would love to see some justification for all these figures thrown around.
You really are an optimist. Justification for political claims? Whatever next.
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 ... )
Erdogan's actions would seem to suggest otherwise. Plotting a false flag attack on the tomb of Suleyman Shah as a pretext to invade Syria is hardly playing a neutral role. Neither is making the Turkish border ISIS' main supply route.
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.
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.
Even against the vast army of 3 Pounder activists that have signed up?
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.
I think the "debate" you refer to should tell you all you need to know
This is the same ICM that made and complete and utter pigs ear of the general election?
They didnt really
They released a poll around April 13 that had the Tories on 39 and Labour on 33 (OK it had UKIP on 7 which was obv v wrong)
The following week s ICM was 34/32 C/L
I noted all the ups and downs from polls from the time of that 2nd poll.. by the day before the GE the Conservatives were back at the level of April 13 on the whole, and Labour had fallen away markedly
The writing was on the wall for all who wanted to see it, guided by the polls... The Con Majority was foreseeable.. I curse myself that I was to blinkered to see it myself, although I did say to back Cons in every marginal and Con Minority
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
It covers forces in the mediterranean sea (navy), not the ones stationed inland outside of Europe like the middle east, Syria is outside article 6. Vietnam is also not covered by article 6 so the americans had to fight without NATO there. Once upon a time the USA had numerous alliances to cover different areas, NATO covers just Europe and the North Atlantic. CENTO was for the middle east, SEATO was for the far east but they no longer exist, the ANZUS still exists though.
Lets hope that the PM has better knowledge of the boundaries of NATO affairs than you do, without offence.
The port of Latakia where the Russians are based in Syria is on the Mediterranean and the article quite clearly mentions aircraft so wrong. The Korean War was not covered either but we joined the US there but not in Vietnam, nothing to do with Article 6. If Russians deliberately shot down a British jet, a US jet or a French jet then US cruise missiles would hit Latakia end of conversation, which is why Putin is not even going to consider 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.
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.
As Alexei Sayle so delicately put it, "anyone who uses the word "workshop" who isn't involved in light engineering is a c**t...."
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.
I'm not going to say global warming.
I should think not - it was the 2 feet of water and winds from Hurricane Joaquin what done 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.
The £3000 was per family. Agree that it's all nonsense though. Would love to see some justification for all these figures thrown around.
You really are an optimist. Justification for political claims? Whatever next. Poor deluded fool that I am. Seriously though, these assorted amounts of money that get thrown around really need to be challenged.
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.
They can't seem to work out where they are with this 'Quitters' line. First it was in Rose's speech. Then they realised it wasn't a smart idea and took it out. Then Richard Reed didn't get the memo and uses it again.
This is the same ICM that made and complete and utter pigs ear of the general election?
They didnt really
They released a poll around April 13 that had the Tories on 39 and Labour on 33 (OK it had UKIP on 7 which was obv v wrong)
The following week s ICM was 34/32 C/L
I noted all the ups and downs from polls from the time of that 2nd poll.. by the day before the GE the Conservatives were back at the level of April 13 on the whole, and Labour had fallen away markedly
The writing was on the wall for all who wanted to see it, guided by the polls... The Con Majority was foreseeable.. I curse myself that I was to blinkered to see it myself, although I did say to back Cons in every marginal and Con Minority
All polls where rubbish for reasons of differential turnout by age and class mostly, ICM had an extra reason that their reallocation of D/K led them hugely astray with the LD and UKIP for 5 years.
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.
As Alexei Sayle so delicately put it, "anyone who uses the word "workshop" who isn't involved in light engineering is a c**t...."
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.
Hmmm.
Do you think the pro-side might actually be stymied by.... weakness of arguments and those making them? For years us eurosceptics have pointed out the tired old chestnuts that get wheeled out in defence of the EU. -You're racist -You're bigoted -We'd lose all our jobs -You want to go back to the past, we want to go towards the future -You're xenophobic -You read the Sun or the Daily Mail -Did we mention jobs? -Europe is much better than us and if we stay we'll become more like them
Could it really be that the heat of the debate melts the wax of eurofanatic drivel? Could this debate be won on the arguments? Could we have a re-run of Farage/Clegg on a national scale?
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.
So the average family size is ten in the UK? None of these numbers work together.
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!
That's a bit odd. The previous Quebec poll I saw from a few days ago had the Tories and the NDP on 28% in equal first place. How can they now be on 14%?
"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
It covers forces in the mediterranean sea (navy), not the ones stationed inland outside of Europe like the middle east, Syria is outside article 6. Vietnam is also not covered by article 6 so the americans had to fight without NATO there. Once upon a time the USA had numerous alliances to cover different areas, NATO covers just Europe and the North Atlantic. CENTO was for the middle east, SEATO was for the far east but they no longer exist, the ANZUS still exists though.
Lets hope that the PM has better knowledge of the boundaries of NATO affairs than you do, without offence.
The port of Latakia where the Russians are based in Syria is on the Mediterranean and the article quite clearly mentions aircraft so wrong. The Korean War was not covered either but we joined the US there but not in Vietnam, nothing to do with Article 6. If Russians deliberately shot down a British jet, a US jet or a French jet then US cruise missiles would hit Latakia end of conversation, which is why Putin is not even going to consider it
Navy and airforces in and above the mediterrenean sea, not above land. Britain is not covered by NATO in the middle east. Every inch of Syria's territory and airspace is not covered by Article 6 of NATO, including ports.
Erdogan's actions would seem to suggest otherwise. Plotting a false flag attack on the tomb of Suleyman Shah as a pretext to invade Syria is hardly playing a neutral role. Neither is making the Turkish border ISIS' main supply route.
Hmmm. Methinks you are very wrong on the former, and mostly wrong on the latter.
Part of the problem is that Erdogan is both strong and weak: it is wrong to assume that whilst he appears strong, he does not have significant weaknesses. One of those is that his control over all branches of the government appears to be not as strong as you might suspect. He's tried to fix that wrt the military with the hilarious episodes ten years ago which have come back to bite him now he's fallen out with Gulen.
Gulen is an interesting character, and I'm undecided whether his fall-out with Erdogan is to the benefit or detriment of Turkey. As much as I've read about Gulen, I've never managed to really understand him. He's either a potential saviour of Islam or just yet another theocrat in sheep's clothing.
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!
That's a bit odd. The previous Quebec poll I saw from a few days ago had the Tories and the NDP on 28% in equal first place. How can they now be on 14%?
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.
The only one forced out in recent years was Blair and that was to fulfill the ambition of Brown and his henchmen. I just cannot see the Labour MPs acquiring the courage to act over Corbyn and McDonnell.
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.
And MP's cried shame.. This will not be forgotten. The shit that Watson is will be hounded every time he tries to speak in the HOC.. and treated like a dog turd on the carpet within the HOC. or should be. Shits like him with no honour shouldn't be MP's.
"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
It covers forces in the mediterranean sea (navy), not the ones stationed inland outside of E
Lets hope that the PM has better knowledge of the boundaries of NATO affairs than you do, without offence.
The port of Latakia where the Russians are based in Syria is on the Mediterranean and the article quite clearly mentions aircraft so wrong. The Korean War was not covered either but we joined the US there but not in Vietnam, nothing to do with Article 6. If Russians deliberately shot down a British jet, a US jet or a French jet then US cruise missiles would hit Latakia end of conversation, which is why Putin is not even going to consider it
Navy and airforces in and above the mediterrenean sea, not above land. Britain is not covered by NATO in the middle east. Every inch of Syria's territory and airspace is not covered by Article 6 of NATO, including ports.
Yes and British jets are more likely to come into contact with the Russians over the Mediterranean given they will be operating in different areas of Syria. I repeat, if Russian jets downed a British, French or US jet US cruise missiles would inevitably hit Latakia but Putin is not stupid and would never allow that to happen
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.
I have problems with your irony at times.
If there is any, it's likely unintentional - I'm just indecisive.
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 think it is hubristic for any party (even the Lib Dems) to assume the only way is up. It is always possible to go down until you no longer exist.
As a Tory I think if Corbyn is unelectable then if he can be strung along with acceptable enough poll ratings so he isn't overthrown rather than truly disastrous ones then that could be good for us.
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.
The only one forced out in recent years was Blair and that was to fulfill the ambition of Brown and his henchmen. I just cannot see the Labour MPs acquiring the courage to act over Corbyn and McDonnell.
The membership will eat the MP's alive if they somehow manage to overthrow Corbyn, thanks to the boundary changes and the reduction of the number of MP's:
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.
The only one forced out in recent years was Blair and that was to fulfill the ambition of Brown and his henchmen. I just cannot see the Labour MPs acquiring the courage to act over Corbyn and McDonnell.
The membership will eat the MP's alive if they somehow manage to overthrow Corbyn, thanks to the boundary changes and the reduction of the number of MP's:
What has the world come to that during a new Opposition Leaders honeymoon being only 4% behind is considered good news?
You have to take into account who the new Labour leader is. To my mind 4% is extraordinary given that circumstance.
Why? He has not shifted one net Tory voter to Labour, he has simply picked up some Greens and LDs, hardly earthshattering
I stick by my post. I believe it is extraordinary that Corbyn only lags by 4% given who he is, what he says, who supports him. It is an observation with the inference that I would have expected him to lag by much more. "Extraordinary" works both ways.
"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.
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
It covers forces in the mediterranean sea (navy), not the ones stationed inland outside of E
Lets hope that the PM has better knowledge of the boundaries of NATO affairs than you do, without offence.
The port of Latakia where the Russians are based in Syria is on the Mediterranean and the article quite clearly mentions aircraft so wrong. The Korean War was not covered either but we joined the US there but not in Vietnam, nothing to do with Article 6. If Russians deliberately shot down a British jet, a US jet or a French jet then US cruise missiles would hit Latakia end of conversation, which is why Putin is not even going to consider it
Navy and airforces in and above the mediterrenean sea, not above land. Britain is not covered by NATO in the middle east. Every inch of Syria's territory and airspace is not covered by Article 6 of NATO, including ports.
Yes and British jets are more likely to come into contact with the Russians over the Mediterranean given they will be operating in different areas of Syria. I repeat, if Russian jets downed a British, French or US jet US cruise missiles would inevitably hit Latakia but Putin is not stupid and would never allow that to happen
The middle of the mediterranian sea is not Syria, Cameron can bomb the sea as much as he likes.
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.
The only one forced out in recent years was Blair and that was to fulfill the ambition of Brown and his henchmen. I just cannot see the Labour MPs acquiring the courage to act over Corbyn and McDonnell.
The membership will eat the MP's alive if they somehow manage to overthrow Corbyn, thanks to the boundary changes and the reduction of the number of MP's:
Depends, IDS won 60% of the Tory membership, Corbyn 59%, IDS was still toppled after the Tories came third in a by election in Brent East. If Labour came third in a by election behind UKIP, especially in a former Labour seat, and were still trailing in the polls MPs may have no choice but to pick Hilary Benn to be their Michael Howard
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 think it is hubristic for any party (even the Lib Dems) to assume the only way is up. It is always possible to go down until you no longer exist.
As a Tory I think if Corbyn is unelectable then if he can be strung along with acceptable enough poll ratings so he isn't overthrown rather than truly disastrous ones then that could be good for us.
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.
The only one forced out in recent years was Blair and that was to fulfill the ambition of Brown and his henchmen. I just cannot see the Labour MPs acquiring the courage to act over Corbyn and McDonnell.
The membership will eat the MP's alive if they somehow manage to overthrow Corbyn, thanks to the boundary changes and the reduction of the number of MP's:
Depends, IDS won 60% of the Tory membership, Corbyn 59%, IDS was still toppled after the Tories came third in a by election in Brent East. If Labour came third in a by election behind UKIP, especially in a former Labour seat, and were still trailing in the polls MPs may have no choice but to pick Hilary Benn to be their Michael Howard
And Corbyn would still run and win again. That's the whole point, Labour MP's can challenge Corbyn for the leadership but can't deny him running since the 35 MP threshold does not apply to the Leader.
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.
The only one forced out in recent years was Blair and that was to fulfill the ambition of Brown and his henchmen. I just cannot see the Labour MPs acquiring the courage to act over Corbyn and McDonnell.
The membership will eat the MP's alive if they somehow manage to overthrow Corbyn, thanks to the boundary changes and the reduction of the number of MP's:
Depends, IDS won 60% of the Tory membership, Corbyn 59%, IDS was still toppled after the Tories came third in a by election in Brent East. If Labour came third in a by election behind UKIP, especially in a former Labour seat, and were still trailing in the polls MPs may have no choice but to pick Hilary Benn to be their Michael Howard
And Corbyn would still run and win again.
Nope, as Labour sources have said quite clearly he would need to get 35 MPs to nominate him to run again
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.
So the average family size is ten in the UK? None of these numbers work together. Agreed. It's all claptrap. Here's the link from Sunday's thread with the £3k figure thrown in
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.
I have problems with your irony at times.
If there is any, it's likely unintentional - I'm just indecisive.
unintentional as in subconscious I expect, or reflexive.
"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.
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
It covers forces in the mediterranean sea (navy), not the ones stationed inland outside of E
Lets hope that the PM has better knowledge of the boundaries of NATO affairs than you do, without offence.
The port of Latakia where the Russians are based in Syria is on the Mediterranean and the article quite clearly mentions aircraft so wr
Navy and airforces in and above the mediterrenean sea, not above land. Britain is not covered by NATO in the middle east. Every inch of Syria's territory and airspace is not covered by Article 6 of NATO, including ports.
Yes and British jets are more likely to come into contact with the Russians over the Mediterranean given they will be operating in different areas of Syria. I repeat, if Russian jets downed a British, French or US jet US cruise missiles would inevitably hit Latakia but Putin is not stupid and would never allow that to happen
The middle of the mediterranian sea is not Syria, Cameron can bomb the sea as much as he likes.
It is the area Russian jets are most likely to come into contact with UK jets, rather rendering your already ridiculous hypothetical redundant
What has the world come to that during a new Opposition Leaders honeymoon being only 4% behind is considered good news?
You have to take into account who the new Labour leader is. To my mind 4% is extraordinary given that circumstance.
Why? He has not shifted one net Tory voter to Labour, he has simply picked up some Greens and LDs, hardly earthshattering
I stick by my post. I believe it is extraordinary that Corbyn only lags by 4% given who he is, what he says, who supports him. It is an observation with the inference that I would have expected him to lag by much more. "Extraordinary" works both ways.
Just as well as you believe polls. ICM got it wrong at the GE. They are supposed to have changed their methodology. In what way was it changed and what effect does this new polling have v the old method??????????????????????????. We should be told. I have seen nothing to convince me any poll is on the money about anything since GE 2015. Have you?
What has the world come to that during a new Opposition Leaders honeymoon being only 4% behind is considered good news?
You have to take into account who the new Labour leader is. To my mind 4% is extraordinary given that circumstance.
Why? He has not shifted one net Tory voter to Labour, he has simply picked up some Greens and LDs, hardly earthshattering
I stick by my post. I believe it is extraordinary that Corbyn only lags by 4% given who he is, what he says, who supports him. It is an observation with the inference that I would have expected him to lag by much more. "Extraordinary" works both ways.
@JosiasJessop Yes - your analysis of Erdogan I completely agree with. And his strategy of playing East and West off against each other. A dangerous game, but sometimes I wish our 'allies' wouldn't take our unquestioning devotion for granted so much.
However, on the false flag, I'm very right, and it's a good example of our British 'free press' to show you. This link has a full transcript.
Ahmet Davutoğlu: "Prime Minister said that in current conjuncture, this attack (on Suleiman Shah Tomb) must be seen as an opportunity for us."
Hakan Fidan: "I'll send 4 men from Syria, if that's what it takes. I'll make up a cause of war by ordering a missile attack on Turkey; we can also prepare an attack on Suleiman Shah Tomb if necessary."
-all carried the story but TOTALLY avoided the entire motivation for the ban.
And the Telegraph didn't even carry it at all. So you have the hideous irony of our press reporting on (and disaproving of) Turkish censorship, yet assisting it!
This is why I warn that people MUST widen their reading to get the facts these days.
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.
The only one forced out in recent years was Blair and that was to fulfill the ambition of Brown and his henchmen. I just cannot see the Labour MPs acquiring the courage to act over Corbyn and McDonnell.
The membership will eat the MP's alive if they somehow manage to overthrow Corbyn, thanks to the boundary changes and the reduction of the number of MP's:
Depends, IDS won 60% of the Tory membership, Corbyn 59%, IDS was still toppled after the Tories came third in a by election in Brent East. If Labour came third in a by election behind UKIP, especially in a former Labour seat, and were still trailing in the polls MPs may have no choice but to pick Hilary Benn to be their Michael Howard
And Corbyn would still run and win again. That's the whole point, Labour MP's can challenge Corbyn for the leadership but can't deny him running since the 35 MP threshold does not apply to the Leader.
You are wrong there as Labour officials have said that it does and they, not Corbyn, interpret the rules
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.
You really are an optimist. Justification for political claims? Whatever next.
Poor deluded fool that I am. Seriously though, these assorted amounts of money that get thrown around really need to be challenged.
I can, to some extent, understand their reluctance. Why go to all that bother when no one is going to believe what you say anyway.
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.
The only one forced out in recent years was Blair and that was to fulfill the ambition of Brown and his henchmen. I just cannot see the Labour MPs acquiring the courage to act over Corbyn and McDonnell.
The membership will eat the MP's alive if they somehow manage to overthrow Corbyn, thanks to the boundary changes and the reduction of the number of MP's:
Depends, IDS won 60% of the Tory membership, Corbyn 59%, IDS was still toppled after the Tories came third in a by election in Brent East. If Labour came third in a by election behind UKIP, especially in a former Labour seat, and were still trailing in the polls MPs may have no choice but to pick Hilary Benn to be their Michael Howard
What has the world come to that during a new Opposition Leaders honeymoon being only 4% behind is considered good news?
You have to take into account who the new Labour leader is. To my mind 4% is extraordinary given that circumstance.
Why? He has not shifted one net Tory voter to Labour, he has simply picked up some Greens and LDs, hardly earthshattering
I stick by my post. I believe it is extraordinary that Corbyn only lags by 4% given who he is, what he says, who supports him. It is an observation with the inference that I would have expected him to lag by much more. "Extraordinary" works both ways.
Just as well as you believe polls. ICM got it wrong at the GE. They are supposed to have changed their methodology. In what way was it changed and what effect does this new polling have v the old method??????????????????????????. We should be told. I have seen nothing to convince me any poll is on the money about anything since GE 2015. Have you?
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.
The only one forced out in recent years was Blair and that was to fulfill the ambition of Brown and his henchmen. I just cannot see the Labour MPs acquiring the courage to act over Corbyn and McDonnell.
The membership will eat the MP's alive if they somehow manage to overthrow Corbyn, thanks to the boundary changes and the reduction of the number of MP's:
Depends, IDS won 60% of the Tory membership, Corbyn 59%, IDS was still toppled after the Tories came third in a by election in Brent East. If Labour came third in a by election behind UKIP, especially in a former Labour seat, and were still trailing in the polls MPs may have no choice but to pick Hilary Benn to be their Michael Howard
59% in a choice of 5 candidates is a landslide
Almost all the Corbyn supporters voted for him on first preference
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.
The only one forced out in recent years was Blair and that was to fulfill the ambition of Brown and his henchmen. I just cannot see the Labour MPs acquiring the courage to act over Corbyn and McDonnell.
The membership will eat the MP's alive if they somehow manage to overthrow Corbyn, thanks to the boundary changes and the reduction of the number of MP's:
Depends, IDS won 60% of the Tory membership, Corbyn 59%, IDS was still toppled after the Tories came third in a by election in Brent East. If Labour came third in a by election behind UKIP, especially in a former Labour seat, and were still trailing in the polls MPs may have no choice but to pick Hilary Benn to be their Michael Howard
And Corbyn would still run and win again. That's the whole point, Labour MP's can challenge Corbyn for the leadership but can't deny him running since the 35 MP threshold does not apply to the Leader.
You are wrong there as Labour officials have said that it does and they, not Corbyn, interpret the rules
And again you are wrong since the rules, specifically Chapter 4, Clause II, rule 2 B ii says:
“Where there is no vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of party conference. In this case nominations must be supported by 20% of the Commons members of the PLP”.
There can be an annual challenge against Corbyn, potential challengers need to be nominated to challenge Corbyn. Corbyn is not the one who needs the 20% of the PLP since he won't challenge himself.
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.
The only one forced out in recent years was Blair and that was to fulfill the ambition of Brown and his henchmen. I just cannot see the Labour MPs acquiring the courage to act over Corbyn and McDonnell.
The membership will eat the MP's alive if they somehow manage to overthrow Corbyn, thanks to the boundary changes and the reduction of the number of MP's:
Depends, IDS won 60% of the Tory membership, Corbyn 59%, IDS was still toppled after the Tories came third in a by election in Brent East. If Labour came third in a by election behind UKIP, especially in a former Labour seat, and were still trailing in the polls MPs may have no choice but to pick Hilary Benn to be their Michael Howard
And Corbyn would still run and win again. That's the whole point, Labour MP's can challenge Corbyn for the leadership but can't deny him running since the 35 MP threshold does not apply to the Leader.
You are wrong there as Labour officials have said that it does and they, not Corbyn, interpret the rules
But even if it did I don't see where the certainty that Corbyn would win comes from. Electorates change their mind the whole time, just ask the Lib Dems, or SLab, or many others. It was the same selectorate of MPs who put IDS on the members ballot, ahead of several other candidates, who ditched him two years later. The same members who elected Corbyn in 2015 might well not back him in 2017, depending on events and numerous factors.
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.
The only one forced out in recent years was Blair and that was to fulfill the ambition of Brown and his henchmen. I just cannot see the Labour MPs acquiring the courage to act over Corbyn and McDonnell.
The membership will eat the MP's alive if they somehow manage to overthrow Corbyn, thanks to the boundary changes and the reduction of the number of MP's:
Depends, IDS won 60% of the Tory membership, Corbyn 59%, IDS was still toppled after the Tories came third in a by election in Brent East. If Labour came third in a by election behind UKIP, especially in a former Labour seat, and were still trailing in the polls MPs may have no choice but to pick Hilary Benn to be their Michael Howard
And Corbyn would still run and win again. That's the whole point, Labour MP's can challenge Corbyn for the leadership but can't deny him running since the 35 MP threshold does not apply to the Leader.
You are wrong there as Labour officials have said that it does and they, not Corbyn, interpret the rules
And again you are wrong since the rules, specifically Chapter 4, Clause II, rule 2 B ii says:
“Where there is no vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of party conference. In this case nominations must be supported by 20% of the Commons members of the PLP”.
There can be an annual challenge against Corbyn, potential challengers need to be nominated to challenge Corbyn. Corbyn is not the one who needs the 20% of the PLP since he won't challenge himself.
No, as Labour officials have interpreted that requirement for nominations to include the leader in the event of a challenge, nothing in that Clause explicitly precludes that
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.
The only one forced out in recent years was Blair and that was to fulfill the ambition of Brown and his henchmen. I just cannot see the Labour MPs acquiring the courage to act over Corbyn and McDonnell.
To misquote - "If they think they're damned if they don't they may as well be damned if they do" and be quick about 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.
The £3000 was per family. Agree that it's all nonsense though. Would love to see some justification for all these figures thrown around.
You really are an optimist. Justification for political claims? Whatever next.
Poor deluded fool that I am. Seriously though, these assorted amounts of money that get thrown around really need to be challenged.
I can, to some extent, understand their reluctance. Why go to all that bother when no one is going to believe what you say anyway. If not the opposition challenging them, at least the journos should be. It's allowing both sides to get away with lazy thinking. No wonder the public become so apathetic over it all when this is the standard of debate.
"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.
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
It covers forces in the mediterranean sea (navy), not the ones stationed inland outside of E
Lets hope that the PM has better knowledge of the boundaries of NATO affairs than you do, without offence.
The port of Latakia where the Russians are based in Syria is on the Mediterranean and the article quite clearly mentions aircraft so wr
Navy and airforces in and above the mediterrenean sea, not above land. Britain is not covered by NATO in the middle east. Every inch of Syria's territory and airspace is not covered by Article 6 of NATO, including ports.
Yes and British jets are more likely to come into contact with the Russians over the Mediterranean given they will be operating in different areas of Syria. I repeat, if Russian jets downed a British, French or US jet US cruise missiles would inevitably hit Latakia but Putin is not stupid and would never allow that to happen
The middle of the mediterranian sea is not Syria, Cameron can bomb the sea as much as he likes.
It is the area Russian jets are most likely to come into contact with UK jets, rather rendering your already ridiculous hypothetical redundant
Easily dealt with, the metal out of Cyprus just flies over Israeli airspace like it occasionally does already.
The Tories are also up on the general election though on 38%. Mori also had Labour on 34% in its first post Corbyn poll. Comres has reweighted since the election and has Labour unchanged on 30%. 34% is the score Kinnock got in 1992 when Major got a bigger majority than Cameron
On a GB basis - which is what the polls give us! - Kinnock polled 35.2% in 1992.
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.
The membership will eat the MP's alive if they somehow manage to overthrow Corbyn, thanks to the boundary changes and the reduction of the number of MP's:
Depends, IDS won 60% of the Tory membership, Corbyn 59%, IDS was still toppled after the Tories came third in a by election in Brent East. If Labour came third in a by election behind UKIP, especially in a former Labour seat, and were still trailing in the polls MPs may have no choice but to pick Hilary Benn to be their Michael Howard
And Corbyn would still run and win again. That's the whole point, Labour MP's can challenge Corbyn for the leadership but can't deny him running since the 35 MP threshold does not apply to the Leader.
You are wrong there as Labour officials have said that it does and they, not Corbyn, interpret the rules
And again you are wrong since the rules, specifically Chapter 4, Clause II, rule 2 B ii says:
“Where there is no vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of party conference. In this case nominations must be supported by 20% of the Commons members of the PLP”.
There can be an annual challenge against Corbyn, potential challengers need to be nominated to challenge Corbyn. Corbyn is not the one who needs the 20% of the PLP since he won't challenge himself.
Yes, so Labour officials have interpreted that requirement for nominations to include the leader, nothing in that Clause explicitly eprecludes that
Nope the rules ( specifically Chapter 4, Clause II, rule 2 B ii.) are clear there can only be nominations to challenge Corbyn, his opponents will have to be nominated to challenge him not Corbyn.
Here it is again, it's in english: “Where there is no vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of party conference. In this case nominations must be supported by 20% of the Commons members of the PLP”
Corbyn does not need to be nominated, his challengers need to, unnamed Labour officials or not the rules are in english and clear. Can you specifically tell me why the rules are wrong as specifically I have wrote them here?
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.
The only one forced out in recent years was Blair and that was to fulfill the ambition of Brown and his henchmen. I just cannot see the Labour MPs acquiring the courage to act over Corbyn and McDonnell.
The membership will eat the MP's alive if they somehow manage to overthrow Corbyn, thanks to the boundary changes and the reduction of the number of MP's:
Depends, IDS won 60% of the Tory membership, Corbyn 59%, IDS was still toppled after the Tories came third in a by election in Brent East. If Labour came third in a by election behind UKIP, especially in a former Labour seat, and were still trailing in the polls MPs may have no choice but to pick Hilary Benn to be their Michael Howard
And Corbyn would still run and win again. That's the whole point, Labour MP's can challenge Corbyn for the leadership but can't deny him running since the 35 MP threshold does not apply to the Leader.
You are wrong there as Labour officials have said that it does and they, not Corbyn, interpret the rules
But even if it did I don't see where the certainty that Corbyn would win comes from. Electorates change their mind the whole time, just ask the Lib Dems, or SLab, or many others. It was the same selectorate of MPs who put IDS on the members ballot, ahead of several other candidates, who ditched him two years later. The same members who elected Corbyn in 2015 might well not back him in 2017, depending on events and numerous factors.
Indeed, but clearly a challenge would require something like Labour coming third behind UKIP in a by-election to get the momentum to succeed
The Tories are also up on the general election though on 38%. Mori also had Labour on 34% in its first post Corbyn poll. Comres has reweighted since the election and has Labour unchanged on 30%. 34% is the score Kinnock got in 1992 when Major got a bigger majority than Cameron
On a GB basis - which is what the polls give us! - Kinnock polled 35.2% in 1992.
"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.
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
It covers forces in the mediterranean sea (navy), not the ones stationed inland outside of E
Lets hope that the PM has better knowledge of the boundaries of NATO affairs than you do, without offence.
The port of Latakia where the Russians are based in Syria is on the Mediterranean and the article quite clearly mentions aircraft so wr
Navy and airforces in and above the mediterrenean sea, not above land. Britain is not covered by NATO in the middle east. Every inch of Syria's territory and airspace is not covered by Article 6 of NATO, including ports.
Yes and British jets are more likely to come into contact with the Russians over the Mediterranean given they will be operating in different areas of Syria. I repeat, if Russian jets downed a British, French or US jet US cruise missiles would inevitably hit Latakia but Putin is not stupid and would never allow that to happen
The middle of the mediterranian sea is not Syria, Cameron can bomb the sea as much as he likes.
It is the area Russian jets are most likely to come into contact with UK jets, rather rendering your already ridiculous hypothetical redundant
Easily dealt with, the metal out of Cyprus just flies over Israeli airspace like it occasionally does already.
The Tories are also up on the general election though on 38%. Mori also had Labour on 34% in its first post Corbyn poll. Comres has reweighted since the election and has Labour unchanged on 30%. 34% is the score Kinnock got in 1992 when Major got a bigger majority than Cameron
On a GB basis - which is what the polls give us! - Kinnock polled 35.2% in 1992.
So Corbyn is still doing worse than Kinnock then
Did someone say "we're alright"? Pretty sure I saw it upthread.
But ICM implies a bigger Con To Lab swing in England with the Tory lead now 6% compared with 9.5% in May. Combined with the pro-Labour swing in Wales that would suggest Lab +15 to 247 and Con - 15 to 315 - ie firmly back into Hung Parliament territory.
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.
The membership will eat the MP's alive if they somehow manage to overthrow Corbyn, thanks to the boundary changes and the reduction of the number of MP's:
Depends, IDS won 60% of the Tory membership, Corbyn 59%, IDS was still toppled after the Tories came third in a by election in Brent East. If Labour came third in a by election behind UKIP, especially in a former Labour seat, and were still trailing in the polls MPs may have no choice but to pick Hilary Benn to be their Michael Howard
And Corbyn would still run and win again. That's the whole point, Labour MP's can challenge Corbyn for the leadership but can't deny him running since the 35 MP threshold does not apply to the Leader.
You are wrong there as Labour officials have said that it does and they, not Corbyn, interpret the rules
There can be an annual challenge against Corbyn, potential challengers need to be nominated to challenge Corbyn. Corbyn is not the one who needs the 20% of the PLP since he won't challenge himself.
Yes, so Labour officials have interpreted that requirement for nominations to include the leader, nothing in that Clause explicitly eprecludes that
Nope the rules ( specifically Chapter 4, Clause II, rule 2 B ii.) are clear there can only be nominations to challenge Corbyn, his opponents will have to be nominated to challenge him not Corbyn.
Here it is again, it's in english: “Where there is no vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of party conference. In this case nominations must be supported by 20% of the Commons members of the PLP”
Corbyn does not need to be nominated, his challengers need to, unnamed Labour officials or not the rules are in english and clear.
The first sentence says challengers need nominations, true. The second sentence says nominations are then required, it does not explicitly restrict that requirement to challengers so could also be interpreted to include the incumbent too in the event of a challenge and Labour officials (and I expect Peter Mandelson) have clearly done so
What has the world come to that during a new Opposition Leaders honeymoon being only 4% behind is considered good news?
You have to take into account who the new Labour leader is. To my mind 4% is extraordinary given that circumstance.
Why? He has not shifted one net Tory voter to Labour, he has simply picked up some Greens and LDs, hardly earthshattering
I stick by my post. I believe it is extraordinary that Corbyn only lags by 4% given who he is, what he says, who supports him. It is an observation with the inference that I would have expected him to lag by much more. "Extraordinary" works both ways.
Just as well as you believe polls. ICM got it wrong at the GE. They are supposed to have changed their methodology. In what way was it changed and what effect does this new polling have v the old method??????????????????????????. We should be told. I have seen nothing to convince me any poll is on the money about anything since GE 2015. Have you?
Whoa. Why are you getting so uptight and shouty? So I didn't question the poll. It's not so far out of kilter with peer polls and you won't know whether it's right or wrong because it won't be tested so get back in your box.
But ICM implies a bigger Con To Lab swing in England with the Tory lead now 6% compared with 9.5% in May. Combined with the pro-Labour swing in Wales that would suggest Lab +15 to 247 and Con - 15 to 315 - ie firmly back into Hung Parliament territory.
Add in the net 20 gains for the Tories from the boundary changes and firmly out of it again
The Tories are also up on the general election though on 38%. Mori also had Labour on 34% in its first post Corbyn poll. Comres has reweighted since the election and has Labour unchanged on 30%. 34% is the score Kinnock got in 1992 when Major got a bigger majority than Cameron
On a GB basis - which is what the polls give us! - Kinnock polled 35.2% in 1992.
So Corbyn is still doing worse than Kinnock then
Did someone say "we're alright"? Pretty sure I saw it upthread.
Well given his family's income from politics I am sure the Kinnocks are 'alright'
"I've received a question from an Ed in Doncaster. He wonders if the Prime Minister can tell him what he ever did to deserve being replaced by the current Leader of the....oh, hang on, that shouldn't be in there.... "
I expect Cameron to have a go at Corbyn to condemn spitting - probably referencing McDonnell supporting it as a form of protest... Be a fun wedge to start driving between the two of them.
What has the world come to that during a new Opposition Leaders honeymoon being only 4% behind is considered good news?
You have to take into account who the new Labour leader is. To my mind 4% is extraordinary given that circumstance.
Why? He has not shifted one net Tory voter to Labour, he has simply picked up some Greens and LDs, hardly earthshattering
I stick by my post. I believe it is extraordinary that Corbyn only lags by 4% given who he is, what he says, who supports him. It is an observation with the inference that I would have expected him to lag by much more. "Extraordinary" works both ways.
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.
The membership will eat the MP's alive if they somehow manage to overthrow Corbyn, thanks to the boundary changes and the reduction of the number of MP's:
You are wrong there as Labour officials have said that it does and they, not Corbyn, interpret the rules
There can be an annual challenge against Corbyn, potential challengers need to be nominated to challenge Corbyn. Corbyn is not the one who needs the 20% of the PLP since he won't challenge himself.
Yes, so Labour officials have interpreted that requirement for nominations to include the leader, nothing in that Clause explicitly eprecludes that
Nope the rules ( specifically Chapter 4, Clause II, rule 2 B ii.) are clear there can only be nominations to challenge Corbyn, his opponents will have to be nominated to challenge him not Corbyn.
Here it is again, it's in english: “Where there is no vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of party conference. In this case nominations must be supported by 20% of the Commons members of the PLP”
Corbyn does not need to be nominated, his challengers need to, unnamed Labour officials or not the rules are in english and clear.
The first sentence says challengers need nominations, true. The second sentence says nominations are then required, it does not explicitly restrict that requirement to challengers so could also be interpreted to include the incumbent too in the event of a challenge and Labour officials have clearly done so
Nominations are required to challenge the leader, if there is a challenge Corbyn does not require to be nominated to challenge himself since he is already leader.
The Tories are also up on the general election though on 38%. Mori also had Labour on 34% in its first post Corbyn poll. Comres has reweighted since the election and has Labour unchanged on 30%. 34% is the score Kinnock got in 1992 when Major got a bigger majority than Cameron
On a GB basis - which is what the polls give us! - Kinnock polled 35.2% in 1992.
So Corbyn is still doing worse than Kinnock then
Did someone say "we're alright"? Pretty sure I saw it upthread.
Well given his family's income from politics I am sure the Kinnocks are 'alright'
"I've received a question from an Ed in Doncaster. He wonders if the Prime Minister can tell him what he ever did to deserve being replaced by the current Leader of the....oh, hang on, that shouldn't be in there.... "
I expect Cameron to have a go at Corbyn to condemn spitting - probably referencing McDonnell supporting it as a form of protest... Be a fun wedge to start driving between the two of them.
Corbin must surely press him on the Saudi prison row
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.
You really are an optimist. Justification for political claims? Whatever next.
Poor deluded fool that I am. Seriously though, these assorted amounts of money that get thrown around really need to be challenged.
I can, to some extent, understand their reluctance. Why go to all that bother when no one is going to believe what you say anyway.
If not the opposition challenging them, at least the journos should be. It's allowing both sides to get away with lazy thinking. No wonder the public become so apathetic over it all when this is the standard of debate.
I'm not disagreeing but politicians aren't talking to us and on the whole Joe Public doesn't give a monkey's for detail.
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.
The membership will eat the MP's alive if they somehow manage to overthrow Corbyn, thanks to the boundary changes and the reduction of the number of MP's:
You are wrong there as Labour officials have said that it does and they, not Corbyn, interpret the rules
There can be an annual challenge against Corbyn, potential challengers need to be nominated to challenge Corbyn. Corbyn is not the one who needs the 20% of the PLP since he won't challenge himself.
Yes, so Labour officials have interpreted that requirement for nominations to include the leader, nothing in that Clause explicitly eprecludes that
Nope the rules ( specifically Chapter 4, Clause II, rule 2 B ii.) are clear there can only be nominations to challenge Corbyn, his opponents will have to be nominated to challenge him not Corbyn.
Here it is again, it's in english: “Where there is no vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of party conference. In this case nominations must be supported by 20% of the Commons members of the PLP”
Corbyn does not need to be nominated, his challengers need to, unnamed Labour officials or not the rules are in english and clear.
The first sentence says challenger
Nominations are required to challenge the leader, if there is a challenge Corbyn does not require to be nominated to challenge himself since he is already leader.
The only thing we know about those unnamed Labour officials is that they don't know english.
There is nothing that precludes a challenged incumbent from also being required to get 20% of MPs to nominate him in that Clause and Peter Mandelson certainly will do so!
What has the world come to that during a new Opposition Leaders honeymoon being only 4% behind is considered good news?
You have to take into account who the new Labour leader is. To my mind 4% is extraordinary given that circumstance.
Why? He has not shifted one net Tory voter to Labour, he has simply picked up some Greens and LDs, hardly earthshattering
I stick by my post. I believe it is extraordinary that Corbyn only lags by 4% given who he is, what he says, who supports him. It is an observation with the inference that I would have expected him to lag by much more. "Extraordinary" works both ways.
What has the world come to that during a new Opposition Leaders honeymoon being only 4% behind is considered good news?
You have to take into account who the new Labour leader is. To my mind 4% is extraordinary given that circumstance.
Why? He has not shifted one net Tory voter to Labour, he has simply picked up some Greens and LDs, hardly earthshattering
I stick by my post. I believe it is extraordinary that Corbyn only lags by 4% given who he is, what he says, who supports him. It is an observation with the inference that I would have expected him to lag by much more. "Extraordinary" works both ways.
What has the world come to that during a new Opposition Leaders honeymoon being only 4% behind is considered good news?
You have to take into account who the new Labour leader is. To my mind 4% is extraordinary given that circumstance.
Why? He has not shifted one net Tory voter to Labour, he has simply picked up some Greens and LDs, hardly earthshattering
I stick by my post. I believe it is extraordinary that Corbyn only lags by 4% given who he is, what he says, who supports him. It is an observation with the inference that I would have expected him to lag by much more. "Extraordinary" works both ways.
Just as well as you believe polls. ICM got it wrong at the GE. They are supposed to have changed their methodology. In what way was it changed and what effect does this new polling have v the old method??????????????????????????. We should be told. I have seen nothing to convince me any poll is on the money about anything since GE 2015. Have you?
The changes for ICM from before the GE and after the GE are:
1. 75% of 2015 Conservative and Labour voters who refuse to answer the vote intention question or say they don’t know, are added back to the party they voted for in 2015. (50% previously)
2. Our new adjustment thus reallocates some Total Refusers back into the poll sample. This is achieved in the following way: 1. The number of Total Refusers on any poll is multiplied by the proportion of Partial Refusers who were (already) re-allocated in Adjustment Process 1. (For example, if 60% of Partial Refusers were added back, then 60% of Total Refusals will be added back). 2. Total Refusers are then multiplied by each party’s share of reallocated Partial Refusers. (For example, if 40% of already allocated Partial Refusals were 2015 Conservative voters, then 40% of remaining Total Refusals will be reallocated to the Conservatives). 3. ICM’s default position is that Total Refusers at least look like Partial Refusers in terms of political make-up. However, given the findings of our Recall Poll, we believe that Total Refusals are probably even more pro-Conservative than pro-Labour. In order to allow for this, the share of Total Refusals added back to the Conservatives is increased by 20% (for example, from the 40% mentioned in (2, above) to 60%), with a corresponding reduction of 20% in the share of Total Refuser reallocation to Labour. Our expectation is that the combined effects of Adjustments 1 +2 as described above will have the net effect of adding c.1-2 percentage points vote share to the Conservatives, and reduce the Labour vote share by c.0-1 percentage points compared to the pre-2015 ICM adjustment process.
As I said yesterday, I'm tempted to vote Out just to give a slap to these smug millionaires who think they have the right to lecture us all on what's good for us. I'm also not sure that essentially saying Britain's a weak tiny island who couldn't cope on their own is going to go down well with the average swing voter either (who, while perhaps scared of "a leap into the unknown", also don't take well to the country being talked down).
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.
The membership will eat the MP's alive if they somehow manage to overthrow Corbyn, thanks to the boundary changes and the reduction of the number of MP's:
You are wrong there as Labour officials have said that it does and they, not Corbyn, interpret the rules
T challenge himself.
at
Nope the rules ( specifically Chapter 4, Clause II, rule 2 B ii.) are clear there can only be nominations to challenge Corbyn, his opponents will have to be nominated to challenge him not Corbyn.
Here it is again, it's in english: “Where there is no vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of party conference. In this case nominations must be supported by 20% of the Commons members of the PLP”
Corbyn does not need to be nominated, his challengers need to, unnamed Labour officials or not the rules are in english and clear.
The first sentence says challenger
Nominations are required to challenge the leader, if there is a challenge Corbyn does not require to be nominated to challenge himself since he is already leader.
The only thing we know about those unnamed Labour officials is that they don't know english.
There is nothing that precludes a challenged incumbent from also being required to get 20% of MPs to nominate him in that Clause and Peter Mandelson certainly will do so!
It's a nomination to challenge the man who is already Leader, the Leader is not required to challenge himself for the leadership. The rules specifically say that the challengers need to be nominated, Corbyn is not a challenger thus he doesn't need to be nominated to challenge himself because he is already leader. It's a leadership challenge not a leadership election.
Comments
Wait till the three musketeers pitch in. If the Tory leadership is to stand off (and what choice do they have?) then that may mean LEAVE.
Vietnam is also not covered by article 6 so the americans had to fight without NATO there.
Once upon a time the USA had numerous alliances to cover different areas, NATO covers just Europe and the North Atlantic. CENTO was for the middle east, SEATO was for the far east but they no longer exist, the ANZUS still exists though.
Lets hope that the PM has better knowledge of the boundaries of NATO affairs than you do, without offence.
(As it happens, my dad once used North Sea divers on a demolition job, inside a building in the Midlands. It was a weird but practical solution to a very particular problem)
Oh dear....
Agree that it's all nonsense though.
Would love to see some justification for all these figures thrown around.
You really are an optimist. Justification for political claims? Whatever next.
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.
I think the "debate" you refer to should tell you all you need to know
They released a poll around April 13 that had the Tories on 39 and Labour on 33 (OK it had UKIP on 7 which was obv v wrong)
The following week s ICM was 34/32 C/L
I noted all the ups and downs from polls from the time of that 2nd poll.. by the day before the GE the Conservatives were back at the level of April 13 on the whole, and Labour had fallen away markedly
The writing was on the wall for all who wanted to see it, guided by the polls... The Con Majority was foreseeable.. I curse myself that I was to blinkered to see it myself, although I did say to back Cons in every marginal and Con Minority
As Alexei Sayle so delicately put it, "anyone who uses the word "workshop" who isn't involved in light engineering is a c**t...."
Poor deluded fool that I am.
Seriously though, these assorted amounts of money that get thrown around really need to be challenged.
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.
They can't seem to work out where they are with this 'Quitters' line. First it was in Rose's speech. Then they realised it wasn't a smart idea and took it out. Then Richard Reed didn't get the memo and uses it again.
Haha well said! A sure sign of a complete nause
Do you think the pro-side might actually be stymied by.... weakness of arguments and those making them? For years us eurosceptics have pointed out the tired old chestnuts that get wheeled out in defence of the EU.
-You're racist
-You're bigoted
-We'd lose all our jobs
-You want to go back to the past, we want to go towards the future
-You're xenophobic
-You read the Sun or the Daily Mail
-Did we mention jobs?
-Europe is much better than us and if we stay we'll become more like them
Could it really be that the heat of the debate melts the wax of eurofanatic drivel? Could this debate be won on the arguments? Could we have a re-run of Farage/Clegg on a national scale?
*wakes up and snaps out of it*
Agree that it's all nonsense though.
Would love to see some justification for all these figures thrown around.
So the average family size is ten in the UK? None of these numbers work together.
Britain is not covered by NATO in the middle east.
Every inch of Syria's territory and airspace is not covered by Article 6 of NATO, including ports.
Part of the problem is that Erdogan is both strong and weak: it is wrong to assume that whilst he appears strong, he does not have significant weaknesses. One of those is that his control over all branches of the government appears to be not as strong as you might suspect. He's tried to fix that wrt the military with the hilarious episodes ten years ago which have come back to bite him now he's fallen out with Gulen.
Gulen is an interesting character, and I'm undecided whether his fall-out with Erdogan is to the benefit or detriment of Turkey. As much as I've read about Gulen, I've never managed to really understand him. He's either a potential saviour of Islam or just yet another theocrat in sheep's clothing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_2011
And MP's cried shame.. This will not be forgotten. The shit that Watson is will be hounded every time he tries to speak in the HOC.. and treated like a dog turd on the carpet within the HOC. or should be. Shits like him with no honour shouldn't be MP's.
As a Tory I think if Corbyn is unelectable then if he can be strung along with acceptable enough poll ratings so he isn't overthrown rather than truly disastrous ones then that could be good for us.
http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/09/how-labours-left-can-push-out-centrist-mps-without-mandatory-reselection/
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-2001-2005
That's the whole point, Labour MP's can challenge Corbyn for the leadership but can't deny him running since the 35 MP threshold does not apply to the Leader.
Agreed. It's all claptrap.
Here's the link from Sunday's thread with the £3k figure thrown in
http://www.itv.com/news/2015-10-11/loose-woman-joins-three-former-prime-ministers-to-support-pro-europe-campaign/
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-2001-2005
Yes - your analysis of Erdogan I completely agree with. And his strategy of playing East and West off against each other. A dangerous game, but sometimes I wish our 'allies' wouldn't take our unquestioning devotion for granted so much.
However, on the false flag, I'm very right, and it's a good example of our British 'free press' to show you. This link has a full transcript.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/turkey-youtube-ban-full-transcript-leaked-syria-war-conversation-between-erdogan-officials-1442161
Ahmet Davutoğlu:
"Prime Minister said that in current conjuncture, this attack (on Suleiman Shah Tomb) must be seen as an opportunity for us."
Hakan Fidan:
"I'll send 4 men from Syria, if that's what it takes. I'll make up a cause of war by ordering a missile attack on Turkey; we can also prepare an attack on Suleiman Shah Tomb if necessary."
This is why youtube and twitter were banned in Turkey. Yet the entire reason and significance of the ban was never mentioned in the free British press. So dedicated to the anti-Assad narrative were they that -
The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/27/google-youtube-ban-turkey-erdogan
Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/27/us-syria-crisis-turkey-idUSBREA2Q17420140327
Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2590855/Now-Turkey-blocks-YouTube-Days-Twitter-ban-video-site-barred-leaked-audio-recording-Turkish-officials-discussing-Syria-appeared-online.html
BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26773702
-all carried the story but TOTALLY avoided the entire motivation for the ban.
And the Telegraph didn't even carry it at all. So you have the hideous irony of our press reporting on (and disaproving of) Turkish censorship, yet assisting it!
This is why I warn that people MUST widen their reading to get the facts these days.
https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/653685591687741441
Seriously though, these assorted amounts of money that get thrown around really need to be challenged.
I can, to some extent, understand their reluctance. Why go to all that bother when no one is going to believe what you say anyway.
“Where there is no vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of party conference. In this case nominations must be supported by 20% of the Commons members of the PLP”.
There can be an annual challenge against Corbyn, potential challengers need to be nominated to challenge Corbyn.
Corbyn is not the one who needs the 20% of the PLP since he won't challenge himself.
If not the opposition challenging them, at least the journos should be.
It's allowing both sides to get away with lazy thinking.
No wonder the public become so apathetic over it all when this is the standard of debate.
Here it is again, it's in english: “Where there is no vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of party conference. In this case nominations must be supported by 20% of the Commons members of the PLP”
Corbyn does not need to be nominated, his challengers need to, unnamed Labour officials or not the rules are in english and clear.
Can you specifically tell me why the rules are wrong as specifically I have wrote them here?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11927369/I-have-a-confession-I-had-dinner-with-Iain-Duncan-Smith-and-I-cant-bring-myself-to-hate-him.html
"I've received a question from an Ed in Doncaster. He wonders if the Prime Minister can tell him what he ever did to deserve being replaced by the current Leader of the....oh, hang on, that shouldn't be in there.... "
I expect Cameron to have a go at Corbyn to condemn spitting - probably referencing McDonnell supporting it as a form of protest... Be a fun wedge to start driving between the two of them.
The unnamed Labour officials need to read their own rule book for God's sake, Chapter 4, Clause II, rule 2 B ii:
http://labourlist.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Rule-Book-2013.pdf
The only thing we know about those unnamed Labour officials is that they don't know english.
Wednesday though
It's allowing both sides to get away with lazy thinking.
No wonder the public become so apathetic over it all when this is the standard of debate.
I'm not disagreeing but politicians aren't talking to us and on the whole Joe Public doesn't give a monkey's for detail.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-1974-1979
Attlee was Labour's Thatcher, Corbyn is Labour's IDS
which is more popular: Corbyn or Volkswagen emission control software?
I would have thought VW, because by disabling the emission control you get better mileage and save money on fuel.
1. 75% of 2015 Conservative and Labour voters who refuse to answer the vote
intention question or say they don’t know, are added back to the party they
voted for in 2015. (50% previously)
2. Our new adjustment thus reallocates some Total Refusers back into the poll sample.
This is achieved in the following way:
1. The number of Total Refusers on any poll is multiplied by the proportion of
Partial Refusers who were (already) re-allocated in Adjustment Process 1.
(For example, if 60% of Partial Refusers were added back, then 60% of Total
Refusals will be added back).
2. Total Refusers are then multiplied by each party’s share of reallocated Partial
Refusers. (For example, if 40% of already allocated Partial Refusals were
2015 Conservative voters, then 40% of remaining Total Refusals will be
reallocated to the Conservatives).
3. ICM’s default position is that Total Refusers at least look like Partial Refusers
in terms of political make-up. However, given the findings of our Recall Poll,
we believe that Total Refusals are probably even more pro-Conservative than
pro-Labour. In order to allow for this, the share of Total Refusals added back
to the Conservatives is increased by 20% (for example, from the 40%
mentioned in (2, above) to 60%), with a corresponding reduction of 20% in
the share of Total Refuser reallocation to Labour.
Our expectation is that the combined effects of Adjustments 1 +2 as described above
will have the net effect of adding c.1-2 percentage points vote share to the
Conservatives, and reduce the Labour vote share by c.0-1 percentage points
compared to the pre-2015 ICM adjustment process.
Goodnight.
As I said yesterday, I'm tempted to vote Out just to give a slap to these smug millionaires who think they have the right to lecture us all on what's good for us. I'm also not sure that essentially saying Britain's a weak tiny island who couldn't cope on their own is going to go down well with the average swing voter either (who, while perhaps scared of "a leap into the unknown", also don't take well to the country being talked down).
The rules specifically say that the challengers need to be nominated, Corbyn is not a challenger thus he doesn't need to be nominated to challenge himself because he is already leader.
It's a leadership challenge not a leadership election.
It is almost like you are forgetting the polling disaster of May 2015