"Part of the problem is the four elections under Blair and Brown. Labour parties weren’t allowed to select the candidates they wanted, they had to choose from an approved list, which shifted the Parliamentary Labour Party massively to the right." He praised Ed Miliband for "abolishing the Blairite pre-vetting rule" and said "parties are now free to select the candidate they want".
So not only has Miliband handed control of the leadership appointment to the far left, he's handed control of the MP selections too.
I don't know what New Labour types can do here. The membership is now thoroughly left wing, and it's also massive, meaning it will be very hard for new members to moderate it. The internet and social media networks increase the bubble effect, where all setbacks get explained away, so these people are unlikely to be persuaded round after an election loss or two. And these people will control leadership and MP appointments for the next 10-15 years.
"Part of the problem is the four elections under Blair and Brown. Labour parties weren’t allowed to select the candidates they wanted, they had to choose from an approved list, which shifted the Parliamentary Labour Party massively to the right."
@MichaelLCrick: In Jan when Govt proposed similar Charter for Budget Responsibility Lab voted with Govt. 18 Lab MPs voted agst. Corbyn & McDonnell abstained
Just sums up the cosy money making schemes the government has in place with its chums.
This seems like a bit of a childish argument. What do you mean 'chums'? You do realise that contracts are not let out to friends, they go through a competitive process and recommendations given by a senior civil servant. In this case i understand that Serco have a contract. The cost of the stretch limo (crass by any sense) was coming from serco not the taxpayer directly. Extra cost or otherwise. It might have been cheaper to hire the stretch limo then it would be a taxi for seven people, which again might have been cheaper than a minibus and driver. A minibus and driver might not have been available, and the alternative was this or putting them up in a hotel for another night.
The company that provides the normal transport might be the same company that provides these kind of limos and that was the only one in the pool at that time.
LOL, I take you are on the gravy train , their chums get the deals , £3000 for a taxi rather than £50 on the bus. Yes all above board and sure nobody could have done it for less. PS , you obviously know well these companies that magically win these contracts are stuffed with ex politicians, chums and civil servants etc.
You find these kind of ridicukous things all over the place, usually the tax payer footing the excesses at some point. You blame corruption, which is usually not the case. Corruption is quite rare in the UK.
My sister told us of a case a few years ago, she had to drive from cumbria to a clinic in london to perform a late abortion for a patient who was at the time in the care of the local mental health trust. Three members of staff, one patient, and two overnight stays, because (for the second time) she couldnt be arsed to get the abortion earlier. I understand the baby was either over 24 weeks or very close to it and no other doctors outside this london clinic was prepared to carry out the procedure.
Could you imagine the cost?
The waste and cronyism together will be costing fortunes, both examples just show the disgrace of what happens to the money being taken off taxpayers,, waste , stupidity and fraud cost a fortune.
They can come up with a good argument, and a good alternative to Corbyn, but which isn't simply proposing to approve/abstain on Tory economic policies, or else meaningless platitudes, as we got from the "mainstream" candidates in the last leadership contest.
Contrary to popular belief, the Labour membership are not all a bunch of diehard Commies - most are persuadable if a good "mainstream" direction is presented to us.
@PolhomeEditor: Around 30 Labour MPs currently expected to rebel against the leadership in tonight's fiscal charter vote.
And see, this is where deselections are perfectly reasonable in my view. It's one thing to disagree with the leadership and argue for an alternative. It's quite another to actively allow the Tories to pass huge spending cuts which will clobber the people Labour are supposed to protect.
I'd have thought that the best thing for sane Labour MPs to do tonight would be to follow the lead of their Shadow Chancellor, and vote both for and against the motion.
@PolhomeEditor: Around 30 Labour MPs currently expected to rebel against the leadership in tonight's fiscal charter vote.
And see, this is where deselections are perfectly reasonable in my view. It's one thing to disagree with the leadership and argue for an alternative. It's quite another to actively allow the Tories to pass huge spending cuts.
I still don't see how it is any different to being a serial rebel in the last parliament - doesn't any rebellion help your opponents to some degree. Fundamentally I'm having a problem seeing why rebels should be deselected now if they weren't before, particularly if they argue they are voting in accordance with the platform they were elected under (truthfully or otherwise), and so even if they are annoyances to the leadership, they are not betraying the party or their constituents.
The nurse story with ebola is really alarming. Several west African countries have now been declared ebola free. If there is a real risk of a recurrence in a patient who has recovered that seems a complete nonsense. Given the number of infections there unless she has been incredibly unlucky this is going to be chronic and recurring for the foreseeable future.
I'd have thought that the best thing for sane Labour MPs to do tonight would be to follow their Shadow Chancellor, and vote both for and against the motion.
Isn’t that technically an abstention? – and yes, I know you're only taking the Mick…
Danny565..Does Labour really represent anyone these days ..apart from themselves..most Labour run and controlled areas I visit on regular basis look as tho they are still stuck in the 50s The best dressed man in Bolsover is Skinner..
@PolhomeEditor: Around 30 Labour MPs currently expected to rebel against the leadership in tonight's fiscal charter vote.
And see, this is where deselections are perfectly reasonable in my view. It's one thing to disagree with the leadership and argue for an alternative. It's quite another to actively allow the Tories to pass huge spending cuts which will clobber the people Labour are supposed to protect.
But the charter (stunt though it may be) doesn't call for spending cuts. It calls for the state to run a surplus during normal times. Given our current debt (and the fact that we went into a crash with a lot of debt), that doesn't look too stupid, and clearly has some measure of electoral support, given the result on 7 May.
Labour can vote for the charter and come up with an alternative means to fulfil it. I believe Richard Murphy has some groundbreaking ideas on uncollected tax.
@PolhomeEditor: Around 30 Labour MPs currently expected to rebel against the leadership in tonight's fiscal charter vote.
And see, this is where deselections are perfectly reasonable in my view. It's one thing to disagree with the leadership and argue for an alternative. It's quite another to actively allow the Tories to pass huge spending cuts which will clobber the people Labour are supposed to protect.
Didnt they all stand on a platform in May of also eradicating the deficit in this parliament?
Revenue £4 billion Cost of Sales Just over £4 Bn General overheads £600 M "Exceptional items" £650m Impairment on intangibles -£20m (Small beans really) Some minor adjustments on the pension as ever...
etc...
Loss for the year 1.35Bn; Change in equity -1.3Bn.
If I read this piece right, it's saying that even when the people of Europe agree with Britain's positions, they won't agree to adopt them because they dislike us, and it's too late to make them like us (and in any case domestically impossible to take the action to make them like us). That would depress me if as 18 months ago I still thought being In was the best option, but no, it's about right. Even when we agree, we treat each other like sh*t - that's not healthy moving forward.
But the charter (stunt though it may be) doesn't call for spending cuts. It calls for the state to run a surplus during normal times. Given our current debt (and the fact that we went into a crash with a lot of debt), that doesn't look too stupid, and clearly has some measure of electoral support, given the result on 7 May.
How is that going to work in practice, though?
Presumably it will be like the US debt ceiling - if there's a deficit, it will trigger huge automatic across-the-board cuts.
I'm not a fan of Jean-Claude Juncker but what else could he say to the European Parliament other than he thinks that Britain needs the EU and the EU needs Britain? If he is to keep the show on the road, he needs to make the case that both Britain and the European Parliament need to compromise at a time when neither is particularly inclined to do so.
Rebelling because you want a policy position further to the left is a world away from rebelling because you agree with the Tories.
How so? Even stopped clocks are right sometimes, that the parties steal policies from one another at times show they know the other side are right sometimes, and sometimes elements within one party will think the other side have got it right. Annoying for leaders, but hardly unusual behaviour surely?
Revenue £4 billion Cost of Sales Just over £4 Bn General overheads £600 M "Exceptional items" £650m
Other stuff
etc...
Loss for the year 1.35Bn; Change in equity -1.3Bn.
Equity at yr End -£66 M.
The new MD (Rupert Soames, a grandson of Winston Churchill and a very well respected figure) is doing the standard thing of writing off vast amounts of historic problems in one go.
It's at least possible that Serco are over the worst. There's potentially a good solid business there, but there's a lot of historical baggage to clear out
PS I'm not suggesting investing in them, at least not yet.
''If I read this piece right, it's saying that even when the people of Europe agree with Britain's positions, they won't agree to adopt them because they dislike us.''
Who is rebelling then, do they not realise it's tottally worse to rebel on this one. McDonnell fell into the trap but the now Labour rebels seem to be jumping in gleefully afterwards.
''If I read this piece right, it's saying that even when the people of Europe agree with Britain's positions, they won't agree to adopt them because they dislike us.''
Does the article say WHY they dislike us????
We're nasty. Didn't take migrants, ask for things all the time, I think.
Honestly, they and we may not realise how much we agree on things, because we perceive ourselves certain ways - isn't it the case the Scots and rUK opinion is really not all that different on most issues, but the perception is there is a big gap on many issues? Same thing. Britain is the selfish country, don't trust their ideas are good for all, even if it matches opinion. I'm sure an idea proposed by the EU here would gain less traction than from the government, due to popularity (not that our governments are popular, but they are more so than the EU I'd have thought).
But the charter (stunt though it may be) doesn't call for spending cuts. It calls for the state to run a surplus during normal times. Given our current debt (and the fact that we went into a crash with a lot of debt), that doesn't look too stupid, and clearly has some measure of electoral support, given the result on 7 May.
How is that going to work in practice, though?
Presumably it will be like the US debt ceiling - if there's a deficit, it will trigger huge automatic across-the-board cuts.
Well in practice the government can ignore or repeal it: that's the thing about our centralised execulegislature. So why are Labour getting their knickers in such a twist about it now? It's essentially virtue signalling [on both sides of the argument, to be fair].
Revenue £4 billion Cost of Sales Just over £4 Bn General overheads £600 M "Exceptional items" £650m
Other stuff
etc...
Loss for the year 1.35Bn; Change in equity -1.3Bn.
Equity at yr End -£66 M.
The new MD (Rupert Soames, a grandson of Winston Churchill and a very well respected figure) is doing the standard thing of writing off vast amounts of historic problems in one go.
It's at least possible that Serco are over the worst. There's potentially a good solid business there, but there's a lot of historical baggage to clear out
PS I'm not suggesting investing in them, at least not yet.
It looks like they had an awful 2014 combined with a great work of fiction for their 2013 balance sheet
But the charter (stunt though it may be) doesn't call for spending cuts. It calls for the state to run a surplus during normal times. Given our current debt (and the fact that we went into a crash with a lot of debt), that doesn't look too stupid, and clearly has some measure of electoral support, given the result on 7 May.
How is that going to work in practice, though?
Presumably it will be like the US debt ceiling - if there's a deficit, it will trigger huge automatic across-the-board cuts.
Well in practice the government can ignore or repeal it: that's the thing about our centralised execulegislature. So why are Labour getting their knickers in such a twist about it now? It's essentially virtue signalling [on both sides of the argument, to be fair].
But if the Tories are in power, they wouldn't want to ignore it - so Labour rebels are giving the Tories a blank cheque to enact any cuts they want in future if there happens to be a deficit.
But if the Tories are in power, they wouldn't want to ignore it - so Labour rebels are giving the Tories a blank cheque to enact any cuts they want in future if there happens to be a deficit.
You are arguing exactly what Osborne wants Labour to argue - i.e. that they don't care about the deficit, do intend to splurge again, and can't therefore be trusted with the economy. Of course all that is true, but Osborne is succeeding in forcing Labour to admit it.
But the charter (stunt though it may be) doesn't call for spending cuts. It calls for the state to run a surplus during normal times. Given our current debt (and the fact that we went into a crash with a lot of debt), that doesn't look too stupid, and clearly has some measure of electoral support, given the result on 7 May.
How is that going to work in practice, though?
Presumably it will be like the US debt ceiling - if there's a deficit, it will trigger huge automatic across-the-board cuts.
Well in practice the government can ignore or repeal it: that's the thing about our centralised execulegislature. So why are Labour getting their knickers in such a twist about it now? It's essentially virtue signalling [on both sides of the argument, to be fair].
But if the Tories are in power, they wouldn't want to ignore it - so Labour rebels are giving the Tories a blank cheque to enact any cuts they want in future if there happens to be a deficit.
It doesn't really make much sense to rebel against it if you are Labour, except as a means to declare open war on Corbyn.
On this basis I expect Woodcock; Gapes; Streeting; Danczuk; Kendall; Umunna? to all vote with the Gov't.
I'm not a fan of Jean-Claude Juncker but what else could he say to the European Parliament other than he thinks that Britain needs the EU and the EU needs Britain? If he is to keep the show on the road, he needs to make the case that both Britain and the European Parliament need to compromise at a time when neither is particularly inclined to do so.
I think the problem is that he allegedly said Britain DIDN'T need the EU.
But the charter (stunt though it may be) doesn't call for spending cuts. It calls for the state to run a surplus during normal times. Given our current debt (and the fact that we went into a crash with a lot of debt), that doesn't look too stupid, and clearly has some measure of electoral support, given the result on 7 May.
How is that going to work in practice, though?
Presumably it will be like the US debt ceiling - if there's a deficit, it will trigger huge automatic across-the-board cuts.
Well in practice the government can ignore or repeal it: that's the thing about our centralised execulegislature. So why are Labour getting their knickers in such a twist about it now? It's essentially virtue signalling [on both sides of the argument, to be fair].
But if the Tories are in power, they wouldn't want to ignore it - so Labour rebels are giving the Tories a blank cheque to enact any cuts they want in future if there happens to be a deficit.
Not at all, deficits can be closed by additional taxation. Each case can be opposed on its merits.
In any case, the Tories do have something akin to a blank cheque at the moment. Labour moving ever further away from fiscal credibility is only going to extend that.
But if the Tories are in power, they wouldn't want to ignore it - so Labour rebels are giving the Tories a blank cheque to enact any cuts they want in future if there happens to be a deficit.
You are arguing exactly what Osborne wants Labour to argue - i.e. that they don't care about the deficit, do intend to splurge again, and can't therefore be trusted with the economy. Of course all that is true, but Osborne is succeeding in forcing Labour to admit it.
An argument which, for all their hubris, barely won the Tories this year's election, even with a far better frontman than they'll have in 2020. But keep thinking Joe Public is an ultra-right-wing austerity-fetishist who thinks a surplus is more important than good public services if you want.
''If I read this piece right, it's saying that even when the people of Europe agree with Britain's positions, they won't agree to adopt them because they dislike us.''
Does the article say WHY they dislike us????
We're nasty. Didn't take migrants, ask for things all the time, I think.
Honestly, they and we may not realise how much we agree on things, because we perceive ourselves certain ways - isn't it the case the Scots and rUK opinion is really not all that different on most issues, but the perception is there is a big gap on many issues? Same thing. Britain is the selfish country, don't trust their ideas are good for all, even if it matches opinion. I'm sure an idea proposed by the EU here would gain less traction than from the government, due to popularity (not that our governments are popular, but they are more so than the EU I'd have thought).
On the specifics of the migrant crisis, I make Brussels right - Britain should have accepted far more migrants than it has done. On the more general principle, however, they are 100% crashingly wrong. Britain has taken one for the team on numerous occasions (most recently with the "political agreement not a legal agreement" justification for ratting on the commitment given in relation to the EFSM). A touch of humility on the European side of negotiations and a recognition that Brussels has been every bit as capable of acting in bad faith as London would be a very healthy start.
@JohnRentoul: From my soundings, a lot of Labour MPs intend to ignore whips' instructions and abstain, either in person or not. https://t.co/RPq9G2Dza5
Our Chief Political Correspondent reports that Laura Alvarez, Jeremy Corbyn’s wife, has turned down an invitation from the Queen to next week’s state banquet in honour of Chinese president Xi Jinping.
Mr Corbyn’s spokesman said on Wednesday that she had declined to attend but did not say why.
Danny565..Does Labour really represent anyone these days ..apart from themselves..most Labour run and controlled areas I visit on regular basis look as tho they are still stuck in the 50s The best dressed man in Bolsover is Skinner..
You are so right, so many permanently controlled labour areas seem so run down, yet people in the area keep voting labour, despite the Councils abject failure on improving the area. It is a very odd feature of British politics.
From my soundings, a lot of Labour MPs intend to ignore whips' instructions and abstain, either in person or not.
At this stage of the game, it matters not if the number of rebellious MPs is 30, 50 or more. Every MP that abstains or rebels from now on will be tarred as an anti-Corbynite splitter…
From my soundings, a lot of Labour MPs intend to ignore whips' instructions and abstain, either in person or not.
At this stage of the game, it matters not if the number of rebellious MPs is 30, 50 or more. Every MP that abstains or rebels from now on will be tarred as an anti-Corbynite splitter…
From my soundings, a lot of Labour MPs intend to ignore whips' instructions and abstain, either in person or not.
At this stage of the game, it matters not if the number of rebellious MPs is 30, 50 or more. Every MP that abstains or rebels from now on will be tarred as an anti-Corbynite splitter…
From my soundings, a lot of Labour MPs intend to ignore whips' instructions and abstain, either in person or not.
At this stage of the game, it matters not if the number of rebellious MPs is 30, 50 or more. Every MP that abstains or rebels from now on will be tarred as an anti-Corbynite splitter…
You mean a Tory scum, don't you?
It’s hard to keep up with the latest epithet, but I believe 'Red Tory Scum' is still in usage.
''If I read this piece right, it's saying that even when the people of Europe agree with Britain's positions, they won't agree to adopt them because they dislike us.''
Does the article say WHY they dislike us????
We're nasty. Didn't take migrants, ask for things all the time, I think.
Honestly, they and we may not realise how much we agree on things, because we perceive ourselves certain ways - isn't it the case the Scots and rUK opinion is really not all that different on most issues, but the perception is there is a big gap on many issues? Same thing. Britain is the selfish country, don't trust their ideas are good for all, even if it matches opinion. I'm sure an idea proposed by the EU here would gain less traction than from the government, due to popularity (not that our governments are popular, but they are more so than the EU I'd have thought).
On the specifics of the migrant crisis, I make Brussels right - Britain should have accepted far more migrants than it has done. On the more general principle, however, they are 100% crashingly wrong. Britain has taken one for the team on numerous occasions (most recently with the "political agreement not a legal agreement" justification for ratting on the commitment given in relation to the EFSM). A touch of humility on the European side of negotiations and a recognition that Brussels has been every bit as capable of acting in bad faith as London would be a very healthy start.
Unless we take hundreds of thousands of migrants, we're not really going to affect the situation. Given that is clearly ridiculous, we need to look at solutions that don't involve trying to relocate huge swathes of the Syrian population to Europe. Taking some number between what we have already taking and hundreds of thousands isn't good policy. It's just virtue signalling.
''If I read this piece right, it's saying that even when the people of Europe agree with Britain's positions, they won't agree to adopt them because they dislike us.''
Does the article say WHY they dislike us????
We're nasty. Didn't take migrants, ask for things all the time, I think.
Honestly, they and we may not realise how much we agree on things, because we perceive ourselves certain ways - isn't it the case the Scots and rUK opinion is really not all that different on most issues, but the perception is there is a big gap on many issues? Same thing. Britain is the selfish country, don't trust their ideas are good for all, even if it matches opinion. I'm sure an idea proposed by the EU here would gain less traction than from the government, due to popularity (not that our governments are popular, but they are more so than the EU I'd have thought).
On the specifics of the migrant crisis, I make Brussels right - Britain should have accepted far more migrants than it has done. On the more general principle, however, they are 100% crashingly wrong. Britain has taken one for the team on numerous occasions (most recently with the "political agreement not a legal agreement" justification for ratting on the commitment given in relation to the EFSM). A touch of humility on the European side of negotiations and a recognition that Brussels has been every bit as capable of acting in bad faith as London would be a very healthy start.
Agreed. The lack of it turned me against them not that long ago.
But if the Tories are in power, they wouldn't want to ignore it - so Labour rebels are giving the Tories a blank cheque to enact any cuts they want in future if there happens to be a deficit.
You are arguing exactly what Osborne wants Labour to argue - i.e. that they don't care about the deficit, do intend to splurge again, and can't therefore be trusted with the economy. Of course all that is true, but Osborne is succeeding in forcing Labour to admit it.
An argument which, for all their hubris, barely won the Tories this year's election, even with a far better frontman than they'll have in 2020. But keep thinking Joe Public is an ultra-right-wing austerity-fetishist who thinks a surplus is more important than good public services if you want.
In fairness Labour had a far better front man than they are likely to have the next time out too.
''If I read this piece right, it's saying that even when the people of Europe agree with Britain's positions, they won't agree to adopt them because they dislike us.''
Does the article say WHY they dislike us????
We're nasty. Didn't take migrants, ask for things all the time, I think.
Honestly, they and we may not realise how much we agree on things, because we perceive ourselves certain ways - isn't it the case the Scots and rUK opinion is really not all that different on most issues, but the perception is there is a big gap on many issues? Same thing. Britain is the selfish country, don't trust their ideas are good for all, even if it matches opinion. I'm sure an idea proposed by the EU here would gain less traction than from the government, due to popularity (not that our governments are popular, but they are more so than the EU I'd have thought).
On the specifics of the migrant crisis, I make Brussels right - Britain should have accepted far more migrants than it has done. On the more general principle, however, they are 100% crashingly wrong. Britain has taken one for the team on numerous occasions (most recently with the "political agreement not a legal agreement" justification for ratting on the commitment given in relation to the EFSM). A touch of humility on the European side of negotiations and a recognition that Brussels has been every bit as capable of acting in bad faith as London would be a very healthy start.
Unless we take hundreds of thousands of migrants, we're not really going to affect the situation. Given that is clearly ridiculous, we need to look at solutions that don't involve trying to relocate huge swathes of the Syrian population to Europe. Taking some number between what we have already taking and hundreds of thousands isn't good policy. It's just virtue signalling.
I don't see any reason why we should allow this country's immigration policy to be made in Berlin, and it would be incendiary if it was.
''If I read this piece right, it's saying that even when the people of Europe agree with Britain's positions, they won't agree to adopt them because they dislike us.''
Does the article say WHY they dislike us????
We're nasty. Didn't take migrants, ask for things all the time, I think.
Honestly, they and we may not realise how much we agree on things, because we perceive ourselves certain ways - isn't it the case the Scots and rUK opinion is really not all that different on most issues, but the perception is there is a big gap on many issues? Same thing. Britain is the selfish country, don't trust their ideas are good for all, even if it matches opinion. I'm sure an idea proposed by the EU here would gain less traction than from the government, due to popularity (not that our governments are popular, but they are more so than the EU I'd have thought).
On the specifics of the migrant crisis, I make Brussels right - Britain should have accepted far more migrants than it has done. On the more general principle, however, they are 100% crashingly wrong. Britain has taken one for the team on numerous occasions (most recently with the "political agreement not a legal agreement" justification for ratting on the commitment given in relation to the EFSM). A touch of humility on the European side of negotiations and a recognition that Brussels has been every bit as capable of acting in bad faith as London would be a very healthy start.
As I have said I dither from day to day about this one but if I was to choose one reason for voting out it would be the arrogant and patronising manner of the typical Euro bureaucrat. It is just infuriating. It makes Labour's belief in its inherent moral superiority look like a passing fancy.
''If I read this piece right, it's saying that even when the people of Europe agree with Britain's positions, they won't agree to adopt them because they dislike us.''
Does the article say WHY they dislike us????
We're nasty. Didn't take migrants, ask for things all the time, I think.
Honestly, they and we may not realise how much we agree on things, because we perceive ourselves certain ways - isn't it the case the Scots and rUK opinion is really not all that different on most issues, but the perception is there is a big gap on many issues? Same thing. Britain is the selfish country, don't trust their ideas are good for all, even if it matches opinion. I'm sure an idea proposed by the EU here would gain less traction than from the government, due to popularity (not that our governments are popular, but they are more so than the EU I'd have thought).
On the specifics of the migrant crisis, I make Brussels right - Britain should have accepted far more migrants than it has done. On the more general principle, however, they are 100% crashingly wrong. Britain has taken one for the team on numerous occasions (most recently with the "political agreement not a legal agreement" justification for ratting on the commitment given in relation to the EFSM). A touch of humility on the European side of negotiations and a recognition that Brussels has been every bit as capable of acting in bad faith as London would be a very healthy start.
Unless we take hundreds of thousands of migrants, we're not really going to affect the situation. Given that is clearly ridiculous, we need to look at solutions that don't involve trying to relocate huge swathes of the Syrian population to Europe. Taking some number between what we have already taking and hundreds of thousands isn't good policy. It's just virtue signalling.
Can we introduce a fines system for the phrase "virtue signalling"? It was never very useful and has now degenerated into meaning "action that I don't agree with or think will be effective".
Showing willing to help friends in times of crisis is never a bad thing to do. Whether we like it or not (and we don't), hundreds of thousands have already descended on Europe. We can wash our hands of these migrants and leave others to sink under their weight. Or we can help a bit more.
We should help other EU countries a bit more. It's unsurprising that shrugging our shoulders, pointing to our island status and turning our backs on the problem has not made us popular.
But if the Tories are in power, they wouldn't want to ignore it - so Labour rebels are giving the Tories a blank cheque to enact any cuts they want in future if there happens to be a deficit.
You are arguing exactly what Osborne wants Labour to argue - i.e. that they don't care about the deficit, do intend to splurge again, and can't therefore be trusted with the economy. Of course all that is true, but Osborne is succeeding in forcing Labour to admit it.
An argument which, for all their hubris, barely won the Tories this year's election, even with a far better frontman than they'll have in 2020. But keep thinking Joe Public is an ultra-right-wing austerity-fetishist who thinks a surplus is more important than good public services if you want.
In fairness Labour had a far better front man than they are likely to have the next time out too.
I have many criticisms of Corbyn, but I think it's pushing it to describe Ed as a *far* better frontman than anyone
But I genuinely don't think Corbyn will be leader going into 2020.
@PolhomeEditor: Around 30 Labour MPs currently expected to rebel against the leadership in tonight's fiscal charter vote.
And see, this is where deselections are perfectly reasonable in my view. It's one thing to disagree with the leadership and argue for an alternative. It's quite another to actively allow the Tories to pass huge spending cuts.
I still don't see how it is any different to being a serial rebel in the last parliament - doesn't any rebellion help your opponents to some degree. Fundamentally I'm having a problem seeing why rebels should be deselected now if they weren't before, particularly if they argue they are voting in accordance with the platform they were elected under (truthfully or otherwise), and so even if they are annoyances to the leadership, they are not betraying the party or their constituents.
I'm not sure it's possible to apply logic to anything that's going on in the PLP at present. Everything seems to be done on a whim.
But if the Tories are in power, they wouldn't want to ignore it - so Labour rebels are giving the Tories a blank cheque to enact any cuts they want in future if there happens to be a deficit.
You are arguing exactly what Osborne wants Labour to argue - i.e. that they don't care about the deficit, do intend to splurge again, and can't therefore be trusted with the economy. Of course all that is true, but Osborne is succeeding in forcing Labour to admit it.
An argument which, for all their hubris, barely won the Tories this year's election, even with a far better frontman than they'll have in 2020. But keep thinking Joe Public is an ultra-right-wing austerity-fetishist who thinks a surplus is more important than good public services if you want.
In fairness Labour had a far better front man than they are likely to have the next time out too.
I have many criticisms of Corbyn, but I think it's pushing it to describe Ed as a *far* better frontman than anyone
But I genuinely don't think Corbyn will be leader going into 2020.
"Part of the problem is the four elections under Blair and Brown. Labour parties weren’t allowed to select the candidates they wanted, they had to choose from an approved list, which shifted the Parliamentary Labour Party massively to the right." He praised Ed Miliband for "abolishing the Blairite pre-vetting rule" and said "parties are now free to select the candidate they want".
So not only has Miliband handed control of the leadership appointment to the far left, he's handed control of the MP selections too.
I don't know what New Labour types can do here. The membership is now thoroughly left wing, and it's also massive, meaning it will be very hard for new members to moderate it. The internet and social media networks increase the bubble effect, where all setbacks get explained away, so these people are unlikely to be persuaded round after an election loss or two. And these people will control leadership and MP appointments for the next 10-15 years.
The nurse story with ebola is really alarming. Several west African countries have now been declared ebola free. If there is a real risk of a recurrence in a patient who has recovered that seems a complete nonsense. Given the number of infections there unless she has been incredibly unlucky this is going to be chronic and recurring for the foreseeable future.
An awful shock for her of course but there must also be some incredibly worried "acquaintances" given all of the fanfare over "it's beaten".
I am happy with the numbers of migrants that we have promised to take..no more please...I am also happy and totally agree with the massive amount of money we provide for the refugee camps..some people there will be able to have a meal tonight because we paid for it..
No Labour MP will defect to the Tories. It's as rare as hen's teeth: Labour is tribal and it's about collectivism. Even if they wanted to, they won't do so, because they know it will play straight into Corbyn's hands.
The ones to look out for are the independent minded ones likely to retire in GE2020 - or have declared an intent already to do so.
They won't give a crap. They can either stand as 'independent Labour' for the rest of the parliament - arguing they are being true to the platform they were elected on, thus not needing a by-election - or, if they want to make a real bang, and I stress this is unlikely, defect to the Liberal Democrats and take a shadow portfolio to piss off Corbyn and get airtime for a moderate left case.
In the case of the House of Lords, they will do an Adonis and go crossbench, possibly advising the government.
Donors are the only ones who I think may actively switch to the Tories.
''If I read this piece right, it's saying that even when the people of Europe agree with Britain's positions, they won't agree to adopt them because they dislike us.''
Does the article say WHY they dislike us????
We're nasty. Didn't take migrants, ask for things all the time, I think.
Honestly, they and we may not realise how much we agree on things, because we perceive ourselves certain ways - isn't it the case the Scots and rUK opinion is really not all that different on most issues, but the perception is there is a big gap on many issues? Same thing. Britain is the selfish country, don't trust their ideas are good for all, even if it matches opinion. I'm sure an idea proposed by the EU here would gain less traction than from the government, due to popularity (not that our governments are popular, but they are more so than the EU I'd have thought).
On the specifics of the migrant crisis, I make Brussels right - Britain should have accepted far more migrants than it has done. On the more general principle, however, they are 100% crashingly wrong. Britain has taken one for the team on numerous occasions (most recently with the "political agreement not a legal agreement" justification for ratting on the commitment given in relation to the EFSM). A touch of humility on the European side of negotiations and a recognition that Brussels has been every bit as capable of acting in bad faith as London would be a very healthy start.
Unless we take hundreds of thousands of migrants, we're not really going to affect the situation. Given that is clearly ridiculous, we need to look at solutions that don't involve trying to relocate huge swathes of the Syrian population to Europe. Taking some number between what we have already taking and hundreds of thousands isn't good policy. It's just virtue signalling.
Can we introduce a fines system for the phrase "virtue signalling"? It was never very useful and has now degenerated into meaning "action that I don't agree with or think will be effective".
Showing willing to help friends in times of crisis is never a bad thing to do. Whether we like it or not (and we don't), hundreds of thousands have already descended on Europe. We can wash our hands of these migrants and leave others to sink under their weight. Or we can help a bit more.
We should help other EU countries a bit more. It's unsurprising that shrugging our shoulders, pointing to our island status and turning our backs on the problem has not made us popular.
We didn't say they could come here. You can't make grandiose statements that trigger a human tsunami and then expect everyone else to pick up the peices.
Danny565..Does Labour really represent anyone these days ..apart from themselves..most Labour run and controlled areas I visit on regular basis look as tho they are still stuck in the 50s The best dressed man in Bolsover is Skinner..
Our Chief Political Correspondent reports that Laura Alvarez, Jeremy Corbyn’s wife, has turned down an invitation from the Queen to next week’s state banquet in honour of Chinese president Xi Jinping.
Mr Corbyn’s spokesman said on Wednesday that she had declined to attend but did not say why.
''If I read this piece right, it's saying that even when the people of Europe agree with Britain's positions, they won't agree to adopt them because they dislike us.''
Does the article say WHY they dislike us????
We're nasty. Didn't take migrants, ask for things all the time, I think.
Honestly, they and we may not realise how much we agree on things, because we perceive ourselves certain ways - isn't it the case the Scots and rUK opinion is really not all that different on most issues, but the perception is there is a big gap on many issues? Same thing. Britain is the selfish country, don't trust their ideas are good for all, even if it matches opinion.
On the specifics of the migrant crisis, I make Brussels right - Britain should have accepted far more migrants than it has done. On the more general principle, however, they are 100% crashingly wrong. Britain has taken one for the team on numerous occasions (most recently with the "political agreement not a legal agreement" justification for ratting on the commitment given in relation to the EFSM). A touch of humility on the European side of negotiations and a recognition that Brussels has been every bit as capable of acting in bad faith as London would be a very healthy start.
Unless we take hundreds of thousands of migrants, we're not really going to affect the situation. Given that is clearly ridiculous, we need to look at solutions that don't involve trying to relocate huge swathes of the Syrian population to Europe. Taking some number between what we have already taking and hundreds of thousands isn't good policy. It's just virtue signalling.
Can we introduce a fines system for the phrase "virtue signalling"? It was never very useful and has now degenerated into meaning "action that I don't agree with or think will be effective".
Showing willing to help friends in times of crisis is never a bad thing to do. Whether we like it or not (and we don't), hundreds of thousands have already descended on Europe. We can wash our hands of these migrants and leave others to sink under their weight. Or we can help a bit more.
We should help other EU countries a bit more. It's unsurprising that shrugging our shoulders, pointing to our island status and turning our backs on the problem has not made us popular.
Countries have interests; they're not taking part in popularity contests. Merkel screwed up; it's her problem.
I might be more persuaded if I could recall, or find, a single instance where our willingness to compromise actually redounded to our benefit.
Our Chief Political Correspondent reports that Laura Alvarez, Jeremy Corbyn’s wife, has turned down an invitation from the Queen to next week’s state banquet in honour of Chinese president Xi Jinping.
Mr Corbyn’s spokesman said on Wednesday that she had declined to attend but did not say why.
Reporting one turned down an invitation to a same dinner isn't the same as asking why, if China was so good, they moved to the UK.
Next weeks Hansard. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab) Mrs Trellis of North Wales writes-is there anything the Prime Minister can do for her bunions. The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron ) Im sorry, I haven't a clue
The nurse story with ebola is really alarming. Several west African countries have now been declared ebola free. If there is a real risk of a recurrence in a patient who has recovered that seems a complete nonsense. Given the number of infections there unless she has been incredibly unlucky this is going to be chronic and recurring for the foreseeable future.
An awful shock for her of course but there must also be some incredibly worried "acquaintances" given all of the fanfare over "it's beaten".
I wonder how many other carriers of the 'dormant' virus there are, both in Africa and potentially, over here or elsewhere in Europe. Ebola in Calais would liven things up.
Can we introduce a fines system for the phrase "virtue signalling"? It was never very useful and has now degenerated into meaning "action that I don't agree with or think will be effective".
Showing willing to help friends in times of crisis is never a bad thing to do. Whether we like it or not (and we don't), hundreds of thousands have already descended on Europe. We can wash our hands of these migrants and leave others to sink under their weight. Or we can help a bit more.
We should help other EU countries a bit more. It's unsurprising that shrugging our shoulders, pointing to our island status and turning our backs on the problem has not made us popular.
I'm using "virtue signalling" here to mean exactly what it means: making a statement about how decent a person you are rather than addressing the problem. That's exactly what is happening here. We'd have to take hundreds of thousands to make a dent in the figures, and the very act of taking hundreds of thousands would cause hundreds of thousands more to come. So your problem of "helping the rest of Europe deal with these migrants" would be made worst by this proposed solution.
Of course we should help other EU countries a bit more. We should do that by funding the refugee camps properly so they're not such squalid holes, by policing the Mediterranean to stop crossings, by investigating and arresting people traffickers, and by stabilising Syria as best we can.
''If I read this piece right, it's saying that even when the people of Europe agree with Britain's positions, they won't agree to adopt them because they dislike us.''
Does the article say WHY they dislike us????
We're nasty. Didn't take migrants, ask for things all the time, I think.
Honestly, they and we may not realise how much we agree on things, because we perceive ourselves certain ways - isn't it the case the Scots and rUK opinion is really not all that different on most issues, but the perception is there is a big gap on many issues? Same thing. Britain is the selfish country, don't trust their ideas are good for all, even if it matches opinion. I'm sure an idea proposed by the EU here would gain less traction than from the government, due to popularity (not that our governments are popular, but they are more so than the EU I'd have thought).
On the specifics of the migrant crisis, I make Brussels right - Britain should have accepted far more migrants than it has done. On the more general principle, however, they are 100% crashingly wrong. Britain has taken one for the team on numerous occasions (most recently with the "political agreement not a legal agreement" justification for ratting on the commitment given in relation to the EFSM). A touch of humility on the European side of negotiations and a recognition that Brussels has been every bit as capable of acting in bad faith as London would be a very healthy start.
Unless we take hundreds of thousands of migrants, we're not really going to affect the situation. Given that is clearly ridiculous, we need to look at solutions that don't involve trying to relocate huge swathes of the Syrian population to Europe. Taking some number between what we have already taking and hundreds of thousands isn't good policy. It's just virtue signalling.
I don't see any reason why we should allow this country's immigration policy to be made in Berlin, and it would be incendiary if it was.
Given the rate at which German public opinion is turning, I doubt if Merkel is even carrying her own people with her.
''If I read this piece right, it's saying that even when the people of Europe agree with Britain's positions, they won't agree to adopt them because they dislike us.''
Does the article say WHY they dislike us????
We're nasty. Didn't take migrants, ask for things all the time, I think.
Honestly, they and we may not realise how much we agree on things, because we perceive ourselves certain ways - isn't it the case the Scots and rUK opinion is really not all that different on most issues, but the perception is there is a big gap on many issues? Same thing. Britain is the selfish country, don't trust their ideas are good for all, even if it matches opinion. I'm sure an idea proposed by the EU here would gain less traction than from the government, due to popularity (not that our governments are popular, but they are more so than the EU I'd have thought).
On the specifics of the migrant crisis, I make Brussels right - Britain should have accepted far more migrants than it has done. On the more general principle, however, they are 100% crashingly wrong. Britain has taken one for the team on numerous occasions (most recently with the "political agreement not a legal agreement" justification for ratting on the commitment given in relation to the EFSM). A touch of humility on the European side of negotiations and a recognition that Brussels has been every bit as capable of acting in bad faith as London would be a very healthy start.
Unless we take hundreds It's just virtue signalling.
Can we introduce a fines system for the phrase "virtue signalling"? It was never very useful and has now degenerated into meaning "action that I don't agree with or think will be effective".
Showing willing to help friends in times of crisis is never a bad thing to do. Whether we like it or not (and we don't), hundreds of thousands have already descended on Europe. We can wash our hands of these migrants and leave others to sink under their weight. Or we can help a bit more.
We should help other EU countries a bit more. It's unsurprising that shrugging our shoulders, pointing to our island status and turning our backs on the problem has not made us popular.
hmmm
nobody objects to helping our friends, however what might be more difficult is when our firend has taken a problem and made it worse despite advice to the contrary and likewise ignored the real and more effective efforts we have made to solve a common problem.
sometimes you just have to let people stew in their own juices before they come to their senses.
''If I read this piece right, it's saying that even when the people of Europe agree with Britain's positions, they won't agree to adopt them because they dislike us.''
Does the article say WHY they dislike us????
Honestly, they and we may not realise how much we agree on things, because we perceive ourselves certain ways - isn't it the case the Scots and rUK opinion is really not all that different on most issues, but the perception is there is a big gap on many issues? Same thing. Britain is the selfish country, don't trust their ideas are good for all, even if it matches opinion. I'm sure an idea proposed by the EU here would gain less traction than from the government, due to popularity (not that our governments are popular, but they are more so than the EU I'd have thought).
On the specifics of the migrant crisis, I make Brussels right - Britain should have accepted far more migrants than it has done. On the more general principle, however, they are 100% crashingly wrong. Britain has taken one for the team on numerous occasions (most recently with the "political agreement not a legal agreement" justification for ratting on the commitment given in relation to the EFSM). A touch of humility on the European side of negotiations and a recognition that Brussels has been every bit as capable of acting in bad faith as London would be a very healthy start.
Unless we take hundreds of thousands of migrants, we're not really going to affect the situation. Given that is clearly ridiculous, we need to look at solutions that don't involve trying to relocate huge swathes of the Syrian population to Europe. Taking some number between what we have already taking and hundreds of thousands isn't good policy. It's just virtue signalling.
Can we introduce a fines system for the phrase "virtue signalling"? It was never very useful and has now degenerated into meaning "action that I don't agree with or think will be effective".
Showing willing to help friends in times of crisis is never a bad thing to do. Whether we like it or not (and we don't), hundreds of thousands have already descended on Europe. We can wash our hands of these migrants and leave others to sink under their weight. Or we can help a bit more.
We should help other EU countries a bit more. It's unsurprising that shrugging our shoulders, pointing to our island status and turning our backs on the problem has not made us popular.
Germany's fault, Germany's mess and Germany's problem. Let them clear it up.
Frankly, I don't care if it makes us unpopular. I don't blame people for their problems or mistakes, but I do expect them to pay for them.
Mr. D, I agree, but would add that a wife of a politician declining to attend an official function isn't something that should be examined, beyond being noted.
I don't think wives should be political animals (such as Mrs Brown became), but the natural extension of that is that privacy ought to be afforded to them.
''If I read this piece right, it's saying that even when the people of Europe agree with Britain's positions, they won't agree to adopt them because they dislike us.''
Does the article say WHY they dislike us????
We're nasty. Didn't take migrants, ask for things all the time, I think.
Honestly, they and we may not realise how much we agree on things, because we perceive ourselves certain ways - isn't it the case the Scots and rUK opinion is really not all that different on most issues, but the perception is there is a big gap on many issues? Same thing. Britain is the selfish country, don't trust their ideas are good for all, even if it matches opinion. I'm sure an idea proposed by the EU here would gain less traction than from the government, due to popularity (not that our governments are popular, but they are more so than the EU I'd have thought).
On the specifics of the migrant crisis, I make Brussels right - Britain should have accepted far more migrants than it has done. On the more general principle, however, they are 100% crashingly wrong. Britain has taken one for the team on numerous occasions (most recently with the "political agreement not a legal agreement" justification for ratting on the commitment given in relation to the EFSM). A touch of humility on the European side of negotiations and a recognition that Brussels has been every bit as capable of acting in bad faith as London would be a very healthy start.
Unless we take hundreds of thousands of migrants, we're not really going to affect the situation. Given that is clearly ridiculous, we need to look at solutions that don't involve trying to relocate huge swathes of the Syrian population to Europe. Taking some number between what we have already taking and hundreds of thousands isn't good policy. It's just virtue signalling.
Can we introduce a fines system for the phrase "virtue signalling"? It was never very useful and has now degenerated into meaning "action that I don't agree with or think will be effective".
Showing willing to help friends in times of crisis is never a bad thing to do. Whether we like it or not (and we don't), hundreds of thousands have already descended on Europe. We can wash our hands of these migrants and leave others to sink under their weight. Or we can help a bit more.
We should help other EU countries a bit more. It's unsurprising that shrugging our shoulders, pointing to our island status and turning our backs on the problem has not made us popular.
Except we offered our advice at every stage, and it was rejected. We warned them of the consequences and they chose to go ahead. I don't see why we shoulkd bail them out.
Our Chief Political Correspondent reports that Laura Alvarez, Jeremy Corbyn’s wife, has turned down an invitation from the Queen to next week’s state banquet in honour of Chinese president Xi Jinping.
Mr Corbyn’s spokesman said on Wednesday that she had declined to attend but did not say why.
Reporting one turned down an invitation to a same dinner isn't the same as asking why, if China was so good, they moved to the UK.
Even so, I don't see why I needed to know one way or the other.
Our Chief Political Correspondent reports that Laura Alvarez, Jeremy Corbyn’s wife, has turned down an invitation from the Queen to next week’s state banquet in honour of Chinese president Xi Jinping.
Mr Corbyn’s spokesman said on Wednesday that she had declined to attend but did not say why.
Reporting one turned down an invitation to a same dinner isn't the same as asking why, if China was so good, they moved to the UK.
Even so, I don't see why I needed to know one way or the other.
If the papers didn't report this sort of guff, they would be quite empty
Our Chief Political Correspondent reports that Laura Alvarez, Jeremy Corbyn’s wife, has turned down an invitation from the Queen to next week’s state banquet in honour of Chinese president Xi Jinping.
Mr Corbyn’s spokesman said on Wednesday that she had declined to attend but did not say why.
Reporting one turned down an invitation to a same dinner isn't the same as asking why, if China was so good, they moved to the UK.
Even so, I don't see why I needed to know one way or the other.
If the papers didn't report this sort of guff, they would be quite empty
Mr. D, I agree, but would add that a wife of a politician declining to attend an official function isn't something that should be examined, beyond being noted.
I don't think wives should be political animals (such as Mrs Brown became), but the natural extension of that is that privacy ought to be afforded to them.
Our Chief Political Correspondent reports that Laura Alvarez, Jeremy Corbyn’s wife, has turned down an invitation from the Queen to next week’s state banquet in honour of Chinese president Xi Jinping.
Mr Corbyn’s spokesman said on Wednesday that she had declined to attend but did not say why.
Reporting one turned down an invitation to a same dinner isn't the same as asking why, if China was so good, they moved to the UK.
Even so, I don't see why I needed to know one way or the other.
If the papers didn't report this sort of guff, they would be quite empty
They could run some polling...
That didn't work out too well for the last five years. Good for us though, I suppose.
Our Chief Political Correspondent reports that Laura Alvarez, Jeremy Corbyn’s wife, has turned down an invitation from the Queen to next week’s state banquet in honour of Chinese president Xi Jinping.
Mr Corbyn’s spokesman said on Wednesday that she had declined to attend but did not say why.
She has responsibilities as LOTO's wife.
China will be very happy to take her absence as a mortal insult if it in their interest to do so.
Sometimes you have to grit your teeth and do things you would rather not.
''If I read this piece right, it's saying that even when the people of Europe agree with Britain's positions, they won't agree to adopt them because they dislike us.''
Does the article say WHY they dislike us????
We're nasty. Didn't take migrants, ask for things all the time, I think.
Honestly, they and we may not realise how much we agree on things, because we perceive ourselves certain ways - isn't it the case the Scots and rUK opinion is really not all that different on most issues, but the perception is there is a big gap on many issues? Same thing. Britain is the selfish country, don't trust their ideas are good for all, even if it matches opinion. I'm sure an idea proposed by the EU here would gain less traction than from the government, due to popularity (not that our governments are popular, but they are more so than the EU I'd have thought).
On the specifics of the migrant crisis, I make Brussels right - Britain should have accepted far more migrants than it has done. On the more general principle, however, they are 100% crashingly wrong. Britain has taken one for the team on numerous occasions (most recently with the "political agreement not a legal agreement" justification for ratting on the commitment given in relation to the EFSM). A touch of humility on the European side of negotiations and a recognition that Brussels has been every bit as capable of acting in bad faith as London would be a very healthy start.
Unless we take hundreds of thousands of migrants, we're not really going to affect the situation. Given that is clearly ridiculous, we need to look at solutions that don't involve trying to relocate huge swathes of the Syrian population to Europe. Taking some number between what we have already taking and hundreds of thousands isn't good policy. It's just virtue signalling.
We should help other EU countries a bit more. It's unsurprising that shrugging our shoulders, pointing to our island status and turning our backs on the problem has not made us popular.
Except we offered our advice at every stage, and it was rejected. We warned them of the consequences and they chose to go ahead. I don't see why we shoulkd bail them out.
Nothing makes one more unpopular than being proved right.
I've occasionally found myself being hated by a client, for advising them not to sign an agreement, or lease, which would be hugely detrimental to them. The reason is, because I've destroyed their dreams.
What I take virtual signalling to mean is when someone says something like we should take more migrants when they themselves would never do anything personally to assist with that aim such as taking a migrant in as a lodger in their own home. They want to feel good but without actually doing anything concrete about it.
''If I read this piece right, it's saying that even when the people of Europe agree with Britain's positions, they won't agree to adopt them because they dislike us.''
Does the article say WHY they dislike us????
We're nasty. Didn't take migrants, ask for things all the time, I think.
Honestly, they and we may not realise how much we agree on things, because we perceive ourselves certain ways - isn't it the case the Scots and rUK opinion is really not all that different on most issues, but the perception is there is a big gap on many issues? Same thing. Britain is the selfish country, don't trust their ideas are good for all, even if it matches opinion. I'm sure an idea proposed by the EU here would gain less traction than from the government, due to popularity (not that our governments are popular, but they are more so than the EU I'd have thought).
.....
Unless we take hundreds of thousands of migrants, we're not really going to affect the situation. Given that is clearly ridiculous, we need to look at solutions that don't involve trying to relocate huge swathes of the Syrian population to Europe. Taking some number between what we have already taking and hundreds of thousands isn't good policy. It's just virtue signalling.
Can we introduce a fines system for the phrase "virtue signalling"? It was never very useful and has now degenerated into meaning "action that I don't agree with or think will be effective".
Showing willing to help friends in times of crisis is never a bad thing to do. Whether we like it or not (and we don't), hundreds of thousands have already descended on Europe. We can wash our hands of these migrants and leave others to sink under their weight. Or we can help a bit more.
We should help other EU countries a bit more. It's unsurprising that shrugging our shoulders, pointing to our island status and turning our backs on the problem has not made us popular.
Showing willing to help friends in times of crisis is never a bad thing to do. Whether we like it or not (and we don't), hundreds of thousands have already descended on Europe. We can wash our hands of these migrants and leave others to sink under their weight. Or we can help a bit more.
We should help other EU countries a bit more. It's unsurprising that shrugging our shoulders, pointing to our island status and turning our backs on the problem has not made us popular.
Like. "I cannot prevent a tragedy altogether so I shall do nothing to alleviate it" has always been a disreputable argument. Yes, I understand that we help with funds for camps near the border. But there is a specific problem with the refugees already in Europe. Do we really feel that we shouldn't help deal with their cases?
Comments
Contrary to popular belief, the Labour membership are not all a bunch of diehard Commies - most are persuadable if a good "mainstream" direction is presented to us.
Edited extra bit: a eunuch in the court of the later Han.
I think Brussels would be utterly stunned if the UK voted out.
CityAm have a good article on why OUT is gaining momentum.
Labour can vote for the charter and come up with an alternative means to fulfil it. I believe Richard Murphy has some groundbreaking ideas on uncollected tax.
Cost of Sales Just over £4 Bn
General overheads £600 M
"Exceptional items" £650m
Impairment on intangibles -£20m (Small beans really)
Some minor adjustments on the pension as ever...
etc...
Loss for the year 1.35Bn;
Change in equity -1.3Bn.
Equity at yr End -£66 M.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/10/12/eu-campaign-hires-june-sarpong-conspiracy-investigator-believes-america-controlling-weather/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11930443/David-Camerons-problem-Britain-is-seen-as-the-nasty-country-in-Europe.html
Presumably it will be like the US debt ceiling - if there's a deficit, it will trigger huge automatic across-the-board cuts.
It's at least possible that Serco are over the worst. There's potentially a good solid business there, but there's a lot of historical baggage to clear out
PS I'm not suggesting investing in them, at least not yet.
Does the article say WHY they dislike us????
Honestly, they and we may not realise how much we agree on things, because we perceive ourselves certain ways - isn't it the case the Scots and rUK opinion is really not all that different on most issues, but the perception is there is a big gap on many issues? Same thing. Britain is the selfish country, don't trust their ideas are good for all, even if it matches opinion. I'm sure an idea proposed by the EU here would gain less traction than from the government, due to popularity (not that our governments are popular, but they are more so than the EU I'd have thought).
On this basis I expect Woodcock; Gapes; Streeting; Danczuk; Kendall; Umunna? to all vote with the Gov't.
In any case, the Tories do have something akin to a blank cheque at the moment. Labour moving ever further away from fiscal credibility is only going to extend that.
Some might call it genius.
Alors, au revoir monsieur
From my soundings, a lot of Labour MPs intend to ignore whips' instructions and abstain, either in person or not.
Goodness you really do live in a fantasy world
http://www.itv.com/news/2015-10-14/co-sleeping-with-young-children-is-unsafe-coroner-warns-after-death-of-11-week-old-baby/
http://www.naturalchild.org/james_mckenna/cosleeping_world.html
They aren't exactly hiding it ;p.
Showing willing to help friends in times of crisis is never a bad thing to do. Whether we like it or not (and we don't), hundreds of thousands have already descended on Europe. We can wash our hands of these migrants and leave others to sink under their weight. Or we can help a bit more.
We should help other EU countries a bit more. It's unsurprising that shrugging our shoulders, pointing to our island status and turning our backs on the problem has not made us popular.
But I genuinely don't think Corbyn will be leader going into 2020.
The ones to look out for are the independent minded ones likely to retire in GE2020 - or have declared an intent already to do so.
They won't give a crap. They can either stand as 'independent Labour' for the rest of the parliament - arguing they are being true to the platform they were elected on, thus not needing a by-election - or, if they want to make a real bang, and I stress this is unlikely, defect to the Liberal Democrats and take a shadow portfolio to piss off Corbyn and get airtime for a moderate left case.
In the case of the House of Lords, they will do an Adonis and go crossbench, possibly advising the government.
Donors are the only ones who I think may actively switch to the Tories.
I might be more persuaded if I could recall, or find, a single instance where our willingness to compromise actually redounded to our benefit.
Reporting one turned down an invitation to a same dinner isn't the same as asking why, if China was so good, they moved to the UK.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab) Mrs Trellis of North Wales writes-is there anything the Prime Minister can do for her bunions.
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron ) Im sorry, I haven't a clue
Makes @MikeGapes look mild
Of course we should help other EU countries a bit more. We should do that by funding the refugee camps properly so they're not such squalid holes, by policing the Mediterranean to stop crossings, by investigating and arresting people traffickers, and by stabilising Syria as best we can.
nobody objects to helping our friends, however what might be more difficult is when our firend has taken a problem and made it worse despite advice to the contrary and likewise ignored the real and more effective efforts we have made to solve a common problem.
sometimes you just have to let people stew in their own juices before they come to their senses.
Frankly, I don't care if it makes us unpopular. I don't blame people for their problems or mistakes, but I do expect them to pay for them.
That's how we learn.
I don't think wives should be political animals (such as Mrs Brown became), but the natural extension of that is that privacy ought to be afforded to them.
Even so, I don't see why I needed to know one way or the other.
If the papers didn't report this sort of guff, they would be quite empty
They could run some polling...
That didn't work out too well for the last five years. Good for us though, I suppose.
She has responsibilities as LOTO's wife.
China will be very happy to take her absence as a mortal insult if it in their interest to do so.
Sometimes you have to grit your teeth and do things you would rather not.
I've occasionally found myself being hated by a client, for advising them not to sign an agreement, or lease, which would be hugely detrimental to them. The reason is, because I've destroyed their dreams.