I have a theory about UKIP, sceptics and the LEAVE campaign, supported by various whispers I've heard.
THEY DON'T EXPECT TO WIN. KIPPERS DON'T EVEN WANT TO WIN
What they want, logically, is to do what the Nats did: get really quite close, but lose, then stand back and reap the benefits as the EU does various horrible things to us post-REMAIN, even as the EU implodes at the same time, thanks to migration, eurogeddon, terror, etc.
Result: UKIP get a huge electoral boost, the voters swing even further right, a new referendum is called within a few years, and this is won, but by then UKIP have established themselves as a major party of government, not a pressure group which will dissolve post-plebiscite.
Makes sense to me. Quite likely, in fact.
Now, a DVD and some wine, tomorrow I fly home from sunny Bangkok
kapkap
I think you're right that Farage would love to be a cabinet minister and/or PM.
But losing carries risks to Out. In Scotland the oil price collapse has made independence look a whole lot less likely. It is possible - albeit unlikely - that the EU gets the act together re refugees. And with a bunch of more Eurosceptic governments (albeit not to UKIP levels) in power across Europe, it is quite likely the drive to further integration is put on hold.
Who knows? Personally, I think we should lead Sweden, Denmark and other non-Euro states into the sunlit uplands of EFTA/EEA, but again... who knows?
Its a dumb analogy and pretty umm... trite too, trying to link the EU with muslim immigration rather than catholic immigration. We as a commonwealth country have link with countries holding hundreds of millions of muslims and hindus. We do not need the EU to be a cause for muslim immigration. I continue to find it umm... strange that anti EU propagandists continue to seek out the least desirable group of people they can find and associate them with the EU.
PS - I think your comments re EEA are plausible.
The flaw in that EEA/EFTA plan is that the non-Euro EU countries do not seem keen on leaving the EU in order to keep us company.
Its a bit like the Kipper League of Empire Loyalists who want to rebuild the Commonwealth, without actually considering whether that is what the Old Commonwralth wants.
The EEA plan dies not require any other countries to join us. So it is a very good plan with no flaw.
I have a theory about UKIP, sceptics and the LEAVE campaign, supported by various whispers I've heard.
THEY DON'T EXPECT TO WIN. KIPPERS DON'T EVEN WANT TO WIN
What they want, logically, is to do what the Nats did: get really quite close, but lose, then stand back and reap the benefits as the EU does various horrible things to us post-REMAIN, even as the EU implodes at the same time, thanks to migration, eurogeddon, terror, etc.
Result: UKIP get a huge electoral boost, the voters swing even further right, a new referendum is called within a few years, and this is won, but by then UKIP have established themselves as a major party of government, not a pressure group which will dissolve post-plebiscite.
Makes sense to me. Quite likely, in fact.
Now, a DVD and some wine, tomorrow I fly home from sunny Bangkok
kapkap
I think you're right that Farage would love to be a cabinet minister and/or PM.
But losing carries risks to Out. In Scotland the oil price collapse has made independence look a whole lot less likely. It is possible - albeit unlikely - that the EU gets the act together re refugees. And with a bunch of more Eurosceptic governments (albeit not to UKIP levels) in power across Europe, it is quite likely the drive to further integration is put on hold.
Who knows? Personally, I think we should lead Sweden, Denmark and other non-Euro states into the sunlit uplands of EFTA/EEA, but again... who knows?
Its a dumb analogy and pretty umm... trite too, trying to link the EU with muslim immigration rather than catholic immigration. We as a commonwealth country have link with countries holding hundreds of millions of muslims and hindus. We do not need the EU to be a cause for muslim immigration. I continue to find it umm... strange that anti EU propagandists continue to seek out the least desirable group of people they can find and associate them with the EU.
PS - I think your comments re EEA are plausible.
The flaw in that EEA/EFTA plan is that the non-Euro EU countries do not seem keen on leaving the EU in order to keep us company.
Its a bit like the Kipper League of Empire Loyalists who want to rebuild the Commonwealth, without actually considering whether that is what the Old Commonwralth wants.
I think your comments on the EEA are plausible too.
Jeremy Corbyn has written to David Cameron about his language at PMQs.
I mean..really?!
Does Corbyn really think that keeping this in the news will somehow be beneficial to him - or is he mistaking Islington and Twitter for public opinion again?
Of course he is playing to his very tiny gallery. The hard left bubble will applaud and then rest of us just look on in disbelief.
Jeremy Corbyn has written to David Cameron about his language at PMQs.
I mean..really?!
That is beyond pathetic from Corbyn
The wider public, if they pay any attention to these things, will be happy that Cameron called a spade a spade on this occasion.
There is a bunch of migrants in Calais. I could think of worse things to call many of them - but I won't. Bunch is fine. A neutral word at worst.
Corbyn's doing himself no favours. The longer he keeps the topic alive in the media, the more people are going to ask themselves 'why is this idiot so keen to splash our taxes on people in Calais?'
They're in France FFS. Not Syria, Mogadishu or Afghanistan. France.
Corbyn should be asking what the French are doing, but I suspect they'll tell him to Foxtrot Oscar and not meddle in their country. (And besides they won't do anything, lest they attract thousands more).
I have a theory about UKIP, sceptics and the LEAVE campaign, supported by various whispers I've heard.
THEY DON'T EXPECT TO WIN. KIPPERS DON'T EVEN WANT TO WIN
What they want, logically, is to do what the Nats did: get really quite close, but lose, then stand back and reap the benefits as the EU does various horrible things to us post-REMAIN, even as the EU implodes at the same time, thanks to migration, eurogeddon, terror, etc.
Result: UKIP get a huge electoral boost, the voters swing even further right, a new referendum is called within a few years, and this is won, but by then UKIP have established themselves as a major party of government, not a pressure group which will dissolve post-plebiscite.
Makes sense to me. Quite likely, in fact.
Now, a DVD and some wine, tomorrow I fly home from sunny Bangkok
kapkap
I think you're right that Farage would love to be a cabinet minister and/or PM.
But losing carries risks to Out. In Scotland the oil price collapse has made independence look a whole lot less likely. It is possible - albeit unlikely - that the EU gets the act together re refugees. And with a bunch of more Eurosceptic governments (albeit not to UKIP levels) in power across Europe, it is quite likely the drive to further integration is put on hold.
Who knows? Personally, I think we should lead Sweden, Denmark and other non-Euro states into the sunlit uplands of EFTA/EEA, but again... who knows?
Its a dumb analogy and pretty umm... trite too, trying to link the EU with muslim immigration rather than catholic immigration. We as a commonwealth country have link with countries holding hundreds of millions of muslims and hindus. We do not need the EU to be a cause for muslim immigration. I continue to find it umm... strange that anti EU propagandists continue to seek out the least desirable group of people they can find and associate them with the EU.
PS - I think your comments re EEA are plausible.
The flaw in that EEA/EFTA plan is that the non-Euro EU countries do not seem keen on leaving the EU in order to keep us company.
Its a bit like the Kipper League of Empire Loyalists who want to rebuild the Commonwealth, without actually considering whether that is what the Old Commonwralth wants.
The EEA plan dies not require any other countries to join us. So it is a very good plan with no flaw.
I was referring to RCS suggestion the non-Euro countries might like to join our seccession, I know of no evidence for this apart from wishfull thinking.
Ideal for Trump though if Bush stays in and splits the establishment vote with Rubio and Cruz goes from 2nd in Iowa to 5th in NH and his steamroller keeps rushing on with his opponents completely split!
Ideal for Trump though if Bush stays in and splits the establishment vote with Rubio and Cruz goes from 2nd in Iowa to 5th in NH and his steamroller keeps rushing on with his opponents completely split!
Yeah, but i don't want to get all squeaky bum: I am more exposed to Bush than a flasher in a public park.
Doesn't matter, Mr. Ears, is the company doing business in the UK? If so then n% of its income goes to HMG.
For example if a company registered in Luxembourg for tax purposes issues invoices worth £1,000 to its UK customers then, say, 5% of that £1,000 goes to HMG in tax. If a company registered in Nottingham issues £1,000 of invoices then they are liable for the same 5%. As they say, a level playing field.
Sainsbury's goes out of business under this model.
A turnover tax at 5% either gets added to the bottom line and we end up with higher prices in retail or companies which are unable to raise prices because of cheaply priced imports go bust.
No, any kind of turnover or "income" based tax for corporations is a poor idea. I'm honestly surprised that you would advocate such a thing.
Income tax for an individual works because my cost of doing business is very low. I have a job, the cost of doing business is getting to and from work everyday and paying for my lunch (which is subsidised), it works out to around 2% of my gross income. The cost of doing business for Sainsbury's is much higher, they have to pay rent, electricity, wages, suppliers, rates and a bunch of other stuff before we can reasonably say they have made money. If we immediately take 5% of their revenue we would put them out of business, their operating profit margin last year was 2.77%, or £720m on £26bn revenue. Your 5% tax would mean they pay £1.3bn in tax since none of their costs are allowable, which is higher than their operating profit. A system which targets turnover would put too many legitimate operations out of business, companies and individuals operate under different circumstances.
Yes. Take pharmaceutical distributors. Their job is to hold and deliver drugs. They play a vital role in sourcing product and getting it to pharmacies, hospitals and doctors offices. And their margin is tiny, tiny, tiny, and is per 'drug package' irrespective of price. So, expensive cancer drugs might cost them 200 quid for a dose, and they get 201 for delivering it to the pharmacy in Walsall.
A turnover tax isn't going to work out very well for them.
Don't worry, there'e (almost) no danger of Rubio and Kasich fading and Jeb pulling off a famous and incredibly unexecpected victory in New Hampshire. Is there?
'The wider public, if they pay any attention to these things, will be happy that Cameron called a spade a spade on this occasion.'
Indeed and I am sure his choice of words was not accidental in that regard. Of course, he has zero intention of actually doing anything about immigration.
But that's modern politics I'm afraid - all dog whistles and faux outrage, no action.
I was at a conference for much of the day. A well-respected economist (who was very articulate about why he thought interest rates were going to rise far sooner than most people think) evidently could not conceive why anyone would vote Leave.
The Chinese stockmarket crash does rather bring to mind the 1929 crash. A lot of small investors have learnt the hard way how Capitalism works. A lot of that debt pile has pretty rotten foundations.
The commodity glut points towards deflation rather than interest rises.
Don't worry, there'e (almost) no danger of Rubio and Kasich fading and Jeb pulling off a famous and incredibly unexecpected victory in New Hampshire. Is there?
As someone who has greened out on all my election markets I would now enjoy the surprising and unexpected.
I was at a conference for much of the day. A well-respected economist (who was very articulate about why he thought interest rates were going to rise far sooner than most people think) evidently could not conceive why anyone would vote Leave.
What was his rationale behind thinking interest rates would rise?
Don't worry, there'e (almost) no danger of Rubio and Kasich fading and Jeb pulling off a famous and incredibly unexecpected victory in New Hampshire. Is there?
There is almost no prospect of him pulling off a victory in NH, there might be a possibility of him pulling off a famous and incredibly unexpected scraped runner's up spot, before collapsing again to the back of the pack in South Carolina!!
I was at a conference for much of the day. A well-respected economist (who was very articulate about why he thought interest rates were going to rise far sooner than most people think) evidently could not conceive why anyone would vote Leave.
What was his rationale behind thinking interest rates would rise?
Yes. A rise is normally associated with a boom not a bust, with rising inflation not zero inflation. PS I should add squeezing out rising and excess spending.
I was at a conference for much of the day. A well-respected economist (who was very articulate about why he thought interest rates were going to rise far sooner than most people think) evidently could not conceive why anyone would vote Leave.
What was his rationale behind thinking interest rates would rise?
Yes, I would be interested to know as well. I find most economics professors to be quite clueless on real life though.
Ideal for Trump though if Bush stays in and splits the establishment vote with Rubio and Cruz goes from 2nd in Iowa to 5th in NH and his steamroller keeps rushing on with his opponents completely split!
Yeah, but i don't want to get all squeaky bum: I am more exposed to Bush than a flasher in a public park.
Jeremy Corbyn has written to David Cameron about his language at PMQs.
I mean..really?!
Does Corbyn really think that keeping this in the news will somehow be beneficial to him - or is he mistaking Islington and Twitter for public opinion again?
Of course he is playing to his very tiny gallery. The hard left bubble will applaud and then rest of us just look on in disbelief.
And in order to gain your vote he should do...what?
In order to remove Corbyn something major needs to happen. If the Local Elections go badly I think the best chance would be along the following lines:
Kinnock and Brown announce they will be holding a joint news conference in 24 hours time - give 24 hours for a media frenzy to build up.
They then hold the news conference and say that Corbyn can't win, will lead to disaster at GE etc etc.
They close by saying they accept he won a democratic mandate but that his views need to be challenged. They are therefore challenging Corbyn to a head to head debate on primetime BBC1 about the future of the Labour Party. (Obviously only one of Kinnock or Brown would do the debate with Corbyn).
What would happen - who knows? But it's the sort of thing which would have a big impact and could work. It has to be people of major status / stature who will command huge media attention. They would obviously want polls post debate amongst the general public, Lab supporters etc.
In order to remove Corbyn something major needs to happen. If the Local Elections go badly I think the best chance would be along the following lines:
Kinnock and Brown announce they will be holding a joint news conference in 24 hours time - give 24 hours for a media frenzy to build up.
They then hold the news conference and say that Corbyn can't win, will lead to disaster at GE etc etc.
They close by saying they accept he won a democratic mandate but that his views need to be challenged. They are therefore challenging Corbyn to a head to head debate on primetime BBC1 about the future of the Labour Party. (Obviously only one of Kinnock or Brown would do the debate with Corbyn).
What would happen - who knows? But it's the sort of thing which would have a major impact and could work. The would obviously want polls post debate amongst the general public, Lab supporters etc.
Kinnock and Brown lost a combined 3 general elections between the 2 of them, Corbyn has yet to lose one, they are the last people you would choose to give lectures on electability!
I have a theory about UKIP, sceptics and the LEAVE campaign, supported by various whispers I've heard.
THEY DON'T EXPECT TO WIN. KIPPERS DON'T EVEN WANT TO WIN
What they want, logically, is to do what the Nats did: get really quite close, but lose, then stand back and reap the benefits as the EU does various horrible things to us post-REMAIN, even as the EU implodes at the same time, thanks to migration, eurogeddon, terror, etc.
Result: UKIP get a huge electoral boost, the voters swing even further right, a new referendum is called within a few years, and this is won, but by then UKIP have established themselves as a major party of government, not a pressure group which will dissolve post-plebiscite.
Makes sense to me. Quite likely, in fact.
Now, a DVD and some wine, tomorrow I fly home from sunny Bangkok
kapkap
I think you're right that Farage would love to be a cabinet minister and/or PM.
But losing carries risks to Out. In Scotland the oil price collapse has made independence look a whole lot less likely. It is possible - albeit unlikely - that the EU gets the act together re refugees. And with a bunch of more Eurosceptic governments (albeit not to UKIP levels) in power across Europe, it is quite likely the drive to further integration is put on hold.
Who knows? Personally, I think we should lead Sweden, Denmark and other non-Euro states into the sunlit uplands of EFTA/EEA, but again... who knows?
Its a dumb analogy and pretty umm... trite too, trying to link the EU with muslim immigration rather than catholic immigration. We as a commonwealth country have link with countries holding hundreds of millions of muslims and hindus. We do not need the EU to be a cause for muslim immigration. I continue to find it umm... strange that anti EU propagandists continue to seek out the least desirable group of people they can find and associate them with the EU.
PS - I think your comments re EEA are plausible.
The flaw in that EEA/EFTA plan is that the non-Euro EU countries do not seem keen on leaving the EU in order to keep us company.
Its a bit like the Kipper League of Empire Loyalists who want to rebuild the Commonwealth, without actually considering whether that is what the Old Commonwralth wants.
The EEA plan dies not require any other countries to join us. So it is a very good plan with no flaw.
I think your comments on the EEA are plausible too ... err as well.
In order to remove Corbyn something major needs to happen. If the Local Elections go badly I think the best chance would be along the following lines:
Kinnock and Brown announce they will be holding a joint news conference in 24 hours time - give 24 hours for a media frenzy to build up.
They then hold the news conference and say that Corbyn can't win, will lead to disaster at GE etc etc.
They close by saying they accept he won a democratic mandate but that his views need to be challenged. They are therefore challenging Corbyn to a head to head debate on primetime BBC1 about the future of the Labour Party. (Obviously only one of Kinnock or Brown would do the debate with Corbyn).
What would happen - who knows? But it's the sort of thing which would have a big impact and could work. It has to be people of major status / stature who will command huge media attention. They would obviously want polls post debate amongst the general public, Lab supporters etc.
In order to remove Corbyn something major needs to happen. If the Local Elections go badly I think the best chance would be along the following lines:
Kinnock and Brown announce they will be holding a joint news conference in 24 hours time - give 24 hours for a media frenzy to build up.
They then hold the news conference and say that Corbyn can't win, will lead to disaster at GE etc etc.
They close by saying they accept he won a democratic mandate but that his views need to be challenged. They are therefore challenging Corbyn to a head to head debate on primetime BBC1 about the future of the Labour Party. (Obviously only one of Kinnock or Brown would do the debate with Corbyn).
What would happen - who knows? But it's the sort of thing which would have a big impact and could work. It has to be people of major status / stature who will command huge media attention. They would obviously want polls post debate amongst the general public, Lab supporters etc.
Jeremy Corbyn has written to David Cameron about his language at PMQs.
I mean..really?!
Does Corbyn really think that keeping this in the news will somehow be beneficial to him - or is he mistaking Islington and Twitter for public opinion again?
Of course he is playing to his very tiny gallery. The hard left bubble will applaud and then rest of us just look on in disbelief.
And in order to gain your vote he should do...what?
In order to remove Corbyn something major needs to happen. If the Local Elections go badly I think the best chance would be along the following lines:
Kinnock and Brown announce they will be holding a joint news conference in 24 hours time - give 24 hours for a media frenzy to build up.
They then hold the news conference and say that Corbyn can't win, will lead to disaster at GE etc etc.
They close by saying they accept he won a democratic mandate but that his views need to be challenged. They are therefore challenging Corbyn to a head to head debate on primetime BBC1 about the future of the Labour Party. (Obviously only one of Kinnock or Brown would do the debate with Corbyn).
What would happen - who knows? But it's the sort of thing which would have a major impact and could work. The would obviously want polls post debate amongst the general public, Lab supporters etc.
Kinnock and Brown lost a combined 3 general elections between the 2 of them, Corbyn has yet to lose one, they are the last people you would choose to give lectures on electability!
Good one liner but the point is they command respect in the Labour party and amongst Labour supporters and they can't credibly be called Tories.
The only labour politician who has won is Blair and he is a complete non-starter.
I personally don't think there is anyone else alive who could generate the necessary "storm" as powerfully as Kinnock and Brown.
Jeremy Corbyn has written to David Cameron about his language at PMQs.
I mean..really?!
Does Corbyn really think that keeping this in the news will somehow be beneficial to him - or is he mistaking Islington and Twitter for public opinion again?
Of course he is playing to his very tiny gallery. The hard left bubble will applaud and then rest of us just look on in disbelief.
And in order to gain your vote he should do...what?
I suspect he cannot do anything. He is plain stupid, he has spent a lifetime proclaiming stupid policies but that is because he is stupid. Plain stupid, dim, ill educated narrow minded and wrong headed. I doubt he can do very much about that.
In order to remove Corbyn something major needs to happen. If the Local Elections go badly I think the best chance would be along the following lines:
Kinnock and Brown announce they will be holding a joint news conference in 24 hours time - give 24 hours for a media frenzy to build up.
They then hold the news conference and say that Corbyn can't win, will lead to disaster at GE etc etc.
They close by saying they accept he won a democratic mandate but that his views need to be challenged. They are therefore challenging Corbyn to a head to head debate on primetime BBC1 about the future of the Labour Party. (Obviously only one of Kinnock or Brown would do the debate with Corbyn).
What would happen - who knows? But it's the sort of thing which would have a major impact and could work. The would obviously want polls post debate amongst the general public, Lab supporters etc.
Kinnock and Brown lost a combined 3 general elections between the 2 of them, Corbyn has yet to lose one, they are the last people you would choose to give lectures on electability!
Good one liner but the point is they command respect in the Labour party and amongst Labour supporters and they can't credibly be called Tories.
The only labour politician who has won is Blair and he is a complete non-starter.
I personally don't think there is anyone else alive who could generate the necessary "storm" as powerfully as Kinnock and Brown.
Do they, I would be sceptical they command much respect amongst the present sub-Trotskyite Labour membership. Kinnock lost outright not one but two consecutive general elections, an unprecedented feat and Brown not only turned off the public, unlike Blair but also could not even enthuse his own base, unlike Corbyn. If Labour lose the Mayoralty, Scotland and local elections there will probably be a challenge anyway as there will be if Labour lose a by-election to UKIP, otherwise there won't regardless of what Kinnock and Brown say
Ideal for Trump though if Bush stays in and splits the establishment vote with Rubio and Cruz goes from 2nd in Iowa to 5th in NH and his steamroller keeps rushing on with his opponents completely split!
Yeah, but i don't want to get all squeaky bum: I am more exposed to Bush than a flasher in a public park.
Jeremy Corbyn has written to David Cameron about his language at PMQs.
I mean..really?!
Does Corbyn really think that keeping this in the news will somehow be beneficial to him - or is he mistaking Islington and Twitter for public opinion again?
Of course he is playing to his very tiny gallery. The hard left bubble will applaud and then rest of us just look on in disbelief.
And in order to gain your vote he should do...what?
By the way, Nick, how's that whole elect-a-mad-commie-and-let's-see-what-happens-thing workin out for ya?
Jeremy Corbyn has written to David Cameron about his language at PMQs.
I mean..really?!
Does Corbyn really think that keeping this in the news will somehow be beneficial to him - or is he mistaking Islington and Twitter for public opinion again?
Of course he is playing to his very tiny gallery. The hard left bubble will applaud and then rest of us just look on in disbelief.
And in order to gain your vote he should do...what?
Put together a coherent policy platform that addresses the needs and aspirations of the nation he seeks to lead.
Jeremy Corbyn has written to David Cameron about his language at PMQs.
I mean..really?!
Does Corbyn really think that keeping this in the news will somehow be beneficial to him - or is he mistaking Islington and Twitter for public opinion again?
Of course he is playing to his very tiny gallery. The hard left bubble will applaud and then rest of us just look on in disbelief.
And in order to gain your vote he should do...what?
Resign after changing party leadership rules, ensuring the hard left never meddle in the Labour leadership again.
In the GOP's case I think it would be 'Jeb Bush needs to fuck off and join the Democrats.' The GOP establishment's problem is the polar opposite of Labour's! Even the Tories would probably be too leftwing wing for the Republican base at the moment, UKIP would be the only UK party which might pass the litmus test!
Jeremy Corbyn has written to David Cameron about his language at PMQs.
I mean..really?!
That is beyond pathetic from Corbyn
The wider public, if they pay any attention to these things, will be happy that Cameron called a spade a spade on this occasion.
There is a bunch of migrants in Calais. I could think of worse things to call many of them - but I won't. Bunch is fine. A neutral word at worst.
(C) Collins Gem English Dictionary: bunch n. number of things tied or growing together, cluster, tuft, knot, group, party.
I hope he works through the list. This week bunch. Next week - cluster. Then tuft. See how much outrage he can provoke each week. Finally he will get to Corbyn meeting a party of migrants at Calais. His very own party.
It's not like Labour has got anything else to worry about....
Why has the Labour party suddenly become so fucking stupid in every possible way?
This is no fun any more. They're just pathetic. They fall for every ruse, snap at every decoy, believe in every bluff, swallow every Tory lie, make every conceivable mistake, then drop their trousers to show their unsightly bottoms whenever there's a lull in the action, and finally turn on each other whenever they have a rare opportunity to attack the Tories.
They should rename themselves the Face-Custard-Pie Party.
I briefly entertained the Jeremy Corbyn is Peter Cook theory, but his recent actions are so silly I'm leaning towards Corbyn being a Tory agent. It wasn't Ed after all, the mole had much deeper cover than anybody expected, 40 years or pretending to be a moonbat, and finally the ultras have made him leader.
Heartening to see the bunch? swarm? of folk who had a collective prolapse at being referred to as the herd have now grown a thicker skin about 'robust' language, albeit in regard to it being directed at others but it's a start I guess.
SeanT, flightpath and oxfordsimon are not convincing me that they are potential Labour voters. :-)
Well that's the trouble Labour has got. They need to convince a couple of million folks like SeanT, flightpath and oxfordsimon. Not looking promising....
Bunch is the English word used to describe cycling's peloton. Lefties complaining about using the word are no different to the current mob harassing OED about some of their definitions imo.
Bunch is the English word used to describe cycling's peloton. Lefties complaining about using the word are no different to the current mob harassing OED about some of their definitions imo.
I sometimes wonder whether an element of our society may not be suffering terminal political correctness and be in danger of disappearing up its own fundament.
I'm worried about the 27% who want to take any of that mob from Calais.
I'm worried that 27% includes Dave and the rest of the Cameron clowns. At least Corbyn is honest about it.
To be fair, Cameron's been fairly solid on the EU migrant crisis.
So far.
One thing that I haven't seen comment about. The children we are taking from Syria are some of the most damaged, physically and emotionally. The cost per child is going to be huge, and the use of health specialists will be required for years and years.
Any country can wave through fit young economically active proto-terrrorists men. The commitment Cameron has made - to the detriment of our own nationals who will compete for use of the NHS - should not be underestimated.
I've only seen a short clip of PMQs, and to me it looked like Cameron was just pissed off in general with Corbyn. Maybe he's fed up with this whole "Dennis from Walthamstow wants to know what the PM is doing about illegal whelk molesting" shtick. I know I am.
'I was at a conference for much of the day. A well-respected economist (who was very articulate about why he thought interest rates were going to rise far sooner than most people think) evidently could not conceive why anyone would vote Leave.'
It must be nice, at some level, to be as out of touch with reality as that.
I've only seen a short clip of PMQs, and to me it looked like Cameron was just pissed off in general with Corbyn. Maybe he's fed up with this whole "Dennis from Walthamstow wants to know what the PM is doing about illegal whelk molesting" shtick. I know I am.
I'm worried about the 27% who want to take any of that mob from Calais.
I'm worried that 27% includes Dave and the rest of the Cameron clowns. At least Corbyn is honest about it.
To be fair, Cameron's been fairly solid on the EU migrant crisis.
So far.
One thing that I haven't seen comment about. The children we are taking from Syria are some of the most damaged, physically and emotionally. The cost per child is going to be huge, and the use of health specialists will be required for years and years.
Any country can wave through fit young economically active proto-terrrorists men. The commitment Cameron has made - to the detriment of our own nationals who will compete for use of the NHS - should not be underestimated.
I suspect the childrens homes of Rotherham and Rochdale are in need of new custom.
Troubled indeed, it was an "unaccompanied child" who stabbed to death that Swedish Social Worker this week.
The Labour Party simply cannot realise that there are a lot of voters out there who do not agree with the Conservative government..and they are doing absolutely nothing..apart from waiting for some political catastrophe..to win them over with some intelligent and well thought through policies...carping about the use of a very well used word is not going to do it..they deserve all that 2020 will bring..
'I was at a conference for much of the day. A well-respected economist (who was very articulate about why he thought interest rates were going to rise far sooner than most people think) evidently could not conceive why anyone would vote Leave.'
It must be nice, at some level, to be as out of touch with reality as that.
I'm worried about the 27% who want to take any of that mob from Calais.
I'm worried that 27% includes Dave and the rest of the Cameron clowns. At least Corbyn is honest about it.
To be fair, Cameron's been fairly solid on the EU migrant crisis.
So far.
Yes. He has.
He's handled it very well.
If we were close to a general election then he might reap a reward for handling a very emotive issue in a way that reflects the centre of public opinion.
Tonight and last night look good for Leicester. Long midweek matches shortly before we play these two, and Man City with an interest in all 4 competitions, with loads of midweek games from now to May.
Note quite as perfect as Cameron's geezer boy, bully boy speak which comes out when he lets his guard down. I doubt we have ever had someone who is quite so deeply personally repellant as PM Cameron. I doubt after Cameron has finished his time you will have very many people saying what a decent man he is. You can take the man out of Bullingdon, but you cannot take the Bullingdon out of the man.
'I was at a conference for much of the day. A well-respected economist (who was very articulate about why he thought interest rates were going to rise far sooner than most people think) evidently could not conceive why anyone would vote Leave.'
It must be nice, at some level, to be as out of touch with reality as that.
Not saying much. Gordon Brown is deeply, deeply flawed. Cameron is simply an entitled bully.
But Brown never used the death of a child for political gain unlike his successor, and as low as Cameron has sunk with his guard down, the way he brought up his child during the TV debates to big up the NHS was absolutely disgusting.
Note quite as perfect as Cameron's geezer boy, bully boy speak which comes out when he lets his guard down. I doubt we have ever had someone who is quite so deeply personally repellant as PM Cameron. I doubt after Cameron has finished his time you will have very many people saying what a decent man he is. You can take the man out of Bullingdon, but you cannot take the Bullingdon out of the man.
The nuclear style mushroom cloud above Gordon's head is just so perfect.
David Cameron's 'bunch' comment will be very popular with the voters and will not be a negative in any way for him. The losers tonight are Corbyn, Cooper and all the pc brigade
Tory fury as school uses selfishness and HITLER to define being 'Right-wing'
A LESSON for young teenagers that linked Right-wing politics to Germany’s wartime dictator Adolf Hitler and “helping people less” than Left-wingers was condemned yesterday by a senior Conservative MP
Note quite as perfect as Cameron's geezer boy, bully boy speak which comes out when he lets his guard down. I doubt we have ever had someone who is quite so deeply personally repellant as PM Cameron. I doubt after Cameron has finished his time you will have very many people saying what a decent man he is. You can take the man out of Bullingdon, but you cannot take the Bullingdon out of the man.
The nuclear style mushroom cloud above Gordon's head is just so perfect.
That seems a little unlikely to me. Cameron can be quick with a mean put down at PMQs, but is that truly the marker that someone is nasty, or as you put it 'repellent'? Come off it, he seems like a very ordinary person for his background (which includes some hefty doses of poshness and arrogance), that's clearly one reason he's done so well recently, because people try to paint him as some nasty extreme figure and he just doesn't look or sound like one, no matter how many jibes he makes in the Commons. When people make this claim he is a deeply unpleasant man (not merely that he has made some unpleasant policy decisions, which is another argument, though can be connected), it's just laughable. Not that everyone likes him, they sure do not, but he's no Thatcher hate figure.
Some who is actually repellent would not survive British politics for long - as Machiavellian as someone might imagine themselves to be, as good a schemer as they might be, you need to be able to a) not be obviously offputting for the public, which though not impossible to pull off if one is repellent personally, is much more difficult to conceal and b) have a certain amount of charisma, charm and other positive qualities to rise to the top of a party and remain there, because at some point you need those people to stand in your corner, fight the difficult fights, be inspired by you, and if they only do so for negative reasons, ie you are a nasty bully, in time they will not be that effective.
On the other side I always preferred Brown to Blair, so I don't know what to make of this talk he's apparently a nasty sort, I have trouble picturing it, as he always seemed to me to be the kind of awkward, well meaning sort who reacted with clumsy bluster when they reached the top as their skill set didn't extend to what they now needed. Blair I personally disliked a lot, very oily, but judging by the results I presume he must have a high level of personal charm and intellect.
But Brown never used the death of a child for political gain unlike his successor, and as low as Cameron has sunk with his guard down, the way he brought up his child during the TV debates to big up the NHS was absolutely disgusting.
Comments
They're in France FFS. Not Syria, Mogadishu or Afghanistan. France.
Corbyn should be asking what the French are doing, but I suspect they'll tell him to Foxtrot Oscar and not meddle in their country. (And besides they won't do anything, lest they attract thousands more).
A turnover tax isn't going to work out very well for them.
Indeed and I am sure his choice of words was not accidental in that regard. Of course, he has zero intention of actually doing anything about immigration.
But that's modern politics I'm afraid - all dog whistles and faux outrage, no action.
The commodity glut points towards deflation rather than interest rises.
A rise is normally associated with a boom not a bust, with rising inflation not zero inflation.
PS I should add squeezing out rising and excess spending.
In order to remove Corbyn something major needs to happen. If the Local Elections go badly I think the best chance would be along the following lines:
Kinnock and Brown announce they will be holding a joint news conference in 24 hours time - give 24 hours for a media frenzy to build up.
They then hold the news conference and say that Corbyn can't win, will lead to disaster at GE etc etc.
They close by saying they accept he won a democratic mandate but that his views need to be challenged. They are therefore challenging Corbyn to a head to head debate on primetime BBC1 about the future of the Labour Party. (Obviously only one of Kinnock or Brown would do the debate with Corbyn).
What would happen - who knows? But it's the sort of thing which would have a big impact and could work. It has to be people of major status / stature who will command huge media attention. They would obviously want polls post debate amongst the general public, Lab supporters etc.
The only labour politician who has won is Blair and he is a complete non-starter.
I personally don't think there is anyone else alive who could generate the necessary "storm" as powerfully as Kinnock and Brown.
I doubt he can do very much about that.
The migrants in the Calais camp include British citizens who can't afford to come home, and the rest are future titans of British business?
Bollocks.
And he has done NOTHING towards that.
NOTHING.
Superb pic of former PM Gordo (in the Tel) https://t.co/IP8zxAeieC
Tom DeLay saying HRC will be indicted.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/fbi-ready-indict-hillary-clinton-tom-delay-article-1.2509659
It's not like Labour has got anything else to worry about....
This country needs an opposition party that can present itself as a credible alternative government.
Corbyn and his cronies do not offer that. Your experiment has backfired badly and you are too stubborn to acknowledge it.
Lefties complaining about using the word are no different to the current mob harassing OED about some of their definitions imo.
This is quite a significant AI milestone.
Google vs Sedol next March
So far.
Hello my fellow bunch of PBers.
Any country can wave through fit young economically active
proto-terrroristsmen. The commitment Cameron has made - to the detriment of our own nationals who will compete for use of the NHS - should not be underestimated.It must be nice, at some level, to be as out of touch with reality as that.
I know that feeling, it's so tedious.
Troubled indeed, it was an "unaccompanied child" who stabbed to death that Swedish Social Worker this week.
Pause.
Grin.
If we were close to a general election then he might reap a reward for handling a very emotive issue in a way that reflects the centre of public opinion.
Just with £200 less of profit on both Trump and Cruz
Tonight and last night look good for Leicester. Long midweek matches shortly before we play these two, and Man City with an interest in all 4 competitions, with loads of midweek games from now to May.
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/mar/13/countrymen-untold-story-denmark-jews-escaped-nazis-bo-lidegaard-review
Very few Danish Jews were rounded up and transported to their deaths.
I would have thought the world could do with a bunch of Bunches.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Bunche
But Brown never used the death of a child for political gain unlike his successor, and as low as Cameron has sunk with his guard down, the way he brought up his child during the TV debates to big up the NHS was absolutely disgusting.
A LESSON for young teenagers that linked Right-wing politics to Germany’s wartime dictator Adolf Hitler and “helping people less” than Left-wingers was condemned yesterday by a senior Conservative MP
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/638280/Tory-fury-school-selfishness-Hitler-define-Right-wing
This is how they defined left-wing and right-wing - lol
Left-wing = communism,NHS,helping the people,everyone should be equal.
Right-wing = Hitler,less help to the people,more help to businesses,we are not equal.
LOL.
Some who is actually repellent would not survive British politics for long - as Machiavellian as someone might imagine themselves to be, as good a schemer as they might be, you need to be able to a) not be obviously offputting for the public, which though not impossible to pull off if one is repellent personally, is much more difficult to conceal and b) have a certain amount of charisma, charm and other positive qualities to rise to the top of a party and remain there, because at some point you need those people to stand in your corner, fight the difficult fights, be inspired by you, and if they only do so for negative reasons, ie you are a nasty bully, in time they will not be that effective.
On the other side I always preferred Brown to Blair, so I don't know what to make of this talk he's apparently a nasty sort, I have trouble picturing it, as he always seemed to me to be the kind of awkward, well meaning sort who reacted with clumsy bluster when they reached the top as their skill set didn't extend to what they now needed. Blair I personally disliked a lot, very oily, but judging by the results I presume he must have a high level of personal charm and intellect.