Hmm. Blairite "Positive Politics" in Broxtowe to Momentum. Quite some journey.
Well, they're actually requiring people to sign up to positive politics. Partly I just want to rally round in case of any attempt at an anti-Corbyn coup. But in any case it feels a bit like coming home.
Do you have a link to momentums agenda? I would be genuinely interested. I left the Labour party more than a decade ago but could be tempted back by the right policies. I didn't like New Labours NHS or war policies, but approved of their commitment to sound finances, which they held to when I was a member.
McDonnell is possibly the closest fit for you - he's keen on the anti-austerity, anti-war agenda but (possibly because of his job) is more convinced than anyone on the left that Labour needs to match that with sound finances, since without that he thinks none of the rest will get heard.
I'm not sure that's entirely right. I don't think Cameron or Blair are, or were, declinists, or lacking faith in Britain. Cameron genuinely thinks it is in our economic interests to be inside, and Blair genuinely thought we could lead the EU, alongside Berlin and Paris, if only we committed to it.
Quite possibly - quite probably - they are both deluded, and warped by their desire to play on a larger stage, but I don't think they are insincere.
That's a fair, nuanced comment.
Are you feeling quite well?
I have a very lovely new girlfriend. It has induced uncharacteristic fits of niceness. She is young and flighty, however, so if and when she chucks me, I will surely revert to type.
Is this the WWC part time special constable/PCSO who was a little bit UKIP'py?
No, we split. This is a new one. She's quite leftwing and Millennial and says "Patriarchy" a lot.
Oddly exciting.
No offence, but anyone who frequently says Patriarchy, is a member of the twatriarchy.
At the 2012 local elections Labour were 9% ahead. If they're now 5% behind that's a 7% swing to the Tories.
No sign of that in the local byelections which have not gone well for the Tories of late. On your figures Yougov's 3% Labour lead would imply a 3% swing to the Tories since 2012 - but a 2% swing to Labour from 2011 which was the same point in the 2010 Parliament.
It may be that individual by-elections are more affected by personalities and local issues compared with when people are voting en masse on the first Thursday in May.
I'm not sure that's entirely right. I don't think Cameron or Blair are, or were, declinists, or lacking faith in Britain. Cameron genuinely thinks it is in our economic interests to be inside, and Blair genuinely thought we could lead the EU, alongside Berlin and Paris, if only we committed to it.
Quite possibly - quite probably - they are both deluded, and warped by their desire to play on a larger stage, but I don't think they are insincere.
That's a fair, nuanced comment.
Are you feeling quite well?
I have a very lovely new girlfriend. It has induced uncharacteristic fits of niceness. She is young and flighty, however, so if and when she chucks me, I will surely revert to type.
Is this the WWC part time special constable/PCSO who was a little bit UKIP'py?
No, we split. This is a new one. She's quite leftwing and Millennial and says "Patriarchy" a lot.
Oddly exciting.
No offence, but anyone who frequently says Patriarchy, is a member of the twatriarchy.
Hmm. Blairite "Positive Politics" in Broxtowe to Momentum. Quite some journey.
Well, they're actually requiring people to sign up to positive politics. Partly I just want to rally round in case of any attempt at an anti-Corbyn coup. But in any case it feels a bit like coming home.
Do you have a link to momentums agenda? I would be genuinely interested. I left the Labour party more than a decade ago but could be tempted back by the right policies. I didn't like New Labours NHS or war policies, but approved of their commitment to sound finances, which they held to when I was a member.
McDonnell is possibly the closest fit for you - he's keen on the anti-austerity, anti-war agenda but (possibly because of his job) is more convinced than anyone on the left that Labour needs to match that with sound finances, since without that he thinks none of the rest will get heard.
I have to say that McDonnell has been impressive. He has a certain discipline that looks rather effective.
Cameron's ratings are going down the toilet. There is residual loyalty for him among Conservatives, but it's evaporating.
.
The smiles and laughter looked genuine, which made it worse.
Cameron's only in the Conservative party because of his background.
If it had been a bit more Hampsteady and a bit less rural/financial then he would have happily been New Labour or LibDem.
To summarise then, if David Cameron were a different person, he would be a different person.
N
Socially I would agree with you but Cameron and Osborne are both on the right in economic policy. And that is the way I for one like it.
Wh
Largely true. And both Blair & Brown and Cam & Oz relied on a bubble in property prices to drive the economy. The one major difference, perhaps, is that the Tories have actually tried to slim the state, but arguably Blair was the same with PFIs etc.
They are all centrists.
I
That's why Hilton quit. Explained more in this excellent book, which I read inside 60 hours over Christmas (not showing off, just it was that gripping and good):
ON topic, those Com Res results are piss poor for Labour. They would easily be ten-fifteen points ahead with a good leader.
>
They are hopelessly poor results in the context of the Tories tearing themselves into tiny pieces over Europe, the entire rightwing going into revolt, Cameron's ratings collapsing, and so forth.
Early Blair would have a 20 point lead over this Tory party. Corbyn still manages to be five points BEHIND.
If you can't see how ominous this is, for Labour, then you might as well give up this politics lark.
Look YouGov - even after pro - Tory adjustments - has just given Labour a 3% lead. Let us see what Ipsos Mori and Comres Phone come up with over the next few days. I predict that both will be less favourable for the Tories than this poll. At the beginning of the year Comres Online was giving the Tories 14/15% leads - so at least the trend is consistent.
Doesn The worst thing about these slightly-better-than-dreadful polls is the painfully false hope they offer sensible lefties. Thus ensuring Corbyn will avoid any dethronement, and continue to 2020.
Yes - but we are nowhere near midterm -which will not be here until the beginning of 2017 at the earliest.The first year of a Parliament is rarely the most difficult for a re-elected Government. Remember Blair took over in mid-1994 over two years into the 1992 Parliament and inherited a big lead built up under John Smith. I am no Corbyn fan, have no wish to see him in place in 2020 and am far from convinced that he will be. That said, we are also a very long way from the 20 - 25% Tory leads that quite a few on here were predicting last Summer /early Autumn.
Yes, but these are uniquely difficult circumstances for the Tories - visibly and horribly split on THE issue which has killed them for decades. Everyone can see they are openly warring with each other, before the referendum.
Labour should have commanding leads.
But Europe - and everything that goes with it - is not the salient issue that so many in the Westminster village would have us believe. I would accept that if open divisions continue well after the Referendum into 2017 things should become very difficult for the Tories - we can only await events there. Also worth bearing in the mind that the emergence of UKIP has created an alternative for the disillusioned anti - Government vote which makes it more difficult for the major Opposition party to open up a very big lead.
But Europe - and everything that goes with it - is not the salient issue that so many in the Westminster village would have us believe. I would accept that if open divisions continue well after the Referendum into 2017 things should become very difficult for the Tories - we can only await events there. Also worth bearing in the mind that the emergence of UKIP has created an alternative for the disillusioned anti - Government vote which makes it more difficult for the major Opposition party to open up a very big lead.
I guess I could easily wind up TSE by modifying the "Be LEAVE" message by going:
Hitler believed in a European superstate.
Believe in BRITAIN!
Be LEAVE!
Churchill was in favour of a united European superstate.
Mind you the bugger was also in favour of The UK and France becoming one united, single country.
Bloody treasonous talk if you ask me.
Ah, but you see in his famous speech in Zurich, Churchill stated that we should be friends with a United Europe, implying that Britain should be outside, and stick with its Commonwealth associations.
How times change. Now all our Commonwealth friends want us to stay in the EU. The conservative Australian Foreign Minister (Julie Bishop) called Brexit a fantasy of the British Right which is predominantly what it always has been .
This has been achieved despite more spending on debt interest. The actual increase in government spending has virtually stopped. it is a clear and sharp difference from the policies pursued up to 2010.
This is not an accident. It is a consequence of a different view of the role of the state, the desirability of making people more self-sufficient and the desirability of people spending their own money rather than the government spending it for them.
Yawn.
As I said they support cuts to Labour voting blocs but subsidise consumerism in Conservative voting blocs eg triple lock pensions.
Perhaps you'd like to explain why government borrowing is so much higher than Osborne said it would be ?
Or why when Osborne promised to rebalance the economy towards 'exports and savings' the UK's current account is at a record high and savings ratio is at a record low.
Or why Osborne's proclaimed 'March of the Makers' has been a march backwards.
Still house prices are up aren't they.
Rising house prices and government subsidised welfare consumerism for friendly voting blocs.
Just as it was in the Blair era, the only difference is that the friendly voting blocs are different.
And why should anyone be surprised - Blair was the inspiration to Cameron and Osborne and they saw nothing wrong with the economy of a decade ago. On the contrary they promised to maintain Labour's spending levels and to 'share the proceeds of growth'.
The only problem being there isn't enough growth to subsidise the required level of welfare consumerism.
So the magic money tree has been used instead.
This is too boring for words. Find a new tune, this is seriously dull and pointless.
You disappoint me, I never thought you were yet another bleating cheerleader with an aversion to inconvenient facts.
On Thursday we get to replace the ??? with another inconvenient fact.
If Brown or Balls had a record like that you would be full of condemnation but because Osborne wears the same colour rosette as you do you claim it is all 'dull and pointless'.
Hmm. Blairite "Positive Politics" in Broxtowe to Momentum. Quite some journey.
Well, they're actually requiring people to sign up to positive politics. Partly I just want to rally round in case of any attempt at an anti-Corbyn coup. But in any case it feels a bit like coming home.
Do you have a link to momentums agenda? I would be genuinely interested. I left the Labour party more than a decade ago but could be tempted back by the right policies. I didn't like New Labours NHS or war policies, but approved of their commitment to sound finances, which they held to when I was a member.
McDonnell is possibly the closest fit for you - he's keen on the anti-austerity, anti-war agenda but (possibly because of his job) is more convinced than anyone on the left that Labour needs to match that with sound finances, since without that he thinks none of the rest will get heard.
I have to say that McDonnell has been impressive. He has a certain discipline that looks rather effective.
I'm not sure waving Mao's Little Red Book was effective.
The Treasury is primed to publish a barrage of statistics showing the economic merits of Britain’s membership of the EU this week, ahead of a controversial intervention by President Barack Obama in the campaign.
It is understood that officials are preparing to make public a “comprehensive assessment of the costs and benefits of membership” as the in/out battle starts in earnest. A similar study by Treasury officials in the run-up to last year’s Scottish independence referendum saw the then first minister, Alex Salmond, accuse Whitehall of “trying to cook the books”.
Anyone putting any trust in the 5% Conservative lead over Labour in the Comres poll should look at the detailed figures including turnout weighting VI numbers Labour 615 voters Conservative 520 voters after all weighting Labour 376 voters Conservative 438 voters
and Comres wonder why the polls were wrong in 2015
At the 2012 local elections Labour were 9% ahead. If they're now 5% behind that's a 7% swing to the Tories.
No sign of that in the local byelections which have not gone well for the Tories of late. On your figures Yougov's 3% Labour lead would imply a 3% swing to the Tories since 2012 - but a 2% swing to Labour from 2011 which was the same point in the 2010 Parliament.
Hang on a minute, this year's local elections are to be compared with 2012 not 2011 because the local elections are on a 4 year cycle in most cases.
The Treasury is primed to publish a barrage of statistics showing the economic merits of Britain’s membership of the EU this week, ahead of a controversial intervention by President Barack Obama in the campaign.
It is understood that officials are preparing to make public a “comprehensive assessment of the costs and benefits of membership” as the in/out battle starts in earnest. A similar study by Treasury officials in the run-up to last year’s Scottish independence referendum saw the then first minister, Alex Salmond, accuse Whitehall of “trying to cook the books”.
Unlike the previous one, this story actually looks relevant, if the headline is accurate. I guess they didn't know about it before, as it seems much more substantive.
Hmm. Blairite "Positive Politics" in Broxtowe to Momentum. Quite some journey.
Well, they're actually requiring people to sign up to positive politics. Partly I just want to rally round in case of any attempt at an anti-Corbyn coup. But in any case it feels a bit like coming home.
Do you have a link to momentums agenda? I would be genuinely interested. I left the Labour party more than a decade ago but could be tempted back by the right policies. I didn't like New Labours NHS or war policies, but approved of their commitment to sound finances, which they held to when I was a member.
McDonnell is possibly the closest fit for you - he's keen on the anti-austerity, anti-war agenda but (possibly because of his job) is more convinced than anyone on the left that Labour needs to match that with sound finances, since without that he thinks none of the rest will get heard.
I have to say that McDonnell has been impressive. He has a certain discipline that looks rather effective.
I'm not sure waving Mao's Little Red Book was effective.
I have a copy given to me by my Grandfather with the words "there's a lot of sense in this". Strangely he voted Conservative but always espoused far left views.
This has been achieved despite more spending on debt interest. The actual increase in government spending has virtually stopped. it is a clear and sharp difference from the policies pursued up to 2010.
This is not an accident. It is a consequence of a different view of the role of the state, the desirability of making people more self-sufficient and the desirability of people spending their own money rather than the government spending it for them.
Yawn.
As I said they support cuts to Labour voting blocs but subsidise consumerism in Conservative voting blocs eg triple lock pensions.
Perhaps you'd like to explain why government borrowing is so much higher than Osborne said it would be ?
Or why when Osborne promised to rebalance the economy towards 'exports and savings' the UK's current account is at a record high and savings ratio is at a record low.
Or why Osborne's proclaimed 'March of the Makers' has been a march backwards.
Still house prices are up aren't they.
Rising house prices and government subsidised welfare consumerism for friendly voting blocs.
Just as it was in the Blair era, the only difference is that the friendly voting blocs are different.
And why should anyone be surprised - Blair was the inspiration to Cameron and Osborne and they saw nothing wrong with the economy of a decade ago. On the contrary they promised to maintain Labour's spending levels and to 'share the proceeds of growth'.
The only problem being there isn't enough growth to subsidise the required level of welfare consumerism.
So the magic money tree has been used instead.
This is too boring for words. Find a new tune, this is seriously dull and pointless.
You disappoint me, I never thought you were yet another bleating cheerleader with an aversion to inconvenient facts.
Unlike the previous one, this story actually looks relevant, if the headline is accurate. I guess they didn't know about it before, as it seems much more substantive.
My guess is there's more to come about his other one too. It'll come out in the wash after he's gone.
Hmm. Blairite "Positive Politics" in Broxtowe to Momentum. Quite some journey.
Well, they're actually requiring people to sign up to positive politics. Partly I just want to rally round in case of any attempt at an anti-Corbyn coup. But in any case it feels a bit like coming home.
Do you have a link to momentums agenda? I would be genuinely interested. I left the Labour party more than a decade ago but could be tempted back by the right policies. I didn't like New Labours NHS or war policies, but approved of their commitment to sound finances, which they held to when I was a member.
McDonnell is possibly the closest fit for you - he's keen on the anti-austerity, anti-war agenda but (possibly because of his job) is more convinced than anyone on the left that Labour needs to match that with sound finances, since without that he thinks none of the rest will get heard.
I have to say that McDonnell has been impressive. He has a certain discipline that looks rather effective.
I'm not sure waving Mao's Little Red Book was effective.
Strangely he voted Conservative but always espoused far left views.
A lot more common than people expect, I should imagine. I find people expressing pretty far right views, but who are staunch anti-Tories, insistent they themselves are on the left, with some frequency (in as much as one finds any self proclaimed lefties here in the Shires)
Unlike the previous one, this story actually looks relevant, if the headline is accurate. I guess they didn't know about it before, as it seems much more substantive.
My guess is there's more to come about his other one too. It'll come out in the wash after he's gone.
That may well be true, given this follow up, although at the time, with no hint of further stories to come (IIRC, and that's something you'd think they'd trail), it was still a nonsense story. They may have gotten lucky given this new report.
This has been achieved despite more spending on debt interest. The actual increase in government spending has virtually stopped. it is a clear and sharp difference from the policies pursued up to 2010.
This is not an accident. It is a consequence of a different view of the role of the state, the desirability of making people more self-sufficient and the desirability of people spending their own money rather than the government spending it for them.
Yawn.
As I said they support cuts to Labour voting blocs but subsidise consumerism in Conservative voting blocs eg triple lock pensions.
Perhaps you'd like to explain why government borrowing is so much higher than Osborne said it would be ?
Or why when Osborne promised to rebalance the economy towards 'exports and savings' the UK's current account is at a record high and savings ratio is at a record low.
Or why Osborne's proclaimed 'March of the Makers' has been a march backwards.
Still house prices are up aren't they.
Rising house prices and government subsidised welfare consumerism for friendly voting blocs.
Just as it was in the Blair era, the only difference is that the friendly voting blocs are different.
And why should anyone be surprised - Blair was the inspiration to Cameron and Osborne and they saw nothing wrong with the economy of a decade ago. On the contrary they promised to maintain Labour's spending levels and to 'share the proceeds of growth'.
The only problem being there isn't enough growth to subsidise the required level of welfare consumerism.
So the magic money tree has been used instead.
This is too boring for words. Find a new tune, this is seriously dull and pointless.
You disappoint me, I never thought you were yet another bleating cheerleader with an aversion to inconvenient facts.
Unlike the previous one, this story actually looks relevant, if the headline is accurate. I guess they didn't know about it before, as it seems much more substantive.
I agree. If this stacks up, he's finished. This is what Petraeus got into trouble over.
"Highly-sensitive documents" and "minister of culture" don't really go together.
Bullet point says "snatched photo of Cabinet". I'm guessing that the "papers" were on the table, unreadable... Looks a bit tenuous...
Silly as it may seem, it probably does come down to if the photo contained something visibly important. If it's a blurred photo of paper saying 'Cabinet - top secret' or something, with no actual information, well then it's really just a political dick pic, showing off to impress, but without harm.
This has been achieved despite more spending on debt interest. The actual increase in government spending has virtually stopped. it is a clear and sharp difference from the policies pursued up to 2010.
This is not an accident. It is a consequence of a different view of the role of the state, the desirability of making people more self-sufficient and the desirability of people spending their own money rather than the government spending it for them.
Yawn.
As I said they support cuts to Labour voting blocs but subsidise consumerism in Conservative voting blocs eg triple lock pensions.
Perhaps you'd like to explain why government borrowing is so much higher than Osborne said it would be ?
Or why when Osborne promised to rebalance the economy towards 'exports and savings' the UK's current account is at a record high and savings ratio is at a record low.
Or why Osborne's proclaimed 'March of the Makers' has been a march backwards.
Still house prices are up aren't they.
Rising house prices and government subsidised welfare consumerism for friendly voting blocs.
Just as it was in the Blair era, the only difference is that the friendly voting blocs are different.
And why should anyone be surprised - Blair was the inspiration to Cameron and Osborne and they saw nothing wrong with the economy of a decade ago. On the contrary they promised to maintain Labour's spending levels and to 'share the proceeds of growth'.
The only problem being there isn't enough growth to subsidise the required level of welfare consumerism.
So the magic money tree has been used instead.
This is too boring for words. Find a new tune, this is seriously dull and pointless.
You disappoint me, I never thought you were yet another bleating cheerleader with an aversion to inconvenient facts.
I did say earlier today that there is going to be a tsunami of warnings about Brexit from many and various sources, almost daily, probably countering project fear by stating Brexit is a 'leap into the dark'
Can you have an "affair", let alone a second one, if you are unmarried?
If the other party were married, I suppose you be said to have participated in one. Or it could be used disingenuously, with 'affair' defined as 'an event or sequence of events of a specified kind' rather than the implied meaning of illicit romantic entanglement.
I guess I could easily wind up TSE by modifying the "Be LEAVE" message by going:
Hitler believed in a European superstate.
Believe in BRITAIN!
Be LEAVE!
Churchill was in favour of a united European superstate.
Mind you the bugger was also in favour of The UK and France becoming one united, single country.
Bloody treasonous talk if you ask me.
Ah, but you see in his famous speech in Zurich, Churchill stated that we should be friends with a United Europe, implying that Britain should be outside, and stick with its Commonwealth associations.
How times change. Now all our Commonwealth friends want us to stay in the EU. The conservative Australian Foreign Minister (Julie Bishop) called Brexit a fantasy of the British Right which is predominantly what it always has been .
Can we dispense with this nonsense. Established and successful politicians will nearly always support the global status quo, as it clearly enables their own high status. You might as well ask Manchester City whether UEFA should allow investment in English football from foreign trillionaires.
I bet 90% of the famous non-European politicians opining on Brexit have no idea what the ECJ does, what CFP means, what the "acquis" might imply, what QMV stands for, etc
Indeed these would be good questions for Barack Obama, when he heads over. Doubt he could answer half of them.
The reason it is not nonsense is that it is the direction many Brexiters are looking. Her comments were in response to David Davis saying "Brexit as an ‘opportunity to renew our strong relationships with Commonwealth and Anglosphere countries.’ The problem is not one Commonwealth or Anglosphere leader supports Brexit.
And before Leave set about trashing Obama next week they might do well to note as an article in the News Statesman points out "Obama is, and has long been, popular in the UK. Polled by Pew Resarch in June 2015, 76 per cent of British voters trusted him "to do the right thing regarding world affairs" (and most probably judge the US to have a passing interest in our EU membership)"
It is standard Leave tactics to dismiss and abuse anyone who criticises Brexit but don't fall into the trap of thinking every else shares your point of view.
Looks like the morning thread will have to feature porn stars.
TSE, surely you won't deprive us of our fix of AV?
Talking of AV, I'm deeply concerned about the PFA Player's Player of the season. If it's decided using first past the post there's a danger the Leicester players will split the vote allowing Kane (or even worse - Ozil) to win it.
Looks like the morning thread will have to feature porn stars.
TSE, surely you won't deprive us of our fix of AV?
Talking of AV, I'm deeply concerned about the PFA Player's Player of the season. If it's decided using first past the post there's a danger the Leicester players will split the vote allowing Kane (or even worse - Ozil) to win it.
This has been achieved despite more spending on debt interest. The actual increase in government spending has virtually stopped. it is a clear and sharp difference from the policies pursued up to 2010.
This is not an accident. It is a consequence of a different view of the role of the state, the desirability of making people more self-sufficient and the desirability of people spending their own money rather than the government spending it for them.
Yawn.
As I said they support cuts to Labour voting blocs but subsidise consumerism in Conservative voting blocs eg triple lock pensions.
Perhaps you'd like to explain why government borrowing is so much higher than Osborne said it would be ?
Or why when Osborne promised to rebalance the economy towards 'exports and savings' the UK's current account is at a record high and savings ratio is at a record low.
Or why Osborne's proclaimed 'March of the Makers' has been a march backwards.
Still house prices are up aren't they.
Rising house prices and government subsidised welfare consumerism for friendly voting blocs.
Just as it was in the Blair era, the only difference is that the friendly voting blocs are different.
And why should anyone be surprised - Blair was the inspiration to Cameron and Osborne and they saw nothing wrong with the economy of a decade ago. On the contrary they promised to maintain Labour's spending levels and to 'share the proceeds of growth'.
The only problem being there isn't enough growth to subsidise the required level of welfare consumerism.
So the magic money tree has been used instead.
This is too boring for words. Find a new tune, this is seriously dull and pointless.
You disappoint me, I never thought you were yet another bleating cheerleader with an aversion to inconvenient facts.
Boris was heckled in both Newcastle and Leeds today by the left saying conservatives not welcome here. They are obviously going to attempt to cause him difficulties at his public gatherings but lets hope it doesn't get out of hand
This has been achieved despite more spending on debt interest. The actual increase in government spending has virtually stopped. it is a clear and sharp difference from the policies pursued up to 2010.
This is not an accident. It is a consequence of a different view of the role of the state, the desirability of making people more self-sufficient and the desirability of people spending their own money rather than the government spending it for them.
Yawn.
As I said they support cuts to Labour voting blocs but subsidise consumerism in Conservative voting blocs eg triple lock pensions.
Perhaps you'd like to explain why government borrowing is so much higher than Osborne said it would be ?
Or why when Osborne promised to rebalance the economy towards 'exports and savings' the UK's current account is at a record high and savings ratio is at a record low.
Or why Osborne's proclaimed 'March of the Makers' has been a march backwards.
Still house prices are up aren't they.
Rising house prices and government subsidised welfare consumerism for friendly voting blocs.
Just as it was in the Blair era, the only difference is that the friendly voting blocs are different.
And why should anyone be surprised - Blair was the inspiration to Cameron and Osborne and they saw nothing wrong with the economy of a decade ago. On the contrary they promised to maintain Labour's spending levels and to 'share the proceeds of growth'.
The only problem being ee has been used instead.
Thisly dull and pointless.
You disappoint me, I never thought you were yet another bleating cheerleader with an aversion to inconvenient facts.
I omitted the words 'per annum', as I was guessing borrowing will barely be down, if at all, this year, and so circa 90 billion vs the prediction of 20.
Looks like the morning thread will have to feature porn stars.
TSE, surely you won't deprive us of our fix of AV?
Talking of AV, I'm deeply concerned about the PFA Player's Player of the season. If it's decided using first past the post there's a danger the Leicester players will split the vote allowing Kane (or even worse - Ozil) to win it.
Leicester v West Ham tomorrow
I have noticed!
Good results for Leicester today. Everton, Swansea and Chelsea on the beach, Martinez and LVG still in post and Newcastle having something to play for on the last day.
The PFA player of the year could have had a few other Leicester players too, particularly Wes Morgan and Danny Drinkwater.
"Highly-sensitive documents" and "minister of culture" don't really go together.
Bullet point says "snatched photo of Cabinet". I'm guessing that the "papers" were on the table, unreadable... Looks a bit tenuous...
To lose one Cabinet Minister may be regarded as a misfortune, to lose two looks like carelessness.
Losing one to their own idiocy is rarely a reflection on the PM, if their idiocy was only tangential to their job.
Doesn't look too good if the PM serially appoints utter incompetents though. Remember Major and Hamilton, or Brown and just about every member of his last cabinet.
Boris was heckled in both Newcastle and Leeds today by the left saying conservatives not welcome here. They are obviously going to attempt to cause him difficulties at his public gatherings but lets hope it doesn't get out of hand
"Highly-sensitive documents" and "minister of culture" don't really go together.
Bullet point says "snatched photo of Cabinet". I'm guessing that the "papers" were on the table, unreadable... Looks a bit tenuous...
To lose one Cabinet Minister may be regarded as a misfortune, to lose two looks like carelessness.
Losing one to their own idiocy is rarely a reflection on the PM, if their idiocy was only tangential to their job.
Doesn't look too good if the PM serially appoints utter incompetents though. Remember Major and Hamilton, or Brown and just about every member of his last cabinet.
Perhaps, although the one's gone through their own idiocy have been spaced out somewhat, since IDS was a matter of principle, so may not count in that regard (although he did essentially call Cameron a liar, which is bad too of course).
"Highly-sensitive documents" and "minister of culture" don't really go together.
Bullet point says "snatched photo of Cabinet". I'm guessing that the "papers" were on the table, unreadable... Looks a bit tenuous...
To lose one Cabinet Minister may be regarded as a misfortune, to lose two looks like carelessness.
Losing one to their own idiocy is rarely a reflection on the PM, if their idiocy was only tangential to their job.
Doesn't look too good if the PM serially appoints utter incompetents though. Remember Major and Hamilton, or Brown and just about every member of his last cabinet.
He first offered the culture secretary job to Boris so I don't thing he is too concerned about individuals who shag around.
Boris was heckled in both Newcastle and Leeds today by the left saying conservatives not welcome here. They are obviously going to attempt to cause him difficulties at his public gatherings but lets hope it doesn't get out of hand
The New Politics in action!
Sure Jeremy will ask for Boris to be heard with respect in view of his 'new politics' policy
Labour linked to terrorists...just another normal headline these days for labour.
Why the coy phrasing 'Labour London hopeful linked to terrorist'? Seems like 'Sadiq Khan linked to terrorist' is more powerful and makes the same point. So I presume it's bollocks .
Having now read the Mail front page, it's b*ll*x isn't it? When was "two year affair" supposed to have taken place? He's only been a minister for less than a year.
"Highly-sensitive documents" and "minister of culture" don't really go together.
Bullet point says "snatched photo of Cabinet". I'm guessing that the "papers" were on the table, unreadable... Looks a bit tenuous...
To lose one Cabinet Minister may be regarded as a misfortune, to lose two looks like carelessness.
Losing one to their own idiocy is rarely a reflection on the PM, if their idiocy was only tangential to their job.
Doesn't look too good if the PM serially appoints utter incompetents though. Remember Major and Hamilton, or Brown and just about every member of his last cabinet.
He first offered the culture secretary job to Boris so I don't thing he is too concerned about individuals who shag around.
I don't care which consenting adults he's getting it on with. I care if he is a potential security risk. This is of course only a story I the Mail and may well not be true of course, as noted upthread.
Looks like the morning thread will have to feature porn stars.
TSE, surely you won't deprive us of our fix of AV?
Talking of AV, I'm deeply concerned about the PFA Player's Player of the season. If it's decided using first past the post there's a danger the Leicester players will split the vote allowing Kane (or even worse - Ozil) to win it.
Leicester v West Ham tomorrow
I have noticed!
Good results for Leicester today. Everton, Swansea and Chelsea on the beach, Martinez and LVG still in post and Newcastle having something to play for on the last day.
The PFA player of the year could have had a few other Leicester players too, particularly Wes Morgan and Danny Drinkwater.
Big game tomorrow but Hammers will be deflated with their cup knock out by Man U this week. Do so hope Leicester get the title, they deserve it
Details of wittingdale story are up & it doesn't live up to the headline at all.
The funniest bit for me is he told he initially he was an arms dealer...of all the fake professions to choose...could go for anything..pilot, doctor, businessman...nah darling I flog guns..
Boris was heckled in both Newcastle and Leeds today by the left saying conservatives not welcome here. They are obviously going to attempt to cause him difficulties at his public gatherings but lets hope it doesn't get out of hand
The New Politics in action!
The 'new politics' is just a phrase used for partisans to justify why their side must be morally better than the other lot, why they even behave better in addition to not eating babies/palling with terrorists, and never indulge in nastiness (what's that, our amateur supporters do, with our tacit blessing?* Never mind that). Which is very very old politics - how often do we see 'Funny you never see someone on the left/right say something like that'?
*Classic example 'I condemn [nasty behaviour], although I understand the anger at [hated opponent policy] that leads to this and it's that sort of stirring up of divisiveness that means [my opponent] faces some blame.'
Details of wittingdale story are up & it doesn't live up to the headline at all.
The funniest bit for me is he told he initially he was an arms dealer...of all the fake professions to choose...could go for anything..pilot, doctor, businessman...nah darling I flog guns..
It gives that alluring hint of danger and adventure, even if it is conducted by middle aged men in suits at the top end.
Boris was heckled in both Newcastle and Leeds today by the left saying conservatives not welcome here. They are obviously going to attempt to cause him difficulties at his public gatherings but lets hope it doesn't get out of hand
The New Politics in action!
The 'new politics' is just a phrase used for partisans to justify why their side must be morally better than the other lot, why they even behave better in addition to not eating babies/palling with terrorists, and never indulge in nastiness (what's that, our amateur supporters do, with our tacit blessing? Never mind that). Which is very very old politics - how often do we see 'Funny you never see someone on the left/right say something like that'?
I have not watched HIGNFY since Diane Abbott said she was obeying Corbyn's call for a kinder, gentler politics and nobody pointed out the irony of what she had said.
It was at that point I felt the show had finally lost it after 26 wonderful years. Labour of course jumped the shark the moment they elected an apologist for fascists and murderers on that prospectus.
Basically she isn't a porn star, she is astranged from her husband & this relationship was 2013-2015.
So it was two single individuals had a relationship one of which many years ago did some topless work. He was batting way out of his league must have been all the talk of his weapon of mass destruction!
At the 2012 local elections Labour were 9% ahead. If they're now 5% behind that's a 7% swing to the Tories.
No sign of that in the local byelections which have not gone well for the Tories of late. On your figures Yougov's 3% Labour lead would imply a 3% swing to the Tories since 2012 - but a 2% swing to Labour from 2011 which was the same point in the 2010 Parliament.
Hang on a minute, this year's local elections are to be compared with 2012 not 2011 because the local elections are on a 4 year cycle in most cases.
I am of aware of the 4 year cycle and that these seats were last fought in 2012. However, a like for like comparison in terms of party vote shares one year into the Parliament requires us to look at how the results differ from 2011 - when the Tories led by 1%.
Comments
http://www.peoplesmomentum.com/ethics
and the more detailed objectives are here:
http://www.peoplesmomentum.com/about
McDonnell is possibly the closest fit for you - he's keen on the anti-austerity, anti-war agenda but (possibly because of his job) is more convinced than anyone on the left that Labour needs to match that with sound finances, since without that he thinks none of the rest will get heard.
I'll look out for the book.
2015 Tory voters 36.9%
That difference is Yoooooooooge...
Here are some more:
Predicted Borrowing
2010/11 £149bn
2011/12 £116bn
2012/13 £89bn
2013/14 £60bn
2014/15 £37bn
2015/16 £20bn
Actual Borrowing
2010/11 £137bn
2011/12 £116bn
2012/13 £121bn
2013/14 £103bn
2014/15 £92bn
2015/16 ???
On Thursday we get to replace the ??? with another inconvenient fact.
If Brown or Balls had a record like that you would be full of condemnation but because Osborne wears the same colour rosette as you do you claim it is all 'dull and pointless'.
Very disappointing.
It is understood that officials are preparing to make public a “comprehensive assessment of the costs and benefits of membership” as the in/out battle starts in earnest. A similar study by Treasury officials in the run-up to last year’s Scottish independence referendum saw the then first minister, Alex Salmond, accuse Whitehall of “trying to cook the books”.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/16/treasury-statistics-broadside-brexit-obama-referendum?CMP=twt_gu
VI numbers Labour 615 voters Conservative 520 voters
after all weighting
Labour 376 voters Conservative 438 voters
and Comres wonder why the polls were wrong in 2015
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/721439641233190917
LibDem sex scandals were so much more interesting.
Perhaps they should use that when campaigning - "Vote LibDem for better sex scandals".
Its a better slogan than anything Farron has come up with.
Remainers = Wholesome, sweet and innocent people
Leavers = Colossal perverts
At the very least, it was stupid. At worst, it was criminally negligent. Either way, if true he should go.
To lose one Cabinet Minister may be regarded as a misfortune, to lose two looks like carelessness.
And before Leave set about trashing Obama next week they might do well to note as an article in the News Statesman points out "Obama is, and has long been, popular in the UK. Polled by Pew Resarch in June 2015, 76 per cent of British voters trusted him "to do the right thing regarding world affairs" (and most probably judge the US to have a passing interest in our EU membership)"
It is standard Leave tactics to dismiss and abuse anyone who criticises Brexit but don't fall into the trap of thinking every else shares your point of view.
His positive speech against the negative of project fear.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs0RJNDNyYs
Now that's what you call trolling.
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/721443285798141959
Good results for Leicester today. Everton, Swansea and Chelsea on the beach, Martinez and LVG still in post and Newcastle having something to play for on the last day.
The PFA player of the year could have had a few other Leicester players too, particularly Wes Morgan and Danny Drinkwater.
What did I say about Leavers being colossal perverts?
Your GRAMMAR is APPALLING!
The funniest bit for me is he told he initially he was an arms dealer...of all the fake professions to choose...could go for anything..pilot, doctor, businessman...nah darling I flog guns..
For example:
Neither Mike NOR TSE are LEAVERS.
*Classic example 'I condemn [nasty behaviour], although I understand the anger at [hated opponent policy] that leads to this and it's that sort of stirring up of divisiveness that means [my opponent] faces some blame.'
http://www.buzzfeed.com/alanwhite/he-just-failed-to-get-his-leg-over-aggers#.tf2z0mpE5E
It was at that point I felt the show had finally lost it after 26 wonderful years. Labour of course jumped the shark the moment they elected an apologist for fascists and murderers on that prospectus.
So it was two single individuals had a relationship one of which many years ago did some topless work. He was batting way out of his league must have been all the talk of his weapon of mass destruction!
He called his local Essex constituents ‘oiks’.