Since the GE my attacks have been aimed mainly at the govt, however if the Labour Party don't sack that anti semitic woman I'll change my target.
Imagine the outrage in Islington if anybody connected with Ukip had said something similar about Muslims. As I've said previously, in parts of Labour anti semitism appears to be condoned, encouraged even, its disgusting.
Remember the resign!!!! demands from Labour about Aiden Burley dressing as a Nazi at some stag do or whatever? Ed Balls did a better Nazi - with make-up and a fake bottom.
Since the GE my attacks have been aimed mainly at the govt, however if the Labour Party don't sack that anti semitic woman I'll change my target.
Imagine the outrage in Islington if anybody connected with Ukip had said something similar about Muslims. As I've said previously, in parts of Labour anti semitism appears to be condoned, encouraged even, its disgusting.
Remember the resign!!!! demands from Labour about Aiden Burley dressing as a Nazi at some stag do or whatever? Ed Balls did a better Nazi - with make-up and a fake bottom.
Since the GE my attacks have been aimed mainly at the govt, however if the Labour Party don't sack that anti semitic woman I'll change my target.
Imagine the outrage in Islington if anybody connected with Ukip had said something similar about Muslims. As I've said previously, in parts of Labour anti semitism appears to be condoned, encouraged even, its disgusting.
Remember the resign!!!! demands from Labour about Aiden Burley dressing as a Nazi at some stag do or whatever? Ed Balls did a better Nazi - with make-up and a fake bottom.
Where do I start about Labour crying racist? Filthy hypocrites
I’ve just read that the Bradford MP Naz Shah has quit as McDonnell's PPS, how long before the Labour party expells this nasty anti-Semite? - answers on a post card...!
She wouldn't be the first who thinks Israel is an apartheid state. In fact it might well be a majority view. It certainly is among it's Arab neigbours
Well, its Arab neighbours are hardly in a position to cast stones. It's the presence of Jews there that's their main grievance.
Which isn't really an excuse. We're often told that Israel is the only thriving democracy in the ME, but that doesn't appear to be the case if you're a Palestinian. Comparisons to Hitler are disgusting, but comparisons to Apartheid don't seem wholly without relevance.
How many Arabs living and working in Israel?: Millions How many Jews living and working in Jordan, Egypt, Soudi Arabia, The Magreb, Gaza? Not a one, unless they are the few remaining Jews in Egypt or the Magreb or on an official body from Israel. And the reason is that Jews are forbidden to live in these states. Who really practices Apartheid?
The Arab countries are despotic theocracies by and large. Those that aren't are generally dictatorships of one kind or another. Israel should not really compare itself to them - it is a much better country than that. Millions of black Africans worked in apartheid South Africa, so the fact that millions of Arabs work in Israel is neither here nor there. What matters is the rights they have and how well these are protected.
I made my remark on April 22nd. You made yours on April 25th, by which time we already had polling evidence, from Sky, that Obama's intervention had backfired. You were just backpedalling hastily.
CHORTLE
Here's what you said on April 22nd:
"Richard_Nabavi Posts: 10,444 April 22
This is an impressive campaign from REMAIN however you look at it. That's why there's so much incoherent squealing from the Leave side, although it's baffling to me that they are surprised either by the nature or the intensity of the Remain campaign."
Poppycock. I'd made a similar point earlier.
And, yes of course this is an impressive campaign from the Remain side. No one seriously disputes that, do they? And the Obama intervention certainly torpedoed Leave's free-trade-deal fantasy.
But go on. I love the groupthink here. It helps keep political betting profitable. If you could manage to wank yourselves towards making the odds even, I'd be very grateful.
There's no doubt that the Remain campaign is very well-organised and efficient (far more so than the Leave campaign).
But, it your message is unattractive, then good organisation and efficiency may not do you much good. And, the Remain message is unappealing. It's declinist. It promotes the view that foreigners will do beastly things to us if we leave the EU and there's nothing we can do about it. That may be true, but it's not going to be welcomed by many voters.
That's not how I see the Remain message. To me, it says that we are perfectly able to build successful trading relationships with non-EU countries while being in the EU and enjoying full, unhindered access to the single market. Leaving the EU does not mean better trading relationships with anyone. It merely means a less beneficial one with countries that currently buy over 40% of all our exports.
Why would it not mean better trading relationships with anyone? What makes us 100% incapable of building new relationships that we are forbidden by treaty from building within the EU?
We are not 100% incapable. But it takes two to tango. We would do deals eventually, but they would take time and would not make up for reduced access to the single market.
ICM is 55 Leave/ 45 Remain on 10/10 to vote, pre weightings.
If the working class vote, Leave wins.
Why are Labour hiding?
"Labour and union leaders, while generally pro-EU, made little attempt to lead opinion during the Referendum campaign, casting themselves rather as attempted peacemakers."
I’ve just read that the Bradford MP Naz Shah has quit as McDonnell's PPS, how long before the Labour party expells this nasty anti-Semite? - answers on a post card...!
She wouldn't be the first who thinks Israel is an apartheid state. In fact it might well be a majority view. It certainly is among it's Arab neigbours
Well, its Arab neighbours are hardly in a position to cast stones. It's the presence of Jews there that's their main grievance.
Which isn't really an excuse. We're often told that Israel is the only thriving democracy in the ME, but that doesn't appear to be the case if you're a Palestinian. Comparisons to Hitler are disgusting, but comparisons to Apartheid don't seem wholly without relevance.
How many Arabs living and working in Israel?: Millions How many Jews living and working in Jordan, Egypt, Soudi Arabia, The Magreb, Gaza? Not a one, unless they are the few remaining Jews in Egypt or the Magreb or on an official body from Israel. And the reason is that Jews are forbidden to live in these states. Who really practices Apartheid?
The Arab countries are despotic theocracies by and large.
Have a heart, these are some of Dodgy Dave's best mates.
ICM is 55 Leave/ 45 Remain on 10/10 to vote, pre weightings.
If the working class vote, Leave wins.
Why are Labour hiding?
"Labour and union leaders, while generally pro-EU, made little attempt to lead opinion during the Referendum campaign, casting themselves rather as attempted peacemakers."
ICM is 55 Leave/ 45 Remain on 10/10 to vote, pre weightings.
If the working class vote, Leave wins.
Why are Labour hiding?
The referendum is showing labour's leaders have more in common with David Cameron than they do with many of their own voters.
Frank Field is bricking himself about this, as today shows.
Yes, they appear to be completely out of touch and out of synch with provincial , working class voters.
That's why Labour are probably going to do very badly everywhere in the May elections apart from London. They'll almost certainly have their worst ever showing in Wales and Scotland.
ICM is 55 Leave/ 45 Remain on 10/10 to vote, pre weightings.
If the working class vote, Leave wins.
Why are Labour hiding?
The referendum is showing labour's leaders have more in common with David Cameron than they do with many of their own voters.
Frank Field is bricking himself about this, as today shows.
Yes, they appear to be completely out of touch and out of synch with provincial , working class voters.
A realignment is certainly on the cards but it's not obvious which parties will become vehicles for which voter constituencies. Cameron buried the Lib Dems and demoralised the Blairite Labour party and seemed on the cusp of cementing the Conservatives as the party of the mainstream centre. It seems difficult now to see how the Leavers can be kept in this camp so either the Cameron project will end in complete failure, or UKIP will pick up a big bounce in support.
I’ve just read that the Bradford MP Naz Shah has quit as McDonnell's PPS, how long before the Labour party expells this nasty anti-Semite? - answers on a post card...!
She wouldn't be the first who thinks Israel is an apartheid state. In fact it might well be a majority view. It certainly is among it's Arab neigbours
Israel's Arab neigbours want it wiped off the face of the earth - is this also Labour policy?
The view that it's an apartheid state goes much wider than it's Arab neigbours. It's odd that I as a Jew have a right to return even though I've never been there but a non Jew can't even live there if that's where they were born. It's very similar to the Land Acts in apartheid South Africa.
"a hugely valuable estate worth the equivalent of nearly £600,000 in today’s money"
Is Guido on drugs >?
I don't think he was correct on his BBC reveal Hillsborough "shocker" claim either. In the interview he gave to a podcast the other day (which was very interesting, as it contained little of the usual "Guido" character nonsense) he stated he is only in the UK 3 days a week now and has staff of 4 who do a lot of the work. I wonder if that is affecting some of the postings.
A general election if there's a leave vote is a terrible idea.
On the Labour side if they win they don't want to leave so what's going to happen? On the Tory side enough want to leave that there's no way we won't leave if there's a leave vote so why have a GE?
The reason there will probably be a GE if Leave win is because the government as it stands will fall. All the leading actors of Remain, Cameron, Osborne, Fallon, Crab, Hammond, Javid, Morgan and Co will have so much mud clinging to them, and the world will laugh at them if they continue, that the shame will force many to resign.
Notice I leave out May, as she may be the one Tory leader to come out of the referendum with some sort of authority. Also the Tories will need a leader that can form a government in the interim.
The only flaw in the above is that Cameron and Co don't seem to understand or feel shame and will go on until they are ground to dust by events.
The beauty of a Parliamentary democracy is that even if a government falls, the Parliament does not. Lets say you're right and Cameron has to go along with the others. Cameron will have to resign and there won't simply be a new election there'd be a new Tory leadership election.
Once the new leader is elected he is effectively immediately the new PM. He (or she) has the right (as do all PMs) to reshuffle the cabinet and like all new PMs he almost certainly would.
So then Cameron has been dealt with, the rest of the cabinet has been dealt with. Unless the Conservatives divide in two (and that's LESS likely in the case of a Leave vote since Leavers will have won) then the new PM will hold the confidence of the majority of Parliament. So there'd be no reason to hold a new election.
The priority of a new PM will be to get the right form of Leave then go to the polls on a platform of confidence in the government versus chaos in the opposition ... not chaos either way as Leave is the elephant that hasn't been dealt with yet.
The official government position is to remain. If the electorate decide otherwise then after the election of a new Conservative leader it would only be right to call an election where all the parties can spell out (and seek a mandate for) their negotiating positions on Brexit (e.g. their position on EFTA/EEA etc.
On Hillsborough, the jury found that there were problems with the ground's safety certificate, which I believe the local council was responsible for.
If they are prosecuted for their role that's going to tarnish all MPs who used to be Sheffield Councillors, whether or not they were actually on the council at the time - guilt by association.
"a hugely valuable estate worth the equivalent of nearly £600,000 in today’s money"
Is Guido on drugs >?
It says he inherited £100,000 in today's money in 1989. That's 27 years ago so probably about £ 35,000 When he wants to gets his teeth into someone he doesn't care what crap he writes. He's no better than the clowns who read him
"So how much did Corbyn inherit? After taxes Jezza received the equivalent of around £100,000 in today’s money. Dave isn’t the only leader who enjoyed the privilege of well-off parents…"
"a hugely valuable estate worth the equivalent of nearly £600,000 in today’s money"
Is Guido on drugs >?
It says he inherited £100,000 in today's money in 1989. That's 27 years ago so probably about £ 35,000 When he wants to gets his teeth into someone he doesn't care what crap he writes. He's no better than the clowns who read him
I think you are misreading it.
He's saying that a 1/3 share (Corbyn has brothers) of the after-tax inheritance of £600,000 (in today's money) presumably less the 10% request to donate it to worthy causes, is worth £100,000 in today's money.
I haven't done the maths, but it's not implausible.
A general election if there's a leave vote is a terrible idea.
On the Labour side if they win they don't want to leave so what's going to happen? On the Tory side enough want to leave that there's no way we won't leave if there's a leave vote so why have a GE?
The reason there will probably be a GE if Leave win is because the government as it stands will fall. All the leading actors of Remain, Cameron, Osborne, Fallon, Crab, Hammond, Javid, Morgan and Co will have so much mud clinging to them, and the world will laugh at them if they continue, that the shame will force many to resign.
Notice I leave out May, as she may be the one Tory leader to come out of the referendum with some sort of authority. Also the Tories will need a leader that can form a government in the interim.
The only flaw in the above is that Cameron and Co don't seem to understand or feel shame and will go on until they are ground to dust by events.
The beauty of a Parliamentary democracy is that even if a government falls, the Parliament does not. Lets say you're right and Cameron has to go along with the others. Cameron will have to resign and there won't simply be a new election there'd be a new Tory leadership election.
Once the new leader is elected he is effectively immediately the new PM. He (or she) has the right (as do all PMs) to reshuffle the cabinet and like all new PMs he almost certainly would.
So then Cameron has been dealt with, the rest of the cabinet has been dealt with. Unless the Conservatives divide in two (and that's LESS likely in the case of a Leave vote since Leavers will have won) then the new PM will hold the confidence of the majority of Parliament. So there'd be no reason to hold a new election.
The priority of a new PM will be to get the right form of Leave then go to the polls on a platform of confidence in the government versus chaos in the opposition ... not chaos either way as Leave is the elephant that hasn't been dealt with yet.
The official government position is to remain. If the electorate decide otherwise then after the election of a new Conservative leader it would only be right to call an election where all the parties can spell out (and seek a mandate for) their negotiating positions on Brexit (e.g. their position on EFTA/EEA etc.
This is a five year Parliament and no amount of wishing for an earlier GE is going to see it happen
"a hugely valuable estate worth the equivalent of nearly £600,000 in today’s money"
Is Guido on drugs >?
It says he inherited £100,000 in today's money in 1989. That's 27 years ago so probably about £ 35,000 When he wants to gets his teeth into someone he doesn't care what crap he writes. He's no better than the clowns who read him
I think you are misreading it.
He's saying that a 1/3 share (Corbyn has brothers) of the after-tax inheritance of £600,000 (in today's money) presumably less the 10% request to donate it to worthy causes, is worth £100,000 in today's money.
I haven't done the maths, but it's not implausible.
With respect @Charles, I'm saying £600,000 is not a hugely valuable estate
"a hugely valuable estate worth the equivalent of nearly £600,000 in today’s money"
Is Guido on drugs >?
It says he inherited £100,000 in today's money in 1989. That's 27 years ago so probably about £ 35,000 When he wants to gets his teeth into someone he doesn't care what crap he writes. He's no better than the clowns who read him
I think you are misreading it.
He's saying that a 1/3 share (Corbyn has brothers) of the after-tax inheritance of £600,000 (in today's money) presumably less the 10% request to donate it to worthy causes, is worth £100,000 in today's money.
I haven't done the maths, but it's not implausible.
"a hugely valuable estate worth the equivalent of nearly £600,000 in today’s money"
Is Guido on drugs >?
It says he inherited £100,000 in today's money in 1989. That's 27 years ago so probably about £ 35,000 When he wants to gets his teeth into someone he doesn't care what crap he writes. He's no better than the clowns who read him
I think you are misreading it.
He's saying that a 1/3 share (Corbyn has brothers) of the after-tax inheritance of £600,000 (in today's money) presumably less the 10% request to donate it to worthy causes, is worth £100,000 in today's money.
I haven't done the maths, but it's not implausible.
What he said was this which by my reckoning means he inherited about £35,000. Hardly in Dave's league!
"So how much did Corbyn inherit? After taxes Jezza received the equivalent of around £100,000 in today’s money. Dave isn’t the only leader who enjoyed the privilege of well-off parents…"
"a hugely valuable estate worth the equivalent of nearly £600,000 in today’s money"
Is Guido on drugs >?
It says he inherited £100,000 in today's money in 1989. That's 27 years ago so probably about £ 35,000 When he wants to gets his teeth into someone he doesn't care what crap he writes. He's no better than the clowns who read him
I think you are misreading it.
He's saying that a 1/3 share (Corbyn has brothers) of the after-tax inheritance of £600,000 (in today's money) presumably less the 10% request to donate it to worthy causes, is worth £100,000 in today's money.
I haven't done the maths, but it's not implausible.
With respect @Charles, I'm saying £600,000 is not a hugely valuable estate
I was responding to Roger's comment.
But 25x the national average wage counts as "hugely valuable" in my eyes. I certainly wouldn't say no to it.
"a hugely valuable estate worth the equivalent of nearly £600,000 in today’s money"
Is Guido on drugs >?
It says he inherited £100,000 in today's money in 1989. That's 27 years ago so probably about £ 35,000 When he wants to gets his teeth into someone he doesn't care what crap he writes. He's no better than the clowns who read him
I think you are misreading it.
He's saying that a 1/3 share (Corbyn has brothers) of the after-tax inheritance of £600,000 (in today's money) presumably less the 10% request to donate it to worthy causes, is worth £100,000 in today's money.
I haven't done the maths, but it's not implausible.
What he said was this which by my reckoning means he inherited about £35,000. Hardly in Dave's league!
"So how much did Corbyn inherit? After taxes Jezza received the equivalent of around £100,000 in today’s money. Dave isn’t the only leader who enjoyed the privilege of well-off parents…"
Well Cameron got £200,000 about 5 years ago (let's say £200,000 in today's money), Jezza got the equivalent of £100,000 in today's money.
Both significant amounts - vastly different to most normal people, although to the likes of your good self (and me) they wouldn't be life changing sums.
"a hugely valuable estate worth the equivalent of nearly £600,000 in today’s money"
Is Guido on drugs >?
It says he inherited £100,000 in today's money in 1989. That's 27 years ago so probably about £ 35,000 When he wants to gets his teeth into someone he doesn't care what crap he writes. He's no better than the clowns who read him
I think you are misreading it.
He's saying that a 1/3 share (Corbyn has brothers) of the after-tax inheritance of £600,000 (in today's money) presumably less the 10% request to donate it to worthy causes, is worth £100,000 in today's money.
I haven't done the maths, but it's not implausible.
What he said was this which by my reckoning means he inherited about £35,000. Hardly in Dave's league!
"So how much did Corbyn inherit? After taxes Jezza received the equivalent of around £100,000 in today’s money. Dave isn’t the only leader who enjoyed the privilege of well-off parents…"
Well Cameron got £200,000 about 5 years ago (let's say £200,000 in today's money), Jezza got the equivalent of £100,000 in today's money.
Both significant amounts - vastly different to most normal people, although to the likes of your good self (and me) they wouldn't be life changing sums.
Massive amounts of money to the majority of people.
"a hugely valuable estate worth the equivalent of nearly £600,000 in today’s money"
Is Guido on drugs >?
It says he inherited £100,000 in today's money in 1989. That's 27 years ago so probably about £ 35,000 When he wants to gets his teeth into someone he doesn't care what crap he writes. He's no better than the clowns who read him
I think you are misreading it.
He's saying that a 1/3 share (Corbyn has brothers) of the after-tax inheritance of £600,000 (in today's money) presumably less the 10% request to donate it to worthy causes, is worth £100,000 in today's money.
I haven't done the maths, but it's not implausible.
What he said was this which by my reckoning means he inherited about £35,000. Hardly in Dave's league!
"So how much did Corbyn inherit? After taxes Jezza received the equivalent of around £100,000 in today’s money. Dave isn’t the only leader who enjoyed the privilege of well-off parents…"
Well Cameron got £200,000 about 5 years ago (let's say £200,000 in today's money), Jezza got the equivalent of £100,000 in today's money.
Both significant amounts - vastly different to most normal people, although to the likes of your good self (and me) they wouldn't be life changing sums.
Well £100k would very substantially increase my net worth (By over 100% at least), so it'd be nice
Dave's mum is still alive though ! Quite a difference with Corbyn.
What struck me most about Corbyn was the eye watering effect of tax and having 3 brothers - ye Gods
A general election if there's a leave vote is a terrible idea.
On the Labour side if they win they don't want to leave so what's going to happen? On the Tory side enough want to leave that there's no way we won't leave if there's a leave vote so why have a GE?
Notice I leave out May, as she may be the one Tory leader to come out of the referendum with some sort of authority. Also the Tories will need a leader that can form a government in the interim.
The only flaw in the above is that Cameron and Co don't seem to understand or feel shame and will go on until they are ground to dust by events.
The beauty of a Parliamentary democracy is that even if a government falls, the Parliament does not. Lets say you're right and Cameron has to go along with the others. Cameron will have to resign and there won't simply be a new election there'd be a new Tory leadership election.
Once the new leader is elected he is effectively immediately the new PM. He (or she) has the right (as do all PMs) to reshuffle the cabinet and like all new PMs he almost certainly would.
So then Cameron has been dealt with, the rest of the cabinet has been dealt with. Unless the Conservatives divide in two (and that's LESS likely in the case of a Leave vote since Leavers will have won) then the new PM will hold the confidence of the majority of Parliament. So there'd be no reason to hold a new election.
The priority of a new PM will be to get the right form of Leave then go to the polls on a platform of confidence in the government versus chaos in the opposition ... not chaos either way as Leave is the elephant that hasn't been dealt with yet.
The official government position is to remain. If the electorate decide otherwise then after the election of a new Conservative leader it would only be right to call an election where all the parties can spell out (and seek a mandate for) their negotiating positions on Brexit (e.g. their position on EFTA/EEA etc.
This is a five year Parliament and no amount of wishing for an earlier GE is going to see it happen
A government which has had its negotiations to stay in rejected by the electorate could hardly then claim the right to negotiate the terms of exit.
Ted Cruz's net favourables have almost slipped to an all time low among republicans (his all time low is net 0). He dropped 12 points in 5 days (the bathroom war effect).
It gives you an indication as to why he had to try for a deal with Kasich, and why Trump looks likely to sweep it today.
A general election if there's a leave vote is a terrible idea.
On the Labour side if they win they don't want to leave so what's going to happen? On the Tory side enough want to leave that there's no way we won't leave if there's a leave vote so why have a GE?
Notice I leave out May, as she may be the one Tory leader to come out of the referendum with some sort of authority. Also the Tories will need a leader that can form a government in the interim.
The only flaw in the above is that Cameron and Co don't seem to understand or feel shame and will go on until they are ground to dust by events.
The beauty of a Parliamentary democracy is that even if a government falls, the Parliament does not. Lets say you're right and Cameron has to go along with the others. Cameron will have to resign and there won't simply be a new election there'd be a new Tory leadership election.
Once the new leader is elected he is effectively immediately the new PM. He (or she) has the right (as do all PMs) to reshuffle the cabinet and like all new PMs he almost certainly would.
So then Cameron has been dealt with, the rest of the cabinet has been dealt with. Unless the Conservatives divide in two (and that's LESS likely in the case of a Leave vote since Leavers will have won) then the new PM will hold the confidence of the majority of Parliament. So there'd be no reason to hold a new election.
The priority of a new PM will be to get the right form of Leave then go to the polls on a platform of confidence in the government versus chaos in the opposition ... not chaos either way as Leave is the elephant that hasn't been dealt with yet.
The official government position is to remain. If the electorate decide otherwise then after the election of a new Conservative leader it would only be right to call an election where all the parties can spell out (and seek a mandate for) their negotiating positions on Brexit (e.g. their position on EFTA/EEA etc.
This is a five year Parliament and no amount of wishing for an earlier GE is going to see it happen
A government which has had its negotiations to stay in rejected by the electorate could hardly then claim the right to negotiate the terms of exit.
The Government is the Government and will respect the vote and no doubt the leaving conservatives will do the negotiation. Why would they want to damage their dream
I have just seen the verdict on the Liverpool 96. I am not going to comment either way on what the outcome was however my absolute and total respect goes to all the families involved and in particular Trevor Hicks for his steadfast pursuit of his case on behalf of all concerned.
I read his story a little while after the awful event. The point where he went to find his two daughters that had gone into the Leppings Lane end because that's where they preferred to watch the game. Sadly as we know those two young ladies did not survive this terrible tradegy. Trevor Hicks explained that he found "the girls" in the makeshift mortuary both of whom had by then succumbed. How he ever dealt with that ( or the others also in a similar situation) I shall never know. He said he had to return to his wife and had to try and tell her what had happened and that there was no hope. His wife's reply has stayed with me since then
"both of them, not both the girls??"........
I have two girls myself now in their 20's. Even writing this, after all that time and not even being involved just causes me to catch my breath....... Those few words of his wife have never been far away from me. Nothing can replace your girls or ever console the loss. I cannot begin to comprehend how they dealt with this and what courage has carried them through.
I hope , I sincerely hope it brings about some small closure to them and all the other families that lost their people on that day. No one should go to watch a football match and never come Home. My girls will get an extra special hug tonight even though they won't really know why.
There seems to be a lot of flack thrown up today, like Naz Shah and Corbyn's mum's will -- not to say it isn't important but why today? Are we being distracted from something else, and if so, what?
There seems to be a lot of flack thrown up today, like Naz Shah and Corbyn's mum's will -- not to say it isn't important but why today? Are we being distracted from something else, and if so, what?
That the national stockpile of tinfoil is running at an all time low?
"a hugely valuable estate worth the equivalent of nearly £600,000 in today’s money"
Is Guido on drugs >?
It says he inherited £100,000 in today's money in 1989. That's 27 years ago so probably about £ 35,000 When he wants to gets his teeth into someone he doesn't care what crap he writes. He's no better than the clowns who read him
"So how much did Corbyn inherit? After taxes Jezza received the equivalent of around £100,000 in today’s money. Dave isn’t the only leader who enjoyed the privilege of well-off parents…"
I am starting to get very confused here. Is Guido claiming now that inheriting anything from your parents is something to be ashamed of? Unless Corbyn did any tax avoidance - and I have seen absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever - then surely it is no one's business that he inherited a fairly modest amount of money.
A government which has had its negotiations to stay in rejected by the electorate could hardly then claim the right to negotiate the terms of exit.
If the Prime Minister changes then it's a new government. Elections are not necessary to make this happen, as Callaghan, Major and Brown can attest. If LEAVE wins and Cameron resigns then the Conservatives will elect a new leader and HMQ will appoint him/her as PM. No election is required to do this.
"a hugely valuable estate worth the equivalent of nearly £600,000 in today’s money"
Is Guido on drugs >?
It says he inherited £100,000 in today's money in 1989. That's 27 years ago so probably about £ 35,000 When he wants to gets his teeth into someone he doesn't care what crap he writes. He's no better than the clowns who read him
"So how much did Corbyn inherit? After taxes Jezza received the equivalent of around £100,000 in today’s money. Dave isn’t the only leader who enjoyed the privilege of well-off parents…"
I am starting to get very confused here. Is Guido claiming now that inheriting anything from your parents is something to be ashamed of? Unless Corbyn did any tax avoidance - and I have seen absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever - then surely it is no one's business that he inherited a fairly modest amount of money.
McDonnell, who said last week he wanted those with antisemitic views to be expelled from Labour, said in an interview on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show on Sunday: “As soon as Jewish people start telling us there is antisemitism in our party, we’ve got to sit up and listen."
“That is why I said last week, if there are people who have expressed antisemitic views, there is no role for them in our party and I would like them out of our party for life. "
I think that's pretty clear and I would hope the Labour voters on here support him fully and press for him to follow these words in dealing with Shah.
Fairly clear that Labour needs to split between the OLdLabour and its PC/Antisemitic Wings.
"a hugely valuable estate worth the equivalent of nearly £600,000 in today’s money"
Is Guido on drugs >?
It says he inherited £100,000 in today's money in 1989. That's 27 years ago so probably about £ 35,000 When he wants to gets his teeth into someone he doesn't care what crap he writes. He's no better than the clowns who read him
"So how much did Corbyn inherit? After taxes Jezza received the equivalent of around £100,000 in today’s money. Dave isn’t the only leader who enjoyed the privilege of well-off parents…"
I am starting to get very confused here. Is Guido claiming now that inheriting anything from your parents is something to be ashamed of? Unless Corbyn did any tax avoidance - and I have seen absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever - then surely it is no one's business that he inherited a fairly modest amount of money.
This is the reason that otherwise talented people don't want to get involved in politics, and we are left with pygmies like Cameron, Osbourne, Corbyn, Farron and the like.
I’ve just read that the Bradford MP Naz Shah has quit as McDonnell's PPS, how long before the Labour party expells this nasty anti-Semite? - answers on a post card...!
She wouldn't be the first who thinks Israel is an apartheid state. In fact it might well be a majority view. It certainly is among it's Arab neigbours
All together now: "Neighbours, everybody needs good neighbours"
What are these numbers for people who are certain to vote.
The Economy is REMAIN's one asset. Get rid of that and the dam will break.
If.
That door swings both ways. Immigration is LEAVE's sole asset (it's why POTUS's statement cut no ice). Get rid of that and the dam breaks the other way.
"a hugely valuable estate worth the equivalent of nearly £600,000 in today’s money"
Is Guido on drugs >?
It says he inherited £100,000 in today's money in 1989. That's 27 years ago so probably about £ 35,000 When he wants to gets his teeth into someone he doesn't care what crap he writes. He's no better than the clowns who read him
"So how much did Corbyn inherit? After taxes Jezza received the equivalent of around £100,000 in today’s money. Dave isn’t the only leader who enjoyed the privilege of well-off parents…"
I am starting to get very confused here. Is Guido claiming now that inheriting anything from your parents is something to be ashamed of? Unless Corbyn did any tax avoidance - and I have seen absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever - then surely it is no one's business that he inherited a fairly modest amount of money.
No - Guido's saying that a £100,000 inheritance is a lot of money.
Roger is saying that it's in a different league to Cameron's £200,000.
"a hugely valuable estate worth the equivalent of nearly £600,000 in today’s money"
Is Guido on drugs >?
It says he inherited £100,000 in today's money in 1989. That's 27 years ago so probably about £ 35,000 When he wants to gets his teeth into someone he doesn't care what crap he writes. He's no better than the clowns who read him
"So how much did Corbyn inherit? After taxes Jezza received the equivalent of around £100,000 in today’s money. Dave isn’t the only leader who enjoyed the privilege of well-off parents…"
I am starting to get very confused here. Is Guido claiming now that inheriting anything from your parents is something to be ashamed of? Unless Corbyn did any tax avoidance - and I have seen absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever - then surely it is no one's business that he inherited a fairly modest amount of money.
This is the reason that otherwise talented people don't want to get involved in politics, and we are left with pygmies like Cameron, Osbourne, Corbyn, Farron and the like.
I thought McDonnell said no one should inherit anything it should all go to the state ....or to him coz he and Labour knows how to piss it up the wall better than you.
So it's a Story in that respect unless Corby gives it all to the local cats home or something.
If polls showing UKIP on 17% are correct they'll be a few more by the end of next week plus assembly members in London and Wales. Thanks Obama!
I was just on the phone to Mrs Indigo (Snr), the first thing she said to me after "hello", entirely without prompting was "did you see Obama the other day", "yes" quoth I, "what did you think" "Who does he think he is ? He's a cheeky bugger coming here and saying things like that...." and another minute or so of displeasure before we move on to safer topics. If she wasn't for out, she is now, markup another purple rinse Tory party member for Leave thanks to Obama.
There seems to be a lot of flack thrown up today, like Naz Shah and Corbyn's mum's will -- not to say it isn't important but why today? Are we being distracted from something else, and if so, what?
It's obvious! Global Freezing has arrived unheralded by anyone, and today the powers that be have noticed.
If polls showing UKIP on 17% are correct they'll be a few more by the end of next week plus assembly members in London and Wales. Thanks Obama!
UKIP got 4% at the 2012 local elections.
They will lose around half the 20 odd seats they have to defend this year but they should gain a few in Basildon , Thurrock and Tendring . Elsewhere gains look very few and far between .
What are these numbers for people who are certain to vote.
The Economy is REMAIN's one asset. Get rid of that and the dam will break.
If.
That door swings both ways. Immigration is LEAVE's sole asset (it's why POTUS's statement cut no ice). Get rid of that and the dam breaks the other way.
There seems to be a lot of flack thrown up today, like Naz Shah and Corbyn's mum's will -- not to say it isn't important but why today? Are we being distracted from something else, and if so, what?
That the national stockpile of tinfoil is running at an all time low?
No, there is definitely news management afoot. Those stories have been lurking in the filing cabinet for years. So what does someone important not want us to focus on?
There seems to be a lot of flack thrown up today, like Naz Shah and Corbyn's mum's will -- not to say it isn't important but why today? Are we being distracted from something else, and if so, what?
That the national stockpile of tinfoil is running at an all time low?
Yes, they need it to wrap up all the popcorn everyone is buying
There seems to be a lot of flack thrown up today, like Naz Shah and Corbyn's mum's will -- not to say it isn't important but why today? Are we being distracted from something else, and if so, what?
That the national stockpile of tinfoil is running at an all time low?
No, there is definitely news management afoot. Those stories have been lurking in the filing cabinet for years. So what does someone important not want us to focus on?
There is only one story in town today...No amount of "news management" would change that. Unless you think that Staines is somehow in cahoots with some Labourites to minimize the damage of having yet another anti-Jewish story appear.
And the Corbyn will non-story is not from today, it was yesterday. But got no attention, as it doesn't merit any.
Why would it not mean better trading relationships with anyone?
One word: TANSTAAFL
You can have whatever deal you like - provided you pay for it. If you leave the EU then you gain money but lose the trade access that money bought. The renegotiated trade deals will be less good by the exact amount we are paying less, plus a bit more for bother, uncertainty, and opportunity costs. Similarly for deals with other countries. In the long term you may see a profit but in the medium term the transition costs (cost of arranging things, uncertainty whilst the negotiations go on, opportunity costs to cover the things you would have been doing had you not been renegotiating) overwhelm the benefits that new deals may bring.
The case for LEAVE has *never* been economic. The sovereignists have a good case, the libertarians have a possible case, the anti-immigrationists have a possible case, but the economic argument has always been pure gibberish. This is why Gove's Hail Mary pass of "Brexit cash saves NHS!" is so annoying: it's superficially attractive but the money has already been allocated. Unlike Salmond (a trained economist) who knew that the "Scottish pound" was a lie when he was trying to sell it to Sindyref, Gove (whose background is more arts than science) may not actually know that he's fibbing. But he should have had some clever friends who can work this stuff out.
There seems to be a lot of flack thrown up today, like Naz Shah and Corbyn's mum's will -- not to say it isn't important but why today? Are we being distracted from something else, and if so, what?
That the national stockpile of tinfoil is running at an all time low?
No, there is definitely news management afoot. Those stories have been lurking in the filing cabinet for years. So what does someone important not want us to focus on?
There is only one story in town today...No amount of "news management" would change that. Unless you think that Staines is somehow in cahoots with some Labourites to minimize the damage of having yet another anti-Jewish story appear.
And the Corbyn will non-story is not from today, it was yesterday. But got no attention, as it doesn't merit any.
Correct... It's a left winger involved and not a nasty baby eating toff so doesn't count
There seems to be a lot of flack thrown up today, like Naz Shah and Corbyn's mum's will -- not to say it isn't important but why today? Are we being distracted from something else, and if so, what?
That the national stockpile of tinfoil is running at an all time low?
Yes, they need it to wrap up all the popcorn everyone is buying
That, and other uses. Wise PB investors should have maxed out their popcorn portfolio by now not surely can't go any higher!
A general election if there's a leave vote is a terrible idea.
On the Labour side if they win they don't want to leave so what's going to happen? On the Tory side enough want to leave that there's no way we won't leave if there's a leave vote so why have a GE?
The priority of a new PM will be to get the right form of Leave then go to the polls on a platform of confidence in the government versus chaos in the opposition ... not chaos either way as Leave is the elephant that hasn't been dealt with yet.
The official government position is to remain. If the electorate decide otherwise then after the election of a new Conservative leader it would only be right to call an election where all the parties can spell out (and seek a mandate for) their negotiating positions on Brexit (e.g. their position on EFTA/EEA etc.
This is a five year Parliament and no amount of wishing for an earlier GE is going to see it happen
A government which has had its negotiations to stay in rejected by the electorate could hardly then claim the right to negotiate the terms of exit.
The Government is the Government and will respect the vote and no doubt the leaving conservatives will do the negotiation. Why would they want to damage their dream
The pro-brexit Tories don't speak for UKIP or the pro-brexit left, each of which have differing visions for Britain outside the EU.
A vote to leave will lead to the most significant negotiations in post-war history. That requires a government with a fresh mandate for its position in those negotiations. If the tories simply signup to a position which would continue say, free movement of people (opposition to which is one of the main motivations of the pro-brexit camp) without a mandate to do so would render pointless the entire referendum process.
What are these numbers for people who are certain to vote.
The Economy is REMAIN's one asset. Get rid of that and the dam will break.
If.
That door swings both ways. Immigration is LEAVE's sole asset (it's why POTUS's statement cut no ice). Get rid of that and the dam breaks the other way.
Good luck with that.
Fair point, but you see what I mean. I think the economy argument is won for REMAIN. There is a possibility that LEAVE will change from fantasising about nonexistent trade deals to simply lying about nonexistent financial benefits (and the signs on this are not good) but as Karl Rove(?) found out with SwiftBoating, under certain circumstances if you attack your enemy's position of strength you can chisel out enough for a win.
Incidentally, consider this. Twice now we've had putative game-changers from REMAIN - the renegotiation and Obama - and they were counter-productive, increasing LEAVE. Argument from authority simply isn't working. It may be that the best approach for REMAIN is the only one that (as Crosby spotted) has worked: the slow, grinding, depressing necessity of answering each point LEAV makes by pointing out that they are fantasies or lies, and hope that REMAIN can generate truths faster than LEAVE can generate lies.
What are these numbers for people who are certain to vote.
The Economy is REMAIN's one asset. Get rid of that and the dam will break.
If.
That door swings both ways. Immigration is LEAVE's sole asset (it's why POTUS's statement cut no ice). Get rid of that and the dam breaks the other way.
Good luck with that.
LEAVE will change from fantasising about nonexistent trade deals to simply lying about nonexistent financial benefits
And George Osborne saying income tax could go up by 8p in the £ with Brexit isn't a tiny bit of a fib? It cuts both ways.
What are these numbers for people who are certain to vote.
The Economy is REMAIN's one asset. Get rid of that and the dam will break.
If.
That door swings both ways. Immigration is LEAVE's sole asset (it's why POTUS's statement cut no ice). Get rid of that and the dam breaks the other way.
Good luck with that.
LEAVE will change from fantasising about nonexistent trade deals to simply lying about nonexistent financial benefits
And George Osborne saying income tax could go up by 8p in the £ with Brexit isn't a tiny bit of a fib? It cuts both ways.
Yes, it does.
Here's a thing for you. Yesterday or the day before, the Times ran an editorial saying it was for LEAVE to lay out a consistent example for the post-Brexit scenario. The same day, Gove began the Brexit fightback with "Immigrants bad, Brexit money NHS!". The two are talking at cross-purposes. By engaging in cornucopia fantasies ("If we leave we can buy everything!") then LEAVE are retreating to their safe space ("Immigrants bad, immigrants bad, make bad thing go away") and conceding the adult argument
Here's another thing. I've argued that the ref is ultimately an adult-child argument: LEAVE is based in the childlike wish for all the advantages and none of the disadvantages, or as some have stated "But why can't we have all the nice things!!". The more LEAVE acts like a child ("If we leave we can buy everything!") the more REMAIN wins. The more REMAIN acts like a parent ("Obama says No! Put it down!"), the more LEAVE wins. Again I return to the same point: the only way Remain is going to win this is by treating people as adults.Which is slow, lengthy, grinding, and no fun at all...
Comments
Even if we lose it'll be incredibly exciting to see the great and the good crapping themselves.
Naz Shah has just deleted her whole Facebook profile
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/24/cameron-trip-cost-saudi-arabia-king-death
“My thoughts and prayers are with the Saudi royal family and the people of the kingdom at this sad time.” said David D.Cameron
* obviously the spoof one
I wonder if she will still get the soft soap treatment that the likes of R5 have been giving her due to her back story.
Frank Field is bricking himself about this, as today shows.
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausland/europa/schweiz-lehnt-tuerkeis-zensurforderung-fuer-erdogan-foto-ab-14200469.html
As I understand it a full study is in the offing
Con 33 Lab 32 UKIP 17 LD 7 Others 11
10/10 to Vote:
67% White
56% Black
50% Asian
24% Mixed
10/10 to Vote
77% Outright Ownership
73% Mortgagors
49% Social Tenancy
48% Private Tenancy
If Remain are banking on Labour heartlands like London and University Towns they have their work cut out.
https://twitter.com/krishgm/status/724987498594709504
"EU : your next doctors appointment will cost £4300."
"a hugely valuable estate worth the equivalent of nearly £600,000 in today’s money"
Is Guido on drugs >?
For Remain:
Nick Clegg
Liz Kendall
Chuka Umunna
For Leave:
Dan Hannan
Nigel Farage
Kate Hoey
Andrew Neil chairing
Should be good!!
If they are prosecuted for their role that's going to tarnish all MPs who used to be Sheffield Councillors, whether or not they were actually on the council at the time - guilt by association.
It might be streamed on the Spectator website or some such?
"So how much did Corbyn inherit? After taxes Jezza received the equivalent of around £100,000 in today’s money. Dave isn’t the only leader who enjoyed the privilege of well-off parents…"
countryEU comes first!"The BBC have been very quick to pick up on UKIP in the past for this sort of thing.
He's saying that a 1/3 share (Corbyn has brothers) of the after-tax inheritance of £600,000 (in today's money) presumably less the 10% request to donate it to worthy causes, is worth £100,000 in today's money.
I haven't done the maths, but it's not implausible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Independence_Party
"So how much did Corbyn inherit? After taxes Jezza received the equivalent of around £100,000 in today’s money. Dave isn’t the only leader who enjoyed the privilege of well-off parents…"
But 25x the national average wage counts as "hugely valuable" in my eyes. I certainly wouldn't say no to it.
Both significant amounts - vastly different to most normal people, although to the likes of your good self (and me) they wouldn't be life changing sums.
Dave's mum is still alive though ! Quite a difference with Corbyn.
What struck me most about Corbyn was the eye watering effect of tax and having 3 brothers - ye Gods
Thanks Obama!
'A government which has had its negotiations to stay in rejected by the electorate could hardly then claim the right to negotiate the terms of exit.'
Does that also apply to the rejection of extended Sunday trading hours, the rejection of welfare reforms ?
Ted Cruz's net favourables have almost slipped to an all time low among republicans (his all time low is net 0).
He dropped 12 points in 5 days (the bathroom war effect).
It gives you an indication as to why he had to try for a deal with Kasich, and why Trump looks likely to sweep it today.
I read his story a little while after the awful event. The point where he went to find his two daughters that had gone into the Leppings Lane end because that's where they preferred to watch the game. Sadly as we know those two young ladies did not survive this terrible tradegy. Trevor Hicks explained that he found "the girls" in the makeshift mortuary both of whom had by then succumbed. How he ever dealt with that ( or the others also in a similar situation) I shall never know. He said he had to return to his wife and had to try and tell her what had happened and that there was no hope. His wife's reply has stayed with me since then
"both of them, not both the girls??"........
I have two girls myself now in their 20's. Even writing this, after all that time and not even being involved just causes me to catch my breath....... Those few words of his wife have never been far away from me. Nothing can replace your girls or ever console the loss. I cannot begin to comprehend how they dealt with this and what courage has carried them through.
I hope , I sincerely hope it brings about some small closure to them and all the other families that lost their people on that day. No one should go to watch a football match and never come Home. My girls will get an extra special hug tonight even though they won't really know why.
UKIP got 4% at the 2012 local elections.
LOL.........and in 2013.....
Roger is saying that it's in a different league to Cameron's £200,000.
So it's a Story in that respect unless Corby gives it all to the local cats home or something.
"did you see Obama the other day",
"yes" quoth I, "what did you think"
"Who does he think he is ? He's a cheeky bugger coming here and saying things like that...."
and another minute or so of displeasure before we move on to safer topics. If she wasn't for out, she is now, markup another purple rinse Tory party member for Leave thanks to Obama.
And the Corbyn will non-story is not from today, it was yesterday. But got no attention, as it doesn't merit any.
https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/725023583228055552
You can have whatever deal you like - provided you pay for it. If you leave the EU then you gain money but lose the trade access that money bought. The renegotiated trade deals will be less good by the exact amount we are paying less, plus a bit more for bother, uncertainty, and opportunity costs. Similarly for deals with other countries. In the long term you may see a profit but in the medium term the transition costs (cost of arranging things, uncertainty whilst the negotiations go on, opportunity costs to cover the things you would have been doing had you not been renegotiating) overwhelm the benefits that new deals may bring.
The case for LEAVE has *never* been economic. The sovereignists have a good case, the libertarians have a possible case, the anti-immigrationists have a possible case, but the economic argument has always been pure gibberish. This is why Gove's Hail Mary pass of "Brexit cash saves NHS!" is so annoying: it's superficially attractive but the money has already been allocated. Unlike Salmond (a trained economist) who knew that the "Scottish pound" was a lie when he was trying to sell it to Sindyref, Gove (whose background is more arts than science) may not actually know that he's fibbing. But he should have had some clever friends who can work this stuff out.
Everyone back on the bus.
"Bugger wrong night.... I thought this was the Little Mix gig?"
Incidentally, consider this. Twice now we've had putative game-changers from REMAIN - the renegotiation and Obama - and they were counter-productive, increasing LEAVE. Argument from authority simply isn't working. It may be that the best approach for REMAIN is the only one that (as Crosby spotted) has worked: the slow, grinding, depressing necessity of answering each point LEAV makes by pointing out that they are fantasies or lies, and hope that REMAIN can generate truths faster than LEAVE can generate lies.
It cuts both ways.
Here's a thing for you. Yesterday or the day before, the Times ran an editorial saying it was for LEAVE to lay out a consistent example for the post-Brexit scenario. The same day, Gove began the Brexit fightback with "Immigrants bad, Brexit money NHS!". The two are talking at cross-purposes. By engaging in cornucopia fantasies ("If we leave we can buy everything!") then LEAVE are retreating to their safe space ("Immigrants bad, immigrants bad, make bad thing go away") and conceding the adult argument
Here's another thing. I've argued that the ref is ultimately an adult-child argument: LEAVE is based in the childlike wish for all the advantages and none of the disadvantages, or as some have stated "But why can't we have all the nice things!!". The more LEAVE acts like a child ("If we leave we can buy everything!") the more REMAIN wins. The more REMAIN acts like a parent ("Obama says No! Put it down!"), the more LEAVE wins. Again I return to the same point: the only way Remain is going to win this is by treating people as adults.Which is slow, lengthy, grinding, and no fun at all...
2,200 in the audience according to Andrew Neil. Largest in the history of the Spectator.
It was a simple show of cards at the end, adjudicated by Dan Hannan and Liz Kendal.
From what I saw I'd say 60% for Leave, 30% for Remain and 10% still undecided
It really was very good. I'd recommend to anyone to watch it.