Flowers delivered to No 10 so BBC's idiot commentator Norman Smith presumes people currying favours. Why not expressions of best wishes and congratulations by friends?
Fat Head on Sky made an even more stupid comment saying well this isn't the level of flowers we expect when we get a woman PM...as if that happens every other week.
With all the backbench enemies Mrs May is making, a 2017 election is looking ever more attractively priced.
Do you think she's overcooked the sackings ?
Or deliberate ?
Yup, overcooked them
I have the impression Mrs May doesn't give a damn if anybody likes her or not. Is that a strength or a weakness?
Weakness whilst she has a majority of 12.
Yes I do worry that Mrs May is making too many enemies for such a slim majority government. Some of these appointments point to an Autumn election. One which will pay out very nicely indeed.
On the Garden Bridge - I have been against it for a while - indeed I wrote a blogpost about it back in January 2015 - the vast majority of which still holds in my view.
Couple of points:
The link isn't to Temple, but to Temple Place - it's at the far Western edge of the Temple zone. The area between the Strand and the Thames (known as Northbank) has absolutely fallen behind most of the rest of London in terms of development - it really needs the kickstart of the extra footfall coming through it.
The £30m taxpayers money is planned to be used anyway on the redevelopment of Temple, so the actually difference in cost (a slightly stronger roof) isn't much
What is this, Mr. Charles? Public money to be spent on redevelopment of the Temple? Surely not, the bloody lawyers have got enough money to pay for their own building work. I must have misunderstood you. Perhaps you are talking about Temple tube station.
ANyway that stretch of the North bank West of Blackfriars Bridge down To Waterloo Bridge, even down to Westminster don't need any development, it is lovely as it is, thank you very much. Not that there is much space to develop anyway - you can't muck about with the Temple, the gardens, KCL or Somerset House.
I was meaning Temple Tube.
It's not the literal north bank of the river, but the streets leading up to the Strand - Villiers to Arundel, Adams, etc that are the problem. It's fragmented and not really very nice - but lots of potential.
Fair enough, Mr. Charles, those streets do feel a bit tatty. As long as the developers are capped at the number of stories they can build to - I would hate to see skyscrapers along that stretch. Mind you that is a fair way (in London terms) West of the Garden Bridge, which is where we started this conversation.
I wonder who owns that land between Villiers Street and Adam Street
Lawyers hotlines are ringing off the hook...this is going to get very nasty. I doubt Uncle Len and his big warchest of funds is going to take this lying down.
Hang on. You have got a nerve. If people who didn't support the party hadn't gamed the system by voting in the last poll (as you admit you did), I'd venture that such a stringent freeze would not have been required. Witness the likes of Plato paying three quid to vote for Corbyn.
Re: the Tories, they crowned their leader, they didn't even offer ANY members the vote (rightly in my view but then I am not the one moralising).
Re: the Liberals, under that system, Corbyn would have needed nominations, so again, this issue wouldn't have arisen.
And finally, if Corbyn hadn't been outside crowing to the press the freeze would never have passed. It was a show of hands and he had left the building!
Why not set the date of the freeze to the date of the NEC meeting then? As I said, the current freeze date excludes people who will have signed up to campaign for Labour and Labour's causes over the last six months. That's not fair. Explain to me why someone who signed up from the SWP last year as a full member to vote for Jez should get a vote this time but someone who signed up in February to help Sadiq get elected as Mayor shouldn't. The freeze is correct, every serious party should have one, but the date is extremely unfair.
A backdated freeze is entirely inappropriate. The Tory freeze is in effect and known when you sign up, that if an election is called within 3 months you won't get a vote.
Quite - and the likes of Angela Eagle were encouraging supporters to sign up to vote for them.
Schauble's remarks on Hammond are interesting. He's also confirmed that Brexit is seen as a G20 issue, not just an EU one.
What did he say?
From Telegraph (so danger! reportage)
"Chancellor Philip Hammond's remarks that British financial services should retain access to the European Union's single market are "reasonable," German finance minister Wolfgang Schaeuble said this morning.
He added that he would have a phone call with Hammond who was appointed as treasury secretary by Prime Minister Theresa May after Britain voted to leave the EU last month.
Schaeuble said the G20, whose finance ministers meet in China next week, was determined to contain the negative effects of Britain's eventual exit from the EU."
Lawyers hotlines are ringing off the hook...this is going to get very nasty. I doubt Uncle Len and his big warchest of funds is going to take this lying down.
Any challenge will fail.
It won't matter – Corbyn will still win. Don't worry!
And all because Jeremy left the meeting to go and milk the applause from the various SWP and RCP members screaming for him outside. It could not be funnier.
Miss Vance, I sympathise, I've recently had some difficulty in that area myself [thanks again to pb and Mr. 43 in particular for their kind assistance. Even if you are filthy rosbifs].
I've always thought rosbifs was a rather amusing put down. Never eaten a frog of any variety.
Bizarrely I have once , in Texas when roaring drunk.
Malc, I may be a vegetarian wimp, but it is posts like this that make me love you even more.
Do you even remember what Texan frog tastes like, or is it all clouded by alcohol?
Tasted pretty damn fine at the time , though that may have been the bourbon influence
Hang on. You have got a nerve. If people who didn't support the party hadn't gamed the system by voting in the last poll (as you admit you did), I'd venture that such a stringent freeze would not have been required. Witness the likes of Plato paying three quid to vote for Corbyn.
Re: the Tories, they crowned their leader, they didn't even offer ANY members the vote (rightly in my view but then I am not the one moralising).
Re: the Liberals, under that system, Corbyn would have needed nominations, so again, this issue wouldn't have arisen.
And finally, if Corbyn hadn't been outside crowing to the press the freeze would never have passed. It was a show of hands and he had left the building!
Why not set the date of the freeze to the date of the NEC meeting then? As I said, the current freeze date excludes people who will have signed up to campaign for Labour and Labour's causes over the last six months. That's not fair. Explain to me why someone who signed up from the SWP last year as a full member to vote for Jez should get a vote this time but someone who signed up in February to help Sadiq get elected as Mayor shouldn't. The freeze is correct, every serious party should have one, but the date is extremely unfair.
A backdated freeze is entirely inappropriate. The Tory freeze is in effect and known when you sign up, that if an election is called within 3 months you won't get a vote.
Quite - and the likes of Angela Eagle were encouraging supporters to sign up to vote for them.
That's completely wrong.
YOU GAMED THE SYSTEM BY VOTING FOR CORBYN. Uncivic, dishonourable, shameful.
Jamie Wareham @jamie_wareham 4m4 minutes ago New Chancellor Philip Hammond: 'We will leave the single market, it's about negotiating access now' #audio:
Seems very significant. I think it makes sense politically. It's clean and it shuts up the Out squad in a government with a tiny majority. But it is also a weak negotiating strategy which is likely to be ineffective and which will come with a high economic cost.
It's a statement of reality: implementing Article 50 inevitably implies leaving the single market unless some other arrangement is made as part of the exit negotiations. The Single Market is a feature of the EU and leaving the one means leaving the other. The only exception would be if agreement can be reached on continued membership, either on the same terms or on different ones - but that, as Hammond says, is effectively a discussion about access.
The alternative would be membership of EEA, which also includes the single market. It would be a replacement for the EU and is also a multilateral arrangement. Unless Hammond was vague in his wording this sounds like a rejection of the EEA along with the EU and going straight to bilateral FTA negotations. Mind you he did talk about retaining financial passporting rights. The chances of retaining those are about 10% in that scenario, I would think. So he may not have thought it through. But if the government has rejected two of the three main alternative arrangements (full EU and EEA) before starting discussions, they will be in a very weak negotiating position: "So, EU, what will you give us?" "Hmm. Let me ask the Germans, the French, the Maltese, the Latvians ... and we will get back to you."
Yes I do worry that Mrs May is making too many enemies for such a slim majority government.
She has sacked enough people to remove her majority
They can't do anything to her immediately though as she's only just been elected leader... I think she'll have to call an election soon though. If she leaves it too long, they'll be after her in a couple of years.
Not yet midday and we are at war with France already!!
French Foreign minister:
"I am not at all worried about Boris Johnson, but during the campaign he lied a lot to the British people and now it is he who has his back against the wall ...
[He has] his back against the wall to defend his country but also with his back against the wall the relationship with Europe should be clear. I need a partner with whom I can negotiate and who is clear, credible and reliable."
Why not set the date of the freeze to the date of the NEC meeting then? As I said, the current freeze date excludes people who will have signed up to campaign for Labour and Labour's causes over the last six months. That's not fair. Explain to me why someone who signed up from the SWP last year as a full member to vote for Jez should get a vote this time but someone who signed up in February to help Sadiq get elected as Mayor shouldn't. The freeze is correct, every serious party should have one, but the date is extremely unfair.
We could argue the toss over the date Max. Still, Corbyn sodded off so it was his own fault. Nevertheless, it won't matter because Corbyn will win again and then the likes of @Pulpstar will get their wish because Labour will be no more.
There is always a freeze date and generally its 6 or 12 months. That there wasn't one for last September's election was the oddity not that one has been reimposed now. To not have a freeze date is to argue that people can join the day before the vote and still have a vote - in practical terms how do you make that work?
Well there is that, but this is PB. The facts rarely get in the way of a good meme.
Not yet midday and we are at war with France already!!
French Foreign minister:
"I am not at all worried about Boris Johnson, but during the campaign he lied a lot to the British people and now it is he who has his back against the wall ...
[He has] his back against the wall to defend his country but also with his back against the wall the relationship with Europe should be clear. I need a partner with whom I can negotiate and who is clear, credible and reliable."
Doesn't matter because he's not going to be there for very long. Juppe is going to be the next President and he will appoint a new PM/government. The current French foreign minister is completely irrelevant to the future of our trading relationship with the EU.
I actually think that is part of the deal, the issue will be getting George the gig. Will be tough for a non-EU national to get the IMF, but given how heavily in favour of remain he was he's probably made enough friends.
These things are obviously always very political, but given that he is widely seen as probably the most successful of all the G20 finance ministers of the period since the financial crisis, he'd surely be a very strong contender.
Must be some real duffers out there if he is seen as good
A backdated freeze is entirely inappropriate. The Tory freeze is in effect and known when you sign up, that if an election is called within 3 months you won't get a vote.
In Labour its 6 months. Its been 6 months for decades. If Momentum have decided to not tell their entryists this that's their problem.
Again, if you have no freeze date then literally anyone can join the party immediately before the ballot and get a vote. All Labour Party members are provisional for 3 months - that allows CLPs to review all new members and object to anyone that raises concerns.
Why not set the date of the freeze to the date of the NEC meeting then? As I said, the current freeze date excludes people who will have signed up to campaign for Labour and Labour's causes over the last six months. That's not fair. Explain to me why someone who signed up from the SWP last year as a full member to vote for Jez should get a vote this time but someone who signed up in February to help Sadiq get elected as Mayor shouldn't. The freeze is correct, every serious party should have one, but the date is extremely unfair.
We could argue the toss over the date Max. Still, Corbyn sodded off so it was his own fault. Nevertheless, it won't matter because Corbyn will win again and then the likes of @Pulpstar will get their wish because Labour will be no more.
There is always a freeze date and generally its 6 or 12 months. That there wasn't one for last September's election was the oddity not that one has been reimposed now. To not have a freeze date is to argue that people can join the day before the vote and still have a vote - in practical terms how do you make that work?
You go round telling people they GAMED THE SYSTEM. The fact that Labour don't have clearly written rules and make up the conditions as they go along isn't a great advert for letting them run the country, is it?
Why not set the date of the freeze to the date of the NEC meeting then? As I said, the current freeze date excludes people who will have signed up to campaign for Labour and Labour's causes over the last six months. That's not fair. Explain to me why someone who signed up from the SWP last year as a full member to vote for Jez should get a vote this time but someone who signed up in February to help Sadiq get elected as Mayor shouldn't. The freeze is correct, every serious party should have one, but the date is extremely unfair.
We could argue the toss over the date Max. Still, Corbyn sodded off so it was his own fault. Nevertheless, it won't matter because Corbyn will win again and then the likes of @Pulpstar will get their wish because Labour will be no more.
There is always a freeze date and generally its 6 or 12 months. That there wasn't one for last September's election was the oddity not that one has been reimposed now. To not have a freeze date is to argue that people can join the day before the vote and still have a vote - in practical terms how do you make that work?
You go round telling people they GAMED THE SYSTEM. The fact that Labour don't have clearly written rules and make up the conditions as they go along isn't a great advert for letting them run the country, is it?
@AgnesCPoirier: 'May's cabinet shows that focus is less on the country's future, more about satisfying internal cohesion of Tories' https://t.co/Uffpt6Bxbq
Make just enough enemies to lose a confidence vote or some such (Budget eg) Have to go to the country in spring 2017 Stuff Labour and increase majority Have a bigger majority which renders her enemies impotent with new MPs ready to Yes Miss, No Miss three bags full Miss.
I actually think that is part of the deal, the issue will be getting George the gig. Will be tough for a non-EU national to get the IMF, but given how heavily in favour of remain he was he's probably made enough friends.
These things are obviously always very political, but given that he is widely seen as probably the most successful of all the G20 finance ministers of the period since the financial crisis, he'd surely be a very strong contender.
Must be some real duffers out there if he is seen as good
Afternoon (almost) Macl!
Boy George has gone! Is there much rejoicing in the "G" household?
Miss Vance, I sympathise, I've recently had some difficulty in that area myself [thanks again to pb and Mr. 43 in particular for their kind assistance. Even if you are filthy rosbifs].
I've always thought rosbifs was a rather amusing put down. Never eaten a frog of any variety.
Bizarrely I have once , in Texas when roaring drunk.
Malc, I may be a vegetarian wimp, but it is posts like this that make me love you even more.
Do you even remember what Texan frog tastes like, or is it all clouded by alcohol?
Tasted pretty damn fine at the time , though that may have been the bourbon influence
I wonder what the variation is between the Texan and French versions of frog. Was the Texan one Cajun-inspired?
Jamie Wareham @jamie_wareham 4m4 minutes ago New Chancellor Philip Hammond: 'We will leave the single market, it's about negotiating access now' #audio:
Seems very significant. I think it makes sense politically. It's clean and it shuts up the Out squad in a government with a tiny majority. But it is also a weak negotiating strategy which is likely to be ineffective and which will come with a high economic cost.
It's a statement of reality: implementing Article 50 inevitably implies leaving the single market unless some other arrangement is made as part of the exit negotiations. The Single Market is a feature of the EU and leaving the one means leaving the other. The only exception would be if agreement can be reached on continued membership, either on the same terms or on different ones - but that, as Hammond says, is effectively a discussion about access.
The alternative would be membership of EEA, which also includes the single market. It would be a replacement for the EU and is also a multilateral arrangement. Unless Hammond was vague in his wording this sounds like a rejection of the EEA along with the EU and going straight to bilateral FTA negotations. Mind you he did talk about retaining financial passporting rights. The chances of retaining those are about 10% in that scenario, I would think. So he may not have thought it through. But if the government has rejected two of the three main alternative arrangements (full EU and EEA) before starting discussions, they will be in a very weak negotiating position: "So, EU, what will you give us?" "Hmm. Let me ask the Germans, the French, the Maltese, the Latvians ... and we will get back to you."
Membership of the EEA would mean either applying to and (re-)joining EFTA - which relies on being accepted - or coming to an arrangement where the UK could join it directly. Perhaps Hammond's reticence in answering the question was because neither position can be assured.
@Politicana: Huge congrats to @JustineGreening - new Sec of State for Education and Equality. Becomes the first LGBT person leading LGBT issues in Govt.
Make just enough enemies to lose a confidence vote or some such (Budget eg) Have to go to the country in spring 2017 Stuff Labour and increase majority Have a bigger majority which renders her enemies impotent with new MPs ready to Yes Miss, No Miss three bags full Miss.
No, you don't want to go to the country from the weak position of losing a (genuine) confidence vote.
Hang on. You have got a nerve. If people who didn't support the party hadn't gamed the system by voting in the last poll (as you admit you did), I'd venture that such a stringent freeze would not have been required. Witness the likes of Plato paying three quid to vote for Corbyn.
Re: the Tories, they crowned their leader, they didn't even offer ANY members the vote (rightly in my view but then I am not the one moralising).
Re: the Liberals, under that system, Corbyn would have needed nominations, so again, this issue wouldn't have arisen.
And finally, if Corbyn hadn't been outside crowing to the press the freeze would never have passed. It was a show of hands and he had left the building!
Why not set the date of the freeze to the date of the NEC meeting then? As I said, the current freeze date excludes people who will have signed up to campaign for Labour and Labour's causes over the last six months. That's not fair. Explain to me why someone who signed up from the SWP last year as a full member to vote for Jez should get a vote this time but someone who signed up in February to help Sadiq get elected as Mayor shouldn't. The freeze is correct, every serious party should have one, but the date is extremely unfair.
A backdated freeze is entirely inappropriate. The Tory freeze is in effect and known when you sign up, that if an election is called within 3 months you won't get a vote.
Quite - and the likes of Angela Eagle were encouraging supporters to sign up to vote for them.
That's completely wrong.
YOU GAMED THE SYSTEM BY VOTING FOR CORBYN. Uncivic, dishonourable, shameful.
Your moralising stinks.
A classic case of playing the (wo)man not the ball.
You can't defend against the argument so you attack the person making it.
Labour are committing fraud here - by promising people who signed up for membership a vote, and then denying it to them.
They also are demonstrating that they EITHER a) have no idea of how to create rules to live by, OR b) They DO know, but they would rather make them up as they go along for whatever political advantage they can gain.
What would you say if a Government - especially a Tory one - called an election and then said that only a subset of citizens were eligible to actually vote (say, the "Over 40's")?
Why not set the date of the freeze to the date of the NEC meeting then? As I said, the current freeze date excludes people who will have signed up to campaign for Labour and Labour's causes over the last six months. That's not fair. Explain to me why someone who signed up from the SWP last year as a full member to vote for Jez should get a vote this time but someone who signed up in February to help Sadiq get elected as Mayor shouldn't. The freeze is correct, every serious party should have one, but the date is extremely unfair.
We could argue the toss over the date Max. Still, Corbyn sodded off so it was his own fault. Nevertheless, it won't matter because Corbyn will win again and then the likes of @Pulpstar will get their wish because Labour will be no more.
There is always a freeze date and generally its 6 or 12 months. That there wasn't one for last September's election was the oddity not that one has been reimposed now. To not have a freeze date is to argue that people can join the day before the vote and still have a vote - in practical terms how do you make that work?
You go round telling people they GAMED THE SYSTEM. The fact that Labour don't have clearly written rules and make up the conditions as they go along isn't a great advert for letting them run the country, is it?
They should outsource their rules creation to PB. We are far more Machiavellian than the poor naïfs in the NEC. Our rules would be models of clarity, concision and, most importantly, unambiguous.
Other two unions seen the wind change against Corbyn?
Len has an election next year. His only challengers will be to his left. That may explain the Unite stance through all of this.
I just wonder whether GMB and Unison may be less helpful to Corbyn than they have been up to now. Jones being pro-Trident and advocating a second Brexit referendum are big, union-friendly differentiators with Corbyn given that they agree on so much else.
Make just enough enemies to lose a confidence vote or some such (Budget eg) Have to go to the country in spring 2017 Stuff Labour and increase majority Have a bigger majority which renders her enemies impotent with new MPs ready to Yes Miss, No Miss three bags full Miss.
No, you don't want to go to the country from the weak position of losing a (genuine) confidence vote.
Jamie Wareham @jamie_wareham 4m4 minutes ago New Chancellor Philip Hammond: 'We will leave the single market, it's about negotiating access now' #audio:
Seems very significant. I think it makes sense politically. It's clean and it shuts up the Out squad in a government with a tiny majority. But it is also a weak negotiating strategy which is likely to be ineffective and which will come with a high economic cost.
It's a statement of reality: implementing Article 50 inevitably implies leaving the single market unless some other arrangement is made as part of the exit negotiations. The Single Market is a feature of the EU and leaving the one means leaving the other. The only exception would be if agreement can be reached on continued membership, either on the same terms or on different ones - but that, as Hammond says, is effectively a discussion about access.
The alternative would be membership of EEA, which also includes the single market. It would be a replacement for the EU and is also a multilateral arrangement. Unless Hammond was vague in his wording this sounds like a rejection of the EEA along with the EU and going straight to bilateral FTA negotations. Mind you he did talk about retaining financial passporting rights. The chances of retaining those are about 10% in that scenario, I would think. So he may not have thought it through. But if the government has rejected two of the three main alternative arrangements (full EU and EEA) before starting discussions, they will be in a very weak negotiating position: "So, EU, what will you give us?" "Hmm. Let me ask the Germans, the French, the Maltese, the Latvians ... and we will get back to you."
A white lie? Leave the EU by activating A.50, then negotiate our way back into the EEA but not the EU.
UKIP-type total independence would be anathema to the Remainers (48%); continued EU membership is unacceptable to Leavers (52%). Square that circle if you can.
Comments
Nick Clegg to be made PM, David Laws Chancellor, Anna Soubry Foreign Sec, Dominic Grieve to Home.
Jeremy Browne rumoured to be in line for a good job.
https://twitter.com/LOS_Fisher/status/753528133505220608
I wonder who owns that land between Villiers Street and Adam Street
That's completely wrong.
"Chancellor Philip Hammond's remarks that British financial services should retain access to the European Union's single market are "reasonable," German finance minister Wolfgang Schaeuble said this morning.
He added that he would have a phone call with Hammond who was appointed as treasury secretary by Prime Minister Theresa May after Britain voted to leave the EU last month.
Schaeuble said the G20, whose finance ministers meet in China next week, was determined to contain the negative effects of Britain's eventual exit from the EU."
It won't matter – Corbyn will still win. Don't worry!
Still expect him to win though.
EDIT Liz Truss goes to Justice!
This is much, MUCH better than I could have hoped for. Gove aside, feel like I've got my party back from the careerist tendency...
Your moralising stinks.
They can't do anything to her immediately though as she's only just been elected leader... I think she'll have to call an election soon though. If she leaves it too long, they'll be after her in a couple of years.
French Foreign minister:
"I am not at all worried about Boris Johnson, but during the campaign he lied a lot to the British people and now it is he who has his back against the wall ...
[He has] his back against the wall to defend his country but also with his back against the wall the relationship with Europe should be clear. I need a partner with whom I can negotiate and who is clear, credible and reliable."
Waiting for ministerial sign off. Is small fry in terms of government spending but massive for my little firm.
Never been so nervous about a reshuffle. Wondering if there will be a new MoS in position and if that new MoS will see things the same way.
In a funny way makes me feel like a member of the elite, immediately personally impacted by personnel changes at the top. I should count my blessings.
Well there is that, but this is PB. The facts rarely get in the way of a good meme.
I note that Charlie Falconer has resigned.
https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/753542655167107072
And each of them nay still have some loyal friends.
It is without question "brave"
Again, if you have no freeze date then literally anyone can join the party immediately before the ballot and get a vote. All Labour Party members are provisional for 3 months - that allows CLPs to review all new members and object to anyone that raises concerns.
https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/32059130/eus-schulz-slams-new-uk-cabinet/#page1
"We have to rig it or else the wrong person might win" is not an argument.
I can't believe that the PLP are making me root for Corbyn. HOW DARE THEY?
@AgnesCPoirier: 'May's cabinet shows that focus is less on the country's future, more about satisfying internal cohesion of Tories' https://t.co/Uffpt6Bxbq
Greening is the first education secretary to have gone to a comprehensive.
Make just enough enemies to lose a confidence vote or some such (Budget eg)
Have to go to the country in spring 2017
Stuff Labour and increase majority
Have a bigger majority which renders her enemies impotent with new MPs ready to Yes Miss, No Miss three bags full Miss.
Boy George has gone! Is there much rejoicing in the "G" household?
Has the same intellectual credibility as 'Whites and Equality'.
The JD Sports in Rotherham has an evening wear section
You can't defend against the argument so you attack the person making it.
Labour are committing fraud here - by promising people who signed up for membership a vote, and then denying it to them.
They also are demonstrating that they EITHER
a) have no idea of how to create rules to live by, OR
b) They DO know, but they would rather make them up as they go along for whatever political advantage they can gain.
What would you say if a Government - especially a Tory one - called an election and then said that only a subset of citizens were eligible to actually vote (say, the "Over 40's")?
Is there a common briefing Note?
I just wonder whether GMB and Unison may be less helpful to Corbyn than they have been up to now. Jones being pro-Trident and advocating a second Brexit referendum are big, union-friendly differentiators with Corbyn given that they agree on so much else.
UKIP-type total independence would be anathema to the Remainers (48%); continued EU membership is unacceptable to Leavers (52%). Square that circle if you can.
Stop making shit up