The fundamental objection to an EU army is that there is no point to it, except to give the EU the trappings of statehood.
Militarily it would be useless, leading to a proliferation in the number of brass hats.
I'm not sure whether they're going to do this or not but military spending is a big part of how the US does fiscal transfers from rich areas to poor areas. Direct transfers are going to be politically difficult despite experts generally seeming to think the Eurozone should have them if it's going to share a currency, but if you hide them behind environmental spending and security spending you can persuade a lot of voters in rich countries to cough up.
Although the DM has a strange definition of "undamaged" judging from the picture.
Another billion wasted on a heap of junk that cannot even avoid a massive merchant ship, that bodes well for when it is up against warships. Our surface ships engines don't work when the sun is shining so we can only fight in the arctic. To think that we once used to rule the waves and now would struggle to control a bathtub.
An absolute shambles.
There is an amazing disparity between the reality of the UKs military and the rhetoric used by politicians and the media.
One wonders if actually being under the command of a foreign power might be an improvement.
Anyone but England?
Not often we get an honest acknowledgment that the UK (in this case our armed forces) is de facto run by England. Kudos.
Not often that we get a confession that Scottish nationalism is largely driven by a huge inferiority complex to England as well, made worse by the fact Scotland has done very well out of it.
Kudos.
Scotland did well when Britain did well. When it was run by Scots.
Eventually, as England finally developed an educated population and the dominance of Scots in Britains administration began to diminish, so did Britain.
Britain no longer does well. It has nothing to offer Scotland.
I strongly disagree with that. I think Scotland has a fantastic future as part of a global Britain.
But we do need to find a better model of making UK wide decisions. The current political model is probably unsustainable in the long term.
60/40 before all the SWP and Greens are taken out by compliance is still good for Smith. 25k also being removed because they are duplicates, likely to be mostly pro-Corbyn as well. Registered could end up being 50/50 which is huge.
Whilst very significant, it's also a practical necessity if there are boundary changes. The fact it helps Corbyn by giving him a perfect pretext for mandatory reselections (he can even blame the Evil Tories) is, for him, fortunate.
Although the DM has a strange definition of "undamaged" judging from the picture.
Another billion wasted on a heap of junk that cannot even avoid a massive merchant ship, that bodes well for when it is up against warships. Our surface ships engines don't work when the sun is shining so we can only fight in the arctic. To think that we once used to rule the waves and now would struggle to control a bathtub.
An absolute shambles.
There is an amazing disparity between the reality of the UKs military and the rhetoric used by politicians and the media.
One wonders if actually being under the command of a foreign power might be an improvement.
Anyone but England?
Not often we get an honest acknowledgment that the UK (in this case our armed forces) is de facto run by England. Kudos.
Not often that we get a confession that Scottish nationalism is largely driven by a huge inferiority complex to England as well, made worse by the fact Scotland has done very well out of it.
Kudos.
Scotland did well when Britain did well. When it was run by Scots.
Eventually, as England finally developed an educated population and the dominance of Scots in Britains administration began to diminish, so did Britain.
Britain no longer does well. It has nothing to offer Scotland.
Top trolling! Either that, or you are putting forward racist ideas that English people are inferior to Scots.
When my son was small we used to holiday on the Isle of Wight and the high points of the trip were always the Garlic Festival and the Jousting at Carisbrooke Castle. There is something about the Joust (whether it is the raw courage needed, the horsemanship, maybe the teamwork between horse and rider or something else, I don't know) that makes it uniquely exciting. When the crowd really joins in and you get the boom-boom-pause-clash handclap, it really does send shivers down ones spine. Better even than paying rugger.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 1h1 hour ago Early days but I'm told sampling of 183k registered supporters so far showing btwn 60%/40% and 64/35 split for anti JC/pro JC views
Will be interesting to see if that turns out to be correct. I thought about 60/40 other way but we will find out soon i guess
Well, quite:
@paulwaugh: Apologies I garbled tweet on early sample of 183k. It's 60/40 pro Corbyn/anti Corbyn, not other way round.
Really not clever. Especially when betting might depend on that sort of thing. So there are about 9 pro-Corbyn supporters for every 6 antis, rather than 4?
If so, that gives Corbyn about a 40k vote advantage (assuming that the poll is right, that all the new members vote and that don't change their minds), before it goes to the general membership. How does he lose from here?
What was the differential between London property prices in 1920 when London Weighting was introduced and what is the differential now?
I'm fairly sure there is a reasonably strong argument that London Weighting only made the situation worse.
Desirable areas cost more money to live in.
It is going to be most amusing watching him try this equality line when it can cost £350 a week in Housing Benefit for a family in 3 bed property in Islington but only £130 in Blackburn.
He really is opening a can of worms.
"So, Mr Corbyn, why is the rest of the country subsidising your constituents?"
The MOD's earrings???!!! Sorry, I don't believe that.
MoD has a departmental income of about £1.4 billion p.a. I'm sorry if that's hard to believe .
Property development and rental income I'd assume?
Yes, plus we sell surplus gear, fuel etc and rent our personnel, that last item being the biggest earner (~£350m).
Hmmh.
May be you should look at IPO'ing that staffing business. At £350m of revenues you'd probably make around £70m in profits so it would be around in the order of £600-700m. Of course you'd want to keep a majority stake, but you could probably crystalise £300m upfront...
The world will be safe with Crooked Hillary but Crazy Donald is a pretty scary guy... I have a feeling he's going to do this.
The western world is rising up against elites and establishments and you don't get any more establishment than Hilary Clinton... So I suspect we'll have another polling/betting disaster and the "outsider" will again get a "surprise" victory in November.
Buckle up. A Trump Presidency will make Brexit seem like a stroll in the park.
It's a natural fall out from the boundary changes, surely? The fact that it serves Mr Corbyn's nefarious purposes is merely a delightful side effect.
Yet plenty of sane Labour people continue to insist there won't be a split. Wishful thinking.
Shows how bad he is at politics. It means the 180 odd non corbynista mps may as well split and form the official opposition, as they'll get the chop regardless.
How could he possibly enforce the equalisation of that? Some kind of national salary index that lists what you should pay for every profession when you are advertising a job? Really barmy stuff.
I moved my company from London to Bristol because staff are easier to find and wages are not so inflated. No one running a company like mine wants to pay over the odds in London, it is just what you have to do to fill the positions there.
I'm just surprised he didn't say "It can't be right some people earn more than others".
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 1h1 hour ago Early days but I'm told sampling of 183k registered supporters so far showing btwn 60%/40% and 64/35 split for anti JC/pro JC views
Will be interesting to see if that turns out to be correct. I thought about 60/40 other way but we will find out soon i guess
Well, quite:
@paulwaugh: Apologies I garbled tweet on early sample of 183k. It's 60/40 pro Corbyn/anti Corbyn, not other way round.
Really not clever. Especially when betting might depend on that sort of thing. So there are about 9 pro-Corbyn supporters for every 6 antis, rather than 4?
If so, that gives Corbyn about a 40k vote advantage (assuming that the poll is right, that all the new members vote and that don't change their minds), before it goes to the general membership. How does he lose from here?
What was the differential between London property prices in 1920 when London Weighting was introduced and what is the differential now?
I'm fairly sure there is a reasonably strong argument that London Weighting only made the situation worse.
Desirable areas cost more money to live in.
It is going to be most amusing watching him try this equality line when it can cost £350 a week in Housing Benefit for a family in 3 bed property in Islington but only £130 in Blackburn.
He rally is opening a can of worms.
"So, Mr Corbyn, why is the rest of the country subsidising your constituents?"
Areas where wages are higher become more desirable.
And when the largest sink cost - housing - can actually be recovered in the long run (at a massive profit) then from a purely financial point of view, the continued desirability of London is easily argued to be a result of its higher wages and not the other way round.
It's a natural fall out from the boundary changes, surely? The fact that it serves Mr Corbyn's nefarious purposes is merely a delightful side effect.
Yet plenty of sane Labour people continue to insist there won't be a split. Wishful thinking.
The opposition will be more effective when they're a united force. It also means that a certain young ex Sandhurst politician on the left of the party can take up the baton from Corbyn when May secures her majority in the 2020 elections...
Whilst very significant, it's also a practical necessity if there are boundary changes. The fact it helps Corbyn by giving him a perfect pretext for mandatory reselections (he can even blame the Evil Tories) is, for him, fortunate.
That's just it.
He wins, new boundaries come in, he staffs the new constituencies with his supporters, and all the old MPs are cleared out.
Which is why a split will probably happen now, if he wins, because MPs will believe their seats are more under threat from him than from the Tories in a GE, and sooner too.
How could he possibly enforce the equalisation of that? Some kind of national salary index that lists what you should pay for every profession when you are advertising a job? Really barmy stuff.
I moved my company from London to Bristol because staff are easier to find and wages are not so inflated. No one running a company like mine wants to pay over the odds in London, it is just what you have to do to fill the positions there.
I'm just surprised he didn't say "It can't be right some people earn more than others".
Why would Jezza be worried about how he would make it work ?
Somebody with more than EE at A-level will be able to think of an answer :-) .
Although the DM has a strange definition of "undamaged" judging from the picture.
Another billion wasted on a heap of junk that cannot even avoid a massive merchant ship, that bodes well for when it is up against warships. Our surface ships engines don't work when the sun is shining so we can only fight in the arctic. To think that we once used to rule the waves and now would struggle to control a bathtub.
An absolute shambles.
There is an amazing disparity between the reality of the UKs military and the rhetoric used by politicians and the media.
One wonders if actually being under the command of a foreign power might be an improvement.
Anyone but England?
Not often we get an honest acknowledgment that the UK (in this case our armed forces) is de facto run by England. Kudos.
Not often that we get a confession that Scottish nationalism is largely driven by a huge inferiority complex to England as well, made worse by the fact Scotland has done very well out of it.
Kudos.
Scotland did well when Britain did well. When it was run by Scots.
Eventually, as England finally developed an educated population and the dominance of Scots in Britains administration began to diminish, so did Britain.
Britain no longer does well. It has nothing to offer Scotland.
I would have said , "it offers Scotland nothing", happy to take though and lie about it.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 1h1 hour ago Early days but I'm told sampling of 183k registered supporters so far showing btwn 60%/40% and 64/35 split for anti JC/pro JC views
Will be interesting to see if that turns out to be correct. I thought about 60/40 other way but we will find out soon i guess
Well, quite:
@paulwaugh: Apologies I garbled tweet on early sample of 183k. It's 60/40 pro Corbyn/anti Corbyn, not other way round.
Really not clever. Especially when betting might depend on that sort of thing. So there are about 9 pro-Corbyn supporters for every 6 antis, rather than 4?
If so, that gives Corbyn about a 40k vote advantage (assuming that the poll is right, that all the new members vote and that don't change their minds), before it goes to the general membership. How does he lose from here?
The court case?
I'm interested in these vote-purchasing Facebook groups.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 1h1 hour ago Early days but I'm told sampling of 183k registered supporters so far showing btwn 60%/40% and 64/35 split for anti JC/pro JC views
Will be interesting to see if that turns out to be correct. I thought about 60/40 other way but we will find out soon i guess
Well, quite:
@paulwaugh: Apologies I garbled tweet on early sample of 183k. It's 60/40 pro Corbyn/anti Corbyn, not other way round.
Really not clever. Especially when betting might depend on that sort of thing. So there are about 9 pro-Corbyn supporters for every 6 antis, rather than 4?
If so, that gives Corbyn about a 40k vote advantage (assuming that the poll is right, that all the new members vote and that don't change their minds), before it goes to the general membership. How does he lose from here?
56k registered supporters were rejected by compliance last year, likely that Corbyn won't have anything like a 40k vote advantage from them, going to be closer to 50/50.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 1h1 hour ago Early days but I'm told sampling of 183k registered supporters so far showing btwn 60%/40% and 64/35 split for anti JC/pro JC views
Will be interesting to see if that turns out to be correct. I thought about 60/40 other way but we will find out soon i guess
Well, quite:
@paulwaugh: Apologies I garbled tweet on early sample of 183k. It's 60/40 pro Corbyn/anti Corbyn, not other way round.
Really not clever. Especially when betting might depend on that sort of thing. So there are about 9 pro-Corbyn supporters for every 6 antis, rather than 4?
If so, that gives Corbyn about a 40k vote advantage (assuming that the poll is right, that all the new members vote and that don't change their minds), before it goes to the general membership. How does he lose from here?
The court case?
I'm interested in these vote-purchasing Facebook groups.
Will that impact on the Court Case?
Dear General Secretary of the Labour Party, I have a few questions for you, can you confirm the following
1) You have legal advice that says Mr Corbyn needs 51 nominations to be on the ballot paper.
2) Do you believe that some members of the NEC felt intimated and threatened by supporters of Mr Corbyn?
Gavin Millar is the QC representing Mr Foster, and he's represented the Labour Party in the past so he knows their rules and regulations quite well.
Although the DM has a strange definition of "undamaged" judging from the picture.
Another billion wasted on a heap of junk that cannot even avoid a massive merchant ship, that bodes well for when it is up against warships. Our surface ships engines don't work when the sun is shining so we can only fight in the arctic. To think that we once used to rule the waves and now would struggle to control a bathtub.
An absolute shambles.
There is an amazing disparity between the reality of the UKs military and the rhetoric used by politicians and the media.
One wonders if actually being under the command of a foreign power might be an improvement.
Anyone but England?
Not often we get an honest acknowledgment that the UK (in this case our armed forces) is de facto run by England. Kudos.
Not often that we get a confession that Scottish nationalism is largely driven by a huge inferiority complex to England as well, made worse by the fact Scotland has done very well out of it.
Kudos.
Scotland did well when Britain did well. When it was run by Scots.
Eventually, as England finally developed an educated population and the dominance of Scots in Britains administration began to diminish, so did Britain.
Britain no longer does well. It has nothing to offer Scotland.
Top trolling! Either that, or you are putting forward racist ideas that English people are inferior to Scots.
Ha Ha Ha , lost soul pulls out his ace card, if you have nothing to say shout "racist"
Mr. G, every English Chancellor and every other Scottish (or Welsh/[Northern] Irish) Chancellor did better than Brown and his record-breaking recession.
It's a natural fall out from the boundary changes, surely? The fact that it serves Mr Corbyn's nefarious purposes is merely a delightful side effect.
Yet plenty of sane Labour people continue to insist there won't be a split. Wishful thinking.
Shows how bad he is at politics. It means the 180 odd non corbynista mps may as well split and form the official opposition, as they'll get the chop regardless.
About 100 under threat I would say. I think about 40Uber Blairites will split after the glorious leader is re elected. A handful might retain there seats in 2020. By 2025 they are gone for good.
What was the differential between London property prices in 1920 when London Weighting was introduced and what is the differential now?
I'm fairly sure there is a reasonably strong argument that London Weighting only made the situation worse.
Desirable areas cost more money to live in.
It is going to be most amusing watching him try this equality line when it can cost £350 a week in Housing Benefit for a family in 3 bed property in Islington but only £130 in Blackburn.
He rally is opening a can of worms.
"So, Mr Corbyn, why is the rest of the country subsidising your constituents?"
Areas where wages are higher become more desirable.
And when the largest sink cost - housing - can actually be recovered in the long run (at a massive profit) then from a purely financial point of view, the continued desirability of London is easily argued to be a result of its higher wages and not the other way round.
There are lots of reasons why London is so desirable and only a small portion of it has to do with wages. The cost of living often overrides the wages.
Many Londoners are underpaid proportionate to their cost of living.
The world will be safe with Crooked Hillary but Crazy Donald is a pretty scary guy... I have a feeling he's going to do this.
The western world is rising up against elites and establishments and you don't get any more establishment than Hilary Clinton... So I suspect we'll have another polling/betting disaster and the "outsider" will again get a "surprise" victory in November.
Buckle up. A Trump Presidency will make Brexit seem like a stroll in the park.
I think Hillary will win by a very narrow margin and Trump may win Florida and Ohio
Mr. G, every English Chancellor and every other Scottish (or Welsh/[Northern] Irish) Chancellor did better than Brown and his record-breaking recession.
MD, Brown is an easy one, but he was special and as he said "North British" rather than Scottish.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 1h1 hour ago Early days but I'm told sampling of 183k registered supporters so far showing btwn 60%/40% and 64/35 split for anti JC/pro JC views
Will be interesting to see if that turns out to be correct. I thought about 60/40 other way but we will find out soon i guess
Well, quite:
@paulwaugh: Apologies I garbled tweet on early sample of 183k. It's 60/40 pro Corbyn/anti Corbyn, not other way round.
Really not clever. Especially when betting might depend on that sort of thing. So there are about 9 pro-Corbyn supporters for every 6 antis, rather than 4?
If so, that gives Corbyn about a 40k vote advantage (assuming that the poll is right, that all the new members vote and that don't change their minds), before it goes to the general membership. How does he lose from here?
The court case?
So say he loses that. Do you think 700k members and supporters accept that?
Cruz's failure to endorse Trump beyond a token congratulation may harm a 2020 bid by him if Hillary wins in November but most Cruz supporters now back Trump so I doubt it makes much difference. By contrast next week Sanders will endorse Hillary but many of his supporters outside the convention will be vocal in their opposition to her.
Cruz also mentioned BREXIT in his speech as a sign of voters turning away from 'big government' showing the boost it has given the right in the US
Someone forgot to tell him that the voters who put Brexit over the top want bigger government. The WWC want greater spending on services and benefits, just for them and not the middle classes and immigrants.
On Cruz, he may be an egotist but he's a principled conservative. If any GOP voter wants a conservative party then they should not vote for Trump. Cruz knows that and is just making it clear. On Trump, people promoting him can't be watching him. He is so off the scale with the anger, narcissism and lies that he isn't going to be good for anyone except himself. Brexit will affect us economically but we can cope and, maybe, prosper. Trump is a problem of a wholly different size, however; if nothing else his closeness to Putin and support for such as Erdogan and Assad should explain the threat he poses to nations across the world. My only hope is that, if it should come to pass, the Senate and House neuter him; unfortunately that could mean he wields his power internationally to compensate, though.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 1h1 hour ago Early days but I'm told sampling of 183k registered supporters so far showing btwn 60%/40% and 64/35 split for anti JC/pro JC views
Will be interesting to see if that turns out to be correct. I thought about 60/40 other way but we will find out soon i guess
Well, quite:
@paulwaugh: Apologies I garbled tweet on early sample of 183k. It's 60/40 pro Corbyn/anti Corbyn, not other way round.
Really not clever. Especially when betting might depend on that sort of thing. So there are about 9 pro-Corbyn supporters for every 6 antis, rather than 4?
If so, that gives Corbyn about a 40k vote advantage (assuming that the poll is right, that all the new members vote and that don't change their minds), before it goes to the general membership. How does he lose from here?
The court case?
So say he loses that. Do you think 700k members and supporters accept that?
Although the DM has a strange definition of "undamaged" judging from the picture.
Another billion wasted on a heap of junk that cannot even avoid a massive merchant ship, that bodes well for when it is up against warships. Our surface ships engines don't work when the sun is shining so we can only fight in the arctic. To think that we once used to rule the waves and now would struggle to control a bathtub.
An absolute shambles.
There is an amazing disparity between the reality of the UKs military and the rhetoric used by politicians and the media.
One wonders if actually being under the command of a foreign power might be an improvement.
Anyone but England?
Not often we get an honest acknowledgment that the UK (in this case our armed forces) is de facto run by England. Kudos.
Not often that we get a confession that Scottish nationalism is largely driven by a huge inferiority complex to England as well, made worse by the fact Scotland has done very well out of it.
Kudos.
Scotland did well when Britain did well. When it was run by Scots.
Eventually, as England finally developed an educated population and the dominance of Scots in Britains administration began to diminish, so did Britain.
Britain no longer does well. It has nothing to offer Scotland.
England and Wales did fine under Henry VIII and Elizabeth 1st when Scotland was a separate country under James Vth and Mary Queen of Scots as did Scotland but they only created an Empire together and reached their economic peak together
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 1h1 hour ago Early days but I'm told sampling of 183k registered supporters so far showing btwn 60%/40% and 64/35 split for anti JC/pro JC views
Will be interesting to see if that turns out to be correct. I thought about 60/40 other way but we will find out soon i guess
Well, quite:
@paulwaugh: Apologies I garbled tweet on early sample of 183k. It's 60/40 pro Corbyn/anti Corbyn, not other way round.
Really not clever. Especially when betting might depend on that sort of thing. So there are about 9 pro-Corbyn supporters for every 6 antis, rather than 4?
If so, that gives Corbyn about a 40k vote advantage (assuming that the poll is right, that all the new members vote and that don't change their minds), before it goes to the general membership. How does he lose from here?
The court case?
So say he loses that. Do you think 700k members and supporters accept that?
That £4.5 m windfall is up in smoke, and then some if Corbyn loses the case. The Labour party would be lawyered to kingdom come.
Mr. G, every English Chancellor and every other Scottish (or Welsh/[Northern] Irish) Chancellor did better than Brown and his record-breaking recession.
Brown never ran up the debt.
That was London born chancellors Darling and Osborne. I believe Osborne ran up more debt than all previous chancellors added together.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 1h1 hour ago Early days but I'm told sampling of 183k registered supporters so far showing btwn 60%/40% and 64/35 split for anti JC/pro JC views
Will be interesting to see if that turns out to be correct. I thought about 60/40 other way but we will find out soon i guess
Well, quite:
@paulwaugh: Apologies I garbled tweet on early sample of 183k. It's 60/40 pro Corbyn/anti Corbyn, not other way round.
Really not clever. Especially when betting might depend on that sort of thing. So there are about 9 pro-Corbyn supporters for every 6 antis, rather than 4?
If so, that gives Corbyn about a 40k vote advantage (assuming that the poll is right, that all the new members vote and that don't change their minds), before it goes to the general membership. How does he lose from here?
The court case?
So say he loses that. Do you think 700k members and supporters accept that?
That £4.5 m windfall is up in smoke, and then some if Corbyn loses the case. The Labour party would be lawyered to kingdom come.
So it'll help the legal profession ? What's not to love?
Mr. G, every English Chancellor and every other Scottish (or Welsh/[Northern] Irish) Chancellor did better than Brown and his record-breaking recession.
Brown never ran up the debt.
That was London born chancellors Darling and Osborne. I believe Osborne ran up more debt than all previous chancellors added together.
Not helped by the state of the finances he inherited.
Mr. G, every English Chancellor and every other Scottish (or Welsh/[Northern] Irish) Chancellor did better than Brown and his record-breaking recession.
Brown never ran up the debt.
That was London born chancellors Darling and Osborne. I believe Osborne ran up more debt than all previous chancellors added together.
Brown was running up debt for fun, building in some terrible structural problems and trying to hide all sorts off-book.
The man was a disaster.
I don't know how he has the front to show his face.
I see the establishment are punishing Sunderland for their part in the Brexit revolt by forcing David Moyes on their football club. The swines! Will they stop at nothing!?
If Trump and Le Pen win then the UK under May would be the last bastion of liberal democracy amongst the permanent members of the Security Council and even she is more authoritarian than Cameron was
While not being convinced myself, there is a reasonable argument to be made that liberal democracy is on its last legs. The future being Russian style psuedo-democracy.
Combined with nationalism, not impossible even if unlikely. City states may then breakaway as the last bastion of liberal democracy
Go on, Mr. Hyfud, develop that idea of city states further. Think through, perhaps, where and how they would exist in the 21st century. I should be particularly interested in why they would be liberal democracies.
City states in the past like Venice have been extremely prosperous and of course liberal democracy first developed in a city state, Athens. London, New York, Paris, Hong Kong etc could all be city states of the future
The truth is that Corbynism is looking increasingly like the flip-side of Trumpism, in that both have no interest in good governance or indeed reason. Corbyn is happy to see a collapse in any meaningful parliamentary democratic process, as long as he can continue his and McDonnell's personal war to change the labour party into a purely extreme socialist/Trot party.
Scotland did well when Britain did well. When it was run by Scots.
Eventually, as England finally developed an educated population and the dominance of Scots in Britains administration began to diminish, so did Britain.
Britain no longer does well. It has nothing to offer Scotland.
England and Wales did fine under Henry VIII and Elizabeth 1st when Scotland was a separate country under James Vth and Mary Queen of Scots as did Scotland but they only created an Empire together and reached their economic peak together
It is impossible to know where Scotland would have been had it not joined the Union. The seeds which led to Scottish dominance of the Union and which led to the dominance of the Empire would have helped an independent Scotland, most likely not as quickly as they did within Britain but the seeds were there.
England didn't even get a third university till 1832, at the time Scotland had five universities and had done so since the 16th century.
If Trump and Le Pen win then the UK under May would be the last bastion of liberal democracy amongst the permanent members of the Security Council and even she is more authoritarian than Cameron was
While not being convinced myself, there is a reasonable argument to be made that liberal democracy is on its last legs. The future being Russian style psuedo-democracy.
Combined with nationalism, not impossible even if unlikely. City states may then breakaway as the last bastion of liberal democracy
Go on, Mr. Hyfud, develop that idea of city states further. Think through, perhaps, where and how they would exist in the 21st century. I should be particularly interested in why they would be liberal democracies.
City states in the past like Venice have been extremely prosperous and of course liberal democracy first developed in a city state, Athens. London, New York, Paris, Hong Kong etc could all be city states of the future
Ahem. There was very little that was liberal about Athenian democracy. I did like their idea of ostracism though. That would be cool. We could update it, and rather than exile just forbid media appearances (in the broadest sense - including Twitter etc).
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 1h1 hour ago Early days but I'm told sampling of 183k registered supporters so far showing btwn 60%/40% and 64/35 split for anti JC/pro JC views
Will be interesting to see if that turns out to be correct. I thought about 60/40 other way but we will find out soon i guess
Well, quite:
@paulwaugh: Apologies I garbled tweet on early sample of 183k. It's 60/40 pro Corbyn/anti Corbyn, not other way round.
Really not clever. Especially when betting might depend on that sort of thing. So there are about 9 pro-Corbyn supporters for every 6 antis, rather than 4?
If so, that gives Corbyn about a 40k vote advantage (assuming that the poll is right, that all the new members vote and that don't change their minds), before it goes to the general membership. How does he lose from here?
The court case?
So say he loses that. Do you think 700k members and supporters accept that?
No. But it'll be fun.
I have read that the court has no powers to change the decision (Happy to be corrected on that) The most they can do is make a ruling that the rules were ambiguous and suggest that the NEC makes them clearer. In that scenario, the NEC COULD clarify the rules to state that the current leader requires the requisite amount of noiminations and apply them retrospectively. However if they DID do that then they would have to declare the current leadership race to be null and void and we start again from square one, a completely new contest with fresh nominations (which may or may not include Owen Smith.
If they declate the current contest void, then they have to allow JC the oppotunity to get the required amount of nominations, after the NEC specifically said he did not need them origginally.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 1h1 hour ago Early days but I'm told sampling of 183k registered supporters so far showing btwn 60%/40% and 64/35 split for anti JC/pro JC views
Will be interesting to see if that turns out to be correct. I thought about 60/40 other way but we will find out soon i guess
Well, quite:
@paulwaugh: Apologies I garbled tweet on early sample of 183k. It's 60/40 pro Corbyn/anti Corbyn, not other way round.
Really not clever. Especially when betting might depend on that sort of thing. So there are about 9 pro-Corbyn supporters for every 6 antis, rather than 4?
If so, that gives Corbyn about a 40k vote advantage (assuming that the poll is right, that all the new members vote and that don't change their minds), before it goes to the general membership. How does he lose from here?
56k registered supporters were rejected by compliance last year, likely that Corbyn won't have anything like a 40k vote advantage from them, going to be closer to 50/50.
Maybe. But there's likely to be much less duplicate registering or Conservatives having a laugh this time at £25 a pop rather than £3.
Mr. G, every English Chancellor and every other Scottish (or Welsh/[Northern] Irish) Chancellor did better than Brown and his record-breaking recession.
Brown never ran up the debt.
That was London born chancellors Darling and Osborne. I believe Osborne ran up more debt than all previous chancellors added together.
Just a little fact that is ignored on here and supposedly it was a big boy who did it and ran away. Osborne is teh record holder for borrowing and chose to continue it for his own and teh Tory party's political purposes.
Mr. G, every English Chancellor and every other Scottish (or Welsh/[Northern] Irish) Chancellor did better than Brown and his record-breaking recession.
Brown never ran up the debt.
That was London born chancellors Darling and Osborne. I believe Osborne ran up more debt than all previous chancellors added together.
Not helped by the state of the finances he inherited.
That's certainly true but Osborne took the worst possible option. He tried to steer a middle path, his austerity was predominantly rhetoric. He could have gone Keynsian and spent his way out the recession or he could have got fully behind austerity and cut to the bone.
In the end he did neither and was left trying to pass off an asset bubble as a "fast growing economy".
Although the DM has a strange definition of "undamaged" judging from the picture.
Another billion wasted on a heap of junk that cannot even avoid a massive merchant ship, that bodes well for when it is up against warships. Our surface ships engines don't work when the sun is shining so we can only fight in the arctic. To think that we once used to rule the waves and now would struggle to control a bathtub.
An absolute shambles.
There is an amazing disparity between the reality of the UKs military and the rhetoric used by politicians and the media.
One wonders if actually being under the command of a foreign power might be an improvement.
Anyone but England?
Not often we get an honest acknowledgment that the UK (in this case our armed forces) is de facto run by England. Kudos.
Not often that we get a confession that Scottish nationalism is largely driven by a huge inferiority complex to England as well, made worse by the fact Scotland has done very well out of it.
Kudos.
Scotland did well when Britain did well. When it was run by Scots.
Eventually, as England finally developed an educated population and the dominance of Scots in Britains administration began to diminish, so did Britain.
Britain no longer does well. It has nothing to offer Scotland.
Top trolling! Either that, or you are putting forward racist ideas that English people are inferior to Scots.
Ha Ha Ha , lost soul pulls out his ace card, if you have nothing to say shout "racist"
It's all to easy to play that game, without answering the accusation itself, which is all that you are doing here. "Oh! Look! He called me a racist - he can't be right!"
So, Malc, what do you think? Do you agree with Lowlander's opinion that Scottish People are superior to English people.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 1h1 hour ago Early days but I'm told sampling of 183k registered supporters so far showing btwn 60%/40% and 64/35 split for anti JC/pro JC views
Will be interesting to see if that turns out to be correct. I thought about 60/40 other way but we will find out soon i guess
Well, quite:
@paulwaugh: Apologies I garbled tweet on early sample of 183k. It's 60/40 pro Corbyn/anti Corbyn, not other way round.
Really not clever. Especially when betting might depend on that sort of thing. So there are about 9 pro-Corbyn supporters for every 6 antis, rather than 4?
If so, that gives Corbyn about a 40k vote advantage (assuming that the poll is right, that all the new members vote and that don't change their minds), before it goes to the general membership. How does he lose from here?
The court case?
There is that.
I doubt it though. The NEC clearly had the power to interpret the rules and the interpretation decided upon was clearly arguable (in fact, had the stronger case compared with the alternative), so I don't honestly see what scope there is for overturning the decision.
Mr. G, every English Chancellor and every other Scottish (or Welsh/[Northern] Irish) Chancellor did better than Brown and his record-breaking recession.
Brown never ran up the debt.
That was London born chancellors Darling and Osborne. I believe Osborne ran up more debt than all previous chancellors added together.
Not helped by the state of the finances he inherited.
That's certainly true but Osborne took the worst possible option. He tried to steer a middle path, his austerity was predominantly rhetoric. He could have gone Keynsian and spent his way out the recession or he could have got fully behind austerity and cut to the bone.
In the end he did neither and was left trying to pass off an asset bubble as a "fast growing economy".
I still think that any chancellor from any party would have borrowed more than all previous chancellors added together. It says nothing about his policies, and everything about the state the country was in.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 1h1 hour ago Early days but I'm told sampling of 183k registered supporters so far showing btwn 60%/40% and 64/35 split for anti JC/pro JC views
Will be interesting to see if that turns out to be correct. I thought about 60/40 other way but we will find out soon i guess
Well, quite:
@paulwaugh: Apologies I garbled tweet on early sample of 183k. It's 60/40 pro Corbyn/anti Corbyn, not other way round.
Really not clever. Especially when betting might depend on that sort of thing. So there are about 9 pro-Corbyn supporters for every 6 antis, rather than 4?
If so, that gives Corbyn about a 40k vote advantage (assuming that the poll is right, that all the new members vote and that don't change their minds), before it goes to the general membership. How does he lose from here?
The court case?
So say he loses that. Do you think 700k members and supporters accept that?
Mr. G, every English Chancellor and every other Scottish (or Welsh/[Northern] Irish) Chancellor did better than Brown and his record-breaking recession.
Brown never ran up the debt.
That was London born chancellors Darling and Osborne. I believe Osborne ran up more debt than all previous chancellors added together.
Not helped by the state of the finances he inherited.
That's certainly true but Osborne took the worst possible option. He tried to steer a middle path, his austerity was predominantly rhetoric. He could have gone Keynsian and spent his way out the recession or he could have got fully behind austerity and cut to the bone.
In the end he did neither and was left trying to pass off an asset bubble as a "fast growing economy".
It was confirmed today that debt as a ratio to GDP has fallen for the first time in at least 14 years.
Mr. G, come on, you're not daft. If we suppose Osborne had increased the debt by zero then (disregarding around £180bn of interest payments alone) he would have had to totally eliminate the deficit by 2013 then run correspondingly (for the 2010-13 period) massive surpluses through to the present day.
If you think that's credible, then you're a silly sausage.
Meanwhile, those Labour MPs fighting Mr Corbyn who have been somewhat restrained or even cautious in their hostility should now have no illusions about the conflict they are engaged in. This is a fight to the political death. There will be no peace deal, no amicable settlement. Either Mr Corbyn is beaten, or he wins and destroys the Labour Party in its current form.
The truth is that Corbynism is looking increasingly like the flip-side of Trumpism, in that both have no interest in good governance or indeed reason. Corbyn is happy to see a collapse in any meaningful parliamentary democratic process, as long as he can continue his and McDonnell's personal war to change the labour party into a purely extreme socialist/Trot party.
Both alienating their party, both with dangerous foreign policy ideas. The main difference being that the UK would find it difficult to bugger up the world at large, whereas the US can easily do so (Blair without Bush wouldn't have got off the ground. Bush, without Blair? Well nothing would have stopped Bush).
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 1h1 hour ago Early days but I'm told sampling of 183k registered supporters so far showing btwn 60%/40% and 64/35 split for anti JC/pro JC views
Will be interesting to see if that turns out to be correct. I thought about 60/40 other way but we will find out soon i guess
Well, quite:
@paulwaugh: Apologies I garbled tweet on early sample of 183k. It's 60/40 pro Corbyn/anti Corbyn, not other way round.
Really not clever. Especially when betting might depend on that sort of thing. So there are about 9 pro-Corbyn supporters for every 6 antis, rather than 4?
If so, that gives Corbyn about a 40k vote advantage (assuming that the poll is right, that all the new members vote and that don't change their minds), before it goes to the general membership. How does he lose from here?
The court case?
So say he loses that. Do you think 700k members and supporters accept that?
No. But it'll be fun.
I have read that the court has no powers to change the decision (Happy to be corrected on that) The most they can do is make a ruling that the rules were ambiguous and suggest that the NEC makes them clearer. In that scenario, the NEC COULD clarify the rules to state that the current leader requires the requisite amount of noiminations and apply them retrospectively. However if they DID do that then they would have to declare the current leadership race to be null and void and we start again from square one, a completely new contest with fresh nominations (which may or may not include Owen Smith.
If they declate the current contest void, then they have to allow JC the oppotunity to get the required amount of nominations, after the NEC specifically said he did not need them origginally.
Well the court case is to seek that Corbyn requires 51 nominations.
Mr. G, every English Chancellor and every other Scottish (or Welsh/[Northern] Irish) Chancellor did better than Brown and his record-breaking recession.
Brown never ran up the debt.
That was London born chancellors Darling and Osborne. I believe Osborne ran up more debt than all previous chancellors added together.
Not helped by the state of the finances he inherited.
That's certainly true but Osborne took the worst possible option. He tried to steer a middle path, his austerity was predominantly rhetoric. He could have gone Keynsian and spent his way out the recession or he could have got fully behind austerity and cut to the bone.
In the end he did neither and was left trying to pass off an asset bubble as a "fast growing economy".
It was confirmed today that debt as a ratio to GDP has fallen for the first time in at least 14 years.
Mr. G, every English Chancellor and every other Scottish (or Welsh/[Northern] Irish) Chancellor did better than Brown and his record-breaking recession.
Brown never ran up the debt.
That was London born chancellors Darling and Osborne. I believe Osborne ran up more debt than all previous chancellors added together.
Not helped by the state of the finances he inherited.
That's certainly true but Osborne took the worst possible option. He tried to steer a middle path, his austerity was predominantly rhetoric. He could have gone Keynsian and spent his way out the recession or he could have got fully behind austerity and cut to the bone.
In the end he did neither and was left trying to pass off an asset bubble as a "fast growing economy".
It was confirmed today that debt as a ratio to GDP has fallen for the first time in at least 14 years.
and, of course, the BBC fails to mention this achievement.
Mr. G, every English Chancellor and every other Scottish (or Welsh/[Northern] Irish) Chancellor did better than Brown and his record-breaking recession.
Brown never ran up the debt.
That was London born chancellors Darling and Osborne. I believe Osborne ran up more debt than all previous chancellors added together.
Not helped by the state of the finances he inherited.
That's certainly true but Osborne took the worst possible option. He tried to steer a middle path, his austerity was predominantly rhetoric. He could have gone Keynsian and spent his way out the recession or he could have got fully behind austerity and cut to the bone.
In the end he did neither and was left trying to pass off an asset bubble as a "fast growing economy".
It was confirmed today that debt as a ratio to GDP has fallen for the first time in at least 14 years.
Mr. G, come on, you're not daft. If we suppose Osborne had increased the debt by zero then (disregarding around £180bn of interest payments alone) he would have had to totally eliminate the deficit by 2013 then run correspondingly (for the 2010-13 period) massive surpluses through to the present day.
If you think that's credible, then you're a silly sausage.
I think the issue with Osborne is his quite willful desire to make the situation worse. Cutting taxes (especially wealth taxes which can't even be justified with tenuous trickle down arguments) while continuing to fund largesse in the NHS, Education and Entitlements made his words utterly disingenuous.
Mr. Lowlander, you're comparing declining debt after decades of continuous growth to declining (proportionally) debt after the worst recession in British history.
If Trump and Le Pen win then the UK under May would be the last bastion of liberal democracy amongst the permanent members of the Security Council and even she is more authoritarian than Cameron was
While not being convinced myself, there is a reasonable argument to be made that liberal democracy is on its last legs. The future being Russian style psuedo-democracy.
Combined with nationalism, not impossible even if unlikely. City states may then breakaway as the last bastion of liberal democracy
Go on, Mr. Hyfud, develop that idea of city states further. Think through, perhaps, where and how they would exist in the 21st century. I should be particularly interested in why they would be liberal democracies.
City states in the past like Venice have been extremely prosperous and of course liberal democracy first developed in a city state, Athens. London, New York, Paris, Hong Kong etc could all be city states of the future
*liberal* democracy? You do know what happened to Socrates, do you? And after Arginusae? and in the Mytilenian Debate? Athens was a tyranny of the people if ever there was one. Mind you it was also a monarchy and an oligarchy and all sorts at various other stages; I don't think city statehood of itself correlates with any particular constitutional setup.
Mr. G, every English Chancellor and every other Scottish (or Welsh/[Northern] Irish) Chancellor did better than Brown and his record-breaking recession.
Brown never ran up the debt.
That was London born chancellors Darling and Osborne. I believe Osborne ran up more debt than all previous chancellors added together.
Not helped by the state of the finances he inherited.
That's certainly true but Osborne took the worst possible option. He tried to steer a middle path, his austerity was predominantly rhetoric. He could have gone Keynsian and spent his way out the recession or he could have got fully behind austerity and cut to the bone.
In the end he did neither and was left trying to pass off an asset bubble as a "fast growing economy".
It was confirmed today that debt as a ratio to GDP has fallen for the first time in at least 14 years.
Mr. Lowlander, you're comparing declining debt after decades of continuous growth to declining (proportionally) debt after the worst recession in British history.
You tinker.
Hey, it wasn't me that introduced the concept to the debate! It took Osborne 7 years to achieve what Brown did in 3 years.
If Trump and Le Pen win then the UK under May would be the last bastion of liberal democracy amongst the permanent members of the Security Council and even she is more authoritarian than Cameron was
While not being convinced myself, there is a reasonable argument to be made that liberal democracy is on its last legs. The future being Russian style psuedo-democracy.
Combined with nationalism, not impossible even if unlikely. City states may then breakaway as the last bastion of liberal democracy
Go on, Mr. Hyfud, develop that idea of city states further. Think through, perhaps, where and how they would exist in the 21st century. I should be particularly interested in why they would be liberal democracies.
City states in the past like Venice have been extremely prosperous and of course liberal democracy first developed in a city state, Athens. London, New York, Paris, Hong Kong etc could all be city states of the future
*liberal* democracy? You do know what happened to Socrates, do you? And after Arginusae? and in the Mytilenian Debate? Athens was a tyranny of the people if ever there was one. Mind you it was also a monarchy and an oligarchy and all sorts at various other stages; I don't think city statehood of itself correlates with any particular constitutional setup.
If Trump and Le Pen win then the UK under May would be the last bastion of liberal democracy amongst the permanent members of the Security Council and even she is more authoritarian than Cameron was
While not being convinced myself, there is a reasonable argument to be made that liberal democracy is on its last legs. The future being Russian style psuedo-democracy.
Combined with nationalism, not impossible even if unlikely. City states may then breakaway as the last bastion of liberal democracy
Go on, Mr. Hyfud, develop that idea of city states further. Think through, perhaps, where and how they would exist in the 21st century. I should be particularly interested in why they would be liberal democracies.
City states in the past like Venice have been extremely prosperous and of course liberal democracy first developed in a city state, Athens. London, New York, Paris, Hong Kong etc could all be city states of the future
*liberal* democracy? You do know what happened to Socrates, do you? And after Arginusae? and in the Mytilenian Debate? Athens was a tyranny of the people if ever there was one. Mind you it was also a monarchy and an oligarchy and all sorts at various other stages; I don't think city statehood of itself correlates with any particular constitutional setup.
Nonetheless it was Athens where democracy first originated and while obviously not identical to the democracies of today without Athens starting the process off we would not have developed any alternative to monarchy and oligarchy at all
Scotland did well when Britain did well. When it was run by Scots.
Eventually, as England finally developed an educated population and the dominance of Scots in Britains administration began to diminish, so did Britain.
Britain no longer does well. It has nothing to offer Scotland.
England and Wales did fine under Henry VIII and Elizabeth 1st when Scotland was a separate country under James Vth and Mary Queen of Scots as did Scotland but they only created an Empire together and reached their economic peak together
It is impossible to know where Scotland would have been had it not joined the Union. The seeds which led to Scottish dominance of the Union and which led to the dominance of the Empire would have helped an independent Scotland, most likely not as quickly as they did within Britain but the seeds were there.
England didn't even get a third university till 1832, at the time Scotland had five universities and had done so since the 16th century.
Yes but without England Scotland would never have built an Empire on the scale of the British Empire. Oxford and Cambridge were founded before any Scottish universities
Although the DM has a strange definition of "undamaged" judging from the picture.
Another billion wasted on a heap of junk that cannot even avoid a massive merchant ship, that bodes well for when it is up against warships. Our surface ships engines don't work when the sun is shining so we can only fight in the arctic. To think that we once used to rule the waves and now would struggle to control a bathtub.
An absolute shambles.
There is an amazing disparity between the reality of the UKs military and the rhetoric used by politicians and the media.
One wonders if actually being under the command of a foreign power might be an improvement.
Anyone but England?
Not often we get an honest acknowledgment that the UK (in this case our armed forces) is de facto run by England. Kudos.
Not often that we get a confession that Scottish nationalism is largely driven by a huge inferiority complex to England as well, made worse by the fact Scotland has done very well out of it.
Kudos.
Scotland did well when Britain did well. When it was run by Scots.
Eventually, as England finally developed an educated population and the dominance of Scots in Britains administration began to diminish, so did Britain.
Britain no longer does well. It has nothing to offer Scotland.
Top trolling! Either that, or you are putting forward racist ideas that English people are inferior to Scots.
Ha Ha Ha , lost soul pulls out his ace card, if you have nothing to say shout "racist"
It's all to easy to play that game, without answering the accusation itself, which is all that you are doing here. "Oh! Look! He called me a racist - he can't be right!"
So, Malc, what do you think? Do you agree with Lowlander's opinion that Scottish People are superior to English people.
First off he did not say that from what I read and secondly if he did say it I would disagree totally.
Mr. G, come on, you're not daft. If we suppose Osborne had increased the debt by zero then (disregarding around £180bn of interest payments alone) he would have had to totally eliminate the deficit by 2013 then run correspondingly (for the 2010-13 period) massive surpluses through to the present day.
If you think that's credible, then you're a silly sausage.
He was far too soft and mainly in the wrong places MD. He shoudl have socked everybody till we were in better shape , not spoonfed bankers and the rich and hammered the rest.
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36852222
Stupid boy.
I'm fairly sure there is a reasonably strong argument that London Weighting only made the situation worse.
But we do need to find a better model of making UK wide decisions. The current political model is probably unsustainable in the long term.
Whilst very significant, it's also a practical necessity if there are boundary changes. The fact it helps Corbyn by giving him a perfect pretext for mandatory reselections (he can even blame the Evil Tories) is, for him, fortunate.
If so, that gives Corbyn about a 40k vote advantage (assuming that the poll is right, that all the new members vote and that don't change their minds), before it goes to the general membership. How does he lose from here?
It is going to be most amusing watching him try this equality line when it can cost £350 a week in Housing Benefit for a family in 3 bed property in Islington but only £130 in Blackburn.
He really is opening a can of worms.
"So, Mr Corbyn, why is the rest of the country subsidising your constituents?"
The western world is rising up against elites and establishments and you don't get any more establishment than Hilary Clinton... So I suspect we'll have another polling/betting disaster and the "outsider" will again get a "surprise" victory in November.
Buckle up. A Trump Presidency will make Brexit seem like a stroll in the park.
And when the largest sink cost - housing - can actually be recovered in the long run (at a massive profit) then from a purely financial point of view, the continued desirability of London is easily argued to be a result of its higher wages and not the other way round.
It also means that a certain young ex Sandhurst politician on the left of the party can take up the baton from Corbyn when May secures her majority in the 2020 elections...
He wins, new boundaries come in, he staffs the new constituencies with his supporters, and all the old MPs are cleared out.
Which is why a split will probably happen now, if he wins, because MPs will believe their seats are more under threat from him than from the Tories in a GE, and sooner too.
Somebody with more than EE at A-level will be able to think of an answer :-) .
Could end up with a horse's head on the bed.
Will that impact on the Court Case?
Corbyn could either remain Leader of the Opposition, take over Angus Roberston's position, or be consigned to leading just another minor party.
1) You have legal advice that says Mr Corbyn needs 51 nominations to be on the ballot paper.
2) Do you believe that some members of the NEC felt intimated and threatened by supporters of Mr Corbyn?
Gavin Millar is the QC representing Mr Foster, and he's represented the Labour Party in the past so he knows their rules and regulations quite well.
Liz for Leader please!!!!!!
Many Londoners are underpaid proportionate to their cost of living.
Someone forgot to tell him that the voters who put Brexit over the top want bigger government. The WWC want greater spending on services and benefits, just for them and not the middle classes and immigrants.
On Cruz, he may be an egotist but he's a principled conservative. If any GOP voter wants a conservative party then they should not vote for Trump. Cruz knows that and is just making it clear. On Trump, people promoting him can't be watching him. He is so off the scale with the anger, narcissism and lies that he isn't going to be good for anyone except himself. Brexit will affect us economically but we can cope and, maybe, prosper. Trump is a problem of a wholly different size, however; if nothing else his closeness to Putin and support for such as Erdogan and Assad should explain the threat he poses to nations across the world. My only hope is that, if it should come to pass, the Senate and House neuter him; unfortunately that could mean he wields his power internationally to compensate, though.
That was London born chancellors Darling and Osborne. I believe Osborne ran up more debt than all previous chancellors added together.
The man was a disaster.
I don't know how he has the front to show his face.
England didn't even get a third university till 1832, at the time Scotland had five universities and had done so since the 16th century.
If they declate the current contest void, then they have to allow JC the oppotunity to get the required amount of nominations, after the NEC specifically said he did not need them origginally.
Osborne is teh record holder for borrowing and chose to continue it for his own and teh Tory party's political purposes.
In the end he did neither and was left trying to pass off an asset bubble as a "fast growing economy".
"Oh! Look! He called me a racist - he can't be right!"
So, Malc, what do you think?
Do you agree with Lowlander's opinion that Scottish People are superior to English people.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36852222
I doubt it though. The NEC clearly had the power to interpret the rules and the interpretation decided upon was clearly arguable (in fact, had the stronger case compared with the alternative), so I don't honestly see what scope there is for overturning the decision.
If you think that's credible, then you're a silly sausage.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/21/jeremy-corbyns-deselection-threat-means-labours-civil-war-is-now/
.,. was under Gordon Brown.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36854269
You tinker.
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD