politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » US election round-up following Obama’s convention speech an

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » US election round-up following Obama’s convention speech and Trump’s call to Russia

Front page of today's New York Daily News pic.twitter.com/WkV37TpBPj

Read the full story here

GIN1138

All this stuff about Russia is bizarre given the cold war ended 25 years ago...

TheScreamingEagles

Fpt

Blimey

Uncut has learned that House of Commons Speaker, John Bercow, is considering action to strip Labour of the title, Her Majesty’s Opposition, if Jeremy Corbyn wins the leadership election and the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) remains on strike, leaving the bulk of front bench roles unfilled.

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2016/07/27/speaker-poised-to-strip-labour-of-designation-as-her-majestys-opposition-in-autumn/#more-21006

GIN1138

TheScreamingEagles said:

Fpt

Blimey

Uncut has learned that House of Commons Speaker, John Bercow, is considering action to strip Labour of the title, Her Majesty’s Opposition, if Jeremy Corbyn wins the leadership election and the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) remains on strike, leaving the bulk of front bench roles unfilled.

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2016/07/27/speaker-poised-to-strip-labour-of-designation-as-her-majestys-opposition-in-autumn/#more-21006

Is Speaker B just attention seeking again?

John_M

TheScreamingEagles said:

Fpt

Blimey

Uncut has learned that House of Commons Speaker, John Bercow, is considering action to strip Labour of the title, Her Majesty’s Opposition, if Jeremy Corbyn wins the leadership election and the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) remains on strike, leaving the bulk of front bench roles unfilled.

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2016/07/27/speaker-poised-to-strip-labour-of-designation-as-her-majestys-opposition-in-autumn/#more-21006

I had a vision. A shadowy figure beckoned me close and whispered "I do believe the author of this article supports Owen Smith".

kle4

GIN1138 said:

All this stuff about Russia is bizarre given the cold war ended 25 years ago...

Both of them wish it hadn't, at least in terms of having an identifiable opponent to blame things for (I doubt they actually want to have tensions be as high as they were then). Same way a lot of Tories and Labour people still love to refight the battles of the 70s and 80s - it's simple, convenient, and makes them feel good about themselves.

TheScreamingEagles

GIN1138 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Fpt

Blimey

Uncut has learned that House of Commons Speaker, John Bercow, is considering action to strip Labour of the title, Her Majesty’s Opposition, if Jeremy Corbyn wins the leadership election and the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) remains on strike, leaving the bulk of front bench roles unfilled.

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2016/07/27/speaker-poised-to-strip-labour-of-designation-as-her-majestys-opposition-in-autumn/#more-21006

Is Speaker B just attention seeking again?

In a few years' time we'll be saying Napoleon had a John Bercow complex.

FrancisUrquhart

John_M said:

MaxPB said:

John_M said:

chestnut said:

The US has a low employment and unemployment rate if memory serves, with vast numbers of disengaged/inactive.

We've the same issue in the UK. We're just better at massaging the figures.

I wouldn't be so hard on the UK figures, they are a lot more detailed than what comes out of Europe and fairly transparent. It is easy to work out unemployment in the UK as it is just a function of active people less employed people. The massaging of unemployment figures in the UK is not in the figures but the tax credits system which makes otherwise unprofitable businesses viable so people are able to declare themselves self-employed even though their business is only marginally profitable.

I'm not being 'hard' insomuch as I'm pointing out that we have a long tradition of fiddling with unemployment numbers.

About 15% of the workforce are now classed as self-employed; as you say, one wonders how many are running viable businesses. Around 6% of the workforce are claiming long term sick.

Nobody seems to get to the bottom of what all these new self employed people are doing.

There are conspiracy theories about it being a way to claim certain benefits etc, but I have a feeling it might be a bit like ZHC for "professional" types i.e. they had a job and with the downturn companies have said we could employ that service on a consultancy / ad-hoc basis and so people have gone from full time employed with a particular company to a one man band company providing that (obviously minus all the perks).

rcs1000

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

John_M said:

chestnut said:

The US has a low employment and unemployment rate if memory serves, with vast numbers of disengaged/inactive.

We've the same issue in the UK. We're just better at massaging the figures.

If you make it hard to collect unemployment benefit, you get fewer people registering as unemployed!

Our employment rate is 58%, which is the same as the US and Germany's, worse than Canada, the Netherlands or Switzerland, and better than France, Italy and Spain.

Hmm, the employment rate is 74.5% for 16-65, I doubt it is that much lower for all people 16 and above, where do you get 58% from?

From the World Bank, here: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.EMP.TOTL.SP.ZS?year_high_desc=true

TheWhiteRabbit

FrancisUrquhart said:

John_M said:

MaxPB said:

John_M said:

chestnut said:

The US has a low employment and unemployment rate if memory serves, with vast numbers of disengaged/inactive.

We've the same issue in the UK. We're just better at massaging the figures.

I wouldn't be so hard on the UK figures, they are a lot more detailed than what comes out of Europe and fairly transparent. It is easy to work out unemployment in the UK as it is just a function of active people less employed people. The massaging of unemployment figures in the UK is not in the figures but the tax credits system which makes otherwise unprofitable businesses viable so people are able to declare themselves self-employed even though their business is only marginally profitable.

I'm not being 'hard' insomuch as I'm pointing out that we have a long tradition of fiddling with unemployment numbers.

About 15% of the workforce are now classed as self-employed; as you say, one wonders how many are running viable businesses. Around 6% of the workforce are claiming long term sick.

Nobody seems to get to the bottom of what all these new self employed people are doing.

There are conspiracy theories about it being a way to claim certain benefits etc, but I have a feeling it might be a bit like ZHC for "professional" types i.e. they had a job and with the downturn companies have said we could employ that service on a consultancy / ad-hoc basis and so people have gone from full time employed with a particular company to a one man band company providing that (obviously minus all the perks).

I will see if I can find some data later.

Pulpstar

I could do with a Trump drift having somewhat equalised up at 3.15 in the anticipation of rebacking at longer, later ...

Pulpstar

GIN1138 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Fpt

Blimey

Uncut has learned that House of Commons Speaker, John Bercow, is considering action to strip Labour of the title, Her Majesty’s Opposition, if Jeremy Corbyn wins the leadership election and the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) remains on strike, leaving the bulk of front bench roles unfilled.

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2016/07/27/speaker-poised-to-strip-labour-of-designation-as-her-majestys-opposition-in-autumn/#more-21006

Is Speaker B just attention seeking again?

No - Atul Hutwal is - he of the SLAB postals...

TheScreamingEagles

@theJeremyVine: Have you been dumped by your partner and they blamed Brexit?
@BBCRadio2 we are talking about #Brexcuse - people blaming everything on Brexit

williamglenn

TheScreamingEagles said:

@theJeremyVine: Have you been dumped by your partner and they blamed Brexit?
@BBCRadio2 we are talking about #Brexcuse - people blaming everything on Brexit

And has your partner invoked Article 50 or are they still leaving you in limbo while they decide when to walk out?

John_M

FrancisUrquhart said:

John_M said:

MaxPB said:

John_M said:

chestnut said:

The US has a low employment and unemployment rate if memory serves, with vast numbers of disengaged/inactive.

We've the same issue in the UK. We're just better at massaging the figures.

I wouldn't be so hard on the UK figures, they are a lot more detailed than what comes out of Europe and fairly transparent. It is easy to work out unemployment in the UK as it is just a function of active people less employed people. The massaging of unemployment figures in the UK is not in the figures but the tax credits system which makes otherwise unprofitable businesses viable so people are able to declare themselves self-employed even though their business is only marginally profitable.

I'm not being 'hard' insomuch as I'm pointing out that we have a long tradition of fiddling with unemployment numbers.

About 15% of the workforce are now classed as self-employed; as you say, one wonders how many are running viable businesses. Around 6% of the workforce are claiming long term sick.

Nobody seems to get to the bottom of what all these new self employed people are doing.

There are conspiracy theories about it being a way to claim certain benefits etc, but I have a feeling it might be a bit like ZHC for "professional" types i.e. they had a job and with the downturn companies have said we could employ that service on a consultancy / ad-hoc basis and so people have gone from full time employed with a particular company to a one man band company providing that (obviously minus all the perks).

I stopped working full time in Oct 2012, but didn't shutter my company until 2015 (simply because my accountant told me it would cost me about £6.5k to do so, previously). I did one £30k contract (as a favour) in 2013, but I was hardly running a business at that point. I could buy your idea, makes sense.

Pulpstar

FTSE down amidst results deluge - it is down 10 whole points. BBC News had me excited there was a buying opportunity

Ishmael_X

FPT

Morris_Dancer said: Evil British Supreme Court.

[I did prefer the Law Lords. Sounded nice and medieval, rather than aping America].

TheScreamingEagles said: The Supreme Court of Judicature Act of 1873 says hello

John_M said That never made it onto the statue books, did it?

Yes it did, it would still be a Bill rather than an Act otherwise. It is in effect largely still in force, too - it has been repealed but reenacted in subsequent Acts culminating in the Supreme Court Act 1981.

This is where it gets complicated. The Supreme Court as defined in the 1873 Act means the High Court plus the Court of Appeal, but *not* the House of Lords. (There were bits of the Act which dealt with the HoL, because Gladstone hated it, but they were torpedoed in 1876). So when we decided to call the HoL (technically, the Judicial Committee of the HoL) the Supreme Court, that made the nomenclature very weird and the Supreme Court Act 1981 was retrospectively renamed the Senior Courts Act 1981 - afaik the only time a statute has been renamed.

This is the old problem that if we have something new, we tend to give it the same name as something similar but actually not the same. Big weight? Call it a ton(ne) like the others. Better to have renamed the HoL the Sapient Jurisprudes of Tharg or some such, and avoided the confusion.

Casino_Royale

TheScreamingEagles said:

@theJeremyVine: Have you been dumped by your partner and they blamed Brexit?
@BBCRadio2 we are talking about #Brexcuse - people blaming everything on Brexit

Well, eight people defriended me on Facebook.

Does that count?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Pulpstar, are they actually reporting a decline in the FTSE when the drop is a colossal 10 points?

..... That's not quite as bad as the other day when a BBC reporter said "They look remarkably similar" when referring to four cloned sheep.

chestnut

I know many who have moved to self employment providing trades, freelance professional services, logistics and childcare.

They, as a general rule, seem to prefer it to employee status.

chestnut

TheScreamingEagles said:

@theJeremyVine: Have you been dumped by your partner and they blamed Brexit?
@BBCRadio2 we are talking about #Brexcuse - people blaming everything on Brexit

'Fatcha' finally exonerated from being at fault for everything.

kle4

With cameras present for the judgement at least, and no robes by the Justices, it amuses me our Supreme Court is less stuffy and flamboyant than the US Supreme Court.

Theuniondivvie

williamglenn said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

@theJeremyVine: Have you been dumped by your partner and they blamed Brexit?
@BBCRadio2 we are talking about #Brexcuse - people blaming everything on Brexit

And has your partner invoked Article 50 or are they still leaving you in limbo while they decide when to walk out?

Not to worry, they've got Dave Davis and Michel Barnier as relationship councillors.

kle4

chestnut said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

@theJeremyVine: Have you been dumped by your partner and they blamed Brexit?
@BBCRadio2 we are talking about #Brexcuse - people blaming everything on Brexit

'Fatcha' finally exonerated from being at fault for everything.

Not at all - her fault Europe as an issue was not settled and become Brexit.

rottenborough

From past thread, re official opposition:

I'm guessing the Speaker, but the process seems to be essentially automatic, based on this article:

https://constitution-unit.com/2016/06/29/what-if-labour-splits/

The Official Opposition is simply the largest party presence not in government. If Labour splits then it seems the key question would be who is 2nd official opposition party (which gains some minor rights to speak etc). Could be SNP if split leaves Corbyn with less than 54 MPs.

oxfordsimon

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pulpstar, are they actually reporting a decline in the FTSE when the drop is a colossal 10 points?

..... That's not quite as bad as the other day when a BBC reporter said "They look remarkably similar" when referring to four cloned sheep.

They are indeed running with a headline of that colour.

Talking things down - typical Beeb.

John_M

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pulpstar, are they actually reporting a decline in the FTSE when the drop is a colossal 10 points?

..... That's not quite as bad as the other day when a BBC reporter said "They look remarkably similar" when referring to four cloned sheep.

I just posted some numbers on Twitter. Latest figures we have for business births/deaths is from 2014. 351k startups and 246k failures. The economy is huge.

Of course, a lot of these businesses are mom and pop operations, but they're an excellent indicator of what's going on and how confident people feel. Even in the depths of the last recession, we still saw ~250k business startups. Just a lot more deaths.

GIN1138

chestnut said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

@theJeremyVine: Have you been dumped by your partner and they blamed Brexit?
@BBCRadio2 we are talking about #Brexcuse - people blaming everything on Brexit

'Fatcha' finally exonerated from being at fault for everything.

Au contraire.

Brexit can ultimately be traced back to "NO, NO, NO" Fatcha!

Scott_P

She's taken it well then...

@pressjournal: BREAKING: Supreme Court blocks 'totalitarian' named person scheme in historic ruling https://t.co/pgA52rsPVI https://t.co/ys2y9xttzt

@NicolaSturgeon: This is shocking journalism. The court didn't describe it in this way. In fact, it said NP aim 'legitimate & benign' https://t.co/3OSmRyQ8sp

@PolhomeEditor: And unlawful. https://t.co/wo0FGUYU7a

@euanmccolm: the court actually talked about "totalitarian regimes" that try to indoctrinate children. https://t.co/clSCDetGgS

TheScreamingEagles

kle4 said:

With cameras present for the judgement at least, and no robes by the Justices, it amuses me our Supreme Court is less stuffy and flamboyant than the US Supreme Court.

When William Rehnquist was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Rehnquist added four yellow stripes to the sleeves of his robe in 1995. He was a lifelong fan of Gilbert and Sullivan operas, and after appreciating the Lord Chancellor's costume in a community theater production of Iolanthe he thereafter appeared in court with the same striped sleeves.

How can you not love a man who is a fan of Gilbert and Sullivan, is a sign of intellect and love of good comic opera?

Carolus_Rex

Ishmael_X said:

FPT

Morris_Dancer said: Evil British Supreme Court.

[I did prefer the Law Lords. Sounded nice and medieval, rather than aping America].

TheScreamingEagles said: The Supreme Court of Judicature Act of 1873 says hello

John_M said That never made it onto the statue books, did it?

Yes it did, it would still be a Bill rather than an Act otherwise. It is in effect largely still in force, too - it has been repealed but reenacted in subsequent Acts culminating in the Supreme Court Act 1981.

This is where it gets complicated. The Supreme Court as defined in the 1873 Act means the High Court plus the Court of Appeal, but *not* the House of Lords. (There were bits of the Act which dealt with the HoL, because Gladstone hated it, but they were torpedoed in 1876). So when we decided to call the HoL (technically, the Judicial Committee of the HoL) the Supreme Court, that made the nomenclature very weird and the Supreme Court Act 1981 was retrospectively renamed the Senior Courts Act 1981 - afaik the only time a statute has been renamed.

This is the old problem that if we have something new, we tend to give it the same name as something similar but actually not the same. Big weight? Call it a ton(ne) like the others. Better to have renamed the HoL the Sapient Jurisprudes of Tharg or some such, and avoided the confusion.

I much preferred my old job description "Solicitor of the Supreme Court" to "Solicitor of the Senior Courts". The new version just doesn't have the same ring to it.

Sean_F

GIN1138 said:

chestnut said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

@theJeremyVine: Have you been dumped by your partner and they blamed Brexit?
@BBCRadio2 we are talking about #Brexcuse - people blaming everything on Brexit

'Fatcha' finally exonerated from being at fault for everything.

Au contraire.

Brexit can ultimately be traced back to "NO, NO, NO" Fatcha!

It can be traced back to our being a bad fit for the EU. We emerged from WWII with our political institutions vindicated, unlike almost every other EU member. Thus, we saw no reason to merge ourselves into a new political organisation, and resented all moves towards political integration.

Scott_P

@EddieBarnes23: Only last month, @JohnSwinney dismissed warnings over confidentiality breaches in np as an "absurdity" https://t.co/I1JbmzroHS

TheScreamingEagles

Carolus_Rex said:

Ishmael_X said:

FPT

Morris_Dancer said: Evil British Supreme Court.

[I did prefer the Law Lords. Sounded nice and medieval, rather than aping America].

TheScreamingEagles said: The Supreme Court of Judicature Act of 1873 says hello

John_M said That never made it onto the statue books, did it?

Yes it did, it would still be a Bill rather than an Act otherwise. It is in effect largely still in force, too - it has been repealed but reenacted in subsequent Acts culminating in the Supreme Court Act 1981.

This is where it gets complicated. The Supreme Court as defined in the 1873 Act means the High Court plus the Court of Appeal, but *not* the House of Lords. (There were bits of the Act which dealt with the HoL, because Gladstone hated it, but they were torpedoed in 1876). So when we decided to call the HoL (technically, the Judicial Committee of the HoL) the Supreme Court, that made the nomenclature very weird and the Supreme Court Act 1981 was retrospectively renamed the Senior Courts Act 1981 - afaik the only time a statute has been renamed.

This is the old problem that if we have something new, we tend to give it the same name as something similar but actually not the same. Big weight? Call it a ton(ne) like the others. Better to have renamed the HoL the Sapient Jurisprudes of Tharg or some such, and avoided the confusion.

I much preferred my old job description "Solicitor of the Supreme Court" to "Solicitor of the Senior Courts". The new version just doesn't have the same ring to it.

I've always liked the title 'Treasury Solicitor'

TheWhiteRabbit

Scott_P said:

She's taken it well then...

@pressjournal: BREAKING: Supreme Court blocks 'totalitarian' named person scheme in historic ruling https://t.co/pgA52rsPVI https://t.co/ys2y9xttzt

@NicolaSturgeon: This is shocking journalism. The court didn't describe it in this way. In fact, it said NP aim 'legitimate & benign' https://t.co/3OSmRyQ8sp

@PolhomeEditor: And unlawful. https://t.co/wo0FGUYU7a

@euanmccolm: the court actually talked about "totalitarian regimes" that try to indoctrinate children. https://t.co/clSCDetGgS

The court didn't call the Scottish regime totalitarian, but it did say it was contrary to human rights and unlawful (as the Scottish government's competency is limited to things which do not breach human rights)

ThreeQuidder

TheScreamingEagles said:

Fpt

Blimey

Uncut has learned that House of Commons Speaker, John Bercow, is considering action to strip Labour of the title, Her Majesty’s Opposition, if Jeremy Corbyn wins the leadership election and the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) remains on strike, leaving the bulk of front bench roles unfilled.

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2016/07/27/speaker-poised-to-strip-labour-of-designation-as-her-majestys-opposition-in-autumn/#more-21006

He's going to rule that Labour isn't in opposition to HMG?

TheWhiteRabbit

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carolus_Rex said:

Ishmael_X said:

FPT

Morris_Dancer said: Evil British Supreme Court.

[I did prefer the Law Lords. Sounded nice and medieval, rather than aping America].

TheScreamingEagles said: The Supreme Court of Judicature Act of 1873 says hello

John_M said That never made it onto the statue books, did it?

Yes it did, it would still be a Bill rather than an Act otherwise. It is in effect largely still in force, too - it has been repealed but reenacted in subsequent Acts culminating in the Supreme Court Act 1981.

This is where it gets complicated. The Supreme Court as defined in the 1873 Act means the High Court plus the Court of Appeal, but *not* the House of Lords. (There were bits of the Act which dealt with the HoL, because Gladstone hated it, but they were torpedoed in 1876). So when we decided to call the HoL (technically, the Judicial Committee of the HoL) the Supreme Court, that made the nomenclature very weird and the Supreme Court Act 1981 was retrospectively renamed the Senior Courts Act 1981 - afaik the only time a statute has been renamed.

This is the old problem that if we have something new, we tend to give it the same name as something similar but actually not the same. Big weight? Call it a ton(ne) like the others. Better to have renamed the HoL the Sapient Jurisprudes of Tharg or some such, and avoided the confusion.

I much preferred my old job description "Solicitor of the Supreme Court" to "Solicitor of the Senior Courts". The new version just doesn't have the same ring to it.

I've always liked the title 'Treasury Solicitor'

Alas the Treasury Solicitor is no more. Or at least no department will bear that name, I do wonder if any individual may still.

Scott_P

Arrogance, thy name is Swinney...

@JohnSwinney: Bid to scrap #NamedPerson via Supreme Court fails.Ruling means policy goes ahead. SG will clarify info-sharing in statute & implement asap.

John_M

ThreeQuidder said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Fpt

Blimey

Uncut has learned that House of Commons Speaker, John Bercow, is considering action to strip Labour of the title, Her Majesty’s Opposition, if Jeremy Corbyn wins the leadership election and the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) remains on strike, leaving the bulk of front bench roles unfilled.

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2016/07/27/speaker-poised-to-strip-labour-of-designation-as-her-majestys-opposition-in-autumn/#more-21006

He's going to rule that Labour isn't in opposition to HMG?

They could just pop a sack of ferrets on the opposition front bench while Labour sort themselves out.

Scott_P

John_M said:

They could just pop a sack of ferrets on the opposition front bench while Labour sort themselves out.

What if they do a better job?

TheScreamingEagles

TheWhiteRabbit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carolus_Rex said:

Ishmael_X said:

FPT

Morris_Dancer said: Evil British Supreme Court.

[I did prefer the Law Lords. Sounded nice and medieval, rather than aping America].

TheScreamingEagles said: The Supreme Court of Judicature Act of 1873 says hello

John_M said That never made it onto the statue books, did it?

Yes it did, it would still be a Bill rather than an Act otherwise. It is in effect largely still in force, too - it has been repealed but reenacted in subsequent Acts culminating in the Supreme Court Act 1981.

This is where it gets complicated. The Supreme Court as defined in the 1873 Act means the High Court plus the Court of Appeal, but *not* the House of Lords. (There were bits of the Act which dealt with the HoL, because Gladstone hated it, but they were torpedoed in 1876). So when we decided to call the HoL (technically, the Judicial Committee of the HoL) the Supreme Court, that made the nomenclature very weird and the Supreme Court Act 1981 was retrospectively renamed the Senior Courts Act 1981 - afaik the only time a statute has been renamed.

This is the old problem that if we have something new, we tend to give it the same name as something similar but actually not the same. Big weight? Call it a ton(ne) like the others. Better to have renamed the HoL the Sapient Jurisprudes of Tharg or some such, and avoided the confusion.

I much preferred my old job description "Solicitor of the Supreme Court" to "Solicitor of the Senior Courts". The new version just doesn't have the same ring to it.

I've always liked the title 'Treasury Solicitor'

Alas the Treasury Solicitor is no more. Or at least no department will bear that name, I do wonder if any individual may still.

Yeah GLD doesn't have the same elan does it ?

Ishmael_X

Carolus_Rex said:

Ishmael_X said:

FPT

Morris_Dancer said: Evil British Supreme Court.

[I did prefer the Law Lords. Sounded nice and medieval, rather than aping America].

TheScreamingEagles said: The Supreme Court of Judicature Act of 1873 says hello

John_M said That never made it onto the statue books, did it?

Yes it did, it would still be a Bill rather than an Act otherwise. It is in effect largely still in force, too - it has been repealed but reenacted in subsequent Acts culminating in the Supreme Court Act 1981.

This is where it gets complicated. The Supreme Court as defined in the 1873 Act means the High Court plus the Court of Appeal, but *not* the House of Lords. (There were bits of the Act which dealt with the HoL, because Gladstone hated it, but they were torpedoed in 1876). So when we decided to call the HoL (technically, the Judicial Committee of the HoL) the Supreme Court, that made the nomenclature very weird and the Supreme Court Act 1981 was retrospectively renamed the Senior Courts Act 1981 - afaik the only time a statute has been renamed.

This is the old problem that if we have something new, we tend to give it the same name as something similar but actually not the same. Big weight? Call it a ton(ne) like the others. Better to have renamed the HoL the Sapient Jurisprudes of Tharg or some such, and avoided the confusion.

I much preferred my old job description "Solicitor of the Supreme Court" to "Solicitor of the Senior Courts". The new version just doesn't have the same ring to it.

OMG, I left the profession before they changed that. The most satisfying letter I ever wrote was to the bod who sends you jury summonses and simply said "Thank you for your letter. I am a solicitor of the Supreme Court. YF." So that's two reasons that no longer works.

GIN1138

Sean_F said:

GIN1138 said:

chestnut said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

@theJeremyVine: Have you been dumped by your partner and they blamed Brexit?
@BBCRadio2 we are talking about #Brexcuse - people blaming everything on Brexit

'Fatcha' finally exonerated from being at fault for everything.

Au contraire.

Brexit can ultimately be traced back to "NO, NO, NO" Fatcha!

It can be traced back to our being a bad fit for the EU. We emerged from WWII with our political institutions vindicated, unlike almost every other EU member. Thus, we saw no reason to merge ourselves into a new political organisation, and resented all moves towards political integration.

We've finally unraveled Heath's madness!

John_M

Scott_P said:

John_M said:

They could just pop a sack of ferrets on the opposition front bench while Labour sort themselves out.

What if they do a batter job?

They might very well do. Some people are scared of ferrets. No one is scared of Jeremy.

Theuniondivvie

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Scott_P said:

She's taken it well then...

@pressjournal: BREAKING: Supreme Court blocks 'totalitarian' named person scheme in historic ruling https://t.co/pgA52rsPVI https://t.co/ys2y9xttzt

@NicolaSturgeon: This is shocking journalism. The court didn't describe it in this way. In fact, it said NP aim 'legitimate & benign' https://t.co/3OSmRyQ8sp

@PolhomeEditor: And unlawful. https://t.co/wo0FGUYU7a

@euanmccolm: the court actually talked about "totalitarian regimes" that try to indoctrinate children. https://t.co/clSCDetGgS

The court didn't call the Scottish regime totalitarian, but it did say it was contrary to human rights and unlawful (as the Scottish government's competency is limited to things which do not breach human rights)

https://twitter.com/BraidenHT/status/758605065183780864

Dadge

FrancisUrquhart said:

John_M said:

MaxPB said:

John_M said:

chestnut said:

The US has a low employment and unemployment rate if memory serves, with vast numbers of disengaged/inactive.

We've the same issue in the UK. We're just better at massaging the figures.

I wouldn't be so hard on the UK figures, they are a lot more detailed than what comes out of Europe and fairly transparent. It is easy to work out unemployment in the UK as it is just a function of active people less employed people. The massaging of unemployment figures in the UK is not in the figures but the tax credits system which makes otherwise unprofitable businesses viable so people are able to declare themselves self-employed even though their business is only marginally profitable.

I'm not being 'hard' insomuch as I'm pointing out that we have a long tradition of fiddling with unemployment numbers.

About 15% of the workforce are now classed as self-employed; as you say, one wonders how many are running viable businesses. Around 6% of the workforce are claiming long term sick.

Nobody seems to get to the bottom of what all these new self employed people are doing.

There are conspiracy theories about it being a way to claim certain benefits etc, but I have a feeling it might be a bit like ZHC for "professional" types i.e. they had a job and with the downturn companies have said we could employ that service on a consultancy / ad-hoc basis and so people have gone from full time employed with a particular company to a one man band company providing that (obviously minus all the perks).

A lot of it is the umbrella nonsense, so that companies pay less tax. I wanted to stay working for my company but they forced me to become technically self-employed. Better for the company, I dare say (and for the umbrella companies leeching off the system) but worse for me. The govt's done something to reduce it but it's not been very effective.

TheScreamingEagles

Forget Iraq, Blair's worst crime as Prime Minister was the constitutional reform act of 2005.

Casino_Royale

Sean_F said:

GIN1138 said:

chestnut said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

@theJeremyVine: Have you been dumped by your partner and they blamed Brexit?
@BBCRadio2 we are talking about #Brexcuse - people blaming everything on Brexit

'Fatcha' finally exonerated from being at fault for everything.

Au contraire.

Brexit can ultimately be traced back to "NO, NO, NO" Fatcha!

It can be traced back to our being a bad fit for the EU. We emerged from WWII with our political institutions vindicated, unlike almost every other EU member. Thus, we saw no reason to merge ourselves into a new political organisation, and resented all moves towards political integration.

We joined what we thought (clearly Heath knew differently) was a preferential trade block for economic reasons.

We left because of the endless centralisation pursued by the EU, particularly political and cultural, and its arrogant tin ear to any democratic objections to that.

We stayed in it so long because successive UK Governments feared losing political influence over the institutions of the EU, and the structure of the single market, if we vetoed that path and felt we had no choice anyway given the potential economic disruption to do anything but acquiesce.

rcs1000

There's an excellent analysis of the DNC hack on Vice: https://motherboard.vice.com/read/all-signs-point-to-russia-being-behind-the-dnc-hack

TheWhiteRabbit

Theuniondivvie said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Scott_P said:

She's taken it well then...

@pressjournal: BREAKING: Supreme Court blocks 'totalitarian' named person scheme in historic ruling https://t.co/pgA52rsPVI https://t.co/ys2y9xttzt

@NicolaSturgeon: This is shocking journalism. The court didn't describe it in this way. In fact, it said NP aim 'legitimate & benign' https://t.co/3OSmRyQ8sp

@PolhomeEditor: And unlawful. https://t.co/wo0FGUYU7a

@euanmccolm: the court actually talked about "totalitarian regimes" that try to indoctrinate children. https://t.co/clSCDetGgS

The court didn't call the Scottish regime totalitarian, but it did say it was contrary to human rights and unlawful (as the Scottish government's competency is limited to things which do not breach human rights)

https://twitter.com/BraidenHT/status/758605065183780864

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2015-0216-judgment.pdf

Paragraph 73, top of page 33. There is an indirect comparison to totalitarian regimes, in order to explain the proper jurisdiction and role of the court. However it does not label the Act in question totalitarian.

Nevertheless, an embarrassing setback for the Scottish Government.

Casino_Royale

Scott_P said:

She's taken it well then...

@pressjournal: BREAKING: Supreme Court blocks 'totalitarian' named person scheme in historic ruling https://t.co/pgA52rsPVI https://t.co/ys2y9xttzt

@NicolaSturgeon: This is shocking journalism. The court didn't describe it in this way. In fact, it said NP aim 'legitimate & benign' https://t.co/3OSmRyQ8sp

@PolhomeEditor: And unlawful. https://t.co/wo0FGUYU7a

@euanmccolm: the court actually talked about "totalitarian regimes" that try to indoctrinate children. https://t.co/clSCDetGgS

It's a difficult one for Nicola. It's a judgment by English judges (boo hiss!) but using the principle of European human rights law (yay! Hooray!)

Maybe she'll implode in confusion.

Theuniondivvie

Hey NP haters, here's the guy wot won it fer ya.

https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/758605732422021120

Scott_P

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Nevertheless, an embarrassing setback for the Scottish Government.

Not according to them

@chrisdeerin: fascinating watching the SNP and its flunkies spinining the Named Persons decision this morning.

GIN1138

Casino_Royale said:

We stayed in it so long because successive UK Governments feared losing political influence over the institutions of the EU, and the structure of the single market, if we vetoed that path and felt we had no choice anyway given the potential economic disruption to do anything but acquiesce.

Plus a huge number of British politicians have made a LOT of money out of the the EU gravy-train graveyard for failed politicians.

PlatoSaid

williamglenn said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

@theJeremyVine: Have you been dumped by your partner and they blamed Brexit?
@BBCRadio2 we are talking about #Brexcuse - people blaming everything on Brexit

And has your partner invoked Article 50 or are they still leaving you in limbo while they decide when to walk out?

Scott_P

@ScottyNational: News : Scot Gov to extend Named Person scheme to include UK Supreme Court judges.

OldKingCole

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

@theJeremyVine: Have you been dumped by your partner and they blamed Brexit?
@BBCRadio2 we are talking about #Brexcuse - people blaming everything on Brexit

Well, eight people defriended me on Facebook.

Does that count?

I was very saddened to learn, when talking to an elderly relation the other day, that her family are “not talking" to her and her husband because she voted Leave, while the rrest of them voted Remain.
I voted Remain, and I want a re-run when the situation gets clearer, but there’s no way I’m not going to talk to friendfs and relations who voted Leave. Mistaken they might be, but that’s as far as it goes.
If I’ve kept talking to them when I know they vote Tory ..,.....

grabcocque

ThreeQuidder said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Fpt

Blimey

Uncut has learned that House of Commons Speaker, John Bercow, is considering action to strip Labour of the title, Her Majesty’s Opposition, if Jeremy Corbyn wins the leadership election and the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) remains on strike, leaving the bulk of front bench roles unfilled.

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2016/07/27/speaker-poised-to-strip-labour-of-designation-as-her-majestys-opposition-in-autumn/#more-21006

He's going to rule that Labour isn't in opposition to HMG?

No, he'll declare the SNP the official opposition and Angus Robertson LOTO because they certainly fit the titles better than Labour at present.

williamglenn

Will Nicola Sturgeon now back Theresa May on withdrawing from the ECHR?

CarlottaVance

Scott_P said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Nevertheless, an embarrassing setback for the Scottish Government.

Not according to them

@chrisdeerin: fascinating watching the SNP and its flunkies spinining the Named Persons decision this morning.

John Spinney's take:

http://news.scotland.gov.uk/News/Supreme-Court-rules-on-named-person-279f.aspx

PlatoSaid

John_M said:

ThreeQuidder said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Fpt

Blimey

Uncut has learned that House of Commons Speaker, John Bercow, is considering action to strip Labour of the title, Her Majesty’s Opposition, if Jeremy Corbyn wins the leadership election and the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) remains on strike, leaving the bulk of front bench roles unfilled.

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2016/07/27/speaker-poised-to-strip-labour-of-designation-as-her-majestys-opposition-in-autumn/#more-21006

He's going to rule that Labour isn't in opposition to HMG?

They could just pop a sack of ferrets on the opposition front bench while Labour sort themselves out.

Shurely a big box of kittens, this is the era of kinder gentler politics.

GIN1138

OldKingCole said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

@theJeremyVine: Have you been dumped by your partner and they blamed Brexit?
@BBCRadio2 we are talking about #Brexcuse - people blaming everything on Brexit

Well, eight people defriended me on Facebook.

Does that count?

I was very saddened to learn, when talking to an elderly relation the other day, that her family are “not talking" to her and her husband because she voted Leave, while the rest of them voted Remain.
.

Anybody that cause's a rift with their friends and family because they take a different political view is crazy - That really is the way a society can descend from civilized political debate to violence.

ThreeQuidder

rottenborough said:

From past thread, re official opposition:

I'm guessing the Speaker, but the process seems to be essentially automatic, based on this article:

https://constitution-unit.com/2016/06/29/what-if-labour-splits/

The Official Opposition is simply the largest party presence not in government. If Labour splits then it seems the key question would be who is 2nd official opposition party (which gains some minor rights to speak etc). Could be SNP if split leaves Corbyn with less than 54 MPs.

I believe that the wording is "party in opposition to Her Majesty's government" rather than "party not forming part of Her Majesty's government" or similar. If so Bercow could theoretically rule that because Corbyn can't fill a front bench his party is not effectively opposing HMG and therefore he can't be LOTO. In which case it would have to be Angus Robertson.

PlatoSaid

GIN1138 said:

Casino_Royale said:

We stayed in it so long because successive UK Governments feared losing political influence over the institutions of the EU, and the structure of the single market, if we vetoed that path and felt we had no choice anyway given the potential economic disruption to do anything but acquiesce.

Plus a huge number of British politicians have made a LOT of money out of the the EU gravy-train graveyard for failed politicians.

Cleggers saw his gravy train pull out of the station on 24th June

TheWhiteRabbit

GIN1138 said:

OldKingCole said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

@theJeremyVine: Have you been dumped by your partner and they blamed Brexit?
@BBCRadio2 we are talking about #Brexcuse - people blaming everything on Brexit

Well, eight people defriended me on Facebook.

Does that count?

I was very saddened to learn, when talking to an elderly relation the other day, that her family are “not talking" to her and her husband because she voted Leave, while the rest of them voted Remain.
.

Anybody that cause's a rift with their friends and family because they take a different political view is crazy - That really is the way a society can descend from civilized political debate to violence.

There is no way for the state to stop a man from attacking his brother, as we have unfortunately learnt in many conflicts.

JonCisBack

Well I had never heard of this named person thing before today.

What an astonishing load of nanny state bollox. Have they not got better things to do? Interfering busybodies' wet dream!

TheScreamingEagles

Contains NSFW language but wow from Martin Brunt of Sky News

https://twitter.com/BobbyFaghihi/status/758597388776898560

grabcocque

ThreeQuidder said:

rottenborough said:

From past thread, re official opposition:

I'm guessing the Speaker, but the process seems to be essentially automatic, based on this article:

https://constitution-unit.com/2016/06/29/what-if-labour-splits/

The Official Opposition is simply the largest party presence not in government. If Labour splits then it seems the key question would be who is 2nd official opposition party (which gains some minor rights to speak etc). Could be SNP if split leaves Corbyn with less than 54 MPs.

I believe that the wording is "party in opposition to Her Majesty's government" rather than "party not forming part of Her Majesty's government" or similar. If so Bercow could theoretically rule that because Corbyn can't fill a front bench his party is not effectively opposing HMG and therefore he can't be LOTO. In which case it would have to be Angus Robertson.

Corbyn only has the confidence of around 40 MPs, that's less than Angus Robertson => Robertson should be Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Gin, quite agree. Obviously extreme views are one thing, but on an issue where the country was almost exactly split the idea one side is nuts or beyond the pale is clearly wrong.

Miss Plato, Corbyn promised cuddly rabbits. But instead:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcxKIJTb3Hg

Casino_Royale

OldKingCole said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

@theJeremyVine: Have you been dumped by your partner and they blamed Brexit?
@BBCRadio2 we are talking about #Brexcuse - people blaming everything on Brexit

Well, eight people defriended me on Facebook.

Does that count?

I was very saddened to learn, when talking to an elderly relation the other day, that her family are “not talking" to her and her husband because she voted Leave, while the rrest of them voted Remain.
I voted Remain, and I want a re-run when the situation gets clearer, but there’s no way I’m not going to talk to friendfs and relations who voted Leave. Mistaken they might be, but that’s as far as it goes.
If I’ve kept talking to them when I know they vote Tory ..,.....

Good for you.

Most of us understand that decent people we love and care about can reach different conclusions about politics, and that's ok and we won't think any less of them for it.

But, sadly, not everyone is like that.

grabcocque

TheScreamingEagles said:

Contains NSFW language but wow from Martin Brunt of Sky News

https://twitter.com/BobbyFaghihi/status/758597388776898560

That was the very purest Chris Morris (PBUH) right there.

williamglenn

TheScreamingEagles said:

Contains NSFW language but wow from Martin Brunt of Sky News

Is Chris Morris writing his scripts?

Wulfrun_Phil

An excellent summary, all handily in one place.

http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/11-charts-and-one-map-jeremy-corbyn-will-definitely-not-want-to-see--b1esf0cC8Ub

TheScreamingEagles

grabcocque said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Contains NSFW language but wow from Martin Brunt of Sky News

https://twitter.com/BobbyFaghihi/status/758597388776898560

That was the very purest Chris Morris (PBUH) right there.

Pure Brass Eye meets Four Lions

Casino_Royale

GIN1138 said:

Casino_Royale said:

We stayed in it so long because successive UK Governments feared losing political influence over the institutions of the EU, and the structure of the single market, if we vetoed that path and felt we had no choice anyway given the potential economic disruption to do anything but acquiesce.

Plus a huge number of British politicians have made a LOT of money out of the the EU gravy-train graveyard for failed politicians.

Not many leading politicians won't prefer luxuriantly hobnobbing with their equals on a grander scale overseas than dealing with domestic political spats at Westminister.

Alistair

Scott_P said:

John_M said:

They could just pop a sack of ferrets on the opposition front bench while Labour sort themselves out.

What if they do a better job?

How would they do a worse one?

RobD

Wulfrun_Phil said:

An excellent summary, all handily in one place.

http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/11-charts-and-one-map-jeremy-corbyn-will-definitely-not-want-to-see--b1esf0cC8Ub

Image #2 shows a Scottish Tory surge of gargantuan proportions.....

John_M

GIN1138 said:

OldKingCole said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

@theJeremyVine: Have you been dumped by your partner and they blamed Brexit?
@BBCRadio2 we are talking about #Brexcuse - people blaming everything on Brexit

Well, eight people defriended me on Facebook.

Does that count?

I was very saddened to learn, when talking to an elderly relation the other day, that her family are “not talking" to her and her husband because she voted Leave, while the rest of them voted Remain.
.

Anybody that cause's a rift with their friends and family because they take a different political view is crazy - That really is the way a society can descend from civilized political debate to violence.

I'm hugely optimistic about the modern world, yet it does have some drawbacks.

Our increasing ability to withdraw from the world and only ever encounter headlines/people/arguments we like is worrying. Reasonable people can disagree over the EU. It was ultimately a matter for personal judgement, not the basis for family feuds.

logical_song

PlatoSaid said:

GIN1138 said:

Casino_Royale said:

We stayed in it so long because successive UK Governments feared losing political influence over the institutions of the EU, and the structure of the single market, if we vetoed that path and felt we had no choice anyway given the potential economic disruption to do anything but acquiesce.

Plus a huge number of British politicians have made a LOT of money out of the the EU gravy-train graveyard for failed politicians.

Cleggers saw his gravy train pull out of the station on 24th June

Clegg was not an MEP, surely it applies to Farage more.

David_Evershed

chestnut said:

I know many who have moved to self employment providing trades, freelance professional services, logistics and childcare.

They, as a general rule, seem to prefer it to employee status.

Such liberated people are surely a natural fit for the Liberal party.

The Lib Dems are in need of a boost to their liberal wing to offset the inclination towards the interventionist, non liberal SDP wing.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Song, could've sworn Clegg was an MEP.

David_Evershed

logical_song said:

PlatoSaid said:

GIN1138 said:

Casino_Royale said:

We stayed in it so long because successive UK Governments feared losing political influence over the institutions of the EU, and the structure of the single market, if we vetoed that path and felt we had no choice anyway given the potential economic disruption to do anything but acquiesce.

Plus a huge number of British politicians have made a LOT of money out of the the EU gravy-train graveyard for failed politicians.

Cleggers saw his gravy train pull out of the station on 24th June

Clegg was not an MEP, surely it applies to Farage more.

Clegg should surely welcome the increased openness of the UK to the 80% of the world not in the EU and to a move away from EU centralisation and towards localism, a strong Lib Dem policy.

BREXIT equals more liberalism.

Theuniondivvie

https://twitter.com/JamieRoss7/status/758608871099404288

RobD

logical_song said:

PlatoSaid said:

GIN1138 said:

Casino_Royale said:

We stayed in it so long because successive UK Governments feared losing political influence over the institutions of the EU, and the structure of the single market, if we vetoed that path and felt we had no choice anyway given the potential economic disruption to do anything but acquiesce.

Plus a huge number of British politicians have made a LOT of money out of the the EU gravy-train graveyard for failed politicians.

Cleggers saw his gravy train pull out of the station on 24th June

Clegg was not an MEP, surely it applies to Farage more.

He was an MEP, although his pension would be safe even if we leave.

Alistair

JonCisBack said:

Well I had never heard of this named person thing before today.

What an astonishing load of nanny state bollox. Have they not got better things to do? Interfering busybodies' wet dream!

Have you read the actual legislation rather than the inaccurate summaries that groups who disapprove of sex outside marriage have put together?

Morris_Dancer

Hard to know what to make of that Martin Brunt video.

Perhaps tomorrow he'll be filmed getting out of his car next to a public square. "If I were a terrorist, I could've run over dozens of people."

oxfordsimon

RobD said:

logical_song said:

PlatoSaid said:

GIN1138 said:

Casino_Royale said:

We stayed in it so long because successive UK Governments feared losing political influence over the institutions of the EU, and the structure of the single market, if we vetoed that path and felt we had no choice anyway given the potential economic disruption to do anything but acquiesce.

Plus a huge number of British politicians have made a LOT of money out of the the EU gravy-train graveyard for failed politicians.

Cleggers saw his gravy train pull out of the station on 24th June

Clegg was not an MEP, surely it applies to Farage more.

He was an MEP, although his pension would be safe even if we leave.

Yep - 1999 to 2004

Luckyguy1983

The media and political class on both sides of the Atlantic had managed to build up quite a head of steam behind the 'Putin evil' meme - they're now desperately drawing upon that account, and it seems to have a little less capital in it than they thought. See the EUref. People quite rightly just refuse to believe that Russia is more of a danger to them than Islam-inspired terror.

williamglenn

Morris_Dancer said:

Hard to know what to make of that Martin Brunt video.

Perhaps tomorrow he'll be filmed getting out of his car next to a public square. "If I were a terrorist, I could've run over dozens of people."

Or vox pops in the town square, "If that camera was a gun, you would be dead now."

Morris_Dancer

Mr. 1983, it isn't helped by Erdogan. He's an ally of the West, apparently, but seems rather similar to Putin (with fewer foreign adventures but more Islamism).

Scott_P

@aljwhite: You're sitting in Starbucks drinking a latte, when Martin Brunt walks in. He looks around for a minute, nods, and walks out. And: You know.

@aljwhite: You won't be getting your coffee in that branch again.

David_Evershed

grabcocque said:

ThreeQuidder said:

rottenborough said:

From past thread, re official opposition:

I'm guessing the Speaker, but the process seems to be essentially automatic, based on this article:

https://constitution-unit.com/2016/06/29/what-if-labour-splits/

The Official Opposition is simply the largest party presence not in government. If Labour splits then it seems the key question would be who is 2nd official opposition party (which gains some minor rights to speak etc). Could be SNP if split leaves Corbyn with less than 54 MPs.

I believe that the wording is "party in opposition to Her Majesty's government" rather than "party not forming part of Her Majesty's government" or similar. If so Bercow could theoretically rule that because Corbyn can't fill a front bench his party is not effectively opposing HMG and therefore he can't be LOTO. In which case it would have to be Angus Robertson.

Corbyn only has the confidence of around 40 MPs, that's less than Angus Robertson => Robertson should be Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

The residual (rebel) Labour party is several times bigger than the SNP. Even the Lib Dems had more than twice as many votes as the SNP.

John_M

Alistair said:

JonCisBack said:

Well I had never heard of this named person thing before today.

What an astonishing load of nanny state bollox. Have they not got better things to do? Interfering busybodies' wet dream!

Have you read the actual legislation rather than the inaccurate summaries that groups who disapprove of sex outside marriage have put together?

I think the legislation is fine. Anything that helps prevent more Baby Ps is a laudable objective. The court has pointed out the need for tweaks, seems like a complete storm in a tea cup. If the legal system ensures we end up with better systems, it's to be applauded.

TheWhiteRabbit

Theuniondivvie said:

https://twitter.com/JamieRoss7/status/758608871099404288

Nice man.

Victory has may Named Persons, but defeat is an orphan.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Evershed, votes are irrelevant, it's MPs that count.

Ishmael_X

Morris_Dancer said:

Hard to know what to make of that Martin Brunt video.

Perhaps tomorrow he'll be filmed getting out of his car next to a public square. "If I were a terrorist, I could've run over dozens of people."

And how could he not disguise the location of this security breach? Presumably the church of St J*mes, W*ybridge is now in total lockdown.

Scott_P

@dhothersall: Corbynite-controlled CLP selects ineligible member for Labour-held seat, unable to stand as Labour, seat lost. FFS. https://t.co/VItOymWeN9

FF43

Hillary Clinton's former boss and putative predecessor, along with her husband, are perhaps the best speechmakers of recent times. Unfortunately she herself is completely outclassed by them.

rcs1000

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

@theJeremyVine: Have you been dumped by your partner and they blamed Brexit?
@BBCRadio2 we are talking about #Brexcuse - people blaming everything on Brexit

Well, eight people defriended me on Facebook.

Does that count?

I must admit, I have hidden a number of friends' posts (both Leave and Remain) because all they post is political propaganda.

I use Facebook to keep in contact with people I don't see too often. If I want to talk politics, I'll come here.

FrancisUrquhart

Owen Smith on BBC now....basically it is more tax, more spend, more unchecked levels of immigration. So Ed Miliband rehash.

Why can't Labour politicians ever say actually I think immigrant levels are too high. He was wibbling on about special fund because of Tory cuts and that would solve any concerns over immigration.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. X, on the other hand, terrorists may be afraid to enter, knowing that at any time Martin Brunt could go in and kill them all.