We'd all pretty much forgotten about this by now, so they decide to get the Sundays talking about it again!! Never underestimate the ability of Corbyn's Labour to keep digging.
I was discussing this with OGH last week. Are Labour destroying themselves or is this really some brilliant new strategy?
Branson's one of the most respected men in the country
He is?
I'll take your word for it. I've never had much call to think about it, but I sort of presumed he was seen as a success but also a bit of a tit, with all the publicity seeking stuff. Honestly, he seems like he'd be more fun than most of the super rich though.
It's amusing to read tweets from people like Murdoch occasionally, which come across as genuine and not some intern, but it sort of ruins the mystique of the billionaire when you get a window into how they're just like the rest of us.
Jeremy Corbyn is twelfth and the top British politician, which probably says more about his support than the population at large.
That's the link! I spent ages looking for that on YG's website, rather than post a Mail link from last year. Ho hum.
The point is that Branson's a generally well thought of guy, which transcends some of his companies, and he has a *really* good PR and marketing operation.
Corbyn will be front page news for weeks if he goes for Branson, and not in a nice way even for some of his more religious followers. Reading that Mirror story makes me think that there might be some value in Smith at 5/1.
At 5/1, I think there is some value. We simply don't have enough hard data and Corbyn has had a very poor last fortnight. Many of his supporters will be delighted that he's taken the fight to Branson but Corbyn can't win with his supporters alone; he needs persuadables too.
Tomorrow's not going to be a slow news day, that's for sure. Three big stories there, one on Corbyn's aide, one on the Cabinet and the third on the BoE chief economist finally working out what happens when interest rates are effectively zero for the best part of a decade!
I really need tomorrow and Monday to be quiet days.
Good luck with that!
Are we allowed to suggest to the Spurs fans that they really shouldn't be dropping points at home so early in the season?
On Twitter, I keep pointing out that Labour need Tory voters, and the Corbynistas recoil as if I've proposed that they sleep with a syphilitic leper. Toryism is a taint to them. Incomprehensible.
But technically they are correct, albeit in a self-fulfilling, circular fashion.
Right now Labour shouldn't be wasting time trying to win back Tories in Nuneaton and Plymouth - that's pretty much a lost cause under Corbyn.
The Labour strategy should now be holding on to enough of their voters in Darlington, Sedgefield, Walsall and everywhere else where a modest swing to the Tories and the loss of votes to UKIP poses a threat.
Normally I'd agree with you. But as the unofficial Corbyn spokesperson for this evening, it's considerably weirder than that. Not only are they not interested in elections, they also think they're going to win in 2020, which is genuinely magical thinking. The votes will come, just not from Tories. In fact, ex-Tory votes would somehow pollute the victory.
If ultimately pressed, they'll fall back on the 'Power without principles is worthless' meme. As I say, odd.
Didn't Corbyn say he would try to get the support of people who were 'considering' voting Tory? So he's bending. A little.
How is he going to do that, when the two most important things on his agenda are Palestine and refugees (let them all in!), followed by unilateral disarmament and handing the Falklands back to Argentina?
Hey, baby steps. First, accept people considering voting Tory might be worthy of giving you their votes, then perhaps move on to accepting people who have, at some point, already voted Tory might be worthy of the same, and then he can think about how to get them to do so. He's on a personal journey here, we should not rush him.
Mail on Sunday Front Page is something about victory for campaign on Foreign Aid. Can't read the details, but I presume PM May is going to restrict it.
On his way out of the door, that was the one thing Cammo asked May particularly not to do.
I'm not sure Cammo had any capital left at that point.
If he had, Osbo would not have been fired either.
Given that and that May's people made sure to let people know she did it brutally (she was praised for it by many, hence why I assume her people did it to make her look good) and some of the others let go or not promoted, it feels like May hated every minute of serving under Cameron.
She could have done something else, arguably, if it were so offensive. I suppose she'll have to take a decision on her her own account at some stage I suppose.
On Twitter, I keep pointing out that Labour need Tory voters, and the Corbynistas recoil as if I've proposed that they sleep with a syphilitic leper. Toryism is a taint to them. Incomprehensible.
But technically they are correct, albeit in a self-fulfilling, circular fashion.
Right now Labour shouldn't be wasting time trying to win back Tories in Nuneaton and Plymouth - that's pretty much a lost cause under Corbyn.
The Labour strategy should now be holding on to enough of their voters in Darlington, Sedgefield, Walsall and everywhere else where a modest swing to the Tories and the loss of votes to UKIP poses a threat.
Normally I'd agree with you. But as the unofficial Corbyn spokesperson for this evening, it's considerably weirder than that. Not only are they not interested in elections, they also think they're going to win in 2020, which is genuinely magical thinking. The votes will come, just not from Tories. In fact, ex-Tory votes would somehow pollute the victory.
If ultimately pressed, they'll fall back on the 'Power without principles is worthless' meme. As I say, odd.
On Twitter, I keep pointing out that Labour need Tory voters, and the Corbynistas recoil as if I've proposed that they sleep with a syphilitic leper. Toryism is a taint to them. Incomprehensible.
But technically they are correct, albeit in a self-fulfilling, circular fashion.
Right now Labour shouldn't be wasting time trying to win back Tories in Nuneaton and Plymouth - that's pretty much a lost cause under Corbyn.
The Labour strategy should now be holding on to enough of their voters in Darlington, Sedgefield, Walsall and everywhere else where a modest swing to the Tories and the loss of votes to UKIP poses a threat.
Normally I'd agree with you. But as the unofficial Corbyn spokesperson for this evening, it's considerably weirder than that. Not only are they not interested in elections, they also think they're going to win in 2020, which is genuinely magical thinking. The votes will come, just not from Tories. In fact, ex-Tory votes would somehow pollute the victory.
If ultimately pressed, they'll fall back on the 'Power without principles is worthless' meme. As I say, odd.
Didn't Corbyn say he would try to get the support of people who were 'considering' voting Tory? So he's bending. A little.
Tomorrow's not going to be a slow news day, that's for sure. Three big stories there, one on Corbyn's aide, one on the Cabinet and the third on the BoE chief economist finally working out what happens when interest rates are effectively zero for the best part of a decade!
I really need tomorrow and Monday to be quiet days.
Good luck with that!
Are we allowed to suggest to the Spurs fans that they really shouldn't be dropping points at home so early in the season?
Only when Scrapheap is around, if he is, also mention the fantasy football to him.
I'm ahead of him for the third week in a row.
I also need Tuesday and Thursday to be quiet days as well, as I'm at the cricket.
On Twitter, I keep pointing out that Labour need Tory voters, and the Corbynistas recoil as if I've proposed that they sleep with a syphilitic leper. Toryism is a taint to them. Incomprehensible.
But technically they are correct, albeit in a self-fulfilling, circular fashion.
Right now Labour shouldn't be wasting time trying to win back Tories in Nuneaton and Plymouth - that's pretty much a lost cause under Corbyn.
The Labour strategy should now be holding on to enough of their voters in Darlington, Sedgefield, Walsall and everywhere else where a modest swing to the Tories and the loss of votes to UKIP poses a threat.
Normally I'd agree with you. But as the unofficial Corbyn spokesperson for this evening, it's considerably weirder than that. Not only are they not interested in elections, they also think they're going to win in 2020, which is genuinely magical thinking. The votes will come, just not from Tories. In fact, ex-Tory votes would somehow pollute the victory.
If ultimately pressed, they'll fall back on the 'Power without principles is worthless' meme. As I say, odd.
Didn't Corbyn say he would try to get the support of people who were 'considering' voting Tory? So he's bending. A little.
How is he going to do that, when the two most important things on his agenda are Palestine and refugees (let them all in!), followed by unilateral disarmament and handing the Falklands back to Argentina?
Tomorrow's not going to be a slow news day, that's for sure. Three big stories there, one on Corbyn's aide, one on the Cabinet and the third on the BoE chief economist finally working out what happens when interest rates are effectively zero for the best part of a decade!
That Andy Haldane story looks like an outright hatchet job from the ST.
What's their beef? Is this Baroness Altman settling scores?
On Twitter, I keep pointing out that Labour need Tory voters, and the Corbynistas recoil as if I've proposed that they sleep with a syphilitic leper. Toryism is a taint to them. Incomprehensible.
But technically they are correct, albeit in a self-fulfilling, circular fashion.
Right now Labour shouldn't be wasting time trying to win back Tories in Nuneaton and Plymouth - that's pretty much a lost cause under Corbyn.
The Labour strategy should now be holding on to enough of their voters in Darlington, Sedgefield, Walsall and everywhere else where a modest swing to the Tories and the loss of votes to UKIP poses a threat.
Normally I'd agree with you. But as the unofficial Corbyn spokesperson for this evening, it's considerably weirder than that. Not only are they not interested in elections, they also think they're going to win in 2020, which is genuinely magical thinking. The votes will come, just not from Tories. In fact, ex-Tory votes would somehow pollute the victory.
If ultimately pressed, they'll fall back on the 'Power without principles is worthless' meme. As I say, odd.
Didn't Corbyn say he would try to get the support of people who were 'considering' voting Tory? So he's bending. A little.
How is he going to do that, when the two most important things on his agenda are Palestine and refugees (let them all in!), followed by unilateral disarmament and handing the Falklands back to Argentina?
Hey, baby steps. First, accept people considering voting Tory might be worthy of giving you their votes, then perhaps move on to accepting people who have, at some point, already voted Tory might be worthy of the same, and then he can think about how to get them to do so. He's on a personal journey here, we should not rush him.
On Twitter, I keep pointing out that Labour need Tory voters, and the Corbynistas recoil as if I've proposed that they sleep with a syphilitic leper. Toryism is a taint to them. Incomprehensible.
But technically they are correct, albeit in a self-fulfilling, circular fashion.
Right now Labour shouldn't be wasting time trying to win back Tories in Nuneaton and Plymouth - that's pretty much a lost cause under Corbyn.
The Labour strategy should now be holding on to enough of their voters in Darlington, Sedgefield, Walsall and everywhere else where a modest swing to the Tories and the loss of votes to UKIP poses a threat.
Normally I'd agree with you. But as the unofficial Corbyn spokesperson for this evening, it's considerably weirder than that. Not only are they not interested in elections, they also think they're going to win in 2020, which is genuinely magical thinking. The votes will come, just not from Tories. In fact, ex-Tory votes would somehow pollute the victory.
If ultimately pressed, they'll fall back on the 'Power without principles is worthless' meme. As I say, odd.
Didn't Corbyn say he would try to get the support of people who were 'considering' voting Tory? So he's bending. A little.
How is he going to do that, when the two most important things on his agenda are Palestine and refugees (let them all in!), followed by unilateral disarmament and handing the Falklands back to Argentina?
Hey, baby steps. First, accept people considering voting Tory might be worthy of giving you their votes, then perhaps move on to accepting people who have, at some point, already voted Tory might be worthy of the same, and then he can think about how to get them to do so. He's on a personal journey here, we should not rush him.
On Twitter, I keep pointing out that Labour need Tory voters, and the Corbynistas recoil as if I've proposed that they sleep with a syphilitic leper. Toryism is a taint to them. Incomprehensible.
But technically they are correct, albeit in a self-fulfilling, circular fashion.
Right now Labour shouldn't be wasting time trying to win back Tories in Nuneaton and Plymouth - that's pretty much a lost cause under Corbyn.
The Labour strategy should now be holding on to enough of their voters in Darlington, Sedgefield, Walsall and everywhere else where a modest swing to the Tories and the loss of votes to UKIP poses a threat.
Normally I'd agree with you. But as the unofficial Corbyn spokesperson for this evening, it's considerably weirder than that. Not only are they not interested in elections, they also think they're going to win in 2020, which is genuinely magical thinking. The votes will come, just not from Tories. In fact, ex-Tory votes would somehow pollute the victory.
If ultimately pressed, they'll fall back on the 'Power without principles is worthless' meme. As I say, odd.
Didn't Corbyn say he would try to get the support of people who were 'considering' voting Tory? So he's bending. A little.
How is he going to do that, when the two most important things on his agenda are Palestine and refugees (let them all in!), followed by unilateral disarmament and handing the Falklands back to Argentina?
Hey, baby steps. First, accept people considering voting Tory might be worthy of giving you their votes, then perhaps move on to accepting people who have, at some point, already voted Tory might be worthy of the same, and then he can think about how to get them to do so. He's on a personal journey here, we should not rush him.
Is he off to the Falklands or Argentina?
Split the difference - Las Malvinas.
I'm not sure that constitutes splitting the difference
Tomorrow's not going to be a slow news day, that's for sure. Three big stories there, one on Corbyn's aide, one on the Cabinet and the third on the BoE chief economist finally working out what happens when interest rates are effectively zero for the best part of a decade!
I really need tomorrow and Monday to be quiet days.
Good luck with that!
Are we allowed to suggest to the Spurs fans that they really shouldn't be dropping points at home so early in the season?
Only when Scrapheap is around, if he is, also mention the fantasy football to him.
I'm ahead of him for the third week in a row.
I also need Tuesday and Thursday to be quiet days as well, as I'm at the cricket.
Ha ha, not seen him for a couple of days, maybe he's in hiding! Enjoy the cricket, oh and isn't the new Anfield looking rather nice - there might be a better chance of getting tickets now there's 10k extra seats there.
Tomorrow's not going to be a slow news day, that's for sure. Three big stories there, one on Corbyn's aide, one on the Cabinet and the third on the BoE chief economist finally working out what happens when interest rates are effectively zero for the best part of a decade!
I really need tomorrow and Monday to be quiet days.
Good luck with that!
Are we allowed to suggest to the Spurs fans that they really shouldn't be dropping points at home so early in the season?
Only when Scrapheap is around, if he is, also mention the fantasy football to him.
I'm ahead of him for the third week in a row.
I also need Tuesday and Thursday to be quiet days as well, as I'm at the cricket.
Ha ha, not seen him for a couple of days, maybe he's in hiding! Enjoy the cricket, oh and isn't the new Anfield looking rather nice - there might be a better chance of getting tickets now there's 10k extra seats there.
Last season we were chuffed to buggery we got a point at White Hart Lane, this season we're disappointed we only got a point.
On Twitter, I keep pointing out that Labour need Tory voters, and the Corbynistas recoil as if I've proposed that they sleep with a syphilitic leper. Toryism is a taint to them. Incomprehensible.
But technically they are correct, albeit in a self-fulfilling, circular fashion.
Right now Labour shouldn't be wasting time trying to win back Tories in Nuneaton and Plymouth - that's pretty much a lost cause under Corbyn.
The Labour strategy should now be holding on to enough of their voters in Darlington, Sedgefield, Walsall and everywhere else where a modest swing to the Tories and the loss of votes to UKIP poses a threat.
Normally I'd agree with you. But as the unofficial Corbyn spokesperson for this evening, it's considerably weirder than that. Not only are they not interested in elections, they also think they're going to win in 2020, which is genuinely magical thinking. The votes will come, just not from Tories. In fact, ex-Tory votes would somehow pollute the victory.
If ultimately pressed, they'll fall back on the 'Power without principles is worthless' meme. As I say, odd.
Didn't Corbyn say he would try to get the support of people who were 'considering' voting Tory? So he's bending. A little.
How is he going to do that, when the two most important things on his agenda are Palestine and refugees (let them all in!), followed by unilateral disarmament and handing the Falklands back to Argentina?
Hey, baby steps. First, accept people considering voting Tory might be worthy of giving you their votes, then perhaps move on to accepting people who have, at some point, already voted Tory might be worthy of the same, and then he can think about how to get them to do so. He's on a personal journey here, we should not rush him.
Is he off to the Falklands or Argentina?
Split the difference - Las Malvinas.
I'm not sure that constitutes splitting the difference
On Twitter, I keep pointing out that Labour need Tory voters, and the Corbynistas recoil as if I've proposed that they sleep with a syphilitic leper. Toryism is a taint to them. Incomprehensible.
But technically they are correct, albeit in a self-fulfilling, circular fashion.
Right now Labour shouldn't be wasting time trying to win back Tories in Nuneaton and Plymouth - that's pretty much a lost cause under Corbyn.
The Labour strategy should now be holding on to enough of their voters in Darlington, Sedgefield, Walsall and everywhere else where a modest swing to the Tories and the loss of votes to UKIP poses a threat.
Normally I'd agree with you. But as the unofficial Corbyn spokesperson for this evening, it's considerably weirder than that. Not only are they not interested in elections, they also think they're going to win in 2020, which is genuinely magical thinking. The votes will come, just not from Tories. In fact, ex-Tory votes would somehow pollute the victory.
If ultimately pressed, they'll fall back on the 'Power without principles is worthless' meme. As I say, odd.
Didn't Corbyn say he would try to get the support of people who were 'considering' voting Tory? So he's bending. A little.
How is he going to do that, when the two most important things on his agenda are Palestine and refugees (let them all in!), followed by unilateral disarmament and handing the Falklands back to Argentina?
Hey, baby steps. First, accept people considering voting Tory might be worthy of giving you their votes, then perhaps move on to accepting people who have, at some point, already voted Tory might be worthy of the same, and then he can think about how to get them to do so. He's on a personal journey here, we should not rush him.
On Twitter, I keep pointing out that Labour need Tory voters, and the Corbynistas recoil as if I've proposed that they sleep with a syphilitic leper. Toryism is a taint to them. Incomprehensible.
But technically they are correct, albeit in a self-fulfilling, circular fashion.
Right now Labour shouldn't be wasting time trying to win back Tories in Nuneaton and Plymouth - that's pretty much a lost cause under Corbyn.
The Labour strategy should now be holding on to enough of their voters in Darlington, Sedgefield, Walsall and everywhere else where a modest swing to the Tories and the loss of votes to UKIP poses a threat.
Normally I'd agree with you. But as the unofficial Corbyn spokesperson for this evening, it's considerably weirder than that. Not only are they not interested in elections, they also think they're going to win in 2020, which is genuinely magical thinking. The votes will come, just not from Tories. In fact, ex-Tory votes would somehow pollute the victory.
If ultimately pressed, they'll fall back on the 'Power without principles is worthless' meme. As I say, odd.
Didn't Corbyn say he would try to get the support of people who were 'considering' voting Tory? So he's bending. A little.
How is he going to do that, when the two most important things on his agenda are Palestine and refugees (let them all in!), followed by unilateral disarmament and handing the Falklands back to Argentina?
Hey, baby steps. First, accept people considering voting Tory might be worthy of giving you their votes, then perhaps move on to accepting people who have, at some point, already voted Tory might be worthy of the same, and then he can think about how to get them to do so. He's on a personal journey here, we should not rush him.
A journey? Surely he's had enough problems with journeys in recent weeks to last a lifetime?
On Twitter, I keep pointing out that Labour need Tory voters, and the Corbynistas recoil as if I've proposed that they sleep with a syphilitic leper. Toryism is a taint to them. Incomprehensible.
But technically they are correct, albeit in a self-fulfilling, circular fashion.
Right now Labour shouldn't be wasting time trying to win back Tories in Nuneaton and Plymouth - that's pretty much a lost cause under Corbyn.
The Labour strategy should now be holding on to enough of their voters in Darlington, Sedgefield, Walsall and everywhere else where a modest swing to the Tories and the loss of votes to UKIP poses a threat.
Normally I'd agree with you. But as the unofficial Corbyn spokesperson for this evening, it's considerably weirder than that. Not only are they not interested in elections, they also think they're going to win in 2020, which is genuinely magical thinking. The votes will come, just not from Tories. In fact, ex-Tory votes would somehow pollute the victory.
If ultimately pressed, they'll fall back on the 'Power without principles is worthless' meme. As I say, odd.
Didn't Corbyn say he would try to get the support of people who were 'considering' voting Tory? So he's bending. A little.
How is he going to do that, when the two most important things on his agenda are Palestine and refugees (let them all in!), followed by unilateral disarmament and handing the Falklands back to Argentina?
Hey, baby steps. First, accept people considering voting Tory might be worthy of giving you their votes, then perhaps move on to accepting people who have, at some point, already voted Tory might be worthy of the same, and then he can think about how to get them to do so. He's on a personal journey here, we should not rush him.
A journey? Surely he's had enough problems with journeys in recent weeks to last a lifetime?
That's was the Trials section of him being on the Hero's Journey.
On Twitter, I keep pointing out that Labour need Tory voters, and the Corbynistas recoil as if I've proposed that they sleep with a syphilitic leper. Toryism is a taint to them. Incomprehensible.
But technically they are correct, albeit in a self-fulfilling, circular fashion.
Right now Labour shouldn't be wasting time trying to win back Tories in Nuneaton and Plymouth - that's pretty much a lost cause under Corbyn.
The Labour strategy should now be holding on to enough of their voters in Darlington, Sedgefield, Walsall and everywhere else where a modest swing to the Tories and the loss of votes to UKIP poses a threat.
Normally I'd agree with you. But as the unofficial Corbyn spokesperson for this evening, it's considerably weirder than that. Not only are they not interested in elections, they also think they're going to win in 2020, which is genuinely magical thinking. The votes will come, just not from Tories. In fact, ex-Tory votes would somehow pollute the victory.
If ultimately pressed, they'll fall back on the 'Power without principles is worthless' meme. As I say, odd.
Didn't Corbyn say he would try to get the support of people who were 'considering' voting Tory? So he's bending. A little.
How is he going to do that, when the two most important things on his agenda are Palestine and refugees (let them all in!), followed by unilateral disarmament and handing the Falklands back to Argentina?
Hey, baby steps. First, accept people considering voting Tory might be worthy of giving you their votes, then perhaps move on to accepting people who have, at some point, already voted Tory might be worthy of the same, and then he can think about how to get them to do so. He's on a personal journey here, we should not rush him.
A journey? Surely he's had enough problems with journeys in recent weeks to last a lifetime?
Reading the front page of The Sunday Times, Phil Hammond = Legend
I see those, rather naively, thinking the days of Chancellor's being second among equals and 'interfering' with others was over will be disappointed.
Seems like a story about nothing really, other than to confirm the Tory cabinet have not yet arrived a clear position. I mean, it says he's 'resisting' plans by Fox etc to pull out of the single market, well that isn't government policy yet, presumably they are resisting all sorts of things on lots of things until May can create a consensus.
A few weeks ago we had a meeting with someone well versed in these matters.
His prediction was that the Treasury will produce various projections showing tax revenues dropping like a stone if we left the single market without trade deals in place/access to the market or if we moved to WTO rules.
The Treasury will never want to see revenues drop.
Reading the front page of The Sunday Times, Phil Hammond = Legend
I see those, rather naively, thinking the days of Chancellor's being second among equals and 'interfering' with others was over will be disappointed.
Seems like a story about nothing really, other than to confirm the Tory cabinet have not yet arrived a clear position. I mean, it says he's 'resisting' plans by Fox etc to pull out of the single market, well that isn't government policy yet, presumably they are resisting all sorts of things on lots of things until May can create a consensus.
A few weeks ago we had a meeting with someone well versed in these matters.
His prediction was that the Treasury will produce various projections showing tax revenues dropping like a stone if we left the single market without trade deals in place/access to the market or if we moved to WTO rules.
The Treasury will never want to see revenues drop.
So the same bullsh*t as before?
It's the IFS report redux. There is an economic opportunity cost to Brexit. The size varies with our final destination.
Reading the front page of The Sunday Times, Phil Hammond = Legend
I see those, rather naively, thinking the days of Chancellor's being second among equals and 'interfering' with others was over will be disappointed.
Seems like a story about nothing really, other than to confirm the Tory cabinet have not yet arrived a clear position. I mean, it says he's 'resisting' plans by Fox etc to pull out of the single market, well that isn't government policy yet, presumably they are resisting all sorts of things on lots of things until May can create a consensus.
A few weeks ago we had a meeting with someone well versed in these matters.
His prediction was that the Treasury will produce various projections showing tax revenues dropping like a stone if we left the single market without trade deals in place/access to the market or if we moved to WTO rules.
The Treasury will never want to see revenues drop.
So the same bullsh*t as before?
So you genuinely think moving to WTO rules will be good for tax revenues?
Oh wait the same old bullshit was about your own post. Got it.
Reading the front page of The Sunday Times, Phil Hammond = Legend
I see those, rather naively, thinking the days of Chancellor's being second among equals and 'interfering' with others was over will be disappointed.
Seems like a story about nothing really, other than to confirm the Tory cabinet have not yet arrived a clear position. I mean, it says he's 'resisting' plans by Fox etc to pull out of the single market, well that isn't government policy yet, presumably they are resisting all sorts of things on lots of things until May can create a consensus.
A few weeks ago we had a meeting with someone well versed in these matters.
His prediction was that the Treasury will produce various projections showing tax revenues dropping like a stone if we left the single market without trade deals in place/access to the market or if we moved to WTO rules.
The Treasury will never want to see revenues drop.
So the same bullsh*t as before?
So you genuinely think moving to WTO rules will be good for tax revenues?
Oh wait the same old bullshit was about your own post. Got it.
You don't even know what 'WTO rules' means. It's just a slogan, useful for airheads.
Reading the front page of The Sunday Times, Phil Hammond = Legend
I see those, rather naively, thinking the days of Chancellor's being second among equals and 'interfering' with others was over will be disappointed.
Seems like a story about nothing really, other than to confirm the Tory cabinet have not yet arrived a clear position. I mean, it says he's 'resisting' plans by Fox etc to pull out of the single market, well that isn't government policy yet, presumably they are resisting all sorts of things on lots of things until May can create a consensus.
A few weeks ago we had a meeting with someone well versed in these matters.
His prediction was that the Treasury will produce various projections showing tax revenues dropping like a stone if we left the single market without trade deals in place/access to the market or if we moved to WTO rules.
The Treasury will never want to see revenues drop.
So the same bullsh*t as before?
So you genuinely think moving to WTO rules will be good for tax revenues?
Oh wait the same old bullshit was about your own post. Got it.
There's a certain amount of justifiable paranoia about the 'Oh, it's too expensive, too complicated, let's call the whole thing off' schtick that's floating around.
Reading the front page of The Sunday Times, Phil Hammond = Legend
I see those, rather naively, thinking the days of Chancellor's being second among equals and 'interfering' with others was over will be disappointed.
Seems like a story about nothing really, other than to confirm the Tory cabinet have not yet arrived a clear position. I mean, it says he's 'resisting' plans by Fox etc to pull out of the single market, well that isn't government policy yet, presumably they are resisting all sorts of things on lots of things until May can create a consensus.
A few weeks ago we had a meeting with someone well versed in these matters.
His prediction was that the Treasury will produce various projections showing tax revenues dropping like a stone if we left the single market without trade deals in place/access to the market or if we moved to WTO rules.
The Treasury will never want to see revenues drop.
So the same bullsh*t as before?
So you genuinely think moving to WTO rules will be good for tax revenues?
Oh wait the same old bullshit was about your own post. Got it.
You don't even know what 'WTO rules' means. It's just a slogan, useful for airheads.
Actually I do. I've spent the last few months prepping myself on a post Brexit environment (I've mentioned it a few times on here)
Reading the front page of The Sunday Times, Phil Hammond = Legend
I see those, rather naively, thinking the days of Chancellor's being second among equals and 'interfering' with others was over will be disappointed.
Seems like a story about nothing really, other than to confirm the Tory cabinet have not yet arrived a clear position. I mean, it says he's 'resisting' plans by Fox etc to pull out of the single market, well that isn't government policy yet, presumably they are resisting all sorts of things on lots of things until May can create a consensus.
A few weeks ago we had a meeting with someone well versed in these matters.
His prediction was that the Treasury will produce various projections showing tax revenues dropping like a stone if we left the single market without trade deals in place/access to the market or if we moved to WTO rules.
The Treasury will never want to see revenues drop.
So the same bullsh*t as before?
So you genuinely think moving to WTO rules will be good for tax revenues?
Oh wait the same old bullshit was about your own post. Got it.
There's a certain amount of justifiable paranoia about the 'Oh, it's too expensive, too complicated, let's call the whole thing off' schtick that's floating around.
We're leaving the EU, I suspect it will come down to a phased withdrawal as we line everything up for a Brexit world or a quick Brexit and we'll sort stuff out as it arises.
It's harsh, but they should have been left to crash again. The inequality talked about is Greece was never going to pay back what people pretended were loans, and so instead everyone was unhappy, others at giving Greece money, Greece at being forced to do things it didn't want to get it. And apparently none of it helps much since new arrangements or new money is constantly needed.
Reading the front page of The Sunday Times, Phil Hammond = Legend
I see those, rather naively, thinking the days of Chancellor's being second among equals and 'interfering' with others was over will be disappointed.
Seems like a story about nothing really, other than to confirm the Tory cabinet have not yet arrived a clear position. I mean, it says he's 'resisting' plans by Fox etc to pull out of the single market, well that isn't government policy yet, presumably they are resisting all sorts of things on lots of things until May can create a consensus.
A few weeks ago we had a meeting with someone well versed in these matters.
His prediction was that the Treasury will produce various projections showing tax revenues dropping like a stone if we left the single market without trade deals in place/access to the market or if we moved to WTO rules.
The Treasury will never want to see revenues drop.
So the same bullsh*t as before?
So you genuinely think moving to WTO rules will be good for tax revenues?
Oh wait the same old bullshit was about your own post. Got it.
There's a certain amount of justifiable paranoia about the 'Oh, it's too expensive, too complicated, let's call the whole thing off' schtick that's floating around.
We're leaving the EU, I suspect it will come down to a phased withdrawal as we line everything up for a Brexit world or a quick Brexit and we'll sort stuff out as it arises.
If may can sell a phased withdrawal as definitely no fooling still Brexit she'll be fine, but the paranoid fear that anything less than hard Brexit is not true Brexit could arise on any such proposal, fearing slower Brexit is fake Brexit, so it's not certain.
Revealed: How YOU gave £1million to Sweet Shop jihadist gang while they held 'sharia surgeries' and waged their campaign of hate
Supporters of Choudary paid by businessman to run training courses Businessman also ran a sweet shop in the East End of London Received grants from Government agency after links to Choudary known Man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, branded a terrorist funder
A bit of googling has found the individual who can't be named for legal reasons...and I think the phrase "you can't be f##king kidding me" comes to mind.
Revealed: How YOU gave £1million to Sweet Shop jihadist gang while they held 'sharia surgeries' and waged their campaign of hate
Supporters of Choudary paid by businessman to run training courses Businessman also ran a sweet shop in the East End of London Received grants from Government agency after links to Choudary known Man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, branded a terrorist funder
A bit of googling has found the individual who can't be named for legal reasons...and I think the phrase "you can't be f##king kidding me" comes to mind.
"you can't be f##king kidding me" -> you got to be f##king kidding me
Vince Cable was made aware of this in 2011 and still it continued for 3 years.
I am sure not why legal reasons can't reveal the name, the information in the article is more than enough to find out the name as they give the company names, besides this story has been reported by another national newspaper with all names posted.
It's harsh, but they should have been left to crash again. The inequality talked about is Greece was never going to pay back what people pretended were loans, and so instead everyone was unhappy, others at giving Greece money, Greece at being forced to do things it didn't want to get it. And apparently none of it helps much since nwew arrangements or new money is constantly needed.
When you speak glibly of being allowed to crash again. Please remember you are talking of some 16 million souls. Who did not ask for merkels Reich. Or the callous politics of Schauble.
It's harsh, but they should have been left to crash again. The inequality talked about is Greece was never going to pay back what people pretended were loans, and so instead everyone was unhappy, others at giving Greece money, Greece at being forced to do things it didn't want to get it. And apparently none of it helps much since nwew arrangements or new money is constantly needed.
When you speak glibly of being allowed to crash again. Please remember you are talking of some 16 million souls. Who did not ask for merkels Reich. Or the callous politics of Schauble.
If I remember correctly, the "callous politics of Schauble" included recommending the Greeks be given incentives to leave the Euro. Since it is an article of faith among Sceptics that Greece is infantily responsible for nothing ever and Greece leaving the Euro will cure everything, I'd've thought you would have approved.
I'm watching Branagh's Frankenstein. It was good before DeNiro turned up, but now it's bad. Kenneth Branagh (who's from NornIron) and James McAvoy (fae Scotland) have the same English accent. Helena Bonham Carter is playing a normal human being in the days before she went full TimBurton. The sets are beautiful but not being chewed enough. Oh, the crowd have just lynched somebody. Most weird.
It's harsh, but they should have been left to crash again. The inequality talked about is Greece was never going to pay back what people pretended were loans, and so instead everyone was unhappy, others at giving Greece money, Greece at being forced to do things it didn't want to get it. And apparently none of it helps much since nwew arrangements or new money is constantly needed.
When you speak glibly of being allowed to crash again. Please remember you are talking of some 16 million souls. Who did not ask for merkels Reich. Or the callous politics of Schauble.
If I remember correctly, the "callous politics of Schauble" included recommending the Greeks be given incentives to leave the Euro. Since it is an article of faith among Sceptics that Greece is infantily responsible for nothing ever and Greece leaving the Euro will cure everything, I'd've thought you would have approved.
It's harsh, but they should have been left to crash again. The inequality talked about is Greece was never going to pay back what people pretended were loans, and so instead everyone was unhappy, others at giving Greece money, Greece at being forced to do things it didn't want to get it. And apparently none of it helps much since nwew arrangements or new money is constantly needed.
When you speak glibly of being allowed to crash again. Please remember you are talking of some 16 million souls. Who did not ask for merkels Reich. Or the callous politics of Schauble.
If I remember correctly, the "callous politics of Schauble" included recommending the Greeks be given incentives to leave the Euro. Since it is an article of faith among Sceptics that Greece is infantily responsible for nothing ever and Greece leaving the Euro will cure everything, I'd've thought you would have approved.
Hmmm...Greece leaving the euro will not solve everything and i dont think that is an article of faith. However an alchoholic walking past a pub is a first step. Schauble and Merkel are using Greece as an example as to what happens if you dont do what we tell you...
You don't even know what 'WTO rules' means. It's just a slogan, useful for airheads.
Going to a WTO relationship with the EU would - considering we don't have any other preferential tariff rates with any other countries in the world at all - be very challenging to British businesses. It would be particularly difficult for those firms operating with multinational supply chains (i.e. businesses that bought components from overseas, and then had a largely overseas customer base), because their products would effectively suffer from double tariffs.
Now, in the fullness of time, Britain would adapt, new relationships would be forged, etc.
But do we really want to give the British economy electric shock treatment? It is much more sensible to think of Brexit as a process that may take many, many years to fully achieve.
Hmmm...Greece leaving the euro will not solve everything and i dont think that is an article of faith. However an alchoholic walking past a pub is a first step. Schauble and Merkel are using Greece as an example as to what happens if you dont do what we tell you...
But Schauble advocated that the Greeks be given incentives to leave the Euro. It's difficult to reconcile that with "Schauble [is] using Greece as an example as to what happens if you dont do what we tell you".
Additionally, I'd suggest they need to look in a few other places, like Cyprus, as routes in. Why go through all the effort of being a refugee if you have good fake documents?
I am sure not why legal reasons can't reveal the name, the information in the article is more than enough to find out the name as they give the company names, besides this story has been reported by another national newspaper with all names posted.
A lawyer at the Daily Mail had a rush of blood to the head maybe? Or the Daily Mail are amplifying the "Britain funds jihadists" story by suggesting that the courts won't even allow the man to be named. It's a bit off for the DM to say the man was "branded a terrorist funder by Ministers", when he hasn't been charged with any offence and has just won his appeal against the freezing of his assets. There are many possibilities involving the influencing of perceptions in various target markets. It sounds suspiciously easy for him to divert state grants from the computer training company to a jihadist network, which is a crime so why hasn't he been charged with it? There are obviously more layers to the story.
Hmmm...Greece leaving the euro will not solve everything and i dont think that is an article of faith. However an alchoholic walking past a pub is a first step. Schauble and Merkel are using Greece as an example as to what happens if you dont do what we tell you...
But Schauble advocated that the Greeks be given incentives to leave the Euro. It's difficult to reconcile that with "Schauble [is] using Greece as an example as to what happens if you dont do what we tell you".
It is if you are of the mindset that leaving the Euro is a disaster you wouldn't wish on your worst enemy.
I am sure not why legal reasons can't reveal the name, the information in the article is more than enough to find out the name as they give the company names, besides this story has been reported by another national newspaper with all names posted.
A lawyer at the Daily Mail had a rush of blood to the head maybe? Or the Daily Mail are amplifying the "Britain funds jihadists" story by suggesting that the courts won't even allow the man to be named. It's a bit off for the DM to say the man was "branded a terrorist funder by Ministers", when he hasn't been charged with any offence and has just won his appeal against the freezing of his assets. There are many possibilities involving the influencing of perceptions in various target markets. It sounds suspiciously easy for him to divert state grants from the computer training company to a jihadist network, which is a crime so why hasn't he been charged with it? There are obviously more layers to the story.
When you know who it is, they aren't "amplifying it". The real question is why / how they ever got funding in the first place and continued for 3 years after the activities were first brought to the public arena.
I am sure not why legal reasons can't reveal the name, the information in the article is more than enough to find out the name as they give the company names, besides this story has been reported by another national newspaper with all names posted.
A lawyer at the Daily Mail had a rush of blood to the head maybe? Or the Daily Mail are amplifying the "Britain funds jihadists" story by suggesting that the courts won't even allow the man to be named. It's a bit off for the DM to say the man was "branded a terrorist funder by Ministers", when he hasn't been charged with any offence and has just won his appeal against the freezing of his assets. There are many possibilities involving the influencing of perceptions in various target markets. It sounds suspiciously easy for him to divert state grants from the computer training company to a jihadist network, which is a crime so why hasn't he been charged with it? There are obviously more layers to the story.
When you know who it is, they aren't "amplifying it". The real question is why / how they ever got funding in the first place and continued for 3 years after the activities were first brought to the public arena.
I am sure not why legal reasons can't reveal the name, the information in the article is more than enough to find out the name as they give the company names, besides this story has been reported by another national newspaper with all names posted.
A lawyer at the Daily Mail had a rush of blood to the head maybe? Or the Daily Mail are amplifying the "Britain funds jihadists" story by suggesting that the courts won't even allow the man to be named. It's a bit off for the DM to say the man was "branded a terrorist funder by Ministers", when he hasn't been charged with any offence and has just won his appeal against the freezing of his assets. There are many possibilities involving the influencing of perceptions in various target markets. It sounds suspiciously easy for him to divert state grants from the computer training company to a jihadist network, which is a crime so why hasn't he been charged with it? There are obviously more layers to the story.
When you know who it is, they aren't "amplifying it". The real question is why / how they ever got funding in the first place and continued for 3 years after the activities were first brought to the public arena.
You will find articles all the way back to 2011, so I don't know why its now top secret. Also, a quick search of companies house records was what I did, given 3 businesses are mentioned, you don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to work the common factor.
On topic, rightly or wrongly some of Corbyn's supporters are getting disqualified from voting. I think it's obvious that he'd oppose this: It riles up the supporters that remain, and puts pressure on the people doing it to give members the benefit of the doubt. After the election it helps him reform the process to his liking if he wins, or campaign against the process if he loses. There's basically no downside, so the fact that he's doing it doesn't tell us anything about whether he thinks he's winning.
Morning. Fingers crossed it finally gets the green light. And the fourth runway while they've got the diggers out, let's bring this shameful procrastination to an end and just bloody get on with it.
Additionally, I'd suggest they need to look in a few other places, like Cyprus, as routes in. Why go through all the effort of being a refugee if you have good fake documents?
This is spot on. People don't realise how easy it is to get immaculate fake documentation on the Dark Web. Want an near perfect fake Australian passport that will get you into the UK? It'll probably cost you less than $5,000. Much simpler - if you have decent income from oil wells - than telling someone to head in the direction of the Med, and hope they end up in Europe rather than a Turkish refugee camp.
Hmmm...Greece leaving the euro will not solve everything and i dont think that is an article of faith. However an alchoholic walking past a pub is a first step. Schauble and Merkel are using Greece as an example as to what happens if you dont do what we tell you...
But Schauble advocated that the Greeks be given incentives to leave the Euro. It's difficult to reconcile that with "Schauble [is] using Greece as an example as to what happens if you dont do what we tell you".
It is if you are of the mindset that leaving the Euro is a disaster you wouldn't wish on your worst enemy.
Is that Schauble's view?
During the last Greek crisis, both the IMF and the Germans urged Greece to leave the Euro. The idea was that it would be easier for them to 'soft default' outside the Euro, by printing money, than to hard default inside.
It was the choice of Tsipiras not to remain in the Euro, because he had promised the Greek people that he could end austerity and stay in the Euro.
It's harsh, but they should have been left to crash again. The inequality talked about is Greece was never going to pay back what people pretended were loans, and so instead everyone was unhappy, others at giving Greece money, Greece at being forced to do things it didn't want to get it. And apparently none of it helps much since nwew arrangements or new money is constantly needed.
When you speak glibly of being allowed to crash again. Please remember you are talking of some 16 million souls. Who did not ask for merkels Reich. Or the callous politics of Schauble.
Their own choices led to this end. I was not glib about it 5 years ago, or 3 years ago, or 2 years ago, but it's the same thing over and over again, I have sympathy fatigue.
Morning. Fingers crossed it finally gets the green light. And the fourth runway while they've got the diggers out, let's bring this shameful procrastination to an end and just bloody get on with it.
As I always thought. Boris will be OK, given his general estrangement from the truth and the fact that his constituency probably supports the expansion, given fhe level of employment the airport provides to constituents. He should be more worried about the NHS already planning for financial crisis in 2020 when they are supposed to be getting his promised billions.
Zak is the interesting one - he won't feel much loyalty to his London party given the mayoral campaign they forced upon him, which left him as tarnished goods, I would expect him to follow through on his original plan, so by-election in Richmond (indeed he may not even re-stand?)?
Comments
Are we allowed to suggest to the Spurs fans that they really shouldn't be dropping points at home so early in the season?
I'm ahead of him for the third week in a row.
I also need Tuesday and Thursday to be quiet days as well, as I'm at the cricket.
What's their beef? Is this Baroness Altman settling scores?
Enjoy the cricket, oh and isn't the new Anfield looking rather nice - there might be a better chance of getting tickets now there's 10k extra seats there.
Night all
Oh wait the same old bullshit was about your own post. Got it.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-greece-economy-pm-idUSKCN1120NY?il=0
Supporters of Choudary paid by businessman to run training courses
Businessman also ran a sweet shop in the East End of London
Received grants from Government agency after links to Choudary known
Man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, branded a terrorist funder
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3761793/How-gave-1million-Sweet-Shop-jihadist-gang-held-sharia-surgeries-waged-campaign-hate.html
A bit of googling has found the individual who can't be named for legal reasons...and I think the phrase "you can't be f##king kidding me" comes to mind.
Vince Cable was made aware of this in 2011 and still it continued for 3 years.
I am sure not why legal reasons can't reveal the name, the information in the article is more than enough to find out the name as they give the company names, besides this story has been reported by another national newspaper with all names posted.
Now, in the fullness of time, Britain would adapt, new relationships would be forged, etc.
But do we really want to give the British economy electric shock treatment? It is much more sensible to think of Brexit as a process that may take many, many years to fully achieve.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/27/cabinet-critics-will-not-quit-over-heathrow-third-runway/
Green light for the third runway?
Additionally, I'd suggest they need to look in a few other places, like Cyprus, as routes in. Why go through all the effort of being a refugee if you have good fake documents?
On the Mayke?
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-09-25/police-search-sweet-shop-belonging-to-choudarys-brother/
During the last Greek crisis, both the IMF and the Germans urged Greece to leave the Euro. The idea was that it would be easier for them to 'soft default' outside the Euro, by printing money, than to hard default inside.
It was the choice of Tsipiras not to remain in the Euro, because he had promised the Greek people that he could end austerity and stay in the Euro.
Zak is the interesting one - he won't feel much loyalty to his London party given the mayoral campaign they forced upon him, which left him as tarnished goods, I would expect him to follow through on his original plan, so by-election in Richmond (indeed he may not even re-stand?)?