BBC Archive How good could an 18 quid package holiday really be? Holiday '71 went in search of some cheap winter sun #onthisday in, erm, 1971 https://t.co/JyHKLYIGDh
Re Macron, that's certainly not true. I met with Macron about a year ago, and he was very clear that an EEA type arrangement was on the cards if the UK wanted it. Indeed, he was pretty sympathetic to the British point of view, and regarded us a key world ally, whatever our differences regarding the direction of the EU.
I think it makes precious little difference to the UK who wins the French Presidency.
I'd marginally prefer Fillion to Macron, and Merkel to Schulz, but that's not saying very much.
Re Macron, that's certainly not true. I met with Macron about a year ago, and he was very clear that an EEA type arrangement was on the cards if the UK wanted it. Indeed, he was pretty sympathetic to the British point of view, and regarded us a key world ally, whatever our differences regarding the direction of the EU.
I think it makes precious little difference to the UK who wins the French Presidency.
I'd marginally prefer Fillion to Macron, and Merkel to Schulz, but that's not saying very much.
A Le Pen win would make a massive difference to the UK, as it would throw the entire EU project up in the air. Not clear it could survive a FR withdrawal from the Euro. Brexit would then be taking place whilst chaos reigned on the continent.
Re Macron, that's certainly not true. I met with Macron about a year ago, and he was very clear that an EEA type arrangement was on the cards if the UK wanted it. Indeed, he was pretty sympathetic to the British point of view, and regarded us a key world ally, whatever our differences regarding the direction of the EU.
I think it makes precious little difference to the UK who wins the French Presidency.
I'd marginally prefer Fillion to Macron, and Merkel to Schulz, but that's not saying very much.
A Le Pen win would make a massive difference to the UK, as it would throw the entire EU project up in the air. Not clear it could survive a FR withdrawal from the Euro. Brexit would then be taking place whilst chaos reigned on the continent.
Thanks for the friemndly comments, all. Roger, I think the A50 thing is genuinely difficult,and Remainers need to play it long, aiming to keep the final decision open till the negotiations have actually delivered a deal which peels off some of the Leavers who liked the general idea but dislike the outcome. Not opposing the negotiations in prijnciple but trying to amend it to keep the option of rejection of the outcome opn is the thing to aim for, but difficult.
I do agree that Corbyn needs to identify a few key issues that relate to ordinary people, and he can be thoroughly controversial about them (he will not win votes by trying to seem a centrist). Maximuim wage, nationalise the railways, Crossrail 3 in the north funded by borrowing, and more needed. Putting up tax by 1p for standard and 2p for higher rate to fund the NHS and social care properly would be my favourite - would cause a hell of a fuss but I think significantly more than our current 30% would go for it.
I'll sign off for today - be good, children.
I would vehemently disagree with such policies, but I agree with the approach.
If Labour wants to put clear red water between itself and the Tories, and strengthen its base, then it needs to stop alienating voters by banging on about how wonderful immigration and identity politics is and go for raising taxes to fund the NHS and social care, and infrastructure improvements in the North, together with a bit of mild post Brexit British socialism.
Under a competent Labour leader, provided a story about balancing the books long-term creeps in there as well, Labour could be a threat by GE2020.
Good points. I think the Tories need to be very careful that the NHS/Social Care issue doesn't become the one that unexpectedly sinks them in the next GE.
It is an utter mess. The next crisis looming is closure of small, local pharmacies. They have had a 19% cut in subsidy according to my pharmacist (I am, unfortunately, one of his best customers). He reckons he will just survive but will now have to charge the elderly for delivery to the door of meds which he was running as a free service.
Which is why the insistent, splenetic, neuralgic, angry, obsessive and sometimes almost crazed intensity of so many in the Leave crowd has become a source of concern to the rest of us. It isn’t as if these people lost the referendum. It isn’t as if their plans are being thwarted! They won, we concede it, and the government is executing their instructions with resolve — and all the signs are that the final outcome will be the ‘hard’ Brexit so many of them crave.
So what’s bugging them? Why do they, the winners, keep lashing out whenever one of the losers doubts or questions their plans? You can almost see the veins standing out on their necks as they rail against the people who didn’t win the referendum.
It was Parris who described 17m voters as racists, during his interview with Matt Ridley.
Parris is really upset that those 17m voters want to see the referendum result actually enacted, against the virulent opposition of elites like himself.
But his point is that it is being enacted. There isn't the sniff of a possibility that A50 will not go through in March, and only marginally less change that we wont end up with the full english Brexit of no access to single market, customs union etc etc.
So, he is right to ask, what the hell are Leavers so worked up about?
Some Remainers are worried they will be proved wrong.
Some Leavers are worried they won't be proved right.
That explains much of it.
If you look at the behaviour on both sides, they also tend to anonymise their opponents by lumping them into either of those two categories, rather than engage with them as individuals.
That makes it much easier to let one's baser emotions run riot.
Re Macron, that's certainly not true. I met with Macron about a year ago, and he was very clear that an EEA type arrangement was on the cards if the UK wanted it. Indeed, he was pretty sympathetic to the British point of view, and regarded us a key world ally, whatever our differences regarding the direction of the EU.
I think it makes precious little difference to the UK who wins the French Presidency.
I'd marginally prefer Fillion to Macron, and Merkel to Schulz, but that's not saying very much.
A Le Pen win would make a massive difference to the UK, as it would throw the entire EU project up in the air. Not clear it could survive a FR withdrawal from the Euro. Brexit would then be taking place whilst chaos reigned on the continent.
Obviously Le Pen is different.
Hopefully, the French 2-round election system will stop her - she really is a racist/antisemite - unlike Trump.
Thanks for the friemndly comments, all. Roger, I think the A50 thing is genuinely difficult,and Remainers need to play it long, aiming to keep the final decision open till the negotiations have actually delivered a deal which peels off some of the Leavers who liked the general idea but dislike the outcome. Not opposing the negotiations in prijnciple but trying to amend it to keep the option of rejection of the outcome opn is the thing to aim for, but difficult.
I do agree that Corbyn needs to identify a few key issues that relate to ordinary people, and he can be thoroughly controversial about them (he will not win votes by trying to seem a centrist). Maximuim wage, nationalise the railways, Crossrail 3 in the north funded by borrowing, and more needed. Putting up tax by 1p for standard and 2p for higher rate to fund the NHS and social care properly would be my favourite - would cause a hell of a fuss but I think significantly more than our current 30% would go for it.
I'll sign off for today - be good, children.
I would vehemently disagree with such policies, but I agree with the approach.
If Labour wants to put clear red water between itself and the Tories, and strengthen its base, then it needs to stop alienating voters by banging on about how wonderful immigration and identity politics is and go for raising taxes to fund the NHS and social care, and infrastructure improvements in the North, together with a bit of mild post Brexit British socialism.
Under a competent Labour leader, provided a story about balancing the books long-term creeps in there as well, Labour could be a threat by GE2020.
Good points. I think the Tories need to be very careful that the NHS/Social Care issue doesn't become the one that unexpectedly sinks them in the next GE.
It is an utter mess. The next crisis looming is closure of small, local pharmacies. They have had a 19% cut in subsidy according to my pharmacist (I am, unfortunately, one of his best customers). He reckons he will just survive but will now have to charge the elderly for delivery to the door of meds which he was running as a free service.
Labour could win that fight - or at least be within sight of the finishing line with the SNP bloc on top - but only if they were credible on the economy overall.
Voters may be willing to pay a little more tax, but only if they trust it won't be squandered and there's a firm hand on the tiller.
"In 144 "commitments" published at the start of a two-day rally in Lyon, Le Pen proposes leaving the euro zone, holding a referendum on EU membership, slapping taxes on imports and on the job contracts of foreigners, lowering the retirement age and increasing several welfare benefits while lowering income tax."
Thanks for the friemndly comments, all. Roger, I think the A50 thing is genuinely difficult,and Remainers need to play it long, aiming to keep the final decision open till the negotiations have actually delivered a deal which peels off some of the Leavers who liked the general idea but dislike the outcome. Not opposing the negotiations in prijnciple but trying to amend it to keep the option of rejection of the outcome opn is the thing to aim for, but difficult.
I do agree that Corbyn needs to identify a few key issues that relate to ordinary people, and he can be thoroughly controversial about them (he will not win votes by trying to seem a centrist). Maximuim wage, nationalise the railways, Crossrail 3 in the north funded by borrowing, and more needed. Putting up tax by 1p for standard and 2p for higher rate to fund the NHS and social care properly would be my favourite - would cause a hell of a fuss but I think significantly more than our current 30% would go for it.
I'll sign off for today - be good, children.
I would vehemently disagree with such policies, but I agree with the approach.
If Labour wants to put clear red water between itself and the Tories, and strengthen its base, then it needs to stop alienating voters by banging on about how wonderful immigration and identity politics is and go for raising taxes to fund the NHS and social care, and infrastructure improvements in the North, together with a bit of mild post Brexit British socialism.
Under a competent Labour leader, provided a story about balancing the books long-term creeps in there as well, Labour could be a threat by GE2020.
Good points. I think the Tories need to be very careful that the NHS/Social Care issue doesn't become the one that unexpectedly sinks them in the next GE.
It is an utter mess. The next crisis looming is closure of small, local pharmacies. They have had a 19% cut in subsidy according to my pharmacist (I am, unfortunately, one of his best customers). He reckons he will just survive but will now have to charge the elderly for delivery to the door of meds which he was running as a free service.
Not a 19% cut in ‘subsidy’ but in earnings from the NHS. The intention, allegedly, was to ‘cull’ the surplus pharmacies in towns, where, for historical reasons, there are often two, three or four close together, but it appears that a blunderbuss approach has been used.
Has she replaced Diane as the number one supporter? Its starting to look that way. Ms Thornberry is looking increasingly well positioned should Corbyn have a moment of clarity.
Her problem is nominations. She won't get them. And if the threshold is reduced, a number of candidates on the left will stand. She is a long shot IMO.
All the better in betting terms. To put it mildly I don't share her views but she is articulate and capable of putting vaguely coherent sentences together. This really makes her stand out in the revolving door that is the Shadow Cabinet.
I'd be surprised if many from the shadow cabinet stood in the next leadership election. Maybe Thornberry, maybe Starmer. Plus Lewis and perhaps Nandy.
Thornbury .........Council estate girl made good; what’s not to like?
Lewis ......... another child of the council estate, ex army, served in Afghanistan; what’s not to like.
Thornberry, not Thornbury
Noted....
Oh bugger. Every time I think my Lab leadership book is looking reassuringly green, new information comes from the Kremlinologists and I have to rebalance again or add a new name.
Having a general policy of laying rather than backing solves that problem.
Re Macron, that's certainly not true. I met with Macron about a year ago, and he was very clear that an EEA type arrangement was on the cards if the UK wanted it. Indeed, he was pretty sympathetic to the British point of view, and regarded us a key world ally, whatever our differences regarding the direction of the EU.
I think it makes precious little difference to the UK who wins the French Presidency.
I'd marginally prefer Fillion to Macron, and Merkel to Schulz, but that's not saying very much.
A Le Pen win would make a massive difference to the UK, as it would throw the entire EU project up in the air. Not clear it could survive a FR withdrawal from the Euro. Brexit would then be taking place whilst chaos reigned on the continent.
Obviously Le Pen is different.
Hopefully, the French 2-round election system will stop her - she really is a racist/antisemite - unlike Trump.
Government needs more radical ideas like this, but also that they be allowed to succeed or fail on their merits, not because some penpusher decides they know best.
Thanks for the friemndly comments, all. Roger, I think the A50 thing is genuinely difficult,and Remainers need to play it long, aiming to keep the final decision open till the negotiations have actually delivered a deal which peels off some of the Leavers who liked the general idea but dislike the outcome. Not opposing the negotiations in prijnciple but trying to amend it to keep the option of rejection of the outcome opn is the thing to aim for, but difficult.
I do agree that Corbyn needs to identify a few key issues that relate to ordinary people, and he can be thoroughly controversial about them (he will not win votes by trying to seem a centrist). Maximuim wage, nationalise the railways, Crossrail 3 in the north funded by borrowing, and more needed. Putting up tax by 1p for standard and 2p for higher rate to fund the NHS and social care properly would be my favourite - would cause a hell of a fuss but I think significantly more than our current 30% would go for it.
I'll sign off for today - be good, children.
I would vehemently disagree with such policies, but I agree with the approach.
If Labour wants to put clear red water between itself and the Tories, and strengthen its base, then it needs to stop alienating voters by banging on about how wonderful immigration and identity politics is and go for raising taxes to fund the NHS and social care, and infrastructure improvements in the North, together with a bit of mild post Brexit British socialism.
Under a competent Labour leader, provided a story about balancing the books long-term creeps in there as well, Labour could be a threat by GE2020.
On what grounds would you vehemently disagree with a northern Crossrail project ? Done right, it could be a very sensible investment. And notably better justified than the egregious Hinckley Point
Has she replaced Diane as the number one supporter? Its starting to look that way. Ms Thornberry is looking increasingly well positioned should Corbyn have a moment of clarity.
Her problem is nominations. She won't get them. And if the threshold is reduced, a number of candidates on the left will stand. She is a long shot IMO.
All the better in betting terms. To put it mildly I don't share her views but she is articulate and capable of putting vaguely coherent sentences together. This really makes her stand out in the revolving door that is the Shadow Cabinet.
I'd be surprised if many from the shadow cabinet stood in the next leadership election. Maybe Thornberry, maybe Starmer. Plus Lewis and perhaps Nandy.
Thornbury .........Council estate girl made good; what’s not to like?
Lewis ......... another child of the council estate, ex army, served in Afghanistan; what’s not to like.
Thornberry, not Thornbury
Noted....
Oh bugger. Every time I think my Lab leadership book is looking reassuringly green, new information comes from the Kremlinologists and I have to rebalance again or add a new name.
Having a general policy of laying rather than backing solves that problem.
How does laying work on e.g. betfair. If someone wants to back Simon Cowell as next PM at 999/1 and I say they can have a couple of quid on that with me, do I have to lodge £1998 with betfair? If not, how does the backer know he'll get paid?
Re Macron, that's certainly not true. I met with Macron about a year ago, and he was very clear that an EEA type arrangement was on the cards if the UK wanted it. Indeed, he was pretty sympathetic to the British point of view, and regarded us a key world ally, whatever our differences regarding the direction of the EU.
I think it makes precious little difference to the UK who wins the French Presidency.
I'd marginally prefer Fillion to Macron, and Merkel to Schulz, but that's not saying very much.
A Le Pen win would make a massive difference to the UK, as it would throw the entire EU project up in the air. Not clear it could survive a FR withdrawal from the Euro. Brexit would then be taking place whilst chaos reigned on the continent.
Obviously Le Pen is different.
Hopefully, the French 2-round election system will stop her - she really is a racist/antisemite - unlike Trump.
Unlike her father, she's not an antisemite. But, the senior ranks of her party are filled with people who cheered her father on while he was blaming the Jews for the problems of France.
Has she replaced Diane as the number one supporter? Its starting to look that way. Ms Thornberry is looking increasingly well positioned should Corbyn have a moment of clarity.
Her problem is nominations. She won't get them. And if the threshold is reduced, a number of candidates on the left will stand. She is a long shot IMO.
All the better in betting terms. To put it mildly I don't share her views but she is articulate and capable of putting vaguely coherent sentences together. This really makes her stand out in the revolving door that is the Shadow Cabinet.
I'd be surprised if many from the shadow cabinet stood in the next leadership election. Maybe Thornberry, maybe Starmer. Plus Lewis and perhaps Nandy.
Thornbury .........Council estate girl made good; what’s not to like?
Lewis ......... another child of the council estate, ex army, served in Afghanistan; what’s not to like.
Thornberry, not Thornbury
Noted....
Oh bugger. Every time I think my Lab leadership book is looking reassuringly green, new information comes from the Kremlinologists and I have to rebalance again or add a new name.
Having a general policy of laying rather than backing solves that problem.
How does laying work on e.g. betfair. If someone wants to back Simon Cowell as next PM at 999/1 and I say they can have a couple of quid on that with me, do I have to lodge £1998 with betfair? If not, how does the backer know he'll get paid?
Precisely that.
Should probably add that if you lay another possibility at 999/1 in £2 then your maximum loss (and the thus the funds tied up) becomes £1996
"In 144 "commitments" published at the start of a two-day rally in Lyon, Le Pen proposes leaving the euro zone, holding a referendum on EU membership, slapping taxes on imports and on the job contracts of foreigners, lowering the retirement age and increasing several welfare benefits while lowering income tax."
The bit that scares me about a Le Pen Presidency is that she, like Donald Trump, is instinctively protectionist.
An EU that fell apart into a bunch of protectionist little states, charging tariffs on their imports, all in a desparate attempt to protect local employment, all attempting competitive devaluations.
Well, we've seen that play out before. It was called the 1930s. It didn't end well.
Has she replaced Diane as the number one supporter? Its starting to look that way. Ms Thornberry is looking increasingly well positioned should Corbyn have a moment of clarity.
Her problem is nominations. She won't get them. And if the threshold is reduced, a number of candidates on the left will stand. She is a long shot IMO.
All the better in betting terms. To put it mildly I don't share her views but she is articulate and capable of putting vaguely coherent sentences together. This really makes her stand out in the revolving door that is the Shadow Cabinet.
I'd be surprised if many from the shadow cabinet stood in the next leadership election. Maybe Thornberry, maybe Starmer. Plus Lewis and perhaps Nandy.
Thornbury .........Council estate girl made good; what’s not to like?
Lewis ......... another child of the council estate, ex army, served in Afghanistan; what’s not to like.
Thornberry, not Thornbury
Noted....
Oh bugger. Every time I think my Lab leadership book is looking reassuringly green, new information comes from the Kremlinologists and I have to rebalance again or add a new name.
Having a general policy of laying rather than backing solves that problem.
How does laying work on e.g. betfair. If someone wants to back Simon Cowell as next PM at 999/1 and I say they can have a couple of quid on that with me, do I have to lodge £1998 with betfair? If not, how does the backer know he'll get paid?
Yes you do! If Mrs May stays PM for 10 years you'd have earned c.0.01% per year on your two grand.
Thanks for the friemndly comments, all. Roger, I think the A50 thing is genuinely difficult,and Remainers need to play it long, aiming to keep the final decision open till the negotiations have actually delivered a deal which peels off some of the Leavers who liked the general idea but dislike the outcome. Not opposing the negotiations in prijnciple but trying to amend it to keep the option of rejection of the outcome opn is the thing to aim for, but difficult.
I do agree that Corbyn needs to identify a few key issues that relate to ordinary people, and he can be thoroughly controversial about them (he will not win votes by trying to seem a centrist). Maximuim wage, nationalise the railways, Crossrail 3 in the north funded by borrowing, and more needed. Putting up tax by 1p for standard and 2p for higher rate to fund the NHS and social care properly would be my favourite - would cause a hell of a fuss but I think significantly more than our current 30% would go for it.
I'll sign off for today - be good, children.
I would vehemently disagree with such policies, but I agree with the approach.
If Labour wants to put clear red water between itself and the Tories, and strengthen its base, then it needs to stop alienating voters by banging on about how wonderful immigration and identity politics is and go for raising taxes to fund the NHS and social care, and infrastructure improvements in the North, together with a bit of mild post Brexit British socialism.
Under a competent Labour leader, provided a story about balancing the books long-term creeps in there as well, Labour could be a threat by GE2020.
On what grounds would you vehemently disagree with a northern Crossrail project ? Done right, it could be a very sensible investment. And notably better justified than the egregious Hinckley Point
Re Macron, that's certainly not true. I met with Macron about a year ago, and he was very clear that an EEA type arrangement was on the cards if the UK wanted it. Indeed, he was pretty sympathetic to the British point of view, and regarded us a key world ally, whatever our differences regarding the direction of the EU.
I think it makes precious little difference to the UK who wins the French Presidency.
I'd marginally prefer Fillion to Macron, and Merkel to Schulz, but that's not saying very much.
A Le Pen win would make a massive difference to the UK, as it would throw the entire EU project up in the air. Not clear it could survive a FR withdrawal from the Euro. Brexit would then be taking place whilst chaos reigned on the continent.
Obviously Le Pen is different.
Hopefully, the French 2-round election system will stop her - she really is a racist/antisemite - unlike Trump.
Which is why the insistent, splenetic, neuralgic, angry, obsessive and sometimes almost crazed intensity of so many in the Leave crowd has become a source of concern to the rest of us. It isn’t as if these people lost the referendum. It isn’t as if their plans are being thwarted! They won, we concede it, and the government is executing their instructions with resolve — and all the signs are that the final outcome will be the ‘hard’ Brexit so many of them crave.
So what’s bugging them? Why do they, the winners, keep lashing out whenever one of the losers doubts or questions their plans? You can almost see the veins standing out on their necks as they rail against the people who didn’t win the referendum.
It was Parris who described 17m voters as racists, during his interview with Matt Ridley.
Parris is really upset that those 17m voters want to see the referendum result actually enacted, against the virulent opposition of elites like himself.
But his point is that it is being enacted. There isn't the sniff of a possibility that A50 will not go through in March, and only marginally less change that we wont end up with the full english Brexit of no access to single market, customs union etc etc.
So, he is right to ask, what the hell are Leavers so worked up about?
Angry winners is a recurring recent theme; angry Unionists, angry Brexiteers, Angry Trumpers. There's probably a dissertation in it.
Has she replaced Diane as the number one supporter? Its starting to look that way. Ms Thornberry is looking increasingly well positioned should Corbyn have a moment of clarity.
Her problem is nominations. She won't get them. And if the threshold is reduced, a number of candidates on the left will stand. She is a long shot IMO.
All the better in betting terms. To put it mildly I don't share her views but she is articulate and capable of putting vaguely coherent sentences together. This really makes her stand out in the revolving door that is the Shadow Cabinet.
I'd be surprised if many from the shadow cabinet stood in the next leadership election. Maybe Thornberry, maybe Starmer. Plus Lewis and perhaps Nandy.
Thornbury .........Council estate girl made good; what’s not to like?
Lewis ......... another child of the council estate, ex army, served in Afghanistan; what’s not to like.
Thornberry, not Thornbury
Noted....
Oh bugger. Every time I think my Lab leadership book is looking reassuringly green, new information comes from the Kremlinologists and I have to rebalance again or add a new name.
Having a general policy of laying rather than backing solves that problem.
How does laying work on e.g. betfair. If someone wants to back Simon Cowell as next PM at 999/1 and I say they can have a couple of quid on that with me, do I have to lodge £1998 with betfair? If not, how does the backer know he'll get paid?
Bear this in mind if you see somebody reporting betting odds as a probability. In practice if you think something is a 0.1% probability you'd want a substantially better return to compensate for having to lock up your money, not to mention cover the risk that Betfair will go bust by the time you come to collect your winnings This effect sometimes gets magnified even more by the fees you have to pay the exchange to trade, and the exchange and/or the banks to move money in and out.
Which is why the insistent, splenetic, neuralgic, angry, obsessive and sometimes almost crazed intensity of so many in the Leave crowd has become a source of concern to the rest of us. It isn’t as if these people lost the referendum. It isn’t as if their plans are being thwarted! They won, we concede it, and the government is executing their instructions with resolve — and all the signs are that the final outcome will be the ‘hard’ Brexit so many of them crave.
So what’s bugging them? Why do they, the winners, keep lashing out whenever one of the losers doubts or questions their plans? You can almost see the veins standing out on their necks as they rail against the people who didn’t win the referendum.
It was Parris who described 17m voters as racists, during his interview with Matt Ridley.
Parris is really upset that those 17m voters want to see the referendum result actually enacted, against the virulent opposition of elites like himself.
But his point is that it is being enacted. There isn't the sniff of a possibility that A50 will not go through in March, and only marginally less change that we wont end up with the full english Brexit of no access to single market, customs union etc etc.
So, he is right to ask, what the hell are Leavers so worked up about?
Angry winners is a recurring recent theme; angry Unionists, angry Brexiteers, Angry Trumpers. There's probably a dissertation in it.
Just to add to the previous post, the Government's utterly confused education policy would certainly be an area for a serious opposition to be landing blows. So, who is the current shadow at Education?
I am not sure the UK has ever seen anything like it. With nearly 2 years in post Angela Rayner is one of the longer serving members still in the same post. Some are just vacant and some have had 4 different people in position in the last 2 years.
Angela Raynor is not unqualified for the role, just alternatively qualified.
Plus, when she stops speaking, her mouth hangs open like some ungulate.
Re Macron, that's certainly not true. I met with Macron about a year ago, and he was very clear that an EEA type arrangement was on the cards if the UK wanted it. Indeed, he was pretty sympathetic to the British point of view, and regarded us a key world ally, whatever our differences regarding the direction of the EU.
I think it makes precious little difference to the UK who wins the French Presidency.
I'd marginally prefer Fillion to Macron, and Merkel to Schulz, but that's not saying very much.
A Le Pen win would make a massive difference to the UK, as it would throw the entire EU project up in the air. Not clear it could survive a FR withdrawal from the Euro. Brexit would then be taking place whilst chaos reigned on the continent.
Obviously Le Pen is different.
Hopefully, the French 2-round election system will stop her - she really is a racist/antisemite - unlike Trump.
Unlike her father, she's not an antisemite. But, the senior ranks of her party are filled with people who cheered her father on while he was blaming the Jews for the problems of France.
But then that begs the question how can someone who is entirely comfortable working with anti-semites over a working lifetime claim not to be an anti-semite?
Just to add to the previous post, the Government's utterly confused education policy would certainly be an area for a serious opposition to be landing blows. So, who is the current shadow at Education?
I am not sure the UK has ever seen anything like it. With nearly 2 years in post Angela Rayner is one of the longer serving members still in the same post. Some are just vacant and some have had 4 different people in position in the last 2 years.
Angela Raynor is not unqualified for the role, just alternatively qualified.
Plus, when she stops speaking, her mouth hangs open like some ungulate.
It's hard to think of a worse leader than Corbyn, but Rayner proves that it's not altogether impossible.
Which is why the insistent, splenetic, neuralgic, angry, obsessive and sometimes almost crazed intensity of so many in the Leave crowd has become a source of concern to the rest of us. It isn’t as if these people lost the referendum. It isn’t as if their plans are being thwarted! They won, we concede it, and the government is executing their instructions with resolve — and all the signs are that the final outcome will be the ‘hard’ Brexit so many of them crave.
So what’s bugging them? Why do they, the winners, keep lashing out whenever one of the losers doubts or questions their plans? You can almost see the veins standing out on their necks as they rail against the people who didn’t win the referendum.
It was Parris who described 17m voters as racists, during his interview with Matt Ridley.
Parris is really upset that those 17m voters want to see the referendum result actually enacted, against the virulent opposition of elites like himself.
But his point is that it is being enacted. There isn't the sniff of a possibility that A50 will not go through in March, and only marginally less change that we wont end up with the full english Brexit of no access to single market, customs union etc etc.
So, he is right to ask, what the hell are Leavers so worked up about?
Angry winners is a recurring recent theme; angry Unionists, angry Brexiteers, Angry Trumpers. There's probably a dissertation in it.
'We won, so now just shut up'
Well, that would be a v. short dissertation, but yes
Which is why the insistent, splenetic, neuralgic, angry, obsessive and sometimes almost crazed intensity of so many in the Leave crowd has become a source of concern to the rest of us. It isn’t as if these people lost the referendum. It isn’t as if their plans are being thwarted! They won, we concede it, and the government is executing their instructions with resolve — and all the signs are that the final outcome will be the ‘hard’ Brexit so many of them crave.
So what’s bugging them? Why do they, the winners, keep lashing out whenever one of the losers doubts or questions their plans? You can almost see the veins standing out on their necks as they rail against the people who didn’t win the referendum.
It was Parris who described 17m voters as racists, during his interview with Matt Ridley.
Parris is really upset that those 17m voters want to see the referendum result actually enacted, against the virulent opposition of elites like himself.
But his point is that it is being enacted. There isn't the sniff of a possibility that A50 will not go through in March, and only marginally less change that we wont end up with the full english Brexit of no access to single market, customs union etc etc.
So, he is right to ask, what the hell are Leavers so worked up about?
Angry winners is a recurring recent theme; angry Unionists, angry Brexiteers, Angry Trumpers. There's probably a dissertation in it.
'We won, so now just shut up'
Well, that would be a v. short dissertation, but yes
Has she replaced Diane as the number one supporter? Its starting to look that way. Ms Thornberry is looking increasingly well positioned should Corbyn have a moment of clarity.
Her problem is nominations. She won't get them. And if the threshold is reduced, a number of candidates on the left will stand. She is a long shot IMO.
All the better in betting terms. To put it mildly I don't share her views but she is articulate and capable of putting vaguely coherent sentences together. This really makes her stand out in the revolving door that is the Shadow Cabinet.
I'd be surprised if many from the shadow cabinet stood in the next leadership election. Maybe Thornberry, maybe Starmer. Plus Lewis and perhaps Nandy.
Thornbury .........Council estate girl made good; what’s not to like?
Lewis ......... another child of the council estate, ex army, served in Afghanistan; what’s not to like.
Thornberry, not Thornbury
Noted....
Oh bugger. Every time I think my Lab leadership book is looking reassuringly green, new information comes from the Kremlinologists and I have to rebalance again or add a new name.
Having a general policy of laying rather than backing solves that problem.
How does laying work on e.g. betfair. If someone wants to back Simon Cowell as next PM at 999/1 and I say they can have a couple of quid on that with me, do I have to lodge £1998 with betfair? If not, how does the backer know he'll get paid?
Precisely that.
Should probably add that if you lay another possibility at 999/1 in £2 then your maximum loss (and the thus the funds tied up) becomes £1996
Re Macron, that's certainly not true. I met with Macron about a year ago, and he was very clear that an EEA type arrangement was on the cards if the UK wanted it. Indeed, he was pretty sympathetic to the British point of view, and regarded us a key world ally, whatever our differences regarding the direction of the EU.
I think it makes precious little difference to the UK who wins the French Presidency.
I'd marginally prefer Fillion to Macron, and Merkel to Schulz, but that's not saying very much.
A Le Pen win would make a massive difference to the UK, as it would throw the entire EU project up in the air. Not clear it could survive a FR withdrawal from the Euro. Brexit would then be taking place whilst chaos reigned on the continent.
Obviously Le Pen is different.
Hopefully, the French 2-round election system will stop her - she really is a racist/antisemite - unlike Trump.
In ordinary circumstances, her ceiling is 33-40% in Round 2. There's a chance that the circumstances won't be ordinary, but i'd want better odds than 3-1.
Has she replaced Diane as the number one supporter? Its starting to look that way. Ms Thornberry is looking increasingly well positioned should Corbyn have a moment of clarity.
Her problem is nominations. She won't get them. And if the threshold is reduced, a number of candidates on the left will stand. She is a long shot IMO.
All the better in betting terms. To put it mildly I don't share her views but she is articulate and capable of putting vaguely coherent sentences together. This really makes her stand out in the revolving door that is the Shadow Cabinet.
I'd be surprised if many from the shadow cabinet stood in the next leadership election. Maybe Thornberry, maybe Starmer. Plus Lewis and perhaps Nandy.
Thornbury .........Council estate girl made good; what’s not to like?
Lewis ......... another child of the council estate, ex army, served in Afghanistan; what’s not to like.
Thornberry, not Thornbury
Noted....
Oh bugger. Every time I think my Lab leadership book is looking reassuringly green, new information comes from the Kremlinologists and I have to rebalance again or add a new name.
Having a general policy of laying rather than backing solves that problem.
How does laying work on e.g. betfair. If someone wants to back Simon Cowell as next PM at 999/1 and I say they can have a couple of quid on that with me, do I have to lodge £1998 with betfair? If not, how does the backer know he'll get paid?
Precisely that.
Should probably add that if you lay another possibility at 999/1 in £2 then your maximum loss (and the thus the funds tied up) becomes £1996
Thank you.
That's one reason why laying the flavour of the month favourite is so often a good idea.
Nothing stops you rebacking the person you laid to free up your funds at long odds later.
Which is why the insistent, splenetic, neuralgic, angry, obsessive and sometimes almost crazed intensity of so many in the Leave crowd has become a source of concern to the rest of us. It isn’t as if these people lost the referendum. It isn’t as if their plans are being thwarted! They won, we concede it, and the government is executing their instructions with resolve — and all the signs are that the final outcome will be the ‘hard’ Brexit so many of them crave.
So what’s bugging them? Why do they, the winners, keep lashing out whenever one of the losers doubts or questions their plans? You can almost see the veins standing out on their necks as they rail against the people who didn’t win the referendum.
It was Parris who described 17m voters as racists, during his interview with Matt Ridley.
Parris is really upset that those 17m voters want to see the referendum result actually enacted, against the virulent opposition of elites like himself.
But his point is that it is being enacted. There isn't the sniff of a possibility that A50 will not go through in March, and only marginally less change that we wont end up with the full english Brexit of no access to single market, customs union etc etc.
So, he is right to ask, what the hell are Leavers so worked up about?
Angry winners is a recurring recent theme; angry Unionists, angry Brexiteers, Angry Trumpers. There's probably a dissertation in it.
"Our dissertation! You'll never write our dissertation!"
Re Macron, that's certainly not true. I met with Macron about a year ago, and he was very clear that an EEA type arrangement was on the cards if the UK wanted it. Indeed, he was pretty sympathetic to the British point of view, and regarded us a key world ally, whatever our differences regarding the direction of the EU.
I think it makes precious little difference to the UK who wins the French Presidency.
I'd marginally prefer Fillion to Macron, and Merkel to Schulz, but that's not saying very much.
A Le Pen win would make a massive difference to the UK, as it would throw the entire EU project up in the air. Not clear it could survive a FR withdrawal from the Euro. Brexit would then be taking place whilst chaos reigned on the continent.
Obviously Le Pen is different.
Hopefully, the French 2-round election system will stop her - she really is a racist/antisemite - unlike Trump.
In ordinary circumstances, her ceiling is 33-40% in Round 2. There's a chance that the circumstances won't be ordinary, but i'd want better odds than 3-1.
In one of the polls posted yesterday, or Friday, there was the question: if your preferred candidate isn't available in the second round, who would you choose to vote for?, and Macron was the favourite second choice for everybody - even Le Pen voters. Given this, if he makes the second round, he has to be favourite.
But I think the rise of Hamon potentially throws things wide open. Can he grab enough of Melanchon's vote to move past Fillon and Macron? (Indeed, he speaks to a lot Le Pen voters with his anti-capitalist rhetoric, so he might even nab a few votes from her too.)
If it's Le Pen vs Hamon in the second round, then it's going to be very close, and it's entirely possible that Le Pen wins.
UK position as broker between US & Europe made more difficult by Brexit.
France as the only EU Security Council member now representing 450,000,000 people will certainly change the dynamics
Not really.
France will act in France's interest as it always has done. When it is in France's intetest to claim it speaks for 450m it will do so, although i suspect all of the other Permanent Mbers will ignore that pretence
How many countries has Trump invaded yet in his lust for an oil grab? Wake me up when the total changes from "less than one"....
Give the guy a chance, he has only been there two weeks. If the courts start overturning his EOs on a regular basis, his thoughts are pretty much bound to turn to emergency wartime powers. Plus if you look like losing a twitterspat with a foreign nation, the obvious move is to take off and nuke it from orbit; it's the only way to be sure.
And try telling him that mature first-world democracies don't start trillion-dollar shooting wars in the Middle East in fits of pique and on pretexts an eight year old could see through. The greater part of the damage caused by those pigs Bush and Blair may still be in the future.
So, he is right to ask, what the hell are Leavers so worked up about?
Some Remainers are worried they will be proved wrong.
Some Leavers are worried they won't be proved right.
That explains much of it.
I think that on the Leavers' side there is a lot of projection - shouting loud enough to reassure themselves that they made the right decision. I notice that when a Remainer makes a factual point it usually get ignored by many Leavers and the ad hominem attacks start instead of addressing the point raised.
For Remainers, I think a lot of them are genuinely scared that the lunatics are running the asylum and financial armegeddon awaits once reality bites. Up to now, nothing has really changed - there has just been a lot of bluster and arm waving but if everything stopped here and nothing further happened we would still be full EU members with the single market, ECJ and the rest.
The fun will really start when after Article 50 when the EU begins with the reported €50bn UK liabilities bill and Trump offers a US/UK Trade Deal so one-sided that no one in their right mind would sign it.
Five years down the line we will know who was right. Frankly I am past caring...
Just to add to the previous post, the Government's utterly confused education policy would certainly be an area for a serious opposition to be landing blows. So, who is the current shadow at Education?
I am not sure the UK has ever seen anything like it. With nearly 2 years in post Angela Rayner is one of the longer serving members still in the same post. Some are just vacant and some have had 4 different people in position in the last 2 years.
Angela Raynor is not unqualified for the role, just alternatively qualified.
Plus, when she stops speaking, her mouth hangs open like some ungulate.
It's hard to think of a worse leader than Corbyn, but Rayner proves that it's not altogether impossible.
She was quite good as an agony aunt back in the 80's though. That's got to count in her credit.
Thanks for the friemndly comments, all. Roger, I think the A50 thing is genuinely difficult,and Remainers need to play it long, aiming to keep the final decision open till the negotiations have actually delivered a deal which peels off some of the Leavers who liked the general idea but dislike the outcome. Not opposing the negotiations in prijnciple but trying to amend it to keep the option of rejection of the outcome opn is the thing to aim for, but difficult.
I do agree that Corbyn needs to identify a few key issues that relate to ordinary people, and he can be thoroughly controversial about them (he will not win votes by trying to seem a centrist). Maximuim wage, nationalise the railways, Crossrail 3 in the north funded by borrowing, and more needed. Putting up tax by 1p for standard and 2p for higher rate to fund the NHS and social care properly would be my favourite - would cause a hell of a fuss but I think significantly more than our current 30% would go for it.
I'll sign off for today - be good, children.
I would vehemently disagree with such policies, but I agree with the approach.
If Labour wants to put clear red water between itself and the Tories, and strengthen its base, then it needs to stop alienating voters by banging on about how wonderful immigration and identity politics is and go for raising taxes to fund the NHS and social care, and infrastructure improvements in the North, together with a bit of mild post Brexit British socialism.
Under a competent Labour leader, provided a story about balancing the books long-term creeps in there as well, Labour could be a threat by GE2020.
Good points. I think the Tories need to be very careful that the NHS/Social Care issue doesn't become the one that unexpectedly sinks them in the next GE.
It is an utter mess. The next crisis looming is closure of small, local pharmacies. They have had a 19% cut in subsidy according to my pharmacist (I am, unfortunately, one of his best customers). He reckons he will just survive but will now have to charge the elderly for delivery to the door of meds which he was running as a free service.
Not a 19% cut in ‘subsidy’ but in earnings from the NHS. The intention, allegedly, was to ‘cull’ the surplus pharmacies in towns, where, for historical reasons, there are often two, three or four close together, but it appears that a blunderbuss approach has been used.
I'd expect he could also earn a lot of it back via primary health checks and other additional services
Re Macron, that's certainly not true. I met with Macron about a year ago, and he was very clear that an EEA type arrangement was on the cards if the UK wanted it. Indeed, he was pretty sympathetic to the British point of view, and regarded us a key world ally, whatever our differences regarding the direction of the EU.
I think it makes precious little difference to the UK who wins the French Presidency.
I'd marginally prefer Fillion to Macron, and Merkel to Schulz, but that's not saying very much.
A Le Pen win would make a massive difference to the UK, as it would throw the entire EU project up in the air. Not clear it could survive a FR withdrawal from the Euro. Brexit would then be taking place whilst chaos reigned on the continent.
Obviously Le Pen is different.
Hopefully, the French 2-round election system will stop her - she really is a racist/antisemite - unlike Trump.
In ordinary circumstances, her ceiling is 33-40% in Round 2. There's a chance that the circumstances won't be ordinary, but i'd want better odds than 3-1.
In one of the polls posted yesterday, or Friday, there was the question: if your preferred candidate isn't available in the second round, who would you choose to vote for?, and Macron was the favourite second choice for everybody - even Le Pen voters. Given this, if he makes the second round, he has to be favourite.
But I think the rise of Hamon potentially throws things wide open. Can he grab enough of Melanchon's vote to move past Fillon and Macron? (Indeed, he speaks to a lot Le Pen voters with his anti-capitalist rhetoric, so he might even nab a few votes from her too.)
If it's Le Pen vs Hamon in the second round, then it's going to be very close, and it's entirely possible that Le Pen wins.
Agreed. We've plenty of evidence that faced with a choice between a centre-right or centre-left candidate and Le Pen, the voters rally round the former. But, if it's a choice between Le Pen and the hard left, I'm sure many centre-right voters would back her.
And if we get multiple centrist candidates, that may be the final choice.
Just seen the bit on the London part of the Sunday Politics. Jo Coburn mentioned that the people who brought the case against Rahman are facing bankruptcy over the costs of the case. That seems absurd to me, why should private citizens face financial ruin to do the job that the authorities should be doing in the first place?
Just seen the bit on the London part of the Sunday Politics. Jo Coburn mentioned that the people who brought the case against Rahman are facing bankruptcy over the costs of the case. That seems absurd to me, why should private citizens face financial ruin to do the job that the authorities should be doing in the first place?
Seems crazy but I am sure one of the lawyers here will explain that its perfectly sensible!
Re Macron, that's certainly not true. I met with Macron about a year ago, and he was very clear that an EEA type arrangement was on the cards if the UK wanted it. Indeed, he was pretty sympathetic to the British point of view, and regarded us a key world ally, whatever our differences regarding the direction of the EU.
I think it makes precious little difference to the UK who wins the French Presidency.
I'd marginally prefer Fillion to Macron, and Merkel to Schulz, but that's not saying very much.
A Le Pen win would make a massive difference to the UK, as it would throw the entire EU project up in the air. Not clear it could survive a FR withdrawal from the Euro. Brexit would then be taking place whilst chaos reigned on the continent.
Obviously Le Pen is different.
Hopefully, the French 2-round election system will stop her - she really is a racist/antisemite - unlike Trump.
In ordinary circumstances, her ceiling is 33-40% in Round 2. There's a chance that the circumstances won't be ordinary, but i'd want better odds than 3-1.
In one of the polls posted yesterday, or Friday, there was the question: if your preferred candidate isn't available in the second round, who would you choose to vote for?, and Macron was the favourite second choice for everybody - even Le Pen voters. Given this, if he makes the second round, he has to be favourite.
But I think the rise of Hamon potentially throws things wide open. Can he grab enough of Melanchon's vote to move past Fillon and Macron? (Indeed, he speaks to a lot Le Pen voters with his anti-capitalist rhetoric, so he might even nab a few votes from her too.)
If it's Le Pen vs Hamon in the second round, then it's going to be very close, and it's entirely possible that Le Pen wins.
Maybe Melenchon would drop out shortly before polling day if it seemed clear he was just acting as a spoiler on Hamon. Unlikely given the far left usually prefer to focus on minor differences than their similarities, but perhaps they can come to an agreement. It seems that a combined vote for the two of them adds up to around 25% which would give them a runoff spot.
Le Pen will have to fight very different campaigns depending on who she goes against in round 2. If it's Fillon, she will have to tack left and play up her worker protectionist economic programme, if it's Macron there will likely be more focus on the EU/Eurozone, and if it's Hamon she will tack to the right and probably focus on immigration issues above all.
Mr. 86, agreed, that's a disgrace. If the authorities had done their jobs properly the individuals wouldn't've expended a penny.
I thought normally winners of a case can claim costs? I could understand them bring other of pocket if it was a malicious nuisance suit but not when the law was on their side.
Just seen the bit on the London part of the Sunday Politics. Jo Coburn mentioned that the people who brought the case against Rahman are facing bankruptcy over the costs of the case. That seems absurd to me, why should private citizens face financial ruin to do the job that the authorities should be doing in the first place?
Seems crazy but I am sure one of the lawyers here will explain that its perfectly sensible!
Even worse, until Michael Fallon became Defence Secretary, soldiers investigated by IHAT had to pay their own legal fees. At the same time, the MOD was financing Shiner et al to bring bogus allegations.
Mr. 86, agreed, that's a disgrace. If the authorities had done their jobs properly the individuals wouldn't've expended a penny.
I thought normally winners of a case can claim costs? I could understand them bring other of pocket if it was a malicious nuisance suit but not when the law was on their side.
There's serious unfairness in our legal system. A friend had £5,000 costs awarded against him in a county court small claim. Small claims are meant to be almost free of risk, with both sides paying their own costs, and the theory is that no legal representation is needed. However, clever lawyers appointed by the other side (to make sure they win even a very weak case and deter further litigants in person) can screw you.
In a higher court, you have to be insured against having to pay costs or it's very dangerous to act in the public interest. Obviously ignore this if you're rich, like Gina Miller!
How many countries has Trump invaded yet in his lust for an oil grab? Wake me up when the total changes from "less than one"....
Would Mexico count?
I'd have thought the wall was the absolute inverse of invasion.
It is of course good to have a Secretary of State on the blocks whose judgment on Middle East wars would be in no respect influenced by the effect of such things on global oil prices.
Mr. 86, agreed, that's a disgrace. If the authorities had done their jobs properly the individuals wouldn't've expended a penny.
In that case there is an outside chance that the ombudsman might make the relevant authorities reimburse them on grounds of maladministration - not a thing I know a whole heap about, though.
Just seen the bit on the London part of the Sunday Politics. Jo Coburn mentioned that the people who brought the case against Rahman are facing bankruptcy over the costs of the case. That seems absurd to me, why should private citizens face financial ruin to do the job that the authorities should be doing in the first place?
The authorities were more concerned in threatening the people who exposed Rahman:
' Disturbingly, some of that bullying has come from the Metropolitan Police.
At 7am on Tuesday 27 January, six days before the election trial was due to start, three Met officers arrived on Mr Erlam’s doorstep to arrest him for “perverting the course of justice.”
“I refused to open the door,” said Mr Erlam. “It was an illegal arrest – they had no grounds. Eventually, they went away. But I decided to leave in case they came back.”
Mr Erlam spent the last week before the case living away from home to avoid the Met. “It was disruptive and distressing. To my mind the clear intention of the police was to discredit me just as the case started,” he said.
“The publicity would have been extremely damaging.”
His alleged offence, with another petitioner in the case, Azmal Hussain, was to have intimidated a witness, Abdul Latif Khan, into signing a false statement. But the supposed victim had already told police that the “crime” never happened.
“I was put under absolutely no pressure by Mr Erlam or Mr Hussain,” he said. “I have made no complaint against either of them.” '
' One of the four East Londoners responsible for bringing down Lutfur Rahman, the former Mayor of Tower Hamlets, has accused the Metropolitan Police of corruption.
Andy Erlam, the main petitioner, suggested that the authorities had sought to protect Rahman whilst others declined to take action against him for fear of accusations of racism.
“Neither the Electoral Commission or the police were very helpful,” he told Radio 4’s Today programme.
“In fact at times it seemed that the Metropolitan Police has been protecting Mr Rahman over the years.
“Their investigation of electoral fraud seemed as if they were going through the motions.” '
So, he is right to ask, what the hell are Leavers so worked up about?
Some Remainers are worried they will be proved wrong.
Some Leavers are worried they won't be proved right.
That explains much of it.
I think that on the Leavers' side there is a lot of projection - shouting loud enough to reassure themselves that they made the right decision. I notice that when a Remainer makes a factual point it usually get ignored by many Leavers and the ad hominem attacks start instead of addressing the point raised.
For Remainers, I think a lot of them are genuinely scared that the lunatics are running the asylum and financial armegeddon awaits once reality bites. Up to now, nothing has really changed - there has just been a lot of bluster and arm waving but if everything stopped here and nothing further happened we would still be full EU members with the single market, ECJ and the rest.
The fun will really start when after Article 50 when the EU begins with the reported €50bn UK liabilities bill and Trump offers a US/UK Trade Deal so one-sided that no one in their right mind would sign it.
Five years down the line we will know who was right. Frankly I am past caring...
The fun was meant to have started with the recession, 40% fall in Sterling and stock market crash that were supposed to happen immediately after a Leave vote.
The fun was meant to have started with the recession, 40% fall in Sterling and stock market crash that were supposed to happen immediately after a Leave vote.
If the British people vote to leave, there is only one way to bring that about, namely to trigger article 50 of the treaties and begin the process of exit, and the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away.
This is long but brilliant on Trump and democracy:
"We are living through the most dangerous challenge to the free government of the United States that anyone alive has encountered. What happens next is up to you and me. Don’t be afraid. This moment of danger can also be your finest hour as a citizen and an American."
Just seen the bit on the London part of the Sunday Politics. Jo Coburn mentioned that the people who brought the case against Rahman are facing bankruptcy over the costs of the case. That seems absurd to me, why should private citizens face financial ruin to do the job that the authorities should be doing in the first place?
The authorities were more concerned in threatening the people who exposed Rahman:
' Disturbingly, some of that bullying has come from the Metropolitan Police.
At 7am on Tuesday 27 January, six days before the election trial was due to start, three Met officers arrived on Mr Erlam’s doorstep to arrest him for “perverting the course of justice.”
“I refused to open the door,” said Mr Erlam. “It was an illegal arrest – they had no grounds. Eventually, they went away. But I decided to leave in case they came back.”
Mr Erlam spent the last week before the case living away from home to avoid the Met. “It was disruptive and distressing. To my mind the clear intention of the police was to discredit me just as the case started,” he said.
“The publicity would have been extremely damaging.”
His alleged offence, with another petitioner in the case, Azmal Hussain, was to have intimidated a witness, Abdul Latif Khan, into signing a false statement. But the supposed victim had already told police that the “crime” never happened.
“I was put under absolutely no pressure by Mr Erlam or Mr Hussain,” he said. “I have made no complaint against either of them.” '
' One of the four East Londoners responsible for bringing down Lutfur Rahman, the former Mayor of Tower Hamlets, has accused the Metropolitan Police of corruption.
Andy Erlam, the main petitioner, suggested that the authorities had sought to protect Rahman whilst others declined to take action against him for fear of accusations of racism.
“Neither the Electoral Commission or the police were very helpful,” he told Radio 4’s Today programme.
“In fact at times it seemed that the Metropolitan Police has been protecting Mr Rahman over the years.
“Their investigation of electoral fraud seemed as if they were going through the motions.” '
The fun was meant to have started with the recession, 40% fall in Sterling and stock market crash that were supposed to happen immediately after a Leave vote.
If the British people vote to leave, there is only one way to bring that about, namely to trigger article 50 of the treaties and begin the process of exit, and the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away.
Thanks for pointing out that Cameron was a liar but its irrelevant to the issue.
This is what Cameron and Osborne told the country:
' Today, we are setting out our assessment of what would happen in the weeks and months after a vote to Leave on June 23.
It is clear that there would be an immediate and profound shock to our economy.
The analysis produced by the Treasury today shows that a vote to leave will push our economy into a recession that would knock 3.6 per cent off GDP and, over two years, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work right across the country, compared to the forecast for continued growth if we vote to remain in the EU.
In a more severe shock scenario, Treasury economists estimate that our economy could be hit by 6 per cent, there would be a deeper recession and unemployment would rise by even more.
Under all scenarios the economy shrinks, the value of the pound falls, inflation rises, unemployment rises, wages are hit, and as a result - government borrowing goes up. '
The fun was meant to have started with the recession, 40% fall in Sterling and stock market crash that were supposed to happen immediately after a Leave vote.
If the British people vote to leave, there is only one way to bring that about, namely to trigger article 50 of the treaties and begin the process of exit, and the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away.
"Though I'm not making plans I hope that you understand there's a reason why No more broken hearts Better off apart, let's give it a try"
Has she replaced Diane as the number one supporter? Its starting to look that way. Ms Thornberry is looking increasingly well positioned should Corbyn have a moment of clarity.
Her problem is nominations. She won't get them. And if the threshold is reduced, a number of candidates on the left will stand. She is a long shot IMO.
All the better in betting terms. To put it mildly I don't share her views but she is articulate and capable of putting vaguely coherent sentences together. This really makes her stand out in the revolving door that is the Shadow Cabinet.
I'd be surprised if many from the shadow cabinet stood in the next leadership election. Maybe Thornberry, maybe Starmer. Plus Lewis and perhaps Nandy.
Thornbury .........Council estate girl made good; what’s not to like?
Lewis ......... another child of the council estate, ex army, served in Afghanistan; what’s not to like.
Thornberry, not Thornbury
Noted....
Oh bugger. Every time I think my Lab leadership book is looking reassuringly green, new information comes from the Kremlinologists and I have to rebalance again or add a new name.
Having a general policy of laying rather than backing solves that problem.
How does laying work on e.g. betfair. If someone wants to back Simon Cowell as next PM at 999/1 and I say they can have a couple of quid on that with me, do I have to lodge £1998 with betfair? If not, how does the backer know he'll get paid?
Bear this in mind if you see somebody reporting betting odds as a probability. In practice if you think something is a 0.1% probability you'd want a substantially better return to compensate for having to lock up your money, not to mention cover the risk that Betfair will go bust by the time you come to collect your winnings This effect sometimes gets magnified even more by the fees you have to pay the exchange to trade, and the exchange and/or the banks to move money in and out.
Regardless of return, it's the exchange insolvency risk that concerns me. Derivative exchanges operate on a similar basis but there is an implicit government guarantee for those.
Thanks for pointing out that Cameron was a liar but its irrelevant to the issue.
This is what Cameron and Osborne told the country:
' Today, we are setting out our assessment of what would happen in the weeks and months after a vote to Leave on June 23.
It is clear that there would be an immediate and profound shock to our economy.
The analysis produced by the Treasury today shows that a vote to leave will push our economy into a recession that would knock 3.6 per cent off GDP and, over two years, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work right across the country, compared to the forecast for continued growth if we vote to remain in the EU.
In a more severe shock scenario, Treasury economists estimate that our economy could be hit by 6 per cent, there would be a deeper recession and unemployment would rise by even more.
Under all scenarios the economy shrinks, the value of the pound falls, inflation rises, unemployment rises, wages are hit, and as a result - government borrowing goes up. '
Recession was predicted to happen immediately UNDER ALL SCENARIOS.
And some of the PB Remainers believed the immediate recession meme:
Tyson: ' And the recession is coming to pass, and it is going to be worse than project fear spelt out. Our real economy is now grinding to a shuddering halt.....don't look at the ups and downs of the stock market (which is bad enough)- look at people and businesses spending money, banks lending money. I think you'll find we've hit a wall. '
' I was referring to the stock market and sterling- but I think now the 20% correction is going to be happen sooner.
The real economy- you know that bit that employs people and pays tax- that part is already gone. When you have those quarterly revisions- and you get comments like...the weather had an impact, and growth was 1,3% instead of 1.4%....what kind of impact do you think this monumental clusterfuck is having? It's going to feed into those economic growth figures quarter after quarter. Britain will come out of this.....not as bad as the 2008 crash, but we are a much weaker economy now than then. And like always the poor will suffer.
BTW a house price crash is not good for the economy, well not ours which is driven by consumer debt '
Alastair Meeks: ' Britain’s Standard & Poors credit rating has dropped two notches, the pound has suffered its biggest fall in one day against the dollar ever, markets around the world have crashed and recession is beckoning with a dark cloak, a skeletal finger and a voice that speaks in block capitals. '
How many countries has Trump invaded yet in his lust for an oil grab? Wake me up when the total changes from "less than one"....
Give the guy a chance, he has only been there two weeks. If the courts start overturning his EOs on a regular basis, his thoughts are pretty much bound to turn to emergency wartime powers. Plus if you look like losing a twitterspat with a foreign nation, the obvious move is to take off and nuke it from orbit; it's the only way to be sure.
And try telling him that mature first-world democracies don't start trillion-dollar shooting wars in the Middle East in fits of pique and on pretexts an eight year old could see through. The greater part of the damage caused by those pigs Bush and Blair may still be in the future.
If a court tells you that you haven't followed the process, most people would say, OK let's fix our process and try again, as Theresa May's government mostly did over Parliament and Article 50. You don't normally fire a torrent of abuse at the "so called judge".
So, he is right to ask, what the hell are Leavers so worked up about?
Some Remainers are worried they will be proved wrong.
Some Leavers are worried they won't be proved right.
That explains much of it.
I think that on the Leavers' side there is a lot of projection - shouting loud enough to reassure themselves that they made the right decision. I notice that when a Remainer makes a factual point it usually get ignored by many Leavers and the ad hominem attacks start instead of addressing the point raised.
For Remainers, I think a lot of them are genuinely scared that the lunatics are running the asylum and financial armegeddon awaits once reality bites. Up to now, nothing has really changed - there has just been a lot of bluster and arm waving but if everything stopped here and nothing further happened we would still be full EU members with the single market, ECJ and the rest.
The fun will really start when after Article 50 when the EU begins with the reported €50bn UK liabilities bill and Trump offers a US/UK Trade Deal so one-sided that no one in their right mind would sign it.
Five years down the line we will know who was right. Frankly I am past caring...
Thanks to Trump I am far less concerned about Brexit than I was. His first two weeks have shown that the UK and the EU need a strong relationship because none of us can rely on the man across the pond. The swivel-eyed cliff-edge brigade in Brussels and Westminster will not get their way. That is good news.
The authorities were more concerned in threatening the people who exposed Rahman:
' Disturbingly, some of that bullying has come from the Metropolitan Police.
At 7am on Tuesday 27 January, six days before the election trial was due to start, three Met officers arrived on Mr Erlam’s doorstep to arrest him for “perverting the course of justice.”
“I refused to open the door,” said Mr Erlam. “It was an illegal arrest – they had no grounds. Eventually, they went away. But I decided to leave in case they came back.”
Mr Erlam spent the last week before the case living away from home to avoid the Met. “It was disruptive and distressing. To my mind the clear intention of the police was to discredit me just as the case started,” he said.
“The publicity would have been extremely damaging.”
His alleged offence, with another petitioner in the case, Azmal Hussain, was to have intimidated a witness, Abdul Latif Khan, into signing a false statement. But the supposed victim had already told police that the “crime” never happened.
“I was put under absolutely no pressure by Mr Erlam or Mr Hussain,” he said. “I have made no complaint against either of them.” '
' One of the four East Londoners responsible for bringing down Lutfur Rahman, the former Mayor of Tower Hamlets, has accused the Metropolitan Police of corruption.
Andy Erlam, the main petitioner, suggested that the authorities had sought to protect Rahman whilst others declined to take action against him for fear of accusations of racism.
“Neither the Electoral Commission or the police were very helpful,” he told Radio 4’s Today programme.
“In fact at times it seemed that the Metropolitan Police has been protecting Mr Rahman over the years.
“Their investigation of electoral fraud seemed as if they were going through the motions.” '
UK position as broker between US & Europe made more difficult by Brexit.
France as the only EU Security Council member now representing 450,000,000 people will certainly change the dynamics
Not really.
France will act in France's interest as it always has done. When it is in France's intetest to claim it speaks for 450m it will do so, although i suspect all of the other Permanent Mbers will ignore that pretence
Besides so what if it is 60mn or 450mn you "represent"? A veto is a veto is a veto. The UK doesn't have a Security Council veto due to either the EU or the number of people we represent.
The authorities were more concerned in threatening the people who exposed Rahman:
' Disturbingly, some of that bullying has come from the Metropolitan Police.
At 7am on Tuesday 27 January, six days before the election trial was due to start, three Met officers arrived on Mr Erlam’s doorstep to arrest him for “perverting the course of justice.”
“I refused to open the door,” said Mr Erlam. “It was an illegal arrest – they had no grounds. Eventually, they went away. But I decided to leave in case they came back.”
Mr Erlam spent the last week before the case living away from home to avoid the Met. “It was disruptive and distressing. To my mind the clear intention of the police was to discredit me just as the case started,” he said.
“The publicity would have been extremely damaging.”
His alleged offence, with another petitioner in the case, Azmal Hussain, was to have intimidated a witness, Abdul Latif Khan, into signing a false statement. But the supposed victim had already told police that the “crime” never happened.
“I was put under absolutely no pressure by Mr Erlam or Mr Hussain,” he said. “I have made no complaint against either of them.” '
' One of the four East Londoners responsible for bringing down Lutfur Rahman, the former Mayor of Tower Hamlets, has accused the Metropolitan Police of corruption.
Andy Erlam, the main petitioner, suggested that the authorities had sought to protect Rahman whilst others declined to take action against him for fear of accusations of racism.
“Neither the Electoral Commission or the police were very helpful,” he told Radio 4’s Today programme.
“In fact at times it seemed that the Metropolitan Police has been protecting Mr Rahman over the years.
“Their investigation of electoral fraud seemed as if they were going through the motions.” '
And some of the PB Remainers believed the immediate recession meme:
To be fair I wouldn't expect people blathering away on here to be any better than the "professionals" when it comes to economic forecasting. I genuinely do not understand why economic forecasting is taken seriously when the track record is so poor. It's a profession on a par with football punditry.
How many countries has Trump invaded yet in his lust for an oil grab? Wake me up when the total changes from "less than one"....
Give the guy a chance, he has only been there two weeks. If the courts start overturning his EOs on a regular basis, his thoughts are pretty much bound to turn to emergency wartime powers. Plus if you look like losing a twitterspat with a foreign nation, the obvious move is to take off and nuke it from orbit; it's the only way to be sure.
And try telling him that mature first-world democracies don't start trillion-dollar shooting wars in the Middle East in fits of pique and on pretexts an eight year old could see through. The greater part of the damage caused by those pigs Bush and Blair may still be in the future.
If a court tells you that you haven't followed the process, most people would say, OK let's fix our process and try again, as Theresa May's government mostly did over Parliament and Article 50. You don't normally fire a torrent of abuse at the "so called judge".
To be fair our government said the High Court ruling was wrong and would be overturned on appeal which it wasn't it's only after the Supreme Court ruled that they said ok. The language is different but the actions are the same.
And some of the PB Remainers believed the immediate recession meme:
To be fair I wouldn't expect people blathering away on here to be any better than the "professionals" when it comes to economic forecasting. I genuinely do not understand why economic forecasting is taken seriously when the track record is so poor.
I recall reading once that the best long standing economic forecast is "no change". If we are growing today we will likely be growing tomorrow, but people like to concentrate on the changes so this is boring and complicated models are done that have no better track record than that of just looking out the metaphorical window to see the weather.
Thanks to Trump I am far less concerned about Brexit than I was. His first two weeks have shown that the UK and the EU need a strong relationship because none of us can rely on the man across the pond. The swivel-eyed cliff-edge brigade in Brussels and Westminster will not get their way. That is good news.
I was doing a thought experiment yesterday on Brexit in Name Only. For May to pull off that trick, Leavers would have to believe there really was a Brexit. Davies and Fox would act up to give authenticity to the deception. At the same time Remainers, who are substantially motivated by practical issues, would need to be agreeably surprised by the small change in reality.
It's a nice thought but I think the messiness of Brexit will intrude. My main interest now is whether people will accept leaving and move on or whether it will continue to be a national divide consuming attention and goodwill for the indefinite future. I previously thought Brexit wouldn't resolve itself. Now I am less sure. Trump is a factor in that.
And some of the PB Remainers believed the immediate recession meme:
To be fair I wouldn't expect people blathering away on here to be any better than the "professionals" when it comes to economic forecasting. I genuinely do not understand why economic forecasting is taken seriously when the track record is so poor.
I recall reading once that the best long standing economic forecast is "no change". If we are growing today we will likely be growing tomorrow, but people like to concentrate on the changes so this is boring and complicated models are done that have no better track record than that of just looking out the metaphorical window to see the weather.
I've read that for the UK the most accurate weather forecast is 'same as yesterday'.
The fun was meant to have started with the recession, 40% fall in Sterling and stock market crash that were supposed to happen immediately after a Leave vote.
Well, I never believed that any more than I believed Blair's "45 minutes" in his Iraq debacle. Instant disasters usually require military ordinance, not economics...
How many countries has Trump invaded yet in his lust for an oil grab? Wake me up when the total changes from "less than one"....
Give the guy a chance, he has only been there two weeks. If the courts start overturning his EOs on a regular basis, his thoughts are pretty much bound to turn to emergency wartime powers. Plus if you look like losing a twitterspat with a foreign nation, the obvious move is to take off and nuke it from orbit; it's the only way to be sure.
And try telling him that mature first-world democracies don't start trillion-dollar shooting wars in the Middle East in fits of pique and on pretexts an eight year old could see through. The greater part of the damage caused by those pigs Bush and Blair may still be in the future.
If a court tells you that you haven't followed the process, most people would say, OK let's fix our process and try again, as Theresa May's government mostly did over Parliament and Article 50. You don't normally fire a torrent of abuse at the "so called judge".
To be fair our government said the High Court ruling was wrong and would be overturned on appeal which it wasn't it's only after the Supreme Court ruled that they said ok. The language is different but the actions are the same.
The May government made several unforced errors in their first few months. Not submitting Article 50 to parliament was one of them. At least they are learning. I am doubtful Trump will, but perhaps I am underestimating him.
An intermediate solution might be the 6 counties remaining within the UK with the current administrative arrangements, together with free movement on the island of Ireland, but travel between Great Britain and Ireland (north and south) subject to identity checks for all.
That was the solution during the second world war.
Wouldn't that require a treaty change, and also legislation in the UK?
I don't think it would require a treaty change: the status of Northern Ireland is a matter for the Crown. Would legislation in the UK be required? Yes it would: see the Ireland Act 1949 and the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 for previous quite big changes, so that wouldn't be a problem.
We keep orbiting around the same problem: we either have an enforced/monitored border between I & NI or we have an enforced/monitored border between all Ireland and GB. The former is politically difficult, the latter raises questions about the ability to prevent illegal immigration.
And some of the PB Remainers believed the immediate recession meme:
To be fair I wouldn't expect people blathering away on here to be any better than the "professionals" when it comes to economic forecasting. I genuinely do not understand why economic forecasting is taken seriously when the track record is so poor.
I recall reading once that the best long standing economic forecast is "no change". If we are growing today we will likely be growing tomorrow, but people like to concentrate on the changes so this is boring and complicated models are done that have no better track record than that of just looking out the metaphorical window to see the weather.
I've read that for the UK the most accurate weather forecast is 'same as yesterday'.
How many countries has Trump invaded yet in his lust for an oil grab? Wake me up when the total changes from "less than one"....
Give the guy a chance, he has only been there two weeks. If the courts start overturning his EOs on a regular basis, his thoughts are pretty much bound to turn to emergency wartime powers. Plus if you look like losing a twitterspat with a foreign nation, the obvious move is to take off and nuke it from orbit; it's the only way to be sure.
And try telling him that mature first-world democracies don't start trillion-dollar shooting wars in the Middle East in fits of pique and on pretexts an eight year old could see through. The greater part of the damage caused by those pigs Bush and Blair may still be in the future.
If a court tells you that you haven't followed the process, most people would say, OK let's fix our process and try again, as Theresa May's government mostly did over Parliament and Article 50. You don't normally fire a torrent of abuse at the "so called judge".
To be fair our government said the High Court ruling was wrong and would be overturned on appeal which it wasn't it's only after the Supreme Court ruled that they said ok. The language is different but the actions are the same.
The May government made several unforced errors in their first few months. Not submitting Article 50 to parliament was one of them. At least they are learning. I am doubtful Trump will, but perhaps I am underestimating him.
And some of the PB Remainers believed the immediate recession meme:
To be fair I wouldn't expect people blathering away on here to be any better than the "professionals" when it comes to economic forecasting. I genuinely do not understand why economic forecasting is taken seriously when the track record is so poor.
I recall reading once that the best long standing economic forecast is "no change". If we are growing today we will likely be growing tomorrow, but people like to concentrate on the changes so this is boring and complicated models are done that have no better track record than that of just looking out the metaphorical window to see the weather.
The problem is that models generally do not feature things that do lead to large changes (the sorts of things that will end up in a history book); things like technological development, wars, famine, plague, Donald Trump being elected, etc. So the further ahead you forecast the worse the models are, as unpredicted events accumulate. Just extrapolating long term trends is money for old rope, and only works okay up until the point one of those change events occurs.
I believe that the world would be a much better place if we had less faith in market indices, growth figures, currency fluctuations and the like (none of which are truly predictive), and we instead used our supposedly brightest people to greater effect in making a better future (through science and technology) rather than the fool's errand of trying to predict the future.
And some of the PB Remainers believed the immediate recession meme:
To be fair I wouldn't expect people blathering away on here to be any better than the "professionals" when it comes to economic forecasting. I genuinely do not understand why economic forecasting is taken seriously when the track record is so poor. It's a profession on a par with football punditry.
Is it not slightly suspicious that the growth forecasts are now back to essentially what they were pre brexit.
Ie rowing away from the doom laden projections they tried to use to scare the people.
Because they had no positive message to sell the EU - that says it all really.
How many countries has Trump invaded yet in his lust for an oil grab? Wake me up when the total changes from "less than one"....
Give the guy a chance, he has only been there two weeks. If the courts start overturning his EOs on a regular basis, his thoughts are pretty much bound to turn to emergency wartime powers. Plus if you look like losing a twitterspat with a foreign nation, the obvious move is to take off and nuke it from orbit; it's the only way to be sure.
And try telling him that mature first-world democracies don't start trillion-dollar shooting wars in the Middle East in fits of pique and on pretexts an eight year old could see through. The greater part of the damage caused by those pigs Bush and Blair may still be in the future.
If a court tells you that you haven't followed the process, most people would say, OK let's fix our process and try again, as Theresa May's government mostly did over Parliament and Article 50. You don't normally fire a torrent of abuse at the "so called judge".
To be fair our government said the High Court ruling was wrong and would be overturned on appeal which it wasn't it's only after the Supreme Court ruled that they said ok. The language is different but the actions are the same.
The May government made several unforced errors in their first few months. Not submitting Article 50 to parliament was one of them. At least they are learning. I am doubtful Trump will, but perhaps I am underestimating him.
There's a bit in Catch-22 where Colonel A orders B to "take Private C outside and shoot him" and is astonished and outraged to be told that he can't actually do that. I think Trump's reaction to having his EOs overturned is probably similar.
Just seen the bit on the London part of the Sunday Politics. Jo Coburn mentioned that the people who brought the case against Rahman are facing bankruptcy over the costs of the case. That seems absurd to me, why should private citizens face financial ruin to do the job that the authorities should be doing in the first place?
Seems crazy but I am sure one of the lawyers here will explain that its perfectly sensible!
Even worse, until Michael Fallon became Defence Secretary, soldiers investigated by IHAT had to pay their own legal fees. At the same time, the MOD was financing Shiner et al to bring bogus allegations.
That really is almost beyond belief. Our government, indeed our country, should be deeply ashamed at how these men have been treated.
UK position as broker between US & Europe made more difficult by Brexit.
France as the only EU Security Council member now representing 450,000,000 people will certainly change the dynamics
Not really.
France will act in France's interest as it always has done. When it is in France's intetest to claim it speaks for 450m it will do so, although i suspect all of the other Permanent Mbers will ignore that pretence
Besides so what if it is 60mn or 450mn you "represent"? A veto is a veto is a veto. The UK doesn't have a Security Council veto due to either the EU or the number of people we represent.
If you want a really good example of how silly the UN system can be, remember that Taiwan had a permanent SC seat/veto until the 1970s. This was purely an accident of history - their dictator had been the de jure Head of State of China at the time Japan surrendered.
Thanks for pointing out that Cameron was a liar but its irrelevant to the issue.
This is what Cameron and Osborne told the country:
' Today, we are setting out our assessment of what would happen in the weeks and months after a vote to Leave on June 23.
It is clear that there would be an immediate and profound shock to our economy.
The analysis produced by the Treasury today shows that a vote to leave will push our economy into a recession that would knock 3.6 per cent off GDP and, over two years, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work right across the country, compared to the forecast for continued growth if we vote to remain in the EU.
In a more severe shock scenario, Treasury economists estimate that our economy could be hit by 6 per cent, there would be a deeper recession and unemployment would rise by even more.
Under all scenarios the economy shrinks, the value of the pound falls, inflation rises, unemployment rises, wages are hit, and as a result - government borrowing goes up. '
Recession was predicted to happen immediately UNDER ALL SCENARIOS.
And some of the PB Remainers believed the immediate recession meme: 0 Tyson:;- ' And the recession is coming to pass, and it is going to be worse than project fear spelt out. Our real economy is now grinding to a shuddering halt.....don't look at the ups and downs of the stock market (which is bad enough)- look at people and businesses spending money, banks lending money. I think you'll find we've hit a wall. '
' I was referring to the stock market and sterling- but I think now the 20% correction is going to be happen sooner.
The real economy- you know that bit that employs people and pays tax- that part is already gone. When you have those quarterly revisions- and you get comments like...the weather had an impact, and growth was 1,3% instead of 1.4%....what kind of impact do you think this monumental clusterfuck is having? It's going to feed into those economic growth figures quarter after quarter. Britain will come out of this.....not as bad as the 2008 crash, but we are a much weaker economy now than then. And like always the poor will suffer.
BTW a house price crash is not good for the economy, well not ours which is driven by consumer debt '
Alastair Meeks: ' Britain’s Standard & Poors credit rating has dropped two notches, the pound has suffered its biggest fall in one day against the dollar ever, markets around the world have crashed and recession is beckoning with a dark cloak, a skeletal finger and a voice that speaks in block capitals. '
Listening to Tyson on the economy is like listening to Mark Senior.
Just seen the bit on the London part of the Sunday Politics. Jo Coburn mentioned that the people who brought the case against Rahman are facing bankruptcy over the costs of the case. That seems absurd to me, why should private citizens face financial ruin to do the job that the authorities should be doing in the first place?
The authorities were more concerned in threatening the people who exposed Rahman:
' Disturbingly, some of that bullying has come from the Metropolitan Police.
At 7am on Tuesday 27 January, six days before the election trial was due to start, three Met officers arrived on Mr Erlam’s doorstep to arrest him for “perverting the course of justice.”
“I refused to open the door,” said Mr Erlam. “It was an illegal arrest – they had no grounds. Eventually, they went away. But I decided to leave in case they came back.”
Mr Erlam spent the last week before the case living away from home to avoid the Met. “It was disruptive and distressing. To my mind the clear intention of the police was to discredit me just as the case started,” he said.
“snip"
' One of the four East Londoners responsible for bringing down Lutfur Rahman, the former Mayor of Tower Hamlets, has accused the Metropolitan Police of corruption.
Andy Erlam, the main petitioner, suggested that the authorities had sought to protect Rahman whilst others declined to take action against him for fear of accusations of racism.
“Neither the Electoral Commission or the police were very helpful,” he told Radio 4’s Today programme.
“In fact at times it seemed that the Metropolitan Police has been protecting Mr Rahman over the years.
“Their investigation of electoral fraud seemed as if they were going through the motions.” '
Thanks to Trump I am far less concerned about Brexit than I was. His first two weeks have shown that the UK and the EU need a strong relationship because none of us can rely on the man across the pond. The swivel-eyed cliff-edge brigade in Brussels and Westminster will not get their way. That is good news.
Personally I have no clue as to how it will play out, but no one seems to have any interest in discussing it in a rational way. Raise the topic and it just seems to cue a shouting match.
I am already tired of the whole thing and the huge increase in intolerance that seems to be infecting the UK. I am fortunate to have dual citizenship which means my children do as well and my other half can travel the EU as the spouse of an EU national. In short, I stand to lose nothing except the pride I formerly had in my country and that did actually hurt.
Watching Brexit and Trump has actually made me, a centre-right person politically, believe that maybe "more Europe" is the solution. Maybe rather than Brexit, what we need is a fully reformed Federal EU with enforceable borders, a common currency, the Council of Ministers abolished, an upper chamber and the Commission fully subservient to the EU parliament.
So, he is right to ask, what the hell are Leavers so worked up about?
Some Remainers are worried they will be proved wrong.
Some Leavers are worried they won't be proved right.
That explains much of it.
I think that on the Leavers' side there is a lot of projection - shouting loud enough to reassure themselves that they made the right decision. I notice that when a Remainer makes a factual point it usually get ignored by many Leavers and the ad hominem attacks start instead of addressing the point raised.
For Remainers, I think a lot of them are genuinely scared that the lunatics are running the asylum and financial armegeddon awaits once reality bites. Up to now, nothing has really changed - there has just been a lot of bluster and arm waving but if everything stopped here and nothing further happened we would still be full EU members with the single market, ECJ and the rest.
The fun will really start when after Article 50 when the EU begins with the reported €50bn UK liabilities bill and Trump offers a US/UK Trade Deal so one-sided that no one in their right mind would sign it.
Five years down the line we will know who was right. Frankly I am past caring...
Comments
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/lisa-nandy-labour-should-be-a-party-of-patriotism-not-placards_uk_5895fdf6e4b0a1dcbd029a2a
How good could an 18 quid package holiday really be? Holiday '71 went in search of some cheap winter sun #onthisday in, erm, 1971 https://t.co/JyHKLYIGDh
I'd marginally prefer Fillion to Macron, and Merkel to Schulz, but that's not saying very much.
It is an utter mess. The next crisis looming is closure of small, local pharmacies. They have had a 19% cut in subsidy according to my pharmacist (I am, unfortunately, one of his best customers). He reckons he will just survive but will now have to charge the elderly for delivery to the door of meds which he was running as a free service.
Some Leavers are worried they won't be proved right.
That explains much of it.
If you look at the behaviour on both sides, they also tend to anonymise their opponents by lumping them into either of those two categories, rather than engage with them as individuals.
That makes it much easier to let one's baser emotions run riot.
Voters may be willing to pay a little more tax, but only if they trust it won't be squandered and there's a firm hand on the tiller.
"In 144 "commitments" published at the start of a two-day rally in Lyon, Le Pen proposes leaving the euro zone, holding a referendum on EU membership, slapping taxes on imports and on the job contracts of foreigners, lowering the retirement age and increasing several welfare benefits while lowering income tax."
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/05/le-pen-kicks-off-campaign-with-promise-of-french-freedom.html
BBC tried to film an "open" meeting but had the door slammed in their face. Didn't look like the broadest of mosques in terms of demographic or gender
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/02/03/project-give-disadvantagedchildren-places-top-boarding-schools/
Government needs more radical ideas like this, but also that they be allowed to succeed or fail on their merits, not because some penpusher decides they know best.
Done right, it could be a very sensible investment.
And notably better justified than the egregious Hinckley Point
Should probably add that if you lay another possibility at 999/1 in £2 then your maximum loss (and the thus the funds tied up) becomes £1996
An EU that fell apart into a bunch of protectionist little states, charging tariffs on their imports, all in a desparate attempt to protect local employment, all attempting competitive devaluations.
Well, we've seen that play out before. It was called the 1930s. It didn't end well.
Plus, when she stops speaking, her mouth hangs open like some ungulate.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-38855417
Nothing stops you rebacking the person you laid to free up your funds at long odds later.
But I think the rise of Hamon potentially throws things wide open. Can he grab enough of Melanchon's vote to move past Fillon and Macron? (Indeed, he speaks to a lot Le Pen voters with his anti-capitalist rhetoric, so he might even nab a few votes from her too.)
If it's Le Pen vs Hamon in the second round, then it's going to be very close, and it's entirely possible that Le Pen wins.
France will act in France's interest as it always has done. When it is in France's intetest to claim it speaks for 450m it will do so, although i suspect all of the other Permanent Mbers will ignore that pretence
And try telling him that mature first-world democracies don't start trillion-dollar shooting wars in the Middle East in fits of pique and on pretexts an eight year old could see through. The greater part of the damage caused by those pigs Bush and Blair may still be in the future.
Is there anything to stop Theresa May from whipping the amendments?
(my non-bet with Charles notwithstanding)
For Remainers, I think a lot of them are genuinely scared that the lunatics are running the asylum and financial armegeddon awaits once reality bites. Up to now, nothing has really changed - there has just been a lot of bluster and arm waving but if everything stopped here and nothing further happened we would still be full EU members with the single market, ECJ and the rest.
The fun will really start when after Article 50 when the EU begins with the reported €50bn UK liabilities bill and Trump offers a US/UK Trade Deal so one-sided that no one in their right mind would sign it.
Five years down the line we will know who was right. Frankly I am past caring...
That's got to count in her credit.
And if we get multiple centrist candidates, that may be the final choice.
Le Pen will have to fight very different campaigns depending on who she goes against in round 2. If it's Fillon, she will have to tack left and play up her worker protectionist economic programme, if it's Macron there will likely be more focus on the EU/Eurozone, and if it's Hamon she will tack to the right and probably focus on immigration issues above all.
In a higher court, you have to be insured against having to pay costs or it's very dangerous to act in the public interest. Obviously ignore this if you're rich, like Gina Miller!
It is of course good to have a Secretary of State on the blocks whose judgment on Middle East wars would be in no respect influenced by the effect of such things on global oil prices.
' Disturbingly, some of that bullying has come from the Metropolitan Police.
At 7am on Tuesday 27 January, six days before the election trial was due to start, three Met officers arrived on Mr Erlam’s doorstep to arrest him for “perverting the course of justice.”
“I refused to open the door,” said Mr Erlam. “It was an illegal arrest – they had no grounds. Eventually, they went away. But I decided to leave in case they came back.”
Mr Erlam spent the last week before the case living away from home to avoid the Met. “It was disruptive and distressing. To my mind the clear intention of the police was to discredit me just as the case started,” he said.
“The publicity would have been extremely damaging.”
His alleged offence, with another petitioner in the case, Azmal Hussain, was to have intimidated a witness, Abdul Latif Khan, into signing a false statement. But the supposed victim had already told police that the “crime” never happened.
“I was put under absolutely no pressure by Mr Erlam or Mr Hussain,” he said. “I have made no complaint against either of them.” '
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11563500/Lutfur-Rahman-threats-bullying-and-cowardice.html
' One of the four East Londoners responsible for bringing down Lutfur Rahman, the former Mayor of Tower Hamlets, has accused the Metropolitan Police of corruption.
Andy Erlam, the main petitioner, suggested that the authorities had sought to protect Rahman whilst others declined to take action against him for fear of accusations of racism.
“Neither the Electoral Commission or the police were very helpful,” he told Radio 4’s Today programme.
“In fact at times it seemed that the Metropolitan Police has been protecting Mr Rahman over the years.
“Their investigation of electoral fraud seemed as if they were going through the motions.” '
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11560197/Lutfur-Rahman-petitioner-accuses-Met-Police-of-corruption.html
There do seem to be similarities between the behaviour of the authorities re Rahman and that in Rotherham.
I expect the phrase 'community relations' was often used.
"We are living through the most dangerous challenge to the free government of the United States that anyone alive has encountered. What happens next is up to you and me. Don’t be afraid. This moment of danger can also be your finest hour as a citizen and an American."
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/03/how-to-build-an-autocracy/513872/
Wasn't that an Ed Milliband policy?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/04/may-abandons-home-owning-democracy-thatcher-tories
This is what Cameron and Osborne told the country:
' Today, we are setting out our assessment of what would happen in the weeks and months after a vote to Leave on June 23.
It is clear that there would be an immediate and profound shock to our economy.
The analysis produced by the Treasury today shows that a vote to leave will push our economy into a recession that would knock 3.6 per cent off GDP and, over two years, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work right across the country, compared to the forecast for continued growth if we vote to remain in the EU.
In a more severe shock scenario, Treasury economists estimate that our economy could be hit by 6 per cent, there would be a deeper recession and unemployment would rise by even more.
Under all scenarios the economy shrinks, the value of the pound falls, inflation rises, unemployment rises, wages are hit, and as a result - government borrowing goes up. '
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/22/david-cameron-and-george-osborne-brexit-would-put-our-economy-in/
Recession was predicted to happen immediately UNDER ALL SCENARIOS.
I hope that you understand there's a reason why
No more broken hearts
Better off apart, let's give it a try"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwcl_ZehPtE
Tyson:
' And the recession is coming to pass, and it is going to be worse than project fear spelt out. Our real economy is now grinding to a shuddering halt.....don't look at the ups and downs of the stock market (which is bad enough)- look at people and businesses spending money, banks lending money. I think you'll find we've hit a wall. '
' I was referring to the stock market and sterling- but I think now the 20% correction is going to be happen sooner.
The real economy- you know that bit that employs people and pays tax- that part is already gone. When you have those quarterly revisions- and you get comments like...the weather had an impact, and growth was 1,3% instead of 1.4%....what kind of impact do you think this monumental clusterfuck is having? It's going to feed into those economic growth figures quarter after quarter. Britain will come out of this.....not as bad as the 2008 crash, but we are a much weaker economy now than then. And like always the poor will suffer.
BTW a house price crash is not good for the economy, well not ours which is driven by consumer debt '
Alastair Meeks:
' Britain’s Standard & Poors credit rating has dropped two notches, the pound has suffered its biggest fall in one day against the dollar ever, markets around the world have crashed and recession is beckoning with a dark cloak, a skeletal finger and a voice that speaks in block capitals. '
If a court tells you that you haven't followed the process, most people would say, OK let's fix our process and try again, as Theresa May's government mostly did over Parliament and Article 50. You don't normally fire a torrent of abuse at the "so called judge".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b078hlsz
Any view on
a) whether there will be a "Progressive Alliance"?
b) Whether that would work?
It's a nice thought but I think the messiness of Brexit will intrude. My main interest now is whether people will accept leaving and move on or whether it will continue to be a national divide consuming attention and goodwill for the indefinite future. I previously thought Brexit wouldn't resolve itself. Now I am less sure. Trump is a factor in that.
https://twitter.com/ianbremmer/status/828221762798247936
We keep orbiting around the same problem: we either have an enforced/monitored border between I & NI or we have an enforced/monitored border between all Ireland and GB. The former is politically difficult, the latter raises questions about the ability to prevent illegal immigration.
Not exactly presidential is he.
I believe that the world would be a much better place if we had less faith in market indices, growth figures, currency fluctuations and the like (none of which are truly predictive), and we instead used our supposedly brightest people to greater effect in making a better future (through science and technology) rather than the fool's errand of trying to predict the future.
Ie rowing away from the doom laden projections they tried to use to scare the people.
Because they had no positive message to sell the EU - that says it all really.
Nuff said :-)
Apply the law equally to all - simples.
Well, our spineless establishment finds it not so simple for some reason.
I am already tired of the whole thing and the huge increase in intolerance that seems to be infecting the UK. I am fortunate to have dual citizenship which means my children do as well and my other half can travel the EU as the spouse of an EU national. In short, I stand to lose nothing except the pride I formerly had in my country and that did actually hurt.
Watching Brexit and Trump has actually made me, a centre-right person politically, believe that maybe "more Europe" is the solution. Maybe rather than Brexit, what we need is a fully reformed Federal EU with enforceable borders, a common currency, the Council of Ministers abolished, an upper chamber and the Commission fully subservient to the EU parliament.
Oh well... what happens, happens.