I think I'd vote for The Incredible Flying Brick, but only because there's no candidate from the Standing At The Back Dressed Stupidly And Looking Stupid Party.
Surely squire Nuttall qualifies as standing at the back dressed stupidly?
I think I'd vote for The Incredible Flying Brick, but only because there's no candidate from the Standing At The Back Dressed Stupidly And Looking Stupid Party.
Surely squire Nuttall qualifies as standing at the back dressed stupidly?
I still can't get over the realisation of how much he looks like Eddie Hitler.
That's their highest poll score in about three years, isn't it? So, worthy of note.
Not only that, but 13-14% is the LibDem's typical midterm rating pre-coalition - the party mostly bumped along in the low to mid teens, picking up a little after any good news like a by-election win, and only when a GE campaign got underway rose into the high teens pipping 20% in a good year.
If the LibDems continue to rack up headline VIs of 13-15% we can pretty much conclude that the overhang from the coalition period is behind them.
Before 2015 the last time the Liberals polled as low as 13% at a general election was 1979 which just goes to show they are only recovering from a very low base
Trump is Trump. The UK needs to look elsewhere for predictable, reliable allies. We know this, everyone else knows this. The dreams of swivel-eyed, right wing Atlanticists lie in tatters on the floor. It turns out that the supposedly uppity, anti-British son of a Kenyan colonial who has just left office was a better friend to us than the current President, with his bust of Churchill, will ever be. In fact, no US administration since WW2 has been more antithetical to British interests than the current one.
Trump is Trump, but the US isn't Trump. For that matter, it's far from clear to what extent the Trump administration is going to act in ways antithetical to British interests, if at all. Certainly he personally seems to be well-disposed towards the UK, although I agree that that is not much of a guarantee. We'll have to wait and see, and do our best to work with the US and nudge them in directions which are in our interests. Exactly what the PM is doing, in fact.
A smart Prime Minister wouldn't have just talked to Trump, she'd have held discussions with the GOP & its leadership too.....oh, she did.....
European leaders know he is an unreliable, narcissistic flake, just as Mrs May does.
Trump is Trump. The UK needs to look elsewhere for predictable, reliable allies. We know this, everyone else knows this. The dreams of swivel-eyed, right wing Atlanticists lie in tatters on the floor. It turns out that the supposedly uppity, anti-British son of a Kenyan colonial who has just left office was a better friend to us than the current President, with his bust of Churchill, will ever be. In fact, no US administration since WW2 has been more antithetical to British interests than the current one.
Trump is Trump, but the US isn't Trump. For that matter, it's far from clear to what extent the Trump administration is going to act in ways antithetical to British interests, if at all. Certainly he personally seems to be well-disposed towards the UK, although I agree that that is not much of a guarantee. We'll have to wait and see, and do our best to work with the US and nudge them in directions which are in our interests. Exactly what the PM is doing, in fact.
A smart Prime Minister wouldn't have just talked to Trump, she'd have held discussions with the GOP & its leadership too.....oh, she did.....
European leaders know he is an unreliable, narcissistic flake, just as Mrs May does.
And yet, still they want to meet him.......
Of course - he is theoretically the most powerful man on earth.
Trump is Trump. The UK needs to look elsewhere for predictable, reliable allies. We know this, everyone else knows this. The dreams of swivel-eyed, right wing Atlanticists lie in tatters on the floor. It turns out that the supposedly uppity, anti-British son of a Kenyan colonial who has just left office was a better friend to us than the current President, with his bust of Churchill, will ever be. In fact, no US administration since WW2 has been more antithetical to British interests than the current one.
Trump is Trump, but the US isn't Trump. For that matter, it's far from clear to what extent the Trump administration is going to act in ways antithetical to British interests, if at all. Certainly he personally seems to be well-disposed towards the UK, although I agree that that is not much of a guarantee. We'll have to wait and see, and do our best to work with the US and nudge them in directions which are in our interests. Exactly what the PM is doing, in fact.
A smart Prime Minister wouldn't have just talked to Trump, she'd have held discussions with the GOP & its leadership too.....oh, she did.....
A smart Prime Minister would have been less obsequious and would have kept a state visit up her sleeve. Clearly, any thoughts that the UK could build a strong relationship with Trump - one that might provide leverage in the Brexit negotiations - have been smashed to smithereens. European leaders know he is an unreliable, narcissistic flake, just as Mrs May does.
Had Hillary won though you can be sure the EU would have been put first ahead of post Brexit UK
Trump is Trump. The UK needs to look elsewhere for predictable, reliable allies. We know this, everyone else knows this. The dreams of swivel-eyed, right wing Atlanticists lie in tatters on the floor. It turns out that the supposedly uppity, anti-British son of a Kenyan colonial who has just left office was a better friend to us than the current President, with his bust of Churchill, will ever be. In fact, no US administration since WW2 has been more antithetical to British interests than the current one.
Trump is Trump, but the US isn't Trump. For that matter, it's far from clear to what extent the Trump administration is going to act in ways antithetical to British interests, if at all. Certainly he personally seems to be well-disposed towards the UK, although I agree that that is not much of a guarantee. We'll have to wait and see, and do our best to work with the US and nudge them in directions which are in our interests. Exactly what the PM is doing, in fact.
A smart Prime Minister wouldn't have just talked to Trump, she'd have held discussions with the GOP & its leadership too.....oh, she did.....
European leaders know he is an unreliable, narcissistic flake, just as Mrs May does.
And yet, still they want to meet him.......
Is Frau Merkel due to meet POTUS, or is she still waiting by the phone?
This is why Blair needs to accept he is best off leaving the public stage forever. There is nothing he can ever say that will not be dismissed because of Iraq. No cause of any kind that he believes in will be served by him expressing support for it. In fact, it will always be damaged. As someone who has never hated him, thinks that the Third Way is essentially the only way forward for social democracy and can understand why he did what he did over Iraq, I regret that - but them's the facts.
I think his conduct since leaving power... Helping out dodgy dictators and trousering large sums of money from JP Morgan and the like also hasn't helped.
What amazes me though is he doesn't seem to get your point? This guy crushed theTories and now seems to be utterly clueless as to how he is perceived by the public...
Any half-way comepetent leader of the opposition would have crushed the Tories in 1997 (Corbyn Excepted), with their loss of economic competence as perceived by the electorate and the media pushing 'Tory sleaze' down everyone's throats.
He was, however, ruthless when he gained power. Behind that wide smile was a Machiavellian operator, with his Heinrich MüllerPeter Mandelson to keep everyone in line.
The 1997 Labour team around Blair was utterly brilliant at doing politics...Gordon Brown included....
Blair was not ruthless when he gained power. Far from it. Him and the team around him (Brown, Mandelson, Campbell) were convinced that Britain was basically a conservative country and nothing should be done that might scare the horses too much. Read any number of biogs of the period.
This is partly/mainly why Left hate him and all his works. They see it as betrayal.
Yep - New Labour's greatest flaw was in seeing England as essentially the readership of the Daily Mail, and of seeing the readership of the Daily Mail as being personified by its editor. In 1997 and 2001 Labour was given the opportunity to reshape the political and economic landscape. Its timidity and lack of insight meant that it failed to. But what the left fails to understand is that Labour only got the chance to blow it because of the changes the party underwent between the late-80s and the mid-90s.
Trump is Trump. The UK needs to look elsewhere for predictable, reliable allies. We know this, everyone else knows this. The dreams of swivel-eyed, right wing Atlanticists lie in tatters on the floor. It turns out that the supposedly uppity, anti-British son of a Kenyan colonial who has just left office was a better friend to us than the current President, with his bust of Churchill, will ever be. In fact, no US administration since WW2 has been more antithetical to British interests than the current one.
Trump is Trump, but the US isn't Trump. For that matter, it's far from clear to what extent the Trump administration is going to act in ways antithetical to British interests, if at all. Certainly he personally seems to be well-disposed towards the UK, although I agree that that is not much of a guarantee. We'll have to wait and see, and do our best to work with the US and nudge them in directions which are in our interests. Exactly what the PM is doing, in fact.
A smart Prime Minister wouldn't have just talked to Trump, she'd have held discussions with the GOP & its leadership too.....oh, she did.....
A smart Prime Minister would have been less obsequious and would have kept a state visit up her sleeve. Clearly, any thoughts that the UK could build a strong relationship with Trump - one that might provide leverage in the Brexit negotiations - have been smashed to smithereens. European leaders know he is an unreliable, narcissistic flake, just as Mrs May does.
Had Hillary won though you can be sure the EU would have been put first ahead of post Brexit UK
So what? As our PM recognises, a strong EU is vital to British interests. The US President, of course, wants to see the EU disappear.
I think I'd vote for The Incredible Flying Brick, but only because there's no candidate from the Standing At The Back Dressed Stupidly And Looking Stupid Party.
Surely squire Nuttall qualifies as standing at the back dressed stupidly?
This is why Blair needs to accept he is best off leaving the public stage forever. There is nothing he can ever say that will not be dismissed because of Iraq. No cause of any kind that he believes in will be served by him expressing support for it. In fact, it will always be damaged. As someone who has never hated him, thinks that the Third Way is essentially the only way forward for social democracy and can understand why he did what he did over Iraq, I regret that - but them's the facts.
I think his conduct since leaving power... Helping out dodgy dictators and trousering large sums of money from JP Morgan and the like also hasn't helped.
What amazes me though is he doesn't seem to get your point? This guy crushed theTories and now seems to be utterly clueless as to how he is perceived by the public...
Any half-way comepetent leader of the opposition would have crushed the Tories in 1997 (Corbyn Excepted), with their loss of economic competence as perceived by the electorate and the media pushing 'Tory sleaze' down everyone's throats.
He was, however, ruthless when he gained power. Behind that wide smile was a Machiavellian operator, with his Heinrich MüllerPeter Mandelson to keep everyone in line.
The 1997 Labour team around Blair was utterly brilliant at doing politics...Gordon Brown included....
Blair was not ruthless when he gained power. Far from it. Him and the team around him (Brown, Mandelson, Campbell) were convinced that Britain was basically a conservative country and nothing should be done that might scare the horses too much. Read any number of biogs of the period.
This is partly/mainly why Left hate him and all his works. They see it as betrayal.
This is why Blair needs to accept he is best off leaving the public stage forever. There is nothing he can ever say that will not be dismissed because of Iraq. No cause of any kind that he believes in will be served by him expressing support for it. In fact, it will always be damaged. As someone who has never hated him, thinks that the Third Way is essentially the only way forward for social democracy and can understand why he did what he did over Iraq, I regret that - but them's the facts.
I think his conduct since leaving power... Helping out dodgy dictators and trousering large sums of money from JP Morgan and the like also hasn't helped.
What amazes me though is he doesn't seem to get your point? This guy crushed theTories and now seems to be utterly clueless as to how he is perceived by the public...
Any half-way comepetent leader of the opposition would have crushed the Tories in 1997 (Corbyn Excepted), with their loss of economic competence as perceived by the electorate and the media pushing 'Tory sleaze' down everyone's throats.
He was, however, ruthless when he gained power. Behind that wide smile was a Machiavellian operator, with his Heinrich MüllerPeter Mandelson to keep everyone in line.
The 1997 Labour team around Blair was utterly brilliant at doing politics...Gordon Brown included....
Blair was not ruthless when he gained power. Far from it. Him and the team around him (Brown, Mandelson, Campbell) were convinced that Britain was basically a conservative country and nothing should be done that might scare the horses too much. Read any number of biogs of the period.
This is partly/mainly why Left hate him and all his works. They see it as betrayal.
The Right don't like him much, either.
Some do for many he was their mentor Gove Osborne Cameron to name just three.The unfinished revolution by Philip Gould was required reading .
I think I'd vote for The Incredible Flying Brick, but only because there's no candidate from the Standing At The Back Dressed Stupidly And Looking Stupid Party.
Surely squire Nuttall qualifies as standing at the back dressed stupidly?
Isn't it Professor Nuttall?
The Conservatives are joining in too. I reckon they fancy second place. UKIP in 4th? quite possible...
This is why Blair needs to accept he is best off leaving the public stage forever. There is nothing he can ever say that will not be dismissed because of Iraq. No cause of any kind that he believes in will be served by him expressing support for it. In fact, it will always be damaged. As someone who has never hated him, thinks that the Third Way is essentially the only way forward for social democracy and can understand why he did what he did over Iraq, I regret that - but them's the facts.
I think his conduct since leaving power... Helping out dodgy dictators and trousering large sums of money from JP Morgan and the like also hasn't helped.
What amazes me though is he doesn't seem to get your point? This guy crushed theTories and now seems to be utterly clueless as to how he is perceived by the public...
Any half-way comepetent leader of the opposition would have crushed the Tories in 1997 (Corbyn Excepted), with their loss of economic competence as perceived by the electorate and the media pushing 'Tory sleaze' down everyone's throats.
He was, however, ruthless when he gained power. Behind that wide smile was a Machiavellian operator, with his Heinrich MüllerPeter Mandelson to keep everyone in line.
The 1997 Labour team around Blair was utterly brilliant at doing politics...Gordon Brown included....
Blair was not ruthless when he gained power. Far from it. Him and the team around him (Brown, Mandelson, Campbell) were convinced that Britain was basically a conservative country and nothing should be done that might scare the horses too much. Read any number of biogs of the period.
This is partly/mainly why Left hate him and all his works. They see it as betrayal.
Yep - New Labour's greatest flaw was in seeing England as essentially the readership of the Daily Mail, and of seeing the readership of the Daily Mail as being personified by its editor. In 1997 and 2001 Labour was given the opportunity to reshape the political and economic landscape. Its timidity and lack of insight meant that it failed to. But what the left fails to understand is that Labour only got the chance to blow it because of the changes the party underwent between the late-80s and the mid-90s.
Yep. They won as New Labour and said they would govern as New Labour. The Left think they will win as hard Labour. They won't.
I think I'd vote for The Incredible Flying Brick, but only because there's no candidate from the Standing At The Back Dressed Stupidly And Looking Stupid Party.
Surely squire Nuttall qualifies as standing at the back dressed stupidly?
This is why Blair needs to accept he is best off leaving the public stage forever. There is nothing he can ever say that will not be dismissed because of Iraq. No cause of any kind that he believes in will be served by him expressing support for it. In fact, it will always be damaged. As someone who has never hated him, thinks that the Third Way is essentially the only way forward for social democracy and can understand why he did what he did over Iraq, I regret that - but them's the facts.
Yes, despite being the greatest opposition leader British politics has ever seen, Blair's credibility post-Iraq is utterly shot. Nevertheless, to the mind of the Leaver no Remainer should ever voice an opinion on Brexit for the simple reason that he is a Remainer and is therefore wholly discredited. It's a logical thing. How many times have I seen the following verbal construct over the last year:
'Is this the same X who [insert some perceived human failing]' where X is vaguely in the public eye and making some comment critical of Brexit'.
Being in favour of EU membership should only now be done in private.
Trump is Trump. The UK needs to look elsewhere for predictable, reliable allies. We know this, everyone else knows this. The dreams of swivel-eyed, right wing Atlanticists lie in tatters on the floor. It turns out that the supposedly uppity, anti-British son of a Kenyan colonial who has just left office was a better friend to us than the current President, with his bust of Churchill, will ever be. In fact, no US administration since WW2 has been more antithetical to British interests than the current one.
Trump is Trump, but the US isn't Trump. For that matter, it's far from clear to what extent the Trump administration is going to act in ways antithetical to British interests, if at all. Certainly he personally seems to be well-disposed towards the UK, although I agree that that is not much of a guarantee. We'll have to wait and see, and do our best to work with the US and nudge them in directions which are in our interests. Exactly what the PM is doing, in fact.
A smart Prime Minister wouldn't have just talked to Trump, she'd have held discussions with the GOP & its leadership too.....oh, she did.....
A smart Prime Minister would have been less obsequious and would have kept a state visit up her sleeve. Clearly, any thoughts that the UK could build a strong relationship with Trump - one that might provide leverage in the Brexit negotiations - have been smashed to smithereens. European leaders know he is an unreliable, narcissistic flake, just as Mrs May does.
Had Hillary won though you can be sure the EU would have been put first ahead of post Brexit UK
So what? As our PM recognises, a strong EU is vital to British interests. The US President, of course, wants to see the EU disappear.
You conflate Europe and the EU. We need the nation states of Europe to be succeeding. The EU is a major risk to that.
This is why Blair needs to accept he is best off leaving the public stage forever. There is nothing he can ever say that will not be dismissed because of Iraq. No cause of any kind that he believes in will be served by him expressing support for it. In fact, it will always be damaged. As someone who has never hated him, thinks that the Third Way is essentially the only way forward for social democracy and can understand why he did what he did over Iraq, I regret that - but them's the facts.
I think his conduct since leaving power... Helping out dodgy dictators and trousering large sums of money from JP Morgan and the like also hasn't helped.
What amazes me though is he doesn't seem to get your point? This guy crushed theTories and now seems to be utterly clueless as to how he is perceived by the public...
Any half-way comepetent leader of the opposition would have crushed the Tories in 1997 (Corbyn Excepted), with their loss of economic competence as perceived by the electorate and the media pushing 'Tory sleaze' down everyone's throats.
He was, however, ruthless when he gained power. Behind that wide smile was a Machiavellian operator, with his Heinrich MüllerPeter Mandelson to keep everyone in line.
The 1997 Labour team around Blair was utterly brilliant at doing politics...Gordon Brown included....
Blair was not ruthless when he gained power. Far from it. Him and the team around him (Brown, Mandelson, Campbell) were convinced that Britain was basically a conservative country and nothing should be done that might scare the horses too much. Read any number of biogs of the period.
This is partly/mainly why Left hate him and all his works. They see it as betrayal.
The Right don't like him much, either.
Some do for many he was their mentor Gove Osborne Cameron to name just three.The unfinished revolution by Philip Gould was required reading .
Still should be for Corbyn and co. Especially, iirc, the opening chapters were he describes the reality of knocking on doors in Middle England and trying to get votes for Labour.
FPTP means marginal seats. Marginal seats are decided by a few thousand swing voters. Such people will not vote for Corbyn and 1970s socialism.
I think I'd vote for The Incredible Flying Brick, but only because there's no candidate from the Standing At The Back Dressed Stupidly And Looking Stupid Party.
Surely squire Nuttall qualifies as standing at the back dressed stupidly?
Isn't it Professor Nuttall?
The Conservatives are joining in too. I reckon they fancy second place. UKIP in 4th? quite possible...
That's their highest poll score in about three years, isn't it? So, worthy of note.
Not only that, but 13-14% is the LibDem's typical midterm rating pre-coalition - the party mostly bumped along in the low to mid teens, picking up a little after any good news like a by-election win, and only when a GE campaign got underway rose into the high teens pipping 20% in a good year.
If the LibDems continue to rack up headline VIs of 13-15% we can pretty much conclude that the overhang from the coalition period is behind them.
Before 2015 the last time the Liberals polled as low as 13% at a general election was 1979 which just goes to show they are only recovering from a very low base
I think IanB2 was saying that the mid term level was around 13% and increased as they got more coverage during the weeks before a GE.
I think I'd vote for The Incredible Flying Brick, but only because there's no candidate from the Standing At The Back Dressed Stupidly And Looking Stupid Party.
Surely squire Nuttall qualifies as standing at the back dressed stupidly?
Isn't it Professor Nuttall?
The Conservatives are joining in too. I reckon they fancy second place. UKIP in 4th? quite possible...
Yep. They won as New Labour and said they would govern as New Labour. The Left think they will win as hard Labour. They won't.
New Labours and Blairs big mistake to was not to introduce PR in the 97 to 01 period. It would have been seen as a magnanimous policy by the public and after getting a 197 majority on 43% of the vote.
"Nigel Farage is refusing to do any more campaigning for Ukip in the Stoke Central by-election after falling out with the new leader’s closest advisor, Huff Post UK has learned."
A more realistic perspective, from Trump's choice to replace his national security adviser, on the 'finely tuned machine' that is the Trump administration...
"Nigel Farage is refusing to do any more campaigning for Ukip in the Stoke Central by-election after falling out with the new leader’s closest advisor, Huff Post UK has learned."
Spot the difference competition! Excellent!
One link is quite long and the other link is fairly short.
New Labours and Blairs big mistake to was not to introduce PR in the 97 to 01 period. It would have been seen as a magnanimous policy by the public and after getting a 197 majority on 43% of the vote.
No. Blair's huge mistake was a trifle bigger than that. It was not firing the lunatic when he had the chance.
This is why Blair needs to accept he is best off leaving the public stage forever. There is nothing he can ever say that will not be dismissed because of Iraq. No cause of any kind that he believes in will be served by him expressing support for it. In fact, it will always be damaged. As someone who has never hated him, thinks that the Third Way is essentially the only way forward for social democracy and can understand why he did what he did over Iraq, I regret that - but them's the facts.
I think his conduct since leaving power... Helping out dodgy dictators and trousering large sums of money from JP Morgan and the like also hasn't helped.
What amazes me though is he doesn't seem to get your point? This guy crushed theTories and now seems to be utterly clueless as to how he is perceived by the public...
Any half-way comepetent leader of the opposition would have crushed the Tories in 1997 (Corbyn Excepted), with their loss of economic competence as perceived by the electorate and the media pushing 'Tory sleaze' down everyone's throats.
He was, however, ruthless when he gained power. Behind that wide smile was a Machiavellian operator, with his Heinrich MüllerPeter Mandelson to keep everyone in line.
The 1997 Labour team around Blair was utterly brilliant at doing politics...Gordon Brown included....
Blair was not ruthless when he gained power. Far from it. Him and the team around him (Brown, Mandelson, Campbell) were convinced that Britain was basically a conservative country and nothing should be done that might scare the horses too much. Read any number of biogs of the period.
This is partly/mainly why Left hate him and all his works. They see it as betrayal.
Yep - New Labour's greatest flaw was in seeing England as essentially the readership of the Daily Mail, and of seeing the readership of the Daily Mail as being personified by its editor. In 1997 and 2001 Labour was given the opportunity to reshape the political and economic landscape. Its timidity and lack of insight meant that it failed to. But what the left fails to understand is that Labour only got the chance to blow it because of the changes the party underwent between the late-80s and the mid-90s.
I think New Labour fundamentally changed the constitutional, social and cultural landscape of England during that period. What further changes would you have liked to see?
A more realistic perspective, from Trump's choice to replace his national security adviser, on the 'finely tuned machine' that is the Trump administration...
There's an interesting Foreign Policy Article about the Harward rejection, saying that he was told he couldn't appoint his own team. Apparently, Patreus has also demanded the right to make his own appointments.
Going back to boring old Stoke Central. Evening Sentinel reports over 2,500 new people have registered to vote since the by election was called, many students. . Presuming they do vote then Labour and the Lib Dems should be the main beneficiaries. It seems to be getting more and more difficult for UKIP, they are falling back in the local betting shops, Labour firm favourite again, but there is a police enquiry against them. .
This is why Blair needs to accept he is best off leaving the public stage forever. There is nothing he can ever say that will not be dismissed because of Iraq. No cause of any kind that he believes in will be served by him expressing support for it. In fact, it will always be damaged. As someone who has never hated him, thinks that the Third Way is essentially the only way forward for social democracy and can understand why he did what he did over Iraq, I regret that - but them's the facts.
I think his conduct since leaving power... Helping out dodgy dictators and trousering large sums of money from JP Morgan and the like also hasn't helped.
What amazes me though is he doesn't seem to get your point? This guy crushed theTories and now seems to be utterly clueless as to how he is perceived by the public...
Any half-way comepetent leader of the opposition would have crushed the Tories in 1997 (Corbyn Excepted), with their loss of economic competence as perceived by the electorate and the media pushing 'Tory sleaze' down everyone's throats.
He was, however, ruthless when he gained power. Behind that wide smile was a Machiavellian operator, with his Heinrich MüllerPeter Mandelson to keep everyone in line.
The 1997 Labour team around Blair was utterly brilliant at doing politics...Gordon Brown included....
Blair was not ruthless when he gained power. Far from it. Him and the team around him (Brown, Mandelson, Campbell) were convinced that Britain was basically a conservative country and nothing should be done that might scare the horses too much. Read any number of biogs of the period.
This is partly/mainly why Left hate him and all his works. They see it as betrayal.
Yep - New Labour's greatest flaw was in seeing England as essentially the readership of the Daily Mail, and of seeing the readership of the Daily Mail as being personified by its editor. In 1997 and 2001 Labour was given the opportunity to reshape the political and economic landscape. Its timidity and lack of insight meant that it failed to. But what the left fails to understand is that Labour only got the chance to blow it because of the changes the party underwent between the late-80s and the mid-90s.
I think New Labour fundamentally changed the constitutional, social and cultural landscape of England during that period. What further changes would you have liked to see?
PR and House of Lords reform massive House building programme.
' Bankers should leave London after Brexit and move the France for the food, the culture and even the romance, Parisien leaders have told financiers in their new charm offensive, aimed at winning business once the UK leaves the EU. '
' Violent protests over alleged police brutality that began in the mainly immigrant suburbs earlier this month spread to central Paris and other cities on Wednesday night and 49 people were arrested.
Clashes with police broke out after hundreds of demonstrators gathered in the Barbès-Rochechouart area, near the Gare du Nord railway station, where the Eurostar terminal is located, and the Sacré Coeur basilica in Montmartre, a favourite with tourists.
Police fired tear gas to disperse about 400 protesters, but smaller groups then went on a rampage in other parts of the capital, smashing windows and overturning dustbins in near Place de la République and in the Marais, another popular area for holidaymakers.
Disturbances also erupted in the northern city of Rouen, where 21 people were arrested. Nearly 250 people have been arrested around France since unrest began in the Paris suburbs after police were accused of assaulting a black man on February 2. '
I don't think any more bankers are going to leave London for a European capital more than they would today or pre-vote. Perhaps the odd one fucks off to Zurich.
The issue will be non-EU firms looking to establish global operations. In such cases perhaps a European capital or NY (if the firm is not from the US) would be more appealing.
I doubt bankers will move at least until they have seen whether Le Pen wins or not.
As both UBS and Morgan Stanley have made clear France is not going to capture London's financial services work without the sorts of changes to its employment laws which no French government is willing or able to make.
Given current trends how long before Snell is a leadership candidate?
Well he would be the man who saw off UKIP in the 'Capital of Brexit'.
Quite and his twitter account is apparently a goldmine. Latest is that he slagged off Robbie Williams. The challenge of finding someone even worse than Corbyn is one the Labour party must take seriously.
I think his conduct since leaving power... Helping out dodgy dictators and trousering large sums of money from JP Morgan and the like also hasn't helped.
What amazes me though is he doesn't seem to get your point? This guy crushed theTories and now seems to be utterly clueless as to how he is perceived by the public...
Any half-way comepetent leader of the opposition would have crushed the Tories in 1997 (Corbyn Excepted), with their loss of economic competence as perceived by the electorate and the media pushing 'Tory sleaze' down everyone's throats.
He was, however, ruthless when he gained power. Behind that wide smile was a Machiavellian operator, with his Heinrich MüllerPeter Mandelson to keep everyone in line.
The 1997 Labour team around Blair was utterly brilliant at doing politics...Gordon Brown included....
Blair was not ruthless when he gained power. Far from it. Him and the team around him (Brown, Mandelson, Campbell) were convinced that Britain was basically a conservative country and nothing should be done that might scare the horses too much. Read any number of biogs of the period.
This is partly/mainly why Left hate him and all his works. They see it as betrayal.
Yep - New Labour's greatest flaw was in seeing England as essentially the readership of the Daily Mail, and of seeing the readership of the Daily Mail as being personified by its editor. In 1997 and 2001 Labour was given the opportunity to reshape the political and economic landscape. Its timidity and lack of insight meant that it failed to. But what the left fails to understand is that Labour only got the chance to blow it because of the changes the party underwent between the late-80s and the mid-90s.
I think New Labour fundamentally changed the constitutional, social and cultural landscape of England during that period. What further changes would you have liked to see?
I think Labour could and should have been a lot braver with tax.
Trump is Trump. The UK needs to look elsewhere for predictable, reliable allies. We know this, everyone else knows this. The dreams of swivel-eyed, right wing Atlanticists lie in tatters on the floor. It turns out that the supposedly uppity, anti-British son of a Kenyan colonial who has just left office was a better friend to us than the current President, with his bust of Churchill, will ever be. In fact, no US administration since WW2 has been more antithetical to British interests than the current one.
Trump is Trump, but the US isn't Trump. For that matter, it's far from clear to what extent the Trump administration is going to act in ways antithetical to British interests, if at all. Certainly he personally seems to be well-disposed towards the UK, although I agree that that is not much of a guarantee. We'll have to wait and see, and do our best to work with the US and nudge them in directions which are in our interests. Exactly what the PM is doing, in fact.
A smart Prime Minister wouldn't have just talked to Trump, she'd have held discussions with the GOP & its leadership too.....oh, she did.....
A smart Prime Minister would have been less obsequious and would have kept a state visit up her sleeve. Clearly, any thoughts that the UK could build a strong relationship with Trump - one that might provide leverage in the Brexit negotiations - have been smashed to smithereens. European leaders know he is an unreliable, narcissistic flake, just as Mrs May does.
Had Hillary won though you can be sure the EU would have been put first ahead of post Brexit UK
So what? As our PM recognises, a strong EU is vital to British interests. The US President, of course, wants to see the EU disappear.
Not when we are negotiating withdrawal from it it is not
That's their highest poll score in about three years, isn't it? So, worthy of note.
Not only that, but 13-14% is the LibDem's typical midterm rating pre-coalition - the party mostly bumped along in the low to mid teens, picking up a little after any good news like a by-election win, and only when a GE campaign got underway rose into the high teens pipping 20% in a good year.
If the LibDems continue to rack up headline VIs of 13-15% we can pretty much conclude that the overhang from the coalition period is behind them.
Before 2015 the last time the Liberals polled as low as 13% at a general election was 1979 which just goes to show they are only recovering from a very low base
I think IanB2 was saying that the mid term level was around 13% and increased as they got more coverage during the weeks before a GE.
Not always and certainly not from 1979 to 1983 or 2001 to 2005
Trump is Trump. The UK needs to look elsewhere for predictable, reliable allies. We know this, everyone else knows this. The dreams of swivel-eyed, right wing Atlanticists lie in tatters on the floor. It turns out that the supposedly uppity, anti-British son of a Kenyan colonial who has just left office was a better friend to us than the current President, with his bust of Churchill, will ever be. In fact, no US administration since WW2 has been more antithetical to British interests than the current one.
Trump is Trump, but the US isn't Trump. For that matter, it's far from clear to what extent the Trump administration is going to act in ways antithetical to British interests, if at all. Certainly he personally seems to be well-disposed towards the UK, although I agree that that is not much of a guarantee. We'll have to wait and see, and do our best to work with the US and nudge them in directions which are in our interests. Exactly what the PM is doing, in fact.
A smart Prime Minister wouldn't have just talked to Trump, she'd have held discussions with the GOP & its leadership too.....oh, she did.....
A smart Prime Minister would have been less obsequious and would have kept a state visit up her sleeve. Clearly, any thoughts that the UK could build a strong relationship with Trump - one that might provide leverage in the Brexit negotiations - have been smashed to smithereens. European leaders know he is an unreliable, narcissistic flake, just as Mrs May does.
Had Hillary won though you can be sure the EU would have been put first ahead of post Brexit UK
So what? As our PM recognises, a strong EU is vital to British interests. The US President, of course, wants to see the EU disappear.
You conflate Europe and the EU. We need the nation states of Europe to be succeeding. The EU is a major risk to that.
"Nigel Farage is refusing to do any more campaigning for Ukip in the Stoke Central by-election after falling out with the new leader’s closest advisor, Huff Post UK has learned."
Nigel must be in a bit of a dilemma. If Nuttall wins then it risks making Nigel look like a man of the past; lose and it will be seen as setback for the kind of British Trumpism that Nigel is keen to foster. On reflection, I'd say that Nigel would prefer the loss: he could then argue that UKIP/Nuttall is an inadequate vehicle for British Trumpism and that the British Trumpites should regard him as their messiah and act accordingly.
On-topic, the government's change of line seems at this stage to be more mood music than reality. The word austerity may be gone, but there is still the deficit to be brought down, and the Treasury quite happy to use Brexit risk as a bogeyman. Likewise, on social conservatism, immigration cuts are promised in the future from Brexit, and grammar schools were offered as a token, but is there really any major reversal in social policy underway and exercising the contributers on here. I've not seen too much evidence yet.
Pulling a few cords and a bit of rhetoric in a certain direction, things having changed massively since the 1970s, does not a full return to Butskellism make as far as I can see.
Why is selection by ability regarded as more socially conservative than selection by ability to pay?
I don't think academic selection is regarded as "socially conservative" in general.
Academic selection at 18 is largely uncontroversial.
Academic selection at 16 is largely uncontroversial.
Academic selection at 11 is generally seen as retrograde.
Wonder where the threshold is - could they get away with proposing selection at 14?
We already have selection at 14. It is called setting.
I hate setting, but only because I'm the one who has to write the timetable...
Isn't there software that does that these days?
In the same way that there is softwares that will write a novel for you, yes. I can automate small chunks and it won't let me put two teachers in the same room (unless I really want to), but it is mostly hand crafted. If anyone out there in pb land knows of better timetableing software than Nova T6 please tell me.
Tony is merely being consistent, he's a 'butter' - "I accept the result of the referendum but ... It was the wrong result, so I demand more referendums until we get the correct result."
It's on a par with "Even if we are accepting 3,000 child refugees, they must be from France. We have to encourage many more to make the potentially fatal trip, so we can show how concerned we are."
We have to accept that some people are barmy and pander to them a little. That Guardian won't read itself.
Have you seen the Paul Joseph Watson video NSFW? Or Cernovich challenge? Most amusing.
Mike Cernovich .@jk_rowling Hi! Great to see you back. Over 1.2 million views for this generous offer. Let's make it happen!
This UKIP failure in Stoke seems to be in the same PB certainty bracket as
Ukip not winning Euros Carswell not winning Clacton by E Reckless losing Rochester By E NOM at GE 15 "It's the economy, stupid' 'meaning Remain win the Ref ...and the first female POTUS!!
Comments
Even stopped clocks are right twice a day.
Or Lib Dems plummet to 13% after being on 23% in 2005?
WTF is Robert Downey Jr's dog doing? https://t.co/P6B5Sx1pav
CSPAN
Number 7: Thomas Jefferson https://t.co/g8JOEnIiS5 #cspanPOTUSsurvey https://t.co/wVWT4Acevh
"Dear friends! I'm dangerously close to breaking the top 10 albums on the Billboard (huge) charts this Sunday!! I... https://t.co/yaCmTX7L49
https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/832569126677839877
'Is this the same X who [insert some perceived human failing]' where X is vaguely in the public eye and making some comment critical of Brexit'.
Being in favour of EU membership should only now be done in private.
This does sound like top-of-the-market megadeal exuberance.
FPTP means marginal seats. Marginal seats are decided by a few thousand swing voters. Such people will not vote for Corbyn and 1970s socialism.
It really is very simple.
Yep. They won as New Labour and said they would govern as New Labour. The Left think they will win as hard Labour. They won't.
New Labours and Blairs big mistake to was not to introduce PR in the 97 to 01 period. It would have been seen as a magnanimous policy by the public and after getting a 197 majority on 43% of the vote.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/nigel-farage-warns-paul-nuttall-he-must-win-stoke-by-election_uk_58a6e083e4b037d17d26cfdf?na27f1or&
Farage told Ukip activists: “Please physically do everything you can to help get Paul Nuttall elected as MP for Stoke Central.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/nigel-farage-stoke-ukip-duffy_uk_58a34272e4b03df370daac5d
"Nigel Farage is refusing to do any more campaigning for Ukip in the Stoke Central by-election after falling out with the new leader’s closest advisor, Huff Post UK has learned."
I'll get my coat..
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2017/02/robert_harward_turned_down_trump_now_others_can_too.html
CNN quoted one of Harward’s friends saying that, in mulling over the decision, he was persuaded most of all by the sheer dysfunction of Trump’s presidency, describing the job he was offered as “a shit sandwich.”
One link is quite long and the other link is fairly short.
Do I win a prize?
No. Blair's huge mistake was a trifle bigger than that. It was not firing the lunatic when he had the chance.
.
NEW THREAD
This is why Blair needs to accept he is best off leaving the public stage forever. There is nothing he can ever say that will not be dismissed because of Iraq. No cause of any kind that he believes in will be served by him expressing support for it. In fact, it will always be damaged. As someone who has never hated him, thinks that the Third Way is essentially the only way forward for social democracy and can understand why he did what he did over Iraq, I regret that - but them's the facts.
I think his conduct since leaving power... Helping out dodgy dictators and trousering large sums of money from JP Morgan and the like also hasn't helped.
What amazes me though is he doesn't seem to get your point? This guy crushed theTories and now seems to be utterly clueless as to how he is perceived by the public...
Any half-way comepetent leader of the opposition would have crushed the Tories in 1997 (Corbyn Excepted), with their loss of economic competence as perceived by the electorate and the media pushing 'Tory sleaze' down everyone's throats.
He was, however, ruthless when he gained power. Behind that wide smile was a Machiavellian operator, with his
Heinrich MüllerPeter Mandelson to keep everyone in line.The 1997 Labour team around Blair was utterly brilliant at doing politics...Gordon Brown included....
Blair was not ruthless when he gained power. Far from it. Him and the team around him (Brown, Mandelson, Campbell) were convinced that Britain was basically a conservative country and nothing should be done that might scare the horses too much. Read any number of biogs of the period.
This is partly/mainly why Left hate him and all his works. They see it as betrayal.
Yep - New Labour's greatest flaw was in seeing England as essentially the readership of the Daily Mail, and of seeing the readership of the Daily Mail as being personified by its editor. In 1997 and 2001 Labour was given the opportunity to reshape the political and economic landscape. Its timidity and lack of insight meant that it failed to. But what the left fails to understand is that Labour only got the chance to blow it because of the changes the party underwent between the late-80s and the mid-90s.
I think New Labour fundamentally changed the constitutional, social and cultural landscape of England during that period. What further changes would you have liked to see?
PR and House of Lords reform massive House building programme.
As both UBS and Morgan Stanley have made clear France is not going to capture London's financial services work without the sorts of changes to its employment laws which no French government is willing or able to make.
How far have Remain voters progressed the five stages of Brexit grief? We think Tony Blair comes under 'Bargaining' https://t.co/LYBavFzzXd https://t.co/wamjDiJlBH
That's genuine impartiality right there in bucketloads.
https://m.facebook.com/myiannopoulos/posts/848956615242235
If anyone out there in pb land knows of better timetableing software than Nova T6 please tell me.
new thread
Ukip not winning Euros
Carswell not winning Clacton by E
Reckless losing Rochester By E
NOM at GE 15
"It's the economy, stupid' 'meaning Remain win the Ref
...and the first female POTUS!!