Macavity May hid during the referendum, she's finding it hard to hide as PM during a GE campaign.
She popped up in Ormskirk yesterday I think. My brother saw her in the flesh, and like any other person, was massively underwhelmed and he's a diehard Tory.
I think she'd probably make a very good manager of a tea shop in York...but she has seriously overreached. There is a small part of me that feels sorry for her.
The likes of Theresa May and Angela Leadsome.....the epitome of parochial, little minded, Tory women. They'd be best left to arrange fetes and that is it.
that post comes over as dangerously close to "Best leave the proper jobs to men".
Pretty sure fetes require strong, stable management. Can't imagine Jezza and Diane doing too well. They'd overspend on the cream teas and have to loot the tombola.
Good fetes require that. Having been to hundreds most are not good.
She may not be able to remember or handle numbers. Many intelligent people have this disability. Of course, as punters, all of us can handle numbers so we are probably not sympathetic to number dyslexics.
Surely it is more about getting briefed properly and knowing what you are going to say before you walk into the studio. When I am doing presentations I usually have an A4 sheet with the key facts in 20 pt text. I set it on the table and glance at it if I need to.
She wasn't even in the studio. She was on the phone, so a) why no crib sheet and b) what were her staff doing while she was floundering?
She may not be able to remember or handle numbers. Many intelligent people have this disability. Of course, as punters, all of us can handle numbers so we are probably not sympathetic to number dyslexics.
I would have thought that being able to count is a job requirement for something like Home Secretary. I know Labour have low standards but there has to be some limit.
I don't have sound here, but how did the Abbot botch an interview regarding 10k more police ?
Sounds reasonable enough as a policy, if a bit expensive.
She first said that 10,000 cops would cost £300,000, when this was pointed out as being absurd, she said they would cost £80 million; when Ferrari pointed out that this meant the cops would be on £8000 a year, she then said they were going to recruit 25,000 officers, not 10,000.
When again she was pressed on the fact these 10,000 new officers - or 25,000 new officers - were only going to be paid £8000 a year at most, on her figures, she suggested that Labour intended to recruit 250,000 new officers.
When this new figure was questioned, a quarter of a million new policemen and women, she said in actual fact Labour intended to recruit 2000 new officers, and also 250, making 2250.
When asked why she'd said they intended to recruit 250,000 new officers, she then claimed that she'd never said this, despite just saying it on live radio.
At this point the interview concluded, with a painful rustling of papers, as Abbott was audibly handed the "right" figures.
But you have to listen to it, to get the full majesty of excruciating pauses and evasions. It is superb.
Most striking is her clear innumeracy.
I don't expect politicians to be fantastic at maths, but the inability to comprehend even orders of magnitude is surely disqualificatory for senior executive positions ?
Yes, even if you've no idea, and you're making it up on the spot, anyone with an IQ over 90 should be able to make it up better than THAT.
I wonder if she is just actively dim. Like Corbyn. And she is the proposed new Home Secretary, in charge of peace and justice throughout the realm. Meanwhile John McDonnell, our proposed Chancellor, who will hold the keys to the coffers of the kingdom, gives speeches under the hammer and sickle.
It's hard to believe it's happening. It's like Labour are throwing animal droppings in our faces, and expecting us to applaud.
I did wonder that about Abbott - yet she read history at Cambridge so presumably she does have (or did have) some latent intelligence in her head.
She may not be able to remember or handle numbers. Many intelligent people have this disability. Of course, as punters, all of us can handle numbers so we are probably not sympathetic to number dyslexics.
That is possible - and would naturally render her unable sensibly to discuss budgetary matters. One can be sympathetic, without thinking her in any way qualified to run a major spending department.
Surely it is more about getting briefed properly and knowing what you are going to say before you walk into the studio. When I am doing presentations I usually have an A4 sheet with the key facts in 20 pt text. I set it on the table and glance at it if I need to.
Of course you do, that's what any sensible person would do when going on-air to talk about something directly related to their job.
And another. Do you ever get the feeling you are being spoon-fed?
Please elaborate on your theory.
Well, my guess is you don't assiduously read cornwalllive.com every day of the week, and that you are passing on a link which someone has spammed you with without checking its credibility. The story is now on the BBC but yet again it is sourced from, and only from, cornwalllive.
Also see that link for D. Abbot digging in a hole.
'Cornwall Live' (and 'Devon Live') is the website of the 'Western Morning News' - the regional daily paper. So, yes, they are 'real' journalists - unwise to 'p*ss' them off I would have thought. The editorial two weeks ago suggested the Conservatives were taking the region for granted again - this rather proves the point.
J'habite Dartmoor. I don't regularly see the WMN these days, had no idea how bad things were there.
Oh dear. I quite like Diane Abbott, but she lacks the essential politician's skill of bluffing when she doesn't know what she's talking about. Theresa May, by contrast, is an expert at it (she would've covered up her lack of knowledge of exact figures with some spiel along the lines of "it will be paid for by the strong and stable economy provided by my strong and stable leadership" without taking any guilty-sounding pauses).
Same single source, yet again. She must have proper press with her, surely? Jezza seems to.
That's what I can't quite understand. You're not going to get Tessy saying anything very interesting, but you'd think the main players would be along to pick up on stuff like this e.g. Sky in Banchory on Saturday.
Surely it is more about getting briefed properly and knowing what you are going to say before you walk into the studio. When I am doing presentations I usually have an A4 sheet with the key facts in 20 pt text. I set it on the table and glance at it if I need to.
Of course you do, that's what any sensible person would do when going on-air to talk about something directly related to their job.
That's the key. I have great respect for many politicians who can recall precise details of a great many things or cobble a reasonable answer together when surprised, but that policy us surely what she was on to talk about, and she clearly had no idea and even if she struggles with numbers they could have written in down for her. Inexplicable.
BBC news now showing her Daily Politics interview. This is going to lead all news channels all day.
Why didn't Yvette Cooper promote the policy - maybe she has more sense
She isn't shadow home secretary.
Yes it's not like Abbott's been ambushed about some policy issue unrelated to her role. She's doing these interviews because she is meant to be announcing and explaining the proposals related to her area of responsibility.
Misquoting again Scott. I was referring to the views of the EU nationals on their prospects in the UK, not Brexit overall.
But that is also nonsense.
Right now they have free movement, and in future they won't.
Not even you can describe that as "no change", surely?
The expectation, which I think is entirely probable, is that those already settled here will continue to have free movement - unless of course you are expecting the EU to say they are not allowed to go home once in a while. I mean I know the EU are making a lot of threats but even they wouldn't go that far would they?
Scott seems to be labouring under the illusion that the UK government is going to go round the houses of Ealing, ripping away EU passports from weeping Dutchwomen, forcing them to stay in the UK forever.
But there needs to be considerable clarification. If they go back to their country of origin, say for family reasons, for how long are they entitled to come back? What happens to their health care? Tribunals? The lawyers must be rubbing their hands together!
Precisely.
They'll have all their EU rights when they are in the rest of the EU, of course. If they decide to move out of the UK for a considerable time, then they will face the same bureaucratic challenges as, say, Americans, Canadians or Australians who are permanently settled in the UK, and I don't see these people weeping in the street.
In which case, EU citizens resident here are facing a major loss of their current rights. Unlike Americans, Canadians and Australians currently living in the UK.
Same single source, yet again. She must have proper press with her, surely? Jezza seems to.
That's what I can't quite understand. You're not going to get Tessy saying anything very interesting, but you'd think the main players would be along to pick up on stuff like this e.g. Sky in Banchory on Saturday.
The BBC are there. Duh. Laura Kantspellhersurname is there.
But nothing from the factory behind the iron curtain.
And if every day for the next 6 weeks features photos like that of her thoroughly at ease with genuine voters the "Macavity" point is going to start looking a bit silly.
Surely it is more about getting briefed properly and knowing what you are going to say before you walk into the studio. When I am doing presentations I usually have an A4 sheet with the key facts in 20 pt text. I set it on the table and glance at it if I need to.
Of course you do, that's what any sensible person would do when going on-air to talk about something directly related to their job.
That's the key. I have great respect for many politicians who can recall precise details of a great many things or cobble a reasonable answer together when surprised, but that policy us surely what she was on to talk about, and she clearly had no idea and even if she struggles with numbers they could have written in down for her. Inexplicable.
They're not remembering per se. It's a mixture of bluff, avoiding figures and getting the topic on something they do know inside and out.
Oh dear. I quite like Diane Abbott, but she lacks the essential politician's skill of bluffing when she doesn't know what she's talking about. Theresa May, by contrast, is an expert at it (she would've covered up her lack of knowledge of exact figures with some spiel along the lines of "it will be paid for by the strong and stable economy provided by my strong and stable leadership" without taking any guilty-sounding pauses).
Why doesn't she know what she is talking about? She was talking about a core Home Office issue: police.
She doesn't know anything about it, because she doesn't take her role as an Opposition spokesperson seriously and doesn't care about anything but playing games within the Labour party over when Jezza is leaving.
As more than one PBer has asked: why the hell are the public paying Short money for this shower?
Same single source, yet again. She must have proper press with her, surely? Jezza seems to.
That's what I can't quite understand. You're not going to get Tessy saying anything very interesting, but you'd think the main players would be along to pick up on stuff like this e.g. Sky in Banchory on Saturday.
Given that turned into a comedy show - maybee wanting to avoid any repetition?
Misquoting again Scott. I was referring to the views of the EU nationals on their prospects in the UK, not Brexit overall.
But that is also nonsense.
Right now they have free movement, and in future they won't.
Not even you can describe that as "no change", surely?
The expectation, which I think is entirely probable, is that those already settled here will continue to have free movement - unless of course you are expecting the EU to say they are not allowed to go home once in a while. I mean I know the EU are making a lot of threats but even they wouldn't go that far would they?
Scott seems to be labouring under the illusion that the UK government is going to go round the houses of Ealing, ripping away EU passports from weeping Dutchwomen, forcing them to stay in the UK forever.
But there needs to be considerable clarification. If they go back to their country of origin, say for family reasons, for how long are they entitled to come back? What happens to their health care? Tribunals? The lawyers must be rubbing their hands together!
Precisely.
They'll have all their EU rights when they are in the rest of the EU, of course. If they decide to move out of the UK for a considerable time, then they will face the same bureaucratic challenges as, say, Americans, Canadians or Australians who are permanently settled in the UK, and I don't see these people weeping in the street.
In which case, EU citizens resident here are facing a major loss of their current rights. Unlike Americans, Canadians and Australians currently living in the UK.
The Europhiles on here are like the people who say Christmas should be banned or renamed because it offends other religions. Meanwhile the actual members of those other religions are busy getting on with their lives and enjoying sending Christmas cards to their Christian friends.
You have to find some reason to protest something you don't like even if the people you claim to be speaking for don't have a clue what you are going on about and frankly don't care.
Surely it is more about getting briefed properly and knowing what you are going to say before you walk into the studio. When I am doing presentations I usually have an A4 sheet with the key facts in 20 pt text. I set it on the table and glance at it if I need to.
Of course you do, that's what any sensible person would do when going on-air to talk about something directly related to their job.
That's the key. I have great respect for many politicians who can recall precise details of a great many things or cobble a reasonable answer together when surprised, but that policy us surely what she was on to talk about, and she clearly had no idea and even if she struggles with numbers they could have written in down for her. Inexplicable.
They're not remembering per se. It's a mixture of bluff, avoiding figures and getting the topic on something they do know inside and out.
I did say 'or cobble a reasonable answer together'. Sometimes they won't know, but they are skilled enough to handle that.
Surely it is more about getting briefed properly and knowing what you are going to say before you walk into the studio. When I am doing presentations I usually have an A4 sheet with the key facts in 20 pt text. I set it on the table and glance at it if I need to.
Of course you do, that's what any sensible person would do when going on-air to talk about something directly related to their job.
That's the key. I have great respect for many politicians who can recall precise details of a great many things or cobble a reasonable answer together when surprised, but that policy us surely what she was on to talk about, and she clearly had no idea and even if she struggles with numbers they could have written in down for her. Inexplicable.
They're not remembering per se. It's a mixture of bluff, avoiding figures and getting the topic on something they do know inside and out.
I did say 'or cobble a reasonable answer together'. Sometimes they won't know, but they are skilled enough to handle that.
Yeah, I was just adding a wee bit of colour to it. It can be quite fun watching some of the better ones and seeing how they handle it. Look for getting the answer to be rephrased to give them 20+ more seconds to think.
Mr. Glenn, as I've said (although not for a little while) excepting the customs union, which we must leave, I'm open to a pretty wide spectrum of deals. I wouldn't mind if freedom of movement were replaced by freedom to work (ie guaranteed job offer).
The only new thing I've heard which is unacceptable is the possibility of having EU citizens here governed by EU rather than UK law.
Do you expect/accept a transition agreement which would be governed by the current arrangements during which time the long term future agreement will be negotiated or do you think it's 'unreasonable' of the EU not to aim to have everything done and dusted by 2019?
Yes - it IS 'unreasonable' of the EU not to aim to have everything done and dusted by 2019. The EU were the ones who put the two year deadline into the Constitution Lisbon Treaty - not us.
We signed the treaty.
Yes - and therefore all sides who DID sign should abide by it.
I'm no shill for May, but on the "meeting ordinary voters" - do you not think there is perhaps just the slightest security concern here ?
Seeing as a week and a bit ago the UK security services tipped off their French colleagues about a planned attack on French Presidential candidates I think we can say that there a major security concerns right now.
I'm no shill for May, but on the "meeting ordinary voters" - do you not think there is perhaps just the slightest security concern here ?
I'm sure she will meet some but for obvious reasons she's not going to be able to do spontaneous canvassing in every Labour marginal.
Every time I see May on TV walking around the streets there doesn't seem to be any security, although they must be in the background. But she's the first PM I've seen for a long time that doesn't have security people very close at hand all the time when in public.
Oh dear. I quite like Diane Abbott, but she lacks the essential politician's skill of bluffing when she doesn't know what she's talking about. Theresa May, by contrast, is an expert at it (she would've covered up her lack of knowledge of exact figures with some spiel along the lines of "it will be paid for by the strong and stable economy provided by my strong and stable leadership" without taking any guilty-sounding pauses).
She isn't a wet behind the ears innocent who just hasn't learned to lie yet, she is a useless, hypocritical waste of space, and we are paying her wages.
Jesus why can't people sometimes just admit their side are shit without having to damn the opposition?
Their plan is to introduce 2,500 police officer a year at a cost of ~ £32,000 per police officer (With £80 million extra ratcheting spend per year) yielding 10,000 officers at an ongoing cost of £320 million additional spending per year at the end of the parliament.
I don't have sound here, but how did the Abbot botch an interview regarding 10k more police ?
Sounds reasonable enough as a policy, if a bit expensive.
She first said that 10,000 cops would cost £300,000, when this was pointed out as being absurd, she said they would cost £80 million; when Ferrari pointed out that this meant the cops would be on £8000 a year, she then said they were going to recruit 25,000 officers, not 10,000.
When again she was pressed on the fact these 10,000 new officers - or 25,000 new officers - were only going to be paid £8000 a year at most, on her figures, she suggested that Labour intended to recruit 250,000 new officers.
When this new figure was questioned, a quarter of a million new policemen and women, she said in actual fact Labour intended to recruit 2000 new officers, and also 250, making 2250.
When asked why she'd said they intended to recruit 250,000 new officers, she then claimed that she'd never said this, despite just saying it on live radio.
At this point the interview concluded, with a painful rustling of papers, as Abbott was audibly handed the "right" figures.
But you have to listen to it, to get the full majesty of excruciating pauses and evasions. It is superb.
Most striking is her clear innumeracy.
I don't expect politicians to be fantastic at maths, but the inability to comprehend even orders of magnitude is surely disqualificatory for senior executive positions ?
Yes, even if you've no idea, and you're making it up on the spot, anyone with an IQ over 90 should be able to make it up better than THAT.
I wonder if she is just actively dim. Like Corbyn. And she is the proposed new Home Secretary, in charge of peace and justice throughout the realm. Meanwhile John McDonnell, our proposed Chancellor, who will hold the keys to the coffers of the kingdom, gives speeches under the hammer and sickle.
It's hard to believe it's happening. It's like Labour are throwing animal droppings in our faces, and expecting us to applaud.
I did wonder that about Abbott - yet she read history at Cambridge so presumably she does have (or did have) some latent intelligence in her head.
She may not be able to remember or handle numbers. Many intelligent people have this disability. Of course, as punters, all of us can handle numbers so we are probably not sympathetic to number dyslexics.
She may, and if she does then she has my sympathy. However, I'd question whether such an individual should ever be appointed to a key front-bench role.
With all due respect to Nick, I think this may be PB's best chance to get a regular MP below-the-line again at GE 2017. If you are able to help - time, advice or donations - please do get in touch either via Vanilla or the Facebook page below.
I'm no shill for May, but on the "meeting ordinary voters" - do you not think there is perhaps just the slightest security concern here ?
I'm sure she will meet some but for obvious reasons she's not going to be able to do spontaneous canvassing in every Labour marginal.
Yes and no. I'm sure there needs to be some care taken, but it's not like people tool up on the off-chance that a senior politician will knock on their door.
Additionally, May is somewhat hoist by her own petard here. She did specifically say she wasn't getting involved in televised debates because she wanted to meet ordinary voters one-to-one. That was obvious nonsense, but she can hardly mumble something about security concerns if people say, "where are these ordinary voters, then?"
With all due respect to Nick, I think this may be PB's best chance to get a regular MP below-the-line again at GE 2017. If you are able to help - time, advice or donations - please do get in touch either via Vanilla or the Facebook page below.
With all due respect to Nick, I think this may be PB's best chance to get a regular MP below-the-line again at GE 2017. If you are able to help - time, advice or donations - please do get in touch either via Vanilla or the Facebook page below.
BBC Daily Politics—many Lab MPs privately say they want May as PM rather than Corbyn.
Of course they do. If Labour's polling is bad now, just think what it'd be like with Corbyn as PM.
On the other hand, I get the sense that they feel that May is a relatively easy target with the right Labour leader (though they thought that about the posh boy too).
With all due respect to Nick, I think this may be PB's best chance to get a regular MP below-the-line again at GE 2017. If you are able to help - time, advice or donations - please do get in touch either via Vanilla or the Facebook page below.
Misquoting again Scott. I was referring to the views of the EU nationals on their prospects in the UK, not Brexit overall.
But that is also nonsense.
Right now they have free movement, and in future they won't.
Not even you can describe that as "no change", surely?
The expectation, which I think is entirely probable, is that those already settled here will continue to have free movement - unless of course you are expecting the EU to say they are not allowed to go home once in a while. I mean I know the EU are making a lot of threats but even they wouldn't go that far would they?
Scott seems to be labouring under the illusion that the UK government is going to go round the houses of Ealing, ripping away EU passports from weeping Dutchwomen, forcing them to stay in the UK forever.
But there needs to be considerable clarification. If they go back to their country of origin, say for family reasons, for how long are they entitled to come back? What happens to their health care? Tribunals? The lawyers must be rubbing their hands together!
Precisely.
They'll have all their EU rights when they are in the rest of the EU, of course. If they decide to move out of the UK for a considerable time, then they will face the same bureaucratic challenges as, say, Americans, Canadians or Australians who are permanently settled in the UK, and I don't see these people weeping in the street.
In which case, EU citizens resident here are facing a major loss of their current rights. Unlike Americans, Canadians and Australians currently living in the UK.
The Europhiles on here are like the people who say Christmas should be banned or renamed because it offends other religions. Meanwhile the actual members of those other religions are busy getting on with their lives and enjoying sending Christmas cards to their Christian friends.
You have to find some reason to protest something you don't like even if the people you claim to be speaking for don't have a clue what you are going on about and frankly don't care.
Yep - I am against taking away rights from people who have chosen to make the UK their home and have contributed so much to it. If you are not, so be it.
@George_Osborne: Also in @EveningStandard: new immigration poll; Abbott's car crash interview;Bloomberg on air pollution & exclusive column by Anthony Joshua
I've read the Joshua column, it starts well, goes a bit wobbly in the middle but ends in a powerful flurry.
She may not be able to remember or handle numbers. Many intelligent people have this disability. Of course, as punters, all of us can handle numbers so we are probably not sympathetic to number dyslexics.
Surely it is more about getting briefed properly and knowing what you are going to say before you walk into the studio. When I am doing presentations I usually have an A4 sheet with the key facts in 20 pt text. I set it on the table and glance at it if I need to.
She wasn't even in the studio. She was on the phone, so a) why no crib sheet and b) what were her staff doing while she was floundering?
My beautiful homeland. TMay looks reasonably relaxed there, for a slightly awkward person (which she clearly is, and which, I think, elicits sympathy)
You can also hear someone say Well done Theresa! Presumably a Tory stooge, but nonetheless this is not the locked-in-a-box, voter-averse Maybot of today's tedious meme.
I suspect there's a lot of goodwill towards her, personally. She's the best we've got, she's going in to bat for Britain, we want and need her to do well, even as we look on, nervously.
She is in her element canvassing - she has done it all her political life and the idea she is shut away suits some as a narrative but plainly that is not true as videos surface of her trip to meet the fishermen in Cornwall demonstrates. Even Faisal Islam is tweeting a vox pop with 2 UKIP supporters now voting conservative
With all due respect to Nick, I think this may be PB's best chance to get a regular MP below-the-line again at GE 2017. If you are able to help - time, advice or donations - please do get in touch either via Vanilla or the Facebook page below.
I'm no shill for May, but on the "meeting ordinary voters" - do you not think there is perhaps just the slightest security concern here ?
I'm sure she will meet some but for obvious reasons she's not going to be able to do spontaneous canvassing in every Labour marginal.
I remember John Major and his soapbox in the 1992 general election - at a time when the IRA was active in the UK, never mind random nutters. The security risks can be overblown. Daesh sympathisers are unlikely to be able to rustle up a suicide belt within the 10 minutes or so that she might be in a town centre.
With all due respect to Nick, I think this may be PB's best chance to get a regular MP below-the-line again at GE 2017. If you are able to help - time, advice or donations - please do get in touch either via Vanilla or the Facebook page below.
Misquoting again Scott. I was referring to the views of the EU nationals on their prospects in the UK, not Brexit overall.
But that is also nonsense.
Right now they have free movement, and in future they won't.
Not even you can describe that as "no change", surely?
The expectation, which I think is entirely probable, is that those already settled here will continue to have free movement - unless of course you are expecting the EU to say they are not allowed to go home once in a while. I mean I know the EU are making a lot of threats but even they wouldn't go that far would they?
Scott seems to be labouring under the illusion that the UK government is going to go round the houses of Ealing, ripping away EU passports from weeping Dutchwomen, forcing them to stay in the UK forever.
But there needs to be considerable clarification. If they go back to their country of origin, say for family reasons, for how long are they entitled to come back? What happens to their health care? Tribunals? The lawyers must be rubbing their hands together!
Precisely.
They'll have all their EU rights when they are in the rest of the EU, of course. If they decide to move out of the UK for a considerable time, then they will face the same bureaucratic challenges as, say, Americans, Canadians or Australians who are permanently settled in the UK, and I don't see these people weeping in the street.
In which case, EU citizens resident here are facing a major loss of their current rights. Unlike Americans, Canadians and Australians currently living in the UK.
Likewise, Brits are going to lose the Freedom of Movement to and within the EU. But the EU citizens in the UK, who keep their EU passports, will have more freedom than the Brits. AND they will nearly all get permanent residency. Their circumstances will be slightly crimped, but it's hardly the apocalypse.
We lived and loved and worked in each other's countries long before the EU.
Neither the Brits nor the EU citizens have to lose their rights. It is far from a given that nearly all EU citizens will get permanent residency.
With all due respect to Nick, I think this may be PB's best chance to get a regular MP below-the-line again at GE 2017. If you are able to help - time, advice or donations - please do get in touch either via Vanilla or the Facebook page below.
IM not Amber Rudd's biggest fan, but the contrast between her on police numbers vs Diane Abbott is just so stark...
Rudd - Polished, on her brief and able to answer questions Abbott - Not polished, doesn't know the costings (presumably because they never bothered to work it out anyway - why would you will Bill somebody's money) or even divert from questions she doesn't know the answer to
With all due respect to Nick, I think this may be PB's best chance to get a regular MP below-the-line again at GE 2017. If you are able to help - time, advice or donations - please do get in touch either via Vanilla or the Facebook page below.
I'm no shill for May, but on the "meeting ordinary voters" - do you not think there is perhaps just the slightest security concern here ?
I'm sure she will meet some but for obvious reasons she's not going to be able to do spontaneous canvassing in every Labour marginal.
Every time I see May on TV walking around the streets there doesn't seem to be any security, although they must be in the background. But she's the first PM I've seen for a long time that doesn't have security people very close at hand all the time when in public.
As a youngster I accidentally caused a security incident around Dennis Thatcher....believe me there are lot of people following them at all times and (at least then) they acted first and asked questions later...resulting in me eating dirt as I was jumped on by a whole load of suited apes that appeared from seemingly nowhere.
With all due respect to Nick, I think this may be PB's best chance to get a regular MP below-the-line again at GE 2017. If you are able to help - time, advice or donations - please do get in touch either via Vanilla or the Facebook page below.
With all due respect to Nick, I think this may be PB's best chance to get a regular MP below-the-line again at GE 2017. If you are able to help - time, advice or donations - please do get in touch either via Vanilla or the Facebook page below.
With all due respect to Nick, I think this may be PB's best chance to get a regular MP below-the-line again at GE 2017. If you are able to help - time, advice or donations - please do get in touch either via Vanilla or the Facebook page below.
"Corbyn insists he isn’t embarrassed by Diane Abbott after her clusterf**k this morning. Get your popcorn ready, she’s touring the studios again this afternoon…"
With all due respect to Nick, I think this may be PB's best chance to get a regular MP below-the-line again at GE 2017. If you are able to help - time, advice or donations - please do get in touch either via Vanilla or the Facebook page below.
Labour would be reduced to about 130 MPs if they lost every seat on the list down to Don Valley, although it's likely they'll hold "easier" places in London and university seats like Exeter, York Central, Hammersmith.
With all due respect to Nick, I think this may be PB's best chance to get a regular MP below-the-line again at GE 2017. If you are able to help - time, advice or donations - please do get in touch either via Vanilla or the Facebook page below.
For reference, Don Valley last elected a Conservative in 1900 (as part of the then Doncaster constituency). It has been Labour since 1922.
Indeed. I have bet quite heavily on a Labour wipeout on a scale not seen since, say the 1920s. Recent polling has made me a little nervous (how the hell are they are on 28-29%???), but holding my nerve so far.
Comments
Why didn't Yvette Cooper promote the policy - maybe she has more sense
@PolhomeEditor: At least Diane Abbott is fronting up today and taking loads of media questions. Unlike the PM, it would seem ... http://www.cornwalllive.com/prime-minister-theresa-may-visits-cornwall-ahead-of-general-election/story-30306323-detail/story.html
If Brexit is a success then it really is all over for him in politics.
If Brexit is a disaster, he's saved this country from economic ruin once, he won't fancy doing it twice.
I think the accusation you're searching for is in fact bias.
She doesn't know anything about it, because she doesn't take her role as an Opposition spokesperson seriously and doesn't care about anything but playing games within the Labour party over when Jezza is leaving.
As more than one PBer has asked: why the hell are the public paying Short money for this shower?
Or is that far too simple?
John Woodcock tells @daily_politics Labour won't win election.
I hope to God he is right.
I'm sure she will meet some but for obvious reasons she's not going to be able to do spontaneous canvassing in every Labour marginal.
You have to find some reason to protest something you don't like even if the people you claim to be speaking for don't have a clue what you are going on about and frankly don't care.
https://mobile.twitter.com/jonisabear/status/859371322446675969/photo/1
http://www.gregmarshall4broxtowe.org.uk/
http://labourlist.org/2017/05/the-full-list-of-the-labour-partys-general-election-candidates-in-scotland/
In America, were Clinton or Trump let near anyone who hadn't been screened by security already?
You don't need to worry about Jeremy. He won't be Prime Minister.
How much does a policeman cost?
Jesus why can't people sometimes just admit their side are shit without having to damn the opposition?
Their plan is to introduce 2,500 police officer a year at a cost of ~ £32,000 per police officer (With £80 million extra ratcheting spend per year) yielding 10,000 officers at an ongoing cost of £320 million additional spending per year at the end of the parliament.
Sounds like GO is in favour of another referendum - how very LD/Blair..
Very exciting news!
With all due respect to Nick, I think this may be PB's best chance to get a regular MP below-the-line again at GE 2017. If you are able to help - time, advice or donations - please do get in touch either via Vanilla or the Facebook page below.https://twitter.com/Aaron4DonValley/status/859376117144322053
https://www.facebook.com/Aaron4DonValley/
Additionally, May is somewhat hoist by her own petard here. She did specifically say she wasn't getting involved in televised debates because she wanted to meet ordinary voters one-to-one. That was obvious nonsense, but she can hardly mumble something about security concerns if people say, "where are these ordinary voters, then?"
On the other hand, I get the sense that they feel that May is a relatively easy target with the right Labour leader (though they thought that about the posh boy too).
Rudd - Polished, on her brief and able to answer questions
Abbott - Not polished, doesn't know the costings (presumably because they never bothered to work it out anyway - why would you will Bill somebody's money) or even divert from questions she doesn't know the answer to
https://twitter.com/paddypower/status/859358503835664384
"Corbyn insists he isn’t embarrassed by Diane Abbott after her clusterf**k this morning. Get your popcorn ready, she’s touring the studios again this afternoon…"
good luck