Whilst we have no idea as to what the CPS is about to say , if prosecutions of one or more MPs occur it will enable Labour to run with the message 'Now we know the real reason for the calling of this election - despite TMs repeated deials of such an intention'. There would be some mileage in that - and it would undermine May's image of honesty and being straight forward.
If that was the reason, surely she would have callled it for before the deadline?
But she has done!
The last deadline is June 7th, so that's just wrong.
I am not sure what you are saying. She has called the election before the deadline!!
"Called it for" as in she called it for June 8th.
I am afraid you are not making yourself clear here . You replied to my initial comment with 'If that was the reason, surely she would have callled it for before the deadline?'.I have pointed out that that is precisely what she has done!
Yes, called it for May 4th, for example. I'm not talking about the day of the announcement.
In any case, if this was about expenses, why would she set the date *after* the deadine?
Which lucky bag carrier will get the Thanet South nod then ?
I wonder if George Osborne fancies being the MP for Thanet South, would be easier editing The Standard from Thanet than Tatton.
Is it not a bit down market for George?
Well at Oxford he was told he was an oik because he attended St Paul's and not Eton.
So after St Paul's and Oxford University, he's used to going to down market places.
"he's used to going to down market places."
You are now officially off my Christmas card list !
I'm sure Thanet is lovely, I was merely going off Francis Urquhart's word that it was a bit down market.
Plus I wasn't going to miss an opportunity to diss Oxford University.
TBH Thanet is a dump-and most Thanitians would agree on that.
But Sandwhich and the villages are very nice.
I spent a glorious summer in Sandwich learning to play bridge from someone who was sent down from Oxford for taking £1,000* off the Master of his College the night before he was facing a rustication meeting for spending too much time playing cards...
Whilst we have no idea as to what the CPS is about to say , if prosecutions of one or more MPs occur it will enable Labour to run with the message 'Now we know the real reason for the calling of this election - despite TMs repeated deials of such an intention'. There would be some mileage in that - and it would undermine May's image of honesty and being straight forward.
If that was the reason, surely she would have callled it for before the deadline?
But she has done!
The last deadline is June 7th, so that's just wrong.
I am not sure what you are saying. She has called the election before the deadline!!
"Called it for" as in she called it for June 8th.
I am afraid you are not making yourself clear here . You replied to my initial comment with 'If that was the reason, surely she would have callled it for before the deadline?'.I have pointed out that that is precisely what she has done!
Yes, called it for May 4th, for example. I'm not talking about the day of the announcement.
In any case, if this was about expenses, why would she set the date *after* the deadine?
That is beside the point. You really are totally incoherent here - which is unlike you. I suspect that alcohol has intervened. . Good Night.
One of those who might be a stand-in FBI director is Andrew McCabe. His wife ran for state senate in VA as a democrat in 2015, and got an eye poppingly large $700k contribution from a PAC run by Clinton pal and VA governor Terry McAuliffe.
The decision to fire Comey was based on a recommendation from deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, confirmed 96-4 on April 25th.
Whilst we have no idea as to what the CPS is about to say , if prosecutions of one or more MPs occur it will enable Labour to run with the message 'Now we know the real reason for the calling of this election - despite TMs repeated deials of such an intention'. There would be some mileage in that - and it would undermine May's image of honesty and being straight forward.
If that was the reason, surely she would have callled it for before the deadline?
But she has done!
The last deadline is June 7th, so that's just wrong.
I am not sure what you are saying. She has called the election before the deadline!!
"Called it for" as in she called it for June 8th.
I am afraid you are not making yourself clear here . You replied to my initial comment with 'If that was the reason, surely she would have callled it for before the deadline?'.I have pointed out that that is precisely what she has done!
Yes, called it for May 4th, for example. I'm not talking about the day of the announcement.
In any case, if this was about expenses, why would she set the date *after* the deadine?
That is beside the point. You really are totally incoherent here - which is unlike you. I suspect that alcohol has intervened. . Good Night.
LOL, what? She called the election for June 8th. That is the context I was using "called it for" in.
I'm not sure how my question is besides the point, and it now looks like you are deflecting by accusing me of being drunk.
Whilst we have no idea as to what the CPS is about to say , if prosecutions of one or more MPs occur it will enable Labour to run with the message 'Now we know the real reason for the calling of this election - despite TMs repeated deials of such an intention'. There would be some mileage in that - and it would undermine May's image of honesty and being straight forward.
If that was the reason, surely she would have callled it for before the deadline?
But she has done!
The last deadline is June 7th, so that's just wrong.
I am not sure what you are saying. She has called the election before the deadline!!
"Called it for" as in she called it for June 8th.
I am afraid you are not making yourself clear here . You replied to my initial comment with 'If that was the reason, surely she would have callled it for before the deadline?'.I have pointed out that that is precisely what she has done!
Yes, called it for May 4th, for example. I'm not talking about the day of the announcement.
In any case, if this was about expenses, why would she set the date *after* the deadine?
That is beside the point. You really are totally incoherent here - which is unlike you. I suspect that alcohol has intervened. . Good Night.
LOL, what? She called the election for June 8th. That is the context I was using "called it for" in.
I'm not sure how my question is besides the point, and it now looks like you are deflecting by accusing me of being drunk.
I have never accused you of being drunk. I just assumed it
Whilst we have no idea as to what the CPS is about to say , if prosecutions of one or more MPs occur it will enable Labour to run with the message 'Now we know the real reason for the calling of this election - despite TMs repeated deials of such an intention'. There would be some mileage in that - and it would undermine May's image of honesty and being straight forward.
If that was the reason, surely she would have callled it for before the deadline?
But she has done!
The last deadline is June 7th, so that's just wrong.
I am not sure what you are saying. She has called the election before the deadline!!
"Called it for" as in she called it for June 8th.
I am afraid you are not making yourself clear here . You replied to my initial comment with 'If that was the reason, surely she would have callled it for before the deadline?'.I have pointed out that that is precisely what she has done!
Yes, called it for May 4th, for example. I'm not talking about the day of the announcement.
In any case, if this was about expenses, why would she set the date *after* the deadine?
That is beside the point. You really are totally incoherent here - which is unlike you. I suspect that alcohol has intervened. . Good Night.
LOL, what? She called the election for June 8th. That is the context I was using "called it for" in.
I'm not sure how my question is besides the point, and it now looks like you are deflecting by accusing me of being drunk.
I have never accused you of being drunk. I just assumed it
Whilst we have no idea as to what the CPS is about to say , if prosecutions of one or more MPs occur it will enable Labour to run with the message 'Now we know the real reason for the calling of this election - despite TMs repeated deials of such an intention'. There would be some mileage in that - and it would undermine May's image of honesty and being straight forward.
If that was the reason, surely she would have callled it for before the deadline?
But she has done!
The last deadline is June 7th, so that's just wrong.
I am not sure what you are saying. She has called the election before the deadline!!
"Called it for" as in she called it for June 8th.
I am afraid you are not making yourself clear here . You replied to my initial comment with 'If that was the reason, surely she would have callled it for before the deadline?'.I have pointed out that that is precisely what she has done!
Yes, called it for May 4th, for example. I'm not talking about the day of the announcement.
In any case, if this was about expenses, why would she set the date *after* the deadine?
That is beside the point. You really are totally incoherent here - which is unlike you. I suspect that alcohol has intervened. . Good Night.
LOL, what? She called the election for June 8th. That is the context I was using "called it for" in.
I'm not sure how my question is besides the point, and it now looks like you are deflecting by accusing me of being drunk.
I have never accused you of being drunk. I just assumed it
Whilst we have no idea as to what the CPS is about to say , if prosecutions of one or more MPs occur it will enable Labour to run with the message 'Now we know the real reason for the calling of this election - despite TMs repeated deials of such an intention'. There would be some mileage in that - and it would undermine May's image of honesty and being straight forward.
If that was the reason, surely she would have callled it for before the deadline?
But she has done!
The last deadline is June 7th, so that's just wrong.
I am not sure what you are saying. She has called the election before the deadline!!
"Called it for" as in she called it for June 8th.
I am afraid you are not making yourself clear here . You replied to my initial comment with 'If that was the reason, surely she would have callled it for before the deadline?'.I have pointed out that that is precisely what she has done!
Yes, called it for May 4th, for example. I'm not talking about the day of the announcement.
In any case, if this was about expenses, why would she set the date *after* the deadine?
That is beside the point. You really are totally incoherent here - which is unlike you. I suspect that alcohol has intervened. . Good Night.
LOL, what? She called the election for June 8th. That is the context I was using "called it for" in.
I'm not sure how my question is besides the point, and it now looks like you are deflecting by accusing me of being drunk.
I have never accused you of being drunk. I just assumed it
By the way I am seeing Libdem ads on youtube and PB.com. Very bad targetting resources since I voted LEAVE, Voted tory last time am in a safe labour seat (12,000+ majority) and will be voting tory again. Any other PB tories seeing this. Really a waste of their limited resources, sell Libdems. Theonly reason to advertise to me is that i live in a council that was 60% REMAIN.
MsNBC saying this is worse than the Saturday Night Massacre in 1973.
It must be overreaction Tuesday.
The attorney general and his deputy resigned in protest on that occasion; this time around they are acting as the President's willing pawns. I'd say MSNBC have it about right.
Funny how the same talking heads who have spent the last few days saying Comey should resign over his role in the Clinton emails, now think it was terrible that he got fired and it must have been because of the Russians!
One of those who might be a stand-in FBI director is Andrew McCabe. His wife ran for state senate in VA as a democrat in 2015, and got an eye poppingly large $700k contribution from a PAC run by Clinton pal and VA governor Terry McAuliffe.
The decision to fire Comey was based on a recommendation from deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, confirmed 96-4 on April 25th.
(written a couple of months ago but only appeared now for some editorial reason))
It's a very interesting and well written article but which at the end seems to completely miss the point. It's not the question of whether the McDonnell amendment gives members a wide choice from both the left and the right but the impossibility of having a functioning party if the majority of MPs don't have confidence in their leader.
From £500 bet on Le Pen to claiming his son did it to claiming the whole thing was a hoax and he is actually a London remainer playing a prank it appears @wollygogg has finally given up and deleted his twitter account completely.
The prankster didn't reveal his personal views, but given that his intention was to mock the credulity of remainers it is at least possible he was a leaver.
The Conservatives are growing very ambitious. Provided that the news from the CPS doesn't do them lasting harm, Sedgefield could be in play. Challenging, but not impossible.
(written a couple of months ago but only appeared now for some editorial reason))
It's a very interesting and well written article but which at the end seems to completely miss the point. It's not the question of whether the McDonnell amendment gives members a wide choice from both the left and the right but the impossibility of having a functioning party if the majority of MPs don't have confidence in their leader.
By my analysis, using Iain Dale's seat-by-seat predictions as a guide (rash, I know), there'll be about 22-23 of Corbyn's original nominators left in parliament after the election (discounting those that only nominated him for the fun of seeing him lose). Add a few more for new Corbynites parachuting into safe seat vacancies and the best estimate for the left's MPs on June 9th is about 25. Which is almost exactly 15% of Dale's forecast Labour seat figure of 165.
So the 'problem' might solve itself without the McD amendment!
(written a couple of months ago but only appeared now for some editorial reason))
It's a very interesting and well written article but which at the end seems to completely miss the point. It's not the question of whether the McDonnell amendment gives members a wide choice from both the left and the right but the impossibility of having a functioning party if the majority of MPs don't have confidence in their leader.
By my analysis, using Iain Dale's seat-by-seat predictions as a guide (rash, I know), there'll be about 22-23 of Corbyn's original nominators left in parliament after the election (discounting those that only nominated him for the fun of seeing him lose). Add a few more for new Corbynites parachuting into safe seat vacancies and the best estimate for the left's MPs on June 9th is about 25. Which is almost exactly 15% of Dale's forecast Labour seat figure of 165.
So the 'problem' might solve itself without the McD amendment!
And what a sad state of affairs. I have some sympathy for those leftist MPs who voted for their man but the others who voted to see him lose have effectively wrecked the party.
It looks likely Labour will split which I think is a good thing. We need a strong centre left party and until they have a clear out like they did Militant in the 80's it's not going to happen.
The Conservatives are growing very ambitious. Provided that the news from the CPS doesn't do them lasting harm, Sedgefield could be in play. Challenging, but not impossible.
Lord Mandelson, the architect of new Labour, suggested moderate MPs could learn a lesson from the victory of Emmanuel Macron in the French presidential elections.
He said that the “simple truth of Macron’s victory is that he won by leaving his party, not despite doing so. We have to understand just how fed up people are with traditional party structures”.
How many times have we heard the rumour of a breakaway since Corbyn got elected? Why should this talk result in anything different?
Because they have tried and failed a number of times to depose Corbyn and regain their party. If Corbyn leads them to a disastrous defeat and refuses to step down they have five more years of the same to look forward to. Macron has shown them what is possible. If they split away in sufficient numbers they can form the official opposition with all the perks that that entails. If they have any sense they will make PR (by STV preferably) their new party policy and make agreements with the LibDems and Greens.The old Corbynite Labour party can remain as a small extreme left group as it always should have been.
When I was an assistant photographer I had to take something to Red Star which was a parcel service run by British Rail.
I walked into a scruffy office with a counter and on the other side was a man in uniform sitting on a wooden chair reading a newspaper. He glanced up and saw me with my parcel and went back to his fag and his newspaper. After several minutes he carefully folded his paper stood up and said "Is this what you're sending....."
I was an ardent lefty back then and I loathed the Tories but I don't want to go back to those days and I'm afraid that's what Corbyn spells to me and many who were alive in the 70's.
His time has gone and though I sympathise with his ideals the thought of service and the related problems with the unions in those days makes me shiver.
Comments
In any case, if this was about expenses, why would she set the date *after* the deadine?
*This was in the mid 1920s...
The decision to fire Comey was based on a recommendation from deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, confirmed 96-4 on April 25th.
I'm not sure how my question is besides the point, and it now looks like you are deflecting by accusing me of being drunk.
It must be overreaction Tuesday.
The Gulf Stream plant is in Savannah Georgia. They turn out an excellent product. On several occasions I've been fortunate enough to fly in one.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/05/rod_rosenstein_is_being_used.html
The whole world knows he is. The prestige of the US has dropped like a stone.
The Conservatives are growing very ambitious. Provided that the news from the CPS doesn't do them lasting harm, Sedgefield could be in play. Challenging, but not impossible.
So the 'problem' might solve itself without the McD amendment!
It looks likely Labour will split which I think is a good thing. We need a strong centre left party and until they have a clear out like they did Militant in the 80's it's not going to happen.
If they split away in sufficient numbers they can form the official opposition with all the perks that that entails.
If they have any sense they will make PR (by STV preferably) their new party policy and make agreements with the LibDems and Greens.The old Corbynite Labour party can remain as a small extreme left group as it always should have been.
I walked into a scruffy office with a counter and on the other side was a man in uniform sitting on a wooden chair reading a newspaper. He glanced up and saw me with my parcel and went back to his fag and his newspaper. After several minutes he carefully folded his paper stood up and said "Is this what you're sending....."
I was an ardent lefty back then and I loathed the Tories but I don't want to go back to those days and I'm afraid that's what Corbyn spells to me and many who were alive in the 70's.
His time has gone and though I sympathise with his ideals the thought of service and the related problems with the unions in those days makes me shiver.