Now only are her ratings at submerine levels but even The Mail is deserting the sinking ship. Only The Telegraph remains loyal finding reds under the bed to explain a protest where people don't like their compatriots and friends being burned to death in their own homes!
If she has any sence she will pack her bags this weekend - things are only going to get worse.
Are you suggesting it was arson?
If you have reason to speculate that then you better be speaking to the Met, not on here.
It was a shock but I'm coming to terms with the incoming Corbyn government. I'm not particularly rich or poor so no need to worry
Quite the opposite, if you're neither particularly rich or poor then you are exactly in the position where you need to worry most.
That's what I thought but I didn't want to say it...
It's the point which the Conservative campaign should have been making 100% certain was understood by everyone. Instead they just stood aside.
What point do you mean Richard?
That the cost of McDonnell's humongous spending spree would fall on the neither rich nor poor, for the obvious reasons that the poor have no money and the rich can get their money out, or simply won't be rich when the economy contracts.
We went through all this in the 70's... But everything in life is circular and so what goes around comes around...
Yahoo News: "Theresa May is unlikely to make it to the Tory party conference as Prime Minister, Michael Portillo has said, as he accused her of lacking humanity.
Mr Portillo, a former Cabinet member himself, said he would be amazed if Mrs May was still PM by October, when the Conservative Party conference takes place."
You would expect Mr. Portillo to have a good grasp of such matters, which naturally includes very close contacts within the Tory Party. If that were to happen, I think most party members would wish to see a full choice of candidates to emerge and definitely not as Mr. Smithson suggests, the next leader simply being chosen on the basis of he/she being "a safe pair of hands". A late Autumn or more likely a Spring 2018 General Election would then surely follow.
If the question had asked about stealing people's private property without compensation then I doubt it would have attracted as much support.
LOL - yeah, if the question was asked in a misleadingly emotive way, obviously the results would be different.
We might as well speculate about what poll results would be if people were asked whether they approved of "the evil, cold, baby-eating Tory government"
Now only are her ratings at submerine levels but even The Mail is deserting the sinking ship. Only The Telegraph remains loyal finding reds under the bed to explain a protest where people don't like their compatriots and friends being burned to death in their own homes!
If she has any sence she will pack her bags this weekend - things are only going to get worse.
She has got this far so she will not go now the DUP will vote for the QS. She will go at some time but the Autumn is the earliest IMO
She will step down probably during the summer recess to allow a leadership contest to take place and have a new PM in place before we get to the conference season in October. Would also be good to get over with before Brexit negotiations recommence in autumn as well. Otherwise she will probably not get to leave in an orderly fashion as it will be events going against her that force her out.
It was a shock but I'm coming to terms with the incoming Corbyn government. I'm not particularly rich or poor so no need to worry
Quite the opposite, if you're neither particularly rich or poor then you are exactly in the position where you need to worry most.
That's what I thought but I didn't want to say it...
It's the point which the Conservative campaign should have been making 100% certain was understood by everyone. Instead they just stood aside.
What point do you mean Richard?
That the cost of McDonnell's humongous spending spree would fall on the neither rich nor poor, for the obvious reasons that the poor have no money and the rich can get their money out.
At least the Labour manifesto was costed (unlike some). From memory a large portion of the funding was to come from bringing our corproation tax into line with the rest of G7 - hardly earth-shattering.
I appreciate that there's a body of opinion on this (otherwise very enjoyable site) that thinks a Corbyn Labour government would turn the UK overnight into a soviet republic overnight, but that's just pantomime make-believe. The policies that were set out in the manifesto were both sensible and popular. And I fully expect the Tories to adopt quite a few of them in the next decade as their long love-affair with neo-liberalism sours further.
Did not realise just how partisan this board was. Seems to be a place exclusively for Tories to froth at the mouth and hurl around insults (either implicitly or explicitly) at those who hold different views - far from extreme views, in most circumstances.
I've lurked and hoped discussion would become a little more calm and balanced, as opposed to the bile that's churned out on here repeatedly day after day in the past few weeks. Pretty clear that isn't going to happen. So, goodbye.
Corbynisn is coming Apocalypse,I'm looking forward to my new house ;-)
The new house may be nice, but your enjoyment might be somewhat diluted by having to share it with dozens of others, as in Havana after the revolution.
It's as if any last pretence of old-fashioned impartial and objective news journalism has finally collapsed with this incident, and the MSM has decided to go all-in with the rumour, guff, emoting and fake news of social media. They're all at it, equally, so the only sensible response is what my father and no doubt many others have started doing - not watching the news anymore, and going to bed instead.
Even when Diana died although there was a lot of hysteria the media on the whole was relatively sensible, apart from the red tops of course.
With this disaster we are getting wall-to-wall speculation from essentially every outlet. I honestly can't think of any other UK disaster of any type that has had such a response.
Did not realise just how partisan this board was. Seems to be a place exclusively for Tories to froth at the mouth and hurl around insults (either implicitly or explicitly) at those who hold different views - far from extreme views, in most circumstances.
A blessed respite from the rest of the *ENTIRE FUCKING INTERNET*, then?
May is going because her party is turfing her out.
The leaders of protest, however, will mysteriously take credit. They will believe it, this encourages them to believe. This ratchets things up and so it goes on.
I point out again to anyone who is listening. The 'former official' or whatever he was who spoke to the press about Corbyn's files was sent out for a reason.
It was a shock but I'm coming to terms with the incoming Corbyn government. I'm not particularly rich or poor so no need to worry
Quite the opposite, if you're neither particularly rich or poor then you are exactly in the position where you need to worry most.
That's what I thought but I didn't want to say it...
It's the point which the Conservative campaign should have been making 100% certain was understood by everyone. Instead they just stood aside.
What point do you mean Richard?
That the cost of McDonnell's humongous spending spree would fall on the neither rich nor poor, for the obvious reasons that the poor have no money and the rich can get their money out.
At least the Labour manifesto was costed (unlike some). From memory a large portion of the funding was to come from bringing our corproation tax into line with the rest of G7 - hardly earth-shattering.
I appreciate that there's a body of opinion on this (otherwise very enjoyable site) that thinks a Corbyn Labour government would turn the UK overnight into a soviet republic overnight,
Actually I don't think he would do it overnight... Term One would probably be quite modest (by his standard's) but my God if he got a second term in office...
Does feel in the last 24 hours the tide is turning a bit against Corbyn, Lily Allen and the mob. If we do get riots I wonder how lasting their impact will be.
Yahoo News: "Theresa May is unlikely to make it to the Tory party conference as Prime Minister, Michael Portillo has said, as he accused her of lacking humanity.
Mr Portillo, a former Cabinet member himself, said he would be amazed if Mrs May was still PM by October, when the Conservative Party conference takes place."
You would expect Mr. Portillo to have a good grasp of such matters, which naturally includes very close contacts within the Tory Party. If that were to happen, I think most party members would wish to see a full choice of candidates to emerge and definitely not as Mr. Smithson suggests, the next leader simply being chosen on the basis of he/she being "a safe pair of hands". A late Autumn or more likely a Spring 2018 General Election would then surely follow.
I think that a late autumn election is very unlikely. I would take a few weeks for a new PM to put there own stamp on the party by which time we are likely to be into October already. Spring 2018 is possible but I think that Spring 2019 after Brexit is more likely.
It was a shock but I'm coming to terms with the incoming Corbyn government. I'm not particularly rich or poor so no need to worry
Quite the opposite, if you're neither particularly rich or poor then you are exactly in the position where you need to worry most.
That's what I thought but I didn't want to say it...
It's the point which the Conservative campaign should have been making 100% certain was understood by everyone. Instead they just stood aside.
What point do you mean Richard?
That the cost of McDonnell's humongous spending spree would fall on the neither rich nor poor, for the obvious reasons that the poor have no money and the rich can get their money out.
At least the Labour manifesto was costed (unlike some). From memory a large portion of the funding was to come from bringing our corproation tax into line with the rest of G7 - hardly earth-shattering.
I appreciate that there's a body of opinion on this (otherwise very enjoyable site) that thinks a Corbyn Labour government would turn the UK overnight into a soviet republic overnight, but that's just pantomime make-believe. The policies that were set out in the manifesto were both sensible and popular. And I fully expect the Tories to adopt quite a few of them in the next decade as their long love-affair with neo-liberalism sours further.
You do not get corporation tax. Trump is seeking to reduce US to 15%, Macron to 25%, Ireland is 12.5% which the DUP want to match, and neither the SNP or the Lib Dems support labour's tax hike.
With Brexit it would be an act of enormous self harm and the IFS condemned the proposals as fantasy land
Did not realise just how partisan this board was. Seems to be a place exclusively for Tories to froth at the mouth and hurl around insults (either implicitly or explicitly) at those who hold different views - far from extreme views, in most circumstances.
I've lurked and hoped discussion would become a little more calm and balanced, as opposed to the bile that's churned out on here repeatedly day after day in the past few weeks. Pretty clear that isn't going to happen. So, goodbye.
See you at Comment is Free then where you can have Corbynista comment undiluted by more than a handful of Tories, for a political discussion site PB is actually probably one of the most balanced
I point out again to anyone who is listening. The 'former official' or whatever he was who spoke to the press about Corbyn's files was sent out for a reason.
Are you implying MI5/MI6 are trying to stop Corbyn because they believe he is a threat to national security?
Corbyn's thuggish mob causing mayhem on the streets tonight - thiswhat Labour Members and MPs have embraced and support.
Pshaw. What mob? What mayhem? What embrace? I see a march, some scuffles, and a candlelit vigil.
Yes, there will be a few Class War masked trouble-makers (like the incident you show with the photographer, I suppose). Yes people are upset. But mayhem? Don't be so hysterical, precisely with the kind of political agenda that you project onto others.
Take out the Don't Knows for a headline figure at that's a revolutions worth of support.
It depends how the question is asked.
In any case, it's irrelevant. People can be rehoused without confiscating property.
The Tory-led Kensington & Chelsea council have said they don't have enough places to rehouse everyone within the borough.
Is the Labour Mayor of London doing anything to help?
Dunno. But I'm just a bit confused that some on PB keep insisting there's supposedly loads of housing available to meet the needs of the Grenfell residents, when even the council themselves have said that's not true.
Corbyn's idea of using absentee landlords' places may or may not be a good or practical idea, but to say it's "irrelevant" or "unnecessary" on the basis of there already being plenty of houses for the people in need is being flatly contradicted.
Point I'm trying to make is that we should not politicise this yet, I would not be surprised if there are Labour councils on the other side of town thinking 'There but for the grace of God'
Yahoo News: "Theresa May is unlikely to make it to the Tory party conference as Prime Minister, Michael Portillo has said, as he accused her of lacking humanity.
Mr Portillo, a former Cabinet member himself, said he would be amazed if Mrs May was still PM by October, when the Conservative Party conference takes place."
You would expect Mr. Portillo to have a good grasp of such matters, which naturally includes very close contacts within the Tory Party. If that were to happen, I think most party members would wish to see a full choice of candidates to emerge and definitely not as Mr. Smithson suggests, the next leader simply being chosen on the basis of he/she being "a safe pair of hands". A late Autumn or more likely a Spring 2018 General Election would then surely follow.
Not necessarily at all, Major took over in 1990 and there was no general election for 2 years, when Brown took over there was no election for another 3 years
It's surprising that as yet there's no market on TMay's departure date as P.M. Based solely on this thread, you'd be fortunate to get evens on her lasting another week.
Did not realise just how partisan this board was. Seems to be a place exclusively for Tories to froth at the mouth and hurl around insults (either implicitly or explicitly) at those who hold different views - far from extreme views, in most circumstances.
A blessed respite from the rest of the *ENTIRE FUCKING INTERNET*, then?
We're not all Tories on this site and many of those that are a fairly open-minded I've found. One of the reasons I like the site, even though I am outnumbered.
(And the swivel-eyed contingent are unintentionally quite hilarious too!)
She may just dig in her famous heels and say 'I am going nowhere'
A week's a long time etc. If she can get through the next week I reckon she may last until the Brexit process is over - Brexit negotiations finally underway, optics of Davis emerging from meetings with folders under an arm and "getting on with the job", the QS will pass and the Grenfell thing will dissipate when the media circus inevitably gets bored, then it's the summer and nobody cares about politics.
It was a shock but I'm coming to terms with the incoming Corbyn government. I'm not particularly rich or poor so no need to worry
Quite the opposite, if you're neither particularly rich or poor then you are exactly in the position where you need to worry most.
That's what I thought but I didn't want to say it...
It's the point which the Conservative campaign should have been making 100% certain was understood by everyone. Instead they just stood aside.
What point do you mean Richard?
That the cost of McDonnell's humongous spending spree would fall on the neither rich nor poor, for the obvious reasons that the poor have no money and the rich can get their money out.
At least the Labour manifesto was costed (unlike some). From memory a large portion of the funding was to come from bringing our corproation tax into line with the rest of G7 - hardly earth-shattering.
I appreciate that there's a body of opinion on this (otherwise very enjoyable site) that thinks a Corbyn Labour government would turn the UK overnight into a soviet republic overnight, but that's just pantomime make-believe. The policies that were set out in the manifesto were both sensible and popular. And I fully expect the Tories to adopt quite a few of them in the next decade as their long love-affair with neo-liberalism sours further.
You do not get corporation tax. Trump is seeking to reduce US to 15%, Macron to 25%, Ireland is 12.5% which the DUP want to match, and neither the SNP or the Lib Dems support labour's tax hike.
With Brexit it would be an act of enormous self harm and the IFS condemned the proposals as fantasy land
Plus Corbyn would put the top tax rate back up to 50%, and lower the threshold for the 45p rate and renationalise a number of industries, the last thing we need post Brexit
Corbyn's thuggish mob causing mayhem on the streets tonight - thiswhat Labour Members and MPs have embraced and support.
Pshaw. What mob? What mayhem? What embrace? I see a march, some scuffles, and a candlelit vigil.
Yes, there will be a few Class War masked trouble-makers (like the incident you show with the photographer, I suppose). Yes people are upset. But mayhem? Don't be so hysterical, precisely with the kind of political agenda that you project onto others.
What the f**k are they turning up for at all? Its not a political protest is it?
Yahoo News: "Theresa May is unlikely to make it to the Tory party conference as Prime Minister, Michael Portillo has said, as he accused her of lacking humanity.
Mr Portillo, a former Cabinet member himself, said he would be amazed if Mrs May was still PM by October, when the Conservative Party conference takes place."
You would expect Mr. Portillo to have a good grasp of such matters, which naturally includes very close contacts within the Tory Party. If that were to happen, I think most party members would wish to see a full choice of candidates to emerge and definitely not as Mr. Smithson suggests, the next leader simply being chosen on the basis of he/she being "a safe pair of hands". A late Autumn or more likely a Spring 2018 General Election would then surely follow.
Not necessarily at all, Major took over in 1990 and there was no general election for 2 years, when Brown took over there was no election for another 3 years
But unlike the present untenable situation, both Brown and Major inherited majorities.
It was a shock but I'm coming to terms with the incoming Corbyn government. I'm not particularly rich or poor so no need to worry
A Corbyn government would be the most leftwing in our history, we would all have reason to worry. Though I think a Sanders presidency may come first
Sanders is just a regular social democrat in European terms though
As is Corbyn.
Regular European social democrats hob-nob with terrorists, support unilateral disarmament, side with every nutty South American revolutionary movement including Castro, refuse to sing their national anthem until forced to by their spin-meisters, want to increase their country's deficit from a current very high level to some indeterminate but clearly off-the-scale level, want to nationalise everything in sight, and advocate requisition of private property when there is a nasty fire?
May is going because her party is turfing her out.
The leaders of protest, however, will mysteriously take credit. They will believe it, this encourages them to believe. This ratchets things up and so it goes on.
I point out again to anyone who is listening. The 'former official' or whatever he was who spoke to the press about Corbyn's files was sent out for a reason.
Yet still the dim and the bitter treat him like a messiah.
The tide is in and lapping around the Prime Minister's neck. Try and get real.
Oh yes she's struggling to breathe, but the protesters are scoring an own goal for Corbyn in the eyes of the quiet majority. Leave the anger and grieving to the families.
Personally I think PB needs to go and have a nice lie down in a quiet room. I may be wrong, but I suggest that this weekend will see neither riots in the streets (not counting scuffles at the town hall) nor any elected politician calling for them nor May's resignation. We can expect demos and the odd anarchist trying to stir it, but the march, singing and prayers this evening seem a proportionate action by frustrated people.
Don't know Nick. It's going to be a very hot weekend and tensions are rising... Hopefully we won't have any riots but I think it would be a brave (or complacent) man to say things won't blow this weekend.
We saw the precedent just a few short years ago.
There a few things militating against rioting at the moment. One is that in the wake of the election there is hope of democratic change. In 2011 we were in the middle of a stable austerity government. Another is that a lot of people have died in tragic circumstances and most people don't want any more people to get hurt. Arson is almost certainly out of the question. And finally it's the Jo Cox anniversary and it's the "Great Get-Together" weekend. This won't affect the hardened trouble-makers but it will create an atmosphere that's antithetical to rioting for a few days at least.
But it is a powder keg and it'd be wise for Corbyn to make it clear that he is not espousing a violent revolution.
Corbyn's thuggish mob causing mayhem on the streets tonight - thiswhat Labour Members and MPs have embraced and support.
Pshaw. What mob? What mayhem? What embrace? I see a march, some scuffles, and a candlelit vigil.
Yes, there will be a few Class War masked trouble-makers (like the incident you show with the photographer, I suppose). Yes people are upset. But mayhem? Don't be so hysterical, precisely with the kind of political agenda that you project onto others.
The "storming" of the council offices did look quite worrying on the News, I thought.
If you'd been a secretary or maybe even a Councillor in that office block I think it would have been a pretty intimidating moment...
Maybe not "mayhem" or a "mob" as such but still pretty unusual behavior...
Yahoo News: "Theresa May is unlikely to make it to the Tory party conference as Prime Minister, Michael Portillo has said, as he accused her of lacking humanity.
Mr Portillo, a former Cabinet member himself, said he would be amazed if Mrs May was still PM by October, when the Conservative Party conference takes place."
You would expect Mr. Portillo to have a good grasp of such matters, which naturally includes very close contacts within the Tory Party. If that were to happen, I think most party members would wish to see a full choice of candidates to emerge and definitely not as Mr. Smithson suggests, the next leader simply being chosen on the basis of he/she being "a safe pair of hands". A late Autumn or more likely a Spring 2018 General Election would then surely follow.
Not necessarily at all, Major took over in 1990 and there was no general election for 2 years, when Brown took over there was no election for another 3 years
But unlike the present untenable situation, both Brown and Major inherited majorities.
Callaghan lasted for 3 years inheriting a majority of only 3, pretty similar to today
Take out the Don't Knows for a headline figure at that's a revolutions worth of support.
It depends how the question is asked.
In any case, it's irrelevant. People can be rehoused without confiscating property.
The Tory-led Kensington & Chelsea council have said they don't have enough places to rehouse everyone within the borough.
Is the Labour Mayor of London doing anything to help?
Dunno. But I'm just a bit confused that some on PB keep insisting there's supposedly loads of housing available to meet the needs of the Grenfell residents, when even the council themselves have said that's not true.
Corbyn's idea of using absentee landlords' places may or may not be a good or practical idea, but to say it's "irrelevant" or "unnecessary" on the basis of there already being plenty of houses for the people in need is being flatly contradicted.
Point I'm trying to make is that we should not politicise this yet, I would not be surprised if there are Labour councils on the other side of town thinking 'There but for the grace of God'
Sure, but I wasn't actually blaming the council. It's way too premature to be deciding who's to "blame" for this tragedy, before we have any real concrete indicators
I was just asking why Sean F (and Richard Nabavi earlier) is saying that there's lot of empty houses for Grenfall residents to go to within Kensington, when the council themselves say that there aren't those houses, and that consequently some residents will have to be housed in other boroughs. (Hence why Corbyn's suggestion of requisitioning vacant properties owned by absentee landlords in Kensington might be a possible solution.)
Did not realise just how partisan this board was. Seems to be a place exclusively for Tories to froth at the mouth and hurl around insults (either implicitly or explicitly) at those who hold different views - far from extreme views, in most circumstances.
I've lurked and hoped discussion would become a little more calm and balanced, as opposed to the bile that's churned out on here repeatedly day after day in the past few weeks. Pretty clear that isn't going to happen. So, goodbye.
Oh just get stuck in. I think I've been attacked from all directions at one time or another. It's bracing.
Take out the Don't Knows for a headline figure at that's a revolutions worth of support.
It depends how the question is asked.
In any case, it's irrelevant. People can be rehoused without confiscating property.
The Tory-led Kensington & Chelsea council have said they don't have enough places to rehouse everyone within the borough.
Is the Labour Mayor of London doing anything to help?
Dunno. But I'm just a bit confused that some on PB keep insisting there's supposedly loads of housing available to meet the needs of the Grenfell residents, when even the council themselves have said that's not true.
Corbyn's idea of using absentee landlords' places may or may not be a good or practical idea, but to say it's "irrelevant" or "unnecessary" on the basis of there already being plenty of houses for the people in need is being flatly contradicted.
Point I'm trying to make is that we should not politicise this yet, I would not be surprised if there are Labour councils on the other side of town thinking 'There but for the grace of God'
I don't think it matters which council - the politics comes from the 7 year squeeze on public services plus 7 years of increasing inequality.
It's surprising that as yet there's no market on TMay's departure date as P.M. Based solely on this thread, you'd be fortunate to get evens on her lasting another week.
Sure, but I wasn't actually blaming the council. I was just asking why Sean F (and Richard Nabavi earlier) is saying that there's lot of empty houses for Grenfall residents to go to within Kensington, when the council themselves say that there aren't those houses, and that consequently some residents will have to be housed in other boroughs. (Hence why Corbyn's suggestion of requisitioning vacant properties owned by absentee landlords in Kensington might be a solution.))
Who said anything about Kensington? London is a city of 8.5m people with superb transport facilities. If I lived in London, and my home was burnt down, I wouldn't expect not to have to move to a neighbouring borough if that's what was required.
Take out the Don't Knows for a headline figure at that's a revolutions worth of support.
It depends how the question is asked.
In any case, it's irrelevant. People can be rehoused without confiscating property.
The Tory-led Kensington & Chelsea council have said they don't have enough places to rehouse everyone within the borough.
Is the Labour Mayor of London doing anything to help?
Dunno. But I'm just a bit confused that some on PB keep insisting there's supposedly loads of housing available to meet the needs of the Grenfell residents, when even the council themselves have said that's not true.
Corbyn's idea of using absentee landlords' places may or may not be a good or practical idea, but to say it's "irrelevant" or "unnecessary" on the basis of there already being plenty of houses for the people in need is being flatly contradicted.
Point I'm trying to make is that we should not politicise this yet, I would not be surprised if there are Labour councils on the other side of town thinking 'There but for the grace of God'
I don't think it matters which council - the politics comes from the 7 year squeeze on public services plus 7 years of increasing inequality.
Do you think that Gordon Brown spent:
A ) too much; B ) about the right amount; or C ) too little?
May is going because her party is turfing her out.
The leaders of protest, however, will mysteriously take credit. They will believe it, this encourages them to believe. This ratchets things up and so it goes on.
I point out again to anyone who is listening. The 'former official' or whatever he was who spoke to the press about Corbyn's files was sent out for a reason.
Are we going to see more speaking out to the press about Corbyn's past?
Take out the Don't Knows for a headline figure at that's a revolutions worth of support.
It depends how the question is asked.
In any case, it's irrelevant. People can be rehoused without confiscating property.
The Tory-led Kensington & Chelsea council have said they don't have enough places to rehouse everyone within the borough.
Is the Labour Mayor of London doing anything to help?
Dunno. But I'm just a bit confused that some on PB keep insisting there's supposedly loads of housing available to meet the needs of the Grenfell residents, when even the council themselves have said that's not true.
Corbyn's idea of using absentee landlords' places may or may not be a good or practical idea, but to say it's "irrelevant" or "unnecessary" on the basis of there already being plenty of houses for the people in need is being flatly contradicted.
Point I'm trying to make is that we should not politicise this yet, I would not be surprised if there are Labour councils on the other side of town thinking 'There but for the grace of God'
Sure, but I wasn't actually blaming the council. It's way too premature to be deciding who's to "blame" for this tragedy, before we have any real concrete indicators
I was just asking why Sean F (and Richard Nabavi earlier) is saying that there's lot of empty houses for Grenfall residents to go to within Kensington, when the council themselves say that there aren't those houses, and that consequently some residents will have to be housed in other boroughs. (Hence why Corbyn's suggestion of requisitioning vacant properties owned by absentee landlords in Kensington might be a possible solution.)
Take out the Don't Knows for a headline figure at that's a revolutions worth of support.
It depends how the question is asked.
In any case, it's irrelevant. People can be rehoused without confiscating property.
The Tory-led Kensington & Chelsea council have said they don't have enough places to rehouse everyone within the borough.
Is the Labour Mayor of London doing anything to help?
Dunno. But I'm just a bit confused that some on PB keep insisting there's supposedly loads of housing available to meet the needs of the Grenfell residents, when even the council themselves have said that's not true.
Corbyn's idea of using absentee landlords' places may or may not be a good or practical idea, but to say it's "irrelevant" or "unnecessary" on the basis of there already being plenty of houses for the people in need is being flatly contradicted.
Point I'm trying to make is that we should not politicise this yet, I would not be surprised if there are Labour councils on the other side of town thinking 'There but for the grace of God'
I don't think it matters which council - the politics comes from the 7 year squeeze on public services plus 7 years of increasing inequality.
Do you think that Gordon Brown spent:
A ) too much; B ) about the right amount; or C ) too little?
Who said anything about Kensington? London is a city of 8.5m people with superb transport facilities. If I lived in London, and my home was burnt down, I wouldn't expect not to have to move to a neighbouring borough if that's what was required.
Indeed housed outside the borough might mean literally less than half a mile away. It's unlikely that people will be rehoused at the other end of the country.
Watching May on Newsnight. She is hopeless, completely and utterly clueless. The idea that she can continue is simply ridiculous.
Thankyou for the view from the SNP, perhaps you might be better off focusing on why Sturgeon lost 13% of her 2015 vote before you spend too long attacking the PM who increased hers by 5%!
May is going because her party is turfing her out.
The leaders of protest, however, will mysteriously take credit. They will believe it, this encourages them to believe. This ratchets things up and so it goes on.
I point out again to anyone who is listening. The 'former official' or whatever he was who spoke to the press about Corbyn's files was sent out for a reason.
Are we going to see more speaking out to the press about Corbyn's past?
It wouldn't be hard to see what's coming if they think the street is where they going to change the established and accepted political process. There is nothing novel about the tactics or the potential here, there is many a handbook on it. The danger is that a major political party's leadership is not without knowledge of nor sympathy such to an approach.
It will, if they get too clever, and certain ex-parliamentarians on this site should read carefully, be cut down.
I am a football nut but I am sick of death of it, it is June for God's sake.
Two of my grandsons are decent goalkeepers and I took them GK training this evening, I stood there watching wondering when the season will ever end.
Also took two of my other grandsons to cricket matches on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday evenings this week, a much more pleasant experience.
Couple of beers, no-one thinking their child is going to be the next Wayne Rooney and propel them to riches beyond their wildest dreams, just altogether much more civilised
A month ago Theresa May and Sam Allardyce were offering strong and stable leadership. I could relax, knowing my football club and my country were in - maybe, at last, just may be - safe hands.
A month on and there's no leader and an incompetent leader in the respective positions. On my fucking uppers here.
Take out the Don't Knows for a headline figure at that's a revolutions worth of support.
It depends how the question is asked.
In any case, it's irrelevant. People can be rehoused without confiscating property.
The Tory-led Kensington & Chelsea council have said they don't have enough places to rehouse everyone within the borough.
Is the Labour Mayor of London doing anything to help?
Dunno. But I'm just a bit confused that some on PB keep insisting there's supposedly loads of housing available to meet the needs of the Grenfell residents, when even the council themselves have said that's not true.
Corbyn's idea of using absentee landlords' places may or may not be a good or practical idea, but to say it's "irrelevant" or "unnecessary" on the basis of there already being plenty of houses for the people in need is being flatly contradicted.
Point I'm trying to make is that we should not politicise this yet, I would not be surprised if there are Labour councils on the other side of town thinking 'There but for the grace of God'
I don't think it matters which council - the politics comes from the 7 year squeeze on public services plus 7 years of increasing inequality.
Do you think that Gordon Brown spent:
A ) too much; B ) about the right amount; or C ) too little?
that's B )
There is some merit in the idea of fixing the roof when the sun is shining. It is not that her ran a sensible deficit, it is that her ran it over as period of unprecedented growth and bulging tax receipts.
The most ardent Labour supporting economist would not seek to defend such behaviour. And thereafter bringing spending back was always going to upset his enlarged client state.
Did not realise just how partisan this board was. Seems to be a place exclusively for Tories to froth at the mouth and hurl around insults (either implicitly or explicitly) at those who hold different views - far from extreme views, in most circumstances.
I've lurked and hoped discussion would become a little more calm and balanced, as opposed to the bile that's churned out on here repeatedly day after day in the past few weeks. Pretty clear that isn't going to happen. So, goodbye.
Oh please stay. Need more sense on here. There is an understandable backlash against having pissed away a majority. People are thrashing around for someone (anyone) to blame. The same people were cheering on the election when it was called as a master stroke. It will pass.
I have to say I've noticed a change on this site since the election results. Analysis of events seems to be much more along the 'straw grasping / what i want to happen' side of things rather than the more cool headed analysis from before. Seems like the marmite feelings towards Corbyn have polarised people even more than Brexit has. This tower incident in particular seems to be bringing out those who cynically accuse Corbyn of photoshoots while not accusing May of the same, and seem to want to sweep away the current protests as being mere SWP fronts. Even if the hard left have become involved, it is clear that there is real anger at the situation, we are not being brainwashed by SWP members.
Sure, but I wasn't actually blaming the council. I was just asking why Sean F (and Richard Nabavi earlier) is saying that there's lot of empty houses for Grenfall residents to go to within Kensington, when the council themselves say that there aren't those houses, and that consequently some residents will have to be housed in other boroughs. (Hence why Corbyn's suggestion of requisitioning vacant properties owned by absentee landlords in Kensington might be a solution.))
Who said anything about Kensington? London is a city of 8.5m people with superb transport facilities. If I lived in London, and my home was burnt down, I wouldn't expect not to have to move to a neighbouring borough if that's what was required.
Constant moving does seem to be a modern feature for people both in social and private rented housing. The merry go round of poorer kids moving schools at alarmingly regular intervals is now something that will entrench disadvantage in the generation to come. The difficulty in local rehousing, rather than being specific to the large number of survivors who have lost their homes here, is another aspect of the wider housing issue, and not just in London. And many too will have family members in particular hospitals for months to come.
The housing situation has reached an extent where 59% of the population have taken an essentially Marxist view on property rights.
Remarkable
The one constant of British popular opinion is that the voters hate freedom.
Not quite. They hate people who are a bit richer than they are.
I couldn't help laughing at the excellent comic and no doubt well paid actor Rob Delaney on QT last night. He'd joined Momentum but presumably believed he was part of the many not the few.
Re a Corbyn government, it could happen but it certainly isn't guaranteed. The last few weeks should surely tell anyone that politics is highly unpredictable right now and public opinion is very fickle.
We'll have to wait and see what the future brings.
But I actually think the government may well survive for several years yet. They'll get the QS pasted and only focus on Brexit for the rest of the term.
Corbynisn is coming Apocalypse,I'm looking forward to my new house ;-)
Sure, but I wasn't actually blaming the council. I was just asking why Sean F (and Richard Nabavi earlier) is saying that there's lot of empty houses for Grenfall residents to go to within Kensington, when the council themselves say that there aren't those houses, and that consequently some residents will have to be housed in other boroughs. (Hence why Corbyn's suggestion of requisitioning vacant properties owned by absentee landlords in Kensington might be a solution.))
Who said anything about Kensington? London is a city of 8.5m people with superb transport facilities. If I lived in London, and my home was burnt down, I wouldn't expect not to have to move to a neighbouring borough if that's what was required.
Fine, but other people have the view that it's not fair for these people to have to uproot themselves and their whole lives, move away from their friends and family, because of a tragedy like this, when there's tons of perfectly good flats and houses right there in the area which aren't being lived in.
What you seemed to be implying earlier was that Corbyn was just saying this to be ideological, that he was talking about a problem which didn't exist, but in reality, everyone (including the Conservative council) seems to agree there is a problem: there aren't enough available houses for all Grenfell people within Kensington. Whether this problem matters enough (which you seem to think not), or whether Corbyn's solution is practical (which frankly even I have my doubts about), are different issues.
I have to say I've noticed a change on this site since the election results. Analysis of events seems to be much more along the 'straw grasping / what i want to happen' side of things rather than the more cool headed analysis from before. Seems like the marmite feelings towards Corbyn have polarised people even more than Brexit has. This tower incident in particular seems to be bringing out those who cynically accuse Corbyn of photoshoots while not accusing May of the same, and seem to want to sweep away the current protests as being mere SWP fronts. Even if the hard left have become involved, it is clear that there is real anger at the situation, we are not being brainwashed by SWP members.
Yes, well if there is anger it should be directed at the local council housing cttee, the architects and the construction firm, Greenfell Tower was tragic but while May can be held responsible for many things this fire was not one of them!
Personally I think PB needs to go and have a nice lie down in a quiet room. I may be wrong, but I suggest that this weekend will see neither riots in the streets (not counting scuffles at the town hall) nor any elected politician calling for them nor May's resignation. We can expect demos and the odd anarchist trying to stir it, but the march, singing and prayers this evening seem a proportionate action by frustrated people.
But for those who do think she's going, note that SeanT's suggestions for a replacement, David and Hammond, are fingered by the article in the Standard as precisely the two who were keenest on the snap election - Hammond in particular because he expects the economy to deteriorate. Doesn't the same loic dictate that he won't be keen to grab the reins at this point?
I'd like to thank Nick for trying to calm us all down on PB. We need some of that Scandinavian coolness right now IMO.
I probably sound like a jobsworth twat, but it's really bugging me how reporters are questioning the "stay put" policy. It is clear that there was a breakdown in the evacuation procedure in Grenfell, but for me, stay put coupled with phased evacuation is the only way to deal with a highrise incident. By trying to discredit the policy, they're going to make minor incidents in highrise very difficult for FRS around the country.
To be fair to reporters, I think there are two elements to their questioning.
First, as you point out, Grenfell was a clusterfuck - and it would require a superhuman act of denial for them not to report the stories of residents calling emergency services being advised to remain in their flats as the building burned around them. (That said, there were also cases reported of residents being led to safety from high up in the building, hours after the fire started, by firefighters with breathing apparatus able to lead them down when otherwise they might have been unable to make it through the smoke.)
More generally, though, are they entirely wrong to question the policy ? I quite take your point that these older buildings were designed so that a 'stay put' policy was/is both practical and reasonable. The circumstances of Grenfell however clearly raise the question as to whether, for some of that building stock, the fire separation has been entirely compromised by the cladding of some buildings with inflammable material. This is where answers are needed very fast indeed (and I appreciate this might be difficult or even impossible), otherwise residents of re-cladded buildings are effectively being asked to gamble with their lives if the policy is maintained. This is one area where government must commit large resources quickly - either to demonstrate the problem is limited, or to show the need for urgent measures to mitigate it.
One of the many problems with May is that she appears agonisingly slow to make her mind up.
(As for phased evacuation, the building in Australia where they had the similar fire a couple of years back had a building wide alarm system which sounded at one minute intervals by floor (first above, and then below the floor on which the alarm was triggered) which allowed for automatic phased evacuation. It did also have two stairwells and a sprinkler system, though...)
Take out the Don't Knows for a headline figure at that's a revolutions worth of support.
It depends how the question is asked.
In any case, it's irrelevant. People can be rehoused without confiscating property.
The Tory-led Kensington & Chelsea council have said they don't have enough places to rehouse everyone within the borough.
Is the Labour Mayor of London doing anything to help?
Dunno. But I'm just a bit confused that some on PB keep insisting there's supposedly loads of housing available to meet the needs of the Grenfell residents, when even the council themselves have said that's not true.
Corbyn's idea of using absentee landlords' places may or may not be a good or practical idea, but to say it's "irrelevant" or "unnecessary" on the basis of there already being plenty of houses for the people in need is being flatly contradicted.
Point I'm trying to make is that we should not politicise this yet, I would not be surprised if there are Labour councils on the other side of town thinking 'There but for the grace of God'
I don't think it matters which council - the politics comes from the 7 year squeeze on public services plus 7 years of increasing inequality.
Do you think that Gordon Brown spent:
A ) too much; B ) about the right amount; or C ) too little?
that's B )
There was is some merit in the idea of fixing the roof when the sun is shining. It is not that her ran a sensible deficit, it is that her ran it over as period of unprecedented growth and bulging tax receipts.
The most ardent Labour supporting economist would not seek to defend such behaviour. And thereafter bringing spending back was always going to upset his enlarged client state.
You can reduce the deficit by cutting spending or raising taxes. Osborne's failed low-spend, low-tax approach has come home to roost now as many people realise that public services have been cut too far. The fact that wealthiest have got even richer through this tory era just rubs salt in the wound.
I probably sound like a jobsworth twat, but it's really bugging me how reporters are questioning the "stay put" policy. It is clear that there was a breakdown in the evacuation procedure in Grenfell, but for me, stay put coupled with phased evacuation is the only way to deal with a highrise incident. By trying to discredit the policy, they're going to make minor incidents in highrise very difficult for FRS around the country.
To be fair to reporters, I think there are two elements to their questioning.
First, as you point out, Grenfell was a clusterfuck - and it would require a superhuman act of denial for them not to report the stories of residents calling emergency services being advised to remain in their flats as the building burned around them. (That said, there were also cases reported of residents being led to safety from high up in the building, hours after the fire started, by firefighters with breathing apparatus able to lead them down when otherwise they might have been unable to make it through the smoke.)
More generally, though, are they entirely wrong to question the policy ? I quite take your point that these older buildings were designed so that a 'stay put' policy was/is both practical and reasonable. The circumstances of Grenfell however clearly raise the question as to whether, for some of that building stock, the fire separation has been entirely compromised by the cladding of some buildings with inflammable material. This is where answers are needed very fast indeed (and I appreciate this might be difficult or even impossible), otherwise residents of re-cladded buildings are effectively being asked to gamble with their lives if the policy is maintained. This is one area where government must commit large resources quickly - either to demonstrate the problem is limited, or to show the need for urgent measures to mitigate it.
One of the many problems with May is that she appears agonisingly slow to make her mind up.
(As for phased evacuation, the building in Australia where they had the similar fire a couple of years back had a building wide alarm system which sounded at one minute intervals by floor (first above, and then below the floor on which the alarm was triggered) which allowed for automatic phased evacuation. It did also have two stairwells and a sprinkler system, though...)
Parachutes to be issued to everyone living on the tenth floor or higher?
Take out the Don't Knows for a headline figure at that's a revolutions worth of support.
It depends how the question is asked.
In any case, it's irrelevant. People can be rehoused without confiscating property.
The Tory-led Kensington & Chelsea council have said they don't have enough places to rehouse everyone within the borough.
Is the Labour Mayor of London doing anything to help?
Dunno. But I'm just a bit confused that some on PB keep insisting there's supposedly loads of housing available to meet the needs of the Grenfell residents, when even the council themselves have said that's not true.
Corbyn's idea of using absentee landlords' places may or may not be a good or practical idea, but to say it's "irrelevant" or "unnecessary" on the basis of there already being plenty of houses for the people in need is being flatly contradicted.
Point I'm trying to make is that we should not politicise this yet, I would not be surprised if there are Labour councils on the other side of town thinking 'There but for the grace of God'
I don't think it matters which council - the politics comes from the 7 year squeeze on public services plus 7 years of increasing inequality.
Do you think that Gordon Brown spent:
A ) too much; B ) about the right amount; or C ) too little?
that's B )
There was is some merit in the idea of fixing the roof when the sun is shining. It is not that her ran a sensible deficit, it is that her ran it over as period of unprecedented growth and bulging tax receipts.
The most ardent Labour supporting economist would not seek to defend such behaviour. And thereafter bringing spending back was always going to upset his enlarged client state.
You can reduce the deficit by cutting spending or raising taxes. Osborne's failed low-spend, low-tax approach has come home to roost now as many people realise that public services have been cut too far. The fact that wealthiest have got even richer through this tory era just rubs salt in the wound.
Spending was out of control under Gordon. It is the closest thing to an objective political fact you will ever get.
It was a shock but I'm coming to terms with the incoming Corbyn government. I'm not particularly rich or poor so no need to worry
A Corbyn government would be the most leftwing in our history, we would all have reason to worry. Though I think a Sanders presidency may come first
Sanders is just a regular social democrat in European terms though
As is Corbyn.
Regular European social democrats hob-nob with terrorists, support unilateral disarmament, side with every nutty South American revolutionary movement including Castro, refuse to sing their national anthem until forced to by their spin-meisters, want to increase their country's deficit from a current very high level to some indeterminate but clearly off-the-scale level, want to nationalise everything in sight, and advocate requisition of private property when there is a nasty fire?
Well, it's a view, I suppose.
And, he increased the Labour vote by 10 percentage points.
I have to say I've noticed a change on this site since the election results. Analysis of events seems to be much more along the 'straw grasping / what i want to happen' side of things rather than the more cool headed analysis from before. Seems like the marmite feelings towards Corbyn have polarised people even more than Brexit has. This tower incident in particular seems to be bringing out those who cynically accuse Corbyn of photoshoots while not accusing May of the same, and seem to want to sweep away the current protests as being mere SWP fronts. Even if the hard left have become involved, it is clear that there is real anger at the situation, we are not being brainwashed by SWP members.
Yes, well if there is anger it should be directed at the local council housing cttee, the architects and the construction firm, Greenfell Tower was tragic but while May can be held responsible for many things this fire was not one of them!
I agree with all of that - I don't blame May or the government for the fire, although I think her decision not to visit residents was a mistake, even if they would have heckled her. But the justified anger against this situation is now being dismissed as mere SWP protests. At best there would be a couple of infiltrating SWPers but the actual people affected by this are angry, and justifiably so. Also Corbyn himself has not said anything to stoke up tensions yet, but people here seem to act like he has behaved disgustingly - he is simply rightly angry at the situation.
Corbyn's thuggish mob causing mayhem on the streets tonight - thiswhat Labour Members and MPs have embraced and support.
Pshaw. What mob? What mayhem? What embrace? I see a march, some scuffles, and a candlelit vigil.
Yes, there will be a few Class War masked trouble-makers (like the incident you show with the photographer, I suppose). Yes people are upset. But mayhem? Don't be so hysterical, precisely with the kind of political agenda that you project onto others.
What the f**k are they turning up for at all? Its not a political protest is it?
Violent anarchists think everything is political and every disaster is something to exploit. Normally people just eye them irritably and tell them to shove off. So far, on this occasion as well, they have not been able to generate significant violence, and it really is unfair to local residents to imply that they're a violent mob because they shove their way into a town hall reception area or shout at politicians (no worse than I've experienced myself). I think it's understandable that they're annoyed and what we've seen so far is not a disproportionate response - primarily they seem frustrated. Wouldn't we all feel a bit like that?
Note that I've not particularly blamed Mrs May either. She's not proving very naturally sympathetic, and that's a pity, but she's not shrugged it off either.
Dire interview from May on Newsnight, someone end this.
Artificial empathy is worse than no empathy.
The worst thing about the interview was her refusal to give direct answers to hard questions, and instead repeating the preprepared lines. Just sounded awful. I know that is standard operating procedure for political interviews, but this was not a standard political interview.
What you seemed to be implying earlier was that Corbyn was just saying this to be ideological, that he was talking about a problem which didn't exist, but in reality, everyone (including the Conservative council) seems to agree there is a problem: there aren't enough available houses for all Grenfell people within Kensington. Whether this problem matters enough (which you seem to think not), or whether Corbyn's solution is practical (which frankly even I have my doubts about), are different issues.
Of course it's not a Marxist fantasy, it's a cold-bloodied piece of cynical politicising. We're grown-ups here, we don't need to make the absurd pretence that anyone in Labour seriously thinks it's a good idea.
Oh, and the idea there are 'tons of perfectly good flats and houses right there in the area which aren't being lived in' is nonsense, as the LSE report for Sadiq Khan confirmed:
It was a shock but I'm coming to terms with the incoming Corbyn government. I'm not particularly rich or poor so no need to worry
A Corbyn government would be the most leftwing in our history, we would all have reason to worry. Though I think a Sanders presidency may come first
Sanders is just a regular social democrat in European terms though
As is Corbyn.
Regular European social democrats hob-nob with terrorists, support unilateral disarmament, side with every nutty South American revolutionary movement including Castro, refuse to sing their national anthem until forced to by their spin-meisters, want to increase their country's deficit from a current very high level to some indeterminate but clearly off-the-scale level, want to nationalise everything in sight, and advocate requisition of private property when there is a nasty fire?
Well, it's a view, I suppose.
There's a ready market in crazy backward-looking populism. The EU referendum showed it last year and Jeremy Corbyn is showing it this year.
The forces of sober and good administration have been routed.
I am not going to encourage a mob, but the residents of Grenfell are rightly angry.
Its their situation. Its what happens if the uninvolved start to become involved.
The uninvolved have a right to be angry too - it could have just as easily been them. If you lived in a tower identical to Grenfell, would you sleep easy tonight?
I have to say I've noticed a change on this site since the election results. Analysis of events seems to be much more along the 'straw grasping / what i want to happen' side of things rather than the more cool headed analysis from before. Seems like the marmite feelings towards Corbyn have polarised people even more than Brexit has. This tower incident in particular seems to be bringing out those who cynically accuse Corbyn of photoshoots while not accusing May of the same, and seem to want to sweep away the current protests as being mere SWP fronts. Even if the hard left have become involved, it is clear that there is real anger at the situation, we are not being brainwashed by SWP members.
Yes, well if there is anger it should be directed at the local council housing cttee, the architects and the construction firm, Greenfell Tower was tragic but while May can be held responsible for many things this fire was not one of them!
But her response can be. Part of being PM is the ability to empathise with people in times of tragedy. And be perceived to be in control of the situation (even if you aren't).
Corbyn's thuggish mob causing mayhem on the streets tonight - thiswhat Labour Members and MPs have embraced and support.
Pshaw. What mob? What mayhem? What embrace? I see a march, some scuffles, and a candlelit vigil.
Yes, there will be a few Class War masked trouble-makers (like the incident you show with the photographer, I suppose). Yes people are upset. But mayhem? Don't be so hysterical, precisely with the kind of political agenda that you project onto others.
What the f**k are they turning up for at all? Its not a political protest is it?
Violent anarchists think everything is political and every disaster is something to exploit. Normally people just eye them irritably and tell them to shove off. So far, on this occasion as well, they have not been able to generate significant violence, and it really is unfair to local residents to imply that they're a violent mob because they shove their way into a town hall reception area or shout at politicians (no worse than I've experienced myself). I think it's understandable that they're annoyed and what we've seen so far is not a disproportionate response - primarily they seem frustrated. Wouldn't we all feel a bit like that?
Note that I've not particularly blamed Mrs May either. She's not proving very naturally sympathetic, and that's a pity, but she's not shrugged it off either.
I do believe that when Theresa May stands down Brexit as wanted by UKIP will be gone for good
Apparently she isn't standing down. The DUP will save her or something
She will in time for the next GE whenever that is. The next interesting question will be whether the SNP and the Lib Dems decide to vote for or against or abstain on the QS
Zero chance they would vote for it, surely?
I am only asking the question.
However the SNP and the Lib Dems do not want an election anytime soon
It's hard to know if parties could actually oppose a motion depending on the context and public perception, but Labour are currently the only party who want a quick election.
I don't think defeating the QS would be enough to trigger an election under the FTPA - it has to be a vote of no confidence.
The PM would resign, Corbyn could not be able to put together a Government, and so another GE
Or why not simply represent a revised QS addressing the concerns of the (presumably few) Tories who didn't vote for it?
Looks like that is what is going to happen
Indeed, but I bet SNP & LibDems join Labour in voting against, and it passes by handful of votes.
SNP maybe but listening to Vince Cable I doubt the lib dems will vote against
Lib Dems already in bed with the Tories ? When will they ever learn ?
It was a shock but I'm coming to terms with the incoming Corbyn government. I'm not particularly rich or poor so no need to worry
A Corbyn government would be the most leftwing in our history, we would all have reason to worry. Though I think a Sanders presidency may come first
Sanders is just a regular social democrat in European terms though
As is Corbyn.
Regular European social democrats hob-nob with terrorists, support unilateral disarmament, side with every nutty South American revolutionary movement including Castro, refuse to sing their national anthem until forced to by their spin-meisters, want to increase their country's deficit from a current very high level to some indeterminate but clearly off-the-scale level, want to nationalise everything in sight, and advocate requisition of private property when there is a nasty fire?
Well, it's a view, I suppose.
And, he increased the Labour vote by 10 percentage points.
It was a shock but I'm coming to terms with the incoming Corbyn government. I'm not particularly rich or poor so no need to worry
A Corbyn government would be the most leftwing in our history, we would all have reason to worry. Though I think a Sanders presidency may come first
Sanders is just a regular social democrat in European terms though
As is Corbyn.
Regular European social democrats hob-nob with terrorists, support unilateral disarmament, side with every nutty South American revolutionary movement including Castro, refuse to sing their national anthem until forced to by their spin-meisters, want to increase their country's deficit from a current very high level to some indeterminate but clearly off-the-scale level, want to nationalise everything in sight, and advocate requisition of private property when there is a nasty fire?
Well, it's a view, I suppose.
And, he increased the Labour vote by 10 percentage points.
Social Democracy is dead in Europe, even the supposed revival of the SPD under Schulz has fallen flat. The way ahead in Europe for the left it seems is either Blairite centrist like Renzi or Macron or populist left like Syriza, Corbyn Labour or Melenchon and Podemos
Comments
If you have reason to speculate that then you better be speaking to the Met, not on here.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/16/mustafa-almansur-organiser-grenfell-tower-protest-movement/amp/
How really stubborn is Theresa May
She may just dig in her famous heels and say 'I am going nowhere'
"Theresa May is unlikely to make it to the Tory party conference as Prime Minister, Michael Portillo has said, as he accused her of lacking humanity.
Mr Portillo, a former Cabinet member himself, said he would be amazed if Mrs May was still PM by October, when the Conservative Party conference takes place."
You would expect Mr. Portillo to have a good grasp of such matters, which naturally includes very close contacts within the Tory Party.
If that were to happen, I think most party members would wish to see a full choice of candidates to emerge and definitely not as Mr. Smithson suggests, the next leader simply being chosen on the basis of he/she being "a safe pair of hands".
A late Autumn or more likely a Spring 2018 General Election would then surely follow.
We might as well speculate about what poll results would be if people were asked whether they approved of "the evil, cold, baby-eating Tory government"
Otherwise she will probably not get to leave in an orderly fashion as it will be events going against her that force her out.
I appreciate that there's a body of opinion on this (otherwise very enjoyable site) that thinks a Corbyn Labour government would turn the UK overnight into a soviet republic overnight, but that's just pantomime make-believe. The policies that were set out in the manifesto were both sensible and popular. And I fully expect the Tories to adopt quite a few of them in the next decade as their long love-affair with neo-liberalism sours further.
I've lurked and hoped discussion would become a little more calm and balanced, as opposed to the bile that's churned out on here repeatedly day after day in the past few weeks. Pretty clear that isn't going to happen. So, goodbye.
With this disaster we are getting wall-to-wall speculation from essentially every outlet. I honestly can't think of any other UK disaster of any type that has had such a response.
May is going because her party is turfing her out.
The leaders of protest, however, will mysteriously take credit. They will believe it, this encourages them to believe. This ratchets things up and so it goes on.
I point out again to anyone who is listening. The 'former official' or whatever he was who spoke to the press about Corbyn's files was sent out for a reason.
Spring 2018 is possible but I think that Spring 2019 after Brexit is more likely.
With Brexit it would be an act of enormous self harm and the IFS condemned the proposals as fantasy land
Yes, there will be a few Class War masked trouble-makers (like the incident you show with the photographer, I suppose). Yes people are upset. But mayhem? Don't be so hysterical, precisely with the kind of political agenda that you project onto others.
The tide is in and lapping around the Prime Minister's neck. Try and get real.
Based solely on this thread, you'd be fortunate to get evens on her lasting another week.
(And the swivel-eyed contingent are unintentionally quite hilarious too!)
Well, it's a view, I suppose.
There a few things militating against rioting at the moment. One is that in the wake of the election there is hope of democratic change. In 2011 we were in the middle of a stable austerity government. Another is that a lot of people have died in tragic circumstances and most people don't want any more people to get hurt. Arson is almost certainly out of the question. And finally it's the Jo Cox anniversary and it's the "Great Get-Together" weekend. This won't affect the hardened trouble-makers but it will create an atmosphere that's antithetical to rioting for a few days at least.
But it is a powder keg and it'd be wise for Corbyn to make it clear that he is not espousing a violent revolution.
If you'd been a secretary or maybe even a Councillor in that office block I think it would have been a pretty intimidating moment...
Maybe not "mayhem" or a "mob" as such but still pretty unusual behavior...
I was just asking why Sean F (and Richard Nabavi earlier) is saying that there's lot of empty houses for Grenfall residents to go to within Kensington, when the council themselves say that there aren't those houses, and that consequently some residents will have to be housed in other boroughs. (Hence why Corbyn's suggestion of requisitioning vacant properties owned by absentee landlords in Kensington might be a possible solution.)
A ) too much;
B ) about the right amount; or
C ) too little?
It will, if they get too clever, and certain ex-parliamentarians on this site should read carefully, be cut down.
Two of my grandsons are decent goalkeepers and I took them GK training this evening, I stood there watching wondering when the season will ever end.
Also took two of my other grandsons to cricket matches on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday evenings this week, a much more pleasant experience.
Couple of beers, no-one thinking their child is going to be the next Wayne Rooney and propel them to riches beyond their wildest dreams, just altogether much more civilised
A month on and there's no leader and an incompetent leader in the respective positions. On my fucking uppers here.
The most ardent Labour supporting economist would not seek to defend such behaviour. And thereafter bringing spending back was always going to upset his enlarged client state.
It will pass.
I couldn't help laughing at the excellent comic and no doubt well paid actor Rob Delaney on QT last night. He'd joined Momentum but presumably believed he was part of the many not the few.
What you seemed to be implying earlier was that Corbyn was just saying this to be ideological, that he was talking about a problem which didn't exist, but in reality, everyone (including the Conservative council) seems to agree there is a problem: there aren't enough available houses for all Grenfell people within Kensington. Whether this problem matters enough (which you seem to think not), or whether Corbyn's solution is practical (which frankly even I have my doubts about), are different issues.
First, as you point out, Grenfell was a clusterfuck - and it would require a superhuman act of denial for them not to report the stories of residents calling emergency services being advised to remain in their flats as the building burned around them. (That said, there were also cases reported of residents being led to safety from high up in the building, hours after the fire started, by firefighters with breathing apparatus able to lead them down when otherwise they might have been unable to make it through the smoke.)
More generally, though, are they entirely wrong to question the policy ? I quite take your point that these older buildings were designed so that a 'stay put' policy was/is both practical and reasonable. The circumstances of Grenfell however clearly raise the question as to whether, for some of that building stock, the fire separation has been entirely compromised by the cladding of some buildings with inflammable material.
This is where answers are needed very fast indeed (and I appreciate this might be difficult or even impossible), otherwise residents of re-cladded buildings are effectively being asked to gamble with their lives if the policy is maintained.
This is one area where government must commit large resources quickly - either to demonstrate the problem is limited, or to show the need for urgent measures to mitigate it.
One of the many problems with May is that she appears agonisingly slow to make her mind up.
(As for phased evacuation, the building in Australia where they had the similar fire a couple of years back had a building wide alarm system which sounded at one minute intervals by floor (first above, and then below the floor on which the alarm was triggered) which allowed for automatic phased evacuation.
It did also have two stairwells and a sprinkler system, though...)
Low spend = stopping the incontinence.
Note that I've not particularly blamed Mrs May either. She's not proving very naturally sympathetic, and that's a pity, but she's not shrugged it off either.
More a cup of tea and a strongly worded letter the local councils housing committee surely?
I know that is standard operating procedure for political interviews, but this was not a standard political interview.
Oh, and the idea there are 'tons of perfectly good flats and houses right there in the area which aren't being lived in' is nonsense, as the LSE report for Sadiq Khan confirmed:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/house-prices/almost-no-evidence-london-homes-owned-foreign-buyers-left-empty/
The forces of sober and good administration have been routed.