Mr. B, yeah. Just like the tax question. Taxes should go up for the rich to pay for vital services, where 'the rich' are people who earn more than me, and 'vital services' are ones that I use.
To take the latter first and it's not surprising bookmakers are courting the support of MPs. They are frankly parasites and their High Street FOBTs are despicable. Gambling is a serious addiction yet whereas we try with smoking to warn people of the risks, successive Governments have liberalised gambling. The shops in East Ham open from 8am to 10pm and are places where I see people spending all day every day.
As for the former, companies need to be in the forefront of promoting a more caring and compassionate capitalism and not just paying lip service to customer service charters. Some firms are no doubt very good at this but there are others (and I suspect it's employees given unreasonable sales targets) who take the opportunity to prey on the vulnerable. That cannot be condoned.
How would you propose Sky should have figured out he had Alzheimer's?
The bank I work for has in the past two years introduced a lot of mandatory staff training on identifying and supporting vulnerable customers. I don't say they get it right all the time, and there have certainly been terrible incidents in the past but at least they are making an effort. I wonder how much training the Sky sales teams get? - it can be done.
Sure it can be done. But as I understand it he ordered the package (and used it) for 2 years before he was diagnosed.
I suppose you could argue that if a subscription product is not used for 12 months then companies should have a duty to revalidate the customer's needs, but in absence of a legal obligation that would be quite a burden for a company to voluntarily assume
Yes, fair enough - I don't know the individual circumstances and there are often two sides, but free market capitalism encourages all sorts of exploitation.
Your argument seems to be "the facts don't support me but I'm still right!" ...
(It is also why we have regulated market capitalism rather than free market capitalism...)
In fact Charles that was my point - we need the regulation as well as the market. But there are still a few dangerous neoliberals close to power (e.g. Fox, JRM) who want to push us further towards unfettered free marketism. Time to row back and have a country that works better for everyone.
I don't agree that Andrew Neil should be sacked. I do think that he has massively overstepped the boundary that any competent journalist should hold themselves to when considering Brexit, acting as a cheerleader rather than a seeker of truth. He's been doing the job long enough to know that.
And no, I don't think any of those TV journalists pinpointed as Remainers have behaved anywhere near as badly.
It is worth remembering where Daw Aung San Suu Kyi gets her authority, and also why this is vulnerable. Her father Aung San is recognised by the Burmese as the founder of the nation as well as its armed forces. He fought the British and British Indian colonial armies his whole life, and Burmese Muslims are seen as colonists.
Let's be honest - the West and particularly the left - have been absolutely conned by her. I completely include myself in that.
She is a politician, not a saint, and for most of her career was a politician in opposition. Political purity rarely survives long when it encounters the compromises of power.
The treatment of the Rohingya is deplorable, but control of the security forces in Burma is fragile at the best of times, and in frontier districts in particular. Multiculturalism is difficult for most countries to manage, but is particularly so for a place with such a fragile embryonic democracy.
I'm not looking for a saint, just someone who is against genocide. I don't feel that's setting the bar so very high.
If anything the situation seems to have gotten worse since she was released.
Witnesses say children are being beheaded and families burned alive....
One big problem I have with this idea that Labour's path to power looks increasingly likely is that it is ignoring the increasing divisions in Labour's electoral base. A key reason why Corbyn did as well as he did at the GE was that he managed to bridge the divide between the traditional Northern / Midlands WWC base and the metropolitan / liberal, middle class base - both sides found comfort in his comments and views. Even them, that did not stop Labour seeing erosion in its core base in many areas.
Over the past few weeks though, on policy terms, Corbyn has aligned himself with the metropolitan base, chiefly on the new Brexit policy but also in the Sarah Champion affair and his downplaying of the racial/ religious aspects of the grooming gangs. One wonders how much he is being influenced by Thornberry and Abbott. But the signal it sends to the traditional base of voters is their views count for less in the Labour party.
That is likely to turn out to be a mistake. The traditional base has shown a willingness to desert Labour over the past few elections. And a lot of the Yes vote for Brexit seems to have been driven by a desire by poorer demographics to send a FU signal to their "betters". If that base sees Labour as now in the hands of the middle-class types, the desertion rates will accelerate.
(It also has implications for Parliamentary votes. The focus has been on how Remain Tory MPs like Soubry and Morgan will vote but less so that the Brexiteers are likely to be able to count on the votes of Labour MPs such as Hoey, Mann and Stringer amongst others).
Funnily enough, I think the wild card that could bring this to a crunch is what happens in the UKIP leadership race, not because I think UKIP will suddenly take back masses of votes but because, if Anne-Marie Waters did actually snatch it, then it will go hard and loud in many of these Northern / Midland WWC towns on Labour's links with the Muslim community and the failure of Labour councils to take action. I could see that dissuading some Labour voters voting for the party, even if they do not switch.
The key reason the Tories are on 38% in this Survation poll is that UKIP are on 4%, up 3% on the 1% they got at the last general election. The priority for the Tories then must be to squeeze back the UKIP vote, if they did that they would be on 41% and would then only need to take 1% from Labour to be back to level pegging.
Been drinking some of that wishful-thinking brew again?
(I can spot it, 'cos I do it myself occasionally )
It is a fact though, if Labour was on 38% and say the Greens on 4% I would equally advise Corbyn to squeeze the Green vote first but he has already successfully done that
The problem is that there is not an automatic Tory 2nd pref for UKIP voters, as we saw at the GE. Where uKIP collapsed, the Tories benefited, but by much less than they expected, as many Kippers reverted to former Labour voting.
Yet some think Labour could become the party of Remain and would be able to hold on the kippers who returned home. Corbyn did incredibly well by building a broad coalition, offering to be all things to all people - it's not sustainable...
The key reason the Tories are on 38% in this Survation poll is that UKIP are on 4%, up 3% on the 1% they got at the last general election. The priority for the Tories then must be to squeeze back the UKIP vote, if they did that they would be on 41% and would then only need to take 1% from Labour to be back to level pegging.
Utter nonsense. The priority for the Tories is not the 4% of the population that 'may be squeezed' but the 58% of the nation that is neither voting Tory nor UKIP. A vote won off Labour is worth two votes from anyone else and there are a lot more of them that can be swung. Address housing, the NHS, education etc - don't go banging on about immigrants or whatever that the purple BNP now bang on about now that Brexit is real.
Housing, NHS, student fees and young people must be the conservatives top priority together with dealing with the fat cats, both in the public and private sectors, to achieve the centre ground and win in 2022
Housing - situation made worse by Cameron and Osborne NHS - situation made worse by Cameron and Osborne Student fees - situation made worse by Cameron and Osborne Young people - situation made worse by Cameron and Osborne Fatcats - situation made worse by Cameron and Osborne
You were warned, repeatedly.
Yet Conservative supporters here ra-ra-raad as Cameron and Osborne shifted the Conservatives from promoting aspiration to defending privilege.
It is now no surprise that the Tory who polls worst against Corbyn (according to last month's Survation), Hammond, is also the senior Tory most closely backed by Osborne. Apart from his inheritance tax cut there isn't much Osborne was promoting Corbyn could not capitalise on in June 2017
The robbing of the young The funding of vanity projects while public services were cut The trashing of "we're all in this together" The doom and disaster predictions which were shown to be false
Now if you look at the mentality behind Osborne's policies they make sense on a short term tactical basis - old people vote and the young don't, people like their houses to rise in value, keep people spending on consumer tat and foreign holidays.
But in a longer term strategic sense they're disastrous for the Conservatives and not good for the country.
To a large extent true, though to be fair to him Osborne's inheritance tax cut was the most popular policy the Tories have had for years and forced Brown to abandon his plans for a general election in 2007
I don't agree that Andrew Neil should be sacked. I do think that he has massively overstepped the boundary that any competent journalist should hold themselves to when considering Brexit, acting as a cheerleader rather than a seeker of truth. He's been doing the job long enough to know that.
And no, I don't think any of those TV journalists pinpointed as Remainers have behaved anywhere near as badly.
In that case you are blind and deaf. The cheerleading for Remain and against Brexit has been massive amongst TV and radio journalists. They have abandoned all semblance of neutrality and it is only because your share their views that you don't see it.
The Adnois Tweet about Neil is as ridiculous as all the right-wing conspiracy theories about the BBC being opposed to Brexit and biased against the right.
Mr. B, yeah. Just like the tax question. Taxes should go up for the rich to pay for vital services, where 'the rich' are people who earn more than me, and 'vital services' are ones that I use.
To take the latter first and it's not surprising bookmakers are courting the support of MPs. They are frankly parasites and their High Street FOBTs are despicable. Gambling is a serious addiction yet whereas we try with smoking to warn people of the risks, successive Governments have liberalised gambling. The shops in East Ham open from 8am to 10pm and are places where I see people spending all day every day.
As for the former, companies need to be in the forefront of promoting a more caring and compassionate capitalism and not just paying lip service to customer service charters. Some firms are no doubt very good at this but there are others (and I suspect it's employees given unreasonable sales targets) who take the opportunity to prey on the vulnerable. That cannot be condoned.
How would you propose Sky should have figured out he had Alzheimer's?
The bank I work for has in the past two years introduced a lot of mandatory staff training on identifying and supporting vulnerable customers. I don't say they get it right all the time, and there have certainly been terrible incidents in the past but at least they are making an effort. I wonder how much training the Sky sales teams get? - it can be done.
Sure it can be done. But as I understand it he ordered the package (and used it) for 2 years before he was diagnosed.
I suppose you could argue that if a subscription product is not used for 12 months then companies should have a duty to revalidate the customer's needs, but in absence of a legal obligation that would be quite a burden for a company to voluntarily assume
Yes, fair enough - I don't know the individual circumstances and there are often two sides, but free market capitalism encourages all sorts of exploitation.
Your argument seems to be "the facts don't support me but I'm still right!" ...
(It is also why we have regulated market capitalism rather than free market capitalism...)
In fact Charles that was my point - we need the regulation as well as the market. But there are still a few dangerous neoliberals close to power (e.g. Fox, JRM) who want to push us further towards unfettered free marketism. Time to row back and have a country that works better for everyone.
Well that certainly won't be the case if the socialists get anywhere near power.
I don't agree that Andrew Neil should be sacked. I do think that he has massively overstepped the boundary that any competent journalist should hold themselves to when considering Brexit, acting as a cheerleader rather than a seeker of truth. He's been doing the job long enough to know that.
And no, I don't think any of those TV journalists pinpointed as Remainers have behaved anywhere near as badly.
In that case you are blind and deaf. The cheerleading for Remain and against Brexit has been massive amongst TV and radio journalists. They have abandoned all semblance of neutrality and it is only because your share their views that you don't see it.
You're mistaking cheerleading with asking pertinent questions.
It is worth remembering where Daw Aung San Suu Kyi gets her authority, and also why this is vulnerable. Her father Aung San is recognised by the Burmese as the founder of the nation as well as its armed forces. He fought the British and British Indian colonial armies his whole life, and Burmese Muslims are seen as colonists.
Let's be honest - the West and particularly the left - have been absolutely conned by her. I completely include myself in that.
She is a politician, not a saint, and for most of her career was a politician in opposition. Political purity rarely survives long when it encounters the compromises of power.
The treatment of the Rohingya is deplorable, but control of the security forces in Burma is fragile at the best of times, and in frontier districts in particular. Multiculturalism is difficult for most countries to manage, but is particularly so for a place with such a fragile embryonic democracy.
I'm not looking for a saint, just someone who is against genocide. I don't feel that's setting the bar so very high.
If anything the situation seems to have gotten worse since she was released.
Witnesses say children are being beheaded and families burned alive....
The background to this latest (and I agree genocidal) heavy response to the Rohingya is the attack by armed and trained ARSA militants on police and border posts. This is an ominous Jihadi development.
I do not agree with the response, and it is likely to be counterproductive, but in guerilla wars, the civilians are the first and universal victims.
The Adnois Tweet about Neil is as ridiculous as all the right-wing conspiracy theories about the BBC being opposed to Brexit and biased against the right.
Yes - it's ridiculous. But what do you expect from twitter?
Here's a fun fact: the editor of the Today programme is Sarah sands, who was editor of the Evening Standard when it backed Boris Johnson and Zac Goldsmith for London mayor. Of course, both were also prominent Leave advocates.
I don't agree that Andrew Neil should be sacked. I do think that he has massively overstepped the boundary that any competent journalist should hold themselves to when considering Brexit, acting as a cheerleader rather than a seeker of truth. He's been doing the job long enough to know that.
And no, I don't think any of those TV journalists pinpointed as Remainers have behaved anywhere near as badly.
In that case you are blind and deaf. The cheerleading for Remain and against Brexit has been massive amongst TV and radio journalists. They have abandoned all semblance of neutrality and it is only because your share their views that you don't see it.
You're mistaking cheerleading with asking pertinent questions.
Start following Faisal Islam on Twitter and you'll see what Richard means...
Is the UK seeking single market membership, no, so anything else will be a FTA of some form
The UK is seeking an agreement that goes beyond trade, so clearly what is finally agreed will not be an FTA.
Andrew Neil also aggressively asserted that Switzerland is in the single market, so for him to characterise the even more complex bilateral relationship the UK is seeking as 'just an FTA' is highly disingenuous.
I don't agree that Andrew Neil should be sacked. I do think that he has massively overstepped the boundary that any competent journalist should hold themselves to when considering Brexit, acting as a cheerleader rather than a seeker of truth. He's been doing the job long enough to know that.
And no, I don't think any of those TV journalists pinpointed as Remainers have behaved anywhere near as badly.
In that case you are blind and deaf. The cheerleading for Remain and against Brexit has been massive amongst TV and radio journalists. They have abandoned all semblance of neutrality and it is only because your share their views that you don't see it.
You're mistaking cheerleading with asking pertinent questions.
Start following Faisal Islam on Twitter and you'll see what Richard means...
Pretty much all of what Faisal Islam puts up comes in the category of "pertinent questions". Bedwetting Leavers who have no answers cry foul.
Housing, NHS, student fees and young people must be the conservatives top priority together with dealing with the fat cats, both in the public and private sectors, to achieve the centre ground and win in 2022
Housing - situation made worse by Cameron and Osborne NHS - situation made worse by Cameron and Osborne Student fees - situation made worse by Cameron and Osborne Young people - situation made worse by Cameron and Osborne Fatcats - situation made worse by Cameron and Osborne
You were warned, repeatedly.
Yet Conservative supporters here ra-ra-raad as Cameron and Osborne shifted the Conservatives from promoting aspiration to defending privilege.
It is now no surprise that the Tory who polls worst against Corbyn (according to last month's Survation), Hammond, is also the senior Tory most closely backed by Osborne. Apart from his inheritance tax cut there isn't much Osborne was promoting Corbyn could not capitalise on in June 2017
The robbing of the young The funding of vanity projects while public services were cut The trashing of "we're all in this together" The doom and disaster predictions which were shown to be false
Now if you look at the mentality behind Osborne's policies they make sense on a short term tactical basis - old people vote and the young don't, people like their houses to rise in value, keep people spending on consumer tat and foreign holidays.
But in a longer term strategic sense they're disastrous for the Conservatives and not good for the country.
To a large extent true, though to be fair to him Osborne's inheritance tax cut was the most popular policy the Tories have had for years and forced Brown to abandon his plans for a general election in 2007
Did I ever mention that I suggested on ConHome that the IHT threshold should be raised to £1m before Osborne did so.
In any case Brown had already lost his bottle irrespective of anything the Conservatives did at their conference - courageous decision taking was never his style.
Is the UK seeking single market membership, no, so anything else will be a FTA of some form
The UK is seeking an agreement that goes beyond trade, so clearly what is finally agreed will not be an FTA.
Andrew Neil also aggressively asserted that Switzerland is in the single market, so for him to characterise the even more complex bilateral relationship the UK is seeking as 'just an FTA' is highly disingenuous.
I think he also thought Bosnia and Herzegovina was two countries the other day? So his errors may be just errors. He is 68.
Is the UK seeking single market membership, no, so anything else will be a FTA of some form
The UK is seeking an agreement that goes beyond trade, so clearly what is finally agreed will not be an FTA.
At most it will be Canada+ or FTA+ not full membership of the Single Market or Customs Union and even that will likely take years after Brexit to negotiate
Is the UK seeking single market membership, no, so anything else will be a FTA of some form
The UK is seeking an agreement that goes beyond trade, so clearly what is finally agreed will not be an FTA.
Andrew Neil also aggressively asserted that Switzerland is in the single market, so for him to characterise the even more complex bilateral relationship the UK is seeking as 'just an FTA' is highly disingenuous.
Switzerland's relationship with the EU is built on bilateral agreements
Housing, NHS, student fees and young people must be the conservatives top priority together with dealing with the fat cats, both in the public and private sectors, to achieve the centre ground and win in 2022
Housing - situation made worse by Cameron and Osborne NHS - situation made worse by Cameron and Osborne Student fees - situation made worse by Cameron and Osborne Young people - situation made worse by Cameron and Osborne Fatcats - situation made worse by Cameron and Osborne
You were warned, repeatedly.
Yet Conservative supporters here ra-ra-raad as Cameron and Osborne shifted the Conservatives from promoting aspiration to defending privilege.
It is now no surprise that the Tory who polls worst against Corbyn (according to last month's Survation), Hammond, is also the senior Tory most closely backed by Osborne. Apart from his inheritance tax cut there isn't much Osborne was promoting Corbyn could not capitalise on in June 2017
The robbing of the young The funding of vanity projects while public services were cut The trashing of "we're all in this together" The doom and disaster predictions which were shown to be false
Now if you look at the mentality behind Osborne's policies they make sense on a short term tactical basis - old people vote and the young don't, people like their houses to rise in value, keep people spending on consumer tat and foreign holidays.
But in a longer term strategic sense they're disastrous for the Conservatives and not good for the country.
To a large extent true, though to be fair to him Osborne's inheritance tax cut was the most popular policy the Tories have had for years and forced Brown to abandon his plans for a general election in 2007
Did I ever mention that I suggested on ConHome that the IHT threshold should be raised to £1m before Osborne did so.
In any case Brown had already lost his bottle irrespective of anything the Conservatives did at their conference - courageous decision taking was never his style.
Well it looks like Osborne could have done with following your advice more frequently
Here's a fun fact: the editor of the Today programme is Sarah sands, who was editor of the Evening Standard when it backed Boris Johnson and Zac Goldsmith for London mayor. Of course, both were also prominent Leave advocates.
Housing, NHS, student fees and young people must be the conservatives top priority together with dealing with the fat cats, both in the public and private sectors, to achieve the centre ground and win in 2022
Housing - situation made worse by Cameron and Osborne NHS - situation made worse by Cameron and Osborne Student fees - situation made worse by Cameron and Osborne Young people - situation made worse by Cameron and Osborne Fatcats - situation made worse by Cameron and Osborne
You were warned, repeatedly.
Yet Conservative supporters here ra-ra-raad as Cameron and Osborne shifted the Conservatives from promoting aspiration to defending privilege.
It is now no surprise that the Tory who polls worst against Corbyn (according to last month's Survation), Hammond, is also the senior Tory most closely backed by Osborne. Apart from his inheritance tax cut there isn't much Osborne was promoting Corbyn could not capitalise on in June 2017
The robbing of the young The funding of vanity projects while public services were cut The trashing of "we're all in this together" The doom and disaster predictions which were shown to be false
Now if you look at the mentality behind Osborne's policies they make sense on a short term tactical basis - old people vote and the young don't, people like their houses to rise in value, keep people spending on consumer tat and foreign holidays.
But in a longer term strategic sense they're disastrous for the Conservatives and not good for the country.
To a large extent true, though to be fair to him Osborne's inheritance tax cut was the most popular policy the Tories have had for years and forced Brown to abandon his plans for a general election in 2007
Did I ever mention that I suggested on ConHome that the IHT threshold should be raised to £1m before Osborne did so.
In any case Brown had already lost his bottle irrespective of anything the Conservatives did at their conference - courageous decision taking was never his style.
It was probably the right decision. The polling wasn't looking too good and it may have been another 'snap' election disaster like May's.
Brown's mistake was to let aides leak to press that discussions were underway.
I don't agree that Andrew Neil should be sacked. I do think that he has massively overstepped the boundary that any competent journalist should hold themselves to when considering Brexit, acting as a cheerleader rather than a seeker of truth. He's been doing the job long enough to know that.
And no, I don't think any of those TV journalists pinpointed as Remainers have behaved anywhere near as badly.
In that case you are blind and deaf. The cheerleading for Remain and against Brexit has been massive amongst TV and radio journalists. They have abandoned all semblance of neutrality and it is only because your share their views that you don't see it.
The key reason the Tories are on 38% in this Survation poll is that UKIP are on 4%, up 3% on the 1% they got at the last general election. The priority for the Tories then must be to squeeze back the UKIP vote, if they did that they would be on 41% and would then only need to take 1% from Labour to be back to level pegging.
Been drinking some of that wishful-thinking brew again?
(I can spot it, 'cos I do it myself occasionally )
It is a fact though, if Labour was on 38% and say the Greens on 4% I would equally advise Corbyn to squeeze the Green vote first but he has already successfully done that
The problem is that there is not an automatic Tory 2nd pref for UKIP voters, as we saw at the GE. Where uKIP collapsed, the Tories benefited, but by much less than they expected, as many Kippers reverted to former Labour voting.
Yet some think Labour could become the party of Remain and would be able to hold on the kippers who returned home. Corbyn did incredibly well by building a broad coalition, offering to be all things to all people - it's not sustainable...
Everyone does not vote only on Brexit lines. How about a Leaver to whom the NHS and Tuition fees are of greater importance ?
Yet some think Labour could become the party of Remain and would be able to hold on the kippers who returned home. Corbyn did incredibly well by building a broad coalition, offering to be all things to all people - it's not sustainable...
Labour's centre of gravity is to accept Brexit but aim for close trading relations for the time it takes for alternatives to be thoroughly explored. That leaves wriggle room for people to hope it might be forever, or quite short, but it's quite difficult to argue against ("You don't want to explore alternatives? Or you favour dashing out before we've explored them?").
I don't think one can reasonably say that Corbyn is all things to all people - the Tory assumption that most people would hate his message turned out to be false, but his socialism is not in doubt, including less popular things like enthusiasm for multiculturalism. Most people accept a degree of difference if they think you're broadly on their side.
Here's a fun fact: the editor of the Today programme is Sarah sands, who was editor of the Evening Standard when it backed Boris Johnson and Zac Goldsmith for London mayor. Of course, both were also prominent Leave advocates.
BBC News have always been full of Tories.
True Laura Kuenssberg and Nick Robinson hardly sing keep the red flag flying with gusto.
Jon Snow is not employed by the BBC. I can understand your predicament as you are anxiously waiting for the final result of round 1 of the French Presidential elections.
The key reason the Tories are on 38% in this Survation poll is that UKIP are on 4%, up 3% on the 1% they got at the last general election. The priority for the Tories then must be to squeeze back the UKIP vote, if they did that they would be on 41% and would then only need to take 1% from Labour to be back to level pegging.
Been drinking some of that wishful-thinking brew again?
(I can spot it, 'cos I do it myself occasionally )
It is a fact though, if Labour was on 38% and say the Greens on 4% I would equally advise Corbyn to squeeze the Green vote first but he has already successfully done that
The problem is that there is not an automatic Tory 2nd pref for UKIP voters, as we saw at the GE. Where uKIP collapsed, the Tories benefited, but by much less than they expected, as many Kippers reverted to former Labour voting.
Yet some think Labour could become the party of Remain and would be able to hold on the kippers who returned home. Corbyn did incredibly well by building a broad coalition, offering to be all things to all people - it's not sustainable...
Everyone does not vote only on Brexit lines. How about a Leaver to whom the NHS and Tuition fees are of greater importance ?
I agree, however the people who left a single issue party to rejoin Labour probably did it because of Labours revised stance on said single issue no?
This also doesn't negate the fact that Labour's voter coalition is built on incredibly shaky foundations.
Here's a fun fact: the editor of the Today programme is Sarah sands, who was editor of the Evening Standard when it backed Boris Johnson and Zac Goldsmith for London mayor. Of course, both were also prominent Leave advocates.
BBC News have always been full of Tories.
True Laura Kuenssberg and Nick Robinson hardly sing keep the red flag flying with gusto.
Nick, of course an ex-President of the Oxford University Conservatives. James Landale interviewed for the No.10Communications job twice ? Craig Oliver also worked in the BBC. And, who can forget Stephen Milligan.
I don't agree that Andrew Neil should be sacked. I do think that he has massively overstepped the boundary that any competent journalist should hold themselves to when considering Brexit, acting as a cheerleader rather than a seeker of truth. He's been doing the job long enough to know that.
And no, I don't think any of those TV journalists pinpointed as Remainers have behaved anywhere near as badly.
In that case you are blind and deaf. The cheerleading for Remain and against Brexit has been massive amongst TV and radio journalists. They have abandoned all semblance of neutrality and it is only because your share their views that you don't see it.
You're mistaking cheerleading with asking pertinent questions.
No exactly the opposite. It is Neil who asks the pertinent and difficult questions which is why the Remaniacs hate him. The rest of the media just seem to revel in the idea that Brexit will be a failure.
One can hardly forget the tears in the eyes of Ian King the evening after the Brexit result was announced. And of course in Faisal Islam, Jon Snow, Adam Boulton and Scumbag James O'Brien you have avowed Remainers who are open in their dismay at the results of the referendum.
It is a shame that the very left wing but pro-Brexit Paul Mason left the BBC. His arguments were balanced and grounded in strong left wing politics as opposed to the right wing anti-immigrant form of Euroscepticism that dominates the Gpvernment at the moment.
I have just watched the Kier Starmer interview on Marr. Actually I think Labour's new policy pretty much hits the sweet spot. It means we can transition away from the EU if we want to, but leaves open the possibility of re-joining relatively quickly. It also gives the Conservatives a real headache. They now can't ratchet back on their hardline position without appearing to be adopting Labour's policy. But it leaves individual backbenches able to switch to supporting the opposition without appearing to violate Brexit as defined by the referendum question. Pretty neat work.
The Adnois Tweet about Neil is as ridiculous as all the right-wing conspiracy theories about the BBC being opposed to Brexit and biased against the right.
with his tweets lately he is sounding rather 'Chapmanesque' - maybe it's contagious.
I have just watched the Kier Starmer interview on Marr. Actually I think Labour's new policy pretty much hits the sweet spot. It means we can transition away from the EU if we want to, but leaves open the possibility of re-joining relatively quickly. It also gives the Conservatives a real headache. They now can't ratchet back on their hardline position without appearing to be adopting Labour's policy. But it leaves individual backbenches able to switch to supporting the opposition without appearing to violate Brexit as defined by the referendum question. Pretty neat work.
Here's a fun fact: the editor of the Today programme is Sarah sands, who was editor of the Evening Standard when it backed Boris Johnson and Zac Goldsmith for London mayor. Of course, both were also prominent Leave advocates.
BBC News have always been full of Tories.
True Laura Kuenssberg and Nick Robinson hardly sing keep the red flag flying with gusto.
Nick, of course an ex-President of the Oxford University Conservatives. James Landale interviewed for the No.10Communications job twice ? Craig Oliver also worked in the BBC. And, who can forget Stephen Milligan.
I have just watched the Kier Starmer interview on Marr. Actually I think Labour's new policy pretty much hits the sweet spot. It means we can transition away from the EU if we want to, but leaves open the possibility of re-joining relatively quickly. It also gives the Conservatives a real headache. They now can't ratchet back on their hardline position without appearing to be adopting Labour's policy. But it leaves individual backbenches able to switch to supporting the opposition without appearing to violate Brexit as defined by the referendum question. Pretty neat work.
I have just watched the Kier Starmer interview on Marr. Actually I think Labour's new policy pretty much hits the sweet spot. It means we can transition away from the EU if we want to, but leaves open the possibility of re-joining relatively quickly. It also gives the Conservatives a real headache. They now can't ratchet back on their hardline position without appearing to be adopting Labour's policy. But it leaves individual backbenches able to switch to supporting the opposition without appearing to violate Brexit as defined by the referendum question. Pretty neat work.
Starmer is the best shadow spokesperson by miles.
Indeed - but it the rest are not even 6th form debating standard.
Yet some think Labour could become the party of Remain and would be able to hold on the kippers who returned home. Corbyn did incredibly well by building a broad coalition, offering to be all things to all people - it's not sustainable...
Labour's centre of gravity is to accept Brexit but aim for close trading relations for the time it takes for alternatives to be thoroughly explored. That leaves wriggle room for people to hope it might be forever, or quite short, but it's quite difficult to argue against ("You don't want to explore alternatives? Or you favour dashing out before we've explored them?").
I don't think one can reasonably say that Corbyn is all things to all people - the Tory assumption that most people would hate his message turned out to be false, but his socialism is not in doubt, including less popular things like enthusiasm for multiculturalism. Most people accept a degree of difference if they think you're broadly on their side.
It might not be "all people" but support is a mile wide and inch deep - how can that ever be sustainable? How can former kippers and young euro federalists both end up happy?
It has echoes of triangulation, except it's based on telling one corner of the triangle to f*** off. Triangulation only works from the centre and if you pay attention to all three corners.
I have just watched the Kier Starmer interview on Marr. Actually I think Labour's new policy pretty much hits the sweet spot. It means we can transition away from the EU if we want to, but leaves open the possibility of re-joining relatively quickly. It also gives the Conservatives a real headache. They now can't ratchet back on their hardline position without appearing to be adopting Labour's policy. But it leaves individual backbenches able to switch to supporting the opposition without appearing to violate Brexit as defined by the referendum question. Pretty neat work.
Starmer is the best shadow spokesperson by miles.
They really are screwed then as he is a complete ignorant tosser
Is the UK seeking single market membership, no, so anything else will be a FTA of some form
The UK is seeking an agreement that goes beyond trade, so clearly what is finally agreed will not be an FTA.
Andrew Neil also aggressively asserted that Switzerland is in the single market, so for him to characterise the even more complex bilateral relationship the UK is seeking as 'just an FTA' is highly disingenuous.
Tories are always Economical with the truth when it suits,
Yet some think Labour could become the party of Remain and would be able to hold on the kippers who returned home. Corbyn did incredibly well by building a broad coalition, offering to be all things to all people - it's not sustainable...
Labour's centre of gravity is to accept Brexit but aim for close trading relations for the time it takes for alternatives to be thoroughly explored. That leaves wriggle room for people to hope it might be forever, or quite short, but it's quite difficult to argue against ("You don't want to explore alternatives? Or you favour dashing out before we've explored them?").
I don't think one can reasonably say that Corbyn is all things to all people - the Tory assumption that most people would hate his message turned out to be false, but his socialism is not in doubt, including less popular things like enthusiasm for multiculturalism. Most people accept a degree of difference if they think you're broadly on their side.
I have just watched the Kier Starmer interview on Marr. Actually I think Labour's new policy pretty much hits the sweet spot. It means we can transition away from the EU if we want to, but leaves open the possibility of re-joining relatively quickly. It also gives the Conservatives a real headache. They now can't ratchet back on their hardline position without appearing to be adopting Labour's policy. But it leaves individual backbenches able to switch to supporting the opposition without appearing to violate Brexit as defined by the referendum question. Pretty neat work.
Starmer is the best shadow spokesperson by miles.
They really are screwed then as he is a complete ignorant tosser
GIN, the greedy useless annoying smug halfwitted git will need to be shoved out. We can but hope he gets dumped soon. Afternoon by the way.
Doesn't sound like your a fan?
Been meaning to ask how do you think The Donald is getting on? And where do you stand on Kezia and SLab?
GIN, The Donald is just being himself , the American equivalent of our over privileged Tory toffs who think they can do as they say and are born to rule the peasants. He is certainly better than what we have, at least he has an idea now and again. Kezia was a queen among donkeys , SLAB are well and truly F****** as they have King and Emperor donkeys waiting to take over. You would not believe how dire they are , I suspect they need someone to tie their shoelaces.
I have just watched the Kier Starmer interview on Marr. Actually I think Labour's new policy pretty much hits the sweet spot. It means we can transition away from the EU if we want to, but leaves open the possibility of re-joining relatively quickly. It also gives the Conservatives a real headache. They now can't ratchet back on their hardline position without appearing to be adopting Labour's policy. But it leaves individual backbenches able to switch to supporting the opposition without appearing to violate Brexit as defined by the referendum question. Pretty neat work.
Starmer is the best shadow spokesperson by miles.
Indeed - but it the rest are not even 6th form debating standard.
On current showing, the Cabinet does not even get to secondary school.
Is the UK seeking single market membership, no, so anything else will be a FTA of some form
The UK is seeking an agreement that goes beyond trade, so clearly what is finally agreed will not be an FTA.
At most it will be Canada+ or FTA+ not full membership of the Single Market or Customs Union and even that will likely take years after Brexit to negotiate
The final agreement will encompass a number of non-trade-related aspects. It will be much more complex and wide-ranging than Canada's FTA, reflecting the level of integration there is between the UK and the EU27 in a wide variety of areas that Canada's deal does not go anywhere near, and which the UK would like to ensure continues uninterrupted.
Yet some think Labour could become the party of Remain and would be able to hold on the kippers who returned home. Corbyn did incredibly well by building a broad coalition, offering to be all things to all people - it's not sustainable...
Labour's centre of gravity is to accept Brexit but aim for close trading relations for the time it takes for alternatives to be thoroughly explored. That leaves wriggle room for people to hope it might be forever, or quite short, but it's quite difficult to argue against ("You don't want to explore alternatives? Or you favour dashing out before we've explored them?").
I don't think one can reasonably say that Corbyn is all things to all people - the Tory assumption that most people would hate his message turned out to be false, but his socialism is not in doubt, including less popular things like enthusiasm for multiculturalism. Most people accept a degree of difference if they think you're broadly on their side.
It might not be "all people" but support is a mile wide and inch deep - how can that ever be sustainable? How can former kippers and young euro federalists both end up happy?
It has echoes of triangulation, except it's based on telling one corner of the triangle to f*** off. Triangulation only works from the centre and if you pay attention to all three corners.
Large parts of both the Tory and the Labour vote are composed of people who hate the alternative even more. Both parties have the opportunity to address this before the next election. There's more chance that the Tories will, though the fact that May is the best option they have shows just how bare the cupboard is.
It might not be "all people" but support is a mile wide and inch deep - how can that ever be sustainable? How can former kippers and young euro federalists both end up happy?
It has echoes of triangulation, except it's based on telling one corner of the triangle to f*** off. Triangulation only works from the centre and if you pay attention to all three corners.
It's a mile deep in some parts of the triangle - I know lots of people who feel thqat Corbyn is the politician they've been waiting for most of their lives. I agree it's an inch deep in other parts. But frankly 'twas ever thus - the unusual thing at the moment is the genuine enthusiasm in some sectors, normlly people just say wearily "They're all the same, I'll have to choose the least bad".
W wildlife, been in hurricane seas for days on end, sailed seven days in total daylight, and yet never tire of being on board. May have something to do with our families connection with the sea over generations but you will have a great time I am sure
(Snip)
Last week I went to Holland and back and other than wash the highest waves I saw were about a foot. That was fine.
Yes we've done a few very rough channel crossings in our past (once stuck outside Dover for 3 hours waiting for the waves to die sufficiently). But generally we don't get too seasick (fingers-crossed!).
If you'd asked me years ago, a cruise would not have been on my list but most people who have actually done one seem to like them (including a few friends who are recent converts, which has swayed us).
Good grief, we'll be considering caravanning next! (Oh - apparently not, according to Mrs. P!)
I think we are waiting until its just me and my better half. Taking grown kids on a cruise really doesn't appeal.
Er no, but if they're grown up can't you leave them behind?
One is only 14. Not far away now.
We've only ever done a crossing (to young for a cruise!) but dressing up for dinner in the same restaurant with a limited menu got old very quickly
A while back? The best description I've read of a Trans Atlantic was "nothing to do, and not enough time to do it in"
I'm not sure when it was - except that OBL was killed mid way through the voyage and I was without news for 2 days... (6 years ago I think)
Queen Mary then - the QE2 had a group of dedicated crossers called the "Winter Crossing Club" who'd take the January crossing in expectation of bad weather- had a force 9 one year- she rode it like she was born to it.
QM2, yes.
I did go on the QE2 once - a large group went on the first voyage post the Falklands to mark our appreciation for Cunard's contribution, but I was just a kid at the time so don't remember very much!
It's not like he would misrepresent his position on Trident or single market membership for votes.
Oh, wait...
Or not being able to get a seat on a ram packed trains...or the number of poor students going to uni...or paying off kids student loans....or his conversations with people about being PM in 6 months.
Corbyn is clearly his own man. Yet while his authenticity is appealing – “he looks like he believes it, he’s not putting it on” – he is nevertheless judged harshly as “not looking like a leader”. All were critical of his appearance. The word most often chosen to describe him was “scruffy”, and voters worried that he would let the country down – “his posture, the way he walks, the way he dresses” meaning that “it would just be a bit embarrassing for him to go and meet the other leaders”.
With this in mind, despite her declining reputation, many voters still believed that May would outperform Corbyn as prime minister. She leads in a series of key policy areas: EU negotiations, national security, immigration, the economy. She is also ahead on “taking tough decisions even if they are unpopular”, while Corbyn wins on “empathy measures” such as “understands people like me”.
It's not like he would misrepresent his position on Trident or single market membership for votes.
Oh, wait...
On these he deviates from Labour policy, but acts with collective responsibility along the party line.
@HYFUD seems convinced that the Tories just need "one more heave" minus the dementia tax, but I think he is wrong. Corbynis a much more convincing man of the people, for all his eccentricity.
It is about branding, and Corbyn is building a brand that people like to be associated with, while Starmer has come up with a Brexit position that everyone can live with and makes for a conference at ease with itself for the first time in years.
Toxic Theresa and her swivel eyed loons are in stark contrast, and I am sure Theresa will manage her conference with her characteristic empathy and deftness. Popcorn time!
GIN, the greedy useless annoying smug halfwitted git will need to be shoved out. We can but hope he gets dumped soon. Afternoon by the way.
Doesn't sound like your a fan?
Been meaning to ask how do you think The Donald is getting on? And where do you stand on Kezia and SLab?
GIN, The Donald is just being himself , the American equivalent of our over privileged Tory toffs who think they can do as they say and are born to rule the peasants. He is certainly better than what we have, at least he has an idea now and again. Kezia was a queen among donkeys , SLAB are well and truly F****** as they have King and Emperor donkeys waiting to take over. You would not believe how dire they are , I suspect they need someone to tie their shoelaces.
OK... Sound like 2017 was a "false dawn" for SLab then?
Jon Snow is not employed by the BBC. I can understand your predicament as you are anxiously waiting for the final result of round 1 of the French Presidential elections.
He is employed by the main news service on a publicly owned broadcaster
She is also ahead on “taking tough decisions even if they are unpopular”, while Corbyn wins on “empathy measures” such as “understands people like me”.
"Taking tough decisions even if unpopular" is something that voters like in theory, but rarely in practice. As soon as that tough, but unpopular, policy adversely impacts them then they scream blue murder.
With this in mind, despite her declining reputation, many voters still believed that May would outperform Corbyn as prime minister. She leads in a series of key policy areas: EU negotiations, national security, immigration, the economy. She is also ahead on “taking tough decisions even if they are unpopular”, while Corbyn wins on “empathy measures” such as “understands people like me”.
Is the UK seeking single market membership, no, so anything else will be a FTA of some form
The UK is seeking an agreement that goes beyond trade, so clearly what is finally agreed will not be an FTA.
At most it will be Canada+ or FTA+ not full membership of the Single Market or Customs Union and even that will likely take years after Brexit to negotiate
The final agreement will encompass a number of non-trade-related aspects. It will be much more complex and wide-ranging than Canada's FTA, reflecting the level of integration there is between the UK and the EU27 in a wide variety of areas that Canada's deal does not go anywhere near, and which the UK would like to ensure continues uninterrupted.
Given Canada's FTA took 7 years to negotiate if this is even more complicated there is no chance of a FTA+ deal with the EU until 2026.
By then even if Corbyn loses a general election the year after Brexit in 2020 a more moderate Labour leader like Chuka Umunna may have replaced him by then and won the 2025 general election on a platform of returning to the single market and restoring free movement, making a FTA+ agreement with the EU by then irrelevant
Housing, NHS, student fees and young people must be the conservatives top priority together with dealing with the fat cats, both in the public and private sectors, to achieve the centre ground and win in 2022
Housing - situation made worse by Cameron and Osborne NHS - situation made worse by Cameron and Osborne Student fees - situation made worse by Cameron and Osborne Young people - situation made worse by Cameron and Osborne Fatcats - situation made worse by Cameron and Osborne
You were warned, repeatedly.
Yet Conservative supporters here ra-ra-raad as Cameron and Osborne shifted the Conservatives from promoting aspiration to defending privilege.
It is now no surprise that the Tory who polls worst against Corbyn (according to last month's Survation), Hammond, is also the senior Tory most closely backed by Osborne. Apart from his inheritance tax cut there isn't much Osborne was promoting Corbyn could not capitalise on in June 2017
The robbing of the young The funding of vanity projects while public services were cut The trashing of "we're all in this together" The doom and disaster predictions which were shown to be false
Now if you look at the mentality behind Osborne's policies they make sense on a short term tactical basis - old people vote and the young don't, people like their houses to rise in value, keep people spending on consumer tat and foreign holidays.
But in a longer term strategic sense they're disastrous for the Conservatives and not good for the country.
To a large extent true, though to be fair to him Osborne's inheritance tax cut was the most popular policy the Tories have had for years and forced Brown to abandon his plans for a general election in 2007
Did I ever mention that I suggested on ConHome that the IHT threshold should be raised to £1m before Osborne did so.
In any case Brown had already lost his bottle irrespective of anything the Conservatives did at their conference - courageous decision taking was never his style.
It was probably the right decision. The polling wasn't looking too good and it may have been another 'snap' election disaster like May's.
Brown's mistake was to let aides leak to press that discussions were underway.
The Labour lead in the summer of 2007 was utterly vacuous 'not Flash, just Gordon', 'look at Gordon he's flying in a helicopter with a biggles helmet on' etc
It was an early example of the subsequent surges in support of Clegg, May and Corbyn.
It's not like he would misrepresent his position on Trident or single market membership for votes.
Oh, wait...
On these he deviates from Labour policy, but acts with collective responsibility along the party line.
@HYFUD seems convinced that the Tories just need "one more heave" minus the dementia tax, but I think he is wrong. Corbynis a much more convincing man of the people, for all his eccentricity.
It is about branding, and Corbyn is building a brand that people like to be associated with, while Starmer has come up with a Brexit position that everyone can live with and makes for a conference at ease with itself for the first time in years.
Toxic Theresa and her swivel eyed loons are in stark contrast, and I am sure Theresa will manage her conference with her characteristic empathy and deftness. Popcorn time!
Corbyn still has a bet negative rating and the Tories won their highest voteshare since 1992 in part due to opposition to him.
The biggest movement from Tory to Labour the entire campaign came over the dementia tax, not Brexit. Of course Corbyn had neutralised Brexit for Labour Leave voters anyway by promising to take the UK out of the single market to end free movement after Brexit in 2019, a position he is now rowing back from with Starmer's commitment of a 4 year+ transition period
Who would the Brexit negotiation dream team be if we weren't stuck with DD who looks like a half pissed pub landlord trying to do his VAT return? I reckon Brown (autistic savant who revels in this type of boring detail as does a swine in its own make) and Mandelson (scheming sociopath who knows one end of Avenue Louise from the other) would have been good.
Who would the Brexit negotiation dream team be if we weren't stuck with DD who looks like a half pissed pub landlord trying to do his VAT return? I reckon Brown (autistic savant who revels in this type of boring detail as does a swine in its own make) and Mandelson (scheming sociopath who knows one end of Avenue Louise from the other) would have been good.
Starmer and Mandleson would do a sterling job.
Mind you, it would be fairly hard to do less well than the current muppets.
I have just watched the Kier Starmer interview on Marr. Actually I think Labour's new policy pretty much hits the sweet spot. It means we can transition away from the EU if we want to, but leaves open the possibility of re-joining relatively quickly. It also gives the Conservatives a real headache. They now can't ratchet back on their hardline position without appearing to be adopting Labour's policy. But it leaves individual backbenches able to switch to supporting the opposition without appearing to violate Brexit as defined by the referendum question. Pretty neat work.
Starmer is the best shadow spokesperson by miles.
They really are screwed then as he is a complete ignorant tosser
You mean you disagree with the former DPP?
There are many people I disagree with including yourself. I would not however use the words I use to describe you, not because of your position or even common courtesy but because they do not apply.
Is the UK seeking single market membership, no, so anything else will be a FTA of some form
The UK is seeking an agreement that goes beyond trade, so clearly what is finally agreed will not be an FTA.
At most it will be Canada+ or FTA+ not full membership of the Single Market or Customs Union and even that will likely take years after Brexit to negotiate
The final agreement will encompass a number of non-trade-related aspects. It will be much more complex and wide-ranging than Canada's FTA, reflecting the level of integration there is between the UK and the EU27 in a wide variety of areas that Canada's deal does not go anywhere near, and which the UK would like to ensure continues uninterrupted.
Given Canada's FTA took 7 years to negotiate if this is even more complicated there is no chance of a FTA+ deal with the EU until 2026.
By then even if Corbyn loses a general election the year after Brexit in 2020 a more moderate Labour leader like Chuka Umunna may have replaced him by then and won the 2025 general election on a platform of returning to the single market and restoring free movement, making a FTA+ agreement with the EU by then irrelevant
Without intending to say whether or not a Canada type FTA would be the way to go, it is worth pointing out that one of the main hangups with such agreements are the aligning of standards. Given we already have our standards aligned with the EU there is no reason at all to expect such a lengthy FTA agreement time.
Who would the Brexit negotiation dream team be if we weren't stuck with DD who looks like a half pissed pub landlord trying to do his VAT return? I reckon Brown (autistic savant who revels in this type of boring detail as does a swine in its own make) and Mandelson (scheming sociopath who knows one end of Avenue Louise from the other) would have been good.
Starmer and Mandleson would do a sterling job.
Mind you, it would be fairly hard to do less well than the current muppets.
Starmer's position is we should stay permanently in the Single Market and Customs Union but be able to control EU migration and make our own trade deals. It is a position borne out of utter ignorance. Either that or it is completely dishonest. Take your pick because those are the only two choices.
Is the UK seeking single market membership, no, so anything else will be a FTA of some form
The UK is seeking an agreement that goes beyond trade, so clearly what is finally agreed will not be an FTA.
At most it will be Canada+ or FTA+ not full membership of the Single Market or Customs Union and even that will likely take years after Brexit to negotiate
The final agreement will encompass a number of non-trade-related aspects. It will be much more complex and wide-ranging than Canada's FTA, reflecting the level of integration there is between the UK and the EU27 in a wide variety of areas that Canada's deal does not go anywhere near, and which the UK would like to ensure continues uninterrupted.
Given Canada's FTA took 7 years to negotiate if this is even more complicated there is no chance of a FTA+ deal with the EU until 2026.
By then even if Corbyn loses a general election the year after Brexit in 2020 a more moderate Labour leader like Chuka Umunna may have replaced him by then and won the 2025 general election on a platform of returning to the single market and restoring free movement, making a FTA+ agreement with the EU by then irrelevant
Without intending to say whether or not a Canada type FTA would be the way to go, it is worth pointing out that one of the main hangups with such agreements are the aligning of standards. Given we already have our standards aligned with the EU there is no reason at all to expect such a lengthy FTA agreement time.
Perhaps but the EU will likely do it as slowly as possible and not agree any FTA unless satisfied with the UK' s Brexit exit fee
Comments
Interesting that Lord Adnois has no problem with the BBC employing James O' Brien or C4 employing Jon "**** The Tories" Snow...
And no, I don't think any of those TV journalists pinpointed as Remainers have behaved anywhere near as badly.
I don't feel that's setting the bar so very high.
If anything the situation seems to have gotten worse since she was released.
Witnesses say children are being beheaded and families burned alive....
Over the past few weeks though, on policy terms, Corbyn has aligned himself with the metropolitan base, chiefly on the new Brexit policy but also in the Sarah Champion affair and his downplaying of the racial/ religious aspects of the grooming gangs. One wonders how much he is being influenced by Thornberry and Abbott. But the signal it sends to the traditional base of voters is their views count for less in the Labour party.
That is likely to turn out to be a mistake. The traditional base has shown a willingness to desert Labour over the past few elections. And a lot of the Yes vote for Brexit seems to have been driven by a desire by poorer demographics to send a FU signal to their "betters". If that base sees Labour as now in the hands of the middle-class types, the desertion rates will accelerate.
(It also has implications for Parliamentary votes. The focus has been on how Remain Tory MPs like Soubry and Morgan will vote but less so that the Brexiteers are likely to be able to count on the votes of Labour MPs such as Hoey, Mann and Stringer amongst others).
Funnily enough, I think the wild card that could bring this to a crunch is what happens in the UKIP leadership race, not because I think UKIP will suddenly take back masses of votes but because, if Anne-Marie Waters did actually snatch it, then it will go hard and loud in many of these Northern / Midland WWC towns on Labour's links with the Muslim community and the failure of Labour councils to take action. I could see that dissuading some Labour voters voting for the party, even if they do not switch.
I do not agree with the response, and it is likely to be counterproductive, but in guerilla wars, the civilians are the first and universal victims.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/904309527381716992
Been meaning to ask how do you think The Donald is getting on? And where do you stand on Kezia and SLab?
In any case Brown had already lost his bottle irrespective of anything the Conservatives did at their conference - courageous decision taking was never his style.
Brown's mistake was to let aides leak to press that discussions were underway.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41140564
It is the sort of language you expect from a mafia boss.
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/02/what-does-britain-want-in-leader-integrity-empathy-authenticity
I don't think one can reasonably say that Corbyn is all things to all people - the Tory assumption that most people would hate his message turned out to be false, but his socialism is not in doubt, including less popular things like enthusiasm for multiculturalism. Most people accept a degree of difference if they think you're broadly on their side.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs0gcpFdH3c
Too young for 2020?
This also doesn't negate the fact that Labour's voter coalition is built on incredibly shaky foundations.
One can hardly forget the tears in the eyes of Ian King the evening after the Brexit result was announced. And of course in Faisal Islam, Jon Snow, Adam Boulton and Scumbag James O'Brien you have avowed Remainers who are open in their dismay at the results of the referendum.
It is a shame that the very left wing but pro-Brexit Paul Mason left the BBC. His arguments were balanced and grounded in strong left wing politics as opposed to the right wing anti-immigrant form of Euroscepticism that dominates the Gpvernment at the moment.
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/904319606457815041
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-influence-theresa-may-refugee-migration-crisis-eu-paris-macron-a7924671.html
It has echoes of triangulation, except it's based on telling one corner of the triangle to f*** off. Triangulation only works from the centre and if you pay attention to all three corners.
Kezia was a queen among donkeys , SLAB are well and truly F****** as they have King and Emperor donkeys waiting to take over. You would not believe how dire they are , I suspect they need someone to tie their shoelaces.
I did go on the QE2 once - a large group went on the first voyage post the Falklands to mark our appreciation for Cunard's contribution, but I was just a kid at the time so don't remember very much!
It's not like he would misrepresent his position on Trident or single market membership for votes.
Oh, wait...
With this in mind, despite her declining reputation, many voters still believed that May would outperform Corbyn as prime minister. She leads in a series of key policy areas: EU negotiations, national security, immigration, the economy. She is also ahead on “taking tough decisions even if they are unpopular”, while Corbyn wins on “empathy measures” such as “understands people like me”.
@HYFUD seems convinced that the Tories just need "one more heave" minus the dementia tax, but I think he is wrong. Corbynis a much more convincing man of the people, for all his eccentricity.
It is about branding, and Corbyn is building a brand that people like to be associated with, while Starmer has come up with a Brexit position that everyone can live with and makes for a conference at ease with itself for the first time in years.
Toxic Theresa and her swivel eyed loons are in stark contrast, and I am sure Theresa will manage her conference with her characteristic empathy and deftness. Popcorn time!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-41140621
Firstly Hilary, then Michelle, followed by Chelsea and then the Obama girls.
Or is the Democratic nomination no longer to be passed around the female members of the Clinton and Obama families ?
F1: tense race, more exciting in the midfield than the sharp end. Shall set about writing the post-race nonsense shortly.
By then even if Corbyn loses a general election the year after Brexit in 2020 a more moderate Labour leader like Chuka Umunna may have replaced him by then and won the 2025 general election on a platform of returning to the single market and restoring free movement, making a FTA+ agreement with the EU by then irrelevant
It was an early example of the subsequent surges in support of Clegg, May and Corbyn.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/37317041/what-we-know-about-ri-chun-hee-the-most-famous-woman-in-north-korea
Nobody can say I don't make a contribution to PB.
The biggest movement from Tory to Labour the entire campaign came over the dementia tax, not Brexit. Of course Corbyn had neutralised Brexit for Labour Leave voters anyway by promising to take the UK out of the single market to end free movement after Brexit in 2019, a position he is now rowing back from with Starmer's commitment of a 4 year+ transition period
What is it with the Septics and their obsession with familial heads of state?
Mind you, it would be fairly hard to do less well than the current muppets.
Starmer is indeed though an ignorant tosser.
Mandelson (scheming sociopath who knows one end of Avenue Louise from the other) would have been good for the EU side, not the UK side.