There are legitimate very dodgy things going on, but it does seem like any name they recognize it is instantly right that is definitely a story...again it is like expenses...look look Cameron claimed for legitimate maintenance, people claiming for fake offices not very interesting...
Given that the BBC is prefacing virtually every statement they make with words along the line of "we must stress they haven't done anything illegal" this is rapidly turning into a very boring story for the UK, if not other countries, much like the way the Panama Papers did.
When are the BBC doing the report on their own investments in 'dodgy' trusts?
Theresa May should turn a huge problem into an opportunity, and do a major reshuffle. Boris, Patel, Green, Leadsom and McLoughlin out, maybe a couple more. That would free up some very useful space for promotions, and now is a time when the potential troublemakers are weak.
How far up shit creek ( a creek of mostly his own shit) must Boris be if he needs Liam Fix to come up with an exculpation this morning? I'd hope that might give Johnson pause for thought, but a hope destined to be dashed I fear.
Boris can do as he wishes. May has made clear he is unsackable. The same applies to Priti Patel. This is the worst government in modern British history. The Tories may well win the next general election. If they don't Jeremy Corbyn will be Prime Minister. You are better off out of it. Pray for your English cousins!
I now don't think they will win the next election. They're now in a more perilous state than Major's was in 1996. After the Patel incident and the latest of the Boris clangers without a sacking on the horizon there can only be the cultists among the Tory supporters (see Charles's earlier post) who are still on board.
I want neither the Tories nor Corbyn’s Labour.
I think there are a lot of us who feel like that. But like it or not we're going to be landed with one or the other. Up till a month or so ago I'd have abstained (voted Lib Dem or Green) marginally hoping May would get in because I don't trust Corbyn's or his team.
Now I'm of the opinion that however crap they turn out to be they couldn't be worse.
Oh, they could. They have ideas and enthusiasm for one thing.
For all the ineptitude within the current cabinet, it can and is getting on with the day job effectively (indeed, one side effect of the Brexit focus is that the government isn't reorganising the NHS or education again).
And they'd spend like never before. Never forget - every Labour government always runs out of money; the only question is how long it takes.
No Tory government has handed over a Budget Surplus to Labour. Labour ,in contrast - has done so - eg 1970.
So be that the case, we've had changes of power between the two main parties in 51, 64, 70, 74, 79, 97, 2010, so once in seven times have the books been in the black.
I think we may have identified a general issue......
Gordon Brown can't catch a break can he...his memoirs are out today...I think sales might be rather slow.
Would a precis be: "I was right about everything and wronged about everything"?
"The Electorate let me down."
"I'm writing this whilst drawing my fat pension at public expense, which few of you can ever hope to do because I screwed your pensions over by taxing them".
It also means a by-election in Alyn and Deeside, which ought to be fairly safe for Labour although at the last two UK GEs (same boundaries I think, much higher turnout), Labour's majority was 8.1% and 11.7%. With Welsh Labour's record in Cardiff, that's not rock-solid - though the influence of UK matters will probably mean it is this time.
I don't think Labour are going to lose any by-elections in the current climate.
The Tories probably would.
It is not entirely clear what will happen in Alyn & Deeside.
There may be a sympathy vote for Labour ... or there mayn’t, depending on what now emerges. There is a big UKIP vote up for grabs.
What is true is that the Betsi Cadwaldr Health Boad (which covers North Wales) has some of the longest waiting times in the UK.
There is plenty of scope for Welsh Labour to be attacked on both health and education ... whether the Welsh opposition parties can get their act together is another matter.
If this gets fought on Welsh issues, I’d say this may not be the easy Labour hold that you predict.
It also means a by-election in Alyn and Deeside, which ought to be fairly safe for Labour although at the last two UK GEs (same boundaries I think, much higher turnout), Labour's majority was 8.1% and 11.7%. With Welsh Labour's record in Cardiff, that's not rock-solid - though the influence of UK matters will probably mean it is this time.
I don't think Labour are going to lose any by-elections in the current climate.
The Tories probably would.
It is not entirely clear what will happen in Alyn & Deeside.
There may be a sympathy vote for Labour ... or there mayn’t, depending on what now emerges. There is a big UKIP vote up for grabs.
What is true is that the Betsi Cadwaldr Health Boad (which covers North Wales) has some of the longest waiting times in the UK.
There is plenty of scope for Welsh Labour to be attacked on both health and education ... whether the Welsh opposition parties can get their act together is another matter.
If this gets fought on Welsh issues, I’d say this may not be the easy Labour hold that you predict.
Betsi Cadwaladr health board never seems to be off the Welsh news for all the wrong reasons.
Weirdly, I beginning to think Brexit might be a positive overall. We are obviously going to crash out. Equally obviously we'll be back in pretty quickly. We'll lose a lot in the process. But it will finally get leaving the EU off the agenda forever. This would mean the Tories could go back to being a sane right of centre party, which is something the country needs.
Why would the EU take us back?
It's the European Union. We are part of Europe. Read the label.
I think that it cannot happen until we ourselves recognise that we ARE part of Europe rather than the plucky British bulldog standing alone on the white cliffs of history against the travails of Johnny Foreigner.
But are the British Isles part of the Continent?
Yes.
Would you like to articulate all the logical steps which start with that sketch map and finish with "therefore the British Isles are part of the Continent?"
None so blind....
Come along, please. Why are plate boundaries - imperfectly understood discontinuities at and below the seabed level of which we knew nothing 100 years ago and with major consequences in only a limited number of fields such as seismology and mineral extraction - privileged over physical discontinuities at sea level, like the English Channel, which impact on practically all human activity? The answer can't be difficult if, as you suggest, a failure to apprehend it implies wilful ignorance.
It also means a by-election in Alyn and Deeside, which ought to be fairly safe for Labour although at the last two UK GEs (same boundaries I think, much higher turnout), Labour's majority was 8.1% and 11.7%. With Welsh Labour's record in Cardiff, that's not rock-solid - though the influence of UK matters will probably mean it is this time.
I don't think Labour are going to lose any by-elections in the current climate.
The Tories probably would.
It is not entirely clear what will happen in Alyn & Deeside.
There may be a sympathy vote for Labour ... or there mayn’t, depending on what now emerges. There is a big UKIP vote up for grabs.
What is true is that the Betsi Cadwaldr Health Boad (which covers North Wales) has some of the longest waiting times in the UK.
There is plenty of scope for Welsh Labour to be attacked on both health and education ... whether the Welsh opposition parties can get their act together is another matter.
If this gets fought on Welsh issues, I’d say this may not be the easy Labour hold that you predict.
How far up shit creek ( a creek of mostly his own shit) must Boris be if he needs Liam Fix to come up with an exculpation this morning? I'd hope that might give Johnson pause for thought, but a hope destined to be dashed I fear.
Boris can do as he wishes. May has made clear he is unsackable. The same applies to Priti Patel. This is the worst government in modern British history. The Tories may well win the next general election. If they don't Jeremy Corbyn will be Prime Minister. You are better off out of it. Pray for your English cousins!
I now don't think they will win the next election. They're now in a more perilous state than Major's was in 1996. After the Patel incident and the latest of the Boris clangers without a sacking on the horizon there can only be the cultists among the Tory supporters (see Charles's earlier post) who are still on board.
I want neither the Tories nor Corbyn’s Labour.
I think there are a lot of us who feel like that. But like it or not we're going to be landed with one or the other. Up till a month or so ago I'd have abstained (voted Lib Dem or Green) marginally hoping May would get in because I don't trust Corbyn's or his team.
Now I'm of the opinion that however crap they turn out to be they couldn't be worse.
Oh, they could. They have ideas and enthusiasm for one thing.
For all the ineptitude within the current cabinet, it can and is getting on with the day job effectively (indeed, one side effect of the Brexit focus is that the government isn't reorganising the NHS or education again).
And they'd spend like never before. Never forget - every Labour government always runs out of money; the only question is how long it takes.
No Tory government has handed over a Budget Surplus to Labour. Labour ,in contrast - has done so - eg 1970.
The Tories handed over an economy in 1997, together with a policy plan that produced a surplus within a couple of years, so that amounts to the same thing.
But if you're right, I stand corrected. Do you think McDonnell and Corbyn would exercise similar Jenkinsian fiscal restraint?
Well the Tories certainly haven't exercised restraint. 45% of the UK's total national debt has been borrowed since 2010. In the past seven years the Tories have borrowed more than Labour did in thirteen years.
Weirdly, I beginning to think Brexit might be a positive overall. We are obviously going to crash out. Equally obviously we'll be back in pretty quickly. We'll lose a lot in the process. But it will finally get leaving the EU off the agenda forever. This would mean the Tories could go back to being a sane right of centre party, which is something the country needs.
Why would the EU take us back?
It's the European Union. We are part of Europe. Read the label.
I think that it cannot happen until we ourselves recognise that we ARE part of Europe rather than the plucky British bulldog standing alone on the white cliffs of history against the travails of Johnny Foreigner.
But are the British Isles part of the Continent?
Yes.
Would you like to articulate all the logical steps which start with that sketch map and finish with "therefore the British Isles are part of the Continent?"
None so blind....
Come along, please. Why are plate boundaries - imperfectly understood discontinuities at and below the seabed level of which we knew nothing 100 years ago and with major consequences in only a limited number of fields such as seismology and mineral extraction - privileged over physical discontinuities at sea level, like the English Channel, which impact on practically all human activity? The answer can't be difficult if, as you suggest, a failure to apprehend it implies wilful ignorance.
Answer, please.
A united Ireland. UDI for the Isle of Wight. Gibralter returns to Spain. The possibilities are endless...
It also means a by-election in Alyn and Deeside, which ought to be fairly safe for Labour although at the last two UK GEs (same boundaries I think, much higher turnout), Labour's majority was 8.1% and 11.7%. With Welsh Labour's record in Cardiff, that's not rock-solid - though the influence of UK matters will probably mean it is this time.
I don't think Labour are going to lose any by-elections in the current climate.
The Tories probably would.
It is not entirely clear what will happen in Alyn & Deeside.
There may be a sympathy vote for Labour ... or there mayn’t, depending on what now emerges. There is a big UKIP vote up for grabs.
What is true is that the Betsi Cadwaldr Health Boad (which covers North Wales) has some of the longest waiting times in the UK.
There is plenty of scope for Welsh Labour to be attacked on both health and education ... whether the Welsh opposition parties can get their act together is another matter.
If this gets fought on Welsh issues, I’d say this may not be the easy Labour hold that you predict.
Well the Tories certainly haven't exercised restraint. 45% of the UK's total national debt has been borrowed since 2010. In the past seven years the Tories have borrowed more than Labour did in thirteen years.
That is a spectacularly silly argument, especially from a supporter of a party which has spent the last seven years accusing the government of cutting too far, too fast, and even of outright malice in trying to get the deficit under control.
Today, I am officially withdrawing my support from the #Priti4Leader campaign.
Should have been Gove - govt wouldn't be in this clusterfudge..
It is intriguing. Gove is a bright button. I wonder what, upon realising, the economic damage that a hard Brexit would do to the country, he would have done differently.
I mean to retain sanity one has to believe that no sensible politician would pursue a course of action so damaging to their country.
If it turns out the allegations were relatively trivial......
Where are details of the allegations?
Apparently he wasn't told.
Well, they weren’t sufficiently serious for Labour to refer the matter to the police.
But, then they haven’t referred the alleged rape of Bex Bailey or the alleged assault on Monica Lennon to the police ....
Hadn't Bex already reported it to the Police but it was outside their jurisdiction? Hence her complaint to Labour instead? Or am I misremembering?
How can allegations of rape possibly be outside the jurisdiction of the police?
Was Bob Quick the investigating officer ?
I didn't remember correctly, this is what it was:
She told the BBC’s PM programme: “It took me a while to summon up the courage to tell anyone in the party, but when I did I told a senior member of staff … it was suggested to me that I not report it. I was told that if I did it might damage me and that might be their genuine view. It might be that that was the case, in which case that shows that we have a serious problem in politics with this issue anyway.”
Labour said it had launched an investigation into the party’s handling of the allegations and urged the police to investigate.
Well the Tories certainly haven't exercised restraint. 45% of the UK's total national debt has been borrowed since 2010. In the past seven years the Tories have borrowed more than Labour did in thirteen years.
If you don't understand why this graph explains it, you should really keep quiet about it.
Well the Tories certainly haven't exercised restraint. 45% of the UK's total national debt has been borrowed since 2010. In the past seven years the Tories have borrowed more than Labour did in thirteen years.
That is a spectacularly silly argument, especially from a supporter of a party which has spent the last seven years accusing the government of cutting too far, too fast, and even of outright malice in trying to get the deficit under control.
But the numbers are there. The Tories have borrowed more than any previous government. They have borrowed at a level which in 2010 Osborne was saying would turn the UK into Greece. So they are not in a strong position to criticise Labour plans - in fact a Tory Cabinet minister, Javid, has already come out in support of additional borrowing.
Today, I am officially withdrawing my support from the #Priti4Leader campaign.
Should have been Gove - govt wouldn't be in this clusterfudge..
It is intriguing. Gove is a bright button. I wonder what, upon realising, the economic damage that a hard Brexit would do to the country, he would have done differently.
I mean to retain sanity one has to believe that no sensible politician would pursue a course of action so damaging to their country.
No election No Hammond Cleverer brexit negociations Soubry to home office to keep quiet.
If it turns out the allegations were relatively trivial......
Where are details of the allegations?
Apparently he wasn't told.
Well, they weren’t sufficiently serious for Labour to refer the matter to the police.
But, then they haven’t referred the alleged rape of Bex Bailey or the alleged assault on Monica Lennon to the police ....
Hadn't Bex already reported it to the Police but it was outside their jurisdiction? Hence her complaint to Labour instead? Or am I misremembering?
No, she did not go to the police. I think that it was the attempted rape abroad that was taken to the police, but ruled out by jurisdiction.
Suicide while under investigation is not that unusual in my line of work. 13 doctors killed themselves between 2005-13 while under GMC investigation. That too has been experienced as a Kafkaesque experience of accusation without explanation.
How far up shit creek ( a creek of mostly his own shit) must Boris be if he needs Liam Fix to come up with an exculpation this morning? I'd hope that might give Johnson pause for thought, but a hope destined to be dashed I fear.
Boris can do as he wishes. May has made clear he is unsackable. The same applies to Priti Patel. This is the worst government in modern British history. The Tories may well win the next general election. If they don't Jeremy Corbyn will be Prime Minister. You are better off out of it. Pray for your English cousins!
I now don't think they will win the next election. They're now in a more perilous state than Major's was in 1996. After the Patel incident and the latest of the Boris clangers without a sacking on the horizon there can only be the cultists among the Tory supporters (see Charles's earlier post) who are still on board.
I want neither the Tories nor Corbyn’s Labour.
I think there are a lot of us who feel like that. But like it or not we're going to be landed with one or the other. Up till a month or so ago I'd have abstained (voted Lib Dem or Green) marginally hoping May would get in because I don't trust Corbyn's or his team.
Now I'm of the opinion that however crap they turn out to be they couldn't be worse.
Oh, they could. They have ideas and enthusiasm for one thing.
For all the ineptitude within the current cabinet, it can and is getting on with the day job effectively (indeed, one side effect of the Brexit focus is that the government isn't reorganising the NHS or education again).
And they'd spend like never before. Never forget - every Labour government always runs out of money; the only question is how long it takes.
No Tory government has handed over a Budget Surplus to Labour. Labour ,in contrast - has done so - eg 1970.
The Tories handed over an economy in 1997, together with a policy plan that produced a surplus within a couple of years, so that amounts to the same thing.
But if you're right, I stand corrected. Do you think McDonnell and Corbyn would exercise similar Jenkinsian fiscal restraint?
I have never been an advocate for McDonnell and Corbyn which is a separate matter entirely. As a point of historical fact,however, Labour governments have bequeathed both a Budget Surplus and a Balance of Payments Surplus to the Tories. No Tory government has managed to do either.
Weirdly, I beginning to think Brexit might be a positive overall. We are obviously going to crash out. Equally obviously we'll be back in pretty quickly. We'll lose a lot in the process. But it will finally get leaving the EU off the agenda forever. This would mean the Tories could go back to being a sane right of centre party, which is something the country needs.
Why would the EU take us back?
It's the European Union. We are part of Europe. Read the label.
I think that it cannot happen until we ourselves recognise that we ARE part of Europe rather than the plucky British bulldog standing alone on the white cliffs of history against the travails of Johnny Foreigner.
But are the British Isles part of the Continent?
Yes.
Would you like to articulate all the logical steps which start with that sketch map and finish with "therefore the British Isles are part of the Continent?"
None so blind....
Come along, please. Why are plate boundaries - imperfectly understood discontinuities at and below the seabed level of which we knew nothing 100 years ago and with major consequences in only a limited number of fields such as seismology and mineral extraction - privileged over physical discontinuities at sea level, like the English Channel, which impact on practically all human activity? The answer can't be difficult if, as you suggest, a failure to apprehend it implies wilful ignorance.
Answer, please.
You will only see what you want to Ishmael but let me ask you this... which continent is Britain part of if not Europe?
It was what Boris didn't say that's going to hang him out to dry, like "Sorry" and more importantly, confirming that the lady was not only, not training journalists, she was able to, as it has never been her job to do so, she was an administrator in a media organisation, on holiday. He has said that he will visit Iran, which was what the Iranians were hoping to achieve anyway. So keen on the big picture, he doesn't see the open manhole in front of him....
How far up shit creek ( a creek of mostly his own shit) must Boris be if he needs Liam Fix to come up with an exculpation this morning? I'd hope that might give Johnson pause for thought, but a hope destined to be dashed I fear.
Boris can do as he wishes. May has made clear he is unsackable. The same applies to Priti Patel. This is the worst government in modern British history. The Tories may well win the next general election. If they don't Jeremy Corbyn will be Prime Minister. You are better off out of it. Pray for your English cousins!
I now don't think they will win the next election. They're now in a more perilous state than Major's was in 1996. After the Patel incident and the latest of the Boris clangers without a sacking on the horizon there can only be the cultists among the Tory supporters (see Charles's earlier post) who are still on board.
I want neither the Tories nor Corbyn’s Labour.
I think there are a lot of us who feel like that. But like it or not we're going to be landed with one or the other. Up till a month or so ago I'd have abstained (voted Lib Dem or Green) marginally hoping May would get in because I don't trust Corbyn's or his team.
Now I'm of the opinion that however crap they turn out to be they couldn't be worse.
Oh, they could. They have ideas and enthusiasm for one thing.
For all the ineptitude within the current cabinet, it can and is getting on with the day job effectively (indeed, one side effect of the Brexit focus is that the government isn't reorganising the NHS or education again).
And they'd spend like never before. Never forget - every Labour government always runs out of money; the only question is how long it takes.
No Tory government has handed over a Budget Surplus to Labour. Labour ,in contrast - has done so - eg 1970.
So be that the case, we've had changes of power between the two main parties in 51, 64, 70, 74, 79, 97, 2010, so once in seven times have the books been in the black.
I think we may have identified a general issue......
Are you seriously implying that Tory governments run out of money?
Well the Tories certainly haven't exercised restraint. 45% of the UK's total national debt has been borrowed since 2010. In the past seven years the Tories have borrowed more than Labour did in thirteen years.
If you don't understand why this graph explains it, you should really keep quiet about it.
Graph is % of GDP. I am talking ££££££££££. And the Tories have borrowed lots and lots of them.
But the numbers are there. The Tories have borrowed more than any previous government. They have borrowed at a level which in 2010 Osborne was saying would turn the UK into Greece. So they are not in a strong position to criticise Labour plans - in fact a Tory Cabinet minister, Javid, has already come out in support of additional borrowing.
Nonsense. When Labour left office they were borrowing four pounds for every three raised in revenue - an eye-watering overspend, far worse than any other major economy in the world. Osborne got that deficit down from around 10% GDP to 2.6% of GDP, and, amazingly, did so whilst simultaneously reducing unemployment. It is a superb record by any standard, and completely vindicated his approach. Labour under its relatively sane previous management wanted to spend a lot more, and under its current barmy management wants to spend humoungous amounts more, so it's a bit rich to criticise the Tories for not spending less. Of course, Labour will no doubt shamelessly attempt to blame the Tories for not doing worse as Labour proposed, but no-one is going to be fooled.
Weirdly, I beginning to think Brexit might be a positive overall. We are obviously going to crash out. Equally obviously we'll be back in pretty quickly. We'll lose a lot in the process. But it will finally get leaving the EU off the agenda forever. This would mean the Tories could go back to being a sane right of centre party, which is something the country needs.
Why would the EU take us back?
It's the European Union. We are part of Europe. Read the label.
I think that it cannot happen until we ourselves recognise that we ARE part of Europe rather than the plucky British bulldog standing alone on the white cliffs of history against the travails of Johnny Foreigner.
But are the British Isles part of the Continent?
Yes.
Would you like to articulate all the logical steps which start with that sketch map and finish with "therefore the British Isles are part of the Continent?"
None so blind....
Come along, please. Why are plate boundaries - imperfectly understood discontinuities at and below the seabed level of which we knew nothing 100 years ago and with major consequences in only a limited number of fields such as seismology and mineral extraction - privileged over physical discontinuities at sea level, like the English Channel, which impact on practically all human activity? The answer can't be difficult if, as you suggest, a failure to apprehend it implies wilful ignorance.
Answer, please.
You will only see what you want to Ishmael but let me ask you this... which continent is Britain part of if not Europe?
Which all-girl supergroup are you a former member of, if not the Spice Girls?
Well the Tories certainly haven't exercised restraint. 45% of the UK's total national debt has been borrowed since 2010. In the past seven years the Tories have borrowed more than Labour did in thirteen years.
That is a spectacularly silly argument, especially from a supporter of a party which has spent the last seven years accusing the government of cutting too far, too fast, and even of outright malice in trying to get the deficit under control.
But the numbers are there. The Tories have borrowed more than any previous government. They have borrowed at a level which in 2010 Osborne was saying would turn the UK into Greece. So they are not in a strong position to criticise Labour plans - in fact a Tory Cabinet minister, Javid, has already come out in support of additional borrowing.
Has come out in favour of additional borrowing for capital investment which will show a real rate of return, at current interest rates - i.e. housing. Borrowing to fund current spending is not quite the same; Labour's problem is that they seldom make the distinction (or often relabel the latter as the former).
Well the Tories certainly haven't exercised restraint. 45% of the UK's total national debt has been borrowed since 2010. In the past seven years the Tories have borrowed more than Labour did in thirteen years.
If you don't understand why this graph explains it, you should really keep quiet about it.
Graph is % of GDP. I am talking ££££££££££. And the Tories have borrowed lots and lots of them.
You'd have been happy with spending cuts to bring the deficit to zero in 2008?
Weirdly, I beginning to think Brexit might be a positive overall. We are obviously going to crash out. Equally obviously we'll be back in pretty quickly. We'll lose a lot in the process. But it will finally get leaving the EU off the agenda forever. This would mean the Tories could go back to being a sane right of centre party, which is something the country needs.
Why would the EU take us back?
It's the European Union. We are part of Europe. Read the label.
I think that it cannot happen until we ourselves recognise that we ARE part of Europe rather than the plucky British bulldog standing alone on the white cliffs of history against the travails of Johnny Foreigner.
But are the British Isles part of the Continent?
Yes.
Would you like to articulate all the logical steps which start with that sketch map and finish with "therefore the British Isles are part of the Continent?"
None so blind....
Come along, please. Why are plate boundaries - imperfectly understood discontinuities at and below the seabed level of which we knew nothing 100 years ago and with major consequences in only a limited number of fields such as seismology and mineral extraction - privileged over physical discontinuities at sea level, like the English Channel, which impact on practically all human activity? The answer can't be difficult if, as you suggest, a failure to apprehend it implies wilful ignorance.
Answer, please.
You will only see what you want to Ishmael but let me ask you this... which continent is Britain part of if not Europe?
People who confuse geological areas with geo-political entities really do need to go back to school and learn some basics.
That said Ishmael is talking utter bollocks as well. We are part of the European continental plate and nothing he can say can change that. Trying to claim that we should not recognise that because they were only recognised 100 years ago is like trying to claim gravity did not exist before Newton worked out the laws.
The Continental plates have been around in their current form give or take a foot or two for a lot longer than the Channel which only appeared about 8000 years ago.
But the numbers are there. The Tories have borrowed more than any previous government. They have borrowed at a level which in 2010 Osborne was saying would turn the UK into Greece. So they are not in a strong position to criticise Labour plans - in fact a Tory Cabinet minister, Javid, has already come out in support of additional borrowing.
Nonsense. When Labour left office they were borrowing four pounds for every three raised in revenue - an eye-watering overspend, far worse than any other major economy in the world. Osborne got that deficit down from around 10% GDP to 2.6% of GDP, and, amazingly, did so whilst simultaneously reducing unemployment. It is a superb record by any standard, and completely vindicated his approach. Labour under its relatively sane previous management wanted to spend a lot more, and under its current barmy management wants to spend humoungous amounts more, so it's a bit rich to criticise the Tories for not spending less. Of course, Labour will no doubt shamelessly attempt to blame the Tories for not doing worse as Labour proposed, but no-one is going to be fooled.
Republicans always made the same argument against Obama, and it had as little merit. When you inherit a deficit of 10% of GDP the only way of not borrowing any more is to push through horrendous cuts in public spending, something which presumably Labour would not be in favour of.
How far up shit creek ( a creek of mostly his own shit) must Boris be if he needs Liam Fix to come up with an exculpation this morning? I'd hope that might give Johnson pause for thought, but a hope destined to be dashed I fear.
Boris can do as he wishes. May has made clear he is unsackable. The same applies to Priti Patel. This is the worst government in modern British history. The Tories may well win the next general election. If they don't Jeremy Corbyn will be Prime Minister. You are better off out of it. Pray for your English cousins!
I now don't think they will win the next election. SNIP
I want neither the Tories nor Corbyn’s Labour.
Now I'm of the opinion that however crap they turn out to be they couldn't be worse.
Oh, they could. They have ideas and enthusiasm for one thing.
For all the ineptitude within the current cabinet, it can and is getting on with the day job effectively (indeed, one side effect of the Brexit focus is that the government isn't reorganising the NHS or education again).
And they'd spend like never before. Never forget - every Labour government always runs out of money; the only question is how long it takes.
No Tory government has handed over a Budget Surplus to Labour. Labour ,in contrast - has done so - eg 1970.
The Tories handed over an economy in 1997, together with a policy plan that produced a surplus within a couple of years, so that amounts to the same thing.
But if you're right, I stand corrected. Do you think McDonnell and Corbyn would exercise similar Jenkinsian fiscal restraint?
I have never been an advocate for McDonnell and Corbyn which is a separate matter entirely. As a point of historical fact,however, Labour governments have bequeathed both a Budget Surplus and a Balance of Payments Surplus to the Tories. No Tory government has managed to do either.
Here's a clue - governments don't start with a clean sheet of paper. Similar arguments are advanced to disparage Obama's economic record, and are equally silly.
It was what Boris didn't say that's going to hang him out to dry, like "Sorry" and more importantly, confirming that the lady was not only, not training journalists, she was able to, as it has never been her job to do so, she was an administrator in a media organisation, on holiday. He has said that he will visit Iran, which was what the Iranians were hoping to achieve anyway. So keen on the big picture, he doesn't see the open manhole in front of him....
And if she was one of our spooks, even more important not to dob her in!
Today, I am officially withdrawing my support from the #Priti4Leader campaign.
Should have been Gove - govt wouldn't be in this clusterfudge..
Agreed. About the only grown-up Brexiteer out there. I can easily imagine he'd have found a way to heal some of the divides that May and co have been totally tone deaf to.
Weirdly, I beginning to think Brexit might be a positive overall. We are obviously going to crash out. Equally obviously we'll be back in pretty quickly. We'll lose a lot in the process. But it will finally get leaving the EU off the agenda forever. This would mean the Tories could go back to being a sane right of centre party, which is something the country needs.
Why would the EU take us back?
It's the European Union. We are part of Europe. Read the label.
I think that it cannot happen until we ourselves recognise that we ARE part of Europe rather than the plucky British bulldog standing alone on the white cliffs of history against the travails of Johnny Foreigner.
But are the British Isles part of the Continent?
Yes.
Would you like to articulate all the logical steps which start with that sketch map and finish with "therefore the British Isles are part of the Continent?"
None so blind....
Come along, please. Why are plate boundaries - imperfectly understood discontinuities at and below the seabed level of which we knew nothing 100 years ago and with major consequences in only a limited number of fields such as seismology and mineral extraction - privileged over physical discontinuities at sea level, like the English Channel, which impact on practically all human activity? The answer can't be difficult if, as you suggest, a failure to apprehend it implies wilful ignorance.
Answer, please.
You will only see what you want to Ishmael but let me ask you this... which continent is Britain part of if not Europe?
Which all-girl supergroup are you a former member of, if not the Spice Girls?
Oh my sides are splitting from the sheer brilliance of your humour!
Weirdly, I beginning to think Brexit might be a positive overall. We are obviously going to crash out. Equally obviously we'll be back in pretty quickly. We'll lose a lot in the process. But it will finally get leaving the EU off the agenda forever. This would mean the Tories could go back to being a sane right of centre party, which is something the country needs.
Why would the EU take us back?
It's the European Union. We are part of Europe. Read the label.
I think that it cannot happen until we ourselves recognise that we ARE part of Europe rather than the plucky British bulldog standing alone on the white cliffs of history against the travails of Johnny Foreigner.
But are the British Isles part of the Continent?
Yes.
Would you like to articulate all the logical steps which start with that sketch map and finish with "therefore the British Isles are part of the Continent?"
None so blind....
Come along, please. Why are plate boundaries - imperfectly understood discontinuities at and below the seabed level of which we knew nothing 100 years ago and with major consequences in only a limited number of fields such as seismology and mineral extraction - privileged over physical discontinuities at sea level, like the English Channel, which impact on practically all human activity? The answer can't be difficult if, as you suggest, a failure to apprehend it implies wilful ignorance.
Answer, please.
You will only see what you want to Ishmael but let me ask you this... which continent is Britain part of if not Europe?
You never say "continental" when referring to Britain. I suspect that is where he's coming from.
Weirdly, I beginning to think Brexit might be a positive overall. We are obviously going to crash out. Equally obviously we'll be back in pretty quickly. We'll lose a lot in the process. But it will finally get leaving the EU off the agenda forever. This would mean the Tories could go back to being a sane right of centre party, which is something the country needs.
Why would the EU take us back?
It's the European Union. We are part of Europe. Read the label.
I think that it cannot happen until we ourselves recognise that we ARE part of Europe rather than the plucky British bulldog standing alone on the white cliffs of history against the travails of Johnny Foreigner.
But are the British Isles part of the Continent?
Yes.
Would you like to articulate all the logical steps which start with that sketch map and finish with "therefore the British Isles are part of the Continent?"
None so blind....
Come along, please. Why are plate boundaries - imperfectly understood discontinuities at and below the seabed level of which we knew nothing 100 years ago and with major consequences in only a limited number of fields such as seismology and mineral extraction - privileged over physical discontinuities at sea level, like the English Channel, which impact on practically all human activity? The answer can't be difficult if, as you suggest, a failure to apprehend it implies wilful ignorance.
Answer, please.
You will only see what you want to Ishmael but let me ask you this... which continent is Britain part of if not Europe?
Which all-girl supergroup are you a former member of, if not the Spice Girls?
Oh my sides are splitting from the sheer brilliance of your humour!
Well they shouldn't be. You made an embarrassingly elementary logical error, and that was the most succinct way of nailing it.
Well the Tories certainly haven't exercised restraint. 45% of the UK's total national debt has been borrowed since 2010. In the past seven years the Tories have borrowed more than Labour did in thirteen years.
If you don't understand why this graph explains it, you should really keep quiet about it.
Graph is % of GDP. I am talking ££££££££££. And the Tories have borrowed lots and lots of them.
You'd have been happy with spending cuts to bring the deficit to zero in 2008?
Of course not. That would have been suicidal. As it nearly was in 2012 before Osborne relaxed his targets. I was just pointing out that the Tories own record makes it much harder to criticise Labour plans for borrowing - they have failed to reach their target, their talk about the UK becoming Greece has been shown to be empty rhetoric and there is now talk of not reaching a budget surplus until 2025 - a full 10 years after Osborne's target.
Today, I am officially withdrawing my support from the #Priti4Leader campaign.
Should have been Gove - govt wouldn't be in this clusterfudge..
It is intriguing. Gove is a bright button. I wonder what, upon realising, the economic damage that a hard Brexit would do to the country, he would have done differently.
I mean to retain sanity one has to believe that no sensible politician would pursue a course of action so damaging to their country.
Weirdly, I beginning to think Brexit might be a positive overall. We are obviously going to crash out. Equally obviously we'll be back in pretty quickly. We'll lose a lot in the process. But it will finally get leaving the EU off the agenda forever. This would mean the Tories could go back to being a sane right of centre party, which is something the country needs.
Why would the EU take us back?
It's the European Union. We are part of Europe. Read the label.
But are the British Isles part of the Continent?
Yes.
Would you like to articulate all the logical steps which start with that sketch map and finish with "therefore the British Isles are part of the Continent?"
None so blind....
Come along, please. Why are plate boundaries - imperfectly understood discontinuities at and below the seabed level of which we knew nothing 100 years ago and with major consequences in only a limited number of fields such as seismology and mineral extraction - privileged over physical discontinuities at sea level, like the English Channel, which impact on practically all human activity? The answer can't be difficult if, as you suggest, a failure to apprehend it implies wilful ignorance.
Answer, please.
You will only see what you want to Ishmael but let me ask you this... which continent is Britain part of if not Europe?
People who confuse geological areas with geo-political entities really do need to go back to school and learn some basics.
That said Ishmael is talking utter bollocks as well. We are part of the European continental plate and nothing he can say can change that. Trying to claim that we should not recognise that because they were only recognised 100 years ago is like trying to claim gravity did not exist before Newton worked out the laws.
The Continental plates have been around in their current form give or take a foot or two for a lot longer than the Channel which only appeared about 8000 years ago.
This stems from a question about why the EU would ever take us back. Answer: we are the 2nd largest economy in Europe*... of course they would take us back.
(*Albeit we'll probably be the 3rd largest in Europe by the time we try to re-join after brexit has had an impact imo.)
Today, I am officially withdrawing my support from the #Priti4Leader campaign.
Should have been Gove - govt wouldn't be in this clusterfudge..
It is intriguing. Gove is a bright button. I wonder what, upon realising, the economic damage that a hard Brexit would do to the country, he would have done differently.
I mean to retain sanity one has to believe that no sensible politician would pursue a course of action so damaging to their country.
Well the Tories certainly haven't exercised restraint. 45% of the UK's total national debt has been borrowed since 2010. In the past seven years the Tories have borrowed more than Labour did in thirteen years.
If you don't understand why this graph explains it, you should really keep quiet about it.
Graph is % of GDP. I am talking ££££££££££. And the Tories have borrowed lots and lots of them.
You'd have been happy with spending cuts to bring the deficit to zero in 2008?
Of course not. That would have been suicidal. As it nearly was in 2012 before Osborne relaxed his targets. I was just pointing out that the Tories own record makes it much harder to criticise Labour plans for borrowing - they have failed to reach their target, their talk about the UK becoming Greece has been shown to be empty rhetoric and there is now talk of not reaching a budget surplus until 2025 - a full 10 years after Osborne's target.
It is easy to criticise. The Tories want to borrow less and Labour want to borrow more.
How far up shit creek ( a creek of mostly his own shit) must Boris be if he needs Liam Fix to come up with an exculpation this morning? I'd hope that might give Johnson pause for thought, but a hope destined to be dashed I fear.
Boris can do as he wishes. May has made clear he is unsackable. The same applies to Priti Patel. This is the worst government in modern British history. The Tories may well win the next general election. If they don't Jeremy Corbyn will be Prime Minister. You are better off out of it. Pray for your English cousins!
I now don't think they will win the next election. SNIP
I want neither the Tories nor Corbyn’s Labour.
Now I'm of the opinion that however crap they turn out to be they couldn't be worse.
No Tory government has handed over a Budget Surplus to Labour. Labour ,in contrast - has done so - eg 1970.
The Tories handed over an economy in 1997, together with a policy plan that produced a surplus within a couple of years, so that amounts to the same thing.
But if you're right, I stand corrected. Do you think McDonnell and Corbyn would exercise similar Jenkinsian fiscal restraint?
I have never been an advocate for McDonnell and Corbyn which is a separate matter entirely. As a point of historical fact,however, Labour governments have bequeathed both a Budget Surplus and a Balance of Payments Surplus to the Tories. No Tory government has managed to do either.
Here's a clue - governments don't start with a clean sheet of paper. Similar arguments are advanced to disparage Obama's economic record, and are equally silly.
Here's another clue - Labour governments don't start with a clean sheet of paper either. Labour took office in 1945 with the heavy burden of World War2 to address. In 1964 it inherited a Balance of Payments mess from the outgoing Tory administration whilst in March 1974 it inherited the 3 Day Week , 13% plus inflation , a big Balance of Payments deficit as well as a large Budget deficit.
Well the Tories certainly haven't exercised restraint. 45% of the UK's total national debt has been borrowed since 2010. In the past seven years the Tories have borrowed more than Labour did in thirteen years.
If you don't understand why this graph explains it, you should really keep quiet about it.
Graph is % of GDP. I am talking ££££££££££. And the Tories have borrowed lots and lots of them.
You'd have been happy with spending cuts to bring the deficit to zero in 2008?
Of course not. That would have been suicidal. As it nearly was in 2012 before Osborne relaxed his targets. I was just pointing out that the Tories own record makes it much harder to criticise Labour plans for borrowing - they have failed to reach their target, their talk about the UK becoming Greece has been shown to be empty rhetoric and there is now talk of not reaching a budget surplus until 2025 - a full 10 years after Osborne's target.
Reaching a surplus is a nice-to-have and not particularly necessary, depending on what else is going on. What is important is getting the deficit down to a level where the debt-to-GDP ratio is meaningfully shrinking. The difference between 0.1% and -0.1% in a deficit is trivial (or political, if you prefer); the difference between 1% and 5% matters.
I'm implying we as a nation have an issue. Now it's not simple of course, if your economy is growing at 3% and inflation is also 3% (say late 1960's) as long as you are borrowing in your own currency running a say 2% deficit is not going to frighten anyone (except of course bond holders who are on the quiet getting 3% taken off them every year less the bond yield), and your debt to GDP will drop. But generally we don't seem to want to live within our means.
Take the triple lock, the removal of one part of which would only have kicked in if inflation was less than 2.5% (and uprating for inflation would still have taken place), and was proposed only six months ago and we collectively threw our hands up and said "no". So it has become a shibboleth that is put in the electoral kryptonite box for all parties in future marked "never, ever, under any circumstances touch, even with a mile long bargepole". Now in reality there is a way out of the maths on that one by increasing the pension age faster than otherwise would have been the case, and I'm sure, on the quiet, whoever is in power that will now happen, but it seems to me illustrative.
We have run a deficit with the rest of the world for the past 20 odd years without a break, we have net foreign debts now I believe, in 2010 we were borrowing (if I recall rightly) about 13% of GDP on the public finances, and though the present lot have got that down to 3% ish (?), the country now seems to be chafing again at how "tough" things are.
It's a problem we should see in our national mirror rather than though one particular party prism. Even if I personally think one of the present lot's proposals are a lot worse than the other I think it's deeper than that, and given a globalised world I doubt we are ever going to get back to those 1950's and 60's numbers any time soon which made life pretty easy relatively.
Well the Tories certainly haven't exercised restraint. 45% of the UK's total national debt has been borrowed since 2010. In the past seven years the Tories have borrowed more than Labour did in thirteen years.
If you don't understand why this graph explains it, you should really keep quiet about it.
Graph is % of GDP. I am talking ££££££££££. And the Tories have borrowed lots and lots of them.
You'd have been happy with spending cuts to bring the deficit to zero in 2008?
Of course not. That would have been suicidal. As it nearly was in 2012 before Osborne relaxed his targets. I was just pointing out that the Tories own record makes it much harder to criticise Labour plans for borrowing - they have failed to reach their target, their talk about the UK becoming Greece has been shown to be empty rhetoric and there is now talk of not reaching a budget surplus until 2025 - a full 10 years after Osborne's target.
It is easy to criticise. The Tories want to borrow less and Labour want to borrow more.
Labour don't want to borrow more money. They want to issue government bonds and swap them for shares in nationalised companies. And grow the economy out of debt. Because they understand economics. Apparently...
Today, I am officially withdrawing my support from the #Priti4Leader campaign.
Should have been Gove - govt wouldn't be in this clusterfudge..
It is intriguing. Gove is a bright button. I wonder what, upon realising, the economic damage that a hard Brexit would do to the country, he would have done differently.
I mean to retain sanity one has to believe that no sensible politician would pursue a course of action so damaging to their country.
Are you saying that Gove is an expert?
Of course not or he'd have to punch himself several times in the face each day before he went to work.
I am saying he is savvy and would have avoided a lot of the problems that inflexible and imaginationless Tezza has encountered.
My idle wondering was whether, upon realising the damage that a hard Brexit would do to the country, he would have rowed back; he is smart enough to realise that politicians shouldn't be employed to trash the country.
Well the Tories certainly haven't exercised restraint. 45% of the UK's total national debt has been borrowed since 2010. In the past seven years the Tories have borrowed more than Labour did in thirteen years.
If you don't understand why this graph explains it, you should really keep quiet about it.
Graph is % of GDP. I am talking ££££££££££. And the Tories have borrowed lots and lots of them.
This stems from a question about why the EU would ever take us back. Answer: we are the 2nd largest economy in Europe*... of course they would take us back.
(*Albeit we'll probably be the 3rd largest in Europe by the time we try to re-join after brexit has had an impact imo.)
They would only take us back under the sorts of conditions we would find unacceptable. Being the first or second largest economy in the Europe will mean less and less as the EU moves towards regarding the EU economy as a single entity rather than its component parts.
And a UK unreconciled with membership of a Federal EU would be more trouble than it was worth.
I'm implying we as a nation have an issue. Now it's not simple of course, if your economy is growing at 3% and inflation is also 3% (say late 1960's) as long as you are borrowing in your own currency running a say 2% deficit is not going to frighten anyone (except of course bond holders who are on the quiet getting 3% taken off them every year less the bond yield), and your debt to GDP will drop. But generally we don't seem to want to live within our means.
Take the triple lock, the removal of one part of which would only have kicked in if inflation was less than 2.5% (and uprating for inflation would still have taken place), and was proposed only six months ago and we collectively threw our hands up and said "no". So it has become a shibboleth that is put in the electoral kryptonite box for all parties in future marked "never, ever, under any circumstances touch, even with a mile long bargepole". Now in reality there is a way out of the maths on that one by increasing the pension age faster than otherwise would have been the case, and I'm sure, on the quiet, whoever is in power that will now happen, but it seems to me illustrative.
We have run a deficit with the rest of the world for the past 20 odd years without a break, we have net foreign debts now I believe, in 2010 we were borrowing (if I recall rightly) about 13% of GDP on the public finances, and though the present lot have got that down to 3% ish (?), the country now seems to be chafing again at how "tough" things are.
It's a problem we should see in our national mirror rather than though one particular party prism. Even if I personally think one of the present lot's proposals are a lot worse than the other I think it's deeper than that, and given a globalised world I doubt we are ever going to get back to those 1950's and 60's numbers any time soon which made life pretty easy relatively.
I don't disagree with much of that at all. I would point out ,however, that our Debt/GDP ratio was higher in the 1950s and early 1960s than is the case today.
People who confuse geological areas with geo-political entities really do need to go back to school and learn some basics.
That said Ishmael is talking utter bollocks as well. We are part of the European continental plate and nothing he can say can change that. Trying to claim that we should not recognise that because they were only recognised 100 years ago is like trying to claim gravity did not exist before Newton worked out the laws.
The Continental plates have been around in their current form give or take a foot or two for a lot longer than the Channel which only appeared about 8000 years ago.
I am not talking bollocks, why would I deny that we are on the European continental plate? Of course I wouldn't. The point is, as you say, that you can't derive politics from geology - an extreme case of the rule that you can't derive "ought" statements from "is" statements. And if we are on a bollocks-spotting expedition, what on earth does longevity have to do with anything? A well educated ten year old could list a dozen times when the existence of the English Channel has been politically crucial to us. How does the existence of the European plate stack up against that?
We are on the European plate; Europe is on the European plate; ergo we are part of Europe is no more an argument than it is to say that if you are travelling on the same plane as the English cricket team, you must be part of the team.
To think that, not so long ago, the fashionable view was that Boris's "buffoon" thing was all just an act, and that he was in reality a super-intelligent man.
To think that, not so long ago, the fashionable view was that Boris's "buffoon" thing was all just an act, and that he was in reality a super-intelligent man.
To think that, not so long ago, the fashionable view was that Boris's "buffoon" thing was all just an act, and that he was in reality a super-intelligent man.
One can be highly intelligent and also lacking in many other things like common sense or basic life skills.
I once had to teach the 20 year old Oxford undergraduate daughter of a former SoS for Health how to make instant coffee...
People who confuse geological areas with geo-political entities really do need to go back to school and learn some basics.
That said Ishmael is talking utter bollocks as well. We are part of the European continental plate and nothing he can say can change that. Trying to claim that we should not recognise that because they were only recognised 100 years ago is like trying to claim gravity did not exist before Newton worked out the laws.
The Continental plates have been around in their current form give or take a foot or two for a lot longer than the Channel which only appeared about 8000 years ago.
I am not talking bollocks, why would I deny that we are on the European continental plate? Of course I wouldn't. The point is, as you say, that you can't derive politics from geology - an extreme case of the rule that you can't derive "ought" statements from "is" statements. And if we are on a bollocks-spotting expedition, what on earth does longevity have to do with anything? A well educated ten year old could list a dozen times when the existence of the English Channel has been politically crucial to us. How does the existence of the European plate stack up against that?
We are on the European plate; Europe is on the European plate; ergo we are part of Europe is no more an argument than it is to say that if you are travelling on the same plane as the English cricket team, you must be part of the team.
This stems from a question about why the EU would ever take us back. Answer: we are the 2nd largest economy in Europe*... of course they would take us back.
(*Albeit we'll probably be the 3rd largest in Europe by the time we try to re-join after brexit has had an impact imo.)
They would only take us back under the sorts of conditions we would find unacceptable. Being the first or second largest economy in the Europe will mean less and less as the EU moves towards regarding the EU economy as a single entity rather than its component parts.
And a UK unreconciled with membership of a Federal EU would be more trouble than it was worth.
I agree with that - we would only ask to go back if >80% of the population wanted it, and the EU would have to be convinced of that.
To think that, not so long ago, the fashionable view was that Boris's "buffoon" thing was all just an act, and that he was in reality a super-intelligent man.
He is very intelligent but as often is the case not a wise counsellor - Reckon this has lost him any leadership hope
Comments
https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/evening-standard-comment-you-re-not-playing-the-great-game-boris-a3683916.html
He was also sacked from his job at the time - that seems very unfair. Suspended pending investigation would surely be a better way to handle it?
I think we may have identified a general issue......
There may be a sympathy vote for Labour ... or there mayn’t, depending on what now emerges. There is a big UKIP vote up for grabs.
What is true is that the Betsi Cadwaldr Health Boad (which covers North Wales) has some of the longest waiting times in the UK.
There is plenty of scope for Welsh Labour to be attacked on both health and education ... whether the Welsh opposition parties can get their act together is another matter.
If this gets fought on Welsh issues, I’d say this may not be the easy Labour hold that you predict.
#Esther4Leader
Shocked to hear of Sargeant's death.
Answer, please.
But, then they haven’t referred the alleged rape of Bex Bailey or the alleged assault on Monica Lennon to the police ....
UKIP will certainly contest it.
Hadn't Bex already reported it to the Police but it was outside their jurisdiction? Hence her complaint to Labour instead? Or am I misremembering?
I mean to retain sanity one has to believe that no sensible politician would pursue a course of action so damaging to their country.
Was Bob Quick the investigating officer ?
I didn't remember correctly, this is what it was:
She told the BBC’s PM programme: “It took me a while to summon up the courage to tell anyone in the party, but when I did I told a senior member of staff … it was suggested to me that I not report it. I was told that if I did it might damage me and that might be their genuine view. It might be that that was the case, in which case that shows that we have a serious problem in politics with this issue anyway.”
Labour said it had launched an investigation into the party’s handling of the allegations and urged the police to investigate.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/31/labour-activist-says-she-was-raped-at-party-event-and-told-not-to-report-it
If you don't understand why this graph explains it, you should really keep quiet about it.
No Hammond
Cleverer brexit negociations
Soubry to home office to keep quiet.
Would have helped.
Suicide while under investigation is not that unusual in my line of work. 13 doctors killed themselves between 2005-13 while under GMC investigation. That too has been experienced as a Kafkaesque experience of accusation without explanation.
http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/your-practice/regulation/13-doctors-died-while-gmc-failed-to-act-on-suicides-risk-review-finds/20030569.article
Borrowing to fund current spending is not quite the same; Labour's problem is that they seldom make the distinction (or often relabel the latter as the former).
That said Ishmael is talking utter bollocks as well. We are part of the European continental plate and nothing he can say can change that. Trying to claim that we should not recognise that because they were only recognised 100 years ago is like trying to claim gravity did not exist before Newton worked out the laws.
The Continental plates have been around in their current form give or take a foot or two for a lot longer than the Channel which only appeared about 8000 years ago.
Similar arguments are advanced to disparage Obama's economic record, and are equally silly.
The film executive hired private investigators, including ex-Mossad agents, to track actresses and journalists.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/harvey-weinsteins-army-of-spies
https://twitter.com/gabyhinsliff/status/927910048399020032
Not sacking Priti and Boris is contemptible
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/06/woman-trump-middle-finger-fired-juli-briskman
Compare and contrast with Hobby Lobby...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burwell_v._Hobby_Lobby_Stores,_Inc.
(*Albeit we'll probably be the 3rd largest in Europe by the time we try to re-join after brexit has had an impact imo.)
And certainly not vice versa.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/07/brenda-lawrence-harassment-bill-aide-244617
@ Justin124
I'm implying we as a nation have an issue. Now it's not simple of course, if your economy is growing at 3% and inflation is also 3% (say late 1960's) as long as you are borrowing in your own currency running a say 2% deficit is not going to frighten anyone (except of course bond holders who are on the quiet getting 3% taken off them every year less the bond yield), and your debt to GDP will drop. But generally we don't seem to want to live within our means.
Take the triple lock, the removal of one part of which would only have kicked in if inflation was less than 2.5% (and uprating for inflation would still have taken place), and was proposed only six months ago and we collectively threw our hands up and said "no". So it has become a shibboleth that is put in the electoral kryptonite box for all parties in future marked "never, ever, under any circumstances touch, even with a mile long bargepole". Now in reality there is a way out of the maths on that one by increasing the pension age faster than otherwise would have been the case, and I'm sure, on the quiet, whoever is in power that will now happen, but it seems to me illustrative.
We have run a deficit with the rest of the world for the past 20 odd years without a break, we have net foreign debts now I believe, in 2010 we were borrowing (if I recall rightly) about 13% of GDP on the public finances, and though the present lot have got that down to 3% ish (?), the country now seems to be chafing again at how "tough" things are.
It's a problem we should see in our national mirror rather than though one particular party prism. Even if I personally think one of the present lot's proposals are a lot worse than the other I think it's deeper than that, and given a globalised world I doubt we are ever going to get back to those 1950's and 60's numbers any time soon which made life pretty easy relatively.
I am saying he is savvy and would have avoided a lot of the problems that inflexible and imaginationless Tezza has encountered.
My idle wondering was whether, upon realising the damage that a hard Brexit would do to the country, he would have rowed back; he is smart enough to realise that politicians shouldn't be employed to trash the country.
And a UK unreconciled with membership of a Federal EU would be more trouble than it was worth.
We are on the European plate; Europe is on the European plate; ergo we are part of Europe is no more an argument than it is to say that if you are travelling on the same plane as the English cricket team, you must be part of the team.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-41904460
Plenty of speculation about what has happened. Was suspended on the 3rd November.
I once had to teach the 20 year old Oxford undergraduate daughter of a former SoS for Health how to make instant coffee...
Where old Boris lay
I agree with that - we would only ask to go back if >80% of the population wanted it, and the EU would have to be convinced of that.