It's certainly true in substance, but whether contemptible or not depends on your view of Brexit.
It was however consistent with his general take on the EU, which is well characterised as that of a 'diffident Remainer'.
Yes, it's a curiosity of contemporary politics that while most people don't actually have a strong view on the EU one way or the other, people who feel that way in politics are treated as though they were bizarre sun-worshippers. The Remain campaign could have done with additional prominent people who said "I'm not a great fan of the EU but on balance we'd be better off staying", rather than "Vote Remain or the economy gets it", which most people thought (probably correctly) was hyperbole. In 2022, poliicians who are fanatical about the EU either way will look out of touch.
And I say that as someone who IS fanatical - I think the EU is great, and would have no problem with it moving to becoming a single country. But I recognise that it's an unusual view, reflecting my many years abroad.
Our views on the EU are very similar view, although there are some aspects that I dislike.
In fact I have always regarded it rather like a dog with fleas. I don't like the fleas, but I want the dog treated, not shot!
Water, rail, Royal Mail to be nationalised as previously announced. Plus looking at universal free Internet access for all (unless I misunderstood). That presumably involves mass nationalised of telecoms companies? Is this Labour policy?
He's one to talk about rigging. The Labour leadership election is now rigged in favour of the hard left, Momentum is taking over key positions. He's stolen the word rigged from Trump, and "For the Many not the Few was Tony Blair's election slogan.
I always imagined "for the many not the few" was some SpAd's joke taken from Star Trek's "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" but it is in Labour's Clause 4 now (the Tony Blair remix) so I'm not sure how much I'd read into it as a portent of full-scale revolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clause_IV
The issue with the Hard Left version of this is that only idealogical purists like themselves get to decide what is the best for the many.
Water, rail, Royal Mail to be nationalised as previously announced. Plus looking at universal free Internet access for all (unless I misunderstood). That presumably involves mass nationalised of telecoms companies? Is this Labour policy?
He looks like a character from 'On The Buses'. Have they even sold Burgundy V neck sweaters in the last 40 years?
A man born out of time. He would have been a _fantastic_ ARP warden.
Water, rail, Royal Mail to be nationalised as previously announced. Plus looking at universal free Internet access for all (unless I misunderstood). That presumably involves mass nationalised of telecoms companies? Is this Labour policy?
He's one to talk about rigging. The Labour leadership election is now rigged in favour of the hard left, Momentum is taking over key positions. He's stolen the word rigged from Trump, and "For the Many not the Few was Tony Blair's election slogan.
You have to admire his fiscal responsibility in not handing over a shedload of money to PR companies when he adopted perfectly serviceable and successful slogans at no cost to the party.
And his prudence in not forking out for a new jumper since 1968.
It does make you wonder what he gets as Christmas presents.
Water, rail, Royal Mail to be nationalised as previously announced. Plus looking at universal free Internet access for all (unless I misunderstood). That presumably involves mass nationalised of telecoms companies? Is this Labour policy?
I would be fully in favour of Openreach and BT being demerged. Openreach might be better in public ownership given its nature if it can be bought at a reasonable price. But as Treasury civil servants and Macdonnell would be doing the haggling that seems unlikely.
Edit - and he's right about the wealthy elite too. Why, there's one political party whose leader was raised in a seven-bedroom house, got two Es at A-level but rose to the top essentially because of his father's connections!
Openreach is being demerged/spun off.
Is part of the remedies from BT's takeover of EE.
It'll lose the BT brand and will be neutral in all provisions.
The worst feature of the current rail set up is the toilets.
An oddity by the current dismal standards is Eurostar, where the standard carriages are OK but nothing special but the toilets are superb - more spacious and possibly cleaner than the one I have at home.
A more serious comment is that nationalisation is funded by debt, not as ydoethur implies by current spending, so it's oversimplified to say we couldn't spend money on a decent service because we'd have given it all to shareholders.
Attitudes to government debt in even Conservative opinion are oddly variable - sometimes it's a terrible crisis requiring immediate extreme action (which then tends not to happen, but serves to win an election or two), sometimes meh, it needs to be brought down sometime. It's clearly a long-term drain on the exchequer, though a productive investment may yield a countervailing income flow that outbalances it. That's the case for major investment in airports, HS2, and so on, and there's a fair case for saying that a unified rail system would be more cost-effective than the current mess. I'm mildly in favour but it's not really top priority IMO, and gradual nationalisation when the franchises run out (so compensation is essentially zero) seems a good plan.
Good points. I'd like Labour to spell out the order of priority of nationalisation programme before the next GE. These will be long complex pieces of legislation and require buckets of government debt: let's see the order in which it will be undertaken.
Water, rail, Royal Mail to be nationalised as previously announced. Plus looking at universal free Internet access for all (unless I misunderstood). That presumably involves mass nationalised of telecoms companies? Is this Labour policy?
He looks like a character from 'On The Buses'. Have they even sold Burgundy V neck sweaters in the last 40 years?
I believe that they still sell well in Hartlepool M and S
Water, rail, Royal Mail to be nationalised as previously announced. Plus looking at universal free Internet access for all (unless I misunderstood). That presumably involves mass nationalised of telecoms companies? Is this Labour policy?
I would be fully in favour of Openreach and BT being demerged. Openreach might be better in public ownership given its nature if it can be bought at a reasonable price. But as Treasury civil servants and Macdonnell would be doing the haggling that seems unlikely.
Edit - and he's right about the wealthy elite too. Why, there's one political party whose leader was raised in a seven-bedroom house, got two Es at A-level but rose to the top essentially because of his father's connections!
Openreach is being demerged/spun off.
Is part of the remedies from BT's takeover of EE.
It'll lose the BT brand and will be neutral in all provisions.
But it will still be very largely beholden to BT will it not as BT are its biggest customer (goodness knows why given how bad they are)? I have to say I think the whole system of telecoms infrastructure in this country has been appallingly mishandled.
Water, rail, Royal Mail to be nationalised as previously announced. Plus looking at universal free Internet access for all (unless I misunderstood). That presumably involves mass nationalised of telecoms companies? Is this Labour policy?
He's one to talk about rigging. The Labour leadership election is now rigged in favour of the hard left, Momentum is taking over key positions. He's stolen the word rigged from Trump, and "For the Many not the Few was Tony Blair's election slogan.
I always imagined "for the many not the few" was some SpAd's joke taken from Star Trek's "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" but it is in Labour's Clause 4 now (the Tony Blair remix) so I'm not sure how much I'd read into it as a portent of full-scale revolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clause_IV
The issue with the Hard Left version of this is that only idealogical purists like themselves get to decide what is the best for the many.
For the Many Not the Few was Tony Blair's way of replacing the old Clause 4. He was saying that you dont have to have red blooded socialist nationalisation or to be anti business to run the country in the interests of the majority. Unfortunately after his first term, Blair stopped doing that. One thing is for certain: John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn screwing up the economy is not in the interests of the majority in this country.
Water, rail, Royal Mail to be nationalised as previously announced. Plus looking at universal free Internet access for all (unless I misunderstood). That presumably involves mass nationalised of telecoms companies? Is this Labour policy?
He looks like a character from 'On The Buses'. Have they even sold Burgundy V neck sweaters in the last 40 years?
I believe that they still sell well in Hartlepool M and S
The referendum campaign was largely dominated by wealthy Tories telling lies to the voters. That was to be expected. What I find most unforgiveable is the attitude of the Labour leadership. As he showed last May and June, Corbyn could have galvanised younger voters to come out and vote Remain. He went on holiday instead. That is contemptible.
If true, I would not call Corbyn contemptible, more like bloody marvellous.
It's certainly true in substance, but whether contemptible or not depends on your view of Brexit.
It was however consistent with his general take on the EU, which is well characterised as that of a 'diffident Remainer'.
According to Shipman’s book, both Corbyn and McDonnell and, particularly, Seamus Milne undermined or failed to support the Labour Remain campaign.
Anyone thinking they will go for SM or CU membership needs their head examining.
Anyone wanting a close but sensible relationship with the EU has no political home at the moment.
Water, rail, Royal Mail to be nationalised as previously announced. Plus looking at universal free Internet access for all (unless I misunderstood). That presumably involves mass nationalised of telecoms companies? Is this Labour policy?
I would be fully in favour of Openreach and BT being demerged. Openreach might be better in public ownership given its nature if it can be bought at a reasonable price. But as Treasury civil servants and Macdonnell would be doing the haggling that seems unlikely.
Edit - and he's right about the wealthy elite too. Why, there's one political party whose leader was raised in a seven-bedroom house, got two Es at A-level but rose to the top essentially because of his father's connections!
Corbyn did not rise to the top through his father's connections but because after 40 years as an insignificant backbench maverick, he just happened to be in the right place at the right time.
Water, rail, Royal Mail to be nationalised as previously announced. Plus looking at universal free Internet access for all (unless I misunderstood). That presumably involves mass nationalised of telecoms companies? Is this Labour policy?
I would be fully in favour of Openreach and BT being demerged. Openreach might be better in public ownership given its nature if it can be bought at a reasonable price. But as Treasury civil servants and Macdonnell would be doing the haggling that seems unlikely.
Edit - and he's right about the wealthy elite too. Why, there's one political party whose leader was raised in a seven-bedroom house, got two Es at A-level but rose to the top essentially because of his father's connections!
Openreach is being demerged/spun off.
Is part of the remedies from BT's takeover of EE.
It'll lose the BT brand and will be neutral in all provisions.
But it will still be very largely beholden to BT will it not as BT are its biggest customer (goodness knows why given how bad they are)? I have to say I think the whole system of telecoms infrastructure in this country has been appallingly mishandled.
Nope, the structure of it make it impossible to be beholden to BT.
In fact it will almost have to make everyone except BT a priority.
While I agree, those of us in secure professional jobs including myself are pretty well insulated from the shocks of Brexit. SO is in the West Midlands, and in an export orientated sector of the economy as I recall.
It is rather like the bacon and the egg. The chicken is involved but the pig is commited.
On a point regarding export, as my day job is a cash accountant working for a small/medium exporter having the GBP/EUR at 1.40 as it was pre referendum was absolutely murderous. Now any sort of tariffs might lead us to set up a plaque or even warehouse in the EU if needs be but pre ref was no panacea
I've done quite nicely with sales to EU since the fall of the pound. But it is mainly making me think how much easier it would be if we simply joined the Euro.
It would have meant much more severe austerity after the crash had we been unable to devalue. Spain, Italy, Greece, Ireland, etc all saw dramatic real wage cuts on a much bigger scale and very high unemploymenty.
With both goods and service imports from the EU up last quarter, widening the trade deficit, it seems that the benefit of devaluation has worn off. Another one required? or is serial devaluation really not the cure for our economic ills?
1.2 billion of the deficit was caused by the fractured north sea pipeline but you do not comment on this one off issue
The referendum campaign was largely dominated by wealthy Tories telling lies to the voters. That was to be expected. What I find most unforgiveable is the attitude of the Labour leadership. As he showed last May and June, Corbyn could have galvanised younger voters to come out and vote Remain. He went on holiday instead. That is contemptible.
If true, I would not call Corbyn contemptible, more like bloody marvellous.
It's certainly true in substance, but whether contemptible or not depends on your view of Brexit.
It was however consistent with his general take on the EU, which is well characterised as that of a 'diffident Remainer'.
According to Shipman’s book, both Corbyn and McDonnell and, particularly, Seamus Milne undermined or failed to support the Labour Remain campaign.
Anyone thinking they will go for SM or CU membership needs their head examining.
Anyone wanting a close but sensible relationship with the EU has no political home at the moment.
Leavers toasted Jeremy Corbyn on referendum night.
Water, rail, Royal Mail to be nationalised as previously announced. Plus looking at universal free Internet access for all (unless I misunderstood). That presumably involves mass nationalised of telecoms companies? Is this Labour policy?
He's one to talk about rigging. The Labour leadership election is now rigged in favour of the hard left, Momentum is taking over key positions. He's stolen the word rigged from Trump, and "For the Many not the Few was Tony Blair's election slogan.
You have to admire his fiscal responsibility in not handing over a shedload of money to PR companies when he adopted perfectly serviceable and successful slogans at no cost to the party.
And his prudence in not forking out for a new jumper since 1968.
He got his money's worth from the capital investment in buying a new suit. That was a great rate of return.
Water, rail, Royal Mail to be nationalised as previously announced. Plus looking at universal free Internet access for all (unless I misunderstood). That presumably involves mass nationalised of telecoms companies? Is this Labour policy?
He looks like a character from 'On The Buses'. Have they even sold Burgundy V neck sweaters in the last 40 years?
A man born out of time. He would have been a _fantastic_ ARP warden.
He looks like one of those corrupt 1970’s Met detectives....... superficially plausible but not at all nice in reality.
Water, rail, Royal Mail to be nationalised as previously announced. Plus looking at universal free Internet access for all (unless I misunderstood). That presumably involves mass nationalised of telecoms companies? Is this Labour policy?
I would be fully in favour of Openreach and BT being demerged. Openreach might be better in public ownership given its nature if it can be bought at a reasonable price. But as Treasury civil servants and Macdonnell would be doing the haggling that seems unlikely.
Edit - and he's right about the wealthy elite too. Why, there's one political party whose leader was raised in a seven-bedroom house, got two Es at A-level but rose to the top essentially because of his father's connections!
Corbyn did not rise to the top through his father's connections but because after 40 years as an insignificant backbench maverick, he just happened to be in the right place at the right time.
Ask yourself this question:
Would he have got to the insignificant backbencher role to start with if his father hadn't been a significant figure in the trades union movement able to start him in local government in London?
I would say the answer's no. He reminds me of the Marquis of Granby. But feel free to disagree.
He's one to talk about rigging. The Labour leadership election is now rigged in favour of the hard left, Momentum is taking over key positions. He's stolen the word rigged from Trump, and "For the Many not the Few was Tony Blair's election slogan.
There you go again. The party has attracted lots of people who prefer left-wingers, so they tend to win party elections. You may not like it (as you tell us five times a day while swearing your lifelong allegiance) but it's how democracy works. What do you think left-wingers ought to do, other than stand for election in the closest available party and hope to win?
The referendum campaign was largely dominated by wealthy Tories telling lies to the voters. That was to be expected. What I find most unforgiveable is the attitude of the Labour leadership. As he showed last May and June, Corbyn could have galvanised younger voters to come out and vote Remain. He went on holiday instead. That is contemptible.
If true, I would not call Corbyn contemptible, more like bloody marvellous.
It's certainly true in substance, but whether contemptible or not depends on your view of Brexit.
It was however consistent with his general take on the EU, which is well characterised as that of a 'diffident Remainer'.
According to Shipman’s book, both Corbyn and McDonnell and, particularly, Seamus Milne undermined or failed to support the Labour Remain campaign.
Anyone thinking they will go for SM or CU membership needs their head examining.
Anyone wanting a close but sensible relationship with the EU has no political home at the moment.
Leavers toasted Jeremy Corbyn on referendum night.
Nice to see in one aspect then , you support Corbyn.
The referendum campaign was largely dominated by wealthy Tories telling lies to the voters. That was to be expected. What I find most unforgiveable is the attitude of the Labour leadership. As he showed last May and June, Corbyn could have galvanised younger voters to come out and vote Remain. He went on holiday instead. That is contemptible.
If true, I would not call Corbyn contemptible, more like bloody marvellous.
It's certainly true in substance, but whether contemptible or not depends on your view of Brexit.
It was however consistent with his general take on the EU, which is well characterised as that of a 'diffident Remainer'.
According to Shipman’s book, both Corbyn and McDonnell and, particularly, Seamus Milne undermined or failed to support the Labour Remain campaign.
Anyone thinking they will go for SM or CU membership needs their head examining.
Anyone wanting a close but sensible relationship with the EU has no political home at the momen
The fascists of Britain First are offering Mogg protection and are offering intimidation-we know where you live-to all those who dare to protest at his events.He is already good at attracting people who like to dress up in nazi uniforms. Mogg must either publicly condone Britain First's offer of protection and accept it or reject it out of hand as he is morally required to do.
Second. Like the rate the UK will be after Brexit.
Better than being subsumed into a United States of Europe. Then we'd have no rate whatsoever.
I'd rather have a bigger pond to swim in. But if you prefer to think small can I suggest Easter Island.
What's bigger than the rest of the world?
Why is it that the UK is so feeble it cannot do what other big EU member states do and engage with the whole world while being an integral part of the biggest free trade zone on the planet? Why do we - uniquely - have to make a choice instead of having it all?
Because the voters decided the political compromises, including FOM, were not worth it
They did. We’ll find out over the coming years if they were right. As the Japanese have made very clear, if the Tories cannot get a good Brexit deal a lot of well-paid jobs that sustain a number of communities in Leave voting areas are at substantial risk. But you’ll be fine, Charles, so that’s some relief, at least.
Why spoil a perfectly sound point with the personal dig. Just diminishes your point.
But perfectly true, many on here pontificate and do so from their "I am all right Jack" position. Fact that the lumpen mass were fooled by buffoons like Gove and Johnson , Farge etc into jingoistic hubris. Most of the plebs would not understand what FOM or customs union meant. Vote was won on NOT liking "foreigners" and dreams of past glories.
Mr. Sandpit, I heard about that. Wherever it was I read of the documentary gave the team credit for keeping going with the filming despite their torrid time.
Yes, was very candid and honest about the problems they faced. Presumably all filmed with the understanding that it wouldn’t be shown until now. Still lots of car parts were blurred out, suggesting there are things the team still think give them an advantage. Joe Saward said in a podcast last week that he expects them to be at least 4th this year, up there with the Red Bull.
Why is it that the UK is so feeble it cannot do what other big EU member states do and engage with the whole world while being an integral part of the biggest free trade zone on the planet? Why do we - uniquely - have to make a choice instead of having it all?
Because the voters decided the political compromises, including FOM, were not worth it
They did. We’ll find out over the coming years if they were right. As the Japanese have made very clear, if the Tories cannot get a good Brexit deal a lot of well-paid jobs that sustain a number of communities in Leave voting areas are at substantial risk. But you’ll be fine, Charles, so that’s some relief, at least.
You have a very unpleasant way of personalising things
Reality is reality, Charles. Brexit will have almost no impact on you and your family. Millions of others are not in that fortunate position. However unpleasant it is to make, I think it is an important point: wealthy, privileged advocates of leaving the EU will not have to live with the consequences of what happens should it go wrong.
It’s not that compelling a point but if you feel the need to make it then do so in the abstract not the specific
Of course it’s not a compelling point for you. But I always find specific examples are better than abstract arguments as they are rooted in reality.
I would politely ask you not to use me as a “specific example” as you know very little about my financial situation
You have shared with us all on a number of occasions that you are an Eton-educated member of a very wealthy family with deep roots in the establishment and that you do very well remunerated consultancy work for businesses on an international basis.
As someone who has received his due share of personalised comments, I think @Charles should not be singled out in this way. It does not improve your argument. Charles is not standing for elected office so his personal circumstances aren’t relevant to any wider point. Nor is he demonstrating any hypocrisy or personal inconsistency.
PB benefits from people sharing something of themselves (as you do also). They should not feel constantly that anything they share might be used against them.
Second. Like the rate the UK will be after Brexit.
Better than being subsumed into a United States of Europe. Then we'd have no rate whatsoever.
I'd rather have a bigger pond to swim in. But if you prefer to think small can I suggest Easter Island.
What's bigger than the rest of the world?
Why is it that the UK is so feeble it cannot do what other big EU member states do and engage with the whole world while being an integral part of the biggest free trade zone on the planet? Why do we - uniquely - have to make a choice instead of having it all?
Because the voters decided the political compromises, including FOM, were not worth it
They did. We’ll find out over the coming years if they were right. As the Japanese have made very clear, if the Tories cannot get a good Brexit deal a lot of well-paid jobs that sustain a number of communities in Leave voting areas are at substantial risk. But you’ll be fine, Charles, so that’s some relief, at least.
You have a very unpleasant way of personalising things
Reality is reality, Charles. Brexit will have almost no impact on you and your family. Millions of others are not in that fortunate position. However unpleasant it is to make, I think it is an important point: wealthy, privileged advocates of leaving the EU will not have to live with the consequences of what happens should it go wrong.
On the contrary I think the cosmopolitan city dwellers wil notice the isolation most. If all you do is spend your time in a bingo hall in Hartlipool your only interaction with the the free moving Europeans is what you read on your fish and chip wrapper.
Health and Safety stopped old newspapers being used as fish and chip wrappers back in the 90's..
Presumably that retrograde decision is one thing that can be reversed once we're out of the EU?
It's certainly true in substance, but whether contemptible or not depends on your view of Brexit.
It was however consistent with his general take on the EU, which is well characterised as that of a 'diffident Remainer'.
Yes, it's a curiosity of contemporary politics that while most people don't actually have a strong view on the EU one way or the other, people who feel that way in politics are treated as though they were bizarre sun-worshippers. The Remain campaign could have done with additional prominent people who said "I'm not a great fan of the EU but on balance we'd be better off staying", rather than "Vote Remain or the economy gets it", which most people thought (probably correctly) was hyperbole. In 2022, poliicians who are fanatical about the EU either way will look out of touch.
And I say that as someone who IS fanatical - I think the EU is great, and would have no problem with it moving to becoming a single country. But I recognise that it's an unusual view, reflecting my many years abroad.
My position was always QWERTY remainerdom - there are many arrangements which would be much better, but not better by enough of a margin to justify the trouble of changing.
Windows remainerdom also works as an analogy, but QWERTY is more fun to type.
Except for your silly personal digs at the 'privileged' Brexiteers you make interesting comments. I'd be more annoyed at the privileged establishment which utterly failed in 2016 to make a case for the EU.
That fails on logic. Many Remainers are very logical people. The Remain campaign made predictions, that, while over-egged, will broadly pan out. Meanwhile the Leave campaign came out with complete nonsense but nevertheless carried the day. Why should we blame those that were more real.
There's a reason why most of those that know what they are talking about, the disparaged experts, supported staying in the EU. Many Leavers operate on faith or intuition, and that's OK, assume Remainers must also build the reality from the belief. But it's not our project. We are more sceptical and so work from the evidence.
The arrogance in your post is breathtaking but goes a long way to explain why remain lost.
Objectivity might look like arrogance. Personally I think it often is and I do subscribe to the idea of emotional truth. Things are right if they feel right. And if people think there is a problem, perfectly logically there is a problem.
Thing is, when you are talking about a relationship with the world as it is, you are dealing with cold reality, not emotional truth. The same with Brexit as with Iraq. The Leave project, whether nice or bad in the concept, is undeliverable in the reality because of its contradictions.
That's what makes it interesting in a Confucianist sense. When you have got yourself into a situation with four bad options, which one do you choose?
Second. Like the rate the UK will be after Brexit.
Better than being subsumed into a United States of Europe. Then we'd have no rate whatsoever.
I'd rather have a bigger pond to swim in. But if you prefer to think small can I suggest Easter Island.
What's bigger than the rest of the world?
Why is it that the UK is so feeble it cannot do what other big EU member states do and engage with the whole world while being an integral part of the biggest free trade zone on the planet? Why do we - uniquely - have to make a choice instead of having it all?
Because the voters decided the political compromises, including FOM, were not worth it
They did. We’ll find out over the coming years if they were right. As the Japanese have made very clear, if the Tories cannot get a good Brexit deal a lot of well-paid jobs that sustain a number of communities in Leave voting areas are at substantial risk. But you’ll be fine, Charles, so that’s some relief, at least.
Why spoil a perfectly sound point with the personal dig. Just diminishes your point.
But perfectly true, many on here pontificate and do so from their "I am all right Jack" position. Fact that the lumpen mass were fooled by buffoons like Gove and Johnson , Farge etc into jingoistic hubris. Most of the plebs would not understand what FOM or customs union meant. Vote was won on NOT liking "foreigners" and dreams of past glories.
"Vote was won on NOT liking "foreigners" and dreams of past glories"
A day for succinct posts. You've described in one short sentence the motivation of 90% of those who voted Leave.
It's certainly true in substance, but whether contemptible or not depends on your view of Brexit.
It was however consistent with his general take on the EU, which is well characterised as that of a 'diffident Remainer'.
Yes, it's a curiosity of contemporary politics that while most people don't actually have a strong view on the EU one way or the other, people who feel that way in politics are treated as though they were bizarre sun-worshippers. The Remain campaign could have done with additional prominent people who said "I'm not a great fan of the EU but on balance we'd be better off staying", rather than "Vote Remain or the economy gets it", which most people thought (probably correctly) was hyperbole. In 2022, poliicians who are fanatical about the EU either way will look out of touch.
And I say that as someone who IS fanatical - I think the EU is great, and would have no problem with it moving to becoming a single country. But I recognise that it's an unusual view, reflecting my many years abroad.
My position was always QWERTY remainerdom - there are many arrangements which would be much better, but not better by enough of a margin to justify the trouble of changing.
Windows remainerdom also works as an analogy, but QWERTY is more fun to type.
The fascists of Britain First are offering Mogg protection and are offering intimidation-we know where you live-to all those who dare to protest at his events.He is already good at attracting people who like to dress up in nazi uniforms. Mogg must either publicly condone Britain First's offer of protection and accept it or reject it out of hand as he is morally required to do.
The fascists of Britain First are offering Mogg protection and are offering intimidation-we know where you live-to all those who dare to protest at his events.He is already good at attracting people who like to dress up in nazi uniforms. Mogg must either publicly condone Britain First's offer of protection and accept it or reject it out of hand as he is morally required to do.
As per Ed Balls
Do you mean wearing Nazi Uniforms ? If so you can add prince harry.
Would he have got to the insignificant backbencher role to start with if his father hadn't been a significant figure in the trades union movement able to start him in local government in London?
I would say the answer's no. He reminds me of the Marquis of Granby. But feel free to disagree.
Yes, I'd think so. When I first knew him in the late 60s he was an extremely effective party agent in North London - tireless, focused and impossible to discourage, though not as mildly tactful to opponents as he later became. He was an obvious choice as a constituency MP, and nobody local disputes that he's incredibly good at that. I know nohing about his father and have never heard anyone refer to him, though I'm sure he was everything you say.
But he certainly didn't have leadership ambitions and that's a result of other options having exhausted themselves plus a surprising facility on the stump when it was needed. The tirelessness came in handy too.
Second. Like the rate the UK will be after Brexit.
Better than being subsumed into a United States of Europe. Then we'd have no rate whatsoever.
I'd rather have a bigger pond to swim in. But if you prefer to think small can I suggest Easter Island.
What's bigger than the rest of the world?
Why is it that the UK is so feeble it cannot do what other big EU member states do and engage with the whole world while being an integral part of the biggest free trade zone on the planet? Why do we - uniquely - have to make a choice instead of having it all?
Because the voters decided the political compromises, including FOM, were not worth it
They did. We’ll find out over the coming years if they were right. As the Japanese have made very clear, if the Tories cannot get a good Brexit deal a lot of well-paid jobs that sustain a number of communities in Leave voting areas are at substantial risk. But you’ll be fine, Charles, so that’s some relief, at least.
Why spoil a perfectly sound point with the personal dig. Just diminishes your point.
But perfectly true, many on here pontificate and do so from their "I am all right Jack" position. Fact that the lumpen mass were fooled by buffoons like Gove and Johnson , Farge etc into jingoistic hubris. Most of the plebs would not understand what FOM or customs union meant. Vote was won on NOT liking "foreigners" and dreams of past glories.
"Vote was won on NOT liking "foreigners" and dreams of past glories"
A day for succinct posts. You've described in one short sentence the motivation of 90% of those who voted Leave.
The real question, as in 1940 and 1914, was "do you want to become a vassal state ruled from Berlin?".
The fascists of Britain First are offering Mogg protection and are offering intimidation-we know where you live-to all those who dare to protest at his events.He is already good at attracting people who like to dress up in nazi uniforms. Mogg must either publicly condone Britain First's offer of protection and accept it or reject it out of hand as he is morally required to do.
As per Ed Balls
Do you mean wearing Nazi Uniforms ? If so you can add prince harry.
I find it jaw dropping that the Tories think that Hunt is a sensible prospect. It shows how out of touch they are with people outsude the party. The NHS and its perceived underfunding and privatisation are by far the biggest liabilities the Tories have. It is also the one issue where Corbyn has support way beyond his left wing base. If the choice is between Gove, Boris and Hunt, Corbyn will be Prime Minister.
Which is why they should have an open contest and try to have a real sense of renewal behind the new leader. They should try to avoid a parliamentary smoke-filled rooms choice and instead go for a series of public debates and speeches so that someone can do what Cameron did at his conference speech. That would allow the person to emerge who best connects with average voters. My suspicion is that Dominic Raab is by far the best candidate. His history as a human rights lawyer and Palestinian negotiator also breaks some stereotypes.
Second. Like the rate the UK will be after Brexit.
Better than being subsumed into a United States of Europe. Then we'd have no rate whatsoever.
I'd rather have a bigger pond to swim in. But if you prefer to think small can I suggest Easter Island.
What's bigger than the rest of the world?
Why is it that the UK is so feeble it cannot do what other big EU member states do and engage with the whole world while being an integral part of the biggest free trade zone on the planet? Why do we - uniquely - have to make a choice instead of having it all?
Because the voters decided the political compromises, including FOM, were not worth it
They did. We’ll find out over the coming years if they were right. As the Japanese have made very clear, if the Tories cannot get a good Brexit deal a lot of well-paid jobs that sustain a number of communities in Leave voting areas are at substantial risk. But you’ll be fine, Charles, so that’s some relief, at least.
Why spoil a perfectly sound point with the personal dig. Just diminishes your point.
But perfectly true, many on here pontificate and do so from their "I am all right Jack" position. Fact that the lumpen mass were fooled by buffoons like Gove and Johnson , Farge etc into jingoistic hubris. Most of the plebs would not understand what FOM or customs union meant. Vote was won on NOT liking "foreigners" and dreams of past glories.
"Vote was won on NOT liking "foreigners" and dreams of past glories"
A day for succinct posts. You've described in one short sentence the motivation of 90% of those who voted Leave.
The real question, as in 1940 and 1914, was "do you want to become a vassal state ruled from Berlin?".
It's certainly true in substance, but whether contemptible or not depends on your view of Brexit.
It was however consistent with his general take on the EU, which is well characterised as that of a 'diffident Remainer'.
Yes, it's a curiosity of contemporary politics that while most people don't actually have a strong view on the EU one way or the other, people who feel that way in politics are treated as though they were bizarre sun-worshippers. The Remain campaign could have done with additional prominent people who said "I'm not a great fan of the EU but on balance we'd be better off staying", rather than "Vote Remain or the economy gets it", which most people thought (probably correctly) was hyperbole. In 2022, poliicians who are fanatical about the EU either way will look out of touch.
And I say that as someone who IS fanatical - I think the EU is great, and would have no problem with it moving to becoming a single country. But I recognise that it's an unusual view, reflecting my many years abroad.
My position was always QWERTY remainerdom - there are many arrangements which would be much better, but not better by enough of a margin to justify the trouble of changing.
Windows remainerdom also works as an analogy, but QWERTY is more fun to type.
Yes, but my point is that ca ne vaut pas la peine: or at least it might for me personally, but for the world in general the productivity hit of the changeover would take decades to pay off.
Second. Like the rate the UK will be after Brexit.
Better than being subsumed into a United States of Europe. Then we'd have no rate whatsoever.
I'd rather have a bigger pond to swim in. But if you prefer to think small can I suggest Easter Island.
What's bigger than the rest of the world?
Why is it that the UK is so feeble it cannot do what other big EU member states do and engage with the whole world while being an integral part of the biggest free trade zone on the planet? Why do we - uniquely - have to make a choice instead of having it all?
Because the voters decided the political compromises, including FOM, were not worth it
They did. We’ll find out over the coming years if they were right. As the Japanese have made very clear, if the Tories cannot get a good Brexit deal a lot of well-paid jobs that sustain a number of communities in Leave voting areas are at substantial risk. But you’ll be fine, Charles, so that’s some relief, at least.
Why spoil a perfectly sound point with the personal dig. Just diminishes your point.
But perfectly true, many on here pontificate and do so from their "I am all right Jack" position. Fact that the lumpen mass were fooled by buffoons like Gove and Johnson , Farge etc into jingoistic hubris. Most of the plebs would not understand what FOM or customs union meant. Vote was won on NOT liking "foreigners" and dreams of past glories.
"Vote was won on NOT liking "foreigners" and dreams of past glories"
A day for succinct posts. You've described in one short sentence the motivation of 90% of those who voted Leave.
Both points have been thoroughly refuted by the polling. Only the dimmest of Remainers maintain such a stupid argument.
I find it jaw dropping that the Tories think that Hunt is a sensible prospect. It shows how out of touch they are with people outsude the party. The NHS and its perceived underfunding and privatisation are by far the biggest liabilities the Tories have. It is also the one issue where Corbyn has support way beyond his left wing base. If the choice is between Gove, Boris and Hunt, Corbyn will be Prime Minister.
Which is why they should have an open contest and try to have a real sense of renewal behind the new leader. They should try to avoid a parliamentary smoke-filled rooms choice and instead go for a series of public debates and speeches so that someone can do what Cameron did at his conference speech. That would allow the person to emerge who best connects with average voters. My suspicion is that Dominic Raab is by far the best candidate. His history as a human rights lawyer and Palestinian negotiator also breaks some stereotypes.
As a member I would be furious if the leadership contest is not from a broad spectrum of candidates with public debates and speeches before the final two are put to the membership
Second. Like the rate the UK will be after Brexit.
Better than being subsumed into a United States of Europe. Then we'd have no rate whatsoever.
I'd rather have a bigger pond to swim in. But if you prefer to think small can I suggest Easter Island.
What's bigger than the rest of the world?
Why is it that the UK is so feeble it cannot do what other big EU member states do and engage with the whole world while being an integral part of the biggest free trade zone on the planet? Why do we - uniquely - have to make a choice instead of having it all?
Because the voters decided the political compromises, including FOM, were not worth it
They did. We’ll find out over the coming years if they were right. As the Japanese have made very clear, if the Tories cannot get a good Brexit deal a lot of well-paid jobs that sustain a number of communities in Leave voting areas are at substantial risk. But you’ll be fine, Charles, so that’s some relief, at least.
Why spoil a perfectly sound point with the personal dig. Just diminishes your point.
But perfectly true, many on here pontificate and do so from their "I am all right Jack" position. Fact that the lumpen mass were fooled by buffoons like Gove and Johnson , Farge etc into jingoistic hubris. Most of the plebs would not understand what FOM or customs union meant. Vote was won on NOT liking "foreigners" and dreams of past glories.
"Vote was won on NOT liking "foreigners" and dreams of past glories"
A day for succinct posts. You've described in one short sentence the motivation of 90% of those who voted Leave.
The real question, as in 1940 and 1914, was "do you want to become a vassal state ruled from Berlin?".
My position was always QWERTY remainerdom - there are many arrangements which would be much better, but not better by enough of a margin to justify the trouble of changing.
Windows remainerdom also works as an analogy, but QWERTY is more fun to type.
I find it jaw dropping that the Tories think that Hunt is a sensible prospect. It shows how out of touch they are with people outsude the party. The NHS and its perceived underfunding and privatisation are by far the biggest liabilities the Tories have. It is also the one issue where Corbyn has support way beyond his left wing base. If the choice is between Gove, Boris and Hunt, Corbyn will be Prime Minister.
Which is why they should have an open contest and try to have a real sense of renewal behind the new leader. They should try to avoid a parliamentary smoke-filled rooms choice and instead go for a series of public debates and speeches so that someone can do what Cameron did at his conference speech. That would allow the person to emerge who best connects with average voters. My suspicion is that Dominic Raab is by far the best candidate. His history as a human rights lawyer and Palestinian negotiator also breaks some stereotypes.
Since Jeremy Hunt became Health Secretary there have been two general elections in which the Tories have increased their vote in terms of share and absolute votes.
The referendum campaign was largely dominated by wealthy Tories telling lies to the voters. That was to be expected. What I find most unforgiveable is the attitude of the Labour leadership. As he showed last May and June, Corbyn could have galvanised younger voters to come out and vote Remain. He went on holiday instead. That is contemptible.
If true, I would not call Corbyn contemptible, more like bloody marvellous.
Corbyn delivered his party for Remain. Cameron did not, and indeed it was Tory voters who in larger numbers abandoned Remain over the campaign. Theresa May of course went into submarine mode.
I find it jaw dropping that the Tories think that Hunt is a sensible prospect. It shows how out of touch they are with people outsude the party. The NHS and its perceived underfunding and privatisation are by far the biggest liabilities the Tories have. It is also the one issue where Corbyn has support way beyond his left wing base. If the choice is between Gove, Boris and Hunt, Corbyn will be Prime Minister.
Which is why they should have an open contest and try to have a real sense of renewal behind the new leader. They should try to avoid a parliamentary smoke-filled rooms choice and instead go for a series of public debates and speeches so that someone can do what Cameron did at his conference speech. That would allow the person to emerge who best connects with average voters. My suspicion is that Dominic Raab is by far the best candidate. His history as a human rights lawyer and Palestinian negotiator also breaks some stereotypes.
At least a few people would know who Hunt is , doubt you would find a handful who had heard of Raab or knew of his well hidden talents, though an untalented unknown nobody would be an improvement on current Tory Leader.
That's what makes it interesting in a Confucianist sense. When you have got yourself into a situation with four bad options, which one do you choose?
You chose the path of least resistance, which despite everything is remaining in the EU. Many of the Brexiteers would even welcome the added martyrdom it would confer on them.
I find it jaw dropping that the Tories think that Hunt is a sensible prospect. .
At least one non Tory voter this morning has also suggested he might be a sensible prospect. The Tories are always accused of underfunding and seeking to privatise the NHS, it hasn't stopped them being the largest party 3 elections in a row. It might have gotten to the point it will be a worse issue next time, and Hunt's position aggravate things, but clearly it is not a given that because the NHS is more fertile ground for Labour that the person who was Tory Health Secretary would make things worse.
Second. Like the rate the UK will be after Brexit.
Better than being subsumed into a United States of Europe. Then we'd have no rate whatsoever.
I'd rather have a bigger pond to swim in. But if you prefer to think small can I suggest Easter Island.
What's bigger than the rest of the world?
Why is it that the UK is so feeble it cannot do what other big EU member states do and engage with the whole world while being an integral part of the biggest free trade zone on the planet? Why do we - uniquely - have to make a choice instead of having it all?
Because the voters decided the political compromises, including FOM, were not worth it
They did. We’ll find out over the coming years if they were right. As the Japanese have made very clear, if the Tories cannot get a good Brexit deal a lot of well-paid jobs that sustain a number of communities in Leave voting areas are at substantial risk. But you’ll be fine, Charles, so that’s some relief, at least.
Why spoil a perfectly sound point with the personal dig. Just diminishes your point.
But perfectly true, many on here pontificate and do so from their "I am all right Jack" position. Fact that the lumpen mass were fooled by buffoons like Gove and Johnson , Farge etc into jingoistic hubris. Most of the plebs would not understand what FOM or customs union meant. Vote was won on NOT liking "foreigners" and dreams of past glories.
"Vote was won on NOT liking "foreigners" and dreams of past glories"
A day for succinct posts. You've described in one short sentence the motivation of 90% of those who voted Leave.
Both points have been thoroughly refuted by the polling. Only the dimmest of Remainers maintain such a stupid argument.
I enjoy nothing more than beating up immigrants with friends, while chanting "There ain't no black in the Union Jack."
I find it jaw dropping that the Tories think that Hunt is a sensible prospect. It shows how out of touch they are with people outsude the party. The NHS and its perceived underfunding and privatisation are by far the biggest liabilities the Tories have. It is also the one issue where Corbyn has support way beyond his left wing base. If the choice is between Gove, Boris and Hunt, Corbyn will be Prime Minister.
Which is why they should have an open contest and try to have a real sense of renewal behind the new leader. They should try to avoid a parliamentary smoke-filled rooms choice and instead go for a series of public debates and speeches so that someone can do what Cameron did at his conference speech. That would allow the person to emerge who best connects with average voters. My suspicion is that Dominic Raab is by far the best candidate. His history as a human rights lawyer and Palestinian negotiator also breaks some stereotypes.
At least a few people would know who Hunt is , doubt you would find a handful who had heard of Raab or knew of his well hidden talents, though an untalented unknown nobody would be an improvement on current Tory Leader.
The Tories could do with a leader who is prepared to challendge the human tights brigade and the widespread anti-Israel bias of the academic and media left. Raab`s CV sounds like the last person to do that
See Oxfam are in trouble over staff using prostitues in Haiti earthquake.
I have always had the attitude that I give to local charities including the RNLI, the local hospice and childrens homes and leave the aid budget to take care of international relief
I have often wondered just how much money charities use in promoting their causes through TV advertising with high profile so called celebrities demanding so much a month and meanwhile grotesgue sums are paid to the executives.
At least by contributing locally you know it is going to real local need. I say this as someone who over many years has raised thousands of pounds for local causes
Second. Like the rate the UK will be after Brexit.
Better than being subsumed into a United States of Europe. Then we'd have no rate whatsoever.
I'd rather have a bigger pond to swim in. But if you prefer to think small can I suggest Easter Island.
What's bigger than the rest of the world?
Why is it that the UK is so feeble it cannot do what other big EU member states do and engage with the whole world while being an integral part of the biggest free trade zone on the planet? Why do we - uniquely - have to make a choice instead of having it all?
Because the voters decided the political compromises, including FOM, were not worth it
They did. We’ll find out over the coming years if they were right. As the Japanese have made very clear, if the Tories cannot get a good Brexit deal a lot of well-paid jobs that sustain a number of communities in Leave voting areas are at substantial risk. But you’ll be fine, Charles, so that’s some relief, at least.
Why spoil a perfectly sound point with the personal dig. Just diminishes your point.
But perfectly true, many on here pontificate and do so from their "I am all right Jack" position. Fact that the lumpen mass were fooled by buffoons like Gove and Johnson , Farge etc into jingoistic hubris. Most of the plebs would not understand what FOM or customs union meant. Vote was won on NOT liking "foreigners" and dreams of past glories.
"Vote was won on NOT liking "foreigners" and dreams of past glories"
A day for succinct posts. You've described in one short sentence the motivation of 90% of those who voted Leave.
Both points have been thoroughly refuted by the polling. Only the dimmest of Remainers maintain such a stupid argument.
Actually, polling this week showed that people mostly remember 'control immigration' and 'more money for the NHS'. The 'let's make trade deals around the world' scored somewhere south of 4%. The British electorate, God bless 'em.
My money is on Mercer coming through at some point. A really impressive bloke who gets what the conservatives need to do to appeal more widely.
Yup, the likes of Mercer and Raab (mentioned upthread) are two who could definitely benefit from raising their profiles. Good shouts for leader-after-next the pair of them, along with the younger generation of women such as McVey and Mordaunt. Worth a quid or two at long odds, to keep in the theme of the thread - if Mrs May goes long, they could well be in with a shout.
See Oxfam are in trouble over staff using prostitues in Haiti earthquake.
I have always had the attitude that I give to local charities including the RNLI, the local hospice and childrens homes and leave the aid budget to take care of international relief
I have often wondered just how much money charities use in promoting their causes through TV advertising with high profile so called celebrities demanding so much a month and meanwhile grotesgue sums are paid to the executives.
At least by contributing locally you know it is going to real local need. I say this as someone who over many years has raised thousands of pounds for local causes
Perhaps the most extraordinary post yesterday was by Benpointer who judged The President's Club against Oxfam, and claimed that the President's Club was guilty of the more serious offence.
At the President's Club, there were allegations of harassment. I'm not sure any crime was committed, though no doubt there was boorish and drunken behaviour. However, if any crime was committed, then I am assuming the police are investigating (rightly so).
At Oxfam, there was grotesque sexual exploitation of very desperate people. Oxfam did dismiss some employees, but it seems that the the most senior employee was simply passed on to another aid organisation -- in a familiar "pass the abuser" story.
It seems to me that the Oxfam offences are much more serious, and I am astonished that anyone could think otherwise.
It's certainly true in substance, but whether contemptible or not depends on your view of Brexit.
It was however consistent with his general take on the EU, which is well characterised as that of a 'diffident Remainer'.
Yes, it's a curiosity of contemporary politics that while most people don't actually have a strong view on the EU one way or the other, people who feel that way in politics are treated as though they were bizarre sun-worshippers. The Remain campaign could have done with additional prominent people who said "I'm not a great fan of the EU but on balance we'd be better off staying", rather than "Vote Remain or the economy gets it", which most people thought (probably correctly) was hyperbole. In 2022, poliicians who are fanatical about the EU either way will look out of touch.
And I say that as someone who IS fanatical - I think the EU is great, and would have no problem with it moving to becoming a single country. But I recognise that it's an unusual view, reflecting my many years abroad.
That's an interesting and optimistic post from a fanatical Remainer. I wish I could be as sanguine and believe that by 2022 all will be peace and love.
I imagine an elite Premier league side who having rapidly slid down the divisions finds themselves on a wet Febuary evening facing Accrington Stanley to avoid the oblivion of the Notrhern League and deciding the time had come to string up the directors.
I find it jaw dropping that the Tories think that Hunt is a sensible prospect. It shows how out of touch they are with people outsude the party. The NHS and its perceived underfunding and privatisation are by far the biggest liabilities the Tories have. It is also the one issue where Corbyn has support way beyond his left wing base. If the choice is between Gove, Boris and Hunt, Corbyn will be Prime Minister.
Which is why they should have an open contest and try to have a real sense of renewal behind the new leader. They should try to avoid a parliamentary smoke-filled rooms choice and instead go for a series of public debates and speeches so that someone can do what Cameron did at his conference speech. That would allow the person to emerge who best connects with average voters. My suspicion is that Dominic Raab is by far the best candidate. His history as a human rights lawyer and Palestinian negotiator also breaks some stereotypes.
At least a few people would know who Hunt is , doubt you would find a handful who had heard of Raab or knew of his well hidden talents, though an untalented unknown nobody would be an improvement on current Tory Leader.
The Tories could do with a leader who is prepared to challendge the human tights brigade and the widespread anti-Israel bias of the academic and media left. Raab`s CV sounds like the last person to do that
The referendum campaign was largely dominated by wealthy Tories telling lies to the voters. That was to be expected. What I find most unforgiveable is the attitude of the Labour leadership. As he showed last May and June, Corbyn could have galvanised younger voters to come out and vote Remain. He went on holiday instead. That is contemptible.
If true, I would not call Corbyn contemptible, more like bloody marvellous.
Corbyn delivered his party for Remain.
Against strong competition for the most ludicrous claim this year, I think we have a winner.
See Oxfam are in trouble over staff using prostitues in Haiti earthquake.
I have always had the attitude that I give to local charities including the RNLI, the local hospice and childrens homes and leave the aid budget to take care of international relief
I have often wondered just how much money charities use in promoting their causes through TV advertising with high profile so called celebrities demanding so much a month and meanwhile grotesgue sums are paid to the executives.
At least by contributing locally you know it is going to real local need. I say this as someone who over many years has raised thousands of pounds for local causes
Yes, government reviewing relationship with them after revelations of a coverup.
Whole charity sector needs a massive shakeup, way too many fancy offices, TV adverts, six figure salaries and celebrity “ambassadors” wanting tax writeoffs. I won’t be happy until Batmanwoman is in prison.
See Oxfam are in trouble over staff using prostitues in Haiti earthquake.
I have always had the attitude that I give to local charities including the RNLI, the local hospice and childrens homes and leave the aid budget to take care of international relief
I have often wondered just how much money charities use in promoting their causes through TV advertising with high profile so called celebrities demanding so much a month and meanwhile grotesgue sums are paid to the executives.
At least by contributing locally you know it is going to real local need. I say this as someone who over many years has raised thousands of pounds for local causes
Perhaps the most extraordinary post yesterday was by Benpointer who judged The President's Club against Oxfam, and claimed that the President's Club was guilty of the more serious offence.
At the President's Club, there were allegations of harassment. I'm not sure any crime was committed, though no doubt there was boorish and drunken behaviour. However, if any crime was committed, then I am assuming the police are investigating (rightly so).
At Oxfam, there was grotesque sexual exploitation of very desperate people. Oxfam did dismiss some employees, but it seems that the the most senior employee was simply passed on to another aid organisation -- in a familiar "pass the abuser" story.
It seems to me that the Oxfam offences are much more serious, and I am astonished that anyone could think otherwise.
Well they are coming under attack from the BBC no less
Second. Like the rate the UK will be after Brexit.
Better than being subsumed into a United States of Europe. Then we'd have no rate whatsoever.
I'd rather have a bigger pond to swim in. But if you prefer to think small can I suggest Easter Island.
What's bigger than the rest of the world?
Why is it that the UK is so feeble it cannot do what other big EU member states do and engage with the whole world while being an integral part of the biggest free trade zone on the planet? Why do we - uniquely - have to make a choice instead of having it all?
Because the voters decided the political compromises, including FOM, were not worth it
They did. We’ll find out over the coming years if they were right. As the Japanese have made very clear, if the Tories cannot get a good Brexit deal a lot of well-paid jobs that sustain a number of communities in Leave voting areas are at substantial risk. But you’ll be fine, Charles, so that’s some relief, at least.
Why spoil a perfectly sound point with the personal dig. Just diminishes your point.
But perfectly true, many on here pontificate and do so from their "I am all right Jack" position. Fact that the lumpen mass were fooled by buffoons like Gove and Johnson , Farge etc into jingoistic hubris. Most of the plebs would not understand what FOM or customs union meant. Vote was won on NOT liking "foreigners" and dreams of past glories.
"Vote was won on NOT liking "foreigners" and dreams of past glories"
A day for succinct posts. You've described in one short sentence the motivation of 90% of those who voted Leave.
The real question, as in 1940 and 1914, was "do you want to become a vassal state ruled from Berlin?".
So we'll put you in the 'dreams of past glories' column
I find it jaw dropping that the Tories think that Hunt is a sensible prospect. It shows how out of touch they are with people outsude the party. The NHS and its perceived underfunding and privatisation are by far the biggest liabilities the Tories have. It is also the one issue where Corbyn has support way beyond his left wing base. If the choice is between Gove, Boris and Hunt, Corbyn will be Prime Minister.
Which is why they should have an open contest and try to have a real sense of renewal behind the new leader. They should try to avoid a parliamentary smoke-filled rooms choice and instead go for a series of public debates and speeches so that someone can do what Cameron did at his conference speech. That would allow the person to emerge who best connects with average voters. My suspicion is that Dominic Raab is by far the best candidate. His history as a human rights lawyer and Palestinian negotiator also breaks some stereotypes.
At least a few people would know who Hunt is , doubt you would find a handful who had heard of Raab or knew of his well hidden talents, though an untalented unknown nobody would be an improvement on current Tory Leader.
The Tories could do with a leader who is prepared to challendge the human tights brigade and the widespread anti-Israel bias of the academic and media left. Raab`s CV sounds like the last person to do that
The fight must be taken to the constrictively opressive human tights brigade. Down with gussets!
See Oxfam are in trouble over staff using prostitues in Haiti earthquake.
I have always had the attitude that I give to local charities including the RNLI, the local hospice and childrens homes and leave the aid budget to take care of international relief
I have often wondered just how much money charities use in promoting their causes through TV advertising with high profile so called celebrities demanding so much a month and meanwhile grotesgue sums are paid to the executives.
At least by contributing locally you know it is going to real local need. I say this as someone who over many years has raised thousands of pounds for local causes
Perhaps the most extraordinary post yesterday was by Benpointer who judged The President's Club against Oxfam, and claimed that the President's Club was guilty of the more serious offence.
At the President's Club, there were allegations of harassment. I'm not sure any crime was committed, though no doubt there was boorish and drunken behaviour. However, if any crime was committed, then I am assuming the police are investigating (rightly so).
At Oxfam, there was grotesque sexual exploitation of very desperate people. Oxfam did dismiss some employees, but it seems that the the most senior employee was simply passed on to another aid organisation -- in a familiar "pass the abuser" story.
It seems to me that the Oxfam offences are much more serious, and I am astonished that anyone could think otherwise.
Well they are coming under attack from the BBC no less
Leaving this aside, my main objection to Oxfam is its anti-capitalism, despite the fact that capitalism has lifted millions of people out of dire poverty, over the past 30 years.
See Oxfam are in trouble over staff using prostitues in Haiti earthquake.
I have always had the attitude that I give to local charities including the RNLI, the local hospice and childrens homes and leave the aid budget to take care of international relief
I have often wondered just how much money charities use in promoting their causes through TV advertising with high profile so called celebrities demanding so much a month and meanwhile grotesgue sums are paid to the executives.
At least by contributing locally you know it is going to real local need. I say this as someone who over many years has raised thousands of pounds for local causes
Perhaps the most extraordinary post yesterday was by Benpointer who judged The President's Club against Oxfam, and claimed that the President's Club was guilty of the more serious offence.
At the President's Club, there were allegations of harassment. I'm not sure any crime was committed, though no doubt there was boorish and drunken behaviour. However, if any crime was committed, then I am assuming the police are investigating (rightly so).
At Oxfam, there was grotesque sexual exploitation of very desperate people. Oxfam did dismiss some employees, but it seems that the the most senior employee was simply passed on to another aid organisation -- in a familiar "pass the abuser" story.
It seems to me that the Oxfam offences are much more serious, and I am astonished that anyone could think otherwise.
Well they are coming under attack from the BBC no less
Leaving this aside, my main objection to Oxfam is its anti-capitalism, despite the fact that capitalism has lifted millions of people out of dire poverty, over the past 30 years.
Whilst they live the capitalist dream on the public money.
See Oxfam are in trouble over staff using prostitues in Haiti earthquake.
I have always had the attitude that I give to local charities including the RNLI, the local hospice and childrens homes and leave the aid budget to take care of international relief
I have often wondered just how much money charities use in promoting their causes through TV advertising with high profile so called celebrities demanding so much a month and meanwhile grotesgue sums are paid to the executives.
At least by contributing locally you know it is going to real local need. I say this as someone who over many years has raised thousands of pounds for local causes
Perhaps the most extraordinary post yesterday was by Benpointer who judged The President's Club against Oxfam, and claimed that the President's Club was guilty of the more serious offence.
At the President's Club, there were allegations of harassment. I'm not sure any crime was committed, though no doubt there was boorish and drunken behaviour. However, if any crime was committed, then I am assuming the police are investigating (rightly so).
At Oxfam, there was grotesque sexual exploitation of very desperate people. Oxfam did dismiss some employees, but it seems that the the most senior employee was simply passed on to another aid organisation -- in a familiar "pass the abuser" story.
It seems to me that the Oxfam offences are much more serious, and I am astonished that anyone could think otherwise.
Well they are coming under attack from the BBC no less
The most serious point seems to me that in indulging in what most would call a "cover-up", Oxfam permitted their most senior employees to find work elsewhere in the sector.
As I understand it, they were "allowed to resign", they were not dismissed.
This obviously meant no disciplinary stain on their record, and so permitted them to find jobs elsewhere in the aid sector. This is tantamount to allowing the abuse (underage prostitutes are alleged) to continue
See Oxfam are in trouble over staff using prostitues in Haiti earthquake.
I have always had the attitude that I give to local charities including the RNLI, the local hospice and childrens homes and leave the aid budget to take care of international relief
I have often wondered just how much money charities use in promoting their causes through TV advertising with high profile so called celebrities demanding so much a month and meanwhile grotesgue sums are paid to the executives.
At least by contributing locally you know it is going to real local need. I say this as someone who over many years has raised thousands of pounds for local causes
Perhaps the most extraordinary post yesterday was by Benpointer who judged The President's Club against Oxfam, and claimed that the President's Club was guilty of the more serious offence.
At the President's Club, there were allegations of harassment. I'm not sure any crime was committed, though no doubt there was boorish and drunken behaviour. However, if any crime was committed, then I am assuming the police are investigating (rightly so).
At Oxfam, there was grotesque sexual exploitation of very desperate people. Oxfam did dismiss some employees, but it seems that the the most senior employee was simply passed on to another aid organisation -- in a familiar "pass the abuser" story.
It seems to me that the Oxfam offences are much more serious, and I am astonished that anyone could think otherwise.
Well they are coming under attack from the BBC no less
Leaving this aside, my main objection to Oxfam is its anti-capitalism, despite the fact that capitalism has lifted millions of people out of dire poverty, over the past 30 years.
I wouldn't say they are anti-capitalism.
"Business has great potential for alleviating poverty. We want to maximise the contribution that business can make towards poverty reduction by challenging some practices and building a model for ethical trade."
See Oxfam are in trouble over staff using prostitues in Haiti earthquake.
I have always had the attitude that I give to local charities including the RNLI, the local hospice and childrens homes and leave the aid budget to take care of international relief
I have often wondered just how much money charities use in promoting their causes through TV advertising with high profile so called celebrities demanding so much a month and meanwhile grotesgue sums are paid to the executives.
At least by contributing locally you know it is going to real local need. I say this as someone who over many years has raised thousands of pounds for local causes
Perhaps the most extraordinary post yesterday was by Benpointer who judged The President's Club against Oxfam, and claimed that the President's Club was guilty of the more serious offence.
At the President's Club, there were allegations of harassment. I'm not sure any crime was committed, though no doubt there was boorish and drunken behaviour. However, if any crime was committed, then I am assuming the police are investigating (rightly so).
At Oxfam, there was grotesque sexual exploitation of very desperate people. Oxfam did dismiss some employees, but it seems that the the most senior employee was simply passed on to another aid organisation -- in a familiar "pass the abuser" story.
It seems to me that the Oxfam offences are much more serious, and I am astonished that anyone could think otherwise.
Well they are coming under attack from the BBC no less
Leaving this aside, my main objection to Oxfam is its anti-capitalism, despite the fact that capitalism has lifted millions of people out of dire poverty, over the past 30 years.
I wouldn't say they are anti-capitalism.
"Business has great potential for alleviating poverty. We want to maximise the contribution that business can make towards poverty reduction by challenging some practices and building a model for ethical trade."
The referendum campaign was largely dominated by wealthy Tories telling lies to the voters. That was to be expected. What I find most unforgiveable is the attitude of the Labour leadership. As he showed last May and June, Corbyn could have galvanised younger voters to come out and vote Remain. He went on holiday instead. That is contemptible.
If true, I would not call Corbyn contemptible, more like bloody marvellous.
Corbyn delivered his party for Remain.
Against strong competition for the most ludicrous claim this year, I think we have a winner.
If you like! I saw Corbyn campaigning for Remain, and the polling evidence I linked to was 72% of Labour supporters voted Remain.
See Oxfam are in trouble over staff using prostitues in Haiti earthquake.
I have always had the attitude that I give to local charities including the RNLI, the local hospice and childrens homes and leave the aid budget to take care of international relief
I have often wondered just how much money charities use in promoting their causes through TV advertising with high profile so called celebrities demanding so much a month and meanwhile grotesgue sums are paid to the executives.
At least by contributing locally you know it is going to real local need. I say this as someone who over many years has raised thousands of pounds for local causes
Perhaps the most extraordinary post yesterday was by Benpointer who judged The President's Club against Oxfam, and claimed that the President's Club was guilty of the more serious offence.
At the President's Club, there were allegations of harassment. I'm not sure any crime was committed, though no doubt there was boorish and drunken behaviour. However, if any crime was committed, then I am assuming the police are investigating (rightly so).
At Oxfam, there was grotesque sexual exploitation of very desperate people. Oxfam did dismiss some employees, but it seems that the the most senior employee was simply passed on to another aid organisation -- in a familiar "pass the abuser" story.
It seems to me that the Oxfam offences are much more serious, and I am astonished that anyone could think otherwise.
Well they are coming under attack from the BBC no less
Leaving this aside, my main objection to Oxfam is its anti-capitalism, despite the fact that capitalism has lifted millions of people out of dire poverty, over the past 30 years.
I wouldn't say they are anti-capitalism.
"Business has great potential for alleviating poverty. We want to maximise the contribution that business can make towards poverty reduction by challenging some practices and building a model for ethical trade."
Oxfam spokeswoman: "Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do to stop individuals falsifying references, getting others that were dismissed to act as referees and claiming it was a reference from Oxfam, or former or current Oxfam staff that worked with the individual providing a reference in a personal capacity."
Does this even sound right ?
When individuals commit acts of gross misconduct, they resign from Oxfam, and they get jobs elsewhere in the aid sector.
And Oxfam can really do "nothing" -- even if references are falsified.
This is a cover-up. It was obviously in Oxfam's interest not to draw attention to the circumstances of what happened, so they turned a blind eye to their abusers getting similar jobs elsewhere in the sector.
The referendum campaign was largely dominated by wealthy Tories telling lies to the voters. That was to be expected. What I find most unforgiveable is the attitude of the Labour leadership. As he showed last May and June, Corbyn could have galvanised younger voters to come out and vote Remain. He went on holiday instead. That is contemptible.
If true, I would not call Corbyn contemptible, more like bloody marvellous.
Corbyn delivered his party for Remain.
Against strong competition for the most ludicrous claim this year, I think we have a winner.
If you like! I saw Corbyn campaigning for Remain, and the polling evidence I linked to was 72% of Labour supporters voted Remain.
Every Labour seat in Wales (bar Cardiff) voted Leave.
The seats that voted Remain are Plaid Cymru or Tory.
See Oxfam are in trouble over staff using prostitues in Haiti earthquake.
I have always had the attitude that I give to local charities including the RNLI, the local hospice and childrens homes and leave the aid budget to take care of international relief
I have often wondered just how much money charities use in promoting their causes through TV advertising with high profile so called celebrities demanding so much a month and meanwhile grotesgue sums are paid to the executives.
At least by contributing locally you know it is going to real local need. I say this as someone who over many years has raised thousands of pounds for local causes
Perhaps the most extraordinary post yesterday was by Benpointer who judged The President's Club against Oxfam, and claimed that the President's Club was guilty of the more serious offence.
At the President's Club, there were allegations of harassment. I'm not sure any crime was committed, though no doubt there was boorish and drunken behaviour. However, if any crime was committed, then I am assuming the police are investigating (rightly so).
At Oxfam, there was grotesque sexual exploitation of very desperate people. Oxfam did dismiss some employees, but it seems that the the most senior employee was simply passed on to another aid organisation -- in a familiar "pass the abuser" story.
It seems to me that the Oxfam offences are much more serious, and I am astonished that anyone could think otherwise.
Well they are coming under attack from the BBC no less
Leaving this aside, my main objection to Oxfam is its anti-capitalism, despite the fact that capitalism has lifted millions of people out of dire poverty, over the past 30 years.
I wouldn't say they are anti-capitalism.
"Business has great potential for alleviating poverty. We want to maximise the contribution that business can make towards poverty reduction by challenging some practices and building a model for ethical trade."
Jeremy Hunt has many disadvantages : he is associated with the NHS crisis but also he is a cold fish: he has a shifty look about him and he has the Nixon factor-he sweats profusely on TV. He would be terrible on the streets "identifying" with ordinary people and in TV debates.
Johnson has personality and wit, but he lacks gravitas, comes over as a buffoon, is detested by Remainers, and crucially he looks like a British Donald Trump. Subliminally that would harm him in a general election campaign, especially if they were ever filmed together. In TV debates he tends to bluster rather than reason, and would be a gift to Corbyn.
Gove is an articulate twat, he and his wife look like they are refugees from a Monty Python version of Macbeth, he is detested by the public sector, he comes across as a comical crank, and would be an unmitigated disaster.
Amber Rudd, sounds like a traffic light changing colour. I am sure she could survive this but she is also loud and strident and doesnt come across well on TV.
Gavin Williamson looks prime ministerial but doesnt sound it. An aura of personal ambition leaks through the pores of his skin and this may well disqualify him. He is reminiscent of the interview candidate who wants the job too keenly.
Dominic Raab is charismatic, articulate, looks prime ministerial, is very good on TV, good at thinking on his feet, and is a Leaver, so is able to own post Brexit.
Raab is clearly the best candidate. The Tories would be crazy not to elect him leader but they have a history like Labour of choosing duffers.
Oxfam spokeswoman: "Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do to stop individuals falsifying references, getting others that were dismissed to act as referees and claiming it was a reference from Oxfam, or former or current Oxfam staff that worked with the individual providing a reference in a personal capacity."
Does this even sound right ?
When individuals commit acts of gross misconduct, they resign from Oxfam, and they get jobs elsewhere in the aid sector.
And Oxfam can really do "nothing" -- even if references are falsified.
This is a cover-up. It was obviously in Oxfam's interest not to draw attention to the circumstances of what happened, so they turned a blind eye to their abusers getting similar jobs elsewhere in the sector.
The referendum campaign was largely dominated by wealthy Tories telling lies to the voters. That was to be expected. What I find most unforgiveable is the attitude of the Labour leadership. As he showed last May and June, Corbyn could have galvanised younger voters to come out and vote Remain. He went on holiday instead. That is contemptible.
If true, I would not call Corbyn contemptible, more like bloody marvellous.
Corbyn delivered his party for Remain.
Against strong competition for the most ludicrous claim this year, I think we have a winner.
If you like! I saw Corbyn campaigning for Remain, and the polling evidence I linked to was 72% of Labour supporters voted Remain.
Corbyn campaigned reluctantly for Remain to keep his job as leader but his heart was not in it, and he undermined the campaign on several occasions. He did not appear on one single TV debate, refused to sign a joint Labour leader statement. If he had not been leader Remain would have won.
See Oxfam are in trouble over staff using prostitues in Haiti earthquake.
I have always had the attitude that I give to local charities including the RNLI, the local hospice and childrens homes and leave the aid budget to take care of international relief
I have often wondered just how much money charities use in promoting their causes through TV advertising with high profile so called celebrities demanding so much a month and meanwhile grotesgue sums are paid to the executives.
At least by contributing locally you know it is going to real local need. I say this as someone who over many years has raised thousands of pounds for local causes
Perhaps the most extraordinary post yesterday was by Benpointer who judged The President's Club against Oxfam, and claimed that the President's Club was guilty of the more serious offence.
At the President's Club, there were allegations of harassment. I'm not sure any crime was committed, though no doubt there was boorish and drunken behaviour. However, if any crime was committed, then I am assuming the police are investigating (rightly so).
At Oxfam, there was grotesque sexual exploitation of very desperate people. Oxfam did dismiss some employees, but it seems that the the most senior employee was simply passed on to another aid organisation -- in a familiar "pass the abuser" story.
It seems to me that the Oxfam offences are much more serious, and I am astonished that anyone could think otherwise.
Well they are coming under attack from the BBC no less
Leaving this aside, my main objection to Oxfam is its anti-capitalism, despite the fact that capitalism has lifted millions of people out of dire poverty, over the past 30 years.
I wouldn't say they are anti-capitalism.
"Business has great potential for alleviating poverty. We want to maximise the contribution that business can make towards poverty reduction by challenging some practices and building a model for ethical trade."
'..but it also elected Cameron ahead of David Davis in 2005..'
But didn't the membership rue the day and conclude they'd made a tragic blunder? I seem to recall that 'Don't blame me I voted DD' T-shirts to wear at conference sold like hot cakes.
Oxfam spokeswoman: "Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do to stop individuals falsifying references, getting others that were dismissed to act as referees and claiming it was a reference from Oxfam, or former or current Oxfam staff that worked with the individual providing a reference in a personal capacity."
Does this even sound right ?
When individuals commit acts of gross misconduct, they resign from Oxfam, and they get jobs elsewhere in the aid sector.
And Oxfam can really do "nothing" -- even if references are falsified.
This is a cover-up. It was obviously in Oxfam's interest not to draw attention to the circumstances of what happened, so they turned a blind eye to their abusers getting similar jobs elsewhere in the sector.
I think four of them were fired - imagine they were those who did the wrongdoing. Some of the organisations I’ve worked for have no reference policies - but how can you stop someone privately writing a reference for someone else? They aren’t going to tell you...
I’m not clear on why the police were not involved - either in Haiti or back here if the individuals are British.
See Oxfam are in trouble over staff using prostitues in Haiti earthquake.
I have always had the attitude that I give to local charities including the RNLI, the local hospice and childrens homes and leave the aid budget to take care of international relief
I have often wondered just how much money charities use in promoting their causes through TV advertising with high profile so called celebrities demanding so much a month and meanwhile grotesgue sums are paid to the executives.
At least by contributing locally you know it is going to real local need. I say this as someone who over many years has raised thousands of pounds for local causes
Perhaps the most extraordinary post yesterday was by Benpointer who judged The President's Club against Oxfam, and claimed that the President's Club was guilty of the more serious offence.
At the President's Club, there were allegations of harassment. I'm not sure any crime was committed, though no doubt there was boorish and drunken behaviour. However, if any crime was committed, then I am assuming the police are investigating (rightly so).
At Oxfam, there was grotesque sexual exploitation of very desperate people. Oxfam did dismiss some employees, but it seems that the the most senior employee was simply passed on to another aid organisation -- in a familiar "pass the abuser" story.
It seems to me that the Oxfam offences are much more serious, and I am astonished that anyone could think otherwise.
Well they are coming under attack from the BBC no less
Leaving this aside, my main objection to Oxfam is its anti-capitalism, despite the fact that capitalism has lifted millions of people out of dire poverty, over the past 30 years.
I wouldn't say they are anti-capitalism.
"Business has great potential for alleviating poverty. We want to maximise the contribution that business can make towards poverty reduction by challenging some practices and building a model for ethical trade."
It’s a bit gimmicky - but then they are trying to raise money/encourage movements. The basic point that a small number of people own a ridiculous amount of wealth is true.
Comments
In fact I have always regarded it rather like a dog with fleas. I don't like the fleas, but I want the dog treated, not shot!
Is part of the remedies from BT's takeover of EE.
It'll lose the BT brand and will be neutral in all provisions.
One thing is for certain: John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn screwing up the economy is not in the interests of the majority in this country.
Anyone thinking they will go for SM or CU membership needs their head examining.
Anyone wanting a close but sensible relationship with the EU has no political home at the moment.
In fact it will almost have to make everyone except BT a priority.
Would he have got to the insignificant backbencher role to start with if his father hadn't been a significant figure in the trades union movement able to start him in local government in London?
I would say the answer's no. He reminds me of the Marquis of Granby. But feel free to disagree.
I like Ugg footwear as much as I like pineapple on pizza.
Mogg must either publicly condone Britain First's offer of protection and accept it or reject it out of hand as he is morally required to do.
The Scots made themselves so unpopular the Irish and English had a truce to turf them out
https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/961996680014057473
Windows remainerdom also works as an analogy, but QWERTY is more fun to type.
Thing is, when you are talking about a relationship with the world as it is, you are dealing with cold reality, not emotional truth. The same with Brexit as with Iraq. The Leave project, whether nice or bad in the concept, is undeliverable in the reality because of its contradictions.
That's what makes it interesting in a Confucianist sense. When you have got yourself into a situation with four bad options, which one do you choose?
A day for succinct posts. You've described in one short sentence the motivation of 90% of those who voted Leave.
https://twitter.com/CrimBarrister/status/962074665765122052
But he certainly didn't have leadership ambitions and that's a result of other options having exhausted themselves plus a surprising facility on the stump when it was needed. The tirelessness came in handy too.
Which is why they should have an open contest and try to have a real sense of renewal behind the new leader. They should try to avoid a parliamentary smoke-filled rooms choice and instead go for a series of public debates and speeches so that someone can do what Cameron did at his conference speech. That would allow the person to emerge who best connects with average voters. My suspicion is that Dominic Raab is by far the best candidate. His history as a human rights lawyer and Palestinian negotiator also breaks some stereotypes.
Coincidence? I think not.
Cameron did not, and indeed it was Tory voters who in larger numbers abandoned Remain over the campaign. Theresa May of course went into submarine mode.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/04/evidence-blame-jeremy-corbyn-brexit-remain-labour-conservative
Raab`s CV sounds like the last person to do that
I have always had the attitude that I give to local charities including the RNLI, the local hospice and childrens homes and leave the aid budget to take care of international relief
I have often wondered just how much money charities use in promoting their causes through TV advertising with high profile so called celebrities demanding so much a month and meanwhile grotesgue sums are paid to the executives.
At least by contributing locally you know it is going to real local need. I say this as someone who over many years has raised thousands of pounds for local causes
At the President's Club, there were allegations of harassment. I'm not sure any crime was committed, though no doubt there was boorish and drunken behaviour. However, if any crime was committed, then I am assuming the police are investigating (rightly so).
At Oxfam, there was grotesque sexual exploitation of very desperate people. Oxfam did dismiss some employees, but it seems that the the most senior employee was simply passed on to another aid organisation -- in a familiar "pass the abuser" story.
It seems to me that the Oxfam offences are much more serious, and I am astonished that anyone could think otherwise.
I imagine an elite Premier league side who having rapidly slid down the divisions finds themselves on a wet Febuary evening facing Accrington Stanley to avoid the oblivion of the Notrhern League and deciding the time had come to string up the directors.
Whole charity sector needs a massive shakeup, way too many fancy offices, TV adverts, six figure salaries and celebrity “ambassadors” wanting tax writeoffs. I won’t be happy until Batmanwoman is in prison.
Huge plush HQ, mega salaries, political lobbying.
As I understand it, they were "allowed to resign", they were not dismissed.
This obviously meant no disciplinary stain on their record, and so permitted them to find jobs elsewhere in the aid sector. This is tantamount to allowing the abuse (underage prostitutes are alleged) to continue
"Business has great potential for alleviating poverty. We want to maximise the contribution that business can make towards poverty reduction by challenging some practices and building a model for ethical trade."
https://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/our-approach/private-sector
I saw Corbyn campaigning for Remain, and the polling evidence I linked to was 72% of Labour supporters voted Remain.
https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/economy-99
Does this even sound right ?
When individuals commit acts of gross misconduct, they resign from Oxfam, and they get jobs elsewhere in the aid sector.
And Oxfam can really do "nothing" -- even if references are falsified.
This is a cover-up. It was obviously in Oxfam's interest not to draw attention to the circumstances of what happened, so they turned a blind eye to their abusers getting similar jobs elsewhere in the sector.
The seats that voted Remain are Plaid Cymru or Tory.
Johnson has personality and wit, but he lacks gravitas, comes over as a buffoon, is detested by Remainers, and crucially he looks like a British Donald Trump. Subliminally that would harm him in a general election campaign, especially if they were ever filmed together. In TV debates he tends to bluster rather than reason, and would be a gift to Corbyn.
Gove is an articulate twat, he and his wife look like they are refugees from a Monty Python version of Macbeth, he is detested by the public sector, he comes across as a comical crank, and would be an unmitigated disaster.
Amber Rudd, sounds like a traffic light changing colour. I am sure she could survive this but she is also loud and strident and doesnt come across well on TV.
Gavin Williamson looks prime ministerial but doesnt sound it. An aura of personal ambition leaks through the pores of his skin and this may well disqualify him. He is reminiscent of the interview candidate who wants the job too keenly.
Dominic Raab is charismatic, articulate, looks prime ministerial, is very good on TV, good at thinking on his feet, and is a Leaver, so is able to own post Brexit.
Raab is clearly the best candidate. The Tories would be crazy not to elect him leader but they have a history like Labour of choosing duffers.
But they don't think of themselves as one.
Good afternoon, everybody.
But didn't the membership rue the day and conclude they'd made a tragic blunder? I seem to recall that 'Don't blame me I voted DD' T-shirts to wear at conference sold like hot cakes.
Some of the organisations I’ve worked for have no reference policies - but how can you stop someone privately writing a reference for someone else? They aren’t going to tell you...
I’m not clear on why the police were not involved - either in Haiti or back here if the individuals are British.
The basic point that a small number of people own a ridiculous amount of wealth is true.