Spy stuff - lol. On the polls, the one significant development is that UKIP's vote share is undeniably collapsing, and nobody is benefiting very noticeably. There was a time when the Conservatives expected to be the main beneficiaries - people posted here would regularly add their poll scores together to make a prediction. And it did seem logical, but probably UKLIP's vote was in reality mostly fed-up left-behind voters angry at everyone rather than dedicated right-wingers. I suspect that most were previous non-voters who are now going to return to that state.
UKIP already collapsed at the last election, it benefited the Conservatives considerably
1. We're not exactly mid-term, so comparing a peak opposition lead three years into a parliament with the current one, eight months in, is disingenuous.
2. The Labour Party is led by Jeremy Corbyn.
And:
3. Brexit is so uncertain and such a complete disruption that any read-across from the past has to be treated with even more scepticism than usual.
Is this the Brexit that Jeremy Corbyn voted for for 30 years, the Brexit that he failed to campaign against in the referendum, and the Brexit which he isnt opposing now?
It is. So far young Labour voters haven't quite cottoned on to that, but maybe they will, tilting voting intentions towards the Conservatives. Or maybe Brexit will increasingly be seen as a disaster and the Tories will get the blame, tilting voting intentions towards Labour.
It's very easy to construct plausible scenarios which range from a good Conservative majority under a new leader to a small Labour majority with the Tories even more split than they are now.
Who knows? It's more uncertain than any time I can remember.
Young people do not decide general elections -there is not enough of them.
It appears to be more uncertain than at any time -but if you look carefully enough you can see all the signs for the Labour defeat to come
On balance I agree with you that a poor Labour result (substantially worse than GE2017) is likely, for the reasons you've given. However I don't share your certainty; there are many unknowns, not least how much blood will be spilt in the civil war in the Conservative Party.
or whether Labour will have a different leader. An Emily Thornberry leadership would be a gamechanger
She'd need to lose weight - can't see a corpulent PM being elected.
I suspect her BMI is not far off British average.
So you are saying she is obese
I think the averageafemalefBMIain the UK is "overweight" with a substantial minority (!!) "obese".
Interesting? A discussion about Brexit has morphed into one about Lady Nugee's weight.
Can anyone confirm whether we are supposed to take this new seriously?
The culture war jumped the shark with Trump, but surely if he took money from Czech security services, he must resign from the House (and, of course, the Leadership).
If only the Czechs had piped up in, say, August 2015......
I dont know why the Sun bothers with such ridiculous stories which are unproveable even if they contained a modicum of truth. This sort of thing only helps Corbyn.
Corbyn should be attacked by both his Labour and Tory opponents by showing him up for what he actually is rather than daft stories about spies.
Yep, much more concerning is current Russian interference in our elections and referendums than historic allegations.
Really? You don't think a story of the Leader of the Opposition and potential future PM taking money from an enemy of Britain would (if substantiated) be a big story?
It's a view, I suppose.
Of course, the 'if substantiated' is a very big 'if'.
Can anyone confirm whether we are supposed to take this new seriously?
The culture war jumped the shark with Trump, but surely if he took money from Czech security services, he must resign from the House (and, of course, the Leadership).
If proven it is a very serious charge
It would be impossible to prove. Its the Sun doing what the Sun does best.....
just to be clear, whose arse do you think it is using?
So....Corbyn falls under a Czech bus, the Labour Party has a blood-bath election for a new leader, which a non-Momentum candidate wins....a devoutly Remainer non-Momentum candidate. And sets about promptly and properly buggering Brexit.
Now, I wonder whose interest it is in for Brexit's bessy mate to be locked in the Tower?
/CynicalMode......
How does the non-Momentum candidate win? MI5 are rubbing out the pencil votes from labour members?
Just playing Fantasy Politics for a moment - if Corbyn had to step down because it turns out he was in the pay of a foreign security service (which has been vehemently denied, so that is what would do for him), but his successor comes from the Corbyn faction and carries on regardless, then surely that would be the point at which Labour has mass defections of MPs to some new party? So to prevent that, Momentum backs off - and Chuka gets a go as leader.....
Can't see it in a million years at the moment. Momentum backing off?
Chuka would though throw Brexit under its own £350m bus at the first opportunity, so yeh would be very interesting development.
1. We're not exactly mid-term, so comparing a peak opposition lead three years into a parliament with the current one, eight months in, is disingenuous.
2. The Labour Party is led by Jeremy Corbyn.
And:
3. Brexit is so uncertain and such a complete disruption that any read-across from the past has to be treated with even more scepticism than usual.
Is this the Brexit that Jeremy Corbyn voted for for 30 years, the Brexit that he failed to campaign against in the referendum, and the Brexit which he isnt opposing now?
It is. So far young Labour voters
It's very easy to construct plausible scenarios which range from a good Conservative majority under a new leader to a small Labour majority with the Tories even more split than they are now.
Who knows? It's more uncertain than any time I can remember.
Young people do not decide general elections -there is not enough of them.
It appears to be more uncertain than at any time -but if you look carefully enough you can see all the signs for the Labour defeat to come
On balance I agree with you that a poor Labour result (substantially worse than GE2017) is likely, for the reasons you've given. However I don't share your certainty; there are many unknowns, not least how much blood will be spilt in the civil war in the Conservative Party.
or whether Labour will have a different leader. An Emily Thornberry leadership would be a gamechanger
She'd need to lose weight - can't see a corpulent PM being elected.
I suspect her BMI is not far off British average.
So you are saying she is obese
I think the averageafemalefBMIain the UK is "overweight" with a substantial minority (!!) "obese".
Interesting? A discussion about Brexit has morphed into one about Lady Nugee's weight.
Not much more to be said over Brexit after Boris's speech on our innovative organic carrots. It jumped the shark at that point.
With my diabetes hat on, I am concerned at Britain's lardiness. On the other hand you cannot trust thin people...
Can anyone confirm whether we are supposed to take this new seriously?
The culture war jumped the shark with Trump, but surely if he took money from Czech security services, he must resign from the House (and, of course, the Leadership).
If only the Czechs had piped up in, say, August 2015......
I dont know why the Sun bothers with such ridiculous stories which are unproveable even if they contained a modicum of truth. This sort of thing only helps Corbyn.
Corbyn should be attacked by both his Labour and Tory opponents by showing him up for what he actually is rather than daft stories about spies.
Yep, much more concerning is current Russian interference in our elections and referendums than historic allegations.
I don't understand all this fuss about international interference. It's what sovereign states do. I can't think of a single exception. Can anyone?
Can anyone confirm whether we are supposed to take this new seriously?
The culture war jumped the shark with Trump, but surely if he took money from Czech security services, he must resign from the House (and, of course, the Leadership).
If only the Czechs had piped up in, say, August 2015......
I dont know why the Sun bothers with such ridiculous stories which are unproveable even if they contained a modicum of truth. This sort of thing only helps Corbyn.
Corbyn should be attacked by both his Labour and Tory opponents by showing him up for what he actually is rather than daft stories about spies.
Yep, much more concerning is current Russian interference in our elections and referendums than historic allegations.
Really? You don't think a story of the Leader of the Opposition and potential future PM taking money from an enemy of Britain would (if substantiated) be a big story?
It's a view, I suppose.
Of course, the 'if substantiated' is a very big 'if'.
Well, lets see some evidence.
I wouldn't be surprised at contact, after all Jezza has never hidden his anti Trident, anti NATO position, and famously went on his biker tour of East Germany.
He has never struck me as someone interested in money though, so it would seem out of character. Its not as if he had access to any secrets anyway.
1. We're not exactly mid-term, so comparing a peak opposition lead three years into a parliament with the current one, eight months in, is disingenuous.
2. The Labour Party is led by Jeremy Corbyn.
And:
3. Brexit is so uncertain and such a complete disruption that any read-across from the past has to be treated with even more scepticism than usual.
Is this the Brexit that Jeremy Corbyn voted for for 30 years, the Brexit that he failed to campaign against in the referendum, and the Brexit which he isnt opposing now?
It is. So far young Labour voters
It's very easy to construct plausible scenarios which range from a good Conservative majority under a new leader to a small Labour majority with the Tories even more split than they are now.
Who knows? It's more uncertain than any time I can remember.
Young people do not decide general elections -there is not enough of them.
It appears to be more uncertain than at any time -but if you look carefully enough you can see all the signs for the Labour defeat to come
On balance I agree with you that a poor Labour result (substantially worse than GE2017) is likely, for the reasons you've given. However I don't share your certainty; there are many unknowns, not least how much blood will be spilt in the civil war in the Conservative Party.
or whether Labour will have a different leader. An Emily Thornberry leadership would be a gamechanger
She'd need to lose weight - can't see a corpulent PM being elected.
I suspect her BMI is not far off British average.
So you are saying she is obese
I think the averageafemalefBMIain the UK is "overweight" with a substantial minority (!!) "obese".
Interesting? A discussion about Brexit has morphed into one about Lady Nugee's weight.
Not much more to be said over Brexit after Boris's speech on our innovative organic carrots. It jumped the shark at that point.
With my diabetes hat on, I am concerned at Britain's lardiness. On the other hand you cannot trust thin people...
Thin people get diabetes too. I guess that leaves you where you are.
Can anyone confirm whether we are supposed to take this new seriously?
The culture war jumped the shark with Trump, but surely if he took money from Czech security services, he must resign from the House (and, of course, the Leadership).
If only the Czechs had piped up in, say, August 2015......
I dont know why the Sun bothers with such ridiculous stories which are unproveable even if they contained a modicum of truth. This sort of thing only helps Corbyn.
Corbyn should be attacked by both his Labour and Tory opponents by showing him up for what he actually is rather than daft stories about spies.
Yep, much more concerning is current Russian interference in our elections and referendums than historic allegations.
Really? You don't think a story of the Leader of the Opposition and potential future PM taking money from an enemy of Britain would (if substantiated) be a big story?
It's a view, I suppose.
Of course, the 'if substantiated' is a very big 'if'.
Well, lets see some evidence.
I wouldn't be surprised at contact, after all Jezza has never hidden his anti Trident, anti NATO position, and famously went on his biker tour of East Germany.
He has never struck me as someone interested in money though, so it would seem out of character. Its not as if he had access to any secrets anyway.
The problem is that its impossible to prove. Unless there were a money transaction "smoking gun" which seems unlikely.
You will notice that the BBC isnt running with the story. The news channels are scared of saying anything critical of Corbyn.....
Can anyone confirm whether we are supposed to take this new seriously?
The culture war jumped the shark with Trump, but surely if he took money from Czech security services, he must resign from the House (and, of course, the Leadership).
If only the Czechs had piped up in, say, August 2015......
I dont know why the Sun bothers with such ridiculous stories which are unproveable even if they contained a modicum of truth. This sort of thing only helps Corbyn.
Corbyn should be attacked by both his Labour and Tory opponents by showing him up for what he actually is rather than daft stories about spies.
Yep, much more concerning is current Russian interference in our elections and referendums than historic allegations.
Really? You don't think a story of the Leader of the Opposition and potential future PM taking money from an enemy of Britain would (if substantiated) be a big story?
It's a view, I suppose.
Of course, the 'if substantiated' is a very big 'if'.
Well, lets see some evidence.
I wouldn't be surprised at contact, after all Jezza has never hidden his anti Trident, anti NATO position, and famously went on his biker tour of East Germany.
He has never struck me as someone interested in money though, so it would seem out of character. Its not as if he had access to any secrets anyway.
Agent COB: “When the Sunday Times falsely accused Michael Foot of being a Soviet ‘agent of influence’ he sued, won, and bought a new kitchen,” said Paul Richards, who served as a special adviser to Hazel Blears and Patricia Hewitt.
Can anyone confirm whether we are supposed to take this new seriously?
The culture war jumped the shark with Trump, but surely if he took money from Czech security services, he must resign from the House (and, of course, the Leadership).
If only the Czechs had piped up in, say, August 2015......
I dont know why the Sun bothers with such ridiculous stories which are unproveable even if they contained a modicum of truth. This sort of thing only helps Corbyn.
Corbyn should be attacked by both his Labour and Tory opponents by showing him up for what he actually is rather than daft stories about spies.
Yep, much more concerning is current Russian interference in our elections and referendums than historic allegations.
I don't understand all this fuss about international interference. It's what sovereign states do. I can't think of a single exception. Can anyone?
But what is novel is the idea that somebody who wants to be leader of Country A takes money from Country B....to fuck over Country A. Awkward.....
Can anyone confirm whether we are supposed to take this new seriously?
The culture war jumped the shark with Trump, but surely if he took money from Czech security services, he must resign from the House (and, of course, the Leadership).
If only the Czechs had piped up in, say, August 2015......
I dont know why the Sun bothers with such ridiculous stories which are unproveable even if they contained a modicum of truth. This sort of thing only helps Corbyn.
Corbyn should be attacked by both his Labour and Tory opponents by showing him up for what he actually is rather than daft stories about spies.
Yep, much more concerning is current Russian interference in our elections and referendums than historic allegations.
Really? You don't think a story of the Leader of the Opposition and potential future PM taking money from an enemy of Britain would (if substantiated) be a big story?
It's a view, I suppose.
Of course, the 'if substantiated' is a very big 'if'.
Well, lets see some evidence.
I wouldn't be surprised at contact, after all Jezza has never hidden his anti Trident, anti NATO position, and famously went on his biker tour of East Germany.
He has never struck me as someone interested in money though, so it would seem out of character. Its not as if he had access to any secrets anyway.
If the allegations are proven, and it is a big if, his career would hit the buffers
Can anyone confirm whether we are supposed to take this new seriously?
The culture war jumped the shark with Trump, but surely if he took money from Czech security services, he must resign from the House (and, of course, the Leadership).
If only the Czechs had piped up in, say, August 2015......
I dont know why the Sun bothers with such ridiculous stories which are unproveable even if they contained a modicum of truth. This sort of thing only helps Corbyn.
Corbyn should be attacked by both his Labour and Tory opponents by showing him up for what he actually is rather than daft stories about spies.
Yep, much more concerning is current Russian interference in our elections and referendums than historic allegations.
Really? You don't think a story of the Leader of the Opposition and potential future PM taking money from an enemy of Britain would (if substantiated) be a big story?
It's a view, I suppose.
Of course, the 'if substantiated' is a very big 'if'.
Well, lets see some evidence.
I wouldn't be surprised at contact, after all Jezza has never hidden his anti Trident, anti NATO position, and famously went on his biker tour of East Germany.
He has never struck me as someone interested in money though, so it would seem out of character. Its not as if he had access to any secrets anyway.
Yes, if it was just a contact, it won't have any impact. Everyone over 40 knows he had an idiotic admiration of the brutal Soviet regime, so that wouldn't be news.
Spy stuff - lol. On the polls, the one significant development is that UKIP's vote share is undeniably collapsing, and nobody is benefiting very noticeably. There was a time when the Conservatives expected to be the main beneficiaries - people posted here would regularly add their poll scores together to make a prediction. And it did seem logical, but probably UKLIP's vote was in reality mostly fed-up left-behind voters angry at everyone rather than dedicated right-wingers. I suspect that most were previous non-voters who are now going to return to that state.
The Tories would not have got 42% at the general election and be on 40% in today's Yougov if they had not benefited most from UKIP's collapse, it is just Labour has benefited most from the collapse of the LDs and the decline of the Greens too
Can anyone confirm whether we are supposed to take this new seriously?
The culture war jumped the shark with Trump, but surely if he took money from Czech security services, he must resign from the House (and, of course, the Leadership).
If only the Czechs had piped up in, say, August 2015......
I dont know why the Sun bothers with such ridiculous stories which are unproveable even if they contained a modicum of truth. This sort of thing only helps Corbyn.
Corbyn should be attacked by both his Labour and Tory opponents by showing him up for what he actually is rather than daft stories about spies.
Yep, much more concerning is current Russian interference in our elections and referendums than historic allegations.
Really? You don't think a story of the Leader of the Opposition and potential future PM taking money from an enemy of Britain would (if substantiated) be a big story?
It's a view, I suppose.
Of course, the 'if substantiated' is a very big 'if'.
Well, lets see some evidence.
I wouldn't be surprised at contact, after all Jezza has never hidden his anti Trident, anti NATO position, and famously went on his biker tour of East Germany.
He has never struck me as someone interested in money though, so it would seem out of character. Its not as if he had access to any secrets anyway.
If the allegations are proven, and it is a big if, his career would hit the buffers
Would it though? The cult doesn't listen. It is all fake news from Murdoch etc etc. And they are the ones who decide his fate.
Can anyone confirm whether we are supposed to take this new seriously?
The culture war jumped the shark with Trump, but surely if he took money from Czech security services, he must resign from the House (and, of course, the Leadership).
If only the Czechs had piped up in, say, August 2015......
I dont know why the Sun bothers with such ridiculous stories which are unproveable even if they contained a modicum of truth. This sort of thing only helps Corbyn.
Corbyn should be attacked by both his Labour and Tory opponents by showing him up for what he actually is rather than daft stories about spies.
Yep, much more concerning is current Russian interference in our elections and referendums than historic allegations.
I don't understand all this fuss about international interference. It's what sovereign states do. I can't think of a single exception. Can anyone?
But what is novel is the idea that somebody who wants to be leader of Country A takes money from Country B....to fuck over Country A. Awkward.....
Remember the classic Yes Minister sketch:
Sir Humphrey: The only way to understand the Press is to remember that they pander to their readers' prejudices.
Jim Hacker: Don't tell me about the Press. I know *exactly* who reads the papers. The Daily Mirror is read by the people who think they run the country. The Guardian is read by people who think they *ought* to run the country. The Times is read by the people who actually *do* run the country. The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country. The Financial Times is read by people who *own* the country. The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by *another* country.. The Daily Telegraph is read by the people who think it is.
Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?
Bernard Woolley: Sun readers don't care *who* runs the country - as long as she's got big tits.
Agent COB: “When the Sunday Times falsely accused Michael Foot of being a Soviet ‘agent of influence’ he sued, won, and bought a new kitchen,” said Paul Richards, who served as a special adviser to Hazel Blears and Patricia Hewitt.
Can anyone confirm whether we are supposed to take this new seriously?
The culture war jumped the shark with Trump, but surely if he took money from Czech security services, he must resign from the House (and, of course, the Leadership).
If only the Czechs had piped up in, say, August 2015......
I dont know why the Sun bothers with such ridiculous stories which are unproveable even if they contained a modicum of truth. This sort of thing only helps Corbyn.
Corbyn should be attacked by both his Labour and Tory opponents by showing him up for what he actually is rather than daft stories about spies.
Yep, much more concerning is current Russian interference in our elections and referendums than historic allegations.
I don't understand all this fuss about international interference. It's what sovereign states do. I can't think of a single exception. Can anyone?
But what is novel is the idea that somebody who wants to be leader of Country A takes money from Country B....to fuck over Country A. Awkward.....
I
Being found out on any kind of interference is awkward and always has been because it is most likely detrimental to the desired objective of the interference. But the risk is unavoidable and doesn't deter.
1. We're not exactly mid-term, so comparing a peak opposition lead three years into a parliament with the current one, eight months in, is disingenuous.
2. The Labour Party is led by Jeremy Corbyn.
And:
3. Brexit is so uncertain and such a complete disruption that any read-across from the past has to be treated with even more scepticism than usual.
Is this the Brexit that Jeremy Corbyn voted for for 30 years, the Brexit that he failed to campaign against in the referendum, and the Brexit which he isnt opposing now?
It is. So far young Labour voters
It's very easy to construct plausible scenarios which range from a good Conservative majority under a new leader to a small Labour majority with the Tories even more split than they are now.
Who knows? It's more uncertain than any time I can remember.
Young people do not decide general elections -there is not enough of them.
It appears to be more uncertain than at any time -but if you look carefully enough you can see all the signs for the Labour defeat to come
On balance I agree with you .
or whether Labour will have a different leader. An Emily Thornberry leadership would be a gamechanger
She'd need to lose weight - can't see a corpulent PM being elected.
I suspect her BMI is not far off British average.
So you are saying she is obese
I think the averageafemalefBMIain the UK is "overweight" with a substantial minority (!!) "obese".
Interesting? A discussion about Brexit has morphed into one about Lady Nugee's weight.
Not much more to be said over Brexit after Boris's speech on our innovative organic carrots. It jumped the shark at that point.
With my diabetes hat on, I am concerned at Britain's lardiness. On the other hand you cannot trust thin people...
Thin people get diabetes too. I guess that leaves you where you are.
Sure, but Britains obesity epidemic is behind the doubling of the number with diabetes in the UK to 4 million over the last 20 years. It is likely to double again in the next 20.
Can anyone confirm whether we are supposed to take this new seriously?
The culture war jumped the shark with Trump, but surely if he took money from Czech security services, he must resign from the House (and, of course, the Leadership).
If only the Czechs had piped up in, say, August 2015......
I dont know why the Sun bothers with such ridiculous stories which are unproveable even if they contained a modicum of truth. This sort of thing only helps Corbyn.
Corbyn should be attacked by both his Labour and Tory opponents by showing him up for what he actually is rather than daft stories about spies.
Yep, much more concerning is current Russian interference in our elections and referendums than historic allegations.
Really? You don't think a story of the Leader of the Opposition and potential future PM taking money from an enemy of Britain would (if substantiated) be a big story?
It's a view, I suppose.
Of course, the 'if substantiated' is a very big 'if'.
Well, lets see some evidence.
I wouldn't be surprised at contact, after all Jezza has never hidden his anti Trident, anti NATO position, and famously went on his biker tour of East Germany.
He has never struck me as someone interested in money though, so it would seem out of character. Its not as if he had access to any secrets anyway.
If the allegations are proven, and it is a big if, his career would hit the buffers
Maybe the Czech handlers have pictures of him engaged in disturbing activities? It might not involve glass tables but it could be something very embarrassing.
Can anyone confirm whether we are supposed to take this new seriously?
The culture war jumped the shark with Trump, but surely if he took money from Czech security services, he must resign from the House (and, of course, the Leadership).
If only the Czechs had piped up in, say, August 2015......
I dont know why the Sun bothers with such ridiculous stories which are unproveable even if they contained a modicum of truth. This sort of thing only helps Corbyn.
Corbyn should be attacked by both his Labour and Tory opponents by showing him up for what he actually is rather than daft stories about spies.
Yep, much more concerning is current Russian interference in our elections and referendums than historic allegations.
Really? You don't think a story of the Leader of the Opposition and potential future PM taking money from an enemy of Britain would (if substantiated) be a big story?
It's a view, I suppose.
Of course, the 'if substantiated' is a very big 'if'.
Well, lets see some evidence.
I wouldn't be surprised at contact, after all Jezza has never hidden his anti Trident, anti NATO position, and famously went on his biker tour of East Germany.
He has never struck me as someone interested in money though, so it would seem out of character. Its not as if he had access to any secrets anyway.
The problem is that its impossible to prove. Unless there were a money transaction "smoking gun" which seems unlikely.
You will notice that the BBC isnt running with the story. The news channels are scared of saying anything critical of Corbyn.....
Interesting that you haven't joined in the PB Tory w***fest over this story. I assume you consider this is already priced in for Corbyn.
Corbyn is a useless Soviet stooge isn't a remarkable revelation. If agents were compromised through his duplicity would be a different, if surprising issue.
Sure, but Britains obesity epidemic is behind the doubling of the number with diabetes in the UK to 4 million over the last 20 years. It is likely to double again in the next 20.
At the current rate of increase, more than 200% of the population will have diabetes by 2100.
It feels to me like the Sun have something on Corbyn that isn't newsworthy in itself, but that will be if he's asked the right question and denies something or other in parliament. Or perhaps they're simply hoping that someone will come forwards with something or other.
Just a hunch mind.
Given how mad the guy is I think its frankly amazing that the Labour party have managed to keep his secrets buried. I'm completely sure he's not always had our nation's best interests at heart (and although that's not good, these things were some while ago), but can't really see treasonous goings on.
Overall I imagine that the KGB and others would have viewed absolutely all of the current Labour leadership as completely worthless potential targets.
Politicians that seem to be magically richer than their background suggests are of more current interest in my view (and before you ask the answer is no).
Can anyone confirm whether we are supposed to take this new seriously?
The culture war jumped the shark with Trump, but surely if he took money from Czech security services, he must resign from the House (and, of course, the Leadership).
If only the Czechs had piped up in, say, August 2015......
I dont know why the Sun bothers with such ridiculous stories which are unproveable even if they contained a modicum of truth. This sort of thing only helps Corbyn.
Corbyn should be attacked by both his Labour and Tory opponents by showing him up for what he actually is rather than daft stories about spies.
Yep, much more concerning is current Russian interference in our elections and referendums than historic allegations.
Really? You don't think a story of the Leader of the Opposition and potential future PM taking money from an enemy of Britain would (if substantiated) be a big story?
It's a view, I suppose.
Of course, the 'if substantiated' is a very big 'if'.
Well, lets see some evidence.
I wouldn't be surprised at contact, after all Jezza has never hidden his anti Trident, anti NATO position, and famously went on his biker tour of East Germany.
He has never struck me as someone interested in money though, so it would seem out of character. Its not as if he had access to any secrets anyway.
The problem is that its impossible to prove. Unless there were a money transaction "smoking gun" which seems unlikely.
You will notice that the BBC isnt running with the story. The news channels are scared of saying anything critical of Corbyn.....
Interesting that you haven't joined in the PB Tory w***fest over this story. I assume you consider this is already priced in for Corbyn.
Corbyn is a useless Soviet stooge isn't a remarkable revelation. If agents were compromised through his duplicity would be a different, if surprising issue.
Yes, but if he did something kinky and the security forces have film of it this might cause Corbyn a lot of problems as he would have been compromised. Whether he took any money or not is difficult to prove. If I was going after the Labour Leader I would seek to exploit any sexual activity that is in essence non mainstream.
Agent COB: “When the Sunday Times falsely accused Michael Foot of being a Soviet ‘agent of influence’ he sued, won, and bought a new kitchen,” said Paul Richards, who served as a special adviser to Hazel Blears and Patricia Hewitt.
Can anyone confirm whether we are supposed to take this new seriously?
The culture war jumped the shark with Trump, but surely if he took money from Czech security services, he must resign from the House (and, of course, the Leadership).
If only the Czechs had piped up in, say, August 2015......
I dont know why the Sun bothers with such ridiculous stories which are unproveable even if they contained a modicum of truth. This sort of thing only helps Corbyn.
Corbyn should be attacked by both his Labour and Tory opponents by showing him up for what he actually is rather than daft stories about spies.
Yep, much more concerning is current Russian interference in our elections and referendums than historic allegations.
Really? You don't think a story of the Leader of the Opposition and potential future PM taking money from an enemy of Britain would (if substantiated) be a big story?
It's a view, I suppose.
Of course, the 'if substantiated' is a very big 'if'.
Well, lets see some evidence.
I wouldn't be surprised at contact, after all Jezza has never hidden his anti Trident, anti NATO position, and famously went on his biker tour of East Germany.
He has never struck me as someone interested in money though, so it would seem out of character. Its not as if he had access to any secrets anyway.
They did say 'spying'? What would he have had to sell them?
Donations to the cause? I'd be really surprised to discover that Soviet bloc agencies weren't funding UK communist activities in that era if not now. Where's the story?
Sure, but Britains obesity epidemic is behind the doubling of the number with diabetes in the UK to 4 million over the last 20 years. It is likely to double again in the next 20.
At the current rate of increase, more than 200% of the population will have diabetes by 2100.
Already the rate is more than 50% in some populations, such as adult males in Saudi, your jest may come true...
Can anyone confirm whether we are supposed to take this new seriously?
The culture war jumped the shark with Trump, but surely if he took money from Czech security services, he must resign from the House (and, of course, the Leadership).
If only the Czechs had piped up in, say, August 2015......
I dont know why the Sun bothers with such ridiculous stories which are unproveable even if they contained a modicum of truth. This sort of thing only helps Corbyn.
Corbyn should be attacked by both his Labour and Tory opponents by showing him up for what he actually is rather than daft stories about spies.
Yep, much more concerning is current Russian interference in our elections and referendums than historic allegations.
Really? You don't think a story of the Leader of the Opposition and potential future PM taking money from an enemy of Britain would (if substantiated) be a big story?
It's a view, I suppose.
Of course, the 'if substantiated' is a very big 'if'.
Well, lets see some evidence.
I wouldn't be surprised at contact, after all Jezza has never hidden his anti Trident, anti NATO position, and famously went on his biker tour of East Germany.
He has never struck me as someone interested in money though, so it would seem out of character. Its not as if he had access to any secrets anyway.
The £20,000 he took from Iranian TV would kinda hole your "out of character" defence below the waterline.....
Can anyone confirm whether we are supposed to take this new seriously?
The culture war jumped the shark with Trump, but surely if he took money from Czech security services, he must resign from the House (and, of course, the Leadership).
If only the Czechs had piped up in, say, August 2015......
I dont know why the Sun bothers with such ridiculous stories which are unproveable even if they contained a modicum of truth. This sort of thing only helps Corbyn.
Corbyn should be attacked by both his Labour and Tory opponents by showing him up for what he actually is rather than daft stories about spies.
Yep, much more concerning is current Russian interference in our elections and referendums than historic allegations.
Really? You don't think a story of the Leader of the Opposition and potential future PM taking money from an enemy of Britain would (if substantiated) be a big story?
It's a view, I suppose.
Of course, the 'if substantiated' is a very big 'if'.
Well, lets see some evidence.
I wouldn't be surprised at contact, after all Jezza has never hidden his anti Trident, anti NATO position, and famously went on his biker tour of East Germany.
He has never struck me as someone interested in money though, so it would seem out of character. Its not as if he had access to any secrets anyway.
The £20,000 he took from Iranian TV would kinda hole your "out of character" defence below the waterline.....
The Tories not being able to handsomely defeat an opposition being led by someone who spied for the Soviet Union would be quite something.
However, I find it hard to believe that the Soviets were so imcompetent they recruited someone who would not be in apposition to supply them with any info relating tot he British state. I guess what he may have been able to provide is insights into the tortuous relationships and enmities that characterised the far left back in the day (as they do now, too, of course). Having some insight into who was up and who was down might have been worthwhile in some small way - especially given the far left's control of some councils, especially in London.
Can anyone confirm whether we are supposed to take this new seriously?
The culture war jumped the shark with Trump, but surely if he took money from Czech security services, he must resign from the House (and, of course, the Leadership).
If only the Czechs had piped up in, say, August 2015......
I dont know why the Sun bothers with such ridiculous stories which are unproveable even if they contained a modicum of truth. This sort of thing only helps Corbyn.
Corbyn should be attacked by both his Labour and Tory opponents by showing him up for what he actually is rather than daft stories about spies.
Yep, much more concerning is current Russian interference in our elections and referendums than historic allegations.
Really? You don't think a story of the Leader of the Opposition and potential future PM taking money from an enemy of Britain would (if substantiated) be a big story?
It's a view, I suppose.
Of course, the 'if substantiated' is a very big 'if'.
Well, lets see some evidence.
I wouldn't be surprised at contact, after all Jezza has never hidden his anti Trident, anti NATO position, and famously went on his biker tour of East Germany.
He has never struck me as someone interested in money though, so it would seem out of character. Its not as if he had access to any secrets anyway.
The problem is that its impossible to prove. Unless there were a money transaction "smoking gun" which seems unlikely.
You will notice that the BBC isnt running with the story. The news channels are scared of saying anything critical of Corbyn.....
Interesting that you haven't joined in the PB Tory w***fest over this story. I assume you consider this is already priced in for Corbyn.
Corbyn is a useless Soviet stooge isn't a remarkable revelation. If agents were compromised through his duplicity would be a different, if surprising issue.
Yes, but if he did something kinky and the security forces have film of it this might cause Corbyn a lot of problems as he would have been compromised. Whether he took any money or not is difficult to prove. If I was going after the Labour Leader I would seek to exploit any sexual activity that is in essence non mainstream.
Corbynistas really must get out of this silly tendency of accusing anyone who is against Corbyn of being a Tory. It makes them look ridiculous and as the very narrow religious cult that they are.
The Tories not being able to handsomely defeat an opposition being led by someone who spied for the Soviet Union would be quite something.
However, I find it hard to believe that the Soviets were so imcompetent they recruited someone who would not be in apposition to supply them with any info relating tot he British state. I guess what he may have been able to provide is insights into the tortuous relationships and enmities that characterised the far left back in the day (as they do now, too, of course). Having some insight into who was up and who was down might have been worthwhile in some small way - especially given the far left's control of some councils, especially in London.
Pretty low value stuff IMO.
Anyway, off to the cup match. Strong attackingaline up for the Foxes.
My historical hero for having a powerful vision and the ability to execute for the public good is Isambard Kingdom Brunel (with Napolean in second place).
But I have a live hero/heroine with a powerful vision and the ability to execute for the public good. Head and shoulders above anyone else. Quite remarkable.
The Tories not being able to handsomely defeat an opposition being led by someone who spied for the Soviet Union would be quite something.
However, I find it hard to believe that the Soviets were so imcompetent they recruited someone who would not be in apposition to supply them with any info relating tot he British state. I guess what he may have been able to provide is insights into the tortuous relationships and enmities that characterised the far left back in the day (as they do now, too, of course). Having some insight into who was up and who was down might have been worthwhile in some small way - especially given the far left's control of some councils, especially in London.
If you play the video here, they've got the original Czech documents which explain what they were interested in (mainly internal Labour Party stuff plus info about anti-communist organisations):
Doesn't look like much of a money trail, TBH, so I think he'll get away with it. Even so, it's the kind of drip-drip which won't help Labour at the next election, even if it's hardly news to anyone who knows anything that he was a communist stooge (which to be fair he didn't conceal).
I think the real reason this Corbyn story has no traction is because even if it is true it doesn't tell us anything really new.
It would tell us he is a liar. It would tell us he is an admirer of totalitarian regimes. It would tell us he is unscrupulous. It would tell us he is treacherous. It would tell us he is a security risk.
But even the most cursory glance at his behaviour and public statements over Iran, Venezuela, the DDR, Hamas and the IRA would have told anyone with half a brain that already.
Yet despite that being a central theme of the Tory campaign it didn't make any impression on his admirers and indeed seemed to increase his vote because people believed - wrongly - that it was a smear campaign. So it seems to me unlikely this story will have any impact either.
It comes to something when my immediate reaction accusations that the Leader of the Opposition is a traitor is 'meh' - even when the accusations are in the Sun - but that's what it amounts to.
Not great news for American car makers. Although I'm guessing they'll be next in line, and using this as an excuse for their own tariffs.
This is what happened last time major trading nations started imposing tariffs.
It did not do the working man much good then.
What's the interplay between tarifs/global trade and the great depression?
The two went in lock step: falling external demand (due to tariffs) resulted in firms laying off workers. Which led to politicians imposing tariffs to try and prevent it happening again. Which led to falling external demand.
When everyone is looking to maximise the local optima, we all lose.
Which is why, even while the Second World War was in progress, the institutions for the post war period, looking to prevent the world falling into protectionism, were put in place.
There's probably a great book on the Bretton Woods conference out there.
I think the real reason this Corbyn story has no traction is because even if it is true it doesn't tell us anything really new.
It would tell us he is a liar. It would tell us he is an admirer of totalitarian regimes. It would tell us he is unscrupulous. It would tell us he is treacherous. It would tell us he is a security risk.
But even the most cursory glance at his behaviour and public statements over Iran, Venezuela, the DDR, Hamas and the IRA would have told anyone with half a brain that already.
Yet despite that being a central theme of the Tory campaign it didn't make any impression on his admirers and indeed seemed to increase his vote because people believed - wrongly - that it was a smear campaign. So it seems to me unlikely this story will have any impact either.
It comes to something when my immediate reaction accusations that the Leader of the Opposition is a traitor is 'meh' - even when the accusations are in the Sun - but that's what it amounts to.
The Tories not being able to handsomely defeat an opposition being led by someone who spied for the Soviet Union would be quite something.
However, I find it hard to believe that the Soviets were so imcompetent they recruited someone who would not be in apposition to supply them with any info relating tot he British state. I guess what he may have been able to provide is insights into the tortuous relationships and enmities that characterised the far left back in the day (as they do now, too, of course). Having some insight into who was up and who was down might have been worthwhile in some small way - especially given the far left's control of some councils, especially in London.
What, because it was obvious Corbyn was never going to be anything more than a troublesome backbencher?
My impression is (and I am an expert in this field, I've read everything John le Carre ever wrote) that if you are say the USSR you have agents in the field in London who are pretty much on the pull, picking up whomever they can and then bigging the catch up to their handlers to advance their own careers. A UK MP is not nothing, after all, and if they say yebbut he is only a scruffy backbencher - well, you can't expect the Foreign Secretary.
The Tories not being able to handsomely defeat an opposition being led by someone who spied for the Soviet Union would be quite something.
However, I find it hard to believe that the Soviets were so imcompetent they recruited someone who would not be in apposition to supply them with any info relating tot he British state. I guess what he may have been able to provide is insights into the tortuous relationships and enmities that characterised the far left back in the day (as they do now, too, of course). Having some insight into who was up and who was down might have been worthwhile in some small way - especially given the far left's control of some councils, especially in London.
If you play the video here, they've got the original Czech documents which explain what they were interested in (mainly internal Labour Party stuff plus info about anti-communist organisations):
Doesn't look like much of a money trail, TBH, so I think he'll get away with it. Even so, it's the kind of drip-drip which won't help Labour at the next election, even if it's hardly news to anyone who knows anything that he was a communist stooge (which to be fair he didn't conceal).
All this is why the Tories can bank 40% or so already for the next GE. Corbyn has always hated the British state and always will - that is enough for millions of voters to do all they can to prevent him becoming PM. If the Tories could find their way to a next generation leader from the centre with no serious Brexit associations they would be looking at a huge majority next time around.
I think the real reason this Corbyn story has no traction is because even if it is true it doesn't tell us anything really new.
It would tell us he is a liar. It would tell us he is an admirer of totalitarian regimes. It would tell us he is unscrupulous. It would tell us he is treacherous. It would tell us he is a security risk.
But even the most cursory glance at his behaviour and public statements over Iran, Venezuela, the DDR, Hamas and the IRA would have told anyone with half a brain that already.
Yet despite that being a central theme of the Tory campaign it didn't make any impression on his admirers and indeed seemed to increase his vote because people believed - wrongly - that it was a smear campaign. So it seems to me unlikely this story will have any impact either.
It comes to something when my immediate reaction accusations that the Leader of the Opposition is a traitor is 'meh' - even when the accusations are in the Sun - but that's what it amounts to.
I always thought you were a Corbyn supporter.
Indeed I am Yorkcity, that's why I only say nice things about him
The Tories not being able to handsomely defeat an opposition being led by someone who spied for the Soviet Union would be quite something.
However, I find it hard to believe that the Soviets were so imcompetent they recruited someone who would not be in apposition to supply them with any info relating tot he British state. I guess what he may have been able to provide is insights into the tortuous relationships and enmities that characterised the far left back in the day (as they do now, too, of course). Having some insight into who was up and who was down might have been worthwhile in some small way - especially given the far left's control of some councils, especially in London.
You have to be 27 to have even been born at the time of the Soviet Union and 47 to have any real memory of the Berlin Wall coming down, coincidentally the age you were more likely to be a Tory than Labour voter at the last general election
The Tories not being able to handsomely defeat an opposition being led by someone who spied for the Soviet Union would be quite something.
However, I find it hard to believe that the Soviets were so imcompetent they recruited someone who would not be in apposition to supply them with any info relating tot he British state. I guess what he may have been able to provide is insights into the tortuous relationships and enmities that characterised the far left back in the day (as they do now, too, of course). Having some insight into who was up and who was down might have been worthwhile in some small way - especially given the far left's control of some councils, especially in London.
What, because it was obvious Corbyn was never going to be anything more than a troublesome backbencher?
My impression is (and I am an expert in this field, I've read everything John le Carre ever wrote) that if you are say the USSR you have agents in the field in London who are pretty much on the pull, picking up whomever they can and then bigging the catch up to their handlers to advance their own careers. A UK MP is not nothing, after all, and if they say yebbut he is only a scruffy backbencher - well, you can't expect the Foreign Secretary.
If I were the agent of a foreign power, I wouldn't try to recruit the Foreign Secretary. Why pay him good money of their own when he does such a good job of screwing things up using ours?
The Tories not being able to handsomely defeat an opposition being led by someone who spied for the Soviet Union would be quite something.
However, I find it hard to believe that the Soviets were so imcompetent they recruited someone who would not be in apposition to supply them with any info relating tot he British state. I guess what he may have been able to provide is insights into the tortuous relationships and enmities that characterised the far left back in the day (as they do now, too, of course). Having some insight into who was up and who was down might have been worthwhile in some small way - especially given the far left's control of some councils, especially in London.
If you play the video here, they've got the original Czech documents which explain what they were interested in (mainly internal Labour Party stuff plus info about anti-communist organisations):
Doesn't look like much of a money trail, TBH, so I think he'll get away with it. Even so, it's the kind of drip-drip which won't help Labour at the next election, even if it's hardly news to anyone who knows anything that he was a communist stooge (which to be fair he didn't conceal).
All this is why the Tories can bank 40% or so already for the next GE. Corbyn has always hated the British state and always will - that is enough for millions of voters ot fo all they can to prevent him becoming PM. If the Tories could find their way to a next generation leader from the centre with no serious Brexit associations they would be looking at a huge majority next time around.
Not huge, Corbyn also has 40% banked and the Tories have only won a 4th term once in the last century and that was with a majority of just 21
The Tories not being able to handsomely defeat an opposition being led by someone who spied for the Soviet Union would be quite something.
However, I find it hard to believe that the Soviets were so imcompetent they recruited someone who would not be in apposition to supply them with any info relating tot he British state. I guess what he may have been able to provide is insights into the tortuous relationships and enmities that characterised the far left back in the day (as they do now, too, of course). Having some insight into who was up and who was down might have been worthwhile in some small way - especially given the far left's control of some councils, especially in London.
You have to be 27 to have even been born at the time of the Soviet Union and 47 to have any real memory of the Berlin Wall coming down, coincidentally the age you were more likely to be a Tory than Labour voter at the last general election
I am a year older than you and I assure you I remember the fall of the Berlin Wall and the kidnapping of Gorbachev.
The Tories not being able to handsomely defeat an opposition being led by someone who spied for the Soviet Union would be quite something.
However, I find it hard to believe that the Soviets were so imcompetent they recruited someone who would not be in apposition to supply them with any info relating tot he British state. I guess what he may have been able to provide is insights into the tortuous relationships and enmities that characterised the far left back in the day (as they do now, too, of course). Having some insight into who was up and who was down might have been worthwhile in some small way - especially given the far left's control of some councils, especially in London.
You have to be 27 to have even been born at the time of the Soviet Union and 47 to have any real memory of the Berlin Wall coming down, coincidentally the age you were more likely to be a Tory than Labour voter at the last general election
I'm 43 and I remember the Berlin wall coming down.
The Tories not being able to handsomely defeat an opposition being led by someone who spied for the Soviet Union would be quite something.
However, I find it hard to believe that the Soviets were so imcompetent they recruited someone who would not be in apposition to supply them with any info relating tot he British state. I guess what he may have been able to provide is insights into the tortuous relationships and enmities that characterised the far left back in the day (as they do now, too, of course). Having some insight into who was up and who was down might have been worthwhile in some small way - especially given the far left's control of some councils, especially in London.
If you play the video here, they've got the original Czech documents which explain what they were interested in (mainly internal Labour Party stuff plus info about anti-communist organisations):
Doesn't look like much of a money trail, TBH, so I think he'll get away with it. Even so, it's the kind of drip-drip which won't help Labour at the next election, even if it's hardly news to anyone who knows anything that he was a communist stooge (which to be fair he didn't conceal).
All this is why the Tories can bank 40% or so already for the next GE. Corbyn has always hated the British state and always will - that is enough for millions of voters ot fo all they can to prevent him becoming PM. If the Tories could find their way to a next generation leader from the centre with no serious Brexit associations they would be looking at a huge majority next time around.
Not huge, Corbyn also has 40% banked and the Tories have only won a 4th term once in the last century and that was with a majority of just 21
On the other hand that was after 13 years of solo rule. This would be after 12 years, 7 not including the coalition. Even in 1992 on a uniform swing they would have had a majority of 77.
I agree though that a large majority seems highly unlikely.
All this is why the Tories can bank 40% or so already for the next GE. Corbyn has always hated the British state and always will - that is enough for millions of voters to do all they can to prevent him becoming PM. If the Tories could find their way to a next generation leader from the centre with no serious Brexit associations they would be looking at a huge majority next time around.
Yes, I think that is right. However, there are alternative scenarios which are quite plausible, such as the Tory civil war continuing, Brexit being obviously screwed up, and JRM becoming leader, which could put Corbyn into No 10 at least with SNP support, and possibly with a majority if Scottish Labour can manage a fairly small swing from the SNP.
The Tories not being able to handsomely defeat an opposition being led by someone who spied for the Soviet Union would be quite something.
However, I find it hard to believe that the Soviets were so imcompetent they recruited someone who would not be in apposition to supply them with any info relating tot he British state. I guess what he may have been able to provide is insights into the tortuous relationships and enmities that characterised the far left back in the day (as they do now, too, of course). Having some insight into who was up and who was down might have been worthwhile in some small way - especially given the far left's control of some councils, especially in London.
If you play the video here, they've got the original Czech documents which explain what they were interested in (mainly internal Labour Party stuff plus info about anti-communist organisations):
Doesn't look like much of a money trail, TBH, so I think he'll get away with it. Even so, it's the kind of drip-drip which won't help Labour at the next election, even if it's hardly news to anyone who knows anything that he was a communist stooge (which to be fair he didn't conceal).
All this is why the Tories can bank 40% or so already for the next GE. Corbyn has always hated the British state and always will - that is enough for millions of voters ot fo all they can to prevent him becoming PM. If the Tories could find their way to a next generation leader from the centre with no serious Brexit associations they would be looking at a huge majority next time around.
Not huge, Corbyn also has 40% banked and the Tories have only won a 4th term once in the last century and that was with a majority of just 21
No. Corbyn doesnt have 40% banked. This is the big mistake of Corbynista lap of honour runners since last June. Many of those 40% voted Labour believing Jeremy Corbyn would not be prime minister. Many of them voted Labour on that basis. Many voted Labour to stop Theresa may getting a landslide for a no deal Brexit. The Labour 40% is exeptionally soft and liable to crumble.
The May - Merkel conference today was quite encouraging. It is clear neither leader wants a hard Brexit and the commentators were more complimentary.
The lesson I took from their respective body languages was that they quite like each other and there is a deal to be done.
I expect others will be less kind but this is my homest opinion
It's not the will that's lacking, it's the time factor that worries me. I don't think anyone wants a major recession throughout the EU and UK triggered by a hard Brexit but we're rapidly running out of time for anything else.
The Tories not being able to handsomely defeat an opposition being led by someone who spied for the Soviet Union would be quite something.
However, I find it hard to believe that the Soviets were so imcompetent they recruited someone who would not be in apposition to supply them with any info relating tot he British state. I guess what he may have been able to provide is insights into the tortuous relationships and enmities that characterised the far left back in the day (as they do now, too, of course). Having some insight into who was up and who was down might have been worthwhile in some small way - especially given the far left's control of some councils, especially in London.
If you play the video here, they've got the original Czech documents which explain what they were interested in (mainly internal Labour Party stuff plus info about anti-communist organisations):
Doesn't look like much of a money trail, TBH, so I think he'll get away with it. Even so, it's the kind of drip-drip which won't help Labour at the next election, even if it's hardly news to anyone who knows anything that he was a communist stooge (which to be fair he didn't conceal).
All this is why the Tories can bank 40% or so already for the next GE. Corbyn has always hated the British state and always will - that is enough for millions of voters ot fo all they can to prevent him becoming PM. If the Tories could find their way to a next generation leader from the centre with no serious Brexit associations they would be looking at a huge majority next time around.
Not huge, Corbyn also has 40% banked and the Tories have only won a 4th term once in the last century and that was with a majority of just 21
Post-Brexit, with a conciliatory centrist in charge of the Tories and the loons back on the fringes where they belong, that Labour coalition would be very fragile. Make Johnson or Rees Mogg leader and I agree it would be rock solid.
The May - Merkel conference today was quite encouraging. It is clear neither leader wants a hard Brexit and the commentators were more complimentary.
The lesson I took from their respective body languages was that they quite like each other and there is a deal to be done.
I expect others will be less kind but this is my homest opinion
It's not the will that's lacking, it's the time factor that worries me. I don't think anyone wants a major recession throughout the EU and UK triggered by a hard Brexit but we're rapidly running out of time for anything else.
The Tories not being able to handsomely defeat an opposition being led by someone who spied for the Soviet Union would be quite something.
However, I find it hard to believe that the Soviets were so imcompetent they recruited someone who would not be in apposition to supply them with any info relating tot he British state. I guess what he may have been able to provide is insights into the tortuous relationships and enmities that characterised the far left back in the day (as they do now, too, of course). Having some insight into who was up and who was down might have been worthwhile in some small way - especially given the far left's control of some councils, especially in London.
I wouldn't be too hard on the Tories.
The electorate are increasingly incompetent. Me too! In the past it would be blindingly obvious to everyone that today's politicians were not fit to hold office. That would be because everyone read a newspaper and newspapers even at their very worst are actually good. There is an increasing list of subjects where what is actually discussed is nothing to do at all with the reality - for example economics, education and immigration. Oh and defence.
Let's take Defence. We spend fortunes on this, and yet it's really quite hard to see any results. The Army nips in, and the first thing they do is backtrack. More equipment please. The Navy has sinking ships, and in the slightest of hostile environments surrenders. The men and women of the armed services I don't doubt for one moment want to live up to the astonishingly high standards that we've come to ask from them, but they're not actually put in a position to do so.
Reverting back to politics though, we need the electorate to have some real understanding of the issues, and this whole nonsense whereby government funded institutions (IFS) somehow rubberstamp nonsense has to stop.
We as a nation are in a massive economic hole. We have a hopeless plan for our own defence. Our nation's health system is failing - the poor and the old see it as a limitless crutch. The education of our populace is increasingly bad. All of these problems are exacerbated by the influx of even less helpful people than our own.
Things will be fine though. The market is wiser than I am, and solutions will shine through. What we can't do is forever believe that this get-out-of-jail scheme will work though. Shooting with pea-shooters that fire 300-ton peas (preferably many times over) all of the members of the IFS seems like a start to me.
The Tories not being able to handsomely defeat an opposition being led by someone who spied for the Soviet Union would be quite something.
However, I find it hard to believe that the Soviets were so imcompetent they recruited someone who would not be in apposition to supply them with any info relating tot he British state. I guess what he may have been able to provide is insights into the tortuous relationships and enmities that characterised the far left back in the day (as they do now, too, of course). Having some insight into who was up and who was down might have been worthwhile in some small way - especially given the far left's control of some councils, especially in London.
You have to be 27 to have even been born at the time of the Soviet Union and 47 to have any real memory of the Berlin Wall coming down, coincidentally the age you were more likely to be a Tory than Labour voter at the last general election
I am a year older than you and I assure you I remember the fall of the Berlin Wall and the kidnapping of Gorbachev.
You are a history teacher and even you are well into your 30s
The Tories not being able to handsomely defeat an opposition being led by someone who spied for the Soviet Union would be quite something.
However, I find it hard to believe that the Soviets were so imcompetent they recruited someone who would not be in apposition to supply them with any info relating tot he British state. I guess what he may have been able to provide is insights into the tortuous relationships and enmities that characterised the far left back in the day (as they do now, too, of course). Having some insight into who was up and who was down might have been worthwhile in some small way - especially given the far left's control of some councils, especially in London.
If you play the video here, they've got the original Czech documents which explain what they were interested in (mainly internal Labour Party stuff plus info about anti-communist organisations):
Doesn't look like much of a money trail, TBH, so I think he'll get away with it. Even so, it's the kind of drip-drip which won't help Labour at the next election, even if it's hardly news to anyone who knows anything that he was a communist stooge (which to be fair he didn't conceal).
All this is why the Tories can bank 40% or so already for the next GE. Corbyn has always hated the British state and always will - that is enough for millions of voters ot fo all they can to prevent him becoming PM. If the Tories could find their way to a next generation leader from the centre with no serious Brexit associations they would be looking at a huge majority next time around.
Not huge, Corbyn also has 40% banked and the Tories have only won a 4th term once in the last century and that was with a majority of just 21
On the other hand that was after 13 years of solo rule. This would be after 12 years, 7 not including the coalition. Even in 1992 on a uniform swing they would have had a majority of 77.
I agree though that a large majority seems highly unlikely.
For most voters 2010 to 2015 was a Tory led government
The Tories not being able to handsomely defeat an opposition being led by someone who spied for the Soviet Union would be quite something.
However, I find it hard to believe that the Soviets were so imcompetent they recruited someone who would not be in apposition to supply them with any info relating tot he British state. I guess what he may have been able to provide is insights into the tortuous relationships and enmities that characterised the far left back in the day (as they do now, too, of course). Having some insight into who was up and who was down might have been worthwhile in some small way - especially given the far left's control of some councils, especially in London.
Nothing to go on except a certain feel for how bureaucracies work, but I go with the StB archivist who said Corbyn only met up with the "lefty" liaison officer, chatted about his pet dogs and fish and was generally uninterested.
The Tories not being able to handsomely defeat an opposition being led by someone who spied for the Soviet Union would be quite something.
However, I find it hard to believe that the Soviets were so imcompetent they recruited someone who would not be in apposition to supply them with any info relating tot he British state. I guess what he may have been able to provide is insights into the tortuous relationships and enmities that characterised the far left back in the day (as they do now, too, of course). Having some insight into who was up and who was down might have been worthwhile in some small way - especially given the far left's control of some councils, especially in London.
If you play the video here, they've got the original Czech documents which explain what they were interested in (mainly internal Labour Party stuff plus info about anti-communist organisations):
Doesn't look like much of a money trail, TBH, so I think he'll get away with it. Even so, it's the kind of drip-drip which won't help Labour at the next election, even if it's hardly news to anyone who knows anything that he was a communist stooge (which to be fair he didn't conceal).
All this is why the Tories can bank 40% or so already for the next GE. Corbyn has always hated the British state and always will - that is enough for millions of voters ot fo all they can to prevent him becoming PM. If the Tories could find their way to a next generation leader from the centre with no serious Brexit associations they would be looking at a huge majority next time around.
Not huge, Corbyn also has 40% banked and the Tories have only won a 4th term once in the last century and that was with a majority of just 21
On the other hand that was after 13 years of solo rule. This would be after 12 years, 7 not including the coalition. Even in 1992 on a uniform swing they would have had a majority of 77.
I agree though that a large majority seems highly unlikely.
Any majority for the Tories, even a majority of 1, and Corbyn is gone. He would have lost two elections, he will be 73, and he will be gone. And that means McDonnell and Abbott gone too. Labour will have a chance to be mainstream again -after the showdown with Momentum.
The Tories not being able to handsomely defeat an opposition being led by someone who spied for the Soviet Union would be quite something.
However, I find it hard to believe that the Soviets were so imcompetent they recruited someone who would not be in apposition to supply them with any info relating tot he British state. I guess what he may have been able to provide is insights into the tortuous relationships and enmities that characterised the far left back in the day (as they do now, too, of course). Having some insight into who was up and who was down might have been worthwhile in some small way - especially given the far left's control of some councils, especially in London.
If you play the video here, they've got the original Czech documents which explain what they were interested in (mainly internal Labour Party stuff plus info about anti-communist organisations):
Doesn't look like much of a money trail, TBH, so I think he'll get away with it. Even so, it's the kind of drip-drip which won't help Labour at the next election, even if it's hardly news to anyone who knows anything that he was a communist stooge (which to be fair he didn't conceal).
All this is why the Tories can bank 40% or so already for the next GE. Corbyn has always hated the British state and always will - that is enough for millions of voters ot fo all they can to prevent him becoming PM. If the Tories could find their way to a next generation leader from the centre with no serious Brexit associations they would be looking at a huge majority next time around.
Not huge, Corbyn also has 40% banked and the Tories have only won a 4th term once in the last century and that was with a majority of just 21
No. Corbyn doesnt have 40% banked. This is the big mistake of Corbynista lap of honour runners since last June. Many of those 40% voted Labour believing Jeremy Corbyn would not be prime minister. Many of them voted Labour on that basis. Many voted Labour to stop Theresa may getting a landslide for a no deal Brexit. The Labour 40% is exeptionally soft and liable to crumble.
The Tories not being able to handsomely defeat an opposition being led by someone who spied for the Soviet Union would be quite something.
However, I find it hard to believe that the Soviets were so imcompetent they recruited someone who would not be in apposition to supply them with any info relating tot he British state. I guess what he may have been able to provide is insights into the tortuous relationships and enmities that characterised the far left back in the day (as they do now, too, of course). Having some insight into who was up and who was down might have been worthwhile in some small way - especially given the far left's control of some councils, especially in London.
If you play the video here, they've got the original Czech documents which explain what they were interested in (mainly internal Labour Party stuff plus info about anti-communist organisations):
Doesn't look like much of a money trail, TBH, so I think he'll get away with it. Even so, it's the kind of drip-drip which won't help Labour at the next election, even if it's hardly news to anyone who knows anything that he was a communist stooge (which to be fair he didn't conceal).
All this is why the Tories can bank 40% or so already for the next GE. Corbyn has always hated the British state and always will - that is enough for millions of voters ot fo all they can to prevent him becoming PM. If the Tories could find their way to a next generation leader from the centre with no serious Brexit associations they would be looking at a huge majority next time around.
Not huge, Corbyn also has 40% banked and the Tories have only won a 4th term once in the last century and that was with a majority of just 21
No. Corbyn doesnt have 40% banked. This is the big mistake of Corbynista lap of honour runners since last June. Many of those 40% voted Labour believing Jeremy Corbyn would not be prime minister. Many of them voted Labour on that basis. Many voted Labour to stop Theresa may getting a landslide for a no deal Brexit. The Labour 40% is exeptionally soft and liable to crumble.
I can see very few if any of those 2017 Labour voters going Tory next time, a handful might go LD if Corbyn is not seen as pro soft Brexit and pro single market enough which admittedly might be enough to give the Tories a small majority by itself
The Tories not being able to handsomely defeat an opposition being led by someone who spied for the Soviet Union would be quite something.
However, I find it hard to believe that the Soviets were so imcompetent they recruited someone who would not be in apposition to supply them with any info relating tot he British state. I guess what he may have been able to provide is insights into the tortuous relationships and enmities that characterised the far left back in the day (as they do now, too, of course). Having some insight into who was up and who was down might have been worthwhile in some small way - especially given the far left's control of some councils, especially in London.
You have to be 27 to have even been born at the time of the Soviet Union and 47 to have any real memory of the Berlin Wall coming down, coincidentally the age you were more likely to be a Tory than Labour voter at the last general election
I am a year older than you and I assure you I remember the fall of the Berlin Wall and the kidnapping of Gorbachev.
You are a history teacher and even you are well into your 30s
The May - Merkel conference today was quite encouraging. It is clear neither leader wants a hard Brexit and the commentators were more complimentary.
The lesson I took from their respective body languages was that they quite like each other and there is a deal to be done.
I expect others will be less kind but this is my homest opinion
It's not the will that's lacking, it's the time factor that worries me. I don't think anyone wants a major recession throughout the EU and UK triggered by a hard Brexit but we're rapidly running out of time for anything else.
The Tories not being able to handsomely defeat an opposition being led by someone who spied for the Soviet Union would be quite something.
However, I find it hard to believe that the Soviets were so imcompetent they recruited someone who would not be in apposition to supply them with any info relating tot he British state. I guess what he may have been able to provide is insights into the tortuous relationships and enmities that characterised the far left back in the day (as they do now, too, of course). Having some insight into who was up and who was down might have been worthwhile in some small way - especially given the far left's control of some councils, especially in London.
If you play the video here, they've got the original Czech documents which explain what they were interested in (mainly internal Labour Party stuff plus info about anti-communist organisations):
Doesn't look like much of a money trail, TBH, so I think he'll get away with it. Even so, it's the kind of drip-drip which won't help Labour at the next election, even if it's hardly news to anyone who knows anything that he was a communist stooge (which to be fair he didn't conceal).
All this is why the Tories can bank 40% or so already for the next GE. Corbyn has always hated the British state and always will - that is enough for millions of voters ot fo all they can to prevent him becoming PM. If the Tories could find their way to a next generation leader from the centre with no serious Brexit associations they would be looking at a huge majority next time around.
Not huge, Corbyn also has 40% banked and the Tories have only won a 4th term once in the last century and that was with a majority of just 21
Post-Brexit, with a conciliatory centrist in charge of the Tories and the loons back on the fringes where they belong, that Labour coalition would be very fragile. Make Johnson or Rees Mogg leader and I agree it would be rock solid.
The Tories are only on 40%+ thanks to ex UKIP voters, they need both centrists and to avoid Leavers drifting back to UKIP to win an overall majority next time
The May - Merkel conference today was quite encouraging. It is clear neither leader wants a hard Brexit and the commentators were more complimentary.
The lesson I took from their respective body languages was that they quite like each other and there is a deal to be done.
I expect others will be less kind but this is my homest opinion
It's not the will that's lacking, it's the time factor that worries me. I don't think anyone wants a major recession throughout the EU and UK triggered by a hard Brexit but we're rapidly running out of time for anything else.
Let's take Defence. We spend fortunes on this, and yet it's really quite hard to see any results. The Army nips in, and the first thing they do is backtrack. More equipment please. The Navy has sinking ships, and in the slightest of hostile environments surrenders. The men and women of the armed services I don't doubt for one moment want to live up to the astonishingly high standards that we've come to ask from them, but they're not actually put in a position to do so.
You may enjoy this quotation from Shepperd Frere's Britannia, published in 1967. It refers to the weakening of Roman authority over Britannia allowing the Saxon incursions:
'The plight of a prosperous people dependent for their defence on a foreign power whose strategic interests were in the last analysis centred elsewhere is not without interest today.'
The Tories not being able to handsomely defeat an opposition being led by someone who spied for the Soviet Union would be quite something.
However, I find it hard to believe that the Soviets were so imcompetent they recruited someone who would not be in apposition to supply them with any info relating tot he British state. I guess what he may have been able to provide is insights into the tortuous relationships and enmities that characterised the far left back in the day (as they do now, too, of course). Having some insight into who was up and who was down might have been worthwhile in some small way - especially given the far left's control of some councils, especially in London.
You have to be 27 to have even been born at the time of the Soviet Union and 47 to have any real memory of the Berlin Wall coming down, coincidentally the age you were more likely to be a Tory than Labour voter at the last general election
I am a year older than you and I assure you I remember the fall of the Berlin Wall and the kidnapping of Gorbachev.
You are a history teacher and even you are well into your 30s
I wasn't a history teacher at age 6!
Though I presume you had a well above average interest in it for your age
Penny Mordaunt has announced that Oxfam have agreed to withdraw from bidding for funding from the Department of International Devlopment until the government is satisfied it can meet the high standards expected
The Tories not being able to handsomely defeat an opposition being led by someone who spied for the Soviet Union would be quite something.
However, I find it hard to believe that the Soviets were so imcompetent they recruited someone who would not be in apposition to supply them with any info relating tot he British state. I guess what he may have been able to provide is insights into the tortuous relationships and enmities that characterised the far left back in the day (as they do now, too, of course). Having some insight into who was up and who was down might have been worthwhile in some small way - especially given the far left's control of some councils, especially in London.
You have to be 27 to have even been born at the time of the Soviet Union and 47 to have any real memory of the Berlin Wall coming down, coincidentally the age you were more likely to be a Tory than Labour voter at the last general election
I am a year older than you and I assure you I remember the fall of the Berlin Wall and the kidnapping of Gorbachev.
You are a history teacher and even you are well into your 30s
I wasn't a history teacher at age 6!
Though I presume you had a well above average interest in it for your age
You would presume wrongly. Literature rather than history was my passion until I was 17.
The Tories not being able to handsomely defeat an opposition being led by someone who spied for the Soviet Union would be quite something.
However, I find it hard to believe that the Soviets were so imcompetent they recruited someone who would not be in apposition to supply them with any info relating tot he British state. I guess what he may have been able to provide is insights into the tortuous relationships and enmities that characterised the far left back in the day (as they do now, too, of course). Having some insight into who was up and who was down might have been worthwhile in some small way - especially given the far left's control of some councils, especially in London.
You have to be 27 to have even been born at the time of the Soviet Union and 47 to have any real memory of the Berlin Wall coming down, coincidentally the age you were more likely to be a Tory than Labour voter at the last general election
I am a year older than you and I assure you I remember the fall of the Berlin Wall and the kidnapping of Gorbachev.
You are a history teacher and even you are well into your 30s
I wasn't a history teacher at age 6!
Though I presume you had a well above average interest in it for your age
You would presume wrongly. Literature rather than history was my passion until I was 17.
I expect you still had well above average historical knowledge, an interest in literature is not far removed from an interest in history and most 6 year olds do not have a great knowledge of either
The Tories not being able to handsomely defeat an opposition being led by someone who spied for the Soviet Union would be quite something.
However, I find it hard to believe that the Soviets were so imcompetent they recruited someone who would not be in apposition to supply them with any info relating tot he British state. I guess what he may have been able to provide is insights into the tortuous relationships and enmities that characterised the far left back in the day (as they do now, too, of course). Having some insight into who was up and who was down might have been worthwhile in some small way - especially given the far left's control of some councils, especially in London.
You have to be 27 to have even been born at the time of the Soviet Union and 47 to have any real memory of the Berlin Wall coming down, coincidentally the age you were more likely to be a Tory than Labour voter at the last general election
I am a year older than you and I assure you I remember the fall of the Berlin Wall and the kidnapping of Gorbachev.
You are a history teacher and even you are well into your 30s
I wasn't a history teacher at age 6!
Though I presume you had a well above average interest in it for your age
You would presume wrongly. Literature rather than history was my passion until I was 17.
I expect you still had well above average historical knowledge, an interest in literature is not far removed from an interest in history and most 6 year olds do not have a great knowledge of either
As conversations go this one is becoming faintly surreal.
Let's take Defence. We spend fortunes on this, and yet it's really quite hard to see any results. The Army nips in, and the first thing they do is backtrack. More equipment please. The Navy has sinking ships, and in the slightest of hostile environments surrenders. The men and women of the armed services I don't doubt for one moment want to live up to the astonishingly high standards that we've come to ask from them, but they're not actually put in a position to do so.
You may enjoy this quotation from Shepperd Frere's Britannia, published in 1967. It refers to the weakening of Roman authority over Britannia allowing the Saxon incursions:
'The plight of a prosperous people dependent for their defence on a foreign power whose strategic interests were in the last analysis centred elsewhere is not without interest today.'
I do indeed enjoy that quotation, and I'd not read it before. What did he conclude?
We though are not really "dependent for their defence on a foreign power". At least not in principle. Our first, last and best defence will always just be the people of this nation. The defence that will actually defend in the first instance is the one we train and pay for. They need to do far better. (All of them.)
The Tories not being able to handsomely defeat an opposition being led by someone who spied for the Soviet Union would be quite something.
However, I find it hard to believe that the Soviets were so imcompetent they recruited someone who would not be in apposition to supply them with any info relating tot he British state. I guess what he may have been able to provide is insights into the tortuous relationships and enmities that characterised the far left back in the day (as they do now, too, of course). Having some insight into who was up and who was down might have been worthwhile in some small way - especially given the far left's control of some councils, especially in London.
You have to be 27 to have even been born at the time of the Soviet Union and 47 to have any real memory of the Berlin Wall coming down, coincidentally the age you were more likely to be a Tory than Labour voter at the last general election
I am a year older than you and I assure you I remember the fall of the Berlin Wall and the kidnapping of Gorbachev.
You are a history teacher and even you are well into your 30s
I wasn't a history teacher at age 6!
Though I presume you had a well above average interest in it for your age
You would presume wrongly. Literature rather than history was my passion until I was 17.
I expect you still had well above average historical knowledge, an interest in literature is not far removed from an interest in history and most 6 year olds do not have a great knowledge of either
As conversations go this one is becoming faintly surreal.
The Tories not being able to handsomely defeat an opposition being led by someone who spied for the Soviet Union would be quite something.
However, I find it hard to believe that the Soviets were so imcompetent they recruited someone who would not be in apposition to supply them with any info relating tot he British state. I guess what he may have been able to provide is insights into the tortuous relationships and enmities that characterised the far left back in the day (as they do now, too, of course). Having some insight into who was up and who was down might have been worthwhile in some small way - especially given the far left's control of some councils, especially in London.
If you play the video here, they've got the original Czech documents which explain what they were interested in (mainly internal Labour Party stuff plus info about anti-communist organisations):
Doesn't look like much of a money trail, TBH, so I think he'll get away with it. Even so, it's the kind of drip-drip which won't help Labour at the next election, even if it's hardly news to anyone who knows anything that he was a communist stooge (which to be fair he didn't conceal).
All this is why the Tories can bank 40% or so already for the next GE. Corbyn has always hated the British state and always will - that is enough for millions of voters ot fo all they can to prevent him becoming PM. If the Tories could find their way to a next generation leader from the centre with no serious Brexit associations they would be looking at a huge majority next time around.
Not huge, Corbyn also has 40% banked and the Tories have only won a 4th term once in the last century and that was with a majority of just 21
Post-Brexit, with a conciliatory centrist in charge of the Tories and the loons back on the fringes where they belong, that Labour coalition would be very fragile. Make Johnson or Rees Mogg leader and I agree it would be rock solid.
The Tories are only on 40%+ thanks to ex UKIP voters, they need both centrists and to avoid Leavers drifting back to UKIP to win an overall majority next time
Not all UKIP voters went to the Tories.
In constituencies that Labour won, a lot of UKIP supporters went to Labour. Labour is just as likely to lose UKIppers as the Tories.
Let's take Defence. We spend fortunes on this, and yet it's really quite hard to see any results. The Army nips in, and the first thing they do is backtrack. More equipment please. The Navy has sinking ships, and in the slightest of hostile environments surrenders. The men and women of the armed services I don't doubt for one moment want to live up to the astonishingly high standards that we've come to ask from them, but they're not actually put in a position to do so.
You may enjoy this quotation from Shepperd Frere's Britannia, published in 1967. It refers to the weakening of Roman authority over Britannia allowing the Saxon incursions:
'The plight of a prosperous people dependent for their defence on a foreign power whose strategic interests were in the last analysis centred elsewhere is not without interest today.'
I do indeed enjoy that quotation, and I'd not read it before. What did he conclude?
We though are not really "dependent for their defence on a foreign power". At least not in principle. Our first, last and best defence will always just be the people of this nation. The defence that will actually defend in the first instance is the one we train and pay for. They need to do far better. (All of them.)
It was part of a wider conclusion that as Britannia was peripheral to Roman interests it was one of the first places to be formally let go as central authority weakened. (That said, it spent a lot of time letting itself go as divers governors tried to build little kingdoms of their own or struck at the Imperial crown.) The throwaway line was really for his own ironic amusement as much as anything I think.
Sign of the times - Opinium has started asking in its intro questions: "Are you male, female, or other?" I wonder what the "Other" cross-tab will show?
The Tories not being able to handsomely defeat an opposition being led by someone who spied for the Soviet Union would be quite something.
However, I find it hard to believe that the Soviets were so imcompetent they recruited someone who would not be in apposition to supply them with any info relating tot he British state. I guess what he may have been able to provide is insights into the tortuous relationships and enmities that characterised the far left back in the day (as they do now, too, of course). Having some insight into who was up and who was down might have been worthwhile in some small way - especially given the far left's control of some councils, especially in London.
You have to be 27 to have even been born at the time of the Soviet Union and 47 to have any real memory of the Berlin Wall coming down, coincidentally the age you were more likely to be a Tory than Labour voter at the last general election
I'm 43 and I remember the Berlin wall coming down.
We recently passed the point where the Berlin Wall has been down longer than it was up.....
I expect you still had well above average historical knowledge, an interest in literature is not far removed from an interest in history and most 6 year olds do not have a great knowledge of either
My favourite colleague at work organised a petition to save Radio 3 when he was 8, not because he liked classical music (he was a Beatles fan) but "because I foresaw that a time might come when I liked it". I think that childhood isn't homogenous (or indeed adulthood) - children have moments of pentrating insights alternating with random silliness, and both can be endearing.
Sign of the times - Opinium has started asking in its intro questions: "Are you male, female, or other?" I wonder what the "Other" cross-tab will show?
Sign of the times - Opinium has started asking in its intro questions: "Are you male, female, or other?" I wonder what the "Other" cross-tab will show?
I think the averageafemalefBMIain the UK is "overweight" with a substantial minority (!!) "obese".
Interesting? A discussion about Brexit has morphed into one about Lady Nugee's weight.
Not much more to be said over Brexit after Boris's speech on our innovative organic carrots. It jumped the shark at that point.
With my diabetes hat on, I am concerned at Britain's lardiness. On the other hand you cannot trust thin people...
Thin people get diabetes too. I guess that leaves you where you are.
Sure, but Britains obesity epidemic is behind the doubling of the number with diabetes in the UK to 4 million over the last 20 years. It is likely to double again in the next 20.
I am diabetic too and your "data" completely ignores the probability that there are millions of Brits with diabetes, walking around undiagnosed. There are also causes of diabetes other than obesity (although it is undoubtedly a significant factor in the increase in type 2 diabetes) e.g. obesity is very rarely a factor in type 1 diabetes and Afro-Asians are generically more susceptible to type 2 diabetes. As a diabetic it behoves you to take a more discerning approach to diabetes than the popular meeja. It is a complicated disease and containing the spread of obesity would I'm sure help contain the spread of diabetes. Dabbling with broad brush personal observations dressed up as fact, doesn't help.
Sign of the times - Opinium has started asking in its intro questions: "Are you male, female, or other?" I wonder what the "Other" cross-tab will show?
Comments
It's a view, I suppose.
Of course, the 'if substantiated' is a very big 'if'.
Chuka would though throw Brexit under its own £350m bus at the first opportunity, so yeh would be very interesting development.
With my diabetes hat on, I am concerned at Britain's lardiness. On the other hand you cannot trust thin people...
I wouldn't be surprised at contact, after all Jezza has never hidden his anti Trident, anti NATO position, and famously went on his biker tour of East Germany.
He has never struck me as someone interested in money though, so it would seem out of character. Its not as if he had access to any secrets anyway.
You will notice that the BBC isnt running with the story. The news channels are scared of saying anything critical of Corbyn.....
“When the Sunday Times falsely accused Michael Foot of being a Soviet ‘agent of influence’ he sued, won, and bought a new kitchen,” said Paul Richards, who served as a special adviser to Hazel Blears and Patricia Hewitt.
“I assume Corbyn will now do the same with the Sun?”
https://www.totalpolitics.com/articles/diary/labour-adviser-counsels-jeremy-corbyn-over-commie-spy-smear
I
Sir Humphrey: The only way to understand the Press is to remember that they pander to their readers' prejudices.
Jim Hacker: Don't tell me about the Press. I know *exactly* who reads the papers. The Daily Mirror is read by the people who think they run the country. The Guardian is read by people who think they *ought* to run the country. The Times is read by the people who actually *do* run the country. The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country. The Financial Times is read by people who *own* the country. The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by *another* country.. The Daily Telegraph is read by the people who think it is.
Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?
Bernard Woolley: Sun readers don't care *who* runs the country - as long as she's got big tits.
Jack Jones, Soviet spy: Special investigation reveals how union boss sold secrets to the KGB for 45 years
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1218922/JACK-THE-TRAITOR-Special-investigation-reveals-Union-boss-sold-secrets-KGB-45-years.html#ixzz57IUzMqlg
Play nicely.
Corbyn is a useless Soviet stooge isn't a remarkable revelation. If agents were compromised through his duplicity would be a different, if surprising issue.
Just a hunch mind.
Given how mad the guy is I think its frankly amazing that the Labour party have managed to keep his secrets buried. I'm completely sure he's not always had our nation's best interests at heart (and although that's not good, these things were some while ago), but can't really see treasonous goings on.
Overall I imagine that the KGB and others would have viewed absolutely all of the current Labour leadership as completely worthless potential targets.
Politicians that seem to be magically richer than their background suggests are of more current interest in my view (and before you ask the answer is no).
Donations to the cause? I'd be really surprised to discover that Soviet bloc agencies weren't funding UK communist activities in that era if not now. Where's the story?
edited to add: good evening, everyone.
However, I find it hard to believe that the Soviets were so imcompetent they recruited someone who would not be in apposition to supply them with any info relating tot he British state. I guess what he may have been able to provide is insights into the tortuous relationships and enmities that characterised the far left back in the day (as they do now, too, of course). Having some insight into who was up and who was down might have been worthwhile in some small way - especially given the far left's control of some councils, especially in London.
https://twitter.com/sdonnan/status/964566437116497922
Anyway, off to the cup match. Strong attackingaline up for the Foxes.
But I have a live hero/heroine with a powerful vision and the ability to execute for the public good. Head and shoulders above anyone else. Quite remarkable.
EDIT: Obviously not a British politician!
This is what happened last time major trading nations started imposing tariffs.
It did not do the working man much good then.
The USSR only went for the cream of the crop, movers and shakers ..... eg Jack Jones.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5597516/jeremy-corbyn-paid-communist-spy-czech-republic-labour/
Doesn't look like much of a money trail, TBH, so I think he'll get away with it. Even so, it's the kind of drip-drip which won't help Labour at the next election, even if it's hardly news to anyone who knows anything that he was a communist stooge (which to be fair he didn't conceal).
It would tell us he is a liar. It would tell us he is an admirer of totalitarian regimes. It would tell us he is unscrupulous. It would tell us he is treacherous. It would tell us he is a security risk.
But even the most cursory glance at his behaviour and public statements over Iran, Venezuela, the DDR, Hamas and the IRA would have told anyone with half a brain that already.
Yet despite that being a central theme of the Tory campaign it didn't make any impression on his admirers and indeed seemed to increase his vote because people believed - wrongly - that it was a smear campaign. So it seems to me unlikely this story will have any impact either.
It comes to something when my immediate reaction accusations that the Leader of the Opposition is a traitor is 'meh' - even when the accusations are in the Sun - but that's what it amounts to.
When everyone is looking to maximise the local optima, we all lose.
Which is why, even while the Second World War was in progress, the institutions for the post war period, looking to prevent the world falling into protectionism, were put in place.
There's probably a great book on the Bretton Woods conference out there.
My impression is (and I am an expert in this field, I've read everything John le Carre ever wrote) that if you are say the USSR you have agents in the field in London who are pretty much on the pull, picking up whomever they can and then bigging the catch up to their handlers to advance their own careers. A UK MP is not nothing, after all, and if they say yebbut he is only a scruffy backbencher - well, you can't expect the Foreign Secretary.
I agree though that a large majority seems highly unlikely.
The lesson I took from their respective body languages was that they quite like each other and there is a deal to be done.
I expect others will be less kind but this is my homest opinion
The electorate are increasingly incompetent. Me too! In the past it would be blindingly obvious to everyone that today's politicians were not fit to hold office. That would be because everyone read a newspaper and newspapers even at their very worst are actually good. There is an increasing list of subjects where what is actually discussed is nothing to do at all with the reality - for example economics, education and immigration. Oh and defence.
Let's take Defence. We spend fortunes on this, and yet it's really quite hard to see any results. The Army nips in, and the first thing they do is backtrack. More equipment please. The Navy has sinking ships, and in the slightest of hostile environments surrenders. The men and women of the armed services I don't doubt for one moment want to live up to the astonishingly high standards that we've come to ask from them, but they're not actually put in a position to do so.
Reverting back to politics though, we need the electorate to have some real understanding of the issues, and this whole nonsense whereby government funded institutions (IFS) somehow rubberstamp nonsense has to stop.
We as a nation are in a massive economic hole. We have a hopeless plan for our own defence. Our nation's health system is failing - the poor and the old see it as a limitless crutch. The education of our populace is increasingly bad. All of these problems are exacerbated by the influx of even less helpful people than our own.
Things will be fine though. The market is wiser than I am, and solutions will shine through. What we can't do is forever believe that this get-out-of-jail scheme will work though. Shooting with pea-shooters that fire 300-ton peas (preferably many times over) all of the members of the IFS seems like a start to me.
'The plight of a prosperous people dependent for their defence on a foreign power whose strategic interests were in the last analysis centred elsewhere is not without interest today.'
Penny Mordaunt has announced that Oxfam have agreed to withdraw from bidding for funding from the Department of International Devlopment until the government is satisfied it can meet the high standards expected
We though are not really "dependent for their defence on a foreign power". At least not in principle. Our first, last and best defence will always just be the people of this nation. The defence that will actually defend in the first instance is the one we train and pay for. They need to do far better. (All of them.)
In constituencies that Labour won, a lot of UKIP supporters went to Labour. Labour is just as likely to lose UKIppers as the Tories.