......And in other news Rosie Boycott thinks Meghan has set back feminism by decades. The idea that 'the way out of the ghetto is to 'land' a prince is not feminism' says Rosie. She's always been good value. One of the great products of Cheltenham Ladies College where by chance I met my first girlfriend.
She was never in the ghetto and even if she was, landing 50000 $ a show on tv is pretty good evidence of having escaped from it. The Prince is the payoff for, not the mechanism of, escape.
I don't think that was the point Rosie was making. My interpretation was that the vast majority of women can't meet and marry a prince so to suggest it's an aspiration isn't something a self proclaimed feminist should be doing. But she's an old fashioned lefty so a preditable reaction..
If you found yourself with Jeremy in the privacy of a sleeping bag I'm sure he'd say the same
Ok. That rules out all royal brides. But of recent uk royal brides Meghan has better credentials than posh university totty, posh too dim for university totty, and horse faced adulteress.
The main credentials a royal bride needs - apart from loving the man you're marrying - is the ability to withstand constant press scrutiny and commentators talking rubbish about you, the factor which apparently put Harry's previous girlfriends off.
Too much of LAB thinking, it appears, is based on the hope that what happened last time will also occur next.
Yep. In fairness, plenty of complacency to be found. Labour that polls won't matter, as they didn't last time (even if only to ensure a decent result, if still second), and the Tories that there's no way Corbyn has a similar campaign bump again.
Yes I agree,Mike in the header seems certain a Conservative leader will appear in TV debates with the Labour one.
I have my doubts , prime minister's are usualy reluctant, Major Blair never did . Cameron insisted everyone was there, and only did one. Brown did from a weak position. May did not even consider it.
Hard to see , why next time , it is so certain.
Cameron did four debates.
Apologies TSE , can not remember them.
He did not do one directly with the Loto Ed Milliband did he ?
There were 3 debates in 2010 featuring Brown, Cameron, and Clegg, the first debate led to the Cleggasm.
In 2015 there was big one all in featuring Cameron with Miliband, Clegg, and Farage, plus Natalie Bennett, Leanne Wood, Nicola Sturgeon, and Uncle Tom Cobley from the minor/regional parties
Yes , I was questioning the certainty of a sitting Pm , which is currently Conservative debating with the Labour leader.
In 2010 , Cameron was in opposition and keen on debates.
He was very reluctant in 2015 as PM only one , with everyone been there.
One of the biggest negatives for TMay a year ago was her refusal to take part in the TV debate. Arguably it cost the party its majority. Remember how badly it was received when Amder Rudd went in her place.
All the more so given that the Tories started out running a presidential campaign all around brand May.
I also recognise that the way I made a historical argument has caused offence and upset in the Jewish community. I am truly sorry for that.
Sure you are Ken, that's why you repeated it over and over again for years.
That right there, is an outright stinking lie
That doesn't read like a statement drafted by Ken Livingstone. I wonder who dictated it to him and what the quid pro quo is.
The quid pro quo will be the termination of the disciplinary proceedings.
If so, it's a pretty bad reading of the situation. Expelling Livingstone was the most totemic action that could have been taken to counter the anti-semitism claims. That opportunity has now gone.
If anything Corbyn's actions in elevating Ms Osamor to the peerage may have reinforced a perception amongst some that he is not really that serious about dealing with this issue.
If Corbyn is going to become PM it looks like he will have to cobble together a confidence and supply deal with the LDs, the SNP, Plaid, the Greens and maybe even Sinn Fein.
Winning enough Tory voters over to Labour for an overall majority currently looks beyond him
There could be a large section of conservative leavers , who decide to not bother voting .
If the eventual deal is not to their taste.
Given the alternative is Corbyn? I doubt it and they could be balanced anyway by a significant section of Labour Remainers who decide not to bother voting or who vote LD as Corbyn has not been anti Brexit or pro single market enough
There are a lot of middle of the road, working class Leavers who have no real affiliation to the Tory Party.
Most of whom did not vote Tory at the last general election either
How on Earth do you think the Tories got to 42% of the vote?
By most of the Tory leaning UKIP voters returning home and adding them to their 2010 and 2015 score
......And in other news Rosie Boycott thinks Meghan has set back feminism by decades. The idea that 'the way out of the ghetto is to 'land' a prince is not feminism' says Rosie. She's always been good value. One of the great products of Cheltenham Ladies College where by chance I met my first girlfriend.
She was never in the ghetto and even if she was, landing 50000 $ a show on tv is pretty good evidence of having escaped from it. The Prince is the payoff for, not the mechanism of, escape.
I don't think that was the point Rosie was making. My interpretation was that the vast majority of women can't meet and marry a prince so to suggest it's an aspiration isn't something a self proclaimed feminist should be doing. But she's an old fashioned lefty so a preditable reaction..
If you found yourself with Jeremy in the privacy of a sleeping bag I'm sure he'd say the same
Ok. That rules out all royal brides. But of recent uk royal brides Meghan has better credentials than posh university totty, posh too dim for university totty, and horse faced adulteress.
......And in other news Rosie Boycott thinks Meghan has set back feminism by decades. The idea that 'the way out of the ghetto is to 'land' a prince is not feminism' says Rosie. She's always been good value. One of the great products of Cheltenham Ladies College where by chance I met my first girlfriend.
She was never in the ghetto and even if she was, landing 50000 $ a show on tv is pretty good evidence of having escaped from it. The Prince is the payoff for, not the mechanism of, escape.
I don't think that was the point Rosie was making. My interpretation was that the vast majority of women can't meet and marry a prince so to suggest it's an aspiration isn't something a self proclaimed feminist should be doing. But she's an old fashioned lefty so a preditable reaction..
If you found yourself with Jeremy in the privacy of a sleeping bag I'm sure he'd say the same
Ok. That rules out all royal brides. But of recent uk royal brides Meghan has better credentials than posh university totty, posh too dim for university totty, and horse faced adulteress.
A bit sexist don't you think?
It's not as bad as Rosie B's racist assumption that because Meghan is a half-black American she must have come from a ghetto. Meghan's background and schooling was pretty comfortable. It takes nothing away from her achievements as an actress. She married Harry because she fell in love with him (and he her) not to make a point.
Indeed so. This was almost unique among royal weddings in that one could imagine their coupling outside the stultifying bounds of the monarchy. They had love - and lust - in their eyes.
......And in other news Rosie Boycott thinks Meghan has set back feminism by decades. The idea that 'the way out of the ghetto is to 'land' a prince is not feminism' says Rosie. She's always been good value. One of the great products of Cheltenham Ladies College where by chance I met my first girlfriend.
She was never in the ghetto and even if she was, landing 50000 $ a show on tv is pretty good evidence of having escaped from it. The Prince is the payoff for, not the mechanism of, escape.
I don't think that was the point Rosie was making. My interpretation was that the vast majority of women can't meet and marry a prince so to suggest it's an aspiration isn't something a self proclaimed feminist should be doing. But she's an old fashioned lefty so a preditable reaction..
If you found yourself with Jeremy in the privacy of a sleeping bag I'm sure he'd say the same
Ok. That rules out all royal brides. But of recent uk royal brides Meghan has better credentials than posh university totty, posh too dim for university totty, and horse faced adulteress.
The main credentials a royal bride needs - apart from loving the man you're marrying - is the ability to withstand constant press scrutiny and commentators talking rubbish about you, the factor which apparently put Harry's previous girlfriends off.
On which grounds, being a Hollywood actress is probably as good a preparation as one is likely to get.
If Corbyn is going to become PM it looks like he will have to cobble together a confidence and supply deal with the LDs, the SNP, Plaid, the Greens and maybe even Sinn Fein.
Winning enough Tory voters over to Labour for an overall majority currently looks beyond him
There could be a large section of conservative leavers , who decide to not bother voting .
If the eventual deal is not to their taste.
Given the alternative is Corbyn? I doubt it and they could be balanced anyway by a significant section of Labour Remainers who decide not to bother voting or who vote LD as Corbyn has not been anti Brexit or pro single market enough
There are a lot of middle of the road, working class Leavers who have no real affiliation to the Tory Party.
Most of whom did not vote Tory at the last general election either
How on Earth do you think the Tories got to 42% of the vote?
By most of the Tory leaning UKIP voters returning home and adding them to their 2010 and 2015 score
A lot of UKIP voters were formerly Labour. A big segment were economically moderate, Leave-friendly working class people.
I also recognise that the way I made a historical argument has caused offence and upset in the Jewish community. I am truly sorry for that.
Sure you are Ken, that's why you repeated it over and over again for years.
That right there, is an outright stinking lie
That doesn't read like a statement drafted by Ken Livingstone. I wonder who dictated it to him and what the quid pro quo is.
A peerage? He was a good mayor and is clearly 'a man more sinned against than sinning'.
Really?
Rog loves sticking up for rapists, other sex offenders, bullies, all kinds of scum. As long as they're not Tories. It's no surprise he's in Ken's corner.
If Corbyn is going to become PM it looks like he will have to cobble together a confidence and supply deal with the LDs, the SNP, Plaid, the Greens and maybe even Sinn Fein.
Winning enough Tory voters over to Labour for an overall majority currently looks beyond him
There could be a large section of conservative leavers , who decide to not bother voting .
If the eventual deal is not to their taste.
Given the alternative is Corbyn? I doubt it and they could be balanced anyway by a significant section of Labour Remainers who decide not to bother voting or who vote LD as Corbyn has not been anti Brexit or pro single market enough
There are a lot of middle of the road, working class Leavers who have no real affiliation to the Tory Party.
Most of whom did not vote Tory at the last general election either
How on Earth do you think the Tories got to 42% of the vote?
By most of the Tory leaning UKIP voters returning home and adding them to their 2010 and 2015 score
A lot of UKIP voters were formerly Labour. A big segment were economically moderate, Leave-friendly working class people.
Yes and most of the former have gone back to Labour
And I didn't really feel the need to know about your private fantasies either, TBQH...
I actually meant I could imagine their being a couple were they not royals but can see how the second sentence of my post might be interpreted otherwise. My point was that they actually seem to be in love.
FPT- my tactic on the Irish referendum will be to stick £20 on “No” at the last minute.
Yes, it could be a landslide - just as it was for gay marriage - but I also smell the liberal MSM and the talking heads bigging up the progressive narrative here, just as they did for Hillary and Remain. Abortion is arguably a more complicated moral issue than what gender your spouse is.
I remain to be convinced they’ve learnt any lessons from that.
I thought both Leave and Trump had a better chance than the MSM gave them, even if I didn't actually think they'd happen. But I'd be astonished if Irelanbd voted to keep abortion illegal. Ireland is a young country, demographically - much more so than the UK, I think - and, if not yet quite as secular as the UK, the Catholic church is no longer respected in the way it once was. The bloody-minded will vote against legalisation, but you need more than just the bloody-minded to win an election; you also need a much larger constituency of people who are genuinely swayed by the anti-establishment case on its merits. I just don't see that with this issue.
......And in other news Rosie Boycott thinks Meghan has set back feminism by decades. The idea that 'the way out of the ghetto is to 'land' a prince is not feminism' says Rosie. She's always been good value. One of the great products of Cheltenham Ladies College where by chance I met my first girlfriend.
She was never in the ghetto and even if she was, landing 50000 $ a show on tv is pretty good evidence of having escaped from it. The Prince is the payoff for, not the mechanism of, escape.
I don't think that was the point Rosie was making. My interpretation was that the vast majority of women can't meet and marry a prince so to suggest it's an aspiration isn't something a self proclaimed feminist should be doing. But she's an old fashioned lefty so a preditable reaction..
If you found yourself with Jeremy in the privacy of a sleeping bag I'm sure he'd say the same
Ok. That rules out all royal brides. But of recent uk royal brides Meghan has better credentials than posh university totty, posh too dim for university totty, and horse faced adulteress.
A bit sexist don't you think?
It's not as bad as Rosie B's racist assumption that because Meghan is a half-black American she must have come from a ghetto. Meghan's background and schooling was pretty comfortable. It takes nothing away from her achievements as an actress. She married Harry because she fell in love with him (and he her) not to make a point.
Firstly Rosie's feminist credentials are second to none and unlike Germaine they're without the narcissism. I wasn't taking what she said down in shorthand so perhaps my emphasis was wrong because that wasn't my interpretation of what she was saying.
She didn't mean Meghan was from the ghetto but all those aspiring feminists from the ghetto (and elsewhere) who are taking a lead from her or are identifying with her are getting the wrong idea of what feminism is about. It specifically does not include getting involved in the celebrity culture or marrying a prince.
......And in other news Rosie Boycott thinks Meghan has set back feminism by decades. The idea that 'the way out of the ghetto is to 'land' a prince is not feminism' says Rosie. She's always been good value. One of the great products of Cheltenham Ladies College where by chance I met my first girlfriend.
She was never in the ghetto and even if she was, landing 50000 $ a show on tv is pretty good evidence of having escaped from it. The Prince is the payoff for, not the mechanism of, escape.
I don't think that was the point Rosie was making. My interpretation was that the vast majority of women can't meet and marry a prince so to suggest it's an aspiration isn't something a self proclaimed feminist should be doing. But she's an old fashioned lefty so a preditable reaction..
If you found yourself with Jeremy in the privacy of a sleeping bag I'm sure he'd say the same
Ok. That rules out all royal brides. But of recent uk royal brides Meghan has better credentials than posh university totty, posh too dim for university totty, and horse faced adulteress.
A bit sexist don't you think?
It's not as bad as Rosie B's racist assumption that because Meghan is a half-black American she must have come from a ghetto. Meghan's background and schooling was pretty comfortable. It takes nothing away from her achievements as an actress. She married Harry because she fell in love with him (and he her) not to make a point.
Firstly Rosie's feminist credentials are second to none and unlike Germaine they're without the narcissism. I wasn't taking what she said down in shorthand so perhaps my emphasis was wrong because that wasn't my interpretation of what she was saying.
She didn't mean Meghan was from the ghetto but all those aspiring feminists from the ghetto (and elsewhere) who are taking a lead from her or are identifying with her are getting the wrong idea of what feminism is about. It specifically does not include getting involved in the celebrity culture or marrying a prince.
Yeah, in your view they should either become hairdressers or get abused by 'the talent' ...
......And in other news Rosie Boycott thinks Meghan has set back feminism by decades. The idea that 'the way out of the ghetto is to 'land' a prince is not feminism' says Rosie. She's always been good value. One of the great products of Cheltenham Ladies College where by chance I met my first girlfriend.
She was never in the ghetto and even if she was, landing 50000 $ a show on tv is pretty good evidence of having escaped from it. The Prince is the payoff for, not the mechanism of, escape.
I don't think that was the point Rosie was making. My interpretation was that the vast majority of women can't meet and marry a prince so to suggest it's an aspiration isn't something a self proclaimed feminist should be doing. But she's an old fashioned lefty so a preditable reaction..
If you found yourself with Jeremy in the privacy of a sleeping bag I'm sure he'd say the same
Ok. That rules out all royal brides. But of recent uk royal brides Meghan has better credentials than posh university totty, posh too dim for university totty, and horse faced adulteress.
A bit sexist don't you think?
It's not as bad as Rosie B's racist assumption that because Meghan is a half-black American she must have come from a ghetto. Meghan's background and schooling was pretty comfortable. It takes nothing away from her achievements as an actress. She married Harry because she fell in love with him (and he her) not to make a point.
Firstly Rosie's feminist credentials are second to none and unlike Germaine they're without the narcissism. I wasn't taking what she said down in shorthand so perhaps my emphasis was wrong because that wasn't my interpretation of what she was saying.
She didn't mean Meghan was from the ghetto but all those aspiring feminists from the ghetto (and elsewhere) who are taking a lead from her or are identifying with her are getting the wrong idea of what feminism is about. It specifically does not include getting involved in the celebrity culture or marrying a prince.
Feminism is women deciding for themselves what they want to do with their lives. And not being prevented from doing so or, indeed, being told what they can or cannot do, whether that's by women with impeccable feminist credentials, men or anyone else for that matter. If a woman chooses to marry and have a family, whether before or after having a career or, indeed, instead of, that too is being a feminist.
He is incredibly committed to what he regards as facts. Does he truly believe such a wide array of people, not all tories by any means, dispute him on this for no reason?
Is he or is Sky News being a bit naughty and the bit in quotes is not what Ken said tonight?
That's a double-edged question! Did you just recycle news because you had none, or did you interview Ken because you had no news?
Not quite. The suggestion is that Ken said today that he'd previously stated an historical fact, but the bit in quotes is something Sky News dug up from months or years ago, and Sky ran them together to make a better story.
Is he or is Sky News being a bit naughty and the bit in quotes is not what Ken said tonight?
That's a double-edged question! Did you just recycle news because you had none, or did you interview Ken because you had no news?
Not quite. The suggestion is that Ken said today that he'd previously stated an historical fact, but the bit in quotes is something Sky News dug up from months or years ago, and Sky ran them together to make a better story.
Apologies if it turns out Ken is not in fact off again.
Is he or is Sky News being a bit naughty and the bit in quotes is not what Ken said tonight?
That's a double-edged question! Did you just recycle news because you had none, or did you interview Ken because you had no news?
Not quite. The suggestion is that Ken said today that he'd previously stated an historical fact, but the bit in quotes is something Sky News dug up from months or years ago.
I meant for Sky News though.
For what it's worth I think Ken has been very slightly over-vilified (very slightly mind), and I think Sky News needs to pull its socks up.
On the latter point it seems to me that there is a really huge gap in quality reporting of news. Noone at all does it. Sometimes the BBC do, sometimes the broadsheets (as they were) do, but there is nowhere to go if you want consistent quality of reporting it seems. Please though tell me I'm wrong and suggest such a place, as I'd be forever in your debt.
Is he or is Sky News being a bit naughty and the bit in quotes is not what Ken said tonight?
That's a double-edged question! Did you just recycle news because you had none, or did you interview Ken because you had no news?
Not quite. The suggestion is that Ken said today that he'd previously stated an historical fact, but the bit in quotes is something Sky News dug up from months or years ago.
I meant for Sky News though.
For what it's worth I think Ken has been very slightly over-vilified (very slightly mind), and I think Sky News needs to pull its socks up.
On the latter point it seems to me that there is a really huge gap in quality reporting of news. Noone at all does it. Sometimes the BBC do, sometimes the broadsheets (as they were) do, but there is nowhere to go if you want consistent quality of reporting it seems. Please though tell me I'm wrong and suggest such a place, as I'd be forever in your debt.
This will cause some to spit out their coffee, but the Economist is brilliant IMO.
Is he or is Sky News being a bit naughty and the bit in quotes is not what Ken said tonight?
That's a double-edged question! Did you just recycle news because you had none, or did you interview Ken because you had no news?
Not quite. The suggestion is that Ken said today that he'd previously stated an historical fact, but the bit in quotes is something Sky News dug up from months or years ago.
I meant for Sky News though.
For what it's worth I think Ken has been very slightly over-vilified (very slightly mind), and I think Sky News needs to pull its socks up.
On the latter point it seems to me that there is a really huge gap in quality reporting of news. Noone at all does it. Sometimes the BBC do, sometimes the broadsheets (as they were) do, but there is nowhere to go if you want consistent quality of reporting it seems. Please though tell me I'm wrong and suggest such a place, as I'd be forever in your debt.
This will cause some to spit out their coffee, but the Economist is brilliant IMO.
I am an Economist fan too. In particular it covers overseas issues in depth.
Is he or is Sky News being a bit naughty and the bit in quotes is not what Ken said tonight?
That's a double-edged question! Did you just recycle news because you had none, or did you interview Ken because you had no news?
Not quite. The suggestion is that Ken said today that he'd previously stated an historical fact, but the bit in quotes is something Sky News dug up from months or years ago.
I meant for Sky News though.
For what it's worth I think Ken has been very slightly over-vilified (very slightly mind), and I think Sky News needs to pull its socks up.
On the latter point it seems to me that there is a really huge gap in quality reporting of news. Noone at all does it. Sometimes the BBC do, sometimes the broadsheets (as they were) do, but there is nowhere to go if you want consistent quality of reporting it seems. Please though tell me I'm wrong and suggest such a place, as I'd be forever in your debt.
Have you tried Reuters? There's a lot of good stuff still on there but of course it's got an international rather than a domestic focus.
Is he or is Sky News being a bit naughty and the bit in quotes is not what Ken said tonight?
That's a double-edged question! Did you just recycle news because you had none, or did you interview Ken because you had no news?
Not quite. The suggestion is that Ken said today that he'd previously stated an historical fact, but the bit in quotes is something Sky News dug up from months or years ago.
I meant for Sky News though.
For what it's worth I think Ken has been very slightly over-vilified (very slightly mind), and I think Sky News needs to pull its socks up.
On the latter point it seems to me that there is a really huge gap in quality reporting of news. Noone at all does it. Sometimes the BBC do, sometimes the broadsheets (as they were) do, but there is nowhere to go if you want consistent quality of reporting it seems. Please though tell me I'm wrong and suggest such a place, as I'd be forever in your debt.
Have you tried Reuters? There's a lot of good stuff still on there but of course it's got an international rather than a domestic focus.
I'm a City escapee, so I know Reuters very well. Excellent in what they do, but not quite there for me.
@JosiasJessop The Economist is good. I can't really love it though because I disagree so fundamentally with almost everything they write about Economics. I can only imagine it's some sort of long-running joke that I've failed to pick up on.
Comments
I must confess I didn't even try to.
And I didn't really feel the need to know about your private fantasies either, TBQH...
Europe 2 Remain
But, I'm not Irish.
She didn't mean Meghan was from the ghetto but all those aspiring feminists from the ghetto (and elsewhere) who are taking a lead from her or are identifying with her are getting the wrong idea of what feminism is about. It specifically does not include getting involved in the celebrity culture or marrying a prince.
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/998638910862450689
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/998643524148125696
For what it's worth I think Ken has been very slightly over-vilified (very slightly mind), and I think Sky News needs to pull its socks up.
On the latter point it seems to me that there is a really huge gap in quality reporting of news. Noone at all does it. Sometimes the BBC do, sometimes the broadsheets (as they were) do, but there is nowhere to go if you want consistent quality of reporting it seems. Please though tell me I'm wrong and suggest such a place, as I'd be forever in your debt.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44195948
So as ever the Queen supports nothing and everything - as it should be
@JosiasJessop The Economist is good. I can't really love it though because I disagree so fundamentally with almost everything they write about Economics. I can only imagine it's some sort of long-running joke that I've failed to pick up on.