The real story of this poll is the continued non-rehabilitation of Michael Gove as leaver-in-chief.
His loyalty to the PM and the Chequers compromise is clearly costing him. The underlying story of the poll is how unpopular that proposal (which has been rejected anyway, natch) was with the membership.
Boris was the man who led the toast at Chequers to both of those.
The real story of this poll is the continued non-rehabilitation of Michael Gove as leaver-in-chief.
His loyalty to the PM and the Chequers compromise is clearly costing him. The underlying story of the poll is how unpopular that proposal (which has been rejected anyway, natch) was with the membership.
So it's not all bad news then?
The Chequers compromise is looking right up there with the backstop arrangement as another May disaster. To lose so many ministers and so much support in the party and Parliament without getting a clear understanding in advance that it was a runner would be completely bewildering, if it was not for her consistent track record.
Yes, but if it discredits Gove it will be worth it.
Is the anti-semitism story ever going to end? I thought Baroness (ahem) Chakrabarti gave them a clean bill of health?
I never really liked Chakrabarti, and felt she was always rather one-sided on complex issues. Mrs J always disagreed with me, and quite liked her.
I'm pleased to say that Mrs J now seems more disgusted with her than I am. I get the impression that Chakrabarti's time at Liberty was not about preserving and promoting concepts of liberty and freedom, but about progressing her own little career.
She has been exposed as a fraud.
I quite like Shami.
Boris, Jezza or Cable. If these are the best we can do then we are truly circling the plughole.
As a matter of interest, why do you like her?
Lovely eyes and soft voice.
So has Kylie Minogue. Doesn’t mean we should trust her to write a report on anti Semitism either!
The real story of this poll is the continued non-rehabilitation of Michael Gove as leaver-in-chief.
His loyalty to the PM and the Chequers compromise is clearly costing him. The underlying story of the poll is how unpopular that proposal (which has been rejected anyway, natch) was with the membership.
What is costing him with members is that he knifed Boris and left us with May running (ruining, in their eyes) Brexit. That won't be forgotten.
Plus, with his record of leaking, he comes across as a terrible snitch who can't keep a secret. Not PM material.
Also, like May, went for pragmatism and old fashioned conservatism. Fatal mistake these days. The members want true believers.
The real story of this poll is the continued non-rehabilitation of Michael Gove as leaver-in-chief.
His loyalty to the PM and the Chequers compromise is clearly costing him. The underlying story of the poll is how unpopular that proposal (which has been rejected anyway, natch) was with the membership.
So it's not all bad news then?
The Chequers compromise is looking right up there with the backstop arrangement as another May disaster. To lose so many ministers and so much support in the party and Parliament without getting a clear understanding in advance that it was a runner would be completely bewildering, if it was not for her consistent track record.
Maybe, once she ruled out the options that would wreck the country and those that would wreck her party, she did the best that she could?
Ask yourself which is more likely to be next Conservative party leader: Boris Johnson or Jacob Rees-Mogg (whose supporters BoJo is now stealing). But Jacob Rees-Mogg can be laid at shorter odds.
No Hope and Bob Hope?
Both are probably lays. But start with the one at ridiculously short odds as opposed to the one at ungenerous odds.
I can see why JRM is popular with conservative right wing libertarians, but the odds on him as next leader are silly, doubly so in government, and he shows no interest in being anything but a backbencher (with substantial outside earnings). He should be 100/1.
Boris should be a little shorter, maybe 25/1, as the odds of the MPs messing up their selection and sending him to the members against a hardcore remainer like Morgan or Rudd.
Can't see how those two even get nominated, to be honest. Hunt would surely be the front running Remain candidate now.
LOL, you have to be joking the clown thinks his Japanese wife is Chinese, how bad can the Tories get and where do they find these cretins. Is it any wonder the English NHS is in a dire state when donkeys like that are responsible for it.
We all know how dear turnips are to you. Yet still the Scots always confuse them with swedes.
Is the anti-semitism story ever going to end? I thought Baroness (ahem) Chakrabarti gave them a clean bill of health?
I never really liked Chakrabarti, and felt she was always rather one-sided on complex issues. Mrs J always disagreed with me, and quite liked her.
I'm pleased to say that Mrs J now seems more disgusted with her than I am. I get the impression that Chakrabarti's time at Liberty was not about preserving and promoting concepts of liberty and freedom, but about progressing her own little career.
She has been exposed as a fraud.
I quite like Shami.
Boris, Jezza or Cable. If these are the best we can do then we are truly circling the plughole.
As a matter of interest, why do you like her?
Lovely eyes and soft voice.
Ah, yes. She is not unattractive. But she is someone who has risen in prominence by pretending to have firm values, and has thoroughly debased those values.
She seems a very kind person, and we could do with more of that in public life. Indeed she can be a bit too indulgent, but rather that than cruelty.
My understanding, and IANAE, is that they are set up to check the passport against the UK databases for both valid passports and warrants etc. I don't think we would have access to that sort of information from other EU countries but I could be wrong. On the flight I was on there were some Italians and they were directed to an EU channel.
We do, through Interpol. The machines the passport officials scan the passports through are checked against the "Warnings Index". The electronic lanes are supposed to use the same back end systems.
Is the anti-semitism story ever going to end? I thought Baroness (ahem) Chakrabarti gave them a clean bill of health?
I never really liked Chakrabarti, and felt she was always rather one-sided on complex issues. Mrs J always disagreed with me, and quite liked her.
I'm pleased to say that Mrs J now seems more disgusted with her than I am. I get the impression that Chakrabarti's time at Liberty was not about preserving and promoting concepts of liberty and freedom, but about progressing her own little career.
She has been exposed as a fraud.
I quite like Shami.
Boris, Jezza or Cable. If these are the best we can do then we are truly circling the plughole.
As a matter of interest, why do you like her?
Lovely eyes and soft voice.
So has Kylie Minogue. Doesn’t mean we should trust her to write a report on anti Semitism either!
She would have been more convincing. From Spinning around:
"I got something to say I'm through with the past Ain't no point in looking back The future will be And did I forget to mention That I found a new direction And it leads back to me, yeah"
Is the anti-semitism story ever going to end? I thought Baroness (ahem) Chakrabarti gave them a clean bill of health?
I never really liked Chakrabarti, and felt she was always rather one-sided on complex issues. Mrs J always disagreed with me, and quite liked her.
I'm pleased to say that Mrs J now seems more disgusted with her than I am. I get the impression that Chakrabarti's time at Liberty was not about preserving and promoting concepts of liberty and freedom, but about progressing her own little career.
She has been exposed as a fraud.
I quite like Shami.
Boris, Jezza or Cable. If these are the best we can do then we are truly circling the plughole.
As a matter of interest, why do you like her?
Lovely eyes and soft voice.
Ah, yes. She is not unattractive. But she is someone who has risen in prominence by pretending to have firm values, and has thoroughly debased those values.
She seems a very kind person, and we could do with more of that in public life. Indeed she can be a bit too indulgent, but rather that than cruelty.
The real story of this poll is the continued non-rehabilitation of Michael Gove as leaver-in-chief.
His loyalty to the PM and the Chequers compromise is clearly costing him. The underlying story of the poll is how unpopular that proposal (which has been rejected anyway, natch) was with the membership.
So it's not all bad news then?
The Chequers compromise is looking right up there with the backstop arrangement as another May disaster. To lose so many ministers and so much support in the party and Parliament without getting a clear understanding in advance that it was a runner would be completely bewildering, if it was not for her consistent track record.
Maybe, once she ruled out the options that would wreck the country and those that would wreck her party, she did the best that she could?
That's probably the sad part. She probably did. Unfortunately, it is nowhere near good enough. If she was going to ask the Cabinet, Parliament etc to accept difficult compromises she really, really needed to be sure in advance that the response from the EU was going to be broadly positive. Instead all she seems to have got is a delay of a few days before they said no again.
The real story of this poll is the continued non-rehabilitation of Michael Gove as leaver-in-chief.
His loyalty to the PM and the Chequers compromise is clearly costing him. The underlying story of the poll is how unpopular that proposal (which has been rejected anyway, natch) was with the membership.
What is costing him with members is that he knifed Boris and left us with May running (ruining, in their eyes) Brexit. That won't be forgotten.
Plus, with his record of leaking, he comes across as a terrible snitch who can't keep a secret. Not PM material.
Also, like May, went for pragmatism and old fashioned conservatism. Fatal mistake these days. The members want true believers.
There's nothing of "old fashioned conservatism" in a Chequers plan that sinks immediately after launch. As anyone who could read blueprints would have spotted with a preliminary glance.
My understanding, and IANAE, is that they are set up to check the passport against the UK databases for both valid passports and warrants etc. I don't think we would have access to that sort of information from other EU countries but I could be wrong. On the flight I was on there were some Italians and they were directed to an EU channel.
We do, through Interpol. The machines the passport officials scan the passports through are checked against the "Warnings Index". The electronic lanes are supposed to use the same back end systems.
I agree about the alerts system but I have never seen a non national being directed to these machines: have you?
Is the anti-semitism story ever going to end? I thought Baroness (ahem) Chakrabarti gave them a clean bill of health?
I never really liked Chakrabarti, and felt she was always rather one-sided on complex issues. Mrs J always disagreed with me, and quite liked her.
I'm pleased to say that Mrs J now seems more disgusted with her than I am. I get the impression that Chakrabarti's time at Liberty was not about preserving and promoting concepts of liberty and freedom, but about progressing her own little career.
She has been exposed as a fraud.
I quite like Shami.
Boris, Jezza or Cable. If these are the best we can do then we are truly circling the plughole.
As a matter of interest, why do you like her?
Lovely eyes and soft voice.
Ah, yes. She is not unattractive. But she is someone who has risen in prominence by pretending to have firm values, and has thoroughly debased those values.
She seems a very kind person, and we could do with more of that in public life. Indeed she can be a bit too indulgent, but rather that than cruelty.
Don't forget the private education for her kids, despite being an out and out Corbynista.
The real story of this poll is the continued non-rehabilitation of Michael Gove as leaver-in-chief.
His loyalty to the PM and the Chequers compromise is clearly costing him. The underlying story of the poll is how unpopular that proposal (which has been rejected anyway, natch) was with the membership.
Boris was the man who led the toast at Chequers to both of those.
The real story of this poll is the continued non-rehabilitation of Michael Gove as leaver-in-chief.
His loyalty to the PM and the Chequers compromise is clearly costing him. The underlying story of the poll is how unpopular that proposal (which has been rejected anyway, natch) was with the membership.
So it's not all bad news then?
The Chequers compromise is looking right up there with the backstop arrangement as another May disaster. To lose so many ministers and so much support in the party and Parliament without getting a clear understanding in advance that it was a runner would be completely bewildering, if it was not for her consistent track record.
Interesting you say they are May disasters.and not Brexit disasters.
Is the anti-semitism story ever going to end? I thought Baroness (ahem) Chakrabarti gave them a clean bill of health?
I never really liked Chakrabarti, and felt she was always rather one-sided on complex issues. Mrs J always disagreed with me, and quite liked her.
I'm pleased to say that Mrs J now seems more disgusted with her than I am. I get the impression that Chakrabarti's time at Liberty was not about preserving and promoting concepts of liberty and freedom, but about progressing her own little career.
She has been exposed as a fraud.
I quite like Shami.
Boris, Jezza or Cable. If these are the best we can do then we are truly circling the plughole.
As a matter of interest, why do you like her?
Lovely eyes and soft voice.
Ah, yes. She is not unattractive. But she is someone who has risen in prominence by pretending to have firm values, and has thoroughly debased those values.
She seems a very kind person, and we could do with more of that in public life. Indeed she can be a bit too indulgent, but rather that than cruelty.
Don't forget the private education for her kids, despite being an out and out Corbynista.
Doesn't bother me. We live in the world as it is, not as we want it to be.
The real story of this poll is the continued non-rehabilitation of Michael Gove as leaver-in-chief.
His loyalty to the PM and the Chequers compromise is clearly costing him. The underlying story of the poll is how unpopular that proposal (which has been rejected anyway, natch) was with the membership.
So it's not all bad news then?
The Chequers compromise is looking right up there with the backstop arrangement as another May disaster. To lose so many ministers and so much support in the party and Parliament without getting a clear understanding in advance that it was a runner would be completely bewildering, if it was not for her consistent track record.
Interesting you say they are May disasters.and not Brexit disasters.
They are tactical disasters under May's premiership. A competent PM would:
1. Have got an agreed platform for discussion before serving the Article 50, not 18 months after. 2. Have made adequate preparations for a no deal scenario so we had options. 3. Not agreed to the backstop in NI in the vague hope that something would have come up later. 4. Have put herself and the UK in a position to walk away from the talks if the EU refused to discuss substantive issues, like trade. 5. Have explained to the public in clear terms what the issues were, why she was pursuing a particular path and why that was in the UK national interest, showing something called leadership.
Those opposed to Brexit think it was always going to be a disaster. Those in favour (and frankly anyone supporting the national interest) are completely exasperated by the ineptitude of our negotiating stance. It has been appalling.
And it has also taken eight years for most of Corbyn's critics to give a damn. It is almost as if the IHRA definition, which dates only from 2016, has changed the zeitgeist.
The real story of this poll is the continued non-rehabilitation of Michael Gove as leaver-in-chief.
His loyalty to the PM and the Chequers compromise is clearly costing him. The underlying story of the poll is how unpopular that proposal (which has been rejected anyway, natch) was with the membership.
So it's not all bad news then?
The Chequers compromise is looking right up there with the backstop arrangement as another May disaster. To lose so many ministers and so much support in the party and Parliament without getting a clear understanding in advance that it was a runner would be completely bewildering, if it was not for her consistent track record.
Maybe, once she ruled out the options that would wreck the country and those that would wreck her party, she did the best that she could?
That's probably the sad part. She probably did. Unfortunately, it is nowhere near good enough. If she was going to ask the Cabinet, Parliament etc to accept difficult compromises she really, really needed to be sure in advance that the response from the EU was going to be broadly positive. Instead all she seems to have got is a delay of a few days before they said no again.
JC9 is the Momentum slate of candidates for NEC. They call themselves JC because they are there to bolster the Glorious Leader and stop anything happening that may in anyway denigrate from his magnificence.
As most of the party membership now seems to consist of fellow acolytes, the JC9 will no doubt sweep onto the NEC.
Jeremy Hunt's "interview" in the Standard yesterday evening was an extraordinary piece of pleading and thin defiance. Apparently, "Brussels" (yeah, let's dumb it down) is waiting for the UK to "blink" but, according to the great statesman, "that is a profound misunderstanding of us as a nation".
So it seems we are ready to point the gun at our own heads and pull the trigger knowing there's a bullet in the chamber but we won't if the EU ask us not to and we'll have won a huge symbolic victory.
Of more interest, he actually threatens to make the City a "low-tax, low-regulation offshoot" so we now know where the Conservatives want to take us. The City becomes Singapore-on-Thames and for most of us all regulation and protection is sacrificed on the altar of lower taxes. Cut spending, cut taxes and live on the edge of Europe with our back turned - that's the vision.
That is our NEW Foreign Secretary - if all you have is "he's better than Boris" that's pretty thin gruel.
The real story of this poll is the continued non-rehabilitation of Michael Gove as leaver-in-chief.
His loyalty to the PM and the Chequers compromise is clearly costing him. The underlying story of the poll is how unpopular that proposal (which has been rejected anyway, natch) was with the membership.
So it's not all bad news then?
The Chequers compromise is looking right up there with the backstop arrangement as another May disaster. To lose so many ministers and so much support in the party and Parliament without getting a clear understanding in advance that it was a runner would be completely bewildering, if it was not for her consistent track record.
Maybe, once she ruled out the options that would wreck the country and those that would wreck her party, she did the best that she could?
That's probably the sad part. She probably did. Unfortunately, it is nowhere near good enough. If she was going to ask the Cabinet, Parliament etc to accept difficult compromises she really, really needed to be sure in advance that the response from the EU was going to be broadly positive. Instead all she seems to have got is a delay of a few days before they said no again.
ISTM that they are coming round.
They need a deal too. And the picture has been painted that May has gone as far as she can. We can only hope progress is made.
How does appearing at event that specifically seems aimed at making a direct equivalence between the Holocaust and modern day events in Israel, likely to further the Israel/Palestine solution?
The real story of this poll is the continued non-rehabilitation of Michael Gove as leaver-in-chief.
His loyalty to the PM and the Chequers compromise is clearly costing him. The underlying story of the poll is how unpopular that proposal (which has been rejected anyway, natch) was with the membership.
So it's not all bad news then?
The Chequers compromise is looking right up there with the backstop arrangement as another May disaster. To lose so many ministers and so much support in the party and Parliament without getting a clear understanding in advance that it was a runner would be completely bewildering, if it was not for her consistent track record.
Maybe, once she ruled out the options that would wreck the country and those that would wreck her party, she did the best that she could?
That's probably the sad part. She probably did. Unfortunately, it is nowhere near good enough. If she was going to ask the Cabinet, Parliament etc to accept difficult compromises she really, really needed to be sure in advance that the response from the EU was going to be broadly positive. Instead all she seems to have got is a delay of a few days before they said no again.
It's more fundamental than that. What she has boxed herself into is a total absence of wriggle room - and a much more likely "no deal" exit. There was no buy into Chequers by a chunk of the Cabinet, a big slug of MPs and most of the Party membership. If she could have delivered it - that very specific set of proposals, nothing more - then maybe with a lot of grimacing and harrumphing, she could have got it accepted. But even those prepared to wait out the EU response were saying "this - but no more".
Chequers was sunk without prior EU acceptance. Put it out there as a negotiating position and the EU were always going to stick out their bowl and ask for more, with more certainty than on a tenth watching of Oliver.....
Something has gone wrong here. The Scottish Court has not made an order for him to be remanded in custody pending sentence. They presumably did not do so because he was already in custody in England.
The Crown should have been aware that there was a possibility of him being released on licence in relation to that offence. They clearly weren't. Whether that is their fault or the English authorities' fault is not clear but this man should never have been released. I don't understand how he was given licence with such a serious charge pending. That suggests the English were at fault but the Scottish Court could have done something about it had they been asked to.
The real story of this poll is the continued non-rehabilitation of Michael Gove as leaver-in-chief.
His loyalty to the PM and the Chequers compromise is clearly costing him. The underlying story of the poll is how unpopular that proposal (which has been rejected anyway, natch) was with the membership.
So it's not all bad news then?
The Chequers compromise is looking right up there with the backstop arrangement as another May disaster. To lose so many ministers and so much support in the party and Parliament without getting a clear understanding in advance that it was a runner would be completely bewildering, if it was not for her consistent track record.
Interesting you say they are May disasters.and not Brexit disasters.
They are tactical disasters under May's premiership. A competent PM would:
1. Have got an agreed platform for discussion before serving the Article 50, not 18 months after. 2. Have made adequate preparations for a no deal scenario so we had options. 3. Not agreed to the backstop in NI in the vague hope that something would have come up later. 4. Have put herself and the UK in a position to walk away from the talks if the EU refused to discuss substantive issues, like trade. 5. Have explained to the public in clear terms what the issues were, why she was pursuing a particular path and why that was in the UK national interest, showing something called leadership.
Those opposed to Brexit think it was always going to be a disaster. Those in favour (and frankly anyone supporting the national interest) are completely exasperated by the ineptitude of our negotiating stance. It has been appalling.
Those who support the national interest naturally support the preservation of the rights that we have won for ourselves over the centuries; which were/ are backed by the EU.
Those who are in favour of destroying those rights and selling the country out to American interests and American justice, destroying the economy in the process, cannot understand why Mrs May and her cronies do not just get on with it.
The problem of the Conservative leadership is that they secretly want the one while pretending that they can still keep the other. Is this not madness?
Without wanting to have a pop at Jeremy Corbyn (and there are plenty of takers for that role on here it seems) I'm struggling with some (hopefully) loftier concepts.
I'd like to think one of the roles of politics and politicians would be to encourage public debate and discussion. If all you ever do is sit in a room with people who you agree with and agree with you, isn't that the ultimate echo chamber ?
Sometimes you encounter people with whom you disagree or who take a diametrically opposed view. Are they simply to be ignored or is there not an argument for granting them the same right to expression under Freedom of Speech but debating and challenging their position?
I was introduced to the Holocaust through the brilliant World at War series (filmed in black and white which if anything accentuated the horror). At age ten it was pretty strong stuff and it has left me in no doubt as to the potential depths of human depravity and I would vehemently challenge anyone who denied the events ever happened. Understanding why it happened and its cultural, political and social impacts is a hugely worthy area of debate and discussion so I've no problem with the discussion.
It wasn't of course just the Jews who suffered the agonies of the Holocaust and that should never be forgotten either but the message for me is and always has been how vigilant we must always be to ensure all parts of society can co-exist and no single group, creed or colour becomes the "fall guys" for wider social and cultural issues.
How does appearing at event that specifically seems aimed at making a direct equivalence between the Holocaust and modern day events in Israel, likely to further the Israel/Palestine solution?
I am sure Jezza gave a very big shrug during the more outlandish statements by others.
I'd like to think one of the roles of politics and politicians would be to encourage public debate and discussion. If all you ever do is sit in a room with people who you agree with and agree with you, isn't that the ultimate echo chamber ?
Sometimes you encounter people with whom you disagree or who take a diametrically opposed view. Are they simply to be ignored or is there not an argument for granting them the same right to expression under Freedom of Speech but debating and challenging their position?
Without wanting to have a pop at Jeremy Corbyn (and there are plenty of takers for that role on here it seems) I'm struggling with some (hopefully) loftier concepts.
I'd like to think one of the roles of politics and politicians would be to encourage public debate and discussion. If all you ever do is sit in a room with people who you agree with and agree with you, isn't that the ultimate echo chamber ?
Sometimes you encounter people with whom you disagree or who take a diametrically opposed view. Are they simply to be ignored or is there not an argument for granting them the same right to expression under Freedom of Speech but debating and challenging their position?
I was introduced to the Holocaust through the brilliant World at War series (filmed in black and white which if anything accentuated the horror). At age ten it was pretty strong stuff and it has left me in no doubt as to the potential depths of human depravity and I would vehemently challenge anyone who denied the events ever happened. Understanding why it happened and its cultural, political and social impacts is a hugely worthy area of debate and discussion so I've no problem with the discussion.
It wasn't of course just the Jews who suffered the agonies of the Holocaust and that should never be forgotten either but the message for me is and always has been how vigilant we must always be to ensure all parts of society can co-exist and no single group, creed or colour becomes the "fall guys" for wider social and cultural issues.
When does Corbyn debate and challenge their positions?
ISTR the heat of the campaign in Kennedy's seat during the 2015 campaign was mentioned on here at the time, and at the time of his passing.
That piece is very powerful, all the more so for being from an ex-Labour MP.
On the initial announcement of Kennedy's death, I seem to remember speculation that it might have been suicide brought on by Blackford's bullying. As it turned out, however, it wasn't.
When does Corbyn debate and challenge their positions?
He should of course.
I've never had a problem with Corbyn "sharing a platform" with people whose views would be antithetical to many on here. That's democracy. I part company with him purely because he either supports these views himself or he doesn't challenge the view in the public space Parliament or wherever gives him.
I'd like to think one of the roles of politics and politicians would be to encourage public debate and discussion. If all you ever do is sit in a room with people who you agree with and agree with you, isn't that the ultimate echo chamber?
You mean, like Jeremy Corbyn who until he became leader had only moved in circles of people who agreed with his views on certain things, who has never challenged the views of the likes of Eisen and who has repeatedly lied about the extent of his links to them?
That sort of echo chamber?
(BTW The World at War was filmed in colour. It's the archival footage they use that was black and white. Great War on the other hand is black and white throughout.)
Ian Blackford did not kill Charlie Kennedy. Over three decades of boozing killed Charlie Kennedy.
I have the greatest respect and admiration for Charlie Kennedy on his opposition to the Iraq War.
I see there is no mention of the ghouls and goons from Kennedy's own party who stabbed Charlie kennedy in the back and front on the 24 hours news channels.
I wonder if Jezza would share a panel with a load of homophobes or Islamophobes and just sit on his hands when they start banging on about them being paedos and rapists?
I'm not sure this is entirely fair. My distant recollection is there were various campaigns out there often running in parallel - the Conservative Party was "neutral" so wasn't supporting its own leader or Prime Minister.
In 1975, not far from where I currently live, Roy Jenkins, William Whitelaw and Jo Grimond appeared together at a public meeting for the YES campaign at East Ham Town Hall (Jenkins got flour-bombed while he was speaking). It was regrettable politicians of different parties found it harder to stand together and make common cause in 2016.
Without wanting to have a pop at Jeremy Corbyn (and there are plenty of takers for that role on here it seems) I'm struggling with some (hopefully) loftier concepts.
I'd like to think one of the roles of politics and politicians would be to encourage public debate and discussion. If all you ever do is sit in a room with people who you agree with and agree with you, isn't that the ultimate echo chamber ?
Sometimes you encounter people with whom you disagree or who take a diametrically opposed view. Are they simply to be ignored or is there not an argument for granting them the same right to expression under Freedom of Speech but debating and challenging their position?
I was introduced to the Holocaust through the brilliant World at War series (filmed in black and white which if anything accentuated the horror). At age ten it was pretty strong stuff and it has left me in no doubt as to the potential depths of human depravity and I would vehemently challenge anyone who denied the events ever happened. Understanding why it happened and its cultural, political and social impacts is a hugely worthy area of debate and discussion so I've no problem with the discussion.
It wasn't of course just the Jews who suffered the agonies of the Holocaust and that should never be forgotten either but the message for me is and always has been how vigilant we must always be to ensure all parts of society can co-exist and no single group, creed or colour becomes the "fall guys" for wider social and cultural issues.
A good post. However I think the problem is that he never appears to have challenged the people he now - belatedly - claims to disagree with. Surely there'll be lots of occasions on the record where he has, if he actually did disagree with them?
As another example, when criticised, he claims to talk to both sides, and yet I hear about few meetings with loyalists from NI to counter his IRA and SF meetings, nor did he visit Israel after his recent trip to visit Palestinians in Jordan.
So where has he challenged these people? Where has he talked to other, opposing voices?
He seems to already be in the ultimate echo chamber, and it is a fairly nasty one.
Here's a thought... perhaps they'd allocate the staff differently in such a scenario.
WHen I came home from Italy on Saturday night there were effectively UK only lines for those bloody silly electronic passport machines. For the first time ever they actually recognised me. Even more remarkably they recognised my 15 year old son who looks nothing like the little 11 year old in the picture. My wife, however, (who is unchanging, at least in my eyes) had to go to the manual check.
This is yet another non story, we are drowning in them these days.
What makes the machines effectively UK only?
My understanding, and IANAE, is that they are set up to check the passport against the UK databases for both valid passports and warrants etc. I don't think we would have access to that sort of information from other EU countries but I could be wrong. On the flight I was on there were some Italians and they were directed to an EU channel.
The last time I was at Gare du Nord I went through two of the biometric scanners in quick succession: one French and one UK.
(BTW The World at War was filmed in colour. It's the archival footage they use that was black and white. Great War on the other hand is black and white throughout.)
BTW, given you're such a smart alec know-all, here's my response.
I'm not sure this is entirely fair. My distant recollection is there were various campaigns out there often running in parallel - the Conservative Party was "neutral" so wasn't supporting its own leader or Prime Minister.
In 1975, not far from where I currently live, Roy Jenkins, William Whitelaw and Jo Grimond appeared together at a public meeting for the YES campaign at East Ham Town Hall (Jenkins got flour-bombed while he was speaking). It was regrettable politicians of different parties found it harder to stand together and make common cause in 2016.
I think it is fair. Labour put the kibosh on a 'united' Remain, thats why there was various campaigns. Labour refused to attend any joint events if i remember at the time.
I'm not sure this is entirely fair. My distant recollection is there were various campaigns out there often running in parallel - the Conservative Party was "neutral" so wasn't supporting its own leader or Prime Minister.
In 1975, not far from where I currently live, Roy Jenkins, William Whitelaw and Jo Grimond appeared together at a public meeting for the YES campaign at East Ham Town Hall (Jenkins got flour-bombed while he was speaking). It was regrettable politicians of different parties found it harder to stand together and make common cause in 2016.
I think it is fair. Labour put the kibosh on a 'united' Remain, thats why there was various campaigns. Labour refused to attend any joint events if i remember at the time.
Corbyn happy to sit on the same platform as the odious and despicable when it comes to terrorism and holocaust denial - but not happy to sit on the same platform as a fellow Remain Tory.....and people are surprised?
I'm not sure this is entirely fair. My distant recollection is there were various campaigns out there often running in parallel - the Conservative Party was "neutral" so wasn't supporting its own leader or Prime Minister.
In 1975, not far from where I currently live, Roy Jenkins, William Whitelaw and Jo Grimond appeared together at a public meeting for the YES campaign at East Ham Town Hall (Jenkins got flour-bombed while he was speaking). It was regrettable politicians of different parties found it harder to stand together and make common cause in 2016.
I think it is fair. Labour put the kibosh on a 'united' Remain, thats why there was various campaigns. Labour refused to attend any joint events if i remember at the time.
Indyref: Labour campaigned alongside Tories. GE2015: Labour wiped out in Scotland.
I'm not sure this is entirely fair. My distant recollection is there were various campaigns out there often running in parallel - the Conservative Party was "neutral" so wasn't supporting its own leader or Prime Minister.
In 1975, not far from where I currently live, Roy Jenkins, William Whitelaw and Jo Grimond appeared together at a public meeting for the YES campaign at East Ham Town Hall (Jenkins got flour-bombed while he was speaking). It was regrettable politicians of different parties found it harder to stand together and make common cause in 2016.
I think it is fair. Labour put the kibosh on a 'united' Remain, thats why there was various campaigns. Labour refused to attend any joint events if i remember at the time.
Because they saw what the SNP did to them after SINDYREF when campaigning alongside Tories in “Better Together”.
I'm not sure this is entirely fair. My distant recollection is there were various campaigns out there often running in parallel - the Conservative Party was "neutral" so wasn't supporting its own leader or Prime Minister.
In 1975, not far from where I currently live, Roy Jenkins, William Whitelaw and Jo Grimond appeared together at a public meeting for the YES campaign at East Ham Town Hall (Jenkins got flour-bombed while he was speaking). It was regrettable politicians of different parties found it harder to stand together and make common cause in 2016.
I think it is fair. Labour put the kibosh on a 'united' Remain, thats why there was various campaigns. Labour refused to attend any joint events if i remember at the time.
Corbyn happy to sit on the same platform as the odious and despicable when it comes to terrorism and holocaust denial - but not happy to sit on the same platform as a fellow Remain Tory.....and people are surprised?
It's not just Corbyn, remember Laura 'I don't speak to Tories' Piddock. The level of intolerance seems to be only one way.
I'm not sure this is entirely fair. My distant recollection is there were various campaigns out there often running in parallel - the Conservative Party was "neutral" so wasn't supporting its own leader or Prime Minister.
In 1975, not far from where I currently live, Roy Jenkins, William Whitelaw and Jo Grimond appeared together at a public meeting for the YES campaign at East Ham Town Hall (Jenkins got flour-bombed while he was speaking). It was regrettable politicians of different parties found it harder to stand together and make common cause in 2016.
I think it is fair. Labour put the kibosh on a 'united' Remain, thats why there was various campaigns. Labour refused to attend any joint events if i remember at the time.
Indyref: Labour campaigned alongside Tories. GE2015: Labour wiped out in Scotland.
Indyref: Labour campaigned alongside Tories. Indyref result: What Labour campaigned for.
I'm not sure this is entirely fair. My distant recollection is there were various campaigns out there often running in parallel - the Conservative Party was "neutral" so wasn't supporting its own leader or Prime Minister.
In 1975, not far from where I currently live, Roy Jenkins, William Whitelaw and Jo Grimond appeared together at a public meeting for the YES campaign at East Ham Town Hall (Jenkins got flour-bombed while he was speaking). It was regrettable politicians of different parties found it harder to stand together and make common cause in 2016.
I think it is fair. Labour put the kibosh on a 'united' Remain, thats why there was various campaigns. Labour refused to attend any joint events if i remember at the time.
Because they saw what the SNP did to them after SINDYREF when campaigning alongside Tories in “Better Together”.
and who would have done the same to them in a GE? the greens lol?
ConHome readers are incredibly fickle. Boris is no more suitable, capable, honest or reliable now than he was a few weeks ago. All he has done since the last survey is resigned, and made a poor resignation speech in the Commons.
I'd like to think one of the roles of politics and politicians would be to encourage public debate and discussion. If all you ever do is sit in a room with people who you agree with and agree with you, isn't that the ultimate echo chamber ?
Sometimes you encounter people with whom you disagree or who take a diametrically opposed view. Are they simply to be ignored or is there not an argument for granting them the same right to expression under Freedom of Speech but debating and challenging their position?
Scottish Labour stood shoulder to shoulder with the Tories on the Scottish independence vote and the morning after, Cameron fucked up his former allies by going on about EVAL. Not a nice way to repay his former comrades who ended up losing 40 out of 41 seats. Once bitten, twice shy.
I wonder if Jezza would share a panel with a load of homophobes or Islamophobes and just sit on his hands when they start banging on about them being paedos and rapists?
Here's a thought... perhaps they'd allocate the staff differently in such a scenario.
WHen I came home from Italy on Saturday night there were effectively UK only lines for those bloody silly electronic passport machines. For the first time ever they actually recognised me. Even more remarkably they recognised my 15 year old son who looks nothing like the little 11 year old in the picture. My wife, however, (who is unchanging, at least in my eyes) had to go to the manual check.
This is yet another non story, we are drowning in them these days.
Front page news in 2019 will be that racist and sexist passport machines can't recognise women as well as men, or Chinese wives as well as Japanese. You heard it here first.
I wonder if Jezza would share a panel with a load of homophobes or Islamophobes and just sit on his hands when they start banging on about them being paedos and rapists?
No,that's the Tory and Ukip way.
So why is he happy to do the same with antisemites and terrorist sympathizers?
How does this help May? "I gave away 40bn of your money that we didn't owe and in return I got half a dozen pages of non-binding non-specific waffle. Please vote for me".
Just makes it more and more likely that Tories will vote down her deal, if it ever gets that far.
Here's a thought... perhaps they'd allocate the staff differently in such a scenario.
WHen I came home from Italy on Saturday night there were effectively UK only lines for those bloody silly electronic passport machines. For the first time ever they actually recognised me. Even more remarkably they recognised my 15 year old son who looks nothing like the little 11 year old in the picture. My wife, however, (who is unchanging, at least in my eyes) had to go to the manual check.
This is yet another non story, we are drowning in them these days.
Front page news in 2019 will be that racist and sexist passport machines can't recognise women as well as men, or Chinese wives as well as Japanese. You heard it here first.
How does this help May? "I gave away 40bn of your money that we didn't owe and in return I got half a dozen pages of non-binding non-specific waffle. Please vote for me".
Just makes it more and more likely that Tories will vote down her deal, if it ever gets that far.
They don't have the votes to do it. If it comes down to it, any deal will trump no deal in the HoC.
ConHome readers are incredibly fickle. Boris is no more suitable, capable, honest or reliable now than he was a few weeks ago. All he has done since the last survey is resigned, and made a poor resignation speech in the Commons.
Scares the opposition though because he wins elections.
I wonder if Jezza would share a panel with a load of homophobes or Islamophobes and just sit on his hands when they start banging on about them being paedos and rapists?
No,that's the Tory and Ukip way.
So why is he happy to do the same with antisemites and terrorist sympathizers?
At the 2010 meeting, one of the leading contributors was a holocaust survivor. Not being reported by Sky News.
I'm not sure this is entirely fair. My distant recollection is there were various campaigns out there often running in parallel - the Conservative Party was "neutral" so wasn't supporting its own leader or Prime Minister.
In 1975, not far from where I currently live, Roy Jenkins, William Whitelaw and Jo Grimond appeared together at a public meeting for the YES campaign at East Ham Town Hall (Jenkins got flour-bombed while he was speaking). It was regrettable politicians of different parties found it harder to stand together and make common cause in 2016.
I think it is fair. Labour put the kibosh on a 'united' Remain, thats why there was various campaigns. Labour refused to attend any joint events if i remember at the time.
Because they saw what the SNP did to them after SINDYREF when campaigning alongside Tories in “Better Together”.
and who would have done the same to them in a GE? the greens lol?
Yep. Exploiting that was yet another case of Cameron's disastrous short-termism.
I wonder if Jezza would share a panel with a load of homophobes or Islamophobes and just sit on his hands when they start banging on about them being paedos and rapists?
No,that's the Tory and Ukip way.
So why is he happy to do the same with antisemites and terrorist sympathizers?
At the 2010 meeting, one of the leading contributors was a holocaust survivor. Not being reported by Sky News.
Yes it is....
Documented in a 2010 report published that year by the Community Security Trust (CST) into anti-Semitic discourse, speakers included an Auschwitz survivor who was fiercely critical of Israel.
I wonder if Jezza would share a panel with a load of homophobes or Islamophobes and just sit on his hands when they start banging on about them being paedos and rapists?
No,that's the Tory and Ukip way.
So why is he happy to do the same with antisemites and terrorist sympathizers?
At the 2010 meeting, one of the leading contributors was a holocaust survivor. Not being reported by Sky News.
Yes it is....
Documented in a 2010 report published that year by the Community Security Trust (CST) into anti-Semitic discourse, speakers included an Auschwitz survivor who was fiercely critical of Israel.
Keep trying you might convince yourself that Jezza doesn't have a problem.
Wrong sort of Jew again like the elderly Wolfgang Schauble who was manhandled at the labour party conference after Jack Straw made a speech for saying, "nonsense".
How does this help May? "I gave away 40bn of your money that we didn't owe and in return I got half a dozen pages of non-binding non-specific waffle. Please vote for me".
Just makes it more and more likely that Tories will vote down her deal, if it ever gets that far.
They don't have the votes to do it. If it comes down to it, any deal will trump no deal in the HoC.
How does this help May? "I gave away 40bn of your money that we didn't owe and in return I got half a dozen pages of non-binding non-specific waffle. Please vote for me".
Just makes it more and more likely that Tories will vote down her deal, if it ever gets that far.
They don't have the votes to do it. If it comes down to it, any deal will trump no deal in the HoC.
How does this help May? "I gave away 40bn of your money that we didn't owe and in return I got half a dozen pages of non-binding non-specific waffle. Please vote for me".
Just makes it more and more likely that Tories will vote down her deal, if it ever gets that far.
They don't have the votes to do it. If it comes down to it, any deal will trump no deal in the HoC.
Labour have a big decision to make if there’s a Conservative split over the deal.
Do they push to defeat the government even if it leads to no-deal, or will they go with the weasely copout of the whipped abstention?
How does this help May? "I gave away 40bn of your money that we didn't owe and in return I got half a dozen pages of non-binding non-specific waffle. Please vote for me".
Just makes it more and more likely that Tories will vote down her deal, if it ever gets that far.
They don't have the votes to do it. If it comes down to it, any deal will trump no deal in the HoC.
How does this help May? "I gave away 40bn of your money that we didn't owe and in return I got half a dozen pages of non-binding non-specific waffle. Please vote for me".
Just makes it more and more likely that Tories will vote down her deal, if it ever gets that far.
They don't have the votes to do it. If it comes down to it, any deal will trump no deal in the HoC.
Such polling as we have suggests that, far from being unideological, Conservative Leavers are prepared to see the country in flames so long as Brexit is secured.
The question is whether they will accept Chequers Brexit as Brexit.
Is the anti-semitism story ever going to end? I thought Baroness (ahem) Chakrabarti gave them a clean bill of health?
I never really liked Chakrabarti, and felt she was always rather one-sided on complex issues. Mrs J always disagreed with me, and quite liked her.
I'm pleased to say that Mrs J now seems more disgusted with her than I am. I get the impression that Chakrabarti's time at Liberty was not about preserving and promoting concepts of liberty and freedom, but about progressing her own little career.
She has been exposed as a fraud.
Ahem ..... I said as much a few years back. She did not have much of a reputation before her whitewash report and has absolutely none now.
"Labour's Jeremy Corbyn has apologised for appearing on platforms with people whose views he "completely rejects"."
Not a Daily Mash headline.
And his cult will buy this crap. But if he did the same with homophobes or Islamophobes they would demand his head on a stick.
Some of the cultists are so far down the rabbit hole he could have shared a platfrm with Nick Griffin, Nigel Farage and Donald Trump and they'd still find an excuse as to why he's done nothing wrong in their eyes.
Is the anti-semitism story ever going to end? I thought Baroness (ahem) Chakrabarti gave them a clean bill of health?
I never really liked Chakrabarti, and felt she was always rather one-sided on complex issues. Mrs J always disagreed with me, and quite liked her.
I'm pleased to say that Mrs J now seems more disgusted with her than I am. I get the impression that Chakrabarti's time at Liberty was not about preserving and promoting concepts of liberty and freedom, but about progressing her own little career.
She has been exposed as a fraud.
I quite like Shami.
Boris, Jezza or Cable. If these are the best we can do then we are truly circling the plughole.
As a matter of interest, why do you like her?
Lovely eyes and soft voice.
Ah, yes. She is not unattractive. But she is someone who has risen in prominence by pretending to have firm values, and has thoroughly debased those values.
She seems a very kind person, and we could do with more of that in public life. Indeed she can be a bit too indulgent, but rather that than cruelty.
If you knew what I know about her, which I cannot share on this forum, “kind” is not the adjective you’d use about her.
I'm not sure this is entirely fair. My distant recollection is there were various campaigns out there often running in parallel - the Conservative Party was "neutral" so wasn't supporting its own leader or Prime Minister.
In 1975, not far from where I currently live, Roy Jenkins, William Whitelaw and Jo Grimond appeared together at a public meeting for the YES campaign at East Ham Town Hall (Jenkins got flour-bombed while he was speaking). It was regrettable politicians of different parties found it harder to stand together and make common cause in 2016.
I think it is fair. Labour put the kibosh on a 'united' Remain, thats why there was various campaigns. Labour refused to attend any joint events if i remember at the time.
Because they saw what the SNP did to them after SINDYREF when campaigning alongside Tories in “Better Together”.
I would argue that is not because they campaigned alongside the Tories but that they campaigned against the wishes of 40% of their voters.
Slab had a huge pro indy component to its voter base but the top of the party is rabidly anti-independence to the extent of making speckle flecked rants whenever the subject is brought up.
They literally spent a good portion of the campaign calling a large chunk of their own voter base Nazis.
Just learnt today that in many American stats, opening a new hospital, a specialist clinic or even just a purchase of a large medical item (say an MRI) has to go through a state approval process that effectively gives existing hospitals in the state a veto over the opening or purchase. Truly jaw dropping.
My understanding, and IANAE, is that they are set up to check the passport against the UK databases for both valid passports and warrants etc. I don't think we would have access to that sort of information from other EU countries but I could be wrong. On the flight I was on there were some Italians and they were directed to an EU channel.
We do, through Interpol. The machines the passport officials scan the passports through are checked against the "Warnings Index". The electronic lanes are supposed to use the same back end systems.
I agree about the alerts system but I have never seen a non national being directed to these machines: have you?
Yes. All EEA nationals are able to use the machines
How does this help May? "I gave away 40bn of your money that we didn't owe and in return I got half a dozen pages of non-binding non-specific waffle. Please vote for me".
Just makes it more and more likely that Tories will vote down her deal, if it ever gets that far.
They don't have the votes to do it. If it comes down to it, any deal will trump no deal in the HoC.
Labour have a big decision to make if there’s a Conservative split over the deal.
Do they push to defeat the government even if it leads to no-deal, or will they go with the weasely copout of the whipped abstention?
They will vote against. If they abstain the Tories will say that they had the chance to vote on Brexit and refused, so the ability for Labour to attack the outcome will be basically given away. And Corbyn does not want Chequers anyway, and is always up for a bit of chaos. Some Labour fanatics will vote for, but not enough to beat the massed ranks of the ERG.
So yes, the Leavers do have the votes to block Chequers. And if May comes back with a 'road to nowhere' deal, that is what she will get.
I wonder if Jezza would share a panel with a load of homophobes or Islamophobes and just sit on his hands when they start banging on about them being paedos and rapists?
No,that's the Tory and Ukip way.
Is this bollocks really convincing you that your guy is Ok really? Because it convinces no-one else.
How does this help May? "I gave away 40bn of your money that we didn't owe and in return I got half a dozen pages of non-binding non-specific waffle. Please vote for me".
Just makes it more and more likely that Tories will vote down her deal, if it ever gets that far.
They don't have the votes to do it. If it comes down to it, any deal will trump no deal in the HoC.
Labour have a big decision to make if there’s a Conservative split over the deal.
Do they push to defeat the government even if it leads to no-deal, or will they go with the weasely copout of the whipped abstention?
I think Labour will go for the kill, even if that results in the hardest of Brexits. Destroying the Tories trumps everything else. That's why there's been little objection from any wing of the party to booting out Field and Hoey - it wasn't their euroscepticism that was at issue, but the fact they saved a Tory PM from destruction.
Comments
"I got something to say
I'm through with the past
Ain't no point in looking back
The future will be
And did I forget to mention
That I found a new direction
And it leads back to me, yeah"
Much more credible.
Could you translate that into English please
1. Have got an agreed platform for discussion before serving the Article 50, not 18 months after.
2. Have made adequate preparations for a no deal scenario so we had options.
3. Not agreed to the backstop in NI in the vague hope that something would have come up later.
4. Have put herself and the UK in a position to walk away from the talks if the EU refused to discuss substantive issues, like trade.
5. Have explained to the public in clear terms what the issues were, why she was pursuing a particular path and why that was in the UK national interest, showing something called leadership.
Those opposed to Brexit think it was always going to be a disaster. Those in favour (and frankly anyone supporting the national interest) are completely exasperated by the ineptitude of our negotiating stance. It has been appalling.
@KieranPAndrews
Tories criticise SNP for Dundee rapist being freed — but he was released from jail in England - The Courier
https://twitter.com/KieranPAndrews/status/1024343953854943233
As most of the party membership now seems to consist of fellow acolytes, the JC9 will no doubt sweep onto the NEC.
Jeremy Hunt's "interview" in the Standard yesterday evening was an extraordinary piece of pleading and thin defiance. Apparently, "Brussels" (yeah, let's dumb it down) is waiting for the UK to "blink" but, according to the great statesman, "that is a profound misunderstanding of us as a nation".
So it seems we are ready to point the gun at our own heads and pull the trigger knowing there's a bullet in the chamber but we won't if the EU ask us not to and we'll have won a huge symbolic victory.
Of more interest, he actually threatens to make the City a "low-tax, low-regulation offshoot" so we now know where the Conservatives want to take us. The City becomes Singapore-on-Thames and for most of us all regulation and protection is sacrificed on the altar of lower taxes. Cut spending, cut taxes and live on the edge of Europe with our back turned - that's the vision.
That is our NEW Foreign Secretary - if all you have is "he's better than Boris" that's pretty thin gruel.
Chequers was sunk without prior EU acceptance. Put it out there as a negotiating position and the EU were always going to stick out their bowl and ask for more, with more certainty than on a tenth watching of Oliver.....
https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1024555957576257536
The Crown should have been aware that there was a possibility of him being released on licence in relation to that offence. They clearly weren't. Whether that is their fault or the English authorities' fault is not clear but this man should never have been released. I don't understand how he was given licence with such a serious charge pending. That suggests the English were at fault but the Scottish Court could have done something about it had they been asked to.
Those who are in favour of destroying those rights and selling the country out to American interests and American justice, destroying the economy in the process, cannot understand why Mrs May and her cronies do not just get on with it.
The problem of the Conservative leadership is that they secretly want the one while pretending that they can still keep the other. Is this not madness?
Without wanting to have a pop at Jeremy Corbyn (and there are plenty of takers for that role on here it seems) I'm struggling with some (hopefully) loftier concepts.
I'd like to think one of the roles of politics and politicians would be to encourage public debate and discussion. If all you ever do is sit in a room with people who you agree with and agree with you, isn't that the ultimate echo chamber ?
Sometimes you encounter people with whom you disagree or who take a diametrically opposed view. Are they simply to be ignored or is there not an argument for granting them the same right to expression under Freedom of Speech but debating and challenging their position?
I was introduced to the Holocaust through the brilliant World at War series (filmed in black and white which if anything accentuated the horror). At age ten it was pretty strong stuff and it has left me in no doubt as to the potential depths of human depravity and I would vehemently challenge anyone who denied the events ever happened. Understanding why it happened and its cultural, political and social impacts is a hugely worthy area of debate and discussion so I've no problem with the discussion.
It wasn't of course just the Jews who suffered the agonies of the Holocaust and that should never be forgotten either but the message for me is and always has been how vigilant we must always be to ensure all parts of society can co-exist and no single group, creed or colour becomes the "fall guys" for wider social and cultural issues.
That piece is very powerful, all the more so for being from an ex-Labour MP.
I have the greatest respect and admiration for Charlie Kennedy on his opposition to the Iraq War.
I've never had a problem with Corbyn "sharing a platform" with people whose views would be antithetical to many on here. That's democracy. I part company with him purely because he either supports these views himself or he doesn't challenge the view in the public space Parliament or wherever gives him.
That sort of echo chamber?
(BTW The World at War was filmed in colour. It's the archival footage they use that was black and white. Great War on the other hand is black and white throughout.)
And it ill behooves Alastair Campbell to criticise the character assassinations carried out by others.
In 1975, not far from where I currently live, Roy Jenkins, William Whitelaw and Jo Grimond appeared together at a public meeting for the YES campaign at East Ham Town Hall (Jenkins got flour-bombed while he was speaking). It was regrettable politicians of different parties found it harder to stand together and make common cause in 2016.
As another example, when criticised, he claims to talk to both sides, and yet I hear about few meetings with loyalists from NI to counter his IRA and SF meetings, nor did he visit Israel after his recent trip to visit Palestinians in Jordan.
So where has he challenged these people? Where has he talked to other, opposing voices?
He seems to already be in the ultimate echo chamber, and it is a fairly nasty one.
I watched it on a black and white television !!!
GE2015: Labour wiped out in Scotland.
Indyref result: What Labour campaigned for.
Just makes it more and more likely that Tories will vote down her deal, if it ever gets that far.
Documented in a 2010 report published that year by the Community Security Trust (CST) into anti-Semitic discourse, speakers included an Auschwitz survivor who was fiercely critical of Israel.
https://news.sky.com/story/jeremy-corbyn-sorry-for-sharing-conference-platform-with-anti-zionist-speaker-11455926
Keep trying you might convince yourself that Jezza doesn't have a problem.
She was quite happy to address rooms of invited Party members but seemed reluctant to deal with anyone else.
Excellent.
Not a Daily Mash headline.
Do they push to defeat the government even if it leads to no-deal, or will they go with the weasely copout of the whipped abstention?
The question is whether they will accept Chequers Brexit as Brexit.
https://seekingalpha.com/news/3376018-u-s-healthcare-spending-nearing-20-percent-gdp?app=1&dr=1#email_link
https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-americans-spend-so-much-on-health-carein-12-charts-1533047243?mod=e2tw
Slab had a huge pro indy component to its voter base but the top of the party is rabidly anti-independence to the extent of making speckle flecked rants whenever the subject is brought up.
They literally spent a good portion of the campaign calling a large chunk of their own voter base Nazis.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.132100845
Topped up £50.
So yes, the Leavers do have the votes to block Chequers. And if May comes back with a 'road to nowhere' deal, that is what she will get.