Unfortunately these 2 are just showing, despite the best efforts of our top 7 to indicate otherwise, that this is a very good pitch to bat on. England are about 200 short at the moment.
It is really hard to believe that this man has already fought a GE where he was a serious candidate for PM. I mean, why now?
Best guess: Labour MPs want him gone before conference so they can elect a new leader under the old (pre Democracy Roadshow) rulebook.
But they wanted rid of him before. Had a contest about it and everything. Motions of no confidence etc. Got hammered by the membership. But we weren't getting this.
They think they've found a new lever.
I think they are kidding themselves, but who knows?
The Swedish Crown Jewels have been stolen but when I just checked the front pages of a number of Swedish newspapers they didn't seem to be reporting it. Maybe it isn't a big deal as far as they're concerned.
Well, I could easily do those jobs. But my price is above rubies (from the Old Testament, dear Labour recruiting officer, to make it clear that I do not wish to be chosen).
Unfortunately these 2 are just showing, despite the best efforts of our top 7 to indicate otherwise, that this is a very good pitch to bat on. England are about 200 short at the moment.
Yep, it’s looking like it’s a 450 pitch, but we’re going to struggle past 300.
It is really hard to believe that this man has already fought a GE where he was a serious candidate for PM. I mean, why now?
Best guess: Labour MPs want him gone before conference so they can elect a new leader under the old (pre Democracy Roadshow) rulebook.
But they wanted rid of him before. Had a contest about it and everything. Motions of no confidence etc. Got hammered by the membership. But we weren't getting this.
They think they've found a new lever.
I think they are kidding themselves, but who knows?
It is pleasing to see the Corbynista tactic of obsessively and meticulously trawling through someone's history to extract nuggets of dirt is coming back to bite them in the arse.
It is really hard to believe that this man has already fought a GE where he was a serious candidate for PM. I mean, why now?
Best guess: Labour MPs want him gone before conference so they can elect a new leader under the old (pre Democracy Roadshow) rulebook.
But they wanted rid of him before. Had a contest about it and everything. Motions of no confidence etc. Got hammered by the membership. But we weren't getting this.
They think they've found a new lever.
I think they are kidding themselves, but who knows?
Well quite. They can only get rid of Corbyn through death, incapacity or resignation - and nobody that determined (and shameless) is going to do the latter.
Which means that Jeremy ought to be very wary of riding his pushbike past any grassy knolls. Or schoolbook depositories.
It is really hard to believe that this man has already fought a GE where he was a serious candidate for PM. I mean, why now?
Best guess: Labour MPs want him gone before conference so they can elect a new leader under the old (pre Democracy Roadshow) rulebook.
But they wanted rid of him before. Had a contest about it and everything. Motions of no confidence etc. Got hammered by the membership. But we weren't getting this.
They think they've found a new lever.
I think they are kidding themselves, but who knows?
Well quite. They can only get rid of Corbyn through death, incapacity or resignation - and nobody that determined (and shameless) is going to do the latter.
Which means that Jeremy ought to be very wary of riding his pushbike past any grassy knolls. Or schoolbook depositories.
I'm all for pointing at Jezza and laughing, but "How on earth do you know what will be said at a meeting yet to be held?" is not the worst point ever made.
The Swedish Crown Jewels have been stolen but when I just checked the front pages of a number of Swedish newspapers they didn't seem to be reporting it. Maybe it isn't a big deal as far as they're concerned.
I read about this earlier today. They're a historic set made for the funeral processions of a 17th Century king and queen, if memory serves. Two crowns and an orb were apparently nicked from a display case in a cathedral.
I assume that the King of Sweden still has a crown, which is presumably kept somewhere a bit more secure, although I believe that we're the last European monarchy that still holds coronations. The remainder have simpler investitures.
It is really hard to believe that this man has already fought a GE where he was a serious candidate for PM. I mean, why now?
Best guess: Labour MPs want him gone before conference so they can elect a new leader under the old (pre Democracy Roadshow) rulebook.
But they wanted rid of him before. Had a contest about it and everything. Motions of no confidence etc. Got hammered by the membership. But we weren't getting this.
They think they've found a new lever.
I think they are kidding themselves, but who knows?
Well quite. They can only get rid of Corbyn through death, incapacity or resignation - and nobody that determined (and shameless) is going to do the latter.
Which means that Jeremy ought to be very wary of riding his pushbike past any grassy knolls. Or schoolbook depositories.
I was going to ask, "Who's gonna thwack him?" But on reflection, Mossad are said to be rather good at what they do.
I'm all for pointing at Jezza and laughing, but "How on earth do you know what will be said at a meeting yet to be held?" is not the worst point ever made.
It is now 2018. Was it a "farrago of lies about Israel"?
I'm all for pointing at Jezza and laughing, but "How on earth do you know what will be said at a meeting yet to be held?" is not the worst point ever made.
You need to read the rest of the exchange.
Even worse, Corbyn does not know how to spell "principle". Honestly, I mean we know he doesn't have any (or none worth a bucket of piss) but not being able to spell...... it's the last straw, it really is.
The Swedish Crown Jewels have been stolen but when I just checked the front pages of a number of Swedish newspapers they didn't seem to be reporting it. Maybe it isn't a big deal as far as they're concerned.
My understanding is that they’re not the Swedish crown jewels, which are kept in a vault in Stockholm, but some royal jewels made for a specific 17th century monarch. In any case, the Swedes don’t do coronations any more so the concept of crown jewels is a bit redundant there.
The Swedish Crown Jewels have been stolen but when I just checked the front pages of a number of Swedish newspapers they didn't seem to be reporting it. Maybe it isn't a big deal as far as they're concerned.
My understanding is that they’re not the Swedish crown jewels, which are kept in a vault in Stockholm, but some royal jewels made for a specific 17th century monarch. In any case, the Swedes don’t do coronations any more so the concept of crown jewels is a bit redundant there.
Interesting, thanks. I still think it's a bit odd that it isn't being reported when it is in other countries. It's almost as if they try to avoid reporting bad news if at all possible in Sweden. Seems a bit counterproductive to me.
It is really hard to believe that this man has already fought a GE where he was a serious candidate for PM. I mean, why now?
Best guess: Labour MPs want him gone before conference so they can elect a new leader under the old (pre Democracy Roadshow) rulebook.
But they wanted rid of him before. Had a contest about it and everything. Motions of no confidence etc. Got hammered by the membership. But we weren't getting this.
They think they've found a new lever.
I think they are kidding themselves, but who knows?
Well quite. They can only get rid of Corbyn through death, incapacity or resignation - and nobody that determined (and shameless) is going to do the latter.
Which means that Jeremy ought to be very wary of riding his pushbike past any grassy knolls. Or schoolbook depositories.
I was going to ask, "Who's gonna thwack him?" But on reflection, Mossad are said to be rather good at what they do.
If Jeremy did fall under the proverbial bus, it would doubtless be Mossad what did it. And just to spite them, Momentum would keep Corbyn embalmed in an Islington shop front - and have him remain as leader in perpetuity.....
I'm all for pointing at Jezza and laughing, but "How on earth do you know what will be said at a meeting yet to be held?" is not the worst point ever made.
I mean, there's neither promotional material nor a list of speakers, so, yeah, its a perfectly valid point.
The Swedish Crown Jewels have been stolen but when I just checked the front pages of a number of Swedish newspapers they didn't seem to be reporting it. Maybe it isn't a big deal as far as they're concerned.
I read about this earlier today. They're a historic set made for the funeral processions of a 17th Century king and queen, if memory serves. Two crowns and an orb were apparently nicked from a display case in a cathedral.
I assume that the King of Sweden still has a crown, which is presumably kept somewhere a bit more secure, although I believe that we're the last European monarchy that still holds coronations. The remainder have simpler investitures.
We haven’t had the recent turnover of Monarchs of most of them though. Pushing the boat out very irregularly is hardly the worst of crimes.
It is really hard to believe that this man has already fought a GE where he was a serious candidate for PM. I mean, why now?
Best guess: Labour MPs want him gone before conference so they can elect a new leader under the old (pre Democracy Roadshow) rulebook.
He will win a bigger majority. His position after the GE2017 is totally different from before. The PB Tories do not elect or reflect the Labour Party membership.
Zimbabwe Drought Tommy Robinson Missing midwife Child model with one leg
This will all blow over and hardly anyone will either notice or care.
Quite. As an aside, BBC News’ editorial decisions do appear quite surprising. Not aimed at this particularly but more generally. Perhaps the Cliff Richard embarrassment has had more effect than they pretend.
On topic, I consider this Government to be administratively pretty competent and fiscally responsible but politically incompetent. It is also clearly naive at negotiating. Only some of that is due to there being a hung parliament, which makes the need for all those skills all the greater.
On the broader question, the Government is pursuing a logical strategy for implementing a practical Brexit that is both in the national interest and consistent with the referendum mandate.
After that has been concluded I expect it to take a balanced approach to public spending and be moderate/responsible in all other areas of domestic policy, and in international relations, so I’d rate it head and shoulders above the risk of a potential Corbyn led administration.
All of these stories about Corbyn's dodgy antisemitic associates were brought up 3 years ago, before he was elected leader. I can't find it now, but was reading a Jewish Chronicle piece earlier from 2015 which linked to all of the old bits I've seen dredged up today.
Maybe that helped him to get elected. The antisemites finally found their voice.
All of these stories about Corbyn's dodgy antisemitic associates were brought up 3 years ago, before he was elected leader. I can't find it now, but was reading a Jewish Chronicle piece earlier from 2015 which linked to all of the old bits I've seen dredged up today.
Maybe that helped him to get elected. The antisemites finally found their voice.
Zimbabwe Drought Tommy Robinson Missing midwife Child model with one leg
This will all blow over and hardly anyone will either notice or care.
Quite. As an aside, BBC News’ editorial decisions do appear quite surprising. Not aimed at this particularly but more generally. Perhaps the Cliff Richard embarrassment has had more effect than they pretend.
That was the running order announced on ITV. I don't know what the Beeb led with.
It seems the Lizard People, our overlords, are finally tiring of Jeremy Corbyn thwarting their attempts to stop Brexit. He must be terminated......
This reminds me of the Corbyn and the IRA headlines we used to get pre June 2017. The Times has always published negative stories about Corbyn, this hasn’t suddenly come about as result of some finding out Corbyn won’t Stop Brexit. On a general level, barrages of negative Corbyn stories was the norm between 2015 and the first half of 2017. At this stage Corbyn’s terrible last statements and associations are sadly unsurprising. What is unique is that these stories have become so unsurprising they no longer make headline news when in the fairly recent past they would have. As Acorn_Antiques notes, tonight’s headlines are all about non-Corbyn things.
I am not sure what Lucy Fisher is trying to say. It was a smart reply. It made Hoffman, whoever he is, look foolish!
Not really, given that Mr Corbyn presumably knew who was going to be speaking at this thing and what messages they were likely to promulgate before he went.
I mean, if you shared a platform with Nigel Farage, for example, you'd have a reasonable expectation that he'd say something rude about the EU in your presence at some point.
It seems the Lizard People, our overlords, are finally tiring of Jeremy Corbyn thwarting their attempts to stop Brexit. He must be terminated......
This reminds me of the Corbyn and the IRA headlines we used to get pre June 2017. The Times has always published negative stories about Corbyn, this hasn’t suddenly come about as result of some finding out Corbyn won’t Stop Brexit. On a general level, barrages of negative Corbyn stories was the norm between 2015 and the first half of 2017. At this stage Corbyn’s terrible last statements and associations are sadly unsurprising. What is unique is that these stories have become so unsurprising they no longer make headline news when in the fairly recent past they would have. As Acorn_Antiques notes, tonight’s headlines are all about non-Corbyn things.
It was quite prominent on the Six O'Clock News. It came after Zimbabwe (I think), but before the drought and Tommy Robinson.
I am not sure what Lucy Fisher is trying to say. It was a smart reply. It made Hoffman, whoever he is, look foolish!
Not really, given that Mr Corbyn presumably knew who was going to be speaking at this thing and what messages they were likely to promulgate before he went.
I mean, if you shared a platform with Nigel Farage, for example, you'd have a reasonable expectation that he'd say something rude about the EU in your presence at some point.
Agreed and the logic of Corbyn's smart Alec reply is that no Corbyn supporter should oppose any speaker in advance including EDL!
It is really hard to believe that this man has already fought a GE where he was a serious candidate for PM. I mean, why now?
Best guess: Labour MPs want him gone before conference so they can elect a new leader under the old (pre Democracy Roadshow) rulebook.
But they wanted rid of him before. Had a contest about it and everything. Motions of no confidence etc. Got hammered by the membership. But we weren't getting this.
For what it's worth, the Evening Standard today has a huge front-page piece on it (bigging up an article by Austin) called "Shameless", with an editorial backing the criticism, so we're certainly testing his enduring support in London.
My personal view (which I'm not repeatedly posting here as life is too short to argue about it every day) is that I've not seen anything new, nor has it made me reconsider my support for him. Sure, as a backbencher he sat in on meetings also attended by dodgy types, what else is new? In general, as a backbencher if asked to speak I'd speak, without studying the CVs of every other speaker.
I don't always support Momentum (I've voted for Ann Black) but doubt if I'm especially untypical of the membership. I'm corresponding privately with one of the main critics - neither of us is making much progress in convincing each other, though it's all very friendly.
It seems the Lizard People, our overlords, are finally tiring of Jeremy Corbyn thwarting their attempts to stop Brexit. He must be terminated......
He'd be wise to avoid the Salisbury area for a while. Accidents do happen, you know.
But seriously, there does seem to be an awful lot of new footage emerging all of a sudden. My tin-foil beret is quivering. Or maybe the media had all this stuff but didn't consider it newsworthy enough at until this all blew up.
I spoke to a an (not the) editor at a well known news organisation socially a month a so ago who said he and others were basically deluged with this stuff to the extent they weren't quite sure what to do with it as it wasn't necessarily newsy in of itself - people obviously know Corbyn is a crank whose attendance at these events had been reported on but largely forgotten about. They'd seen and been appalled by the state of a lot of Labour Facebook groups - but there wasn't too much new or a big news hook to it but might be good to include with a special report style feature documenting the problem and how in denial the party was.
I think what changed everything is the IHRA row, because it put Labour on the spot in a confrontation where they were claiming this was all normal where everyone knew it was not and the stories about Corbyn became big news because a) the showed why he is the problem himself, not some bad apples, and b) because the temperature has got so high on it, each revelation stands a fair chance of creating news - someone demanding a resignation or condemning the party or leader himself in stronger terms than people have previously.
It seems the Lizard People, our overlords, are finally tiring of Jeremy Corbyn thwarting their attempts to stop Brexit. He must be terminated......
This reminds me of the Corbyn and the IRA headlines we used to get pre June 2017. The Times has always published negative stories about Corbyn, this hasn’t suddenly come about as result of some finding out Corbyn won’t Stop Brexit. On a general level, barrages of negative Corbyn stories was the norm between 2015 and the first half of 2017. At this stage Corbyn’s terrible last statements and associations are sadly unsurprising. What is unique is that these stories have become so unsurprising they no longer make headline news when in the fairly recent past they would have. As Acorn_Antiques notes, tonight’s headlines are all about non-Corbyn things.
It was quite prominent on the Six O'Clock News. It came after Zimbabwe (I think), but before the drought and Tommy Robinson.
I didn’t catch the six O’clock news, so was going off the BBC News site. I presume the story was about Corbyn attending *that* event in 2010, as I can’t see anything on the BBC front page which acknowledges the latest Times’ articles.
It is really hard to believe that this man has already fought a GE where he was a serious candidate for PM. I mean, why now?
Best guess: Labour MPs want him gone before conference so they can elect a new leader under the old (pre Democracy Roadshow) rulebook.
But they wanted rid of him before. Had a contest about it and everything. Motions of no confidence etc. Got hammered by the membership. But we weren't getting this.
True.
The other possibility is we're in an August No Brexit News lull, journos are bored and dredging their Bumper Book of Corbyn Cuntery to tide them over until the autumn.
It is really hard to believe that this man has already fought a GE where he was a serious candidate for PM. I mean, why now?
Best guess: Labour MPs want him gone before conference so they can elect a new leader under the old (pre Democracy Roadshow) rulebook.
But they wanted rid of him before. Had a contest about it and everything. Motions of no confidence etc. Got hammered by the membership. But we weren't getting this.
For what it's worth, the Evening Standard today has a huge front-page piece on it (bigging up an article by Austin) called "Shameless", with an editorial backing the criticism, so we're certainly testing his enduring support in London.
My personal view (which I'm not repeatedly posting here as life is too short to argue about it every day) is that I've not seen anything new, nor has it made me reconsider my support for him. Sure, as a backbencher he sat in on meetings also attended by dodgy types, what else is new? In general, as a backbencher if asked to speak I'd speak, without studying the CVs of every other speaker.
I don't always support Momentum (I've voted for Ann Black) but doubt if I'm especially untypical of the membership. I'm corresponding privately with one of the main critics - neither of us is making much progress in convincing each other, though it's all very friendly.
His views are, as you say, well known, and the Tory attempt at a reprise of project fear about his past associations got them precisely nowhere last year.
More concerning is his inability to close down a damaging news story before it gathers enough momentum (sic) to be cascading down the hillside towards him. It is now quite obvious that his internal critics smell blood.
I am not sure what Lucy Fisher is trying to say. It was a smart reply. It made Hoffman, whoever he is, look foolish!
Not really, given that Mr Corbyn presumably knew who was going to be speaking at this thing and what messages they were likely to promulgate before he went.
I mean, if you shared a platform with Nigel Farage, for example, you'd have a reasonable expectation that he'd say something rude about the EU in your presence at some point.
Someone needs to organise a discussion on something like “Understanding Islam in British Society”, invite Nick Griffin, Tommy Robinson and Jeremy Corbyn and see what happens...
It is really hard to believe that this man has already fought a GE where he was a serious candidate for PM. I mean, why now?
Best guess: Labour MPs want him gone before conference so they can elect a new leader under the old (pre Democracy Roadshow) rulebook.
But they wanted rid of him before. Had a contest about it and everything. Motions of no confidence etc. Got hammered by the membership. But we weren't getting this.
For what it's worth, the Evening Standard today has a huge front-page piece on it (bigging up an article by Austin) called "Shameless", with an editorial backing the criticism, so we're certainly testing his enduring support in London.
My personal view (which I'm not repeatedly posting here as life is too short to argue about it every day) is that I've not seen anything new, nor has it made me reconsider my support for him. Sure, as a backbencher he sat in on meetings also attended by dodgy types, what else is new? In general, as a backbencher if asked to speak I'd speak, without studying the CVs of every other speaker.
I don't always support Momentum (I've voted for Ann Black) but doubt if I'm especially untypical of the membership. I'm corresponding privately with one of the main critics - neither of us is making much progress in convincing each other, though it's all very friendly.
Seriously, Nick: the leader of your party organises a conference (not just sits in on) at which one of the speakers is a neo-Nazi supporter of the Klu Klux Klan and you just shrug it off as of no importance? Seriously? And you claim to be an anti-racist party?
The Swedish Crown Jewels have been stolen but when I just checked the front pages of a number of Swedish newspapers they didn't seem to be reporting it. Maybe it isn't a big deal as far as they're concerned.
My understanding is that they’re not the Swedish crown jewels, which are kept in a vault in Stockholm, but some royal jewels made for a specific 17th century monarch. In any case, the Swedes don’t do coronations any more so the concept of crown jewels is a bit redundant there.
Interesting, thanks. I still think it's a bit odd that it isn't being reported when it is in other countries. It's almost as if they try to avoid reporting bad news if at all possible in Sweden. Seems a bit counterproductive to me.
Well FWIW I had a peek at the local chatroom for my employers’ head office in Stockholm and no-one was talking about it there, but then the Swedes seem to be pretty indifferent to their monarchy.
It is really hard to believe that this man has already fought a GE where he was a serious candidate for PM. I mean, why now?
Best guess: Labour MPs want him gone before conference so they can elect a new leader under the old (pre Democracy Roadshow) rulebook.
But they wanted rid of him before. Had a contest about it and everything. Motions of no confidence etc. Got hammered by the membership. But we weren't getting this.
For what it's worth, the Evening Standard today has a huge front-page piece on it (bigging up an article by Austin) called "Shameless", with an editorial backing the criticism, so we're certainly testing his enduring support in London.
My personal view (which I'm not repeatedly posting here as life is too short to argue about it every day) is that I've not seen anything new, nor has it made me reconsider my support for him. Sure, as a backbencher he sat in on meetings also attended by dodgy types, what else is new? In general, as a backbencher if asked to speak I'd speak, without studying the CVs of every other speaker.
I don't always support Momentum (I've voted for Ann Black) but doubt if I'm especially untypical of the membership. I'm corresponding privately with one of the main critics - neither of us is making much progress in convincing each other, though it's all very friendly.
His views are, as you say, well known, and the Tory attempt at a reprise of project fear about his past associations got them precisely nowhere last year.
More concerning is his inability to close down a damaging news story before it gathers enough momentum (sic) to be cascading down the hillside towards him. It is now quite obvious that his internal critics smell blood.
The trouble for him is that all this stuff is now contemporary and has reasonance with what’s going on now.
It’s a bit different to waving away his behaviour with Sinn Fein in the 80s, although it might help some people start to join some dots together on that too.
I am not sure what Lucy Fisher is trying to say. It was a smart reply. It made Hoffman, whoever he is, look foolish!
Not really, given that Mr Corbyn presumably knew who was going to be speaking at this thing and what messages they were likely to promulgate before he went.
I mean, if you shared a platform with Nigel Farage, for example, you'd have a reasonable expectation that he'd say something rude about the EU in your presence at some point.
Someone needs to organise a discussion on something like “Understanding Islam in British Society”, invite Nick Griffin, Tommy Robinson and Jeremy Corbyn and see what happens...
Nick Griffin and Corbyn should get on like a house on fire. Both anti-Israel and Griffin has endorsed Corbyn.
It is really hard to believe that this man has already fought a GE where he was a serious candidate for PM. I mean, why now?
Best guess: Labour MPs want him gone before conference so they can elect a new leader under the old (pre Democracy Roadshow) rulebook.
But they wanted rid of him before. Had a contest about it and everything. Motions of no confidence etc. Got hammered by the membership. But we weren't getting this.
For what it's worth, the Evening Standard today has a huge front-page piece on it (bigging up an article by Austin) called "Shameless", with an editorial backing the criticism, so we're certainly testing his enduring support in London.
My personal view (which I'm not repeatedly posting here as life is too short to argue about it every day) is that I've not seen anything new, nor has it made me reconsider my support for him. Sure, as a backbencher he sat in on meetings also attended by dodgy types, what else is new? In general, as a backbencher if asked to speak I'd speak, without studying the CVs of every other speaker.
I don't always support Momentum (I've voted for Ann Black) but doubt if I'm especially untypical of the membership. I'm corresponding privately with one of the main critics - neither of us is making much progress in convincing each other, though it's all very friendly.
His views are, as you say, well known, and the Tory attempt at a reprise of project fear about his past associations got them precisely nowhere last year.
More concerning is his inability to close down a damaging news story before it gathers enough momentum (sic) to be cascading down the hillside towards him. It is now quite obvious that his internal critics smell blood.
His internal critics have smelt blood before (2016). They need to learn to be able to carry out a successful despatching of him as leader, and that still seems to be something which they are unable to do.
On topic, I consider this Government to be administratively pretty competent and fiscally responsible but politically incompetent. It is also clearly naive at negotiating. Only some of that is due to there being a hung parliament, which makes the need for all those skills all the greater.
On the broader question, the Government is pursuing a logical strategy for implementing a practical Brexit that is both in the national interest and consistent with the referendum mandate.
After that has been concluded I expect it to take a balanced approach to public spending and be moderate/responsible in all other areas of domestic policy, and in international relations, so I’d rate it head and shoulders above the risk of a potential Corbyn led administration.
Which would be dire.
They suffer from a totally rubbish PR machine. They should be promoting the good things an rebutting the bad but all we get is silence. The borrowing figures were good, where was Hammond? The problem they have is that most of the negative news seems to be emanating from the Treasury. Even Carney is doing a better job at promoting UK plc.
It is really hard to believe that this man has already fought a GE where he was a serious candidate for PM. I mean, why now?
Best guess: Labour MPs want him gone before conference so they can elect a new leader under the old (pre Democracy Roadshow) rulebook.
But they wanted rid of him before. Had a contest about it and everything. Motions of no confidence etc. Got hammered by the membership. But we weren't getting this.
For what it's worth, the Evening Standard today has a huge front-page piece on it (bigging up an article by Austin) called "Shameless", with an editorial backing the criticism, so we're certainly testing his enduring support in London.
My personal view (which I'm not repeatedly posting here as life is too short to argue about it every day) is that I've not seen anything new, nor has it made me reconsider my support for him. Sure, as a backbencher he sat in on meetings also attended by dodgy types, what else is new? In general, as a backbencher if asked to speak I'd speak, without studying the CVs of every other speaker.
I don't always support Momentum (I've voted for Ann Black) but doubt if I'm especially untypical of the membership. I'm corresponding privately with one of the main critics - neither of us is making much progress in convincing each other, though it's all very friendly.
His views are, as you say, well known, and the Tory attempt at a reprise of project fear about his past associations got them precisely nowhere last year.
More concerning is his inability to close down a damaging news story before it gathers enough momentum (sic) to be cascading down the hillside towards him. It is now quite obvious that his internal critics smell blood.
Do they? It is certainly true that his and his team's reactions have helped spark and sustain this story when it recurs every few months, but he's in no danger, and most of the time his MPS are silent. He won, the members back him and the MPS know that.
More likely than his critics smelling blood Is that this is how they vent - they get to demonstrate how they oppose him, on this, then will go back to backing him as PM, then it will come up again. I don't doubt their sincerity but I think it's just how they show they are not doing nothing.
What is new about Corbyn's empathy with a remarkable number and range of vile people is that he continues with it, even when it's damaging in a purely party-political sense, and to the point where it looks more and more like deliberate provocation, not some accidental failure to check the CVs of fellow speakers at events.
When even John McDonnell, of all people, is embarrassed by it, you really do have to wonder what is going through Corbyn's head.
It is really hard to believe that this man has already fought a GE where he was a serious candidate for PM. I mean, why now?
Best guess: Labour MPs want him gone before conference so they can elect a new leader under the old (pre Democracy Roadshow) rulebook.
But they wanted rid of him before. Had a contest about it and everything. Motions of no confidence etc. Got hammered by the membership. But we weren't getting this.
For what it's worth, the Evening Standard today has a huge front-page piece on it (bigging up an article by Austin) called "Shameless", with an editorial backing the criticism, so we're certainly testing his enduring support in London.
My personal view (which I'm not repeatedly posting here as life is too short to argue about it every day) is that I've not seen anything new, nor has it made me reconsider my support for him. Sure, as a backbencher he sat in on meetings also attended by dodgy types, what else is new? In general, as a backbencher if asked to speak I'd speak, without studying the CVs of every other speaker.
I don't always support Momentum (I've voted for Ann Black) but doubt if I'm especially untypical of the membership. I'm corresponding privately with one of the main critics - neither of us is making much progress in convincing each other, though it's all very friendly.
In this area, what would cause you to reconsider your support for him? How much further would he and his supporters need to debase the party before you felt you'd had enough?
It is really hard to believe that this man has already fought a GE where he was a serious candidate for PM. I mean, why now?
Best guess: Labour MPs want him gone before conference so they can elect a new leader under the old (pre Democracy Roadshow) rulebook.
But they wanted rid of him before. Had a contest about it and everything. Motions of no confidence etc. Got hammered by the membership. But we weren't getting this.
For what it's worth, the Evening Standard today has a huge front-page piece on it (bigging up an article by Austin) called "Shameless", with an editorial backing the criticism, so we're certainly testing his enduring support in London.
My personal view (which I'm not repeatedly posting here as life is too short to argue about it every day) is that I've not seen anything new, nor has it made me reconsider my support for him. Sure, as a backbencher he sat in on meetings also attended by dodgy types, what else is new? In general, as a backbencher if asked to speak I'd speak, without studying the CVs of every other speaker.
I don't always support Momentum (I've voted for Ann Black) but doubt if I'm especially untypical of the membership. I'm corresponding privately with one of the main critics - neither of us is making much progress in convincing each other, though it's all very friendly.
His views are, as you say, well known, and the Tory attempt at a reprise of project fear about his past associations got them precisely nowhere last year.
More concerning is his inability to close down a damaging news story before it gathers enough momentum (sic) to be cascading down the hillside towards him. It is now quite obvious that his internal critics smell blood.
I think what has changed is that beforehand the offensive statements were being said by various unimportant Labour people so could be handwaved away as unfortunate but, hey, every party attracts some loons etc. The latest events point the finger at Corbyn himself and is making some realise that he is the source of the problem and not part of any solution.
But, like you, I don't expect he will shift because most moderate Labour MPs couldn't take the skin off a rice pudding. He is only at risk if McDonnell and co feel that he needs to go to save the larger Far Left project.
It is really hard to believe that this man has already fought a GE where he was a serious candidate for PM. I mean, why now?
Best guess: Labour MPs want him gone before conference so they can elect a new leader under the old (pre Democracy Roadshow) rulebook.
But they wanted rid of him before. Had a contest about it and everything. Motions of no confidence etc. Got hammered by the membership. But we weren't getting this.
For what it's worth, the Evening Standard today has a huge front-page piece on it (bigging up an article by Austin) called "Shameless", with an editorial backing the criticism, so we're certainly testing his enduring support in London.
My personal view (which I'm not repeatedly posting here as life is too short to argue about it every day) is that I've not seen anything new, nor has it made me reconsider my support for him. Sure, as a backbencher he sat in on meetings also attended by dodgy types, what else is new? In general, as a backbencher if asked to speak I'd speak, without studying the CVs of every other speaker.
I don't always support Momentum (I've voted for Ann Black) but doubt if I'm especially untypical of the membership. I'm corresponding privately with one of the main critics - neither of us is making much progress in convincing each other, though it's all very friendly.
Seriously, Nick: the leader of your party organises a conference (not just sits in on) at which one of the speakers is a neo-Nazi supporter of the Klu Klux Klan and you just shrug it off as of no importance? Seriously? And you claim to be an anti-racist party?
Jeremy Corbyn said that he had no prior knowledge that Thring was going to speak.
'James Thring was, hitherto, unknown to me,' he said. 'From what I’ve recently discovered, he is not someone I would choose to have on a platform. Indeed, he was not selected to be on this particular platform either.
'The course of events were that the invited speaker was very late (45-60 mins). Whilst we were busy looking for him in the parliamentary estate, thinking perhaps he’d come in a different entrance and needed to be escorted to the appropriate room, an uninvited number of people chose to speak to those assembled there. Unfortunately one of those seems to have been James Thring.'
It is really hard to believe that this man has already fought a GE where he was a serious candidate for PM. I mean, why now?
Best guess: Labour MPs want him gone before conference so they can elect a new leader under the old (pre Democracy Roadshow) rulebook.
But they wanted rid of him before. Had a contest about it and everything. Motions of no confidence etc. Got hammered by the membership. But we weren't getting this.
For what it's worth, the Evening Standard today has a huge front-page piece on it (bigging up an article by Austin) called "Shameless", with an editorial backing the criticism, so we're certainly testing his enduring support in London.
My personal view (which I'm not repeatedly posting here as life is too short to argue about it every day) is that I've not seen anything new, nor has it made me reconsider my support for him. Sure, as a backbencher he sat in on meetings also attended by dodgy types, what else is new? In general, as a backbencher if asked to speak I'd speak, without studying the CVs of every other speaker.
I don't always support Momentum (I've voted for Ann Black) but doubt if I'm especially untypical of the membership. I'm corresponding privately with one of the main critics - neither of us is making much progress in convincing each other, though it's all very friendly.
His views are, as you say, well known, and the Tory attempt at a reprise of project fear about his past associations got them precisely nowhere last year.
More concerning is his inability to close down a damaging news story before it gathers enough momentum (sic) to be cascading down the hillside towards him. It is now quite obvious that his internal critics smell blood.
His internal critics have smelt blood before (2016). They need to learn to be able to carry out a successful despatching of him as leader, and that still seems to be something which they are unable to do.
It is almost impossible to get rid of a Labour leader unless they die, are convicted of a crime or resign. There is only the doubtful mechanism of a leadership election and they are difficult to organise.
We saw that with Brown, we are seeing it with Corbyn.
It does make me even more unimpressed with Blair's cowardice in not firing Brown in 2001, as no way would Brown have been able to topple him. Even in 2007 Blair could have survived if he had wanted to.
It seems the Lizard People, our overlords, are finally tiring of Jeremy Corbyn thwarting their attempts to stop Brexit. He must be terminated......
This reminds me of the Corbyn and the IRA headlines we used to get pre June 2017. The Times has always published negative stories about Corbyn, this hasn’t suddenly come about as result of some finding out Corbyn won’t Stop Brexit. On a general level, barrages of negative Corbyn stories was the norm between 2015 and the first half of 2017. At this stage Corbyn’s terrible last statements and associations are sadly unsurprising. What is unique is that these stories have become so unsurprising they no longer make headline news when in the fairly recent past they would have. As Acorn_Antiques notes, tonight’s headlines are all about non-Corbyn things.
It was quite prominent on the Six O'Clock News. It came after Zimbabwe (I think), but before the drought and Tommy Robinson.
I didn’t catch the six O’clock news, so was going off the BBC News site. I presume the story was about Corbyn attending *that* event in 2010, as I can’t see anything on the BBC front page which acknowledges the latest Times’ articles.
Goodness! Guardian TV is actually reporting the 2010 event. At length.
But then again, Jon Snow does have the night off tonight.
On topic, I consider this Government to be administratively pretty competent and fiscally responsible but politically incompetent. It is also clearly naive at negotiating. Only some of that is due to there being a hung parliament, which makes the need for all those skills all the greater.
On the broader question, the Government is pursuing a logical strategy for implementing a practical Brexit that is both in the national interest and consistent with the referendum mandate.
After that has been concluded I expect it to take a balanced approach to public spending and be moderate/responsible in all other areas of domestic policy, and in international relations, so I’d rate it head and shoulders above the risk of a potential Corbyn led administration.
Which would be dire.
They suffer from a totally rubbish PR machine. They should be promoting the good things an rebutting the bad but all we get is silence. The borrowing figures were good, where was Hammond? The problem they have is that most of the negative news seems to be emanating from the Treasury. Even Carney is doing a better job at promoting UK plc.
Yes. Politically incompetent.
Actually, I think it’s even simpler than that: May doesn’t see the need to communicate with anyone and, if she doesn’t do it, she doesn’t see why anyone else who works for her should either.
The ones who do are simply taking no notice of her, including Javid, Hammond, Truss and Gove - all for slightly different reasons and in an uncoordinated manner.
It is really hard to believe that this man has already fought a GE where he was a serious candidate for PM. I mean, why now?
Best guess: Labour MPs want him gone before conference so they can elect a new leader under the old (pre Democracy Roadshow) rulebook.
But they wanted rid of him before. Had a contest about it and everything. Motions of no confidence etc. Got hammered by the membership. But we weren't getting this.
For what it's worth, the Evening Standard today has a huge front-page piece on it (bigging up an article by Austin) called "Shameless", with an editorial backing the criticism, so we're certainly testing his enduring support in London.
My personal view (which I'm not repeatedly posting here as life is too short to argue about it every day) is that I've not seen anything new, nor has it made me reconsider my support for him. Sure, as a backbencher he sat in on meetings also attended by dodgy types, what else is new? In general, as a backbencher if asked to speak I'd speak, without studying the CVs of every other speaker.
I don't always support Momentum (I've voted for Ann Black) but doubt if I'm especially untypical of the membership. I'm corresponding privately with one of the main critics - neither of us is making much progress in convincing each other, though it's all very friendly.
His views are, as you say, well known, and the Tory attempt at a reprise of project fear about his past associations got them precisely nowhere last year.
More concerning is his inability to close down a damaging news story before it gathers enough momentum (sic) to be cascading down the hillside towards him. It is now quite obvious that his internal critics smell blood.
I think what has changed is that beforehand the offensive statements were being said by various unimportant Labour people so could be handwaved away as unfortunate but, hey, every party attracts some loons etc. The latest events point the finger at Corbyn himself and is making some realise that he is the source of the problem and not part of any solution.
But, like you, I don't expect he will shift because most moderate Labour MPs couldn't take the skin off a rice pudding. He is only at risk if McDonnell and co feel that he needs to go to save the larger Far Left project.
As early as 2015 the finger was being pointed at Corbyn. It made no difference to his support in Labour.
It may however damage his image in the country at large. It depends on how long it rumbles on.
Very sad how people like Josiasjessop support the brutal murder and oppression of the palestinian people by the settler state of Israel.
Israel is now an apartheid state that now treat's its own Arab citizens as 2nd class citizens.
I spent a summer there in the early 1980s and the country's Arab residents were clearly second class citizens way back then. I haven't been back so can't offer any direct experience, but everything suggests things are now much worse.
It seems the Lizard People, our overlords, are finally tiring of Jeremy Corbyn thwarting their attempts to stop Brexit. He must be terminated......
He'd be wise to avoid the Salisbury area for a while. Accidents do happen, you know.
But seriously, there does seem to be an awful lot of new footage emerging all of a sudden. My tin-foil beret is quivering. Or maybe the media had all this stuff but didn't consider it newsworthy enough at until this all blew up.
Certain sections of the media probably wanted to leave a decent interval between their exciting, new crusade against anti semitism and their pillorying of Ralph Miliband as a (dead) rootless cosmopolitan who hated Britain.
It is really hard to believe that this man has already fought a GE where he was a serious candidate for PM. I mean, why now?
Best guess: Labour MPs want him gone before conference so they can elect a new leader under the old (pre Democracy Roadshow) rulebook.
But they wanted rid of him before. Had a contest about it and everything. Motions of no confidence etc. Got hammered by the membership. But we weren't getting this.
For what it's worth, the Evening Standard today has a huge front-page piece on it (bigging up an article by Austin) called "Shameless", with an editorial backing the criticism, so we're certainly testing his enduring support in London.
snip
I don't always support Momentum (I've voted for Ann Black) but doubt if I'm especially untypical of the membership. I'm corresponding privately with one of the main critics - neither of us is making much progress in convincing each other, though it's all very friendly.
His views are, as you say, well known, and the Tory attempt at a reprise of project fear about his past associations got them precisely nowhere last year.
More concerning is his inability to close down a damaging news story before it gathers enough momentum (sic) to be cascading down the hillside towards him. It is now quite obvious that his internal critics smell blood.
His internal critics have smelt blood before (2016). They need to learn to be able to carry out a successful despatching of him as leader, and that still seems to be something which they are unable to do.
It is almost impossible to get rid of a Labour leader unless they die, are convicted of a crime or resign. There is only the doubtful mechanism of a leadership election and they are difficult to organise.
We saw that with Brown, we are seeing it with Corbyn.
It does make me even more unimpressed with Blair's cowardice in not firing Brown in 2001, as no way would Brown have been able to topple him. Even in 2007 Blair could have survived if he had wanted to.
Agree with you on Blair and Brown, I’ve always wondered why he didn’t just sack Brown then. Presumably he felt guilty about how things panned our, as apparently pre 1994 (from what I’ve read/heard) it was Brown who was expected to be leader after John Smith.
It is really hard to believe that this man has already fought a GE where he was a serious candidate for PM. I mean, why now?
Best guess: Labour MPs want him gone before conference so they can elect a new leader under the old (pre Democracy Roadshow) rulebook.
But they wanted rid of him before. Had a contest about it and everything. Motions of no confidence etc. Got hammered by the membership. But we weren't getting this.
For what it's worth, the Evening Standard today has a huge front-page piece on it (bigging up an article by Austin) called "Shameless", with an editorial backing the criticism, so we're certainly testing his enduring support in London.
My personal view (which I'm not repeatedly posting here as life is too short to argue about it every day) is that I've not seen anything new, nor has it made me reconsider my support for him. Sure, as a backbencher he sat in on meetings also attended by dodgy types, what else is new? In general, as a backbencher if asked to speak I'd speak, without studying the CVs of every other speaker.
I don't always support Momentum (I've voted for Ann Black) but doubt if I'm especially untypical of the membership. I'm corresponding privately with one of the main critics - neither of us is making much progress in convincing each other, though it's all very friendly.
In this area, what would cause you to reconsider your support for him? How much further would he and his supporters need to debase the party before you felt you'd had enough?
BREAKING> Momentum have formally withdrawn their support for Pete Willsman's candidacy for the NEC elections. Kali Ma members outraged over on facFaceb, indignantly denying There Is No Antisemitism
It is really hard to believe that this man has already fought a GE where he was a serious candidate for PM. I mean, why now?
Best guess: Labour MPs want him gone before conference so they can elect a new leader under the old (pre Democracy Roadshow) rulebook.
But they wanted rid of him before. Had a contest about it and everything. Motions of no confidence etc. Got hammered by the membership. But we weren't getting this.
For what it's worth, the Evening Standard today has a huge front-page piece on it (bigging up an article by Austin) called "Shameless", with an editorial backing the criticism, so we're certainly testing his enduring support in London.
My personal view (which I'm not repeatedly posting here as life is too short to argue about it every day) is that I've not seen anything new, nor has it made me reconsider my support for him. Sure, as a backbencher he sat in on meetings also attended by dodgy types, what else is new? In general, as a backbencher if asked to speak I'd speak, without studying the CVs of every other speaker.
I don't always support Momentum (I've voted for Ann Black) but doubt if I'm especially untypical of the membership. I'm corresponding privately with one of the main critics - neither of us is making much progress in convincing each other, though it's all very friendly.
Seriously, Nick: the leader of your party organises a conference (not just sits in on) at which one of the speakers is a neo-Nazi supporter of the Klu Klux Klan and you just shrug it off as of no importance? Seriously? And you claim to be an anti-racist party?
Jeremy Corbyn said that he had no prior knowledge that Thring was going to speak.
'James Thring was, hitherto, unknown to me,' he said. 'From what I’ve recently discovered, he is not someone I would choose to have on a platform. Indeed, he was not selected to be on this particular platform either.
'The course of events were that the invited speaker was very late (45-60 mins). Whilst we were busy looking for him in the parliamentary estate, thinking perhaps he’d come in a different entrance and needed to be escorted to the appropriate room, an uninvited number of people chose to speak to those assembled there. Unfortunately one of those seems to have been James Thring.'
It seems the Lizard People, our overlords, are finally tiring of Jeremy Corbyn thwarting their attempts to stop Brexit. He must be terminated......
This reminds me of the Corbyn and the IRA headlines we used to get pre June 2017. The Times has always published negative stories about Corbyn, this hasn’t suddenly come about as result of some finding out Corbyn won’t Stop Brexit. On a general level, barrages of negative Corbyn stories was the norm between 2015 and the first half of 2017. At this stage Corbyn’s terrible last statements and associations are sadly unsurprising. What is unique is that these stories have become so unsurprising they no longer make headline news when in the fairly recent past they would have. As Acorn_Antiques notes, tonight’s headlines are all about non-Corbyn things.
It was quite prominent on the Six O'Clock News. It came after Zimbabwe (I think), but before the drought and Tommy Robinson.
I didn’t catch the six O’clock news, so was going off the BBC News site. I presume the story was about Corbyn attending *that* event in 2010, as I can’t see anything on the BBC front page which acknowledges the latest Times’ articles.
Goodness! Guardian TV is actually reporting the 2010 event. At length.
But then again, Jon Snow does have the night off tonight.
Tbf, I’ve seen them dedicate whole segements to the antisemitism row in the past, albeit it hasn’t been the leading story.
BREAKING> Momentum have formally withdrawn their support for Pete Willsman's candidacy for the NEC elections. Kali Ma members outraged over on facFaceb, indignantly denying There Is No Antisemitism
LOL, I saw one of them on twitter attacking Owen Jones for agreeing with John McDonnell on the anti semitism row today. Some of his supporters are so far gone, it’s unreal. Its like they are trying to be the hard left’s answer to Trump supporters.
It is almost impossible to get rid of a Labour leader unless they die, are convicted of a crime or resign. There is only the doubtful mechanism of a leadership election and they are difficult to organise.
We saw that with Brown, we are seeing it with Corbyn.
It does make me even more unimpressed with Blair's cowardice in not firing Brown in 2001, as no way would Brown have been able to topple him. Even in 2007 Blair could have survived if he had wanted to.
Agree with you on Blair and Brown, I’ve always wondered why he didn’t just sack Brown then. Presumably he felt guilty about how things panned our, as apparently pre 1994 (from what I’ve read/heard) it was Brown who was expected to be leader after John Smith.
That may well have been part of it. Of course, it is also reasonable to wonder if Brown's allies - Nick Brown, Alistair Darling, etc. -would have walked as well, although bluntly with the the exception of Darling I don't think they'd have been much loss.
But I sometimes wonder if he was simply unwilling to have an argument. Which, in fairness to Theresa May, has not been a problem even though infuriatingly she uses it to get rid of Ministers she should be keeping.
BREAKING> Momentum have formally withdrawn their support for Pete Willsman's candidacy for the NEC elections. Kali Ma members outraged over on facFaceb, indignantly denying There Is No Antisemitism
LOL, I saw one of them on twitter attacking Owen Jones for agreeing with John McDonnell on the anti semitism row today. Some of his supporters are so far gone, it’s unreal. Its like they are trying to be the hard left’s answer to Trump supporters.
I feel like I understand almost all of the political fanatic's defence of their chosen subject (whichever side there on) except for that, which is seen in this case, of people who take up positions defending Corbyn which he himself does not even take. It's not as though even a fanatic will believe everything the person they are fanatical about, but the 'deny there's a problem at all' brigade are explicitly opposed to Corbyn's own position.
Those Southern Water revervoirs are in the South East (in East Sussex and Kent) not the South West. Though it probably all looks the same you Northerners!
Comments
I think they are kidding themselves, but who knows?
The Swedish Crown Jewels have been stolen but when I just checked the front pages of a number of Swedish newspapers they didn't seem to be reporting it. Maybe it isn't a big deal as far as they're concerned.
Well, I could easily do those jobs. But my price is above rubies (from the Old Testament, dear Labour recruiting officer, to make it clear that I do not wish to be chosen).
Surely the Legal job should be for Shami.
Concludes "the man's an idiot".
Which means that Jeremy ought to be very wary of riding his pushbike past any grassy knolls. Or schoolbook depositories.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-45029755
I assume that the King of Sweden still has a crown, which is presumably kept somewhere a bit more secure, although I believe that we're the last European monarchy that still holds coronations. The remainder have simpler investitures.
Even worse, Corbyn does not know how to spell "principle". Honestly, I mean we know he doesn't have any (or none worth a bucket of piss) but not being able to spell...... it's the last straw, it really is.
Recall don't do it, when you want to come, when you want to come.
https://twitter.com/WhichUK/status/1024696116963618816
With apologies to Frankie Goes To Hollywood
...
Zimbabwe
Drought
Tommy Robinson
Missing midwife
Child model with one leg
This will all blow over and hardly anyone will either notice or care.
Discuss.
There's going to be a mini baby-boom for thirtysomething married couples at the end of 2021, isn't there?
"I concur."
For some unknown reason Betfair still has us odds-on to win this.
https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm453
On the broader question, the Government is pursuing a logical strategy for implementing a practical Brexit that is both in the national interest and consistent with the referendum mandate.
After that has been concluded I expect it to take a balanced approach to public spending and be moderate/responsible in all other areas of domestic policy, and in international relations, so I’d rate it head and shoulders above the risk of a potential Corbyn led administration.
Which would be dire.
Maybe that helped him to get elected. The antisemites finally found their voice.
The Times has always published negative stories about Corbyn, this hasn’t suddenly come about as result of some finding out Corbyn won’t Stop Brexit. On a general level, barrages of negative Corbyn stories was the norm between 2015 and the first half of 2017.
At this stage Corbyn’s terrible last statements and associations are sadly unsurprising. What is unique is that these stories have become so unsurprising they no longer make headline news when in the fairly recent past they would have.
As Acorn_Antiques notes, tonight’s headlines are all about non-Corbyn things.
If Hitler was about to address a Nuremberg rally, I'm sure the content of his speech would come as a complete surprise to you too...
I mean, if you shared a platform with Nigel Farage, for example, you'd have a reasonable expectation that he'd say something rude about the EU in your presence at some point.
My personal view (which I'm not repeatedly posting here as life is too short to argue about it every day) is that I've not seen anything new, nor has it made me reconsider my support for him. Sure, as a backbencher he sat in on meetings also attended by dodgy types, what else is new? In general, as a backbencher if asked to speak I'd speak, without studying the CVs of every other speaker.
I don't always support Momentum (I've voted for Ann Black) but doubt if I'm especially untypical of the membership. I'm corresponding privately with one of the main critics - neither of us is making much progress in convincing each other, though it's all very friendly.
I think what changed everything is the IHRA row, because it put Labour on the spot in a confrontation where they were claiming this was all normal where everyone knew it was not and the stories about Corbyn became big news because a) the showed why he is the problem himself, not some bad apples, and b) because the temperature has got so high on it, each revelation stands a fair chance of creating news - someone demanding a resignation or condemning the party or leader himself in stronger terms than people have previously.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/01/zanu-pf-wins-majority-of-seats-in-zimbabwe-parliament-elections
https://www.southernwater.co.uk/reservoir-levels
https://www.unitedutilities.com/help-and-support/your-water-supply/reservoir-levels/
More concerning is his inability to close down a damaging news story before it gathers enough momentum (sic) to be cascading down the hillside towards him. It is now quite obvious that his internal critics smell blood.
CDU/CSU 30%
SPD 17%
AfD 16%
Grüne 13%
Linke 10%
FDP 10%
Sonstige 4%
https://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
It’s a bit different to waving away his behaviour with Sinn Fein in the 80s, although it might help some people start to join some dots together on that too.
Damn.. I was used to people having a particular shade of color in their avatar.
The borrowing figures were good, where was Hammond?
The problem they have is that most of the negative news seems to be emanating from the Treasury. Even Carney is doing a better job at promoting UK plc.
More likely than his critics smelling blood Is that this is how they vent - they get to demonstrate how they oppose him, on this, then will go back to backing him as PM, then it will come up again. I don't doubt their sincerity but I think it's just how they show they are not doing nothing.
When even John McDonnell, of all people, is embarrassed by it, you really do have to wonder what is going through Corbyn's head.
But, like you, I don't expect he will shift because most moderate Labour MPs couldn't take the skin off a rice pudding. He is only at risk if McDonnell and co feel that he needs to go to save the larger Far Left project.
'James Thring was, hitherto, unknown to me,' he said. 'From what I’ve recently discovered, he is not someone I would choose to have on a platform. Indeed, he was not selected to be on this particular platform either.
'The course of events were that the invited speaker was very late (45-60 mins). Whilst we were busy looking for him in the parliamentary estate, thinking perhaps he’d come in a different entrance and needed to be escorted to the appropriate room, an uninvited number of people chose to speak to those assembled there. Unfortunately one of those seems to have been James Thring.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3191508/Jeremy-Corbyn-hosts-event-anti-Semitic-conspiracy-theorist-gives-speech.html
I'd give him a bit of leeway on this nutter. He wasn't booked to speak or anything!
Israel is now an apartheid state that now treat's its own Arab citizens as 2nd class citizens.
We saw that with Brown, we are seeing it with Corbyn.
It does make me even more unimpressed with Blair's cowardice in not firing Brown in 2001, as no way would Brown have been able to topple him. Even in 2007 Blair could have survived if he had wanted to.
But then again, Jon Snow does have the night off tonight.
Actually, I think it’s even simpler than that: May doesn’t see the need to communicate with anyone and, if she doesn’t do it, she doesn’t see why anyone else who works for her should either.
The ones who do are simply taking no notice of her, including Javid, Hammond, Truss and Gove - all for slightly different reasons and in an uncoordinated manner.
It may however damage his image in the country at large. It depends on how long it rumbles on.
Heading for a split.
Risible excuse making.
But I sometimes wonder if he was simply unwilling to have an argument. Which, in fairness to Theresa May, has not been a problem even though infuriatingly she uses it to get rid of Ministers she should be keeping.