You work to improve democracy within the EU, which is a long way from perfect. As is our own democracy with our broken unfair voting system and an unelected second chamber.
The problem with that position is we had two decades or more of successive British Governments preaching about "reforming the EU". One example was or is the European Parliament - it remains a weak and powerless entity next to the Commission which still rules the roost as far as I can see through appointees from national Governments.
That suits the national Governments just fine but it doesn't suit genuine democracy and reform with an EU Parliament that is more than a talking shop.
Conversely, the years from 1979-2010 saw a huge centralisation of Government in the UK with Westminster and Whitehall taking huge swathes of power and responsibility from accountable and democratically elected Councils at all levels.
The Coalition were happy to throw some bones (Public Health, Coroners Offices) back to local Councils but without adequate resources to make them work. The centralisation is now financial - local Councils have responsibility but no means of carrying out these functions.
Instead of wibbling on about Regional or an English Parliament we need a wholly independent funding agency who will allocate the funds required to all areas of Government both national and local and that means giving Councils real power to raise significant amounts of local revenue via a Local Income Tax, Local Land Value Tax or whatever means works.
Didn't Osborne start that already by making business rates etc a local tax?
Ultimately the government should be seeking to abolish grants to local authorities and leave it up to the authorities to develop and encourage growth in their own area that leads to local taxes being raised locally.
Christ no, that's the last thing I want
That is a brilliant plan if you live in the South East and your typical house is council tax band D/E or above.
It's a utterly stupid idea if you live up North and the typical house is council tax band A.
It's why councils like Northampton are already bankrupt without the grants their tax base isn't enough to keep things going..
Article 50 contemplates that Member States will leave. Exercising one's right to do so is not blackmail. Never make a promise unless you're prepared to honour it.
If EU membership is meant to be forever, then the Lisbon Treaty should have said so.
Nowhere does Lisbon say that the remaining member states have an obligation to make leaving an inconsequential act. The possibility of a No Deal exit is even explicitly provided for in the treaty.
Perhaps the promise that shouldn't have been made is to say that no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal...
Article 50 contemplates that Member States will leave. Exercising one's right to do so is not blackmail. Never make a promise unless you're prepared to honour it.
If EU membership is meant to be forever, then the Lisbon Treaty should have said so.
Nowhere does Lisbon say that the remaining member states have an obligation to make leaving an inconsequential act. The possibility of a No Deal exit is even explicitly provided for in the treaty.
Perhaps the promise that shouldn't have been made is to say that no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal...
Sure, but exercising A.50 is not a form of blackmail.
It would be blackmail for a member State to threaten to exercise it, in order to extract concessions from other EU states.
Article 50 contemplates that Member States will leave. Exercising one's right to do so is not blackmail. Never make a promise unless you're prepared to honour it.
If EU membership is meant to be forever, then the Lisbon Treaty should have said so.
Nowhere does Lisbon say that the remaining member states have an obligation to make leaving an inconsequential act. The possibility of a No Deal exit is even explicitly provided for in the treaty.
Perhaps the promise that shouldn't have been made is to say that no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal...
No deal being better than a bad deal is a truism. As you said its explicitly provided for too so our Parliamentarians who ratified Lisbon agreed to that in 2007.
Article 50 contemplates that Member States will leave. Exercising one's right to do so is not blackmail. Never make a promise unless you're prepared to honour it.
If EU membership is meant to be forever, then the Lisbon Treaty should have said so.
Nowhere does Lisbon say that the remaining member states have an obligation to make leaving an inconsequential act. The possibility of a No Deal exit is even explicitly provided for in the treaty.
Perhaps the promise that shouldn't have been made is to say that no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal...
Sure, but exercising A.50 is not a form of blackmail.
I wasn't talking specifically about invoking Article 50 but about our whole approach over the last few years. Saying, "Give us what we want or we'll leave" isn't a credible negotiating position, and then having decided to leave, saying, "Now, give us what we want or we'll crush you" is even worse.
Is the perfect example of not being the problem as claimed.
If you believe the Brexiteers, people voted to stop Polish workers moving in next door, so that more Pakistani Muslims can do so instead.
I am not convinced that voters agree with that analysis, or that leaving the EU will salve the complaints of those who voted to stop "immigration".
And of course the young people from the UK who lose out as a result, were outvoted by pensioners who didn't appreciate the value. The ones who do and already live in Spain are also screwed.
Article 50 contemplates that Member States will leave. Exercising one's right to do so is not blackmail. Never make a promise unless you're prepared to honour it.
If EU membership is meant to be forever, then the Lisbon Treaty should have said so.
Nowhere does Lisbon say that the remaining member states have an obligation to make leaving an inconsequential act. The possibility of a No Deal exit is even explicitly provided for in the treaty.
Perhaps the promise that shouldn't have been made is to say that no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal...
No deal being better than a bad deal is a truism. As you said its explicitly provided for too so our Parliamentarians who ratified Lisbon agreed to that in 2007.
It's only a truism where no deal implies the status quo.
Article 50 contemplates that Member States will leave. Exercising one's right to do so is not blackmail. Never make a promise unless you're prepared to honour it.
If EU membership is meant to be forever, then the Lisbon Treaty should have said so.
Nowhere does Lisbon say that the remaining member states have an obligation to make leaving an inconsequential act. The possibility of a No Deal exit is even explicitly provided for in the treaty.
Perhaps the promise that shouldn't have been made is to say that no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal...
No deal being better than a bad deal is a truism. As you said its explicitly provided for too so our Parliamentarians who ratified Lisbon agreed to that in 2007.
It's only a truism where no deal implies the status quo.
No it isn't. No deal means going onto standard global terms. A good deal is one that will be better than that, a bad deal would be one that is worse.
I didn't have you down as such a socialist Scott. Timidly cowering under the umbrella of big government micromanaging every aspect of our lives.
I am not. Neither am I an anarchist like you.
I believe in the rule of law, which facilitates our lives.
I haven't yet come across a cogent argument from any Brexiteer why the UK being the only country in the World without trade agreements (which is the position they are promoting) is such a good idea
Is the perfect example of not being the problem as claimed.
If you believe the Brexiteers, people voted to stop Polish workers moving in next door, so that more Pakistani Muslims can do so instead.
I am not convinced that voters agree with that analysis, or that leaving the EU will salve the complaints of those who voted to stop "immigration".
And of course the young people from the UK who lose out as a result, were outvoted by pensioners who didn't appreciate the value. The ones who do and already live in Spain are also screwed.
No if you believe the Brexiteers then they voted to make the politicians responsible for our migration and remove the lack of control. What we do with it then is our choice at our elections. We can easily increase migration as Australia and Canada whose model the Brexiteers advocate have higher migration.
The cap at 100k was not a Brexiteer idea it was the brainchild of Remainers.
Is the perfect example of not being the problem as claimed.
If you believe the Brexiteers, people voted to stop Polish workers moving in next door, so that more Pakistani Muslims can do so instead.
I am not convinced that voters agree with that analysis, or that leaving the EU will salve the complaints of those who voted to stop "immigration".
And of course the young people from the UK who lose out as a result, were outvoted by pensioners who didn't appreciate the value. The ones who do and already live in Spain are also screwed.
Concern about free movement, immigration and its impact on the country was clearly the main driver behind Brexit: Studies have shown that people who felt anxious about immigration were not only more likely to play down the risk of Brexit; they were more likely to turn out and vote — and to choose to Leave.
I haven't yet come across a cogent argument from any Brexiteer why the UK being the only country in the World without trade agreements (which is the position they are promoting) is such a good idea
Evidence that the Uk will never sign any further trade deals ?
I didn't have you down as such a socialist Scott. Timidly cowering under the umbrella of big government micromanaging every aspect of our lives.
I am not. Neither am I an anarchist like you.
I believe in the rule of law, which facilitates our lives.
I haven't yet come across a cogent argument from any Brexiteer why the UK being the only country in the World without trade agreements (which is the position they are promoting) is such a good idea
No Brexiteer is promoting that. You're making straw men.
The Brexiteers want the UK to sign good deals just as other nations have done. What is wrong with that?
Concern about free movement, immigration and its impact on the country was clearly the main driver behind Brexit: Studies have shown that people who felt anxious about immigration were not only more likely to play down the risk of Brexit; they were more likely to turn out and vote — and to choose to Leave.
Why are right wingers anti-science (and anti-fact)? I remember the 'loony left', do we now have to think more about the 'loony right'?
Western civilisation and enlightenment values such as truth, reason, evidence are collapsing in itself for no good reason, other than there are vandals who want to bring it all down.
Evidence that the UK will never sign any further trade deals ?
Not the issue.
Without any on the day we leave, we are fucked.
Nobody wants us not to have any. Even if we were to be in a position (extremely unlikely) of.not having any then we will be able to still sign new ones.
I didn't have you down as such a socialist Scott. Timidly cowering under the umbrella of big government micromanaging every aspect of our lives.
I am not. Neither am I an anarchist like you.
I believe in the rule of law, which facilitates our lives.
I haven't yet come across a cogent argument from any Brexiteer why the UK being the only country in the World without trade agreements (which is the position they are promoting) is such a good idea
The strategy is not to have no trade deals, it is to grandfather the current EU trade deals on day 1 and then to renegotiate over a period of time. This process is ongoing and has been reported on because some countries in the world want to try and negotiate better deals than current from day 1. Which is a proof point that having a trade deal with the UK is important to a lot of countries in the world. Global Britain.
Could have saved themselves some money on that one: "...and here's one I made earlier.... "
It is really remarkable though that a month which has seen May's brexit strategy (such as it was) collapse into chaos and Corbyn has had an MP shouting in his face that he is a f****** racist only to have the charges dropped because she has a scary lawyer should produce...nothing. Not even a sigh of disgust and a temptation to the LD alternative. It's almost as if the great British public is finding better things to do with its time than pay attention.
The Brits are unusually sensible people, on the whole.
Could have saved themselves some money on that one: "...and here's one I made earlier.... "
It is really remarkable though that a month which has seen May's brexit strategy (such as it was) collapse into chaos and Corbyn has had an MP shouting in his face that he is a f****** racist only to have the charges dropped because she has a scary lawyer should produce...nothing. Not even a sigh of disgust and a temptation to the LD alternative. It's almost as if the great British public is finding better things to do with its time than pay attention.
The Brits are unusually sensible people, on the whole.
They are very sensible, because nobody is paying a blind bit of attention to politics. Westminster is closed, the sun is out, the kids are off school, they have to be entertained....
Could have saved themselves some money on that one: "...and here's one I made earlier.... "
It is really remarkable though that a month which has seen May's brexit strategy (such as it was) collapse into chaos and Corbyn has had an MP shouting in his face that he is a f****** racist only to have the charges dropped because she has a scary lawyer should produce...nothing. Not even a sigh of disgust and a temptation to the LD alternative. It's almost as if the great British public is finding better things to do with its time than pay attention.
The Brits are unusually sensible people, on the whole.
I suspect “They’re all as bad as each other” is about the state of play.
Two dogs that aren’t barking - Remania’s LDs and Hard Brexit’s UKIP. As you say - sensible people.
Could have saved themselves some money on that one: "...and here's one I made earlier.... "
It is really remarkable though that a month which has seen May's brexit strategy (such as it was) collapse into chaos and Corbyn has had an MP shouting in his face that he is a f****** racist only to have the charges dropped because she has a scary lawyer should produce...nothing. Not even a sigh of disgust and a temptation to the LD alternative. It's almost as if the great British public is finding better things to do with its time than pay attention.
The Brits are unusually sensible people, on the whole.
I suspect “They’re all as bad as each other” is about the state of play.
Two dogs that aren’t barking - Remania’s LDs and Hard Brexit’s UKIP. As you say - sensible people.
I think we have extremely low expectations of our politicians. They don't always meet them of course but hey, what can you do? When you make a political career so deeply unpleasant and intrusive as it is today (cf the attack on JRM's house and the disgraceful critique of his children) we can hardly complain that the Commons is full of nutters, can we?
All that was entirely and drearily predictable. The Leavers got the Brexit sell all wrong. They should have presented it as a kind of national endurance test requiring years of stress, disappointment and impecuniousness under the slogan 'We're all in it together'.
Financial Times compared the contest between Flint and Watson to the hotly contested 1981 deputy leadership election between Denis Healey and the leftist Tony Benn.
Watson claimed to be the left wing candidate in reality no left wing candidates were on the ballot
Financial Times compared the contest between Flint and Watson to the hotly contested 1981 deputy leadership election between Denis Healey and the leftist Tony Benn.
Watson claimed to be the left wing candidate in reality no left wing candidates were on the ballot
Watson is rightwing because he thinks Labour have a problem with antisemitism among some of their members? I beg to differ.
He said he would be 100% supportive of all the Leadership candidates including Corbyn if he won
Thanks. That seems quite a bold promise when you don't know what they are going to do but it also seems to me that that should be the role of the deputy. I don't really buy this independent mandate stuff. If he is unable to support the leadership I am not sure he should remain in office. What exactly does he hope to achieve?
That said, the party seems to have listened so far as Hodge is concerned.
Financial Times compared the contest between Flint and Watson to the hotly contested 1981 deputy leadership election between Denis Healey and the leftist Tony Benn.
Watson claimed to be the left wing candidate in reality no left wing candidates were on the ballot
The biggest irony is that Angela Eagle pitched herself as the most Corbyn-friendly candidate at the time....LOL.
I never understood why Watson was so popular, he'd never done anything apart from the occasional whinge against Murdoch, and at the hustings I saw he was very unimpressive. And, as I expected, he's not shown any initiative while Deputy. I voted for Stella Creasy... although she's closer to the Right of the party, and can be a bit sanctimonious, she atleast had some energy and original ideas.
He said he would be 100% supportive of all the Leadership candidates including Corbyn if he won
Thanks. That seems quite a bold promise when you don't know what they are going to do but it also seems to me that that should be the role of the deputy. I don't really buy this independent mandate stuff. If he is unable to support the leadership I am not sure he should remain in office. What exactly does he hope to achieve?
That said, the party seems to have listened so far as Hodge is concerned.
But even that was mishandled with the statement Margaret Hodge had apologised which was swiftly demolished by her lawyers
Financial Times compared the contest between Flint and Watson to the hotly contested 1981 deputy leadership election between Denis Healey and the leftist Tony Benn.
Watson claimed to be the left wing candidate in reality no left wing candidates were on the ballot
Watson is rightwing because he thinks Labour have a problem with antisemitism among some of their members? I beg to differ.
He is rightwing because he is rightwing.
He votes consistently with Progress. calls everyone to his left Trot Entryists, is funded by LFI, tried to keep Corbyn as leader off the ballot in 2016
He said he would be 100% supportive of all the Leadership candidates including Corbyn if he won
Thanks. That seems quite a bold promise when you don't know what they are going to do but it also seems to me that that should be the role of the deputy. I don't really buy this independent mandate stuff. If he is unable to support the leadership I am not sure he should remain in office. What exactly does he hope to achieve?
That said, the party seems to have listened so far as Hodge is concerned.
But even that was mishandled with the statement Margaret Hodge had apologised which was swiftly demolished by her lawyers
I am not sure many will care about that for more than a couple of minutes. But giving up on Hodge while persevering with Austen seems silly. Labour really, really need to move on from this frankly bizarre row. Just in case it starts to rain or something and people have a spare moment or two to check in.
All that was entirely and drearily predictable. The Leavers got the Brexit sell all wrong. They should have presented it as a kind of national endurance test requiring years of stress, disappointment and impecuniousness under the slogan 'We're all in it together'.
If they'd told anything approaching the truth they would have lost.
Financial Times compared the contest between Flint and Watson to the hotly contested 1981 deputy leadership election between Denis Healey and the leftist Tony Benn.
Watson claimed to be the left wing candidate in reality no left wing candidates were on the ballot
Watson is rightwing because he thinks Labour have a problem with antisemitism among some of their members? I beg to differ.
He is rightwing because he is rightwing.
He votes consistently with Progress. calls everyone to his left Trot Entryists, is funded by LFI, tried to keep Corbyn as leader off the ballot in 2016
Watson right wing, really - the point is Corbyn and his cabal are hard left marxists so seen through his supporters anyone who does not bow to the cult is right wing
He said he would be 100% supportive of all the Leadership candidates including Corbyn if he won
Thanks. That seems quite a bold promise when you don't know what they are going to do but it also seems to me that that should be the role of the deputy. I don't really buy this independent mandate stuff. If he is unable to support the leadership I am not sure he should remain in office. What exactly does he hope to achieve?
That said, the party seems to have listened so far as Hodge is concerned.
But even that was mishandled with the statement Margaret Hodge had apologised which was swiftly demolished by her lawyers
I am not sure many will care about that for more than a couple of minutes. But giving up on Hodge while persevering with Austen seems silly. Labour really, really need to move on from this frankly bizarre row. Just in case it starts to rain or something and people have a spare moment or two to check in.
I agree to an extent but until they accept the full definition this is not going away and indeed in acceptance it would throw up a lot more different problems for Corbyn
He said he would be 100% supportive of all the Leadership candidates including Corbyn if he won
Thanks. That seems quite a bold promise when you don't know what they are going to do but it also seems to me that that should be the role of the deputy. I don't really buy this independent mandate stuff. If he is unable to support the leadership I am not sure he should remain in office. What exactly does he hope to achieve?
That said, the party seems to have listened so far as Hodge is concerned.
But even that was mishandled with the statement Margaret Hodge had apologised which was swiftly demolished by her lawyers
I am not sure many will care about that for more than a couple of minutes. But giving up on Hodge while persevering with Austen seems silly. Labour really, really need to move on from this frankly bizarre row. Just in case it starts to rain or something and people have a spare moment or two to check in.
I agree to an extent but until they accept the full definition this is not going away and indeed in acceptance it would throw up a lot more different problems for Corbyn
It remains bizarre. Differentiating between the appalling policies of Israel and the right of Jewish people to be treated with dignity and respect really shouldn't be hard, even for someone as thick as Corbyn. I know that Labour have these weird delusions about somehow being more moral or pure than anyone else and that this kind of nonsense is what the Guardianistas thrive on but really. Where the hell are our opposition?
It would have helped all along if the EU had offered some concession on free movement to reflect the fact that Blair did not impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004
We are clearly not going to agree on this, but the depth of the catastrophe is the issue.
You can't typically come back from a temporary case of death. A future promise of oxygen is worthless when you have already suffocated. A ladder is no help when you are lying crushed on the rocks, etc...
You think there will be no serious immediate and lasting damage, in the hope of something in the future.
I think the damage of no deal, would be immediate and catastrophic.
This is always the way when the prosecution goes first. The tone will change entirely once the defence gets in on the act. Shades of the Nigella case.
Absolutely not my experience over the last 30 years. I don't do much crime these days but when I did prosecute the low point of the Crown case was always when it closed. Defendants giving evidence nearly always improves things for the Crown. That is why so many accused choose not to give evidence.
I realise US law is far from identical to ours, but is this kind of thing normal ? And is the judge just a short tempered old codger, or is his thumb on the scales ?
We are clearly not going to agree on this, but the depth of the catastrophe is the issue.
You can't typically come back from a temporary case of death. A future promise of oxygen is worthless when you have already suffocated. A ladder is no help when you are lying crushed on the rocks, etc...
You think there will be no serious immediate and lasting damage, in the hope of something in the future.
I think the damage of no deal, would be immediate and catastrophic.
I hope it doesn't happen
It doesn't have to be that dramatic.
Leavers simply seem not to understand the time value of money, or the theory of discounting and NPV. The likely value destruction of Brexit is tragic.
Doesn't matter too much of course if you are a well off Leaver, that said.
Financial Times compared the contest between Flint and Watson to the hotly contested 1981 deputy leadership election between Denis Healey and the leftist Tony Benn.
Watson claimed to be the left wing candidate in reality no left wing candidates were on the ballot
Watson is rightwing because he thinks Labour have a problem with antisemitism among some of their members? I beg to differ.
He is rightwing because he is rightwing.
He votes consistently with Progress. calls everyone to his left Trot Entryists, is funded by LFI, tried to keep Corbyn as leader off the ballot in 2016
Watson is NOT right-wing! Rees-Mogg is right-wing, Farage is right-wing, Bannon is right-wing; Watson is merely moderate left-of-centre.
Can you get it into your dumb brain BigJohn that calling Watson right wing reinforces the view that Labour has been taken over by crazed marxist infiltrators and puts-off voters like me, who would otherwise be willing to give Labour's manifesto ideas a try.
If you want to see those kind of policies enacted you need to attract votes from people well to the right of Watson.
This is always the way when the prosecution goes first. The tone will change entirely once the defence gets in on the act. Shades of the Nigella case.
Absolutely not my experience over the last 30 years. I don't do much crime these days but when I did prosecute the low point of the Crown case was always when it closed. Defendants giving evidence nearly always improves things for the Crown. That is why so many accused choose not to give evidence.
Is that because the defendants tend to be unconvincing in manner, or just because they are then exposed to detailed questioning that they could otherwise avoid?
I realise US law is far from identical to ours, but is this kind of thing normal ? And is the judge just a short tempered old codger, or is his thumb on the scales ?
The judge T.S. Ellis III studied Law at Oxford University, it is well known they are so full of themselves.
As a general rule American judges are a bit showy, a lot of them have to win elections, although in this case he was appointed rather than elected.
Tories down 4% since GE17, Labour down 2%, LDs up 3%, UKIP up 4%, Greens up 1%
Taken at the height of the anti-semitism debate plus a constant stream of news about Brexit deal struggles. Electorate says "oh well, i'll vote like I said last month".
We are clearly not going to agree on this, but the depth of the catastrophe is the issue.
You can't typically come back from a temporary case of death. A future promise of oxygen is worthless when you have already suffocated. A ladder is no help when you are lying crushed on the rocks, etc...
You think there will be no serious immediate and lasting damage, in the hope of something in the future.
I think the damage of no deal, would be immediate and catastrophic.
I hope it doesn't happen
It doesn't have to be that dramatic.
Leavers simply seem not to understand the time value of money, or the theory of discounting and NPV. The likely value destruction of Brexit is tragic.
Doesn't matter too much of course if you are a well off Leaver, that said.
What we need is a negotiator of Charles' calibre to step in and get us a deal *better than BATNA* to save jobs and keep things going as they are.
Financial Times compared the contest between Flint and Watson to the hotly contested 1981 deputy leadership election between Denis Healey and the leftist Tony Benn.
Watson claimed to be the left wing candidate in reality no left wing candidates were on the ballot
Watson is rightwing because he thinks Labour have a problem with antisemitism among some of their members? I beg to differ.
He is rightwing because he is rightwing.
He votes consistently with Progress. calls everyone to his left Trot Entryists, is funded by LFI, tried to keep Corbyn as leader off the ballot in 2016
Watson right wing, really - the point is Corbyn and his cabal are hard left marxists so seen through his supporters anyone who does not bow to the cult is right wing
Which Marx, Groucho, Chico, Harpo or & Spencer. Most people have never read Karl or even know of him, and that includes many in the Labour party. If you tried, and I have, to read Das Kapital, you would find it the greatest sophoric book around, as well as being a book of it's time - the 1880's rather than the 2000's. That so many regard Marxism as a slang or shorthand name calling for any one who doesn't suck to their own neo-liberalist views just indicates to me how poorly educated and thinking they are. And before you try slagging me off, I should perhaps also admit to reading many different economic philosophers right, left and centre, in my time, as well as most of the different religious holy books, military and many others. To try and understand what others believe in, can actually help communicate rather than shouting at people till you think they understand what you want.....
We are clearly not going to agree on this, but the depth of the catastrophe is the issue.
You can't typically come back from a temporary case of death. A future promise of oxygen is worthless when you have already suffocated. A ladder is no help when you are lying crushed on the rocks, etc...
You think there will be no serious immediate and lasting damage, in the hope of something in the future.
I think the damage of no deal, would be immediate and catastrophic.
I hope it doesn't happen
It doesn't have to be that dramatic.
Leavers simply seem not to understand the time value of money, or the theory of discounting and NPV. The likely value destruction of Brexit is tragic.
Doesn't matter too much of course if you are a well off Leaver, that said.
What we need is a negotiator of Charles' calibre to step in and get us a deal *better than BATNA* to save jobs and keep things going as they are.
Financial Times compared the contest between Flint and Watson to the hotly contested 1981 deputy leadership election between Denis Healey and the leftist Tony Benn.
Watson claimed to be the left wing candidate in reality no left wing candidates were on the ballot
Watson is rightwing because he thinks Labour have a problem with antisemitism among some of their members? I beg to differ.
He is rightwing because he is rightwing.
He votes consistently with Progress. calls everyone to his left Trot Entryists, is funded by LFI, tried to keep Corbyn as leader off the ballot in 2016
Watson is NOT right-wing! Rees-Mogg is right-wing, Farage is right-wing, Bannon is right-wing; Watson is merely moderate left-of-centre.
Can you get it into your dumb brain BigJohn that calling Watson right wing reinforces the view that Labour has been taken over by crazed marxist infiltrators and puts-off voters like me, who would otherwise be willing to give Labour's manifesto ideas a try.
If you want to see those kind of policies enacted you need to attract votes from people well to the right of Watson.
Immediate catastrophes happen regularly. Even the worst case scenarios aren't as bad as 2007 and the evidence is that the risks have been overstated.
That is not true.
The worst case scenarios are that planes will stop flying (didn't happen in 2007), Medicines will be in short supply (didn't happen in 2007), we will run out of food (didn't happen in 2007) and policing will be degraded (didn't happen in 2007).
Clearly, in the wake of the 'Tommy Robinson' circus coming to town, Boris decided to base his relaunch around a controversial subject that would also win him the approbation of the hard Right. But it all looked clumsy and contrived, and the quips about letterboxes etc. just juvenile in that context. I think Boris has flunked it.
Wasn't this the sort of thing that people on the left got very very angry at Milo Yiannopoulos for doing over some crap film? Alt-Right / Alt-Left, different cheeks of the same arse.
Financial Times compared the contest between Flint and Watson to the hotly contested 1981 deputy leadership election between Denis Healey and the leftist Tony Benn.
Watson claimed to be the left wing candidate in reality no left wing candidates were on the ballot
Watson is rightwing because he thinks Labour have a problem with antisemitism among some of their members? I beg to differ.
He is rightwing because he is rightwing.
He votes consistently with Progress. calls everyone to his left Trot Entryists, is funded by LFI, tried to keep Corbyn as leader off the ballot in 2016
Watson is NOT right-wing! Rees-Mogg is right-wing, Farage is right-wing, Bannon is right-wing; Watson is merely moderate left-of-centre.
Can you get it into your dumb brain BigJohn that calling Watson right wing reinforces the view that Labour has been taken over by crazed marxist infiltrators and puts-off voters like me, who would otherwise be willing to give Labour's manifesto ideas a try.
If you want to see those kind of policies enacted you need to attract votes from people well to the right of Watson.
My dumb brain cannot compute.
You have clearly spent too much time on the alt-left conspiracy loon websites.
Immediate catastrophes happen regularly. Even the worst case scenarios aren't as bad as 2007 and the evidence is that the risks have been overstated.
That is not true.
The worst case scenarios are that planes will stop flying (didn't happen in 2007), Medicines will be in short supply (didn't happen in 2007), we will run out of food (didn't happen in 2007) and policing will be degraded (didn't happen in 2007).
It's a risk worth taking, apparently. Low probability, (not, perhaps) high consequence. Still it's all apparently worth it in some ill-defined and fuzzy way.
Financial Times compared the contest between Flint and Watson to the hotly contested 1981 deputy leadership election between Denis Healey and the leftist Tony Benn.
Watson claimed to be the left wing candidate in reality no left wing candidates were on the ballot
Watson is rightwing because he thinks Labour have a problem with antisemitism among some of their members? I beg to differ.
He is rightwing because he is rightwing.
He votes consistently with Progress. calls everyone to his left Trot Entryists, is funded by LFI, tried to keep Corbyn as leader off the ballot in 2016
Watson is NOT right-wing! Rees-Mogg is right-wing, Farage is right-wing, Bannon is right-wing; Watson is merely moderate left-of-centre.
Can you get it into your dumb brain BigJohn that calling Watson right wing reinforces the view that Labour has been taken over by crazed marxist infiltrators and puts-off voters like me, who would otherwise be willing to give Labour's manifesto ideas a try.
If you want to see those kind of policies enacted you need to attract votes from people well to the right of Watson.
My dumb brain cannot compute.
You have clearly spent too much time on the alt-left conspiracy loon websites.
I love how you talk about "alt-left loon sites" while repeatedly posting links to Guido Fawkes, without a hint of irony.
Comments
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/final-say-brexit-latest-conservative-mp-explain-speeches-second-referendum-a8477686.html
It's a utterly stupid idea if you live up North and the typical house is council tax band A.
It's why councils like Northampton are already bankrupt without the grants their tax base isn't enough to keep things going..
Perhaps the promise that shouldn't have been made is to say that no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal...
We've had three polls in a row that are level-pegging, and the two before that had Labour 1% ahead. Everything remains finely balanced.
It would be blackmail for a member State to threaten to exercise it, in order to extract concessions from other EU states.
For many, many people the privations caused by Brexit are a big problem.
You are lucky not to be one perhaps.
https://twitter.com/George_Osborne/status/1026776901409550336?s=20
I remember the 'loony left', do we now have to think more about the 'loony right'?
If you believe the Brexiteers, people voted to stop Polish workers moving in next door, so that more Pakistani Muslims can do so instead.
I am not convinced that voters agree with that analysis, or that leaving the EU will salve the complaints of those who voted to stop "immigration".
And of course the young people from the UK who lose out as a result, were outvoted by pensioners who didn't appreciate the value. The ones who do and already live in Spain are also screwed.
I believe in the rule of law, which facilitates our lives.
I haven't yet come across a cogent argument from any Brexiteer why the UK being the only country in the World without trade agreements (which is the position they are promoting) is such a good idea
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45089254
The cap at 100k was not a Brexiteer idea it was the brainchild of Remainers.
https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-britain-is-in-denial-over-immigration/
The Brexiteers want the UK to sign good deals just as other nations have done. What is wrong with that?
Immigration was the driver. Brexit is not the answer.
Without any on the day we leave, we are fucked.
That's democracy.
What happens after that doesn't affect the immediate catastrophe.
It doesn't help the immediate catastrophe.
Man up Scott - embrace the new frontiers.
Would you sacrifice democracy to avoid a single one off recession? I would not.
We don't have a comprehensive deal with the USA, or China yet that's no catastrophe.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/08/two-words-from-canada-just-made-saudi-arabia-furious/566870/
Trudeau seems to have managed the worst of all options - selling arms to an unpleasant regime and falling out with them at the same time.
The Brits are unusually sensible people, on the whole.
Two dogs that aren’t barking - Remania’s LDs and Hard Brexit’s UKIP. As you say - sensible people.
Is anyone actually paying any attention to politics, or have people just given up on the lot of 'em?
Even I voted for him.
He should put his mandate to the test.
Watson claimed to be the left wing candidate in reality no left wing candidates were on the ballot
That said, the party seems to have listened so far as Hodge is concerned.
I never understood why Watson was so popular, he'd never done anything apart from the occasional whinge against Murdoch, and at the hustings I saw he was very unimpressive. And, as I expected, he's not shown any initiative while Deputy. I voted for Stella Creasy... although she's closer to the Right of the party, and can be a bit sanctimonious, she atleast had some energy and original ideas.
He votes consistently with Progress. calls everyone to his left Trot Entryists, is funded by LFI, tried to keep Corbyn as leader off the ballot in 2016
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/1026793851112091648
https://twitter.com/alanferrier/status/1001882420147310592?lang=en
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/07/iran-braces-for-new-round-of-us-economic-sanctions
The division of the world into sets of antagonists who demand that you are either with them or against them is not an appealing prospect.
You can't typically come back from a temporary case of death. A future promise of oxygen is worthless when you have already suffocated. A ladder is no help when you are lying crushed on the rocks, etc...
You think there will be no serious immediate and lasting damage, in the hope of something in the future.
I think the damage of no deal, would be immediate and catastrophic.
I hope it doesn't happen
And Tory MP Heidi Allen tweeted that his comments made him "about as suitable to be PM as he was foreign secretary".
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/06/manafort-trial-judge-prosecution-765100
I realise US law is far from identical to ours, but is this kind of thing normal ?
And is the judge just a short tempered old codger, or is his thumb on the scales ?
Leavers simply seem not to understand the time value of money, or the theory of discounting and NPV. The likely value destruction of Brexit is tragic.
Doesn't matter too much of course if you are a well off Leaver, that said.
Can you get it into your dumb brain BigJohn that calling Watson right wing reinforces the view that Labour has been taken over by crazed marxist infiltrators and puts-off voters like me, who would otherwise be willing to give Labour's manifesto ideas a try.
If you want to see those kind of policies enacted you need to attract votes from people well to the right of Watson.
As a general rule American judges are a bit showy, a lot of them have to win elections, although in this case he was appointed rather than elected.
And before you try slagging me off, I should perhaps also admit to reading many different economic philosophers right, left and centre, in my time, as well as most of the different religious holy books, military and many others. To try and understand what others believe in, can actually help communicate rather than shouting at people till you think they understand what you want.....
The worst case scenarios are that planes will stop flying (didn't happen in 2007), Medicines will be in short supply (didn't happen in 2007), we will run out of food (didn't happen in 2007) and policing will be degraded (didn't happen in 2007).
It amounts to cyber-bullying.
But Iceland's Parliament has sat nearly continuously since 930 AD so I think it has any constitutional body in Europe beaten by centuries.