I may have disagreed with Paddy Ashdown on many matters of policy but I think it is right that Mike has this obit thread for him. He was certainly one of the political giants of our age and a rare man in so far as, even if you disagreed with him on policy, you couldn't help but like and admire him as a person.
An old friend of mine (a professional diver who got me my first job offshore) was a member of Paddy's Squadron serving in Aden during the pullout in 1967. His tales of what they did in payback for some of the atrocities done to our troops would make you hair stand on end. I am immensely glad Paddy was on our side not someone elses.
Not sure snidey insinuations of serious war crimes are the best way of honouring anyone's memory. I hope I have misunderstood your post.
Did these members and activists pay attention to the 2017 manifesto? What did they think they were campaigning on? I am struck by all the Remainers on Twitter who think any position that isn’t an enhuastic endorsement of a people’s vote is absolute outrage. I’ve yet to meet anyone in real life (that includes those who voted Remain) who holds this view. I’m personally inclined towards a People’s vote though I am worried if it’s close we still have the same problems we do now. But I’m not offended by those who aren’t enthuastically pro it.
In March 1975 Margaret Thatcher described referendum as “a device of dictators and demagogues”. Thatcher was quoting Clement Attlee who noticed that Hitler, Mussolini and Napoleon III used referendum to legitimise decisions they had made. If we just look at referendum before Wordl War II we can see how Mussolini and Hitler used them to their advantage.
I have a plan, we need Boris, a red double decker and a time machine...
I don’t believe you can’t read so I have to conclude you are being deliberately dishonest.
James O’Brien is suggesting that “Rachael Swindon” is a fraud. He’s not looking down on her because she’s poor, he’s suggesting that she is duping others into subsidising her lifestyle. It takes some pretty hard work to affect to misunderstand what he was saying but, credit to the hard left, you've put the shift in.
Meanwhile, you still haven’t explained why “liberal” is an all-purpose insult.
Same reason why left is. Although like I pointed out, as with people it can be added without implying a hatred for that group.
Or for another example calling someone a stupid idiot doesn't sound quite as good as calling someone a stupid little idiot, the little is just in there for effect rather than implying a hatred of little people. I've strung an insult together about somebody with little in there who was taller than me.
He's mocking her for asking for money, scrounging as he so affectionately puts it and accuses her of being a fraud with very little proof apart from his own conspiracies. I don't usually mind James O'Brien despite his anti Corbyn angle but he is being a really nasty piece of work there.
Off you go generalising again....
I suppose it is easier to dismiss your opponents and those who vote for them as bad people, stupid and tricked than face up to your own sides intellectual deficit and complete lack of appeal.
I think that’s as close as you’ll come to acknowledging that your original claimed interpretation was completely wrong and unjustifiable. A little less intellectual dishonesty on your part would help.
“Rachael Swindon” had started the online spat with a typically charmless and weak attack on James O’Brien. I don’t hear you criticising her baseless stereotyping. But then, that amuses your prejudices so that’s ok. It’s attacks on your online chums that rile you.
Did these members and activists pay attention to the 2017 manifesto? What did they think they were campaigning on? I am struck by all the Remainers on Twitter who think any position that isn’t an enhuastic endorsement of a people’s vote is absolute outrage. I’ve yet to meet anyone in real life (that includes those who voted Remain) who holds this view. I’m personally inclined towards a People’s vote though I am worried if it’s close we still have the same problems we do now. But I’m not offended by those who aren’t enthuastically pro it.
In March 1975 Margaret Thatcher described referendum as “a device of dictators and demagogues”. Thatcher was quoting Clement Attlee who noticed that Hitler, Mussolini and Napoleon III used referendum to legitimise decisions they had made. If we just look at referendum before Wordl War II we can see how Mussolini and Hitler used them to their advantage.
There is no justification for a referendum. 88% of the electorate voted for parties who did not have proposals for a third EU referendum in their manifestos. General election, Yes; Referendum, No.
I am not a fan of government by referendum, as too often motivations for voting in these are often to bash the government (one reason Remain is likely to win a #peoplesvote) but a further referendum looks to be the only way through this logjam. A GE would not be fought just on Brexit, indeed Corbyn was astute or lucky enough not to fight 2017 on the issue. A GE is also quite likely to leave a hung Parliament or a small Tory majority, and a government still stuck in the same quagmire.
Did these members and activists pay attention to the 2017 manifesto? What did they think they were campaigning on? I am struck by all the Remainers on Twitter who think any position that isn’t an enhuastic endorsement of a people’s vote is absolute outrage. I’ve yet to meet anyone in real life (that includes those who voted Remain) who holds this view. I’m personally inclined towards a People’s vote though I am worried if it’s close we still have the same problems we do now. But I’m not offended by those who aren’t enthuastically pro it.
In March 1975 Margaret Thatcher described referendum as “a device of dictators and demagogues”. Thatcher was quoting Clement Attlee who noticed that Hitler, Mussolini and Napoleon III used referendum to legitimise decisions they had made. If we just look at referendum before Wordl War II we can see how Mussolini and Hitler used them to their advantage.
There is no justification for a referendum. 88% of the electorate voted for parties who did not have proposals for a third EU referendum in their manifestos. General election, Yes; Referendum, No.
I am not a fan of government by referendum, as too often motivations for voting in these are often to bash the government (one reason Remain is likely to win a #peoplesvote) but a further referendum looks to be the only way through this logjam. A GE would not be fought just on Brexit, indeed Corbyn was astute or lucky enough not to fight 2017 on the issue. A GE is also quite likely to leave a hung Parliament or a small Tory majority, and a government still stuck in the same quagmire.
I don’t believe you can’t read so I have to conclude you are being deliberately dishonest.
James O’Brien is suggesting that “Rachael Swindon” is a fraud. He’s not looking down on her because she’s poor, he’s suggesting that she is duping others into subsidising her lifestyle. It takes some pretty hard work to affect to misunderstand what he was saying but, credit to the hard left, you've put the shift in.
Meanwhile, you still haven’t explained why “liberal” is an all-purpose insult.
Same reason why left is. Although like I pointed out, as with people it can be added without implying a hatred for that group.
Or for another example calling someone a stupid idiot doesn't sound quite as good as calling someone a stupid little idiot, the little is just in there for effect rather than implying a hatred of little people. I've strung an insult together about somebody with little in there who was taller than me.
He's mocking her for asking for money, scrounging as he so affectionately puts it and accuses her of being a fraud with very little proof apart from his own conspiracies. I don't usually mind James O'Brien despite his anti Corbyn angle but he is being a really nasty piece of work there.
Off you go generalising again....
I suppose it is easier to dismiss your opponents and those who vote for them as bad people, stupid and tricked than face up to your own sides intellectual deficit and complete lack of appeal.
I think that’s as close as you’ll come to acknowledging that your original claimed interpretation was completely wrong and unjustifiable. A little less intellectual dishonesty on your part would help.
“Rachael Swindon” had started the online spat with a typically charmless and weak attack on James O’Brien. I don’t hear you criticising her baseless stereotyping. But then, that amuses your prejudices so that’s ok. It’s attacks on your online chums that rile you.
My original claim 'A rich snob looking down and thinking he is better than those less privileged than him, sums up his entire philosophy.'
My last post 'He's mocking her for asking for money, scrounging as he so affectionately puts it'
Yes I have clearly backed down on the claim there... calling someone a scrounger is a world away from a rich snob looking down and thinking he is better than those less privileged than him... try again.
"James O'Brien" took it much further and too far. There are lines, the reason why racial abuse is considered worse than mocking someone's hair colour. Or mocking somebody's dead relatives is consider worse than mocking somebody for their accent. Although you think along the same lines as James so you don't see the problem with accusing the poor of being scroungers.
I think that’s as close as you’ll come to acknowledging that your original claimed interpretation was completely wrong and unjustifiable. A little less intellectual dishonesty on your part would help.
“Rachael Swindon” had started the online spat with a typically charmless and weak attack on James O’Brien. I don’t hear you criticising her baseless stereotyping. But then, that amuses your prejudices so that’s ok. It’s attacks on your online chums that rile you.
My original claim 'A rich snob looking down and thinking he is better than those less privileged than him, sums up his entire philosophy.'
My last post 'He's mocking her for asking for money, scrounging as he so affectionately puts it'
Yes I have clearly backed down on the claim there... calling someone a scrounger is a world away from a rich snob looking down and thinking he is better than those less privileged than him... try again.
"James O'Brien" took it much further and too far. There are lines, the reason why racial abuse is considered worse than mocking someone's hair colour. Or mocking somebody's dead relatives is consider worse than mocking somebody for their accent. Although you think along the same lines as James so you don't see the problem with accusing the poor of being scroungers.
He thinks she’s a fraud. He’s calling her a fraud. We have only her own word for the fact that she is poor and there are inconsistencies in her own account of herself - running a small business - that she has never explained.
You are dishonestly reading into James O’Brien’s words something that is not there in order to avoid the direct accusation that is there.
The line that you seem to think can’t be crossed is that your chums can say what they like but they can’t be accused of anything. Handy for you.
Out of interest, is laying a wreath for a dead terrorist on the right or the wrong side of the line?
I don’t believe you can’t read so I have to conclude you are being deliberately dishonest.
James O’Brien is suggesting that “Rachael Swindon” is a fraud. He’s not looking down on her because she’s poor, he’s suggesting that she is duping others into subsidising her lifestyle. It takes some pretty hard work to affect to misunderstand what he was saying but, credit to the hard left, you've put the shift in.
Meanwhile, you still haven’t explained why “liberal” is an all-purpose insult.
Same reason why left is. Although like I pointed out, as with people it can be added without implying a hatred for that group.
Off you go generalising again....
I suppose it is easier to dismiss your opponents and those who vote for them as bad people, stupid and tricked than face up to your own sides intellectual deficit and complete lack of appeal.
I think that’s as close as you’ll come to acknowledging that your original claimed interpretation was completely wrong and unjustifiable. A little less intellectual dishonesty on your part would help.
“Rachael Swindon” had started the online spat with a typically charmless and weak attack on James O’Brien. I don’t hear you criticising her baseless stereotyping. But then, that amuses your prejudices so that’s ok. It’s attacks on your online chums that rile you.
My original claim 'A rich snob looking down and thinking he is better than those less privileged than him, sums up his entire philosophy.'
My last post 'He's mocking her for asking for money, scrounging as he so affectionately puts it'
Yes I have clearly backed down on the claim there... calling someone a scrounger is a world away from a rich snob looking down and thinking he is better than those less privileged than him... try again.
"James O'Brien" took it much further and too far. There are lines, the reason why racial abuse is considered worse than mocking someone's hair colour. Or mocking somebody's dead relatives is consider worse than mocking somebody for their accent. Although you think along the same lines as James so you don't see the problem with accusing the poor of being scroungers.
Never heard of Rachael Swindon before reading this post. Definitely something fishy about that account. Like guido claiming to be a normal person. Either way social media is killing politics.
Did these members and activists pay attention to the 2017 manifesto? What did they think they were campaigning on? I am struck by all the Remainers on Twitter who think any position that isn’t an enhuastic endorsement of a people’s vote is absolute outrage. I’ve yet to meet anyone in real life (that includes those who voted Remain) who holds this view. I’m personally inclined towards a People’s vote though I am worried if it’s close we still have the same problems we do now. But I’m not offended by those who aren’t enthuastically pro it.
In March 1975 Margaret Thatcher described referendum as “a device of dictators and demagogues”. Thatcher was quoting Clement Attlee who noticed that Hitler, Mussolini and Napoleon III used referendum to legitimise decisions they had made. If we just look at referendum before Wordl War II we can see how Mussolini and Hitler used them to their advantage.
There is no justification for a referendum. 88% of the electorate voted for parties who did not have proposals for a third EU referendum in their manifestos. General election, Yes; Referendum, No.
I am not a fan of government by referendum, as too often motivations for voting in these are often to bash the government (one reason Remain is likely to win a #peoplesvote) but a further referendum looks to be the only way through this logjam. A GE would not be fought just on Brexit, indeed Corbyn was astute or lucky enough not to fight 2017 on the issue. A GE is also quite likely to leave a hung Parliament or a small Tory majority, and a government still stuck in the same quagmire.
And you can't really stage a GE on a single issue using a voting system that is not fair.
Did these members and activists pay attention to the 2017 manifesto? What did they think they were campaigning on? I am struck by all the Remainers on Twitter who think any position that isn’t an enhuastic endorsement of a people’s vote is absolute outrage. I’ve yet to meet anyone in real life (that includes those who voted Remain) who holds this view. I’m personally inclined towards a People’s vote though I am worried if it’s close we still have the same problems we do now. But I’m not offended by those who aren’t enthuastically pro it.
In March 1975 Margaret Thatcher described referendum as “a device of dictators and demagogues”. Thatcher was quoting Clement Attlee who noticed that Hitler, Mussolini and Napoleon III used referendum to legitimise decisions they had made. If we just look at referendum before Wordl War II we can see how Mussolini and Hitler used them to their advantage.
There is no justification for a referendum. 88% of the electorate voted for parties who did not have proposals for a third EU referendum in their manifestos. General election, Yes; Referendum, No.
I am not a fan of government by referendum, as too often motivations for voting in these are often to bash the government (one reason Remain is likely to win a #peoplesvote) but a further referendum looks to be the only way through this logjam. A GE would not be fought just on Brexit, indeed Corbyn was astute or lucky enough not to fight 2017 on the issue. A GE is also quite likely to leave a hung Parliament or a small Tory majority, and a government still stuck in the same quagmire.
In other news - a suspected underwater landslip from Anak Krakatoa (the 'child of Krakatoa') between Java & Sumatra caused a Tsunami which struck without warning (there being no seismological data) - the death toll is already in the hundreds:
I think that’s as close as you’ll come to acknowledging that your original claimed interpretation was completely wrong and unjustifiable. A little less intellectual dishonesty on your part would help.
“Rachael Swindon” had started the online spat with a typically charmless and weak attack on James O’Brien. I don’t hear you criticising her baseless stereotyping. But then, that amuses your prejudices so that’s ok. It’s attacks on your online chums that rile you.
He thinks she’s a fraud. He’s calling her a fraud. We have only her own word for the fact that she is poor and there are inconsistencies in her own account of herself - running a small business - that she has never explained.
You are dishonestly reading into James O’Brien’s words something that is not there in order to avoid the direct accusation that is there.
The line that you seem to think can’t be crossed is that your chums can say what they like but they can’t be accused of anything. Handy for you.
Out of interest, is laying a wreath for a dead terrorist on the right or the wrong side of the line?
He is also calling her a scrounger, the fraud part isn't the part I was complaining about, that is in line with her attacks on him probably.
TBH considering what the crazy right wingers on Twitter are like she doesn't have to explain herself. I wouldn't be surprised if the inconsistencies are a mix of chinese whispers and outright twisting of words.
His words are pretty clear, I don't have to look for anything that isn't there. He is a rich elitist snob looking down on the peasant scum below him.
Yes and funnily enough you do exactly the same, mocking the poor is all good for you because a lovely centrist did it.
I care about as much as everyone else, Corbyn went to some cemetery and they went to a few graves, did Corbyn go there with the plan to visit the one particular grave there was the furore over, probably not, does anyone actually care beyond scoring political points on either side...
Considering Owen Jones has met her it seems pretty legitimate, I suppose he could be in on some kind of conspiracy that the right wingers on Twitter allege but it seems a bit far fetched.
You've gone off into accusing the hard left of generalising...
Before we ignore the obvious problem with accusing any large group of generalising you do realise I was disagreeing with someone who generalised the left to begin with, which is the post your responded to.
The simplest explanation is the most likely, James was being an offensive and got called out on it.
I don’t believe you can’t read so I have to conclude you are being deliberately dishonest.
James O’Brien is suggesting that “Rachael Swindon” is a fraud. He’s not looking down on her because she’s poor, he’s suggesting that she is duping others into subsidising her lifestyle. It takes some pretty hard work to affect to misunderstand what he was saying but, credit to the hard left, you've put the shift in.
Meanwhile, you still haven’t explained why “liberal” is an all-purpose insult.
Same reason why left is. Although like I pointed out, as with people it can be added without implying a hatred for that group.
Or for another example calling someone a stupid idiot doesn't sound quite as good as calling someone a stupid little idiot, the little is just in there for effect rather than implying a hatred of little people. I've strung an insult together about somebody with little in there who was taller than me.
He's mocking her for asking for money, scrounging as he so affectionately puts it and accuses her of being a fraud with very little proof apart from his own conspiracies. I don't usually mind James O'Brien despite his anti Corbyn angle but he is being a really nasty piece of work there.
I suppose it is easier to dismiss your opponents and those who vote for them as bad people, stupid and tricked than face up to your own sides intellectual deficit and complete lack of appeal.
It’s an interesting philosophical question though. (My knowledge is limited to having skim read a buzzfeed article about her).
Rachael Swindon posts lots of tweets (40 a day) having spent time in the morning reviewing source material (the Independent, sqwarkbox, canary etc). She spends time in private chat rooms where memes and attack lines are shared (with input from Labour Party representatives).
This output attracts a large number of followers from whom she regularly solicits donations to support her lifestyle. At the same time she claims benefits.
There’s a very fine line between what she is doing and paid work imho. (I’ve no idea about the legality just looking at the fact pattern)
Did these members and activists pay attention to the 2017 manifesto? What did they think they were campaigning on? I am struck by all the Remainers on Twitter who think any position that isn’t an enhuastic endorsement of a people’s vote is absolute outrage. I’ve yet to meet anyone in real life (that includes those who voted Remain) who holds this view. I’m personally inclined towards a People’s vote though I am worried if it’s close we still have the same problems we do now. But I’m not offended by those who aren’t enthuastically pro it.
In March 1975 Margaret Thatcher described referendum as “a device of dictators and demagogues”. Thatcher was quoting Clement Attlee who noticed that Hitler, Mussolini and Napoleon III used referendum to legitimise decisions they had made. If we just look at referendum before Wordl War II we can see how Mussolini and Hitler used them to their advantage.
There is no justification for a referendum. 88% of the electorate voted for parties who did not have proposals for a third EU referendum in their manifestos. General election, Yes; Referendum, No.
I am not a fan of government by referendum, as too often motivations for voting in these are often to bash the government (one reason Remain is likely to win a #peoplesvote) but a further referendum looks to be the only way through this logjam. A GE would not be fought just on Brexit, indeed Corbyn was astute or lucky enough not to fight 2017 on the issue. A GE is also quite likely to leave a hung Parliament or a small Tory majority, and a government still stuck in the same quagmire.
The logjam solely being caused by MOs refusing to implement (a) what the people voted for and (b) what the executive has negotiated in furtherance of those instructions.
Same reason why left is. Although like I pointed out, as with people it can be added without implying a hatred for that group.
Or for another example calling someone a stupid idiot doesn't sound quite as good as calling someone a stupid little idiot, the little is just in there for effect rather than implying a hatred of little people. I've strung an insult together about somebody with little in there who was taller than me.
He's mocking her for asking for money, scrounging as he so affectionately puts it and accuses her of being a fraud with very little proof apart from his own conspiracies. I don't usually mind James O'Brien despite his anti Corbyn angle but he is being a really nasty piece of work there.
I suppose it is easier to dismiss your opponents and those who vote for them as bad people, stupid and tricked than face up to your own sides intellectual deficit and complete lack of appeal.
It’s an interesting philosophical question though. (My knowledge is limited to having skim read a buzzfeed article about her).
Rachael Swindon posts lots of tweets (40 a day) having spent time in the morning reviewing source material (the Independent, sqwarkbox, canary etc). She spends time in private chat rooms where memes and attack lines are shared (with input from Labour Party representatives).
This output attracts a large number of followers from whom she regularly solicits donations to support her lifestyle. At the same time she claims benefits.
There’s a very fine line between what she is doing and paid work imho. (I’ve no idea about the legality just looking at the fact pattern)
Is this part in bold something called a) a Labour party forum?
Or...
b) I have heard lots of right wing twitter accounts go on about, the 'leaders whatsapp group' if a few left wing commentators share a similar view on twitter or in the media, which is of course suspicious, people of similar political views sharing similar political views... must be coordination!
a) isn't any more dodgy than somebody posting on PB to get political knowledge
b) no real proof of that . I imagine the leadership is in contact with several media figures. The directed media group with Milne/Corbyn ordering them to say things lacks proof. Obviously Labour have spokespeople for party issues who do read out statements.
It would be like me using my twitter account to spread my political views. I am in touch with Labour representatives, talked to Nick (among others) a few times on here. Then saying I am broke and asking for donations on Twitter. With the only real difference being the PB isn't a private forum.
That wouldn't be paid work, that is asking for a donation.
Did these members and activists pay attention to the 2017 manifesto? What did they think they were campaigning on? I am struck by all the Remainers on Twitter who think any position that isn’t an enhuastic endorsement of a people’s vote is absolute outrage. I’ve yet to meet anyone in real life (that includes those who voted Remain) who holds this view. I’m personally inclined towards a People’s vote though I am worried if it’s close we still have the same problems we do now. But I’m not offended by those who aren’t enthuastically pro it.
In March 1975 Margaret Thatcher described referendum as “a device of dictators and demagogues”. Thatcher was quoting Clement Attlee who noticed that Hitler, Mussolini and Napoleon III used referendum to legitimise decisions they had made. If we just look at referendum before Wordl War II we can see how Mussolini and Hitler used them to their advantage.
There is no justification for a referendum. 88% of the electorate voted for parties who did not have proposals for a third EU referendum in their manifestos. General election, Yes; Referendum, No.
I am not a fan of government by referendum, as too often motivations for voting in these are often to bash the government (one reason Remain is likely to win a #peoplesvote) but a further referendum looks to be the only way through this logjam. A GE would not be fought just on Brexit, indeed Corbyn was astute or lucky enough not to fight 2017 on the issue. A GE is also quite likely to leave a hung Parliament or a small Tory majority, and a government still stuck in the same quagmire.
The logjam solely being caused by MOs refusing to implement (a) what the people voted for and (b) what the executive has negotiated in furtherance of those instructions.
The Logjam is because May cannot convince her own party to vote for the Deal. She needs opposition votes to get it past, but is too partisan to engage with them.
Did these members and activists pay attention to the 2017 manifesto? What did they think they were campaigning on? I am struck by all the Remainers on Twitter who think any position that isn’t an enhuastic endorsement of a people’s vote is absolute outrage. I’ve yet to meet anyone in real life (that includes those who voted Remain) who holds this view. I’m personally inclined towards a People’s vote though I am worried if it’s close we still have the same problems we do now. But I’m not offended by those who aren’t enthuastically pro it.
In March 1975 Margaret Thatcher described referendum as “a device of dictators and demagogues”. Thatcher was quoting Clement Attlee who noticed that Hitler, Mussolini and Napoleon III used referendum to legitimise decisions they had made. If we just look at referendum before Wordl War II we can see how Mussolini and Hitler used them to their advantage.
There is no justification for a referendum. 88% of the electorate voted for parties who did not have proposals for a third EU referendum in their manifestos. General election, Yes; Referendum, No.
I am not a fan of government by referendum, as too often motivations for voting in these are often to bash the government (one reason Remain is likely to win a #peoplesvote) but a further referendum looks to be the only way through this logjam. A GE would not be fought just on Brexit, indeed Corbyn was astute or lucky enough not to fight 2017 on the issue. A GE is also quite likely to leave a hung Parliament or a small Tory majority, and a government still stuck in the same quagmire.
The logjam solely being caused by MOs refusing to implement (a) what the people voted for and (b) what the executive has negotiated in furtherance of those instructions.
The Logjam is because May cannot convince her own party to vote for the Deal. She needs opposition votes to get it past, but is too partisan to engage with them.
She has self authored this mess.
Absolutely,
I think it might be to late for May to try to get opposition votes to get it past. She wants to frighten her own MPs into her deal, with the threat of no deal, a Corbyn government, or remain.
Comments
“Rachael Swindon” had started the online spat with a typically charmless and weak attack on James O’Brien. I don’t hear you criticising her baseless stereotyping. But then, that amuses your prejudices so that’s ok. It’s attacks on your online chums that rile you.
My last post 'He's mocking her for asking for money, scrounging as he so affectionately puts it'
Yes I have clearly backed down on the claim there... calling someone a scrounger is a world away from a rich snob looking down and thinking he is better than those less privileged than him... try again.
"James O'Brien" took it much further and too far. There are lines, the reason why racial abuse is considered worse than mocking someone's hair colour. Or mocking somebody's dead relatives is consider worse than mocking somebody for their accent. Although you think along the same lines as James so you don't see the problem with accusing the poor of being scroungers.
You are dishonestly reading into James O’Brien’s words something that is not there in order to avoid the direct accusation that is there.
The line that you seem to think can’t be crossed is that your chums can say what they like but they can’t be accused of anything. Handy for you.
Out of interest, is laying a wreath for a dead terrorist on the right or the wrong side of the line?
https://twitter.com/davidlipson/status/1076662318862225408
TBH considering what the crazy right wingers on Twitter are like she doesn't have to explain herself. I wouldn't be surprised if the inconsistencies are a mix of chinese whispers and outright twisting of words.
His words are pretty clear, I don't have to look for anything that isn't there. He is a rich elitist snob looking down on the peasant scum below him.
Yes and funnily enough you do exactly the same, mocking the poor is all good for you because a lovely centrist did it.
I care about as much as everyone else, Corbyn went to some cemetery and they went to a few graves, did Corbyn go there with the plan to visit the one particular grave there was the furore over, probably not, does anyone actually care beyond scoring political points on either side...
Rachael Swindon posts lots of tweets (40 a day) having spent time in the morning reviewing source material (the Independent, sqwarkbox, canary etc). She spends time in private chat rooms where memes and attack lines are shared (with input from Labour Party representatives).
This output attracts a large number of followers from whom she regularly solicits donations to support her lifestyle. At the same time she claims benefits.
There’s a very fine line between what she is doing and paid work imho. (I’ve no idea about the legality just looking at the fact pattern)
Or...
b) I have heard lots of right wing twitter accounts go on about, the 'leaders whatsapp group' if a few left wing commentators share a similar view on twitter or in the media, which is of course suspicious, people of similar political views sharing similar political views... must be coordination!
a) isn't any more dodgy than somebody posting on PB to get political knowledge
b) no real proof of that . I imagine the leadership is in contact with several media figures. The directed media group with Milne/Corbyn ordering them to say things lacks proof. Obviously Labour have spokespeople for party issues who do read out statements.
It would be like me using my twitter account to spread my political views. I am in touch with Labour representatives, talked to Nick (among others) a few times on here. Then saying I am broke and asking for donations on Twitter. With the only real difference being the PB isn't a private forum.
That wouldn't be paid work, that is asking for a donation.
She has self authored this mess.
I think it might be to late for May to try to get opposition votes to get it past.
She wants to frighten her own MPs into her deal, with the threat of no deal, a Corbyn government, or remain.