She's a fucking awful writer. Those 27 publishers that rejected her at least have their self respect.
There are millions of readers out there that disagree with you. Still, what would they know, eh?
Having a great idea for a story does not make you a good writer. She had a brilliant idea but in terms of actual writing ability Dura_Ace is correct. As I am sure millions of parents have found out trying to read the stories out loud, technically she is a very poor writer with a very poor grasp of prose.
That said, she created a fabulous world and has helped encourage reading in millions of kids around the world so she deserves all the success she gets.
She's a fucking awful writer. Those 27 publishers that rejected her at least have their self respect.
There are millions of readers out there that disagree with you. Still, what would they know, eh?
Having a great idea for a story does not make you a good writer. She had a brilliant idea but in terms of actual writing ability Dura_Ace is correct. As I am sure millions of parents have found out trying to read the stories out loud, technically she is a very poor writer with a very poor grasp of prose.
That said, she created a fabulous world and has helped encourage reading in millions of kids around the world so she deserves all the success she gets.
My main objection is she uses the word 'said' all the time.
Mind you, W. E. Johns when he tried to find an alternative ended up by having Biggles and Ginger ejaculate everywhere, which is slightly unfortunate in a modern context...
Corbyn fan boys who go on about how Corbyn is just following policy set at conference just don’t have a clue. There just isn’t time to wait for GE to sort out Brexit. Corbyn knows this. It’s just a convenient way to kick the can down the road and finally it is being seen as such.
I'm not a Corbyn fan boy and I've said the same thing. You're right that it is a way to kick the can down the road, and it is not unjustified that there is anger he has not switched positions yet. Indeed, I am surprised he has not yet done so and still think he will. But neither is him sticking to agreed policy a betrayal as people have been pretending. A major part of his appeal to the members was here is a man who has his principles and sticks with them no matter what.
It wouldn't be so bad if he hadn't given the strong opinion that he was pro-remain. Almost gives the impression that he'd 'been misinforming' us when he said he'd voted Remain.
Or shouldn't I suggest such a thing!
Did Caroline Flint similarly lie to you?
Whilst it isn't possible for us (mostly) to know other people's votes or minds it is possible to have voted remain and believe Brexit should happen.
I signed the petition about another referendum after the last referendum, I can't remember my exact thoughts at the time but within a few hours I reasoned with myself that whatever the good reasons to do so (the blind all types of Brexit aspect remain had to fight was my main one) I couldn't really argue the result.
All that has happened since has given more legitimacy to a second vote and I can see the case for it now but I can also see a case against it. Beyond even purely for electoral advantage there can be an argument made for Brexiting regardless of events because it was voted for originally.
I do suspect Labour might change to a more remain position, if not remain depending on events there is certainly a moral argument for not doing so even if you wanted to remain and voted for it.
As I suggested yesterday, the drone couple turn out to be innocent. So the culprit has disappeared.
If the police weren't so underfunded, perhaps they'd have the resources to find the culprits.
To be honest on high profile media cases. I am always a bit concerned when the Police make initial arrests. As I feel they are under pressure, to be seen to be doing something..
You would think by now the media, would wait until people have been charged.
Every new political figure goes through a brief honeymoon where many supporters are willing to hope that the figure in question secretly agrees with them. It's something of a mystery that this has lasted so long with Jeremy, but not a mystery that it happened at all.
What is more of a mystery is why the Lib Dems aren't benefitting. There seems to be a big constituency whose worldview is far, far closer to that of the Lib Dems than to either of the other two big parties, but seem almost unaware of the existence of the party. To be honest, I have to stop and think for a bit nowadays if for some reason I want to remember who the leader of the Lib Dems is.
The Lib Dems are below the relevance threshold.
What is their USP to raise them back above it?
Their long term USP is social and economic liberalism. Their short term USP is pro-Remain.
Their problem is that the brand is badly damaged, It's not cool. People scoff. It needs a relaunch with a new leader and campaigns that support its long term USP.
Social liberalism: Decriminalisation of drugs "Dignity in Dying" etc
Economic liberalism: Big problem here! It's why I'm a red LibDem.
Lib Dems second places are mainly in the South and second to the Conservatives.
So the Lib Dems swing away from economic liberalism and towards social liberalism since 2015 is not going to win them more seats in parliament.
They have other tricks up their sleeves. Look at Eastbourne. They can still win with a lot of local engagement.
I follow politics closely and even I don't have a clue what the Lib Dems stand for, beyond opposing Brexit. Which, in my view, is certainly not democratic. You can debate amongst yourselves whether or not it's liberal.
The party that would grab my attention would be both socially and economically liberal, committed to decriminalising drugs, assisted dying, opposing things like the automatic facial recognition cameras currently trialling in London, with a commitment to cut taxes, starting with the burdens that fall heaviest on the poorest in society. I would want VAT on domestic fuel bills zero rated for example, something which is impossible while in the EU.
I want a party that vehemently opposes idiotic legislation like the wanking license and won't try to nationalise my house the moment my back is turned.
Where is my party? Who, in this day and age, do I vote for?
At the moment I'm only able to vote against something, in this case Corbyn, as the hapless Tories seem like the lesser of two evils.
It wasn't Brexit that caused Labour's vote to rise. People on the left are delighted to have an option again.
People didn't elect Corbyn as leader of Labour to fight Brexit, there weren't two surges in membership, to elect him and then re elect him to fight Brexit. People elected him because they want a left wing Labour leader. Brexit isn't going to take away from any of those people's desire.
There are people whose vote it will affect and Labour's Brexit policy could heavily influence the next election but the affection felt for him and the reason he has such strong support is not because of Brexit.
As I suggested yesterday, the drone couple turn out to be innocent. So the culprit has disappeared.
If the police weren't so underfunded, perhaps they'd have the resources to find the culprits.
To be honest on high profile media cases. I am always a bit concerned when the Police make initial arrests. As I feel they are under pressure, to be seen to be doing something..
You would think by now the media, would wait until people have been charged.
I suspect that Messrs Sue, Grabbit and Runne are at this moment poring carefully over some at least of the popular press with a view to offering their services to the couple.
She's a fucking awful writer. Those 27 publishers that rejected her at least have their self respect.
There are millions of readers out there that disagree with you. Still, what would they know, eh?
Having a great idea for a story does not make you a good writer. She had a brilliant idea but in terms of actual writing ability Dura_Ace is correct. As I am sure millions of parents have found out trying to read the stories out loud, technically she is a very poor writer with a very poor grasp of prose.
That said, she created a fabulous world and has helped encourage reading in millions of kids around the world so she deserves all the success she gets.
The books came out when my kids were still being read to. I can confirm that reading an entire Rowling book (let alone a series of them) out loud is close to tortuous for the reader - but against that, I was lucky if I could get away with much less than an hour every night, which says something about the books.
She's a fucking awful writer. Those 27 publishers that rejected her at least have their self respect.
There are millions of readers out there that disagree with you. Still, what would they know, eh?
Having a great idea for a story does not make you a good writer. She had a brilliant idea but in terms of actual writing ability Dura_Ace is correct. As I am sure millions of parents have found out trying to read the stories out loud, technically she is a very poor writer with a very poor grasp of prose.
That said, she created a fabulous world and has helped encourage reading in millions of kids around the world so she deserves all the success she gets.
My main objection is she uses the word 'said' all the time.
Mind you, W. E. Johns when he tried to find an alternative ended up by having Biggles and Ginger ejaculate everywhere, which is slightly unfortunate in a modern context...
Every new political figure goes through a brief honeymoon where many supporters are willing to hope that the figure in question secretly agrees with them. It's something of a mystery that this has lasted so long with Jeremy, but not a mystery that it happened at all.
What is more of a mystery is why the Lib Dems aren't benefitting. There seems to be a big constituency whose worldview is far, far closer to that of the Lib Dems than to either of the other two big parties, but seem almost unaware of the existence of the party. To be honest, I have to stop and think for a bit nowadays if for some reason I want to remember who the leader of the Lib Dems is.
The Lib Dems are below the relevance threshold.
What is their USP to raise them back above it?
Their long term USP is social and economic liberalism. Their short term USP is pro-Remain.
Their problem is that the brand is badly damaged, It's not cool. People scoff. It needs a relaunch with a new leader and campaigns that support its long term USP.
Social liberalism: Decriminalisation of drugs "Dignity in Dying" etc
Economic liberalism: Big problem here! It's why I'm a red LibDem.
Lib Dems second places are mainly in the South and second to the Conservatives.
So the Lib Dems swing away from economic liberalism and towards social liberalism since 2015 is not going to win them more seats in parliament.
They have other tricks up their sleeves. Look at Eastbourne. They can still win with a lot of local engagement.
The Eastbourne constituency is no longer represented by a LD MP.
You can't put a question mark at the end of a sentence to avoid libel.
Allegedly.
I am not a lawyer and I have no doubt one of our resident experts will correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that's quite libellous. It's not saying they are, it's asking if it's possible they are.
Of course, there are other potential issues. First of all, who owns the copyright in that photo? If the Mail took it off the net, they could be liable for a heavy fine. Secondly, have they invaded the couple's privacy unreasonably? If so, there are potential legal avenues open.
If I were Geordie Greig, I would right now be putting a published apology and ten grand on the table, just to be on the safe side.
What I find so entertaining about the Corbyn cult these last few days is that they keep going on and on and on about how the pro-Referendum movement is Blairite. Apparently if you oppose Brexit you are Blairite and therefore Tory, and therefore the only way to deliver true socialism is to help Jeremy help Theresa May help Jacob Rees-Mogg deliver Brexit.
Being labelled "Blairite" is - to cretins - a fate worse than crashing out of the EU with no deal and bringing ruin to millions of Labour voters.
I mean, it does seem that the Police's sterling detective work in this case both began and ended at:
1) He lives in Crawley 2) He collects remote control toys 3) He took an unexpected day off sick on the day of the drone brouhaha
That's about as pissweak as circumstantial evidence gets. I am *amazed* that the police felt they had reasonable grounds for an arrest if that's all they had.
At least they're going to get a nice bumper christmas bonus from their unlawful arrest and defamation settlements.
Every new political figure goes through a brief honeymoon where many supporters are willing to hope that the figure in question secretly agrees with them. It's something of a mystery that this has lasted so long with Jeremy, but not a mystery that it happened at all.
What is more of a mystery is why the Lib Dems aren't benefitting. There seems to be a big constituency whose worldview is far, far closer to that of the Lib Dems than to either of the other two big parties, but seem almost unaware of the existence of the party. To be honest, I have to stop and think for a bit nowadays if for some reason I want to remember who the leader of the Lib Dems is.
The Lib Dems are below the relevance threshold.
What is their USP to raise them back above it?
Their long term USP is social and economic liberalism. Their short term USP is pro-Remain.
Their problem is that the brand is badly damaged, It's not cool. People scoff. It needs a relaunch with a new leader and campaigns that support its long term USP.
Social liberalism: Decriminalisation of drugs "Dignity in Dying" etc
Economic liberalism: Big problem here! It's why I'm a red LibDem.
Lib Dems second places are mainly in the South and second to the Conservatives.
So the Lib Dems swing away from economic liberalism and towards social liberalism since 2015 is not going to win them more seats in parliament.
They have other tricks up their sleeves. Look at Eastbourne. They can still win with a lot of local engagement.
I follow politics closely and even I don't have a clue what the Lib Dems stand for, beyond opposing Brexit. Which, in my view, is certainly not democratic. You can debate amongst yourselves whether or not it's liberal.
The party that would grab my attention would be both socially and economically liberal, committed to decriminalising drugs, assisted dying, opposing things like the automatic facial recognition cameras currently trialling in London, with a commitment to cut taxes, starting with the burdens that fall heaviest on the poorest in society. I would want VAT on domestic fuel bills zero rated for example, something which is impossible while in the EU.
I want a party that vehemently opposes idiotic legislation like the wanking license and won't try to nationalise my house the moment my back is turned.
Where is my party? Who, in this day and age, do I vote for?
At the moment I'm only able to vote against something, in this case Corbyn, as the hapless Tories seem like the lesser of two evils.
Sounds like you are a Libertarian rather than a Liberal.
The majority of Labour voters supported Remain - but how 'salient' an issue is Brexit for many of them? Other issues will easily override in the context of a 6 week election campaign.
Especially if the next election is (as is likely) after Brexit has happened. Of course there will still be the FTA negotiation but that does not rouse the same passions. The deeply divisive event itself will be history, therefore to the extent that remaining in the European Union was a driver of the Labour vote in 2017, it will not be next time, regardless of what Labour policy is now or what Corbyn says now. People who voted for the party in 2017 out of anti-Brexit sentiment, rather than pro-Labour or anti-Tory sentiment, cannot be counted on to 'remain' and I imagine that the JC team realize this and have factored it into their calculations. It's a sunk cost.
What they will not want to do is add variable cost, i.e. to also lose support amongst what is left of their brexity working class base, which though diminished is still considerable. They cannot win a general election if that happens, their list of target seats tells you this in no uncertain terms.
So, yes, the Corbyn line on Brexit makes a lot of sense to me. It has every chance of working electorally. And if the contest ends up between him and a new Tory leader from the Europhobic right of the party, well that is a nice little bonus. In those circumstances, I think Jeremy has a decent chance of entering number 10 with a small working majority.
Every new political figure goes through a brief honeymoon where many supporters are willing to hope that the figure in question secretly agrees with them. It's something of a mystery that this has lasted so long with Jeremy, but not a mystery that it happened at all.
What is more of a mystery is why the Lib Dems aren't benefitting. There seems to be a big constituency whose worldview is far, far closer to that of the Lib Dems than to either of the other two big parties, but seem almost unaware of the existence of the party. To be honest, I have to stop and think for a bit nowadays if for some reason I want to remember who the leader of the Lib Dems is.
The Lib Dems are below the relevance threshold.
What is their USP to raise them back above it?
Their long term USP is social and economic liberalism. Their short term USP is pro-Remain.
Their problem is that the brand is badly damaged, It's not cool. People scoff. It needs a relaunch with a new leader and campaigns that support its long term USP.
Social liberalism: Decriminalisation of drugs "Dignity in Dying" etc
Economic liberalism: Big problem here! It's why I'm a red LibDem.
Lib Dems second places are mainly in the South and second to the Conservatives.
So the Lib Dems swing away from economic liberalism and towards social liberalism since 2015 is not going to win them more seats in parliament.
They have other tricks up their sleeves. Look at Eastbourne. They can still win with a lot of local engagement.
I follow politics closely and even I don't have a clue what the Lib Dems stand for, beyond opposing Brexit. Which, in my view, is certainly not democratic. You can debate amongst yourselves whether or not it's liberal.
The party that would grab my attention would be both socially and economically liberal, committed to decriminalising drugs, assisted dying, opposing things like the automatic facial recognition cameras currently trialling in London, with a commitment to cut taxes, starting with the burdens that fall heaviest on the poorest in society. I would want VAT on domestic fuel bills zero rated for example, something which is impossible while in the EU.
I want a party that vehemently opposes idiotic legislation like the wanking license and won't try to nationalise my house the moment my back is turned.
Where is my party? Who, in this day and age, do I vote for?
At the moment I'm only able to vote against something, in this case Corbyn, as the hapless Tories seem like the lesser of two evils.
You can't put a question mark at the end of a sentence to avoid libel.
Allegedly.
But the question is legitimate, given they were under suspicion when the paper went to press.
It's the use of several value judgments ("MORONS THAT RUINED CHRISTMAS") that puts the Mail on a sticky wicket here. Thety weren't just reporting ("ARE THESE THE DRONE MASTERMINDS?") but editorialising ("THESE SPASTICS TRIED TO MURDER THE BABY JESUS")
What I find so entertaining about the Corbyn cult these last few days is that they keep going on and on and on about how the pro-Referendum movement is Blairite. Apparently if you oppose Brexit you are Blairite and therefore Tory, and therefore the only way to deliver true socialism is to help Jeremy help Theresa May help Jacob Rees-Mogg deliver Brexit.
Being labelled "Blairite" is - to cretins - a fate worse than crashing out of the EU with no deal and bringing ruin to millions of Labour voters.
There is certainly crossover between anti Corbyn factions within Labour and pro referendum movement. Which is why motions on Brexit were kept off the floor last year. There are those clearly on the left in favour, which is why pro Corbyn group momentum helped bring about the discussion on Brexit policy this time and a push to have the referendum as a possibility (after other options)
She's a fucking awful writer. Those 27 publishers that rejected her at least have their self respect.
There are millions of readers out there that disagree with you. Still, what would they know, eh?
Having a great idea for a story does not make you a good writer. She had a brilliant idea but in terms of actual writing ability Dura_Ace is correct. As I am sure millions of parents have found out trying to read the stories out loud, technically she is a very poor writer with a very poor grasp of prose.
That said, she created a fabulous world and has helped encourage reading in millions of kids around the world so she deserves all the success she gets.
My main objection is she uses the word 'said' all the time.
Mind you, W. E. Johns when he tried to find an alternative ended up by having Biggles and Ginger ejaculate everywhere, which is slightly unfortunate in a modern context...
What I find so entertaining about the Corbyn cult these last few days is that they keep going on and on and on about how the pro-Referendum movement is Blairite. Apparently if you oppose Brexit you are Blairite and therefore Tory, and therefore the only way to deliver true socialism is to help Jeremy help Theresa May help Jacob Rees-Mogg deliver Brexit.
Being labelled "Blairite" is - to cretins - a fate worse than crashing out of the EU with no deal and bringing ruin to millions of Labour voters.
There is certainly crossover between anti Corbyn factions within Labour and pro referendum movement. Which is why motions on Brexit were kept off the floor last year. There are those clearly on the left in favour, which is why pro Corbyn group momentum helped bring about the discussion on Brexit policy this time and a push to have the referendum as a possibility (after other options)
A possibility which he appears to have written off
He has gone all Mrs May on you - Brexit means Brexit
Are we perhaps overthinking this? Perhaps Corbyn's comments were just testing the water, and the 'betrayal' talk is just being pushed to give him something to think about over the holiday break, in the same way May hopes to get MPs to be thinking about no deal.
I mean, it does seem that the Police's sterling detective work in this case both began and ended at:
1) He lives in Crawley 2) He collects remote control toys 3) He took an unexpected day off sick on the day of the drone brouhaha
That's about as pissweak as circumstantial evidence gets. I am *amazed* that the police felt they had reasonable grounds for an arrest if that's all they had.
At least they're going to get a nice bumper christmas bonus from their unlawful arrest and defamation settlements.
Not that long ago a man I knew slightly was imprisoned for the murder of his wife on evidence not much more substantial following a really quite nasty personal vendetta waged by a particular police officer (who had botched the original investigation in several really quite important ways). The evidence was essentially (1) that his wife had vanished (2) that he was known to be a violent s.o.b. and (3) he had twice some years before been heard to utter threats against her. They had no body, even though the police had searched a housing estate on the far side of the county, a herd of pigs and the ashes of a large bonfire.
It caused a lot of angst. On the one hand, nobody was very happy with the way this man had been convicted on such evidence. We didn't feel it was appropriate someone was essentially being locked up for being smarter than this particular police officer (several phrases including the words 'damp walls' were used).
On the other hand, everyone knew damn well he was guilty, and we weren't terribly happy about the thought of letting the bastard out to kill again.
And finally, he did confess and tell the police where he'd buried her. To give you some idea of how thick this officer was, he hadn't bothered to dig the fecking garden.
She's a fucking awful writer. Those 27 publishers that rejected her at least have their self respect.
There are millions of readers out there that disagree with you. Still, what would they know, eh?
Having a great idea for a story does not make you a good writer. She had a brilliant idea but in terms of actual writing ability Dura_Ace is correct. As I am sure millions of parents have found out trying to read the stories out loud, technically she is a very poor writer with a very poor grasp of prose.
That said, she created a fabulous world and has helped encourage reading in millions of kids around the world so she deserves all the success she gets.
My main objection is she uses the word 'said' all the time.
Mind you, W. E. Johns when he tried to find an alternative ended up by having Biggles and Ginger ejaculate everywhere, which is slightly unfortunate in a modern context...
Oh, the irony if Europe brought down Corbyn rather than May.
It's hardly 'either/or', is it? It could easily bring down May, Corbyn and Cable. Almost certainly Foster as well (every cloud...). In fact, I wouldn't even bet on Sturgeon surviving the next few months given how tough they will be politically.
What I find so entertaining about the Corbyn cult these last few days is that they keep going on and on and on about how the pro-Referendum movement is Blairite. Apparently if you oppose Brexit you are Blairite and therefore Tory, and therefore the only way to deliver true socialism is to help Jeremy help Theresa May help Jacob Rees-Mogg deliver Brexit.
Being labelled "Blairite" is - to cretins - a fate worse than crashing out of the EU with no deal and bringing ruin to millions of Labour voters.
There is certainly crossover between anti Corbyn factions within Labour and pro referendum movement. Which is why motions on Brexit were kept off the floor last year. There are those clearly on the left in favour, which is why pro Corbyn group momentum helped bring about the discussion on Brexit policy this time and a push to have the referendum as a possibility (after other options)
Yet when I presented the emergency motion demanding an emergency conference to our emergency CLP meeting and pointed out that it was written by a Momentum national organiser, I was angrily shouted down by cretins who insisted it was all a right wing Blairite plot.
Brexit is not about Blair. Or Corbyn. Left or right. People on all sides of the political spectrum have supported both sides of the debate. And if arguing against Brexit is the same as arguing against Corbyn, thats only recent now that Corbyn has come out against the membership and against party policy and against decades of internationalist solidarity.
Have no idea how long you have been involved in this movement, but isolationism is not part of our history or our traditions.
Oh, the irony if Europe brought down Corbyn rather than May.
The problem being Corbyn's support base is largely supportive regardless of Brexit. Whilst they certainly want to remain it isn't their number one priority and on almost every other aspect they prefer Corbyn to those who want him gone.
Oh, the irony if Europe brought down Corbyn rather than May.
It's hardly 'either/or', is it? It could easily bring down May, Corbyn and Cable. Almost certainly Foster as well (every cloud...). In fact, I wouldn't even bet on Sturgeon surviving the next few months given how tough they will be politically.
Yep. I meant to say first. May has in effect already been brought down by Europe, it's just she has issued an 'I wont be standing at next GE' notice to buy a few more months.
I always thought once we lost the FBPE crowd we were done for...
The one Clive Lewis retweeted means a lot more, the FBPE crowd have always been very anti Corbyn.
Yep, it's also significant that Lewis retweeted it in the first place. He is nothing if not a loyalist. I did a thread on this whole issue and why the leadership's stance poses such a risk for Labour. The one thing you just cannot get around is that the large majority of Labour voters are Remain ... https://twitter.com/SpaJw/status/1076474121549217794
The majority of Labour voters supported Remain - but how 'salient' an issue is Brexit for many of them? Other issues will easily override in the context of a 6 week election campaign.
So - to follow your logic
Brexit will suppress the tories vote ... but Labour voters will still vote labour despite the added sense of betrayal and against the evidence?
What I find so entertaining about the Corbyn cult these last few days is that they keep going on and on and on about how the pro-Referendum movement is Blairite. Apparently if you oppose Brexit you are Blairite and therefore Tory, and therefore the only way to deliver true socialism is to help Jeremy help Theresa May help Jacob Rees-Mogg deliver Brexit.
Being labelled "Blairite" is - to cretins - a fate worse than crashing out of the EU with no deal and bringing ruin to millions of Labour voters.
There is certainly crossover between anti Corbyn factions within Labour and pro referendum movement. Which is why motions on Brexit were kept off the floor last year. There are those clearly on the left in favour, which is why pro Corbyn group momentum helped bring about the discussion on Brexit policy this time and a push to have the referendum as a possibility (after other options)
Yet when I presented the emergency motion demanding an emergency conference to our emergency CLP meeting and pointed out that it was written by a Momentum national organiser, I was angrily shouted down by cretins who insisted it was all a right wing Blairite plot.
Brexit is not about Blair. Or Corbyn. Left or right. People on all sides of the political spectrum have supported both sides of the debate. And if arguing against Brexit is the same as arguing against Corbyn, thats only recent now that Corbyn has come out against the membership and against party policy and against decades of internationalist solidarity.
Have no idea how long you have been involved in this movement, but isolationism is not part of our history or our traditions.
Maybe you missed my bit earlier about thinking of myself as European?
What do you expect quite frankly?
The party has turned into a factional warzone (in some parts) where there are plenty on each side just wanting the upper hand regardless of the issue.
You often come here with stories about how the evil Corbyn cultists are doing x or y but it makes me somewhat doubtful when you talk about how you innocently try to do things and are shouted down by evil Corbyn fans when on here you constantly rant about cultists and Kali ma...
You sure you aren't contributing to the arguments, I'm not calling you a liar but there are 2 sides to every story and you have very strong views on the subject.
The motion IMO could harm Labour at the moment, if hypothetically Labour did want a second referendum but without giving the Tories their Brexit betrayal line then not going now is the best option. It would also take away a powerful argument against Corbyn in a 2nd referendum campaign, he wouldn't have betrayed anyone and could argue more effectively for remain.
Oh, the irony if Europe brought down Corbyn rather than May.
The problem being Corbyn's support base is largely supportive regardless of Brexit. Whilst they certainly want to remain it isn't their number one priority and on almost every other aspect they prefer Corbyn to those who want him gone.
Yeah those favourable numbers are great for Corbyn.....
Difficult not to feel schadenfreude for both Corbyn and Labour after all the clueless posturing they have indulged in over Brexit. I don’t suppose the Tories will find the cohesion to exploit Labour’s difficulties but still - a temporary respite from their own troubles is not to be sniffed at.
Doesn’t show Remainers in a good light either and rather highlights why they lost in the first place. That tolerant, urbane, outward looking image they like to project shattered for the myth it is on the fact that they actually lost and can’t live with that democratic verdict of the electorate.
Leavers have not attempted to include Remain supporters in their post-referendum vision of Brexit. Admittedly it was always a huge challenge after having campaigned by pandering to xenophobia but if Leavers want to know why the decision to leave the EU has not been embedded in consensus they need to look in a mirror.
So the arrogant hypocrisy continues. If Remainers had accepted the results of the referendum rather than launch into a desperate campaign to try and overturn it, at the behest of their European overlords who also told Ireland and France to think again after Lisbon, they might have been able jto build a consensus themselves. After all, most of the current Cabinet voted Remain. Instead, they resorted to the bitter and twisted empty rhetoric that cost them the referendum and tried to ignore the votes of 17.4 m of their fellow citizens. The “we wuz robbed” mentality of self pity that you wallow in doesn’t work because too many people outside London don’t benefit from EU membership or the prosperity of London and the SE.
Democracy is a bitch when it doesn’t go your way.
One only has to compare Alastair’s language with yours, to prove his point.
His constant reference to all Leavers being xenophobes you mean ? Yes, very convincing - if you are completely biased and without the ability to construct a rational argument.
Their long term USP is social and economic liberalism. Their short term USP is pro-Remain.
Their problem is that the brand is badly damaged, It's not cool. People scoff. It needs a relaunch with a new leader and campaigns that support its long term USP.
Social liberalism: Decriminalisation of drugs "Dignity in Dying" etc
Economic liberalism: Big problem here! It's why I'm a red LibDem.
Lib Dems second places are mainly in the South and second to the Conservatives.
So the Lib Dems swing away from economic liberalism and towards social liberalism since 2015 is not going to win them more seats in parliament.
They have other tricks up their sleeves. Look at Eastbourne. They can still win with a lot of local engagement.
I follow politics closely and even I don't have a clue what the Lib Dems stand for, beyond opposing Brexit. Which, in my view, is certainly not democratic. You can debate amongst yourselves whether or not it's liberal.
The party that would grab my attention would be both socially and economically liberal, committed to decriminalising drugs, assisted dying, opposing things like the automatic facial recognition cameras currently trialling in London, with a commitment to cut taxes, starting with the burdens that fall heaviest on the poorest in society. I would want VAT on domestic fuel bills zero rated for example, something which is impossible while in the EU.
I want a party that vehemently opposes idiotic legislation like the wanking license and won't try to nationalise my house the moment my back is turned.
Where is my party? Who, in this day and age, do I vote for?
At the moment I'm only able to vote against something, in this case Corbyn, as the hapless Tories seem like the lesser of two evils.
Sounds like you are a Libertarian rather than a Liberal.
But I'm in favour of the NHS (having lived and worked in countries without it), the national minimum wage, state pension provision, pollution standards, breaking up monopolies... in short, intervention wherever the market fails.
I don't think I would vote for a libertarian party but I would vote for a Gladstonian liberal party.
Oh, the irony if Europe brought down Corbyn rather than May.
The problem being Corbyn's support base is largely supportive regardless of Brexit. Whilst they certainly want to remain it isn't their number one priority and on almost every other aspect they prefer Corbyn to those who want him gone.
Yeah those favourable numbers are great for Corbyn.....
Within the Labour party they are great. Which is presumably where he would be 'brought down'
As for the numbers is May going to be in the next election or one of her less popular rivals?
If it is May I look forward to watching out for changes as the election campaign happens.
If he continues his support for leave as manifested in the referendum campaign where he declared for remain and promptly disappeared, he will be finished. The Labour leave supporters largely hate him - not a popular figure on working class doorsteps. He was always the trophy of middle class supposed intelligensia and they won't put up with this.
That is my perception too. Even if Corbyn came out more clearly in favour of Brexit, his problem is that he personally carries far too much wider baggage to have any chance of regaining support from working class Leave supporters that could compensate for the loss of support from the transitory ABC1 Remainer vote that Labour has become far too dependent upon.
That said, it goes well beyond Corbyn. In the longer term I consider that Labour as a party has courted disaster by jumping so firmly to one side of the fence on Brexit (Corbyn notwithstanding), given that the opinion of the electorate whose interests the Labour Party traditionally seeks to promote sits firmly on the other side. By contrast, the continuing largely balanced split of opinion within the Conservative Party serves it better, as while that balance of opinion continues the party can court electoral support from both camps.
God what are you smoking , a balanced split of opinion in the Conservative party. Where have you been these past few years.
Spending too much time reading Conservative members opinions on PB perhaps?
Seriously, I meant balanced in the sense that Conservative members and voters are inclined to one view but the majority of MPs to the other. There is clearly a debate openly going on between the two wings within the party.
You don't have that in Labour - both the party and its MPs are overwhelmingly Remain now, even more so than its voters.Unless that changes, I doubt whether anyone who openly expresses support for Leave will be selected to stand for Labour at the next GE, save perhaps one or two sitting MPs who may just hang on in the face of reselection. There is no debate going on within Labour as any remaining Eurosceptics have to hide their opinions in the closet. That the party leader is one of them does not change the broader picture.
I always thought once we lost the FBPE crowd we were done for...
The one Clive Lewis retweeted means a lot more, the FBPE crowd have always been very anti Corbyn.
Yep, it's also significant that Lewis retweeted it in the first place. He is nothing if not a loyalist. I did a thread on this whole issue and why the leadership's stance poses such a risk for Labour. The one thing you just cannot get around is that the large majority of Labour voters are Remain ... https://twitter.com/SpaJw/status/1076474121549217794
The majority of Labour voters supported Remain - but how 'salient' an issue is Brexit for many of them? Other issues will easily override in the context of a 6 week election campaign.
So - to follow your logic
Brexit will suppress the tories vote ... but Labour voters will still vote labour despite the added sense of betrayal and against the evidence?
The evidence suggests that it wasn't the motivation for many Labour votes in 2017 at all...
You do have the Lib Dems would come 2nd hypothetical poll but I am pretty sure someone pointed out there was a similar one before the 2017 election. Labour voters are mainly remainers and do care about the issue, there is very little evidence it is their top issue or one that will solely decide their vote.
I always thought once we lost the FBPE crowd we were done for...
The one Clive Lewis retweeted means a lot more, the FBPE crowd have always been very anti Corbyn.
Yep, it's also significant that Lewis retweeted it in the first place. He is nothing if not a loyalist. I did a thread on this whole issue and why the leadership's stance poses such a risk for Labour. The one thing you just cannot get around is that the large majority of Labour voters are Remain ... https://twitter.com/SpaJw/status/1076474121549217794
The majority of Labour voters supported Remain - but how 'salient' an issue is Brexit for many of them? Other issues will easily override in the context of a 6 week election campaign.
I always thought once we lost the FBPE crowd we were done for...
The one Clive Lewis retweeted means a lot more, the FBPE crowd have always been very anti Corbyn.
Yep, it's also significant that Lewis retweeted it in the first place. He is nothing if not a loyalist. I did a thread on this whole issue and why the leadership's stance poses such a risk for Labour. The one thing you just cannot get around is that the large majority of Labour voters are Remain ... https://twitter.com/SpaJw/status/1076474121549217794
The majority of Labour voters supported Remain - but how 'salient' an issue is Brexit for many of them? Other issues will easily override in the context of a 6 week election campaign.
Any GE in the next three months will be dominated by Brexit and is likely to be a shorter campaign of about one month
It cannot be shorter than 5 weeks as stipulated by the FTPA which requires 25 working days between Dissolution and Polling Day. In addition, there would have to be a Parliamentary vote to authorise the election plus some time to wind up Parliamentary bussiness. Effectively that would mean at least 6 weeks from any announcement.
The party that would grab my attention would be both socially and economically liberal, committed to decriminalising drugs, assisted dying, opposing things like the automatic facial recognition cameras currently trialling in London, with a commitment to cut taxes, starting with the burdens that fall heaviest on the poorest in society. I would want VAT on domestic fuel bills zero rated for example, something which is impossible while in the EU.
Difficult not to feel schadenfreude for both Corbyn and Labour after all the clueless posturing they have indulged in over Brexit. I don’t suppose the Tories will find the cohesion to exploit Labour’s difficulties but still - a temporary respite from their own troubles is not to be sniffed at.
Doesn’t show Remainers in a good light either and rather highlights why they lost in the first place. That tolerant, urbane, outward looking image they like to project shattered for the myth it is on the fact that they actually lost and can’t live with that democratic verdict of the electorate.
Leavers have not attempted to include Remain supporters in their post-referendum vision of Brexit. Admittedly it was always a huge challenge after having campaigned by pandering to xenophobia but if Leavers want to know why the decision to leave the EU has not been embedded in consensus they need to look in a mirror.
So the arrogant hypocrisy continues. If Remainers had accepted the results of the referendum rather than launch into a desperate campaign to try and overturn it, at the behest of their European overlords who also told Ireland and France to think again after Lisbon, they might have been able jto build a consensus themselves. After all, most of the current Cabinet voted Remain. Instead, they resorted to the bitter and twisted empty rhetoric that cost them the referendum and tried to ignore the votes of 17.4 m of their fellow citizens. The “we wuz robbed” mentality of self pity that you wallow in doesn’t work because too many people outside London don’t benefit from EU membership or the prosperity of London and the SE.
Democracy is a bitch when it doesn’t go your way.
One only has to compare Alastair’s language with yours, to prove his point.
His constant reference to all Leavers being xenophobes you mean ? Yes, very convincing - if you are completely biased and without the ability to construct a rational argument.
I have not seen Alastair ever say "all Leavers are xenophobes" or anything like.
I always thought once we lost the FBPE crowd we were done for...
The one Clive Lewis retweeted means a lot more, the FBPE crowd have always been very anti Corbyn.
Yep, it's also significant that Lewis retweeted it in the first place. He is nothing if not a loyalist. I did a thread on this whole issue and why the leadership's stance poses such a risk for Labour. The one thing you just cannot get around is that the large majority of Labour voters are Remain ... https://twitter.com/SpaJw/status/1076474121549217794
The majority of Labour voters supported Remain - but how 'salient' an issue is Brexit for many of them? Other issues will easily override in the context of a 6 week election campaign.
Any GE in the next three months will be dominated by Brexit and is likely to be a shorter campaign of about one month
It cannot be shorter than 5 weeks as stipulated by the FTPA which requires 25 working days between Dissolution and Polling Day. In addition, there would have to be a Parliamentary vote to authorise the election plus some time to wind up Parliamentary bussiness. Effectively that would mean at least 6 weeks from any announcement.
These inherent delays means that the further May can kick the can down the road, the better. It will be best for the UK if there is no repeat referendum, nor GE, before Brexit date on 29/3/19.
I wonder if Brexit will prove to be the elixir of hard Left, leaving the Brexit Right as an irrelevant sideshow - bitter and broken men horrified at what they brought about and how they were played.
I always thought once we lost the FBPE crowd we were done for...
The one Clive Lewis retweeted means a lot more, the FBPE crowd have always been very anti Corbyn.
Yep, it's also significant that Lewis retweeted it in the first place. He is nothing if not a loyalist. I did a thread on this whole issue and why the leadership's stance poses such a risk for Labour. The one thing you just cannot get around is that the large majority of Labour voters are Remain ... https://twitter.com/SpaJw/status/1076474121549217794
The majority of Labour voters supported Remain - but how 'salient' an issue is Brexit for many of them? Other issues will easily override in the context of a 6 week election campaign.
So - to follow your logic
Brexit will suppress the tories vote ... but Labour voters will still vote labour despite the added sense of betrayal and against the evidence?
I don't believe Brexit to be a particularly salient issue for the electorate at large - particularly so for Labour voters. It is far too technical for the vast majority and has dragged on for far too long with the result that people are heartily sick to death of it. I would fully expect them to respond positively to attempts by Corbyn - and others - to raise matters they can much more readily relate to.
There is certainly crossover between anti Corbyn factions within Labour and pro referendum movement. Which is why motions on Brexit were kept off the floor last year. There are those clearly on the left in favour, which is why pro Corbyn group momentum helped bring about the discussion on Brexit policy this time and a push to have the referendum as a possibility (after other options)
The enthusiastic borderline obsessive campaigning for a 'People's Vote' by the likes of Chukka, Chris Leslie, Alistair Campbell, the 'Blairites, if you like, is perfectly understandable from a human perspective. They are unable to support the direction or any of the key policies of the party to which they still belong, therefore they need a cause into which to pour their energy. They would go nuts otherwise. They would become so frustrated that they might do something deeply regrettable So they need a cause and it has to be one they feel passionate about and (this rider is key) it has to be anti-Tory. Reversing Brexit fits the bill just brilliantly.
Difficult not to feel schadenfreude for both Corbyn and Labour after all the clueless posturing they have indulged in over Brexit. I don’t suppose the Tories will find the cohesion to exploit Labour’s difficulties but still - a temporary respite from their own troubles is not to be sniffed at.
Doesn’t show Remainers in a good light either and rather highlights why they lost in the first place. That tolerant, urbane, outward looking image they like to project shattered for the myth it is on the fact that they actually lost and can’t live with that democratic verdict of the electorate.
Leavers have not attempted to include Remain supporters in their post-referendum vision of Brexit. Admittedly it was always a huge challenge after having campaigned by pandering to xenophobia but if Leavers want to know why the decision to leave the EU has not been embedded in consensus they need to look in a mirror.
So the arrogant hypocrisy continues. If Remainers had accepted the results of the referendum rather than launch into a desperate campaign to try and overturn it, at the behest of their European overlords who also told Ireland and France to think again after Lisbon, they might have been able jto build a consensus themselves. After all, most of the current Cabinet voted Remain. Instead, they resorted to the bitter and twisted empty rhetoric that cost them the referendum and tried to ignore the votes of 17.4 m of their fellow citizens. The “we wuz robbed” mentality of self pity that you wallow in doesn’t work because too many people outside London don’t benefit from EU membership or the prosperity of London and the SE.
Democracy is a bitch when it doesn’t go your way.
One only has to compare Alastair’s language with yours, to prove his point.
His constant reference to all Leavers being xenophobes you mean ? Yes, very convincing - if you are completely biased and without the ability to construct a rational argument.
Difficult not to feel schadenfreude for both Corbyn and Labour after all the clueless posturing they have indulged in over Brexit. I don’t suppose the Tories will find the cohesion to exploit Labour’s difficulties but still - a temporary respite from their own troubles is not to be sniffed at.
Doesn’t show Remainers in a good light either and rather highlights why they lost in the first place. That tolerant, urbane, outward looking image they like to project shattered for the myth it is on the fact that they actually lost and can’t live with that democratic verdict of the electorate.
Leavers have not attempted to include Remain supporters in their post-referendum vision of Brexit. Admittedly it was always a huge challenge after having campaigned by pandering to xenophobia but if Leavers want to know why the decision to leave the EU has not been embedded in consensus they need to look in a mirror.
So the arrogant hypocrisy continues. If Remainers had accepted the results of the referendum rather than launch into a desperate campaign to try and overturn it, at the behest of their European overlords who also told Ireland and France to think again after Lisbon, they might have been able jto build a consensus themselves. After all, most of the current Cabinet voted Remain. Instead, they resorted to the bitter and twisted empty rhetoric that cost them the referendum and tried to ignore the votes of 17.4 m of their fellow citizens. The “we wuz robbed” mentality of self pity that you wallow in doesn’t work because too many people outside London don’t benefit from EU membership or the prosperity of London and the SE.
Democracy is a bitch when it doesn’t go your way.
One only has to compare Alastair’s language with yours, to prove his point.
His constant reference to all Leavers being xenophobes you mean ? Yes, very convincing - if you are completely biased and without the ability to construct a rational argument.
I read his comment, and yours. Res ipsa loquitur.
Your charming reposte didn’t change my mind.
Nor did I expect it to. There are none so blind as those who will not see - as you so clearly demonstrate
She's a fucking awful writer. Those 27 publishers that rejected her at least have their self respect.
There are millions of readers out there that disagree with you. Still, what would they know, eh?
Having a great idea for a story does not make you a good writer. She had a brilliant idea but in terms of actual writing ability Dura_Ace is correct. As I am sure millions of parents have found out trying to read the stories out loud, technically she is a very poor writer with a very poor grasp of prose.
That said, she created a fabulous world and has helped encourage reading in millions of kids around the world so she deserves all the success she gets.
What rot you post sometimes Richard.
You don't like her books? Well, fair enough. Does that make her a poor writer? No.
She is a fine writer and has shown she can turn her hand to several genres with success. Her plots are good, her characters are credible and like real people, complex and irrational.
Sure, she doesn't write highbrow literature but she's not a 'poor writer'.
She's a fucking awful writer. Those 27 publishers that rejected her at least have their self respect.
There are millions of readers out there that disagree with you. Still, what would they know, eh?
Having a great idea for a story does not make you a good writer. She had a brilliant idea but in terms of actual writing ability Dura_Ace is correct. As I am sure millions of parents have found out trying to read the stories out loud, technically she is a very poor writer with a very poor grasp of prose.
That said, she created a fabulous world and has helped encourage reading in millions of kids around the world so she deserves all the success she gets.
What rot you post sometimes Richard.
You don't like her books? Well, fair enough. Does that make her a poor writer? No.
She is a fine writer and has shown she can turn her hand to several genres with success. Her plots are good, her characters are credible and like real people, complex and irrational.
Sure, she doesn't write highbrow literature but she's not a 'poor writer'.
Perhaps she's a poor writer compared to those who write highbrow literature?
She's a fucking awful writer. Those 27 publishers that rejected her at least have their self respect.
There are millions of readers out there that disagree with you. Still, what would they know, eh?
Having a great idea for a story does not make you a good writer. She had a brilliant idea but in terms of actual writing ability Dura_Ace is correct. As I am sure millions of parents have found out trying to read the stories out loud, technically she is a very poor writer with a very poor grasp of prose.
That said, she created a fabulous world and has helped encourage reading in millions of kids around the world so she deserves all the success she gets.
What rot you post sometimes Richard.
You don't like her books? Well, fair enough. Does that make her a poor writer? No.
She is a fine writer and has shown she can turn her hand to several genres with success. Her plots are good, her characters are credible and like real people, complex and irrational.
Sure, she doesn't write highbrow literature but she's not a 'poor writer'.
Perhaps she's a poor writer compared to those who write highbrow literature?
I was thinking how many of the old Dubya jokes would apply to Trump. How about the old favourite:
'If you had a choice between saving President Trump from drowning or taking the greatest and most famous photograph of all time - what shutter speed would you use?
She's a fucking awful writer. Those 27 publishers that rejected her at least have their self respect.
There are millions of readers out there that disagree with you. Still, what would they know, eh?
Having a great idea for a story does not make you a good writer. She had a brilliant idea but in terms of actual writing ability Dura_Ace is correct. As I am sure millions of parents have found out trying to read the stories out loud, technically she is a very poor writer with a very poor grasp of prose.
That said, she created a fabulous world and has helped encourage reading in millions of kids around the world so she deserves all the success she gets.
What rot you post sometimes Richard.
You don't like her books? Well, fair enough. Does that make her a poor writer? No.
She is a fine writer and has shown she can turn her hand to several genres with success. Her plots are good, her characters are credible and like real people, complex and irrational.
Sure, she doesn't write highbrow literature but she's not a 'poor writer'.
She has always needed a good editor. And didn't always get that. As the HP series went on, the editorial input clearly diminished and the books suffered as a result. They became bloated length is not necessarily a sign of great content.
She can tell stories, she can create a vibrant world. However a lot of her ideas do derive from well-known fantasy tropes - so she isn't that original.
She is, on the whole, readable (though I never want to read another sequence as is found in book 7 - the whole going through the woods thing went on FOREVER). The Casual Vacancy is a weak piece from start to finish - and I am not sure it would ever have been published had it been from a different author.
I don't ever question her success. I have enjoyed the HP series immensely. But I do not read her books for the quality of the writing - which is enough to make me keep reading but not something that I read for the beauty of the prose.
Just curious that they'd actually spend resources investigating something as trivial as that when they are begging for donations at the bottom of each page.
I was thinking how many of the old Dubya jokes would apply to Trump. How about the old favourite:
'If you had a choice between saving President Trump from drowning or taking the greatest and most famous photograph of all time - what shutter speed would you use?
Corbyn's promises to renegotiate are at least slightly more plausible than that of Tory newdealers (since they are only willing to move away from what the EU wants without offering any incentive), but that doesn't make it very realistic.
Michael Gove wanted to renegotiate Theresa May's deal as the price of becoming her Brexit Secretary of the week. Since in this instance Corbyn is known to favour moving closer to the EU position on the customs union and freedom of movement, we can probably assume the EU would let him. Ironically, CETA might offend Corbyn's principles more than the EU itself, with regard to state aid and the rights of foreign companies to sue countries.
She's a fucking awful writer. Those 27 publishers that rejected her at least have their self respect.
There are millions of readers out there that disagree with you. Still, what would they know, eh?
Having a great idea for a story does not make you a good writer. She had a brilliant idea but in terms of actual writing ability Dura_Ace is correct. As I am sure millions of parents have found out trying to read the stories out loud, technically she is a very poor writer with a very poor grasp of prose.
That said, she created a fabulous world and has helped encourage reading in millions of kids around the world so she deserves all the success she gets.
What rot you post sometimes Richard.
You don't like her books? Well, fair enough. Does that make her a poor writer? No.
She is a fine writer and has shown she can turn her hand to several genres with success. Her plots are good, her characters are credible and like real people, complex and irrational.
Sure, she doesn't write highbrow literature but she's not a 'poor writer'.
She has always needed a good editor. And didn't always get that. As the HP series went on, the editorial input clearly diminished and the books suffered as a result. They became bloated length is not necessarily a sign of great content.
She can tell stories, she can create a vibrant world. However a lot of her ideas do derive from well-known fantasy tropes - so she isn't that original.
She is, on the whole, readable (though I never want to read another sequence as is found in book 7 - the whole going through the woods thing went on FOREVER). The Casual Vacancy is a weak piece from start to finish - and I am not sure it would ever have been published had it been from a different author.
I don't ever question her success. I have enjoyed the HP series immensely. But I do not read her books for the quality of the writing - which is enough to make me keep reading but not something that I read for the beauty of the prose.
Yes, I agree with most of that.
I am not trying to say she's a truly great writer, just not a poor one. Casual Vacancy is meh, I'd agree. The Robert Galbraith books are perfectly fine detective novels though.
Changing the subject, I have just finished the Booker winner Milkman by Anna Burns. Really enjoyed it, thoroughly recommended. Reminded me how far we have come from the dark days of the Troubles in the 70s. Great book!
She's a fucking awful writer. Those 27 publishers that rejected her at least have their self respect.
There are millions of readers out there that disagree with you. Still, what would they know, eh?
Having a great idea for a story does not make you a good writer. She had a brilliant idea but in terms of actual writing ability Dura_Ace is correct. As I am sure millions of parents have found out trying to read the stories out loud, technically she is a very poor writer with a very poor grasp of prose.
That said, she created a fabulous world and has helped encourage reading in millions of kids around the world so she deserves all the success she gets.
What rot you post sometimes Richard.
You don't like her books? Well, fair enough. Does that make her a poor writer? No.
She is a fine writer and has shown she can turn her hand to several genres with success. Her plots are good, her characters are credible and like real people, complex and irrational.
Sure, she doesn't write highbrow literature but she's not a 'poor writer'.
It seems one reason you like her writing must be your utter lack of basic comprehension. Where did I say I didn't like her books? I said she wrote great stories and that she deserved all the success she got because of how she had inspired people to read.
But that does not by any means make her a good writer. Her prose is stilted and generally accepted to be difficult to read aloud. Her grammar is pretty atrocious and her use of vocabulary limited. She is a great storyteller but a poor writer.
Socialism usually collapses because it runs out of other people's money. Thankfully it is harder to achieve this when in opposition. But it would be amusing if this particular socialist project collapsed under the weight of its own internal contradictions.
Difficult not to feel schadenfreude for both Corbyn and Labour after all the clueless posturing they have indulged in over Brexit. I don’t suppose the Tories will find the cohesion to exploit Labour’s difficulties but still - a temporary respite from their own troubles is not to be sniffed at.
Doesn’t show Remainers in a good light either and rather highlights why they lost in the first place. That tolerant, urbane, outward looking image they like to project shattered for the myth it is on the fact that they actually lost and can’t live with that democratic verdict of the electorate.
Leavers have not attempted to include Remain supporters in their post-referendum vision of Brexit. Admittedly it was always a huge challenge after having campaigned by pandering to xenophobia but if Leavers want to know why the decision to leave the EU has not been embedded in consensus they need to look in a mirror.
So the arrogant hypocrisy continues. If Remainers had accepted the results of the referendum rather than launch into a desperate campaign to try and overturn it, at the behest of their European overlords who also told Ireland and France to think again after Lisbon, they might have been able jto build a consensus themselves. After all, most of the current Cabinet voted Remain. Instead, they resorted to the bitter and twisted empty rhetoric that cost them the referendum and tried to ignore the votes of 17.4 m of their fellow citizens. The “we wuz robbed” mentality of self pity that you wallow in doesn’t work because too many people outside London don’t benefit from EU membership or the prosperity of London and the SE.
Democracy is a bitch when it doesn’t go your way.
One only has to compare Alastair’s language with yours, to prove his point.
His constant reference to all Leavers being xenophobes you mean ? Yes, very convincing - if you are completely biased and without the ability to construct a rational argument.
I have not seen Alastair ever say "all Leavers are xenophobes" or anything like.
He has regularly claimed we are apologists for xenophobia simply because we don't conform to his slighted view of things. It is rather like claiming Churchill was an apologist for Communism.
On topic, I've only just noticed the first tweet listed in the header, the author further down the thread says she did not vote Labour in 2017. So it is pretty odd that she 'fell for' Corbyn's promises.
Oh, the irony if Europe brought down Corbyn rather than May.
The problem being Corbyn's support base is largely supportive regardless of Brexit. Whilst they certainly want to remain it isn't their number one priority and on almost every other aspect they prefer Corbyn to those who want him gone.
I'd agree with this - although it could change very quickly. One of the motivations of people like Michael Chessum etc. who've started up Labour left pro-EU campaigns is almost to save Corbyn from himself. As you say, they want Corbyn on almost everything else but believe the actuality of Brexit would derail the project externally and internally because it would be bad on a scale that Corbyn and his advisers are unable and unwilling to contemplate.
Essentially, it all comes down what your view of Brexit is. I'd suggest there's now a split between Corbyn supporters (all of whom, note are still supporters) between the relaxed leadership view about Brexit (even if opponents to it) and the Love Corbyn, Hate Brexit crowd who think it is such a bad idea it would harm Labour electorally and politically, as well as their project internally.
As regards the latter, there's no way we're going back to the pre-2015 Labour Party. You can't unscramble an egg. Labour members aren't going to suddenly decide Chuka Umunna was right all along. But these things tend to change fast and a leader/project that's unassailable can become irretrievably tainted months later if it finds itself on the 'wrong' side of the issue. See Brown. Burnham and Cooper in 2015. It'd be hubris itself to suggest getting on the wrong side of the single biggest issue of the day with potentially dire consequences wouldn't have any effect.
Comments
I have from time to time enjoyed both Rowling and Dura_Ace’s stuff, though neither are Dostoevsky.
That said, she created a fabulous world and has helped encourage reading in millions of kids around the world so she deserves all the success she gets.
Mind you, W. E. Johns when he tried to find an alternative ended up by having Biggles and Ginger ejaculate everywhere, which is slightly unfortunate in a modern context...
Whilst it isn't possible for us (mostly) to know other people's votes or minds it is possible to have voted remain and believe Brexit should happen.
I signed the petition about another referendum after the last referendum, I can't remember my exact thoughts at the time but within a few hours I reasoned with myself that whatever the good reasons to do so (the blind all types of Brexit aspect remain had to fight was my main one) I couldn't really argue the result.
All that has happened since has given more legitimacy to a second vote and I can see the case for it now but I can also see a case against it. Beyond even purely for electoral advantage there can be an argument made for Brexiting regardless of events because it was voted for originally.
I do suspect Labour might change to a more remain position, if not remain depending on events there is certainly a moral argument for not doing so even if you wanted to remain and voted for it.
'I know a bloke in Crawley who owns a drone.'
'Crawley? That's near Gatwick. Must have been him.'
Or not.
As if anyone would admit to knowing somebody from Crawley.
(That is meant humorously, btw.)
I am always a bit concerned when the Police make initial arrests.
As I feel they are under pressure, to be seen to be doing something..
You would think by now the media, would wait until people have been charged.
The party that would grab my attention would be both socially and economically liberal, committed to decriminalising drugs, assisted dying, opposing things like the automatic facial recognition cameras currently trialling in London, with a commitment to cut taxes, starting with the burdens that fall heaviest on the poorest in society. I would want VAT on domestic fuel bills zero rated for example, something which is impossible while in the EU.
I want a party that vehemently opposes idiotic legislation like the wanking license and won't try to nationalise my house the moment my back is turned.
Where is my party? Who, in this day and age, do I vote for?
At the moment I'm only able to vote against something, in this case Corbyn, as the hapless Tories seem like the lesser of two evils.
Allegedly.
Of course, there are other potential issues. First of all, who owns the copyright in that photo? If the Mail took it off the net, they could be liable for a heavy fine. Secondly, have they invaded the couple's privacy unreasonably? If so, there are potential legal avenues open.
If I were Geordie Greig, I would right now be putting a published apology and ten grand on the table, just to be on the safe side.
Being labelled "Blairite" is - to cretins - a fate worse than crashing out of the EU with no deal and bringing ruin to millions of Labour voters.
1) He lives in Crawley
2) He collects remote control toys
3) He took an unexpected day off sick on the day of the drone brouhaha
That's about as pissweak as circumstantial evidence gets. I am *amazed* that the police felt they had reasonable grounds for an arrest if that's all they had.
At least they're going to get a nice bumper christmas bonus from their unlawful arrest and defamation settlements.
What they will not want to do is add variable cost, i.e. to also lose support amongst what is left of their brexity working class base, which though diminished is still considerable. They cannot win a general election if that happens, their list of target seats tells you this in no uncertain terms.
So, yes, the Corbyn line on Brexit makes a lot of sense to me. It has every chance of working electorally. And if the contest ends up between him and a new Tory leader from the Europhobic right of the party, well that is a nice little bonus. In those circumstances, I think Jeremy has a decent chance of entering number 10 with a small working majority.
Apparently we are Gladstonian Liberals.
But the cause are good?
He has gone all Mrs May on you - Brexit means Brexit
It caused a lot of angst. On the one hand, nobody was very happy with the way this man had been convicted on such evidence. We didn't feel it was appropriate someone was essentially being locked up for being smarter than this particular police officer (several phrases including the words 'damp walls' were used).
On the other hand, everyone knew damn well he was guilty, and we weren't terribly happy about the thought of letting the bastard out to kill again.
And finally, he did confess and tell the police where he'd buried her. To give you some idea of how thick this officer was, he hadn't bothered to dig the fecking garden.
In comparison my nan thought Crawley was heaven on earth ... but I understand your jest :-)
Brexit is not about Blair. Or Corbyn. Left or right. People on all sides of the political spectrum have supported both sides of the debate. And if arguing against Brexit is the same as arguing against Corbyn, thats only recent now that Corbyn has come out against the membership and against party policy and against decades of internationalist solidarity.
Have no idea how long you have been involved in this movement, but isolationism is not part of our history or our traditions.
Brexit will suppress the tories vote ... but Labour voters will still vote labour despite the added sense of betrayal and against the evidence?
What do you expect quite frankly?
The party has turned into a factional warzone (in some parts) where there are plenty on each side just wanting the upper hand regardless of the issue.
You often come here with stories about how the evil Corbyn cultists are doing x or y but it makes me somewhat doubtful when you talk about how you innocently try to do things and are shouted down by evil Corbyn fans when on here you constantly rant about cultists and Kali ma...
You sure you aren't contributing to the arguments, I'm not calling you a liar but there are 2 sides to every story and you have very strong views on the subject.
The motion IMO could harm Labour at the moment, if hypothetically Labour did want a second referendum but without giving the Tories their Brexit betrayal line then not going now is the best option. It would also take away a powerful argument against Corbyn in a 2nd referendum campaign, he wouldn't have betrayed anyone and could argue more effectively for remain.
(a) They live in Crawley
(b) They can't account for their movements on Friday
(c) They ever voted Green
Forget the first two, stick to number three.
I don't think I would vote for a libertarian party but I would vote for a Gladstonian liberal party.
As for the numbers is May going to be in the next election or one of her less popular rivals?
If it is May I look forward to watching out for changes as the election campaign happens.
Seriously, I meant balanced in the sense that Conservative members and voters are inclined to one view but the majority of MPs to the other. There is clearly a debate openly going on between the two wings within the party.
You don't have that in Labour - both the party and its MPs are overwhelmingly Remain now, even more so than its voters.Unless that changes, I doubt whether anyone who openly expresses support for Leave will be selected to stand for Labour at the next GE, save perhaps one or two sitting MPs who may just hang on in the face of reselection. There is no debate going on within Labour as any remaining Eurosceptics have to hide their opinions in the closet. That the party leader is one of them does not change the broader picture.
You do have the Lib Dems would come 2nd hypothetical poll but I am pretty sure someone pointed out there was a similar one before the 2017 election. Labour voters are mainly remainers and do care about the issue, there is very little evidence it is their top issue or one that will solely decide their vote.
Merry Christmas, one and all.
I'd vote for that.
So, in the event of Remain, Meeks should certainly be the choice to head up the National Reconciliation Committee.
In the same spirit that War Criminal Blair was made a Middle East Peace Envoy.
Res ipsa loquitur.
Your charming riposte didn’t change my mind.
https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1076766143912779776?s=21
His store has misplaced an apostrophe.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/23/trump-war-on-christmas-happy-holidays-businesses
You don't like her books? Well, fair enough. Does that make her a poor writer? No.
She is a fine writer and has shown she can turn her hand to several genres with success. Her plots are good, her characters are credible and like real people, complex and irrational.
Sure, she doesn't write highbrow literature but she's not a 'poor writer'.
Why miss a chance to poke fun at Trump?
'If you had a choice between saving President Trump from drowning or taking the greatest and most famous photograph of all time - what shutter speed would you use?
She can tell stories, she can create a vibrant world. However a lot of her ideas do derive from well-known fantasy tropes - so she isn't that original.
She is, on the whole, readable (though I never want to read another sequence as is found in book 7 - the whole going through the woods thing went on FOREVER). The Casual Vacancy is a weak piece from start to finish - and I am not sure it would ever have been published had it been from a different author.
I don't ever question her success. I have enjoyed the HP series immensely. But I do not read her books for the quality of the writing - which is enough to make me keep reading but not something that I read for the beauty of the prose.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/audrey-geisel-caretaker-of-the-dr-seuss-literary-estate-dies-at-97/2018/12/21/188c5810-054e-11e9-9122-82e98f91ee6f_story.html
Now there was a writer. Though he reportedly had no time for children at all.
* Although it would have been even better if the last three books had been edited by 10, 20 and 40% respectively.
I am not trying to say she's a truly great writer, just not a poor one. Casual Vacancy is meh, I'd agree. The Robert Galbraith books are perfectly fine detective novels though.
Changing the subject, I have just finished the Booker winner Milkman by Anna Burns. Really enjoyed it, thoroughly recommended. Reminded me how far we have come from the dark days of the Troubles in the 70s. Great book!
But that does not by any means make her a good writer. Her prose is stilted and generally accepted to be difficult to read aloud. Her grammar is pretty atrocious and her use of vocabulary limited. She is a great storyteller but a poor writer.
(I'm just off out so I will get my coat)
If it existed, he would have had a massive coronary and there would be President Pence.
Just saying.
In theory you could make your lower band 0%, and include domestic fuel in that category.
Essentially, it all comes down what your view of Brexit is. I'd suggest there's now a split between Corbyn supporters (all of whom, note are still supporters) between the relaxed leadership view about Brexit (even if opponents to it) and the Love Corbyn, Hate Brexit crowd who think it is such a bad idea it would harm Labour electorally and politically, as well as their project internally.
As regards the latter, there's no way we're going back to the pre-2015 Labour Party. You can't unscramble an egg. Labour members aren't going to suddenly decide Chuka Umunna was right all along. But these things tend to change fast and a leader/project that's unassailable can become irretrievably tainted months later if it finds itself on the 'wrong' side of the issue. See Brown. Burnham and Cooper in 2015. It'd be hubris itself to suggest getting on the wrong side of the single biggest issue of the day with potentially dire consequences wouldn't have any effect.