He has only one thought in his head, Remain Remain Remain. Until Labour come out for Remain he cannot make that happen no matter his intelligence. He's definitely not able to help come up with a Brexit solution.
Maybe the message to Corbyn is...I'm waiting for you to complete the set of parties coming to me pushing for a 2nd referendum at which point I'll go you've forced my hand.
It's very peculiar that the tin-eared automaton has no idea what "it" is, but she's absolutely determined that whatever "it" is, the public want us to get on with "it".
She's convinced she's doing the right thing, even when she has no idea what it is she's doing. That's deranged behaviour.
I don't know how to put this, but...is she not compos mentis right now? Not in the nasty sense, but the sense where she's stressed to a point where she isn't making sense any more?
I am not sure it's appropriate that she can get free primetime coverage to simply make a pointed comment about Labour when they have no right of reply.
Nor me. Laura K is so shit she has turned me to ITV. Quite happy there. Tom B and Pezza very entertaining.
Laura K is very good.
I remember similar jibes about toenails Robinson, or lefty Andy Marr, during the previous administration in the past. I might have even joined in at times.
Goes with the territory.
No insight, no inside information, no stories.
Name three good stories she has got in her entire career.
I am not sure it's appropriate that she can get free primetime coverage to simply make a pointed comment about Labour when they have no right of reply.
You think Labour needs the chance to look sillly too?
It's very peculiar that the tin-eared has no idea what "it" is, but she's absolutely determined that whatever "it" is, the public want us to get on with "it".
She's convinced she's doing the right thing, even when she has no idea what it is she's doing. That's deranged behaviour.
Actually she did point out that 80% of people voted for parties committed to Brexit which probably needs to be repeated.
I bet she goes out and does the full walk on her walking holidays even if it is absolubtely lashing it down with hailstones; has blisters from the day before and there is freezing rain.
It's very peculiar that the tin-eared has no idea what "it" is, but she's absolutely determined that whatever "it" is, the public want us to get on with "it".
She's convinced she's doing the right thing, even when she has no idea what it is she's doing. That's deranged behaviour.
Actually she did point out that 80% of people voted for parties committed to Brexit which probably needs to be repeated.
I am not sure it's appropriate that she can get free primetime coverage to simply make a pointed comment about Labour when they have no right of reply.
You think Labour needs the chance to look sillly too?
It's very peculiar that the tin-eared has no idea what "it" is, but she's absolutely determined that whatever "it" is, the public want us to get on with "it".
She's convinced she's doing the right thing, even when she has no idea what it is she's doing. That's deranged behaviour.
Actually she did point out that 80% of people voted for parties committed to Brexit which probably needs to be repeated.
And over 50% voted for parties that explicitly ruled out a No Deal Brexit.
Nor me. Laura K is so shit she has turned me to ITV. Quite happy there. Tom B and Pezza very entertaining.
Laura K is very good.
I remember similar jibes about toenails Robinson, or lefty Andy Marr, during the previous administration in the past. I might have even joined in at times.
Goes with the territory.
No insight, no inside information, no stories.
Name three good stories she has got in her entire career.
She’s a conduit, not a journalist I’m afraid.
One might suggest you are obsessed.
I'd have thought the BBC Political Editor job was more conduit than journalist anyway to be honest. It's their job to show up every day to say 30 seconds for us dumb dumbs.
What was that about? She really doesn't get it does she.
I will defend on that point. What exactly did she not get there? It was a short, pretty pointless statement, but the only clear part was she was claiming to be open to discussions with other parties and would be doing so tomorrow to try to come up with something. Is that not what parliament has told her they want? So she did get it.
Assumes that she has any intention of conceding anything substantive. Come Monday we could very easily be treated to another serving of aerated drivel from behind the dispatch box, with another five days having been run off the clock.
It always comes back to the same question: if May is unwilling to budge then MPs have to decide whether they do something effective to take control of this process, or persist with their posturing.
Because, if they genuinely believe No Deal to be an unthinkable disaster then, given that they have the means to prevent it, how can they - simply for want of the ability to agree a common plan - fail to do so and emerge with one shred of credibility left? ..
The biggest mistake we are making is believing they are genuine about thinking it a disaster. The actions of MPs do not bear that out. They clearly think it will be bad. But not so bad they need to compromise to a deal, or referendum, or whatever. Not yet anyway.
Most MP's think that a No Deal Brexit will be good for them.
It's very peculiar that the tin-eared has no idea what "it" is, but she's absolutely determined that whatever "it" is, the public want us to get on with "it".
She's convinced she's doing the right thing, even when she has no idea what it is she's doing. That's deranged behaviour.
Actually she did point out that 80% of people voted for parties committed to Brexit which probably needs to be repeated.
Despite being utterly irrelevant
Not at all it is a fact and relevant what with us being in a democracy an' all.
Nor me. Laura K is so shit she has turned me to ITV. Quite happy there. Tom B and Pezza very entertaining.
Laura K is very good.
I remember similar jibes about toenails Robinson, or lefty Andy Marr, during the previous administration in the past. I might have even joined in at times.
Goes with the territory.
No insight, no inside information, no stories.
Name three good stories she has got in her entire career.
She’s a conduit, not a journalist I’m afraid.
She gives insight and inside information. She also supplies decent analysis and explanations of political events just after they occur for the viewers.
I’m not sure it’s the job of the BBC political editor to do scoops.
It's very peculiar that the tin-eared has no idea what "it" is, but she's absolutely determined that whatever "it" is, the public want us to get on with "it".
She's convinced she's doing the right thing, even when she has no idea what it is she's doing. That's deranged behaviour.
Actually she did point out that 80% of people voted for parties committed to Brexit which probably needs to be repeated.
And over 50% voted for parties that explicitly ruled out a No Deal Brexit.
I really don't think she wants to No Deal. Or she wouldn't be here fighting over the WA.
OH HOLY F*****G S**T. EVERYTIME SHE OPENS HER MOUTH THE POUND TAKES A BATH. WHAT IS IT THIS TIME? ELECTION? RESIGNATION? GONU? WAR WITH SATURN? CAN'T YOU LAY OFF THE DRAMA FOR A FEW DAYS GODSDAMMIT?! I CAN ONLY COPE WITH ONE B****Y EMERGENCY AT A TIME.
Genuinely lol'd, particularly at war with Saturn :-D
I'll have you know I have many relatives among the secret alien denizens of Saturn and I find that highly offensive.
I for one welcome our new Saturnian overlords.
They couldn’t be any worse, could they?
As long as they're not planning a vote to pull Earth out of the Solar Union, can't see how
Did you declare your interest @solarflare . If not you should be sent to the naughty step (aka ConservativeHome)
Seriously Tories, you need to get rid. We’re going nowhere with May.
I’m starting to think we’d be better off with the comedian that is Bozza.
At least he is able to get around a table, a la his negotiations with Bob Crow back in the day.
I never thought I’d write that but there it is.
He just turned up briefly, promised Crow he would get what he wanted, and left his TfL oppos to write it all up. Not what we want or need at all.
No, you are right. I must have taken leave of my senses! Still, he could barely be worse than May so - in those narrow terms - I suppose my OP was fair.
It's very peculiar that the tin-eared has no idea what "it" is, but she's absolutely determined that whatever "it" is, the public want us to get on with "it".
She's convinced she's doing the right thing, even when she has no idea what it is she's doing. That's deranged behaviour.
Actually she did point out that 80% of people voted for parties committed to Brexit which probably needs to be repeated.
And over 50% voted for parties that explicitly ruled out a No Deal Brexit.
I really don't think she wants to No Deal. Or she wouldn't be here fighting over the WA.
May wants to use No Deal as a threat to get opposition parties to accept the deal they have previously rejected, because she won't be able to convince her MPs to do likewise.
Wot now? I say look at how we got here. To be fair to May, Cammo’s policy this will be settled once and for all with remain/leave referendum looks worst decision ever in British politics, putting out a fire by pouring petrol all over it. And some people think it’s good idea to have another one, the fire can be put out by adding even more petrol?
Whether what is Brexit is clear or not, what is role of parliament in delivering ref result? should parliament have a meaningful say, especially to fill in variances where voters were only asked to provide one dimensional answer to multifaceted outcome? We traditionally have representative democracy, a conviction it helps us achieve strong outcomes, strong as in consensual, strong as in delivering results. Let’s remind ourselves what representative democracy is. Edmund Burke (who some call Father of Conservatism): Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
An interesting post.
I think the basic problem is only a small part of the population understand the issue and the complexities arising from Brexit. People, particularly vocal Leave supporting individuals seem to think the decision and method of Leaving has little consequence for Government, Parliament, Business and individuals. It is one of the paradox's about Brexit that those members of the public who complain loudest about the EU, do not seem to understand how just leaving will blow the lives apart of millions. They claim economists, trade advisors, business leaders, health managers and others are part of project fear and it will all be alright. David Cameron did make a very poor judgement in calling that referendum but the current PM has built on the foundation of his misjudgement and poured petrol on the mess that could engulf us all. Maybe fighting fire with fire is the only way out via a second referendum?
You fight fire by taking what it breathes away. This crisis is fuelled by brexit still defined in an infinite number of ways, running at odds with a referendum result which defined it as just one thing. What makes this situation feel like gridlock is people use the word democracy as though democracy is just one thing too, “must honour the democratic mandate” “the credibility of democracy is at stake”. Democracy is not just one thing, there are different forms of it, different as chalk and cheese, the words of Burke on strength of representative democracy versus what voters say on voxpop about their instruction to representatives via the ref result. switch from representative to direct needs strong understanding what to do with direct result in what is still representative system. Where is the evidence this is understood, clarified and mitigated?
Brexit or a penalty shootout? the choice is yours...
Combine the two. Get MPs to put out four teams for a special penalty competition (Norwegians, People's Voters, Dealers and No Dealers.) Mr Speaker conducts a semi-final draw, then they get on with it. Can get the whole thing resolved in an hour.
Name three good stories she has got in her entire career.
She’s a conduit, not a journalist I’m afraid.
Isabel Oakeshott got "good stories" but she's a fucking terrible journalist
Yes, for different reasons. The odious Oakeshott is a non-journalist who shops her sources. Nobody is accusing Laura of stepping into any such gutters.
Her Plan B in a few days is going to be quite a moment. All ready cringing at that the very thought of it. Nothing has changed.
I honestly don't know how she can say anything but, as she still seems to be against any alternatives. What is going to be said tomorrow that would persuade her she can politically carry enough of her MPs plus opposition MPs on options she has said are terrible?
It's going to be to ask for a godsdamned extension from the EU isn't it?
Brexit or a penalty shootout? the choice is yours...
Combine the two. Get MPs to put out four teams for a special penalty competition (Norwegians, People's Voters, Dealers and No Dealers.) Mr Speaker conducts a semi-final draw, then they get on with it. Can get the whole thing resolved in an hour.
It's very peculiar that the tin-eared has no idea what "it" is, but she's absolutely determined that whatever "it" is, the public want us to get on with "it".
She's convinced she's doing the right thing, even when she has no idea what it is she's doing. That's deranged behaviour.
Actually she did point out that 80% of people voted for parties committed to Brexit which probably needs to be repeated.
It's been repeated far too often already. The clue to the purpose of a general election is in the name.
Wot now? I say look at how we got here. To be fair to May, Cammo’s policy this will be settled once and for all with remain/leave referendum looks worst decision ever in British politics, putting out a fire by pouring petrol all over it. And some people think it’s good idea to have another one, the fire can be put out by adding even more petrol?
Whether what is Brexit is clear or not, what is role of parliament in delivering ref result? should parliament have a meaningful say, especially to fill in variances where voters were only asked to provide one dimensional answer to multifaceted outcome? We traditionally have representative democracy, a conviction it helps us achieve strong outcomes, strong as in consensual, strong as in delivering results. Let’s remind ourselves what representative democracy is. Edmund Burke (who some call Father of Conservatism): Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
An interesting post.
I think the basic problem is only a small part of the population understand the issue and the complexities arising from Brexit. People, particularly vocal Leave supporting individuals seem to think the decision and method of Leaving has little consequence for Government, Parliament, Business and individuals. It is one of the paradox'sgers and others are part of project fear and it will all be alright. David Cameron did make a very poor judgement in calling that referendum but the current PM has built on the foundation of his misjudgement and poured petrol on the mess that could engulf us all. Maybe fighting fire with fire is the only way out via a second referendum?
You fight fire by taking what it breathes away. This crisis is fuelled by brexit still defined in an infinite number of ways, running at odds with a referendum result which defined it as just one thing. What makes this situation feel like gridlock is people use the word democracy as though democracy is just one thing too, “must honour the democratic mandate” “the credibility of democracy is at stake”. Democracy is not just one thing, there are different forms of it, different as chalk and cheese, the words of Burke on strength of representative democracy versus what voters say on voxpop about their instruction to representatives via the ref result. switch from representative to direct needs strong understanding what to do with direct result in what is still representative system. Where is the evidence this is understood, clarified and mitigated?
Since Burke was opposed to 95% of the population having any say in government, why would anyone treat his words as Gospel?
...if they genuinely believe No Deal to be an unthinkable disaster then, given that they have the means to prevent it, how can they - simply for want of the ability to agree a common plan - fail to do so...
Possible explanations:
* Isn't there some kind of weird game theory thing that predicts this: a bad outcome because nobody can agree on the good? * Some MPs actually want the chaos * Some MPs are too stupid to understand the implications * Some MPs are sufficiently wealthy to be insulated from the bad effects and have insufficient incentive to avoid them.
Not quite what you're looking for, I suspect, but a personal favourite Game Theory result of mine...
Actually think inviting opposition leaders WAS her Plan B. She seemed genuinely shocked and grimaced when it was revealed they might not agree with her or would set conditions.
Her Plan B in a few days is going to be quite a moment. All ready cringing at that the very thought of it. Nothing has changed.
Well, what has changed? The options remain crashing out without a deal (the default if parliament can't agree anything else), agreeing the withdrawal deal, or revoking Article 50. That's it, there are no other options, although we could perhaps delay things a bit and then decide between these options in another referendum. And if we agree the current deal, this or another government can adjust the final trade relationship over the next couple of years.
Brexit or a penalty shootout? the choice is yours...
Combine the two. Get MPs to put out four teams for a special penalty competition (Norwegians, People's Voters, Dealers and No Dealers.) Mr Speaker conducts a semi-final draw, then they get on with it. Can get the whole thing resolved in an hour.
Derby go through
Waghorn, Nugent and Lawrence all Leicester rejects of course
Her Plan B in a few days is going to be quite a moment. All ready cringing at that the very thought of it. Nothing has changed.
Well, what has changed? The options remain crashing out without a deal (the default if parliament can't agree anything else), agreeing the withdrawal deal, or revoking Article 50. That's it, there are no other options, although we could perhaps delay things a bit and then decide between these options in another referendum. And if we agree the current deal, this or another government can adjust the final trade relationship over the next couple of years.
In fairness that is true. The EU have made that clear as well. This is it. Three choices, and a lot of faff around how you get to some of those choices.
Wot now? I say look at how we got here. To be fair to May, Cammo’s policy this will be settled once and for all with remain/leave referendum looks worst decision ever in British politics, putting out a fire by pouring petrol all over it. And some people think it’s good idea to have another one, the fire can be put out by adding even more petrol?
Whether what is Brexit is clear or not, what is role of parliament in delivering ref result? should parliament have a meaningful say, especially to fill in variances where voters were only asked to provide one dimensional answer to multifaceted outcome? We traditionally have representative democracy, a conviction it helps us achieve strong outcomes, strong as in consensual, strong as in delivering results. Let’s remind ourselves what representative democracy is. Edmund Burke (who some call Father of Conservatism): Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
An interesting post.
I think the basic problem is only a small part of the population understand the issue and the complexities arising from Brexit. People, particularly vocal Leave supporting individuals seem to think the decision and method of Leaving has little consequence for Government, Parliament, Business and individuals. It is one of the paradox'sgers and others are part of project fear and it will all be alright. David Cameron did make a very poor judgement in calling that referendum but the current PM has built on the foundation of his misjudgement and poured petrol on the mess that could engulf us all. Maybe fighting fire with fire is the only way out via a second referendum?
You fight fire by taking what it breathes away. This crisis is fuelled by brexit still defined in an infinite number of ways, running at odds with a referendum result which defined it as just one thing. What makes this situation feel like gridlock is people use the word democracy as though democracy is just one thing too, “must honour the democratic mandate” “the credibility of democracy is at stake”. Democracy is not just one thing, there are different forms of it, different as chalk and cheese, the words of Burke on strength of representative democracy versus what voters say on voxpop about their instruction to representatives via the ref result. switch from representative to direct needs strong understanding what to do with direct result in what is still representative system. Where is the evidence this is understood, clarified and mitigated?
Since Burke was opposed to 95% of the population having any say in government, why would anyone treat his words as Gospel?
Because, if they genuinely believe No Deal to be an unthinkable disaster then, given that they have the means to prevent it, how can they - simply for want of the ability to agree a common plan - fail to do so and emerge with one shred of credibility left? ..
The biggest mistake we are making is believing they are genuine about thinking it a disaster. The actions of MPs do not bear that out. They clearly think it will be bad. But not so bad they need to compromise to a deal, or referendum, or whatever. Not yet anyway.
Most MP's think that a No Deal Brexit will be good for them.
Unless they are on lifesaving Meds..or their elders are.....or they have pension pots, or capital invested in any kind of UK assets
I cannot quite believe how a traditionally liberal pro business based party could quite so easily take to a policy that will destroy wealth and lives....Brexit, an ideology based on hatred. Discuss.
Wot now? I say look at how we got here. To be fair to May, Cammo’s policy this will be settled once and for all with remain/leave referendum looks worst decision ever in British politics, putting out a fire by pouring petrol all over it. And some people think it’s good idea to have another one, the fire can be put out by adding even more petrol?
Whether what is Brexit is clear or not, what is role of parliament in delivering ref result? should parliament have a meaningful say, especially to fill in variances where voters were only asked to provide one dimensional answer to multifaceted outcome? We traditionally have representative democracy, a conviction it helps us achieve strong outcomes, strong as in consensual, strong as inu, not his industry only, but his judgment; he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
An interesting post.
I think the basic problem is only a small part of the population understand the issue and the complexities arising from Brexit. People, particularly vocal Leave supporting individuals seem to think the decision and method of Leaving has little consequence for Government, Parliament, Business and individuals. It is one of the paradox'sgers and others are part of project fear and it will all be alright. David Cameron did make a very poor judgement in calling that referendum but the current PM has built on the foundation of his misjudgement and poured petrol on the mess that could engulf us all. Maybe fighting fire with fire is the only way out via a second referendum?
You fight fire by taking what it breathes away. This crisis is fuelled by brexit still defined in an infinite number of ways, running at odds with a referendum result which defined it as just one thing. What makes this situation feel like gridlock is people use the word democracy as though democracy is just one thing too, “must honour the democratic mandate” “the credibility of democracy is at stake”. Democracy is not just one thing, there are different forms of it, different as chalk and cheese, the words of Burke on strength of representative democracy versus what voters say on voxpop about their instruction to representatives via the ref result. switch from representative to direct needs strong understanding what to do with direct result in what is still representative system. Where is the evidence this is understood, clarified and mitigated?
Since Burke was opposed to 95% of the population having any say in government, why would anyone treat his words as Gospel?
He seems to have been right on that!
The judgement of the 5% is no better than the 95%.
Because, if they genuinely believe No Deal to be an unthinkable disaster then, given that they have the means to prevent it, how can they - simply for want of the ability to agree a common plan - fail to do so and emerge with one shred of credibility left? ..
The biggest mistake we are making is believing they are genuine about thinking it a disaster. The actions of MPs do not bear that out. They clearly think it will be bad. But not so bad they need to compromise to a deal, or referendum, or whatever. Not yet anyway.
Most MP's think that a No Deal Brexit will be good for them.
Unless they are on lifesaving Meds..or their elders are.....or they have pension pots, or capital invested in any kind of UK assets
I cannot quite believe how a traditionally liberal pro business based party could quite so easily take to a policy that will destroy wealth and lives....Brexit, an ideology based on hatred. Discuss.
The suggestion was whether MPs believe it will be good for them, politically (I assume), not whether it actually would be good for them. Many who claim to hate no deal would politically gain from it.
...if they genuinely believe No Deal to be an unthinkable disaster then, given that they have the means to prevent it, how can they - simply for want of the ability to agree a common plan - fail to do so...
Possible explanations:
* Isn't there some kind of weird game theory thing that predicts this: a bad outcome because nobody can agree on the good? * Some MPs actually want the chaos * Some MPs are too stupid to understand the implications * Some MPs are sufficiently wealthy to be insulated from the bad effects and have insufficient incentive to avoid them.
Not quite what you're looking for, I suspect, but a personal favourite Game Theory result of mine...
On the basis of that I'm voting Corbyn. He might be useless and dishonest, but at least be comes across as human.
Sturgeon does human too.
I like Nicola Sturgeon now she has shaken off Alex Salmond's influence. He is an aggressive individual and she was picking up bad behaviour from him.
Yes, Nicola is very likeable - the most capable of all the party leaders.
Likeable? Well, chacun à son gon goût and all that, but I must say that's not a word which I would use of her. Effective, talented, capable, yes, but not likeable.
I bet she goes out and does the full walk on her walking holidays even if it is absolubtely lashing it down with hailstones; has blisters from the day before and there is freezing rain.
Don’t forget the barb wire garter like assassin in Da Vinci Code. 🙃
Government has been telling business there won't be a no deal exit from the very start. And quite rightly so. What they have promised they will have to deliver, one way or another.
Good piece in The Spectator about the realities of 'no deal' Brexit.
Thanks to your recommendation I took a read. Half of it saying the people that do the stuff day and day out like the Road Haulage Association are wrong about their own processes. Half of it straw men. Paint a picture of lurid catastrophe. Not going to happen, so it's all going to be fine
Whether you like the Speaker or not...you have to admit he's very fucking good at the whole theatrics of the show. Not quite up to that Yank who does the boxing pre announcements- but Bercow's Parliamentary antics are class...
Good piece in The Spectator about the realities of 'no deal' Brexit.
Thanks to your recommendation I took a read. Half of it saying the people that do the stuff day and day out like the Road Haulage Association are wrong about their own processes. Half of it straw men. Paint a picture of lurid catastrophe. Not going to happen, so it's all going to be fine
They will print any old crap that makes a hard Brexit sound good. That piece they published about the faults of May's deal turned out to contain huge dollops of fake news.
Whether you like the Speaker or not...you have to admit he's very fucking good at the whole theatrics of the show. Not quite up to that Yank who does the boxing pre announcements- but Bercow's Parliamentary antics are class...
Something better than this. Which is not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is pretending that it is unfair they are now faced with the prospect they agreed to set in motion should things not go well.
Good piece in The Spectator about the realities of 'no deal' Brexit.
Thanks to your recommendation I took a read. Half of it saying the people that do the stuff day and day out like the Road Haulage Association are wrong about their own processes. Half of it straw men. Paint a picture of lurid catastrophe. Not going to happen, so it's all going to be fine
So 'lurid catastrophe' is a straw man is it? That's quite an admission.
'increasingly' is really working hard in that sentence, given the byline of the paper.
An independent Scotland would yield a Tory majority of 17 for rUK. When you add in 10 DUP and North Down, Corbyn's path to Government becomes way more difficult.
Good piece in The Spectator about the realities of 'no deal' Brexit.
Thanks to your recommendation I took a read. Half of it saying the people that do the stuff day and day out like the Road Haulage Association are wrong about their own processes. Half of it straw men. Paint a picture of lurid catastrophe. Not going to happen, so it's all going to be fine
Peter Lilley had quite a good argument that No Deal wouldn't be as bad as expected.
He said the Millennium Bug wasn't as bad as expected.
The Telegraph transcript of the telephone between Hammond, Clark and Barclay and some business association leaders, consultants et al is perfectly clear. There is no plan B. All May is going to do is push her plan. Hammond consistently says that the plans to take no deal of the table is a backbench initiative and that the Govt will not take it off the table because it reduces their leverage in both the HoC and the EU.
Edit: In the interests of clarity the Telegraph has no confirmed that their were more businesses on the call than they quoted and listed in their initial article.
Comments
Got it?
At least he is able to get around a table, a la his negotiations with Bob Crow back in the day.
I never thought I’d write that but there it is.
She's convinced she's doing the right thing, even when she has no idea what it is she's doing. That's deranged behaviour.
I am not sure it's appropriate that she can get free primetime coverage to simply make a pointed comment about Labour when they have no right of reply.
Name three good stories she has got in her entire career.
She’s a conduit, not a journalist, I’m afraid.
As I said it was short and sweet and directed to voters to confirm she would complete Brexit
I'd have thought the BBC Political Editor job was more conduit than journalist anyway to be honest. It's their job to show up every day to say 30 seconds for us dumb dumbs.
It always comes back to the same question: if May is unwilling to budge then MPs have to decide whether they do something effective to take control of this process, or persist with their posturing.
You didn’t miss anything
I’m not sure it’s the job of the BBC political editor to do scoops.
59 E High St, Gettysburg, PA 17325, USA......
Three cheers for our noble PM.
Yes, for different reasons. The odious Oakeshott is a non-journalist who shops her sources. Nobody is accusing Laura of stepping into any such gutters.
Has this been discussed? Seems incredible that the CoE is telling people this in an official capacity?
May needs to meet Corbyn so he gets the blame for 'forcing' her into it?
It's going to be to ask for a godsdamned extension from the EU isn't it? Hadn't heard this,but he's not wrong on the headline stuff there.
Burning money in opera vs football
You can get better results if you are genuinely able to commit to self-harm, even if you don't end up using that option.
Peston did a good job of proper journalism when he was at the Beeb.
If bland comprehension is your thing then stick with Laura.
That’s why we have several channels I guess.
Waghorn, Nugent and Lawrence all Leicester rejects of course
I cannot quite believe how a traditionally liberal pro business based party could quite so easily take to a policy that will destroy wealth and lives....Brexit, an ideology based on hatred. Discuss.
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/1085663358106259457
What on earth were they expecting ?
* as OGH would get a big bill...
He said the Millennium Bug wasn't as bad as expected.
Edit: In the interests of clarity the Telegraph has no confirmed that their were more businesses on the call than they quoted and listed in their initial article.