So what happens if the WA gets the most support but not a majority? Is Parliament going to grow up and pass it?
I think it will depend on what the other least unpopular options are, and what the numbers look like. If we get MV3 on Friday, the vote will take place in the knowledge of how much support there might be for alternatives. It is possible - I put it no higher than that - that MPs' minds will be focused by this new information, but I'm not holding my breath.
If they already know they have another chance to vote on various things on the Monday they have no reason to be more focused on deal on the Friday. The time pressure on MV3 is its own problem for them.
So what happens if the WA gets the most support but not a majority? Is Parliament going to grow up and pass it?
Yes if that happens though I think that happening is very unlikely, especially if there's a free vote on the government side it could see quite a few Remain-leaning Tories back the opposition in supporting a softer Brexit.
In fact I think BJO could be right and a Customs Union Brexit could win a majority. Which would be a terrible outcome but there we have it.
@ShehabKhan Mar 25 More The Guardian revealed that 15 Tory Councillors who were suspended for posting Islamophobic and racist comments online have been reinstated.
Good luck with flogging that dead horse. Yes, we know what your (and the Guardian's) motive is, but it's not going anywhere: this is not in the faintest degree comparable to the institutional anti-semitism in Corbyn's Labour Party.
Two questions on the indicative votes for the wise heads to consider:
1. As I understand it, MPs can select any options they'd be prepared to back. But what incentive if any do they have to back options other than their favourite one or two?
2. Related to that - do we think John Rentoul's guesstimates are in the right ballparks?
On 1 it depends whether they are more motivated by support for their favoured option or opposition to their least favoured option.
Yes. Obviously it makes a huge difference to the numbers, and probably to the likely options taken forward to the next step. FWIW I think John Rentoul may have assumed too little polarisation in his guesses (i.e. he's assumed that MPs will tick more Yes boxes than I would expect).
I agree. Generosity of spirit is in short supply. Plus what good will it do to back an unfavoured option? Ironically they will treat this as a FPTP-type situation.
So what happens if the WA gets the most support but not a majority? Is Parliament going to grow up and pass it?
I think it will depend on what the other least unpopular options are, and what the numbers look like. If we get MV3 on Friday, the vote will take place in the knowledge of how much support there might be for alternatives. It is possible - I put it no higher than that - that MPs' minds will be focused by this new information, but I'm not holding my breath.
If they already know they have another chance to vote on various things on the Monday they have no reason to be more focused on deal on the Friday. The time pressure on MV3 is its own problem for them.
@rcs1000 did you see my post to you earlier today? Answering your question you asked me yesterday that I'd missed. Hope it cleared it up if you're still interested.
So what happens if the WA gets the most support but not a majority? Is Parliament going to grow up and pass it?
Seeing as they've been pressing the government on whether they will implement the favoured option, it'd be pretty hypocritical for them not to.
That's just talk. The government winning things occsaionally doesn't stop those opposed, including in its own ranks, of accussing it of ignoring them, they will move on to other reasons to oppose even if WA is the most popular option. Though I don't think it will be.
Afternoon all. I've been comforting myself over the mess in parliament by laughing for two days straight about the Mueller report, get on Trump 2020, nothing will stick on him now. I believe I did say on here 3 weeks ago there would be no evidence of any collusion. Its the Democrats who need to watch out, the previous administration and its FBI and CIA cronies are in serious serious trouble. That means Biden might get dragged in, worth noting for the dem nomination betting. Trumps vengeance is going to be breathtaking and probably massive overkill but he has the big mo now.
You sound slightly unhinged, would that be fair?
Plato sounded unhinged towards the end, that didn't mean she wasn't right (at least in terms of reading what Trump supporters were reading, pointing out that his base was going to take him all the way to the White House, while most posters on here were still disbelieving).
If I am proven wrong I'll admit to being a basket case, but the idea Trump isnt going after the Democrats now hes been cleared is totally unhinged.
There was an investigation.
President Trump was cleared. (Although a number of aides ended up in prison for various offences.)
That's justice as it should be.
So, I don't understand your comment. Should it be illegal to investigate Russian meddling (which there definitely was) in the US election?
What was the evidence on which the investigation was initiated and why into Trump and not both candidates? The convictions were for process crimes not anything to do with Russia. So, why did Mueller investigate Trump and his team? From what 'evidence' and on who's ultimate authority? All will be looked into. Investigation is legal yes but only if there is reasonable evidence the target committed a crime
@ShehabKhan Mar 25 More The Guardian revealed that 15 Tory Councillors who were suspended for posting Islamophobic and racist comments online have been reinstated.
Afternoon all. I've been comforting myself over the mess in parliament by laughing for two days straight about the Mueller report, get on Trump 2020, nothing will stick on him now. I believe I did say on here 3 weeks ago there would be no evidence of any collusion. Its the Democrats who need to watch out, the previous administration and its FBI and CIA cronies are in serious serious trouble. That means Biden might get dragged in, worth noting for the dem nomination betting. Trumps vengeance is going to be breathtaking and probably massive overkill but he has the big mo now.
You sound slightly unhinged, would that be fair?
Plato sounded unhinged towards the end, that didn't mean she wasn't right (at least in terms of reading what Trump supporters were reading, pointing out that his base was going to take him all the way to the White House, while most posters on here were still disbelieving).
If I am proven wrong I'll admit to being a basket case, but the idea Trump isnt going after the Democrats now hes been cleared is totally unhinged.
There was an investigation.
President Trump was cleared. (Although a number of aides ended up in prison for various offences.)
That's justice as it should be.
So, I don't understand your comment. Should it be illegal to investigate Russian meddling (which there definitely was) in the US election?
What was the evidence on which the investigation was initiated and why into Trump and not both candidates? The convictions were for process crimes not anything to do with Russia. So, why did Mueller investigate Trump and his team? From what 'evidence' and on who's ultimate authority? All will be looked into. Investigation is legal yes but only if there is reasonable evidence the target committed a crime
The evidence was Trump firing the Director of the FBI so appearing to be attempting to pervert the course of justice. Which is why this all began.
One bloke came running down the street to tell me he wasnt voting for a f*****ng IRA terrorist and give me my leaflet back.Apparently he had read it in some newspaper owned by a Billionaire Tax Avoider I discovered.
Incidentally that was my first anti Corbyn comment by anybody in my 4th Canvassing Session.
If you believe someone predicting Trump will exercise vengeance on those that set up the investigation into him on apparently zero evidence is deplorable then that would fit. It would also suggest you are the one who is a bit odd. I'm predicting what will happen, I have neither love nor hate for Trump, but hes not the caricature hes painted as, and hes a thousand times better than Clinton would have been
"Trump's vengeance will be breathtaking!"
"Laughed for two days solid about the Mueller report!"
Afternoon all. I've been comforting myself over the mess in parliament by laughing for two days straight about the Mueller report, get on Trump 2020, nothing will stick on him now. I believe I did say on here 3 weeks ago there would be no evidence of any collusion. Its the Democrats who need to watch out, the previous administration and its FBI and CIA cronies are in serious serious trouble. That means Biden might get dragged in, worth noting for the dem nomination betting. Trumps vengeance is going to be breathtaking and probably massive overkill but he has the big mo now.
You sound slightly unhinged, would that be fair?
Plato sounded unhinged towards the end, that didn't mean she wasn't right (at least in terms of reading what Trump supporters were reading, pointing out that his base was going to take him all the way to the White House, while most posters on here were still disbelieving).
If I am proven wrong I'll admit to being a basket case, but the idea Trump isnt going after the Democrats now hes been cleared is totally unhinged.
There was an investigation.
President Trump was cleared. (Although a number of aides ended up in prison for various offences.)
That's justice as it should be.
So, I don't understand your comment. Should it be illegal to investigate Russian meddling (which there definitely was) in the US election?
What was the evidence on which the investigation was initiated and why into Trump and not both candidates? The convictions were for process crimes not anything to do with Russia. So, why did Mueller investigate Trump and his team? From what 'evidence' and on who's ultimate authority? All will be looked into. Investigation is legal yes but only if there is reasonable evidence the target committed a crime
There was plenty of evidence that the Russian government intervened in the US election, and on the side of President Trump. A number of Russians have inditements brought against them.
So, why would they investigate if Hillary Clinton had conspired with the Russians?
@AaronBastani 44m44 minutes ago More Am told @tom_watson walked out of Shadow Cabinet today after several colleagues said he misrepresented Labour position when he was booed at #PeoplesVoteMarch
Apparently left the room without saying a word.
Suspect it wasn’t malicious, just that he doesn’t grasp detail well.
@DPJHodges Follow Follow @DPJHodges More And I didn't think I'd ever type these words. But if we do end up with an election, Jeremy Corbyn will have played a blinder.
I don't see what Corbyn has either done or not done to get us to this point. It's been all about the Tories and the DUP.
You’re right. If May had effective used her majority Labour would have been irrelevant. It is her weakness that brings them into the game. Short of whipping Labour to support her MV, which was never going to be a thing giving its weaknesses there was nothing he could do but wait.
What majority?
The Tories have just won a series of votes in the Commons by between 17 and 59 votes. They still have a majority - just not on the most important issue of the day!
@AaronBastani 44m44 minutes ago More Am told @tom_watson walked out of Shadow Cabinet today after several colleagues said he misrepresented Labour position when he was booed at #PeoplesVoteMarch
Apparently left the room without saying a word.
Suspect it wasn’t malicious, just that he doesn’t grasp detail well.
One bloke came running down the street to tell me he wasnt voting for a f*****ng IRA terrorist and give me my leaflet back.Apparently he had read it in some newspaper owned by a Billionaire Tax Avoider I discovered.
Incidentally that was my first anti Corbyn comment by anybody in my 4th Canvassing Session.
@rcs1000 did you see my post to you earlier today? Answering your question you asked me yesterday that I'd missed. Hope it cleared it up if you're still interested.
@ShehabKhan Mar 25 More The Guardian revealed that 15 Tory Councillors who were suspended for posting Islamophobic and racist comments online have been reinstated.
Good luck with flogging that dead horse. Yes, we know what your (and the Guardian's) motive is, but it's not going anywhere: this is not in the faintest degree comparable to the institutional anti-semitism in Corbyn's Labour Party.
Afternoon all. I've been comforting myself over the mess in parliament by laughing for two days straight about the Mueller report, get on Trump 2020, nothing will stick on him now. I believe I did say on here 3 weeks ago there would be no evidence of any collusion. Its the Democrats who need to watch out, the previous administration and its FBI and CIA cronies are in serious serious trouble. That means Biden might get dragged in, worth noting for the dem nomination betting. Trumps vengeance is going to be breathtaking and probably massive overkill but he has the big mo now.
You sound slightly unhinged, would that be fair?
Plato sounded unhinged towards the end, that didn't mean she wasn't right (at least in terms of reading what Trump supporters were reading, pointing out that his base was going to take him all the way to the White House, while most posters on here were still disbelieving).
If I am proven wrong I'll admit to being a basket case, but the idea Trump isnt going after the Democrats now hes been cleared is totally unhinged.
There was an investigation.
President Trump was cleared. (Although a number of aides ended up in prison for various offences.)
That's justice as it should be.
So, I don't understand your comment. Should it be illegal to investigate Russian meddling (which there definitely was) in the US election?
What was the evidence on which the investigation was initiated and why into Trump and not both candidates? The convictions were for process crimes not anything to do with Russia. So, why did Mueller investigate Trump and his team? From what 'evidence' and on who's ultimate authority? All will be looked into. Investigation is legal yes but only if there is reasonable evidence the target committed a crime
The evidence was Trump firing the Director of the FBI so appearing to be attempting to pervert the course of justice. Which is why this all began.
The investigation was going on long before Mueller was officially commissioned The link between firing Comey (because he let Hillary off Scott free from her server/email ptoblem) and Russia works both ways - why was Coney investigating Trump in the first place? Irrespective of order, there is no evidence of collusion so why was he being investigated? Who started it off? (Its the crank Steele Dossier)
@rcs1000 - Have you seen my comments last night about why a technical border solution will not happen? Do you disagree?
Yes, of course I disagree.
But there's no point in debating this with you because you've decided that checks away from the border are somehow impossible, and the EU knows this, and is deliberately pretending that they're possible because... because... it somehow suits your narrative that we're about to vote 90-10 to stay in the EU.
Checks away from the border are already in the backstop proposal, but not in the way you think.
Your journey from I-know-best insouciance to fanatical believer in unicorns since the referendum has been quite something to behold.
@DPJHodges Follow Follow @DPJHodges More And I didn't think I'd ever type these words. But if we do end up with an election, Jeremy Corbyn will have played a blinder.
I don't see what Corbyn has either done or not done to get us to this point. It's been all about the Tories and the DUP.
You’re right. If May had effective used her majority Labour would have been irrelevant. It is her weakness that brings them into the game. Short of whipping Labour to support her MV, which was never going to be a thing giving its weaknesses there was nothing he could do but wait.
What majority?
The Tories have just won a series of votes in the Commons by between 17 and 59 votes. They still have a majority - just not on the most important issue of the day!
The Tories most definitely don't have a majority. The fact they can govern as a minority doesn't change that.
@AaronBastani 44m44 minutes ago More Am told @tom_watson walked out of Shadow Cabinet today after several colleagues said he misrepresented Labour position when he was booed at #PeoplesVoteMarch
Apparently left the room without saying a word.
Suspect it wasn’t malicious, just that he doesn’t grasp detail well.
Which Labour position was he misrepresenting? A book on Labour's varying positions on Brexit would be akin to the Kama Sutra, without the sexiness but with the beards (as long as they're not Jewish beards)
@rcs1000 - Have you seen my comments last night about why a technical border solution will not happen? Do you disagree?
Yes, of course I disagree.
But there's no point in debating this with you because you've decided that checks away from the border are somehow impossible, and the EU knows this, and is deliberately pretending that they're possible because... because... it somehow suits your narrative that we're about to vote 90-10 to stay in the EU.
Checks away from the border are already in the backstop proposal, but not in the way you think.
Your journey from I-know-best insouciance to fanatical believer in unicorns since the referendum has been quite something to behold.
There have always been checks away from the border, pretending there arent just shows your willingness to ignore facts
One bloke came running down the street to tell me he wasnt voting for a f*****ng IRA terrorist and give me my leaflet back.Apparently he had read it in some newspaper owned by a Billionaire Tax Avoider I discovered.
Incidentally that was my first anti Corbyn comment by anybody in my 4th Canvassing Session.
@rcs1000 - Have you seen my comments last night about why a technical border solution will not happen? Do you disagree?
Yes, of course I disagree.
But there's no point in debating this with you because you've decided that checks away from the border are somehow impossible, and the EU knows this, and is deliberately pretending that they're possible because... because... it somehow suits your narrative that we're about to vote 90-10 to stay in the EU.
Checks away from the border are already in the backstop proposal, but not in the way you think.
Your journey from I-know-best insouciance to fanatical believer in unicorns since the referendum has been quite something to behold.
There have always been checks away from the border, pretending there arent just shows your willingness to ignore facts
I don't know how you read that into what I've written.
@rcs1000 - Have you seen my comments last night about why a technical border solution will not happen? Do you disagree?
Yes, of course I disagree.
But there's no point in debating this with you because you've decided that checks away from the border are somehow impossible, and the EU knows this, and is deliberately pretending that they're possible because... because... it somehow suits your narrative that we're about to vote 90-10 to stay in the EU.
Except there isn't a single country in the world that doesn't have physical checks on its borders, except (substantially) EU member states that have no formal divergence between them. Technical solutions, while useful in speeding goods through physical borders, don't remove them, nor do they deal with the key issue of smuggling when you have differential tariffs or regulation. Real trade experts are dismissive of technical solutions in any short or medium term. To the extent they are bandied around as a solution to the Irish border they are a dangerous unicorn.
She called Obama's white working class base deplorable, I'm not sure that's "telling it how it is". It's stupid, yes, but not straight talking.
She said the following:
You could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic – Islamophobic – you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people – now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks – they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America.
Con 33%, Lab 33%, TIG 9%, Lib Dem 8%, UKIP 7%, Others 10%.
The rest are a load of leading questions.
You could prove those figures were right to me, and I still wouldn't believe them. There is no way 9% of people even remember who the TIGs are, let alone that they are outpolling the Lib Dems. That isn't dissing them - I might well vote for them if they get sorted a bit. But they haven't remotely hit the public's radar yet.
Afternoon all. I've been comforting myself over the mess in parliament by laughing for two days straight about the Mueller report, get on Trump 2020, nothing will stick on him now. I believe I did say on here 3 weeks ago there would be no evidence of any collusion. Its the Democrats who need to watch out, the previous administration and its FBI and CIA cronies are in serious serious trouble. That means Biden might get dragged in, worth noting for the dem nomination betting. Trumps vengeance is going to be breathtaking and probably massive overkill but he has the big mo now.
You sound slightly unhinged, would that be fair?
Plato sounded unhinged towards the end, that didn't mean she wasn't right (at least in terms of reading what Trump supporters were reading, pointing out that his base was going to take him all the way to the White House, while most posters on here were still disbelieving).
If I am proven wrong I'll admit to being a basket case, but the idea Trump isnt going after the Democrats now hes been cleared is totally unhinged.
There was an investigation.
President Trump was cleared. (Although a number of aides ended up in prison for various offences.)
That's justice as it should be.
So, I don't understand your comment. Should it be illegal to investigate Russian meddling (which there definitely was) in the US election?
What was the evidence on which the investigation was initiated and why into Trump and not both candidates? The convictions were for process crimes not anything to do with Russia. So, why did Mueller investigate Trump and his team? From what 'evidence' and on who's ultimate authority? All will be looked into. Investigation is legal yes but only if there is reasonable evidence the target committed a crime
There was plenty of evidence that the Russian government intervened in the US election, and on the side of President Trump. A number of Russians have inditements brought against them.
So, why would they investigate if Hillary Clinton had conspired with the Russians?
Because the evidence to link Trump wasn't there. If someone went on a killing spree 'to get rid of non trump voters', you wouldn't investigate trumps involvement
@rcs1000 did you see my post to you earlier today? Answering your question you asked me yesterday that I'd missed. Hope it cleared it up if you're still interested.
I did not see it.
Is it on this thread? Or the previous one?
Last one. I tagged you in it writing "FPT @rcs1000" at the start of the post if you want to see it.
Plato sounded unhinged towards the end, that didn't mean she wasn't right (at least in terms of reading what Trump supporters were reading, pointing out that his base was going to take him all the way to the White House, while most posters on here were still disbelieving).
If I am proven wrong I'll admit to being a basket case, but the idea Trump isnt going after the Democrats now hes been cleared is totally unhinged.
There was an investigation.
President Trump was cleared. (Although a number of aides ended up in prison for various offences.)
That's justice as it should be.
So, I don't understand your comment. Should it be illegal to investigate Russian meddling (which there definitely was) in the US election?
What was the evidence on which the investigation was initiated and why into Trump and not both candidates? The convictions were for process crimes not anything to do with Russia. So, why did Mueller investigate Trump and his team? From what 'evidence' and on who's ultimate authority? All will be looked into. Investigation is legal yes but only if there is reasonable evidence the target committed a crime
The evidence was Trump firing the Director of the FBI so appearing to be attempting to pervert the course of justice. Which is why this all began.
The investigation was going on long before Mueller was officially commissioned The link between firing Comey (because he let Hillary off Scott free from her server/email ptoblem) and Russia works both ways - why was Coney investigating Trump in the first place? Irrespective of order, there is no evidence of collusion so why was he being investigated? Who started it off? (Its the crank Steele Dossier)
This is classic conspiracy nonsense.
The Russians interfered in the US election. They interfered on behalf of President Trump.
So, should there have been no investigation?
There was an investigation, it cleared the President. That is *exactly* how the world is supposed to work.
Now, you can argue that they should have investigated Hillary Clinton for conspiring with the Russians. But given there is no evidence that the Russians intervened on her behalf, it seems a strange - almost deranged - demand.
One bloke came running down the street to tell me he wasnt voting for a f*****ng IRA terrorist and give me my leaflet back.Apparently he had read it in some newspaper owned by a Billionaire Tax Avoider I discovered.
Incidentally that was my first anti Corbyn comment by anybody in my 4th Canvassing Session.
She called Obama's white working class base deplorable, I'm not sure that's "telling it how it is". It's stupid, yes, but not straight talking.
She said the following:
You could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic – Islamophobic – you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people – now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks – they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America.
It's bang on.
She's calling a quarter of America's voters "irredeemable".
Con 33%, Lab 33%, TIG 9%, Lib Dem 8%, UKIP 7%, Others 10%.
The rest are a load of leading questions.
You could prove those figures were right to me, and I still wouldn't believe them. There is no way 9% of people even remember who the TIGs are, let alone that they are outpolling the Lib Dems. That isn't dissing them - I might well vote for them if they get sorted a bit. But they haven't remotely hit the public's radar yet.
And as with UKIP most people wouldn't have the chance to vote for them as they don't yet have the infrastructure to stand candidates in many seats.
Of course a European election with regional party lists is another matter - and that could give the Tiggers an opportunity to get MEPs elected in London and the south east where there are more seats available.
Afternoon all. I've been comforting myself over the mess in parliament by laughing for two days straight about the Mueller report, get on Trump 2020, nothing will stick on him now. I believe I did say on here 3 weeks ago there would be no evidence of any collusion. Its the Democrats who need to watch out, the previous administration and its FBI and CIA cronies are in serious serious trouble. That means Biden might get dragged in, worth noting for the dem nomination betting. Trumps vengeance is going to be breathtaking and probably massive overkill but he has the big mo now.
You sound slightly unhinged, would that be fair?
Plato sounded unhinged towards the end, that didn't mean she wasn't right (at least in terms of reading what Trump supporters were reading, pointing out that his base was going to take him all the way to the White House, while most posters on here were still disbelieving).
If I am proven wrong I'll admit to being a basket case, but the idea Trump isnt going after the Democrats now hes been cleared is totally unhinged.
There was an investigation.
President Trump was cleared. (Although a number of aides ended up in prison for various offences.)
That's justice as it should be.
So, I don't understand your comment. Should it be illegal to investigate Russian meddling (which there definitely was) in the US election?
What was the evidence on which the investigation was initiated and why into Trump and not both candidates? The convictions were for process crimes not anything to do with Russia. So, why did Mueller investigate Trump and his team? From what 'evidence' and on who's ultimate authority? All will be looked into. Investigation is legal yes but only if there is reasonable evidence the target committed a crime
There was plenty of evidence that the Russian government intervened in the US election, and on the side of President Trump. A number of Russians have inditements brought against them.
So, why would they investigate if Hillary Clinton had conspired with the Russians?
Because the evidence to link Trump wasn't there. If someone went on a killing spree 'to get rid of non trump voters', you wouldn't investigate trumps involvement
If supporters of Jeremy Corbyn started getting bumped off, I think the police would be absolutely right to check that Tom Watson wasn't behind it.
You seem to be saying that there shouldn't be an investigation because there was no evidence. But the purpose of an investigation is to gather evidence.
@ShehabKhan Mar 25 More The Guardian revealed that 15 Tory Councillors who were suspended for posting Islamophobic and racist comments online have been reinstated.
Good luck with flogging that dead horse. Yes, we know what your (and the Guardian's) motive is, but it's not going anywhere: this is not in the faintest degree comparable to the institutional anti-semitism in Corbyn's Labour Party.
I see you are ignoring the institutional Islamophobia like your party.
Come come BJ. The Tory Party is no more institutionally islamophobic than the Labour Party is institutionally anti-semitic. This is just the equivalent of two competing groups of chimps throwing faeces at one another. Rise above it.
Plato sounded unhinged towards the end, that didn't mean she wasn't right (at least in terms of reading what Trump supporters were reading, pointing out that his base was going to take him all the way to the White House, while most posters on here were still disbelieving).
If I am proven wrong I'll admit to being a basket case, but the idea Trump isnt going after the Democrats now hes been cleared is totally unhinged.
There was an investigation.
President Trump was cleared. (Although a number of aides ended up in prison for various offences.)
That's justice as it should be.
So, I don't understand your comment. Should it be illegal to investigate Russian meddling (which there definitely was) in the US election?
the target committed a crime
The evidence was Trump firing the Director of the FBI so appearing to be attempting to pervert the course of justice. Which is why this all began.
The investigation was going on long before Mueller was officially commissioned The link between firing Comey (because he let Hillary off Scott free from her server/email ptoblem) and Russia works both ways - why was Coney investigating Trump in the first place? Irrespective of order, there is no evidence of collusion so why was he being investigated? Who started it off? (Its the crank Steele Dossier)
This is classic conspiracy nonsense.
The Russians interfered in the US election. They interfered on behalf of President Trump.
So, should there have been no investigation?
There was an investigation, it cleared the President. That is *exactly* how the world is supposed to work.
Now, you can argue that they should have investigated Hillary Clinton for conspiring with the Russians. But given there is no evidence that the Russians intervened on her behalf, it seems a strange - almost deranged - demand.
To investigate the president on a treasonable offence (collusion with a foreign power) you need evidence to base it on. Investigating Russian interference yes, get stuck in. If that turns up evidence ov trump colluding then investigate him personally. Thats how justice is supposed to work. The only evidence against Trump was he apparently benefitted
@ShehabKhan Mar 25 More The Guardian revealed that 15 Tory Councillors who were suspended for posting Islamophobic and racist comments online have been reinstated.
Good luck with flogging that dead horse. Yes, we know what your (and the Guardian's) motive is, but it's not going anywhere: this is not in the faintest degree comparable to the institutional anti-semitism in Corbyn's Labour Party.
I see you are ignoring the institutional Islamophobia like your party.
Come come BJ. The Tory Party is no more institutionally islamophobic than the Labour Party is institutionally anti-semitic. This is just the equivalent of two competing groups of chimps throwing faeces at one another. Rise above it.
Sayeeda Warsi started it.
Off for my Banana and to wash my hands (not necessarily in that order)
@DPJHodges Follow Follow @DPJHodges More And I didn't think I'd ever type these words. But if we do end up with an election, Jeremy Corbyn will have played a blinder.
I don't see what Corbyn has either done or not done to get us to this point. It's been all about the Tories and the DUP.
He has done as little as possible, seeking to avoid annoying the smaller amount of Labour leave supporters, allowing Starmer and co to be as remainery as possible, while not annoying his remain heavy MPs and supporters too much by not being super keen on a new referendum. He's not done much at all, but so long as he keeps it together he will be PM soon.
So let's imagine that he did something other than what he did, either coming out openly in favour of Leave, or alternatively swinging the Labour leadership fully behind those seeking to alter the verdict of the referendum.
In either case, we would probably be where we are now in terms of the political process, with May still flogging her dead horse of a non-Deal to a parliament of Remainers willing to have none of it as the Conservative Party falls apart. So if that were to lead to a GE it is hardly the case that he has played a blinder, because to do so he would have to lay claim to having influenced that outcome.
Also, if we are to end up with a GE, Labour seems to be doing everything in its power to give the Conservatives a chance of still prevailing. Labour is still behind in nearly all polls at a time when the PM's plummeting favourability ratings look good only by being outstripped by those of Corbyn.
Plato sounded unhinged towards the end, that didn't mean she wasn't right (at least in terms of reading what Trump supporters were reading, pointing out that his base was going to take him all the way to the White House, while most posters on here were still disbelieving).
If I am proven wrong I'll admit to being a basket case, but the idea Trump isnt going after the Democrats now hes been cleared is totally unhinged.
There was an investigation.
President Trump was cleared. (Although a number of aides ended up in prison for various offences.)
That's justice as it should be.
So, I don't understand your comment. Should it be illegal to investigate Russian meddling (which there definitely was) in the US election?
the target committed a crime
The evidence was Trump firing the Director of the FBI so appearing to be attempting to pervert the course of justice. Which is why this all began.
The investigation was going on long before Mueller was officially commissioned The link between firing Comey (because he let Hillary off Scott free from her server/email ptoblem) and Russia works both ways - why was Coney investigating Trump in the first place? Irrespective of order, there is no evidence of collusion so why was he being investigated? Who started it off? (Its the crank Steele Dossier)
This is classic conspiracy nonsense.
The Russians interfered in the US election. They interfered on behalf of President Trump.
So, should there have been no investigation?
There was an investigation, it cleared the President. That is *exactly* how the world is supposed to work.
Now, you can argue that they should have investigated Hillary Clinton for conspiring with the Russians. But given there is no evidence that the Russians intervened on her behalf, it seems a strange - almost deranged - demand.
To investigate the president on a treasonable offence (collusion with a foreign power) you need evidence to base it on. Investigating Russian interference yes, get stuck in. If that turns up evidence ov trump colluding then investigate him personally. Thats how justice is supposed to work. The only evidence against Trump was he apparently benefitted
You are basically saying "To investigate the president on a treasonable offence (collusion with a foreign power) you need to already know he's guilty."
Afternoon all. I've been comforting myself over the mess in parliament by laughing for two days straight about the o now.
You sound slightly unhinged, would that be fair?
Plato sounded unhinged towards the end, that didn't mean she wasn't right (at least in terms of reading what Trump supporters were reading, pointing out that his base was going to take him all the way to the White House, while most posters on here were still disbelieving).
If I am proven wrong I'll admit to being a basket case, but the idea Trump isnt going after the Democrats now hes been cleared is totally unhinged.
There was an investigation.
President Trump was cleared. (Although a number of aides ended up in prison for various offences.)
That's justice as it should be.
So, I don't understand your comment. Should it be illegal to investigate Russian meddling (which there definitely was) in the US election?
What was the evidence on which the investigation was initiated and why into Trump and not both candidates? The convictions were for process crimes not anything to do with Russia. So, why did Mueller investigate Trump and his team? From what 'evidence' and on who's ultimate authority? All will be looked into. Investigation is legal yes but only if there is reasonable evidence the target committed a crime
There was plenty of evidence that the Russian government intervened in the US election, and on the side of President Trump. A number of Russians have inditements brought against them.
So, why would they investigate if Hillary Clinton had conspired with the Russians?
Because the evidence to link Trump wasn't there. If someone went on a killing spree 'to get rid of non trump voters', you wouldn't investigate trumps involvement
If supporters of Jeremy Corbyn started getting bumped off, I think the police would be absolutely right to check that Tom Watson wasn't behind it.
You seem to be saying that there shouldn't be an investigation because there was no evidence. But the purpose of an investigation is to gather evidence.
No no no. The investigation was into Trump and the Trump team, without linking evidence. It should have been ingo Russian meddling and then into anyone found to be connected. In your example there would be no 'public' investigation of Ton Watson unless there's evidence. Ffs!
@ShehabKhan Mar 25 More The Guardian revealed that 15 Tory Councillors who were suspended for posting Islamophobic and racist comments online have been reinstated.
Good luck with flogging that dead horse. Yes, we know what your (and the Guardian's) motive is, but it's not going anywhere: this is not in the faintest degree comparable to the institutional anti-semitism in Corbyn's Labour Party.
I see you are ignoring the institutional Islamophobia like your party.
Come come BJ. The Tory Party is no more institutionally islamophobic than the Labour Party is institutionally anti-semitic. This is just the equivalent of two competing groups of chimps throwing faeces at one another. Rise above it.
But that's the point: you're wrong. There is lots of evidence that Labour has problems with anti-Semitism, right to the very top of the party.
And whilst I agree that the Conservative Party has some problems, they're nowhere near as deep, nor reach all the way to the top of the party. But I will make one prediction: unless the Conservatives act on it, within ten years they'll be in a similar position to Labour is now: just with Islamaphobia rather than anti-Semitism.
"If supporters of Jeremy Corbyn started getting bumped off, I think the police would be absolutely right to check that Tom Watson wasn't behind it.
You seem to be saying that there shouldn't be an investigation because there was no evidence. But the purpose of an investigation is to gather evidence."
Maybe that's why Watson goes to those people's vote marches - so 400,000 (or 1 million) people can give him an alibi.
I see the House is approving a load more secondary legislation relating to leaving the EU this evening - even though we don't know if and when we will leave the EU. Its all a bit surreal.
They are currently voting on approving the Customs safety and security procedures (EU exit) regulations 2019. Not sure when they will come into force?
Afternoon all. I've been comforting myself over the mess in parliament by laughing for two days straight about the o now.
You sound slightly unhinged, would that be fair?
Plato sounded unhinged towards the end, that didn't mean she wasn't right (at least in terms of reading what Trump supporters were reading, pointing out that his base was going to take him all the way to the White House, while most posters on here were still disbelieving).
If I am proven wrong I'll admit to being a basket case, but the idea Trump isnt going after the Democrats now hes been cleared is totally unhinged.
There was an investigation.
President Trump was cleared. (Although a number of aides ended up in prison for various offences.)
That's justice as it should be.
So, I don't understand your comment. Should it be illegal to investigate Russian meddling (which there definitely was) in the US election?
What was the evidence on which the investigation was initiated and why into Trump and not both candidates? The convictions were for process crimes not anything to do with Russia. So, why did Mueller investigate Trump and his team? From what 'evidence' and on who's ultimate authority? All will be looked into. Investigation is legal yes but only if there is reasonable evidence the target committed a crime
There was plenty of evidence that the Russian government intervened in the US election, and on the side of President Trump. A number of Russians have inditements brought against them.
So, why would they investigate if Hillary Clinton had conspired with the Russians?
Because the evidence to link Trump wasn't there. If someone went on a killing spree 'to get rid of non trump voters', you wouldn't investigate trumps involvement
If supporters of Jeremy Corbyn started getting bumped off, I think the police would be absolutely right to check that Tom Watson wasn't behind it.
You seem to be saying that there shouldn't be an investigation because there was no evidence. But the purpose of an investigation is to gather evidence.
No no no. The investigation was into Trump and the Trump team, without linking evidence. It should have been ingo Russian meddling and then into anyone found to be connected. In your example there would be no 'public' investigation of Ton Watson unless there's evidence. Ffs!
If I am proven wrong I'll admit to being a basket case, but the idea Trump isnt going after the Democrats now hes been cleared is totally unhinged.
There was an investigation.
President Trump was cleared. (Although a number of aides ended up in prison for various offences.)
That's justice as it should be.
So, I don't understand your comment. Should it be illegal to investigate Russian meddling (which there definitely was) in the US election?
What was the evidence on which the investigation was initiated and why into Trump and not both candidates? The convictions were for process crimes not anything to do with Russia. So, why did Mueller investigate Trump and his team? From what 'evidence' and on who's ultimate authority? All will be looked into. Investigation is legal yes but only if there is reasonable evidence the target committed a crime
There was plenty of evidence that the Russian government intervened in the US election, and on the side of President Trump. A number of Russians have inditements brought against them.
So, why would they investigate if Hillary Clinton had conspired with the Russians?
Because the evidence to link Trump wasn't there. If someone went on a killing spree 'to get rid of non trump voters', you wouldn't investigate trumps involvement
If supporters of Jeremy Corbyn started getting bumped off, I think the police would be absolutely right to check that Tom Watson wasn't behind it.
You seem to be saying that there shouldn't be an investigation because there was no evidence. But the purpose of an investigation is to gather evidence.
No no no. The investigation was into Trump and the Trump team, without linking evidence. It should have been ingo Russian meddling and then into anyone found to be connected. In your example there would be no 'public' investigation of Ton Watson unless there's evidence. Ffs!
If Corbyn's supporters use the same brain cells to move in and deal with their surroundings as they do in trying to understand politics I imagine that the Police will be talking to some suspicious lamp-posts first.
@ShehabKhan Mar 25 More The Guardian revealed that 15 Tory Councillors who were suspended for posting Islamophobic and racist comments online have been reinstated.
Good luck with flogging that dead horse. Yes, we know what your (and the Guardian's) motive is, but it's not going anywhere: this is not in the faintest degree comparable to the institutional anti-semitism in Corbyn's Labour Party.
I see you are ignoring the institutional Islamophobia like your party.
Come come BJ. The Tory Party is no more institutionally islamophobic than the Labour Party is institutionally anti-semitic. This is just the equivalent of two competing groups of chimps throwing faeces at one another. Rise above it.
But that's the point: you're wrong. There is lots of evidence that Labour has problems with anti-Semitism, right to the very top of the party.
And whilst I agree that the Conservative Party has some problems, they're nowhere near as deep, nor reach all the way to the top of the party. But I will make one prediction: unless the Conservatives act on it, within ten years they'll be in a similar position to Labour is now: just with Islamaphobia rather than anti-Semitism.
Plato sounded unhinged towards the end, that didn't mean she wasn't right (at least in terms of reading what Trump supporters were reading, pointing out that his base was going to take him all the way to the White House, while most posters on here were still disbelieving).
If I am proven wrong I'll admit to being a basket case, but the idea Trump isnt going after the Democrats now hes been cleared is totally unhinged.
There was an investigation.
President Trump was cleared. (Although a number of aides ended up in prison for various offences.)
That's justice as it should be.
So, I don't understand your comment. Should it be illegal to investigate Russian meddling (which there definitely was) in the US election?
the target committed a crime
The evidence was Trump firing the Director of the FBI so appearing to be attempting to pervert the course of justice. Which is why this all began.
The investigation ossier)
This is classic conspiracy nonsense.
The Russians interfered in the US election. They interfered on behalf of President Trump.
So, should there have been no investigation?
There was an investigation, it cleared the President. That is *exactly* how the world is supposed to work.
Now, you can argue that they should have investigated Hillary Clinton for conspiring with the Russians. But given there is no evidence that the Russians intervened on her behalf, it seems a strange - almost deranged - demand.
To n interference yes, get stuck in. If that turns up evidence ov trump colluding then investigate him personally. Thats how justice is supposed to work. The only evidence against Trump was he apparently benefitted
You are basically saying "To investigate the president on a treasonable offence (collusion with a foreign power) you need to already know he's guilty."
You do realise that, right?
No, im saying you need evidence to base an investigation on, not Hillary butthurt at losing You can't just set up special counsel based on a whim. Ir, if you do, you expect to be held to account Investigate Russian meddling, sure. Investigate anyone found to be involved, sure. Are you saying I should set up special counsel to look into your involvement in x, y or z? Or should I perhaps have some evidence before I do?
@ShehabKhan 4m4 minutes ago More EXCLUSIVE: Tom Watson’s office is embroiled in a racial discrimination row after it has been revealed his former advisor is taking the Labour Party to an employment tribunal accusing colleagues of racism, harassment and bullying
Anyone have a sec to post the precis of the voting mechanism for the indicative votes? If that has been published.
Each MP gets a stick and they drop them into the Thames from Westminster Bridge. The first one to emerge on the other side wins.
Seriously are we going to have the Commons decide their preferred route to Brexit using an electoral system which was rejected in a people's vote in 2011 by over 7 million votes. Why exactly do we have these people's votes only for the people in Westminster to ignore them?!
Since when was the AV referendum about whether AV was an unacceptable voting system in any situation? It was about whether it should be used to elect MPs. And there are certainly many other procedures of the Commons and parliament generally that don't work in other places, and why should they? It's a deliberative assembly, not a public vote.
Unless you think it is outrageous that MPs vote by walking down separate corridors and having their names marked, whereas we have to go to the local community centre and fill out a ballot paper?
I am not denying AV has its merits - but given voters decisively rejected its use for Westminster elections it then seems odd that it should be used to take important decisions in parliament. You could potentially be disregarding the most recent people's vote (e.g. if MPs vote to revoke) using an electoral system they rejected in the previous one.
As Sir Frank Williams founder of the Formula One racing team put it at the time:
"AV would give the losers, but not the leaders, several cracks at choosing who to vote for, letting the second or third placed options squeak home by getting extra votes from supporters of even less popular options. That’s no way to run a fair race.”
Let alone Baroness Warsi's intervention:
A switch to the Alternative Vote for Westminster elections would give more power to fascists, Conservative co-chairman Baroness Warsi warned today. Lady Warsi said that AV represented "a serious danger to our democracy"
If Parliament decides to revoke using AV her ridiculous comments at the time might be proved right!
I don't think anyone you cite is in the House of Commons, so it doesn't mattet.
Boris is doing a 'Boris live' event at Westminster central hall tonight - Charles Moore is interviewing him. It started an hour ago - tickets cost £75 for non Telegraph subscribers.
@ShehabKhan 4m4 minutes ago More EXCLUSIVE: Tom Watson’s office is embroiled in a racial discrimination row after it has been revealed his former advisor is taking the Labour Party to an employment tribunal accusing colleagues of racism, harassment and bullying
The Labour Party is in an absolute state. Just put it out of its misery.
Con 33%, Lab 33%, TIG 9%, Lib Dem 8%, UKIP 7%, Others 10%.
The rest are a load of leading questions.
You could prove those figures were right to me, and I still wouldn't believe them. There is no way 9% of people even remember who the TIGs are, let alone that they are outpolling the Lib Dems. That isn't dissing them - I might well vote for them if they get sorted a bit. But they haven't remotely hit the public's radar yet.
What is 9%? It's probably less than half the people who have signed the revoke petition and I'd expect most of them to be aware that TIG are pro-Europeans who have left Labour and the Tories because of the anti-Europe leaderships of both parties.
The investigation was going on long before Mueller was officially commissioned The link between firing Comey (because he let Hillary off Scott free from her server/email ptoblem) and Russia works both ways - why was Coney investigating Trump in the first place? Irrespective of order, there is no evidence of collusion so why was he being investigated? Who started it off? (Its the crank Steele Dossier)
1. The FBI was investigating the Trump campaign because foreign intelligence services (British, Dutch, German, and Australian have all been named IIRC) were picking up signs of communication between known and suspected Russian agents (people almost certainly routinely monitored) and members of the Trump campaign team. I believe that the FBI claims that they already had started an investigation, before foreign partners started pouring in with warnings, based upon their own sources, which to the best of my knowledge have not being disclosed because as a rule US intelligence services are super wary of collecting intelligence on US citizens.
2. Most of the stuff in the Steele dossier has stood up to scrutiny, the errors being relatively trivial. Calling Steele a crank is absurd, he was for a while MI6's Russia expert, he's not some Walter Mitty type, he's a person with the experience and contacts to back up his claims. Certainly the FBI took him seriously, as did several prominent Republican politicians. Steele was plainly correct in his allegations about the Russian government interfering in the election.
A hell of lot of crooks surround Trump, and many of them had been speaking to people they shouldn't have been. They may not have conspired, but their actions certainly warranted investigation. On top of the counterintelligence investigation a whole load of other crime has been found, and about a dozen current investigations have been spun off from the Special Counsel's work.
Plato sounded unhinged towards the end, that didn't mean she wasn't right (at least in terms of reading what Trump supporters were reading, pointing out that his base was going to take him all the way to the White House, while most posters on here were still disbelieving).
If I am proven wrong I'll admit to being a basket case, but the idea Trump isnt going after the Democrats now hes been cleared is totally unhinged.
There was an investigation.
President Trump was cleared. (Although a number of aides ended up in prison for various offences.)
That's justice as it should be.
So, I don't understand your comment. Should it be illegal to investigate Russian meddling (which there definitely was) in the US election?
the target committed a crime
The evidence was Trump firing the Director of the FBI so appearing to be attempting to pervert the course of justice. Which is why this all began.
The investigation ossier)
This is classic conspiracy nonsense.
The Russians interfered in the US election. They interfered on behalf of President Trump.
So, should there have been no investigation?
There was an investigation, it cleared the President. That is *exactly* how the world is supposed to work.
Now, you can argue that they should have investigated Hillary Clinton for conspiring with the Russians. But given there is no evidence that the Russians intervened on her behalf, it seems a strange - almost deranged - demand.
To n interference yes, get stuck in. If that turns up evidence ov trump colluding then investigate him personally. Thats how justice is supposed to work. The only evidence against Trump was he apparently benefitted
You are basically saying "To investigate the president on a treasonable offence (collusion with a foreign power) you need to already know he's guilty."
You do realise that, right?
No, im saying you need evidence to base an investigation on, not Hillary butthurt at losing You can't just set up special counsel based on a whim. Ir, if you do, you expect to be held to account Investigate Russian meddling, sure. Investigate anyone found to be involved, sure. Are you saying I should set up special counsel to look into your involvement in x, y or z? Or should I perhaps have some evidence before I do?
Well if I benefited from x, y or z, and then fired the person looking into x, y or z, then yes.
@ShehabKhan Mar 25 More The Guardian revealed that 15 Tory Councillors who were suspended for posting Islamophobic and racist comments online have been reinstated.
Good luck with flogging that dead horse. Yes, we know what your (and the Guardian's) motive is, but it's not going anywhere: this is not in the faintest degree comparable to the institutional anti-semitism in Corbyn's Labour Party.
I see you are ignoring the institutional Islamophobia like your party.
Come come BJ. The Tory Party is no more institutionally islamophobic than the Labour Party is institutionally anti-semitic. This is just the equivalent of two competing groups of chimps throwing faeces at one another. Rise above it.
But that's the point: you're wrong. There is lots of evidence that Labour has problems with anti-Semitism, right to the very top of the party.
And whilst I agree that the Conservative Party has some problems, they're nowhere near as deep, nor reach all the way to the top of the party. But I will make one prediction: unless the Conservatives act on it, within ten years they'll be in a similar position to Labour is now: just with Islamaphobia rather than anti-Semitism.
@ShehabKhan 5m5 minutes ago More In leaked documents Watson’s former advisor, who is of Afro-Caribbean origin, claims there was a “history of being treated less favourably” in his office because of her ethnicity and she was earmarked for redundancy because she was the only “black person on the team”. She accuses Watson’s chief of staff of harassment and bullying and says she was told by colleagues that Watson’s chief of staff “might be racist”.Sources close to Watson’s chief of staff “completely refuted all the allegations”, which they said were “untrue and highly damaging.”
Boris is doing a 'Boris live' event at Westminster central hall tonight - Charles Moore is interviewing him. It started an hour ago - tickets cost £75 for non Telegraph subscribers.
@ShehabKhan 4m4 minutes ago More EXCLUSIVE: Tom Watson’s office is embroiled in a racial discrimination row after it has been revealed his former advisor is taking the Labour Party to an employment tribunal accusing colleagues of racism, harassment and bullying
Politically motivated utter cr*p from the look of it.
@ShehabKhan Mar 25 More The Guardian revealed that 15 Tory Councillors who were suspended for posting Islamophobic and racist comments online have been reinstated.
Good luck with flogging that dead horse. Yes, we know what your (and the Guardian's) motive is, but it's not going anywhere: this is not in the faintest degree comparable to the institutional anti-semitism in Corbyn's Labour Party.
I see you are ignoring the institutional Islamophobia like your party.
Come come BJ. The Tory Party is no more institutionally islamophobic than the Labour Party is institutionally anti-semitic. This is just the equivalent of two competing groups of chimps throwing faeces at one another. Rise above it.
But that's the point: you're wrong. There is lots of evidence that Labour has problems with anti-Semitism, right to the very top of the party.
And whilst I agree that the Conservative Party has some problems, they're nowhere near as deep, nor reach all the way to the top of the party. But I will make one prediction: unless the Conservatives act on it, within ten years they'll be in a similar position to Labour is now: just with Islamaphobia rather than anti-Semitism.
@DPJHodges Follow Follow @DPJHodges More And I didn't think I'd ever type these words. But if we do end up with an election, Jeremy Corbyn will have played a blinder.
I don't see what Corbyn has either done or not done to get us to this point. It's been all about the Tories and the DUP.
He has done as little as possible, seeking to avoid annoying the smaller amount of Labour leave supporters, allowing Starmer and co to be as remainery as possible, while not annoying his remain heavy MPs and supporters too much by not being super keen on a new referendum. He's not done much at all, but so long as he keeps it together he will be PM soon.
You ought, for the record, to collate a list of your absolutely certain predictions because you sure as hell make a lot of them.
@ShehabKhan 5m5 minutes ago More In leaked documents Watson’s former advisor, who is of Afro-Caribbean origin, claims there was a “history of being treated less favourably” in his office because of her ethnicity and she was earmarked for redundancy because she was the only “black person on the team”. She accuses Watson’s chief of staff of harassment and bullying and says she was told by colleagues that Watson’s chief of staff “might be racist”.Sources close to Watson’s chief of staff “completely refuted all the allegations”, which they said were “untrue and highly damaging.”
"A total of seven members of staff lost their jobs, six of whom were white, but Ms Goulbourne claims she was forced out of her job due to her ethnicity"
NGL, doesn't sound like the strongest case on the face of it.
The investigation was going on long before Mueller was officially commissioned The link between firing Comey (because he let Hillary off Scott free from her server/email ptoblem) and Russia works both ways - why was Coney investigating Trump in the first place? Irrespective of order, there is no evidence of collusion so why was he being investigated? Who started it off? (Its the crank Steele Dossier)
1. The FBI was investigating the Trump campaign because foreign intelligence services (British, Dutch, German, and Australian have all been named IIRC) were picking up signs of communication between known and suspected Russian agents (people almost certainly routinely monitored) and members of the Trump campaign team. I believe that the FBI claims that they already had started an investigation, before foreign partners started pouring in with warnings, based upon their own sources, which to the best of my knowledge have not being disclosed because as a rule US intelligence services are super wary of collecting intelligence on US citizens.
2. Most of the stuff in the Steele dossier has stood up to scrutiny, the errors being relatively trivial. Calling Steele a crank is absurd, he was for a while MI6's Russia expert, he's not some Walter Mitty type, he's a person with the experience and contacts to back up his claims. Certainly the FBI took him seriously, as did several prominent Republican politicians. Steele was plainly correct in his allegations about the Russian government interfering in the election.
A hell of lot of crooks surround Trump, and many of them had been speaking to people they shouldn't have been. They may not have conspired, but their actions certainly warranted investigation. On top of the counterintelligence investigation a whole load of other crime has been found, and about a dozen current investigations have been spun off from the Special Counsel's work.
@DPJHodges Follow Follow @DPJHodges More And I didn't think I'd ever type these words. But if we do end up with an election, Jeremy Corbyn will have played a blinder.
I don't see what Corbyn has either done or not done to get us to this point. It's been all about the Tories and the DUP.
He has done as little as possible, seeking to avoid annoying the smaller amount of Labour leave supporters, allowing Starmer and co to be as remainery as possible, while not annoying his remain heavy MPs and supporters too much by not being super keen on a new referendum. He's not done much at all, but so long as he keeps it together he will be PM soon.
You ought, for the record, to collate a list of your absolutely certain predictions because you sure as hell make a lot of them.
I do, what of it? Everything I say is mere opinion, I have no concern about being embarrassed for coming to a view precipitously and being proven wrong as events change, nor admitting to calling things wrong or having to change my view later. When it comes to internet commentary I very much respond in the moment.
The investigation was going on long before Mueller was officially commissioned The link between firing Comey (because he let Hillary off Scott free from her server/email ptoblem) and Russia works both ways - why was Coney investigating Trump in the first place? Irrespective of order, there is no evidence of collusion so why was he being investigated? Who started it off? (Its the crank Steele Dossier)
1. The FBI was investigating the Trump campaign because foreign intelligence services (British, Dutch, German, and Australian have all been named IIRC) were picking up signs of communication between known and suspected Russian agents (people almost certainly routinely monitored) and members of the Trump campaign team. I believe that the FBI claims that they already had started an investigation, before foreign partners started pouring in with warnings, based upon their own sources, which to the best of my knowledge have not being disclosed because as a rule US intelligence services are super wary of collecting intelligence on US citizens.
2. Most of the stuff in the Steele dossier has stood up to scrutiny, the errors being relatively trivial. Calling Steele a crank is absurd, he was for a while MI6's Russia expert, he's not some Walter Mitty type, he's a person with the experience and contacts to back up his claims. Certainly the FBI took him seriously, as did several prominent Republican politicians. Steele was plainly correct in his allegations about the Russian government interfering in the election.
A hell of lot of crooks surround Trump, and many of them had been speaking to people they shouldn't have been. They may not have conspired, but their actions certainly warranted investigation. On top of the counterintelligence investigation a whole load of other crime has been found, and about a dozen current investigations have been spun off from the Special Counsel's work.
Well, until we see where it all goes I'm on to a loser. I maintain trump has less to worry about than many many other senior figures of the last administration
@ShehabKhan 5m5 minutes ago More In leaked documents Watson’s former advisor, who is of Afro-Caribbean origin, claims there was a “history of being treated less favourably” in his office because of her ethnicity and she was earmarked for redundancy because she was the only “black person on the team”. She accuses Watson’s chief of staff of harassment and bullying and says she was told by colleagues that Watson’s chief of staff “might be racist”.Sources close to Watson’s chief of staff “completely refuted all the allegations”, which they said were “untrue and highly damaging.”
"A total of seven members of staff lost their jobs, six of whom were white, but Ms Goulbourne claims she was forced out of her job due to her ethnicity"
NGL, doesn't sound like the strongest case on the face of it.
How many staff does Watson have/need as Deputy leader if he made 7 redundant?
@ShehabKhan 5m5 minutes ago More In leaked documents Watson’s former advisor, who is of Afro-Caribbean origin, claims there was a “history of being treated less favourably” in his office because of her ethnicity and she was earmarked for redundancy because she was the only “black person on the team”. She accuses Watson’s chief of staff of harassment and bullying and says she was told by colleagues that Watson’s chief of staff “might be racist”.Sources close to Watson’s chief of staff “completely refuted all the allegations”, which they said were “untrue and highly damaging.”
"A total of seven members of staff lost their jobs, six of whom were white, but Ms Goulbourne claims she was forced out of her job due to her ethnicity"
NGL, doesn't sound like the strongest case on the face of it.
How many staff does Watson have/need as Deputy leader if he made 7 redundant?
The party withdrew funding for the 'Deputy Leader's office' according to the article, so I'm assuming all of them for that role. He'll have staff as an MP.
BJO, I'd have much more time for your constant expose of the evils of the Conservative Party if you weren't utterly blind to the evils inside your particular wing of the Labour Party.
As it is, it just makes it seem like you're excusing and denying anti-Semitism as part of some sick political game.
If you want to treat all such accusations equally, with a high barrier of proof of intent, fair enough: that's a reasonable position. Ignoring and excusing anti-Semitism amongst people you see as political friends whilst excoriating others for racism is not good.
Comments
In fact I think BJO could be right and a Customs Union Brexit could win a majority. Which would be a terrible outcome but there we have it.
Does that excite and amuse me?
I can't say that it does.
Overall more receptive today than last week.
Less BREXIT outrage
One bloke came running down the street to tell me he wasnt voting for a f*****ng IRA terrorist and give me my leaflet back.Apparently he had read it in some newspaper owned by a Billionaire Tax Avoider I discovered.
Incidentally that was my first anti Corbyn comment by anybody in my 4th Canvassing Session.
"Laughed for two days solid about the Mueller report!"
"Thousand times better than Clinton!"
You are a salivating Trump fanboy.
Shape up for heaven's sake.
So, why would they investigate if Hillary Clinton had conspired with the Russians?
@AaronBastani
44m44 minutes ago
More
Am told @tom_watson walked out of Shadow Cabinet today after several colleagues said he misrepresented Labour position when he was booed at #PeoplesVoteMarch
Apparently left the room without saying a word.
Suspect it wasn’t malicious, just that he doesn’t grasp detail well.
People say they want politicians to tell it like it is - but when they do they get trashed for it!
Is it on this thread? Or the previous one?
I see you are ignoring the institutional Islamophobia like your party.
The link between firing Comey (because he let Hillary off Scott free from her server/email ptoblem) and Russia works both ways - why was Coney investigating Trump in the first place?
Irrespective of order, there is no evidence of collusion so why was he being investigated? Who started it off? (Its the crank Steele Dossier)
Your journey from I-know-best insouciance to fanatical believer in unicorns since the referendum has been quite something to behold.
Ireland gets more bad news
https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/brexit-will-now-hit-jobs-and-wages-even-harder-esri-warns-37951406.html
And I'm a Clinton hater rather than a Trump fan boy
Islington !!!
You could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic – Islamophobic – you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people – now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks – they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America.
It's bang on.
If someone went on a killing spree 'to get rid of non trump voters', you wouldn't investigate trumps involvement
OK.
Catch you later.
The Russians interfered in the US election.
They interfered on behalf of President Trump.
So, should there have been no investigation?
There was an investigation, it cleared the President. That is *exactly* how the world is supposed to work.
Now, you can argue that they should have investigated Hillary Clinton for conspiring with the Russians. But given there is no evidence that the Russians intervened on her behalf, it seems a strange - almost deranged - demand.
terrible things will happen in Ireland - lies
Of course a European election with regional party lists is another matter - and that could give the Tiggers an opportunity to get MEPs elected in London and the south east where there are more seats available.
You seem to be saying that there shouldn't be an investigation because there was no evidence. But the purpose of an investigation is to gather evidence.
. . . oh wait . . .
somewhat disingenuous , youve rarely passed on the opportunity to ramp a bad news brexit story
(a) for accurately reflecting a discussion in the minutes?
(b) because he doesn’t tell cabinet ministers what to do
I think Adonis likes the idea of unelected people telling politicians what to do
WH2020 will tell us how accurate (or not) that is.
Off for my Banana and to wash my hands (not necessarily in that order)
In either case, we would probably be where we are now in terms of the political process, with May still flogging her dead horse of a non-Deal to a parliament of Remainers willing to have none of it as the Conservative Party falls apart. So if that were to lead to a GE it is hardly the case that he has played a blinder, because to do so he would have to lay claim to having influenced that outcome.
Also, if we are to end up with a GE, Labour seems to be doing everything in its power to give the Conservatives a chance of still prevailing. Labour is still behind in nearly all polls at a time when the PM's plummeting favourability ratings look good only by being outstripped by those of Corbyn.
You do realise that, right?
In your example there would be no 'public' investigation of Ton Watson unless there's evidence. Ffs!
And whilst I agree that the Conservative Party has some problems, they're nowhere near as deep, nor reach all the way to the top of the party. But I will make one prediction: unless the Conservatives act on it, within ten years they'll be in a similar position to Labour is now: just with Islamaphobia rather than anti-Semitism.
You might like to read the following:
http://fathomjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Institutionally-Antisemitic-Report-for-event.pdf
"If supporters of Jeremy Corbyn started getting bumped off, I think the police would be absolutely right to check that Tom Watson wasn't behind it.
You seem to be saying that there shouldn't be an investigation because there was no evidence. But the purpose of an investigation is to gather evidence."
Maybe that's why Watson goes to those people's vote marches - so 400,000 (or 1 million) people can give him an alibi.
I see the House is approving a load more secondary legislation relating to leaving the EU this evening - even though we don't know if and when we will leave the EU. Its all a bit surreal.
They are currently voting on approving the Customs safety and security procedures (EU exit) regulations 2019. Not sure when they will come into force?
Does anyone think dyedwoolie is making sense?
https://twitter.com/DawnHFoster/status/1110582061474156546?s=19
You can't just set up special counsel based on a whim. Ir, if you do, you expect to be held to account
Investigate Russian meddling, sure. Investigate anyone found to be involved, sure.
Are you saying I should set up special counsel to look into your involvement in x, y or z? Or should I perhaps have some evidence before I do?
Verified account
@ShehabKhan
4m4 minutes ago
More
EXCLUSIVE: Tom Watson’s office is embroiled in a racial discrimination row after it has been revealed his former advisor is taking the Labour Party to an employment tribunal accusing colleagues of racism, harassment and bullying
Keep taking the tablets, Moses!
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/events/event/boris-on-brexit-live/
Boris is listed on the booking page as 'Telegraph talent'.
2. Most of the stuff in the Steele dossier has stood up to scrutiny, the errors being relatively trivial. Calling Steele a crank is absurd, he was for a while MI6's Russia expert, he's not some Walter Mitty type, he's a person with the experience and contacts to back up his claims. Certainly the FBI took him seriously, as did several prominent Republican politicians. Steele was plainly correct in his allegations about the Russian government interfering in the election.
A hell of lot of crooks surround Trump, and many of them had been speaking to people they shouldn't have been. They may not have conspired, but their actions certainly warranted investigation. On top of the counterintelligence investigation a whole load of other crime has been found, and about a dozen current investigations have been spun off from the Special Counsel's work.
But it brings up another point: she was a barrister. Why are there so many incredibly poor-quality lawyers and barristers in parliament?
Verified account
@ShehabKhan
5m5 minutes ago
More
In leaked documents Watson’s former advisor, who is of Afro-Caribbean origin, claims there was a “history of being treated less favourably” in his office because of her ethnicity and she was earmarked for redundancy because she was the only “black person on the team”.
She accuses Watson’s chief of staff of harassment and bullying and says she was told by colleagues that Watson’s chief of staff “might be racist”.Sources close to Watson’s chief of staff “completely refuted all the allegations”, which they said were “untrue and highly damaging.”
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1110616467618304003
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tom-watson-labour-court-case-racial-discrimination-harassment-bullying-a8836086.html
NGL, doesn't sound like the strongest case on the face of it.
As it is, it just makes it seem like you're excusing and denying anti-Semitism as part of some sick political game.
If you want to treat all such accusations equally, with a high barrier of proof of intent, fair enough: that's a reasonable position. Ignoring and excusing anti-Semitism amongst people you see as political friends whilst excoriating others for racism is not good.
In fact, it's incredibly bad.