Yes, I read that this morning, but couldn't shake the feeling of implausibility. When Labour members won't even vote for Corbyn, why would bankers? Surely they're going to stay put with the Tories or break Lib Dem?
They would never vote for them, just be less hostile. Especially with the thought of crashing out with no deal,gets ever closer with the Conservatives.
So Jezza is going to "abolish" weirdo peado obsessive Tom Watson!
Stalin would be proud...
Listen, I'm no fan of Watson or Labour in general, but calling him a "peado" obsessive is really quite off. I've noticed you do it several times, so you're clearly trying to make it a "thing", but just don't.
Watson's role in Dolphin Square/Brittan/Proctor/Made-Up Allegations case is deeply troubling for many people. He appointed himself almost sole arbiter of this sort of thing for a while - possibly because he genuinely believed what was alleged or possibly just to boost his own profile. Either way, he cannot (and should not be allowed to) get away with his behaviour on this issue.
Yes, I understand the issue, and your summary is a good critique. I'd add that politicians shouldn't involve themselves in criminal proceedings in general. Such is Watson's foolishness. But calling someone a "peado" obsessive strides well past that sensible criticism and firmly into some pretty libellous interpretations. GIN is being either very careless or pretty underhand, and the fact that he's done it more than once leads me to worry it's the latter.
Not sure.
He was rather obsessive about paedophiles.
Quiet now though, which is remarkable.
Yes. Though oddly, a lot of far right criticism of some mainstream politicians is that they don't care enough about paedophilia. I have seen a lot written about that odious little turd Tommy Robinson, but I haven't seen him called a "weirdo peado obsessive".
NEC policy on acting leader passed, basically the NEC runs labour/the country if an acting leader is required. Nice.
What does this mean?
Conference is asked to approve the motion which states if the leader becomes incapacitated and the deputy takes over its subject to approval of the NEC, he or she cannot change cabinet positions unless vacancies arise without the approval of the NEC and cannot make major policy changes without the NEC
Mr. Noo, blindly believing claims led to besmirching the entirely good name of innocent men.
It's the polar opposite of authorities refusing to act in cases that are credible (some of which had literal bags of evidence), such as allegations made in Rotherham and similar places.
Wanting the authorities to neither immediately rule out or blindly believe claims but instead to assess them on their merits and investigate as appropriate is hopefully something we can all agree is a good thing.
The Corbyn motion is not him pulling back. Instead of immediate abolition it's now a review on the basis that the role be replaced by someone who is a woman pledging fealty to Corbyn. It's the same outcome.
Laura Pidcock, not Dawn Butler.
As I understand it, though, if there is to be a change it will have to be approved by conference, so it won’t happen this side of an election. This time next year things are going to look very, very different.
NEC policy on acting leader passed, basically the NEC runs labour/the country if an acting leader is required. Nice.
What does this mean?
Conference is asked to approve the motion which states if the leader becomes incapacitated and the deputy takes over its subject to approval of the NEC, he or she cannot change cabinet positions unless vacancies arise without the approval of the NEC and cannot make major policy changes without the NEC
So... if a Labour PM dies in office, the Deputy can't act without the approval of the NEC
In what sense is that honouring parliamentary democracy?
Putting the power to run the country in the hands of the NEC.
Mr. Noo, blindly believing claims led to besmirching the entirely good name of innocent men.
It's the polar opposite of authorities refusing to act in cases that are credible (some of which had literal bags of evidence), such as allegations made in Rotherham and similar places.
Wanting the authorities to neither immediately rule out or blindly believe claims but instead to assess them on their merits and investigate as appropriate is hopefully something we can all agree is a good thing.
You're preaching to the converted. Politicians shouldn't publicly involve themselves in cases. We agree. My point is that people shouldn't call someone a "peado" obsessive.
NEC policy on acting leader passed, basically the NEC runs labour/the country if an acting leader is required. Nice.
What does this mean?
Conference is asked to approve the motion which states if the leader becomes incapacitated and the deputy takes over its subject to approval of the NEC, he or she cannot change cabinet positions unless vacancies arise without the approval of the NEC and cannot make major policy changes without the NEC
So... if a Labour PM dies in office, the Deputy can't act without the approval of the NEC
In what sense is that honouring parliamentary democracy?
Putting the power to run the country in the hands of the NEC.
NEC policy on acting leader passed, basically the NEC runs labour/the country if an acting leader is required. Nice.
What does this mean?
Conference is asked to approve the motion which states if the leader becomes incapacitated and the deputy takes over its subject to approval of the NEC, he or she cannot change cabinet positions unless vacancies arise without the approval of the NEC and cannot make major policy changes without the NEC
So... if a Labour PM dies in office, the Deputy can't act without the approval of the NEC
In what sense is that honouring parliamentary democracy?
Putting the power to run the country in the hands of the NEC.
Well, it's a nonsense of course. But that's merely party policy. It doesn't affect a PM's powers. A Labour PM in such circumstances could, of course, appoint whom he liked to cabinet. Even if the party took disciplinary action and suspended his leadership of the party, he'd still be PM.
NEC policy on acting leader passed, basically the NEC runs labour/the country if an acting leader is required. Nice.
What does this mean?
Conference is asked to approve the motion which states if the leader becomes incapacitated and the deputy takes over its subject to approval of the NEC, he or she cannot change cabinet positions unless vacancies arise without the approval of the NEC and cannot make major policy changes without the NEC
So... if a Labour PM dies in office, the Deputy can't act without the approval of the NEC
In what sense is that honouring parliamentary democracy?
Putting the power to run the country in the hands of the NEC.
Well, it's a nonsense of course. But that's merely party policy. It doesn't affect a PM's powers. A Labour PM in such circumstances could, of course, appoint whom he liked to cabinet. Even if the party took disciplinary action and suspended his leadership of the party, he'd still be PM.
Yep. Indeed it would be a failure of public duty not to act as PM in a proper, constitutional manner. Sod the Trots.
When Parliament returns it’s now surely impossible to see Swinson or the independents supporting a Corbyn caretaker ministry. So are we down to just “Clarke, extension and then election” or “election”, probably following a VONC?
The question being, will Corbyn support a Clarke ministry when push comes to shove?
F1: Leclerc unexpectedly fast in third practice. Rather disinclined to tip at this stage, but I'll see what the markets say, just in case anything looks wonky.
Incidentally, Watson and his many supporters: are they going to just go campaign for Corbyn to be PM? It's absolutely fucking crackers. They're just waiting for the hammer to fall.
I am sure they will fire off a few angry tweets in protest at this and then back to same old same old.
Quite how they can be taken seriously whenever they have complaints about Corbyn I have no idea, I certainly don't believe a word of their supposed outrage. I can believe there is upset, but ultimately they decided that whatever their concerns fighting the evil Tories from within the Labour brand is more important, therefore they have declared that it is not a big deal. So I wish they'd just stop pretending their concerns are in any way important, when its just a way for them to tell themselves they are doing 'all they can'. I don't see why they expect the rest of the country to buy into their self massaging nonsense.
And now over to Sunderland South and Houghton for the first declaration of the night, as reported this looks like a close one between the Conservatives and The Brexit Party with Labour sources confident they have come third here.
Mr. kle4, not unlike someone who goes on holiday several times a year and has multiple TVs/online devices but still goes on the odd march about the evils of climate change and berating the Government for not doing enough/anything/precisely what they want.
And how over to Sunderland South and Houghton for the first declaration of the night, as reported this looks like a close one between the Conservatives and The Brexit Party with Labour sources confident they have come third here.
"I'm hearing they are slightly less confident of saving their deposit though David...."
Is there a word in politics more misused at the moment that 'united' or 'unity'. Everyone insists they are the former or seeking the latter, to the point of meaninglessness when the country and in some cases parties are bitterly divided seeking outcomes that are diametrically opposed. Seeking unity in that situation isn't being reasonable, and it's not even delusional since people know they are not really seeking it, it is just plain nonsense.
And how over to Sunderland South and Houghton for the first declaration of the night, as reported this looks like a close one between the Conservatives and The Brexit Party with Labour sources confident they have come third here.
"I'm hearing they are slightly less confident of saving their deposit though David...."
Obviously we are disappointed but it's only one result, I'm hearing very good reports from central Liverpool, we may take one or two seats there
Is there a word in politics more misused at the moment that 'united' or 'unity'. Everyone insists they are the former or seeking the latter, to the point of meaninglessness when the country and in some cases parties are bitterly divided seeking outcomes that are diametrically opposed. Seeking unity in that situation isn't being reasonable, and it's not even delusional since people know they are not really seeking it, it is just plain nonsense.
But that is why Corbyn is exactly right to say in a second referendum he'd stay neutral and let individuals campaign as they see fit.
Was this whole thing just a ploy by Corbyn to appear to be the reasonable one? He 'quashes' the motion and therefore when someone says Corbynites are trying to push others around he can point to this and say that is not so.
And now over to Sunderland South and Houghton for the first declaration of the night, as reported this looks like a close one between the Conservatives and The Brexit Party with Labour sources confident they have come third here.
Con + Bxp 1st and 2nd on max. 40% combined vote share? Best of luck with your future bets, but that one will cost you.
And now over to Sunderland South and Houghton for the first declaration of the night, as reported this looks like a close one between the Conservatives and The Brexit Party with Labour sources confident they have come third here.
The boundaries were different but Sunderland South was actually Tory held from 1953 -1964. The MP was Paul Williams.
It's like the typical 'we're united, this is the media talking' stuff, which no one with integrity or self respect could possibly say when Watson himself was giving interviews about the disgrace of the move just a few hours ago. I do get that people are loyal to a party, I really get it, but how they can say black is white and white is black to defend the party I will never understand - some things are not a matter of interpretation or creative wording, they are just wrong.
And now over to Sunderland South and Houghton for the first declaration of the night, as reported this looks like a close one between the Conservatives and The Brexit Party with Labour sources confident they have come third here.
Con + Bxp 1st and 2nd on max. 40% combined vote share? Best of luck with your future bets, but that one will cost you.
Con plus UKIP was 40% in 2015. I think 'max 40' is highly pessimistic, I expect, fanciful predictions aside, con plus BXP to be in excess of 50% here
Is there a word in politics more misused at the moment that 'united' or 'unity'. Everyone insists they are the former or seeking the latter, to the point of meaninglessness when the country and in some cases parties are bitterly divided seeking outcomes that are diametrically opposed. Seeking unity in that situation isn't being reasonable, and it's not even delusional since people know they are not really seeking it, it is just plain nonsense.
But that is why Corbyn is exactly right to say in a second referendum he'd stay neutral and let individuals campaign as they see fit.
Harold Wilson took a backseat during the 1975 Referendum campaign.
Is there a word in politics more misused at the moment that 'united' or 'unity'. Everyone insists they are the former or seeking the latter, to the point of meaninglessness when the country and in some cases parties are bitterly divided seeking outcomes that are diametrically opposed. Seeking unity in that situation isn't being reasonable, and it's not even delusional since people know they are not really seeking it, it is just plain nonsense.
But that is why Corbyn is exactly right to say in a second referendum he'd stay neutral and let individuals campaign as they see fit.
Harold Wilson took a backseat during the 1975 Referendum campaign.
My only question mark over Leclerc would be the occasional error, as per Azerbaijan. He and Hamilton, with possible interest from Bottas/Verstappen seems the way it will go.
Surprised, as I thought this would be a Mercedes/Red Bull contest.
I speak to a lot of bankers and other finance types. I would say that there are pretty varied opinions on whether Johnson/Brexit/populism or Corbyn/Labour/Communism is the lesser of the two evils. I think a clear majority would still prefer Johnson but it's certainly not 100%. Like any group, they are not homogeneous, some can look past their own tax bill and others can't, some are quite open to the idea that inequality is a problem and things need to change.
Mr. Simon, it's fair. Employers have been put off hiring younger women due to the maternity leave laws, so it's only reasonable to put them off older women.
The other, slower burning, issue that Labour will face is the Trade Union Political Funds drying up.
For background, 21 Unions have political funds including the big 3, and 11, including the big 3 are affiliated to labour, they are funded by the political Levey on members, typical 50p a month but that adds up, in the past all members could be charged this, and while there was an option to ‘opt out’ few did, partly because it was a lot of hassles for 50p a month, and partly because the unions did not advertise that this was an option.
For scale the funds spent over £20 million every year form 2014-2017, and the labour affiliated ones over £19 million of this. Only about half of this is shown of the in the Elecral Commotion donation website, but the rest mostly finds its way in to helping the Labour party: some is used to pay big prises to but stalls in conferences, or adverts in internal party magazines, some is used to pay for ‘lesson officers’, who work in labour party office, some is spent directly on advertising posters or mail shots. Only a small amount sill be spent on admin. In march 2018 a new rule came in to effect where, new members would have to ‘opt in’ not ‘opt out’
All bar one (TSSA) of the unions with political funds has now released their annual report, and there are 205,000 less people paying in to the political fund! About 5% and which represents, what I think is resemble to estimate as the majority of the people who would have joined in that time frame. This covers only 9 months as the rule came in to effect in march, so next years fall could be 6% or more.
This is not an instant death nail, the funds still have 35 million in the bank and in income of £24 Million a year, but if they don’t win the next election, and revers the rule, then the party will have to work out how to operate with significantly less funding for the election after that.
I speak to a lot of bankers and other finance types. I would say that there are pretty varied opinions on whether Johnson/Brexit/populism or Corbyn/Labour/Communism is the lesser of the two evils. I think a clear majority would still prefer Johnson but it's certainly not 100%. Like any group, they are not homogeneous, some can look past their own tax bill and others can't, some are quite open to the idea that inequality is a problem and things need to change.
Didn't the Economist endorse the Lib Dems in 2017? I could see that happening again.
I speak to a lot of bankers and other finance types. I would say that there are pretty varied opinions on whether Johnson/Brexit/populism or Corbyn/Labour/Communism is the lesser of the two evils. I think a clear majority would still prefer Johnson but it's certainly not 100%. Like any group, they are not homogeneous, some can look past their own tax bill and others can't, some are quite open to the idea that inequality is a problem and things need to change.
Didn't the Economist endorse the Lib Dems in 2017? I could see that happening again.
It’s the number one issue facing the country, dontcha know?
There is no denying that menopause is a significant factor in the lives of women. But if you keep on extending specific protections/provisions for particular classes/conditions and so forth, where will it end?
There has to be a balance between the role of the state and the role of the individual to take charge of their own lives. Not everything has to be controlled, legislated on, monitored and so forth.
Lansmann is said to be a very bright guy , yet this episode appears to demonstrate a clear lack of political intelligence and awareness. It may end up being a Westminster bubble affair, but how could he seriously believe that such a move - had it succeeded - would have not proved highly damaging to his own party?
Lansmann is said to be a very bright guy , yet this episode appears to demonstrate a clear lack of political intelligence and awareness. It may end up being a Westminster bubble affair, but how could he seriously believe that such a move - had it succeeded - would have not proved highly damaging to his own party?
Perhaps, conspiracist hat on here, he is taking one for the team by drawing fire on himself, so Corbyn can push through something else?
It’s the number one issue facing the country, dontcha know?
Things don't need to be the number one issue to be addressed. oxfordsimon raises some questions about how much issues like this require legislating on and so on, which is fair enough, but there's nothing peculiar about bringing it up even during a time of crisis. They still passed basic legislation during the Civil War after all.
I should be heading to Barra today, but difficult family circumstances have kept me closer to home. Pissed off though, very pissed off.... I love my jaunts to the Outer Hebs.
Is there a word in politics more misused at the moment that 'united' or 'unity'. Everyone insists they are the former or seeking the latter, to the point of meaninglessness when the country and in some cases parties are bitterly divided seeking outcomes that are diametrically opposed. Seeking unity in that situation isn't being reasonable, and it's not even delusional since people know they are not really seeking it, it is just plain nonsense.
But that is why Corbyn is exactly right to say in a second referendum he'd stay neutral and let individuals campaign as they see fit.
Harold Wilson took a backseat during the 1975 Referendum campaign.
I wonder if Camerons wishing he'd done the same ?
We had to get away from the ‘doublespeak’ of the past. Margaret Thatcher had railed against Brussels, yet took the country into the Exchange Rate Mechanism. John Major had attacked the single currency, yet said he wanted Britain at ‘the heart of Europe’. The Conservative government had opposed a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty, yet most ministers privately prayed for the Dutch and Danish populations to reject it when they were given the chance in referendums of their own. David Cameron, For the Record.
I should be heading to Barra today, but difficult family circumstances have kept me closer to home. Pissed off though, very pissed off.... I love my jaunts to the Outer Hebs.
I am at Sumburgh Head. Weather's nice up here.
Bit blowy over the west coast I'm told.
Last time I was at Sumburgh Head I was chasing a River Warbler round a bit of scrub. Skulky little sod!
Lansmann is said to be a very bright guy , yet this episode appears to demonstrate a clear lack of political intelligence and awareness. It may end up being a Westminster bubble affair, but how could he seriously believe that such a move - had it succeeded - would have not proved highly damaging to his own party?
In the same way that pineapple is "said to be" a viable pizza ingredient...
If he doesn’t like the Brexit policy he should resign and leave the front bench . However if he doesn’t an elected leader should be changed by the membership and not a stitch up by the NEC.
The compromise or in this case kicking the issue into the long grass was the correct decision.
The ones truly disappointed at this fudge will be the right wing press and parade of journalists who had the front pages ready to go tomorrow and will still try desperately to cremate the story .
The general public are unlikely to be moved by the story of the Deputy Leader not in the end being ousted !
Apparently the Mail on Sunday have informed Jo Maugham instrumental in the prorogation case that they will be publishing his home address in their paper tomorrow even though he’s already received death threats .
This is utterly despicable behaviour . Will they also be publishing the SC judges addresses in future if they go against the government !
I should be heading to Barra today, but difficult family circumstances have kept me closer to home. Pissed off though, very pissed off.... I love my jaunts to the Outer Hebs.
I am at Sumburgh Head. Weather's nice up here.
Bit blowy over the west coast I'm told.
Last time I was at Sumburgh Head I was chasing a River Warbler round a bit of scrub. Skulky little sod!
Of course there was the famous actor named River Phoenix but River is certainly an unusual first name for a young lady. Perhaps Miss Warbler didn't quite appreciate your courting technique ....
Apparently the Mail on Sunday have informed Jo Maugham instrumental in the prorogation case that they will be publishing his home address in their paper tomorrow even though he’s already received death threats .
This is utterly despicable behaviour . Will they also be publishing the SC judges addresses in future if they go against the government !
I think that man is a complete #%## but that’s inexcusable. What possible pseudo-journalistic reason could they have invented to do that?
I should be heading to Barra today, but difficult family circumstances have kept me closer to home. Pissed off though, very pissed off.... I love my jaunts to the Outer Hebs.
I am at Sumburgh Head. Weather's nice up here.
Bit blowy over the west coast I'm told.
Last time I was at Sumburgh Head I was chasing a River Warbler round a bit of scrub. Skulky little sod!
Yes no wind shortage here. Headed for Orkney then round the top to Lewis n Harris.
Apparently the Mail on Sunday have informed Jo Maugham instrumental in the prorogation case that they will be publishing his home address in their paper tomorrow even though he’s already received death threats .
This is utterly despicable behaviour . Will they also be publishing the SC judges addresses in future if they go against the government !
Source?
Whilst I don't believe that home addresses should be published, I would rather like to know the source of this - as it strikes me as rather implausible.
If people want to send death threats (which, of course, they shouldn't - but there will always be loons both dangerous and not), then his email and work details are out in the public domain anyway.
Apparently the Mail on Sunday have informed Jo Maugham instrumental in the prorogation case that they will be publishing his home address in their paper tomorrow even though he’s already received death threats .
This is utterly despicable behaviour . Will they also be publishing the SC judges addresses in future if they go against the government !
I think that man is a complete #%## but that’s inexcusable. What possible pseudo-journalistic reason could they have invented to do that?
I don’t see why any article they might do on him would need his address to be included .
This also is an indirect threat to the SC judges by suggesting they’ll have the same treatment , is this an attempt to put pressure on those judges .
I expect they have already come to their judgement but still it’s disgraceful that a paper would risk the safety of someone in this manner .
Lansmann is said to be a very bright guy , yet this episode appears to demonstrate a clear lack of political intelligence and awareness. It may end up being a Westminster bubble affair, but how could he seriously believe that such a move - had it succeeded - would have not proved highly damaging to his own party?
It's damaging to the party's prospects of beating the Tories but if that was the objective then none of it makes sense. They're supporting a leader who is rated by at best 20% of the voters - you don't do that if the main goal is to win a general election.
OTOH if the goal is to control the Labour Party then purging the internal enemy leaders and thereby encouraging their supporters to self-purge makes total sense.
Apparently the Mail on Sunday have informed Jo Maugham instrumental in the prorogation case that they will be publishing his home address in their paper tomorrow even though he’s already received death threats .
This is utterly despicable behaviour . Will they also be publishing the SC judges addresses in future if they go against the government !
Source?
Whilst I don't believe that home addresses should be published, I would rather like to know the source of this - as it strikes me as rather implausible.
If people want to send death threats (which, of course, they shouldn't - but there will always be loons both dangerous and not), then his email and work details are out in the public domain anyway.
Apparently the Mail on Sunday have informed Jo Maugham instrumental in the prorogation case that they will be publishing his home address in their paper tomorrow even though he’s already received death threats .
This is utterly despicable behaviour . Will they also be publishing the SC judges addresses in future if they go against the government !
Presumably a hit piece along the lines of "rich elite in posh house wants to steal your brexit". Presumably it will be ok if someone publishes the address of Mail editor in return?
Apparently the Mail on Sunday have informed Jo Maugham instrumental in the prorogation case that they will be publishing his home address in their paper tomorrow even though he’s already received death threats .
This is utterly despicable behaviour . Will they also be publishing the SC judges addresses in future if they go against the government !
Source?
Whilst I don't believe that home addresses should be published, I would rather like to know the source of this - as it strikes me as rather implausible.
If people want to send death threats (which, of course, they shouldn't - but there will always be loons both dangerous and not), then his email and work details are out in the public domain anyway.
Jo maugham tweeted it himself
Firstly, I am not sure why the MoS would tell him that in advance Secondly, I cannot recall any paper publishing someone's address in this way.
They can often allude to things with 'outside his leafy Hampstead home' or some such - that can give someone a good start in tracking down the necessary details.
Plus one of his properties is mentioned on his Wikipedia profile - he may well have other homes, but one, at least, is very much in the public domain.
I am still somewhat sceptical about this. It feels more like Maugham keeping his name in the media. I may be wrong - but it doesn't hang true based on the limited info we have
Lansmann is said to be a very bright guy , yet this episode appears to demonstrate a clear lack of political intelligence and awareness. It may end up being a Westminster bubble affair, but how could he seriously believe that such a move - had it succeeded - would have not proved highly damaging to his own party?
It's damaging to the party's prospects of beating the Tories but if that was the objective then none of it makes sense. They're supporting a leader who is rated by at best 20% of the voters - you don't do that if the main goal is to win a general election.
OTOH if the goal is to control the Labour Party then purging the internal enemy leaders and thereby encouraging their supporters to self-purge makes total sense.
But in psephological terms Labour's polling position - in relation to the Tories - is nothing like as dire as it appeared at the beginning of the 2017 election. Lansmann ought to know that.
But that is why Corbyn is exactly right to say in a second referendum he'd stay neutral and let individuals campaign as they see fit.
Yep. It works just fine.
Choice between (very) Soft Brexit and Remain, PM neutral, Labour MPs and members decide individually which side to back, most will be Remain but not all - public decides.
The Deal will be the WA plus the PD amended for close alignment. The EU will play ball since both outcomes are acceptable to them.
A valid criticism is that this Ref formulation steers to Remain in that it has no Hard Leave option. A valid criticism is NOT that the policy is confusing or difficult to understand. On the contrary it is very easy to understand. In fact I am not sure I have come across anything as easy as this to get my head around since I discovered Noddy books at the age of 15.
Apparently the Mail on Sunday have informed Jo Maugham instrumental in the prorogation case that they will be publishing his home address in their paper tomorrow even though he’s already received death threats .
This is utterly despicable behaviour . Will they also be publishing the SC judges addresses in future if they go against the government !
Source?
Whilst I don't believe that home addresses should be published, I would rather like to know the source of this - as it strikes me as rather implausible.
If people want to send death threats (which, of course, they shouldn't - but there will always be loons both dangerous and not), then his email and work details are out in the public domain anyway.
Jo maugham tweeted it himself
Firstly, I am not sure why the MoS would tell him that in advance Secondly, I cannot recall any paper publishing someone's address in this way.
They can often allude to things with 'outside his leafy Hampstead home' or some such - that can give someone a good start in tracking down the necessary details.
Plus one of his properties is mentioned on his Wikipedia profile - he may well have other homes, but one, at least, is very much in the public domain.
I am still somewhat sceptical about this. It feels more like Maugham keeping his name in the media. I may be wrong - but it doesn't hang true based on the limited info we have
It’s irrelevant whether some of his info is in the public domain . Drawing attention to his address in a likely hatchet job given the toxic atmosphere is completely unnaceptable.
But that is why Corbyn is exactly right to say in a second referendum he'd stay neutral and let individuals campaign as they see fit.
Yep. It works just fine.
Choice between (very) Soft Brexit and Remain, PM neutral, Labour MPs and members decide individually which side to back, most will be Remain but not all - public decides.
The Deal will be the WA plus the PD amended for close alignment. The EU will play ball since both outcomes are acceptable to them.
A valid criticism is that this Ref formulation steers to Remain in that it has no Hard Leave option. A valid criticism is NOT that the policy is confusing or difficult to understand. On the contrary it is very easy to understand. In fact I am not sure I have come across anything as easy as this to get my head around since I discovered Noddy books at the age of 15.
It is very difficult to believe a position which is for someone to want to be PM so that he can then renegotiate a deal - a deal which he will then not support in a referendum.
That isn't a credible position as far as I am concerned. How can he be taken seriously in a negotiation when the people on the other side of the table know that he won't go out of his way to support the deal that they have spent many months creating.
But then Corbyn doesn't know what his current policy is - as was clear in his BBC NI interview.
Apparently the Mail on Sunday have informed Jo Maugham instrumental in the prorogation case that they will be publishing his home address in their paper tomorrow even though he’s already received death threats .
This is utterly despicable behaviour . Will they also be publishing the SC judges addresses in future if they go against the government !
Source?
Whilst I don't believe that home addresses should be published, I would rather like to know the source of this - as it strikes me as rather implausible.
If people want to send death threats (which, of course, they shouldn't - but there will always be loons both dangerous and not), then his email and work details are out in the public domain anyway.
Jo maugham tweeted it himself
Firstly, I am not sure why the MoS would tell him that in advance Secondly, I cannot recall any paper publishing someone's address in this way.
They can often allude to things with 'outside his leafy Hampstead home' or some such - that can give someone a good start in tracking down the necessary details.
Plus one of his properties is mentioned on his Wikipedia profile - he may well have other homes, but one, at least, is very much in the public domain.
I am still somewhat sceptical about this. It feels more like Maugham keeping his name in the media. I may be wrong - but it doesn't hang true based on the limited info we have
It’s irrelevant whether some of his info is in the public domain . Drawing attention to his address in a likely hatchet job given the toxic atmosphere is completely unnaceptable.
I am not saying it is acceptable.
What I am questioning is clear - Why would they tell him in advance if they were intent on doing him some harm? Given Maugham's love of the courts system, any newspaper would know that an alert of this sort is going to be subject to some sort of challenge.
The Maugham property mentioned on wikipedia operates as a business / holiday lets and has a very public website. I would be surprised if he is talking about that property.
It is very difficult to believe a position which is for someone to want to be PM so that he can then renegotiate a deal - a deal which he will then not support in a referendum.
That isn't a credible position as far as I am concerned. How can he be taken seriously in a negotiation when the people on the other side of the table know that he won't go out of his way to support the deal that they have spent many months creating.
So the policy makes sense so long as Corbyn announces in advance that he will take the Leave side in the Referendum?
But that is why Corbyn is exactly right to say in a second referendum he'd stay neutral and let individuals campaign as they see fit.
Yep. It works just fine.
Choice between (very) Soft Brexit and Remain, PM neutral, Labour MPs and members decide individually which side to back, most will be Remain but not all - public decides.
The Deal will be the WA plus the PD amended for close alignment. The EU will play ball since both outcomes are acceptable to them.
A valid criticism is that this Ref formulation steers to Remain in that it has no Hard Leave option. A valid criticism is NOT that the policy is confusing or difficult to understand. On the contrary it is very easy to understand. In fact I am not sure I have come across anything as easy as this to get my head around since I discovered Noddy books at the age of 15.
It is very difficult to believe a position which is for someone to want to be PM so that he can then renegotiate a deal - a deal which he will then not support in a referendum.
That isn't a credible position as far as I am concerned. How can he be taken seriously in a negotiation when the people on the other side of the table know that he won't go out of his way to support the deal that they have spent many months creating.
But then Corbyn doesn't know what his current policy is - as was clear in his BBC NI interview.
Does it have to be Corbyn himself negotiating it? Couldn't he send a team of people who want a brexit deal with a mandate of "go and get what you can, then you campaign for it in the referendum". Could even be a cross party team.
Secondly, I cannot recall any paper publishing someone's address in this way.
They can often allude to things with 'outside his leafy Hampstead home' or some such - that can give someone a good start in tracking down the necessary details.
Yes, they'd say something like "millionaire lawyer Jo Maugham is right at home in leafy Deliverance Square, a near neighbour of famous inhabitants such as Justice Cocklecarrot and poet E.J. Thribb".
Then illustrate it with a picture of said house in said leafy square which just happens to include the house number on the door.
Apparently the Mail on Sunday have informed Jo Maugham instrumental in the prorogation case that they will be publishing his home address in their paper tomorrow even though he’s already received death threats .
This is utterly despicable behaviour . Will they also be publishing the SC judges addresses in future if they go against the government !
Source?
Whilst I don't believe that home addresses should be published, I would rather like to know the source of this - as it strikes me as rather implausible.
If people want to send death threats (which, of course, they shouldn't - but there will always be loons both dangerous and not), then his email and work details are out in the public domain anyway.
Jo maugham tweeted it himself
Firstly, I am not sure why the MoS would tell him that in advance Secondly, I cannot recall any paper publishing someone's address in this way.
They can often allude to things with 'outside his leafy Hampstead home' or some such - that can give someone a good start in tracking down the necessary details.
Plus one of his properties is mentioned on his Wikipedia profile - he may well have other homes, but one, at least, is very much in the public domain.
I am still somewhat sceptical about this. It feels more like Maugham keeping his name in the media. I may be wrong - but it doesn't hang true based on the limited info we have
It’s irrelevant whether some of his info is in the public domain . Drawing attention to his address in a likely hatchet job given the toxic atmosphere is completely unnaceptable.
I am not saying it is acceptable.
What I am questioning is clear - Why would they tell him in advance if they were intent on doing him some harm? Given Maugham's love of the courts system, any newspaper would know that an alert of this sort is going to be subject to some sort of challenge.
It might be a legal requirement , I’m not an expert on press regulations but clearly why would it be necessary to include his address .
The MOS is despicable at the best of times so the depths to which they’d sink is no surprise.
The Maugham property mentioned on wikipedia operates as a business / holiday lets and has a very public website. I would be surprised if he is talking about that property.
Even if it were a holiday let, it could encourage a nutter go attack it. This isn't just about Maugham's personal safety, it's about his rights as a property owner. It would be highly irresponsible journalism, and a wilfully stupid escalation.
Secondly, I cannot recall any paper publishing someone's address in this way.
They can often allude to things with 'outside his leafy Hampstead home' or some such - that can give someone a good start in tracking down the necessary details.
Yes, they'd say something like "millionaire lawyer Jo Maugham is right at home in leafy Deliverance Square, a near neighbour of famous inhabitants such as Justice Cocklecarrot and poet E.J. Thribb".
Then illustrate it with a picture of said house in said leafy square which just happens to include the house number on the door.
Uh, that's Lord Chief Justice Cocklecarrot these days. Keep up.
Comments
Especially with the thought of crashing out with no deal,gets ever closer with the Conservatives.
So thanks for the tip but no thanks.
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1175324553897218050
It's the polar opposite of authorities refusing to act in cases that are credible (some of which had literal bags of evidence), such as allegations made in Rotherham and similar places.
Wanting the authorities to neither immediately rule out or blindly believe claims but instead to assess them on their merits and investigate as appropriate is hopefully something we can all agree is a good thing.
As I understand it, though, if there is to be a change it will have to be approved by conference, so it won’t happen this side of an election. This time next year things are going to look very, very different.
In what sense is that honouring parliamentary democracy?
Putting the power to run the country in the hands of the NEC.
My point is that people shouldn't call someone a "peado" obsessive.
The question being, will Corbyn support a Clarke ministry when push comes to shove?
*nods* hmmm yes yes, yes. Yes.
For me, the name always conjures up the airships in Red Alert 3.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1175354154950283264
It's like the typical 'we're united, this is the media talking' stuff, which no one with integrity or self respect could possibly say when Watson himself was giving interviews about the disgrace of the move just a few hours ago. I do get that people are loyal to a party, I really get it, but how they can say black is white and white is black to defend the party I will never understand - some things are not a matter of interpretation or creative wording, they are just wrong.
Corbyn suddenly not enough of a Corbynist.
https://twitter.com/graceblakeley/status/1175360299043577856?s=21
Not tipping for qualifying in the blog.
My only question mark over Leclerc would be the occasional error, as per Azerbaijan. He and Hamilton, with possible interest from Bottas/Verstappen seems the way it will go.
Surprised, as I thought this would be a Mercedes/Red Bull contest.
Next
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49781137
The other, slower burning, issue that Labour will face is the Trade Union Political Funds drying up.
For background, 21 Unions have political funds including the big 3, and 11, including the big 3 are affiliated to labour, they are funded by the political Levey on members, typical 50p a month but that adds up, in the past all members could be charged this, and while there was an option to ‘opt out’ few did, partly because it was a lot of hassles for 50p a month, and partly because the unions did not advertise that this was an option.
For scale the funds spent over £20 million every year form 2014-2017, and the labour affiliated ones over £19 million of this. Only about half of this is shown of the in the Elecral Commotion donation website, but the rest mostly finds its way in to helping the Labour party: some is used to pay big prises to but stalls in conferences, or adverts in internal party magazines, some is used to pay for ‘lesson officers’, who work in labour party office, some is spent directly on advertising posters or mail shots. Only a small amount sill be spent on admin.
In march 2018 a new rule came in to effect where, new members would have to ‘opt in’ not ‘opt out’
All bar one (TSSA) of the unions with political funds has now released their annual report, and there are 205,000 less people paying in to the political fund! About 5% and which represents, what I think is resemble to estimate as the majority of the people who would have joined in that time frame. This covers only 9 months as the rule came in to effect in march, so next years fall could be 6% or more.
This is not an instant death nail, the funds still have 35 million in the bank and in income of £24 Million a year, but if they don’t win the next election, and revers the rule, then the party will have to work out how to operate with significantly less funding for the election after that.
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2019/09/singapore-pre-qualifying-2019.html
Anyway, I'm off now.
There has to be a balance between the role of the state and the role of the individual to take charge of their own lives. Not everything has to be controlled, legislated on, monitored and so forth.
David Cameron, For the Record.
Last time I was at Sumburgh Head I was chasing a River Warbler round a bit of scrub. Skulky little sod!
If he doesn’t like the Brexit policy he should resign and leave the front bench . However if he doesn’t an elected leader should be changed by the membership and not a stitch up by the NEC.
The compromise or in this case kicking the issue into the long grass was the correct decision.
The ones truly disappointed at this fudge will be the right wing press and parade of journalists who had the front pages ready to go tomorrow and will still try desperately to cremate the story .
The general public are unlikely to be moved by the story of the Deputy Leader not in the end being ousted !
This is utterly despicable behaviour . Will they also be publishing the SC judges addresses in future if they go against the government !
Labour's leader and deputy leader are...
'Tom and Jerry'.
That's all folks.
Boris & Dom = Pinky & the Brain?
Whilst I don't believe that home addresses should be published, I would rather like to know the source of this - as it strikes me as rather implausible.
If people want to send death threats (which, of course, they shouldn't - but there will always be loons both dangerous and not), then his email and work details are out in the public domain anyway.
This also is an indirect threat to the SC judges by suggesting they’ll have the same treatment , is this an attempt to put pressure on those judges .
I expect they have already come to their judgement but still it’s disgraceful that a paper would risk the safety of someone in this manner .
OTOH if the goal is to control the Labour Party then purging the internal enemy leaders and thereby encouraging their supporters to self-purge makes total sense.
Presumably it will be ok if someone publishes the address of Mail editor in return?
Secondly, I cannot recall any paper publishing someone's address in this way.
They can often allude to things with 'outside his leafy Hampstead home' or some such - that can give someone a good start in tracking down the necessary details.
Plus one of his properties is mentioned on his Wikipedia profile - he may well have other homes, but one, at least, is very much in the public domain.
I am still somewhat sceptical about this. It feels more like Maugham keeping his name in the media. I may be wrong - but it doesn't hang true based on the limited info we have
Choice between (very) Soft Brexit and Remain, PM neutral, Labour MPs and members decide individually which side to back, most will be Remain but not all - public decides.
The Deal will be the WA plus the PD amended for close alignment. The EU will play ball since both outcomes are acceptable to them.
A valid criticism is that this Ref formulation steers to Remain in that it has no Hard Leave option. A valid criticism is NOT that the policy is confusing or difficult to understand. On the contrary it is very easy to understand. In fact I am not sure I have come across anything as easy as this to get my head around since I discovered Noddy books at the age of 15.
That isn't a credible position as far as I am concerned. How can he be taken seriously in a negotiation when the people on the other side of the table know that he won't go out of his way to support the deal that they have spent many months creating.
But then Corbyn doesn't know what his current policy is - as was clear in his BBC NI interview.
What I am questioning is clear - Why would they tell him in advance if they were intent on doing him some harm? Given Maugham's love of the courts system, any newspaper would know that an alert of this sort is going to be subject to some sort of challenge.
Then illustrate it with a picture of said house in said leafy square which just happens to include the house number on the door.
The MOS is despicable at the best of times so the depths to which they’d sink is no surprise.
https://twitter.com/jolyonmaugham/status/1175379503402627077?s=21