A membership which rates Corbyn with higher favourables than any other leader it has had is surely not going to go for Nandy. It's not like she was as rebellious as others, but she's not on script right now and that feels like it would hurt.
Nandy is a lot further left than a lot of people here seem to realise. I don't think she'll win, and that may partly be because her opponents successfully portray her as not left enough, but there is no inconsistency at all between being favourable towards Corbyn and supporting her.
If you don't believe me, watch this video from her worst moment, in the eyes of the left (her support for Owen Smith):
The first thing she wants in a leader of the Labour party? A socialist.
I don't doubt she's more left than many think, nor that some Corbynites could support her, but given she has polled so poorly among Labour members thus far, and Corbyn's favourable rating is pretty high among the same, it is not a question of whether it is consistent to like him and support her, but whether Labour members generally realise it would not be inconsistent for them to do so. At the moment they do seem to think it would be inconsistent. That's not people here not realising how left she is, its most people and in particular the relevant selectorate.
From my point of view she seems a nice person and seems to talk some sense, but I think she's a bit dishonest, as I don't buy her constant equivocations around potential Brexit deals. Thornberry seems solid but lacking support, RLB might be fine in herself but is just a continuity candidate despite protests, and Starmer is Mr Medium - believed to be competent and not too out there, whilst acceptable to those who want something radical all the same.
Something happened to Blair. He went from ostensibly honest to obviously corrupted.
FTFY...
what does FTFY mean?
Fixed That For You.
Blair was never honest. He just was very good at fooling people into thinking he was honest. The Ecclestone affair alone should have blown a hole a mile wide in his credibility, but people didn’t want to believe he had altered the law in exchange for a £1 million donation.
It is no coincidence he was the first British Prime Minister ever to be interviewed by police, and it was a pattern from the off.
Something happened to Blair. He went from ostensibly honest to obviously corrupted.
FTFY...
what does FTFY mean?
Fixed That For You.
Blair was never honest. He just was very good at fooling people into thinking he was honest. The Ecclestone affair alone should have blown a hole a mile wide in his credibility, but people didn’t want to believe he had altered the law in exchange for a £1 million donation.
It is no coincidence he was the first British Prime Minister ever to be interviewed by police, and it was a pattern from the off.
Aside from being a tad too harsh on Cameron the only seriously barmy thing about that list is the position of IDS.
I mean, really??
IDS was never defeated at a general election
Sure, but the fact he never got the chance is a pretty decent indicator that the unfavourables have reason to be slightly higher thanthe favourables at least.
IDS is an incompetent clown who managed to turn his safe seat in the leafy Tory suburbs into an ultra marginal.
The demographics have changed in that seat. The Tories will probably lose it next time.
Ah yes, the demographic change defence.
IDS had a majority of 13,000 as recently as 2014.
Has it really changed that much in six years?
The Conservative vote seems to have been pretty solid:
2010 22,743 52.8% 2015 20,999 47.9% - some loss to UKIP here 2017 23,076 49.1% 2019 23,481 48.5%
What has changed is that the Labour vote has increased from 9,780 in 2010 to 22,219 in 2019.
What is striking though is that the great majority of comments below the line are pro-Starmer. In previous leadership elections, Guardian comments seemed to be largely pro-Corbyn.
I think he's got it bar Nandy catching fire. RLB and ET are IMO the no-hopers.
C4 News this evening went back to Birmingham Northfield for a follow up focus group of Lab > Con switchers. Remember the car crash focus group pre-election, which highlighted how deep in the shit Labour were?
They all liked Nandy, and most liked Thornberry.
RLB went down like a cup of cold sick. They pretty much said 'Corbyn in a frock, no thanks'.
Starmer fared OK, but they thought he was 'quite corporate'.
Saw that. The support for Nandy was striking. It confirmed that she's the one candidate who could win back the red wall.
Personally, as a lifelong Labour voter who voted LD in 2019 either Starmer or Nandy could win me back. My preference was for Starmer, but that clearly showed that Nandy could be a much better option.
Something happened to Blair. He went from ostensibly honest to obviously corrupted.
FTFY...
what does FTFY mean?
Fixed That For You.
Blair was never honest. He just was very good at fooling people into thinking he was honest. The Ecclestone affair alone should have blown a hole a mile wide in his credibility, but people didn’t want to believe he had altered the law in exchange for a £1 million donation.
It is no coincidence he was the first British Prime Minister ever to be interviewed by police, and it was a pattern from the off.
They were asking him for tips ?
More likely they were wondering they were wondering if they had seen the tips...
I think Starmer just won the leadership election. He might win outright on first preferences.
Problem is ex Labour voters don't either of the top two. Although I have to say I was surprised at how many of them would consider voting for Emily Thornberry though.
Something happened to Blair. He went from ostensibly honest to obviously corrupted.
FTFY...
what does FTFY mean?
Fixed That For You.
Blair was never honest. He just was very good at fooling people into thinking he was honest. The Ecclestone affair alone should have blown a hole a mile wide in his credibility, but people didn’t want to believe he had altered the law in exchange for a £1 million donation.
It is no coincidence he was the first British Prime Minister ever to be interviewed by police, and it was a pattern from the off.
Never do that again please. It's an unpleasant and ghastly habit of the sort that might get you run over by a steamroller. The sort of steamroller I may hire, publicise widely, and get the other members of PB to hold you down in front of.
I really do post enough nonsense without your help.
Lol the has-beens and have-never-beens are still trying to block the brexit bill in the lords.
Time to break out the Parliament Act and put them in their unelected place.
It's even more amusing than that - if they paralyse the Bill with their silly amendments, then it never passes and we crash out automatically with No Deal on the 31st.
Rarely in British history has the House of Lords had less leverage in a tug of war with the Commons!
Lol the has-beens and have-never-beens are still trying to block the brexit bill in the lords.
Time to break out the Parliament Act and put them in their unelected place.
It's even more amusing than that - if they paralyse the Bill with their silly amendments, then it never passes and we crash out automatically with No Deal on the 31st.
Rarely in British history has the House of Lords had less leverage in a tug of war with the Commons!
We can but hope!
while he has a lot on his plate already, It would be nice if Borris made the point that this is why we need to totally reform the Lords
From my point of view she seems a nice person and seems to talk some sense, but I think she's a bit dishonest, as I don't buy her constant equivocations around potential Brexit deals.
Interesting. I don't know how honest or otherwise she is, but what I will say is that it was about a year ago, hearing to her talking about Brexit, when I first paid attention to her and starting thinking "I wish she were Prime Minister". My position regarding the deals was extremely similar to hers, and hearing someone with a sensible nuanced position was a breath of fresh air. I am no politician but a scientist surrounded by diehard Remainers/Rejoiners, so there was no incentive for me to agree with her, but I did.
So I don't have any trouble believing her "equivocations", especially as all of her actions were consistent with the position that she set out before the voting started.
Lol the has-beens and have-never-beens are still trying to block the brexit bill in the lords.
Time to break out the Parliament Act and put them in their unelected place.
It's even more amusing than that - if they paralyse the Bill with their silly amendments, then it never passes and we crash out automatically with No Deal on the 31st.
Rarely in British history has the House of Lords had less leverage in a tug of war with the Commons!
It's odd that the LDs have such power in the Lords. The COE too. This obviously equates to a weak social-conciense liberalism, and a self-apologetic pro-establishment thing.
I don't mind this - it's harmless, but I'm not sure we should be paying them for this.
Lol the has-beens and have-never-beens are still trying to block the brexit bill in the lords.
Time to break out the Parliament Act and put them in their unelected place.
It's even more amusing than that - if they paralyse the Bill with their silly amendments, then it never passes and we crash out automatically with No Deal on the 31st.
Rarely in British history has the House of Lords had less leverage in a tug of war with the Commons!
It's odd that the LDs have such power in the Lords. The COE too. This obviously equates to a weak social-conciense liberalism, and a self-apologetic pro-establishment thing.
I don't mind this - it's harmless, but I'm not sure we should be paying them for this.
The LDs strength in the Lords is the consequence of two factors:
1. The end of the heriditaries, which meant that its effectively stuffed full of life peers
2. And those life peers last a long time. As the LDs were on c. 20% in the polls from 1983 to 2010, this means that a lot of LD peers were created over a sustained period of time
If you look at peer creation in the last decade, there have been very few LDs made, but until the ones created thirty years ago start dying, then they'll continue to make up a large share of the Lords.
Lol the has-beens and have-never-beens are still trying to block the brexit bill in the lords.
Time to break out the Parliament Act and put them in their unelected place.
It's even more amusing than that - if they paralyse the Bill with their silly amendments, then it never passes and we crash out automatically with No Deal on the 31st.
Rarely in British history has the House of Lords had less leverage in a tug of war with the Commons!
It's odd that the LDs have such power in the Lords. The COE too. This obviously equates to a weak social-conciense liberalism, and a self-apologetic pro-establishment thing.
I don't mind this - it's harmless, but I'm not sure we should be paying them for this.
It makes up for the under representation in the FPTP legislature.
I think Starmer just won the leadership election. He might win outright on first preferences.
Problem is ex Labour voters don't either of the top two. Although I have to say I was surprised at how many of them would consider voting for Emily Thornberry though.
Thornberry has something about her. I cannot quite put my finger on it, but I can understand the feeling that she has a bit more going on that, for instance, elevated student politics.
It makes up for the under representation in the FPTP legislature.
But the Commons just ignores anything they say. If it was elected maybe there would be a point of having a 2nd chamber, but nothing they do is going to change anything.
I wonder if that is the source of all that stuff about his ex-wife / new lover came from?
Apparently that is so. Given that Bezos had an iPhone X (probably completely up-to-date) and was running WhatsApp, and both iOS and WhatsApp are heavily scrutinised for vulnerabilities in their media frameworks that was probably a very pricey zero-day vulnerability used to attack his phone.
It makes up for the under representation in the FPTP legislature.
But the Commons just ignores anything they say. If it was elected maybe there would be a point of having a 2nd chamber, but nothing they do is going to change anything.
Sure, I support abolition of the Lords too, but if we are to believe in a revising chamber, why not seriously consider their revisions?
It makes up for the under representation in the FPTP legislature.
But the Commons just ignores anything they say. If it was elected maybe there would be a point of having a 2nd chamber, but nothing they do is going to change anything.
Sure, I support abolition of the Lords too, but if we are to believe in a revising chamber, why not seriously consider their revisions?
I agree, but at the moment constitutionally because of the Parliament Act they basically have no power, so all that will happen is the Tories will just say "We've got a majority of 80, **** you".
It makes up for the under representation in the FPTP legislature.
But the Commons just ignores anything they say. If it was elected maybe there would be a point of having a 2nd chamber, but nothing they do is going to change anything.
Sure, I support abolition of the Lords too, but if we are to believe in a revising chamber, why not seriously consider their revisions?
Of course revisions should be seriously considered, but the system has never felt that dismissing their revisions is sign of lack of consideration in itself, just disagreement. It's why we have parliamentary ping pong. We only really notice when the government doesn't accept the revisions, rather than the ones it does. Though CatMan is likely right about how anything at the moment, and certainly Brexit related will be treated. The responsibility for that will lie with a now dominant government, but many Lords, er, lording it over the Commons so brazenly before likely hasn't encourage a sense of proportionate response.
A rather trying group of people but worth listening to. It was this focus group that confirmed my view that Boris Johnson was on for a big GE win. And here it was clear that Nandy is the best for Red Wall. I'm oscillating (vacillating?) again between her and Starmer as my 1st pref vote. Still, no rush. Ages to go yet.
I wonder if that is the source of all that stuff about his ex-wife / new lover came from?
Apparently that is so. Given that Bezos had an iPhone X (probably completely up-to-date) and was running WhatsApp, and both iOS and WhatsApp are heavily scrutinised for vulnerabilities in their media frameworks that was probably a very pricey zero-day vulnerability used to attack his phone.
Wonder if they have done other VVIPs in a similar manner?
It makes up for the under representation in the FPTP legislature.
But the Commons just ignores anything they say. If it was elected maybe there would be a point of having a 2nd chamber, but nothing they do is going to change anything.
Sure, I support abolition of the Lords too, but if we are to believe in a revising chamber, why not seriously consider their revisions?
I agree, but at the moment constitutionally because of the Parliament Act they basically have no power, so all that will happen is the Tories will just say "We've got a majority of 80, **** you".
The parliament act only pushes a bill through after a year. Brexit is in 10 days...
Lol the has-beens and have-never-beens are still trying to block the brexit bill in the lords.
Time to break out the Parliament Act and put them in their unelected place.
It's even more amusing than that - if they paralyse the Bill with their silly amendments, then it never passes and we crash out automatically with No Deal on the 31st.
Rarely in British history has the House of Lords had less leverage in a tug of war with the Commons!
It's odd that the LDs have such power in the Lords. The COE too. This obviously equates to a weak social-conciense liberalism, and a self-apologetic pro-establishment thing.
I don't mind this - it's harmless, but I'm not sure we should be paying them for this.
It makes up for the under representation in the FPTP legislature.
Aside from being a tad too harsh on Cameron the only seriously barmy thing about that list is the position of IDS.
I mean, really??
IDS was never defeated at a general election
The problem with IDS was that he practically ceded the role of Leader of the Opposition to Charles Kennedy.
If IDS had played his role correctly he would have toppled Blair on the Iraq War vote in 2003 and then won the early election over a Labour party in mass rebellion against it's leader.
Ken Clarke might have done that but IDS was ideologically not going to undermine Blair and the UK relationship with the US and Bush. Had he done it anyway it would at most have been a hung parliament and probably a Brown minority government propped up by the LDs with Blair resigning
That's why IDS made a poor Leader of the Opposition.
Like a Coach refusing to accept victory from a Penalty, IDS refused to win over ideological reasons.
South Leicestershire CLP: Starmer Runnymede and Weybridge CLP: Starmer/Allin-Khan
Tonight's total count for leader nominations, assuming that all CLP meetings have now adjourned to the pub. Starmer 3 (previous 2016 nominations from same CLPs: 1 Corbyn, 1 Smith, 1 no nomination) RLB 1 (previously: no nomination)
Not sure anyone has commented on yesterday's extraordinary IPSOS-MORI poll from Ireland:
FF 25% FG 23% SF 21% Greens 8% Labour 5%
Another poll showing FG well down but with SF picking up rather than FF.
Approval rates for Varadkar and his Government down an astonishing 15 points.
Interesting. This fits with Fianna Fail being strong favourites, but yeah, Sinn Fein's 1st preference numbers.... do you have a feel for how transfer-friendly they'll be among the other ~79%?
Lol the has-beens and have-never-beens are still trying to block the brexit bill in the lords.
Time to break out the Parliament Act and put them in their unelected place.
It's even more amusing than that - if they paralyse the Bill with their silly amendments, then it never passes and we crash out automatically with No Deal on the 31st.
Rarely in British history has the House of Lords had less leverage in a tug of war with the Commons!
It's odd that the LDs have such power in the Lords. The COE too. This obviously equates to a weak social-conciense liberalism, and a self-apologetic pro-establishment thing.
I don't mind this - it's harmless, but I'm not sure we should be paying them for this.
It makes up for the under representation in the FPTP legislature.
Lol the has-beens and have-never-beens are still trying to block the brexit bill in the lords.
Time to break out the Parliament Act and put them in their unelected place.
It's even more amusing than that - if they paralyse the Bill with their silly amendments, then it never passes and we crash out automatically with No Deal on the 31st.
Rarely in British history has the House of Lords had less leverage in a tug of war with the Commons!
It's odd that the LDs have such power in the Lords. The COE too. This obviously equates to a weak social-conciense liberalism, and a self-apologetic pro-establishment thing.
I don't mind this - it's harmless, but I'm not sure we should be paying them for this.
The LDs strength in the Lords is the consequence of two factors:
1. The end of the heriditaries, which meant that its effectively stuffed full of life peers
2. And those life peers last a long time. As the LDs were on c. 20% in the polls from 1983 to 2010, this means that a lot of LD peers were created over a sustained period of time
If you look at peer creation in the last decade, there have been very few LDs made, but until the ones created thirty years ago start dying, then they'll continue to make up a large share of the Lords.
I'm sure I preferred the hereditary peers.
I see racism, religious-bias, sexism, and general nonsense as being the presiding guide to who's in the Lord's now.
Lord muck with only one of those vices looks like a saint.
I wonder if that is the source of all that stuff about his ex-wife / new lover came from?
Apparently that is so. Given that Bezos had an iPhone X (probably completely up-to-date) and was running WhatsApp, and both iOS and WhatsApp are heavily scrutinised for vulnerabilities in their media frameworks that was probably a very pricey zero-day vulnerability used to attack his phone.
Wonder if they have done other VVIPs in a similar manner?
It's certainly an interesting question. From a security point of view it's particularly tricky to deal with, this isn't a case of "don't open unsolicited messages", the defence against this is "don't open anything, ever", or at least never open anything on a device that has other content or messages on it that you want to keep confidential.
Labour focus group - the two leaders in the betting are the two people least likely to win voters back to Lab.
You couldn't make it up.
I guess it could be worse for Lab - the favourite is only the 2nd least likely to win voters back.
It's a good point but I think it would be a mistake for Labour to chase those voters so hard that they forget their new metro base. Must stay ahead of the curve.
I find Lisa Nandy friendly, intelligent, interesting and rather cute. She seems (at present) rather non-threatening to me.
I can see her winning over soft Tories. Which is precisely why she won’t win.
It has been suggested to me that she is unmarried and has a child. If so, I shall switch my vote to Starmer.
FFS get yourself that grindr subscription. You'll feel so much better, and make some lucky man very happy.
How does that follow? Thatcher would not have been elected Tory leader had she a child born out of wedlock. The same is probably true of Theresa May in 2016.
I find Lisa Nandy friendly, intelligent, interesting and rather cute. She seems (at present) rather non-threatening to me.
I can see her winning over soft Tories. Which is precisely why she won’t win.
It has been suggested to me that she is unmarried and has a child. If so, I shall switch my vote to Starmer.
Blimey. What a dinosaur
Or kudos to him for acting within his beliefs and moral codes.
People don't need to receive kudos from others for acting within their beliefs and moral codes if those others heartily disagree with those beliefs and moral codes. But I'd rather people express those beliefs and moral codes at least, rather than keep silent about them. That way everyone knows where the others stand.
I find Lisa Nandy friendly, intelligent, interesting and rather cute. She seems (at present) rather non-threatening to me.
I can see her winning over soft Tories. Which is precisely why she won’t win.
It has been suggested to me that she is unmarried and has a child. If so, I shall switch my vote to Starmer.
Blimey. What a dinosaur
Or kudos to him for acting within his beliefs and moral codes.
People don't need to receive kudos from others for acting within their beliefs and moral codes if those others heartily disagree with those beliefs and moral codes. But I'd rather people express those beliefs and moral codes at least, rather than keep silent about them. That way everyone knows where the others stand.
Yes, its only the studio commentariat who get things wrong. I know everyone who was wrong before quickly reverts to previous self confidence, I'm no stranger to it myself, but it's an amazingly quick turnaround for some people to be very wrong, and then get snippy at others' predictions.
Yes, its only the studio commentariat who get things wrong. I know everyone who was wrong before quickly reverts to previous self confidence, I'm no stranger to it myself, but it's an amazingly quick turnaround for some people to be very wrong, and then get snippy at others' predictions.
No wonder Liam wants to get out and become mayor of WMids.
Another bunch who want to lose in 2024 and give Johnson four more years.
I find Lisa Nandy friendly, intelligent, interesting and rather cute. She seems (at present) rather non-threatening to me.
I can see her winning over soft Tories. Which is precisely why she won’t win.
It has been suggested to me that she is unmarried and has a child. If so, I shall switch my vote to Starmer.
Blimey. What a dinosaur
Or kudos to him for acting within his beliefs and moral codes.
People don't need to receive kudos from others for acting within their beliefs and moral codes if those others heartily disagree with those beliefs and moral codes. But I'd rather people express those beliefs and moral codes at least, rather than keep silent about them. That way everyone knows where the others stand.
I find Lisa Nandy friendly, intelligent, interesting and rather cute. She seems (at present) rather non-threatening to me.
I can see her winning over soft Tories. Which is precisely why she won’t win.
It has been suggested to me that she is unmarried and has a child. If so, I shall switch my vote to Starmer.
Er? Why? A joke I assume (hope)?
Justin is utterly consistent in his approach on these matters.
Consistently bigoted. You present this as a good thing, why?
With respect, I suspect my views on this would be close to those held by Baldwin, Chamberlain, Churchill, Attlee, Macmillan, Douglas-Home , Wilson, Heath , Thatcher and John Smith. Were they all bigoted? I also find it bizarre that people who disagree with 'Permissive Society' moral standards should be counselled to join Grindr! A total Non -sequitur.
I find Lisa Nandy friendly, intelligent, interesting and rather cute. She seems (at present) rather non-threatening to me.
I can see her winning over soft Tories. Which is precisely why she won’t win.
It has been suggested to me that she is unmarried and has a child. If so, I shall switch my vote to Starmer.
Blimey. What a dinosaur
Or kudos to him for acting within his beliefs and moral codes.
People don't need to receive kudos from others for acting within their beliefs and moral codes if those others heartily disagree with those beliefs and moral codes. But I'd rather people express those beliefs and moral codes at least, rather than keep silent about them. That way everyone knows where the others stand.
I find Lisa Nandy friendly, intelligent, interesting and rather cute. She seems (at present) rather non-threatening to me.
I can see her winning over soft Tories. Which is precisely why she won’t win.
It has been suggested to me that she is unmarried and has a child. If so, I shall switch my vote to Starmer.
Er? Why? A joke I assume (hope)?
Justin is utterly consistent in his approach on these matters.
Consistently bigoted. You present this as a good thing, why?
I'd have thought it was pretty obvious - knowing is better than not knowing. I referred to him as consistent to answer the point about whether it was a joke, which it wasn't. I suggested it's better to hear such views than people hold them silently because it allows us to react to those views. I'd rather know if people hold what I regard as bigoted or simply incorrect views. What would be the objection to that?
Surely you would agree it is useful for you to know justin holds these views, when you are considering other things he says in future? It wouldn't make a good point of his bad by default, nor a bad one good, but its useful context to know someone's general views.
I find Lisa Nandy friendly, intelligent, interesting and rather cute. She seems (at present) rather non-threatening to me.
I can see her winning over soft Tories. Which is precisely why she won’t win.
It has been suggested to me that she is unmarried and has a child. If so, I shall switch my vote to Starmer.
Blimey. What a dinosaur
Or kudos to him for acting within his beliefs and moral codes.
People don't need to receive kudos from others for acting within their beliefs and moral codes if those others heartily disagree with those beliefs and moral codes. But I'd rather people express those beliefs and moral codes at least, rather than keep silent about them. That way everyone knows where the others stand.
I find Lisa Nandy friendly, intelligent, interesting and rather cute. She seems (at present) rather non-threatening to me.
I can see her winning over soft Tories. Which is precisely why she won’t win.
It has been suggested to me that she is unmarried and has a child. If so, I shall switch my vote to Starmer.
Er? Why? A joke I assume (hope)?
Justin is utterly consistent in his approach on these matters.
Consistently bigoted. You present this as a good thing, why?
With respect, I suspect my views on this would be close to those held by Baldwin, Chamberlain, Churchill, Attlee, Macmillan, Douglas-Home , Wilson, Heath , Thatcher and John Smith. Were they all bigoted?
What a nonsense argument. Society develops and changes. It is as stupid as all those SJW types who comb through writers from 100s of years ago and find passages that are considered racist into todays world.
No way back while The Labour Party is this delusional.
Channel 4 News showed a focus group of voters who deserted Labour for Boris this evening. Neither of the frontrunners cut the mustard.
Big chance for the Lib Dems if they can actually elect the right leader this time.
I fear the moment has been lost. Whoever the new Labour leader is the other factions will give them a fair shot, and they are unlikely to be as divisive as Corbyn with all his myriad baggage, so with the LDs having failed to take advantage this time any who remain I cannot see going anywhere, except in incremental increases over a decade.
A long route back, as they had initially feared. But then people don't join the LDs for an easy time I suspect.
I find Lisa Nandy friendly, intelligent, interesting and rather cute. She seems (at present) rather non-threatening to me.
I can see her winning over soft Tories. Which is precisely why she won’t win.
It has been suggested to me that she is unmarried and has a child. If so, I shall switch my vote to Starmer.
Blimey. What a dinosaur
Or kudos to him for acting within his beliefs and moral codes.
People don't need to receive kudos from others for acting within their beliefs and moral codes if those others heartily disagree with those beliefs and moral codes. But I'd rather people express those beliefs and moral codes at least, rather than keep silent about them. That way everyone knows where the others stand.
I find Lisa Nandy friendly, intelligent, interesting and rather cute. She seems (at present) rather non-threatening to me.
I can see her winning over soft Tories. Which is precisely why she won’t win.
It has been suggested to me that she is unmarried and has a child. If so, I shall switch my vote to Starmer.
Er? Why? A joke I assume (hope)?
Justin is utterly consistent in his approach on these matters.
Consistently bigoted. You present this as a good thing, why?
With respect, I suspect my views on this would be close to those held by Baldwin, Chamberlain, Churchill, Attlee, Macmillan, Douglas-Home , Wilson, Heath , Thatcher and John Smith. Were they all bigoted? I also find it bizarre that people who disagree with 'Permissive Society' moral standards should be counselled to join Grindr! A total Non -sequitur.
What a nonsense argument. Society develops and changes. It is as stupid as all those SJW types who comb through writers from 100s of years ago and find passages that are considered racist into todays world.
But most of the people I have referred to are pretty recent. I have never been inclined to jump on bandwaggons. If such behaviour was morally unacceptable to an individual in circa 1965, it does not cease to be so simply because more people now hold a different view.
I find Lisa Nandy friendly, intelligent, interesting and rather cute. She seems (at present) rather non-threatening to me.
I can see her winning over soft Tories. Which is precisely why she won’t win.
It has been suggested to me that she is unmarried and has a child. If so, I shall switch my vote to Starmer.
Blimey. What a dinosaur
Or kudos to him for acting within his beliefs and moral codes.
People don't need to receive kudos from others for acting within their beliefs and moral codes if those others heartily disagree with those beliefs and moral codes. But I'd rather people express those beliefs and moral codes at least, rather than keep silent about them. That way everyone knows where the others stand.
I find Lisa Nandy friendly, intelligent, interesting and rather cute. She seems (at present) rather non-threatening to me.
I can see her winning over soft Tories. Which is precisely why she won’t win.
It has been suggested to me that she is unmarried and has a child. If so, I shall switch my vote to Starmer.
Er? Why? A joke I assume (hope)?
Justin is utterly consistent in his approach on these matters.
Consistently bigoted. You present this as a good thing, why?
With respect, I suspect my views on this would be close to those held by Baldwin, Chamberlain, Churchill, Attlee, Macmillan, Douglas-Home , Wilson, Heath , Thatcher and John Smith. Were they all bigoted? I also find it bizarre that people who disagree with 'Permissive Society' moral standards should be counselled to join Grindr! A total Non -sequitur.
What a nonsense argument. Society develops and changes. It is as stupid as all those SJW types who comb through writers from 100s of years ago and find passages that are considered racist into todays world.
But most of the people I have referred to are pretty recent. I have never been inclined to jump on bandwaggons. If such behaviour was morally unacceptable to an individual in circa 1965, it does not cease to be so simply because more people now hold a different view.
Pretty recent....Thatcher left office 30 years ago....
I find Lisa Nandy friendly, intelligent, interesting and rather cute. She seems (at present) rather non-threatening to me.
I can see her winning over soft Tories. Which is precisely why she won’t win.
It has been suggested to me that she is unmarried and has a child. If so, I shall switch my vote to Starmer.
Blimey. What a dinosaur
Or kudos to him for acting within his beliefs and moral codes.
People don't need to receive kudos from others for acting within their beliefs and moral codes if those others heartily disagree with those beliefs and moral codes. But I'd rather people express those beliefs and moral codes at least, rather than keep silent about them. That way everyone knows where the others stand.
I find Lisa Nandy friendly, intelligent, interesting and rather cute. She seems (at present) rather non-threatening to me.
I can see her winning over soft Tories. Which is precisely why she won’t win.
It has been suggested to me that she is unmarried and has a child. If so, I shall switch my vote to Starmer.
Er? Why? A joke I assume (hope)?
Justin is utterly consistent in his approach on these matters.
Consistently bigoted. You present this as a good thing, why?
With respect, I suspect my views on this would be close to those held by Baldwin, Chamberlain, Churchill, Attlee, Macmillan, Douglas-Home , Wilson, Heath , Thatcher and John Smith. Were they all bigoted? I also find it bizarre that people who disagree with 'Permissive Society' moral standards should be counselled to join Grindr! A total Non -sequitur.
What a nonsense argument. Society develops and changes. It is as stupid as all those SJW types who comb through writers from 100s of years ago and find passages that are considered racist into todays world.
But most of the people I have referred to are pretty recent. I have never been inclined to jump on bandwaggons. If such behaviour was morally unacceptable to an individual in circa 1965, it does not cease to be so simply because more people now hold a different view.
Pretty recent....Thatcher left office 30 years ago....
If Theresa May had had a child out of wedlock, would she have been a serious contender in 2016? Unlikely that she would have run at all.
But most of the people I have referred to are pretty recent. I have never been inclined to jump on bandwaggons. If such behaviour was morally unacceptable to an individual in circa 1965, it does not cease to be so simply because more people now hold a different view.
Morals are personal things. Things do cease to be moral or immoral in general societal terms as things change but of course individuals will go against the flow. There were no doubt people who thought it morally acceptable back then, against the grain, as well. Lots of things were thought moral in the past which are not considered so now, are we still to suggest they are moral despite that?
It's an argument that goes nowhere when general societal views of today are held up as no indication of morality or immorality, yet general societal views of the past are, but only for matters convenient for us to individual issues.
Maybe wait to see if she has a coherent and distinct political philosophy first. Even President Xi waited until he'd been around awhile before developing a name for his approach.
If Theresa May had had a child out of wedlock, would she have been a serious contender in 2016? Unlikely that she would have run at all.
You might not have noticed but we have just elected a bloke to be PM with a massive majority that has been married several times, had numerous affairs, nobody knows how many kids out of wedlock and has a much younger girlfriend....clearly the public didn't give a shit about it.
Nandy by all account is in a stable long term relationship, what's the big deal if she decides to get married or not.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLhSMTPUIgc&feature=youtu.be&t=133
From my point of view she seems a nice person and seems to talk some sense, but I think she's a bit dishonest, as I don't buy her constant equivocations around potential Brexit deals. Thornberry seems solid but lacking support, RLB might be fine in herself but is just a continuity candidate despite protests, and Starmer is Mr Medium - believed to be competent and not too out there, whilst acceptable to those who want something radical all the same.
Blair was never honest. He just was very good at fooling people into thinking he was honest. The Ecclestone affair alone should have blown a hole a mile wide in his credibility, but people didn’t want to believe he had altered the law in exchange for a £1 million donation.
It is no coincidence he was the first British Prime Minister ever to be interviewed by police, and it was a pattern from the off.
2010 22,743 52.8%
2015 20,999 47.9% - some loss to UKIP here
2017 23,076 49.1%
2019 23,481 48.5%
What has changed is that the Labour vote has increased from 9,780 in 2010 to 22,219 in 2019.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chingford_and_Woodford_Green_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
Personally, as a lifelong Labour voter who voted LD in 2019 either Starmer or Nandy could win me back. My preference was for Starmer, but that clearly showed that Nandy could be a much better option.
...of icebergs.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tLhSMTPUIgc
I really do post enough nonsense without your help.
Gee Whiz, get a slice of this thread of fromage related punnery. It is one to spread.
https://twitter.com/LivUniLibrary/status/1219622135070711809?s=19
Maybe now it is time to point out to the vocal pb Londoner crowd ... "the Londoners are made not born" people ... an awkward fact.
London is wealthy (we are always hearing this, us Welsh and Scots and Northerners) ...
London is wealthy .... because of people like Angola dos Santos -- proudly domiciled in London.
Proudly domiciled in the international centre for money laundering and tax evasion.
Assisted by Londoners, PWC, and armies of London consultants, and lawyers and tax specialists, she looted her country in Africa.
Must make all our Londoners so proud.
You want his real right-wing equivalent? It's Nigel Farage - if Farage managed to fail to achieve any of his political objectives.
Why couldn’t they use proper cheese like Double Gloucester?
It’s a disgrace...
Good night.
Time to break out the Parliament Act and put them in their unelected place.
Rarely in British history has the House of Lords had less leverage in a tug of war with the Commons!
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jan/21/amazon-boss-jeff-bezoss-phone-hacked-by-saudi-crown-prince
while he has a lot on his plate already, It would be nice if Borris made the point that this is why we need to totally reform the Lords
Runnymede and Weybridge CLP: Starmer/Allin-Khan
So I don't have any trouble believing her "equivocations", especially as all of her actions were consistent with the position that she set out before the voting started.
I don't mind this - it's harmless, but I'm not sure we should be paying them for this.
1. The end of the heriditaries, which meant that its effectively stuffed full of life peers
2. And those life peers last a long time. As the LDs were on c. 20% in the polls from 1983 to 2010, this means that a lot of LD peers were created over a sustained period of time
If you look at peer creation in the last decade, there have been very few LDs made, but until the ones created thirty years ago start dying, then they'll continue to make up a large share of the Lords.
https://twitter.com/NickHewitt4/status/1219730659415134215/photo/2
I don't think I have ever seen a sectional model of a battleship in any of the UK's museums.
You couldn't make it up.
I guess it could be worse for Lab - the favourite is only the 2nd least likely to win voters back.
Like a Coach refusing to accept victory from a Penalty, IDS refused to win over ideological reasons.
Starmer 3 (previous 2016 nominations from same CLPs: 1 Corbyn, 1 Smith, 1 no nomination)
RLB 1 (previously: no nomination)
That makes sense, but Foxy has thrown the knockout blow.
If though, Foxy, that is the case, and I accept that it is - we need better LD's in the Lords. Actually we need better LD's overall,
The biggest gravy-trainer I've ever met is a LD lord (actually lady). I'm sure I preferred the hereditary peers.
I see racism, religious-bias, sexism, and general nonsense as being the presiding guide to who's in the Lord's now.
Lord muck with only one of those vices looks like a saint.
So in terms of party political Peers LD has 92 out of 532 - which is 17%.
(LD actually have 92, the total is actually 794).
https://members.parliament.uk/parties/Lords
I think it may be likely now that less than 50% of the uk population can name a LD MP, even adjusted for Swinson.
It appears it is not a parody.
What's that you say, he's a bastard?!!!
Channel 4 News showed a focus group of voters who deserted Labour for Boris this evening. Neither of the frontrunners cut the mustard.
Big chance for the Lib Dems if they can actually elect the right leader this time.
Another bunch who want to lose in 2024 and give Johnson four more years.
I also find it bizarre that people who disagree with 'Permissive Society' moral standards should be counselled to join Grindr! A total Non -sequitur.
Surely you would agree it is useful for you to know justin holds these views, when you are considering other things he says in future? It wouldn't make a good point of his bad by default, nor a bad one good, but its useful context to know someone's general views.
A long route back, as they had initially feared. But then people don't join the LDs for an easy time I suspect.
It's an argument that goes nowhere when general societal views of today are held up as no indication of morality or immorality, yet general societal views of the past are, but only for matters convenient for us to individual issues.
Nandy by all account is in a stable long term relationship, what's the big deal if she decides to get married or not.