Sanders now level in S Carolina, well ahead nationally, and seen as the best candidate vs Trump - in the Emerson poll, the only candidate to beat Trump. On a roll...
Donald Trump offered Julian Assange a pardon if he would say Russia was not involved in leaking Democratic party emails, a court in London has been told.
The extraordinary claim was made at Westminster magistrates court before the opening next week of Assange’s legal battle to block attempts to extradite him to the US.
As an aside, and from a betting perspective, what are the odds that - assuming he's the nominee - Sanders doesn't make it to the General?
This is a man of advancing years, who's just had a heart attack, and is involved in one of the most physically strenuous activities on the planet.
If he was sitting at home writing his memoirs, he'd probably have twenty years. But he's not. He's out in all weathers speaking, campaigning. He's probably not getting proper exercise or nutrition or sleep.
And if he did have to step down for some reason, who takes his place? It has to be Warren, I would have though.
Depends on the timing.
During or immediately after the primaries, once nominee-presumptive: perhaps Warren but we'd be in 1968 territory.
After the convention but before filing deadlines: probably the VP nominee but could be controversial if the convention was brokered.
After filing deadlines: Would have to be Sanders - even if dead - with the VP stepping up. Legal obligations on Electoral College members in enough states probably prevent any actual change of candidate.
(Also, even if he was sitting at home writing his memoirs, I doubt he'd have twenty years. He's already 78 and with a dicky ticker; he'd do very well to make his late 90s).
Electoral College members used to be able to vote how they chose, how much do these legal obligations' tie them down?
Depends on the state. I think there is a case before SCOTUS arguing that the "faithless elector" laws are not constitutional.
Not sure this is wholly the right question - the more relevant is why Johnson won, not why Corbyn lost. Johnson was able to pull together 75% of LEAVE voters and two key groups of REMAIN supporters - those opposed to Corbyn in any form and those who, whatever their own view, decided the result of 23/6/16 had to be honoured and saw Johnson as the only way of achieving that end.
The inevitability of Johnson's victory was clear from June when he was the only Conservative leadership candidate whom LEAVE voters were prepared to support in numbers.
That's it - the only thing the Opposition could and should have done was to pass May's WA while they had the chance and then hung the Conservatives out to dry over the future economic and political relationship.
Ironically the changes made by Corbyn and others to the way leadership contests work have given Keir Starmer a huge boost .
This has allowed CLPs an earlier say and with well over half of those nominating him it’s really galvanized his campaign . Unless Starmer does something utterly crazy then he really should walk the leadership .
Ironically the changes made by Corbyn and others to the way leadership contests work have given Keir Starmer a huge boost .
This has allowed CLPs an earlier say and with well over half of those nominating him it’s really galvanized his campaign . Unless Starmer does something utterly crazy then he really should walk the leadership .
You mean, like being exposed as a financial supporter of a Holocaust denier?
Ironically the changes made by Corbyn and others to the way leadership contests work have given Keir Starmer a huge boost .
This has allowed CLPs an earlier say and with well over half of those nominating him it’s really galvanized his campaign . Unless Starmer does something utterly crazy then he really should walk the leadership .
Sanders now level in S Carolina, well ahead nationally, and seen as the best candidate vs Trump - in the Emerson poll, the only candidate to beat Trump. On a roll...
Ironically the changes made by Corbyn and others to the way leadership contests work have given Keir Starmer a huge boost .
This has allowed CLPs an earlier say and with well over half of those nominating him it’s really galvanized his campaign . Unless Starmer does something utterly crazy then he really should walk the leadership .
Ballots start landing on Monday.
I expect many will vote well before April . The hustings are going to make little difference , several Labour friends and who I should add are ardent lefties are voting for Keir Starmer .
The overwhelming reason is that a vote for RLB in particular could spell the end of the Labour Party and the Tories would be popping the champagne corks if she won .
Sanders now level in S Carolina, well ahead nationally, and seen as the best candidate vs Trump - in the Emerson poll, the only candidate to beat Trump. On a roll...
Not sure this is wholly the right question - the more relevant is why Johnson won, not why Corbyn lost. Johnson was able to pull together 75% of LEAVE voters and two key groups of REMAIN supporters - those opposed to Corbyn in any form and those who, whatever their own view, decided the result of 23/6/16 had to be honoured and saw Johnson as the only way of achieving that end.
The inevitability of Johnson's victory was clear from June when he was the only Conservative leadership candidate whom LEAVE voters were prepared to support in numbers.
That's it - the only thing the Opposition could and should have done was to pass May's WA while they had the chance and then hung the Conservatives out to dry over the future economic and political relationship.
They thought they could get around losing the referendum, but they couldn't.
I still don't see what the point of PM's visiting flood hit areas is. I guess it will give some feeling of support to some people affected, although others tend to get understandably irate when it happens, but in practical terms it doesn't seem to add much.
What a nice, respectful contest this is: ttps://twitter.com/briebriejoy/status/1230150706704912384
(Briahna Gray is Bernie Sanders’ press secretary, Kevin Sheekey is Bloomberg's campaign manager).
They all want Trump to win a landslide, no? Because the big orange man is the only person who benefits from a nasty and negative Dem campaign.
Plenty of Bernie bros wouldn't care if it was Bloomberg vs Trump, and they'd be right not to imo.
Oh exactly. No matter who wins the nomination from here, getting Democrats out and united against Trump is November is already looking like a tall order.
Except Trump will fulfil the Corbyn role of mobilising his opponents.
Sanders now level in S Carolina, well ahead nationally, and seen as the best candidate vs Trump - in the Emerson poll, the only candidate to beat Trump. On a roll...
Donald Trump offered Julian Assange a pardon if he would say Russia was not involved in leaking Democratic party emails, a court in London has been told.
The extraordinary claim was made at Westminster magistrates court before the opening next week of Assange’s legal battle to block attempts to extradite him to the US.
The Corbyn fans like to attribute every single Labour vote as being backing for their man. That is nonsense of course. Many LAB voters on December 12th were like me – using my vote tactically to stop the Tories in the tightest LAB-CON marginal in the country. This was not a vote for Corbyn.
Except it was. Any vote for a Labour candidate was, ultimately, a vote for Corbyn to become PM. That's especially so in a marginal constituency where these votes might really make the difference nationally.
Indeed, how else could the country "stop the Tories" other than by installing Corbyn in No 10?
It might well be that many votes for Labour and hence Corbyn were of a 'least-worst' variety rather than being expressions of enthusiastic support (that was my reasoning, to the opposite conclusion), but nonetheless they had exactly the same effect as those votes which were enthusiastically given.
Surely that misses the point.
The problem was ASSUMING those votes were enthusiastically given, and so sticking with Corbyn until 2019 (and for some still wanting to stick with him/his policies).
The assumption is flawed. The risk assessment I made was that both Prime Ministerial candidates were unfit for office so how could I help prevent one of them getting a substantial majority? Vote indirectly for the other.
Alun Cairns is my MP and should not have stood as a candidate due to the Ross England scandal. I could not vote for him.
Donald Trump offered Julian Assange a pardon if he would say Russia was not involved in leaking Democratic party emails, a court in London has been told.
The extraordinary claim was made at Westminster magistrates court before the opening next week of Assange’s legal battle to block attempts to extradite him to the US.
I still don't see what the point of PM's visiting flood hit areas is. I guess it will give some feeling of support to some people affected, although others tend to get understandably irate when it happens, but in practical terms it doesn't seem to add much.
If there's a genuine crisis going on, those involved in managing it get really irate with politicians turning up. It adds nothing and distracts those involved from their primary task.
The Corbyn fans like to attribute every single Labour vote as being backing for their man. That is nonsense of course. Many LAB voters on December 12th were like me – using my vote tactically to stop the Tories in the tightest LAB-CON marginal in the country. This was not a vote for Corbyn.
Except it was. Any vote for a Labour candidate was, ultimately, a vote for Corbyn to become PM. That's especially so in a marginal constituency where these votes might really make the difference nationally.
Indeed, how else could the country "stop the Tories" other than by installing Corbyn in No 10?
It might well be that many votes for Labour and hence Corbyn were of a 'least-worst' variety rather than being expressions of enthusiastic support (that was my reasoning, to the opposite conclusion), but nonetheless they had exactly the same effect as those votes which were enthusiastically given.
Surely that misses the point.
The problem was ASSUMING those votes were enthusiastically given, and so sticking with Corbyn until 2019 (and for some still wanting to stick with him/his policies).
The assumption is flawed. The risk assessment I made was that both Prime Ministerial candidates were unfit for office so how could I help prevent one of them getting a substantial majority? Vote indirectly for the other.
Alun Cairns is my MP and should not have stood as a candidate due to the Ross England scandal. I could not vote for him.
Corbyn got my vote with zero enthusiasm.
My ballot paper got defaced and torn up with great vigour.
Ironically the changes made by Corbyn and others to the way leadership contests work have given Keir Starmer a huge boost .
This has allowed CLPs an earlier say and with well over half of those nominating him it’s really galvanized his campaign . Unless Starmer does something utterly crazy then he really should walk the leadership .
Ballots start landing on Monday.
I expect many will vote well before April . The hustings are going to make little difference , several Labour friends and who I should add are ardent lefties are voting for Keir Starmer .
The overwhelming reason is that a vote for RLB in particular could spell the end of the Labour Party and the Tories would be popping the champagne corks if she won .
What kind of rubbish ardent lefties are these? Giving up principles for the sake of power - sounds a bit Blairite, innit?
I still don't see what the point of PM's visiting flood hit areas is. I guess it will give some feeling of support to some people affected, although others tend to get understandably irate when it happens, but in practical terms it doesn't seem to add much.
If there's a genuine crisis going on, those involved in managing it get really irate with politicians turning up. It adds nothing and distracts those involved from their primary task.
But even the people suffering there get irate, 'you don't care about us/what are you doing to sort this out' sort of thing, and while letting peopel who are suffering moan at a PM is not entirely without worth, to them at least, it's not useful. And there's definitely no benefit to those trying to help, as you note.
So one day it would be nice if someday we stop expecting such visits.
Although the craziest reaction to politicians showing up in a place where something happened has to go to a relative of mine, who believed May never went to Salisbury after the novichok incident and footage of her supposedly there was spliced in.
The Corbyn fans like to attribute every single Labour vote as being backing for their man. That is nonsense of course. Many LAB voters on December 12th were like me – using my vote tactically to stop the Tories in the tightest LAB-CON marginal in the country. This was not a vote for Corbyn.
Except it was. Any vote for a Labour candidate was, ultimately, a vote for Corbyn to become PM. That's especially so in a marginal constituency where these votes might really make the difference nationally.
Indeed, how else could the country "stop the Tories" other than by installing Corbyn in No 10?
It might well be that many votes for Labour and hence Corbyn were of a 'least-worst' variety rather than being expressions of enthusiastic support (that was my reasoning, to the opposite conclusion), but nonetheless they had exactly the same effect as those votes which were enthusiastically given.
Surely that misses the point.
The problem was ASSUMING those votes were enthusiastically given, and so sticking with Corbyn until 2019 (and for some still wanting to stick with him/his policies).
The assumption is flawed. The risk assessment I made was that both Prime Ministerial candidates were unfit for office so how could I help prevent one of them getting a substantial majority? Vote indirectly for the other.
Alun Cairns is my MP and should not have stood as a candidate due to the Ross England scandal. I could not vote for him.
Corbyn got my vote with zero enthusiasm.
My ballot paper got defaced and torn up with great vigour.
Could have saved yourself some effort - it's just as spoiled with little vigour as great vigour!
Everyone is going to absolubtely let rip on Bloomberg this evening.
Maybe, But i'm not convinced that angering the one candidate who could spend 10 of millions on attack adds against you is that much of an appealing strategy. I think they may all be hoping somebody else does attack him.
The Corbyn fans like to attribute every single Labour vote as being backing for their man. That is nonsense of course. Many LAB voters on December 12th were like me – using my vote tactically to stop the Tories in the tightest LAB-CON marginal in the country. This was not a vote for Corbyn.
Except it was. Any vote for a Labour candidate was, ultimately, a vote for Corbyn to become PM. That's especially so in a marginal constituency where these votes might really make the difference nationally.
Indeed, how else could the country "stop the Tories" other than by installing Corbyn in No 10?
It might well be that many votes for Labour and hence Corbyn were of a 'least-worst' variety rather than being expressions of enthusiastic support (that was my reasoning, to the opposite conclusion), but nonetheless they had exactly the same effect as those votes which were enthusiastically given.
Surely that misses the point.
The problem was ASSUMING those votes were enthusiastically given, and so sticking with Corbyn until 2019 (and for some still wanting to stick with him/his policies).
The assumption is flawed. The risk assessment I made was that both Prime Ministerial candidates were unfit for office so how could I help prevent one of them getting a substantial majority? Vote indirectly for the other.
Alun Cairns is my MP and should not have stood as a candidate due to the Ross England scandal. I could not vote for him.
Corbyn got my vote with zero enthusiasm.
My ballot paper got defaced and torn up with great vigour.
Could have saved yourself some effort - it's just as spoiled with little vigour as great vigour!
Yeah, but I was pissed off. Not only was I being asked to choose between two racists and a fascist, but I had been negotiating working hours.
The Corbyn fans like to attribute every single Labour vote as being backing for their man. That is nonsense of course. Many LAB voters on December 12th were like me – using my vote tactically to stop the Tories in the tightest LAB-CON marginal in the country. This was not a vote for Corbyn.
Except it was. Any vote for a Labour candidate was, ultimately, a vote for Corbyn to become PM. That's especially so in a marginal constituency where these votes might really make the difference nationally.
Indeed, how else could the country "stop the Tories" other than by installing Corbyn in No 10?
It might well be that many votes for Labour and hence Corbyn were of a 'least-worst' variety rather than being expressions of enthusiastic support (that was my reasoning, to the opposite conclusion), but nonetheless they had exactly the same effect as those votes which were enthusiastically given.
Surely that misses the point.
The problem was ASSUMING those votes were enthusiastically given, and so sticking with Corbyn until 2019 (and for some still wanting to stick with him/his policies).
The assumption is flawed. The risk assessment I made was that both Prime Ministerial candidates were unfit for office so how could I help prevent one of them getting a substantial majority? Vote indirectly for the other.
Alun Cairns is my MP and should not have stood as a candidate due to the Ross England scandal. I could not vote for him.
Corbyn got my vote with zero enthusiasm.
My ballot paper got defaced and torn up with great vigour.
Could have saved yourself some effort - it's just as spoiled with little vigour as great vigour!
Yeah, but I was pissed off. Not only was I being asked to choose between two racists and a fascist, but I had been negotiating working hours.
Never been as stressed in an election campaign as I was last December.
As an aside, and from a betting perspective, what are the odds that - assuming he's the nominee - Sanders doesn't make it to the General?
This is a man of advancing years, who's just had a heart attack, and is involved in one of the most physically strenuous activities on the planet.
If he was sitting at home writing his memoirs, he'd probably have twenty years. But he's not. He's out in all weathers speaking, campaigning. He's probably not getting proper exercise or nutrition or sleep.
And if he did have to step down for some reason, who takes his place? It has to be Warren, I would have though.
I still don't see what the point of PM's visiting flood hit areas is. I guess it will give some feeling of support to some people affected, although others tend to get understandably irate when it happens, but in practical terms it doesn't seem to add much.
If there's a genuine crisis going on, those involved in managing it get really irate with politicians turning up. It adds nothing and distracts those involved from their primary task.
But even the people suffering there get irate, 'you don't care about us/what are you doing to sort this out' sort of thing, and while letting peopel who are suffering moan at a PM is not entirely without worth, to them at least, it's not useful. And there's definitely no benefit to those trying to help, as you note.
So one day it would be nice if someday we stop expecting such visits.
Although the craziest reaction to politicians showing up in a place where something happened has to go to a relative of mine, who believed May never went to Salisbury after the novichok incident and footage of her supposedly there was spliced in.
It kinda makes sense in the aftermath of an event, where there are people mourning a loss or first responders to be thanked - those visits are genuinely appreciated.
Politicians turning up in the middle of the problem will most likely just attract those who don't like said politician anyway, and lead to negative headlines.
Mrs May was definitely in Salisbury though, I know people who met her there!
I agree it's widely admired in the US, though I've seen quite a few commernts from Democrats that they don't want someone to think they can buy the nomination, especially as that's an aspect of Trump that they dislike. But his proposed wealth tax goes some way to neutralising the issue.
Not sure this is wholly the right question - the more relevant is why Johnson won, not why Corbyn lost. Johnson was able to pull together 75% of LEAVE voters and two key groups of REMAIN supporters - those opposed to Corbyn in any form and those who, whatever their own view, decided the result of 23/6/16 had to be honoured and saw Johnson as the only way of achieving that end.
The inevitability of Johnson's victory was clear from June when he was the only Conservative leadership candidate whom LEAVE voters were prepared to support in numbers.
That's it - the only thing the Opposition could and should have done was to pass May's WA while they had the chance and then hung the Conservatives out to dry over the future economic and political relationship.
I agree it's widely admired in the US, though I've seen quite a few commernts from Democrats that they don't want someone to think they can buy the nomination, especially as that's an aspect of Trump that they dislike. But his proposed wealth tax goes some way to neutralising the issue.
Well, he is effectively buying the nomination.
He can outgun all the candidates combined many times over, and they can’t afford to fight back.
I still don't see what the point of PM's visiting flood hit areas is. I guess it will give some feeling of support to some people affected, although others tend to get understandably irate when it happens, but in practical terms it doesn't seem to add much.
If there's a genuine crisis going on, those involved in managing it get really irate with politicians turning up. It adds nothing and distracts those involved from their primary task.
But even the people suffering there get irate, 'you don't care about us/what are you doing to sort this out' sort of thing, and while letting peopel who are suffering moan at a PM is not entirely without worth, to them at least, it's not useful. And there's definitely no benefit to those trying to help, as you note.
So one day it would be nice if someday we stop expecting such visits.
Although the craziest reaction to politicians showing up in a place where something happened has to go to a relative of mine, who believed May never went to Salisbury after the novichok incident and footage of her supposedly there was spliced in.
It kinda makes sense in the aftermath of an event, where there are people mourning a loss or first responders to be thanked - those visits are genuinely appreciated.
Politicians turning up in the middle of the problem will most likely just attract those who don't like said politician anyway, and lead to negative headlines.
Mrs May was definitely in Salisbury though, I know people who met her there!
So do I! My relative seemed quite put out that I was so certain it had happened.
As an aside, and from a betting perspective, what are the odds that - assuming he's the nominee - Sanders doesn't make it to the General?
This is a man of advancing years, who's just had a heart attack, and is involved in one of the most physically strenuous activities on the planet.
If he was sitting at home writing his memoirs, he'd probably have twenty years. But he's not. He's out in all weathers speaking, campaigning. He's probably not getting proper exercise or nutrition or sleep.
And if he did have to step down for some reason, who takes his place? It has to be Warren, I would have though.
From this paper the 7 year mortality is about 20%, but age is not a big factor, more other cardiovascular risk factors. I would expect that 20% to be quite front loaded, but as a ball park figure maybe 5% chance of a major repeat event before November.
I'm not sure it's all that physically demanding - depends how much you push yourself, but if you can easily sleep on planes etc. I suspect that you can handle it OK. I never felt fitter than when I was canvassing 8 hours a day...
1. That wasn't in the immediate aftermath of a heart attack 2. You weren't 78 years old 3. I'm not sure how comparable campaigning to be the MP for Broxtowe and for the Presidency are
I would have thought running for President (or for the nomination) was extremely physically, mentally and emotionally exhausting. And you'd want to be in excellent physical shape to take it on. Look at how Biden has aged through this process.
The left got their ticket mixed up - Rayner would have given Starmer a tough fight.
I thought that at the start of all this. But she has been hugely unimpressive in the campaign so far.
For interest - what the party has done by agreement with the candidates is release the email data randomly staggered, so we didn't get all the appeals on the same day. I've had the 3 leadership candidates but only heard from Allin-Khan, Butler and Rayner so far among the deputy candidates. Allin-Khan's was the technically slickest - if you said you were voting for her (as I did) you got an instant invitation to help, while the others appeared to merely gave a link to write to.
The first paper leaflet, from Starmer, arrived today. Theme "Integrity, authority, unity." Unexciting but solid, very nuch as you'd expect.
Donald Trump offered Julian Assange a pardon if he would say Russia was not involved in leaking Democratic party emails, a court in London has been told.
The extraordinary claim was made at Westminster magistrates court before the opening next week of Assange’s legal battle to block attempts to extradite him to the US.
I still don't see what the point of PM's visiting flood hit areas is. I guess it will give some feeling of support to some people affected, although others tend to get understandably irate when it happens, but in practical terms it doesn't seem to add much.
Tell them he's going to dredge the rivers, and that the EU's influence on the Environment Agency has been what's prevented it thus far.
There are not 8.4 million economically inactive people capable and wanting to do full time paid jobs in the UK, however there are lots of people who are now economical inactive who, in the right circumstances, would like to re-enter the paid labor market, at least to some extent, e.g. part time.
Over the last 5 years, as the economy has grown and more jobs available, about as many have people have joined the job market form Economical inactive as from unemployment.
Unemployment has dropped by: 520,000 from 1.83m to 1.31m Economic inactivate has dropped by: 510,000 from 8.98M to 8.47m
As people who where where working part time, but wanted a full time job are now moving in to full time jobs, this is opens up the part time jobs to these economically inactivate people.
Every person is different and I don't what to make to much of a universal statement, but for some at least getting a part time job can be very good for them, for some universality students it can add to the skills they learn in the class room, for some disabled people it can add to there sense of self worth.
Nobody is suggesting that all 8.4 million could or should get a job, but the latest data suggests that 1.7 million of them would like to if the right job was available, and I for one aplord and support then in that desire.
Yes I agree that the focus on Labour vote share is irrelevant without the context provided by the share of the other parties. The fact that the Labour vote share rose 2% between 2015 and 2019 is no comfort when the Tory vote share rose by 7%. The implosion of UKIP/BXP over that period should have returned more votes to Labour, but it didn't, because some pre 2015 Labour voters went over to the Conservatives in 2019 via UKIP in 2015.
In our system, it's the gap between the Labour and Tory party vote shares that is the key metric, and in modern history only in the 1983 election has Labour trailed further behind the Tories than happened in 2019 (and 1987) when the gap was 12%. The last time before 1983 that the gap exceeded 12% was in 1924.
In context, we need also to remember that the Tories were a shambles throughout most of 2017-2019, in contrast to the formidable election machine of Cameron and Osborne of 2010-2015. Corbyn's Labour could not capitalise only because they were in an even worse state.
The Tories led by over 24% in 1931. Moreover, in 1935 they led Labour by 10% despite failing to contest 100 seats.
Donald Trump offered Julian Assange a pardon if he would say Russia was not involved in leaking Democratic party emails, a court in London has been told.
The extraordinary claim was made at Westminster magistrates court before the opening next week of Assange’s legal battle to block attempts to extradite him to the US.
Donald Trump offered Julian Assange a pardon if he would say Russia was not involved in leaking Democratic party emails, a court in London has been told.
The extraordinary claim was made at Westminster magistrates court before the opening next week of Assange’s legal battle to block attempts to extradite him to the US.
I see Bloomberg is now recruiting 500 paid staff to spam their social media contacts with claims that they support Bloomberg. I'd have thought that would get a derisive reception from internet users, and make it awkward for genuine fans ("how much were you paid to say that?").
There are not 8.4 million economically inactive people capable and wanting to do full time paid jobs in the UK, however there are lots of people who are now economical inactive who, in the right circumstances, would like to re-enter the paid labor market, at least to some extent, e.g. part time.
Over the last 5 years, as the economy has grown and more jobs available, about as many have people have joined the job market form Economical inactive as from unemployment.
Unemployment has dropped by: 520,000 from 1.83m to 1.31m Economic inactivate has dropped by: 510,000 from 8.98M to 8.47m
As people who where where working part time, but wanted a full time job are now moving in to full time jobs, this is opens up the part time jobs to these economically inactivate people.
Every person is different and I don't what to make to much of a universal statement, but for some at least getting a part time job can be very good for them, for some universality students it can add to the skills they learn in the class room, for some disabled people it can add to there sense of self worth.
Nobody is suggesting that all 8.4 million could or should get a job, but the latest data suggests that 1.7 million of them would like to if the right job was available, and I for one aplord and support then in that desire.
Agree 100%.
We need to support people rejoining the workforce.
It is worth remembering, however, that some of these people will be working in the informal economy, and so probably aren't really inactive. And it's also worth remembering that some of the others will struggle for one reason or another.
We need to support people rejoining the workforce.
It is worth remembering, however, that some of these people will be working in the informal economy, and so probably aren't really inactive. And it's also worth remembering that some of the others will struggle for one reason or another.
There are some appalling statistics about the number of blind or partially sighted people who are unemployed. Bringing people with disabilities into the workplace should be a priority.
There are not 8.4 million economically inactive people capable and wanting to do full time paid jobs in the UK, however there are lots of people who are now economical inactive who, in the right circumstances, would like to re-enter the paid labor market, at least to some extent, e.g. part time.
Over the last 5 years, as the economy has grown and more jobs available, about as many have people have joined the job market form Economical inactive as from unemployment.
Unemployment has dropped by: 520,000 from 1.83m to 1.31m Economic inactivate has dropped by: 510,000 from 8.98M to 8.47m
As people who where where working part time, but wanted a full time job are now moving in to full time jobs, this is opens up the part time jobs to these economically inactivate people.
Every person is different and I don't what to make to much of a universal statement, but for some at least getting a part time job can be very good for them, for some universality students it can add to the skills they learn in the class room, for some disabled people it can add to there sense of self worth.
Nobody is suggesting that all 8.4 million could or should get a job, but the latest data suggests that 1.7 million of them would like to if the right job was available, and I for one aplord and support then in that desire.
The figure I saw earlier was 800,000 NEETS aged under 25. Most of these will be working informally as they're not claiming any state benefits, some will be being supported by families. There should be plenty of opportunities for these people to find jobs, even if their circumstances don't allow them to work full time.
Re header: Until Labour wake up and realise that Corbyn was unelectable they will be unelectable.
Apologies to Dr Palmer, but I see that he's not posted on this despite it clearly being one of the things he's most expert on.
I would suggest that some in Labour are finding it hard to dump their messiah. Dump him they must though. (I'd hope also that when dumping him they actually think about what went wrong. That was clearly; Corbyn=nutter, future PM = not nutter. )
Once you've dumped Corbyn I'd suggest bombing raids on his house - 100 B-52s should do it. About twice that for McDonnell.
As an aside, and from a betting perspective, what are the odds that - assuming he's the nominee - Sanders doesn't make it to the General?
This is a man of advancing years, who's just had a heart attack, and is involved in one of the most physically strenuous activities on the planet.
If he was sitting at home writing his memoirs, he'd probably have twenty years. But he's not. He's out in all weathers speaking, campaigning. He's probably not getting proper exercise or nutrition or sleep.
And if he did have to step down for some reason, who takes his place? It has to be Warren, I would have though.
From this paper the 7 year mortality is about 20%, but age is not a big factor, more other cardiovascular risk factors. I would expect that 20% to be quite front loaded, but as a ball park figure maybe 5% chance of a major repeat event before November.
Given the mortality profile of Covid-19, in relation to age, if the virus hits America we can expect 83% of the presidential candidates to die, by next Thursday
"4. “We are honest with the people and will let them know all the issues that come up,” Qadir said. But #Iranians do not believe the regime is being honest with them. They say that the actual cases of the #coronavirus are much higher & that the regime is hiding the real numbers."
That's really worrying, to announce five deaths but no other reports or details of infections. Are there dozens infected in Iran, or did these people actually die of something else?
Here in the UAE there have been nine cases, 8 of which have now been discharged. All were Chinese or had flown back from China.
Universal credit will ensure if they are under 65 and capable of work they will have to do it
The voters may have chosen Bonking Brexit Boris over IRA loving Traitor Corbyn December 2019. But the voters are not the mugs you take them for.
We are not daft. The determination of the government not to measure success of their “historic” “ground breaking” immigration policy says all you need to know. There is no intention to make things better, just fool people into believing this will make things better. Unfortunately the government fails on this simple truth: everyone, from C4 news, to BBC, ITN, SKY, The Mail, The Sun, The Telegraph, everyone, will have an upward curve with a pointy thing half way up saying moment government introduced its points based immigration policy.
The reason this government is creating this deceit of delivering what their voters want is the same reason every government we have had in last forty years did jack shit about immigration, for you, in three simple words: Demographic Time Bomb. Average age of death in UK is upward of 81 years. To fund this immigration is used to ensure enough people in work paying tax. Until we have a UK government saying “this is our new policy for dealing with the demographic time bomb, and once this new policy starts to bear fruit we can start to reduce our dependency on immigration” then we should be 110% certain we have a UK government with a deceit of an immigration policy writing mug across our foreheads.
If Corbyn's Labour won the argument with the Tories nicking their ideas then surely the Labour Party is now surplus to requirements and should be disbanded.
There is never only one argument.
And BJ's long term commitment to anything let alone just ideas is suspect to say the least.
I think Boris will get re-elected in five years. Still too soon for voters to realise he’s not delivering for them and mugging them off with gimmicks bluster and lies . Also every one of the remaining Labour leadership hopefuls is a loser. Starmer being the biggest loser and evidence for that is his interview with Ridge last Sunday. I dare you to watch that car crash of an interview and come back and say he did okay. Bex and Lisa have yet to give an interview in this campaign as terrible as that. But its more than that, the Labour party will be slaughtered for years to come simply with the baggage already said on the hustings. These candidates want to scrap the monarchy if they win power. All of them stand by the party’s Brexit policy at the last GE. Starmer has form on helping the IRA. The papers and voters will crucify them.
Universal credit will ensure if they are under 65 and capable of work they will have to do it
The voters may have chosen Bonking Brexit Boris over IRA loving Traitor Corbyn December 2019. But the voters are not the mugs you take them for.
We are not daft. The determination of the government not to measure success of their “historic” “ground breaking” immigration policy says all you need to know. There is no intention to make things better, just fool people into believing this will make things better. Unfortunately the government fails on this simple truth: everyone, from C4 news, to BBC, ITN, SKY, The Mail, The Sun, The Telegraph, everyone, will have an upward curve with a pointy thing half way up saying moment government introduced its points based immigration policy.
The reason this government is creating this deceit of delivering what their voters want is the same reason every government we have had in last forty years did jack shit about immigration, for you, in three simple words: Demographic Time Bomb. Average age of death in UK is upward of 81 years. To fund this immigration is used to ensure enough people in work paying tax. Until we have a UK government saying “this is our new policy for dealing with the demographic time bomb, and once this new policy starts to bear fruit we can start to reduce our dependency on immigration” then we should be 110% certain we have a UK government with a deceit of an immigration policy writing mug across our foreheads.
The retirement age is also being raised but we now have a Government and a Home Secretary in Priti Patel determined to control immigration in a way not seem since Thatcher's time, that is in large part what the Government won a majority for as part of delivering Brexit and it is now doing so
Universal credit will ensure if they are under 65 and capable of work they will have to do it
The voters may have chosen Bonking Brexit Boris over IRA loving Traitor Corbyn December 2019. But the voters are not the mugs you take them for.
We are not daft. The determination of the government not to measure success of their “historic” “ground breaking” immigration policy says all you need to know. There is no intention to make things better, just fool people into believing this will make things better. Unfortunately the government fails on this simple truth: everyone, from C4 news, to BBC, ITN, SKY, The Mail, The Sun, The Telegraph, everyone, will have an upward curve with a pointy thing half way up saying moment government introduced its points based immigration policy.
The reason this government is creating this deceit of delivering what their voters want is the same reason every government we have had in last forty years did jack shit about immigration, for you, in three simple words: Demographic Time Bomb. Average age of death in UK is upward of 81 years. To fund this immigration is used to ensure enough people in work paying tax. Until we have a UK government saying “this is our new policy for dealing with the demographic time bomb, and once this new policy starts to bear fruit we can start to reduce our dependency on immigration” then we should be 110% certain we have a UK government with a deceit of an immigration policy writing mug across our foreheads.
Egg, you're right. We, the UK have a huge problem. We're far from alone in that - Germany is worse.
This government is not particularly bad or good on these things. To my mind they are very slightly better than the other possible governments were.
We will run out of rope.
However there must be something in this magic rope trick. If that something isn't a ticking nuke then lets just keep doing it.
(so climate change is a ticking nuke, but economic castle-building may not be)
Universal credit will ensure if they are under 65 and capable of work they will have to do it
The voters may have chosen Bonking Brexit Boris over IRA loving Traitor Corbyn December 2019. But the voters are not the mugs you take them for.
We are not daft. The determination of the government not to measure success of their “historic” “ground breaking” immigration policy says all you need to know. There is no intention to make things better, just fool people into believing this will make things better. Unfortunately the government fails on this simple truth: everyone, from C4 news, to BBC, ITN, SKY, The Mail, The Sun, The Telegraph, everyone, will have an upward curve with a pointy thing half way up saying moment government introduced its points based immigration policy.
The reason this government is creating this deceit of delivering what their voters want is the same reason every government we have had in last forty years did jack shit about immigration, for you, in three simple words: Demographic Time Bomb. Average age of death in UK is upward of 81 years. To fund this immigration is used to ensure enough people in work paying tax. Until we have a UK government saying “this is our new policy for dealing with the demographic time bomb, and once this new policy starts to bear fruit we can start to reduce our dependency on immigration” then we should be 110% certain we have a UK government with a deceit of an immigration policy writing mug across our foreheads.
The retirement age is also being raised but we now have a Government and a Home Secretary in Priti Patel determined to control immigration in a way not seem since Thatcher's time, that is in large part what the Government won a majority for as part of delivering Brexit and it is now doing so
Have you read the actual immigration proposals? @eadric posted the details the other day.
"4. “We are honest with the people and will let them know all the issues that come up,” Qadir said. But #Iranians do not believe the regime is being honest with them. They say that the actual cases of the #coronavirus are much higher & that the regime is hiding the real numbers."
That's really worrying, to announce five deaths but no other reports or details of infections. Are there dozens infected in Iran, or did these people actually die of something else?
Here in the UAE there have been nine cases, 8 of which have now been discharged. All were Chinese or had flown back from China.
It seems likely that the virus is now everywhere. They've just reported a suspected case in Chile, and possibly Ireland.
It's highly virulent, it incubates for 24 days (or more), you can carry it without symptoms, why would it NOT spread?
Also, I remember someone pooh-poohing the idea that you can be reinfected. But reinfection, it turns out, IS quite plausible, we just don't know, scientists have yet to ascertain the truth.
"With many infectious diseases, a person can develop immunity against a specific strain after exposure or infection," Amira Roess, a professor of Global Health and Epidemiology at George Mason University, told Business Insider. "Often, that person will not get sick again upon subsequent exposure to it. Regarding this specific strain of coronavirus, scientists are working to answer this question."
Doctors and virologists don't yet know enough about the Wuhan coronavirus to say whether humans develop full immunity after they've contracted the illness. According to Zhan, doctors aren't sure that the antibodies patients develop are strong or long-lasting enough to keep them from contracting the disease again.
Viruses can also mutate quickly, so immunity to one strain doesn't guarantee immunity to another."
You're suggesting the the language of Wales isn't English?
You wonder how that rule would apply in Glasgow...
The Scots are daft people to a man/woman. Usual rules don't apply.
The above sentence was of course mandatory and had no meaning.
Same in Glasgow.
English, the language, is not the same as English the Nationality. English - the language - I think we'd all agree is pretty cool. (wonderfully munificent!)
Universal credit will ensure if they are under 65 and capable of work they will have to do it
The voters may have chosen Bonking Brexit Boris over IRA loving Traitor Corbyn December 2019. But the voters are not the mugs you take them for.
We are not daft. The determination of the government not to measure success of their “historic” “ground breaking” immigration policy says all you need to know. There is no intention to make things better, just fool people into believing this will make things better. Unfortunately the government fails on this simple truth: everyone, from C4 news, to BBC, ITN, SKY, The Mail, The Sun, The Telegraph, everyone, will have an upward curve with a pointy thing half way up saying moment government introduced its points based immigration policy.
The reason this government is creating this deceit of delivering what their voters want is the same reason every government we have had in last forty years did jack shit about immigration, for you, in three simple words: Demographic Time Bomb. Average age of death in UK is upward of 81 years. To fund this immigration is used to ensure enough people in work paying tax. Until we have a UK government saying “this is our new policy for dealing with the demographic time bomb, and once this new policy starts to bear fruit we can start to reduce our dependency on immigration” then we should be 110% certain we have a UK government with a deceit of an immigration policy writing mug across our foreheads.
The retirement age is also being raised but we now have a Government and a Home Secretary in Priti Patel determined to control immigration in a way not seem since Thatcher's time, that is in large part what the Government won a majority for as part of delivering Brexit and it is now doing so
Have you read the actual immigration proposals? @eadric posted the details the other day.
Yes, they are out today.
Visas only for those earning over £25k a year, except for areas like nursing where those earning over £20k a year can receive them
Universal credit will ensure if they are under 65 and capable of work they will have to do it
The voters may have chosen Bonking Brexit Boris over IRA loving Traitor Corbyn December 2019. But the voters are not the mugs you take them for.
We are not daft. The determination of the government not to measure success of their “historic” “ground breaking” immigration policy says all you need to know. There is no intention to make things better, just fool people into believing this will make things better. Unfortunately the government fails on this simple truth: everyone, from C4 news, to BBC, ITN, SKY, The Mail, The Sun, The Telegraph, everyone, will have an upward curve with a pointy thing half way up saying moment government introduced its points based immigration policy.
The reason this government is creating this deceit of delivering what their voters want is the same reason every government we have had in last forty years did jack shit about immigration, for you, in three simple words: Demographic Time Bomb. Average age of death in UK is upward of 81 years. To fund this immigration is used to ensure enough people in work paying tax. Until we have a UK government saying “this is our new policy for dealing with the demographic time bomb, and once this new policy starts to bear fruit we can start to reduce our dependency on immigration” then we should be 110% certain we have a UK government with a deceit of an immigration policy writing mug across our foreheads.
The retirement age is also being raised but we now have a Government and a Home Secretary in Priti Patel determined to control immigration in a way not seem since Thatcher's time, that is in large part what the Government won a majority for as part of delivering Brexit and it is now doing so
Have you read the actual immigration proposals? @eadric posted the details the other day.
Yes, they are out today.
Visas only for those earning over £25k a year, except for areas like nursing where those earning over £20k a year can receive them
The points system is "could you work at Pret on Picadilly?", "yes", "here you go..."
Now, I happen to think the government's proposal is an excellent one. (Although I'd prefer my health insurance based one, because it would raise valuable revenue for the government.)
But to claim with a serious face that these proposals are designed to control immigration is absurd. It's designed to allow the government to claim that they're controlling immigration.
Universal credit will ensure if they are under 65 and capable of work they will have to do it
The voters may have chosen Bonking Brexit Boris over IRA loving Traitor Corbyn December 2019. But the voters are not the mugs you take them for.
We are not daft. The determination of the government not to measure success of their “historic” “ground breaking” immigration policy says all you need to know. There is no intention to make things better, just fool people into believing this will make things better. Unfortunately the government fails on this simple truth: everyone, from C4 news, to BBC, ITN, SKY, The Mail, The Sun, The Telegraph, everyone, will have an upward curve with a pointy thing half way up saying moment government introduced its points based immigration policy.
The reason this government is creating this deceit of delivering what their voters want is the same reason every government we have had in last forty years did jack shit about immigration, for you, in three simple words: Demographic Time Bomb. Average age of death in UK is upward of 81 years. To fund this immigration is used to ensure enough people in work paying tax. Until we have a UK government saying “this is our new policy for dealing with the demographic time bomb, and once this new policy starts to bear fruit we can start to reduce our dependency on immigration” then we should be 110% certain we have a UK government with a deceit of an immigration policy writing mug across our foreheads.
The retirement age is also being raised but we now have a Government and a Home Secretary in Priti Patel determined to control immigration in a way not seem since Thatcher's time, that is in large part what the Government won a majority for as part of delivering Brexit and it is now doing so
Have you read the actual immigration proposals? @eadric posted the details the other day.
Yes, they are out today.
Visas only for those earning over £25k a year, except for areas like nursing where those earning over £20k a year can receive them
The points system is "could you work at Pret on Picadilly?", "yes", "here you go..."
Now, I happen to think the government's proposal is an excellent one. (Although I'd prefer my health insurance based one, because it would raise valuable revenue for the government.)
But to claim with a serious face that these proposals are designed to control immigration is absurd. It's designed to allow the government to claim that they're controlling immigration.
That's really worrying, to announce five deaths but no other reports or details of infections. Are there dozens infected in Iran, or did these people actually die of something else?
Here in the UAE there have been nine cases, 8 of which have now been discharged. All were Chinese or had flown back from China.
It seems likely that the virus is now everywhere. They've just reported a suspected case in Chile, and possibly Ireland.
It's highly virulent, it incubates for 24 days (or more), you can carry it without symptoms, why would it NOT spread?
Also, I remember someone pooh-poohing the idea that you can be reinfected. But reinfection, it turns out, IS quite plausible, we just don't know, scientists have yet to ascertain the truth.
"With many infectious diseases, a person can develop immunity against a specific strain after exposure or infection," Amira Roess, a professor of Global Health and Epidemiology at George Mason University, told Business Insider. "Often, that person will not get sick again upon subsequent exposure to it. Regarding this specific strain of coronavirus, scientists are working to answer this question."
Doctors and virologists don't yet know enough about the Wuhan coronavirus to say whether humans develop full immunity after they've contracted the illness. According to Zhan, doctors aren't sure that the antibodies patients develop are strong or long-lasting enough to keep them from contracting the disease again.
Viruses can also mutate quickly, so immunity to one strain doesn't guarantee immunity to another."
The possibility of reinfection adds a whole new dimension.
All this points (to me) to Coronavirus being massively more prevalent than we thought. And therefore that mortality rates are actually pretty low.
Except that there is another possibility. People are dying of coronavirus everywhere... but the lack of test kits and knowledge means that these deaths are being written off as pneumonia, old age, the ague, the bloody Fluxe, etc
So the mortality rate might indeed be 2.3%, or even higher
It's being so cheery wot makes me so popular
I don't think that follows. If it's really prevalent and people were dropping dead of Corona virus left, right and centre, don't you think we might notice a slight rise in the number of people in the obituaries column.
Universal credit will ensure if they are under 65 and capable of work they will have to do it
The voters may have chosen Bonking Brexit Boris over IRA loving Traitor Corbyn December 2019. But the voters are not the mugs you take them for.
We are not daft. The determination of the government not to measure success of their “historic” “ground breaking” immigration policy says all you need to know. There is no intention to make things better, just fool people into believing this will make things better. Unfortunately the government fails on this simple truth: everyone, from C4 news, to BBC, ITN, SKY, The Mail, The Sun, The Telegraph, everyone, will have an upward curve with a pointy thing half way up saying moment government introduced its points based immigration policy.
The reason this government is creating this deceit of delivering what their voters want is the same reason every government we have had in last forty years did jack shit about immigration, for you, in three simple words: Demographic Timevernment with a deceit of an immigration policy writing mug across our foreheads.
The retirement age is also being raised but we now have a Government and a Home Secretary in Priti Patel determined to control immigration in a way not seem since Thatcher's time, that is in large part what the Government won a majority for as part of delivering Brexit and it is now doing so
Have you read the actual immigration proposals? @eadric posted the details the other day.
Yes, they are out today.
Visas only for those earning over £25k a year, except for areas like nursing where those earning over £20k a year can receive them
The points system is "could you work at Pret on Picadilly?", "yes", "here you go..."
Now, I happen to think the government's proposal is an excellent one. (Although I'd prefer my health insurance based one, because it would raise valuable revenue for the government.)
But to claim with a serious face that these proposals are designed to control immigration is absurd. It's designed to allow the government to claim that they're controlling immigration.
Spot on
Will also allow us to deport with vigour the Romanian big issue sellers, and the money laundering car wash workers and owners.
Now, yes. But there was a time when Welsh was the most widely spoken language in what is now called England.
'Skeptical' doesn't quite cover this. Would you care to provide some evidence? Or do you mean something along the lines of 'Old English'? (unfair, I know)
Universal credit will ensure if they are under 65 and capable of work they will have to do it
The voters may have chosen Bonking Brexit Boris over IRA loving Traitor Corbyn December 2019. But the voters are not the mugs you take them for.
We are not daft. The determination of the government not to measure success of their “historic” “ground breaking” immigration policy says all you need to know. There is no intention to make things better, just fool people into believing this will make things better. Unfortunately the government fails on this simple truth: everyone, from C4 news, to BBC, ITN, SKY, The Mail, The Sun, The Telegraph, everyone, will have an upward curve with a pointy thing half way up saying moment government introduced its points based immigration policy.
The reason this government is creating this deceit of delivering what their voters want is the same reason every government we have had in last forty years did jack shit about immigration, for you, in three simple words: Demographic Timevernment with a deceit of an immigration policy writing mug across our foreheads.
The retirement age is also being raised but we now have a Government and a Home Secretary in Priti Patel determined to control immigration in a way not seem since Thatcher's time, that is in large part what the Government won a majority for as part of delivering Brexit and it is now doing so
Have you read the actual immigration proposals? @eadric posted the details the other day.
Yes, they are out today.
Visas only for those earning over £25k a year, except for areas like nursing where those earning over £20k a year can receive them
The points system is "could you work at Pret on Picadilly?", "yes", "here you go..."
Now, I happen to think the government's proposal is an excellent one. (Although I'd prefer my health insurance based one, because it would raise valuable revenue for the government.)
But to claim with a serious face that these proposals are designed to control immigration is absurd. It's designed to allow the government to claim that they're controlling immigration.
Spot on
Will also allow us to deport with vigour the Romanian big issue sellers, and the money laundering car wash workers and owners.
Not really. Those already here will not be subject to these new rules.
This is close to a no-brainer as exists in real-world politics.
So naturally Labour will oppose it tooth-and-nail...
The number of English people who move to Wales and learn Welsh is unbelievably tiny.
The Quebecois routinely complain that the Anglophone Canadians who move to Quebec never bother to learn French.
It is one of those "no-brainers" that English-speakers believe applies to other people moving to English-speaking countries, but never to them.
I can see why that would be annoying, although only a minority of the indigenous Welsh population speaks Welsh itself, so it's not really a fair comparison. English is also hegemonic across the globe in a way no language has ever been, and so its speakers are victims of their own language's success when it comes to the need to develop multilingual fluency.
Donald Trump offered Julian Assange a pardon if he would say Russia was not involved in leaking Democratic party emails, a court in London has been told.
The extraordinary claim was made at Westminster magistrates court before the opening next week of Assange’s legal battle to block attempts to extradite him to the US.
I find this story plausible, but it's also typically ridiculous as even if Assange said that is what happened Trump would have to argue "don't believe the DNI, CIA, FBI, DOS, DOJ; but do believe Julian". Bonkers, only a total bloody idiot would buy it.
Comments
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
Donald Trump offered Julian Assange a pardon if he would say Russia was not involved in leaking Democratic party emails, a court in London has been told.
The extraordinary claim was made at Westminster magistrates court before the opening next week of Assange’s legal battle to block attempts to extradite him to the US.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/feb/19/donald-trump-offered-julian-assange-pardon-russia-hack-wikileaks
https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1230186824355794944
https://twitter.com/BBCGaryR/status/1230037604457943041?s=20
https://twitter.com/mmgeissler/status/1230178288666107905?s=20
Not sure this is wholly the right question - the more relevant is why Johnson won, not why Corbyn lost. Johnson was able to pull together 75% of LEAVE voters and two key groups of REMAIN supporters - those opposed to Corbyn in any form and those who, whatever their own view, decided the result of 23/6/16 had to be honoured and saw Johnson as the only way of achieving that end.
The inevitability of Johnson's victory was clear from June when he was the only Conservative leadership candidate whom LEAVE voters were prepared to support in numbers.
That's it - the only thing the Opposition could and should have done was to pass May's WA while they had the chance and then hung the Conservatives out to dry over the future economic and political relationship.
This has allowed CLPs an earlier say and with well over half of those nominating him it’s really galvanized his campaign . Unless Starmer does something utterly crazy then he really should walk the leadership .
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/18/jeremy-corbyn-antisemitism-claims-ludicrous-and-wrong
https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/1230157681433989121?s=20
How effective will it be? no idea.
The overwhelming reason is that a vote for RLB in particular could spell the end of the Labour Party and the Tories would be popping the champagne corks if she won .
He’s fast approaching evens but I’m not convinced current polling represents a 50%+ shot.
Alun Cairns is my MP and should not have stood as a candidate due to the Ross England scandal. I could not vote for him.
Corbyn got my vote with zero enthusiasm.
So one day it would be nice if someday we stop expecting such visits.
Although the craziest reaction to politicians showing up in a place where something happened has to go to a relative of mine, who believed May never went to Salisbury after the novichok incident and footage of her supposedly there was spliced in.
In the USA being very wealthy is seen as a good thing - a political asset:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-51481260
https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/1230110813903609856
I actually threw up twice on election night.
#solidasarock
Politicians turning up in the middle of the problem will most likely just attract those who don't like said politician anyway, and lead to negative headlines.
Mrs May was definitely in Salisbury though, I know people who met her there!
https://www.politico.eu/article/sliding-flaws-eu-publishes-misleading-brexit-chart/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
He can outgun all the candidates combined many times over, and they can’t afford to fight back.
2. You weren't 78 years old
3. I'm not sure how comparable campaigning to be the MP for Broxtowe and for the Presidency are
I would have thought running for President (or for the nomination) was extremely physically, mentally and emotionally exhausting. And you'd want to be in excellent physical shape to take it on. Look at how Biden has aged through this process.
The first paper leaflet, from Starmer, arrived today. Theme "Integrity, authority, unity." Unexciting but solid, very nuch as you'd expect.
https://twitter.com/kgscanlon/status/1229847359418441731
Over the last 5 years, as the economy has grown and more jobs available, about as many have people have joined the job market form Economical inactive as from unemployment.
Unemployment has dropped by: 520,000 from 1.83m to 1.31m
Economic inactivate has dropped by: 510,000 from 8.98M to 8.47m
As people who where where working part time, but wanted a full time job are now moving in to full time jobs, this is opens up the part time jobs to these economically inactivate people.
Every person is different and I don't what to make to much of a universal statement, but for some at least getting a part time job can be very good for them, for some universality students it can add to the skills they learn in the class room, for some disabled people it can add to there sense of self worth.
Nobody is suggesting that all 8.4 million could or should get a job, but the latest data suggests that 1.7 million of them would like to if the right job was available, and I for one aplord and support then in that desire.
We need to support people rejoining the workforce.
It is worth remembering, however, that some of these people will be working in the informal economy, and so probably aren't really inactive. And it's also worth remembering that some of the others will struggle for one reason or another.
Apologies to Dr Palmer, but I see that he's not posted on this despite it clearly being one of the things he's most expert on.
I would suggest that some in Labour are finding it hard to dump their messiah. Dump him they must though.
(I'd hope also that when dumping him they actually think about what went wrong. That was clearly; Corbyn=nutter, future PM = not nutter. )
Once you've dumped Corbyn I'd suggest bombing raids on his house - 100 B-52s should do it. About twice that for McDonnell.
I look forward to a Labour party that is better.
Here in the UAE there have been nine cases, 8 of which have now been discharged. All were Chinese or had flown back from China.
We are not daft. The determination of the government not to measure success of their “historic” “ground breaking” immigration policy says all you need to know. There is no intention to make things better, just fool people into believing this will make things better. Unfortunately the government fails on this simple truth: everyone, from C4 news, to BBC, ITN, SKY, The Mail, The Sun, The Telegraph, everyone, will have an upward curve with a pointy thing half way up saying moment government introduced its points based immigration policy.
The reason this government is creating this deceit of delivering what their voters want is the same reason every government we have had in last forty years did jack shit about immigration, for you, in three simple words: Demographic Time Bomb. Average age of death in UK is upward of 81 years. To fund this immigration is used to ensure enough people in work paying tax. Until we have a UK government saying “this is our new policy for dealing with the demographic time bomb, and once this new policy starts to bear fruit we can start to reduce our dependency on immigration” then we should be 110% certain we have a UK government with a deceit of an immigration policy writing mug across our foreheads.
This government is not particularly bad or good on these things. To my mind they are very slightly better than the other possible governments were.
We will run out of rope.
However there must be something in this magic rope trick. If that something isn't a ticking nuke then lets just keep doing it.
(so climate change is a ticking nuke, but economic castle-building may not be)
So naturally Labour will oppose it tooth-and-nail...
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/voters/
The above sentence was of course mandatory and had no meaning.
Same in Glasgow.
English, the language, is not the same as English the Nationality. English - the language - I think we'd all agree is pretty cool. (wonderfully munificent!)
Visas only for those earning over £25k a year, except for areas like nursing where those earning over £20k a year can receive them
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51550421
The Quebecois routinely complain that the Anglophone Canadians who move to Quebec never bother to learn French.
It is one of those "no-brainers" that English-speakers believe applies to other people moving to English-speaking countries, but never to them.
If you work at Pret, you can get a visa.
The points system is "could you work at Pret on Picadilly?", "yes", "here you go..."
Now, I happen to think the government's proposal is an excellent one. (Although I'd prefer my health insurance based one, because it would raise valuable revenue for the government.)
But to claim with a serious face that these proposals are designed to control immigration is absurd. It's designed to allow the government to claim that they're controlling immigration.
(In the UK, yes they should be expected to learn English, forced to is probably unnecessarily strong).
It is not retrospective