politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Going to war with Sir Richard Branson might not necessarily
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Going to war with Sir Richard Branson might not necessarily develop to Corbyn’s advantage
Writing exclusively in the Sunday Mirror, Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell slams the Virgin billionaire as a “tax exile who thinks he can try and intervene and undermine our democracy”.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Maybe Don Brind or Nick Palmer or someone who knows the Labour Party well could give us a breakdown of how they see the electorate in terms of demographics / culture / political leanings?
Branson himself also appeared in the papers the other day, badly injured from a cycling accident, would be easy to portray Corbyn as a bully that kicks a man when he's down.
Spoiler alert: Exact models of trains follow.
...
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/JR東日本E231系電車
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/JR東日本E233系電車
The other great thing about this movie was that a lot of it was concerned with the legal and political issues arising from an attack by a large, radioactive sea creature. You'd expect Japan of all places to have a highly developed legislative framework for this problem, but it turns out they're quite badly prepared; For example, the Self-Defence Force is permitted use force against a hostile state, but does not explicitly allow deployment against Godzillas.
Bad injured in a cycling accident training for a major charity event he participates in personally rather than just promoting.
As for Hornby's magnificent trolling;
https://mobile.twitter.com/MomentumDerby/status/769126701892763648
Talking of the Cambridge spies, let me recommend Guy Burgess: The Spy who Knew Everyone
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/feb/14/guy-burgess-the-spy-who-knew-everyone-stewart-purvis-jeff-hulbert-review
(or at least the first bit because I only started reading it yesterday).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revocations_of_appointments_to_orders_and_awarded_decorations_and_medals_of_the_United_Kingdom
In addition the Titles Deprivation Act of 1917 stripped British peerages from German royal members and an Irish peer in the service of the Austrian emperor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_Deprivation_Act_1917
The Labour Party is Virgin on the ridiculous.
One of the people who lost their MBE is an acquaintance of mine, too, although I haven’t been in his compamy for quite a while.
There are Leavers on the line and the wrong sort of Spin.
I'll get my coat...
TSE is suggesting that Branson is more trusted than Corbyn, and that the Labour leader is probably biting off more than he can chew, in taking on the businessman so directly - not that his disciples will think so, of course.
Sadly not a bed bath !! ..
Also I think they meant the 15th century. Many people were stripped of knighthoods in the Wars of the Roses depending on who was in the ascendant at the time - Jasper Tudor had it happen to him twice!
This is many types of stupid. An over-reaction, which in terms make those leading Labour look rather precious. A misjudgement, which makes them appear stupid. A bad contrast, because, whatever people think of Branson, those outside the top table of the PFJ don't rank him alongside Fred Goodwin or Philip Green. A missed opportunity, because the NHS and its funding is an open goal. The antithesis of Napoleon's maxim: Labour has made a mistake and is determined it continue making one for as long a period as possible.
Imbeciles.
In better news, here's my F1 pre-race piece, including a lot of rambling and one tip:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/belgium-pre-race-2016.html
McDonnell is of course right to criticise Branson for his tax status. It's certainly disappointing. However Branson has done absolutely nothing to undermine our democracy in this episode, rather the reverse.
I'm not a big fan of honours (perhaps in part because I'll never get one), but I rather look forwards to seeing Lord Branson of the East coast take his seat in the Lords.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/corbyn-hit-by-electoral-fraud-row-g2x0ld52b
Strong parallels with Uddin's mystery home.
For that matter, someone could pull the same at the first race next season, take a penalty at Australia then have more fresh engines for the rest of 2017.
The claim it was undermining democracy reminds me of the GE and some green activists furious labour activists knocked on the door if someone with a green poster to try to get their vote. So rude.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/east-london-labour-councillor-sam-tarry-cleared-after-investigation-into-claims-of-electoral-fraud-9556550.html
In any case, links to Corbyn seem a bit tenuous.
Theresa May accused of acting like a ‘Tudor monarch’ over plans to deny parliament Brexit vote
'To trigger article 50 without first setting out to parliament the terms and basis upon which her government seeks to negotiate...would be to diminish parliament and assume the arrogant powers of a Tudor monarch'
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-accused-of-acting-like-a-tudor-monarch-over-plans-to-deny-parliament-brexit-vote-a7213361.html
Reader comment below:
.... would be to diminish parliament and assume the arrogant powers of a Tudor monarch,”
And ignoring the wishes of the people wouldn't?
As an aside. I think I would definitely vote for the Eurosceptic Corbyn now. Smith is clearly a grade 1 eurofanatic who will cause a lot of trouble if he becomes leader of the opposition.
The Military Cross revoked in 2014 was the most surprising to me.
Fair point on the allowance, but time may permit it anyway.
Mr. Omnium, Corbyn would perform a volte-face and seek a deal with Branson to relocate the PLP to the Moon.
The YouGov polling showed something like 70-80% of Tories believed Branson hence the overall lead for him.
For Labour (% from memory but approximately correct):
Corbyn 39%
Branson 34%
Don't know 28%
Corbyn's stance helps him with the Labour selectorate.
Am working from the textbook published by Oxford UP for the new GCSE.
I quote directly:
'The archers that fought for Henry [V] used large bows called longbows. They could fire around 12 arrows a minute.'
FFS, why do I bother?
Agree with relocating Labour to the moon, but sent Corbyn and the Trots, leave the mostly sensible PLP on Earth!
Am I being unfair, however? Does he actually do real stuff that makes people's lives better?
Mr. Observer, he will if he loses the vote.
Which feels like it's been going on forever.
Mr. Doethur, that's shocking. You're right to fume. I get annoyed with myself if I do it by mistake, or read it in other fiction, but for a historical textbook to make that error is appalling.
Now, he is a great defender of true socialism.
Owen says these things about Europe because it is a convenient stick to beat Jeremy with. What he will say about Europe in a years time will depend on what is convenient for Owen.
When he is in eurosceptic South Wales talking about immigration, it would be difficult to distinguish Owen’s speeches from something written by SeanT.
What would you like Owen to be? He can be that shape.
I've been told that it was proposed 3 times in the past but vetoed by one of the organizations that has input into such matters. Blair (?) finally forced it through but given the resistance from the organization in question was only able to secure a knighthood for him.
Tom Atkinson
CSI Islington looks rubbish. https://t.co/nIhoXNAZUP
The only people now calling for Parliament to get involved are those who seek to overturn the voice of the public.
Constitutionally, foreign policy is a matter for the government subject to parliamentary action i.e. parliament's power is negative. However, the recent convention on major decisions e.g. the Syria vote, is to provide for what amounts to a binding vote. That, though, is without there having been a prior referendum.
I'd argue that the decision to trigger A50 is implicit in the Act that set up the referendum and as such, parliament has already voted. There should, however, be another vote on the specific terms, once they have been agreed.
Tried to return to the UK after outbreak of WWI but the Brits said no and stripped him of his titles. The Germans hated him because he was British and confiscated all his lands leaving him in poverty. The Brits refused to help - I think he asked 3 times for his exile to be lifted but his cousins refused to even talk to him) The Nazis then used him (because no one else would give him the time of day) before he died alone.
If all we cared about was the voice of the public the referendum would have been made legally binding so it couldn't be overturned. If a vote in parliament happened confirming a declaration, that would hardly be ignoring or overturning the voice of the people, by only saying it would people are suggesting parliament would indeed vote to overturn it, and where's the evidence for that.
As I said, two sides fighting a proxy battle over a separate issue. One side are hoping legal niceties will help them stop this (without much hope in my view) and the other side are pretending legal niceties are irrelevant because FREEDOM AND THE PEOPLE, MAN! Even when the law is probably on their side, so why get so butt hurt about it?
If it were permitted then what other organisations could be left without a vote? EFTA? NATO? UN? Or could we rejoin the EU on perogative powers of a future PM?
I am sure that a debate before invocation of A50 would be beneficial and am sure that it would pass easily.
I think that May will be stirring up trouble if there is no vote.
You can argue, for example, that Farage lied about the effects of immigration on public services. Perhaps he did, but the lies struck a chord because in many parts of the country public services really are close to breaking. It does now take much longer to get a doctor’s appointment. His lies chimed with experience of everyday people.
Trump lied when he said "It is rigged”. But the lie does contain a greater truth because for many people, nothing does change in politics (no matter who is President or PM). His lie contains a greater truth, it chimes with everyday impressions of nothing ever changing, the same folk running the country whether they are Democrats or Republicans, Tories or Labour. The system is rigged,
Jeremy may well have lied with Virgin trains. But, it really won’t harm him because it resonates with many, many people who can see the trains (especially at peak times) are highly overcrowded.
This is not just the Corbyn base, as alleged by Southam. I know many people who commute in London. They don’t sit in first class -- like the well-paid lawyers who populate pb -- they are packed, often standing for hour long train journeys, into second class. They will side with Jeremy on this, even if Jeremy technically lied.
The first when Parliament voted for a referendum, the second when the people voted (discounting the fact it was in the Conservative Party manifesto, and that party then won a General Election).
The idea votes in Parliament improve things necessarily is not accurate. The vote on the Iraq War, setting the foolish precedent for such a thing, is a rather stark proof of this.
1) He had no reason to lie precisely because it is an issue
2) He is holier than thou (or rather his supporters treat him as such) so when he indulges in the dark arts of spin it is more galling
Zak is the interesting one - he won't feel much loyalty to his London party given the mayoral campaign they forced upon him, which left him as tarnished goods, I would expect him to follow through on his original plan, so by-election in Richmond (indeed he may not even re-stand?)?
I think there will be a debate in the Commons and even a vote there but any suggestion that the Lords can get involved is unacceptable.
I can't help feeling that people's hostility to Jeremy Corbyn sometimes makes them prone to over-exaggeration.
But I imagine not wanting to risk a vote is one of the things the Cabinet is current united upon, while they still hash out what negotiating terms they want, as per today's papers.
Internal factionalism is not a characteristic of a competent political movement.
Until the Labour party have settled their direction of travel, there is no way any leader can appear competent.
The point does not seem obvious to me either way, so I'm going with the latter. Silly - by staying quiet on the point until the court cases are heard, she would have been well placed either way. As it is, she now has to hope for one outcome.
If this is an example of her strategic nous, I'll be expecting her to struggle much more quickly than many might expect right now.