politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The LEAVE campaign’s message on the NHS is still resonating st
Options
Comments
-
0
-
Why anybody would eat in a Jamie's (faux) Italian is beyond me. Not as if there is limited choice when it comes to Italian cuisine in the UK.Richard_Tyndall said:
I am amazed the Aberdeen one has stayed open so long. The city is at the tail end of a 2 year massive oil slump that has seen around 120,000 jobs lost in the UK sector. A huge number of those in and around Aberdeen.David_Evershed said:Despite still being in the EU .......
Celebrity chef Jamie Oliver is closing six of his 42 UK Jamie's Italian restaurants.
The Aberdeen, Cheltenham, Exeter, Tunbridge Wells and in London, the Ludgate and Richmond outlets are all scheduled to close soon.
A lot of these restaurants existed up there because of company expense accounts and people with huge amounts of disposable income. The last year has seen dozens close and Jamie's was not even one of the good ones.0 -
or one could say staying in the EU to keep the pound artificlally overvalued only helped german manufacturers.williamglenn said:
Leaving the EU in order to weaken the pound does seem rather like using a daisy cutter to crack a nut.Alanbrooke said:
The GBP has been over valued for most of the last decadewilliamglenn said:
In your analogy the UK's economic performance is more akin to the company's revenues, not its share price, where you could more readily draw an analogy with the GBP exchange rate which as you know got hammered.TGOHF said:
FT : "Top CEO announces intention to stand down"Scott_P said:
We haven't announced we're leaving yet...TGOHF said:Scott is suggesting that if a top CE was to announce his retirement from a listed company, the share price wouldn't react until his last day in the office as well - "he hasn't quit yet"
We have said we will announce it. Maybe. In March. Depending on the court case. And Parliament.
We will definitely get right on it. At some point.
FT : "Share price unaffected as he hasn't handed letter to HR yet..."
in other news
record car sales
construction manufacturing and service PMIs rise
UK fastest growing G7 economy
etc.0 -
Ah bless.Scott_P said:
We haven't announced we're leaving yet...TGOHF said:Scott is suggesting that if a top CE was to announce his retirement from a listed company, the share price wouldn't react until his last day in the office as well - "he hasn't quit yet"
We have said we will announce it. Maybe. In March. Depending on the court case. And Parliament.
We will definitely get right on it. At some point.
Look, can you take a word of friendly advice?
You are making yourself look very, very silly.
Take a break.0 -
Scott_P said:
Scott. Give it up. Everyone knows we are leaving.
The formal submission of A50 is a formality.
0 -
Double your Hahahahahahah, Mr Felix. The Lib Dems did not form a government of their own. The tuition fees increase was Tory policy - and if Labour had formed the government, they would have done exactly the same. So.... Hahahahahahahahafelix said:
Hahahaha - TUITION FEES!PClipp said:
The Tories will promise anything you like..... but they never keep their promises once they have got themselves elected.MaxPB said:
Which is why the Tories will promise an extra £70m per week per year in the manifesto. That's an additional £350m per week by the end of the period and it allows for inflation to cut into the real terms amount by well over half. That will satisfy almost everyone, including voters in Lab/Con marginals who voted Leave.TheScreamingEagles said:That £350m per week for the NHS has the potential to be the new 'Read my lips, no new taxes'
I think the country is starting to see through the Tory guff. The Trump campaign was an eye-opener for many.
0 -
It's not merely a formality. We have yet to make a constitutional decision to leave.MarkHopkins said:
Scott. Give it up. Everyone knows we are leaving.Scott_P said:
The formal submission of A50 is a formality.0 -
If we don't submit in March, are we leaving?MarkHopkins said:Scott. Give it up. Everyone knows we are leaving.
The formal submission of A50 is a formality.
If we don't submit in 2017, are we leaving?
If we don't submit this Parliament, are we leaving?0 -
A recognisable brand and confidence in a certain level of quality is often very compelling, especially in a new city or town.FrancisUrquhart said:
Why anybody would eat in a Jamie's (faux) Italian is beyond me. Not as if there is limited choice when it comes to Italian cuisine in the UK.Richard_Tyndall said:
I am amazed the Aberdeen one has stayed open so long. The city is at the tail end of a 2 year massive oil slump that has seen around 120,000 jobs lost in the UK sector. A huge number of those in and around Aberdeen.David_Evershed said:Despite still being in the EU .......
Celebrity chef Jamie Oliver is closing six of his 42 UK Jamie's Italian restaurants.
The Aberdeen, Cheltenham, Exeter, Tunbridge Wells and in London, the Ludgate and Richmond outlets are all scheduled to close soon.
A lot of these restaurants existed up there because of company expense accounts and people with huge amounts of disposable income. The last year has seen dozens close and Jamie's was not even one of the good ones.
That said, I still have no idea why people go to Angus Steak Houses, as noted on here previously.0 -
For the Brexiteers, constitutional demands are irrelevant. The rule of law is an inconvenience.williamglenn said:It's not merely a formality. We have yet to make a constitutional decision to leave.
0 -
I've been posting crap here all day because it's my last day and there's shit all to do.Scott_P said:
If we don't submit in March, are we leaving?MarkHopkins said:Scott. Give it up. Everyone knows we are leaving.
The formal submission of A50 is a formality.
If we don't submit in 2017, are we leaving?
If we don't submit this Parliament, are we leaving?
This is your LIFE.
I know I take the piss, but you are too good for this.0 -
Weren't taxes supposed to have gone up in the emergency budget?TOPPING said:
Well as I pointed out before, the BoE is independent. It has a remit of promoting stability, plus an inflation target. A lot changed between June 23rd and June 24th and as in all cases, there is a range of policy options between the Bank and the Treasury. An emergency budget would presumably have been designed to release liquidity into the market via a fiscal transfer of some kind. But the Bank provided that liquidity with a rate cut.Philip_Thompson said:
Not only no longer required but we outgrew predictions for if we Remained. Leaves one wondering why was Osborne so incompetent as to not predict that. Or why Remainers were predicting rates would go UP if we voted to Leave now down?TOPPING said:
Luckily enough it turns out that a rate cut was sufficient such that an emergency budget was no longer required.Philip_Thompson said:
One more time using simple words.Scott_P said:
Article 50 was supposed to come immediately after the vote.Philip_Thompson said:They were supposed to come immediately after the vote.
If you want to claim Brexit happened before Article 50, go ahead.
Otherwise, things tend to happen in chronological order. If we ever trigger, we can have a discussion about how well it is going.
After ... the ... vote ...
Three words which one are you struggling to understand. Article 50 is a technicality for negotiations it is not the vote. Brexit was always supposed to be years later. The emergency budget would come immediate AFTER THE VOTE. Which word is confusing you? Is it vote?
What underpins all this is the makeup of a worryingly large proportion of our economic growth. When we say "economic growth" we should, rather, say "people going out shopping" as a shorthand. Anything to keep people going out shopping will maintain economic growth. A rate cut helped to achieve that (as might have a tax cut from a budget, say).0 -
Nah. We've never Brexited before. None of us knows what it involves, how it plays out, what the issues will be.Floater said:
Ah bless.Scott_P said:
We haven't announced we're leaving yet...TGOHF said:Scott is suggesting that if a top CE was to announce his retirement from a listed company, the share price wouldn't react until his last day in the office as well - "he hasn't quit yet"
We have said we will announce it. Maybe. In March. Depending on the court case. And Parliament.
We will definitely get right on it. At some point.
Look, can you take a word of friendly advice?
You are making yourself look very, very silly.
Take a break.
All we can do is take it formal step by formal step and ignore the phoney war. The first formal step was the vote = GBP tanked. The next formal step is triggering A50. After that it is A50 + two years.
We shall have to wait to see what happens in each case.0 -
williamglenn said:
It's not merely a formality. We have yet to make a constitutional decision to leave.MarkHopkins said:
Scott. Give it up. Everyone knows we are leaving.Scott_P said:
The formal submission of A50 is a formality.
The decision was made last June.
0 -
In the real world process starts with the contemplation. A50 is the EU world where you can only start to negotiate out loud when you say you really, really want to leave.Scott_P said:0 -
There are two a penny meh Italian branded restaurants already. Alternatively, there are lots and lots of good mom and pop Italians up and down the country.TOPPING said:
A recognisable brand and confidence in a certain level of quality is often very compelling, especially in a new city or town.FrancisUrquhart said:
Why anybody would eat in a Jamie's (faux) Italian is beyond me. Not as if there is limited choice when it comes to Italian cuisine in the UK.Richard_Tyndall said:
I am amazed the Aberdeen one has stayed open so long. The city is at the tail end of a 2 year massive oil slump that has seen around 120,000 jobs lost in the UK sector. A huge number of those in and around Aberdeen.David_Evershed said:Despite still being in the EU .......
Celebrity chef Jamie Oliver is closing six of his 42 UK Jamie's Italian restaurants.
The Aberdeen, Cheltenham, Exeter, Tunbridge Wells and in London, the Ludgate and Richmond outlets are all scheduled to close soon.
A lot of these restaurants existed up there because of company expense accounts and people with huge amounts of disposable income. The last year has seen dozens close and Jamie's was not even one of the good ones.
That said, I still have no idea why people go to Angus Steak Houses, as noted on here previously.0 -
I wonder whether they will delay invoking A50 until after the French election? Perhaps after a shock move in the polls, or apropos of something or other, they will say that it's best to wait because if Le Pen wins and Frexit ensues then the game will have changed completely. Best to know whether it will be Britain and EU27 at the table or Britain, France and Germany EU26. Fools rush in, etc. Do it right and they could get Gordon Brown to talk about prudence.Scott_P said:0 -
I always felt sorry for Michael Fish. He made an honest prediction, got it wrong, admitted it, but has been mocked ever since.
He could have gone along with the hysteria, predicted disaster and the end of civilisation and still have been found totally wrong. Such is weather forecasting and economics. But at least his was an honest mistake.
I'm sure Mr Osborne and Cameron would be quite good at hanging wallpaper.
In Mr P's world, the hurricane never happened and we had a peaceful day with only a slight breeze. You post-truth mockers are merely thick, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals. Give him a break.0 -
An advisory referendum in a representative democracy. Constitutionally irrelevant.MarkHopkins said:The decision was made last June.
0 -
Hmmm - lower interest rates may well be one reason why people are splashing the cash and so helping to drive growth figures. If they go up and inflation returns then that could create serious problems. We need to be very careful.Alanbrooke said:
maybe the pound wouldnt have dropped quite so much if we hadnt cut interest rateslogical_song said:
Which follows from a big drop in the value of the pound.Alanbrooke said:
The GBP has been over valued for most of the last decadewilliamglenn said:
In your analogy the UK's economic performance is more akin to the company's revenues, not its share price, where you could more readily draw an analogy with the GBP exchange rate which as you know got hammered.TGOHF said:
FT : "Top CEO announces intention to stand down"Scott_P said:
We haven't announced we're leaving yet...TGOHF said:Scott is suggesting that if a top CE was to announce his retirement from a listed company, the share price wouldn't react until his last day in the office as well - "he hasn't quit yet"
We have said we will announce it. Maybe. In March. Depending on the court case. And Parliament.
We will definitely get right on it. At some point.
FT : "Share price unaffected as he hasn't handed letter to HR yet..."
in other news
record car sales
construction manufacturing and service PMIs rise
UK fastest growing G7 economy
etc.
It's good for the economy ..... for a while.
which of course was driven by the"experts" fucking up their forecasts
at least they now admit they got it wrong too many PB remainers cant
0 -
I always thought the hurricane bit was about something in Florida, and that he went on to predict strong winds throughout the UK.CD13 said:I always felt sorry for Michael Fish. He made an honest prediction, got it wrong, admitted it, but has been mocked ever since.
He could have gone along with the hysteria, predicted disaster and the end of civilisation and still have been found totally wrong. Such is weather forecasting and economics. But at least his was an honest mistake.
I'm sure Mr Osborne and Cameron would be quite good at hanging wallpaper.
In Mr P's world, the hurricane never happened and we had a peaceful day with only a slight breeze. You post-truth mockers are merely thick, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals. Give him a break.0 -
That would seem sensible. The headbangers will never stand for it.Dromedary said:I wonder whether they will delay invoking A50 until after the French election? Perhaps after a shock move in the polls, or apropos of something or other, they will say that it's best to wait because if Le Pen wins and Frexit ensues then the game will have changed completely. Best to know whether it will be Britain and EU27 at the table or Britain, France and Germany EU26. Fools rush in, etc. Do it right and they could get Gordon Brown to talk about prudence.
0 -
So why did the pound drop in value then ? I mean we haven't handed in A50 so it must be unrelated....Scott_P said:
This is making the defence of the pasty tax look sensible..0 -
Scott_P said:
An advisory referendum in a representative democracy. Constitutionally irrelevant.MarkHopkins said:The decision was made last June.
You are an AI robot, programmed to come up with the most ridiculous arguments ever.
And I claim my £5.
0 -
Yes, to plug the hit from us leaving. As has been discussed on here, estimates of the hit from Brexit dwarfed the GBP8bn we were paying in and he was worried the gap would need plugging.RobD said:
Weren't taxes supposed to have gone up in the emergency budget?TOPPING said:
Well as I pointed out before, the BoE is independent. It has a remit of promoting stability, plus an inflation target. A lot changed between June 23rd and June 24th and as in all cases, there is a range of policy options between the Bank and the Treasury. An emergency budget would presumably have been designed to release liquidity into the market via a fiscal transfer of some kind. But the Bank provided that liquidity with a rate cut.Philip_Thompson said:
Not only no longer required but we outgrew predictions for if we Remained. Leaves one wondering why was Osborne so incompetent as to not predict that. Or why Remainers were predicting rates would go UP if we voted to Leave now down?TOPPING said:
Luckily enough it turns out that a rate cut was sufficient such that an emergency budget was no longer required.Philip_Thompson said:
One more time using simple words.Scott_P said:
Article 50 was supposed to come immediately after the vote.Philip_Thompson said:They were supposed to come immediately after the vote.
If you want to claim Brexit happened before Article 50, go ahead.
Otherwise, things tend to happen in chronological order. If we ever trigger, we can have a discussion about how well it is going.
After ... the ... vote ...
Three words which one are you struggling to understand. Article 50 is a technicality for negotiations it is not the vote. Brexit was always supposed to be years later. The emergency budget would come immediate AFTER THE VOTE. Which word is confusing you? Is it vote?
What underpins all this is the makeup of a worryingly large proportion of our economic growth. When we say "economic growth" we should, rather, say "people going out shopping" as a shorthand. Anything to keep people going out shopping will maintain economic growth. A rate cut helped to achieve that (as might have a tax cut from a budget, say).
I have no idea at what time scale some of the measures he suggested would have taken effect. I agree it would seem strange to hit people with a tax hike when we are in such a sensitive position and I have no doubt that that was discussed with Carney. In the end we had liquidity fed into the system and all was well.
Be under no illusion, though, it is still very likely (as Andy said yesterday) that the hit to the economy and the concomitant fiscal gap will appear over the next year or two.0 -
Didn't the Commons just have a vote saying A50 must be declared by March?Scott_P said:
An advisory referendum in a representative democracy. Constitutionally irrelevant.MarkHopkins said:The decision was made last June.
0 -
Its only going to be delayed if the Supreme Court causes a delay by their ruling, otherwise TM will serve it by 31st MarchScott_P said:
That would seem sensible. The headbangers will never stand for it.Dromedary said:I wonder whether they will delay invoking A50 until after the French election? Perhaps after a shock move in the polls, or apropos of something or other, they will say that it's best to wait because if Le Pen wins and Frexit ensues then the game will have changed completely. Best to know whether it will be Britain and EU27 at the table or Britain, France and Germany EU26. Fools rush in, etc. Do it right and they could get Gordon Brown to talk about prudence.
0 -
Last day???!!!Luckyguy1983 said:
I've been posting crap here all day because it's my last day and there's shit all to do.Scott_P said:
If we don't submit in March, are we leaving?MarkHopkins said:Scott. Give it up. Everyone knows we are leaving.
The formal submission of A50 is a formality.
If we don't submit in 2017, are we leaving?
If we don't submit this Parliament, are we leaving?
This is your LIFE.
I know I take the piss, but you are too good for this.
Not effing off abroad as well?0 -
Sometimes you just can't beat the Bard:
A tale told by ...0 -
Respecting the rule of law is ridiculous? If I were a Brexiteer, deriding our most enduring national competitive advantage wouldn't be my first priority.MarkHopkins said:Scott_P said:
An advisory referendum in a representative democracy. Constitutionally irrelevant.MarkHopkins said:The decision was made last June.
You are an AI robot, programmed to come up with the most ridiculous arguments ever.
And I claim my £5.0 -
Y but coming out of the train station, or parking at the hotel and walking into town, it's not immediately obvious which they are.FrancisUrquhart said:
There are two a penny meh Italian branded restaurants already. Alternatively, there are lots and lots of good mom and pop Italians up and down the country.TOPPING said:
A recognisable brand and confidence in a certain level of quality is often very compelling, especially in a new city or town.FrancisUrquhart said:
Why anybody would eat in a Jamie's (faux) Italian is beyond me. Not as if there is limited choice when it comes to Italian cuisine in the UK.Richard_Tyndall said:
I am amazed the Aberdeen one has stayed open so long. The city is at the tail end of a 2 year massive oil slump that has seen around 120,000 jobs lost in the UK sector. A huge number of those in and around Aberdeen.David_Evershed said:Despite still being in the EU .......
Celebrity chef Jamie Oliver is closing six of his 42 UK Jamie's Italian restaurants.
The Aberdeen, Cheltenham, Exeter, Tunbridge Wells and in London, the Ludgate and Richmond outlets are all scheduled to close soon.
A lot of these restaurants existed up there because of company expense accounts and people with huge amounts of disposable income. The last year has seen dozens close and Jamie's was not even one of the good ones.
That said, I still have no idea why people go to Angus Steak Houses, as noted on here previously.0 -
Do you honestly think the 34 million who voted only thought it was advisoryScott_P said:
An advisory referendum in a representative democracy. Constitutionally irrelevant.MarkHopkins said:The decision was made last June.
0 -
No they passed a motion calling on the government to pull its finger out. If the government can get its ducks in a row in time it's their problem.RobD said:
Didn't the Commons just have a vote saying A50 must be declared by March?Scott_P said:
An advisory referendum in a representative democracy. Constitutionally irrelevant.MarkHopkins said:The decision was made last June.
0 -
Mr. T, in the medieval era, many days (several a week anyway and Advent/Lent) were meat-free. Could be a similar approach. With arguments over whether puffins are fish. And who gets to eat in the misericord.0
-
What they thought does not change the constitutional realityBig_G_NorthWales said:Do you honestly think the 34 million who voted only thought it was advisory
0 -
Jaffa cakes cake or biscuit? To borrow from CiF?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. T, in the medieval era, many days (several a week anyway and Advent/Lent) were meat-free. Could be a similar approach. With arguments over whether puffins are fish. And who gets to eat in the misericord.
0 -
Any indication that the government wont do A50 by end of March?williamglenn said:
No they passed a motion calling on the government to pull its finger out. If the government can get its ducks in a row in time it's their problem.RobD said:
Didn't the Commons just have a vote saying A50 must be declared by March?Scott_P said:
An advisory referendum in a representative democracy. Constitutionally irrelevant.MarkHopkins said:The decision was made last June.
0 -
Just been reading that myself. "So hapless in fact, he [Corbyn, of course] makes Iain Duncan Smith’s stewardship of the Conservative party seem a triumph of Bismarckian proportions." Nice.Floater said:Accurate - but not happy reading if you are a fan of the Labour party or even of having a semi competent and believable opposition.
https://capx.co/labour-is-ludicrous-but-its-no-laughing-matter/
The only way I think I could ever respect Labour again is if the sensible element broke away (because it doesn't look as if anybody's likely to get Corbyn to budge,) and set up a traditional moderate left party as an inheritor to Labour's traditions: standing up for working people, rather than pandering to the wretched North London set, with their identity politics obsessions and accommodating attitudes towards various rogue states and terrorist groups. I think that they might even do it, were they not terrified of the Corbyn rump retaining control of the name and, consequently, the entire habit/brand loyalty vote.
And yet, this is no time for dithering. Labour is effectively three parties - Southern, Northern/Welsh, and Scottish - living miserably together. Scottish Labour is probably already doomed. Northern Labour risks its own slow, lingering death, through association with the Southern Labour leadership and its madcap policies. If they want to survive then they need to be bold - because sitting on their arses and praying for a miracle is unlikely to yield either respect or results.
Southern Labour can probably live on indefinitely as a rump, catering for an unholy alliance of Champagne socialists and the Far Left. But it is bloody vile.0 -
It depends what the SC says is required. It may be simply impossible to get the legislation through parliament in a couple of months.RobD said:
Any indication that the government wont do A50 by end of March?williamglenn said:
No they passed a motion calling on the government to pull its finger out. If the government can get its ducks in a row in time it's their problem.RobD said:
Didn't the Commons just have a vote saying A50 must be declared by March?Scott_P said:
An advisory referendum in a representative democracy. Constitutionally irrelevant.MarkHopkins said:The decision was made last June.
0 -
I do not believe you mean that 34 million were misled into thinking their vote would not be relevant if some of the elite decide to reject the decisionScott_P said:
What they thought does not change the constitutional realityBig_G_NorthWales said:Do you honestly think the 34 million who voted only thought it was advisory
0 -
Tory grandee Michael Heseltine is fined £5,000 after leaving a cyclist needing pins in his legs when he ran him over in his Jaguar - but insists the cyclist was doing 30mph and could not be seen behind an overgrown hedge
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4095120/Tory-grandee-Michael-Heseltine-fined-5-000-careless-driving-leaving-cyclist-needing-pins-legs-ran-Jaguar.html0 -
Mr SO back in the land of the sensible there is always something to worry about on the economy. Currently it;s inflation.SouthamObserver said:
Hmmm - lower interest rates may well be one reason why people are splashing the cash and so helping to drive growth figures. If they go up and inflation returns then that could create serious problems. We need to be very careful.Alanbrooke said:
maybe the pound wouldnt have dropped quite so much if we hadnt cut interest rateslogical_song said:
Which follows from a big drop in the value of the pound.Alanbrooke said:
The GBP has been over valued for most of the last decadewilliamglenn said:
In your analogy the UK's economic performance is more akin to the company's revenues, not its share price, where you could more readily draw an analogy with the GBP exchange rate which as you know got hammered.TGOHF said:
FT : "Top CEO announces intention to stand down"Scott_P said:
We haven't announced we're leaving yet...TGOHF said:Scott is suggesting that if a top CE was to announce his retirement from a listed company, the share price wouldn't react until his last day in the office as well - "he hasn't quit yet"
We have said we will announce it. Maybe. In March. Depending on the court case. And Parliament.
We will definitely get right on it. At some point.
FT : "Share price unaffected as he hasn't handed letter to HR yet..."
in other news
record car sales
construction manufacturing and service PMIs rise
UK fastest growing G7 economy
etc.
It's good for the economy ..... for a while.
which of course was driven by the"experts" fucking up their forecasts
at least they now admit they got it wrong too many PB remainers cant
If we;d never had the vote today we would be worrying about some economic indicator and why it could be bad news for us all.0 -
Wouldn't the government just suspend all business to ensure it gets through very quickly? The Lord Speaker has already said they won't block it.williamglenn said:
It depends what the SC says is required. It may be simply impossible to get the legislation through parliament in a couple of months.RobD said:
Any indication that the government wont do A50 by end of March?williamglenn said:
No they passed a motion calling on the government to pull its finger out. If the government can get its ducks in a row in time it's their problem.RobD said:
Didn't the Commons just have a vote saying A50 must be declared by March?Scott_P said:
An advisory referendum in a representative democracy. Constitutionally irrelevant.MarkHopkins said:The decision was made last June.
0 -
Mr D,
"and that he went on to predict strong winds throughout the UK."
Indeed he did. Life can be cruel.
Mr T,
Sorry, but it is amusing, although it does have a "laughing at the loon" feel to it. But you're right, Brexit is coming soon enough and freedom beckons. No need to dwell on the nonsense Remainers' propaganda and pick at the scabs of delusion.0 -
williamglenn said:
Respecting the rule of law is ridiculous? If I were a Brexiteer, deriding our most enduring national competitive advantage wouldn't be my first priority.MarkHopkins said:Scott_P said:
An advisory referendum in a representative democracy. Constitutionally irrelevant.MarkHopkins said:The decision was made last June.
You are an AI robot, programmed to come up with the most ridiculous arguments ever.
And I claim my £5.
No. Trying to pretend the most important* British referendum for 40 years was a minor little opinion poll that can be gerrymandered away by waving your wand around and saying the word "constitutional" a few times, is ridiculous.
* Ignoring AV for obvious reasons.
0 -
It's not pleasant that he gets mocked, as if weathermen should always get their predictions right, but it's probably been good for him financially.CD13 said:I always felt sorry for Michael Fish. He made an honest prediction, got it wrong, admitted it, but has been mocked ever since.
Meanwhile, some people still think there is only one type of snow and that British Rail were wrong to say otherwise.
0 -
I never said that.Big_G_NorthWales said:I do not believe you mean that 34 million were misled into thinking their vote would not be relevant if some of the elite decide to reject the decision
The vote is constitutionally irrelevant. No amount of rhetoric can change that.
That doesn't mean it was politically irrelevant, but that wasn't the original claim0 -
Juncker backing Le Pen Presidency
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/06/brussels-punishing-britain-brexit-will-play-right-hands-says/0 -
Forgot Brexit...shouldn't we all discussing todays most important news in the BBC / Guardian sphere...Fabric is back open tonight.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/38513146/no-pleasure-for-fabric-boss-despite-clubs-return0 -
More handwringing in store for Frau Merkel
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/06/germany-sued-reparations-colonial-era-genocide-namibia/
0 -
Is it not possible for parliament to assert authority over the SC at any moment with new legislation?williamglenn said:
It depends what the SC says is required. It may be simply impossible to get the legislation through parliament in a couple of months.RobD said:
Any indication that the government wont do A50 by end of March?williamglenn said:
No they passed a motion calling on the government to pull its finger out. If the government can get its ducks in a row in time it's their problem.RobD said:
Didn't the Commons just have a vote saying A50 must be declared by March?Scott_P said:
An advisory referendum in a representative democracy. Constitutionally irrelevant.MarkHopkins said:The decision was made last June.
0 -
With respect it is a bit like dancing on a pin head - the result is politically relevant and that is all that mattersScott_P said:
I never said that.Big_G_NorthWales said:I do not believe you mean that 34 million were misled into thinking their vote would not be relevant if some of the elite decide to reject the decision
The vote is constitutionally irrelevant. No amount of rhetoric can change that.
That doesn't mean it was politically irrelevant, but that wasn't the original claim0 -
Would the Supreme Court go so far as to require that? I don't recall it being discussed in the ruling of the lower court.Scott_P said:
Depends what "it" is.RobD said:Wouldn't the government just suspend all business to ensure it gets through very quickly? The Lord Speaker has already said they won't block it.
A 2 line bill, maybe. Repeal of the 1972 Act, much harder.0 -
I'm not sure. Imagine the SC did say that repealing the 72 Act was required. Could Parliament really just legislate that it isn't?philiph said:
Is it not possible for parliament to assert authority over the SC at any moment with new legislation?williamglenn said:
It depends what the SC says is required. It may be simply impossible to get the legislation through parliament in a couple of months.RobD said:
Any indication that the government wont do A50 by end of March?williamglenn said:
No they passed a motion calling on the government to pull its finger out. If the government can get its ducks in a row in time it's their problem.RobD said:
Didn't the Commons just have a vote saying A50 must be declared by March?Scott_P said:
An advisory referendum in a representative democracy. Constitutionally irrelevant.MarkHopkins said:The decision was made last June.
0 -
We have to meet our constitutional requirements. The vote alone does not do that.Big_G_NorthWales said:the result is politically relevant and that is all that matters
Why is it so hard for Brexiteers to follow the rule of law?0 -
Lady Hale raised the possibility in her speech in Kuala Lumpur. Also the lower court wasn't asked to consider the Scottish question.RobD said:
Would the Supreme Court go so far as to require that? I don't recall it being discussed in the ruling of the lower court.Scott_P said:
Depends what "it" is.RobD said:Wouldn't the government just suspend all business to ensure it gets through very quickly? The Lord Speaker has already said they won't block it.
A 2 line bill, maybe. Repeal of the 1972 Act, much harder.0 -
But an AI robot would have a better access to maps of the geography of Birmingham and its environs. No, I fear Shirley_P is just a human. With all the horrors THAT entails.....MarkHopkins said:Scott_P said:
An advisory referendum in a representative democracy. Constitutionally irrelevant.MarkHopkins said:The decision was made last June.
You are an AI robot, programmed to come up with the most ridiculous arguments ever.
And I claim my £5.0 -
But it's not IN Birmingham, right?MarqueeMark said:But an AI robot would have a better access to maps of the geography of Birmingham and its environs.
0 -
Labour face an awful problem now.Black_Rook said:
Just been reading that myself. "So hapless in fact, he [Corbyn, of course] makes Iain Duncan Smith’s stewardship of the Conservative party seem a triumph of Bismarckian proportions." Nice.Floater said:Accurate - but not happy reading if you are a fan of the Labour party or even of having a semi competent and believable opposition.
https://capx.co/labour-is-ludicrous-but-its-no-laughing-matter/
The only way I think I could ever respect Labour again is if the sensible element broke away (because it doesn't look as if anybody's likely to get Corbyn to budge,) and set up a traditional moderate left party as an inheritor to Labour's traditions: standing up for working people, rather than pandering to the wretched North London set, with their identity politics obsessions and accommodating attitudes towards various rogue states and terrorist groups. I think that they might even do it, were they not terrified of the Corbyn rump retaining control of the name and, consequently, the entire habit/brand loyalty vote.
And yet, this is no time for dithering. Labour is effectively three parties - Southern, Northern/Welsh, and Scottish - living miserably together. Scottish Labour is probably already doomed. Northern Labour risks its own slow, lingering death, through association with the Southern Labour leadership and its madcap policies. If they want to survive then they need to be bold - because sitting on their arses and praying for a miracle is unlikely to yield either respect or results.
Southern Labour can probably live on indefinitely as a rump, catering for an unholy alliance of Champagne socialists and the Far Left. But it is bloody vile.
Not just the fact that Corbyn and his ilk are running (ruining?) things.
We have all been shown that Labour even if they get rid of him are susceptible to hard left takeover.
Want to risk that if they put someone allegedly competent and sane in charge?
Nope, not me either.0 -
If it was that important parliament would have legislated for it to be binding. Unlike the 2011 AV it didn't.MarkHopkins said:williamglenn said:
Respecting the rule of law is ridiculous? If I were a Brexiteer, deriding our most enduring national competitive advantage wouldn't be my first priority.MarkHopkins said:Scott_P said:
An advisory referendum in a representative democracy. Constitutionally irrelevant.MarkHopkins said:The decision was made last June.
You are an AI robot, programmed to come up with the most ridiculous arguments ever.
And I claim my £5.
No. Trying to pretend the most important* British referendum for 40 years was a minor little opinion poll that can be gerrymandered away by waving your wand around and saying the word "constitutional" a few times, is ridiculous.
* Ignoring AV for obvious reasons.
0 -
it takes some doing to live in a place for several years and not realise where you areMarqueeMark said:
But an AI robot would have a better access to maps of the geography of Birmingham and its environs. No, I fear Shirley_P is just a human. With all the horrors THAT entails.....MarkHopkins said:Scott_P said:
An advisory referendum in a representative democracy. Constitutionally irrelevant.MarkHopkins said:The decision was made last June.
You are an AI robot, programmed to come up with the most ridiculous arguments ever.
And I claim my £5.0 -
Can you stop brashly generalising everyone who voted leave? It's disgusting.Scott_P said:
We have to meet our constitutional requirements. The vote alone does not do that.Big_G_NorthWales said:the result is politically relevant and that is all that matters
Why is it so hard for Brexiteers to follow the rule of law?0 -
I voted remain but respect the democratic will of the people and just want to get on with it.Scott_P said:
We have to meet our constitutional requirements. The vote alone does not do that.Big_G_NorthWales said:the result is politically relevant and that is all that matters
Why is it so hard for Brexiteers to follow the rule of law?
HMG will follow the Supreme Court ruling and I doubt the judgement will create the constitutional crisis you seem to hope for0 -
Aren't you the one who kept claiming for years that the British people "don't give a monkey's" about the issue of the EU?MikeSmithson said:
If it was that important parliament would have legislated for it to be binding. Unlike the 2011 AV it didn't.MarkHopkins said:williamglenn said:
Respecting the rule of law is ridiculous? If I were a Brexiteer, deriding our most enduring national competitive advantage wouldn't be my first priority.MarkHopkins said:Scott_P said:
An advisory referendum in a representative democracy. Constitutionally irrelevant.MarkHopkins said:The decision was made last June.
You are an AI robot, programmed to come up with the most ridiculous arguments ever.
And I claim my £5.
No. Trying to pretend the most important* British referendum for 40 years was a minor little opinion poll that can be gerrymandered away by waving your wand around and saying the word "constitutional" a few times, is ridiculous.
* Ignoring AV for obvious reasons.0 -
I followed the road signs to Shirley. Amazingly I didn't end up in Solihull...Alanbrooke said:it takes some doing to live in a place for several years and not realise where you are
0 -
That's how all the big names make their money, brand recognition and a known product - even I'd the products known to be average, that's a starting point when in a strange town. Looking for an Italian, I'd prefer to seek out a chain like Strada though.TOPPING said:
Y but coming out of the train station, or parking at the hotel and walking into town, it's not immediately obvious which they are.FrancisUrquhart said:
There are two a penny meh Italian branded restaurants already. Alternatively, there are lots and lots of good mom and pop Italians up and down the country.TOPPING said:
A recognisable brand and confidence in a certain level of quality is often very compelling, especially in a new city or town.FrancisUrquhart said:
Why anybody would eat in a Jamie's (faux) Italian is beyond me. Not as if there is limited choice when it comes to Italian cuisine in the UK.Richard_Tyndall said:
I am amazed the Aberdeen one has stayed open so long. The city is at the tail end of a 2 year massive oil slump that has seen around 120,000 jobs lost in the UK sector. A huge number of those in and around Aberdeen.David_Evershed said:Despite still being in the EU .......
Celebrity chef Jamie Oliver is closing six of his 42 UK Jamie's Italian restaurants.
The Aberdeen, Cheltenham, Exeter, Tunbridge Wells and in London, the Ludgate and Richmond outlets are all scheduled to close soon.
A lot of these restaurants existed up there because of company expense accounts and people with huge amounts of disposable income. The last year has seen dozens close and Jamie's was not even one of the good ones.
That said, I still have no idea why people go to Angus Steak Houses, as noted on here previously.
"Celebrity" chefs often make the same mistake, of thinking that people will pay extra just for the name, even though he's never actually there. Gordon Ramsay had the same problem, of expecting people to think (and pay extra for) the food in a random restaurant with his name over the door would be as good as the food at the three-Michelin-star restaurant where he actually spends his evenings in the kitchen.0 -
perhps because you were in it alreadyScott_P said:
I followed the road signs to Shirley. Amazingly I didn't end up in Solihull...Alanbrooke said:it takes some doing to live in a place for several years and not realise where you are
or was it that Shirley is a suburb of Brexit ?
who can say?
life is strange in Scottland0 -
For those, like me, just catching up with the newspapers today, this is excellent on Labour's position:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/06/jeremy-corbyn-symptom-labour-party
0 -
If Parliament wants to interfere with fundamental rights, or to subvert the rule of law, it has to be specific, so that Parliamentarians understand what they are voting for and can face up to the political consequences.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I voted remain but respect the democratic will of the people and just want to get on with it.Scott_P said:
We have to meet our constitutional requirements. The vote alone does not do that.Big_G_NorthWales said:the result is politically relevant and that is all that matters
Why is it so hard for Brexiteers to follow the rule of law?
HMG will follow the Supreme Court ruling and I doubt the judgement will create the constitutional crisis you seem to hope for
Just as fundamental rights or the rule of law can only be abrogated by express statutory provision, a statute of fundamental constitutional importance, such as the European Communities Act 1972 itself, cannot be impliedly repealed or amended by a later ordinary statute. It has to be done expressly.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-161109.pdf0 -
MikeSmithson said:
If it was that important parliament would have legislated for it to be binding. Unlike the 2011 AV it didn't.MarkHopkins said:williamglenn said:
Respecting the rule of law is ridiculous? If I were a Brexiteer, deriding our most enduring national competitive advantage wouldn't be my first priority.MarkHopkins said:Scott_P said:
An advisory referendum in a representative democracy. Constitutionally irrelevant.MarkHopkins said:The decision was made last June.
You are an AI robot, programmed to come up with the most ridiculous arguments ever.
And I claim my £5.
No. Trying to pretend the most important* British referendum for 40 years was a minor little opinion poll that can be gerrymandered away by waving your wand around and saying the word "constitutional" a few times, is ridiculous.
* Ignoring AV for obvious reasons.
But the LibDems insisted the AV was made binding, worried that Tories might back out.
That wasn't necessary for the EU ref, since the same people who put up the referendum were expected to enact it.
0 -
Post 'rations' might be an idea.
Some people (one or two in particular) seem to be on here all day, every day, posting the same thing over and over again.0 -
Mr. NorthWales, any constitutional crisis would be worst for Labour.
UKIP are for leaving absolutely, the Conservatives will jump through whatever legal hoops are needed and the Lib Dems are for ignoring the electorate's vote. Labour's appealing to the 0% when it comes to the EU. The longer this is *the* issue of UK politics, the worse it is for the reds.
[Of course, there's a real chance the Conservatives could implode too. But so far, despite misgivings about May, that hasn't happened].0 -
People want £350 million extra a week for the NHS. They want the railways nationalised. If Labour shocked itself by finding someone to espouse left-wing policies who did not wince in the presence of a Union Jack they might just get a hearing. These are strange and volatile times.SeanT said:
Very true. Not only do Labour have to get rid of the rabid Corbyn dog, they then have to go into prolonged quarantine, to show that the Hard Lefty infection has gone forever, and will not return. With their membership as it is, that will be very hard.Floater said:
Labour face an awful problem now.Black_Rook said:
Just been reading that myself. "So hapless in fact, he [Corbyn, of course] makes Iain Duncan Smith’s stewardship of the Conservative party seem a triumph of Bismarckian proportions." Nice.Floater said:Accurate - but not happy reading if you are a fan of the Labour party or even of having a semi competent and believable opposition.
https://capx.co/labour-is-ludicrous-but-its-no-laughing-matter/
The only way I think I could ever respect Labour again is if the sensible element broke away (because it doesn't look as if anybody's likely to get Corbyn to budge,) and set up a traditional moderate left party as an inheritor to Labour's traditions: standing up for working people, rather than pandering to the wretched North London set, with their identity politics obsessions and accommodating attitudes towards various rogue states and terrorist groups. I think that they might even do it, were they not terrified of the Corbyn rump retaining control of the name and, consequently, the entire habit/brand loyalty vote.
And yet, this is no time for dithering. Labour is effectively three parties - Southern, Northern/Welsh, and Scottish - living miserably together. Scottish Labour is probably already doomed. Northern Labour risks its own slow, lingering death, through association with the Southern Labour leadership and its madcap policies. If they want to survive then they need to be bold - because sitting on their arses and praying for a miracle is unlikely to yield either respect or results.
Southern Labour can probably live on indefinitely as a rump, catering for an unholy alliance of Champagne socialists and the Far Left. But it is bloody vile.
Not just the fact that Corbyn and his ilk are running (ruining?) things.
We have all been shown that Labour even if they get rid of him are susceptible to hard left takeover.
Want to risk that if they put someone allegedly competent and sane in charge?
Nope, not me either.
0 -
Any update on when the ruling is due? The court is in recess until the 11th, but maybe we should expect it before it sits again?0
-
Is that the Supreme Court's ruling and if so when was it announcedwilliamglenn said:
If Parliament wants to interfere with fundamental rights, or to subvert the rule of law, it has to be specific, so that Parliamentarians understand what they are voting for and can face up to the political consequences.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I voted remain but respect the democratic will of the people and just want to get on with it.Scott_P said:
We have to meet our constitutional requirements. The vote alone does not do that.Big_G_NorthWales said:the result is politically relevant and that is all that matters
Why is it so hard for Brexiteers to follow the rule of law?
HMG will follow the Supreme Court ruling and I doubt the judgement will create the constitutional crisis you seem to hope for
Just as fundamental rights or the rule of law can only be abrogated by express statutory provision, a statute of fundamental constitutional importance, such as the European Communities Act 1972 itself, cannot be impliedly repealed or amended by a later ordinary statute. It has to be done expressly.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-161109.pdf0 -
Isn't it impossible for Parliament to subvert the law, since they make the law?williamglenn said:
If Parliament wants to interfere with fundamental rights, or to subvert the rule of law, it has to be specific, so that Parliamentarians understand what they are voting for and can face up to the political consequences.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I voted remain but respect the democratic will of the people and just want to get on with it.Scott_P said:
We have to meet our constitutional requirements. The vote alone does not do that.Big_G_NorthWales said:the result is politically relevant and that is all that matters
Why is it so hard for Brexiteers to follow the rule of law?
HMG will follow the Supreme Court ruling and I doubt the judgement will create the constitutional crisis you seem to hope for
Just as fundamental rights or the rule of law can only be abrogated by express statutory provision, a statute of fundamental constitutional importance, such as the European Communities Act 1972 itself, cannot be impliedly repealed or amended by a later ordinary statute. It has to be done expressly.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-161109.pdf0 -
No it's a speech made by one of the Supreme Court justices before the case was heard so might give an indication of the thinking.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Is that the Supreme Court's ruling and if so when was it announcedwilliamglenn said:
If Parliament wants to interfere with fundamental rights, or to subvert the rule of law, it has to be specific, so that Parliamentarians understand what they are voting for and can face up to the political consequences.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I voted remain but respect the democratic will of the people and just want to get on with it.Scott_P said:
We have to meet our constitutional requirements. The vote alone does not do that.Big_G_NorthWales said:the result is politically relevant and that is all that matters
Why is it so hard for Brexiteers to follow the rule of law?
HMG will follow the Supreme Court ruling and I doubt the judgement will create the constitutional crisis you seem to hope for
Just as fundamental rights or the rule of law can only be abrogated by express statutory provision, a statute of fundamental constitutional importance, such as the European Communities Act 1972 itself, cannot be impliedly repealed or amended by a later ordinary statute. It has to be done expressly.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-161109.pdf0 -
Big_G_NorthWales said:
Is that the Supreme Court's ruling and if so when was it announcedwilliamglenn said:
If Parliament wants to interfere with fundamental rights, or to subvert the rule of law, it has to be specific, so that Parliamentarians understand what they are voting for and can face up to the political consequences.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I voted remain but respect the democratic will of the people and just want to get on with it.Scott_P said:
We have to meet our constitutional requirements. The vote alone does not do that.Big_G_NorthWales said:the result is politically relevant and that is all that matters
Why is it so hard for Brexiteers to follow the rule of law?
HMG will follow the Supreme Court ruling and I doubt the judgement will create the constitutional crisis you seem to hope for
Just as fundamental rights or the rule of law can only be abrogated by express statutory provision, a statute of fundamental constitutional importance, such as the European Communities Act 1972 itself, cannot be impliedly repealed or amended by a later ordinary statute. It has to be done expressly.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-161109.pdf
Lecture :
The Supreme Court: Guardian of the Constitution?
Sultan Azlan Shah Lecture 2016, Kuala Lumpur
Lady Hale, Deputy President of the Supreme Court
9 November 2016
0 -
Yes, it absolutely is.rottenborough said:For those, like me, just catching up with the newspapers today, this is excellent on Labour's position:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/06/jeremy-corbyn-symptom-labour-party
0 -
Well I think we should all wait for the ruling as it is only a few weeks or even days away.williamglenn said:
No it's a speech made by one of the Supreme Court justices before the case was heard so might give an indication of the thinking.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Is that the Supreme Court's ruling and if so when was it announcedwilliamglenn said:
If Parliament wants to interfere with fundamental rights, or to subvert the rule of law, it has to be specific, so that Parliamentarians understand what they are voting for and can face up to the political consequences.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I voted remain but respect the democratic will of the people and just want to get on with it.Scott_P said:
We have to meet our constitutional requirements. The vote alone does not do that.Big_G_NorthWales said:the result is politically relevant and that is all that matters
Why is it so hard for Brexiteers to follow the rule of law?
HMG will follow the Supreme Court ruling and I doubt the judgement will create the constitutional crisis you seem to hope for
Just as fundamental rights or the rule of law can only be abrogated by express statutory provision, a statute of fundamental constitutional importance, such as the European Communities Act 1972 itself, cannot be impliedly repealed or amended by a later ordinary statute. It has to be done expressly.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-161109.pdf
Anything else is just unnecessary speculation0 -
Lady Hale would have been wise to have taken your adviceBig_G_NorthWales said:
Well I think we should all wait for the ruling as it is only a few weeks or even days away.williamglenn said:
No it's a speech made by one of the Supreme Court justices before the case was heard so might give an indication of the thinking.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Is that the Supreme Court's ruling and if so when was it announcedwilliamglenn said:
If Parliament wants to interfere with fundamental rights, or to subvert the rule of law, it has to be specific, so that Parliamentarians understand what they are voting for and can face up to the political consequences.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I voted remain but respect the democratic will of the people and just want to get on with it.Scott_P said:
We have to meet our constitutional requirements. The vote alone does not do that.Big_G_NorthWales said:the result is politically relevant and that is all that matters
Why is it so hard for Brexiteers to follow the rule of law?
HMG will follow the Supreme Court ruling and I doubt the judgement will create the constitutional crisis you seem to hope for
Just as fundamental rights or the rule of law can only be abrogated by express statutory provision, a statute of fundamental constitutional importance, such as the European Communities Act 1972 itself, cannot be impliedly repealed or amended by a later ordinary statute. It has to be done expressly.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-161109.pdf
Anything else is just unnecessary speculation
0 -
Indeed. A key, but often forgotten part of Kinnock's contribution was to be seen to be challenging the hard left and getting them visibly thrown out, rather than simply accommodated.SeanT said:
Very true. Not only do Labour have to get rid of the rabid Corbyn dog, they then have to go into prolonged quarantine, to show that the Hard Lefty infection has gone forever, and will not return. With their membership as it is, that will be very hard.Floater said:
Labour face an awful problem now.Black_Rook said:
Just been reading that myself. "So hapless in fact, he [Corbyn, of course] makes Iain Duncan Smith’s stewardship of the Conservative party seem a triumph of Bismarckian proportions." Nice.Floater said:Accurate - but not happy reading if you are a fan of the Labour party or even of having a semi competent and believable opposition.
https://capx.co/labour-is-ludicrous-but-its-no-laughing-matter/
The only way I think I could ever respect Labour again is if the sensible element broke away (because it doesn't look as if anybody's likely to get Corbyn to budge,) and set up a traditional moderate left party as an inheritor to Labour's traditions: standing up for working people, rather than pandering to the wretched North London set, with their identity politics obsessions and accommodating attitudes towards various rogue states and terrorist groups. I think that they might even do it, were they not terrified of the Corbyn rump retaining control of the name and, consequently, the entire habit/brand loyalty vote.
And yet, this is no time for dithering. Labour is effectively three parties - Southern, Northern/Welsh, and Scottish - living miserably together. Scottish Labour is probably already doomed. Northern Labour risks its own slow, lingering death, through association with the Southern Labour leadership and its madcap policies. If they want to survive then they need to be bold - because sitting on their arses and praying for a miracle is unlikely to yield either respect or results.
Southern Labour can probably live on indefinitely as a rump, catering for an unholy alliance of Champagne socialists and the Far Left. But it is bloody vile.
Not just the fact that Corbyn and his ilk are running (ruining?) things.
We have all been shown that Labour even if they get rid of him are susceptible to hard left takeover.
Want to risk that if they put someone allegedly competent and sane in charge?
Nope, not me either.
Obviously a few of the strain survived in the likes of Corbyn and Abbot.0 -
Totally agree SO many would vote for that.There are many on here to complacent to see that .SouthamObserver said:
People want £350 million extra a week for the NHS. They want the railways nationalised. If Labour shocked itself by finding someone to espouse left-wing policies who did not wince in the presence of a Union Jack they might just get a hearing. These are strange and volatile times.SeanT said:
Very true. Not only do Labour have to get rid of the rabid Corbyn dog, they then have to go into prolonged quarantine, to show that the Hard Lefty infection has gone forever, and will not return. With their membership as it is, that will be very hard.Floater said:
Labour face an awful problem now.Black_Rook said:
Just been reading that myself. "So hapless in fact, he [Corbyn, of course] makes Iain Duncan Smith’s stewardship of the Conservative party seem a triumph of Bismarckian proportions." Nice.Floater said:Accurate - but not happy reading if you are a fan of the Labour party or even of having a semi competent and believable opposition.
https://capx.co/labour-is-ludicrous-but-its-no-laughing-matter/
The only way I think I could ever respect Labour again is if the sensible element broke away (because it doesn't look as if anybody's likely to get Corbyn to budge,) and set up a traditional moderate left party as an inheritor to Labour's traditions: standing up for working people, rather than pandering to the wretched North London set, with their identity politics obsessions and accommodating attitudes towards various rogue states and terrorist groups. I think that they might even do it, were they not terrified of the Corbyn rump retaining control of the name and, consequently, the entire habit/brand loyalty vote.
And yet, this is no time for dithering. Labour is effectively three parties - Southern, Northern/Welsh, and Scottish - living miserably together. Scottish Labour is probably already doomed. Northern Labour risks its own slow, lingering death, through association with the Southern Labour leadership and its madcap policies. If they want to survive then they need to be bold - because sitting on their arses and praying for a miracle is unlikely to yield either respect or results.
Southern Labour can probably live on indefinitely as a rump, catering for an unholy alliance of Champagne socialists and the Far Left. But it is bloody vile.
Not just the fact that Corbyn and his ilk are running (ruining?) things.
We have all been shown that Labour even if they get rid of him are susceptible to hard left takeover.
Want to risk that if they put someone allegedly competent and sane in charge?
Nope, not me either.0 -
If...SouthamObserver said:
People want £350 million extra a week for the NHS. They want the railways nationalised. If Labour shocked itself by finding someone to espouse left-wing policies who did not wince in the presence of a Union Jack they might just get a hearing. These are strange and volatile times.SeanT said:
Very true. Not only do Labour have to get rid of the rabid Corbyn dog, they then have to go into prolonged quarantine, to show that the Hard Lefty infection has gone forever, and will not return. With their membership as it is, that will be very hard.Floater said:Labour face an awful problem now.
Not just the fact that Corbyn and his ilk are running (ruining?) things.
We have all been shown that Labour even if they get rid of him are susceptible to hard left takeover.
Want to risk that if they put someone allegedly competent and sane in charge?
Nope, not me either.
Meanwhile:
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/817318273108897793
Regarding *that* NHS pledge, it wasn't made either by the Government or this Prime Minister, but I have a funny feeling that the money will be found down the back of Philip Hammond's sofa at some point between now and 2020. As for rail renationalisation, bad idea and irrelevant to the overwhelming majority of voters.0 -
Yes, a very good piece. Unfortunately for Labour, not only are they still travelling in completely the wrong direction toward electability, but they still look like they a lot more travelling to do before they realise their mistake and turn around.SouthamObserver said:
Yes, it absolutely is.rottenborough said:For those, like me, just catching up with the newspapers today, this is excellent on Labour's position:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/06/jeremy-corbyn-symptom-labour-party0 -
People want £350 million extra a week for the NHS. They want the railways nationalised. If Labour shocked itself by finding someone to espouse left-wing policies who did not wince in the presence of a Union Jack they might just get a hearing. These are strange and volatile times.
Totally agree SO many would vote for that.There are many on here to complacent to see that .
As much as I dislike Sky's misery and doom coverage of events there is an article online by Ian King their economics editor who makes a strong pro privitisation and anti nationalisation case for the railways. It is worth a read0 -
Damning. Mr 'I thought I'd be rather good at it' wasn't up to it.SeanT said:My pal saw Dave a couple of months ago, and reports that - far from being downcast - Dave and Sam Cam are in fine fettle, and feel liberated from a role they no longer really wanted.
Intriguing.0 -
Alright, who are the Tories who think Corbyn would make a better PM?0
-
+1SeanT said:A ban on the burqa is pretty much perfect. And can be sold as a feminist gesture, too.
That's the area Labour should be looking at.
Corbyn's more likely to think of a unexpected gesture like denouncing FARC instead though.0 -
Labour won't ban the burkha. Bikinis in adverts, perhaps.
Edited extra bit: they might propose it in a decade or so, as suggested, but if it happens it's a long way off.0 -
Seant interesting thought he always wanted to be PM because he would be good at it.SeanT said:
No one is complacent. One day a leftwing government will return to Westminster. I just can't see it happening before 2025, barring a black swan; the maths (and Scotland) make it almost impossible.Yorkcity said:
Totally agree SO many would vote for that.There are many on here to complacent to see that .SouthamObserver said:
People want £350 million extra a week for the NHS. They want the railways nationalised. If Labour shocked itself by finding someone to espouse left-wing policies who did not wince in the presence of a Union Jack they might just get a hearing. These are strange and volatile times.SeanT said:
Very true. Not only do Labour have to get rid of the rabid Corbyn dog, they then have to go into prolonged quarantine, to show that the Hard Lefty infection has gone forever, and will not return. With their membership as it is, that will be very hard.Floater said:
Labour face an awful problem now.Black_Rook said:
Just been reading that myself. "So hapless in fact, he [Corbyn, of course] makes Iain Duncan Smith’s stewardship of the Conservative party seem a triumph of Bismarckian proportions." Nice.Floater said:Accurate - but not happy reading if you are a fan of the Labour party or even of having a semi competent and believable opposition.
https://capx.co/labour-is-ludicrous-but-its-no-laughing-matter/
Southern Labour can probably live on indefinitely as a rump, catering for an unholy alliance of Champagne socialists and the Far Left. But it is bloody vile.
Not just the fact that Corbyn and his ilk are running (ruining?) things.
We have all been shown that Labour even if they get rid of him are susceptible to hard left takeover.
Want to risk that if they put someone allegedly competent and sane in charge?
Nope, not me either.
But as SO says, these are strange times. A hideously botched Brexit could change things.
Incidentally I just had lunch with a friend who is, in turn, a friend of Dave Cameron.
My pal saw Dave a couple of months ago, and reports that - far from being downcast - Dave and Sam Cam are in fine fettle, and feel liberated from a role they no longer really wanted.
Intriguing.0 -
Nikki MorganRobD said:Alright, who are the Tories who think Corbyn would make a better PM?
0 -
Mr. T, how many more burkha-wearing Labour voters will there be by then? With each passing year it becomes less likely.0
This discussion has been closed.