Nuttall reaches a tearfully toddleresque end stage after having exhausted all other possibilities in trying to avoid taking responsibility for his words and actions.
"Let's be clear: because she's a black journalist. All black people must know each other, right"
Seriously?
She is black. And Trump asked if she was friends with the CBC.
I think you are trying wayyyy to hard to take offence.
Why would it offend me?! Are you crazy?
I just noted that you were relating highly spun negative views of Trump. But the quote that I posted of yours implied that Trump thinks all black people know each other, which I find a ludicrous proposition. More likely she tried to make out he wasn't including minorities, and he shut her up by saying I'd love to, and as it turned out, she IS friends with them, so a happy ending
Corbyn might be just as left wing as McDonnell in theory, but he'd be too busy with irrelevancies/incompetent to do nearly as much damage as McD if he ever somehow became PM.
I doubt McDonnell spends much time making jam from his allotment berries...
McDonnell is a hardline, disciplined Trot who has never done this as a game. Corbyn is a privileged son of the middle class who has been playing his entire political life.
If anything, McDonnell is even more disliked inside the PLP. I suspect that if he did somehow find his way to the leadership it would presage a split.
Or...an immediate challenge.
He can't get to the leadership without a members' vote. If the members back a hard-line Trot, then the game is up for the PLP and anyone else that is interested in an electable Labour party. At that stage, the sensible thing is to walk away.
SO how would you rate Jon Ashworth chances ?
Oh God, how am I suppose to stay greenish on this book when new names keep being floated.
You will never stay green on a market like this by just betting. Because even if you back everyone on the list, the next person added to the market will be a large red. They key is to do some laying as well, preferably on someone you backed at high odds whose price has fallen.
That's the plan. Not many have fallen so far iirc.
Mr. Chestnut, well quite. Expecting retail sales to rise from December to January seems a little contrary to history and reason.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Eagles, cheers.
The fall in retail sales was both month on month and quarter on quarter. As for historical values over the Christmas period, last years value was +2.3%, so a fall in this month is unexpected.
The quarterly value of sales rose, Jonathan.
The quarterly comparison of money spent/value to the same period last year was a 4.9% increase.
So the fake news here is that O'Brien incorrectly introduced an interviewee, who was then able to make the necessary correction and proceed with the interview.
So it seems. More of a smear/misdirection than fake I would say. Similar to the tweets ScottP related on Trump from Mehdi Hassan last night
Not up to your Gina Miller photo's I grant you!
I agree with you that being accused of writing for Breitbart should be regarded as a smear. But in this instance, it seems as if the interviewee had the immediate chance to correct the statement and was not then challenged for doing so. Looks like a cock-up to me and one being confected into something more sinister by a little snowflake.
O'Brien has done this before, have you never listened to his LBC show? Or can people like him do no wrong because you agree with his politics, just as you think The Sun black up photos because you disagree with theirs?
I have never listened to his LBC show, but I am not surprised that he gets something wrong about an interviewee every now and again. It happens. If the interviewee is given the opportunity to correct, then I don't see a huge problem.
He doesn't jusr get things wrong now or then, he lies. He is one of the most dishonest commentators broadcasting today. And obviously that is saying something.
He looks to be a left of centre commentator who is very good at doing what a lot of right of centre commentators do. I can see why right wingers would hate him.
So the fake news here is that O'Brien incorrectly introduced an interviewee, who was then able to make the necessary correction and proceed with the interview.
So it seems. More of a smear/misdirection than fake I would say. Similar to the tweets ScottP related on Trump from Mehdi Hassan last night
Not up to your Gina Miller photo's I grant you!
I agree with you that being accused of writing for Breitbart should be regarded as a smear. But in this instance, it seems as if the interviewee had the immediate chance to correct the statement and was not then challenged for doing so. Looks like a cock-up to me and one being confected into something more sinister by a little snowflake.
O'Brien has done this before, have you never listened to his LBC show? Or can people like him do no wrong because you agree with his politics, just as you think The Sun black up photos because you disagree with theirs?
I have never listened to his LBC show, but I am not surprised that he gets something wrong about an interviewee every now and again. It happens. If the interviewee is given the opportunity to correct, then I don't see a huge problem.
He doesn't jusr get things wrong now or then, he lies. He is one of the most dishonest commentators broadcasting today. And obviously that is saying something.
He looks to be a left of centre commentator who is very good at doing what a lot of right of centre commentators do. I can see why right wingers would hate him.
So the fake news here is that O'Brien incorrectly introduced an interviewee, who was then able to make the necessary correction and proceed with the interview.
So it seems. More of a smear/misdirection than fake I would say. Similar to the tweets ScottP related on Trump from Mehdi Hassan last night
Not up to your Gina Miller photo's I grant you!
I agree with you that being accused of writing for Breitbart should be regarded as a smear. But in this instance, it seems as if the interviewee had the immediate chance to correct the statement and was not then challenged for doing so. Looks like a cock-up to me and one being confected into something more sinister by a little snowflake.
O'Brien has done this before, have you never listened to his LBC show? Or can people like him do no wrong because you agree with his politics, just as you think The Sun black up photos because you disagree with theirs?
I have never listened to his LBC show, but I am not surprised that he gets something wrong about an interviewee every now and again. It happens. If the interviewee is given the opportunity to correct, then I don't see a huge problem.
He doesn't jusr get things wrong now or then, he lies. He is one of the most dishonest commentators broadcasting today. And obviously that is saying something.
Nonsense. He is pretty much the only intelligent talk show host and if you listen to his show regularly it generates moments of real insight.
We only joined thanks to the Economics argument, and hoped (vainly) that the Political side could be avoided.
That may be your view and the view of a section of the elite which sadly grew over the last few decades, but is a completely inadequate reading of the politics of the 60s and 70s. We joined for political reasons, of which being able a sane economy was just one of a long list.
You are half way to enlightenment in realising that their is no real economic case for Brexit. What still awaits you is the realisation it is the political side of the EU that we needed more than anything, and that there will be severe political costs to stepping aside. What happens to the economy is a side issue.
Britain's economy in the early 1970s was broken.
The countries of the EEC had done much, much better than the UK in the preceding decade, and had caught up, and even surpassed us on most metrics.
The government picked economic winners (badly), while unions were very short sighted, bringing down a number of profitable firms.
We thought that the difference between Germany's economic fate and ours, was that they were members of the EEC. Obviously that wasn't true.
But look, I have a very counter-consensus view on the Eurozone economy in the next ten years to the PB consensus. I suspect that - absent a major political shock - it will substantially outgrow the UK, as it gets into a virtuous circle of falling savings rates boosting growth, boosting confidence pulling down the savings rate. Countries like Spain - which have modernised their economies - could well see a decade of 3% growth ahead of them.
I see both Brexit and Trump coming about because of a period of economic stagnation, and ironically just about as we exit stagnation. Over the lSt year there are real signs of economic recovery in China and the EZ as well as here and the USA. I am not yet sure whether tbis is very good timing (smoothing the bumps) or very bad timing pushing us back into recession.
I agree with rcs. Unlike the US, UK, Japan, and a minority of the EU countries like Greece, core EU nations haven't over-relied upon debt, public or private, and many of their companies are in great shape irrespective of the politics. For investing, Europe, Japan and select emerging markets are likely to be the places to be for 2017-18, not the UK or US.
We only joined thanks to the Economics argument, and hoped (vainly) that the Political side could be avoided.
That may be your view and the view of a section of the elite which sadly grew over the last few decades, but is a completely inadequate reading of the politics of the 60s and 70s. We joined for political reasons, of which being able a sane economy was just one of a long list.
You are half way to enlightenment in realising that their is no real economic case for Brexit. What still awaits you is the realisation it is the political side of the EU that we needed more than anything, and that there will be severe political costs to stepping aside. What happens to the economy is a side issue.
Britain's economy in the early 1970s was broken.
The countries of the EEC had done much, much better than the UK in the preceding decade, and had caught up, and even surpassed us on most metrics.
The government picked economic winners (badly), while unions were very short sighted, bringing down a number of profitable firms.
We thought that the difference between Germany's economic fate and ours, was that they were members of the EEC. Obviously that wasn't true.
But look, I have a very counter-consensus view on the Eurozone economy in the next ten years to the PB consensus. I suspect that - absent a major political shock - it will substantially outgrow the UK, as it gets into a virtuous circle of falling savings rates boosting growth, boosting confidence pulling down the savings rate. Countries like Spain - which have modernised their economies - could well see a decade of 3% growth ahead of them.
I see both Brexit and Trump coming about because of a period of economic stagnation, and ironically just about as we exit stagnation. Over the lSt year there are real signs of economic recovery in China and the EZ as well as here and the USA. I am not yet sure whether tbis is very good timing (smoothing the bumps) or very bad timing pushing us back into recession.
I agree with rcs. Unlike the US, UK, Japan, and a minority of the EU countries like Greece, core EU nations haven't over-relied upon debt, public or private, and many of their companies are in great shape irrespective of the politics. For investing, Europe, Japan and select emerging markets are likely to be the places to be for 2017-18, not the UK or US.
I'm a cautious investor, widely diversified. 2016 was a fantastic year, by recent standards. Bearing in mind the FTSE 100 rose by ~19%, I'm still delighted when I get a double digit return.
He suggests in early 2019, after the Brexit deal has been agreed but before it takes effect.
Trouble is it won't be agreed until the last possible moment.
If then.
If the SNP do press for a second referendum (and as I've previously argued I think they should) Theresa May has an awkward hand to play. Just saying no is going to look very high-handed.
He suggests in early 2019, after the Brexit deal has been agreed but before it takes effect.
Trouble is it won't be agreed until the last possible moment.
If then.
If the SNP do press for a second referendum (and as I've previously argued I think they should) Theresa May has an awkward hand to play. Just saying no is going to look very high-handed.
She can say: "Yes. After Brexit."
It would be incredibly damaging to try and do it at the same time.
He suggests in early 2019, after the Brexit deal has been agreed but before it takes effect.
Trouble is it won't be agreed until the last possible moment.
If then.
If the SNP do press for a second referendum (and as I've previously argued I think they should) Theresa May has an awkward hand to play. Just saying no is going to look very high-handed.
The PM could quote Alex Salmond that the next Indyref2 should be 18 years after the last.
Be a cold day in Hell when I get lectured by Tony Blair on the truth.....
If Blair is really as toxic and irrelevant as his critics aver, there’d be no need for all this fury. Blood vessels could remain unburst and eyes unpopped. The reaction to Blair’s speech suggests something else. It suggests that he must have a point. The very virulence of the manner in which his speech has been traduced hints at some dark but gnawing fear deep within the Brexit psyche: the fear of being found out. Because if that weren’t the case you could just greet Blair’s remarks with a shrug.
He suggests in early 2019, after the Brexit deal has been agreed but before it takes effect.
Trouble is it won't be agreed until the last possible moment.
If then.
If the SNP do press for a second referendum (and as I've previously argued I think they should) Theresa May has an awkward hand to play. Just saying no is going to look very high-handed.
Perhaps the only route for May would be to 'take back control' and legislate in Westminster for a referendum where she would control the timing.
It would be incredibly damaging to try and do it at the same time.
Or, more tactfully, she can follow the suggestion of David Clegg and say, "Yes, as soon as practical after the exit deal is agreed." It would be extremely hard for the SNP to argue against that, because they are the ones who are saying the terms of the Brexit deal are crucial.
In practice, of course, "as soon as practical after the exit deal is agreed" means many months after the Article 50 period has ended.
Edit: It occurs to me that Nicola Sturgeon has given a rather handy weapon to the PM, which can be used against any Tory (or other English) MPs trying to sabotage or diss the final deal.
We only joined thanks to the Economics argument, and hoped (vainly) that the Political side could be avoided.
You are half way to enlightenment in realising that their is no real economic case for Brexit. What still awaits you is the realisation it is the political side of the EU that we needed more than anything, and that there will be severe political costs to stepping aside. What happens to the economy is a side issue.
Britain's economy in the early 1970s was broken.
The countries of the EEC had done much, much better than the UK in the preceding decade, and had caught up, and even surpassed us on most metrics.
The government picked economic winners (badly), while unions were very short sighted, bringing down a number of profitable firms.
We thought that the difference between Germany's economic fate and ours, was that they were members of the EEC. Obviously that wasn't true.
But look, I have a very counter-consensus view on the Eurozone economy in the next ten years to the PB consensus. I suspect that - absent a major political shock - it will substantially outgrow the UK, as it gets into a virtuous circle of falling savings rates boosting growth, boosting confidence pulling down the savings rate. Countries like Spain - which have modernised their economies - could well see a decade of 3% growth ahead of them.
I see both Brexit and Trump coming about because of a period of economic stagnation, and ironically just about as we exit stagnation. Over the lSt year there are real signs of economic recovery in China and the EZ as well as here and the USA. I am not yet sure whether tbis is very good timing (smoothing the bumps) or very bad timing pushing us back into recession.
I agree with rcs. Unlike the US, UK, Japan, and a minority of the EU countries like Greece, core EU nations haven't over-relied upon debt, public or private, and many of their companies are in great shape irrespective of the politics. For investing, Europe, Japan and select emerging markets are likely to be the places to be for 2017-18, not the UK or US.
I'm a cautious investor, widely diversified. 2016 was a fantastic year, by recent standards. Bearing in mind the FTSE 100 rose by ~19%, I'm still delighted when I get a double digit return.
Looking for similar this year. Fingers crossed .
A shame there isn't a Democratic President, then, since history suggests markets tank under Republicans. I doubt you'll get even a positive return from the FTSE this year.
Be a cold day in Hell when I get lectured by Tony Blair on the truth.....
If Blair is really as toxic and irrelevant as his critics aver, there’d be no need for all this fury. Blood vessels could remain unburst and eyes unpopped. The reaction to Blair’s speech suggests something else. It suggests that he must have a point. The very virulence of the manner in which his speech has been traduced hints at some dark but gnawing fear deep within the Brexit psyche: the fear of being found out. Because if that weren’t the case you could just greet Blair’s remarks with a shrug.
QED
Obviously you are capable of being very relaxed about the murder of six figure numbers of brown people. Many of us are not, and it rather colours our response to anything Blair says about anything.
Be a cold day in Hell when I get lectured by Tony Blair on the truth.....
If Blair is really as toxic and irrelevant as his critics aver, there’d be no need for all this fury. Blood vessels could remain unburst and eyes unpopped. The reaction to Blair’s speech suggests something else. It suggests that he must have a point. The very virulence of the manner in which his speech has been traduced hints at some dark but gnawing fear deep within the Brexit psyche: the fear of being found out. Because if that weren’t the case you could just greet Blair’s remarks with a shrug.
Be a cold day in Hell when I get lectured by Tony Blair on the truth.....
If Blair is really as toxic and irrelevant as his critics aver, there’d be no need for all this fury. Blood vessels could remain unburst and eyes unpopped. The reaction to Blair’s speech suggests something else. It suggests that he must have a point. The very virulence of the manner in which his speech has been traduced hints at some dark but gnawing fear deep within the Brexit psyche: the fear of being found out. Because if that weren’t the case you could just greet Blair’s remarks with a shrug.
QED
Fuck off. Please. Just fuck right off.
I was never a Blair supporter, even in 1997, but the one thing no-one can deny is that he gets under the skin of his opponents like nobody else.
If Blair sticks at it over the next two years and we see him in vintage opposition mode I would forgive him all his past mistakes.
We only joined thanks to the Economics argument, and hoped (vainly) that the Political side could be avoided.
You are half way to enlightenment in realising that their is no real economic case for Brexit. What still awaits you is the realisation it is the political side of the EU that we needed more than anything, and that there will be severe political costs to stepping aside. What happens to the economy is a side issue.
Britain's economy in the early 1970s was broken.
The countries of the EEC had done much, much better than the UK in the preceding decade, and had caught up, and even surpassed us on most metrics.
The government picked economic winners (badly), while unions were very short sighted, bringing down a number of profitable firms.
We thought that the difference between Germany's economic fate and ours, was that they were members of the EEC. Obviously that wasn't true.
But look, I have a very counter-consensus view on the Eurozone economy in the next ten years to the PB consensus. I suspect that - absent a major political shock - it will substantially outgrow the UK, as it gets into a virtuous circle of falling savings rates boosting growth, boosting confidence pulling down the savings rate. Countries like Spain - which have modernised their economies - could well see a decade of 3% growth ahead of them.
I see both Brexit and Trump coming about because of a period of economic stagnation, and ironically just about as we exit stagnation. Over the lSt year there are real signs of economic recovery in China and the EZ as well as here and the USA. I am not yet sure whether tbis is very good timing (smoothing the bumps) or very bad timing pushing us back into recession.
I'm a cautious investor, widely diversified. 2016 was a fantastic year, by recent standards. Bearing in mind the FTSE 100 rose by ~19%, I'm still delighted when I get a double digit return.
Looking for similar this year. Fingers crossed .
A shame there isn't a Democratic President, then, since history suggests markets tank under Republicans. I doubt you'll get even a positive return from the FTSE this year.
My eggs aren't in one basket. It's just that equities did very well last year. Nothing more profound than that. It's the equivalent of making the horns against evil. Didn't want @rcs1000 pointing out that my wealth manager under-performed against the major indices .
Be a cold day in Hell when I get lectured by Tony Blair on the truth.....
If Blair is really as toxic and irrelevant as his critics aver, there’d be no need for all this fury. Blood vessels could remain unburst and eyes unpopped. The reaction to Blair’s speech suggests something else. It suggests that he must have a point. The very virulence of the manner in which his speech has been traduced hints at some dark but gnawing fear deep within the Brexit psyche: the fear of being found out. Because if that weren’t the case you could just greet Blair’s remarks with a shrug.
QED
Fuck off. Please. Just fuck right off.
I was never a Blair supporter, even in 1997, but the one thing no-one can deny is that he gets under the skin of his opponents like nobody else.
If Blair sticks at it over the next two years and we see him in vintage opposition mode I would forgive him all his past mistakes.
Be a cold day in Hell when I get lectured by Tony Blair on the truth.....
If Blair is really as toxic and irrelevant as his critics aver, there’d be no need for all this fury. Blood vessels could remain unburst and eyes unpopped. The reaction to Blair’s speech suggests something else. It suggests that he must have a point. The very virulence of the manner in which his speech has been traduced hints at some dark but gnawing fear deep within the Brexit psyche: the fear of being found out. Because if that weren’t the case you could just greet Blair’s remarks with a shrug.
QED
No fury here, this Brexiteer finds Blair's intervention very amusing.
Be a cold day in Hell when I get lectured by Tony Blair on the truth.....
If Blair is really as toxic and irrelevant as his critics aver, there’d be no need for all this fury. Blood vessels could remain unburst and eyes unpopped. The reaction to Blair’s speech suggests something else. It suggests that he must have a point. The very virulence of the manner in which his speech has been traduced hints at some dark but gnawing fear deep within the Brexit psyche: the fear of being found out. Because if that weren’t the case you could just greet Blair’s remarks with a shrug.
QED
Obviously you are capable of being very relaxed about the murder of six figure numbers of brown people. Many of us are not, and it rather colours our response to anything Blair says about anything.
He only did what the Tories were egging him on to do and what they would have done were they in office. People are very happy to say Theresa May has no choice but to do whatever Trump or the US administration demands to maintain our special relationship yet when Blair did just that he became a pariah.
Be a cold day in Hell when I get lectured by Tony Blair on the truth.....
If Blair is really as toxic and irrelevant as his critics aver, there’d be no need for all this fury. Blood vessels could remain unburst and eyes unpopped. The reaction to Blair’s speech suggests something else. It suggests that he must have a point. The very virulence of the manner in which his speech has been traduced hints at some dark but gnawing fear deep within the Brexit psyche: the fear of being found out. Because if that weren’t the case you could just greet Blair’s remarks with a shrug.
QED
No fury here, this Brexiteer finds Blair's intervention very amusing.
I do hope they run approval ratings for Blair again - so we can see how this intervention has resurrected his dire ratings......
Memories of Iraq may mean today’s impressive performance was just too brittle, too late.
As the Remainer audience slowly departed from the windowless room in the bowels of Bloomberg, it was worth remembering that this was an impressively glitzy City bunker. But a bunker nevertheless.
Be a cold day in Hell when I get lectured by Tony Blair on the truth.....
If Blair is really as toxic and irrelevant as his critics aver, there’d be no need for all this fury. Blood vessels could remain unburst and eyes unpopped. The reaction to Blair’s speech suggests something else. It suggests that he must have a point. The very virulence of the manner in which his speech has been traduced hints at some dark but gnawing fear deep within the Brexit psyche: the fear of being found out. Because if that weren’t the case you could just greet Blair’s remarks with a shrug.
QED
I'm sure there are a lot of people, like me, who will never forgive Blair for his brown-nosing Bush over Iraq, and the consequent suffering and death. However, he wasn't all bad and on this he's right; we are entitled to a say on the final deal. Irrespective of the details of the legalities, surely we're entitled to that!
Be a cold day in Hell when I get lectured by Tony Blair on the truth.....
If Blair is really as toxic and irrelevant as his critics aver, there’d be no need for all this fury. Blood vessels could remain unburst and eyes unpopped. The reaction to Blair’s speech suggests something else. It suggests that he must have a point. The very virulence of the manner in which his speech has been traduced hints at some dark but gnawing fear deep within the Brexit psyche: the fear of being found out. Because if that weren’t the case you could just greet Blair’s remarks with a shrug.
QED
Fuck off. Please. Just fuck right off.
I was never a Blair supporter, even in 1997, but the one thing no-one can deny is that he gets under the skin of his opponents like nobody else.
If Blair sticks at it over the next two years and we see him in vintage opposition mode I would forgive him all his past mistakes.
Great to see Tony Blair back. Even in his dotage he make the rest of them look like minnows.
Lets see if the 48% can be mobilized. I have a feeling he's going to make a difference
It was refreshing.
Watching the Trump love-in on here last night I got a sense of the new right-wing transatlantic alliance. Not helped I admit by Netanyahu and Trump posing as mating slugs. Yes. He was refreshing.
Comments
She is black. And Trump asked if she was friends with the CBC.
I think you are trying wayyyy to hard to take offence.
I just noted that you were relating highly spun negative views of Trump. But the quote that I posted of yours implied that Trump thinks all black people know each other, which I find a ludicrous proposition. More likely she tried to make out he wasn't including minorities, and he shut her up by saying I'd love to, and as it turned out, she IS friends with them, so a happy ending
Still, as long as it's someone you disagree with who cares?!
https://twitter.com/michaellcrick/status/832519093609705472
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4233840/Hospital-porter-sacked-stealing-sandwich-reinstated.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailUK#ixzz4YvUdEPlt
Sacked? Hung, drawn, and quartered surely.
Cooper was, and is, however, immensely disappointing. An empty vessel, pleasant though she may be.
1
Perhaps the bait to catch the leaker - don't journo's watch GoT ?
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/like-death-taxes-shambolic-management-9832446
He suggests in early 2019, after the Brexit deal has been agreed but before it takes effect.
Looking for similar this year. Fingers crossed
The SNP are discovering political gravity - they are well on the turn.
If the SNP do press for a second referendum (and as I've previously argued I think they should) Theresa May has an awkward hand to play. Just saying no is going to look very high-handed.
She can say: "Yes. After Brexit."
It would be incredibly damaging to try and do it at the same time.
QED
In practice, of course, "as soon as practical after the exit deal is agreed" means many months after the Article 50 period has ended.
Edit: It occurs to me that Nicola Sturgeon has given a rather handy weapon to the PM, which can be used against any Tory (or other English) MPs trying to sabotage or diss the final deal.
Lets see if the 48% can be mobilized. I have a feeling he's going to make a difference
A lawyer in Australia has been sent a shirt decorated with ejaculating penises from her tailor, after a legal spat.
http://www.rollonfriday.com/TheNews/AsiaNews/tabid/359/Id/4984/fromTab/359/currentIndex/1/Default.aspx
If Blair sticks at it over the next two years and we see him in vintage opposition mode I would forgive him all his past mistakes.
new thread
As the Remainer audience slowly departed from the windowless room in the bowels of Bloomberg, it was worth remembering that this was an impressively glitzy City bunker. But a bunker nevertheless.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/tony-blair-brexit-warning-bloomberg-analysis-of-comeback-tour-guitar-solo_uk_58a71c21e4b045cd34c0fbba?