politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Nearly of third of current LAB voters not sure that Corbyn wou

philiph said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

...

Interesting that Belgium's leading University has revealed 1.2 million ordinary EU citizens will lose their jobs if there is no compromise. ...

Do you have a link for that?

Article in Daily Express on line

Did the Express article mention the 500,000+ UK job losses?

Yes

The study confirms that in all scenarios the UK comes out worse and with hard Brexit it comes out much worse. If the Express reported that, fair play.

The Express reported the EU and the UK loses.

Of course the UK will come out worse but tell that to the 1.2 million EU workers and their families if you think it will console them

Of course it won't. But the point is leverage in negotiations. This study confirms the UK has little to none.

Best give up and go home then.

Had to laugh at the idea that 1.2million unemployed can just be ignored. We’d both hugely benefit from a free trade agreement.

surbiton said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

surbiton said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

williamglenn said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

1.2 million European job loses, 500,000+ UK and over 42,000 in Denmark. Goodness only knows how many German jobs are under threat.

Threatened by a political decision of the Tory party to interpret the referendum as a mandate to leave the single market. The pressure on them to reverse that decision will become unbearable.

The mandate was to leave the EU and you cannot do that while in the single market

Norway is in the single market and they are not in the EU.

And free movement which is the red line

But you said that it is not possible to be out of the EU and in the single market. I said Norway did. I do not recall there was any mention of FoM on the ballot paper.

You are really being silly - free movement and control of our laws was the number one reason for leaving

Pulpstar said:

surbiton said:

There is a new ICM poll. I don't know how much we can rely on them.

If they're still using the same methodology as for the GE, subtract 4 from the Tories and add 6 to Labour...

They've reverted to the pre GE 2015 methodology.

RobD said:

philiph said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

...

Interesting that Belgium's leading University has revealed 1.2 million ordinary EU citizens will lose their jobs if there is no compromise. ...

Do you have a link for that?

Article in Daily Express on line

Did the Express article mention the 500,000+ UK job losses?

Yes

The study confirms that in all scenarios the UK comes out worse and with hard Brexit it comes out much worse. If the Express reported that, fair play.

The Express reported the EU and the UK loses.

Of course the UK will come out worse but tell that to the 1.2 million EU workers and their families if you think it will console them

Of course it won't. But the point is leverage in negotiations. This study confirms the UK has little to none.

Best give up and go home then.

Had to laugh at the idea that 1.2million unemployed can just be ignored. We’d both hugely benefit from a free trade agreement.

Which is why we are currently in one!

Which we have chosen to leave. The EU is not at fault there.

Any deal inc Transition has to be passed by the European parliament as well as our own by March 2019. If not then WTO brexit applies.

WTO tariff quotas sound as if they would take years:

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/12/15/if-liam-fox-messes-up-we-re-all-in-deep-trouble

foxinsoxuk said:

RobD said:

philiph said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

...

Interesting that Belgium's leading University has revealed 1.2 million ordinary EU citizens will lose their jobs if there is no compromise. ...

Do you have a link for that?

Article in Daily Express on line

Did the Express article mention the 500,000+ UK job losses?

Yes

The study confirms that in all scenarios the UK comes out worse and with hard Brexit it comes out much worse. If the Express reported that, fair play.

The Express reported the EU and the UK loses.

Of course the UK will come out worse but tell that to the 1.2 million EU workers and their families if you think it will console them

Of course it won't. But the point is leverage in negotiations. This study confirms the UK has little to none.

Best give up and go home then.

Had to laugh at the idea that 1.2million unemployed can just be ignored. We’d both hugely benefit from a free trade agreement.

Which is why we are currently in one!

Which we have chosen to leave. The EU is not at fault there.

Any deal inc Transition has to be passed by the European parliament as well as our own by March 2019. If not then WTO brexit applies.

WTO tariff quotas sound as if they would take years:

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/12/15/if-liam-fox-messes-up-we-re-all-in-deep-trouble

Ah, so they need to teach us a lesson before offering the same kind of deal that they’ve reached with others non-EU countries?

Richard_Nabavi said:

SouthamObserver said:

Of course it won't. But the point is leverage in negotiations. This study confirms the UK has little to none.

Poppycock. It's not a zero-sum game, it's a question of mutual interest.

Yes, of course it is. But insisting that the UK has some kind of advantage in the negotiations, that the EU will be desperate to do a deal and that no deal will hurt them more than it hurts us is actively preventing us from getting to a point where we can start to explore what these mutual interests are.

SouthamObserver said:

philiph said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

...

Interesting that Belgium's leading University has revealed 1.2 million ordinary EU citizens will lose their jobs if there is no compromise. ...

Do you have a link for that?

Article in Daily Express on line

Did the Express article mention the 500,000+ UK job losses?

Yes

The study confirms that in all scenarios the UK comes out worse and with hard Brexit it comes out much worse. If the Express reported that, fair play.

The Express reported the EU and the UK loses.

Of course the UK will come out worse but tell that to the 1.2 million EU workers and their families if you think it will console them

Of course it won't. But the point is leverage in negotiations. This study confirms the UK has little to none.

Best give up and go home then.

No, best to stop posturing, accept reality and get down to serious negotiation. If we go off a cliff the UK will suffer the most damage.

With no influence to serious negotiation. The labour flip flopping on Brexit seems to have infected you.

How about trying to get the best from the position we have?

I like the 15% of Tory voters that aren't sure whether May or Corbyn makes the best PM. I can sort of get why Labour right wingers might fudge this to register a protest. . The other way around, not so much.

Certainly Labour's PFI shift is threatening the retroactive renegotiation of contracts by a British government with all that that will do to investor confidence. But politically you have to view it via the new populist paradigm. I notice the words " take back control " were in one statement on the policy. If not effect contractors were asked to and ' voluntarily ' agreed to take 5% to 10% haircuts when the contracts where bought out by Labour ( which is what the policy suggests ) it could be portrayed as government thrift and good negotiating.

You could even divide the hypothetical savings by 52 and say the NHS was getting £X pw extra. Voters are suckers for absurdly large numbers hypothecated.

If Labour had any sense they'd call it a Windfall Tax evoking Blair's deal with the utilities before 1997. If handled correctly many contractors would sign n the dotted line for certainty and to avoid a media circus. Noone knows where all this is heading but by 2022 the view that PFI contractors should share the societal pain by modest hair cuts could be quite popular. After all most other areas of British society have had hair cuts.

And in macroeconomic ( rather than legal ) terms it's tiny compared to say all the FDI we've had on the basis of SM membership. If the electorate can tear up the later " retroactively " then why not the former ? Of course they are different but that sort of stuff is for experts.

philiph said:

SouthamObserver said:

philiph said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

...

Interesting that Belgium's leading University has revealed 1.2 million ordinary EU citizens will lose their jobs if there is no compromise. ...

Do you have a link for that?

Article in Daily Express on line

Did the Express article mention the 500,000+ UK job losses?

Yes

The study confirms that in all scenarios the UK comes out worse and with hard Brexit it comes out much worse. If the Express reported that, fair play.

The Express reported the EU and the UK loses.

Of course the UK will come out worse but tell that to the 1.2 million EU workers and their families if you think it will console them

Of course it won't. But the point is leverage in negotiations. This study confirms the UK has little to none.

Best give up and go home then.

No, best to stop posturing, accept reality and get down to serious negotiation. If we go off a cliff the UK will suffer the most damage.

With no influence to serious negotiation. The labour flip flopping on Brexit seems to have infected you.

How about trying to get the best from the position we have?

We can pretend we have serious influence, or we can accept the reality in the knowledge that falling out of the EU without a deal will hurt us a lot more than it will hurt them. That is the choice.

SouthamObserver said:

Yes, of course it is. But insisting that the UK has some kind of advantage in the negotiations, that the EU will be desperate to do a deal and that no deal will hurt them more than it hurts us is actively preventing us from getting to a point where we can start to explore what these mutual interests are.

I don't think anyone claims that the UK has an advantage in the negotiations. What they claim is that both sides have a lot to lose and that it is in the economic interests of the EU27 to respond favourably to the UK's desire for a good deal - a point which is consistent with this model.

Of course it is just one economic model, and there must be a lot of uncertainty about its conclusions; in particular, it might not account sufficiently for the short-term disruption effects. So there is a possibility that the damage to individual countries, including the UK of course, might be substantially worse than those figures show. Is that a risk individual countries such as Ireland will want to take?

RobD said:

foxinsoxuk said:

RobD said:

philiph said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

...

Interesting that Belgium's leading University has revealed 1.2 million ordinary EU citizens will lose their jobs if there is no compromise. ...

Do you have a link for that?

Article in Daily Express on line

Did the Express article mention the 500,000+ UK job losses?

Yes

The study confirms that in all scenarios the UK comes out worse and with hard Brexit it comes out much worse. If the Express reported that, fair play.

The Express reported the EU and the UK loses.

Of course the UK will come out worse but tell that to the 1.2 million EU workers and their families if you think it will console them

Of course it won't. But the point is leverage in negotiations. This study confirms the UK has little to none.

Best give up and go home then.

Had to laugh at the idea that 1.2million unemployed can just be ignored. We’d both hugely benefit from a free trade agreement.

Which is why we are currently in one!

Which we have chosen to leave. The EU is not at fault there.

Any deal inc Transition has to be passed by the European parliament as well as our own by March 2019. If not then WTO brexit applies.

WTO tariff quotas sound as if they would take years:

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/12/15/if-liam-fox-messes-up-we-re-all-in-deep-trouble

Ah, so they need to teach us a lesson before offering the same kind of deal that they’ve reached with others non-EU countries?

No.

Simply that reaching that sort of deal before A50 runs out is not feasible.

Unless we were to stay in single market or customs union, but we have decided not to do so.

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

foxinsoxuk said:

RobD said:

philiph said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

...

Interesting that Belgium's leading University has revealed 1.2 million ordinary EU citizens will lose their jobs if there is no compromise. ...

Do you have a link for that?

Article in Daily Express on line

Did the Express article mention the 500,000+ UK job losses?

Yes

The study confirms that in all scenarios the UK comes out worse and with hard Brexit it comes out much worse. If the Express reported that, fair play.

The Express reported the EU and the UK loses.

Of course the UK will come out worse but tell that to the 1.2 million EU workers and their families if you think it will console them

Of course it won't. But the point is leverage in negotiations. This study confirms the UK has little to none.

Best give up and go home then.

Had to laugh at the idea that 1.2million unemployed can just be ignored. We’d both hugely benefit from a free trade agreement.

Which is why we are currently in one!

Which we have chosen to leave. The EU is not at fault there.

Any deal inc Transition has to be passed by the European parliament as well as our own by March 2019. If not then WTO brexit applies.

WTO tariff quotas sound as if they would take years:

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/12/15/if-liam-fox-messes-up-we-re-all-in-deep-trouble

Ah, so they need to teach us a lesson before offering the same kind of deal that they’ve reached with others non-EU countries?

No, we need to understand that we have voted to change our trading relationship with the EU27 and if we want to establish a new one without suffering significant, long-term damage we need to start getting serious about doing a deal. No-one forced the UK to trigger Article 50 without having developed a negotiation strategy or exit plan; neither as Theresa may forced to call an election. These were fundamental mistakes she made herself.

Last time I checked the UK was more than willing to discuss trade. Unfortunately, the EU are insisting on extraterritorial jurisdiction for the ECJ, which is obviously holding things up.

Richard_Nabavi said:

SouthamObserver said:

Yes, of course it is. But insisting that the UK has some kind of advantage in the negotiations, that the EU will be desperate to do a deal and that no deal will hurt them more than it hurts us is actively preventing us from getting to a point where we can start to explore what these mutual interests are.

I don't think anyone claims that the UK has an advantage in the negotiations. What they claim is that both sides have a lot to lose and that it is in the economic interests of the EU27 to respond favourably to the UK's desire for a good deal - a point which is consistent with this model.

Of course it is just one economic model, and there must be a lot of uncertainty about its conclusions; in particular, it might not account sufficiently for the short-term disruption effects. So there is a possibility that the damage to individual countries, including the UK of course, might be substantially worse than those figures show. Is that a risk individual countries such as Ireland will want to take?

I think you'll find that plenty on the Tory right claim that the UK has an advantage. We hold all the cards apparently:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/737306/Brexit-negotiations-EU-trade-deal-single-market-WTO

Just ask John Redwood:

http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2016/07/17/getting-out-of-the-eu-can-be-quick-and-easy-the-uk-holds-most-of-the-cards-in-any-negotiation/

The government has yet to demonstrate it is capable of ignoring such nonsense. Until it does, the talks are going to go nowhere.

Catching up on Schulz at press conferences one has to say Berlusconi got it right

foxinsoxuk said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Listening to the hard left rantings of McDonnell and Corbyn there is a possibiliy that they have mistaken their cult following for approval of their hardest of moves to the left, and may just have made a very big mistake and will not take the Country with them

Consider the audience. This is a conference for Labour activists. The purpose is to fire them up with zeal.

The general public are not watching, and have little love for the utilities.

It is on a 24 hour news cycle and tomorrow's headlines will be more than interesting

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

foxinsoxuk said:

RobD said:

philiph said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

...

Interesting that Belgium's leading University has revealed 1.2 million ordinary EU citizens will lose their jobs if there is no compromise. ...

Do you have a link for that?

Article in Daily Express on line

Did the Express article mention the 500,000+ UK job losses?

Yes

The study confirms that in all scenarios the UK comes out worse and with hard Brexit it comes out much worse. If the Express reported that, fair play.

The Express reported the EU and the UK loses.

Of course the UK will come out worse but tell that to the 1.2 million EU workers and their families if you think it will console them

Of course it won't. But the point is leverage in negotiations. This study confirms the UK has little to none.

Best give up and go home then.

Had to laugh at the idea that 1.2million unemployed can just be ignored. We’d both hugely benefit from a free trade agreement.

Which is why we are currently in one!

Which we have chosen to leave. The EU is not at fault there.

Any deal inc Transition has to be passed by the European parliament as well as our own by March 2019. If not then WTO brexit applies.

WTO tariff quotas sound as if they would take years:

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/12/15/if-liam-fox-messes-up-we-re-all-in-deep-trouble

Ah, so they need to teach us a lesson before offering the same kind of deal that they’ve reached with others non-EU countries?

No, we she made herself.

Last time I checked the UK was more than willing to discuss trade. Unfortunately, the EU are insisting on extraterritorial jurisdiction for the ECJ, which is obviously holding things up.

There seems to be progress on citizens' rights and the exit bill. What's holding things up is the Irish border.

But there is not much point in talking trade until the government works out what it wants from a final deal. Is it Canada, Switzerland, Norway, or something that falls between them - and, if so, what is it and how do we get to it?

Richard_Nabavi said:

SouthamObserver said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

SouthamObserver said:

Yes, of course it is. But insisting that the UK has some kind of advantage in the negotiations, that the EU will be desperate to do a deal and that no deal will hurt them more than it hurts us is actively preventing us from getting to a point where we can start to explore what these mutual interests are.

I don't think anyone claims that the UK has an advantage in the negotiations. What they claim is that both sides have a lot to lose and that it is in the economic interests of the EU27 to respond favourably to the UK's desire for a good deal - a point which is consistent with this model.

Of course it is just one economic model, and there must be a lot of uncertainty about its conclusions; in particular, it might not account sufficiently for the short-term disruption effects. So there is a possibility that the damage to individual countries, including the UK of course, might be substantially worse than those figures show. Is that a risk individual countries such as Ireland will want to take?

I think you'll find that plenty on the Tory right claim that the UK has an advantage. We hold all the cards apparently:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/737306/Brexit-negotiations-EU-trade-deal-single-market-WTO

Just ask John Redwood:

http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2016/07/17/getting-out-of-the-eu-can-be-quick-and-easy-the-uk-holds-most-of-the-cards-in-any-negotiation/

The government has yet to demonstrate it is capable of ignoring such nonsense. Until it does, the talks are going to go nowhere.

I should have been clearer: no one in government.

Hmm.

I thought Theresa May delivered a decent speech on Friday, albeit one that was a year later than it should have been. By Sunday, Boris had weed all over it. He gives every impression of being in the same camp as John Redwood.

foxinsoxuk said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Listening to the hard left rantings of McDonnell and Corbyn there is a possibiliy that they have mistaken their cult following for approval of their hardest of moves to the left, and may just have made a very big mistake and will not take the Country with them

Consider the audience. This is a conference for Labour activists. The purpose is to fire them up with zeal.

The general public are not watching, and have little love for the utilities.

It is on a 24 hour news cycle and tomorrow's headlines will be more than interesting

Uber, TV contests and Champions League, the rest of the country concentrates on these things. Probably rightly!

You hope so

CarlottaVance said:

YellowSubmarine said:

If Labour had any sense they'd call it a Windfall Tax

If the Tories had any sense they'd call it a Pensions Tax.....

Agreed.

Hammond must have known what he was doing here. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/25/hammond-raises-further-doubts-about-mays-future-as-tory-leader

bigjohnowls said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

bigjohnowls said:

Press Association‏Verified account
@PA
Follow
More
Hammond refuses to endorse May to lead Tories into next election

Very old news

Laura K retweeted it 14 mins ago so you are probably right

I like that and yes I am

SouthamObserver said:

Hmm.

I thought Theresa May delivered a decent speech on Friday, albeit one that was a year later than it should have been. By Sunday, Boris had weed all over it. He gives every impression of being in the same camp as John Redwood.

Boris is in the Boris camp.

AndyJS said:

"For perfectly understandable reasons, neither she nor her employers want to talk about it, but the fact that Laura Kuenssberg of the BBC is covering the Labour Party conference in Brighton accompanied by a bodyguard is an outrage that has not been greeted with the anger and disgust it merits."

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/09/laura-kuenssbergs-bodyguard-is-no-joke/

Why do the Left hate her so much?

Are the rumours true that May is sending Johnson to the 37 parallel to negotiate peace?

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

"For perfectly understandable reasons, neither she nor her employers want to talk about it, but the fact that Laura Kuenssberg of the BBC is covering the Labour Party conference in Brighton accompanied by a bodyguard is an outrage that has not been greeted with the anger and disgust it merits."

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/09/laura-kuenssbergs-bodyguard-is-no-joke/

Why do the Left hate her so much?

(a) She's a woman
(b) She reports what Corbyn says.

(As an aside, I do think that there is a lot of truth in the observation that women in or associated with politics get a lot more hate thrown at them than men. Not a nice observation, but sadly one where it's easy to cite examples.)

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

"For perfectly understandable reasons, neither she nor her employers want to talk about it, but the fact that Laura Kuenssberg of the BBC is covering the Labour Party conference in Brighton accompanied by a bodyguard is an outrage that has not been greeted with the anger and disgust it merits."

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/09/laura-kuenssbergs-bodyguard-is-no-joke/

Why do the Left hate her so much?

The far-left, like the far-right, thrives on hate. And, unfortunately, there are now apologists for - nay, members of - the far-left all over the Labour party, from the leader's office down. After what happened to Jo Cox and the threats made to Gina Miller it's wise for the BBC to play it safe.

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

"For perfectly understandable reasons, neither she nor her employers want to talk about it, but the fact that Laura Kuenssberg of the BBC is covering the Labour Party conference in Brighton accompanied by a bodyguard is an outrage that has not been greeted with the anger and disgust it merits."

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/09/laura-kuenssbergs-bodyguard-is-no-joke/

Why do the Left hate her so much?

Why does she hate the Left so much?

On this topic a female MP in a marginal seat isn't holding prearranged public surgeries citing safety concerns. http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/MP-Trudy-Harrison-snubs-public-surgeries-following-Jo-Cox-murder-68c77039-2937-4a68-91c9-11fdf2f2bab1-ds

YellowSubmarine said:

On this topic a female MP in a marginal seat isn't holding prearranged public surgeries citing safety concerns. http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/MP-Trudy-Harrison-snubs-public-surgeries-following-Jo-Cox-murder-68c77039-2937-4a68-91c9-11fdf2f2bab1-ds

if she cant meet her comnstituents why did she stand for office

bigjohnowls said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

"For perfectly understandable reasons, neither she nor her employers want to talk about it, but the fact that Laura Kuenssberg of the BBC is covering the Labour Party conference in Brighton accompanied by a bodyguard is an outrage that has not been greeted with the anger and disgust it merits."

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/09/laura-kuenssbergs-bodyguard-is-no-joke/

Why do the Left hate her so much?

(a) She's a woman
(b) She reports what Corbyn says.

(As an aside, I do think that there is a lot of truth in the observation that women in or associated with politics get a lot more hate thrown at them than men. Not a nice observation, but sadly one where it's easy to cite examples.)

With regards to b) the BBC Trust disagree

I think you mean she misreports what Corbyn says

Even if true, it's hardly reason enough to be on the receiving end of threats,

Jonathan said:

There are a lot of angry people on the left of the Labour party who think that this is their time, that they are righteous and are justified in the action they take.

It's not a left wing thing. We've seen it on the right with things like the country alliance dumping carcasses in the streets and raiding conferences. Thankfully nothing yet comes close to Jo Cox.

Here's to the unfashionable centre ground, which by definition is all about working with other viewpoints.

Good post - well said

Sean_F said:

bigjohnowls said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

"For perfectly understandable reasons, neither she nor her employers want to talk about it, but the fact that Laura Kuenssberg of the BBC is covering the Labour Party conference in Brighton accompanied by a bodyguard is an outrage that has not been greeted with the anger and disgust it merits."

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/09/laura-kuenssbergs-bodyguard-is-no-joke/

Why do the Left hate her so much?

(a) She's a woman
(b) She reports what Corbyn says.

(As an aside, I do think that there is a lot of truth in the observation that women in or associated with politics get a lot more hate thrown at them than men. Not a nice observation, but sadly one where it's easy to cite examples.)

With regards to b) the BBC Trust disagree

I think you mean she misreports what Corbyn says

Even if true, it's hardly reason enough to be on the receiving end of threats,

What threats? Any Labour member who threatens her should be thrown out. Calling her out for bias is fine in my book.

Kurds going down the Catalan route:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-41382494

Big_G_NorthWales said:

White House

'The President has not declared war on North Korea'

What

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3BO6GP9NMY

Richard_Nabavi said:

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

"For perfectly understandable reasons, neither she nor her employers want to talk about it, but the fact that Laura Kuenssberg of the BBC is covering the Labour Party conference in Brighton accompanied by a bodyguard is an outrage that has not been greeted with the anger and disgust it merits."

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/09/laura-kuenssbergs-bodyguard-is-no-joke/

Why do the Left hate her so much?

(a) She's a woman
(b) She reports what Corbyn says.

(As an aside, I do think that there is a lot of truth in the observation that women in or associated with politics get a lot more hate thrown at them than men. Not a nice observation, but sadly one where it's easy to cite examples.)

Sadly, I think that's true.

bigjohnowls said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

"For perfectly understandable reasons, neither she nor her employers want to talk about it, but the fact that Laura Kuenssberg of the BBC is covering the Labour Party conference in Brighton accompanied by a bodyguard is an outrage that has not been greeted with the anger and disgust it merits."

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/09/laura-kuenssbergs-bodyguard-is-no-joke/

Why do the Left hate her so much?

(a) She's a woman
(b) She reports what Corbyn says.

(As an aside, I do think that there is a lot of truth in the observation that women in or associated with politics get a lot more hate thrown at them than men. Not a nice observation, but sadly one where it's easy to cite examples.)

With regards to b) the BBC Trust disagree

I think you mean she misreports what Corbyn says

You have taken one instance where she reported something accurately but out of context and hence misleadingly, and turned that into a generic statement that she misreports (present continuous, and hence habitually). Now who's misleading?

Casino_Royale said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

"For perfectly understandable reasons, neither she nor her employers want to talk about it, but the fact that Laura Kuenssberg of the BBC is covering the Labour Party conference in Brighton accompanied by a bodyguard is an outrage that has not been greeted with the anger and disgust it merits."

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/09/laura-kuenssbergs-bodyguard-is-no-joke/

Why do the Left hate her so much?

(a) She's a woman
(b) She reports what Corbyn says.

(As an aside, I do think that there is a lot of truth in the observation that women in or associated with politics get a lot more hate thrown at them than men. Not a nice observation, but sadly one where it's easy to cite examples.)

Sadly, I think that's true.

Except her own Employers disagree with b)

Yellow Reds? Is that the SDP?

MTimT said:

bigjohnowls said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

"For perfectly understandable reasons, neither she nor her employers want to talk about it, but the fact that Laura Kuenssberg of the BBC is covering the Labour Party conference in Brighton accompanied by a bodyguard is an outrage that has not been greeted with the anger and disgust it merits."

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/09/laura-kuenssbergs-bodyguard-is-no-joke/

Why do the Left hate her so much?

(a) She's a woman
(b) She reports what Corbyn says.

(As an aside, I do think that there is a lot of truth in the observation that women in or associated with politics get a lot more hate thrown at them than men. Not a nice observation, but sadly one where it's easy to cite examples.)

With regards to b) the BBC Trust disagree

I think you mean she misreports what Corbyn says

You have taken one instance where she reported something accurately but out of context and hence misleadingly, and turned that into a generic statement that she misreports (present continuous, and hence habitually). Now who's misleading?

You mean the instance where she was found to have failed in terms of impartiality and accuracy and was censured. There have been times since Jezza became leader where LKs Blue Rosette was airbrushed out.

Surely nobody can think she is not a Tory mouthpiece

Mortimer said:

bigjohnowls said:

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

"For perfectly understandable reasons, neither she nor her employers want to talk about it, but the fact that Laura Kuenssberg of the BBC is covering the Labour Party conference in Brighton accompanied by a bodyguard is an outrage that has not been greeted with the anger and disgust it merits."

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/09/laura-kuenssbergs-bodyguard-is-no-joke/

Why do the Left hate her so much?

Why does she hate the Left so much?

Examples please.

She is a reporter, and therefore does occasionally highlight the impact of something - but hate, that's a strong word....

Polly Toynbee and Owen Jones hate the Conservatives, but neither would need a bodyguard if they went to their conference.

41/31 - (28 don't know) support paying into the EU budget for two years as part of a transition deal

ICM

bigjohnowls said:

MTimT said:

bigjohnowls said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

"For perfectly understandable reasons, neither she nor her employers want to talk about it, but the fact that Laura Kuenssberg of the BBC is covering the Labour Party conference in Brighton accompanied by a bodyguard is an outrage that has not been greeted with the anger and disgust it merits."

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/09/laura-kuenssbergs-bodyguard-is-no-joke/

Why do the Left hate her so much?

(a) She's a woman
(b) She reports what Corbyn says.

(As an aside, I do think that there is a lot of truth in the observation that women in or associated with politics get a lot more hate thrown at them than men. Not a nice observation, but sadly one where it's easy to cite examples.)

With regards to b) the BBC Trust disagree

I think you mean she misreports what Corbyn says

You have taken one instance where she reported something accurately but out of context and hence misleadingly, and turned that into a generic statement that she misreports (present continuous, and hence habitually). Now who's misleading?

You mean the instance where she was found to have failed in terms of impartiality and accuracy and was censured. There have been times since Jezza became leader where LKs Blue Rosette was airbrushed out.

Surely nobody can think she is not a Tory mouthpiece

She did not look particularly happy with the exit poll in 2015 ... But at least you are not alone in your opinion - one shared by my sister.

Sean_F said:

Mortimer said:

bigjohnowls said:

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

"For perfectly understandable reasons, neither she nor her employers want to talk about it, but the fact that Laura Kuenssberg of the BBC is covering the Labour Party conference in Brighton accompanied by a bodyguard is an outrage that has not been greeted with the anger and disgust it merits."

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/09/laura-kuenssbergs-bodyguard-is-no-joke/

Why do the Left hate her so much?

Why does she hate the Left so much?

Examples please.

She is a reporter, and therefore does occasionally highlight the impact of something - but hate, that's a strong word....

Polly Toynbee and Owen Jones hate the Conservatives, but neither would need a bodyguard if they went to their conference.

Yes, but will George Osborne?

Totally off topic, two items:

1. the headline for politico.com's reporting of the German election = "Angela's Ashes"
2. Wiener has been sentenced to 21 months prison time for the last of his sexting scandals.

dixiedean said:

Sean_F said:

Mortimer said:

bigjohnowls said:

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

"For perfectly understandable reasons, neither she nor her employers want to talk about it, but the fact that Laura Kuenssberg of the BBC is covering the Labour Party conference in Brighton accompanied by a bodyguard is an outrage that has not been greeted with the anger and disgust it merits."

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/09/laura-kuenssbergs-bodyguard-is-no-joke/

Why do the Left hate her so much?

Why does she hate the Left so much?

Examples please.

She is a reporter, and therefore does occasionally highlight the impact of something - but hate, that's a strong word....

Polly Toynbee and Owen Jones hate the Conservatives, but neither would need a bodyguard if they went to their conference.

Yes, but will George Osborne?

Not if his entourage is with him:

Some come with large entourages, others, such as the Norwegian ambassador to London, Mona Juul, slip into the studio alone. The hefty entourages tend to come with business folk or with Jonathan Sacks for Thought for the Day, two very different types of security needs.

So far as domestic politicians are concerned, I understand that the former chancellor George Osborne always used to bring the biggest crowd, a detail which plays to his recent Don Corleone image.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/09/sarah-sands-george-osborne-turns-up-to-radio-4-with-an-entourage-he-thinks-hes-don-corleone/

MTimT said:

Totally off topic, two items:

1. the headline for politico.com's reporting of the German election = "Angela's Ashes"
2. Wiener has been sentenced to 21 months prison time for the last of his sexting scandals.

Bloomberg were giving her six months at most in post. Result worse than Theresa's