politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » There’s greater than a 1.25% chance that Emily Thornberry will

Looks good value! In particular I think TM has a decent chance of staying on. The Tories will need to portray Brexit as a success, and how do they do that while ejecting its captain?

(And first - trained in speed by the Czech Secret Service, y'know.)

One for TSE:

"Gerry Adams backs Corbyn for next PM"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-42936613

Cyclefree said:

NickPalmer said:

Looks good value! In particular I think TM has a decent chance of staying on. The Tories will need to portray Brexit as a success, and how do they do that while ejecting its captain?

(And first - trained in speed by the Czech Secret Service, y'know.)

They gratefully say thanks to Mrs May. You're now 60+ with diabetes and deserve more walking holidays with Philip. Off you go.

I think Nick's right though - unless TMay decides to resign (and she's no quitter) we'll be getting too close to another election by 2019 for there to be a hostile coup IMO.

Benpointer said:

Cyclefree said:

NickPalmer said:

Looks good value! In particular I think TM has a decent chance of staying on. The Tories will need to portray Brexit as a success, and how do they do that while ejecting its captain?

(And first - trained in speed by the Czech Secret Service, y'know.)

They gratefully say thanks to Mrs May. You're now 60+ with diabetes and deserve more walking holidays with Philip. Off you go.

I think Nick's right though - unless TMay decides to resign (and she's no quitter) we'll be getting too close to another election by 2019 for there to be a hostile coup IMO.

3 years is not really close

Benpointer said:

Cyclefree said:

NickPalmer said:

Looks good value! In particular I think TM has a decent chance of staying on. The Tories will need to portray Brexit as a success, and how do they do that while ejecting its captain?

(And first - trained in speed by the Czech Secret Service, y'know.)

They gratefully say thanks to Mrs May. You're now 60+ with diabetes and deserve more walking holidays with Philip. Off you go.

I think Nick's right though - unless TMay decides to resign (and she's no quitter) we'll be getting too close to another election by 2019 for there to be a hostile coup IMO.

May may well stay until next GE because the tory MPs can't be sure that Mogg wont make his way into the last two who go to the membership and therefore their next leader.

I love Emily.

Did a bit of canvassing with her at GE2017

Didnt manage to high five her like Jezza though

Sunil_Prasannan said:

One for TSE:

"Gerry Adams backs Corbyn for next PM"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-42936613

Of course he does. It's the IRA's best chance of getting a united Ireland with the support of the British government. After all, a united Ireland solves the post-Brexit border issue beautifully. The customs border will then literally be in the sea.

The small matter of consent and having a hostile Protestant community are hardly likely to bother the likes of Adams or, indeed, Corbyn.

ydoethur said:

Benpointer said:

Cyclefree said:

NickPalmer said:

Looks good value! In particular I think TM has a decent chance of staying on. The Tories will need to portray Brexit as a success, and how do they do that while ejecting its captain?

(And first - trained in speed by the Czech Secret Service, y'know.)

They gratefully say thanks to Mrs May. You're now 60+ with diabetes and deserve more walking holidays with Philip. Off you go.

I think Nick's right though - unless TMay decides to resign (and she's no quitter) we'll be getting too close to another election by 2019 for there to be a hostile coup IMO.

3 years out?!!!

The Tories can have a new leader in post inside a week if necessary. There will be time.

I just think the optics will be very bad unless she goes willingly.

At what point can you declare Brexit done? Not 29 March 2019 - we're only starting a 2 year transition then. So maybe after March 2021 - just a year off the next GE, to late to change leader without making it look like a panic.

Cyclefree said:

Benpointer said:

Cyclefree said:

NickPalmer said:

Looks good value! In particular I think TM has a decent chance of staying on. The Tories will need to portray Brexit as a success, and how do they do that while ejecting its captain?

(And first - trained in speed by the Czech Secret Service, y'know.)

They gratefully say thanks to Mrs May. You're now 60+ with diabetes and deserve more walking holidays with Philip. Off you go.

I think Nick's right though - unless TMay decides to resign (and she's no quitter) we'll be getting too close to another election by 2019 for there to be a hostile coup IMO.

Maybe. But given her age, assuming the Tories win (a big "If" I know) immediately after the election the whole leadership drama will start all over again.... They may as well get it over and done with before the election and given themselves a chance of winning. After all, she's never going to get better at campaigning, is she?

After listening to her today she was again very poor at public speaking and her time will be up post Brexit, but do not be surprised if she is succeeded by another female

Cyclefree said:

NickPalmer said:

Looks good value! In particular I think TM has a decent chance of staying on. The Tories will need to portray Brexit as a success, and how do they do that while ejecting its captain?

(And first - trained in speed by the Czech Secret Service, y'know.)

They gratefully say thanks to Mrs May. You're now 60+ with diabetes and deserve more walking holidays with Philip. Off you go.

The process is that 49 MPs say "We have no confidence in Mrs May as PM", shortly after a Brexit that they simply have to declare to be a success, and in the middle of the complex post-Brexit trade talks etc. It'll look desperate, and they'll be asked why they didn't do it before - if they had no confidence inher, why was she leading the negotiations?

TwistedFireStopper said:

SeanT has waded into the Corbyn spat on twitter.

What's his Twitter handle?

NickPalmer said:

Cyclefree said:

NickPalmer said:

Looks good value! In particular I think TM has a decent chance of staying on. The Tories will need to portray Brexit as a success, and how do they do that while ejecting its captain?

(And first - trained in speed by the Czech Secret Service, y'know.)

They gratefully say thanks to Mrs May. You're now 60+ with diabetes and deserve more walking holidays with Philip. Off you go.

The process is that 49 MPs say "We have no confidence in Mrs May as PM", shortly after a Brexit that they simply have to declare to be a success, and in the middle of the complex post-Brexit trade talks etc. It'll look desperate, and they'll be asked why they didn't do it before - if they had no confidence inher, why was she leading the negotiations?

Bloomberg has this up:

U.K. Has a Secret Plan to Hold Brexit Cash If EU Refuses to Trade - Bloomberg https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-19/u-k-has-secret-plan-to-hold-brexit-cash-if-eu-refuses-to-trade

Back to No Deal is better than a Bad Deal.

NickPalmer said:

Cyclefree said:

NickPalmer said:

Looks good value! In particular I think TM has a decent chance of staying on. The Tories will need to portray Brexit as a success, and how do they do that while ejecting its captain?

(And first - trained in speed by the Czech Secret Service, y'know.)

They gratefully say thanks to Mrs May. You're now 60+ with diabetes and deserve more walking holidays with Philip. Off you go.

The process is that 49 MPs say "We have no confidence in Mrs May as PM", shortly after a Brexit that they simply have to declare to be a success, and in the middle of the complex post-Brexit trade talks etc. It'll look desperate, and they'll be asked why they didn't do it before - if they had no confidence inher, why was she leading the negotiations?

She has been under threat since the last GE so if a challenge comes post Brexit it is hardly going to surprise anyone

NickPalmer said:

Cyclefree said:

NickPalmer said:

Looks good value! In particular I think TM has a decent chance of staying on. The Tories will need to portray Brexit as a success, and how do they do that while ejecting its captain?

(And first - trained in speed by the Czech Secret Service, y'know.)

They gratefully say thanks to Mrs May. You're now 60+ with diabetes and deserve more walking holidays with Philip. Off you go.

The process is that 49 MPs say "We have no confidence in Mrs May as PM", shortly after a Brexit that they simply have to declare to be a success, and in the middle of the complex post-Brexit trade talks etc. It'll look desperate, and they'll be asked why they didn't do it before - if they had no confidence inher, why was she leading the negotiations?

They could - convincingly - argue that she had to stay in place for the negotiations because of the time factor but that like Eden she was not up to managing domestic matters effectively - and now it is time to turn to them blah blah blah...

I think given the general expectation she will retire around 2019/20 people would buy that.

Kicking off in Wigan. Delph sent off.

SeanT said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

SeanT has waded into the Corbyn spat on twitter.

I have. I was careful not to repeat the silly accusation that Corbyn sold secrets. But did he consort - chat - with Warsaw Pact intelligence agencies? - the evidence, to me, seems overwhelming that he did. The fact they found him "too stupid" to be that useful is the clincher. Because he is a stupid man. So they obviously met him and knew him well.

Plus he is a friend of Iran, the IRA, Hamas, all the enemies of Britain. All this is on record.

I have called him a traitor on Twitter. I doubt if he cares, or is even aware, I am pretty sure he won't sue, however. Because a trawl of the evidence would not be good. For him.

You're right - he won't care.

But it was worth looking at your tweets just to see the "bacterium on a diatom on an amphipod on a frog" retweet. Amazing, thanks!

@bigjohnowls

Can I please again urge you to be careful. Republishing tweets you are criticising for being libellous is not perhaps the smartest idea.

ydoethur said:

FPT re Corbyn and Cyclefree's post on libel:

He might want to reflect on the unfortunate fate of Charles Dilke. Dilke brought a libel action - when innocent - lost, and his career was irretrievably ruined.

This also severely damaged his party, which won just one more election in its own strength afterwards as the man he should have replaced (Gladstone) was able to hang on far too long (about 25 years too long, indeed, although Jenkins called it ten).

And it's difficult to see a pathway whereby Corbyn would emerge with anything other than copious amounts of mud over him even if he technically won.

Indeed. Lawyers would have a field day cross-examining Corbyn. They would not let him get away with the sort of inexactitudes the way that pudding Marr does.

I don't believe that Corbyn sold any secrets because I highly doubt he'd have any. Why would anyone in the British government have trusted him with any secrets in the first place? It's not as if his views weren't out in the open. You'd have to have been one hell of an idiot to entrust the sorts of secrets the Warsaw Pact would have been interested in to people like Corbyn.

On topic. Yes there probably is a better than 1.25% chance for Thornberry. But not much more.
Oh and Ben Bradley is a foolish man who ought to have learned his lesson from his blog posts. But apparently hasn't.

Cyclefree said:

ydoethur said:

FPT re Corbyn and Cyclefree's post on libel:

He might want to reflect on the unfortunate fate of Charles Dilke. Dilke brought a libel action - when innocent - lost, and his career was irretrievably ruined.

This also severely damaged his party, which won just one more election in its own strength afterwards as the man he should have replaced (Gladstone) was able to hang on far too long (about 25 years too long, indeed, although Jenkins called it ten).

And it's difficult to see a pathway whereby Corbyn would emerge with anything other than copious amounts of mud over him even if he technically won.

Indeed. Lawyers would have a field day cross-examining Corbyn. They would not let him get away with the sort of inexactitudes the way that pudding Marr does.

I don't believe that Corbyn sold any secrets because I highly doubt he'd have any. Why would anyone in the British government have trusted him with any secrets in the first place? It's not as if his views weren't out in the open. You'd have to have been one hell of an idiot to entrust the sorts of secrets the Warsaw Pact would have been interested in to people like Corbyn.

All very true.

However on your 'idiots' remark I would remind you the government of the time included Paul Channon and Kenneth Baker.

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/photo-emerges-russian-exposed-spy-good-friend-boris-johnson/17/02/

Cyclefree said:

ydoethur said:

FPT re Corbyn and Cyclefree's post on libel:

He might want to reflect on the unfortunate fate of Charles Dilke. Dilke brought a libel action - when innocent - lost, and his career was irretrievably ruined.

This also severely damaged his party, which won just one more election in its own strength afterwards as the man he should have replaced (Gladstone) was able to hang on far too long (about 25 years too long, indeed, although Jenkins called it ten).

And it's difficult to see a pathway whereby Corbyn would emerge with anything other than copious amounts of mud over him even if he technically won.

Indeed. Lawyers would have a field day cross-examining Corbyn. They would not let him get away with the sort of inexactitudes the way that pudding Marr does.

I don't believe that Corbyn sold any secrets because I highly doubt he'd have any. Why would anyone in the British government have trusted him with any secrets in the first place? It's not as if his views weren't out in the open. You'd have to have been one hell of an idiot to entrust the sorts of secrets the Warsaw Pact would have been interested in to people like Corbyn.

Plus he's not particularly venal is he? He's more likely to have given secrets away than sold them.

But as you say, he won't have had access to any secrets, so why the Czechs would have targetted him (if they did) is rather baffling.

dixiedean said:

On topic. Yes there probably is a better than 1.25% chance for Thornberry. But not much more.
Oh and Ben Bradley is a foolish man who ought to have learned his lesson from his blog posts. But apparently hasn't.

The 2017 intake is seriously unimpressive, isn't it?

Bradley, Dent Coad, O'Mara, Pidcock - all of these give the impression they would be out of their depth on a parish council.

As @SeanT I do despair of our political leadership.

Edit - and I wrote that post before seeing Laura Pidcock had decided to republish an alleged libel about her own leader!

SeanT said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Cyclefree said:

Benpointer said:

Cyclefree said:

NickPalmer said:

Looks good value! In particular I think TM has a decent chance of staying on. The Tories will need to portray Brexit as a success, and how do they do that while ejecting its captain?

(And first - trained in speed by the Czech Secret Service, y'know.)

They gratefully say thanks to Mrs May. You're now 60+ with diabetes and deserve more walking holidays with Philip. Off you go.

I think Nick's right though - unless TMay decides to resign (and she's no quitter) we'll be getting too close to another election by 2019 for there to be a hostile coup IMO.

Maybe. But given her age, assuming the Tories win (a big "If" I know) immediately after the election the whole leadership drama will start all over again.... They may as well get it over and done with before the election and given themselves a chance of winning. After all, she's never going to get better at campaigning, is she?

After listening to her today she was again very poor at public speaking and her time will be up post Brexit, but do not be surprised if she is succeeded by another female

She is terrible.

IT occurred to me today that Britain has never been so badly led by its politicians. The government is helmed by a flailing, autistic (if well meaning) fool who has no clue how to campaign, or empathise. The Opposition is led by an actual communist traitor.

Meanwhile the 3rd largest part in the Commons simply wants to destroy the UK altogether.

All this as we are faced with Brexit, the biggest challenge we have faced, as a nation, since World War Two.

Fabulous.

I think I may have out-SeanT'd you on Feb 6

"For various reasons I have been listening to radio news programmes more than normal in the last few days. I can sum up what I have learnt, as follows:-

1. The Tories are an absolute fucking shambles. An absolute shower. Of shits, incompetents and Brexit-obsessed loons
2. Labour are an absolute fucking shambles: of extreme left ex-Militants with interesting views about some minorities, cowed MPs and a leadership largely silent on key issues.
3. The Lib Dems may well also be an absolute fucking shambles but since no-one has heard or seen them for months it is impossible to tell.
4. UKIP would also be an absolute shambles but is now in reality one middle-aged man fucking for Britain, or something.
5. Brexit is an absolute FUBAR and Britain is playing the role of the first Mrs Rochester in the attic, as far as the rest of Europe is concerned"

Fabulous, as you say.

ydoethur said:

dixiedean said:

On topic. Yes there probably is a better than 1.25% chance for Thornberry. But not much more.
Oh and Ben Bradley is a foolish man who ought to have learned his lesson from his blog posts. But apparently hasn't.

The 2017 intake is seriously unimpressive, isn't it?

Bradley, Dent Coad, O'Mara, Pidcock - all of these give the impression they would be out of their depth on a parish council.

As @SeanT I do despair of our political leadership.

Edit - and I wrote that post before seeing Laura Pidcock had decided to republish an alleged libel about her own leader!

Give them a chance!

bigjohnowls said:

ydoethur said:

@bigjohnowls

Can I please again urge you to be careful. Republishing tweets you are criticising for being libellous is not perhaps the smartest idea.

Only ones i have posted are the one Ben the MP from Mansfield has deleted and the one the other Tory Minister is now denying was REDACTED

Cant see whats wrong with that.

Some Posters on here like Sean T more of an issue IMO (Moderators?)

You have republished a tweet deleted because of a libel threat - and you can't see what's wrong with that?

Mind you, watching Pidcock libel her own leader through sheer gormlessness is quite funny.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

ydoethur said:

dixiedean said:

On topic. Yes there probably is a better than 1.25% chance for Thornberry. But not much more.
Oh and Ben Bradley is a foolish man who ought to have learned his lesson from his blog posts. But apparently hasn't.

The 2017 intake is seriously unimpressive, isn't it?

Bradley, Dent Coad, O'Mara, Pidcock - all of these give the impression they would be out of their depth on a parish council.

As @SeanT I do despair of our political leadership.

Edit - and I wrote that post before seeing Laura Pidcock had decided to republish an alleged libel about her own leader!

Give them a chance!

I've given them nine months.

FE Smith they ain't.

Cyclefree said:

Benpointer said:

Cyclefree said:

ydoethur said:

FPT re Corbyn and Cyclefree's post on libel:

He might want to reflect on the unfortunate fate of Charles Dilke. Dilke brought a libel action - when innocent - lost, and his career was irretrievably ruined.

This also severely damaged his party, which won just one more election in its own strength afterwards as the man he should have replaced (Gladstone) was able to hang on far too long (about 25 years too long, indeed, although Jenkins called it ten).

And it's difficult to see a pathway whereby Corbyn would emerge with anything other than copious amounts of mud over him even if he technically won.

Indeed. Lawyers would have a field day cross-examining Corbyn. They would not let him get away with the sort of inexactitudes the way that pudding Marr does.

I don't believe that Corbyn sold any secrets because I highly doubt he'd have any. Why would anyone in the British government have trusted him with any secrets in the first place? It's not as if his views weren't out in the open. You'd have to have been one hell of an idiot to entrust the sorts of secrets the Warsaw Pact would have been interested in to people like Corbyn.

Plus he's not particularly venal is he? He's more likely to have given secrets away than sold them.

But as you say, he won't have had access to any secrets, so why the Czechs would have targetted him (if they did) is rather baffling.

He's not that averse to money. He got paid by Press TV after all.

It is far more likely that the Czechs - if they did target him - would have been more interested in having a Labour MP speak up against things like the missiles on Greenham Common and in favour of "peace and disarmament". Seeking to undermine public support for the policies of Reagan and Thatcher in relation to arms and their approach to Russia was much more likely.

I don't think he needed the support of the Czechs to do those things

Benpointer said:

Cyclefree said:

Benpointer said:

Cyclefree said:

ydoethur said:

FPT re Corbyn and Cyclefree's post on libel:

He might want to reflect on the unfortunate fate of Charles Dilke. Dilke brought a libel action - when innocent - lost, and his career was irretrievably ruined.

This also severely damaged his party, which won just one more election in its own strength afterwards as the man he should have replaced (Gladstone) was able to hang on far too long (about 25 years too long, indeed, although Jenkins called it ten).

And it's difficult to see a pathway whereby Corbyn would emerge with anything other than copious amounts of mud over him even if he technically won.

Indeed. Lawyers would have a field day cross-examining Corbyn. They would not let him get away with the sort of inexactitudes the way that pudding Marr does.

I don't believe that Corbyn sold any secrets because I highly doubt he'd have any. Why would anyone in the British government have trusted him with any secrets in the first place? It's not as if his views weren't out in the open. You'd have to have been one hell of an idiot to entrust the sorts of secrets the Warsaw Pact would have been interested in to people like Corbyn.

Plus he's not particularly venal is he? He's more likely to have given secrets away than sold them.

But as you say, he won't have had access to any secrets, so why the Czechs would have targetted him (if they did) is rather baffling.

He's not that averse to money. He got paid by Press TV after all.

It is far more likely that the Czechs - if they did target him - would have been more interested in having a Labour MP speak up against things like the missiles on Greenham Common and in favour of "peace and disarmament". Seeking to undermine public support for the policies of Reagan and Thatcher in relation to arms and their approach to Russia was much more likely.

I don't think he needed the support of the Czechs to do those things

You mean this is a Czech he would have been willing to see bounce?

Benpointer said:

But as you say, he won't have had access to any secrets, so why the Czechs would have targetted him (if they did) is rather baffling.

Collecting intelligence doesn't not mean collecting exclusively classified information. As I said the other day the rumoured pee tape is not classified, but it would be hugely useful for gaining leverage over a leader.

Basically useful idiots can do plenty of damage without disclosing anything classified.

glw said:

JosiasJessop said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/joewatts_/status/965690040717365249

Oh dear. Tom Watson is dragging himself back into the public eye. More witchsniffing general? (if the witches are Tory, at least...)

Yeah Tom Watson is not the right person to be pointing fingers on this.

Matthew Parris eviscerated him in a recent column in the Times on the whole child abuse imbroglio, once "Nick" was charged. I'm surprised Watson has the nerve to show his face after that.

glw said:

Benpointer said:

But as you say, he won't have had access to any secrets, so why the Czechs would have targetted him (if they did) is rather baffling.

Collecting intelligence doesn't not mean collecting exclusively classified information. As I said the other day the rumoured pee tape is not classified, but it would be hugely useful for gaining leverage over a leader.

Basically useful idiots can do plenty of damage without disclosing anything classified.

I take your point. Makes you wonder how many UK MPs the Russians have under their 'guidance'. I bet they're not all Labour.

Cyclefree said:

glw said:

JosiasJessop said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/joewatts_/status/965690040717365249

Oh dear. Tom Watson is dragging himself back into the public eye. More witchsniffing general? (if the witches are Tory, at least...)

Yeah Tom Watson is not the right person to be pointing fingers on this.

Matthew Parris eviscerated him in a recent column in the Times on the whole child abuse imbroglio, once "Nick" was charged. I'm surprised Watson has the nerve to show his face after that.

After Tom Watson’s vile attacks on Leon Britton I’m astounded by his intervention.

Did SeanT organise Live Aid?

SeanT said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/joewatts_/status/965690040717365249

This seems a foolish move (unless Watson is scheming to bring down Corbyn - quite possible). Labour's best hope is that this story disappears. Because it is potentially very damaging. So Watson has done the one thing to keep it in the headlines?

Hmm.

Well maybe, although perhaps it's just because right wing newspaper bashing is surely a move the base loves, just as left wing newspaper bashing is for the Tories?

Ishmael_Z said:

Cyclefree said:

Benpointer said:

Cyclefree said:

ydoethur said:

FPT re Corbyn and Cyclefree's post on libel:

He might want to reflect on the unfortunate fate of Charles Dilke. Dilke brought a libel action - when innocent - lost, and his career was irretrievably ruined.

This also severely damaged his party, which won just one more election in its own strength afterwards as the man he should have replaced (Gladstone) was able to hang on far too long (about 25 years too long, indeed, although Jenkins called it ten).

And it's difficult to see a pathway whereby Corbyn would emerge with anything other than copious amounts of mud over him even if he technically won.

Indeed. Lawyers would have a field day cross-examining Corbyn. They would not let him get away with the sort of inexactitudes the way that pudding Marr does.

I don't believe that Corbyn sold any secrets because I highly doubt he'd have any. Why would anyone in the British government have trusted him with any secrets in the first place? It's not as if his views weren't out in the open. You'd have to have been one hell of an idiot to entrust the sorts of secrets the Warsaw Pact would have been interested in to people like Corbyn.

Plus he's not particularly venal is he? He's more likely to have given secrets away than sold them.

But as you say, he won't have had access to any secrets, so why the Czechs would have targetted him (if they did) is rather baffling.

He's not that averse to money. He got paid by Press TV after all.

It is far more likely that the Czechs - if they did target him - would have been more interested in having a Labour MP speak up against things like the missiles on Greenham Common and in favour of "peace and disarmament". Seeking to undermine public support for the policies of Reagan and Thatcher in relation to arms and their approach to Russia was much more likely.

It is more likely still that the Czechs would have been delighted with a long term 100/1 shot who turns in due course into LOTO and knows virtually all our secrets, on Privy Council terms. It is tempting to say that they couldn't in a million years have foreseen, blah blah blah, but the sober fact is, that is what they (allegedly) did.

What worries me is the issue of naming conventions. How could anyone over the age of 6 think COB was an impenetrable disguise for Corbyn?

Of course by the time he became LOTO the Czechs were no longer part of the Soviet bloc... indeed the Soviet bloc was no longer!

And as for COB... it's almost as if the whole thing is a spoof!

If only it were true.

If Emily Thornberry became Labour leader, I would support the Labour Party again and we would have a decent mainstream Labour leadership once more.

Thornberry is no Corbynista. She's been loyal to the dreadful Corbyn but she isnt from the hard left. For the first time since John Smith died in 1994 we would have a Labour leader on the mainstream, free from the factions of Blairite right and Corbynite hard Marxist left.

Be in no doubt however, Thornberry as leader would mean the vile Mr McDonnell and the hopeless Diane Abbott going too. And eventually she would have to confront and cleanse the party of the poison that is Momentum.

Alas, I doubt if Thornberry will take over soon. Corbyn loves the Stalinist adulation, the youth movements, the songs to the Leader, the Messianic adulation. He is a vain posturing political pygmy but one I suspect who will go on dragging his party down to destruction.

Cyclefree said:

Matthew Parris eviscerated him in a recent column in the Times on the whole child abuse imbroglio, once "Nick" was charged. I'm surprised Watson has the nerve to show his face after that.

When Watson first made his allegations in the Commons I immediately thought it sounded like some of the whackier conspiracy theories I'd read about the issue, and it was things that had been circulating for decades already. He's a mug at best.

https://twitter.com/alliehbnews/status/965700132481257473

What happened to the sunlit uplands?

Wigan amazing

Will Grigg is on fire.

Wigan 1-0 City

glw said:

Cyclefree said:

Matthew Parris eviscerated him in a recent column in the Times on the whole child abuse imbroglio, once "Nick" was charged. I'm surprised Watson has the nerve to show his face after that.

When Watson first made his allegations in the Commons I immediately thought it sounded like some of the whackier conspiracy theories I'd read about the issue, and it was things that had been circulating for decades already. He's a mug at best.

I would have said he was more of a Toby Jug personally.

Will Griggs on fire like Ben Bradleys Bum

Offside Offside 5 mins plus injuries for Wigan to hold on

bigjohnowls said:

Offside Offside 5 mins plus injuries for Wigan to hold on

3

Foxy said:

NickPalmer said:

Cyclefree said:

NickPalmer said:

Looks good value! In particular I think TM has a decent chance of staying on. The Tories will need to portray Brexit as a success, and how do they do that while ejecting its captain?

(And first - trained in speed by the Czech Secret Service, y'know.)

They gratefully say thanks to Mrs May. You're now 60+ with diabetes and deserve more walking holidays with Philip. Off you go.

The process is that 49 MPs say "We have no confidence in Mrs May as PM", shortly after a Brexit that they simply have to declare to be a success, and in the middle of the complex post-Brexit trade talks etc. It'll look desperate, and they'll be asked why they didn't do it before - if they had no confidence inher, why was she leading the negotiations?

Bloomberg has this up:

U.K. Has a Secret Plan to Hold Brexit Cash If EU Refuses to Trade - Bloomberg https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-19/u-k-has-secret-plan-to-hold-brexit-cash-if-eu-refuses-to-trade

Back to No Deal is better than a Bad Deal.

That shouldn't be a bloody secret plan, it should BE the plan. And not too much cash even if we do get 'trade' - given that such trade is more beneficial to the EU than it is to us, getting 'trade' is its own reward.

What a result Wigan amazing

glw said:

Foxy said:

The Russians have been trolling against the EU for years. They don't even hide it any more.

As a rule of thumb I think you can safely assume that across all social media platforms, for all controversial issues, political or not, from the left or the right, there are people stirring the pot.

It's not even necessarily about pushing a particular agenda, as simply sowing doubt and confusion is a desirable outcome for those who stir up trouble.

In the cold war period the "useful idiots" were on the left, but for the last decade, the right.