The EU is taking a very belligerent stance against the UK, from the start of these trade negox. "Britain must obey EU laws, without a say," blah blah
This is what you would expect, of course. It's their opening move. The UK is equally hard faced in return: "give the City equivalence for ever". Etc etc
None of this is remotely surprising, but it does make clear - for any that were unsure - that we face a year of pretty tough deal-making.
In that light, who would you want on Britain's team, trying to get the best result for the country? I'd want the best political operators in the realm, and Dominic Cummings is provably one of those. Denying this is specious, and leads to humiliation, as we see from ydoethur, tonight
And now I must say goodnight, I have artisanal exports to the EU to hand-carve and sell.
The reality of the "Britain must obey EU laws, without a say," blah blah story is another of these these less there than meets the eye.
The is is whether the arbiter of EU-UK disputes needs to take notice of ECJ judgments.
Now, this sounds like a B.F.D. But the reality is that, so long as the trade agreement is narrow in scope, then it really isn't.
People think that the ECJ goes around making judgments on countries complying with EU law, and forcing them to bend to Eurocrats schemes. And yes, that does happen.
But most of the cases before the ECJ are between companies and the ECJ and relate to - for example - the definition of what constitutes wire wool. Agreeing to take notice (which is not the same as obey or implement) of ECJ rulings on product specifications, as part of the dispute resolution process doesn't mean that the UK is bound by EU law. It means that the EU-UK body agrees that it will consider the ECJ's judgment when deciding on a dispute over tariffs on the importation of wire wool.
Meanwhile: Labour are gonna make the wrong decision. Keir Starmer is the safe choice, the best choice for fighting an election next month. Since there isn't going to be an election next month, or this year, or next year, that is an irrelevant consideration. I've thought for a while that Lisa Nandy has the potential to be the best of the bunch on offer, but now I'm pretty certain she is the best.
We are in agreement Mr N. Not so often I can say that.
However, the only way I could see Nandy winning would be if RLB withdrew and endorsed her.
Meanwhile: Labour are gonna make the wrong decision. Keir Starmer is the safe choice, the best choice for fighting an election next month. Since there isn't going to be an election next month, or this year, or next year, that is an irrelevant consideration. I've thought for a while that Lisa Nandy has the potential to be the best of the bunch on offer, but now I'm pretty certain she is the best.
I've gone green on her although if La Thornberry gets it it's go mad at Farr Vintners time.
Meanwhile: Labour are gonna make the wrong decision. Keir Starmer is the safe choice, the best choice for fighting an election next month. Since there isn't going to be an election next month, or this year, or next year, that is an irrelevant consideration. I've thought for a while that Lisa Nandy has the potential to be the best of the bunch on offer, but now I'm pretty certain she is the best.
I've gone green on her although if La Thornberry gets it it's go mad at Farr Vintners time.
Nandy is the one the Tories are worried about imho.
I concur with the consensus that this looks like quite a rubbish reshuffle (tho they all do, generally). Losing your Chancellor after about a week is not a good look (tho they must have expected it, and anticipated it)
That said, surely we have all learned not to underestimate Dominic Cummings?
Maybe he has war-gamed this, as well
I think to find a Chancellor with a shorter spell in office who didn’t die in office you have to go back to Randolph Churchill in 1886.
And he at least resigned of his own volition because he was ill and misjudged his own importance.
This is quite extraordinary and just shows how careless and politically inept Cummings and Johnson are.
That statement only holds any truth if you know that Johnson and Cummings wanted Javid in office.
I'm not sure that is a fact. It is an opinion.
If even somebody of the limited intellectual capacity of Cummings thinks it smart to de facto sack the Chancellor less than nine months into government with a budget four weeks away, then he is not merely thick, he is deranged.
I personally think it’s more likely he genuinely thought Javid would fall into line and be bullied from henceforth.
The idea that Dom Cummings has "limited intellect" is just..... embarrassing. Whatever you think of the man - good, evil, arrogant, mad - he has an incredible record of political victories and is clearly super smart.
So you win a coconut for "stupidest comment of the night"! Bravo
Meanwhile: Labour are gonna make the wrong decision. Keir Starmer is the safe choice, the best choice for fighting an election next month. Since there isn't going to be an election next month, or this year, or next year, that is an irrelevant consideration. I've thought for a while that Lisa Nandy has the potential to be the best of the bunch on offer, but now I'm pretty certain she is the best.
I've gone green on her although if La Thornberry gets it it's go mad at Farr Vintners time.
Nandy is the one the Tories are worried about imho.
I'm not at all sure the Tories are worried about anyone at the moment. It's four years. They don't have that much foresight.
My case: for example, compare and contrast these two answers, regarding the two staffers who blew the whistle on the Panorama programme about anti-Semitism in Labour. In fact the two candidates are both saying the same thing, but just look at how much better Lisa Nandy puts it, how much more human and sincere she is, less formulaic and lawyerly:
Sir Keir: "I remember that programme well and being shocked by the response that was put out … I remember what I said to Jeremy. I said I’ve never been in an organisation that turns on its staff before, ever. Because what message do you think that sends not just to the ex-staff but current staff who speak out. They will be branded disloyal. I think it was utterly wrong that statement was put out and I said that directly the next morning."
Lisa Nandy: "We’ve got to do more than just settle … they are brave and they were accused of being disloyal. But what is more disloyal than not standing up for our Labour values? I would do more than just settle. I will make the Labour party a place that values and celebrates that sort of action."
It's the difference between a competent plodder and a leader.
Meanwhile: Labour are gonna make the wrong decision. Keir Starmer is the safe choice, the best choice for fighting an election next month. Since there isn't going to be an election next month, or this year, or next year, that is an irrelevant consideration. I've thought for a while that Lisa Nandy has the potential to be the best of the bunch on offer, but now I'm pretty certain she is the best.
I've gone green on her although if La Thornberry gets it it's go mad at Farr Vintners time.
Nandy is the one the Tories are worried about imho.
I'm not, she is too lightweight, Starmer or Thornberry are more of a worry for me.
However Long Bailey would be the dream next Labour leader as far as Tories are concerned
Meanwhile: Labour are gonna make the wrong decision. Keir Starmer is the safe choice, the best choice for fighting an election next month. Since there isn't going to be an election next month, or this year, or next year, that is an irrelevant consideration. I've thought for a while that Lisa Nandy has the potential to be the best of the bunch on offer, but now I'm pretty certain she is the best.
Obviously this is telling us what PBers have been saying for years; Corbyn and his clown car ilk were so out of touch with their actual voters that they may as well have been from Mars.
But, meanwhile, these same fools are Lab HQ are still in office.
My case: for example, compare and contrast these two answers, regarding the two staffers who blew the whistle on the Panorama programme about anti-Semitism in Labour. In fact the two candidates are both saying the same thing, but just look at how much better Lisa Nandy puts it, how much more human and sincere she is, less formulaic and lawyerly:
Sir Keir: "I remember that programme well and being shocked by the response that was put out … I remember what I said to Jeremy. I said I’ve never been in an organisation that turns on its staff before, ever. Because what message do you think that sends not just to the ex-staff but current staff who speak out. They will be branded disloyal. I think it was utterly wrong that statement was put out and I said that directly the next morning."
Lisa Nandy: "We’ve got to do more than just settle … they are brave and they were accused of being disloyal. But what is more disloyal than not standing up for our Labour values? I would do more than just settle. I will make the Labour party a place that values and celebrates that sort of action."
It's the difference between a competent plodder and a leader.
I like her but her lisp and anxious frown make her come across like a timid and frightened little girl. My gf and I watched Newsnight yesterday and both thought Thornberry was far and away the most impressive.
Starmer sounds like the bloke out of the Tunes adverts in the 80s and RLB seemed inhuman
The EU is taking a very belligerent stance against the UK, from the start of these trade negox. "Britain must obey EU laws, without a say," blah blah
This is what you would expect, of course. It's their opening move. The UK is equally hard faced in return: "give the City equivalence for ever". Etc etc
None of this is remotely surprising, but it does make clear - for any that were unsure - that we face a year of pretty tough deal-making.
In that light, who would you want on Britain's team, trying to get the best result for the country? I'd want the best political operators in the realm, and Dominic Cummings is provably one of those. Denying this is specious, and leads to humiliation, as we see from ydoethur, tonight
And now I must say goodnight, I have artisanal exports to the EU to hand-carve and sell.
I am trying to think of any negotiation that Cummings has ever done.
I would say one thing for Cummings, he would have credibility, I think. You can be an absolute bastard and totally unreasonable and that's all part of the negotiation. But you must deliver on your agreements. Theresa May reneged on an agreement she made with the EU that involved them making a concession on customs areas. It killed the chance of the EU ever making another concession that could close an agreement. Johnson also has issues of trust. I think if Cummings made an agreement he would deliver on it.
Has there ever been an aide who was a bigger story than Dom 'data science' Cummings?
You mean other than Alastair Campbell, as that’s too obvious?
When Dominic Cumming gets us into a war on a spurious sexed up dossier, they'll be level pegging.
Cumming's war will involve a legion of AI-driven robots controlled from a NASA style control room/ his bedroom marching across the channel to regain Calais.
As for the rest, including the racist abuse, you’ve been starting early on the whisky again, haven’t you, Sean?
The entire establishment was in favour of a NE assembly so you really shouldn't downplay Cummings achievement in defeating them.
Being in favour of something isn't the same as caring a lot about it though or putting a lot of effort into it. But I agree Dominic Cummings is a very capable and bright guy. Cummingsography is also fascinating.
I can see why the lobby and certain Tories dislike Cummings but puzzled why he has so many detractors on here despite his consistent record of success. He seems to be the one guy capable of taking on the blob and shaking things up. People didn't vote for Brexit and Boris to maintain the status quo.
Indeed. They voted to have change. Like having a privately and Oxford educated millionaire ex-Goldman Sachs banker as Chancellor.
Unlike all the other privately and / or Oxford educated millionaire/filthy rich ex-city bankers who became Chancellors in the last decade.
I'm not, she is too lightweight, Starmer or Thornberry are more of a worry for me.
However Long Bailey would be the dream next Labour leader as far as Tories are concerned
All politicians seem lightweight when they are relatively inexperienced and unknown. That's what they said about Thatcher in 1978 and Cameron in 2005.
In this case, you have to look beyond the immediate and think how perceptions of the potential Labour leader would develop over four years.
Nandy is likable enough but bland and always will be a lightweight, Cameron and Thatcher and Blair had some presence and charisma even in the early years.
I would have reservations about making Nandy leader of Epping council let alone UK PM and dealing with Putin, Macron and Trump.
Starmer may be a bore but he has some gravitas and you could see him going to G7, G20, NATO meetings etc as leader of the country. Nandy and Long Bailey, nah
Has there ever been an aide who was a bigger story than Dom 'data science' Cummings?
You mean other than Alastair Campbell, as that’s too obvious?
When Dominic Cumming gets us into a war on a spurious sexed up dossier, they'll be level pegging.
Cumming's war will involve a legion of AI-driven robots controlled from a NASA style control room/ his bedroom marching across the channel to regain Calais.
My case: for example, compare and contrast these two answers, regarding the two staffers who blew the whistle on the Panorama programme about anti-Semitism in Labour. In fact the two candidates are both saying the same thing, but just look at how much better Lisa Nandy puts it, how much more human and sincere she is, less formulaic and lawyerly:
Sir Keir: "I remember that programme well and being shocked by the response that was put out … I remember what I said to Jeremy. I said I’ve never been in an organisation that turns on its staff before, ever. Because what message do you think that sends not just to the ex-staff but current staff who speak out. They will be branded disloyal. I think it was utterly wrong that statement was put out and I said that directly the next morning."
Lisa Nandy: "We’ve got to do more than just settle … they are brave and they were accused of being disloyal. But what is more disloyal than not standing up for our Labour values? I would do more than just settle. I will make the Labour party a place that values and celebrates that sort of action."
It's the difference between a competent plodder and a leader.
I like her but her lisp and anxious frown make her come across like a timid and frightened little girl. My gf and I watched Newsnight yesterday and both thought Thornberry was far and away the most impressive.
Starmer sounds like the bloke out of the Tunes adverts in the 80s and RLB seemed inhuman
ET would land more blows on the Tories than the others. LN would knock labour into the best shape for an election. KS would scale the heady heights of a big mole hill RLB why? Worst option for Labour.
I'm not, she is too lightweight, Starmer or Thornberry are more of a worry for me.
However Long Bailey would be the dream next Labour leader as far as Tories are concerned
All politicians seem lightweight when they are relatively inexperienced and unknown. That's what they said about Thatcher in 1978 and Cameron in 2005.
In this case, you have to look beyond the immediate and think how perceptions of the potential Labour leader would develop over four years.
Who is likely to have the better next four years - Starmer or Sunak?
Sunak definitely has potential.
Tricky gig, though. Starmer (or some other Labour leader) just has to throw well-aimed rocks from the sidelines. Boris, and Sunak, have actually got to deliver something from an extremely weak macro-economic position and a political position which is ludicrously self-contradictory, or, failing that, con enough voters into thinking that they've delivered something. They won't succeed on the actual delivery but have a sporting chance of achieving the con-trick.
The EU is taking a very belligerent stance against the UK, from the start of these trade negox. "Britain must obey EU laws, without a say," blah blah
This is what you would expect, of course. It's their opening move. The UK is equally hard faced in return: "give the City equivalence for ever". Etc etc
None of this is remotely surprising, but it does make clear - for any that were unsure - that we face a year of pretty tough deal-making.
In that light, who would you want on Britain's team, trying to get the best result for the country? I'd want the best political operators in the realm, and Dominic Cummings is provably one of those. Denying this is specious, and leads to humiliation, as we see from ydoethur, tonight
And now I must say goodnight, I have artisanal exports to the EU to hand-carve and sell.
I am trying to think of any negotiation that Cummings has ever done.
I would say one thing for Cummings, he would have credibility, I think. You can be an absolute bastard and totally unreasonable and that's all part of the negotiation. But you must deliver on your agreements. Theresa May reneged on an agreement she made with the EU that involved them making a concession on customs areas. It killed the chance of the EU ever making another concession that could close an agreement. Johnson also has issues of trust. I think if Cummings made an agreement he would deliver on it.
What precise role in government does Cummings have? And is he now in charge of the Brexit negotiations as well? Cos, if so, we could probably sack most of the Cabinet and junior ministers as they seem to have nothing to do.
Surely Boris, Cummings and Sunak can do it all.
Cummings does the work. Boris takes the credit. Sunak carries the can.
Has there ever been an aide who was a bigger story than Dom 'data science' Cummings?
You mean other than Alastair Campbell, as that’s too obvious?
When Dominic Cumming gets us into a war on a spurious sexed up dossier, they'll be level pegging.
Cumming's war will involve a legion of AI-driven robots controlled from a NASA style control room/ his bedroom marching across the channel to regain Calais.
Meanwhile: Labour are gonna make the wrong decision. Keir Starmer is the safe choice, the best choice for fighting an election next month. Since there isn't going to be an election next month, or this year, or next year, that is an irrelevant consideration. I've thought for a while that Lisa Nandy has the potential to be the best of the bunch on offer, but now I'm pretty certain she is the best.
Nandy is my first pick, but I a have no concerns if Starmer wins - especially after today. Forensic opposition to a cavalier government intent on ripping up the constitution against the possible backdrop of significant economic downturn is going to be absolutely essential. I agree that Starmer is a plodder, but after the next four years that may well become a virtue. I’d like to see Nandy as shadow chancellor if Starmer wins. I think she’d have struggled against Sajid. The placeman will be less of a challenge.
What I find most interesting about the race is how peripheral Rayner has become. She could well have won the leadership if she’d stood. It’s fortunate she didn’t.
I'm not, she is too lightweight, Starmer or Thornberry are more of a worry for me.
However Long Bailey would be the dream next Labour leader as far as Tories are concerned
All politicians seem lightweight when they are relatively inexperienced and unknown. That's what they said about Thatcher in 1978 and Cameron in 2005.
In this case, you have to look beyond the immediate and think how perceptions of the potential Labour leader would develop over four years.
Who is likely to have the better next four years - Starmer or Sunak?
Sunak definitely has potential.
Tricky gig, though. Starmer (or some other Labour leader) just has to throw well-aimed rocks from the sidelines. Boris, and Sunak, have actually got to deliver something from an extremely weak macro-economic position and a political position which is ludicrously self-contradictory, or, failing that, con enough voters into thinking that they've delivered something. They won't succeed on the actual delivery but have a sporting chance of achieving the con-trick.
I can see a pathway to Sunak doing well. Which involves Cummings crashing and burning, which must be a high probability given there are so many ways he can do so. Sunak, who is the dark horse type, is the one still there when the dust settles.
Has there ever been an aide who was a bigger story than Dom 'data science' Cummings?
You mean other than Alastair Campbell, as that’s too obvious?
When Dominic Cumming gets us into a war on a spurious sexed up dossier, they'll be level pegging.
Cumming's war will involve a legion of AI-driven robots controlled from a NASA style control room/ his bedroom marching across the channel to regain Calais.
Why stop at Calais?
Paris was English during the 1420s
Excellent. You keep your job as a SpAd and anyone who disagrees with that decision will be sacked.
Hillary C is a shorter price on Betfair for nom than Amy K.
Because the ideal compromise candidate for the Dems at a brokered convention is a someone everyone hates,
If it is contested then Kerry at 500/1 is a flutter?
Could be, also I can't see any odds on him but keep an eye on Al Gore. A sprightly 71 years old, moderate yet a climate activist, plenty of money to pay bribes, and he didn't exactly win his election, but Dems generally think he did.
The EU is taking a very belligerent stance against the UK, from the start of these trade negox. "Britain must obey EU laws, without a say," blah blah
This is what you would expect, of course. It's their opening move. The UK is equally hard faced in return: "give the City equivalence for ever". Etc etc
None of this is remotely surprising, but it does make clear - for any that were unsure - that we face a year of pretty tough deal-making.
In that light, who would you want on Britain's team, trying to get the best result for the country? I'd want the best political operators in the realm, and Dominic Cummings is provably one of those. Denying this is specious, and leads to humiliation, as we see from ydoethur, tonight
And now I must say goodnight, I have artisanal exports to the EU to hand-carve and sell.
I am trying to think of any negotiation that Cummings has ever done.
I would say one thing for Cummings, he would have credibility, I think. You can be an absolute bastard and totally unreasonable and that's all part of the negotiation. But you must deliver on your agreements. Theresa May reneged on an agreement she made with the EU that involved them making a concession on customs areas. It killed the chance of the EU ever making another concession that could close an agreement. Johnson also has issues of trust. I think if Cummings made an agreement he would deliver on it.
What precise role in government does Cummings have? And is he now in charge of the Brexit negotiations as well? Cos, if so, we could probably sack most of the Cabinet and junior ministers as they seem to have nothing to do.
Surely Boris, Cummings and Sunak can do it all.
Cummings does the work. Boris takes the credit. Sunak carries the can.
"Behold the Lord High Executioner A personage of noble rank and title — A dignified and potent officer Whose functions are particularly vital! Defer, defer To the Lord High Executioner! Defer, defer To the noble Lord, to the noble Lord To the Lord High Executioner!"
My case: for example, compare and contrast these two answers, regarding the two staffers who blew the whistle on the Panorama programme about anti-Semitism in Labour. In fact the two candidates are both saying the same thing, but just look at how much better Lisa Nandy puts it, how much more human and sincere she is, less formulaic and lawyerly:
Sir Keir: "I remember that programme well and being shocked by the response that was put out … I remember what I said to Jeremy. I said I’ve never been in an organisation that turns on its staff before, ever. Because what message do you think that sends not just to the ex-staff but current staff who speak out. They will be branded disloyal. I think it was utterly wrong that statement was put out and I said that directly the next morning."
Lisa Nandy: "We’ve got to do more than just settle … they are brave and they were accused of being disloyal. But what is more disloyal than not standing up for our Labour values? I would do more than just settle. I will make the Labour party a place that values and celebrates that sort of action."
It's the difference between a competent plodder and a leader.
I like her but her lisp and anxious frown make her come across like a timid and frightened little girl. My gf and I watched Newsnight yesterday and both thought Thornberry was far and away the most impressive.
Starmer sounds like the bloke out of the Tunes adverts in the 80s and RLB seemed inhuman
Thornberry does seem more powerful. Nandy is going for thoughtful, i assume, but may need to show some more bite - I dont doubt she can.
I don't think whether Cummings is stupid or a genius is a particularly useful question. The better question is whether he is successful. Presumably by his own lights he would say he is.
Cummings has won most of his campaigns, showing the value of message discipline and good project management. He relies heavily on his opponents stupidly acting against their own interest, but to his credit that's paid off more than it's failed.
For policy we need to turn to his stint at education. Cummings was successful in getting his policy though, particularly on cutting out local authorities, which can count as a success. Implementation was very messy and outcomes can be said to be poor. Children in England now get a measurably worse education due to his policy than they would otherwise have Free schools, his favoured policy, perform like for like worse than academies, which perform worse than the remaining local authority schools that he wanted to get rid of. Albeit the differences are quite small.
He's a blooming good campaigner. Hard team work, genius messaging, intuitive understanding of where the rules are elastic... Brilliant. But not unique. Most of what he's done is basically what Liberal Focus Teams of council candidates were doing in the 80s scaled up for the internet age.
And he's changed, or more often stopped, structural changes. North East Assembly. Euro. EU membership. Headline stuff. Not complicated.
But, in terms of concrete changes, his impact has been more limited, maybe even negative. There are some great free schools, mostly in London, and some terrible ones. Exam reform was rushed and botched. The NE assembly might have helped with the levelling up he claims to want.
It makes him (and Johnson) a winner, to be sure. Does it make him a success? At best, the jury's out.
I'm not, she is too lightweight, Starmer or Thornberry are more of a worry for me.
However Long Bailey would be the dream next Labour leader as far as Tories are concerned
All politicians seem lightweight when they are relatively inexperienced and unknown. That's what they said about Thatcher in 1978 and Cameron in 2005.
In this case, you have to look beyond the immediate and think how perceptions of the potential Labour leader would develop over four years.
Who is likely to have the better next four years - Starmer or Sunak?
Sunak definitely has potential.
Tricky gig, though. Starmer (or some other Labour leader) just has to throw well-aimed rocks from the sidelines. Boris, and Sunak, have actually got to deliver something from an extremely weak macro-economic position and a political position which is ludicrously self-contradictory, or, failing that, con enough voters into thinking that they've delivered something. They won't succeed on the actual delivery but have a sporting chance of achieving the con-trick.
Sunak could surprise and is potentially in a strong position.
But he could be fatally undermined if Labour uses humour and well-aimed malice to undermine him - extravagantly congratulating him for reading out a Budget speech written by others, for instance etc, playing on the theme that he has less self-respect than Javid.
Whether Starmer - or whoever - has the vicious deftness to get under Sunak’s skin and create an early lasting impression that he is a patsy rather than an essential part of a team working well together is another matter. And how Sunak reacts will show us what he can make of his role. High achieving people can often be surprisingly thin-skinned when they are teased.
My case: for example, compare and contrast these two answers, regarding the two staffers who blew the whistle on the Panorama programme about anti-Semitism in Labour. In fact the two candidates are both saying the same thing, but just look at how much better Lisa Nandy puts it, how much more human and sincere she is, less formulaic and lawyerly:
Sir Keir: "I remember that programme well and being shocked by the response that was put out … I remember what I said to Jeremy. I said I’ve never been in an organisation that turns on its staff before, ever. Because what message do you think that sends not just to the ex-staff but current staff who speak out. They will be branded disloyal. I think it was utterly wrong that statement was put out and I said that directly the next morning."
Lisa Nandy: "We’ve got to do more than just settle … they are brave and they were accused of being disloyal. But what is more disloyal than not standing up for our Labour values? I would do more than just settle. I will make the Labour party a place that values and celebrates that sort of action."
It's the difference between a competent plodder and a leader.
I like her but her lisp and anxious frown make her come across like a timid and frightened little girl. My gf and I watched Newsnight yesterday and both thought Thornberry was far and away the most impressive.
Starmer sounds like the bloke out of the Tunes adverts in the 80s and RLB seemed inhuman
Thornberry does seem more powerful. Nandy is going for thoughtful, i assume, but may need to show some more bite - I dont doubt she can.
To be honest, I don’t think it really matters... they’re all quite bland, and the Conservatives are a more natural party of government plus they have a superstar front man.
My case: for example, compare and contrast these two answers, regarding the two staffers who blew the whistle on the Panorama programme about anti-Semitism in Labour. In fact the two candidates are both saying the same thing, but just look at how much better Lisa Nandy puts it, how much more human and sincere she is, less formulaic and lawyerly:
Sir Keir: "I remember that programme well and being shocked by the response that was put out … I remember what I said to Jeremy. I said I’ve never been in an organisation that turns on its staff before, ever. Because what message do you think that sends not just to the ex-staff but current staff who speak out. They will be branded disloyal. I think it was utterly wrong that statement was put out and I said that directly the next morning."
Lisa Nandy: "We’ve got to do more than just settle … they are brave and they were accused of being disloyal. But what is more disloyal than not standing up for our Labour values? I would do more than just settle. I will make the Labour party a place that values and celebrates that sort of action."
It's the difference between a competent plodder and a leader.
I like her but her lisp and anxious frown make her come across like a timid and frightened little girl. My gf and I watched Newsnight yesterday and both thought Thornberry was far and away the most impressive.
Starmer sounds like the bloke out of the Tunes adverts in the 80s and RLB seemed inhuman
Thornberry does seem more powerful. Nandy is going for thoughtful, i assume, but may need to show some more bite - I dont doubt she can.
To be honest, I don’t think it really matters... they’re all quite bland, and the Conservatives are a more natural party of government plus they have a superstar front man.
Starmer's best bet is to present himself as a dull but serious, earnest and decent chap in contrast to the more charismatic and colourful Boris and after more than a decade of conservative rule someone who can be trusted to take the left back to power. Much like Francois Hollande did in his narrow 2012 victory over the more charismatic incumbent President Nicolas Sarkozy
My main concern about Cummings is that he’s unelected. If he wants to have all this power he can bloody well get himself elected.
If he doesn’t want that bother, then he should stop acting like some arrogant unelected bureaucrat bossing everyone around like, ooh, I don’t know, one of those EU-wallahs under whose oppressive heels we have been crushed for so long.
The EU is taking a very belligerent stance against the UK, from the start of these trade negox. "Britain must obey EU laws, without a say," blah blah
This is what you would expect, of course. It's their opening move. The UK is equally hard faced in return: "give the City equivalence for ever". Etc etc
None of this is remotely surprising, but it does make clear - for any that were unsure - that we face a year of pretty tough deal-making.
In that light, who would you want on Britain's team, trying to get the best result for the country? I'd want the best political operators in the realm, and Dominic Cummings is provably one of those. Denying this is specious, and leads to humiliation, as we see from ydoethur, tonight
And now I must say goodnight, I have artisanal exports to the EU to hand-carve and sell.
I am trying to think of any negotiation that Cummings has ever done.
I would say one thing for Cummings, he would have credibility, I think. You can be an absolute bastard and totally unreasonable and that's all part of the negotiation. But you must deliver on your agreements. Theresa May reneged on an agreement she made with the EU that involved them making a concession on customs areas. It killed the chance of the EU ever making another concession that could close an agreement. Johnson also has issues of trust. I think if Cummings made an agreement he would deliver on it.
What precise role in government does Cummings have? And is he now in charge of the Brexit negotiations as well? Cos, if so, we could probably sack most of the Cabinet and junior ministers as they seem to have nothing to do.
Surely Boris, Cummings and Sunak can do it all.
Cummings does the work. Boris takes the credit. Sunak carries the can.
"Behold the Lord High Executioner A personage of noble rank and title — A dignified and potent officer Whose functions are particularly vital! Defer, defer To the Lord High Executioner! Defer, defer To the noble Lord, to the noble Lord To the Lord High Executioner!"
If there's one thing I cannot fucking abide it is Gilbert and Sullivan.
The EU is taking a very belligerent stance against the UK, from the start of these trade negox. "Britain must obey EU laws, without a say," blah blah
This is what you would expect, of course. It's their opening move. The UK is equally hard faced in return: "give the City equivalence for ever". Etc etc
None of this is remotely surprising, but it does make clear - for any that were unsure - that we face a year of pretty tough deal-making.
In that light, who would you want on Britain's team, trying to get the best result for the country? I'd want the best political operators in the realm, and Dominic Cummings is provably one of those. Denying this is specious, and leads to humiliation, as we see from ydoethur, tonight
And now I must say goodnight, I have artisanal exports to the EU to hand-carve and sell.
I am trying to think of any negotiation that Cummings has ever done.
I would say one thing for Cummings, he would have credibility, I think. You can be an absolute bastard and totally unreasonable and that's all part of the negotiation. But you must deliver on your agreements. Theresa May reneged on an agreement she made with the EU that involved them making a concession on customs areas. It killed the chance of the EU ever making another concession that could close an agreement. Johnson also has issues of trust. I think if Cummings made an agreement he would deliver on it.
What precise role in government does Cummings have? And is he now in charge of the Brexit negotiations as well? Cos, if so, we could probably sack most of the Cabinet and junior ministers as they seem to have nothing to do.
Surely Boris, Cummings and Sunak can do it all.
Cummings does the work. Boris takes the credit. Sunak carries the can.
"Behold the Lord High Executioner A personage of noble rank and title — A dignified and potent officer Whose functions are particularly vital! Defer, defer To the Lord High Executioner! Defer, defer To the noble Lord, to the noble Lord To the Lord High Executioner!"
If there's one thing I cannot fucking abide it is Gilbert and Sullivan.
My main concern about Cummings is that he’s unelected. If he wants to have all this power he can bloody well get himself elected.
If he doesn’t want that bother, then he should stop acting like some arrogant unelected bureaucrat bossing everyone around like, ooh, I don’t know, one of those EU-wallahs under whose oppressive heels we have been crushed for so long.
I'm not, she is too lightweight, Starmer or Thornberry are more of a worry for me.
However Long Bailey would be the dream next Labour leader as far as Tories are concerned
All politicians seem lightweight when they are relatively inexperienced and unknown. That's what they said about Thatcher in 1978 and Cameron in 2005.
In this case, you have to look beyond the immediate and think how perceptions of the potential Labour leader would develop over four years.
Who is likely to have the better next four years - Starmer or Sunak?
Sunak definitely has potential.
Tricky gig, though. Starmer (or some other Labour leader) just has to throw well-aimed rocks from the sidelines. Boris, and Sunak, have actually got to deliver something from an extremely weak macro-economic position and a political position which is ludicrously self-contradictory, or, failing that, con enough voters into thinking that they've delivered something. They won't succeed on the actual delivery but have a sporting chance of achieving the con-trick.
Sunak could surprise and is potentially in a strong position.
But he could be fatally undermined if Labour uses humour and well-aimed malice to undermine him - extravagantly congratulating him for reading out a Budget speech written by others, for instance etc, playing on the theme that he has less self-respect than Javid.
Whether Starmer - or whoever - has the vicious deftness to get under Sunak’s skin and create an early lasting impression that he is a patsy rather than an essential part of a team working well together is another matter. And how Sunak reacts will show us what he can make of his role. High achieving people can often be surprisingly thin-skinned when they are teased.
Er, unless the Budget is delayed until April, the Labour politician responding to it will be ... Jeremy Corbyn. The idea that he could fatally undermine anything other than his own party is laughable.
The Treasury will destroy Cummings. It may take a year or two, but his time is done.
And so destroy Johnson too?
I'm sure you're right, the main battle is PM controlling HM Treasury or HM Treasury controling PM. It is likely the big battle of the Johnson premiership.
The Treasury will destroy Cummings. It may take a year or two, but his time is done.
And so destroy Johnson too?
I'm sure you're right, the main battle is PM controlling HM Treasury or HM Treasury controling PM. It is likely the big battle of the Johnson premiership.
Looks like it.
I predict that Johnson will destroy Tory's impression of sound money.
Labour may yet come back from the grave (led by Nandy of course :-) )
The Treasury will destroy Cummings. It may take a year or two, but his time is done.
And so destroy Johnson too?
I'm sure you're right, the main battle is PM controlling HM Treasury or HM Treasury controling PM. It is likely the big battle of the Johnson premiership.
Looks like it.
I predict that Johnson will destroy Tory's impression of sound money.
Labour may yet come back from the grave (led by Nandy of course :-) )
Nandy is one with potential to grow and flourish in yhe job.
The Treasury will destroy Cummings. It may take a year or two, but his time is done.
And so destroy Johnson too?
I'm sure you're right, the main battle is PM controlling HM Treasury or HM Treasury controling PM. It is likely the big battle of the Johnson premiership.
Looks like it.
I predict that Johnson will destroy Tory's impression of sound money.
Labour may yet come back from the grave (led by Nandy of course :-) )
As long as the Labour party exists and is the Tories' main competitor for power, where exactly are these supposed fans of 'sound money' going to go? I seem to remember the Lib Dems promising to balance the budget in their manifesto - whatever happened to them?
It's a fascinating poll - both showing that Sanders is the clear leader. But that the "Left Lane" of the Democratic convention remains stuck at around 40%.
It's a real shame we don't have more Nevada or South Carolina polling. Is Biden holding up in SC? Who's ahead in Nevada? (And will the unions endorse anyone?)
If we go into Super Tuesday with the "Moderate Lane" containing four players - Baemy, Buttigieg, Biden and Bloomberg, then it's highly likely that Sanders will end up with an insurmountable delegate lead. Not enough, probably, to get to an absolute majority of delegates, but quite probably enough to stake a real claim to the nomination. (There's a certain irony that he's getting fewer than half the votes he got last time, but is in with a much better shot at the nomination.)
On the other hand, if one or two of the candidates drop out, then I think you'll see the vote shares of the remaining moderates head up markedly.
It's a real nail biter - and one not helped by the fact that I simply can't see Bloomberg's delegates ever supporting Sanders for the nomination.
The EU is taking a very belligerent stance against the UK, from the start of these trade negox. "Britain must obey EU laws, without a say," blah blah
This is what you would expect, of course. It's their opening move. The UK is equally hard faced in return: "give the City equivalence for ever". Etc etc
None of this is remotely surprising, but it does make clear - for any that were unsure - that we face a year of pretty tough deal-making.
In that light, who would you want on Britain's team, trying to get the best result for the country? I'd want the best political operators in the realm, and Dominic Cummings is provably one of those. Denying this is specious, and leads to humiliation, as we see from ydoethur, tonight
And now I must say goodnight, I have artisanal exports to the EU to hand-carve and sell.
I am trying to think of any negotiation that Cummings has ever done.
I would say one thing for Cummings, he would have credibility, I think. You can be an absolute bastard and totally unreasonable and that's all part of the negotiation. But you must deliver on your agreements. Theresa May reneged on an agreement she made with the EU that involved them making a concession on customs areas. It killed the chance of the EU ever making another concession that could close an agreement. Johnson also has issues of trust. I think if Cummings made an agreement he would deliver on it.
What precise role in government does Cummings have? And is he now in charge of the Brexit negotiations as well? Cos, if so, we could probably sack most of the Cabinet and junior ministers as they seem to have nothing to do.
Surely Boris, Cummings and Sunak can do it all.
Cummings does the work. Boris takes the credit. Sunak carries the can.
"Behold the Lord High Executioner A personage of noble rank and title — A dignified and potent officer Whose functions are particularly vital! Defer, defer To the Lord High Executioner! Defer, defer To the noble Lord, to the noble Lord To the Lord High Executioner!"
If there's one thing I cannot fucking abide it is Gilbert and Sullivan.
It's a real shame we don't have more Nevada or South Carolina polling. Is Biden holding up in SC? Who's ahead in Nevada? (And will the unions endorse anyone?)
The EU is taking a very belligerent stance against the UK, from the start of these trade negox. "Britain must obey EU laws, without a say," blah blah
This is what you would expect, of course. It's their opening move. The UK is equally hard faced in return: "give the City equivalence for ever". Etc etc
None of this is remotely surprising, but it does make clear - for any that were unsure - that we face a year of pretty tough deal-making.
In that light, who would you want on Britain's team, trying to get the best result for the country? I'd want the best political operators in the realm, and Dominic Cummings is provably one of those. Denying this is specious, and leads to humiliation, as we see from ydoethur, tonight
And now I must say goodnight, I have artisanal exports to the EU to hand-carve and sell.
I am trying to think of any negotiation that Cummings has ever done.
I would say one thing for Cummings, he would have credibility, I think. You can be an absolute bastard and totally unreasonable and that's all part of the negotiation. But you must deliver on your agreements. Theresa May reneged on an agreement she made with the EU that involved them making a concession on customs areas. It killed the chance of the EU ever making another concession that could close an agreement. Johnson also has issues of trust. I think if Cummings made an agreement he would deliver on it.
What precise role in government does Cummings have? And is he now in charge of the Brexit negotiations as well? Cos, if so, we could probably sack most of the Cabinet and junior ministers as they seem to have nothing to do.
Surely Boris, Cummings and Sunak can do it all.
Cummings does the work. Boris takes the credit. Sunak carries the can.
"Behold the Lord High Executioner A personage of noble rank and title — A dignified and potent officer Whose functions are particularly vital! Defer, defer To the Lord High Executioner! Defer, defer To the noble Lord, to the noble Lord To the Lord High Executioner!"
If there's one thing I cannot fucking abide it is Gilbert and Sullivan.
The Treasury will destroy Cummings. It may take a year or two, but his time is done.
And so destroy Johnson too?
I'm sure you're right, the main battle is PM controlling HM Treasury or HM Treasury controling PM. It is likely the big battle of the Johnson premiership.
Looks like it.
I predict that Johnson will destroy Tory's impression of sound money.
Labour may yet come back from the grave (led by Nandy of course :-) )
The difference being that Johnson will spend it on legacy assets that will take us into the twenty-second century and beyond.
Labour will just spend the same amount, but have nothing to show for it beyond next Wednesday.
Comments
The is is whether the arbiter of EU-UK disputes needs to take notice of ECJ judgments.
Now, this sounds like a B.F.D. But the reality is that, so long as the trade agreement is narrow in scope, then it really isn't.
People think that the ECJ goes around making judgments on countries complying with EU law, and forcing them to bend to Eurocrats schemes. And yes, that does happen.
But most of the cases before the ECJ are between companies and the ECJ and relate to - for example - the definition of what constitutes wire wool. Agreeing to take notice (which is not the same as obey or implement) of ECJ rulings on product specifications, as part of the dispute resolution process doesn't mean that the UK is bound by EU law. It means that the EU-UK body agrees that it will consider the ECJ's judgment when deciding on a dispute over tariffs on the importation of wire wool.
However, the only way I could see Nandy winning would be if RLB withdrew and endorsed her.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1227936002460786688?s=20
Are you a fan of super smart D'Annunzio by any chance?
Sir Keir: "I remember that programme well and being shocked by the response that was put out … I remember what I said to Jeremy. I said I’ve never been in an organisation that turns on its staff before, ever. Because what message do you think that sends not just to the ex-staff but current staff who speak out. They will be branded disloyal. I think it was utterly wrong that statement was put out and I said that directly the next morning."
Lisa Nandy: "We’ve got to do more than just settle … they are brave and they were accused of being disloyal. But what is more disloyal than not standing up for our Labour values? I would do more than just settle. I will make the Labour party a place that values and celebrates that sort of action."
It's the difference between a competent plodder and a leader.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/bernie-sanders-favourable-scottish-independence-21489445
However Long Bailey would be the dream next Labour leader as far as Tories are concerned
But, meanwhile, these same fools are Lab HQ are still in office.
In this case, you have to look beyond the immediate and think how perceptions of the potential Labour leader would develop over four years.
Starmer sounds like the bloke out of the Tunes adverts in the 80s and RLB seemed inhuman
I am trying to think of any negotiation that Cummings has ever done.
I would say one thing for Cummings, he would have credibility, I think. You can be an absolute bastard and totally unreasonable and that's all part of the negotiation. But you must deliver on your agreements. Theresa May reneged on an agreement she made with the EU that involved them making a concession on customs areas. It killed the chance of the EU ever making another concession that could close an agreement. Johnson also has issues of trust. I think if Cummings made an agreement he would deliver on it.
Unlike all the other privately and / or Oxford educated millionaire/filthy rich ex-city bankers who became Chancellors in the last decade.
I would have reservations about making Nandy leader of Epping council let alone UK PM and dealing with Putin, Macron and Trump.
Starmer may be a bore but he has some gravitas and you could see him going to G7, G20, NATO meetings etc as leader of the country. Nandy and Long Bailey, nah
Then they'll be marching on Edinburgh.
Night all.
LN would knock labour into the best shape for an election.
KS would scale the heady heights of a big mole hill
RLB why? Worst option for Labour.
Tricky gig, though. Starmer (or some other Labour leader) just has to throw well-aimed rocks from the sidelines. Boris, and Sunak, have actually got to deliver something from an extremely weak macro-economic position and a political position which is ludicrously self-contradictory, or, failing that, con enough voters into thinking that they've delivered something. They won't succeed on the actual delivery but have a sporting chance of achieving the con-trick.
CLP nominations
Keir Starmer 370
Rebecca Long-Bailey 159
Lisa Nandy 71
Emily Thornberry 30
33 is the threshold
Deputy candidates
Angela Rayner 355
Dawn Butler 82
Richard Burgon 76
Ian Murray 59
Rosena Allin-Khan 56
Surely Boris, Cummings and Sunak can do it all.
Cummings does the work.
Boris takes the credit.
Sunak carries the can.
Paris was English during the 1420s
What I find most interesting about the race is how peripheral Rayner has become. She could well have won the leadership if she’d stood. It’s fortunate she didn’t.
A personage of noble rank and title —
A dignified and potent officer
Whose functions are particularly vital!
Defer, defer
To the Lord High Executioner!
Defer, defer
To the noble Lord, to the noble Lord
To the Lord High Executioner!"
And he's changed, or more often stopped, structural changes. North East Assembly. Euro. EU membership. Headline stuff. Not complicated.
But, in terms of concrete changes, his impact has been more limited, maybe even negative. There are some great free schools, mostly in London, and some terrible ones. Exam reform was rushed and botched. The NE assembly might have helped with the levelling up he claims to want.
It makes him (and Johnson) a winner, to be sure. Does it make him a success? At best, the jury's out.
But he could be fatally undermined if Labour uses humour and well-aimed malice to undermine him - extravagantly congratulating him for reading out a Budget speech written by others, for instance etc, playing on the theme that he has less self-respect than Javid.
Whether Starmer - or whoever - has the vicious deftness to get under Sunak’s skin and create an early lasting impression that he is a patsy rather than an essential part of a team working well together is another matter. And how Sunak reacts will show us what he can make of his role. High achieving people can often be surprisingly thin-skinned when they are teased.
If he doesn’t want that bother, then he should stop acting like some arrogant unelected bureaucrat bossing everyone around like, ooh, I don’t know, one of those EU-wallahs under whose oppressive heels we have been crushed for so long.
Huntingdonshire - St Ives East
Con 558
Ind 429
LD 109
Lab 103
Con hold
Hertsmere - Borehamwood Kenilworth
Con 776
Lab 655
LD 104
Greens
Con gain from Lab
Waverley - Milford
Ind 452
Con 328
Ind 113
Ind hold
Derbyshire - Whaley Bridge
Lab 1851
Con 1048
LD 721
Ind 52
Lab gain from Con. Winner is the recently defeated MP for High Peak
One in Thanet and one in East Staffordshire still undeclared
I'm sure you're right, the main battle is PM controlling HM Treasury or HM Treasury controling PM. It is likely the big battle of the Johnson premiership.
I predict that Johnson will destroy Tory's impression of sound money.
Labour may yet come back from the grave (led by Nandy of course :-) )
Much better than plodding along.
It's a real shame we don't have more Nevada or South Carolina polling. Is Biden holding up in SC? Who's ahead in Nevada? (And will the unions endorse anyone?)
If we go into Super Tuesday with the "Moderate Lane" containing four players - Baemy, Buttigieg, Biden and Bloomberg, then it's highly likely that Sanders will end up with an insurmountable delegate lead. Not enough, probably, to get to an absolute majority of delegates, but quite probably enough to stake a real claim to the nomination. (There's a certain irony that he's getting fewer than half the votes he got last time, but is in with a much better shot at the nomination.)
On the other hand, if one or two of the candidates drop out, then I think you'll see the vote shares of the remaining moderates head up markedly.
It's a real nail biter - and one not helped by the fact that I simply can't see Bloomberg's delegates ever supporting Sanders for the nomination.
https://twitter.com/Theophite/status/1228127920440233984/photo/1
Labour will just spend the same amount, but have nothing to show for it beyond next Wednesday.