This is the powerful stuff, breaking down the idea Johnson is any different to the previous lot
The problem with that is the supporters of the last lot are hostile to Boris, this government hasn’t really been in charge for ten years
By contrast Starmer was in Corbyn's shadow cabinet right until the end, and even put one of Corbyn's lieutenants in his own shadow cabinet - though she gave him a nice opportunity to remove her.
Indeed. When Boris took over he was happy to purge the Cabinet - then even the Party of those who couldn't get aboard his project and move on from May.
Starmer OTOH campaigned as a "unity" candidate rather than campaigning to vanquish Corbynism.
Yes because if he didn't Starmer would not now by Labour Party leader and Rebecca Wrong-Daily would have walked the election...
Controversial opinion which I'm going to leave here, Fred Goodwin was unlucky, Barclays also went for ABN Amro, Barclays got 'lucky' and missed out on the deal that ultimately sent RBS mammary glands up.
We'd be all detesting Barclays instead of RBS today.
To a certain extent. Fred was a bit of good luck (ie no GFC) away from a stonking deal which would have made him a hero.
His error/hubris was to persevere at the same bid price when the sector had rerated down by half.
It was a shite deal sans crash. They got the asset book but didn't get a whole pile of the staff.
As the whole point of the deal for RBS was to buy in expertise it was a massive failure.
They bolted on an entire equities division to add to RBS' debt and FX.
This is the powerful stuff, breaking down the idea Johnson is any different to the previous lot
The problem with that is the supporters of the last lot are hostile to Boris, this government hasn’t really been in charge for ten years
By contrast Starmer was in Corbyn's shadow cabinet right until the end, and even put one of Corbyn's lieutenants in his own shadow cabinet - though she gave him a nice opportunity to remove her.
Indeed. When Boris took over he was happy to purge the Cabinet - then even the Party of those who couldn't get aboard his project and move on from May.
Starmer OTOH campaigned as a "unity" candidate rather than campaigning to vanquish Corbynism.
Yes because if he didn't Starmer would not now by Labour Party leader and Rebecca Wrong-Daily would have walked the election...
I'm not convinced, I think following the 80 seat majority for Boris enough Labour members would have wanted to move on anyway. . Furthermore I'm not sure the idea that Starmer is an untrustworthy backstabber who will say anything that his audience wants to get elected but doesn't mean it and will then turn around and betray his election promises completely once he's in power is a great message to send out.
I have no sympathies for the Corbynites but if he's prepared to lie to their face and betray them like that then what else will he be prepared to do to win an election?
I'm not sure the idea that Starmer is an untrustworthy backstabber who will say anything that his audience wants to get elected but doesn't mean it and will then turn around and betray his election promises completely once he's in power is a great message to send out.
While its generally considered that Corbyn had an iron grip on the Labour Party membership its worth noting that even "Owen Who?" managed to get just under 40% challenging him in 2016.
3 years later and following a humiliating election drubbing and with a more serious contender than Owen Who? I see no reason why Starmer couldn't have won a clean election victory on a campaign of moving on from Corbynism and expelling any antisemites.
I'm not sure the idea that Starmer is an untrustworthy backstabber who will say anything that his audience wants to get elected but doesn't mean it and will then turn around and betray his election promises completely once he's in power is a great message to send out.
That's BoZo's message
Boris was explicit when he was campaigning that he rejected Theresa May's deal, what it stood for and what changes he was seeking. When he won then he had the moral authority and mandate to expel those who couldn't get with the program. Starmer didn't do that.
This is the powerful stuff, breaking down the idea Johnson is any different to the previous lot
The problem with that is the supporters of the last lot are hostile to Boris, this government hasn’t really been in charge for ten years
By contrast Starmer was in Corbyn's shadow cabinet right until the end, and even put one of Corbyn's lieutenants in his own shadow cabinet - though she gave him a nice opportunity to remove her.
Indeed. When Boris took over he was happy to purge the Cabinet - then even the Party of those who couldn't get aboard his project and move on from May.
Starmer OTOH campaigned as a "unity" candidate rather than campaigning to vanquish Corbynism.
Yes because if he didn't Starmer would not now by Labour Party leader and Rebecca Wrong-Daily would have walked the election...
I'm not convinced, I think following the 80 seat majority for Boris enough Labour members would have wanted to move on anyway. . Furthermore I'm not sure the idea that Starmer is an untrustworthy backstabber who will say anything that his audience wants to get elected but doesn't mean it and will then turn around and betray his election promises completely once he's in power is a great message to send out.
I have no sympathies for the Corbynites but if he's prepared to lie to their face and betray them like that then what else will he be prepared to do to win an election?
I'm at a loss as to how removing people mentioned in a very embarrassing report about racism stops the leader being the "Unity" candidate...
The only people who seem to be saying such are either those who are named, those likely to be named or those who have done similar and hate that their racism is being pointed out.
This is the powerful stuff, breaking down the idea Johnson is any different to the previous lot
The problem with that is the supporters of the last lot are hostile to Boris, this government hasn’t really been in charge for ten years
By contrast Starmer was in Corbyn's shadow cabinet right until the end, and even put one of Corbyn's lieutenants in his own shadow cabinet - though she gave him a nice opportunity to remove her.
Indeed. When Boris took over he was happy to purge the Cabinet - then even the Party of those who couldn't get aboard his project and move on from May.
Starmer OTOH campaigned as a "unity" candidate rather than campaigning to vanquish Corbynism.
Yes because if he didn't Starmer would not now by Labour Party leader and Rebecca Wrong-Daily would have walked the election...
I'm not convinced, I think following the 80 seat majority for Boris enough Labour members would have wanted to move on anyway. . Furthermore I'm not sure the idea that Starmer is an untrustworthy backstabber who will say anything that his audience wants to get elected but doesn't mean it and will then turn around and betray his election promises completely once he's in power is a great message to send out.
I have no sympathies for the Corbynites but if he's prepared to lie to their face and betray them like that then what else will he be prepared to do to win an election?
I'm at a loss as to how removing people mentioned in a very embarrassing report about racism stops the leader being the "Unity" candidate...
The only people who seem to be saying such are either those who are named, those likely to be named or those who have done similar and hate that their racism is being pointed out.
That's whom he was seeking unity with though.
You don't seek unity with a cancer, you seek to cut it out.
I'm not sure the idea that Starmer is an untrustworthy backstabber who will say anything that his audience wants to get elected but doesn't mean it and will then turn around and betray his election promises completely once he's in power is a great message to send out.
That's BoZo's message
Boris was explicit when he was campaigning that he rejected Theresa May's deal, what it stood for and what changes he was seeking.
I have occasionally been known to type "kicked" instead of "licked". It's an easy mistake.
So, any guesses for his safe word?
I had to google for that expression!
Watch the film Euro Trip.
Hilarious film, greatly underrated - like a dirtier much funnier version of American Pie set travelling through Europe. The scene in the Netherlands has the best 'safe word' scene I've ever seen.
So if I'm not satisfied with the way the law around Brexit was made, can I keep my EU passport? And then then there's a few other EU related things I'd like to keep too.
While its generally considered that Corbyn had an iron grip on the Labour Party membership its worth noting that even "Owen Who?" managed to get just under 40% challenging him in 2016.
3 years later and following a humiliating election drubbing and with a more serious contender than Owen Who? I see no reason why Starmer couldn't have won a clean election victory on a campaign of moving on from Corbynism and expelling any antisemites.
To name one other possible replacement for Corbyn, how did Yvette Cooper get on in the leadership election?
It was highly likely that any one who had resigned from the shadow cabinet was not going to get on the ballot which was why Starmer stayed in it. Heck even you saw how removed he was from the rest of the shadow cabinet last year...
OT - Not sure why BoJo is emulating Trumpsky. Certainly NOT a good look. AND can't even set up some internet back-chatter by calling his opponent - Starmer or Sunak - a "demented vegtable".
OFF TOPIC - What are the odds, that Trumpsky's shout-out to/for La Maxwell at yesterday's typically weird "briefing" was done out of love & respect for HM The Queen?
Or is it (among other things) a signal to His Foul Lowness to keep his lip buttoned and for La Maxwell to do the same? After all, the Twitter in Chief does have the power (for the next six months anyway) to spring her from durance vile, just like he did for Roger Stone.
This is the powerful stuff, breaking down the idea Johnson is any different to the previous lot
The problem with that is the supporters of the last lot are hostile to Boris, this government hasn’t really been in charge for ten years
By contrast Starmer was in Corbyn's shadow cabinet right until the end, and even put one of Corbyn's lieutenants in his own shadow cabinet - though she gave him a nice opportunity to remove her.
Indeed. When Boris took over he was happy to purge the Cabinet - then even the Party of those who couldn't get aboard his project and move on from May.
Starmer OTOH campaigned as a "unity" candidate rather than campaigning to vanquish Corbynism.
Yes because if he didn't Starmer would not now by Labour Party leader and Rebecca Wrong-Daily would have walked the election...
I'm not convinced, I think following the 80 seat majority for Boris enough Labour members would have wanted to move on anyway. . Furthermore I'm not sure the idea that Starmer is an untrustworthy backstabber who will say anything that his audience wants to get elected but doesn't mean it and will then turn around and betray his election promises completely once he's in power is a great message to send out.
I have no sympathies for the Corbynites but if he's prepared to lie to their face and betray them like that then what else will he be prepared to do to win an election?
I'm at a loss as to how removing people mentioned in a very embarrassing report about racism stops the leader being the "Unity" candidate...
The only people who seem to be saying such are either those who are named, those likely to be named or those who have done similar and hate that their racism is being pointed out.
That's whom he was seeking unity with though.
You don't seek unity with a cancer, you seek to cut it out.
Nope he's was seeking to be the unity across the left leaning and more centralist parts of the labour party. And not all of them are racist in the same way that not all Tory members are 100% out for themselves screw everyone else...
If you are friends with supporters of Everton then please reach out to them today and over the next few days, tonight will not be a pleasant experience for them.
Sunak will make a great next PM when Boris retires in 2028.
I don't think the party will let him continue as long as that
He won an 80 seat majority, still leads in the polls and on favourability ratings is polling the same now as he was before the election last year.
The party will defenestrate failing leaders but it took years to get rid of even Theresa May. Johnson is no May. Two terms is a good length of time for a PM, 2028 gives Sunak a year to be in charge before the 2029 General Election.
Johnson will be a liability in 2024, never mind 2029. And the big weakness in your argument about Sunak as his replacement is your assumption that the Chancellor of the E's current popularity will survive the economic tsunami to come. Changing an unpopular leader only works when it's seen as a change of direction. If Johnson's eventual unpopularity comes about on the back of economic failures, putting the Chancellor in charge won't work.
The parallel is I think with Anthony Barber, someone initially seen as integral to the Heath government's initial popularity as expansionary policies were followed, only to be seen as the architect of the retrenchment that eventually followed. Barber wouldn't have saved the Conservatives in 1974.
You're assuming there's going to be an economic tsunami. You're assuming economic failure.
If the government guides the country through COVID, through the end of transition and there is post vaccine from 2021 onwards a boom in the UK economy . . . then Boris will deserve a second majority victory and Sunak will be well placed to replace him when the Tories look for a sixth election victory in a row in 2029.
Yes, that is indeed what I am assuming. And I think my assumptions are going to be closer to the eventual reality than your very rosy ones.
To be clear I think there's going to be a very deep recession this year, awfully bad. But going forward that sets a low baseline that will permit booming growth as the economy gets rebuilt. Similar to the 1920s for 1918 pandemic and WWI and also similar to the boom times that followed WWII. Devastation leaves behind potential for booming growth afterwards.
But having said that, would you say that if I am right and you are wrong and the economy is booming by 2024 then Boris and Sunak would deserve kudos and maybe another election victory?
If the economy is booming pre-2024, would you support tax rises to "fix the roof while the sun is shining"?
While its generally considered that Corbyn had an iron grip on the Labour Party membership its worth noting that even "Owen Who?" managed to get just under 40% challenging him in 2016.
3 years later and following a humiliating election drubbing and with a more serious contender than Owen Who? I see no reason why Starmer couldn't have won a clean election victory on a campaign of moving on from Corbynism and expelling any antisemites.
Yup. Some of the stuff he at best triangulated towards and at worst capitulated on during the leadership election was awful. I hope that it was all just maskirovka and not a serious try at bridging across the ideological divide...
Sunak will make a great next PM when Boris retires in 2028.
I don't think the party will let him continue as long as that
He won an 80 seat majority, still leads in the polls and on favourability ratings is polling the same now as he was before the election last year.
The party will defenestrate failing leaders but it took years to get rid of even Theresa May. Johnson is no May. Two terms is a good length of time for a PM, 2028 gives Sunak a year to be in charge before the 2029 General Election.
Johnson will be a liability in 2024, never mind 2029. And the big weakness in your argument about Sunak as his replacement is your assumption that the Chancellor of the E's current popularity will survive the economic tsunami to come. Changing an unpopular leader only works when it's seen as a change of direction. If Johnson's eventual unpopularity comes about on the back of economic failures, putting the Chancellor in charge won't work.
The parallel is I think with Anthony Barber, someone initially seen as integral to the Heath government's initial popularity as expansionary policies were followed, only to be seen as the architect of the retrenchment that eventually followed. Barber wouldn't have saved the Conservatives in 1974.
You're assuming there's going to be an economic tsunami. You're assuming economic failure.
If the government guides the country through COVID, through the end of transition and there is post vaccine from 2021 onwards a boom in the UK economy . . . then Boris will deserve a second majority victory and Sunak will be well placed to replace him when the Tories look for a sixth election victory in a row in 2029.
Yes, that is indeed what I am assuming. And I think my assumptions are going to be closer to the eventual reality than your very rosy ones.
To be clear I think there's going to be a very deep recession this year, awfully bad. But going forward that sets a low baseline that will permit booming growth as the economy gets rebuilt. Similar to the 1920s for 1918 pandemic and WWI and also similar to the boom times that followed WWII. Devastation leaves behind potential for booming growth afterwards.
But having said that, would you say that if I am right and you are wrong and the economy is booming by 2024 then Boris and Sunak would deserve kudos and maybe another election victory?
If the economy is booming pre-2024, would you support tax rises to "fix the roof while the sun is shining"?
I don't believe tax rises "fix the roof" but yes if the economy is booming pre-2024 then I would want to see the deficit reduced annually, fixing the roof while the sun is shining. 100% yes.
I'm not sure the idea that Starmer is an untrustworthy backstabber who will say anything that his audience wants to get elected but doesn't mean it and will then turn around and betray his election promises completely once he's in power is a great message to send out.
That's BoZo's message
Boris was explicit when he was campaigning that he rejected Theresa May's deal, what it stood for and what changes he was seeking.
Why did he vote for it then?
I didn't agree with him voting for it. I was on here - a rather lone voice on here - calling for it to be rejected on Meaningful Vote 3.
He said he'd vote for it as it was a bad deal, but better than the alternative of no Brexit. I disagreed. I don't always agree with Johnson and I stuck to my principles then.
Here in Great State of WA went yesterday to King County Elections to observe logic & accuracy test of the vote tabulation system. It passed.
Ballots were mailed to active registered voters last week. As of yesterday, WA Secretary of State reported just over 168k ballots returned statewide, out of nearly 4.6m registered. Ballots are valid IF returned or postmarked by August 4, AND if the voter signature on returned ballot envelope matches the signature on file (all sigs are checked)
King Co (Seattle plus east & south suburbs) has 1.4m registered, of which 58k returned their ballots as of yesterday. KC Elections projects final Aug primary turnout at 611k (43% of registered) which may be a bit low, since KCE had projected receiving just 38k by this point (two weeks from Primary Day) in the election calendar.
One wonders whether Team SKS are just displaying the standard Lab ignorance & lack of interest in matters Scotch or if they thought they'd just get the dig in anyway and hope no one notices.
...apart from Alex, who not only led the movement and the party, but shills on TV
That's a stupid statement by Sturgeon. Putin doesn't care if your aim aligns with his, he merely wants to promote division. So Russian trolls back Independence and Unionism, Remain and Leave, Tories and Labour etc. The Russians aren't pushing a particular button, they are repeatedly whacking every button as fast as they can. So this is a problem for all parties and causes in the UK and further afield.
One wonders whether Team SKS are just displaying the standard Lab ignorance & lack of interest in matters Scotch or if they thought they'd just get the dig in anyway and hope no one notices.
...apart from Alex, who not only led the movement and the party, but shills on TV
That's a stupid statement by Sturgeon. Putin doesn't care if your aim aligns with his, he merely wants to promote division. So Russian trolls back Independence and Unionism, Remain and Leave, Tories and Labour etc. The Russians aren't pushing a particular button, they are repeatedly whacking every button as fast as they can. So this is a problem for all parties and causes in the UK and further afield.
Peacefully at home (location unclear) after a long illness, 'RBS will leave an indy Scotland' passed away in its sleep surrounded by regretful Unionists.
Nae floors.
Requiescat in pace
'RBS will leave Scotland if voters back independence'
The last doesn't seem to deal with the issues from the former: Is Natwest going to be based in London or Scotland?
Still based in Edinburgh, no jobs are being transferred or lost, the HQ is in Edinburgh.
It's simple logic, people get enraged about RBS, work in a RBS call centre when people ring up in financial distress, say you lot get bailed out, I want a bailout.
Natwest is more benign, plus Natwest represents circa 80% of the group's trade.
So next referendum the line would be "Natwest threatens to relocate to London . . . "
Nat West promised to help me with certain things when my wife died, and then they reneged so I moved to HSBC who I am now dumping because of their stance on Hong Kong. Difficult to know where to go to.... Barclays has history with S Africa, Lloyds is Lloyds. as I say difficult...
TSB? They were separated back out from Lloyds a while back.
One wonders whether Team SKS are just displaying the standard Lab ignorance & lack of interest in matters Scotch or if they thought they'd just get the dig in anyway and hope no one notices.
...apart from Alex, who not only led the movement and the party, but shills on TV
That's a stupid statement by Sturgeon. Putin doesn't care if your aim aligns with his, he merely wants to promote division. So Russian trolls back Independence and Unionism, Remain and Leave, Tories and Labour etc. The Russians aren't pushing a particular button, they are repeatedly whacking every button as fast as they can. So this is a problem for all parties and causes in the UK and further afield.
Agreed, for such a talented politician thats a very lazy response.
Peacefully at home (location unclear) after a long illness, 'RBS will leave an indy Scotland' passed away in its sleep surrounded by regretful Unionists.
Nae floors.
Requiescat in pace
'RBS will leave Scotland if voters back independence'
The last doesn't seem to deal with the issues from the former: Is Natwest going to be based in London or Scotland?
Still based in Edinburgh, no jobs are being transferred or lost, the HQ is in Edinburgh.
It's simple logic, people get enraged about RBS, work in a RBS call centre when people ring up in financial distress, say you lot get bailed out, I want a bailout.
Natwest is more benign, plus Natwest represents circa 80% of the group's trade.
So next referendum the line would be "Natwest threatens to relocate to London . . . "
Nat West promised to help me with certain things when my wife died, and then they reneged so I moved to HSBC who I am now dumping because of their stance on Hong Kong. Difficult to know where to go to.... Barclays has history with S Africa, Lloyds is Lloyds. as I say difficult...
TSB? They were separated back out from Lloyds a while back.
Don’t bother, they’re shit.
Maybe the Yorkshire bank, or Virgin Money as it’s now called?
Peacefully at home (location unclear) after a long illness, 'RBS will leave an indy Scotland' passed away in its sleep surrounded by regretful Unionists.
Nae floors.
Requiescat in pace
'RBS will leave Scotland if voters back independence'
The last doesn't seem to deal with the issues from the former: Is Natwest going to be based in London or Scotland?
Still based in Edinburgh, no jobs are being transferred or lost, the HQ is in Edinburgh.
It's simple logic, people get enraged about RBS, work in a RBS call centre when people ring up in financial distress, say you lot get bailed out, I want a bailout.
Natwest is more benign, plus Natwest represents circa 80% of the group's trade.
So next referendum the line would be "Natwest threatens to relocate to London . . . "
Nat West promised to help me with certain things when my wife died, and then they reneged so I moved to HSBC who I am now dumping because of their stance on Hong Kong. Difficult to know where to go to.... Barclays has history with S Africa, Lloyds is Lloyds. as I say difficult...
TSB? They were separated back out from Lloyds a while back.
Sunak will make a great next PM when Boris retires in 2028.
I think in a system like ours even the greatest would struggle to make that long, and that without massive unforeseen events.
I do though think Sunak is being massively over hyped.
His rise reminds me somewhat of John Major’s.
A politician of obvious ability, promoted far too rapidly because an authoritarian PM was refusing to work intelligently with colleagues and couldn’t bear dissent even while cocking up massively everywhere.
Peacefully at home (location unclear) after a long illness, 'RBS will leave an indy Scotland' passed away in its sleep surrounded by regretful Unionists.
Nae floors.
Requiescat in pace
'RBS will leave Scotland if voters back independence'
The last doesn't seem to deal with the issues from the former: Is Natwest going to be based in London or Scotland?
Still based in Edinburgh, no jobs are being transferred or lost, the HQ is in Edinburgh.
It's simple logic, people get enraged about RBS, work in a RBS call centre when people ring up in financial distress, say you lot get bailed out, I want a bailout.
Natwest is more benign, plus Natwest represents circa 80% of the group's trade.
So next referendum the line would be "Natwest threatens to relocate to London . . . "
Nat West promised to help me with certain things when my wife died, and then they reneged so I moved to HSBC who I am now dumping because of their stance on Hong Kong. Difficult to know where to go to.... Barclays has history with S Africa, Lloyds is Lloyds. as I say difficult...
TSB? They were separated back out from Lloyds a while back.
If TSB were a pizza, they would be a Hawaiian.
Awful, just awful online banking and apps, they left my friend without access to his accounts and money for close to three months.
He'd have been out on the streets were it not for his parents.
Sunak will make a great next PM when Boris retires in 2028.
I don't think the party will let him continue as long as that
He won an 80 seat majority, still leads in the polls and on favourability ratings is polling the same now as he was before the election last year.
The party will defenestrate failing leaders but it took years to get rid of even Theresa May. Johnson is no May. Two terms is a good length of time for a PM, 2028 gives Sunak a year to be in charge before the 2029 General Election.
Johnson will be a liability in 2024, never mind 2029. And the big weakness in your argument about Sunak as his replacement is your assumption that the Chancellor of the E's current popularity will survive the economic tsunami to come. Changing an unpopular leader only works when it's seen as a change of direction. If Johnson's eventual unpopularity comes about on the back of economic failures, putting the Chancellor in charge won't work.
The parallel is I think with Anthony Barber, someone initially seen as integral to the Heath government's initial popularity as expansionary policies were followed, only to be seen as the architect of the retrenchment that eventually followed. Barber wouldn't have saved the Conservatives in 1974.
You're assuming there's going to be an economic tsunami. You're assuming economic failure.
If the government guides the country through COVID, through the end of transition and there is post vaccine from 2021 onwards a boom in the UK economy . . . then Boris will deserve a second majority victory and Sunak will be well placed to replace him when the Tories look for a sixth election victory in a row in 2029.
Brexit will cost money, Covid-19 will cost money, so expecting a boom is deluded.
And WWI didn't cost money? The Spanish Flu didn't cost money? WWII didn't cost money? They were both followed by two of the biggest booms this country has ever seen.
"In 1919–1920 there was a short-lived boom in the British economy, caused by a rush of investment pent-up during the war years and another rush of orders for new shipping to replace the millions of tons lost.[177] However, with the end of war orders, a serious depression hit the economy by 1921-22."
Before WW2 we had an Empire. "Although Britain achieved ultimate victory in the war, the economic costs were enormous. Six years of prolonged warfare and heavy losses of merchant shipping meant that Britain had lost two-thirds of her pre-war export trade by 1945.[211] The loss of her export markets also caused a serious shortage of US dollars, which were crucial to servicing Britain's war debt and maintaining imports from the United States. Most of Britain's gold and currency reserves were depleted and the Government had been forced to sell off the bulk of British overseas assets to fund the war effort.[211] When Lend Lease was terminated by the United States in August 1945, Britain was unable to pay for the import of essential supplies from America. "
This is the powerful stuff, breaking down the idea Johnson is any different to the previous lot
It's a bold play, trying to blur the lines between Cameron/May and Johnson and draw a line between himself and Corbyn in the same PMQs.
Were used to such bold plays from a man who hung around for years in Corbyn's anti-semitism.....just so he could eventually clear it up. That's a guy with principles....
This is the powerful stuff, breaking down the idea Johnson is any different to the previous lot
The problem with that is the supporters of the last lot are hostile to Boris, this government hasn’t really been in charge for ten years
This Government wears the badge of a group that has been in power for 10 years.
The leadership at the top may have slightly changed but it's the same group...
No, that's just wrong. People are criticising Boris for trying to tie Starmer to Corbyn, so it is equally incorrect to say Boris has anything to do with Cameron/May era Tory govt. Starmer probably has more in common with Miliband than Boris has with PM May or Cameron
So on the 20th July we have had 3 deaths recorded in English hospitals and 48 in all settings. Is this likely? Where did the other 45 die?
Care homes, lots of them from natural causes but they get included in the stats until the DoH figures out how not to.
They are basically nonsense figures
Yes, sadly they are. Hopefully Matt Hancock gives us an update on the progress of this restatement soon. It's fucking up a lot of the UK economic projections we're doing.
Boris Johnson literally passed May's original deal through the HoC. It was exactly what May originally negotiated
Either you're ignorant or you're lying.
The problem with May's original deal was there was no way out of the arrangements for NI - and no consent required from NI.
Johnson renegotiated May's original deal to include both a need for NI to consent to ongoing special arrangements and a unilateral exit from them for Stormont.
That's a massive change. Saying to NI "you must do this and you have no say" versus "we think you should do this but its upto Stormont to decide" are two completely different propositions!!!
This is the powerful stuff, breaking down the idea Johnson is any different to the previous lot
It's a bold play, trying to blur the lines between Cameron/May and Johnson and draw a line between himself and Corbyn in the same PMQs.
Were used to such bold plays from a man who hung around for years in Corbyn's anti-semitism.....just so he could eventually clear it up. That's a guy with principles....
That's actually bollocks. But hey if Boris said it then fanboys will follow.
This is the powerful stuff, breaking down the idea Johnson is any different to the previous lot
It's a bold play, trying to blur the lines between Cameron/May and Johnson and draw a line between himself and Corbyn in the same PMQs.
Were used to such bold plays from a man who hung around for years in Corbyn's anti-semitism.....just so he could eventually clear it up. That's a guy with principles....
That's actually bollocks. But hey if Boris said it then fanboys will follow.
You're the one who voted for Corbyn's antisemites in 2019.
I have occasionally been known to type "kicked" instead of "licked". It's an easy mistake.
I got dumped by a girlfriend when I sent her a text saying 'I can't wait until I get home and kick* your puppy*'
Fecking auto-correct.
The RSPCA were involved.
*The words that were auto-corrected.
If it only autocorrected either one of those words, you'd still have been dumped....
In my case the offending sentence (without the intercession of autocorrect) was "Jones sent off after 40 minutes licking Roberts in the penalty area". Halcyon days. Cub reporter. Non-league football.
So on the 20th July we have had 3 deaths recorded in English hospitals and 48 in all settings. Is this likely? Where did the other 45 die?
Care homes, lots of them from natural causes but they get included in the stats until the DoH figures out how not to.
They are basically nonsense figures
Yes, sadly they are. Hopefully Matt Hancock gives us an update on the progress of this restatement soon. It's fucking up a lot of the UK economic projections we're doing.
Any update on my PM?
As to the figures - thought I might as well present the day-of numbers so we can see what the daily number (still on the dashboard) os really talking about
This is the powerful stuff, breaking down the idea Johnson is any different to the previous lot
It's a bold play, trying to blur the lines between Cameron/May and Johnson and draw a line between himself and Corbyn in the same PMQs.
Were used to such bold plays from a man who hung around for years in Corbyn's anti-semitism.....just so he could eventually clear it up. That's a guy with principles....
That's actually bollocks. But hey if Boris said it then fanboys will follow.
You're the one who voted for Corbyn's antisemites in 2019.
If you think that's odd, have a look at this rare photo of Joe Biden I've found. Why do you think he's shaved his beard off now? Is it because he's secretly an extremist and is hiding that from us.
This is the powerful stuff, breaking down the idea Johnson is any different to the previous lot
It's a bold play, trying to blur the lines between Cameron/May and Johnson and draw a line between himself and Corbyn in the same PMQs.
Were used to such bold plays from a man who hung around for years in Corbyn's anti-semitism.....just so he could eventually clear it up. That's a guy with principles....
That's actually bollocks. But hey if Boris said it then fanboys will follow.
Of course its bollocks.
How dare anyone accuse Starmer of having principles?
If you think that's odd, have a look at this rare photo of Joe Biden I've found. Why do you think he's shaved his beard off now? Is it because he's secretly an extremist and is hiding that from us.
We demand the truth!
Fake news. The *real* original picture of Biden before he shaved his beard. A known terrorist and wrong'un -
If you think that's odd, have a look at this rare photo of Joe Biden I've found. Why do you think he's shaved his beard off now? Is it because he's secretly an extremist and is hiding that from us.
We demand the truth!
Any kind of lie we'll swallow Swallow any kind of mixture. But don't, oh don't we beg and pray you Don't for land's sakes show his picture.
Yesterday Witty said something about not realising Care Homes employed agency staff. I was seconded a couple of days a week to whatever the Inspecting Authority was from about 199 until 2003 when I retired We used to check the agency staff just in case they were working double and triple
After that I did some consultancy for a firm of Care Home operators, and we used to worry about the same thing.
The fact is that whatever the Health Ministry or Department was called there was one constant throughout that time. No-one in authority gave a flying f&^k about Care Homes. Old people, disabled people, were put in them and that was that.
Latest on the coronavirus situation. Today I received a letter from my local council signed by the Leader, the Chief Executive, and the Director of Public Health. It warned of a possible spike in new infections and re-iterated all the precautions to be taken. But interestingly the core message was repeated in Arabic, Urdu, Gujarati, Kurdish, Mandarin, Spanish, Polish, Romanian, and Hungarian (an interesting collection of languages).
Latest on the coronavirus situation. Today I received a letter from my local council signed by the Leader, the Chief Executive, and the Director of Public Health. It warned of a possible spike in new infections and re-iterated all the precautions to be taken. But interestingly the core message was repeated in Arabic, Urdu, Gujarati, Kurdish, Mandarin, Spanish, Polish, Romanian, and Hungarian (an interesting collection of languages).
If you think that's odd, have a look at this rare photo of Joe Biden I've found. Why do you think he's shaved his beard off now? Is it because he's secretly an extremist and is hiding that from us.
We demand the truth!
Any kind of lie we'll swallow Swallow any kind of mixture. But don't, oh don't we beg and pray you Don't for land's sakes show his picture.
(Democratic campaign ditty, 1860)
In 1860 Abe Lincoln did NOT have a beard. He started growing it after receiving a letter just before election day from a little girl urging him to grow a beard.
Note that Lincoln without beard was NOT a thing of beauty; if anything it helped improve his looks.
If you think that's odd, have a look at this rare photo of Joe Biden I've found. Why do you think he's shaved his beard off now? Is it because he's secretly an extremist and is hiding that from us.
We demand the truth!
Any kind of lie we'll swallow Swallow any kind of mixture. But don't, oh don't we beg and pray you Don't for land's sakes show his picture.
(Democratic campaign ditty, 1860)
In 1860 Abe Lincoln did NOT have a beard. He started growing it after receiving a letter just before election day from a little girl urging him to grow a beard.
Note that Lincoln without beard was NOT a thing of beauty; if anything it helped improve his looks.
Comments
https://twitter.com/DailyMirror/status/1285934204543524865?s=20
Another 0 for initial reporting on a weekday.
I need to adjust my system to generate initial zero days.
.
Furthermore I'm not sure the idea that Starmer is an untrustworthy backstabber who will say anything that his audience wants to get elected but doesn't mean it and will then turn around and betray his election promises completely once he's in power is a great message to send out.
I have no sympathies for the Corbynites but if he's prepared to lie to their face and betray them like that then what else will he be prepared to do to win an election?
https://twitter.com/legalhackette/status/1285938500987236353?s=20
3 years later and following a humiliating election drubbing and with a more serious contender than Owen Who? I see no reason why Starmer couldn't have won a clean election victory on a campaign of moving on from Corbynism and expelling any antisemites.
The only people who seem to be saying such are either those who are named, those likely to be named or those who have done similar and hate that their racism is being pointed out.
You don't seek unity with a cancer, you seek to cut it out.
Then he put a border in the Irish Sea.
Hilarious film, greatly underrated - like a dirtier much funnier version of American Pie set travelling through Europe. The scene in the Netherlands has the best 'safe word' scene I've ever seen.
Sadly, don't see it!
It was highly likely that any one who had resigned from the shadow cabinet was not going to get on the ballot which was why Starmer stayed in it. Heck even you saw how removed he was from the rest of the shadow cabinet last year...
OFF TOPIC - What are the odds, that Trumpsky's shout-out to/for La Maxwell at yesterday's typically weird "briefing" was done out of love & respect for HM The Queen?
Or is it (among other things) a signal to His Foul Lowness to keep his lip buttoned and for La Maxwell to do the same? After all, the Twitter in Chief does have the power (for the next six months anyway) to spring her from durance vile, just like he did for Roger Stone.
Fecking auto-correct.
The RSPCA were involved.
*The words that were auto-corrected.
If you are friends with supporters of Everton then please reach out to them today and over the next few days, tonight will not be a pleasant experience for them.
He said he'd vote for it as it was a bad deal, but better than the alternative of no Brexit. I disagreed. I don't always agree with Johnson and I stuck to my principles then.
Ballots were mailed to active registered voters last week. As of yesterday, WA Secretary of State reported just over 168k ballots returned statewide, out of nearly 4.6m registered. Ballots are valid IF returned or postmarked by August 4, AND if the voter signature on returned ballot envelope matches the signature on file (all sigs are checked)
King Co (Seattle plus east & south suburbs) has 1.4m registered, of which 58k returned their ballots as of yesterday. KC Elections projects final Aug primary turnout at 611k (43% of registered) which may be a bit low, since KCE had projected receiving just 38k by this point (two weeks from Primary Day) in the election calendar.
https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1285951027158679552
So you like him then?
'Fruitcake' obviously being the least bad thing one can say about someone else in Scotland. (Or at least I think it is)
I do though think Sunak is being massively over hyped.
They were separated back out from Lloyds a while back.
Maybe the Yorkshire bank, or Virgin Money as it’s now called?
A politician of obvious ability, promoted far too rapidly because an authoritarian PM was refusing to work intelligently with colleagues and couldn’t bear dissent even while cocking up massively everywhere.
And it didn’t end too well for Major.
Awful, just awful online banking and apps, they left my friend without access to his accounts and money for close to three months.
He'd have been out on the streets were it not for his parents.
Before WW2 we had an Empire.
"Although Britain achieved ultimate victory in the war, the economic costs were enormous. Six years of prolonged warfare and heavy losses of merchant shipping meant that Britain had lost two-thirds of her pre-war export trade by 1945.[211] The loss of her export markets also caused a serious shortage of US dollars, which were crucial to servicing Britain's war debt and maintaining imports from the United States. Most of Britain's gold and currency reserves were depleted and the Government had been forced to sell off the bulk of British overseas assets to fund the war effort.[211] When Lend Lease was terminated by the United States in August 1945, Britain was unable to pay for the import of essential supplies from America. "
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/22/gop-congressman-trumps-ghislaine-maxwell-377855
The GOP's range of acceptably obtuse appears extremely broad, though.
https://twitter.com/DanielWickham93/status/1285961335658946560
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1285962573234438144
The problem with May's original deal was there was no way out of the arrangements for NI - and no consent required from NI.
Johnson renegotiated May's original deal to include both a need for NI to consent to ongoing special arrangements and a unilateral exit from them for Stormont.
That's a massive change. Saying to NI "you must do this and you have no say" versus "we think you should do this but its upto Stormont to decide" are two completely different propositions!!!
Demented lawyers in their wife's kimonos, with baseball bats.
As to the figures - thought I might as well present the day-of numbers so we can see what the daily number (still on the dashboard) os really talking about
https://gript.ie/ireland-eu-budget-contribution-going-up/
We demand the truth!
How dare anyone accuse Starmer of having principles?
Swallow any kind of mixture.
But don't, oh don't we beg and pray you
Don't for land's sakes show his picture.
(Democratic campaign ditty, 1860)
After that I did some consultancy for a firm of Care Home operators, and we used to worry about the same thing.
The fact is that whatever the Health Ministry or Department was called there was one constant throughout that time. No-one in authority gave a flying f&^k about Care Homes. Old people, disabled people, were put in them and that was that.
Note that Lincoln without beard was NOT a thing of beauty; if anything it helped improve his looks.