politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » JC getting better at PMQs but still work in progress
Options
Comments
-
@PolhomeEditor: Around 30 Labour MPs currently expected to rebel against the leadership in tonight's fiscal charter vote.0
-
"Part of the problem is the four elections under Blair and Brown. Labour parties weren’t allowed to select the candidates they wanted, they had to choose from an approved list, which shifted the Parliamentary Labour Party massively to the right."JEO said:"Part of the problem is the four elections under Blair and Brown. Labour parties weren’t allowed to select the candidates they wanted, they had to choose from an approved list, which shifted the Parliamentary Labour Party massively to the right." He praised Ed Miliband for "abolishing the Blairite pre-vetting rule" and said "parties are now free to select the candidate they want".
So not only has Miliband handed control of the leadership appointment to the far left, he's handed control of the MP selections too.
I don't know what New Labour types can do here. The membership is now thoroughly left wing, and it's also massive, meaning it will be very hard for new members to moderate it. The internet and social media networks increase the bubble effect, where all setbacks get explained away, so these people are unlikely to be persuaded round after an election loss or two. And these people will control leadership and MP appointments for the next 10-15 years.0 -
@MichaelLCrick: In Jan when Govt proposed similar Charter for Budget Responsibility Lab voted with Govt. 18 Lab MPs voted agst. Corbyn & McDonnell abstained0
-
Thanks Mr Price. I've decided to take £50 of profit on the cubs and a fiver on the Texas Rangers.
Great tipping btw. 0 -
Pah, that's no larger than the old awkward squad is it? If that's the case it's just elites switching places, not a proper insurrection.Scott_P said:@PolhomeEditor: Around 30 Labour MPs currently expected to rebel against the leadership in tonight's fiscal charter vote.
0 -
Mr. P, 30 is a pathetic number, although abstentions may make the lack of loyalty more apparent.0
-
The waste and cronyism together will be costing fortunes, both examples just show the disgrace of what happens to the money being taken off taxpayers,, waste , stupidity and fraud cost a fortune.notme said:
You find these kind of ridicukous things all over the place, usually the tax payer footing the excesses at some point. You blame corruption, which is usually not the case. Corruption is quite rare in the UK.malcolmg said:
LOL, I take you are on the gravy train , their chums get the deals , £3000 for a taxi rather than £50 on the bus. Yes all above board and sure nobody could have done it for less.notme said:
This seems like a bit of a childish argument. What do you mean 'chums'? You do realise that contracts are not let out to friends, they go through a competitive process and recommendations given by a senior civil servant. In this case i understand that Serco have a contract. The cost of the stretch limo (crass by any sense) was coming from serco not the taxpayer directly. Extra cost or otherwise. It might have been cheaper to hire the stretch limo then it would be a taxi for seven people, which again might have been cheaper than a minibus and driver. A minibus and driver might not have been available, and the alternative was this or putting them up in a hotel for another night.malcolmg said:
Just sums up the cosy money making schemes the government has in place with its chums.SandyRentool said:From the 'you couldn't make it up' drawer:
Serco apologises after hiring stretch limo for asylum seekers
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-34527534
The company that provides the normal transport might be the same company that provides these kind of limos and that was the only one in the pool at that time.
PS , you obviously know well these companies that magically win these contracts are stuffed with ex politicians, chums and civil servants etc.
My sister told us of a case a few years ago, she had to drive from cumbria to a clinic in london to perform a late abortion for a patient who was at the time in the care of the local mental health trust.
Three members of staff, one patient, and two overnight stays, because (for the second time) she couldnt be arsed to get the abortion earlier. I understand the baby was either over 24 weeks or very close to it and no other doctors outside this london clinic was prepared to carry out the procedure.
Could you imagine the cost?0 -
They can come up with a good argument, and a good alternative to Corbyn, but which isn't simply proposing to approve/abstain on Tory economic policies, or else meaningless platitudes, as we got from the "mainstream" candidates in the last leadership contest.JEO said:
I don't know what New Labour types can do here.
Contrary to popular belief, the Labour membership are not all a bunch of diehard Commies - most are persuadable if a good "mainstream" direction is presented to us.0 -
"Our British friends have to dance" is a pretty damaging quote too.0
-
If Serco are on the gravy train they ain't doing it very well. They 'lost' a billion quid and were in negative equity at the end of last year !0
-
Mr. JEO, is that direct, or a translation?0
-
Mr. D, cultural indeed. He's an anti-democratic insidious bureaucrat.
Edited extra bit: a eunuch in the court of the later Han.0 -
And see, this is where deselections are perfectly reasonable in my view. It's one thing to disagree with the leadership and argue for an alternative. It's quite another to actively allow the Tories to pass huge spending cuts which will clobber the people Labour are supposed to protect.Scott_P said:@PolhomeEditor: Around 30 Labour MPs currently expected to rebel against the leadership in tonight's fiscal charter vote.
0 -
I'd have thought that the best thing for sane Labour MPs to do tonight would be to follow the lead of their Shadow Chancellor, and vote both for and against the motion.0
-
I still don't see how it is any different to being a serial rebel in the last parliament - doesn't any rebellion help your opponents to some degree. Fundamentally I'm having a problem seeing why rebels should be deselected now if they weren't before, particularly if they argue they are voting in accordance with the platform they were elected under (truthfully or otherwise), and so even if they are annoyances to the leadership, they are not betraying the party or their constituents.Danny565 said:
And see, this is where deselections are perfectly reasonable in my view. It's one thing to disagree with the leadership and argue for an alternative. It's quite another to actively allow the Tories to pass huge spending cuts.Scott_P said:@PolhomeEditor: Around 30 Labour MPs currently expected to rebel against the leadership in tonight's fiscal charter vote.
0 -
The nurse story with ebola is really alarming. Several west African countries have now been declared ebola free. If there is a real risk of a recurrence in a patient who has recovered that seems a complete nonsense. Given the number of infections there unless she has been incredibly unlucky this is going to be chronic and recurring for the foreseeable future.0
-
Isn’t that technically an abstention? – and yes, I know you're only taking the Mick…Richard_Nabavi said:I'd have thought that the best thing for sane Labour MPs to do tonight would be to follow their Shadow Chancellor, and vote both for and against the motion.
0 -
He was speaking in English.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. JEO, is that direct, or a translation?
0 -
Yes and YesSimonStClare said:Isn’t that technically an abstention? – and yes, I know you're only taking the Mick…
0 -
Maybe it's a cultural thing. I guess he means they have to play the game.
I think Brussels would be utterly stunned if the UK voted out.
CityAm have a good article on why OUT is gaining momentum.0 -
Danny565..Does Labour really represent anyone these days ..apart from themselves..most Labour run and controlled areas I visit on regular basis look as tho they are still stuck in the 50s The best dressed man in Bolsover is Skinner..0
-
But the charter (stunt though it may be) doesn't call for spending cuts. It calls for the state to run a surplus during normal times. Given our current debt (and the fact that we went into a crash with a lot of debt), that doesn't look too stupid, and clearly has some measure of electoral support, given the result on 7 May.Danny565 said:
And see, this is where deselections are perfectly reasonable in my view. It's one thing to disagree with the leadership and argue for an alternative. It's quite another to actively allow the Tories to pass huge spending cuts which will clobber the people Labour are supposed to protect.Scott_P said:@PolhomeEditor: Around 30 Labour MPs currently expected to rebel against the leadership in tonight's fiscal charter vote.
Labour can vote for the charter and come up with an alternative means to fulfil it. I believe Richard Murphy has some groundbreaking ideas on uncollected tax.0 -
Didnt they all stand on a platform in May of also eradicating the deficit in this parliament?Danny565 said:
And see, this is where deselections are perfectly reasonable in my view. It's one thing to disagree with the leadership and argue for an alternative. It's quite another to actively allow the Tories to pass huge spending cuts which will clobber the people Labour are supposed to protect.Scott_P said:@PolhomeEditor: Around 30 Labour MPs currently expected to rebel against the leadership in tonight's fiscal charter vote.
0 -
Revenue £4 billion
Cost of Sales Just over £4 Bn
General overheads £600 M
"Exceptional items" £650m
Impairment on intangibles -£20m (Small beans really)
Some minor adjustments on the pension as ever...
etc...
Loss for the year 1.35Bn;
Change in equity -1.3Bn.
Equity at yr End -£66 M.0 -
Rebelling because you want a policy position further to the left is a world away from rebelling because you agree with the Tories.0
-
Apparently, the BSE campaign's June Sarpong is a conspiracy nut:
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/10/12/eu-campaign-hires-june-sarpong-conspiracy-investigator-believes-america-controlling-weather/0 -
If I read this piece right, it's saying that even when the people of Europe agree with Britain's positions, they won't agree to adopt them because they dislike us, and it's too late to make them like us (and in any case domestically impossible to take the action to make them like us). That would depress me if as 18 months ago I still thought being In was the best option, but no, it's about right. Even when we agree, we treat each other like sh*t - that's not healthy moving forward.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11930443/David-Camerons-problem-Britain-is-seen-as-the-nasty-country-in-Europe.html0 -
How is that going to work in practice, though?Tissue_Price said:
But the charter (stunt though it may be) doesn't call for spending cuts. It calls for the state to run a surplus during normal times. Given our current debt (and the fact that we went into a crash with a lot of debt), that doesn't look too stupid, and clearly has some measure of electoral support, given the result on 7 May.
Presumably it will be like the US debt ceiling - if there's a deficit, it will trigger huge automatic across-the-board cuts.0 -
I'm not a fan of Jean-Claude Juncker but what else could he say to the European Parliament other than he thinks that Britain needs the EU and the EU needs Britain? If he is to keep the show on the road, he needs to make the case that both Britain and the European Parliament need to compromise at a time when neither is particularly inclined to do so.0
-
How so? Even stopped clocks are right sometimes, that the parties steal policies from one another at times show they know the other side are right sometimes, and sometimes elements within one party will think the other side have got it right. Annoying for leaders, but hardly unusual behaviour surely?SandyRentool said:Rebelling because you want a policy position further to the left is a world away from rebelling because you agree with the Tories.
0 -
The new MD (Rupert Soames, a grandson of Winston Churchill and a very well respected figure) is doing the standard thing of writing off vast amounts of historic problems in one go.Pulpstar said:Revenue £4 billion
Cost of Sales Just over £4 Bn
General overheads £600 M
"Exceptional items" £650m
Other stuff
etc...
Loss for the year 1.35Bn;
Change in equity -1.3Bn.
Equity at yr End -£66 M.
It's at least possible that Serco are over the worst. There's potentially a good solid business there, but there's a lot of historical baggage to clear out
PS I'm not suggesting investing in them, at least not yet.0 -
''If I read this piece right, it's saying that even when the people of Europe agree with Britain's positions, they won't agree to adopt them because they dislike us.''
Does the article say WHY they dislike us????
0 -
Who is rebelling then, do they not realise it's tottally worse to rebel on this one. McDonnell fell into the trap but the now Labour rebels seem to be jumping in gleefully afterwards.0
-
We're nasty. Didn't take migrants, ask for things all the time, I think.taffys said:''If I read this piece right, it's saying that even when the people of Europe agree with Britain's positions, they won't agree to adopt them because they dislike us.''
Does the article say WHY they dislike us????
Honestly, they and we may not realise how much we agree on things, because we perceive ourselves certain ways - isn't it the case the Scots and rUK opinion is really not all that different on most issues, but the perception is there is a big gap on many issues? Same thing. Britain is the selfish country, don't trust their ideas are good for all, even if it matches opinion. I'm sure an idea proposed by the EU here would gain less traction than from the government, due to popularity (not that our governments are popular, but they are more so than the EU I'd have thought).0 -
Well in practice the government can ignore or repeal it: that's the thing about our centralised execulegislature. So why are Labour getting their knickers in such a twist about it now? It's essentially virtue signalling [on both sides of the argument, to be fair].Danny565 said:
How is that going to work in practice, though?Tissue_Price said:
But the charter (stunt though it may be) doesn't call for spending cuts. It calls for the state to run a surplus during normal times. Given our current debt (and the fact that we went into a crash with a lot of debt), that doesn't look too stupid, and clearly has some measure of electoral support, given the result on 7 May.
Presumably it will be like the US debt ceiling - if there's a deficit, it will trigger huge automatic across-the-board cuts.0 -
It looks like they had an awful 2014 combined with a great work of fiction for their 2013 balance sheetRichard_Nabavi said:
The new MD (Rupert Soames, a grandson of Winston Churchill and a very well respected figure) is doing the standard thing of writing off vast amounts of historic problems in one go.Pulpstar said:Revenue £4 billion
Cost of Sales Just over £4 Bn
General overheads £600 M
"Exceptional items" £650m
Other stuff
etc...
Loss for the year 1.35Bn;
Change in equity -1.3Bn.
Equity at yr End -£66 M.
It's at least possible that Serco are over the worst. There's potentially a good solid business there, but there's a lot of historical baggage to clear out
PS I'm not suggesting investing in them, at least not yet. 0 -
But if the Tories are in power, they wouldn't want to ignore it - so Labour rebels are giving the Tories a blank cheque to enact any cuts they want in future if there happens to be a deficit.Tissue_Price said:
Well in practice the government can ignore or repeal it: that's the thing about our centralised execulegislature. So why are Labour getting their knickers in such a twist about it now? It's essentially virtue signalling [on both sides of the argument, to be fair].Danny565 said:
How is that going to work in practice, though?Tissue_Price said:
But the charter (stunt though it may be) doesn't call for spending cuts. It calls for the state to run a surplus during normal times. Given our current debt (and the fact that we went into a crash with a lot of debt), that doesn't look too stupid, and clearly has some measure of electoral support, given the result on 7 May.
Presumably it will be like the US debt ceiling - if there's a deficit, it will trigger huge automatic across-the-board cuts.0 -
You are arguing exactly what Osborne wants Labour to argue - i.e. that they don't care about the deficit, do intend to splurge again, and can't therefore be trusted with the economy. Of course all that is true, but Osborne is succeeding in forcing Labour to admit it.Danny565 said:But if the Tories are in power, they wouldn't want to ignore it - so Labour rebels are giving the Tories a blank cheque to enact any cuts they want in future if there happens to be a deficit.
0 -
It doesn't really make much sense to rebel against it if you are Labour, except as a means to declare open war on Corbyn.Danny565 said:
But if the Tories are in power, they wouldn't want to ignore it - so Labour rebels are giving the Tories a blank cheque to enact any cuts they want in future if there happens to be a deficit.Tissue_Price said:
Well in practice the government can ignore or repeal it: that's the thing about our centralised execulegislature. So why are Labour getting their knickers in such a twist about it now? It's essentially virtue signalling [on both sides of the argument, to be fair].Danny565 said:
How is that going to work in practice, though?Tissue_Price said:
But the charter (stunt though it may be) doesn't call for spending cuts. It calls for the state to run a surplus during normal times. Given our current debt (and the fact that we went into a crash with a lot of debt), that doesn't look too stupid, and clearly has some measure of electoral support, given the result on 7 May.
Presumably it will be like the US debt ceiling - if there's a deficit, it will trigger huge automatic across-the-board cuts.
On this basis I expect Woodcock; Gapes; Streeting; Danczuk; Kendall; Umunna? to all vote with the Gov't.0 -
I think the problem is that he allegedly said Britain DIDN'T need the EU.antifrank said:I'm not a fan of Jean-Claude Juncker but what else could he say to the European Parliament other than he thinks that Britain needs the EU and the EU needs Britain? If he is to keep the show on the road, he needs to make the case that both Britain and the European Parliament need to compromise at a time when neither is particularly inclined to do so.
0 -
Not at all, deficits can be closed by additional taxation. Each case can be opposed on its merits.Danny565 said:
But if the Tories are in power, they wouldn't want to ignore it - so Labour rebels are giving the Tories a blank cheque to enact any cuts they want in future if there happens to be a deficit.Tissue_Price said:
Well in practice the government can ignore or repeal it: that's the thing about our centralised execulegislature. So why are Labour getting their knickers in such a twist about it now? It's essentially virtue signalling [on both sides of the argument, to be fair].Danny565 said:
How is that going to work in practice, though?Tissue_Price said:
But the charter (stunt though it may be) doesn't call for spending cuts. It calls for the state to run a surplus during normal times. Given our current debt (and the fact that we went into a crash with a lot of debt), that doesn't look too stupid, and clearly has some measure of electoral support, given the result on 7 May.
Presumably it will be like the US debt ceiling - if there's a deficit, it will trigger huge automatic across-the-board cuts.
In any case, the Tories do have something akin to a blank cheque at the moment. Labour moving ever further away from fiscal credibility is only going to extend that.0 -
I saw that episode - a very interesting programme. It sounds like sci-fi to control the weather, but actually the technology is quite old.JEO said:Apparently, the BSE campaign's June Sarpong is a conspiracy nut:
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/10/12/eu-campaign-hires-june-sarpong-conspiracy-investigator-believes-america-controlling-weather/0 -
It's an economic/political nonsense, but a tremendously clever political trap !!
Some might call it genius.0 -
An argument which, for all their hubris, barely won the Tories this year's election, even with a far better frontman than they'll have in 2020. But keep thinking Joe Public is an ultra-right-wing austerity-fetishist who thinks a surplus is more important than good public services if you want.Richard_Nabavi said:
You are arguing exactly what Osborne wants Labour to argue - i.e. that they don't care about the deficit, do intend to splurge again, and can't therefore be trusted with the economy. Of course all that is true, but Osborne is succeeding in forcing Labour to admit it.Danny565 said:But if the Tories are in power, they wouldn't want to ignore it - so Labour rebels are giving the Tories a blank cheque to enact any cuts they want in future if there happens to be a deficit.
0 -
"We need Britain. Personally I don’t think Britain needs the European Union."
Alors, au revoir monsieur0 -
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul
From my soundings, a lot of Labour MPs intend to ignore whips' instructions and abstain, either in person or not.0 -
On the specifics of the migrant crisis, I make Brussels right - Britain should have accepted far more migrants than it has done. On the more general principle, however, they are 100% crashingly wrong. Britain has taken one for the team on numerous occasions (most recently with the "political agreement not a legal agreement" justification for ratting on the commitment given in relation to the EFSM). A touch of humility on the European side of negotiations and a recognition that Brussels has been every bit as capable of acting in bad faith as London would be a very healthy start.kle4 said:
We're nasty. Didn't take migrants, ask for things all the time, I think.taffys said:''If I read this piece right, it's saying that even when the people of Europe agree with Britain's positions, they won't agree to adopt them because they dislike us.''
Does the article say WHY they dislike us????
Honestly, they and we may not realise how much we agree on things, because we perceive ourselves certain ways - isn't it the case the Scots and rUK opinion is really not all that different on most issues, but the perception is there is a big gap on many issues? Same thing. Britain is the selfish country, don't trust their ideas are good for all, even if it matches opinion. I'm sure an idea proposed by the EU here would gain less traction than from the government, due to popularity (not that our governments are popular, but they are more so than the EU I'd have thought).0 -
@JohnRentoul: From my soundings, a lot of Labour MPs intend to ignore whips' instructions and abstain, either in person or not. https://t.co/RPq9G2Dza50
-
DT
Our Chief Political Correspondent reports that Laura Alvarez, Jeremy Corbyn’s wife, has turned down an invitation from the Queen to next week’s state banquet in honour of Chinese president Xi Jinping.
Mr Corbyn’s spokesman said on Wednesday that she had declined to attend but did not say why.0 -
You are so right, so many permanently controlled labour areas seem so run down, yet people in the area keep voting labour, despite the Councils abject failure on improving the area. It is a very odd feature of British politics.richardDodd said:Danny565..Does Labour really represent anyone these days ..apart from themselves..most Labour run and controlled areas I visit on regular basis look as tho they are still stuck in the 50s The best dressed man in Bolsover is Skinner..
0 -
At this stage of the game, it matters not if the number of rebellious MPs is 30, 50 or more. Every MP that abstains or rebels from now on will be tarred as an anti-Corbynite splitter…Tissue_Price said:John Rentoul @JohnRentoul
From my soundings, a lot of Labour MPs intend to ignore whips' instructions and abstain, either in person or not.0 -
You mean a Tory scum, don't you?SimonStClare said:
At this stage of the game, it matters not if the number of rebellious MPs is 30, 50 or more. Every MP that abstains or rebels from now on will be tarred as an anti-Corbynite splitter…Tissue_Price said:John Rentoul @JohnRentoul
From my soundings, a lot of Labour MPs intend to ignore whips' instructions and abstain, either in person or not.0 -
A touch of humility on the European side of negotiations
Goodness you really do live in a fantasy world0 -
What time is this vote due?0
-
Worse, they'll get a taste for it.SimonStClare said:
At this stage of the game, it matters not if the number of rebellious MPs is 30, 50 or more. Every MP that abstains or rebels from now on will be tarred as an anti-Corbynite splitter…Tissue_Price said:John Rentoul @JohnRentoul
From my soundings, a lot of Labour MPs intend to ignore whips' instructions and abstain, either in person or not.0 -
It’s hard to keep up with the latest epithet, but I believe 'Red Tory Scum' is still in usage.RobD said:
You mean a Tory scum, don't you?SimonStClare said:
At this stage of the game, it matters not if the number of rebellious MPs is 30, 50 or more. Every MP that abstains or rebels from now on will be tarred as an anti-Corbynite splitter…Tissue_Price said:John Rentoul @JohnRentoul
From my soundings, a lot of Labour MPs intend to ignore whips' instructions and abstain, either in person or not.0 -
Coroner says that parent/child co-sleeping is dangerous, despite the fact that it's normal in many parts of the world:
http://www.itv.com/news/2015-10-14/co-sleeping-with-young-children-is-unsafe-coroner-warns-after-death-of-11-week-old-baby/
http://www.naturalchild.org/james_mckenna/cosleeping_world.html0 -
Unless we take hundreds of thousands of migrants, we're not really going to affect the situation. Given that is clearly ridiculous, we need to look at solutions that don't involve trying to relocate huge swathes of the Syrian population to Europe. Taking some number between what we have already taking and hundreds of thousands isn't good policy. It's just virtue signalling.antifrank said:
On the specifics of the migrant crisis, I make Brussels right - Britain should have accepted far more migrants than it has done. On the more general principle, however, they are 100% crashingly wrong. Britain has taken one for the team on numerous occasions (most recently with the "political agreement not a legal agreement" justification for ratting on the commitment given in relation to the EFSM). A touch of humility on the European side of negotiations and a recognition that Brussels has been every bit as capable of acting in bad faith as London would be a very healthy start.kle4 said:
We're nasty. Didn't take migrants, ask for things all the time, I think.taffys said:''If I read this piece right, it's saying that even when the people of Europe agree with Britain's positions, they won't agree to adopt them because they dislike us.''
Does the article say WHY they dislike us????
Honestly, they and we may not realise how much we agree on things, because we perceive ourselves certain ways - isn't it the case the Scots and rUK opinion is really not all that different on most issues, but the perception is there is a big gap on many issues? Same thing. Britain is the selfish country, don't trust their ideas are good for all, even if it matches opinion. I'm sure an idea proposed by the EU here would gain less traction than from the government, due to popularity (not that our governments are popular, but they are more so than the EU I'd have thought).0 -
Agreed. The lack of it turned me against them not that long ago.antifrank said:
On the specifics of the migrant crisis, I make Brussels right - Britain should have accepted far more migrants than it has done. On the more general principle, however, they are 100% crashingly wrong. Britain has taken one for the team on numerous occasions (most recently with the "political agreement not a legal agreement" justification for ratting on the commitment given in relation to the EFSM). A touch of humility on the European side of negotiations and a recognition that Brussels has been every bit as capable of acting in bad faith as London would be a very healthy start.kle4 said:
We're nasty. Didn't take migrants, ask for things all the time, I think.taffys said:''If I read this piece right, it's saying that even when the people of Europe agree with Britain's positions, they won't agree to adopt them because they dislike us.''
Does the article say WHY they dislike us????
Honestly, they and we may not realise how much we agree on things, because we perceive ourselves certain ways - isn't it the case the Scots and rUK opinion is really not all that different on most issues, but the perception is there is a big gap on many issues? Same thing. Britain is the selfish country, don't trust their ideas are good for all, even if it matches opinion. I'm sure an idea proposed by the EU here would gain less traction than from the government, due to popularity (not that our governments are popular, but they are more so than the EU I'd have thought).
0 -
In fairness Labour had a far better front man than they are likely to have the next time out too.Danny565 said:
An argument which, for all their hubris, barely won the Tories this year's election, even with a far better frontman than they'll have in 2020. But keep thinking Joe Public is an ultra-right-wing austerity-fetishist who thinks a surplus is more important than good public services if you want.Richard_Nabavi said:
You are arguing exactly what Osborne wants Labour to argue - i.e. that they don't care about the deficit, do intend to splurge again, and can't therefore be trusted with the economy. Of course all that is true, but Osborne is succeeding in forcing Labour to admit it.Danny565 said:But if the Tories are in power, they wouldn't want to ignore it - so Labour rebels are giving the Tories a blank cheque to enact any cuts they want in future if there happens to be a deficit.
0 -
I don't see any reason why we should allow this country's immigration policy to be made in Berlin, and it would be incendiary if it was.JEO said:
Unless we take hundreds of thousands of migrants, we're not really going to affect the situation. Given that is clearly ridiculous, we need to look at solutions that don't involve trying to relocate huge swathes of the Syrian population to Europe. Taking some number between what we have already taking and hundreds of thousands isn't good policy. It's just virtue signalling.antifrank said:
On the specifics of the migrant crisis, I make Brussels right - Britain should have accepted far more migrants than it has done. On the more general principle, however, they are 100% crashingly wrong. Britain has taken one for the team on numerous occasions (most recently with the "political agreement not a legal agreement" justification for ratting on the commitment given in relation to the EFSM). A touch of humility on the European side of negotiations and a recognition that Brussels has been every bit as capable of acting in bad faith as London would be a very healthy start.kle4 said:
We're nasty. Didn't take migrants, ask for things all the time, I think.taffys said:''If I read this piece right, it's saying that even when the people of Europe agree with Britain's positions, they won't agree to adopt them because they dislike us.''
Does the article say WHY they dislike us????
Honestly, they and we may not realise how much we agree on things, because we perceive ourselves certain ways - isn't it the case the Scots and rUK opinion is really not all that different on most issues, but the perception is there is a big gap on many issues? Same thing. Britain is the selfish country, don't trust their ideas are good for all, even if it matches opinion. I'm sure an idea proposed by the EU here would gain less traction than from the government, due to popularity (not that our governments are popular, but they are more so than the EU I'd have thought).0 -
'Every MP that abstains or rebels from now on will be tarred as an anti-Corbynite splitter…'
They aren't exactly hiding it ;p.
0 -
As I have said I dither from day to day about this one but if I was to choose one reason for voting out it would be the arrogant and patronising manner of the typical Euro bureaucrat. It is just infuriating. It makes Labour's belief in its inherent moral superiority look like a passing fancy.antifrank said:
On the specifics of the migrant crisis, I make Brussels right - Britain should have accepted far more migrants than it has done. On the more general principle, however, they are 100% crashingly wrong. Britain has taken one for the team on numerous occasions (most recently with the "political agreement not a legal agreement" justification for ratting on the commitment given in relation to the EFSM). A touch of humility on the European side of negotiations and a recognition that Brussels has been every bit as capable of acting in bad faith as London would be a very healthy start.kle4 said:
We're nasty. Didn't take migrants, ask for things all the time, I think.taffys said:''If I read this piece right, it's saying that even when the people of Europe agree with Britain's positions, they won't agree to adopt them because they dislike us.''
Does the article say WHY they dislike us????
Honestly, they and we may not realise how much we agree on things, because we perceive ourselves certain ways - isn't it the case the Scots and rUK opinion is really not all that different on most issues, but the perception is there is a big gap on many issues? Same thing. Britain is the selfish country, don't trust their ideas are good for all, even if it matches opinion. I'm sure an idea proposed by the EU here would gain less traction than from the government, due to popularity (not that our governments are popular, but they are more so than the EU I'd have thought).0 -
Can we introduce a fines system for the phrase "virtue signalling"? It was never very useful and has now degenerated into meaning "action that I don't agree with or think will be effective".JEO said:
Unless we take hundreds of thousands of migrants, we're not really going to affect the situation. Given that is clearly ridiculous, we need to look at solutions that don't involve trying to relocate huge swathes of the Syrian population to Europe. Taking some number between what we have already taking and hundreds of thousands isn't good policy. It's just virtue signalling.antifrank said:
On the specifics of the migrant crisis, I make Brussels right - Britain should have accepted far more migrants than it has done. On the more general principle, however, they are 100% crashingly wrong. Britain has taken one for the team on numerous occasions (most recently with the "political agreement not a legal agreement" justification for ratting on the commitment given in relation to the EFSM). A touch of humility on the European side of negotiations and a recognition that Brussels has been every bit as capable of acting in bad faith as London would be a very healthy start.kle4 said:
We're nasty. Didn't take migrants, ask for things all the time, I think.taffys said:''If I read this piece right, it's saying that even when the people of Europe agree with Britain's positions, they won't agree to adopt them because they dislike us.''
Does the article say WHY they dislike us????
Honestly, they and we may not realise how much we agree on things, because we perceive ourselves certain ways - isn't it the case the Scots and rUK opinion is really not all that different on most issues, but the perception is there is a big gap on many issues? Same thing. Britain is the selfish country, don't trust their ideas are good for all, even if it matches opinion. I'm sure an idea proposed by the EU here would gain less traction than from the government, due to popularity (not that our governments are popular, but they are more so than the EU I'd have thought).
Showing willing to help friends in times of crisis is never a bad thing to do. Whether we like it or not (and we don't), hundreds of thousands have already descended on Europe. We can wash our hands of these migrants and leave others to sink under their weight. Or we can help a bit more.
We should help other EU countries a bit more. It's unsurprising that shrugging our shoulders, pointing to our island status and turning our backs on the problem has not made us popular.0 -
I have many criticisms of Corbyn, but I think it's pushing it to describe Ed as a *far* better frontman than anyoneDavidL said:
In fairness Labour had a far better front man than they are likely to have the next time out too.Danny565 said:
An argument which, for all their hubris, barely won the Tories this year's election, even with a far better frontman than they'll have in 2020. But keep thinking Joe Public is an ultra-right-wing austerity-fetishist who thinks a surplus is more important than good public services if you want.Richard_Nabavi said:
You are arguing exactly what Osborne wants Labour to argue - i.e. that they don't care about the deficit, do intend to splurge again, and can't therefore be trusted with the economy. Of course all that is true, but Osborne is succeeding in forcing Labour to admit it.Danny565 said:But if the Tories are in power, they wouldn't want to ignore it - so Labour rebels are giving the Tories a blank cheque to enact any cuts they want in future if there happens to be a deficit.
But I genuinely don't think Corbyn will be leader going into 2020.0 -
I'm not sure it's possible to apply logic to anything that's going on in the PLP at present. Everything seems to be done on a whim.kle4 said:
I still don't see how it is any different to being a serial rebel in the last parliament - doesn't any rebellion help your opponents to some degree. Fundamentally I'm having a problem seeing why rebels should be deselected now if they weren't before, particularly if they argue they are voting in accordance with the platform they were elected under (truthfully or otherwise), and so even if they are annoyances to the leadership, they are not betraying the party or their constituents.Danny565 said:
And see, this is where deselections are perfectly reasonable in my view. It's one thing to disagree with the leadership and argue for an alternative. It's quite another to actively allow the Tories to pass huge spending cuts.Scott_P said:@PolhomeEditor: Around 30 Labour MPs currently expected to rebel against the leadership in tonight's fiscal charter vote.
0 -
No, I don't either but if he were...Danny565 said:
I have many criticisms of Corbyn, but I think it's pushing it to describe Ed as a *far* better frontman than anyoneDavidL said:
In fairness Labour had a far better front man than they are likely to have the next time out too.Danny565 said:
An argument which, for all their hubris, barely won the Tories this year's election, even with a far better frontman than they'll have in 2020. But keep thinking Joe Public is an ultra-right-wing austerity-fetishist who thinks a surplus is more important than good public services if you want.Richard_Nabavi said:
You are arguing exactly what Osborne wants Labour to argue - i.e. that they don't care about the deficit, do intend to splurge again, and can't therefore be trusted with the economy. Of course all that is true, but Osborne is succeeding in forcing Labour to admit it.Danny565 said:But if the Tories are in power, they wouldn't want to ignore it - so Labour rebels are giving the Tories a blank cheque to enact any cuts they want in future if there happens to be a deficit.
But I genuinely don't think Corbyn will be leader going into 2020.0 -
I know. It's fantastic isn't it?JEO said:"Part of the problem is the four elections under Blair and Brown. Labour parties weren’t allowed to select the candidates they wanted, they had to choose from an approved list, which shifted the Parliamentary Labour Party massively to the right." He praised Ed Miliband for "abolishing the Blairite pre-vetting rule" and said "parties are now free to select the candidate they want".
So not only has Miliband handed control of the leadership appointment to the far left, he's handed control of the MP selections too.
I don't know what New Labour types can do here. The membership is now thoroughly left wing, and it's also massive, meaning it will be very hard for new members to moderate it. The internet and social media networks increase the bubble effect, where all setbacks get explained away, so these people are unlikely to be persuaded round after an election loss or two. And these people will control leadership and MP appointments for the next 10-15 years.0 -
An awful shock for her of course but there must also be some incredibly worried "acquaintances" given all of the fanfare over "it's beaten".DavidL said:The nurse story with ebola is really alarming. Several west African countries have now been declared ebola free. If there is a real risk of a recurrence in a patient who has recovered that seems a complete nonsense. Given the number of infections there unless she has been incredibly unlucky this is going to be chronic and recurring for the foreseeable future.
0 -
I am happy with the numbers of migrants that we have promised to take..no more please...I am also happy and totally agree with the massive amount of money we provide for the refugee camps..some people there will be able to have a meal tonight because we paid for it..0
-
We didn't say they could come here. You can't make grandiose statements that trigger a human tsunami and then expect everyone else to pick up the peices.antifrank said:
Can we introduce a fines system for the phrase "virtue signalling"? It was never very useful and has now degenerated into meaning "action that I don't agree with or think will be effective".JEO said:
Unless we take hundreds of thousands of migrants, we're not really going to affect the situation. Given that is clearly ridiculous, we need to look at solutions that don't involve trying to relocate huge swathes of the Syrian population to Europe. Taking some number between what we have already taking and hundreds of thousands isn't good policy. It's just virtue signalling.antifrank said:
On the specifics of the migrant crisis, I make Brussels right - Britain should have accepted far more migrants than it has done. On the more general principle, however, they are 100% crashingly wrong. Britain has taken one for the team on numerous occasions (most recently with the "political agreement not a legal agreement" justification for ratting on the commitment given in relation to the EFSM). A touch of humility on the European side of negotiations and a recognition that Brussels has been every bit as capable of acting in bad faith as London would be a very healthy start.kle4 said:
We're nasty. Didn't take migrants, ask for things all the time, I think.taffys said:''If I read this piece right, it's saying that even when the people of Europe agree with Britain's positions, they won't agree to adopt them because they dislike us.''
Does the article say WHY they dislike us????
Honestly, they and we may not realise how much we agree on things, because we perceive ourselves certain ways - isn't it the case the Scots and rUK opinion is really not all that different on most issues, but the perception is there is a big gap on many issues? Same thing. Britain is the selfish country, don't trust their ideas are good for all, even if it matches opinion. I'm sure an idea proposed by the EU here would gain less traction than from the government, due to popularity (not that our governments are popular, but they are more so than the EU I'd have thought).
Showing willing to help friends in times of crisis is never a bad thing to do. Whether we like it or not (and we don't), hundreds of thousands have already descended on Europe. We can wash our hands of these migrants and leave others to sink under their weight. Or we can help a bit more.
We should help other EU countries a bit more. It's unsurprising that shrugging our shoulders, pointing to our island status and turning our backs on the problem has not made us popular.
0 -
No Labour MP will defect to the Tories. It's as rare as hen's teeth: Labour is tribal and it's about collectivism. Even if they wanted to, they won't do so, because they know it will play straight into Corbyn's hands.Scott_P said:@georgeeaton: Exclusive: Frank Field calls for Labour MPs to stand as "independent Labour" if deselected http://t.co/Fsz5S9WTc4
The ones to look out for are the independent minded ones likely to retire in GE2020 - or have declared an intent already to do so.
They won't give a crap. They can either stand as 'independent Labour' for the rest of the parliament - arguing they are being true to the platform they were elected on, thus not needing a by-election - or, if they want to make a real bang, and I stress this is unlikely, defect to the Liberal Democrats and take a shadow portfolio to piss off Corbyn and get airtime for a moderate left case.
In the case of the House of Lords, they will do an Adonis and go crossbench, possibly advising the government.
Donors are the only ones who I think may actively switch to the Tories.0 -
Maybe it's a mark of respect.richardDodd said:Danny565..Does Labour really represent anyone these days ..apart from themselves..most Labour run and controlled areas I visit on regular basis look as tho they are still stuck in the 50s The best dressed man in Bolsover is Skinner..
0 -
Are wives fair game this week? It's hard to keep up.Plato_Says said:
DT
Our Chief Political Correspondent reports that Laura Alvarez, Jeremy Corbyn’s wife, has turned down an invitation from the Queen to next week’s state banquet in honour of Chinese president Xi Jinping.
Mr Corbyn’s spokesman said on Wednesday that she had declined to attend but did not say why.0 -
Countries have interests; they're not taking part in popularity contests. Merkel screwed up; it's her problem.antifrank said:
Can we introduce a fines system for the phrase "virtue signalling"? It was never very useful and has now degenerated into meaning "action that I don't agree with or think will be effective".JEO said:
Unless we take hundreds of thousands of migrants, we're not really going to affect the situation. Given that is clearly ridiculous, we need to look at solutions that don't involve trying to relocate huge swathes of the Syrian population to Europe. Taking some number between what we have already taking and hundreds of thousands isn't good policy. It's just virtue signalling.antifrank said:
On the specifics of the migrant crisis, I make Brussels right - Britain should have accepted far more migrants than it has done. On the more general principle, however, they are 100% crashingly wrong. Britain has taken one for the team on numerous occasions (most recently with the "political agreement not a legal agreement" justification for ratting on the commitment given in relation to the EFSM). A touch of humility on the European side of negotiations and a recognition that Brussels has been every bit as capable of acting in bad faith as London would be a very healthy start.kle4 said:
We're nasty. Didn't take migrants, ask for things all the time, I think.taffys said:''If I read this piece right, it's saying that even when the people of Europe agree with Britain's positions, they won't agree to adopt them because they dislike us.''
Does the article say WHY they dislike us????
Honestly, they and we may not realise how much we agree on things, because we perceive ourselves certain ways - isn't it the case the Scots and rUK opinion is really not all that different on most issues, but the perception is there is a big gap on many issues? Same thing. Britain is the selfish country, don't trust their ideas are good for all, even if it matches opinion.
Showing willing to help friends in times of crisis is never a bad thing to do. Whether we like it or not (and we don't), hundreds of thousands have already descended on Europe. We can wash our hands of these migrants and leave others to sink under their weight. Or we can help a bit more.
We should help other EU countries a bit more. It's unsurprising that shrugging our shoulders, pointing to our island status and turning our backs on the problem has not made us popular.
I might be more persuaded if I could recall, or find, a single instance where our willingness to compromise actually redounded to our benefit.0 -
DecrepitJohnL said:
Are wives fair game this week? It's hard to keep up.
Plato_Says said:DT
Our Chief Political Correspondent reports that Laura Alvarez, Jeremy Corbyn’s wife, has turned down an invitation from the Queen to next week’s state banquet in honour of Chinese president Xi Jinping.
Mr Corbyn’s spokesman said on Wednesday that she had declined to attend but did not say why.
Reporting one turned down an invitation to a same dinner isn't the same as asking why, if China was so good, they moved to the UK.0 -
Next weeks Hansard.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab) Mrs Trellis of North Wales writes-is there anything the Prime Minister can do for her bunions.
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron ) Im sorry, I haven't a clue0 -
Mr. JEO, Out should get that footage for campaign videos.0
-
I wonder how many other carriers of the 'dormant' virus there are, both in Africa and potentially, over here or elsewhere in Europe. Ebola in Calais would liven things up.ReggieCide said:
An awful shock for her of course but there must also be some incredibly worried "acquaintances" given all of the fanfare over "it's beaten".DavidL said:The nurse story with ebola is really alarming. Several west African countries have now been declared ebola free. If there is a real risk of a recurrence in a patient who has recovered that seems a complete nonsense. Given the number of infections there unless she has been incredibly unlucky this is going to be chronic and recurring for the foreseeable future.
0 -
@paulwaugh: Corbynista backlash on @jreedmp timeline (his thought crime: said he'd abstain tonight).
Makes @MikeGapes look mild0 -
I'm using "virtue signalling" here to mean exactly what it means: making a statement about how decent a person you are rather than addressing the problem. That's exactly what is happening here. We'd have to take hundreds of thousands to make a dent in the figures, and the very act of taking hundreds of thousands would cause hundreds of thousands more to come. So your problem of "helping the rest of Europe deal with these migrants" would be made worst by this proposed solution.antifrank said:Can we introduce a fines system for the phrase "virtue signalling"? It was never very useful and has now degenerated into meaning "action that I don't agree with or think will be effective".
Showing willing to help friends in times of crisis is never a bad thing to do. Whether we like it or not (and we don't), hundreds of thousands have already descended on Europe. We can wash our hands of these migrants and leave others to sink under their weight. Or we can help a bit more.
We should help other EU countries a bit more. It's unsurprising that shrugging our shoulders, pointing to our island status and turning our backs on the problem has not made us popular.
Of course we should help other EU countries a bit more. We should do that by funding the refugee camps properly so they're not such squalid holes, by policing the Mediterranean to stop crossings, by investigating and arresting people traffickers, and by stabilising Syria as best we can.0 -
Given the rate at which German public opinion is turning, I doubt if Merkel is even carrying her own people with her.Casino_Royale said:
I don't see any reason why we should allow this country's immigration policy to be made in Berlin, and it would be incendiary if it was.JEO said:
Unless we take hundreds of thousands of migrants, we're not really going to affect the situation. Given that is clearly ridiculous, we need to look at solutions that don't involve trying to relocate huge swathes of the Syrian population to Europe. Taking some number between what we have already taking and hundreds of thousands isn't good policy. It's just virtue signalling.antifrank said:
On the specifics of the migrant crisis, I make Brussels right - Britain should have accepted far more migrants than it has done. On the more general principle, however, they are 100% crashingly wrong. Britain has taken one for the team on numerous occasions (most recently with the "political agreement not a legal agreement" justification for ratting on the commitment given in relation to the EFSM). A touch of humility on the European side of negotiations and a recognition that Brussels has been every bit as capable of acting in bad faith as London would be a very healthy start.kle4 said:
We're nasty. Didn't take migrants, ask for things all the time, I think.taffys said:''If I read this piece right, it's saying that even when the people of Europe agree with Britain's positions, they won't agree to adopt them because they dislike us.''
Does the article say WHY they dislike us????
Honestly, they and we may not realise how much we agree on things, because we perceive ourselves certain ways - isn't it the case the Scots and rUK opinion is really not all that different on most issues, but the perception is there is a big gap on many issues? Same thing. Britain is the selfish country, don't trust their ideas are good for all, even if it matches opinion. I'm sure an idea proposed by the EU here would gain less traction than from the government, due to popularity (not that our governments are popular, but they are more so than the EU I'd have thought).0 -
hmmmantifrank said:
Can we introduce a fines system for the phrase "virtue signalling"? It was never very useful and has now degenerated into meaning "action that I don't agree with or think will be effective".JEO said:
Unless we take hundreds It's just virtue signalling.antifrank said:
On the specifics of the migrant crisis, I make Brussels right - Britain should have accepted far more migrants than it has done. On the more general principle, however, they are 100% crashingly wrong. Britain has taken one for the team on numerous occasions (most recently with the "political agreement not a legal agreement" justification for ratting on the commitment given in relation to the EFSM). A touch of humility on the European side of negotiations and a recognition that Brussels has been every bit as capable of acting in bad faith as London would be a very healthy start.kle4 said:
We're nasty. Didn't take migrants, ask for things all the time, I think.taffys said:''If I read this piece right, it's saying that even when the people of Europe agree with Britain's positions, they won't agree to adopt them because they dislike us.''
Does the article say WHY they dislike us????
Honestly, they and we may not realise how much we agree on things, because we perceive ourselves certain ways - isn't it the case the Scots and rUK opinion is really not all that different on most issues, but the perception is there is a big gap on many issues? Same thing. Britain is the selfish country, don't trust their ideas are good for all, even if it matches opinion. I'm sure an idea proposed by the EU here would gain less traction than from the government, due to popularity (not that our governments are popular, but they are more so than the EU I'd have thought).
Showing willing to help friends in times of crisis is never a bad thing to do. Whether we like it or not (and we don't), hundreds of thousands have already descended on Europe. We can wash our hands of these migrants and leave others to sink under their weight. Or we can help a bit more.
We should help other EU countries a bit more. It's unsurprising that shrugging our shoulders, pointing to our island status and turning our backs on the problem has not made us popular.
nobody objects to helping our friends, however what might be more difficult is when our firend has taken a problem and made it worse despite advice to the contrary and likewise ignored the real and more effective efforts we have made to solve a common problem.
sometimes you just have to let people stew in their own juices before they come to their senses.0 -
Germany's fault, Germany's mess and Germany's problem. Let them clear it up.antifrank said:
Can we introduce a fines system for the phrase "virtue signalling"? It was never very useful and has now degenerated into meaning "action that I don't agree with or think will be effective".JEO said:
Unless we take hundreds of thousands of migrants, we're not really going to affect the situation. Given that is clearly ridiculous, we need to look at solutions that don't involve trying to relocate huge swathes of the Syrian population to Europe. Taking some number between what we have already taking and hundreds of thousands isn't good policy. It's just virtue signalling.antifrank said:
On the specifics of the migrant crisis, I make Brussels right - Britain should have accepted far more migrants than it has done. On the more general principle, however, they are 100% crashingly wrong. Britain has taken one for the team on numerous occasions (most recently with the "political agreement not a legal agreement" justification for ratting on the commitment given in relation to the EFSM). A touch of humility on the European side of negotiations and a recognition that Brussels has been every bit as capable of acting in bad faith as London would be a very healthy start.kle4 said:
Honestly, they and we may not realise how much we agree on things, because we perceive ourselves certain ways - isn't it the case the Scots and rUK opinion is really not all that different on most issues, but the perception is there is a big gap on many issues? Same thing. Britain is the selfish country, don't trust their ideas are good for all, even if it matches opinion. I'm sure an idea proposed by the EU here would gain less traction than from the government, due to popularity (not that our governments are popular, but they are more so than the EU I'd have thought).taffys said:''If I read this piece right, it's saying that even when the people of Europe agree with Britain's positions, they won't agree to adopt them because they dislike us.''
Does the article say WHY they dislike us????
Showing willing to help friends in times of crisis is never a bad thing to do. Whether we like it or not (and we don't), hundreds of thousands have already descended on Europe. We can wash our hands of these migrants and leave others to sink under their weight. Or we can help a bit more.
We should help other EU countries a bit more. It's unsurprising that shrugging our shoulders, pointing to our island status and turning our backs on the problem has not made us popular.
Frankly, I don't care if it makes us unpopular. I don't blame people for their problems or mistakes, but I do expect them to pay for them.
That's how we learn.0 -
Mr. D, I agree, but would add that a wife of a politician declining to attend an official function isn't something that should be examined, beyond being noted.
I don't think wives should be political animals (such as Mrs Brown became), but the natural extension of that is that privacy ought to be afforded to them.0 -
Except we offered our advice at every stage, and it was rejected. We warned them of the consequences and they chose to go ahead. I don't see why we shoulkd bail them out.antifrank said:
Can we introduce a fines system for the phrase "virtue signalling"? It was never very useful and has now degenerated into meaning "action that I don't agree with or think will be effective".JEO said:
Unless we take hundreds of thousands of migrants, we're not really going to affect the situation. Given that is clearly ridiculous, we need to look at solutions that don't involve trying to relocate huge swathes of the Syrian population to Europe. Taking some number between what we have already taking and hundreds of thousands isn't good policy. It's just virtue signalling.antifrank said:
On the specifics of the migrant crisis, I make Brussels right - Britain should have accepted far more migrants than it has done. On the more general principle, however, they are 100% crashingly wrong. Britain has taken one for the team on numerous occasions (most recently with the "political agreement not a legal agreement" justification for ratting on the commitment given in relation to the EFSM). A touch of humility on the European side of negotiations and a recognition that Brussels has been every bit as capable of acting in bad faith as London would be a very healthy start.kle4 said:
We're nasty. Didn't take migrants, ask for things all the time, I think.taffys said:''If I read this piece right, it's saying that even when the people of Europe agree with Britain's positions, they won't agree to adopt them because they dislike us.''
Does the article say WHY they dislike us????
Honestly, they and we may not realise how much we agree on things, because we perceive ourselves certain ways - isn't it the case the Scots and rUK opinion is really not all that different on most issues, but the perception is there is a big gap on many issues? Same thing. Britain is the selfish country, don't trust their ideas are good for all, even if it matches opinion. I'm sure an idea proposed by the EU here would gain less traction than from the government, due to popularity (not that our governments are popular, but they are more so than the EU I'd have thought).
Showing willing to help friends in times of crisis is never a bad thing to do. Whether we like it or not (and we don't), hundreds of thousands have already descended on Europe. We can wash our hands of these migrants and leave others to sink under their weight. Or we can help a bit more.
We should help other EU countries a bit more. It's unsurprising that shrugging our shoulders, pointing to our island status and turning our backs on the problem has not made us popular.0 -
Reporting one turned down an invitation to a same dinner isn't the same as asking why, if China was so good, they moved to the UK.RobD said:DecrepitJohnL said:Are wives fair game this week? It's hard to keep up.
Plato_Says said:DT
Our Chief Political Correspondent reports that Laura Alvarez, Jeremy Corbyn’s wife, has turned down an invitation from the Queen to next week’s state banquet in honour of Chinese president Xi Jinping.
Mr Corbyn’s spokesman said on Wednesday that she had declined to attend but did not say why.
Even so, I don't see why I needed to know one way or the other.0 -
Even so, I don't see why I needed to know one way or the other.kle4 said:
Reporting one turned down an invitation to a same dinner isn't the same as asking why, if China was so good, they moved to the UK.RobD said:DecrepitJohnL said:Are wives fair game this week? It's hard to keep up.
Plato_Says said:DT
Our Chief Political Correspondent reports that Laura Alvarez, Jeremy Corbyn’s wife, has turned down an invitation from the Queen to next week’s state banquet in honour of Chinese president Xi Jinping.
Mr Corbyn’s spokesman said on Wednesday that she had declined to attend but did not say why.
If the papers didn't report this sort of guff, they would be quite empty
0 -
If the papers didn't report this sort of guff, they would be quite emptyRobD said:
Even so, I don't see why I needed to know one way or the other.kle4 said:
Reporting one turned down an invitation to a same dinner isn't the same as asking why, if China was so good, they moved to the UK.RobD said:DecrepitJohnL said:Are wives fair game this week? It's hard to keep up.
Plato_Says said:DT
Our Chief Political Correspondent reports that Laura Alvarez, Jeremy Corbyn’s wife, has turned down an invitation from the Queen to next week’s state banquet in honour of Chinese president Xi Jinping.
Mr Corbyn’s spokesman said on Wednesday that she had declined to attend but did not say why.
They could run some polling...0 -
Absolutely Mr Dancer.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. D, I agree, but would add that a wife of a politician declining to attend an official function isn't something that should be examined, beyond being noted.
I don't think wives should be political animals (such as Mrs Brown became), but the natural extension of that is that privacy ought to be afforded to them.0 -
They could run some polling...kle4 said:
If the papers didn't report this sort of guff, they would be quite emptyRobD said:
Even so, I don't see why I needed to know one way or the other.kle4 said:
Reporting one turned down an invitation to a same dinner isn't the same as asking why, if China was so good, they moved to the UK.RobD said:DecrepitJohnL said:Are wives fair game this week? It's hard to keep up.
Plato_Says said:DT
Our Chief Political Correspondent reports that Laura Alvarez, Jeremy Corbyn’s wife, has turned down an invitation from the Queen to next week’s state banquet in honour of Chinese president Xi Jinping.
Mr Corbyn’s spokesman said on Wednesday that she had declined to attend but did not say why.
That didn't work out too well for the last five years. Good for us though, I suppose.0 -
DecrepitJohnL said:
Are wives fair game this week? It's hard to keep up.
Plato_Says said:DT
Our Chief Political Correspondent reports that Laura Alvarez, Jeremy Corbyn’s wife, has turned down an invitation from the Queen to next week’s state banquet in honour of Chinese president Xi Jinping.
Mr Corbyn’s spokesman said on Wednesday that she had declined to attend but did not say why.
She has responsibilities as LOTO's wife.
China will be very happy to take her absence as a mortal insult if it in their interest to do so.
Sometimes you have to grit your teeth and do things you would rather not.0 -
Meh, you don't have any means of collecting fines. All you're doing is loudly proclaiming that you don't like the phrase ;-)antifrank said:Can we introduce a fines system for the phrase "virtue signalling"?
0 -
Nothing makes one more unpopular than being proved right.Charles said:
Except we offered our advice at every stage, and it was rejected. We warned them of the consequences and they chose to go ahead. I don't see why we shoulkd bail them out.antifrank said:JEO said:
Unless we take hundreds of thousands of migrants, we're not really going to affect the situation. Given that is clearly ridiculous, we need to look at solutions that don't involve trying to relocate huge swathes of the Syrian population to Europe. Taking some number between what we have already taking and hundreds of thousands isn't good policy. It's just virtue signalling.antifrank said:
On the specifics of the migrant crisis, I make Brussels right - Britain should have accepted far more migrants than it has done. On the more general principle, however, they are 100% crashingly wrong. Britain has taken one for the team on numerous occasions (most recently with the "political agreement not a legal agreement" justification for ratting on the commitment given in relation to the EFSM). A touch of humility on the European side of negotiations and a recognition that Brussels has been every bit as capable of acting in bad faith as London would be a very healthy start.kle4 said:
We're nasty. Didn't take migrants, ask for things all the time, I think.taffys said:''If I read this piece right, it's saying that even when the people of Europe agree with Britain's positions, they won't agree to adopt them because they dislike us.''
Does the article say WHY they dislike us????
Honestly, they and we may not realise how much we agree on things, because we perceive ourselves certain ways - isn't it the case the Scots and rUK opinion is really not all that different on most issues, but the perception is there is a big gap on many issues? Same thing. Britain is the selfish country, don't trust their ideas are good for all, even if it matches opinion. I'm sure an idea proposed by the EU here would gain less traction than from the government, due to popularity (not that our governments are popular, but they are more so than the EU I'd have thought).
We should help other EU countries a bit more. It's unsurprising that shrugging our shoulders, pointing to our island status and turning our backs on the problem has not made us popular.
I've occasionally found myself being hated by a client, for advising them not to sign an agreement, or lease, which would be hugely detrimental to them. The reason is, because I've destroyed their dreams.0 -
What I take virtual signalling to mean is when someone says something like we should take more migrants when they themselves would never do anything personally to assist with that aim such as taking a migrant in as a lodger in their own home. They want to feel good but without actually doing anything concrete about it.antifrank said:
Can we introduce a fines system for the phrase "virtue signalling"? It was never very useful and has now degenerated into meaning "action that I don't agree with or think will be effective".JEO said:
Unless we take hundreds of thousands of migrants, we're not really going to affect the situation. Given that is clearly ridiculous, we need to look at solutions that don't involve trying to relocate huge swathes of the Syrian population to Europe. Taking some number between what we have already taking and hundreds of thousands isn't good policy. It's just virtue signalling.antifrank said:
.....kle4 said:
We're nasty. Didn't take migrants, ask for things all the time, I think.taffys said:''If I read this piece right, it's saying that even when the people of Europe agree with Britain's positions, they won't agree to adopt them because they dislike us.''
Does the article say WHY they dislike us????
Honestly, they and we may not realise how much we agree on things, because we perceive ourselves certain ways - isn't it the case the Scots and rUK opinion is really not all that different on most issues, but the perception is there is a big gap on many issues? Same thing. Britain is the selfish country, don't trust their ideas are good for all, even if it matches opinion. I'm sure an idea proposed by the EU here would gain less traction than from the government, due to popularity (not that our governments are popular, but they are more so than the EU I'd have thought).
Showing willing to help friends in times of crisis is never a bad thing to do. Whether we like it or not (and we don't), hundreds of thousands have already descended on Europe. We can wash our hands of these migrants and leave others to sink under their weight. Or we can help a bit more.
We should help other EU countries a bit more. It's unsurprising that shrugging our shoulders, pointing to our island status and turning our backs on the problem has not made us popular.0 -
Like. "I cannot prevent a tragedy altogether so I shall do nothing to alleviate it" has always been a disreputable argument. Yes, I understand that we help with funds for camps near the border. But there is a specific problem with the refugees already in Europe. Do we really feel that we shouldn't help deal with their cases?antifrank said:
Showing willing to help friends in times of crisis is never a bad thing to do. Whether we like it or not (and we don't), hundreds of thousands have already descended on Europe. We can wash our hands of these migrants and leave others to sink under their weight. Or we can help a bit more.
We should help other EU countries a bit more. It's unsurprising that shrugging our shoulders, pointing to our island status and turning our backs on the problem has not made us popular.0
