It was like being sucked into a blackhole. I couldn't pull away - every two mins another outrageous bit of dissembling, ludicrous claim, being told to stop talking, huffing/puffing/swearing under their breath, verbal ectoplasm...and finally abusive limericks.
The latter will no doubt keep Twitter entertained for the afternoon.
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 12m12 minutes ago Kids Company select committee session is off the charts.
Something has finally got him off Corbyn and the Labour meltdown!
I've been watching the cricket, possibly the dullest Test match I have ever witnessed.
Is it true that Test Cricket is even more boring than Golf?
No. Bosanquet (who invented the googly) famously wrote to The Times distinguishing moving-ball games, like football and cricket, from still-ball games such as golf and snooker.
Lets take your argument to its logical conclusion - should he wear a claret and blue shirt to Villa Park (or is it West Ham today?), a turban in Gravesend, kilt in Edinburgh, etc etc or should dress like the Prime Minister of the UK and simply wear a dark suit and tie? There is a reason he's known as Heir to Blair and its not complimentary.
I'd genuinely love to view politics in the simplistic, tribal way you do where whatever Cameron does is ok.
It has nothing to do with Cameron, I have never criticised any politician of any stripe for wearing the appropriate clothing to suit a situation. Furthermore I have done the same myself. I am an atheist who views religion about the same as Richard Dawkins but while on holiday to Thailand I visited a Buddhist Temple and was asked in advance to wear different clothing to what I would otherwise have been wearing. I complied with that because it is a reasonable request in my eyes. If I go into your home I will treat your home with respect, the same if I go into your temple.
What I won't do is suggest we treat you differently based on your religion or race. That is where I draw the line, not clothing. I'm superficial like you I guess.
You are mistaking (deliberately) the difference between visiting a sacred place abroad on holiday and cynically looking for votes in a domestic election.
You are contrary in your view, you won't treat anybody differently based on their religion but you'll dress to please or appease them.
I will dress respectfully depending upon the situation yes. I wouldn't wear a donkey jacket to the cenotaph but I might to a pub. Well I wouldn't because I don't own a donkey jacket but you get the point.
Dressing appropriately to the situation has sod all to do with manifestos or policies though. If you can understand the difference we might actually make some progress.
Labour in Scotland do risk finding themselves in a sour spot: too unionist for those Scots for whom national identity is a core component of their voting choice and too leftwing for many unionist Scots who have previously stayed loyal to the red team.
The solution, I would have thought, would be to become more pluralist on whether Scotland should become independent to the point of fostering a Labour independence movement. It is probably too late for this approach in this round of elections.
Interesting you should say that. In fact, there have been some signs of this from the branch office management -
Senior members of Jeremy Corbyn's own team say he has "lost control" over his own party and it is only a matter of time before he suffers his first resignation from the shadow cabinet.
On Wednesday night the Labour leader allowed members of his ministerial team to defy him by avoiding a crucial Commons vote just hours after threatening them with the sack if they rebelled.
In a sign of Mr Corbyn's lack of authority it emerged that senior Labour MPs had been given permission to be absent and abstain from voting against Conservative proposals to run a budget surplus.
In what way are Harper and Crosby exploiting "Islamophobia?"
I think the writer's point is that the tories will play the islam card if Zac starts to fall behind.
What is the Islam card?
In all likelihood, there will be people who vote for Goldsmith because Khan is a Muslim; and there'll be people who vote for Khan, because Goldsmith is a Jew. And in parts of London, elections are heavily polarised by race and religion.
But, I'd be surprised if the Conservatives try to whip up feeling against Khan because he's a Muslim. Ken Livingstone was a good deal more shameless in trying to exploit ethnic animosity.
Well indeed - but Labour's hypocricy is like candy rock stripes - right through to the core. Yet another depressingly partisan thread header.
Whatever it was wasn't appropriate for the cenotaph! He looked scruffy and wasn't dressed respectfully and that is the point, you dress not just to avoid being naked but to suit the situation you are in. You don't need to change your policies to change your outfit and be respectful.
Lets take your argument to its logical conclusion - should he wear a claret and blue shirt to Villa Park (or is it West Ham today?), a turban in Gravesend, kilt in Edinburgh, etc etc or should dress like the Prime Minister of the UK and simply wear a dark suit and tie? There is a reason he's known as Heir to Blair and its not complimentary.
I'd genuinely love to view politics in the simplistic, tribal way you do where whatever Cameron does is ok.
It has nothing to do with Cameron, I have never criticised any politician of any stripe for wearing the appropriate clothing to suit a situation. Furthermore I have done the same myself. I am an atheist who views religion about the same as Richard Dawkins but while on holiday to Thailand I visited a Buddhist Temple and was asked in advance to wear different clothing to what I would otherwise have been wearing. I complied with that because it is a reasonable request in my eyes. If I go into your home I will treat your home with respect, the same if I go into your temple.
What I won't do is suggest we treat you differently based on your religion or race. That is where I draw the line, not clothing. I'm superficial like you I guess.
You are mistaking (deliberately) the difference between visiting a sacred place abroad on holiday and cynically looking for votes in a domestic election.
You are contrary in your view, you won't treat anybody differently based on their religion but you'll dress to please or appease them.
I will dress respectfully depending upon the situation yes. I wouldn't wear a donkey jacket to the cenotaph but I might to a pub. Well I wouldn't because I don't own a donkey jacket but you get the point.
Dressing appropriately to the situation has sod all to do with manifestos or policies though. If you can understand the difference we might actually make some progress.
Perhaps I was wrong to assume you can't tell the difference between you and I on holiday, respecting other people's cultures and a Prime Minister wearing fancy dress to cynically seek approval of a minority.
You clearly see nothing wrong in that, good for you, I hope I don't find a thread where you've criticised Corbyn for not wearing a tie or a poppy, I'm interested to see where your spirit of openness begins and ends.
Lets take your argument to its logical conclusion - should he wear a claret and blue shirt to Villa Park (or is it West Ham today?), a turban in Gravesend, kilt in Edinburgh, etc etc or should dress like the Prime Minister of the UK and simply wear a dark suit and tie? There is a reason he's known as Heir to Blair and its not complimentary.
I'd genuinely love to view politics in the simplistic, tribal way you do where whatever Cameron does is ok.
It has nothing to do with Cameron, I have never criticised any politician of any stripe for wearing the appropriate clothing to suit a situation. Furthermore I have done the same myself. I am an atheist who views religion about the same as Richard Dawkins but while on holiday to Thailand I visited a Buddhist Temple and was asked in advance to wear different clothing to what I would otherwise have been wearing. I complied with that because it is a reasonable request in my eyes. If I go into your home I will treat your home with respect, the same if I go into your temple.
What I won't do is suggest we treat you differently based on your religion or race. That is where I draw the line, not clothing. I'm superficial like you I guess.
You are mistaking (deliberately) the difference between visiting a sacred place abroad on holiday and cynically looking for votes in a domestic election.
You are contrary in your view, you won't treat anybody differently based on their religion but you'll dress to please or appease them.
I will dress respectfully depending upon the situation yes. I wouldn't wear a donkey jacket to the cenotaph but I might to a pub. Well I wouldn't because I don't own a donkey jacket but you get the point.
Dressing appropriately to the situation has sod all to do with manifestos or policies though. If you can understand the difference we might actually make some progress.
Perhaps I was wrong to assume you can't tell the difference between you and I on holiday, respecting other people's cultures and a Prime Minister wearing fancy dress to cynically seek approval of a minority.
You clearly see nothing wrong in that, good for you, I hope I don't find a thread where you've criticised Corbyn for not wearing a tie or a poppy, I'm interested to see where your spirit of openness begins and ends.
If respecting people's cultures is acceptable for you and I on holiday, why do you think that being Prime Minister exempts you from having to be respectful too?
Senior members of Jeremy Corbyn's own team say he has "lost control" over his own party and it is only a matter of time before he suffers his first resignation from the shadow cabinet.
On Wednesday night the Labour leader allowed members of his ministerial team to defy him by avoiding a crucial Commons vote just hours after threatening them with the sack if they rebelled.
In a sign of Mr Corbyn's lack of authority it emerged that senior Labour MPs had been given permission to be absent and abstain from voting against Conservative proposals to run a budget surplus.
Lets take your argument to its logical conclusion - should he wear a claret and blue shirt to Villa Park (or is it West Ham today?), a turban in Gravesend, kilt in Edinburgh, etc etc or should dress like the Prime Minister of the UK and simply wear a dark suit and tie? There is a reason he's known as Heir to Blair and its not complimentary.
I'd genuinely love to view politics in the simplistic, tribal way you do where whatever Cameron does is ok.
It has nothing to do with Cameron, I have never criticised any politician of any stripe for wearing the appropriate clothing to suit a situation. Furthermore I have done the same myself. I am an atheist who views religion about the same as Richard Dawkins but while on holiday to Thailand I visited a Buddhist Temple and was asked in advance to wear different clothing to what I would otherwise have been wearing. I complied with that because it is a reasonable request in my eyes. If I go into your home I will treat your home with respect, the same if I go into your temple.
What I won't do is suggest we treat you differently based on your religion or race. That is where I draw the line, not clothing. I'm superficial like you I guess.
You are mistaking (deliberately) the difference between visiting a sacred place abroad on holiday and cynically looking for votes in a domestic election.
You are contrary in your view, you won't treat anybody differently based on their religion but you'll dress to please or appease them.
I will dress respectfully depending upon the situation yes. I wouldn't wear a donkey jacket to the cenotaph but I might to a pub. Well I wouldn't because I don't own a donkey jacket but you get the point.
Dressing appropriately to the situation has sod all to do with manifestos or policies though. If you can understand the difference we might actually make some progress.
Perhaps I was wrong to assume you can't tell the difference between you and I on holiday, respecting other people's cultures and a Prime Minister wearing fancy dress to cynically seek approval of a minority.
You clearly see nothing wrong in that, good for you, I hope I don't find a thread where you've criticised Corbyn for not wearing a tie or a poppy, I'm interested to see where your spirit of openness begins and ends.
If respecting people's cultures is acceptable for you and I on holiday, why do you think that being Prime Minister exempts you from having to be respectful too?
Nobody in UK has ever asked me to take my suit and tie off and show some respect.
I am saying people should dress according to the situation they are in, and not necessarily wear the same things all the time. I would not expect Corbyn to change his politics or his policies because is at the cenotaph for instance but I would expect him to dress respectfully and appropriately for the situation exactly the same as Cameron should dress respectfully and appropriately for whichever situations he finds himself in. I will not call Corbyn wrong for wearing a tie and a poppy at the cenotaph even if he doesn't normally wear them, it would just be him showing respect.
Corbyn does not normally wear a tie and has not always worn a red poppy as far as I'm aware. If he wears a red poppy and a tie I will NOT criticise him for that.
If respecting people's cultures is acceptable for you and I on holiday, why do you think that being Prime Minister exempts you from having to be respectful too?
Nobody in UK has ever asked me to take my suit and tie off and show some respect
Maybe you've not been to the same places.
As a teenager at a friends Bah Mitzvah I was asked to wear a kippah (Jewish skull cap) which I did. Maybe you've led a very sheltered life if you've never been asked to change outfit somewhat to suit a situation.
Senior members of Jeremy Corbyn's own team say he has "lost control" over his own party and it is only a matter of time before he suffers his first resignation from the shadow cabinet.
On Wednesday night the Labour leader allowed members of his ministerial team to defy him by avoiding a crucial Commons vote just hours after threatening them with the sack if they rebelled.
In a sign of Mr Corbyn's lack of authority it emerged that senior Labour MPs had been given permission to be absent and abstain from voting against Conservative proposals to run a budget surplus.
The article mentions that Jezzer's undecided as to whether to dress up for a State Banquet next week. I guess it depends on whether the Oxfam shop in Hornsey has White Tie on the rails.
'Mr Corbyn is expected to confront the Chinese President over his human rights record.'
Senior members of Jeremy Corbyn's own team say he has "lost control" over his own party and it is only a matter of time before he suffers his first resignation from the shadow cabinet.
On Wednesday night the Labour leader allowed members of his ministerial team to defy him by avoiding a crucial Commons vote just hours after threatening them with the sack if they rebelled.
In a sign of Mr Corbyn's lack of authority it emerged that senior Labour MPs had been given permission to be absent and abstain from voting against Conservative proposals to run a budget surplus.
The article is interesting, but for the wrong reasons. No one resigned last night. It was a small number of abstainers. Corbyn may not _need_ to control the PLP. The boundary changes will be very useful to him and his cohorts.
He seems to be more interested in controlling the party's systems, which is not the same thing. He has the membership, the unions and the NEC. He just has to change the existing leadership arrangements (e.g. the annual election at conference) and he's got the PLP in a headlock.
Muttering bitter asides to the Telegraph isn't going to accomplish anything.
If respecting people's cultures is acceptable for you and I on holiday, why do you think that being Prime Minister exempts you from having to be respectful too?
Nobody in UK has ever asked me to take my suit and tie off and show some respect
Maybe you've not been to the same places.
As a teenager at a friends Bah Mitzvah I was asked to wear a kippah (Jewish skull cap) which I did. Maybe you've led a very sheltered life if you've never been asked to change outfit somewhat to suit a situation.
I knew you'd resort to patronising abuse before long, job done.
Senior members of Jeremy Corbyn's own team say he has "lost control" over his own party and it is only a matter of time before he suffers his first resignation from the shadow cabinet.
On Wednesday night the Labour leader allowed members of his ministerial team to defy him by avoiding a crucial Commons vote just hours after threatening them with the sack if they rebelled.
In a sign of Mr Corbyn's lack of authority it emerged that senior Labour MPs had been given permission to be absent and abstain from voting against Conservative proposals to run a budget surplus.
The article mentions that Jezzer's undecided as to whether to dress up for a State Banquet next week. I guess it depends on whether the Oxfam shop in Hornsey has White Tie on the rails.
'Mr Corbyn is expected to confront the Chinese President over his human rights record.'
This is going to be interesting.
He may not like dressing up, but sometimes it really does need to be done. Dinner with the Queen and a foreign Head of State is one of those times.
I can well imagine the conversation between the Chinese, the PM and the Queen as to why there's a tramp sitting at the table with them. Whether Mr Corbyn likes it or not, these things really do matter, if only for the impression given to others.
In what way are Harper and Crosby exploiting "Islamophobia?"
I think the writer's point is that the tories will play the islam card if Zac starts to fall behind.
Isn't that what Sadiq Khan is already doing by emphasising the fact that he is a Muslim? Who cares what his religion is. But he makes a point of mentioning it. I've no idea what Boris's religion, if he has one, is.
If respecting people's cultures is acceptable for you and I on holiday, why do you think that being Prime Minister exempts you from having to be respectful too?
Nobody in UK has ever asked me to take my suit and tie off and show some respect
Maybe you've not been to the same places.
As a teenager at a friends Bah Mitzvah I was asked to wear a kippah (Jewish skull cap) which I did. Maybe you've led a very sheltered life if you've never been asked to change outfit somewhat to suit a situation.
I knew you'd resort to patronising abuse before long, job done.
Have a good day.
I think it is no more than good manners to dress up, when entering a different place of worship.
The one exception was Oliver Letwin, when he entered a Sikh temple. His orange turban made him look like Kenneth Williams in Carry On Up The Khyber.
If respecting people's cultures is acceptable for you and I on holiday, why do you think that being Prime Minister exempts you from having to be respectful too?
Nobody in UK has ever asked me to take my suit and tie off and show some respect
Maybe you've not been to the same places.
As a teenager at a friends Bah Mitzvah I was asked to wear a kippah (Jewish skull cap) which I did. Maybe you've led a very sheltered life if you've never been asked to change outfit somewhat to suit a situation.
I knew you'd resort to patronising abuse before long, job done.
Have a good day.
You've been resorting to patronising abuse and sarcasm all thread. Talking about being dressed up in "funny headgear" and all that.
To me wearing a skull cap is "funny headgear" but I've worn it more than once as I'm not going to be rude if I'm somewhere it is appropriate. Apparently such basic courtesy and manners that I was brought up with stop at the door of Number 10 and can't be shown by the PM. Though you've yet to say why.
I suppose you've got nowhere to run since your insinuations about "funny headgear" have been refuted so good day to you too.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't remember the highly selective Mr. Brind complaining when his beloved Labour party won a very much more substantial majority than that recently achieved by the Tories, on a smaller share of the national vote. Funny that.
''Prime Minister assures EU leaders he will "quicken the pace" and put a deal on the table next month ''
I sort of feel sorry for David Cameron because he himself probably thinks there's very little wrong with the EU as it is.
I don't think that's true. I think Cameron is your run-of-the-mill moderate eurosceptic. He thinks there's a lot wrong with the EU and would like to correct it. The question is whether he's willing to ignore those problems so as not to upset anyone or fight with conviction for the changes we need, and recommend Leave if necessary.
Senior members of Jeremy Corbyn's own team say he has "lost control" over his own party and it is only a matter of time before he suffers his first resignation from the shadow cabinet.
On Wednesday night the Labour leader allowed members of his ministerial team to defy him by avoiding a crucial Commons vote just hours after threatening them with the sack if they rebelled.
In a sign of Mr Corbyn's lack of authority it emerged that senior Labour MPs had been given permission to be absent and abstain from voting against Conservative proposals to run a budget surplus.
The article mentions that Jezzer's undecided as to whether to dress up for a State Banquet next week. I guess it depends on whether the Oxfam shop in Hornsey has White Tie on the rails.
'Mr Corbyn is expected to confront the Chinese President over his human rights record.'
This is going to be interesting.
He may not like dressing up, but sometimes it really does need to be done. Dinner with the Queen and a foreign Head of State is one of those times.
I can well imagine the conversation between the Chinese, the PM and the Queen as to why there's a tramp sitting at the table with them. Whether Mr Corbyn likes it or not, these things really do matter, if only for the impression given to others.
There's every likelihood that Corbyn will bottle it, claiming a previous engagement with his leeks and runner beans, or something equally spurious.
Lets take your argument to its logical conclusion - should he wear a claret and blue shirt to Villa Park (or is it West Ham today?), a turban in Gravesend, kilt in Edinburgh, etc etc or should dress like the Prime Minister of the UK and simply wear a dark suit and tie? There is a reason he's known as Heir to Blair and its not complimentary.
I'd genuinely love to view politics in the simplistic, tribal way you do where whatever Cameron does is ok.
It has nothing to do with Cameron, I have never criticised any politician of any stripe for wearing the appropriate clothing to suit a situation. Furthermore I have done the same myself. I am an atheist who views religion about the same as Richard Dawkins but while on holiday to Thailand I visited a Buddhist Temple and was asked in advance to wear different clothing to what I would otherwise have been wearing. I complied with that because it is a reasonable request in my eyes. If I go into your home I will treat your home with respect, the same if I go into your temple.
What I won't do is suggest we treat you differently based on your religion or race. That is where I draw the line, not clothing. I'm superficial like you I guess.
Yes, I pretty much agree. Just to set the record straight - I don't think there were separate Muslim, Hindu, etc. Labour (or indeed anyone else) manifestos - certainly as a candidate I never heard of anything like that.
There were various mini-manifestos for people with special interests (I helped launch the animal welfare one) and all parties have ethnic supporter groups (the Tory conference lanyard was from Conservative Friends of India, and why not). I don't think there's anything wrong in mini-manifestos, any more than Tories pressing the SNP issue with people who'd expressed concern about it. The rot sets in if you change your message according to your audience, and the media are pretty good at spotting that when it happens.
I'd genuinely love to view politics in the simplistic, tribal way you do where whatever Cameron does is ok.
It has nothing to do with Cameron, I have never criticised any politician of any stripe for wearing the appropriate clothing to suit a situation. Furthermore I have done the same myself. I am an atheist who views religion about the same as Richard Dawkins but while on holiday to Thailand I visited a Buddhist Temple and was asked in advance to wear different clothing to what I would otherwise have been wearing. I complied with that because it is a reasonable request in my eyes. If I go into your home I will treat your home with respect, the same if I go into your temple.
What I won't do is suggest we treat you differently based on your religion or race. That is where I draw the line, not clothing. I'm superficial like you I guess.
You are mistaking (deliberately) the difference between visiting a sacred place abroad on holiday and cynically looking for votes in a domestic election.
You are contrary in your view, you won't treat anybody differently based on their religion but you'll dress to please or appease them.
I will dress respectfully depending upon the situation yes. I wouldn't wear a donkey jacket to the cenotaph but I might to a pub. Well I wouldn't because I don't own a donkey jacket but you get the point.
Dressing appropriately to the situation has sod all to do with manifestos or policies though. If you can understand the difference we might actually make some progress.
Perhaps I was wrong to assume you can't tell the difference between you and I on holiday, respecting other people's cultures and a Prime Minister wearing fancy dress to cynically seek approval of a minority.
You clearly see nothing wrong in that, good for you, I hope I don't find a thread where you've criticised Corbyn for not wearing a tie or a poppy, I'm interested to see where your spirit of openness begins and ends.
If respecting people's cultures is acceptable for you and I on holiday, why do you think that being Prime Minister exempts you from having to be respectful too?
Nobody in UK has ever asked me to take my suit and tie off and show some respect.
Someone needs to spend a weekend in a nudist colony...
If respecting people's cultures is acceptable for you and I on holiday, why do you think that being Prime Minister exempts you from having to be respectful too?
Nobody in UK has ever asked me to take my suit and tie off and show some respect
Maybe you've not been to the same places.
As a teenager at a friends Bah Mitzvah I was asked to wear a kippah (Jewish skull cap) which I did. Maybe you've led a very sheltered life if you've never been asked to change outfit somewhat to suit a situation.
I knew you'd resort to patronising abuse before long, job done.
Have a good day.
I think it is no more than good manners to dress up, when entering a different place of worship.
The one exception was Oliver Letwin, when he entered a Sikh temple. His orange turban made him look like Kenneth Williams in Carry On Up The Khyber.
You are probably right about the turban and a wise head might have dodged the colour. However, might there have been a specific reason for the colour? I've no idea bit its possibly plausible.
In what way are Harper and Crosby exploiting "Islamophobia?"
I think the writer's point is that the tories will play the islam card if Zac starts to fall behind.
What is the Islam card?
In all likelihood, there will be people who vote for Goldsmith because Khan is a Muslim; and there'll be people who vote for Khan, because Goldsmith is a Jew. And in parts of London, elections are heavily polarised by race and religion.
But, I'd be surprised if the Conservatives try to whip up feeling against Khan because he's a Muslim. Ken Livingstone was a good deal more shameless in trying to exploit ethnic animosity.
What % of those voting know Zac is a Jew (I didn't) and what % cares? If the people of London are voting on religious or cultural grounds we're in one hell of a mess.
How deeply depressing that in the 21st century, we seem to be going backwards on people voting on such a racist or sectarian basis. It seems that we've overcome the historic Protestant-Catholic hatred in mainland Britain, only to bring in fresh sectarianism from the Muslim world.
As class lost its potency, the Left focused on other categories: race, colour, sex, gender, religion etc and has played the identity politics game, to its eternal shame and our detriment. Livingstone is the past master of it hence his revolting comments to Jews and his cosying up to Islamic extremists.
It is deeply damaging to social cohesion, condescending and offensive to the people concerned and the very opposite of true diversity.
Correct. Don't also forget that the Labour base is nowhere near as working class and blue-collar as it used to be. Yes, it's about unions. But those are public sector unions that more often as not contain middle-class white collar workers.
Whisper it but I'm not sure Labour would go for full-blown economic equality today even if it could. Yes, it wants to alleviate poverty but there are plenty of its activists who want to protect their well-paid generous middle-class jobs with tidy pension pots, who pay 40p tax and have mortgages.
If respecting people's cultures is acceptable for you and I on holiday, why do you think that being Prime Minister exempts you from having to be respectful too?
Nobody in UK has ever asked me to take my suit and tie off and show some respect
Maybe you've not been to the same places.
As a teenager at a friends Bah Mitzvah I was asked to wear a kippah (Jewish skull cap) which I did. Maybe you've led a very sheltered life if you've never been asked to change outfit somewhat to suit a situation.
I knew you'd resort to patronising abuse before long, job done.
Have a good day.
I think it is no more than good manners to dress up, when entering a different place of worship.
The one exception was Oliver Letwin, when he entered a Sikh temple. His orange turban made him look like Kenneth Williams in Carry On Up The Khyber.
You are probably right about the turban and a wise head might have dodged the colour. However, might there have been a specific reason for the colour? I've no idea bit its possibly plausible.
It was an orange one Cameron was wearing, have a google
Senior members of Jeremy Corbyn's own team say he has "lost control" over his own party and it is only a matter of time before he suffers his first resignation from the shadow cabinet.
On Wednesday night the Labour leader allowed members of his ministerial team to defy him by avoiding a crucial Commons vote just hours after threatening them with the sack if they rebelled.
In a sign of Mr Corbyn's lack of authority it emerged that senior Labour MPs had been given permission to be absent and abstain from voting against Conservative proposals to run a budget surplus.
The article mentions that Jezzer's undecided as to whether to dress up for a State Banquet next week. I guess it depends on whether the Oxfam shop in Hornsey has White Tie on the rails.
'Mr Corbyn is expected to confront the Chinese President over his human rights record.'
This is going to be interesting.
He may not like dressing up, but sometimes it really does need to be done. Dinner with the Queen and a foreign Head of State is one of those times.
I can well imagine the conversation between the Chinese, the PM and the Queen as to why there's a tramp sitting at the table with them. Whether Mr Corbyn likes it or not, these things really do matter, if only for the impression given to others.
There's every likelihood that Corbyn will bottle it, claiming a previous engagement with his leeks and runner beans, or something equally spurious.
Possibly. It was reported yesterday that Mrs. Corbyn has already found somewhere better to be that night. How does he expect anyone to take him seriously when he shows such disdain for the formality of his current position, let alone the position to which he aspires?
It doesn't help that his opposite number is David Cameron, a man who - no matter what else one may criticise him for - you know will turn up suitably attired and have taken a briefing on the appropriate protocol for any event he attends. The contrast between the two men could not be wider.
If respecting people's cultures is acceptable for you and I on holiday, why do you think that being Prime Minister exempts you from having to be respectful too?
Nobody in UK has ever asked me to take my suit and tie off and show some respect
Maybe you've not been to the same places.
As a teenager at a friends Bah Mitzvah I was asked to wear a kippah (Jewish skull cap) which I did. Maybe you've led a very sheltered life if you've never been asked to change outfit somewhat to suit a situation.
If respecting people's cultures is acceptable for you and I on holiday, why do you think that being Prime Minister exempts you from having to be respectful too?
Nobody in UK has ever asked me to take my suit and tie off and show some respect
Maybe you've not been to the same places.
As a teenager at a friends Bah Mitzvah I was asked to wear a kippah (Jewish skull cap) which I did. Maybe you've led a very sheltered life if you've never been asked to change outfit somewhat to suit a situation.
I knew you'd resort to patronising abuse before long, job done.
Have a good day.
I think it is no more than good manners to dress up, when entering a different place of worship.
The one exception was Oliver Letwin, when he entered a Sikh temple. His orange turban made him look like Kenneth Williams in Carry On Up The Khyber.
You are probably right about the turban and a wise head might have dodged the colour. However, might there have been a specific reason for the colour? I've no idea bit its possibly plausible.
Apparently, he was told that handkerchief on his head would be sufficient. But, being Letwin, he had to make himself look daft.
''Prime Minister assures EU leaders he will "quicken the pace" and put a deal on the table next month ''
I sort of feel sorry for David Cameron because he himself probably thinks there's very little wrong with the EU as it is.
I don't think that's true. I think Cameron is your run-of-the-mill moderate eurosceptic. He thinks there's a lot wrong with the EU and would like to correct it. The question is whether he's willing to ignore those problems so as not to upset anyone or fight with conviction for the changes we need, and recommend Leave if necessary.
I suspect he is a moderate eurosceptic who sees a lot wrong with the EU which he'd like to correct but probably already thinks the UK is on balance better in than out, despite the problems.
He's got an opportunity to fix some of the problems now, but the problem is that the harder (and more public) he identifies those problems and tries to fix them, if he fails to do so then it will be harder to both say the country should stay in despite the problems and get the country to agree.
A perfect EU like a perfect world is never going to be possible, a better one certainly is. Will he get a better one though?
Fair play to the Parliamentary web developers by the way, the new website has a LOT of archive stuff on it and is added to in real time every day. Technically very difficult to do, it works on multiple platforms and with relatively few bugs.
If respecting people's cultures is acceptable for you and I on holiday, why do you think that being Prime Minister exempts you from having to be respectful too?
Nobody in UK has ever asked me to take my suit and tie off and show some respect
Maybe you've not been to the same places.
As a teenager at a friends Bah Mitzvah I was asked to wear a kippah (Jewish skull cap) which I did. Maybe you've led a very sheltered life if you've never been asked to change outfit somewhat to suit a situation.
Unfashionably late to the party (as usual) but a quick comment on Antifrank's contribution to the previous. Divisive indeed as the Conservatives split between those incapable of conceiving of anything other than endless hegemony (imagine a blue rosette stamping on a human face forever) and those at willing to concede to the possibility that nothing lasts forever.
My thought is two things undermine parties - the big things and the small things which become big things. Antifrank commented at length on the former and there is a degree of preparation/mitigation which can be planned and implemented if required.
The "small things becoming big things" is the more difficult. It's the poor policy here, the gaffe there, the Ministerial resignation and the drip-drip perception of a Government slowly but inevitably losing control of events and losing touch with its own coalition of voters. My view is that as Cameron and Osborne seek through opportunism to make the Conservative tent even bigger it risks collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions.
Ultimately "liberal conservatism" (whatever that means) ends up disappointing both liberals and conservatives. For all the political management, it will be the sour look, the poor response and the ill-considered remark that cumulatively hurts.
Some on the last thread at least had the sense to argue this Government will have a mid-term and it may drop into the low 30s or even high 20s and where that disillusioned vote will go is hard to say at this time - I suspect everywhere and nowhere. Incoherent (in terms of unfocused) opposition is still opposition and may be as effective in the short to medium term. In the end, politicians who get too comfortable with power and office and take the electorate for granted get what they deserve - the Conservatives aren't near that point yet but if the hegemony is unchallenged through 2020 it seems reasonable to assume that will happen and the higher the rise the further the fall (ask John Major, Nick Clegg and Gordon Brown).
If respecting people's cultures is acceptable for you and I on holiday, why do you think that being Prime Minister exempts you from having to be respectful too?
Nobody in UK has ever asked me to take my suit and tie off and show some respect
Maybe you've not been to the same places.
As a teenager at a friends Bah Mitzvah I was asked to wear a kippah (Jewish skull cap) which I did. Maybe you've led a very sheltered life if you've never been asked to change outfit somewhat to suit a situation.
''Prime Minister assures EU leaders he will "quicken the pace" and put a deal on the table next month ''
I sort of feel sorry for David Cameron because he himself probably thinks there's very little wrong with the EU as it is.
I don't think that's true. I think Cameron is your run-of-the-mill moderate eurosceptic. He thinks there's a lot wrong with the EU and would like to correct it. The question is whether he's willing to ignore those problems so as not to upset anyone or fight with conviction for the changes we need, and recommend Leave if necessary.
Cameron has Tory instincts - mainly from background and upbringing - and is clearly intelligent. However, when it comes to politics he is more of an optimistic skilled chairman and arbitrator and works off trying to leverage what he feels he needs to off the status quo to move the country forwards, with people he trusts.
When this government has been at its most radical - Gove, Hilton, and Lansley - it's because he's let them get on. When it gets too contentious, he reins them in.
It is interesting to consider how differently the EU renegotiations might be going had he delegated them fully to his foreign secretary (a radical eurosceptic one, perhaps Gove) rather than him as the figurehead with Osborne at the tiller.
If respecting people's cultures is acceptable for you and I on holiday, why do you think that being Prime Minister exempts you from having to be respectful too?
Nobody in UK has ever asked me to take my suit and tie off and show some respect
Maybe you've not been to the same places.
As a teenager at a friends Bah Mitzvah I was asked to wear a kippah (Jewish skull cap) which I did. Maybe you've led a very sheltered life if you've never been asked to change outfit somewhat to suit a situation.
I knew you'd resort to patronising abuse before long, job done.
Have a good day.
I think it is no more than good manners to dress up, when entering a different place of worship.
The one exception was Oliver Letwin, when he entered a Sikh temple. His orange turban made him look like Kenneth Williams in Carry On Up The Khyber.
You are probably right about the turban and a wise head might have dodged the colour. However, might there have been a specific reason for the colour? I've no idea bit its possibly plausible.
Apparently, he was told that handkerchief on his head would be sufficient. But, being Letwin, he had to make himself look daft.
''A perfect EU like a perfect world is never going to be possible, a better one certainly is. Will he get a better one though? ''
This is not about prosperity. It is about who calls the shots. It is about power. It is about control.
Absolutely. It is about who rules us, and how we can give the buggers the boot if we don't like what they're doing! The real power in the EU is with the unelected and unaccountable, that is the big issue.
"London is a famously diverse city and Labour’s candidate Sadiq Khan is, of course, a Muslim. If Goldsmith’s campaign falters look out for the Tories to throw that dead cat on to the table."
What exactly is this supposed to mean if not playing the race card? It's not so much getting your retaliation in first as punching yourself and blaming the other guy because your prejudice means you expected that he would have done it anyway.
In what way are Harper and Crosby exploiting "Islamophobia?"
I think the writer's point is that the tories will play the islam card if Zac starts to fall behind.
What is the Islam card?
In all likelihood, there will be people who vote for Goldsmith because Khan is a Muslim; and there'll be people who vote for Khan, because Goldsmith is a Jew. And in parts of London, elections are heavily polarised by race and religion.
But, I'd be surprised if the Conservatives try to whip up feeling against Khan because he's a Muslim. Ken Livingstone was a good deal more shameless in trying to exploit ethnic animosity.
What % of those voting know Zac is a Jew (I didn't) and what % cares? If the people of London are voting on religious or cultural grounds we're in one hell of a mess.
How deeply depressing that in the 21st century, we seem to be going backwards on people voting on such a racist or sectarian basis. It seems that we've overcome the historic Protestant-Catholic hatred in mainland Britain, only to bring in fresh sectarianism from the Muslim world.
Proof that multiculturalism doesn't work... If it did there wouldn't be a 'Muslim vote'
That doesn't make sense, the whole point of multiculturalism is to have distinct, separate cultures in the same country. It's in the name.
Good to raise the race card. Wasn't impressed when Burnham played that on a change to landlord regulations to mirror those on employment (the latter, of course, having been introduced by Labour).
''A perfect EU like a perfect world is never going to be possible, a better one certainly is. Will he get a better one though? ''
This is not about prosperity. It is about who calls the shots. It is about power. It is about control.
It is about mind-set. As long as people think of the EU as 'them' and not 'us' then there can but only be a siege mentality followed, ultimately, by withdrawal.
The real power in the EU is with the unelected and unaccountable, that is the big issue.
Or with those who are elected, but just not in Britain.
Angela Merkel's immigration decisions will potentially have huge ramifications for the UK in a few years time, without let, hindrance or sanction from a single voter here.
Indeed, you could argue the current system is encouraging Merkel's recklessness, because she knows other states will help to cushion the impact down the line
We have to wonder whether Merkel would be quite so generous if she knew that all the refugees accepted by Germany would have to stay there in perpetuity.
Crosby will relentlessly use the weapon that Sadiq Khan has handed him on a golden plate - his support for ethnic quotas. That has nothing to do with Sadiq being a Moslem and everything to do with him advocating wrong-headed, unpopular policies. Don does himself and Labour no credit by pretending otherwise.
''Prime Minister assures EU leaders he will "quicken the pace" and put a deal on the table next month ''
I sort of feel sorry for David Cameron because he himself probably thinks there's very little wrong with the EU as it is.
I don't think that's true. I think Cameron is your run-of-the-mill moderate eurosceptic. He thinks there's a lot wrong with the EU and would like to correct it. The question is whether he's willing to ignore those problems so as not to upset anyone or fight with conviction for the changes we need, and recommend Leave if necessary.
Out of curiosity, what would it take (short of wearing an 'I love the EU' t-shirt) to believe that Cameron isn't a eurosceptic? What actions would he need to perform to indicate to you that his avowed euroscepticism is a mere pose.
''It is about mind-set. As long as people think of the EU as 'them' and not 'us' then there can but only be a siege mentality followed, ultimately, by withdrawal.''
No. It is about control. It is about our people being able to set the terms of their existence via direct democratic elections and abide by the consequences.
If we leave and our economy withers on the vine, that is our decision. But it will be our decision, and we will rightly own the consequences.
Similarly, if we decide to take 2 million refugees, that will also be our decision. We won;t be expecting others to pick up the tab or arrange accommodation
"London is a famously diverse city and Labour’s candidate Sadiq Khan is, of course, a Muslim. If Goldsmith’s campaign falters look out for the Tories to throw that dead cat on to the table."
What exactly is this supposed to mean if not playing the race card? It's not so much getting your retaliation in first as punching yourself and blaming the other guy because your prejudice means you expected that he would have done it anyway.
Nice guys? Make up your own mind.
I think it's a disgusting and highly partisan piece.
I know Mike wants more Labour perspectives in his blog but there are far better authors to pick than Don, who offers no real insight or betting tips, but treats it as a broadcast platform for Labour Party propaganda.
Fair play to the Parliamentary web developers by the way, the new website has a LOT of archive stuff on it and is added to in real time every day. Technically very difficult to do, it works on multiple platforms and with relatively few bugs.
And useful for being able to watch things like PMQ's live when you're abroad.
''It is about mind-set. As long as people think of the EU as 'them' and not 'us' then there can but only be a siege mentality followed, ultimately, by withdrawal.''
No. It is about control. It is about our people being able to set the terms of their existence via direct democratic elections and abide by the consequences.
If we leave and our economy withers on the vine, that is our decision. But it will be our decision, and we will rightly own the consequences.
Similarly, if we decide to take 2 million refugees, that will also be our decision. We won;t be expecting others to pick up the tab or arrange accommodation
So you wouldn't object to a directly elected Commission (or an indirectly elected one, via the European Parliament)?
But you emphasise my point. "Our people", "our decision". A people is what it thinks it is.
Now Don is writing propaganda on an international scale, it was Bloc that brought up the whole Niqab business, not Harper or the Conservatives.
The whole basis of this article seems to be that Harper is dead, that may well be true, but the real story is how the left party is going from official opposition to dead in the water. The NDP are going to fall, hard. The Cons will still have a good shout at power once they get rid of Harper should they lose, but the NDP are going to be wiped away by a resurgent Liberal party whatever happens.
''Prime Minister assures EU leaders he will "quicken the pace" and put a deal on the table next month ''
I sort of feel sorry for David Cameron because he himself probably thinks there's very little wrong with the EU as it is.
I don't think that's true. I think Cameron is your run-of-the-mill moderate eurosceptic. He thinks there's a lot wrong with the EU and would like to correct it. The question is whether he's willing to ignore those problems so as not to upset anyone or fight with conviction for the changes we need, and recommend Leave if necessary.
Out of curiosity, what would it take (short of wearing an 'I love the EU' t-shirt) to believe that Cameron isn't a eurosceptic? What actions would he need to perform to indicate to you that his avowed euroscepticism is a mere pose.
"London is a famously diverse city and Labour’s candidate Sadiq Khan is, of course, a Muslim. If Goldsmith’s campaign falters look out for the Tories to throw that dead cat on to the table."
What exactly is this supposed to mean if not playing the race card? It's not so much getting your retaliation in first as punching yourself and blaming the other guy because your prejudice means you expected that he would have done it anyway.
Nice guys? Make up your own mind.
I think it's a disgusting and highly partisan piece.
I know Mike wants more Labour perspectives in his blog but there are far better authors to pick than Don, who offers no real insight or betting tips, but treats it as a broadcast platform for Labour Party propaganda.
Indeed – Henry G for all his faults, did provide an insightful prospective of the political seen which although partisan, also contained nuggets of insight and sound betting tips. – Strip away the partisan bilge provided by Don Brind and there is nothing left but a blank space at the top of the page.
''Prime Minister assures EU leaders he will "quicken the pace" and put a deal on the table next month ''
I sort of feel sorry for David Cameron because he himself probably thinks there's very little wrong with the EU as it is.
I don't think that's true. I think Cameron is your run-of-the-mill moderate eurosceptic. He thinks there's a lot wrong with the EU and would like to correct it. The question is whether he's willing to ignore those problems so as not to upset anyone or fight with conviction for the changes we need, and recommend Leave if necessary.
Out of curiosity, what would it take (short of wearing an 'I love the EU' t-shirt) to believe that Cameron isn't a eurosceptic? What actions would he need to perform to indicate to you that his avowed euroscepticism is a mere pose.
Evidence that he was lobbying for further integration at EU summits.
Why is the % of the vote only ever queried by the left when the Tories win it rather than Labour that get more seats on a less % at which point the left remain utterly silent.
"London is a famously diverse city and Labour’s candidate Sadiq Khan is, of course, a Muslim. If Goldsmith’s campaign falters look out for the Tories to throw that dead cat on to the table."
What exactly is this supposed to mean if not playing the race card? It's not so much getting your retaliation in first as punching yourself and blaming the other guy because your prejudice means you expected that he would have done it anyway.
Nice guys? Make up your own mind.
I think it's a disgusting and highly partisan piece.
I know Mike wants more Labour perspectives in his blog but there are far better authors to pick than Don, who offers no real insight or betting tips, but treats it as a broadcast platform for Labour Party propaganda.
Not really much choice. The Left has got awful whiny since May.....
''Prime Minister assures EU leaders he will "quicken the pace" and put a deal on the table next month ''
I sort of feel sorry for David Cameron because he himself probably thinks there's very little wrong with the EU as it is.
I don't think that's true. I think Cameron is your run-of-the-mill moderate eurosceptic. He thinks there's a lot wrong with the EU and would like to correct it. The question is whether he's willing to ignore those problems so as not to upset anyone or fight with conviction for the changes we need, and recommend Leave if necessary.
Out of curiosity, what would it take (short of wearing an 'I love the EU' t-shirt) to believe that Cameron isn't a eurosceptic? What actions would he need to perform to indicate to you that his avowed euroscepticism is a mere pose.
didn't he take the tories out of the mainstream EU grouping and allied them with some lithuanian and polish fruitcakes and loonies?
Fair play to the Parliamentary web developers by the way, the new website has a LOT of archive stuff on it and is added to in real time every day. Technically very difficult to do, it works on multiple platforms and with relatively few bugs.
And useful for being able to watch things like PMQ's live when you're abroad.
Indeed. Actually last night I was switching between the budget debate and PMQs, at either end of an 8 hour video which was also running live. That's a real achievement to do technically, I don't know any other video website that allows that. I also love the time codes which are in real rather than relative time so PMQs starts at 12:00 on the time code, and also the list of speakers that links to the video so if I wanted to see everything my local MP said on a specific date it could be found really easily.
As an IT guy it's not often I get really impressed with technology, but the new parliamentlive.tv is very good indeed.
Now Don is writing propaganda on an international scale, it was Bloc that brought up the whole Niqab business, not Harper or the Conservatives.
The whole basis of this article seems to be that Harper is dead, that may well be true, but the real story is how the left party is going from official opposition to dead in the water. The NDP are going to fall, hard. The Cons will still have a good shout at power once they get rid of Harper should they lose, but the NDP are going to be wiped away by a resurgent Liberal party whatever happens.
Harper has been in power as PM since when Blair was still PM - worth considering for a second.
Nine years is a long time. What I understand from (sympathetic) Canadian relatives is that he's become a bit arrogant in power now, and it's 'time for a change'.
Neither Trudeau or the NDP excite, though, which is why they are battling for prime contender amongst each other.
"London is a famously diverse city and Labour’s candidate Sadiq Khan is, of course, a Muslim. If Goldsmith’s campaign falters look out for the Tories to throw that dead cat on to the table."
What exactly is this supposed to mean if not playing the race card? It's not so much getting your retaliation in first as punching yourself and blaming the other guy because your prejudice means you expected that he would have done it anyway.
Nice guys? Make up your own mind.
I think it's a disgusting and highly partisan piece.
I know Mike wants more Labour perspectives in his blog but there are far better authors to pick than Don, who offers no real insight or betting tips, but treats it as a broadcast platform for Labour Party propaganda.
What would one expect from Mr Brind, former BBC executive, and ex(?) press officer to the Parliamentary Labour Party.
Crosby will relentlessly use the weapon that Sadiq Khan has handed him on a golden plate - his support for ethnic quotas. That has nothing to do with Sadiq being a Moslem and everything to do with him advocating wrong-headed, unpopular policies. Don does himself and Labour no credit by pretending otherwise.
The bulk of the Labour party still hasn't got out of the knee-jerk habit of seeing any criticism of immigrants or immigration as being racist prejudice. At the same time, it turns a blind eye to outright racism in its own ranks. The reason the party is really doomed is that the Blairites are as bad on this as the Jezlamists.
This isn't a peripheral issue any more. Immigration is the top issue for the UK voter. People understandably want to protect their own society and preserve their own culture. As long as Labourites continue to prefer foreign culture to the culture of this country, and disdaining anyone who thinks otherwise, the party is doomed.
''So you wouldn't object to a directly elected Commission (or an indirectly elected one, via the European Parliament)?
I wouldn't object if Angela Merkel had to run for office in Britain as well as Germany, because then we would at least have some sanction over actions she is taking that could dramatically affect all our lives.
Another big story is unfolding in the Netherlands right now, VVD (Gert Vilders) which is the Dutch equivalent of UKIP are sitting on almost 40% in the polls and will be the largest party in their Parliament in 2017 if they hold up at this level. With the migrant crisis looking to get worse they may even go higher than that by then.
I used to really enjoy @HenryGManson pieces - they were from one perspective, but very rarely one-eyed. The only one that sticks in my mind was one he penned after the GE - he had a rant about Evil Tories, but perfectly understandable in the circumstances.
I scan down Don's and just roll my eyes. It's Labour propaganda from a Corbyn perspective - and doesn't even attempt to look at the challenges Comrades will face, despite spread across acres of newsprint.
"London is a famously diverse city and Labour’s candidate Sadiq Khan is, of course, a Muslim. If Goldsmith’s campaign falters look out for the Tories to throw that dead cat on to the table."
What exactly is this supposed to mean if not playing the race card? It's not so much getting your retaliation in first as punching yourself and blaming the other guy because your prejudice means you expected that he would have done it anyway.
Nice guys? Make up your own mind.
I think it's a disgusting and highly partisan piece.
I know Mike wants more Labour perspectives in his blog but there are far better authors to pick than Don, who offers no real insight or betting tips, but treats it as a broadcast platform for Labour Party propaganda.
Indeed – Henry G for all his faults, did provide an insightful prospective of the political seen which although partisan, also contained nuggets of insight and sound betting tips. – Strip away the partisan bilge provided by Don Brind and there is nothing left but a blank space at the top of the page.
It was like being sucked into a blackhole. I couldn't pull away - every two mins another outrageous bit of dissembling, ludicrous claim, being told to stop talking, huffing/puffing/swearing under their breath, verbal ectoplasm...and finally abusive limericks.
The latter will no doubt keep Twitter entertained for the afternoon.
I used to really enjoy @HenryGManson pieces - they were from one perspective, but very rarely one-eyed. The only one that sticks in my mind was one he penned after the GE - he had a rant about Evil Tories, but perfectly understandable in the circumstances.
I scan down Don's and just roll my eyes. It's Labour propaganda from a Corbyn perspective - and doesn't even attempt to look at the challenges Comrades will face, despite spread across acres of newsprint.
"London is a famously diverse city and Labour’s candidate Sadiq Khan is, of course, a Muslim. If Goldsmith’s campaign falters look out for the Tories to throw that dead cat on to the table."
What exactly is this supposed to mean if not playing the race card? It's not so much getting your retaliation in first as punching yourself and blaming the other guy because your prejudice means you expected that he would have done it anyway.
Nice guys? Make up your own mind.
I think it's a disgusting and highly partisan piece.
I know Mike wants more Labour perspectives in his blog but there are far better authors to pick than Don, who offers no real insight or betting tips, but treats it as a broadcast platform for Labour Party propaganda.
Indeed – Henry G for all his faults, did provide an insightful prospective of the political seen which although partisan, also contained nuggets of insight and sound betting tips. – Strip away the partisan bilge provided by Don Brind and there is nothing left but a blank space at the top of the page.
If Goldsmith argues for the radical principle of treating job applicants on the basis of their own abilities, rather than as members of racial groups, he will no doubt be called a racist dog-whistler by Labour.
In case anyone is interested, here are statements from the four Canadian leaders (you can discount the Green one as being a potential PM, as she's on 4-5%) to the Globe & Mail:
Synopsis: Harper - it's the economy, don't wreck it Trudeau - I'm about teamwork and harmony Mulcair - I'm about cooperation and the middle class (which is North American for "strivers")
Not a lot to choose between the last two in terms of message, both of which seem to me a bit fluffy for the final week. Harper's is the hard-edged political one, the others are running here on the "time for nicer guys" line. The background, as Don and kle4 have said, is that Harper is seen as divisive, a bit like Mrs Thatcher, so the impression seems to be that it's "Nasty but economically tough" vs "Economically vague but nice".
Senior members of Jeremy Corbyn's own team say he has "lost control" over his own party and it is only a matter of time before he suffers his first resignation from the shadow cabinet.
On Wednesday night the Labour leader allowed members of his ministerial team to defy him by avoiding a crucial Commons vote just hours after threatening them with the sack if they rebelled.
In a sign of Mr Corbyn's lack of authority it emerged that senior Labour MPs had been given permission to be absent and abstain from voting against Conservative proposals to run a budget surplus.
The article mentions that Jezzer's undecided as to whether to dress up for a State Banquet next week. I guess it depends on whether the Oxfam shop in Hornsey has White Tie on the rails.
'Mr Corbyn is expected to confront the Chinese President over his human rights record.'
This is going to be interesting.
He may not like dressing up, but sometimes it really does need to be done. Dinner with the Queen and a foreign Head of State is one of those times.
I can well imagine the conversation between the Chinese, the PM and the Queen as to why there's a tramp sitting at the table with them. Whether Mr Corbyn likes it or not, these things really do matter, if only for the impression given to others.
Perhaps he should dress up as Charlie Chaplin and hope that he has a status with the Chinese similar to that of Norman Wisdom with the Albanians. You never know!
In what way are Harper and Crosby exploiting "Islamophobia?"
I think the writer's point is that the tories will play the islam card if Zac starts to fall behind.
What is the Islam card?
In all likelihood, there will be people who vote for Goldsmith because Khan is a Muslim; and there'll be people who vote for Khan, because Goldsmith is a Jew. And in parts of London, elections are heavily polarised by race and religion.
But, I'd be surprised if the Conservatives try to whip up feeling against Khan because he's a Muslim. Ken Livingstone was a good deal more shameless in trying to exploit ethnic animosity.
What % of those voting know Zac is a Jew (I didn't) and what % cares? If the people of London are voting on religious or cultural grounds we're in one hell of a mess.
How deeply depressing that in the 21st century, we seem to be going backwards on people voting on such a racist or sectarian basis. It seems that we've overcome the historic Protestant-Catholic hatred in mainland Britain, only to bring in fresh sectarianism from the Muslim world.
Proof that multiculturalism doesn't work... If it did there wouldn't be a 'Muslim vote'
That doesn't make sense, the whole point of multiculturalism is to have distinct, separate cultures in the same country. It's in the name.
The point is that the cultures are supposed to exist in subservience to a United country not that the country is segregated by different cultures
Comments
http://life.spectator.co.uk/2015/09/alan-yentobs-crumbling-empire/
Weeks before the Kids Company scandal erupted, I had a message from someone deep inside New Broadcasting House..........................
Prime Minister assures EU leaders he will "quicken the pace" and put a deal on the table next month
See: Anti-racists and Diane Abbott.
Dressing appropriately to the situation has sod all to do with manifestos or policies though. If you can understand the difference we might actually make some progress.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11880753/Scottish-Labours-independence-free-vote-sends-wrong-message.html
- but I can't (honestly) remember what the current policy is on this, especially as it depends much more on Mr Corbyn.
Senior members of Jeremy Corbyn's own team say he has "lost control" over his own party and it is only a matter of time before he suffers his first resignation from the shadow cabinet.
On Wednesday night the Labour leader allowed members of his ministerial team to defy him by avoiding a crucial Commons vote just hours after threatening them with the sack if they rebelled.
In a sign of Mr Corbyn's lack of authority it emerged that senior Labour MPs had been given permission to be absent and abstain from voting against Conservative proposals to run a budget surplus.
http://bit.ly/1NejJE3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1tHvf3lBB4 ^_~
You clearly see nothing wrong in that, good for you, I hope I don't find a thread where you've criticised Corbyn for not wearing a tie or a poppy, I'm interested to see where your spirit of openness begins and ends.
I am saying people should dress according to the situation they are in, and not necessarily wear the same things all the time. I would not expect Corbyn to change his politics or his policies because is at the cenotaph for instance but I would expect him to dress respectfully and appropriately for the situation exactly the same as Cameron should dress respectfully and appropriately for whichever situations he finds himself in. I will not call Corbyn wrong for wearing a tie and a poppy at the cenotaph even if he doesn't normally wear them, it would just be him showing respect.
Corbyn does not normally wear a tie and has not always worn a red poppy as far as I'm aware. If he wears a red poppy and a tie I will NOT criticise him for that.
What struck me was how weak last night's rebellion was, not how strong.
As a teenager at a friends Bah Mitzvah I was asked to wear a kippah (Jewish skull cap) which I did. Maybe you've led a very sheltered life if you've never been asked to change outfit somewhat to suit a situation.
'Mr Corbyn is expected to confront the Chinese President over his human rights record.'
This is going to be interesting.
I sort of feel sorry for David Cameron because he himself probably thinks there's very little wrong with the EU as it is.
He seems to be more interested in controlling the party's systems, which is not the same thing. He has the membership, the unions and the NEC. He just has to change the existing leadership arrangements (e.g. the annual election at conference) and he's got the PLP in a headlock.
Muttering bitter asides to the Telegraph isn't going to accomplish anything.
Have a good day.
I can well imagine the conversation between the Chinese, the PM and the Queen as to why there's a tramp sitting at the table with them. Whether Mr Corbyn likes it or not, these things really do matter, if only for the impression given to others.
The one exception was Oliver Letwin, when he entered a Sikh temple. His orange turban made him look like Kenneth Williams in Carry On Up The Khyber.
To me wearing a skull cap is "funny headgear" but I've worn it more than once as I'm not going to be rude if I'm somewhere it is appropriate. Apparently such basic courtesy and manners that I was brought up with stop at the door of Number 10 and can't be shown by the PM. Though you've yet to say why.
I suppose you've got nowhere to run since your insinuations about "funny headgear" have been refuted so good day to you too.
Funny that.
There were various mini-manifestos for people with special interests (I helped launch the animal welfare one) and all parties have ethnic supporter groups (the Tory conference lanyard was from Conservative Friends of India, and why not). I don't think there's anything wrong in mini-manifestos, any more than Tories pressing the SNP issue with people who'd expressed concern about it. The rot sets in if you change your message according to your audience, and the media are pretty good at spotting that when it happens.
Whisper it but I'm not sure Labour would go for full-blown economic equality today even if it could. Yes, it wants to alleviate poverty but there are plenty of its activists who want to protect their well-paid generous middle-class jobs with tidy pension pots, who pay 40p tax and have mortgages.
That's why Labour ain't going above 50p.
It doesn't help that his opposite number is David Cameron, a man who - no matter what else one may criticise him for - you know will turn up suitably attired and have taken a briefing on the appropriate protocol for any event he attends. The contrast between the two men could not be wider.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/144138/It-aint-alf-hot-Mum.html
Zzzzzz what a one-eyed article
He's got an opportunity to fix some of the problems now, but the problem is that the harder (and more public) he identifies those problems and tries to fix them, if he fails to do so then it will be harder to both say the country should stay in despite the problems and get the country to agree.
A perfect EU like a perfect world is never going to be possible, a better one certainly is. Will he get a better one though?
If that doesn't work go to parliamentlive.tv and navigate to "Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee" on Today's date, the video should appear.
Fair play to the Parliamentary web developers by the way, the new website has a LOT of archive stuff on it and is added to in real time every day. Technically very difficult to do, it works on multiple platforms and with relatively few bugs.
Unfashionably late to the party (as usual) but a quick comment on Antifrank's contribution to the previous. Divisive indeed as the Conservatives split between those incapable of conceiving of anything other than endless hegemony (imagine a blue rosette stamping on a human face forever) and those at willing to concede to the possibility that nothing lasts forever.
My thought is two things undermine parties - the big things and the small things which become big things. Antifrank commented at length on the former and there is a degree of preparation/mitigation which can be planned and implemented if required.
The "small things becoming big things" is the more difficult. It's the poor policy here, the gaffe there, the Ministerial resignation and the drip-drip perception of a Government slowly but inevitably losing control of events and losing touch with its own coalition of voters. My view is that as Cameron and Osborne seek through opportunism to make the Conservative tent even bigger it risks collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions.
Ultimately "liberal conservatism" (whatever that means) ends up disappointing both liberals and conservatives. For all the political management, it will be the sour look, the poor response and the ill-considered remark that cumulatively hurts.
Some on the last thread at least had the sense to argue this Government will have a mid-term and it may drop into the low 30s or even high 20s and where that disillusioned vote will go is hard to say at this time - I suspect everywhere and nowhere. Incoherent (in terms of unfocused) opposition is still opposition and may be as effective in the short to medium term. In the end, politicians who get too comfortable with power and office and take the electorate for granted get what they deserve - the Conservatives aren't near that point yet but if the hegemony is unchallenged through 2020 it seems reasonable to assume that will happen and the higher the rise the further the fall (ask John Major, Nick Clegg and Gordon Brown).
I saw "feed" and assumed you wanted live...
When this government has been at its most radical - Gove, Hilton, and Lansley - it's because he's let them get on. When it gets too contentious, he reins them in.
It is interesting to consider how differently the EU renegotiations might be going had he delegated them fully to his foreign secretary (a radical eurosceptic one, perhaps Gove) rather than him as the figurehead with Osborne at the tiller.
I suspect a bit more beef.
http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/5e1ce27a-7279-4ba3-9f3f-ed9998fbae7e
This is not about prosperity. It is about who calls the shots. It is about power. It is about control.
https://www.awesomestories.com/asset/view/Denis-Thatcher-and-the-Pink-Turban
What exactly is this supposed to mean if not playing the race card? It's not so much getting your retaliation in first as punching yourself and blaming the other guy because your prejudice means you expected that he would have done it anyway.
Nice guys? Make up your own mind.
Good to raise the race card. Wasn't impressed when Burnham played that on a change to landlord regulations to mirror those on employment (the latter, of course, having been introduced by Labour).
Do let us know when you get home from the parallel universe that you currently inhabit.
Or with those who are elected, but just not in Britain.
Angela Merkel's immigration decisions will potentially have huge ramifications for the UK in a few years time, without let, hindrance or sanction from a single voter here.
Indeed, you could argue the current system is encouraging Merkel's recklessness, because she knows other states will help to cushion the impact down the line
We have to wonder whether Merkel would be quite so generous if she knew that all the refugees accepted by Germany would have to stay there in perpetuity.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.03622v1.pdf
No. It is about control. It is about our people being able to set the terms of their existence via direct democratic elections and abide by the consequences.
If we leave and our economy withers on the vine, that is our decision. But it will be our decision, and we will rightly own the consequences.
Similarly, if we decide to take 2 million refugees, that will also be our decision. We won;t be expecting others to pick up the tab or arrange accommodation
I know Mike wants more Labour perspectives in his blog but there are far better authors to pick than Don, who offers no real insight or betting tips, but treats it as a broadcast platform for Labour Party propaganda.
But you emphasise my point. "Our people", "our decision". A people is what it thinks it is.
The whole basis of this article seems to be that Harper is dead, that may well be true, but the real story is how the left party is going from official opposition to dead in the water. The NDP are going to fall, hard. The Cons will still have a good shout at power once they get rid of Harper should they lose, but the NDP are going to be wiped away by a resurgent Liberal party whatever happens.
It's a mystery?
NOT
As an IT guy it's not often I get really impressed with technology, but the new parliamentlive.tv is very good indeed.
Nine years is a long time. What I understand from (sympathetic) Canadian relatives is that he's become a bit arrogant in power now, and it's 'time for a change'.
Neither Trudeau or the NDP excite, though, which is why they are battling for prime contender amongst each other.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/general-election-constituency-focus-muswell-hill-where-voters-say-they-simply-cant-back-lib-dem-10197774.html
This isn't a peripheral issue any more. Immigration is the top issue for the UK voter. People understandably want to protect their own society and preserve their own culture. As long as Labourites continue to prefer foreign culture to the culture of this country, and disdaining anyone who thinks otherwise, the party is doomed.
I wouldn't object if Angela Merkel had to run for office in Britain as well as Germany, because then we would at least have some sanction over actions she is taking that could dramatically affect all our lives.
I scan down Don's and just roll my eyes. It's Labour propaganda from a Corbyn perspective - and doesn't even attempt to look at the challenges Comrades will face, despite spread across acres of newsprint.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/we-asked-canadas-federal-leaders-why-are-you-as-a-leader-best-suited-to-run-our-country/article26805015/
Synopsis:
Harper - it's the economy, don't wreck it
Trudeau - I'm about teamwork and harmony
Mulcair - I'm about cooperation and the middle class (which is North American for "strivers")
Not a lot to choose between the last two in terms of message, both of which seem to me a bit fluffy for the final week. Harper's is the hard-edged political one, the others are running here on the "time for nicer guys" line. The background, as Don and kle4 have said, is that Harper is seen as divisive, a bit like Mrs Thatcher, so the impression seems to be that it's "Nasty but economically tough" vs "Economically vague but nice".
Perhaps he should dress up as Charlie Chaplin and hope that he has a status with the Chinese similar to that of Norman Wisdom with the Albanians. You never know!