But this was the point of Brexit. If we do not like Cummings we can just vote him out.
You all seem obsessed by Cummings but I doubt ordinary people give him a moments thought
G I am most surprised at Tories who spent years whining about EU telling us what to so are now so in love with an unelected twat like Cummings running the country. He sends out the big buffoon to mumble some rubbish every now and then but he is pulling all the strings, pretty pathetic.
I am not in love with Cummings and have my doubts about him but the point is that it is Boris who matters and how he performs is key to his future and the party
Cummings is a subject for opponents to jump on just as was Alastair Campbell and others but where it matters is with voter intentions and that is solely in Boris hands
Everyone who doesn’t like the government is determined to make the advisor the story, as happened with the likes of Alistair Campbell and Andy Coulson. They doubleplus hate him for his role in the Vote Leave campaign.
Mr Cummings still reports to the PM, Johnson is the man in charge and accountable for the actions of his advisors. It’s the PM’s intention to drag the way government works into the 21st century, and he alone will stand or fall on its successes and failures.
LOL, delusion at its best.
Bollocks. The PM is very much in charge, and the advisor will be dumped as and when he becomes a liability. The PM’s Parliamentary colleagues will be quite clear about when that time comes - but right now it’s a long way away!
The judge rightly told the police to try common sense.
Considering the suicide yesterday of a woman under twitter mob attack, perhaps a more reflective approach to online abuse and the damage done is called for.
One of the key findings in the case was that while many of the tweets were opaque, profane or unsophisticated, there was not a shred of evidence the tweeter was at risk of committing a criminal offence; no reasonable person could have found them grossly offensive, nor could any reasonable person have found them indecent or threatening and he did not intend to cause anxiety or distress.
that's the sort of excuse a bully uses when called out on their behaviour.
Exactly one person complained about his tweets. They were not aimed at any one person in particular or even the transgender community. The judge described the complainer’s reaction as being at times at the outer margins of rationality.
This is a world away from a hate mob or bullying.
So to join two discussions - would you have a problem with the police rocking up at the Supreme Court to take a justice away for a "chat" on the grounds that someone in the government found one of his/her tweets offensive?
‘Fighting like ferrets in a bag’ as EU tries to plug Brexit cash hole
UK’s withdrawal has left £62bn hole in bloc’s purse for the next seven years
Budget discussions in Brussels are always rancorous affairs. But this one is of a different order: everyone will have to pay more. No one wants to. EU capitals are bristling for a fight when they come to Brussels on Thursday for day one. Ominously for the diplomatic corps, an end date for the summit has not been fixed, but four days of talking are on the cards.
9B Euro a year from the budget of 27 countries is chickenfeed. UK alone is handing them 39B GBP just to leave. No doubt they will all want someone else to pay it but it is chump change.
It's more than that though Malcolm. What the Frugals want to achieve is to hold the line at 1% of EU GDP rather than 1.1% . Over that period that amounts to roughly twice the missing UK contribution. The Commission, inevitably, want to break through the 1% ceiling. Once they do further increases become harder to resist. As usual, its a power grab.
How much do you think an independent Scotland would be asked to put into the pot?
David, given the state London has us in I think we would be getting food parcels for a while. Even once sorted out it would be significantly less than what we have to pay to London at present and that for stuff we do not want.
You claim that we subsidise England rather than the other way around. If the UK contributed roughly £9bn a year net with a rebate worth approximately £4bn then it is hard to imagine that Scotland's net contribution would be less than £1bn a year. Best use for our money? I think not.
No, what I find ludicrous about Burgon is that absolute certainty with which he makes these sort of pronouncements, and this is a further example. It is a typical weakness amongst the far left - always dealing in absolutes, never acknowledging any need to qualify an argument. Burgon is probably the worst culprit of that, and it is what exposes Burgon in particular to ridicule.
His tweet states "can if he wishes" not "might be able to". In reality, a lot depends on Corbyn's health and not all politicians display the political longevity of Sanders et al. Likewise, it's not that Sanders might win, it's the implied certainty that he is going to ("Has a big political career ahead" not "might have"). And even then, the prospect of Sanders being able to continue until he's 83 might seem a bit moot.
I think you're struggling here. People, including politicians, often omit to prefix opinions with careful qualifiers such as "might" or "could possibly" or "will probably" or "there's a 75% chance of", or just the general, all purpose "IMO". There's a certain Boris Johnson, for example, who springs to mind. No, it won't wash. You are guilty of gratuitous Burgon abuse, but it was a rather funny post so the sentence is suspended.
Mr Cummings still reports to the PM, Johnson is the man in charge and accountable for the actions of his advisors. It’s the PM’s intention to drag the way government works into the 21st century, and he alone will stand or fall on its successes and failures.
And yet, Cumming's views led to the loss of a Chancellor. Do you think that Boris would have cared who Javid's spads were? Johnson, who famously is poor on detail?
The reality is that Cummings said "The Spads go" and Boris relayed that to Javid and the rest was history.
Boris could have said "No Dominic, that is outside your remit and purview. Let Javid pick his own staff".
But he did not. Our PM did as he was told.
Take back control? Not with an oaf like Boris in charge...
But this was the point of Brexit. If we do not like Cummings we can just vote him out.
You all seem obsessed by Cummings but I doubt ordinary people give him a moments thought
G I am most surprised at Tories who spent years whining about EU telling us what to so are now so in love with an unelected twat like Cummings running the country. He sends out the big buffoon to mumble some rubbish every now and then but he is pulling all the strings, pretty pathetic.
I am not in love with Cummings and have my doubts about him but the point is that it is Boris who matters and how he performs is key to his future and the party
Cummings is a subject for opponents to jump on just as was Alastair Campbell and others but where it matters is with voter intentions and that is solely in Boris hands
Also, reminds me a bit of when Lord Ashcroft was the bogeyman. The media made a huge huge deal out of every part of his life, when 99% of the public had no idea who he was or cared at all.
"Soon it was pointed out that Iowans are mostly white; that the system of voting in a caucus (you have to turn up) reduces the rights of people who cannot make it; etc etc etc. Never mind that these white rubes chose Barack Hussein Obama as the Democratic candidate and backed him in the general elections of 2008 and 2012. The Democratic party modernisers have a plan for Iowa: stop going there."
Everyone who doesn’t like the government is determined to make the advisor the story, as happened with the likes of Alistair Campbell and Andy Coulson. They doubleplus hate him for his role in the Vote Leave campaign.
Mr Cummings still reports to the PM, Johnson is the man in charge and accountable for the actions of his advisors. It’s the PM’s intention to drag the way government works into the 21st century, and he alone will stand or fall on its successes and failures.
As someone on twitter pointed out, whatever the dubiety of Campbell's role in Blair's government he existed to do what Blair wanted. Cummings' and BJ's relationship seems a lot more ambiguous. The film The Servant comes to mind..
Whose observation was 'we have a problem when the spin doctor becomes the story'?
So, less than an hour to the T20 decider in a series where both games have gone to the final ball with all results possible. I really can't wait. A good blast of Buttler at the top of the order is overdue.
I have been slightly confused why after the amazing Big Bash Banton had, he hasn't been picked. Also, why no Livingstone, he was also a stand out performer.
I am not in love with Cummings and have my doubts about him but the point is that it is Boris who matters and how he performs is key to his future and the party
Cummings is a subject for opponents to jump on just as was Alastair Campbell and others but where it matters is with voter intentions and that is solely in Boris hands
OK on the general point but Campbell is not the best comparison. He was Comms. Cummings is Policy.
If Starmer excludes Long-Bailey, and I think he should for a whole host of reasons, it will cause some waves and as a consequence he will find it harder to bring in too many of Corbyn's harshest critics. If he's looking to unify the party, it would be hard to bring back those senior figures who declined from day one to serve under Corbyn, as opposed to resigning after 2016. Yvette Cooper was one of them.
Not sure I follow you - are you saying that those who always politely declined are less acceptable to pro- and anti-Corbyn members than those who resigned after 2016? Speaking as a Corbynist, I'd be fine with those like Yvette who just quietly got on with Select Committee work; I'd need to swallow a bit harder about the active coup-makers (though no doubt I'd get over it!). And I'd think that those who dislike Corbyn would be OK with it too.
So, less than an hour to the T20 decider in a series where both games have gone to the final ball with all results possible. I really can't wait. A good blast of Buttler at the top of the order is overdue.
I have been slightly confused why after the amazing Big Bash Banton had, he hasn't been picked. Also, why no Lawrence, he was also a stand out performer.
Delighted that Lawrence is realising hs potential, but please don't take him away from us at Essex too often.
Mr Cummings still reports to the PM, Johnson is the man in charge and accountable for the actions of his advisors. It’s the PM’s intention to drag the way government works into the 21st century, and he alone will stand or fall on its successes and failures.
And yet, Cumming's views led to the loss of a Chancellor. Do you think that Boris would have cared who Javid's spads were? Johnson, who famously is poor on detail?
The reality is that Cummings said "The Spads go" and Boris relayed that to Javid and the rest was history.
Boris could have said "No Dominic, that is outside your remit and purview. Let Javid pick his own staff".
But he did not. Our PM did as he was told.
Take back control? Not with an oaf like Boris in charge...
The PM can take advice from whomever he wishes, but ultimately he alone is the person accountable for the decisions both in Parliament and among his own party. The last PM learned that the hard way
The PM *wants* to modernise the way government works, and the vociferous squealing of the vested interests only reinforces his opinion that he is going down the correct path.
So, less than an hour to the T20 decider in a series where both games have gone to the final ball with all results possible. I really can't wait. A good blast of Buttler at the top of the order is overdue.
I have been slightly confused why after the amazing Big Bash Banton had, he hasn't been picked. Also, why no Lawrence, he was also a stand out performer.
Delighted that Lawrence is realising hs potential, but please don't take him away from us at Essex too often.
I actually meant Livingstone. Although I saw Lawrence got a load of runs in the England lions game.
I see PB favourite Richard Burgon has crashed the clown car again....I won't sign the Jewish board of deputies pledge card, because I don't believe the pledge which simply says to engage with main Jewish groups.
His objection is he takes that to mean he isn't allowed to speak to what he calls fringe Jewish groups.
When challenged by Sophie Ridge on where does it say this, no answer, just banging on about what about gay Jews.
There is a theory - and I think it is a pretty good one - that Burgon is running to become the keeper of the Corbynite flame. His competition is not Rayner or any of the other deputy leadership contenders, but Long-Bailey. As she tacks to the centre to try to clawback Starmer's lead, he is going the other way.
If Starmer excludes Long-Bailey, and I think he should for a whole host of reasons, it will cause some waves and as a consequence he will find it harder to bring in too many of Corbyn's harshest critics. If he's looking to unify the party, it would be hard to bring back those senior figures who declined from day one to serve under Corbyn, as opposed to resigning after 2016. Yvette Cooper was one of them.
Not sure I follow you - are you saying that those who always politely declined are less acceptable to pro- and anti-Corbyn members than those who resigned after 2016? Speaking as a Corbynist, I'd be fine with those like Yvette who just quietly got on with Select Committee work; I'd need to swallow a bit harder about the active coup-makers (though no doubt I'd get over it!). And I'd think that those who dislike Corbyn would be OK with it too.
I think Raynr is going to struggle to get a senior position inside a shadow cabinet led by Starmer or Nandy. She has made a mistake in being very publicly supportive of Long-Bailey. What she said on Marr today almost disqualifies her from a major role.
On Long-Bailey, it's clear that she is not leadership material and that her heart is not really in it, but she has been a lot better than I thought she would be. There will be a role for her should either of her opponents win.
No, what I find ludicrous about Burgon is that absolute certainty with which he makes these sort of pronouncements, and this is a further example. It is a typical weakness amongst the far left - always dealing in absolutes, never acknowledging any need to qualify an argument. Burgon is probably the worst culprit of that, and it is what exposes Burgon in particular to ridicule.
His tweet states "can if he wishes" not "might be able to". In reality, a lot depends on Corbyn's health and not all politicians display the political longevity of Sanders et al. Likewise, it's not that Sanders might win, it's the implied certainty that he is going to ("Has a big political career ahead" not "might have"). And even then, the prospect of Sanders being able to continue until he's 83 might seem a bit moot.
I think you're struggling here. People, including politicians, often omit to prefix opinions with careful qualifiers such as "might" or "could possibly" or "will probably" or "there's a 75% chance of", or just the general, all purpose "IMO". There's a certain Boris Johnson, for example, who springs to mind. No, it won't wash. You are guilty of gratuitous Burgon abuse, but it was a rather funny post so the sentence is suspended.
It's OK, you can continue with your role as self-appointed would-be censor to this site.
And until my posts are blocked I'll continue to call out the ridiculous caricature that is Richard Burgon. I think you're in a minority of one in trying to defend his every word.
So, less than an hour to the T20 decider in a series where both games have gone to the final ball with all results possible. I really can't wait. A good blast of Buttler at the top of the order is overdue.
I have been slightly confused why after the amazing Big Bash Banton had, he hasn't been picked. Also, why no Lawrence, he was also a stand out performer.
Delighted that Lawrence is realising hs potential, but please don't take him away from us at Essex too often.
I actually meant Livingstone. Although I saw Lawrence got a load of runs in the England lions game.
Livingstone seems to have dropped out of the selectors minds, doesn't he?
"The candidate for Labour deputy leader explains why he won't back the 'ten pledges' to tackle antisemitism released by the Board of Deputies of British Jews - even though most other candidates have."
The bit about the senate and the electoral college is rubbish as to change both the Democrats would need a constitutional amendment which needs 3/4s of the states to sign off. Small states like Iowa and New Hampshire can work together to block any attempt to reduce their influence.
That said the Dems can take away the Iowa caucus if they want.
So, less than an hour to the T20 decider in a series where both games have gone to the final ball with all results possible. I really can't wait. A good blast of Buttler at the top of the order is overdue.
I have been slightly confused why after the amazing Big Bash Banton had, he hasn't been picked. Also, why no Livingstone, he was also a stand out performer.
Malan for Denly is a definite improvement in the batting. The top 7 for England are frightening. De Kock and Millar are in that class but strength in depth definitely goes to England.
So, less than an hour to the T20 decider in a series where both games have gone to the final ball with all results possible. I really can't wait. A good blast of Buttler at the top of the order is overdue.
I have been slightly confused why after the amazing Big Bash Banton had, he hasn't been picked. Also, why no Lawrence, he was also a stand out performer.
Delighted that Lawrence is realising hs potential, but please don't take him away from us at Essex too often.
I actually meant Livingstone. Although I saw Lawrence got a load of runs in the England lions game.
Livingstone seems to have dropped out of the selectors minds, doesn't he?
It reminds me a bit of Billings. They used to pick him all the time for ODI and T20, and he basically never played.
The difference between him and Billings is that Livingstone has just killed it in the Big Bash.
On topic, the problem with judicial review is not the concept but the widespread misuse. If you look at planning in particular, it has become a widespread tactic for those who don't like a planning decision to call for a judicial review. If the review is upheld - fantastic, if it fails then at least you have delayed things for a few years.
So, less than an hour to the T20 decider in a series where both games have gone to the final ball with all results possible. I really can't wait. A good blast of Buttler at the top of the order is overdue.
I have been slightly confused why after the amazing Big Bash Banton had, he hasn't been picked. Also, why no Livingstone, he was also a stand out performer.
Malan for Denly is a definite improvement in the batting. The top 7 for England are frightening. De Kock and Millar are in that class but strength in depth definitely goes to England.
TBH, I wouldn't have picked either. I would have picked Banton and Livingstone. I can only imagine that Denly gets in because the management have this idea of him bowling if required.
The bit about the senate and the electoral college is rubbish as to change both the Democrats would need a constitutional amendment which needs 3/4s of the states to sign off. Small states like Iowa and New Hampshire can work together to block any attempt to reduce their influence.
That said the Dems can take away the Iowa caucus if they want.
Not if they have any sense. The underperformance of the EU economy in general and the EZ in particular is a drag on our own performance. I don't wish them ill at all, quite the reverse.
It's OK, you can continue with your role as self-appointed would-be censor to this site.
And until my posts are blocked I'll continue to call out the ridiculous caricature that is Richard Burgon. I think you're in a minority of one in trying to defend his every word.
Points of order! -
(i) I am no censor. I am the moral compass. It's a genuine service.
(ii) I do NOT "defend his every word". I take it case by case and only intervene as appropriate.
In light of the tragic Caroline Flack affair and various similar events, I just wanted to make a personal and off-topic comment in order to get something off my chest. I apologise if this is the wrong outlet for this and clearly it has nothing to do with betting on politics so please feel free to ignore.
Regardless, I too am currently going through quite a deep period of depression and it’s been quite the struggle. Especially when the big changes currently ongoing in my life should be happy and exciting (they are happy and exciting, but that doesn’t seem to make a difference). It’s very hard to speak to people about such things, even people who are close. I’m not sure why. When you try and open up, its almost like people don’t know how to deal with it.
I just wanted to say that I spend a significant amount of “down time” here, especially during such times. The time I spend reading all your (mostly) informative posts outside (sometimes far outside) of my “bubble” is a very enjoyable change of perspective (not only on politics but also about life) and I feel it can only be a good thing to be exposed to such things. I really appreciate this resource and all your contributions to it.
My family have a history of anxiety and depression and we are currently experiencing some serious issues in mental health. I think your comments today in an open forum show courage and I would urge you to express these concerns to your doctor and medical advisors. Finding the appropriate medication can be a long process but it is essential to regaining a quality of life, together with counselling and I accept many do not understand the trauma of depression and anxiety in our communities
I wish you all the best in your new exciting project and hope you can receive wise and informed help in overcoming your issues. Be patient, positive, and kind to yourself
Webb is hardly the most acute observer of US politics.
His point seems to be that reform to ensure that a President is elected by a majority of those voting and that the larger population States have better representation in the Senate than those with a smaller population would be a bad thing.
I see we have moved seamlessly from 'Dom's a genius, a veritable Machiavelli of the age, bow down and whimper libtards!' to 'Yawn, no one knows who he is, he's only there at Boris's bidding'. I'm sure there are loads of such entertaining double and triple reverse ferrets ahead.
"The candidate for Labour deputy leader explains why he won't back the 'ten pledges' to tackle antisemitism released by the Board of Deputies of British Jews - even though most other candidates have."
See, I'm not defending this. Need to analyze properly first.
It's OK, you can continue with your role as self-appointed would-be censor to this site.
And until my posts are blocked I'll continue to call out the ridiculous caricature that is Richard Burgon. I think you're in a minority of one in trying to defend his every word.
Points of order! -
(i) I am no censor. I am the moral compass. It's a genuine service.
(ii) I do NOT "defend his every word". I take it case by case and only intervene as appropriate.
Taking the piss out of politicians is a genuine service - and in Burgon's case while he's running for Deputy Leader it is charity towards the Labour Party too.
But this was the point of Brexit. If we do not like Cummings we can just vote him out.
You all seem obsessed by Cummings but I doubt ordinary people give him a moments thought
G I am most surprised at Tories who spent years whining about EU telling us what to so are now so in love with an unelected twat like Cummings running the country. He sends out the big buffoon to mumble some rubbish every now and then but he is pulling all the strings, pretty pathetic.
I am more worried about a power cabal starting up under the cover of the Conservative Govt. It seems clear from his online writings that Cummings has an agenda all of his own and the current govt is merely a vehicle to let him achieve it.
The appointment of another "like mind" who has espoused views that would be political poison for any prospective MP (or actual MP) is another worrying sign.
I said yesterday that the Tories had found their Mengele and were building the team
I think Raynr is going to struggle to get a senior position inside a shadow cabinet led by Starmer or Nandy. She has made a mistake in being very publicly supportive of Long-Bailey. What she said on Marr today almost disqualifies her from a major role.
On Long-Bailey, it's clear that she is not leadership material and that her heart is not really in it, but she has been a lot better than I thought she would be. There will be a role for her should either of her opponents win.
Yes, I think RLB has done OK during this contest. Guaranteed to podium now and it's merited. But I'm still Nandy, Starmer in that order.
‘Fighting like ferrets in a bag’ as EU tries to plug Brexit cash hole
UK’s withdrawal has left £62bn hole in bloc’s purse for the next seven years
Budget discussions in Brussels are always rancorous affairs. But this one is of a different order: everyone will have to pay more. No one wants to. EU capitals are bristling for a fight when they come to Brussels on Thursday for day one. Ominously for the diplomatic corps, an end date for the summit has not been fixed, but four days of talking are on the cards.
9B Euro a year from the budget of 27 countries is chickenfeed. UK alone is handing them 39B GBP just to leave. No doubt they will all want someone else to pay it but it is chump change.
It's more than that though Malcolm. What the Frugals want to achieve is to hold the line at 1% of EU GDP rather than 1.1% . Over that period that amounts to roughly twice the missing UK contribution. The Commission, inevitably, want to break through the 1% ceiling. Once they do further increases become harder to resist. As usual, its a power grab.
How much do you think an independent Scotland would be asked to put into the pot?
David, given the state London has us in I think we would be getting food parcels for a while. Even once sorted out it would be significantly less than what we have to pay to London at present and that for stuff we do not want.
You claim that we subsidise England rather than the other way around. If the UK contributed roughly £9bn a year net with a rebate worth approximately £4bn then it is hard to imagine that Scotland's net contribution would be less than £1bn a year. Best use for our money? I think not.
I think that would be fair price for the benefits David, our savings from Crossrail or HS2 well spent compared to now.
On topic, the problem with judicial review is not the concept but the widespread misuse. If you look at planning in particular, it has become a widespread tactic for those who don't like a planning decision to call for a judicial review. If the review is upheld - fantastic, if it fails then at least you have delayed things for a few years.
Or if you are a protest group, you decide that you are not going to respect the law any more and go for unlawful protest.
Blimey. Starmer thinks his brexit policy was the right policy for the election
Given the constraints, no one is yet to volunteer a better alternative.
Get Brexit Done walked all over it
No one is disputing that, but that could never be the Labour policy.
It was in 2017...
No it wasn’t. 2017 was the “Labour negotiated Brexit” election.
Which was the same policy as in 2019, just with the 2nd ref pledge.
“Just with the second ref pledge.” - I’m sure that didn’t make any difference whatsoever.
And that was the fatal error in labour's brexit policy.
The fact Starmer cannot see it is amazing
There was no other option. Without it voters would have left for the Lib Dems in droves.
The fact you cannot see this is amazing.
Like they did in 2017?
The Lib Dems are all bark and no bite. How many Labour seats were at risk of falling to the Lib Dems - it was the Tories who took Labour seats not the Lib Dems.
Kind of makes the point. It was successful in protecting them from the resurgent LDs (who, remember, won the Euro elections in London). It helped them keep seats such as Sheffield Hallam, while protecting Canterbury etc from the Tories. Labour's defeat could have been much worse, were it not for the way in which Starmer was able to rein in the Corbyn crew's indifference to an issue that meant so much to so many Labour voters.
Could have been much worse than the worst shellacking since before WWII? I don't recall you predicting that before the election.
That was far from true of Labour's GB vote share - and in England the party's performance was little different to 1992.
Precisely!
By protecting their "Lib Dem flank" while exposing their Tory flank they ensured they got an appalling amount of seats despite having a not entirely atrocious share of the vote. Because of what I wrote - losing a vote to the Tories is twice as bad as losing a vote to the Lib Dems.
If Labour strategists and fanbois don't understand basic maths like that, its a good thing they're not running the country.
Interesting but I would remind him that even if the high hurdle of replacing the electoral college with the popular vote was passsed, even George W Bush won the popular vote once in 2004 and was able to pick conservative judges, liberal elites cannot always have their own way
Dozens of Remainers trip over themselves to laugh and say they told him so, like mice scampering towards a trap with large comedy cheese with holes in
James O’Brien realises that the queues aren’t because of Brexit at all... but ignores that and goes in full pelt to moan about what he thinks life after Brexit will be like via the medium of patronising ‘Colin’
As someone on twitter pointed out, whatever the dubiety of Campbell's role in Blair's government he existed to do what Blair wanted. Cummings' and BJ's relationship seems a lot more ambiguous. The film The Servant comes to mind..
Whose observation was 'we have a problem when the spin doctor becomes the story'?
Great film - and, yes, a very good reference point for Johnson/Cummings. Bet Dom is encouraging his "master" to unwind with a few drinks every evening. Sips his tonic water and gazes on intently as Boris burbles away at length and most amusingly.
Dozens of Remainers trip over themselves to laugh and say they told him so, like mice scampering towards a trap with large comedy cheese with holes in
James O’Brien realises that the queues aren’t because of Brexit at all... but ignores that and goes in full pelt to moan about what he thinks life after Brexit will be like via the medium of patronising ‘Colin’
So a whole cacophony of outrage, finger pointing, laughing, I told you so’s... turns out to be fake news... again
Yep - the first photo is clearly cropped to hide the EU flag which is to the left of Switzerland's.
As for the rest of the story - yep I can at times get out of Schiphol in 5 minutes, in other times you end up waiting and there is zero rhyme or reason as to when and what the delays are.
I think Raynr is going to struggle to get a senior position inside a shadow cabinet led by Starmer or Nandy. She has made a mistake in being very publicly supportive of Long-Bailey. What she said on Marr today almost disqualifies her from a major role.
On Long-Bailey, it's clear that she is not leadership material and that her heart is not really in it, but she has been a lot better than I thought she would be. There will be a role for her should either of her opponents win.
Yes, I think RLB has done OK during this contest. Guaranteed to podium now and it's merited. But I'm still Nandy, Starmer in that order.
@isam I’d be surprised if people genuinely thought the queue was because of Brexit. I thought the humour was more due to people’s projections of what “Brexit” actually is and what, if anything, they are expecting to change.
Enjoyed that, thanks. Although I don't share Justin's view that the anti-Trump backlash - which I agree with him is coming and coming soon - is anything at all to be afraid of. Or rather I think that those who do need to be afraid of it are not people who deserve sympathy or protection.
If Starmer excludes Long-Bailey, and I think he should for a whole host of reasons, it will cause some waves and as a consequence he will find it harder to bring in too many of Corbyn's harshest critics. If he's looking to unify the party, it would be hard to bring back those senior figures who declined from day one to serve under Corbyn, as opposed to resigning after 2016. Yvette Cooper was one of them.
Not sure I follow you - are you saying that those who always politely declined are less acceptable to pro- and anti-Corbyn members than those who resigned after 2016? Speaking as a Corbynist, I'd be fine with those like Yvette who just quietly got on with Select Committee work; I'd need to swallow a bit harder about the active coup-makers (though no doubt I'd get over it!). And I'd think that those who dislike Corbyn would be OK with it too.
OK, that's an interesting perspective Nick.
Bear in mind though that Lisa Nandy was part of the "coup". I am surprised that you are so sensitive about the attempt to replace Corbyn and describing it as a "coup", when it was fully transparent and conducted within Labour Party rules, and ended up being supported by 38% of members. The sort of thing I regard as a "coup" was the covert attempt (supported by Long-Bailey) to remove Tom Watson as Deputy Leader in his absence by abolishing his post at an NEC meeting without the proposal even being on the agenda.
Starmer's problem is that he has to do two things. Firstly be seen by the public to move on from Corbynism, and secondly to bring the party together in a way not seen since before 2015.
The latter means keeping most Corbyn supporters on board - although he could afford some prominent departures, particularly of those promoted in the absence of any ability. I would happily lose the more extreme revolutionary Marxist elements in my local CLP if they chose to return to the fringe parties that they were happily at home in pre 2015.
Fostering unity is going to be more difficult if many of the figureheads of the New Labour years are brought back into the fold. I think that Yvette Cooper is one of those, as are the likes of Liz Kendall and Pat McFadden (the latter serving initially before being sacked for speaking out.)
I appreciate that we can't comment on anything that Burgon says because to do so would be to give rise to accusations of "bullying". There's no need to do so however, as his tweets speak for themselves.
Nonetheless, a word of warning about repeating Burgon's tweets. Their potency seems to be increasing. At some stage, a Burgon comment could cause mass fatalities as a result of rolling about in uncontrollable laughter following exposure, a Monty Python "killer joke" that becomes a pandemic in the age of the internet. Those almost in their 80s with a history of heart attacks must be considered especially vulnerable.
Now, in all po-faced seriousness, what is so ludicrous about either of those eminently reasonable statements of opinion from Richard Burgon?
I would suggest that the answer is absolutely nothing. And thus, the humour is derived not from what is said but who has said it.
What a remarkable question.
I think that perhaps Burgon Boy needs to ask the legions of voters who walked away because they were not going to touch Corbyn and his ilk with a bargepole, rather than himself in the mirror.
Genuinely funny.
(Writing from a 'Red Wall' seat that went Tory for perhaps 4 main reasons - 1 Lab's lack of clarity on honouring the Brexit decision, 2 - Corbyn, 3 - Demographic shift over time, 4 - Here we had a strong independent who gave a non-Tory option for Lab protesters.)
I think they will have a real problem if they keep patronising voters by describing them as "our heartlands". "Former heartlands", maybe - as that size 11 bootprint on the backside should remind them.
Webb is hardly the most acute observer of US politics.
His point seems to be that reform to ensure that a President is elected by a majority of those voting and that the larger population States have better representation in the Senate than those with a smaller population would be a bad thing.
I suspect he’s just repeating some Republican scare stories he’s heard.
The likelihood of a constitutional amendment to alter representation in the Senate anytime in the next decade is about nil.
Look at the ERA - still short of enactment after about half a century.
I think Raynr is going to struggle to get a senior position inside a shadow cabinet led by Starmer or Nandy. She has made a mistake in being very publicly supportive of Long-Bailey. What she said on Marr today almost disqualifies her from a major role.
On Long-Bailey, it's clear that she is not leadership material and that her heart is not really in it, but she has been a lot better than I thought she would be. There will be a role for her should either of her opponents win.
I'm not happy with Long-Bailey's conduct in the leadership election. She has been unnecessarily divisive, which seems to be in character. Her standing with the public seems also to have gone down as they have got to know her - her polling is really dire.
Rayner is fine and would be an asset in a senior position in every sense.
By protecting their "Lib Dem flank" while exposing their Tory flank they ensured they got an appalling amount of seats despite having a not entirely atrocious share of the vote. Because of what I wrote - losing a vote to the Tories is twice as bad as losing a vote to the Lib Dems.
If Labour strategists and fanbois don't understand basic maths like that, its a good thing they're not running the country.
There is a big big aspect that you and others are missing. Here it is -
If Labour had gone the other way - stuck with their 2017 policy of renegotiated Soft Leave, no Ref2 - there was a very serious risk of losing a ton of seats to the LDs in Remain areas. This could have led to the LDs staking a claim to be the main non-Tory party going forward. Or at least to have taken a giant stride down that path.
And this is worse for Labour than what happened. It is better to lose big to the Cons but with the LDs crushed than to lose a bit less big to the Cons with the LDs rampant. The latter is what the LDs were hoping for. It is why they went for the election. Labour's approach snuffed it out. It was the best course open to them in the circumstances.
Bear in mind though that Lisa Nandy was part of the "coup". I am surprised that you are so sensitive about the attempt to replace Corbyn and describing it as a "coup", when it was fully transparent and conducted within Labour Party rules, and ended up being supported by 38% of members. The sort of thing I regard as a "coup" was the covert attempt (supported by Long-Bailey) to remove Tom Watson as Deputy Leader in his absence by abolishing his post at an NEC meeting without the proposal even being on the agenda.
Starmer's problem is that he has to do two things. Firstly be seen by the public to move on from Corbynism, and secondly to bring the party together in a way not seen since before 2015.
The latter means keeping most Corbyn supporters on board - although he could afford some prominent departures, particularly of those promoted in the absence of any ability. I would happily lose the more extreme revolutionary Marxist elements in my local CLP if they chose to return to the fringe parties that they were happily at home in pre 2015.
Fostering unity is going to be more difficult if many of the figureheads of the New Labour years are brought back into the fold. I think that Yvette Cooper is one of those, as are the likes of Liz Kendall and Pat McFadden (the latter serving initially before being sacked for speaking out.)
My perspective (which I think is fairly typical of many members) is as a loyalist who respected people who decided not to be involved in the Corbyn era but didn't openly attack it. I'm more critical of people who fed the media with attacks on Corbyn and resignations from the Shadow Cabinet. Basically I think that we should elect our leaders democratically, as we're currently doing, and then try not to trip them up unless they take a totally different line from the one on which they were elected. But I agree that the attempt to get rid of Tom Watson was both undesirable and frankly nuts.
So I'd be fine with Yvette coming back, but less keen on a sudden rapprochement with, say, John Mann. There are also a number of people who would be really uncontroversial to bring back, e.g. Ed Miliband for a climate change role. There needs to be a fair number of newcomers too - we don't want it to look like a tribute act for previous governments, regardless of how good they were.
I appreciate that we can't comment on anything that Burgon says because to do so would be to give rise to accusations of "bullying". There's no need to do so however, as his tweets speak for themselves.
Nonetheless, a word of warning about repeating Burgon's tweets. Their potency seems to be increasing. At some stage, a Burgon comment could cause mass fatalities as a result of rolling about in uncontrollable laughter following exposure, a Monty Python "killer joke" that becomes a pandemic in the age of the internet. Those almost in their 80s with a history of heart attacks must be considered especially vulnerable.
Now, in all po-faced seriousness, what is so ludicrous about either of those eminently reasonable statements of opinion from Richard Burgon?
I would suggest that the answer is absolutely nothing. And thus, the humour is derived not from what is said but who has said it.
What a remarkable question.
I think that perhaps Burgon Boy needs to ask the legions of voters who walked away because they were not going to touch Corbyn and his ilk with a bargepole, rather than himself in the mirror.
Genuinely funny.
(Writing from a 'Red Wall' seat that went Tory for perhaps 4 main reasons - 1 Lab's lack of clarity on honouring the Brexit decision, 2 - Corbyn, 3 - Demographic shift over time, 4 - Here we had a strong independent who gave a non-Tory option for Lab protesters.)
I think they will have a real problem if they keep patronising voters by describing them as "our heartlands". "Former heartlands", maybe - as that size 11 bootprint on the backside should remind them.
The heartlands belong to the Labour party. Some ethnic cleansing of problematic *inhabitants* may be required - perhaps the Chinese could help with the re-education facilities? but hey....
More seriously - it has been, from time to time over the years, a bon mot that people would react very favourably to Tory policies (in focus groups etc), but then revert to their non-Tory allegiance when informed which party was advocating said policies.
To what extent did such policy alignments (beyond Brexit) play in the breach of the Red Wall?
I have been sitting here in North London watching the rain and thinking about all those poor people suffering from floods, and fuming about this project
This was a vanity project of the worst kind (at an alleged cost of £15.3m), conceived as a "legacy" for a retiring MP which went ahead despite fierce local opposition. That opposition was based not just on the blight caused to the much wider community during the lengthy implementation period, considering the marginal benefit, but also that there were clearly many far more needy sites deserving greater priority. As the text states, the "need" was based on 192 properties being flooded in 2000 - what it doesn't say is that this was the first time in decades that there had been any flooding and that it was never life threatening. Needless to say, there has been no occasion since when the bund has been used.
The suspicion is that the Meridian Project being pushed by Enfield Council for construction on the River Lea flood plain may have also been an influence.
When do constituency motivations of any kind take precedence over national considerations?
By protecting their "Lib Dem flank" while exposing their Tory flank they ensured they got an appalling amount of seats despite having a not entirely atrocious share of the vote. Because of what I wrote - losing a vote to the Tories is twice as bad as losing a vote to the Lib Dems.
If Labour strategists and fanbois don't understand basic maths like that, its a good thing they're not running the country.
There is a big big aspect that you and others are missing. Here it is -
If Labour had gone the other way - stuck with their 2017 policy of renegotiated Soft Leave, no Ref2 - there was a very serious risk of losing a ton of seats to the LDs in Remain areas. This could have led to the LDs staking a claim to be the main non-Tory party going forward. Or at least to have taken a giant stride down that path.
And this is worse for Labour than what happened. It is better to lose big to the Cons but with the LDs crushed than to lose a bit less big to the Cons with the LDs rampant. The latter is what the LDs were hoping for. It is why they went for the election. Labour's approach snuffed it out. It was the best course open to them in the circumstances.
Both Labour and Tory prefer to have each other as opponents, demonising each other to motivate their own troops is so easy.
I think that perhaps Burgon Boy needs to ask the legions of voters who walked away because they were not going to touch Corbyn and his ilk with a bargepole, rather than himself in the mirror.
Genuinely funny.
(Writing from a 'Red Wall' seat that went Tory for perhaps 4 main reasons - 1 Lab's lack of clarity on honouring the Brexit decision, 2 - Corbyn, 3 - Demographic shift over time, 4 - Here we had a strong independent who gave a non-Tory option for Lab protesters.)
I think they will have a real problem if they keep patronising voters by describing them as "our heartlands". "Former heartlands", maybe - as that size 11 bootprint on the backside should remind them.
All very interesting (and I mean that) but this post does not really belong there, hanging onto the last 2 sentences of my offering. Which was dealing precisely and forensically with one particular tweet of Burgon's - the one where he states the palpably reasonable view that Corbyn if he wishes has several years of political career ahead of him.
By protecting their "Lib Dem flank" while exposing their Tory flank they ensured they got an appalling amount of seats despite having a not entirely atrocious share of the vote. Because of what I wrote - losing a vote to the Tories is twice as bad as losing a vote to the Lib Dems.
If Labour strategists and fanbois don't understand basic maths like that, its a good thing they're not running the country.
There is a big big aspect that you and others are missing. Here it is -
If Labour had gone the other way - stuck with their 2017 policy of renegotiated Soft Leave, no Ref2 - there was a very serious risk of losing a ton of seats to the LDs in Remain areas. This could have led to the LDs staking a claim to be the main non-Tory party going forward. Or at least to have taken a giant stride down that path.
And this is worse for Labour than what happened. It is better to lose big to the Cons but with the LDs crushed than to lose a bit less big to the Cons with the LDs rampant. The latter is what the LDs were hoping for. It is why they went for the election. Labour's approach snuffed it out. It was the best course open to them in the circumstances.
Yet if Labour are to get into power after the next general election it will almost certainly be with LD support and require the LDs to pick up seats in Tory seats in the South.
Labour needs to gain 124 seats for a majority at the next general election (even without boundary changes favouring the Tories), a feat only 2 opposition leaders have matched or exceeded since WW2, Attlee in 1945 and Blair in 1997
I think that perhaps Burgon Boy needs to ask the legions of voters who walked away because they were not going to touch Corbyn and his ilk with a bargepole, rather than himself in the mirror.
Genuinely funny.
(Writing from a 'Red Wall' seat that went Tory for perhaps 4 main reasons - 1 Lab's lack of clarity on honouring the Brexit decision, 2 - Corbyn, 3 - Demographic shift over time, 4 - Here we had a strong independent who gave a non-Tory option for Lab protesters.)
I think they will have a real problem if they keep patronising voters by describing them as "our heartlands". "Former heartlands", maybe - as that size 11 bootprint on the backside should remind them.
All very interesting (and I mean that) but this post does not really belong there, hanging onto the last 2 sentences of my offering. Which was dealing precisely and forensically with one particular tweet of Burgon's - the one where he states the palpably reasonable view that Corbyn if he wishes has several years of political career ahead of him.
He may have, but I am not convinced that it will help create a future for the party.
A role more like the one Theresa May is adopting - ie more or less what he did before - may be a better call politically imo.
I guess most of it essentially meant death by sepsis, or blood poisoning as we used to call it.
Sobering, imagine dying of toothache?
Sepsis is the subject of a big advertising campaign by the NHS at the moment. With the threat of anti-biotics losing their efficacy it could be a major killer once again.
By protecting their "Lib Dem flank" while exposing their Tory flank they ensured they got an appalling amount of seats despite having a not entirely atrocious share of the vote. Because of what I wrote - losing a vote to the Tories is twice as bad as losing a vote to the Lib Dems.
If Labour strategists and fanbois don't understand basic maths like that, its a good thing they're not running the country.
There is a big big aspect that you and others are missing. Here it is -
If Labour had gone the other way - stuck with their 2017 policy of renegotiated Soft Leave, no Ref2 - there was a very serious risk of losing a ton of seats to the LDs in Remain areas. This could have led to the LDs staking a claim to be the main non-Tory party going forward. Or at least to have taken a giant stride down that path.
And this is worse for Labour than what happened. It is better to lose big to the Cons but with the LDs crushed than to lose a bit less big to the Cons with the LDs rampant. The latter is what the LDs were hoping for. It is why they went for the election. Labour's approach snuffed it out. It was the best course open to them in the circumstances.
Yet if Labour are to get into power after the next general election it will almost certainly be with LD support and require the LDs to pick up seats in Tory seats in the South.
Labour needs to gain 124 seats for a majority at the next general election (even without boundary changes favouring the Tories), a feat only 2 opposition leaders have matched or exceeded since WW2, Attlee in 1945 and Blair in 1997
So Labour needs to do the thing it has done twice before. The number of seats to be captured is the wrong metric. It is not as if capturing 100 seats is 100 times as hard as winning the first one. The swing needed would be better, because each percentage point will deliver several seats.
Comments
Cummings is a subject for opponents to jump on just as was Alastair Campbell and others but where it matters is with voter intentions and that is solely in Boris hands
What if the crisis facing the US is not Donald Trump, but the coming backlash against him?
BY JUSTIN WEBB"
https://unherd.com/2020/02/americas-elite-is-plotting-revenge/
The reality is that Cummings said "The Spads go" and Boris relayed that to Javid and the rest was history.
Boris could have said "No Dominic, that is outside your remit and purview. Let Javid pick his own staff".
But he did not. Our PM did as he was told.
Take back control? Not with an oaf like Boris in charge...
Whose observation was 'we have a problem when the spin doctor becomes the story'?
The PM *wants* to modernise the way government works, and the vociferous squealing of the vested interests only reinforces his opinion that he is going down the correct path.
I think both were very strange selections in the squad when announced, given the up and comers.
On Long-Bailey, it's clear that she is not leadership material and that her heart is not really in it, but she has been a lot better than I thought she would be. There will be a role for her should either of her opponents win.
And until my posts are blocked I'll continue to call out the ridiculous caricature that is Richard Burgon. I think you're in a minority of one in trying to defend his every word.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/16/stressed-heads-to-start-brussels-budget-talks-post-brexit
Burgon Watch
"The candidate for Labour deputy leader explains why he won't back the 'ten pledges' to tackle antisemitism released by the Board of Deputies of British Jews - even though most other candidates have."
That said the Dems can take away the Iowa caucus if they want.
The difference between him and Billings is that Livingstone has just killed it in the Big Bash.
(i) I am no censor. I am the moral compass. It's a genuine service.
(ii) I do NOT "defend his every word". I take it case by case and only intervene as appropriate.
All over the place - she clearly hasn't read it and is in denial about what it says.
By protecting their "Lib Dem flank" while exposing their Tory flank they ensured they got an appalling amount of seats despite having a not entirely atrocious share of the vote. Because of what I wrote - losing a vote to the Tories is twice as bad as losing a vote to the Lib Dems.
If Labour strategists and fanbois don't understand basic maths like that, its a good thing they're not running the country.
A tweet from a possible parody account of a Brexiteer complaining that the queues at Schipol airport weren’t what he voted for.
https://twitter.com/colinbrowning14/status/1227906931450425344?s=21
Dozens of Remainers trip over themselves to laugh and say they told him so, like mice scampering towards a trap with large comedy cheese with holes in
James O’Brien realises that the queues aren’t because of Brexit at all... but ignores that and goes in full pelt to moan about what he thinks life after Brexit will be like via the medium of patronising ‘Colin’
https://twitter.com/henrycporter/status/1228389902334779394?s=21
Inevitably, Schipol airport confirm the delay was due to staff training, not Brexit
https://twitter.com/schiphol/status/1228386515350323201?s=21
So a whole cacophony of outrage, finger pointing, laughing, I told you so’s... turns out to be fake news... again
As for the rest of the story - yep I can at times get out of Schiphol in 5 minutes, in other times you end up waiting and there is zero rhyme or reason as to when and what the delays are.
The new bag scanners are good though..
Bear in mind though that Lisa Nandy was part of the "coup". I am surprised that you are so sensitive about the attempt to replace Corbyn and describing it as a "coup", when it was fully transparent and conducted within Labour Party rules, and ended up being supported by 38% of members. The sort of thing I regard as a "coup" was the covert attempt (supported by Long-Bailey) to remove Tom Watson as Deputy Leader in his absence by abolishing his post at an NEC meeting without the proposal even being on the agenda.
Starmer's problem is that he has to do two things. Firstly be seen by the public to move on from Corbynism, and secondly to bring the party together in a way not seen since before 2015.
The latter means keeping most Corbyn supporters on board - although he could afford some prominent departures, particularly of those promoted in the absence of any ability. I would happily lose the more extreme revolutionary Marxist elements in my local CLP if they chose to return to the fringe parties that they were happily at home in pre 2015.
Fostering unity is going to be more difficult if many of the figureheads of the New Labour years are brought back into the fold. I think that Yvette Cooper is one of those, as are the likes of Liz Kendall and Pat McFadden (the latter serving initially before being sacked for speaking out.)
I think that perhaps Burgon Boy needs to ask the legions of voters who walked away because they were not going to touch Corbyn and his ilk with a bargepole, rather than himself in the mirror.
Genuinely funny.
(Writing from a 'Red Wall' seat that went Tory for perhaps 4 main reasons - 1 Lab's lack of clarity on honouring the Brexit decision, 2 - Corbyn, 3 - Demographic shift over time, 4 - Here we had a strong independent who gave a non-Tory option for Lab protesters.)
I think they will have a real problem if they keep patronising voters by describing them as "our heartlands". "Former heartlands", maybe - as that size 11 bootprint on the backside should remind them.
The likelihood of a constitutional amendment to alter representation in the Senate anytime in the next decade is about nil.
Look at the ERA - still short of enactment after about half a century.
Looks nailed on, 5-4 odds with powers if anyone would like free money.
Rayner is fine and would be an asset in a senior position in every sense.
If Labour had gone the other way - stuck with their 2017 policy of renegotiated Soft Leave, no Ref2 - there was a very serious risk of losing a ton of seats to the LDs in Remain areas. This could have led to the LDs staking a claim to be the main non-Tory party going forward. Or at least to have taken a giant stride down that path.
And this is worse for Labour than what happened. It is better to lose big to the Cons but with the LDs crushed than to lose a bit less big to the Cons with the LDs rampant. The latter is what the LDs were hoping for. It is why they went for the election. Labour's approach snuffed it out. It was the best course open to them in the circumstances.
And to die of several accidents....
Planet ??
And the poor unfortunate carried away by piles.
So I'd be fine with Yvette coming back, but less keen on a sudden rapprochement with, say, John Mann. There are also a number of people who would be really uncontroversial to bring back, e.g. Ed Miliband for a climate change role. There needs to be a fair number of newcomers too - we don't want it to look like a tribute act for previous governments, regardless of how good they were.
More seriously - it has been, from time to time over the years, a bon mot that people would react very favourably to Tory policies (in focus groups etc), but then revert to their non-Tory allegiance when informed which party was advocating said policies.
To what extent did such policy alignments (beyond Brexit) play in the breach of the Red Wall?
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2olq85
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/salmons-brook-flood-risk-management-scheme/salmons-brook-flood-risk-management-scheme
This was a vanity project of the worst kind (at an alleged cost of £15.3m), conceived as a "legacy" for a retiring MP which went ahead despite fierce local opposition. That opposition was based not just on the blight caused to the much wider community during the lengthy implementation period, considering the marginal benefit, but also that there were clearly many far more needy sites deserving greater priority. As the text states, the "need" was based on 192 properties being flooded in 2000 - what it doesn't say is that this was the first time in decades that there had been any flooding and that it was never life threatening. Needless to say, there has been no occasion since when the bund has been used.
The suspicion is that the Meridian Project being pushed by Enfield Council for construction on the River Lea flood plain may have also been an influence.
When do constituency motivations of any kind take precedence over national considerations?
Very sorry to hear of your troubles. My thoughts are with you.
Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help. Happy to go for a beer and chat anytime.
The Tories are just a vehicle for Cummings's project.
I suppose if you fell from a great height, the impact with our planet....
Impostume... Quinsey...
And quinsey a peritonsillar abscess.
Labour needs to gain 124 seats for a majority at the next general election (even without boundary changes favouring the Tories), a feat only 2 opposition leaders have matched or exceeded since WW2, Attlee in 1945 and Blair in 1997
A role more like the one Theresa May is adopting - ie more or less what he did before - may be a better call politically imo.
Sobering, imagine dying of toothache?
Does your username stand for something?
Is it initials?