yeah - if you're saying that looks like austin powers, get off twitter, m8, and get outside. take some time off.
THE FLAG IS BACK TO FRONT
The union flag being flown upside down used to be a maritime distress signal. Fairly apt for Bozo. Ian Paisley would have had something to say about it!
One problem with sacking RLB like this is every time another Labour MP does something similar, and that will happen on Twitter, Starmer is going to be put in the position of sacking them too or looking like he was settling a score.
Or perhaps it will make Labour MPs just a leetle more careful about sharing things on Twitter with dubious content in them.
So, say, if they are attending an event hosted by a Holocaust denier, they don't give them money or praise the work.
Wouldn't that cut both ways? If the EU creates rules/supports industries that we believe give them an unfair advantage, we could impose tariffs on them?
Hmm. The one way to avoid that unforeseeable risk of arbitrary treatment is for both sides to sign up permanently to common rule, in effect for the UK io commit to EU rules. I wonder what Frost's intention is?
We can force the EU to buckle on their threat of retaliatory tariffs by agreeing to follow their rules.
Superficially the sacking of RLB looks harsh, but it my guess is that Starmer has put the shadow cabinet under a warning that anything that can be perceived as anti-semitic will result in an instant dismissal, so she's had to go. Her crime is fairly minor: praising an article about a socialist actor. As others have said, there is a danger that absolutely any criticism of the Israeli state (including its Secret Service) is taken as ipso facto anti-semitic. We can criticise Putin without criticising the Russian people. Israel perhaps should be a special case, about which we need to be especially careful, but the Israeli government and its agencies must not be beyond criticism.
So although RLB had to go, and Starmer is right, I would rather she had gone for her poor performance as shadow Education Secretary. She has failed to hold to account effectively the manifest failings of Williamson and Johnson on the return to school fiasco.
It does contrast sharply with Jenrick, who despite the defence of some on here should clearly be out of the cabinet for many reasons. The fact that the public don't really care is irrelevant, and signifies governance by publicity rather than by principle. This will end up backfiring on the PM.
She has been invisible on schools. I was just thinking that the other day.
The sacking for this might as you say be good politics. It probably is. I do hope so because on its own it looks to me unwarranted.
Unwarranted? Unwarranted?
And you wonder why I attacked RLB (even if hyperbolically) for being an anti-Semite!!!!
Maybe I should start my own list of things you have said like you do for me, though most of them twisted.
1: Sacking RLB was unwarranted.
I'm OK with that - in the sense of this "offence" rather than the wider context of Starmer wanting a clause 4 moment.
There was a discussion earlier about how sometimes juries reach a verdict based on a vista broader than the case in front of them.
This was IMO similar.
Clause 4 would have been expelling her and Corbyn and the rest of their ilk.
Superficially the sacking of RLB looks harsh, but it my guess is that Starmer has put the shadow cabinet under a warning that anything that can be perceived as anti-semitic will result in an instant dismissal, so she's had to go. Her crime is fairly minor: praising an article about a socialist actor. As others have said, there is a danger that absolutely any criticism of the Israeli state (including its Secret Service) is taken as ipso facto anti-semitic. We can criticise Putin without criticising the Russian people. Israel perhaps should be a special case, about which we need to be especially careful, but the Israeli government and its agencies must not be beyond criticism.
So although RLB had to go, and Starmer is right, I would rather she had gone for her poor performance as shadow Education Secretary. She has failed to hold to account effectively the manifest failings of Williamson and Johnson on the return to school fiasco.
It does contrast sharply with Jenrick, who despite the defence of some on here should clearly be out of the cabinet for many reasons. The fact that the public don't really care is irrelevant, and signifies governance by publicity rather than by principle. This will end up backfiring on the PM.
She has been invisible on schools. I was just thinking that the other day.
The sacking for this might as you say be good politics. It probably is. I do hope so because on its own it looks to me unwarranted.
Unwarranted? Losing your job for expressing your political beliefs seems to be all the rage these days...
There’s the false equivalence again. If we were to outlaw that I'm not sure where it would leave you.
And why do Unions give millions to the Labour Party if not in the hope of getting something out of it?
Don't understand Tory attacks on union support for the Labour Party. Maybe it made sense in the 1970's but hardly now... It means accepting hedge fund vultures, if not property developer pornographers, as a more legitimate lobby than mass movements democratically accountable to their members.
Right or wrong - and I assume the left think it wrong - it establishes himself as decisive against his own side, and that impression will be helpful even if he is indecisive later.
The other thing is, Long-Bailey is a free hit. She was so useless nobody will keep outrage about her sacking for long.
So politically he has little to lose and an awful lot to gain.
He might even get a decent shadow minister at education.
yeah - if you're saying that looks like austin powers, get off twitter, m8, and get outside. take some time off.
THE FLAG IS BACK TO FRONT
The union flag being flown upside down used to be a maritime distress signal. Fairly apt for Bozo. Ian Paisley would have had something to say about it!
Wouldn't that cut both ways? If the EU creates rules/supports industries that we believe give them an unfair advantage, we could impose tariffs on them?
Hmm. The one way to avoid that unforeseeable risk of arbitrary treatment is for both sides to sign up permanently to common rule, in effect for the UK io commit to EU rules. I wonder what Frost's intention is?
I don't think he is bright enough to understand what he is talking about.
My evidence for the above - he is working for Boris.
Superficially the sacking of RLB looks harsh, but it my guess is that Starmer has put the shadow cabinet under a warning that anything that can be perceived as anti-semitic will result in an instant dismissal, so she's had to go. Her crime is fairly minor: praising an article about a socialist actor. As others have said, there is a danger that absolutely any criticism of the Israeli state (including its Secret Service) is taken as ipso facto anti-semitic. We can criticise Putin without criticising the Russian people. Israel perhaps should be a special case, about which we need to be especially careful, but the Israeli government and its agencies must not be beyond criticism.
So although RLB had to go, and Starmer is right, I would rather she had gone for her poor performance as shadow Education Secretary. She has failed to hold to account effectively the manifest failings of Williamson and Johnson on the return to school fiasco.
It does contrast sharply with Jenrick, who despite the defence of some on here should clearly be out of the cabinet for many reasons. The fact that the public don't really care is irrelevant, and signifies governance by publicity rather than by principle. This will end up backfiring on the PM.
This could do for Starmer what sacking Emily Thornberry did for Ed Miliband
Remind me how Miliband did at the subsequent GE...
Superficially the sacking of RLB looks harsh, but it my guess is that Starmer has put the shadow cabinet under a warning that anything that can be perceived as anti-semitic will result in an instant dismissal, so she's had to go. Her crime is fairly minor: praising an article about a socialist actor. As others have said, there is a danger that absolutely any criticism of the Israeli state (including its Secret Service) is taken as ipso facto anti-semitic. We can criticise Putin without criticising the Russian people. Israel perhaps should be a special case, about which we need to be especially careful, but the Israeli government and its agencies must not be beyond criticism.
So although RLB had to go, and Starmer is right, I would rather she had gone for her poor performance as shadow Education Secretary. She has failed to hold to account effectively the manifest failings of Williamson and Johnson on the return to school fiasco.
It does contrast sharply with Jenrick, who despite the defence of some on here should clearly be out of the cabinet for many reasons. The fact that the public don't really care is irrelevant, and signifies governance by publicity rather than by principle. This will end up backfiring on the PM.
She has been invisible on schools. I was just thinking that the other day.
The sacking for this might as you say be good politics. It probably is. I do hope so because on its own it looks to me unwarranted.
Unwarranted? Unwarranted?
And you wonder why I attacked RLB (even if hyperbolically) for being an anti-Semite!!!!
Maybe I should start my own list of things you have said like you do for me, though most of them twisted.
1: Sacking RLB was unwarranted.
Yes I'm OK with that.
In the sense of this "offence" rather than the wider context of Starmer wanting a clause 4 moment.
There was a discussion earlier about how sometimes juries decide based on a vista broader than the case in front of them.
This was similar.
The Clause 4 moment he needs it getting rid of high ranking members of the previous leadership from the party completely. RLB's retweeting is nothing compared to statements/behaviour from Corbyn and many of his clique. Yes, she has done it today - so is the immediate target.
Once the EHRC report comes out, people have to be expelled - and that includes big names. Not allowed to resign. Expelled. No matter who they were.
That is the Clause 4 moment that might help. Today isn't that moment
Indeed. Not least because ... who appointed Long-Bailey to the Shadow Cabinet in the first place, despite full and complete knowledge of her political attitudes? It wasn't, er, Keir Starmer, was it?
Major incident declared in Bournemouth, suffering hugely from a massive influx of visitors and with incidents of violence.
Interesting. Looking at traffic on Google Maps, the road along the coast from Worthing to Brighton looks jammed.
Gridlock around the town, more parking tickets issued than on any single day previously, refuse collectors emptying beachside bins need security guards after previous abuse and assaults. It sounds like chaos down there,
My family have gone to Littlehampton today - that tends to be a bit better than the bigger resorts - but I'll report back if there was any trouble there.
We went to Redcar last night even at 18:30 it was very busy.
What with Burnley welders and senior Labour politicians being sacked for perfectly legal comms we are getting like that Peep Show episode where they were all trying to get each other sectioned.
Are you trying to section me? Cos if you are I'll section you.
Superficially the sacking of RLB looks harsh, but it my guess is that Starmer has put the shadow cabinet under a warning that anything that can be perceived as anti-semitic will result in an instant dismissal, so she's had to go. Her crime is fairly minor: praising an article about a socialist actor. As others have said, there is a danger that absolutely any criticism of the Israeli state (including its Secret Service) is taken as ipso facto anti-semitic. We can criticise Putin without criticising the Russian people. Israel perhaps should be a special case, about which we need to be especially careful, but the Israeli government and its agencies must not be beyond criticism.
So although RLB had to go, and Starmer is right, I would rather she had gone for her poor performance as shadow Education Secretary. She has failed to hold to account effectively the manifest failings of Williamson and Johnson on the return to school fiasco.
It does contrast sharply with Jenrick, who despite the defence of some on here should clearly be out of the cabinet for many reasons. The fact that the public don't really care is irrelevant, and signifies governance by publicity rather than by principle. This will end up backfiring on the PM.
She has been invisible on schools. I was just thinking that the other day.
The sacking for this might as you say be good politics. It probably is. I do hope so because on its own it looks to me unwarranted.
Unwarranted? Losing your job for expressing your political beliefs seems to be all the rage these days...
There’s the false equivalence again. If we were to outlaw that I'm not sure where it would leave you.
Considerably quieter certainly.
You can repeat your 'false equivalence' mantra a thousand times, and it still won't be true.
Nice for the far left to get a taste of their cancel culture for once though, and even nicer for it to actually be merited too!
Apparently RLB refused to remove the tweet and that’s why KS sacked her . Regardless of the rights or wrongs of his decision I doubt the RLB is gone helpline will be inundated with calls !
The voter study I saw had Black women going 98% Hilary. They had a * next to how many voted for Trump. I don't think it was zero but it was unmeasurably low. Black men went 14% Trump.
WTF is the government trying to achieve with "air bridges"? If an AB is created to a country, will ABs then be created to all other countries it has at least some open (or more or less open) border-crossings with, and so on, down the line?
Or will it be a case of you can fly to France and then drive to Italy and on to Slovenia, and back through Italy to France to catch a flight back, without going in to quarantine back in Blighty, but you can't fly from Blighty to Slovenia?
WTF is the government trying to achieve with "air bridges"? The government hopes the air bridges will somehow make redundant yet another clusterfuck policy it didn't think through, so they don't have to cancel the wretched thing.
Starmer is no Tony Blair. He is barely even a Bryan Gould
I personally find him a good deal less irritating than Tony Blair, so good try, but zero for attainment.
Johnson, on the other hand, who is "leader" (I use that word advisedly) of the party I was once an activist for, is no Cameron, no Major, no Thatcher, no Heath, no Macmillan, no Douglas-Home, and definitely definitely NO Winston Churchill. He struggles to hold a candle to poor old Theresa May. He is without a doubt the worst and most clueless PM in modern political history.
So is the notion that the Israeli army trains the US police in restraint techniques
1. A fact
2. Tin foil hat twaddle
????
It doesn't matter. The fact is only being discussed because it is Israel.
You make a good point with this as I said earlier. But imo it does matter somewhat whether it is true or a complete fabrication or something in between.
Reply to Mr Thompson (the number of nested quotes was getting out of hand).
Interesting you mention “taking the knee” as a symbol. In the original context of American Football the act is one performed by quarterbacks in games all the time, so the phrase has a resonance to Americans that far fewer in the wider world would get. Would you say it still has the symbolism of an act used to run down the clock at the end of a half when your team is winning, or has the meaning changed now?
In that context the symbolism is of the leader, on the field, calling for a temporary cessation of hostilities (any subsequent rough play will be penalised).
No fan of left wingers like RLB and I am not sure she is up to being Shadow Education Secretary (an important job ) but to cancel her for this is a bit steep imo. It does show we have turned into a very juvenile political land where a slight off message tweet or re tweet will get you sacked. Isn't the job of a politician to have opinions or at least facilitate debate. ? Keir Starmer certainly did with his kneeling - If it was to support BLM well they do have some funny opinions about stuff themselves so he is in danger of being asked why he sacked RLB but he is endorsing all types of extreme stuff with BLM agendas.
Long-Bailey's defence was that she supported the thrust of the argument, which said that we need to destroy capitalism and that anyone who supported Starmer but not Corbyn was a Tory.
All of which was fine apparently! She'd be still in place if that were all it was.
Hopefully he is on manoeuvres. A man that can actually run a complex department would be a major improvement on a man that couldn't organise the proverbial drinks party
It depends on how the Corbynites decide to play it.Some might decide that just as the PLP sought to destabilise Corbyn, they can now return the favour by seeking to do the same to Starmer.I am sure that the thresholds of 22 MPs and 5% of CLPs would be achievable , should they wish to go down that road. Others in their ranks may be inclined to hold off until next year. I imagine that McCluskey et al still support RLB.
WTF is the government trying to achieve with "air bridges"? If an AB is created to a country, will ABs then be created to all other countries it has at least some open (or more or less open) border-crossings with, and so on, down the line?
Or will it be a case of you can fly to France and then drive to Italy and on to Slovenia, and back through Italy to France to catch a flight back, without going in to quarantine back in Blighty, but you can't fly from Blighty to Slovenia?
WTF is the government trying to achieve with "air bridges"? The government hopes the air bridges will somehow make redundant yet another clusterfuck policy it didn't think through, so they don't have to cancel the wretched thing.
If it made the policy a completely dead letter it wouldn't be so bad. But I may decide not to go to the countries I want to visit this summer if I'd be expected to stay indoors for a fortnight when I got back.
Besides, is approaching non-family members at closer than 1 or 2 metres banned in Ibiza?
It depends on how the Corbynites decide to play it.Some might decide that just as the PLP sought to destabilise Corbyn, they can now return the favour by seeking to do the same to Starmer.I am sure that the thresholds of 22 MPs and 5% of CLPs would be achievable , should they wish to go down that road. Others in their ranks may be inclined to hold off until next year. I imagine that McCluskey et al still support RLB.
Who is going to lay down their political life to support RLB?
It depends on how the Corbynites decide to play it.Some might decide that just as the PLP sought to destabilise Corbyn, they can now return the favour by seeking to do the same to Starmer.I am sure that the thresholds of 22 MPs and 5% of CLPs would be achievable , should they wish to go down that road. Others in their ranks may be inclined to hold off until next year. I imagine that McCluskey et al still support RLB.
Who is going to lay down their political life to support RLB?
Lets hope it is Jeremy Corbyn, oh hang on he did that for himself!
It depends on how the Corbynites decide to play it.Some might decide that just as the PLP sought to destabilise Corbyn, they can now return the favour by seeking to do the same to Starmer.I am sure that the thresholds of 22 MPs and 5% of CLPs would be achievable , should they wish to go down that road. Others in their ranks may be inclined to hold off until next year. I imagine that McCluskey et al still support RLB.
Who is going to lay down their political life to support RLB?
I am not a fan at all - but she was the standard bearer of the Corbynite wing in the Leadership Election. Will those who supported her have changed their minds?
A politician trying to defend themselves on the grounds they supported the thrust of a piece but not everything in it, will fall afoul of the 'wouldnt accept that defence from an opponent' syndrome.
It depends on how the Corbynites decide to play it.Some might decide that just as the PLP sought to destabilise Corbyn, they can now return the favour by seeking to do the same to Starmer.I am sure that the thresholds of 22 MPs and 5% of CLPs would be achievable , should they wish to go down that road. Others in their ranks may be inclined to hold off until next year. I imagine that McCluskey et al still support RLB.
Who is going to lay down their political life to support RLB?
I am not a fan at all - but she was the standard bearer of the Corbynite wing in the Leadership Election. Will those who supported her have changed their minds?
She isn't the sort of personality to inspire self-sacrifice. They might support her with a tweet or two and being generally outraged. But they won't take action
Superficially the sacking of RLB looks harsh, but it my guess is that Starmer has put the shadow cabinet under a warning that anything that can be perceived as anti-semitic will result in an instant dismissal, so she's had to go. Her crime is fairly minor: praising an article about a socialist actor. As others have said, there is a danger that absolutely any criticism of the Israeli state (including its Secret Service) is taken as ipso facto anti-semitic. We can criticise Putin without criticising the Russian people. Israel perhaps should be a special case, about which we need to be especially careful, but the Israeli government and its agencies must not be beyond criticism.
So although RLB had to go, and Starmer is right, I would rather she had gone for her poor performance as shadow Education Secretary. She has failed to hold to account effectively the manifest failings of Williamson and Johnson on the return to school fiasco.
It does contrast sharply with Jenrick, who despite the defence of some on here should clearly be out of the cabinet for many reasons. The fact that the public don't really care is irrelevant, and signifies governance by publicity rather than by principle. This will end up backfiring on the PM.
She has been invisible on schools. I was just thinking that the other day.
The sacking for this might as you say be good politics. It probably is. I do hope so because on its own it looks to me unwarranted.
Unwarranted? Losing your job for expressing your political beliefs seems to be all the rage these days...
There’s the false equivalence again. If we were to outlaw that I'm not sure where it would leave you.
Considerably quieter certainly.
You can repeat your 'false equivalence' mantra a thousand times, and it still won't be true.
Nice for the far left to get a taste of their cancel culture for once though, and even nicer for it to actually be merited too!
What no one on this board ever quite seems to grasp is that being fired from a job is not often about guilt or innocence. That’s for the criminal law. People “being fired for their political beliefs” are generally being fired because the manner in which those beliefs are expressed causes repetitional harm to the employer.
The Burnley fan with the plane banner was fired, not because of his beliefs, but because his employer perceived that the adverse publicity generated by his actions was bad for business. That is a potentially fair dismissal. Similarly, Starmer felt that RBL was bad for the Labour Party, more specifically his leadership of it. Cummings should have been fired, not because of what he did, which would likely not have merited dismissal in most “civilian” cases, but the damage the publicity was causing Johnson - that’s why I was delighted he stayed. People being fired for social media posts that are perceived to bring the employer into disrepute are 10 a penny these days.
Even in most misconduct cases, all an employer has to do is have reasonable belief that the employee has committed misconduct, not absolute proof. If two people have access to a short till and your investigation cannot decide which of them did it you can justify firing them both. Not “fair” on the innocent employee but that type of fairness is not what it’s about.
It depends on how the Corbynites decide to play it.Some might decide that just as the PLP sought to destabilise Corbyn, they can now return the favour by seeking to do the same to Starmer.I am sure that the thresholds of 22 MPs and 5% of CLPs would be achievable , should they wish to go down that road. Others in their ranks may be inclined to hold off until next year. I imagine that McCluskey et al still support RLB.
Who is going to lay down their political life to support RLB?
I am not a fan at all - but she was the standard bearer of the Corbynite wing in the Leadership Election. Will those who supported her have changed their minds?
She isn't the sort of personality to inspire self-sacrifice. They might support her with a tweet or two and being generally outraged. But they won't take action
But a few months ago many did support her.How is self-sacrifice involved when those who might rally behind her have retired from the FrontBench - McDonnell et al - or been dropped - Burgon , Butler, Lavery et al.?
It depends on how the Corbynites decide to play it.Some might decide that just as the PLP sought to destabilise Corbyn, they can now return the favour by seeking to do the same to Starmer.I am sure that the thresholds of 22 MPs and 5% of CLPs would be achievable , should they wish to go down that road. Others in their ranks may be inclined to hold off until next year. I imagine that McCluskey et al still support RLB.
Who is going to lay down their political life to support RLB?
I am not a fan at all - but she was the standard bearer of the Corbynite wing in the Leadership Election. Will those who supported her have changed their minds?
She isn't the sort of personality to inspire self-sacrifice. They might support her with a tweet or two and being generally outraged. But they won't take action
It depends on how the Corbynites decide to play it.Some might decide that just as the PLP sought to destabilise Corbyn, they can now return the favour by seeking to do the same to Starmer.I am sure that the thresholds of 22 MPs and 5% of CLPs would be achievable , should they wish to go down that road. Others in their ranks may be inclined to hold off until next year. I imagine that McCluskey et al still support RLB.
Who is going to lay down their political life to support RLB?
I am not a fan at all - but she was the standard bearer of the Corbynite wing in the Leadership Election. Will those who supported her have changed their minds?
She isn't the sort of personality to inspire self-sacrifice. They might support her with a tweet or two and being generally outraged. But they won't take action
Wonderful to see the odious Long bailey sacked. The hard left will be dealt
It depends on how the Corbynites decide to play it.Some might decide that just as the PLP sought to destabilise Corbyn, they can now return the favour by seeking to do the same to Starmer.I am sure that the thresholds of 22 MPs and 5% of CLPs would be achievable , should they wish to go down that road. Others in their ranks may be inclined to hold off until next year. I imagine that McCluskey et al still support RLB.
Who is going to lay down their political life to support RLB?
I am not a fan at all - but she was the standard bearer of the Corbynite wing in the Leadership Election. Will those who supported her have changed their minds?
She isn't the sort of personality to inspire self-sacrifice. They might support her with a tweet or two and being generally outraged. But they won't take action
But a few months ago many did support her.
Only because she was the just about the only horse left to hold the leftwing flag during the leadership context.
The left's great hope wasn't elected so couldn't stand for the leadership.
It won't solve anything at a time when the Government needs money itself.
The Government doesn't need money, the Government can borrow at effectively 0% interest and can print money. The Government needs a tax base and that means saving otherwise healthy businesses from going bust due to the mother of all externality shocks.
Businesses desperately need money. The Government needs businesses to not go bust.
A VAT cut can help struggling businesses even if consumers don't spend more simply by businesses charging the same price as they did pre-cut and consumers spend the same as they did pre-cut. The business pockets the tax cut and stays afloat and is able to continue to employ people and pay taxes via PAYE. The business stays afloat and is able to continue to pay NNDR. The business stays afloat and is able to continue to pay VAT.
Perhaps Richard Burgon will decide to do a Tony Benn/Owen Smith, and challenge Starmer for the leadership? I do so hope he does... it will make his campaign for deputy leadership look sane and sensible by comparison.
It depends on how the Corbynites decide to play it.Some might decide that just as the PLP sought to destabilise Corbyn, they can now return the favour by seeking to do the same to Starmer.I am sure that the thresholds of 22 MPs and 5% of CLPs would be achievable , should they wish to go down that road. Others in their ranks may be inclined to hold off until next year. I imagine that McCluskey et al still support RLB.
Who is going to lay down their political life to support RLB?
I am not a fan at all - but she was the standard bearer of the Corbynite wing in the Leadership Election. Will those who supported her have changed their minds?
She isn't the sort of personality to inspire self-sacrifice. They might support her with a tweet or two and being generally outraged. But they won't take action
But a few months ago many did support her.
Did they support her because of who she is or did they support her because she was the anointed one? My suspicion is more of the latter rather than the former. She was the Corbynite candidate - so she was supported because of that label rather than for any real enthusiasm for her as an individual
It depends on how the Corbynites decide to play it.Some might decide that just as the PLP sought to destabilise Corbyn, they can now return the favour by seeking to do the same to Starmer.I am sure that the thresholds of 22 MPs and 5% of CLPs would be achievable , should they wish to go down that road. Others in their ranks may be inclined to hold off until next year. I imagine that McCluskey et al still support RLB.
Who is going to lay down their political life to support RLB?
I am not a fan at all - but she was the standard bearer of the Corbynite wing in the Leadership Election. Will those who supported her have changed their minds?
She isn't the sort of personality to inspire self-sacrifice. They might support her with a tweet or two and being generally outraged. But they won't take action
But a few months ago many did support her.
Only because she was the just about the only horse left to hold the leftwing flag during the leadership context.
The left's great hope wasn't elected so couldn't stand for the leadership.
It depends on how the Corbynites decide to play it.Some might decide that just as the PLP sought to destabilise Corbyn, they can now return the favour by seeking to do the same to Starmer.I am sure that the thresholds of 22 MPs and 5% of CLPs would be achievable , should they wish to go down that road. Others in their ranks may be inclined to hold off until next year. I imagine that McCluskey et al still support RLB.
Who is going to lay down their political life to support RLB?
I am not a fan at all - but she was the standard bearer of the Corbynite wing in the Leadership Election. Will those who supported her have changed their minds?
She isn't the sort of personality to inspire self-sacrifice. They might support her with a tweet or two and being generally outraged. But they won't take action
But a few months ago many did support her.
Did they support her because of who she is or did they support her because she was the anointed one? My suspicion is more of the latter rather than the former. She was the Corbynite candidate - so she was supported because of that label rather than for any real enthusiasm for her as an individual
It won't solve anything at a time when the Government needs money itself.
The Government doesn't need money, the Government can borrow at effectively 0% interest and can print money. The Government needs a tax base and that means saving otherwise healthy businesses from going bust due to the mother of all externality shocks.
Businesses desperately need money. The Government needs businesses to not go bust.
A VAT cut can help struggling businesses even if consumers don't spend more simply by businesses charging the same price as they did pre-cut and consumers spend the same as they did pre-cut. The business pockets the tax cut and stays afloat and is able to continue to employ people and pay taxes via PAYE. The business stays afloat and is able to continue to pay NNDR. The business stays afloat and is able to continue to pay VAT.
A short term cut of 2.5% or even 5% isn't going encourage companies to employ more people, it will simply increase the bottom line.
It depends on how the Corbynites decide to play it.Some might decide that just as the PLP sought to destabilise Corbyn, they can now return the favour by seeking to do the same to Starmer.I am sure that the thresholds of 22 MPs and 5% of CLPs would be achievable , should they wish to go down that road. Others in their ranks may be inclined to hold off until next year. I imagine that McCluskey et al still support RLB.
Who is going to lay down their political life to support RLB?
I am not a fan at all - but she was the standard bearer of the Corbynite wing in the Leadership Election. Will those who supported her have changed their minds?
She isn't the sort of personality to inspire self-sacrifice. They might support her with a tweet or two and being generally outraged. But they won't take action
It depends on how the Corbynites decide to play it.Some might decide that just as the PLP sought to destabilise Corbyn, they can now return the favour by seeking to do the same to Starmer.I am sure that the thresholds of 22 MPs and 5% of CLPs would be achievable , should they wish to go down that road. Others in their ranks may be inclined to hold off until next year. I imagine that McCluskey et al still support RLB.
Who is going to lay down their political life to support RLB?
I am not a fan at all - but she was the standard bearer of the Corbynite wing in the Leadership Election. Will those who supported her have changed their minds?
She isn't the sort of personality to inspire self-sacrifice. They might support her with a tweet or two and being generally outraged. But they won't take action
Wonderful to see the odious Long bailey sacked. The hard left will be dealt
with by KS that is clear Is Nick Palmer safe ?
Nick Palmer is a chameleon. A party yesman to the party leader. When Blair was in charge he was a Blairite, when Brown was in charge he was a Brownite, when Corbyn was in charge he was a Corbynista. He's safe.
It depends on how the Corbynites decide to play it.Some might decide that just as the PLP sought to destabilise Corbyn, they can now return the favour by seeking to do the same to Starmer.I am sure that the thresholds of 22 MPs and 5% of CLPs would be achievable , should they wish to go down that road. Others in their ranks may be inclined to hold off until next year. I imagine that McCluskey et al still support RLB.
However they play it Starmer's Christmases have all come at once. Long-Bailey is a pain in the arse that wound up in the shadow cabinet as a vanquished opponent.
I suspect if McCluskey wanted a me or him, high profile fight to the death with Starmer, Starmer would be comfortable with that. It is probably a fight this far out from a GE that could end up raising Starmer and the party's stock.
Does refusing to talk to some of your MPs make you look strong or unwilling to engage with those with questions/concerns?
It shows you have better things to do with your time.
Sometimes the best thing to do is to shut up - accept the punishment and wait for a chance to return. Sadly for RLB I don't that day will return which is why everyone is screaming now.
It won't solve anything at a time when the Government needs money itself.
The Government doesn't need money, the Government can borrow at effectively 0% interest and can print money. The Government needs a tax base and that means saving otherwise healthy businesses from going bust due to the mother of all externality shocks.
Businesses desperately need money. The Government needs businesses to not go bust.
A VAT cut can help struggling businesses even if consumers don't spend more simply by businesses charging the same price as they did pre-cut and consumers spend the same as they did pre-cut. The business pockets the tax cut and stays afloat and is able to continue to employ people and pay taxes via PAYE. The business stays afloat and is able to continue to pay NNDR. The business stays afloat and is able to continue to pay VAT.
A short term cut of 2.5% or even 5% isn't going encourage companies to employ more people, it will simply increase the bottom line.
*blinks rapidly trying to think how to respond*
You do realise that's the same thing don't you?
If companies don't have a healthy bottom line they contract or worse go out of business and sack their staff. If companies have a healthy bottom line they can expand and hire staff. Increasing the bottom line is a Good Thing and what we need to save the economy from cardiac arrest.
Wouldn't that cut both ways? If the EU creates rules/supports industries that we believe give them an unfair advantage, we could impose tariffs on them?
Hmm. The one way to avoid that unforeseeable risk of arbitrary treatment is for both sides to sign up permanently to common rules, in effect for the UK io commit to EU rules. I wonder what Frost's intention is?
I wonder if he's got the "we want a deal" memo from Number 10?
They all came on a day trip from Barnard Castle via Specsavers
But at least the air bridge destinations will be chosen from places much quieter than notoriously raucous Bournemouth - places where social distancing will always be respected, such as Ibiza at the height of summer.
Meanwhile literally dozens of US Secret Service personnel have had to go into quarantine after protecting Donald Trump in Tulsa.
A cautious half-release from the lockdown ("we're so clever at details because we always follow the Science") which is interpreted by large numbers of people as a full release doesn't seem to be a policy that will last for long.
It depends on how the Corbynites decide to play it.Some might decide that just as the PLP sought to destabilise Corbyn, they can now return the favour by seeking to do the same to Starmer.I am sure that the thresholds of 22 MPs and 5% of CLPs would be achievable , should they wish to go down that road. Others in their ranks may be inclined to hold off until next year. I imagine that McCluskey et al still support RLB.
Who is going to lay down their political life to support RLB?
I am not a fan at all - but she was the standard bearer of the Corbynite wing in the Leadership Election. Will those who supported her have changed their minds?
She isn't the sort of personality to inspire self-sacrifice. They might support her with a tweet or two and being generally outraged. But they won't take action
It depends on how the Corbynites decide to play it.Some might decide that just as the PLP sought to destabilise Corbyn, they can now return the favour by seeking to do the same to Starmer.I am sure that the thresholds of 22 MPs and 5% of CLPs would be achievable , should they wish to go down that road. Others in their ranks may be inclined to hold off until next year. I imagine that McCluskey et al still support RLB.
Who is going to lay down their political life to support RLB?
I am not a fan at all - but she was the standard bearer of the Corbynite wing in the Leadership Election. Will those who supported her have changed their minds?
She isn't the sort of personality to inspire self-sacrifice. They might support her with a tweet or two and being generally outraged. But they won't take action
Wonderful to see the odious Long bailey sacked. The hard left will be dealt
with by KS that is clear Is Nick Palmer safe ?
Nick Palmer is a chameleon. A party yesman to the party leader. When Blair was in charge he was a Blairite, when Brown was in charge he was a Brownite, when Corbyn was in charge he was a Corbynista. He's safe.
It's a little easier to stick rigidly at all times to dozens of written-in-stone principles when blitzing away on the internet than it is when you are an MP for one of the main parties. So "loyalist" would imo be better here than "chameleon".
Superficially the sacking of RLB looks harsh, but it my guess is that Starmer has put the shadow cabinet under a warning that anything that can be perceived as anti-semitic will result in an instant dismissal, so she's had to go. Her crime is fairly minor: praising an article about a socialist actor. As others have said, there is a danger that absolutely any criticism of the Israeli state (including its Secret Service) is taken as ipso facto anti-semitic. We can criticise Putin without criticising the Russian people. Israel perhaps should be a special case, about which we need to be especially careful, but the Israeli government and its agencies must not be beyond criticism.
So although RLB had to go, and Starmer is right, I would rather she had gone for her poor performance as shadow Education Secretary. She has failed to hold to account effectively the manifest failings of Williamson and Johnson on the return to school fiasco.
It does contrast sharply with Jenrick, who despite the defence of some on here should clearly be out of the cabinet for many reasons. The fact that the public don't really care is irrelevant, and signifies governance by publicity rather than by principle. This will end up backfiring on the PM.
She has been invisible on schools. I was just thinking that the other day.
The sacking for this might as you say be good politics. It probably is. I do hope so because on its own it looks to me unwarranted.
Unwarranted? Losing your job for expressing your political beliefs seems to be all the rage these days...
There’s the false equivalence again. If we were to outlaw that I'm not sure where it would leave you.
Considerably quieter certainly.
You can repeat your 'false equivalence' mantra a thousand times, and it still won't be true.
Nice for the far left to get a taste of their cancel culture for once though, and even nicer for it to actually be merited too!
When was the last time you thought somebody on the far left merited promotion?
It won't solve anything at a time when the Government needs money itself.
The Government doesn't need money, the Government can borrow at effectively 0% interest and can print money. The Government needs a tax base and that means saving otherwise healthy businesses from going bust due to the mother of all externality shocks.
Businesses desperately need money. The Government needs businesses to not go bust.
A VAT cut can help struggling businesses even if consumers don't spend more simply by businesses charging the same price as they did pre-cut and consumers spend the same as they did pre-cut. The business pockets the tax cut and stays afloat and is able to continue to employ people and pay taxes via PAYE. The business stays afloat and is able to continue to pay NNDR. The business stays afloat and is able to continue to pay VAT.
A short term cut of 2.5% or even 5% isn't going encourage companies to employ more people, it will simply increase the bottom line.
*blinks rapidly trying to think how to respond*
You do realise that's the same thing don't you?
If companies don't have a healthy bottom line they contract or worse go out of business and sack their staff. If companies have a healthy bottom line they can expand and hire staff. Increasing the bottom line is a Good Thing and what we need to save the economy from cardiac arrest.
If come October / November you need to boost spending that would be the time to do a short term VAT cut but not immediately as in theory a lot of people have spare cash and in a lot of cases a desire to spend at least some of it.
Just published. Ed Davey edges ahead in nominations I have nominated Ed Davey. I think he has a good track record on green investment and is generally sensible - not too woke - unlike Layla Moran. All the Lib Dem members I know, including Sarah Olney, are supporting Ed Davey. Yet Layla Moran remains favourite.
It won't solve anything at a time when the Government needs money itself.
The Government doesn't need money, the Government can borrow at effectively 0% interest and can print money. The Government needs a tax base and that means saving otherwise healthy businesses from going bust due to the mother of all externality shocks.
Businesses desperately need money. The Government needs businesses to not go bust.
A VAT cut can help struggling businesses even if consumers don't spend more simply by businesses charging the same price as they did pre-cut and consumers spend the same as they did pre-cut. The business pockets the tax cut and stays afloat and is able to continue to employ people and pay taxes via PAYE. The business stays afloat and is able to continue to pay NNDR. The business stays afloat and is able to continue to pay VAT.
A short term cut of 2.5% or even 5% isn't going encourage companies to employ more people, it will simply increase the bottom line.
*blinks rapidly trying to think how to respond*
You do realise that's the same thing don't you?
If companies don't have a healthy bottom line they contract or worse go out of business and sack their staff. If companies have a healthy bottom line they can expand and hire staff. Increasing the bottom line is a Good Thing and what we need to save the economy from cardiac arrest.
If come October / November you need to boost spending that would be the time to do a short term VAT cut but not immediately as in theory a lot of people have spare cash and in a lot of cases a desire to spend at least some of it.
It definitely appears to be the case. In May a record amount was paid off UK credit card debt, and in the US the savings rate trebled. Although many are clearly facing financial challenge because of the crisis, there are enough people continuing to earn (directly or funded by the government) and less to spend it on to produce a net financial benefit to consumers in total.
Just published. Ed Davey edges ahead in nominations I have nominated Ed Davey. I think he has a good track record on green investment and is generally sensible - not too woke - unlike Layla Moran. All the Lib Dem members I know, including Sarah Olney, are supporting Ed Davey. Yet Layla Moran remains favourite.
If Davey wins, I foresee some kind of unofficial pact with Labour
It won't solve anything at a time when the Government needs money itself.
The Government doesn't need money, the Government can borrow at effectively 0% interest and can print money. The Government needs a tax base and that means saving otherwise healthy businesses from going bust due to the mother of all externality shocks.
Businesses desperately need money. The Government needs businesses to not go bust.
A VAT cut can help struggling businesses even if consumers don't spend more simply by businesses charging the same price as they did pre-cut and consumers spend the same as they did pre-cut. The business pockets the tax cut and stays afloat and is able to continue to employ people and pay taxes via PAYE. The business stays afloat and is able to continue to pay NNDR. The business stays afloat and is able to continue to pay VAT.
A short term cut of 2.5% or even 5% isn't going encourage companies to employ more people, it will simply increase the bottom line.
*blinks rapidly trying to think how to respond*
You do realise that's the same thing don't you?
If companies don't have a healthy bottom line they contract or worse go out of business and sack their staff. If companies have a healthy bottom line they can expand and hire staff. Increasing the bottom line is a Good Thing and what we need to save the economy from cardiac arrest.
If come October / November you need to boost spending that would be the time to do a short term VAT cut but not immediately as in theory a lot of people have spare cash and in a lot of cases a desire to spend at least some of it.
It definitely appears to be the case. In May a record amount was paid off UK credit card debt, and in the US the savings rate trebled. Although many are clearly facing financial challenge because of the crisis, there are enough people continuing to earn (directly or funded by the government) and less to spend it on to produce a net financial benefit to consumers in total.
Yep, I'm not working at the moment but if I was 90% of my salary would be heading straight into a savings account as we are hardly spending anything.
Just published. Ed Davey edges ahead in nominations I have nominated Ed Davey. I think he has a good track record on green investment and is generally sensible - not too woke - unlike Layla Moran. All the Lib Dem members I know, including Sarah Olney, are supporting Ed Davey. Yet Layla Moran remains favourite.
Moran shouldn't be in the running at all.
She had to take down a potentially actionable tweet this morning about Jenrick.
And that is not the first twitter gaffe she has made in recent weeks.
Comments
So, say, if they are attending an event hosted by a Holocaust denier, they don't give them money or praise the work.
Maybe it will come but I'm not holding my breath.
Considerably quieter certainly.
So politically he has little to lose and an awful lot to gain.
He might even get a decent shadow minister at education.
My evidence for the above - he is working for Boris.
https://twitter.com/TheRedRoar/status/1232057310127837185?s=20
Nice for the far left to get a taste of their cancel culture for once though, and even nicer for it to actually be merited too!
The latest is the extension of furlough. Johnson and Sunak boasted it was amongst the most generous scheme in the world.
Looking at Bournemouth today, they are not wrong.
Johnson, on the other hand, who is "leader" (I use that word advisedly) of the party I was once an activist for, is no Cameron, no Major, no Thatcher, no Heath, no Macmillan, no Douglas-Home, and definitely definitely NO Winston Churchill. He struggles to hold a candle to poor old Theresa May. He is without a doubt the worst and most clueless PM in modern political history.
https://twitter.com/StanCollymore/status/1276155862227222530?s=20
https://twitter.com/matt_dathan/status/1276179328498380800
I imagine that McCluskey et al still support RLB.
Besides, is approaching non-family members at closer than 1 or 2 metres banned in Ibiza?
Armageddon level event if True.
The Burnley fan with the plane banner was fired, not because of his beliefs, but because his employer perceived that the adverse publicity generated by his actions was bad for business. That is a potentially fair dismissal. Similarly, Starmer felt that RBL was bad for the Labour Party, more specifically his leadership of it. Cummings should have been fired, not because of what he did, which would likely not have merited dismissal in most “civilian” cases, but the damage the publicity was causing Johnson - that’s why I was delighted he stayed. People being fired for social media posts that are perceived to bring the employer into disrepute are 10 a penny these days.
Even in most misconduct cases, all an employer has to do is have reasonable belief that the employee has committed misconduct, not absolute proof. If two people have access to a short till and your investigation cannot decide which of them did it you can justify firing them both. Not “fair” on the innocent employee but that type of fairness is not what it’s about.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1276184073048862720?s=20
with by KS that is clear
Is Nick Palmer safe ?
The left's great hope wasn't elected so couldn't stand for the leadership.
Businesses desperately need money. The Government needs businesses to not go bust.
A VAT cut can help struggling businesses even if consumers don't spend more simply by businesses charging the same price as they did pre-cut and consumers spend the same as they did pre-cut. The business pockets the tax cut and stays afloat and is able to continue to employ people and pay taxes via PAYE. The business stays afloat and is able to continue to pay NNDR. The business stays afloat and is able to continue to pay VAT.
https://twitter.com/DerbyChrisW/status/1276174333682032641?s=20
I suspect if McCluskey wanted a me or him, high profile fight to the death with Starmer, Starmer would be comfortable with that. It is probably a fight this far out from a GE that could end up raising Starmer and the party's stock.
Sometimes the best thing to do is to shut up - accept the punishment and wait for a chance to return. Sadly for RLB I don't that day will return which is why everyone is screaming now.
You do realise that's the same thing don't you?
If companies don't have a healthy bottom line they contract or worse go out of business and sack their staff. If companies have a healthy bottom line they can expand and hire staff. Increasing the bottom line is a Good Thing and what we need to save the economy from cardiac arrest.
"First they came for the antisemites, and I did speak out, because I was an antisemite."
Meanwhile literally dozens of US Secret Service personnel have had to go into quarantine after protecting Donald Trump in Tulsa.
A cautious half-release from the lockdown ("we're so clever at details because we always follow the Science") which is interpreted by large numbers of people as a full release doesn't seem to be a policy that will last for long.
Lord Falconer surely the first to resign if true?
https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1276186580496121858?s=20
R now about 0.87. Uncomfortably close to 1. Cases halve every five weeks.
England Regional case data, by specimen date -
If come October / November you need to boost spending that would be the time to do a short term VAT cut but not immediately as in theory a lot of people have spare cash and in a lot of cases a desire to spend at least some of it.
Good.
They had their chance, we lost two elections in a row.
Ed Davey edges ahead in nominations
I have nominated Ed Davey. I think he has a good track record on green investment and is generally sensible - not too woke - unlike Layla Moran. All the Lib Dem members I know, including Sarah Olney, are supporting Ed Davey. Yet Layla Moran remains favourite.
She had to take down a potentially actionable tweet this morning about Jenrick.
And that is not the first twitter gaffe she has made in recent weeks.
She would be a disastrous leader