In July 2006, Benjamin Netanyahu unveiled a plaque & gave a speech commemorating the terrorists who blew up the British Embassy in Jerusalem killing 91 people including more than 20 Britons. He praised them as freedom fighters.
In 2014 Corbyn laid a wreath for the innocent victims of the Tunisia attack on the PLO headquarters. The cemetery was only 1200 miles away from the cemetery where the Munich killers were buried
Spot the terrorist sympathiser
Whilst rarely agreeing with you, I used to have a grudging admiration for you at times. Over recent days your unswerving loyalty to the Corbynista agenda and wilful disregard of facts demeans you. Time to put the spade away.
In July 2006, Benjamin Netanyahu unveiled a plaque & gave a speech commemorating the terrorists who blew up the British Embassy in Jerusalem killing 91 people including more than 20 Britons.
Don't you mean the King David Hotel?
Britain wouldn't have an 'Embassy' in a Mandate.....
But if you're arguing Corbyn is as frightful as Netanyahu I have some sympathy with you....
Leavers Remainers have put absolutely no effort into changing Remainers' Leavers' minds, instead concentrating on reinforcing every prejudice that Remain Leave voters might have about them. Weird.
You deleted the bit that makes Leavers' approach especially weird.
You neglected to note that Leave won the last referendum.
I've been hearing 'X's voters are dying out' for four decades.
And what have we got? A government elected by the over-100's it would appear
Since the starting point of the thread was the joint highest Remain tally that YouGov have shown in all the period since the referendum, perhaps not the best day to make that argument.
Academic, since there won't be another referendum. The question was asked and answered.
The past is never dead. It's not even past.
The idea that Brexit is going to be just a historical event any time in the near future is for the birds.
Expecting the Lib Dems to storm into government on the back of 'Rejoin the EU' in 2022?
If, as now seems likely, Britain leaves the EU on a deal that is discredited with almost everyone and where a majority would prefer to stay in the EU, you can work out for yourself the likelihood that the subject will be allowed to rest.
To say the least, I'm tolerably confident that no matter how sick the voters might be about hearing about Brexit and the EU, it is going to be dominating politics for years to come.
No doubt.
But 'Rejoin' is a very different question to 'Remain'.
Indeed. Rejoin is an active process of taking back control. A much easier sell.
In July 2006, Benjamin Netanyahu unveiled a plaque & gave a speech commemorating the terrorists who blew up the British Embassy in Jerusalem killing 91 people including more than 20 Britons. He praised them as freedom fighters.
In 2014 Corbyn laid a wreath for the innocent victims of the Tunisia attack on the PLO headquarters. The cemetery was only 1200 miles away from the cemetery where the Munich killers were buried
Spot the terrorist sympathiser
Quite. Except only one has a chance of being PM of the UK and being entrusted with my family's security.
Following on from @Cyclefree's excellent thread yesterday, our political journalism has always worked on the assumption that if you can prove a [sufficiently big] lie then a resignation should follow.
Saying "I was present at wreath-laying but don't think I was involved" in one piece to camera then admitting "I laid one wreath" in another broadcast interview within 24 hours ought to qualify.
LOL, I love how you claim to be calling out lies by telling a lie yourself.
Your quote of Corbyn saying "I laid one wreath" conveniently leaves out his very next words that the wreath was for people who died in the 1985 attack - not for the people who died in the 1992 raids, which is what he's being criticised for.
Whether Corbyn is telling the truth about not laying a wreath for the 1992 incident, I have no idea, but it's flat-out "fake news" to claim he's "admitted" to doing so. But is typical of Tory commentators for ruining valid attacks on Corbyn by going overboard.
Bollocks. He made clear yesterday that he wasn't involved in wreath-laying, and today he admitted doing so. And that's without getting into all the pretty damning pictorial evidence as to which wreath he laid, which suggests he's still evading the issue.
Can you point out to me where, in yesterday's statement, he denied laying a wreath for the 1985 deaths?
A large part of that bill will be to pay rent for tenants in Social Housing
Whilst that is undoubtedly true I am at a loss as to why the government has not announced a major social housing program. It's frankly a no brainer with the deficit falling much faster than anticipated, a desperate need for housing, a dysfunctional FTB market and the backlog of decades of under provision. There is, I think, a further £1bn committed to this in the coming year but that was rightly described as "chickenfeed" on R4 this morning. £10bn would be a lot more sensible and the economic benefits would be significant.
It was a no brainer twelve months since. One can only conclude that the government has no brains.
Or is excessively fiscally conservative with a small c. I tend that way myself but you can't have the population of Coventry coming to this country year after year without building the houses for people to live in. This needs action (the political upside would also be considerable but that is or should be a secondary consideration).
It's not a problem that's soluble simply by throwing money at it. You need people (who are likely in short supply), materials (ditto) and land (Enter the Nimbies). I do agree that we need to make housing a national priority and look for innovative ways of building at scale (e.g. the pop-up house), but it's not as easy as Jolyon thinks.
A large part of that bill will be to pay rent for tenants in Social Housing
Whilst that is undoubtedly true I am at a loss as to why the government has not announced a major social housing program. It's frankly a no brainer with the deficit falling much faster than anticipated, a desperate need for housing, a dysfunctional FTB market and the backlog of decades of under provision. There is, I think, a further £1bn committed to this in the coming year but that was rightly described as "chickenfeed" on R4 this morning. £10bn would be a lot more sensible and the economic benefits would be significant.
Going to let you into a dirty little secret, social housing is not cheap. Social tenants can be very very expensive to maintain. The housing benefit going to the private landlord would just be going to the social landlord. It wont be any cheaper than the current system. The exception of London though is different. Different rules there.
If not a single council house had been sold to tenants, there would still be a shortage of housing, social or private. What's driving demand is household/demographic change and migration. You cant add 5 million people to the population without the equivalent amount of housing to accommodate them.
All I can think about this afternoon are those poor sods in Genoa who were going about their normal daily business when their lives were brutally cut short.
In July 2006, Benjamin Netanyahu unveiled a plaque & gave a speech commemorating the terrorists who blew up the British Embassy in Jerusalem killing 91 people including more than 20 Britons. He praised them as freedom fighters.
In 2014 Corbyn laid a wreath for the innocent victims of the Tunisia attack on the PLO headquarters. The cemetery was only 1200 miles away from the cemetery where the Munich killers were buried
Spot the terrorist sympathiser
Netanyahu is indeed a bag of shit, and not a person that most of us would want to be compared to.
Can someone (nonpartisan) clarify this Corbyn story? Seems to be a lot of doubt now about whether the wreath was for the terrorists or the Israeli airstrikes.
It appears to be:
1 - He visited this graveyard in Tunisia 2 - He said it was to commemorate the victims of the 1985 Tunisian attack and those killed in 1991 3 - There were graves for the victims of the 1985 Tunisian attack and a memorial/graves for three high-ranking Black September members killed in Tunis in 1991. It is noted that the Black September memorial/graves were not next to those of the victims of the Tunisian attack in 1985 but 40-50 feet away from them. 4 - There were at least two wreath-laying ceremonies on the day. One was at the graves of those killed in the Tunisian attack in 1985; another was at the graves of the Black September "martyrs" 5 - He wasn't at the front or near the wreath on the ceremony for the victims of the Tunisian attack in 1985 6 - He was literally holding the wreath for the ceremony of the Black September "martyrs" and photographs indicate he joined in the prayer ceremony for them.
Those appear to have been established beyond reasonable doubt. The first two from the Morning Star article Corbyn himself wrote. The others from photographs of the event.
Some people appear to be trying to muddy the water by pointing out that some Black September terrorists who were killed by German security forces during the Munich atrocity itself were buried elsewhere and pretend that these are the people in question.
Corbyn himself (and the Labour Party spokepeople) have variously claimed he wasn't at the wreath ceremony, he was only there for the 1985 victims, and (when the photographic evidence listed at 5 and 6 above came out) that he may have been there but wasn't involved. Even this latter appears to have been rowed back upon.
On topic, while I think he will get to the final for other reasons, I would think ERG support plus personal support and his good ratings with the membership will see Boris into the final two quite easily.
Replacing Corbyn, even with a firm Corbynite, would have unpredictable effects.
Yes, although my hunch is that it would (will) lead to a rapid splintering of the loony left who at the moment are solidly Corbynista. That has tended to be the pattern in the past with extreme-left cults.
Yes, I think if (say) Rayner or Long–Bailey were to take over they would immediately be cast as not proper lefties. There is a cult of personality around Corbyn himself.
My guess would be Yvette Cooper followed by a return to something like normality. Momentum would splutter for few weeks and McClusky would remind us why we never liked him and later that year she'd win a landslide not seen since Blair. Boris will go and live with Bannon and Ed will become a huge TV star......
Sorry, but the last bit is just too improbable.
Surprisngly, Ed did seem to get on with almost everybody in the three hours of meeting the Trump faithful. (Although he was obviously less than comfortable with the Florida billionaire women at Trump's gaff.)
Hats off to him for getting tasered - and putting on that wrestling costume. There's no coming back to representing the public after that.
What I CAN see happening, very easily, is a Labour government quietly taking us straight back into the SM and CU, & accepting FoM, in return for payments and a say in some of the lawmaking. It would be a special associate membership, which they won't call membership - coz that would need a referendum.
Going to let you into a dirty little secret, social housing is not cheap. Social tenants can be very very expensive to maintain. The housing benefit going to the private landlord would just be going to the social landlord. It wont be any cheaper than the current system. The exception of London though is different. Different rules there.
If not a single council house had been sold to tenants, there would still be a shortage of housing, social or private. What's driving demand is household/demographic change and migration. You cant add 5 million people to the population without the equivalent amount of housing to accommodate them.
The main problem as I see it is the value of land. It suits the Government and the developers and landowners to keep the supply of land tight and the value high. There's masses of land out there in truth even in the south east and once the golf courses are compulsorily purchased and the Green Belt significantly reduced you can build all the houses you want.
The second problem is infrastructure - housing isn't just about building places to live but also the infrastructure to support them. Where is the additional transport capacity to take the hundreds of new apartments being built in London? Answer, there isn't any so the tubes and roads will simply get more crowded and slower.
Replacing Corbyn, even with a firm Corbynite, would have unpredictable effects.
Yes, although my hunch is that it would (will) lead to a rapid splintering of the loony left who at the moment are solidly Corbynista. That has tended to be the pattern in the past with extreme-left cults.
Yes, I think if (say) Rayner or Long–Bailey were to take over they would immediately be cast as not proper lefties. There is a cult of personality around Corbyn himself.
My guess would be Yvette Cooper followed by a return to something like normality. Momentum would splutter for few weeks and McClusky would remind us why we never liked him and later that year she'd win a landslide not seen since Blair. Boris will go and live with Bannon and Ed will become a huge TV star......
To my eyes I see some incompatible connections in there. Ms Cooper is only a slightly more flexible type of lumber than Mrs May.
Her landslide is harder to imaging than a JC landslide. Huge and Ed seem to be mutually exclusive also.
If you think 'Huge' and 'Ed' are mutually exclusive watch the Texas police shoot a tazer into his bum. The man's heroic and super talented to boot. What a waste to politics
Mr. P, if that's the 'deal' it needs to be thrown out. It offers neither the (limited) influence of membership nor the freedom of actually leaving, but provides the disadvantages of both remaining and leaving.
A large part of that bill will be to pay rent for tenants in Social Housing
Whilst that is undoubtedly true I am at a loss as to why the government has not announced a major social housing program. It's frankly a no brainer with the deficit falling much faster than anticipated, a desperate need for housing, a dysfunctional FTB market and the backlog of decades of under provision. There is, I think, a further £1bn committed to this in the coming year but that was rightly described as "chickenfeed" on R4 this morning. £10bn would be a lot more sensible and the economic benefits would be significant.
Going to let you into a dirty little secret, social housing is not cheap. Social tenants can be very very expensive to maintain. The housing benefit going to the private landlord would just be going to the social landlord. It wont be any cheaper than the current system. The exception of London though is different. Different rules there.
If not a single council house had been sold to tenants, there would still be a shortage of housing, social or private. What's driving demand is household/demographic change and migration. You cant add 5 million people to the population without the equivalent amount of housing to accommodate them.
I am not suggesting its cheap. Its also misleading to imply, as Jolyon Maugham seems to, that it might significantly cut the HB bill, it might even increase it. What I am saying is that it is necessary for the reasons you have also identified and that it is affordable.
It is one of the clearest examples (and there are many) of the government being so caught up with the B word that it is not getting on with the day job. It is a concern to me that a significant part of this inactivity seems to have happened on Javid's watch but maybe the Treasury simply wouldn't budge. Hammond never shows any imagination.
A large part of that bill will be to pay rent for tenants in Social Housing
Whilst that is undoubtedly true I am at a loss as to why the government has not announced a major social housing program. It's frankly a no brainer with the deficit falling much faster than anticipated, a desperate need for housing, a dysfunctional FTB market and the backlog of decades of under provision. There is, I think, a further £1bn committed to this in the coming year but that was rightly described as "chickenfeed" on R4 this morning. £10bn would be a lot more sensible and the economic benefits would be significant.
Going to let you into a dirty little secret, social housing is not cheap. Social tenants can be very very expensive to maintain. The housing benefit going to the private landlord would just be going to the social landlord. It wont be any cheaper than the current system. The exception of London though is different. Different rules there.
If not a single council house had been sold to tenants, there would still be a shortage of housing, social or private. What's driving demand is household/demographic change and migration. You cant add 5 million people to the population without the equivalent amount of housing to accommodate them.
See Robert Smithson's video on what is driving demand. It's not as simple as it might appear.
"If, as now seems likely, Britain leaves the EU on a deal that is discredited with almost everyone and where a majority would prefer to stay in the EU, you can work out for yourself the likelihood that the subject will be allowed to rest."
**** I can't see us rejoining because we'd need to have another referendum and I think the entire country would puke a lung at the thought of that. As we have painfully discovered (first in Scotland, now in the entire UK) referendums on these questions are hideously divisive. We are bored of being divided.
So I don't think we will be trying to formally rejoin for a generation or more. Maybe never.
What I CAN see happening, very easily, is a Labour government quietly taking us straight back into the SM and CU, & accepting FoM, in return for payments and a say in some of the lawmaking. It would be a special associate membership, which they won't call membership - coz that would need a referendum.
A large part of that bill will be to pay rent for tenants in Social Housing
Whilst that is undoubtedly true I am at a loss as to why the government has not announced a major social housing program. It's frankly a no brainer with the deficit falling much faster than anticipated, a desperate need for housing, a dysfunctional FTB market and the backlog of decades of under provision. There is, I think, a further £1bn committed to this in the coming year but that was rightly described as "chickenfeed" on R4 this morning. £10bn would be a lot more sensible and the economic benefits would be significant.
Going to let you into a dirty little secret, social housing is not cheap. Social tenants can be very very expensive to maintain. The housing benefit going to the private landlord would just be going to the social landlord. It wont be any cheaper than the current system. The exception of London though is different. Different rules there.
If not a single council house had been sold to tenants, there would still be a shortage of housing, social or private. What's driving demand is household/demographic change and migration. You cant add 5 million people to the population without the equivalent amount of housing to accommodate them.
I am not suggesting its cheap. Its also misleading to imply, as Jolyon Maugham seems to, that it might significantly cut the HB bill, it might even increase it. What I am saying is that it is necessary for the reasons you have also identified and that it is affordable.
It is one of the clearest examples (and there are many) of the government being so caught up with the B word that it is not getting on with the day job. It is a concern to me that a significant part of this inactivity seems to have happened on Javid's watch but maybe the Treasury simply wouldn't budge. Hammond never shows any imagination.
Not sure I agree. The government is doing a lot in recent years to nudge changes. I believe new build now are at the highest rate in over a decade. I also believe that the proportion going to first time buyers is now at a higher level.
It may be too little too late but I think the government would rather tackle the macroeconomic issues than get into a major house building program.
A large part of that bill will be to pay rent for tenants in Social Housing
Whilst that is undoubtedly true I am at a loss as to why the government has not announced a major social housing program. It's frankly a no brainer with the deficit falling much faster than anticipated, a desperate need for housing, a dysfunctional FTB market and the backlog of decades of under provision. There is, I think, a further £1bn committed to this in the coming year but that was rightly described as "chickenfeed" on R4 this morning. £10bn would be a lot more sensible and the economic benefits would be significant.
Going to let you into a dirty little secret, social housing is not cheap. Social tenants can be very very expensive to maintain. The housing benefit going to the private landlord would just be going to the social landlord. It wont be any cheaper than the current system. The exception of London though is different. Different rules there.
If not a single council house had been sold to tenants, there would still be a shortage of housing, social or private. What's driving demand is household/demographic change and migration. You cant add 5 million people to the population without the equivalent amount of housing to accommodate them.
See Robert Smithson's video on what is driving demand. It's not as simple as it might appear.
My first job when I was 13 was planting strawberry plants, picking strawberries, and selling them by the side of the road. i saved up and bought a Fidelity Hi-Fi system.
My first job when I was 13 was planting strawberry plants, picking strawberries, and selling them by the side of the road. i saved up and bought a Fidelity Hi-Fi system.
I had one of them mine was called a music centre i am so old
Going to let you into a dirty little secret, social housing is not cheap. Social tenants can be very very expensive to maintain. The housing benefit going to the private landlord would just be going to the social landlord. It wont be any cheaper than the current system. The exception of London though is different. Different rules there.
If not a single council house had been sold to tenants, there would still be a shortage of housing, social or private. What's driving demand is household/demographic change and migration. You cant add 5 million people to the population without the equivalent amount of housing to accommodate them.
I am not suggesting its cheap. Its also misleading to imply, as Jolyon Maugham seems to, that it might significantly cut the HB bill, it might even increase it. What I am saying is that it is necessary for the reasons you have also identified and that it is affordable.
It is one of the clearest examples (and there are many) of the government being so caught up with the B word that it is not getting on with the day job. It is a concern to me that a significant part of this inactivity seems to have happened on Javid's watch but maybe the Treasury simply wouldn't budge. Hammond never shows any imagination.
Not sure I agree. The government is doing a lot in recent years to nudge changes. I believe new build now are at the highest rate in over a decade. I also believe that the proportion going to first time buyers is now at a higher level.
It may be too little too late but I think the government would rather tackle the macroeconomic issues than get into a major house building program.
We are really not making progress on this. We are not even keeping up with current demand, let alone addressing a chronic backlog. It, and student fees, are the main reasons young people are so anti Tory.
The problem isn’t that there’s no-one in Scotland who can pick strawberries, it’s that no-one in Scotland wants to pick strawberries for the offered wage.
There’s plenty of students in Edinburgh getting pissed at the festival right now, I’m sure if you offered them enough money they’d be more than happy to help out in the fields instead.
Rewind 20 years (that’s just my personal timeline) and there was competition among students for the best summer jobs. Not the internships, which lasted only a week or two in those days, but the factory, farm, retail, warehouse, hotel etc summer job that would relieve parents for their school holidays for a month or two and allow them to earn some good money than would keep them in beer for the next term.
My personal anecdote, I worked at a conference centre at a golf club doing bar and waiter stuff, one December my timesheet of 320 hours was queried that surely it was 220. Nope, I said, I worked 10am-2am most days and the only day off I had was 25th.
"If, as now seems likely, Britain leaves the EU on a deal that is discredited with almost everyone and where a majority would prefer to stay in the EU, you can work out for yourself the likelihood that the subject will be allowed to rest."
**** I can't see us rejoining because we'd need to have another referendum and I think the entire country would puke a lung at the thought of that. As we have painfully discovered (first in Scotland, now in the entire UK) referendums on these questions are hideously divisive. We are bored of being divided.
So I don't think we will be trying to formally rejoin for a generation or more. Maybe never.
What I CAN see happening, very easily, is a Labour government quietly taking us straight back into the SM and CU, & accepting FoM, in return for payments and a say in some of the lawmaking. It would be a special associate membership, which they won't call membership - coz that would need a referendum.
Labour might not call it membership - but the voters might well....
And each and every one of Britain's ills would be laid at Brussels' door.
It's all so annoying, because with a bit more creativity, we would still be in the EU as associate members under a deal brokered by Cameron - a deal that would have seen him home and dry with at least a 60-40 win.
And still in Downing Street, just about to hand over the baton to his successor.
Those Strawbs look a lot easier to pick than the ones I picked in my youth! Back breaking work. Mind you, not surprised they can't get Dundonians to work.....
Following on from @Cyclefree's excellent thread yesterday, our political journalism has always worked on the assumption that if you can prove a [sufficiently big] lie then a resignation should follow.
Saying "I was present at wreath-laying but don't think I was involved" in one piece to camera then admitting "I laid one wreath" in another broadcast interview within 24 hours ought to qualify.
LOL, I love how you claim to be calling out lies by telling a lie yourself.
Your quote of Corbyn saying "I laid one wreath" conveniently leaves out his very next words that the wreath was for people who died in the 1985 attack - not for the people who died in the 1992 raids, which is what he's being criticised for.
Whether Corbyn is telling the truth about not laying a wreath for the 1992 incident, I have no idea, but it's flat-out "fake news" to claim he's "admitted" to doing so. But is typical of Tory commentators for ruining valid attacks on Corbyn by going overboard.
Bollocks. He made clear yesterday that he wasn't involved in wreath-laying, and today he admitted doing so. And that's without getting into all the pretty damning pictorial evidence as to which wreath he laid, which suggests he's still evading the issue.
Can you point out to me where, in yesterday's statement, he denied laying a wreath for the 1985 deaths?
Ah, I see what you mean. Obviously he gave the impression yesterday that he hadn't laid a wreath at all, but now he is claiming that he laid a different wreath. So perhaps I shouldn't have suggested that he has "admitted" it himself, though he (and his Labour Press surrogates) have clearly been very evasive over the last couple of days. Yesterday's interview was obviously supposed to be a denial - implying that he was near the wreath but not "involved", but then the 2017 tape emerged, so he had to - ahem- clarify again today.
The trouble is, the pictorial evidence is damning. He didn't lay the wreath he claimed to, and he did lay the one he is denying (see e.g. the @AtheistMessiah thread linked below by Carlotta). Your "I have no idea" is risible.
The problem isn’t that there’s no-one in Scotland who can pick strawberries, it’s that no-one in Scotland wants to pick strawberries for the offered wage.
There’s plenty of students in Edinburgh getting pissed at the festival right now, I’m sure if you offered them enough money they’d be more than happy to help out in the fields instead.
Rewind 20 years (that’s just my personal timeline) and there was competition among students for the best summer jobs. Not the internships, which lasted only a week or two in those days, but the factory, farm, retail, warehouse, hotel etc summer job that would relieve parents for their school holidays for a month or two and allow them to earn some good money than would keep them in beer for the next term.
My personal anecdote, I worked at a conference centre at a golf club doing bar and waiter stuff, one December my timesheet of 320 hours was queried that surely it was 220. Nope, I said, I worked 10am-2am most days and the only day off I had was 25th.
I used to work in a local carpet factory in the summer. They had a shut-down fortnight, where all the planned maintenance for the year ahead was done. One task involved replacing all the neon lighting strips, whether they needed it or not.
My mate Jon and I had to smash 400 neon strips into a skip. It was at the time of Star Wars.
If Boris stands he will likely get the vast majority of the support that went to Leadsom in 2016 which should be enough to get him to the final two where he would likely win the membership vote. If he does not stand then Mogg likely runs instead and the same applies for him.
However Javid may feel that while he would lose the membership vote to an anti Chequers Deal Leaver candidate like Boris or Mogg he could beat an uncharismatic pro Chequers Deal Leaver candidate like Gove. Gove came third in 2016 behind May and Leadsom so if Javid or at a push Hunt got most of the May vote they might feel if they got Gove into second by lending him MPs in the final round he would be beatable with members. However it also risks a Boris v Gove final 2 if it goes wrong which Boris wins easily.
Of course given the risk of Boris May could stay in post for years anyway
Extraordinary as it might seem, I think not. I would like to know why not. These two guys had already said as much to the newspapers before the case came to court – why didn't the defence call them to the stand??
Presumably the prosecution didn't call them because they were seen as not being helpful to the prosecution.
And presumably the defence didn't call them because they would have said some things that were seen as not being helpful to the defence.
Indeed, but what would the latter have been? I wonder!
Those Strawbs look a lot easier to pick than the ones I picked in my youth! Back breaking work. Mind you, not surprised they can't get Dundonians to work.....
It's rather like the curry chefs. You can't get the staff, these days.
Going to let you into a dirty little secret, social housing is not cheap. Social tenants can be very very expensive to maintain. The housing benefit going to the private landlord would just be going to the social landlord. It wont be any cheaper than the current system. The exception of London though is different. Different rules there.
If not a single council house had been sold to tenants, there would still be a shortage of housing, social or private. What's driving demand is household/demographic change and migration. You cant add 5 million people to the population without the equivalent amount of housing to accommodate them.
I am not suggesting its cheap. Its also misleading to imply, as Jolyon Maugham seems to, that it might significantly cut the HB bill, it might even increase it. What I am saying is that it is necessary for the reasons you have also identified and that it is affordable.
It is one of the clearest examples (and there are many) of the government being so caught up with the B word that it is not getting on with the day job. It is a concern to me that a significant part of this inactivity seems to have happened on Javid's watch but maybe the Treasury simply wouldn't budge. Hammond never shows any imagination.
Not sure I agree. The government is doing a lot in recent years to nudge changes. I believe new build now are at the highest rate in over a decade. I also believe that the proportion going to first time buyers is now at a higher level.
It may be too little too late but I think the government would rather tackle the macroeconomic issues than get into a major house building program.
We are really not making progress on this. We are not even keeping up with current demand, let alone addressing a chronic backlog. It, and student fees, are the main reasons young people are so anti Tory.
The numbers will bounce back in Q2, though, as construction output recovered.
Overall, there were 184,000 new build properties last year, which is double the figure in 2010.
Those Strawbs look a lot easier to pick than the ones I picked in my youth! Back breaking work. Mind you, not surprised they can't get Dundonians to work.....
The problem isn’t that there’s no-one in Scotland who can pick strawberries, it’s that no-one in Scotland wants to pick strawberries for the offered wage.
There’s plenty of students in Edinburgh getting pissed at the festival right now, I’m sure if you offered them enough money they’d be more than happy to help out in the fields instead.
Rewind 20 years (that’s just my personal timeline) and there was competition among students for the best summer jobs. Not the internships, which lasted only a week or two in those days, but the factory, farm, retail, warehouse, hotel etc summer job that would relieve parents for their school holidays for a month or two and allow them to earn some good money than would keep them in beer for the next term.
My personal anecdote, I worked at a conference centre at a golf club doing bar and waiter stuff, one December my timesheet of 320 hours was queried that surely it was 220. Nope, I said, I worked 10am-2am most days and the only day off I had was 25th.
I used to work in a distribution warehouse for major retailers back in the 1990s - would earn £1300-1500 over the holidays without any overtime (for reference my rent was £260 per term). One summer I earned enough to buy a car, pay my rent for the year and buy an Apple Mac computer for 3rd year.
Such jobs are now £7.85 an hour, zero hours contract and university halls start at about £4.5k for the academic year. Not sure I blame students for thinking it isn't worth it.
I am not suggesting its cheap. Its also misleading to imply, as Jolyon Maugham seems to, that it might significantly cut the HB bill, it might even increase it. What I am saying is that it is necessary for the reasons you have also identified and that it is affordable.
It is one of the clearest examples (and there are many) of the government being so caught up with the B word that it is not getting on with the day job. It is a concern to me that a significant part of this inactivity seems to have happened on Javid's watch but maybe the Treasury simply wouldn't budge. Hammond never shows any imagination.
Not sure I agree. The government is doing a lot in recent years to nudge changes. I believe new build now are at the highest rate in over a decade. I also believe that the proportion going to first time buyers is now at a higher level.
It may be too little too late but I think the government would rather tackle the macroeconomic issues than get into a major house building program.
We are really not making progress on this. We are not even keeping up with current demand, let alone addressing a chronic backlog. It, and student fees, are the main reasons young people are so anti Tory.
The numbers will bounce back in Q2, though, as construction output recovered.
Overall, there were 184,000 new build properties last year, which is double the figure in 2010.
Not enough. And a comparison with a time when the economy was teetering on the brink of something horrible is somewhat flattering.
I can't see us rejoining because we'd need to have another referendum and I think the entire country would puke a lung at the thought of that. As we have painfully discovered (first in Scotland, now in the entire UK) referendums on these questions are hideously divisive. We are bored of being divided.
So I don't think we will be trying to formally rejoin for a generation or more. Maybe never.
What I CAN see happening, very easily, is a Labour government quietly taking us straight back into the SM and CU, & accepting FoM, in return for payments and a say in some of the lawmaking. It would be a special associate membership, which they won't call membership - coz that would need a referendum.
Before Labour can rejoin the SM and CU we have to have left it, and on the present course that will be 2021 at the earliest and has every chance of being pushed back or never happening.
The divisiveness of referendums is a reason why an unexpected landslide for Remain could happen. People will get into the voting booth and think, "For God's sake let this be the end of it."
So he laid a wreath - but only on the parts of the memorial for those who were killed in the air strikes - not anyone else who was also commemorated in the same memorial.
So he laid a wreath - but only on the parts of the memorial for those who were killed in the air strikes - not anyone else who was also commemorated in the same memorial.
Is that really what he is saying????
Just like when he lays a wreath at the Cenotaph, he is not commemorating allied troops...
So he laid a wreath - but only on the parts of the memorial for those who were killed in the air strikes - not anyone else who was also commemorated in the same memorial.
Is that really what he is saying????
Just like when he lays a wreath at the Cenotaph, he is not commemorating allied troops...
He is clearly choosing his words very, very carefully again - and attempting to create enough of a distraction so that no-one notices his lies. But it isn't working.
The rapid blinking is there again. A classic tell of a liar.
All the flannel about peace means nothing. He has done NOTHING to aid peace. NOTHING.
He has celebrated terrorists throughout his career. The same is true of McDonnell.
So he laid a wreath - but only on the parts of the memorial for those who were killed in the air strikes - not anyone else who was also commemorated in the same memorial.
Is that really what he is saying????
He's going to get away with this. And the question should surely have been have you ever shared a platform with anyone from the Israeli government, the settler organisations or Likud in the same way as you have repeatedly done with Palestinian organisations?
He ducked the wreath part of the question and suggested that there was some equivalence between meeting delegations (and I really wondered how often that had happened) and chairing conferences. He's dishonest but he will get away with it.
So he laid a wreath - but only on the parts of the memorial for those who were killed in the air strikes - not anyone else who was also commemorated in the same memorial.
Is that really what he is saying????
He's going to get away with this. And the question should surely have been have you ever shared a platform with anyone from the Israeli government, the settler organisations or Likud in the same way as you have repeatedly done with Palestinian organisations?
He ducked the wreath part of the question and suggested that there was some equivalence between meeting delegations (and I really wondered how often that had happened) and chairing conferences. He's dishonest but he will get away with it.
Of course he will - was there ever much doubt? The highly precise wording of his shifting equivocations make it clear he knows he messed up here, but he has to do enough to keep the base on side (accomplished) and not provoke direct action from MPs. That's harder, but because he's so safe in his position most of them won't do anything on a story which, though having developed further, was raised awhile ago, and now has the cover of Netanyahu being involved.
So he laid a wreath - but only on the parts of the memorial for those who were killed in the air strikes - not anyone else who was also commemorated in the same memorial.
Is that really what he is saying????
He's going to get away with this. And the question should surely have been have you ever shared a platform with anyone from the Israeli government, the settler organisations or Likud in the same way as you have repeatedly done with Palestinian organisations?
He ducked the wreath part of the question and suggested that there was some equivalence between meeting delegations (and I really wondered how often that had happened) and chairing conferences. He's dishonest but he will get away with it.
Of course he will - was there ever much doubt?
Let's just hope Labour MPs retaining the Whip remember we still have something of a water shortage.
So he laid a wreath - but only on the parts of the memorial for those who were killed in the air strikes - not anyone else who was also commemorated in the same memorial.
Is that really what he is saying????
He's going to get away with this. And the question should surely have been have you ever shared a platform with anyone from the Israeli government, the settler organisations or Likud in the same way as you have repeatedly done with Palestinian organisations?
He ducked the wreath part of the question and suggested that there was some equivalence between meeting delegations (and I really wondered how often that had happened) and chairing conferences. He's dishonest but he will get away with it.
He is a liar and yes, he will get away with it - but not because of anything positive about him - but because of the cult that sustains him.
But how much more can ordinary Labour MPs, councillors and members take? Eventually their tribal loyalty to the Party will be so undermined by the cancer that is the current leadership and their supporters that something will snap.
Quite how that hasn't happened to date, I really don't know. There is no honour in standing in a Labour candidate when that is your leader. A man who lies. A man who celebrates terrorists.
So he laid a wreath - but only on the parts of the memorial for those who were killed in the air strikes - not anyone else who was also commemorated in the same memorial.
Is that really what he is saying????
He's going to get away with this. And the question should surely have been have you ever shared a platform with anyone from the Israeli government, the settler organisations or Likud in the same way as you have repeatedly done with Palestinian organisations?
He ducked the wreath part of the question and suggested that there was some equivalence between meeting delegations (and I really wondered how often that had happened) and chairing conferences. He's dishonest but he will get away with it.
He comes very close to losing his temper.
Can't be easy keeping so many conflicting lines in play at once. Especially when his seeking peace only ever appears to be with just one side of any particular conflict. Not sure how that dialogue is supposed to deliver results.
"If, as now seems likely, Britain leaves the EU on a deal that is discredited with almost everyone and where a majority would prefer to stay in the EU, you can work out for yourself the likelihood that the subject will be allowed to rest."
**** I can't see us rejoining because we'd need to have another referendum and I think the entire country would puke a lung at the thought of that. As we have painfully discovered (first in Scotland, now in the entire UK) referendums on these questions are hideously divisive. We are bored of being divided.
So I don't think we will be trying to formally rejoin for a generation or more. Maybe never.
What I CAN see happening, very easily, is a Labour government quietly taking us straight back into the SM and CU, & accepting FoM, in return for payments and a say in some of the lawmaking. It would be a special associate membership, which they won't call membership - coz that would need a referendum.
Until immigration is brought under control there is no chance of Labour winning the Leave voting marginal seats that will decide the next general election while leaving free movement in place
I can't see us rejoining because we'd need to have another referendum and I think the entire country would puke a lung at the thought of that. As we have painfully discovered (first in Scotland, now in the entire UK) referendums on these questions are hideously divisive. We are bored of being divided.
So I don't think we will be trying to formally rejoin for a generation or more. Maybe never.
What I CAN see happening, very easily, is a Labour government quietly taking us straight back into the SM and CU, & accepting FoM, in return for payments and a say in some of the lawmaking. It would be a special associate membership, which they won't call membership - coz that would need a referendum.
Before Labour can rejoin the SM and CU we have to have left it, and on the present course that will be 2021 at the earliest and has every chance of being pushed back or never happening.
The divisiveness of referendums is a reason why an unexpected landslide for Remain could happen. People will get into the voting booth and think, "For God's sake let this be the end of it."
Without new immigration controls zero chance of that
So he laid a wreath - but only on the parts of the memorial for those who were killed in the air strikes - not anyone else who was also commemorated in the same memorial.
Is that really what he is saying????
Just like when he lays a wreath at the Cenotaph, he is not commemorating allied troops...
The difference is he has to be dragged to the Cenotaph. You'd never catch him doing that if he wasn't LoTO.
I can't see us rejoining because we'd need to have another referendum and I think the entire country would puke a lung at the thought of that. As we have painfully discovered (first in Scotland, now in the entire UK) referendums on these questions are hideously divisive. We are bored of being divided.
So I don't think we will be trying to formally rejoin for a generation or more. Maybe never.
What I CAN see happening, very easily, is a Labour government quietly taking us straight back into the SM and CU, & accepting FoM, in return for payments and a say in some of the lawmaking. It would be a special associate membership, which they won't call membership - coz that would need a referendum.
Before Labour can rejoin the SM and CU we have to have left it, and on the present course that will be 2021 at the earliest and has every chance of being pushed back or never happening.
The divisiveness of referendums is a reason why an unexpected landslide for Remain could happen. People will get into the voting booth and think, "For God's sake let this be the end of it."
Without new immigration controls zero chance of that
Migration controls aren't even in the top three priorities people have for Brexit in today's YouGov poll.
So he laid a wreath - but only on the parts of the memorial for those who were killed in the air strikes - not anyone else who was also commemorated in the same memorial.
Is that really what he is saying????
He's going to get away with this. And the question should surely have been have you ever shared a platform with anyone from the Israeli government, the settler organisations or Likud in the same way as you have repeatedly done with Palestinian organisations?
He ducked the wreath part of the question and suggested that there was some equivalence between meeting delegations (and I really wondered how often that had happened) and chairing conferences. He's dishonest but he will get away with it.
He is a liar and yes, he will get away with it - but not because of anything positive about him - but because of the cult that sustains him.
But how much more can ordinary Labour MPs, councillors and members take? Eventually their tribal loyalty to the Party will be so undermined by the cancer that is the current leadership and their supporters that something will snap.
Quite how that hasn't happened to date, I really don't know. There is no honour in standing in a Labour candidate when that is your leader. A man who lies. A man who celebrates terrorists.
The members seem perfectly happy with him. I don't know about councillors, but most of the MPs only grumble on occasion, and on almost everything seem perfectly happy where they are. I grant Labour is bigger than one man, even the leader, but even those who believe him to be racist, which is not a large number I should think, are happy for him to be PM, so I don't quite buy the handwringing and crocodile tears from most of the MPs who get quoted anonymously.
So he laid a wreath - but only on the parts of the memorial for those who were killed in the air strikes - not anyone else who was also commemorated in the same memorial.
Is that really what he is saying????
He's going to get away with this. And the question should surely have been have you ever shared a platform with anyone from the Israeli government, the settler organisations or Likud in the same way as you have repeatedly done with Palestinian organisations?
He ducked the wreath part of the question and suggested that there was some equivalence between meeting delegations (and I really wondered how often that had happened) and chairing conferences. He's dishonest but he will get away with it.
He is a liar and yes, he will get away with it - but not because of anything positive about him - but because of the cult that sustains him.
But how much more can ordinary Labour MPs, councillors and members take? Eventually their tribal loyalty to the Party will be so undermined by the cancer that is the current leadership and their supporters that something will snap.
Quite how that hasn't happened to date, I really don't know. There is no honour in standing in a Labour candidate when that is your leader. A man who lies. A man who celebrates terrorists.
@RochdalePioneer of this parish wrote a very eloquent missive on why he's continuing to support Labour, and I don't blame him. Leaving the party is, for many, literally unthinkable, and in my view, tactically correct. Labour has a proud history, and Corbyn is simply an aberration.
So, just to be clear, the Leader of the Opposition has admitted to laying a wreath on the grave of a group of people, one of whom was a mastermind of the Munich Olympic atrocity, where an utterly innocent athlete was castrated, he and others - equally innocent - tortured and then executed.
A wreath laid in the hope of securing peace.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is the Leader of the Opposition.
You must be so proud, Labour MPs. To be led by such a man of peace.
I can't see us rejoining because we'd need to have another referendum and I think the entire country would puke a lung at the thought of that. As we have painfully discovered (first in Scotland, now in the entire UK) referendums on these questions are hideously divisive. We are bored of being divided.
So I don't think we will be trying to formally rejoin for a generation or more. Maybe never.
What I CAN see happening, very easily, is a Labour government quietly taking us straight back into the SM and CU, & accepting FoM, in return for payments and a say in some of the lawmaking. It would be a special associate membership, which they won't call membership - coz that would need a referendum.
Before Labour can rejoin the SM and CU we have to have left it, and on the present course that will be 2021 at the earliest and has every chance of being pushed back or never happening.
The divisiveness of referendums is a reason why an unexpected landslide for Remain could happen. People will get into the voting booth and think, "For God's sake let this be the end of it."
Without new immigration controls zero chance of that
Migration controls aren't even in the top three priorities people have for Brexit in today's YouGov poll.
That might be because immigration controls are assumed to be what Brexit is for
So, just to be clear, the Leader of the Opposition has admitted to laying a wreath on the grave of a group of people, one of whom was a mastermind of the Munich Olympic atrocity, where an utterly innocent athlete was castrated, he and others - equally innocent - tortured and then executed.
A wreath laid in the hope of securing peace.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is the Leader of the Opposition.
You must be so proud, Labour MPs. To be led by such a man of peace.
He might still become PM, in which case it will be the public's fault.
So he laid a wreath - but only on the parts of the memorial for those who were killed in the air strikes - not anyone else who was also commemorated in the same memorial.
Is that really what he is saying????
He's going to get away with this. And the question should surely have been have you ever shared a platform with anyone from the Israeli government, the settler organisations or Likud in the same way as you have repeatedly done with Palestinian organisations?
He ducked the wreath part of the question and suggested that there was some equivalence between meeting delegations (and I really wondered how often that had happened) and chairing conferences. He's dishonest but he will get away with it.
He is a liar and yes, he will get away with it - but not because of anything positive about him - but because of the cult that sustains him.
But how much more can ordinary Labour MPs, councillors and members take? Eventually their tribal loyalty to the Party will be so undermined by the cancer that is the current leadership and their supporters that something will snap.
Quite how that hasn't happened to date, I really don't know. There is no honour in standing in a Labour candidate when that is your leader. A man who lies. A man who celebrates terrorists.
@RochdalePioneer of this parish wrote a very eloquent missive on why he's continuing to support Labour, and I don't blame him. Leaving the party is, for many, literally unthinkable, and in my view, tactically correct. Labour has a proud history, and Corbyn is simply an aberration.
Once the rule changes go through, the Hard Left grip on Labour will be complete. There won't be a way back for Realist Labour.
No amount of tactics can change that.
Labour does have a history of which it can be proud. It does not have a future that can make anyone proud.
I appreciate loyalty. But there comes a time when the thing to which you are loyal has been so fundamentally undermined that it ceases to exist. Corbyn has dragged Labour over that line.
So he laid a wreath - but only on the parts of the memorial for those who were killed in the air strikes - not anyone else who was also commemorated in the same memorial.
Is that really what he is saying????
He's going to get away with this. And the question should surely have been have you ever shared a platform with anyone from the Israeli government, the settler organisations or Likud in the same way as you have repeatedly done with Palestinian organisations?
He ducked the wreath part of the question and suggested that there was some equivalence between meeting delegations (and I really wondered how often that had happened) and chairing conferences. He's dishonest but he will get away with it.
He comes very close to losing his temper.
Can't be easy keeping so many conflicting lines in play at once. Especially when his seeking peace only ever appears to be with just one side of any particular conflict. Not sure how that dialogue is supposed to deliver results.
That's easy. You talk to the side that hates the West the most and then, well, the rest is easy isn't it...
I can't see us rejoining because we'd need to have another referendum and I think the entire country would puke a lung at the thought of that. As we have painfully discovered (first in Scotland, now in the entire UK) referendums on these questions are hideously divisive. We are bored of being divided.
So I don't think we will be trying to formally rejoin for a generation or more. Maybe never.
What I CAN see happening, very easily, is a Labour government quietly taking us straight back into the SM and CU, & accepting FoM, in return for payments and a say in some of the lawmaking. It would be a special associate membership, which they won't call membership - coz that would need a referendum.
Before Labour can rejoin the SM and CU we have to have left it, and on the present course that will be 2021 at the earliest and has every chance of being pushed back or never happening.
The divisiveness of referendums is a reason why an unexpected landslide for Remain could happen. People will get into the voting booth and think, "For God's sake let this be the end of it."
Without new immigration controls zero chance of that
Migration controls aren't even in the top three priorities people have for Brexit in today's YouGov poll.
Immigration controls as Yougov showed just a month ago were what voters most wanted from Brexit and as polling showed at the time of the referendum the need for tighter immigration controls waa the most common reason given by Leave voters for voting Leave
So, just to be clear, the Leader of the Opposition has admitted to laying a wreath on the grave of a group of people, one of whom was a mastermind of the Munich Olympic atrocity, where an utterly innocent athlete was castrated, he and others - equally innocent - tortured and then executed.
A wreath laid in the hope of securing peace.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is the Leader of the Opposition.
You must be so proud, Labour MPs. To be led by such a man of peace.
Stop smearing him with the truth you smeary smearer.
Fifty years is pushing it, but it is not unknown for structures to remain standing for decades with fundamental design or construction flaws. A classic example is the incredible 1986 collapse of the New World Hotel in Singapore, which had been built 15 years earlier:
"However, this line of investigation into weight led to the discovery that the original structural engineer had made a serious error in calculating the building's structural load. The structural engineer had calculated the building's live load (the weight of the building's potential inhabitants, furniture, fixtures, and fittings) but the building's dead load (the weight of the building itself) was completely omitted from the calculation. This meant that the building as constructed could not support its own weight. Collapsing was only a matter of time."
And then you can get combinations: ISTR (but cannot immediately find a link) that a telecoms tower collapsed with fatalities when it was undergoing maintenance and strengthening. When built, a problem had been discovered and worked around. But the original plans were not updated, and the new alterations, which would have been safe if done on the original plans, caused a catastrophic collapse on the version as built.
Lightning might have been a problem, but that is doubtful on the structure itself - there should be lightning conductors, and the bridge itself should be strong enough to withstand a strike anyway.
My bet would be on a multitude of causal factors, and I wouldn't be surprised if concrete cancer was one of them, given when it was built.
Comments
Britain wouldn't have an 'Embassy' in a Mandate.....
But if you're arguing Corbyn is as frightful as Netanyahu I have some sympathy with you....
It seriously scares me.
He is a bit too left wing even for me.
If not a single council house had been sold to tenants, there would still be a shortage of housing, social or private. What's driving demand is household/demographic change and migration. You cant add 5 million people to the population without the equivalent amount of housing to accommodate them.
https://twitter.com/LatestMessiah/status/1029337340026806272
https://twitter.com/kirstene4angus/status/1029253865429000192?s=21
Hats off to him for getting tasered - and putting on that wrestling costume. There's no coming back to representing the public after that.
The second problem is infrastructure - housing isn't just about building places to live but also the infrastructure to support them. Where is the additional transport capacity to take the hundreds of new apartments being built in London? Answer, there isn't any so the tubes and roads will simply get more crowded and slower.
A May-ish capitulation if ever there were one.
It is one of the clearest examples (and there are many) of the government being so caught up with the B word that it is not getting on with the day job. It is a concern to me that a significant part of this inactivity seems to have happened on Javid's watch but maybe the Treasury simply wouldn't budge. Hammond never shows any imagination.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDjdXl9IUdc
It may be too little too late but I think the government would rather tackle the macroeconomic issues than get into a major house building program.
"On a quarterly basis, new build dwelling starts in England
were estimated at 39,350 (seasonally adjusted) in the
latest quarter, a 5 per cent decrease compared to the
previous 3 months and an 8 per cent decrease on a year
earlier. Completions were estimated at 38,160 (seasonally
adjusted), 9 per cent lower than the previous quarter and 4
per cent lower than a year ago"
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/720230/House_Building_Release_March_2018_Final.pdf
We are really not making progress on this. We are not even keeping up with current demand, let alone addressing a chronic backlog. It, and student fees, are the main reasons young people are so anti Tory.
There’s plenty of students in Edinburgh getting pissed at the festival right now, I’m sure if you offered them enough money they’d be more than happy to help out in the fields instead.
Rewind 20 years (that’s just my personal timeline) and there was competition among students for the best summer jobs. Not the internships, which lasted only a week or two in those days, but the factory, farm, retail, warehouse, hotel etc summer job that would relieve parents for their school holidays for a month or two and allow them to earn some good money than would keep them in beer for the next term.
My personal anecdote, I worked at a conference centre at a golf club doing bar and waiter stuff, one December my timesheet of 320 hours was queried that surely it was 220. Nope, I said, I worked 10am-2am most days and the only day off I had was 25th.
And each and every one of Britain's ills would be laid at Brussels' door.
It's all so annoying, because with a bit more creativity, we would still be in the EU as associate members under a deal brokered by Cameron - a deal that would have seen him home and dry with at least a 60-40 win.
And still in Downing Street, just about to hand over the baton to his successor.
The trouble is, the pictorial evidence is damning. He didn't lay the wreath he claimed to, and he did lay the one he is denying (see e.g. the @AtheistMessiah thread linked below by Carlotta). Your "I have no idea" is risible.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/14/brexodus-number-eu-migrants-working-uk-falls-record-86000/
Or under 4%......
My mate Jon and I had to smash 400 neon strips into a skip. It was at the time of Star Wars.
Best. Light-sabre. Fights. Ever.......
SA 98
SL 83-6
Could be about to lose the house
Well not quite but 1.1 is now 1,25
However Javid may feel that while he would lose the membership vote to an anti Chequers Deal Leaver candidate like Boris or Mogg he could beat an uncharismatic pro Chequers Deal Leaver candidate like Gove. Gove came third in 2016 behind May and Leadsom so if Javid or at a push Hunt got most of the May vote they might feel if they got Gove into second by lending him MPs in the final round he would be beatable with members. However it also risks a Boris v Gove final 2 if it goes wrong which Boris wins easily.
Of course given the risk of Boris May could stay in post for years anyway
If only...
Overall, there were 184,000 new build properties last year, which is double the figure in 2010.
Such jobs are now £7.85 an hour, zero hours contract and university halls start at about £4.5k for the academic year. Not sure I blame students for thinking it isn't worth it.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-14/salvini-points-finger-at-eu-as-italian-bridge-disaster-kills-35?utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_medium=social&utm_content=business&cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business
The divisiveness of referendums is a reason why an unexpected landslide for Remain could happen. People will get into the voting booth and think, "For God's sake let this be the end of it."
No longer so profitable to come here
Is that really what he is saying????
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1029373529270222848
https://twitter.com/kirkkorner/status/1029351464978788353
The rapid blinking is there again. A classic tell of a liar.
All the flannel about peace means nothing. He has done NOTHING to aid peace. NOTHING.
He has celebrated terrorists throughout his career. The same is true of McDonnell.
He ducked the wreath part of the question and suggested that there was some equivalence between meeting delegations (and I really wondered how often that had happened) and chairing conferences. He's dishonest but he will get away with it.
In the end it was Leave who outpolled its poll rating while Remain underperformed
https://twitter.com/Rachael_Swindon/status/1029323094308134912
But how much more can ordinary Labour MPs, councillors and members take? Eventually their tribal loyalty to the Party will be so undermined by the cancer that is the current leadership and their supporters that something will snap.
Quite how that hasn't happened to date, I really don't know. There is no honour in standing in a Labour candidate when that is your leader. A man who lies. A man who celebrates terrorists.
Can't be easy keeping so many conflicting lines in play at once. Especially when his seeking peace only ever appears to be with just one side of any particular conflict. Not sure how that dialogue is supposed to deliver results.
A wreath laid in the hope of securing peace.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is the Leader of the Opposition.
You must be so proud, Labour MPs. To be led by such a man of peace.
a) Bureau international des poids et mesures
b) Jeremy Corbyn
No amount of tactics can change that.
Labour does have a history of which it can be proud. It does not have a future that can make anyone proud.
I appreciate loyalty. But there comes a time when the thing to which you are loyal has been so fundamentally undermined that it ceases to exist. Corbyn has dragged Labour over that line.
well, you learn something new.
"However, this line of investigation into weight led to the discovery that the original structural engineer had made a serious error in calculating the building's structural load. The structural engineer had calculated the building's live load (the weight of the building's potential inhabitants, furniture, fixtures, and fittings) but the building's dead load (the weight of the building itself) was completely omitted from the calculation. This meant that the building as constructed could not support its own weight. Collapsing was only a matter of time."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_Hotel_New_World
Another thing that can go wrong is that it is not built as designed; the tragic collapse of the Hyatt Regency Walkway in 1981, two years after construction:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyatt_Regency_walkway_collapse
And then you can get combinations: ISTR (but cannot immediately find a link) that a telecoms tower collapsed with fatalities when it was undergoing maintenance and strengthening. When built, a problem had been discovered and worked around. But the original plans were not updated, and the new alterations, which would have been safe if done on the original plans, caused a catastrophic collapse on the version as built.
Lightning might have been a problem, but that is doubtful on the structure itself - there should be lightning conductors, and the bridge itself should be strong enough to withstand a strike anyway.
My bet would be on a multitude of causal factors, and I wouldn't be surprised if concrete cancer was one of them, given when it was built.
Jezza isn't a terrorist sympathizer, he really has spent his whole life trying to infiltrate these organizations as a mole for MI6.